This is why people don't take RMS and the FSF seriously

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has posted a list of "Windows 7 Sins" that epitomizes Mr. Stallman's blunt instrument approach to winning the hearts and minds of computer users and information consumers... No matter how noble the intent, this type of delivery is counterproductive and, at best, misguided. 

The list features paragraphs and links that provide some fact, plenty of FUD, and a more-than-healthy dose of misleading information around the following alleged Microsoft "sins". You can read the FSF's helpful information using these links, and I'll interject some moderation to temper a few of the "whoppers" that you may encounter along the way:

1. Education: Remember the days of the Apple ][? The only reason I had one at home was because that's what we used at school. If the skills I gained at an early age were non-transferable to other platforms and technologies, then I should be completely overwhelmed by the OpenBSD, OS X, Windows, and Linux systems that surround me. Indeed, I should be buying up every Apple ][, ][e, and ][c that appears on eBay so that I can have a computer that "I know how to use." The OLPC rant is so poorly thought out that it scarcely requires mentioning. Anyone with a modicum of token critical thinking and analysis skills (which are far more important to education than any type of computing device) can recognize the faults in its logic.   
   
2. DRM: Yes, I dislike encumbered files and generally choose not to purchase them. However, I also enjoy watching my Blu-Ray discs, which make very heavy use of DRM technologies. The funniest part of this rant is how it employs convenient omission. The alternatives that are available all work on Windows platforms.  I can generate and play any type of media that I desire, in any format that can be imagined. Consumer education is important, but this is overbearing and misguided. Apple iPods and iPhones, and Microsoft Zunes and Windows Mobile devices would all be less successful if they could only use media from the various stores that are listed. If you do not like the shortcomings that these stores provide, don't use the stores... 
   
3. Security: The best part of this one is "With free software, even if you don't have the skills to evaluate the software, you can be certain that someone else can." I'm struggling to muster the faith required to conjure a volunteer benevolent uber-mensch who is fluent in C, well versed in security principles, and has the interests of the populous above those of himself or whomever is providing his source of income. All modern Linux distributions use repositories to get security updates and most people blindly apply binary updates and hope that said benefactor exists in exactly the same way that they rely on Microsoft or Apple to provide updates to their proprietary systems. I would love to see a survey of what percentage of production Linux users have source packages installed. My guess: a single-digit percentage relies on their own skills instead of those of Canonical, Novell, RedHat, etc...   I leave the exercise of attempting to find information about security, bug fixes, patches, and updates associated with GNU Hurd to the reader (Good Luck!).
   
4. Monopoly: Yes, they got busted. The argument about PC Manufacturers is a bit of a double-edged sword, however. Successful PC Manufacturers are run by business people, not idealists. Business people have a strong tendency to build, stock, and offer for sale items which they perceive as likely to be sold. Regardless of how enthusiastic your love for alternatives is, pragmatism and economics will prevail. Besides, every major manufacturer offers some systems with Linux. I am not aware of any, however, that are insane enough to try the waters of offering for sale a system based upon the perpetually-in-development but never-likely-to-actually-be-producton-ready GNU Hurd. After all, "there is no stable version."
   
5. Standards: Here the rallying cry is primarily against Office, with a side of IE. Although, I was under the impression that the basis of this "campaign" was the upcoming release of the Windows 7 operating system. On the off chance that a friend or colleague sends you an ODF-formatted document, Office 2007 SP2 includes ODF support. For some strange reason the Sun plug-in does a better job of it (to the untrained observer, it would appear as if the folks who developed the source code for OpenOffice are more familiar with the 728-page ODF standard -- which, ironically, is distributed as a ZIP file that contains a PDF).                                                  
   
6. Lock In: Again, the logic breaks down rather quicky, and Microsoft can often be replaced by "Company X". For all of Mr. Stallman's obsessions with the various definitions of the word free (apparently free, Free, fRee, frEe, freE, FRee, FrEe, FreE, fREe, fReE, frEE, FREe, FReE, FrEE, fREE, and FREE should all have different connotative and denotative symbology), he doesn't seem to understand the nuance of the free market. Yes, Windows NT4 and Windows 2000 have reached the end of their support lifecycles. But, then again, so have Oracle 8i, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, AIX 5.3, the Ford Model A, and every other commercial product in the history of market-driven economies. At this point, the argument switches back to Office again... Anybody tried to open a WordPerfect 5.1-or-previous document recently? The once-ubiquitous *.wpd was the de facto "document exchange format" before Microsoft Office started to provide competitive-to-superior functionality. I guess it only qualifies as lock-in when you remain successful in the marketplace. (Interestingly, I could find no mention of *.wpd support in the latest version of Corel WordPerfect Office X4, which prominently features ODF, Microsoft OOXML, and Adobe PDF support.)  
   
7. Privacy: This rant combines disparate factors into a doomsday scenario that is ridiculously unlikely. It deftly mixed the Windows Genuine Advantage program (without railing other companies that have even-less-transparent software activation schemes) with some massive FUD about the Trusted Platform Module, and assumes that the reader is ignorant enough to believe that the (NT?) 4(.0?) horsemen of the apocalypse are nigh. Windows Vista and Windows 7 do not employ the version of "Trustworthy Computing" that was envisioned by Palladium. Yes, there is some opportunity for abuse, but the scenario that is described here has less of a chance of occurrence than me winning 18 consecutive lotteries and being struck by lightning (at the same physical location) on each occasion as I collect the winnings. 

In short, throughout its over-105-year history, Oscar Mayer hasn't managed to produce this much bologna. If this energy could be directed into real consumer education, it would be far more productive than this petty -- and frankly, pathetic -- mix of whining and hate- / fear-mongering. This "campaign" comes across as juvenile quibbling and bellyaching, and lacks characteristics that would inspire any meaningful discussion or debate. Said discussion and debate is useful and necessary, but the tactics employed by this campaign are better fit as examples in the next edition of Crimes Against Logic than as tinder for revolutionary fires. Indeed, the only likely response to this "initiative" will be inflammatory blog rhetoric and user-comment cruft on both sides of the "argument"; all of which is distinctly anathema to the prospects of rational debate and progress.

My Plate Runneth Over...

When discussing workloads, we often invoke the analogy of "the plate," and we talk about how "full" our plate is. In this context, we've been consistently reminded of the lessons of youth regarding the need to "clean our plate" at every meal; leaving the merest morsel of work uneaten is one of the few cardinal sins at the dinner table of employment. We're discouraged from over-committing ("take what you want, but finish what you take"), but the illusion that we have control over what we "take" repeatedly breaks down -- especially during "special," or difficult, times. (For now, we'll neglect that "difficult times" tend to become the norm when "Management by Crisis" is the foundational culture of the organization. This management technique, while outwardly easy -- because humans naturally seek leaders in a time of crisis -- is most often really a sign of a "crisis of management" caused by an endemic, and apparently irrevocable, lack of foresight.)

Allow me to extend the analogy of the plate, as it applies in "special times" -- regardless of whether such times have become the rule rather than the exception: Today is a special day, say, your birthday... Your family has taken you to a certain Amarillo steakhouse with a particular penchant for excess. Because you've been raised to "take what you want, but finish what you take," you order the 8 oz. sirloin. Your doctor would advise you to only consume 3-4 oz. of red meat during the course of a meal, but this is a "special day," and this particular steak is the 2nd-most humble slab of beef on the whole menu -- you wouldn't want to disappoint your family, after all. Well, it turns out that your family maintains their traditional values, and therefore can't pass up the opportunity to save some money ("waste not, want not"); so when you get up to wash your hands, your father calls over the wait staff and substitutes the *FREE* 72 oz. steak for your already-slightly-too-robust sirloin. Your meal arrives, and you protest that there clearly must have been some mistake, but your father calmly explains how much money you'll be saving for the family -- if only you can polish off four and a half pounds of beef in under an hour. Even though what your ordered would have cost $16 at the end of the meal, and this abomination costs $72 up front (refunded only if you complete the "challenge" successfully), your father smiles about how much money he is saving for the family, and encourages everyone to "dig in" to their meals. At that point you stop staring at your own plate for a moment and look around the table for the first time; you see that all of your siblings are facing a similar quandary. Since you're not alone, you feel obligated to try; since the clock is already inexorably counting down what remains of your precious hour, you suppress the urge to protest further and start cutting, piercing, shoveling, and chewing... Needless to say, there is an intrinsic -- but unstated -- requirement that you (and all of your siblings) rise to this challenge, lest the whole family should be forced to suffer as a result of your gastronomic ineptitude...

At least that's what seems to happen where I work...

Hair-brained mumbo-jumbo numero uno

Some corporate linguists like to go with the four E words and the three R words when discussing employer-employee relations. Being a sophisticate, I prefer the verb forms of these words to the contrived noun forms. (Of course, the verb forms imply that action may be required, and management theories are supposed to shy away from that...):

• E words
  
• Empower
• Enable
• Engage
• Encourage
• R words
  
• Respect
• Recognize
• Reward

Interestingly, the first two "E words" represent things that individuals in an organization generally get for themselves, because they simply couldn't do their jobs otherwise. Therefore, they only require management intervention in the form of removing external roadblocks. Our theory should incorporate enough management awareness to perceive these roadblocks and act without being prompted / begged to do so.

The other five things can probably be combined into a cohesive formula for employee motivation, if we can figure out how to map them on a chart and subsequently devise a self-test that deterministically and artificially lets people sort themselves accordingly. Of course, before doing that, we'll have to enroll in a post-graduate Psych program.

CEO-speak, merger edition

Bust out your buzzword bingo cards folks. It's merger season, and the CEOs are spouting this season's freshest corp-jive. Two fantastic case studies in highly-evolved, value-added diction that is both empowered by, and leveraging of, the unique corporate lexicon are presented below to enhance your short-term amusement value.

Energizer acquires Playtex. Guess that means we'll soon be seeing the world's first battery-powered ______. Oh, it turns out that Playtex makes other products, Energizer already owns Schick, and this is mostly a bid to compete with P&G (who happens to own Duracell). But, that would sound bad, so here's the official corporate-speak version from Ward M. Klein, Chief Executive Officer of Energizer: "We are very excited about bringing the world-class businesses and people of Playtex into the Energizer family... We see Playtex as an exceptionally great fit with Energizer, with similar customers and distribution channels in the U.S. and Canada, and the opportunity for geographic expansion in many other areas of the world where we currently do business. We also believe there are significant integration and cost reduction opportunities for the combined businesses. Energizer will emerge with a more diversified portfolio of products, and greater scale in the personal care category, which will now be more evenly balanced with our household goods business. It will also provide a platform for possible additional value-adding acquisition
Meanwhile, IHOP will eat Applebee's and turn almost all of their corporate stores into franchises. The quotable clap-trap press release was absolutely full of the word "re-energize;" it includes the following yawn-tastic quote by IHOP Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Julia Stewart, who will lead the management team of the combined Company: “Over the past year and a half, we have been evaluating alternatives that would allow us to leverage IHOP’s proven competencies in order to create additional long-term value for shareholders, including a potential acquisition. Applebee’s meets all of our acquisition criteria and we expect the combination to generate significant additional value for our shareholders.”

Prescription for innovative management theories

1. Find a PhD student in psychology.
2. Assign a thesis wherein said student is expected to spew forth a new and innovative management theory.
3. Faculty review: Ignore the fact that the great majority of these theories work by way of generalization and over-simplification, and therefore ring just as true as the predictions of your average Ren-Fest midway fortune teller.
4. Partnering and Profit: Many of these amazing systems go on to become books and even seminars, it's absolutely staggering. Now, to make this work you need a nifty chart and a self-test that allows folks to assign themselves to one of your neatly-defined and mostly useless categories.

In the real world, these generalized categories (e.g. types of motivation, types of interpersonal interaction, etc.) are actually variable and highly situational. But, you can't sell a book that says that...