Has the free software movement become a cult?
CaptainSpiffy
advocates, this is the way it seems: whatever free software could have
become, it is not just another cult. It appears to conform to all of the
following criteria:
1. Make the belief system sound profound and significant.
2. Base the belief system on claims that are nonsense or practically
impossible to prove.
3. Support the belief system with theories (from scientists or not)
that you claim are proven.
4. Use empty claims to prove the belief system is superior.
5. Have the leader (you?) claim that they are the originators of the
belief system.
6. Invent and repeatedly present a history of the movement and its
belief system which supports everything the belief system claims.
7. Redefine commonly used words for your own purposes.
8. Devise and often repeat cliches to entice your followers and
to discourage critical thinking.
9. Remember: your enemies are either idiots or Devils.
10. Remove anything in the belief system that may suggest that you
don't know or that you may be wrong.
11. Discourage people from questioning the belief system by claiming
its ideas are inherently logical, true, and right.
12. Do not point to or otherwise provide any mechanism by which
the validity of the belief systems ideas and claims can be questioned.
David Kastrup
> Just a little skepticism here, but when I speak with free software
> advocates, this is the way it seems: whatever free software could
> have become, it is not just another cult.
Actually, it is becoming less and less of a "cult" and more like a
mainstream religion. The signs for that are:
a) the original writings for funding the "cult" are easily available,
clear, concise and hardly ambiguous,
b) everybody and his brother develops his own interpretation that has
nothing whatsoever to do with the origins, and expresses his
loyalty to his own perversions of the original thoughts,
c) completely watered down versions of the "cult" are used for making
"main stream" movements like "Open Source",
d) nobody gives a hoot about the original message.
In contrast to mainstream religions, there is still the minor
nuisance of Stallman still being alive, but that does not keep people
from ignoring him when explaining his message and what they think is
written in the GPL (which would be quite easy to verify by actually
reading it) and the GNU Manifesto and a lot of other things.
Christians are usually surprised by hearing stuff like Matthew 15:26,
where Jesus initially refuses to help a Kanaanitic woman with the
words:
οὐκ ἔστιv καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ βαλεῖν τοῖς κυναρίοις.
"It is not nice to take the bread from your offspring and cast it to
the dogs".
XPost & Fup2 gnu.misc.discuss
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
digitaleon
> From: David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>,
> c) completely watered down versions of the "cult" are used for making
> "main stream" movements like "Open Source",
No. I think Richard says it best in the introduction to this article:
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html>.
As much as Richard doesn't the GnU and free software seen as a "radical
faction of Open Source", those supporting the OSI and open source don't
believe that they are "a watered down Free Software movement". These
things cut both ways, after all.
Look, I can respect GnU and supporters of free software on the grounds
that they put their convictions out there for the world to see and they
stick to them through thick and thin. I can respect the OSI and
supporters of open source for the same reasons. If this makes these
concepts "religions" and their supporters "cultists" or "fanatics",
this presents a troubling view that the only true "atheists" are those
that will change their convictions for whatever suits them. This points
towards a hideous dystopia I'd rather avoid.
But I agree there is an element of that. On the KDE forums, after the
use of KHTML code to create a rendering framework for Apple's Safari
browser was announced and that code contributed to the community on the
same day, some posters complained that Apple complied with the terms of
the LGPL. They saw it as a corporation taking advantage of the free
software community and only doing a "bare minimum" as required by the
license (apparantly if you're a corporation you're required to
contribute well above and beyond what the license stipulates, despite
the fact that the license applies to one and all equally), rather than
a corporation that has historically been one of the most proprietry out
there taking its first steps into the free software world. Most people
welcomed their move, albeit limited, into the free software world, just
as they were welcomed into the open software world when they started
releasing code under the APSL, rather than getting "You've always been
proprietry. You'll always be proprietry. Get lost." treatment.
digitaleon.
David Kastrup
> To comp.os.linux.advocacy and gnu.misc.discuss subscribers,
>
> > From: David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>,
>
> > c) completely watered down versions of the "cult" are used for making
> > "main stream" movements like "Open Source",
>
> No. I think Richard says it best in the introduction to this article:
> <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html>.
>
> As much as Richard doesn't the GnU and free software seen as a
> "radical faction of Open Source", those supporting the OSI and open
> source don't believe that they are "a watered down Free Software
> movement".
Of course not. Ask the pope whether he thinks that catholicism is a
watered down version of the teachings of Christ. He'll tell you that
you are out of your mind. Then ask him how Christ driving the money
lenders from the temple jibes with the Vatican bank. And things like
"It is not right to take the bread from one's children and cast it to
the dogs" jibes with Christianity as a religion for non-Jews.
Or why most of the teachings are derived from that of Paul (who was
dissed from early Christian societies because of his rather unique
teachings) rather than that of Christ and early followers like
Jacobus.
A lot of stuff like that is going on when things get mainstream. And
you'll find that rather sooner than later everybody knows better what
a religion is about than those that started it.
