On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> they do? then why is it I'm not drinking MS lemonade at home? (ie. I'm not
> using MS at home) infact I was raised on Apple-lemonade for many years..
> hmmms
you were raised on apple juice, different product, and it was in a
cup...because the glasses won't hold applejuice, silly!
Remember, in the OEM discussion, we are talking about PC resellers, and
MacOS doesn't run on intel hardware (to my knowledge, anyway!) Apple is an
interesting case, but doesn't really come into play here.
and people, partially because of FUD, partially because of
already-made-purchases and partically because of really good marketing,
think they can't drink any other version of 'ade', and they don't want to
buy plastic cups because they are more expensive and have fewer apps
written for them (have we mixed our metaphores enough, yet <G>)
> Nah I'll just make a glass that will de-alergize from limes (ie. run a
> diffrent system)
but you can't -- People are already convinced that they are allergic --
and as a small end-retailer (or even as a gateway - or - compaq sized
retailer) you can't do a whole heck of a lot about those attitudes fast
enough to save yourself. Compaq two years ago *could* have done an
advertising campaign with, say, OS/2, telling people how good it is, and
*only* selling OS/2 computers, but at best, they would have lost serious
money for several quarters, and there's a really good chance it would have
been a suicidal move. Stock holders, board members and general powers that
be don't allow those sorts of things. Altruism and capitalism are not
friendly bedfellows.
> umm no.. no I don't
um...for all the reasons I've outlined, yes you do, if you intend to
survive
> If I want to sell a product created by microsoft I should be obligated to
> follow MS agreements since I did not create thier product.. They
> created/baught/copied/etc.. it.. they own it..
here's the problem, you *have* to sell MS's product in order to survive,
and you have to get it at the same price as everyone else in order to
remain competative in order to survive, hence, you have to get MS's
product at the same price everyone else is getting it at in order to
survive. Got that?
in order to get it at the same price as everyone else, you have to
completely quit offering other competing products (OS/2, linux, whatever)
Hence, the bully has just threatened to pummle you into hummus if you sell
someone else's stuff.
> Again *I* would be making the choice to deal in MS products.. and in doing
> so *I* have to deal with MS on thier terms...
You have a choice, deal with MS or die. Some choice.
> Microsoft created a product (well serval actualy).. and thusly should be
> able to sell thier product as they see fit.. THEY own the product.. not
> the government, not you, not me..
Yes. To a point. I can use anything I own in any way I want, for the most
part. But I'm not allowed to stand at the end of the apartment hallway and
drop used computer bits on the heads of folks passing by.
Their right to sell their product as they see fit ended when they abused
their power, just as my right to use my used computer bits as I see fit
ends when I start dropping them on people's heads.
> It provides rights and power to all.. and it's not "anti-government"..
> rather a government that makes sense... gives individuals more
> self-governing power
Compared with many things, it's anti-government...it might be more
accurate to say it's anti-government power. And I don't necessarily
disagree with that.
> how much control do you have over your rights?
Some. More than I have over the rights that are being eroded quickly by
corporations. (my right to privacy, my right to products that are what
they say they are, my right to food that isn't contaminated, my right to
food that is labled if it is contminated -- remember, I'm the one who
knows exactly how hard certain issues with labling and BGH and GE foods
were fought. I don't necessarily care about government mandated labeling,
but the corps were trying to make it illegal to honestly say that your
product *didn't* contain such things!)
> it values rights of people over governments
Bullshit
It values rights of some people who own stuff over rights of other people
> It more about what is right and ethical then a whimsical "good"...
If your ethics say that 'might makes rights' <- the whole social darwinism
schtick, and that some people are more equal than others (based on how
much they own, rather than somehting intrinsic) then you're right. And
there's not a whole heck of a lot I can argue with you about that right
now.
My ethics (as you know) are hardly 'whimsical' -- not to mention you know
exactly how much I hate that word, even since a certain judge used it in
describing my choice of adoptive parents.
> You life won't be run by a corperation... it will be yours to lead...
BS. My life is *already* run by corporations. Yours is too, you're just
too used to it to see it (don't feel bad, though. Most people are, to
varying degrees)
> Which problem would it make worse?
The problem of control. As I've said, corporations already control you,
unless you live in the backwoods of montana or something. Corporations
already tell you what you can eat, control 99% of the media in your city
(with the exception of a few zines and some little newspapers, most
likely. I haven't been to DC in awhile), control what you wear, etc. To a
certain extent you can escape a fair chunk of it. I shop at the food coop,
I buy clothes second hand, I don't own a television, I do read one of the
big dailies, and both the free tabloids (all of those being coorporate
papers), but I also read a bunch of small rags, not to mention the news
that gets dumped in my email box from other sources. It's amazing what
*doesn't* get covered in the newspapers. It's even more amazing what does,
after awhile.
In a manner, to control media is to control thought. Give that a thought.
Ever wondered why mainstream media feels threatened by the internet? Why
Internet Addiction gets discussed on the TV news while TV addiction does
not? Why a lot of (non wired) folks think that the 'net is porn and
violence?
I don't think it's just because porn and violence makes for
sensationalistic stories (thought that's part of it too)
> the only one with these views here (exausting I tell you).. at the request
I think this is one of the most intelligent forums I know of. Maybe that
should tell you something.
> Sounds good to me :).. I think nothing should be done :)..
I'm glad you're not a federal judge ;)
> buddist use engulfiling self in flame to protest..
> random though :) please don't take this action :)
<grin> I won't, but we are going to learn to eat fire :P
Vinnie
--
a safe place for all of the pieces that scatter
learn to pretend there's more than love that matters - e saliers
Obligatory pathetic website at http://george.he.net/~drachen
GAT d? H- s---:+ !g !p au+ a- w+++ v++ C++++ UL++++ P+ L++ !3 E--- N+ K++
!W M V po--- Y++ t+ 5 jx R G' !tv b+++ !D B e* u** h-- f+ r n---- z?
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
