Not very well thought through
Firstly, there is the problem of it being the
first step ofcourse. You can easily see what harm
the waging of political wars has brought to the
open source community already (as in GNOME vs
KDE). And that was just over licenses. Imagine how
fscked up everything could get if everyone started
inserting their political beliefs in licenses.
But, the more obvious remark to this proposal is
that it's redundant. Any country where a copyright
license is legally valid already is "civilised"
(more like westernised, but that's another
discussion), and thus has laws that dictate the
kind of behaviour you wish to see inserted in
Re: Author makes very silly comments
At the time of this writing there is only one OS
that consistantly correctly runs Windows programs,
supports modern hardware technologies properly
(usb, parallel port scanners, etc) and runs with
Which OS is it?
You already know don't you? It's Microsoft
Windows. While I'm no fan of $MS they make the
only viable OS on the market. The author suggest
that to compete with them we start harrasing
developers until they build cross-platform apps to
the point of insanity. I guess since we can't
build a better OS that supports the user's needs
we should just try to change the user's needs.
I've never heard of a dumber strategy in all my
Quite simply, if we build it they will come. It's
that simple, it's just that no one is doing it.
Build an OS that is every thing that Windows is in
the commercial world (and better if possible and
no I don't mean that piece o'crap Linux), but
build it open source and then watch the sparks fly
as the desktop wars start up again. But this time
try to keep up.
Do you see the errors in some your arguments now?
It's easy to support all hardware if the hardware
makers only support your OS WITHOUT YOU EVEN
HAVING TO ASK FOR IT. If every hardware
manufacturer would write linux drivers for their
product, linux would be sooooo much closer to
desktop dominance. But just like hardware
manufacturers aren't going to do that because
Windows' marketshare is big enough for them, web
developers won't support other browsers because
IE's market share is big enough for them. That's
what the original article critisized, and that's
what all the web developers are running into with
their eyes wide open. Microsoft winning total
dominance and bleeding us dry is a realistic
perspective. Remember, microsoft isn't there for
the users, it's there for the stockholders. And
anything that will increase profit is good for the
stockholders, and thus good for microsoft.