[ox-en] relevant mail of Don Cameron (fwd)
- From: "geert lovink" <geert desk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 08:29:50 +1000
From: "Don Cameron" <donc mudgeeab.com.au>
To: <communityinformatics vancouvercommunity.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [CI] FW: [Solaris] Munich (Germany) to switchover from
Microsoft to Linux
given that much of my own comment was perhaps straying from what I
suppose to be this forum's main focus! (snip)
Dear Horace,
It is disappointing to hear someone as well versed in CI needs and
methodologies as yourself conclude that initiating a debate on Open Source
is 'straying from the purpose' of a forum designed to expand an
understanding of CI.
May I humbly suggest; you probably don't truly believe this... that rather,
because discussions on Open Source almost always degenerate into the classic
Microsoft -v- Linux 'debate', that educated people tend to avoid the
inevitable confrontation brought by platform evangelism - that debate is
difficult; understanding and consensus more so due to the degree of emotive
and parochial content brought to a discussion. Yet I believe it is vitally
important to the subject of CI (and our respective recipient communities) to
try to understand all the potential opportunities and pitfalls associated
with Open Source developments; to not sweep the subject under the carpet -
hence I for one value the thoughts of everyone on this subject and will
endeavour to continue to question emotive commentary.
My own role is that of practitioner. I am not an academic; not particularly
well versed in the philosophies of social development. What I see, I see
with my own eyes. What I experience is the feedback of rural people trying
desperately to forge a life and living from a very tough environment. Like
many people living in rural areas I am constrained by physical realities not
always apparent to the world of academia, or in our case Canberra-based
Government bureaucrats - yet we do what we can as opportunities present
themselves, which is one of the reasons why I have recently hired an Open
Source developer and proponent. Perhaps Open Source is an opportunity, yet
what a shame if the opportunity is withheld from us because debate and
constructive analysis becomes stifled through a fear of evangelistic
confrontation. Admittedly in our workplace we are yet to see any of the
promoted gains transferred into tangible realities, but just perhaps we are
missing something...
Some of the promotions and legitimate concerns expressed about Open Source
can be summarised as follows:
1/ "Open Source presents an opportunity for individuals and communities to
develop software that truly meets their needs"
Perhaps so, but this is no different to proprietary software. Most
proprietary operating systems (Microsoft included) work on the premise of
protecting the kernel to ensure standardisation and copyright ownership, yet
provide library files for developers to use for any type of applications
development. In the case of MS, creating an application does not involve
"recompiling the kernel"; the kernel remains standard no matter the
application in use, one of the reason why MS applications can be run on any
computer loaded with a compatible MS operating system. On the other hand,
the freedom of OS Linux has resulted in a plethora of compiled kernels often
resulting in difficulties running specific applications. The reality is
this... developing for Windows is much simpler than developing for Linux,
although the gap is closing. (I recently constructed a Windows-based MIS for
our business in a week using the standard Windows library files and some
assistance from the MS development community; my OS counterpart estimates it
would take two to three months to achieve the same level of development for
Linux).
2/ "Open Source offers substantial economic advantages over proprietary
software"
In terms of the cost of operating systems alone this is undoubtedly correct.
Linux can be freely secured and used; Microsoft Windows costs money.
Computer applications are a different story because there is more freeware
available for Windows than for Linux, and a far greater variety of
applications to choose from. Most businesses project an operating system
budget of between 3-4% of total IT overheads giving regard to the fact that
even a single decent Accounting or SCADA software system will probably cost
five to six times the total investment in operating systems; even
discounting the expense of training and support, hardware, software
migrations, computer consumables, utilities (power and telephones etc.)
savings are achievable though the use of open source operating systems
however often these are countered or even exceeded by migration and
administration costs. I think the jury is still out on any broad-ranging
cost benefits through the use of open source.
3/ "Open Source promotes the concept of global knowledge sharing"
A very sad incident, and an indictment against the truth of this statement
is currently underway on a sister list to CI, the "bytes-for-all" readers
list. Demonstrably pro-open source, the list is presently dominated by an
accusation (and counterclaims) of plagiarism. A few open source proponents
are loudly promoting the wording of the GNU license and explaining how the
GNU in fact circumvents this type of confrontation; yet few would be
oblivious to the way this incident strikes at the very heart of the open
source movement. If proponents of open source cannot let go of intellectual
rights and must continually seek kudos for every word printed on paper (and
the article in question is somewhat insignificant in the scheme of things);
what chance promoting a concept underpinned by the desire to share knowledge
throughout the world's underprivileged? - The average lay-person has little
knowledge, and less interest in the wording of the GNU (few would have even
read the document); their opinion of the philosophical approach to open
source is formed by the actions of proponents - mostly academics and
journalists - proponents that currently seem far more interested in
retaining intellectual ownership rights than they do in ensuring that
information is disseminated in a free and open manner.
All too often this seeming double-standard becomes apparent amongst
proponents of open source making the philosophical debate somewhat rubbery
and unbelievable to those perhaps ignorant of the legalese implications (I
would also include proprietary texts, publications and closed-door seminars
as aspects counter-productive to the concept of open source).
4/ "The performance of Open Source Software is comparable to that or
proprietary software"
In my opinion this is quite true - however 'comparable performance' does not
justify a very expensive and time consuming platform migration programme. To
justify the overhead of migrating to open source the software must be
demonstrably better... something yet to be achieved for the majority of
operating systems and computer applications.
5/ "Open Source is enhanced through the contribution of thousands of
altruistic developers and is inherently more secure because the code can be
interrogated by anyone"
This statement strikes me as the most interesting, and possibly the most
unusual of all open source promotions. Opening software to a world of
potential international hackers hardly seems like a secure developmental
environment (who do we hold accountable if the software does contain a
Trojan? - how do we even know who placed it there?). The promoted assumption
is that thousands of developers interrogate every line of open source code
continually looking for threats... the reality is that it's very rare for
anyone to interrogate another persons code other than a cursory glance and
perhaps a beta validation. To assume the tens-of-thousands of lines of code
written every day are interrogated by some faceless 'caring community' is a
misnomer. It simply doesn't happen, there isn't the time, there isn't the
interest, and unlike public input into proprietary code developments, there
isn't any financial support for this type of analysis. Open source code is
no more secure than proprietary code, and given the development environment
it is potentially far more insecure.
6/ "Open Source helps to negate the formation of corporate monopolies (ala
Microsoft) thereby creating more opportunities for local developers "
A business in a nearby town has recently started exporting locally developed
proprietary software (Windows-based) for the use of automated cattle
identification and traceback. The business is rapidly becoming the town's
largest employer and offering new hope to a community facing significant
decline. Projections for youth retention have risen markedly as the
community now sees new hope for kids to find interesting and challenging
local employment. Does commercialisation give birth to monopolies? -
Probably yes, this business is of itself a monopoly in this niche market...
but a monopoly helping a rural town to survive. Do we condemn Microsoft yet
support another software monopoly because we happen to like what they are
doing? To me this would be a double-standard, however I concede that others
might have a different view.
Yet another perspective... a decade ago I worked with the team that
developed the 'Fingerscan' biometrics security device designed to check the
authenticity of people rather than relying on remembered PIN codes,
photographs or other forgeable documentation (the company was later
purchased by the US-based Identix Corporation). Since the events of Sept 11
the demand for this type of technology has risen markedly and rather
obviously there are now many competitors in the field of biometrics
securities. At the time our small team was very much at the cutting-edge of
technology-based security developments with installations in environments
including Federal drug vaults and armoured security vehicles. Should we have
made our software open source? Where do we draw the line between a need for
proprietary and a desire to foster global contributions? Would it have been
beneficial to make the source-code available to everyone, or would it rather
have placed lives and property at greater risk? Might I suggest that in the
world of software and security developments that a monopoly is often a
desirable outcome.
This post has become something of an essay, however I hope it invites
constructive comment and hopefully a few (non-evangelistic) alternative
perspectives.
Rgds, Don
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/03
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/