This has been bothering me for a while...
I have noticed a bit of traffic lately in response to recent
developments within the FCC. People are concerned, and rightly so,
about the prospect of further monoplization of major media and the
encouragement of these developments that recent proposed legislation
will perpetrate. I agree wholeheartedly with the steps our community
members have suggested to hinder this siad monopolization. The
discussion has simply brought to mind another serious issue regarding
which we seem to either not be aware or not be concerned.
The issue is that of a major monopoly.
It seems that we can agree that a monopoly is a bad idea. It puts too
much power into the hands of one person or group to manipulate and
control an industry, and, therefore, too much latitude to control the
choices, behavior and freedom of others.
As such, I am personally mystified regarding our continued support of
the Microsoft monopoly of the software industry. It is a known fact
that Microsoft has manipulated and conjoled the software industry, that
they have stolen code from other's projects and made it their own, that
they have squelched competition through untoward means and have
perpetually strived to stamp out choice in the world of computer
software. And yet, we are still using their software, purchasing their
licenses and supporting their monopoly of this industry.
When I have spoken to members regarding this issue, it seems many are
not aware of the choices that exist in this field. In fact, there
seems
to be a prevailing concept that Microsoft is necessary. Indeed, in
popular culture, there is even the notion that Microsoft Windows is a
necessary part of every copmuter.
I am here to tell you that that is wrong, and a direct result of
Microsoft's continued war against choices in software.
Let me tell you that I, myself, use absolutely NO microsoft products.
I own three computers that run perfectly fine, in fact, excellently
well, without Microsoft Windows. These computers have not been
affected
by the recent worms that have wreaked such havoc on computers
worldwide,
in fact. Two of them run Red Hat Linux and the third is an Apple
laptop
computer.
Gnu/Linux is an open source operating system. It is a FREE clone of
the
Unix operating system. Gnu/Linux is powerful, stable, secure,
configurable, and increasingly easy to use. It is built by a community
of software developers that believe in working for the benefit of all,
sharing the fruits of their labors, rather than licensing their
software
in a fashion (like Microsoft) that locks users into draconian licensing
schemes and upgrade schedules. There are other Open source operating
systems, as well, such as BSD, another Unix clone. The recent Apple OS
X is built upon a BSD kernel, and is likewise, powerful, stable, secure
and very easy to use.
I built the computer upon which I am presently typing for less than
$500. The software cost me only $39.99 at Staples, and I could have
downloaded it for free. Yes, the operating system and everything that
runs on it on my computer can be had for absolutely free. I have
software that performs every necessary and many frivolous functions. I
have office software for text editing, spreadsheets, presentations,
databases, web editing, graphics manipulation, web browsing,
newsgroups,
e-mail, video and audio, games...everything one could possibly need and
more. Were I to purchase the same software in proprietary equivalents,
I would have needed to spend well over $3000.
Microsoft doesn't want you to know about these alternatives, becuase,
they know if you do, you are likely to stop supporting their monopoly
of
the copmuter software industry. Governments, schools and businesses
worldwide have increasingly been making the change (I call it an
upgrade) to open source software. I believe that we should too.
Open source software is not a new development. When the copmuter
software industry began, copmuter users and evelopers in academia
shared
their code so that all could benefit from their labors. This is the
principle upon which OSS (open source software) is built. Microsoft
wants you to believe that this principle is anti-American, socialist,
and the providence of aging hippies that can't write software. Oddly,
when Microsoft's software is buggy and insecure, the butt of teenage
hacking forrays and the home of that hideous blue screen of death,
linux
runs longer and falls prey to none of the viruses and bugs that plague
windows software. My machine does not crash. It does not fall prey to
viruses. I am free to copy my software and install it on as many
machines as I wish without the need to purchase additional licenses.
I have access to the code of the software so that I can view it, alter
it, upgrade, and share my work with others.
I would also liek to dispel the notion that Linux and other open source
software is the sole providence and sanctuary of seasoned Unix-gurus
with decades of copmuter experience. I purchased my first computer in
October of 2000. I have no formal computer training whatever. I
accomplish all of my work for school (I am a teacher, so create
curricula, manage data, etc), for my websites and for my photography
and
art, and much more, using Linux and free software.
Open source software is free, stable, powerful, built on community
values, sharing, freedom of choice. It is the model of past software
development and the wave of the future. It is the best choice for
schools, in particular, where I have been an advocate for it's adoption
for some time. Schools should not be locked into Microsoft's draconian
licensing and upgrade schemes. Neither should we, and neither should
we
continue to support Microsoft's monopoly of the software industry.
We don't need Microsoft's software, and they certainly don't need our
money.
Support FREEDOM OF CHOICE! Support community developed and share
software.
Use Linux!
Tony Baldwin
Further reading:
reasons to avoid microsoft:
http://www.lugod.org/microsoft/index.php?start=35&filter=linux
open source software:
http://linux.school-library.net
What is FREE software?
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Free Software Foundation:
http://www.fsf.org
I won't even engage this ridiculous email. When you are ready to
discuss
this with a rational head, let's talk. Until you stop comparing
Microsoft to
Hitler, Napoleon, and Saddam Hussein, your heart is not open to a
meaningful
discussion, and I will not stoop to this level of rhetoric.
Respectfully,
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: anthony baldwin [mailto:mrbaldwin@school-library.net]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 5:38 PM
To: carl@franklins.net
Cc: allsoulschat@franklins.net
Subject: Re: [allsoulschat] It's FREE. It works. Duh! {02}
--- "Carl Franklin" <carl@franklins.net> wrote:
>Tony, and all.
"Gnu/Linux is powerful, stable, secure, configurable, and increasingly
easy
to use... Oddly, when Microsoft's software is buggy and insecure, the
butt
of teenage hacking forrays and the home of that hideous blue screen of
death, linux runs longer and falls prey to none of the viruses and bugs
that
plague windows software. My machine does not crash. It does not fall
prey
to viruses."
>This statement that Linux does not fall prey to viruses is absolutely
false.
>This is a link to the current list of vulnerabilities that Linux
(which you
>use) is susceptible to:
The top 15 of these vulnerabilities were just discovered in the last
two
days. Here's one of my favorites:
9/25/2003 10:13 - FreeBSD: core DoS Vulnerability
Under certain circumstances, it is possible for an attacker to flood a
FreeBSD system with spoofed ARP requests, causing resource starvation
which
eventually results in a system panic.
BSD is not linux.
In the three years I have been running Linux I have not been prey to a
single virus. Also, my machine has not crashed once.
Last year there was a Windows PC in my classroom. Students were
perpetually
losing thier projects because the machine would crash on them while
they
were working. It broke my heart. I swear that thing crashed three times
a
week. I wanted so badly to install Linux on that box. I demonstrated
Debian Linux to the administration. I showed them Openoffice.org and
about
a dozen free, opensource educational programs.
That school is now using Linux and Macs only in their computer lab.
What a
smart move! They are saving tens of thousands of dollars in licensing
costs
that would have gone to Microsoft for Windows licenses and MSOffice.
They
also have access to far more software now, for FREE! Open source
software
includes everthing a school needs for library automation, student info
mgmt., web server and database servers, e-mail, office applications and
educational software...for FREE! (Oops, I digress.)
>Did you spend the last few hours updating and patching your system? If
not,
>you are vulnerable. Windows, on the other hand, will automatically
download
>patches and fixes as they are made available by Microsoft, usually
within a
>few hours of vulnerabilities being discovered.
My machine is set up for automatic updates from Red Hat, as well.
Were I running Debian instead of Red Hat linux, one command at terminal
would update my machine. It would take me all of 5 seconds to input
that
command.
>Here's another mis-statement on your part:
>"I have office software for text editing, spreadsheets, presentations,
>databases, web editing, graphics manipulation, web browsing,
newsgroups,
>e-mail, video and audio, games...everything one could possibly need
and
>more. Were I to purchase the same software in proprietary
equivalents, I
>would have needed to spend well over $3000."
This is not a misstatement:
MSWindows costs, at the very least $199.00
MSOffice, $299
Photoshop, $699.00
MSFrontpage, $529.00
MSEntourage- $99.99
MSVisual Stidio .Net-$1079.00
There's $2904.00 already, and I have only scratched the surface of what
I
have in open source software equivalents. I have games, IRC software,
educational software, astronomy software (two virtual planetarium
programs),
software development software, etc., etc.
Red Hat Linux- $39.99 box set (free to download)
OpenOffice.org-Free
the Gimp (Gnu IMage Manipulation Program)- Free
Evolution (e-mail, calendar, etc)-Free with OS.
Several web editors were included free with my OS.
Various software development tools werre bundled with my OS and I have
downloaded others free.
Gates himself has admitted: "BG: Well, We will never have a price
lower
than Linux, in terms of just what you charge for the software." from
(http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-06-29-gates-linux_x.htm)
>This is also incorrect. Even if you wanted to buy a NEW system from
Dell,
>you could buy a state-of-the art machine that gives you All of that
>including a monitor for under $500.
