Slashdot Mirror
Fears About Microsoft Return, in Mexico
Z` points to this New York Times article, which begins: "While Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft, defended the company against charges of monopolistic practices before Congress this week, legislators in Mexico City prepared their own attack against a new agreement by Microsoft and the Mexican government that could drive millions of new Internet users into Microsoft's waiting arms by the end of the year."
of foreign countries taking Microsoft to task now that the US DoJ has led the way.
Video Game cheats, hints a
If I recall correctly, there is already a virtual monoply as far as ISP's go in Mexico and most other Hispanic nations. There was an article in Wired on a man a couple years back, and I believe it's the same guy who now owns CompUSA. Anyway, he pretty much runs the entire tech industry in Mexico (at least the part that isn't farmed out from the U.S.) but the government can't touch him because he also controls the stock market. Threaten him, he bails and takes the whole Mexican economy with him. Anyone have a link to the article? I couldn't find it in the archives.
The fees may initially be just for consultancy to install their own software but I would be highly suspicious of Microsoft's long term intentions towards the installed software base.
Once the software is installed and Microsoft has royalties, it would be almost impossible to bring in alternatives. The cost of a change to another product would be higher than the royalty and why would you want to when you always have the latest and greatest from Microsoft on your desktop.
Unless this strategy is stopped in it's tracks, we will be facing an almost insurmoutable barrier to entry for any other system.
the countless programming sweatshops in Mexico that M$ is using to program there OS's.
Shouldn't this be in front of "The People's Court".
Microsoft: But she invited me in!
Mexico: I didn't say you could rifle through my things.
Microsoft: I didn't rifle through your things!
Mexico: Did too! I found my underwear in the bathroom and --
And so on. Maybe this demands a new class of "Reality Television": When Corporations Go Wrong. F/X would eat it up, put it on right after Son Of The Beach.
... Or maybe I watch too much television.
This now concludes our broadcast day.
It's clear that what Microsoft is doing is securing markets outside of the first world nations by giving away much now and reaping the benefits later.
This makes perfect sense for Microsoft. After all, if they are forced to change Windows in the US marketplace you can bet that other contries which see IT as a way to improve their economic conditions and will gladly jump at the chance for some 'free' software from Microsoft will not sue them later for monopolistic practices.
It also seems that these contries which are developing fast are almost dazzled by the Microsoft marketing and spin machine and don't realise the long term consequences of their actions.
I suspect this is a slightly larger symptom of the same problem that some companies face. The high level executives are dazzled and wooed by Microsoft and the order goes out to use only Microsoft products.
Also, don't forget that Vicente Fox has promised this will be complete by the end of his term in office and Microsoft proably swore that it would be done in time.
Microsoft have always used the tactic of making it a point to be the first thing the user experiences when computing. Thus, they get people hooked with the Microsoft way of doing things. Once you get people used to the system, it is highly unlikely that you move out.. for two reasons.
1) It just works (TM) factor
2) I already paid. Why switch ?
This is probably one the few chances of experiencing an "alternative" product to a fresh group of people. Would be interesting to see how "easy" people would find it to use these systems, since, Microsoft technology would then be the alien product which you have to re-learn.
Dodge this !! --Trinity, The Matrix
I don't know if it's just me, or if I've been hanging out on SlashDot too long... this article makes me feel sick.
Can it really be that we're the only ones who see Microsoft's business "initiatives" for what they really are--predatory monopolisitc struggles to rule the world? Or have we all become stained by reading SlashDot and they really mean well?
IMO, Mexico is the perfect place for Open Source software. It's a real shame that portions of the Mexican government can't see their opportunity to leapfrog existing software technologies and jump into the first world.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
Consider, for a moment, that Slashdot and other pro-Linux sites trumpeted the introduction of Linux in Mexico. Did anyone think Microsoft wouldn't notice?
Sometimes, it's best to tread softly and carry a big stick; if you yell too much about a potential success, some bigger fish might come along and eat your lunch. Microsoft perceived the Linux-Mexico initiatives as a threat, and reacted with their drug-dealer attitude: "The first one is free." It sounds *so* good, until you find your country trapped by a monopoly...
Perhaps Linux needs to work harder and quiter, instead of bringing undue attention upon itself with artless boasting.
