When I make parallelisms between MS (and monopolies in general) with totalitarianism or communism, it turns out you make a hearty critic of my boldness. But, how come I don’t hear the same outrage when [adjective left out to avoid name calling] like Thomas above berate FOSS ideals tagging them as “Socialist”? Because there is no single argument in your fierce defense of MS that would not apply (and much more so) to FOSS, to “defend” it from being called socialist.

Also, yes I “redefine” life, association and vote. It’s a freakin’ parallelism! IT life vs “real” life. Life does have a lot of compartments. You have one life at work, another one at home, another one on the internet, another one when you go out… You have an interior life when you read a book or watch a good movie. All of them are linked, and all of them form YOU, the person. MS being dedicated to IT, it is to be expected that it acts on your IT life. Don’t tell me that being unable to contact my Bank online because their site is “For IE only” is not “real life”! Don’t tell me that it doesn’t matter that I could not read a joke a friend sent me because of stupid MSO formats, because jokes are not “real life”. My government spending MY tax money on MS licenses (probably because they get a cut), instead of using better free software, and spending the money somewhere else does certainly qualify as “real life” in my universe. Real people DIED because money spent by the government on Windows licenses didn’t go to hospitals (yes, I know it’s demagogy. As your Iran quote above). Not to mention economic harms brought by trojans, botnets and botnet-related DDoS attacks, all of them courtesy of MS Windows, your humble bug-ridden malware-friendly servant.

BTW, I reassert what I said before: being a government or having an army is accessory to Communism. Capitalist governments also have armies, and also apply the force to maintain the system. Capitalist democracies (as opposed to Communist totalitarian countries) also murder (well, not all democracies have death penalty, I concede) and torture (well, not all democracies have Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, I concede). And millions of corporations worldwide define themselves as capitalist, and are not governments. Brute force is just a tool to implement ideals, be they Communism, Capitalism or Christianity. Using other tools (brainwashing ads and FUD or market dominion) doesn’t make Capitalism less Capitalism, or Communism less Communism.

It was nice to discuss with you, Bob. I will certainly take your points into account, and maybe I’ll see my position with a new light. Thanks.

1) When I say some FOSS advocates are communists, I mean that they believe a Marxist society is desirable. I do not mean that they are currently in power, thus they don’t need an army to qualify as communists. It is more relevant than left-handedness or veganism because they mesh their FOSS advocacy with their positions on corporations and property rights.

2) Being a gov’t and using force is not “accessory” to communism; it is central. Karl Marx explicitly calls for the use of violence and force.

3) I never said communism dictated where you live, etc. Re-read my sentence; I start it with a reference to totalitarianism. (Of course, every communist country in history has quickly become totalitarian, but that’s another issue.)

4) When you say “one could argue that MS *does* coerce you to live (use an OS), associate with (share contents) and vote (use individual programs) only in a MS-sanctioned way.” you are redefining “live”, “associate with” and “vote”. Don’t deny it; it’s right there in your parentheses. Look “live” up in the dictionary and you’ll find no reference to operating systems. And that brings us right back, in a circle, to my posting on Nov. 30 when I said “I think you’re trying to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean”. QED.

5) Everything you accuse MS of falls under the definition of monopolistic behavior. It does not fall under the definition of communism or totalitarianism. (And BTW, I don’t agree that MS is guilty of all your accusations, but that’s an argument for another century.)

It’s bad enough that you’re using scare words unfairly to bolster your argument. But you are trivializing the horrors of true communism and totalitarianism and insulting everyone in North Korea and Iran who are dying – let me say that again DYING – BEING MURDERED – BEING TORTURED – by real communists and real totalitarians. This isn’t a friggin joke. Those words have real, horrible meaning.

So get a grip on yourself. Hate MS if you want. But until it has conquered a nation and herded Linux users into death camps, I really don’t want to hear any more of your nonsense.

How could they (FOSS advocates)? Are they the government? Have they an army? Then, as MS, they are not communists. Besides, many FOSS advocates might be vegan or left-handed, and that doesn’t make the FOSS movement any less omnivore or ambidextrous.

