Re: [tlug] Re: Why Vista Sucks (was: linux: it's becoming ubiquitous)

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:30:08 +0900
"Gernot Hassenpflug" <aikishugyo@example.com> wrote:


> >I read an interesting report on vista a while back (can't find the URL
> >right now), mostly about how horrid the performance was due to the
> >internal encryption between all hardware devices in order to protect
> >intellectual property of bluray or HD DVD disks from would be crackers
> >and reverse-engineers (IIRC). The thinking was that, sure, it's a huge
> >performance hit but we'll just pass that on to the end user and force
> >them to pay for more RAM. /../
> 
> My friends who run businesses answer this with 'because there are so
> many criminals it absolutely has to be done to protect the creators,
> else no-one would create anything for commercial purposes'. This tells
> me that creating something for commercial purposes is a lot more
> expensive in total than simply creating something that is useful.
> Commercial products always give a "service" (for pay) while
> simultaneously "refusing to give a/several service/s" in the sense
> that you have a take-it-or-leave-it option only, not a choice about
> the best for yourself.

I strongly disagree. It's the currently used bussines model
that demands a closed and well controlled distribution system
for software. If you choose a different bussines model you can
still make money even if you give away the software for free
if the product you sell is not the software itself.
Of course, under the condition that the bussines model works.
And you can apply this to a lot of other fields, outside software.

> My conclusion from observing how bundled products are, from housing
> and associated services, to computers and OSes, is to write off anyone
> that says "consumers have a choice" or "you can choose to not buy it"
> as uninformed or part of the problem, or both. Such people in my
> experience do not value open software or what it can do, and are
> completely insensitive to moves that are beneficial to people other
> than their own limited business interests, while at the same time
> admitting to using pirated software because "they can", labelling the
> companies that cannot protect against this as "stupid" or "deserving".

I hope you don't expect people thinking further than just for their
own profit? People are 1) lazy and 2) egoists. They will not do
something for the benefit of someone else unless they get somewhen
later something back of equivalent value (or at least expect to do so).
Beside, it's not illegal if they don't catch you.

> I kid you not. I don't want this to be taken too generally, but I
> think breaking out of limited self-interest is a lot harder for most
> people than I have gotten used to thinking coming from an academic AND
> western scientific environment (academic AND humanities, for example,
> does not seem to cut it).

Now, that you have to explain. What do you mean exactly by
"academic AND western scientific enviroment" vs
"academic AND humanities" ?


				Attila Kinali
-- 
Praised are the Fountains of Shelieth, the silver harp of the waters,
But blest in my name forever this stream that stanched my thirst!
                         -- Deed of Morred