publicOSS » Philosophy

Pure evil doesn’t exist

Edgar Maldonado — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:43:45 +0000

I am suscribed to several list of Software-Libre and Open Source groups. There are always interesting topics that go from technological hard core (discussions of protocols and procedures) to philosophical interchanges. And, I have found that there is something in common in most lists: the Microsoft haters.

They are these people that write Micro$oft (money, you get it?) and keep talking about the evil roots of Windows. I confess , I used to be one of them. But as the tittle of this post says, there is not pure evil.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not getting money from Microsoft, nor looking a job in their labs. I agree with the idea of Free Libre Open Source software and also get disgusted by some activities of this company against the Software libre initiative. But think about the computer industry right now.

Microsoft embraced a business model that made possible a full range of hardware vendors. If apple were the leader you won’t be able to buy a video card for your computer, but only nice and cute plastic accessories to make it look better (sorry Mac fans).

In addition, some people from the Microsoft emporium has provided help for those en need. I am not talking about donating software and training to NGOs and countries because there is a long discussion behind these activities. I am talking about things such the Malaria Vaccine, a combined effort between Glaxo (I know, pharmaceuticals are also evil) and the Gates Foundation.

An uncle told me once that it does not matter the good things bad people do, they will always be bad people (we were talking about governments). But I also have learned that good things are scarce and must been recognized.

Teaching why or teaching how?

Edgar Maldonado — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:16:46 +0000

I have talked with several advocates of the Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS). From those conversations, I have learned that a better name for this space could be publiFLOSS. Basically, I agree with them. The software that a government uses should provide to users the four freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

(GNU Project)

Now, the argument begins when some of the advocates consider that these ideas should be digested first as philosophical lessons. And then, after that all the population is aware of the freedoms and its connotation (not only for the software sector, but to the human knowledge in general), it is when a government should initiate a migration process.

I think that if you are going to decide between teaching why or teaching how, the last one should be your election. Awareness campaigns are necessary, but you need to provide hands-on expediences to the people you want to convince about why FLOSS is a better option. If the people read a FLOSS awareness document using proprietary software, it is possible that they don’t pay too much attention to it.

My FLOSS activist friends, please try to see the process in the same way you would see parents making a reluctant child to go to school everyday. They always try their best, and they do not stop sending their child to school if he or she does not understand the reasons. It could sound presumptuous, but parents know better.

The first is free

Edgar Maldonado — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:24:22 +0000

I want to be objective, but sometimes is not easy. Now that educational institutions are considering to migrate to open source solutions, big software companies are giving away “educational” licenses to students. So, they keep using their products. Ten years ago the educational sector did not have a chance on negotiating this kind of agreements with the same big firms.

It is hard to believe that the software sector suddenly wants to help students. It is easier to speculate that classrooms are places where students get use to operative systems and applications. Therefore if they get in contact with OSS during their academic formation, there will be less licenses purchases in the future.

Someone told me, that it is the same strategy that some dealers use with their products.

Saving and investing

Edgar Maldonado — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:53:11 +0000

Independently if a government uses proprietary software or open source software in its computers, there is something that is fundamental: Are the citizens getting the most of their government’s systems? Usually, the answer is not. It is not surprising to visit our favorite government’s website and find dead links and out of date information. The edition of The Economist of February 16th made a good case out of this in an special report.

In one of the articles of the report they argued (quoting from George Markellos) that governments should provide their services with the same features of the private sector: personalized service, around the clock, and easy as can possible be. In other article they added a fourth feature: it should keep open the door for people to keep doing the same businesses in the old fashion (Internet should not be a barrier keeping people from interacting with the government).

It is clear that in the long term, OSS will save to the government a lot of money that otherwise would be spent in licenses. Also, that OSS allows users to twist the systems without any reservation. Therefore, governments that switch to OSS can invest the money they saved in crafting the systems their citizens deserve. This strategy will also boost the need for professionals in the government sector (it will be a good idea to use high quality marketing and consulting services in public solutions).

Give a man a fish…

Edgar Maldonado — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:25:10 +0000

The phrase goes like “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime”. It is not clear who said that, but most of the places with the quote add at the end “Chinese Proverb”. Anyway, the idea of helping someone giving the “hows to” instead a final product is a good one. Grouchnikov Kirill even said in his blog that keeping the ownership of the tool is a good form of business. That will be something like teaching how to fish, but keeping in secret how to make fishing nets. It is clear that if you adopt OSS in an office, not everybody is going to mess with the code. However the option of changing the code is there, and having options is a good thing (you can ask evolutionists).