🚀 go-pugleaf

tyrell@seaotter.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:

>and marketing resources to take a hit from GNU. Who in their right mind, in 
>a volatile market like todays, is going to ENTER the UNIX market (where free
>software is rampant) and put money into creating OS or compilers?

The lack of commercial compilers for Unix in the old days had more to
do with the bundled (supported) C compiler, binary compatibility
hassles (e.g. DEC Mips boxes used to be incompatible with all other
Mips boxes) and low installed base.

Consider a success story: Sun.  Sun unbundled their C compiler.
It also helps that SPARC has an installed base of 0.8 million, with
good binary compatibility between all of them.

You say: in the presence of gcc nobody will want to write compilers for
SPARCs.  I say "in the absence of a bundled cc, given binary compatibility
across a large installed base, they will come".

In the event, I know of the following shipping compilers for SPARC:
Saber, Lucid, Apogee, Sunpro.  There exist a few others I can't recall.

These vendors are forced to do better in the presence of gcc+Cygnus.
E.g. Lucid and Saber are moving into GUI "development environments"
(not _my_ idea of a good way to develop software, but it gives users
more choices).  Apogee and Sunpro are working hard on producing better
code.  I think it's a very healthy state of affairs.

BTW Lucid and Emacs is a beautiful story of two-way interactions between
the worlds of free software and commercial software.  Someone care to
tell us the history of the project?

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@rcf.usc.edu

tyrell@seaotter.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:
>*Sigh*. I suppose that in the long run, GNU will fizzle (or UNIX will die) and

UNIX is going to be killed by NT.  After reading the latest UnixWorld, I
believe that.  I didn't before, but the article about Cutler convinces me.
He's got the experience to write a good OS, and he's got the
proper motivation: he thinks he was screwed by someone and wants to get
back at them, and writing a very good OS is the way to do that.

Add that to Microsoft's size and marketing clout (More than half of all
software sold last year in the US was from Microsoft, and Microsoft is
now worth more money than IBM), and it's time to get depressed.

--Tim Smith

tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>UNIX is going to be killed by NT.  After reading the latest UnixWorld, I
>believe that.  I didn't before, but the article about Cutler convinces me.
>He's got the experience to write a good OS, and he's got the
>proper motivation: he thinks he was screwed by someone and wants to get
>back at them, and writing a very good OS is the way to do that.

Perhaps, but if he's such a smart cookie how come he designed an
OS that will only run on little-endian machines?

In article <1993Jan25.012247.7610@cc.uow.edu.au>, amorton@cc.uow.edu.au (andrew morton) writes:
|> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
|> 
|> >UNIX is going to be killed by NT.  After reading the latest UnixWorld, I
|> >believe that.  I didn't before, but the article about Cutler convinces me.
|> ...
|> 
|> Perhaps, but if he's such a smart cookie how come he designed an
|> OS that will only run on little-endian machines?

I have heard this assertion before, but I find it very hard to believe.  
Would someone like to back it up, e.g. citing the particular casts and
unnatural unions that make the code little-endian-only?

Bryan Boreham

>>>>> On 24 Jan 1993 09:07:11 GMT, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) said:

> tyrell@seaotter.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:
>>*Sigh*. I suppose that in the long run, GNU will fizzle (or UNIX will die) and

> UNIX is going to be killed by NT.  After reading the latest UnixWorld, I
> believe that. 

So where did you hear about multi-user NT?

In article <1993Jan25.103308.3145@alex.com> bryan@alex.com (Bryan Boreham) writes:
   In article <1993Jan25.012247.7610@cc.uow.edu.au>, amorton@cc.uow.edu.au (andrew morton) writes:
   |> Perhaps, but if he's such a smart cookie how come he designed an
   |> OS that will only run on little-endian machines?

   I have heard this assertion before, but I find it very hard to believe.  
   Would someone like to back it up, e.g. citing the particular casts and
   unnatural unions that make the code little-endian-only?

   Bryan Boreham

In SunWorld June 1992 Dwayne Walker of Microsoft is quoted to say:
"There is nothing that prevents Windows NT from appearing on a significant
variety of hardware bases".
and also:
"I can't comment on the rumors that it is already running on SPARC, ..."

Not that it proves that NT can run on other than little-endian machines
but it would make Microsoft look pretty supid if it was true.
-- 

Stefan Aberg          radcode!sab@uunet.uu.net
Berkeley CA

My whole take on this argument that its impossible to write good new
innovative compilers because of GNU is this: write your compiler and
integrate it with gcc and release it to the world free. Why does
everything have to be so profit oriented? You want to do something,
so just do it and we'll all marvel at your innovation and use it too.
What better payment could you ask for?
Tony

In article <C1CD82.4Gt@news2.cis.umn.edu> tyrell@seaotter.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:
>I was expecting all negative comments when I posted here (after all, the
>typical reaction when one's cherished beliefs are threatened is hostility and
>shortsightedness).

Well, it appears to me that cherished beliefs are being challenged on both
sides.  The anti-GNU comments appear to be coming, in part, from a couple
of people (like you) whose cherished beliefs included the belief that it
would always be possible to make a lucrative living by selling proprietary
software, and that what's bugging you is that this cherished belief of
YOURS is being challenged.  Now, I believe that proprietary software will
be around for a very long time, it's just that the price of entry for the
entrepreneur is being raised: if you want to charge money you'll need to
do something a lot better than you used to be able to get away with.

>If you don't believe this, mail me a message saying that you will pay
>me $700 dollars for a'slightly better compiler'that I would be willing to
>write.
>If I get enough responses (and $350 in advance-- because hell, I don't believe
>you) I will write it.

Sorry, this demonstrates nothing.  I mean, who the hell are you?  If, say,
Preston Briggs made a similar offer I'll bet he could get plenty of
funding (he's one of those people who has demonstrated that he knows what
he is talking about in the area of compilers).  But you're just another
flamer.  Why should I think you have the talent to write a better compiler
than gcc?  What are your credentials?  Have you written a compiler before,
other than a student project?  Are you published in the compiler
literature?

Now, I'm not going to tell you that GNUtopia, if it ever arises, will
be benificial to all.  Software types will make less money, at least
the average ones.  But if you want to be an entrepreneur, you're going
to have to learn to survive in the new environment.  Do you really think
that free software is going to go away because everyone will read your
message, bop themselves on the forehead, and say "WHAT were we thinking?"
and go back to doing proprietary work only?



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu

In article <C1FBoE.Gy6@news2.cis.umn.edu>, ozzello@a1 (Anthony Ozzello) writes:

|>My whole take on this argument that its impossible to write good new
|>innovative compilers because of GNU is this: write your compiler and
|>integrate it with gcc and release it to the world free. Why does
|>everything have to be so profit oriented? You want to do something,
|>so just do it and we'll all marvel at your innovation and use it too.
|>What better payment could you ask for?
|>Tony


  Why does everyone have to be so profit oriented?
  I don't know.  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that
food costs money.  Maybe it has to do with the fact that very few 
programmers out there have the luxury of sitting around like bums 
and haveing a college foot the bill for their intellectual interests
and whims.
  I have a question for all you GNU/socialists/commmunists out there.
If the GNU idea is so great, why don't we apply it to other parts of the
economy?  Like, say, woodworking.  Think about it.  You're a cabinet
maker; you love to work with your hands and create works of art and use
out of wood.  Why should you do such a thing for as filthy a reason as
money.  Surely, you should just give away your work for free.  And how
about authors.  Authors must surely love what they do.  Why don't they
just give away copies of their work.  Don't forget manicurists.  Your
friendly neighborhood manicurist should just sit on a bench down town
and give free manicures to anybody who walks by.
  Let's take this to its logical extreme. We get Slick Willy to declare
that from now on we are a nation of artists.  There is art in everything
anybody does, from making sculptures to picking up dog doodee.  We just
let everybody work for universities and do whatever they please.  We'll
be one big, socialist family, giving away the fruits of our labor for
free.

  I find it interesting that when a poster makes a very cogent point
about how much better than GCC would a compiler have to be in order
for you to purchase it, not one poster that has followed up has come
up with an answer.  All they do is harp about what a wonderful thing
GCC is because it "ups the ante" or "establishes a floor" or weeds out
the bad software out there.  But not one has answered the poster's point.
That's because they cannot.  The point is true, as you would know if you
took a single course in economics.


