__/ [ Richard Rasker ] on Saturday 09 September 2006 12:01 \__
> Op Sat, 09 Sep 2006 09:24:37 +0100, schreef Roy Schestowitz:
>
>> Ludd vs. open source
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Open source is being blamed for the decline of American programming.
>
> On the contrary. Relentless greed and hunger for power of the closed
> source industry are the most important contributors to its own demise.
> Frivolous software patents in huge numbers, ludicrous copyright laws, the
> DMCA, and several other provisions the industry has asked for and obtained
> have made professional programming into what it is today: a veritable
> minefield, where the law of the biggest and strongest reigns supreme, and
> anyone foolish enough to come up with an innovative idea will be devoured
> by lawyers and incumbents within mere months. Beginning programmers with
> bright ideas have only one hope: to sell off their products to one of the
> big companies ASAP, before they become targets for *lots* of companies.
>
> In order to survive, IT companies spend ever more money on lawyers
> and less on R&D. As a result, competition is smothered, innovation
> withers, product quality declines, costs rise, and the overall
> attractiveness of the IT business decreases.
>
> The diabolical philosophy behind this is that once you have a succesful
> product, you should be able to just lay back and watch the money rolling
> in, doing nothing else but making sure your priceless "intellectual
> property rights" are well-guarded - usually by lobbying or buying into
> politics.
It's yet another mechanism for artificially raising the entry barrier. Look,
for example, at the impact of Net neutrality, which leverages monopolies. It
widens the gap between titans and so-called wannabes (startups).
>> | Open source gives programmers in other countries a level playing field.
>> | Open source takes money out of the system, giving it to businesses and
>> | consumers in the form of savings.
>> |
>> | Guilty as charged.
>> |
>> | Open source does reduce software exports. Open source does lower prices.
>> |
>> | But blaming open source for these economic changes is a lot like blaming
>> | the electric loom for the decline of craft jobs 200 years ago. Workers
>> | then took out their anger on the mills. Fortunately programmers today
>> | can do little more than shoot flames at the messenger.
>> `----
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=780
>
> Open Source breaks the philosophy of the Goose with the Golden Eggs,
> forcing companies to get their lazy asses off their huge sacks of cash
> and their bulging patent portfolios, and start making better and cheaper
> products once again to keep their customers happy. It's called
> "competition", and it's what brought us the cheap, high quality hardware
> we have today.
>
>> Interesting comment:
>>
>> What everyone is forgetting
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Every one who claims Open Source is an evil new development forgets
>> | that 20-30 years ago almost all software was developed more within the
>> | open source model rather than the closed source model.
>> |
>> | The GPL was a reaction to move back towards open development models
>> | that existed prior to certain companies introducing and pushing hard for
>> | all software to close its development model.
>> |
>> | It was very common to find source code for PC software about 20-30 years
>> | ago -- It was the norm BTW... Doubt me? Go to a good Library and check
>> | out an 1980's era copy of Compute!, RUN, or Family Computing and you
>> | will find printed source code for programs in all of them.
>> `----
>
> It's all about greed. Since the US administration, instigated by Big
> Corporations, declared "Intellectual Property" one of the most important
> national resources, free sharing of information and knowledge is
> increasingly criminalized, as ever more information is considered
> intellectual property.
Greed is prevalent not only among technologists, but also among those who
stock commodities. Intellectual property is a man-made concept that can be
promoted only by a bunch of self-serving aristocrats. It's a bit like royals
who shower one another with medals and find excuses to throw wine parties.
>>
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10535-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=25011&messageID=470159
>>
>> I once read (in Wikipedia, I think) that Gates has indeed decided to close
>> computing, in what only resembles media content providers heading towards
>> controlling the customer (DRM et cetera).
>
> The hypocrite bastard built a vast empire on knowledge pinched from
> others, then closed the borders and decreed that everyone should pay a
> hefty fee for just the *use* of the accumulat[ed/ing] knowledge. A quote:
>
> From: 'Programmers at work', Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA [c1986]:
> Interviewer: "Is studying computer science the best way to prepare to be
> a programmer?"
> Gates: "No, the best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study
> great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the
> garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of
> their operating system."
I would like to contribute another quote.
,----[ Quote ]
| ...Mr. Gates' secret is out now?he too was a "communist;" he, too,
| recognized that software patents were harmful?until Microsoft became one
| of these giants...
`----
http://news.com.com/Bill+Gates+and+other+communists/2010-1071_3-5576230.html?part=rss&tag=5575731&subj=news.1071.20
Perspective: Bill Gates and other communists
>> I wonder if it could be argued that the closed-source movements
>> proliferated the job of the programmers, just as Windows (quite
>> inadvertedly) creates a whole industry around security (and then destroyed
>> it by hogging all the profits from its shoddy software). Microsoft also
>> kills the programmer's role by extending a monoply. Essentially, Microsoft
>> strives for computing to be a money-making monster which extracts all the
>> world's wealth and puts it in Ballmer's and Gates' bank accounts.
>
> Apparently, Microsoft strives to monopolize programming itself, by making
> independent programming unattractive through the mechanisms I described
> above. And no, cobbling together Lego-like .NET building blocks in
> Microsoft's fenced, guarded and continually monitored kindergarten IDE is
> *not* programming.
Developers must pay to develop games for the XBox, as well. To quote further
from the above article:
,----[ Quote ]
| "With Microsoft's market clout, it can impose its choice of programming
| system as a de-facto standard. Microsoft has already patented some .Net
| implementation methods, raising the concern that millions of users have
| been shifted to a government-issue Microsoft monopoly.
|
| But capitalism means monopoly; at least, Gates-style capitalism does.
| People who think that everyone should be free to program, free to write
| complex software, they are communists, says Mr. Gates."
`----
Micrsoft /et al/ haven't just a stronghold on OEM's (through intimidation and
vendor strong dependence factors), but also on those capable of producing
competing products. It's a deadlock. Unethical {put offensive word here}!
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Sharks are immune to cancer
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 127 total, 1 running, 126 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
