Introduction: Consider The Sources
I am a computer geek from the 1980s. This means I didn't play with paper tape (I didn't even dabble in assembler,) I quickly abandoned programs stored on cassette tape (though the C64 is still beautiful,) and I'm comfortable with the command line.
For many happy years I played with DOS, Windows, and QuickBasic. Then, the 21st century happened. DOS died, Free Software started becoming a reality for a much larger cross section of the population, and I finally started living a dream that I'd had for more than a decade: Use An Operating System For Dorks That Everyone Can Share.
It's not that it's an operating system: it's just that our computers need software. And somewhere between the software that anyone can write (that's the kind I like most) and the computer itself is the OS, and I really don't like monopolies telling hobbyists what to do. You buy a computer, it should do what the software tells it to do. You buy software, it should do what you tell it to do.
Since the 1980s, Microsoft has decreased the choices you can make, but increased the number of things you can do (so long as Microsoft allows it.) It's surprising that Apple beat Microsoft to the punch, creating a wildly popular sort-of computer that dictates entirely what software you're allowed to install. But for every person that thinks it's unreasonable to passionately dislike Microsoft, there is someone who has tried again and again to maintain a system that Microsoft tries to control after the sale, there are companies shut down unfairly by practices found to be illegal (but when you're a monopoly, you're too big to fail) and ten people who are simply tired of being cheated, controlled, and lied to.
At this point, only a clever trick from Ron Wyden has stopped Microsoft, Apple and Adobe (not to mention Hollywood and the recording industry) from knee-capping the internet, through the Business Software Alliance and the PROTECT-IP Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act
Between being told what I can install on my computer, and the companies supplying more computer software than any others telling us which websites we're allowed to visit, I have to say I'm not too enamored with these businesses. I'd like to see better businesses replace them, but everyone wants to measure success in marketshare (I.E., how much of a monopoly they have.)
Monopolies are the problem! When you supply everyone, you control everyone. Thus it's not just enough to "be practical" in the short term, you have to "be practical" in the long term, and that means forward-thinking. Like backward-thinking, forward-thinking sometimes takes having a few ideals. One ideal is that users should be able to make their own choices, not select from pre-approved "choices" from a monopoly. The first and larger, less superficial kind of choice is called "freedom." And it's a difficult word for most businesses to deal with.
That's not my problem. I do want to support good businesses, but good businesses don't spend decades doing shady things to disempower the user. I am not interested in extending olive branches to dictators, I am interested in free enterprise with businesses that offer real choices, and invest in user satisfaction, not user lock-in.
Since I was growing up with the Personal Computer, an effort has been made to peacefully resist the dystopia we're marching towards. That effort has been extended, expanded, incredibly successful (starting with impossible goals, and shying away from compromise,) and taken up in part (and then some) by many organizations.
Many of these organizations have countless participants with good intentions. Many of these participants have good ideas. But when you put it all together, it's not seamless, not consistent, nor easy to understand. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1329920/Space-time-cloak-allow-history-edited-people-reappear.html It's a wonder that any of it has worked at all.
The solution as far as I can tell, is not "Unity." People are quick to sell out, to betray their causes, to miss their own point. "Unity" sounds a little too much like "monopoly." But the point of history is not generally to tell you how it should be, or how it could be; What I hope to provide is context, and a counter to the nice mythologies that people are building. Diversity is the thing you get when people are allowed to make their own choices, and diversity is rarely sought by those who routinely abuse the word "unity." Can we be "United, in diversity?" That might be a good thing. But then again, it might not be necessary. It might be better to simply be diverse. On some things, it's important or necessary to work together, but we don't have to agree on every agenda.
An air of hope drives the spirit of digital liberation, and it's never my desire to crush that hope in anyone else, let alone myself. But without context and an honest assessment of the road so far, those with any hope left for the future are bound to be disappointed if they pay close enough attention. I'd like these movements to be a little more honest, a little more self-critical, and what else will maintain the level of integrity necessary to truly make the world a better place?
That is, I'm fairly certain, the most noble cause to which History can contribute: Find the others. Keep them honest. Bring more in. Make it better.
"It doesn't necessarily happen in that order," of course.
I feel pretty deeply, but not completely, disillusioned by the entire thing. I think that's good... the more disillusioned people are, I believe, the better the chances of continuing to build something good. If on the other hand, people need to be lied to in order to keep going, there seem to be plenty of options that already exist.
Start with some of the organizations that promise to help:
Free Software Foundation: http://fsf.org
Open Source Initiative: http://opensource.org
Public Knowledge: http://publicknowledge.org
Open Knowledge Foundation: http://okfn.org
Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation: http://eff.org
Question Copyright: http://questioncopyright.org
I support several of the above. It will become pretty obvious which ones I lean towards from what I say about them. In truth, I'm still figuring it out for myself. But I have been doing so for so long, I wonder how many years must go by before I have some idea what to say about them.
I do not claim that my criticism is always constructive, but I will try to make all of it fair. At this point I probably have the worst things to say about the organizations I like the most, if only because I count on them to be better than their competition. Where they're not, I'm happy to point out that they're not.
If none of them existed, I would die (more than a little) inside.
Some of the most interesting things pop up when you compare the various claims made. My favorite one is "Open Source is the same as Free Software..." (...Only better.) No, you can't be better and the same: you're denying your differences when it steals attention and support, and admitting your differences when it suits your agenda.
I couldn't get away with saying that, except that not everyone does it. Open Source has some of the best people, too.
But it isn't all the same thing. It's an improbable tangle of millions of voices. Somewhere in the din is a signal, waiting to be unleashed larger upon the world. Compare the loudest voices, then listen more closely. Then you will find it. (I'll try to help.) But don't let a monopoly (not one publisher, not one voice) tell you how it really is. If you want to know, you'll have to compare. You'll have to shut your instincts on and off several times. You'll even have to be misled now and then, because the alternative of getting it all right on the first try is incredibly unlikely. But good luck to you.