Well, I spent $500 three years ago. I could now build the same system
for
about $200 (Pentium3 1ghz with 512mb ram). I would not have to spend a
dime
on the software. You can't get a properly licensed Windows machine for
$200, and three years ago you coudn't get one for $500. The Windows
license
alone costs $200.
>Here's another false claim:
>"Microsoft wants you to believe that this principle is anti-American,
>socialist, and the providence of aging hippies that can't write
software."
>Can you give me one reference on the big-old Internet where anyone
from
>Microsoft used the words "anti-American", "socialist", or "aging
hippies
>that can't write software"?
Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates have both been quoted as stating that OSS
is
viral, cancerous and anti-American. Gates also said that the GPL was
"Pacman-like" whatever that's supposed to mean. But the hippie comment
I can
only attribute to other MS supporters.
"Microsoft's view of the GPL as some kind of plague, virally infecting
everything it touches, is well-known. The company has outlawed it in
its
licence agreements, described it as a cancer, communistic, un-American,
and
now here's Bill putting a spin on that last one for the benefit of the
reps
of developing economies attending GLC."
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24970.html)
"Ballmer, during an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times on 1 June,
said:
'Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property
sense to
everything it touches.'"
(http://www.silicon.com/news/500008/1/1036284.html)
and (http://www.countercurrents.org/glo-sekhar.htm).
Ballmer calls it a cancer, because the source is open, so that
developers
may use this source code and enhance it or develop derivative projects
from
it, but, if they do so, they are required to release their changes
under the
same open source license, as well. This is to prevent people from
stealing
open source code and using it to make a profit, since the code was
meant for
the benefit of all who could use it, rather than the few who might
profit
from it. Microsoft has used open source code (the Mozilla rendering
engine
is used in Internet Explorer, which is why they can't charge you for
it.), I
think they're upset that they couldn't charge for this product.
".. and neither should we continue to support Microsoft's monopoly of
the
software industry. We don't need Microsoft's software, and they
certainly
don't need our money."
>As for the way you've portrayed Microsoft as being an Evil Empire, let
me
>point out that the founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates gives away
billions of
>dollars in research, medicine, food, and clothing to needy people in
>third-world countries through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
They
>recently (5 days ago) gave $168 million in research money to find new
>strategies for preventing Malaria. Some of that money that you say
Microsoft
>doesn't need has gone to pay for this. Can any Open Source software
company
>make similar claims?
I didn't say they were Evil. Now you're putting words into my mouth.
I said they were a monoply and that monopolies are unhealthy and that
they
have acheived their monoply status through unethical means. You have
done
nothing to refute those claims.
I am perfectly aware of the Gates Foundation. I applauded when I heard
an
article this week on NPR in which a recent donation he has made to NYC
public schools was discussed, in fact. He is funding some very
innovative
and potentially beneficial programs for those schools. Good for him.
It
doesn't justify the unethical means by which his company has drowned
out
other software developers and their work. It doesn't justify the lies
he has
spoken against the open source community.
It doesn't justify the fact that nearly every PC sold today has his
software
on it, depriving consumers of the choice of operating system and
software.
And, it's also pocket change to him, anyway. Let's not characterize
him as
some bleeding heart philanthropist who truly makes any kind of
sacrifice.
He and his still have billions and billions of dollars for their own
gratification and will continue to live in the security and comfort of
their
wealth.
Open source software developers create software and give it away. They
haven't made billions of dollars from manipulating the industry and
squelching competition through untoward means. They don't have
billions to
give away because they have given their work away to benefit billions
of
people, for FREE, which has the potential to save schools, governemnts,
universities and others billions of dollars if it hasn;t already done
so.
"I am personally mystified regarding our continued support of the
Microsoft
monopoly of the software industry."
>Microsoft has earned its position as the top providor of software
because
>people choose to use it. They choose to use it because it has become
>standardized.
When I first bought a computer it had Windows on it. I had no idea
that
there was any choice in this matter. I assumed that Windows was part
of the
machine. People choose Windows and Windows software because it is
shrink-wrapped with their computer and most consumers aren't aware that
there are alternatives.
Try to purchase a PC without Windows from any major manufacturer.
If you want a PC without paying for a Windows License you must do as I
have
done and build your own.
Heck, why don't more people use Corel office products? It's not
because the
software isn't as capable. In fact, Corel Office has fewer
vulnerabilities.
Star Office does everything MSOffice does and more; Openoffice.org does
95%
of what MSOffice does, plus includes a web editor, graphics
manipulation
tools and some other utilities that MSOffice does not have, and it's
FREE!
Also, it runs on Macs, Windows, Linux, Unix and BSD (that's what I call
cross-platform, ie. standard), and handles all major file formats,
including
those of Microsoft's products.
Few people use it because they don't know about it. The Openoffice.org
project doesn't have millions to spend on marketing, because they are
giving
this product away for FREE. In the past two years I have shared
OpenOffice.org with numerous individuals and institutions, including
schools. I can't tell you how shocked they all were to find that they
could
have software of such power and value for FREE! I saved some of these
institutions (schools) thousands in MSOffice licensing costs.
(Schools, especially, should not be paying thousands in licensing costs
or
be locked into Microsoft's draconian licensing schemes when they can
use
open source alternatives for free. Schools don't have money to waste.)
Microsoft software is not better software. I have more stable, more
secure
software on my computer that performs all of the same functions and
paid
nothing for it.
Microsoft doesn't even support open standards, so the argument about
standardization is ridiculous, unless bullying your way to the top so
that
your software is ubiquitous means "standardized." If that is the case,
then
I suppose Napoleon was trying to "standardize". I suppose Hitler was
trying
to "standardize". Microsoft twisted arms to gain their position. If
you
call that earning their position, then I suppose Saddam Hussein earned
the
right to rule Iraq, too, eh?
>If it was not for Microsoft, no small businesses would
>have software to run their businesses on.
Oh, that's rich! Small business can run Linux or BSD for FREE, as many
are
learning. Many governments world-wide are now using Linux, so that
they are
not under Microsoft's thumb, as are many schools AND small business,
even
large businesses.
>It is easy in hindsight to assume
>that we would have gotten there Microsoft or no Microsoft. If not MS,
then
>some other company would have done the same. They are no different
from any
>other software company in that regard.
That's just too vague and general for me to comment on, but I am sure
that
there are many software companies that haven't threatened OEM
manufacturers
to have their software included on machines.
In ten years the Linux community has built an OS that is more powerful,
more
versatile in terms of hardware support, more stable, more secure and
less
of a resource hog than MSWindows. I don't think that a lack of
Microsoft
would have hobbled the software industry.
One of the scariest things about MS is the Palladium project that is in
development, in which they are planning to make it so that computers
can
ONLY run their software by including a chip in the processor that
disallows
the installation or use of anything that does not bear their license,
further locking consumers into a no-choice position where they MUST
continue
to purchase MS Licenses. That is the ultimate in market manipulation
and
would give them far too much power. It frightens me.
>I agree they get away with everything that they possibly can, but that
is
no
>different from IBM, Sun, or any other corporation.
Agreed to a point, but I think that IBM and Sun have behaved more
ethically,
and they certainly cooperate better with others. IBM and Sun both
create
software that works with windows and open source operating systems,
while
Microsoft builds for Microsoft. Heck, MS has even been decreasing
thier
support of Apple-compatible products.
>They play amongst their
>peers on a level playing field.
This I question because of the manipulative practices they have used.
The position they are now in leave this playing field anything but
level.
>The last point I'll make is this. The focus of hackers is always the
big
>dog. That's why when Windows has a vulnerability it makes headlines.
When
>Linux has one, nobody says anything. Did you know that just today
someone
>discovered the vulnerability I quoted above? I'd say that's a pretty
bad
>bug, wouldn't you???
I bet it was fixed faster than any Windows vulnerability.
That's just the thing. Unix and Gnu/Linux vulnerabilities are fewer
and
farther between, and when they are found, they are fixed faster because
there are more people working on them, and therefore less damage is
done.
Open source users don't have to sit around and wait for Microsoft to
fix
something.
I learned a few things here. As I said before, I am not a computer
expert,
but an English teacher. I was forced to do some research on this.
Let's
continue this discussion.
Tony
http://www.School-Library.net
Freedom to Learn!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GED$/L/P/FA d? s: a C++ L++ W++ N++ K- w--- M+ PS++
PE-- Y+ PGP- t+ tv-- b++(b++++) D? G e++++ h++ r--- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
_____________________________________________________________
School-Library.net
Freedom to Learn!
This message came from the All Souls Chat Mailing List
hosted by Franklin's Net.
To send email to the list, address it to
allsoulschat@franklins.net
To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to mdaemon@franklins.net with the words:
"unsubscribe allsoulschat" on the first line.
