🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:23:19 GMT, tyrell@herring.micro.umn.edu
 john> (john drexler) said: Nntp-Posting-Host: herring.micro.umn.edu

 john> Now look:

 john> I have followed the gnu project for some time, and do like
 john> (and, I admit, use ) the products that you have created.
 john> However, enough is enough. The PRINCIPLES upon which the gnu
 john> project was formed are quite harmful to the software industry
 john> and software programmers in general.

 john> Now I realize I am not going to change your mind, but listen:

 john> You are doing the equivalent to what the Japanese microchip
 john> industry did to the United States counterpart: dumping. Every
 john> time you create a software product, and give it out -- free --
 john> to the public, some private software developer is taking the
 john> brunt of it.  A software developer -- in the attempt to make a
 john> living -- creates a software program. In order for him to
 john> subsist, he HAS to charge a considerable fee to pay for his
 john> time and effort in developing the product.  Now YOU develop
 john> similar software for free. Which software would you pick as a
 john> consumer? A: Joe Schmoe's word processor -- 129.95 or B:
 john> Richard Stallman's super-duper gnu processor -- GRATIS. The
 john> choice is easy (as far as the consumer is concerned, and Joe
 john> Schmoe, software developer, gets it directly in the teeth.



	"Dumping"  does not seem correct to me.  The purpose of
dumping is to disable other producers so that the dumper can
ultimately control the market (and make handsome profits from that
control).  This is not gnu.


ps	try getting a job in chemistry before you whine about the
demise of the computer profession :)

Nathan Siemers

--
--
/  | / /__|  /  /---/ /__| /  | /    nathan@chemres.tn.cornell.edu

From reading his posting, I think that John Drexler believes 
that RMS is out to destroy the current way of life for the 
software industry.  I certainly believe this.  But is it "harm",
or just a sea-change which will temporarily discomfit certain 
individuals and corporations?

Consider the poor messenger-boy, whose livelihood was destroyed
by the telephone.  Did this development "harm" the world?    
Or are there now millions of people employed to make and maintain 
telephones, exchanges, modems, and every other kind of equipment
that developed from this innovation?

Other things might have an equal effect on the lot of the humble 
programmer.  Someone might invent a system which accepts a short,
spoken desription of any software tool, and codes it up automatically.
(Is this more or less likely than the success of GNU: discuss :-)
Now what?  Should we hold rallies in the streets to burn all copies?

There is much more software that is "free off the net" than GNU: 
PD software, X, TeX, etc.  Equally, there is a lot of software 
that is "free" by dint of illegal copying.  Somehow, the industry
survives.

Bryan Boreham

Speaking for myself, not my employer.

In article <1993Jan10.062319.17213@news2.cis.umn.edu> tyrell@herring.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:

>       You are doing the equivalent to what the Japanese microchip
> industry did to the United States counterpart: dumping. Every time you
> create a software product, and give it out -- free -- to the public,
> some private software developer is taking the brunt of it.

To continue on the Japanese line, look at how the US auto industry
defended itself against the import cars in the last ten years, which
at the time were better quality and less expensive than US cars.  They
used better process technology and QA to improve the product.

If the software industry were to defend itself against public domain and
copyleft products, it must improve and emphasize the areas where it is
already distinguished: sales/marketing networks, glossy documentation,
support and updates, and especially QA.  Microsoft, for example, is
surely capable of producing a compiler as good as gcc or a windowing
system as as versatile as X11, but it hasn't tried yet: Joe Beancounter
is--for now--happy with the current cost, convenience, capability, and
quality levels of shrinkwrap software.

In the end, there will be both room and need for all three softwares:
PD, copyleft, and proprietary.  Their distinguishing attributes will
change.

---
 Mitchell N. Perilstein   CAD Language Systems, Inc.   410-992-5700 x225 
 Member, League for Programming Freedom.  Mail lpf@uunet.uu.net for info.

In article <1993Jan10.062319.17213@news2.cis.umn.edu> tyrell@herring.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:
>I have followed the gnu project for some time, and do like (and, I admit, use)
>the products that you have created. However, enough is enough. The PRINCIPLES 
>upon which the gnu project was formed are quite harmful to the software
>industry and software programmers in general.

No kidding.  Stallman intends to destroy the software industry as it now
constitutes itself, and replace it with something different.  In this
new industry, programmers will make a living in a service mode (solving
people's problems) rather than in a product mode (write a hit program,
then retire and collect revenues).

