🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 06 Oct 1998 06:14:32 GMT, tmgreen@jollynet.de (Tim Green)
wrote:

>On 4 Oct 1998 21:14:54 GMT, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>
>Right. Furthermore, operating systems are a very special case because
>so much depends on them. At the moment a very large slice of the
>world's business and industry literally *depends* on the proper
                                                          ^^^^^^
Uh, I would say improper...

>functioning of one proprietary operating system and the software that
>runs on it. This operating system is not open to inspection or repair
>by *anyone* except the private company that produced it.
>
<chop>
>
>An operating system is different from any other software product -
>from any other product, in fact - in several very important ways. It
>is the backbone, the supporting skeleton, of the information society.
>To allow the efficient use and dissemination of information it is
>essential that everyone either use the same operating system, or use
>systems that are fully data- and interface- compatible at all levels.
>This means that you must have either just one operating system for
>everyone, or systems that are *entirely* compatible.

You are exaggerating. They only have to be compatible in certain
parts and places and indeed they are.

> Both situations
>require open source code to ensure the integrity of the IT resources
>upon which society, business and industry depend.

Obviously this is a false truth since most os's are _not_ open
source and yet the world communicates quite well thank you. You
don't even mention the proprietary os's that exist inside the
various telecom switches, routers, and so forth that are the ones
that really do the communicating for you. Your measly desktop
is a leaf node out near the end of the branch. The real comm work
is done by computers that you will never see. And I would bet
large odds that you will never see the source to the os either.

>This means that the company that produces the OS that gets used has a
>quasi-monopoly by definition. I don't think that a society - in fact,
>an entire planet - that depends to a large extent on information
>technology can tolerate for very long a situation in which one private
>company is allowed almost full control of this essential resource and
>all of its workings.=20

The choice is already there for all to make. The world-wide
implications of the situation have already doomed your proposed
'regulation'. As long as their are sovereign 'states' there
will never be enough world-wide cooperation to fully coordinate
or stifle any private interest. The fact of the matter is, if
someone does not wish to depend on some thing, they can switch 
today.

The reality is that the thought processes of those that have the
actual awareness and foresight to measure, analyze, and make such
decisions, will likely be foreign to you. The very simple and
plain reason why such switchovers have not yet occurred is because
they cost too much.

The very same reason why such switchovers _have_ occurred is
because they are worth it.

>
>One can argue about the code of applications, since it's always
>possible to choose an alternative, but the case for forcing the
>release of OS code seems very compelling. As Bill points out, there's
>no reason why the OS producer shouldn't retain copyright and claim
>payment for the use of their product and possibly also its derivates,
>but that's an entirely different question.=20

Not in principle. I made it. I own it. I will do with it as I
wish. If you want to use it, you will agree to my terms. Other
wise you will do without it. The principle really is pretty simple.
There are no regulations required. You can certainly go and make
your own version of it, but in no case do you have the 'right' to
take something from me.

Notice that 'it' has no qualifications.