All about me
Hell all the mexician geeks I know are trying to get linux running on their brooms.
http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt / 0020424/tc_nyt/fears_about_microsoft_return__in_me xico&printer=1
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
the article mentions the fact that they were flirting with the idea of passing a bill that would require the e-mexico initiative to use opensource technology. I don't think this is the right direction. forcing free software on people defeats the purpose of free software. I thought it was all about free to choose what you want not forced to use non-microsoft tools.
What is that in Pesos?
Well... the URL ends with "24PESO"
Forget Microsoft, Senor Fox... I'll happily donate 24 Pesos to the e-Mexico initiative myself.
Hell, I'll double their offer! 48 Pesos and all the free software you can download!
Just give me a call.
I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
Here's why.
Q. What do you call a Mexican on a new ten-speed?
A. A thief (okay bad old joke)
But...
Q. What do you call thousands of Mexicans with CD Burners?
Oh No! Could it be a business making a *gasp* a smart business move?! Good Lord, NO! Look - over there - Bill Gates blew his nose! Quick, write it up and submit it slashdot so that those keen conspiracy theorists will see it for what it really is: Bill Gates trying to take over the whole wide world!
Would slashdot have any content at all if it weren't for a handful of successful organizations like Microsoft, Disney, NTT DoCoMo, and the RIAA to constantly drag into the spotlight in order to cleverly expose their obvious embodiment of Evil?
You never know when that BSOD hits.
Didn't know this was restricted to Mexico somehow? Maybe I should move.
Last time I was in Mexico (Nogales, near the Arizona border), I noticed that a lot of 'prescription' drugs were offered for sale in drugstores, no prescription required.
Most noticable among these was Rogaine. I wonder if the future will find Mexican copies of Windows, sold for pennies on the dollar, available next to the Rogaine in glass display cases in Mexican border towns.
Amazing magic tricks
It doesn't explain what this is about.. and I refuse to register for the New York times to read it :)
The basic problem is that nobody is out there selling free/open-source software.
We create a great product and expect people to recognize it. The world no longer beats a path to the door of the builder of the better mousetrap. The world has become so accustomed to being sold the products people buy that failure to sell means the product isn't taken seriously.
We need to organize the free/open-source community around a business model that creates incentives for people to get out and sell free/open-source software and make "deals" just like the proprietary companies do.
One major component of the model needs to be that someone takes responsibility for supporting the software sold in any deal. We are already doing this, but we need to make it explicit that the support is competitive. Perhaps the formation of support consortia that sell the software and compete for providing support would be an approach.
If the MS staff are smoking $24 million of Mexico's finest, I wonder what the next version of Windows will behave like ;-)
Multihued Swirling Screen of Death anybody?
"Good for my business" can also be "monopolistic" and is often "manipulative". The valid points most people make about Microsoft is they give with one hand and take with the other. Or: They give with both hands, hang around and stop anyone else trying to help you out because only THEY are allowed to help you out, and because of that you owe THEM for all your independence and the better state of your life. And this is "good business move", but only for that business.
This now concludes our broadcast day.
Well, guess what? Apple has a new OS, and by all accounts (sorry, haven't used it myself) it's a good bit better than anything Microsoft is offering. And with BSD at its heart, it should be a lot easier to port to Intel hardware than the previous MacOS was (seems to me, anyway). But they won't do it for fear of losing the fat margins on their overpriced hardware.
But here is a perfect example of why they should. Nobody can afford to give away enough computers to go from zero to dominant in a whole country--but it's no great stretch to give away that much software, and then you own the place.
I wonder if there are any projects that organize volunteer help for free software related work in south america. I would welcome a possibility to spend half a year or more as a volunteer in a south american country, doing stuff that I am skilled at and that is fun (e.g. installing linux all the time ;-).
Something like this http://www.ganeshas-project.org is doing for schools in Nepal (although the website has not been updated for months, hopefully they have not all been eaten by yaks).
Any pointers highly appreciated.
Did I sleep through this, or did the reporter? I saw Gates in court last week, but didn't see anything about him in Congress.
Communism fell for two reasons.
1. It can be (in all but the most theoretical case) less efficient for consumers than capitalism.
2. It was adopted by agrarian societies.
Marx's theories were NOT that communism was an alternative to capitalism. Just as capitalism evolved out of mercantilism (which evolved out of feudalism), capitalism would evolve INTO socialism/communism. Marx NEVER advocated that poor countries should become communists. The problem was that poorer countries have people that are less inclined to believe in capitalism, and get more focused on grabbing and taking the little wealth that is there for themselves. Capitalism takes a long time to reach the mature point that the US topped off in in the mid-late 20th century. Its only then that there is heavy upward mobility available to all.
Western Europe and to some extent the United States supports this theory. As countries develop stronger economies and wealthier societies, they start deciding that the capitalistic reality of winners and losers is "bad." You end up with ridiculous crap like national health care or other instances of a welfare state (socializing parts of the country).
When enough members of society decide that they would rather eliminate winners and losers by all being losers, you drift into socialism.
Marx inspired soviet communism, but their command economy functioned more like fascism. Compare the US and Russia in 1917, then look at how well the Soviets kept up for the next 60 years.
A simplified explanation: An economy can spend money on capital goods (which help you produce more goods in the future) or consumer goods (which are consumed now, making people happier). The US economy is somewhere on the order of 90%-95% consumer goods. The Soviet Union did something like 30% capital goods. They forced a growth of industry. The problem was the lines for food; 10 year waits for cars, etc. They under produced stuff for their citizens. Additionally, production wasn't focused on the Darwinian process of capitalism (where production is normally demand focused, though advertising can be used to try to shift demand), but on the whims of the central command. This is where communism is VERY inefficient; people produce what a committee tells them. In a capitalistic world, every company has its own committees. Those that produce the wrong stuff suffer, if they produce the right stuff they do well. That's the capitalism advantage.
The issue of success motivation is a more minor point though it makes a better "US-vs-THEM" split in the American mind. It does retard the efforts of SOME of the top brains/innovators who don't think/innovate without a profit motive. However, most talented people try to succeed, regardless of the incentive, so this is more of a minor point. OTOH, without the profit incentive, it's a lot harder to think that we'd bust ass 60 hrs/week instead of just getting by like everyone else. So you definitely lose something there.
Communism was never intended to "replace" capitalism by the violent revolutions that it was. It was supposed to be the workers throwing down their chains in DEVELOPED countries and seizing control. They would remove the capitalists from the equation (investors who just provide money) and let the people own their own means of production.
To do so, you NEED mean of production to seize. Therefore, you become communistic AFTER the capitalists build in the economy. In this scenario, there are already lots of things for people. If the US were to become a Marxist state right now, we'd probably all be less upset. We'd have our current standard of livings. Sure we'd stop the improvements in our standard of living, but we'd be doing so now, not with the standard of livings that the Czars left their people with.
I do not, BTW, advocate communism in the least. I'm thrilled that Reagan discredited it by showing the Soviet Union's economy to be a farce. The military buildup and arms race forced a growing percentage of the economy to be for the military and military industrial complex. The strong American economy could weather this, the weak paper economy of the Soviets collapsed under the pressure to produce more military goods, further stifling the consumer "economy" leading to massive dissatisfaction. The lack of profit incentives (that do affect medium sized business, though larger businesses tend to become really bureaucratic empire builders) masked a lot of corruption that caused the economy to be much smaller than the planners envisioned.
However, in being an unabashed capitalist, I do read. You should know the positions of others and their role in history. Simply writing comments like that indicate a lack in education. Try to study the liberal arts more and you'll be a more well rounded person (and in a different way that most techies become rounded over time).
Third world comes from "Tiers Etat" Tiers means Third in French, this comes from the composition of the "constituante" which was a kind of parliament under Louis XVI just before the French revolution. Louis XVI has been obliged under mass protestation to call for a new "constituante"
The constituante was equally composed of :
1) Les nobles ; Aristocrates
2) Le Clergé : Clergymen
3) All the last remaining third part : "Le tiers", who where neither Aristocrats nor Clergymen, mainly represented by the "Bourgeois" who where rich or educated people who were not aristocrates.
I Don't recall exactly the details, but the "Constituante" will lately vote for the death sentence of Louis XVI and the Republic, and the "Bourgeois" will take the power. The most progressive people used to sit at the "left" of the president, the conservative ones at his right, hence the left "la gauche" and the right "la droite" which have seen become common in politic.
It's sad very sad that this country who has given so much to democracy his now leaving so harsh time with Le Pen.
Our Microsoft obsessed UK Government thought it had a good deal .
getting MS to create their e-commerce portal. Now local government and various departments will *have* to buy MS Servers
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25003.html
Although I'm from the UK, a developed country. I, a school student couldn't help but notice that the sheer volume of M$ software in the schools is phenomenal. It seems only fitting to expose another one of their abusive stunts they pull in this thread. The tactis they seem to deploy is "Give it away cheap to all of the educational institutions so they don't know how to use anything but M$ products when they leave". I wonder if they'll try and pull a stunt like this in Mexico. My School, for example, has an M$ windows NT workstation with every app that Microsoft has made. I (foolishly) tried to bring in an Open Office document to use on the School's network and I had to go to the Sysop who had a computer with it on (his own, the only .nix box in the school). When I asked him about it he replied "Because it's cheap and nowerdays nobody knows how to use anything but it, neither are they willing". If they do something like this in a developing country (which they undoubtably will and are probably doing now) I can only inagine the damage it could do, especially when the BSA scumbags start putting the Kybosh on unlicenced software users.
Forgot to add that "Le Tiers Etat" while mainly represented by "Les Bourgeois" was mainly composed of very poor people, hence "Tiers monde" in French and then "Third world" to name countries which were neither capitalist, nor communist, but just poor :) .
What the hell are you doing? That boy's messed up."
What i find most extraordinary is that
- On one side Microsoft tells companies "TCO on Unix is very high because you need to contract expensive Unix specialists - to avoid that you should use Windows"
- On the other side they're convincing governments that training their citizens in Windows is the best path for a country to be successful in IT.
Basically Mexico is choosing to create a country full of cheap Windows specialists instead of high-paid Unix specialists
If competition has already driven the "price" of Windows specialists down (compared to Unix), investing in training more Windows specialists is like spending money to place more product into an already/going-to saturate(d) market.
--------------
At the same time it's patently obvious that in a couple of years a lot of that software will need to be upgraded, and by that time Microsoft will charge big bucks for the Licenses on a country which by then will have a huge (and unrecoverable) time and money investment on Windows.
Just b/c Marx wanted it to do one thing, does NOT mean that was the basis of the communism we became familiar w/.
It was obvious that developed countries would most likely not adopt it. Third world countries would be the most likely to switchover.
So your long winded comment is negated.
China (one billion). India (800 million). Russia (some hundreds of millions). Indonesia. Thailand. Korea. Phillipines (typical `pisspot' country, that, roughly the same population as the USA). Germany. France. Italy. Sooner or later, it starts to add up. (-:
Redneck detected! You can fit seven of Texas in our backyard. The shire of Meekatharra is larger than Texas. Jindalee OTH radar can watch planes taking off and landing in Los Angeles from here. What we don't have is enough resources to bury Sydney under warships.
There's more to the world than the USA.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
One reason only. They tried to do it with people instead of angels. The rest is window-dressing.
Oh, except in the case of the USSR, the revolution apparently got a big whack of funding and political help from the Roman Catholic Church to help them wipe out the Russian Orthodox Church (which is why the Russian Communists were so heavily Atheist) - only they buggered it up big time and lost practically all of the gold they invested in that little enterprise until they snuck it back via Germany during WW2. That initial help kind of skewed the situation a bit.
Capitalism at least has a shorter feedback loop, although in practical there's not much else going for it. If the people in a political system are hardworking and altruistically inclined, almost any political system will work. Which is why the top-down political approach always fails.
Back on topic, Microsoft corporately inherited Bill's personality. Bill's greedy, an overachiever - comes of being nicknamed `Trey' as in WHG3, I reckon - to whom the prize is all, the methods and fallout nothing. That's not a sustainable approach. Here and there, people pay more attention to that, and pragmatic issues, and less to Microsoft hype. The USA seems to be collectively less aware of these undercurrents than most societies.
Like China, Mexico is fundamentally different to the USA. Until you grok the society, a lot of things that happen there don't seem logical and reasonable. If OSS succeeds in Mexico, it will be for political reasons; finance and freedom have almost nothing to do with it at the political levels that matter. Red Flag Linux will do well in China for social-political reasons, not for technical merit, cost or copyright reasons. How Red Escolar will go in Mexico, I can't predict. I don't know enough about who is paying/doing what to whom.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
So MS is going to donate $6M in licences? I'll up that, I'll donate 100 million licences to use RedHat. Valued at the official price for RedHat, that ups MS's bid by thousands of times.
Yes it can be a little heavy handed at times but there is just so much to report on Microsoft.
I, for one, do not want my children to wake up one morning in their Microsoft Automated House, watching the news on the Microsoft News Channel(msnbc), driving to work in a Microsoft Car(mabu), and then working all day using Microsoft Business Apps(office). Answering their Microsoft Cell Phone only to find out that the kids have broken the Microsoft Game Console(xbox). Damn!! we're almost there!!!!
And like with a TV you can always change the channel or at least only read articles that interest you.
If Microsoft sold fish, this deal would be equivalent to being taught how to fill out the MS order form for your next fish consignement, and being given a discount on your first order (but still paying enough to cover the cost of the training and the fish).
If they kept their money, and spent it on training people as GNU/Linux trainers, they would have taught themselves to fish, and would soon be in a possition to export their fishing skills to the world, including the USA.
I know which I'd prefer if I were Mexican.
And of course, this is in a free software ocean that cannot be over-fished. It actually becomes more productive, the more people fish it.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
From the article:
But proponents of open-source computing complain that they are being left out of the e-Mexico project because they lack the resources to offer multimillion-dollar donations.
Huh? Well, I just won't stand for it. Using my personal fortune, I hereby donate to the people of Mexico any and all open source software they desire. In addition, I'm giving them the source code, and they are free to use it or modify it any way they like!
Now, this will be quite a blow to my accumlated wealth, so I'd appreciate any donations to defray the cost, in cash or in kind. Please either send me one legally licensed copy of Linux, Star Office and/or KDE, or use my PayPal account to pay for the equivalent. I'll forward all donations to the Mexican gov't.
In addition to the entirely valid points made by leonbrooks, it's well known that the EU (you Yanks do know what that is, right?) is waiting in the wings with its own actions against MS. I'm not sure how much has been put in place already, as several of those involved have commented that it would be in the best interests of the European body to wait and see what happens in the US first. But the actions are in place and ready to go, and have been for some time. If the US legal system would just get its act together and have the guts to slam a convicted corporation, the rest of us could then join in on similar terms so MS actually feel the pain.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
they will learn not to get sold by marketing campaigns. They will learn not to vote in or support those that do. Until then, billions around the globe will be controlled by the idiots that make these decisions. Forget going to the zoo, the monkeys are far more entertaining in Congress
please visit
www.presidencia.gob.mx
there is al link in wich you can put your opinion.
please do it!
a concerned mexican
Mexico is going Micro$oft instead of Open Source for the simplest of reasons; there is no way to extract mordida from free software.
First of all, the offer made by Microsft is interesting for the mexican government but the people of the e-mexico project is open to many other offers. This paticular project hasnt even been started yet. First of all there must be a public bid in order to contrat the best solution. One of the more interesting points is that the website of the e-mexico project is based on GNU software! Can the open source community make a similar offer to the project than Microsoft?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
worth of appliances. Would anyone get upset if another major company donated such a huge amount of product to another country? Talk about disruption of an ecosystem!!!
/. for a whine and cheese party.
Instant monopoly. What a great deal.
Teach them how to fish? I agree but Unfortunately like most managers in the US, if they see enough flashing lights and are wined and dined enough, they will go with the best marketed product. Perhaps not the highest quality product.
speaking of whining??? nothing like
Please do not submit links to the NY Times!
There are other excellent places to link to that do not require registration.
May we never see th
" ... the first one is free."
* 2002-04-26 14:17:15 Microsoft To Colonize Mexico (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
/. plays favorites? I guess they read your journal to figure out if they don't like you.
Gas Monopoly. Pemex is a government-owned monopoly of gas in Mexico. Mexico is a top producer of oil and exports it to the United States. Yet Mexicans, domestically, pay twice as much for gas for the cars than a typical American does.
Energy Monopoly. CFE is a government-run monopoly on energy production and distribution. Mexicans pay between 50% to 100% more than Americans do for their energy, despite plenty of natural gas sources being available.
Telephone Monopoly. Telmex is the de-facto telephone monopoly in Mexico. While there is some local and long-distance competition now, in reality Telmex is still the monopoly based on market penetration. A domestic long distance call within Mexico costs about the same as what an overseas call costs from the United States.
