Software Choice = Political Freedom

Aug 8, 11:10 am

A few days ago I made a blog posting in which I said that I've switched my office computer to Windows. I made the change solely in order to run Microsoft Office, which is unique in that it offers high-level functionality I need to do my job. I explained my reasons fully and ended with what I felt were some profound conclusions.

Oh boy. Did I cause a stink. The posting made the front page of Digg.com and LinuxToday. I was suddenly infamous. The reader comments started flowing and most of them were negative.

Debate

I had hoped the posting would raise a debate about the unbreakable bond between Office and Windows. I had hoped my comments about open standards might cause some discussion.

Did that happen? Of course not. All I did was to trigger the age-old debate about Linux vs Windows. Well, it wasn't even a debate. It was merely a collection of haphazard opinions with juvenile name calling thrown in. (Am I supposed to take seriously people who refer to Windows as Windoze and Winblowz, or Microsoft as Micro$oft? What's shocking is that many using these childish names are adults working in IT.)

It became clear that few people got beyond the first paragraphs and had simply assumed I was an open source Benedict Arnold. More than once I was accused of being a Microsoft shill. I find this very entertaining. How exactly would this have worked? How would I have been recruited? To whom at Microsoft should I send the invoice for my services?

Realization

Out of all the ugliness came a profound realization: There are many who believe an individual's choice of software should be driven by politics, rather than practicality.

Of course, Richard Stallman is responsible for introducing politics into computer science. He stated that the ability to view, distribute and manipulate source code should be an essential freedom of our modern age. Speaking personally, this is just one of the reasons why I love open source, but I also love the spirit of community and co-operation that open source generates.

However, it pays to be careful when applying one's beliefs to the real world. While I would encourage you to use open source software (in fact, that's why I wrote my books, and it's why I work as an editor on the open source line for Apress), I'm not going to force you to do so. I'm not going look down on you if you opt for a proprietary solution.

Political situation

This is because applying politics to software choice produces a very ugly situation. It makes for the worse kind of politics: totalitarianism, wherein people are expected to act a certain way because it suits a certain belief system, regardless of whether it's the best thing to do.

History shows that this kind of thing never works. The antidote for totalitarianism is meritocracy. The best should be allowed to rise to the top in every field of human endeavor, regardless of its origins. Meritocracies are often cruel, harsh and ugly. But they're the best system we have right now.

If a piece of software isn't good enough for the task at hand then the developers should either improve the software or move on. Until that point none of us have any obligation to use the software, regardless of how "politically correct" it might be.

A meritocratic system means that, if proprietary software is best for your needs (as in my case), then there should be no impediment—either practical or ethical—to your using it.

Postscript

But I have a postscript. I'm an open source advocate and I don't entirely agree with my own argument. Yes, software choice should be a meritocracy. But I would ask you to start at the open source end of the spectrum when choosing software to meet your needs. I am sure that in all but the most exceptional circumstances (such as mine), you will find an excellent open source tool for your needs. This is A Good Thing, because it furthers the open source software system, which I believe is good for all of us. And, yes, that is a political statement.

This is the only way that the open source vs proprietary debate can move on. We should encourage people to use open source, rather than didactically tell them to do so. We do this by showing how, in many cases, open source software offers the best tool for the job. At all times we should be accepting and respecting of other software models—effectively, we should respect other people's political views. This is the basic prerequisite for a workable political system. If we don't do this then the destiny of open source will be to be stuck on the sidelines of mainstream computer use, shouting at the top of its voice but never being heard by the players.

This has always been my point of view. It's why I wrote my books on Linux—so that I could show people how open source offers a genuine alternative to Windows. In my books I don't argue that people should use Linux. I show them how to use Linux. I show them how it has more merit than Windows. I don't argue against proptietary software. I show how it is unnecessary.

My employers, Apress, have a similar view, and that's why I love working for them. We don't produce books about open source software for political reasons. We love the open source software model but we allow other publishers to make their publishing decisions based on politics. We produce books on open source software because we believe (we know) that in most cases open source provides the best tool for the job.

Permanent Link
by Keir Thomas

    1. HC says:
      Aug 8, 01:04 pm

      I think the negative reaction you received was and is entirely fair.
      Propreitery software, esp MS tech, has billions in advertising dollars. They have access to business suits, trade mags, websites.
      Linux has none of that. Have you ever compared the multi-million dollar “developers, developers….” MS dog and pony shows to Linux conferences where it is hust a bunch of programmers coding.
      Linux has reached where it stands today not from any marketing smoke and mirrors, but entirely due to the dedication of its programmers and its user base.

      Now when people like you, even though well meaning, put up stuff like you did, it strikes a chord. Have you ever heard any MS commercial say that their products suck. Its a war of mindshare and articles like yours only serve to take away from all the good work many people have done.


    1. Stephen Cobb says:
      Aug 8, 01:51 pm

      I am all for open source: Help me do it.

      My law firm uses a Windows server set up, XP on all of the computers, Word for wp and Outlook for calendaring. Because we telecommute extensively, we do not use many traditional law firm programs such as Abacus or Amicus.

      Since everyone is incompetent in some area, we need software that is usable by technically incompetent people: If you were arrested for a felony, are you competent to handle your Florida felony case? No, not any more than I am competent to write code.

      We use Microsoft because it is there, and we can do so. It has bugs, it still crashes, and networking is pure hell. However, we are not aware of an alternative nor do we know how to use it. So don’t trash us as microsofties, get us into a linux based system where I can word process, have a calendar, access files remotely (telecommute), get on the Internet, and not have to have an IT or EE degree to do it.

      In the final analysis, word of mouth is the most effective way for lawyers to get business, not advertising. The same is true for software – if Linux is so great, hook me up. I’ll spread the word within the profession.


    1. Keir Thomas says:
      Aug 8, 02:16 pm

      HC – I’m fighting the “war of mindshare” you refer to. I’ve written three books advocating the use of Linux. I write regularly for this blog. My day job is editing books on open source technology.

      But our weapon in the battle must be the quality of our software, not political dogma, even if political beliefs might provide our impetus.

      Let me give you an example: Mozilla Firefox. Seems like everybody is using it, including millions of people who have never heard of open source. But there’s been almost zero advertising for it. Why is everybody using Firefox? Because it’s a superb piece of software that’s better than what’s offered by Microsoft.

      Firefox shows that battles against proprietary software can be won solely on quality of product. Open source has won in other areas too, such as Web servers. At the moment it’s marching on the desktop with Ubuntu.

      Too many times people have tried to win the battle by stating political ideals. But it turns out these don’t work. Software choice is a meritocracy. Give people good software and they’ll be happy, regardless of its origins.


    1. Andrew Krause says:
      Aug 8, 07:46 pm

      I agree with you completely, on all points actually. I have been a Linux “zealot” for a few years now, but recently I started writing a book for Apress. I had pretty much no choice but to use Microsoft Office, and have to say that I love it.

      After using OpenOffice.org for a few years now, picking up Office really is an upgrade. I wouldn’t say that about any other MS products, but this one I must concede. I applaud you coming out and admitting that a piece of proprietary software is the best solution for what you are doing because I know as an OSS advocate, that is difficult.


    1. John Smith says:
      Aug 9, 09:28 pm

      If only there was choice. In reality, software choice is not down to free choice, it is down to how impractical the monopolist’s can make your attempts to choose freely – that is what the “practicality” you talk about refers to.

      People are entitled to make a choice based on this “practicality” issue, but do not blame them for being angry at being forced to make that choice.


    1. Jack Carroll says:
      Aug 9, 09:48 pm

      I find much to agree with in this essay. I have a few comments to add, though.

      Not every software user needs to be interested in political considerations when selecting applications and systems. Nevertheless, there are valid political considerations, which are important to some—notably, the Massachusetts state government. Particularly when document files need to be maintained and updated over periods of decades and centuries, open-standard formats are of great importance. Experience has shown that enforcing such a requirement involves intense political battles. A raw political struggle for power over others, opposed by a struggle against domination by others, is exactly what has occurred in the last year. About word processors: I’ve used MS Word at work for many years, and found it inadequate for any but the simplest jobs. When I try to use some of the more advanced features such as Tables, or use combinations of features, I’ve had it repeatedly corrupt data and/or crash. Sometimes it works for some users on some machines with some files, sometimes it’s just hopeless. This is not a tool I can use to get my work done, unless I carefully restrict what I’m trying to do. By the way, Word isn’t inextricably tied to Windows; it’s well-supported on GNU/Linux via Crossover Office. The obvious alternative is OpenOffice Writer: it’s explicitly designed to be a replacement for Word. I’ve been doing some jobs with it recently. I’ve found it to be somewhat superior to Word; I’ve been able to lay out moderately complex documents with tables inside anchored frames. It hasn’t corrupted any data on me yet, but I have had one crash, which the auto-save file recovered. What I don’t like about it is the same sort of dumbed-down operator interface Word has, with great numbers of narrowly-targeted features instead of fewer generalized features that can be used in many ways. Like Word, it wants to do things its own way, and it take extra effort to force it do things your way. (But at least you can.) What I’ve found to be a real professional document-creation tool is neither of these. It’s FrameMaker 3.1. I’ve been using it since 1994 on a Unix workstation. The user interface is very well thought out, control of page layout is very fine-grained and logical, and the manuals are superb. And I’ve never run into a bug with it. Not in 12 years. Too bad it’s so expensive, and isn’t offered on Linux. So yes, I too, use a proprietary application for certain jobs, because it’s the most efficient, adaptable, and obedient tool available. But it really does win on merit, not marketing hype, FUD, or lock-in. So far, the open source world has not surpassed it.
    1. BH says:
      Aug 9, 10:04 pm

      On paper your argument for using MS Word instead of OO Wri