🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cAGRYSALPdG2EwjQ@dlsl.demon.co.uk>
           jason@dlsl.demon.co.uk "Jason Clifford" writes:
> In article <907621900snz@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt
> <philh@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
> >yes, and the reason it is often the best solution is that the Open 
> >Source development model often produces good code. The reasons for
> >this include: OS software is often looked at by lots of eyeballs,
> >thus reducing bugs, and with OS software, you don't have to reinvent 
> >the wheel as much as you have to with closed software.
> 
> I am not arguing against this. I point this fact out at least 20 times a
> week when doing interviews with the UK press and talking to prospective
> clients.
> 
> What I am asserting is that the author of any given software has teh
> right to release source or not as he wishes - it is HIS work after all!

I agree with you here.
 
> >> For necessary social services, yes. Are you trying to argue that
> >> computer software is such a necessary social service?
> >
> >It is certainly the case that good-quality software is necessary
> >to run a modern society. So yes, computer software is a necessary
> >social service, and should be funded publicly, for the same reasons
> >that education and roads are.
> 
> While computers are useful to many aspects of life they are hardly
> necessary to society as are education and travel infrastructure.

That might be so now, but computers will be absolutely central to
everyday life within the next 10 years. Many (most?) cars these days
have computers in them to control the ignition and other engine 
functions, for example.

-- 
@@--Phil Hunt-----------------------------Don't fear the penguins(*)--@@ 
@@  [*] Disclaimer: this is FREE ADVICE, and is distributed in the    @@
@@  hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; note also  @@
@@  that this advice may not apply if your name is Gates or Ballmer.  @@