The point being that monopolies are pretty much a way of life in Mexico. Microsoft probably sees that and says, "Hey, we'll fit right in."
I think the original version might have looked something like this:
Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft, defended the company against charges of monopolistic practices before Congress kissed his ass this week
As a mexican citizen, I am naturally leery of any plan made by my goverment with the support of private businessmen that supposedly is going to make my life better.
It has always been a scam.
It happened with NAFTA (where only the US benefits), it happened with the bank rescue (where only corrupt bankers and people with large ammounts of money in banks benefited), it happened with the privatization of the phone company... it has happened over and over and over again.
The fact that Bill Gates and Carlos Slim are involed only make matters worse. I fear for the future...
No sig for the moment.
Todos sus dólares son pertenecen a nosotros.
I read this story days ago, and wonder where the rest of /. was ... sleeping ... partying???
Someone should teach Mexican politicans about Microsoft's penchant for money-grubbing on the inevitable software upgrades. Further, someone should teach them that Microsoft's upgrades usually add very little or no new functional value, unless you consider eye-popping graphics to be an essential new feature. And the upgrades usually contain a lot of bug/security fixes to problems that shouldn't have been there in the first place. If Mexico wants to have its financial pants pulled down, then teaming up with Microsoft is the quickest way to do it.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Being a Mexican, a Windows user, and a Linux user, I think some perspective needs to be thrown into the picture.
Most people in Mexico don't speak English, and don't know how to user a computer. In fact, this is what Fox's rival campaigned on: English and Computer education for everyone. He was basically laughed at by anyone with a clue, but it piqued popular interest, and he has the right intentions.
What Mexico needs is education. The public school system is a farce. Most people don't make it to high school. Most of those who do probably haven't ever used a computer. This is unheard of in the US... Who doesn't finish high-school? Who hasn't used a computer by then? In the US, this only happens at the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder. In Mexico, the bottom rung involves living in a rock cave kilometers from any civilized location. Forget electricity, telephones, running water, sewage, or clothespins. They hang their clothes to dry on trees.
If Microsoft offers to drop software and training to go with it, the software might be a leech intent on locking-down an already impoverished country on expensive monopoly-ware, but the training is essential. Getting people to learn and use computers should be the focus of the e-Mexico initiative. I agree free/open software is the better choice. I agree we shouldn't dish out money on a Microsoft-tax. But who is willing to teach Linux to the third-world masses?
I believe free software will spread in Mexico in the face of all barriers to entry exactly because it's free. Training is essential, and if Microsoft gaining a foothold is the cost, then so be it. But once people learn Windows, they might have -personal- incentive (and the new technical know-how) to learn Linux, if it will save them $200. That's a big savings, in Mexico.
Free software will come, but you must teach people any software first.
Alguien debe enseñar politicans mexicano acerca de penchant de Microsoft para el dinero excavando en el software inevitable mejora. Adicional, alguien debe enseñar ellos que Microsoft mejora agregan generalmente muy pequeño o ningún valor funcional nuevo, a menos que usted considere la gráfica pinchando de ojo para ser una característica nueva esencial. Y el mejora contiene generalmente mucho bicho/fijar de seguridad a problemas que no deben haber estado allí en primer lugar. Si las necesidades de México para tener sus pantalones financieros bajaron, entonces teaming arriba con Microsoft es la manera más rápida de hacerlo.
The marxist position was really more like Capitalism is the problem, communism is the solution.
capitalism would evolve INTO socialism/communism.
Actually, I think he advocated a revolution and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to bring about the change. This is a key point of contention-- a lot of others (including communists) foresaw the obvious problems with this. I think the seizing of the means of production was supposed to be abrupt and violent, because Marx didn't believe that a process of gradual reform was possible.
Western Europe and to some extent the United States supports this theory. As countries develop stronger economies and wealthier societies, they start deciding that the capitalistic reality of winners and losers is "bad." You end up with ridiculous crap like national health care or other instances of a welfare state (socializing parts of the country).
This is nothing like what Marx proposed. Actually, it is these reforms to capitalism that demonstrate a major flaw in Marxs premise that capitalism is incurably evil.
