User talk:68.173.47.175

68.173.47.175 - personal opinions are welcome but should be posted to the talk page (accessed by clicking the 'discussion' tab) not the article page. You too can edit the page on Fossedal though significant changes should be accompanied by a brief explanatory note on the reasons. (If you are however in anyway associated with AdTI/Fossedal please disclose this). Following your provious note I started to edit the page to tidy it up, a process I haven't yet completed. --Bob Burton 14:06, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)

Thanks for your note but suggest you will be more succesful in wikis if you make your comments somewhat more constructively and avoid abuse. AS I indicated yesterday I was intending to reworking the OSS materiala nd shift it to a side page but unexpectedly had to go-offline and that forgot to return last night. Patience. As to your substantive points:

a) re reference to Unification Church etc: I wondered about that too but have opted to leave it in reduced form. 1. It is accurate; 2) it is common for owners of publications to be referred to in articles ie ... in Murdoch-owned Fox News etc. 3)in brackets it can be read as an aside and a teaser for readers arriving via Google to follow the link if they didnlt know of the connection before.

b)re Fossedals comments on OSS. I had intended to reurn and tidy that up once I'd sorted out the various OSS material that had previously been on the page. I have tightened it up to reflect the general content of the linked pages. cheers --Bob Burton 20:29, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)

Hardly Personal Opinions
One of the 3 articles you now cite -- a letter to the editor actually -- hardly makes your case. It begins, "Rather than focusing on breaking apart products and companies that work, the government should fine Microsoft Corporation for its alleged anti-trust violations and use the funds to sponsor grants for competing operating system developments."

I doubt some Microsoft paymaster had him write that.

As for the other two articles, they argue that markets should determine Microsoft's fate rather than the courts. Both were from the Year 2000. What happened? The courts did not break up Microsoft, and since then Linux is eating Microsoft's lunch on the server software, and is coming down to the desktop. Cite please in the name of fairness the Oct 2003 article that Greg wrote that APPLAUDS this.

You can't it seems because you have already decided what your opinion is.

That's abuse.

And no, I am not part of ADTI. More insinuation, which is all you seem capable of.

--

1)Oct 2003 article: Got no idea what you are talking about here I'm afraid. If there's a relevant link then feel free to add it.

2) Didn't suggest you were part of ADTI - just that is is protocol for individuals/those affiliated with organisations to disclose them when writing about themselves/their organisations. Perfectly reasonable expectation that applies across the board. --Bob Burton 22:41, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * Re the Oct. 2003 article, I think he's referring to the article from 2003 where Fossedals describes Bill Gates as "brilliant" and refers to open source developers as "termites ... the community of programmers who couldn't get hired, or compete, with the Redmond wunderkind over several generations of products." That doesn't exactly sound like "applause" to me ... nor does the news release where AdTI claims, "Open Source Software May Offer Target for Terrorists" ... nor does their now-discredited claim that Linus Torvalds didn't really write Linux.


 * What Fossedals is saying in his Oct. 2003 article is consistent with AdTI's long-standing argument that proprietary-software companies like Sun, Oracle and Microsoft will see the value of their intellectual property destroyed if they fail to sue public domain software developers and users for alleged intellectual property infringement. That's not "applause."--Sheldon Rampton 00:26, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)

Some Distinctions Are in Order
The three articles cited from 2000 by Mr. Fossedal all argue for a market solution to the Microsoft problem, and argue explicitly against matters being solved in the courts. Likewise the Oct 2003 article. So how is that consistent with what a writer at ADTI espoused, which as Mr. Rampton would have it, was to have Microsoft defend its IP in the courts? That someone, I feel I need to point out, who was not Greg Fossedal. Another person, another viewpoint, though they belong to the same organization. So it seems more guilt by association. A technology pundit at ADTI gets behind a critique of Open Source. Greg is at ADTI, therefore he must be part of this critique, and a stalking horse for Microsoft. You at Sourcewatch should not be held responsible for each other's opinions. Try to extend the same courtesy to those you write on, even though it may be difficult given that you are writing on organizations first and people second.

In the Oct 2003 article, Fossedal argues that Microsoft is like IBM was 25 years ago, unprepared for the threat that Open Source offers. He claims Bill Gates was 'brilliant' 25 years ago. How can anyone argue he wasn't? At least give the devil his due, Mr. Rampton. But now Microsoft is asleep, and will have it's hands full surviving the hordes of Open Source programmers out there. Termites, yes, but not likely to be defeated. Hence is buy ratings for Red Hat, VA Linux, and his sell rating for Sun, Oracle, and yes Microsoft. So yes, he applauds the workings of the market, arguing the proprietary software market is dying and the Open Source servicing market is rising, and he is advising people to invest accordingly.

If Mr. Fossedal was shilling for Microsoft, as you stubbornly insist, why would he be recommending that one sell the stock, why would he say that Microsoft will lose ground to Linux, why would he recommend that Microsoft be fined and the proceeds used to fund the development of competing operating systems, as he does in yet another document you cite? You argue there that Mr. Fossedal was against the court ordered breakup of Microsoft -- but what of his recommendation that the fine money be used to create new competitors to Microsoft? Maybe Bill Gates isn't that much of a genius after all if that is what he is getting for his payola.

Let's just boil this down: Greg is a 'let the market decide' guy. He is not for monopolies, and if Microsoft is losing in the market -- or winning -- that is as it should be. Whatever someone else at ADTI espoused is another matter.

Since Mr. Rampton has continued the tradition started by "Bonzai" of very selectively citing from Mr. Fossedal's Oct 3 2003 column, I will quote from it at length so that nothing is out of context, and there will be no problems  'refinding' the article. It had been cited previously as evidence against Mr. Fossedal, then removed when I pointed out that it proved the exact opposite, which was why in the name of fairness I had asked that the reference be reinstated. Here's the link and the text: [[Media:http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20031003-052555-4332r]]

"Linux and many programs built on it (such as the Linux-based office suite) function comparably to Microsoft, Oracle, and Sun products. The difference is, they're practically free. They thus fit in to a world in which consumers expect intellectual property to approach the near-zero marginal cost they now enjoy in sharing music, buying or selling stocks, making long-distance telephone calls over the internet, and logging on to the net itself using wifi.

These products and the service they may need, to be sure, are not truly free over time. Large companies, not to mention whole countries, that are now dumping Microsoft to run their networks on Linux, want help servicing their products. Hence such Davids like Red Hat and VA Linux have sprung up and -- over the last two years -- significantly outperformed the stock price of the proprietary software Goliaths.

Still, on the whole, no cost up-front is hard to beat. The software giants already concede their products have no advantages over open source products in terms of security and reliability. They hope to maintain sales based on superior service and customer service, but then again, none of the companies mentioned have a reputation for much other than arrogance when it comes to dealing with customers [Yes, dear readers, he is referring to Microsoft's arrogance].

He concludes:

Sell the proprietary software makers, buy the feisty open-source servicers. If the software behemoths awake, you'll read about it first here. In the meantime, that low rumble you hear from Santa Clara, Redwood City, and Redmond isn't a giant stirring. It's just a loud snore.

That's all I got for you guys. Make of it what you will. Prove to me that you are not knee jerk hacks. Show me that you are not undermining the very cause that you purport to serve by offering slanted one sided and sloppy arguments. There are more than enough crooks, liars and knaves out there. With Greg you have willfully misconstrued his views to fit what you otherwise believed about the think tank he is associated with. Put down the broad brush and pick up a pen instead.