Penguin Suicide Bombers: The Terrorism of Open Source
Submitted by srlinuxx on Wed, 03/19/2008 - 17:59.
The open source movement is widely recognized as “an important development” in the computer industry and has been both lauded and criticized by many pundits. However, despite exhaustive analysis and discussion, the phenomenon of open source has remained singularly vexing to classify. Variously, the open source movement has been classified as socialism, communism, a “gift economy”, charity, futilism and gullibilism. It has even caused distinguished Yale professors to wave the proverbial white flag and invent remarkably catchy new phrases such as “commons-based peer production”. Rolls right of the tongue.
The layman’s definition of open source software is software that is non-proprietary or “free” and can be modified by anyone with the requisite programming knowledge without the constraints of overly restrictive licensing. Now, there are certainly those that will decry this definition as incomplete since there are apparently entire organizations, such as the Open Source Initiative, whose seemingly sole reason for existence is to maintain the exact definition of the term “open source”.
As altruistic and benevolent as this all sounds, open source is not without its detractors; who have variously categorized open source as “socialism” or even “communism”. Most notably, SAP; a large European software manufacturer has criticized open source as “intellectual property socialism” and Bill Gates has even hinted that the open source movement is communism. For some perspective, remember that Bill Gates has been feuding with the “free” software movement for over three decades. These characterizations are used pejoratively and are highly inaccurate, proving yet again the age old adage that technologists know much more about bits and bytes than they do about socio-economic systems.
Huh?
Can you believe this drivel? When he finally gets to classifying open source advocates, his "trait number four" is:
"Fourth, a favorite tactic of the open source movement is the use of fear as a weapon. Again, this can most readily be seen by Linux, Apache and Firefox proponents that tout the perceived security of their systems while attempting to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt in those that use Microsoft technologies by claiming that Microsoft systems are inherently insecure or inferior in terms of security."
Later he says:
"The criminal, or at the very least questionable, tactics and guilt by association is yet another trait that the open source movement shares with terrorism."
He finally sums up with this shocking revelation:
"True progress can only be made by instead recognizing the open source movement for what it truly is, a form of terrorism."
Of course he disavows ANY semblance of association with the "evil" Microsoft:
"I want to stress here that I am not a Microsoft apologist and bear the open source community no ill will, but facts are facts."
(Of course, he means they are HIS facts.) Is this the height of "objective" journalism? I know a few decent, morally responsible people who use Linux, and I could not honestly classify any of them in the same vein as Muslim jihadists or Timothy McVeigh wannabes.
The first half of the article certainly bears no resemblance to the second half.
The "objective observer" (theobjectiveobserver.com) should be thoroughly ASHAMED of themselves.
Re: Huh?
> The "objective observer" (theobjectiveobserver.com) should be thoroughly ASHAMED of themselves.
Ahem. From the Objective Observer's front page:
Above all, please remember to have a sense of humor. This material is meant to entertain
as much as inform and spark critical thought. Some of this stuff is fairly serious,
like the "Proof of God" stuff, and some of this stuff is written very "tongue in cheek"
with copious amounts of sarcasm involved. If you can't watch South Park because you get
offended easily, then DON'T read this stuff. Or if you DO read it, don't be surprised
if you get offended.
For all that it's intended to read like a parody of those anti-FLOSS pieces which still occasionally emerge from neocon think-tanks, its highlighting of the irony of -- one the one hand -- FLOSS advocates' taste for ideological shitfights contra Microsoft -- and on the other -- their political guilelessness in the face of large corporations (Sun, Red Hat, Novell...) enlisting so-called "community contributions" (naturally unpaid!) ultimately to ends over which the said community has no say is surprisingly Marxist!
Re: Huh?
@Franceschini
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't read the front page.