thelinuxlink.net

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/0 ... 7dell.html

Dell responded by announcing it would sell PCs bearing a version of Linux called Ubuntu. It’s not clear yet how many customers will actually buy these machines.

But that point may be moot. By agreeing to do business with Microsoft and Novell, Dell risks becoming a pariah in the Linux community.

This is funny. One of Forbes' tech writers thinks that Ubuntu is part of Novell and/or Microsoft. It's crack reporting like this that will always keep mainstream journalism and media a step ahead of those amateur bloggers.

If it wasn't because I'm so damn lazy and never update it, my blog would be a brilliant places for a bunch of news!!

Linux fans went nuts. Why? Because they hate Microsoft. They viewed the deal as a way for Microsoft to assert that Linux violated some Microsoft patents. Novell, by going along, was collaborating with the enemy, they said.

Holy shit, talk about misleading. I remember reading more professional articles in my high school newspaper.

The thing that drives me nuts is people who should know better using terms like "intellectual property" when there is no such thing. Property is something like my car; if you take my car away from me, I have no car. An idea is the opposite, you use my idea, and I can still use my idea, too. It's like lighting a candle from someone else's candle, you do not diminish their light, and have light yourself.

Anyone who knows better should call these things what they are, patents, or government granted monopoly, which is what they are. Property is a word that can't even apply to ideas. The two terms are completely incongruous with one another.

Though perhaps they do oversensationalize the expected "backlash" from a Dell/Novell deal, I think the article is more or less correct. The community did go nuts for Dell when they announced Ubuntu sales. The community did go nuts when Novell signed an agreement with MS. The community did go nuts over the perceived ideastorm site debacle. Dell is absolutely only interested in their bottom line - linux sales aren't a "cool thing to do for Linux users" or a "right action" thing in Dell's mind, they are a pathway to profit. And at the end of the day, that's all Dell cares about. As an x86 box shifter, they see far less of this stuff than they'd like. Especially as an x86 box shifter whose profits have been slipping for a while now.

Vogateer wrote:The thing that drives me nuts is people who should know better using terms like "intellectual property" when there is no such thing. Property is something like my car; if you take my car away from me, I have no car. An idea is the opposite, you use my idea, and I can still use my idea, too. It's like lighting a candle from someone else's candle, you do not diminish their light, and have light yourself.

Anyone who knows better should call these things what they are, patents, or government granted monopoly, which is what they are. Property is a word that can't even apply to ideas. The two terms are completely incongruous with one another.

Private property has made us so stupid and partial that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital or when it is directly eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, etc., in short, utilized in some way; although private property itself only conceived these various forms of possession as means of life, and the life for which they serve as means is the life of private property--labor and creation of capital. Thus all the physical and intellectual senses have been replaced by the simple alienation of all these senses; the sense of having.

--Karl Marx

I have strong objection to the term "intellectual property", but I'm a believer in private property and ownership, and no fan of Marx or Engels. I find their ideas in direct conflict with the nature of man, which I don't believe can be changed. Even in that quote, he seems to be suggesting a reverse causation, that private property somehow changed man's nature and attitudes about property, rather than man's nature bringing about such systems and laws that favor private property. The sense of having isn't the result of alienation, it's practically in our blood.

Now I know that some of the communal ideals can work with a small group of people, some religious communities can do this pretty well, but once it gets to the point where you don't know everyone in your community, it fails.

Thomas Jefferson gave powerful expression to such ideas of private property, but even someone who was so passionate about private property spoke of how ideas cannot be considered remotely related to property:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

So amazingly, it seems that Marxists and Jeffersonians can agree on this issue. I find that pretty impressive.

Ah, I was just yanking your chain

Vogateer wrote:I have strong objection to the term "intellectual property", but I'm a believer in private property and ownership, and no fan of Marx or Engels. I find their ideas in direct conflict with the nature of man, which I don't believe can be changed. Even in that quote, he seems to be suggesting a reverse causation, that private property somehow changed man's nature and attitudes about property, rather than man's nature bringing about such systems and laws that favor private property. The sense of having isn't the result of alienation, it's practically in our blood.

That is evidence against "nature of man".
A quote taken from Murray Bookchin from the Anarchist FAQ

"an individual appropriation of goods, a personal claim to tools, land, and other resources . . . is fairly common in organic [i.e. aboriginal] societies. . . By the same token, co-operative work and the sharing of resources on a scale that could be called communistic is also fairly common. . . But primary to both of these seemingly contrasting relationships is the practice of usufruct." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 50]"

The latest version of Anarchist FAQ can be found at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

For those that are running debian , do apt-get install anarchism and your get a copy
http://packages.debian.org/stable/doc/anarchism

You may think Anarchism is idealistic and never going to happen but end of slavery, black rights, womans right to abortion, gay rights, free health care in uk,canada, france and other countries , minimum wage , right to a union, free milk for the poor in england at least and other things were once thought of idealistic aims, but they happened.

To think that private property is man's nature is biased at most.
Its like Western's *cough* right to oil in the middle east, which is a great laugh at best.

Private propriety is enforced in the same vain as patriotism, which at present must mean supporting all international troops to go back to there respective countries because its time to face up to the fact that the west are not going get complete control of the oil pipes as they want to.

Sorry for going off in a tangent

Ha! Had me going, Snarkout.

allix wrote: That is evidence against "nature of man".

