quote:

---

When you choose a piece of software you are not simply choosing a tool, you are voting for the software creator who is then your "representative" into the public policy world of computer software. You should be making these choices as carefully as you do when you mark a ballot as the political implications are quite similar.

---

Read full article which was posted to the BBS for the documentary The Corporation

Edit Feb 12: To make it easier for people to read rather than clicking through to the other site, I am adding the original article here:

I am the private sector co-coordinator of a group called GOSLING (Getting Open Source Logic INto Governments). While this is not the case for all participants in this group, I believe that "code is law". This idea was first articulated by Lawrence Lessig in his book "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace". This suggest that computer software should not only be thought of as technology or as a tool, but a form of public policy.

When you choose a piece of software you are not simply choosing a tool, you are voting for the software creator who is then your "representative" into the public policy world of computer software. You should be making these choices as carefully as you do when you mark a ballot as the political implications are quite similar.

For an introduction on that topic please see Re: Resistance isn't futile. I would be quite willing to discuss this issue with other participants in this forum, and write about this in a number of other forums which I can link to.

BTW: Once you understand that "code is law", then my complaint about the previous website makes sense. Mandating that users to a website vote for a non-transparent and unaccountable representative (Macromedia and their Flash player) is not a simple tool choice, but a question of political corruption.

[ 12 February 2004: Message edited by: Russell McOrmond ]

I understand software is a field of interest of yours. However, your arguments that it is somehow more directly a vote will have to be more persuasive, I think.

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: paxamillion ]

If I really needed to find someone to talk to me about it, I would go to any number of web sites that talk about the politics of software. I would also write journal papers and give talks about it. Oh, wait, I already did that.

Dude, whip it out why don't you? I was only kidding.

The issue being discussed has little to do with Microsoft Windows or any brand name, nor is it about technology and what technology you may purchase. Certain software vendors have made choices about what methods they use to create software, just as different countries use different systems to create policy.

The discussion is about understanding the nature of software as being much more closer to an expression of policy (public or private policy) than being a technology or a product. When making a choice between software created using "software manufacturing" or FLOSS you are not making a technology choice, but a public policy choice. The difference is no more a difference in technology or brand than requiring that the builders of a building adhere to safety and labor codes is a choice in technology.

See: CompTIA at WSIS: Another look at Software Choice

Since software is the policy that governs how technology operates, how it is created is critical in the same way that the creation of other public policy matters.

The problem with this discussion is often that people simply don't believe you when you try to alert them to these issues. They have been conditioned to believe that software is a technology the same way hardware is, but this is not the case. There are huge vested political and economic interests involved in keeping citizens in the dark about this public policy issue because the more people believe that software is a technology the more they will be willing to hand the authorship of this policy to authoritarian control.

Please don't fall for this!

Saying "... so don't use Windows" is no more enlightening about this topic than saying "...so don't vote for Saddam Hussein" (a well known dictator today) as being enlightening to understanding democratic processes.

Here is a recent example to think about. In the United Stated there is more and more examples of paperless electronic voting systems. A person marks their ballot electronically, and the votes are tallied electronically, and a winner is declared electronically. When democratic citizens wanted to discuss the policy used in this process they were told that they were violating the copyright of the software vendor.

http://www.eff.org/Legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/

Is voting software a technology, or is it public policy that *MUST* have the same level of accountability and transparency that we would normally expect from the electoral system? Is deploying electronic voting machines that do not have paper (and thus no recount is possible) and is under the control of a private corporation a matter of "electoral efficiency" or a very obvious form of political corruption?

Similarly, governments, when they choose a particular software package, make statements about what standards they will accept in terms of transmitting information, what programs will be acceptable to use handling data, and so on.

Governments which choose Windows, therefore, accept the status quo, while governments that do not are, in effect, showing that they are open to new concepts and new ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by paxamillion:
I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. If I buy a car, I'm voting for a certain kind of transportation policy -- certainly a different one that if I buy a buss pass.

---

If you buy a car you are choosing a type of transportation policy. This is only one level of the political implications of your choice, and the way in which transportation hardware is similar to computer hardware. The car, like computer hardware, is technology -- a tool that we as humans use. Our choice to use a technology has its own social, economic and political implications.

But that is only the beginning....

When you buy the car it is you that determines where you can go in it (within the hardware limits -- cars run on the ground and not in the air or water ;-). It is you that decides what speed you will go (up to a mechanical maximum which is almost always higher than the legal maximum ;-), and what direction.

With computers that 'policy' of where you can and can not go is determined primarily by software, under the direction of the user only where the software asks for direction. The concept of the separation of software and hardware simply doesn't exist with a car as the hardware is the car and the software is the thinking processes of the human driver. It is the human driver that is in control of the car (as much as the car is under the control of their automobile – separate issue ;-) , not some third party.

The car is similar to most other non-computerized consumer products - the thinking processes of the owner is what determines the 'policy' of the device. Whether a car is the police car or the 'getaway car' facilitating a crim is a 'policy' choice of the human driver, not of the car.

Computer controlled devices are extremely different in that there is a software buffer between the user/owner of the computer and the activities of the hardware. That software is far more in control of the computer hardware than the owner of the hardware is. This means that the methodologies that the humans use that create the software is critical for the social, economic and political implications of what that software will direct the hardware to do.

If we as citizens want to be in control of technology, and not third party 'vendors' (benevolent or otherwise), then we must promote software creation/manipulation methodologies which allow for our input either directly or through representatives (software creators hired or otherwise directed by us). This is exactly the level of transparency, accountability, and citizen involvement in the software creation process that FLOSS facilitates, and "software manufacturing" prohibits.

quote:

---

Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses, VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen and not a third party - Russell McOrmond

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
Similarly, governments, when they choose a particular software package, make statements about what standards they will accept in terms of transmitting information, what programs will be acceptable to use handling data, and so on.

---

I am the volunteer co-coordinator for the GOSLING (Getting Open Source Logic INto Governments) Community. I hope that those in this forum that find this topic interesting will consider joining us.

When talking to policy makers and elected representatives we first talk about software acquisition issues such as what you speak about. Acquiring software which adheres to internationally recognized interface standards, that facilitate economic competition, and that save taxpayers money are all easy topics to talk about.

Most of what we need to facilitate the acquisition of FLOSS is already government policy, except that like a lot of government policy it is not enforced. I was placed in the uncomfortable position a few years ago of working with a customer to sue the Canadian Library of Parliament via the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. It was uncomfortable for me because of the years I spent fighting against NAFTA chapter 11 (Investment) and chapter 17 ("Intellectual Property"), and here I was suing the government under chapter 10.

As political activists, however, I believe that we should be able to think beyond what the vendors have convinced society and that is to stop thinking of software as a technology that is simply purchased. We need to think of software as policy which has social, economic and political implications far beyond that of a simple technology choice.

As I found around the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) , we in North America a much further behind most other countries. This makes sense as we have had more years of special interest vendors promoting the "software manufacturing" methodology which confuses citizens into thinking that software is simply technology.

Activist communities like those on Rabble need to see past this and work together to deal with this problem.

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: Russell McOrmond ]

Not everyone needs to read through the code of every program that effects their daily lives, but someone representing their needs should have access to the source code to make sure it is operating in a manner that meets the requirements of operating a business in a fair and effective democracy.

There is another thread here on Babble that discusses how the police are finding "terrorist connections" with people who happen to be in the same location as other suspected terrorist too often.

How do they make this connection? They certainly don't do it by laying out all the printouts on the floor and making the connection manually . . . they instead rely on some kind of search algorithm . . . naturally, this algorithm is not open to examination, so we do not know how this connection is actually manufactured . . . it could rely on a random number generator for all anyone knows . . . now, if the code were "open source", we could at least have a chance at understanding how the algorithm works and be more aware of how the connection might be flawed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:
Russ, while I agree with your theme, I have this caveat: most computer users have no idea what operating system they are using.

