The issue with that analogy is that Perrier is categorically better than tap water. If mineral water came from our taps, Perrier would find itself in a very bad position.
Is Windows categorically better than Linux? Certainly, it has benefits Linux does not, but the reverse is also true. To the extent that the two operating systems offer comparable functionality, the difference in their comparative pricing is magnified.
Even assuming that Windows is currently "better", how does it stay ahead of Linux in the long term? Clearly Linux will improve, therefore Windows must improve as fast or faster, if it is to *stay* better. Unfortunately, there are diminishing returns on the improvements you can make to a software system. After a certain point, when it is doing it's job optimally, more features don't actually improve it. Half the features MS Word has added over the past 2 years are just annoyances (talking paper clips, etc).
At some point, in order for your software to truly improve, you need to shift it's paradigm, and make it into a different thing which DOES have room for improvement. You can see this happening with ORACLE's focus on web-enabling their databases. They realize that they already do data retrieval as well as it can be done, so now they're stumbling into the Internet model.
So, back to the business model, Microsoft has to stay better than Linux, which means they must *depend* on incorporating valuable new paradigms (as opposed to shiny widgets) into their software. Paradigms that Linux can't incorporate as fast. Linux just has to be "nearly as good" as Windows was last year. And stay free:-).
If there is a thing that can be had for free, and you're trying to sell it...yeah, you're screwing up somewhere. You're screwing up because the fact that it can be had for free *defines* it's value, and you would like to artificially inflate said value enough to profit from it. That's called a bad business model.
When was the last time you bought film for your digital camera? Yeah. Times change, and however much it may suck to be a film manufacturer, or a buggy-whip maker, or a for-profit software house...times still change.
What I mean is, regardless of the culture you were raised in and the social climate of your environment, at some point, wrong is wrong is wrong.
In this category, I would put anything that infringes on the rights of other human beings, including murder, assault, and, yes, simple theft.
I'm not so sure it's even THAT cut and dried. The purpose of a standing army is obviously to be ready to kill. Laws are backed by the thread of imprisonment, which is in turn is backed by the threat of assault. Yet these mechanisms are ingrained and accepted in our society.
Piracy was theft, unless you could find two countries at war, and then you'd be a Privateer for one side by preying on the other.
I'd probably agree with most Americans about what's right and wrong, but then I share the same culture.
Well, I'm talking about this in the context of a trial or other legal proceedings. I had figured this was clear, given that we're talking about serving process, discovery, etc.
In the context of a trial, I'd agree with you. But in that case, your right to access not impeded by an "artifical barrier". Someone gets subpeonaed, and the legal entity representing you gets the information they need to exercise law.
Back to this specific example, could you guarantee that every request for an IP address was made by an objective party?
If you can discover who injured you, why should we have an artificial barrier that impairs your ability to seek redress for your injury just because the culprit hid himself a bit?
There is a very good reason for this.
While you may think that the Injury->Access->Redress sequence is completely obvious, you have to deal with cases where:
1) The Injury is fake, or misrepresented, or exaggerated
2) The Redress is inappropriate, unwarranted, or malicious
I maintain John Doe stole 90 grand from me, so I'd like his credit card # so I can get it back (with a little for pain and suffering). Ouch, eh?
We don't generally trust private citizens to guarantee that the two issues are addressed objectively. That is the province of law, and legal institutions. Therefore, it is premature to grant private citizens access, without the intervention of a legal entity.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Windows categorically better than Linux? Certainly, it has benefits Linux does not, but the reverse is also true. To the extent that the two operating systems offer comparable functionality, the difference in their comparative pricing is magnified.
Even assuming that Windows is currently "better", how does it stay ahead of Linux in the long term? Clearly Linux will improve, therefore Windows must improve as fast or faster, if it is to *stay* better. Unfortunately, there are diminishing returns on the improvements you can make to a software system. After a certain point, when it is doing it's job optimally, more features don't actually improve it. Half the features MS Word has added over the past 2 years are just annoyances (talking paper clips, etc).
At some point, in order for your software to truly improve, you need to shift it's paradigm, and make it into a different thing which DOES have room for improvement. You can see this happening with ORACLE's focus on web-enabling their databases. They realize that they already do data retrieval as well as it can be done, so now they're stumbling into the Internet model.
So, back to the business model, Microsoft has to stay better than Linux, which means they must *depend* on incorporating valuable new paradigms (as opposed to shiny widgets) into their software. Paradigms that Linux can't incorporate as fast. Linux just has to be "nearly as good" as Windows was last year. And stay free :-).
When was the last time you bought film for your digital camera? Yeah. Times change, and however much it may suck to be a film manufacturer, or a buggy-whip maker, or a for-profit software house...times still change.
I'm not so sure it's even THAT cut and dried. The purpose of a standing army is obviously to be ready to kill. Laws are backed by the thread of imprisonment, which is in turn is backed by the threat of assault. Yet these mechanisms are ingrained and accepted in our society.
Piracy was theft, unless you could find two countries at war, and then you'd be a Privateer for one side by preying on the other.
I'd probably agree with most Americans about what's right and wrong, but then I share the same culture.
In the context of a trial, I'd agree with you. But in that case, your right to access not impeded by an "artifical barrier". Someone gets subpeonaed, and the legal entity representing you gets the information they need to exercise law.
Back to this specific example, could you guarantee that every request for an IP address was made by an objective party?
There is a very good reason for this.
While you may think that the Injury->Access->Redress sequence is completely obvious, you have to deal with cases where:
1) The Injury is fake, or misrepresented, or exaggerated
2) The Redress is inappropriate, unwarranted, or malicious
I maintain John Doe stole 90 grand from me, so I'd like his credit card # so I can get it back (with a little for pain and suffering). Ouch, eh?
We don't generally trust private citizens to guarantee that the two issues are addressed objectively. That is the province of law, and legal institutions. Therefore, it is premature to grant private citizens access, without the intervention of a legal entity.