You believe that programmers have an indefinite right to make money as
they now do.  Stallman believes differently.  I'm not a strict GNUist;
I see a role for proprietary software in some cases, but prefer a world
in which as much software is freely distributable as possible.

>	Now YOU develop similar software for free. Which software would you 
>pick as a consumer? A: Joe Schmoe's word processor -- 129.95 or B: Richard 
>Stallman's super-duper gnu processor -- GRATIS. The choice is easy (as far
>as the consumer is concerned, and Joe Schmoe, software developer,  
>gets it directly in the teeth. 

This is the free market in action.  Joe Schmoe has been out-competed.  If
he can write a word processor that is worth $129.95 more to the end user
than Gnu Emacs is, he can sell it.  The effect of FSF at this point is
to place a floor under the level of crap that the software industry can
unload on users; you can't sell a compiler that is vastly worse than gcc
for very long anymore.  This is good for the end user.  It may be bad news
for the budding young software capitalist, but the world doesn't owe you
a living.  

>	All of the above is sad news for the future software developer. Why
>ON EARTH spend 20,000+ on a college education, if the market that you are
>going to go into is being deliberately sabatoged at every turn by some
>person who
>-- out of misguided loyalties -- is periodically dumping products onto the 
>market. I am one these folks, and sorry to say, I do not feel that I am going
>to have the security of an academic umbrella to pay the bills.

Tough.  If you were an expert in manufacturing carriages around 1890,
you'd have similar complaints against the automobile manufacturers.
And even if FSF weren't around, why are you so sure that you'd be making
a lucrative living selling your own software?  It's a lot tougher than
it used to be; most of the skills required have nothing to do with
programming, but rather have to do with marketing, business planning,
user support, and so forth.

--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu

In article <NS14.93Jan10055707@crux2.crux2.cit.cornell.edu> ns14@crux2.crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Nathan Otto Siemers) writes:
>	"Dumping"  does not seem correct to me.  The purpose of
>dumping is to disable other producers so that the dumper can
>ultimately control the market (and make handsome profits from that
>control).  This is not gnu.

Of course.  Gnu "dumping" only seeks to disable other producers so the market
can all be the way the dumper wants it, so they don't _need_ to control it....
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)

jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>This is the free market in action.  Joe Schmoe has been out-competed.  If
>he can write a word processor that is worth $129.95 more to the end user
>than Gnu Emacs is, he can sell it.  The effect of FSF at this point is
>to place a floor under the level of crap that the software industry can
>unload on users; you can't sell a compiler that is vastly worse than gcc
>for very long anymore.  This is good for the end user.  It may be bad news
>for the budding young software capitalist, but the world doesn't owe you
>a living.  

It's not clear that things would work well at the logical end of this,
when programmers all make their living selling support for GPL'ed software,
rather than writing proprietary software.

What is my incentive to write new GPL'ed software?  Sure, I can sell support
for it, but so can other programmers.  Their cost in reading and understanding
my source sufficiently to support it is, I would guess, less than my
development costs.  I am better off *NOT* writing the new code, and instead
concentrating on learning to support other programmers' new code.

OK, so some user will come along and pay me to write new software?
But to them, software is just a tool that they use in their business.
Isn't it going to be in their interest to ask me to develop for them
a proprietary version?

--Tim Smith

In article <1iqervINNcp5@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>What is my incentive to write new GPL'ed software?  Sure, I can sell support
>for it, but so can other programmers.  

Software written by the government, in the absence of security or any other
restrictions or licenses, is "free."  Usually public-domain, sometimes just
available to U.S. citizens.  (By security, I mean "national security," and
other restrictions, I mean that, for example, just because the gov't does
work on UNIX isn't going to make the code free, unless it is not covered by
the UNIX license.)

Yet the government writes an incredible amount of software each year.

People at the FSF write an incredible amount of software each year.  People
at Cygnus write an incredible amount of software each year.  Other people,
who contribute the code to the PD or the FSF, write an incredible amount
of software each year.

Etc.

John Drexler writes the following about GNU software:

        You are doing the equivalent to what the Japanese microchip
        industry did to the United States counterpart: dumping. Every time
        you create a software product, and give it out -- free -- to the
        public, some private software developer is taking the brunt of it.

There's a amusing parable, written in the 19th century by a fellow
named Frederic Bastiat (a proponent of free trade), which knocks the
stuffing out of John's argument.

