What pressure is Microsoft applying to third party ISVs to develop software that works in a limited users account? We know the plans for Vista, but a very large number of users will continue to use older Windows versions which could be used with non-administration privileges but for the requirements of particular software (e.g. MYOB, Norton Antivirus, etc).
Limited user accounts could benefit more than any other technology in day-to-day Windows administration. Please no registry hacks;-)
Looking at your supplied definition of Capitalism I can't see how you assert "In a capitalist sense, linux should not exist".
Capitalism:
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
It would appear to me that Linux meets all of these requirements.
The majority of the capital goods used in the production of Linux are certainly within the private domain. In the early days probably 100%.
Investment (or not to) in Linux is a personal or corporate decision and not determined by any collective or government.
And the "prices, production, and the distribution" of Linux is 100% in a free market. NB: Capitalist by this definition doesn't imply it must have a non-zero price, just that its price is set by a free market (ie a market without significant interference).
I am not prohibited from charging for the distribution of GNU/Linux. In fact I can set whatever price I like. However what I can get away with will be determined by my customers and their perceived value of my distribution vs the competition.
Socialism:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Whist Linux is under the GPL the "production and distribution" of Linux is certainly not under collective nor government control and hence fails your supplied definition.
To go further your assertion that postwar Britain was "essentially a socialist system" is true for the examples provided, but also during that period a significant private economy also existed.
Welfare is not something exclusive to Socialist systems. The idealogical difference between the systems is who is responsible for the production and distribution of goods and services, not whether minimum standards of welfare are supplied by the State.
Please, purchase an education, then return to slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
"Live One care failed the test because it only detected 99.91% of the malware rather than 100%. "
If we extrapolate the data does this mean that of the known 100,000+ pieces of malware targeting windows we're only in danger of 9,000+ pieces.
If so what a relief;-)
I'd extend the above question to include:
What pressure is Microsoft applying to third party ISVs to develop software that works in a limited users account? We know the plans for Vista, but a very large number of users will continue to use older Windows versions which could be used with non-administration privileges but for the requirements of particular software (e.g. MYOB, Norton Antivirus, etc).
Limited user accounts could benefit more than any other technology in day-to-day Windows administration. Please no registry hacks;-)
Capitalism:
It would appear to me that Linux meets all of these requirements.
The majority of the capital goods used in the production of Linux are certainly within the private domain. In the early days probably 100%.
Investment (or not to) in Linux is a personal or corporate decision and not determined by any collective or government.
And the "prices, production, and the distribution" of Linux is 100% in a free market. NB: Capitalist by this definition doesn't imply it must have a non-zero price, just that its price is set by a free market (ie a market without significant interference).
I am not prohibited from charging for the distribution of GNU/Linux. In fact I can set whatever price I like. However what I can get away with will be determined by my customers and their perceived value of my distribution vs the competition.
Socialism:
Whist Linux is under the GPL the "production and distribution" of Linux is certainly not under collective nor government control and hence fails your supplied definition.
To go further your assertion that postwar Britain was "essentially a socialist system" is true for the examples provided, but also during that period a significant private economy also existed.
Welfare is not something exclusive to Socialist systems. The idealogical difference between the systems is who is responsible for the production and distribution of goods and services, not whether minimum standards of welfare are supplied by the State.
Enough said!