---

I am not advocating switching operating systems -- I am advocating understanding and then making use of methodologies. Most of the FLOSS I hand out on CD is FLOSS for Microsoft Windows.

See: Topic: Critical flaw in Windows. Yes, another one. where this gets discussed as well.

What you are saying is not true. Users do ask for specific brand names when they buy computers. They don't know what an Operating System is, but they believe and are told by others that they need "Microsoft".

Ask any computer dealer that has tried to offer alternative operating systems and office suites to customers and they will tell you that. I know of dealers who have given out free copies of OpenOffice.org for Microsoft Windows to customers who still paid the hundreds of dollars for Microsoft's branded office suite that did the same job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I think you can take that a step further: how many middle managers with signing authority have even the most vague idea which OS they're using or why? Could any of them articulate the difference between licenced software and Open Source? Do you think they care, so long as they aren't over budget and the work gets done?

---

All open source software is licensed software. They have different and far less complicated licenses than your typical royalty-based End User License Agreements (EULA's). FLOSS license agreements define different conditions of use, but the software is consistent with copyright law. Many features such as copyleft, or what Creative Commons calles "share-and-share-alike" require copyright law to exist.

I suspect what you meant to say is “royalty-based” software, or “software manufacturing”.

Ignoring the Operating System reference, most technology projects fail precisely because management has no clue about what they are buying or managing. The fact is that they are most often over budget and the work does not get done. Boondoggles like the federal Gun Registry are the normal in this area, not the exception.

We are talking about changing the status-quo so that management makes use of non-technical performance requirements in their decision making. They shouldn't know or care about brand names or technology, but do need to know about methodologies to choose and manage software. What they don't know currently is causing them to fail, and this is something that they should either learn or change professions.

If you look at the events list for the GOSLING Community you will see the "You Paid What??!" Workshop On Full Cost Accounting Methodology For Information Technology Projects In The Public Sector. This is the type of stuff that any competent IT manager should know about.

While some here don't like him because of the spending freeze (I don't have a problem with it), I like to mention that Reg Alcock understands FLOSS and will likely help bring these methodologies into the Canadian federal government through his roll as President of the Treasury Board. I have met with him personally on this area of public policy a number of times.

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
Not everyone needs to read through the code of every program that effects their daily lives, but someone representing their needs should have access to the source code to make sure it is operating in a manner that meets the requirements of operating a business in a fair and effective democracy.

---

This is why I talk of software as being similar to a representative democratic system. We do not all directly participate in the authoring of acts of parliament, we choose representatives who do that on our behalf. With software we can have far more direct influence on the policy than we do in a democracy (especially in North America with our antiquated First Past the Post electoral system) because we can have friends/relatives do the work, or do it ourselves if we have the skills. When software obeys a third party and not ourselves it is a matter of personal choice and priorities, not something that is out of our hands.

Yet...

quote:

---

Users do ask for specific brand names when they buy computers. They don't know what an Operating System is, but they believe and are told by others that they need "Microsoft".

---

In fairness to the average non-technical computer buyer, let's look at their 3 main choices, the way they'd see them:

1. A Mac. Legendary for their ease of use, they're more expensive than a PC clone. OK for a home user, but a middle manager outfitting a small office may be a tad fearful of having to defend the extra cost. Especially since he or she probably can't, other than to say "I've heard they're easy".

2. Linux. It's all the buzz, but it seems to come in about 10 different flavours, each with proponents insisting theirs is best. Some you pay for, some you download, some you compile yourself ("What's compile mean??"). Proponents of Linux seem to be able to author their own DNS lookup tables from scratch, and could probably count to 3E8 in hexadecimal. If you're not one of them, Linux is going to be way too intimidating. Assurances that "it's changed" are likely going to be treated with suspicion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
In fairness to the average non-technical computer buyer, let's look at their 3 main choices, the way they'd see them:

---

If the way they'd see them was a valid criteria to never bother informing others or learning, then why bother with Rabble Babble or political activism at all? Far worse popular negativity exists against other forms of progressive political thinking. Nastier things are said every day about progressive political parties than is said about FLOSS. Unlike progressive political parties, FLOSS already has growing mainstream support all over the world with the self-identified “progressive” communities in North America being some of the hardest people to reach.

Macintosh: Mac hardware is expensive and aimed at a specific audience. MacOS-X is what is known as a hybrid operating system (Like Lindows or Xandros) in that they are a mixture of non-FLOSS added on top of a FLOSS infrastructure. Apple and MacOS-X users are quite active participants in the FLOSS community. See the Darwin project for more information. I remember reading about a Linuxworld event where an informal poll was taken about what peoples favorite “Linux” distribution was; while RedHat was number 1, the second spot was taken by MacOS-X which doesn't contain the Linux kernel at all ;-)

Linux: Yes, Linux comes in 10 different flavors -- sorta like any real democracy comes with 10 different political parties plus independents. It may seem easier if there was some sort of bi-partisan system with only two choices, but then I suspect most people in this forum already have a strong opinion of how well that works for the democracy in the USA. We also know that making choices in a feudalistic or dictatorial system of governance is far easier than in a democracy, but that is never considered a valid reason to eradicate democracy.

It really doesn't matter to the rest of the world which flavor you choose with Linux as they all interoperate with each other and any other system which is based on free/libre and open vendor neutral standards.

Proponents of Linux come in all shapes and sizes. Just because you have the *freedom* to "run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve" doesn't mean that everyone wants to. While some technology geeks will use the "compile" word, they are not unique to the Linux world nor are they the people that the majority of computer users should talk to. It is just unfortunate that most Users Groups (Linux or otherwise) are populated with technology geeks which end up scaring off most users.

You don't compile your own stuff for Windows or MacOS even though you can, so why do people mistakenly believe you need to for Linux? It is like the transparency of a real democracy: just because you have "access to information" laws which given you the freedom to read every memo sent by a member of parliament, doesn't mean that you *need* to in order to be a valuable citizen in that democracy.

Windows has more hype around it than Linux does. Being 'compatible' with the incumbent has no meaning. In any election the person already in office is more compatible with the person already in office, but that says nothing of use. A real test is whether the person in office is compatible with the citizens who elected them, not whether they are compatible with themselves.

That said, Microsoft is very often not compatible with itself. While current versions of Linux can run many of the same programs that were written 20 years ago for UNIX, the same cannot be said for applications written even by Microsoft for Windows 95 running only 10 years later on Windows XP. This is even worse when you look at the compatibility of file formats where different versions of Microsoft Office do not open each others files very well -- many people have noticed that OpenOffice.org is far more compatible with Microsoft Office 97 files than Microsoft Office XP is.

Perception is a big part of this. You can dismiss FLOSS as being an unknown that the incumbent special interests don't want you to learn.

quote:

---

What you are saying is not true. Users do ask for specific brand names when they buy computers. They don't know what an Operating System is, but they believe and are told by others that they need "Microsoft".

---

Yes, that is the experience of dealers; although if you dig deeper you will find a great deal of self fulfilling prophesy. I spent many many years servicing office machines. I will say it again, the average user has no idea what he/she is using and doesn't care. Many years ago the French government did a poll and discovered that less than 10% of drivers had the slightest interest in how their car worked. People just want to jump in, start it and go. People are the same with computers; they want to bash the keyboard, hit return and watch it go.

As I understand it, the guys who run Libranet (if my memory serves me) got started with Linux by making up a suite of packages and installing them on machines used by business customers. They discovered that if you set someone down in front of a word processor and show them how to use it, they couldn't care less about the name on the software.

[ 12 February 2004: Message edited by: Cougyr ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:
I will say it again, the average user has no idea what he/she is using and doesn't care.

---

This is an argument in favor of FLOSS, not against it ;-) If it was true, then this average user would have absolutely no problem switching software. As someone who did LAN support professionally in the past I can tell you this isn't really true.

