[Sussex] Long live the revolution!

[Steve Williams]

It is good to see some strong opinions honestly held and expressed within
the LUG.

One of the good things about free markets is that you don't have to buy
Coke, MacDonalds, etc. You have a choice, and the rise of Linux/Open Source
may well be catalysed by Microsoft's licencing charges. In fact, many
consumers would love an alternative to M$, and the next 2 or 3 iterations of
Linux distros may well give them that choice as a viable desktop/consumer
OS. If Microsoft see Linux as a challenge (and they'd be bloody fools not
to), then we can expect the usual FUD right up to the point where Bill Gates
sees that he can't beat it, then there will be a damascene conversion with
Microsoft Linux XP distros and Windows Server selling at £49.99.

In the mean time YOU the consumer doesn't have to buy Windows. You could try
OSX, Solaris, any flavour of Linux whatever takes your fancy. Your freedom
of choice is just about the only thing that BIG Corporations fear. They
don't care much about the antics of a few tens or even hundreds of
protesters, but the migration of millions of consumers to the competition
scares them witless. Just witness the troubles for MacDonalds at the
moment - a bland, uniform mass product selling in vast quantities,
generating profits only so long as the public consumes the product. But woe
betide the corporation when the appeal fades, as it is now for MacDonalds.

The same applies to politicians and governments. A few protesters they can
handle, the mass exodus of support they can't. This is why the Tory Party
appears so bereft at the moment. Having enjoyed a much higher level of
support they are quite bewildered at the loss of it.

It also shows that to gain popularity for one's product or policy, the basic
product or policy has to be sound. Whilst flash marketing and glitzy
advertising can boost sales, the consumer won't tolerate being sold a crock
for very long. Tony Blair and his cronies have recently discovered this, and
have made furious efforts to backpedal on spin. The problem is that have
have lived by it for so long the habit is hard to break. Paraphrasing a
little, "he who lives by the spin shall die by the spin".

So where is all this leading.

The simple fact is that American culture will only take over if we let it.
You might argue that it is already, but in a cosmopolitan world where our
ISP could be Norwegian, our food Indonesian or Indian, our cars German, our
employer Japanese and only our place of abode British, then the encroachment
of American culture is no worse than the encroachment of other cultures. And
I suspect that British culture also encroaches on the culture of other
Nations. If this continues and leads to a greater understanding and less
between the peoples of the world, then this is one aspect of globalisation I
wholeheartedly support. There's actually bugger all I or anyone else can do
to stop it. As Churchill said of ever closer relations with the Americans
"Nothing can stop it. Like the Mississipi, let it roll. Let it roll on full
flood, inexorable, irresistible,  benignant, to broader lands and better
days".

Unfortunately, much of this comes about as a result of Corporations
expanding into new markets. So globalisation is, like many things, a mixed
blessing. So is democracy, arguably a free market in politics. Both have
their faults, but the alternatives are frankly unpalatable.

So, whatever opinions we may hold about George W. Bush, he is vastly more
preferable than Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or the Taleban. Put it this
way, would you rather spend a weekend on a Texas Ranch hosted by George and
Laura or a weekend freezing your nuts off in a cave in Tora Bora chez Osama.
No Brainer! I'm not saying George W. is perfect, far from it. But at least
you can have a chat without him blowing your head off with an AK74.

So what does it matter that George W's election campaign was funded by
Exxon. Having been in oil himself, it's only natural that his mates would
support him. Do you think that Al Gore's campaign was funded by charity?
Besides, US election campaigns consume VAST sums of money, but if you can
convince enough people that you're the Man (or Woman), you'll raise the
dosh.

There's also this matter of American "Imperialism". There's no such thing.
If there were, there would be US colonies all over the world. The average
American, and US President as well, is far more interested in generating
wealth and having a quiet time at home. There's simply no desire on the part
of the Americans to go gallivanting off on military crusades. Those they
have tried have normally ended in tears; Bay of Pigs and Somalia spring
instantly to mind. The British were much better at it; our Empire and wealth
was based on foreign conquests and trade, the Americans' on business and
trade.  Of course, American Corporations are different, but they're no
different to other nations' Corporations; they all want a bigger slice of
the market.

So there's really no inclination on the part of the Americans to go to war
simply for oil; that and the fact that they produce considerable quantities
of their own and have more reserves in Alaska. If this has been about oil,
the Americans would have moved into the middle east as soon as the Warsaw
Pact had collapsed and their own military power became unchallengable. In
fact, the 2 nations at the forefront of efforts to oust Saddam, the USA and
the UK, both are more independent of middle east oil than other nations in
the rather shaky coalition.

In fact, the USA was content to leave Saddam Hussein alone, despite his
flagrant violations of UN Resolutions, until Osama bin Laden attacked the
ConUS. Now Saddam had little if anything to do with those attacks, but he
would be overjoyed to see the "Great Satan" struck in this way. And if he
saw the opportunity to supply some nasty weapons to terrorists on the side,
do you think he would have passed up the opportunity? So, having campaigned
against Al Qaeda's hosts in Afghanistan, it is only natural that the
Americans' strategy turns to potential suppliers of terrorists. Some object
to American actions like this, but I'm afraid if you kick over a Hornet's
nest, you're going to get stung - good and proper.

As Admiral Yamamoto said after the attack on Pearl Harbour, "All we have
done is awaken a sleeping giant whose fury will very soon be turned on us".
Intelligent man. In fact it really doesn't take rocket science to work out
that if you attack the world's pre-eminent power, you're going to get it in
the neck, and deservedly so. Generally, if you leave America alone, it will
leave you alone. America has not set itself up as the world's Police force,
but in the absence of higher or equivalent authority, and particularly in
the absence of any convincing authority on the part of the UN, it often
finds itself in that role, and often reluctantly. They only got involved in
the Balkans because Europe couldn't get it's act together.

And that leads on to the next point. The simple fact is that Europe is far
too diverse culturally to integrate successfully anytime in the near future.
As an example, the US has six en-route air traffic control centres using the
same software and a single language, Europe has 43, numerous different
software programs and several languages. Chaos! Adherence to EU legislation
differs significantly from state to state, as do attitudes to corruption. It
is simply inconceivable that the EU will rise to challenge US pre-eminence
anytime in the next century (OK, 5 decades as the very minimum). For a start
the EU is a largely Socialist construct based not on the expressed desires
of the people of Europe, but on the ambitions of leading European
politicians. As such it a castle in the sky built upon foundations of air.
I'm not saying that European union will never happen, it's just that
something our great-great grandchildren are more likely to see.

And it may well be overtaken by world union. After all, we speak the same
language and have much common history with the USA, Australia, Canada and
New Zealand. The proportion of the number of the world's inhabitants who
speak English is estimated at 40% and rising fast. The de facto network
protocol is TCP/IP, and the vast majority of Internet web sites are in
English. The US$ is accepted in many countries and is the de facto
commercial currency. Airliners and jet fuel are bought and sold in US$.
Using these airliners powered by high-bypass ratio gas turbine engines, we
can span the globe in a single leap in 18 hours. We interact more and more
with other people in those other countries to which we fly, we emigrate and
marry and do business more and more on a global scale. It's quite possible
that Linux/Open Source will become the de facto universal software, and I
suppose we might all advocate that!

The only thing that is certain is that the rate of change of progress will
continue to accelerate, and global union, or globalisation, likewise. We
cannot stop or reverse it, and we should ask whether we should try to in any
case. To do so would be to revert to regimes like those in Iraq or formerly
in Afghanistan, and to my mind, democracy is far preferable despite its
faults. In fact, I believe the secular western capitalist democracy is the
only model that will withstand the test of time. It may evolve to
unrecognisable degree and become global, but it will still have its roots in
what we experience today.

I guess you could say I've diverged somewhat from the thread a little, or
even a lot, but the real revolution is happening everywhere even as we
speak. May we live in intersting times!

Besides, if it all gets too much , we can always lose ourselves in an
evening of compiling kernels.  Pass me the latest patches.....

Steve Williams.









-----Original Message-----
From: sussex-admin at mailman.lug.org.uk
[mailto:sussex-admin at mailman.lug.org.uk]On Behalf Of Geoff Teale
Sent: 21 January 2003 15:18
To: 'sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk'
Subject: RE: [Sussex] Long live the revolution!


Matt wrote:
-----------
> Ok, I have to launch in here!

Just as I was gonna hold back ;)

> Agreed, the EU is corrupt.

That's a sweeping statement, but it is about as valid as me saying the
labour party is corrupt.  The simple truth is that within any organisation
where there are several positions of power there will be some people who are
corrupt.  My biggest problem with the EU is that the majority of the
positions of power within the organisation are not elected positions.  That
undermimes the democratic principles we're supposed to be governed by.

I think the biggest arguement in it's favour is that as an economic and
military entity the EU could represent a power big enough to moderate the
USA without creating the problems the old USSR did.  The EU is fundementally
against barriers to entry and tariffs in international trade - the USA on
the other hand feels that these things are good for the USA, but that
everyone else should not have them (sounds like their weapons policy).

As the majority of European nations are far more liberal (or even socialist)
than either the UK or USA (Austria being the only European nation I can
think of that is more right wing than the UK) it would be fair to say that a
democratically elected European government would take a less reactionary
stance on international affairs than the current US administration.

Of course this are only small factors - the power in the world right now is
slowly shifting towards new empires.  In the age of globalisation we have
some mega-corporations who can indirectly effect internation policy to
further their needs.  The tools of these corporations are the institutes of
world financial power - the World Bank, OPEC, the World Trade Organisation
and the International Monetary Fund.  These are all unelected bodies who
have the power to directly control policy on countries around the world in
order to fill the pockets of the directors and shareholders of large
corporations.  Some examples:

1/
In 1999 the IMF instructed Mexico that if it did not reverse it's decision
to raise taxes that it would be cut off and forced to repay it's national
debt immediately.

The tax money wasto be used to fund social reforms that would lead to the
rehousing of several million Mexicans who currently live in shaty towns.

This action was as a direct result of lobbying from the Coca Cola
corporation.  Mexican's spend more of their income on Cola than any other
nation on earth (there are even villages in southern Mexico who were so
taking in by Coke and Pepsi's competing advertising that they have been
locked in bloody feuds with each over their preference for several years
with many people dying on a yearly basis for drinking the wrong brand).

Studies showed that the level of Cola consumption fluctates with almost
direct relation to taxation and levels of employment.  So, in order that a
few or the wealthiest people on the planet can have a few dollars more
several million Mexicans (some of whome are amongst the poorest in the
world) will continue to live in shanty towns without running water (or
sewerage).

2/
A cheerier example.  For many years China (whose culture does not support
the idea of copyright or patenting) was a hot bed for software piracy.  It
was noted that in the late 1990s that nearly 100% of the Chinese governments
Windows and Office installations were pirated.  As China tries to reform its
society, slowly, but surely toward an open market economy it became clear
that in order to trade with the rest of the world the country would have to
become a member of the ring of cronies known as the World Trade
Organisation.  Seeing this as an opportunity for a massive pay day
Microsoft, Oracle, Sun and Adobe all succesfully lobbied the World Trade
Organisation.  The WTO told China that it could not join the WTO until it
could show that it's government had made all of its machines legal and that
it was actively taking action to reduce piracy amongst private computer
users.

The Chinese government held breif conversation with Microsoft and Oracle
about the cost of licensing some millions of desktop and servers.
Predictably enought they were not impressed - furthermore they worked out
that it would cost them far less to develop and support their own state
LINUX distribution than it would to carry on uusing Microsoft products.

Thus Red Flag LINUX was born.  China fulfilled the WTO's conditions  ( by
moving all systems to GPL licensed technology and marketing Red Flag LINUX
as _the_ standard platform for business in China ) and Microsoft got a hefty
kick in the cajones!

All this was only possible because LINUX existed - had this been any other
issue China would have had no choice but to comply :(

As a footnote, it is noteable that China is now producing it's own range of
CPU's so that it doesn't need to rely on Intel, etc.  These chips are fairly
basic right now (equivalent to P1's) but they are improving rapidly (they've
effectively gone from  8088 to P1 200 MMX in 6 months!) and could be a force
fairly soon.

I tell you.. China is the place to watch right now, and it's a country where
Free Software already won the battle.


The above information is confidential to the addressee and may be
privileged.  Unauthorised access and use is prohibited.

Internet communications are not secure and therefore this Company does not
accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful.

Claybrook Computing Limited is a subsidiary of Claybrook Computing
(Holdings) Limited
Registered Office: Abbey House. 282 Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire
GU14 7NJ
Registered in England and Wales No 1287205

A Hogg Robinson plc company


_______________________________________________
Sussex mailing list
Sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/sussex