Valid XHTML 1.0!


 

Introduction

Do you know, that the OSS product Apache runs about 60 % of the sites in the Internet?

Do you know, that the OSS Operating System GNU/Linux runs a large percentage of these OSS webservers, and that another OSS (despite a more restrictive license, you can get the complete code virtually for free!), Suns Solaris, runs nearly the remainder of these?

Do you know, that the OSS OpenOffice and its offspring/ancestor (depends on the viewpoint) StarOffice is the only notable alternative to a certain office product monopoly?

Do you know, that the worlds leading web application suite (to call it just a browser is not adequate, due to the multitude of additional features) called Mozilla is another OSS?

Do you know Perl, Python, and...

To make it short: without these valuable assets for example the Internet would break down immediately, because it is essentially carried by them. Wipe out M$ instead Apache, GNU/Linux and Solaris, and virtually nobody would notice it on the other hand.

Other Aspects

What else can be said about the OSS approach?

Security

The only way to make an algorithm or a product as secure as possible, is detailed analysis by as many leading experts as possible. It requires, that they get all informations needed to do this analysis. Therefore OSS is the natural way to guarantee these conditions. All other claims are total bullshit and proprietary solutions are by far inferior regarding security, a fact, which is only attacked by people not knowing what is speaken about or not interested in admitting it (for example the Redmond mob), mostly for financial reasons, or both. --- Another example: under the commerical UNIX flavors Solaris is the only one you get the source of, which makes it clearly more secure and trustworthy than its rivals like AIX or HP-UX.

Cooperation and Development Economy

One major strength is: everybody willing to accept a cooperation encouraging license like the GPL can work together with all others improving such products, and finally all participants gain from it; much less development effort is wasted. While several, often limited cooperations in the past lead to several major steps of progress in the UNIX world before, the GPL operating system called Linux (better GNU/Linux, but that seems to long and not easy enough to be used often) is the natural choice for this ongoing work --- that it has outperformed the other completely free OS, the *BSD family, is due to the superior license (GPL), which avoids one-sided exploitation, a drawback not seldom witnessed in the NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD systems.

Cheap Participation

Despite the ia-32 architecture was always (and still is) about the worst of all for a UNIX kind OS, GNU/Linux thanks much of its popularity the existence of cheap hardware with those CPUs. Truely, only with this OS (or alternatively FreeBSD or other *BSD) you can create legally lowest cost systems for your own, and even the development tools are free and integrated: with virtually no money you can even develop on your own. If the costs are not hazed by illegal contracts, proprietary software licenses can today easily exceed the hardware costs indeed... So GNU/Linux is a cost-effective system, limiting these on a small part of unavoidable costs.

Why I tell this All

Of course especially a big software company in Redmond fears the way, GNU/Linux eats up relatively slowly, but permanantly accelarating their monopoly due to the many advantages I told. And they failed until now miserably, to stop the OSS movement to give people a cheap alternative to their own (far too) extremely expensive and no way really useful software. But now the Redmond mob may hope to accomplish two goals together: with their Palladium system, a TCPA based one, but even more evil (M$ can do such things easily) system of control user-control they can tie the knot on customers, which are more and more only victims of the mob, so strongly, that these can never escape anymore. And due to the expensive licensing scheme, M$ hopes to destroy the OSS, which can't pay regularly such high costs for certificates --- aside from the fact, that M$ would never certificate such rivals. The fact, that other OS vendors are in the TCPA and may allow certain OSS to exist further for pure necessity (see above), doesn't hide the fact, that they can and will control, which aspects of OSS will be allowed and which are not. Whereever they fear competition, they will switch it off; and the high costs of certificates ensure, that only "politically correct" versions of OSS can be generally distributed by then.

This would mean the practical end of OSS: no more able to adapt quickly and at every place to special demands, it would be cut to an empty hull, no more living, nearly frozen in time due to the nearly total lack of development.


 

back to TCPA main  my GNU/Linux package guide  back to main

remarks, comments etc. to: stefan.urbat@apastron.lb.shuttle.de

(URL:  http://www.lb.shuttle.de/apastron/osThreat.htm)