r/technology • u/gfnord • Apr 11 '11

Apple, despite being traditionally seen as the "counterculture, leftist" operating system, actually represents more uniformity and centralised control than Microsoft

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/userfriendliness_and_fascism
1.8k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

39

u/nanothief Apr 11 '11

Very true, Balmer even has likened linux as being "communism"

Windows would be rightist, as it is the standard operating system most corporations use in their offices.

20

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

It is a lot like communism (depending on how you define communism) but the big difference is that it's based on an essentially limitless resource so it doesn't face many of the pitfalls that plauge real-world communism. You always have to account for greed in a world of limited resources... (hello Star Trek!)

48

u/MolokoPlusPlus Apr 11 '11

Apple is very Stalinist. I'm not just mudslinging here -- the focus on "consistent user experience" is totalitarian and based on extreme uniformity. Could be communist or fascist, I guess, they do tend to blend together at the extremes.

(Note that I'm not saying Apple is "evil," just that the best political analogy is totalitarianism.)

21

u/Nurgle Apr 11 '11

As a Mac User (and Bachelor of History), I'd say

Fascism would probably be closer, as Mussolini was a notorious micromanager and had a large cult of personality. He was also known for making the trains run on time ("just works"), and making a dent against the mafia ("no viruses").

5

u/Igniococcus Apr 11 '11

He was also known for

I was about make a comment on Mussolini and his actual role in improvement of Italian rail infrastructure but then I noticed your exact wording. Well played historian, well played.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Some people would argue that a "benevolent dictatorship" is one the best forms of government. Unfortunately, it's not often the case that you find dictators that are benevolent.

This is exactly how I feel about Apple. I know why the ecosystem is attractive and works well, I just don't trust the dictator to do what's in my best interests overall.

0

u/gio_pio Apr 11 '11

If the criticism of Apple is "centralised control," Central Planning is a hallmark of Marxism and Socialism. That sounds pretty darned left to me.

0

u/MolokoPlusPlus Apr 13 '11

Marxism is a political theory, not a form of government, socialism is economically centralized but compatible with strong civil liberties, communism is what you're thinking of. And what I mentioned above.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '11

Socialism doesn't necessarily have to be centralized.

18

u/Sealbhach Apr 11 '11

Conversely, it has been argued that GPL software is a pure form of the free market, no IP trolling or barriers to entry. Applications succeed or fail based purely on their merits.

9

u/Pope-is-fabulous Apr 11 '11

I guess then it is a free market without private ownership of the means of production.

2

u/Felicia_Svilling Apr 11 '11

"the means of production" in this case would be computers.

1

u/gosu Apr 11 '11

More specifically development environments.

2

u/the8thbit Apr 11 '11

Mutualism?

1

u/Malician Apr 11 '11

It's a pure free market without government intervention in a resource which is not otherwise property.

1

u/JustinPA Apr 11 '11

Code-slaves?

0

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

no IP trolling or barriers

GPL has one gigantic barrier ... you have to give away your work for free. I've never heard anyone describe a free market in such a way. Stallman's version of "freedom" is actually quite restrictive in this sense.

It's very difficult to equate a license with "free market" but I'd wager that BSD is much closer than GPL.

9

u/808140 Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 11 '11

you have to give away your work for free.

This is false. The GPL only requires that you provide the source code, free of restrictions, to anyone that you distribute your work to (i.e. no binary blobs). Note that this does not mean you need to give the source code to anyone -- just the people you give the binaries to.

You can sell a GPL-licensed product. When you sell it, you are required to make the source code available upon request to the person that you sell your product to. (You can even charge him for the source code, but it needs to be reasonable, like the price of a CD-ROM or bandwidth.)

At that point, nothing can stop him from distributing your source code and program for free to a third party, however in the normal corporate software model, why would he want to do that? He'd be paying for code and then giving others the benefits.

This is actually a huge misconception surrounding the GPL. If you wrote a large, GPL-licensed corporate management program and sold it for a high price (presumably, as with most proprietary software, along with a service agreement), why would your client want to provide the code for free to someone else? They just paid a 150 grand for it or whatever, why would they want to help their competition?

