on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:12:47PM -0700, Jaye Inabnit ke6sls ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Greetings, > > Today in CIS class, we talked about how software is kind of dangerous > if it isn't proprietary. Also mentioned was Shareware, Freeware and > Public Domain.
Where? The reeducation committee shall be dispatched. The first action is to call the accuser to task. Rather than you proving the negative (contra defense), ask the person to justify their statement. Fun part is you can often do this in a way that doesn't immediately show your bias: Gee, that's interesting. Professor, can you tell us why proprietary software is less dangerous than free software? ...then let the person spin out some rope. Generally they'll trot out some well-known (and debunked) FUD. > ...I am really kind of amazed that these professional instructors > don't even know what GPL is or that they would recommend proprietary > software over anything else. People argue their biases. Particularly when they feel threatened. There's a life lesson in there for you somewhere. > If you have some good info that you wouldn't mind sharing with me > privately, I would really like to collect a sample and present it to > both my current instructor and the staff of my college. I am not > currently subscribed to debian-users, so if you reply to the list, > kindly add my address as a CC. Suggested references: - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) - http://www.opensource.org/ The Open Source Initiative - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone (editors), _Open Sources_ O'Reilly & Associates, January, 1999. In particular: Bob Young, "Giving it Away" http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/young.html Paul Vixie, "Software Engineering" http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/vixie.html - http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/ John Kirch's Unix v. NT page - http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/anarchism.html Eben Moglen, "Anarchism Triumphant" - http://www.eruditum.org/linux/myths/myth-dispeller.html The New GNU/Linux Myth Dispeller In particular: "System Myths" http://www.eruditum.org/linux/myths/myth-dispeller-system.html Microsoft itself is a wonderful source of pro-free software statements. This is not without its own small measure of irony. - http://www.opensource.org/halloween/ The Halloween documents. The first two of these are documents produced internally at Microsoft, as strategy and evaluation documents in battling free software. They are a frank, and in some cases, troubling, view into the belly of the beast. The name comes from the date on which the first of these was released to Eric S. Raymond, free software hacktivist. In particular: - "Halloween I", Vinod Vallopillil, Microsoft Corporation http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.html A strategic assessment of free software (termed "OSS" by Microsoft). OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market. - "Halloween II", Josh Cohen, Microsoft Corporation http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween2.html A technical assessment of the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux OS. Linux represents a best-of-breed UNIX, that is trusted in mission critical applications, and - due to it's open source code - has a long term credibility which exceeds many other competitive OS's. - http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp Craig Mundie of Microsoft, "The Commercial Software Model". Noteable for its inaccurate, or frankly false, statements of the free software (Microsoft refers to this as OSS) development model. Comments interspersed, original denoted with '|'. | The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of | unhealthy "forking" of a code base, Actually, "forking" is both healthy, and low risk. Instances of persistant forks are rare. Notable are emacs/xemacs, gcc/egcs, and various window managers. In the first case, though the fork is maintained, compatibility remains close. In the second case, the fork was resolved. In the third, the reason for the forking was largely functional -- fvwm has spawned a number of window managers: fvwm2, AfterStep, Enlightenment, and others. Fundamental compatibility between X clients and window managers is maintained -- in most cases, it's possible to swap out window managers on the fly, within an X session. | resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions | of programs, Not. Particularly under the GPL. Licenses which allow proprietization (particularly the BSD license) are accused with some merit of leading to considerable forking within the *proprietary* Unix space. Many technical, social, and development dynamics forces make persistant forks rare. Forks are likely to arise only where: - The license allows for same. - Significant technical differences require forking. These may be end-user requirements (e.g.: window managers as discussed above), or platform requirements. There's some suggestion that very small-system Linux ports may eventually fork from primary Linux kernel development due to technical constraints of these platforms. This remains theoretical as the fork has not yet occured. - There are significant differences in project leadership. Differnent models of development or ideas for progress can lead to each side demonstrating its best abilities. This happens rarely. It usually results in one survivor moving forward. However, it allows both sides to demonstrate without prejudice their vision. - More often: forks are small, and good. A small fork is really an exploration of an alternative development path. | weakened interoperability Microsoft should talk "weakened interoperability". GNU/Linux and free software are *based on* interoperability: GNU/Linux is interoperabile with the open POSIX/UNIX standard. Services such as mail, Web, Usenet, messaging, DNS, and timekeeping, are interoperable between platforms divergent on the basis of operating system, hardware, and physical location. It doesn't get much more interoperable than that. Microsoft, by contrast, has exploited *lack* of interoperability, often with its own products, to force an upgrade treadmill. It has also driven incompatibility wedges between itself and its competition, from DR DOS to Samba. The snake speaks with a forked toungue. | product instability, Boys and girls, can you say BSOD? | and hindering businesses ability to strategically plan for the | future. I think I've determined Microsoft's strategy of critiquing free software: stare in the mirror, describe what you see, and ascribe it to the opposition. Microsoft has been shown, as a legal fact, to have exploited a monopoly position, and have violated US anti-trust laws. Need I say more? | Furthermore, it has inherent security risks An absolute truth. *All* computer systems have inherent security risks. However, an absolute lie, when turned to a relative comparison: free software, both applications and operating systems, have been demonstrated again and again, to be more secure, less vulnerable, and more effectively adminstered, than Microsoft products. | and can force intellectual property into the public domain. ...which is bad because.... I detect an unstated assumption. > Thank you so much. I hope I can collect some useful information > organized and presented in a kind yet assertive way. ^^^^ Oh shit, I guess I blew it ;-) -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
pgpbIphNxCah2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