I have noticed a bit of traffic lately in response to recent
developments within the FCC. People are concerned, and rightly so,
about the prospect of further monoplization of major media and the
encouragement of these developments that recent proposed legislation
will perpetrate. I agree wholeheartedly with the steps our community
members have suggested to hinder this siad monopolization. The
discussion has simply brought to mind another serious issue regarding
which we seem to either not be aware or not be concerned.
The issue is that of a major monopoly.
It seems that we can agree that a monopoly is a bad idea. It puts too
much power into the hands of one person or group to manipulate and
control an industry, and, therefore, too much latitude to control the
choices, behavior and freedom of others.
As such, I am personally mystified regarding our continued support of
the Microsoft monopoly of the software industry. It is a known fact
that Microsoft has manipulated and conjoled the software industry, that
they have stolen code from other's projects and made it their own, that
they have squelched competition through untoward means and have
perpetually strived to stamp out choice in the world of computer
software. And yet, we are still using their software, purchasing their
licenses and supporting their monopoly of this industry.
When I have spoken to members regarding this issue, it seems many are
not aware of the choices that exist in this field. In fact, there
seems
to be a prevailing concept that Microsoft is necessary. Indeed, in
popular culture, there is even the notion that Microsoft Windows is a
necessary part of every copmuter.
I am here to tell you that that is wrong, and a direct result of
Microsoft's continued war against choices in software.
Let me tell you that I, myself, use absolutely NO microsoft products.
I own three computers that run perfectly fine, in fact, excellently
well, without Microsoft Windows. These computers have not been
affected
by the recent worms that have wreaked such havoc on computers
worldwide,
in fact. Two of them run Red Hat Linux and the third is an Apple
laptop
computer.
Gnu/Linux is an open source operating system. It is a FREE clone of
the
Unix operating system. Gnu/Linux is powerful, stable, secure,
configurable, and increasingly easy to use. It is built by a community
of software developers that believe in working for the benefit of all,
sharing the fruits of their labors, rather than licensing their
software
in a fashion (like Microsoft) that locks users into draconian licensing
schemes and upgrade schedules. There are other Open source operating
systems, as well, such as BSD, another Unix clone. The recent Apple OS
X is built upon a BSD kernel, and is likewise, powerful, stable, secure
and very easy to use.
I built the computer upon which I am presently typing for less than
$500. The software cost me only $39.99 at Staples, and I could have
downloaded it for free. Yes, the operating system and everything that
runs on it on my computer can be had for absolutely free. I have
software that performs every necessary and many frivolous functions. I
have office software for text editing, spreadsheets, presentations,
databases, web editing, graphics manipulation, web browsing,
newsgroups,
e-mail, video and audio, games...everything one could possibly need and
more. Were I to purchase the same software in proprietary equivalents,
I would have needed to spend well over $3000.
Microsoft doesn't want you to know about these alternatives, becuase,
they know if you do, you are likely to stop supporting their monopoly
of
the copmuter software industry. Governments, schools and businesses
worldwide have increasingly been making the change (I call it an
upgrade) to open source software. I believe that we should too.
Open source software is not a new development. When the copmuter
software industry began, copmuter users and evelopers in academia
shared
their code so that all could benefit from their labors. This is the
principle upon which OSS (open source software) is built. Microsoft
wants you to believe that this principle is anti-American, socialist,
and the providence of aging hippies that can't write software. Oddly,
when Microsoft's software is buggy and insecure, the butt of teenage
hacking forrays and the home of that hideous blue screen of death,
linux
runs longer and falls prey to none of the viruses and bugs that plague
windows software. My machine does not crash. It does not fall prey to
viruses. I am free to copy my software and install it on as many
machines as I wish without the need to purchase additional licenses.
I have access to the code of the software so that I can view it, alter
it, upgrade, and share my work with others.
I would also liek to dispel the notion that Linux and other open source
software is the sole providence and sanctuary of seasoned Unix-gurus
with decades of copmuter experience. I purchased my first computer in
October of 2000. I have no formal computer training whatever. I
accomplish all of my work for school (I am a teacher, so create
curricula, manage data, etc), for my websites and for my photography
and
art, and much more, using Linux and free software.
Open source software is free, stable, powerful, built on community
values, sharing, freedom of choice. It is the model of past software
development and the wave of the future. It is the best choice for
schools, in particular, where I have been an advocate for it's adoption
for some time. Schools should not be locked into Microsoft's draconian
licensing and upgrade schemes. Neither should we, and neither should
we
continue to support Microsoft's monopoly of the software industry.
