from the libertarian newspaper

[Phil Thayer]

> >> Linux *is* centralized, in a hiearchy even. Anti-"IP" is not 
> >> anti-property, but rather anti-usury. Socialism is by definition 
> >> statist.
> > 
> > I was with you on your comments (and strangely even agreed 
> with them)
> > until I got to "anti-usury." I am against "intellectual property" as
> > defined by software patents, but I can't make the 
> connection to usury.
> 
> Usury. The well-known "Microsoft Tax." Made sense to me.
> 

I think that what people forget is that there are reasons that all
operating systems on the market in today's IT world are there because
they have something that the user wants.  In the case of Linux it is an
inexpensive OS that can be used in non-fault tolerant environments
without having to purchase too much additional functionality while
having a wide choice of companies and organizations to provide OS
support.  Windows on the other hand is not as stable as Linux, however
has it's own strengths in the fact that it is the most recognizable OS
on the market today.  If you were to set someone who was relatively
computer illiterate down in front of Windows and Linux, which one do you
think they would recognize?  Novell is still a viable OS because it does
what it was designed to do very well and that is file and print
services.

I do not understand what you mean by the "Microsoft Tax".  If a company
or person creates a product and markets it extremely well (regardless of
whether it is good or not) and there is a demand for that product, why
would they not price it based on the demand?  That does not seem like a
tax to me, that seems like capitalism to me.  Now, if you want to go to
a more model in society where by the rich should foot the bill for the
poor, then you should be looking at the communist party.  Equal
distribution of wealth and price controls on products to squelch
capitalism are a couple of the main foundations of a communistic
society.

Phil