RE: LINUX is the "one" ? .... Comments??? -- MIDRANGE-L

| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces+jt=ee.net@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Martin
| Rowe
| Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:33 PM


| Free yes, but the essential thing is 'free as in speech', *not*
| necessarily 'free as in beer'.

That's what they TRY ta tell Ya.

| This just *isn't* true. Stallman himself used to sell his Emacs editor on
| tape, and charged a fair bit more than media costs in the process. The
| GPL does *not* say you can't sell GPL software.
| http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html It's true that the freedoms
| granted by the GPL mean that you can't prevent someone else from giving
| away what you have bought, thus making it less likely you'll make a
| killing from it,

Excuse me...?!?  You say "less likely"...?!?!?

In my experience, if You CAN give it away (and even if it's not legal, like
the philosophy of Napsterism), then it WILL be given away.. because who
WOULD pay for it...?  This doesn't make it "less likely you'll make a
killing", it makes it IMPOSSIBLE to make ANY money a-TALL...  There's a
bituva difference, You see.

And this is a contradiction that can't be reconciled by any amount-a
smooth-talkin...



| He might not be as involved in development now, but he's churned out a
| fair amount of software. Emacs isn't exactly a small project, and neither
| is gcc, originally the GNU C Compiler.

Oh yeah?  Well I have VERY little doubt that I've OBSOLETED more lines of
code than RMS and ESR have written combined, so I'm not all that easily
impressed.  And if I haven't, I know for a fact that Joe Pluta HAS.

Some people are FAR too easily impressed, fer as I'm concerned.


| As far as the approach (which I don't equate with communism)
| being sold to
| the business community is concerned, what's the problem. Companies either
| do it because it saves/makes them more money, or because they're gullible
| enough to buy into the current fads.

Yeah, that last part is the problem, EXACTLY.  Because the press IS gullible
and DOES buy into "Open" Source as a "better programming methodology".

The press had hoodwinked companies into believing they're saving money,
without looking at the facts of the matter...  I call that an ENDEMIC
problem in IT, and I'm not the only one who has noticed it, either.  Recall
an article in ComputerWorld last year (not specific to "Open" Source) with
headling "20% of IT budgets just plain wasted", or something to that
effect...  Didn't bother reading it, because that figure was OBVIOUSLY low.


| In that proprietary software is no
| different.

It's different in that one programming methodology DOES works and one
doesn't.  I've seen the successes of OS like Apache, and Linux.. and see the
drawbacks to these being OS as well.  But overall, RMS has BEEN SUCCESSFUL
in His goal to destroy the software industry, albeit with the best of
intentions.


| In fact with more advertising dollars to spend, I think the
| latter is more likely. Paying little or nothing for software doesn't
| automatically make it bad, any more that paying an arm and a leg for it
| makes it good.

The latter is obvious, but paying nothing for software DOES automatically
make it bad.

It disintermediates the customer.

This has been reported a little bit in the past year or so, but doesn't
gather much hype.  The customer loses their voice in the process for this
reason:  Because they DIDN'T pay anything for the software, they get what
they paid for.. so invariably get short shrift.  That's why "Open" Source is
a LOUSY way to develop software, for the most part.

Just because "Open" Source is a MARKETing reality, doesn't make it a valid
software development strategy.  Works somewhat decently with what I call
"tinker-toy" projects (like Linux...;-)...

|
| > Not saying the GPL has single-handedly KILLED the market for TRUE
| > INNOVATION in software, the past decade...  There were other factors,
| > too.
|
| Just what do *you* define as true innovation? What products are really
| innovative, and not just a tweak or re-implementation of someone elses
| project?

Oh...  DarpaNet, the S/38, original Apple and PC/clone hardware, VisiCalc
and Word Processors, Mac Lisa/Windoze 3 (which lead to a host of software
being more affordable, but the innovation had already been done on other
platforms), OS/400, Risc, P2P...  Those kinds-a MAJOR advancements (partial
list, obviously, but hope it defines how I use "innovation" better).  Don't
see very many MAJOR advancements anymore, except in the area of
personal-web-publishing software coming online.

Nothing WRONG with incremental advances, but innovation is a lot harder to
do or there'd be a lot more innovators out there.

| The early GNU project wasn't trying to innovate as such - it was
| trying to provide a free version of UNIX, so obviously had standards &
| functions to design to. There's been quite a bit of discussion on Eclipse
| here, which is, at heart, an extensible editor & development environment.
| Emacs was already that a long time ago which is why it's still popular
| over two decades later.

Emacs is GARBAGE, and as You said GNU (and Linux as well) offers practically
zip in the area of innovation.  Couldn't find link but recall RMS Himself
said, if He had it ta do over again He probably wouldn'a started with *nix
as a base...  (Too bad He hadn't ever heard-a the 400, huh...;-)

Look, anyone can buy into this Open Source line if they wanna, but the
consequences are still the consequences...  It's a poor method to develop
and distribute reliable software and produce innovation, no matter how it's
dressed up.  I appreciate, Martin, that at least You didn't portray me as
some relative of the Cro-Magnon Man for not buying the hype, just because I
see that "Open" Source is NOT a-tall what it's claimed to be.