Advancing Human Civilization Through Open Source Software

8/7/2019 Advancing Human Civilization Through Open Source Software

1/16

ADVANCING HUMAN

CIVILIZATION THROUGH OPENSOURCE SOFTWAREAhmad Baitalmal

Professor Timothy J. Hetland

Washington State University

July 30, 2010

AbstractEpistemology is an area of philosophy that is concerned with studying human knowledge and

justified belief. Human civilization advanced with the increased ability to transfer and propagate

knowledge. Computing and the internet are the tools we rely on in the information age to

advance human knowledge and civilization. Open source software provides a model for

sharing and retaining knowledge equitably throughout the world. However, it lacks mainstreamadoption for various perception-related reasons. This research paper studies current computer

usage through a survey of social network users as primary research. The results show that

users, regardless of their philosophical, civil, or social beliefs, are significantly more accepting

of open source software through the prism of the internet. Coincidentally, this is an area open

source software is strong at.


2/16

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments iIntroduction 1

Knowledge Retention and Human Civilization! 1Knowledge Access as a Human Right! 1Computers: the Modern Day Pen and Paper! 1Open Source Software! 2Barriers to Software Adoption! 2

How do you use your computer? 4Online User Survey ! 4The Results! 4Data Analysis! 5

Recommendation 6Works Cited

8

Appendix A 9How do you user your computer?: Online Survey Results! 9


3/16

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank and acknowledge my wife Jemma for her unending support and

understanding. She is the rock this barnacle depends on. I would also like to thank my son

Ameen for his sacrifice. Im sure having to walk away from play time with dad is unfathomable

for an 8 year old.

I would also like to thank my employer, Etelos, for supporting and accommodating me during

this research.

A special thank you goes to Yousef Raffah for his tremendous help in bringing in surveyparticipants and his continued support for my work. His advocacy of open source software and

shared human and social knowledge is a big positive force.

Finally, I would like to thank my mother for everything she has done for me and for pushing me

to do better things.

I thank God, for I am truly blessed.

i


4/16

Introduction

Knowledge Retention and HumanCivilizationHuman civilization depends on our ability to

learn. This learning requires that we not onlyunderstand and retain that knowledge, but

also transfer that understanding and share it

with others in our surrounding. Collectively,

we enrich our lives and levitate our standard

of living. Language and our complex

speaking abilities set us above the animal

world as we were able to communicate and

collaborate. The invention of writing allowed

us to defer the consumption of that spoken

communication and retain it in physical form.

The invention of paper lowered the cost of

writing and allowed us to group and classify

knowledge into books. The printing press

begat the Printing Revolution. That allowed

us to reproduce the collections of knowledge

that we collected over the years and

introduce them to ever widening audiences.

Knowledge Access as a Human RightToday, anyone anywhere in the world is

relatively able to pick up a pen and paper towrite down their contribution to our collective

knowledge. They are also able to consume

and process knowledge through reading.

The only tool they required to function

properly is the basic education of reading

and writing. In 1999, the United Nations (UN)

recognized education as a human right in

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and Article 14 of the

International Covenant of Economic, Social,

and Cultural Rights (OHCHR). Because of

this standardized system, a bushman in

Namibia is able to avoid a poisonous

mushroom written about by a cowboy in

New Mexico. With every technological step

forward in our ability to create, retain,

transfer, and share knowledge our civilization

evolves, improves, and advances as well.

The introduction of computers as machines

specialized in processing, retaining,

transferring, and sharing knowledge rapidlyexpanded our capacity for knowledge. The

term Knowledge Societyis used to describe

societies that have elevated their processes

to create value from the physical manual

labor to the intel lectual knowledge

emanation. Knowledge societies are richer,

healthier, enjoy less physical hardships, and

have better general prospects in life. They

depend on their computing abilities to

maintain that socioeconomic status.

Societies that want to keep up are

attempting to encourage the use of

computing much like the push to educate

with the pen and paper.

Computers: the Modern Day Pen andPaperIn 1965, Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore

described what is now known as Moores

Law. Moores Law states that computing

power will double roughly every two years.

Since then, that law has not been broken.

