🚀 go-pugleaf

mathew (mathew@mantis.co.uk) wrote:
> vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
> > mathew (mathew@mantis.co.uk) wrote:
> >> vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
> >> > Unfortunately, I have to use a hoarded X display every day at work.
> >> > The makers of it won't give us sources so we could fix the bugs
> >> > ourselves.
> >> 
> >> So why the hell did you buy the damn thing?
> > 
> > I wasn't working here at the time they considered X displays.  If I
> > were, I'd tried to negotiate better support into the deal or enough
> > technical info to be able to support these things on our own.
> 
> So your organization made a stupid decision.  Surely that's their lookout?

You are oversimplifying the matter.  DEC has for a long time been
known as a rather helpful company, providing detailed information on
both its hardware and its software.  I have personally, for example,
spent some time reading the source code to their VMS operating system.
DEC's hostile attitude to its customers seems to be a recent
development, I do not think this development was known here at the
time.  Perhaps they think that it helps with their revenue.  I think
it helps them lose customers.

> Why should everyone have their freedom restricted just to protect your
> organization from the consequences of the decisions it makes?

Nobodys freedom is restricted by DEC giving out necessary hardware
information, so that people can have a choise of either running DEC's
overpriced and buggy software or write their own.  I'm investigating
the possibilities to port a suitable kernel to the hardware.

> > If X had been under the GPL, the manufacturer *would have to* give me
> > the source.
> 
> More likely, if X had been under the GPL, the manufacturer wouldn't have
> adapted it to run on his hardware, and nor would many other manufacturers. 
> You'd probably be running OpenLook or NeWS, with no hope of any sort of
> source, let alone source tailored to your machine.

I note that you don't back up your belief.  Hardware manufacturers
like DEC primarily want to sell the hardware they make (a reasonable
assumption).  If porting a GPL licensed software package to that
hardware at a small cost would drastically help selling the hardware,
it seems natural that that is what the hardware manufacturer would do.
There are examples on this working, eg. the packet drivers mentioned
recently.  Once the GNU OS is ready, someone will probably pre-load it
on the hardware htey want to sell.  This already happens with some of
the parts of the GNU OS that are already released, like gcc and emacs.

> >> Sounds to me like people have bothered to patch FSF software to work on your
> >> system, but they haven't bothered to patch the free X to work on your system. 
> >> So what?  There's nothing stopping you from patching X to run on your system,
> >> or paying someone else to do it.
> > 
> > You see, there actually is something stopping me, or I would have done
> > it already.  Namely, the manufacturer doesn't give out the necessary
> > hardware information either, effectively blocking that path.
> 
> Again, if you buy undocumented hardware, what do you expect?

As far as I know, Digital didn't say that it would be impossible to
get hardware details.  Also, since DEC previously have provided
detailed hardware information, I suppose nobody suspected things would
be any different now.

> If you want special restrictive licenses to save you from the consequences of
> your organization's actions, let's go the whole hog.  Let's include a section
> in the GPL demanding that anyone who distributes GPL code must port it to any
> other system on demand, free of charge.  Then people who buy hardware that
> nobody supports won't have to face the consequences of their stupidity.

Your sense of humour seems to be on the bizarre side.

> You'll never have to worry about what hardware to buy.  You'll just buy what
> you like, and someone will just *have* to give you ported patched source
> code appropriate for your system, right?

Totally unnecessary, as, again, I'm perfectly willing to do the port myself.

> >>  What, you mean you didn't take that cost
> >> into account when buying the system?
> > 
> > Nice try.  The support we have to buy now costs more than it would
> > cost us to port X ourselves (my estimation).  By the way, the
> > manufacturer is Digital Equipment Corp. (who participated in
> > developing the original free X), and the product is their VXT 2000
> > X-terminal.
> 
> If the support costs are that high, it must be cheaper to sell off all the
> DEC hardware second hand and replace it with something better.  Or at least
> something that you know what it does.

Nope.  You're overestimating the costs of porting X.

> mathew

--
Leonard Norrgard, vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi, +358-61-3248-435.
"I'll carry your books, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over, carry
forward, Cary Grant, cash & carry, Carry Me Back To Old Virginia, I'll even
Hara Kari if you show me how, but I will not carry a gun."
					  -- Hawkeye from M*A*S*H