This is non-responsive post. Lanier makes a very coherent argument that Open Source projects don’t produce radical innovation. That’s obviously true, and quite helpful as it puts Open Source in context.

Instead of trying to re-define Lanier’s argument, Tim, why don’t you address it?

This is non-responsive post. Lanier makes a very coherent argument that Open Source projects don’t produce radical innovation. That’s obviously true, and quite helpful as it puts Open Source in context.

Instead of trying to re-define Lanier’s argument, Tim, why don’t you address it?

Tim, you sound like a central planner. Yikes!

"[F]rom a public policy perspective…free software produces more total societal wealth than releasing that same piece of software under a proprietary license."

Sounds like it could have come from a smug socialist afflicted with a worldview that there’s such a thing as "free" (as in healthcare, not FSF freedom) — not someone from Cato. Sure, free and open source software often lacks licensing fees for using the software, but whether it is through advertisements, costs for implementation, support, tied to hardware, etc, there are many indirect costs to "free." (here’s an interesting article on open source biz models).

Getting back to the total societal wealth speak, I absolutely shuddered in my bones when I read this:

"But as public policy analysts concerned with promoting the interests of consumers and the economy as a whole, we should be more excited about business models that produce large positive spillovers for the general public than those that produce smaller spillovers."

The important thing to keep in mind here is not whether open or closed development is superior, because it’s the purview of smart businesspeople, not politicians, to determine this. In the marketplace, what really matters is the license, because this controls how consumers use the product. "Use" is something that governments can control, through RFPs and their purchasing power for desired features. "How" a product is developed should be left up to the marketplace, and to the "intense, ongoing heated competition" Adam refers to in his post. 

Finally, I really can’t see how you can proclaim open source to have larger positive spillovers (which if I’m correct is another term for externality). Indeed, radical innovation may have greater positive spillovers/externalities in the aggregate. I don’t think you were conceding that a more proprietary or closed development process actually does achieve superior radical innovations, but you didn’t dispute this either.

Tim, you sound like a central planner. Yikes!

"[F]rom a public policy perspective…free software produces more total societal wealth than
releasing that same piece of software under a proprietary license."

Sounds like it could have come from a smug socialist afflicted with a worldview that there’s such a thing as "free" (as in healthcare, not FSF freedom) — not someone from Cato. Sure, free and open source software often lacks licensing fees for using the software, but whether it is through advertisements, costs for implementation, support, tied to hardware, etc, there are many indirect costs to "free." (here’s an interesting article on open source biz models).

Getting back to the total societal wealth speak, I absolutely shuddered in my bones when I read this:

"But as public policy analysts concerned with promoting the interests of
consumers and the economy as a whole, we should be more excited about
business models that produce large positive spillovers for the general
public than those that produce smaller spillovers."

The important thing to keep in mind here is not whether open or closed development is superior, because it’s the purview of smart businesspeople, not politicians, to determine this. In the marketplace, what really matters is the license, because this controls how consumers use the product. "Use" is something that governments can control, through RFPs and their purchasing power for desired features. "How" a product is developed should be left up to the marketplace, and to the "intense, ongoing heated competition" Adam refers to in his post. 

Finally, I really can’t see how you can proclaim open source to have larger positive spillovers (which if I’m correct is another term for externality). Indeed, radical innovation may have greater positive spillovers/externalities in the aggregate. I don’t think you were conceding that a more proprietary or closed development process actually does achieve superior radical innovations, but you didn’t dispute this either.