Computers have doubled their processing

ADVANCING HUMAN CIVILIZATION THROUGH OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE - Ahmad Baitalmal

1


5/16


6/16

(or open systems) and they concluded that

open source software adoption by users and

organizations is not based on the perceived

benefit of the adoption, rather on the

perceived ability to adopt. They suggest that

open source software providers highlight theease of adoption rather than the benefits of

adoption.

Dr. Magid Igbaria, Dr. Nancy Zinatelli, Dr.

Paul Cragg, and Dr. Angele L.M. Cavaye

(1997) support those findings as well but go

a bit further and deeper. They focused on the

personal computing aspect of accepting new

computer software. They concluded that not

only is the perceived ease of adoption (or

use) the dominant factor, but they alsodismissed prior research in large firms that

suggested that decision to adopt personal

computing software was not influenced by

internal support or internal training. In

essence, computer users looked outside

(externally) to decide if they should adopt

certain personal computing software. This

highlights the importance of controlling the

general reputation of open source software.

Even if management internally adopted open

source software, users ultimately decided on

their own if they would use the software or

not.

The results of the 2010 Future of Open

Source Forums annual survey show that the

public sectors adoption of open source

software along with users past experiences

with open source software are the two

biggest drivers of adoption. If users have an

enjoyable and positive experience with opensource software they will adopt it regardless

of the counter-push by commercial vendors.

The survey found three major barriers to

getting to the positive experience point. First,

users generally did not know that open

source solutions existed or they were

unfamiliar with them. Second, open source

software can demand more technical skills

that many users lack. This barrier contributes

to a negative experience by users. Third,

users perceive a lack of formal and reliable

commercial vendor support. That is

understandable, if the software is built byvolunteers, it would be hard to find a formal

entity that will provide commercial grade

support for the product.

Dr. Heidi S. Bond looked at the legal and

economical implication of adopting open

source software. She explored the claim that

one of the popular open source software

licenses is a price fixing scheme. The Gnu

Public License (GPL) is the license that the

majority of open source software is under.Users are not used to the eccentric behavior

of the GPL. The idea that software is not only

free, but open sourced as well is something

that users are not used to. The saying you

get what you pay for is always thrown out

when talking about open source software to

imply that it is of low quality or inferior since

it is free. Viewing the GPL in that manner

creates the perception that GPL is as

scheme to bring down the quality and

viability of the software industry through

price fixing at the impossible-to-beat price of

$0.

Dr. Bond concludes that the GPL indeed

exhibits the negative effect on commercial

entities but at the same time it benefits

societies. In essence, the GPL forces

commercial entities to progress beyond the

standards and truly innovate and create

value. OpenOffice-an open source wordprocessing suite- for example, stepped in to

offer word processing, spreadsheet, and

presentation functionality for free where the

same functionality would cost $500 from

Microsoft. The existence of OpenOffice

forces Microsoft to innovate in their Office


3


7/16

product to justify to their ever dissatisfied

customer base the high price tag.

Dr. Michael R. Nelson offers an interesting

path to open source software adoption by

bringing up an older abandoned concept incomputing. As the internet was becoming

popular and being adopted by the

mainstream in the early 90s, Sun Computers

started pushing for a new way in computing

that put the server at the heart of computing.

Sun promoted this concept because they

were in the computer server business.

Servers are big massive and expensive

machines shared by many users who use

networked client desktop computers. Sun

called that concept Network Computingwhere the network was the computer. Dr.

Michael introduces cloud computing as the

future of computing. Cloud computing is

Network Computing rebranded and better

realized. Only this time, Suns servers are

running open source software. And the

majority of the worlds servers are already

running open source software as well.

According to Dr. Michael, 80% of the world

computing and data storage will happen inthis computer cloud. In essence, it would

happen on open source software. It only

makes perfect sense that open source

software providers concentrate on capturing

and owning that space more fully, it is their

strength area.

How do you use yourcomputer?

Online User SurveyAn online survey titled How do you use your

computer? was conducted. The survey was

announced through the social network

Facebook and Twitter and was available to

not only the respondents contacts, but their

contacts as well. The total number of

respondents was 161 users. The survey was

open for 8 days. The respondents used

these services at least once a day and thus

were regular users of computers and the

internet for the exchange of knowledge.

The survey was intentionally designed to not

overtly share the objective of the research to

avoid any skew from biases for or against

open source software. Users were simply

asked to answer 15 questions regarding their

use of computers in general. The questions

were designed to allow for contradictory

answers because of the nature of this field.

For example, while users were able to

choose Firefox as their internet browser of

choice, they were also able to choose thatthe reason they do not use open source

software was because it was ugly, buggy,

insecure, and too complicated. The survey

attempted to exploit that contradiction in

order to gain insight into the choices

mainstream users have made. This approach

proved favorable to the goals of this

research.

The ResultsUsers were first asked to choose theircomputing operating system. 51% chose

Windows, 44% chose Mac, and 5% chose

Linux. As expected, Linux had the lowest

share. It is overtly open source. Mac on the

other hand, while built on a purely open

source kernel (Darwin/FreeBSD) had a

significantly bigger share. The Mac OS X is

not fully open source but it defies the

concerns of naysayers that open source

software is inherently flawed because it isugly, buggy, insecure, and too complicated.

Users were asked if they used a selection of

online services, only 15% indicated that they

used closed source software, the rest all

regularly used and relied on online services

built and maintained on open source


4


8/16

software. The number of users using the

closed source Microsoft IE internet explorer

was only 11%. The majority of 44% used the

open source Firefox browser. The rest also

use the open source Safari and Google

Chrome browsers.

When asked how they accessed their email,

71% said that they use a web based mail

service like Gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail. But

when it came to their choices for desktop

software, 73% were users of the closed

source software such as Microsoft Office,

Skype, or Photoshop. Open source software

held a small minority position in their

computing needs when it came to the

desktop. 53% of these users used theircomputers at home or 6% at work

exclusively. 40% used their computers

everywhere they could. The majority at 42%

communicated with 1-10 people. The rest

communicated with more than that number.

The survey then focused on the users

choices for handling content documents.

The clear winner here was Microsoft Office at

70%. The open source alternative,

OpenOffice held a tiny 7.4%. When users

were asked what they did if an Office

document they sent could not be opened by

the recipient, 34% said that they never

experienced that situation. In other words,

34% of the respondents have never

experienced a rejection of any kind of their

document because they used Microsoft

Office formats. Only 6% recommended that

their recipients try OpenOffice while 5% told

their recipients to pay Microsoft for theprivilege.

Three quarters of the respondents of this

survey knew what open source software was

and 32% reported that they used it and they

were happy. 16% did not know what it was.

At the same time, more than half reported

that they did not use open source software

because it is ugly, it is not for serious

professional use, it is too complicated, it is

not supported by a company, it is buggy, or

it is not secure. 5% said that open source

software makes no sense, it is a fad that willgo away or that it is socialist, communist,

and anti-business.The survey did allow for

users to choose more than one choice. There

is an overlap of users who do use and rely

on open source software and either know

that or are ignorant of that fact. For example,

82% of respondents who rejected open

source software also reported that they do

not know what open source software is at

the same time. Further analysis of the

collected data will clarify the perspective ofthese users as they are presented with the

choice to use and adopt open source

software.

Data AnalysisThe results of the survey demonstrated that

users did happily use the open source

application when they were executed in an

online environment.

In fact, 83% of the respondents who chose

to reject Open source software used an open

source browser. This presents a unique

phenomenon for open source softwaredevelopers. Generally, open source software

applications and proprietary applications

running online do not differ on ugliness,

geeky-ness, or security. They all look and

feel very similar within the confines of the

browser. Of course, styling, organization, and

83% of the respondents who indicated that they do not

use open source software also reported that they use

an open source browser.


5


9/16

usability do make a difference, but these

attributes do not correlate to the openness of

the application. That explains why users

have no trouble using Facebook, Twitter,

GoogleDocs, or Google Maps even though

these applications are running on opensource servers and code. Much of their

functionality is openly available as well just

by viewing the source of the browser pages.

Even in the Office document format area

where Microsoft Office dominated, 15% of

the users who had their document rejected

because they used a Microsoft Office format

told their recipients to use Google Docs

while only 5% of them recommended

OpenOffice. Indeed, GoogleDocs gainedmore market share in 5 years than

OpenOffice did in 10 years. The survey

confirms that users are willing to use and rely

on open source software if it were running as

a web application.

What the survey demonstrated was that

users accepted open source software with

virtually no resistance when it was framed in

the web experience. In some instances,

users preferred it to desktop applications. In

a web browser, all applications are open

source at least as far as their presentation is

concerned. Before the web, software

applications were executed and presented

strictly on the desktop. With the introduction

of the web, software was able to be

executed at a server somewhere but the

presentation of that software came down to

users desktops in the form of a web page.

This is what we all experienced as the firstiteration of the web represented by static or

semi-static pages. While generally functional,

they lacked the interact iv i ty users

experienced from their desktop-shackled

applications. Certain actors in the industry

are now moving aggressively to close that

gap through rich interactive web applications

through Open Standards like SVG for vector

graphics, WebM for video, Javascript for

logic, and HTML5 for interactive web

applications to name a few.

Recommendation

Commercial software entities have had a

vested interest in pursuing a strategy known

as customer lock-in. Using our example, if

you use Microsoft Office to create a Word

document, the documents you create will

forever require that you have a copy of

Microsoft Office for your documents to be

100% available to you. Not only you, but

everyone else you want to share thatdocument with as well. Other software

entities attempt to provide alternative

software to allow you to open your

documents but they are never absolutely

accurate and will most likely lose formatting

or important information. In essence, you are

locked-in to Microsofts world because that

is where your knowledge (in the form of Word

Docs) is.

Open source softwares approach has beento struggle against this lock-in with a similar

form of lock-in. Many software applications

built for the Linux operating system, for

example, are not available for Windows or

Mac. In most cases it is a huge undertaking

to support all major operating systems. This

resulted in users computing in silos and

being exposed only to the solutions available

to their version of the computing landscape.

The only common software experience

among these environments is the web

because it is built on Open Standards. And

this is the key to bringing open source

software to mainstream adoption.

While proprietary software vendors may

claim they support Open Standards and may


6


10/16

even release some open source software of

their own, it is generally not in their best

interest. The realm of the web and Open

Standards is the realm where open source

software is most powerful. It is a most

natural and long existing fit evidenced bymany examples not least of which is the

standard HTML web page. This open source

document has evolved into dynamic and rich

applications without loosing its openness,

but most importantly, has maintained wide

acceptance as a viable form of computing by

mainstream computer users. Users leave

their browser where they know their web

pages are not capable of performing

functions they expect only from their

desktop. This is where these new andpowerful Open Standards become most

valuable. Open source software is already

popular on the network server side of

computing. Through these new and powerful

Open Standards, open source software will

be able to naturally trojan itself into users

desktops.

The recommendation of this research is to

focus on building the next wave of opensource software as Open Standards web-

based applications. This strategy overcomes

the barriers to open source software

adoption that users reported. They accept it

if it runs on the web. Web standards such as

HTML5 promise to significantly close the gap

between desktop applications and browser-

based applications. This presents a unique

opportunity for open source developers on

many fronts. First, the most popular web

browsers are open source, namely FireFoxand Google Chrome. The survey confirms

that. So this open platform already enjoys a

significant global market share. Second,

these web standards are universal, cross-

platform, and open. No one company can

attempt to lock developers out or users in.

Third, these standards are backed by many

of the biggest industry players such as

Google. What this means for open sourcesoftware developers is an opportunity to put

their software in the hands of users who,

while hostile or ignorant to the concept ofopen source software, are very willing to use

it in the context of a web based application.

Through this mainstream adoption, open

source software can fulfill its part in

advancing human civilization.


7


11/16

Works Cited

Bond, H. S. (2005). What's so Great about Nothing? The GNU General Public License and the Zero-Price-Fixing Problem. Michigan Law Review, 104(3), 547-571. Retrieved from http://

ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2053/stable/30044509

Chau, P. Y. K., & Tam, K. Y. (1997). Factors Affecting the Adoption of Open Systems: An ExploratoryStudy. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 1-24. Retrieved from http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2053/stable/

249740

HTML5 (2010). W3C. HTML: The Markup Language Reference. Retrieved from http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A. L. M. (1997). Personal Computing Acceptance Factors inSmall Firms: A Structural Equation Model. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 279-305. Retrieved from http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2053/stable/249498

Intel. Moores Law: Raising the bar. Retrieved from http://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Printed_Materials/Moores_Law_Backgrounder.pdf

Nelson, M. R. (2009). Building an Open Cloud. Science, 324(5935), 1656-1657. doi:10.1126/science.1174225

OHCHR (1966). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. InternationalCovenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm

Survey Results, 2010 | 2010 Future of Open Source Forum. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 30, 2010, from http://

futureofopensource.drupalgardens.com/2010-survey-results

SVG. W3C. Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG). Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/

UN (1999). The United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

WebM. The WebM Project. Retrieved from http://www.webmproject.org/

8
http://www.webmproject.org/http://www.webmproject.org/http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlhttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Ffutureofopensource.drupalgardens.com%2F2010-survey-results&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF-A4PZh_pRrYE5N6rM-1jrGq0NKQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Ffutureofopensource.drupalgardens.com%2F2010-survey-results&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF-A4PZh_pRrYE5N6rM-1jrGq0NKQhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htmhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htmhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htmhttp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Printed_Materials/Moores_Law_Backgrounder.pdfhttp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Printed_Materials/Moores_Law_Backgrounder.pdfhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249498&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEXdT680ivjatfYFjd2lvXqIDzG5ghttp://www.webmproject.org/http://www.webmproject.org/http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlhttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlhttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlhttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlhttp://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Ffutureofopensource.drupalgardens.com%2F2010-survey-results&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF-A4PZh_pRrYE5N6rM-1jrGq0NKQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Ffutureofopensource.drupalgardens.com%2F2010-survey-results&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF-A4PZh_pRrYE5N6rM-1jrGq0NKQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Ffutureofopensource.drupalgardens.com%2F2010-survey-results&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF-A4PZh_pRrYE5N6rM-1jrGq0NKQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Ffutureofopensource.drupalgardens.com%2F2010-survey-results&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF-A4PZh_pRrYE5N6rM-1jrGq0NKQhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htmhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htmhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htmhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htmhttp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Printed_Materials/Moores_Law_Backgrounder.pdfhttp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Printed_Materials/Moores_Law_Backgrounder.pdfhttp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Printed_Materials/Moores_Law_Backgrounder.pdfhttp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Printed_Materials/Moores_Law_Backgrounder.pdfhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249498&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEXdT680ivjatfYFjd2lvXqIDzG5ghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249498&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEXdT680ivjatfYFjd2lvXqIDzG5ghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249498&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEXdT680ivjatfYFjd2lvXqIDzG5ghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249498&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEXdT680ivjatfYFjd2lvXqIDzG5ghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249498&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEXdT680ivjatfYFjd2lvXqIDzG5ghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249498&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEXdT680ivjatfYFjd2lvXqIDzG5ghttp://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249740&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGP8KjZWN8ogvYy4MwMBadYmyX1_Ahttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249740&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGP8KjZWN8ogvYy4MwMBadYmyX1_Ahttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249740&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGP8KjZWN8ogvYy4MwMBadYmyX1_Ahttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249740&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGP8KjZWN8ogvYy4MwMBadYmyX1_Ahttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249740&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGP8KjZWN8ogvYy4MwMBadYmyX1_Ahttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu%3A2053%2Fstable%2F249740&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGP8KjZWN8ogvYy4MwMBadYmyX1_Ahttp://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2053/stable/30044509http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2053/stable/30044509http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2053/stable/30044509http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2053/stable/30044509


12/16

Appendix A

How do you user your computer?: Online Survey ResultsThe raw data files for this survey are available to download as Excel, txt, or CSV files from

http://ahmad.baitalmal.com/ahctoss

9
http://ahmad.baitalmal.com/ahctosshttp://ahmad.baitalmal.com/ahctoss


13/16

10


14/16

11


15/16

12


16/16

Documents

Advancing Human Civilization Through Open Source Software