On the spectrum of philosophies with a common heritage from classical liberalism, I would agree that, yes, anarcho-capitalism is an extreme reading of many of the principles espoused by libertarianism.
And to be clear: by "extreme", I mean the literal definition - "to the greatest possible degree", not the Fox/MSNBC definition of "fundamentalist nutjobs who don't agree with this channel's particular groupthink."
Anarcho-capitalism holds the individual as the sovereign authority for that individual. There is no single entity higher than the individual which has the ability to or the responsibility for enforcing & protecting the free market. There can be no expectation that "some entity" outside the individual will protect the free market when there is no recognition of any entity higher than the individual.
Individuals "enforce" the free market by entering into voluntary business relationships with one another, in which they agree that disputes will be adjudicated according to a mutually agreeable set of rules enforced by a non-governmental body. The entire exchange is voluntary, with each individual making their decisions based on their own interests. If it is not mutually agreeable, no agreement is made.
Your statement that there is some single "higher entity" ("one big court," "lawmaking capabilities") that protects & enforces the universally-available free market belies a fundamental misunderstanding which invalidates your assertion that "sane libertarians are actually anarcho-capitalists." Philosophically, "libertarianism" is not "anarcho-capitalism", though both have inherited some key concepts from classical liberalism.
That's why any sane libertarian is actually an anarcho-capitalist
You may have noticed that a prominent root of the term "anarcho-capitalism" is the term "anarchy". Anarchy means, quite literally, "an absence of the state." Given that, I fail to see how you can then conclude:
where there is some expectation that some entity will make sure there is a free market at all times, in all places, which for lack of a better term is called a government
No, in fact a distinguishing feature of anarcho-capitalism is that there is no (emphasis on the 'no') government. All services, including courts and personal defense, would be provided by voluntarily-funded private organizations.
though it's just gonna be one big court, with no executive powers, and lawmaking capabilities of extending existing definitions without being anti-constitutional.
What Constitution? Anarcho-capitalism acknowledges no state with the authority to write and ratify a constitution.
You read the whole thing and it becomes pretty clear that public roads are completely antithetical to the LP's platform.
Please explain how opposing an income tax & deficit spending translates to "no public roads"? I fail to see how one necessarily follows from the other.
Of course, the LP also advocates for the right to corporate monopolies.
And what, exactly, is the problem with a corporation becoming a monopoly? In a free market, that means that the company has been able to produce the best product for the cheapest price, and that people are rewarding that productive ability with their patronage.
Or did you mean to say that a corporation abusing a monopoly position it has attained in order to unfairly limit competition - thus distorting & undermining the free market - is a problem?
If you go back and read the libertarian party's platform, I think you'll find that it has quite a bit to say about free trade & free markets, and all of it is staunchly pro-free-markets. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who thinks that allowing a corporation to abuse the rights of people & subvert the free market is a "good" thing.
In fact, I think you'd find that libertarians, by and large, would see preserving individual rights & free markets as one of the FEW legitimate roles of government.
Honestly, you can't call yourself a Libertarian and drive on roads at the same time.
Yeah, just like you can't be a Republican and not be a god-fearing bible thumper intent on burning gays & liberals at the stake. Or just like you can't be a Democrat and not want America to turn into a completely communist society, where the successful are punished for the sin of productivity.
Libertarianism, just like any other political ideology, has extreme adherents. To assert that anybody who calls themselves a Libertarian must also subscribe to the extreme anarcho-capitalist views you've decided constitute "libertarian philosophy" is thoroughly disingenuous, and just plain incorrect.
But I have never even seen a non-white libertarian.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-- (William Shakespeare)
Here's a handy list of some non-white libertarians. Finding images of the people listed so you can see one of them is left as a google exercise for the reader.
So now, can we please dispense with the generalizations based on your obviously limited anecdotal evidence and supported by your apparently-limited intellect?
If you wish to debate some specific line of thinking that you disagree with as regards libertarian thinking, by all means, argue away. Otherwise, go back to DKOS and think up more snarky insults with your pals there, because the current batch is getting pretty stale.
How can you make this statement, and miss the BLISTERINGLY obvious conclusion that your Operating System is also a means, not an end?
"Linux" is no more MythTV than "Vista" is Windows Media Center or "Mac OS X" is QuickTime.
What a lot of Linux advocates fail to notice is that Apple does a great business supporting a limited subset of available commodity hardware with their alternative to Microsoft's OS. But instead of trying to replicate *that* model, Linux evangelists seem to insist that Microsoft's "here's the CD, install it yourself" approach is the best way to do it.
Pro Tip: When the OS that comes preinstalled works with someone's hardware without any problems, don't be surprised when they use it instead of your half-functional "Free" solution.
Industry lobbyists don't make the laws. Members of the legislative branch of the government do. If you don't like the influence that industry lobbyists have on the laws that are being passed, vote for better legislative representatives, and hold your representatives accountable.
Don't get all butt-hurt because I pointed out that the original post I responded to contained nothing even remotely resembling a legal argument. The commentary made by circletimesquare above is no more relevant as a legal argument than the legendary "X has cooties!" argument used on elementary school playgrounds around the world.
But by all means, continue to miss the point and "fix" my statements with snarky, irrelevant bold text.
Not very? I see a lot of passionate rhetoric, and very little legal reasoning to back it all up.
I'm guessing a judge wouldn't really be swayed by it either, since you don't offer much in the way of reasoning, legal precedent, or rational basis for your argument.
While most of Slashdot may hold these "truths" to be self-evident, they're not quite so self-evident to the congressmen and -women making the laws, nor are they generally to the judges & lawyers arguing the cases.
in short - less qq, more reasoning. IP law r srs bsns.
"infected"? I can't for the life of me understand what you mean by that.
The experiment showed that when you provide phytoplankton (which is generally comprised of unicellular algae) with a lot of a nutrient that encourages it to grow & reproduce, you end up with a tremendous bloom of algae. Then organisms that feed on algae have a plentiful source of nutrient, which means their population explodes, and so on up the food chain, until some new equilibrium is reached.
Short of introducing some artificial control on phytoplankton predators (probably unwise), I would expect this to happen anywhere they attempted it. Phytoplankton is pretty ubiquitous.
What I don't understand about this boot-up time argument, is this: Do you really mean to say that you are completely incapable of doing anything of value without a working computer booted up in front of you?
In most corporate settings I've seen, it's quite common to have lots of meetings, reading, research, phone calls, and other "human interaction" stuff that has to be done on a daily basis. I see no reason why, with a bit of forethough and coordination, you couldn't easily spend 10-20 minutes while your computer boots & logs in returning phone calls, reading or researching something, having a quick conference with one of your co-workers, and getting a cup of coffee. (You were going to do it anyway, why not while your computer is booting & logging in?)
I find these claims of "I can't do anything while waiting for my computer to boot," more hard to accept than the 10-20 minute boot / login times.
Apple doesn't make money selling OSX, they make money selling hardware.
Apple makes money selling an integrated package of hardware, coupled with attractive & easy-to-use software that allow that hardware to do things easily that lots of people want to do. They *sell* the same commodity hardware that Dell, HP, and every other Intel-based vendor does, wrapped up in a pretty case. The differentiator is the software that runs on that hardware, and the "experience" that software offers.
To say that Canonical, a newcomer, should be able to make an easy profit selling software for the same PCs that Microsoft has a monopoly on is ridiculous. To use Apple as support for that suggestion is not well thought out.
Why is it ridiculous? Does Intel only sell hardware to Dell or Apple? Apple is an example of a vendor who has cut MSFT out of the loop to sell that hardware, and they're doing it quite successfully. Clearly there is a space for an alternative to Microsoft, why can't Linux establish itself as an alternative?
I think Linux advocates have spent so long thinking of themselves as the "Anti-Microsoft" that they almost can't conceive of a way to do things that isn't the way Microsoft operates. Instead of trying to replace Microsoft at Dell, compete with Dell like Apple does. There's a space in the market for it, Apple proves that.
To say that Canonical, a newcomer, should be able to make an easy profit selling software for the same PCs that Microsoft has a monopoly on is ridiculous.
To say that Google, a newcomer, should be able to make an easy profit selling advertising on the same search services that Yahoo had a monopoly on is ridiculous.
To say that Toyota, a newcomer (founded 1938) should be able to make an easy profit selling automobiles that GM (founded 1908) and Ford (founded 1903) had a monopoly on is ridiculous.
Or maybe history & industry inertia aren't as important as selling a good product to people who want it?
This goes exactly to my point. There *is* a business model that succeeds in this space, even against unfair / monopolistic entrenched competitors.
I'm curious what elements you consider a part of the "unfair market" that Apple has to invest in to overcome? I understand your point about peripherals & secondary markets, but even in some of those spaces, Microsoft has failed to prosper despite millions of their own money in acquisition, R&D, and investment. I'm not so sure that Microsoft has as much power to move the markets in those secondary areas as you seem to give them credit for.
Very well funded investors foolish enough to dump money into a market where their risks are high and likely returns are comparatively low.
Why is it foolish, and why would you think your returns would be comparatively low, if the following statements are true:
Linux is ready for widespread use as a desktop OS by mainstream users.
Linux is equal to or superior to Windows as a desktop OS for mainstream users.
Where's the downside? Where's the risk? If it's a better product for mainstream use, then it's simply a matter of advertising - "if you build it they will come". If it's not simply a matter of advertising your product, then the Linux community would do well to sit up, take note of what those shortcomings are, and address them - *IF* it wants mainstream adoption for Linux.
There are tons of examples of prebuilt Linux system making good money, just not on the desktop.
Which was the point of my question. Perhaps poorly worded, but that was what I meant - where are the examples on the desktop?
The "desktop OS" market, however, is a different kettle of fish. Desktop OS's are a monopolized market. That means investing in them as a differentiator will cost more and provide a smaller return than a normal market.
And to that, I still respond with: Apple, Inc. They have higher profit margins than vendors like Dell, and manage to make very tidy profits, with a small (~10% or less I believe) market share. It's clearly not impossible to exist quite happily in a small share of a "monopolized" desktop market. So once again, why not Linux?
I don't believe that Microsoft has given Apple a free pass, and crushed every other competitors under the ruthless weight of their monopolistic behavior. If they could crush Apple, I'm sure they would, but they still haven't managed to - Apple is clearly doing something right to survive & thrive in that market. So if we agree that Linux-as-a-product is ready for the desktop market, what is missing from the equation to give it even the 10%-of-the-market appeal that Apple has garnered?
Put it on the shelf, and sell it for $50. Use the $50 to pay for 1) 24-hour tech support phone line and 2) Licensing for MPEG, MP3, etc so that DVD and music playback Just Works, out of the box. I'll buy half a dozen copies and GIVE them to all my relatives. Please, somebody do this already.
And in this, I find two very important questions that every Linux advocate should be asking of themselves:
If this is such a great business model, and the Linux desktop is such a must-win, why aren't you pursuing it?
If you don't see a way to at least break even in terms of running this business operation, why would you suggest somebody else do it to subsidize your hobby?
Apple has shown that there's a quite-profitable market for the "just works" prebuilt system. Why can't Linux seem to duplicate this in carving out it's own desktop niche? Where are the success stories of companies selling prebuilt Linux systems that just work?
At some point, you either have to admit that you don't WANT to have that level of acceptance, or that there are still significant technical issues that prevent you from gaining that level of acceptance.
Personally, I suspect it's a combination of the two factors.
Then explain the number of pristine, never to be used and decidedly overpowered tools sitting in many 'crasftsman' garages?
That's your hobbyist community. For whom Linux is probably the right choice. They may not NEED that drill, but by god they can sleep comfortably at night knowing that if they ever need to drill a million holes, that high-end Makita drill hanging on the wall is right there. How is that any different than the Open Source advocate claiming: "I may not ever personally modify the code. But I want the ABILITY to do so if I so desire."?
The vast majority of the market for a particular piece of hardware is NOT the hobbyist/collector who has money to burn. It's the carpenter, or homeowner, who actually needs the tool to accomplish something. Of the 6-7 billion people on the planet, what percentage have the resources & interest to spend $500 on a single drill they will never use? (answer: Not a large percentage.) Of the 6-7 billion people on the planet, what percentage have the time & interest to change & recompile their own kernel? (answer: Not a large percentage.)
Linux won't garner marketshare based on being the quarter-inch hole maker of Personal Computers.