I agree that the average user has no idea what they are using and shouldn't care, but far too many of them think that they need to care. I have had OpenOffice.org opened on a Windows box and had people not even know that they weren't using Microsoft Office, but once they notice any difference they all of a sudden get offended. They are told and take as fact that if they don't have the exact version of the exact brand as everyone else that their computer won't work. The fact that the brands they are choosing/mandating are the source and not the solution to the problem baffles them.

This is one of the shortcomings of OpenOffice.org for many people -- it is too much like Microsoft Office, and thus has a poor user interface compared to what could be done if user interface design were allowed by the user base.

More to the point...

If they are not the decision maker involved in choosing the software, then they aren't part of this specific discussion. There are people who use whatever is on their desk and don't care what the brand or methodology is that was used to create/distribute it and then there are those who are making software acquisition decisions.

It is the decision makers that need to have adequate understanding of software to make valid decisions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:
Russ, one of my big complaints about software is that the spell checkers come with US American English dictionaries.

---

I strongly agree. This is why GOSLING participants from Industry Canada (look for Open Source & Internet, promotion of French on the Internet, and language software in her title and it is obvious why) have been working with other members to try to get the Commissioner of Official Language to sponsor a proper English Canadian and French Canadian dictionary, and localization of key FLOSS projects. Even Heritage Canada could take far less money than the silly flags scandal to put into this effort and have far more relevant Canadian identity built from it.

Software vendors should not be left in charge with the language of a country. It is the responsibility of the Canadian government to be doing this, along with her citizens. If the people of Africa can do it, then why not Canada? I suspect that the existance of the US-English and France-French localizations are part of the problem, but that with appropriate government help we can get past this problem.

See how other parts of the world are doing: Open source's local heroes from The Economist (Requires free registration).

If you are or know of a Canadian linguist that is interested in this type of work, have them contact us at GOSLING and we'll try to get them in touch with the right people.

[ 12 February 2004: Message edited by: Russell McOrmond ]

Your project looks like a good one. I'm not arguing against it. I certainly know what you refer to with people insisting that their software be exactly what they are used to, even when it doesn't do what they want it to. Hey, I've seen people demand that their copier work without electricity. Most of technology is sheer magic to most people; they genuflect to it. Because people are so much in awe to computers, they make incredibly bad choices. How often have you seen a computer that is painfully slow because the virus checker is totally dominating and hogging all the resources, a problem that can be solved with a few intelligent choices? (I watched a friend's machine with it's seven minute boot just last week.)

quote:

---

And, as you point out, purchasing agents choose Microsoft because they get less flack for doing so than for forcing change. It is also why Linux has made most advances on servers where the end user has no contact.

---

Yeah, the server room is the domain of the "geeks" and so they aren't so afraid of change.

Open Office (on Version 1.1 now) is pretty much the "killer" open source application IMHO. I can even convert to .pdf format (something you STILL can't to in Microslop Office 2003). And ironic that an open source office suite is better at handling incompatibilities between various versions of M$ Office than MS Office is.

To me it makes sense to work around standards that are free, instead of around proprietary standards that cost $.

But, the open source community has been terrible at promoting itself. I mean simple things could be done like encouraging folks to put an "Open Office" link button on their websites. (Should be one on Rabble eh?).

In case any babblers don't know where to find Open Office it's here".

Open Office.org

By the way Abi-word is an open source word processor. Some babblers might want to check it out. It'll also run on Windows

Abi Word

There are a gazillion tech shows out there...alot of them seem to be free ads for Micro$oft. That certainly seems to be the case with David Onley's tech show on "CP24". But it seems to me that open source folks should make an attempt (if they haven't already) to get on some of them.

The Xandros folks who picked up Corel Linux have apparently launched a Version 2 which they allege can be installed in four mouse clicks...they also include Code Weavers so that you can run Windows software.

IBM seems to have "thrown in the towel" and is working on an MS Office for Linux.

article

At home, I've trashed MS Office, even off my Windows systems and I'm using Open Office.

[ 17 February 2004: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

Seems the compassionate conservatives to the south are fighting to make sure that rich capitalists profits are keep safe from the poor taking advantage of open source software.

web page

quote:

---

During the preparatory phase prior to the meetings in Geneva, the focus of the United States team -- at least that evidenced by public comment -- was almost exclusively on the "protection of intellectual property" and an abiding insistence that the WSIS not say or do anything that might prevent profiteering on the needs of the disadvantaged, now or in the future. Nowhere in the WSIS documents was it deemed permissible to state the obvious: that free/open source software is the logical choice in achieving affordable solutions.

The United States position, formed at the behest of the Business Software Alliance, CompTIA, and other organizations dedicated to maintaining the status quo and curtailing the growth of free software, is that no software development methodology -- closed and proprietary versus open source -- be recommended over any other.

The United States position on free/open source software at WSIS is remarkably similar to the United States position on the use of generic AIDS drugs at the World Trade Organization (WTO). In the case of generic AIDS drugs for impoverished nations, our best thinking has concluded that it's better that millions perish from AIDS than the drug companies risk losing a penny on their bottom line. Our position on that issue, by the way, is still a bone of contention around the globe.

---

Look, if proprietary software is the better choice for poor and developing countries, then by all means allow the UN to recommend that solution to them . . . if proprietary software is the better choice then what are they afraid of?? Obviously the closed groups are not that confident that they can compete, so they want to have the better alternative hidden, even at the cost of lives of the poor.

oh wait, what does this have to do with free software? well it really is the front line in the struggle for your mind. the dependency we have on computers and the internet develops stronger and deeper ties into our lives each and every day.

the ability to adapt and change is central to our human identity, and our democratic aspirations. it is perhaps this characterstic above all others that makes floss so attractive to we in society.

using floss we have been able to slowly but surely make substantial gains in the cultivation of the internet as a space constructed in the public domain.

that is in part the participatory democrattic policy embedded in using and being part of floss. creating the capacity for the infrastructure of a democratic society.

community computing is a socially empowering practice that is easy to do, and fun for you and i. all it involves, is a friend, or a loved one, a colleague, or even a professional you can pay, community computing is the way towards a sane and free mind. why and how you ask? well, if you only knew, what you could do, with your computer, and further your mind, well, you too would do what i do, which is floss regularly.

I read in a tech column somewhere this week that "community computing" was going to be this year's Silicon Valley buzz phrase...and like so much else that the valley has come out with...more hype than reality.

But I wouldn't call them "communities".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesse Hirsh:
everything i know about computers i have learned from community computing. i was unaware that silicon valley had caught on to this.

---

I seriously doubt they are using the term as we would. It is like the arguments I had more than a decade ago with the people starting the National Capital Freenet in 1992, and the "Community Networks" that started to grow past that.

When they spoke about the word Free they meant "free as in beer, not as in speech" which was essentially the reverse of how the Free Software Foundation (which I learned about at approximately the same time) used the word free.

quote:

---

``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

---

I don't see the reduction of the cost of software from Free Software to be a "practical feature", I consider it to be an economic side-effect of the requirements that software needed to become democratically controlled by citizens and communities rather than special interest transnational corporations. In order to have citizen controlled software we needed to abandon royalty fees as the primary business model and adopt other business models.

Free Software is royalty free, but it is not always cheap. Unless you have a volunteer willing to do it for you you still have to pay for necessary ongoing learning, whether that be training people to use computers to do new things or training computers (authoring software) to do new things. There will be times when Free Software is more expensive than some “software manufacturing” software. In my case I am always willing to pay the extra money as I require my ICT (information and communications technology) to be under the control of policy (software) that I am in control of, not a third party. I require a certain level of accountability and transparency in the policy that governs my life, whether that be software policy or acts of parliament.

By the way, for those who like to talk about such Legal issues they may want to check out the BBS attaches to The Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network

[ 23 February 2004: Message edited by: Russell McOrmond ]