🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ki1jj3INN68v@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>In article <1991Nov11.221754.16254@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>>I've found very few "end-user" apps that had bugs I couldn't work around.
>
>Sure, you *can* work around most bugs.  Does that mean that you should be
>*forced* to?  Why should vendors have so much control over their users?
>Who should be in control here, us or them?
>
>What if your bicycle dealer didn't allow you to perform your own
>adjustments and repairs (I'm not going to repeat the car analogy, which you
>shot down pretty well)?

This analogy still has problems.

You're confusing "don't allow X" with "X won't work for economic
reasons".  Remember that the non-repeated car analogy was phrased in
terms of what I chose to do as a consumer, as opposed to what I was
prohibited from doing.

Remember how this started -- someone mentioned something that they
liked about the copyleft, and I replied, and agreed, but then said
"but does this really matter?  How many people will benefit from
this?"  It isn't a selling point.  I did not mean, and did not say,
"Few people benefit, so we should ban the copyleft" (and I do not
think that would be a good idea, either).  However, I don't see how
software released under copyleft us ever going to make much progress
in what I'll call "mass market" software (e.g., sold from a
shrink-wrapped box at K-mart), because such software will be too hard
for the average consumer to repair, and the repair costs will be
substantially greater than the purchase costs).

(So now assume a repaired analogy)

Bicycles are much simpler than software, and thus easier for the
end-user to fix.  The time and tool investment is much smaller.  Thus,
more people are willing and able to fix their bicycles.

(But...)

The number of people who actually repair their own bicycles in this
country is probably not as high as you think.  I worked in a bicycle
shop in the early 70s, and we made a decent amount of money repairing
flats.

For reasons unknown (market forces, perhaps?) there's been a steady
stream of lower-maintenance and easier-to-use bicycle components over
the last few years (examples include indexed shifting, sealed
bearings, and kevlar-belted tires).  I cannot complain, but this seems
to indicate that people are willing to spend money up front to avoid
future maintenace.  I'd argue that one reason for the success of
mountain bikes is their alleged durability, which is another way of
saying "less maintenance".

Bicycles wear out.  Software becomes obsolete, but if you've got one
machine and three packages that you use on it, and no significant
bugs, that software will continue to work as well as the day that you
bought it.  THIS IS NOT YOUR WORK SITUATION, NOR IS IT MINE.  We're
weird.

David Chase
Sun