🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <stw113.157.2FE244F3@psu.edu> stw113@psu.edu "Sean Werkema" writes:

>... 
> > ... this is very discouraging to me.  I will use and
> >program for Win3.1 and Win95, but I feel like I've been railroaded by 
> >Bill Gates.  Tis a dark day for the intelligent computer user..."
> 
> Much as I hate to respond to a cross-post, I agree.  This has always been a 
> pet-peeve of mine.  When this industry started out, we could write virtually 
> anything we knew how to code.  These days a certain Mr. Gates is planning to 
> tell us that we can't code anything at all unless it runs in Windows...
> 
> That ain't right.
> 
> So, to do my part, I will continue (as I have in the past) to boycott MS Win.  
> I won't code for it whenever humanly possible, much as I may be depriving 
> users of my software.  I hope that other programmers out there will strongly 
> consider doing likewise, at least until Gates acknowledges that there IS 
> something else out there besides Windows....

I have a certain amount of sympathy with your point of view (and I think
it's on topic - operating systems *are* of concern to shareware authors).

However there are a number of things to consider.

In the good old days when I first learned to program (in FORTRAN IV) a
computer was a thing that had a laboratory built around it to house it.
Few people had access to them, and those that did were experts.  Although
I do remember some magic incantations like "// SYSIN DD" (forgotten the
precise phrasing) which had to be recited before your program would run.

Nowadays the computer is closer to being the "universal machine" that
Turing (I think it was) foresaw that it would become.  But to become
that it has had to develop operating systems that the majority of non-
expert users can get to grips with - and that seems to mean GUI's.

Bill sells Windows not just to make life harder for programmers but
because so many people want to buy it.

It also has advantages.  My music processor Mozart is a graphical
application and Windows makes it much easier.  I don't have to
worry about the vagaries of everybody's different screen and printer.

Furthermore, if shareware authors want to be successful in terms of mass
appeal, then they'll create their programs for operating systems which
have mass appeal.

Now this is not to say I like the way Microsoft do everything:  I think
a flat 32 bit operating system in the DOS style was long overdue before
NT came along with the possibility of console applications.

Linux may be just what you need.  But I'm not going to be too successful
trying to market shareware that just runs under Linux.  You might be
happy depriving people of your software - I assume you are not attempting
to make a living from it.

I quite honestly don't give a damn whether Bill Gates shouts to the rooftops
that there's something besides Windows.  If millions of people buy Windows
I'll write my programs for them.  And of course my programs are so good
that this will persuade  millions more to buy Windows <g>.  (But
think about it - that's the way it works.   Bill Gates wuld have done
something else long ago if no-one had liked Windows.)

In summary: if you're programming for yourself - do what you like and
boycott what you don't.  If you want to ship shareware there are other
considerations.

Just my 2p worth.
  
Dave
-- 
+---------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Dave Webber                        dave@musical.demon.co.uk   |
| Author of MOZART, the Windows 3.1 shareware Music Processor   |
| and member of the Association of Shareware Professionals      |
+---------------------------+-----------------------------------+