burngreave.net

Came across This on a mailing list

The original article crap! But even so ..

The arguments seem to lead up to its final statement
 
> > demonstrate quite clearly that the promotion of open-source software
> > cannot be an economically justifiable role for the state.
 
But there are probably a number of fallacious steps involved.  I guess you
could use the similar arguments against public sector broadcasting, of course
we should get rid of the BBC as it distorts the whole UK broadcasting economy.
 
It seems to paint all OSS with the gnu brush, where MS themselves make use of
OSS in their 'Services for Unix' product.  
 
Much software is a becoming utility.  I don't really care if I'm using MS
word, OOffice or some java web applet service to type a letter, as long it
looks mostly OK at the end of the day.  For example, the fact that I can
insert maps into MS excel, a function so rarely used it adds no value to my
usage of the product, and its so limply implemented that anybody who needed
that sort of functionality would have to purchase a better solution, why not
go with the unix philosophy of simple tools for simple task.
 
There must be many arguments for the state providing bread and butter
solutions to lifes needs, with those who wish fancier stuff can buy bespoke.  
Pensions, Health Care, Social security, Housing, Communications, Policing.  Of
course software is at the bourgois end of the hierarchy of needs :-)
 
Perhaps the other historical technological changes where the state has
intervened could help to add perspective.  Toll roads, Sewerage, and
Broadcasting spring to mind.