I do not, BTW, advocate communism in the least. I'm thrilled that Reagan discredited it by showing the Soviet Union's economy to be a farce.
Reagen had little to do with it. The Soviet economy collapsed because that's what happens to communist economies. A thriving weapons production business is not detrimental to an economy. A Marxist economic model is.
It was obvious that developed countries would most likely not adopt it. Third world countries would be the most likely to switchover.
His insightful comment is not negated at all. It was certainly not obvious that communism wouldn't be adopted. Several industrialised countries practised all sorts of political models. In Marxs time, it was obvious that capitalism in the industrialised world needed to reform itself or be replaced. The problem with Marx is that he discounted the first possibility.
Now, most people posting replies to this story have absolutely no idea of how things in Mexico work. The "concerns" raised by the members of the Mexican Congress are completely invalid for the simple reason that 90% of those "congressmen" can barely read and write, much less have any sort of expertise in the IT field. They are doing this simply to spite president Fox, just like they've been doing ever since he took office. Did anyone say that the Guajardo dude that is "spearheading" the bill to use free software is a member of the left-wing opposition? Nope. These are the same people that denied president Fox's request to travel outside the country a few months ago saying that he'd been traveling "way too much" lately. These are also the people who wanted to impeach him because he married a divorcee. I shit you not.
Also, take a moment and read the NYT article. Where it says that the government valued Microsoft's contribution at $30M, while Microsoft valued it at $6M. Ooops. So the treasury gets charged for 30, the government shells out 6 or 7. Where does the rest go? This is how things get done in Mexico. Do I seem cynical? Sure. I worked the system for 6 years.
Further, there is no such thing as the "mexican software industry". Trust me. Four-fifths of all companies that write software for a living are still stuck in DOS and dBase, and have no intention or desire to change because that would require training or hiring people with expensive skillsets. Can you imagine asking for a web server at a company that rations bottled water to cut costs?
Finally, all this is well and good but it doesn't really make any difference if it's free software or not. 40% of people in Mexico live below the poverty line (and that's lower then the US poverty line, BTW). Just how the government is planning to provide millions of computers is beyond me. But never mind that. Think about internet access. Internet connections require a phone. Phone service in Mexico is metered, which means that if you make more than 100 (or so) calls a month you get charged something called "servicio medido" which screws you in so many interesting ways. To put this in perspective, my average phone bill in Mexico used to be around $30 bucks. That's 300 pesos. Whenever I had trouble with my "ISP" (which was also the government-owned phone company, BTW) dropping connections my bill went up to $150 dollars. That's 1 week's salary for most middle-class Mexicans. And did I mention it's more expensive to call Mexico from the US than it is to call Denmark or Sweden? Also, the price of electricity just went up by around 80% in most areas of the country. Apparently the government was subsidizing power generation and decided to stop doing it. The problem is *why* they were doing that in the first place. Computers run on electricity. Ad nauseaum.
Technology growth requires infrastructure. Mexico does not have the infrastructure, period. So before we all fly into hissy fits bemoaning how the Evil Empire is gobbling yet another third world country, let's remember that the country needs to be attractive for takeover in the first place.
Alguien debe mostrar a los politicos mexicanos la fuerte inclinacion de Microsoft por colectar [agresivamente] dinero mediante la actualizacion inevitable de [su] software. Ademas, alguien debe demostrarles que las actualizaciones [de Microsoft] usualmente agregan poco o nada de funcionalidad [,](a menos que al despliegue de graficos [muy] atractivos se le considere una caracteristica [nueva] esencial). Y [es que] las actualizaciones usualmente contienen muchos parches en torno a errores de seguridad y programacion que, en primera instancia, no deberian estar ahi. Si Mexico quiere que le "bajen los pantalones" financieros, el hacer equipo con Microsoft es la manera mas rapida de hacerlo.
Chingado!... y ahora que?
Here is an interesting perspective of how things get done in the mexican government.
but those small dev teams would cost a company more than just shipping off 50,000 bucks to Microsoft and saying 'if there's a problem I want a fix the next day.'
We should let Microsoft scout out potential kids in high schools and run them through Microsoft University so that only M$ knows how to program computers. We won't need other comp sci departments at universities around the world because they won't be needed anymore since everyone will just pay Microsoft for their software and will learn to like it. A company won't get exactly what they want, but they can just write a check. But it's never really that easy.
Don't you realize that the vast majority of programmers do not produce software that is for resale? They work in these 'small dev teams' for companies all across the world writing applications and customizing purchased apps that support the business and are quickly adapt to the strategies that upper management decides to embark upon. One size fits all may be ok for a jogging suit from Wal-Mart, but it doesn't work that well for enterprise software.
Between MS donating a few million dollars to eventually make a profit and introducing a bill to outlaw proprietary software, the later is so much more fair.
Once again free software promotes freedom.
*shrug* Reagan was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf, the big bad wolf...
Gimme a break. Microsoft sucks, I don't need Slashdot posting 10 million articles on it.
I seem to remember something about prompt justice being a right. BE Inc (their shareholders, employees, directors and other companies too) have died waiting for justice. Is that prompt?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Aye, too true.
And cue conspiracy theory thread here.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
>*shrug* Reagan was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
I thought it was the camel that broke the straw that was Reagan's brain?
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
alexhmit01 wrote: study the liberal arts more and you'll be a more well rounded person
I agree whole heartedly... with one caveat: one should not study the liberal arts EXCLUSIVELY. The liberal arts (e.g. history, sociology, and literature) are all means of understanding *people*. As such, they should be required for all students, including technically-oriented ones.
Unfortunately, most schools (and colleges and universities) fail to perceive the corollary: the technical arts (e.g. math, science, and engineering) are **JUST** as necessary. The technical arts are means of understanding the *universe*.
At Rensselaer Polytechnic, my alma mater, students in technical fields were required to take 24 credit hours in "Social Sciences and Humanities". Students in business and liberal arts were required to take only *12* credit hours in math and science.
If a technical person can't be well rounded with less than two semesters of liberal arts, how can a non-technical person possibly be well rounded with only *one* semester of math and science. The United States (and modern education in general) needs to increase its emphasis in the technical arts.
Yes, Prodigy is the largest ISP(Prodigy) in Mexico, and Slim is the richest man in Latin America and I think # 16 in the World.
Some years ago he associated with MS to rise a Portal(www.t1msn.com), but the same Prodigy uses a lot of Sun computers to manage their bussiness, as some friends who work there tell me.
And that thing of Microsoft in eMexico, is just the position Gates specified in a reunion for presidents all around the world. He would save millions in licenses fees to us, and give a lot of support. That was just his offer. It's not yet a fact.
They haven't said yes or no.
In Mexico, president Fox have talked to Miguel de Icaza, and the director of eMexico have talked to free software advocates. To all of them , the official position of Mexico goverment is "It's an interesting technology, we'll think about it".
Until they deply the project, we'll know what software will be used.
They said the same to Microsoft, HP, etc.
So, no Microsoft adoption have been done.
Omar Armas(from Mexico City)
Get Miguel De Icaza to talk to this Slim.
"I'll talk to this Humongous; he's a reasonable man!"
It's ironic. Miguel de Icaza was in town and he was invited to give a conference to the Presidents Office Staff. He demanded an auditorium and 50 to 100 people to be present.
BTW http://www.presidencia.gob.mx is all open source...
Nice summary.
My reading of Marx was that Marx said plainly that Capitalist economies would always be able to out-produce Communist economies, but that does not make it "right". That is, factories in the 1900's were immensly profitable and produced wealth for it's owners that never again will be equalled. However, the workers at that time were held in virtual slavery by the society of the time with no escape and the use of the police and army to prevent strikes.
What Marx did not expect was the gradual change of society through the political process (and two world wars) eventually brought about a levelling of society and opportunity.
He did say that he believed the only country that might be able to move to a communistic society was the United States. Even in the mid-1800's the US was recognized as a bastion of freedom for the everage person (And yes they were ignoring slavery)
The Intellectual Property ownership fight is not about fairness for the people who invent things, or to encourage new ideas. It is solely about bringing into being a new aristocratic class whose composition is the "Board of Directors" of the major corporations. The populace has acquired access and control to most of the resources of society through governmental regulation whether you're talking abou the price of oil of access to banking services. What's left is "Intellectual Property", and through this they can again seize control of the means of production and continue the aristocratic tradition. The first step would be extending the period of patent ownership to some incredible length like "life plus 90 years", but surely Congress wouldn't have the gall to rob the public that way.