How many of you people actually believe in the fsf movement? .. while there was talk about bringing everything under the fsf umbrella, it seems the India chapter is already dead!!
Regards Sachin
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 07:08:42PM +0530, Sachin Nair wrote:
How many of you people actually believe in the fsf movement? .. while there was talk about bringing everything under the fsf umbrella, it seems the India chapter is already dead!!
Interesting claim to make ... any particular reason why you say its _already_ dead?
Sameer.
Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 07:08:42PM +0530, Sachin Nair wrote:
How many of you people actually believe in the fsf movement? .. while there was talk about bringing everything under the fsf umbrella, it seems the India chapter is already dead!!
Interesting claim to make ... any particular reason why you say its _already_ dead?
If the website is an indication of its death, then may be you are correct. But, few of us are doing lot of woirk for FSF India. We do need committed volunteers to keep the site up and running. There is a big list of volunteers, but not many of them actually come forward to keep the site uptodate, collect news, be in touch with people who work and report a digest of work done periodically. If any of you are interested to volunteer to help in this please write a mail to gnu@gnu.org.in
Nagarjuna
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:01:16AM +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
If the website is an indication of its death, then may be you are correct. But, few of us are doing lot of woirk for FSF India. We do need committed volunteers to keep the site up and running. There is a big list of volunteers, but not many of them actually come forward to keep the site uptodate, collect news, be in touch with people who work and report a digest of work done periodically. If any of you are interested to volunteer to help in this please write a mail to gnu@gnu.org.in
Nagarjuna
You forgot to add a "minor" detail ... Prof. Nagarjuna, HBCSE, TIFR is on the board of directors for FSF-India.
Sameer.
How many of you people actually believe in the fsf movement? .. while there was talk about bringing everything under the fsf umbrella, it seems the India chapter is already dead!!
Interesting claim to make ... any particular reason why you say its _already_ dead?
Well I used to word "seems" :) with their website lying inactive for some months now ... and you have ignored my first question. Regards Sachin Nair
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:01:00AM +0530, Sachin Nair wrote:
How many of you people actually believe in the fsf movement? .. while there was talk about bringing everything under the fsf umbrella, it seems the India chapter is already dead!!
Interesting claim to make ... any particular reason why you say its _already_ dead?
Well I used to word "seems" :) with their website lying inactive for some months now ... and you have ignored my first question.
Well I am not sure what you mean by "believe in the _fsf movement_" ... as far as I know, the "movement" is for software freedom, and FSF is trying to be a central body to support it. There's also the open source movement. Then there's this huge category of people who simply don't care about movements, and instead just code and give away their work because they feel like doing so.
You might get a better response if you first spell out the point, that you are trying to drive.
I don't know about any "talk about bringing everything under the FSF umbrella". Like I said, there are all kinds of people ... in fact a lab in our dept is planning to become a major player in _open source_ software in the long run ... the emphasis being more on affordability than freedom. A lot of corporate entities are interested in those efforts since its a great way to expand their market.
Sameer.
Well I am not sure what you mean by "believe in the _fsf movement_" ... as far as I know, the "movement" is for software freedom, and FSF is trying to be a central body to support it. There's also the open source movement. Then there's this huge category of people who simply don't care about movements, and instead just code and give away their work because they feel like doing so.
----------- http://forum.gnu.org.in/1047552361/index_html
Please correct me if iam wrong in my comment or otherwise, It was just plain curiosity which dragged me towards linux, later opensource and still later to free software funda.
About the movement, from what I've read about it, is it just about software or is one trying to make a point about the society in general too?
I know am still not being exactly articulate, but the whole issue can be sometimes confusing to a person standing on the pavement wondering whether to jump in or not! ...read me!!!
While free software might make business sense, the idea propagated by opensource.org IMHO is not really likely to succeed.
How many people can make money by releasing the source code? Software develops faster, true!, software also develops better, true! But does it make business sense? I've heard about companies cutting costs using opensource, I know it can be done. But for a software house to succeed by opening it's own source? :/. Why would any other business house want to ask the parent company for support when they can have 2 software geeks inhouse to provide support for the project on their own? Where does this leave the software house?
Redhat began the fedora project in the hope that worldwide developers will have a hand for it to succeed. But what percentage of coders whom you know, work for pleasure while they need to put food on the table?
I don't intend to start any holy war which has been fought countless times already. Am just a guy asking questions... just out of curiosity ..
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:31:04PM +0530, Sachin Nair wrote:
Believe me, this is the last thing that a newbie to the "philosophical debate" should see ... ;)
About the movement, from what I've read about it, is it just about software or is one trying to make a point about the society in general too?
It is difficult to be very precise about these two issues, but in a loose sense, the former topic of "just software" is what the Open Source movement talks about while the later topic of society in general is what the Free Software movement is all about. Here are some good references to see either side:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
A few good hints, about ESR's idea of Open Source and how it contrasts with Free Software, are also found at end of the following chapter in his new book, TAUP in the sections titled "Linux and the Pragmatist Reaction: 1991-1998" and "The Open-Source Movement: 1998 and Onward"
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/historychapter.html
I know am still not being exactly articulate, but the whole issue can be sometimes confusing to a person standing on the pavement wondering whether to jump in or not! ...read me!!!
I would say, worry about the philosophy part only when you have the time to. If by jumping in, you mean using FLOSS on your setup, go right ahead and give it a try; what have you got to lose? I am sure you'll be hooked in no time ;)
While free software might make business sense, the idea propagated by opensource.org IMHO is not really likely to succeed.
Errr ... its actually the other way round. Free Software scares the hell out of businesspeople (marketroids) because they don't like being lectured on idealogies. Open Source, instead, makes perfect business sense, although its the same wine in a different bottle.
How many people can make money by releasing the source code? Software develops faster, true!, software also develops better, true! But does it make business sense?
Depends on what business you are in. If you plan to make money by selling software that you wrote, go ahead and do that - its your choice. That's the only kind of business that cannot afford to release source code. But most Indian companies work in the service industry ... they rarely release branded products!
In either case, remember that the customer is the king, and no matter whether you want to release your code or not, there are others who will - and your customers just might decide to go to them!
by opening it's own source? :/. Why would any other business house want to ask the parent company for support when they can have 2 software geeks inhouse to provide support for the project on their own?
Its easy to say that, but difficult to implement ... relying on a company that's providing service usually turns out to be far cheaper than doing it yourself. Remember the suit buzzword "outsourcing"? If the customer has access to the source code they run, they have more freedom to choose their support system. This would be true even if they used a custom built software that's used only in their company!
Redhat began the fedora project in the hope that worldwide developers will have a hand for it to succeed. But what percentage of coders whom you know, work for pleasure while they need to put food on the table?
Download any big software like the kernel, apache, gcc etc. Grep for all the copyright notices. That should answer your question.
I don't intend to start any holy war which has been fought countless times already. Am just a guy asking questions... just out of curiosity ..
No problem at all! Feel free to fire away!
Sameer.
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 08:01, Sachin Nair wrote:
While free software might make business sense, the idea propagated by opensource.org IMHO is not really likely to succeed.
Does China make a lot of business sense? or IBM, or HP or Trolltech.
FSF is not a bussiness nor are opensource coders interested in the success or failure of your business. It is your job to utilise and contribute to the resources of freesoftware and make your bussiness a success doing so. If you do not have the mental horse power to understand the complexities of freesoftware (or software for that matter) stick to closed source (while it lasts).
How many people can make money by releasing the source code?
Quite a lot. Me and my organisation for one. A guy named Linus Torvalds. Another named Donald Becker and lots of others. Read the names of contributors writing hundreds of GNU packages.
Software develops faster, true!, software also develops better, true! But does it make business sense?
What are you planning a "Nigerian" vapour ware scam. If the above reasons do not make sense I wonder what does.
I've heard about companies cutting costs using opensource, I know it can be done. But for a software house to succeed by opening it's own source? :/. Why would any other business house want to ask the parent company for support when they can have 2 software geeks inhouse to provide support for the project on their own? Where does this leave the software house?
google for TCO for linux and you will know why.
Redhat began the fedora project in the hope that worldwide developers will have a hand for it to succeed. But what percentage of coders whom you know, work for pleasure while they need to put food on the table?
I don't intend to start any holy war which has been fought
A bit late for starting a war which ended sometime ago ;-).
Thnx to sameer for some light on fsf and opensource in general. But then again particularly for Mr. Dsouza,
Does China make a lot of business sense? or IBM, or HP or Trolltech.
No sir, china does not make business sense to me. It has a huge market but has redtape so mind boggling that the Indian threads seems like just a few knots. Mindless name throwing does not help matters. Even the great Enron fell hard!! Every company has it's own way of dealing with cost cutting measures and dealing with competition. Read .. Microsoft
If you are gong to talk about large corporations then am sorry I was talking about the SSI unit. My fault, I should have specified. 90% of the SSI's operate on pirated software. Ideology in these parts, exists after money!
FSF is not a bussiness nor are opensource coders interested in the
success or failure of your business. It is your job to utilise and contribute to the resources of freesoftware and make your bussiness a success doing so.
Quoting from http://opensource.org "Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial world." unquote.
If you do not have the mental horse power to
understand the complexities of free software (or software for that matter) stick to closed source (while it lasts).
Let's not fight shall we? :)
What are you planning a "Nigerian" vapour ware scam. If the above
reasons do not make sense I wonder what does.
Money makes sense to me. I don't mean money in an ideal world but in the real world. The very company which was earlier heralded by many for its contribution to opensource has been later thrashed for its newest licensing policies. Read REDHAT.
google for TCO for linux and you will know why.
Well I have also found copies(hope not) maybe privately funded ) stating otherwise! :/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iam willing to listen ....
------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is a manufacturing unit specializing in certain mechanical components of machines. They make extensive use of Tally(accounting) & AutoCAD. They use pirated copies of software, lack the monetary horsepower to buy the real thing. Even if they did, they as of now don't see ay real value in converting when things work just fine. You tell me how do I convince them to convert? Or why should I ask them to convert?
HOW & WHY?
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 08:24:06PM +0530, Sachin Nair wrote:
If you are gong to talk about large corporations then am sorry I was talking about the SSI unit. My fault, I should have specified. 90% of the SSI's operate on pirated software. Ideology in these parts, exists after money!
<snip>
There is a manufacturing unit specializing in certain mechanical components of machines. They make extensive use of Tally(accounting) & AutoCAD. They use pirated copies of software, lack the monetary horsepower to buy the real thing. Even if they did, they as of now don't see ay real value in converting when things work just fine. You tell me how do I convince them to convert? Or why should I ask them to convert?
You hit it right on target with these two paragraphs. Are we as a community capable of leaving idealism aside and answer this hard-headed pragmatist question? I believe listening to Open Source guys instead of Free Software in this matter can be a great eye-opener.
If we want our beloved GNU to spread in a place like India, then the SSI sector is the one to be targeted - its a huge market with a reach that can indirectly take us to every school, home and office in this country. A similar thread had started when I had posted an account of a conference on Linux some time ago, where people from the Ministry of IT, Red Hat, IBM, TCS etc had made presentations.
HOW & WHY?
More like HOW do we make an excellent case for the WHY!
Sameer.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 08:40:09PM +0530, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 08:24:06PM +0530, Sachin Nair wrote:
If you are gong to talk about large corporations then am sorry I was talking about the SSI unit. My fault, I should have specified. 90% of the SSI's operate on pirated software. Ideology in these parts, exists after money!
<snip> > There is a manufacturing unit specializing in certain mechanical > components of machines. They make extensive use of Tally(accounting) & > AutoCAD. They use pirated copies of software, lack the monetary > horsepower to buy the real thing. Even if they did, they as of now don't > see ay real value in converting when things work just fine. You tell me > how do I convince them to convert? Or why should I ask them to convert?
This is precisely the reason why open source ideology fails (Dont think that open source has no ideolgy). The reason why we should use free software is not because of economic reasons. Since open source business ideology cant answer this question without bringing in the FSF arguments.
We ask such a company to use free software not to save money alone, but to be FREE. To get the freedom to repair the software they use, to get the freedom to use it for any purpose etc. What I would say is to spend money if necessary (say employ good free software experts in your company) and gain this virtuous freedom. What we should tell the company is that free software is economical is accidental, and not necessary.
That is the reason why we cannt ask companies to switch to free software for the economic reasons alone, such as TCO. The TCO concept belongs to another paradigm and not to FS paradigm.
You hit it right on target with these two paragraphs. Are we as a community capable of leaving idealism aside and answer this hard-headed pragmatist question? I believe listening to Open Source guys instead of Free Software in this matter can be a great eye-opener.
I disagree here because of the reasons mentioned above. Open Source guys/girls have no answer in this situation unless they tell the company that see it is worth spending because you also get source code. That is when everyone realizes what is the crux of the matter.
If we want our beloved GNU to spread in a place like India, then the SSI sector is the one to be targeted - its a huge market with a reach that can indirectly take us to every school, home and office in this country. A similar thread had started when I had posted an account of a conference on Linux some time ago, where people from the Ministry of IT, Red Hat, IBM, TCS etc had made presentations.
Every sector is important for GNU. SSI, NGOs, schools tactically yes.
Today the govts falling prey to the cost argument. Govt should say we opt for free software because this will give the country self-reliance, and not because is is economical (it is worth repeating this golden message, so tolerate my reeats.)
Nagarjuna
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 10:51, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
We ask such a company to use free software not to save money alone, but to be FREE. To get the freedom to repair the software they use, to get the freedom to use it for any purpose etc. What I would say is to spend money if necessary (say employ good free software experts in your company) and gain this virtuous freedom. What we should tell the company is that free software is economical is accidental, and not necessary.
That's the hardest part to convince SSU managers. They have a one-track mind and only believe in economic freedom, not in FS ideologies. What they need is a cheap software meeting their needs and that is how we can start selling FS to them. They cannot or rather will not invest in hiring a software developer just for maintaining the software for them. The ideologies can come later on when the guys feel comfortable with FS which they will eventually.
Second thing, using pirated copies of Windows-based software is too tempting for them. They generally already have the setup done from a neighbourhood guy who has prior experience in 'installing' Windows, free of cost. The guy got his experience and they got their setup running.
That is the reason why we cannt ask companies to switch to free software for the economic reasons alone, such as TCO. The TCO concept belongs to another paradigm and not to FS paradigm.
SSIs are too calculating about TCO. And when we talk about the FS ideology, it falls flat when they jump back at you asking about the whole deal they are getting. So TCO has to be explained to them, although it still works to be way cheaper than most proprietary software.
Today the govts falling prey to the cost argument. Govt should say we opt for free software because this will give the country self-reliance, and not because is is economical (it is worth repeating this golden message, so tolerate my reeats.)
And I too agree with that. But each sector needs different strategies for selling the FS concept. Govt needs to be explained about security, SSIs need to be told about economic sense, Large corporations need to be told about open standards... The list goes on.
Nilesh Chaudhari wrote:
That's the hardest part to convince SSU managers. They have a one-track
mind and only believe in economic freedom, not in FS ideologies. What they need is a cheap software meeting their needs and that is how we can start selling FS to them. They cannot or rather will not invest in hiring a software developer just for maintaining the software for them. The ideologies can come later on when the guys feel comfortable with FS which they will eventually.
Second thing, using pirated copies of Windows-based software is too tempting for them. They generally already have the setup done from a neighbourhood guy who has prior experience in 'installing' Windows, free of cost. The guy got his experience and they got their setup running.
Sometimes these guys have to work under very tight budgets, and yet deliver the world to their companies. It is unfair to pin the blame of using pirated software on them. Any manager would love to have a clear conscience and use software legally. Actually when the company fixes a very tight budget, it (the company/business) is giving the manager a strong cue to use pirated software.
Another point is whenever a company sets up operations it has the proper figures for obtaining facilities for conductin it's main business, however the IT/IS department does not get enough money for software acquisition. Why? "We can always get licensed software once we make enough money..."
Businesses try to appear attractive to investors (present & future) by showing how little investment they needed and how quickly they recovered that investment. Factoring the added costs of IT infrastructure would throw the spanner in the works, in a manner of speaking, for their prospects in attracting investment. This is the REAL reason in most cases of SSIs/propreitorships.
This is wrong thinking. Money should be allocated for setting up *legally* obtained IT infrastructure right at the outset, and should be factored in the start-up costs the way they are worked out for the rest of the business's activities.
So what will make them change their mind? A strong movement from vendors for combating software piracy? Yeah right, maybe in another 10 years. :P Commercial software vendors know that if they push too hard, a lot of potential clients will shift over to FS. That is why they give several chances to offenders. They say, "Start off buying a few licenses and in time cover your entire infrastructure". That way they atleast start getting some fees from the client instead of losing them completely to FS.
For now, I believe "whistle-blowing" (NASSCOM) is the only practical way to get businesses to switch to FS in the immediate to near future. You'd be surprised how they would flock to FS when the cost of commercial software starts to bite! ;)
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 14:21, Clinton Goveas wrote:
Sometimes these guys have to work under very tight budgets, and yet deliver the world to their companies. It is unfair to pin the blame of using pirated software on them. Any manager would love to have a clear conscience and use software legally. Actually when the company fixes a very tight budget, it (the company/business) is giving the manager a strong cue to use pirated software.
Since when did obeying the law become an option? Both managers and owners are equally responsible. A quick back of the envelope costing which includes the cost of a criminal case (remember wintech computers and Oracle (afaik)) would be totally convincing. The problem is that most it managers and sys admins are clueless outside the M$ environment.
For now, I believe "whistle-blowing" (NASSCOM) is the only practical way to get businesses to switch to FS in the immediate to near future. You'd be surprised how they would flock to FS when the cost of commercial software starts to bite! ;)
Should that be part of the FSF agenda ;-). Ensuring respect of intellectual property. Cueing in your friendly neighbourhood cop on software IP laws and the "devastating" effect of piracy on the poor ol economy might be a good idea. The police would love to help (I presume) since there may be something in it for them too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 27 Nov 2003 1:28 am, J. T. D'souza wrote:
Should that be part of the FSF agenda ;-). Ensuring respect of intellectual property.
A misnomer at the very least. The whole idea of the FSF is that a term like "intellectual property" should not exist - atleast in the domain of computer software.
Note that this is different from the concept of copyrights, which as origibally intended, were meant to "borrow" something (temporarily) from public domain. Even then, the concepts of "fair use" and "nonprofit use"(not a recognised term as such) were clearly understood and respected. This concept has totally been turned onto it's head in today's world. You have to realize - there shouldn't be any "intellectual property" as we know the term today. Just temporary "commercial rights". Knowledge should be free. That, i believe is what the whole movement, and RMS in particula, stands for.
- --gera. - -- - From the moment I picked your book up until I put it down I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it. -- Groucho Marx, from "The Book of Insults"
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 16:59, Devendra Gera wrote:
On Thursday 27 Nov 2003 1:28 am, J. T. D'souza wrote:
Should that be part of the FSF agenda ;-). Ensuring respect of intellectual property.
A misnomer at the very least. The whole idea of the FSF is that a term like "intellectual property" should not exist - atleast in the domain of computer software.
Agreed. But how does that condone piracy of someone elses property. As pointed out by Dr.Nagrjuna he will not use a non-free software and take the extra pains to do his work. If everyone does the same software will indeed automatically become free. However bussinesses who say they can't afford software think nothing of robbing someone else. Does it mean that companies going bankrupt are free to loot the next guy on the street?
Overall it is a general decadence in society that is causing so much grief. And it is companies and individuals like these who add to the decay by not respecting others rights.
I would any day hug Bills gates than someone pirating his software.
J. T. D'souza wrote:
And it is companies and individuals like these who add to the decay by not respecting others rights.
And coming back to the topic ;) of the FSF and how to get it popularised (or more acceptable) so no one gets the impression that it is "dead". :)
On Thursday 27 November 2003 17:05, Clinton Goveas wrote:
And coming back to the topic ;) of the FSF and how to get it popularised (or more acceptable) so no one gets the impression that it is "dead". :)
I suppose the website will have to be maintained and updated regularly.
GNU/Linux has it's own momentum and force. Apart from a few in the computing industry who cant see beyond their wallets, everyone who is introduced to GNU/Linux eventually gets the message and slowly starts to use it almost continuosly. This is my personal experience with people who have absolutely no idea what a beast the computer is.
All the negative arguments against libre software are put forward by people who cant figure out how to hoard wealth while we are dishing out stuff for free by the Gigabyte (and making good money too).