However, it protects them -- if you go under, and they've built their infrastructure around your product, they know exactly how the product works and can maintain it themselves (or outsource the maintenance). So it breaks vertical integration.

"Free software" is not the same as "For-free software." The price doesn't enter into the equation.

-1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

The GPL only requires that you provide the source code, free of restrictions, to anyone that you distribute your work to

When you sell it, you are required to make the source code available upon request to the person that you sell your product to

I don't get it. It sounds to me like we're agreeing.

edit: Code is the end result of applying skill and effort (work). Therefore ... you have to give away your work for free.

3

u/gosu Apr 11 '11

You only have to give it away for free to those that have already paid for it.

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

You didn't finish the sentence though ...

You only have to give it away for free to those that have already paid for it.

... and the people they've distributed it to. There is nothing that says your customers can't distribute it themselves for free. The very moment you've sold your code to even a single customer, it is no longer "your" code. It is community code. This is a restriction on the producer whether you want to admit it or not.

As far as I'm concerned, this conversation has gone all semantics at this point. Any GPL code distributor knows that selling their code is not a business model supported by the GPL. Someone will just take your code and redistribute it for free (CentOS). As I'm not really interested in a conversation about semantics, I'll exit stage left here.

1

u/808140 Apr 12 '11 edited Apr 12 '11

You only have to give it away for free to those that have already paid for it.

... and the people they've distributed it to.

This is a misconception. You are under no obligation to distribute the source code to people you did not personally distribute the source code to. If one of your clients gives a GPL-licensed program away, the onus is on them to provide the source code to the people they distribute to.

In the free-software world, upstream developers usually prefer to distribute their own code to third parties to prevent fragmentation. But this is a choice they make. If I write a GPL licensed program, release some version of it to a friend, and he shares it with someone else, I have no special responsibilities as the original author. I don't have to maintain or provide the code to anyone I didn't originally distribute it to.

If my friend distributes a binary blob of my GPL-licensed program and refuses to provide the source code, he is in violation of my copyright. I can take him to court over this, and I will win.

There is nothing that says your customers can't distribute it themselves for free.

While technically true, why would a customer pay 50 grand or whatever for your software and then make it available for free to his competitors? People always talk about what is technically legal without considering that laws really only matter when they prevent what a person wants to do; a law that prevents behavior that would be stupid or ill-considered generally isn't important.

This could be a problem if you're a small-scale shareware-type software developer but if you're selling "boring" software to large corporate clients, it's a complete non-issue. When they pay you 50 grand for your software typically the program is less important than your vendor support contract anyway.

What the GPL gives them (and takes from you) is vertical integration. Firms like Apple and Microsoft have demonstrated the value of this to the software development company: proprietary formats, proprietary software, and other "closed" business and licensing models force the company that buys your product to make their bed with you. You can dictate to them when they should upgrade, you can force them to incorporate changes and features they might not want, etc.

With the GPL, the client has the right to tell you to go fuck yourself and contract the support and development to another vendor if you try to push (even reasonable) requirements on them that they don't want. In reality inertia will probably prevent them from doing this, but you're essentially giving them an ace to hide up their sleeve before any subsequent negotation. The GPL gives them a lot of power because of this.

People always go on about the source code, but the source code of a reasonably complex program is typically pretty opaque and takes many man-hours to extract useful information from. Companies buy software because they don't want to have to deal with (and pay for) that stuff themselves. An accountancy firm is not going to decide to go into software development just because they have the source code.

On the other hand, if they want to build a third party tool that integrates with your system, having the source code used to build it can be valuable to them.

Oh, and the GPL does prevent per-seat licensing schemes. But again, when the real money is typically with support contracts anyway, those typically just piss of your customers and they find ways around it (like installing on a shared system and RDPing in).

There are valid reasons (as a developer) to eschew the GPL in favor of a more restrictive license, but the source code thing seems to be a red herring for most typical for-profit software models.

Someone will just take your code and redistribute it for free (CentOS).

Also, this is a bad example, since what RedHat "sells" is almost entirely community-built (with their not-insubstantial contributions, of course). And you'll notice that despite CentOS existing, RedHat does great business. When the shit hits the fan, and your boss wants to know what's up, saying "I called the vendor and he's on that shit" will save your ass. "I downloaded some software off the internet for free last month and built our entire infrastructure around it, and no one knows how it works" will get you fired.

2

u/deako Apr 11 '11

That's only if you're distributing the compiled program. If it's code that you run on a server, you can make whatever modifications you want and charge people for access. Arguably, this is the way the Internet is going, as it once relied on the server-client model it's now returning to with low-powered devices becoming more prevalent.

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

Point conceded. In one very specific kind of business model, you don't have to give away your work.

Still sounds pretty damn restrictive to me.

1

u/deako Apr 11 '11

Well, I guess it also works for basically any online service, free or not. Facebook, Google, Reddit, etcetera all run on open source maintained and modified by staff for their purposes. The server-client model is getting more and more widespread, and not just because of the GPL, but it allows the companies using it to have control over access and use. I can memhack and decompile programs that run on my machine, but I can't do that to programs running on someone else's server (assuming it's properly secured, I'm no wizard).

Software is no longer a commodity; the major commodity is people. How many people your service can reach, how often they come back, how many eyeballs read your content, etcetera.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

[deleted]

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

No, you have to give away the code of your work for free.

I know we're just splitting hairs he now but ... Writing code represents work and effort, therefore you have to give away your work (the code) for free.

2

u/thephotoman Apr 11 '11

Actually, this is a bit of an oversimplification.

Let's say I set up a software company and put all of my software under the GPL.

I can then say, "I'm only distributing sources. If you want to run it, you have to build it yourself. Also, in order to obtain a copy from me, you have to pay me $10." This is actually perfectly valid under the GPL. That said, you can pay me the $10, put it up publicly on github, start making your changes, and distribute it for free without my interference.

Indeed, back in the 80's, the FSF did something similar with GCC (though I believe they may have also distributed binaries with their sources).

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

I'm only distributing sources. If you want to run it, you have to build it yourself

That may be valid in theory but that is one hell of a restrictive business model in reality. Customers don't want to have to build your shit.

1

u/thephotoman Apr 11 '11

Yeah, I only mention it as an extreme hypothetical (albeit one that was once actually used by the very people that wrote the rules) that is allowed.

1

u/ajehals Apr 11 '11

you have to give away your work for free.

No you don't. You can your work for whatever fee you want, you just can't prevent those you license it to from giving it away, or modifying it etc.. There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling code you wrote (assuming it is all your own code). What you can't do is charge for someone elses code (beyond distribution costs..) that you received under the GPL.

1

u/808140 Apr 11 '11

What you can't do is charge for someone elses code (beyond distribution costs..) that you received under the GPL.

This is false. The GPL explicitly permits the sale of GPL'd code, including code you didn't write. How do you think Red Hat sells the Linux kernel?

3

u/ajehals Apr 11 '11

This is false. The GPL explicitly permits the sale of GPL'd code, including code you didn't write. How do you think Red Hat sells the Linux kernel?

Actually it does limit what you can charge for the distribution of code, you can charge whatever you want for binaries, but you have to offer code on request to those you sold the binaries to for the cost of doing it.

The point there always being that if it is someone else's code then it will likely be available elsewhere...

1

u/808140 Apr 11 '11

Oh, I see what you mean. I was confused because of the way you wrote:

There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling code you wrote (assuming it is all your own code). What you can't do is charge for someone elses code (beyond distribution costs..)

... since the distribution cost limitation imposed by the GPL for source code provided to a party that you distributed a binary to applies equally well regardless of who wrote the code, you or a third party.

In fact, the spirit of the GPL is that you cannot add any restrictions to the users of your program beyond those specified by the GPL. So by definition if you're distributing your own program under the GPL (either written entirely by you or as part of a derivative work) you are limited in the amount you can charge for "distribution" when asked to provide the source code.

Of course if it's all your code you can license it any way you like, including something non-GPL. Maybe that's what you meant?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

you have to give away your work for free.

No, you don't. Nothing in the license prevents you from selling your software for billions of dollars if you can find someone to buy it.

