Linux & Microsoft as a Cold War?

I confirm writes "The BBC's Bill Thompson summarises the GNU/Linux vs. Microsoft struggle as a "cold war", and in one choice quote says:"It is rather ironic that Microsoft and other closed model companies rather resemble the Stalinist or Maoist model of a command economy with complete centralised control." I'm not sure I accept Thompson's conclusions, however: "So now would be a good time to start thinking about how we persuade governments that market in software may eventually need to be regulated, just as the market in electricity, water and food is, and that that regulation may well include a statutory duty to disclose source code and allow it to be used elsewhere." "

I never liked the idea of regulation.

[FreeLinux]

start thinking about how we persuade governments that market in software may eventually need to be regulated

Bad idea. If it needs to be regulated then I believe that your product is inadequate. If your product is the best, then the market will decide. Think about it for a minute. You have a free operating system with free applications that you claim to be superior to everything else yet, you then want/need government regulation and mandates to require people to use your "better product"? That just doesn't make sense.

I don't care what monopolistic practices Microsoft pulls, short of government mandates requiring Microsoft's use. If the product is truely better it will be chosen over others. The price is already right.

Pig iron [2002 Gates memo calls for security]

[NZheretic]

The suggestion has been made before ...

Subject: Pig iron [Was: Article: Gates memo calls for security focus] [google.com]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:16:08 GMT, Alun Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:

>In article <u0O18.81315$[e-mail]> , Simon Chang
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>It remains to be seen whether Gates & Co. continues to treat inadequate
>>security policy and implementation as just public relations issues.
>

>In Microsoft's favour, look what happened when Gates wrote a memo suggesting
>that the company should get with the Internet. Complete U-turn on the part of
>the whole company, with a huge emphasis on Internet development. What Gates
>says, goes. Just maybe those doomsayers within Microsoft who have been saying
>yes, but what about the security angle? (I presume there are some) will now
>be listened to, and their recommendations acted on. I certainly hope so.
>

I fully admit, it is a Great Leap Forward, just like another one in history...

http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/99/0924/ cn_economy.html [asiaweek.com]
+Mao launched the Great Leap Forward program in 1958, arguably the greatest
+economic folly of the 20th century. To help China surpass the economies of
+Britain and the U.S. in 15 years, he decreed that every Chinese should
+produce smelt iron. Hundreds of millions of citizens neglected farms to make
+low-grade pig iron. Beijing did not know that grain was rotting in the fields

Why the above quote? Check out the language Mr Gates uses in his letter
( see the register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23715.html [theregister.co.uk]
). Remind you of the announcements of the old five year plans from
the old Soviet and Maoist regimes? Even down to the use of catch phrases!

If Microsoft's Management is serous ( and given their past pronouncements
on the security of their products - thats a very big if ) , it is a
Herculean but not impossible task ahead. It will not happen overnight.


Microsoft Makes Software Safety a Top Goal - January 17, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/technology/17SEC U.html [nytimes.com]
+Every developer is going to be told not to write any new line of code, Mr.
+Allchin said, until they have thought out the security implications for the
+product.

YES !!! Finally, but a little too late since almost all of the core OS and
application code has already been written.

Microsoft should have started this process three years ago.
The attempt to turn their current inherently designed insecure products
into a trusted system is like that of turning a sows ear into a silk
purse. The result is more likely to be pots and pans into useless,
unsaleable pig iron. A lot of the core design for many of the products
is going to have to be rewritten.

As for Trustworthy computing See

Avoiding bogus encryption products: Snake Oil FAQ ...
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/cryptography-faq/snake-oi l/ [faqs.org]
... the warning principals apply as much to secure software
products as it does to cryptographic products.

For software to be Trustworthy it requires that both the source and
build processes be verifiable by public inspection by peers in the
industry. That *requires* an unrestrictive license such as open
source (

Re:Communism is a good thing???

[Distinguished Hero]

Confusing communism with totalitarism (sic). Yet again.

He is not confusing communism with totalitarianism; he is merely listing historical incidents, which have arisen as a result of attempts to create communist states.
Any attempt at communism, on anything other than a very small scale, regardless of the initial intentions, always leads to totalitarianism. This has proven by history, and is almost certainly guaranteed by human nature.
It is similarly to how shooting someone in the head at point blank range leads to that person's death.
So, to reiterate:
In the same way that shooting someone in the head at point black range --> Death,
Communism --> Totalitarianism

P.S. This is not an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Already regulated in some sectors

[SimoM]

What you can (and probably should) do is to regulate its use in any of these fields as that field seees fit (or not regulate at all, as the case may be). When it is to be used in medicine, regulate it as a medical technology.

Software is already regulated in some fields, such as when it is part of a medical device. See, for instance, FDA-imposed design controls on medical devices "automated with computer software" in 21 CFR 820.30 [fda.gov]. FDA has stated that "Software must be validated when it is a part of the finished device. FDA believes that this control is always needed, given the unique nature of software, to assure that software will perform as intended and will not impede safe operation by the user." (in their final rule [fda.gov] on that "Quality System Regulation"). The regulations call for extensive documented verification and validation activities.

Re:No such thing as a free lunch

[doomdog]

None of what you wrote would apply to the Therac-25 problems. It was simple programmer error that caused the malfunction, and killed a few people...

Voodoo economics

[rumblin'rabbit]

The state of economic knowledge of your typical /.'er is truly appalling. You state that there's no such thing as the public good in capitalism? Read Adam Smith's "The Wealth Of Nations". It may be more than two centuries old (first published in 1776, rather appropriately) but it's as relevant today as it ever was. Adam Smith explains in great detail how a person behaving in his or her own self interest adds to the public good.

And capitalism is not in the least elitist. The paper boy, the owner/operator of the corner grocery, the local landscpape expert, the software consultant - these are every bit the capitalists that Bill Gates is. Indeed, the ability to produce value efficiently is a wonderful equalizer, constantly raising up the capable and bringing down the arrogant. So many of todays billionaires started with essentially nothing, and so many of tomorrow's billionairies have essentially nothing today.

And so far as socialism being egalitarian, communal, and sharing in the public good? Well, perhaps you could point out a good working example. All I can think of is Stalin and the twenty million Russian corpses he left behind.