Optimizing Linux Advocacy Efforts 325
An anonymous reader writes "Open source advocate Tony Stanco, of the George Washington University Cyberspace Policy Institute has been getting flamed for allowing Microsoft reps to speak at an Open Source in government conference he's putting on next month. Today, in a commentary on NewsForge, Tony responds to the flamers. He says, "Leave it to the kooks in the community to make Microsoft look sympathetic." Is he right? Should we be willing to listen to what Microsoft has to say? Aren't open minds important to open source?" Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.
Good point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and I'm praying to god that there'll be a webcast of this. I havent had as fun as when I listened to the MS representative debating with the mySQL founder on Stockholm challenge in months. Damn that poor MS rep was funny, thought I'd laugh myself to death when he began talking about how lousy the support is for opensource software and how fast MS fixes bugs.
Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment struck a chord with me. One of the things I cannot stand about the way articles are posted on Slashdot is that every chance is taken to put MS in the worst possible light. I'll give you an example, last year there was an article titled "Microsoft throws Sony out of CES". Sort of implies that MS bullied Sony out, right? The content of the story that Slashdot linked to clarified what really happened: Sony broke a rule at a tradeshow, MS turned them in to the people that run the show, Sony threw a temper tantrum and left. MS didn't throw anybody out of anything. The worst thing they did was they made a legitimate complaint. But the way Slashdot spun it, MS was somehow using it's monopoly muscle to make the XBOX more visible.
I have a question for you all: If Slashdot hates every move MS makes, how can any of us be taken seriously about our legitimate complaints about them?
Getting onto the topic at hand, I just wanted to make the point that the Linux Advocates need to show more objectivity. They cannot be taken seriously if they show similar attitudes that the visible Slashdot community has. They need to be able to acknowledge when MS has a strength or a point.
If (EverythingMS) == BAD then AdvocateCredibility == FALSE.
Be objective. Linux's merits will stand out. Just don't sound like a zealot.
Re:Good point (Score:2, Insightful)
First, if this was website was run by microsoft, it would probably be difficult to make disparaging marks towards them, or to promote something that doesn't fit within the microsoft framework of how things should be. Second, the thing that I really like about being a linux advocate is that I can be a zealot if I want to, or I can be reasonable if I don't want to be. It's all freedom, and that gives me the choice, and I like being free to choose. Saying that the Slashdot community misrepresents Linux in general is a mistake, as you said yourself, Linux represents itself, just as all slashdotters represent themselves.
Getting onto the topic at hand, I just wanted to make the point that the Linux Advocates need to show more objectivity
So should Microsoft, but they aren't (and have never been) free to do so, their business would collapse otherwise, whereas Linux benefits from the flamers and zealots just as much as it does from objective voices such as yours and, I hope, mine.
Re:Good point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good point (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree completely. It's not just Microsoft either, but any of a number of perceived enemies. Quite frequently a submitted story looks intriquing, then the final line comes out of nowhere to either zing one of these "enemies" or to support the submitters mostly unrelated personal agenda. Slashdot is a support group for people with certain beliefs rather than a news forum. I suspect the slantedness and bitterness is going to ruin a number of careers.
Re:Good point (Score:4, Interesting)
We all know Microsoft has done a lot of criminal activity, so why should it surprise you that:
a) We continue to look at the negatives
b) There should still be so many negatives
This seems only natural to me. Let Microsoft have it's praise where it is due. Most people think, for example, that their Office software is actually quite good. I don't often see a slashdotter claiming the contrary.
Re:Good point, Pope Urban! (Score:3, Insightful)
If (EverythingMS) == BAD then AdvocateCredibility == FALSE.
Be objective. Linux's merits will stand out. Just don't sound like a zealot.
Hm, Copernicus found himself in a similar dilemma. Only it wasn't zealotry he was charged with, it was heresy.
When your only choices are "downplay the truth" or "sound like a zealot", it's tough to manage. The truth does not always lie between the extremes of popular opinion. Only the middle lies there.
Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you're right. I don't mean to imply that we should absolutely show no bias or preference at all. I just meant to say that we have to be able to recognize when they have a point. It's okay to say "Man, I love Linux!". It needs to be said. "Okay, MS does have a better interface, but Linux is worth the extra learning curve because...."
You're right, I should have been clearer.
"Hey! I've got an idea: let's go see if Saddam's still torturing his family memebers- maybe he's got a new thing to offer!"
I see what you're saying, but there's a huge difference here. MS's motives are subtley different from Saddam's. Make money. The neat thing about that as a motive is that one can make money in a good way. I can't really say the same for Hussein. I don't claim to know what's going on in this guy's mind, but he's interested in nasty weapons. If all this fuss were about him trying to acquire nuclear energy sources, as opposed to just plain weapons, I think your argument could work better. "Hussein might be trying to provide more electricity at a cheaper price to help his economy..."
Okay, not a great example, but hopefully my point has come across. Not everything MS does is bad. How many of us love our MS Optical Mice? What about the XBOX? Granted, that's a touchier subject. It's a game machine. It plays games and only games. MS isn't doing anything unusual in that market. (i.e. nothing worse than Nintendo or Sony has done, so please don't blast me with that modding site getting shut down.) Can we expect now that game machines of the next generation will have ethernet ports and possibly even hard drives? If the Optical Mouse is any indication, yes. They've changed the market for the better!
The difference between MS and Hussein is that MS can be guided in the right direction. It's happened. It can happen again. It helps if they recieve praise for the things they do right. Imagine if Slashdot was saying "Wow, this TabletPC we have is pretty cool, too bad the registration thing prevents me from recommending it to my company." instead of "Well, the TabletPC is your usual MS junk, but we might be able to salvage it with Linux..."
Yeah, I know I'm dreaming.
Re:Good point (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously though, Tony Stanco makes a very good point.
Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Speech is where everyone has a right to speak. Granted the subject might be opensource, but why would the open source community worry if there was a "contrast" to their way of doing something.
If the opensource community is as solid as we all seem to believe it is than there shouldn't be anything to worry about.
Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)
By calling for boycotts and threatening lawsuits, they're showing everyone outside of OS/FS that we as a group don't care about the good work being done and excellent projects people are putting together, we only care about personal bickering and the semantics of our chosen mantra.
It's crap. What's important here is the work that's being done and the people who are doing it, not the people who are bitching about it. There is no single one of us who is going to change the world's collective mind about buying Microsoft products. But by demanding that all participants use one phrase over another, or holding extreme points of view, we have lost all room to bargain, compromise, or cooperate.
I think we all can agree that the US government doesn't give a rat's ass about the items brought up by the naysayers in this instance; part of that has been proven in court. But if we can't close ranks and defend our own, we've got nothing. Why should any agency want to use Open Source or Free Software when it's used and supported by a bunch of beligerent people?
Microsoft may take my money and give me crap in return, but it's not personal.
--mandi
Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)
There may be venues where their opionions can and should be heard (though I doubt it - their software tend towards cheesey and their business practices alone should disqualify them form use by any ethical organization). An open source meeting isn't one of them.
Nothing about Open Source definition excluses MS (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that's simply wrong.
There is nothing about the definition of Open Source that in any way excludes Microsoft. Any day now Microsoft could release any number of their products using any collection of OSI certified licenses that they happen to like.
We may all think this isn't likely to happen in the near future, but who really knows.
Microsoft may not have anything particularly relevent to add to a conversation that is strictly about Open Source, but they are a fairly large software vendor, and it could be quite useful to hear what they have to say about Open Source.
The key is to get them to talk about Open Source, instead of twisting the conversation back to Closed Source or Shared Source, both of which are quite different.
Here's a suggestion: If someone from Microsoft is speaking at an event where Open Source is a ligitimate topic, avoid taunting them or anything, and wait until they ask for questions. Spend that time listening to what they say so you can ask more meaningful questions.
If they don't allow time for questions, loudly call out something like "Hey, who here has questions they'd like to ask Microsoft? Raise your hand if you have a question for Microsoft." before they leave the podium.
I'm guessing they won't want to leave the podium with half the audience raising their hand to ask a question.
Once they ask for questions, ask meaningful questions and give them space to provide meaningful responses.
If you are arranging an event where Open Source is a legitimate topic, consider asking people from Microsoft to speak at the end of the day, so there can be an extended period of time for questions.
Of course, if you are speaking at such an event, try not to be placed in a slot right after Microsoft, because the room might be full of people with questions for the previous speaker.
Re:Nothing about Open Source definition excluses M (Score:3, Insightful)
But everything about Microsoft excludes Microsoft.
If I were using just Open Source, I wouldn't particularly care which venues were open to Microsoft, but I do use mostly Microsoft and there is a vast difference between the promise and the reality. If I go to any Open Source whatever I do not want to be subjected to more of Microsoft's noise. I want to be able to pick up the faint glimmer of hope for a better world.
Re:Nothing about Open Source definition excluses M (Score:3, Insightful)
That was so well said. Microsoft's continuous lying and FUD, and their pathetic Shared Source, which is nothing but an attempt to fool people into thinking that they're getting on board, come immediately to mind.
absolutely, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:absolutely, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't prove or convince anyone without reasonable and open debate, and you can't have an honest debate without fairly representing both sides of an issue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:absolutely, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Chris DiBona
Re:absolutely, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
But if Microsoft pulls off a good presentation on "Shared Source", it should be of interest to all. There are the elements of competition (did I say that in the same sentence as Microsoft?) and commerce in software. Coders must earn a living too and I don't think the OSS [business] model has gelled yet.
Dare I say it, perhaps microsoft could offer some insight on how too make money with open (or "shared") source? I'm certain the topic has been bothering them for some time now, so I'm sure they've some thoughts on it.
Re:absolutely, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:absolutely, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to have a "Paunchy Pale Perl Preacher's Pow-Wow", and happen to invite a deeply-tanned agnostic who programs in Python to speak - that's your right. Why are we second-guessing someone who's putting on a conference for government customers to meet Open Source Software up close and personal? If Tony thinks inviting M$ to speak is valid, maybe he has a point. After all, he's smart enough to get a gig at a place called the Cyberspace Policy Institute - he's probably also smart enough to realize the value of putting M$ and OSS up against one another in a public forum. It's NOT just a conference on Open Source - it's Open Source Software in Government. Speaking as a contracting creature, it's tough to sell - easier today than ten years ago, but non-trivial, whereas if you say you're buying Oracle, IBM, or M$, they just complain about the price - you won't get strange looks and questions about whether that will still be there in four years, and (valid) questions about lifecycle support.
Read his commentary and ponder - do you want to be a member of a group that won't even consider listening to members of opposing groups? That way lies extinction....
Re:absolutely, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
we should totally be open to listening to alternative points of view, but is an open source conference really the proper venue for it?
As others have pointed out, it's probably the only place that open source and MS will get compared in a fair and factual manner, or at least as fair and factual as open source zealotry will allow. I doubt open source gets brought up as anything but Satanic Evilness to be Feared and Fought at MS-sponsored events.
But the point I'd like to make is that open source zealots should not oppose MS participation in open source events for one very important reason: in the disputes over the merits of Windows and open source OS like Linux, the open source advocates have the better argument. In any propaganda conflict, those who have the better argument should take every opportunity to contrast their arguments with the opposition's arguments, even if it's on their own dime.
An analogous situation can be found in the drug policy reform movement. When you visit a web site sponsored by a reform group, such as the Media Awareness Project [mapinc.org], you'll find many links to drug war propaganda, and to the opinions of those who support the continuation of the war. But if you go to sites that support the government position, such as the Antidrug [theantidrug.com] you'll find no links to the opposition. This is a reflection of the relative strengths of the arguments on both sides. Drug policy reformers want their opponents to be freely heard, because their arguments are so profoundly flawed that they help the reformers, rather than hurting.
I personally believe the same to be true of the MS vs. open source debate.
he's right tho... (ya, i got karma to burn) (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course the kids looking for the quick +5 will jump on the anti-MS bandwagon in a hurry, the fundamentalist linux zealots will rush in to bash MS like a kid facing off in his first at-bat in tee-ball, but they're just serving MS purpose of polarizing the choices available....
Does microsoft use FAKE open source? (Score:2, Interesting)
Be fair. (Score:5, Funny)
MS Rep: We have Clippy.
OS Rep: We don't. We have robust, low cost software that in many cases outperforms proprietary software. We'll even give you the source code to modify the products for your own use. If you don't distribute the binaries, feel free to keep the source in-house.
MS Rep: We have Clippy.
Re:Be fair. (Score:3, Funny)
Be fair yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
MS Rep: We have a well known operating system with established user interfaces, and is easily recognizable by people everywhere. We have the largest user base installment in the world. Thousands of applications, when installed using a single interface, will work without complicated kernel recompiling or device dependencies. We're a large corporation and, while that sounds like a bad word to many people, it means we have the resources and ability to help you 10 years from now when you're having trouble.
OS Rep: Yeah, well, M$ sucks.
Um... (Score:2)
Were you able to keep a straight face when you typed that?
Believe it or not ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Be that as it may, my point was related to the latter part of the statement - my bad for not providing the appropriate emphasis thusly:
we have the resources and ability to help you 10 years from now when you're having trouble.
You already alluded to my real point when you said:
just as much as they do today, which is another argument entirely
The only "trouble" that Microsoft seems to be genuinely concerned about helping people with is excess weight in the money pocket.
Re:Be fair yourself (Score:3, Interesting)
So what MS rep do I call about problems with MS Mail or Windows 95?
Re:Be fair yourself (Score:3, Funny)
fdisk
format c:
install from scratch
???
???
Unfortunately for you, both last options are just ??? - no profit here - that goes to your software vendor.
Re:Be fair yourself (Score:3, Informative)
OE would begin to run, then I would see a dialog telling me "There was a problem" and it would close again. When I clicked on the technical details, it told me the problem was with wlang.dll, and some other details that weren't a lot of help.
Normally when I get something like this, I simply uninstall and then reinstall the program which cleans up all the broken/corrupted EXE's, DLL's and configuration associated with the problem, but in XP they have made IE and OE non-removable, so MS's tech support for this issue is a little more complicated.
Step one; XP comes with a handy tool that checks all the critical system files and repairs them as required. Usually it works, this time it didn't.
Step two; you can hack the registry and fool windows into thinking IE and OE are not installed. The installer program for IE should then overwrite all the files and build a clean configuration, fixing any that are damaged. This also failed.
Step three; you can do what Microsoft calls an "In-place upgrade", reinstalling the entire OS while keeping as much of the drivers and applications as the installer recognises. This also failed.
Step four; suggested on IRC. You can create a new user, who should have a clean config for OE, and see if they can run it. No.
Step five; suggested on IRC, you can boot in safe mode in case there's a broken driver somewhere causing the problem. We were getting desperate at this point
Step six; I have another windows box which is working prefectly, let's see if all the OE files and that dll are identical. They are.
Step seven. It's 11pm and Liz wants the box for work tomorrow. Reinstall the fucking thing.
I run freebsd at home, so there's possibly a few other things I could have done that I'm not aware of.
Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
AC Speak With Forked Tongue. (Score:2)
Why shouldn't MS speak? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why shouldn't MS speak? (Score:2)
Since someone made the decision to let them in, they should be allowed to speak. But I don't see why they were invited in the first place; after all, Microsoft generally doesn't invite Gnu and Linux spokespeople to Windows developer conferences.
Re:Why shouldn't MS speak? (Score:2)
Re:Why shouldn't MS speak? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a naive attitude.
This isn't the movies, where the villain details his dastardly plot to the hero shortly before his demise. Microsoft has proven time and again that they're adept manipulators of the media, the public, and even engineers (.NET being "an open standard, free for anybody to implement", anybody?).
Like any troll you enounter on the 'net, you shouldn't feed them. You shouldn't pander them. You shouldn't pretend like what's coming out of their mouth isn't horse-shit on a stick.
Microsoft is on the defensive. They would like nothing better than to see FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) wiped off the face of the Earth. Microsoft employees and executives have admitted this on-record, though not in such colourful terms.
Anybody who's willing to give MS every opportunity to actually ACCOMPLISH that deserves just what they get. Remember, kiddies, this is Microsoft. They know what they're doing. They're going to use this opportunity to try and further their aims. You know what? That may include pretending to be a model member of the community ... for the time being. Don't play with the dragon, you're gonna get burnt.
Special circumstances (Score:2)
That said, if you allow MS to speak at an OSS conference and they are actuall able to pursuade the attendants, who I would concider OSS advocates and guru's, to switch away from OSS then maybe MS is doing something right. If you really believe in something you shouldn't be able to be swayed.
Perhaps the OSS people are afraid that there isn't any one solution be is MS or *nix or whatever.
Re:Special circumstances (Score:3, Interesting)
I do actually agree wholeheartedly. Quite frankly, I'm glad I don't have to make decisions about whether they're invited to conferences, or allowed to attend at all.
Well, this goes back to the "naive attitude" thing. People _can_ be manipulated into feeling things they otherwise wouldn't feel. Microsoft is extremely good at this, they've displayed their proficiency time and again. A good example is the truism, "lies, damn lies, and statistics."
The point is that you can dupe perfectly intelligent people into acting a certain way or believing a certain viewpoint, when later on in hindsight they'll say, "geeze, all the evidence was there, why didn't I see it?"
Of course, if MS does convince people, based on honest-to-goodness merits and whatnot, good for them. I don't wish the destruction of Microsoft, I'd rather a nice, healthy balance with lots of choices and alternatives for everybody :) That will, unfortunately, require a changed Microsoft. (IBM is one of the companies I most admire. In fact, I have quite the unhealthy respect for them. They are just a corporation after all. But they've been incredibly good citizens, by and large, for the last ten or fifteen years. That was a truly remarkable turnaround, and they've done so much good for the industry since ... if MS can pull the same, I'd be more than happy.)
Yeah, like I said above. I'm not interested in seeing the total destruction of Microsoft, per se. What you saw me reacting to was the kind of attitude that can so easily result in the destruction of FOSS, were it held by enough people.
Re:Why shouldn't MS speak? (Score:2)
And, on the fly, if you don't know what new crap they're going to come up with. You have to be prepared to refute every possible untruth and distortion.
Not that I'm suggesting that they should be given a hearing. It's just that it seems to futile. I talk with a Microsoft shill all the time, and it is just such a waste.
let M$ speak, BUT .. adhere to rigorous validity (Score:4, Interesting)
In Other Words, whenever they ( or anyone else ) deploys FUD, bogus-reasoning, ignore-the-important -to- concentrate-on-whatever-we-say-is-'urgent', etc. we clue-in to what ignorance-commitment's doing, AND attack the method of ignorance-committing as-it-happens.
Behold:
Essence-of-integrity is the ultimate weapon.
( actually, from the buddhist AND from the nagual perspective, this is a key-method of mind-survival )
It will never happen. (Score:2)
OSS advocates are between a rock and a hard place. MS has no ethics and is willing to resort to name calling and smears, if the OSS people talk back then they are labled zealots.
Something more importent then open source... (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as they have something to contribute... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheers,
Jeremy
Welcome to the big leagues (Score:5, Insightful)
If the open-source products are to become a viable player in the Fortune 500 world, all of the players in the game must be allowed to present their side or mistrust results. The suits aren't about to let a bunch of arrogant open-source biggots tell them how to run their business. If the open-source community wants respect, they're going to have to GIVE respect (even if it means not receiving it in return). It's time to start behaving like professionals, people.
Re:Welcome to the big leagues (Score:2)
As for "the suits" not letting a bunch of "arrogant open-source biggots (sic) tell them how to run their business" - we're not the ones forcing Microsoft License 6.0 on anyone, forced upgrades, per-seat licensing, ever-changing licinsing, etc. We're NOT telling the suits how to run their business. We're telling them how to save money.
Maturity... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're so confident about your platform outperforming another's platform, you should leave that other platform talk without even flaming back because you "know" that they won't be up to the match.
Reacting immaturely, flaming, crying out loud will not only look "kiddy", but will also get a press coverage like "Today, the conference was marked by a lot of people against [...]" and so on. Is that the kind of press that is needed?
I am not pro-MS or pro-Unix. If Flamer's argument is that microsoft keeps everything closed and are doing behind the door tactics, wouldn't it look more mature to simply accept the fact that they want to talk, and if you are confident about your platform, you could even make a debate. Usually people attending that kind of conference aren't idiots, if MS talks vague and conceptually like they love to do with their "marketting and PR" tactics, in the real world, with an intelligent and knowledgeable audience, I'm sure someone will bring them down to earth with insightful questions, and heck, you might even gain extra points beating their arguments live in the process.
'Outperform' is irrelevant (Score:2)
It's really simple here (Score:3, Funny)
That's like if I was on the high-school chess team and I threw a party and was told that I had to invite the football team, who would try and beat me up, and steal any chess girls that might (I can dream) show up.
It's a private conference, and it inviting Microsoft is (-1) Offtopic.
Re:It's really simple here (Score:2)
- Open Source as a trademark or open source because is "open" in some subjetive way? They could think that shared source is in some way open, because you can look at it under some circunstances (at least, open the file that contain the source)
Re:It's really simple here (Score:2)
What alternate universe are you posting from?
Re:It's really simple here (Score:2, Insightful)
That way it's not a "we rule, we're great" type of event and more of a "this is why we rule, this is why we're great".
It's about the contrast! I mean if you're passionate about something, defining in clear terms what you don't want is the best starting point for cheering!
Besides, saying it's a private conference seems a bit of the opposite effect of what open source wants to do! This isn't, after all a "proprietary" conference!
GRRRRR!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:GRRRRR!!! (Score:2)
The real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
What the loons on the extreme of the extreme don't understand is that Microsoft would love to have an excuse to not attend. Microsoft is not coming because it wants to. It is coming because it is compelled to.
It's Microsoft's government customers who want them there to explain themselves in public when they say that Shared Source is better than Open Source, instead of just talking that way in private. And it is the government that wants them to do it in front of Open Source supporters, so that they can hear both sides at the same time.
This sounds like a good idea. It forces them to state their views rather clearly in a discussion forum. What better way is there to scrutinize the issue than to hear both sides from the horses' mouths? If their "shared source is as good as open source" shpeal is just a bunch of rubbish then their arguements won't hold water. I'd be very interested to hear a compelling argument in their favor. Evaluating counter-arguments is a great way to formulate and solidify your opinion.
What could be better? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say make it a point to invite Microsoft to every Open Source conference. Let them speak and then ask questions.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. (Score:2, Insightful)
One could also say: Aren't closed minds important to closed source?
Depends (Score:4, Interesting)
In general, the MicroSoft techies know their stuff and are confident. I'd definitely listen to one of them speak.
On the other hand, if the people showing up are in any way marketers, I'd not be bothered listening to them.
This is a perfect opportunity! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not seek compromise? (Score:4, Funny)
Optimizing Linux Advocacy Efforts (Score:3, Funny)
Upgrade your kernel!
Oh wait, that doesn't fix it? Drat!
It is America, free speech for all (Score:4, Insightful)
Dissention tempers ideas. Without hearing the other views of the world, how can anyone appreciate or even change what others see as wrong?
Sometimes an opposing view can even strengthen the resolve of the community it opposes. Heck, Microsoft may even drive more nails in their coffin.
How many of you out there haven't enjoyed a good argument with a Pro-Microsofty? Sometimes its just plain fun. So let them speak and have that fun on a bigger scale.
Tony is right -- to a point. (Score:3, Interesting)
While the rogue/rambo programmer doing all nighters and running on Jolt cola and oreos has an allure to it. It makes the mainstream industry nervous and Microsoft does capitalize on nervousness.
Now, should Microsoft be there? Why not? Ours is OSS and they can get it just like everyone else. Does it hurt to hear where they see the future, what direction they take, and what direction they think the industry will take? If it makes you feel better put it in the context that they are MS and a competitor. We should look at this as the opportunity to interact with our competitors. And understand what they think. We do not have to agree on approach or direction. But open animosity? It benefits MS more than OSS.
That being said, Tony also needs to understand that the feelings people have are fostered by MS's actions past and present. In a way, it is like inviting someone to your house and finding things missing when they leave. You do have a feeling that you should watch them next time they visit.
At the risk of invoking Godwin Law, I suggest... (Score:2)
Face it, Open Source and Microsoft are enemies. They may be competitors, alternatives, etc. second, but their basic nature makes them enemies because they have absolutely incompatible goals. If there is anything to talk about between those two, it should be done in conferences specialized in the areas where both compete, and there both sides can be expected to throw bucketloads of shit at each other in front of unusupected audience of potential users. However the conference that is specifically about Open Source has absolutely no need to have a representative of the worst enemy of it.
This is a tough one. (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, Microsoft's goal is FUD, not rational, logical, honest discourse. They could be a disruptive force to people who are trying to get honest work done. Also if someone publicly bashes you incessantly, calls you a cancer, lies about you, poisons your well, and threatens to kill you the first chance he gets, should you have to invite that person to your birthday party, regardless of how enlightened you are?
"Open Mind" (Score:2)
We KNOW that Microsoft is against Open Source, so what is there to keep an "open mind" about?
LS
it's amazing (Score:2)
i certainly want to hear what m$ has to say. and let's face, the radars will be on. you think thy can get away with saying a whole bunch of crap? they are coming because they have to. don't expect to windows code on sourceforge, but don't you realize how much F/OSS has moved m$ in a direction they didn't want to go?
Let them in I say (Score:2)
Then it will be easier to get rid of them. Really, they did this with Novel, why don't we do it with them?
