 |
| |
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
Sid is just doing business within the constraints that forces beyond his control impose on him. That's certainly not stupid, and only someone who thinks businesses ought to act like charitable institutions could rationalize calling the choice not to develop a Linux version of Civ 3 evil.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is in such a dominant posiition right now that we're caught in a vicious cycle: we can't run all of the software we want to use if we don't buy Windows, and if we have Windows, we can buy a Windows version of a program we want even if we'd really rather run it under Linux. That makes it extremely difficult to break Microsoft's power. (And in my opinion, that is a force that current antitrust law doesn't address adequately. It's great if Microsoft can come up with superior software that people consider worth paying extra for, but it's horrible when people are forced to pay Microsoft whether we want to or not just to be compatible. The purpose of copyright and patent laws is supposed to be to benefit the public, not to support roadblocks to compatibility and interoperability even when one technical solution is no better than another.)
The Linux community is working hard to break Microsoft's grip on the market. Low-cost computers that run Linux but not Windows promise an added market for developers that make their software compatible with Linux, and middleware and Windows compatibility tools can make it easier for developers to write software that runs on both Windows and Linux. When and assuming those two forces develop enough synergy, we can expect Microsoft's hold on the market to break.
Unfortunately, when Civ 3 was released, the situation hadn't developed to a point where Firaxis and/or Atari (wherever the decision was made) considered a Linux version worthwhile. We can only hope that the situation is changing quickly enough to make a Linux version of Civ 4 worthwhile - if only in anticipation of future growth in Linux during the product's life cycle.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rommel2D
|
|
ACS Staff Member / Hosted Site Admin
|
 |
Upper Midwest
Feb 2003
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Unfortunately, Microsoft is in such a dominant posiition right now that we're caught in a vicious cycle: we can't run all of the software we want to use if we don't buy Windows, and if we have Windows, we can buy a Windows version of a program we want even if we'd really rather run it under Linux. That makes it extremely difficult to break Microsoft's power. (And in my opinion, that is a force that current antitrust law doesn't address adequately. It's great if Microsoft can come up with superior software that people consider worth paying extra for, but it's horrible when people are forced to pay Microsoft whether we want to or not just to be compatible. The purpose of copyright and patent laws is supposed to be to benefit the public, not to support roadblocks to compatibility and interoperability even when one technical solution is no better than another.) |
I agree with your general sentiment, but take issue that you seem to look to the law to resolve this predicatment. My point is that anyone should be able to lead a good, fulfilling life without any need to operate progams on a PC, so we are all best served not resorting to politics for an answer. Within the scope of humanity, micro-management of social problems through legislation has been the downfall of many recent generations and hopefully serves us all as a warning.
So, are all these Linux 'something to think about' messages authentically tounge-in-cheek, or is the platform doomed to be just another bucket of crabs?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rommel2D
I agree with your general sentiment, but take issue that you seem to look to the law to resolve this predicatment. My point is that anyone should be able to lead a good, fulfilling life without any need to operate progams on a PC, so we are all best served not resorting to politics for an answer. Within the scope of humanity, micro-management of social problems through legislation has been the downfall of many recent generations and hopefully serves us all as a warning. |
The legitimate goal of copyright law is, according to the Constitution of the United States, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” But the power we give Microsoft under current copyright law goes far beyond that purpose. Microsoft is in a position not just to expect profit from its own writings and discoveries, but to leverage its own work as a means of demanding profit from the work of others – such as Firaxis. Microsoft’s power is not just to say, “You can’t use Windows unless you pay us,” but rather to say, “You can’t use programs designed for Windows, even programs written by third parties, unless you pay us.” That kind of power to demand profit from the work of others represents a serious breakdown in the copyright mechanism.
And when laws suffer from such a breakdown, why not turn to law to address the issue? I’m not after having government micromanage corporations. I’d just like to see some serious limitations on the power to use a combination of copyright laws and closed, proprietary standards for the purpose of holding other people’s work hostage.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-12-2004 12:19
)
|