Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: monocultures (Anti-Microsoft sentiment)

Author:Joshua Allen
Posted:9/19/2000; 2:18:33 AM
Topic:Debunking the OSS Bazaar?
Msg #:21493 (In response to 21492)
Prev/Next:21492 / 21494

What do you mean AC power is "not proprietary"? While it is free to design hardware to work on an AC tap, it is also free to write and sell software that works on the windows platform. A user wanting to use your radio needs to pay to have electricity available to her, and a user wanting to run your software must pay to have windows available. And a software engineer is far more likely to be able to influence improvements in windows than is a radio designer going to be able to improve AC. Actually, I *do* know why you are objecting, and I am being a bit academic in response. I just don't want to miss the point I think is most central to all of this: Software is the electricity of the information age.

While I still say that "standardization" often proves that monocultures are not always bad, I will also agree with what I believe is your point -- electricity is a standard controlled by nobody, while windows is a platform that is owned by a corporation. One very nice killer argument you could use against the idea of windows and electricity being identical is that creation of electricity requires no licensing. You can make your own generator to produce electricity if you so desire. Doing the same with windows might get you in trouble.

Now, the electricity analogy might make you think it would be smart for software to be a standard commodity owned collectively by society. On the other hand, I would point out that we have not even begun to touch the tiniest potential of what software can offer us. To ossify software (at least the platform, electricity-like stuff) into a beauracratic standard at this point would be a moral outrage. Electric standards were at first governed by market forces (Tesla wanted AC, Edison wanted DC, I am sure you have heard the story). AC is "good enough" for now. To say that "Windows" or "Linux" is good enough for now would be an absolute shame.

So, while software is the electricity of the information age, I think that for the forseeable future, we will need to incentivize people to advance software. I can't actually imagine a time in the future that would be good to stop advancing the platform. So to incentivize the platform to maximum advancement, you need to protect the innovators right to profit from innovation. At the same time, if we buy the electricity analogy, we need to make it possible for anyone to build their own electrical generator for free. At least, we cannot have the platform standard be forever royalty-based. One idea I have toyed with is the way that pharmaceutical companies are compensated. The platform company would be allowed to charge money for the platform for a certain period of years, and would then be required to release the platform and source to the public domain (so then "generics" could spring up). That is something I thought about all of ten minutes, though, but is maybe a starting point for other ideas. Some things I am certain of:

Actually, another analogy comes to mind. Most would agree that debt has a snowball effect. People in debt tend to become more in debt, and eventually become enslaved to the debt-holders. It is just a fact of life, and the reason why is not relevant. Every seven years, society wipes the slate clean on debts (started by the Jews, I think, but perpetuated in most modern countries' law). Rather than eliminate lending as inhumane (since debt is, perhaps, the electricity of the financial system), society learned to allow lending while protecting the debtors from certain slavery. This is similar to patent expiration and the way that pharmaceuticals operate. Now, like I said, just a ten-minute thought, so I will stop there. Ideas?

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:46 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.