Saturday, April 21, 2007
Before I go, I'd like to urge folks to read the entire entry from "mapantsula," a professor at Virginia Tech and an atheist, in response to some nonsense from Dinesh D'Souza.The 'entire entry from "mapantsula,"' is indeed an articulate, thoughtful and heartfelt perspective. It was written by an individual who has, in my opinion, wrestled long and hard with the issues of God and faith.
While mapantusla's expressed views and (non-)beliefs do not coincided perfectly with my own I was impressed by the establishment of his/her personal position. Even more important, in my view, was her/his clear and concise articulation of some very difficult theological and philosophical issues.
Blog Lineage and YOYOW
As you can see, I took the liberty of using a common blogging technique, 'lineage citations', to establish the validity and veracity of this posting. Such a formal lineage helps the reader to better appreciate the message. To better put the message in context. To better understand the message by situational or circumstantial associations. All in all, citing other people makes my message that much more accessible.
As a long standing proponent of Personal Responsibility I am obliged to follow YOYOW. This is, however, a personal choice that I cognitively make. While there may be some moral high ground here, I am not legally obligated to 'sign' every post. This brings me to the subject acknowledged by Elayne at the end of her post...
My only qualm with it is that this person has chosen to remain anonymous; while I certainly understand why, it tends to undercut his or her credibility a bit.Being such a strong proponent of YOYOW I find myself in the very uncomfortable position of suggesting that I am 'not seeing the forest for the trees' in circumstances like this. I fall victim all too quickly to the praise/blame game and end up unwilling or unable (in other circumstances) to receive the value of the message.
I once advocated setting up an anonymous bulletin board so that co-workers could express anything that they felt called to share. Rather like a graffiti wall. My boss was livid - absolutely nothing written in such an anonymous environment would be of any value what so ever.
I am sure that had such an anonymous board been put up the boss would have been subject to some much deserved and undeserved criticism. As well the company might have received some positive and negative views. My question then and now is; Are people fearless enough to say the difficult things that need to be said? Would a line worker run the risk of losing his job to offer a criticism that is valid but sure to rile the big boss man? I believe that open and anonymous forums are necessary to overcome these types social stonewalls.
Posted by William Meloney at 10:04 AM
Friday, April 20, 2007
1. Open Source predates proprietary software.
2. Apache kept the Web flat and free
3. Open SSL kept cryptography available to everyone
4. Open Source helped free the human genome
5. Microsoft loves open source
6. Altruism is not the only reason why people contribute to open source software
6. Online communities can actually get things done
7. The most important freedom: the right to for
9. Open source can still change the world
10. Open source needs your help (whoever you are)
One doesn't have to be a programmer to be able to help out on open source projects. To begin you can help by just trying it out. Recommended programs that can be run off a Windows system include the Open Office office suite and the Firefox Web browser. There are a number of "live" CD distributions of Linux that can be tried out without affecting your CD, such as Ubuntu. Open source development happens through forums and participation in a forum can help. If you encounter a bu in an open source application, reporting it can also be helpful to the developers. Another way for bilingual non-programmers to help is in translating the text of the program.
Posted by William Meloney at 12:56 PM
A product sooooo bad they cannot even give it away?
(Written from "Linux on a Laptop")
Again?!?!?! Microsoft shows just what contempt and avarice it has when dealing with the people who are the foundation of its great wealth: us, you and me. When is M$ going to offer us $3 XP and Office? HA!
Posted by William Meloney at 10:22 AM
Monday, April 16, 2007
Plain and simple: Open source does not meet the needs of shareholders and CEO's.
Shareholders and CEO's are driven by one thing; profit. There is no sense doing business, or investing in business, if said business does not turn a profit. If this were not the case then there would be a huge market for rat holes so that money could be thrown down them.
I believe that Sun Microsystems has the right approach to Open Source software. Here I am referring to OpenOffice. I believe Sun acquired OO for two reasons. First and foremost was to "stick it" to Microsoft. Second was an incredibly savy move; ingratiate themselves with the greater Open Source community. (Something that Microsoft has never attempted to do.) Sun may even realize a small profit from its commercial version of StarOffice.
Sun's real victory is the inroads it has made into the overall 'office suite' arena. Without leveraging the open source project, supporting it, nurturing it, Sun would still be trying to make do with an inferior MS product.
Posted by William Meloney at 10:04 AM