🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul26.210525.8796@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>To quote from the GNU Manifesto:
>"I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so
> that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free."

I think the jist of this statement says it all.  At one end of
the spectrum, we have RMS who is willing to spend hard work to
create a completely free software system that does everything
that he needs---I don't think he will ever buy another piece of
software again.  At the other end, there are proprietary
software developers who make a living selling their hard work.
Where is the difference?  The difference lies in the audience,
the intent, and the creative brilliance of the software.  The
two approaches are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion.

Free software has been available before, since Unix (or more
properly, Usenet) and many other special communities have
enjoyed it for years.  However, most users of computers nowadays
(i.e., those who own microcomputers) see shareware and public
domain software as small programs that are not useful for major
applications.  Furthermore, most users who have no realistic
experience with bulletin boards or computer services such as
CompuServe believe that such software are full of viruses.

GNU will probably change this, for its entry into the software
market is significant.  For the first time we will have a
high-quality operating system at almost no cost, and it is
certain that GNU development will not end once the operating
system is finished.  Already a spreadsheet, Oleo, is being
worked on, for instance, and it is high time that such a free
spreadsheet be available.  Many people will also see the
benefits of having source code available, since bugs get
reported faster and more hardware is supported.

What this adds up to is that companies will have to up the ante
to stay competetive, as many people have said, and they will
have to reduce the cost of their software.  Some posters here
have maintained that free software will create a gap between
functionality and price, but the old adage remains: "Build a
better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door."
People will pay for it, too.  If there exists a market for "mass
market specialty software", you can bet your bottom dollar that
someone will make money from it, even if the mousetrap has just
only one extra feature compared to free software.

All in all, I completely support the FSF in its approach.  If
RMS wants to eliminate proprietary software altogether, that is
his wish, although I don't think it will happen.  But we will
all benefit from his commitment to the Hacker Ethic.

Julian Cowley <julian@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>