USA may be a leader but only in the sense that it started it. If you look at other industries, say the car industry, USA nearly got killed in the 80's. The only thing that saved it was unions, tariffs, and "evil" anti-capitalist policies which blocked jobs from dissapearing, and forced foreign companies (eg. Japanese automakers) to build plants in USA and Canada. Without the protectionism of the 80's (which doesn't exist now), it is quite conceivable that USA might lose its IT tech industry. Of course, the same companies will still be around and probably do as well. But there will be very few jobs around in USA or Canada or whatever.
For example. Consider the hardware industry. Quite a bit of the hardware industry has moved to places like Taiwan, Philliphines, etc. Sure the same hardware companies might be around. But there are a lot less jobs here. Try asking a hardware engineer.
OFF-TOPIC
I think you are way too confident about USA. lol I'm going to get labelled anti-American but anyway here it goes... My theory is that USA will collapse within my lifetime. Neeless to say, this will result in all the other countries collapsing too (because many countries economies are driven by USA). It won't be because of bad presidents, or terrorists or anything like that. Rather it will be because of economics. Once capitalism collapses (which I think it will), USA will collapse too. All the signals are there:
(i) $1 trillion debt. USA ascended over a period of say 150 years and accumulated this. I don't think it will even pay it off in 200 years. Do note that interest rates are exponential. You will end up paying more and more as time progresses. You can just look at the poor countries and observe how they will NEVER pay off their debts (regardless of what the capitalist institutions like IMF and World Bank say). 90% of the poor and developing countries will default on their debt (so far, only Argentina and Equador(?) have; along with problems in Indonesia and Zimbabwe).
(ii) Negative trade deficits with practically every country. USA imports more than it exports. This is not a good sign IN MY OPINION (I know economists don't care). The only reason USA even manages to survive is because it gets huge investment from foreigners and income from foreign interests (ie. multinationals bringing profits from other countries). If people stop investing in USA, things are not going to be pretty.
(iii) This reason is a bit far-fetched. Karl Marx said that capitalism will collapse due to a class war. It hasn't happened for hundreads of years but I think it still can happen. The reason: discrepancy in wealth. Whether you like it or not, the gap between the poor and the wealthy is increasing. Capitalists don't care about this (in fact, some argue it is a good sign of a prosperous society:( ). If this keeps increasing (though I don't know if it will), the middle class weakens. Without a strong middle class, the lower class (which outnumbers the upper class) will overthrow it. All the major revolutions occurred when the middle class didn't exist or was weak (eg. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Communist Revolution, etc). Rest assured though:) If what I say is going to be true, it will happen elsewhere first (possibly in South America or Asia, where the poor vastly outnumber the rich and have no incentive to support the govt).
Everything I have said are internal problems created by capitalism. I am not speaking of a battle between systems. I don't think there will be a battle between systems in the near future (unless you count Islamic fundamentialism as a de-facto system--I think too few practice for this to matter). Also, religious systems are too weak IMO. Nazism, Communism, or Plutocracy+capitalism will beat Religious Fundamentalism any day of the week.
Well, many programmers could make a living on lower wages.
I know some jobs are way overpaid (of course, I'm speaking from a socialist view; from a capitalist perspective, nothing is overpaid since market determines everything). I really can't see why many people in the IT field should get $80k+. THe top architects and designers perhaps but I see ads being advertised for seeminly "typical" jobs. However, there is no way anyone could live off a salary similar to those in poorer countries. If some dude in China, India or Eastern Europe gets a 1/3 of your wages, he can make a decent living. But if you get 1/3 of your salary, you will have problems (of course, I'm talking about average IT salaries. Those making a lot will be fine)
And once the economy goes up, there will be jobs for those who are unemployed
How exactly is the economy going to go up? Just because it must?
This is one of the worries I have too (being unemployed and in the computer industry and all... things aren't going to get any better for me:( )...
I think you are wrong when you imply that open-source software are not as polished and commercial. The server applications for GNU/Linux are very polished (eg. Apache, PostFix, Q-Mail, BIND, etc). The desktop applications are lacking but are still pretty good (eg. GIMP, etc)
As far as research is concerned, most of it comes from individuals or public institutions (like universities), so we are safe on that front. Keep in mind that most of the commercial companies are engineering firms and not scientific ones (ie. they simply apply theories and views developed by others)
I personally don't think open-source will by a killer of jobs. The reason is because you need people to install, configure, and possibly patch/modify the software. The software isn't just going to run by itself. Apache is very easy to use and polished, yet a company likely can't run it without help.
THe real threat to tech jobs in the industrialized countries will be out-sourcing to cheap countries. There is NO WAY anyone is going to hire an architect, programmer, support person, etc in the future if they can get similar quality for 1/4 of the cost. If anything, they can simply get 3 people to do the same thing as you were doing yet pay less in total
If there are lower margins, clearly salaries must fall...When margins are high, companies don't need to export their workforce to Bangladore.
Your view seems to be that margins dictate salaries. I strongly disagree with this. Margins have little to do with salaries. Companies may be TEMPTED to provide higher salaries if margins are high but that is not a rule. Just look at some examples.
A lot of the manufacturers in Canada (and USA too) had fairly decent margins yet they decided to move to other countries. Pharmaceuticals, who have pretty good margins, have tried driving wages down. If all they cared about was margins, they wouldn't do such a thing.
Perhaps the best examples would be from the tech industry. Let's consider a company like Microsoft (no, I'm not bashing it). Microsoft, by all accounts, is a very successful company with unbelievable margins. They have margins that are unmatched in the world (for a large company). They basically had more cash in their reserves throughout their life than what some large companies get in sales. So MS has had high margins at all times--I think we can agree on that. Yet they decide to out-source and move to other countries and hence lower wages. If it were all about margins, a company like MS wouldn't do anything yet it does.
What matters to companies and owners is simply the notion that they need to improve their margins. It doesnt' matter how much money they are getting. They always need to get bigger and better. All the examples I listed above basically point to this.
Incidentally, lowering costs results in lower prices for consumers. However, it also results in lower wages. A classic example is Wal-Mart, which has killed many retailers, yet provides very low prices to consumers. People who work in Wal-Mart get lower wages than the old retailers.
In the future, we could make less than a lot of unskilled labourers who just happen to have a strong union.
I hate to say it but I think what you are saying will become true... but it won't be due to OSFSF--at least I don't think so. It will largely be due to free trade agreements and out-sourcing to cheaper countries. I'm unemployed so I don't want to speak for the tech industry but let me just throw out one point. If you can get someone else in another part of the world to do the same job for a quarter of the cost, wouldn't that automatically drive my wage down by a 1/4th? And if you are a leftist, you already subscribe to the view that humans are equal and can do things fairly equal to one another (only thing keeping people apart are structural issues, like unstable governments, corruption, capitalist institutions (eg. IMF), etc). What all this means is that as long as there are mass currency differences, you, I and everyone else will likely lose our job or have to significantly reduce our wages. This goes for all industries!
You are right: there isn't a place that practices pure capitalism anywhere. However, the end goal of capitalists is pure capitalism. It may take 150 years, but they are striving to get there. USA may not be be pure capitalist but it is moving in that direction by the day. Consider the fact that USA has actually privatized prisons (only a few but still). What's next? The small police forces? Many "influential" people in USA want schools to be privatized (because public schools are apparently all failing eg. Philadelphia school board??). And so on. So do you not think USA will reach that state in the future?
Communism may be concidered a form of state capitalism
I disagree. You must have a very loose definition if you consider communism to be a form of capitalism. Capitalism requires free markets! Communism has NO markets: everything is allocated. In addition, capitalism protects individual interests above communal/societal interests, whereas communism is the opposite.
As far as the Nordic countries are concerned, they practice a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Their economic system is capitalistic but their social policies are socialist, with a lot of governemnt control. So they are basically running a form of socialism on top of capitalism.
History shows otherwise, and even today there are many private institutions in USA that are financing production of knowledge for the public good;
What matters here is not whether something is private or not. Rather, whether it is non-profit or not. For example, you can run a charity that helps unemployed get jobs by utilizing some software to help them. That is a private institution but is not what I was referring to. What I was talking about is for-profit organizations, say a private school, private hospital, etc.
Open-source + Free Software = Software Revolution...at least I think so:)
You know... The same thoughts entered my mind when I first encountered the whole notion of open-source and free software years ago. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to replace open-source and free software as OSFSF and am going to assume that they are identical in the context of this article (I think it is a valid position to take, especially since most open-source software is free).
I am still not sure what to make of it. I don't know if it is "good" or "bad".
I suspect that my view of the market is very different from yours. I'm a socialist and on the far left so I don't care about corporations or the state of "wealth". In addition, I have been unemployed since I graduated from school 2 years ago so I might not even find a job in this field regardless of the impact of OSFSF. However, I do care about one thing: workers. I am not a nationalist but I would like to see workers, in this case software developers, be able to make a decent living (don't ask what is decent--for now assume it is the same as your definition). I really do not want to see people lose their jobs, whether it is due to out-sourcing to foreign countries, or due to OSFSF.
the BAD
Your MP3 argument is totally irrelevant. Nevertheless, I understand your concern***. I think software developers WILL lose jobs due to OSFSF. I am pretty sure of it. For instance, if OSFSF replaces Microsoft software, Microsoft will lay off most of its workforce (I imagine at least 20,000 will be let go). It is even worse for small firms who survive by developing proprietary technology (generally protected by patents) to serve a particular industry or niche. OSFSF will likely destroy these companies, meaning more lay-offs. The bad thing here is that the people laid off will have nowhere to go since the OSFSF communities don't generally pay anyone (some are employees of corporations but they are only a few). If this was all there to it, it would be easy to say that OSFSF is bad for societies--at least from a left-wing perspective. But is there more to it?
the GOOD
There is one thing that may render the previous worker argument moot. Someone above who responded before me touched on this. Is it not possible that a new structure may be created in the software industry? After thinking about it for years, I have come to the conclustion that the software industry's structure will change. In fact, I think this is not a just a possibility but a highly likely scenario. I think the workers will be fine under my perceived scenario.
What do I think will/is happen/happening? I think there will be a software revolution due to OSFSF. It will be a MAJOR change. What I think will happen is that software developers will not work for proprietary corporations that try to maintain competitive advantage--as a matter of fact survive--by keeping their technology "secret". Instead, you will end up with a society where software developers will be hired for their skills and capabilities to work on OSFSF. THe firms that provide solutions will not benefit by keeping things secretive; instead, they survive by providing total solutions or valued added services (ie. system integration, custom programming, feature development, support, training, etc). People who are respected and get jobs will be those that CAN do the job. If you can program well, or provide support, or add features to a free/low-cost product, you will be valued. I think programmers and others in the tech industry will be fine. Those that suffer will likely be existing corporations.
I think OSFSF will have an impact similar to what science did in the 1700's (or thereabouts). The software revolution will be similar to the scientific revolution of that time period. If you recall, what the scientific revolution did was to change the structure of society. Before the scientific revolution, you had a lot of shops/stores/whate
Only read the first bit... completely useless post but hey, I'm unemployed and have no life:(
Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.
What do you see in this list of names? Are there any African-Americans on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting black person would have!
How can you really guess whether a person is black based on their names? If you are talking about Africa or something, I can see what you mean. But nearly all African Americans have European names.
This view of production is quite naive. Alot of stuff is produced that is not sold, even though the producers get money for their work. An example is mathematicians that produce mathematical knowledge, and are paid for their work by grants and/or saleries. Most mathematics that are produced are certainly not gonna be "sold" in the near future, if ever.
What the original poster is kind of true. Under PURE capitalism, what you are saying will likely not be true. Once capitalists are done implementing their vision, your description of the events will likely be false. For example, once schools are privatized (I mean ALL schools; not one here and there), chances of people producing knowledge or work for the public good will almost become extinct. Private institutions will not produce goods for the public good. I hate to see it but I really can't see a private school paying mathematicians if they can't make money off them (of course, this will only happen when the private sector stops hiring math graduates since their skills aren't very practical--needless to say, this is already true to some extent).
I'm not sure why copying files would take that long--especially hard drive to hard drive. I know that Linux isn't so good when it comes to accessing mounted drives like CD-ROMs and floppy (floppy support is horrible in Linux right now). But hard drive should be ok. Maybe there is something wrong with your hard drive, or something is misconfigured.
As far as stability is concerned, Linux (the operating system) is very stable. You rarely ever have to reboot if something crashes or if you change your settings. However, the desktop applications aren't so great yet. Mozilla seems to be slow and I have had some apps crash (even the excellent GIMP)
System requirements for Windows and Linux are pretty much identical (unless you are running a barebones server or some specialized box, in which case Linux is better). I have dual-boot Win98SE/Win2000 and Mandrake 9.1 on a PIII-450 with 384MB RAM and performance is similar between all of them. Linux takes longer to boot up but other than that, it is just as fast.
So far there are two main advantages of Linux: (i) stability (especially if you try running servers), (ii) free or low-cost applications. Regardless of how you look at it, Linux is far more attractive for home users and small/medium businesses. Both of these segments don't have a lot of money to spend and GNU/Linux offers them a lot of applications. For instance, buying Mandrake or Red Hat or SuSE for $100 will basically give you an OS+office suite+image editors+internet tools. On the Windows side, you would have to purchase many individual components. In Linux, if you want to create a graphic for your website, you can use GIMP. If you wnat ot upload the files, just use the free FTP GUI program--Windows doesn't have one. And so on.
The way I see it... those that are cost-conscious (basically lower-middle class and lower) will likely go with Linux in the future. While those that don't care about money, will probably stick with Windows.
KoalaBear33
Re:It doesn't run on windows
on
Opengroupware
·
· Score: 1
I don't think it matters too much in this case. This is pretty much a specialized server application. Yes, it would be great if it runs on all OS's. But chances are, if you are going to deploy it, you would go with a specialized Linux box. It's just like trying to run PostFix or Q-Mail (would you really run that on Windows?)
KoalaBear33
Not sure if you are going to read this... but let me do it anyway:)
However, as far as I can tell from my experiences, emotional hate is always bad.
As you pointed out elsewhere, hate isn't the right word. Hate is always bad--because humans value love over hate. Even "rational hate" is pretty bad. The recent Iraqi war where many Americans rationally hated Iraq (or at least Saddam Hussein and his citizens) is a good example.
Of course, this whole thing leads into the philosophical debate on the question "Are pain and destruction inherently bad?" (and if so, why?)
Yes pain and destruction are bad. Why? Because humans don't like it. We would rather avoid feeling it. At least that's how the vast majority of hte population feels. Of course, I'm sure there is a minority which will consider pain and destruction to be perfectly normal (Machevillians (sp?) or people like Genghis Khan come to mind)
if we stop people from shooting each other, etc., then do you count the world as being at peace or not considering the presence of massively destructive phenomena such as volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the like?
Your have a point regarding the defintion and interpretation of peace. For ME, peace will require the end of everything which harms humans. This includes wars, natural disasters, and so forth--including crime! If crime is not lowered to some insignificant value, I wouldn't consider the world at peace. After all, even if there are no wars, getting killed when you step onto the street is not very peaceful.
As a side note, I think some people may not consider natural disasters as disturbing the peace. Religious people will likely always consider nautral disasters as "normal". However, atheists and plain-weird people like me;) will like to see an end to natural disasters. This will likely be overcome by technology (eg. manipulate weather patterns, cloud formations, winds, etc using technology)
On one sense you could say that the planet itself is "not at peace".
I see what you mean... especially if you look at nature. However, I don't think peace necessarily the same thing as avoiding death. For example, a tiger eats a deer. Is that peaceful? I think it is acceptable, at least for humans (for the deer it's another story).
Because they want to win for themselves (incidentally, if you had no competitors, could you be declared the best at something?), which goes back to my selfishness argument.
