Or the *BSDs which due to an, uhh, interesting licensing conundrum with AT&T will continue releasing 2.x updates for an eternity (or until the copyright expires, which under the DMCA is the same thing as infinity).
Your statement that all BSD-based operating systems must remain within the 2.x versioning regime is mistaken. You probably meant to say that they must stay within the 4.x regime, but that is also untrue. For a time, the actual Berkley distribution (not the *BSD's, which didn't exist at the time) was confined to the 4.x range. But that hasn't been the case for many years now.
These days, the code used in all currently produced and maintained BSD-based operating systems is entirely unencumbered by legal restraints arising from AT&T copyright claims. Thus, for example, OpenBSD is at version 2.7, while FreeBSD is at version 4.0.
The code has moved forward quite a bit since the 4.4BSD days, and the versioning for each BSD project reflects that. Each follows its own versioning rules.
You might want to check into the history of the BSD side of the UNIX story. It's actually quite interesting.
Your point is well taken, but re-read the court's order:
I see your point, but I took it as meaning they had to open their API's. It says certain people will be permitted to see "relevant and necessary portions of the source code," which I would argue will ultimately be interpreted to mean the portions of the code that amounts to the application programming interfaces. That is, the sections that show the calling procedure, and nothing more. There's no reason for anyone to see how the API itself is implemented if the API's are published fully and completely.
Hmm. Well, I have to take that back. There is one reason to look at the underlying source code: to see whether Microsoft is lying about their API's again. But I'll wager that Microsoft will be willing to go to court yet again over that particular issue.
Did Microsoft develup any of the technologys we use today? Or any technologys at all? No
You're right, but what I meant was that Microsoft "created" the atmosphere of hostility, lies, etc. that prevails in the industry today. I didn't mean to imply that they were the creators of the key technological advances of our time. I should have made that clearer.
The press keeps making this mistake. Opening up the specifications for the programming hooks the operating system offers (opening the API's, in other words), is not the same thing as opening up the source code. The former clearly describes the ways in which applications are expected to interact with the operating system on which they run. The latter is how the API's are created.
This is key. The Microsoft argument that opening their API's would kill them depends on the confusion between API and source code. All they're being asked to do in reality is provide the world with the information it should have had. After all, providing API's is the reason operating systems exist! They should always be made public, or there's no reason to have an operating system, since the application programmers will end up having to write their own interfaces.
Microsoft is just being asked to play fair and do their job correctly. It's not an onerous request!
Well, that's nice to hear. Java can be done on FreeBSD right now, but it's nice to hear that, unofficially, an official port is in the works.
I think that's a good thing, anyway.
I used to like Java a lot. Heck, I was a Java Lobby member before the counter on their page turned 1000.:) I have 15 tomes on Java, most from Addison-Wesley's line. I haven't used them in a couple years now, though, because I lost faith in Sun's leadership of Java. Maybe someday I'll stop worrying about it and jump back on the bandwagon. Maybe having it officially supported at the same revision level on more platforms will help ease my worries. I dunno.
I really want it to be an international standard, set and maintained by an independent organzation.
Sorry, I'm just woolgathering here. I just wish so much that Java was a free and open standard, that sometimes seeing these stories sends me off on a little bit of a melancholy fugue.
the beos installer was pretty simple, but i can *honestly* say that i have *never* seen a system better set up than the mandrake 7.1 system i installed a few days ago.
Oooh. I've tried BeOS (it's my wife's second OS, after SuSE 6.4), but I've never messed with Mandrake. I made the mistake of thiking "Red Hat knockoff." Thanks for pointing some of its merits out to me. I'll have to check it out next time my wife and I do an OS survey.
BTW, it's nice to see we're not the only ones nutty enough to spend significant amounts of time fooling around with stacks of operating systems.:)
One thing the author of the article forgot to discuss is that he did not have to install, or configure it. Now, I know for almost everyone on here, that wouldn't be a problem, but you can't tell me it is as easy as WinNT to setup...
As others have pointed out, he did try to install Corel Linux and found it to be easy.
I just wanted to jump in here and mention that, a few weekends ago, my wife and I took some time and tried lots of different operating system installs just for the heck of it. We performed the installs on my computer, which normally runs SuSE 6.4 quite well. Epson Stylus Color 740 printer, 3Com 3C905B ethernet, external modem, SoundBlaster AWE64 sound card, Sony 100GS monitor, and Diamond v550 video card. Pretty mainstream, boring hardware (except maybe the printer).
The OS's/distributions we installed were:
- Debian GNU/Linux - Corel Linux Deluxe - Red Hat Linux 6.2 - Slackware 7.0 - SuSE Linux 6.4 - OpenBSD 2.6 - FreeBSD 3.3
We just went through the installs of each, accepting the defaults and pretending we knew nothing of UNIX, but did know the names of our hardware devices. We were going for typical consumer knowledge level.
Using that methodology, Slackware didn't install - it bombed out trying to write LILO to the floppy, then said it couldn't write it to the hard drive either. Said there wasn't space on the floppy or the hard drive (16GB hdd). I fooled with it a bit and eventually got it installed, though I had to use more than general consumer knowledge to do so. Once installed, it was OK, but it didn't detect any of my hardware. Not a good consumer distribution.
Debian installed OK, but all those questions after it's copied the packages to the disk were horrid. Of course, Debian doesn't try to be a consumer OS, so this probably isn't a fair assessment of the distribution itself. The fact remains though that a consumer would have a horrible time with it.
Corel Linux seemed pretty slick, but it didn't detect much more than our monitor, mouse, and video card for us. Setting up the printer, modem, and ethernet was our problem after installing, and no consumer's going to know how to do that. Oh, and it left us with a blank root password, which is really bad. Again, not something I'd recommend for consumers.
Red Hat was about the same as Corel (although it spontaneously spit out the CD and rebooted during the package install phase the first time around; I had to re-start the process thereafter and it went smoothly). It detected what Corel Linux did, and again left it to us to figure out printer configuration and so on after the install. Again, not for your average consumer.
SuSE Linux 6.4 was the best. We'd been upgrading right along, so hadn't used yast2 at all. Well, I'd tried out 6.3 at work, and hadn't been impressed with it. But 6.4 does it right: it detected/all/ of our hardware, led us through the simple steps of setting it all up (including our dialup account). When we were done, our network was working, the sound card worked, the video was perfect, the mouse was running...even the Epson Stylus Color 740 was auto-detected and the appropriate apsfilter and ghostscript packages installed. This one is definitely ready for consumers.
OpenBSD's install was elegant...if you're a UNIX afficianado. Following the examples in the little booklet that comes with the CD would be fine, but the result would be an install that gives you no pre-setup hardware beyond a network card. You'd have to run XF86Setup yourself to do monitor, video card, and mouse. And as for printers, well, you'd have to roll your own filter/driver setup. Same with the sound card. Definitely not for consumers. (I love it as a server OS, though, and as I mentioned in a previous post, we use it there now.)
FreeBSD was pretty much like the average Linux install. No recognition of the sound card, printer, or even the modem, but the normal setup does give you an opportunity to get the X stuff going. It's not automated, though, and would be very confusing for the average consumer. Again, not a consumer level OS.
So, of those we checked out, the only one I'd recommend for consumers is SuSE 6.4. It does it right. Of course, after it's installed, the user will have to learn some UNIX admin stuff over time, but out of the box he or she will get a very usable workstation.
As for me, I ended up switching to FreeBSD. As someone who knows UNIX well enough (and who enjoys learning new things), it was the ideal OS for me. I ordered 4.0 and the Handbook, and I've been happily using it since then.
How many people have just had a guts-full of anti M$ BS?
I for one am not tired of the anti-Microsoft sentiment I see in this community.
First, this is the world that Microsoft created. They set the tone of the software industry very early on. Specifically, I'm thinking of that enraged letter Gates sent to the Altair community about the pirating of his BASIC interpreter. The letter was extremely unprofessional, whiny, and combative. It set the tone for the industry, and he and his company have kept it up ever since. Dirty tricks, lies, and outright illegal behavior are the rule of the day with Microsoft, as shown quite clearly in the antitrust trial. Being anti-Microsoft, to me, means being against that sort of corporate behavior. So I'm not tired of people being anti-Microsoft.
But that's not the only reason I'm not tired of it. The other reason is that Microsoft has made my life much harder than it would otherwise be. If they hadn't used illegal practices to dominate the industry, my life would be much better. Because in that case, either better products from other companies would be the standard, or Microsoft itself would themselves have produced products actually worthy of the industry leader. Either way, my life as a computer professional would be much better. Instead, they chose to use illegal practices to make their inferior products the standard. Again, this is a very valid reason to be anti-Microsoft.
So, while I sometimes abhor the tactics used by some members of the community, my feelings parallel theirs. And I can't really blame the most ardent Microsoft haters, given Microsoft's criminality, immorality, and general disrespect for its customers.
Being anti-Microsoft is simply the right thing to do.
they just don't want to be distributing it [non-free software] themselves anymore.
I respect that. With Mozilla in a usable state now (it's my full-time browser at home; the only other one I use is lynx), I don't see any reason for them to continue distributing non-free software. Those who want that sort of stuff can go get it themselves easily enough.
I finally stopped using software that requires a click-through (such as Netscape, Acrobat, RealPlayer, etc.) at home. I haven't noticed any drop in productivity or enjoyment of my computer. An increase in pride, maybe, but other than that, no appreciable change.;)
Don't use one hammer but educate yourself to be able to use the appropriate tools for the job at hand.
I agree entirely. Each language and, indeed, programming methodology, was created with a particular problem space in mind. Using each for what it does best is not a bad idea. I've programmed in BASIC (remember when it was an acronym, and needed to be capitalized?), assembler, C, Java, and a host of smaller, niche languages. Each did its job well enough.
In my previous post, I wasn't saying that I've never used OO. I was simply saying that I never encountered the problem space for which OO is the most correct solution. I'd begun to doubt the existence of that problem space, and this interview helped me to realize that I wasn't the only one. I'd thought I wasn't seeing this huge elephant that the rest of the world sees standing right in front of me. But, apparently, either I'm not the only blind one, or the elephant isn't as large as it's been made out to be.
The OO paradigm promised to save the world of software engineering from bugs, complexity, and maintenance difficulties, but if the last 5 or 6 years are to be considered as indicators for future performance, it's not worth the hype.
Reading that interview's brief discussion of object-oriented programming made me feel really good. I thought I was completely missing the boat on that stuff. I mean, I can see how it makes for esthetically pleasing designs on some level, but try as I might, I couldn't find a reason to stop doing things the way I always have. Maybe I still am missing the boat on OO, but at least I'm in good company. =)
I just wrote an essay on this very subject for a friend of mine who is trying to decide which non-MS operating system is best for her. The essay I wrote simply explains why FreeBSD turned out to be the right choice for me, since I can't say what would be right for someone else in a different situation. If you're interested, my essay is here.
Imagine if computer programmers could be sued for every bug that causes harm. Brings, it right home, doesn't it.
That would definitely be bad. You're right. But so would having to pay SuperHyperMegaCorp's lawyers. Of course, that's only a fear if you believe that our system of justice is imperfect as I do. Personally, I couldn't take the risk of having to pay for some corporation's team of lawyers if I lost my case. Since there's a chance that justice may not be served (like in the McDonald's case you pointed out), I wouldn't be willing to sue under the system you've proposed.
As for the destitute...how would they sue under your proposed system? Right now, they can sometimes get lawyers to work for them on a contingency fee or even pro bono. Under your system, they would face the prospect of paying for the corporate lawyers. Would they still be allowed to sue, knowing that they can't pay if they lose? If so, who would pay those costs when such people lose? If not, then how is your system better for the poor than the current one?
To me, the system you suggest is better for neither the lower nor the middle class. It is only better for the wealthy. Since they are a vanishingly small percentage of the people in this country, I can't support your proposal.
[I]The problem is that the acquisition of wealth has become an end unto itself.[/I]
That is indeed a problem. When reasonable people such as yourself step back and look at why "the system" exists, they see that economies exist to distribute resources. For a long time now, we've been using currency as a means of exchange - a level of abstraction that folks often mistake for the goal.
Perhaps these days, with all the wonderful work done in game theory, we can find a better method of distributing resources than any we've tried so far. If we take as our thesis that there [i]is[/i] a better way to distribute resources, perhaps we can methodically arrive at a better solution.
But, as you've pointed out, most of us have wholly bought into the current system. We believe in it to such an extent that we can't imagine any alternative other than socialism. And our conditioned resposne to that is repugnance, justified or not. So, effectively, there can be no debate.
Um, you denounce individualism, yet you say you wish everyone could do their own thing. That's pretty much what Jon's talking about. Call it "Freedom" if that makes you feel better.
A lot of these problems could be solved by making sure that corporations bear the full costs of their actions.
Want to pollute (within the limits of the law)? No problem! But the gov't won't be paying for the cleanup out of the general tax fund. Instead, you (the corporation) will be paying for it directly.
You need to downsize? All right. At this moment, the average worker requires X weeks to get a new job, therefore their pay-out must be at least X * his or her weekly salary.
