And you can talk waiting lists as long as you want. Canada, the U.K. and many European countries may have waiting lists that force those with money to wait a bit longer, but they also ensure that those without get the same respect. In the US those without the means don't even get on the waiting list.
I'd rather have a government monopoly that is at least accountable to me as a tax payer rather than a corporate one that is only accountable to its shareholders.
Gee, you had to go back 8 years to find three issues. The first one isn't even malware, just bad programming by the vendor that reduces performance. The next two are specific to Apache web servers, NOT Linux.
If those were the best examples you could come up withm then I guess you succeeded in disproving your own point.
And this is relivent why?
The printing press was invented in Germany, so should the Germans control the print industry.
This technology was created in Universties and then release to the public. All public, not just Americans. It is now an integral part of international standards. There are no patents, no copyrights, not even trade marks that prohibit others from doing the same thing. As you say, they should "go build it". If you agree that other countries are perfectly within their rights to build their own system, then what form of ownership do you think the Americans can claim over the current system?
Unfortunately all countries going their own way can seriously damage the Internet, and I expect that is why it has not happened yet. But let the Americans keep this international irritant and it surely some day will. Then we'll all be worse off.
No, it's not. Censorship is alive and well all over the world, and there are many governments who would love to excercise censorship beyond their own borders.
Here's a question: if we give the UN control over the DNS system, what happens to Taiwan's TLD? You only have to look at the last Olympics to know how China views Taiwan, they weren't allowed to compete as "Taiwan", they were "Chinese Taipei". If China had a say over which TLDs are allowed, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the.tw domain so that it is effectively censored worldwide. They can block access to.tw inside their own country now, but they don't have a way to block access to Taiwan websites inside the US or EU. That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS. And that's only the most obvious example. I'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia's TLD the next time they decide to invade, by claiming that Georgia is part of Russia, or maybe they would set up a new South Ossetia TLD to bolster their claim that South Ossetia is not part of Georgia.
You miss my point. My point is that even if this were true, there are enough countries with TLDs around the world of their own that anyone would be able to get a soap box without any problem using another tld. TLDs are not a free speach issue.
The only reason that it appears that censorship is not an imminent threat is because worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced. The reason that worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced is because the US controls the DNS system.
You give the americans far too much credit. I worry about their propensity to go after gaming sites, mod chip sites, and sites like IcraveTV. The americans aren't saints by any stretch.
Wow, I can't believe my original post got modded troll. Obviously some of the moderators out there are offended by the idea that the US should co-operate with the International community instead of dictating to it. Americans?
Unfortunately What you suggest is what will be the likely outcome if the US does not cooperate. That will be sure to break the Internet.
Do I want it taken away from us? Heck no. We hold all the power in this area right now. But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.
Why is that fair and right? Looking at it from a moral standpoint rather than a purely policy standpoint, the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology. What moral reason does the world have to gain control? "We would make better owners of your property than you."?
That's funny 'cause that is exactly how I read the current state of affairs. Sorry to break it you you sonny, but the US does not own the Internet. No one owns the Internet any more that anyone could own the air we breath. It is a common resource, and the US insisting on keeping control of it is an afront to the rest of the world.
Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown. The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US. Does the US really need that?
Maybe the EU is looking at this backwards. Instead of forcing Microsoft to unbundle the browser from the operating system, they should be forcing MS to unbundle the OS from everything else. That is how linux works. The OS being GNU/Linux can be bundled by the distributor with any peripheral software they want. It would allow MS to keep their OS monopoly but would create more competition at the same time
That's OK. I don't think governments are about helping people either.:)
I'm not sure what it is about antitrust laws that hurt society. They put in place to prevent monopoly abuse, price fixing, and tied selling. Things that promote competition and serve the public. Their only flaw in my mind is that they are not brought to bare against abusive companies more often.
"Are Microsoft being punished for being too successful ? I guess thats the only way you can operate a monopoly..."
It is not the virtue of being successful that they are being punished for. It is HOW they got there.
It's an admittedly extreme analogy, but the Mafia is very successful. None the less we punish them because they broke the laws to get there. Not because the are successful. The exact same principle applies to MS.
"Those factors don't seem to be impeding Firefox's progress."
But while most seem to concur that Firefox is a superior browser it still has 1/4 of the penetration that IE has. By what definition is this not impeding Firefox's progress?
"In the same sense that government is exactly about helping people. Unfortunately, in both cases, the theory and practice are not the same."
And don't forget, in the same way that capitalism is suppose to be about freedom. Non the less we still need capitalism, governments, and antitrust laws for our society to function properly.
I must be imagining the Dells and all the netbooks that come with Linux....
Yea sometimes I think that too. Can't find those darn Linux netbooks in any Best Buy, Futureshop, or Stapes around. I had to order mine online from tigerdirect. So don't worry. We understand. It is very easy to feel like this.
"However, take a Linux distribution that uses Gnome or KDE as the default installed desktop and try removing Nautilus or Konqueror (yes Nautilus is a web browser) and you'll find the package manager sticks gnome-desktop or kde-desktop in the list of packages that are also uninstalled."
Bzzzzz, sorry just tried this on Ubuntu 8.04 and you're wrong. konqueror can be removed with a few of its add ons without having any effect on the KDE desktop.
"The same laws enforced on everyone else? Hmmmmm. Name one? Preferably a software company, please."
Well I believe AT+T got broken up many years ago for violating antitrust laws. (The same should have happened for Microsoft) I don't know about any other software companies that have been convicted of antitrust violations but maybe that is simply because other software companies haven't done so. That doesn't mean the law does not apply equally. it just means that MS is the only company to break it (or get caught, 'cause I could name a few others that should be charged too)
That's what open standards are suppose to be for. As a bonus, if everyone adheres to the standards, not only do you get software that works well together, but you get lots of it, and therefore choices. That is what is ultimately good for consumers and what is at the core of the antitrust rulings against microsoft.
"Windows is almost always bundled with machines because that's what customers want, and that's what OEMs seek to deliver. OSX is bundled with macs because you have no choice."
What a load of rubbish. Customers are generally ignorant of other options and the OEMs are more than happy to keep it that way.
1) Microsoft gives them good discounts if they do NOT use any other OS 2) third party companies pay the OEMs to install their trialware.
Actually I think the real solution is to break up the OS devision from the rest of Microsoft. Remove Office, programming, web, etc permanently from the OS.
Unfortunately this is difficult fir the EU to do alone and the US so far has been unwilling.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh well, if we are playing the stats game. Here are a few more stats for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Infant mortality (per 100000)
Canada 4.8 5.9
United States 6.3 7.8
Life expectancy
Canada 81.23
United States 78.11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems
over all cancer mortality rate
Canada 148.2
US 160.5
And you can talk waiting lists as long as you want. Canada, the U.K. and many European countries may have waiting lists that force those with money to wait a bit longer, but they also ensure that those without get the same respect. In the US those without the means don't even get on the waiting list.
fair use/dealings
Because it's not the politicians with the power but the corporations.
Do you have a reference for this 3% figure?
I'd rather have a government monopoly that is at least accountable to me as a tax payer rather than a corporate one that is only accountable to its shareholders.
Cute reply but inaccurate. It would actually be an increase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day#Tax_Freedom_Day_around_the_world I'm still happier living in Canada and having a better social safety net then the US. Even if it does cost more. It is the price for living in a civilized society.
Link: http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/copyright/CFS-Fair-Copyright-Flyer.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_paraphernalia#Legal_restrictions
Gee, you had to go back 8 years to find three issues. The first one isn't even malware, just bad programming by the vendor that reduces performance. The next two are specific to Apache web servers, NOT Linux.
If those were the best examples you could come up withm then I guess you succeeded in disproving your own point.
Dude. The US built ARPANet and the DNS system.
And this is relivent why? The printing press was invented in Germany, so should the Germans control the print industry. This technology was created in Universties and then release to the public. All public, not just Americans. It is now an integral part of international standards. There are no patents, no copyrights, not even trade marks that prohibit others from doing the same thing. As you say, they should "go build it". If you agree that other countries are perfectly within their rights to build their own system, then what form of ownership do you think the Americans can claim over the current system? Unfortunately all countries going their own way can seriously damage the Internet, and I expect that is why it has not happened yet. But let the Americans keep this international irritant and it surely some day will. Then we'll all be worse off.
No, it's not. Censorship is alive and well all over the world, and there are many governments who would love to excercise censorship beyond their own borders.
You mean like the US? http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/2940.cfm http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-236255.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States
Here's a question: if we give the UN control over the DNS system, what happens to Taiwan's TLD? You only have to look at the last Olympics to know how China views Taiwan, they weren't allowed to compete as "Taiwan", they were "Chinese Taipei". If China had a say over which TLDs are allowed, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the .tw domain so that it is effectively censored worldwide. They can block access to .tw inside their own country now, but they don't have a way to block access to Taiwan websites inside the US or EU. That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS. And that's only the most obvious example. I'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia's TLD the next time they decide to invade, by claiming that Georgia is part of Russia, or maybe they would set up a new South Ossetia TLD to bolster their claim that South Ossetia is not part of Georgia.
