OSNews

Since when do citizens have a "right" to order a manufacturer to deliver them a particular product? If a market exists, someone will exploit it. And there are plenty of manufacturers that will sell you a machine without preloaded software. All that you have to do is open your eyes.

Well, citizens have "every" right. Even in USA. It's about making an exception for the benefit of the commons. Whether or not it is fair is a different situation.

However. When it comes to software in the public administration it is obvious that proprietary software and proprietary standards are a big "no no". An authority relying on proprietary software/standards is a corrupt authority.

What Average Joe is using is however a matter of agreement between him and the manufacturer. Within certain limits (some rights cannot or should not be surrendered).

Constitutions, first and foremost, are guidelines under which a government is supposed to operate.

Thinking back to civics, some countries have constitutions that are far more sparse than the US, others' are pages and pages and are extremely detailed.

Brevity is a strength of the US constitution, I believe. It's laid down the ideals, the basic plan, for an entire country. And I believe more often than not it has worked remarkably well (especially for being an experiment of sorts).

A right to softwareless PC's is not in the constitution. It's not in any constitution that I know of.

I would argue that the freedom of information, thought, and knowledge should be an amendment (perhaps speech and self expression don't cover a digital age). This would, if done properly, also lead to some much needed patent reform.

Anyway, I don't think you can dismiss an argument against proprietary software in public institutions so very easily.

Why on Earth would you consider the government using something that is not an open standard a good thing? Instead what, you leave the power, the control, in a private entity's hands whose one soulless function is to make money? Do you believe there are inherent flaws in an open system that make things less than secure?

I'm not sure if OSS has that bad a security track record...After all TCP/IP is an open standard...Should the DOD use a closed secret proprietary one instead?

BTW:

It is virtually impossible to buy a PC without Windows preloaded. At best you can buy it without a license and you'll have to buy a license in order to activate the Windows installation on the machine.

If the citizens cannot get the right to buy PC without Windows pre-installed then Microsoft should be denied the option of pre-installing software.

> There are plenty of companies that will offer you barebones PCs without an OS.

Try that at Auchan, Carrefour or Géant...

It's not a matter of being possible elsewhere or not.
The fact of not detailing the cost of the software on the bill and not providing the choice of removing it is illegal in France. That's it.

Edited 2007-04-24 20:34

Nope.

You see, there is a slight problem or two with your post.

First, how is somebody without a pc supposed to buy a computer without windows? No matter what, Microsoft is getting the money, the market share, and the mindshare.

Second, I would say that the vast majority of computer purchasers know better than to buy from someone they've never heard of. Tigerdirect and Newegg? Who's heard of them (well, I have, but I've been buying from them since before windows 98 so I don't exactly count)?


Nobody seems to be complaining that it's impossible to get a computer without Windows preinstalled. If they are, I agree with you they are very wrong.

I think the complaint is that it is extremely difficult to find a computer, particularly a brand people know and trust (Support? Warranty?) that does not come with windows preinstalled.

Not to mention there are always Macs, but they have their own sets of issues and barriers to entry (including cost - the mac mini is not cost effective if you're low income, don't have a monitor/keyboard, etc)

That's bollocks, several small manufacturers are selling PC's without OS. Dell is going to sell PC's with Red Hat but not without OS. This should clearly be evidence that Microsoft isn't pushing big PC manufacturers to only use it's OS on PC's. So why can't we buy big brand PC's without OS? Maybe your finger is pointing wrong person, think about it.

Go inside a typical store and let's see if Joe Average can buy a PC without Windows. Nope, virtually impossible.

At best he can buy a PC without a Windows license, but the XP/Vista installation program will none-the-less still be on the hard drive. I'm aware a very few mail order companies are selling PC's with Linux but they are quite rare. And it doesn't invalide my point.

If you're talking the big OEMs, then yes, that's accurate.

But any small computer store should be willing to sell you a barebones PC (well, excepting Apple stores ). The city I live in has a population under 60k and even we have a store that fits that bill - not to mention the numerous online retailers like ncix or tiger direct.

Of course, the downside is that more knowledge is typically required to purchase a barebones system. E.g., I know people who have accidentally configured and ordered systems with a P4 motherboard and an AMD processor ("Hey, why is everything installed except the CPU?").

Yup, monopolists will exploit it.

If a market exists, someone will exploit it.
Yup, monopolists will exploit it.

Actually, the big problem with monopolies is that they won't exploit markets that exist (in the way the original writer meant). Monopolies are notorious for doing nothing to improve their product. In 1970s America, AT&T would only offer a residence one kind of phone, unless you paid extra for the Princess phone, which wasn't much better. Their R&D had all kinds of neat things, but the higher brass didn't want to hear of it. The same thing with Microsoft and Internet Explorer. The same thing with Standard Oil way back when. &c.