Here comes my anti-capitalist rant:) I think capitalism, which is practiced in the vast majority of the planet, is reponsible for certain conditions that accentuate hate. For example, capitalism encourages and rewards competition. Competition can lead to hate. I think if the world was practicing a system that rewards co-operation, then you wouldn't necessarily see the same hatred. You will still have competition but at least one guy won't try to stab you in the back.
When all it takes is one person to do something that upsets someone else to "wreck" peace, peace is a difficult thing to attain.
That is not correct--at least in my opinion. The peace that people are talking about here is not absolute peace. Yes, there will always be people who won't like you. This may occur for a whole horde of reasons. Some may hate you because of jealousy or lust. Others may hate you because of greediness... and so forth. In fact, there will ALWAYS be econopolitical conflicts. For example there will always be a conflict between socialism and capitalism, as well as anarchism and fascism. So conflict will always occur... but that isn't the issue here!
What one must consider is the amount of damage. Just because people dislike or hate you doesn't necessarily mean it is bad. For example, a socialist hates a capitalist but it isn't really a problem as long as the socialist doesn't come and shoot you in the head (or vice versa). So it all boils down to the amount of damage done.USA may be hated by at least one party at all times--just like all other countries. However, the fact that some people hate USA and are willing to attack it violenty is very different from...say people who hate Finland yet don't attack it with violence. Do people hate USA? Yes. Do people hate Finland? Yes... but is this to say that neither are at peace?Peace is a state of being! It has nothing to do with reaching absolute peace--which humans likely never will**This is actually not bad. After all, two competitors in sports probably hate each other but is that really bad? *I* don't think so...
KoalaBear33
New poster to slashdot (long time reader though)... sorry about the paragraph screw-up... I guess I need to include the paragraph tags:(... next time...
Here we go again... another gun rights debate...
I disagree with your view that gun-owners protect liberties in countries like USA. The fact of the matter is that they don't! At one time, they may have--but that isn't the case anymore. Allow me to explain.
A long time ago, governments were very weak. They didn't have strong militaries, their power was limited, etc. During that time, gun ownership probably DID protect liberties of citizens. However that isn't the case anymore.
Nowadays, governments are very big and powerful. Their power is immense. For example, governments can carry out mass propaganda campaigns like never before. The police forces are much larger and better armed. The military is far more powerful. And so forth.
Consider the power of the government (I'm speaking in general and not necessarily about USA). Where does the govt get its power? It comes from the military and police. If the military and the police were weak, the government would be very weak. In practically every country the military is far more powerful than a gun-toting civilian. A civilian with a gun CANNOT protect their rights anymore.
Back in the old days, a gun owner WAS able to protect their rights because the militaries were weak. In fact, the difference between a conscript or soldier and a typical gun owner was very slim. The guns the soldiers used was similar to the civilian, the training wasn't that much better, etc. This all changed in the early 1900's. In particular, the emergence of mechanized armour (like tanks, APCs, etc) essentially meant that a civilian with a gun was next to useless. Civilians either don't have access to tanks or can't afford them! It doesn't matter how many guns and bullets you own. There is no way you are going to take down the US military. You could empty your gun while a soldier in an APC smokes some weed;) The point is... the discrepancy in power between a civilian gun-owner and a government gun-owner (eg. police, military, etc) is so great that guns are next to useless.
There are many examples which pretty much illustrate what I'm saying. Consider something like Waco. If I'm not mistaken, the US governemnt deployed tanks. Do you really think Koresh and his gang could have defeated the US govt? NO WAY!*
(* NOTE: I'm on the far left and do not support Koresh in any manner. If anything, he is an opponent of mine).
Another example would be Afghanistan. Believe it or not, Afghans are one of the most heavily armed populace in the world--far more than Americans. Yet, they couldn't do anything when the Taliban rose, and when US govt invaded. Guns were next to useless. Why? Because the Taliban (for example) were heavily armed and could put down ANYONE. Also don't forget that the Afghans had light weapons too (like RPGs, grenades, etc--things that Americans can't own).
The days of thinking that gun rights will protect the citizens is long over. Guns give a fake sense of protection--just like courts. Neither guns, nor the justice system, can protect citizens anymore!!!
I haven't read the full thing but typically rights are backed (i.e. paid for) by society. Presently, governments are proxies for society. So this basically means that the govt will pay for it. For example, countries that value children's rights (eg. children should not work until they are 16) have a cost to pay. This cost is generally paid for by parents and government.
What Estonia is dealing with is pretty minor IMO. What we really need is internet freedom--not internet access.
As a poster above indicated, it all depends on the exact definition and semantics. Are we talking about internet access as a right? Or is it internet freedom (as in speech) a right? Or what?
In any case, I think it is reasonable to grant rights for internet freedom. For instance, if Estonia is making sure that speech, opinions, etc on the internet cannot be monitored/censored/recorded/etc then I would agree with that. However, if it is simply internet access, it is kind of a minor point.
Unfortunately, I don't think the rights Estonia is bestowing is what matter--instead, they are giving minor rights which will make little difference IMO.
Iraq is one of the richest countries in the world so developing a high-tech infrastructure isn't difficult (Iraq is richer than practically every African, Asian, or Latin American country--excluding a few like Japan, etc). Of course, the issue will be who will want to do something like that? US-installed proxy governments won't (USA will lose control if it does)... and internal Iraqi governments won't either (hard to control people when they have access to information).
