Linked by David Adams on Tue 13th Dec 2011 03:12 UTC
Editorial I was reading today about how Linux Mint developers altered the Banshee music player source code to redirect affiliate revenue from Amazon music orders to them instead of Banshee. They've reportedly made less than $4, which has caused a kerfluffle among those paying attention to that corner of the world. But it raises a larger point that has been swirling around for a couple of decades: an OS vendor has a lot of power to influence, and even monetize their user base. Where should they draw the line?
Thread beginning with comment 500024
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

You said:

"In fact, the internet took everyone by surprise, and it really only exists as a marvelous accident of history. If our political and business leaders had been able to truly imagine its impact, it surely would have been strangled in the crib by attempts to control and monetize it. It's no accident that the chaotic, free version of the internet came to the fore, because all of its non-free, controlled predecessors were indeed killed by the control,short-sightedness, and greed of those that held a little leverage over them. Only a free network that "interprets censorship as damage and routes around it," will continue to grow and thrive."

All closed systems were doomed to failure by their very nature. Alvin Toffler understood this in 1970 when he wrote Future Shock. He wrote more about the phenomenon in 1980 (The Third Wave) and 1990 (Powershift).

In other words, something like the Internet was inevitable. We just happened to have been around to see its birth. :-)

Reply Score: 1