🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <khmpbeINN421@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>This is actually the best thing I've heard anyone say about the GPL
>>lately, but I think it depends on an incorrect assumption --
>>namely, that there are many "program users" who have the interest/
>>ability/money to have code changed/fixed/ported etc.  
>
>Why do there have to be "many" such users?  Just because the users who have
>such needs are in the minority, why should they be denied the ability?

There's no particular reason to deny them it.  However if by granting
that right you are in the long run restricting access to other users you
might think twice about the benefits.  The only counter example to this
I've seen is Cygnus and random consultants.  Keep reading below.

>When you say that it's more cost-effective, are you including the value of
>time?  New releases of most applications come out on the order of every six
>months to a year.  If you encounter a problem with the version of MacWrite
>that was just released yesterday, you'll probably have to live with it for
>a year before you can buy the next release.  And then you still have to
>hope that they fixed the bug.

I've found very few "end-user" apps that had bugs I couldn't work around.
FullWrite was perhaps one of the few, and I stuck with it for a long time
before I bought a new word-processor, and that price was still cheaper
than it would have been for me to try and fix it if I'd had the source.

>If you'd be willing to wait for the next version and spend a few hundred
>dollars to buy it, why wouldn't you be willing to spend that money hiring
>someone to fix the bugs for you right away?

If there were people who fixed software for a few hundred dollars this
would be fine.  There are not.  I don't know what the standard rate is
out there for software consulting, but I've never charged less than $60/hour
and it usually takes me considerably more than two hours to fix non-trivial
bugs.  Companys ammortize support over many people.  The more people who
buy the software, the cheaper they can make support.  If they only get
to charge one person for the fix, and then everyone else can get it for
free, then it's kind of hard to make it cheap.

>If your car develops problems, wouldn't you take it to a mechanic rather
>than buy a new car?
This works only because the cost of fixing is usually much less than
the cost of the car.  If my Mac software cost as much as a car then
I wouldn't have a Mac.  If it cost as much to upgrade as it does to
fix my care I wouldn't have any upgrades.  A typical Mac software
upgrade costs somewhere between $0 and $50.  I don't know how you
can run a support organization on that kind of money.

>>On the other hand, mass market software consumers don't pony up
>>25-250K$ for software support.
>
>If there were more software that anyone could support there would probably
>be more people providing the support, and market forces would drive the
>prices down to affordable levels.

Really?  I don't believe it.  If I have a fix-or-I-die problem then I will
have to spend whatever it takes.  But if I have a general bug that I know
other people will have too, then all I have to do is wait a little while
and then pick up the latest copy of the source.  I don't have to pay the
support organization a penny.  How do you get around this?

-- 
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.