-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ -hh on Friday 22 Jul 2011 19:48 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> ____/ -hh on Thursday 21 Jul 2011 19:00 : \____
>> > [Roy wrote]:
>> >> Many people just want something that works for them (Linux)
>> >> and also to escape what doesn't work (Windows) and what doesn't
>> >> comply with the law (Microsoft).
>>
>> > It is rare for anything to be literally "one dimensionsional" (single
>> > issue): usually, there's going to be multiple factors / motivations /
>> > variables, which typically include cost, utility, availability,
>> > performance, maintainability, ease-of-use, social perceptions, etc,
>> > etc. Similarly...
>>
>>
>> Linux is a freedom from proprietary software, Apple a freedom from Microsoft.
>
> True, but that's also being limited in scope and vision. The current
> business model for Linux has a a resource constraint that is
> fundamentallly limited, basically because the "capitalistic proft
> incentive" is diminished, if not eliminated. This means that its
> level of resources for the development of the product - - improved
> quality, robustness, innovation, etc - - are at a competitive
> disadvantage versus other business models (ie, those that can rely
> upon their proprietary nature to differentiate and add value).
>
> FWIW, this isn't claiming that the one is "better" than the other - -
> merely that they're operating on different principles, which basically
> means that they're not playing the same game on the same playing
> field. For an analogy, if Microsoft and Apple are out on the gridiron
> playing football, Linux is on a corner of the field trying to erect a
> net with which to play Badminton.
>
>
>> Linux is a freedom from monopolists, Apple makes monopoly.
>
> I'm not personally thrilled with some of the anti-consumer elements of
> monopolies either, but as per the law of the land, it is not illegal
> to be a monopoly. What is illegal is to abuse one's monopoly power.
> Microsoft was found guilty of this in a court of law and did get its
> wrist slapped (IMO not hard enough, but that's a personal opinion).
> To the best of my knowledge, Apple has never been taken to court and
> found to be a monopoly.
>
> However, what I suspect you're probably more likely referring to here
> are the "monopolies" on technologies that are granted to individual
> entities through government-recognized procedures of Copyrights and
> Patents - - ie, Intellectual Property (IP). If this assumption is
> correct, I sympathise with you to a certain degree in that I agree
> that our IP laws have some serious problems. However, I utterly
> reject the concept that is often expressed that all IP protection
> concepts are inherently evil and bad and must be burned at the
> torch...this is fundementally throwing the baby out with the bathwater
> and displays an amazing level of ignorance of just how much of today's
> civilization is clearly attributable to the formalization of a system
> to reward risk-taking through innovation.
>
> FWIW, as a personal challenge, the doubters should go try to live a
> week without using anyone's still-being-protected IP on all levels of
> their life. In addition to all of the obvious technology stuff, make
> sure to include your home and all of its utilties, especially your
> water supply, since you'll have a tough time making it past 48 hours
> without any clean, safe-to-drink water, and clothing. For the last
> part, please do _not_ take any photos ... :-)
Point taken, but we fundamentally do not agree on "IP". A debate about
it would be an exercise in futility, suggests experience.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4qAMkACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6UUgCeM7NekLMMsR3r0xHAQ48mSBsl
pkUAn18P6TamySAQ5zyKLxlbmRTSnfxp
=lfkw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
