Blogging Ottinger (tim)

This came to me in response to a different posting, but I thought I’d put it here.:

So, although I’ve read many of your articles I do have to wonder: what is your stance on Christianity and commercialism?

I believe (though I believe many other interpretations are possible) that the Bible does not - in any way - forbid charging for product. (I know, I know, that the Bible describes our Lord chastising the temple hawkers, but this does NOT mean that capitalism is BAD.)

So I’m genuinely interested in your stance: what’s so bad about paying for Windows?

There is so much to this. Some of it is my Christian stance, some of it is practical or pragmatic, some of it is purely emotional. There is more “me” in this than maybe you will like.

On commercialism:

• There is nothing wrong with a Christian also being a businessperson. He should be a certain kind of business person, but can be successful in a commercial setting. The trick is that he should do business ethically at every turn, and should choose his partners carefully. I would disrespect a “Christian business” that had partners in organized crime, pornography, or other questionable areas. Realize that the success of the business is not an indicator of God’s approval, nor is the failure of the business a sign of wrath. Businesses succeed and fail for lots of silly reasons.
• If you use Windows, you should pay for it. I’m not into “robin hood” advocacy, or the “they deserved it” defense. I am not against paying the price of the things you use, but I do have concerns. Those will follow.
• I have definite feelings about commercialism in the church. Simony is an offense that bothers me a lot, and so is the act of trading on your church membership to make more money. Likewise I despise the whole “revival in a box” thinking that includes the “certified Purpose-Driven” thing. The Church is not a marketplace (hence the moneychangers).
• It bothers me when the church is run as a commercial business, measuring their success not by spiritual but commercial indicators such as attendance, buildings, cash, and pastoral salaries. These are not how Christ did things, and while they are not wrong neither are they the indication of God’s favor. A large church that loves and serves the Kingdom is the same as a small church the loves and serves the Kingdom. Selfishness is the problem, not the answer. We aren’t selling something, aren’t trying to beat out the competition, and aren’t trying to be successful in order to win the world’s praise. We have a different mission.

Now as to the whole windows in the church thing, I have a few problems with it.

• Opportunity cost/Stewardship: is it the best use of tithes and offering to buy windows and windows software (including Office and even software development tools) ? Would OpenOffice and Linux or BSD suffice, saving the money for more important needs? Remember that churches exist on whatever money the congregation deems to give, and they always want to see it put to use in helping others and spreading the good news. Microsoft products require more and more hardware and provide less and less performance. The “upgrade treadmill” makes them very successful, but what makes them successful is not what makes us successful. I’m not sure that the yearly cost for for hardware and software upgrades is our best choice.
• Reputation: Is Microsoft the kind of business you want as a partner? Do they have the ethical background? In my view, they do not have the kind of history that we should support. Bill is getting better all the time, but Microsoft seems to me to be a scofflaw and a poor citizen in many ways. I’d feel better if we used something else. Note that in the list of “fruits of the spirit”, we don’t see “commercial success”. While MS success is awesome, it is not in itself a virtue nor does it make the means of success virtuous.
• High Maintenance Agreements: Microsoft licensing has difficult rules and requirements. If a church is to use Microsoft software, then they should abide by all the terms of the agreement (just as they should abide by all the terms of any other contract they enter into). Have you read the agreement? If you run Windows, you really need to be sure all your uses are carefully policed. Other operating systems have very simple terms requiring very little monitoring and freely granting the right to copy and modify the software. You should look at a comparison of the MS EULA and the GPL. You should also be vigilant and read what various astute detractors have said about the little surprises lurking in the EULA.
• Practical issues: Windows doesn’t work very well. It’s well-known that a typical windows PC will slow down to a crawl in 6-9 months after purchase. There are tricks one can use to keep it running well (mostly involving buying more and more software, increasing the cost-per-cpu), but it just “runs down” over time. Some windows experts even recommend wiping out and re-imaging your system every 1-to-2 years. My best windows boxes worked because I eliminated (as much as possible) all IE and Outlook and used only third party (open source) browser and email apps. I messed with the virtual memory settings to get a fixed-size page file. I added commercial anti-virus, firewall, and adware management. I got a third-party disk defrag. I downloaded memory defraggers, uninstallers, registry defraggers and cleaners, and other performance-managing software. I limited the software that could be loaded. If we only ran the browser, email, and some accounting, and we kept up on all the upgrades, and ran the performance tools often enough, and had constant watch on vulnerabilities, we didn’t see much degradation in performance in the course of two years (after which I converted the box to Debian rather than stay on the upgrade treadmill). If you have to shore it up with so much additional software, is it really a good operating system?
• Ease and freedom of installation: Microsoft doesn’t provide anything like the Debian apt repository, where you can pull in tens of thousands of software titles with a simple gui (or command line) front-end, complete with dependency management and automated upgrades for the whole box.
• Freedom to copy: If I copy Windows onto a second computer (even on my kids’ computers or in the childrens ministry area), I am a criminal. If I copy linux or BSD, then I’m legally and ethically entitled to do so. I don’t have to police the EULA, I don’t have to send money to anyone (though I can if I like).

So my basic premise is that if you can in any way choose not to use microsoft, then it makes sense not to use Microsoft for your church. If you do use windows, you should certainly buy or download all the software it takes to control it and you must be sure that you understand your EULA and live in compliance with it, and you simply must ensure that you are legally entitled to all the use you make of it. Use microsoft products most scrupulously and with my blessing, but don’t get sloppy about it and risk a loss in a BSA audit, and don’t leave yourself open to bot nets and the like. Be very, very careful.

Oh, and beware. Recent licenses include a clause that you will not work around any shortcoming in the product. If it doesn’t work, you will simply deal with it. That seems a little crazy to me, but you can make your own decision.