Re: [LONG] Re: [ilugd]: Linux based Software

[sudhir chauhan]

MY GOD, TOOOOOOOOO MUCH OF POLITICS AND NO REAL STUFF

 

 Raj Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi Sudhir,

First of all, I'd try not to use terms like `hijack' with respect to
Linux-Delhi. If I had wanted to hijack Linux-Delhi I would have done
it a long time ago and you probably wouldn't even have known about it.
The whole idea is to keep all the workings of Linux-Delhi as open and
transparent as possible. If you can point out one instance where
there have been conspiracies going on please let us know. If not,
please stop using derogatory terms to make your point, whatever it is.

In response to your Linux vs purely free software question, I could
also make counter-allegations about proprietary software people trying
to hijack the group for their vested interests. I don't make those
allegations: I believe that you are doing what you are doing --
writing and promoting proprietary software -- because you believe in
it. That is fine. Every! one is entitled to act on his/her beliefs
and promote them to the best of his/her ability and intent.

On the other hand, I do have some very fundamental questions for this
group. Let's see if we can start a process of thinking about these so
that we stand clear in our own minds about what we believe in.

Firstly, I'd suggest that whoever has not read the GNU Manifesto
(http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html) and `Why Software Should Not
Have Owners' (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html) should do
so now. Software is a resource, and not permitting free dissemination
of that resource is, in my mind, an anti-social and unethical
activity.

Let's take a couple of examples to show what I mean:

If you have 100 rupees, the value of that resource is Rs. 100. The
amount of wealth represented by that resource is Rs. 100. If you give
me Rs. 20 out of that, you are left with Rs 80 and the total amount of
wealth represent! ed by the shared resource is still Rs. 100.

This is true of all tangible resources and property, whether money,
food, land, clothes or computers: sharing tangible resources does not
change the amount of wealth in the world.

However, when we start discussing intangible resources the situation
changes dramatically. How does it do that?

Let's suppose you have a piece of software that downloads data from
the Internet every morning, figures out where there are traffic jams
and tells you the optimal route to reach your office. This software
saves you one hour every day. Assuming that your time is worth
Rs. 1000 per hour, the value of this software is Rs 1000 per day,
Rs. 25000 per month or Rs 3,00,000 per year.

The wealth that this software generates, thus, is Rs. 3,00,000 per
year.

Now you give me a copy of this software so that I can also plan my
routes in the morning. Assuming all the other factors remain the
s! ame, the software saves me Rs. 3,00,000 per year. So what is the
total wealth that this software generates now?

Yes, it's suddenly doubled from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs 6 lakhs!

The more people that use the software, the more the amount of wealth
generated. In other words, when you share software you increase the
amount of wealth in the world. This is in sharp contrast to tangible
resources, as we saw above.

Hence I postulate that not sharing software is anti-social and
unethical. Effectively, a person who doesn't share his/her software
is saying, `I will reduce the amount of wealth in the world for my own
personal gain'. This is not a stance I would like to take. This is
not a stance I would advise others to take.

Now let's have a look at what free or open source software brings us.

In an earlier message I had noted some of the benefits of Free/Libre
and Open Source Software (FLOSS). These include:

- Stability- Features
- Security
- Efficiency
- Freedom from bugs
- Excellent support

It is quite clear that Linux would not have any of these features if
it had been made by a single entity: a corporation. FLOSS offers
fantastic benefits to the user specifically because it is FLOSS. This
point is so important that I feel justified in repeating it:

If Linux weren't free (as in freedom), it would not be as popular and
high quality as it is today.

No organisation (except maybe a handful) today has the capability to
make products like Gnome, KDE, the kernel, Apache and BIND all on its
own. These products are at the top of their pyramids precisely
because they have been worked upon by a diverse set of programmers
from all over the world, who have no deadlines to meet and who
consider their work a labour of love rather than a job that they must
do to put meals on their tables.

Given this, would it not be a bit immature t! o assume that we can
separate the FLOSS development model from the benefits of FLOSS? Is
it really possible that we can take a FLOSS product, apply non-FLOSS
paradigms to it and continue to reap the benefits of FLOSS?

In other words, if we start using proprietary software on Linux, don't
we lose the model and hence the benefits that Linux offers? I'd say
that the answer is quite clearly Yes. In my opinion, using
proprietary software on Linux will only harm Linux, not improve it.

You cannot separate the development model of the software from its
benefits.

Finally, let's take the case of an entity that is making proprietary
software for Linux.

One of the reasons I don't use MS is because I refuse to be under the
control of a single corporation. If I am under that control, it means
that a number of my freedoms are taken away:

- The freedom to remove features from the software
- The freedom to add features in th! e software
- The freedom to fix bugs in the software
- The freedom to be sure that the software does not have any hidden
backdoors
- The freedom from one company's licensing policies
- The freedom to continue to use and upgrade the software even after
the company that created the software doesn't exist any more.

Yes, the last one is important too. Just imagine the plight of all
the Windows users in the world, say 3 years down the line, if
Microsoft didn't exist any more. Where would they go? What would
they do? Who'd provide them security patches? Who would support
them?

Anyone who uses proprietary software cannot have any of the freedoms
listed above. Here are some questions that any software vendor must
be able to answer before you buy any software from him: if your
company goes under tomorrow, where will I get support and upgrades
from? How can I be sure that your software does not steal my
sensitive data and do u! nethical things with it? How can I ensure that
your software doesn't have coding errors? In other words, how can I
be sure that your software works and continues to work?

The reason many of us speak out against MS is because MS embodies the
proprietary software world. They produce buggy software with
backdoors. Their software doesn't work as it's supposed to. They
change their licensing policies whenever they want. Their latest
patch automatically forces you to accept MS' intrusion into your
system.

Of course, if you face any proprietary software vendor with these
facts s/he will immediately reply, `Oh, but WE wouldn't do that to our
customers!' I presume that if someone had asked MS the same questions
10 years earlier they would have given an identical reply :-)

What I am against is not MS but what MS represents: bad proprietary
software that takes away the users' freedoms. Instead of being your
tool to help you do yo! ur job, proprietary software ends up becoming
the software vendors' tool to take money out of your pocket and
freedom out of your life.

Promoting another proprietary software company just to kill MS is thus
an exercise in futility. It's like one of those demons: when you cut
off one head another 10 heads spring up in its place. Instead of
fighting MS and replacing one proprietary software demon with a
thousand proprietary software demons, should we not just go past the
demon altogether into the world of free software?

When I helped start this group it was to discuss and promote these
ideas amongst all of us. I appreciate that what I've said so far is
only my own point of view, even if it is shared by a number of others,
both in this group and outside. However, finally it is the group that
must decide the direction in which it wants to go. If it is not the
same direction as the one I'm going in, that's fine: we can go our ownways amicably and without strife. To me freedom is more important
than anything else, and I will not stand by and give my blessings
while it is being trampled upon.

Regards,

-- Raju

>>>>> "Sudhir" == Sudhir Gandotra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes:

Sudhir> First of all, I have changed the subject of this
Sudhir> discussion and I hope the writer will not mind that.
Sudhir> There has been a very long discussion in the Delhi LUG
Sudhir> meetings and mails on the topic of what should be
Sudhir> discussed (everything that is Linux based, or just the
Sudhir> open-source software based). This lead to a voting and
Sudhir> the result was overwhelming in the favour of "Everything
Sudhir> that is Linux based". 26 Votes versus 5 votes. Having
Sudhir> settled this, although people on the other side (free
Sudhir> software only) did try to hijack the discussion and the
Sudhir> g! roup, but it seems that the group is settling down to the
Sudhir> decision taken. I say this, because, finally, in the last
Sudhir> meeting, there were two presentations on subjects that
Sudhir> were commercial and proprietory. So, that aspect is
Sudhir> settled.

Sudhir> To me, and obviously when we go by the voting results, to
Sudhir> the overwhelming majority in the LUG, it is of interest
Sudhir> that LINUX grows and that it grows to become the number
Sudhir> one Operating System - not just for some consultants to
Sudhir> earn money, but for atleast the majority of users, be they
Sudhir> at home, office or enterprise -. Linux has that capability
Sudhir> and the world deserves for this capability to be aptly
Sudhir> exposed and available and used. We all know very well the
Sudhir> benefits that Linux gives to users and so I am not
Sudhir> repeating them here.

Sudhir> For this t! o happen, LUGs have an important role to play
Sudhir> and at times members here have wondered whether the Delhi
Sudhir> LUG is a voluntary group belonging to all the members or
Sudhir> just a small group that is trying to hijack Linux and make
Sudhir> the group to be "free software group".

Sudhir> As it came in the "heated discussions", both these aspects
Sudhir> (everything Linux and Free software) can be together as
Sudhir> part of the group. But, ofcourse, if those who want a
Sudhir> "separate and pure free software group", they have the
Sudhir> full liberty to form one. But, in that case, they have no
Sudhir> right to hijack the Linux Users Group (the Delhi LUG) and
Sudhir> they will have to form their own separate group, calling
Sudhir> it whatever they like. But, this issue, has been well
Sudhir> settled and I hope they will not try to manipulate things
Sudhir> further. I say this s! etence, because, in the meeting of
Sudhir> January 2003, this manipulation was attempted again. One
Sudhir> also notices that since the meeting of August 2002 (when
Sudhir> this issue of everything Linux or only Free software was
Sudhir> started), the minutes of the meetings have not been posted
Sudhir> to the group or to the website. This can be seen as
Sudhir> another attempt to hide things that are not comfortable to
Sudhir> some people (who got just 5 votes against the overwhelming
Sudhir> majority of 26 votes).

Sudhir> I for one, am for coexistance and reconciliation. I am
Sudhir> clear that both these streams can coexist. But, on the
Sudhir> other hand, I will put all my efforts to see that Linux is
Sudhir> not hijacked. There were attempts at Kolkata also -
Sudhir> during the seminar on Linux organised by COMPASS
Sudhir> (organisers of the IT fair, on 24 Jan 2003), but more of
S! udhir> that later.

Sudhir> I hope, as time passes, we, as LUG will grow to become a
Sudhir> more and more cohesive team, working together, as much as
Sudhir> each one can contribute, towards the cause of Freedom that
Sudhir> Linux so well carries ahead. It is important to realise
Sudhir> that LUG is not owned by any individual and if someone
Sudhir> tries to that, he/she will only be insulting others and
Sudhir> hence will be bound to get back a strong kick from them
Sudhir> all - because "people do react to insults" and specially
Sudhir> when they are all putting their efforts as volunteers.

Sudhir> [snip]

--
Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/
It is the mind that moves

================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header. Check archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.o! rg

Catch all the cricket action. Download Yahoo! Score tracker