Microsoft has no place here (Score:3, Interesting)
No one stops Microsoft from speaking, and it would be extremely difficult to claim that their message isn't getting out. If Tony Stanco is putting on a conference on Open Source in government (as opposed to Software in government) then there is hardly any reason to waste important time, space and resources to give Microsoft another chance to attack Open Source, and it certainly could turn off someone in the government who came to this with an open mind to learn what he could about Open Source, only to see it turned into another pitch for Microsoft.
Sure, people should have an open mind, but you don't need to waste conference resources to give Microsoft a platform to try to destroy you to have an open mind. Microsoft would not give the open source people a chance to come in and persent alternatives if they were doing a "Microsoft in government" forum, they don't belong here.
Re:Microsoft has no place here (Score:3, Insightful)
Frovingslosh has it right, in my opinion. Microsoft is using our very openness against us to gain a forum that they would NEVER give us. I think the correct thing to do is to respectfully decline Microsoft's offer to speak at the show.
Having said that, it's pretty obvious that Microsoft is going to be there. This is Microsoft. Even the leaders of an OS conference cannot turn Microsoft away. So here is what I propose: use this time to hear how the enemy speaks. You know they're going to pitch their products, and you know that in hostile territory like this, they're going to bring out their best. So listen to them. If they say Open Source is undermines the stability of the companies that keep the economy going, then know that they've whispered that into the ears of your CTO and CEO. If they say Open Source is more error-prone or created whimsically or haphazardly, understand that a lot of technical people have bought their argument hook, line, and sinker. Find out what MS says. And then, use it to make your own arguments more powerful and persuasive. Address the fears that MS creates. Use their words against them.
A bridge too far. (Score:3, Interesting)
Optimizing Linux Advocacy Efforts (Score:2)
Re:Optimizing Linux Advocacy Efforts (Score:2)
Wait a second
Begin by erradicating fanaticism (Score:4, Insightful)
On any given day we hear "Fscking M$ dirty wh0r35 m0n0p0l15t p1gz" repeated over and over again on slash...
Yet we see MS visual studio products being advertised on slash, we see ads for powerpoint, ect on slash, we see stories about M$ on slash..
Don't you think it's time we stopped giving m$ "bad press"?
There's an old saying, even bad publicity is GOOD. Everytime there is a microsoft story here, the webmasters at M$ are laughing their collective asses off as all of us make their webstats jump from a good slash dot effect.
MS webmaster 1: Hey Taco! How much do you want today to post another anti ms story?
Taco: Well, I think I have enough money, The wife is already using it to line the cat litter box and I can't seem to find my keyboard underneath the piles of cash. It's overflowing into the backyard and the rain is turning it all into paper mache'.
MS webmaster 2: No problem! We'll just give you gold Dabloons! Those can last for years, even in saltwater!
Taco: Great, I'll take a million Dabloons then!
*note to taco: I know M$ can't be paying you that much, it's just a joke.
Instead of all the MS bashing, if you want to advocate linux in your company, you should think out what you are going to say before approaching management. Think about how you can use linux and open source software to replace existing infrastructure such as groupware, development tools, network file/print services and network management.
The best way for any admin to do this is to begin with 1 box. A buddy of mine loaded nagios onto the network he's in charge of and the executive level staff fell in love! He's slowly begining a march of replacement within the company, exchange being dropped in favor of postfix, now a web based groupware instead of exchange.
But the fanaticism has to end, this is not how civilized responsible people act. You have to look at the problem from all sides and rationally explain the situation instead of "GOD DAMN MONOPLILIST! WE SHOULDN'T USE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE EVIL"
Thanks for reading my thoughts.
Re:Begin by erradicating fanaticism (Score:3, Insightful)
My view (Score:2)
"This conference is designed to discuss best practices, raise awareness and the share experiences among policy makers from the U.S. and Europe. The conference will draw participants from local, national and international organizations from the public, private and academic sectors."
But knowing that the purpose of eGov(from what I can gather from their crappy website) is to boost Open Source, I don't understand why they would allow a company to participate who is against real open source. MS is a advocate of shared source not Open Source I see no reason why they should be allowed to go the conference. I don't see any reason for flaming or being nasty about it, but it seems pretty clear cut to me. Being that MS is actively trying to get governments NOT to use open source why give them a platform to espouse their views? Mr. Stanco says its about Free Speech, I say it must be something else. A new building for GW.U in a few years perhaps?
Just because Free Software is about choice doesn't mean you have to give your enemy "equal opportunity" to destroy you. Trust me, if this was a Microsoft conference they would not let linux advocates come so that potentials customers could get fair and balanced information from the "other point of view".
In the end if MS is allowed to go it will only hurt the conference, Open Source, and the credibility of eGovOS. It will only help MS in their goal of perverting the message of Open Source.
O.K. to add a "little" melodrama, this is like the NAACP allowing the KKK to speak at their national conference. In short it just sounds like a dumb idea.
Re:My view (Score:2)
If your stand is so weak that a presentation about an opposing stand would destroy you, then you need to work on strengthening your stand. Debate makes poor arguments fail, and makes good arguments better. Silencing the opposition is never a good way to go.
