🚀 go-pugleaf

Kyle Jones says:
|Miles O'Neal writes about the GPL:
|Forget it.  Even quality software needs support.  Ask the authors of C
|news.  Ask the authors of your favorite piece of software.  You cannot
|possibly anticipate everything that the users will want, even if your
|code is completely bug free.  And when you start adding things that the
|users want, you will inevitably introduce bugs.  There will be a market
|for software maintenance, believe it.

Good software, done properly, can get by with VERY little support.
At least, some applications can. I know. I've done some, and I've used some.

Also, "support" is not major enhancements.
|
| > 2) A lot of other people, such as 103% of all the MIS-heads in the world,
| > are going to lump it in with all that "public domain bulletin board stuff"-
| > useless garbage and probably full of viruses, or at least nasty bugs (their
| > perceptions, not mine). They would summarily have someone on their staff
| > shot who even LET the stuff in the door.
|
|And the guarantees you get with commercial software are any better?  No
|warranty, no guarantee that the software will do anything at all or let
|alone be fit for the advertised purpose, nothing.

Have you never DEALT with these people? They make up a phenomenal
percentage of the market. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE SUPPORT IS
ANY GOOD. It is that the support says "IBM" or "DEC" on it.

|By the way, if you're using this same virus-ridden, buggy free software
|that your MIS customers loathe to develop your product, how can you
|guarantee that the software you deliver doesn't suffer from the same
|maladies?  If they knew you were using such software in your operations,
|would they still want to buy your product?

Reread it, please. I said that's how THEY (the MIS-heads) would perceive
anything that came in their door without a PO for thousands of dollars.
Anything that can be gotten for free, they consider worthless, or worse.

| > This does NOT appear to give me a good chance at making any decent living
| > (ie, lower middle class income or above) off the software.
|
|Software isn't the only thing that a computer professional is capable of
|producing!  For a given task, the right hardware must be chosen, and
|installed.  The right software must be chosen and installed.  Users must
|be educated as to how to use the software.  Software must be maintained.
|Software must be maintained.  Software must be maintained.  (The

See above. See above. See above.

|repetition is intentional.)  Hardware must be monitored and maintained.
|As needs change, the above cycle repeats.

Fine. YOU go be a systems integrator, and a trainer, and an installer,
etc, etc, etc. I want to design, write, and document software. And I want
to make a good living at it.

Now, what is the difference between making money off the software, vs making
the money off of these other things? I contend there is NO moral difference,
and that (morality) is the only argument I have seen for this whole issue
(other than 1 attempt to tie things to renewable resources).

|What I want to know is why you would want more of a free lunch.  You can
|get GNU software for the cost of making a copy, and yet you don't seem
|to want to give anything back.  The beauty of sharing is that if
|everyone shares, EVERYONE gets more than they give.  If I write a neat
|program and post it to the net, and N others do the same, I get N neat
|programs despite the fact I only wrote one.  And so does everyone else.

I don't even want the free lunch. I don't necessarily want/plan/need to
use the GNU software. You came in late, I believe. This whole discussion
began around Richard Stallman's (apparent) belief that selling software is
immoral, not around whether I should use GNU or what I should get from/give
to GNU/anyone else.

|And this is a Bad Thing?  To me, a bad thing is taking, and taking, and
|taking without giving anything in return.  So the GPL forces your hand a
|little... ah well, there are alternatives to using FSF code.

If I meet their need, then I gave them something.

|In my mind, the whole point of the FSF is to encourage software sharing,
|The idea to make software freely distributible so that more people can
|receive the benefits of the software itself, rather than money made from
|the sale of the software.  Software is the end, not the means.  A very
|different point of view than that of a software vendor.

Coupled with other remarks I have seen of Richard Stallman's, it seems
that the idea is to FORCE software sharing, by one means or another. Very
different thing.

I asked someone via email for RMS's net address, but have no answer yet.

If someone would provide it, I'll ask him some of the questions I've been
asking here.

-Miles