zgel05@apctrc.UUCP (George E. Lehmann) (10/10/88)
In article <259@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes: > I agree completely with somebody >who said that we (USENET, BBSes, etc) simply should not be depending on >a commercial product. ^^^^^^^^^^ This mini-flame is directed not only at the author of this note, but at everyone who bears similar thoughts... I have no particular love for either PK or SEA (though I really dislike court battles, having been involved in more than one myself), but I think these comments about 'not depending on commercial products' are total rubbish. Forget the needs of the people who write commercial software to make a buck to pay mortgages and feed families, forget flag-waving patriotism and the rights we capitalists love and cherish, forget the resources of the large companies that give me the time to reply to this note without having to flip a burger at the same time to make money. WE ALREADY ARE TOTALLY COMMITTED TO MANY COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS!!! Or did you get all of that juicy hardware you're running on in a swap meet? Did you register that shareware 'DOS-alike' that runs on your system? What shareware compiler are you using to compile your programs? Etc., etc., etc... Not all commercial products are good, nor are all good products commercial. However, without the ongoing revenue earned by these entities, none of the major developments we love would exist. Flame off.......... -- George Lehmann, ...!uunet!apctrc!zgel05 Amoco Production Co., PO BOX 3385, Tulsa, Ok 74102 ph:918-660-4066 Standard Disclaimer: Contents are my responsibility, not AMOCO's.
jbrown@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jordan Brown) (10/13/88)
In article <572@flyer.apctrc.UUCP> zgel05@flyer.UUCP (George E. Lehmann) writes: >In article <259@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes: >>I agree completely with somebody who said that we (USENET, BBSes, etc) >>simply should not be depending on a commercial product. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > [a number of valid points about commercial stuff being non-evil] > >Not all commercial products are good, nor are all good products commercial. >However, without the ongoing revenue earned by these entities, none of the >major developments we love would exist. You mean like all the Berkeley enhancements to UNIX? Like GNU*? Like USENET "news"? What really bothers me about "commercial" products is that when something goes wrong or I need a new feature, I CAN'T FIX IT. Even when the person supplies source (*rare*, but SEA does) the restrictions on it are usually prohibitive. With PD, source-distributed software, if I need a new feature, I can add it. I don't have to reengineer the entire product. Then I can give a copy to you, and if you don't think my feature is quite right you can fix it. Ideally, we remerge the source, and everything is great. We might have a new feature implemented and distributed in a matter of weeks, rather than the months it would take a commercial outfit, if they saw fit to do it at all. Sure, I use PC-DOS, MSC, and so on. If there were source-available replacements I would use them in preference. (Does the GNU cc do large-model 8086 for MSDOS?) Sure, I make my salary writing software for sale. Doesn't mean I have to like it. When I can, I prefer to give stuff away. Unfortunately, that doesn't pay the mortgage. For the vast majority of the software market, it doesn't matter that there's no source. The vast majority wouldn't know what to do with it. However, USENET is *not* the vast majority. USENET people tend to be technical and willing and able to contribute improvements. I find this to be a pleasant atmosphere, and one which I would like to work for.
chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (10/14/88)
According to zgel05@apctrc.UUCP (George E. Lehmann): >In article <259@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes: >>I agree completely with somebody who said that we (USENET, BBSes, etc) >>simply should not be depending on a commercial product. > ^^^^^^^^^^ >Forget the needs of the people who write commercial software to make a buck >to pay mortgages and feed families, forget flag-waving patriotism and the >rights we capitalists love and cherish [...] > >WE ALREADY ARE TOTALLY COMMITTED TO MANY COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS!!! Or did you >get all of that juicy hardware you're running on in a swap meet? Mr. Lehmann misunderstands. Not all people who like and use free software are militant about it. It is reasonable to say, however, that a "free" system such as the Usenet is not very "free" if it depends on a *particular* commercial product like ARC. If the Usenet's standard compression method were PKARC, and then this lawsuit thing started, we'd be in a mess (or at least a confusion). As it happens, however, "compress" is public domain, so no one has to worry. -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers.
twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) (10/14/88)
>comments about 'not depending on commercial products' are total rubbish. >George Lehmann, ...!uunet!apctrc!zgel05 There is a difference between using a commercial C compiler for writing and compiling programs and being able to share copies of that software with others via a common distribution mechanism. This is the notion of OPEN systems. Tom.
zgel05@apctrc.UUCP (George E. Lehmann) (10/17/88)
In article <1885@hoqax.UUCP> twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) writes: >>comments about 'not depending on commercial products' are total rubbish. >>George Lehmann, ...!uunet!apctrc!zgel05 >There is a difference between >using a commercial C compiler for writing and compiling programs and >being able to share copies of that software with others via a common >distribution mechanism. >This is the notion of OPEN systems. Just to clear the air slightly. I am all for sharing freely, and for having reliable tools to implement this sharing. My comment was simply that using a commercial product as the means to a goal is not necessarily bad, as earlier comments by many have implied. And I still maintain that we are completely dependent on commercial products in many areas (including compilers as mentioned above), and nobody is complaining about those... -- George Lehmann, ...!uunet!apctrc!zgel05 Amoco Production Co., PO BOX 3385, Tulsa, Ok 74102 ph:918-660-4066 Standard Disclaimer: Contents are my responsibility, not AMOCO's.
del@Data-IO.COM (Erik Lindberg) (10/20/88)
In article <587@flyer.apctrc.UUCP> zgel05@flyer.UUCP (George E. Lehmann) writes: >earlier comments by many have implied. And I still maintain that we are >completely dependent on commercial products in many areas (including compilers >as mentioned above), and nobody is complaining about those... The reason *I* wouldn't complain about a compiler is that if, suddenly, for some reason, I could no longer use that particular compiler I could easily switch to another. The difference with a file archiver is that if I suddenly can't use a particular archiver, I may not even be able to *read* my files! -- del (Erik Lindberg) uw-beaver!tikal!pilchuck!del