Real Programmers Appreciate Larry Wall
Universe
leader in the open source software movement, which includes Linux.
He’s the linguist who created Perl, the programming language which
glues together much of the Internet.
"Computer programming is not about computers, Mr. Wall insists.
It’s about humans. What drives Mr. Wall and others in the open source
software movement? They have a sense of purpose: Improve the lot of
humankind. To do that, they create software -- FREE software. And
they share."
"Mr. Wall sees a basic philosophical shift in the computer
industry. Bigger companies which have traditionally kept their source
code propriety are beginning to open up. Doing so has many benefits,
according Mr. Wall and the growing numbers of people working (for
free) in the open source software world. There are already many
millions of Linux users, roughly a million Perl users, he reports. And
the numbers keep growing."
© 2000 The Paula Gordon Show.
All material copyrighted by The Paula Gordon Show
http://paulagordon.com/shows/wall/
Elliott
--
* Excelsior! * Avanti! *
* Ever Onward and Upward to an Exploitation Free World *
* Empiricist Free Science & Conservative Free Art *
3w.radix.net/~universe @ Elliott, 2002
--
Optimal software abstraction levels have project vocabulary and
key scope relevant role objects corresponding to the level's reality
entities.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Shayne Wissler
"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
news:dptb4u47aihpvtkf0...@4ax.com...
<snip>
I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to be
compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.
--
Shayne Wissler
"The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people
think." -- Aristotle
Phil Tomson
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
>news:dptb4u47aihpvtkf0...@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>
>I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to be
>compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
>everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.
Isn't this a false dichotomy? Larry Wall, for example, wrote a tool that
many use and he released the code freely (under the artistic license,
though I think it may have originally been under GPL) and he has been
compensated via book royalties and by working for O'Reilly.
Phil
Shayne Wissler
"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:%9r18.11396$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <3Sm18.32590$Vq.325092@rwcrnsc53>,
> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
> >news:dptb4u47aihpvtkf0...@4ax.com...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to
be
> >compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
> >everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.
>
> Isn't this a false dichotomy?
I don't see why.
> Larry Wall, for example, wrote a tool that
> many use and he released the code freely (under the artistic license,
> though I think it may have originally been under GPL) and he has been
> compensated via book royalties and by working for O'Reilly.
What Larry Wall does is Larry Wall's business. I'm not going to tell him not
to release code for free. What I'm talking about is the philosophy behind
GNU, which in part is: that software is not property, and that people don't
have a right to sell licenses to use.
GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights as
programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may on
the free market.
GNU is also destructive because it creates free, medium-quality UNIX tools,
thereby making it very hard for a commercial company who wants to make
high-quality, truely competitive UNIX tools to make a profit, and thereby
provide it a means of continuously improving its products. In my opinion,
GNU, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of UNIX to
improve to the point that it either a) dominates over Windows, or b) forces
Windows to come up with a higher-quality OS for programmers. The problem
certainly isn't technical, and it isn't because Windows was there first.
It's because the UNIX community is infested with Marxists.
Universe
>"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
>> "Larry Wall, the man with this unusual prescription, is a
>>leader in the open source software movement, which includes Linux.
>>He’s the linguist who created Perl, the programming language which
>>glues together much of the Internet.
>>
>> "Computer programming is not about computers, Mr. Wall insists.
>>It’s about humans. What drives Mr. Wall and others in the open source
>>software movement? They have a sense of purpose: Improve the lot of
>>humankind. To do that, they create software -- FREE software. And
>>they share.
>>
>> "Mr. Wall sees a basic philosophical shift in the computer
>>industry. Bigger companies which have traditionally kept their source
>>code propriety are beginning to open up. Doing so has many benefits,
>>according Mr. Wall and the growing numbers of people working (for
>>free) in the open source software world. There are already many
>>millions of Linux users, roughly a million Perl users, he reports. And
>>the numbers keep growing."
>>© 2000 The Paula Gordon Show.
>>All material copyrighted by The Paula Gordon Show
>I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to be
>compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
>everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.
Programmers and everyone else in society ideally should work to the
best of their ability and get the things they need to live a decent
life. I'm not for super salaries in sports, music, business, or any
area.
Ideally producers should produce get the resources they need to
produce, and produce to the best of their ability. They deserve no
more and no less, imo. Just as with individuals above.
What did GNU do/say that you find objectionable? If you mean create
duplicate software undercutting super salaries and corporate profits,
that's not a problem, as I see it.
Elliott
--
* Excelsior! * Avanti! *
* Ever Onward and Upward to an Exploitation Free World *
* Empiricist Free Science & Conservative Free Art *
3w.radix.net/~universe @ Elliott, 2002
______________________________________________________________________
Universe
>GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
>idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights as
>programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may on
>the free market.
>
>GNU is also destructive because it creates free, medium-quality UNIX tools,
>thereby making it very hard for a commercial company who wants to make
>high-quality, truely competitive UNIX tools to make a profit, and thereby
>provide it a means of continuously improving its products. In my opinion,
>GNU, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of UNIX to
>improve to the point that it either a) dominates over Windows, or b) forces
>Windows to come up with a higher-quality OS for programmers. The problem
>certainly isn't technical, and it isn't because Windows was there first.
>It's because the UNIX community is infested with Marxists.
Grrrrreat!! You prompt me to join 'em! Despite your half-truths and
whole lies.
Spoken like a true, support 1% of the world population ruining land,
sea and climate, and oppresses and exploits the bent backs of the
other 90+% of the world population for profits, typical Randie.
Elliott
--
*For Cultless, Internationalist, non-mechanist Dialectics Revolution*
Universe
>Spoken like a true, support 1% of the world population ruining land,
>sea and climate, and oppresses and exploits the bent backs of the
>other 90+% of the world population for profits, typical
* adherent of the they don't realize it, but it really truly is *
* a kind of Empiricist, as are all anti-simulationists, trend *
>Randie.
>Elliott
--
Optimal software abstraction levels have project vocabulary and
key scope relevant role objects corresponding to the level's reality
entities.
______________________________________________________________________
Shayne Wissler
"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cBr18.34222$uA.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Here's a URL with an analysis of the GPL:
http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3.
Richard Stallman on creativity: "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... "
Spoken like a true Communist.
If you care for your job and for the health of the software industry, then
whatever you do, don't support GNU by sending them any kind of support, and
NEVER, EVER, put a GPL on your own code.
Dmitry A. Kazakov
<thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What Larry Wall does is Larry Wall's business. I'm not going to tell him not
>to release code for free. What I'm talking about is the philosophy behind
>GNU, which in part is: that software is not property, and that people don't
>have a right to sell licenses to use.
How GNU phylosophy prevents *you* from selling your software? It is
not phylosophy, but the nature of human beings that makes selling
ideas hard.
>GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
>idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights as
>programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may on
>the free market.
This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
computer/software industry. It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
Word, C++ or even VB. GNU is an alternative, though it works neigther
(:-(). Maybe the government should subsidize software development as
it does in the case of fundamental research. However the consequences
are also well known.
Anyway to argue against alternatives is a bit unwise.
>GNU is also destructive because it creates free, medium-quality UNIX tools,
>thereby making it very hard for a commercial company who wants to make
>high-quality, truely competitive UNIX tools to make a profit, and thereby
>provide it a means of continuously improving its products. In my opinion,
>GNU, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of UNIX to
>improve to the point that it either a) dominates over Windows, or b) forces
>Windows to come up with a higher-quality OS for programmers.
UNIX is Windows of 80s. It was the worst case that time. Microsoft
just has maintained to produce something even worse than UNIX and thus
has deserved its commercial triumph.
>The problem certainly isn't technical, and it isn't because Windows was there first.
Yes.
>It's because the UNIX community is infested with Marxists.
and opportunists, revisionists, Trotskists (:-))
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
Shayne Wissler
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
> computer/software industry.
BS. Tell that to the millions of Microsoft users who have something they
wouldn't otherwise have. Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented
amounts of cash.
> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
> Word, C++ or even VB.
Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out to
be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer. My
exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
programmers need into account.
I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives. Bill Gates
got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them ever
since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become a
monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.
Of course, that won't happen. From what I've read, Microsoft purposefully
dumbs down some of their software in order for it not to put some other
company out of business. So don't blame Microsoft, blame the antitrust laws.
Mike Smith
news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> computer/software industry. It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
> Word, C++ or even VB.
And in what way does this imply that the free market "does not work"? *You*
don't decide what "works" or doesn't "work"; the *market* (which consists of
*everyone* who seeks to buy and/or sell products) does. The market chooses
what it wants, based on the criteria that are important to those who
comprise the marketplace. If they choose Wintel and VB, then it's because
that's what works out best *for them*. Who are *you* (or Stallman, or any
other individual) to dictate otherwise?
--
Mike Smith
Tom Plunket
> I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to be
> compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
> everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.
Obviously someone who has no idea what GNU and the FSF are all
about.
Why haven't I killfiled this joker yet?
Oh yeah- education. Nobody says that programmers shouldn't get
paid. They're saying that code should be free. Big difference.
-tom!
--
Tom Plunket to...@fancy.org
PlayStation2/3D Studio geek
Few people realize that pieces of coral, when
painted brown and attached to the skull with wood
screws, can make a child look like a deer.
Cagdas Ozgenc
like us. We are not the pontential customers, so MS doesn't give a f***. If
AOL is the leader in ISP then it clearly means the potential customers are
not Einsteins. Well, let the tech-losers sitting at the table peeking
through their 10" focals into a cheap OEM monitor cry for their pathetic
lives, meanwhile I better go figure out a way to make some cash.
Phil Tomson
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
>news:%9r18.11396$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <3Sm18.32590$Vq.325092@rwcrnsc53>,
>> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
>> >news:dptb4u47aihpvtkf0...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to
>be
>> >compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
>> >everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.
>>
>> Isn't this a false dichotomy?
>
>I don't see why.
>
>> Larry Wall, for example, wrote a tool that
>> many use and he released the code freely (under the artistic license,
>> though I think it may have originally been under GPL) and he has been
>> compensated via book royalties and by working for O'Reilly.
>
>What Larry Wall does is Larry Wall's business. I'm not going to tell him not
>to release code for free. What I'm talking about is the philosophy behind
>GNU, which in part is: that software is not property, and that people don't
>have a right to sell licenses to use.
And nobody's forcing you to realease your code for free.
>
>GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
>idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights as
>programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may on
>the free market.
GNU doesn't encourage piracy. GNU encourages developers to release their
code under GPL. When they do so piracy is a non-issue. Sure, the very
zealous in the GNU organization would like all softare to be free and
under GPL, but even they do not encourage piracy of non-free software.
>
>GNU is also destructive because it creates free, medium-quality UNIX tools,
>thereby making it very hard for a commercial company who wants to make
>high-quality, truely competitive UNIX tools to make a profit, and thereby
>provide it a means of continuously improving its products. In my opinion,
>GNU, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of UNIX to
>improve to the point that it either a) dominates over Windows, or b) forces
>Windows to come up with a higher-quality OS for programmers. The problem
>certainly isn't technical, and it isn't because Windows was there first.
>It's because the UNIX community is infested with Marxists.
On the contrary.
Prior to the emergence of Linux and FreeBSD, UNIX offered no threat to
Windows at all. Now Linux is considered in many quartes to the the only
viable contender. Some may name OSX, but it's also a BSD derivitive.
Do you really think that if Linux were never created that Solaris would
now be considered a viable contender against Windows?! No way! Solaris
would still cost thousands.
And as for the GNU tools being considered 'medium-quality UNIX tools', I
know of one company nearby that, when they buy HPUX machines immediately
replace the HPUX tools with GNU tools because the GNU tools work.
Phil
Phil Tomson
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cBr18.34222$uA.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
>Here's a URL with an analysis of the GPL:
>http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3.
>
>Richard Stallman on creativity: "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... "
>
>Spoken like a true Communist.
>
Sure, Stallman is on the edge. But consider the large 'middle ground' of
the open source world represented by people like Larry Wall, Linus
Torvalds, Eric Raymond.
Yeah, Stallman is 'out there', but he is the father of free software and
as such he's done a lot of good. But consider the ballancing forces
within the movement.
>If you care for your job and for the health of the software industry, then
>whatever you do, don't support GNU by sending them any kind of support, and
>NEVER, EVER, put a GPL on your own code.
Actually, if you care about the health of the industry perhaps you should
consider releasing your code under GPL (or Artistic, or BSD type license -
I'm not a GPL zealot). Consider: Would the internet as we know it exist
without free, open-source software and open standards? How many software
companies benefit (save money) by using free, open source tools?
Just think of the time that has been saved by not having to reinvent the
wheel in many cases, for example. This efficiency results in economic
benefits (cost savings).
Phil
Phil Tomson
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
>news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
>> computer/software industry.
>
>BS. Tell that to the millions of Microsoft users who have something they
>wouldn't otherwise have. Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented
>amounts of cash.
>
>> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
>> Word, C++ or even VB.
>
>Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out to
>be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer. My
>exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
>programmers need into account.
Windows represents the lowest common denominator. It's pop computing, and
it sells. How many good singers are we missing out on because of Brittany
Speers' pop success?
However, you can argue that the Mac was even easier to use than Windows,
but it lost out to Windows. Capitalism is subject to falling into local
minimas.
>I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives. Bill Gates
>got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them ever
>since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
>but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
>
>For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become a
>monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
>have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.
wait a minute, you're the free market guy (at least I've surmised that
based on what you've been saying here) - if Microsoft acheives a monopoly
you won't see all the great features of UNIX in Windows because there will
be no incentive for Micro$oft to put them in.
Why did Billy Gates issue a memo yesterday saying that the main focus of
the company should now be on security? I would argue that it is because
of the pressure they're feeling from Linux - if Windows were the only game
in town he wouldn't care about security.
>
>Of course, that won't happen. From what I've read, Microsoft purposefully
>dumbs down some of their software in order for it not to put some other
>company out of business. So don't blame Microsoft, blame the antitrust laws.
LoL.... This is a waste of time. Bye.
Phil
Shayne Wissler
> Sure, Stallman is on the edge. But consider the large 'middle ground' of
> the open source world represented by people like Larry Wall, Linus
> Torvalds, Eric Raymond.
>
> Yeah, Stallman is 'out there', but he is the father of free software and
> as such he's done a lot of good. But consider the ballancing forces
> within the movement.
That is precisely what Stallman wants. It is precisely what is happening.
And it's the worst possible alternative.
What's needed is a flexible, free-market-oriented approach, where progammers
can write these neat tools but retain full rights, so that when they become
popular, they can make a profit from them, thereby freeing them to work on
their pet project full-time. And there should be "open source" when the
authors decide to do that, but they should set the terms so that derived
works still owe someting to them if they ever make money. But with GNU and
GNUish BS around, it makes it much harder to get momentum up for this kind
of alternative.
This is also an example of the government corrupting the industry. They fund
a lot of GNU development. Who can compete with government funded projects?
Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.
> >If you care for your job and for the health of the software industry,
then
> >whatever you do, don't support GNU by sending them any kind of support,
and
> >NEVER, EVER, put a GPL on your own code.
>
> Actually, if you care about the health of the industry perhaps you should
> consider releasing your code under GPL (or Artistic, or BSD type license -
> I'm not a GPL zealot). Consider: Would the internet as we know it exist
> without free, open-source software and open standards? How many software
> companies benefit (save money) by using free, open source tools?
It's impossible to predict how much benefit there would be in eliminating
things like GNU and replacing them with free-market alternatives. You're
merely judging the sequence of events without weighing the alternatives.
> Just think of the time that has been saved by not having to reinvent the
> wheel in many cases, for example. This efficiency results in economic
> benefits (cost savings).
GNU is a false alternative. What could exist doesn't exist, because of GNU.
Shayne Wissler
> >GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
> >idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights
as
> >programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may
on
> >the free market.
>
> GNU doesn't encourage piracy.
Oh yes they do. They explicitly encourage people to violate
reverse-engineering licenses in order to build clones. Perhaps you should go
read some of their material before arguing with me about this.