Larry Denys
sl1yn@paradise.declab.usu.edu

In article <C1FBoE.Gy6@news2.cis.umn.edu> ozzello@a1 (Anthony Ozzello) writes:
>My whole take on this argument that its impossible to write good new
>innovative compilers because of GNU is this: write your compiler and
>integrate it with gcc and release it to the world free. Why does
>everything have to be so profit oriented? You want to do something,
>so just do it and we'll all marvel at your innovation and use it too.
>What better payment could you ask for?
>Tony
>

You imply that independent programmers should develop software just as
a hobby, and should have another source of income so they can pay their
rent, etc.  What about those who don't want a full time job other than
developing software independently?  If their work is good enough to earn
them a decent living, are you saying you want them to retreat from it,
make it a hobby, and go back to work for an employer?

alanb@sdl.ug.eds.com (Alan Braggins) writes:
>So where did you hear about multi-user NT?

In the latest UnixWorld.  The problem with NT for multi-user use is the
interface -- the filesystem and other parts have what you need (considering
that one of the things they want to sell NT as is a server, this is not
surprising).  Citrix is working with the NT source to fix this, by providing
a networked version of the interface so that users can use NT from relatively
dumb machines (e.g., use a 286 as a windowing terminal for NT).

The next couple of years are going to be interesting: NT, OS/2, Unixware,
Windows, and a few others.  I feel sorry for the people that have to decide
where development resources should be committed...

sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:

>food costs money.  Maybe it has to do with the fact that very few 
>programmers out there have the luxury of sitting around like bums 
>and haveing a college foot the bill for their intellectual interests

Untrue.
Most hackers have "real jobs" and do hacking in sparetime.
There is a very tiny core of GNU development which is done by
full-time programmers, and they're paid for it.  (Paid much less
then their market price, but it's no "college footing the bill").

Even while at school, hacking has a price i.t.o. grades, qualifying
exams, publications, ... your career.  It's most certainly not a
cruise liner.

>  I have a question for all you GNU/socialists/commmunists out there.
>If the GNU idea is so great, why don't we apply it to other parts of the
>economy?  Like, say, woodworking.  Think about it.  You're a cabinet
>maker; you love to work with your hands and create works of art and use

Because software is special in that the cost of making one more
copy of gcc is 0.  Once a good program is written and placed in
the PD, it is like air: a public good.  From sound economics, then,
there IS a case for the funding of the creation of such public goods
using taxes.

If I slaved away and built me a beautiful car (never mind that it's
hard to do a one-off) and gave it away, where would we be?  The world
would have one happy car-owner.  And that car would wear out and breakdown.
Software has no such problems.  One program can reach infinite users
at 0 cost, and it'll still be humming away many years hence.

>That's because they cannot.  The point is true, as you would know if you
>took a single course in economics.

I'm a 5th year Ph. D. student in Economics.  :-)

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@rcf.usc.edu

In article <C1FBoE.Gy6@news2.cis.umn.edu>, ozzello@a1 (Anthony Ozzello) writes:
>                                                        Why does
> everything have to be so profit oriented? You want to do something,
> so just do it and we'll all marvel at your innovation and use it too.
> What better payment could you ask for?
> Tony
> 

How about food and clothing for my three sons, money to pay my mortgage,
not having my car repossessed, an occasional beer, maybe some gas for
the car...


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Al Folsom                 | Object Oriented Programming?  We've   |
| Fischer & Porter Co.      | been doing that for years...          |
| ...uunet!bigmax!folsom    |                                       |
| also folsom@decus.org     | When the customer objects to the way  |
| KY3T@WA3TSW (Ham)         | it works, we go program some more!    |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

>>>>> On 25 Jan 93 14:55:43 MDT, sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) said:

>   I have a question for all you GNU/socialists/commmunists out there.
> If the GNU idea is so great, why don't we apply it to other parts of the
> economy?  Like, say, woodworking.  Think about it.  You're a cabinet
> maker; you love to work with your hands and create works of art and use
> out of wood.  Why should you do such a thing for as filthy a reason as
> money.  Surely, you should just give away your work for free.

Sure. Once we have Star Trek replicator technology so we can copy chairs
for minimal cost, and cabinets so complex you can make a living selling
consultancy. Think about it. Maybe even take that one economics course
you mentioned.

In article <1k1sf5INNbb5@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:


|>Because software is special in that the cost of making one more
|>copy of gcc is 0.  Once a good program is written and placed in
|>the PD, it is like air: a public good.  From sound economics, then,
|>there IS a case for the funding of the creation of such public goods
|>using taxes.
|>

  So now we have gotten to the core of the matter.  You don't want to work
in private industry.  You want the government to just give you the tax
money of other Americans so you can have your fun doing whatever program-
ming project interests you.  This way all software can be designed by
committee in government buildings and the results can be distributed
freely for all.
  What about writing.  Surely we can give government jobs to writers.  And
what about film; it falls into the same category.  Surely the government
can spare a $100 million for Arnold's next film.  Let's not forget photo-
graphers and graphic artists.
  Hell, if the government foots the bill, then there is nothing that 
cannot be made that would not benefit the rest of society.  Cars, clothing,
Twix candy bars. (I cast my vote for this last as valid for government
expenditures.  Free Twix bars for all.)  This is all sound economics; just
ask officials of the former Soviet Union.


|>I'm a 5th year Ph. D. student in Economics.  :-)


  Perhaps you can apply some of that ivory tower knowledge and answer the
real question that runs through this thread:  Just how much better than
GCC would a compiler have to be in order for people to pay, say, $100
for it?  Would enough people buy it to justify development costs.

 And please none of these, well look at Sun and MIPS, and etc.  These
companies are not developing for the good of all, they are developing
in order to make their hardware more attractive and make, gasp, dare we
say such a filthy five letter word, money.

Larry Denys
sl1yn@paradise.declab.usu.edu

In article <1993Jan25.145544.63165@cc.usu.edu> sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:
>  I have a question for all you GNU/socialists/commmunists out there.
>If the GNU idea is so great, why don't we apply it to other parts of the
>economy?  Like, say, woodworking.  Think about it.  You're a cabinet
>maker; you love to work with your hands and create works of art and use
>out of wood.  Why should you do such a thing for as filthy a reason as
>money.  Surely, you should just give away your work for free.

Ah, another person who completely misunderstands the GNU philosophy.  GNU
is not about "giving away your work for free".  In fact, RMS very much
believes in charging for your *services*.  But he also believes that when
you purchase software you should get the whole thing and the right to do
whatever you want with it.

When you buy a cabinet, the woodworker doesn't get to tell you where you
can install it or whether you can resell it.  And if you decide to make a
second cabinet yourself, he doesn't sue you if it looks like his cabinet.
When you buy a cabinet, the price covers the material costs and the cabinet
maker's labor.  And for this you get the cabinet, not a "license to use"
the cabinet.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

>>>>> On 26 Jan 93 16:01:43 MDT, sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu
>>>>> (869483 Denys Larry) said:

	>>   Perhaps you can apply some of that ivory tower knowledge
	>> and answer the real question that runs through this thread:
	>> Just how much better than GCC would a compiler have to be
	>> in order for people to pay, say, $100 for it?  Would enough
	>> people buy it to justify development costs.

No. Those people that are planning to make money from making just
another compiler will have to give it up. Hell, there must be
thousands of programmers out there that can only make compilers.
They'll starve and die! No wait! They can make compilers for Macs!
Because that horrible plague GPL (General Plague Lisence) hasn't
infected those, thanks to Apple.

-Magnus

In <1993Jan25.145544.63165@cc.usu.edu> sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:

|"  I find it interesting that when a poster makes a very cogent point
|"about how much better than GCC would a compiler have to be in order
|"for you to purchase it, not one poster that has followed up has come
|"up with an answer.

A compiler needs to be a lot better than GCC - that has been said multiple
times and I cannot agree more.

|"All they do is harp about what a wonderful thing
|"GCC is because it "ups the ante" or "establishes a floor" or weeds out
|"the bad software out there.  But not one has answered the poster's point.
|"That's because they cannot.  The point is true, as you would know if you
|"took a single course in economics.