Slashdot Mirror
USA may be a leader but only in the sense that it started it. If you look at other industries, say the car industry, USA nearly got killed in the 80's. The only thing that saved it was unions, tariffs, and "evil" anti-capitalist policies which blocked jobs from dissapearing, and forced foreign companies (eg. Japanese automakers) to build plants in USA and Canada. Without the protectionism of the 80's (which doesn't exist now), it is quite conceivable that USA might lose its IT tech industry. Of course, the same companies will still be around and probably do as well. But there will be very few jobs around in USA or Canada or whatever.
For example. Consider the hardware industry. Quite a bit of the hardware industry has moved to places like Taiwan, Philliphines, etc. Sure the same hardware companies might be around. But there are a lot less jobs here. Try asking a hardware engineer.
OFF-TOPIC
I think you are way too confident about USA. lol I'm going to get labelled anti-American but anyway here it goes... My theory is that USA will collapse within my lifetime. Neeless to say, this will result in all the other countries collapsing too (because many countries economies are driven by USA). It won't be because of bad presidents, or terrorists or anything like that. Rather it will be because of economics. Once capitalism collapses (which I think it will), USA will collapse too. All the signals are there: :( ). If this keeps increasing (though I don't know if it will), the middle class weakens. Without a strong middle class, the lower class (which outnumbers the upper class) will overthrow it. All the major revolutions occurred when the middle class didn't exist or was weak (eg. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Communist Revolution, etc). Rest assured though :) If what I say is going to be true, it will happen elsewhere first (possibly in South America or Asia, where the poor vastly outnumber the rich and have no incentive to support the govt).
(i) $1 trillion debt. USA ascended over a period of say 150 years and accumulated this. I don't think it will even pay it off in 200 years. Do note that interest rates are exponential. You will end up paying more and more as time progresses. You can just look at the poor countries and observe how they will NEVER pay off their debts (regardless of what the capitalist institutions like IMF and World Bank say). 90% of the poor and developing countries will default on their debt (so far, only Argentina and Equador(?) have; along with problems in Indonesia and Zimbabwe).
(ii) Negative trade deficits with practically every country. USA imports more than it exports. This is not a good sign IN MY OPINION (I know economists don't care). The only reason USA even manages to survive is because it gets huge investment from foreigners and income from foreign interests (ie. multinationals bringing profits from other countries). If people stop investing in USA, things are not going to be pretty.
(iii) This reason is a bit far-fetched. Karl Marx said that capitalism will collapse due to a class war. It hasn't happened for hundreads of years but I think it still can happen. The reason: discrepancy in wealth. Whether you like it or not, the gap between the poor and the wealthy is increasing. Capitalists don't care about this (in fact, some argue it is a good sign of a prosperous society
Everything I have said are internal problems created by capitalism. I am not speaking of a battle between systems. I don't think there will be a battle between systems in the near future (unless you count Islamic fundamentialism as a de-facto system--I think too few practice for this to matter). Also, religious systems are too weak IMO. Nazism, Communism, or Plutocracy+capitalism will beat Religious Fundamentalism any day of the week.
KoalaBear33
Well, many programmers could make a living on lower wages.
I know some jobs are way overpaid (of course, I'm speaking from a socialist view; from a capitalist perspective, nothing is overpaid since market determines everything). I really can't see why many people in the IT field should get $80k+. THe top architects and designers perhaps but I see ads being advertised for seeminly "typical" jobs. However, there is no way anyone could live off a salary similar to those in poorer countries. If some dude in China, India or Eastern Europe gets a 1/3 of your wages, he can make a decent living. But if you get 1/3 of your salary, you will have problems (of course, I'm talking about average IT salaries. Those making a lot will be fine)
And once the economy goes up, there will be jobs for those who are unemployed
How exactly is the economy going to go up? Just because it must?
KoalaBear33
What's H1-B? Thanks...
Honestly don't know...
KoalaBear33
This is one of the worries I have too (being unemployed and in the computer industry and all... things aren't going to get any better for me :( )...
I think you are wrong when you imply that open-source software are not as polished and commercial. The server applications for GNU/Linux are very polished (eg. Apache, PostFix, Q-Mail, BIND, etc). The desktop applications are lacking but are still pretty good (eg. GIMP, etc)
As far as research is concerned, most of it comes from individuals or public institutions (like universities), so we are safe on that front. Keep in mind that most of the commercial companies are engineering firms and not scientific ones (ie. they simply apply theories and views developed by others)
I personally don't think open-source will by a killer of jobs. The reason is because you need people to install, configure, and possibly patch/modify the software. The software isn't just going to run by itself. Apache is very easy to use and polished, yet a company likely can't run it without help.
THe real threat to tech jobs in the industrialized countries will be out-sourcing to cheap countries. There is NO WAY anyone is going to hire an architect, programmer, support person, etc in the future if they can get similar quality for 1/4 of the cost. If anything, they can simply get 3 people to do the same thing as you were doing yet pay less in total
KoalaBear33
If there are lower margins, clearly salaries must fall...When margins are high, companies don't need to export their workforce to Bangladore.
Your view seems to be that margins dictate salaries. I strongly disagree with this. Margins have little to do with salaries. Companies may be TEMPTED to provide higher salaries if margins are high but that is not a rule. Just look at some examples.
A lot of the manufacturers in Canada (and USA too) had fairly decent margins yet they decided to move to other countries. Pharmaceuticals, who have pretty good margins, have tried driving wages down. If all they cared about was margins, they wouldn't do such a thing.
Perhaps the best examples would be from the tech industry. Let's consider a company like Microsoft (no, I'm not bashing it). Microsoft, by all accounts, is a very successful company with unbelievable margins. They have margins that are unmatched in the world (for a large company). They basically had more cash in their reserves throughout their life than what some large companies get in sales. So MS has had high margins at all times--I think we can agree on that. Yet they decide to out-source and move to other countries and hence lower wages. If it were all about margins, a company like MS wouldn't do anything yet it does.
What matters to companies and owners is simply the notion that they need to improve their margins. It doesnt' matter how much money they are getting. They always need to get bigger and better. All the examples I listed above basically point to this.
Incidentally, lowering costs results in lower prices for consumers. However, it also results in lower wages. A classic example is Wal-Mart, which has killed many retailers, yet provides very low prices to consumers. People who work in Wal-Mart get lower wages than the old retailers.
In the future, we could make less than a lot of unskilled labourers who just happen to have a strong union.
I hate to say it but I think what you are saying will become true... but it won't be due to OSFSF--at least I don't think so. It will largely be due to free trade agreements and out-sourcing to cheaper countries. I'm unemployed so I don't want to speak for the tech industry but let me just throw out one point. If you can get someone else in another part of the world to do the same job for a quarter of the cost, wouldn't that automatically drive my wage down by a 1/4th? And if you are a leftist, you already subscribe to the view that humans are equal and can do things fairly equal to one another (only thing keeping people apart are structural issues, like unstable governments, corruption, capitalist institutions (eg. IMF), etc). What all this means is that as long as there are mass currency differences, you, I and everyone else will likely lose our job or have to significantly reduce our wages. This goes for all industries!
KoalaBear33, starry-eyed idealist extradonnaire ;)
There no such thing as pure capitalism.
You are right: there isn't a place that practices pure capitalism anywhere. However, the end goal of capitalists is pure capitalism. It may take 150 years, but they are striving to get there. USA may not be be pure capitalist but it is moving in that direction by the day. Consider the fact that USA has actually privatized prisons (only a few but still). What's next? The small police forces? Many "influential" people in USA want schools to be privatized (because public schools are apparently all failing eg. Philadelphia school board??). And so on. So do you not think USA will reach that state in the future?
Communism may be concidered a form of state capitalism
I disagree. You must have a very loose definition if you consider communism to be a form of capitalism. Capitalism requires free markets! Communism has NO markets: everything is allocated. In addition, capitalism protects individual interests above communal/societal interests, whereas communism is the opposite.
As far as the Nordic countries are concerned, they practice a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Their economic system is capitalistic but their social policies are socialist, with a lot of governemnt control. So they are basically running a form of socialism on top of capitalism.
History shows otherwise, and even today there are many private institutions in USA that are financing production of knowledge for the public good;
What matters here is not whether something is private or not. Rather, whether it is non-profit or not. For example, you can run a charity that helps unemployed get jobs by utilizing some software to help them. That is a private institution but is not what I was referring to. What I was talking about is for-profit organizations, say a private school, private hospital, etc.
KoalaBear33Open-source + Free Software = Software Revolution ...at least I think so :)
You know... The same thoughts entered my mind when I first encountered the whole notion of open-source and free software years ago. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to replace open-source and free software as OSFSF and am going to assume that they are identical in the context of this article (I think it is a valid position to take, especially since most open-source software is free).
I am still not sure what to make of it. I don't know if it is "good" or "bad".
I suspect that my view of the market is very different from yours. I'm a socialist and on the far left so I don't care about corporations or the state of "wealth". In addition, I have been unemployed since I graduated from school 2 years ago so I might not even find a job in this field regardless of the impact of OSFSF. However, I do care about one thing: workers. I am not a nationalist but I would like to see workers, in this case software developers, be able to make a decent living (don't ask what is decent--for now assume it is the same as your definition). I really do not want to see people lose their jobs, whether it is due to out-sourcing to foreign countries, or due to OSFSF.
the BAD
Your MP3 argument is totally irrelevant. Nevertheless, I understand your concern***. I think software developers WILL lose jobs due to OSFSF. I am pretty sure of it. For instance, if OSFSF replaces Microsoft software, Microsoft will lay off most of its workforce (I imagine at least 20,000 will be let go). It is even worse for small firms who survive by developing proprietary technology (generally protected by patents) to serve a particular industry or niche. OSFSF will likely destroy these companies, meaning more lay-offs. The bad thing here is that the people laid off will have nowhere to go since the OSFSF communities don't generally pay anyone (some are employees of corporations but they are only a few). If this was all there to it, it would be easy to say that OSFSF is bad for societies--at least from a left-wing perspective. But is there more to it?
the GOOD
There is one thing that may render the previous worker argument moot. Someone above who responded before me touched on this. Is it not possible that a new structure may be created in the software industry? After thinking about it for years, I have come to the conclustion that the software industry's structure will change. In fact, I think this is not a just a possibility but a highly likely scenario. I think the workers will be fine under my perceived scenario.
What do I think will/is happen/happening? I think there will be a software revolution due to OSFSF. It will be a MAJOR change. What I think will happen is that software developers will not work for proprietary corporations that try to maintain competitive advantage--as a matter of fact survive--by keeping their technology "secret". Instead, you will end up with a society where software developers will be hired for their skills and capabilities to work on OSFSF. THe firms that provide solutions will not benefit by keeping things secretive; instead, they survive by providing total solutions or valued added services (ie. system integration, custom programming, feature development, support, training, etc). People who are respected and get jobs will be those that CAN do the job. If you can program well, or provide support, or add features to a free/low-cost product, you will be valued. I think programmers and others in the tech industry will be fine. Those that suffer will likely be existing corporations.
