MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-08 |
| FROM | David Sugar
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] My comments on what was said...
|
Bruce,
I know at times Ruben may come accross with the diplomatic instincts of
a poleaxe, but that does not mean he is incorrect. I have read his
longer letter today, and I found one interesting and very relevant point
stick out. In fact, I think I now more clearly understand his
particular viewpoint on the problem and I will try to explain that for
it may at least help in understanding everyone's respective views
better. I think I have already explained my own views sufficiently and
will spare the various readers from repeating those yet once again.
Also, in seeing that you have already been bludgened once today on this
topic, I thought a little humor might help. First, let us imagine that
you were working for HP....:)
Okay, now if HP wanted to run a conference where they wished to promote
their products and services to the government, and while in the middle
of a maketting pitch, should HP casually invite thier primary
competitors to academic debate?! Should they invite companies who
openly intend to interfere with the market message HP is trying to put
forward at such a conference?
I think it is from this perspective that Ruben's principle objection is
derived from. If this conference is, as appearently it is stated, as
being a conference for "marketing" OS/FS ideas and ideals, then why have
a hostile vendor intending to disrupt that message? When I say
intending to disrupt the message, I come to that conclusion on the
stated reasons given by Microsoft's own reps on what they intend to say
and do at the conference. If this event is intended primarly for us to
"market", then why do we have "them" there? This, I think, is the
principle question Ruben is posing, and from that particular
perspective, it is a very fair question to raise.
On Saturday 08 February 2003 19:28, Ruben I Safir wrote:
> > So, I've spoken at various e-government conferences concerning Free
> > Software, in a whole bunch of countries and governments. Some recent
> > ones were in Copenhagen, Brussels, and Washington.
>
> Great:
>
> I spoke to the EU, NYC and Brooklyn Borough Hall
>
> > My feeling is that if we either locked them out or disrupted their
> > program, it would only make them look better.
>
> Probibly not. They certainly don't tolerate us at a Microsoft board
> meeting
>
> > If we lock them out,
> > they will say, very publicly, "see, these folks won't let us tell
> > you the truth".
>
> Minimal risk after they have been conviicted twice of antotrust
action.
>
> > If we disrupt their program, they'd say the same,
> > and also would point out that we were incapable of taking part in a
> > civilized political dialogue.
>
> Politics has little to do with dialogue? Where did YOU learn about
> politics? This statmemnt is almost devoid of reality. Do the
Republics
> invite the Democrat to their national convention? Have youy EVER seen
> dialogue on a national debate?
>
> I would better expect such naivity from a Junior High School student
then I
> would from one of the founders of the OSI.
>
> Name the political campaign you've been involced in, and the tell me
how it
> was won through dialogue.
>
> I've been involved with nearly 30 political campaigns, the last one
was for
> Rudy Guiliani. The first one was a loss for Abe Beam. Not ONE
involved a
> dialogue.
>
> > We don't want either of those, because
> > we want to be seen as the good guys who are fighting the side that
> > doesn't play fair.
>
> Fair? Fair is the exclussion of Microsoft from the event. Unfair is
the
> inclussion of that rouge outfit with aims to hurt me personally IN the
> event.
>
>
> You have to pick sides. Your either on their side or our side. Our
side
> is for Free Software, digital freedom, and the promotion of the
community.
> Which side are you on?
>
> > That's why we need to consistently take the high road, and let them
be
> > the ones seen taking the low road. That strategy has gotten us very
> > far in opposition to them, in just a few years.
>
> What? Where has this stratergy gotten you? Name one major victory to
in
> getting Free Software adopted in Government. You haven't gotten
anywhere
> with this stratergy. I face exactly the same problems getting
government
> to adopt Free Software today as I did 3 years ago. In fact, in many
> regards, the situation has gotten much worse.
>
> > Now, if you want to do some political action in connection with
> > this conference, I think we can get creative about action that both
> > represents us well and gets good press. What I'm mainly thinking
about
> > so far is demonstrations of what we have to offer the world in terms
of
> > self-sustaining software technology that can be in the hands of
local
> > people.
>
> That is not a description of a political action. That is a receipe
for a
> methodolgy of adoption which completely fails without being backed by
a
> grass roots political to counter the lobbying and payoffs of Microsoft
to
> government officials. You will not get broad adoption of Free
Software in
> government until such time that the beuracrats and politicians see it
in
> their best interest to do so. All the techobabble demonstrations in
the
> world is going to help turn over a single desktop.
>
> Now your squandaring a prime oppurtunity for the community. NYLXS
will not
> sit back and let that happen.
>
> > And you can make lots of fun of the counter-example while doing
> > that. You may have noticed that I know how to get press, and could
get a
> > ton for that sort of demonstration. It plays a lot better than
"brats
> > break up party".
>
> Hmmm.
>
> I've recently been told, 'They can say anything they want about me, as
long
> as they get my name and phone number right'
>
>
>
> I haven't personally been impressed. Your interview on NPR was at
best
> week, and the coverage of your open book iniative in the Times was
nearly
> silent on anything of importance. If I want press I'll get Al
Sharpton.
> What I want is results for my membership.
>
> In in NY tongue, "Show me the money"
>
> If I sound upset about this, I am. Your screwing up a good
oppurtunity for
> the community. Our people have worked hard to get Free Software into
> government and in business, and your sending mixed messages and giving
> extreamly valuable time in the spotlight to Microsoft.
>
> Inclusssion of Microsoft promotes Microsoft. They can take care of
> themselves. Promote the FSCC (http://www.nylxs.com/fscommerce/)
instead.
>
>
>
> Ruben
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