The only reason that people need commercial compilers is support.
GCC does not guarantee support, or even that it 'works'. If it doesn't work,
you can send in a bug-report. It will eventually be fixed - hopefully. With
commercial compilers you have paid a certain company to give you a working
product - if it does not function as it should, you have the right to complain
and demand that your problem is fixed ASAP. In other words, you get what you
pay for.
-- 
Ronald van Loon     | Consider this: In the United States, an automobile is
(rvloon@cv.ruu.nl)  | stolen EVERY 14.7 SECONDS. 
3DCV Group, Utrecht |   If that statistic scares you, think how we felt when we 
The Netherlands     | made it up. - Dave Barry, "CHRISTMAS BUYERS GUIDE"

In article <1993Jan27.093855.17822@cv.ruu.nl> rvloon@cv.ruu.nl (Ronald van Loon) writes:

> In <1993Jan25.145544.63165@cc.usu.edu> sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:

> |"  I find it interesting that when a poster makes a very cogent point
> |"about how much better than GCC would a compiler have to be in order
> |"for you to purchase it, not one poster that has followed up has come
> |"up with an answer.

> A compiler needs to be a lot better than GCC - that has been said multiple
> times and I cannot agree more.

> |"All they do is harp about what a wonderful thing
> |"GCC is because it "ups the ante" or "establishes a floor" or weeds out
> |"the bad software out there.  But not one has answered the poster's point.
> |"That's because they cannot.  The point is true, as you would know if you
> |"took a single course in economics.

> The only reason that people need commercial compilers is support.
> GCC does not guarantee support, or even that it 'works'. If it doesn't work,
> you can send in a bug-report. It will eventually be fixed - hopefully. With
> commercial compilers you have paid a certain company to give you a working
> product - if it does not function as it should, you have the right to complain
> and demand that your problem is fixed ASAP. In other words, you get what you
------^^^^^^
> pay for.

Hmmm...
'demand'?
I think not.

--
#include <std_disclaimer>
"If it runs emacs it's a computer, otherwise it's a peripheral." - me
"I have two kitchen sinks: emacs and perl" - me
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Kevin Johnson         kjj@phx.mcd.mot.com | ...!asuvax!mcdphx!pondscum!kjj  |
|                       qygt70@email.mot.com                                  |
| Information Technologies Network Administrator  Motorola MCG                |
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

In article <KJJ.93Jan27125151@pondscum.phx.mcd.mot.com>,
kjj@pondscum.phx.mcd.mot.com (Kevin Johnson) wrote:
> In article <1993Jan27.093855.17822@cv.ruu.nl> rvloon@cv.ruu.nl (Ronald van Loon) writes:
>> The only reason that people need commercial compilers is support.
>> GCC does not guarantee support, or even that it 'works'. If it doesn't work,
>> you can send in a bug-report. It will eventually be fixed - hopefully. With
>> commercial compilers you have paid a certain company to give you a working
>>product - if it does not function as it should, you have the right to complain
>> and demand that your problem is fixed ASAP. In other words, you get what you
 ------^^^^^^
>> pay for.
> 
> Hmmm...
> 'demand'?
> I think not.

Sure you can demand it. Whether or not anybody listens.... of course, there
are no garuantees with GCC, either in this respect.

> --
> #include <std_disclaimer>
> "If it runs emacs it's a computer, otherwise it's a peripheral." - me
> "I have two kitchen sinks: emacs and perl" - me

"I often quote myself. It lends spice to my conversation." - Oscar Wilde

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.

erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes:

>In article <C1FBoE.Gy6@news2.cis.umn.edu> ozzello@a1 (Anthony Ozzello) writes:
>>[see for yourself]

>You imply that independent programmers should develop software just as
>a hobby, and should have another source of income so they can pay their
>rent, etc.  What about those who don't want a full time job other than
>developing software independently?  If their work is good enough to earn
>them a decent living, are you saying you want them to retreat from it,
>make it a hobby, and go back to work for an employer?

He didn't say that people currently earning a decent living should
leave it.  He just said that they should be satisfied even if they can
not earn a decent living.

Other than that, your argument makes no sense.  Independent
programmers have no more right to earn a living than, say, art
photographers.  I'm sure plenty of art photographers don't want a full
time job other than photography.  But except for a handful of lucky
people, they all have to work on some other job for somebody else.
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
``Never judge someone by who he's in love with; judge him by his friends.
  People fall in love with the most appalling people.  Take a cool,
  appraising glance at his pals.''

In <mwalker-270193172005@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:

>Sure you can demand it. Whether or not anybody listens.... of course, there
>are no garuantees with GCC, either in this respect.

... in practice it turns out that GNU people listen to these
"demands" more readily.

[apologies to anyone who saw this twice]
Denys Larry writes:

>In article <1k1sf5INNbb5@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
[...]
>|>I'm a 5th year Ph. D. student in Economics.  :-)

>  Perhaps you can apply some of that ivory tower knowledge and answer the
>real question that runs through this thread:  Just how much better than
>GCC would a compiler have to be in order for people to pay, say, $100
>for it?

	Good enough to save me about $110 worth of hassle. Enough better
to save half a days work. Hell, there are plenty of people who'd pay
$100 for a shrink-wrapped copy of GCC rather than fiddle around
installing it themselves.

> Would enough people buy it to justify development costs.

	Of course they would, assuming it was properly marketed. 
Most people I've worked for used proper development tools. Often
that means buying them - but normally it meant replacing vendor's
crappy development kits with GNU stuff.

	If you're as concerned about making a buck as you seem to be,
you'd be a fool to use a compiler because it was cheaper than the
better quality alternative.

	Obviously a $100 dollar compiler (or a $1,000 compiler) that
was significantly better than gcc would make you a killing - You think
your potential customers are all stupid or what?

--
           Matthew McDonald  mafm@cs.uwa.oz.au
I hope that Scheme won't become the Pascal of the 90's.  I hate Pascal.
						-- Scott Fahlman

In article <1993Jan25.211321.25055@netcom.com> erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes:
   a hobby, and should have another source of income so they can pay their

If programmers need to find other income for living, it clearly indicates
that there are too many programmers in the market.  In this case, there are
at least couple of different solutions to this problem:

1) If you can't compete, you loose.

Counterattack: Be the best, or find a job you are good in.

2) Create a similar subsidiary system to agriculture, where people pay
taxes to support ineffective software companies recreating the same work
thousands of times every year.  This also requires probhiting free software
way or another, to prevent it from eating the agriprogrammers' salary.

Counterattack: This will just make the problem worse.  Finnish agriculture,
which works as a anti-market economy inside a market economy clearly
indicates this, wasting more and more money every year, now reaching
ridiculous levels.

3) Create a mess of software patents and copyrights, which allows you to
protect everything from zero to santa claus, a'la USA, and everyone takes 
everyone to court.

Counterattack: First, this will case, similarly to agricultural solution,
keep eating more and more money.  Second, this will stop development,
because all the scientists/reserarchers will be duplicating the same work
over and over, because noone wants to release their research results until
its patented.  Third, this will eat the competitive ability of the country
in question, so in the long term, it will kill the industry there.

   them a decent living, are you saying you want them to retreat from it,
   make it a hobby, and go back to work for an employer?

No, nobody is telling anyone to stop writing commercial software, but I
wouldn't be too optimistic of its ability to compete with free software.
For customers, users of software, free software is a superior solution in
most cases.  Who would want to rely on closed software, when we have been
pressing the manufacturers for years to provide us with open hardware?

-
Heikki Suonsivu, T{ysikuu 10 C 83/02210 Espoo/FINLAND,
hsu@{otax.tky.hut,cs.hut,clinet}.fi  +358-0-8031121
/G=Heikki/S=Suonsivu/O=hut/OU=cs/PRMD=Inet/ADMD=Fumail/C=FI,
mcsun!hutcs!hsu, riippu SN, Email preferable.

In article <1993Jan28.081921.867@klaava.Helsinki.FI>,
laakkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Laakkonen) wrote:
> 
> In <mwalker-270193172005@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
> 
> >Sure you can demand it. Whether or not anybody listens.... of course, there
> >are no garuantees with GCC, either in this respect.
> 
> ... in practice it turns out that GNU people listen to these
> "demands" more readily.

In my experience many for-profit corporations listen to demands at least as
readily as GNU. Several of these respond to demands even more readily,
especially if the company is not a big, bloated one. Smaller companies that
have been around for a while generally seem to have good reactions to user
feedback that is sent to them. This, of course, is only my experience. It
could vary widely from other people's.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.