I like this! It feels much more genuine (and well thought out) than the original post. I’d love to see this kind of thought expounded upon in your posts!

I’m not sure if you’re going to be able to swing it on charm alone; all apologies, but Ms. Hunt is far sexier than you =o)

Open source has a long way to go to make itself as nimble, efficient and visionary as its proprietary counterparts. That is the work of the next generation of open source practitioners, of which I consider myself a member.

And yes, it’s absolutely about economics. But economic theory has a way of being pushed through political action… in which case, the open source community must operate both as an engine of work and as a political lobbyist. Our economic behavior is our contribution to society, and this idea of moral or ethical business and economies of generousity is something that can bring to the fore of socio-political discourses.

Hmm, definitely something to ruminate on in person methinks.

> Corruption is the grease on the axles that drive the wheels powered by the diesel of the sovereign state. When you come to our town, we invite you in, we see what you’ve done everywhere you’ve gone, everywhere you’ve been. Yet being open, we let you in. We even sit down and share scotch. But you won’t get it without becoming a part of it.

What does this mean? Just pointing at ambiguous “corruption” is pure “madness of the crowds” politicing.

The difference between their town and our town is that, in their town, information is delivered expediently and concisely to the hands that are most able to act on it. Until the “open town” can deliver on that promise, it will be relegated to counter-cultural status of those with enough freedom to place ideology over common sense.

This is economics, not dogma we’re talking about here. While I agree there is quite a bit of unfortunate overlap, just calling it out accomplishes nothing. Read Hayek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

Naked Economics uses this very issue to discuss the role of government in surfacing externalities and making the private cost equal to the public cost. As a transit-riding, car-not-owning, comfortable-enough-to-care-about-the-environment sort of guy, I have a visceral abhorence for the “urban SUV” phenomenon, but I think that economic analysis of this nature helps the problem more, long term, than it harms. Clear thinking on the forces currently in place to promote such buying patterns is extremely important if we want to affect interesting change on those patterns, at least IMO.

I wasn’t thrilled with the Economist article either, and I think that it suffers from some of the same “survivor bias” analysis that characterizes a lot of attempts to paint all of open source with one unifying brush, but I think it was more right than wrong in helping people without much direct experience understand where open source is most likely to be successful (and therefore likely disruptive). That might help people who oppose some or all forms of open source work, and even possibly lead to some battles lost, but I think that the model is strong enough to stand up to even informed competition, and I hope it will also help people looking for some sort of lateral move with their business to see how they can participate in open source to their own benefit. (Really participate, I mean, not just label-and-spin.)

(Guessing that I can use html links in here, sans preview — apologies in advance for ugliness that may ensue.)

Here’s mine on the same subject, saying the same things from a slightly different viewpoint:

http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2006/03/economistical-with-truth.html

Shame about The Economist….