A WIRED reporter says open source advocates don't like to hear people who disagree with them, and uses an example from the O'Reilly Open Source Convention to make his point. Regular reader Anthony Awtrey provided us with the link and a brief response.

Stirred, at last, by the assault of Code Red and SirCam, Dennis Powell says enough is enough: "Even if Linux users aren't pushing these malicious bits of code across the Internet, we still suffer from their effects. It's time to politely demand our Microsoft-using friends and acquaintances either change their operating system, or take their machines off the 'net." A polite sample letter is included.

"There will soon be a major change in the way people think about computer software. Currently when looking at software purchases, one might ask questions like: How much does it cost? How many clients can legally be connected simultaneously? Can I use it on my desktop and laptop systems without paying extra? Those questions will become a thing of the past, as Open Source licenses make them irrelevant. Don't think it's possible? Remember that every industry occasionally has a major shift. The computer industry has certainly had shifts.

"The real issue is often missed in the argument over the GPL vs a BSD-style license as advocated by Microsoft: Am I allowed to make something and give it away without the threat of someone exploiting my work? Is a "community" allowed to be charitable without having their charity abused? Can a group of people collaborate and create "Intellectual Property", put it under a license that insures that it can be shared with anybody? Is this legal? Does it have precedent in America (any country for that matter)?

When Michael Hall made a routine call to technical support for a laptop purchased from a major (and allegedly Linux-friendly) hardware vendor, the first piece of advice he got was "dump Linux." Learn about how to make all the wrong moves in this informal "tech support HOWNOTTO:"

"Microsoft understands that GPL is a marketing scheme aimed right at their heart. First, GPL code will always result in a far earlier implementation of a new software idea to hit the market. Second, it `scorches the earth' because once the implementation exists, it kills competitive development that's based on a proprietary model. The situation has already done lots of damage to proprietary software patents. GPL makes it extremely easy to do prior art searches. As a result, patent challengers are having an easier and easier time getting patents invalidated.

"The specialized computer press really doesn't understand Linux. As a matter of fact, quite contrary to the rules of logic in this case, the popular press, epitomized by Websites like CNN's, actually does a better job at reporting fairly on the Linux phenomenon. However, when you go over to the press that's supposed to know what it's talking about when it reports on IT developments, the fairly well-researched and objective writing about Linux gets pretty scarce. I'll chalk the reason for this up to the meal-ticket-syndrome," says Michael J Jordan.

This article explores why there are strong technical, legal and political reasons for Free Software technologies being the only ones considered for use in legally binding votes conducted with Internet or other electronic technologies.

"Be careful what you say about Linux. Say the wrong thing, truth or otherwise, and you risk agitating an underworld of zealots. It was never clear if theirs was a true passion for the free operating system or simply a dislike for Microsoft, which they felt Linux would destroy"

"Despite the prominence of the Linux versus Windows struggle, the issue of whether or not source code should be publicly available concerns much more than competing operating systems."