GUI

[Anton Markov]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi James and Phillip,

I completely understand what you are saying, but I don't see how that is
illegal.  Let's look at an example...

You own a Chrysler dealership.  The business has never really picked up
as Chryslers are not too popular.  One day you get a call from Honda.
They offer you their newest, coolest Honda Civic with all the latest
bells and whistles (the Civic is considered popular, but a minority of
people say it's junk) for a good reseller price.  The only condition is
that you must become an exclusive Honda dealer.  You happen to like
Chryslers yourself, and know some people who also do, but you have a
family to feed, and you need the extra sales the more popular (although
arguably worse) Honda Civics will generate.  What do you decide?  You
take the Honda deal.  Now, if you were running the dealership for fun
rather than profits, or you believe Chryslers will soon become popular,
you can always refuse the offer and keep selling Chryslers... it's up to
you.

Note:  I don't want to start a flame war over cars.  Replace Honda and
Chrysler with whatever makes you want.  It's the point that matters.

The whole point of the story is that the supplier has the right to
refuse to sell its products.  The buyer can also refuse this deal.
There is no law stating that you must accept every business deal that
comes your way.  That is what *free* enterprise is all about - you get
to make your own business decisions.  If companies are forced to make
business decisions they don't want to make, *that* is called extortion.

As for the "Halloween Documents", I don't see any problem with what's in
~ them.  I completely agree that the open-source model can and does
develop better software than closed-source models.  As the first memo
states:

__
In other words, to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target
a process rather than a company.

{ This is a very important insight, one I wish Microsoft had missed. The
real battle isn't NT vs. Linux, or Microsoft vs. Red
Hat/Caldera/S.u.S.E. -- it's closed-source development versus
open-source. The cathedral versus the bazaar.}
__

Basically this is a battle between two successful models that is about
as ambiguous as arguing whether it's better to take a shower in the
morning or in the evening.  The real answer is: it depends on your
circumstances.  Both sides has valid arguments.

The other key point of those Halloween articles, is "consumers loose,
vendors win."  Who are these vendors?  Ultimately they are just people
like you and me.

And although I agree that "By extending these protocols and developing
new protocols, we can deny SOS projects entry into the market" is a bad
thing, the only ones I would blame if this happened, are the uneducated
consumers who buy the products. The purpose of any business is to supply
the demand.  If there was a large enough demand for polka-dotted cars,
you would find dealerships filled with them, even though the idea seems
stupid.

The whole point is that the ultimate right to accept or refuse a
product, service, or any other exchange remains ours.  There are plenty
of little computer stores that allow one to custom-assemble computers
(the pare-built computer models, by the way, are a marketing scam too,
because they force people to buy ever faster CPUs when the real answer
would be more RAM, a better video card, etc.) and not have any OS
installed on it.  It may cost you a bit more, sure, but that is because
the service is not as popular.

In summary, when the law talks about freedoms, it means choices.  It
does not (or should not) guarantee that there is a choice for everyone
that is equally fair. That is utopia. It mearly states that no one can
keep you from making choices (ie. they don't come with a gun to your
home and say, "buy/do this or else" as they do under communist/fascist
regimes).

Instead of collecting links that bash Microsoft, lets collect links to
the most important open-source project to get involved with out there.
If you want to keep proving Microsoft is evil, please use something
other than "Microsoft marketing is illegal and Bill Gates is evil."  By
the way, Bill Gates donates more to charities each month than everyone
on this list will probably donate to in 10 years.

I hope this cleared some things up.


James Knott wrote:
|
| Read those items I mentioned and then get back to me on that "right" to
| refuse.  You'll find that exercising that right, would cost them dearly.

Phillip Mills wrote:
| There's a fine line between "marketing genius" and unprincipled,
| parasitic, racketeering...often no line at all.
|
| <http://www.opensource.org/halloween/> is still my favorite bit of
| Microsoft "marketing".

- --
Anton Markov <("anton" + "@" + "truxtar" + "." + "com")>

GnuPGP Key fingerprint =
5546 A6E2 1FFB 9BB8 15C3  CE34 46B7 8D93 3AD1 44B4

~ "The difference between insanity and genius is measured only by success."
~ - Some bad guy from 007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/yBSdRreNkzrRRLQRAktdAKCEK1psS6QFdykHpwEHO/cgFSem1gCePHWw
Uq91b/FEwZf2vca74mFoTXU=
=E6fn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml