On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 13:02, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Nov 4, 2003, at 11:59 AM, Alan Dayley wrote:
>
> > Chris Gehlker wrote:
> >> I agree with you here but I think that's just sad. If the only reason
> >> people are going to Linux is because it's getting too hard to steal
> >> from Microsoft, that says something pretty horrible about Linux.
> >
> > Why is that something horrible about Linux?
>
> I don't think you are parsing the sentence the way I meant it at all.
> The word 'that' clearly refers to the behavior of the hypothetical
> people who use Linux only because they are afraid to steal[1]. The
> "something pretty horrible" is some assertion along the lines of
> 'Linux, your virtues, stability and security, don't mean crap: your
> faults, unfamiliarity and maybe a certain lack of polish, are
> egregious. I would never get near you except I am too cheap to spend
> $90 for Windows XP home edition." Of course it's just my value judgment
> that it's "pretty horrible."
>
> >
> > People want to use what they are comfortable with. Linux can provide
> > the functionality they need but it is "new" and so they rationalize
> > copyright infringement. Now that the "cost" of infringing is
> > percieved as higher than the "cost" of changing to Linux, they decide
> > to change.
>
> It simply pisses me off when people rationalize copyright infringement.
> It pisses me off when SCO does it to Linux and it pisses me off when
> Sally Sixpack does it to MS.
> >
> > That says something about the people accurately described by this
> > characteriazation. It does not say anything about Linux, horrible or
> > otherwise, except that moving to Linux is a change and has a learning
> > curve.
>
> My assertion was that behavior of the hypothetical people said
> something about *their* evaluation of Linux. I thought it was pretty
> clear that I didn't agree with that evaluation.
>
>
> [1] Or maybe not so clearly. But that's what it means to me. -----
I was going to let this thread die because nothing that I say is going
to change your mind anyway and it's seems obvious that you are a
Macintosh die hard and not in agreement with my views of Linux.
I didn't limit the cost factors to Windows or Office - I left it open to
other software vendors as more and more of them have incorporated
activation requirements. I was specifically referring to the concept of
the cost of all of the software and that the home computer has been
changing.
Many of the software licenses used to permit simultaneous installations
on more than one computer as long as it wasn't running on more than one
computer at any given time and it was not uncommon for employers to
allow employees to bring the installation cd's home and install on their
home computer. For the most part, people do not read the licenses on
software, do not know and do not care whether they are legally entitled
to install a copy on their home computer and thus, do not typically see
themselves as doing anything wrong.
In the same manner of logic, most people downloaded music files from
Napster and then the P2P systems without any thought that they were
stealing and the RIAA and the music industry has tried to educate the
public about the issue.
Your using the SCO vs. IBM as a metaphor really doesn't apply as it is
an entirely separate issue.
Clearly the software companies have tried to bundle and/or sell less
capable or crippled versions of their software for home users such as
Microsoft's Word 2002/Works or Adobe's Photoshop LE/Photo
Deluxe/Photoshop Essentials etc. and thus, they have been turning to
activation requirements to keep people from sharing, taking software
home from the office etc. Thus, the home user is starting to encounter
barriers that previously allowed them to easily install expensive
software on their home computers.
The notion that people would switch to Linux only because it was getting
hard or costly to steal from Microsoft was entirely your own. So in the
end, you created your own nexus and then disagreed with what you
projected that I was saying. I certainly can't win an argument that you
are having with yourself.
(text/plain)