Let’s not discuss Lanier as if he were a tech policy blogger, or commenter. A Lanier-esque analogy to the Discover article –> T. Lee post –> R. Bennett comment sequence would be: Jesus tells the Caesar coin parable, Judean blogger points out that Caesar is horrible, Judean pragmatist cites Jesus as evidence that even radicals think paying taxes is fine and chides the blogger for missing the obvious fact that it is indeed Caesar’s face on the coin. In both cases A is making a philosophical point, then B and C debate it in a context so far from the original abstraction as to be talking about an entirely different topic. Lanier is a hard-core AI-human interface-virtual reality revolutionary and like a lot of revolutionaries he has lived long enough to see some of his dreams frustrated, and he sees Open Source as part of the problem part of the time. There are a couple aspects to his complaint: 1) people have gotten excessively caught up in the issue of open-sourceness per se, and 2) the success of Linux et al has retrenched old ideas about computing that he would like, as a radical, to see challenged and replaced. His use of the word ‘radical’ is millennial and totally focused on his particular interests. He is a very interesting and smart guy but his comments are not any more relevant to tech policy, or anything that has ever been discussed on this blog, than Jesus’ are to Roman tax policy. (For that try “A Love Song to Napster.”)

The things Lanier cares most about are particular weaknesses of open source, especially human interfaces, transparency and usability. That is to say, he wouldn’t regard open source innovations such as the web server, the browser, or http as ‘radical’, because they are all reactionary CLI, despite their being kind of important to the Google and iPhone examples he really gets excited about (because of his particular interests and research.)

Braden, the “central planner” charge is silly, and so is the “smug socialist” part. Either that or you are channeling bronze age incredulity that a wife could ever be acquired for “free.” To the further astonishment of stone-age man, not only are women available at no cost in the year 2008, but the marginal cost of distributing information in a networked environment has dropped to zero! According to the “IP” law books, the fact that the unregulated price of information is zero is a market failure, and price supports in the form of copyright and patents are called for in the spirit of Rooseveltian farm policy. The libertarian case for either form of price support is very weak and you should not call us, your anti-regulation comrades, socialists for opposing them. Our approach to “policy” is harm reduction, which in the case of open source means avoiding things that mandate per copy fees (patent license schemes), or that can’t be implemented in free software (FCC controlled software radios, broadcast-flag mandatory DRM, etc.) We are asking the state to decline to intervene, on grounds of practicality and liberty.

Let’s not discuss Lanier as if he were a tech policy blogger, or commenter. A Lanier-esque analogy to the Discover article –> T. Lee post –> R. Bennett comment sequence would be: Jesus tells the Caesar coin parable, Judean blogger points out that Caesar is horrible, Judean pragmatist cites Jesus as evidence that even radicals think paying taxes is fine and chides the blogger for missing the obvious fact that it is indeed Caesar’s face on the coin. In both cases A is making a philosophical point, then B and C debate it in a context so far from the original abstraction as to be talking about an entirely different topic. Lanier is a hard-core AI-human interface-virtual reality revolutionary and like a lot of revolutionaries he has lived long enough to see some of his dreams frustrated, and he sees Open Source as part of the problem part of the time. There are a couple aspects to his complaint: 1) people have gotten excessively caught up in the issue of open-sourceness per se, and 2) the success of Linux et al has retrenched old ideas about computing that he would like, as a radical, to see challenged and replaced. His use of the word ‘radical’ is millennial and totally focused on his particular interests. He is a very interesting and smart guy but his comments are not any more relevant to tech policy, or anything that has ever been discussed on this blog, than Jesus’ are to Roman tax policy. (For that try “A Love Song to Napster.”)

The things Lanier cares most about are particular weaknesses of open source, especially human interfaces, transparency and usability. That is to say, he wouldn’t regard open source innovations such as the web server, the browser, or http as ‘radical’, because they are all reactionary CLI, despite their being kind of important to the Google and iPhone examples he really gets excited about (because of his particular interests and research.)

