| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
   |
Posted - 2007.06.28 20:36:00 -
[61]
So I assume you still use coal to heat your house, to support the miners? Even though other forms of power are cheaper and cleaner? If you don't, all those coal mining corporations will go bust. And if they do, the foundations of western civilisation will crumble to dust...
Oh wait.
Companies die, and new companies crop up to replace them all the time. Novell, Red Hat and Canonical are 3 companies that do extremely well for themselves with open source software as their flag ship products. In the unlikely event that in the near future 100% of the computing industry converts to open source, we'll see companies like MS and Apple go under sure, and we'll see companies like the above rise in their place.
Red Hat is the oil company to Microsoft's coal 
--------
|
Mtthias Clemi
Gallente
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 20:48:00 -
[62]
The fossil fuel thing doesn't really apply, it would be fairly easy for Microsoft to survive as a business in the event that open source takes over.. given that they design software, its not like they rely on actual materials..
--------------------------------------------
Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!!
PEW PEW PEW PEW!
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 20:53:00 -
[63]
 Originally by: Mtthias Clemi
The fossil fuel thing doesn't really apply, it would be fairly easy for Microsoft to survive as a business in the event that open source takes over.. given that they design software, its not like they rely on actual materials..
True that, I was just using it as an analogy of major industries going bust, and it not being the end of the world. And that there is little reason to support and industry just for the sake- it's always best (from a capitalist view point) to do whatever is best for you. The system generally sorts itself out.
That's IF you're a capitalist. Lets not discriminate 
--------
|
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 21:04:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Patch86
Capitalism is like a great big competition, where everyone is trying to extract the maximum amount of money out of everyone else. Microsoft are "winning" by extracting massive amounts of money out of everyone else. Finding a solution that doesn't cost you as massive an amount of money is a pretty capitalist thing to do, and it's been what capitalist companies have been doing for centuries. And, as yet, the sky has not fallen because of it.
That's closer to mercentilisim than capitalism. The big advancement in capitalism was that you can have deals that make everybody rich, instead of having to screw everyone in order to make yourself rich. Admittedly, most companies work more along mercentilist lines.
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Let me guess, you are writing software for internal use in banks, health services, etc.
Something along those lines, yes. And as I said, most software is written for just those sorts of internal uses. The software on the shelf at Best Buy represents a very small amount of the code out there. If all of the retail software were replaced by Open Source, my job isn't going away. In fact, my job is a great deal easier because of many Open Source software.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 21:21:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Frezik
Originally by: Patch86
Capitalism is like a great big competition, where everyone is trying to extract the maximum amount of money out of everyone else. Microsoft are "winning" by extracting massive amounts of money out of everyone else. Finding a solution that doesn't cost you as massive an amount of money is a pretty capitalist thing to do, and it's been what capitalist companies have been doing for centuries. And, as yet, the sky has not fallen because of it.
That's closer to mercentilisim than capitalism. The big advancement in capitalism was that you can have deals that make everybody rich, instead of having to screw everyone in order to make yourself rich. Admittedly, most companies work more along mercentilist lines.
Oh, I don't know. Capitalism is driven pretty solely by profit. Companies (and individuals too, really) have two ways of effecting their profit- increase income (by charging their customers more, for example) and decrease costs (by spending less on their day to day business).
Microsoft are busy maximising their profit by upping their product prices, collecting licence fees, and employing methods of keeping their market share. The legitimate capitalist response of any of MS's corporate customers is to try and maximise their profit by finding a lower cost alternative. This is true of individual customers too.
This alternative isn't necessarily open source software, but it might well be.
--------
|
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 22:10:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Patch86
Oh, I don't know. Capitalism is driven pretty solely by profit. Companies (and individuals too, really) have two ways of effecting their profit- increase income (by charging their customers more, for example) and decrease costs (by spending less on their day to day business).
Yes, it's driven by profit. The distinction comes when you consider comparative advantage and other economic developments that show that it's often unprofitable to try to screw everyone over.
Quote:
Microsoft are busy maximising their profit by upping their product prices,
Microsoft charges for Vista Ultimate about the same as it charged for Win2k (the equivalent OS for its time). Even as a monopoly, they're still bound by rules of supply and demand. Increasing their prices would mean a lot of people either stick with XP, find an alternative, or use an illegal copy.
Outside the US, Microsoft does charge comparatively more, but this is due to the weakness of the US dollar against other currencies rather than anything Microsoft does.
Quote:
collecting licence fees, and employing methods of keeping their market share.
All companies try to increase their market share. Now, Microsoft has used far more aggressive tactics, many of which are unethical or illegal, to get that share, but trying to increase market share in itself is nothing bad.
Quote:
The legitimate capitalist response of any of MS's corporate customers is to try and maximise their profit by finding a lower cost alternative. This is true of individual customers too.
This alternative isn't necessarily open source software, but it might well be.
The problem I see is that this market may not be able to handle competition. It's easier in terms of customer support and software development to have just one OS. In such a case, government limits on the monopoly may be the correct option.
|
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 22:55:00 -
[67]
The way I see it, supporting paid software is supporting capitalism.
---------
Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Kali is for KArebearLIng.
I 100% agree with Avon.
Female EVE gamers? Mail Zajo or visit WGOE.Public in-game. |
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 23:00:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
The way I see it, supporting paid software is supporting capitalism.
So is buying milk.
|
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 23:01:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Frezik
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
The way I see it, supporting paid software is supporting capitalism.
So is buying milk.
And supporting freeware is supporting communism.
---------
Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Kali is for KArebearLIng.
I 100% agree with Avon.
Female EVE gamers? Mail Zajo or visit WGOE.Public in-game. |
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 23:02:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 28/06/2007 23:01:47
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
The way I see it, supporting paid software is supporting capitalism.
Actually, buying software produced by a monopoly is the opposite, as the direct opposite of capitalism (free competition) is a monopoly (no competition).
Open-source software (unlike, say, Windows XP) isn't the opposite of capitalism, because it does not eschew competition, the essence of capitalism.
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save EVE-files bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! |
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 23:25:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
And supporting freeware is supporting communism.
So is buying oil products.
See, I can make silly comparisons, too 
|
thesulei
Applied Eugenics
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 23:48:00 -
[72]
Edited by: thesulei on 28/06/2007 23:48:23
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 28/06/2007 20:04:31
You both up there are funny.
How can you compare commercialized software and service? You write the software for free but get paid for your service in writing the software. Let me guess, you are writing software for internal use in banks, health services, etc.
Wait, you can also write software for free that plays MP3s and put it into the hardware and sell the hardware.
Nothing is free in this world. Period.
Edit: I made a general reply to the concept of free.
Open Source Software is sometimes also being called FLOSS for Free/Libre Open Source Software.
From the Free Software Foundation website:
Quote:
Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.
Read about it here before posting any more.
Edit: I wrote my Master thesis in Sociology about OSS as a social movement, so I should know what I am talking about.
|
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 07:48:00 -
[73]
Originally by: thesulei
Edited by: thesulei on 28/06/2007 23:48:23
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 28/06/2007 20:04:31
You both up there are funny.
How can you compare commercialized software and service? You write the software for free but get paid for your service in writing the software. Let me guess, you are writing software for internal use in banks, health services, etc.
Wait, you can also write software for free that plays MP3s and put it into the hardware and sell the hardware.
Nothing is free in this world. Period.
Edit: I made a general reply to the concept of free.
Open Source Software is sometimes also being called FLOSS for Free/Libre Open Source Software.
From the Free Software Foundation website:
Quote:
Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.
Read about it here before posting any more.
Edit: I wrote my Master thesis in Sociology about OSS as a social movement, so I should know what I am talking about.
Are you suggesting OSS is about fame seeking in the geek community?
---------
Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Kali is for KArebearLIng.
I 100% agree with Avon.
Female EVE gamers? Mail Zajo or visit WGOE.Public in-game. |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 11:36:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Frezik
Originally by: Patch86
Oh, I don't know. Capitalism is driven pretty solely by profit. Companies (and individuals too, really) have two ways of effecting their profit- increase income (by charging their customers more, for example) and decrease costs (by spending less on their day to day business).
Yes, it's driven by profit. The distinction comes when you consider comparative advantage and other economic developments that show that it's often unprofitable to try to screw everyone over.
Quote:
Microsoft are busy maximising their profit by upping their product prices,
Microsoft charges for Vista Ultimate about the same as it charged for Win2k (the equivalent OS for its time). Even as a monopoly, they're still bound by rules of supply and demand. Increasing their prices would mean a lot of people either stick with XP, find an alternative, or use an illegal copy.
Outside the US, Microsoft does charge comparatively more, but this is due to the weakness of the US dollar against other currencies rather than anything Microsoft does.
Quote:
collecting licence fees, and employing methods of keeping their market share.
All companies try to increase their market share. Now, Microsoft has used far more aggressive tactics, many of which are unethical or illegal, to get that share, but trying to increase market share in itself is nothing bad.
Quote:
The legitimate capitalist response of any of MS's corporate customers is to try and maximise their profit by finding a lower cost alternative. This is true of individual customers too.
This alternative isn't necessarily open source software, but it might well be.
The problem I see is that this market may not be able to handle competition. It's easier in terms of customer support and software development to have just one OS. In such a case, government limits on the monopoly may be the correct option.
I don't disagree that capitalism is more than just "WANTZ MOAR MONAY!", but no other factors are really relevant in as simple analogy as this. All I mean to be saying is that it is not immoral or evil for MS to be trying to maximise their profit, but it's certainly the "capitalist" thing to do to try and maximise one's own profit, by choosing the most competitively priced product. And if MS's proprietary software is inherently unable to compete, it shouldn't be artificially kept afloat.
The "capitalist" thing to do is to let the products compete on an even playing field, and let the most competitively viable product succeed. Jenny's talk of "don't use open source, capitalism will fall around us and we'll enter a new dark age" simply doesn't make sense within a capitalist system.
And if anything, the computing industry is the one industry where market competition is not just possible, it's vital. It's an industry with no logistics, with infinite ease of distribution, and where a simple shared API can mean total compatibility between diametrically opposed products.
Observing MS's performance as a monopoly, they've flatly failed to innovate in years. The only advancements in their recent OS's are almost direct reactions to the innovation of smaller companies such as Apple and Linux distributors. It won't be until there is full and even competition between comparable companies that we'll see true innovation reenter the industry.
And so you know, MS doesn't just charge "comparatively more" outside the US- it costs fully double to buy Vista in the UK what it costs to buy it in the US. There is no economic reason for this- the weakness of the dollar simply isn't THAT disruptive.
--------
|
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 11:59:00 -
[75]
Why mock monopoly? Microsoft's monopoly did good to all of us. If it wasn't for that monopoly, your latest custom build 8474873467 horse power PC would not connect to your favorite Microsoft Mouse or the internet and you would be playing eVe from sharded clusters. HP only clusters, Dell only clusters, Sun only clusters, you get the picture.
There is no such thing as 100% anti-monopoly or 100% anti-paid software is good.
If free is so good, would you like to work for me for free? You will not be paid but you can have your name displayed in font size 70 for your work.
---------
Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Kali is for KArebearLIng.
I 100% agree with Avon.
Female EVE gamers? Mail Zajo or visit WGOE.Public in-game. |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 12:14:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Why mock monopoly? Microsoft's monopoly did good to all of us. If it wasn't for that monopoly, your latest custom build 8474873467 horse power PC would not connect to your favorite Microsoft Mouse or the internet and you would be playing eVe from sharded clusters. HP only clusters, Dell only clusters, Sun only clusters, you get the picture.
There is no such thing as 100% anti-monopoly or 100% anti-paid software is good.
If free is so good, would you like to work for me for free? You will not be paid but you can have your name displayed in font size 70 for your work.
Look up API. Different companies does not mean incompatibility. The only reason most Windows software is incompatible with non-Windows is because they refuse to share their API (Direct X and it's ilk). How is that a good thing?
Free software does not mean "free". It is free as in speech, not free as in beer.
Again, look up companies such as Red Hat. They make a vast amount of money, and employ a great many people, with open source as their flag ship product. People get paid for working at open source software.
Of course you can ignore it and carry on trolling if you like...
--------
|
ry ry
StateCorp
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 12:27:00 -
[77]
monopoly is the best board game ever.
|
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 12:30:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 29/06/2007 12:29:39
Red Hat sells services. You get the software for free and you pay for support.
Microsoft sells products. You pay for the software and you get free support.
---------
Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Kali is for KArebearLIng.
I 100% agree with Avon.
Female EVE gamers? Mail Zajo or visit WGOE.Public in-game. |
ry ry
StateCorp
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 12:35:00 -
[79]
Edited by: ry ry on 29/06/2007 12:34:19
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 29/06/2007 12:29:39
Red Hat sells services. You get the software for free and you pay for support.
Microsoft sells products. You pay for the software and you get free support.
the fundamental difference there being that you aren't required to get your support from redhat.
|
MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 12:38:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 29/06/2007 12:29:39
Red Hat sells services. You get the software for free and you pay for support.
Microsoft sells products. You pay for the software and you get free support.
Actually Microsoft sell support, it costs from ú40 to ú240 to log a call with Microsoft for support with its products.
--------------------------------
My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 12:41:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 29/06/2007 12:29:39
Red Hat sells services. You get the software for free and you pay for support.
Microsoft sells products. You pay for the software and you get free support.
Whats the difference? Either way, a product increases employment opportunities. If all we're talking about is "free software creates unemployment", it's clearly not true- they just make money in other ways.
Take Canonical Inc. They're the chief sponsor of the Ubuntu distro. They make money out of professional support contracts (and Microsoft also charge for professional support contracts, where they provide them at all- mostly they leave it to 3rd party services), and selling documentation for the distro (such as the "official" Ubuntu book). They then pay developers to work on the Ubuntu code project, as well as pay money in to advertising and supporting the project, because it's in their interest to increase the success of the product they sell support for.
They employ people, they make money, and so forth. Using their open source product will not lead to the next depression- it'll lead to them making more money and hiring new people, just like any company.
And if their product genuinely is better than Microsoft's, in terms of value for money (which is debatable, but lets not go in to that right now), they deserve to be getting the custom. Thats the way capitalism works.
--------
|
Araxmas
The Blue Dagger Mercenery Agency
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 12:48:00 -
[82]
Maybe windows is a monopoly because its good?
I mean I use windows and it works pretty damn well for me so I don't wish to be "set free".
--------
Robbie Rotten left me |
MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 12:56:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Araxmas
Maybe windows is a monopoly because its good?
I mean I use windows and it works pretty damn well for me so I don't wish to be "set free".
Your argument is null and void, Windows isnt a monopoly because it works for you. Linux would work for you too, but it wouldnt make it a monopoly 
The difference is that Windows controls the OS market, infact they in the UK alone I believe they make up 98% of the OS market, this however is actually illegal in the UK because they are creating unfair competition, but Ofcom wont recognise it.
--------------------------------
My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance |
ry ry
StateCorp
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 12:58:00 -
[84]
Originally by: MrTriggerHappy
Actually Microsoft sell support, it costs from ú40 to ú240 to log a call with Microsoft for support with its products.
depends on the license you purchase for your software, and the nature of the support you require, but yeah, they do sell support.
MS business support without a support pack is so expensive it's probably cheaper to just buy a new server off ebay if anything goes wrong.
|
Miss Anthropy
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 13:56:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Patch86
Originally by: Frezik
Originally by: Patch86
Capitalism is like a great big competition, where everyone is trying to extract the maximum amount of money out of everyone else. Microsoft are "winning" by extracting massive amounts of money out of everyone else. Finding a solution that doesn't cost you as massive an amount of money is a pretty capitalist thing to do, and it's been what capitalist companies have been doing for centuries. And, as yet, the sky has not fallen because of it.
That's closer to mercentilisim than capitalism. The big advancement in capitalism was that you can have deals that make everybody rich, instead of having to screw everyone in order to make yourself rich. Admittedly, most companies work more along mercentilist lines.
Oh, I don't know. Capitalism is driven pretty solely by profit. Companies (and individuals too, really) have two ways of effecting their profit- increase income (by charging their customers more, for example) and decrease costs (by spending less on their day to day business).
Microsoft are busy maximising their profit by upping their product prices, collecting licence fees, and employing methods of keeping their market share. The legitimate capitalist response of any of MS's corporate customers is to try and maximise their profit by finding a lower cost alternative. This is true of individual customers too.
This alternative isn't necessarily open source software, but it might well be.
Mercantilism tries to encourage more exports while discouraging imports. It's a highly protective economic practice and was used heavily from between the 16th to 18th centuries. A free market (Capitalism) is one in which the government does not intervene and allows businesses to engage in private economic activity.
Microsoft are not mercantile because they are not a government or company restricting imports. Microsoft are attempting a monopoly, which, according to Wikipedia is best defined as a situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Microsoft aim to have the only Operating System customers (whether private or business) will use.
NERF AMARR!
|
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 14:14:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Miss Anthropy
Mercantilism tries to encourage more exports while discouraging imports. It's a highly protective economic practice and was used heavily from between the 16th to 18th centuries. A free market (Capitalism) is one in which the government does not intervene and allows businesses to engage in private economic activity.
That's one aspect of mercantilism. The underlieing factor is that they considered the economy to be a zero-sum game--for someone to gain, someone else has to lose.
The other underlieing factor in mercantilism was considering that a nation's wealth is measured in its gold reserves, even though gold has little intrinsic value beyond the fact that it's rare.
Quote:
Microsoft are not mercantile because they are not a government or company restricting imports.
I consider many companies to have a "mercantile" outlook in seeing the system as a zero-sum game, rather than the capitalist idea that competition is healthy and deals can be made where all players win.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |