🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MIB.92Jan16160732@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>1: Go to a PC software store and count the number of dismal editors,
>compilers, and debuggers.  While there are a few shining lights, the
>others still manage to make a living, precisely because of the
>software copyright system.  They are lousy and incompetent
>programmers, and our society continues to support them.  That is a
>pretty large social cost.

After your cogent explanation of the differences between the different
copyright models you now have totally confused me.  In what way does
the current commercial software system allow people to get away
with selling bad software?  And in what way would the GNU system
change it?  Are you implying that people buy the bad stuff because
they can't afford the good stuff?  And does that therefore mean
that under the GNU model there would only ever be one version of
any given type of product?  I think not.

In fact the current economic model is even more extreme in the GNU
field.  Let's take g++ as an example.  It's a real C++ compiler, but
it's got some bugs.  Cfront is not a real compiler, it's slower,
harder to use and debug.  A good example of your "poor" software
(it's not _that_ bad actually, but anyway...).  However g++ has some
bugs too, and in fact we can't use it due to some of those bugs.
BUT!  There's always Cygnus, the model GNU company. Now we could
pay them for support and (might) get our bugs fixed.  However, it
turns out that it is *much* cheaper for us to buy a commercial
version of Cfront for each machine we port to than it is to pay
Cygnus for support.  (If the prices have dropped and we can get
this kind of thing fixed for the same ballpark as a Cfront (around
$300 to $2000) then I apologize, and please let me know.)

>editors, compilers, etc.  Large numbers of people get tricked (I can't
>think of any other word that applies) into supporting these people,
How are they tricked?

Actually, on a slightly different tack.  Cygnus has recently posted
a commercial advertisement (although noone seems to have complained :-)
to a number of groups.  Sun is unbundling their compilers.  Cygnus
has offered to make gcc commercial quality on Sparc for $200K, or
$2000/customer for 100 customers.  This is exactly the model that
the FSF claims is the future of software.  Now I actually would
not be suprised if they raised the money, but I would expect a
significant portion to come donations, most likely from hardware
vendors like Sun or the Sparc-clone manufacturors.  If they can
in fact persuade 100 customers to dish out $2000 each for something
that everyone else will get for free I will be _very_ impressed.
It's a great ideal, but it's not human nature.
-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/497-2922                    |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.