bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/07/83)
A recent proposal by RMS@MIT-OZ suggests a public domain Unix type operating system. This idea could be the most dangerous thing to the world of software, and could result in tremendous setbacks in the advancement of software quality. The most dangerous element is contained in this quote, which I feel is not out of context. "Without a proprietary operating system, how can my company 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. It is because of the aspect of mutual benefit that I am asking many manufacturers to donate, reducing the cost to each. Scenario: GNU has attained success, and is now widely used all over the place. Free operating system for everybody. Programmer: "I have this great idea for a really wondeful operating system. It's much better than GNU." (Let's assume he speaks the truth) Other: But everybody can get GNU for free. Nobody would be willing to pay for it. Programmer: But it really is that much better - hey, venture capitalist, what do you think? Venture-Capitalist: Looks really good, but that market is too tough. Even a really good product can't compete with something free. Sure we would sell some, but not nearly as many as we would if there were a real competitive market. You would be much better off working on something else. Programmer: But I want to do this! Other: Why not do it for free then, like GNU? Programmer: What would I eat? Besides, I really believe that's right. But I'll try. Rich-man, can you fund me while I do this free project? Rich-man: Seems nice, but what's the point. We already have GNU. People are satisfied with it. --------------------- And so, nothing new ever comes along, unless there is a really big jump or another group of "software socialists" better at design than the first. This is NOT idle speculation. It is from bitter experience. I make most of my money from a set of programmer's utilities for Commodore machines. There is a similar product in the public domain. It is not as good, and arrived after, but it hurts my income a lot. So much so that I have seriously considered abandoning the whole market and doing something else. One free medium quality program (and I am not saying GNU will be thus, simply that if the state of the art advances, it will become thus) ruins the chances of several high quality programs. I ask all people interested in GNU to consider this, and to question if they wish to risk destroying the work of everybody else working in operating systems. GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. Is this what we really want????????????? -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (10/07/83)
Now wait a minute. This is like saying that UNIX (which has always been cheap for educational institutions) has had a detrimental effect on the quality of software available to universities. It is quite possible that it made it uneconomic for someone else to develop a competing product in that market. On the other hand, the availability of a good operating system which ran on cheap hardware at a low price probably fostered the development of a large quantity of other useful software. Besides, what makes you think that a small group of dedicated, expert hackers can't produce a public-domain system which is better than what most commercial firms would come up with anyway? Having public-domain software available is bad for potential producers of competitive software, but good for software "consumers". I don't think it is at all clear which route produces the greatest "overall good". Dave Martindale decvax!watmath!dmmartindale allegra!watcgl!dmmartindale
bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/08/83)
Let's make one thing clear. I myself don't think that GNU or any other product like it could take over the market entirely. Far from it, people will always be willing to pay for a better, supported system even when there is a free one around. What I object to is the philosophy behind the GNU statements. If the GNU project changed its aims, I would view it in an entirely different light. RMS contends that the current capitalist market for software does more harm than good, and he wants to destroy it with GNU. I suggest this is one man's belief and that he should not try and destroy the system that others view differently. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
rdoty@bronze.UUCP (10/08/83)
According to watmath!bstempleton: >One free medium quality program (and I am not saying GNU >will be thus, simply that if the state of the art advances, >it will become thus) ruins the chances of several high >quality programs. I ask all people interested in GNU >to consider this, and to question if they wish to risk >destroying the work of everybody else working in operating >systems. Bosh. You represent "free" as being something fundamentally different from "cheaper", which I see no justification for. Example. If the public domain software that is taking away your customers were instead priced at, say, 1/3 of your price, the effect would be the same: some people would buy it instead. At the same time, some people would still buy yours (as they do now). And some of them would do so, knowing full well that there was a cheaper product available. In either case they get the product they feel is best for their needs. Richard Doty tektronix!tekmdp!rdoty p.s. - maybe this discussion ought to be moved someplace else, like net.unix
zben@umcp-cs.UUCP (10/10/83)
This message is empty.