🚀 go-pugleaf

mike@mystix.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) wrote:
>> ... the success of a product has little to do with its technical merit,
>> and a lot to do with marketing and "standardization".

In article <mwalker-250193094209@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
>IMHO, the same could be said about GNU software: It does not succeed on its
>technical merit, but because it is free and widely used (i.e. marketing and
>standardization).

Well, it could be said, but it would ignore certain facts.  Almost all
the current users of GNU software are using it in preference to an
alternative that cost money (the compilers, editors, and tools that
came with their Unix operating system) because the GNU tools are
technically superior.  So it is the COMBINATION of freeness, wide
use and good technical quality that contributes to their wide use.

>Therefore, the same argument applies: How much would one
>pay for a slightly better compiler than GCC? How much would one pay for an
>unbelievably better super-compiler? Enough to even justify development
>costs? How much incentive does a company that makes "free" compilers have
>for innovation? Almost none. Note: porting is not innovation.

What you're ignoring is that a base like a freely available GCC is a good
platform for a lot of research that would not otherwise be feasible.  For
example, if I have a great idea for a new kind of compiler optimization
I no longer have to build a complete front end and the rest of a back end;
I can build on top of GCC.  Funding can come from a CPU manufacturer for
whom this optimization might be particularly beneficial; the payoff to
them is great SPECmarks their marketing droids can use to move more
product.

What you're also ignoring is something common to our culture, an American
bias that's killing us in our competition with the Japanese: the thinking
that the creative spark has to do strictly with coming up with the
original idea, and not on doing a really good engineering job.  There is
plenty of room for stepwise refinement of something like GCC or Emacs, and
the GPL assures that this work goes back into the pool for others to build
on.

>Yes, it probably will force entrenched obsolete software out the market.
>Normal market forces do that, too. The problem with GNU is that it forces
>other companies out the market. This reduces the base of those with
>incentive to make the new software and spur innovation.

Sorry, the GNU software is part of the market; it's not some separate and
alien force.  The cost charged for a software product is typically divided
into a cost to commission the work, a cost to buy one copy with a right
to use it, and a cost to have it maintained, supported, etc.  All the GNU
folks have done is to divide up those costs in a different way.  As Mike
Tiemann is fond of pointing out, "free software" is not free in the sense
of "no money".  It costs money and time to support it; you can do it
yourself, using the input of the net, or you can hire experts to do it.
The new model is that software is a service and that it will be marketed
and sold like a service.  To the extent that it succeeds, it will be
because it has out-competed alternative approaches.

>Clearly, the only reasonable alternative under a GNU-utopia would be to
>take jobs in software maintenance.

Well, that's one alternative that will become more important.  But new
software will still be needed; some of it will be proprietary, some will
come out of universities and R&D labs.



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu