MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-09 |
| FROM | From: "Seth J. Blank"
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Re: [novalug] Re: [fairuse] Re: E-Gov-OS conference
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruben Safir"
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 07:47:42PM -0500, Seth J. Blank wrote:
> > What is wrong with providing Microsoft a place to speak in an open
source
> > forum?
>
>
> What's wrong with excluding them. Their not relevent to the conference
> and have nothing to contribute.
>
Not relevant? Hardly. If they were irrelevant, there'd be no issue to
discuss. The problem is that you don't like what you know they're going to
say. And I agree with you 100%. I just think it is more important to let
them speak and to demonstrate to people how full of it they are.
> >
> > Aside from not wanting to sink to their level and silence opposing views
> > (remember, open source is about the inclusion of ideas, not their
> > exclusion), let us consider what would happen if Microsoft spoke.
>
> Open Source is not silensing them just because they're not qualified
> to present at the conference. Open Source is just making responsible
decisions
> on how to use our limited resources. They can and do talk all the time.
>
This is your _only_ valid point. I don't have much of a response. Basically,
it costs resources to fight it too, and I would believe it's easier to speak
up and clear the air about their FUD than to try and get them removed from
the conference. I could be wrong.
>
> >
> > It seems to me that there are only two outcomes of Microsoft speaking,
> > namely that they would make fools of themselves, or that people would
buy
> > into their FUD.
> >
> > The first circumstance, while welcome, would probably not happen. So
let's
> > concentrate on people buying into MS's FUD.
>
> It's a waste of precious resources to fight MS FUD in an event designed to
> market Free Software to governments. And therefor, MS should be excluded.
>
MS will market to governments regardless. Better that we have a forum where
we can directly contradict what MS says other than hearing and responding
through the grapevine.
>
>
> > If the members of the forum
> > cannot contradict Microsoft and allay people's fears, then perhaps the
open
> > source movement has more to worry about than Microsoft speaking in one
of
> > their forums.
> >
> > Also, your assertion that Microsoft is evil and should be shunned at any
> > computer forum in general is unfounded and irrelevant.
>
> Actually, it would be more correct to charactorize MS as evil than pretend
> they are a responsible corperate citizen.
>
I never said they were a responsible corporate citizen. I said ignoring or
marginalizing them would be a _severe_ mistake.
>
> MS has been convicted TWICE for antitrust activity, and has thwarted
economic
> developement. They have inihibited community developement with their
> monopolistic activities, and is working on DRM which would end Free
Software
> on the Intel platform. They have repeatedly twarted peoples right to
innovate,
> and start witch hunts with the BSA.
>
> How else can they be described better than Evil?
>
Again, I never said they weren't evil. In fact, I think I agreed that they
were. What I said was that characterising them as evil and calling them
names is not productive, and in fact might be counterproductive. You don't
convince people that the competition is bad by calling it evil, you convince
them through examples and a reasoned argument. Resorting to name calling is
never part of a reasoned argument.
>
> Is Criminal and Anti-Social a better description?
>
> > Idealistic, but
> > irrelevant. Microsoft isn't going anywhere, and ignoring it or calling
it
> > names does nothing to change this.
>
> Ignoring them is fine. It's the best tactic. Let MS rail away but they
should
> have no position in a Free Software event of any kind.
>
No, open source must respond to Microsoft, lest they use the argument that
we're not talking because we have nothing to fight them with. Microsoft
would fully use our silence against us. It's much harder to fight against a
reasoned argument than the lack of one.
>
> > It is best to invite them to forums, hear
> > them out, and then correct them.
>
> No - the community has better things to do. If they want a debate, NY
Fair Use
> can sponsor one for them.
>
Not a bad idea. Set it up.
>
> > Showing people how Microsoft is wrong --
>
> That's also a waste of time. Showing them how Free Software is right is
> a better use of time. They're just like North Korea. They'd do anything
> to gain your attention. Screwem...let them talk to the wall until they
> earn a place at the table.
>
Showing them that Free Software is right includes showing them how it is
better (or more right) than the alternatives. One of the alternatives is
Microsoft, and we must _not_ forget that. Failing to address the
alternatives is a mistake we cannot afford to make.
Seth J. Blank
Chief Technical Officer
RocketReview Incorporated
>
>
>
> --
> __________________________
> Brooklyn Linux Solutions
> __________________________
> DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
>
> http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
> http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
> http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and
articles from around the net
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
>
> 1-718-382-0585
>
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