We don't need Microsoft's software, and they certainly don't need our
money.
Support FREEDOM OF CHOICE! Support community developed and share
software.
Use Linux!
Tony Baldwin
Further reading:
reasons to avoid microsoft:
http://www.lugod.org/microsoft/index.php?start=35&filter=linux
open source software:
http://linux.school-library.net
What is FREE software?
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Free Software Foundation:
http://www.fsf.org
I won't even engage this ridiculous email. When you are ready to
discuss
this with a rational head, let's talk. Until you stop comparing
Microsoft to
Hitler, Napoleon, and Saddam Hussein, your heart is not open to a
meaningful
discussion, and I will not stoop to this level of rhetoric.
Respectfully,
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: anthony baldwin [mailto:mrbaldwin@school-library.net]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 5:38 PM
To: carl@franklins.net
Cc: allsoulschat@franklins.net
Subject: Re: [allsoulschat] It's FREE. It works. Duh! {02}
--- "Carl Franklin" <carl@franklins.net> wrote:
>Tony, and all.
"Gnu/Linux is powerful, stable, secure, configurable, and increasingly
easy
to use... Oddly, when Microsoft's software is buggy and insecure, the
butt
of teenage hacking forrays and the home of that hideous blue screen of
death, linux runs longer and falls prey to none of the viruses and bugs
that
plague windows software. My machine does not crash. It does not fall
prey
to viruses."
>This statement that Linux does not fall prey to viruses is absolutely
false.
>This is a link to the current list of vulnerabilities that Linux
(which you
>use) is susceptible to:
The top 15 of these vulnerabilities were just discovered in the last
two
days. Here's one of my favorites:
9/25/2003 10:13 - FreeBSD: core DoS Vulnerability
Under certain circumstances, it is possible for an attacker to flood a
FreeBSD system with spoofed ARP requests, causing resource starvation
which
eventually results in a system panic.
BSD is not linux.
In the three years I have been running Linux I have not been prey to a
single virus. Also, my machine has not crashed once.
Last year there was a Windows PC in my classroom. Students were
perpetually
losing thier projects because the machine would crash on them while
they
were working. It broke my heart. I swear that thing crashed three times
a
week. I wanted so badly to install Linux on that box. I demonstrated
Debian Linux to the administration. I showed them Openoffice.org and
about
a dozen free, opensource educational programs.
That school is now using Linux and Macs only in their computer lab.
What a
smart move! They are saving tens of thousands of dollars in licensing
costs
that would have gone to Microsoft for Windows licenses and MSOffice.
They
also have access to far more software now, for FREE! Open source
software
includes everthing a school needs for library automation, student info
mgmt., web server and database servers, e-mail, office applications and
educational software...for FREE! (Oops, I digress.)
>Did you spend the last few hours updating and patching your system? If
not,
>you are vulnerable. Windows, on the other hand, will automatically
download
>patches and fixes as they are made available by Microsoft, usually
within a
>few hours of vulnerabilities being discovered.
My machine is set up for automatic updates from Red Hat, as well.
Were I running Debian instead of Red Hat linux, one command at terminal
would update my machine. It would take me all of 5 seconds to input
that
command.
>Here's another mis-statement on your part:
>"I have office software for text editing, spreadsheets, presentations,
>databases, web editing, graphics manipulation, web browsing,
newsgroups,
>e-mail, video and audio, games...everything one could possibly need
and
>more. Were I to purchase the same software in proprietary
equivalents, I
>would have needed to spend well over $3000."
This is not a misstatement:
MSWindows costs, at the very least $199.00
MSOffice, $299
Photoshop, $699.00
MSFrontpage, $529.00
MSEntourage- $99.99
MSVisual Stidio .Net-$1079.00
There's $2904.00 already, and I have only scratched the surface of what
I
have in open source software equivalents. I have games, IRC software,
educational software, astronomy software (two virtual planetarium
programs),
software development software, etc., etc.
Red Hat Linux- $39.99 box set (free to download)
OpenOffice.org-Free
the Gimp (Gnu IMage Manipulation Program)- Free
Evolution (e-mail, calendar, etc)-Free with OS.
Several web editors were included free with my OS.
Various software development tools werre bundled with my OS and I have
downloaded others free.
Gates himself has admitted: "BG: Well, We will never have a price
lower
than Linux, in terms of just what you charge for the software." from
(http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-06-29-gates-linux_x.htm)
>This is also incorrect. Even if you wanted to buy a NEW system from
Dell,
>you could buy a state-of-the art machine that gives you All of that
>including a monitor for under $500.