You'll have to spell that one out for me, since I've reread my quote and don't see any evidence against "nature of man." From what I've read in anthropology and other areas, it seems that there's always a degree of private ownership, and like I said, the communal ideas can work in a small group, like tribes or other small units, but I've never seen them work in something like a city, or worse, a nation. It seems like the bigger you get, the worse communal ideas work, until you end up with a mess like the Soviet Union.

I certainly wouldn't describe my own ideas as biased, at least not in an unfair manner, just based on my personal experiences and reading. I've never seen anything resembling a technical society where the concept of "mine" didn't apply to something, even if it's the shirt on your back. Maybe there is something I'm missing, but it's not bias, if anything it would merely be ignorance.

allix wrote:

"an individual appropriation of goods, a personal claim to tools, land, and other resources . . . is fairly common in organic [i.e. aboriginal] societies. . . By the same token, co-operative work and the sharing of resources on a scale that could be called communistic is also fairly common. . . But primary to both of these seemingly contrasting relationships is the practice of usufruct." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 50]"

Yeah, I fully recognize the ability of tribes and aboriginal societies to practice communal ideas. But these never seem to scale well for larger civilizations, and the quote above doesn't suggest that there isn't private ownership alongside the sharing of resources; after all, he says "a scale that could be called communistic." This suggests that private ownership is certainly applied to other parts of their societies where it makes sense to do so, and the concept of private ownership would still be present.

Going to East Germany and seeing the horrible state that communism left the whole area in, and reading about the disasters of collective ownership in the U.S. (Jamestown and the Plymouth colonies), among many other examples of the failures of collectivism, has given me good reason to be wary of the notion that such systems can work in our society. Without strong enforcement of private property rights, most technical societies tend to falter. I've read compelling books outlining the problems caused by a lack of private ownership in India and South America and its hindrance on the economy.

allix wrote:Private propriety is enforced in the same vain as patriotism.

It's hard to think of the oil in Iraq as being private property, since when speaking of private property you're talking about the property of an individual, and if memory serves correctly, oil in Iraq was controlled by organizations of the state, much like it is in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, I believe. Aside from that, a lack of enforcement of private property in Iraq doesn't have much to do with the effectiveness of private property vs. collective property, which is really my main concern, or with how ownership is a part of man's nature and makeup.

allix wrote: Sorry for going off in a tangent

Dude, no reason to apologize to me for going off on a tangent, at least. I'm pretty fond of them myself, so long as they don't turn into yelling matches. I always enjoy discussions like this.

Vogateer wrote: and like I said, the communal ideas can work in a small group, like tribes or other small units, but I've never seen them work in something like a city, or worse, a nation.

That is true, i believe that's down to the ideals only attracting small groups.
In the world, a majority of people either like capitalism or are indifferent to politics and go along with there lives never really thinking about.

Vogateer wrote: Going to East Germany and seeing the horrible state that communism left the whole area in, and reading about the disasters of collective ownership in the U.S. (Jamestown and the Plymouth colonies), among many other examples of the failures of collectivism, has given me good reason to be wary of the notion that such systems can work in our society..

What happened in Eastern Germany, Russia , east europe, china and North Korea was not what marx, lenin or Trotsky fought for. It was unfortunate that lenin died so quickly after the revolution of 1917, Trotsky fought (Left Opposition , a faction within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1923 to 1927 headed de facto by Leon Trotsky.)really hard against what he saw Stalin was doing and was killed in Mexico City because of it..
Cuba is perhaps the closest to a communist state, there are a lot of things i do not agree with like freedom of press, but there are some interesting things like free education upto any age, free water, free air conditioning and a few other things.
A lot of its past pre justices are due to it being a developing country.

Vogateer wrote: It's hard to think of the oil in Iraq as being private property, since when speaking of private property you're talking about the property of an individual, and if memory serves correctly, oil in Iraq was controlled by organizations of the state, much like it is in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, I believe.

Private property does not just mean individual property, its just means its owned and not for everyone for the taking.
If the oil in Iraq or anywhere was owned by the state opposed to private companies then it could be argued as public property and not private property..

Vogateer wrote: Dude, no reason to apologize to me for going off on a tangent, at least. I'm pretty fond of them myself, so long as they don't turn into yelling matches. I always enjoy discussions like this.

cool, i am happy with that too.

Vogateer wrote: It's like lighting a candle from someone else's candle, you do not diminish their light, and have light yourself.

You stole my light you bastard. I'm gonna sue, you just watch me!

allix wrote: Cuba is perhaps the closest to a communist state, there are a lot of things i do not agree with like freedom of press, but there are some interesting things like free education upto any age, free water, free air conditioning and a few other things.

Absolutely nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. In Cuba's case, the only thing keeping their economy from collapsing is oil subsidies from Venezuela (about 100k barrels/day). Not exactly what you'd call a successful (or even dignified) communist state.

dann wrote:

Vogateer wrote: It's like lighting a candle from someone else's candle, you do not diminish their light, and have light yourself.

You stole my light you bastard. I'm gonna sue, you just watch me!

Too bad I gained the exclusive rights to the word "light" now you both owe me!

Seriously though I understand the idea behind patents however they didn't take into account companies like Microsoft which would use it for the sole purpose of trying to destroy competition. It's good to encourage creativity, originality, and scientific and technological progression but the implementation is bad. I think that the economy right now is stable enough to support just getting rid of patents all together. Those that innovate will be able to make more money by being the first to the market. Now there is a chance that the smaller companies could get ripped off because they don't have the marketing to get their product out there that fast and one of the bigger guys could rip them off in the meantime. I do not believe this fear would stop innovation however, but then again I know very little about economy.