Corporations using Linux - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Corporations using Linux - Microsoft Windows ; Corporations have curiously become major users and proponents of Linux. These entities which the Free Software Foundation claims are their sworn enemies are becoming quite fond of the FSF. So what are they like, these corporations? - They undermine democracy ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Corporations using Linux

  1. Corporations using Linux

    Corporations have curiously become major users and proponents of
    Linux. These entities which the Free Software Foundation claims are
    their sworn enemies are becoming quite fond of the FSF.

    So what are they like, these corporations?

    - They undermine democracy by bribing politicians, indeed bribes have
    been made legal.
    - They sponsor politicians' campaigns in order to get favored
    treatment and contracts (ever hear of Halliburton?).
    - In the US, they use every trick they can to avoid providing health
    benefits to workers including undermining laws that control unions.
    - Their executives try to fool investors into thinking the company is
    more profitable than it is (ever hear of Enron?).
    - Their CEOs are given "golden parachutes" which reward them with
    millions of dollars even if they nearly destroy the company.
    - They are increasingly putting thousands of people out of work, which
    causes suffering and loss and which can upset the economic stability
    of the country. Often these jobs are going to dirtpoor countries.
    - Their conservative political representatives are bent on reducing or
    removing little perks like unemployment benefits, which help when
    downsizing occurs.
    - They can pollute the environment and pay off politicians to get away
    with it (as in Silicon Valley).
    - They corrupt the laws to allow them to nearly rape the environment,
    taking its minerals and trees, polluting rivers (remember the river
    that literally caught fire?) and the air.
    - They induce politicians to give them tax breaks that they do not
    need.
    - They increasingly are attacking the voting system, as in Florida
    (where thousands of non-felons were told they were felons and
    therefore couldn't vote) and now perhaps California, in order to
    ensure corporate-friendly appointments are made.
    - Their executives are increasingly being appointed to head regulatory
    agencies, especially under GW Bush, with no attempt to conceal this.
    - They support using child labor in any country where politicians are
    corrupt enough to allow it.
    - Many corporations relocate their headquarters to mailboxes in
    Bermuda and elsewere to avoid paying taxes.
    - Some corporations go so far as to assassinate union leaders
    (Coca-Cola repeatedly has done so in Central America).

    Given all this, would a rational person think corporations deserve to
    be able to use free software? Of course not.
    One ought not encourage the thieves by giving them something for free.
    Do you think they'll respect you?
    Free software, which was once a hobbyist effort has now been subverted
    and taken over by corporations.
    Now look at the names of companies who give money to the Free Software
    Foundation -- Cisco, IBM, Oracle, Sun etc -- and you will see
    companies that are downsizing and sending jobs to India and China.

    If a person steals once, we call it a first offense, no real harm
    done.
    If they steal twice, or three times, we call them a Thief.

  2. Re: Corporations using Linux

    On 26 Oct 2003 10:46:43 -0800, saintly1 wrote:
    >
    >
    > Corporations have curiously become major users and proponents of
    > Linux. These entities which the Free Software Foundation claims are
    > their sworn enemies are becoming quite fond of the FSF.




    >
    > Given all this, would a rational person think corporations deserve to
    > be able to use free software? Of course not.
    > One ought not encourage the thieves by giving them something for free.
    > Do you think they'll respect you?
    > Free software, which was once a hobbyist effort has now been subverted
    > and taken over by corporations.
    > Now look at the names of companies who give money to the Free Software
    > Foundation -- Cisco, IBM, Oracle, Sun etc -- and you will see
    > companies that are downsizing and sending jobs to India and China.
    >
    > If a person steals once, we call it a first offense, no real harm
    > done.
    > If they steal twice, or three times, we call them a Thief.


    Unfortunately, the only way to prevent the Corporations from using
    Free Software is with the very legal system they have created.

    What you seem to be proposing is that the people become what the
    Corporations are in order to fight them.

    And, just as an aside, I can't help but point out that if it weren't
    for the Corporations, you'd be dead meat: You are dependent on them
    for everything you have.


    --
    Alan C
    Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y

  3. Re: Corporations using Linux

    Greetings.

    In article , saintly1
    wrote:
    > Corporations have curiously become major users and proponents of
    > Linux. These entities which the Free Software Foundation claims are
    > their sworn enemies...


    Cite, please?

    > - They are increasingly putting thousands of people out of work, which
    > causes suffering and loss and which can upset the economic stability
    > of the country.


    Richard Stallman himself admits that Free Software puts programmers out of
    work, or at least drives down their wages. Does this mean that free
    software proponents should also not be permitted to use free software?
    What an interesting contradiction that would be.

    > Given all this, would a rational person think corporations deserve to
    > be able to use free software?


    Of course they do. There's nothing in the GPL (and most other Free and Open
    Source licences) which prohibits commercial use, use for profit, use by
    corporations, or use by "bad" people. If you, as a programmer, do not wish
    your software to be used by corporations, child-labour-exploiters, or
    mass-slaughterers of cute fuzzy bunnies, then don't release it under one of
    the existing free software licences.

    > Free software, which was once a hobbyist effort has now been subverted
    > and taken over by corporations.


    Subverted and taken over? The GPL has scarcely changed since its inception.
    All the freedoms guaranteed by it must be upheld whether the licencee is a
    hobbyist or a huge international firm.

    Most the points you make about the questionable practices of companies under
    capitalism are entirely valid. It is your conclusion I call into question.
    Even if the free software community collectively decided to change all free
    software licencing schemes to specifically exclude use by corporations,
    that would do little or nothing to prevent the capitalist abuses you refer
    to. Nothing will accomplish that short of a global, majority-supported and
    -engineered social revolution aimed at completely replacing the current
    profit-driven socio-economic system.

    Regards,
    Tristan

    --
    _
    _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
    / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
    (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

  4. Re: Corporations using Linux

    saintly1 blubbered effusively on Sun, 26 Oct 2003 at 18:46 GMT:

    > Corporations have curiously become major users and proponents of
    > Linux. These entities which the Free Software Foundation claims are
    > their sworn enemies are becoming quite fond of the FSF.
    >
    > So what are they like, these corporations?



    > Given all this, would a rational person think corporations deserve to
    > be able to use free software? Of course not.


    Read the license. MICROS~1 (aka "Satan") themselves can use GPLed
    software. All they have to do is abide by the licensing terms.

    The opposite of what you're claiming is terrible is the $MONOPOLY
    model. I believe we've seen more than sufficient evidence to suggest
    which model has the biggest problems, not the least of which is the
    inability of competent programmers to fix problems (or even to suggest
    fixes) as soon as they're discovered because competent programmers can
    take a look at the code to see what needs fixed under CSS.

    I take that back. Competent programmers /can/ suggest some repairs for
    flawed CSS code: install OSS and stop being taken from behind.

    --
    SoBig - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.

  5. Re: Corporations using Linux

    > And, just as an aside, I can't help but point out that if it weren't
    > for the Corporations, you'd be dead meat: You are dependent on them
    > for everything you have.


    Some have argued that we now live in a period of Corporate Socialism.
    They own the government, they own the means of production. Like China,
    where unions are illegal, real dissent tends to be squashed or silenced.
    They are taking control of the voting system with electronic voting.
    They determine what we see on TV, hear on the radio, read in newspapers.
    We are always welcome at their retail outlets, and there are always fewer
    non-corporate outlets and non-corporate products. Despite this,
    there *are* people who succeed in being relatively independent of
    big corporations. If they are the religion, we are all free to be
    atheists.

  6. Re: Corporations using Linux

    On 26 Oct 2003 17:13:53 -0800, saintly1 wrote:
    >
    >
    >> And, just as an aside, I can't help but point out that if it weren't
    >> for the Corporations, you'd be dead meat: You are dependent on them
    >> for everything you have.

    >
    > Some have argued that we now live in a period of Corporate Socialism.
    > They own the government, they own the means of production. Like China,
    > where unions are illegal, real dissent tends to be squashed or silenced.
    > They are taking control of the voting system with electronic voting.
    > They determine what we see on TV, hear on the radio, read in newspapers.
    > We are always welcome at their retail outlets, and there are always fewer
    > non-corporate outlets and non-corporate products. Despite this,
    > there *are* people who succeed in being relatively independent of
    > big corporations. If they are the religion, we are all free to be
    > atheists.


    All the Corporations are powered by their Consumers. No Consumers, no
    Corporation.

    --
    Alan C
    Post validation at http://tinyurl.com/rv0y

  7. Re: Corporations using Linux



    "saintly1" wrote in message
    news:cf49ee25.0310261046.586cd2f6@posting.google.c om...
    > Corporations have curiously become major users and proponents of
    > Linux. These entities which the Free Software Foundation claims are
    > their sworn enemies are becoming quite fond of the FSF.
    >
    > So what are they like, these corporations?
    >
    > - They undermine democracy by bribing politicians, indeed bribes have
    > been made legal.
    > - They sponsor politicians' campaigns in order to get favored
    > treatment and contracts (ever hear of Halliburton?).
    > - In the US, they use every trick they can to avoid providing health
    > benefits to workers including undermining laws that control unions.
    > - Their executives try to fool investors into thinking the company is
    > more profitable than it is (ever hear of Enron?).
    > - Their CEOs are given "golden parachutes" which reward them with
    > millions of dollars even if they nearly destroy the company.
    > - They are increasingly putting thousands of people out of work, which
    > causes suffering and loss and which can upset the economic stability
    > of the country. Often these jobs are going to dirtpoor countries.
    > - Their conservative political representatives are bent on reducing or
    > removing little perks like unemployment benefits, which help when
    > downsizing occurs.
    > - They can pollute the environment and pay off politicians to get away
    > with it (as in Silicon Valley).
    > - They corrupt the laws to allow them to nearly rape the environment,
    > taking its minerals and trees, polluting rivers (remember the river
    > that literally caught fire?) and the air.
    > - They induce politicians to give them tax breaks that they do not
    > need.
    > - They increasingly are attacking the voting system, as in Florida
    > (where thousands of non-felons were told they were felons and
    > therefore couldn't vote) and now perhaps California, in order to
    > ensure corporate-friendly appointments are made.
    > - Their executives are increasingly being appointed to head regulatory
    > agencies, especially under GW Bush, with no attempt to conceal this.
    > - They support using child labor in any country where politicians are
    > corrupt enough to allow it.
    > - Many corporations relocate their headquarters to mailboxes in
    > Bermuda and elsewere to avoid paying taxes.
    > - Some corporations go so far as to assassinate union leaders
    > (Coca-Cola repeatedly has done so in Central America).
    >
    > Given all this, would a rational person think corporations deserve to
    > be able to use free software? Of course not.
    > One ought not encourage the thieves by giving them something for free.
    > Do you think they'll respect you?
    > Free software, which was once a hobbyist effort has now been subverted
    > and taken over by corporations.
    > Now look at the names of companies who give money to the Free Software
    > Foundation -- Cisco, IBM, Oracle, Sun etc -- and you will see
    > companies that are downsizing and sending jobs to India and China.
    >
    > If a person steals once, we call it a first offense, no real harm
    > done.
    > If they steal twice, or three times, we call them a Thief.


    So, I expect you will go to the mattresses soon ?


    --
    This is a test only. Please disregard any words preceding this.



  8. Re: Corporations using Linux



    "saintly1" wrote in message
    news:cf49ee25.0310261713.425a63ee@posting.google.c om...
    > > And, just as an aside, I can't help but point out that if it weren't
    > > for the Corporations, you'd be dead meat: You are dependent on them
    > > for everything you have.

