At 11:02 AM 12/5/2006 -0600, Virgil Bierschwale wrote: >Boy I don't understand this at all. >You say that we should punish a company for making a living from the goods >that their employees make ?
Now you confused me (not hard to do though). Are you saying the employees are driving the direction of the company? If so, I disagree - especially in the case of MS. The employees are building what the 'corporate' mind (a very few individuals) are telling them to build >Whats next ? >Are you going to put the corner convenience store out of business because >they make a living selling their goods ? Hmm... We're going to have to add some things to make this comparison even remotely reasonable. For your convenience store, we'd have to assume the following: - the store puts 'addicting' substances into their food - the store uses lawyers and unethical practices to put every other convenience store in the world out of business - the store takes no responsibility when people get sick or die from food poisoning - and doesn't really warn consumers other than to say 'do not eat this, it killed someone' after the fact. - the store re-labels the same products every couple years and charges higher prices for them So, absolutely, if I saw a convenience store doing the same things in their industry that MS is doing, I would definitely call for a boycott on it. >Folks, if there isnt a living to be made from it, or the person derives >personal satisfaction from their hobbies, then nothing will happen anywhere >in the world. Maybe I snipped too much from the original post for you to see what I was trying to get at. Basically, the original post pointed out how MS is trying to use "legal" means to prevent anyone from running their OS other than how they want people to run it. A horrible, scary, and 'dangerous' concept if you think about it for a bit. A side effect is what you pay for isn't yours. And, in addition, they're trying to force developers to be tied into their OS. Basically, it's just another step in MS's attempt to have absolute control over the computer industry, how computers are used, and how software systems get written. The lazy way out is to say "OK" and just go along with the flow. And look where that's gotten us: billions of dollars spent on never ending 'patches', billions lost because of system failures, billions spent on litigation (which, mind you, actually 'produces' nothing), needless billions spent by consumers to 'upgrade' for no other reason than a single company said do it, and an ever-increasing reliance on a single company's whim regarding software functionality. You like that situaion? You think that's good for consumers? Basically, things like 'OS deactivation', and 'Virtualization' are a bit beyond the concept of the average computer user. A lot of the details of computer operation are a mystery to the average user. So that's why it's up to the computer 'professionals' to try and make things better. It's an uphill battle because like you say, you gotta make a living. And that's the attitude that MS hopes to see. It lets them continue to extort money out of consumers. Eventually, MS will try to turn their stuff into a monthly 'rental', they'll basically kill off any independent developers, and they'll stop innovating (if one could say they've ever innovated to begin with). In the meantime, the other nations of the world will move to Linux and put their saved billions/trillions into R&D or other activities and eventually make the US a 3rd-world economic power. That's probably too dire of a prediction - Linux already has an extremely strong hold in a lot of US colleges, fed/state govs, agencies, etc. So it's at least possible we wouldn't get completely left in the dust. But the point is if you as a computer professional want to make the computer world better for users, you should be moving to Linux and taking your customers with you. For my part, I've started by attacking MS Office. I'm getting my family/friends into OpenOffice. Next I'll try for my Church, the kids' school, maybe my neighbors, etc. I'll hit the email systems next (or maybe sooner since several are getting fed up with Outlook problems, complexities, security problems, etc). Once I've got them using applications that are truly cross-platform, it'll be a much easier step to get them on Linux. This is all just my opinion of course. I understand you're in a tough spot at the moment and need income. Don't take my ramblings as a condemnation. I would not wish anyone starve just to spite MS. But for those that have the time and resources, and as a general future goal, I say Linux must be the way to go. It's my conviction that Linux is probably the only thing that will keep the computer industry advancing, cost effective, and, frankly, fun. ... -Charlie _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
