Seth Gordon asks a question of me (Doyle):
Umm ... how should a nationalized operating-system provider determine what kind of operating system is in the public interest?
Doyle Nationalizing the computer industry includes operating systems, the internet, hardware, research, etc. Most of the start up work in computing was done either for the defense industry as the internet was, or through academic ties to the university research system and public funding. The funneling of public funds to private interests is well understood. Not a difficult problem to track down. Consolidate the numerous business operations into a whole which is what Microsoft is doing in a private system whether anyone can stop Gates or not. Provide a national center for research. Provide every home in the country with a repairable standard piece of equipment. Make the computer accessible across disability and language differences. Public policy is debated all the time, so make the decisions public and debated in a timely fashion.
Of course as Max Sawicky would say:
a) Windows sucks;
b) therefore, why nationalize it? Better to break up
Microsoft and regulate/police the operating system remnant;
c) Linux is already "public" in a way that does not
require government spending or regulation. Leave
well enough alone. Maybe appropriate some funds
to speed the development of Linux add-ons (like
a usable front-end).
Doyle Without an organized left to make this happen, then it won't. But the idea is like national health care. Probably would lower costs, and be just fine with everyone except for the culture of libertarianism and not really that radical a concept. Really just a tad more contemporary than is Social Security, and potentially as popular with the regular working folks who will use the people's linux. regards, Doyle Saylor