Last week, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) launched their web browser, Firefox, at www.getfirefox.com on the Internet. Designed by the community of volunteer programmers, it is said to be faster, with better privacy and security, and it cancels annoying pop-ups while surfing the net. Unlike other browsers, it is free and its source code is available; it can be customised to fit an individual’s or company’s preferences. It comes with its mail client, Thunderbird, just as Explorer has Outlook.

But this is not the first battle that the OSI and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) are taking to giants like Microsoft. The fight over free software is not a new one, being almost as old as computers themselves. The war of words on the Internet has caught up in the traditional media, with each side accusing the other of misleading users. It is particularly interesting for a country like Mauritius, which espouses ambitions of becoming a high-tech economy. It would be wise to follow the developments in the open source sector.

Back in 1969, AT &T Bell Labs developed an operating system that was later known as Unix, which worked separately from the hardware of the computer. This was a first and it subsequently became the system on which most computers and the Internet would run. AT&T then licensed the source code (the code that allows an operator to modify the system) to companies and made it free to universities.

But, to one researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Unix was not accessible enough. Richard Stallman saw many of his colleagues in the ‘hacker’ (really “someone who loves to program and enjoys being clever about it”, according to him) community being snapped up by software companies. By 1981, computers came with their own operating systems and the firms were imposing copyrights on them. That entailed that no one was allowed to copy or share the software.

For a progressive and idealist like Stallman, it was too much. He quit his job at MIT in 1984 and decided to create an operating system, similar to Unix, called GNU (a recursive acronym for “GNU’s Not Unix). He founded the FSF in ’85 and set about creating a free software to be distributed and copied freely. He also designed the ‘copyleft’ system under the GNU General Public License (GPL), leaving the product in the public domain for anyone to access the code. Stallman was about to change the whole way the fledgling computer world worked.

However, developments stalled on the GNU’s core or ‘kernel’ and it was not until 1991 that real progress was made. Linus Torvalds, a young Finnish student, working outside the FSF created Linux (a Unix compatible kernel) and combining this with GNU, he developed a fully functioning operating system. The GNU/Linux system, more known as Linux, was released under the GPL license, thus making it free to the entire community of programmers. As a free software, Linux was the rebel in a world dominated by proprietary operating systems like Microsoft Windows. The insurgency was about to grow to unprecedented levels.

Linux, with a free source code, became a hackers’ favourite and, in the following years, programmers from around the world would pool their work and improve it. More and more machines could now bypass the expensive Windows system and run Linux for free (‘free’ being used in the same context as free speech). Companies that used the source code to develop it further would usually make it accessible for the price of the CD ( as low as $6 and they made money by charging for the servicing).

The turning point came in March 1998 when Netscape made its source code available for its Navigator software. Within hours, programmers began to provide fixes and enhancements over the Internet, revealing the benefits of open source. A month later, OSI was founded. By July, a number of companies switched their systems to Linux, and by December it had increased its market share by 212%. All this came despite the dirty tricks of Microsoft, known to the OSI as the Halloween Document. An internal memo by Bill Gates’ company details the threat of Linux to its commercial products, while always dismissing it in public, to create negative spin.

<B>Open source versus Microsoft</B>

So, how does this involve Mauritius? It is not just question for us but for the whole developing world. Microsoft, with its costly software (the latest version of Office costs nearly 600 euros), has a near monopoly in most countries and is well established in Mauritius. By making donations of its systems and since most computer companies carry its Windows operating system, it has established a near monopoly on the market. But then, it all comes at a price. Each Windows upgrade must be paid for. In March, The Guardian revealed that the British government released a consultation document, claimed to be positive about open source products.

Microsoft Windows and Office software applications are so popular because people are used to it. Also, that company’s incredible resources and its ability to occupy media space guarantees aggressive marketing. However, the argument for open source software is slowly gaining ground. It would be worthwhile for a country, like Mauritius, about to invest massively in the ICT sector, to make a reflection on tools that could ultimately cost next to nothing. It would be refreshing that a government actually breaks from the parochial thinking that so often characterises our politics and makes a progressive move on an important debate.

<B>Diren valayden

Outlook Correspondent in Dublin</B>