[lug] SSSCA to make all open source software illegal

[J. Wayde Allen]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, John Karns wrote:

> I don't think that our views are that much different, but I *would* argue
> that the GUI is a defacto necessity for ease of use today in a mass
> market.  That's not to say that this would apply wrt to techie / power
> users.  We have a choice as to whether we wish to use it or not.

You may be right.  I do think we have to be careful that we keep our
choices available.

> I think it's a lot different - it's open source for one.  Secondly it's an
> open system.  I guess some still consider MSW to be an open system, but
> certainly not in the same way that Linux is.  Underneath the GUI config
> utilities, I can still access the system cfg files and customize a great
> deal; not to mention choices of window managers, etc.  I don't see the
> simplified cfg that you speak of as being undesireable, as long as it
> doesn't tie my hands.

Yes but you also have to remember that the thing that made the PC and DOS
so ubiquitous was its openness.  This was a platform that anyone could
build hardware for.  You could even clone the basic structure, and DOS
wasn't completely closed.  It wasn't unheard of for people to hack the DOS
command processor.  There were even competing versions of DOS.  All of
this meant that people could inovate and have fun.  Later it became a big
business and things started closing up.  That meant that if you wanted to
write a program now you have to buy a development kit.

In many ways I think that Linux and many of the other OS's (FreeBSD comes
to mind) are simply extensions of the open model originally (accidentally)
started by IBM and capitalized on by Microsoft.  I think many of us would
have to admit that Microsoft was one of the good guys in the early
days.  After all they made many things possible and helped the open
hardware movement.  Today because of this we have these computers and the
new open frontier is software.  I don't think things are all that
different, just the names of the players and the commodities
involved.

I'm not so sure that Linux was a great innovation.  It is afterall
basically a copy of the original Unix.  I think it was the timing.  The
openness gave people back the fun and the ability to innovate.  Once again
you could tinker, play, program and build new and exciting things.  Now
you see the scramble to try and force this openness into a business model
to make money.  To do this usually implies some sort of control, at least
this has historically been the case.  I think you also see this in the
various commercial distribution models.  After all, they do have to find
something that they think you've got to have that the others don't, and
that they have exclusive rights to.  This really isn't that much different
than the Microsoft business model.

In a sense I guess Linux is fun as long as we don't take ourselves so
incredibly seriously.  We can play, experiment, and make good use of our
interests.  When we decide to make money this way and become the so called
main stream OS, then it kind of quits being so much fun.  Once this
happens it is now work.

> This is true in the same sense that I can choose not to use SuSE YaST
> or xconfigurator / (name any similar automated system cfg utility
> here) and manipulate the system cfg directly if I desire.

True, but in practice my experience has been that this adds another layer
of complexity to an already complex system.  Now if you want to manually
configure the system in a way not directly possible with YaST you often
need to figure out what YaST has done in order to undo what it has
configured and modify it.  That is an extra bit of work that I think
shouldn't be necessary.  It all kind of depends on how embedded the
configuration utility is into the system.  If you've just got a utility
that helps set normal configuration files that is often workable.  If
however the system uses a configuration database that is maintained by the
utility then you've got a more complex problem.  Basically, you are
beginning to build the Linux version of the MSWindows Registry.

> This is what I mean by the modular approach, and when I say that X is *on
> top* of the OS - not imbedded in it as are the GUI components of the other
> OS.

Yes, agreed.

> One thing that was recently mentioned here is a sore need for a printing
> subsystem uniform across distros.  Probably extremely difficult, but
> extremely necessary.

Yes, I remember that discussion and I typed up a reply suggesting that
maybe the problem wasn't quite what was described or that I didn't really
understand the issues (quite possible).  My hope was that we
could get a discussion going to identify the difficulties if any, and help
to target possible solutions.  I tend to think that this is one of the
areas where the LUG's can help direct the Linux community.  This can be
re-read at
<http://archive.lug.boulder.co.us/bymonth/2001.10/msg00014.html>.  So far
there have been few replies.

> I didn't necessarily mean to say or imply that dominance is necessary
> (nice to dream though), but a strong presence, which I think is different.
> Granted that Linux has a strong presence in the server arena; but it's
> transparent to the non-tech types.

