rosalia@mozart.UUCP (Mark Galassi) (12/28/87)
The GNU Manifesto
Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman
(Copying permission notice at the end.)
What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix!
GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete
Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it
away free to everyone who can use it. Several other volunteers are helping
me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly
needed.
So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor commands,
a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a linker, and
around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed. A
new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may be released
this year. An initial kernel exists but many more features are needed to
emulate Unix. When the kernel and compiler are finished, it will be
possible to distribute a GNU system suitable for program development. We
will use @TeX{} as our text formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We
will use the free, portable X window system as well. After this we will
add a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of
other things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually,
everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.
GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix.
We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience
with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer
filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, filename
completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and perhaps
eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs
and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and Lisp will be
available as system programming languages. We will try to support UUCP,
MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for communication.
GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with virtual
memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run on. The extra
effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someone who wants
to use it on them.
To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word `GNU'
when it is the name of this project.
Who Am I?
I am Richard Stallman, inventor of the original much-imitated EMACS editor,
formerly at the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. I have worked
extensively on compilers, editors, debuggers, command interpreters, the
Incompatible Timesharing System and the Lisp Machine operating system. I
pioneered terminal-independent display support in ITS. Since then I have
implemented one crashproof file system and two window systems for Lisp
machines, and designed a third window system now being implemented; this
one will be ported to many systems including use in GNU. [Historical note:
The window system project was not completed; GNU now plans to use the
X window system.]
Why I Must Write GNU
I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must
share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide
the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with
others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I
cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software
license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence
Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually
they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such
things are done for me against my will.
So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to
put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to
get along without any software that is not free. I have resigned from the
AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away.
Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix
Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential features
of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lacks
without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix would be
convenient for many other people to adopt.
How GNU Will Be Available
GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and
redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its
further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not
be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.
Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help
I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and want to
help.
Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system
software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them to
feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as
comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the
sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially
forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of software
must choose between friendship and obeying the law. Naturally, many decide
that friendship is more important. But those who believe in law often do
not feel at ease with either choice. They become cynical and think that
programming is just a way of making money.
By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can be
hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as an
example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in sharing.
This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if we use
software that is not free. For about half the programmers I talk to, this
is an important happiness that money cannot replace.
How You Can Contribute
I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money.
I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work.
One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will run
on them at an early date. The machines should be complete, ready to use
systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not in need of
sophisticated cooling or power.
I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time work for
GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hard
to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not work together.
But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. A
complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility programs, each of which
is documented separately. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix
compatibility. If each contributor can write a compatible replacement for
a single Unix utility, and make it work properly in place of the original
on a Unix system, then these utilities will work right when put together.
Even allowing for Murphy to create a few unexpected problems, assembling
these components will be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer
communication and will be worked on by a small, tight group.)
If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full or
part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but I'm
looking for people for whom building community spirit is as important as
making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated people to devote
their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them the need to make a
living in another way.
Why All Computer Users Will Benefit
Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software
free, just like air.
This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix license.
It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will
be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the
art.
Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user
who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself,
or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users
will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the
sources and is in sole position to make changes.
Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by
encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard's
computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be installed on
the system if its sources were not on public display, and upheld it by
actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very much inspired by
this.
Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and what
one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.
Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including licensing of
copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through the cumbersome
mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, which programs) a
person must pay for. And only a police state can force everyone to obey
them. Consider a space station where air must be manufactured at great
cost: charging each breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing the
metered gas mask all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone can
afford to pay the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere to see if you
ever take the mask off are outrageous. It's better to support the air
plant with a head tax and chuck the masks.
Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as
breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free.
Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals
"Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means
they can't rely on any support."
"You have to charge for the program
to pay for providing the support."
If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free without
service, a company to provide just service to people who have obtained GNU
free ought to be profitable.
We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming work
and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from a
software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough people, the
vendor will tell you to get lost.
If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way is to
have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any available
person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any individual.
With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of consideration for most
businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is still possible for there to
be no available competent person, but this problem cannot be blamed on
distibution arrangements. GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems,
only some of them.
Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need handholding:
doing things for them which they could easily do themselves but don't know
how.
Such services could be provided by companies that sell just hand-holding
and repair service. If it is true that users would rather spend money and
get a product with service, they will also be willing to buy the service
having got the product free. The service companies will compete in quality
and price; users will not be tied to any particular one. Meanwhile, those
of us who don't need the service should be able to use the program without
paying for the service.
"You cannot reach many people without advertising,
and you must charge for the program to support that."
"It's no use advertising a program people can get free."
There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be used to
inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But it may be
true that one can reach more microcomputer users with advertising. If this
is really so, a business which advertises the service of copying and
mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful enough to pay for its
advertising and more. This way, only the users who benefit from the
advertising pay for it.
On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and such
companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not really
necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates don't want
to let the free market decide this?
"My company needs a proprietary operating system
to get a competitive edge."
GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition.
You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your
competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in
other areas, while benefitting mutually in this one. If your business is
selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on
you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being
pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems.
I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many
manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.
"Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can
be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the
results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative
programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict
the use of these programs.
"Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?"
There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize
one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But
the means customary in the field of software today are based on
destruction.
Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is
destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that
the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity
derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict,
the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become
wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the
mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule.
Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards
information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so.
Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not
justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.
"Won't programmers starve?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot
manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But
we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the
street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit
assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly
be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be
possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as
now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is
the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were
prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to
other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are
always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is
now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered
an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If
programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In
practice they would still make considerably more than that.)
"Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?"
"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over other
people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.
People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights carefully
(such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual
property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the
government recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation for
specific purposes.
For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to
disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society
rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years for
a patent was short compared with the rate of advance of the state of the
art. Since patents are an issue only among manufacturers, for whom the
cost and effort of a license agreement are small compared with setting up
production, the patents often do not do much harm. They do not obstruct
most individuals who use patented products.
The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors
frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This
practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have survived
even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for the purpose
of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was invented--books,
which could be copied economically only on a printing press--it did little
harm, and did not obstruct most of th/duals w W/^kko)L(L( ZKW +W !ert} rights are just licenses granted by society
because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole would
benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we have to ask:
are we really better off granting such license? What kind of act are we
licensing a person to do?
The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundred
years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one
neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and
object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather
than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who
enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and
spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the
law enables him to.
"Competition makes things get done better."
The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we
encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way,
it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works
this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered and become
intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other strategies--such as,
attacking other runners. If the runners get into a fist fight, they will
all finish late.
Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a
fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem to
object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards you run, you
are allowed one kick."). He really ought to break them up, and penalize
runners for even trying to fight.
"Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?"
Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive.
Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually the
people who are best at it. There is no shortage of professional musicians
who keep at it even though they have no hope of making a living that way.
But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate to the
situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become less. So
the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced monetary
incentive? My experience shows that they will.
For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the
Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had
anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and
appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.
Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting
work for a lot of money.
What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than
riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will
come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in
competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the
high-paying ones are banned.
"We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we
stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey."
You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.
Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!
"Programmers need to make a living somehow."
In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways that
programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a program.
This way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen the
most money, not because it is the only way to make a living. It is easy to
find other ways if you want to find them. Here are a number of examples.
A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of
operating systems onto the new hardware.
The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could also
employ programmers.
People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware, asking for
donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services. I have
met people who are already working this way successfully.
Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues. A group
would contract with programming companies to write programs that the
group's members would like to use.
All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of
the price as a software tax. The government gives this to
an agency like the NSF to spend on software development.
But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development
himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate toz.Cofdis own choosing--often, chosen because he hopes to
use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any amount
of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.
The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of
the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.
The consequences:
* the computer-using community supports software development.
* this community decides what level of support is needed.
* users who care which projects their share is spent on
can choose this for themselves.
In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity
world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living.
People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun,
such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week
on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot
repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able
to make a living from programming.
We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole
society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this
has translated itself into leisure for workers because much
nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity.
The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles
against competition. Free software will greatly reduce these
drains in the area of software production. We must do this,
in order for technical gains in productivity to translate into
less work for us.
Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman
Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies
of this document as received, in any medium, provided that the
copyright notice and permission notice are preserved,
and that the distributor grants the recipient permission
for further redistribution as permitted by this notice.
Modified versions may not be made.
--
Mark Galassi
...!mozart!rosalia
{ These opinions are mine and should be everybody else's :-) }rcj@moss.ATT.COM (12/30/87)
[Quoted material from The GNU Manifesto, (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman - rcj] If someone would pass this on to Richard Stallman I'd appreciate it because I'd be interested in his responses -- hopefully he's reading this now. }Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user }who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, }or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users }will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the }sources and is in sole position to make changes. They'll still be at the mercy of that one programmer who made the changes in the system, because literally hundreds of incompatible versions of GNU are almost guaranteed by this system, and that means that the dream of freely sharing software goes down the tubes because the software worth sharing won't run on even a majority of the several hundreds of different home-brewed GNU variants around. You're shooting yourself in the foot. }Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by }encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard's You ever seen what happens to a system when you turn even very talented students loose on the system code? I have. I worked for 12 hours one day trying to figure out why my compiler didn't work anymore, and I finally had the C compiler compile a program consisting of setting an integer variable to 5 and immediately printing it -- and I got a large negative floating-point number! Turns out our most talented student had been tinkering with the C compiler source code. Once again, pull out that pistol and aim at your foot. }them. Consider a space station where air must be manufactured at great }cost: charging each breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing the }metered gas mask all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone can }afford to pay the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere to see if you }ever take the mask off are outrageous. It's better to support the air }plant with a head tax and chuck the masks. So you just want to give everyone a toolkit and unlock the door to the inner workings of the air plant and let everyone tinker with it, right? Or so you said previously... }If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free without }service, a company to provide just service to people who have obtained GNU }free ought to be profitable. Some of us people would rather pay for an operating system NOT developed by the classic hacker. Hackers write "nifty" code but they don't write maintainable code and they certainly don't document worth crap. You ever try to maintain/change code written by a hacker? *shudder* I don't mind doing my own support, but I'd have to see one hell of a big improvement in GNU before I would actually choose to let that be the software I *have* to support. }If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can And yet you are already saying that the programmers who work on GNU will not be rewarded monetarily for choosing a role of social contribution. So whether they deserve it or not, they won't get financial rewards. That Warm Fuzzy Feeling [tm] doesn't go very far with the landlord and the creditors. Why are all programmers, who seek to exercise an intellectual power that they find delicious to use, suddenly forced into a role of Mother Theresa-style martyrdom? }the means customary in the field of software today are based on }destruction. If you have a good product and good marketing (or, I'll admit, in *some* cases just good marketing), you will be successful. If you don't have a good product you won't be successful. Therefore, if your idea is good enough you can find money to buy today's software and much much much more than recoup that investment with the sales from your good product that was developed using today's software. If your idea is crappy you won't get backing, you won't be able to afford today's software, and you won't get to implement a crappy product and try to foist it on the marketplace. This is the free market that was so injuriously defended earlier in the Manifesto (it was not quoted here, sorry). A little double standard, perhaps? }Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is }the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were }prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to }other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are }always numerous ways to organize any kind of business. Restricting copying is not rejected by the customer for one simple reason: not just any Larry, Moe, or Curly from the street can write software. It is still very much a black art, sad to say. The customer always wants to do more and more for himself, and the software market *is* responding to that want. Expert systems, self-configuring software, easily reconfigured and well-optioned software are all on the rise -- customers are able to do more and more on their own due to quality products. Eventually there will come a day when the tools for software generation have reached such a refined state that the people who needed serious hand-holding ten years before will be able to generate their own software with relative ease. And thus THE FREE MARKET will have balanced itself out for the good of society -- ALL ON ITS OWN. }now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered }an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If }programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In With the tools available today, it *would* be an injustice because I can't take the average 18-year-old off the street and teach him/her to program efficiently, whereas I can use him/her as a sales clerk. That is why programmers get paid more. But, oops!, that's that old FREE MARKET cropping up again; supply and demand and all that. }"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over other }people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult. "If I wasn't here to have this nifty idea, your lives would be garbage, but since I am here and do have this idea, you have the choice of paying me a sum to make your life better. You have something you didn't have before -- the choice." Hmmmm, doesn't sound to me like I'm making their lives more difficult... }For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to }disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society }rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years for Um, ever considered the possibility that the government was looking out for the government a bit here, and that the government wanted to get a look at all new inventions to see what the government could do with them? Before you write this off as paranoia take a look at the military-industrial complex today... }The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors }frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This And thus many a fallacy, rather than being re-investigated individually, was instead blindly propogated, and that is one thing that is given credit for the unreliability of ancient historical accounts. }The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundred }years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one }neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and }object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather }than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who a) I can pick up the phone, give a credit card number, and receive almost any software I could possibly desire. b) Your statement that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed makes the assumptions that all programs are utility programs and that all books are for enjoyment only -- both of which are ludicrous. Paul Prudhomme, a chef who I admire greatly, spent years and years learning his art. He then spent thousands of dollars on a test kitchen and hundreds of hours in that kitchen making delicious, well-documented recipes that could be duplicated in the average home kitchen. The PROFITS from his cookbook allowed him to buy a tasso (special ham) and sausage processing plant, along with other investments, that gave him the financial wherewithall to comfortably go back into the test kitchen and produce another cookbook. This one was specifically designed to document and save cooking and food preparation practices in southern Louisianna that were fast dwindling and which he feared would be forgotten if not committed to paper. A very nice social contribution, and one that would have been extremely difficult if not impossible had he not been able to copyright and sell his first cookbook in the free market (damn, there it is again!) }Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually the }people who are best at it. There is no shortage of professional musicians I think we need a definition of "programming" here. The people I've seen who will program for no money tend to "design and code"; they don't do what I consider "programming", which includes rendering both the design and code in a form that is maintainable and understandable by/to others. They remind me of professional musicians who are wonderful to listen to but who never write down any of their songs or lyrics. You can listen to them and their recordings, but it is impossible to upgrade or improve their work because of the form in which it exists (or doesn't, as the case may be). }come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in }competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the }high-paying ones are banned. Now *there's* a free market for you! Yeah! :-( [Speaking of a Software Tax:] } * users who care which projects their share is spent on } can choose this for themselves. I do this now. I look around the marketplace, find the company with the best product, and reward them with my business. This hopefully encourages them to make more good products -- money is a good motivator. OK, the bottom line(s): a) I haven't seen GNU source in at least a year, and it may be that my objections are outdated. Anyone who would like to show me some, please feel free to send it (I will, of course, honor the free re-distribution clause if anyone asks for it). b) I think that GNU itself is an interesting idea, but any such software system had better be very good to start with, very well-documented, very maintainable, and very understandable. The idea that "well what do you want for nothing?!" just won't cut it for systems software. c) Believe it or not, I believe in my conception of shareware (binaries) and will gladly pay to register if the product is good, the support is good, and the provider(s) are responsive to requests. I believe in my conception of freeware (source), and will gladly send a donation to the provider(s) provided the product is good *and* maintainable *and* I can adapt it to my needs without having to rewrite half of it. I don't agree with the "give GNU to everybody and everybody who wants to will modify it and we'll live happily ever after" philosophy. That is why I *do* support shareware -- to keep a product portable and reliable and interfaceable to other software there needs to be some sort of centralized control. That is why, when I decide which word processor to use with my new PC and have used it long enough to know that I have made the correct choice, I will send the provider the registration fee and probably more. Because that way I will help to ensure a responsive supporter for the product I use, rather than trying Joe's version of the free source only to find out the hard way that it screws up my disk in some instances, and then trying Sally's version and find out that the way she was able to optimize it so well was by removing several features I like and need, and then trying Elvis' version only to discover that it crashes my machine because of the hook he put in to support his weird clone, and then trying... The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-6409 (Cornet 232) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
rst@think.COM (Robert Thau) (01/01/88)
In article <19303@clyde.ATT.COM> rcj@moss.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: ... basically, that the politco/economic parts of the GNU Manifesto don't seem to make a terrible lot of sense. It's hard to argue; as it stands, the document is more than a little incoherent. However, there are a few potshots in the article which are unfair to Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. First off, free software, qua free software, doesn't necessarily lead to chaos. GNU Emacs has certainly been around long enough for multiple, incompatible versions to become a problem, yet they haven't. One occasionally sees divergent streams of development; however, changes which are substantial and worthwhile eventually find themselves on the distribution tape. (For example, the VMS port had a separate existence while it was in development, but it has since been merged back). There are other large pieces of essentially free software that have survived like this as well; B News leaps to mind. In fact, there is *almost* an example of a free operating system. While MINIX isn't free, the source code is readily available as such things go, and there is already a large community devoted to hacking it. What the stable free programs I've seen (patch, rn, netnews, GNU Emacs, Microemacs, nethack, ad nauseam) all have in common are: *) an authority figure or organization which takes responsibilty for evaluating and incorporating new features, documenting changes, and releasing new versions. This is often the original author, but not always. -- and -- *) channels of communication which allow the user community (including hackers) to get new versions easily. (BTW, this is where money sneaks in. Something has to be motivating the coordinators-and-distributors-of-releases to do what is ultimately a difficult, tiresome, and often thankless job. Devotion to the good of the community may be enough for some people. Cash seems to be more universal). Secondly, in re: >You ever seen what happens to a system when you turn even very talented >students loose on the system code? I have... Stallman has; the MIT AI lab was like this at one point. What he doesn't seem to realize is how lucky he was. Such an environment does work, sort of, if the people are extremely competent, exceptionally tolerant of system breakage, and exceptionally intolerant of people who wade into system code without knowing *exactly* what they're doing. For the rest of us, Stallman's attitude towards security is a little unreasonable. As for me: I don't really see anything wrong with letting a student play around with a copy of, say, the C compiler. However, if it's the copy that *I'm* using, we're talking justifiable homicide ... rst
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (01/04/88)
In article <153@mozart.UUCP>, rosalia@mozart.UUCP (Mark Galassi) writes: > > The GNU Manifesto > > Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman (Copying permission notice at the end.) I won't comment on the "software terrorist" stuff at the end, except to say that it's a little out of touch with reality. Other people have already spent enough time rebutting this odious comparison. On the other hand: > What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix! Very true. GNU is even less in keeping with the spirit of UNIX than SysV and 4BSD are... and that's saying something. It's also not UNIX because... it doesn't exist. It probably will exist one day, but right now there is no such thing as GNU. There are a few very large programs out there that are supposed to have come from the GNU project, none of which will fit on any machine an individual can hope to own. > GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. Here's the beef... > We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience > with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have: > longer filenames Good idea. > file version numbers A bad idea. Firstly this capability already exists in the form of SCCS, secondly it increases the complexity of the system. You suddenly need more complex file names (one of UNIX' great features is that a file name is just a name with no internal organisation). > a crashproof file system Nice idea. Pretty common these days. I can't recall the last time I lost a file to a UNIX system crash. > filename completion perhaps Nice bell. > terminal-independent display support You mean curses? > and perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system... [ or X-Windows ] What? No lightweight processes? No real-time support? Doesn't sound like it's much (if any) of an improvement over UNIX. > GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with virtual > memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run on. The extra > effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someone who wants > to use it on them. And in the meantime Minix is already working on machines that will never fit GNU. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
rwa@auvax.UUCP (Ross Alexander) (01/05/88)
In article <1351@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > ... [GNU] probably will exist one day, but right now there is > no such thing as GNU. There are a few very large programs out there that > are supposed to have come from the GNU project, none of which will fit on > any machine an individual can hope to own. I believe that individuals can hope to own machines of the general { Symmetric 375 | Sun 3 | 6386 | <your-favourite-small-box-here> } class, and that indeed such private boxes will host GNU quite nicely. In fact, I'm sure (entirely without any anecdotal evidence, mind) that some people, more favoured by the ghods than myself, do own such boxes even as I write this. Jeeze, what a pessimist you are :-) :-) :-) Besides, I'll take a BSD flavour of U*nx over a v7-ish flavour any day. Of course, I'd rather have v7 while I'm waiting, too :-) Isn't it nice that I can have it both ways? Honestly, I can remember a day when the thought of owning an 8K MC6800 was beyond my means. Times they are a changin' :-) -- Ross Alexander, Sr Systems Programmer & Bottlewasher @ Athabasca University, alberta!auvax!rwa
snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) (01/07/88)
In article <1351@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > There are a few very large programs out there that >are supposed to have come from the GNU project, none of which will fit on >any machine an individual can hope to own. Incorrect. My home machine will run GNUmacs, and I know plenty of other people who own machines that will run it. >> GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with virtual >> memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run on. The extra >> effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someone who wants >> to use it on them. The expensive part of a home Unix machine is the disk, not the CPU/MMU/RAM. Disk space is still expensive, and the MTBF is, er, depressing. >And in the meantime Minix is already working on machines that will never fit >GNU. Minix is a very good thing. The IBM-PC however, is worthless for anything except running "Flight-simulator". Snoopy tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (01/12/88)
In article <9591@tekecs.TEK.COM>, snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) writes: > Minix is a very good thing. The IBM-PC however, is worthless for anything > except running "Flight-simulator". Smile when you say that... Better yet, tell it to the literally millions of executives who are doing useful work with them daily. They'll laugh you out of the office. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.
rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) (01/13/88)
>> Minix is a very good thing. The IBM-PC however, is worthless for anything >> except running "Flight-simulator". >Smile when you say that... >Better yet, tell it to the literally millions of executives who are doing >useful work with them daily. They'll laugh you out of the office. executives? pc's? useful work? paper weights secretary running lotus terminal emulation secretary running lotus impress business associates and friends secretary running lotus the hard disks are good for storing out of date software. secretary running lotus scream for more useful products like os/2 secretary running lotus rob -- william robertson rob@philabs.philips.com
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (01/14/88)
In article <9591@tekecs.TEK.COM>, snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) writes: > Incorrect. My home machine will run GNUmacs, and I know plenty of other > people who own machines that will run it. I guess my home computer could run GNUmacs, but I'd need two diskettes to fit everything I need to bring it up. What's your machine, that you run GNUmacs on? A 3b2 or equivalent? A home computer should cost no more than a small fraction of the price of a small car. I'll amend my statement to read that GNU can not run on any machine that any significant numbers of individuals can hope to own. > The expensive part of a home Unix machine is the disk, not the CPU/MMU/RAM. > Disk space is still expensive, and the MTBF is, er, depressing. A 20 megabyte drive and controller for the IBM-PC costs on the order of a couple of hundred dollars. A megabyte of DRAMS costs a substantial fraction of that. And the HP Integral should pretty much discount any claim that you need a hard disk to run UNIX. Too bad HP was still in their Hypercharge (we're real proud of our machines, and we think you should pay lots and lots for them) mode. > Minix is a very good thing. The IBM-PC however, is worthless for anything > except running "Flight-simulator". The IBM-PC is the cheapest machine you can run UNIX on... and even then the UNIX is way too bloated. Let me tell you a story... once upon a time there was a good little operating system named Version 7... > > Snoopy > tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy > snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) (01/16/88)
In article <3144@briar.Philips.Com>, rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) writes: > > >> Minix is a very good thing. The IBM-PC however, is worthless for anything > >> except running "Flight-simulator". > > >Smile when you say that... > >Better yet, tell it to the literally millions of executives who are doing > >useful work with them daily. They'll laugh you out of the office. > > executives? pc's? useful work? > > paper weights > terminal emulation > secretary running lotus > impress business associates and friends > scream for more useful products like os/2 > the hard disks are good for storing out of date software. [ lines rearranged to make a nicer looking pattern ] > -- > william robertson Let's not confuse the hardware with the software. I have a '386 at home running Xenix at this very moment. PC's are very useful. You can use them to port your software to and lose the rest of the hair you haven't lost just yet. You can run flight simulator between boots when you take the machine down to install yet another megabyte of memory. You can avoid buying more terminals because SCO Xenix has that multi- window deal you can do with ALT-F1 and so on. They really are fast. In huge model it benchmarks the same as my 5 year old 6MHz 68000 box. With one wait state memory. The best way to compile C programs is cc -M3s -O. Anything but -M2h. - John. -- John F. Haugh II SNAIL: HECI Exploration Co. Inc. UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!jfh 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600 "Don't Have an Oil Well? ... Dallas, TX. 75243 ... Then Buy One!" (214) 231-0993 Ext 260
jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) (01/17/88)
In article <1393@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <9591@tekecs.TEK.COM>, snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) writes: > > Incorrect. My home machine will run GNUmacs, and I know plenty of other > > people who own machines that will run it. > > A home computer should cost no more than a small fraction of the price of > a small car. I'll amend my statement to read that GNU can not run on any > machine that any significant numbers of individuals can hope to own. My home machine cost more than my Fiero. I make a living off of this business, so why not have a machine worth writing home about? Does 5900 Dhrystones sound impressive? My first system was $8,000 about 6 years ago. The return on the investment isn't possible to figure, but I think having a Unix box in the bedroom helped get the last few jobs. > > > The expensive part of a home Unix machine is the disk, not the CPU/MMU/RAM. > > Disk space is still expensive, and the MTBF is, er, depressing. > > A 20 megabyte drive and controller for the IBM-PC costs on the order of a > couple of hundred dollars. A megabyte of DRAMS costs a substantial fraction > of that. > Even static column rams cost CHEAP. I think a 80387 is more than a 20MB drive and controller, or 1MB of 120ns static column DRAM. The really exensive part is the sheet metal they make the box out of. The CPU boards cost the manufacturers under $1000, but they wrap then in tin and sell the machine (remember, the disks and memory and such cost extra) for $3000+. Pretty expensive tin. > Let me tell you a story... once upon a time there was > a good little operating system named Version 7... Don't say that too loud, Guy Harris over at Sun's Bigger and Better Kernel department might get miffed. Who needs all that new junk. Shared memory, semaphores, process control, yick! I've got a better story. Once upon a time, all the documentation fit into two books, each about the size of a phone book ... > > Snoopy > -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter - John. -- John F. Haugh II SNAIL: HECI Exploration Co. Inc. UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!jfh 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600 "Don't Have an Oil Well? ... Dallas, TX. 75243 ... Then Buy One!" (214) 231-0993 Ext 260
egisin@orchid.waterloo.edu (Eric Gisin) (01/17/88)
In article <2930@killer.UUCP>, jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: > Let's not confuse the hardware with the software. I have a '386 at home > running Xenix at this very moment. [...] > They really are fast. In huge model it benchmarks the same as my 5 year > old 6MHz 68000 box. With one wait state memory. I didn't know the 386 was *that* slow.
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/19/88)
> > >> Minix is a very good thing. The IBM-PC however, is worthless for anything > >> except running "Flight-simulator". > > >Smile when you say that... > >Better yet, tell it to the literally millions of executives who are doing > >useful work with them daily. They'll laugh you out of the office. > > executives? pc's? useful work? > > paper weights > secretary running lotus > terminal emulation > secretary running lotus > impress business associates and friends > secretary running lotus > the hard disks are good for storing out of date software. > secretary running lotus > scream for more useful products like os/2 > secretary running lotus > > > rob If this weren't typical of the elitist hostility to PCs on USENET (and a few other places), I would ignore it. LOTS of useful work is getting done out there by executives -- and I don't mean the "secretary running lotus". (The last place I worked, the General Manager put his own spreadsheets together, his own presentation graphics for corporate headquarters). Finance used PCs for financial projections. Personnel used PCs for word processing. Why this absurd claim that "useful work" isn't getting done on PCs? Just because it doesn't run UNIX? Or is because some people don't know anything about PCs, and to hide their ignorance, downplay it's usefulness. I wouldn't develop a large project with multiple programmers on a single PC -- I would use a multiuser UNIX system. But I there are definitely areas where the PC really shines -- word processing, for example. Clayton E. Cramer
tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) (01/21/88)
In article <1848@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > [comments deleted] > ...there are definitely >areas where the PC really shines -- word processing, for example. I'm sure that there are many, many people who would vehemently disagree with this claim. The IBM PC's problems are well-known, and mostly reflect bad original design. The PC was not state-of-the-art in 1981, and is far from it today. Whether this was deliberate IBM policy, or just necessary cost-cutting, is a topic that has been debated for a long while, and I don't want to get into it now. But suffice it to say the the keyboard, the display hardware, and the WP software available are, to put it succinctly, miserable. This is not an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. It is one shared by many, many people who have had to use this piece of sh*t to do word-processing.
rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) (01/22/88)
In article <1848@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >Smile when you say that... >> >Better yet, tell it to the literally millions of executives who are doing >> >useful work with them daily. They'll laugh you out of the office. me executives? pc's? useful work? me me paper weights me secretary running lotus me terminal emulation me secretary running lotus me impress business associates and friends me secretary running lotus me the hard disks are good for storing out of date software. me secretary running lotus me scream for more useful products like os/2 me secretary running lotus me me rob > >If this weren't typical of the elitist hostility to PCs on USENET (and a >few other places), I would ignore it. > >LOTS of useful work is getting done out there by executives -- and I don't >mean the "secretary running lotus". (The last place I worked, the General >Manager put his own spreadsheets together, his own presentation graphics >for corporate headquarters). sensitive about something clayton? my article/commentary was not on pc's, but executives using them for `useful` work. i've seen alot of executives with pc's, most use them as giant terminals (but heaven forbid you try and replace it with a terminal), most don't know how to use them. many are just used as status symbols ("I've got a color monitor what do you have?"), and decorations to sit on the desk. i too think pc's can be useful, it's just that the waste bothers me. please note, that this MY generalization, and that not every executive with a pc is computer illiterate, but alot are. remember the usenet golden rule: the average american reads at a 5th grade level. rob
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/23/88)
> In article <1848@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > [comments deleted] > > ...there are definitely > >areas where the PC really shines -- word processing, for example. > > I'm sure that there are many, many people who would vehemently disagree > with this claim. The IBM PC's problems are well-known, and mostly > reflect bad original > design. The PC was not state-of-the-art in 1981, and is far from it today. > Whether this was deliberate IBM policy, or just necessary cost-cutting, > is a topic > that has been debated for a long while, and I don't want to get into it now. > > But suffice it to say the the keyboard, the display hardware, and the > WP software available are, to put it succinctly, miserable. This is not > an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. It is one shared by many, many people who > have had to use this piece of sh*t to do word-processing. Excuse me? Compared to what? Compared to poor suckers using troff on UNIX systems? Being "state-of-the-art" is not a requirement to being a useful computer. Keyboard? I found the original PC keyboard a damn nuisance -- for about a week. The 101-key "Enhanced" AT keyboard is badly suited to using the control key, which on some word processors and program editors is a real problem. There are other word processors like Microsoft Word that make little use of the control key. There are some pretty impressive word processors out there that run on Sun hardware -- at about 5-6 times the price of a PC. But overall, the UNIX environment is notable for being 10 years behind the times. Clayton E. Cramer
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (01/23/88)
In <3186@briar.Philips.Com> rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) writes: > i've seen alot of executives with pc's [...] most don't know how to > use them. many are just used as status symbols And not just PC's. Around here, the status symbol is having a Sun-3/50 on your desk. We have a number of them, allocated to individual researchers in some manner, the logic of which escapes me. We have one particular person who demanded (for no good reason) and got a Sun but, to the best of my knowledge, rarely even turns it on. When statistics once showed that person and that Sun way at the bottom of the usage statistics an attempt was made to reallocate the hardware to where it might be used better. Not a chance. Oh well, at least the cpu cycles don't go to waste; little does this person know just how many big troff jobs get run on that machine via rlogins. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/24/88)
In article <2228@gryphon.CTS.COM> tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) writes: [on the IBM PC] >But suffice it to say the the keyboard, the display hardware, and the >WP software available are, to put it succinctly, miserable. This is not >an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. It is one shared by many, many people who >have had to use this piece of sh*t to do word-processing. No, it's an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. Fact one: there are, without significant doubt, more people doing word processing, by far, on IBM PCs or PC clones than any other system available. Fact two: there are more, and better, word processing packages available for the PC than for any other large-market computer system. While there may well be better systems available for some specialty machines, nothing matches the PC for flexibility and price. I've done word processing tasks on many machines; for all-round flexibility, I'll take the PC over anything else I've ever used. P.S. - If anyone else ever made a keyboard as good as the PC's, I might think about changing my mind. Now THAT is an idiosyncratic opinion! -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
egisin@orchid.waterloo.edu (Eric Gisin) (01/25/88)
In article <610@gethen.UUCP>, farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: > In article <2228@gryphon.CTS.COM> tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) writes: > [on the IBM PC] > >But suffice it to say the the keyboard, the display hardware, and the > >WP software available are, to put it succinctly, miserable. This is not > >an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. It is one shared by many, many people who > >have had to use this piece of sh*t to do word-processing. > > No, it's an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. Fact one: there are, without > significant doubt, more people doing word processing, by far, on IBM PCs Fact zero: there are more people doing X on ibm PCs than on any other system available. So fact one almost follows naturally. > or PC clones than any other system available. Fact two: there are more, we don't need quantity, we need quality. > and better, word processing packages available for the PC than for any > other large-market computer system. While there may well be better > systems available for some specialty machines, nothing matches the PC Most PCers doing word processing use Wordstar and Wordperfect. No-one would put up with that sort of trash on a Mac. (though some seem to put up with on the Atari ST, I don't know why). > for flexibility and price. I've done word processing tasks on many Any 68000 personal computer beats an AT class machine for price. > machines; for all-round flexibility, I'll take the PC over anything > else I've ever used. Any word processor on the Mac/Amiga/I'm_not_sure_about_the_ST is easier to use and more powerful that comparible PC products. (you even get WYSIWYG, not 80 column by 25 row tty emulation).
