Welcome!

Linux Authors: Gary Kaiser, Liz McMillan, Elizabeth White, Kevin Benedict, Greg Akers

Related Topics: Linux

Linux: Article

Netscape Co-Founder's 12 Reasons for Growth of Open Source

Netscape Co-Founder's 12 Reasons for Growth of Open Source

The 12 reasons Andreessen - he of the all-time great quote: "The Valley is going to save the Valley" -  came up at the conference with were as follows:

  1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
  2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
  3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
  4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
  5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
  6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
  7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
  8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
  9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
  10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
  11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
  12. "It's free."

 

More Stories By Jeremy Geelan

Jeremy Geelan is Chairman & CEO of the 21st Century Internet Group, Inc. and an Executive Academy Member of the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences. Formerly he was President & COO at Cloud Expo, Inc. and Conference Chair of the worldwide Cloud Expo series. He appears regularly at conferences and trade shows, speaking to technology audiences across six continents. You can follow him on twitter: @jg21.

Comments (100) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


Most Recent Comments
zoue 12/19/04 09:27:12 AM EST

.

vu anh tuan 09/17/04 05:53:26 AM EDT

DIR sir !
i have some trouble with my study .sorry ,my name's Vu Anh Tuan,i'm a student of HCMcity University of technology in Viet Nam.I must develope a browser of netscape but i don't have find source code.i don't have money to pay this...please help me .Would you please send me this source code of netscape(netscape navigator browser) or send me free address to download this.
My email: [email protected]

please help me ,thank you very much

sludge 03/29/04 12:31:51 PM EST

Dime - Apache statistics can be decieving. I am looking at the whole picture. For instance, I run 3 web servers, all of which are apache servers. From this you would think I am a complete open source shop. However, 1 apache server runs on Linux, 1 runs on Netware, and 1 runs on Win2k Server (only 1 out of 3 open source). Contrary to what most people believe, Apache does not equate to Linux. One uses PHP(open source) and another uses ColdFusion (only 1 out of 2 open source).
To make a blanket statement that the Internet is powered by open source, even when you show Apache statistics, is not the whole picture.

Tyler Jensen 03/28/04 12:19:51 PM EST

Let's take them one at a time.
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."DISAGREE - The Internet is powered by people. It was people at DARPA who got it started. People at Netscape and many other companies that had nothing to do with open source (at the time anyway) that launched this global village. If open source did not exist, there would still be routers, dns servers, mail servers, web servers, etc. Open source is not a bad thing, but let's not vaunt it up beyond the height of its own legs.2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."AGREED - The Internet certainly makes open source possible. In fact, this assertion is prima facia evidence against #1. Here, Mark put's the horse in front of the cart.3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."DISAGREED - I know it's symantics, but the Internet is not a platform, not at least from a developer's point of view. Like so many other tech terms, the word platform is so misused as to nearly render it meaningless. Let's just keep the word platform to refer to the combination of the operating system and the hardware it runs on, okay?4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."DISAGREED - The fact that software is open source does not inherently make it better or worse in any respect than proprietary software, including security issues. While it is possible that an active development community in open source can respond more quickly to discovered or exploited security vulnerabilities, it is entirely the opposite case for open source projects that receive little attention except by would-be crackers. Any system is only as strong as its weakest component. For Mark to make this assertion only further's the false notion that security in software is a function of the software development model.5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."SHAMEFUL STATEMENT - This statement can neither be proved nor disproved through logic. It is inflammatory and simply pathetic to assign a benefit to open source derived from the hate and jealousy aimed at the United States whatever the political reason. Shame on you, Mark.6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."AGREED - This is a true statement but can also be just as true in a proprietary software development shop. The only difference is the scope of the definition of peers. I doubt very much that this has accounted more than trivially toward the growth of open source in the market place. It certainly accounts for the growing participation of developers in the open source community, so perhaps one can make an justify the inclusion of this statement in the list.7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."REDICULOUS - This is political rhetoric. It cannot even be classified as a reason for the growth of open source. The definition of "giants" is an individually subjective matter making the consideration of this statement pointless.8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."AGREE - If premise is that open source has grown because Linux runs on the ubiquitous Intel x86 instruction set and its primary competitor, Unix, primarily runs on expensive and proprietary servers such as those from Sun, then yes I agree. But let's not forget that the very fact that availability and affordability of x86 hardware is the direct result of the Windows/Intel alliance, an amusing fact given that the proprietary Windows OS and its maker are anathema to the open source community.9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."AGREED - Certainly a quantifiable statement. But does this fact account for the growth of open source or does the growth of open source account for this fact?10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."AGREED - No doubt that this is true. The fact is that many hardware and telcom companies are participating in open source development because they see a variety of benefits from doing so, not the least of which is the opportunity to sell support services after installing "free software" on the hardware they are selling.11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."AGREED - Absolutely true, despite the murky waters of intellectual property issues that hang over Linux's head. Vendors and users are jumping on the Linux bandwagon in increasing numbers. The advantages of open source operating systems are too numerous to mention here. But count how many of those companies are or will be releasing their own products under the banner of open source. That number is growing at a pace that would make any snail Indy 500 material by comparison.12. "It's free."DISAGREE - Certainly one can download the code and install it and use it without paying anyone. But open source is not without economic cost. While the exact cost is will be debated for eternity, but the fact that there is cost involved is indisputable. As proof of that statment, I give you the many thousands of companies that still choose to buy Windows despite the fact that I can download and install an operating system, an office suite of productivity applications, and many more software packages that would give me, in essence, functional equivalency with my Windows desktop without paying anyone a license fee.

Swaroop 03/28/04 08:20:03 AM EST

looks like i want to add another point !.
->> Check out the support it has !!!.
it took me a greal deal to scroll down this page this down to read all the feedbacks !.haa !.
there is no stoppping !. no looking back !.. challenge open source and it challenges u back!!.

algoa 03/27/04 08:29:22 AM EST

We'll yes if you are a millionaire over and over like the smug Andreessen you'd certainly support open source. But what other industry has successfully survived in the US by giving away its products (by harnessing the power of starry eyed, yet essentially naive workers interested in glory).

Next time you stand in the unemployment line as you reflect on your job being outsourced ponder on the fact that Open Source has a lot of the blame. Open Source was responsible for the greatest knowledge transfer in history.

All the millions of hours people in the US spent figuring out Unix and file structures and ASCII and the Internet transferred to countries that spent not a dime in investment.

So be pleased that Marc is filthy rich while you are unemployed, feel pleased that he is a smug (and poorly informed - you may have seen him on Lou Dobbs) businessman sending jobs overseas. Nice anti-American sentiment Marc, I guess you simply don't understand the infrastructure in the US that gave you the opportunity you had.

The Open Source movement has effectively destroyed software development in the US. Good old Marc Andreessen played his part. Think of him fondly when you flip you next burger and think fondly on what used to be.

algoa 03/27/04 08:29:10 AM EST

We'll yes if you are a millionaire over and over like the smug Andreessen you'd certainly support open source. But what other industry has successfully survived in the US by giving away its products (by harnessing the power of starry eyed, yet essentially naive workers interested in glory).

Next time you stand in the unemployment line as you reflect on your job being outsourced ponder on the fact that Open Source has a lot of the blame. Open Source was responsible for the greatest knowledge transfer in history.

All the millions of hours people in the US spent figuring out Unix and file structures and ASCII and the Internet transferred to countries that spent not a dime in investment.

So be pleased that Marc is filthy rich while you are unemployed, feel pleased that he is a smug (and poorly informed - you may have seen him on Lou Dobbs) businessman sending jobs overseas. Nice anti-American sentiment Marc, I guess you simply don't understand the infrastructure in the US that gave you the opportunity you had.

The Open Source movement has effectively destroyed software development in the US. Good old Marc Andreessen played his part. Think of him fondly when you flip you next burger and think fondly on what used to be.

dime 03/27/04 08:03:06 AM EST

sludge: "True, if you're talking about DNS servers... web and email servers are a different story"

yeah ok.. that explains this [http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/11/03/november_2003_web_server_survey.html]
apache runs 2/3 of the internet's webservers

while i don't have a specific quote, i'm also pretty confident most email on the web is handled by nix.. when microsoft bought out hotmail, they had a job and a half changing the email servers from bsd..

as for the "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants." comment.. it comes from the phrase. "If I have seen further, it is because I have been standing on the shoulders of giants. it means that open source is able to make better progress because people are able to build upon others' work freely without having to start from scratch.

sludge 03/26/04 01:08:10 PM EST

"The Internet is powered by open source." - True, if you're talking about DNS servers... web and email servers are a different story

"The Internet is the carrier for open source." - The Internet is the carrier for most things... this is not open source specific... just ask the porn industry

"The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed." - So? A factual statement without a point. He should of finished the statement by pointing out that open source is more collabrative and diverse because of its development model. That's a point worth mentioning.

"It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software." - FBI/NSA proprietary software is less secure? Novell's Netware product is less secure than Linux? Why don't they say what they mean... Open source is more secure than Microsoft products.

"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments." - I don't get this one... Anti-Americans are looking to bring us down through open source? Do they mean anti-monopoly sentiments? If so, Red Hat may be in this boat one day soon...

"Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers." - Correction and feedback from peers are better benefits... How could he overlook that one? He must be one of those virus writers that are constantly looking for bragging rights/respect.

"Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants." - I just don't get this one...

"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel." - Yes and mainframes were supposed to be obsolete by now... Intel servers sometimes aren't enough... hence IBM has Linux Mainframes. Is this point Intel propaganda?

"Embedded devices are making greater use of open source." - Embedded devices are starting to use "embedded XP"... PocketPC is greater than Linux in the PDA world. What does he mean by "greater"?

"There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies." - Great, just what we need... more software without documentation and support, created in garages and prison cells. Do people want their company's mission critical stuff on software that is not made by a software company? Not all software is good... aren't most hacking tools open source?

"Companies are increasingly supporting Linux." - True! However, Oracle for Linux is not open-source. Just because a company supports an open source os platform doesn't make their product GPL (GPL is implied thanks to the 'It's free' benefit stated next).

"It's free." - Finally, the crux of the matter! It's ironic that this comes from a co-founder of a company that charged $$$ for a web browser.

Rob 03/25/04 09:33:21 PM EST

"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."

I'm not sure this is the best thing to say if we're trying to get Linux to replace Windows in D.C....

Fact 03/24/04 04:59:02 PM EST

Indeed, where are the European protests against Al Qaida?

There were a lot of protests against Al Qaida. Also there were a lot of public displays of sympathy with the victims of 9/11. Most people who are not pacifists even agreed that action in Afghanistan was appropriate.

It's just that the "you are either with us - or against us" speeches from Bush is offensive. We must be allowed to disagree in some cases without beeing labeled pro-terrorism.

