[CS-FSLUG] Proprietary Software: Capitalism or Greed?

[Don Parris]

On 3/22/06, Alan Trick <alantrik at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 09:52 -0600, Timothy Butler wrote:
> > >
> > > Isn't this exactly the same scenario where Microsoft started (except
> > > that they were not hardware vendors..) -> people liked their Windows
> > > operating system, they became a monopoly and now (because of greed?)
> > > they try to force the whole industry under their control? :)
>
> Actually, It's pretty similar. The main difference is that Apple has a
> small market share; however, they have very strong monopolistic
> tendancies (worse than MS IMHO).
>
> > I think it had more to do with people liking MS-DOS (or finding it
> > tolerable).
>
> I disagree. For one thing, people liking MS-DOS had nothing to do with
> it's merits (it had none). It was because IBM supported it ('nobody ever
> got fired for going with IBM'), because people are cheap, and because
> hackers love freedom.
>
> The cheapness was because PCs were generally cheaper and you could get a
> pirated version of MS-DOS really easily, these customers got used to
> Microsoft's OS and later started buying it. Indeed, pirating has done
> far more to help Microsoft than it ever did to hurt it.
>
> The freedom thing is kind of ironic considering the current situation.
> But for a while hackers loved the Microsoftian PCs. They were free to
> chose their hardware vendors and Microsoft was pretty lax about copying
> stuff. This all changed, of course, when GNU and Linux came around.
>
> Combined with the right marketing, you have a killer combination there.
>
> > Microsoft then used its monopoly power (or oligopoly
> > power) to move people to Windows. Note, though, this has nothing to
> > do with whether the software is proprietary or not and everything to
> > do with the company behind it.
> >
> > Mac OS has been around longer than Windows, it just hasn't had the
> > same market position that Windows has had.
> >
> > The big problem, IMO, is that people are cheap. Even with it being
> > illegal, people are salivating at the idea of putting Mac OS X on a
> > generic PC that costs less than a Mac. If people paid for the things
> > they valued, Apple could make Mac OS X entirely FOSS and still
> > survive just fine.
> >
> > And, just think if everyone who used GNU/Linux paid a fair price to
> > their favorite distributor...
> >
> > -Tim
>
> Personally I don't think there's anything morally wrong about non-free
> software. The problem of greed is a far more endemic one, and it's
> rooted in our capitalistic mindsets and ultimatly our selfish selves.
>
> I do think that non-free software bad from a pragmatic standpoint. It's
> like paying money to shoot yourself in the foot.
>

Here's a question.  How long could Capitalism (at least where software
is concerned) last without FOSS?  In other words, FOSS ensures a free
market for Capitalism to survive.  But does proprietary software
really ensure the survival of a free market?  Given the nature of some
of the companies behind proprietary software, licenses would likely
become ever stricter and more costly.  Given that many applications
seem to be heading down the road toward Internet-based,
subscription-oriented services, the whole issue may be moot.  Even so

Don
--
DC Parris GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/
gnumathetes at gmail.com
"Hey man, whatever pickles your list!"