פרסומים אחרונים במדור "חברה וכלכלה"

As I see it , the meaning of morality is
to give up your own desires for
someone else.

When it comes to microsoft , I don't
want to give up any of my desires for
them.
It's not a lousy excuse for my behavior
but a philosophic way of thinking.
All of you Capitalistic minds who
believe in microsoft's right (or any
other evel corporation such as
McDonalds) to feed their hungry bank
accounts with our good money given
for poor products can keep on pay
the extra tax taken by Microsoft every
few months when a new version
of their product comes to the market.
Me on the other hand , will not pay
them. I prefer carrying the guilt
of *stealing* from microsoft , and give
this money to someone who really
needs it ...

1) The morality of microsoft is not the
issue. All I'm saying is that I will never
steal a gum from a small kiosk in my
neighborhood , but I will still software
from micrsoft and I would harm them
worse if I could.
2) In my home I have no computer , so
I have no microsoft software too , but
that's another issue. If I had one I
would still use microsoft products
since I would have no choise. Don't be
naive and ask me why...
3) I have no problem with microsoft's
release of new version every few
months 'cause I won't buy them. If you
buy their products you should have a
problem with that , and if you have
accepted that , enjoy...
4) About the poor quality , it's the same
as McDonalds (which I dont visit as
well). McDonalds selling garbage for
food and so is Microsoft. I don't know
what is it that you do for a living , but
I'm a programmer and unfortunately I
have to use their products , and they
are poor. Again , if you have no
complains , keep enjoing the lovely
blue screens...
5) I keep myself the right to
recommend whoever read these
lines ,not to buy Microsoft products ,
and BTW not to eat at McDonalds.

I believe the differences between us are
that you dont consider the fact that
Bil Gates own Billions of Dollars when
on the streets of his country people
are hungry to death as a crime .
I believe his crime is much much worse
than those people who copy his lousy
programs.
The guilt , of course , is not on Bil
Gates alone , but on the whole rotten
western society.

if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

1) This is the second time I write this
message since I got a blue screen the
first time. I guess the big brother's eye
is still open ;-)
2) I didn't say that stealing from the
reach is a morality behavior. On the
other hand I would like to see more
actions of individuals against powerfull
corporations. This action could be an
embargo on those companies products
(That's what I do). Unfortunally people
don't really give a damn these days.
Either they have comfortable life and
they have no will to make a change or
they are too poor and concern about
how to put food on their table.
I would really want to see more people
like your friend who refuses to install
Microsoft's products on their computer.
This friend of yours (and other that I
know like myself) stand for their
beliefs. I don't accept , though , that
young childrens who want to play on
their new computer will install Linux.
If they do , they'll probably play snake.
So , under these circumstances , I'm
happy that their protest is heard , loud
and clear. That is , they need , and I
repeat - need microsoft products in
order to fulfill the capabilities of their
computer yet they dont want to pay
thousands of Nis for that.
Maybe someone will hear that protest
someday...
3) It's another argue, but the fact that
Microsoft releases a new version so
often is because time is very expensive
these days (especially in the high-tech).
So , instead of releasing a complete
product in a year , they release a Beta
version , sold as completed one , full of
bugs , in full price after 3 months.
I don't accept that.

www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000813mag-qaboies.html

One possible reason has to do with the fact that
when a software has more users, this attracts
even more people to purchase it as well because of
the compatibility. If, for example, I know that all my
friends have Word, I will perhaps also get it in order
to exchange documents with them.

In summary, the sales of a software product
1. Decrease with price (it sells less if it is more expensive)
2. Increase with the number of people already owning it.

This means that for Msoft it is well worth it to have
more users, even if some of them don't pay for the
software, because this will cause more legal buyers
to come and purchase the software for the full price.
If you want a more mathematical explanation, let
me know.

So, instead of giving some copies for free, Msoft simply
puts a very loose protection on the software, so that
some people would copy it while others would buy it and pay
the full price.

Perhaps I can raise a hypothesis about one possible future
business model.
For every software there will be two groups of users:
Those who will pay, and those who will not. Let's call
the first group the "preferred" users and the others -
"the public".
The preferred users will be a group of people or
corporations who need the software very much and want
to take an active role in its design, so that it will suit
their needs very closely. They will also receive it slightly
before the others for beta testing. Most of those willing to
pay will probably be corporations, not individuals, and
they will form some kind of "consortium" that will define
what the software should look like (e.g., "What features would
we like to have in Acrobat 7.0?"). The software company
will simply work as a coordinator and service-provider
for the consortium, doing the actual development and
coding. All coordination could be done through the internet,
including the formation of the consortium itself. The members
of the consortium will have to decide how to divide the costs
of the development among themselves, but after the software
is released, it would be free for the public to use.
Naturally, the process will be open for every hacker or
expert to express their opinion during the design and testing.
The key idea is just that the potential users will be the
ones who will actually define the specifications, not
the software vendor.