Category Archives: Open-Source Software

Open Letter to Alaa Halasa

February 26, 2007 – 11:19 am

Dear Alaa Halasa,

Thank you for your comments on my recent post, Chavez, Castro Throwing Microsoft Out. I decided to reply this way to give your comments (and my reply) more visibility. Here is your first comment:

(Linux) it is a great success for us in the open source community. Dear Mr. Castro I always respect you, you are a great person, and I am proud with your eager for freedom to all of the Cubans even in the software. I hope all the development countries follow Chavez and Castro.

I applaud your effort to learn the English language. You’re doing a lot better with English than I am with your first language. You might, though, want to spend a little time researching the meaning of ‘freedom’ and comparing Castro’s brand of freedom with that of, say, Lech Walesa. You can start here.

The article that I read, and linked to in my post, said that Castro planned to convert Cuba’s computers to open-source software and phase out dependence on the Windows operating system. Perhaps I misread his intentions but I just assumed that ‘phasing out dependence’ means that Linux would eventually replace Windows on Cuba’s computers. But if Castro is “eager for freedom to all of the Cubans even in the software” then ‘phasing out dependence’ must mean that Castro just wants to give computer users in Cuba an alternative to Windows. Knowing how totalitarian regimes work, I’ll go with my first impression.

I don’t share your admiration for Castro but I don’t condemn you for respecting him. You won’t be thrown in jail in the USA for praising Castro. Does a blogger in Cuba feel free to praise George Bush? You won’t be thrown in jail in the USA for criticizing Bush. Does a blogger in Cuba feel free to criticize Castro?

In the USA, freedom means that individuals, and even government employees, are free to choose the computer operating system they want to use. In Cuba, freedom means that Castro chooses the operating system. Real freedom is about individual choice not government restriction.

Here is your second comment:

Dear Blogger, the linux operating system is more powerful more stable. You can use it as a user and as a developer and as a technical, you can dive at what level you want. I respect your opinion but I wish you can see Linux in more specific eyes apart from marketing issues that make people blinds.

I didn’t denigrate the Linux operating system itself; I just questioned the motives of some of its developers. In fact, I said that I was glad that it exists. Options and choices are what the free market is about.

Your last statement seems to imply that users of commercial operating systems are just blinded by their marketing, that these users didn’t make an informed choice based on their particular needs. I have to strongly disagree with you on this. People have good reasons for choosing Windows or the Mac OS over Linux. Those that choose Linux also have good reasons. I don’t question your decision to use Linux, nor do I have a problem with you advocating Linux based on its merits.

Before retirement I worked for a small company (400 employees nationwide, 30 at my location) that provided engineering and analytical services to the US Department of Defense. We used both Windows and Linux. The employees made the choice; it was not mandated by management. Some chose Linux because it better suited the highly technical nature of their jobs. Some chose Windows because it better suited the management or clerical nature of their jobs. Some chose one or the other because they were more comfortable with it and didn’t want to take the time to learn a new OS. Some chose to use both. At the time, I considered it good news to learn that a competitor mandates the universal use of one particular OS.

Alaa, I believe that a free market works to the advantage of the people and that a managed market works to the advantage of the managers. And I believe that choice is the essence of a free market.

Sincerely,
Carson Sasser

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Socialism | Comments (3) |

Chavez, Castro Throwing Microsoft Out

February 17, 2007 – 12:19 pm

The Associated Press reports that “Cuba’s communist government is trying to shake off the yoke of at least one capitalist empire — Microsoft Corporation — by joining with socialist Venezuela in converting its computers to open-source software.” They want to phase out their dependence on the Windows operating system and phase in the use of Linux instead.

Open-source roughly means that the software application is ostensibly free of cost and that the user has access to and the right to modify the source code in order to customize the behavior of the software. Linux is an open-source computer operating system originally developed by a Finnish programmer, Linus Torvalds, but extended and improved over the years since by many volunteer programmers. Its use and operation is similar to the Unix operating system but was designed specifically for personal computers. Although Linux can be downloaded and installed at no cost, most users purchase a packaged version from a vendor to avoid the trials and tribulations of trying to install it themselves. The vendors charge for the packaging and the installation software, not the Linux software itself (how convenient).

Using the collective efforts of many unpaid programmers to produce software which is then made available to anyone that wants it is said by some to be a socialistic endeavor. Technically it is but dissenters need to understand that open-source software is developed by private individuals doing what they choose to do with their time — not by a government bureaucracy. Perhaps the ‘collective efforts’ thing is why socialist regimes seem to be attracted to open-source software.

I do believe, though, that some of the open-source contributors are a bit misguided. One of the reasons often given for their efforts was to produce an alternative to Microsoft’s monopolistic Windows operating system and Office applications. That sounds good but Microsoft has never enjoyed a monopoly. Apple offered an OS before Microsoft did and it is still available as an alternative. There was OS2 and several other less well known alternatives. There have always been alternatives to Microsoft’s Office applications. Remember Word Perfect and Lotus123? The reason Microsoft overwhelmed its competition is that they offered products that best suited users in terms of cost, capability and ease of use.

It is good that Linux is out there but I think its development was motivated more by the egos of the contributors than a real desire to do something for the people. There is also the fact that many of the contributors eventually profited handsomely from their efforts.

Besides the packaging and installation charges by the Linux vendors, some experts believe that the operation and management costs are greater for open-source than for commercial software. They believe that commercial software comes with better technical support than does open-source.

It might be good for us that the communist dictatorships to the south of us want to rid their countries of commercial software.

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Socialism | Comments (4) |