Hi all,

My good friend Chakkerz, of quite some time has written an essay pretaining to the semantics of the open source methodology. This same essay was posted on at0micmpc but I find the community here is always more willing to think about these things, than the group of users over there. I’d really like to see everyone read this, as it contains some on the whole, very insightful points and concepts that can only be gained through experience and understanding of the industry. Some of the ideologies mentioned in this essay, I live by, in my computing life, with good reason. With this and much respect, I give you the 14 part essay:

Freedom to do

0 – Introduction

The following is an opinion piece based on what I have seen over the last few years since I have converted to Free Software (after converting to Open Source). I remember thinking that IE was quite a good browser. This was when IE 4 was realeased. Since then I have worked as a consultant, developer and systems admin (both Windows and GNU/Linux). Today I asked a co-worker where I configure the DNS settings on a Windows box – i was stuck in the mental look of “what am I going to use to edit it… there is no emacs on those windows systems”. My co-worker mentioned “it’d be in … umm … Network settings?”. After he had set “network” I had turned because I remembered the Control Panel (a poor man’s /etc/).

This essay is about the totality of alternate OS options for You. No matter who you are. It deals with Windows vs GNU/Linux more than anything, but also what drives the software development market, and what influences set the direction (primarily, again, You). I address politics, pet peeves and why textbooks and people lie (sorry, read “simplify”).

This is an opinion piece, it is not researched, there are no citations, and it is far from complete. I realise that my opinions are not unique or necessarily correct, and would love to read your feedback on how wrong and hypocritical I am.

1 – Simplified Explanations of “Free Software” and “Open Source”

Repeatedly has it been explain by RNS in particular what the difference between open source and free software is. Others (such as prominent beings such as Eric S Raymond and Tim O’Reilly) consistently re-appropriate the distinction for alternate purposes. Arguably these subversions are not intended to harm the FSF’s goal but rather spread the word on ONE of the benefits and leave the politics to the side. The single goals commonly focused on are often:

– There is source code;
– There is a sharing of ideas;
– The product costs little (or nothing);
– It is the new way;
– It is the old way;
– It is the only way (for the future) and
– Everybody is doing it (except the audiences that are being re-educated right now).

Many having bought their introductory message and showing an interest in the area soon stumble through this new “open” world and wonder if they took the wrong exit of the main stream. Just like advertising generally the sugar coating is just that … a fascade of the truth.

So what is the truth? The truth is that Open Source and Free Software are fundamentally different concepts with fundamentally different goals and quirkily enough are alligned in who their audince (read “end user”) is. Free software is geared for everyone. That means You, your grandmother, your grand children, their grandchildren, everyone in between, everyone outside your family, everyone in the world INCLUDING those people that have never used a computer, never will. It is about freedom, it is about community and most importantly it is about being in control of your life. It is freedom of choice but at the same time frowns on you choosing not to have a choice.

That is the hardest concept to explain to individuals. You may make any choice you want, including the wrong one PROVIDED that your choices do not remove the choice from others. In essence it is a question of individuality. To borrow from a recent and popular move, imagine a band of freedom fighters turned into peace makers and negotiated the release of millions of prisoners of war. Imagine the POWs were given a choice to go home or not go home, and chose to continue living in bondage. The peacemakers would be reasonably frustrated. This is freedom of choice, you may make any choice, but you should choose the right thing.