Well, I spent $500 three years ago. I could now build the same system
for
about $200 (Pentium3 1ghz with 512mb ram). I would not have to spend a
dime
on the software. You can't get a properly licensed Windows machine for
$200, and three years ago you coudn't get one for $500. The Windows
license
alone costs $200.
>Here's another false claim:
>"Microsoft wants you to believe that this principle is anti-American,
>socialist, and the providence of aging hippies that can't write
software."
>Can you give me one reference on the big-old Internet where anyone
from
>Microsoft used the words "anti-American", "socialist", or "aging
hippies
>that can't write software"?
Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates have both been quoted as stating that OSS
is
viral, cancerous and anti-American. Gates also said that the GPL was
"Pacman-like" whatever that's supposed to mean. But the hippie comment
I can
only attribute to other MS supporters.
"Microsoft's view of the GPL as some kind of plague, virally infecting
everything it touches, is well-known. The company has outlawed it in
its
licence agreements, described it as a cancer, communistic, un-American,
and
now here's Bill putting a spin on that last one for the benefit of the
reps
of developing economies attending GLC."
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24970.html)
"Ballmer, during an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times on 1 June,
said:
'Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property
sense to
everything it touches.'"
(http://www.silicon.com/news/500008/1/1036284.html)
and (http://www.countercurrents.org/glo-sekhar.htm).
Ballmer calls it a cancer, because the source is open, so that
developers
may use this source code and enhance it or develop derivative projects
from
it, but, if they do so, they are required to release their changes
under the
same open source license, as well. This is to prevent people from
stealing
open source code and using it to make a profit, since the code was
meant for
the benefit of all who could use it, rather than the few who might
profit
from it. Microsoft has used open source code (the Mozilla rendering
engine
is used in Internet Explorer, which is why they can't charge you for
it.), I
think they're upset that they couldn't charge for this product.
".. and neither should we continue to support Microsoft's monopoly of
the
software industry. We don't need Microsoft's software, and they
certainly
don't need our money."
>As for the way you've portrayed Microsoft as being an Evil Empire, let
me
>point out that the founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates gives away
billions of
>dollars in research, medicine, food, and clothing to needy people in
>third-world countries through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
They
>recently (5 days ago) gave $168 million in research money to find new
>strategies for preventing Malaria. Some of that money that you say
Microsoft
>doesn't need has gone to pay for this. Can any Open Source software
company
>make similar claims?
I didn't say they were Evil. Now you're putting words into my mouth.
I said they were a monoply and that monopolies are unhealthy and that
they
have acheived their monoply status through unethical means. You have
done
nothing to refute those claims.
I am perfectly aware of the Gates Foundation. I applauded when I heard
an
article this week on NPR in which a recent donation he has made to NYC
public schools was discussed, in fact. He is funding some very
innovative
and potentially beneficial programs for those schools. Good for him.
It
doesn't justify the unethical means by which his company has drowned
out
other software developers and their work. It doesn't justify the lies
he has
spoken against the open source community.
It doesn't justify the fact that nearly every PC sold today has his
software
on it, depriving consumers of the choice of operating system and
software.
And, it's also pocket change to him, anyway. Let's not characterize
him as
some bleeding heart philanthropist who truly makes any kind of
sacrifice.
He and his still have billions and billions of dollars for their own
gratification and will continue to live in the security and comfort of
their
wealth.
Open source software developers create software and give it away. They
haven't made billions of dollars from manipulating the industry and
squelching competition through untoward means. They don't have
billions to
give away because they have given their work away to benefit billions
of
people, for FREE, which has the potential to save schools, governemnts,
universities and others billions of dollars if it hasn;t already done
so.
"I am personally mystified regarding our continued support of the
Microsoft
monopoly of the software industry."
>Microsoft has earned its position as the top providor of software
because
>people choose to use it. They choose to use it because it has become
>standardized.
When I first bought a computer it had Windows on it. I had no idea
that
there was any choice in this matter. I assumed that Windows was part
of the
machine. People choose Windows and Windows software because it is
shrink-wrapped with their computer and most consumers aren't aware that
there are alternatives.
Try to purchase a PC without Windows from any major manufacturer.
If you want a PC without paying for a Windows License you must do as I
have
done and build your own.
Heck, why don't more people use Corel office products? It's not
because the
software isn't as capable. In fact, Corel Office has fewer
vulnerabilities.
