Linux Advocacy

Top Page
Attachments:
Message as email
+ (text/plain)
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Alan Dayley
Date:  
Subject: Linux Advocacy
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 02 November 2003 04:15 pm, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> I've seen a lot of posts here advocating Linux advocacy. I'm having a
> hard time with the concept. Sure there are plenty of situations where
> someone wants a new capability and Linux is the obvious answer because
> it's cheap, and will run reliably on hardware they already have. There
> are other people who are driven by curiosity and Linux is the obvious
> choice for those folks as well because they can dig into it as deeply
> as they want.
>
> My problem comes with the notion that somehow we would be doing most
> people a favor if we convinced them to format their drives and install
> Linux/Open Office in place of Windows/MS Office. I just don't get it.
> If you keep Windows patched and don't install every piece of spy-ware
> that you can find on the internet it's not so unstable/insecure that
> avoiding those problems will ever compensate most people for the effort
> of leaning a new OS and program suite. Bear in mind that most folks
> simply hate learning new stuff about their computer.


Let's see if I can put this in writing without rambling too much.

Open Standards
=2D ----------------------

The "Myth" of the Paperless Office

I can explain very simply why the "paperless office" has not become a reali=
ty. =20
Two words: proprietary standards. The technology for a paperless office ha=
s=20
been available, and viable for many years now. The reason it has not=20
happened is because the data produced by my program A cannot be read or=20
manipulated by your program B.

Paper is an "open standard." Everyone knows how to use it. Every one know=
s=20
how to read it. So, as soon as my program A cannot send data to your progr=
am=20
B, I print the data so you can read it. I have seen, in action, paperless=
=20
offices or operations. Within an organization, a set of data storage and=20
exchange protocols can be dictated and it all works. Until data has to com=
e=20
in or out of the organization and then the paper starts to fly.

Companies want to make money. They can make money by providing tools that=
=20
manipulate data. This is good. They think, and have actually proven, that=
=20
they can make MORE money by locking up the data. If you want my data from=
=20
program A, without the paper step, you have to purchase a license to progra=
m=20
A. Thus company A has one more sale and knocked company B's product out of=
=20
the market. So, if you were using company B's product, and you want to hav=
e=20
efficient data transfer from program A, you have no choice but to use the=20
product from company A. Your freedom to use YOUR DATA has been restricted.

Thus, the paperless office will only come to be if consumers demand open=20
standards for data storage and transfer OR everyone uses only program A.

Email works because all email programs have to use an open standard. Not t=
hat=20
companies don't continue to try to co-opt the standard or make a new one so=
=20
that they can "own" your data. What about the other choice?...

So, let's all use program A!

Company A, of course, wants to keep selling licenses. So, what do they do?=
=20
The make program A.1 with new features that change the data format so that =
I=20
upgrade (paying again) to the new version, use the new features and now you=
r=20
program A won't read my data from program A.1. So, you have to upgrade (pa=
y=20
again). The goal of company A is not to help the user, it is to make money=
=20
over and over again from the user. They will, and do, break their previous=
=20
data standards to force users to continue to pay.

I have seen this happen and bite a company, badly! A patent lawsuit was=20
started and 4 year old data needed to be reproduced. Couldn't legally be=20
done. Most EULAs require that if you upgrade the software, you cannot use=
=20
the previous version anymore. The latest version of the program could not=
=20
read the 4 year old data. The company could not use the 4 year old version=
=20
without violating the EULA. The company had to buy, at great expense,=20
another license for the 4 year old software just to get to the old data.

All of the above is arguments for open standards. What companies / entitie=
s /=20
software promotes and supports openly defined data storage standards? Do y=
ou=20
want to get to your data when you want it and with the tool you want? Can=
=20
you do that more often with proprietary software or Free software?

The more people I get to use and store data in open formats, the more likel=
y I=20
will be able to get to my data with the tool of my choice at the time of my=
=20
choosing. That is a direct benefit to me, the economy and to you!

=46ree Software Security
=2D ---------------------

Keeping whatever software you use patched and secure is a must. Why then=20
should I move to Free Software?

Do you still run Windows 98? I do, on several machines for various reasons=
=2E =20
That use will drop significantly in the very near future. After 16 January=
=20
2004 Microsoft will no longer provide security updates for Windows 98. I c=
an=20
understand the reasons why. Security support has a low revenue value. =20
Effort and time is spent with very little return in the form of sales=20
revenue.

If Windows 98 was open, it could still be supported and updated, by somebod=
y. =20
Even myself by doing it myself or paying someone, if I needed to.

How many people do you know still running Windows 98? Do you know how many=
=20
Windows 98 boxes are still on the net and will be on the net after the=20
security fixes stop coming? I can only guess how much down time and wasted=
=20
money will be spent protecting all the other computers when a significant=20
number of those computers start spewing zombie garbage after a vulnerablili=
ty=20
gets hit sometime next year. I predict that Microsoft will be beaten in th=
e=20
press sometime in the next year for failing to offer a security update for =
a=20
Windows 98 vulnerability that brought much of the net to it's knees.

Each person that I can get off the pay-upgrade or be vulnerable forked path=
,=20
is potentially one less box that will mess up the net for me, the economy a=
nd=20
you.

=46ree Software Anti-Entropy
=2D ---------------------

Remember your basic physics or chemistry? One of the things that is learne=
d=20
is that all systems suffer from entropy. That, the tendancy of organized=20
things to loose energy and become disorganized. A car will wear out. A=20
house will fall apart. Unless energy is added back into the system (car or=
=20
house mantainance), the system will continue to break down into chaos and=20
then death.

Society is suseptable to this. Look at once prosperous neighborhoods that =
are=20
now what would be called slums. Too many people did to contribute to the=20
neightborhood (maintaining homes, working hard, helping your neighbor) or=20
actually took "energy" from the neighborhood (crime, selfishness,=20
profiteering) and now it is run down.

Propietary software attempts to remove more "energy" from the software econ=
omy=20
than it creates. This is it's goal, to make more profit. Microsoft's prof=
it=20
on it's OS and Office bussiness is huge! They create much that is to be=20
admired but they remove so much. They could sell Windows XP licenses for $=
45=20
and still make a profit! How many jobs could be saved if Microsoft only=20
charge half of what they actually do? Companies should be rewarded with $$=
=20
for the real value they create. But is the vaule of Windows XP really wort=
h=20
the price you pay? Or are you paying for the priviledge of being able to=20
access your own data or communicate with your business partner? Can they=20
charge this much? Yea, they can. Should they? No, I don't think they=20
should. They are taking too much out. They are trying to become the slum=
=20
lord of Software City where we have to send them money for the privilege of=
=20
using their crumbling software.

=46ree software adds back to the system. By supporting PLUG or reporting b=
ugs=20
or being another number on the way to critical mass or developing software =
I=20
increase the energy in the software ecosystem and society. I can help make=
=20
it possible, indirectly, for someone in Africa to successfully use a comput=
er=20
for the first time. Of for a government in South America to aford better=20
health care for someone because they did not have to pay huge license fees=
=20
for their software. Really!

=46ighting the entropy is good for me, the economy and you.

EULAs
=2D --------

My father uses Windows XP. He does not understand (I have tried to make hi=
m=20
understand) that he has given Microsoft has the right to make changes to hi=
s=20
computer, alter data and programs and track the hardware he uses. On a=20
day-to-day basis, most users probably don't care about these sorts of=20
provisions, nor are they effected by them. But they could be.

Suppose you have built your Wogle company from the ground up and now employ=
=20
over 100 people. Suppose World Wide Widgets wants to merge with you to mak=
e=20
wogles and widgets together. Did you know that some proprietary software=20
requires that the newly merged company must purchase licenses for their=20
software, even if both companies had licenses before the merger?

Did you know that some hardware companies do not allow purchasers of used=20
hardware to use the software in the hardware without purchasing another=20
license? How many jobs does that cost? How many companies demand payment=
=20
for the same product, again, without having done any more work or adding an=
y=20
more value? How much freedom to run your business or home the way you want=
=20
are you willing to give up so that you can use the same software you always=
=20
have used?

The more people I can get to reject restrictive EULAs the more freedom I ca=
n=20
expect from any EULA that I may decide to accept in the future. This is go=
od=20
for me, the economy and you.

=46air Use and Privacy
=2D ------------

Laws are repeatedly proposed to curb fair use of copyrighted works. =20
Regulations, not even laws, are proposed to do the same (google on "digital=
=20
tv broadcast bit" or something like that). Companies use the DMCA and othe=
r=20
tactics to limit speech they don't like or restrict how I can use my comput=
er=20
(Go here for a good "not so fictional" look of how it could be:=20
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/dmca-activists/2003-04/msg00024.html)

Where do I go to find people that will fight the deterioration of fair use,=
if=20
not Free software? How do I get lawmakers to stop making or considering su=
ch=20
mandated restrictions as "trusted hardware" and encryption with back doors?=
=20
I get more voices clamoring against it. How do I do that? By advocating=20
=46ree software.

I want to keep listening to the music I paid for in whatever format I choos=
e=20
to move it to. I want to continue to use my data the way I see fit without=
=20
prying eyes mandated by the government. Stopping this invasion is good for=
=20
me, the economy and you.


Well, that is all I feel like rambling on about for tonight. If you are st=
ill=20
reading all the way down here, you are charitable. I did not proof read it=
=20
so the typos are there or not.

If you see holes in the opinions I expressed above, point them out. It rea=
lly=20
comes down to freedom. Do I want my data, my computer, the internet and=20
therefore my life corporatized to make money for others OR do I want to kee=
p=20
my freedom? And, why would I NOT want to share that freedom with others?

So, my question back is, why would I not want to "be doing most people a=20
favor" by getting them to switch to Linux?

Alan
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/pfTzUIl18h7/dy4RAiwPAKCgMLW+iyShUZtIxrrDPxhFsmm23ACfXRPi
tyJv6niQVSjLYHnW+jUmEmk=3D
=3DpJWJ
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----