These hardware databases have been around as long as Linux has been. Thinking
this is some how going to change anything is showing ones lack of
understanding/experience in the “industry”.
While I agree with Chris on the pragmatic aspect of this - that the databases
don't help further our goals - I disagree with the fundamental principle
involved. The idea behind compiling freedom-friendly databases is to allow
consumers to make smart choices. How is this effective? Let's look at the
theory, and the implementation.
The free market provides a mechanism for inducing change. This happens when
agents in the market (consumers) make purchasing decisions. Each purchase
changes the information the market provides as to what is desirable vs.
undesirable. So even if you only have a core contingent of users that seek
freedom-friendly hardware, a free market will provide for those users.
Entrepreneurs will see the opportunity, and fill it. Those who aren't in that
market, might see its profitability, and likewise expand their offerings to
that niche in the market.
Fast-forward to our current system; we don't have a free market. Instead,
companies are able to distort the market through subsidies, tax breaks, and
monopolies. This distorts the IT sector significantly, by allowing market
share monopolies (Microsoft, etc.) through collusion in the marketplace to
reduce competition. This is typically achieved through careful exploitation
of the patent, trademark and copyright law, in addition to well-placed tax
policy. I don't have a load of time to go into the details (which are
irrelevant anyway), but it's not about conspiracy, but businessmen taking
advantage of a system.
The reality is, is that we need to realise how the system functions, and use
it for our own purposes. In a free market (which isn't present in most of the
world currently), educating consumers to make the right choices is effective.
Highly effective. In the current market system, this does eventually work,
but it takes a long time and a critical mass of consumers to achieve. We
don't have the numbers. However, using consumer numbers to pressure companies
to provide a specific product can be more effective (in this system). Why? In
a pure market, prices and price indicators are incredibly effective tools for
communication. Consumers stopping their purchases of one product, and
switching to another product can be felt keenly in the market. In a distorted
market, however, price signals don't always make it through without
deamplification. Thus, using our real voices, we can be sure the message gets
through more vocally.
It's not perfect, but I agree in general that Chris' approach (as well as
purchasing from him ;) ) should effect more change than otherwise. Apologies
for the length!