You miss my point. My point is that even if this were true, there are enough countries with TLDs around the world of their own that anyone would be able to get a soap box without any problem using another tld. TLDs are not a free speach issue.
The only reason that it appears that censorship is not an imminent threat is because worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced. The reason that worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced is because the US controls the DNS system.
You give the americans far too much credit. I worry about their propensity to go after gaming sites, mod chip sites, and sites like IcraveTV. The americans aren't saints by any stretch.
Wow, I can't believe my original post got modded troll. Obviously some of the moderators out there are offended by the idea that the US should co-operate with the International community instead of dictating to it. Americans? Unfortunately What you suggest is what will be the likely outcome if the US does not cooperate. That will be sure to break the Internet.
Do I want it taken away from us? Heck no. We hold all the power in this area right now. But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.
Why is that fair and right? Looking at it from a moral standpoint rather than a purely policy standpoint, the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology. What moral reason does the world have to gain control? "We would make better owners of your property than you."?
That's funny 'cause that is exactly how I read the current state of affairs. Sorry to break it you you sonny, but the US does not own the Internet. No one owns the Internet any more that anyone could own the air we breath. It is a common resource, and the US insisting on keeping control of it is an afront to the rest of the world. Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown. The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US. Does the US really need that?
Maybe the EU is looking at this backwards. Instead of forcing Microsoft to unbundle the browser from the operating system, they should be forcing MS to unbundle the OS from everything else. That is how linux works. The OS being GNU/Linux can be bundled by the distributor with any peripheral software they want. It would allow MS to keep their OS monopoly but would create more competition at the same time
That's OK. I don't think governments are about helping people either. :)
I'm not sure what it is about antitrust laws that hurt society. They put in place to prevent monopoly abuse, price fixing, and tied selling. Things that promote competition and serve the public. Their only flaw in my mind is that they are not brought to bare against abusive companies more often.
"Are Microsoft being punished for being too successful ? I guess thats the only way you can operate a monopoly..."
It is not the virtue of being successful that they are being punished for. It is HOW they got there.
It's an admittedly extreme analogy, but the Mafia is very successful. None the less we punish them because they broke the laws to get there. Not because the are successful. The exact same principle applies to MS.
"Those factors don't seem to be impeding Firefox's progress."
But while most seem to concur that Firefox is a superior browser it still has 1/4 of the penetration that IE has. By what definition is this not impeding Firefox's progress?
"In the same sense that government is exactly about helping people. Unfortunately, in both cases, the theory and practice are not the same."
And don't forget, in the same way that capitalism is suppose to be about freedom. Non the less we still need capitalism, governments, and antitrust laws for our society to function properly.
Yea sometimes I think that too. Can't find those darn Linux netbooks in any Best Buy, Futureshop, or Stapes around. I had to order mine online from tigerdirect. So don't worry. We understand. It is very easy to feel like this.
"However, take a Linux distribution that uses Gnome or KDE as the default installed desktop and try removing Nautilus or Konqueror (yes Nautilus is a web browser) and you'll find the package manager sticks gnome-desktop or kde-desktop in the list of packages that are also uninstalled."
Bzzzzz, sorry just tried this on Ubuntu 8.04 and you're wrong. konqueror can be removed with a few of its add ons without having any effect on the KDE desktop.
Try again.
"The same laws enforced on everyone else? Hmmmmm. Name one? Preferably a software company, please."
Well I believe AT+T got broken up many years ago for violating antitrust laws. (The same should have happened for Microsoft) I don't know about any other software companies that have been convicted of antitrust violations but maybe that is simply because other software companies haven't done so. That doesn't mean the law does not apply equally. it just means that MS is the only company to break it (or get caught, 'cause I could name a few others that should be charged too)
That's what open standards are suppose to be for. As a bonus, if everyone adheres to the standards, not only do you get software that works well together, but you get lots of it, and therefore choices. That is what is ultimately good for consumers and what is at the core of the antitrust rulings against microsoft.
"Windows is almost always bundled with machines because that's what customers want, and that's what OEMs seek to deliver. OSX is bundled with macs because you have no choice."
What a load of rubbish. Customers are generally ignorant of other options and the OEMs are more than happy to keep it that way.
1) Microsoft gives them good discounts if they do NOT use any other OS
2) third party companies pay the OEMs to install their trialware.
Actually I think the real solution is to break up the OS devision from the rest of Microsoft. Remove Office, programming, web, etc permanently from the OS.
Unfortunately this is difficult fir the EU to do alone and the US so far has been unwilling.
wget http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.0.6&os=win&lang=en-US
of course
F1