Does Linux always imply generativity?
1 Comment Published by wolf.richter November 15th, 2006 in UncategorizedThe most cited argument I heard from my previous clients on why they considered Linux as an alternative to Windows was “improved security”, not only against attacks from the outside, but also to prevent their employees from installing software they did not like, e.g. filesharing tools. By setting individual access rights at a fine granular level an administrator of a Unix PC can much better control which actions a user is allowed to perform and which she isn’t.
I follow the argument, that a PC with an open operating system has a subversive potential only under the condition that the user has access to superuser (su) rights, which allows compiling and installing of software. What about a scenario, in which users receive their PCs with Linux, a preinstalled set of software, no compiler, no source code and no superuser password? Isn’t this the ideal infrastructure for an appliancized scenario that is threatening generativity?
One Response to “Does Linux always imply generativity?”
Leave a Reply
Search
About
Wolf Richter is a doctoral student at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII). His main focus is the law and economics of intangible goods in the age of the social web
First, in terms of user management I do not see the difference between Windows and Linux. Windows basically tries to attempt the same and the reason it is often not as strict as Linux is basically a design bug and no feature that speaks for the system.
However, this is not so much about Linux vs. Windows but about whether Linux (or Free Software/Open Source) really is the generative software we intuitively would assume it is. My clear answer is YES. However, although Open Source/Free Software basically implies generativity you are right to point out that it can also be used to effectively shut down generativity as we see for example in handhelds or, as JZ just mentioned, in TiVos.
In terms of enabling generativity I see two distinct issues: capability and control.
First we need hardware or software that has the capability for generativity. So we need a PC rather than a TiVo. And we need Linux rather than some proprietary operating system. Second, however is the question of control. If someone, be it a company or a systems administrator, has the power to control, they can basically take away all the generative capabilities of the hardware/software. Then its just an appliance.
So in essence both – generative capability and the ability to use it – have to come together. In order to keep generative potential we want to make sure we have hardware and software with fully generative capabilities. (This does not go against the fact that there are surely enough areas where you do not need such complicated systems, e.g. I do not need a remote control with fully generative capabilities).
On top of that is the question on who should have how much power to control the use of these capabilities. I would argue that this is essentially a negotiation for every individual case about what contributes more to the public good (if I may use this grand term). We might well argue it makes sense for the OII systems administrator to lock down the system as the availability of computing facilities, Internet access etc. to enable research is more important to the public good than people having the freedom to use it for whatever. For the TiVo, we might argue that there is no benefit in locking out users from using it generatively but essentially I think there is not automatic right or wrong controlling. To enable this kind of negotiation we first have to decide on what value we place on generativity for the benefit of mankind – and I think this is exactly the debate Jonathan is trying to stir up.