OSS in Developing Countries Bulletin, 2003

[Oct 04, 2003] Slashdot UN Summit Tones Down Open-Source Stance

World Summit on the Information Society

• Newsroom World Summit on the Information Society

• You can read more about WSIS here: civil society news center [prepcom.net] Communications Rights in the Information Society [crisinfo.org] german civil society [worldsummit2003.de] Press Release to Free Software from German Civil Society [odem.org] (german only, sorry). UNO Documents: Draft Declaration [itu.int] (in english, arabic, russion, chinese, spanish, french...)

UN Summit Tones Down Open-Source Stance - Computer Business Review

By Kevin Murphy

International governments have toned down their proposed endorsement of open-source software models, following lobbying by businesses at a preparatory meeting of the World Summit on the Information Society, which is set to run this December in Geneva.

The WSIS, run by the UN and International Telecommunications Union, met last week to debate dozens of topics relating to international cooperation on IT issues, but open-source emerged as a key issue.

Language in an August draft of the WSIS Plan of Action that would have advocated the use of open-source software, particularly in developing nations, was toned down in the September 26 draft, to give equal weight to the value of proprietary software.

The August draft promoted open source awareness, the creation of intellectual property mechanisms supporting open source, and the creation of a UN "Programmers Without Frontiers" body to support open source software in developing nations.

In the new draft, these are replaced with a more general description of how governments should "promote awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by different software models... including proprietary, open-source and free software".

The changes were apparently made after input from several nations uneasy with excluding mentions of proprietary software from the Plan, and from the business lobby's delegation, which came out strongly against open-source.

Delegates from the US and EU were prominent among those asking that commercial software interests get a fair representation in the Plan, and that certain provisions should be deleted. Commercial interests also came against the provisions.

"Business has consistently stated that it is essential for governments to ensure technologically neutral policy towards different software models," said the delegate from the business lobby, during the conference debate.

"Governments cannot know, case-by-case, what software solution is best for every user," she said, urging the deletion of the open-source provisions. "Each user should be allowed to make a choice that meets their individual needs."

In recent years commercial software interests, notably Microsoft Corp, which faces the constant threat of having its market share eroded by Linux, have had to lobby hard to keep governments from openly preferring open-source over proprietary software.

Microsoft has gone so far as to offer governments the unprecedented chance to view Windows source code, primarily to help quash security fears, and more than a dozen countries have so far taken up its offer.

And earlier this month, a trio of east Asian nations proposed the creation of a new operating system specifically to reduce the region's reliance on Microsoft. China already promotes a local variant of Linux as its OS of choice.

The WSIS, which expects more than 50 heads of state to attend its December meeting, also expects to debate dozens of other hot IT topics during the meeting. The overriding theme is bridging the so-called "digital divide" between IT haves and have-nots.

Other issues set for debate include the archiving of and access to government information, access to wireless spectrum, government subsidies of internet access, internet taxes, and international cooperation on information security.

Spam, a current hot-button topic acknowledged to need global cooperation, also gets a look in. The August draft of the Plan of Action called for this cooperation, coordination with ISPs, the education of users, and the prosecution of spammers.

In the latest draft, these rather general proposals were scaled back further. The 100 words the August Plan offered to the spam problem were reduced to the sentence: "Take appropriate action on spam at national and international levels."

[Mar 14, 2003] [DOC]Barriers to the Networked World:
File Format: Microsoft Word 2000 - View as HTML
www.cid.harvard.edu/ciditg/papers/ Kirkman%20JHD%20article%20final.doc

One of the most pressing concerns, and fundamental obstacles to the diffusion of the Internet to the developing world, is the cost of ICTs associated with access.  Given the low wage levels that prevail in most developing countries, the prices of hardware, software and of connectivity remain prohibitively expensive for the majority of people and businesses.  Infrastructure providers are leery of making the required investments in networks in most communities in the developing world, and most governments lack the financial resources on their own to make the diffusion of the Internet a major priority.  The international development community, particularly the multilateral and bilateral donor organizations, have also done little to-date to address the issue of cost as a barrier to Internet diffusion in the developing world. 

It is important to remember that in a vacuum, information and communication technologies like the Internet have no real intrinsic value.  They are merely the newest wave of tools available to humankind that fit in the same trajectory as pen and paper, smoke signals, and the telegraph.  The real excitement surrounding the newest ICTs lies in their power to break down time and space in a way that was not possible before.  It is the use of ICTs that has the potential to change the world.   

Nevertheless, too often in general discussions about the impact of the Internet upon the developing world, an analysis of “ICTs” never penetrates beyond the general level; the potential of information and communication technologies as powerful tools for development is elaborated as if all ICTs were the same.  The truth is, they are not.  There is a wide range of information and communication technologies being developed worldwide, with great differences in philosophies of design, and ultimately, in the usefulness and cost of what, if anything, is ultimately produced.  In the interest of contrasting low cost technological development with the mainstream, this paper will highlight a number of specific research and development strands relating to the Internet. 

Also within the growing debate about the appropriate role of the Internet there is a growing tendency to focus on moving the discussion of ICTs and development “beyond access.”  Once again, it is often pointed out that access to the Internet and the global telecommunications network in itself is meaningless – it is how this access is used that is of real import.  Does access lead to job creation, higher wages, social, political and economic empowerment?  However correct this view is in terms of flagging the issues that lie at the core of the use of ICTs for economic development, it does not resolve the fact that access remains a main bottleneck.  Without access, we cannot begin to speak of electronic commerce, telemedicine or e-government.  And cost remains a major component of Internet access that has not been adequately addressed in mainstream R&D programs or in the big ICT companies’ production and sales agendas. 

The cost of the Internet that a user pays reflects a number of other costs of goods and services that make Internet service provision possible: the correspondent amortized investment costs for the local, regional, national and international deployment of network infrastructure, a portion of the network’s recurring costs, the hardware and software interfaces used to interact with the network, etc.  On each of these levels, there are specific technology costs that contribute to the overall cost of the Internet, influenced by the regulatory framework, the intrinsic cost of the technologies themselves, and a number of other factors.  In the case of users in the developing world, this total cost is often prohibitive. 

Does the Developing World Really Need the Internet? 

Many dismiss the argument that it is important for the developing world to have the Internet by pointing out that poor people do not need or even want the Internet if they cannot feed and clothe themselves or take care of their health.  Some critics of efforts to take the Internet to developing nations also point out that people there do not have the income to spend on a luxury like the Internet.  There are at least two important reasons why these criticisms are missing the point.   

First, we are not speaking of a zero sum game.  For some of the most rudimentary problems facing developing countries, the Internet could quite effectively ameliorate inefficiencies in markets and breakdowns in communication that contribute to poverty and stagnant development.  In an environment with limited resources of course there is always a choice between one thing (food) and another (the Internet) when buying decisions are made.  But the Internet is not an end in itself.  The whole purpose of having the Internet is to aid in making the pursuit of food, health, income, education and entertainment more efficient and rewarding.   

To illustrate this point, it is easy to talk in the abstract about the value of linking local producers to global markets, of connecting rural health clinics to better-equipped hospitals elsewhere, or of giving students greater access to the multitude of learning materials that exist on the World Wide Web.  These are all potential impacts of the Internet upon a community in the developing world.   

We can also consider a specific, practical example of the value of information and the potential role of the Internet.  Inefficiencies in spot labor markets are one driver for high rates of employment and low productivity globally.  Typically in many towns and cities around the world, each morning groups of (usually) men gather to look for day jobs.  Employers who have a need for workers that day hire from this pool of available labor.  The system seems fairly formalized but in reality, there is quite a bit of chance whether or not each prospective worker will get a job on any particular day.  If there is a need for five workers in a particular town, yet eight men need employment, three people do not find jobs.  Unbeknownst to these men, however, there may be opportunities just around the corner in another square several blocks away, on the other side of town, or in the next village over.  Meanwhile, employers whose labor needs are unfulfilled are losing productivity.

Slashdot Computers Not Working In Education -- it's now common knowledge among educators that early exposition to computers can be detrimental to child progress.  It's all about information overload and this can be a very dangerous thing in education, especially in early education.  You may wish to read "High Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom and Other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian"  by Clifford Stoll that try to address some of the problem [quality of addressing them is another problem]. Anyway, the amount spent on purchasing, maintaining, and updating both computer hardware and software in schools in the USA is excessive, with school administrators caught between the rock and hard place. The populist idea that computer usage equals brighter students is a fake. The hard way is often the best way in education (there is no royal way in mathematics; -).  Nor can there be any substitute for a good  teachers and face-to-face dialog. The overemphasis on computers often lead to underemphasizing of the role of the teacher and money spend on computers in classroom can probably be better spent on teacher salary.  On the Internet, everyone is a de facto editor / publisher, and much material that would never be printed is given equal status with the greatest novels. As the most thoughtful and well-researched works are equalized by the net to the junk produced by graphomans. While there are bright spots (project Gutenberg) the importance of a good library cannot be underestimated.