The task of convincing governments and organisations is complicated by the fact that there is no one USP for libre software. It is like the sea - everything is good if you know to swim and fish - or bad if you dont. And off course once you teach em to swim and fish they are likely to eat and splash about happily with or without you. Unless you supply good boats and nets and info about new tasty fish. So perish the thought of growing insanely wealthy doing nothing more than standing on the shore peddling dried wormy and virus ridden fish. GNU/Linux has fragmented the market in every possible way. Consequently if you decide on a target market and build a product specific to this market libre software beats the shit out of closed software without even getting sweaty. But if you decide on something wishy washy like Linux for the dektop you are going to face a problem - deciding whose desktop. The engineers desktop is completely different from the school teachers or lawyers or sound engineers. It is a great opportunity for small focused companies targeting specific markets. Take the case of a sound engineers desktop. The cost of closed software runs to more than 1.5 lacs. Does GNU/Linux make sense now. So what does GNU/Linux lack? only our ability to see opportunity. Will one become wealthy selling GNU/Linux yes. But then "wealthy" is a very relative term. It will certainly prevent buccaneers like BG from accumulating insane mounts of money peddeling trash.
On 26/11/03 16:11 +0530, Nilesh Chaudhari wrote: <snip>
SSIs are too calculating about TCO. And when we talk about the FS ideology, it falls flat when they jump back at you asking about the whole deal they are getting. So TCO has to be explained to them, although it still works to be way cheaper than most proprietary software.
Whats the cost of a Windows admin, as against the cost of an equivalent Linux admin? Particularly if your Windows admin is going to be the same guy who sold you the hardware and pirated software. Nope, I don't see Linux fitting into smaller shops right now. Linux makes sense once you can afford to hire a good admin, but until then Windows makes far more economic sense. It probably would be better to convince the computer supplier to provide Linux cheaper than Windows (and he is going to argue that he knows Windows but doesn't know Linux, so Linux will be more expensive).
Devdas Bhagat
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 10:51:21AM +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
... to use free software not to save money alone, but to be FREE.
<snip>
... the company is that free software is economical is accidental, and not necessary.
Are we as a community capable of leaving idealism aside and answer this hard-headed pragmatist question? ... Open Source ... can be a great eye-opener.
I disagree here because of the reasons mentioned above. Open Source guys/girls have no answer in this situation unless they tell the company that see it is worth spending because you also get source code. That is when everyone realizes what is the crux of the matter.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/shut-up-and-show-them.html
So when RMS insists that we talk about "computer users' rights", he's issuing a dangerously attractive invitation to us to repeat old failures. It's one we should reject -- not because his principles are wrong, but because that kind of language, applied to software, simply does not persuade anybody but us. In fact, it confuses and repels most people outside our culture.
RMS's best propaganda has always been his hacking. So it is for all of us; to the rest of the world outside our little tribe, the excellence of our software is a far more persuasive argument for openness and freedom than any amount of highfalutin appeal to abstract principles. So he next time RMS, or anybody else, urges you to "talk about freedom", I urge you to reply "Shut up and show them the code."
The problem with the kind of "customers" originally described in this thread, is that for them the "cost" of software is not a problem. Unless the LUG wants to become a law-enforcement agency of some kind, there is no way we can win on the TCO front. What we can do talk about is security and portability of the software. With the GNU in place, they can run the same system on their desktop, their laptop and their server. They never have to worry about viruses again.
One obvious problem with this approach was highlighted in another thread, about MS Project. Of course, there's alwasy Wine ...
Sameer.
On Friday 28 November 2003 05:45, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 10:51:21AM +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
... to use free software not to save money alone, but to be FREE.
<snip>
... the company is that free software is economical is accidental, and not necessary.
Are we as a community capable of leaving idealism aside and answer this hard-headed pragmatist question? ... Open Source ... can be a great eye-opener.
I disagree here because of the reasons mentioned above. Open Source guys/girls have no answer in this situation unless they tell the company that see it is worth spending because you also get source code. That is when everyone realizes what is the crux of the matter.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/shut-up-and-show-them.html
So when RMS insists that we talk about "computer users' rights", he's issuing a dangerously attractive invitation to us to repeat old failures. It's one we should reject -- not because his principles are wrong, but because that kind of language, applied to software, simply does not persuade anybody but us. In fact, it confuses and repels most people outside our culture.
RMS's best propaganda has always been his hacking. So it is for all of us; to the rest of the world outside our little tribe, the excellence of our software is a far more persuasive argument for openness and freedom than any amount of highfalutin appeal to abstract principles. So he next time RMS, or anybody else, urges you to "talk about freedom", I urge you to reply "Shut up and show them the code."
The problem with the kind of "customers" originally described in this thread, is that for them the "cost" of software is not a problem. Unless the LUG wants to become a law-enforcement agency of some kind, there is no way we can win on the TCO front.
Not at all. TCO is more about the recurring maintanence costs than the initial capital costs. In fact your next statement states two very important costs in the TCO calculations.
What we can do talk about is security and portability of the software. With the GNU in place, they can run the same system on their desktop, their laptop and their server. They never have to worry about viruses again.
One obvious problem with this approach was highlighted in another thread, about MS Project. Of course, there's alwasy Wine ...
Sameer.
Research Scholar, KReSIT, IIT Bombay http://www.it.iitb.ac.in/~sameerds/
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 15:54, Sachin Nair wrote:
Thnx to sameer for some light on fsf and opensource in general. But then again particularly for Mr. Dsouza,
Does China make a lot of business sense? or IBM, or HP or Trolltech.
No sir, china does not make business sense to me. It has a huge market but has redtape so mind boggling that the Indian threads
Ehh. I have been to China. I dont know what redtape u are talking about. If any thing laws will be by passed for half the moolah one has to throw around in India. I must add tho that in the past couple of years visits by the sundry local officials has reduced substantially here. We were never harassed because our factory is wired up with CCTV and audio surviellance systems - we make them. In any case redtapism, general industrial and labour policy, government laws etc are a seperate kettle of phish and will more or less affect closed and libre software equally (actually tougher piracy laws will help libre software).
seems like just a few knots. Mindless name throwing does not help matters. Even the great Enron fell hard!! Every company has it's own way of dealing with cost cutting measures and dealing with competition. Read .. Microsoft
If you are gong to talk about large corporations then am sorry I was talking about the SSI unit. My fault, I should have specified. 90% of the SSI's operate on pirated software. Ideology in these parts, exists after money!
FSF is not a bussiness nor are opensource coders interested in the
success or failure of your business. It is your job to utilise and contribute to the resources of freesoftware and make your bussiness a success doing so.
Quoting from http://opensource.org "Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial world." unquote.
That body most certainly cannot claim to represent the vast majority of libre coders.
If you do not have the mental horse power to
understand the complexities of free software (or software for that matter) stick to closed source (while it lasts).
Let's not fight shall we? :)
Putting it less acerbically libre software has changed the ground rules in the software bussiness and you need to think carefully and deeply about your bussiness plan. Effective bussiness models are still being tried out.
What are you planning a "Nigerian" vapour ware scam. If the above
reasons do not make sense I wonder what does.
Money makes sense to me. I don't mean money in an ideal world but in the real world. The very company which was earlier heralded by many for its contribution to opensource has been later thrashed for its newest licensing policies. Read REDHAT.
Oh well if it's merely money why are you cavilling about piracy, red tape and other things. Do whatever you think is acceptable to get your pot of gold. Once you have made enough you can preach to all about intellectual property even if you are a convicted monopolist and IP thief - Micro$oft.
google for TCO for linux and you will know why.
Well I have also found copies(hope not) maybe privately funded ) stating otherwise! :/
You are better off whatching an ad campaign than believing a self funded study which was not meant to be published and particularly when the funding link was suppressed. It boils down to cheating.
----- There is a manufacturing unit specializing in certain mechanical components of machines. They make extensive use of Tally(accounting) & AutoCAD. They use pirated copies of software, lack the monetary horsepower to buy the real thing. Even if they
Yeah I understand going hungry and cold to bed and all that. Oh god what is the world coming to.
did, they as of now don't see ay real value in converting when things work just fine. You tell me how do I convince them to convert? Or why should I ask them to convert?
First you cant beat piracy, drugs and sex ;-0. Oh well maybe with more of the same. You can also rat on them pirates and call nasscom. you will get a fat undertakers commission. You can then send in your hench men dressed like angels to sell GNU/Linux. They are unlikely to buy however cause Nasscom would have squezed their u-no-what dry. You might even get felicitated by the above convicted companies and could justly be proud of having helped uphold the law and taking a reasonable step towards your goal of making money.
Peutronics makes a linux version of tally. So they could pirate that. Autocad replacement http://www.linuxcad.com/
That should keep the world warm well fed and fuzzy.
-
Clinton Goveas -
Devdas Bhagat -
Devendra Gera -
J. T. D'souza -
Nagarjuna G. -
Nilesh Chaudhari -
Sachin Nair -
Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe