Imagine you let business decide, so they want carrot and reject stick. That is exactly the problem.
A free competitive market is beneficial for all players from an efficiency point of view but companies flee competition, they want a monopoly. Companies do not want competion. They want ruinous competition of labour standards, tax competition, subsidy competition between nations.
Smaller companies benefit from a free competitive market with little market entrance barriers. Their margins are low anyway. They gain from interoperability. They don't want government contracts because its too much bureaucracy. They pay their taxes and want the world to be simple.
Large companies want their monopoly markets. They want the governments to subsidies their factories. They want patents that shield them from competition. They want the government to take no strong role in antitrust enforcement and interoperability but pay expensive framework contracts. They want fat contracts from the government.
In politics large companies have their lobbyists in the capitals and policy makers know these companies and think they are important. These companies are always there and they know their brand. Small companies are badly organised and it is difficult for them to fund a lobby organisation, also because their interests are to heterogenous and the aggregation problem (cmp. so called Samuelson condition). SME organisations are overtaken: their management by lawyers and the public affairs guys, their member network is sold to insurance and software companies as a distribution channel, and large companies as Microsoft provide the funding for lobbying in the name of their heterogenous members.
Large Companies are not interested in free markets. Free market ideology was just an ideological tool during the cold war. In the 1920th capitalism wanted state capitalism and fascist regimes. Ironically those who are supposed to support "free markets" haven't actually understood free market economists but advocate it as a kind of reverse-commie laissez-faire extortion business model. Many think tank hired guns are converted commies who sold out to the other side.
In the software a "free market" implies a software price around zero. Free software and free market fit well together.
Are there some licensing methods to enable patents to be used only against blackmail but not for blackmail? A kind of patent gpl. I mean, imagine you collect "whitemail" patents, your company bankrupts and a patent troll picks up these assets to "blackmail" competitors and bankrupt them. A circle of destruction.
How can you "whitemail" your patents. So that even if you becomes crazy or your company is SCOed you as a patent holder cannot carry out any damage to your market and still can go after the bad guys. What social rules can be applied?
I have the impression that the sponsorship rather contributes to no improvements. Best example is the DIB engine. First implementations were proposed years ago but always rejected. It was said it takes like 3 month. Still there would be the option to introduce a DIB engine in a branch and stablize it. It won't happen. We probably have the fourth DIB engine implementation now. The patch rejection policy of the dictatorial project leader can be explained and rationalised by underlying commercial objectives of the commercial implementations which gain here competitive advantages or utter mismanagement of the development process. Sure, it is complicated but the contribution process does not look good. The wine project still does not scale properly in its development.
It also could not be too difficult to cut Wine in pieces and e.g. raise funds for the full and complete implementation of a particular API or the full support of a particular program. It does not happen. I cannot fund the whole API but I would be capable to give a bounty for a particular function. The monolithic development process does not permit real progress. No one knows why a patch is accepted or rejected.
Wine has specific coding styles but no automated quality process like the KDE guys did with Krazy/EBN. And the wine tests used for compatibility checks are known to be very buggy. Wine is nothing but a messy implementation of the Win32 mess.
I also don't see Wine on the political advocacy sphere to urge policy makers to apply stick and carrot for Microsoft to disclose API details, this is a quote from a Microsoft memo found in the 2004 EU antitrust case documents:
"The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead...
"It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move.
"In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago."
That is more than a smoking gun, hein? Don't you think it would have been possible to get funds from governments and industry players that are stuck with their strategic dependency on Win32? The wine project, despite its stupid patch rejection policy does meet ordinary quality standards in any part and is incapable in its managements to enable and encourage such contributions.
Actually the Czech and Polish missile defense was pointing at Russia. Further Europeans don't like it if you make side deals with willing European states.
And why should Russia waste its own law enforcement resources to please American corporations? Rather it tries to make Russia independent from foreign extortion such as dependency on proprietary software. You don't have to become a Stallmanist to understand that the current copyright system benefits US media corporations and works against the interests of artists.
Just watch the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon debate on youtube: Freedom or slavery. It is exactly that superficial view. Everyone was shocked when Bush introduced the terms good and evil in foreign policy.
The American public has been brainwashed with capitalism as a religion while vendors rob their governmental budget.
All nations are today mixed societies, several tools and institutional instruments.
They talk about free market but don't understand market theory. In a free market the license costs of software converge against zero because of non-rivalous consumption. This is why open source reflects a better allocation.
Microsoft is a protectionist company that combats freedom of governments to promote open source, interoperability and a free market, it does so simply because its business strategy is protectionism and lockin.
Ireland offers massive tax cuts, so MIOL licenses the EMEA software sales from Ireland. Other companies do the same. The Irish economic wonder is nothing but tax dumping for multinationals from the United States, at the expense of the US tax income of course and for the benefit of Ireland.
I don't care if Google or Microsoft are profitable as long as their products provide a flawless customer experience. Software and services are important for businesses, from a user perspective. No one cares if they make moneys with it because software is just costs for most businesses, which normally includes shadow costs because software malfunctions. IE is an annoyance because it has not received the open source code peer review that guarantees for better security.
Communism is an utopian state to which Communists believe our societies converge, this is a final state as a determinist transition. Maybe that is a true positive analysis but what makes communists annoying is the normative party idea: To totally break free you need to believe in X and do like the Y and combat Z.
Strong Governmental planning is just one parameter that characterises state socialism but you also find it in the visions of the classic industrialists and mostly put into pratice into the military etc. It is strongly influenced by the military moder of operations.
The reason why the libertarian vision became popular was the cold war.
I share the position that modern production should not be controlled by technocratic monsters, whether governments or large corporations. The open source model shows what efficiency gains you get when you let the professionals do what should be done. The role of a government is to support this infrastructure, in particular to help to overcome monolithic structures.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says that constitutions are eternal? Do you think the Westindian colonies or Ireland had a right to secede?
Imagine you let business decide, so they want carrot and reject stick. That is exactly the problem.
A free competitive market is beneficial for all players from an efficiency point of view but companies flee competition, they want a monopoly. Companies do not want competion. They want ruinous competition of labour standards, tax competition, subsidy competition between nations.
Smaller companies benefit from a free competitive market with little market entrance barriers. Their margins are low anyway. They gain from interoperability. They don't want government contracts because its too much bureaucracy. They pay their taxes and want the world to be simple.
Large companies want their monopoly markets. They want the governments to subsidies their factories. They want patents that shield them from competition. They want the government to take no strong role in antitrust enforcement and interoperability but pay expensive framework contracts. They want fat contracts from the government.
In politics large companies have their lobbyists in the capitals and policy makers know these companies and think they are important. These companies are always there and they know their brand. Small companies are badly organised and it is difficult for them to fund a lobby organisation, also because their interests are to heterogenous and the aggregation problem (cmp. so called Samuelson condition). SME organisations are overtaken: their management by lawyers and the public affairs guys, their member network is sold to insurance and software companies as a distribution channel, and large companies as Microsoft provide the funding for lobbying in the name of their heterogenous members.
Large Companies are not interested in free markets. Free market ideology was just an ideological tool during the cold war. In the 1920th capitalism wanted state capitalism and fascist regimes. Ironically those who are supposed to support "free markets" haven't actually understood free market economists but advocate it as a kind of reverse-commie laissez-faire extortion business model. Many think tank hired guns are converted commies who sold out to the other side.
In the software a "free market" implies a software price around zero. Free software and free market fit well together.
Are there some licensing methods to enable patents to be used only against blackmail but not for blackmail? A kind of patent gpl. I mean, imagine you collect "whitemail" patents, your company bankrupts and a patent troll picks up these assets to "blackmail" competitors and bankrupt them. A circle of destruction.
How can you "whitemail" your patents. So that even if you becomes crazy or your company is SCOed you as a patent holder cannot carry out any damage to your market and still can go after the bad guys. What social rules can be applied?
I have the impression that the sponsorship rather contributes to no improvements. Best example is the DIB engine. First implementations were proposed years ago but always rejected. It was said it takes like 3 month. Still there would be the option to introduce a DIB engine in a branch and stablize it. It won't happen. We probably have the fourth DIB engine implementation now. The patch rejection policy of the dictatorial project leader can be explained and rationalised by underlying commercial objectives of the commercial implementations which gain here competitive advantages or utter mismanagement of the development process. Sure, it is complicated but the contribution process does not look good. The wine project still does not scale properly in its development.
It also could not be too difficult to cut Wine in pieces and e.g. raise funds for the full and complete implementation of a particular API or the full support of a particular program. It does not happen. I cannot fund the whole API but I would be capable to give a bounty for a particular function. The monolithic development process does not permit real progress. No one knows why a patch is accepted or rejected.
Wine has specific coding styles but no automated quality process like the KDE guys did with Krazy/EBN. And the wine tests used for compatibility checks are known to be very buggy. Wine is nothing but a messy implementation of the Win32 mess.
I also don't see Wine on the political advocacy sphere to urge policy makers to apply stick and carrot for Microsoft to disclose API details, this is a quote from a Microsoft memo found in the 2004 EU antitrust case documents:
"The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead...
"It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move.
"In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago."
That is more than a smoking gun, hein? Don't you think it would have been possible to get funds from governments and industry players that are stuck with their strategic dependency on Win32? The wine project, despite its stupid patch rejection policy does meet ordinary quality standards in any part and is incapable in its managements to enable and encourage such contributions.
And Russia is going for Linux as its National Operating System, right?
Yes, what about the poor Aliens and their privacy?
Actually the Czech and Polish missile defense was pointing at Russia. Further Europeans don't like it if you make side deals with willing European states.
And why should Russia waste its own law enforcement resources to please American corporations? Rather it tries to make Russia independent from foreign extortion such as dependency on proprietary software. You don't have to become a Stallmanist to understand that the current copyright system benefits US media corporations and works against the interests of artists.
Just watch the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon debate on youtube: Freedom or slavery. It is exactly that superficial view. Everyone was shocked when Bush introduced the terms good and evil in foreign policy.
The American public has been brainwashed with capitalism as a religion while vendors rob their governmental budget.
All nations are today mixed societies, several tools and institutional instruments.
They talk about free market but don't understand market theory. In a free market the license costs of software converge against zero because of non-rivalous consumption. This is why open source reflects a better allocation.
Free software is about freedom, lock-in is about market protectionism.
Microsoft is a protectionist company that combats freedom of governments to promote open source, interoperability and a free market, it does so simply because its business strategy is protectionism and lockin.
Oh, sex...
So you believe Tetris wasn't revolutionary. I had in in 3D long before Wolfenstein.
Interesting. How does open source and interoperability spending qualify as protectionism. It is more anti-dependency, deprotectionism.
Ireland offers massive tax cuts, so MIOL licenses the EMEA software sales from Ireland. Other companies do the same. The Irish economic wonder is nothing but tax dumping for multinationals from the United States, at the expense of the US tax income of course and for the benefit of Ireland.
ACT is not Microsoft but a Microsoft proxy. I don't think Microsoft is a member of the committee.
The Mandy Habermann website means patent lobby astroturf. This doesn't speak for his credentials.
I guess the Commission is perfectly fine when they abandon IE.exe tying.
It is a financially cheap move to annoy a competitor that fights Google very dirty and the Commission case is pretty solid. Little to losw.
I don't care if Google or Microsoft are profitable as long as their products provide a flawless customer experience. Software and services are important for businesses, from a user perspective. No one cares if they make moneys with it because software is just costs for most businesses, which normally includes shadow costs because software malfunctions. IE is an annoyance because it has not received the open source code peer review that guarantees for better security.
ESP means End Software Patents and is run by the FSF. Microsoft decided not to participate in it.
Take LXDE as a desktop environment and use Debian as your distribution.
You mean the US moon landing was communism? ;-)
Communism is an utopian state to which Communists believe our societies converge, this is a final state as a determinist transition. Maybe that is a true positive analysis but what makes communists annoying is the normative party idea: To totally break free you need to believe in X and do like the Y and combat Z.
Strong Governmental planning is just one parameter that characterises state socialism but you also find it in the visions of the classic industrialists and mostly put into pratice into the military etc. It is strongly influenced by the military moder of operations.
The reason why the libertarian vision became popular was the cold war.
I share the position that modern production should not be controlled by technocratic monsters, whether governments or large corporations. The open source model shows what efficiency gains you get when you let the professionals do what should be done. The role of a government is to support this infrastructure, in particular to help to overcome monolithic structures.
not for my phone
well, the idea was to survive nuclear network interventions