Re: [free-software-melb] Incentives for corporations to protect consumer freedom

[Dennis K]

On 14/06/12 11:24, Patrick Sunter wrote:

Design nothing from scratch; rather, build on the best of what
others have already done.


"Design nothing from scratch; rather, build on the best of what
others have already done."

That quote sums up Chinas manufacturing and development to a tee.


___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Incentives for corporations to protect consumer freedom (was: Draft Fedora plan to cope with Secure Boot on x86 hardware)

[Patrick Sunter]

Just responding to one point below...


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Ben Finney
 wrote:
>> It certainly seems to me that the American corporate model is hell
>> bent on self destruction. Wait till China or India or another nation
>> which doesn't so much care about this provide better freer
>> alternatives. Not hard to do given the shoddy treatment that users are
>> given from current IT providers.
>
> What makes you think China or India will actually produce organisations
> (corporations?) that have better incentives to support customer freedom?
>
> Yes, the US's corporate model has failed to do this. But I don't see how
> merely being a different country would necessarily make it produce
> better organisations; there are reasons to think they would be even
> worse in the field of people's freedom.

Agree as a general point, and lord knows in civil society and
government China has a long way to go in the direction of freedom of
speech etc ;)

But - product manufacturers in China arguably have a pretty strong
incentive to try and route around competing based on "IP", and instead
try to gain market share via efficient low-cost production.

A purported example of this is the "Shanzai" group of manufacturers of
electronics:
http://p2pfoundation.net/Shanzhai

An effort to describe the 'rules of Shanzai' include:
1) Design nothing from scratch; rather, build on the best of what
others have already done.
2) Innovate the production process for speed and small-scale cost savings.
3) Share as much information as you can to make it easy for others to
add value to your process.
4) Don’t make it until you’ve already got a buyer.
5) Act responsibly within the supply chain.

-- Pat.
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Incentives for corporations to protect consumer freedom

[Dennis K]

On 06/09/2012 11:12 PM, Adrian Colomitchi wrote:

On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Dennis K  wrote:


On 06/08/2012 11:35 PM, Patrick Elliott-Brennan wrote:


Dennis K wrote:



It's not so much that its a different country, but that its a new
economy which hasn't gotten to the "fat, lazy" stage yet.  I'm sure,
given time, any company will become lazy and undynamic.



I think, Dennis, that you're misreading the facts. The Chinese economic
system is a blisteringly violent mechanism with little to no interest in
worker rights and little in the way of concern for their safety.
  Community
safety is also a low priority.

A relative who lives in Hong Kong tells me all about the crappy
engineering
that gets passed as 'fit' over there. Additionally there was an
engineering
inspector on the ABC just last week saying that during his time over there
he was appalled by the shoddy work and dangerous consequences.

It's easy to make a radical change or 'fix' a problem in these
circumstances. It's possible to be impressed until you consider the cost.
These are the greater causes of the differences, rather than some
idealised
notion of being "lean" or "without fat" or "new".

Regards,
Patrick
__**_
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.**softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.**com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-**
software-melb



I'm in agreement there.  The Chinese economy is "Authoritarian
Capitalism".  You see, the socio-economic system that we operate under,
works better when you dispose of ideals like valuing life, democracy,
freedom of speech, etc.

The fact of that matter is, it is beneficial for the owner of an
enterprise, in terms of productivity and profits, to have workers who have
the least rights possible, the least quality of life possible without it
impacting on their productivity.


H... don't go too far in that direction, you can reach a point where
the society doesn't have enough purchasing power to buy your products no
matter how cheap they are - would sound a lot as the Great Depression.
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

The Great Depression happened because the declining financial conditions 
were handled poorly.  FDR probably prolonged it with the "New Deal". 
That and there was no control during the 'boom'.  For every action, 
there is an equal and opposite reaction.  We pay economist big, big 
money to have them produce information for us to tell use that such a 
thing doesn't apply to economics.




___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Incentives for corporations to protect consumer freedom

[Adrian Colomitchi]

On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Dennis K  wrote:

> On 06/08/2012 11:35 PM, Patrick Elliott-Brennan wrote:
>
>> Dennis K wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's not so much that its a different country, but that its a new
>>> economy which hasn't gotten to the "fat, lazy" stage yet.  I'm sure,
>>> given time, any company will become lazy and undynamic.
>>>
>>>
>> I think, Dennis, that you're misreading the facts. The Chinese economic
>> system is a blisteringly violent mechanism with little to no interest in
>> worker rights and little in the way of concern for their safety.
>>  Community
>> safety is also a low priority.
>>
>> A relative who lives in Hong Kong tells me all about the crappy
>> engineering
>> that gets passed as 'fit' over there. Additionally there was an
>> engineering
>> inspector on the ABC just last week saying that during his time over there
>> he was appalled by the shoddy work and dangerous consequences.
>>
>> It's easy to make a radical change or 'fix' a problem in these
>> circumstances. It's possible to be impressed until you consider the cost.
>> These are the greater causes of the differences, rather than some
>> idealised
>> notion of being "lean" or "without fat" or "new".
>>
>> Regards,
>> Patrick
>> __**_
>> Free-software-melb mailing list
>> Free-software-melb@lists.**softwarefreedom.com.au
>> http://lists.softwarefreedom.**com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-**
>> software-melb
>>
>>
> I'm in agreement there.  The Chinese economy is "Authoritarian
> Capitalism".  You see, the socio-economic system that we operate under,
> works better when you dispose of ideals like valuing life, democracy,
> freedom of speech, etc.
>
> The fact of that matter is, it is beneficial for the owner of an
> enterprise, in terms of productivity and profits, to have workers who have
> the least rights possible, the least quality of life possible without it
> impacting on their productivity.

H... don't go too far in that direction, you can reach a point where
the society doesn't have enough purchasing power to buy your products no
matter how cheap they are - would sound a lot as the Great Depression.
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Incentives for corporations to protect consumer freedom

[Dennis K]

On 06/08/2012 11:35 PM, Patrick Elliott-Brennan wrote:

Dennis K wrote:


It's not so much that its a different country, but that its a new
economy which hasn't gotten to the "fat, lazy" stage yet.  I'm sure,
given time, any company will become lazy and undynamic.



I think, Dennis, that you're misreading the facts. The Chinese economic
system is a blisteringly violent mechanism with little to no interest in
worker rights and little in the way of concern for their safety.  Community
safety is also a low priority.

A relative who lives in Hong Kong tells me all about the crappy engineering
that gets passed as 'fit' over there. Additionally there was an engineering
inspector on the ABC just last week saying that during his time over there
he was appalled by the shoddy work and dangerous consequences.

It's easy to make a radical change or 'fix' a problem in these
circumstances. It's possible to be impressed until you consider the cost.
These are the greater causes of the differences, rather than some idealised
notion of being "lean" or "without fat" or "new".

Regards,
Patrick
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb



I'm in agreement there.  The Chinese economy is "Authoritarian 
Capitalism".  You see, the socio-economic system that we operate under, 
works better when you dispose of ideals like valuing life, democracy, 
freedom of speech, etc.


The fact of that matter is, it is beneficial for the owner of an 
enterprise, in terms of productivity and profits, to have workers who 
have the least rights possible, the least quality of life possible 
without it impacting on their productivity.


Don't get me wrong.  I'm not envious, and I would oppose in the 
strictest terms following their "lead", which is what some seem to 
suggest we should do.  But as long as our countries are run for the 
purposes of meeting the requirements of big business in a global 
economy, we'll have this situation.



___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Incentives for corporations to protect consumer freedom

[Patrick Elliott-Brennan]

Dennis K wrote:
>
> It's not so much that its a different country, but that its a new
> economy which hasn't gotten to the "fat, lazy" stage yet.  I'm sure,
> given time, any company will become lazy and undynamic.
>

I think, Dennis, that you're misreading the facts. The Chinese economic
system is a blisteringly violent mechanism with little to no interest in
worker rights and little in the way of concern for their safety.  Community
safety is also a low priority.

A relative who lives in Hong Kong tells me all about the crappy engineering
that gets passed as 'fit' over there. Additionally there was an engineering
inspector on the ABC just last week saying that during his time over there
he was appalled by the shoddy work and dangerous consequences.

It's easy to make a radical change or 'fix' a problem in these
circumstances. It's possible to be impressed until you consider the cost.
These are the greater causes of the differences, rather than some idealised
notion of being "lean" or "without fat" or "new".

Regards,
Patrick
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Incentives for corporations to protect consumer freedom

[Dennis K]

On 06/08/2012 12:28 PM, Ben Finney wrote:

Dennis K  writes:


I think it is a given that companies which sell products, are going to
place profits above the data security of their users. Therefore, what
matters is not whether secure boot works, but whether it can be
perceived as working by customers. It only becomes critical for the
company whether it works or not, when the successful implementation of
the technology enables them to secure and hold captive their market
(ie, Apple).


That's a succinct way of showing how the incentives operate differently
to produce different behaviour from corporations. Shoddy security from
the ones who only need it as a customer-facing checklist item; effective
security from the ones who are protecting their own interests.


People are talking about the death of the PC, maybe secure boot will
hasten the demise?


It hastens the demise of general-purpose computing; or, at least, it is
a significant front in the ongoing war being waged against it
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111231/01431617249/ongoing-war-computing-legacy-players-trying-to-control-uncontrollable.shtml>.


I think its a losing war.  The worst case scenario is that we have to 
endure a decade or so of shoddy products and watch parts of the industry 
crash, whither and die and wait for something better to replace the gaps.


Remember "Win Modems"?  They were awful software-driven devices, which 
required Windows specific drivers to work.  That was the trend, away 
form hardware based modem to software driven ones, but that nightmarish 
scenario disappeared almost overnight.  Now we use modem/routers that 
you can use with any OS, and with some of them, load your own OS onto them.


We endured years of crappy modems for nothing, because in the end, we 
now use hardware based/OS agnostic modems anyway which offer greater 
freedom.


DVD players had region codes to 'lock' markets, then we discovered that 
cheap DVD players from China didn't bother with those codes because, 
well, why should the Chinese manufacturers care about Brad Pitt's 
paycheck?  Now the region codes are meaningless and a historical curiosity.


Even Apple dropped DRM and I can freely play any MP3 on an iPod.





It certainly seems to me that the American corporate model is hell
bent on self destruction. Wait till China or India or another nation
which doesn't so much care about this provide better freer
alternatives. Not hard to do given the shoddy treatment that users are
given from current IT providers.


What makes you think China or India will actually produce organisations
(corporations?) that have better incentives to support customer freedom?


I think there is a different culture there.  I was speaking with a 
regulator who was auditing a pharmaceutical plant in China, and he 
picked up that they were missing a separate change room which had its 
own isolated air system. The next morning when he turned up, the room 
had been built and qualified and was in use.  When they need a city, 
they just build it.  There simply isn't much tolerance or perceived need 
for obstacles which prevent things from getting done.  What is 
secure-boot, other than an obstacle to its users?  What is DRM other 
than an obstacle to its users?  Sure, some people want it, but it costs 
money, requires serious efforts and hamstrings the product.



Thats not to say that it will last, or that even they might be able to 
compete, but there is a possibility, an opportunity there.


Yes, the US's corporate model has failed to do this. But I don't see how
merely being a different country would necessarily make it produce
better organisations; there are reasons to think they would be even
worse in the field of people's freedom.


It's not so much that its a different country, but that its a new 
economy which hasn't gotten to the "fat, lazy" stage yet.  I'm sure, 
given time, any company will become lazy and undynamic.


Locking customers in and using laws to keep them captive isn't 
innovative at all, yet that's what passes for innovation now.  It's the 
symptom of a degenerate industry, and one that won't survive against 
true innovation.


It's no wonder that Western economies are in such bad shape, when this 
nonsense like secure-boot is considered innovation.






Then the US computer hardware industry will become what their car
industry has become, an expensive, anachronistic, uncompetitive drain.


With that I agree.



___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb