LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   observation: Linux is American! (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/observation-linux-is-american-734598/)

newbiesforever 06-21-2009 01:56 PM

observation: Linux is American!
 
Linux may have been invented by a Finn, but its philosophy is quite compatible with the vanishing American individualism. If it had been invented before Microsoft and if the internet hadn't been the domain of technogeeks at that time, it might be much more mainstream now. There is also nothing un-American about the custom of sharing all developments unless one is an uber-capitalist who thinks all creations should be sold for money. (I could see the Ayn Rand Institute being viscerally offended by Linux, if it cared.)

ronlau9 06-21-2009 02:25 PM

You must include in you're observation why he invented it .

johnsfine 06-21-2009 02:31 PM

Regarding your thread title, I'm American too, and sometimes arrogant about it and sometimes display the typically American ignorance of the rest of the world. But you really didn't need to push that viewpoint that far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newbiesforever (Post 3581568)
There is also nothing un-American about the custom of sharing all developments unless one is an uber-capitalist

Individual voluntary contributions to the public good are a major part of capitalism and generally conservative political views.

This can be seen in any study correlating charitable contributions with political views after selecting for any specific economic range (Rich conservative give more to charity than rich liberals. Poor conservatives give more to charity than poor liberals).

The essence of liberalism is being very generous with someone else's property.

Most of the free software movement doesn't and shouldn't object to other people developing non free software for profit.

If Microsoft competed based on price and quality (against free software and against other for profit software companies) I wouldn't hate them and I would choose or reject their products individually based on price and quality. Since they compete by restraint of trade, politics, manipulating standards, and negotiating interface secrecy, I am often stuck with their products despite horrid quality, and I prefer to reject their products (regardless of price or quality) on those occasions where I have a choice.

Outside of the Microsoft vs. free software question, I see no conflict in free vs. closed source. I work for a company that writes closed source software. I occasionally contribute work to open source projects. I don't think those things are in conflict with each other.

noctilucent 06-21-2009 02:33 PM

I am from Europe and I am offended by this thread's title.

Just kidding. Linux was born in Europe, at the moment the best attribute would, IMO, be "international". I'm curious what made you [the op] start a thread with this particular title. Have you stumbled accross some "Linux is communist" trolls or such?

Uncle_Theodore 06-21-2009 02:51 PM

You people should read Eric Raymond's views on the subject. He actually said it all a long time ago. Linux is about freedom, choice, individualism and voluntary contribution. Will you call all that exclusively American? Probably, not. But there's a certain correlation in values basic for the American society and the abovementioned ones.
As to Ayn Rand, despite us being from the same country originally, I think her philosophy is laughable at best. Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone... :)

newbiesforever 06-21-2009 03:13 PM

Quote:

Regarding your thread title, I'm American too, and sometimes arrogant about it and sometimes display the typically American ignorance of the rest of the world. But you really didn't need to push that viewpoint that far.
:( I suppose I could have avoided this by titling it "Linux is compatible with America; please don't hate me." You should pay much more attention to a thread's body than its title.

Quote:

Individual voluntary contributions to the public good are a major part of capitalism and generally conservative political views./QUOTE]

I said uber-capitalists. Capitalists who think any product not sold for money is potentially a pinko commie. Or, in the case of ARI, an evil altruist.

Quote:

I am from Europe and I am offended by this thread's title.

Just kidding. Linux was born in Europe, at the moment the best attribute would, IMO, be "international". I'm curious what made you [the op] start a thread with this particular title. Have you stumbled accross some "Linux is communist" trolls or such?
I've heard that only from Steve Ballmer (meaning it's not worth considering), but capitalists who don't understand Linux might think it is Marxist.

Will you call all that exclusively American? Probably, not. But there's a certain correlation in values basic for the American society and the abovementioned ones.
Thank you--that's roughly what I said. And I said "American," not "exclusively American."

Quote:

As to Ayn Rand, despite us being from the same country originally, I think her philosophy is laughable at best. Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone... :)
You didn't offend me, but then I don't suppose you expected to in light of my remark about ARI.

ANO1453 06-21-2009 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newbiesforever
If it had been invented before Microsoft and if the internet hadn't been the domain of technogeeks at that time, it might be much more mainstream now.

If it had... It wasn't.
Quote:

Originally Posted by newbiesforever
There is also nothing un-American about the custom of sharing all developments

There is also nothing un-European about sharing all developments.
Quote:

Originally Posted by newbiesforever
but its philosophy is quite compatible with the vanishing American individualism

Do you know your Constitution was inspired on the values of the French Revolution and on the Iluminism, which, by the way, appeared in Europe?

Linux is open-source and receives contribution from all around the world. Linux is not American, is not European. Linux is of everyone. Free.
You must not forget that the world is filled with people from different nationalities that help Linux developing, either through forums, either programming, either making graphics. Using Linux is CONTRIBUTING to Linux growth.

newbiesforever 06-21-2009 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ANO1453 (Post 3581626)
If it had... It wasn't.

Do you know your Constitution was inspired on the values of the French Revolution and on the Iluminism, which, by the way, appeared in Europe

I don't think I knew that, but I can accept it, since I know well enough that the Framers weren't necessarily Burkean :( . They were probably at least somewhat similarly disturbed by the violence and mob rule of the French Revolution. Thanks for the information.

ANO1453 06-21-2009 05:24 PM

The values of the French Revolution were not "put to practice" during the Revolution. Many killings, wars and persecutions took place, but the desire for freedom and democracy subsisted.

sycamorex 06-21-2009 05:34 PM

Linux is american - I doubt it:)
Linux is Finnish - other than that it belongs to all of us

newbiesforever 06-21-2009 05:45 PM

:( Oh, come on--you're a senior member and still read things into my title that the body doesn't support?

Those wicked, wicked Americans.

Congratulations on escaping unemployment. I just got laid off.

newbiesforever 06-21-2009 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ANO1453 (Post 3581705)
The values of the French Revolution were not "put to practice" during the Revolution. Many killings, wars and persecutions took place, but the desire for freedom and democracy subsisted.

The French Revolution made Rationalism look ridiculous. I would suggest what the British historian Paul Johnson said of a certain rationalist in an unrelated historical event: "...trying to force people into a structure of ideas rather than allowing ideas to evolve from the way people actually behaved."

sycamorex 06-21-2009 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newbiesforever (Post 3581718)
:( Oh, come on--you're a senior member and still read things into my title that the body doesn't support?

Those wicked, wicked Americans.

Congratulations on escaping unemployment. I just got laid off.

I'm just in a very combat mood. Had a lengthy discussion with someone who thinks in a different way when it comes to religion:) Sorry to hear about your being laid off. I'm sure you'll be alright. We all have been there at some point....
good luck

newbiesforever 06-21-2009 05:55 PM

Too bad you didn't meet me on the internet ten years ago. You would have had a ball, because I (a)was much feistier and more argumentative, (b)said many stupid things that provided fodder for both flamers and polite debaters. I didn't know that flamers look for messages to flame, and thought that if I said stupid things, they would be ignored.

johnsfine 06-21-2009 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ANO1453 (Post 3581626)
Do you know your Constitution was inspired on the values of the French Revolution

I do understand your distinction between the "values of the French Revolution" and the French Revolution itself (though I don't happen to believe those values were really there).

Also, I was never a history major, but most of what I have read says the authors of the Constitution were horrified by the French Revolution and took it only as a warning and not an inspiration.

The mob always gives power to the demagogue. The authors of the Constitution understood that and struggled to prevent it.

The writings that formed the philosophical justification for the US Constitution were certainly more European than American. Maybe the leaders of the French Revolution paid lip service to the same philosophies.

But the practical structure of the Constitution had much more of the American focus on taming the inherent evil of government.

It is a shame we have lost track of that.

sycamorex 06-21-2009 06:07 PM

Quote:

and thought that if I said stupid things, they would be ignored.
It would be too easy;) For this very reason, I do my best not to write anything here when I come back from a pub. As they say: DON'T DRINK AND BLOG (OR POST)

newbiesforever 06-21-2009 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsfine (Post 3581725)
I do understand your distinction between the "values of the French Revolution" and the French Revolution itself (though I don't happen to believe those values were really there).

Also, I was never a history major, but most of what I have read says the authors of the Constitution were horrified by the French Revolution and took it only as a warning and not an inspiration.

The mob always gives power to the demagogue. The authors of the Constitution understood that and struggled to prevent it.

The writings that formed the philosophical justification for the US Constitution were certainly more European than American. Maybe the leaders of the French Revolution paid lip service to the same philosophies.

But the practical structure of the Constitution had much more of the American focus on taming the inherent evil of government.

It is a shame we have lost track of that.

Intellectual consistency was a weakness. If I have a favorite among the Framers, it could only be John Adams. He actually preceded Burke in calling the French Revolution for what it was; but Adams was the one who, far from sharing what would now be called the libertarianism of Jefferson, was a Federalist, a centralizer. On second thought, I'm probably all wrong--who says a critic of the French Revolution must have been an Anti-Federalist to be consistent. It could just as easily be argued that Federalists would be more inherently opposed.

Robhogg 06-21-2009 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsfine (Post 3581725)
... I was never a history major, but most of what I have read says the authors of the Constitution were horrified by the French Revolution and took it only as a warning and not an inspiration.

And the founding fathers were fluffy kittens, who hadn't just fought a war to throw us British out? ;)

Need to get to bed, and no time to give this the attention it deserves, but I wouldn't be able to rest easy without adding what one American had to say about the French revolution:

Quote:

Why, it was like reading about France and the French, before the ever memorable and blessed Revolution, which swept a thousand years of such villany away in one swift tidal-wave of blood... There were two "Reigns of Terror," if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror --that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

Vive la révolution!

newbiesforever 06-21-2009 06:36 PM

Oui, oui. Le sang pour le sang. Vive la révolution, à bas de l'Amerique.

Uncle_Theodore 06-21-2009 07:14 PM

How did you get from Linux to the French Revolution so fast? :)
BTW, the French Revolution (I'm not a history major either) didn't quite accomplish much from the point of view of ending the oppression Mark Twain was talking about. The revolutionaries were soon replaced with Napoleon's Empire, then by Louis-Philippe's constitutional monarchy, then the Second Republic was established for four years and replaced with the Second Empire, and only then, by the Third Republic, in eighty years.
So, the freedom of the Revolution itself was quite short-lived, and somehow earned the name of the Reign of Terror, which should give some food for thought... ;)

Robhogg 06-22-2009 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle_Theodore (Post 3581758)
BTW, the French Revolution (I'm not a history major either) didn't quite accomplish much from the point of view of ending the oppression Mark Twain was talking about...

The question is, were the French people better off after the revolution, than under the absolutist monarchy of L'Ancien Régime? Definitely, IMNTHO.

Historical progress rarely follows a smooth line, unfortunately.

brianL 06-22-2009 03:55 AM

We English executed a King about 150 years before the French did. Unfortunately, what followed wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs.

rsciw 06-22-2009 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newbiesforever (Post 3581568)
Linux may have been invented by a Finn, but its philosophy is quite compatible with the vanishing American individualism. If it had been invented before Microsoft and if the internet hadn't been the domain of technogeeks at that time, it might be much more mainstream now. There is also nothing un-American about the custom of sharing all developments unless one is an uber-capitalist who thinks all creations should be sold for money. (I could see the Ayn Rand Institute being viscerally offended by Linux, if it cared.)

Ah, didn't know Linux had oil, or why should it be American suddenly?

And whatever it takes for an American to necessarily call something "it's American"...

Unix / BSD was there before Microsoft. Didn't take up much either, so doubt that would've helped with Windows much.
Linux was there before win95. granted, Win3.1(1) was quite popular then already, but still, not really everyone was online then.

There's also nothing un-Australian about sharing, neither un-european, neither un-south african (don't know any other countries' mentality down there. but best example for RSA and sharing --> canonical's boss...)
Probably also nothing un-Asian about sharing.

so all in all, what was the whole sense of your post in the beginning?

vharishankar 06-22-2009 05:18 AM

I'll only accept him as a real American. All others are fake.

H_TeXMeX_H 06-22-2009 06:13 AM

I would argue that Linux is American in the ideal, philosophical, theoretical, "American-dream", moral, etc. sense.

But highly UN-American in the real world, capitalistic, profiteering, political, business theory, etc. sense. M$ is much more American in this sense of the term. M$ is all about capitalism, exploitation, hypocrisy, greed, unethical business tactics etc. ... you know, the real America.

Robhogg 06-22-2009 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianL (Post 3582047)
We English executed a King about 150 years before the French did. Unfortunately, what followed wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs.

I don't think they meant it as a comedy routine :).

It is one of the greatest moments in our history, though. It's a pity we let another king get back in again, but at least when the new one started behaving like the old one had he was kicked out again sharpish.

newbiesforever 06-22-2009 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H (Post 3582158)
I would argue that Linux is American in the ideal, philosophical, theoretical, "American-dream", moral, etc. sense.

Which is what I meant. Leave it to the H.L. Mencken of LQ (if not exclusively) to understand that. I think I'll stop responding to the offended Europeans, because they're not even trying.


Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H (Post 3582158)
But highly UN-American in the real world, capitalistic, profiteering, political, business theory, etc. sense. M$ is much more American in this sense of the term. M$ is all about capitalism, exploitation, hypocrisy, greed, unethical business tactics etc. ... you know, the real America.

I haven't read The Wealth of Nations yet, but I suspect Adam Smith's mistake was to overestimate human nature, to not expect behavior like Microsloth's.

jay73 06-22-2009 01:19 PM

Quote:

I haven't read The Wealth of Nations yet, but I suspect Adam Smith's mistake was to overestimate human nature, to not expect behavior like Microsloth's.
He did not. You do need to read Wealth to see it is true, it's in the small letters but he did warn (and Ferguson did so even more explicitly http://www.constitution.org/af/civil.htm) that too little state control is as at least as dangerous as too much. Smith is obligatory reading for European liberals (!=American liberals) but skipping those bits appears to be obligatory too.

As for Linux being American in spirit, I guess you are always right if you are American. America has been one schizophrenic nation right from its foundation as it was inspired by both the Enlightenment and Romanticism. In Europe, these movements were at each other's throat, in America they were simply blended into America. So you would get that odd combination of the supremacy of the individual, anarchic religious movements, irrationality and unfettered capitalism (Romanticism) as well as the greatest faith in society, secularism, rationality and a more carefully balanced economic system (Enlightenment).

johnsfine 06-22-2009 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay73 (Post 3582578)
too little state control is as at least as dangerous as too much.

Standard liberal fallacy. Look at an example of large horribly wrong state control and diagnose "too little" state control.

Microsoft could never have gotten where it is without state control providing rules everyone else must play by and selectively letting Microsoft break them.

newbiesforever 06-22-2009 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay73 (Post 3582578)
He did not. You do need to read Wealth to see it is true, it's in the small letters but he did warn (and Ferguson did so even more explicitly http://www.constitution.org/af/civil.htm) that too little state control is as at least as dangerous as too much. Smith is obligatory reading for European liberals (!=American liberals) but skipping those bits appears to be obligatory too.

As for Linux being American in spirit, I guess you are always right if you are American. America has been one schizophrenic nation right from its foundation as it was inspired by both the Enlightenment and Romanticism. In Europe, these movements were at each other's throat, in America they were simply blended into America. So you would get that odd combination of the supremacy of the individual, anarchic religious movements, irrationality and unfettered capitalism (Romanticism) as well as the greatest faith in society, secularism, rationality and a more carefully balanced economic system (Enlightenment).

Well, I already said I wouldn't bother defending myself against offended Europeans (if you are one)--it's pointless. But your "schizophrenic" remark: I agree completely, having noticed that myself at some point. (It was bound to be schizoid, though. What else would you get in a country where dissimilar individuals (largely a redundancy) groups were allowed to think, and to a lesser extent act, as they wished.)

jay73 06-22-2009 01:53 PM

Quote:

Microsoft could never have gotten where it is without state control providing rules everyone else must play by and selectively letting Microsoft break them.
Hmm, wasn't the Clinton administration preparing a case against MS that was dropped as soon as the Bush administration came to power? Hasn't MS repeatedly been fined by the EU commission? Whatever MS got away with was largely under an administration that only cared about low taxes and massive spending on the military (your typical conservative agenda).

newbiesforever 06-22-2009 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsfine (Post 3582594)
Standard liberal fallacy. Look at an example of large horribly wrong state control and diagnose "too little" state control.

I'm no liberal, sir, but not a good libertarian either, because I'm not humanist enough (not at all, even). I'm sympathetic to what both of you respectively said. I would put it: too much state control and too little are both undesirable, but in light of human nature, too little state control is less undesirable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsfine (Post 3582594)
Standard liberal fallacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay73 (Post 3582606)
(your typical conservative agenda).

Oh, please. "Typical" this and "typical" that, whatever phrasing you use, is usually just a way of belittling someone's viewpoint.

johnsfine 06-22-2009 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay73 (Post 3582606)
Hmm, wasn't the Clinton administration preparing a case against MS that was dropped as soon as the Bush administration came to power?

Recheck your facts. The most important case was the one the previous Bush administration had already won when Clinton came in and fought with great difficulty but ultimate success to undo and replace with a toothless negotiated settlement overwhelmingly benefiting Microsoft and hurting its competitors and customers.

Then Clinton followed up with fake lawsuits against MS to preempt the rights of competitors who otherwise could have sued individually, but then intentionally failing to win.

I certainly think both Bush administrations also failed to enforce the laws against Microsoft, often intentionally. But Clinton was clearly more blatant about it.

Quote:

Hasn't MS repeatedly been fined by the EU commission?
That is just theft by the EU.

It is much more MS paying a fee to the government for the ongoing right to cheat its customers and competitors than it is any serious attempt at law enforcements.

jay73 06-22-2009 02:04 PM

It is really confusing to use the world "liberal" in conversations with Americans. The word has a different meaning to a European audience. To us, liberalism is a right wing movement as it is all about liberty (and about minimal states, low taxes and unbridled capitalism) whereas to Americans, it is almost coincides with socialism (which only adds more confusion; the average American seems to equate socialism with communism...).

newbiesforever 06-22-2009 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay73 (Post 3582623)
It is really confusing to use the world "liberal" in conversations with Americans. The word has a different meaning to a European audience. To us, liberalism is a right wing movement as it is all about liberty (and about minimal states, low taxes and unbridled capitalism) whereas to Americans, it is almost coincides with socialism (which only adds more confusion; the average American seems to equate socialism with communism...).

Good point, sir. Because of that, I support American liberals' wanting to call themselves "progressives" instead. (I used to laugh at that, thinking "progressive" was a weasel word.) I think Americans became confused about the word "liberal" because Marxists stole it from classical liberalism, thinking it sounded less threatening to Americans than Marxist or socialist or Communist.

jay73 06-22-2009 02:11 PM

Quote:

Recheck your facts. The most important case was the one the previous Bush administration had already won when Clinton came in and fought with great difficulty but ultimate success to undo and replace with a toothless negotiated settlement overwhelmingly benefiting Microsoft and hurting its competitors and customers.

Then Clinton followed up with fake lawsuits against MS to preempt the rights of competitors who otherwise could have sued individually, but then intentionally failing to win.

I certainly think both Bush administrations also failed to enforce the laws against Microsoft, often intentionally. But Clinton was clearly more blatant about it.
Facts checked, I stand corrected. However - see my remark about terminological confusion.

Quote:

That is just theft by the EU.
Yep, and they now have stolen Internet Explorer. Future releases of windows will not include IE. You have to start somewhere, I guess. Right now, MS has announced they won't include any browser but the EU is planning to force them to offer their customers a real choice.

newbiesforever 06-22-2009 02:20 PM

Well, let me say this before I forget to: partly because American intellectuals certainly are arrogant and partly because European governments have been experimenting with socialism much longer and more seriously, European governments are wiser about socialism. We're hearing over here that they are now experimenting with market-based solutions, whereas our government and our intellectuals are eager to go the opposite direction.

johnsfine 06-22-2009 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newbiesforever (Post 3582630)
Because of that, I support American liberals' wanting to call themselves "progressives" instead.

I think they should just tell the truth and call themselves "Communists" :)

Quote:

I used to laugh at that, thinking "progressive" was a weasel word.
It's not just a weasel word, it's a lie. Human progress has been based primarily on technological progress. That has enabled most of the social progress. The viewpoint that generally opposes technological progress shouldn't get to call itself "progressive".

The meanings of the political terms are always shifting. I'm not old enough to have been a "liberal" in my youth the same way Ronald Reagan was a liberal in his youth. (Except for "church and state" issues, I've always been a conservative). If you look at most of what is written (by liberal historians and commentators) about how Ronald Reagan's view changed over his lifetime, you'll see lots of descriptions of a tremendous shift from left wing to right wing. But stripped of all the nonsense and distortion, all of that is things like the shift from being opposed to racial discrimination in his youth to being opposed to racial reverse discrimination in his old age. To the left (as well as the really far right) opposing racial discrimination and opposing racial reverse discrimination are contradictory positions. Obviously I think they are the same position. Reagan kept his point of view while the national political landscape moved.
As a result, any of the many historians describing that shift in Reagan's views are instead accidentally documenting the shift in the meaning of the underlying terms.

I knew current American use of the word "liberal" is very far removed from traditional European use of the same word. I didn't know it was also far removed from current European use.

newbiesforever 06-22-2009 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsfine (Post 3582646)
I think they should just tell the truth and call themselves "Communists" :)

But that's not the same thing. Political opinions are more diverse than that.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsfine (Post 3582646)
It's not just a weasel word, it's a lie. Human progress has been based primarily on technological progress. That has enabled most of the social progress. The viewpoint that generally opposes technological progress shouldn't get to call itself "progressive".

I believe the political word "progressive" uses "progress" strictly to mean "change."

H_TeXMeX_H 06-23-2009 01:15 AM

Bah ... political parties ... they're only in your head. In reality they all have the same agenda.

Robhogg 06-23-2009 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newbiesforever (Post 3582637)
European governments are wiser about socialism. We're hearing over here that they are now experimenting with market-based solutions...

Wiser is not the word I would use to describe this.

Here in the UK, the "Labour" government under Blair and Brown, has been forcing "market-based solutions" all public service. They have determinedly ignored public opinion, and all the available evidence that privatisation results in a worse service at higher cost. The result is that that the Labour Party has lost many of its core supporters, and the National Health Service is now a cash cow for private enterprise.

ronlau9 06-23-2009 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robhogg (Post 3583063)
Wiser is not the word I would use to describe this.

Here in the UK, the "Labour" government under Blair and Brown, has been forcing "market-based solutions" all public service. They have determinedly ignored public opinion, and all the available evidence that privatisation results in a worse service at higher cost. The result is that that the Labour Party has lost many of its core supporters, and the National Health Service is now a cash cow for private enterprise.

Is really because the Labour government that the NHS is in trouble ?
Look every where in this world to the cost of the health services it is sky high .
So is because of the Labour government ?
Or is because of the way the health services works ?
Or our demands for health services ?

Robhogg 06-23-2009 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronlau9 (Post 3583263)
Is really because the Labour government that the NHS is in trouble ?

Not solely - they've just continued the policies started by Thatcher, but taken them much further.

Quote:

Look every where in this world to the cost of the health services it is sky high .
Yes, health services are expensive, but...
  • Building new units under PFI (Private Finance Initiative) (enforced by the government) is demonstrably more expensive than directly funding the buildings.
  • At the end of the PFI lease, the buildings belong to the contractor, not the NHS
  • PFI schemes are often argued for on the basis of "sharing risk" between the private contractor and the government - this is only reality if the project can be allowed to fail
  • "Internal Market" arrangements increase administration costs.
  • Trusts are pushed into contracts with private healthcare providers. for certain services. These providers must be paid, whether the level of service contracted for is required or not
  • By law, PFI contractors and other private contractors must be paid before any other costs are met

And this is without even going into the issues of poor quality service delivered by PFI contractors.

Quote:

So is because of the Labour government ?
Or is because of the way the health services works ?
Or our demands for health services ?
It is partly about our demands for health service, and also about the way it works now. BUT the way the NHS used to work was much more financially efficient, and it is New Labour (and the Tories before them) who are to blame for this.

ronlau9 06-23-2009 10:28 AM

Well I know from my English colleagues that a lot of companies in the UK give there employees private insurance for health services and it started
already about 15 years ago .

newbiesforever 06-23-2009 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robhogg (Post 3583063)
Wiser is not the word I would use to describe this.

Here in the UK, the "Labour" government under Blair and Brown, has been forcing "market-based solutions" all public service. They have determinedly ignored public opinion, and all the available evidence that privatisation results in a worse service at higher cost. The result is that that the Labour Party has lost many of its core supporters, and the National Health Service is now a cash cow for private enterprise.

I stand by the word, because wisdom is a product of experience. So in theory, European governments know what they're doing regarding socialism, having practiced it for decades, and the American federal government doesn't.
Something else Europeans have been better at is choosing their progressive policies through the democratic process. I understand that in European countries, abortion was accepted through legislation rather than forced by a court system pretending to be a legislative body. That isn't the case in America.

DotHQ 06-23-2009 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsciw (Post 3582074)
Ah, didn't know Linux had oil, or why should it be American suddenly?

And whatever it takes for an American to necessarily call something "it's American"...

Unix / BSD was there before Microsoft. Didn't take up much either, so doubt that would've helped with Windows much.
Linux was there before win95. granted, Win3.1(1) was quite popular then already, but still, not really everyone was online then.

There's also nothing un-Australian about sharing, neither un-european, neither un-south african (don't know any other countries' mentality down there. but best example for RSA and sharing --> canonical's boss...)
Probably also nothing un-Asian about sharing.

so all in all, what was the whole sense of your post in the beginning?

Yep, UNIX / BSD and AT&T UNIX were all way before MS came around. 1970 or therebouts. I read long ago that Bill Gates original DOS was based on UNIX.
Linux is UNIX that runs on the i386 processor. It is no more American than it is any other nations who have contributed to it's development.

If the OP meant it is American in that now our country is working to take from the rich and give to the poor Robin Hood style, I do not see that in the Linux community. Linux is a gift. Those that can give to it, help build it and make it better. To me, that is what makes Linux great and the hope for the future of OS's.

ANO1453 06-23-2009 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newbiesforever
I understand that in European countries, abortion was accepted through legislation

Here, it was approved by the legislative body, against the People's will. Most of us could not conceive how does someone, with all the information and contraceptive methods there is, would still want the 'right to abortion' (before, it was only legal in cases of raping or when it represented danger to the mother or the foetus), paid with taxpayers money! Specially in a country with demographic ageing.

The same happened with the Treaty of Lisbon, approved without referendum. In Ireland, they voted No to the Treaty in a referendum and now they are making another. It's a shame. The Irish, the only Europeans called to vote the Treaty directly, said NO, and now a new referendum is being made. They intend to make referendums until Ireland says yes.

newbiesforever 06-23-2009 03:52 PM

I see...I didn't know many Europeans opposed abortion. (Because so many are Roman Catholic, perhaps?) Thanks for the information.

XavierP 06-23-2009 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ANO1453 (Post 3583787)
Here, it was approved by the legislative body, against the People's will. Most of us could not conceive how does someone, with all the information and contraceptive methods there is, would still want the 'right to abortion' (before, it was only legal in cases of raping or when it represented danger to the mother or the foetus), paid with taxpayers money! Specially in a country with demographic ageing.

The thing is, if they have the baby the taxpayer will be supporting the child for much longer and for more money. Using "taxes" as a justification for or against abortion is a no-win situation. It's far too emotive a subject and too far-ranging in terms of supporters of both sides.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ANO1453 (Post 3583787)
The same happened with the Treaty of Lisbon, approved without referendum. In Ireland, they voted No to the Treaty in a referendum and now they are making another. It's a shame. The Irish, the only Europeans called to vote the Treaty directly, said NO, and now a new referendum is being made. They intend to make referendums until Ireland says yes.

IIRC, Ireland voted No because they wanted some concessions. Also, IIRC, they were planning to vote Yes when it was resubmitted as long as it had the concessions they wanted. This is purely from memory, by the way, and I can't be bothered to go to Wikipedia or other sites to check :)

newbiesforever 06-23-2009 04:48 PM

Wait--which Ireland?

Since humor tends to excuse controversial statements, I should have cribbed American comedian Steven Colbert by titling this "Linux is American, And So Can You."


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 AM.