Subject: Re: Sustainable Computing Consortium -- a policy railroading vehicle?
From: "Tony Stanco" <Tony@FreeDevelopers.net>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 06:17:49 -0400

Anyone notice an inconsistency between MS benefiting from the NASA funded
research and the statement in yesterday's Post article,

"The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on making
free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's
open-source competitors, Stenbit said."


-----Original Message-----
From: Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
To: Free Software Business <fsb@crynwr.com>
Date: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:41 AM
Subject: Sustainable Computing Consortium -- a policy railroading vehicle?


Several readers of this list will be familiar with CMU's recently
announced (and greatly criticised) "Sustainable Computing Consortium".

I've been trying to figure out just what the true objectives and impacts
of this group will be.  The nominal goal just doesn't add up.  This
leaves a number of plausible alternatives:

  - Yet another GovEduCom boondoggle.
  - A well intentioned but impotent white elephant.
  - Another wildly off-course NASA mission.

...but deep within me, my inner paranoiac is struggling to surface.
Given the focus in SCC documents on policy, I strongly suspect an
attempt to systematically freeze free software out of government
contract opportunities.

I develop these thoughts more fully at a recently deployed TWiki:


http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SustainableComputingConsortium

I think it's a bit of a reach, but I wish it was more of one.

Peace.

--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act:
     Feinstein's answer to Enron envy.
       http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.s2048.032102.html