Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

[Chris Rees]

2009/6/6 Brian Fahrlander <wheeldweller at gmail.com>:
> Chris Rees wrote:
>>
>> So, you're all for exploitation of workers? Pay them for however long,
>> then dump them with no pension or redundancy?
>>
>
>   Well, yeah. Other than high political office, where you get SS coverage
> the rest of your life, just how many jobs out there give payment-until
> death? I think the problem here is, unions (once desperately needed, but not
> so much any longer) have made promises _no_one_ can keep.  And, with most of
> their clients not only not inclined to start their own businesses, but in
> fact deterred from it, none of the due-paying folk think it's unusual.
>
>   "Exploitation" of the workers is a necessary part of the puzzle, as long
> as we're using words with actual meanings. They get _paid_ for it, they have
> certain rules about it, but we all 'exploit' the powers of Linux to get our
> stuff done.  We "exploit" our bosses for their ability to pay us for our
> work.
>
>   Similarly, we need both rich and poor. Where capitalism can flourish, poor
> can become rich. And rich, when they get stupid, become poor.  Having people
> on both ends makes everything work. Imagine living in a place where no one
> has money to hire an employee.
>
>   There's nothing wrong with being "rich". Union bosses are; they're paid
> 152 TIMES the average guy on a line. George Soros is, so is Bill Gates. It's
> only wrong if those people literally stole the money from the poor- they
> didn't.
>
>   Money is rarely a zero-sum game. Liberalism has long proffered the concept
> that, if you have money, it's because you took it from someone else.  But
> the stock market is a great example. 50 years ago, people did the stock
> thing. The numbers were lower. The numbers got higher, because of investment
> that created value: a new product, a new way-of-life improver like the ones
> we type on. They sold more of the new things, and the new things brought
> more productivity, so we *all* grew in our worth.  Once upon a time, that
> made us the marvel of the world: innovation.
>
>   The next time you're ready to "eat the rich", stop an think were each and
> every one of your jobs came from. Ever work for a single mom on welfare?
> Ever work for a homeless guy? Get good dental from a John Doe drinking in
> the park? No: "the rich" we're suppose to hate is just like us, a little
> higher on our ladder.  We need them, they need us.  Anyone else telling you
> different is trying to get your help taking the other guy's money away, so
> you too can be on welfare, and under complete control of CentralPlanning.
>

I'm sure I'll work for many single moms on welfare, and homeless guys;
my taxes help them, as well as funding my degree. Why should they
suffer because they've not drawn the longer straws? Living on welfare
isn't comfortable by any stretch, not is it desirable; it's only there
so people survive. Are you so against helping people? Why don't they
'deserve' help?

Chris


-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in a mailing list?