🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DREIER.92Dec14235242@durban.berkeley.edu> dreier@durban.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier) writes:
[...]
>Sounds almost like the strategy that some folks (can't remember the
>name of the organization right now, sorry) used a few years back.  I
>seem to remember reading some "Manifesto" or something years ago,
>promising a free Unix clone; but it seems to just have turned out to
>be a scam for getting programmers to donate their code to this
>organization and gulling idealists into proselytizing their silly
>politics.

Not quite.  GNU sofware is 'free'.  Dylan as a language is disputably free.
Dylan as an implementation may or may not be free (depending on your
requirements, the specific implementation, etc.)  And the OS and hardware
platform is most certainly not free.  GNU tools are free.  The promised GNU
Hurd will be free.  GNU software runs on a great many hardware/OS platforms
(no not free but there's a lot of competition) and has a tradition
('history' if you will) of very open behavior.  Apple has a history of
locking people (both developers (look'n'feel, patents, etc.) and users) to
a closed universe.  That seems like a big difference to me.

Of course the underlying marketing concept is similar.  So what?  Marketing
is a tool to be used to promote you 'product'.  I was (clearly?) *not*
attacking this form a marketing but the company (in this case Apple) using
it to gain the 'hearts and minds' of developers for a proprietary platform.

If Dylan, as a language, proves to be useful then I (will) give credit to
Apple for that achievement (yea [sarcasticly said]).  That changes my
opinion of them as a company not one whit (I give them great credit for a
number of excellent marketing coups but so what? :-).

Thanks,
	John

P.S.	I'm speaking solely for myself.