Re:I think you're giving Windows too much credit
on
Test Driving Linux
·
· Score: 1
Right. What passes for intuitive is only familiarity. But then again, familiarity scores high when you've got a deadline to meet and Open Office has just chewed up that important MS file that someone sent you.
OSS is antithetical to independence. Its very premise is INTER-dependence.
If you think about it community is always premised on inter-dependence. That doesn't mean a community can't be dominated by a powerful organisation or interest group. Or conversely be independent. The question is, independent from what? Of course the members of a community are dependent on each other. But when some members of that community want to run things then other members may find their independence disappearing. remember Bill Gates didn't invent restrictive practices - he doesn't have a single trick that IBM hadn't worked out years before he came on the scene.
There are many things that I don't control, but still wish to protect, including the planet I live on and FOSS. How do I do it? Write stuff like this!
From the moment the EC realises it is part of the evolution of society and starts to give real support to FOSS, we will be moving in the right direction.
Yes they are. It's a delicate balance between higher profile (and more cash) for OS on the one hand and being swallowed up by the monster of mammon on the other. Sup with devil by all means, but be sure to use a long spoon!
The Ghana stock exchange http://www.gse.com.gh/> gained 91.33% in 2004. US American stocks averaged less than 10. Not surprising really if dopes like you are in charge.
Yes, good. But can we stop talking about "the 3rd World" as if it were Onehorse, Texas, pop 217? This is the majority of the world's population we are talking about. How can you generalise about them? Perhaps one billion people live in conditions of absolute poverty and are likely to have hunger issues. A somewhat smaller number live in the rich countries, though many of these are pretty badly off also. That leaves about 4 billion people in the middle. They are all potentially new IT users and guess what? They're all individuals. Some live in Africa, some in a city near you.
I'm sorry, I thought it was you who was oversimplifying the world into binary alternatives: american poor v other poor; communists v right thinking people; etc.
Never mind, I think your economic analysis is pretty good, but you don't seem to understand the difference between competition and co-operation. These are logical opposites and there is nothing to be gained from trying to conflate them. That's not dialectics, it's just wooly thinking. The difference is in the intention, not the physical action. If I put down a brick and then you put a brick on top etc., we might be competing to see who can put down the last brick before it all falls over. On the other hand, we might be co-operating to build a wall. Intention makes all the difference.
If the rowers were really competing, i.e. trying to outdo each other, the boat would go round in circles, as the stronger got the upper hand. They don't do this, they measure their strokes against their partner, thus making sure that the boat continues in a straight line. Competition can be a useful way of regulating and improving efficiency, but co-operation is fundamental to production.
It's always time to "give something back", but that doesn't happen anywhere.
Well I agree with the first part of this, but on the contrary it's happening all over the place (e.g. the story that started this discussion). By MY fairness criteria, all the poor should be helped, not selectively and not to charity, but comprehensively and to justice, see for example http://www.tradejusticemovement.org/wakeup/gwaback ground.shtml. I don't think that Chinese factory workers benefit from their trade deficit (at least not as much as they should). I believe that Americans (among others)do. Even the American poor benefit by being able to buy cheaper goods. Economics is not a zero sum game: the more that is produced, the more there is to go around. That's why the thin client project is a good thing. Fair and properly regulated competition will benefit the economy as a whole, but it doesn't benefit those who directly compete. People rowing in a boat aren't competing with each other, they're co-operating.
First off, from out here it looks like most US projects are designed to rip-off foreigners (that's why you're so rich in the first place). So its about time you started giving something back. Secondly, the US trade deficit means that you are getting goods in exchange for paper promises, not a bad deal! If you think foreigners are doing so well out of it, perhaps you should go work in a Chinese factory for a while. Third, if you think that setting people up to compete against each other is helping them, I can't agree. Actually, the poor never sit around waiting for second hand wealth - they have to work really hard for it. If they were allowed to sell their products and labour on the open market in a fair trade system it would make us all better off. (Of course it would hurt that migratory global capital that you mention, but hey, I can live with that.)
Because us foreigners tend to think that the US is rich enough to look after its own poor. Besides, we're fed up of waiting for the wealth to filter down; strangely enough, most of it seems to flow the other way!
What the majority of people on the planet (known to patronising Westerners as "the third world") actually need is:
1) Fair Trade http://www.tradejusticemovement.org/ - an end to rich Western nations dumping cheap subsidised goods which undercut their local industry;
2) Cancellation of Debt http://www.debtlinks.org/ - an end to the demand that they pay back money lent to "tinpot dictators" by irresponsible agencies with devious motives:
3) Good Quality Aid http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/aid/index.htm - which includes clean water AND computers, but not expensive and self-serving advice from the rich and ignorant.
You have some things right, but most people live in cities already, the majority of those that don't already grow crops. And many people, even in the poorest countries, do use computers.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. What passes for intuitive is only familiarity. But then again, familiarity scores high when you've got a deadline to meet and Open Office has just chewed up that important MS file that someone sent you.
OSS is antithetical to independence. Its very premise is INTER-dependence.
If you think about it community is always premised on inter-dependence. That doesn't mean a community can't be dominated by a powerful organisation or interest group. Or conversely be independent. The question is, independent from what? Of course the members of a community are dependent on each other. But when some members of that community want to run things then other members may find their independence disappearing. remember Bill Gates didn't invent restrictive practices - he doesn't have a single trick that IBM hadn't worked out years before he came on the scene.
There are many things that I don't control, but still wish to protect, including the planet I live on and FOSS. How do I do it? Write stuff like this!
From the moment the EC realises it is part of the evolution of society and starts to give real support to FOSS, we will be moving in the right direction.
He doesn't. They won't. That's why the OS community has to protect its independence.
Yes they are. It's a delicate balance between higher profile (and more cash) for OS on the one hand and being swallowed up by the monster of mammon on the other. Sup with devil by all means, but be sure to use a long spoon!
The Ghana stock exchange http://www.gse.com.gh/> gained 91.33% in 2004. US American stocks averaged less than 10. Not surprising really if dopes like you are in charge.
Yes, good. But can we stop talking about "the 3rd World" as if it were Onehorse, Texas, pop 217? This is the majority of the world's population we are talking about. How can you generalise about them? Perhaps one billion people live in conditions of absolute poverty and are likely to have hunger issues. A somewhat smaller number live in the rich countries, though many of these are pretty badly off also. That leaves about 4 billion people in the middle. They are all potentially new IT users and guess what? They're all individuals. Some live in Africa, some in a city near you.
wrong, I'm the only person around here. you're just a figment of my imagination and I'm tired of thinking about you. goodbye
I'm sorry, I thought it was you who was oversimplifying the world into binary alternatives: american poor v other poor; communists v right thinking people; etc.
Never mind, I think your economic analysis is pretty good, but you don't seem to understand the difference between competition and co-operation. These are logical opposites and there is nothing to be gained from trying to conflate them. That's not dialectics, it's just wooly thinking. The difference is in the intention, not the physical action. If I put down a brick and then you put a brick on top etc., we might be competing to see who can put down the last brick before it all falls over. On the other hand, we might be co-operating to build a wall. Intention makes all the difference.
If the rowers were really competing, i.e. trying to outdo each other, the boat would go round in circles, as the stronger got the upper hand. They don't do this, they measure their strokes against their partner, thus making sure that the boat continues in a straight line. Competition can be a useful way of regulating and improving efficiency, but co-operation is fundamental to production.
It's always time to "give something back", but that doesn't happen anywhere.
k ground.shtml. I don't think that Chinese factory workers benefit from their trade deficit (at least not as much as they should). I believe that Americans (among others)do. Even the American poor benefit by being able to buy cheaper goods. Economics is not a zero sum game: the more that is produced, the more there is to go around. That's why the thin client project is a good thing. Fair and properly regulated competition will benefit the economy as a whole, but it doesn't benefit those who directly compete. People rowing in a boat aren't competing with each other, they're co-operating.
Well I agree with the first part of this, but on the contrary it's happening all over the place (e.g. the story that started this discussion). By MY fairness criteria, all the poor should be helped, not selectively and not to charity, but comprehensively and to justice, see for example http://www.tradejusticemovement.org/wakeup/gwabac
First off, from out here it looks like most US projects are designed to rip-off foreigners (that's why you're so rich in the first place). So its about time you started giving something back. Secondly, the US trade deficit means that you are getting goods in exchange for paper promises, not a bad deal! If you think foreigners are doing so well out of it, perhaps you should go work in a Chinese factory for a while. Third, if you think that setting people up to compete against each other is helping them, I can't agree. Actually, the poor never sit around waiting for second hand wealth - they have to work really hard for it. If they were allowed to sell their products and labour on the open market in a fair trade system it would make us all better off. (Of course it would hurt that migratory global capital that you mention, but hey, I can live with that.)
Because us foreigners tend to think that the US is rich enough to look after its own poor. Besides, we're fed up of waiting for the wealth to filter down; strangely enough, most of it seems to flow the other way!
Forgive my ignorance, but why would this be better and how would it work? Wouldn't it involve more hardware than the slim client solution?
What the majority of people on the planet (known to patronising Westerners as "the third world") actually need is: 1) Fair Trade http://www.tradejusticemovement.org/ - an end to rich Western nations dumping cheap subsidised goods which undercut their local industry; 2) Cancellation of Debt http://www.debtlinks.org/ - an end to the demand that they pay back money lent to "tinpot dictators" by irresponsible agencies with devious motives: 3) Good Quality Aid http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/aid/index.htm - which includes clean water AND computers, but not expensive and self-serving advice from the rich and ignorant. You have some things right, but most people live in cities already, the majority of those that don't already grow crops. And many people, even in the poorest countries, do use computers.
Has Paul Graham been set up by his PR company to plant stories on the web about how effective PR companies are?