The point was not that "Linux should bill itself as the quarter-inch hole maker." The point is, Linux needs to decide what problems it's the best solution for, and market itself by showing how it solves them for real problems people have.
If you focus on the tool itself, you will not gain desktop market share. You will always remain a desktop platform for hobbyists, tinkerers, and tech-savvy people with time to spare twiddling bits.
It doesn't. I just find that in general I can dismiss anything that becomes part of pop culture because it's mediocre crap.
So I'm a judgemental asshat that leaps to unsupported conclusions, but you're a model of careful and thoughtful deliberation on the value of things, when your thought process goes like this: "Lots of people like it. It's probably crap."
Most thoughtful people will realize that the personal enjoyment they gain from something has very little to do with "whether or not other people like it," but that seems to be a major indicator for you, by your own admission.
From your earlier post:
I decided many years ago that popular didn't mean good. It means mediocre at best, lowest common denominator drivel more usually.
And then you ask how people draw these conclusions? Perhaps you'd care to reword that statement if you feel it was poor wording. But that statement above puts you squarely in the "it's more important to appear elite than to actually have my own opinion," club. Don't put on the hurt "woe is me" air and claim the big meanies on slashdot are misinterpreting you.
Really you're just alienating the mid-tech-savvy group
Nope. Windows was termed the "alcoholic abusive boyfriend," because people keep using it even though it does bad stuff to them. Most people do not have a completely-Linux-ready system sitting on their desktop (remember, we're talking wireless, video, and all those other little devices and things they think of as "their computer"), and trying to shoehorn Linux into *that* is often just as frustrating as having Windows beat you up. Switching one set of frustrations and annoyances for another doesn't mean "the new guy" is treating you that much better, and that applies across a lot larger section of the market than "mid-tech-savvy" users.
Fair enough. I was curious because I hadn't heard anything about specific growth rates of Linux, and was very curious to know if you had seen a study showing an exponential growth rate over a statistically significant portion of time.
That said, I think your optimism may turn out to be somewhat misplaced for several reasons:
Microsoft has a hell of a lot of inertia behind it. If they simply "keep up" with everybody else feature-wise, they could coast simply on market share for a long time, given the simple fact that it's easier for most to just stick with what they know - if there's no compelling reason to switch to Linux or OS X, why go to all the trouble?
I think as viable replacements for Windows go, Mac OS X is the product to beat. The only thing it doesn't fully offer is the free / open nature of Linux. It's Unix, it has a reasonably attractive GUI & is generally easy to use, it's stable, and it has a mostly-deserved reputation for stability & security. Linux goes one step further on the free & open axis, but in my experience, the GUI & ease of use don't stack up, and for the majority of users, that's going to be a deal breaker.
That's why they can't reinvent a more beautiful and efficient wheel; you might as well switch to OS X or GNU/Linux if you want to have to learn new things.
I agree; however, I think it's quite likely (given the current state of things) that more people will choose to switch to OS X than will choose to switch to Linux.
The only argument left is ethics. People will eventually realize that Free Software is good for Humanity and the responsible choice for governments and institutions. It'll just be easier to realize it when there's finally a decent clone of Office and Photoshop.
I disagree with this statement. I don't think "Free Software" is necessarily a better choice for governments & institutions - it's putting the emphasis in the wrong place; I think "open standards" are where the government focus should lie -- don't discourage commercial software vendors from participating in government contracts, simply specify that they must meet "Rigorous Industry Standards X, Y, and Z, and any deviations from that standard will be grounds for rejecting a bid."
And really, for people who aren't software engineers themselves, the "free software is good" argument is fairly weak. It may be the right thing to do in principle, but nobody's going to make that choice if it means "the software is free, but it doesn't do what I need it to do."
If the free software is as capable (or more capable) then the commercial alternatives, it will flourish anyway - see Apache, Tomcat, Perl, Linux (at least in the server space), Eclipse, MySQL, Python, and numerous other free / open source tools & applications. But if it is not as capable - see sourceforge.net's graveyard of abandoned & half-finished projects - don't expect people to sacrifice functionality they need or want for someone else's freedom to poke around in the code.
He's not the only one. I do too. In a world where what's popular is reality tv and big, bland brands, I decided many years ago that popular didn't mean good. It means mediocre at best, lowest common denominator drivel more usually.
Wow. Just wow. I congratulate you for fighting conformity by putting on a different uniform.
Why does it matter if other people like or don't like the things you do? Are you that insecure that you can't make your own decisions about what you enjoy without using "pop culture" as a guide?
For all the sneering Linux advocates like to do at Mac "fanbois," this "anti-cool is the new cool" attitude is hilarious to me. Welcome to the new club, same as the old club.
Would it make you feel better if I allowed an exception for your objection? For the vast majority of people (those who aren't obsessive collectors of shit they have no need for), the point stands:
If you don't need to drill a hole, you're not going to buy a drill of any type.
Cute, but who the fuck is the marketer marketing to?
Why so defensive?
DeWalt, Makita, and dozens of other hardware manufacturers would certainly like you to buy their product, and they will certainly try to differentiate those products in the minds of consumers based on price, quality, capability, cordlessness, torque, and dozens of other "features". But you miss the point entirely, which is this:
Nobody buys a drill if they don't (or won't, in the case of carpenters) need to make a hole. You may choose a DeWalt drill because of their reputation for quality & durability, but you won't buy ANY drill if you don't need to make a hole.
Your analogy about cooking simply underscores this. Cooking is one "solution" to the "problem" of being hungry. Other solutions certainly include restaurants, vending machines, and room service, frozen meals, and personal chefs.
Referring to Windows & Macs as "tools" is perfectly valid, as is calling Linux a "tool". They are not necessarily tools that solve the same needs, and this is what you don't seem to understand. You see a computer, and you think "I could do a million different things with that, all I need is open software to make it work." Others see a computer and think, "I just want to manage my photos, and send an occasional email, and browse the web."
Their choice in tools may be what you would consider a $5.99 crap-tastic clearance bin special, but if it does the job they need it to do, is it any less suitable for their purpose because *you* don't approve?
Thanks, I'm good with the understanding of what an exponential growth curve looks like. That's why I didn't ask "what's an exponential growth curve look like?"
What I did ask for is a citation to support the assertion that the growth rate is - in fact - exponential.
Slashdot Mirror
On the spectrum of philosophies with a common heritage from classical liberalism, I would agree that, yes, anarcho-capitalism is an extreme reading of many of the principles espoused by libertarianism.
And to be clear: by "extreme", I mean the literal definition - "to the greatest possible degree", not the Fox/MSNBC definition of "fundamentalist nutjobs who don't agree with this channel's particular groupthink."
Anarcho-capitalism holds the individual as the sovereign authority for that individual. There is no single entity higher than the individual which has the ability to or the responsibility for enforcing & protecting the free market. There can be no expectation that "some entity" outside the individual will protect the free market when there is no recognition of any entity higher than the individual.
Individuals "enforce" the free market by entering into voluntary business relationships with one another, in which they agree that disputes will be adjudicated according to a mutually agreeable set of rules enforced by a non-governmental body. The entire exchange is voluntary, with each individual making their decisions based on their own interests. If it is not mutually agreeable, no agreement is made.
Your statement that there is some single "higher entity" ("one big court," "lawmaking capabilities") that protects & enforces the universally-available free market belies a fundamental misunderstanding which invalidates your assertion that "sane libertarians are actually anarcho-capitalists." Philosophically, "libertarianism" is not "anarcho-capitalism", though both have inherited some key concepts from classical liberalism.
You may have noticed that a prominent root of the term "anarcho-capitalism" is the term "anarchy". Anarchy means, quite literally, "an absence of the state." Given that, I fail to see how you can then conclude:
No, in fact a distinguishing feature of anarcho-capitalism is that there is no (emphasis on the 'no') government. All services, including courts and personal defense, would be provided by voluntarily-funded private organizations.
What Constitution? Anarcho-capitalism acknowledges no state with the authority to write and ratify a constitution.
Please explain how opposing an income tax & deficit spending translates to "no public roads"? I fail to see how one necessarily follows from the other.
And what, exactly, is the problem with a corporation becoming a monopoly? In a free market, that means that the company has been able to produce the best product for the cheapest price, and that people are rewarding that productive ability with their patronage.
Or did you mean to say that a corporation abusing a monopoly position it has attained in order to unfairly limit competition - thus distorting & undermining the free market - is a problem?
If you go back and read the libertarian party's platform, I think you'll find that it has quite a bit to say about free trade & free markets, and all of it is staunchly pro-free-markets. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who thinks that allowing a corporation to abuse the rights of people & subvert the free market is a "good" thing.
In fact, I think you'd find that libertarians, by and large, would see preserving individual rights & free markets as one of the FEW legitimate roles of government.
Yeah, just like you can't be a Republican and not be a god-fearing bible thumper intent on burning gays & liberals at the stake. Or just like you can't be a Democrat and not want America to turn into a completely communist society, where the successful are punished for the sin of productivity.
Libertarianism, just like any other political ideology, has extreme adherents. To assert that anybody who calls themselves a Libertarian must also subscribe to the extreme anarcho-capitalist views you've decided constitute "libertarian philosophy" is thoroughly disingenuous, and just plain incorrect.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-- (William Shakespeare)
Here's a handy list of some non-white libertarians. Finding images of the people listed so you can see one of them is left as a google exercise for the reader.
So now, can we please dispense with the generalizations based on your obviously limited anecdotal evidence and supported by your apparently-limited intellect?
If you wish to debate some specific line of thinking that you disagree with as regards libertarian thinking, by all means, argue away. Otherwise, go back to DKOS and think up more snarky insults with your pals there, because the current batch is getting pretty stale.
How can you make this statement, and miss the BLISTERINGLY obvious conclusion that your Operating System is also a means, not an end?
"Linux" is no more MythTV than "Vista" is Windows Media Center or "Mac OS X" is QuickTime.
What a lot of Linux advocates fail to notice is that Apple does a great business supporting a limited subset of available commodity hardware with their alternative to Microsoft's OS. But instead of trying to replicate *that* model, Linux evangelists seem to insist that Microsoft's "here's the CD, install it yourself" approach is the best way to do it.
Pro Tip: When the OS that comes preinstalled works with someone's hardware without any problems, don't be surprised when they use it instead of your half-functional "Free" solution.
But by all means, continue to miss the point and "fix" my statements with snarky, irrelevant bold text.
Not very? I see a lot of passionate rhetoric, and very little legal reasoning to back it all up.
I'm guessing a judge wouldn't really be swayed by it either, since you don't offer much in the way of reasoning, legal precedent, or rational basis for your argument.
While most of Slashdot may hold these "truths" to be self-evident, they're not quite so self-evident to the congressmen and -women making the laws, nor are they generally to the judges & lawyers arguing the cases.
in short - less qq, more reasoning. IP law r srs bsns.
"infected"? I can't for the life of me understand what you mean by that.
The experiment showed that when you provide phytoplankton (which is generally comprised of unicellular algae) with a lot of a nutrient that encourages it to grow & reproduce, you end up with a tremendous bloom of algae. Then organisms that feed on algae have a plentiful source of nutrient, which means their population explodes, and so on up the food chain, until some new equilibrium is reached.
Short of introducing some artificial control on phytoplankton predators (probably unwise), I would expect this to happen anywhere they attempted it. Phytoplankton is pretty ubiquitous.
What I don't understand about this boot-up time argument, is this: Do you really mean to say that you are completely incapable of doing anything of value without a working computer booted up in front of you?
In most corporate settings I've seen, it's quite common to have lots of meetings, reading, research, phone calls, and other "human interaction" stuff that has to be done on a daily basis. I see no reason why, with a bit of forethough and coordination, you couldn't easily spend 10-20 minutes while your computer boots & logs in returning phone calls, reading or researching something, having a quick conference with one of your co-workers, and getting a cup of coffee. (You were going to do it anyway, why not while your computer is booting & logging in?)
I find these claims of "I can't do anything while waiting for my computer to boot," more hard to accept than the 10-20 minute boot / login times.
Apple makes money selling an integrated package of hardware, coupled with attractive & easy-to-use software that allow that hardware to do things easily that lots of people want to do. They *sell* the same commodity hardware that Dell, HP, and every other Intel-based vendor does, wrapped up in a pretty case. The differentiator is the software that runs on that hardware, and the "experience" that software offers.
Why is it ridiculous? Does Intel only sell hardware to Dell or Apple? Apple is an example of a vendor who has cut MSFT out of the loop to sell that hardware, and they're doing it quite successfully. Clearly there is a space for an alternative to Microsoft, why can't Linux establish itself as an alternative?
I think Linux advocates have spent so long thinking of themselves as the "Anti-Microsoft" that they almost can't conceive of a way to do things that isn't the way Microsoft operates. Instead of trying to replace Microsoft at Dell, compete with Dell like Apple does. There's a space in the market for it, Apple proves that.
To say that Google, a newcomer, should be able to make an easy profit selling advertising on the same search services that Yahoo had a monopoly on is ridiculous.
To say that Toyota, a newcomer (founded 1938) should be able to make an easy profit selling automobiles that GM (founded 1908) and Ford (founded 1903) had a monopoly on is ridiculous.
Or maybe history & industry inertia aren't as important as selling a good product to people who want it?
I'm curious what elements you consider a part of the "unfair market" that Apple has to invest in to overcome? I understand your point about peripherals & secondary markets, but even in some of those spaces, Microsoft has failed to prosper despite millions of their own money in acquisition, R&D, and investment. I'm not so sure that Microsoft has as much power to move the markets in those secondary areas as you seem to give them credit for.
Why is it foolish, and why would you think your returns would be comparatively low, if the following statements are true:
Where's the downside? Where's the risk? If it's a better product for mainstream use, then it's simply a matter of advertising - "if you build it they will come". If it's not simply a matter of advertising your product, then the Linux community would do well to sit up, take note of what those shortcomings are, and address them - *IF* it wants mainstream adoption for Linux.
Before we go too hog-wild with mod points... I'd like to point out that YOUR anecdotal experiences don't exactly constitute a trend, either.
Which was the point of my question. Perhaps poorly worded, but that was what I meant - where are the examples on the desktop?
And to that, I still respond with: Apple, Inc. They have higher profit margins than vendors like Dell, and manage to make very tidy profits, with a small (~10% or less I believe) market share. It's clearly not impossible to exist quite happily in a small share of a "monopolized" desktop market. So once again, why not Linux?
I don't believe that Microsoft has given Apple a free pass, and crushed every other competitors under the ruthless weight of their monopolistic behavior. If they could crush Apple, I'm sure they would, but they still haven't managed to - Apple is clearly doing something right to survive & thrive in that market. So if we agree that Linux-as-a-product is ready for the desktop market, what is missing from the equation to give it even the 10%-of-the-market appeal that Apple has garnered?
And in this, I find two very important questions that every Linux advocate should be asking of themselves:
Apple has shown that there's a quite-profitable market for the "just works" prebuilt system. Why can't Linux seem to duplicate this in carving out it's own desktop niche? Where are the success stories of companies selling prebuilt Linux systems that just work?
At some point, you either have to admit that you don't WANT to have that level of acceptance, or that there are still significant technical issues that prevent you from gaining that level of acceptance.
Personally, I suspect it's a combination of the two factors.
That's your hobbyist community. For whom Linux is probably the right choice. They may not NEED that drill, but by god they can sleep comfortably at night knowing that if they ever need to drill a million holes, that high-end Makita drill hanging on the wall is right there. How is that any different than the Open Source advocate claiming: "I may not ever personally modify the code. But I want the ABILITY to do so if I so desire."?
The vast majority of the market for a particular piece of hardware is NOT the hobbyist/collector who has money to burn. It's the carpenter, or homeowner, who actually needs the tool to accomplish something. Of the 6-7 billion people on the planet, what percentage have the resources & interest to spend $500 on a single drill they will never use? (answer: Not a large percentage.) Of the 6-7 billion people on the planet, what percentage have the time & interest to change & recompile their own kernel? (answer: Not a large percentage.)
The point was not that "Linux should bill itself as the quarter-inch hole maker." The point is, Linux needs to decide what problems it's the best solution for, and market itself by showing how it solves them for real problems people have.
If you focus on the tool itself, you will not gain desktop market share. You will always remain a desktop platform for hobbyists, tinkerers, and tech-savvy people with time to spare twiddling bits.
Thank you, I will!
So I'm a judgemental asshat that leaps to unsupported conclusions, but you're a model of careful and thoughtful deliberation on the value of things, when your thought process goes like this: "Lots of people like it. It's probably crap."
Most thoughtful people will realize that the personal enjoyment they gain from something has very little to do with "whether or not other people like it," but that seems to be a major indicator for you, by your own admission.
From your earlier post:
And then you ask how people draw these conclusions? Perhaps you'd care to reword that statement if you feel it was poor wording. But that statement above puts you squarely in the "it's more important to appear elite than to actually have my own opinion," club. Don't put on the hurt "woe is me" air and claim the big meanies on slashdot are misinterpreting you.
Nope. Windows was termed the "alcoholic abusive boyfriend," because people keep using it even though it does bad stuff to them. Most people do not have a completely-Linux-ready system sitting on their desktop (remember, we're talking wireless, video, and all those other little devices and things they think of as "their computer"), and trying to shoehorn Linux into *that* is often just as frustrating as having Windows beat you up. Switching one set of frustrations and annoyances for another doesn't mean "the new guy" is treating you that much better, and that applies across a lot larger section of the market than "mid-tech-savvy" users.
That said, I think your optimism may turn out to be somewhat misplaced for several reasons:
I agree; however, I think it's quite likely (given the current state of things) that more people will choose to switch to OS X than will choose to switch to Linux.
I disagree with this statement. I don't think "Free Software" is necessarily a better choice for governments & institutions - it's putting the emphasis in the wrong place; I think "open standards" are where the government focus should lie -- don't discourage commercial software vendors from participating in government contracts, simply specify that they must meet "Rigorous Industry Standards X, Y, and Z, and any deviations from that standard will be grounds for rejecting a bid."
And really, for people who aren't software engineers themselves, the "free software is good" argument is fairly weak. It may be the right thing to do in principle, but nobody's going to make that choice if it means "the software is free, but it doesn't do what I need it to do."
If the free software is as capable (or more capable) then the commercial alternatives, it will flourish anyway - see Apache, Tomcat, Perl, Linux (at least in the server space), Eclipse, MySQL, Python, and numerous other free / open source tools & applications. But if it is not as capable - see sourceforge.net's graveyard of abandoned & half-finished projects - don't expect people to sacrifice functionality they need or want for someone else's freedom to poke around in the code.
Wow. Just wow. I congratulate you for fighting conformity by putting on a different uniform.
Why does it matter if other people like or don't like the things you do? Are you that insecure that you can't make your own decisions about what you enjoy without using "pop culture" as a guide?
For all the sneering Linux advocates like to do at Mac "fanbois," this "anti-cool is the new cool" attitude is hilarious to me. Welcome to the new club, same as the old club.
Would it make you feel better if I allowed an exception for your objection? For the vast majority of people (those who aren't obsessive collectors of shit they have no need for), the point stands:
If you don't need to drill a hole, you're not going to buy a drill of any type.
Why so defensive?
DeWalt, Makita, and dozens of other hardware manufacturers would certainly like you to buy their product, and they will certainly try to differentiate those products in the minds of consumers based on price, quality, capability, cordlessness, torque, and dozens of other "features". But you miss the point entirely, which is this:
Nobody buys a drill if they don't (or won't, in the case of carpenters) need to make a hole. You may choose a DeWalt drill because of their reputation for quality & durability, but you won't buy ANY drill if you don't need to make a hole.
Your analogy about cooking simply underscores this. Cooking is one "solution" to the "problem" of being hungry. Other solutions certainly include restaurants, vending machines, and room service, frozen meals, and personal chefs.
Referring to Windows & Macs as "tools" is perfectly valid, as is calling Linux a "tool". They are not necessarily tools that solve the same needs, and this is what you don't seem to understand. You see a computer, and you think "I could do a million different things with that, all I need is open software to make it work." Others see a computer and think, "I just want to manage my photos, and send an occasional email, and browse the web."
Their choice in tools may be what you would consider a $5.99 crap-tastic clearance bin special, but if it does the job they need it to do, is it any less suitable for their purpose because *you* don't approve?
Thanks, I'm good with the understanding of what an exponential growth curve looks like. That's why I didn't ask "what's an exponential growth curve look like?"
What I did ask for is a citation to support the assertion that the growth rate is - in fact - exponential.