Hi Terrence, On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 15:02, JTD wrote: > > > > I don't agree with the above reasoning. If any technology, however > > superior, can not reach the people, I would consider it useless and > > worthless. > > Partly true or false - it depends what point in time u make the > observation and what is your definition of "value and worthiness". > So in the 1990s gnu and linux was actually "worthless" to most. And > today your statement is less true or false - most products have to > vend their way thru a host of middlemen before reaching the "people". > So the product is worthless because middlemen like music companies > (or theatre owners) cannot get their "value" out of a product. Every > argument can spin both ways.
The point I am trying to make is to make available the technology to people in most efficient method available to you with prevailing market conditions. That includes even using "Middle Man" for delivery and choosing the correct delivery model. In '70s and '80s WalMart was the right delivery vehicle. In '90s and new millenia it's Amazone and eBay. :-) > > Remember technology is for the benefit of mankind not > > the other way round. It is really sad that many people just talk of > > technology for technology's sack. > > like the MIT lab where personal computing started? Or some pokey place > with two college kids making apples from ICs? or a few developers > writing the next revolution? Even though Apple was great technology, IBM PC and Microsoft took the market. Why? Because, despite many problems, people show value in buying PC over MAC. People don't buy technology for the sack of technology, they buy the technology for the immediate and future benefit he will get out of his investment in technology. > > The idea behind FOSS is to make technology available and accessible > > FREELY to people. The attitude of some people in FOSS, technology > > for the technology's sack, is hurting the FOSS, apart from many > > other reasons. > > I think not. Since it is foss those feeling hurt can pick the code and > fork it with pleasure - X.org, uclinux, rtlinux. As long as the > technology is FOSS someone can always pick up broken threads and > weave it into a useful blanket. This is 100% correct. Also, success of FOSS will not be derived from FREEDOM alone. People has to see the "value" in the FREEDOM available to them in FOSS. More over FOSS has to solve the real life problems for large scale adoption. And the real problem solving is done by those "Middle Man" like RedHat, Novell/SuSE, Debian, IBM, Terrence etc... :-) > It is when the only "value" that the market attaches to "products" is > monetary that things get badly skewed. And i will quickly contradict > myself by saying that monetary value is what business has to think > about mostly - hence i decided not to pursue (as fax) the great tech > that i created in the distant past. I however used all of the > expertise in countless other projects, earned good money and more > important had and continue to have lots of fun doing so. Well, by what other tangible means can you attach/access "value" to "products" and/or "services"? Gandhi was able to show great "value" in Khadi and "Swadeshi". Can FOSS do the same? > In short as long as there is freedom all the contradictory forces will > resolve them selves over time. Skew it with legislation like DRM or > patent laws in the guise of helping the inventor and u get screwed. Not really, people does not attach to much importance to freedom. See what is the status of Khadi and "Swadeshi" in India today? > -- > rgds > jtd Remember, markets never exist. You have to create the markets. :-D Did you grand father ever knew/thought about Mobile Phones or PC or ...? With regards, -- --Dinesh Shah :-) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Shah Micro System +91-98213-11906 -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