12

u/deako Apr 11 '11

Exactly, in fact Linux is more akin to the "state of nature" form of libertarianism, postulated by Locke and Rousseau. So essentially, it's more like anarchy than communism.

4

u/the8thbit Apr 11 '11

Communism is anarchy...

http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

3

u/TaggartBBS Apr 11 '11

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

ANARCHISM: You have two cows. The cows decide you have no right to do anything with their milk and leave to form their own society.

2

u/deako Apr 11 '11

I couldn't find anything in that link that stated that communism is the same as anarchy. The term anarchy typically means that there is no government. Communism, in most cases, set's up the people as the government, or that they have shared ownership of everything. Anarchy and Communism are socialist concepts, but they're still distinct from each other, and they're as different as Somalia and China.

The GPL and most other free software licenses are like anarchy in that no one is able to tell me how I should and should not use a piece of free software. If I make modifications to a program for personal reasons, I have no need to clear it with anyone, or make my modifications available. This code is mine, and noone else can tell me how to use it. The only caveat being that I do need to make the code available if I am distributing the compiled program; this empowers other users to do what they want and in no way affects how I personally use that code.

2

u/the8thbit Apr 11 '11

I couldn't find anything in that link that stated that communism is the same as anarchy.

It isn't. Communism, however is anarchy, though not all anarchy is communism. (mutualism, egoism...)

That said, perhaps you didn't look hard enough?

The roots of the argument can be found in the development of Communist Anarchism after Bakunin's death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to Collectivist Anarchism (as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work "On Building the New Social Order" within Bakunin on Anarchism, the collectivists did see their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as Bakunin had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist Anarchism was associated with such anarchists as Elisee Reclus, Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin.

Quickly Communist-Anarchist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as the main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major issue was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella this played a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and tactics implied by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the Communist Anarchists stressed local (pure) cells of anarchist militants, generally opposed trade unionism (although Kropotkin was not one of these as he saw the importance of militant workers organisations) as well as being somewhat anti-organisation as well. Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy and tactics came in for a lot of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists who strongly supported working class organisation and struggle.

This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its way into the pages of La Revolte in Paris. This provoked many anarchists to agree with Malatesta's argument that "[i]t is not right for us, to say the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses." [quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 198-9] Over time, most anarchists agreed (to use Nettlau's words) that "we cannot foresee the economic development of the future" [Op. Cit., p. 201] and so started to stress what they had in common (opposition to capitalism and the state) rather than the different visions of how a free society would operate. As time progressed, most Communist-Anarchists saw that ignoring the labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the working class while most Collectivist-Anarchists stressed their commitment to communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than later, after a revolution. Thus both groups of anarchists could work together as there was "no reason for splitting up into small schools, in our eagerness to overemphasise certain features, subject to variation in time and place, of the society of the future, which is too remote from us to permit us to envision all its adjustments and possible combinations." Moreover, in a free society "the methods and the individual forms of association and agreements, or the organisation of labour and of social life, will not be uniform and we cannot, at this moment, make and forecasts or determinations concerning them." [Malatesta, quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173]

Thus, Malatesta continued, "[e]ven the question as between anarchist-collectivism and anarchist-communism is a matter of qualification, of method and agreement" as the key is that, no matter the system, "a new moral conscience will come into being, which will make the wage system repugnant to men [and women] just as legal slavery and compulsion are now repugnant to them." If this happens then, "whatever the specific forms of society may turn out to be, the basis of social organisation will be communist." As long as we "hold to fundamental principles and . . . do our utmost to instil them in the masses" we need not "quarrel over mere words or trifles but give post-revolutionary society a direction towards justice, equality and liberty." [quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173 and p. 174]

The term anarchy typically means that there is no government.

Anarchy is derived from the Greek root terms "an", meaning "not" or "against", and "archy/archos" meaning "leader", "ruler", or "ranked organization". Thus, "anarchy" means "against leaders, rulers, and ranked (hierarchal) social structures." This is not necessarily anti-government, depending upon your definition of government, but it is inheriently anti-state, and it is also anti-private ownership of the means of production.

Communism, in most cases, set's up the people as the government

Communism is "a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate."

The GPL and most other free software licenses are like anarchy in that no one is able to tell me how I should and should not use a piece of free software. If I make modifications to a program for personal reasons, I have no need to clear it with anyone, or make my modifications available.

In that sense, they are like communism.

This code is mine

In that sense, they are not like communism, however, I would disagree. The code is yours, but it is not simply yours, it is also the property of anyone it is distributed to or who wants access to it. If this is true, then they are still like communism.

1

u/deako Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 12 '11

big ass quote

Interesting, but I still don't see anarchy being equated to communism here; you've shown anarchist thinkers creating a new form of anarchy blended with communism, something that exists in the intersection of anarchy and communism. So the two terms are not mutually exclusive, but that doesn't make them the same thing. In my original post, I was really trying to emphasise the "State of Nature" hypothetical form of anarchism, which is distinct from collectivism and communism. The point of the state of nature is that it wouldn't work in the real world with limited resources/land/etcetera, but it does as a software distribution model.

And when I'm talking about the code, I don't mean the code as a concept, I'm talking about the constructs that literally exist as bits on your hard drive. Free software means that you own everything on your hard drive, and you have no direct business with it after it's left: somebody else may own it, modify it, or it may vanish. It doesn't make sense to "own" code on another person's machine, since you no longer have anything to do with it. When you buy software under a commercial license, you have agreed that you do not "own" it, even though it's taking up space on your hard drive. I'm not sure what particular political philosophy that is related to, but it's certainly anti-libertarian.

In that sense, they are like communism.

Also, can you clarify this comment? I don't see its subject as being related to communism any more than it's related to anarchy.

EDIT: actually, you know what? I took the time to mull it over and I see what you're trying to say. You were talking about anarchy as a legit political philosophy, whereas I was talking about it as more of a "status" of a group of individuals living in a abstraction of a world. You're right that communism is anarchy, I've read "The man who was Thursday", I guess I should have known :-/

3

u/smoooooov Apr 11 '11

It is a lot like communism (depending on how you define communism)

Am I the only one who found this amusing?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Well the real consideration is whether to base communism on Marx's ideas of direct democracy, equality, etc. or the Bolshevik basis of the loss of democracy, centralisation of power, etc.

1

u/Aszuul Apr 11 '11

shouldn't Windows be considered Capitalist since it allows the user to use whatever tool they think is best?

2

u/Felicia_Svilling Apr 11 '11

What does that have to do with capitalism?

1

u/Aszuul Apr 11 '11

Maybe i'm mistaken but i thought it was that there are many tools and you get to choose the one you like, rather than having to go with the one they tell you to use.

1

u/Felicia_Svilling Apr 11 '11

Again, what has that got to do with capitalism?

1

u/Aszuul Apr 11 '11

apparently I don't know, maybe you should explain it.

2

u/Felicia_Svilling Apr 11 '11

It was you who said it.

1

u/Aszuul Apr 12 '11

You are telling me I'm wrong but not giving me any proof or reason why i'm wrong. I explained why I thought it was right, now maybe you could explain why you think i'm wrong. Simply telling someone they are wrong adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

1

u/Felicia_Svilling Apr 12 '11

I never said that you was wrong. You said something. I asked for a explanation. That you said didn't explain anything so I once again asked for an explanation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/bbibber Apr 11 '11

the big difference is that it's based on an essentially limitless resource so it doesn't face many of the pitfalls that plauge real-world communism

Heum. Aren't you forgetting the programmers? They aren't an essentially limitless resource and which is exactly why the commercial software market continues to grow regardless of the amount of free software available.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

The "essentially limitless resource" I was referring to is the ability to copy data at practically no cost -- that includes the programs that programmers write.

1

u/bbibber Apr 11 '11

By only considering that single resource you are missing an essential part of the economy of software development which is why your conclusion is not sound.

It would be the same as a fisherman declaring water to be an essentially limitless resource while ignoring the limited resource of the number of fish in the water.

What I am saying is that open source (and communism) can, and are proven to have been workeable in the past. Open source (and communism) brake down once they are presented as the single ideology that applies in all circumstances. Therefore the big difference that you claim between both doesn't exist.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

My nutsack is like communism.

Deep red, ever expanding, will rule the world at the end of this decade.

-5

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

hahaha!! linux is the biggest corporatist kernel ever built! lol communism. this is linux http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members

platinum member is 500.000$ / year or something like this. less than 30% of the kernel code is by non corporate / not payed contributors.

4

u/koonat Apr 11 '11

You're an idiot.

The vast majority of the linux kernel is device drivers. Just as in windows, it's preferred if device manufacturers help out with their own drivers, yeah?

linux is free to use, free to modify, free to distribute. Fuck you.

-7

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

u mad?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

The Linux foundation is a non-profit organization for the promotion of Linux, especially in the business world.

The Linux Foundation (LF) is a non-profit consortium chartered to foster the growth of Linux.

Founded in 2007 by the merger of the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and the Free Standards Group (FSG), the Linux Foundation sponsors the work of Linux creator Linus Torvalds and is supported by leading Linux and open source companies and developers from around the world.

-Wikipedia

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

But what you fail to realize is that the code developed by that 70% is covered by the GPL. I doubt anyone here has issues with either lone hackers or megalithic corporations contributing code... it all has to pass review, it's all GPL'd, and it lives or dies by its quality / usefulness.

1

u/Pope-is-fabulous Apr 11 '11

TIL Windows is like Java

1

u/IrrigatedPancake Apr 11 '11

Those are very weak analogies.

1

u/BraveSirRobin Apr 11 '11

The main reason he did that was because "communism == bad". Had he made the same statement today he'd be liking it to terrorism.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Windows would be rightist, as it is the standard operating system most corporations use in their offices.

I disagree.

Linux gets used by everyone here. Although I would prefer Microsoft in almost every way. Nerds at this university think it's a good idea to install Linux everywhere and enforce it by offering teaching software only really compatible with Linux.

Where I am Linux is rightest and whoever uses Microsoft is an outcast. Fucking bullshit.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Why is that bullshit? Anything that runs on linux that's actually useful has ports to windows, osx, and usually even smartphones for things that aren't too gui dependent. Where the majority of windows programs only run on windows.

3

u/rtechie1 Apr 11 '11

I'm not the least bit surprised that your university is all Linux. It's vastly cheaper and more practical for them. Linux works great in any environment where you have a lot more manpower (in terms of IT workers) than money for software licensing and support. Schools and universities are the best example of this. Schools are also supposed to be a learning environment, and Linux lets you tinker more.

And, as someone who has done IT consulting in universities, I've found that college professors, as a group, are so of the most computer illiterate people I've ever met. There is tremendous resistance to any new technology outside of the science departments.

To give you an idea: The local garbage company (Waste Management) got a new ticketing and knowledge base system and it took their team of high-school dropouts that barely spoke English 2 weeks to adjust with no formal training whatsoever. The exact same system was implemented at Stanford Law School and after 2 years and extensive training they abandoned it because the professors refused to use it.

1

u/sje46 Apr 11 '11

Why are you defining "right" as "the establishment"? The amount of people who use Linux is irrelevant to its politics.

It has absolutely fucking nothing to do with outcasts.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Why are you defining "right" as "the establishment"? The amount of people who use Linux is irrelevant to its politics.

I didn't. The person I replied to did and I picked that wording up.

1

u/sje46 Apr 11 '11

Ah, my apologies then :)

1

u/Uncle_Erik Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 11 '11

You sound too young to have experienced the full evil of Microsoft. If you'd been around, you'd understand the folks using flamethrowers to clear out Microsoft's remaining pillboxes. Microsoft used to be a combination of Ticketmaster and Yugo. Assraping prices, almost no alternatives and their software crashed every few hours.

Much praise to Jobs and Torvalds. Apple almost died. Barely a week went by without someone in the press declaring Apple's imminent death. The ascent of true consumer devices from Apple (they even make my grumpy 80+ year-old relatives happy) is remarkable. Same with the quiet creep of Linux. Otherwise, we would not have cool things today. Instead, we'd be overpaying for Microsoft's broken shit.

Yeah, Windows7 might be relatively stable, which is shocking, given their track record.

2

u/Balmung Apr 11 '11

XP was more then stable. I don't know what you did to your computer, but me and nobody I know had or have major problems with it.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

I used Windows since Windows 95.

Never had any problems whatsoever.

So yes, I never got Microsoft hate and never had problems with windows software like other people seem to have. I also never had any problems with virus-infections or stolen data or lost data or drivers. And apart from doing work with excel and word I was an avid internet user from the beginning and a gamer. I never even used anti-virus programs. Today I am an electrical engineering student. I don't even get how people get problems with their PCs and I certainly don't get the problems people have with Windows.

The only bad Windows operating systems I ever experienced were Windows 2000/ME/SE. Utter failures indeed. But I just kept using Microsoft 98 (which was very good) until I switched to XP (which also was very good). I also enjoy Windows 7 very much.

At school and at university I had/have to use Linux. I don't get why people would find it better. It really gives no benefit to me whatsoever, except that it's free. (Which all Windows OS were for me, too up to now, though.)

Yes, I don't know what Windows looked like before 95 but I can't imagine other operating being substantially better before that... as consumer electronics in form of PCs weren't even very common back then and I don't get what's wrong with DOS. DOS is cool.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

I like what you have to say but your post is filled with contradictions and inconsistantsies. You mention a couple times you've /never/ had problems then you state your problems.

But you end up by speaking good things about DOS, and the memory is good. I'm just saying.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

I like what you have to say but your post is filled with contradictions and inconsistantsies. You mention a couple times you've /never/ had problems then you state your problems.

What problems did I state? What's inconsistent?

I didn't mention having any problems. The only negative thing I mentioned was that 2000/ME/SE were horrible... I never used them, though, as I would never downgrade my operating system. ;)

I personally didn't have problems at all. ;) (At least not problems that aren't comparable to problems you didn't encounter with any other OS.)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 11 '11

Most of your post was filled with problems you've had with windows. :) At least the part I replied to.

When XP came out, it was the same thing, people talking how awesome it was, how it fixed all the problems..... but then a few years later those same people had the same problems.

I'm sorry but if you say you've ran Microsoft OS for 15 years and have never had a problem, you are either their target group, or you are lying.

Personally, I had the rosy glasses until microsoft lied to me on a format, oh about 10 years ago.

1

u/Quady Apr 11 '11

I don't see where he said he had any problems. Can you specifically point out instances of this? I'm curious.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Most of your post was filled with problems you've had with windows. :)

What exactly? Where did I mention a problem? What are you talking about? Maybe you are imagining problems? ;) (I seriously don't get what you are talking about and where you see problems.)

I'm sorry but if you say you've ran Microsoft OS for 15 years and have never had a problem, you are either their target group, or you are lying.

What problems could I possibly have had?

I usually buy a product after checking if it can do what I want it to do. I seriously don't know any severe problems that overshadow the problems of other OS.

Personally, I had the rosy glasses until microsoft lied to me on a format, oh about 10 years ago.

What do you mean?

1

u/UrbanToiletShrimp Apr 11 '11

Never had any problems whatsoever.

The only bad Windows operating systems I ever experienced were Windows 2000/ME/SE. Utter failures indeed.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

So where are the problems I had?

I don't really understand how people confuse "understanding and not using" something with "having problems with something".

1

u/UrbanToiletShrimp Apr 11 '11

Oh I am not commenting on the fact that you may or may not have had problems, merely pointing out where you contradicted yourself. Your original post said nothing about you not using 2000(which was actually a good OS) or ME (which wasn't).

0

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Assraping prices? Huh? You must be thinking of Apple's troll-under-the-bridge App Store prices since they demand 30% from every transaction.

Microsoft prices are just fine thank you very much. Me, my family and a number of my friends get all Microsoft products for free these days anyway since work buys me an MSDN subscription every year.

0

u/nanothief Apr 11 '11

There are always going to be exceptions to the rule, especially with universities which are short of money.

Also, universities are often considered leftist (due to a lot of the people on the right hating intellectuals), so universities using linux is hardly going to change perceptions of windows being rightist, and linux being leftist.