I think OSFSF will have an impact similar to what science did in the 1700's (or thereabouts). The software revolution will be similar to the scientific revolution of that time period. If you recall, what the scientific revolution did was to change the structure of society. Before the scientific revolution, you had a lot of shops/stores/whate
Only read the first bit... completely useless post but hey, I'm unemployed and have no life :(
Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza. What do you see in this list of names? Are there any African-Americans on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting black person would have!
How can you really guess whether a person is black based on their names? If you are talking about Africa or something, I can see what you mean. But nearly all African Americans have European names.
KoalaBear33
This view of production is quite naive. Alot of stuff is produced that is not sold, even though the producers get money for their work. An example is mathematicians that produce mathematical knowledge, and are paid for their work by grants and/or saleries. Most mathematics that are produced are certainly not gonna be "sold" in the near future, if ever.
What the original poster is kind of true. Under PURE capitalism, what you are saying will likely not be true. Once capitalists are done implementing their vision, your description of the events will likely be false. For example, once schools are privatized (I mean ALL schools; not one here and there), chances of people producing knowledge or work for the public good will almost become extinct. Private institutions will not produce goods for the public good. I hate to see it but I really can't see a private school paying mathematicians if they can't make money off them (of course, this will only happen when the private sector stops hiring math graduates since their skills aren't very practical--needless to say, this is already true to some extent).
KoalaBear33
I'm not sure why copying files would take that long--especially hard drive to hard drive. I know that Linux isn't so good when it comes to accessing mounted drives like CD-ROMs and floppy (floppy support is horrible in Linux right now). But hard drive should be ok. Maybe there is something wrong with your hard drive, or something is misconfigured.
As far as stability is concerned, Linux (the operating system) is very stable. You rarely ever have to reboot if something crashes or if you change your settings. However, the desktop applications aren't so great yet. Mozilla seems to be slow and I have had some apps crash (even the excellent GIMP)
System requirements for Windows and Linux are pretty much identical (unless you are running a barebones server or some specialized box, in which case Linux is better). I have dual-boot Win98SE/Win2000 and Mandrake 9.1 on a PIII-450 with 384MB RAM and performance is similar between all of them. Linux takes longer to boot up but other than that, it is just as fast.
So far there are two main advantages of Linux: (i) stability (especially if you try running servers), (ii) free or low-cost applications. Regardless of how you look at it, Linux is far more attractive for home users and small/medium businesses. Both of these segments don't have a lot of money to spend and GNU/Linux offers them a lot of applications. For instance, buying Mandrake or Red Hat or SuSE for $100 will basically give you an OS+office suite+image editors+internet tools. On the Windows side, you would have to purchase many individual components. In Linux, if you want to create a graphic for your website, you can use GIMP. If you wnat ot upload the files, just use the free FTP GUI program--Windows doesn't have one. And so on.
The way I see it... those that are cost-conscious (basically lower-middle class and lower) will likely go with Linux in the future. While those that don't care about money, will probably stick with Windows.
KoalaBear33
I don't think it matters too much in this case. This is pretty much a specialized server application. Yes, it would be great if it runs on all OS's. But chances are, if you are going to deploy it, you would go with a specialized Linux box. It's just like trying to run PostFix or Q-Mail (would you really run that on Windows?) KoalaBear33
Not sure if you are going to read this... but let me do it anyway :)
However, as far as I can tell from my experiences, emotional hate is always bad.
As you pointed out elsewhere, hate isn't the right word. Hate is always bad--because humans value love over hate. Even "rational hate" is pretty bad. The recent Iraqi war where many Americans rationally hated Iraq (or at least Saddam Hussein and his citizens) is a good example.
Of course, this whole thing leads into the philosophical debate on the question "Are pain and destruction inherently bad?" (and if so, why?)
Yes pain and destruction are bad. Why? Because humans don't like it. We would rather avoid feeling it. At least that's how the vast majority of hte population feels. Of course, I'm sure there is a minority which will consider pain and destruction to be perfectly normal (Machevillians (sp?) or people like Genghis Khan come to mind)
if we stop people from shooting each other, etc., then do you count the world as being at peace or not considering the presence of massively destructive phenomena such as volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the like?
Your have a point regarding the defintion and interpretation of peace. For ME, peace will require the end of everything which harms humans. This includes wars, natural disasters, and so forth--including crime! If crime is not lowered to some insignificant value, I wouldn't consider the world at peace. After all, even if there are no wars, getting killed when you step onto the street is not very peaceful.
As a side note, I think some people may not consider natural disasters as disturbing the peace. Religious people will likely always consider nautral disasters as "normal". However, atheists and plain-weird people like me ;) will like to see an end to natural disasters. This will likely be overcome by technology (eg. manipulate weather patterns, cloud formations, winds, etc using technology)
On one sense you could say that the planet itself is "not at peace".
I see what you mean... especially if you look at nature. However, I don't think peace necessarily the same thing as avoiding death. For example, a tiger eats a deer. Is that peaceful? I think it is acceptable, at least for humans (for the deer it's another story).
Because they want to win for themselves (incidentally, if you had no competitors, could you be declared the best at something?), which goes back to my selfishness argument.