And, oh, you don't like product liability lawsuits? Too bad! Even free market absolutist Milton Friedman says that lawsuits are more efficient market regulators than government agencies could ever be. I propose a new Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to sue corporations into the ground.
Ah, and then there's accountability. Wouldn't it be nice if the people running corporations were held as accountable for their actions as was the average crack-head? I mean, if the Chairman of GM moves his factories to a country it causes more harm to families and their communities than the crack-head ever will. Let's pass some laws that hold everyone in charge accountable, from the senior execs to the shareholders (after all, they're ultimately in charge of the companies they own)!
One idea I particularly like is to make formal the idea of stakeholders. That's the idea that it's not just shareholders who have a stake in a given company. Clearly, the employees have a stake. So do the people in the communities in which the company operates. Each of these stakeholders should have voting rights at shareholder meetings. In a larger sense, everyone in the host country has a stake in each corporation ("What's good for X corp. is good for Y nation," isn't that a corporatist tagline?). Perhaps some voting rights should be exercised by everyone, through the government. Maybe not a full vote per person, but enough to make a difference when it counts.
Of course, none of this will happen until we break the corporations' hold on governments around the world. And that's a problem I really don't have a solution for, sadly. I hope someone else does!
We may yet publish it - but I want to give everyone the opportunity to opt out, or opt in - like I said in the statement.
I'm glad you may still publish it. Part of my worry is that this thing will end up having its legs cut out from under it as people try to edit it. What they said back then may not be what they'd say now. But what they said back then is what the story's all about. Every comment currently in the book is there for a good reason, presumably. Taking some out because of "morning after" regrets will only serve to compromise the book's impact.
The other part of my concern with serializing it is that the book will end up being published so long after Columbine and so many other major news events (the other killings we've heard about since then, the Elian thing, etc.) that no one will care any more.
I want them to care. Please don't let the window of opportunity pass!
I really wish you wouldn't serialize it. You said that what you originally planned to do had no legal hang-ups attached. This is just going to slow the process down. I would prefer that the world have an opportunity to read the stuff that came out of those Hellmouth articles, rather than continuing to keep it within our community.
Publish it! Get it out there! Forget about the hypocrites who whine about corporate intellectual property ownership while jealously guarding their own supposed intellectual property!
>This argument of system resources is pretty much futile.
Perhaps. I have a Celeron 400 system with 128MB RAM. So why am I wishing for a light-weight, standards-compliant, etc. browser?
I prefer to avoid fatware whenever possible.
Oh, BTW, yeah, I know about Lynx.:) I used a shell account on a BSD system, dialed up from an Atari 1200XL, for a few years. It was lynx and pine all the way, back then!
I put the very first official Open Source OS box on our network last week. It's the first step in finally joining our LAN with the Internet. There is still a lot left to do, but it's a good first step.
I'm the sole IT person at my company. We have a small LAN that includes some 30 Win 95 clients and two Novell 4.11 servers running IPX/SPx. That part was set up by my predecessor, and it actually works pretty well. As long as you ignore the usual 1-4 crashes per client per day due to the glories of Win 95, that is. At least the servers just hum along. Unless you try to change anything about the Novell GroupWise email system, in which case it more often than not will go berzerk until placated with the proper sacrifice: a long weekend at the office. But that's another story.
So anyway, a while back the CFO decided he wants us on the Internet. We already have our email handled by a dial-on-demand system that allows us to go to/from the Internet, and those who actually need to browse the Internet have modems on their clients, but he wants the full thing. Which is fine with me; like everyone else here, I love putting in new stuff.
So I do a little research. I'm a Linux user, so of course that's the first system I look into for the firewall server, primary and secondary DNS, and all that good stuff. But as I look around, I keep hearing about OpenBSD. It's secure, it's stable, and just about perfect for a server that will be on the Internet. So I get a copy and check it out.
Wow. It's everything I'd been told and more. The intallation was way cool. Granted, if I'd been a UNIX neophyte, it would have given me fits, but as someone who knows and is comfortable with UNIX, I thought it was pretty sweet. The second system I installed it on (yeah, probably like most of you, I find it fun to install new OS's, so I ended up installing it a dozen or so times on a handful of different systems that were laying around) had a flaky CD-ROM drive. So during the package installation, it flipped out, had to drop down to another protocol, and ended up not being able to install the first package. But after it installed all the others, it told me it hadn't installed that package, and would I like to try again? I said yes, and it merrily installed that package. Nicely done; much nicer than the typical Novell patch process, for example.
Anyway, I won't bore you with the details since you're probably more familiar with OpenBSD than I am. Suffice it to say that I'm very impressed with the way it comes up clean, just waiting for you to add only those services you actually need. No futzing around, turing off this and that. No admin tools that re-write your config files. Ah, elegance!
While it wouldn't be my first choice for a desktop OS, it's definitely my first choice for server OS's.
Oh, right, this story had a point other than "OpenBSD is cool," didn't it? The point is that OpenBSD is now running happily on an old Compaq Desqpro 2000 P-166 w/ 96 MB RAM, performing as our DHCP server (remember, we're on IPX/SPX internally, so we still need the basic infrastructure for IP).
Before I installed that server, I wrote a nice report for management, explaining some of the broad issues for Internet security, giving the highlights of the different available server OS's for handling firewall server functions, and recommending that we go with OpenBSD for all our Internet-related servers.
The CFO and Controller both read my report, and they've agreed whole-heartedly with me. They appreciated being given a chance to understand the issues (at an "executive" level, anyway). That has allowed them to follow my reasoning in choosing OpenBSD, and they're behind my choice 100%.
It feels darned good to have finally brought free software into my workplace.
Now if only I can convince them to go with Linux on the desktop someday, I'll be in bliss!
Speaking of which, here's an interesting bit from Reuters. Note in particular this nifty little quote from Scott Culp, program manager for Microsoft's security response center:
``There isn't a security vulnerability in Outlook involved in this at all,'' Culp said, pointing out that the ``Love Bug'' virus could only infect if a user detached the program from the e-mail and then ran it.
I don't think there are very many people in the world right now that wouldn't know that Mr. Culp is flat out lying when he says you have to "detach the prgoram from the email" and then run it to get infected!
That looks like a pretty nifty browser. I particularly like how it allows you to split the browser window into multiple frames for simultaneously viewing a web site, an ftp site, and your local disk. Drag and drop ftp within the browser is kind of cool.
However, I use Window Maker, and I don't want to bog down my system with the QT libs. So it's not really something for me.
Maybe one of the Mozilla-based browsers that come out next year will be right for someone in my situation. I just want something light-weight that'll handle HTML 4.0, javascript, and the other standards-based stuff. I really don't care for the proprietary things like Realmedia, Flash, and so on.
I'll take the first 100% standards-based, light-weight, speedy, crash-proof browser for Linux that comes along.:)
The same drug policies have continued for eight years under Clinton's administration -- does that make them ok? The high rate of imprisonment in this country continues under a Democratic administration, yet the implication is that it's the fault of Republicans.
You're reading too much into RMS's comments. He didn't say anything about Republicans or Democrats. He talked about corporations, government, and people, but didn't say that one party or the other was the root of all evil (or the fount of all good).
As others have pointed out, there is very little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. Once upon a time, there was a greater difference. But for the last 20 years or so, the difference between them has been decreasing.
I know it's hard to realize they're not significantly different. If you read only the mainstream press, listen to mainstream radio talk shows, and watch mainstream TV, you'll hear the minute differences between them emphasized again and again and again, until you start to believe those differences are huge.
But if you back up, and view it all from an objective standpoint, you'll start to see that the policies of each party are very similar to those of the other. Oh, sure, on the issues of little economic worth they differ (abortion, prayer in schools, gun control, etc.). But when you look at the issues which matter the most to corporations, you'll find that the parties are in almost total agreement with one another, with only quibbles standing between them.
Thank you for the GPL, Mr. Stallman, but I can't in good conscience align myself with your view of the world.
Again, I know it's hard to see this stuff right away. But please take the steps necessary to learn about these issues. Work on your own to get the facts about the political situation in America, evaluate those facts objectively, and you will come to a different conclusion about RMS. I'm not saying he's perfect or that he's right on every subject. But his core views are laudable, when viewed in light of the way the world really is.
I grew up in a staunch Democratic household. Yet my teen years were under the Regan administration, and I came to admire him greatly. I went to University for Business Administration, and ended up arguing with one of my professors (Dr. Michaels) about business and government from much the same perspective you're taking. I thought she was sadly mistaken, and believed I was seeing things more clearly.
Eventually, though, she gently convinced me to do my own thinking rather than believing what I was told. So I started researching the issues on my own, using objective materials and media where possible, comparing and contrasting the various viewpoints where possible, and so on. Eventually I came to the conclusion that Dr. Michaels was right. I only wish I'd been able to tell her so...
At any rate. All I'm trying to say is that I know where you're coming from, that I've been there, and that I know the way out. Give it a shot - if I'm wrong, then you just have a more airtight case that the typical reactionary, unthinking stuff that passes for reasoned argument in public fora. But if I'm right, you'll have begun the process of moving yourself out from under the domination of those who would rather you work for their interests, even (perhaps especially) when it goes against your own interests.
Whatever beneficial societal changes may or may not be attributable to the MS marketing machine, they have no bearing on the case.
You hit the nail on the head! I've been thinking about this recently, and here's what I've come up with:
Microsoft executives' oft-repeated contention is that not only haven't they harmed consumers, but that their policies have actually benefitted consumers tremendously. For evidence of this, they point to the productivity gains American businesses have enjoyed in recent years.
Ignoring the fact that their whole argument is beside the point (since antitrust law deals with whether competitors were harmed, rather than whether consumers were harmed), Microsoft's executives are still being misleading when they say their practices haven't harmed consumers. What they've left out in discussing the recent gains in productivity could fill the Grand Canyon.
For example, the rate of productivity increase among American non-farm businesses has been anemic since the 1970's. According to some (as mentioned in the link above), the "huge productivity gains" of the 1990's may, in fact, be illusory. But the bottom line is that whatever productivity gains may have occurred in the 1990's are dwarfed by those in the decades leading up to the 1970's. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual productivity increase in the period 1960 to 1973 was nearly 3%, while for the 1990's it was less than 1%. To the extent they had anything to do with those results, Microsoft should hardly be shouting from the roof-tops about them.
Even assuming that Microsoft's products did increase productivity from what it would otherwise have been, how can those Microsoft executives claim they increased it at a faster pace than would have otherwise been the case, had there been real competition in the Operating System (OS) market? The answer is that they can't make that claim without rejecting the entire economic system we operate under. One of the foundations on which capitalism rests is the theory that competition is better than the lack thereof. That resources are distributed in the most efficient way through competition, that products are better with competition, and that the more competition there is, the better the situation will be for the society as a whole. Thus, Microsoft executives' contention that U.S. consumers were not harmed is actually at odds with capitalist economic system, yet they're claiming that the government is anti-capitalism for working to restore meaningful competition to the OS marketplace.
If we are to assume capitalism is the right economic system to use, then we must also accept its underlying precepts. Since one of those precepts (arguably the most important one) is that competition is good, more competition is better, and a lack of competition is decidedly bad, Microsoft executives' statement that they didn't harm consumers is ludicrous. Competition would have driven down their prices, driven up their product quality, and resulted in a better allocation of resources (consumer and business dollars, as one example) for society as a whole. Basic capitalist economic theory says so, and that has been proven true time and again in the real world.
Microsoft either harmed consumers or capitalism is a lie and it's time to go socialist. So which is it, Mr. Gates? You tell me.
[...] is it true that all of you out there agree with those [libertarian, anti-government] politics?
I am an American and I, for one, disagree with the "down with government at all costs" faction. While I don't trust the current American government, which has mostly become a puppet of big business, I certainly wouldn't prefer to get rid of them. I mean, that would get rid of the only legitimate voice I have in the governance of my own life. It would take away the only thing standing between me and the total rule of corporations. Profit-making corporations are, by law, disallowed from having my best interests at heart, so I'd rather have the government standing between us. Yes, even when the government's default activity is to behave as a corporate puppet. Frankly, I prefer not to stare at the naked face of corporate aggression. I like the government mask much better.
That said, of course I would like it much better if we Americans took back our government. I'd love it if we stopped believing the corporate mantra that government is bad. Government may be bad for some corporations in the short term, but it certainly isn't bad for all economic entities (corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, non-profits, and individuals) over the long term. Quite the opposite, really.
Government serves its masters. The masters of a democratic government is, by definition, the people. When the people stop behaving like the masters, though, someone or something else will step in to fill that role. The multinational corporations are doing exactly that, right now. Americans must reclaim their rightful roles as the masters of their government, and put the government to work on their own behalves.
Which is just a long-winded way of saying that no, I don't hate government. I just hate government that doesn't serve its citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the *BSDs which due to an, uhh, interesting licensing conundrum with AT&T will continue releasing 2.x updates for an eternity (or until the copyright expires, which under the DMCA is the same thing as infinity).
Your statement that all BSD-based operating systems must remain within the 2.x versioning regime is mistaken. You probably meant to say that they must stay within the 4.x regime, but that is also untrue. For a time, the actual Berkley distribution (not the *BSD's, which didn't exist at the time) was confined to the 4.x range. But that hasn't been the case for many years now.
These days, the code used in all currently produced and maintained BSD-based operating systems is entirely unencumbered by legal restraints arising from AT&T copyright claims. Thus, for example, OpenBSD is at version 2.7, while FreeBSD is at version 4.0.
The code has moved forward quite a bit since the 4.4BSD days, and the versioning for each BSD project reflects that. Each follows its own versioning rules.
You might want to check into the history of the BSD side of the UNIX story. It's actually quite interesting.
Your point is well taken, but re-read the court's order:
I see your point, but I took it as meaning they had to open their API's. It says certain people will be permitted to see "relevant and necessary portions of the source code," which I would argue will ultimately be interpreted to mean the portions of the code that amounts to the application programming interfaces. That is, the sections that show the calling procedure, and nothing more. There's no reason for anyone to see how the API itself is implemented if the API's are published fully and completely.
Hmm. Well, I have to take that back. There is one reason to look at the underlying source code: to see whether Microsoft is lying about their API's again. But I'll wager that Microsoft will be willing to go to court yet again over that particular issue.
We'll see what comes of it!
-Joe
Did Microsoft develup any of the technologys we use today? Or any technologys at all? No
You're right, but what I meant was that Microsoft "created" the atmosphere of hostility, lies, etc. that prevails in the industry today. I didn't mean to imply that they were the creators of the key technological advances of our time. I should have made that clearer.
-Joe
The press keeps making this mistake. Opening up the specifications for the programming hooks the operating system offers (opening the API's, in other words), is not the same thing as opening up the source code. The former clearly describes the ways in which applications are expected to interact with the operating system on which they run. The latter is how the API's are created.
This is key. The Microsoft argument that opening their API's would kill them depends on the confusion between API and source code. All they're being asked to do in reality is provide the world with the information it should have had. After all, providing API's is the reason operating systems exist! They should always be made public, or there's no reason to have an operating system, since the application programmers will end up having to write their own interfaces.
Microsoft is just being asked to play fair and do their job correctly. It's not an onerous request!
-Joe
A FreeBSD port is in the works! Not official yet.
:) I have 15 tomes on Java, most from Addison-Wesley's line. I haven't used them in a couple years now, though, because I lost faith in Sun's leadership of Java. Maybe someday I'll stop worrying about it and jump back on the bandwagon. Maybe having it officially supported at the same revision level on more platforms will help ease my worries. I dunno.
Well, that's nice to hear. Java can be done on FreeBSD right now, but it's nice to hear that, unofficially, an official port is in the works.
I think that's a good thing, anyway.
I used to like Java a lot. Heck, I was a Java Lobby member before the counter on their page turned 1000.
I really want it to be an international standard, set and maintained by an independent organzation.
Sorry, I'm just woolgathering here. I just wish so much that Java was a free and open standard, that sometimes seeing these stories sends me off on a little bit of a melancholy fugue.
the beos installer was pretty simple, but i can *honestly* say that i have *never* seen a system better set up than the mandrake 7.1 system i installed a few days ago.
:)
Oooh. I've tried BeOS (it's my wife's second OS, after SuSE 6.4), but I've never messed with Mandrake. I made the mistake of thiking "Red Hat knockoff." Thanks for pointing some of its merits out to me. I'll have to check it out next time my wife and I do an OS survey.
BTW, it's nice to see we're not the only ones nutty enough to spend significant amounts of time fooling around with stacks of operating systems.
-Joe
One thing the author of the article forgot to discuss is that he did not have to install, or configure it. Now, I know for almost everyone on here, that wouldn't be a problem, but you can't tell me it is as easy as WinNT to setup...
/all/ of our hardware, led us through the simple steps of setting it all up (including our dialup account). When we were done, our network was working, the sound card worked, the video was perfect, the mouse was running...even the Epson Stylus Color 740 was auto-detected and the appropriate apsfilter and ghostscript packages installed. This one is definitely ready for consumers.
As others have pointed out, he did try to install Corel Linux and found it to be easy.
I just wanted to jump in here and mention that, a few weekends ago, my wife and I took some time and tried lots of different operating system installs just for the heck of it. We performed the installs on my computer, which normally runs SuSE 6.4 quite well. Epson Stylus Color 740 printer, 3Com 3C905B ethernet, external modem, SoundBlaster AWE64 sound card, Sony 100GS monitor, and Diamond v550 video card. Pretty mainstream, boring hardware (except maybe the printer).
The OS's/distributions we installed were:
- Debian GNU/Linux
- Corel Linux Deluxe
- Red Hat Linux 6.2
- Slackware 7.0
- SuSE Linux 6.4
- OpenBSD 2.6
- FreeBSD 3.3
We just went through the installs of each, accepting the defaults and pretending we knew nothing of UNIX, but did know the names of our hardware devices. We were going for typical consumer knowledge level.
Using that methodology, Slackware didn't install - it bombed out trying to write LILO to the floppy, then said it couldn't write it to the hard drive either. Said there wasn't space on the floppy or the hard drive (16GB hdd). I fooled with it a bit and eventually got it installed, though I had to use more than general consumer knowledge to do so. Once installed, it was OK, but it didn't detect any of my hardware. Not a good consumer distribution.
Debian installed OK, but all those questions after it's copied the packages to the disk were horrid. Of course, Debian doesn't try to be a consumer OS, so this probably isn't a fair assessment of the distribution itself. The fact remains though that a consumer would have a horrible time with it.
Corel Linux seemed pretty slick, but it didn't detect much more than our monitor, mouse, and video card for us. Setting up the printer, modem, and ethernet was our problem after installing, and no consumer's going to know how to do that. Oh, and it left us with a blank root password, which is really bad. Again, not something I'd recommend for consumers.
Red Hat was about the same as Corel (although it spontaneously spit out the CD and rebooted during the package install phase the first time around; I had to re-start the process thereafter and it went smoothly). It detected what Corel Linux did, and again left it to us to figure out printer configuration and so on after the install. Again, not for your average consumer.
SuSE Linux 6.4 was the best. We'd been upgrading right along, so hadn't used yast2 at all. Well, I'd tried out 6.3 at work, and hadn't been impressed with it. But 6.4 does it right: it detected
OpenBSD's install was elegant...if you're a UNIX afficianado. Following the examples in the little booklet that comes with the CD would be fine, but the result would be an install that gives you no pre-setup hardware beyond a network card. You'd have to run XF86Setup yourself to do monitor, video card, and mouse. And as for printers, well, you'd have to roll your own filter/driver setup. Same with the sound card. Definitely not for consumers. (I love it as a server OS, though, and as I mentioned in a previous post, we use it there now.)
FreeBSD was pretty much like the average Linux install. No recognition of the sound card, printer, or even the modem, but the normal setup does give you an opportunity to get the X stuff going. It's not automated, though, and would be very confusing for the average consumer. Again, not a consumer level OS.
So, of those we checked out, the only one I'd recommend for consumers is SuSE 6.4. It does it right. Of course, after it's installed, the user will have to learn some UNIX admin stuff over time, but out of the box he or she will get a very usable workstation.
As for me, I ended up switching to FreeBSD. As someone who knows UNIX well enough (and who enjoys learning new things), it was the ideal OS for me. I ordered 4.0 and the Handbook, and I've been happily using it since then.
How many people have just had a guts-full of anti M$ BS?
I for one am not tired of the anti-Microsoft sentiment I see in this community.
First, this is the world that Microsoft created. They set the tone of the software industry very early on. Specifically, I'm thinking of that enraged letter Gates sent to the Altair community about the pirating of his BASIC interpreter. The letter was extremely unprofessional, whiny, and combative. It set the tone for the industry, and he and his company have kept it up ever since. Dirty tricks, lies, and outright illegal behavior are the rule of the day with Microsoft, as shown quite clearly in the antitrust trial. Being anti-Microsoft, to me, means being against that sort of corporate behavior. So I'm not tired of people being anti-Microsoft.
But that's not the only reason I'm not tired of it. The other reason is that Microsoft has made my life much harder than it would otherwise be. If they hadn't used illegal practices to dominate the industry, my life would be much better. Because in that case, either better products from other companies would be the standard, or Microsoft itself would themselves have produced products actually worthy of the industry leader. Either way, my life as a computer professional would be much better. Instead, they chose to use illegal practices to make their inferior products the standard. Again, this is a very valid reason to be anti-Microsoft.
So, while I sometimes abhor the tactics used by some members of the community, my feelings parallel theirs. And I can't really blame the most ardent Microsoft haters, given Microsoft's criminality, immorality, and general disrespect for its customers.
Being anti-Microsoft is simply the right thing to do.
-Joe
they just don't want to be distributing it [non-free software] themselves anymore.
;)
I respect that. With Mozilla in a usable state now (it's my full-time browser at home; the only other one I use is lynx), I don't see any reason for them to continue distributing non-free software. Those who want that sort of stuff can go get it themselves easily enough.
I finally stopped using software that requires a click-through (such as Netscape, Acrobat, RealPlayer, etc.) at home. I haven't noticed any drop in productivity or enjoyment of my computer. An increase in pride, maybe, but other than that, no appreciable change.
-Joe
Don't use one hammer but educate yourself to be able to use the appropriate tools for the job at hand.
I agree entirely. Each language and, indeed, programming methodology, was created with a particular problem space in mind. Using each for what it does best is not a bad idea. I've programmed in BASIC (remember when it was an acronym, and needed to be capitalized?), assembler, C, Java, and a host of smaller, niche languages. Each did its job well enough.
In my previous post, I wasn't saying that I've never used OO. I was simply saying that I never encountered the problem space for which OO is the most correct solution. I'd begun to doubt the existence of that problem space, and this interview helped me to realize that I wasn't the only one. I'd thought I wasn't seeing this huge elephant that the rest of the world sees standing right in front of me. But, apparently, either I'm not the only blind one, or the elephant isn't as large as it's been made out to be.
-Joe
The OO paradigm promised to save the world of software engineering from bugs, complexity, and maintenance difficulties, but if the last 5 or 6 years are to be considered as indicators for future performance, it's not worth the hype.
Reading that interview's brief discussion of object-oriented programming made me feel really good. I thought I was completely missing the boat on that stuff. I mean, I can see how it makes for esthetically pleasing designs on some level, but try as I might, I couldn't find a reason to stop doing things the way I always have. Maybe I still am missing the boat on OO, but at least I'm in good company. =)
-Joe
I just wrote an essay on this very subject for a friend of mine who is trying to decide which non-MS operating system is best for her. The essay I wrote simply explains why FreeBSD turned out to be the right choice for me, since I can't say what would be right for someone else in a different situation. If you're interested, my essay is here.
-Joe
Imagine if computer programmers could be sued for every bug that causes harm. Brings, it right home, doesn't it.
That would definitely be bad. You're right. But so would having to pay SuperHyperMegaCorp's lawyers. Of course, that's only a fear if you believe that our system of justice is imperfect as I do. Personally, I couldn't take the risk of having to pay for some corporation's team of lawyers if I lost my case. Since there's a chance that justice may not be served (like in the McDonald's case you pointed out), I wouldn't be willing to sue under the system you've proposed.
As for the destitute...how would they sue under your proposed system? Right now, they can sometimes get lawyers to work for them on a contingency fee or even pro bono. Under your system, they would face the prospect of paying for the corporate lawyers. Would they still be allowed to sue, knowing that they can't pay if they lose? If so, who would pay those costs when such people lose? If not, then how is your system better for the poor than the current one?
To me, the system you suggest is better for neither the lower nor the middle class. It is only better for the wealthy. Since they are a vanishingly small percentage of the people in this country, I can't support your proposal.
[I]The problem is that the acquisition of wealth has become an end unto itself.[/I]
That is indeed a problem. When reasonable people such as yourself step back and look at why "the system" exists, they see that economies exist to distribute resources. For a long time now, we've been using currency as a means of exchange - a level of abstraction that folks often mistake for the goal.
Perhaps these days, with all the wonderful work done in game theory, we can find a better method of distributing resources than any we've tried so far. If we take as our thesis that there [i]is[/i] a better way to distribute resources, perhaps we can methodically arrive at a better solution.
But, as you've pointed out, most of us have wholly bought into the current system. We believe in it to such an extent that we can't imagine any alternative other than socialism. And our conditioned resposne to that is repugnance, justified or not. So, effectively, there can be no debate.
It's a tough nut to crack.
Um, you denounce individualism, yet you say you wish everyone could do their own thing. That's pretty much what Jon's talking about. Call it "Freedom" if that makes you feel better.
A lot of these problems could be solved by making sure that corporations bear the full costs of their actions.
Want to pollute (within the limits of the law)? No problem! But the gov't won't be paying for the cleanup out of the general tax fund. Instead, you (the corporation) will be paying for it directly.
You need to downsize? All right. At this moment, the average worker requires X weeks to get a new job, therefore their pay-out must be at least X * his or her weekly salary.
And, oh, you don't like product liability lawsuits? Too bad! Even free market absolutist Milton Friedman says that lawsuits are more efficient market regulators than government agencies could ever be. I propose a new Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to sue corporations into the ground.
Ah, and then there's accountability. Wouldn't it be nice if the people running corporations were held as accountable for their actions as was the average crack-head? I mean, if the Chairman of GM moves his factories to a country it causes more harm to families and their communities than the crack-head ever will. Let's pass some laws that hold everyone in charge accountable, from the senior execs to the shareholders (after all, they're ultimately in charge of the companies they own)!
One idea I particularly like is to make formal the idea of stakeholders. That's the idea that it's not just shareholders who have a stake in a given company. Clearly, the employees have a stake. So do the people in the communities in which the company operates. Each of these stakeholders should have voting rights at shareholder meetings. In a larger sense, everyone in the host country has a stake in each corporation ("What's good for X corp. is good for Y nation," isn't that a corporatist tagline?). Perhaps some voting rights should be exercised by everyone, through the government. Maybe not a full vote per person, but enough to make a difference when it counts.
Of course, none of this will happen until we break the corporations' hold on governments around the world. And that's a problem I really don't have a solution for, sadly. I hope someone else does!
We may yet publish it - but I want to give everyone the opportunity to opt out, or opt in - like I said in the statement.
I'm glad you may still publish it. Part of my worry is that this thing will end up having its legs cut out from under it as people try to edit it. What they said back then may not be what they'd say now. But what they said back then is what the story's all about. Every comment currently in the book is there for a good reason, presumably. Taking some out because of "morning after" regrets will only serve to compromise the book's impact.
The other part of my concern with serializing it is that the book will end up being published so long after Columbine and so many other major news events (the other killings we've heard about since then, the Elian thing, etc.) that no one will care any more.
I want them to care. Please don't let the window of opportunity pass!
I really wish you wouldn't serialize it. You said that what you originally planned to do had no legal hang-ups attached. This is just going to slow the process down. I would prefer that the world have an opportunity to read the stuff that came out of those Hellmouth articles, rather than continuing to keep it within our community.
Publish it! Get it out there! Forget about the hypocrites who whine about corporate intellectual property ownership while jealously guarding their own supposed intellectual property!
>This argument of system resources is pretty much futile.
:) I used a shell account on a BSD system, dialed up from an Atari 1200XL, for a few years. It was lynx and pine all the way, back then!
Perhaps. I have a Celeron 400 system with 128MB RAM. So why am I wishing for a light-weight, standards-compliant, etc. browser?
I prefer to avoid fatware whenever possible.
Oh, BTW, yeah, I know about Lynx.
Take care,
-Joe
I put the very first official Open Source OS box on our network last week. It's the first step in finally joining our LAN with the Internet. There is still a lot left to do, but it's a good first step.
I'm the sole IT person at my company. We have a small LAN that includes some 30 Win 95 clients and two Novell 4.11 servers running IPX/SPx. That part was set up by my predecessor, and it actually works pretty well. As long as you ignore the usual 1-4 crashes per client per day due to the glories of Win 95, that is. At least the servers just hum along. Unless you try to change anything about the Novell GroupWise email system, in which case it more often than not will go berzerk until placated with the proper sacrifice: a long weekend at the office. But that's another story.
So anyway, a while back the CFO decided he wants us on the Internet. We already have our email handled by a dial-on-demand system that allows us to go to/from the Internet, and those who actually need to browse the Internet have modems on their clients, but he wants the full thing. Which is fine with me; like everyone else here, I love putting in new stuff.
So I do a little research. I'm a Linux user, so of course that's the first system I look into for the firewall server, primary and secondary DNS, and all that good stuff. But as I look around, I keep hearing about OpenBSD. It's secure, it's stable, and just about perfect for a server that will be on the Internet. So I get a copy and check it out.
Wow. It's everything I'd been told and more. The intallation was way cool. Granted, if I'd been a UNIX neophyte, it would have given me fits, but as someone who knows and is comfortable with UNIX, I thought it was pretty sweet. The second system I installed it on (yeah, probably like most of you, I find it fun to install new OS's, so I ended up installing it a dozen or so times on a handful of different systems that were laying around) had a flaky CD-ROM drive. So during the package installation, it flipped out, had to drop down to another protocol, and ended up not being able to install the first package. But after it installed all the others, it told me it hadn't installed that package, and would I like to try again? I said yes, and it merrily installed that package. Nicely done; much nicer than the typical Novell patch process, for example.
Anyway, I won't bore you with the details since you're probably more familiar with OpenBSD than I am. Suffice it to say that I'm very impressed with the way it comes up clean, just waiting for you to add only those services you actually need. No futzing around, turing off this and that. No admin tools that re-write your config files. Ah, elegance!
While it wouldn't be my first choice for a desktop OS, it's definitely my first choice for server OS's.
Oh, right, this story had a point other than "OpenBSD is cool," didn't it? The point is that OpenBSD is now running happily on an old Compaq Desqpro 2000 P-166 w/ 96 MB RAM, performing as our DHCP server (remember, we're on IPX/SPX internally, so we still need the basic infrastructure for IP).
Before I installed that server, I wrote a nice report for management, explaining some of the broad issues for Internet security, giving the highlights of the different available server OS's for handling firewall server functions, and recommending that we go with OpenBSD for all our Internet-related servers.
The CFO and Controller both read my report, and they've agreed whole-heartedly with me. They appreciated being given a chance to understand the issues (at an "executive" level, anyway). That has allowed them to follow my reasoning in choosing OpenBSD, and they're behind my choice 100%.
It feels darned good to have finally brought free software into my workplace.
Now if only I can convince them to go with Linux on the desktop someday, I'll be in bliss!
Speaking of which, here's an interesting bit from Reuters. Note in particular this nifty little quote from Scott Culp, program manager for Microsoft's security response center:
``There isn't a security vulnerability in Outlook involved in this at all,'' Culp said, pointing out that the ``Love Bug'' virus could only infect if a user detached the program from the e-mail and then ran it.
I don't think there are very many people in the world right now that wouldn't know that Mr. Culp is flat out lying when he says you have to "detach the prgoram from the email" and then run it to get infected!
It's amazing how brazen Microsoft is.
That looks like a pretty nifty browser. I particularly like how it allows you to split the browser window into multiple frames for simultaneously viewing a web site, an ftp site, and your local disk. Drag and drop ftp within the browser is kind of cool.
:)
However, I use Window Maker, and I don't want to bog down my system with the QT libs. So it's not really something for me.
Maybe one of the Mozilla-based browsers that come out next year will be right for someone in my situation. I just want something light-weight that'll handle HTML 4.0, javascript, and the other standards-based stuff. I really don't care for the proprietary things like Realmedia, Flash, and so on.
I'll take the first 100% standards-based, light-weight, speedy, crash-proof browser for Linux that comes along.
The same drug policies have continued for eight years under Clinton's administration -- does that make them ok? The high rate of imprisonment in this country continues under a Democratic administration, yet the implication is that it's the fault of Republicans.
You're reading too much into RMS's comments. He didn't say anything about Republicans or Democrats. He talked about corporations, government, and people, but didn't say that one party or the other was the root of all evil (or the fount of all good).
As others have pointed out, there is very little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. Once upon a time, there was a greater difference. But for the last 20 years or so, the difference between them has been decreasing.
I know it's hard to realize they're not significantly different. If you read only the mainstream press, listen to mainstream radio talk shows, and watch mainstream TV, you'll hear the minute differences between them emphasized again and again and again, until you start to believe those differences are huge.
But if you back up, and view it all from an objective standpoint, you'll start to see that the policies of each party are very similar to those of the other. Oh, sure, on the issues of little economic worth they differ (abortion, prayer in schools, gun control, etc.). But when you look at the issues which matter the most to corporations, you'll find that the parties are in almost total agreement with one another, with only quibbles standing between them.
Thank you for the GPL, Mr. Stallman, but I can't in good conscience align myself with your view of the world.
Again, I know it's hard to see this stuff right away. But please take the steps necessary to learn about these issues. Work on your own to get the facts about the political situation in America, evaluate those facts objectively, and you will come to a different conclusion about RMS. I'm not saying he's perfect or that he's right on every subject. But his core views are laudable, when viewed in light of the way the world really is.
I grew up in a staunch Democratic household. Yet my teen years were under the Regan administration, and I came to admire him greatly. I went to University for Business Administration, and ended up arguing with one of my professors (Dr. Michaels) about business and government from much the same perspective you're taking. I thought she was sadly mistaken, and believed I was seeing things more clearly.
Eventually, though, she gently convinced me to do my own thinking rather than believing what I was told. So I started researching the issues on my own, using objective materials and media where possible, comparing and contrasting the various viewpoints where possible, and so on. Eventually I came to the conclusion that Dr. Michaels was right. I only wish I'd been able to tell her so...
At any rate. All I'm trying to say is that I know where you're coming from, that I've been there, and that I know the way out. Give it a shot - if I'm wrong, then you just have a more airtight case that the typical reactionary, unthinking stuff that passes for reasoned argument in public fora. But if I'm right, you'll have begun the process of moving yourself out from under the domination of those who would rather you work for their interests, even (perhaps especially) when it goes against your own interests.
Best wishes,
-Joe
Whatever beneficial societal changes may or may not be attributable to the MS marketing machine, they have no bearing on the case.
You hit the nail on the head! I've been thinking about this recently, and here's what I've come up with:
Microsoft executives' oft-repeated contention is that not only haven't they harmed consumers, but that their policies have actually benefitted consumers tremendously. For evidence of this, they point to the productivity gains American businesses have enjoyed in recent years.
Ignoring the fact that their whole argument is beside the point (since antitrust law deals with whether competitors were harmed, rather than whether consumers were harmed), Microsoft's executives are still being misleading when they say their practices haven't harmed consumers. What they've left out in discussing the recent gains in productivity could fill the Grand Canyon.
For example, the rate of productivity increase among American non-farm businesses has been anemic since the 1970's. According to some (as mentioned in the link above), the "huge productivity gains" of the 1990's may, in fact, be illusory. But the bottom line is that whatever productivity gains may have occurred in the 1990's are dwarfed by those in the decades leading up to the 1970's. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual productivity increase in the period 1960 to 1973 was nearly 3%, while for the 1990's it was less than 1%. To the extent they had anything to do with those results, Microsoft should hardly be shouting from the roof-tops about them.
Even assuming that Microsoft's products did increase productivity from what it would otherwise have been, how can those Microsoft executives claim they increased it at a faster pace than would have otherwise been the case, had there been real competition in the Operating System (OS) market? The answer is that they can't make that claim without rejecting the entire economic system we operate under. One of the foundations on which capitalism rests is the theory that competition is better than the lack thereof. That resources are distributed in the most efficient way through competition, that products are better with competition, and that the more competition there is, the better the situation will be for the society as a whole. Thus, Microsoft executives' contention that U.S. consumers were not harmed is actually at odds with capitalist economic system, yet they're claiming that the government is anti-capitalism for working to restore meaningful competition to the OS marketplace.
If we are to assume capitalism is the right economic system to use, then we must also accept its underlying precepts. Since one of those precepts (arguably the most important one) is that competition is good, more competition is better, and a lack of competition is decidedly bad, Microsoft executives' statement that they didn't harm consumers is ludicrous. Competition would have driven down their prices, driven up their product quality, and resulted in a better allocation of resources (consumer and business dollars, as one example) for society as a whole. Basic capitalist economic theory says so, and that has been proven true time and again in the real world.
Microsoft either harmed consumers or capitalism is a lie and it's time to go socialist. So which is it, Mr. Gates? You tell me.
[...] is it true that all of you out there agree with those [libertarian, anti-government] politics?
I am an American and I, for one, disagree with the "down with government at all costs" faction. While I don't trust the current American government, which has mostly become a puppet of big business, I certainly wouldn't prefer to get rid of them. I mean, that would get rid of the only legitimate voice I have in the governance of my own life. It would take away the only thing standing between me and the total rule of corporations. Profit-making corporations are, by law, disallowed from having my best interests at heart, so I'd rather have the government standing between us. Yes, even when the government's default activity is to behave as a corporate puppet. Frankly, I prefer not to stare at the naked face of corporate aggression. I like the government mask much better.
That said, of course I would like it much better if we Americans took back our government. I'd love it if we stopped believing the corporate mantra that government is bad. Government may be bad for some corporations in the short term, but it certainly isn't bad for all economic entities (corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, non-profits, and individuals) over the long term. Quite the opposite, really.
Government serves its masters. The masters of a democratic government is, by definition, the people. When the people stop behaving like the masters, though, someone or something else will step in to fill that role. The multinational corporations are doing exactly that, right now. Americans must reclaim their rightful roles as the masters of their government, and put the government to work on their own behalves.
Which is just a long-winded way of saying that no, I don't hate government. I just hate government that doesn't serve its citizens.