    >
    > Some have argued that we now live in a period of Corporate Socialism.
    > They own the government, they own the means of production. Like China,
    > where unions are illegal, real dissent tends to be squashed or silenced.
    > They are taking control of the voting system with electronic voting.
    > They determine what we see on TV, hear on the radio, read in newspapers.
    > We are always welcome at their retail outlets, and there are always fewer
    > non-corporate outlets and non-corporate products. Despite this,
    > there *are* people who succeed in being relatively independent of
    > big corporations. If they are the religion, we are all free to be
    > atheists.


    And I am free to be one of the priests!
    Bless all you sinners, when will you see the light ?
    St. Bill awaits you with open wallet !



    --
    This is a test only. Please disregard any words preceding this.



  9. Re: Corporations using Linux

    wise@saintly.com (saintly1) writes:

    > Corporations have curiously become major users and proponents of
    > Linux. These entities which the Free Software Foundation claims are

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > their sworn enemies are becoming quite fond of the FSF.


    Please either give give a direct citation for that alleged FSF claim,
    or admit that you are just making things up as you go.

  10. Re: Corporations using Linux

    wise@saintly.com (saintly1) writes:

    > Now look at the names of companies who give money to the Free Software
    > Foundation -- Cisco, IBM, Oracle, Sun etc -- and you will see
    > companies that are downsizing and sending jobs to India and China.


    Which, if and only if you are an egoistic American hypocrite with no
    moral fiber in his bone whatsoever, can be considered a bad thing.

  11. Re: Corporations using Linux

    Greetings.

    In article , saintly1
    wrote:
    >> And, just as an aside, I can't help but point out that if it weren't
    >> for the Corporations, you'd be dead meat: You are dependent on them
    >> for everything you have.

    >
    > Some have argued that we now live in a period of Corporate Socialism.


    Only those who are using a particularly strange definition of "socialism".

    > They own the government, they own the means of production.


    The way I've always heard the term used, it refers to a system where there
    is little or no private minority ownership of the means of production.
    Definitions of the term used by some groups also extend it to incorporate
    the lack of any system of government. This is hard to reconcile with your
    vision of total ownership by corporations.

    Regards,
    Tristan

    --
    _
    _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
    / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
    (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

  12. Re: Corporations using Linux

    Greetings.

    In article <9gVmb.3236$RQ1.1608@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Alan
    Connor wrote:
    > And, just as an aside, I can't help but point out that if it weren't
    > for the Corporations, you'd be dead meat: You are dependent on them
    > for everything you have.


    I'm not so sure; humans seem to have gotten along just fine without them for
    thousands of years. The working people of this world are no more dependent
    on corporations than serfs were dependent on their feudal lords or slaves
    were on their emperors.

    Regards,
    Tristan

    --
    _
    _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
    / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
    (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

  13. Re: Corporations using Linux

    wise@saintly.com (saintly1) writes:

    > So what are they like, these corporations?


    If you replace "corporations" with "members of some ethnic group" your
    list will be equally true and equally false. In other words, you are
    no better and no worse than a racist.

  14. Re: Corporations using Linux

    Tristan Miller wrote:

    >> And, just as an aside, I can't help but point out that if it weren't
    >> for the Corporations, you'd be dead meat: You are dependent on them
    >> for everything you have.

    >
    > I'm not so sure; humans seem to have gotten along just fine without
    > them for thousands of years.


    Yeah ... And the average lifespan (if you even managed to survive
    childhood) was less than 25 years. Do you *really* think we could have
    the current quality of life, had it not been for corporations fueling
    the economy?

    --
    PeKaJe

    Cohen's Law: There is no bottom to worse.

  15. Re: Corporations using Linux

    Greetings.

    In article <3f9d9e9c$0$29310$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>, Peter Jensen
    wrote:
    > Tristan Miller wrote:
    >
    >>> And, just as an aside, I can't help but point out that if it weren't
    >>> for the Corporations, you'd be dead meat: You are dependent on them
    >>> for everything you have.

    >>
    >> I'm not so sure; humans seem to have gotten along just fine without
    >> them for thousands of years.

    >
    > Yeah ... And the average lifespan (if you even managed to survive
    > childhood) was less than 25 years. Do you *really* think we could have
    > the current quality of life, had it not been for corporations fueling
    > the economy?


    No, I don't think that. Furthermore I never argued that. I am arguing
    against the blanket statement that corporations are responsible for
    everything that's good and necessary in the world, and that we would all be
    dead without them. Certainly the advent of capitalism was historically
    necessary to raise the level and quality of production to such a point that
    everyone's needs could be met in theory. Since we've now reached that
    point, and because people's needs are not being met in practice, I contend
    the system has outlived its usefulness.

    --
    _
    _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
    / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
    (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

  16. Re: Corporations using Linux

    saintly1 wrote:

    Mindless, unsupported ideological viewpoint from Wintroll trying to get
    attention ommited here.

    ROFL

  17. Re: Corporations using Linux

    Tristan Miller wrote:

    > Greetings.
    >
    > In article <9gVmb.3236$RQ1.1608@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Alan
    > Connor wrote:
    >
    >>And, just as an aside, I can't help but point out that if it weren't
    >>for the Corporations, you'd be dead meat: You are dependent on them
    >>for everything you have.

    >
    >
    > I'm not so sure; humans seem to have gotten along just fine without them for
    > thousands of years. The working people of this world are no more dependent
    > on corporations than serfs were dependent on their feudal lords or slaves
    > were on their emperors.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Tristan
    >


    Without feudal lords the serfs would not have been protected or
    organised. Corporations today are forced to provide some kind of job
    security and insurance in most democratic countries. And a bunch of
    mindless, unorganized individuals cannot get anything done.

  18. Re: Corporations using Linux


    "saintly1" wrote in message
    news:cf49ee25.0310261046.586cd2f6@posting.google.c om...
    > Corporations have curiously become major users and proponents of
    > Linux. These entities which the Free Software Foundation claims are
    > their sworn enemies are becoming quite fond of the FSF.
    >
    > So what are they like, these corporations?
    >
    > - They undermine democracy by bribing politicians, indeed bribes have
    > been made legal.
    > - They sponsor politicians' campaigns in order to get favored
    > treatment and contracts (ever hear of Halliburton?).
    > - In the US, they use every trick they can to avoid providing health
    > benefits to workers including undermining laws that control unions.
    > - Their executives try to fool investors into thinking the company is
    > more profitable than it is (ever hear of Enron?).
    > - Their CEOs are given "golden parachutes" which reward them with
    > millions of dollars even if they nearly destroy the company.
    > - They are increasingly putting thousands of people out of work, which
    > causes suffering and loss and which can upset the economic stability
    > of the country. Often these jobs are going to dirtpoor countries.
    > - Their conservative political representatives are bent on reducing or
    > removing little perks like unemployment benefits, which help when
    > downsizing occurs.
    > - They can pollute the environment and pay off politicians to get away
    > with it (as in Silicon Valley).
    > - They corrupt the laws to allow them to nearly rape the environment,
    > taking its minerals and trees, polluting rivers (remember the river
    > that literally caught fire?) and the air.
    > - They induce politicians to give them tax breaks that they do not
    > need.
    > - They increasingly are attacking the voting system, as in Florida
    > (where thousands of non-felons were told they were felons and
    > therefore couldn't vote) and now perhaps California, in order to
    > ensure corporate-friendly appointments are made.
    > - Their executives are increasingly being appointed to head regulatory
    > agencies, especially under GW Bush, with no attempt to conceal this.
    > - They support using child labor in any country where politicians are
    > corrupt enough to allow it.
    > - Many corporations relocate their headquarters to mailboxes in
    > Bermuda and elsewere to avoid paying taxes.
    > - Some corporations go so far as to assassinate union leaders
    > (Coca-Cola repeatedly has done so in Central America).
    >
    > Given all this, would a rational person think corporations deserve to
    > be able to use free software? Of course not.
    > One ought not encourage the thieves by giving them something for free.
    > Do you think they'll respect you?
    > Free software, which was once a hobbyist effort has now been subverted
    > and taken over by corporations.
    > Now look at the names of companies who give money to the Free Software
    > Foundation -- Cisco, IBM, Oracle, Sun etc -- and you will see
    > companies that are downsizing and sending jobs to India and China.
    >
    > If a person steals once, we call it a first offense, no real harm
    > done.
    > If they steal twice, or three times, we call them a Thief.



    You seem to have read you share of Michael Moore.

    I knew America was screw. Mike just confirmed it. Then I read Choamsky's
    new one and I'm starting to think the John Howard (Prime Minster of
    Australia where I live) might ACTUALLY be acting in our best interest
    regardless of the shame this brings upon me with his behaviour.

    You're very right and the competition to that will be interesting is this:

    Will the financial might of MS allow it to mainain its alliance/alignment
    with the US government and can MS provide said Gov with a strong enough
    controlling technology to provide the gov with more global 'power'. -VS-
    Corporate US's single guiding principle to feed more to the shareholders in
    the form of increased revenue coupled with reduced CODB? IE Corporate US's
    move to reduce costs by using free software.

    At first one might think that the later has more potential and I personally
    would still not be suprised if this won thru on these grounds. It seems so
    obvious that it would be the preferred option. BUT! Once one has an
    understanding of just how diligently the US gov is seeking to control the
    world with the most violent foreign policy in history and internal
    propaganda control, one can begin to see how if MS delivers a control
    technique (TCPA for example) then they may position themselves to
    acquire/rely on the full weight of the US government both locally and
    internationally. You may have noticed that I have thus far not raised the
    fact that the current Bush II administration has eroded the rights of it
    people right under their own nose. They are systematically DECREASING
    you're 'freedom' and now beginning to go public about the fact that they
    expect the world to follow in their shadow. (They've been actively pursueing
    this for over 50 years) And you WILL be ****ed be you an individual or a
    state should you elect to oppose any view held by the US of A.

    So you can see here that any kind of software that labels itself 'Free' will
    be viewed suspiciously and a software that veils itself in 'secrecy' might
    have a more natural feel to such a leadership. The elite of both software
    philosophies speak vastly different languages. Who do you think will speak
    the language of the Bush II administration?

    If it so suits the US government, you may just find yourself being told what
    you will use.





  19. Re: Corporations using Linux

    In gnu.misc.discuss jeremyn wrote:
    > Tristan Miller wrote:


    > Without feudal lords the serfs would not have been protected or
    > organised.


    Protected from what? Other feudal lords of course...

    There is beauty in a recursive argument, after all Darwin's
    "evolution" argument is similarly recursive.

    The actual argument should be presented in terms of stability and
    instability. If we all decide to be farmers then no one needs
    protection, and no one needs military power. If even one group
    of people decide to become soldiers and steal the farmer's food
    by force then suddenly everyone needs soldiers. The "all farmers"
    scenario is an unstable equilibrium (like standing a knife on its
    point) some random influence will always upset the equilibrium.

    Being a farmer does not require a lord nor does it require
    centralised organisation. Being a military power does usually
    equire centralised organisation (although resistance movements
    have at times managed to hang in there without centralised
    organisation).

    > Corporations today are forced to provide some kind of job
    > security and insurance in most democratic countries.


    "Job security" ?!

    > And a bunch of
    > mindless, unorganized individuals cannot get anything done.


    No one is talking about a bunch of mindless individuals here.

    - Tel

+ Reply to Thread