"BBC Radio 4's current affairs program 'Analysis' is reporting [realaudio] [txt transcript] on emerging evidence that computers have harmed, rather than helped educational progress.

There is still much debate among even the most enthusiastic supporters of schools technology about how computers should best be used. Despite record investment in computers in the USA and UK, recent studies (not the ones funded by educational software companies) have shown a significant drop in core subjects (Math, English) in schools that place strong emphasis on Information Technology. Evidence also suggests that whilst information technology has great potential in the classroom, teachers have not yet found better use for computers than as a big library.

Very few schools have been able to use the new technology for cultural exchange, or to build practical educational networks with other schools.

Teachers do not know whether computers should be seen as an exciting but peripheral educational 'accessory', or if computers can actually be used to solve the most pressing problems of literacy and numeracy - the sorts of things that get kids through exams."

The Economist had a similar article a month or two back, about Israeli schools that had similar results, along with an interesting comparison between how people see computers now, and how people in the early 20th century saw film strips in the classroom.

Code Not suprised (Score:4, Insightful) by tgv (254536) on Monday December 30, @09:57AM (#4981263)

I'm not surpised. Schools tend to take away hours from maths and physics for teaching computer "science", so that would explain enough. Pity that MS Word is considered more important than algebra.

Re:Good lord (Score:5, Insightful) by Christianfreak (100697) on Monday December 30, @10:31AM (#4981465) (http://nakedpicc.com/ | Last Journal: Friday November 01, @12:16AM)

I don't want to be offensive to you but I think that teachers and principals do need to see this. One of the things that is wrong with the current educational system (in the US anyway) is too many people are worried about keeping their jobs and not making sure that kids are properly educated. It becomes a huge political circus rather than a public service to better the next generation. Reports like this are a step in the right direction, showing teachers that Math, English and even fine arts are so much more needed skills than calculators, word processors, and MS Paint. *rant* Now if we could just get school boards across the nation to get their heads out of their collective ... well you know, and legislators to stop passing laws that give more money to districts where kids pass, thus encouraging teachers to pass kids regardless of grades. */rant* Back on topic ... don't get me wrong I do believe that educational software has its place. Personally I think its something that parents should have at home, or something that should be in libraries, even school libraries. Places where it can be used without taking away from the time to learn the real important stuff.

I was a victim of technology!!! (Score:5, Interesting) by mustangdavis (583344) on Monday December 30, @09:57AM (#4981264) (http://www.coldfirestudios.com/)

I was encouraged in high school to use calculators since my H.S. was trying to go "high tech". In fact, we were REQUIRED to use them on tests .... if you didn't, you were going to fail due to a lack of time to complete the exam. Then I got to college ... Now keep in mind, I was a pretty good math student (scored perfect on the SATs in Math ... English was another issue ... and why I didn't get into a good school), so this is a good example in my opinion. I took my first college Calc II exam, and of course, used my calculator for it. In all fairness, it was a difficult exam, but a fair exam. I thought I would be "joe slick" and finish quickly by using the latest and greatest graphing calc. available ... and I finished WAY before the other students in the course. HOWEVER, when I got my exam back, I got a 54%!!! Every answer was correct, but in big, red letters at the top of the paper, the prof wrote "This is what you get for looking at your calculator so much!" ... then he wrote "I need to see a few more steps and where you got some of these answers". Needless to say, that was the last time I used that calculator for anything but to check answers (or to get answers and reverse engineer them) :) My prof was right though ... kids today need to learn to think for themselves BEFORE they begin to use technology as a crutch .... .... but at the same time, we live in a technology laced society ... so which is more evil ... to force kids to learn, but not teach them technology, or to teach then technology, but make them helpless without it .... It is an evil world we live in .... It looks like technology is like women ... can't live with it, can't live without it ... Just my 2 cents

Re:I was a victim of technology!!! (Score:5, Interesting) by TheWanderingHermit (513872) on Monday December 30, @10:36AM (#4981498)

The problem is that most professors want to see your *work*. If you just gave a few steps and -voila- an answer, they usually don't appreciate it. I used to teach high school Math (Algebra, Geometry, Algebra II, General Math). I made it clear to the students from the beginning how important it was to show their work. On a 5 point question, if the student gave me an answer without work, they'd get 1 point (maybe 2 if I was feeling generous). If they showed their work, and it was mostly right (maybe they missed a + or - or one small mistake), they'd get 4 out of 5. For high school students that is often hard to understand -- all they can think about is the answer. For Algebra I, for the first half of the year, they still can't understand why they can't just do it in their head. Each day I'd collect the homework and grade it on participation. If the work was there, they'd get a 2, if it was poorly done, or only 1/3 to 2/3 or so done, it'd get a 1. I'd add these up at the end of the year and get a percentage of how much of the homework each student did that term. That would count 20% of the semester grade. I even added a homework line -- a 2nd phone line w/ caller ID and an answering maching so students could call and get their assignment or leave a message for help on an assignment and I'd call back as soon as I could. (The administration HATED this and told me to disconnect it ASAP. -- I didn't -- could you see me telling the class, "The homework line has been stopped, per order of the administration." ??) There were several calls to check assignments, but in about 3/4 of a school year, only 1 call for help. It stopped the "I couldn't do it because I didn't understand it" or "I forgot what it was" excuses! As a teacher, I needed to know the process to get the answer. Especially in Algebra I, where they didn't want to show it. I needed to know they were learning the tools they would need in the 2nd half of the year or for Algebra II. True, there's graphing calcs and such, but if you don't understand HOW to get the answer, you're just listening to a machine. That's no better than the Borg. (Remember Isaac Asimov's story about someone who realizes 1+1=2 always -- and stuns the world that you don't need calculators to do math?) There's also the other side note. If you give me just an answer on a test, how do I know if you "did it in your head" or copied it off someone else? In Math, especially, a student needs to know the tools to get the answer. That's what they're learning in Algebra I & II and Geometry. If they don't show their work, you don't know if they're using those tools.

Well, duh (Score:2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30, @09:58AM (#4981269)

That’s the thing: Teachers do not know … if computers can actually be used to solve the most pressing problems of literacy and numeracy - the sorts of things that get kids through exams." Computers cannot, on their own, solve any problems – they can perform complex calculations, sure, but you have to feed them the exact steps to follow. If kids do not understand the principles behind something as simple as multiplication or division, say, how do you expect a glorified calculator to help them? Sure they could use it to divide 22 by 7, but do they understand why they are doing that? Sure they can use spell check on grammar check, but is that any substitute for actually understanding sentence structure or knowing how words are properly spelled? That is how you solve literacy and mathematic deficiencies. You have to work at it – technology isn’t the magical panacea everyone appears to think it is. You don’t see architectecture schools talking about how power actuated fasteners are changing how they teach, do you? Of course not, they are just tools that save on labor. Computers are the exact same thing, and the quicker people realize that a computer is just another form of tool, the quicker everyone will realize that there is nothing mystical about them and their operators. Realizing this will help to devalue the artificially high prices of computer “engineers”, cut down on overhead drastically, and provide just the shot in the arm our stock market needs to rebound. I don’t mean to bash on our dedicated teachers – they are doing the best they can, given their abilities and environment, but hyping up computers as a replacement to study isn’t a good idea. There’s a reason we weren’t allowed to use calculators until Calculus class when we were in school, and that is why we hand to hand write exams without a dictionary available. It is nice to have technology available, but it should always be as an assistant to aid the individual in his work– it should not direct his work

Technology can't fix people (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30, @10:02AM (#4981296)

There are some people who are naturally inquisitive and who will seek out information and knowlege. Then there are others who will not. The presence or abscence of a tool that might help someone do this has nothing to do with whether they actually will or not. When television first came out it was heralded as a tool for education. There were people who believed that it would be used by the masses to learn. They believed this because they were the type of people who seek to learn themselves, and so they interpreted the motivations of others through their own desire to learn. By and large television has not been a tool for education because most people simply don't want to learn. Their desire to not know is truly bizarre to me, but that is the only expanation I know that fits. It is true that today we've got things like TLC, the Discovery Channel and the History Channel, but how many years did it take after cable tv became popular that networks like these became a profitable enterprise? If you need further proof of what I'm saying just look at books. Books are educational, yet how many people out there actually read anything? Most people can read, but few actually choose to read anything past street signs and the occassional newspaper. If someone is intelligent and/or inquisitive, then they will use the tools available to them to learn. If they are not then the nature and usefullness of the tools available makes no difference because they aren't going to use them in the first place.

Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes :  Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce :  Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS :  Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development :  Scripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month :  How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: March 12, 2019