I view the world through Ubuntu. Oh, not just the software, though that is significant, but also the philosophy. What validates me, as a person, is how I relate to and interact with other people. Do I care about other people? Do I help when I can? Do I accept their help when I need it? Do I encourage others to better themselves by praising what they have done? Do I provide constructive criticism when requested, and not just say, “that’s not the way to do it”? I would hope so, and certainly I strive to be so.

But how does the philosophy of Ubuntu relate to software? Basically, the software found in an Ubuntu distribution was created by people who also strive to follow that philosophy. Each piece of software is constructed by people reaching out to each other and trying to help when they can, or accepting help from others when it is needed. Each application is motivated by the encouragement of others, and corrected by the constructive criticism of others. And thus new elements are added to the software and bugs are corrected because of the interaction of people who want to see that software become all that it can be.

Did you go to college? Do you remember the camaraderie with your friends? Do you remember sharing your notes, and helping others with their homework? I do. I remember sitting at a table in the coffee shop on campus, discussing problems in math and philosophy, psychology and history. Knowledge is like that. Knowledge wants to be free. Oh, that doesn’t mean that it comes without a cost. There is always a cost. The least amount is what effort you are willing to put forth to learn a subject. How much is your time worth? But then, there’s tuition and books, etc. So there is a cost to education, but the knowledge wants to be shared with others.

Software is somewhat like that, but with a twist. There are software companies that want to own everything: they want to slave all other software to itself. Look at games, for example. How many of them are being written for Linux? They’ve been slaved to one particular manufacturer’s operating systems, and won’t run on Linux. Worse, in this day and age, a lot of software – games and operating systems – are further slaved with patents. How can one patent an idea? One can patent a working model that uses an idea, but where is the working model of a piece of software? The software is only the expression of the idea: the written description of the mathematics used by a computer to create an effect. How, on it’s own, can it be called a working model? It can’t. Yet the idea has been slaved to a particular manufacturer’s operating system as if it were a physical object.

Another area is in drafting. Yes, there are 2 dimensional drafting programs written for Linux. But none of them will do 3 dimensions. And there are 3 dimensional graphical programs written for Linux, but they won’t do drafting. The same, I’m told, is true of accounting and word processing for lawyers, and I’m sure there are other fields that are poorly represented. Is it really that difficult to write code that can be relatively easily transferred between operating systems? I wouldn’t expect such code to necessarily be free as in “free beer”, but shouldn’t others have the opportunity to express themselves no matter what operating system they use? The only reason that I can think of that such software be restricted to one manufacturer is greed.

However, with greed comes stagnation. There is less motivation for people to help the greedy to fix problems with their software, or to encourage them to offer new ideas. There is no feeling of having accomplished something by helping a greedy person or corporation. Whereas, when the knowledge is free to flow between people it picks up the new ideas and is corrected more often. Look at the advances that have already taken place in the free software society. When Linux first came out it was the operating system of a very few who didn’t mind struggling to find answers to various problems. Now, despite differences in design from what the masses are used to, many people have switched to one distribution or another with no difficulty. Where once Linux was territory of geeks, now it is the means of enablement of the masses. And all because of the freedom of the software to be shared and improved.

Perhaps it’s because I was a teacher’s kid, but I have never understood the attitude of greed where knowledge was involved. It hurts when I have to tell someone that I don’t know the answer to their problem. It makes me feel good when I watch someone reach that moment of discovery, of epiphany, when they realize how something works. It makes me feel better when such a one comes back and offers me further information that I may never have thought of otherwise. I do not understand greed. Greed is monopolistic – unwilling to share. It is the dinosaur forever being worried by the pack of mammals because it is unable to change. I feel sorry for such a dinosaur, but will not morn its passing.