> On the contrary.
> Prior to the emergence of Linux and FreeBSD, UNIX offered no threat to
> Windows at all. Now Linux is considered in many quartes to the the only
> viable contender. Some may name OSX, but it's also a BSD derivitive.
No free software will ever be a viable contender with Windows. Not unless
the government steps up its harrassment of Microsoft and its funding of
"free" software (brought to you compliments of higher income taxes).
> Do you really think that if Linux were never created that Solaris would
> now be considered a viable contender against Windows?! No way! Solaris
> would still cost thousands.
I agree with that, but that's because Sun is a crappy company (also, the
government is a big customer, so no surprise there). A better-run company
would do better.
> And as for the GNU tools being considered 'medium-quality UNIX tools', I
> know of one company nearby that, when they buy HPUX machines immediately
> replace the HPUX tools with GNU tools because the GNU tools work.
I say "medium quality" in comparison to Microsoft. People whine about MS,
but for what they're building their tools for, they're extremely nice.
Shayne Wissler
> >Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out
to
> >be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer. My
> >exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
> >programmers need into account.
>
> Windows represents the lowest common denominator. It's pop computing, and
> it sells. How many good singers are we missing out on because of Brittany
> Speers' pop success?
Well, my statements are based on my opinion that you can have a powerful
development system and a "pop" system integrated into one, with benefits
flowing either way.
> However, you can argue that the Mac was even easier to use than Windows,
> but it lost out to Windows. Capitalism is subject to falling into local
> minimas.
No, MS offered a better deal than Apple. It wasn't a local minima at all.
Apple was stupid, and the free market gave them what they deserved.
> >I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives. Bill
Gates
> >got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them
ever
> >since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
> >but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
> >
> >For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become
a
> >monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
> >have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.
>
> wait a minute, you're the free market guy (at least I've surmised that
> based on what you've been saying here) - if Microsoft acheives a monopoly
> you won't see all the great features of UNIX in Windows because there will
> be no incentive for Micro$oft to put them in.
The only way for them to become a "monopoly" (without government help) is to
build such a vastly superior product that they squelch all the alternatives.
If they did that, I'd be happy.
> Why did Billy Gates issue a memo yesterday saying that the main focus of
> the company should now be on security? I would argue that it is because
> of the pressure they're feeling from Linux - if Windows were the only game
> in town he wouldn't care about security.
That's a weird interpretation, given that all the viruses are designed to
attack Windows machines, that virus companies are making millions, and that
the attacks seem to be getting worse. It has nothing to do with Linux, and
everything to do with the modern practicalities of having millions of
machines on the internet.
> >Of course, that won't happen. From what I've read, Microsoft purposefully
> >dumbs down some of their software in order for it not to put some other
> >company out of business. So don't blame Microsoft, blame the antitrust
laws.
>
> LoL.... This is a waste of time. Bye.
Go ahead and laugh. I read an article by an ex-MS employee who was pissed
off because his 3D engine didn't get added to IE. Why? MS was afraid of
swiftly killing Netscape.
Shayne Wissler
"Tom Plunket" <to...@fancy.org> wrote in message
news:kd7e4ucue3hgqjp79...@4ax.com...
> Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> > I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to
be
> > compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
> > everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.
>
> Obviously someone who has no idea what GNU and the FSF are all
> about.
>
> Why haven't I killfiled this joker yet?
I think you're a moron too. I haven't killfiled you either, probably because
it's easy to choose to ignore or reply to your idiocy.
> Oh yeah- education. Nobody says that programmers shouldn't get
> paid. They're saying that code should be free. Big difference.
You'd do a lot better job attacking me if you got your facts straight.
Stallman himself admits that under his scheme, programmers would make
substantially less. But according to his standards, they still ought to be
able to make a reasonable living. How nice for him to dictate to me what a
reasonable living is.
Richard MacDonald
>
> No free software will ever be a viable contender with Windows.
Obviously, *better* software has the same problem.
And snipping out of context:
> Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.
I don't. I blame the "law of increasing returns". Same bad result.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/arthur.html?topic=investing_ipos&topic_set=neweconomy
Richard MacDonald
>
> The only way for them to become a "monopoly" (without government help) is to
> build such a vastly superior product that they squelch all the alternatives.
Nope, there is another way.
"Law of increasing returns".
Phil Tomson
In article <H9G18.42244$uA.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
>> >got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them
>ever
>> >since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
>> >but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
>> >
>> >For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become
>a
>> >monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
>> >have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.
>>
>> wait a minute, you're the free market guy (at least I've surmised that
>> based on what you've been saying here) - if Microsoft acheives a monopoly
>> you won't see all the great features of UNIX in Windows because there will
>> be no incentive for Micro$oft to put them in.
>
>The only way for them to become a "monopoly" (without government help) is to
>build such a vastly superior product that they squelch all the alternatives.
>If they did that, I'd be happy.
But Micro$oft has an effective monopoly on the desktop (not the server
space) with Windows (I'd say that the governement found them guilty of
monopolistic practices, but I don't think that would mean anything to you).
Some argue that M$ should be allowed to have a monopoly on the desktop,
that that would just make it easier for everybody - I don't agree. What
you have on the desktop is a monoculture which can be likened to growing
the same type of corn everywhere - what happens when that strain of corn
becomes infected with a virus... there goes the whole crop.
Look up 'network externalities' on google. It's a problem for the free
market. To say that only the government can create a monopoly is
misleading.
Did Micro$oft become a monopoly on the desktop by building a "vastly
superior product" - You'll get a lot of disagreement with that notion.
>
>> Why did Billy Gates issue a memo yesterday saying that the main focus of
>> the company should now be on security? I would argue that it is because
>> of the pressure they're feeling from Linux - if Windows were the only game
>> in town he wouldn't care about security.
>
>That's a weird interpretation, given that all the viruses are designed to
>attack Windows machines, that virus companies are making millions, and that
>the attacks seem to be getting worse. It has nothing to do with Linux, and
>everything to do with the modern practicalities of having millions of
>machines on the internet.
>
Sure viruses abound on Windows, but if Linux didn't exist in the server
space (and if Bill wasn't afraid that there is an outside chance that
it'll make a grab for the desktop), what incentive would Bill have to
improve it? Where would you go to get an alternative? Micro$oft is
feeling a lot of pressure on the security front because a lot of their
customers are making noises about Linux.
The bottom line here is choice. As a developer I have the right to
release my code under an open source license if I want to. And doing so
won't lead to (global warming, global communism, destruction of the ozone
layer,massive unemployment for software engineers, tooth decay, the end
of the world as we know it) as the Micro$oft propaganda machine would
have you believe. The reason Micro$oft is making so much noise about
evils of open source software is because they realize that it's the only
paradigm that can keep them from complete market domination.
The main philosophy of the free software camp is simply that we can all
benefit by sharing code. If I share code with you and you don't share
your code with me then you benefit and I don't. If we both share we can
both benefit by saving time by not having to reinvent the wheel. Think in
terms of code libraries: If I always had to re-implement a hash
table or linked list every time I moved to a new company (because the
old company didn't let me take my code with me) then it would cause a huge
amount of 'friction' in the software development community. Fortunately
there are freely available code libraries with data structures and
algoritms that I can use, but by your argument this is an evil thing - by
your argument I should have to either reimplement the linked list or buy one.
Now that's not to say that all code HAS to be free - it's your choice.
Phil
Phlip
> think." -- Aristotle
My colleague's a polymath with a 20 year computer science resume,
including writing several Smalltalk kernels.
I told him the Subject of this thread, and I wish I had a WAV file of
his response - "Who the HELL is Larry Wall???"
I answered his question using a standard industry joke - "He's the
inventor of executable line noise."
"SNOBOL is executable line noise!"
>sigh< Guess I'l just have to find a way to appreciate (lazy &
hubris-full) programmers who just don't appreciate Larry Wall.
--
Phlip
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?PhlIp
-- In the future everyone will be Andy Warhol for 15 minutes --
Shayne Wissler
> But Micro$oft has an effective monopoly on the desktop (not the server
> space) with Windows (I'd say that the governement found them guilty of
> monopolistic practices, but I don't think that would mean anything to
you).
This is false. Apple makes quite a bit of money on the desktop. And MS
doesn't have a monopoly on apps either. MS *is* very succesful, but they
don't have a monopoly, not by a long shot.
> Did Micro$oft become a monopoly on the desktop by building a "vastly
> superior product" - You'll get a lot of disagreement with that notion.
Consumers--who chose MS above other alternatives--think otherwise. Who are
you to dictate to them what they should be buying?
> Sure viruses abound on Windows, but if Linux didn't exist in the server
> space (and if Bill wasn't afraid that there is an outside chance that
> it'll make a grab for the desktop), what incentive would Bill have to
> improve it? Where would you go to get an alternative?
I think you need to educate yourself on the principles of the free market.
If Linux didn't exist and MS was crap, someone would invent another OS. Read
"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", by Ayn Rand.
We'd be better off if Linux were privately owned and promoted by Linus
(using a creative licensing scheme to allow developers to add value and earn
a return), rather than being GPL.
> Micro$oft is
> feeling a lot of pressure on the security front because a lot of their
> customers are making noises about Linux.
There would be choice without Linux. There's Apple. There's BeOS, and
probably others. I like Linux, I just wish Linus had kept full rights and
tried to make a profit.
> The bottom line here is choice. As a developer I have the right to
> release my code under an open source license if I want to. And doing so
> won't lead to (global warming, global communism, destruction of the ozone
> layer,massive unemployment for software engineers, tooth decay, the end
> of the world as we know it) as the Micro$oft propaganda machine would
> have you believe. The reason Micro$oft is making so much noise about
> evils of open source software is because they realize that it's the only
> paradigm that can keep them from complete market domination.
Ha! Their software's not that good. And if you think it is, I don't see why
you're complaining about them.
> The main philosophy of the free software camp is simply that we can all
> benefit by sharing code. If I share code with you and you don't share
> your code with me then you benefit and I don't. If we both share we can
> both benefit by saving time by not having to reinvent the wheel. Think in
> terms of code libraries: If I always had to re-implement a hash
> table or linked list every time I moved to a new company (because the
> old company didn't let me take my code with me) then it would cause a huge
> amount of 'friction' in the software development community. Fortunately
> there are freely available code libraries with data structures and
> algoritms that I can use, but by your argument this is an evil thing - by
> your argument I should have to either reimplement the linked list or buy
one.
I don't argue against licensing schemes to allow for this. Maybe I should
post more details on what I think the alternative to GNU is.
Shayne Wissler
"Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
news:ZxG18.3526$Cj6.105...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> > Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.
>
> I don't. I blame the "law of increasing returns". Same bad result.
>
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/arthur.html?topic=investing_ipos&top
ic_set=neweconomy
"Law of increasing returns" is just old economic fallacies repackaged.
Read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", by Ayn Rand, and check out the
following:
http://www.capitalism.org/
http://www.moraldefense.com/
jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net
Phil Tomson <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote:
>OK, just one more...
>
>In article <H9G18.42244$uA.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
>Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
>>> >got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them
>
<snip>
>But Micro$oft has an effective monopoly on the desktop (not the server
>space) with Windows (I'd say that the governement found them guilty of
>monopolistic practices, but I don't think that would mean anything to you).
>Some argue that M$ should be allowed to have a monopoly on the desktop,
>that that would just make it easier for everybody - I don't agree. What
>you have on the desktop is a monoculture which can be likened to growing
>the same type of corn everywhere - what happens when that strain of corn
>becomes infected with a virus... there goes the whole crop.
>
>Look up 'network externalities' on google. It's a problem for the free
>market. To say that only the government can create a monopoly is
>misleading.
>
>Did Micro$oft become a monopoly on the desktop by building a "vastly
>superior product" - You'll get a lot of disagreement with that notion.
MS got dominant market share by offering a better price/performance ratio early
on. Back in 1987 - when I bought a PC - I looked at Macs first as a former
Apple II user. $5K for a Mac. 9" screen, 10 MB hard drive
PC with DOS - $3k, 40 MB hard drive, 13" screen
I went with the PC. As with most consumers of the day, I did <not> rate
the Mac's superior ease of use as being worth $2k. Apple stayed with that
price disparity <for years>, and IBM tried to lock OS/2 users into the PS/2
proprietary hardware channel. Again, consumers went with the better
price/performance solution.
When you say Windows is 'worse', you have to also ask - 'worse than what' - and
ask it in consumer terms. Mac was way too expensive for the early market.
OS/2 was as well. Now, Linux may be free - but it's way too hard for the
average person to set up.
simple example - say you decide that you would rather have 800x600 resolution
than 1024x768. On windows, there's a pop up menu on the desktop. On Linux,
there's text editing of the XFree86 config file. Try explaining that to
someone who just wants to do some photo editing.
>
>>
>>> Why did Billy Gates issue a memo yesterday saying that the main focus of
>>> the company should now be on security? I would argue that it is because
>>> of the pressure they're feeling from Linux - if Windows were the only game
>>> in town he wouldn't care about security.
>>
>>That's a weird interpretation, given that all the viruses are designed to
>>attack Windows machines, that virus companies are making millions, and that
>>the attacks seem to be getting worse. It has nothing to do with Linux, and
>>everything to do with the modern practicalities of having millions of
>>machines on the internet.
>>
>
>Sure viruses abound on Windows, but if Linux didn't exist in the server
>space (and if Bill wasn't afraid that there is an outside chance that
>it'll make a grab for the desktop), what incentive would Bill have to
>improve it? Where would you go to get an alternative? Micro$oft is
>feeling a lot of pressure on the security front because a lot of their
>customers are making noises about Linux.
>
That's the beauty of the market at work - there are alternatives. Just not
as many consumer oriented ones. Had Apple priced intelligently years ago,
things might well be different
>Phil
>
--
James A. Robertson
Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
jar...@mail.com
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
Universe
>I agree with you. It seems that Windows is only criticised by computer geeks
>like us. We are not the pontential customers, so MS doesn't give a f***.
As long as the practices of underhanded robber bully baron competitive
crushing and bending people over in the marketplace are condoned - as
by US DoJ - then you're right M$ doesn't have to give a f***.
M$ floods technological mediocrity because it rakes the most bucks and
they're allowed to robber baron style to stomp out better technology
by snipping genitals.
The more people, state governments, and organizations buck against
monopoly bully barons, the less they'll be able to get away with their
(ugly)**10, rapacious and criminal acts.
>AOL is the leader in ISP then it clearly means the potential customers are
>not Einsteins. Well, let the tech-losers sitting at the table peeking
>through their 10" focals into a cheap OEM monitor cry for their pathetic
>lives, meanwhile I better go figure out a way to make some cash.
Never dawned on you that the primary reason for low pay, and cheap OEM
monitors are the crimes against humanity committed by the
*socio-economic domination* and *political rule* of corporate-banking
monopoly capitalist fat cat, bully barons and their lapdog, bribed
politicians?
And if you think I, or most other sanely thinking scientists,
engineers and philosophers are like that, you've lived a far narrower,
and sterile life than you think.
Elliott
--
* Excelsior! * Avanti! *
* Ever Onward and Upward to an Exploitation Free World *
* Empiricist Free Science & Conservative Free Art *
3w.radix.net/~universe @ Elliott, 2002
______________________________________________________________________
Universe
>Richard Stallman on creativity: "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... "
>
>Spoken like a true Communist.
A damn perceptive communist!
Wissler, if it's true it's f****ing true!
Who's says it, or why they say it is irf***ingrevelant to the truth of
their statements.
Your bullsh**ing beliefs give you the illusion that whatever you
believe is it, no questions asked. To the silly point of rejecting
the truth based upon who says it. T-h-a-t i-s n-u-t-s !-!-!
Elliott
--
You prove correctness by correspondence with specific contextual facts
validated by practice.
--
Truth is proven by _long term_ validation in practice.
Universe
>
>"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cBr18.34222$uA.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
>Here's a URL with an analysis of the GPL:
>http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3.
>
>Richard Stallman on creativity: "Creativity can be a social contribution,
>but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers
>deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token
>they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs... "
>
>Spoken like a true Communist.
>
>If you care for your job and for the health of the software industry, then
>whatever you do, don't support GNU by sending them any kind of support, and
>NEVER, EVER, put a GPL on your own code.
WILL YOU EVER BE MORE THAN 50% IN THE RATIO OF LINES OF
CONCRETE SUBSTANCE DIVIDED BY LINES OF HOT F****ING AIR??!!
As many, many, if not most think you should try to do! I seriously
doubt it! You are more interested in attempting to wreak havoc due to
your psychosis than anyf***ing else.
You really, really, really look like a horses pettute! Far from the
mental mega-giant your psychosis is an expression and which reinforces
you to fool yourself into believing!
Elliott
--
Be scientific at all points, in all directions!
Forward to a Bright OO Simulationist Future!
3w.radix.net/~universe *^* @ Elliott, 2002
Daniel Parker
>
> "Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
> news:ZxG18.3526$Cj6.105...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.
> >
> > I don't. I blame the "law of increasing returns". Same bad result.
> >
>
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/arthur.html?topic=investing_ipos&top
> ic_set=neweconomy
>
> "Law of increasing returns" is just old economic fallacies repackaged.
>
Windows? And another? And another? What is your argument for believing
that the marginal cost curve would eventually rise?
Regards,
Daniel Parker
https://sourceforge.net/projects/presentingxml/
Shayne Wissler
"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Richard Stallman on creativity: "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...
"
> >
> >Spoken like a true Communist.
>
> A damn perceptive communist!
>
> Wissler, if it's true it's f****ing true!
>
> Who's says it, or why they say it is irf***ingrevelant to the truth of
> their statements.
>
> Your bullsh**ing beliefs give you the illusion that whatever you
> believe is it, no questions asked. To the silly point of rejecting
> the truth based upon who says it. T-h-a-t i-s n-u-t-s !-!-!
Be careful Elliott. You might get my ire up again. You wouldn't want me to
start asking you questions you can't answer, now would you?
Shayne Wissler
"Daniel Parker" <danielp@spam?nothanks.windupbird.com> wrote in message
news:ndK18.29483$4i5.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
That's not the entire substance of the so-called law.
Daniel Parker
>
> "Daniel Parker" <danielp@spam?nothanks.windupbird.com> wrote in message
> news:ndK18.29483$4i5.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > >
unit
> of
> > Windows? And another? And another? What is your argument for
believing
> > that the marginal cost curve would eventually rise?
>
> That's not the entire substance of the so-called law.
>
marginal cost curve. It's been sixteen years since I left the economics
profession for this one. But for what it's worth, a declining average cost
curve _is_ what "increasing returns to scale" means in the economics
literature. And it does seem to me to characterize significant parts of the
software industry, as the extra cost of cutting another CD and supporting
one more customer cannot be that large. I would be interested in hearing an
argument to the contrary.
Regards,
Daniel Parker
Shayne Wissler
Pardon me. I think I've allowed this to get off-track.
I originally said:
"Law of increasing returns" is just old economic fallacies repackaged.
I should have said this: The so-called "law of increasing returns" is a
flawed concept. It's a fabrication, used as a means of providing a
pseudo-justification for bad economics.
Before I go further, I want to state the fact that whatever the truth is in
economics, it does not change morality: Economics doesn't trump an
individual's right to property. So this little diversion is irrelevant to
the broader questions about Microsoft and antitrust. Their software is
theirs, and the government has absolutely no right to barge in telling them
what they will and won't do with it. See http://www.moraldefense.com for
more information.
To repeat, the ethics of the situation is the important point here. The
technical details of economics are meaningless outside the context of
morality. "Competition" is not a value if you've thrown out all values in
order to achieve it.
Of course the CD's get cheaper as you produce more. The reason why is
economies of scale, accounted for by standard capitalist economic theory.
Mass production has always been cheaper, per unit, than one-of-a-kind
production. So the "law of increasing returns" is merely usurping a standard
economic concept for a vile purpose.
The "law of increasing returns" purports to override the law of diminishing
returns. But the law of diminishing returns has only ever applied to a fixed
set of physical resources: for any fixed set of resources, putting more
effort into extracting value out of them results in diminishing returns.
Even if we regard customers as a resource (they aren't, and it's fallacious
to regard them that way in economic theory), even if we take into account
economies of scale, there are only so many customers. There are diminishing
returns in trying to get them to buy your product. Yes, the CD's get cheaper
and cheaper, but the marketing costs get more and more expensive as you try
to gain more market share for a given product (it may get cheaper as it
gains popularity, but past a certain point there are only customers left who
simply don't like your product--convincing them will be expensive indeed).
Cagdas Ozgenc
act, loser.
"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
news:8bje4u4brbhjb135u...@4ax.com...
Dmitry A. Kazakov
<smi...@michaelsmithHATESSPAM.org> wrote:
>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
>news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
>> computer/software industry. It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
>> Word, C++ or even VB.
>
>And in what way does this imply that the free market "does not work"? *You*
>don't decide what "works" or doesn't "work"; the *market* (which consists of
>*everyone* who seeks to buy and/or sell products) does. The market chooses
>what it wants, based on the criteria that are important to those who
>comprise the marketplace.
Exactly. It is the market, which wants Windows! Now, either Windows is
excellent or it is something wrong with that market.
>If they choose Wintel and VB, then it's because that's what works out best *for them*.
Let's say, they believe in that.
This is the greatest problem of the humankind, I mean the democracy
vs. oligarchy problem.
The democratic model does not work in case of software because
software is very close to science [at least by now]. Alas scientific
questions cannot be decided by voting.
The oligarchic model is so disgusting that it isn't worth to discuss.
> Who are *you* (or Stallman, or any other individual) to dictate otherwise?
Nobody, as well as all other players of free market. And note that
0*n=0.
No matter how many idiots you take they won't produce the theory of
gravitation. That's the problem.
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
Dmitry A. Kazakov
<thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
>news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
>> computer/software industry.
>
>BS. Tell that to the millions of Microsoft users who have something they
>wouldn't otherwise have.
What would not they have otherwise? Please, prove that without
Microsoft there wouldn't be home computers. As far as I know Microsoft
has invented nothing, except that famous blue screen.
>Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented amounts of cash.
Is that Microsoft which pays us? [maybe you, but definitely not me
(:-))]
Then a more phylosophic question, is it really so good that we invest
so much in software? And what for SOFTWARE!
Wouldn't be better to explore the solar system, or to develop fusion
reactors, or to reforest Sahara?
>> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
>> Word, C++ or even VB.
>
>Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out to
>be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer.
Oh my. Have you even tried Windows as a game platform?
>My exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
>programmers need into account.
Should it? The millions of Microsoft users ain't programmers!
>I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives.
Why on earth programmers, but not bicyclists? Have you made a
sociological research?
[BTW, Marxists are not theives, they are robbers (:-))]
>Bill Gates
>got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them ever
>since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
>but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
>
>For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become a
>monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
>have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.
Oh yes, vi would definitely add glance to Windows (:-)). Seriously,
there is POSIX, Cygwin, gcc, OpenGL, X11 under Windows. Well, all that
works not very well, but what else someone could expect from Windows?
(:-))
What else do you need?
>Of course, that won't happen. From what I've read, Microsoft purposefully
>dumbs down some of their software in order for it not to put some other
>company out of business. So don't blame Microsoft, blame the antitrust laws.
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net
Dmitry A. Kazakov <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:40:43 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
><thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
>>news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>>> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
>>> computer/software industry.
>>
>>BS. Tell that to the millions of Microsoft users who have something they
>>wouldn't otherwise have.
>
>What would not they have otherwise? Please, prove that without
>Microsoft there wouldn't be home computers. As far as I know Microsoft
>has invented nothing, except that famous blue screen.
>
What they 'invented' was a product they made available at a price/performance
level that made home computing viable for large numbers of people. DOS
(and later Windows) enabled the mass market for the PC space by driving
prices down.
>>Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented amounts of cash.
>
>Is that Microsoft which pays us? [maybe you, but definitely not me
>(:-))]
>
>Then a more phylosophic question, is it really so good that we invest
>so much in software? And what for SOFTWARE!
>
>Wouldn't be better to explore the solar system, or to develop fusion
>reactors, or to reforest Sahara?
>
When you run your very own company, you can make those calls. Until then,
you get to make choices based on other people's (i.e., the market's) choices.
>>> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
>>> Word, C++ or even VB.
>>
>>Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out to
>>be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer.
>
>Oh my. Have you even tried Windows as a game platform?
>
Yes. What is bad about it?
>>My exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
>>programmers need into account.
>
>Should it? The millions of Microsoft users ain't programmers!
>
>>I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives.
>
>Why on earth programmers, but not bicyclists? Have you made a
>sociological research?
>
Sigh. Windows is a consumer product, just like AOL. As such, it has
to be simple enough for the average consumer to use without frustration.
Developers are <not> 'average consumers' in that sense.
>[BTW, Marxists are not theives, they are robbers (:-))]
>
>>Bill Gates
>>got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them ever
>>since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
>>but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
>>
>>For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become a
>>monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
>>have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.
>
>Oh yes, vi would definitely add glance to Windows (:-)). Seriously,
>there is POSIX, Cygwin, gcc, OpenGL, X11 under Windows. Well, all that
>works not very well, but what else someone could expect from Windows?
>(:-))
>
>What else do you need?
>
>>Of course, that won't happen. From what I've read, Microsoft purposefully
>>dumbs down some of their software in order for it not to put some other
>>company out of business. So don't blame Microsoft, blame the antitrust laws.
>
>Regards,
>Dmitry Kazakov
Richard MacDonald
>
> "Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
> news:ZxG18.3526$Cj6.105...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.
> >
> > I don't. I blame the "law of increasing returns". Same bad result.
> >
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/arthur.html?topic=investing_ipos&top
> ic_set=neweconomy
>
> "Law of increasing returns" is just old economic fallacies repackaged.
And you say I'm predictable.
I've done quite a bit of nonlinear dynamic math.
This law is so obvious in that world I was surprised it was new to economists
when I first heard of it.
> Read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", by Ayn Rand, and check out the
> following:
>
> http://www.capitalism.org/
> http://www.moraldefense.com/
Show me where these refs contradict the basic math of the law of increasing returns.
Richard MacDonald
>
> "Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
> news:ZxG18.3526$Cj6.105...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.
> >
> > I don't. I blame the "law of increasing returns". Same bad result.
> >
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/arthur.html?topic=investing_ipos&top
> ic_set=neweconomy
>
> "Law of increasing returns" is just old economic fallacies repackaged.
Less true today but relevant 10-15 yrs ago:
I am a developer with a new product idea.
I can write it for the Mac or Win/PC.
With the Mac, the effort with be half, but the customers will be 1/10.
With the PC, the effort will be doubled, but 10 times the customers.
The business decision is therefore to write for the PC. (Free-market forces at work.)
Now my great app makes people buy PCs to run it.
Now for my next app, its 11 times the customers.
Some "economic fallacy".
I read your followups. You're getting further off track.
The relevant line is at the top of this post:
"The free-market allows a lack of alternatives."
Dmitry A. Kazakov
jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net wrote:
>In article <3c47f56b....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
>Dmitry A. Kazakov <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:40:43 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
>><thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
>>>news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>>
>>>> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
>>>> computer/software industry.
>>>
>>>BS. Tell that to the millions of Microsoft users who have something they
>>>wouldn't otherwise have.
>>
>>What would not they have otherwise? Please, prove that without
>>Microsoft there wouldn't be home computers. As far as I know Microsoft
>>has invented nothing, except that famous blue screen.
>>
>What they 'invented' was a product they made available at a price/performance
>level that made home computing viable for large numbers of people.
Is that an invention? Isn't PC actually called IBM PC? And as far as I
recall the best price/performance always had DEC. Where is DEC now?
> DOS (and later Windows) enabled the mass market for the PC space by driving
>prices down.
I do not see how MS-DOS [as compared with CP/M or dozens other monitor
programs existed that time] enabled the mass market for the PC.
Numbers of alternatives existed all the time. It is the mass marked
which chose the worst of them.
>>>Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented amounts of cash.
>>
>>Is that Microsoft which pays us? [maybe you, but definitely not me
>>(:-))]
>>
>>Then a more phylosophic question, is it really so good that we invest
>>so much in software? And what for SOFTWARE!
>>
>>Wouldn't be better to explore the solar system, or to develop fusion
>>reactors, or to reforest Sahara?
>
>When you run your very own company, you can make those calls.
Those were questions, not calls. But wait, is there a company capable
to design a fusion reactor?
>Until then, you get to make choices based on other people's (i.e., the market's) choices.
If you are trying to say that there is no free choice because
Microsoft is a monopolist, then I agree with you. But do not tell me
that this is the reason why we should also be deprived of the right to
think. It is too much even for dear Microsoft.
>>>> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
>>>> Word, C++ or even VB.
>>>
>>>Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out to
>>>be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer.
>>
>>Oh my. Have you even tried Windows as a game platform?
>
>Yes. What is bad about it?
No further questions.
>>>My exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
>>>programmers need into account.
>>
>>Should it? The millions of Microsoft users ain't programmers!
>>
>>>I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives.
>>
>>Why on earth programmers, but not bicyclists? Have you made a
>>sociological research?
>
>Sigh. Windows is a consumer product, just like AOL. As such, it has
>to be simple enough for the average consumer to use without frustration.
I do not see why a friendly user interface should excuse or lead to
low quality. Flying an airliner you'd better concentrate on its
quality and not on how friendly stewardesses are.
Very soon software will massively reach the areas where it would
directly threaten human lives. I just wonder which excuses will be
found then.
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
Ian
Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> "Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:diF18.12136$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
>> >GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
>> >idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights
> as
>> >programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may
> on
>> >the free market.
>>
>> GNU doesn't encourage piracy.
>
> Oh yes they do. They explicitly encourage people to violate
> reverse-engineering licenses in order to build clones. Perhaps you should go
> read some of their material before arguing with me about this.
At least in my country (and in fact the whole of the European Union) reverse
engineering for the purpose of providing interoperability is allowed by
law. No license agreement that I didn's sign with a real autograph (and
I believe even if I did sign it) of whatever company stands above the
law. These license agreements are therefore bogus.
In general, the open source advocates that I know of, do not encourage
piracy and they do not encourage breaking the law.
Ian.
Shayne Wissler
"Ian" <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote in message
news:slrna4gfr...@jester.vuurwerk.nl...
> In article <v3G18.42229$uA.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
> Shayne Wissler wrote:
> >
> > "Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:diF18.12136$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> >
> >> >GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with
the
> >> >idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our
rights
> > as
> >> >programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we
may
> > on
> >> >the free market.
> >>
> >> GNU doesn't encourage piracy.
> >
> > Oh yes they do. They explicitly encourage people to violate
> > reverse-engineering licenses in order to build clones. Perhaps you
should go
> > read some of their material before arguing with me about this.
>
> At least in my country (and in fact the whole of the European Union)
reverse
> engineering for the purpose of providing interoperability is allowed by
> law. No license agreement that I didn's sign with a real autograph (and
> I believe even if I did sign it) of whatever company stands above the
> law. These license agreements are therefore bogus.
>
Do you think that just because it's legal to own slaves, you're in your
rights to own one?
It is immoral to agree to the license terms and then violate them. Just
because the laws are immoral doesn't give you a right to violate your
agreement.
Shayne Wissler
Whoops. Thanks for getting me back on track.
Your so-called law has nothing to do with the free market. It has to do with
the fact that established infrastructure provides economic benefits by
virtue of the fact that it's established. This would be true regardless of
whether the market was free or whether it was socialist or communist.
Take the railroad. It's extremely expensive to set up tracks. If someone
decides they don't like the distance between the rails later, it's unlikely
to be worth it to rip up all the old rails or replace them with new rails.
In order to justify such a huge expense, there'd better be a huge economic
benefit from moving the rails. Otherwise, it's idiocy to rip them up, even
if someone says they'd be able to go 20% faster if the rails were 10"
further from each other. Again, this has nothing to do with capitalism vs.
socialism; it has to do with the fact of the expense.
So don't blame the free market for this one. If you want to blame something,
blame reality. Now where does that put you?
Richard MacDonald
>
> So don't blame the free market for this one. If you want to blame something,
> blame reality. Now where does that put you?
>
as the perfect ideal. YMMV.
Universe
> In general, the open source advocates that I know of, do not encourage
> piracy and they do not encourage breaking the law.
I don't give a damn about the bourgeois property rights historically used
to enrich a handful while sticking up everyone else in society. It was
the history of society's ideas and society's collective educational
systems, material technology and social production processes that made the
invention by the inventor even remotely possible.
Ahoy mateys! Lets' steal a bright exploitation free future!
Elliott
--
http://www.radix.net/~universe ~*~ Enjoy! ~*~
Hail OO Modelling! * Hail the Wireless Web!
@Elliott 2001 my comments ~ newsgroups+bitnet OK
Phil Tomson
No. Do you believe that just because the license tries to take away your
right to reverse-engineer that it's legal for them to restrict this right?
It sounds like the EU has protected the right to reverse engineer. Since
we've lost it expect all manner of incompatible, proprietary protocols to
emerge from Redmond.
>
>It is immoral to agree to the license terms and then violate them. Just
>because the laws are immoral doesn't give you a right to violate your
>agreement.
The problem is that the laws have been manipulated by the big
corporations so that as soon as you open up the box you're considered to
have 'agreed' to the license without even having had the oportunity to
read it. Perhaps the laws in Europe have not been so corrupted yet.
Is it moral to force me to accept a license without having an oportunity
to read it?
Shayne: I used to be a Libertarian, but the more I looked at the
computing industry and the domination of Micro$oft the more I realized
that Libertarianism is naive: the philosophy assumes that only governments
are evil and ignores the fact that corporations can attain
'government-like' powers and abuse them as well. So we need checks and
balances between governement and corporations because they are both
capable of acting in evil ways.
Phil
jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net
Universe <univ...@radix.undonet> wrote:
>Ian <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote:
>
>> In general, the open source advocates that I know of, do not encourage
>> piracy and they do not encourage breaking the law.
>
>I don't give a damn about the bourgeois property rights historically used
>to enrich a handful while sticking up everyone else in society. It was
>the history of society's ideas and society's collective educational
>systems, material technology and social production processes that made the
>invention by the inventor even remotely possible.
>
Please show an example of a society that did not protect property rights and
simultaneously had a free people.
>Ahoy mateys! Lets' steal a bright exploitation free future!
>
>Elliott
>--
> http://www.radix.net/~universe ~*~ Enjoy! ~*~
> Hail OO Modelling! * Hail the Wireless Web!
> @Elliott 2001 my comments ~ newsgroups+bitnet OK
>
Ian
It's not legal, so it is pointless to question this. But no, I wouldn't be
at that. However, your point was that the open source movement (perhaps
generalizing your opinion a little too much, but you get my drift)
encourages piracy. The open source movement does not encourage me to
own slaves, and they do not have slaves themselves, on the contrary.
So what point are you trying to make here with regard to your "open
source people encourage piracy" statement?
>
> It is immoral to agree to the license terms and then violate them. Just
> because the laws are immoral doesn't give you a right to violate your
> agreement.
And who decides that the laws are immoral? You!? Whatever you think of the
laws, they're there, live with em or run for president/congressman and
change them. Morality is also a personal opinion, what I think is morally
right doesn't mean that someone else has to feel the same way, but
the law is the law, like it or not. And *no* company has the moral or
the legal right to take away rights that I have by law, wether it be
a petty law or a constitutional one, because once we allow that, where
do we draw the line?
Ian.
Mike Smith
> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Richard Stallman on creativity: "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...
"
> >
> >Spoken like a true Communist.
>
> A damn perceptive communist!
>
> Wissler, if it's true it's f****ing true!
Why is it true? Because Stallman says so? 'Cuz I certainly can't think of
any *logical* justification for it.
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
>
> WILL YOU EVER BE MORE THAN 50% IN THE RATIO OF LINES OF
> CONCRETE SUBSTANCE DIVIDED BY LINES OF HOT F****ING AIR??!!
>
> As many, many, if not most think you should try to do! I seriously
> doubt it! You are more interested in attempting to wreak havoc due to
> your psychosis than anyf***ing else.
>
> You really, really, really look like a horses pettute! Far from the
> mental mega-giant your psychosis is an expression and which reinforces
> you to fool yourself into believing!
Um, read this post again, Elliott. If anyone around here is looking like a
horse's ass right now, it's *you*. Blow your stack much?
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:47:00 -0500, "Mike Smith"
> <smi...@michaelsmithHATESSPAM.org> wrote:
>
> >"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
> >news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> >>
> >> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
> >> computer/software industry. It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
> >> Word, C++ or even VB.
> >
> >And in what way does this imply that the free market "does not work"?
*You*
> >don't decide what "works" or doesn't "work"; the *market* (which consists
of
> >*everyone* who seeks to buy and/or sell products) does. The market
chooses
> >what it wants, based on the criteria that are important to those who
> >comprise the marketplace.
>
> Exactly. It is the market, which wants Windows! Now, either Windows is
> excellent or it is something wrong with that market.
Just because you *say* this, doesn't make it true. Windows is not
excellent; it's *good enough*. And *good enough* is what the market wants.
Excellence costs too damn much, and the marginal benefit of excellence isn't
sufficient to justify it. (At least not *right now*; of course, the better
the product the market becomes accustomed to, the better the product it will
*want*, and so quality will spiral upward to meet demand.)
> >If they choose Wintel and VB, then it's because that's what works out
best *for them*.
>
> Let's say, they believe in that.
>
> This is the greatest problem of the humankind, I mean the democracy
> vs. oligarchy problem.
What "problem"? What's the "problem"?
> The democratic model does not work in case of software because
> software is very close to science [at least by now]. Alas scientific
> questions cannot be decided by voting.
What do you mean "does not work"? Software is not a science; it's a
*product*, paid for by people to suit their needs. Why *shouldn't* they get
what they want? (Keep in mind, of course, that there really is no "they" -
"they" is comprised of many thousands of *individual* "hes" and "shes", each
of whom has needs and some amount of willingness to pay for those needs.)
> No matter how many idiots you take they won't produce the theory of
> gravitation. That's the problem.
Again, there's no "problem" here. Gravitation is not a *product* in a
marketplace; software *is*.
--
Mike Smith
Universe
>In article <a29og9$p6v$3...@news1.Radix.Net>,
>Universe <univ...@radix.undonet> wrote:
>>Ian <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> In general, the open source advocates that I know of, do not encourage
>>> piracy and they do not encourage breaking the law.
>>
>>I don't give a damn about the bourgeois property rights historically used
>>to enrich a handful while sticking up everyone else in society. It was
>>the history of society's ideas and society's collective educational
>>systems, material technology and social production processes that made the
>>invention by the inventor even remotely possible.
>Please show an example of a society that did not protect property rights and
>simultaneously had a free people.
Genuine freedom is freedom from exploitation and self-determination.
Despite the illusions propagated by capitalist rule, Bill of Rights
freedoms are a small part of it, not the whole enchilada. It is an
important part, but while a necessary condition for freedom is not
sufficient to be fully and truly free.
Genuinely true and real freedom for the people is where they are free
from economic want, and from economic exploitation by capitalists -
private appropriation by capitalists of surplus wealth created by
workers in production (wealth realized beyond that invested by the
capitalists).
It also means things like being free from the suffering and loss life
of being forced under pain of prison to fight wars determining
division of "booty" - resources and sections of the world - by real
pirates and thieves - i.e. the monopoly corporate-finance bourgeoisie
(capitalists) and their bribed lapdog politicians.
There has never been a society where bourgeois property right was
totally wiped out. That can only happen with the complete abolition
of classes. Before that happens it plays generally an increasingly
smaller role from the time of socialist revolution onward to the
complete abolition of classes.
From the time of internationalist oriented, socialist revolutionary
overthrow of the dictatorship of the monopoly corporate-finance
bourgeoisie there is required a long step by step process of constant
struggle against the overthrown capitalists tied with socializing
transformation of all aspects and domains of society - especially
including right in the government and party - in order to finally
abolish classes and totally eliminate bourgeois property rights. This
is the achievement of genuine communism - the complete absence of
classes and bourgeois property rights.
This is what the Mao and the Gang of Four were doing in leading the
Chinese Cultural Revolution from '66 to early '70's. As you see they
lost. So it is a back and forth, not straight line process.
>>Ahoy mateys! Lets' steal a bright exploitation free future!
Elliott
--
Universe
>Just because you *say* this, doesn't make it true. Windows is not
>excellent; it's *good enough*. And *good enough* is what the market wants.
!?!
It's incredible that you really believe that.
Elliott
--
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
~ Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law
Mike Smith
>
> What would not they have otherwise? Please, prove that without
> Microsoft there wouldn't be home computers.
If not Microsoft, then some other company, that perceived what the
marketplace wanted, and could bring it to them.
> As far as I know Microsoft
> has invented nothing, except that famous blue screen.
>
> >Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented amounts of cash.
>
> Is that Microsoft which pays us? [maybe you, but definitely not me
> (:-))]
I don't work for MS either, but yeah, I'm doing all right. As are, I would
imagine, software developers in lots of places in the world (relative to
what the people around them are getting paid).
> Then a more phylosophic question, is it really so good that we invest
> so much in software? And what for SOFTWARE!
>
> Wouldn't be better to explore the solar system, or to develop fusion
> reactors, or to reforest Sahara?
That's not for you to decide. If you want to reforest the Sahara, then take
*your* money and do it. You have no claim on the use anyone else's money;
that's up to *them*.
> >
> >Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out
to
> >be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer.
>
> Oh my. Have you even tried Windows as a game platform?
Oh my. Have *you*? Other than toy consoles, what other game platforms are
even worth talking about?
> >My exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of
what
> >programmers need into account.
>
> Should it? The millions of Microsoft users ain't programmers!
It should, if Microsoft wants people to write good apps for Windows. (Of
course, that is by no means a foregone conclusion...)
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
>
> Is that an invention? Isn't PC actually called IBM PC? And as far as I
> recall the best price/performance always had DEC. Where is DEC now?
A computer platform is hardware *and* software. Without software, the IBM
PC would never have sold more than, say, 10,000 units, to hackers and geeks
who wanted to hand-code their own software. Obviously, to bring computing
to a mass market, software is necessary.
> >>Then a more phylosophic question, is it really so good that we invest
> >>so much in software? And what for SOFTWARE!
> >>
> >>Wouldn't be better to explore the solar system, or to develop fusion
> >>reactors, or to reforest Sahara?
> >
> >When you run your very own company, you can make those calls.
>
> Those were questions, not calls. But wait, is there a company capable
> to design a fusion reactor?
No. Why don't you start one, instead of whining about Microsoft?
> >Until then, you get to make choices based on other people's (i.e., the
market's) choices.
>
> If you are trying to say that there is no free choice because
> Microsoft is a monopolist, then I agree with you.
Um, I don't see where that's what he was trying to say. What he's saying
(IMO) is that you don't have the right to decide how other people spend
their money. If you want that money, it's up to you to provide a product
that people are willing to pay for.
> But do not tell me
> that this is the reason why we should also be deprived of the right to
> think. It is too much even for dear Microsoft.
Now you're just way off your rocker. Where did *anybody* say *that*??
> >>>> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
> >>>> Word, C++ or even VB.
> >>>
> >>>Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out
to
> >>>be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer.
> >>
> >>Oh my. Have you even tried Windows as a game platform?
> >
> >Yes. What is bad about it?
>
> No further questions.
So in other words you had no idea what you were talking about. Fair enough.
> >
> >Sigh. Windows is a consumer product, just like AOL. As such, it has
> >to be simple enough for the average consumer to use without frustration.
>
> I do not see why a friendly user interface should excuse or lead to
> low quality.
Because people would rather pay less for low quality, than pay more for high
quality. Again, the choice is theirs to make.
> Flying an airliner you'd better concentrate on its
> quality and not on how friendly stewardesses are.
LOL. So people's lives depend as much on AOL as they do on airline safety?
Sheesh.
> Very soon software will massively reach the areas where it would
> directly threaten human lives. I just wonder which excuses will be
> found then.
It already *is* - cars, airplanes, electric power switching and
distribution, hospitals. Your life is probably in the hands of a piece of
software every day, whether you realize it or not. Of course, MS doesn't
write that software.
--
Mike Smith
Shayne Wissler
?! But the free market has nothing to do with the effect you cite, as I
already showed.
Shayne
Universe
>"Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
>> "Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > So don't blame the free market for this one. If you want to blame something,
>> > blame reality. Now where does that put you?
>> Where I already was. Just someone not willing to proclaim the free-market
>> as the perfect ideal. YMMV.
>?! But the free market has nothing to do with the effect you cite, as I
>already showed.
Shayne you claim to be a scholar. Have you ever read Adam Smith where
he acknowledges the tendency for capitalism to become monopoly
capitalism with attendant general disarticulation and opposite
properties of all the wonderful things you associate with it?
Elliott
--
Be scientific at all points, in all directions!
Forward to a Bright OO Simulationist Future!
3w.radix.net/~universe *^* @ Elliott, 2002
Richard MacDonald
Universe
>>>Why on earth programmers, but not bicyclists? Have you made a
>>>sociological research?
There are a lot more Marxists everywhere than he thinks.
Thank goodness!
I know the reactionaries will say right on, but 1-2 million where
killed in Indonesia by the US and Suharto in '63-'65 to stop
revolution. Look at Chile '72, Greece '47, SE Asia, all of Latin
America,etc on and on ad infinitum. The forward march of history
can't be stopped by the crap software and other releasing, market
dominating, monopoly corporate-finance bourgeoisie no matter how hard
their bribed politicians and unwitting, brain washed from birth
philosophical ideologues try.
Elliott
--
* Excelsior! * Avanti! *
* Ever Onward and Upward to an Exploitation Free World *
* Empiricist Free Science & Conservative Free Art *
3w.radix.net/~universe @ Elliott, 2002
Shayne Wissler
> >Do you think that just because it's legal to own slaves, you're in your
> >rights to own one?
>
> No. Do you believe that just because the license tries to take away your
> right to reverse-engineer that it's legal for them to restrict this right?
Spoken like a true libertarian (I've actually heard Libertarians argue that
property rights grant them the right to use their axe on your neck, or
something to that effect).
What I want to know his how you can be so dishonest as to say the above.
Here's the scenario in simplified form: I write some software. I meet with
you, and tell you that I'll agree to give it to you, if you agree to my
terms. You can take them or leave them. You then lie to me, ignore our
agreement, steal the software and make as many copies as you want, or
reverse engineer it and build a clone.
The license doesn't take anything away from you, because the software isn't
yours to begin with. You aren't buying rights to the software; you're buying
a right to use under certain conditions. How anyone can fail to grasp this
point is beyond me. I'm sure it has something to do with the dumbed down
education system. Or maybe it's simply the human capacity for intellectual
dishonesty in the face of something they really want (criminals are well
known for having internal justifications for their crimes--hardly any of
them will admit outright that what they did was wrong).
> It sounds like the EU has protected the right to reverse engineer. Since
Talk about your Orwellian statements. How do you sleep at night?
> Is it moral to force me to accept a license without having an oportunity
> to read it?
I want so much to be polite, but this is one of the most idiotic statements
I've seen in this ng. No one forces you to accept a license agreement. You
don't have to buy the software license if you don't like the terms. How can
you rationalize to this extreme? It's absurd and you know it. You have
to--no one is that morally clueless.
> Shayne: I used to be a Libertarian, but the more I looked at the
Just so you know, Libertarians are anathema to Objectivists, because they
are anti-philosophical. They claim to stand for freedom, property rights, or
whatever, but then when you ask them what is meant by those things, or how
they know that they're good, and they say they don't know and they don't
care. I never met a Libertarian who wasn't either clueless or dishonest.
Shayne Wissler
> > Do you think that just because it's legal to own slaves, you're in your
> > rights to own one?
>
> It's not legal, so it is pointless to question this.
Clearly, you have no concept of principle.
> > It is immoral to agree to the license terms and then violate them. Just
> > because the laws are immoral doesn't give you a right to violate your
> > agreement.
>
> And who decides that the laws are immoral? You!?
It never ceases to amaze me how literally stupid pragmatism makes people. I
mean, a normal child can grasp this point.
Tommy The Pragmatist: Billy, I'll let you play with my remote control car
tomorrow if you let me play with your Nintendo today.
Billy The Naive Child: OK.
(the next day)
Billy: So can I play with your remote control car?
Tommy The Pragmatist: No. I changed my mind.
Billy: But we had an agreement, and you already played with my Nintendo. I
insist that you honor your agreement with me.
Tommy The Pragmatist: Insist? Are you going to force me to let you play with
my car? That would be unfair. You shouldn't be so pushy with people. I'm
going to tell my dad on you.
I can hear the pragmatists now: "Oh, but that's nothing like this situation.
This example is simplistic. The real world is more complicated than that"
Yes, to the pragmatist, everything's different from everything else, and the
world is just one big confusing complexity. There are no principles, just
moment to moment decisions. Just like Tommy.
Shayne Wissler
And--what is the problem again? Just the fact that you can't wave your magic
wand at an infrastructure and make it be what you want it to be? Sorry, but
you're viewing things from a subjective perspective. As a matter of fact,
the fact that there is no economic incentive to replace an existing
infrastructure is proof of its value. That's not a problem--except for
people living in a fantasy world of what they think the ideal is.
Shayne Wissler
"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
> "Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
>
> >> "Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > So don't blame the free market for this one. If you want to blame
something,
> >> > blame reality. Now where does that put you?
>
> >> Where I already was. Just someone not willing to proclaim the
free-market
> >> as the perfect ideal. YMMV.
>
> >?! But the free market has nothing to do with the effect you cite, as I
> >already showed.
>
> Shayne you claim to be a scholar.
Nope, never claimed that.
> Have you ever read Adam Smith where
> he acknowledges the tendency for capitalism to become monopoly
> capitalism with attendant general disarticulation and opposite
> properties of all the wonderful things you associate with it?
If you would more carefully read my posts, you'd see that I've already
answered this.
Richard MacDonald
>
> "Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
> news:EK128.2011$IW6.106...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:wt128.5312$5Z6.61571@rwcrnsc54...
> > >
> > > "Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
> > > news:CuZ18.1971$VQ1.104...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > "Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bzY18.4356$5Z6.40458@rwcrnsc54...
> > > > >
> > > > > So don't blame the free market for this one. If you want to blame
> > > something,
> > > > > blame reality. Now where does that put you?
> > > > >
> > > > Where I already was. Just someone not willing to proclaim the
> free-market
> > > > as the perfect ideal. YMMV.
> > >
> > > ?! But the free market has nothing to do with the effect you cite, as I
> > > already showed.
> > >
> > A neutral wrapper on top of a problem is still a problem.
>
> And--what is the problem again?
1) People with idyllic beliefs in the free-market. (You're sounding close.)
2) The fact that its causing crappy software and inhibiting better software.
(And we haven't even started on tactics yet. M$ fares worse in that arena.)
> Just the fact that you can't wave your magic
> wand at an infrastructure and make it be what you want it to be? Sorry, but
> you're viewing things from a subjective perspective.
If you're going to answer your own question, please use "some person"
rather than "you".
> As a matter of fact,
> the fact that there is no economic incentive to replace an existing
> infrastructure is proof of its value.
A monopoly can use its own indomitable economic incentives to inhibit that replacement.
Better for the monopoly, but that's about it.
> That's not a problem--except for
> people living in a fantasy world of what they think the ideal is.
Yes, that mathematical global optimum fantasy.
I'm sorry, Shayne. Could you show me exactly where I shifted from
a mathematical argument to a subjective fantasy world?
My point is very simple: A free-market has plenty of problems. It may
inherit those problems, but that is no reason to say that a better system
could not correct those problems. (Now the cure may be worse that the
disease, but that is a different argument.)
Universe
>It also means things like being free from the suffering and loss life
>of being forced under pain of prison to fight wars determining
>division of "booty" - resources and sections of the world - by real
>pirates and thieves - i.e. the monopoly corporate-finance bourgeoisie
>(capitalists) and their bribed lapdog politicians.
Who are biggest thieves, pirates and welfare dole taker Kings/Queens
of the public's money than the Bush family? They have been enriching
themselves by feeding off the public trough big time for years and
years. Jobs, lobbying for Japanese and Chinese monopolists, jobs,
favors and public subsidies from the national (jobs, perks, oil
drilling subsidies), state and local (Texas Rangers) governments.
Not to mention the other one neck deep in the S& L scandal. I'm sure
I've just chipped the surface.
>From the time of internationalist oriented, socialist revolutionary
>overthrow of the dictatorship of the monopoly corporate-finance
>bourgeoisie there is required a long step by step process of constant
>struggle against the overthrown capitalists tied with socializing
>transformation of all aspects and domains of society - especially
>including right in the government and party - in order to finally
>abolish classes and totally eliminate bourgeois property rights. This
>is the achievement of genuine communism - the complete absence of
>classes and bourgeois property rights.
>
>This is what the Mao and the Gang of Four were doing in leading the
>Chinese Cultural Revolution from '66 to early '70's. As you see they
>lost. So it is a back and forth, not straight line process.
Making things fairer and ending the favors bourgeois dole takers and
henchman like the Bush family get are one of the key aspects of Maoist
revolutionary socialization of all aspects and all domains.
Ending 1st class, coach and economy in transportation is
another result of socialization.
Reducing the hard, strict division of labor that has evolved
in socio-economics and virtually all fields and domains is another
target of socialization.
Eliminating unnecessary, bureaucracy and bureaucratic rules
are another.
People are encouraged to be, for example, accountants by day,
physicists at night and playwrights on the weekends. And they are
given the resources to make it happen.
Athletes and "star" programmers and all others making obscene
amounts on the foundation of what society and history has given them
are abolished.
Increasingly the myriad fees and charges for often vital
services are reduced, and eliminated.
Bourgeois property rights like the right to hold a patent and
gouge people on crucial drugs is reduced and then eliminated via
socialization.
Socialization mainly has to be done by the masses of people themselves
untied in revolutionary struggle, as was the character of the Cultural
Revolution in China. Mao and the GoF mobilized and led the masses of
people to do the above. If the masses don't take it up and do it, it
won't get done. It has ups and downs and is a life and death struggle
for genuine freedom and freedom from monopoly corporate-finance
exploitation and oppression.
The key to and main thrust of mass revolutionary socialization is
fighting those right in the government and revolutionary party who
exploit and oppress the people for their private interests. They are
also attempting to restore capitalism. This Mao and the GoF led the
masses in boldly and bravely.
At the end of socialization when classes are abolished and there is no
longer an easy possibility for return to capitalism the rule of the
socialism also ends. The party is eliminated and the government as
the rule of a class ends. The government then is simply an
administrative tool.
Elliott
--
Ahoy mateys! Lets' steal a bright exploitation free future!
______________________________________________________________________
Universe
>At the end of socialization when classes are abolished and there is no
>longer an easy possibility for return to capitalism the rule of the
>socialism also ends. The party is eliminated and the government as
>the rule of a class ends. The government then is simply an
>administrative tool.
Also paying for things and money are eliminated!
People are conscious of the common social interests enough after
decades of the revolutionary socialization process to take only what
they need - from basic to the perhaps esoteric like a telescope - and
give back in work and effort to the best of their ability.
Neighborhoods of great numbers of people coming together to get stuff
done with all out effort by everyone! Just think what can be
accomplished. They'll be able to move mountains! And think of the
tremendous synergy of this happening globally. Especially when all of
humanity adopts:
~ Understand Holistically - Understand Iteratively
~ Plan Universally - Act Incrementally!
Also since technology will no longer be held back by monopolists, and
lack of investment it will truly blossom in manifold useful,
wonderful, interesting, and fun ways.
Elliott
--
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
~ Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law
______________________________________________________________________
Universe
>Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>
>>At the end of socialization when classes are abolished and there is no
>>longer an easy possibility for return to capitalism the rule of the
>>socialism also ends. The party is eliminated and the government as
>>the rule of a class ends. The government then is simply an
>>administrative tool.
>
>Also paying for things and money are eliminated!
>
>People are conscious of the common social interests enough after
>decades of the revolutionary socialization process to take only what
>they need - from basic to the perhaps esoteric like a telescope - and
>give back in work and effort to the best of their ability.
>
>Neighborhoods of great numbers of people coming together to get stuff
>done with all out effort by everyone! Just think what can be
>accomplished. They'll be able to move mountains! And think of the
>tremendous synergy of this happening globally. Especially when all of
>humanity adopts:
>
> ~ Understand Holistically - Understand Iteratively
> ~ Plan Universally - Act Incrementally!
Better:
~ Understand Holistically!
~ Plan Globally!
~ Act Iteratively & Incrementally!
>Also since technology will no longer be held back by monopolists, and
>lack of investment it will truly blossom in manifold useful,
>wonderful, interesting, and fun ways.
Elliott
--
Be scientific at all points, in all directions!
Forward to a Bright OO Simulationist Future!
3w.radix.net/~universe *^* @ Elliott, 2002
--
* Excelsior! * Avanti! *
* Ever Onward and Upward to an Exploitation Free World *
* Empiricist Free Science & Conservative Free Art *
3w.radix.net/~universe @ Elliott, 2002
______________________________________________________________________
jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net
Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net wrote:
>
>>In article <a29og9$p6v$3...@news1.Radix.Net>,
>>Universe <univ...@radix.undonet> wrote:
>>>Ian <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In general, the open source advocates that I know of, do not encourage
>>>> piracy and they do not encourage breaking the law.
>>>
>>>I don't give a damn about the bourgeois property rights historically used
>>>to enrich a handful while sticking up everyone else in society. It was
>>>the history of society's ideas and society's collective educational
>>>systems, material technology and social production processes that made the
>>>invention by the inventor even remotely possible.
>
>>Please show an example of a society that did not protect property rights and
>>simultaneously had a free people.
>
<silliness snipped>
Try the question again
>
>This is what the Mao and the Gang of Four were doing in leading the
>Chinese Cultural Revolution from '66 to early '70's. As you see they
>lost. So it is a back and forth, not straight line process.
>
good thing too - <millions> were slaughtered during the Cultural Revolution
How about you answer the simple question above, without the wandering
rants?
>>>Ahoy mateys! Lets' steal a bright exploitation free future!
>
>Elliott
>--
> * Excelsior! * Avanti! *
> * Ever Onward and Upward to an Exploitation Free World *
> * Empiricist Free Science & Conservative Free Art *
> 3w.radix.net/~universe @ Elliott, 2002
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
Universe
>In article <nn2h4ugj8jp6mp24p...@4ax.com>,
>Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>>jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>In article <a29og9$p6v$3...@news1.Radix.Net>,
>>>Universe <univ...@radix.undonet> wrote:
>>>>Ian <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In general, the open source advocates that I know of, do not encourage
>>>>> piracy and they do not encourage breaking the law.
>>>>
>>>>I don't give a damn about the bourgeois property rights historically used
>>>>to enrich a handful while sticking up everyone else in society. It was
>>>>the history of society's ideas and society's collective educational
>>>>systems, material technology and social production processes that made the
>>>>invention by the inventor even remotely possible.
>>
>>>Please show an example of a society that did not protect property rights and
>>>simultaneously had a free people.
>>
>
><silliness snipped>
>
>Try the question again
>
>>
>>This is what the Mao and the Gang of Four were doing in leading the
>>Chinese Cultural Revolution from '66 to early '70's. As you see they
>>lost. So it is a back and forth, not straight line process.
>>
>
>
>good thing too - <millions> were slaughtered during the Cultural Revolution
Perhaps, but have you *actually* gone to sources on *both* sides and
tried to understand what *specifically* in say 20% of the suspected
incidents *concretely*, *event, by event* happened? Have you done
that in a *single* case?
>How about you answer the simple question above, without the wandering
>rants?
>
? I *truly* don't see anything else to say.
Elliott
--
Ahoy mateys! Lets' steal a bright exploitation free future!
______________________________________________________________________
Shayne Wissler
> > > > ?! But the free market has nothing to do with the effect you cite,
as I
> > > > already showed.
> > > >
> > > A neutral wrapper on top of a problem is still a problem.
> >
> > And--what is the problem again?
>
> 1) People with idyllic beliefs in the free-market. (You're sounding
close.)
That's not helping me understand you.
> 2) The fact that its causing crappy software and inhibiting better
software.
> (And we haven't even started on tactics yet. M$ fares worse in that
arena.)
This an alleged symptom, not a problem.
After all this, you *still* haven't named a problem.
> > Just the fact that you can't wave your magic
> > wand at an infrastructure and make it be what you want it to be? Sorry,
but
> > you're viewing things from a subjective perspective.
>
> If you're going to answer your own question, please use "some person"
> rather than "you".
>
> > As a matter of fact,
> > the fact that there is no economic incentive to replace an existing
> > infrastructure is proof of its value.
>
> A monopoly can use its own indomitable economic incentives to inhibit that
replacement.
> Better for the monopoly, but that's about it.
1) The only monopolies in America are government-created ones. It would be
funny if it weren't so sick, but the very same people whining about
Microsoft being a monopoly--when it isn't--don't bat an eye about the
government controlling the education of our children. You may not like Bill
Gates, but he doesn't have the power to throw you in jail and tell your
children what to think.
Something tells me this isn't about the so-called threat of some entity
having arbitrary power. Something tells me that that's a front, that the
anti-monopolists are really for the absolute government monopoly over the
economy.
2) A big company can take advantage of economies of scale and of its own
resources in order to provide a higher value to the consumer than a small
company can. That's good for consumers. It's funny, but when GNU provides
free, government-funded software, the anti-monopolists are all for it, but
when MS does it (IE), they start whining. I don't hear the users
complaining.
Let's see, on one hand, we have the government pilfering money out of my
pocket, threatening to throw me in jail if I don't pay for all the things I
disagree with, using the extorted money to pay for communist software, and
on the other hand, we have Bill Gates, whose only power is the power to
convince me to buy his product. The government wields a gun, Gates wields
nice features I'd like to have.
And you want to give more power to the gun. Don't whine when your children
have less freedom and opportunity than you did. You can look in the mirror
to see whose fault it is. And to think that you've read Atlas.
> > That's not a problem--except for
> > people living in a fantasy world of hat they think the ideal is.
>
> Yes, that mathematical global optimum fantasy.
> I'm sorry, Shayne. Could you show me exactly where I shifted from
> a mathematical argument to a subjective fantasy world?
In the real world, infrastructure is a value, as well as the technical
aspects of a better infrastructure. And in the real world, the economic
calculations of the free market determine whether changing the
infrastructure is worth it or not. Your mathematical approach is subjective,
because it doesn't incorporate all of these facts.
Shayne Wissler
<jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a2aeeu$5ai$1...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net...
> James A. Robertson
> Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
> jar...@mail.com
> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
It's nice to see a voice of reason. But I'd ignore Elliott. He's only a
fancy computer program designed to suck people's time away. Sometimes I have
fun with it to see what I can get it to say (I just recently found out that
the author of his program did in fact include cussing routines--something I
had not known), but it's nothing to take seriously.
Phil Tomson
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
>news:Ju_18.1880$h31.3...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
>
>> Is it moral to force me to accept a license without having an oportunity
>> to read it?
>
>I want so much to be polite, but this is one of the most idiotic statements
>I've seen in this ng. No one forces you to accept a license agreement. You
>don't have to buy the software license if you don't like the terms. How can
>you rationalize to this extreme? It's absurd and you know it. You have
>to--no one is that morally clueless.
>
[Shayne, Shayne, Shayne, calm yourself. You're gonna have a stroke or
something if you keep going like this.... get yourself a nice cup of
chamomile tea or something.]
