M$ Monitor: Open Source Origins

[Audrie Krause <audrie@netaction.org>]

The Micro$oft Monitor
$ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ -----  $ ----- $ 
Published by NetAction          Issue No. 39                 March 27, 1999	
Repost where appropriate. Copyright and subscription info at end of message.
* * * * * * *      
In This Issue:
Open Source Origins
One Picture
An Interesting List
About the Micro$oft Monitor
$ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ -----  $ ----- $ 

Open Source Origins

"In a world where Microsoft increasingly threatens to dominate computing and
the Internet, the strongest potential rival to its dominance is no longer
its traditional commercial rivals but, surprisingly, a seemingly motley
collection of free software tools and operating systems collectively dubbed
free software or "open source" software."  So writes Nathan Newman in the
opening paragraph of NetAction's latest White Paper, "The Origins and Future
of Open Source Software."

The complete White Paper is on NetAction's web site at:
<http://www.netaction.org/opensrc/future/>.

The White Paper examines the past history of the government's support for
open source computing, the lessons of its success and the results of its
pullback in the early 1990s.  This historical analysis forms the basis for
NetAction's recommendations for a policy program for the future. 
 
"Open source software, largely funded by the federal government, was the
wellspring of the creation of the whole computer industry and to this day
still lies at the heart of how the Internet came into being," Nathan writes.
"Through a combination of key funding agencies, administrative oversight of
software standards and government purchasing rules, the federal government
had helped stimulate free software and open standards for decades."

Nathan argues that the prominence of open source software was undermined by
the privatization of the Internet and the commercialization of areas of
software once dominated by open source options.  He believes this was due
primarily to the fact that in the early 1990s, the federal government pulled
back from its commitment to open standards and support for open source
software. 

"This left the way open for increases in proprietary, incompatible software
and for a company like Microsoft to seek to dominate the computing world
with its own proprietary standard," he writes.

Nathan also suggests that the reemergence of open source software as an
important force is largely a reaction against Microsoft itself.  He suggests
that Microsoft's competitors -- who themselves have seen their own
proprietary alternatives sink under the Microsoft steamroller -- have
suddenly seen alliances with open source software as a chance to halt the
Windows monopoly.  But he cautions that the alliance creates new tensions
which must be resolved for open source software to succeed.  

The White Paper concludes that what is needed is a revival of a federal
government public policy that supports open source computing and strong
standards that can again support the promise of open source innovation.   
The White Paper provides additional support for the recommendations put
forward in Mitch Stoltz's White Paper, "The Case for Government Promotion of
Open Source Software."  The earlier paper is on the web at:
<http://www.netaction.org/opensrc/oss-report.html>.

As we noted in the Stoltz paper, the federal government is already spending
billions of dollars on software research, purchases and implementation.  If
those resources were directed toward supporting open source solutions, it
would provide clear technological advantages while undermining the Microsoft
monopoly.  But this effort can only succeed if the government insists on
uniform standards for Linux and the other open source software it purchases.
$ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ -----  $ ----- $ 

One Picture

Countless thousands of words have been written about Microsoft's monopoly,
including more than a few by NetAction.  Occasionally, we have come across a
picture that says it all.  One was forwarded to us recently by Thomas Fine,
a webmaster/web developer/unix system administrator at the
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.  

Actually, Thomas created a series of animated gifs, which can be found at:
<http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~fine/images/microft/microft.html>.

Thomas explained his motivation for creating the gifs as follows:

"At this point most people realize that Microsoft has a long history
of shady behavior in their business practices.  But there's still
a widespread belief (oft-repeated in the national media) that we
(the consumers) still benefit in some way from the monopoly, because of
the simplicity of a single platform.  I don't think this is true --
and I think it is an issue people should be talking more about.

"I created the animated gifs so that others who feel the same way could
put them on their web pages, and quickly express their viewpoint.  My
hope is that it will begin to appear on a large number of web pages,
and promote more discussions about the real costs and (lack of) benefits
associated with Microsoft's monopoly."

Thomas told us that he is not affiliated with any specific organization. 

"The Internet gives me the power to contribute, so I do," he explained.
$ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ -----  $ ----- $ 

An Interesting List

James Love, Director of the Consumer Project on Technology, recently
announced a new list, random-bits@essential.org.  

The random-bits list was started as a small closed list which Jamie used to
forward miscellaneous items about Microsoft to reporters and others who were
closely following the Microsoft antitrust case.  

According to Jamie, traffic on the list varies from no messages during a
week to as many 5 messages a day.  Archives of the list and subscription
information are on the web at: <http://www.cptech.org/lists.html>.
$ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ -----  $ ----- $ 

About The Micro$oft Monitor

The Micro$oft Monitor is a free electronic newsletter, published as part of
the Consumer Choice Campaign <http://www.netaction.org/msoft/ccc.html>.
NetAction is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to educating the
public, policy makers, and the media about technology-based social and
political issues, and to teaching activists how to use the Internet for
organizing, outreach, and advocacy.

To subscribe to The Micro$oft Monitor, write to: <majordomo@netaction.org>.
The body of the message should state: <subscribe monitor>.  To unsubscribe
at any time, send a message to: <majordomo@netaction.org>.  The body of the
message should state: <unsubscribe monitor>

NetAction is seeking sponsors to provide financial support for the continued
publication of the Micro$oft Monitor.  Sponsors will be acknowledged in the
newsletter and on NetAction's Web site.  NetAction is supported by
individual contributions, membership dues and grants. 

For more information about contributing to NetAction, or sponsoring the
Micro$oft Monitor, contact Audrie Krause by phone: (415) 775-8674, by
E-mail: <mailto:audrie@netaction.org>, visit the NetAction Web site at:
<http://www.netaction.org>, or write to: 
NetAction * 601 Van Ness Ave., No. 631 * San Francisco, CA 94102

To learn more about how activists can use the Internet for grassroots
organizing, outreach, and advocacy, subscribe to NetAction Notes, a free
electronic newsletter published twice a month.  

To subscribe to NetAction Notes, send a message to: <majordomo@netaction.org>
The body of the message should state: <subscribe netaction>.  To unsubscribe
at any time, send a message to: <majordomo@netaction.org>.  The body of the
message should state: <unsubscribe netaction>.
$ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ ----- $ -----  $ ----- $ 

Copyright 1999 by NetAction/The Tides Center.  All rights reserved.
Material may be reposted or reproduced for non-commercial use provided
NetAction is cited as the source.  NetAction is a project of The Tides
Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.