Re: [Fsfe-uk] Fwd: OSS Watch inaugural conference, 11 December 2003

[Andrew Savory]

Hi,

On 28 Nov 2003, at 12:31, Kevin Donnelly wrote:

> I think your rant is bizarre, and suggests you are only on this list to
> reassure yourself that free software is still not *quite* "good 
> enough" to
> justify your jettisoning whatever proprietary software you use on your
> desktop every day.  (Do it, man!  You'll breathe easier!  Free 
> software is not
> only for the server/enterprise space!)  I'm content to let Alex' very
> reasoned response stand in place of the ear-burner I was about to
> send.

Heh, I need no reassurance in my position - having spent many years 
working in a free software environment with predominantly free software 
tools, I've got a very good grasp of what software is and isn't good 
enough. I'm well aware it's not just for the server/enterprise space 
(linux has been my primary desktop environment for about 6-8 years, up 
until recently). So bring on the ear-burners, with the weather as it is 
I could do with warming up a bit.

> The only point I would add to what Alex said is that even in terms of
> "balance" this conference doesn't make the grade.  "A balanced and 
> neutral
> source of information about Open Source software" should be just that 
> - the
> balance should apply to OSS (eg not overselling it in places where it 
> would
> be inappropriate), not to computing as a whole.  If it's important to 
> present
> "alternatives", why not also have Sun or IBM or Macromedia or Apple or 
> any of
> a host of others?

As I said in my reply to Jason, perhaps you need to know the remit of 
OSS Watch in order to appreciate why it makes sense to have a 
proprietary viewpoint represented. I guess the reason why all the 
alternatives aren't represented is because Microsoft is by far the most 
significant proprietary vendor in the Further/Higher Education space, 
and the one that causes the most concerns for the audience. Or maybe 
the only one brave enough to show up.

> I also happen to think a presentation by MS alone is a gross insult to
> people's intelligence  - do you think anyone likely to come to this
> conference is  so thick that he/she doesn't know there are alternative 
> MS
> technologies?  The whole point of such a conference should surely be to
> provide a view of what is the REAL alternative, not to hear more of the
> claptrap they already hear non-stop from vendors (your good self 
> excluded,
> I'm sure).

Thanks for illustrating my point about "aggressive open source 
evangelists" so beautifully! Don't try telling people what the point of 
the conference should be until you're sure you know why the conference 
is taking place. Try not to keep pointing that shotgun at your own 
foot, eh?

This is turning into WIPO vs MS vs FSF ...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33844.html


Andrew.

--
Andrew Savory, Managing Director, Luminas Limited
Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658  Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135
Web: http://www.luminas.co.uk/
Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/