🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan7.112550.22626@uwasa.fi> vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
>If X had been under the GPL, the manufacturer *would have to* give me
>the source.  There is no escape to that.  I don't care if their
>support is bad, as long as there is an alternative.  Since I can't get
>the source, there really is no alternative as of now.

If X had been under the GPL, I really doubt it would have been such
succesfull (same applies to the BSD extensions to UNIX, e.g. networking).
The computer manufacturers, like all companies, have to make profits.
To do so, they have to sell the customers their products, which can
only be achieved by:
	1. lower prices (e.g. PC-Clone business)
	2. better (at least different) technology
The second implies, that the companies must have the possibility to keep
large parts of their knowlegde and technology _secret_. So, even if
a piece of software under GPL wouldn't make a large part of the whole
product, every manager will think _twice_ before including it.

The above statement IMHO also applies to the standardization of products.
If all companies would sell you exactly the same OS and software, who
will keep you buying _insert_your_favorite_ products rather than
the new faster workstation from _my_favorite_? So the manufacturers
are forced to be incompatible and hide their secrets.

	Lutz

PS. All comments with respect to the bad support of workstation manufacturers
still apply, even if my vendor is different from yours.
-- 
Lutz Jaenicke 				jaenicke@emserver.ee.tu-berlin.de 
Institut fuer Elektrische Maschinen	jaenicke@emapollo.ee.tu-berlin.de
Technische Universitaet Berlin		Tel. (004930)314-24552
Einsteinufer 11, D-1000 Berlin 10 	Fax. (004930)314-21133