Braden, the “central planner” charge is silly, and so is the “smug socialist” part. Either that or you are channeling bronze age incredulity that a wife could ever be acquired for “free.” To the further astonishment of stone-age man, not only are women available at no cost in the year 2008, but the marginal cost of distributing information in a networked environment has dropped to zero! According to the “IP” law books, the fact that the unregulated price of information is zero is a market failure, and price supports in the form of copyright and patents are called for in the spirit of Rooseveltian farm policy. The libertarian case for either form of price support is very weak and you should not call us, your anti-regulation comrades, socialists for opposing them. Our approach to “policy” is harm reduction, which in the case of open source means avoiding things that mandate per copy fees (patent license schemes), or that can’t be implemented in free software (FCC controlled software radios, broadcast-flag mandatory DRM, etc.) We are asking the state to decline to intervene, on grounds of practicality and liberty.

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/feb/featnapster

Here is the correct link to the article I mentioned.

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/feb/featnapster

Here is the correct link to the article I mentioned.

Tim wrote an excellent article. For the moment I want to focus on Tim’s comment “Where the open-versus-closed debate matters is what happens after version 1.0 is released. Generally speaking, open software provides a better platform for subsequent development than closed products. Proprietary software products are the captives of their initial developers. If the initial developers become incompetent or decide that continued development is no longer profitable, the entire ecosystem surrounding that product can die. As a result, building a product atop a proprietary foundation is always a huge risk.”(emphasis added).

Today (1/5/2008) the Los Angeles Times is reporting that “DVD format war appears to be over”. That article makes two important points upholding Tim’s comment.

1. Proprietary format wars stymied the adoption of a unified standard. The failure to adopt a unified standard made the consumer reluctant to buy the new HDDVD. The so-called “failure” of the consumer to buy is really a demonstration that proprietary products in some cases are not embraced. To re-word, the market has spoken and rejected the product. This rejection can be a significant adverse economic effect.

2. The Times wrote “”Expect HD DVD to die a quick death,” said Richard Greenfield, an analyst with Pali Research in New York, in a research note Friday.” To Tim’s point, the monetary investment made by manufactures and the consumer in the failed technology is a major societal cost.

One of the pet concepts on this forum is “let the market decided.” Consequently, I find it disturbing that open source products are so vehemently attacked. In the free market, open source products have a right to compete. In the debate over open-software versus proprietary software, let the market freely decide.

Tim wrote an excellent article. For the moment I want to focus on Tim’s comment “Where the open-versus-closed debate matters is what happens after version 1.0 is released. Generally speaking, open software provides a better platform for subsequent development than closed products. Proprietary software products are the captives of their initial developers. If the initial developers become incompetent or decide that continued development is no longer profitable, the entire ecosystem surrounding that product can die. As a result, building a product atop a proprietary foundation is always a huge risk.”(emphasis added).

Today (1/5/2008) the Los Angeles Times is reporting that “DVD format war appears to be over”. That article makes two important points upholding Tim’s comment.
#1. Proprietary format wars stymied the adoption of a unified standard. The failure to adopt a unified standard made the consumer reluctant to buy the new HDDVD. The so-called “failure” of the consumer to buy is really a demonstration that proprietary products in some cases are not embraced. To re-word, the market has spoken and rejected the product. This rejection can be a significant adverse economic effect.
#2. The Times wrote “”Expect HD DVD to die a quick death,” said Richard Greenfield, an analyst with Pali Research in New York, in a research note Friday.” To Tim’s point, the monetary investment made by manufactures and the consumer in the failed technology is a major societal cost.

One of the pet concepts on this forum is “let the market decided.” Consequently, I find it disturbing that open source products are so vehemently attacked. In the free market, open source products have a right to compete. In the debate over open-software versus proprietary software, let the market freely decide.

Steve R., I’m amazed by your leap of logic. If Tim is right that Open Source keeps old standards from dying, your connection with “proprietary” format wars is completely upside down. If the Open Source Community was in charge of hardware standards, there wouldn’t be two competing High-Def DVD standards, there would be a about 30.

Every open source project is staffed by a handful of people who think they can improve something by making millions of trivial changes, and the end result is not uniformity, it’s something close to chaos.

How many versions of Linux are there, and how many versions of Windows?