Mayer 03/23/04 10:56:29 AM EST

This is a big joke of Marc. If open source is so good, why Opsware, his new company, is not? Everybody uses Linux because is "free". Well, almost "free".

i see no point of comparing us and europe 03/23/04 04:50:34 AM EST

ok, i've been reading this discussion and the slashdot ones of the same issue. i see no point of comparing europe and us and "which one is better". there's no real difference. same shit both. basically all so-called "western democracies" are the same. i doesn't matter what kind of tyrant you are, or how much people are you killing. if you do business with "us", "we" like you. if don't, then "we" don't like you and we will put someone to your place that "we" like. simple. but, of course, rhetorics are like "we are doing this for people", but the word "people" should be changed to "business"

usa is the target now, because it is the biggest and "most evil" of western "democracies". but the critic is for government and those other rich bastards who rule. in europe, we have also our own rich bastards and politics, who are no better than american ones. they just don't have guts and power enough to do what they would like to do:
- do business and more money, no matter how
european "leaders" are not so insolent that american ones, because their toys are not big enough. that's why they are building EU to be United Stated of Europe.

interests of european political and economical leaders are the same than american ones.

i think that interests of american and european "joe average" is quite same, and it differs from interests of political and economical leaders. but the information we get, comes mainly from mainstream corporate media, who have great power to control how people will made up their view of world. it's not just coincidence that during the massacre of east-timor late 70's, western media didn't wrote anything about it. and that was not only example.

and still we trust our television and morning newspapers, we consider them as 'objective'. but they are objective! aren't they?

i apologize for my false english, but i think i made my point clear.

crayzee 03/22/04 08:10:31 PM EST

>>We threw a bone to France.
>>You know, there's big money in cement. Right?
>
> In a country where the dictator didn't care about
> maintaining the infrastructure, surprise surprise, there
> is a lot of manpower and money involved in the cement
> industry.

The binLaden family became rich though construction, and it's the US that destroyed the infrastructure in the first place. I don't think there is a heck of a lot of money involved in France selling some concrete either.

> Look at what you take for granted: Traffic lights are non
> existent in many parts of Bagdad, leading to enormous
> traffic jams.

I live in Silicon Valley. We are the 10th largest economy in the world, and we carry the rest of the US's butts.

> Schools are being builts.

Yeah, NON RELIGIOUS ONES. What a novel idea. And it's the schools the US blew up that are being rebuilt. Something about school vouchers.. ?

> Thousands of civilian police officers are being trained.
> Sewage systems are being upgraded.

Yeah, after we contributed to a 10 year devestating war against Iraq when we toppled their democracy.

> Yes, cement is not glamorous. But oil is obviously
> glamorous to you, which is why you overstudy it and
> overemphasize it.

Golly, it's just a big coincidence that all the instability happens to be in oil rich areas. We DID overthrow Mossadeq and the CIA admits it was because of oil. Clue in.

It's not in US interest, it's in US business interest for people that have political sway in the government. Do you still believe that Al Gore and Bush are polar opposites? Gore made all his money (well, his dad did) in oil too.

> That says more about your hangups than anything else
> (including your rantings against Israel, your use of the
> term "Zionist", your claim to be an American taxpayer
> although your car is in Australia and you've bought fuel
> in England...hmmm, you wouldn't happen to be a member of
> a cell?)

Oh brother, just because I travel. I have friends from England, I've been to Paris, and I like Australia. I grew up 30 miles from Canada, and I even know some french still, mais je ne le parlez pas tres bien, parce-ce-que je travaille au Etas Unix maintenant, mais je travaille en Rennes..

> If America just cared about oil, then it would have
> readily carved off an autonomous Kurdistan. Actually, from
> an ethno-political standpoint, that probably wouldn't be a
> bad thing, since Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, and throuhgout the
> Middle East really want their own sovereign country.

Not according to the Kurdish Turk I've been talking to for 4 years.

> But there are oil allies in Russia and other parts of
> South America and Central America.

And?

> The same charges were levied against America during the
> first war in Iraq.

April Glaspie stated flat out the US would not get involved with a war against Kuwait. The US in fact blocked UN arbitration from resolving the dispute of oil between the 2 countries. Don't pass off that crap to me. I read the original sources, I that the coverage SCO gets is typical ACROSS THE BOARD for all news in the US. There is no news here. It's just bald propoganda. Read the Economist, read Le Monde, listen to the CBC.

> Some saw it as a precursor to opening Kuwaiti oil markets.
> That hasn't materialized at all. Over a decade later,
> Kuwaiti pipelines are 100% controlled by Kuwaiti,
> Americans be d---ned. The US government knows it's going
> to be a similar siuatation in Iraq.

Why did the US support Hussein for a decade? He's not any different than he was 20 years ago, except he stopped being our puppet.

> And America isn't the only country that uses oil.

We're the one that uses the most per capita.

> Just look at the 20 million gallon oil spill in Galicia,
> on the northwest beaches of Spain. Pointing the finger at
> the United States is an attempt to distract the oil
> consumption in the rest of the world, and thus, it's an
> empty argument.

We're the one that uses the most per capita.

That's a fact.

>> Where is all this money coming from
>> anyhow? Oh, YOUR POCKET and MINE.
>> Think we're going to pay off a 7 trillion
>> dollar debt? We had a surplus one year,
>> did we pay it down at all? Has the
>> US EVERY paid down the debt in 30 years.
>> What happens when you continually
>> spend more money than you take in?
>
> I don't believe you are an American taxpayer.

I probably pay more in taxes than you make in a year. It's not uncommon for me to give away 50 K to my useless government every year, and what do I get for it? Nothing. Crappy schools, some roads, and a war machine that won't quit.

> Besides, practically all businesses borrow money as seed
> capital investments to pay off later on down the road.

The US isn't going to pay it off. The US hasn't reduced the debt once since 1980, in fact, when did we ever?

We follow economics too you know. The euro is going to kill the dollar.

> Even Al Qaida does this. (What happens when you
> continually blow up more followers than you take in?)

But they don't. Why do they have so many followers willing to die?

> I'm just waiting for you to take this further and further
> off topic. Somehow, you are going to tie this all in with
> the Dalai Lama, global warming, abortion, marijuana
> legalization, gay marraige, and Al Gore.

Al Gore is no different than Bush. Both are paper copies of their dads. George H. Bush was an ACTUAL man. So was Al Gore Senior.

Marriage is a purely religious institution.

And if I want to smoke crack, it's my right. I'm a libertarian.

The rest of it I have no stake in or control, so there is little to discuss about it.

ML 03/22/04 08:02:04 PM EST

Ok so I work for a linux company so I am biased but I am doing sales and marketing, which means that the only people I listen to are customers.
* They buy Linux because they want to build software open source platform

* They use it because they want to work on the platform of the future.

* They use it because it is cool.

Here I am talking specifically about Linux on the desktop. Bill Gates worries about one thing only; people buy Linux because it is cool. Because then he has no argument.Just like motorcycle--people buy motorcycle because of one thing only, because it is cool.

kalec 03/22/04 07:33:44 PM EST

A 13th obvious reason should read:

The 'single most important' reason to go OpenSource:

Linux has a cute Mascot, Windows has Bill!

There that should be'nuff for anyone.

David Ross 03/22/04 07:21:15 PM EST

Open Source is very good. Lets just keep in mind that there are times for opensource, and times for commercial applications. People need to put food on the table you know =]. Fortunately sometimes opensource can do that, but don't count on it.

O 03/22/04 06:59:31 PM EST

I can sum it up in fewer words...
"Novell and Suse"...
as soon as you can run Zenworks without the horrific Netware architecture, Linux will be everywhere...
Distributed applications and printers from a linux server... MMM MMM GOOD

Mats 03/22/04 06:27:27 PM EST

I just have to comment "truth" statement:
"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
What are you smoking?

Obviously you live in US and don't travel very much do you?, so you don't feel how anti american the world has become. The arab countries (like 500 million people) love to find an alternative operating system or alternative office software, because they just can't stand anything that comes from the "evil" country. The poor countries in Africa , South America, China or India ( we are now talking about the half population of the world) can now use computers the same way as we in the rich countries do.

/mats
I have been travel a lot the last 10 years around the world and you can really see the change of how people looks at US. This has of course escalated after the cowboy Bush became president

So the question is rather,what are you smoking??

Martian 03/22/04 06:15:35 PM EST

>We threw a bone to France.
>You know, there's big money in cement. Right?

In a country where the dictator didn't care about maintaining the infrastructure, surprise surprise, there is a lot of manpower and money involved in the cement industry. Look at what you take for granted: Traffic lights are non existent in many parts of Bagdad, leading to enormous traffic jams. Schools are being builts. Thousands of civilian police officers are being trained. Sewage systems are being upgraded.

Yes, cement is not glamorous. But oil is obviously glamorous to you, which is why you overstudy it and overemphasize it. That says more about your hangups than anything else (including your rantings against Israel, your use of the term "Zionist", your claim to be an American taxpayer although your car is in Australia and you've bought fuel in England...hmmm, you wouldn't happen to be a member of a cell?)

If America just cared about oil, then it would have readily carved off an autonomous Kurdistan. Actually, from an ethno-political standpoint, that probably wouldn't be a bad thing, since Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, and throuhgout the Middle East really want their own sovereign country. But there are oil allies in Russia and other parts of South America and Central America.

The same charges were levied against America during the first war in Iraq. Some saw it as a precursor to opening Kuwaiti oil markets. That hasn't materialized at all. Over a decade later, Kuwaiti pipelines are 100% controlled by Kuwaiti, Americans be d---ned. The US government knows it's going to be a similar siuatation in Iraq.

And America isn't the only country that uses oil. Just look at the 20 million gallon oil spill in Galicia, on the northwest beaches of Spain. Pointing the finger at the United States is an attempt to distract the oil consumption in the rest of the world, and thus, it's an empty argument.

>Where is all this money coming from
>anyhow? Oh, YOUR POCKET and MINE.
>Think we're going to pay off a 7 trillion
>dollar debt? We had a surplus one year,
>did we pay it down at all? Has the
>US EVERY paid down the debt in 30 years.
>What happens when you continually
>spend more money than you take in?

I don't believe you are an American taxpayer. Besides, practically all businesses borrow money as seed capital investments to pay off later on down the road. Even Al Qaida does this. (What happens when you continually blow up more followers than you take in?)

I'm just waiting for you to take this further and further off topic. Somehow, you are going to tie this all in with the Dalai Lama, global warming, abortion, marijuana legalization, gay marraige, and Al Gore.

bicorne 03/22/04 06:05:28 PM EST

How about "Open source is about co-operation, not control". Though given the US's history, yank's tend to think that they both mean the same thing.

Hem 03/22/04 05:55:52 PM EST

He shouldn't have just said Intel - A lot of the folks of the major open source initiative- linux - supports the underdog - AMD, and it is much cheaper too!
Hem Ramachandran

Brad 03/22/04 05:43:01 PM EST

This is a very good conversation. I normally do not find myself writing into these topics, but I see there is something that can be learned when corresponding with such deep thinking topics as politics and programming.

I think Mark Anderson makes very good points -- the fine points have been discussed earlier (and hopefully later) in this thread.

I understand Oracle made their first builds on the Solaris OS. This might be because Solaris was the most stable at the time or there may be many other reasons, but then they ported the Oracle DB to other OSs. I think the lesson can be learned that you do not have to take a hard line with regards to the OS you first build upon, but find what works for your customers.

Oracle now builds a DB on Linux (read; build portability into your system).

This brings up .Net.

Microsoft has built portability into their system as well.

So, I believe politics should take the programming example.

Find a way for programmers/politicians to migrate their agenda for their customers/people.

Brad

malf 03/22/04 05:37:05 PM EST

For someone who says they are 'setting the record straight' you talk alot of crap...
Yeah yeah, hussein bad man, oh but he was put into power by US just because US believes they have to have some say in running other peoples countries, pity that every single time it simply doesnt work...
ohh so its europe who didnt go to war because they wanted oil, and not US going to war cause they thought they could control it???? ok.. sure.. whatever...
you want to look for reasons, how about this one, US controls something like 80% of the worlds resources, do you really think that they got there by being nice and helping everyone and those countries then generously donating those resources, or by infact being despicable but having good press...
"we did it for the people"

Cramden 03/22/04 05:30:14 PM EST

natural gas as fuel for cars has been avaiable stateside for years. gasoline is cheap in the states tho, so its been adopted by very few

Wocka 03/22/04 05:20:15 PM EST

The problem is Americans wouldn't understand that LPG is gas, because they think they're using "gas" already.

Salacious Crumb 03/22/04 05:10:55 PM EST

"Israel will collapse when the US does. With a 7 trillion dollar debt, and a 2 trillion dollar/year income, and the fact the US has never tried to pay it down even when it had the opportunity, it's inevitable"

look into the public debts of any developed nation, you never hear about italy or japan collapsing. The concept of foreign investment is quite popular today.

crayzee 03/22/04 05:06:27 PM EST

> The same old drivel propaganda from the Usual Band of
> Idiots, despite active American research into alternative
> fuels and the feasibility of the hydrogen economy.

The average MPG rate in England is 50 or so for a car.

What is being done with all this "research"? I can buy LPG down in Australia for my car, and I bet you don't even know what it is.

crayzee 03/22/04 05:03:00 PM EST

> If it were true the America is the Greedy Capitalist Pig,
> why is all concrete used in the rebuilding of Iraq made by
> a French company? That's American taxpayer dollars going to
> France. (I think the link is at
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3502931/, under the link "

Wow. concrete...

Where is all this money coming from anyhow? Oh, YOUR POCKET and MINE. Think we're going to pay off a 7 trillion dollar debt? We had a surplus one year, did we pay it down at all? Has the US EVERY paid down the debt in 30 years. What happens when you continually spend more money than you take in?

It's not the US that gets rich off from war, it's the friends of the adminstration that does. We threw a bone to France. You know, there's big money in cement. Right?

And it's just money, just print some more. Who cares?

Martian 03/22/04 04:52:26 PM EST

(I think the link is at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3502931/, at "Countries behind Iraq Contracts")

Martian 03/22/04 04:50:36 PM EST

>...and the only reason the US went in was because
>they missed out on the oil for food money
>and wanted their share.

The same old drivel propaganda from the Usual Band of Idiots, despite active American research into alternative fuels and the feasibility of the hydrogen economy.

If it were true the America is the Greedy Capitalist Pig, why is all concrete used in the rebuilding of Iraq made by a French company? That's American taxpayer dollars going to France. (I think the link is at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3502931/, under the link "

Salacious Crumb 03/22/04 04:45:19 PM EST

stop the hate. the open source ethos does have many parallels to the ideals behind communism, thats not a bad thing. The united states politcal process is controlled by emotional beings, as is the rest of the world, and sometimes emotion clouds the truth. The usa is simply looking out for its people as is the rest of the world.

calling the united states imperialist is dated, the age of imperialism is very very dead.

now im gonna rant for a second. AT&T didn't abuse its dominance. We are talking about the firm that produced the greatest technological innovations of this century. The breakup of ma bell was a politically motivated blow to what was seen as the second coming of rockefeller. AT&T developed the science of communication and gave birth to the computer age. The disruption of their business possibly put the sceintific community back into first gear.

crayzee 03/22/04 04:40:14 PM EST

> Kim, you have a strange definition of bully. Hussein is a
> mass murder who killed hundreds of thousands of his own
> people.

With weapons the United States gave him during the 80's under Ronald Reagan to fight the Ayatollah Khomeini who rose to power because the Shah was so corrupt that it caused a civil revolt. The Shah came to power because the United States put him in power after British Military intelligence overthrow Mossadeq (a democratically elected leader) with the direct aid of the CIA because he planned on nationalizing oil interests and giving the profits back to his people, something George W. Bush hypocritically criticized the middle east of NOT doing.

The entire report is declassified now, read it for yourself:
http://cryptome.org/cia-iran-all.htm

Thank you Freedom of Information act. I am sure the Patriot Act will soon trump that though.

> Yet all of Europe doesn't consider that a good enough
> reason to remove a tyrant.

What was a good enough reason to support Hussein during the 80's? He was the same murderous pile of human excrement then, but then, he was our "friend".

> The US is the only country that's willing to stand up to
> bullies.

Or behind them. "We" don't mind it a bit that Sharon is in power, and the United States was one of the very last countries to start to oppose the Apartheid government in South Africa. The US put the Shah into power, and what happened with Afghanistan? Is there a democracy there like we promised? Think there will be on in Iraq?

The US loves dictators and tyrants, as long as they do what the US tells them to do.

> News is coming out of the real motives for France and
> Russia supporting Saddam, lucrative contracts based on
> curruption in the oil-for-food program.

Meanwhile, Haliburton, a company that Dick Cheney was CEO of, and a company from which Dick Cheney still makes money, has received a nice lot of lucrative contracts to rebuild the nation - well, the oil fields anyhow.

The US is no different.

> Europe didn't want Saddam gone because of oil.

Right, the US did.

> They were making too much money dealing with Saddam,
> because the US refused to do business with him.

The United States were buying oil during that entire time, don't delude yourself.

> That's why Europe wanted Saddam to stay, and they share in
> his guilt for the blood money they took.

The United States would have never opposed him if he continued to act along US lines of direction. It's was April Glaspie, the US ambassador that originally gave Saddamn Hussein the go ahead to attack Kuwair. It was the US that prevented mitigation of the problem of sideways oil drilling by Kuwait into Iraq's fields.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

April Glaspie denied the above too place, but strangely resigned as soon as Saddamn Hussein produced an audio tape of the conversation.

I could go on with connections with the binLaden family, and how the US probably supported him during the Afghanistan war against the USSR. But why bother? Those documents aren't declassified yet so I can't prove it, yet.

Martian 03/22/04 04:32:26 PM EST

>If a country thinks that the death penalty
> is barbaric, they can't send people to die.

Exactly -- Al-Zawahiri was able to roam around freely in Europe and make his connections with Bin Laden. But he could have been caught. So the death penalty is a Good Thing in certain circumstances. Why spend a country's money keeping a terrorist alive, when it could be spent on a suffering child? There's only a finite amount of money and resources available.

>The only other countries that have
>death penalty are countries that
>USA would not like to compare itself to.

Not correct: The USA does not like itself compared to CERTAIN ASPECTS of foreign and domestic policies of some of those countries. America has relatively good relations with Egypt, even if it doesn't agree with everything Egypt does. And vice versa.

>If a country thinks that the death
> penalty is barbaric, they can't send people to die.

Yes they can. Especially, in the case of Al Zawahiri, when his crime was committed IN EGYPT. They should have sent him back. Look what happened. The world would have been better off with him dead.

Admit it, the modern accusations of "barbarity" are merely to cover up the historic bloodshed that plagued many European countries and their constant in-fighting in the past. European colonization, European slavery, European torture chambers, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust. It is as if modern Europe wants to erase the transgressions of the past, and this is a good thing in some respects. Unfortunately, modern European countries have liberalized too much, allowing these criminal organizations to flourish and hide under the umbrella of "religious freedom" and "multi-culturalism". Indeed, where are the European protests against Al Qaida?

>There were other OS' that were just as powerfull.

Name ten of them, and tell us who made them and what happened to them.

Setting the record really straight 03/22/04 04:24:22 PM EST

...and the only reason the US went in was because they missed out on the oil for food money and wanted their share.

Gordo X Yorgoat 03/22/04 04:14:51 PM EST

I dunno if Mr Andreessen is a good weather vane for the future of open source, he couldn't see far enough ahead to save netscape.

The only major flaw I see with his statement is open source coming to embedded devices. In this area linux gets more proprietary and profit based every day.

Setting the record straight 03/22/04 03:59:29 PM EST

Kim, you have a strange definition of bully. Hussein is a mass murder who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Yet all of Europe doesn't consider that a good enough reason to remove a tyrant. The US is the only country that's willing to stand up to bullies. News is coming out of the real motives for France and Russia supporting Saddam, lucrative contracts based on curruption in the oil-for-food program. Europe didn't want Saddam gone because of oil. They were making too much money dealing with Saddam, because the US refused to do business with him. That's why Europe wanted Saddam to stay, and they share in his guilt for the blood money they took.

Kim 03/22/04 03:49:06 PM EST

"So if anybody brought this on themselves, ulitmately, it was European anti-death-penalty advocates."

The only other countries that have death penalty are countries that USA would not like to compare itself to.

If a country thinks that the death penalty is barbaric, they can't send people to die.

Kim 03/22/04 03:42:09 PM EST

"Americanism is about individualism and responsibility, that is what makes freedom work."

So be responsible. Try to respect other countries views, and don't act like a bully just because you are bigger.

"Don't forget where Unix was created"
There were other OS' that were just as powerfull. The only reason why Unix was so open, was because AT&T wasn't allowed by the government to sell it. Since they could not profit from it, they let other people see the source.

In the beginning of the 80's, AT&T was split up and was allowed to sell Unix, which they did. That forced others to make clones of Unix.

Unix only became popular because AT&T had abused it's dominance. So if the american way is dominance, you are right.

Thomas Ledbetter 03/22/04 03:32:05 PM EST

Although its completely ridiculuos trying to make parrelisms between political systems and software development, open source is sooo not communism - how utterly clueless to say such a thing! Its much more symbolic with democracy than a proprietary model is: A proprietary model is a 'dictatorship'. Open source allows anyone to contribute - much akin to concept of democracy where everyone (supposely anyway) has a vote. You people who keep saying opensource is communism are utterly pathetic in your arguments. Please shut up.

Martian 03/22/04 03:29:23 PM EST

>The true irony is that it was racism that
>created Israel, US racism and European racism

Why are black Ethiopians encouraged to emmigrate into Israel? Now THAT's ironic.

By the way, the original founder of the open source movement, Richard M. Stallman, is both American and Jewish. He was born in New York City. Most of what is now called "Linux" was actually written by Stallman and the followers of the GNU Way, starting in 1984. (Refer to http://www.fsf.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html). Now THAT's ironic.

>and it's racism on the part of the entire
>middle east which prevents integration of
>the Palestinian population into the
>surrounding territories

Or tribalism/clanism/ritualism? Personally I'm having a tough time sorting it all out. Kurds don't like Turks. The "ethnic" tribes in Afghanistan numerous and uncooperative with each other, although they look the same to me. I wouldn't be able to tell a Basque from a Spaniard, to be honest. Sunni Muslims don't like Shia Muslims. Serbians don't like Albanians, and there was a big horrible fight just this past week. Kind of weird when you consider that the beloved comedian, John Belushi, is of Albanian descent. In America, we just don't care about these superficial distinctions. If you want to look a racial integration in America, just look at Mariah Carey(daughter of black father, white mother), Flashdance actress Jennifer Beals (same story), movie star Vin Diesel (same story), the Actor-Currently-Known-As-The-Rock (same story), golfing prodigy Tiger Woods (son of a black father and a Korean mother), and professional tennis star Alexandra Stevenson (daughter of a black basketball professional Julius Erving and a white mother). The singing phenomenon, Michael Jackson, and his transformation from black man to white woman, could only happen in Amercia -- not Europe, not the Middle East, just America!! Show me any country other than America where so many mixed-race kids could make it so big.

And American "imperialism"? You want to accuse the United States about "trangressions" in Hawaii (aloha)? What about the French legacy colonies-- Tahiti, Marquesas, Tubuai, New Caledonia, Gaudaloupe, Martinique, Reunion, Mayotte, and French Guiana ? In many cases, the indigenous people were pushed aside and overpowered to make way for slave plantations. And don't ingnore the contentious impact of French colonization in Algeria, Morocco, French Indochina (aka Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos), and Haiti (where slaves of the French revolted)...The latter two regions have caused big headaches for America trying to clean up France's mess!

And while I'm off topic, I should point out that "60 Minute"'s Ed Bradley (who is black, for anybody who cares) spoke with an expert who has been studying the radical Islamic movement for the past 15 years. According to the expert, the Egyptian Ayman Al-Zawahiri IS the embodiment of Al Qaida, and known to most as the #2 man. Really he is the #1 man (Bin Laden is just the financier). Egypt tried to extradite Al-Zawahiri from Europe, but because he would face the death penalty, European countries REFUSED the extradition! So if anybody brought this on themselves, ulitmately, it was European anti-death-penalty advocates.

Another off topic note (not from 60 Minutes): The original reason that Bin Laden supposedly wanted to retaliate against America was because American troops were on "holy land", aka Saudi Arabia. Americans were there because of Saddam Hussein. With the recent Iraq war, American forces are NO LONGER in Saudi Arabia; they were all moved out after major combat operations ceased. Bin Laden got what he wanted, so what is Al Qaida's problem? And anti-war advocates say there is no connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. So why did Al Qaida send a message to Spain after their recent elections, rewarding them with a promise of no more terroristic actions because Spain would pull out of Iraq? No connection?

Finally, why would Andreessen even bring this up? Because he's a Democrat, having held fund-raisers for Bill Clinton and Al Gore back in the days when they were in power.

capitalism-is-an-idiot 03/22/04 03:20:11 PM EST

name says it all

Where can I get free beer on a regular basis? 03/22/04 03:20:08 PM EST

>The true irony is that it was racism that
>created Israel, US racism and European racism

Why are black Ethiopians encouraged to emmigrate into Israel? Now THAT's ironic.

By the way, the original founder of the open source movement, Richard M. Stallman, is both American and Jewish. He was born in New York City. Most of what is now called "Linux" was actually written by Stallman and the followers of the GNU Way, starting in 1984. (Refer to http://www.fsf.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html). Now THAT's ironic.

>and it's racism on the part of the entire
>middle east which prevents integration of
>the Palestinian population into the
>surrounding territories

Or tribalism/clanism/ritualism? Personally I'm having a tough time sorting it all out. Kurds don't like Turks. The "ethnic" tribes in Afghanistan numerous and uncooperative with each other, although they look the same to me. I wouldn't be able to tell a Basque from a Spaniard, to be honest. Sunni Muslims don't like Shia Muslims. Serbians don't like Albanians, and there was a big horrible fight just this past week. Kind of weird when you consider that the beloved comedian, John Belushi, is of Albanian descent. In America, we just don't care about these superficial distinctions. If you want to look a racial integration in America, just look at Mariah Carey(daughter of black father, white mother), Flashdance actress Jennifer Beals (same story), movie star Vin Diesel (same story), the Actor-Currently-Known-As-The-Rock (same story), golfing prodigy Tiger Woods (son of a black father and a Korean mother), and professional tennis star Alexandra Stevenson (daughter of a black basketball professional Julius Erving and a white mother). The singing phenomenon, Michael Jackson, and his transformation from black man to white woman, could only happen in Amercia -- not Europe, not the Middle East, just America!! Show me any country other than America where so many mixed-race kids could make it so big.

And American "imperialism"? You want to accuse the United States about "trangressions" in Hawaii (aloha)? What about the French legacy colonies-- Tahiti, Marquesas, Tubuai, New Caledonia, Gaudaloupe, Martinique, Reunion, Mayotte, and French Guiana ? In many cases, the indigenous people were pushed aside and overpowered to make way for slave plantations. And don't ingnore the contentious impact of French colonization in Algeria, Morocco, French Indochina (aka Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos), and Haiti (where slaves of the French revolted)...The latter two regions have caused big headaches for America trying to clean up France's mess!

And while I'm off topic, I should point out that "60 Minute"'s Ed Bradley (who is black, for anybody who cares) spoke with an expert who has been studying the radical Islamic movement for the past 15 years. According to the expert, the Egyptian Ayman Al-Zawahiri IS the embodiment of Al Qaida, and known to most as the #2 man. Really he is the #1 man (Bin Laden is just the financier). Egypt tried to extradite Al-Zawahiri from Europe, but because he would face the death penalty, European countries REFUSED the extradition! So if anybody brought this on themselves, ulitmately, it was European anti-death-penalty advocates.

Another off topic note (not from 60 Minutes): The original reason that Bin Laden supposedly wanted to retaliate against America was because American troops were on "holy land", aka Saudi Arabia. Americans were there because of Saddam Hussein. With the recent Iraq war, American forces are NO LONGER in Saudi Arabia; they were all moved out after major combat operations ceased. Bin Laden got what he wanted, so what is Al Qaida's problem? And anti-war advocates say there is no connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. So why did Al Qaida send a message to Spain after their recent elections, rewarding them with a promise of no more terroristic actions because Spain would pull out of Iraq? No connection?

Finally, why would Andreessen even bring this up? Because he's a Democrat, having held fund-raisers for Bill Clinton and Al Gore back in the days when they were in power.

Don 03/22/04 03:19:09 PM EST

To the "JUSTME" thoughtless people and anyone else in denial, just take a look at the history of our Good Ole US, no imperialism?? Ask all the descendants of the black slaves, ask the Siouz, Navajo, the Blackfoot, the Apache, and about 300 extinct tribes; as well ask any Mexican what they think about lower California, Texas, Arizona what they think of the lands the Cuyapaipe,Jamul,La Jolla,Manzanita,Pascua Yaqui and dozens of other remnants of peoples that were liberated!Or...maybe talk to a "real Hawiian" Other than that......there is tremendous power in the Linux movement........Watch out MS

capitalism 03/22/04 03:12:32 PM EST

OPEN SOURCE = COMMUNISM =
UNFAIR COMPENSATION FOR THOSE WHO DO THEIR FAIR SHARE =
NO INCENTIVE = LOW QUALITY = BANKRUPTCY

CASE IN POINT:
SLASHDOT.ORG is NOW a PAID ADVERTISING COMPANY

'NUFF SAID

ben 03/22/04 03:00:43 PM EST

Americanism is about individualism and responsibility, that is what makes freedom work. Terrorism is about killing innocent people not fighting for freedom. Become responsible, respect others, find freedom. Don't forget where Unix was created.

Laird Popkin 03/22/04 02:57:10 PM EST

Intereseting point nobody picked up on "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."

Years ago I read that 80% of all software written was internal (i.e. not written to be sold as a product). I think that this statistic is what propels open source software development, because it means that the vast majority of softwaer is written because someone needs a problem solved, not because they want to sell the solution. If 5 companies have the same problem, it's far more efficient for them to work together on an open source solution than for one company to engineer and sell a solution. This is why IBM, HP, SGI, Red Hat, etc., as well as thousands of individuals, are all working together on free & open source software, and their shared investment is why Linux is higher quality and more efficient than proprietary alternatives.

cascadefx 03/22/04 02:40:20 PM EST

Coolmos said:
"I paid for my Suse distribution. It's more expensive then Windows XP"

On what planet?

I paid for SuSE as well and at $79.99 (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1067388367881&skuId=6169727&t...) it was nowhere near the $299 that Windows XP Professional costs (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1051806637688&skuId=4272307&t...).

coolmos 03/22/04 01:41:39 PM EST

It's not about 'free' (as in price=0). It's about paying for what you get.

Software (and music, film) is expensive to make. Once it is made, it costs almost nothing to distribute. The biggest problem with Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, and all these other greedy people is that they don't work for their payment. Instead, we are presented with some image of a popstar, or a software moloch, or a big movie studio that sells their product far above the costprice. That is why people download/copy mp3, divx and Windows XP.

I paid for my Suse distribution. It's more expensive then Windows XP. But i get what i pay for:

Open software
Loads of documentation
The best helpsystem in the world (forums)
No vendor lock-in
portability to future (current) 64-bit or 128-bit systems
freedom of choice

and all the above points.

Would you download a bunch of mp3's, copy/print a booklet and burn a CD if you could buy it for $5,= ?
The problem of the RIAA and MPAA is that a six year old distributes the music and films better and cheaper then they do.

crazee 03/22/04 01:38:00 PM EST

> You are confusing anti-zionism with anti-semitism. There is
> a big difference.

It's pointless to state this. A zionist will always say it's anti-semitism. It doesn't matter what Desmond Tutu says, or Ronnie Kasrils, it doesn't matter what the actual history is, or the present day situation. People are so uninformed about the actual situation and there is so much propoganda around it and there's been so much violence, the die has been cast.

The true irony is that it was racism that created Israel, US racism and European racism and it's racism on the part of the entire middle east which prevents integration of the Palestinian population into the surrounding territories. If the US wasn't racist in 1950 and before, anti Semitic, the US would have done the honorable thing and given refuge to all that needed it in WWII. Truman was happy though to push the problem onto another country, as long as the Jews didn't show up in his country in too large of numbers.

It should be clear from this example in history that bigotry is self replicating. If Robert Wright and Dawkins is correct, it's intinsically part of the human condition.

Israel will collapse when the US does. With a 7 trillion dollar debt, and a 2 trillion dollar/year income, and the fact the US has never tried to pay it down even when it had the opportunity, it's inevitable. There will be a second holocaust, and I fear that the United States with the most powerful weapons in the world will be a part of it and I'm afraid and sad for what I feel has become inevitable.

It's too late.