"SDRRTR::PSI%PRSRTR::PSI%SCRVX2::BLUE::IN%\"'m_mailnow::m_sdr::davis'@scr-gateway\""@sdr.slb.COM (09/27/88)
To throw in my two-cents worth: I personally feel that Earl is pretty much in the right here inasmuch as Apple have a very legitimate right to determine via legal means how much of a restriction they can place on the rest of us. I don't like their implicit reasons for doing so, but the right is theirs to use as they wish. At the same time, I am saddened and disappointed that we do not live in a world where rms' ideas are sufficiently widespread as to make this kind of thing irrelevant. I wish that we did not attempt to view intellectual property in the same light as material belongings and that we could all take pleasure in seeing others using, developing and hopefully improving our own efforts. In the long run, we all benefit from such an approach. Sadly, Apple do not seem to take this approach. I understand the motives behind their action: it must be nice to make so much money from such simple ideas as the Mac, and I do believe that they have every right to take the issue to court - I just hope they lose, and that in the meantime, the rest of us can continue to believe in developing software for all of us, because we love doing that more than we love making money. To be honest, I'd rather be a something-else-by-day and a good hacker by night than the professional programmer I am, but that I am not is a consequence of my own particular situation. I like making money - at times, I don't even mind be branded a yuppie (though I prefer "guppie" (Green Urban Professional)) - but I do dislike doing so via something where my main satisfaction is non-financial. It feels like it will ultimately corrupt the very thing I enjoy at the moment ... So, lets not get hysterical, lets apply the same desire to share and progress to this issue and maybe some good will come of it. Sad not to have GNU on our new II's though ... Paul
yba@arrow.bellcore.com (Mark Levine) (09/28/88)
In article <8809262111.AA03718@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> "SDRRTR::PSI%PRSRTR::PSI%SCRVX2::BLUE::IN%\"'m_mailnow::m_sdr::davis'@scr-gateway\""@sdr.slb.COM writes: > >At the same time, I am saddened and disappointed that we do not live >in a world where rms' ideas are sufficiently widespread as to make >this kind of thing irrelevant. I wish that we did not attempt to view >intellectual property in the same light as material belongings and >that we could all take pleasure in seeing others using, developing and >hopefully improving our own efforts. In the long run, we all benefit >from such an approach. This seems to be support of a good idea for the wrong reason. If you are not a property owner or a wage earner, and only have your intellectual properties to sell -- for instance you are a writer -- you would need to see those properties protected at least as well as material belongings. Without such protection, publishers would eat while you starved, and the world would perhaps be relieved of the benefits of writers. Copyright came into existence for this reason, or so I believe. The suit of Apple as I understand it is based heavily on MS, and thereby HP, having access to source code. It is the effort of producing the "look and feel", not the look and feel per se, that are considered properties. I'd sure appreciate correction on these facts from lawyers who know the suit. I agree strongly that enforcement of a "look and feel" copyright or patent would be an evil -- the same as a writer claiming someone had stolen his "style" or that Ford had exclusive rights to making cars with four wheels that go "vroom". And if you can make a version of my program that is faster and cheaper, go sell it -- just don't you sell my program, and don't sell your code derived from my code without my ok. This is not to say that there should be no intellectual property rights, until and unless there are to be no property rights at all, and I don't think we as a species have progressed quite that far yet. The interesting thing to me is that emacs (and all GNU?) is now part of a political boycott (read "weapon") if I read this correctly. I can see the claim for self-defense (only if my understanding of the Apple suit is incorrect and they really are based on look and feel), but I cannot say this does not make me nervous about recommending freeware to a company -- the thought that support may be suddenly withdrawn for political reasons or that the rules might change at a whim will be worrisome. Is it the case that Apple-supporting extensions to emacs, to the window system on the MAC-II, etc., will not be accepted now? (Does this constitute restraint of fair trade?! Would it give Apple a case against FSF if I really do not buy an Apple Computer now, given that is real damage to them and is done on FSF's recommendation?) It seems that keeping an even course _while_ joining the suit would be a better strategy. I would hope that GNU proponents want cleaner hands than their opponents when things get to court, or even just into the media. [These are not strictly rhetorical questions. I have an order for a MAC-II on hold and really want to know. If GNU c++, for example, will never be available, it makes the software suite for the platform unattractive.] Eleazor bar Shimon, once and future Carolingian yba@sabre.bellcore.com
