In response to Kaushik

Little did I expect my post on "4/6/2004 | 01:22 hrs" would have raked up so much response on the Internet, especially from the people I've quoted in that post. I'd like to make some clarifications regarding that.

> Joe Steeve, a good friend of mine (and a vociferous campaigner for
> open source software)"

By the way., I dont campaign for Open Source. I talk only about Free Software. . Oov., is there a difference.?? Yeah.. a pretty big one., and that difference matters to me.

> The talk about .Net on LUG meetings wasn't uncalled-for. In fact
> I don’t understand why he writes this after letting me do this session
> on mono for the Linux user group.

Definitely, your talk on ILUG-Madurai was called-for (I'm the one who accepted your offer of talk). The talk was supposed to be on Dot NET., the technical front. Your talk was not purely in the technical front alone. It accompanied comments such as "Micro$oft if for OpenSource", "Rotor is the proof that Micro$oft has interest in Open Source", etc.. which were _definitely_ uncalled for. (The minutes of the meet dosent cover these comments).

> Probably my having mentioned Microsoft has an open source
> offering in Rotor, has sparked off this controversy.

Hmm.. Micro$oft has released Rotor under something called "Microsoft's Shared Source License", which is a non-free license. That is., the software is not Free Software. The www.gnu.org has listed that license there just to show people which license makes a software as a Free Software.

> I never thought “open source“ would only mean GPL to a linux advocate.

I'm not a *linux* advocate. I support Free Software and that dosent mean I'm a "linux advocate". Ok., If a software comes under GNU GPL, it is specifically called Free Software and more generally called Open Source Software. But Rotor is neither "Free Software" nor "Open Source Software". I've explained already how the M$'s SSL explicitly makes Rotor a non-free software. Please take time to read the definiton of "Open Source", here. The M$ SSL dosent comply with this either. Hence it is not a "Open Source" compliant license either. So Rotor is _not_ "Open Source"., and definitely not "Free Software". Then what category does this software come under?

And, In my post, I've clearly titled it as the "anomalies in the term OpenSource". The post was directed towards the advantage taken by M$ in using those anomalies., by using the Student Abassadors to talk for it. When these Evangelists er., ambassadors, talk to students/novices who dont know these differences, they make them fall unknowingly into the mess. It is not my concern whether these Ambassadors do this knowingly or unknowingly. This is exactly what I meant by "..They basically work as the "honeypots" to lure the bees to eternal slavery...".

And I think, I made no mistake in any of my words.. :)


"How is politics and acting related?" The pathetic state in India where actors/actresses compete the polls..

I'm proud to be an Indian. However certain things of my countrymen really makes me ashamed. The polls for the lok sabha are around the corner. And you can see dozens of actors/actresses from bollywood/kollywood/*wood competing the polls. This puts a serious question before the layman. What does it take to rule the country? Just fame? Just money? Isnt there a need for some leadership quality? Isnt there a need for some education.. if not formal atleast by experience?
Roja, yesteryear glamour girl of tamil movies competes at some constituency in Andra pradesh. Some place where she has never set foot on. She sayz she'll justify her post., but letting her brother take care of the constituency while she is held up with her acting career. So., ruling the people has been taken up as a part-time job. A responsiblity is being treated as a Joke. Its not just her., there are a whole bunch of them.
So what do these people think ruling a country is? Is it a drama that they play before the cameras? Is it just a mock ritual of putting signatures and being escorted?
Hema malini, a hindi actress, stepped out of Rajya Sabha and commented that the proceedings were indeed interesting though she did not understand it. She was pretty proud about herself for her silliness. If all the seasoned politicians are going to be replaced by these people from tinsel town., what would be the state of the country? We'll have just bunch of morons disgracing the country. We've already seen the rule of this kind of people., especially in tamilnadu.

Will this state change? When will the people have a good ruler to rule them?

This is a decision to be taken by the people. :S


"M$ advocacy" on LUG mailing lists, the effect of the anomalies in the term "Open Source"..

       I've been watching this .NET related flamewars on various LUG mailing lists. These .NET people are confusing the public by claiming that M$ is for 'Open Source'. They claim that the opening up of .NET technologies explains the motives of M$ very well. Frankly, I dont seem to understand the need of .NET over Java. Me basically being a systems programmer, who is happy with C and Assembler, had not found a chance to look into .NET. But whatsoever, the entire concept of .NET plainly looks like a buisness venture of trapping large volumes of students and programmers. DotNet is open to the public, but the platforms on which they run are not open to the public. This is a trap laid out carefully by M$. These so called "M$ student evangelists" confuse the student community by talking about DotNET on LUG mailing lists and meetings. They basically work as the "honeypots" to lure the bees to eternal slavery.
       If M$ is really for Open Source, then why isnt it opening up the source to the public as such. These student evangelists claim that M$ does open up its source to universities and other interested parties. This is the anomaly caused by the term "Open Source". The public is lead to believe that it is enough that the source is available to some one (though not themselves). The social and ethical need to permit the distribution of Software with its source is being sidelined. The attention of the public being sidelined, the corporate has been successful in injecting their idea of "Open Source" into the public's thinking. Now since they hold a monopoly on marketing, their model of "Opening the source" becomes a sufficient condition for a software to be labled "Open Source". In order to stop this anomaly, it is required that the public realize the difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software", and support the right cause. There is a split in the thinking even among the converted users of GNU/Linux. Before going to the public, this difference within the community has to be resolved.
       Will the recent experience on the ILUG-Chennai mailing lists (.NET, M$ advocacy) and the ILUG-Madurai meetings strike a chord in the minds of the "Free Software" communities to act wisely before it is too late??

The question needs to be answered.