Not sure this matters all that much.  The so-called "non-tech" types I
don't think care what system they are running.  They only use the computer
because they've been told they should or must.  Granted that this is the
big business market.  It is not however, the only market.  Linux seems to
be doing very well for instance in the embedded systems market which is
driven more by the technically savy types.  This could very well be a
bigger market than the desktop computerized typewriter.  Here you are
talking about MPEG players, Television sets, Video Games, Cars, Cell
Phones, etc..

> I guess I'm a bit jaded when it comes to relying on human traits.

That is funny.  People are pretty darn consistent when it comes to basic
traits.

> digression: And this encompasses the principles of the scientific method
> as you put it as well.  Things are changing rapidly in this area.  The
> corp's are moving into the labs, as they are subsidizing a great deal of
> what was formerly publicly subsidized.  I think that the scientific
> community has lost a lot of the independence that it once had.

Oh I very much agree!  This is a real problem and what I was alluding to
earlier.  The issue of intelectual property is almost certainly going to
be the biggest topic of this century, and if we aren't careful could be
our undoing.  If we create a situation where we can't easily share ideas
and brainstorm I don't really see how we can expect to make much
progress.  After all, the advancement of knowledge usually comes from
comparisons of disparate points of view.

> Agreed here too, although the I think that results you point to would be
> more of a long term result than in the short term.  Linux would probably
> be a thing of the past before those things became generally apparent.

Oh sure, it certainly looks like this is one of those things that
companies are just itching to try.  My prediction is that the productivity
of the U.S. corporation using such methods will either drop or they'll be
outpaced by companies that allow for free exchange of ideas.  The good
news is that the market will as always fix this situation.

As for the long term viability of Linux ... I guess I'm not too sure what
to say.  I tend to think that nothing lasts forever and that change is
inevitable.  Either Linux will evolve into something different than what
we know today, or it will be replaced by something else.  I simply see
that as a consequence of the natural order of things.

> I would say that IBM seems to be the only vendor of the 1st three you
> mention that is giving anything more than lip service to Linux (when will
> we see HP start shipping Linux drivers with their printers?)  RH and VA I
> don't think are in the same category.  I don't mean to disparage them in
> any way either.  Surely RH has done as much as other commercial entity to
> legitimize and promote Linux; but I'm speaking of wide-scale desktop
> useage.  The three N's I wouldn't consider in the corporate sector.  What
> I'm trying to get at is that IMO, $$ is what this is all about, and in
> this respect, the corp's rule.

HP was working on something truely Linux based a while back, but I don't
remember off the top of my head what it was.  I also don't think it is
presently in Sun's best interest to lose the *nix community.  The fact
that companies such as VA and RedHat exist may be more important than you
are admitting.  Granted the government agencies aren't corporate, but as
you say money matters.  You have to keep in mind that the government like
any other organization doesn't exactly like to shoot itself in the
foot.  Linux is actually more pervasive in many governmental research
areas than many people perhaps realize.  For instance consider NOAA's
newest supercomputing facility <http://www-fd.fsl.noaa.gov/hpcs/>, this is
a brand new all Linux machine.

> I hope you're right.  I do know one thing though, that a certain person in
> Redmond won't rest until every possible threat to his empire is quashed, or
> until he's 6 ft under. (note to Carnivore: it's not a threat! I'm not a
> terrorist!)  And he has shown that he will use any means to do it - our
> complacency is his friend.

Yeah I also hope I'm right, and I do basically agree.  I'm not saying that
anyone should turn a blind eye.  We must be vigilant and work to protect
our freedoms, more so now than maybe ever before.  People's fear of what
they don't understand is probably our greatest enemy.  That can of course
be countered by education, but only if people are willing to be educated.

However, even if this passes people will still want to tinker, experiment,
and play.  They may just end up doing it behind closed doors.  As such I
don't think that much of what is proposed is truly enforceable.  I think
it is very much like the temperance movement and prohibition.  In fact,
making this illegal may have the opposite effect that the legislators have
in mind.  You aren't planning on giving up Linux because of this are you?

- Wayde
  (wallen at lug.boulder.co.us)