🚀 go-pugleaf

kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) wrote:
>In article <9104292009.AA01975@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> rms@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes:
>>Someone recently sent a message arguing that if we boycott Apple, we
>
>I have a name.  It's Kaleb.

And RMS couldn't recall it at the time.  I seriously doubt any slight
was intended.

>>must also boycott Microsoft because MS-DOS is not fully documented,
>>and AT&T because of their backing-store patent.  However, this would
>>lead to boycotting everyone, which is absurd.  This is supposed to
>>prove that it is absurd to boycott anyone.
>
>Is that a question, or a statement.  If it's a statement, it is wrong.
>I didn't say *you* (or anyone) had to do anything; and I didn't say 
>boycotting anyone was absurd.  I sense a double set of standards when 
>you say "boycott company X to punish them for their transgressions, but 
>not company Y, because their sins weren't *quite* as bad."

I understand the term "double standard" to mean the inclusion
of improper factors in judging, and yet you don't disagree with
the assertion that the sins differ in degree.  Why, then
should the responses not differ in degree?

One has to have a cutoff line somewhere, and drawing it between
companies X and Y, or even having a floating standard (the worst n)
is not evil.  In the best of all possible worlds, the punishment would
exactly fit the crime, but in the one we've got, even monotonicity
is commendable.

>I think that your definition of logical is anyone who agrees with you,
>and illogical is anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you.

Please don't complain about perceived personal attacks in someone
else's comments when you're using pretty overt ones yourself.
It makes it doubly impolite.

Also, I suspect you have cause and effect backwards.  It's not
"I believe X, therefore (I believe that) X is logical", but
"(I believe that) X is logical, therefore I believe X."  I can
believe things without supporting logic, although then it makes
sense to be highly tolerant of other beliefs.  But if I have
supporting logic, then someone who disagrees with me may have
no logic, flawed logic, or I may have flawed logic.  It seems
reasonable to me (translation: I have supporting logic, but it's weak)
to explore the point of disagreement to rectify the possibly flawed
logic.

>>Another flaw is that this argument assumes that all obnoxious
>>activities are equally bad.  It is based on seeing the world as pure
>>black and white, with no gray.  I don't see the world that way.
>
>Is that an implication that you think I only see things in terms of
>black and white?  Let's not get personal here, okay?

See above in reference to personal attacks.  RMS says he saw a black
and white logic in your comments.  If you grant RMS the ability to
understand English at least as well as John Q. Public, then your
comments were, at least, readily misinterpretable this way and an "I
menat to say..." respinse is apropriate.  Of course, you don't have to
grant RMS that, but doing so loudly is a personal attack itself.

>>When Microsoft fails to document MS-DOG properly, that may be
>>unfriendly, but it isn't a terrible threat.  
>
>The FTC doesn't seem to see it that way.

Personally, I don't quite agree with the FTC.  DR-DOS and others are
evidence that MS-DOG is comprehensible, although I confess it's not
easy.  I think that what Apple is doing is far worse, but because it's
using legal rather than technical means to impede work-alikes, the FTC
is kind of stuck unless it can argue that anti-trust legislation
(whatever the U.S. equivalent of the Combines Act is called) takes
precedence over the Copyright Act.  A mess it would probably rather not
get into.

>>Anybody can avoid being inconvenienced, simply by not dealing with MS-DOG.
>
>That's like saying "stop the world, I want to get off."  You can no more 
>get off the world than you can avoid using MS-DOS.  Well, maybe *you* 
>can, but there are a lot of people, using a lot of computers, using MS-DOS, 
>with a lot of money to spend.  If next week the only way I can pay my 
>mortgage is by writing MS-DOS applications, then I'll do it.

Yeah, massive market dominance is a problem.  I wonder which monopoly
it would do the world the most good to break - IBM's hold on big
mainframes, Apple's hold on junior graphics workstations, Microsoft's
hold on remedial education for brain-damaged architectures, or
AT&T's hold on Unix.  Fortunately, people can and are trying to break
all of these, but Apple is fighting dirtiest.

>>Finally, it was suggested that we would do better to support Apple
>>machines and let the market beat a path to our door.
>>
>>That was the plan I started with.  **Apple is trying to make this
>>illegal**.  The whole point of their lawsuit is to stop people from
>>writing desktop systems.  If we want to be *allowed* to write software
>>and let the market choose, we have to fight for our freedom to do so.
>>That's what the boycott is for.
>
>Who's Apple suing, besides Microsoft?  And who's suing Apple, besides
>Xerox?   Not that I pay much attention to Who's (suing) Who (in America), 
>but I haven't heard that Apple's doing anything against the MIT X Window 
>System.  Nor are they suing Amiga or Atari, who also have window systems.  
>Perhaps you can verify that FSF long ago abandoned plans for the GNU 
>Window System in favor of X; so they wouldn't be suing you.

Who has Apple *threatened* with suit, and has folded in response?  Lots
of people.  Remember the trashcan icon debate?  Do you recall them
threatening the Atari ST's original pull-down menus?  RMS can probably
rattle off a dozen more.

>>We are still free to do certain things.  We are free to support GCC on
>>the Macintosh if we want.  But, supposing we do, and supposing the
>>users love it and flock to it, that won't do anything to protect our
>>freedom to write a desktop system.  Even if we convince lots of Mac
>>users that a free compiler is wonderful, it won't influence Sculley.
>
>You think the CEO of Company X won't notice the "bottom line?"  If everyone 
>stops buying the Brand X compiler in favor of using the FSF brand compiler, 
>you don't think they'd sit up and take notice.  What could they do 
>about it?  Sue?  Just like M'soft is suing Borland, Watcom, Mark Williams, 
>DeSmet, Lattice, et al.  (Note: I'm being facetious here, just in case
>you can't tell.  To my knowledge, M'soft isn't suing any of these
>companies.)

Under both the Finder and A/UX, Apple do not make noticeable amounts
of money selling compilers.  Apple are a hardware company, and the
better the quality of the software that runs on their machines (relative
to the rest of the market), the more money they make.  This is the
basis of the FSF's attack.

If I had a better compiler than Watcom, Watcom would *definitely* take
notice, since it's their source of income.  But Apple have very differemt
economics.
-- 
	-Colin