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.
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
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)
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
Yes, But If you read with attention it's "Mexico City" who adopted Linux. And they did it fine( I live in Mexico City and have looked at it :) ).
Mexico City is ruled by a different political party (PRD)than the hole country (PAN). And the deal is about E-mexico , A program to put on-line all the Federal Government, and to privide on line access to ALL the mexicans.
As a mexican Its a shame that Fox accepted this deal, and there a lot of people here trying to push this back.
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
"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.
It is a *profitable* business move, I don't know how good or ethical it is. Microsoft would be happier with everyone using their products, even if theirs aren't the ideal product for the problem. They want people to be happy with their products too. And, if you can't at least be happy with them, at least have you be tied to them. Their products are tightly integrated for two reasons:
1. Make it difficult to seperate the pieces and introduce non-MS made add-ons. This is a big one. Microsoft has never released the exact specs for MS Office file formats because they don't *want* compatible prducts on the market.
2. It's easier for the user if everything 'goes together'. This is a byproduct of #1.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
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.
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.
Same thing you call the USA in the heyday of Napster!
The truth shall set you free!
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.
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.
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
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).
Easier than previous Mac OS, sure, but that doesn't mean easy. It has a BSD core, but that's a very small part of the system. Darwin uses its own driver model, meaning existing FreeBSD drivers won't work; new drivers have to be written (it's apparently much easier to write drivers for Darwin than for nearly anything else, but it has to be done). Darwin is pretty new, and has almost no drivers for anything, save what Apple has written for Macintosh hardware - and that's only for G3 and later systems.
There is an Intel version of Darwin available for download. Will it run on your hardware? Most likely not. Last I heard they're planning to release a version that works with AMD processors in a few weeks. If you can get Darwin to run on your hardware, and if Apple ports the rest of the OS (the entire GUI layer, Carbon and Cocoa APIs, all the bundled apps like Mail and Sherlock and QuickTime), then you still have the problem of application support. How long would it take for software developers to port their applications to Mac OS X for x86, a platform that doesn't even exist yet? Remember that most apps haven't even been ported to Mac OS X for PPC yet, and many that have are still buggy.
</rant>
It won't happen. Not soon. Don't even speculate about it. If you can't stop from speculating, go install Darwin, then hack it until it runs on your system, and then runs on your friends' systems, and THEN you can speculate.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
" ... the first one is free."
You joke, right?
I live in Mexico. Believe me, I am not aware of any Microsoft effort in Mexico except for sales. I don't think MS does any programming down here.
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."
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.
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
The RedEscolar proyect was replaced with the eMexico proyect, largely due to the influence of Gates and Slim on our business-friendly president Fox.
There was an initiative to use Free Software in the Mexico City goverment(ruled by another party), but that proyect was frozen in the local congress.
No sig for the moment.
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.
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.
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.
one more reason to promote anarchism :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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