I can't believe that you've never heard of "Shrinkwrap Licenses"?
With a shrinkwrap license (which is quite popular these days) you "pays
your money and takes your chances". You're basically bound to the
contract as soon as you open the box (but prior to being able to read it).
Try to take it back later after having had opportunity to read the
license: "Sorry, we don't give refunds on open software".
>> Shayne: I used to be a Libertarian, but the more I looked at the
>
>Just so you know, Libertarians are anathema to Objectivists, because they
>are anti-philosophical. They claim to stand for freedom, property rights, or
>whatever, but then when you ask them what is meant by those things, or how
>they know that they're good, and they say they don't know and they don't
>care. I never met a Libertarian who wasn't either clueless or dishonest.
Oh no! The cult of Ayn!
Well, I'm not a Libertarian anymore anyway so maybe I'm making steps
toward cluefulness and honesty. Does the cult of Ayn posess maximum
cluefulness and honesty? It does look and sound and smell a lot like a
religious community.
Phil
Phil Tomson
Oh, my gosh! Am I reading this right? Is he defending Mao and the
cultural revolution?! This has thread has devolved too far.
Phil
Phil Tomson
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:a2aeeu$5ai$1...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net...
>
>> James A. Robertson
>> Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
>> jar...@mail.com
>> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
>
>It's nice to see a voice of reason. But I'd ignore Elliott. He's only a
>fancy computer program designed to suck people's time away. Sometimes I have
>fun with it to see what I can get it to say (I just recently found out that
I'm wonder if perhaps there are two participants in this thread for which
the same allegation can be made ;-)
I've got it now: This is comp.object. Some prof decided to give his
students a project: Create an object oriented newsgroup participant.
Program one with Objectivist statements and the other with Marxist. Let
'em loose in comp.object and see if anybody notices that they're arguing
with a program... Is this like one of those Turing tests? ;-) The jig is
up, you guys have been discovered! There goes your grade!
Kind of like the old Eliza. Actually, that might be interesting...
Somebody propose a class hierarchy so we can get back on topic for this
newsgroup.
Phil
Universe
>Oh, my gosh! Am I reading this right? Is he defending Mao and the
>cultural revolution?! This has thread has devolved too far.
Actually not far enuff Phil, not far enuff.
Elliott
--
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao Tse tung! - Revolution's No Way Done!
Universe
>Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>>Perhaps, but have you *actually* gone to sources on *both* sides and
>>tried to understand what *specifically* in say 20% of the suspected
>>incidents *concretely*, *event, by event* happened? Have you done
>>that in a *single* case?
>Oh, my gosh! Am I reading this right? Is he defending Mao and the
>cultural revolution?! This has thread has devolved too far.
Try doing what the paragraph says rather than acting with likely
ignorant subjectivism.
Elliott
--
Be scientific at all points, in all directions!
Forward to a Bright OO Simulationist Future!
3w.radix.net/~universe *^* @ Elliott, 2002
______________________________________________________________________
Phil Tomson
Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>pt...@shell1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) wrote:
>
>>Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>>>Perhaps, but have you *actually* gone to sources on *both* sides and
>>>tried to understand what *specifically* in say 20% of the suspected
>>>incidents *concretely*, *event, by event* happened? Have you done
>>>that in a *single* case?
>
>>Oh, my gosh! Am I reading this right? Is he defending Mao and the
>>cultural revolution?! This has thread has devolved too far.
>
>Try doing what the paragraph says rather than acting with likely
>ignorant subjectivism.
>
Is there some corrollary to Godwin's rule that might be invoked here
pretty soon?
Phil
Shayne Wissler
> >I want so much to be polite, but this is one of the most idiotic
statements
> >I've seen in this ng. No one forces you to accept a license agreement.
You
> >don't have to buy the software license if you don't like the terms. How
can
> >you rationalize to this extreme? It's absurd and you know it. You have
> >to--no one is that morally clueless.
> >
>
> [Shayne, Shayne, Shayne, calm yourself. You're gonna have a stroke or
> something if you keep going like this.... get yourself a nice cup of
> chamomile tea or something.]
Does it help you feel better to pretend I'm upset? Or maybe you're just
projecting your own emotions? I can understand why you should feel upset. I
don't have sympathy, but I understand.
> I can't believe that you've never heard of "Shrinkwrap Licenses"?
> With a shrinkwrap license (which is quite popular these days) you "pays
> your money and takes your chances". You're basically bound to the
> contract as soon as you open the box (but prior to being able to read it).
> Try to take it back later after having had opportunity to read the
> license: "Sorry, we don't give refunds on open software".
This is just pathetic misdirection and whining. Are you telling me you can't
find someone else who has a copy so you can read the license before buying?
Ever asked a store clerk to see the license before buying? Ever tried to
find the license on the company's web site?
> >> Shayne: I used to be a Libertarian, but the more I looked at the
> >
> >Just so you know, Libertarians are anathema to Objectivists, because they
> >are anti-philosophical. They claim to stand for freedom, property rights,
or
> >whatever, but then when you ask them what is meant by those things, or
how
> >they know that they're good, and they say they don't know and they don't
> >care. I never met a Libertarian who wasn't either clueless or dishonest.
>
> Oh no! The cult of Ayn!
>
> Well, I'm not a Libertarian anymore anyway so maybe I'm making steps
> toward cluefulness and honesty. Does the cult of Ayn posess maximum
> cluefulness and honesty? It does look and sound and smell a lot like a
> religious community.
Ah, the sign of a person who knows deep down that his arguments have totally
failed. "He's a little smarter than we thought, we've been found out! Bring
on the ad hominem!!"
Shayne Wissler
> In article <UW328.419$qn3.6980@rwcrnsc53>,
> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> ><jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:a2aeeu$5ai$1...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net...
> >
> >> James A. Robertson
> >> Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
> >> jar...@mail.com
> >> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
> >
> >It's nice to see a voice of reason. But I'd ignore Elliott. He's only a
> >fancy computer program designed to suck people's time away. Sometimes I
have
> >fun with it to see what I can get it to say (I just recently found out
that
>
> I'm wonder if perhaps there are two participants in this thread for which
> the same allegation can be made ;-)
>
> I've got it now: This is comp.object. Some prof decided to give his
> students a project: Create an object oriented newsgroup participant.
> Program one with Objectivist statements and the other with Marxist. Let
> 'em loose in comp.object and see if anybody notices that they're arguing
> with a program... Is this like one of those Turing tests? ;-) The jig is
> up, you guys have been discovered! There goes your grade!
Be careful--you're starting to get obvious. You make a few arguments, I
point out their flaws, and you swing directly into personal attack mode
instead of addressing them or doing the honest thing and admitting you're
wrong.
> Kind of like the old Eliza. Actually, that might be interesting...
> Somebody propose a class hierarchy so we can get back on topic for this
> newsgroup.
If you can't stand the heat, you shouldn't have jumped into the fire in the
first place.
Universe
You apparently think being trite has moved things forward in an
objective and scientific way.
Elliott
--
You prove correctness by correspondence with specific contextual facts
validated by practice.
--
Truth is proven by _long term_ validation in practice.
Phil Tomson
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
>news:qN428.3414$h31.5...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
>> >I want so much to be polite, but this is one of the most idiotic
>statements
>> >I've seen in this ng. No one forces you to accept a license agreement.
>You
>> >don't have to buy the software license if you don't like the terms. How
>can
>> >you rationalize to this extreme? It's absurd and you know it. You have
>> >to--no one is that morally clueless.
>> >
>>
>> [Shayne, Shayne, Shayne, calm yourself. You're gonna have a stroke or
>> something if you keep going like this.... get yourself a nice cup of
>> chamomile tea or something.]
>
>Does it help you feel better to pretend I'm upset? Or maybe you're just
>projecting your own emotions? I can understand why you should feel upset. I
>don't have sympathy, but I understand.
It's based on Eliza! I knew it!
No, that wasn't an ad hominem. If I had used an ad hominem attack I would
have called you something nasty. ;-)
I have noticed that Objectivists quote Ayn Rand like a Scientologist
quoting Hubbard - it's as if just because Ayn said it it must be so as if
you're quoting holy writ or something.
Phil
Phil Tomson
Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>pt...@shell1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) wrote:
>
>>In article <1eoh4u4rfh37m6gbm...@4ax.com>,
>>Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>>>pt...@shell1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>>>>>Perhaps, but have you *actually* gone to sources on *both* sides and
>>>>>tried to understand what *specifically* in say 20% of the suspected
>>>>>incidents *concretely*, *event, by event* happened? Have you done
>>>>>that in a *single* case?
>>>
>>>>Oh, my gosh! Am I reading this right? Is he defending Mao and the
>>>>cultural revolution?! This has thread has devolved too far.
>>>
>>>Try doing what the paragraph says rather than acting with likely
>>>ignorant subjectivism.
>>>
>
>>Is there some corrollary to Godwin's rule that might be invoked here
>>pretty soon?
>
>You apparently think being trite has moved things forward in an
>objective and scientific way.
>
Narrator: "Finding himself surrounded on both sides our intrepid newsgroup
participant weighs his options...."
[Now breaking encapsulation the participant exposes his own thoughts...]
"This is getting weird: I'm surrounded by an Objectivist on one side and a
Marxist(?) on the other. But the Marxist just made a comment about
'ignorant subjectivism' and 'objective and scientific' - is he really
playing on the Objectivist side? (Or is he the same person posting under
different names?) And If I ask the obvious next question to
rebut the bit about nobody really checking into the Cultural Revolution
to know what really happened it will invoke Godwin's Law.... do I really
want to do that?"
[The organ music swells]
Narrator: "Will our intrepid newsgroup participant invoke Godwin's Law in
his next post? Does this thread deserve to be Godwin-ized?[audience:
Probably] Are the other two participants really just programs that
resulted from an assignment given in Object Oriented Programming 101? Is
this sort of post post-modern or existential? Stay tuned to our next
episode for the answers!"
Phil
Shayne Wissler
> >Does it help you feel better to pretend I'm upset? Or maybe you're just
> >projecting your own emotions? I can understand why you should feel upset.
I
> >don't have sympathy, but I understand.
>
> It's based on Eliza! I knew it!
Your lack of creativity is disappointing. Can't you think of any better
insult than to copy mine as templates for your own? Come on, you can do
better.
> >Ah, the sign of a person who knows deep down that his arguments have
totally
> >failed. "He's a little smarter than we thought, we've been found out!
Bring
> >on the ad hominem!!"
>
> No, that wasn't an ad hominem. If I had used an ad hominem attack I would
> have called you something nasty. ;-)
You clearly don't know what "ad hominem" means.
> I have noticed that Objectivists quote Ayn Rand like a Scientologist
> quoting Hubbard - it's as if just because Ayn said it it must be so as if
> you're quoting holy writ or something.
See?
Now, is your tactic to keep insulting me until you've pushed the posts with
your failure to answer my points up a bit, so they're more out of the way
and less likely to be read?
jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net
Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net wrote:
>
>>In article <nn2h4ugj8jp6mp24p...@4ax.com>,
>>Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:
>>>jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>This is what the Mao and the Gang of Four were doing in leading the
>>>Chinese Cultural Revolution from '66 to early '70's. As you see they
>>>lost. So it is a back and forth, not straight line process.
>>>
>>
>>
>>good thing too - <millions> were slaughtered during the Cultural Revolution
>
>Perhaps, but have you *actually* gone to sources on *both* sides and
>tried to understand what *specifically* in say 20% of the suspected
>incidents *concretely*, *event, by event* happened? Have you done
>that in a *single* case?
Both sides? Sheesh. The Chicoms slaughtered millions. I suppose you
figure that Pol Pot had a point as well?
>
>>How about you answer the simple question above, without the wandering
>>rants?
>>
>
>? I *truly* don't see anything else to say.
>
>Elliott
>--
>Ahoy mateys! Lets' steal a bright exploitation free future!
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
Richard MacDonald
>
> > I can't believe that you've never heard of "Shrinkwrap Licenses"?
> > With a shrinkwrap license (which is quite popular these days) you "pays
> > your money and takes your chances". You're basically bound to the
> > contract as soon as you open the box (but prior to being able to read it).
> > Try to take it back later after having had opportunity to read the
> > license: "Sorry, we don't give refunds on open software".
>
> This is just pathetic misdirection and whining. Are you telling me you can't
> find someone else who has a copy so you can read the license before buying?
Oh, that certainly makes everything so much easier.
> Ever asked a store clerk to see the license before buying? Ever tried to
> find the license on the company's web site?
You mean the one that says in fine print: "We have the right to change
this license at will, you're still bound to it, but we won't tell you about it?"
I got an idea for the new killer app: An agent that checks all my existing
licenses every day to see if they've changed.
I humbly suggest you pick your comp.object fights a little more judiciously, Shayne.
Ian
Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> "Ian" <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote in message
> news:slrna4h51...@jester.vuurwerk.nl...
>
>> > Do you think that just because it's legal to own slaves, you're in your
>> > rights to own one?
>>
>> It's not legal, so it is pointless to question this.
>
> Clearly, you have no concept of principle.
Clearly, I worded it crappily... my mistake.
If I don't like the licensing terms of some software, I won't buy it,
simple. I condemn piracy as hard as you do I think. However, the law in
the EU clearly states that the reverse engineering effort *has* to be
for the purpose of providing interoperability between different
systems. Likewise that I shouldn't buy the software if I don't like the
license on it, no company should try to sell software in a country under
terms that conflict with the law of that country? What gives them the moral
right do do that? What gives them the right to overrule a law instated by
people that I voted into office? I sure as heck didn't vote for the
CEO of that company and I won't accept corporate lawyers imposing laws
on me that I didn't want to begin with. If I don't like a law that
politicians made, I can vote them back out of office. That is *my*
principle.
>
>> > It is immoral to agree to the license terms and then violate them. Just
>> > because the laws are immoral doesn't give you a right to violate your
>> > agreement.
>>
>> And who decides that the laws are immoral? You!?
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how literally stupid pragmatism makes people. I
> mean, a normal child can grasp this point.
>
> Tommy The Pragmatist: Billy, I'll let you play with my remote control car
> tomorrow if you let me play with your Nintendo today.
>
[kid conversation snipped]
>
> I can hear the pragmatists now: "Oh, but that's nothing like this situation.
> This example is simplistic. The real world is more complicated than that"
> Yes, to the pragmatist, everything's different from everything else, and the
> world is just one big confusing complexity. There are no principles, just
> moment to moment decisions. Just like Tommy.
Let me give you the following example. I own a car of the brand Opel (which
is the European branch of GM) and I want to replace the alternator belt on
it, because it is worn out. I can choose between different alternator belt
manufacturers, that provide better quality, or cheaper belts, or whatever,
doesn't really matter. Or I can buy a genuine GM part. Is it immoral for
me to choose a non-GM part? The part was clearly reverse-engineered by
another company. If that is not immoral, then why is immoral to do the
same thing with software? Why should I allow a company dictating me that
I can't use certain software solutions in one department and other software
in another department and have the two interoperate?
Likewise, if I rent a house, which is more or less comparable to the
software licensing scheme, because in both cases I am paying for
something that I will never own. I rent the place, but the landlord will
not disclose the locations of the power outlets (i.e. API in software
land). Putting terms like that in a rental agreement is plainly
ridiculous. Is it immoral for me to go around the house and find the
outlets myself in order to provide interoperability with my electrical
appliances?
You say that I should abide by the licensing terms under which the software
is sold, I say that a licensing term cannot take away rights that I already
have, so the term in question shouldn't be there in the first place and if
you and me are negotiating a software sale, then I will make clear to you
that I won't accept that particular term and treat it void. After that
it is up to you to sell or not sell me the software.
Ian.
Shayne Wissler
"Richard MacDonald" <macdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Rx928.380865$W8.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I fail to understand why this is such a difficult concept. When someone OWNS
something, it's THEIRS to do with what they will. That's what ownership
means. If they say "you can use this if you pay me and agree that I can
change the terms later", and you accept, then you accepted, and you have no
right to go around complaining after the fact. Why would you complain? The
only possible reason is that what they have is really good, i.e., they've
created something great. And you want to use that fact as a basis for
bringing in the government and forcing them to give you what's theirs, under
your own terms. That's just sick.
A child could understand this issue. I don't see why adults have difficulty
with it.
Shayne Wissler
> In article <_7228.5270$HM2....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
> If I don't like the licensing terms of some software, I won't buy it,
> simple. I condemn piracy as hard as you do I think. However, the law in
> the EU clearly states that the reverse engineering effort *has* to be
> for the purpose of providing interoperability between different
> systems. Likewise that I shouldn't buy the software if I don't like the
> license on it, no company should try to sell software in a country under
> terms that conflict with the law of that country? What gives them the
moral
> right do do that? What gives them the right to overrule a law instated by
> people that I voted into office? I sure as heck didn't vote for the
> CEO of that company and I won't accept corporate lawyers imposing laws
> on me that I didn't want to begin with. If I don't like a law that
> politicians made, I can vote them back out of office. That is *my*
> principle.
Ian, right and wrong are not subject to vote. A country can vote to take
your rights away, and they often do, but it isn't right. A country can vote
that the government should forcibly intervene between two adults making a
voluntary transaction, but it isn't right.
<snip>
> > I can hear the pragmatists now: "Oh, but that's nothing like this
situation.
> > This example is simplistic. The real world is more complicated than
that"
> > Yes, to the pragmatist, everything's different from everything else, and
the
> > world is just one big confusing complexity. There are no principles,
just
> > moment to moment decisions. Just like Tommy.
>
> Let me give you the following example. I own a car of the brand Opel
(which
> is the European branch of GM) and I want to replace the alternator belt on
> it, because it is worn out. I can choose between different alternator belt
> manufacturers, that provide better quality, or cheaper belts, or whatever,
> doesn't really matter. Or I can buy a genuine GM part. Is it immoral for
> me to choose a non-GM part?
The issue we were arguing about is reverse engineering. If GM said that
they'd sell you the car as long as you agreed not to reverse-engineer any of
its parts for the purpose of selling the reverse-engineered parts, then you
have no right to reverse engineer the parts for sale (OTOH, if they said
that you couldn't reverse engineer even for your own purposes, then I'd say
you hadn't really bought the car--this is a nuance).
> The part was clearly reverse-engineered by
> another company. If that is not immoral, then why is immoral to do the
> same thing with software? Why should I allow a company dictating me that
> I can't use certain software solutions in one department and other
software
> in another department and have the two interoperate?
It may be immoral for you to patronize a company that you know is a theif
being aided and abetted by the government. But that's a secondary issue.
> Likewise, if I rent a house, which is more or less comparable to the
> software licensing scheme, because in both cases I am paying for
> something that I will never own. I rent the place, but the landlord will
> not disclose the locations of the power outlets (i.e. API in software
> land). Putting terms like that in a rental agreement is plainly
> ridiculous. Is it immoral for me to go around the house and find the
> outlets myself in order to provide interoperability with my electrical
> appliances?
Most landlords expect you to figure this out on your own, i.e., they "won't
disclose". So I don't see your point. Let's change the example a bit. The
landlord says in the agreement that you must not use the outlets. If you
move in and use them, then you deserve to be sued. But this is a bizzare
example--no landlord would put in any such stipulation; it's against his
interests to do so.
> You say that I should abide by the licensing terms under which the
software
> is sold, I say that a licensing term cannot take away rights that I
already
> have,
And what gives you rights to do something with a peice of software that the
owner didn't give?
Richard MacDonald
Fair enough. But don't get upset when some of us say the hell with the situation
and give open-source a try. If we're stuck between a rock and a hard place,
maybe we'll choose the rock.
> If they say "you can use this if you pay me and agree that I can
> change the terms later", and you accept, then you accepted, and you have no
> right to go around complaining after the fact.
You can force me to bend-over but you cannot force me to say thank you.
(And you're going to take "force" at its literal value. Fine, but you should
give a thought to the practical reality as well. Do we really have a choice to ignore M$
-- to pick just one example?)
> Why would you complain? The
> only possible reason is that what they have is really good, i.e., they've
> created something great.
The *only* possible reason? Get real. What do you think my argument
has been about? There is clearly a way this can occur *without* it
being "something great".
> And you want to use that fact as a basis for
> bringing in the government and forcing them to give you what's theirs, under
> your own terms. That's just sick.
For the second time, please stop using "you" when you're making your
point. You have not demonstrated you can read my mind, so quit making
attributions to "me".
> A child could understand this issue. I don't see why adults have difficulty
> with it.
Adults have blind-spots. One is thinking that they're the only ones with a
valid viewpoint and that everyone who disagrees with them is "having
difficulty". Shayne, WE UNDERSTAND YOU. WE JUST DISAGREE.
Got it now?
Richard MacDonald
>
> "Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
> news:dt228.2019$FU7.107...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > > > ?! But the free market has nothing to do with the effect you cite,
> as I
> > > > > already showed.
> > > > >
> > > > A neutral wrapper on top of a problem is still a problem.
> > >
> > > And--what is the problem again?
> >
> > 1) People with idyllic beliefs in the free-market. (You're sounding
> close.)
>
> That's not helping me understand you.
I think there is such a thing as a "too-free market".
> > 2) The fact that its causing crappy software and inhibiting better
> software.
> > (And we haven't even started on tactics yet. M$ fares worse in that
> arena.)
>
> This an alleged symptom, not a problem.
It is definitely a problem. Care to see a list of the "better" (seen objectively
soley in their own isolated context) products that were destroyed or
never made it because of M$?
And with a perfectly reasonable mathematical theory to back it up,
I say its more than an "alleged symptom".
> After all this, you *still* haven't named a problem.
This free-market can only reach local, not global, optima.
M$ has forced us into local optima even when we know there is a
global optimum over the hill. Some of the efforts to bridge over to that
optimum have been destroyed by M$.
> > > As a matter of fact,
> > > the fact that there is no economic incentive to replace an existing
> > > infrastructure is proof of its value.
> >
> > A monopoly can use its own indomitable economic incentives to inhibit that
> replacement.
> > Better for the monopoly, but that's about it.
>
> 1) The only monopolies in America are government-created ones. It would be
> funny if it weren't so sick, but the very same people whining about
> Microsoft being a monopoly--when it isn't--don't bat an eye about the
> government controlling the education of our children. You may not like Bill
> Gates, but he doesn't have the power to throw you in jail and tell your
> children what to think.
Oh dear. I'd better ask for Ayn Rand's definition of "monopoly".
By the standard meaning, the above paragraph is a bit sick itself.
> Something tells me this isn't about the so-called threat of some entity
> having arbitrary power. Something tells me that that's a front, that the
> anti-monopolists are really for the absolute government monopoly over the
> economy.
Paranoia.
> 2) A big company can take advantage of economies of scale and of its own
> resources in order to provide a higher value to the consumer than a small
> company can. That's good for consumers. It's funny, but when GNU provides
> free, government-funded software, the anti-monopolists are all for it, but
> when MS does it (IE), they start whining. I don't hear the users
> complaining.
Then you're not listening. Developers are users too, and most of us are fed
up with the lock-in and lack of hooks. It prevents best of breed.
> Let's see, on one hand, we have the government pilfering money out of my
> pocket, threatening to throw me in jail if I don't pay for all the things I
> disagree with, using the extorted money to pay for communist software, and
> on the other hand, we have Bill Gates, whose only power is the power to
> convince me to buy his product. The government wields a gun, Gates wields
> nice features I'd like to have.
You're sounding like the Ellibot.
> And you want to give more power to the gun. Don't whine when your children
> have less freedom and opportunity than you did. You can look in the mirror
> to see whose fault it is. And to think that you've read Atlas.
Right. Where the heroes simply took their ball and went home, leaving the rest of
the world to die. Not everyone in the rest of the world was evil. Rand gave
up before she had started. Sorry, but I reject this loser mentality, and I don't
believe the world operates on such a naive level.
( An explicit "plot" to shackle the builders. Indeed! Nice story, but I reject the
idea that it represents the world we live in.).
I'll stay in the current world and do my best to benefit my family, my community, and
my country, in that order. Nothing wrong with those chains, in my personal opinion.
Shayne, you're losing it. Chill out.
(Although I fully expect an explosion in response to my last paragraph. But
*you* brought up Atlas, so don't blame me for responding with what I believe.)
> > > That's not a problem--except for
> > > people living in a fantasy world of hat they think the ideal is.
> >
> > Yes, that mathematical global optimum fantasy.
> > I'm sorry, Shayne. Could you show me exactly where I shifted from
> > a mathematical argument to a subjective fantasy world?
>
> In the real world, infrastructure is a value, as well as the technical
> aspects of a better infrastructure. And in the real world, the economic
> calculations of the free market determine whether changing the
> infrastructure is worth it or not. Your mathematical approach is subjective,
> because it doesn't incorporate all of these facts.
Nope. The mathematical approach is simply modeling exactly what you're
describing. And observing that there is a price we pay, i.e., local instead of global
optima. The only subjectivity is deciding what to think about that observation.
Now, as someone who has put years of work into the numerical tools for the
search of that global optimum, I feel "disappointed". I "regret" that the global
optimum is out there but not reachable "naturally". If you go back and
read closely, I have only criticized this in those terms. You're are the one making
the subjective rant.
Mike Smith
news:mn6h4us0clg7kngul...@4ax.com...
> "Mike Smith" <smi...@michaelsmithHATESSPAM.org> wrote:
>
> >Just because you *say* this, doesn't make it true. Windows is not
> >excellent; it's *good enough*. And *good enough* is what the market
wants.
>
> !?!
>
> It's incredible that you really believe that.
I think the evidence is in my favor. Who sells more cars - BMW or GM? Who
sells more food - Smith & Wollensky, or McDonalds? Who sells more audio
amplifiers - Krell or Sony? People, in general, want something that does
more-or-less what they need, well enough to get by, at a reasonable price.
--
Mike Smith
There are perhaps 5% of the population that simply *can't* think.
There are another 5% who *can*, and *do*.
The remaining 90% *can* think, but *don't*.
-- R. A. Heinlein
Richard MacDonald
>
> "Ian" <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote in message
> news:slrna4ikt...@jester.vuurwerk.nl...
> > In article <_7228.5270$HM2....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
>
> > If I don't like the licensing terms of some software, I won't buy it,
> > simple. I condemn piracy as hard as you do I think. However, the law in
> > the EU clearly states that the reverse engineering effort *has* to be
> > for the purpose of providing interoperability between different
> > systems. Likewise that I shouldn't buy the software if I don't like the
> > license on it, no company should try to sell software in a country under
> > terms that conflict with the law of that country? What gives them the
> moral
> > right do do that? What gives them the right to overrule a law instated by
> > people that I voted into office? I sure as heck didn't vote for the
> > CEO of that company and I won't accept corporate lawyers imposing laws
> > on me that I didn't want to begin with. If I don't like a law that
> > politicians made, I can vote them back out of office. That is *my*
> > principle.
>
> Ian, right and wrong are not subject to vote. A country can vote to take
> your rights away, and they often do, but it isn't right. A country can vote
> that the government should forcibly intervene between two adults making a
> voluntary transaction, but it isn't right.
So the argument shifts to what is "right" and what are your "rights"?
Better provide your definition of "right" before we go much further, Shayne.
And since I have a good idea of what it is, perhaps you could save us some
trouble and explain how the standard "shouting fire in a crowded theater"
is handled. And how "I'm the big company who has 80% of the world's
software locked up and I'm going to actively prevent you from inserting
a better mousetrap" is right.
P.S. I happen to agree that the latter issue is a "right". What I would like
from you is some *practical suggestions* (read: real world) in how the
rest of us should use our "rights" to combat this. And I do not think that
simply "taking my ball and going home" is all that practical a suggestion.
> The issue we were arguing about is reverse engineering. If GM said that
> they'd sell you the car as long as you agreed not to reverse-engineer any of
> its parts for the purpose of selling the reverse-engineered parts, then you
> have no right to reverse engineer the parts for sale (OTOH, if they said
> that you couldn't reverse engineer even for your own purposes, then I'd say
> you hadn't really bought the car--this is a nuance).
Interesting. Except that nuances are where most of the important issues are.
How does your philosophical distinction assist us in this regard?
> It may be immoral for you to patronize a company that you know is a theif
> being aided and abetted by the government. But that's a secondary issue.
Hardly a secondary issue. And when that company provides my light and
heat, I should move to a log cabin in Montana? Or a hidden valley in Colorado?
Shayne Wissler
> > I fail to understand why this is such a difficult concept. When someone
OWNS
> > something, it's THEIRS to do with what they will. That's what ownership
> > means.
>
> Fair enough. But don't get upset when some of us say the hell with the
situation
> and give open-source a try. If we're stuck between a rock and a hard
place,
> maybe we'll choose the rock.
But I'm not against open source in the generic sense. In fact, that's why I
complain about GNU: they've made it harder for a free-market-oriented open
source approach.
> > If they say "you can use this if you pay me and agree that I can
> > change the terms later", and you accept, then you accepted, and you have
no
> > right to go around complaining after the fact.
>
> You can force me to bend-over but you cannot force me to say thank you.
> (And you're going to take "force" at its literal value. Fine, but you
should
> give a thought to the practical reality as well. Do we really have a
choice to ignore M$
> -- to pick just one example?)
At least you realize you're twisting the English language when you use the
term "force" that way. Now if I can get you to recognize the consequences of
it.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities" -- Voltaire
> > Why would you complain? The
> > only possible reason is that what they have is really good, i.e.,
they've
> > created something great.
>
> The *only* possible reason? Get real. What do you think my argument
> has been about? There is clearly a way this can occur *without* it
> being "something great".
If you looked at the big picture instead of being stuck in your idyllic
technical world, you'd start to see how wrong this is.
> > And you want to use that fact as a basis for
> > bringing in the government and forcing them to give you what's theirs,
under
> > your own terms. That's just sick.
>
> For the second time, please stop using "you" when you're making your
> point. You have not demonstrated you can read my mind, so quit making
> attributions to "me".
OK, then what's your position on this?
> > A child could understand this issue. I don't see why adults have
difficulty
> > with it.
>
> Adults have blind-spots. One is thinking that they're the only ones with a
> valid viewpoint and that everyone who disagrees with them is "having
> difficulty". Shayne, WE UNDERSTAND YOU. WE JUST DISAGREE.
> Got it now?
No.
Ian
>
> "Ian" <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote in message
> news:slrna4ikt...@jester.vuurwerk.nl...
>> In article <_7228.5270$HM2....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
>
>> If I don't like the licensing terms of some software, I won't buy it,
>> simple. I condemn piracy as hard as you do I think. However, the law in
>> the EU clearly states that the reverse engineering effort *has* to be
>> for the purpose of providing interoperability between different
>> systems. Likewise that I shouldn't buy the software if I don't like the
>> license on it, no company should try to sell software in a country under
>> terms that conflict with the law of that country? What gives them the
> moral
>> right do do that? What gives them the right to overrule a law instated by
>> people that I voted into office? I sure as heck didn't vote for the
>> CEO of that company and I won't accept corporate lawyers imposing laws
>> on me that I didn't want to begin with. If I don't like a law that
>> politicians made, I can vote them back out of office. That is *my*
>> principle.
>
> Ian, right and wrong are not subject to vote. A country can vote to take
> your rights away, and they often do, but it isn't right. A country can vote
> that the government should forcibly intervene between two adults making a
> voluntary transaction, but it isn't right.
*You* think it isn't right! I think that if there is a dispute between two
people, they go to court over it, and then a judge decides what is right.
I may not like the outcome of it, but that doesn't mean that the outcome
is wrong. Microsoft went to court, they didn't like the outcome, too bad
for them. That's the way it works.
Besides, the transaction is not always voluntary. If I buy something
with a shrinkwrap license, I didn't get the chance to read and agree
or disagree with it before I bought it. In that case, our laws state
that the license agreement is not an agreement but imposed on the
customer. A *judge* will, in most cases, declare your license agreement
null and void. If you don't like that, too bad, go sell your software
somewhere you can bend the laws to your liking.
Nevertheless, it is my principle and I stick with it. A country can vote
to take my rights away... but it won't be my vote that did that. And a
country taking it away by voting radical politicians into office is still
a *lot* more valid and acceptable than a bunch of corporate lawyers taking
them away just so that they can squeeze money out of my pocket.
>
><snip>
>
>> > I can hear the pragmatists now: "Oh, but that's nothing like this
> situation.
>> > This example is simplistic. The real world is more complicated than
> that"
>> > Yes, to the pragmatist, everything's different from everything else, and
> the
>> > world is just one big confusing complexity. There are no principles,
> just
>> > moment to moment decisions. Just like Tommy.
>>
>> Let me give you the following example. I own a car of the brand Opel
> (which
>> is the European branch of GM) and I want to replace the alternator belt on
>> it, because it is worn out. I can choose between different alternator belt
>> manufacturers, that provide better quality, or cheaper belts, or whatever,
>> doesn't really matter. Or I can buy a genuine GM part. Is it immoral for
>> me to choose a non-GM part?
>
> The issue we were arguing about is reverse engineering. If GM said that
> they'd sell you the car as long as you agreed not to reverse-engineer any of
> its parts for the purpose of selling the reverse-engineered parts, then you
> have no right to reverse engineer the parts for sale (OTOH, if they said
> that you couldn't reverse engineer even for your own purposes, then I'd say
> you hadn't really bought the car--this is a nuance).
Let's say that I might not have bought the car if there was no parts
availability other than from GM themselves. However, suppose (as is the
case with Microsoft in the desktop market) that GM is the only car
manufacturer, then I do not have much choice, and who is GM to tell me
from who I should buy my spare parts?
>
>> The part was clearly reverse-engineered by
>> another company. If that is not immoral, then why is immoral to do the
>> same thing with software? Why should I allow a company dictating me that
>> I can't use certain software solutions in one department and other
> software
>> in another department and have the two interoperate?
>
> It may be immoral for you to patronize a company that you know is a theif
> being aided and abetted by the government. But that's a secondary issue.
>
>> Likewise, if I rent a house, which is more or less comparable to the
>> software licensing scheme, because in both cases I am paying for
>> something that I will never own. I rent the place, but the landlord will
>> not disclose the locations of the power outlets (i.e. API in software
>> land). Putting terms like that in a rental agreement is plainly
>> ridiculous. Is it immoral for me to go around the house and find the
>> outlets myself in order to provide interoperability with my electrical
>> appliances?
>
> Most landlords expect you to figure this out on your own, i.e., they "won't
> disclose". So I don't see your point. Let's change the example a bit. The
> landlord says in the agreement that you must not use the outlets. If you
> move in and use them, then you deserve to be sued. But this is a bizzare
> example--no landlord would put in any such stipulation; it's against his
> interests to do so.
Right, it is bizarre and so is the "Thou shalt not reverse engineer" term
in most license agreements, at least that is my opinion.
>
>> You say that I should abide by the licensing terms under which the
> software
>> is sold, I say that a licensing term cannot take away rights that I
> already
>> have,
>
> And what gives you rights to do something with a peice of software that the
> owner didn't give?
What gives the company the right to step into my country and violate its
laws? If you say that I should just abide by the license terms, then I can
just as validly state that a company should abide by the laws of my country
before they step in and start to sell software under terms that conflict
with the law. If the laws are right or wrong is not an issue really, the
laws state what we, as a country, think is right. If you don't like what
we think is right, then move elsewhere, if I think that the license
agreement on the usage of a product is not right, then I will move
elsewhere, don't complain if you can't sell me anything because I don't
like your bizarre and unlawful licensing terms.
Here's an interesting link on this very subject:
http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html (There's more from the main page:
http://cr.yp.to/djb.html)
Ian.
Shayne Wissler
> > Ian, right and wrong are not subject to vote. A country can vote to take
> > your rights away, and they often do, but it isn't right. A country can
vote
> > that the government should forcibly intervene between two adults making
a
> > voluntary transaction, but it isn't right.
>
> So the argument shifts to what is "right" and what are your "rights"?
Rights are a moral concept. I know the public education system has tried to
make them equivalent to the term "entitlements", so most people don't get
this.
> Better provide your definition of "right" before we go much further,
Shayne.
Ayn Rand's definition: A "right" is a moral principle defining and
sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.
> And since I have a good idea of what it is, perhaps you could save us some
> trouble and explain how the standard "shouting fire in a crowded theater"
> is handled.
Ah yes, the often cited fire in theatre scenario. The short answer is that
your rights end where someone else's begin. For the longer answer, just go
study Objectivism. It isn't as simplistic as you're assuming; it has
rational answers to questions like these. (If you join OSG, I'm sure you can
get dozens of people to give you answers to questions like these, but be
careful about being more polite there than we are here).
> And how "I'm the big company who has 80% of the world's
> software locked up and I'm going to actively prevent you from inserting
> a better mousetrap" is right.
>
> P.S. I happen to agree that the latter issue is a "right".
> What I would like
> from you is some *practical suggestions* (read: real world) in how the
> rest of us should use our "rights" to combat this. And I do not think that
> simply "taking my ball and going home" is all that practical a suggestion.
I still don't see the problem. You want to do something to someone else's
property, and they won't allow you. But you really, really want to. Wait--I
see the problem: You just need to get over it. Quit lusting after something
that's not yours.
> > The issue we were arguing about is reverse engineering. If GM said that
> > they'd sell you the car as long as you agreed not to reverse-engineer
any of
> > its parts for the purpose of selling the reverse-engineered parts, then
you
> > have no right to reverse engineer the parts for sale (OTOH, if they said
> > that you couldn't reverse engineer even for your own purposes, then I'd
say
> > you hadn't really bought the car--this is a nuance).
>
> Interesting. Except that nuances are where most of the important issues
are.
> How does your philosophical distinction assist us in this regard?
We have to be careful about nuances. Lawyers are supposed to be the ones who
clarify how moral principles translate into law. I'm not an expert, but I'll
venture a guess at this nuance: It may be perfectly legal to forbid GM from
restricting the property owner from analyzing/modifying his car, because of
the fact that GM admits that the sale is a sale. Again, ownership means
ownership, and that means doing what you want with your property. GM can't
have its cake and eat it too; if you bought it, you bought it, so you own
it, and its yours to do with what you will.
> > It may be immoral for you to patronize a company that you know is a
theif
> > being aided and abetted by the government. But that's a secondary issue.
>
> Hardly a secondary issue. And when that company provides my light and
> heat, I should move to a log cabin in Montana? Or a hidden valley in
Colorado?
I used the term "may" for a specific reason. There are lots of
qualifications needed here and I don't have the time right now to get into
them. But the short answer is that if you have no practical alternative due
to the cultural forces, then you shouldn't feel guilty for having to buy
products made in, say, China (e.g., I'm sure some of the parts in my laptop
were made in China, but politicians in America have left me no choice but to
buy them).
Shayne Wissler
> I think there is such a thing as a "too-free market".
"Too free"? By what standard? Your personal feelings about what technology
ought to look like?
> > > 2) The fact that its causing crappy software and inhibiting better
> > software.
> > > (And we haven't even started on tactics yet. M$ fares worse in
that
> > arena.)
> >
> > This an alleged symptom, not a problem.
>
> It is definitely a problem. Care to see a list of the "better" (seen
objectively
> soley in their own isolated context) products that were destroyed or
> never made it because of M$?
Objectivity is about seeing the big picture, not dropping the surrounding
context.
> And with a perfectly reasonable mathematical theory to back it up,
> I say its more than an "alleged symptom".
It's not reasonable to create an economics devoid of an underlying moral
theory.
> > After all this, you *still* haven't named a problem.
>
> This free-market can only reach local, not global, optima.
>
> M$ has forced us into local optima even when we know there is a
> global optimum over the hill. Some of the efforts to bridge over to that
> optimum have been destroyed by M$.
I think you're not paying attention. You never addressed my railroad
example.
> > 1) The only monopolies in America are government-created ones. It would
be
> > funny if it weren't so sick, but the very same people whining about
> > Microsoft being a monopoly--when it isn't--don't bat an eye about the
> > government controlling the education of our children. You may not like
Bill
> > Gates, but he doesn't have the power to throw you in jail and tell your
> > children what to think.
>
> Oh dear. I'd better ask for Ayn Rand's definition of "monopoly".
> By the standard meaning, the above paragraph is a bit sick itself.
Monopoly means monopoly, it doesn't mean you have a dominant share of the
market.
> > Something tells me this isn't about the so-called threat of some entity
> > having arbitrary power. Something tells me that that's a front, that the
> > anti-monopolists are really for the absolute government monopoly over
the
> > economy.
>
> Paranoia.
I realize most people don't have this end goal explicitly in mind, but
that's where they're going. There are only two alternatives: individual
rights and statism. It's either-or.
> > 2) A big company can take advantage of economies of scale and of its own
> > resources in order to provide a higher value to the consumer than a
small
> > company can. That's good for consumers. It's funny, but when GNU
provides
> > free, government-funded software, the anti-monopolists are all for it,
but
> > when MS does it (IE), they start whining. I don't hear the users
> > complaining.
>
> Then you're not listening. Developers are users too, and most of us are
fed
> up with the lock-in and lack of hooks. It prevents best of breed.
MS isn't the problem. In my opinion, there just aren't any great ideas out
there right now. When someone comes along with something substantially
better, it will eventually overtake MS. Look at history. Big companies never
maintain their dominant position indefinitely. Some new technology always
overtakes them.
> > Let's see, on one hand, we have the government pilfering money out of my
> > pocket, threatening to throw me in jail if I don't pay for all the
things I
> > disagree with, using the extorted money to pay for communist software,
and
> > on the other hand, we have Bill Gates, whose only power is the power to
> > convince me to buy his product. The government wields a gun, Gates
wields
> > nice features I'd like to have.
>
> You're sounding like the Ellibot.
Really. Are you saying the above isn't precisely true?
> > And you want to give more power to the gun. Don't whine when your
children
> > have less freedom and opportunity than you did. You can look in the
mirror
> > to see whose fault it is. And to think that you've read Atlas.
>
> Right. Where the heroes simply took their ball and went home, leaving the
rest of
> the world to die.
I thought you might have gotten the point that government controls and
regulations breed further controls and regulations, until you end up with a
dictatorship. See "The Ominous Parallels" for a more explicit exposition of
this principle.
> Not everyone in the rest of the world was evil.
True. But that's what apathy about the fate of those who carry the world
buys you.
> Rand gave up before she had started.
BS. If she had given up, Atlas wouldn't exist. She herself said that she
hoped that the book would help us avoid the events in the novel from
becoming a reality. She didn't think we were there yet.
> ( An explicit "plot" to shackle the builders. Indeed! Nice story, but I
reject the
> idea that it represents the world we live in.).
You didn't read Atlas. Sure, there are a few evil characters, but the cause
of the bad events was the predominant philosophy, taking people unknowingly
towards destruction. Kind of like a teenager with self-destructive behavior,
but who doesn't realize that in the end he's going to be in a coffin.
> I'll stay in the current world and do my best to benefit my family, my
community, and
> my country, in that order. Nothing wrong with those chains, in my personal
opinion.
>
> Shayne, you're losing it. Chill out.
I assure you, I'm perfectly calm. Have been for the entire thread. Precisely
what comment made you think I was losing it?
> (Although I fully expect an explosion in response to my last paragraph.
But
> *you* brought up Atlas, so don't blame me for responding with what I
believe.)
I don't think you realize what I will and won't get upset over. Maybe you
thought your paragraph was more in your favor than it was? In any case,
maybe you should stop trying to predict my emotions.
<snip>
Shayne Wissler
> In article <yui28.7482$5Z6.117302@rwcrnsc54>, Shayne Wissler wrote:
> > Ian, right and wrong are not subject to vote. A country can vote to take
> > your rights away, and they often do, but it isn't right. A country can
vote
> > that the government should forcibly intervene between two adults making
a
> > voluntary transaction, but it isn't right.
<snip>
> What gives the company the right to step into my country and violate its
> laws? If you say that I should just abide by the license terms, then I can
> just as validly state that a company should abide by the laws of my
country
> before they step in and start to sell software under terms that conflict
> with the law. If the laws are right or wrong is not an issue really, the
> laws state what we, as a country, think is right. If you don't like what
> we think is right, then move elsewhere, if I think that the license
> agreement on the usage of a product is not right, then I will move
> elsewhere, don't complain if you can't sell me anything because I don't
> like your bizarre and unlawful licensing terms.
So if a country believes in slavery--as many in history have--you see
nothing inherently wrong with that. Or if a country decides that all its
women should remain uneducated and cover their faces at all times or face a
beating or death, you think that's up to the country to decide. And you
think that if a country wants to build a wall to prevent is citizens from
escaping--if the majority voted on that--then it's OK. And you think that
since the majority voted in Hitler, then that's OK too.
Get real Ian. Right and wrong is independent of voting. It's independent of
what happens to be legal in a given country. And at root, it's very basic;
as I've said before, normal children understand the basics. It starts with
respecting other people's person and property. Don't hit. Don't take another
child's toys without his permission. Etc.
Universe
>Shayne wrote:
><elided>
>You're sounding like the Ellibot.
I hope I he doesn't sound like me what I'm saying:
>Making things fairer and ending the favors bourgeois dole takers and
>henchman like the Bush family get are one of the key aspects of Maoist
>revolutionary socialization of all aspects and all domains.
> Ending 1st class, coach and economy in transportation is
>another result of socialization.
> Reducing the hard, strict division of labor that has evolved
>in socio-economics and virtually all fields and domains is another
>target of socialization.
> Eliminating unnecessary, bureaucracy and bureaucratic rules
>are another.
> People are encouraged to be, for example, accountants by day,
>physicists at night and playwrights on the weekends. And they are
>given the resources to make it happen.
> Athletes and "star" programmers and all others making obscene
>amounts on the foundation of what society and history has given them
>are abolished.
> Increasingly the myriad fees and charges for often vital
>services are reduced, and eliminated.
> Bourgeois property rights like the right to hold a patent and
>gouge people on crucial drugs is reduced and then eliminated via
>socialization.
>
>Socialization mainly has to be done by the masses of people themselves
>untied in revolutionary struggle, as was the character of the Cultural
>Revolution in China. Mao and the GoF mobilized and led the masses of
>people to do the above. If the masses don't take it up and do it, it
>won't get done. It has ups and downs and is a life and death struggle
>for genuine freedom and freedom from monopoly corporate-finance
>exploitation and oppression.
>
>The key to and main thrust of mass revolutionary socialization is
>fighting those right in the government and revolutionary party who
>exploit and oppress the people for their private interests. They are
>also attempting to restore capitalism. This Mao and the GoF led the
>masses in boldly and bravely.
>
>At the end of socialization when classes are abolished and there is no
>longer an easy possibility for return to capitalism the rule of the
>socialism also ends. The party is eliminated and the government as
>the rule of a class ends. The government then is simply an
>administrative tool.
>Also paying for things and money are eliminated!
>
>People are conscious of the common social interests enough after
>decades of the revolutionary socialization process to take only what
>they need - from basic to the perhaps esoteric like a telescope - and
>give back in work and effort to the best of their ability.
>
>Neighborhoods of great numbers of people coming together to get stuff
>done with all out effort by everyone! Just think what can be
>accomplished. They'll be able to move mountains! And think of the
>tremendous synergy of this happening globally. Especially when all of
>humanity adopts:
>
>~ Understand Holistically!
> ~ Plan Globally!
> ~ Act Iteratively & Incrementally!
>
>Also since technology will no longer be held back by monopolists, and
>lack of investment it will truly blossom in manifold useful,
>wonderful, interesting, and fun ways.
Is that really robotic sounding? If so you've seen some really
advanced robots!
Elliott
--
*For Cultless, Internationalist, non-mechanist Dialectics Revolution*