Star Office does everything MSOffice does and more; Openoffice.org does
95%
of what MSOffice does, plus includes a web editor, graphics
manipulation
tools and some other utilities that MSOffice does not have, and it's
FREE!
Also, it runs on Macs, Windows, Linux, Unix and BSD (that's what I call
cross-platform, ie. standard), and handles all major file formats,
including
those of Microsoft's products.
Few people use it because they don't know about it. The Openoffice.org
project doesn't have millions to spend on marketing, because they are
giving
this product away for FREE. In the past two years I have shared
OpenOffice.org with numerous individuals and institutions, including
schools. I can't tell you how shocked they all were to find that they
could
have software of such power and value for FREE! I saved some of these
institutions (schools) thousands in MSOffice licensing costs.
(Schools, especially, should not be paying thousands in licensing costs
or
be locked into Microsoft's draconian licensing schemes when they can
use
open source alternatives for free. Schools don't have money to waste.)
Microsoft software is not better software. I have more stable, more
secure
software on my computer that performs all of the same functions and
paid
nothing for it.
Microsoft doesn't even support open standards, so the argument about
standardization is ridiculous, unless bullying your way to the top so
that
your software is ubiquitous means "standardized." If that is the case,
then
I suppose Napoleon was trying to "standardize". I suppose Hitler was
trying
to "standardize". Microsoft twisted arms to gain their position. If
you
call that earning their position, then I suppose Saddam Hussein earned
the
right to rule Iraq, too, eh?
>If it was not for Microsoft, no small businesses would
>have software to run their businesses on.
Oh, that's rich! Small business can run Linux or BSD for FREE, as many
are
learning. Many governments world-wide are now using Linux, so that
they are
not under Microsoft's thumb, as are many schools AND small business,
even
large businesses.
>It is easy in hindsight to assume
>that we would have gotten there Microsoft or no Microsoft. If not MS,
then
>some other company would have done the same. They are no different
from any
>other software company in that regard.
That's just too vague and general for me to comment on, but I am sure
that
there are many software companies that haven't threatened OEM
manufacturers
to have their software included on machines.
In ten years the Linux community has built an OS that is more powerful,
more
versatile in terms of hardware support, more stable, more secure and
less
of a resource hog than MSWindows. I don't think that a lack of
Microsoft
would have hobbled the software industry.
One of the scariest things about MS is the Palladium project that is in
development, in which they are planning to make it so that computers
can
ONLY run their software by including a chip in the processor that
disallows
the installation or use of anything that does not bear their license,
further locking consumers into a no-choice position where they MUST
continue
to purchase MS Licenses. That is the ultimate in market manipulation
and
would give them far too much power. It frightens me.
>I agree they get away with everything that they possibly can, but that
is
no
>different from IBM, Sun, or any other corporation.
Agreed to a point, but I think that IBM and Sun have behaved more
ethically,
and they certainly cooperate better with others. IBM and Sun both
create
software that works with windows and open source operating systems,
while
Microsoft builds for Microsoft. Heck, MS has even been decreasing
thier
support of Apple-compatible products.
>They play amongst their
>peers on a level playing field.
This I question because of the manipulative practices they have used.
The position they are now in leave this playing field anything but
level.
>The last point I'll make is this. The focus of hackers is always the
big
>dog. That's why when Windows has a vulnerability it makes headlines.
When
>Linux has one, nobody says anything. Did you know that just today
someone
>discovered the vulnerability I quoted above? I'd say that's a pretty
bad
>bug, wouldn't you???
I bet it was fixed faster than any Windows vulnerability.
That's just the thing. Unix and Gnu/Linux vulnerabilities are fewer
and
farther between, and when they are found, they are fixed faster because
there are more people working on them, and therefore less damage is
done.
Open source users don't have to sit around and wait for Microsoft to
fix
something.
I learned a few things here. As I said before, I am not a computer
expert,
but an English teacher. I was forced to do some research on this.
Let's
continue this discussion.
Tony
http://www.School-Library.net
Freedom to Learn!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GED$/L/P/FA d? s: a C++ L++ W++ N++ K- w--- M+ PS++
PE-- Y+ PGP- t+ tv-- b++(b++++) D? G e++++ h++ r--- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
_____________________________________________________________
School-Library.net
Freedom to Learn!
This message came from the All Souls Chat Mailing List
hosted by Franklin's Net.
To send email to the list, address it to
allsoulschat@franklins.net
To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to mdaemon@franklins.net with the words:
"unsubscribe allsoulschat" on the first line.
