🚀 go-pugleaf

brewer@umd5.umd.edu (Peter Brewer) writes:

>Your argument is credible. However, I remain unconvinced. I think that
>GNUs reputation as a 'bunch of hackers' was propogated by marketing
>sharks from certain companies. ( particularly those with other O.S.s
>to sell besides Unix ). The there are the dinosaurs who never use a
>keyboard except to contact their secretaries... due for extinction
>over time). In a way this is an argument to protect the FSF's independence
>as a way to prove that this is not software 'hacked' together by
>bulletin board freaks but is instead the culmination of research 
>by talented individuals earning Masters and PhD degress; plus a few
>post graduate types. 

I do not understand what you are trying to say in this paragraph.  The
independence of the FSF does not need protecting.  I do want to
mention that, to the best of my knowledge, FSF software is not the
culmination of research by individuals earning degrees (I'm sure there
are a few PhD's who maintain FSF software, but I'm surprised to
realize that I actually don't know of any).  FSF software is also not
hacked together by bulletin board freaks, but, what if it were?  By
and large, free software succeeds because it is better, regardless of
who wrote it.  Free software is better (in my opinion) because it can
draw upon a net-wide pool of talent to write it, whereas proprietary
software is restricted to a company-wide pool.

>Given the charters of the FSF and the LPF, (to protect programmers from
>unscrupulous companies trying to patent everything back to the discovery
>of the wheel), maintaining an aloof independence from any commercial
>entity is important. It would be very easy for another company to tout
>their version of 'supported GNU tools' as a better rendition which would
>touch off a war between that organization and Cygnus over who actually
>has the 'FSF seal of approval'. This and similar marketing shenanigans
>will only hurt the credibility of the FSF and LPF when they try to 
>protest unscrupulous acts by business. They will be perceived as immature
>puppets who practice favoritism.

The FSF and the LPF are different organizations, and I think you are
confusing them to some degree.

In any case, Cygnus does not have the FSF seal of approval, whatever
that is, except in so far as Cygnus is the official maintainer of
various FSF programs (g++, gdb, gas, binutils).  The FSF could, I
suppose, withdraw that privilege, and make somebody else the
maintainer.  However, that is (in my opinion) unlikely, because the
primary authors of g++, and the current versions of gas and the
binutils, all work for Cygnus.  gdb has been extensively revamped by
Cygnus employees.

I think it is unfair of you to presume that Cygnus would fight over
who has more approval from the FSF.  In fact, Cygnus does have a few
(smaller) competitors, and Cygnus has not wasted time fighting with
them.

Believe it or not, the FSF seal of approval is not a big selling point
for many Cygnus customers and potential customers.  The customers want
to know that Cygnus tools are better than the known proprietary
vendors.  A good percentage don't care that the software is free,
except that it means that they don't have to run a license manager.

I am a Cygnus employee.  I do not speak for it.
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
``Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be
  profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more
  productive - and more morally desirable - than one left to market forces.''