Slashdot Mirror
The Riches of Open Source
Daniel Dvorkin writes "This BusinessWeek article argues convincingly that Linus Torvalds has more resources at his disposal than Bill Gates. Not only is it a nice overview of Why Open Source Really Matters pitched to a non-technical audience, but it makes a solid argument in favor of OSS in general and Linux in particular, from a solidly capitalist perspective."
We should bind all Programmers into slavery, and pay them nothing.
Thats what the open source movement is truely about!
Can anyone explain to me what about linux is so creative? The weakest spot of linux is the lack of creativity and innovation. Everything is a big rip off of microsoft windows and windows does it better.
Fewer and fewer people do M$ stuff as a hobby anymore. It's expensive and second rate. You can get more done with free software today and will be able to for the foreseeable future. Oh yeah, forget about trying to make money at it. The cost of polishing things up will eat you alive.
MS also has many, many manufacturers tripping all over themselves building and testing hardware drivers for their products.
It's more like they are looking for every way out from under Microsoft's nasty domination. They also have to pay through the nose for SDKs and still have no idea if M$ will grant them the favor of letting their hardware run. The testers are the people unfortunate enough to buy M$. I've seen Microsoft's Updater load up an old driver version that caused an Intel Winmodem to hang up sporadically. If M$ won't listen to Intel, who will they listen to?
Microsoft promised everyone that they would make more money if they kept things closed and followd the M$ monster. It turns out that only Microsoft can make money with Microsoft. Anyone who makes anything worth while faces extortion and then direct competition from the origninator of the scheme. It serves them right, after all the intent was to screw the user.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
But, what are we to expect from State-funded education, which spews such non-sense as the idea that prior to the government stealing radio waves from private owners, there was chaos in radio waves (there was no such thing, courts were enforcing property rights).
You demonstrate extreme stupidity by claiming that the government "created" currency. Currency is established voluntarily by individuals acting of their own free will. At first, there is barter. Then when an item is in enough demand, it is used as a medium for indirect exchange, rather than barter. This creates conveniency and allows for more precise transactions.
You are right about one thing: we need property rights for the free market to exist. The non-aggression axiom must be enforced. You are completely wrong about the necessity of a government for this funciton. All that government is is (ideally) is a monopoly on the enforcement of property rights; that monopoly is protected by coercive force. There is no reason to presume why the free market cannot supply protection for property rights and justice more effectively than the government, just as it provides everything else more effectively than the government. Furthermore, there is no reason to presume beforehand that a monopoly on law-enforcement is the ideal solution. See Rothbard:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp
Of course, government's are alot more than a monopoly on law enforcement. They also ahve a monopoly on things like theft, stealing, and murder. In other words, the goverment is a self-legitimized organization of criminals, with a monopoly on violence.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
In regards to your absurd idea that the government is needed to prevent monopolies, you should know that all true cases of monopoly-pricing are government-created. The following articles may be helpful:
Fear of monopoly
The question of the cable monopoly
Understanding the Barriers to Entry
Pile on Microsoft
Media Concentration: Not a Threat
Break up Microsoft
Anti-trust, anti-truth
Cipro Shortage: An Invented Scarcity
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen