So I finally ended my experiment with using Linux this weekend. When I reinstalled Windows 7 on my laptop, permanently erasing Ubuntu's Natty Narwhal (v 11.04) from the hard drive. With a sigh of relief, I'm back in an environment that I know well, and have come to respect even more, as a result of my jaunt into Linux land.
Linux is free, yes. But this is free with a cost. And for me, one cost was the time and effort spent to get basic stuff installed and/or working. Another cost was a lack of apps that I'd gotten really used to over the years. The final straw for me was when the DVD I'd ordered about youth soccer coaching was a format that was supported only on Windows. And after spending yet a few more hours searching forums and what not on how to get the format to play on Linux, I gave up.
The final decision point for me was whether I wanted the laptop to continue to be a tool for me, or a plaything. And after being blocked multiple times as a result of apps not working, or apps just not available, I decided it was time for the laptop to be a tool once again. When the OS or the apps actually start getting in the way of you being able to do stuff, then something is clearly messed up.
Needless to say it was a really interesting experiment, and one that I'm really glad I did. Ubuntu and many of the open source apps have come a long way. But they all still have ways to go to catch up to Windows' ease of use, quality and the multitude of applications available for Windows.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Should we stop comparing the current economic distress to the Great Depression?
These are tough times. Millions are out of work, and have been out of work for a long time. Business profits continue to soar, and yet, the median income continues to drop. Especially in this country, the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow. Mirroring the situation in the "old" world, including countries like India (atleast before the economic boom of the last 10 years).
There is much hand-wringing by left-leaning economists of how the only way out of this mess is to mirror policies by Hoover and FDR during the Great Depression. A core principle cited is that of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and other programs that created work for the unemployed, and helped buoy the populace past the economic crisis. The WPA was handled by a social worker by the name of Harry Hopkins, and was effective. The idea being that such a program or set of programs need to occur now too, handled by people who know a thing or two of what it takes to alleviate suffering.
Fast forward to today. Corporations, combined, have more economic clout than nations. Along these lines, was President Obama's decision to have Jeffery Immelt (CEO of GE) to lead the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness a wise one, or not? Only time will tell. But my sense is that we have to roll with the times. By shining the spotlight on a corporate icon to look beyond just increasing shareholder value, but also to the betterment of "the people", might actually work.
There is much hand-wringing by left-leaning economists of how the only way out of this mess is to mirror policies by Hoover and FDR during the Great Depression. A core principle cited is that of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and other programs that created work for the unemployed, and helped buoy the populace past the economic crisis. The WPA was handled by a social worker by the name of Harry Hopkins, and was effective. The idea being that such a program or set of programs need to occur now too, handled by people who know a thing or two of what it takes to alleviate suffering.
Fast forward to today. Corporations, combined, have more economic clout than nations. Along these lines, was President Obama's decision to have Jeffery Immelt (CEO of GE) to lead the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness a wise one, or not? Only time will tell. But my sense is that we have to roll with the times. By shining the spotlight on a corporate icon to look beyond just increasing shareholder value, but also to the betterment of "the people", might actually work.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Does capitalism need a conscience?
The December issue of Harvard Business Review had an excerpt of an interview with John Mackey, founder and CEO of Whole Foods. The complete interview is available here: http://bigthink.com/ideas/25555
That interview led me to an article where Mackey wrestles with the likes of Milton Friedman on the "soul" (if you will) of a corporation. The article, titled "Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business" is a fascinating debate between 3 free-market libertarian types.
Milton takes the classic cold-hearted approach where the sole raison d' etre is to maximize profits for its shareholders. And everything else is secondary to that role.
Mackey takes the broader, worthier and pragmatically smarter (IMO), approach that profits are a means to an end, not the end itself. That business needs to create value for not only its investors, but also customers, employees, vendors, communities and the environment. And that by putting the well-being of customers, employees communities etc first, actually improves the business's profit potential and its own long term well-being.
I guess to show that even in libertarian ideology there is a leftist and right-wing spectrum of thought, there is also an opinion thrown in by T.J.Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor. T.J.Rodgers pretty much takes the low-road, starts by calling Mackey a Ralph Nader in libertarian clothing and his opinion piece pretty much becomes manure quickly after that.
To me, the core idea of Mackey that struck a chord with me is that ultimately, the entrepreneur should be the one to guide the behavior of the organization she founded/created. The next layer is that the business cannot operate in a selfish cocoon and to succeed it needs to positively affect all who are involved. Or as Martin Luther King Jr put it "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. "
That interview led me to an article where Mackey wrestles with the likes of Milton Friedman on the "soul" (if you will) of a corporation. The article, titled "Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business" is a fascinating debate between 3 free-market libertarian types.
Milton takes the classic cold-hearted approach where the sole raison d' etre is to maximize profits for its shareholders. And everything else is secondary to that role.
Mackey takes the broader, worthier and pragmatically smarter (IMO), approach that profits are a means to an end, not the end itself. That business needs to create value for not only its investors, but also customers, employees, vendors, communities and the environment. And that by putting the well-being of customers, employees communities etc first, actually improves the business's profit potential and its own long term well-being.
I guess to show that even in libertarian ideology there is a leftist and right-wing spectrum of thought, there is also an opinion thrown in by T.J.Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor. T.J.Rodgers pretty much takes the low-road, starts by calling Mackey a Ralph Nader in libertarian clothing and his opinion piece pretty much becomes manure quickly after that.
To me, the core idea of Mackey that struck a chord with me is that ultimately, the entrepreneur should be the one to guide the behavior of the organization she founded/created. The next layer is that the business cannot operate in a selfish cocoon and to succeed it needs to positively affect all who are involved. Or as Martin Luther King Jr put it "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)