Jan 24, 2006
7:22 AM EDT
|I noticed how nobody seems to have a whole lot to say about your article. :-P heh....... that's how it goes when you hit the nail on the head. The one and only problem I can find is at the very beginning.
Traditional news media will end up being pro-linux once it becomes a large enough force on the desktop.(just as most of them are pro-firefox) It's only the right-wing mouthpiece(I mean fox) that will be the microsoft shill. The rest of the left-wing mouthpieces(ABC, NYT, CNN, etcetcetc) will be against the one that is identified as "capitalist"..... that being microsoft. It's the natural-nature of media to take their sides. As you yourself mentioned, the leftists at the WaPo are already there.
But you got it right. Linux will continue to make inroads and will continue to push MS.
I got myself another convert just the other day.(one of my co-workers, every day at lunch linux is the topic. the hard part was convincing him to just try the knoppix disk)
By the time MS realizes that their monopoly is a gift and not a given it will be too late. They've taken their customers for granted too long, now we're no longer their customers. You reap what you sow.
Jan 24, 2006
10:44 AM EDT
|I am a capitalist and very, very much pro-Linux. So, capitalist does-not-equal Microsoft shill. However, I would agree that FOX seems to have taken that position.
So, you must be thinking, "How can you be a capitalist and pro-Linux? Aren't they mutually exclusive?"
The answer is that I am a capitalist with a little common sense (probably a dangerous thing.) I recognize that the point of capitalism is to reward people for hard work and (mostly) innovation. However, today's innovation does-not-equal tomorrow's innovation.
The wheel was very innovative at one time. That doesn't mean that I expect us all to be running around on unicycles like BC http://www.gobroomecounty.com/transit/images/BCTransitLogo14...
Unless yesteryear's innovation is built upon, we are stuck in the past. We must "stand on the shoulder's of giants." The time of OS innovation ended nearly 10 years ago. It is now commodity. Since then, things have prettied up a little, but there has been precious little innovation (and don't talk to me about integrated office suites. I had a beautifully integrated office suite in 1992 when MS was still trying to figure out how to make Windows work.)
The problem as I see it is that, although peak innovation in operating systems has long since passed, Microsoft is doing everything in their power to hold us all in the last decade. Why? Because their monopoly is dependent on their operating systems and office suites. America should be rewarding those who give us innovative solutions beyond the tools we had a decade ago, but instead her rewards (and our money) are going to a monopoly that has reinvented the wheel every two or three years for over a decade.
That's part of why I am pro-Linux. Because Linux allows us innovate beyond the operating system and office suite without the worry that every third release will force us to start all over again.
In a round about way, I think that was the point of the article.
Sometimes we skate dangerously close to generalizations that infer "That group over there is against us." or "Everyone who agrees with statement A must also agree with theory 4." Don't try and divide Linux advocates along political or ideological lines because you may be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
BTW, I'm aware that no one explicitly made this point and I am not pointing fingers. It just seems that it was left out there for the reader to assume. I hoped to squash the assumption, not the author nor the respondents.
APPENDED: And, yes, it is a great article.
Jan 24, 2006
12:19 PM EDT
Fox is not really capitolist, they are pro corporate. They're pretty much neo-con in philosophy. neo-cons are neither new nor conservative, but pro-corporate right wingers. In the US the right wing and the conservatives have usually been pretty close, but in the world at large, there are as many right wing socialists as there are left wing socialists.
The neo-cons like the misconception that most Americans have that the right wing is conservative. They exploit it and label their detractors as leftists, while promoting their agenda of corporate welfare. The neo-cons like making fun of the older conservative Republicans. They call them the "chamber of Commerce" Republicans. The neo-cons support their large multinational corporate masters. They wave the flag really hard, but truly only pledge allegiance to the bottom line.
Currently one of the most active political movements in the US are the local protest groups that are protesting corporate globailsm. These groups want people to shop locally and to support local vendors and suppliers, as opposed to supporting large muti-national chains that siphon dollars from local communities, drive local family owned businesses to bankruptcy, and help send American jobs over seas.
These protesters are basically saying "support your local Chamber of Commerce". A mantra of the Eisenhower era Republican party. The neo-cons have successfully labeled these protesters as "leftists" who oppose globalism.
Meanwhile the middle class gets to pick up the tax burden that large corporations can avoid, because the laws their lobbyists have help to craft, and anyone who opposes corporations getting massive welfare from the government is just opposed to "conservative" economic principals (socialism is now conservative to the neo-cons!).
Be carefull, if you are truly conservative, you too will be labeled as a 'leftist'.
Linux is about as communist as "We The People", or "E Pluribus Unum", but the corporate neo-cons have labeled it as communist and leftist multiple times in their FUD.
Jan 24, 2006
12:37 PM EDT
|Linux is about as communist as "We The People", or "E Pluribus Unum", but the corporate neo-cons have labeled it as communist and leftist multiple times in their FUD.
Yep, I've been called a leftist and a neo-con. Truth is I'm neither. The way I see it, the leftists want government control and the neo-cons want corporate control. I have this outdated view that America was built on individual freedoms and neither government nor corporations are worthy of those freedoms. It seems to me that the open source model supports individual freedom far better than either goverment or corporations.
Jan 24, 2006
3:41 PM EDT
|Pardon me for putting my opinion in here. The issue of Capitalism deals with the private ownership of property. It doesn't deal with ethics. The question we face deals entirely with market ethics. The question we should ask: What makes something have a fair price?
We can answer that a fair price is what someone pays when all parties have the information and influence in setting the price. That's what our government is supposed to regulate. But they don't do a decent job of it. In fact, they favor one party over another all the time.
You have no freedom if the market isn't fair.
Now, the name calling and trying to decide who's a neo-con and who's a leftist is stupid. It's how the power brokers keep us occupied. Leftist, neo--con: it doesn't matter. It's a them against us.
We still have a fedualistic economic structure because we're all serfs and we live in a capitalistic society. You think the Mexican immigrants working for peanuts aren't serfs? Even programmers are slaves. It just depends on whch slaves get the better treatment.
If you teach Caesar's daughter, you get treated different than if you clean his sewer.
Jan 25, 2006
5:45 AM EDT
"Pardon me for putting my opinion in here."
No pardon necessary. Glad to hear your opinion.
"The question we should ask: What makes something have a fair price?"
"We can answer that a fair price is what someone pays when all parties have the information and influence in setting the price. That's what our government is supposed to regulate."
I agree to the extent that our government should step in when a corporation uses its influence illegally and/or unethically. However, government regulation of market prices is, in my opinion, one of the worst things that can happen. Remember that government is one of the "power brokers" here. Giving them more power leads to more corruption (if that's possible.)
"But they don't do a decent job of it. In fact, they favor one party over another all the time."
Absolutely agree. In my opinion, there's a lot of pocket lining going on in the process.
"You have no freedom if the market isn't fair."
Absolutely agree. In fact, I believe you define the core question better here than above. That is, "What makes the market fair?"
We can't expect government regulation to result in a fair market because government is made up of humans with faults and agendas. As history bears out, government always acts with selfish bias. The current situation in Massachusetts is a perfect example of this. One government employee, who makes a fair recommendation based on objective data, is squashed by government officials acting on behalf of a big corporation. Power brokering in action.
So, if we can't rely on the government nor the corporations, then upon whom can we rely?
"We still have a fedualistic economic structure because we're all serfs and we live in a capitalistic society. You think the Mexican immigrants working for peanuts aren't serfs? Even programmers are slaves. It just depends on whch slaves get the better treatment."
I would have to disagree here. There are many freedoms we take for granted that a slave would never enjoy. We have the freedom to choose where we live, a slave does not. We have the freedom to educate ourselves, a slave does not. We have the freedom to invent, innovate, buy, sell, own, protest, publish and profit. None of these freedoms are afforded a slave.
"If you teach Caesar's daughter, you get treated different than if you clean his sewer."
This is true regardless of the governmental or economic systems in play. It's unfair, but it's just human nature.
Back to the core question. What makes the market fair?
If the power brokers (government and corporate) can't be trusted to act in the public interest, then in whom can we place our trust? It must be someone with enough power to counteract both government and corporate influence.
I believe the answer is as close as the nearest mirror. While you and I individually lack the power and resources to regulate a fair market, as a group of consumers our power is limited only by our number, and numbers are infinite. By using our individual freedoms as a group, our market power is nearly limitless.
What makes the market fair? We do.
Jan 25, 2006
6:16 AM EDT
|NoDough: With regard to the comment on slaves, I actually said "serfs" about immigrant workers, which I believe fits. Programmers seem more like slaves because of limited options. Technically speaking, your point is correct about slaves. Let's say people feel like slaves because an economic system limits their choices.
The "G" word needs some delineation. Regulators are often hampered by politicans. I prefer a separation of church and state and I also prefer a separation of regulation and law making.
For example, what the hell is the Justice Department doing as part of the cabinet? I personally believe George Bush intervened in the Microsoft trial and Bill Clinton intervened in the earlier Microsoft decree. That's a serious breakdown.
We elect these people to represent our interests and they basically represent their own. Ever read the history of Newt Gingrich. "Born Newt McPherson, Gingrich was the stepson of an abusive Army officer. He married one of his high school teachers and later handed her divorce papers in her hospital room while she was recovering from cancer surgery."
With regard to your statement on the consumer needing to regulate the market, good luck. Professions that regulate themselves usually close ranks to protect their members. I saw it when I was a CPA. They do nothing unless a member is found guilty of a crime by the courts.
Jan 25, 2006
6:27 AM EDT
|Think of the bazaar, often used as an example of the Open source process. The merchants in the bazaar might make the case they they should hire the security forces that patrol the bazaar and get rid of the pick pockets. merchants would be more efficient than using the King's guards. The result would be lower taxes, as private industry is more efficient than government at providing services. Less Government interference is better, the merchants argue.
But who will stop the merchants from colluding with each other in price fixing schemes? Will the merchant's guards be used to tear down the stalls of competing merchants, undermining a true competitive market place? Don't laugh, Enron and other energy companies colluded to artificially raise the price of oil and gas. The BSA 'enforces' the merchant's rules. SCO was funded, in part, to create fear and uncertainty about the merchant's competitors.
Some regulation is needed, or you won't have a fair market, and without a fair market all of that economic theory from the University of Chicago Ivory Towers doesn't mean squat.
Jan 25, 2006
7:43 AM EDT
----------So, capitalist does-not-equal Microsoft shill. However, I would agree that FOX seems to have taken that position.----------
Agreed. However, it doesn't take much of an open mind to realize that republicans don't always = capitalism. Democrats have their capitalistic moments as well. Fox doesn't represent capitalism, they represent republicans. Just as the larger leftist media doesn't represent socialism, they represent democrats.
-------------So, you must be thinking, "How can you be a capitalist and pro-Linux? Aren't they mutually exclusive?"------------
No, not at all. You and I are both minorities within a minority.
I've made the argument on many occassions that linux is much more capitalist than windows is.(at least as far as the model goes)
Linux is open, is much more charged with competition, and is not forced on you. And you're not dependent on any one linux. That's capitalism.
Windows is not open, is very unfriendly with competition to the point of using underhanded tactics to compete, and is very much forced upon you. And windows(MS) is trying desperately to keep you dependent. That's the socialist model.
------------It is now commodity.------------
Bingo. And this commodity has not dropped in price for as far as I can remember. Again, that's the socialist model.
Linux OSs range in price based on your need and the amount of features built into them. Kind of like a car lot........ capitalist.
-------------That's part of why I am pro-Linux. Because Linux allows us innovate beyond the operating system and office suite without the worry that every third release will force us to start all over again.--------------
I hear and agree with you. Though my reasons are somewhat more selfish. If it weren't for linux, I wouldn't have been able to gift computers out, and I'd be the only one in my family with a computer. Now everyone has one, and I am no thief.(I won't pirate software, it is still theft)
I also have other reasons, performance, stability, security. I also find linux to be very slick and attention getting. It's different.
What I'm waiting for is the next google zeitgeist. Last one that they released spurred an interesting debate about the size of the linux userbase surpassing the Mac's size. I'm very much looking forward to a refresh from them.
Jan 25, 2006
7:50 AM EDT
---------------Meanwhile the middle class gets to pick up the tax burden that large corporations can avoid------------
It's in everybody's best interests for small to large corporations to not pay any taxes. The rich, the middle, and the poor. small and large companies/corporations never have, and never will ever pay taxes.
If congress all of a sudden says "new tax on the profits of GM, Nissan, Ford, etcetcetc" The price on every car in america goes up 10%. That's not conjecture or wishful thinking. That's the reality of economics. When costs go up it gets passed down to the consumer.
---------------and anyone who opposes corporations getting massive welfare from the government is just opposed to "conservative" economic principals------------------
This is one of the issues I've been called a socialist on. Welfare for corporations needs to go.
Welfare hurts business just as it hurts individuals. AMtrak is the perfect example. Let it die if it can't make it on it's own. Just ask the lion and the gazelle.
Jan 25, 2006
7:54 AM EDT
|Tadelste(by all means, comment away. You're a chief editor after all, and you have good insight)
-------------Pardon me for putting my opinion in here. The issue of Capitalism deals with the private ownership of property.-------------
Sure it does. This is one of the easiest ways to identify a capitalist vs a corporatist.
To a capitalist, your employees are valuable capital(assets) even though you don't own them. Your business means nothing without good employees.
Michael Eisner vs Walt Disney is a great example of a capitalist vs a corporatist. Eisner only cared about the all mighty dollar, wheras Disney was interested in being the best he could possibly be. Money/wealth/happiness are by- products of being the best you can be.
-----------------Now, the name calling and trying to decide who's a neo-con and who's a leftist is stupid. It's how the power brokers keep us occupied.-----------------
Agreed. 99%. While the name calling is largely stupid and is merely meant as diversion, it's good to know what (x group) is about and (y group) is about so you can move on past the groups and get on with your life. These groups largely exist to function as anchors.
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!