Bastiat pointed out that there was (and is!) a great deal of dumping going
on every day: the Sun shines its radiance on planet Earth, thereby
providing everyone with free illumination.  In the process, a lot of
private providers of illumination (in Bastiat's day, candlemakers and such)
get burned.

Bastiat's tongue-in-cheek solution: pass a law to force all windows to be
boarded up!  This would keep out all the `dumped' sunlight, and put the
private illumination providers back in business.

I gather that a good many people took the point, and realized that
`dumping' can only help, never harm, a nation.  And the same can be said of
GNU software.

-- 
Robert S. Maier   | Internet: rsm@math.arizona.edu, rsm@cs.arizona.edu
Dept. of Math.    | UUCP: uunet!arizona!amethyst!rsm
Univ. of Arizona  | Bitnet: maier@arizvms
Tucson, AZ  85721 | FAX: +1 602 621 8322
U.S.A.            | Voice: +1 602 621 6893 (dept.), +1 602 621 2617 (office)

In article <1iqervINNcp5@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>What is my incentive to write new GPL'ed software? 

Check out what Cygnus did to port the GNU compiler to Solaris 2.  If
the GNU model becomes more widely accepted you'll see more of that
sort of thing.  Also, Cygnus aren't the only ones out there doing this...
I'm sure there are quite a few more.  'dvitps', a very good dvi->PS
translator, was written by Stefan Bechtolsheim (sp?) under contract for
somebody, and his contract included the condition that he would be able
to release it under the GPL.  When an organization needs some software
for internal use and they are willing to pay to have it written, most
of the time they aren't interested in marketing it anyway, and could
probably be convinced to contract for GPL'ed software, especially once
you make it clear to them that they stand to benefit if others later
improve the software independently.
-- 
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
Northampton, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan10.170022.24756@alex.com> bryan@alex.com (Bryan Boreham) writes:

   Other things might have an equal effect on the lot of the humble 
   programmer.  Someone might invent a system which accepts a short,
   spoken desription of any software tool, and codes it up automatically.
   (Is this more or less likely than the success of GNU: discuss :-)
   Now what?  Should we hold rallies in the streets to burn all copies?

I for one would welcome such a system :-) It would polarise
programming; those people who want to get on with writing
applications, and those of us who like tinkering at the low level
trying so get such applications to run at a reasonable speed :-)

Especially true of GUIs :-))))


   Bryan Boreham

   Speaking for myself, not my employer.

Dave

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson | Nearest thing to a Chief Wizard at IISC | +44 71 628 6960
S:10 I:17 W:8 D:14 C:13 Ch: 15      About to die: daveh@cix.compulink.co.uk
            Direct, to my desk, three times a day ... dave@dhcs.demon.co.uk
   This message brought to you by the most excellent Demon Internet Service

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> OK, so some user will come along and pay me to write new software?
> But to them, software is just a tool that they use in their business.
> Isn't it going to be in their interest to ask me to develop for them
> a proprietary version?

Especially since if you develop a proprietary version, you can share your
development costs amongst thousands of users.  Has anyone managed to do this
with GPL software?  I've seen people try and fail.


mathew

On 11 Jan 93 00:26:39 GMT, tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) said:

tzs> What is my incentive to write new GPL'ed software? [ ... ]

Well, the RMS answer to this is that designing programs is an art form,
a creative endeavour, and people just love doing art works, maybe for
the potential acclamation and notoriety, or maybe as an outlet for their
desire to build something. 85% of mathematicians, actors, painters,
poets, potters, etc. are unemployed at any one time, or do other jobs to
fund their favourite activity. They don't have the alternative to work
in the service side of their profession, programmers do.

It remains to be demonstrated that the dream of becoming a source
rentier instead of a service professional, or an acclaimed artist is
needed to make people write source.

tzs> I am better off *NOT* writing the new code, and instead
tzs> concentrating on learning to support other programmers' new code.
--
Piercarlo Grandi, Dept of CS, PC/UW@Aberystwyth <pcg@aber.ac.uk>
  E l'italiano cantava, cantava. E le sue disperate invocazioni giunsero
  alle orecchie del suo divino protettore, il dio della barzelletta

>What is my incentive to write new GPL'ed software?  Sure, I can sell support
>for it, but so can other programmers.  Their cost in reading and understanding
>my source sufficiently to support it is, I would guess, less than my
>development costs.  I am better off *NOT* writing the new code, and instead
>concentrating on learning to support other programmers' new code.

