Good journalism gone bad

[Lucho]

Sorry if this seems like a rant- since it actually is- but I couldn't
help posting something.
I was reading The Economist, and I saw an article
on the Open source model. I've always liked reading The
Economist because even with it's enormous lack of impartiality
it has always been an example of genuine journalism, unlike Time,
Newsweek, and (here in Brazil) Veja. The material
made me sad; I would never have expected such a display of ignorance
about a topic from them.
I'm attaching a copy of the article, as well as putting a link (since I don't
link well) so you all can read and make up your own minds. What got under my
skin is how far off-base the article is. It's obviously FUD, Microsoft may be invol-
ved, but that doesn't change that the article is out-of-character for the
magazine.

http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5624944&CFID=77638587&CFTOKEN=2127ca9-3221d062-0b23-4c07-a3d7-a2ab154948c7

[Virogenesis]

Total capitialism crap its not even worthy of wiping my **** with.
It mentions wiki more than opensource and another thing the BBC said how good the science side of the wiki is.
Its sad to see such utter BS articles I would of seen more truth coming from the mouth of a windows admin saying windows is better for servers than linux.

[Lucho]

I find it sad that you're so correct. At least a windows admin can
allege a certain (very minimal) credibility. Where does this author-
from a business/economics magazine- come off lecturing us about
open source?
This is what bothered me. The Economist was always something
of a standard for reporting. Of course it was always BS, but it was well-
written, intelligent BS. Not mere Microsoft-inspired FUD.

[fuscia]

i don't understand your objection to the article. if anything, it seemed an endorsment of 'open source' from an obviously hardcore business perspective.

[bugmenot]

Excellent article, thanks for posting it.

But what exactly didn't you like about it?

[K.Mandla]

Ha! I only got to the third paragraph before laughing. So typical. =D>

... it is unclear how innovative and sustainable open source can ultimately be. The open-source method has vulnerabilities that must be overcome if it is to live up to its promise. For example, it lacks ways of ensuring quality and it is still working out better ways to handle intellectual property.
Perfect example. Vague, ill-informed and detached. Yet multisyllable and seemingly authoritative. :rolleyes:

The writers at our newspaper are likewise fatuous. Just about any journalist likes to think they're experts on ________, when in fact most are little more than casual observers with little to no understanding of the topic. I've seen writers try to explain complex medical conditions, scientific phenomena and even art -- and get it completely wrong. And worst of all, they're totally clueless to their errors.

It doesn't surprise me that even the respectable Economist has the same problem. Remember that most writers are hired for their ability to write, but almost never for their degree of expertise on a subject. Of course, hiring someone for the opposite reasons is usually worse. ...

Oh, and thanks for pointing out the article. Makes me feel better about my job. :mrgreen:

[bugmenot]

Ha! I only got to the third paragraph before laughing. So typical. =D>

Which is a shame. As you now missed a whole article that points out ways open source is trying to overcome the problems mentioned and pointing out how what you quoted is a wrong perception.



Perfect example. Vague, ill-informed and circumspect. Yet multisyllable and seemingly authoritative. :rolleyes:

Your reaction and the reaction of many slashbots seems like a perfect example of people on the net being unwilling to RTFA before commenting. Which is sad, as this way they end up trashing an article for something they think the article is saying, when in fact it's saying the exact opposite.
Really annoying.

[K.Mandla]

Okay, so now I've RTFA again, and I still think it's detached and vague. I'm fairly certain that will be my opinion no matter how many times I read it. But thanks for your advice.

[Kerberos]

As we all know someone who doesn't agree with your OSS viewpoints must automatically be funded by Microsoft as nobody could possibly have any valid problems what-so-ever as OSS is perfect.

I didn't think it was a badly written article, personally. It failed to come to any actual worthwhile conclusions but it all seemed technically accurate and nowhere near as critical as the OP suggests.

[Virogenesis]

After my third time and reading it its pretty spot on apart from a few issues like lack of innovation.
It hasn't talked about how a project might die and be used in another project down the line nor has it covered inhouse work opensources allows for programs to be built on existing projects for in house work basicaly what google has done.

[BWF89]

I thought the article was fair and balanced.

[Master Shake]

Total capitialism crap its not even worthy of wiping my **** with.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism. In fact, if it weren't for capitalism, Open Source wouldn't exist.

You think a government would release its source code for any of its projects? Hardly.

[Virogenesis]

There's nothing wrong with capitalism. In fact, if it weren't for capitalism, Open Source wouldn't exist.

You think a government would release its source code for any of its projects? Hardly.
Capitailism is bad, it serves the purpose of enslaving those around.
It has forced countries into wars it makes sure that the third world stay in poverty.
Capitialism hasn't had any good effect these days sports are funded just by greed each player earns more than a doctor and whys that.
Capitilism has only made us blood thirsty that is why the FSF was founded to combat these issues so say what you'd like but capitialism hasn't helped anyone in the working class its just made us slaves how many countries have lost their values because they have embraced values which aren't their own.

[ComplexNumber]

capitalism does have its advantages on occassions, but in the main its bad. governments whoop for joy when they boast of how they have increased the number of millionaires in the country, but that just further increases the feelings of differences and "us and them" between the haves and have-nots. that, in turn, increase depression and crime. people are happier when everyone is similar and on a similar level.

[arctic]

You think a government would release its source code for any of its projects? Hardly.Well, some do. Some governments (e.g in Spain and Germany) even have their own GPL'd Linux distros, offered to the masses for free. ;)

[Lucho]

Ok, now that I've had some sleep, here's why the article rubbed
me the wrong way.
Some have already pointed out the same thing I saw: the writer
doesn't know what he's writing about. this is problematic since the
likely readers- economist-types and other suits- are by nature conservative.
I teach in corporations in Brazil and Argentina and this type of article
just reinforces their suspicion that open-source types are just a bunch
of hippy-anarchist types (their near-colonial attitudes are pain :evil: ).
Apart from the general tone of the article - doubts over the future of
open source- which is quite wrong (open source is on the rise at this point),
the writer confuses open source with the groups that produce it. For example:

The way open-source projects organise themselves is critical to ensuring their quality. Rather than harnessing a magical, bubbling-up of creativity from cyberspace, many open-source projects have established formal, hierarchical governance. “These are not anarchistic things when you look at successful open-source projects—there is real structure, real checks and balances, and real leadership taking place,” explains Josh Lerner, a professor at Harvard Business School.
Too vague. Open source is separate from the organization that produces
it. An organization can be totally facsist and still comply with the GPL.
These are my gripes. Am I over-reacting?

[Kimm]

Well, some do. Some governments (e.g in Spain and Germany) even have their own GPL'd Linux distros, offered to the masses for free. ;)

Yes, but if the government would write a completely new space guidance system the sources would be very much closed...

I had nothing against that article, what's so wrong about it?

[fuscia]

I teach in corporations in Brazil and Argentina and this type of article
just reinforces their suspicion that open-source types are just a bunch
of hippy-anarchist types


i disagree. if anything, the article was saying that open source initiatives have turned, in part, to more traditional organizational structures in an effort to deal with an obvious problem inherent in open source: the participation of vandals and well intentioned buffoons.

[bugmenot]

the writer doesn't know what he's writing about.

Hm, could you be a bit more precise here. I didn't get the impression that he doesn't know what he's talking about, on the contrary.


... this type of article just reinforces their suspicion that open-source types are just a bunch of hippy-anarchist types (their near-colonial attitudes are pain :evil: ).

I really don't know what article you have been reading. If anything, the article argues against the misperception that open-source types are just a bunch of hippy-anarchist types.
The author points out explicitly, that this is not the case and that open source projects are much more organized and economically successful than many believe.


Apart from the general tone of the article - doubts over the future of
open source- which is quite wrong (open source is on the rise at this point),

What doubts?
The article points out some potential problems, only to show how they have been overcome and cites some people who voice some doubts about open source, as it cites people who praise it. Where's the problem?


the writer confuses open source with the groups that produce it.

No, he doesn't. I think you confuse open source with just meaning that the source is open. However, there's a lot more to it and the way the software is produced is an integral part of it. Check out Eric S. Raymond's "The cathedral and the bazaar" to see where I'm getting it.


Am I over-reacting?
Yes! :D

[bonzodog]

I think this article is good, and is attempting to explain how open source doesn't just apply to software but to business practises as well. It is saying that while OSS has it's downfalls, it is essentially a very good and sound way of doing business, and will almost certainly be the future.

But people are going to have to accept that Open source business practises are all about people doing the work for the love of it and not the money. It is anti-corporate to the point where large scale businesses find it hard to survive, as it does away with trade secrets. Traditional business models are still of course attempting to combat this by using IP and breaches of copyright to put down the open source model.

Imagine you built a new type of power generator in your garden shed; Open source business models would require you to just give it away with the designs and methods of how you came about it to the whole world; Anyone who wanted them in fact. but it would also be given away on the condition that anyone else who built their own would do exactly the same as you; Just give it away.

