Turning the fight for Linux up one level

The Open Source Initiative just published its Halloween XI. The Halloween documents started from an internal memo issued by Microsoft in 1998. This was the very first time Microsoft noticed the Linux threat. Back then, they were relatively calm about it but made the following statement:

Loosely applied to the vernacular of the software industry, a product/process is long-term credible if FUD tactics can not be used to combat it. OSS [open source software] is Long-Term Credible.

This was 6 years ago. This year, they are organizing meetings in various cities to convince people not to switch to Linux. In many ways, Microsoft is losing this war against Linux, against us. They went from internal meetings, to ads, and now they are touring countries.

Microsoft crushed everything else in the software industry and made Bill Gates the richest man in the world. But they finally met something they couldn’t, wouldn’t crush the same way. Make no mistake about it: Microsoft will lose, Microsoft will fail. Not this year, not next year, but soon. They must fail.

Gates built his empire by noticing that he could sell software whereas people had been freely sharing software. Indeed, why sell what can be copied freely? Whereas most people saw software as something that had to be shared, Gates saw a nearly infinite source of revenue. And he took it for himself.

Gates’ vision has profound consequences which seems to espace most people. It might seem to be a small issue whether you store your data in a Microsoft forward and lock your work in Microsoft software… After all, who cares? Microsoft products are relatively inexpensive and well supported, so often, it is much easier to go with Microsoft… why bother fighting the system? Why indeed.

Suppose tomorrow we would have machines able to freely copy food. Suppose someone said no, this ought to be illegal, I can use this machine but everyone else has to pay for the food. We would think this individual was mad. Well, that’s what the software industry is: people who own food creating machine and they keep it for themselves. Food might not be as vital as software, but it is nevertheless quite vital in our century. Software is humanity’s future. We may soon be able to produce goods in a similar fashion. Buy one nanotech machine and it can generate any goods you want for very cheap as long as you can input the proper software into it. Are we going to allow a few people to take control of software? of our future?

I’m not advocating your break the law and copy Microsoft software. Don’t break the law. Copy software though: copy Linux everywhere you can. Because software is weatlh and by copying it you make humanity wealthier.

Comments (0)

Need for increasingly poweful tools as cyberspace grows

Thanks to Internet, it is possible for a musician in Bolivia to be listened to in Toronto. My blog is read by people in Brezil. However, there is a very serious threat on this brave new world: that individuals and small communities get lost in the ever increasing noise. Just think about how progressively less reliable and useful email has become. I think this is partly a technology issue: we need increasingly poweful tools as cyberspace grows.

Comments (1)

What defines leadership?

Yuhong’s new blog talks about leadership. She quite accurately points out that in research, as in all creative work, leadership is a very important quality. I’ve struggled myself with the concept while I was filling out funding applications (yes, I’m still working on funding). People ask you to prove you are a leader… but what does it mean to be a leader?

Yuhong proposes the following definition:

Always take into account everyone’s interest
Be generous
Have a vision

I like Yuhong’s definition!

Comments (4)

Is Montréal a creative city?

This morning, I went out and decided to do some research on the city where I live from a creative class point of view. I found two reports. One by Richard Florida himself on Canadian cities. The report was paid for by Ontario, but it looks objective. Second of all, I found a report by the department of Canadian Heritage on attracting talent in Canada.

What comes out of these reports is that Montréal is not a very creative city. It more creative than the Canadian average, but well below Vancouver and Toronto. However, it is definitively a tech. center, it actually surpass both Toronto and Vancouver in terms of being a technopolis. Florida’s report point out though that these figures might be misleading: a lot of tech. workers in Montréal work in the aerospace industry and their job might be in a tech. industry, but it is unclear how much technology is involved in their work. There are creative and talented people in Montréal, but according to the Heritage Canada report, they are poor if not starving.

I must say that these reports match my intuition. I’ve been back from the maritimes for a few months now, and while Montréal is well ahead of the maritimes in terms of food for example (and yes, it does contribute to the creativity index), I’m a bit disappointed. A lot of people in Montréal don’t get it. It is all about big corporations, big unions, big salaries for them. Hey! I want a big salary too! Don’t get me wrong… But the open culture isn’t there.

I would describe the culture here as a “république des satisfaits” (well-off republic): that is, you have a large segment of the population, the baby-boomers, who are squarely in control of the society. They occupy all strategic jobs and resist changes. They have good paying jobs and don’t really care for creativity or openess. I should point out that Montréal is one of the most unionized city in North America. And they make sure younger folks stay out. I suspect they also keep foreigners out. This is somewhat an easier thing to achieve here than in the rest of North America where people are slightly more mobile. I suppose that it is also culturally influenced by France which has a strong sense of hierarchy. Whatever, it sucks and Montréal pays for it: my intuition is that more great jobs are created in Vancouver and Toronto than here.

However, I don’t think this applies as well to the anglophone community in Montréal. I suspect, I hope, they stand closer to Toronto and Vancouver in terms of their creativity index. That’d be an interesting study to make. Are Montréal anglos more open? Wow. You could start quite a debate there.

Comments (3)