Here comes my anti-capitalist rant :) I think capitalism, which is practiced in the vast majority of the planet, is reponsible for certain conditions that accentuate hate. For example, capitalism encourages and rewards competition. Competition can lead to hate. I think if the world was practicing a system that rewards co-operation, then you wouldn't necessarily see the same hatred. You will still have competition but at least one guy won't try to stab you in the back.
KoalaBear33When all it takes is one person to do something that upsets someone else to "wreck" peace, peace is a difficult thing to attain.
That is not correct--at least in my opinion. The peace that people are talking about here is not absolute peace. Yes, there will always be people who won't like you. This may occur for a whole horde of reasons. Some may hate you because of jealousy or lust. Others may hate you because of greediness... and so forth. In fact, there will ALWAYS be econopolitical conflicts. For example there will always be a conflict between socialism and capitalism, as well as anarchism and fascism. So conflict will always occur... but that isn't the issue here! What one must consider is the amount of damage. Just because people dislike or hate you doesn't necessarily mean it is bad. For example, a socialist hates a capitalist but it isn't really a problem as long as the socialist doesn't come and shoot you in the head (or vice versa). So it all boils down to the amount of damage done. USA may be hated by at least one party at all times--just like all other countries. However, the fact that some people hate USA and are willing to attack it violenty is very different from...say people who hate Finland yet don't attack it with violence. Do people hate USA? Yes. Do people hate Finland? Yes... but is this to say that neither are at peace? Peace is a state of being! It has nothing to do with reaching absolute peace--which humans likely never will* *This is actually not bad. After all, two competitors in sports probably hate each other but is that really bad? *I* don't think so... KoalaBear33
New poster to slashdot (long time reader though)... sorry about the paragraph screw-up... I guess I need to include the paragraph tags :(... next time...
Here we go again... another gun rights debate... I disagree with your view that gun-owners protect liberties in countries like USA. The fact of the matter is that they don't! At one time, they may have--but that isn't the case anymore. Allow me to explain. A long time ago, governments were very weak. They didn't have strong militaries, their power was limited, etc. During that time, gun ownership probably DID protect liberties of citizens. However that isn't the case anymore. Nowadays, governments are very big and powerful. Their power is immense. For example, governments can carry out mass propaganda campaigns like never before. The police forces are much larger and better armed. The military is far more powerful. And so forth. Consider the power of the government (I'm speaking in general and not necessarily about USA). Where does the govt get its power? It comes from the military and police. If the military and the police were weak, the government would be very weak. In practically every country the military is far more powerful than a gun-toting civilian. A civilian with a gun CANNOT protect their rights anymore. Back in the old days, a gun owner WAS able to protect their rights because the militaries were weak. In fact, the difference between a conscript or soldier and a typical gun owner was very slim. The guns the soldiers used was similar to the civilian, the training wasn't that much better, etc. This all changed in the early 1900's. In particular, the emergence of mechanized armour (like tanks, APCs, etc) essentially meant that a civilian with a gun was next to useless. Civilians either don't have access to tanks or can't afford them! It doesn't matter how many guns and bullets you own. There is no way you are going to take down the US military. You could empty your gun while a soldier in an APC smokes some weed ;) The point is... the discrepancy in power between a civilian gun-owner and a government gun-owner (eg. police, military, etc) is so great that guns are next to useless.
There are many examples which pretty much illustrate what I'm saying. Consider something like Waco. If I'm not mistaken, the US governemnt deployed tanks. Do you really think Koresh and his gang could have defeated the US govt? NO WAY!*
(* NOTE: I'm on the far left and do not support Koresh in any manner. If anything, he is an opponent of mine).
Another example would be Afghanistan. Believe it or not, Afghans are one of the most heavily armed populace in the world--far more than Americans. Yet, they couldn't do anything when the Taliban rose, and when US govt invaded. Guns were next to useless. Why? Because the Taliban (for example) were heavily armed and could put down ANYONE. Also don't forget that the Afghans had light weapons too (like RPGs, grenades, etc--things that Americans can't own).
The days of thinking that gun rights will protect the citizens is long over. Guns give a fake sense of protection--just like courts. Neither guns, nor the justice system, can protect citizens anymore!!!
I haven't read the full thing but typically rights are backed (i.e. paid for) by society. Presently, governments are proxies for society. So this basically means that the govt will pay for it. For example, countries that value children's rights (eg. children should not work until they are 16) have a cost to pay. This cost is generally paid for by parents and government. What Estonia is dealing with is pretty minor IMO. What we really need is internet freedom--not internet access.
As a poster above indicated, it all depends on the exact definition and semantics. Are we talking about internet access as a right? Or is it internet freedom (as in speech) a right? Or what? In any case, I think it is reasonable to grant rights for internet freedom. For instance, if Estonia is making sure that speech, opinions, etc on the internet cannot be monitored/censored/recorded/etc then I would agree with that. However, if it is simply internet access, it is kind of a minor point. Unfortunately, I don't think the rights Estonia is bestowing is what matter--instead, they are giving minor rights which will make little difference IMO.
Iraq is one of the richest countries in the world so developing a high-tech infrastructure isn't difficult (Iraq is richer than practically every African, Asian, or Latin American country--excluding a few like Japan, etc). Of course, the issue will be who will want to do something like that? US-installed proxy governments won't (USA will lose control if it does)... and internal Iraqi governments won't either (hard to control people when they have access to information).