But as it is, this is the future of the business world. Companies will find it increasingly difficult to build large scale projects and then sell them on, keeping the methods and designs closed. In the short term this will lead to major economic adjustments to be made. Unemployment WILL rise to post depression levels. But in the long term, it will be good for the world and money will not play such a huge part in peoples lives as it once did.

[BWF89]

You think a government would release its source code for any of its projects? Hardly.
All pictures and texts created by the US government are required by law to be public domain. Shouldn't the same thing go for all publically released software?

I know Nasa WorldWind was released under the Nasa Open Source Licence. But the US Army's combat game Americas Army while it runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux is licenced under as proprietetary software.

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas_Army

[nickle]

What confuses me about the article and some of the comments here is that somehow open-source is set on a par with non-commercial. I see no reason in the world why this should be the case. Furthermore, open-source is somehow viewed as being outside the realm of "conventional" science and development. This is quite flakey and clearly wrong!!!
Scientific development by its very nature is open-source. You HAVE to publish your methodologies to the extent that your work can be repeated by others. This is the fundamental bedrock of the scientific method and certainly nothing new and revolutionary unless you go back to the dark ages.
Industries have been built upon this scientific knowledge and commercial interest are always trying to corner knowledge for themselves, since knowldege is power. Recent patent laws pertaining to the genome are newer examples of this. I don't view this as "evil", but it is short sighted and some how strikes at the core of human discovery and endevour. As much as rats will continue to explore a maze event when exposed to "negative conditioning" such as electric shocks, humans will continue to discover and develop and try to make these developments available for everybody.
This drive goes to the heart of the open-source software development. It is not simply a flash in the pan phenomenon of a handful of "geeks", but somehting which can provide useful IT tools available for others to adopt and adapt. I think this drive comes from a basic human need to cooperate and help each other (every concentrates on the competition side of darwinism, but less attention is paid to the equally important cooperative component as a surivival strategy). There will be many different individual justifications and motivations for this, but at the end of the day it goes on and gets better and better. Linux is the perfect example of this....
The Economist simply misses this because in line with a sentiment expressed by Oscar Wildes they do not (or cannot) make the distiction the the price of something and the value of something and business often chooses to be blind on its scientific eye when it fits...

[Zeroangel]

I thought the article was well written and insightful. I have no problems with people making money off of open source. I think that if OSS products are to reach the large amount of stability and functionality that many non-OSS products enjoy, they will have to be coordinated and marketed by more than a few people putting in their free time. People have to eat, and making a profit off of this just adds more incentive to make a well designed product.
Capitailism is bad, it serves the purpose of enslaving those around.
It has forced countries into wars it makes sure that the third world stay in poverty.
Capitialism hasn't had any good effect these days sports are funded just by greed each player earns more than a doctor and whys that.
Capitilism has only made us blood thirsty that is why the FSF was founded to combat these issues so say what you'd like but capitialism hasn't helped anyone in the working class its just made us slaves how many countries have lost their values because they have embraced values which aren't their own.
Capitalism is one step up from mercantilism (the previous system, where large amounts of political power was given to large trade companies). It is better in some respects, but it is ultimately a tool and like any tool it can be abused.

Do not mistake the abuses of capitalism for capitalism itself. Things like government/corporate back scratching and any other effects of corruption are effects of corruption, not capitalism.

There aren't really that much other alternatives, save going back to the mercantile system, or setting up a more highly regulated economic system such as socialism, communism, or corporatism. Each requires resources to be heavily regulated by the government, and even that could be abused (as was cold-war-era Russia's abuse of communism.)

[nickle]

There aren't really that much other alternatives..
This somehow is in contrast to your Albert einstein quote at the bottom of your message.

I certainly do not have the answers, but I am certainly never satisifed when somebody tells me there are no alternatives on how to improve things. The open-source thing bugs big business and governments, because it unleashes a creative power that is not driven primarily by the profit motive... I have nothing against the latter, but things go awry when that is consistently the only motive for our actions and is sold as the only "rational" principle for regulating and organising human endeavour. While many of our actions are driven by raw competition and power, human evolution has only proceded as it has because of our ability to cooperate and try to make thing better for us and our descendents... Obviously, this does not always work for the better, but it is astounding that human societies have managed to grow more than destroy (for the moment at least)...

The open-source movement is the general expression of a human activity that is not primarily driven by the profit motive, though profits can and should be made there, I see not contradiction. This truely confuses and irritates the business world and they spend more time trying to critizise and analyses it to death rather than use their immense resouces to better understand and encourage this wonderful activity. This is what irritates me about the article....

There some some deep fundamental lessons in the open-source way of working which might point to alternative ways... but heck, I am certainly do not have the knowledge or (on Einsteins line) do not have enough immagination to tell you what they may be...

[Stormy Eyes]

Capitailism is bad, it serves the purpose of enslaving those around.

Lay off the Marxist Kool-Aid. Trade, by itself, is the foundation of all non-violent human interactions. All of your objections should instead be aimed at the State, for without the State there would be no corporations and no wars!!

[Virogenesis]

Lay off the Marxist Kool-Aid. Trade, by itself, is the foundation of all non-violent human interactions. All of your objections should instead be aimed at the State, for without the State there would be no corporations and no wars!!

1. I ain't a commie but sure I do share alot of commie/socialist ideas but so did the likes of john lennon.
2. Nike and the likes of are not the state they are capitialist companies that exploit third world countries all the time.
3. Whats so wrong about people earning the wages they should do for instance doctors, police officers and fire fighters are under payed how can a foot ball player earn more than them.
4. Whats wrong about the idea of living in a classless society. When I lived in London people get along better as they accepted each other where I'm living now is like hell...
5. Capitailist companies exploit us all the time. Ever faced a company whos messed up your order and you can't get in contact with them as they are not listed in the phone book and you can only get hold of them through a inhouse enote system?
6. The working class work so much harder than the middle and upper class its them that form the backbone of any country.
7. Alot of anarcho ideas are too extreme

[Stormy Eyes]

1. I ain't a commie but sure I do share alot of commie/socialist ideas but so did the likes of john lennon.

I'm no fan of John Lennon, you know, or of Marxist ideas.

2. Nike and the likes of are not the state they are capitialist companies that exploit third world countries all the time.

No, Nike isn't the state. Nike depends on the existence of the state. Without a government to back it, Nike would be nothing, and without the corporations to back it, the government would be nothing. If you dislike corporatism, you have to oppose the state. Getting rid of corporations is worthless; the state will find new ways to oppress individuals.

3. Whats so wrong about people earning the wages they should do for instance doctors, police officers and fire fighters are under payed how can a foot ball player earn more than them.

Physicians, as I understand it, earn plenty. Unfortunately, they have to waste a great deal of it on malpractice insurance and student loans. Police officers and firefighters are paid by the state, via taxes. I would oppose a tax increase to pay cops and firefighters what they "deserve" on principle; I ask of the state only that it leave me alone, after all. I do not want its protection, because I do not trust the state.

Nobody is forced to attend football matches, or buy football-related merchandise. Unfortunately, the state has a nasty habit of subsidizing the building of stadiums at the taxpayers' expense, which is unforgivable.

4. Whats wrong about the idea of living in a classless society. When I lived in London people get along better as they accepted each other where I'm living now is like hell...

Classless society? Fool yourself if you like, but do not try my patience. Marx and Engels cared nothing about a "classless society". What they were after was a dictatorship of the proletariat. Tyranny is tyranny, whether inflicted in the name of the workers or in the name of the Devil. History should make that clear to you.

5. Capitailist companies exploit us all the time. Ever faced a company whos messed up your order and you can't get in contact with them as they are not listed in the phone book and you can only get hold of them through a inhouse enote system?

Yes. I refused to do business with such companies, and warned others to avoid doing business with the companies that burned me as well. Nobody forces me to do business with the likes of Microsoft or Nike; I can refuse to buy Nike shoes if I want to.

6. The working class work so much harder than the middle and upper class its them that form the backbone of any country.

A backbone is nothing without brains and a heart. Valuing one group of people over another is the "original sin", if you don't mind me borrowing a Christian metaphor, of all socialist ideals. As long as your ideals are based in collectivism, you will make the same mistakes over and over again. The path of collectivism leads to a mass grave.

7. Alot of anarcho ideas are too extreme

Too extreme for whom? As far as I am concerned, the root of all human evil is the idea that the ends justify the means. From this idea comes the idea that some should rule others in order to "unite" society and "guide" society.

Society does not exist; there are only individuals, and they are perfectly capable of guiding themselves, and of uniting against a common enemy should it become necessary to do so.

The State grants corporate charters and privileges to corporations. The corporations abuse these privileges, among them the privilege of legal personhood, in the name of profit uber alles. Remove privilege, and you remove the potential for abuse. Only the state can grant privilege, and thus the State is your true enemy.