This discussion is beginning to be more suited to the slug-politics
list than the general slug linux list.
SWB
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:56:10 -0500, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 12:26, Eric Jahn wrote:
> > Yes it does. It's called enforcement. Enforcement doesn't happen.
>
> The reason why enforcement doesn't happen is because everything is left
> to "interpretation." E.g., the '95 decree said "no per-CPU pricing," so
> Microsoft merely switched to a "per-model pricing" whereby most OEMs
> sell Windows on all models (i.e., the same effect).
>
> Regulation doesn't work. Only consumers can get companies to change.
> The problem is that 90% of consumers assume they have no control. They
> assume they have to buy new apps with a new OS for a new computer with
> new peripherials every 2-3 years. Hence why not just Microsoft, but AOL
> and others now have major investements in Best Buy, Circuit City, etc...
>
> Microsoft is trying to do this on the network/server level too, To push
> entire, network-wide updates every 2-3 years. And far too many IT
> professionals seem willing to do it, even when study after study proves
> its more costly. Not just in the software, but more importantly, in the
> planning, migration and other manpower areas.
>
> My main issue with the DOJ v. Microsoft case is the result -- even back
> when the Clinton administration was pushing it. It was _never_ about
> consumers, but _competitors_. The consumers were _never_ represented
> once. It was OEMs (and limited at that, only ones who would slit their
> own throats ;-), competitors, etc... All of the findings and suggestion
> actions prior to the Bush administration only benefited competitors (and
> commercial ones at that).
>
> The consumers have spoken. That is to work together in a common goal as
> a community. This is a community that chooses to work together, the
> ultimate "common good" in an abusive, consequence-free capitalistic
> industry. It also thrives on competitors being involved, who work with
> that community. As long as it stays a community of choice, it will
> succeed. Unfortunately, people start talking about "government
> mandate," and then I cringe, because it's the reason for most monopolies
> as well (the government _creates_ monopolies).
>
> Because 100 years there was another "common good" that came about to
> combat an abusive, capitalistic industry. The labor union. They
> worked, until the government started mandating them. Because when you
> take the "choice" to work with a "common good" and mandate it, that's
> move from talking about "individual rights" to "community rights." If
> Linux fails in the future, it will because it was turned into
> "communism" through mandate.
>
> Right now, we have "facism" (government mandated commerce) in the
> required use of Hostageware formats from Windows solutions.
>
> > That's funny. I often agree with Nader, but I disagree with this statement.
>
> Why? Most government departments ignorantly assume they have no ability
> to tell Microsoft what to do. In working at even much smaller, but
> household name Fortune 100 companies, I can tell you _can_.
>
> You will give as a version of XP without Activation.
> You will give as a version of XP without Activation.
> You will give as a version of XP without Activation.
>
> Sometimes it takes 3 times, but you'll get it.
>
> > One doesn't reward a bully by paying them.
>
> That's why you, as a _consumer_, should not.
>
> The government can't make up for an ignorant consumer with regulation
> any more than it can for an ignorant voter. ;->
>
> In fact, it only makes things worse ("government knows better for me?").
>
> > They'll listen more attentively to government when they are a small,
> > hungry company again.
>
> Microsoft is a financial investment company that outsources. They are
> not a software company. They have investments outside of their "core
> two" products (Windows and Office) that subsidize their infiltration
> into other markets. They will survive unless you just take their money
> way. And I'm not into such "redistribution of wealth."
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
> Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
> retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in
> compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
> latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
> Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
> posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
> official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
>
-- Steven Buehler | swbuehler@gmail.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:57:37 EDT