I think that the NAACP/KKK thing doesn't quite work, because the KKK's speech wouldn't actually be reasoned debate; it would be mindless vitriol, and could easily end up in violence. As a more reasonable example, the NAACP is currently opposing some of the president's judicial nominations; this would be like inviting a speaker who supports the nominations. I would consider that to be a good idea. (I should mention that I don't know anything about this particular issue; it just happened to be the first thing I noticed on the NAACP web site.) Of course, analogies of any sort generally suck, so we could go back and forth on this all day
I don't get it... (Score:2)
Give me a break.
Three reasons they should be allowed to attend (Score:2)
Secondly, Microsoft has made an ass of itself on numerous occasions when speaking about Open Source. They probably won't be stupid enough to attempt their typical FUD in the middle of an OSS convention--and if they do, then they'll net themselves far more negative publicity than positive.
Third, they may actually have something insighful to say.
We should listen (Score:2)
THEN you can rebut them vigorously, but it's imperative to listen.
He's wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
We don't have their ability to take out primetime advertising, buy politicans to push forward our agenda or look the other way when we are convicted of a crime.
As a community, we should not be providing our primary enemy with ammunition to use against us, nor should we provide it with a platform from which to do it.
Linux conferences are no longer populated with the hard core enthusiasts that they once were. Atendees are often decision makers from organisations considering Open Source as an alternative to proprietary solutions. It is not in our best interests to allow Microsoft to muddy the waters for this, our target audience.
Those of you preaching "intelligent dialogue" with Microsoft (let's call it the Miguel de Icaza argument) should remember that nothing Microsoft has ever done has been beneficial to the Open Source community (at least by design) and that they will not reciprocate this invitation to us via primetime advertisments or political contributions.
Think about it the next time a Microsoft spokesperson calls you, the software you wrote, the software you use and the community you're a part of a cancer.
Yes, But No (Score:3, Insightful)
It is certainly the case that we should listen to Microsoft. Yes we should understand their position and business strategies and their criticisms of open source practices and gaps.
However, none of this means MS should speak at this particular forum. The purpose of an event like this is to *advocate* open source and educate people on its benefits. It serves no purpose to hear the alternatives viewpoints *in such a forum*. Do the democrats and republicans invite each other to speak at their political conventions? No! Do they both agree that dialogue, finding common ground, and bipartisanship are extremely important sometimes (even often). Yes. But they don't do it at their conventions because it isn't thematic -- they've created other forums for doing so that serve the purpose of two way dialogue much better.
A convention is not the proper format for hearing from the opposition. Nobody would suggest that a convention is a format where dialouge, defined as two-way conversation occurs. No Q&A sessions do not count, because the audience and the presenter are not given equal footing -- the presenter has the mic and a huge advantage.
All that allowing them to speak does is lend legitimacy to the idea that their "shared source" initiative is a viable substitute worth examining. It's not, and the conference organizers should not give the mic to anybody who doesn't agree. If you want to hear the MS party line on shared source, you certainly have no shortage of opportunities to hear about it.
MS Not Anti-OS (Score:2)
Microsoft is not necessarily *anti* open source, they are pro protected IP rights. These two things are not necessarily at odds. Internally at MS, you have a mixture of people, many of them very smart, some rabidly pro-MS (Program Managers) and some who are very much pro-Linux/*BSD (Developers). At the top of the heap, at the Evangelist level and above, there are many people who openly acknowledge the benefits of the OS community, but *not* the Free Software community. FS is much too radical for MS, as it is in direct opposition to part of the prime directive: make money.
That being said, there are many people within MS that see great value in the OS (not FS) philosophy. Mark my words: we are not far off from MS utilizing OS in some capacity. Obviously they will never OS Windows, SQL Server, or Office, which is possibly just as well (who wants to look at obsfucated VC++ code anyway?).
If MS can be shown a solid *business* reason to use OS, I don't think they are far off from biting. This conference and MS's participation, in my opinion, will do more good for the OS advocates than it will for MS.
Microsoft Speaking on ANYTHING Open... (Score:2)
Why in Gods name would some one want to prevent Microsoft from speaking at such an event is beyond me.
Let Microsoft come, sit back and watch the show.
Just remember, like most credits afterwards in most movies or entertainment you watch...
"The likeness, situational or otherwise in comparison to real life is purely coincidental..."
Which is exactly what you should be thinking if you see Microsoft speaking on anything that has the title "Open
-Hack
Love it (Score:2)
Nothing ever changes. Most of you are more interested in having a good chuckle with your pathetic comments from behind the safety of anonymity than to actually engage and cooperate with the (few) people who are willing to stick their necks out for the values and principles that are so eloquently touted but rarely acted upon. I don't necessarily agree with those ideals, but I respect them nonetheless. What I find sad is the extreme polarization that seems to permeate these debates.
In the end, one thing is certain: you will never give 'M$' a run for their money unless you get off the "oh, but we're so absolutely fucking better than you, eat that" horse and start walking the walk instead of just jabbering hysterically about how evil Microsoft is and trowing hissy fits every time Balmer farts in your general direction.
It's long past time to grow up. (Score:2)
If you want the fence-sitters to listen you should stop the folowing activities:
- Spelling Microsoft "M$", Micro$oft". "Microshaft", "Microshit", etc...
- Ditch the Billgatus of Borg icon.
- For the love of God, stop spelling it "Windoze"!
In short, stop the name calling.It doesn't make you look like you are standing up to the man!. It makes youi look like an infantile jerk who has to resort to name calling.
The joke is old and tired. And again makes you look like a child.
From my parent's basement in Toledo I stab at thee!, indeed.
Tony, are you advocating Open Source or yourself? (Score:2)
Did the government officials who will attend the conference ask you to invite Microsoft? Or you did that on your own? If the latter you are using the presence of both sides to increase your own weight, to make you one both sides have to reckon with?
Microsoft has its own conference for government officials, the so-called "Government Leaders' Conference", every year. Last year Bill Gates used it to attack the GPL. Microsoft really has too many opportunities to gain visibility and to be heard, one way of which is to "donate" millions of dollars to countries. Microsoft really does not need another conference to push their own agenda. If you are loyal to Open Source, you would not waste valuable time of government officials not on Open Source advocacy but on Microsoft's advocating their "shared source."
I say keep 'em the hell out (Score:2)
Right?
And besides, this would be letting them in, and taking them on, on our home turf, where we make the rules and carry all the advantages and have the vast majority of the crowd behind us.
MS are just being wussies to saunter onto the field of battle with those sorts of odds going for them.
I mean, we'd be, like, sitting ducks, right?
KFG
Microsoft is a company (Score:3, Interesting)
You may agree with me that source secrecy is a big snag in whether you should want to pay for or use a particular piece of software, or you may say "If it works, who cares whether the source is there?" And no one can make that decision for you.
My biggest problem with Microsoft is related to that though -- my beef is that they end up as a money sink for a *lot* of money taken from the public in the form of taxes, and which is supposed to be spent in a way that maximizes public good. That's the whole justification for taxes in the first place. I can think of no way that "the public good" is better served by buying software which is as license-crippled as Microsoft's than by financing (and financing modifications if need be) the development of open source software. I happen to like the GPL, but the BSD license (or similar) is what I'd like to see on state-funded software; anyone who'd like can spin off a GPL version, no harm / no foul. The FSF should have a bot that checks when new tax-funded software is released, and issues a GPL'd version, posts it to a web site
If you say to this stance "Ha! Why should the government be in the software development business?" note that the government already *is* in this business, only they're currently financing software in a way that does not make it very available to the public. That's "The Public."
I've said before and still believe that Microsoft *could* become the world's largest open source vendor, and still make a lot of money at it. IBM's approach shows that boxed software is not the only way to make money, and (the other side of the coin) being confident enough to work with open software is a selling point.
History is still happening; I wonder what Microsoft would do if the Federal government made source code disclosure (one scenario would be that source code disclosure be disclosed, but only after a specified time spent in escrow) a requirement of software purchases, for both security auditing and general-welfare reasons.
That sounds quixotic, but it's what they should do.
timothy
No problem as long as... (Score:4, Funny)
A little background into the flamewar (Score:5, Interesting)
It started when Rubin Safir (the founder of NYLXS [nylxs.org]) heard about the eGov conference and the fact that MS would be speaking. As the flame continued, Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman, and myself all chimed in.
The majority of the people on the list want to forbid MS from speaking _at_all_costs_.
Basically, they don't like the idea of letting Microsoft talk, and then rebutting MS's arguments via a following speaker and a Q&A session. They say it just gives MS more floor time, which is bad. They have a point, but people will hear MS's FUD, and I would rather people heard it and then heard it debunked. In other words, if MS is going to say anything at all about open source, I want it on _our_ terms and in _our_ forums, not theirs.
Re:Michael (Score:2)
Re:Michael (Score:2)
Otherwise he gets accused of secretly farming eyeballs out to OSDN subsidiaries. It would be like CNN posting an article talking about how great AOL was, without mentioning that the two are owned by the same company.
Kintanon
Re:MS opensource (Score:2)
However, MS should be told tha tFUD has no value at these events and that spewing FDU can only harm their efforts at the conference..
Not at all. Microsoft's participation in conferences usually is orchestrated in the form of propaganda. Hearing enemy's propaganda often and confidently pronounced does not make people believe it but gives them the impression that enemy is stronger. This is how it works, and there is no need to create more pressure on people that are most likely bombarded by Microsoft propaganda at work already.
Re:Microsoft's poison pill (Score:3, Insightful)
OK. And how is everyone to know that it's a poison pill, unless we discuss it directly with Microsoft in the open and get them to say as much? Until that's done, your "poison pill" is just theory and hearsay - it means nothing.
That's the beauty of free speech - it lets the villians show that they're a villian. Then when you know that thier cause is going to hurt you in some way, you can avoid helping them in thier cause or take appropriate steps to counter thier cause. If you shut them up, how do you know they have ill intent?
I say drag Microsoft into the conference kicking and screaming if needs be, so we can detail to others exactly what the poison in the pill is, and what to look for so everyone can avoid even putting that pill in thier mouth, let alone swallow it.
Soko
Re:Advocate this. (Score:2)
That part's been completed, although I have no doubts Linux and OSS will improve more.
Now it's time to speak and to try to open lots of closed eyes, starting from governments everywhere. What Brasil, Germany, China... are doing is just the tip of the iceberg.
And I say - let them (MS) talk. They've got no argument to win this battle.