Linux Party [warning political]

Sid Dabster sid_dabster at
Thu Mar 17 18:02:41 UTC 2005

Simon Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:09:00 -0500 (EST), Sid
> Dabster wrote:
> > > I think there are better ways to do something
> > > founding a political party if you want to help
> > > Software. Help building a local Free
> > > Software organisation which focus on the
> > > issues.
> > 
> > Several people have said pressure groups are
> better,
> > and hinted that they exist, I know of no
> > multi-platform anti-M$ pressure group. In fact one
> > of the main problems is that there is no medium
> sized
> > or large organisation against Microsoft and
> everyone
> > is complaining on their own in isolation, and
> feeling
> > powerless.
> So is this Political party you propose a pro-Linux
> party or a
> anti-Microsoft party? Because being pro-Linux and
> anti-Microsoft ARE
> First of all in order to sell your manifesto to
> impartial observers
> whose support you want to gather you can't go in
> there just saying "I
> am anti-Microsoft"

Microsoft are an abusive monopoly see
<a href=""
Per Processor licensing means computer manufacturers
pay say 50 pounds per computer for M$ Windows
whether M$ Windows is shipped on the machine
or not. So a copy of Red Hat is 25 pounds
then the customer pays indirectly via the the
manufacturer 75 pounds (25 for RH + 50 for a 
non-existant copy of MS Windows).
This is just one of the many anti-competitive 
practises they do, not to mention the poor
quality of there software, monoploy margins,
closed source, pro-patent approach. Full Windows
(i.e. not Windows CE) runs on very few hardware 
platforms constraining choice to Intel and AMD x86
CPUs. If M$ monopoly did not exist Linux would have
a much bigger market share, say 20%, benefiting all
  Micro$oft are famous for their vapourware, a recent
example was the annoucement of IE7 to stop the rise
of Firefox, and other M$ FUD techniques. As PCs get
cheaper Windows (+Office) is costing more and more
of the total cost, some users are being 
  Microsoft in the past has purposely made rivals
software products incompatible or seem incompatiable
to damage their sales, this has led to less choice.

> The term anti is a negative term, it's going to make
> you sound like a
> bitter oddball. I think the only terms I could give
> my support to that
> include the term 'anti' would possibly
> 'anti-software patent' because
> software patents are an issue that do affect a
> majority of people
> (anyone who uses a computer) and patents have a
> social impact on most
> peoples lives (preventing innovation, restricting
> freedom of
> expression etc)
> Also possibly depending on other circumstances
> anti-war may be an
> acceptable political point-of-view.
> But simply being anti-Microsoft is not going to get
> you any serious support. 

Localy a 2 libraries have closed  (Lazar House and
Bradwell) because the budget was used on Micro$oft
software. Norfolk County Council is spending
10.5 million pounds on PCs in schools while there is
a teacher shortage. Once the PC are installed 
government rules which do not count a PC older than
3 years as existing, mean they have to start back 
on the tread mill. I wonder if X-Terminals fall under
the 3 year rule. 
> Explain to your electorate *why* you are
> anti-Microsoft... practice
> that spiel on us first.

See the rest of my email.
> Are you anti-Microsoft because they support the use
> of Software
> Patents? If so then you need to describe your party

I am anti-M$ because they a monopoly destroying 
choice and making people use their poor software, 
VB Script Virus anyone.

> as an
> anti-software patent movement (which by the way I
> would be behind much
> more than your current idea)... as IBM are currently
> the worlds
> biggest holder of software patents.... Novell must
> be in there too as
> well as companies such as Sun, SCO etc.
> Is using Microsoft Windows Server any more or less
> ethical in terms of
> the Free software ethos than using say Novell
> Netware? Neither are
> free, neither protect the freedom of rights of their
> users.
> What about Solaris on SPARC? That is a non-free OS.
> Are you also
> campaigning against Sun?

Sun Microsystems support open systems and claim to 
be making a lot of Solaris Open Source soon.
> Are you suggesting running a anti-MS party because
> they are
> anti-competitive? Well this has already been through
> the courts and
> they have been fined. What is your answer to that
> when your electorate
> asks?

The fine while big to the likes of you and me, to
Microsoft and Bill Gates (the biggest fat cat in the
world, who's wealth is obscene) the fine was small
> ( Can I just say at this point I am neither a MS
> user or apologist. I
> just don't like Linux users to be portrayed as
> fanatical
> anti-Microsoft campaigners simply because it is
> fashionable. There
> needs to be substance to this stance as well )
> You need to chip away at the practices that makes MS
> an unsavoury
> company. The fact they don't protect the freedom of
> their users, their
> strategy of locking users in, their practice of
> selling software to
> poor 3rd world countries and forcing them into a
> expensive upgrade
> cycle.

Not just the 3rd world.
> Being Anti-MS isn't enough

That why I suggested a Free Software Party 
originally, called the Linux Party, perhaps
Free Software Party would be better even if less

Post your free ad now!

More information about the Discussion mailing list