The virtue of Open Source is the stability and consistency it brings to the otherwise rapidly-changing world of technology. Thanks to Open Source, we programmers can now work with essentially the same software environment we had 25 years ago, so nobody has to fear their skills will go out-of-date. Endlessly recycling the same old tricks is the essence of Open Source, and that’s often a good thing.

Conformity gets a bad rap in America’s individualistic culture, but it does have the benefit of upholding tradition and conserving traditional values. Open Source is deeply conservative, properly understood.

Steve R., I’m amazed by your leap of logic. If Tim is right that Open Source keeps old standards from dying, your connection with “proprietary” format wars is completely upside down. If the Open Source Community was in charge of hardware standards, there wouldn’t be two competing High-Def DVD standards, there would be a about 30.

Every open source project is staffed by a handful of people who think they can improve something by making millions of trivial changes, and the end result is not uniformity, it’s something close to chaos.

How many versions of Linux are there, and how many versions of Windows?

The virtue of Open Source is the stability and consistency it brings to the otherwise rapidly-changing world of technology. Thanks to Open Source, we programmers can now work with essentially the same software environment we had 25 years ago, so nobody has to fear their skills will go out-of-date. Endlessly recycling the same old tricks is the essence of Open Source, and that’s often a good thing.

Conformity gets a bad rap in America’s individualistic culture, but it does have the benefit of upholding tradition and conserving traditional values. Open Source is deeply conservative, properly understood.

How many versions of Linux are there, and how many versions of Windows?

There is only one current version of Linux, Richard, when Linux is understood (correctly) to refer to the kernel. Of course, there are many different older versions, as that kernel is improved. Of course, for compatibility there are different series–the 2.6 series being current, and the 2.4 versions and many earlier versions are still maintained.

Windows, on the other hand exists as Windows Vista 32 bit, Windows Vista 64 bit, Windows XP 32 bit, Windows XP 64 bit, Windows 2000, Windows Millenium Edition, Windows 98, Windows 95.

One of the pet concepts on this forum is “let the market decided.” Consequently, I find it disturbing that open source products are so vehemently attacked. In the free market, open source products have a right to compete. In the debate over open-software versus proprietary software, let the market freely decide.

Steve: This is a very important observation, and lays bare the lie that TLF, heavily influenced by the IP Central crowd, is really interested in Freedom. They as a rule (exception being Tim Lee) are in reality corporate power advocates who only espouse those freedoms which tend to allow corporations to continue consolidating their power, and anything that decentralizes corporate power is a ‘bad’ freedom.

The IP Central Role Model The Fascist Police State

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/progress-freedom-foundation-and-ip-centrals-role-model-the-fascist-police-state/

How many versions of Linux are there, and how many versions of Windows?

There is only one current version of Linux, Richard, when Linux is understood (correctly) to refer to the kernel. Of course, there are many different older versions, as that kernel is improved. Of course, for compatibility there are different series–the 2.6 series being current, and the 2.4 versions and many earlier versions are still maintained.

Windows, on the other hand exists as Windows Vista 32 bit, Windows Vista 64 bit, Windows XP 32 bit, Windows XP 64 bit, Windows 2000, Windows Millenium Edition, Windows 98, Windows 95.

One of the pet concepts on this forum is “let the market decided.” Consequently, I find it disturbing that open source products are so vehemently attacked. In the free market, open source products have a right to compete. In the debate over open-software versus proprietary software, let the market freely decide.

Steve: This is a very important observation, and lays bare the lie that TLF, heavily influenced by the IP Central crowd, is really interested in Freedom. They as a rule (exception being Tim Lee)
are in reality corporate power advocates who only espouse those freedoms which tend to allow corporations to continue consolidating their power, and anything that decentralizes corporate power is a ‘bad’ freedom.

The IP Central Role Model The Fascist Police State


http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/p…

Richard, I don’t think you are inaccurate but you make a few leaps, too. ["How many versions of Linux... The virtue of Open Source is the stability and consistency."] Your perspective probably has a lot in common with Lanier’s, come to think of it. If you are an old programmer you may not regard the following as revolutionary given their precursors but consider what the following Open Source innovations have meant for the world:

The web, the browser.

