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."
...foreign countries taking Microsoft to task now that the US DoJ has led the way.
i hope they do it with more backbone than the DoJ showed.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.
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.
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)
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).
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
His name is Carlos Slim, and he actually owns the only Phone company in Mexico -Telmex- (there is another one Avantel, but they only offer long distance) and he owns as well the biggest ISP (Prodigy) and as well is the major head at CompUSA (funny: CompUSA is actually a Mexican company!).
To close the circle look at the Prodigy website! Now the relationship between Slim and MSN is clear and that this whole thing is being played by "special intersts".
--Manuel
"I hate quotations, tell me what you think"