austin@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (Glenn Austin) (01/26/88)
>>But suffice it to say the the keyboard, the display hardware, and the >>WP software available are, to put it succinctly, miserable. This is not >>an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. It is one shared by many, many people who >>have had to use this piece of sh*t to do word-processing. > > No, it's an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. Fact one: there are, without > significant doubt, more people doing word processing, by far, on IBM PCs > or PC clones than any other system available. I, being a humble being, would not dare to dispute the accuraccy of your fact, seeing as it's probably true. Yet, I fail to see how this supports your argument. For instance, I can with some certainty, state that most adults in the United States drink alcohol instead of certain other beverages for recreation. I cannot say that, therefore, alchol is better, something that I am sure most of you will agree is not true... (That doesn't stop one from consuming it however, as most of us well know) > Fact two: there are more, > and better, word processing packages available for the PC than for any > other large-market computer system. While there may well be better > systems available for some specialty machines, nothing matches the PC > for flexibility and price. I've done word processing tasks on many > machines; for all-round flexibility, I'll take the PC over anything > else I've ever used. I work in an enviroment that is virtually overwhelmed with the presence of IBM PCs. fortunately, we do not have to rely upon them, as we also have other machines. It is my job to help people that come into my lab use the machine of their choice with software and peripherals. In terms of comparative returns for money spent on hardware, and in terms of efficeincy for the users of my lab, the IBM PC is a dismal failure. Superficially, the machine has some advantages. The software is relatively straight-forward, the features broad, the interface, if not pleasant, at least not cumbersome. Indeed, I have dozens of people come in a week, with Superficially, the machine has some advantages. The software is relatively straight forward, and the interface is, If not pleasant, at least bearable. projects ranging from one page resumes to 500 page Phd thesis's come through my lab, and most of them are competantly produced and entered. Perhaps one time in ten things will work smoothly, their file will print, and they will go their merry way, unknowing that they have narrowly escaped the IBM pit. for the other nine tenths, however, it is a different story. Their document can be printed, but it yeilds different margins than those set so clearly in the software, the software is uncapable of laser-printing, the footnotes don't print, underlining, italics, boldfacing doesn't work. And heaven forbid, the want to use a nice typestyle, something proportianally spaced! No, if an IBM PC user (though not an expert, I admit) wishes to to print his document, he is doomed to courier 12-point 10-pitch. In all fairness, other machines in our lab have the same problem. I can state, with total conviction, that for every problem they have, the IBM PCs have three, that for every 5 promblems we solve with the other machines we solve one with the IBM PC. At that for every hour we spend on a problem on a non IBM, we spend 2 on an IBM. Take for instance, the two most popular machines we have for the sort of work we do. The IBM PC and the Apple Macintosh. I often find that it is less time consumig to train a person to use the Macintosh and have them retype their resume, than it is to solve the near insolvable problems presented by something as simple as a font change on an Laser printer witha IBM. People leave the lab with mixed feelings, some wish to remain with the IBM or clone that they have already purchased, but are deathly afraid that the next time they need something printed they will have the same problems all over again. Others are glad that tehy don't own an IBM. and still others actually tell me that they have decided to pay a typist the next time they need something done, simply to save themselves the pain. No, The IBM is unfortunately a common machine, one that is around and has to be dealt with, yet I would by no means call it the better alternatative, and I would by no means allow myself to be swayed by the thought that just because the IBM PC happens to be used by more people, it is a better machine. Mr. X. The X-traordinary! austin@gumby.cs.wisc.edu Go ahead!! flame me! I'm wearing IBA! (not a computer joke, don't worry.) Disclaimer: The above stuff doesn't have anything to do with my employers
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/28/88)
> >>But suffice it to say the the keyboard, the display hardware, and the > >>WP software available are, to put it succinctly, miserable. This is not > >>an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. It is one shared by many, many people who > >>have had to use this piece of sh*t to do word-processing. > > > I work in an enviroment that is virtually overwhelmed with the presence > of IBM PCs. fortunately, we do not have to rely upon them, as we also > have other machines. It is my job to help people that come into my lab > use the machine of their choice with software and peripherals. In terms > of comparative returns for money spent on hardware, and in terms of > efficeincy for the users of my lab, the IBM PC is a dismal failure. > Superficially, the machine has some advantages. The software is relatively > straight-forward, the features broad, the interface, if not pleasant, at > least not cumbersome. Indeed, I have dozens of people come in a week, with > Superficially, the machine has some advantages. The software is relatively > straight forward, and the interface is, If not pleasant, at least bearable. > projects ranging from one page resumes to 500 page Phd thesis's come through > my lab, and most of them are competantly produced and entered. Perhaps one > time in ten things will work smoothly, their file will print, and they will > go their merry way, unknowing that they have narrowly escaped the IBM pit. > for the other nine tenths, however, it is a different story. Their document > can be printed, but it yeilds different margins than those set so clearly > in the software, the software is uncapable of laser-printing, the footnotes > don't print, underlining, italics, boldfacing doesn't work. And heaven > forbid, the want to use a nice typestyle, something proportianally spaced! > No, if an IBM PC user (though not an expert, I admit) wishes to to print > his document, he is doomed to courier 12-point 10-pitch. See Microsoft Word for good support of HP and PostScript laser printers. See practically any word processing package you can name for support for proportionally spaced print. Perhaps you are confusing the deficiencies of your printers with the PC. You *are* confusing the deficiencies of the software that is in use at your site with a deficiency of the computer. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/28/88)
> In article <610@gethen.UUCP>, farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: > > In article <2228@gryphon.CTS.COM> tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) writes: > > [on the IBM PC] > > >But suffice it to say the the keyboard, the display hardware, and the > > >WP software available are, to put it succinctly, miserable. This is not > > >an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. It is one shared by many, many people who > > >have had to use this piece of sh*t to do word-processing. > > > > No, it's an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. Fact one: there are, without > > significant doubt, more people doing word processing, by far, on IBM PCs > > Fact zero: there are more people doing X on ibm PCs than on any > other system available. So fact one almost follows naturally. > > > or PC clones than any other system available. Fact two: there are more, > we don't need quantity, we need quality. The original claim was that useful work isn't done on PCs; hence quantity is an issue. > > and better, word processing packages available for the PC than for any > > other large-market computer system. While there may well be better > > systems available for some specialty machines, nothing matches the PC > > Most PCers doing word processing use Wordstar and Wordperfect. > No-one would put up with that sort of trash on a Mac. > (though some seem to put up with on the Atari ST, I don't know why). > > > for flexibility and price. I've done word processing tasks on many > Any 68000 personal computer beats an AT class machine for price. The Atari ST is definitely cheaper than the AT clones -- but what I've seen of Atari quality makes me suspect this isn't an "apples to apples" comparision. Macs are definitely more expensive than AT clones. > > machines; for all-round flexibility, I'll take the PC over anything > > else I've ever used. > > Any word processor on the Mac/Amiga/I'm_not_sure_about_the_ST > is easier to use and more powerful that comparible PC products. > (you even get WYSIWYG, not 80 column by 25 row tty emulation). I'm currently producing documents on both the Mac with Microsoft Word, and on the PC with Microsoft Word. The Mac version is definitely nicer to use (WYSIWYG), but there's definitely a price you pay -- the Mac is slower than a comparable AT because of WYSIWYG. But you know, I find that I seldom need the WYSIWYG features on the Mac for pure text. (Merging text and drawings it is very nice). On the AT, Word does a fine job -- and if you are using style sheets, you seldom care what the output will EXACTLY look like. Of course, when Microsoft finally gets Word running under Windows, the whole discussion will evaporate. (Windows Write is to real word processing as MacWrite was to real word processing). Clayton E. Cramer
snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) (01/28/88)
In article <1393@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <9591@tekecs.TEK.COM>, snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) writes: >> Incorrect. My home machine will run GNUmacs, and I know plenty of other >> people who own machines that will run it. >I guess my home computer could run GNUmacs, but I'd need two diskettes to >fit everything I need to bring it up. >What's your machine, that you run GNUmacs on? A 3b2 or equivalent? A Tek 6130. NS32016 @10MHz, MMU (16MB virtual process limit), FPU, 3MB RAM, 40MB disk, color bit-mapped integrated display, screaming tape... >A home computer should cost no more than a small fraction of the price of >a small car. I'll amend my statement to read that GNU can not run on any >machine that any significant numbers of individuals can hope to own. Priced cars lately? :-( Prices for machines powerful enough to run GNU are dropping. >> The expensive part of a home Unix machine is the disk, not the CPU/MMU/RAM. >> Disk space is still expensive, and the MTBF is, er, depressing. >A 20 megabyte drive and controller for the IBM-PC costs on the order of a >couple of hundred dollars. A megabyte of DRAMS costs a substantial fraction >of that. A 20 meg drive doesn't cut it. (neither does my 40, but like I said, disk space is expensive...) If you want to do software development, run news and mail, etc, you quickly need a few hundred megabytes. >The IBM-PC is the cheapest machine you can run UNIX on... and even then the >UNIX is way too bloated. Let me tell you a story... once upon a time there was >a good little operating system named Version 7... (a) The IBM-PC doesn't have memory management. (b) The hardware can be *destroyed* by software. Totally unacceptable. And before v7 was v6. I never used v7, but v6 was amasingly fast. MINIX is supposed to be ~v7. Put MINIX on a 386 machine, do a bit of work on it and you might have something. Snoopy tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com
snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) (01/28/88)
In article <1848@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > But I there are definitely >areas where the PC really shines -- word processing, for example. So how come a friend of mine, who hasn't used UNIX in two years, and who uses IBM-PCs and Macs all day long at work, LEAPED at the chance to use my UNIX system to do a few pages of personal wordprocessing? The first production application of UNIX was text processing. Books are typeset using UNIX. How many books do you have on your shelf that were typeset under MS-DOS? Snoopy tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com
wpnst@cisunx.UUCP (Bill 'Deus' Nixon) (01/28/88)
In article <2576@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) writes: > >What's more, COBOL is without doubt the best language available for writing >mainframe business applications. Just look around you. There are more >mainframe business applications written in COBOL than in perhaps any other high >level language. And more mainframe software maintenance engineers use COBOL >than any other HLL. > COBOL is the best ? I won't say anything about that. Could start yet another holy war. The only reason that COBOL is so widely used is that 70% of all business programs are written in it. Why ? Cause COBOL was the best HLL around at the time avaiable to alot of people and computers. The software maintenace engineers are just saving money working in COBOL on COBOL programs. Why spend the time and money to convert a working program to another language to add a few new features ? -- Bill 'Deus' Nixon One of the Univ. Of Pgh ZETS ! mail : wpnst@pittvms.BITNET wpnst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.EDU {allegra, cadre, psuvax1}!pitt!cisunx!wpnst
spectre@mit-vax.LCS.MIT.EDU (Joseph D. Morrison) (01/29/88)
In article <6472@cisunx.UUCP> wpnst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Bill 'Deus' Nixon) writes: >In article <2576@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) writes: >>What's more, COBOL is without doubt the best language available for writing >>mainframe business applications. Just look around you. There are more >>mainframe business applications written in COBOL than in perhaps any other high >>level language. And more mainframe software maintenance engineers use COBOL >>than any other HLL. >COBOL is the best ? I won't say anything about that. Could start yet >another holy war. Lang's article is quoted slightly out of context here... He was being sarcastic! He was refuting the argument that "PCs are great for word processing because lots of people use them". Now that I'm posting, I think I'll put my two cents in! I use TeX and LaTeX for almost all of my text processing, and I think lots of other people use those packages too. I really don't care if I'm running it on a VAX, an IBM PC, a Macintosh or a Symbolics 3600. (The IBM-PC keyboard has a crumby layout, but I get used to it.) I'm a Mac fan, and disapprove of IBM-PCs as much as any politically correct computer science person :-) :-) :-) :-), but one must admit, in terms of typeset pages per minute per dollar, the IBM-PC beats everything else... Joe Morrison -- MIT Laboratory for Computer Science UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!vx!spectre 545 Technology Square, NE43-425 ARPA: spectre@vx.lcs.mit.edu Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 253-5881 -- "That's no answer. That's not even science!"
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (01/29/88)
In article <2947@killer.UUCP>, jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: > In article <1393@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > > A home computer should cost no more than a small fraction of the price of > > a small car. I'll amend my statement to read that GNU can not run on any > > machine that any significant numbers of individuals can hope to own. > My home machine cost more than my Fiero. I make a living off of this > business, so why not have a machine worth writing home about? Does > 5900 Dhrystones sound impressive? My first system was $8,000 about 6 > years ago. The return on the investment isn't possible to figure, but > I think having a Unix box in the bedroom helped get the last few jobs. That's not a home computer... that's a business computer. You just happen to be operating a business in your home. I know a few people with that sort of setup. I'm not one of them. > > > > A 20 megabyte drive and controller for the IBM-PC costs on the order of a > > couple of hundred dollars. A megabyte of DRAMS costs a substantial fraction > > of that. > Who needs all that new junk. Shared memory, > semaphores, process control, yick! I could use all that junk, if they could do it right. Neither System V nor BSD do. I wish one or the other would sit down and think about consistency, efficiency, and the principle of least astonishment. Whoever did it would win big... > "Don't Have an Oil Well? ... Then Buy One!" Shouldn't that be... "Don't have an oil well? Count your blessings!" -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
greg@xios.XIOS.UUCP (Greg Franks) (01/29/88)
Many writers have written about how lousy the IBM interface is. I happened to read an article in PC-Week which said that the average IBM PClone user knew 1.3 applications (probably lotus) wheras the average Mac user knew 4-6 (I'm sorry, I don't have a reference, nor do I feel like finding one). I guess that is why we are getting SAA and the `presentation manager' What does this have to do with GNU anyway... By the way - the user interface on UNIX is the pits too. Consistency is the key word! -- Greg Franks XIOS Systems Corporation, 1600 Carling Avenue, (613) 725-5411 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Z 8R8 utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!xios!greg "There's so much to sea in Nova Scotia"
langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) (01/30/88)
In article <2576@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner [me]) writes: >> >>What's more, COBOL is without doubt the best language available for writing >>mainframe business applications. ... There are more mainframe business >>applications written in COBOL ... more software maintenance engineers use >>COBOL... In article <6472@cisunx.UUCP> wpnst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Bill 'Deus' Nixon) responds:> >The only reason that COBOL is so widely used is that 70% of all business >programs are written in it. Why ? Cause COBOL was the best HLL around >at the time avaiable to alot of people and computers. ^^^^^^^^^^^ In my original posting, I meant to use these very facts to support the argument that the fact that something is prevalent does not mean it is superior. Of *course* COBOL is not the superior HLL. The quote which Bill extracted should have included smileys to indicate my intended sarcasm, and was meant to illustrate the absurdity of the "prevalent ==> superior" claim. Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner langz@athena.mit.edu ihnp4!mit-eddie!athena.mit.edu!langz "No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the only misfortune is to do it solemnly" --Michel de Montaigne
bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger) (01/31/88)
In article <3474@mit-vax.LCS.MIT.EDU> spectre@mit-vax.UUCP (Joseph D. Morrison) writes: >I use TeX and LaTeX for almost all of my text processing > . . . >in terms >of typeset pages per minute per dollar, the IBM-PC beats everything else... No. in terms of typeset pages per minute per dollar, the Amiga beats everything else hands down. (At least if you use TeX / LaTeX.) Plus you get to run your previewer and formatter at the same time since it's multitasking. (Boy has this ``GNU Manifesto'' discussion gotten wide-ranging!) -- --Brian. (Brian T. Schellenberger) ...!mcnc!rti!sas!bts DISCLAIMER: Whereas Brian Schellenberger (hereinafter "the party of the first
austin@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (Glenn Austin) (02/01/88)
>> I work in an enviroment that is virtually overwhelmed with the presence >> of IBM PCs. fortunately, we do not have to rely upon them, as we also >> have other machines. It is my job to help people that come into my lab >> use the machine of their choice with software and peripherals. In terms >> of comparative returns for money spent on hardware, and in terms of >> efficeincy for the users of my lab, the IBM PC is a dismal failure. > > See Microsoft Word for good support of HP and PostScript laser printers. > See practically any word processing package you can name for support for > proportionally spaced print. Perhaps you are confusing the deficiencies > of your printers with the PC. You *are* confusing the deficiencies of the > software that is in use at your site with a deficiency of the computer. I do use MS Word, and it is certainly my first choice for the IBM PC, as it works better than anything else. Yet, if you take the logical next step, and compare it with MS Word on the Macintosh, you will find that it falls short. As for handling proportionally spaced print, on a machine that can't even display such print on the monitor, I'll beleive it when I see it. As far as I, and many other serious users are concerned, a deficiency with the software available for a machine IS a deficiency of the machine! -- Mr. X. the X-traordinary! My employers could care less what I say, so it has nothing to do with them!
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (02/01/88)
In article <9670@tekecs.TEK.COM>, snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) writes: > In article <1393@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >The IBM-PC is the cheapest machine you can run UNIX on... and even then the > >UNIX is way too bloated. > > (a) The IBM-PC doesn't have memory management. (b) The hardware can be > *destroyed* by software. Totally unacceptable. One of my home machines, an 8Mhz '286 box, runs MicroPort's System V. It is slower than DOS, but not unacceptably slow. And, since I can use FOUR virtual consoles, I can be off editing, or reading news, or something equally entertaining WHILE a large compile runs. Try that on DOS. Plus, the '286 DOES have memory management. And now, with '386 boxes in the < $2,000 range, most who are serious enough about computers to WANT unix at home can afford a '386 box with a MiniScribe 73 Meg disk for < $3,000 for the system. And that, friends, IS enough to do some software developement, have news on, and even give a couple of accounts to your friends.
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (02/01/88)
In article <19303@clyde.ATT.COM> rcj@moss.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: >If someone would pass this on to Richard Stallman I'd appreciate it because >I'd be interested in his responses -- hopefully he's reading this now. [followed by various criticisms of GNU and the FSF] Richard Stallman doesn't have time to read the news, and he has given up trying to defend his ideas. He is going to write GNU and he hopes that people will find it useful. I suspect that GNU will be successful if only because user groups will pay for GNU to be ported to their machines. -- -russ AT&T: (315)268-6591 BITNET: NELSON@CLUTX Internet: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu GEnie: BH01 Compu$erve: 70441,205
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/02/88)
> >> I work in an enviroment that is virtually overwhelmed with the presence > >> of IBM PCs. fortunately, we do not have to rely upon them, as we also > >> have other machines. It is my job to help people that come into my lab > >> use the machine of their choice with software and peripherals. In terms > >> of comparative returns for money spent on hardware, and in terms of > >> efficeincy for the users of my lab, the IBM PC is a dismal failure. > > > > See Microsoft Word for good support of HP and PostScript laser printers. > > See practically any word processing package you can name for support for > > proportionally spaced print. Perhaps you are confusing the deficiencies > > of your printers with the PC. You *are* confusing the deficiencies of the > > software that is in use at your site with a deficiency of the computer. > > I do use MS Word, and it is certainly my first choice for the IBM PC, as it > works better than anything else. Yet, if you take the logical next step, > and compare it with MS Word on the Macintosh, you will find that it falls > short. As for handling proportionally spaced print, on a machine that can't > even display such print on the monitor, I'll beleive it when I see it. Are you saying that Word doesn't provide proportional spacing? I KNOW FOR A FACT that it does on the Epson LQ800, and the Apple LaserWriter -- both by looking at the printed pages, and by examing the control codes sent by MS Word. > As far as I, and many other serious users are concerned, a > deficiency with the software available for a machine IS a deficiency > of the machine! -- If you insist on that viewpoint, then MS Word definitely makes the PC superior to the vast majority of UNIX systems out there for word processing. Most of these systems don't even HAVE word processing -- they have troff and an editor. My experience has been that a lot of UNIX-snobs have NEVER done word processing -- they think troff is a word processor. (Sort of like calling a hammer a "high-tech tool".) Clayton E. Cramer
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (02/02/88)
In article <3186@briar.Philips.Com> rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) writes: >remember the usenet golden rule: the average american reads at a 5th >grade level. Remember the other Golden Rule: The average usenet poster is IN the 5th grade.
mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) (02/02/88)
In article <1902@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > My experience has been that a lot of UNIX-snobs have NEVER done word > processing -- they think troff is a word processor. (Sort of like calling > a hammer a "high-tech tool".) > > Clayton E. Cramer I have used word processors, a bunch of them. I'll take my favorite editor plus TeX any day. Why do you suppose most UNIX-snobs have never used a word processor? Hint: it's not because there aren't any available. -- Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4}!arizona!mike Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-4252
austin@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (Glenn Austin) (02/03/88)
>> I do use MS Word, and it is certainly my first choice for the IBM PC, as it >> works better than anything else. Yet, if you take the logical next step, >> and compare it with MS Word on the Macintosh, you will find that it falls >> short. As for handling proportionally spaced print, on a machine that can't >> even display such print on the monitor, I'll beleive it when I see it. > Are you saying that Word doesn't provide proportional spacing? I KNOW FOR A > FACT that it does on the Epson LQ800, and the Apple LaserWriter -- both > by looking at the printed pages, and by examing the control codes sent > by MS Word. OOPS! I did not mean to imply that MS word did not handle proportional text, this is patently untrue. I do mean to make the point that even it does not handle proportionally spaced text well, do to the lack of a WYSIWYG type interface. This is a major problem with IBM word processors. >> As far as I, and many other serious users are concerned, a >> deficiency with the software available for a machine IS a deficiency >> of the machine! -- > If you insist on that viewpoint, then MS Word definitely makes the PC > superior to the vast majority of UNIX systems out there for word processing. > Most of these systems don't even HAVE word processing -- they have troff > and an editor. Of course! any PC is vastly superior to that type of text handling. I agree! But this doesn't say anything too great. for a single user machine, troff and an editor are not really all that hard to beat. > My experience has been that a lot of UNIX-snobs have NEVER done word > processing -- they think troff is a word processor. (Sort of like calling > a hammer a "high-tech tool".) This may very well be true... This may be extremely accurate... BUT WHY THE H*LL ARE YOU CALLING ME A UNIX-SLOB!!! I could care less about UNIX. Mr. X. the X-traordinary! austin@gumby.cs.wisc.edu Reality is but a subset of all the possibilities.
urban@spp2.UUCP (Michael Urban) (02/04/88)
In article <3678@megaron.arizona.edu> mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes: >I have used word processors, a bunch of them. I'll take my favorite >editor plus TeX any day. > >Why do you suppose most UNIX-snobs have never used a word processor? >Hint: it's not because there aren't any available. > To expand on Mr. Coffin's point: I have found that LaTeX (or Scribe), with the support of a good editor like Emacs, is AT LEAST as useful, and convenient, as any word processor I've seen. It is important, however, that the editor provide keyboard macros which can reduce (or, often, even eliminate) the need to type control sequences---this creates much the same ``typewriter with a lot of magic keys'' typing `feel' that most word processors give. The local Emacs LaTeX mode has keys for font switching, environments, sectioning, etc., etc, as well as a set of template files for the most common LaTeX document styles. Since this Emacs knows about the Sun mouse, filling in the \author and \title arguments is just a point/click/type operation. In a typical document I may never actually hit the backslash key. In terms of what my FINGERS do, preparing a document is as easy (if not easier) than any word processor I've seen. The only thing that word processors provide is immediate visual feedback. I would argue that this is a two-edged gift, if you will excuse the mixed metaphor. It causes the person preparing the document to concentrate on the form of the document rather than its content; it forces `visual' decisions to be made and locked down fairly early rather than deferred. For example, if I'm writing about Emacs, and want to tell someone to type Meta characters, on a word processor I have to decide right at the beginning whether I want this to be META-A, M-A, circle-M-a, or whatever. In TeX, I can just type \META{A} and decide much later how all those Metas will actually LOOK. I won't even discuss mathematical equations. Word processors are nice and "typewriter-like" in their interface, but even the best of them lack much of the power and flexibility that preparations systems like TeX can provide. And, oh yes, GNU Emacs plus LaTeX can often be obtained for $0 per workstation. -- Mike Urban ...!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!urban "You're in a maze of twisty UUCP connections, all alike"
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/04/88)
> > My experience has been that a lot of UNIX-snobs have NEVER done word > > processing -- they think troff is a word processor. (Sort of like calling > > a hammer a "high-tech tool".) > > This may very well be true... > This may be extremely accurate... > BUT WHY THE H*LL ARE YOU CALLING ME A UNIX-SLOB!!! > I could care less about UNIX. > > Mr. X. the X-traordinary! I didn't call YOU one -- I made a generic statement, you put on the shoe and proclaimed it fit. Clayton E. Cramer
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (02/05/88)
in article <454@xios.XIOS.UUCP>, greg@xios.XIOS.UUCP (Greg Franks) says: > > By the way - the user interface on UNIX is the pits too. Consistency is > the key word! Is the UNIX-style user interface really that bad? Archaic, maybe. But, like sharks and beetles, there's probably a good reason that it's still around. And I think that reason is that once you learn it, it's faster to use than anything else. The Mentor folks started playing user interface games in the latest issue of their IDEA Schematic Capture software that we use for schematics here. There's now a full WIMP interface, complete with both pull down and pop up menus, the requester/dialog box, etc. The mouse/bitpad was always used for a bit of moving objects around and positioning things, but now you can get to every command via the mouse, much like a Sun, Amiga, or Macintosh. However, they were smart enough to leave the command-driven interface in. Now, I've used plenty of WIMP interfaces, some even appropriate to the environment they were in. And there's no denying that the learning curve on Mentor's Neted is about half of what it used to be. But using the WIMP interface instead of just typing commands as I used to, I get about 1/3 the preformance. Part of the problem is that Apollo graphics aren't very fast, and we aren't even using '020 based Apollos. But even given no graphics delays, I can still type out a command consisting of a few characters faster than I can even position my mouse, much less walk through a tree of menus and dialog options. UNIX folks tend to use UNIX for a number of years. The WIMP interface might help them out at the very beginning, but it's going to eventually get in the way, at least for things done quite often. I'd still like it around for programs I use occasionally; it's faster than digging up the user's manual, but it should be optional. Not that I'm completely against WIMP-type things; there are plenty of applications that work better in such environments. Windows make great virtual terminals; if you split you UNIX session into 4 or 5 shells, each in it's separate window, you'll make much more use of multitasking than if you're confined to a single window. Emacs (this thread did start with Emacs, did't it) in overlapping windows is far superior to the split-screen kludge needed to run on terminals. > Greg Franks XIOS Systems Corporation, 1600 Carling Avenue, > (613) 725-5411 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Z 8R8 > utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!xios!greg "There's so much to sea in Nova Scotia" -- Dave Haynie "The B2000 Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (02/06/88)
In article <1886@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > See Microsoft Word for good support of HP and PostScript laser printers. > See practically any word processing package you can name for support for > proportionally spaced print. Perhaps you are confusing the deficiencies > of your printers with the PC. You *are* confusing the deficiencies of the > software that is in use at your site with a deficiency of the computer. See Microsoft Word for the world's slowest WYSIWYG editor, because it runs on the (woefully inadequate) IBM PC harward. Also see Microsoft Word on CGA or MDA for no WYSIWYG at all, making it nearly impossible to use proportional fonts. Perhaps your victim was confusing the deficiencies of his/her software with the deficiencies of the IBM PC, but most of those deficiencies are CAUSED by limitations of the IBM PC. Now, for some more serious discussion of the limitations of the PC: This newsgroup seems to love to point to WP as a good example of why the IBM PC succeeded in business, why it is a good machine for the price, etc. ad nauseum. The PC is a LOUSY word processor because the IBM PC keyboard is a disgusting piece of garbage. Have you ever been in a room with 40 people typing on IBM PCs at the same time? The noise, as they say, is enough to raise the dead? The physical act of typing, pushing the keys, makes enough noise without having the keyboard add to it! The lab aides in the college computer lab where I used to work would often throw students out of the lab for turning on the keyclick on VT-100s. You can't turn it off on the PC! If you want a good word processing computer, buy an Atari Mega ST. -- {backbones}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes "Against Stupidity, The Gods Themselves Contend in Vain." -- Asimov
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (02/10/88)
In article <9670@tekecs.TEK.COM>, snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) writes: > In article <1393@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >What's your machine, that you run GNUmacs on? A 3b2 or equivalent? > > A Tek 6130. NS32016 @10MHz, MMU (16MB virtual process limit), FPU, > 3MB RAM, 40MB disk, color bit-mapped integrated display, screaming tape... A 3b2 or equivalent. > >A home computer should cost no more than a small fraction of the price of > >a small car. I'll amend my statement to read that GNU can not run on any > >machine that any significant numbers of individuals can hope to own. > Priced cars lately? :-( Prices for machines powerful enough to run GNU > are dropping. A small car bottoms out at about 6 grand. A home computer should not cost more than 2 grand, and ideally should be under the magic $1000 mark. > >The IBM-PC is the cheapest machine you can run UNIX on... and even then the > >UNIX is way too bloated. Let me tell you a story... once upon a time there was > >a good little operating system named Version 7... > > (a) The IBM-PC doesn't have memory management. (b) The hardware can be > *destroyed* by software. Totally unacceptable. It's acceptable to the people running MS-DOS. Version 7 isn't Sun/OS, but it's orders of magnitude better than anything these poor souls have to work with. > MINIX is supposed to be ~v7. Put MINIX on a 386 machine, do a bit of > work on it and you might have something. MINIX isn't terribly real. It's realler than GNU (after all, it's out :->), but it's got a small fraction of V7, and it's buggy. Comes from having everything handled by messages. And, of course, one of my main points is that an 8088 running real UNIX is already something. I've used it, and I'd rather have it than an 80386 running Minix. Doesn't anyone else think there's room for a small, tight, well-crafted operating system any more? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (02/10/88)
In article <1447@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >And, of course, one of my main points is that an 8088 running real UNIX is >already something. I've used it, and I'd rather have it than an 80386 running >Minix. > >Doesn't anyone else think there's room for a small, tight, well-crafted >operating system any more? Ok, I'll bite. Who has written this V7 Unix for the 8088? Where is it available, blah, blah? I've been looking for a well-written operating system for the 8088 for a long time. -- -russ AT&T: (315)268-6591 BITNET: NELSON@CLUTX Internet: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu GEnie: BH01 Compu$erve: 70441,205
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (02/11/88)
In article <34@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > >This newsgroup seems to love to point to WP as a good example of why >the IBM PC succeeded in business, why it is a good machine for the >price, etc. ad nauseum. The PC is a LOUSY word processor because the >IBM PC keyboard is a disgusting piece of garbage. Have you ever been >in a room with 40 people typing on IBM PCs at the same time? Have you ever been in an office where 40 people were doing word processing at the same time? For that matter, have you ever done serious word processing as a professional? Anyone who is typing at 75+ WPM (which is a pretty low speed for a professional word processor) relys heavily on tactile and audible feedback - you just can't go that fast if you can't be sure, without looking at the screen, whether or not you have actually hit the keys, rather than just stroked them but not hard enough to produce a character. The IBM PC keyboard is the first personal computer keyboard I've ever used which allows me to type as quickly and accurately as I can on a garden-variety Selectric typewriter, and it is precisely because of the keyboards tactile and audible response that I can. There is a good deal of difference, which most computer jocks seem to either never realize or forget, between word processing and using an editor. As someone who has spent a lot of time doing both, I can tell you that never, not in one million years, would any professional word processing service consider using something like emacs/troff to do their work. It just doesn't make any sense from their point of view. Neither should program editing or serious document preparation be done on a word processor such as Word Perfect. That doesn't make any more sense. If you want a real education, try doing word processing for an income some time. I guarantee you that it will give you a lot more respect for word processors, both the software variety and the human types. >If you want a good word processing computer, buy an Atari Mega ST. I don't want to get too heavily into the computer wars, but nobody I know would consider the Ataris as serious word processing computers. The keyboard is, flatly, abysmal, with a mushy feel that will increase your error rate significantly. The available software is minimal, although this is changing as time goes by. And the support available for the machine is so close to non-existant as to be a joke. > "Against Stupidity, The Gods Themselves Contend in Vain." Which I agree with, except that I would change "Stupidity" to read "Stupidity and Ignorance". While its most virulent manifestations don't show up in the technical groups too much, there is still too much pontification by people who, basically, don't know one damn thing about what they are talking about. If you want me to accept your statements about word processing, then you'd better be able to convince me that you know what the needs of word processors are, and what the work they are doing, in legal, medical, and business offices everywhere, is. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
gerry@syntron.UUCP (G. Roderick Singleton) (02/17/88)
In article <396@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu.UUCP (Russ Nelson) writes: >In article <1447@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >>And, of course, one of my main points is that an 8088 running real UNIX is >>already something. I've used it, and I'd rather have it than an 80386 running >>Minix. >> >>Doesn't anyone else think there's room for a small, tight, well-crafted >>operating system any more? > >Ok, I'll bite. Who has written this V7 Unix for the 8088? Where is it >available, blah, blah? I've been looking for a well-written operating >system for the 8088 for a long time. > >-- >-russ >AT&T: (315)268-6591 BITNET: NELSON@CLUTX Internet: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu >GEnie: BH01 Compu$erve: 70441,205 The UNIX you're looking for is Venturcom's Venix/86 2.x. A perfect example of V7 on a 8088. As a matter of fact, I have used this beastie and was pleasantly surprised: 2 humans, one printer and two uucp links all going at the same time and it felt just like mushdos with a single user. I can't supply an address for venturcom but a friend markets the current product. You reach him via email at jerry@jdpsys.uucp. Don't expect a quick response, he lives in the boonies and the mail connection is unreliable in the winter. Not so bad when you're nearby but a bit disconcerting when the distance is great. So it HAS BEEN DONE. The 2.0 kernal is so quick I'd like a copy for my 286 machine but I understand they've gone to SysV exclusively. So anyone knowing where I can obtain a liscensible copy of Venix/86 2.x for my 286, please let me know. -- G. Roderick Singleton | "ALL animals are created equal, <gerry@syntron.uucp>, | BUT some animals are MORE equal or <gerry@geac.uucp>, | than others." a warning from or <gerry@eclectic.uucp> | "Animal Farm" by George Orwell
jgh2@cisunx.UUCP (John G. Hardie) (02/17/88)
In article <893@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: >In article <3186@briar.Philips.Com> rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) writes: >>remember the usenet golden rule: the average american reads at a 5th >>grade level. > >Remember the other Golden Rule: > The average usenet poster is IN the 5th grade. HEY, I resent the implication that I am childish. I am in SIXTH grade!!!! :-) -- John Hardie Physics Dept. Univ. of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pa 15260 UUCP: jgh2@cisunx.UUCP -or- cisunx!jgh2@ecn BITNET: JGH2@PITTVMS A classical physicist assumes convergence if the Nth term goes to zero, A modern physicist assumes convergence if the first term is finite.
kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (02/17/88)
In article <893@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: >In article <3186@briar.Philips.Com> rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) writes: >>remember the usenet golden rule: the average american reads at a 5th >>grade level. > >Remember the other Golden Rule: > The average usenet poster is IN the 5th grade. Well, I will be if I can only pass my make up class in English writing this summer. ;-) Otherwise, another year of 4th grade for me. Kent, the kid from xanth.
snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) (02/20/88)
In article <1447@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <9670@tekecs.TEK.COM>, snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) writes: >> In article <1393@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >What's your machine, that you run GNUmacs on? A 3b2 or equivalent? >> A Tek 6130. >A 3b2 or equivalent. You must have an interesting definition of equivalent. :-) >A small car bottoms out at about 6 grand. Yugos don't count. Go price a Jetta. > A home computer should not cost more >than 2 grand, and ideally should be under the magic $1000 mark. Ideally, it would cost $0.01 per dozen. :-) >It's acceptable to the people running MS-DOS. It's acceptable to *some* people running MS-DOS. I know people with serious complaints. (That's what happens when you try and do real work on a toy computer. MS-DOS machines were meant for 1-2 page memos and cute little spreadsheets, not for serious databases and accounting packages which is what some people are trying to run on them.) >And, of course, one of my main points is that an 8088 running real UNIX is >already something. I've used it, and I'd rather have it than an 80386 running >Minix. An 8088 cannot run real UNIX. Period. The hardware will not support it. >Doesn't anyone else think there's room for a small, tight, well-crafted >operating system any more? Sure. Unix has put on too much fat over the years. Adding features is easy. Taking them away later can be painful. I'd like to see a bunch of the cruft removed too. It make things run slower and harder to maintain. Snoopy tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com "System V, just say NO."
hull@dinl.uucp (Jeff Hull) (02/23/88)
>In article <396@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> >nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu.UUCP (Russ Nelson) writes: >>Ok, I'll bite. Who has written this V7 Unix for the 8088? Where is it You might want to look at the Coherent package by the Mark Williams Company (advertisements in every issue of Byte, PC World, etc). I've been running it for 4 years or so & have had no trouble with it at all. -- Jeff Hull ...!hao!dinl!hull 1544 S. Vaughn Circle 303-750-3538 It was great when it all begaaaaan, Aurora, CO 80012 I was a regular <USENET> faaaan, ....
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (02/26/88)
In article ... nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: > In article <1447@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >And, of course, one of my main points is that an 8088 running real UNIX is > >already something. I've used it, and I'd rather have it than an 80386 running > >Minix. > Ok, I'll bite. Who has written this V7 Unix for the 8088? Where is it > available, blah, blah? I've been looking for a well-written operating > system for the 8088 for a long time. VenturCom did an early port of PDP-11 Version 7 UNIX to the 8088, and Microsoft has Xenix for the machine as well. The SCO Xenix for the XT is quite a bit zippier than MessyDOS. It's not real Version 7 any more, but it IS real UNIX. I believe the best way to get to Venturcom is via Cambridge Digital. At least it used to be. Xenix is pretty pricey by comparison. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
mch@cf-cm.UUCP (Major Kano) (03/08/88)
My thanks to Ian Batten <BattenIG@uk.ac.bham.cs> for replying to my question
about WHAT is the GNU manifesto. A couple of people have e-mailed me about this
asking for info. too, so for them, and any other confused new usexix here it is.
********************************************************************************
The GNU Manifesto
Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman
(Copying permission notice at the end.)
What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix!
GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete
Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it
away free to everyone who can use it. Several other volunteers are helping
me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly
needed.
So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor commands,
a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a linker, and
around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed. A
new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may be released
this year. An initial kernel exists but many more features are needed to
emulate Unix. When the kernel and compiler are finished, it will be
possible to distribute a GNU system suitable for program development. We
will use @TeX{} as our text formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We
will use the free, portable X window system as well. After this we will
add a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of
other things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually,
everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.
GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix.
We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience
with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer
filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, filename
completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and perhaps
eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs
and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and Lisp will be
available as system programming languages. We will try to support UUCP,
MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for communication.
GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with virtual
memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run on. The extra
effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someone who wants
to use it on them.
To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word `GNU'
when it is the name of this project.
Who Am I?
I am Richard Stallman, inventor of the original much-imitated EMACS editor,
formerly at the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. I have worked
extensively on compilers, editors, debuggers, command interpreters, the
Incompatible Timesharing System and the Lisp Machine operating system. I
pioneered terminal-independent display support in ITS. Since then I have
implemented one crashproof file system and two window systems for Lisp
machines, and designed a third window system now being implemented; this
one will be ported to many systems including use in GNU. [Historical note:
The window system project was not completed; GNU now plans to use the
X window system.]
Why I Must Write GNU
I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must
share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide
the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with
others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I
cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software
license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence
Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually
they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such
things are done for me against my will.
So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to
put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to
get along without any software that is not free. I have resigned from the
AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away.
Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix
Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential features
of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lacks
without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix would be
convenient for many other people to adopt.
How GNU Will Be Available
GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and
redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its
further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not
be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.
Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help
I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and want to
help.
Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system
software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them to
feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as
comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the
sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially
forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of software
must choose between friendship and obeying the law. Naturally, many decide
that friendship is more important. But those who believe in law often do
not feel at ease with either choice. They become cynical and think that
programming is just a way of making money.
By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can be
hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as an
example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in sharing.
This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if we use
software that is not free. For about half the programmers I talk to, this
is an important happiness that money cannot replace.
How You Can Contribute
I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money.
I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work.
One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will run
on them at an early date. The machines should be complete, ready to use
systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not in need of
sophisticated cooling or power.
I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time work for
GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hard
to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not work together.
But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. A
complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility programs, each of which
is documented separately. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix
compatibility. If each contributor can write a compatible replacement for
a single Unix utility, and make it work properly in place of the original
on a Unix system, then these utilities will work right when put together.
Even allowing for Murphy to create a few unexpected problems, assembling
these components will be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer
communication and will be worked on by a small, tight group.)
If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full or
part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but I'm
looking for people for whom building community spirit is as important as
making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated people to devote
their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them the need to make a
living in another way.
Why All Computer Users Will Benefit
Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software
free, just like air.
This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix license.
It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will
be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the
art.
Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user
who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself,
or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users
will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the
sources and is in sole position to make changes.
Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by
encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard's
computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be installed on
the system if its sources were not on public display, and upheld it by
actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very much inspired by
this.
Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and what
one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.
Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including licensing of
copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through the cumbersome
mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, which programs) a
person must pay for. And only a police state can force everyone to obey
them. Consider a space station where air must be manufactured at great
cost: charging each breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing the
metered gas mask all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone can
afford to pay the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere to see if you
ever take the mask off are outrageous. It's better to support the air
plant with a head tax and chuck the masks.
Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as
breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free.
Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals
"Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means
they can't rely on any support."
"You have to charge for the program
to pay for providing the support."
If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free without
service, a company to provide just service to people who have obtained GNU
free ought to be profitable.
We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming work
and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from a
software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough people, the
vendor will tell you to get lost.
If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way is to
have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any available
person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any individual.
With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of consideration for most
businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is still possible for there to
be no available competent person, but this problem cannot be blamed on
distibution arrangements. GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems,
only some of them.
Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need handholding:
doing things for them which they could easily do themselves but don't know
how.
Such services could be provided by companies that sell just hand-holding
and repair service. If it is true that users would rather spend money and
get a product with service, they will also be willing to buy the service
having got the product free. The service companies will compete in quality
and price; users will not be tied to any particular one. Meanwhile, those
of us who don't need the service should be able to use the program without
paying for the service.
"You cannot reach many people without advertising,
and you must charge for the program to support that."
"It's no use advertising a program people can get free."
There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be used to
inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But it may be
true that one can reach more microcomputer users with advertising. If this
is really so, a business which advertises the service of copying and
mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful enough to pay for its
advertising and more. This way, only the users who benefit from the
advertising pay for it.
On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and such
companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not really
necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates don't want
to let the free market decide this?
"My company needs a proprietary operating system
to get a competitive edge."
GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition.
You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your
competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in
other areas, while benefitting mutually in this one. If your business is
selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on
you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being
pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems.
I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many
manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.
"Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can
be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the
results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative
programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict
the use of these programs.
"Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?"
There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize
one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But
the means customary in the field of software today are based on
destruction.
Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is
destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that
the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity
derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict,
the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become
wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the
mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule.
Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards
information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so.
Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not
justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.
"Won't programmers starve?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot
manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But
we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the
street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit
assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly
be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be
possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as
now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is
the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were
prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to
other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are
always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is
now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered
an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If
programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In
practice they would still make considerably more than that.)
"Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?"
"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over other
people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.
People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights carefully
(such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual
property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the
government recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation for
specific purposes.
For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to
disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society
rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years for
a patent was short compared with the rate of advance of the state of the
art. Since patents are an issue only among manufacturers, for whom the
cost and effort of a license agreement are small compared with setting up
production, the patents often do not do much harm. They do not obstruct
most individuals who use patented products.
The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors
frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This
practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have survived
even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for the purpose
of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was invented--books,
which could be copied economically only on a printing press--it did little
harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals who read the books.
All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society
because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole would
benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we have to ask:
are we really better off granting such license? What kind of act are we
licensing a person to do?
The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundred
years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one
neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and
object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather
than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who
enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and
spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the
law enables him to.
"Competition makes things get done better."
The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we
encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way,
it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works
this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered and become
intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other strategies--such as,
attacking other runners. If the runners get into a fist fight, they will
all finish late.
Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a
fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem to
object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards you run, you
are allowed one kick."). He really ought to break them up, and penalize
runners for even trying to fight.
"Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?"
Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive.
Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually the
people who are best at it. There is no shortage of professional musicians
who keep at it even though they have no hope of making a living that way.
But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate to the
situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become less. So
the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced monetary
incentive? My experience shows that they will.
For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the
Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had
anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and
appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.
Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting
work for a lot of money.
What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than
riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will
come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in
competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the
high-paying ones are banned.
"We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we
stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey."
You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.
Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!
"Programmers need to make a living somehow."
In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways that
programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a program.
This way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen the
most money, not because it is the only way to make a living. It is easy to
find other ways if you want to find them. Here are a number of examples.
A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of
operating systems onto the new hardware.
The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could also
employ programmers.
People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware, asking for
donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services. I have
met people who are already working this way successfully.
Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues. A group
would contract with programming companies to write programs that the
group's members would like to use.
All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of
the price as a software tax. The government gives this to
an agency like the NSF to spend on software development.
But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development
himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to
the project of his own choosing--often, chosen because he hopes to
use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any amount
of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.
The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of
the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.
The consequences:
* the computer-using community supports software development.
* this community decides what level of support is needed.
* users who care which projects their share is spent on
can choose this for themselves.
In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity
world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living.
People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun,
such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week
on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot
repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able
to make a living from programming.
We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole
society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this
has translated itself into leisure for workers because much
nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity.
The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles
against competition. Free software will greatly reduce these
drains in the area of software production. We must do this,
in order for technical gains in productivity to translate into
less work for us.
Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman
Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies
of this document as received, in any medium, provided that the
copyright notice and permission notice are preserved,
and that the distributor grants the recipient permission
for further redistribution as permitted by this notice.
Modified versions may not be made.
********************************************************************************
-mch
--
Martin C. Howe, University College Cardiff | "You actually program in 'C'
mch@vax1.computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk. | WITHOUT regular eye-tests ?!"
-------------------------------------------+-----+------------------------------
My cats know more about UCC's opinions than I do.| MOSH! In the name of ANTHRAX!mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (03/13/88)
In article <34@obie.UUCP>, wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > In article <1886@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> [saying yes, the IBM PC can do word processing and decent printing] > See Microsoft Word for the world's slowest WYSIWYG editor, [...]. > Also see Microsoft Word on CGA or MDA for no WYSIWYG at all, making > it nearly impossible to use proportional fonts. Now wait a minute. Just what is "word processing"? Is it text editing? Is it WYSIWYG editing? Is it text fill and justify? Is it driving printers? Is it typesetting? Presumably it is all or most of the above, at least to some extent. Now, can you explain why lack of WYSIWYG makes it impossible to use proportionally spaced fonts? I use TeX regularly (not that I claim it is "word processor", whatever that means). It has the whole notion of proportional spacing built into it very deeply, and in fact we use it that way. On the other hand, I find WYSIWYG editing completely unnecessary (I use emacs). I have played with a WYSIWIG "editor" (FrameMaker on a Sun) and would be driven up the wall in no time flat if I had to use it for anything more than playing. I was rather annoyed with it without even doing anything serious with it. I think the choice of editor interface is a matter of personal taste and religion, just as with keyboards or displays. Someone posted a statement to the effect that the IBM PC keyboard is nice for WP because of its feel; I simply can't type on it. On this keyboard (a tvi950), I can type at over 10 cps (basis for claim: I set the line speed to 110 baud, and I was typing ahead of the echo by 10 to 20 percent), which means that my typing speed is limited strictly by how fast I can compose what I want to say. On the IBM PC keyboard, I can't come close to that. (Yes, my typing is primarily programming, but the above refers to typing English, such as this posting.) Perhaps if we can settle on what "word processing" means we can have less of a flame-fest and more of a serious discussion. It might also help to recognize that some things (like keyboards) are a matter of personal taste, and that not everyone has the same taste. der Mouse uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) (03/27/88)
In article <1393@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >UNIX is way too bloated. Let me tell you a story... once upon a time there was >a good little operating system named Version 7... > >-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter >-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*. Yes, version 7. Let me talk to you about version 7. The terminal driver was woefully incomplete. You just could not do things with it that you needed; too many things were bundled up and not seperatable. Xenix version 7 had some undocumented things to improve it, but it really took the sys3/5 terminal driver to get it good. Two program want to talk to each other? Fine. Use files. Not named pipes, files. Big, disk space eating (no chsize() or truncate() calls) real files. No message passing. The utility programs supplied. Ah, now we see why it only took a few megs to install version 7 (I've run it on a 12 meg hard disk, so I know it doesn't take much). Whats supplied generally works nice, but all those extra's that weren't there. No Vi, csh, more, strings, etc. If you're on a xenix system, try 'fgrep Berkeley */*' in the manual directory, and see how many utilities came from the BSD releases after version 7. I'd say a MINIMUM workable UN*X based system is a version 7 kernel, with the sys5 terminal driver (with ALL the array elements seperate, no more duplicating "number of characters" with "end of file"), the xenix "version 7 compatible terminal driver", named pipes, pty's, a stdio library that can let you force stdout non-buffered even to non-tty's (as in "| more" or "| tee"), a message passing IPC mechanism (other than sockets; they stink), and better response for interactive processes (so they don't get swapped out while disk bound programs force their way in memory). Utility programs should include the BSD extras. Note that no such system actually exists; but still, one can always dream. Michael p.s. This isn't to say that V7 was extreamly bad, after all, the user interface beats AmigaDos, even if the internals don't. -- : Michael Gersten uunet.uu.net!ucla-an.ANES\ : ihnp4!hermix!ucla-an!denwa!stb!michael : sdcsvax!crash!gryphon!denwa!stb!michael : "A hacker lives forever, but not so his free time"
dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) (03/29/88)
In article <10106@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes:
<I'd say a MINIMUM workable UN*X based system is a version 7 kernel, with
<the sys5 terminal driver (with ALL the array elements seperate, no more
<duplicating "number of characters" with "end of file"), the xenix "version
<7 compatible terminal driver", named pipes, pty's, a stdio library that
<can let you force stdout non-buffered even to non-tty's (as in "| more"
<or "| tee"), a message passing IPC mechanism (other than sockets;
<they stink), and better response for interactive processes (so they
<don't get swapped out while disk bound programs force their way in
<memory). Utility programs should include the BSD extras.
<
<Note that no such system actually exists; but still, one can always dream.
< Michael
Actually, such a system does exist to a great extent. The Coherent system,
from Mark Williams Company (available now for the IBM PC and other 80x86
machines) has most of the above system componants -- Note that the kernel
is NOT unix V7, but is compatible (not a port, a functional copy), runs
faster than unix V7 on every machine I've seen it on, has named pipes,
allows forcing of stdout non-buffered to anything, record locking, enhanced
TTY (not sysV), some BSD extras.
The problem is that MWC has not sold very many of these systems over the
last few years, so the development of improvements has not been economical
for them. They are now considering adding message passing IPC, tcp/ip,
sysV/BSD tty driver (support of layers/job control), and other features.
This work may or may not be released in the 80x86 version, or any version,
depending on whether they believe that it will make them any money.
Build a better system and people don't always beat a path to your door.
--
Daniel A. Glasser dag@chinet.UUCP
One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night.
...!att-ih!chinet!dag | ...!ihnp4!mwc!dag | ...!ihnp4!mwc!gorgon!dagpeter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/02/88)
In article <10106@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: > In article <1393@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >[that UNIX is too big, look how small V7 was] Before I start, I'm going to note that I'm not saying that Version 7 is the be-all and end-all of UNIX. But it is interesting that although System V is many times as large it really doesn't have much more than V7... certainly nothing that couldn't be added to V7 with a little bit of work, and a lot less code. > Yes, version 7. Let me talk to you about version 7. Please do. I've had a lot of good times with it, and I'm always ready to reminisce... There is a lot more stuff in System V, but I really don't see that the standard should be defined so that people who can't afford a couple of grand worth of hardware should be shut out of UNIX. I'm also not saying that we should be using V7. I'm just saying that the baseline standard for UNIX should be implementable, efficiently and effectively, in no more space. > The terminal driver was woefully incomplete. You just could not do things with > it that you needed; too many things were bundled up and not seperatable. > Xenix version 7 had some undocumented things to improve it, but it really > took the sys3/5 terminal driver to get it good. I don't see that the System V terminal driver is really that much better. It still doesn't support any sort of good command line editing, and it's still a royal pain to set the terminal modes the way they should be. It's a lot more complex, of course, and just about everyone has to be told about how to set up c_cc[VMIN] and c_cc[VTIME] correctly. One offhand reference in the body of the text in termio(5) doesn't cut it. > Two program want to talk to each other? Fine. Use files. Not named pipes, > files. Big, disk space eating (no chsize() or truncate() calls) real files. > No message passing. Named pipes are an advance, I'll give you that. In fact for my money they are the advance in system V. They don't justify tripling or quadrupling the size of the kernal though. IPC is important, but apart from FIFOs it's just not implemented right. Messages and shared memory are handled by a whole seperate namespace outside the file system. Messages should have been a superset of named pipes, and shared memory should have been either special files a-la Xenix or by file mapping a-la VMS. Having everything in the file system *was* one of UNIX's big advantages. > The utility programs supplied. Ah, now we see why it only took a few megs > to install version 7 (I've run it on a 12 meg hard disk, so I know it doesn't > take much). Whats supplied generally works nice, but all those extra's that > weren't there. No Vi, csh, more, strings, etc. If you're on a xenix system, > try 'fgrep Berkeley */*' in the manual directory, and see how many utilities > came from the BSD releases after version 7. I really missed CSH when I was using V7, but SH is still a vast improvement over COMMAND.COM, CLI, and whatever the command line interpreter for CP/M was called. Version 7 is a great advance over MS-DOS, which is what most people will still be using for some years yet. Wny? because UNIX has grown far beyond it's needs. > I'd say a MINIMUM workable UN*X based system is a version 7 kernel, with... [ a lot of stuff that isn't in the low-end competition either ]. > p.s. This isn't to say that V7 was extreamly bad, after all, the user > interface beats AmigaDos, even if the internals don't. Really? I find I'm a lot more productive on my Amiga than on a dumb terminal connected to a System V machine. Windows make up for a multitude of sins. The internals, though... I'll take the UNIX file system over Tripos any day. I'd hate to have to run System V on my poor little Amy, though. It's only a few times faster than the LSI-11s that I used to use V7 on, after all. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/06/88)
In article <4249@chinet.UUCP>, dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) writes: > Actually, such a system does exist to a great extent. The Coherent system, > from Mark Williams Company (available now for the IBM PC and other 80x86 > machines) has most of the above system componants -- Note that the kernel > is NOT unix V7, but is compatible (not a port, a functional copy), runs > faster than unix V7 on every machine I've seen it on, has named pipes, > allows forcing of stdout non-buffered to anything, record locking, enhanced > TTY (not sysV), some BSD extras. Does it (a) provide all the goodies that come with V7 (including lex, yacc, awk, sed, etc...), (b) have some sort of standard administration files (V7, BSD, or USG format... makes no difference), and (c) support UUCP? How much does it cost? > The problem is that MWC has not sold very many of these systems over the > last few years, so the development of improvements has not been economical > for them. They are now considering adding message passing IPC, tcp/ip, > sysV/BSD tty driver (support of layers/job control), and other features. > This work may or may not be released in the 80x86 version, or any version, > depending on whether they believe that it will make them any money. What model are they using for IPC? (Please, please, put the ports and memory segments in the file system. Please. Please.) And how about virtual terminals, for those of us with a windowing fetish? > Build a better system and people don't always beat a path to your door. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.