>OK, so some user will come along and pay me to write new software?
>But to them, software is just a tool that they use in their business.
>Isn't it going to be in their interest to ask me to develop for them
>a proprietary version?

Good point. But if most software is GPL'ed then it will presumably take
longer to develop a completely proprietary solution to the problem than
it would to develop a GPL'ed solution. The proprietary solution will cost
more to the user and they have to decide if it is worth it.

I imagine in some industries the use of one particular piece of software
over another (I have in mind a designing application) could make a large
difference to profits, so the extra expense to keep it proprietary might
be worth it.

On the other hand, for common tools, like editors and backup programs,
it makes little difference so the user will go for the best value that
meets their needs.

				Mark.
--
Mark Dobie                              M.R.Dobie@uk.ac.soton.ecs (JANET)
University of Southampton		M.R.Dobie@ecs.soton.ac.uk (The World)

In article <1993Jan10.062319.17213@news2.cis.umn.edu> tyrell@herring.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:
>Now look:
>
>I have followed the gnu project for some time, and do like (and, I admit, use )
>the products that you have created. However, enough is enough. The PRINCIPLES 
>upon which the gnu project was formed are quite harmful to the software industry
>and software programmers in general.

oh that's BS!
>
>	Now I realize I am not going to change your mind, but listen:

>
>	You are doing the equivalent to what the Japanese microchip industry
>did to the United States counterpart: dumping. Every time you create a software
>product, and give it out -- free -- to the public, some private software 
>developer is taking the brunt of it. 
>	A software developer -- in the attempt to make a living -- creates a 
>software program. In order for him to subsist, he HAS to charge a considerable
>fee to pay for his time and effort in developing the product.
>	Now YOU develop similar software for free. Which software would you 
>pick as a consumer? A: Joe Schmoe's word processor -- 129.95 or B: Richard 
>Stallman's super-duper gnu processor -- GRATIS. The choice is easy (as far
>as the consumer is concerned, and Joe Schmoe, software developer,  
>gets it directly in the teeth. 

Gnu Software is harmless to the consumer/non-technical/commodity software
market. Gnu only has research/hacker/academic level software. The Gnu compiler
is a shining example of this work.

But normal joe or jane user would ever use Gnu software. Take a look at
the home and office market. Theye are totally different 'markets' from the
user base Gnu, and others who distribute under similar schemes (Linux for
Intel/IBM machines, the EMX DOS-OS/2 development system (which uses the Gnu
compiler but C library and other tools were written for OS/2).

Taking emacs and TeX and forcing that on unsuspecting secretaries,
and expecting them to produce work would give them nervous breakdowns, and
would set back office automation for  years. Microsoft, Lotus, WordPerfect
Borla, have all tailored their products to make them easy to use, non cryptic, 
and they make regular office and home users productive. Their software
more or less what the user wants to do, not what is academically elegant,
or portable just for portability's sake.

Gnu obviously isn't a threat, because they have deliberately ignored the 
largest base of any computer users: MSDOS. They have ignored DOS for esthetic
reasons, and that's fine. But it's not like it would make much differnce,
because Gnu stuff is written for hackers on cryptic, command line
interfaces, not for plain simple users who just want to put a pretty box
on the page, without wading through bizarre incantations and \weird \macros.

Your dumping cry is the typical US whine for making a scapegoat, just like
the USA does in trade: cry dumping when someone else beats you at your
own game, while pretending to support free-markets. 'Fair trade' isnt
the same things as Free trade. Fair trade is about crying and stomping
your feet when you lose, and righteous indignation and rhetoric over 
principles when another government uses the same trade barriers you do. 

You are just looking for an excuse to dump on Gnu. I look forward to 
new, nifty tools, but I will be very surprised if Gnu ever matches the
quality and support that Lotus or Microsoft gives their users in
spreadsheets and wordprocessors. Compilers are a different story, and
all the power to Gnu for getting compiler research and opzations out
of teh lab and into the hands of programmers; obviously Microsoft hasn't
learnt anything about writing compilers.
>
>	Aha -- but you say -- the development of free software stimulates the 
>use of tools for other programmers to use in the future, to build off what 
>you develop... WRONG.
>	Your software gets people in VERY bad habits. They learn that what 
>'they get off the net is free'	and 'why should we pay money for software? We'll
>just wait until the gnu group, or some shareware group does it for free!'. I 
>know this first hand, because gradually, people are 'coming around' to this 
>way of thinking.
>
Almost nobody has net access. The closest most people get is the
Fidonet wasteland,  and last I checked, they was a time lag of
weeks in information propagation, from the latets Internet developments.
99% or so of people don't even know what BBS are, and they get their
software through MIS. it's not like a few trivial screensavers
downloaded from a BBS are going to dent the bread and butter of the
Spreaadsheetm Wordprocessor and Database applications market. Gnu is no
competition to this market.

>	All of the above is sad news for the future software developer. Why
>ON EARTH spend 20,000+ on a college education, if the market that you are going
>to go into is being deliberately sabatoged at every turn by some person who
>-- out of misguided loyalties -- is periodically dumping products onto the 
>market. I am one these folks, and sorry to say, I do not feel that I am going
>to have the security of an academic umbrella to pay the bills.
>
There is no sign of decline in the software market. Gnu software,
its compilers, utilities etc. are above the fray. Perhaps one or
two companies are actually threatened by Gnu, like Mark Williams' unix
utils for DOs or OS/2, but enough people want glitzy packaging and support,
so they will do OK.
>
>Hey -- if you want to discuss any of the points above, just mail me. Flames are
>not allowed -- I feel quite seriously about this issue, and am willing to take
>all callers in turn.
>

I think you are unfairly bashing Gnu. Their software isn't competing with 
the large commodity software market, and it isn't competing with the
custom, one time project market either.

>Cheers,
>
>John
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Drexler			'Gentelmen-- you can't fight in here....	
>tyrell@mermaid.micro.umn.edu	 This is the WAR ROOM! ' -- Peter Sellers
>CSci Undergrad, University of Minnesota
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________

pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

>Well, the RMS answer to this is that designing programs is an art form,
>a creative endeavour, and people just love doing art works, maybe for
>the potential acclamation and notoriety, or maybe as an outlet for their
>desire to build something. 85% of mathematicians, actors, painters,

RMS and the GNU people copy from the existing concepts -

1. GNU emacs from Gosling's emacs
2. All other GNU utilities from existing Unix utilities.

This implies that there is no creativity in what GNU people do. They are not
creating anything new conceptually. It is an insult to the mathematicians,
actors, painters and musicians to compare the GNU progammers to them.

You are basing your argument on the premise that programming is as
tough as creating Mona Lisa or 5th of Beethoven. Programming is not -
but designing a new language or a new operating system or a new
algorithm (of good bounds) is. After that, programming is simply grunt
work. I know, because I was a programmer for seven years and now
working towards my Ph.D. in Algorithms. I made the switch because just 
programming without really making any theoretical advance was quite boring.

So, why should I be working for GNU or LPF or FSF or whatever the darn 
organiztion is? I don't have any incentive to do drudgery (i.e. 
programming/debugging) for free.

Anil
-- 
Sathsangatve    nissangatvam   From good company to no company
Nissangatve      nirmohatvam   From no company to lack of desire
Nirmohatve    nischalatatvam   From lack of desire to concentration of mind
Nischalatatve  jeevanmuktihi   From concentration of mind to liberation of life

Someone writes:
>	I don't see how you have a company that markets its skills in maintaing
>GNU code since the work they do  would be publically available.

Well, there are a number of companies that are doing that right now. You
seem to forget a few things from a generic company's point of view:

   o It cost a *lot* of money to have employees read news to monitor
     for patches/bugs, to have them retrieve the software and patches
     and then spend a lot of time configuring it and building it and then
     make sure it works. And then you have to add the costs of downloading
     software over modem or an even more expensive TCP/IP network. And then
     repeat this a lot of times a year. During all that time the employee
     could be working on doing the work he/she was employed for. Oh, and I
     forget the time spent on printing the manuals. It all adds up to a
     lot of $$$$$

   o A company that uses Gnu stuff very often want to have support from
     a company that specializes on knowing the GNU stuff so that it won't
     have to spend a lot of hours (expensive hours) doing debugging to
     find bugs in the compilers when they rather would spend those ours
     debugging their own software :-)

/Peter

--
Peter Eriksson                                              pen@lysator.liu.se
Lysator Academic Computer Society                 ...!uunet!lysator.liu.se!pen
University of Linkoping, Sweden                I'm still bored. Flame me again.