Citizens have a right to have choice; when that choice is being taken away from them by illegal tactics, such as the ones Microsoft employs, then they have the right to demand that the government step in, and make the manufacturers offer what the people want: choices and a variety of them.

It's the beauty of anti-trust laws and one of the advantages of a free and open economy: no monopolies and certainly no companies that threaten to withdraw their product from a reseller unless they sell his, and only his, product.

So it's standard practice in Europe to force companies to sell products to people who don't want to agree to their terms?

Nobody has to agree to abusive terms. In practice, abusive clauses in a contract aren't enforceable.

Citizens have a right to have choice; when that choice is being taken away from them by illegal tactics, such as the ones Microsoft employs

What illegal tactics? The DOJ already settled that case with Microsoft years ago.

your DOJ has no jurisdiction in France or EU. You are not the world, only part of it. You'll learn this some day.

Average Joe has no choice of the OS loaded on PCs at supermarkets. While it would be nice to have a Linux option, the "no OS" choice is more neutral.

In France, forcing ppl to buy Windows with a PC and hiding its cost on the bill, while it is sold also separately, is illegal. This is called "linked selling". But supermarkets don't care usually, and the administration that should make this law respected only starts to consider the issue.

Average Joe has no choice of the OS loaded on PCs at supermarkets.

So what. Average Joe can exercise his free will and not buy a PC from a supermarket. It's not as if there aren't other sources.

[i]While it would be nice to have a Linux option, the "no OS" choice is more neutral.</i

There are plenty of choices for companies that sell
barebones PCs...

http://osnews.co
m/permalink.php?news_id=17755&comment_id=233622

I'm sorry, I believe you're in fact thinking of the United States:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

Don't worry, it's a common mistake.

Ah...only in the mind of far-right extremists does "privileging consumers over companies" equate "less freedom"...

In a time when you can label someone a terrorist and remove their civil rights without a trial or anything even resembling one, you already live in an Authoritarian state.

When not paying taxes means the siezing of all of your property and yes, freedoms - jailtime - then you are already living in an Authoritarian state.

When your leaders don't even need to lie or make things up about past mistakes - when we KNOW that the people of the world were blatanltly lied to - and still thousands of members of the armed forces are forced to sit in a military prison or desert to leave such illegal and uneeded bloodshed - you are already living in an Authoritarian state.

Most states btw can be labeled Authoritarian based on one's definition. Yours probably involves socialized systems and high taxes.


The USA is not some single gleaming bastion of freedom and civil rights as they tried to teach you in civics class. Gotta say, lots of countries in Europe seem to be very nice places to live.


Gotta go renew duh Patriot Act - keep mah famly safe frum da terists and homusexuls.


Last thing...Europe has a military focus? Oh yeah! Cuz when I think of who's about to invade someone, I don't think of the United States who has repeatedly and illegally invaded sovereign land with no good reason, I think of Europe - The Irish are coming, the Irish are coming!

...Wow.

Anyone has a right to order anything they want - doesn't mean they'll actually get it, however.

Obviously they have no valid reason to expect those demands to be delivered on. But it's also important to acknowledge that - by the same token - commercial entities that make product decisions based solely on self-serving factors (as opposed to customer wishes) have exactly the same amount of right to expect any sales of those products.

Jumping from the specific to the general, I think that illustrates the fundamental problem with modern capitalism. As a business partner of mine puts it, there are two attitudes one can take towards customers: assume that every customer will only do business with you once, and that - as a result - you need to milk as much cash from them in that one transaction as possible. That model can bring it a lot of money in the short term, but I don't think it's sustainable over the long term (cough-cough-America-Online-cough-cough) - the assumption that you will only deal with a customer once can very easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The other model is to act as if every customer were your best/oldest client. That can become self-fufilling prophecy too, but it takes more work and more time to see a meaningful return - so we get the "race to the bottom" effect where most companies gravitate towards the first mentality once they get to a certain size.

Of course, the reality is that - thanks to deregulation - the "vampire" method of doing business can have its lifespan artificially extended somewhat by using mergers/acquisitions as a form of life support. Ultimately, though, I think that sort of action is just as futile as burning your clothes in a bonfire in an attempt to keep warm. Although the analogy isn't perfect - the present mentality of "in order to be successful, a company must not only grow - but also increase the rate at which it grows" is more analogous to intentionally purchasing clothes to use as bonfire fuel.

Anyone has a right to order anything they want

Fine. Order yourself a Space Shuttle. Or a Time Machine. Or how about a nice Giza Pyramid for your backyard. Oh, wait. I'm not asleep and this isn't a dream. So why are you wasting my time asserting such nonsense?

You wrote a paragraph of juvenile sarcasm in response to a post - and evidently you didn't even bother to read the entire first sentence, at least judging from the fact that you wrote a paragraph of juvenile sarcasm in response to points which were already thoroughly-qualified in my post.

Yet, somehow, I am wasting your time? How in Bob's name did you reach that conclusion? If your time has been wasted, you have no one to blame other than yourself, my good chum.

I agree. Sarkozy is George Bush's next poodle. If he becomes president, the French will have to get ready to fight in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other stupid war out there with Bush.

Sarkozy has passed a number of laws that reduce human freedom, and as we can see, he's against freedom even for software. This kind of person is bad for mankind and takes a country back 50 years.

Damit!

This is a computing website, not an economics discussion forum.

Go elsewhere if you want to discuss such things, there are plenty of places that would welcome your opinions Senator McCarthy.

Regarding the subject at hand. Discussion of these candidates other policies is not what should be done here.



I speak as a developer and a teacher of higher education.

Students should be taught a range of tools, not a particular product.

From your comments I can only assume you think students should be taught only one product per task.

At least we know what royal's position are.

Sarkozy position's always been whatever will get him elected. He's a school case of an ambitious opportunist and it's very difficult to know what his actual ideas are.

The fact he didn't really answer those questions regarding patents mean one thing: he doesn't know what the voters he need to convince nowadays want and don't want to take a position until he knows.

I thought the main platform he was running on had to do with the fear of Muslim immigrants changing France.

Oh yes, how absolutely terrible expecting that French work longer than a 35 hour work week.

Someone needs to wake them up over there, 35 hour work week for everyone else outside the EU is consider a holiday.

>Someone needs to wake them up over there, 35 hour work week for everyone else outside the EU is consider a holiday.

Alright, but working 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, since you were 12 years old, until they carry you out in a wheel chair is not a new concept.

Oh pulease, stop the drama - 'oooh, you're going to bring back the work house'. Mate, keep waving that hammer and sickle, maybe one day your dogma/come religion might actually work, until then, shock bloody horror, you might have to get off your ass and work a decent number of hours per week to get your salary/wage.

For me, up until this year (taking time off to study) I was working on average a 60-70hour work week - that is the cold hard reality sunshine out; not sunshine, moon beans and starpies, but the fact that people actually have to work, and sorry, 35 hours per week is pathetic at best.

I thought you just said there was nothing wrong with the idea of a 35-hours work week? :-)

Working 60 hours a week is too much. Working 35 to 40 hours a week is not being lazy. It's your problem if you're a workaholic, stop blaming everyone else for "sitting on their asses"...

By the way, citing the "hammer and sickle" as a lame attempt to claim that those who favor shorter working hours kind of misses the mark, since labour was highly valued in Communist countries, and workers generally worked long hours (and still do, as in China for example). Equating communism with laziness, as you seem to imply, is quite absurd.

As I said, there's no reason for people to work *more* now that automation allows us to be more productive. Also, the gross inequality in salaries found in some countries, such as the US (where a CEO may earn up to 400 times as much as an employee), kind of throws the whole argument on its head. A CEO *doesn't* work 400 times harder than a worker, there's no reason he should earn that much more.

Before trying to make people feel guilty for not working enough, perhaps we should look at limiting the insane salaries these executives vote for themselves...we should also encourage the development of worker unions in third world countries, so that at least these people have decent wages and working conditions.

More than anything, we should try to keep this discourse civil, and not try to ridicule those who disagree with us, as you just did. There's nothing to be gain by turning this into Yet Another Flamewar...

I don't know why everyone always rags on the French for their short work week. Envy? Let them work however long they want - they'll certainly pay the price for certain policies in their economy, but if they think that's worth it then who are we to complain?

It's almost like people think it is morally wrong to work less, and I don't get that at all.

Edited 2007-04-24 21:02

Have you had a look at the French policies relating to employment? and they wonder why they have such a high level of unemployment, and an absoultely terrible rate of youth unemployment.

When you have luxurious long holidays, you work hardly any hours per week, and over all productivity is in the dupster when compared to other OECD countries, you've really got to evaluate whether it is sustainable.

I don't rag France on their short week, I rag on those French who think they can have a first world lifestyle whilst doing sweet bugger all in the way of work. Don't expect to have a technologically advanced economy when you consider a 35 hour work week to be 'long' and up to 6 weeks holidays per year 'the bare minimum'.

People have more holiday weeks in Germany. Would you say that Germans are lazy?

I personally got four weeks of vacation as of this year. I don't feel guilty about taking them. When I'm on the job, I'm productive. Four weeks of vacation helps make sure that I stay that way, and don't burn out before I'm 40.

France does have issues, but they have as much to do with the rigid workplace hierarchy and the heavy European bureaucracy as with unions and work ethics. The situation is more complex that your stereotypical view would suggest.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a 35-hour work week. Automation means we can now do more while working less hours. Also, working more hours doesn't mean that you're more productive, especially when you have situations like in the U.S. where a large proportion of workers suffer from sleep deprivation.

This is all rooted in America's protestant work ethics, which basically means that you should feel guilty if you don't overwork yourself. What you end up with is people pulling in long hours, but not being as productive as they could be during those hours.

Never said there was anything wrong with the idea of a 35 hour work week, but may I suggest that you look at the 35 hour work week in context to the overly generous employment conditions in France when compared to most other countries. It just isn't sustainable.

France reminds me of New Zealand 40 years ago; over the top government regulation, 40 hour work week with over the top union involvment to the point of distrupting production over stupid greviences - our productivity was in the pits, and economically by the 1984 rolled around, we were also bankrupt as a country because of these stupid inane policies.

These generous employement conditions were even better before the 35 hours work week introduction, and still the french productivity per hour increased, not decreased. Sure, we don't work enough to have a better productivity than some others countries.

But don't fool yourself, even if we will agreed to double our hours work week, we'll still be too expensive than China, India, East europeans labor.

It's not anymore a matter of work quantity. It's a matter of quality/cost rate. Adding more unproductive work hour will barelly help. Increasing hour productivity will (and we're already better than the american one), but there is a limit there too. Last, increasing hours will help until productivity drop, as here too there is a limit.

Last but not least, how all this is related to french candidates positions on free software???

Luckily, (or unluckily for my working hours) the EU isn't one country. the 35 Hour average week is pretty much restricted to France. Here in the UK, full time hours tend to start at 37-40/week.

The 35 hours law in France does not forbid working more than 35 hours, it just makes the distinction between "normal" hours and extra hours. Also, many people do not fall under this law (eg work more than 35 hours/ week).

Generally, it is really difficult to compare worked hours between countries because each country counts differently (for example in France, extra hours are not counted, in UK, they are). This is typically the case of OECD data, that everybody is using to compare countries, even if those data's comment explicitely say not to use them for that purpose.

If you take a look a Eurostat, the European office for statistics, which does the job of adjusting numbers so that they speak about the same thing, UK and France are for example pretty similar.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-07-001/FR/K...

You can see on page 5, table 8 that average number of worked hours in UK is 35.6 hours/week, and 36.2 hours/week in France. Hardly a huge difference. Funnily, you can almost correlate a bigger number of hours with a poorer country, more than the contrary Saying that working a small number of hours kills productivity shows that you do not really understand what productivity is about, that is a ratio where the number of hours is the denominator, that is the biggest, the smallest is your productivity for a given output (productivity which is above in France than in the US, but this is mostly a side effect of bigger unemployment in France than in the US).

The problems in France for job market are different, and more complex than the number of worked hours.

Edited 2007-04-25 08:11

Hey, 35 hours is enough for me.. Welcome to my life!!
BTW, in my company, many people work more than 35 hours/week, french or not. Not me, believe it or not, I have a life to live after work.

Man, I would love a 35 hour work week, provided that I kept my current salary. That would be at least 15-20 hours a week I would get back.

So, in addition to being a free-market ideologue, you're also a racist?

Mods, feel free to mod me down...but anyone who says he would have voted for Le Pen deserves all the scorn they can get!

Le Pen embodies xenophobia and racism. I imagine that if you vote for him, you agree with his ideas.

As for free markets, they tend to be unstable and lead to inequalities. The best type of economy is a mixed one, with a bit of freedom and a bit of interventionism.

>If Sarkozy wins, the people of France should be ashamed of themselves.

Only if you vote for him..

As for being ashamed: the same way Americans should be ashamed for having elected Bush *twice*??
And reelecting him after he started a war for false reason (non existant WMD) triggering a (very predictable) huge chaos killing >600.000 person!!

I doubt that Sarkozy will cause indirectly the death of >600.000 persons as Bush did..
That said, he has already a big responsibility in the riots which took place in French suburbs, even before being elected :-(

This is an international site. While Bush is disliked by a majority of people in the US, he is despised by a VAST majority of people throughout the world. Deal with it.

Oh, and the comment about Chimpy McFlightsuit was spot on, as far as I'm concerned.