bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (09/18/88)
In article <1@elgar.UUCP> ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) writes: : In article <756@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: : >Not likely. The diversity of abilities and knowledge needed to : >make our kind of software isn't likely to come together for the : >purpose of creating free software. : : It already has: : : [listing of various well known free programs] Excuse me, but please read my sentence again: it is talking about *our* kind of software, not just any software. The free spelling checkers out there are rather primitive compared to the stuff we sell. I'm hoping that no one will take this as commercial hype, but I haven't seen anything remotely comparable to our spelling system. (N.B. We do not sell user interfaces, so what I am comparing our stuff with is the underlying code, not the display stuff.) If anyone thinks that they know of a better, I'd be glad to hear of it. : >But anyway, even if it did, we'd be moving on to bigger and better : >things. : : If I haven't completely misunderstood, you are saying that once a free : product is released, it is immediately outdated (or will be in a short : period of time). You have misunderstood. My statement referred to the fact that, for certain kinds of software (like ours), the normal course of events is for a commercial outfit to write their version; then noncommercial types might write a better version. It is often the case that the free version is better than the original. This comes from the nature of this kind of software. You see, what we are doing requires the cooperation of diverse individuals, but the final product is not one that people were motivated enough to write, given the difficulty of it. But there was a market for it, and so we developed a product. As time goes on, the effort to create the product decreases, because of, among other things, better computer systems, better programming tools, and an increased availability of the knowledge needed to build the product; as a result, various individuals or small groups then do their versions. Of course, they have the benefit of learning from our mistakes, better tools, and more effective computer systems. These are why they can build a better version. These people are also often better motivated than those who build commercial products (though not in our case), and they are also not hindered by nasty things like deadlines. These, too, contribute to the possibility of better versions. My own guess is that there will be equivalent free spelling checkers in perhaps five years or so, but I'd be surprised to see them in less than three. What I was saying is that, as time goes on, even if some people decide to do free spelling checkers, equivalent to ours, we will go on to do something different which, again, is probably beyond the current means and interests of those who write free software. --- Bill novavax!proxftl!bill
fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) (09/19/88)
> Excuse me, but please read my sentence again: it is talking about > *our* kind of software, not just any software. The free spelling > checkers out there are rather primitive compared to the stuff we > sell. I don't know your product, because I could never afford it (but then I don't know a Rolls Royce and I'm still perfectly happy!). If it can match up to Witchpen (the best,fastest,most extended,cheapest ($55) and multilingual (even translating) spelling checker) it's o.k., otherwise I wouldn't even want to know about it. > It is often the case that the free version is better than the > original. This comes from the nature of this kind of software. Now we are talking the same language! A free program is ALWAYS better, thats logical. Wouldn't you like a free bike if you don't have the $$ to buy a car?? And as slow as it is it has even advantages over the car (at least in our traffic). By the way I hate your word original: most free programs (if not all) are far away from being just copies of an original. > and they are also not hindered by nasty things like deadlines Do yoy REALLY believe this? > My own guess is that there will be equivalent free > spelling checkers in perhaps five years or so, but I'd be > surprised to see them in less than three. > What I was saying is that, as time goes on, even if some people > decide to do free spelling checkers, equivalent to ours, we will > go on to do something different which, again, is probably beyond > the current means and interests of those who write free > software. There are more than enough PD packages (or programs developped at Universities that are given away for free) that you can't buy at all, just because companies are not interested or don't have the experience to develop them. There are enough PD or for free substitutes for those licensed or hard to get programs. I think there's no USEFUL commercial package around that has no free counterpart.Whatever you develop, somebody will make a PD version and even if it is not as perfect as your product, it is a thousand times better: EVERYBODY can get it, it doesn't cost ANYTHING and we get SOURCE!!! fmr@cwi.nl -- It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? Maintainer's Motto: If we can't fix it, it ain't broke. These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (09/19/88)
In article <780@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl (T. William Wells) writes: >What I was saying is that, as time goes on, even if some people >decide to do free spelling checkers, equivalent to ours, we will >go on to do something different which, again, is probably beyond >the current means and interests of those who write free software. No doubt. What's next on your agenda? Networked windowing systems? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (09/20/88)
In article <14420@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: : In article <780@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl (T. William Wells) writes: : >What I was saying is that, as time goes on, even if some people : >decide to do free spelling checkers, equivalent to ours, we will : >go on to do something different which, again, is probably beyond : >the current means and interests of those who write free software. : : No doubt. Your nihilism is disgusting. So is your ignorance. However, for those who are not so hopelessly devoid of sense: We do a spell checking system that works with a dozen languages, and that has the best spelling corrector around. It ports to essentially every system where there is a working C compiler and a disk. (And there is actually a version working without a disk in a Xerox typewriter.) We also have a spelling checker for typewriters that is in most of the typewriters that use an OEM spelling checker. It does most of the things our bigger spelling checker does, and some things slightly better. : What's next on your agenda? A grammar checker that actually parses your text. And that doesn't require something at least as large as a VAX to run. It runs on an IBM-PC/XT in under 128K. It already works, now all we have to do is to make it into a product. Coming soon to an OEM near you.... : Networked windowing systems? : : ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Stupid man! Your ignorant sarcasm demonstrates your sickness. I hadn't responded to your inflammatory posting over in alt.individualism yet, because I have more important things to do. However, the gist of it would have been: welcome to my kill file. May you long enjoy the hell you make for yourself. --- Bill novavax!proxftl!bill
aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) (09/22/88)
>Now we are talking the same language! A free program is ALWAYS >better, thats logical. Not when the free program doesn't come with a binary or printed documentation, when the free program won't compile, and when the free program gives cryptic errors on apollos and core dumps. >is a thousand times better: EVERYBODY can get it, it doesn't >cost ANYTHING and we get SOURCE!!! Yeah, sure, but the source won't compile, and it costs you more programmer $$ to make it compile than it would cost you to buy the unbuggy commercial product to begin with. -- @disclaimer(Any concepts or opinions above are entirely mine, not those of my employer, my GIGI, or my 11/34) beak is beak is not Anthony A. Datri,SysAdmin,StepstoneCorporation,stpstn!aad
james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (09/22/88)
In article <2133@stpstn.UUCP>, aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) wrote: > >is a thousand times better: EVERYBODY can get it, it doesn't > >cost ANYTHING and we get SOURCE!!! > Yeah, sure, but the source won't compile, and it costs you more > programmer $$ to make it compile than it would cost you to buy > the unbuggy commercial product to begin with. GNU emacs is less buggy than the vi implementation I have. More importantly, the users I have (particularly those who normally use Macintoshes) refuse to use vi under any circumstances (due to user unfriendliness). As for "unbuggy commercial products", it's easier to bring up GNU C than to bring up the news software under the AT&T PCC on my machine. I think we have someone else here who hasn't tried the alternatives... Perhaps GNU and other free software is only for those who can go in and fix bugs, but a fair number of us do fall in that catagory - and it's a lot easier to fix source than a binary. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Phone: 512-346-2444 10926 Jollyville Rd #901 Austin TX 78759
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/23/88)
In article <2133@stpstn.UUCP>, aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) writes: > >is a thousand times better: EVERYBODY can get it, it doesn't > >cost ANYTHING and we get SOURCE!!! > > Yeah, sure, but the source won't compile, and it costs you more > programmer $$ to make it compile than it would cost you to buy > the unbuggy commercial product to begin with. > > Anthony A. Datri,SysAdmin,StepstoneCorporation,stpstn!aad This whole discussion can be boiled to the immortal epigram, first coined about BSD 4.1 UNIX, "Free university software is too expensive to use." If one is interested in software for academic study, or because you enjoy hacking, then free software is just splendid. On the other hand, if you are trying to DO something useful, much of the free software isn't worth the bother. I should point out that some of the companies which purport to "commercialize" free university software, and thereby make it useable, trustworthy, clean, brave, etc. aren't real impressive. In particular, Unipress provides support for EMACS that's about as good as no support; what Sun has done with BSD UNIX leaves me strongly unimpressed. The manuals are clearly sent to the printer without a human looking them over (text jumbled on top of other text in section headers); the software is no more reliable than the standard distribution, and you don't normally even get source to find and fix the problems. In particular, one of our people transferred a file from a Mac to a Sun. Macs use a different end-line convention -- CR, not LF, and CR LF. This guy would do MORE FOO.C, and not only would MORE die, but it would make the window he was working in go away as well. As near as we can tell, MORE doesn't bother to check if a line will fit into some internal buffer, goes off the end, and returns some code to Sun Windows that makes the window go away. Yes, the problem was readily reproducible. As much as it is going to pain a lot of you to hear this, most of what I've seen of UNIX software wouldn't be salable on the PC -- it isn't built to even the quality standards of Microsoft. Clayton E. Cramer -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
flee@blitz (Felix Lee) (09/24/88)
Sigh. Can we agree that quality is not related to price? The marketplace can act as a quality filter, but other factors (e.g., marketing) confuse the issue. If an author wants to give away his wonderful piece of software, I'm not going to argue that it's too good for freeware and he should sell it instead. "Free" is no better than "commercial". Just cheaper. -- Felix Lee flee@blitz.cs.psu.edu *!psuvax1!flee
chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (09/27/88)
According to bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells): >In article <14420@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >>In article <780@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl (T. William Wells) writes: >>>we will go on to do something different which, again, is probably beyond >>>the current means and interests of those who write free software. >> >>What's next on your agenda? Networked windowing systems? > >Stupid man! Your ignorant sarcasm demonstrates your sickness. Actually, Weemba's allusion to X exhibited _informed_ sarcasm. The X window system is free, and excellent. Much free software is written by people who _also_ write commercial software, so the quality and available resources are comparable. -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.uu.net> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering My employer may or may not agree with me. The urgent leaves no time for the important.
dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) (10/02/88)
In article <492@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > In particular, one of our people transferred a file from a Mac to a > Sun. Macs use a different end-line convention -- CR, not LF, and CR LF. > This guy would do MORE FOO.C, and not only would MORE die, but it would > make the window he was working in go away as well. As near as we can > tell, MORE doesn't bother to check if a line will fit into some internal > buffer, goes off the end, and returns some code to Sun Windows that > makes the window go away. > > Yes, the problem was readily reproducible. > > As much as it is going to pain a lot of you to hear this, most of what > I've seen of UNIX software wouldn't be salable on the PC -- it isn't > built to even the quality standards of Microsoft. > > Clayton E. Cramer If I am not mistaken, almost every communications program I am aware of allows the user to select CR-LF -> LF, LF -> CR-LF, etc. If the fool isn't smart enough to check on this, he deserved what he got! More to the point, don't think that PC software doesn't benefit from the thousands (millions?) of man-hours of extra development that can be amortized because of the sale of thousands (millions?) of extra copies. This of course assumes you are talking of software for sale. For freeware, you take your chances on what you get. My experience has been that almost anything that was semi-portable C source (free) has compiled easier, and run with much fewer problems under Ultrix (DEC's registered trademark version) than under MESSY-DOS! dharvey@wsccs
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/04/88)
In article <694@wsccs.UUCP>, dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes: > In article <492@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > > In particular, one of our people transferred a file from a Mac to a > > Sun. Macs use a different end-line convention -- CR, not LF, and CR LF. > > This guy would do MORE FOO.C, and not only would MORE die, but it would > > make the window he was working in go away as well. As near as we can > > tell, MORE doesn't bother to check if a line will fit into some internal > > buffer, goes off the end, and returns some code to Sun Windows that > > makes the window go away. > > > > Clayton E. Cramer > > If I am not mistaken, almost every communications program I am aware of > allows the user to select CR-LF -> LF, LF -> CR-LF, etc. If the fool > isn't smart enough to check on this, he deserved what he got! More to Well, I guess this pretty well sums up the difference in attitudes between the UNIX community, and the real world: UNIX hackers seem to feel that software should only be used by knowledgeable experienced UNIX hackers -- forget the rest of the world, and don't bother checking for error conditions! Also, the file was transferred via TOPS -- no such option. > dharvey@wsccs -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
andrew@jung.harlqn.uucp (Andrew Watson) (10/05/88)
In article <492@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > Yeah, sure, but the source won't compile, and it costs you more > programmer $$ to make it compile than it would cost you to buy > the unbuggy commercial product to begin with. > > Anthony A. Datri,SysAdmin,StepstoneCorporation,stpstn!aad This whole discussion can be boiled to the immortal epigram, first coined about BSD 4.1 UNIX, "Free university software is too expensive to use." Hmmm ... well I'd be half inclined to agree with you, except the the the other (Unix) option really isn't much better - I am of course referring to System V. Can anyone give me a good reason why all these big corporations licence System V, only to have to port to it large parts of 4.1/2/3 just to make it usable? I'm talking about sockets, the Fast File System, all the TCP/IP utilities, symbolic links ... and then they're *still* left with a system with a lousy short term scheduler that truncates all file names to 14 characters! Another thing - back in the old days, with v6, v7 & 4.x, even if the software wasn't really "supported", one at least had the reassurance that the Research & Development community, the people with new ideas who were rolling back the frontiers, who knew the real requirements up there at the leading edge (things that will be commonplace in about 2 years) - these people were using the same system that you were. And now? AT&T are busy selling us system V, while their labs use version 8, which may never be commercialised, and in any case IS BASED ON BSD 4.2 - nothing remotely to do with system V. I rest my case. -- Regards, Andrew. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andrew Watson, Harlequin Limited, andrew@uk.co.harlqn | | Barrington Hall, Barrington, Tel: +44 223 872522 | | Cambridge CB2 5RG, UK Fax: +44 223 872519 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (10/06/88)
In article <540@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
: Well, I guess this pretty well sums up the difference in attitudes
: between the UNIX community, and the real world: UNIX hackers seem to
: feel that software should only be used by knowledgeable experienced
: UNIX hackers -- forget the rest of the world, and don't bother checking
: for error conditions!
Before flaming an entire group of people, you would do well to
remember that such flames will almost never apply to all the
members of the group.
So, for myself, who *am* a UNIX hacker, and who does *not* expect
my software to be used by UNIX hackers, I ask for an apology and
request that you refrain from such blanket assertions in the
future.
Thank you.
---
Bill
You can still reach me at proxftl!bill
But I'd rather you send to proxftl!twwells!billcramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/06/88)
In article <863@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: > In article <540@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > : Well, I guess this pretty well sums up the difference in attitudes > : between the UNIX community, and the real world: UNIX hackers seem to > : feel that software should only be used by knowledgeable experienced > : UNIX hackers -- forget the rest of the world, and don't bother checking > : for error conditions! > > So, for myself, who *am* a UNIX hacker, and who does *not* expect > my software to be used by UNIX hackers, I ask for an apology and > request that you refrain from such blanket assertions in the > future. > > Bill That was a rather all encompassing statement, wasn't it? It's certainly not always true, but it does reflect an attitude commonly held in the UNIX community (as the posting I was following up shows). -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (10/10/88)
In article <ANDREW.88Oct5134036@jung.harlqn.uucp> andrew@jung.harlqn.uucp (Andrew Watson) writes: >And now? AT&T are busy selling us system V, while their >labs use version 8, which may never be commercialised, and in any case IS BASED ^ They are up to 9 now. >ON BSD 4.2 - nothing remotely to do with system V. Not exactly. Both are derived from version 7. True some of Berkeleyisms have found their way back into the BTL research version, but there are still philisophical differences. For example, see "Program Design in the UNIX Environment", R. Pike and B.W. Kernighan, AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal 62(8), October 1984, pp. 1595-1605. This paper exhibits those differences with the cat command. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
andys@genesis.ATT.COM (a.b.sherman) (10/12/88)
In article <ANDREW.88Oct5134036@jung.harlqn.uucp> andrew@jung.harlqn.uucp (Andrew Watson) writes: >In article <492@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > This whole discussion can be boiled to the immortal epigram, first coined > about BSD 4.1 UNIX, "Free university software is too expensive to use." ^^^^ > >Hmmm ... well I'd be half inclined to agree with you, except the the the other >(Unix) option really isn't much better - I am of course referring to System V. ^^^^ First off, not to be picky or anything, but UNIX(R) is a registered trademark of AT&T. > >Can anyone give me a good reason why all these big corporations licence System >V, only to have to port to it large parts of 4.1/2/3 just to make it usable? >I'm talking about sockets, the Fast File System, all the TCP/IP utilities, >symbolic links ... and then they're *still* left with a system with a lousy >short term scheduler that truncates all file names to 14 characters! > I don't really want to get into a debate about the technical merits of these comments. However, people license System V and port it because it is the latest commercially available version of the UNIX system. Also, they will have to pay the license fee for most other *IX systems anyway, since they were mostly derived from AT&T source code of older versions. >Another thing - back in the old days, with v6, v7 & 4.x, even if the software >wasn't really "supported", one at least had the reassurance that the Research >& Development community, the people with new ideas who were rolling back the >frontiers, who knew the real requirements up there at the leading edge (things >that will be commonplace in about 2 years) - these people were using the same >system that you were. And now? AT&T are busy selling us system V, while their >labs use version 8, which may never be commercialised, and in any case IS BASED >ON BSD 4.2 - nothing remotely to do with system V. I don't know what V8 (or V9 for that matter) is based upon, because most of Bell Laboratories does not use it. The research versions of the UNIX system are used almost exclusively in the computing reasearch environment. Most of us use System V because that is what we build into our products. Also, do not fear. The important features of the research versions find there way into new releases of System V. For example, STREAMS was a V8 feature that has now been incorporated into System V Release 3. You still benefit from what the research folks are doing. > >I rest my case. Ah, but did you have all the information. -- andy sherman / at&t bell laboratories (medical diagnostic systems) room 2e-108 / 185 monmouth pkwy / west long branch, nj 07764-1394 (201) 870-7018 / andys@shlepper.ATT.COM ...The views and opinions are my own. Who else would want them?
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (10/14/88)
In article <485@genesis.ATT.COM> andys@shlepper.ATT.COM (a.b.sherman) writes: >I don't know what V8 (or V9 for that matter) is based upon, because most >of Bell Laboratories does not use it....... The important features of the >research versions find there way into new releases of System V. For >example, STREAMS was a V8 feature that has now been incorporated into >System V Release 3. You still benefit from what the research folks are >doing. Yes, we do. But quite often the System V implementation of the research features leave much to be desired. Not only that the basic system itself has many differences which are far too warty. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826