The existence of what we think of as the internet is an impossibility without free software — and while its fair to quibble when the “labor movement” claims credit for you getting Saturday and Sunday off, they were there first.

The other, and for me one of the foremost innovations from the freedom perspective is that Open Source is a real-world demonstration of how people can accomplish huge complex tasks without the involvement of any whip-cracking authority. That may or may not be conservative but it is definitely libertarian. Whether it is sufficiently technically ‘radical’ it is organizationally unprecedented in history, truly revolutionary in that sense.

UPDATE: As I was typing this enigma_foundry weighed in and I have to say, e_f, buddy, freetard to freetard, the stakes are not high enough in this conversation or this blog to justify that kind of anger.

Richard, I don’t think you are inaccurate but you make a few leaps, too. ["How many versions of Linux... The virtue of Open Source is the stability and consistency."] Your perspective probably has a lot in common with Lanier’s, come to think of it. If you are an old programmer you may not regard the following as revolutionary given their precursors but consider what the following Open Source innovations have meant for the world:

The web, the browser.

The existence of what we think of as the internet is an impossibility without free software — and while its fair to quibble when the “labor movement” claims credit for you getting Saturday and Sunday off, they were there first.

The other, and for me one of the foremost innovations from the freedom perspective is that Open Source is a real-world demonstration of how people can accomplish huge complex tasks without the involvement of any whip-cracking authority. That may or may not be conservative but it is definitely libertarian. Whether it is sufficiently technically ‘radical’ it is organizationally unprecedented in history, truly revolutionary in that sense.

UPDATE: As I was typing this enigma_foundry weighed in and I have to say, e_f, buddy, freetard to freetard, the stakes are not high enough in this conversation or this blog to justify that kind of anger.

UPDATE: As I was typing this enigma_foundry weighed in and I have to say, e_f, buddy, freetard to freetard, the stakes are not high enough in this conversation or this blog to justify that kind of anger.

Anger? I don’t think so, I am more sad about loss of freedoms than angry, but I do feel obligated to not let my freedoms evaporate without at least commenting on what is happening and that it is very wrong.

Sometimes when comments are reduced to just words, without intonation, mis-understandings can happen, especially regarding the emotional content. So please don’t impute anger–anger to too great a quantity leads to violence, and I stay far away from those who espouse violence, when non-violence is so much more correct.

UPDATE: As I was typing this enigma_foundry weighed in and I have to say, e_f, buddy, freetard to freetard, the stakes are not high enough in this conversation or this blog to justify that kind of anger.

Anger? I don’t think so, I am more sad about loss of freedoms than angry, but I do feel obligated to not let my freedoms evaporate without at least commenting on what is happening and that it is very wrong.

Sometimes when comments are reduced to just words, without intonation, mis-understandings can happen, especially regarding the emotional content. So please don’t impute anger–anger to too great a quantity leads to violence, and I stay far away from those who espouse violence, when non-violence is so much more correct.

…the following Open Source innovations have meant for the world: The web, the browser.

What? The Web isn’t a piece of software, it’s the overlay of one new protocol over existing Internet protocols, an incremental advance over stuff like like Archie and Gopher. And The Browser exists in both open and closed source forms, with more or less equal capability. The early browsers were not produced by Open Source projects, they were written by government-paid contractors, like the rest of the Internet.

The existence of what we think of as the internet is an impossibility without free software.

Says who? The software that runs the Internet is for the most part the property of corporations like Cisco and Microsoft who have the funds to pay any price.

The other, and for me one of the foremost innovations from the freedom perspective is that Open Source is a real-world demonstration of how people can accomplish huge complex tasks without the involvement of any whip-cracking authority.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you’ve never been involved in an Open Source project. Just because no money changes hands doesn’t mean there isn’t authoritarian control. These projects function just like any other cult, with in-groups and out-groups.

It’s fine the tout the virtues of advertising-supported software (what Open Source really is) but you don’t have to drink that grape Kool-Aid.

And to engima: count the Linux DISTROS currently active in the world, OK? That was my point, obviously.

…the following Open Source innovations have meant for the world: The web, the browser.

What? The Web isn’t a piece of software, it’s the overlay of one new protocol over existing Internet protocols, an incremental advance over stuff like like Archie and Gopher. And The Browser exists in both open and closed source forms, with more or less equal capability. The early browsers were not produced by Open Source projects, they were written by government-paid contractors, like the rest of the Internet.

The existence of what we think of as the internet is an impossibility without free software.

Says who? The software that runs the Internet is for the most part the property of corporations like Cisco and Microsoft who have the funds to pay any price.

The other, and for me one of the foremost innovations from the freedom perspective is that Open Source is a real-world demonstration of how people can accomplish huge complex tasks without the involvement of any whip-cracking authority.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you’ve never been involved in an Open Source project. Just because no money changes hands doesn’t mean there isn’t authoritarian control. These projects function just like any other cult, with in-groups and out-groups.

It’s fine the tout the virtues of advertising-supported software (what Open Source really is) but you don’t have to drink that grape Kool-Aid.

And to engima: count the Linux DISTROS currently active in the world, OK? That was my point, obviously.

The early browsers were not produced by Open Source projects, they were written by government-paid contractors, like the rest of the Internet.

Those browsers are available under open source licenses, and many were public domain when written. For the sake of Tim’s argument, software that is part of the public domain is closer to Open Source than it is to proprietary software.

These projects function just like any other cult, with in-groups and out-groups.

Richard, so glad to see that you are taking the high road and refraining from using any inappropriate, overly colored metaphors!

And to engima[sic]: count the Linux DISTROS currently active in the world, OK? That was my point, obviously.

Linux strictly speaking means the kernel, and any time anyone uses the word Linux, I will understand it to mean the kernel Linux, which can comprise a part of a GNU/Linux system. Just be precise with your language and you won’t be misunderstood. I seem to recall a few exchanges in the past where you did n’t have any trouble making your meaning clear!

The early browsers were not produced by Open Source projects, they were written by government-paid contractors, like the rest of the Internet.

Those browsers are available under open source licenses, and many were public domain when written. For the sake of Tim’s argument, software that is part of the public domain is closer to Open Source than it is to proprietary software.

These projects function just like any other cult, with in-groups and out-groups.

Richard, so glad to see that you are taking the high road and refraining from using any inappropriate, overly colored metaphors!


And to engima[sic]: count the Linux DISTROS currently active in the world, OK? That was my point, obviously.

Linux strictly speaking means the kernel, and any time anyone uses the word Linux, I will understand it to mean the kernel Linux, which can comprise a part of a GNU/Linux system. Just be precise with your language and you won’t be misunderstood. I seem to recall a few exchanges in the past where you did n’t have any trouble making your meaning clear!

Yes, the web protocols are an incremental improvement that was open source and free while the corporate side was busy with crap like MSN and AOL. It has revolutionized the world. Maybe CERN are just jackbooted government bureaucrats and the real innovation is happening over in Redmond, what with their innovative QDOS and the 2007 vintage “Power Shell.”

The right to fork does in fact mean that there cannot be anything like authoritarian control. You dont like it you can leave and take 100% of the work product with you, which is like having a government without the power to tax or jail. And I have been involved at the margins with some translations and testing of open source projects and have never had to deal with anything more distressing than a few overeager help requests.

Anyway, Richard, as far as manners and usefulness of conversation, it would be better if instead of saying stuff like “Says who? The software that runs the Internet is for the most part the property of corporations like Cisco and Microsoft who have the funds to pay any price,” you said things like, “while you could make a good case that FreeBSD and Apache were the major spur to the early web with sites like Yahoo and Hotmail coming out of nowhere, really the enabler was Cisco doing x y and z.” (It wasn’t, isn’t, and has never been MSFT.)

Anyway, despite never having been bogged down in what I have heard are occasional Open Source projects’ pettiness and uncooperativeness, at the moment I have a pretty good idea how it might feel!

Yes, the web protocols are an incremental improvement that was open source and free while the corporate side was busy with crap like MSN and AOL. It has revolutionized the world. Maybe CERN are just jackbooted government bureaucrats and the real innovation is happening over in Redmond, what with their innovative QDOS and the 2007 vintage “Power Shell.”

The right to fork does in fact mean that there cannot be anything like authoritarian control. You dont like it you can leave and take 100% of the work product with you, which is like having a government without the power to tax or jail. And I have been involved at the margins with some translations and testing of open source projects and have never had to deal with anything more distressing than a few overeager help requests.

Anyway, Richard, as far as manners and usefulness of conversation, it would be better if instead of saying stuff like “Says who? The software that runs the Internet is for the most part the property of corporations like Cisco and Microsoft who have the funds to pay any price,” you said things like, “while you could make a good case that FreeBSD and Apache were the major spur to the early web with sites like Yahoo and Hotmail coming out of nowhere, really the enabler was Cisco doing x y and z.” (It wasn’t, isn’t, and has never been MSFT.)

Anyway, despite never having been bogged down in what I have heard are occasional Open Source projects’ pettiness and uncooperativeness, at the moment I have a pretty good idea how it might feel!

I’m going to play the “touchy-feely” card. If a bunch of socially dysfunctional people promoting open source software want to waste their valuable time and money making poor quality software that no one will want to use, why not let them? Let them live in their pseudo utopian virtual world. It’s not going to hurt you and its cheaper than putting them in institutions.

As previously mentioned, one of the pet concepts of this forum is that our individual actions result in market solutions. If people like a product they will buy, if not they will shun it. When posting on this website criticizing unethical corporate behavior, I am consistently admonished to remember this Darwinian principle.

If open source is as evil as claimed, it will sink into oblivion. If it turns out to be better than proprietary software, it will flourish and grow. In the meantime it is a great social experiment with measurable real world results. So let the market work!

I’m going to play the “touchy-feely” card. If a bunch of socially dysfunctional people promoting open source software want to waste their valuable time and money making poor quality software that no one will want to use, why not let them? Let them live in their pseudo utopian virtual world. It’s not going to hurt you and its cheaper than putting them in institutions.

As previously mentioned, one of the pet concepts of this forum is that our individual actions result in market solutions. If people like a product they will buy, if not they will shun it. When posting on this website criticizing unethical corporate behavior, I am consistently admonished to remember this Darwinian principle.

If open source is as evil as claimed, it will sink into oblivion. If it turns out to be better than proprietary software, it will flourish and grow. In the meantime it is a great social experiment with measurable real world results. So let the market work!

I don’t think Open Source is evil, actually I find it quite useful. My standard desktop OS is Linux, and I develop products for a Linux platform. So I’m the first to admit that it’s quite useful and all. But I draw the line at romanticizing it and trying to make it into something that it’s not. In the current discussion, the argument was over the degree to which Open Source projects have produced radical change, not whether they’re evil.

I don’t think Open Source is evil, actually I find it quite useful. My standard desktop OS is Linux, and I develop products for a Linux platform. So I’m the first to admit that it’s quite useful and all. But I draw the line at romanticizing it and trying to make it into something that it’s not. In the current discussion, the argument was over the degree to which Open Source projects have produced radical change, not whether they’re evil.

“evil” may not have been the best word; a bit of exaggeration associated with my sarcasm. Anyway, the point remains, if Open Source can produce radical change it deserves a place in our free market economy.

“evil” may not have been the best word; a bit of exaggeration associated with my sarcasm. Anyway, the point remains, if Open Source can produce radical change it deserves a place in our free market economy.