[ale] VA Linux IPO - The Sad Thing ?

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Chris Kilroy wrote:
> 
> Hegel was wise enough to see that the best (and perhaps only) solution to a stated 
> problem was a synthesis of two diametrically opposed proposition.

	Although I'm far from being a Randian, Ayn Rand was fond of advising
people who posed a "problem" to "re-examine their premises". More
often than not, the stated problem doesn't exist at all. Hegel's right
so long as both propositions are founded in truth, otherwise only
corruption will result.

> Platittudes abound on both sides of this argument, and as such i will try to keep 
> my comments brief.

	Platitudes, yes, but I'm claiming a monopoly on logic and truth at
this point. I welcome anyone who wants to establish their own market
position in this area, however.
 
> In defense of the "statists":
> Unchecked capitalism is what produced Microsoft.

	With reservations I'll go along with this statement. However, I view
this only as a success for capitalism. No other economic system has
ever been able to do this.

> And it is obviously bad for many individual entities within the market when a company 
> like that becomes so powerful.

	How is it "obviously bad"?!?!? Its not bad at all. Let them compete!
If they take actions to fraudulently stifle competition then sue them.
Many companies have and won. *That's* the purpose of government in a
free market, establish a judicial system to handle disputes. FWIW,
we've really got to get over this Microsoft fixation. Except for the
fact that they happen to be a major player in part of the market "we"
are after, Microsoft is basically irrelevant and becoming more and
more so. We're redefining the problem and thus, the market. The whole
"problem" that every one cries about isn't going to event be a
discussion point in a few years. If we don't get over this Microsoft
fixation, we'll never be able to rise above and create a new market
that makes the old one obsolete and irrelevant - therefore, someone
else will!

> However, it may be argued (and i think that is a subject for real economists) that at 
> this stage in the development of IT/computer industry/etc. it was better overall for 
> the explosion of the American market to have this standard OS, admitedly as inferior 
> of a product as it is.  But i don't think so.

	Whether it was better or not is irrelevant. It was inevitable in one
form or another. Just as it is pretty much inevitable that this
standard be eventually supplanted by something else.
 
> In defense of people who like to make money:
> The bottom line is there is nothing wrong with making money.  If what "we" want is for Linux
> to exist as a viable competitor to Windows at both the server and home end user level, then
> there is no way that will happen without companies making money off of it.  It is good for
> the computing world that RedHat is doing so well in the stock market, it gives them lots 
> of $$ to invest in development and hire people like "US".

	All very true but then there are "leaders" of the movement, like RMS,
who think people like ESR are "Setting a bad example" by making money
from "unfree" (per his definition) software. Truth be told, his
biggest gripe is that the market ticker wasn't GNU/RHAT. That guy just
wants credit for the whole deal and is willing to see it all go to
heck if its not run his way. This is the attitude of the statists.
They proclaim freedom and goodness but are nothing short of tyrants
who want to take away other people's freedoms.

	regards & later,

		Ben Scherrey
--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.