Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?

[David Ogg <davidogg@nc.rr.com>]

In article <0avtj9.ed4.ln@ridcully.freenet.co.uk>, spike1@freenet.co.uk 
says...

> David Ogg <davidogg@nc.rr.com> did eloquently scribble:
> > What would the government do to Linux if Linux had "embraced and 
> > extended" or anything else Microsoft has done? I wonder. Could they do 
> > anything, even?
> 
> 
> Linux COUDN'T embrace and extend... Embrace and extend involves not only
> adopting and corrupting an accepted standard... It means keeping the
> additions and changes to that standard secret. (Or refusing to allow it's
> use elsewhere).

Ok, not a good example, I'll pick another one, what if Linux integrated a 
free web browser into it's interface? What if (hypothetically) this put
someone out on the street. What could the government do? Should they do 
anything?

> Kerberos is the perfect example.
> They took the code from the FreeBSD codebase. As FreeBSD license allows
> anyone to do anything with the source code they want as long as there's an
> acknowledgement, they extended it and then, when someone found out what the
> extensions were and posted source code, M$ forced them to remove it from the
> web.

 This is where that double edged sword could hurt Linux. If the 
government is empowered to bitchslap developers who change protocols
to extend them, could not this empowerment also be used to bitchslap
developers who reverse engineer protocols to be compatible?
 I think the safest ground we could stand on would be that protocols
be considered speech, and be given the same standing constitutionally. 
(Posting the source code is a different story.) Let Microsoft extend 
whatever they feel like, we'll be right behind them developing tools
that integrate nicely with those changes. Both these practices should
be protected, as attacking one hurts the other.
 This way, any percieved improvements are realized by consumers, 
regardless what product they choose, and competition is still occuring, 
with the consumer benefitting from the race. That /is/ the only thing 
the government is supposed to be concerned with in a monopoly case 
anyway.
 Consumers do not benefit in any way by having the government soft-
enforcing a protocol tweeking taboo.

 If you look closely at what's happening to GUI's right now, Microsoft 
/is/ competing, everyone is. Apple is making drastic changes in it's UI, 
Linux is also, and Microsoft is changing the GUI at a faster rate than 
they have ever done anything before. This race they're having is picking
up speed and the consumer is benefitting on all fronts. And this is how 
it should be.

 What we don't need right now is Big Brother stopping this race, so that 
Linux and Mac might slow down, and then we lose because competition has 
stopped again. Besides, it's getting interesting ;)

--David