baur@spp2.UUCP (Steven L. Baur) (09/28/88)
in article <8809262111.AA03718@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, "SDRRTR::PSI%PRSRTR::PSI%SCRVX2::BLUE::IN%\"'m_mailnow::m_sdr::davis'@scr-gateway\""@sdr.slb.COM says: > ... Apple have a very legitimate right > to determine via legal means how much of a restriction they can place > on the rest of us. What everybody is forgetting in this debate about apple is that they "stole" the software from Xerox-Parc initially, and have even admitted to doing so in public (using that word). I don't like lawyers, and I don't like apple suing over "look and feel" they "stole" in the first place. I don't support RMS's politics in general as I am a capitalist, but I agree with him on the point Apple is behaving in rotten fashion. steve
jym@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Jym Dyer) (09/28/88)
The American ideal of freedom is encompassed in the concept of liberty,
which is defined as the right to do anything you want provided you don't
infringe on others' rights. And those rights include the right to do
anything you want provided you don't infringe on others' rights. And
those rights . . . (STACK OVERFLOW)
A conflict is inherent in the concept of liberty, when two people want
the freedom to do things that are mutually exclusive. We have such a
conflict here, which seems to me to be between the freedom to create
similar software and the freedom to make as much money in the short
term as legally possible (which involves expanding the definition of
"legally possible").
It seems that a vocal segment of our society is obsessed with the latter
freedom, holding it higher than many other freedoms (including the rights
to breathable air, drinkable water, edible food, the use of recording
equipment, and giving food to the homeless in San Francisco). I find
this a very narrow and foolish view.
EMACS (the original) was the best editor in the world. GNU Emacs is now
the best editor in the world. Both editors were distributed freely, and
they're the best. And let me tell you something---all the best hacking
comes from environments where sharing goes on.
(People working in big companies know this; they can share to some extent
with a large community. I used to work at DEC; it was a happy place where
everyone---save a few cranky types and inter-departmental empire-builders
--shared code with each other. But some of the best shared code came
from outside of the company, and some of the best hackers would go to
lengths to make some code available outside the company.)
And while EMACS and GNU Emacs didn't make scads of money in a short time,
they proved to be quite valuable in the long run. I just met an impossible
and profitable deadline because of GNU Emacs. The programs involved use
code available free as part of DECUS C as well as code developed from
ideas in code from DECUS C. Like Mr. Horton, I have a family to feed
and creditors to pay. Free software has made a large contribution to
that end.
As the originators of the Macintosh software, Apple made a large amount of
money. One could agree that they deserve a large amount of money. But
when does the profiteering end? I say the profiteering should, indeed
*must* end when it starts to impinge on the freedom to create, learn,
and explore.
Suppose, intrigued by the Macintosh's "desktop" approach to an interface,
I write one too. I'd learn alot. Perhaps I'd make a better implementa-
tion. I'd share the program, and it would simultaneously teach things
to others and pick up enhancements. Perhaps the learning and enhanc-
ing would provide the basis for a revolutionary *new* interface.
Or perhaps Apple would slap a "look and feel" lawsuit on me and we'll
stay stuck in 1985.
* * *
We have Macs in our office. They're used mostly as spreadsheets and to
make memos. I'm installing TeX on our other machines to reduce the demand
on the Macs and thus reduce the demand to buy new ones. Anyone else have
boycott ideas?
Remember this handy hint: Boycott California grapes and Apple!
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Boycott, Icelandic fish, General Electric, and light tuna while you're
at it. :-)crm@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Charlie Martin) (09/29/88)
In article <8809281340.AA16052@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, jym@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Jym Dyer) writes: > > We have Macs in our office. They're used mostly as spreadsheets and to > make memos. I'm installing TeX on our other machines to reduce the demand > on the Macs and thus reduce the demand to buy new ones. Anyone else have > boycott ideas? > > Remember this handy hint: Boycott California grapes and Apple! > <_Jym_> > > P.S.: Boycott, Icelandic fish, General Electric, and light tuna while you're > at it. :-) Look: this is comp.emacs. This is a technical group. It is for discussions of emacs. It isn't for discussions for grape boycotts, Apple boycotts, fish boycotts, and light tuna boycotts. So push off. And while we're at it, keep this crap in the politically correct gnu groups; I don't agree, I have equally good rationale or rationalization for my position, and I am beginning to get more than a little tired of bozos who believe that my right to my opinion ends where my disagreement with their opinions begins. Note that I have no disagreement with Stallman doing what he has done, as it is his code. (Interestingly, he has to appeal to his intellectual property rights to the code in order to make code available, so if we want to *really* PC about it, isn't he simply encouraging that which he so dislikes?) Nor do I necessarily think Apple is right: "look and feel" is far too loose a concept to be enforced. The original look and feel suit simply opened up another chance for a total-employment measure for lawyers, and should be overturned. HOWEVER! This is *not* the place! SO PUT IT BLOODY WELL SOMEWHERE ELSE! Charlie Martin (crm@cs.duke.edu,mcnc!duke!crm)
jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) (09/29/88)
In article <12519@duke.cs.duke.edu>, crm@romeo (Charlie Martin) writes: >In article <8809281340.AA16052@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, jym@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Jym Dyer) writes: >> [...] >Look: this is comp.emacs. This is a technical group. [etc.] Jym Dyer's message to which this is a response was actually posted first in gnu.emacs and the cross-posting magic got it into comp.emacs as well. I think the cross-posting tie should remain in general; not everyone can get gnu.all. I know there will be more to come, so warm up your 'n' key. -- /jr jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr
Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram) (09/29/88)
In article <12519@duke.cs.duke.edu>, crm@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Charlie Martin) writes: > Look: this is comp.emacs. This is a technical group. It is for > discussions of emacs. It isn't for discussions for grape boycotts, > Apple boycotts, fish boycotts, and light tuna boycotts. So push off. > > And while we're at it, keep this crap in the politically correct gnu > groups; While I agree with your points about grape, fish and light tuna, I think the discussion about Apple is interesting and relevant to this newsgroup (remember, most of us don't get gnu.* newsgroups and rely on comp.emacs for all Emacs- related news, technical and non-technical, GNU Emacs included). It would be a lot easier all around if you were to put 'apple' in your kill file. Thanks. -- Ashwin.
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (09/29/88)
In article <8809281340.AA16052@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> jym@prep.ai.mit.edu writes: >Suppose, intrigued by the Macintosh's "desktop" approach to an interface, > I write one too. I'd learn alot. Perhaps I'd make a better implementa- > tion. I'd share the program, and it would simultaneously teach things > to others and pick up enhancements. Perhaps the learning and enhanc- > ing would provide the basis for a revolutionary *new* interface. > >Or perhaps Apple would slap a "look and feel" lawsuit on me and we'll > stay stuck in 1985. Look, the suit is to prevent companies from "developing" substantially the same interface (i.e., windows with the same kind of title bar, close box, scroll bars; drop-down menus, dialog boxs with exactly the same kind of scrolling regions, buttons; similar icons; etc.) as the one Apple spent time and money developing for the Macintosh. Nothing more, nothing less. It's just the same as arguing with an author, complaining that his novel shouldn't be copyrighted since you like the characters, plot, and settings so much and you wanted to write one of your own, using some of the dialog verbatim as well. The expression of the ideas in that novel is the author's intellectual property, and as such it is copyrightable. Apple has no quarrel with people or companies that develop different (and preferably better) interfaces. SunView is fine. From what I can tell, OPEN LOOK is fine. Much of what is being done now with Xlib is also fine. Microsoft Windows may not be. It is a windowing system that bears more than a slight resemblance to the Macintosh windowing system; this is why Microsoft is being sued. Whether or not the suit has merit (since Apple did in fact license the use of part of their windowing system to Microsoft in 1985) must, like all other legal issues in our society, be decided in the courts. The court may well hold that Apple does not have a case, and that Microsoft has not infringed on the audio-visual copyrights Apple holds for the Macintosh. However, this can *only* be settled by bringing suit. You can also compare all this to the suits that were brought by Atari during the height of the video game craze against companies that developed "new" games that looked suspiciously like Pac-Man. The code in the Pac-Man ROMs is copyrighted, of course, but in some precedent-setting decisions, it was decided that the audio-visual display was copyrightable as well. In fact, Apple's suit is probably the best thing they could do for the industry, since it will keep people with little imagination from constantly reinventing the user-interface wheel, and get them off their asses and design better ones. The reason the Macintosh was successful was not that it closely mimiced the computing environment people were already used to on other machines, but because it provided them with a substantially better one. Really, why would anyone *want* to copy the Macintosh interface? It was a good idea 4 years ago, but it's beginning to show its age. Why not work on better ones instead, and try to imagine what computing could be like if windows, menus, icons, dialog boxes and mouse manipulation were not as they are on the Macintosh? Because in fact this is the only way the state of the art will advance. -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." {uunet,cmcl2}!esquire!sbb | sbb%esquire@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
jans@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) (09/30/88)
<<..I wish that we did not attempt to view intellectual property in the same light as material belongings...>> <If you... only have your intellectual properties to sell... you would need to see those properties protected at least as well as material belongings. Without such protection, publishers would eat while you starved...> I think this is currently how it works for 90% of the writers out there! One-time payments, usually based on the first year's royalties, which the writer doesn't see for up to several years after the work has been done. Of course, once they make a name, they can get an advance against royalties. Straw poll: of those who make considerable income from writing, how many would be comfortable living on your writing income alone? :::::: Software Productivity Technologies -- Experiment Manager Project :::::: :::::: Jan Steinman N7JDB Box 500, MS 50-383 (w)503/627-5881 :::::: :::::: jans@tekcrl.TEK.COM Beaverton, OR 97077 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Matthew P Wiener) (09/30/88)
In article <664@esquire.UUCP>, sbb@esquire (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >It's just the same as arguing with an author, complaining that his >novel shouldn't be copyrighted since you like the characters, plot, >and settings so much and you wanted to write one of your own, using >some of the dialog verbatim as well. The expression of the ideas in >that novel is the author's intellectual property, and as such it is >copyrightable. FYI, characters, plot and setting are not copyrightable. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Nil sounds like a lot of kopins! I never got paid nil before!" --Groo
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (09/30/88)
In article <664@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes:
It's just the same as arguing with an author, complaining that his
novel shouldn't be copyrighted since you like the characters, plot,
and settings so much and you wanted to write one of your own, using
some of the dialog verbatim as well. The expression of the ideas in
that novel is the author's intellectual property, and as such it is
copyrightable.
No, it's not the same. It IS the same as arguing with a hammer
manufacturer that his hammer shouldn't be copyrighted since you like
the color of the beryllium head and oak handle so much that you plated
your steel hammer head with copper, and fashioned a plastic handle with
oak grain.
Novels, records, epigrams (like Ashleigh Brilliants), greeting cards, etc.,
ONLY have appearance. If you take away their appearence, they have nothing
left.
The user interface for a program is (or can be) independent of the
function of the program (vis. X11 window managers, Borland's SPRINT
editor [which has an Emacs mode], SQL database servers, and NARC, a
full screen shell for the IBM-PC ARC program.).
So a program can effectively be split into two parts -- the appearance
and function. The function is (IMHO) largely unprotectable if a computer
language is unprotectable. The appearance can be split into two parts
also -- the look (displays) and the feel (keystroke sequences). Both
of these can be designed to be configured by the user. (Sounds like Gnu
Emacs to me :-)
So, indeed, the appearance of a program can be protected, but it is really
a moot point for those programmers that design flexible user interfaces.
Microsoft chose not to, and so Apple feels that the combination of Windows
and New Wave is too close to their own.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
To surrender is to remain in the hands of barbarians for the rest of my life.
To fight is to leave my bones exposed in the desert waste.moore@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) (09/30/88)
In article <664@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >Look, the suit is to prevent companies from "developing" substantially >the same interface (i.e., windows with the same kind of title bar, close >box, scroll bars; drop-down menus, dialog boxs with exactly the same >kind of scrolling regions, buttons; similar icons; etc.) as the one >Apple spent time and money developing for the Macintosh. Nothing more, >nothing less. Look, the suit is to keep people from competing with Apple by designing similar products. Apple got there first, and they want to be the only players in the game. They will do so if they can get away with it. Nothing more, nothing less. >It's just the same as arguing with an author, complaining that his >novel shouldn't be copyrighted since you like the characters, plot, >and settings so much and you wanted to write one of your own, using >some of the dialog verbatim as well. The expression of the ideas in >that novel is the author's intellectual property, and as such it is >copyrightable. It's not clear that your analogy is valid. Furthermore, several authors have borrowed characters and settings from other authors' works and somehow managed to publish their works without problems, but actual dialog is another manner. >Apple has no quarrel with people or companies that develop different >(and preferably better) interfaces. SunView is fine. From what I can >tell, OPEN LOOK is fine. Much of what is being done now with Xlib is >also fine. Microsoft Windows may not be. It is a windowing system >that bears more than a slight resemblance to the Macintosh windowing >system; this is why Microsoft is being sued. Microsoft is being sued because their windows system is the only serious competitor to Apple's and because if Apple wants to keep people from competing with them, the time is now. >Whether or not the suit has merit (since Apple did in fact license the >use of part of their windowing system to Microsoft in 1985) must, like >all other legal issues in our society, be decided in the courts. The >court may well hold that Apple does not have a case, and that Microsoft >has not infringed on the audio-visual copyrights Apple holds for the >Macintosh. However, this can *only* be settled by bringing suit. There are other ``courts'' besides the one in which Apple is bringing suit. Furthermore, since the suit doesn't appear to have much real merit, it's value to Apple is to stall the competition and retain its advantage for as long as possible. [...] >In fact, Apple's suit is probably the best thing they could do for the >industry, since it will keep people with little imagination from >constantly reinventing the user-interface wheel, and get them off their >asses and design better ones. The reason the Macintosh was successful >was not that it closely mimiced the computing environment people were >already used to on other machines, but because it provided them with a >substantially better one. Apple's suit is probably the best thing they could do for Apple. Apple would like to keep people from designing better products by constraining them to make sure they *don't* look anything like Apple's products. Apple is free to produce a better interface at any time, whether it looks like their old one or not. Potential competitors have to work really hard to be sure their products are okay; this means that lawyers get involved in the design process, and this means inferior products. >Really, why would anyone *want* to copy the Macintosh interface? >It was a good idea 4 years ago, but it's beginning to show its age. >Why not work on better ones instead, and try to imagine what computing >could be like if windows, menus, icons, dialog boxes and mouse manipulation >were not as they are on the Macintosh? Because in fact this is the only >way the state of the art will advance. I agree that no one should want to copy the interface verbatim, but there are some good ideas there that I would like to see in other interfaces. I just don't agree that Apple should have exclusive rights to these features, especially since many of them existed on Xerox software that predates the Macintosh or Lisa. I don't speak for my employer, and they don't speak for me, either. -- Keith Moore UT Computer Science Dept. Internet/CSnet: moore@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu 107 Ayres Hall, UT Campus BITNET: moore@utkcs1 Knoxville Tennessee 37996-1301 Telephone: +1 615 974 0822
pst@canary.cdi.com (Paul Traina) (10/04/88)
From article <1451@spp2.UUCP>, by baur@spp2.UUCP (Steven L. Baur): > I don't support RMS's politics in general as I am a capitalist, but I agree > with him on the point Apple is behaving in rotten fashion. I do support/like RMS's politics, in general as I am a human, and I agree with him on the point Apple is behaving in rotten fashion [sic]. However, I am not happy with the fact that the FSF is not truely 'punnishing' Apple, as much as they are Apple users. I recently (about 6 months ago) purchased a big mac as a aux hack-toy. This happened before this look and feel BS happened. Now, I feel that the FSF is (switch into very subjective egocentric mode for a moment) hurting me (leave egocentric mode). Apple -> management <- couldn't give a damn about the FSF. As far as they are concerned, it is just a bunch of weirdos and hackers basicly wasting their time. (Assuming they've even heard of the FSF at all!) Those of us who are familiar with the FSF love the work that has come out so far. I am upset that the FSF will (pseudo) support me at my work (Suns) but RMS has chosen to make my life difficult when I want to hack for the pure pleasure of it (i.e. at home on my Mac2). Sigh. This is not the way. This is not the way. This is not the way. I'm sorry I don't have any suggestions, but I think the boycott won't do any good and it sure as hell will hurt the wrong people. ------ Paul Traina To believe that what is true for {uunet|pyramid}!comdesign!pst you in your private heart is true pst@condor.cdi.com for all men, that is genius.
dsill@NSWC-OAS.ARPA (Dave Sill) (10/05/88)
Keith Moore <bloom-beacon!gatech!utkcs2!moore%eddie.mit.edu.uucp@bbn.com> writes: >In article <664@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >>Apple has no quarrel with people or companies that develop different >>(and preferably better) interfaces. [Various other commercial >>interfaces are] fine. Microsoft Windows may not be. It is a >>windowing system that bears more than a slight resemblance to the >>Macintosh windowing system; this is why Microsoft is being sued. > >Microsoft is being sued because their windows system is the only serious >competitor to Apple's and because if Apple wants to keep people from >competing with them, the time is now. Exactly. If you think Windows resembles the Mac interface, I'd advise you to take a closer look. Shoot, Windows didn't even have overlapping windows until version 2, I believe. Fire up Windows and what do you see? A list of file names. Windows is not nearly as icon-based as the Mac. The Amiga Workbench, though, is another story. It's very Mac-like. Disk drive icons appear along the right edge of the screen. Every object has an icon. The trashcan icon deletes objects. I could go on an on. So why hasn't Apple sued Commodore? The obvious answer is that Apple doesn't feel threatened by the Amiga (more's the pity). Some say Apple is suing Microsoft on the basis some source code that was licensed to MS, but if my memory serves me, Apple sued DRI over GEM's use of a trashcan icon some time ago, and there was no source code sharing involved. >Furthermore, since the suit doesn't appear to have much real merit, it's >value to Apple is to stall the competition and retain its advantage for >as long as possible. Wouldn't it be nice if the judge slapped a fine on Apple for using the court to hinder its competition? ========= The opinions expressed above are mine. "Computers should work the way beginners expect them to, and one day they will." -- Ted Nelson
thomas@gmdzi.UUCP (Thomas Gordon) (10/10/88)
From article <532@comdesign.CDI.COM>, by pst@canary.cdi.com (Paul Traina): > > However, I am not happy with the fact that the FSF is not truely 'punnishing' > Apple, as much as they are Apple users. ... > > This is not the way. > This is not the way. > > I'm sorry I don't have any suggestions, but I think the boycott won't do any > good and it sure as hell will hurt the wrong people. Consider this: Anything which makes Apple's A/UX more attractive may cause some current or potential Mac OS users to switch to UNIX, thus freeing them from their dependency on Apple. If RSM *really* wants to decrease Apple's power to monopolize he should be putting extra effort into an A/UX version of the GNU software, rather than neglecting A/UX. Thomas F. Gordon email: thomas@gmdxps.uucp GMD / F3 phone: (+49 2241) 14-2665 Schloss Birlinghoven D-5205 Sankt Augustin 1, FRG -- Thomas F. Gordon email: thomas@gmdxps.uucp GMD / F3 phone: (+49 2241) 14-2665 Schloss Birlinghoven D-5205 Sankt Augustin 1, FRG
jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) (10/12/88)
In article <841@gmdzi.UUCP>, thomas@gmdzi (Thomas Gordon) writes: >Consider this: Anything which makes Apple's A/UX more attractive may >cause some current or potential Mac OS users to switch to UNIX, thus >freeing them from their dependency on Apple. If RSM *really* wants to >decrease Apple's power to monopolize he should be putting extra effort into >an A/UX version of the GNU software, rather than neglecting A/UX. Wait wait wait. Following this logic a step further says the the MacII ought to be among the first target machine for GNU itself. Suppose you could get a tape (oops, set of floppies or CD/ROM) from FSF with GNU software: Unix, emacs, gcc, gdb, g++, etc. plus X-windows (MIT owns it; distribution is free) plus maybe some other nice user interface stuff, like maybe Interviews, all for $150 to $200. Would you cough up for A/UX plus its set of tools from Apple? Think about it. -- /jr jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr