scratch@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Steven J Owens) (08/05/90)
I'd like to ask everybody here for some feedback on the ethical & social implications of computer crime - on both sides of the coin, the hackers, crackers and phreakers as well as the law enforcement people, the media, and the general public who have no idea what it's about. A few months back there was some discussion of the Secret Service Operation Sundevil and computer crime in general. At the time I was interested enough in finding what was going on, but some posts that discussed computer crime in general I skipped. Now, I'm doing a sociology paper about computer crime and general implications in our society, and I'm hoping that somebody here can help me out. Facts and stories and anecdotes would be helpful, but what I'm really looking for here is OPINIONS, personal reactions and ideas about the general subject. If you don't mind adding a line about why you're interested in computers and what kind of experience you have, that would help as well. Anybody out there with degrees in Computer Science and Sociology? :-) Reply directly or post, I'll be watching the newsgroups as well as reading my mailbox faithfully. If anybody expresses an interest, the finished paper will be quite available. Hope to hear from you soon! Steven J. Owens | Scratch@Pittvms | Scratch@unix.cis.pitt.edu "There's a long hard road and a full, hard drive : And a sector there where I feel alive : Every bit of every byte : Is written down once on the night : Networking, I'm user friendly..." -- Warren Zevon, Networking, Transverse City
dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) (08/08/90)
In article <26581@unix.cis.pitt.edu> scratch@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Steven J Owens) writes: >I'd like to ask everybody here for some feedback on the ethical & social >implications of computer crime - on both sides of the coin, the hackers, >crackers and phreakers as well as the law enforcement people, the media, and >the general public who have no idea what it's about. > ... >... Now, I'm doing a sociology paper about computer crime and >general implications in our society, and I'm hoping that somebody here can >help me out. > >Facts and stories and anecdotes would be helpful, but what I'm really looking >for here is OPINIONS, personal reactions and ideas about the general subject. >If you don't mind adding a line about why you're interested in computers and >what kind of experience you have, that would help as well. Anybody out there >with degrees in Computer Science and Sociology? :-) > Well, as a matter of fact, I DO have my degrees in sociology and computer science (well, I will. Entering my final year in a month). I am also an avid studier of such things as the Hacker phenomenon, and how it has changed over the years. I would suggest your reading Hackers, by Steven Levy, but Im sure that you have probably already done so, it is after all a classic in the field. As Levy says, the hackers of yesteryear simply don't exist today. People wanted the free exchange of information for the good of all, not for profit. If you wrote a good program, you gave it to everyone because you were proud of it, and if someone took your code and changed it so that it was better well, then, good for them. You were proud for them as well. But today people don't circulate software for the good of al concerned, they do it for personal gain. Its not a case of "Hey, I just got the new Sierra game, lets look at their animation algorithm and see if we can implement it in our game", its more like "If I get this home from the store and copy the manuall, then I can return it and give you guys all the copies you want. " Hardly the same thing. If thats what the definition of hacking is today, and it certainly seems to be, then the original idea is completed vanished. I dont think I necessarily approve of the Hacker Ethic: for the most part, I think some of the original followers of the ethic were simply nuts. Maybe fanatic is a better word, or obsessed or compulsive. Everything was a personal challenge, a new obstacle to overcome. A robotic arm next to a computer was a challenge to write something to control that arm; a locked door on a computer lab was a challlenge to get into that lab after hours; a password system was a challenge to look at other people's accounts. These challenges were met simply for the sake of meeting them, not causing havoc. Any hacker worth his salt could easily crack a password security system and get into any account he chose, but he wouldnt. That was abuse of the privilege and it just wasnt done. Nowadays, wreaking havoc seems to be an end to itself. The power given to someone who has such control over a computer is very great power, and should be put under some sort of control. There are incredible guidelines written up in college handbooks, industry contracts, and even ACM and IEEE for standards and practices, but a true hacker will simply break these rules because of the sole fact that they are there to be broken. "As long as I can do something and not get caught, Im better than you people." A cheap attempt at self security, from a psychological standpoint. I dont want to start a flame war here, so please dont anyone misunderstand me. The term 'hacker' has gone through lots of changes in the years that it has been around, and my use of it refers mainly to what Levy calls the first generation hackers. (For a better example, read the book). Anyone who considers themself a hacker and feels insulted by my comments, feel free to comment back but please know the context that I am using the term in, as opposed to the way that you are using it. Those are my opinions. Anyone else? (If the gentleman that posted the original article is still interested in my opinions, I would appreciate his mailing a response back to me. I could take up pages and pages with stories and opinions, but I dont want to waste the bandwidth doing so. ) >Steven J. Owens | Scratch@Pittvms | Scratch@unix.cis.pitt.edu > >"There's a long hard road and a full, hard drive : And a sector there > where I feel alive : Every bit of every byte : Is written down once > on the night : Networking, I'm user friendly..." > > -- Warren Zevon, Networking, Transverse City Duane Morin --- Society/Technology Studies Worcester Polytechnic Institutute
de5@STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) (08/08/90)
In article <14443@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu writes: > >As Levy says, the hackers of yesteryear simply don't exist today. What about the last of the hackers, Richard Stallman? Did you read the chapter about him in _Hackers_? >If you wrote a good program, you gave it to everyone because you were proud of >it, and if someone took your code and changed it so that it was better well, >then, good for them. You were proud for them as well. But today people don't >circulate software for the good of al concerned, they do it for personal gain. Stallman, and *many* GNU supporters would beg to differ. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) These are my opinions. Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (08/09/90)
What's changed over the years are the following:
a) Computers used to be a really
odd field to be in. And the few people who
actually understood their inner-workings
were beyond wierd, even among technical
circles. Hackers were these "beyond wierd"
people.
b) Computers were these huge, "one or two
to an organization" things. The people who
cared for them and kept them running, if good
at it, soon became organizational folk heros.
c) Things we consider "fundamental" today,
such as drawing on a graphics screen, were
very difficult back when, especially squeezing out
the last 10% (performance, whatever.) Hackers
were people you turned to for that.
d) Because of their centrality, computers and
computing centers were often found at the center
of the funding structure, and that funding structure
was often the product of much fatter times, particularly
in regards to research funding.
The environment has changed. Computers are today fairly mundane and
everyday objects. Anyone can own one, and modern computers are not all
that hard to keep running.
The skill has fallen from the level of high-priesthood to the guy down
the block that likes to tinker (for what most people want or can
appreciate.) Most things we want from computers are, today, fairly
easy to get by just buying a package. Funding and novelty have
dropped and it's become, to a large extent, just another piece of a
business.
I would guess that at the large super-computing centers, for example,
you'll still find people who's lives remain similar to the old
hacker's lives. More likely you'll find the ethic in some biogenetic
engineering lab, and having nothing to do with computers. Like those
guys who spell their names out with single atoms or protein sequences.
Something else that's important is that no matter how much people
would love to either be known as a hacker or feel like they have
access to one, that much hasn't changed a lot.
"Back when" there were probably a few dozen people who would fit the
term. Today there are probably still only a few dozen such people.
It's just that back then everyone in computing knew a hacker, today
people throw the label on anyone who can do a little systems
programming, you probably don't know any hackers in the old sense. In
some ways, it's gotten much harder to be one, what's hard today is
either too hard (e.g. natural language) or too obscure to be
appreciated by many.
But that's really the point, "hackers" weren't adulated back then
except by the few who could understand what dragons they had slayed,
and it's not much different today. One thing that often set hackers
apart was that they had seemingly bizarre goals that often got them in
trouble with the "powers that be".
It wasn't that long ago, I certainly remember, that designing software
for a dumb CRT was considered exotic overkill and whacko stuff. Bitmap
screens, user interfaces etc were beyond the pale, complete wastes of
money, what could they do that you couldn't do on a (much cheaper)
printer? Why screw around with higher-level languages? Electronic mail
and "networking" were considered stupid wastes of valuable computing
resources (oops, on that one they may have been right :-)
It's like the moral of a fairy tale, if the average person could
admire what they did, well, then it wouldn't be hacking, the magic
would be lost.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLDdmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) (08/09/90)
In article <9008081452.AA18175@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> de5@STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) writes: >In article <14443@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu writes: >> >>As Levy says, the hackers of yesteryear simply don't exist today. > >What about the last of the hackers, Richard Stallman? Did you read >the chapter about him in _Hackers_? I understood Levy's opinion of Stallman to be that he was the last of a dying breed, trying to fight for an ethic that was as good as gone. I may, of course, be wrong, but that is what I got out of that section. > >>If you wrote a good program, you gave it to everyone because you were proud of >>it, and if someone took your code and changed it so that it was better well, >>then, good for them. You were proud for them as well. But today people don't >>circulate software for the good of al concerned, they do it for personal gain. > >Stallman, and *many* GNU supporters would beg to differ. > You took that quote out of context. I went on to say that people circulate software most notably in piracy, such as trying to get the newest game to as many of their friends as possible. There are even bulletin board operators who support themselves by alowing pirated software to circulate their boards. I fully agree that people will support the type of 'groupware' thing that Stalman tried to create with GNU, but simply that it will never flourish like it could when people can get the new Sierra game, which is definitively the state of the art in adventure games, for free, or something written by a handful of high school kids after school which simply isnt as good. Some do work, granted (Minix comes to mind immediately), but I dont think that the quality of the freeware in the world will ever match the commerical stuff. >-- >Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) These are my opinions. >Martin Marietta Energy Systems >Workstation Support Duane Morin
tadguy@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Tad Guy) (08/09/90)
In article <14443@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) writes: > People wanted the free exchange of information for the good of all, > not for profit. If you wrote a good program, you gave it to > everyone because you were proud of it, and if someone took your code > and changed it so that it was better well, then, good for them. You > were proud for them as well. But today people don't circulate > software for the good of al concerned, they do it for personal gain. This must come as quite a surprise to the moderators of the various comp.sources groups. I wonder what all that stuff in my archives is... ...tad
dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) (08/09/90)
In article <TADGUY.90Aug9092147@abcfd21.larc.nasa.gov> tadguy@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Tad Guy) writes: > >This must come as quite a surprise to the moderators of the various >comp.sources groups. I wonder what all that stuff in my archives is... > > ...tad Oh, do you happen to have WordPerfect, MS Word, Microsoft Windows, or the newest five Sierra games? If you dont, Im sure I can find a bulletin board (that CHARGES for time), that does. FOR EVERYONE THAT IS SENDING ME VARIOUS EXAMPLES OF WHERE I SCREWED UP: I fully support the people that do in fact encourage the hacker ethic. I see one more letter with the word GNU in it Ill scream. What I would rather here people talk about is what they think of the people who do NOT adhere to such ethics, which is what I understood the original post to mean. I am most definitely pessimistic about computer ethics today, and I hope that people can understand why. I cant honestly believe that everyone who is flaming me thinks that there is NO piracy in the world, or that there is so little that it does not need to be considered? People seem to be focusing on one or the other, but no one has compared them both yet. If someone can tell me that there are 10 times as many GNU supporters as pirates (and document it), I will consider that a useful post. But everyone who tries to claim that all free software is distributed through comp.sources is generalizing just as bad as I did. Have fun with that. DDM
de5@STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) (08/09/90)
In article <14462@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu writes: >>>As Levy says, the hackers of yesteryear simply don't exist today. >> >>What about the last of the hackers, Richard Stallman? Did you read >>the chapter about him in _Hackers_? > >I understood Levy's opinion of Stallman to be that he was the last of >a dying breed, trying to fight for an ethic that was as good as gone. You said `the hackers of yesteryear simply don't exist today'. I provided a counterexample to that statement. Stallman's just the most visible of them. >>>If you wrote a good program, you gave it to everyone because you >>>were proud of it, and if someone took your code and changed it so >>>that it was better well, then, good for them. You were proud for >>>them as well. But today people don't circulate software for the >>>good of al concerned, they do it for personal gain. >> >>Stallman, and *many* GNU supporters would beg to differ. > >You took that quote out of context. I'm afraid I don't see how the context I removed could have changed the meaning of the above. Do you, or do you not, claim that `today people don't circulate software for the good of all concerned'? If so, the Free Software Foundation is a shining counterexample, as are the hundreds of others whose code sits in archives on uunet, tut, and various other archive sites. >I went on to say that people circulate software most notably in >piracy, such as trying to get the newest game to as many of their >friends as possible. You might consider piracy the `most notable' form of software circulation, but what are your criteria? Certainly more software is circulated through the commercial software market. >I fully agree that people will support the type of 'groupware' thing >that Stalman tried to create with GNU, The use of the past tense there is incorrect, the GNU project is very much alive and making great progress. >but simply that it will never flourish like it could when people can >get the new Sierra game, which is definitively the state of the art >in adventure games, for free, or something written by a handful of >high school kids after school which simply isnt as good. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say there. Could you rephrase it? >Some do work, granted (Minix comes to mind immediately), but I dont >think that the quality of the freeware in the world will ever match >the commerical stuff. Patent nonsense. GNU Emacs is far superior to the commercial alternatives; a UNIX Review comparison of GNU and Unipress Emacsen backs that claim. The GNU C Compiler outperforms many commercial compilers and is the standard compiler for NeXT and DG AViiON systems. The X Window System as distributed by the MIT X Consortium is not only commercial quality, but is in fact the basis of most--if not all--commercial X software. Commercial software is not inherently superior to freeware. Don't underestimate the effort a dedicated hacker will put into his freely distributed work. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) These are my opinions. Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/09/90)
> >If you wrote a good program, you gave it to everyone because you were proud of > >it, and if someone took your code and changed it so that it was better well, > >then, good for them. You were proud for them as well. But today people don't > >circulate software for the good of al concerned, they do it for personal gain. > Stallman, and *many* GNU supporters would beg to differ. And so would I, as a GNU opponent. The restrictive licensing of the GNU copyleft are *not* the only, *nor* the best, way of getting your code out to as many people as possible. There are people out there who have taken free code I have written and put it into commercial programs. I'm proud of them as well... for taking a program and putting the time and effort needed to make it part of a real product. If I'd have used the GNU copyleft, they wouldn't have been able to do that. And the world would have been a poorer place for it. Some people *need* shrink-wrapped turnkey systems... and they *do* cost money to produce. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (08/09/90)
In article <9008081452.AA18175@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV>, de5@STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) writes: > In article <14443@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu writes: > > > >... But today people > >don't > >circulate software for the good of al concerned, they do it for personal > >gain. > > Stallman, and *many* GNU supporters would beg to differ. > But there's a difference between working for a goal other than personal gain, and getting hysterical because someone *else* works for personal gain. Jeff -- I'm not worried about anyone shooting me. I know how people hate to wait in line.
nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) (08/09/90)
>In article <14443@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) writes: >>But today people don't circulate >> software for the good of al concerned, they do it for personal gain. There are definitely more people writing useful, free software today than at any previous time. It's just a smaller percentage of the total. In what some people here seem to think of as the "golden age of hacking", the phenomenon was confined to a few dozen people at each of a few major universities, simply because one needed access to big iron to write anything. John Nagle
howell@bert.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) (08/10/90)
In article <14467@wpi.wpi.edu>, dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) writes: |> In article <TADGUY.90Aug9092147@abcfd21.larc.nasa.gov> tadguy@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Tad Guy) writes: |> > |> >This must come as quite a surprise to the moderators of the various |> >comp.sources groups. I wonder what all that stuff in my archives is... |> > |> > ...tad |> |> Oh, do you happen to have WordPerfect, MS Word, Microsoft Windows, or the |> newest five Sierra games? If you dont, Im sure I can find a bulletin board |> (that CHARGES for time), that does. |> |> FOR EVERYONE THAT IS SENDING ME VARIOUS EXAMPLES OF WHERE I SCREWED UP: |> |> I fully support the people that do in fact encourage the hacker ethic. |> I see one more letter with the word GNU in it Ill scream. What I would rather |> here people talk about is what they think of the people who do NOT adhere to |> such ethics, which is what I understood the original post to mean. I am |> most definitely pessimistic about computer ethics today, and I hope that |> people can understand why. I cant honestly believe that everyone who is |> [...] Could you tell me why in the world I would WANT copies of WordPerfect, MS Word, and MS Windows? :-) As for the games, I can't say, never having played them. I can say, though, that I've never encountered a computer game that was as much fun to play as it must have been to write. \begin{tirade} I think there are just as many "true hackers" out there now as there ever were. There's lot's of good free software available, as anyone with access to USENET, Netlib, etc. can easily verify. The difference is that the total base of computer users, and the amount of money to be made from software, has grown much faster than the set of hackers. Any geek can pirate a program today, whereas in the past said geek would probably not have had access to a computer at all. In the Good Old Days (tm) you had to actually know something about computers to use them; now all you need is to understand an on/off switch. That's the low-end of the problem. The high-end is that software has become big business. The goals of many in the industry have gone from "getting things done" to "making money at it". Hoards of lawyers, accountants, and similar vermin have been attracted to the bright lights, and have done their best to corrupt the whole enterprise. More dedicated people are working at it now than ever before, but there are now more scum than good people. \end{tirade} Louis Howell #include <std.disclaimer>
tadguy@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Tad Guy) (08/10/90)
In article <TADGUY.90Aug9092147@abcfd21.larc.nasa.gov> Tad Guy writes: > This must come as quite a surprise to the moderators of the various > comp.sources groups. I wonder what all that stuff in my archives is... In article <14467@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) writes: > Oh, do you happen to have WordPerfect, MS Word, Microsoft Windows, > or the newest five Sierra games? If you dont, Im sure I can find a > bulletin board (that CHARGES for time), that does. That's nice. Enjoy them. I'm not interested. I archive free software. I have a hard time trying to prevent my archives from overflowing with the stuff -- and it's software distributed without concern for personal gain. > But everyone who tries to claim that all free software is distributed > through comp.sources is generalizing just as bad as I did. Whew. I'm glad I didn't make that generalization in my response... ...tad
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/10/90)
In article <9008091507.AA06792@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> de5@STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) writes: > Commercial software is not inherently superior to freeware. Don't > underestimate the effort a dedicated hacker will put into his freely > distributed work. The difference between commercial software and freeware is packaging and handholding. The time the freeware developer puts into features, the commercial developer puts into polish. How much is that polish worth? Well, that's the core of the debate... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/10/90)
In article <14467@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) writes: > I fully support the people that do in fact encourage the hacker ethic. > I see one more letter with the word GNU in it Ill scream. What I would rather > here people talk about is what they think of the people who do NOT adhere to > such ethics, which is what I understood the original post to mean. The problem we're having here is that piracy is simply irrelevant to the hacker ethic. It's carried on by people in a whole other world than the hacker, by people who create nothing and soil their own bed by what they do. It's no wonder that people prefer not to talk about the petty criminals that the media calls "hackers". They're guilty of the ultimite crime: they are boring. There are undoubtedly many more pirates than freeware developers, just as there are more car thieves than automotive designers. Would you criticise an article in Car and Driver about the new Porsche on the grounds that it didn't give equal time to chop shops? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury) (08/10/90)
In <14462@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) writes: >I understood Levy's opinion of Stallman to be that he was the last of a dying >breed, trying to fight for an ethic that was as good as gone. I may, >of course, be wrong, but that is what I got out of that section. > >You took that quote out of context. I went on to say that people circulate >software most notably in piracy, such as trying to get the newest game to as >many of their friends as possible. There are even bulletin board operators >who support themselves by alowing pirated software to circulate their boards. There are *some* EBBS operators who operate in contravention to both the law and the current community standards regarding the theft of property. But to imply that they constitute a majority or even a significant minority is to fall prey to simple media hype. As an EBBS sysop, and as a computing professional, who takes carefull pains to know what is going on in and around my communities, I can assert that the pirate EBBSs are definitely a fringe phenomenon. Unfortunately, this fringe group (like the 1% "outlaw bikers") is siezed on by the media and promoted as if they were the paradigm of all EBBS operators and users. I suspect that the administration at wpi.edu would insist very strongly that one user there is totally representative of the whole institution. >I fully agree that people will support the type of 'groupware' thing that >Stalman tried to create with GNU, but simply that it will never flourish like >it could when people can get the new Sierra game, which is definitively the >state of the art in adventure games, for free, This, again, assumes that the majority of computer users want to get something of value for free. The old adage that "something free is usually worth what you pay for it" represents a feeling that cuts both ways. (You use its negative sense in your next phrase, discussed below.) It's positive sense however is that even if user's think a product is overpriced, they are willing to pay for that product if it is made easy to do so. Some shareware authors may go broke waiting for the payments to roll in, others succeed quite well. > or something written by a >handful of high school kids after school which simply isnt as good. Some >do work, granted (Minix comes to mind immediately), but I dont think that the >quality of the freeware in the world will ever match the commerical stuff. This is the negative side of the adage mentioned above. I don't know what you are basing your evaluation of "freeware" as being hopelessly inferior in quality, but the quality of a number of freeware packages surpasses that of come of the similar stuff that is "commercial" and therefore (supposedly) "more professional". As an example, several vendors offer some kind of e-mail front end for various flavors of 80386 Unix, having evaluated several of these packages, I selected to use the freeware "ELM Mail System" because of its portability, flexibilty and level of support available. A large number of people reading this newsgroup are also probably quite upset to see their work called sophomoric or worse by someone who is apparantly not competent to make that judgement. Oh, by the way, the GNU project is alive and well. (Go ahead and scream.) -- G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe ...mcnc!wolves!wolfe [use the maps!] Domain: wolfe%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org wolfe%wolves@cs.duke.edu [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (08/10/90)
Peter da Silva writes:
#And so would I, as a GNU opponent. The restrictive licensing of the GNU
#copyleft are *not* the only, *nor* the best, way of getting your code out
#to as many people as possible.
Who ever claimed that it was?
# There are people out there who have taken
#free code I have written and put it into commercial programs. I'm proud of
#them as well... for taking a program and putting the time and effort needed
#to make it part of a real product. If I'd have used the GNU copyleft, they
#wouldn't have been able to do that.
I would call the Next a "real" product, and they use GNU.
#Some people *need* shrink-wrapped turnkey systems... and they
#*do* cost money to produce.
I agree that there are people who need turnkey systems, but I don't
see why they *need* a shrink-wrapped system. Also, you are prefectly
allowed to charge for GNU products, you just can't restrict
distribution of the sources.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wpeter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug10.035033.2122@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes: > # There are people out there who have taken > #free code I have written and put it into commercial programs. I'm proud of > #them as well... for taking a program and putting the time and effort needed > #to make it part of a real product. If I'd have used the GNU copyleft, they > #wouldn't have been able to do that. > I would call the Next a "real" product, and they use GNU. They use separate, individual GNU programs. That's a small subset of the possible ways someone can use my code. They can use it as a library routine, for example (in fact, that's how they're using it). With GNU code if you can't somehow package it into a separate executable you lose. > #Some people *need* shrink-wrapped turnkey systems... and they > #*do* cost money to produce. > I agree that there are people who need turnkey systems, but I don't > see why they *need* a shrink-wrapped system. Also, you are prefectly > allowed to charge for GNU products, you just can't restrict > distribution of the sources. People need to be able to go into a computer store, put down money, and take a box home that they are reasonably assured of being able to load and run first time. That takes a lot of effort to produce from the typical component-stereo sort of freeware. Why go to that effort if someone can just take the sources, type "make", repackage it, and undercut you? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (jeff daiell) (08/10/90)
I find absolutely appalling the irrational premise that those who
wish to be paid for their software work are 'scum'. This is sheer
-- and pernicious -- idiocy, as is any attempt to compare them to
the pirates who steal the software work of others.
Jeff
--
I'm not worried about anyone shooting me.
I know how people hate to wait in line.ken@animal.csd.scarolina.edu (Ken Sallenger) (08/10/90)
In article <14467@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) writes:
=> Oh, do you happen to have WordPerfect, MS Word, Microsoft Windows, or the
=> newest five Sierra games?
Nope. Nor have I any interest in them.
=> I see one more letter with the word GNU in it Ill scream.
OK. TeX. X11.
Guess why I have no interest in WordPerfect :-)
In fact, I was once forced to use WP in a professional project, and let
me assure you that it was a nightmare. This was an interdisciplinary,
University-wide grant proposal, with the contributors of text being as
many rugged individualists (i.e. academic scientists) as I've ever seen
on any collaborative project.
You can bet that if I get sucked into such a quagmire in future, I'll
insist on using real tools instead of some wimpy word processor on
steroids.
=> ... What I would rather
=> here people talk about is what they think of the people who do NOT adhere to
=> such ethics, which is what I understood the original post to mean.
Comments on computer crime reserved for a hypothetical future post.
What Duane has discovered here is that whenever someone is perceived to
equate "hacker" with "criminal," the _real_ hackers are likely to become
annoyed, and may reach for the CONTROL-META-FLAMETHROWER key.
I say _perceived_, as in <14443@wpi.wpi.edu>:
=> ... If thats
=> what the definition of hacking is today, and it certainly seems to be...
--
Ken Sallenger / ken@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu / +1 803 777-9334
Computer Services Division / 1244 Blossom ST / Columbia, SC 29208ops@ayov27.enet.dec.com (Joseph Early) (08/11/90)
In article <14467@wpi.wpi.edu>, dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) writes... >In article <TADGUY.90Aug9092147@abcfd21.larc.nasa.gov> tadguy@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Tad Guy) writes: >> I wonder what all that stuff in my archives is... > >Oh, do you happen to have WordPerfect, MS Word, Microsoft Windows, or the >newest five Sierra games? If you dont, Im sure I can find a bulletin board >(that CHARGES for time), that does. Are you advocating a criminal act here? Why are you so hung up on games, by the way ? Joseph Early - Put my name in subject of mail. Support the short .sig campaign. ...!unido!decum!ayov27.dnet!ops ...!ukc!wessex!ayov27.enet!ops
clewis@eci386.uucp (Chris Lewis) (08/11/90)
In article <14462@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) writes: > I understood Levy's opinion of Stallman to be that he was the last of a dying > breed, trying to fight for an ethic that was as good as gone. I may, of > course, be wrong, but that is what I got out of that section. That very well may have been what Levy was trying to say about Stallman, but I think *this* network (USENET) is perfect evidence that *Levy's* wrong. > You took that quote out of context. I went on to say that people circulate > software most notably in piracy, such as trying to get the newest game to as > many of their friends as possible. There are even bulletin board operators > who support themselves by alowing pirated software to circulate their boards. > I fully agree that people will support the type of 'groupware' thing that > Stalman tried to create with GNU, but simply that it will never flourish like > it could when people can get the new Sierra game, which is definitively the > state of the art in adventure games, for free, or something written by a > handful of high school kids after school which simply isnt as good. Some > do work, granted (Minix comes to mind immediately), but I dont think that the > quality of the freeware in the world will ever match the commerical stuff. USENET is one of the biggest computer networks in the world. USENET isn't a network in the same sense that the INTERNET or BITNET or UUCPNET is, but is an application implemented on top of all of these networks. Through gateways USENET accessibility is far wider than any other single net. One of the most interesting things about USENET is that questionable activities of BBS's (such as software piracy, calling card numbers etc.) are almost completely non-existent. And when they do occur, they're roundly denounced, and physical steps to correct the situation (such as removal of software) invariably follow. Because such activities are so glaringly obvious when they occur. Secondly, as is obvious from the software flow on USENET, there are literally thousands of people with similar attitudes towards software as Stallman has. I'm not talking the whole GNU-manifesto thing, I'm talking about the willingness to make the fruits of their labors *available* to everyone on the net. Certainly many people retain copyright ownership of the software they post, but almost invariably the copyright notice says "you can do anything you want with this software except make money off it". Certainly it's a bit of an ego trip to see lots of people using your software (hi psroff users!), but so what? It's constructive... And finally, most of the software distributed on USENET isn't of particularly high quality. For the simple reason that people wrote the software to fulfill a specific task in a specific environment, and the facts of life (such as eating, and a roof over your head) preclude spending the time necessary to make a truly polished product. The average quality of USENET distributed software is somewhat higher than what you see on BBS's for the simple reason that USENET users tended to be computer professionals with long experience rather than high school BASIC hackers which were more typical of a BBS. This is changing somewhat because USENET is growing like it is, and the "average" poster is less experienced than used to be. BUT.... SOME of the stuff that goes by on USENET FAR exceeds commercial standards. Having been in this industry for almost 20 years I've seen what commercial standards are really like, though I'll refrain from mentioning my personal hit list of stupid commercial developers. What I will mention instead are some of the triumphs of the non-commercial world, much of which is available via USENET: Perl, B-news, C-news, rn, nn, TeX, Minix, tons of GNU stuff, (dare I add psroff? ;-), and most importantly, UNIX itself (UNIX wasn't a commercial venture for many years, most of the most valuable innovation was done under public funding, or as backroom "have fun" research). One need only see how much of this stuff is being adopted by commercial vendors to see how highly these packages are thought of. Not to mention that many of these packages run on more platforms than any single-vendor's package *EVER* has. And besides, even some of the crummiest USENET software is supported better than most commercial stuff. How long did it take ALL of the vendors to REALLY fix the holes exploited by the Internet worm? Much too long. But if you had source, you could have fixed it the *same day* that the holes were identified during the attack, because of the people working on it. Or, another example: Larry's support of Perl. Often same day source fixes or at least a workaround. Without song and dance about license numbers.... -- Chris Lewis, Elegant Communications Inc, {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!lsuc!eci386!clewis Ferret mailing list: eci386!ferret-list, psroff mailing list: eci386!psroff-list Psroff information/questions: psroff-request@eci386
rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) (08/11/90)
In article <9008091507.AA06792@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV>, de5@STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) writes: > >Some do work, granted (Minix comes to mind immediately), but I dont > >think that the quality of the freeware in the world will ever match > >the commerical stuff. > Patent nonsense. GNU Emacs is far superior to the commercial > alternatives; a UNIX Review comparison of GNU and Unipress Emacsen > backs that claim. The GNU C Compiler outperforms many commercial > compilers and is the standard compiler for NeXT and DG AViiON systems. > The X Window System as distributed by the MIT X Consortium is not only > commercial quality, but is in fact the basis of most--if not > all--commercial X software. Some would claim that the problem with X Windows is that it is of commercial quality. :-) > Commercial software is not inherently superior to freeware. Don't > underestimate the effort a dedicated hacker will put into his freely > distributed work. Some comments. The creator of freeware has an intrinsic advantage over the commercial vendor -- his costs are lower. This is more important than you might think. Commercial software must sell for enough to pay for development, for sales, advertising, equipment, the corporate infrastructure, training, manuals, etc. The slice of the budget that goes for development in a commercial vendor is much smaller than that of a freeware developer (or organization.) The catch in freeware is not the intrinsic quality of the software which may be, as you note, quite high. What freeware generally lacks is the user support infrastructure (professionally written manuals, user support hot-lines, etc.) The result is that successful freeware is restricted to niches. -- Richard Harter, Software Maintenance and Development Systems, Inc. Net address: jjmhome!smds!rh Phone: 508-369-7398 US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742 This sentence no verb. This sentence short. This signature done.
rburns@cup.portal.com (Randy J Burns) (08/12/90)
I've thought that a lot of the aspects of computer technology could do a lot to seriously change the banking and finance system. I find it very interesting the that hero of this summers box office hit is a Ghost that uses electronic funds transfer to snag the movies villians (I'm thinking of the movie Ghost). My guess is the extremly easy counterfieting, technologies that tend to put more power into local hands and inability to keep secrets could topple many of the economic powers-that-be. I wonder how long until we until we really do have the 90's electronic equivalent of Bonnie and Clyde. Frankly, when the causes of the S&L crisis become widely known electronic vigilantism could well become widely accepted. There are several fairly large companies run by known mobsters(some of whom were also involved in the S&L scam). I honestly doubt if the FBI would do much if suddenly these companies found that they just couldn't keep anything in the company secret or for that matter running.
lush@EE.MsState.Edu (Edward Luke) (08/13/90)
In article <WS35XWE@ficc.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > #Some people *need* shrink-wrapped turnkey systems... and they > #*do* cost money to produce. > I agree that there are people who need turnkey systems, but I don't > see why they *need* a shrink-wrapped system. Also, you are prefectly > allowed to charge for GNU products, you just can't restrict > distribution of the sources. People need to be able to go into a computer store, put down money, and take a box home that they are reasonably assured of being able to load and run first time. That takes a lot of effort to produce from the typical component-stereo sort of freeware. Why go to that effort if someone can just take the sources, type "make", repackage it, and undercut you? Exactly! That is the idea behind GNU, maximum benifit to the USER. What you are saying just means that I will be able to buy software for a small amount over the distribution costs. Basically if you sell your packaged system for too high a profit level, someone else would come in and undercut you. True free enterprise. Now if you had shown yourself as particularly competent at consulting also, you should be able to up your stakes (profit), again good for the users since it motivates the suppliers to be competetive in terms of services with a minimum of re-invention. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> Ed Luke Mississippi State University Research Center for Complex Field Simulations
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (08/13/90)
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!jeffd@ucsd.edu (jeff daiell) >I find absolutely appalling the irrational premise that those who >wish to be paid for their software work are 'scum'. This is sheer >-- and pernicious -- idiocy, as is any attempt to compare them to >the pirates who steal the software work of others. Red herring? Did anyone call people who want to be paid for software work scum? I know RMS gets about $250/hr for his software work and makes no bones about it, for example. I think Jeff is just trying to stir the pot by setting up straw men (no doubt as a prelude to some forthcoming political soapboxing.) Sit on your hands, you're being baited. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
lws@comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) (08/14/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Aug10.035033.2122@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes: >> [ stuff deleted ] >They [ NeXT ] use separate, individual GNU programs. That's a small subset of >possible ways someone can use my code. They can use it as a library routine, >for example (in fact, that's how they're using it). With GNU code if you >can't somehow package it into a separate executable you lose. Well, not exactly. If you can't package it into a separate executable, you have to distribute your additions to the whole world. Not exactly the same as saying that you can't do it, only that you have to share. More like, "if you want to use what we give you, you've got to give us what you've done, and let us do with it as we wish." >> I agree that there are people who need turnkey systems, but I don't >> see why they *need* a shrink-wrapped system. Also, you are prefectly >> allowed to charge for GNU products, you just can't restrict >> distribution of the sources. No, you're not allowed to charge for GNU products. You're only allowed to charge a "reasonable" distribution fee, to compensate you for your costs in getting it to the user. >People need to be able to go into a computer store, put down money, and >take a box home that they are reasonably assured of being able to load and >run first time. That takes a lot of effort to produce from the typical >component-stereo sort of freeware. Why go to that effort if someone can just >take the sources, type "make", repackage it, and undercut you? Well, if someone is undercutting you by using cheaper components, but offer the same quality product, join 'em! If they can undercut you even though you're both using the same components, well, that's what capitalism is all about. -- Lyle Wang lws@comm.wang.com 508 967 2322 Lowell, MA, USA uunet!comm.wang.com!lws
jbw@zeb.uswest.com (Joe Wells) (08/14/90)
In article <1990Aug13.183623.25045@comm.wang.com> lws@comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) writes: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >They [ NeXT ] use separate, individual GNU programs. That's a small >subset of possible ways someone can use my code. They can use it as a >library routine, for example (in fact, that's how they're using it). >With GNU code if you can't somehow package it into a separate >executable you lose. Well, not exactly. If you can't package it into a separate executable, you have to distribute your additions to the whole world. Not exactly the same as saying that you can't do it, only that you have to share. More like, "if you want to use what we give you, you've got to give us what you've done, and let us do with it as we wish." The Free Software Foundation is considering distributing their libraries with a more lenient license. If/when they do this, you will be able to distribute a binary linked with their libraries as long as you distribute object modules for the non-GNU portion so that the users can relink. Note, this will only apply to GNU's libraries. No, you're not allowed to charge for GNU products. You're only allowed to charge a "reasonable" distribution fee, to compensate you for your costs in getting it to the user. You can charge any amount of $$$ for a GNU product that you want to. However, if you charge too much, you will make at most one sale, because the first person to whom you sell can resell to anyone else for whatever price they want to. -- Joe Wells <jbw@uswest.com> Copyright 1990 Joe Wells. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce and redistribute this message only in its entirety. :-)
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/14/90)
I know of nobody who writes software other than for personal gain. I know many who write software and abjure direct *financial* gain, but there is a big difference. Richard Stallman writes software, and releases it under his very particular terms in order to promote his particular political agenda. Others have written free software for the satisfaction of having other people make wide use of their code. (I've done this myself) Or for the fame and respect that it brings. Others have written software and given it away in the hope of earning consulting contracts or other indirect financial gain from the fame the free software brings. Some write software and give it away because they can't think of anything else to do with it. By and large most writers of free software do it for personal gain. You just can't measure that gain in a bankbook most of the time. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (08/15/90)
In article <WS35XWE@ficc.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >People need to be able to go into a computer store, put down money, and >take a box home that they are reasonably assured of being able to load and >run first time. That takes a lot of effort to produce from the typical >component-stereo sort of freeware. Why go to that effort if someone can just >take the sources, type "make", repackage it, and undercut you? Just because Peter da Silva doesn't think it will work doesn't mean it won't work. Cygnus makes money providing "shrink-wrapped" distributions and support of GNU software, for big organizations. If there really is a need, then you can make money doing it. If there isn't a need, then you shouldn't go to the effort. -- "In fact you should not be involved in IRC." -- Phil Howard
dbc@bushido.uucp (Dave Caswell) (08/15/90)
In article <1990Aug14.054112.4347@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >I know of nobody who writes software other than for personal gain. I know >many who write software and abjure direct *financial* gain, but there is >a big difference. This is a ridiculous argument. You're saying every action is for personal gain, just because a person did it.
braum@Sol33.essex.ac.uk (Branscombe M P C) (08/16/90)
for hacking in the modern sense - ie breaking into systems and so on - good recent books are Data Theft by Hugo Cornwall, author of The Hackers Handbook Cuckoo's Egg by Clifford Stoll - legion of Doom meets DARPAnet dtuff Beating the System/Inside the system or some such - author is (Ithink) something Khan there's some discussion on the elpf mailing list on this - contact elpf-request @cstr.ed.uk.ac My personal opinion - as a programmer (Prolog etc) and a journalist - is that it divides into straight crime - ripping off computer time/data - power play - look what I can do - and hmmm, what's in here - hello mr Sysop, I found a security loophole by doing x,y,z recent anecdotes - the hacker at one of the London colleges (?Royal Mary &Westfield?) who erased various file, including data belonging to RNIB Mary Branscombe
braum@Sol33.essex.ac.uk (Branscombe M P C) (08/16/90)
the differences between commercial software and free/shareware are - backup services. guarantees. fixing bugs in the code 5 years later. teaching you how to use the product. updates If I can get an expensive expert system shell from a company that will continue to support the product, or a free system from I-don't-know-where with no-one to help in even six months time - what should I invest my programming effort in? Mary Branscombe (disclaimer - well I claim I wrote dis)
I.G.Batten@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) (08/16/90)
braum@essex.ac.uk (Branscombe M P C) writes: > the differences between commercial software and free/shareware are - > backup services. guarantees. fixing bugs in the code 5 years later. > teaching you how to use the product. updates Truly. ``I seem to have lost my master of release 5 for an XYZZY box. Could you generate me a BACKUP?'' ``I'm afraid we don't support software that old, have you considered getting release 93?'' Or better. ``This software doesn't work. I'd like to claim under GUARANTEE.'' ``What? No fitness of purpose is warrented...'' Or better. ``I'd like an UPDATE release of AIX to FIX the BUGS on my PC/RT''. ``I'm sorry, but have you considered buying a 6000?''. Of course, when you buy a binary license for some software and the software house goes bust, your position is completely safe. And when the vendor of your proprietory system goes under or withdraws support, you'll find no commercial issues at all. Those who know what com_err_, ioa_ and hcs_$terminate mean will realise the worth of long term committment to product. ian
KPURCELL@liverpool.ac.uk (Kevin ^G Purcell) (08/16/90)
On 15 Aug 90 19:02:03 GMT Branscombe M P C (mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!stl!servax0!Sol33!braum@net.uu.uunet) said: >the differences between commercial software and free/shareware are - >backup services. I presume you mean technical support -- a lot of the technical support I have encountered with commerical software is neither technical nor support. As time moves on (and we see the full version of GNU) we will see more companies providing support for these products (e.g. I think Convex now supports GNU Emacs for its customers). There is a lot of money to be made there and as you work for a common base you can always drop your current GNU support and go to another company. Can you do that today? >guarantees. Ha Ha Ha He He He Ho Ho Ho -- but seriously folks .... I have yet to see a software company make a guarantee about their software. All of them have (probably illegal) disclaimers, saying they don't guarantee their product to do anything whatsoever. >fixing bugs in the code 5 years later. I couldn't figure out if this was a joke or not, but 5 years seems about right. Most freeware bugs (when you get the source) can be fixed on site. The bugs get fixed faster than any commerical group. Otherwise they get distributed on the net. >teaching you how to use the product. More humour? Apart from paying a large amount of money to a company that make their living from doing this most software companies will just laugh at you ("We'll you bough it, now you can figure out how to use it"). Most companies appear not even to document all the features in their products. >updates That cost more money and are late. >If I can get an expensive expert system shell from a company that will > continue to support the product, or a free system from I-don't-know-where with > no-one to help in even six months time - what should I invest my programming > effort in? Depends how much money you have and whether you can get the source, so that you can do the maintainance yourself when they go under (or you could get it from IBM, Toshiba, ...:-). >Mary Branscombe >(disclaimer - well I claim I wrote dis) Are you sure you didn't forget the smiley? Kevin Purcell | kpurcell@liverpool.ac.uk Surface Science Centre | Liverpool University | Omit needless words.
hsu@hutcs.hut.fi (Heikki Suonsivu) (08/17/90)
In article <3990@servax0.essex.ac.uk> braum@essex.ac.uk (Branscombe M P C) writes: >the differences between commercial software and free/shareware are - >backup services. guarantees. fixing bugs in the code 5 years later. >teaching you how to use the product. updates True, these are the reasons why I avoid commercial software by all means, as no commercial institution I have worked with has been able to provide working producs, backup services (doesn't work and you must get it working by monday? Sorry, can't help, but we will forward your report to headquarters), guarantees (fix bugs? Haha, sure, $100/hr, beta in 6 months), fixing bugs in the code 5 years later (Yes, you can have the current version for modest $200 upgrade fee. I don't know if it fixes this problem, though?), teaching me how to use the product (Typically I end up teaching them). In time you get them to supply you a copy of lint compiled with MAXSYMBOLS more than 1024 (6 hours * $80/hr + $50 for expenses) you have written one yourself. Best results I have got by calling states but that becomes kinda expensive in long term. In Europe FSF style software probably has better ground than in the U.S. This might be a bit colored view, business software isn't really my field, I'm quite developer-oriented. I admit it is somewhat different in the world of Lotuses and ms-dos. - Heikki Suonsivu, @ 2:504/1, Kuutamokatu 5 A 7/02210 Espoo/FINLAND, hsu@otax.tky.hut.fi (or @hutcs.hut.fi or @clinet.fi), mcsun!hutcs!hsu, riippu SN, voice +358-0-8030017, Email preferable.
lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) (08/18/90)
In article <3990@servax0.essex.ac.uk> braum@essex.ac.uk (Branscombe M P C) writes: >>the differences between commercial software and free/shareware are - >>backup services. guarantees. fixing bugs in the code 5 years later. >>teaching you how to use the product. updates In article <1990Aug16.212327.7799@santra.uucp> hsu@hutcs.hut.fi (Heikki Suonsivu) writes: >True, these are the reasons why I avoid commercial software by all means, >as no commercial institution I have worked with has been able to provide >working producs, backup services ... > >This might be a bit colored view, business software isn't really my field, >I'm quite developer-oriented. I admit it is somewhat different in the world >of Lotuses and ms-dos. I am a firm believer in white bicycles and free software, but the above argument shoots itself in the foot. The reason there is professional, mass supported quality off-the-shelf software in the MS-DOS world is probably *PRECISELY* because that culture has been disconnected from the "free" "user-supported" "hacker" culture. Look at the difference between VMS and SUN. VMS comes with a software support contract that maximizes your performance, and provides an escalation mechanism if your system does not work. SUN tries to mimic this, but the telephone support center takes up to 3 days to return your call. The availability of self-help and floating-around software that enables you (with lots of work) to come up with your own workarounds undercuts the ability of the vendor to make support profitable. This is a classic example of how a free market system is less efficient than a well-run monopoly. The counter argument of course is that monopolies are usually not well-run. Since this has nothing to do with security or computer folklore, I have redirected followups away from alt.security and alt.folklore.computers. -- / Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (08/18/90)
From: hub.ucsb.edu!spectrum.CMC.COM!lars@ucsd.edu (Lars Poulsen) >I am a firm believer in white bicycles and free software, but the above >argument shoots itself in the foot. The reason there is professional, >mass supported quality off-the-shelf software in the MS-DOS world is >probably *PRECISELY* because that culture has been disconnected from the >"free" "user-supported" "hacker" culture. Well, who can be sure, but I suspect it also has a lot to do with the fact that many, many useful MS/DOS software packages are under $100 which mostly removes the motivation to roll your own. Borland's (C & Pascal) compilers are $79.95 at Egghead, how hard would you work to save that much? Perfectly useable spreadsheets and little database packages are around that price or less. You'd be amazed (if you don't frequent those stores) at the number of useful packages for under $50. Sure, these things may not be good enough for big production work (actually, I think Borland's stuff always shocks people at how good it is for the price, often much better than the $500+ compilers), but that sort of customer doesn't care a lot about buying top-shelf stuff either. So the same customer who might write or provide audience for the freeware in the MS/DOS world can buy it for almost free. A lot of people rely on services like Compuserve for "freeware" also, and it's easy to spend $50 locating and downloading free software from those services. >Look at the difference between VMS and SUN. VMS comes with a software >support contract that maximizes your performance, and provides an >escalation mechanism if your system does not work. SUN tries to mimic >this, but the telephone support center takes up to 3 days to return your >call. I think the reason this topic is at all interesting on this list (INFO-FUTURES) is that a lot of those types of deals are doomed, the industry is due for a major reorganization. Those of us who remember LCG (DEC's TOPS-10/TOPS-20 large computer group) also remember how the vax really cranked *down* service quality. Simple economics, my 2060 cost $1M, most vaxes were less than $250K and dropping fast on average when uVaxes became popular. Sun has pushed their systems down to under $10K and they're doing a lot of the same computing jobs, often better from a price/performance point of view (at least in terms of predictability of response, which seems to be quite important to former time-share users.) My 2060 field service person was responsible for only four or five sites, he dropped in at least once a week to just sit and read error logs for an hour or two and otherwise sniff around for potential problems (I remember him volunteering to redo a bunch of cables he didn't like the looks of, for example.) You don't get that kind of thing from DEC anymore, in general (I suppose if you have a room full of 9000's they give you some special attention.) The economics have changed for the average customer, they may be spending more money on computing, but all of it on lots of small systems. Times are changing, fast. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (08/27/90)
Brad Templeton wrote:
I know of nobody who writes software other than for personal
gain. I know many who write software and abjure direct
*financial* gain, but there is a big difference.
Dave Caswell counters:
This is a ridiculous argument. You're saying every action is for
personal gain, just because a person did it.
Well, not just because a person did it, but because the person did it
without being forced to do it. Sort of.
I might give up my wallet at gun-point. Was it for personal gain? In
a manner of speaking, yes, but I don't think this is what Brad meant.
But I might write free software and give it away. Was it for personal
gain? Very much so. People write software either because they get
paid for it, or because they "feel like" writing it. I don't know of
anybody who does it for any other reason.
So what's the meaning of "feel like writing software"? It's probably a
meaning very similar to the meaning of "feel like creating a
painting". Or "feel like donating to charity". It's done without
expectation of reward in the conventional sense of the word, but if you
look deeper, there is -- or there *should be* -- expectation of reward
in a different way. It could be the pleasure of a job well done, or
the pleasure of having created something new, or the pleasure of seeing
somebody else pleased. Or the pleasure of knowing one will be
remembered as a hero long after one is dead.
Anybody who does anything without no expectation of any gain whatsoever
is being very stupid, and will eventually end up cynical and bitter at
ungrateful people.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com>
UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesibzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (08/27/90)
Re: Why we write software...
Many of the things I've contributed were written for some specific
reason, I needed the software at the time. When it was done it seemed
like it would be useful to others so I distributed it. The point being
that the writing of the software and the act of giving it away were
quite disconnected, it was an afterthought (gee, that's actually
useful, maybe I should post it...)
Of course, there were other things I've written more or less with the
idea that, if it worked, it should be given away. That was more in the
category of, well, "because it wasn't there" software. Xman was
definitely that kind of thing.
Some was in between, perhaps I wrote it because I thought people on
the campus I worked for needed it and when I saw they found it useful
(or failed to appreciate its brilliance :-) I gave it away.
But I wouldn't discount the afterthought software, I think a lot of
people write something simply because *they* wanted it. When they see
the result, perhaps after sharing it with some friends and getting
compliments on how useful it is, they realized that distributing it
would be a good thing. Distributing, on the nets at least, is a very
easy thing to do, no big decision involved.
Being as the act of writing it may have been 100% selfish, but the
quite separate act of giving it away 98% selfless (mainly because the
software is just sitting there at that point) it's hard to make
generalizations as are being made here. We're talking about different
acts.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLDjwm@STDC.JHUAPL.EDU (Jim Meritt) (08/28/90)
>Does the word "knowingly" have any meaning or is it just a legal >buzzword? How does someone "knowingly" dial a wrong number. One does it eight times, for instance. What we don't know that is relevant: What were the charges? If they were eight separate charges for one instance, that is one thing. If it is eight charges for eight separate instances, I would say that the "knowingly" is pretty open-and-shut. By the seventh time you should know d@mn well what you are calling. Another unknown: Was this conviction the result of a plea agreement (what did you admit to?) or a trial by jury? If the latter, the intent was demonstrated to a group that DID have the available information. It would appear this individual is seeking sympathy, at the very least by NOT telling vital pieces of information while decrying his fate. Jim Meritt
ath@prosys.se (Anders Thulin) (08/28/90)
In article <2313@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >Anybody who does anything without no expectation of any gain whatsoever >is being very stupid, and will eventually end up cynical and bitter at >ungrateful people. ... or canonized by the Vatican Church. Irrelevant. Yes. -- Anders Thulin ath@prosys.se {uunet,mcsun}!sunic!prosys!ath Telesoft Europe AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP (Alton Harkcom) (08/29/90)
In article <9008271953.AA09290@stdc.jhuapl.edu> jwm@STDC.JHUAPL.EDU (Jim Meritt) writes: =}What we don't know that is relevant: What were the charges? If they =}were eight separate charges for one instance, that is one thing. If it =}is eight charges for eight separate instances, I would say that the =}"knowingly" is pretty open-and-shut. By the seventh time you should =}know d@mn well what you are calling. Suppose I am trying to connect to what I think is a public BBS and keep getting a login prompt with no oreganization ID. I get pissed and keep trying to login as it was explained to me by the director of the BBS. After 8 attempts, the feds show up and take everything I own, slap fines on me that I can't pay without a job (who will hire a criminal hacker?), and lock me up for quite a while with murderers and rapists (and the other people who tried to access the BBS). Open and Shut. Open your mouths and shut your minds is the motto of mordern government... -- -- $@2#2OEE5!3t<02q<R(J PA$@#15;#22](J TEL 0422-52-5748 FAX 0422-55-1728 E-mail harkcom@pa.yokogawa.co.jp