[Olug-list] Anti-MS

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Do you have any comments to this little piece which I plan to build 
out to a serious article? Is there something I could/should add? Are 
the comments about the relations between free and commercial solutions 
incomplete, and what more could be said?


Linux at the desktop

By Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

It is beyond doubt that it was very wise of the Linux movement to 
start with and spend its "childhood" on the server market. This 
because the server world is the backbone of network computing and of 
the Internet, and because Linux and Open Source is a widespread 
standard within the network sector, the proprietary software companies 
cannot possibly outlaw it by extensive lobbying towards politicians 
and lawmakers or by buying themselves into hardware makers in order to 
force them into producing motherboards incompatible with Linux and OS 
programs.

However, the ultimate future of Linux and Open Source depends on its 
ability to win the desktop. Unless everyday users can discover that 
Linux an attractive choice, Windows will continue to rule.

The opportunity for Linux/Open Source to win the desktop has never 
been greater than what it is now. Why? Because of the software 
straitjacket into which Microsoft and most probably other software 
companies want to force their users.

With the XP series' Product Activation the user has been made 
dependent on the software company's service in order to install his or 
her working tool on his or her own personal computer. It is really odd 
that this aspect has seldom been brought to the fore, even if forced 
registration or/and activation means that the user cannot install and 
use the program(s) independent on the software company. This means 
that the software company has effectively taken control over the 
machine. When the activation/registration service is unavailable, the 
program version one has is no longer supported, or the company for 
some reason refuses to authorize the installation, one has paid for a 
bunch of useless code, and the machine will be unusable.

If a software company controls the software on the computer, it de 
facto is in control of the whole machine and its use.

It should be fairly obvious that from a user viewpoint it is 
completely intolerable to use software that cannot be installed and 
used today, tomorrow and in X number of years, on the present or 
future computer of our choice, without any need for "permission" from 
a software company.

We need to make people aware of the ramifications of forced 
registration and activation schemes, and this is the strongest 
argument for Linux and Open Source solutions: They give people back 
their right to be masters of their own computers.

A similar reasoning can be used in connection with the software 
business' plans to change software from individual, personal and 
locally controlled working tools into subscription services. With 
software as a rented service it is impossible to do as much as write a 
letter to Grandma without having paid the subscription. With the 
coming of hard drives and storage media with ever greater storage 
capacity it is totally unneccessary as well as very unwise to base our 
computing on software as a subscription service.

Data security in its broadest sense, encompassing but of course not 
limited to each unit's or individual's full control over the software 
and hardware, can only be maintained by local solutions where each 
firm and each user controls the computers, and if the large software 
businesses intend to secure their future revenue by going over to 
software rental as their business model, we ought to just say no. This 
is another very strong reason why Linux and Open Source is a much 
preferable solution.

We know that the large software companies have grave misgivings 
against Open Source. Some representatives of the proprietary software 
business have gone so far as to call Open Source a threat to the 
intellectual property business, and they have even stated that they 
may not have done enough to make the lawmakers "understand the 
threat." Such sinister language testifies to the proprietary software 
businesses' very correctly perceiving Open Source a threat. But 
exactly to what is Open Source a threat?

Open Source is a threat to the controlling business model of the large 
companies who make proprietary software, a model which imposes strong 
restrictions on the users' use of the software. This is what we need 
to make people aware of. It is of course not a threat to the 
intellectual property as such. Open Source is itself protected by 
copyright, which also ensures a writer his or her right to protect the 
code from being appropriated by a large company.

The thing is that the large proprietary software makers do not want 
people to go choose Open Source solutions. In particular they do not 
want Open Source to win the desktop. That is why they are very eager 
to spread the impression that Linux and Open Source is not suitable 
for desktop computing. They cannot outlaw it because Linux is already 
so firmly entrenched in the server market, so they have to use another 
clever strategy. What they can do is make every effort to convince the 
public that only proprietary software as produced by Microsoft and 
others can be functional and useful. That is why some corporate 
lawyers and analysts have written elaborately about the alleged 
shortcomings of Open Source as a viable desktop solution.

It is imperative to realize that this is their way of fighting for 
their own future. The restrictive software licenses and other schemes 
that deprive the user of proprietary software of the possibility to be 
master ower one's own computer is not to the computer owners' 
advantage, but they are mechanisms employed by these businesses in 
order to establish and maintain control over their users.

Here the proprietary software companies will predictably defend 
themselves by asserting that they need to impose restrictive licenses, 
copy"protection" schemes and and other limitations on the users in 
order to defend their business and their intellectual property. Now, 
Open Source has long ago proven its viability, and the Open Source 
model is evidently realistic. This is what the proprietary businesses 
have grudgingly had to admit. Hence their misrepresentations of Open 
Source, amounting to well planned FUD campaigns. They know full well 
that the day a large portion of the world's computer users understands 
that the large business model for development, production and 
distriburtion of computer software is not needed, the income of these 
businesses will be drastically reduced and their centralized, 
restrictive and controlling model will find favor with fewer customers.

They habitually justify themselves by referring to the software 
business' importance for society because of all the people they employ 
and the sizable tax incomes generated. We should not let ourselves be 
swaywed by these arguments. The centralized and controlling model for 
software development is not necessary, and it is in the long run 
detrimental to society because of its strong need to control the 
market, the user and their computers in order to secure their revenue. 
Which of course lies at the root of all their intolerably restrictive 
licenses and regulations. It is also the reason why many of them would 
like to hire out software as a subscription service without the option 
to have local software installations.

Then, we need to realize that many software companies have to go. 
Society cannot possibly accept the restrictions these companies intend 
to impose upon us and our computing. We cannot accept their ways 
merely because they employ large numbers of people. Since the primary 
value of software lies in its worth as working tools, we have to focus 
on this aspect instead of letting us be manipulated by the software 
industry's attempts to control our future computing.

When the business model of the large companies has finally lived out 
its days, there will always be opportunities for smaller firms and 
creative individuals who can offer their solutions to the market. It 
is another of the misunderstandings deliberately put forward by the 
big proprietary software manufacturers that Open Source is about the 
demand that everything be free. It is not so. We have every reason to 
believe that the computing future in a forever changing world will 
always provide opportunities for different free and commercial 
creative solutions that will benefit the users as well as create 
income for the producers. This variety of solutions should be actively 
encouraged by governments and private individuals alike.

In conclusion, we absolutely need to leave the large business model 
for development and distriution of software. In this picture, it is 
crucially important to understand that Open Source must go to the 
desktop and stay there in order for this to happen.

Greetings,
Per Inge
http://www.coldsiberia.org/