Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:00:36 -0700
From: auvenj@mailcity.com ("Jason Auvenshine")
Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: Microsoft Executive Says...(details from my warped brain)
To: auvenj@lycos.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Hey Mark,
In case you didn't see my earlier announcement, I'm on Paternity leave right now which is why I've been very slow to respond to email.
IMHO Microsoft is a case of a company slammed by the government for being too successful...and then deciding the only course of action is to fight fire with fire. Microsoft's competitors and some politicians irked at a relative dearth of campaign contributions eminating from Redmond have succeeded in doing something with government power that they had completely failed to do in the marketplace: threaten Microsoft's very existance and force drastic changes in their organization and market strategy. Microsoft's unfortunate but predictable response is to attempt to use that same government power against the enemies Microsoft has been unsuccessful at competing against, such as open source software. Plus, of course, generating a drastic increase in the amount of campaign money flowing out of Redmond.
"Unfortunately, like the Libertarian Party, the
Open-Source movement most often gets represented by
unrealistic and uncompromising malcontents. A very
vocal minority."
Concerning the Libertarian Party...Instead of "unrealistic and uncompromising malcontents" I'd recommend "malcontented nutcases." :) There certainly are a _few_ of those in both the Libertarian Party and the open-source movement. But beware of the siren-song of "reasonable compromise" and the demonization of those who will not engage in it. Compromise is what morphed the Democrats into left-leaning socialists and the Republicans into right-leaning socialists. What the major parties have forgotten is what our founding fathers knew about our rights...they are inalienable. "Inalienable" permits no compromise and no negotiation. It is absolute, or it doesn't exist at all.
For example, either I posess an inalienable right to speak my mind...or I do not. If I do not posess such a right, then any speech that I am permitted is but a gift from the government even if it encompases 99.9% of the things I might choose to say. ANY compromise of the right of free speech grants to those who would deny it a complete victory...they have succeeded in defining the "right" as a gift from government that can be modified or taken away by the will of the majority (really just a majority of the politicians!) All that remains is to whip up the will of that majority to whatever ends they desire, and your "right" goes away...meaning it's not a "right" at all. The oft-cited counter of shouting fire in a crowded theater is a bogus argument for limiting free speech...since such an act constitutes fraud and active harm against others -- just as the right to keep and bear arms does not imply that you have the right to shoot anyone you please. These are not compromises;
they are simply a recognition that your rights end where the inalienable rights of others begin. Quite a different matter altogether from prohibiting the conveyance of instructions for making methamphetamine or the instructions for copying a DVD...or prohibiting the civilian ownership of full-auto firearms. If the former "reasonable compromise" restrictions on free speech are allowed to stand, as the latter "reasonable compromise" restriction on the right to keep and bear arms was allowed to stand...we shall eventually find the first amendment to be as gutted as the second is now, perhaps in an even shorter span of time. That's not "unrealistic"...history shows it to be a fact again and again.
It has taken me a while to get to the point where I understand the reasoning and motivation behind the "no compromise" approach, and why a refusal to compromise is so demonized by the people with your rights on their menu. Certainly, the LP has a few paranoids and other assorted nuts who use it as a platform to exhibit their particular form of mental illness to the world. But those individuals shouldn't be confused with the vastly greater number of those who have a very clearheaded and rational reason for refusing to compromise away their rights, even a little bit.
Hope all is well...and sorry for ranting. :-)
--Jason
John Jason Auvenshine
Global Web Architecture - Deployment
T/L 321-2263
To: Ronald Strayer <ronstrayer@msn.com>
cc: kpepple@yahoo.com, mspencer7@home.com, Jason Auvenshine/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: Re: Microsoft Executive Says...(details from my warped brain)
Actually, as a libertarian I 100% agree that the
government should not promote either. I also think
the open-source movement would side with MS if that
were the case. Most of these folks fear mainly MS
because of the Big-brother potential; supporting the
government would only bring bro in the backdoor.
My comments were mainly directed at the "stifle
innovation" horseshit. The open-source movement
DEMANDS innovation, not stifle t, since there are
plenty of successful *commercial* products for Linux.
These products are for a fee because they are so good
that a few coders wouldn't be able to duplicate the
effort with a few overnighters. Afterall, why throw
away $millions on R&D when some college kid can do it
for his class project?
Lastly, I don't want to destroy MS... on the contrary.
Actually, I think more than anything; this presents
an opportunity for MS to become even bigger and better
than they are today. Since the open-sorce movement
represents stiff competition which can only be dealt
with by writing better software (rather than
restrictive business alliances)... which MS definitely
has the capability to do. I don't mind paying for
commercial software; I only mind when I'm forced to
pay $150 for a what is essentially a service pack; and
I can obtain the same (often better)
performance/functionality for free on the Internet.
There's a reason MS has ASTRONOMICAL profit margins;
which as a shareholder I like, as a supposed "sucker"
I do not.
Unfortunately, like the Libertarian Party, the
Open-Source movement most often gets represented by
unrealistic and uncompromising malcontents. A very
vocal minority. Personally, I fully support any
efforts my MS to become more competitive in the
marketplace. A strong MS and a strong Open-Source
movement would be a wonderful dynamic, with endless
potential for INNOVATION. Tell that exec of yours ;-)
Cheers Dude...
--- Ronald Strayer <ronstrayer@msn.com> wrote: