The label "open source" was adopted by a group of people in the free software movement at a strategy session held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source", Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond. Over the next week, Raymond and others worked on spreading the word. Linus Torvalds gave an all-important sanction the following day. - Wikipedia
Those two things seem perfectly compatible to me.
In researching this essay, I tried to read all of O’Reilly’s published writings: blog posts, essays, tweets. [...] Serious thinkers can be judged by their published output alone.
O’Reilly’s prescriptions, as is often the case, do contain a grain of truth, but he nearly always exaggerates their benefits while obfuscating their costs. One of the main reasons why governments choose not to offload certain services to the private sector is not because they think they can do a better job at innovation or efficiency but because other considerations—like fairness and equity of access—come into play. “If Head Start were a start-up it would be out of business. It doesn’t work,” remarked O’Reilly in a recent interview. Well, exactly: that’s why Head Start is not a start-up.
The real question is not whether developers should be able to submit apps to the App Store, but whether citizens should be paying for the apps or counting on the government to provide these services. To push for the platform metaphor as the primary way of thinking about the distribution of responsibilities between the private and the public sectors is to push for the economic-innovative dimension of Gov 2.0—and ensure that the private sector always emerges victorious.
the techno-libertarian ideology of Silicon Valley
Unlike the geek masses, Tim O’Reilly is travelling to other universes within the computer branch. This might be the reason that he took the role of the willing messenger, explaining [to] the ‘community’ that the Open Source revolution will be over soon. Not because it failed. Quite the opposite. Simply because there are even bigger events on the horizon: commercialisation and total corporate take-over. O’Reilly wouldn’t call it that way, of course. He speaks of ‘infoware’ taking over from software. That’s gonna be the real commodity, turning both hard- and software into second grade instances.
The volume of capital which is circulating at the higher level of applications and e-services which build on top of the Net will gently push aside old software configurations. Roots are fading away, getting irrelevant (sorry, Kittler). Capital, with all its weight is about to smash the Open Source movement. Not with repression. Not in an ignorant way. There is a growing respect, with bits of appropriation here and there. But life goes on. Soon OS will no longer be an issue.
« Older Tufts University senior Maximus Thaler is raising ... | This is what happens when you ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt