Note: I do not necessarily belive in everythin I say n most o the time it is jus for the sake of argument that I will say somethin, in the hope that your argument becomes stronger through criticism. Also I have nothin in particular against Microsoft or ne one for that matter. Hate the sin n not the sinner!
quasi writes:
Microsoft is a company like any other.
hmm...
It is a commercial venture who has to look after the prosperity of its shareholders. They also have to protect themselves from the competition by devising schemes and strategies to beat them.
NOD! NOD! Totally agree. But these schemes and stratrgies have to be legal n ethical. Competition is not bad n needed even, so there r laws to regulate this. Cant say Microsoft is doin this?
In this they are no different from any other company (take the example of the Cola wars).
Cola my friend is not a functional product as software is!
In this business environment, the stronger, smarter one survives. Very much like nature.
lesse... in nature if a weak/sick offspring is born...it is damned to die. Would u do the same to u'r child? Nature my friend is not the ultimate rule book for humans atleast! The point is that in the "new" business environment, it is the smarter n faster ones that survive. Take the case of human beings...we r excellent @ survivin not because of our strength but because of our brains!
RMS is a person. More than that he is an academician. He is one of that breed for whom creativity is reward enough - that is their life passion. I have lived among academicians all my life. There are scientists and researchers who sweat and work their butts off, expanding the frontiers of science and human understanding - on a flat salary. Is it possible to imagine a Mathematician selling his proof for money to different Universities? Why, the mathematician who developed most of game theory, John Nash jr., on which much of modern economics is based, did not become a millionaire (or receive _any_ monetary benefit out of it). Here it is learning for the sake of the thirst, not money. Even as near as till 50 years back all pure sciences used to enjoy this kind of freedom. The freedom of not only sharing but distributing knowledge. RMS feels computers also fall into this category, he being part of the breed. I for one agree with him. Whatever, if ever, work I do in this field will be there for all. But why do we insist that everyone should follow this way of life.
NOD again :) This also proves the point that none of these acads r starvin to death! They make enough, not a lot, to have a decent life.
Trade and commerce are as old as our civilisations themselves. They have their valid place in society. For eg. Edison and the founder of Gillette tried and failed many time before they perfected and _sold_ their products. There were some like Vincent Van Gaug who painted to pass the time(to keep his sanity maybe?) and there were other who did it because some King commissioned them. Both is art. The point is, the driving force for some is money and for someone something else. We cannot call one correct and the other wrong. To make use of intellectual property for the better of all or the better of oneself has to be the decision of the intellectual himself.
hmm.. lessay I find the cure to AIDS or CANCER n I decide that I will get immense pleasure seein ppl die because I have patented the cure n dont wann any one to avail of it. It's my decision after all as u say! The point is that, to be able to function properly (sanely) in a society we need some objective Rights n Wrongs, that generally everyone/majority will agree to. ofcource u could totally disagree with this but this is generally how most societies in the world function.
As FSF is _free_ to choose and decide its ideology and strategy, so is Microsoft _free_ to choose its priorities. And so are you _free_ to choose between them and the others... This is the real freedom.
This is *not* real freedom my friend. thats like sayin i have the right to kill u n u have the right to kill me. This is idealistic freedom n not pragmatic. Freedom in a social setting comes with "just" limitations.
Does a restaurant, who has a popular special dish, disclose its secret recipe?
again, ne dish is not functional in the same sense as software is. u "use" software n u "enjoy" a dish/art, from a enduser point of view.
then they are within their right to sell this software - with all strings attached.
??? eh?.....
If there is any other better alternative to them available, they will be wiped out of the market.
Thats the point, Microsoft *kill/buys* all its alternative.
In society people are driven by various things - ego, pride, creative urge, credit from others, lust or money, need for money, philanthropy etc. So long as these things adhere to the common moral code of conduct we all agree to, we can smirk at some of them but we cannot call any of them wrong.
NOD! NOD! totally agree. emphasis on *MORAL CODE*
Sandeep --- "I am better off than he(a man reputed for wisdom) is, for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know..." ~Plato
___________________________________________________________________ *FREE* Web-based Email Accounts at BOX.COM - http://www.box.com/?i=2 Access Your Email from ANYWHERE!
At 05:14 AM 7/23/01 -0400, Sandeep wrote:
Hate the sin n not the sinner!
this leaf everyone should pick up... ;)
quasi writes:
Microsoft is a company like any other.
hmm...
I forgot to add, that whenever I say Microsoft, I mean any company selling proprietary software.
It is a commercial venture who has to look after the prosperity of its shareholders. They also have to protect themselves from the competition by devising schemes and strategies to beat them.
NOD! NOD! Totally agree. But these schemes and stratrgies have to be legal n ethical. Competition is not bad n needed even, so there r laws to regulate this. Cant say Microsoft is doin this?
The terms "legal and ethical" were implied when I mentioned schemes and strategies. We are talking about a sane & functioning society. Microsoft, as an example, has to follow the US rules and regulations. I feel they have been within the law except for a few cases when they have been successfully sued. But I suppose this situation is no different from any other business. Note that when I say 'ethical', I mean the ethics or morality that our society agrees to as a whole. On a personal level ethics can have a very varied meaning. We cannot consider those as binding.
In this they are no different from any other company (take the example of the Cola wars).
Cola my friend is not a functional product as software is!
I was not talking cola vs. software. I was talking in general about the business environment. The cola companies make enough profit (they have invested over a billion rupees (each) in India without a return of a single piasa as profit), that they can easily charge less than what they already do and still make good money. I agree that software is different (functional eh???) from cola. The cola are using the same formula for over a 100year without much change. They get most of their revenue out of manufacturing. How many people are still making money out of software they wrote say 8-10 years back. I am not comparing software company vs. cola company. I was talking about commercial venture vs. commercial venture - in general.
In this business environment, the stronger, smarter one survives. Very much like nature.
lesse... in nature if a weak/sick offspring is born...it is damned to die. Would u do the same to u'r child? Nature my friend is not the ultimate rule book for humans atleast!
Here I totally disagree with you my friend. It is still natural 'Darwinian' selection in progress and will always be. A discussion on this will be so much OT that the others may probably have kill us to stop us. We will do it in private.
The point is that in the "new" business environment, it is the smarter n faster ones that survive. Take the case of human beings...we r excellent @ survivin not because of our strength but because of our brains!
You forget that I mentioned 'stronger, smarter'. Strength may refer a whole lot of strengths - not merely physical.
RMS is a person. blah blah ............ blah blah...........blah
blah........... everyone should follow this way of life.
NOD again :) This also proves the point that none of these acads r starvin to death! They make enough, not a lot, to have a decent life.
What is decent according to one may be pathetic according to another. Starvation is not the point. There may be people around who may want a fast car, a big house, the secretaryship of the local golf club, dinner at the Taj etc.etc. We cannot call it unethical or illegal.
Trade and commerce ........blah.. blah blah........ intellectual himself.
hmm.. lessay I find the cure to AIDS or CANCER n I decide that I will get immense pleasure seein ppl die because I have patented the cure n dont wann any one to avail of it. It's my decision after all as u say!
ummm... 'Morally' he should give it to society as it benefits all. But 'ethically' we cannot force him to give it (though practically we could & would). That is the reason research of this kind is funded and organised by society itself (in the guise of the government or non-profitable organisatinos). Not only cure for such major things like AIDS etc. but medicine as a whole comes under such kinds of discussions. Again the OT ness prevents me from elaborating.
The point is that, to be able to function properly (sanely) in a society we need some objective Rights n Wrongs, that generally everyone/majority will agree to. ofcource u could totally disagree with this but this is generally how most societies in the world function.
There is nothing here to disagree. This is what I have been saying. (refer above)
As FSF is _free_ to choose and decide its ideology and strategy, so is Microsoft _free_ to choose its priorities. And so are you _free_ to choose between them and the others... This is the real freedom.
This is *not* real freedom my friend. thats like sayin i have the right to kill u n u have the right to kill me. This is idealistic freedom n not pragmatic. Freedom in a social setting comes with "just" limitations.
No. What I said still stands. The 'just limits' are implied as we _are_ talking about a sane society. The freedom I am talking about is very pragmatic and is infact the state of things right now. Microsoft operates with its priorities, the FSF operates with its ideologies and we operate with our freedom to choose Windows 98/NT or GNU/Linux. An insane society (in total chaos) would be a whole other ball game. In it (probably) M$ would hire gunmen to see no one uses GNU software.
Does a restaurant, who has a popular special dish, disclose its secret recipe?
again, ne dish is not functional in the same sense as software is. u "use" software n u "enjoy" a dish/art, from a enduser point of view.
Can you please elaborate on this 'functional' thing? In (probably) the same vein, a painting is not same as a dish.
then they are within their right to sell this software - with all strings attached.
??? eh?.....
I stick to this. You are not forced to buy them.
If there is any other better alternative to them available, they will be wiped out of the market.
Thats the point, Microsoft *kill/buys* all its alternative.
That's a whole other issue. There are plenty of other software companies which sell software and dont behave in any way like Microsoft.
In society people are driven .....blah blah............ blah
blah.............blah blah........ but we cannot call any of them
wrong.
NOD! NOD! totally agree. emphasis on *MORAL CODE*
good to see that we agree on at least one thing. ;)
quasi
-
Q u a s i -
Sandeep