Re: Microsoft Linux!

[damaged justice <imrowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >>I don't get where if someone wants to use and appreciate Linux they must
> >>therefore hate Microsoft?!?  Can someone explain this to me?  Is it
> >>because the people who have co-opted Linux are really socialists and the 
> >>real agenda is to push their political scheme?!? (Duh)
> 
> Well well well.  
> 
> Point one: I AM a socialist, but I do not (nor does anyone) represent or presume
> to represent the ideology off "the Linux user".  Anyone who would define thier
> political/philosophical/religious ideology around an OS needs serious help.  

Amen. Like anything that a wide variety of people use, one can rationalize any
"explanation" or "parallel". I'm an 'out' libertarian, but unlike Eric Raymond
I have no desire to attempt to paint the entire community as sharing my views,
and then reject those who do not wholly share them as having 'strayed' from a
'true path'. Even Richard Stallman doesn't do that AFAIK (although he's been
repeatedly accused of it).  

> Point two: As for co-opting and "pushing".  I don't co-opt because I'm not
> subtle!!!

Neither am I, historically; it's a skill I've had to learn has its place on
occasion. I still prefer the direct and honest approach, but I've learned to
be more polite :)

I don't "hate" Microsoft because it's impossible to hate a corporation, or any
other group. They don't exist. All there is, is individuals. Some are bad and
some good, but most are a mix.

> ...if DOS/Windows hadn't raised the PC to prominance, things like Linux may
> have never come into existence. (Possible, hypothesis contrary to fact I
> admit, but a plausible scenario).

Neal Stephenson pointed out in "In the Beginning Was the Command Line":

   [Linus] had to have cheap hardware on which to write that code. Cheap
   hardware is a much harder thing to arrange than cheap software; a
   single person (Stallman) can write software and put it up on the Net
   for free, but in order to make hardware it's necessary to have a whole
   industrial infrastructure, which is not cheap by any stretch of the
   imagination. Really the only way to make hardware cheap is to punch
   out an incredible number of copies of it, so that the unit cost
   eventually drops. For reasons already explained, Apple had no desire
   to see the cost of hardware drop. The only reason Torvalds had cheap
   hardware was Microsoft.

   Microsoft refused to go into the hardware business, insisted on making
   its software run on hardware that anyone could build, and thereby
   created the market conditions that allowed hardware prices to plummet.
   In trying to understand the Linux phenomenon, then, we have to look
   not to a single innovator but to a sort of bizarre Trinity: Linus
   Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Bill Gates. Take away any of these
   three and Linux would not exist.

> A corporation/employer has the RIGHT to ATTEMPT to make a "reasonable"
> profit so long as it's doing so does not negatively effect the public good
> or the economy in which we all, individual and corporate, participate.

And no group or individual has a "right" to a profit, just as there is no
right to be happy -- only to pursue happiness.
 
> By the way, I paid $195 for my last copy of RedHat.  An it is worth every
> cent.

Wow, which version was that? Lots of commercial apps, extra support, or both?  


Regarding Linux as a desktop, the "Joe Sixpack" stereotype of the Typical
Stupid User that so many open source naysayers trot out all the time -- "it's
too hard for newbies!" -- this is the type who uses whatever they're given,
and never changes the defaults, and suffers through a great deal of extra time
and trouble because they don't know any better, and even if someone shows them
they won't care and will instantly forget. Of course in practice, few people
are this abysmally caricaturally ignorant, and most are willing to put forth
some small amount of effort if the reward is sufficient.

(In a corporate environment, you have no choice; you use what the boss tells
you to use. If a business decides to move to Linux, the employees are going to
move with it, or move to a different job!)

To close this ramble, I believe Windows has a place: Due to many factors,
especially the fact that rebooting often is expected (drum roll), it's a great
gaming platform. That's the sole reason I keep it around. I'd like to see that
change, but not at the expense of Linux's advantages (efficiency, stability
and the like).

-- 
"There is an email in which somebody says exactly that."
"Is that the one that said he was going to kill all the lawyers and judges?"
"No, it is a different one."     - MPAA v 2600, June 6 Protective Order Hearing