Being a government, having a police and an army, all that is accessory. It’s a way to an end, not an end in itself. MS, and other monopolistic corporations, have found a subtler way to force their will. So what? It’s still communism. Or, at any rate, it’s the opposite of true capitalism, whatever this opposite might be.

Communism is not dictating where you live, whom you associate with or whom you vote for. All that is also accessory. Communism is an *economical* system, and only applies to economy (of course, economy being so central to society, economical systems permeate all the aspects of our life). In other words: to what is produced and how, and what is consumed and by whom. And that is what monopolistic corporations try to control.

Besides, one could argue that MS *does* coerce you to live (use an OS), associate with (share contents) and vote (use individual programs) only in a MS-sanctioned way. Once Windows is prevalent, choice of OS is made as difficult as can be, which is coercion. You can not just try, say, MacOS for 3 months, use it in equal footing, and then go back to Windows because you like it better (even paying all the licenses in the process). MS makes sure, via incompatibilities, that using anything else is as painful as they can make it. Not because their offer is better (capitalism), but because the user has no real choice (communism). About contents, they force proprietary and closed formats on their users, so as to make competition impossible. They’ve gone markedly out of their way to make, e.g., MS Office documents as closed as possible, to avoid them being read by any other software. At the same time, they’ve resisted all they have been able to to give MSO the capability to read other open formats (such as ODF), in clear damage for their users’ interests, and in their own benefit. Besides, with Treacherous Computing, an HDCP-compliant graphics card-only OS and all that crap, they bow to third parties’ interests, harming their customers’ interests again, and actually controlling (or trying to) what they see and how.

I am yet to see a definition of Communism and/or Totalitarianism that MS does not fit into. But show me one in which the FOSS movement does fit.

Does it attempt to dominate its market? Yes, indeed. But even if it succeeds, it’s not communist. Nor is it totalitarian: no one has accused MS of trying to dictate where you live, whom you associate with, whom you vote for, or anything like that.

So if you don’t like MS, that’s fine. But calling them totalitarian or communist is as silly as suggesting Obama is a Nazi.

As for calling FOSS advocates totalitarian or communist: that’s silly too. I, frankly, suspect that some FOSS advocates are communists, and that they find FOSS compatible with their beliefs. But I know for a fact that many aren’t, and in fact there are free-market arguments against copyright law, too.

You’re mixing up several concepts. There’s capitalism, in which economic activity is driven by the private sector, versus socialism/communism where the economy is centrally controlled by the gov’t.”

I.e. “capitalism” = the best offer is used by consumers, freely (yes, you have to mix concepts. Without freedom to choose, capitalism is but a hollow word); “communism” = someone decides unilaterally, then everyone uses that. Now tell me how monopolistic corporations (e.g. MS) are not communist in their goals (re-read the previous definitions). All the corporations I know complain that the government should not control the market, because it should be free, when in fact they mean that THEY want to be the ones dominating it. Real market freedom is the *last* thing a dominating corporation wants. And show me a corporation that does not wish to become dominating.

“There’s freedom, in which people are able to live their lives as they choose, versus totalitarianism, in which the government directs their lives. ”

OK. You have separated freedom and capitalism/communism, fairly enough. Now tell me how monopolistic corporations such as MS are not totalitarian AND communist. Just because MS is not the government? That’s a moot point. The whole point of communism is that some people choose in the name of the community, for the sake of the community. Monopolistic corporations differ only in that they decide in the name of the community, for the sake of themselves (which most communist governments have done, as well).

Also, tell me how free software and its advocates can be labeled either totalitarian AND/OR communist. Maybe in some people’s eyes (Thomas above) looking for the best for the community equals communism? We should ask them.

You stir the pot Bob, with a large spoon. :)

I now use Ubuntu exclusively (as of 2 days ago) ..but I still have XP under my desk just in case.

I think its a wonderful alternative to paying for an OS. Ubuntu seems to be driven buy an enthusiastic group of people who really seem to thrive on making this system better than it was “yesterday” just because they want to.

I have to respect that.

I have even started playing around with command lines. It’s really enjoyable because I can grab my (learning curve) GUI if I need it.

I really think its just a preference as to what OS you like.

Some people drive the race car and after the race drink a beer……ahhhh sounds nice.
Some people drive the race car and then after the race work on the race car…..ahhhhh sounds nice.
……..some do both, but I digress…

What ever makes you happy ;)

I do believe that you should know how to rotate your tires,change your oil,plugs, brakes, and in extreme situations change your timing belt if necessary.

Thats how I feel about my OS and thats why I am pursuing Linux/Ubuntu. I really want to understand whats going on under the hood.

for what ever its worth thats my thought

I think you’re trying to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean, thus ending up with nonsense like the above.

You’re mixing up several concepts. There’s capitalism, in which economic activity is driven by the private sector, versus socialism/communism where the economy is centrally controlled by the gov’t.

There’s freedom, in which people are able to live their lives as they choose, versus totalitarianism, in which the government directs their lives.

There’s corporations, which are groups of people voluntarily working towards a common goal.

There’s contract law, where people freely choose to alter their behavior in return for something else they want.

And there’s copyright law, which is an attempt to define property rights (a concept alien to communism) on non-physical items.

Criticize one or more of these if you want. But don’t expect us to accept that the use of copyright law or contract law is totalitarian or communist, or that corporations are communist. You’re being Orwellian.

Mmm. Shameless trolling? Maybe. However…

Dear Thomas, you are wrong at so many levels, you almost deserve a prize.

First, you just committed a fallacy, in the form of an ad hominem argument (I am assuming you refer to pro-free software arguments as “socialist chatter”). Search Wikipedia to get informed.

Second, you use Socialism as an insult, which from a Fascist point of view it must be, I concede. I know many Americans (the web is not only USA, BTW) are paralyzed by fear or hatred at the sound of “Socialism”, but that’s ridiculous. One can dismiss Socialism for its many errors, but if a socialist said the sky is blue, it wouldn’t make it red, “because the socialist must be wrong”. Similarly, many socialist ideas could be beneficial. One just has to choose (as hard as it may sound, I’m proposing to actually use your brain, instead of parroting brainwashing mottos).

Third, it’s proprietary software, if any, the “Socialist” model. Free Software is about freedom, about giving power to the user. The proprietary sw industry (as all hard-core capitalist industries) is heavily communist, trying to impose a monopoly/oligopoly (totalitarian central control) on the users (citizens) and taking power away from them. They want to control what you use and how, and what you share with others. They try to be the only source of authority-sanctioned goods, depriving the users of the right to create and share anything, and specially that which goes against their (industry’s) status quo. That sounds to you like capitalism?

Just something Canonical overlooked I guess.

If you hate linux though, and want to pretend you need the command line, use

sudo apt-get install libadns1

or better yet, why dont you grab the source code and compile it.

To those new to Ubuntu, or perhaps interested:

Ignore the guy ranting about telling his wife she needs the command line. There are no productivity, internet, or fun apps that need the command line. They are all pre-installed, or can be installed with one of THREE GUIs, and they all start, operate, and stop with a mouse.

They are all nicely sorted in the menus.

Linux isnt MSDOS.

And doesn’t Linux have the same issue? Does a Linux kernel from 1999 run today’s hardware and software? The issue is not obsolescence, the issue is that MS charges and Ubuntu doesn’t. My pain is not in having to upgrade, but in having to pay. And $150 every 12 years is acceptable to me (that amortizes to $12.50/year).

As for Office’s new .docx format: “evil” Microsoft offers a free compatibility pack so that people who are using Office 2000 or 2003 can read and write the files. No one who bought Office since 1999 is being forced to upgrade before at least 2014.

As for requiring faster CPUs and more RAM: people buy them more for playing DVDs, playing Flash, playing high-frame rate games, producing videos, etc., than they do for supporting the latest OS. Linux isn’t magic; it won’t let you watch HD video on a 500MHz Pentium with 512MB RAM any better than Windows will.

A more damaging argument against Windows is that when I want to buy a new computer (so I can watch HD video or play Crysis) I need to buy a new Windows OS. This is, in fact, the only time I buy Windows, and it’s once every 3 or 4 years. And yes, I’m annoyed that I can’t (legally) transfer my OS from one PC to another.

But I fail to see how some points I mention do not harm Windows users. How do forced software upgrades not harm you? How does being forced to buy new hardware not harm you? How does dosification (“dosed” release) of software and hardware novelties not harm you? They hurt us all alike!

One could argue that each Windows release requiring faster and bigger machines has indeed boosted the CPU/RAM/HD development. Well, sadly that’s simply a myth. Windows requiring increasingly more powerful machines has allowed hw makers to market new hw that *just* supports the new Windows. And with that, they had their sales assured, no need to develop further. E.g., if Windows N requires 1GB of RAM, and two years later Windows N+1 requires 2GB of RAM, hw makers can spend the 2 years developing just the 1GB increase in RAM, and expect to sell their stuff. If Windows N+1 didn’t require (read “force the user to buy”) 2GB of RAM, but just 1GB, then the hw makers would need to give the market something more meaty than a mere 2x increase in RAM so that it would appeal so much to the customers that they would buy it. Small improvements would not be sexy enough to afford marketing them.

All your issues about hardware drivers and Microsoft Office updates are more damaging to Linux than they are to Windows. Linux HW drivers are usually available later than Windows drivers, are lower quality, and are not as well supported by the manufacturer. And if you care about 100% compatibility with MS Office, Linux isn’t even an option.

Meanwhile, although XP is 8 years old, Office will support it for at least another 5 years (the lifetime of Office 2010) and hardware vendors are still supporting it. So are gaming software companies.

It’s true I can’t experience the joy of using Windows ME with the latest hardware and software. So I need to pay money to avoid using an 11 year old OS. It’s worth it to me.

I realize all the strikes against Linux are due to its market share compared to Windows. And I’m cheering for Linux – I really am. But I’m tired of Linux lovers treating Microsoft as evil and Windows users as brain damaged. There are compelling reasons to use Windows, and Linux simply can’t counter them yet.

When I was younger, I refused to buy an S-100 8080 based PC because I wanted the cleaner architecture of a 6809. Back then, I was willing to endure a lack of software and hardware for the philosophical joy of using a superior system. I’m too old for that now. I’m using a crappy x86 with a badly architected operating system. But it does what I want it to.

Since “everybody uses Windows”, and since MS presses hard so that all new computers come with the latest Windows preinstalled, it is really hard to avoid the new Windows enter the market. MS creates, willingly, incompatibilities between the new and the old versions, disguising them as “improvements”. Typically users of the new Windows can interact with the old Windows, but not the other way around. Once a company starts receiving from their partners PowerPoints and DOCs in the new format, they are almost forced to switch to the new Windows, which supports the new Office, which can read the new DOCs. Once the company you work for sends you info in the new DOC format, and you can’t read it at home, or all your friends who bought a laptop with the new Windows preinstalled (willingly or not) send you a funny PowerPoint you can’t open because you have the “old” Office (assuming you care for forwarded PowerPoints), you start to consider switching to the new Windows yourself.

After some time, even the hardware is made specifically for the new Windows, and it could not work in your old Windows. Even software (that is, games) is made for the new Windows. Quickly enough, you are stuck with either keeping your current hardware and software, or “upgrading” to the new Windows to access the new ones. Then, you “upgrade” Windows so the new camera you bought works on it, and end up buying a new CPU and more RAM because otherwise Windows won’t work. ¿Sounds familiar to any reader? Not to any Linux user, I bet.

MS lives from forcing each new software version upon the society, so they will make their best to make the life of those who don’t “upgrade” miserable. More so against those who don’t even use Windows. And each and every copy of Windows in use (bought or “pirated”, it doesn’t matter) is one more gram of gunpowder in their arsenal.