Jon Portnoy
> To comp.os.linux.advocacy and gnu.misc.discuss subscribers,
>
>> From: David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>,
>
>> c) completely watered down versions of the "cult" are used for making
>> "main stream" movements like "Open Source",
>
> No. I think Richard says it best in the introduction to this article:
><http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html>.
>
> As much as Richard doesn't the GnU and free software seen as a "radical
> faction of Open Source", those supporting the OSI and open source don't
> believe that they are "a watered down Free Software movement". These
> things cut both ways, after all.
>
> Look, I can respect GnU and supporters of free software on the grounds
> that they put their convictions out there for the world to see and they
> stick to them through thick and thin. I can respect the OSI and
> supporters of open source for the same reasons. If this makes these
> concepts "religions" and their supporters "cultists" or "fanatics",
> this presents a troubling view that the only true "atheists" are those
> that will change their convictions for whatever suits them. This points
> towards a hideous dystopia I'd rather avoid.
Indeed. Apparently, nobody should have opinions for fear of being
labelled a cultist.
[snip]
--
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
paul cooke
that sounds exactly like Microsoft and the Cult of MS-Windows ...
Trusted Computer Platform - trusted by who??? the user or the service
provider.
Shared Source - you can look at it but you can't do anything with it and you
have now become contaminated by your exposure to it and you cannot tell
anyone else what's in it.
Digital Rights Management... not your rights to fair use... but their rights
as to what they'll let you do
End User License Agreement - you have effectively no rights at all but they
can trawl around your hard disk for software they don't like and disable
it...
Steve
> Just a little skepticism here, but when I speak with free software
> advocates, this is the way it seems: whatever free software could have
> become, it is not just another cult. It appears to conform to all of the
> following criteria:
I've met Richard Stallman ( creator of the Free Software Foundation,
the GPL ),
I've read "Free As In Freedom" and "Free Software, Free Society".
So, to use your terms I've met the cult leader and I read his
religious texts.
Those are my qualifications for judging what he/the FSF movement have
to say.
What about yours?
>
> 1. Make the belief system sound profound and significant.
Guilty. Stallman has made very good arguments about how free software
can help guard against corporate control of digitized
information.......where all information is headed in the future...or
most of it.
>
> 2. Base the belief system on claims that are nonsense or practically
> impossible to prove.
Read his book. His arguments are essays.......ie based on logic and
not empirical proof. Many of his arguments work, some don't, but that
is IMHO>
>
> 3. Support the belief system with theories (from scientists or not)
> that you claim are proven.
See number 2. Stallman's essays do a decent job of justifying his
view points.
>
> 4. Use empty claims to prove the belief system is superior.
Haven't seen this at all
>
> 5. Have the leader (you?) claim that they are the originators of the
> belief system.
Stallman *is* the creator of the Free Software Foundation and he *is*
the creator of the Gnu Pulbic License
>
> 6. Invent and repeatedly present a history of the movement and its
> belief system which supports everything the belief system claims.
The history of the movement( fsf & "open source" ) has been recorded
by outsiders. See O'Reilly's "Free as in Freedom".
>
> 7. Redefine commonly used words for your own purposes.
Hasn't happened.
>
> 8. Devise and often repeat cliches to entice your followers and
> to discourage critical thinking.
Haven't seen it.
>
> 9. Remember: your enemies are either idiots or Devils.
Many people here use proprietary softwar and work as proprietary
programmers
>
> 10. Remove anything in the belief system that may suggest that you
> don't know or that you may be wrong.
Haven't seen it
>
> 11. Discourage people from questioning the belief system by claiming
> its ideas are inherently logical, true, and right.
see #2....Stallman makes arguments for his beliefs and his claims.
>
> 12. Do not point to or otherwise provide any mechanism by which
> the validity of the belief systems ideas and claims can be questioned.
The FSF is about promoting the free flow of information........how
does your claim fit in #12 jive without that? :).
Steve
Rex Ballard
> Just a little skepticism here, but when I speak with free software
> advocates, this is the way it seems: whatever free software could have
> become, it is not just another cult. It appears to conform to all of the
> following criteria:
An amusing concept. I'll counter by suggesting that it is Microsoft which
is the cult. :-)
> 1. Make the belief system sound profound and significant.
Microsoft didn't hire me because I didn't have the "Microsoft Religion". (I
told them I was a heritic, but they really wanted to talk to me).
Microsoft does believe that they should have EXCLUSIVE control of EVERY
desktop, and that EVERY person old enough to speak should have some form of
Microsoft product (even babies should have teletubbies).
> 2. Base the belief system on claims that are nonsense or practically
> impossible to prove.
Or even more significant, deny counterclaims which have been proven in
court, defy judgements (David Koresh), and alternate authorities (Jim Jones
defying senators), and direct court orders (Bill Gates defying the spirit
and intent of multilple court orders).
> 3. Support the belief system with theories (from scientists or not)
> that you claim are proven.
Microsoft "Fast Facts". Mindcraft benchmarks,...
> 4. Use empty claims to prove the belief system is superior.
If Microsoft really believed that their system were superior, they would
allow individual users to choose between Microsoft and competitor systems.
Instead, they exclude competitors in every way possible, then use their
market share as "proof" of superiority.
> 5. Have the leader (you?) claim that they are the originators of the
> belief system.
Bill Gates is God to Microsoft. He even admits that he didn't create
MS-DOS, but retains the largest portion of Microsoft stock, and when
combined with Steve Ballmer and 3 others, can force any decision, legal or
not.
> 6. Invent and repeatedly present a history of the movement and its
> belief system which supports everything the belief system claims.
So many versions of Microsoft history. Personally I like "Pirates of
Silicon Valley". But Gates doesn't.
> 7. Redefine commonly used words for your own purposes.
Sounds like Microsoft. Especially in court. Remember "operating system
extensions"?
> 8. Devise and often repeat cliches to entice your followers and
> to discourage critical thinking.
One degree of separation. Windows New Technology...
And of course that brilliant but seldom played video of Bill Gates'
testimony to Judge Jackson during the antitrust trial.
> 9. Remember: your enemies are either idiots or Devils.
Didn't Steve Ballmer call open source contributors "Communists"?
Didn't Bill Gates call Open Source a "virus" that could destroy the economy?
> 10. Remove anything in the belief system that may suggest that you
> don't know or that you may be wrong.
Microsoft spends $4 billion/year on co-op advertizing, which gives it
placement control of nearly $40 billion in advertizing revenue. If a
publisher dares to suggest an "alternate reality", Gates can starve the
publication, and it's parent company into submission. Remember Byte
Magazine?
> 11. Discourage people from questioning the belief system by claiming
> its ideas are inherently logical, true, and right.
Micrososft targets "troublemakers" by providing those who are in "the
religeon" with the information required to discredit those who would
advocate UNIX or Linux or any other competitor to Microsoft.
Since Microsoft has final control over most documents discussing their
products, they control the final revision and can spin the interpretation
and facts to show that Windows is superior to UNIX or Linux.
> 12. Do not point to or otherwise provide any mechanism by which
> the validity of the belief systems ideas and claims can be questioned.
Look at the strong-arm tactics used by Microsoft against Compaq, IBM, and
others when they attempted to support competitors.
Yes, I see your point, Microsoft is a cult.
--
Rex Ballard
Leading Linux and Open Source Advocate
http://www.open4success.com/bio
Roodw...@core.com
On a very superficial level, your point about the cultist aspects of the
open source movement isn't entirely off-base. As I've said here many times,
there is something about computers that brings out the lunatic religiosity
in some people. But this isn't limited to computers, I've seen it in
cameras, high-performance bicycles and backpacking equipment. I'm sure
there are more. It also isn't true of ALL people who use them. Only a small
number.
That being said, it also isn't limited to just the people who don't like
Microsoft products. In fact some of the most prolific posters in this group
are those disparaging Linux and open source. Some of them, not all by any
means, even like to say that Linux users are perverts, child molesters,
fascists, communists and a whole bunch of other things--sometimes even
aiming these spurious accusations at actual Linux supporters. Obviously
your 12 points of cultism would define a good share of these people.
My first inclination was to wonder if you were using these points as a
subtle attack on people that don't agree with you. But maybe in truth you
are fair-minded. Perhaps you haven't been in here long enough and read
enough posts to realize that the "member of a cult" label can be stuck on
certain members of both sides, but doesn't fit the majority of the members
of either group. I would also be more inclined to stick it on the frequent
Windows advocates who come to this newsgroup and spout off. I'd never head
over to a Windows advocacy group (I don't actually know if they exist) and
argue that Linux is better. Out of respect, I'd just stay away.
Just remember, cultists are not necessarily people you don't agree with. And
don't confuse enthusiasm on any side with cult thinking. As a matter of
fact, the open source movement is hardly monolithic. Members argue about
all kinds of trivial things. Open source also is not limited to Linux.
Check out Son of Spy Freeware on the web and note the number of open source
programs written for Windows and Mac. The main idea driving open source is
not hatred of Microsoft, but the idea that software--some at least--should
be free and in the public domain. Open source advocates believe that
programming is really a branch of mathematics and as such shouldn't be
owned but free for everyone in the world. Imagine, they say, what algebra
would have been like if someone 1,000 years ago had patented it and sued
everyone in sight who tried to improve it.
Open source has deep roots in academia and the scientific world. It shows in
the collaborative approach to building software.
--Rod
--
Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answers for Practical Consumers"
and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." Both are available at
http://www.rodwriterpublishing.com/index.html
To reply by e-mail, take the extra "o" out of my e-mail address. It's to
confuse spambots, of course.
Rex Ballard
> Just a little skepticism here, but when I speak with free software
> advocates, this is the way it seems: whatever free software could have
> become, it is not just another cult. It appears to conform to all of the
> following criteria:
>
> 1. Make the belief system sound profound and significant.
Which belief system? The GNU Manefesto? The BSD License? The Artistic
License? There are 30 different Open Source licenses, ranging from BSD,
which allows proprietary derivatives without compensation to any of the
previous contributors, to GNU which protects every contributor, named or
not, from proprietary extensions.
The Linux Documentation project has about 20 different "philosophies", most
of which are amusing, but not intended to be much more.
> 2. Base the belief system on claims that are nonsense or practically
> impossible to prove.
Open Source technology has proven itself very well. The Internet, the World
Wide Web, e-mail, chat, and numerous other areas of Internet technology as
well as much of UNIX technology, was based on Open Source technology
ranging from BSD filters to MIT X11 graphical interface to GNU applications
to Artistic License Apache servers.
Microsoft spends $billions to promote IIS while Apache has almost no formal
advertising or promotional budget. In fact, nearly all of the success of
Open Source has been as a result of Word Of Mouth from satisfied users.
> 3. Support the belief system with theories (from scientists or not)
> that you claim are proven.
While Windows users blindly defend technology which they don't even
understand, Linux users and developers debate among themselves the best
ways to perform even low level kernel functions. There is strong
competition in the GUI arena, the applications arena, and even within the
kernel arena.
The general result is that most Linux distributions contain multiple best of
breed products within the same environment. This often includes commercial
software which can be licensed and activated via the Internet.
Tihs is compared to Microsoft which is guided by Bill Gates and offers only
one of each option.
> 4. Use empty claims to prove the belief system is superior.
In the competitive server market, where the operating system and
applications installed are a matter of CHOICE, rather than as a function of
quotas, mandates, and license requirements imposed by Microsoft on the
OEMs, Linux has been competing quite effectively against BOTH Windows NT
AND against UNIX.
> 5. Have the leader (you?) claim that they are the originators of the
> belief system.
Who originated which system? Who even claims to be in charge? Linus
published a kernel and almost immediately began getting contributions from
nearly 1000 contributors. Within a year, the Linux kernel team had grown
to nearly 1000 FTEs. BSD UNIX applications were ported to Linux, some of
which dated back to Bill Joy's days at Berkeley. GNU applications were
contributed, some of which dated back to Richard Stallman's days as a
student at MIT.
Linus didn't even Market "Linux". Patrick Volkerding (Slackware), Bob Young
(Red Hat), Ransom Love (Caldera), the SuSE team and the Mandrake team
created commercial distributions and marketed Linux. Rex Ballard tended to
promote Linux in general, encouraging and praising all of these
distributions.
As for the developers, many of them were just satisfied users, or UNIX users
and administrators who decided to try creating or porting utilities to
Linux.
> 6. Invent and repeatedly present a history of the movement and its
> belief system which supports everything the belief system claims.
Open Source history has many threads. There is AT&T Version 6, BSD, GNU,
MIT X11/Athena, NCSA, W3C, GNOME, TrollTech, Sun, and many others. To
really track them, you would almost have to have been involved in Open
Source for almost 30 years. Even my own involvement only goes back 20
years. I remember looking at documents and code that dated back to 1976.
In fact, Apple even gets some credit for Open Source. They provided the
source code for AppleSoft in 6802 assembler. Eventually, users found and
used over 4,000 entry points, some of which Apple had to obtain through a
settlement with Franklin.
> 7. Redefine commonly used words for your own purposes.
I can't think of anyone in the Open Source movement who is as much of a
wordsmith as Bill Gates. Gates' is a true artist, and he does it in the
courtroom.
I made up the term "torpedo" - which referrs to software embedded within an
operating system, library, or service pack which only causes the targeted
software to fail. Examples of torpedos being the code used by Microsoft to
kill Stacker, Lotus 1-2-3, OS/2, Linux, DesqView, Cyrix (to punish IBM),
Netscape, Lotus Notes, and MQSeries.
Let me know what other interesting words you are referring to?
> 8. Devise and often repeat cliches to entice your followers and
> to discourage critical thinking.
Like, "If Microsoft didn't force OEMs to exclude Linux from the Marketplace,
Linux would be much more widely used"?
You might be right. The only way to know for sure would be for Microsoft to
remove all anti-linux restrictions, and all anti-open source restrictions,
and let the market function as a competitive marketplace rather than as a
monopoly controlled market. Do you think you could convince Bill Gates and
Steve Ballmer to give it a try?
Notice that no one is saying that everyone would stop using Windows and
start using Linux immediately. Many users would choose to stay with
Windows. Many others would choose to switch to Linux. And with Linux,
some would choose KDE others would choose GNOME. Some would choose
Netscape, others would choose Galeon.
Ultimately, Linux is all about choices and options, and letting the end user
choose his favorite tools.
Ultimately, Microsoft is all about control, controlling every aspect of the
market from the highest levels, with as little actual effort as possible.
They are very proud of their 85% margins and double digit growth rates, and
will do almost anything, including defy federal courts, to mantain these
profit margins and growth rates.
> 9. Remember: your enemies are either idiots or Devils.
I have seen some amusing little web sites that paint Bill Gates as a devil.
They are cute, but hardly representative of "leadership". Bill Gates has
done a great deal for the PC Industry, much the way Henry Ford did a great
deal for the Automobile industry. But being a pioneer doesn't give you the
right to create and maintain a monopoly.
> 10. Remove anything in the belief system that may suggest that you
> don't know or that you may be wrong.
It's very hard to erase the postings of Erik Fuchenbush, he's everywhere.
And many times, he is very good at identifying minor errors in history or
terminology which could be confusing. I'm always grateful when Erik
reviews and comments on my posts. In some cases, I even take the time to
re-check my facts. There have even been a few times when I have gone to
the library to look up articles from the 1980's on Microfiche just to see
if I had made a serious mistake. It takes many hours of time, for which I
am not paid, but sometimes it's just a matter of honor.
When I'm wrong, I try to promptly admit it.
> 11. Discourage people from questioning the belief system by claiming
> its ideas are inherently logical, true, and right.
My experience is that the Open Source community encourages the community to
challenge the status quo. The wintrolls are the best source of design
change requests. They pointed out the SMP limitations of the 2.2 kernel,
and Linus fixed it. They pointed out the ugly fonts of Red Hat, and they
fixed that. They pointed out the painful installations, and they fixed
that. They pointed out look and feel issues, and those were fixed.
Even though Linux has not had the same security issues that Windows has had,
the Linux community has encouraged the communication such defects so that
they can be fixed as soon as they are discovered, rather than after they
are exploited.
> 12. Do not point to or otherwise provide any mechanism by which
> the validity of the belief systems ideas and claims can be questioned.
This one might be a valid issue. Many of the surveys and market research
papers quoted by Microsoft cite proprietary research. The original papers
are available for $3,000 to $5,000 per viewer, which means that these are
not documents you publish or excessively quote in a usenet newsgroup. As a
result, the details of these surveys are not available for as much as 2
years, at which point the actual results and filters and adjustments become
a matter of public record.
Microsoft also controls publication of many documents which cover such
things as benchmarks, market research, or technical capabilities.
Microsoft insists on control over the "final cut" or "final draft"
submitted for publication. In fact, Microsoft has often taken companies to
court for violating these provisions. In most cases, Microsoft loses when
their attempt is to defraud the public or obstruct justice.
Linux advocates must really do some digging into how the survey or report
was generated, and how the conclusions were reached. The classic examples
are such things as:
TCO papers based on estimated expenses of a yet to be released version of
NT vs actual expenses of UNIX, looking through a 6-12 month window.
Benchmarks using unreliable and unusable configurations and estimated
expenses which do not reflect previous record of actual costs.
Reliability reports which exclude "routine maintenance" (like weekly
reboots), only cover minimally configured systems (running ONLY IIS), and
use heavily redundant systems which double costs and reduce performance.
Market research reports which disqualify nearly half the Linux licenses
sold, while including surplus Windows licenses which are never delivered or
installed.
But then, since any benchmark, TCO statement, reliability report, or market
research report, cannot be published without letting Microsoft review it,
and if necessary rewrite it, Linux advocates have to really read the fine
print in the publications which are allowed by Microsoft. This often
involves going 4-5 levels deep, requesting copies of deleted pages, and in
some cases, court orders.
Microsoft has been cited by the FTC several times for these practices, but
usually gets off with the proverbial slap on the wrist.
David Kastrup
> Just a little skepticism here, but when I speak with free software
> advocates, this is the way it seems: whatever free software could have
> become, it is not just another cult. It appears to conform to all of the
> following criteria:
[All amounting to stubborn deception]
In short, you could not be any more wrong. All of the drivel you have
been posting is claiming deception in order to make people consider
Free Software to be of higher quality.
This is utterly irrelevant for three reasons:
a) of _course_ Free Software started as a "cult", a movement that
utterly rejected to use nonfree software regardless of its quality.
Stallman is the most eloquent proponent of this line, and naturally a
free software replacement in its infancy that is supposed to replicate
existing nonfree software has to start out inferior in functionality
and more often than not performance. Without idealism, Free Software
could not have gotten off the ground. No reason to poopoo either
idealism or Free Software for that reason.
b) You are presuming that Free Software must be inferior. But it
turns out that more often than not, the typical GNU command line
utility has more options than its proprietary counterparts, better
documentation, works on more input sets (arbitrary line lengths and
content) and is faster. There is no need to deceive people in order
to make them realize that they are better off with the Free Software
versions in most cases.
c) you are presuming that people have anything to gain from deceiving
others. Deceiving unsuitable people into using Linux just adds
whiners that fail to get their systems up and running to your
workload.
Linux is spreading like a wildfire exactly because it is _leaving_ the
realm of "cultism". It is moving from "cult" to "cool" which means
exactly that people use it without any need for cultual incitation.
David Kastrup
> > Shared Source - you can look at it but you can't do anything with
> > it and you have now become contaminated by your exposure to it and
> > you cannot tell anyone else what's in it.
>
> Open source -- you can look at it but you can't practically do
> anything with it because it is so badly written and not
> documented. It would be cheaper to just buy some software. --->
> Thus a myth of free software: that anyone can improve it.
Uh, and GNU, X11 and Linux have not happened, right?
> > End User License Agreement - you have effectively no rights at all
> > but they can trawl around your hard disk for software they don't
> > like and disable it...
>
> The EULA for open source is called the GPL, it's purpose is to
> protect whoever gave you the code from you suing them when you have
> problems e.g. you lose your data.
Also that. It does not protect the licensor where malicious intent is
involved, though. In the respect of rejecting any responsibility for
unintended damages, it is similar to the EULA. But of course it
gives the recipients many more rights than the EULA. Not the right
to sue for breach of promise and general disappointment, though.
David Kastrup
> The free software movement in a real sense is already harming
> people, because it is asking people to work for no money, as many
> religions do.
Then every charity is harming people.
> Everybody knows that writing software is not a no-brainer--it
> requires work and attention over time--so this request for free
> labor is particularly outrageous.
You are out of your wits. There is no request for free labor. You
_get_ the software for free. You can contribute back, if you want
to, but nobody forces you.
> Keep in mind: the FSF is over $1 million in assets, and has
> according to some people paid to have its "free" software written in
> the past.
You do have a clue what $1 million in assets (and I don't think they
even have that) mean for a company that has a few employees, needs to
reliably work for decades to come, has serious legal obligations (the
FSF is about the only company suing, negotiating and counseling in
cases of breach of GPL)? Yes, they commissioned glibc work in order
to have Linux work with a standard library. And they commissioned
Emacs work for Emacs-21. And Stallman works for free for the FSF,
living from consulting and grants of his own, and pumping even money
from his personal income into the FSF.
> The EFF meanwhile has an income of $1 million per year.
According to who?
> There is sufficient money to pay programmers, yet they apparently
> refuse to for the most part.
The EFF is not involved with programming, so why should they pay
programmers?
> Clearly the free software movement is a religious scam.
And clearly you are an idiot. It is the mark of the scam that a
small minority profits from duping others. It is the mark of Free
Software that a large majority profits from volunteer efforts of few
people.
David Kastrup
> > In short, you could not be any more wrong. All of the drivel you
> > have been posting is claiming deception in order to make people
> > consider Free Software to be of higher quality.
>
> There is sufficient propaganda stating that Linux servers are more
> stable than M$ servers,
If you call independent studies "propaganda", then there is
overwhelming propaganda.
> that Linux development tools are better than VC++ etc.
VC++ is not a development tool, but a development IDE. It is a tool
for producing code. The quality of the code does not depend on the
IDE, but the ease of use with which it is created. Personally, I am
getting along pretty well with Emacs/gcc/gdb and a few other tools.
As to "better", I don't give a hoot. A better paintbrush does not
make a good painter. A lousy one is prohibitive, but the development
tools under Linux are clearly working well.
> > b) You are presuming that Free Software must be inferior. But it
> > turns out that more often than not, the typical GNU command line
> > utility has more options than its proprietary counterparts, better
> > documentation, works on more input sets (arbitrary line lengths and
> > content) and is faster. There is no need to deceive people in order
> > to make them realize that they are better off with the Free Software
> > versions in most cases.
>
> You've contradicting yourself. First you claimed that the 12 criteria
> for a cult suggested that free software must necessarily be better,
> which you said it is not,
I did not say that Free Software was inferior. I said that your
claim that people were falsely claiming Free Software to be superior
was silly. It is partly silly because people are not bothering much
in that area, and partly silly because Free Software often actually
_is_ superior.
> and now you are repeating the mantra that free software tools are
> inherently superior.
Nope, not inherently. But not exactly rarely, either. There is a
reason that more than twice the number of publicly available Web
servers are running Apache rather than IIS.
> > c) you are presuming that people have anything to gain from
> > deceiving others. Deceiving unsuitable people into using Linux
> > just adds whiners that fail to get their systems up and running to
> > your workload.
>
> Absolutely, they do: it is called FREE LABOR. Programmers paid $0 to
> do work that otherwise would be very expensive.
You remain an idiot. It is the mark of a scam that few people profit
from exploiting many. But here, many people profit from _voluntary_
work of a few, by the virtue of appropriate infrastructure for sharing
information. It is called "civilization". You may not have heard of
it.
CaptainSpiffy
accusations per se, since I am not completely against "free" software).
> 1. Make the belief system sound profound and significant.
Freedom is inherently a profound idea, no matter what subject it is applied to.
However not all things should be free in every sense, and merely speaking
of the freedom of a thing or a person does not justify it.
> 2. Base the belief system on claims that are nonsense or practically
> impossible to prove.
Nonsense: "software yearns to be free"
> 3. Support the belief system with theories (from scientists or not)
> that you claim are proven.
The central claim is that things will be better for most people when
software is free. This is a bogus claim, and in the meantime
programmers are offering their skills mainly for free. Also unproven
is the claim that corporate control of information is harmed.
And what about corporate control of labor, or of the software itself?
Contradictory cases exist such as Lindows, where a bad corporation
allied with a truly notorious corporation (Walmart) is making a profit.
> 4. Use empty claims to prove the belief system is superior.
Any and all reference to anarchism or competition creating
superior software. These are simply empty, bogus claims.
> 5. Have the leader (you?) claim that they are the originators of the
> belief system.
Ripping off programmers by getting them to provide their labor
for free is very much like many other scams perpetrated by religions,
by evil management seeking "a little extra effort for the company" etc.
Yet Stallman strangely pretends he has originated something profound.
> 6. Invent and repeatedly present a history of the movement and its
> belief system which supports everything the belief system claims.
The media have had numerous articles chronicalling Stallman
and Torvalds.
> 7. Redefine commonly used words for your own purposes.
"Free software" says to most people "at no cost". But the free software
advocates have redefined it in ways that from a monetary perspective
are entirely moot: free software remains at no cost via the web.
> 8. Devise and often repeat cliches to entice your followers and
> to discourage critical thinking.
"Software yearns to be free" and other cliches.
The intention seems to be to get people to "just do it" i.e.
just give away their labor for free.
> 9. Remember: your enemies are either idiots or Devils.
Ample evidence.
> 10. Remove anything in the belief system that may suggest that you
> don't know or that you may be wrong.
If companies are renaming programs to fraudulently say they wrote them,
the FSF at first pretends it doesn't know and then claims it supports
that, entirely.
> 11. Discourage people from questioning the belief system by claiming
> its ideas are inherently logical, true, and right.
The FSF people get very angry when questioned.
> 12. Do not point to or otherwise provide any mechanism by which
> the validity of the belief systems ideas and claims can be questioned.
This is a given.
Phillip Lord
CaptainSpiffy> The free software movement in a real sense is already
CaptainSpiffy> harming people, because it is asking people to work
CaptainSpiffy> for no money, as many religions do.
Not its not. I write free software. Some of it I get paid to
do. Some of it, I write for fun. And some of it I write because I need
it. Having written it, why should I not release it? What have I got to
loose?
CaptainSpiffy> Everybody knows that writing software is not a
CaptainSpiffy> no-brainer--it requires work and attention over
CaptainSpiffy> time--so this request for free labor is particularly
CaptainSpiffy> outrageous.
And particularly non existent.
CaptainSpiffy> Keep in mind: the FSF is over $1 million in assets,
Well, $1 million is a very small amount. I am surprised that an
organisation which achieves so much, does so with so little behind
it.
CaptainSpiffy> and has according to some people paid to have its
CaptainSpiffy> "free" software written in the past.
Of course its paid people to write software. Which it has releases
freely.
CaptainSpiffy> Clearly the free software movement is a religious
CaptainSpiffy> scam.
Either you are a troll, or you have not good a reasonable
understanding of the FSF actually is, and does.
Cheers
Phil
Peter Hayes
<...>
Hi flatty.
--
Peter
Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail
CaptainSpiffy
> do. Some of it, I write for fun. And some of it I write because I need
> it. Having written it, why should I not release it? What have I got to
> loose?
If the program can be sold, then you are losing money you could have gotten
for the program. If there are commercial projects of the same type then your
giving away your software for free could deprive other programmers of work
in the end, and therefore your giving it away is unethical toward workers.
CaptainSpiffy
> utterly rejected to use nonfree software regardless of its quality.
I don't think you understand what a cult is. Merely rejecting commercial
software is not grounds for calling something a cult. Cultism is about
deception, getting something for nothing but talk, propounding a bogus
ideology, duping people -- all things that the FSF does. And all things
that are patently unethical.
> Linux is spreading like a wildfire exactly because it is _leaving_ the
> realm of "cultism".
Untrue. It is a new cult. The M$ phenomenon has nothing to do with cultism,
since it is a nonreplaceable commodity and nothing else. Casual users
of Windows are not cultists and Bill Gates is not a cult leader.
> It is moving from "cult" to "cool" which means
> exactly that people use it without any need for cultual incitation.
There is nothing cool about software that does not function well,
because nobody was paid to write it. And that is the description
of most open source software.
CaptainSpiffy
> > people, because it is asking people to work for no money, as many
> > religions do.
>
> Then every charity is harming people.
Most charities pass on very little of the money they bring in,
but essentially yes, every charity is a parasite onto society
unless it is run by society as a whole, and in its parasitic
activity is harms society's workers. Think about it.
> You can contribute back, if you want
> to, but nobody forces you.
The purpose of a cult is to get something for nothing,
and the free software movement tries to do that, as I have
already stated.
> > The EFF meanwhile has an income of $1 million per year.
>
> According to who?
Bo Grimes
> Untrue. It is a new cult. The M$ phenomenon has nothing to do with
> cultism, since it is a nonreplaceable commodity and nothing else. Casual
> users of Windows are not cultists and Bill Gates is not a cult leader.
MS *is* "replacable," which is probably why your cult is trolling here so
much.
> There is nothing cool about software that does not function well,
> because nobody was paid to write it. And that is the description
> of most open source software.
Not true in fact, and your premise has a hole in it big enough to sink the
Titan...um, nevermind...don't want to start that again.
Software that people were paid to write does not, especially in the case of
MS, always function well, and software that no one was paid to write (e.g.
Emacs) does function quite well.
--
Bo G
"Mankind does nothing save through initiatives on the part of inventors,
great or small, and imitation by the rest of us. Individuals show the way,
set the patterns. The rivalry of the patterns is the history of the
world." (William James) Linus is just such an inventor; Linux is just such
a pattern.
Dave Pearson
> If the program can be sold, then you are losing money you could have
> gotten for the program.
The program can be sold anyway. Moreover, that's the author's choice. One
motivation for people who release free software is to put something back
into the pool of useful tools that they've benefited from in the past.
> If there are commercial projects of the same type
> then your giving away your software for free could deprive other
> programmers of work in the end, and therefore your giving it away is
> unethical toward workers.
In which case nobody should producing competing software be it free or
non-free. If someone produces a body of non-free software that competes with
another body of non-free software it too could "deprive other programmers of
work" which, in turn, would be "unethical toward workers". It would seem
that your problem here isn't with free software, it is with producing
competing software.
--
Dave Pearson
http://www.davep.org/
Linønut
>> Those are my qualifications for judging what he/the FSF movement have
>> to say.
>> What about yours?
>
> I judge them based on the facts. Perhaps you can't respect the facts?
We respect facts, but not the faulty deductions made from them, and not
the allusions made.
> Perhaps you think that a person has to be "in with" the cult leader
> to be "allowed" to judge? Are you by any chance also a Scientologist?
Sophist's technique: Attribute faulty statement to opponent.
Use as opportunity to paint opponent with tarry brush.
--
Linux: Less filling, works great!
Roodw...@core.com
>
> If the program can be sold, then you are losing money you could have
> gotten for the program. If there are commercial projects of the same type
> then your giving away your software for free could deprive other
> programmers of work in the end, and therefore your giving it away is
> unethical toward workers.
The American statesman, Ben Franklin, also was an inventor. He invented what
became known as the Franklin stove. (It was a much more efficient design
than what we think of as Franklin stoves today, by the way.) He came up
with his design to lessen the labor of others so they wouldn't spend all
their time gathering and chopping fire wood. He refused to patent it, even
though he could have, on the grounds that he had benefited from the
inventions of others.
While it made no money for Franklin, there are others that used the design
and made fortunes. But his motivation was to help people in general--a
rather noble concept that seems to have fallen out of favor these days in
some circles.
Using your software example, I suppose you could make the case that maybe a
few software designers wouldn't get money for this particular product. But
this is cherry-picking in the extreme. What about the millions of other
people that get the use of a tool they otherwise could not afford? Besides,
the commercial Linux distributions do in fact make money from the free
tools, as do companies that use the free tools. Including me. I'm a
full-time writer.
And software, unlike screwdrivers, is controlled by just a few big
companies. How many companies have gone under and their workers fired
because of some whim of a software company that discontinued its products,
made them unusable or unaffordable in some manner, or just plain went out
of business? I've used three word processors where the formats are now
unreadable by anything on the market. Good thing my business wasn't built
around those formats.
Sorry. The finances of a few software developers don't outweigh the finances
of millions of other people. Plus, as the point has been made over and
over, most programming work is made-to-order, not in general programs like
word processors that you're going to get from the Free Software Foundation.
Only a minority of programmers actually would be affected--if that. They'd
most likely just be shifted to other work. Kind of like the old
vaudevillians fearing that radio and television would put them out of work.
For the most part, it opened the doors to MORE people.
It sounds to me like someone has really sold you a bill of goods. In fact,
in most areas of the world many things only get accomplished because of
unpaid volunteers. Fire departments and ambulance companies are the most
familiar, but there are others depending where you live. In the US and
other democratic countries, many local governments are largely run by
volunteers. Those that get paid at all don't get enough to quit their day
jobs.
You're also misinterpreting atheism if you think that believing in something
shows cultism. Atheism is about not believing that a supernatural being
created the universe and laid down certain laws. It's not about having no
ideals. It's rather easy to point to religious people that are unscrupulous
and to find principled atheists. I've known clergy to make this
observation.
Enthusiasm also is not necessarily an indication of religiosity. The most
trivial example is people that cheer for sports teams. Enthusiastic but not
religious. I doubt you'd find more than a handful of those fans that you'd
classify as real sports cultists.
You need to spend some time with a dictionary and clarifying some concepts.
I'll continue to admire old Ben Franklin and his stove design and invention
of bifocals. If everything has to be about money and selfishness, then the
human spirit is diminished. Billions of people of people have benefited
from Ben's genius and generosity. Billions.
Roodw...@core.com
>> Shared Source - you can look at it but you can't do anything with it and
>> you have now become contaminated by your exposure to it and you cannot
>> tell anyone else what's in it.
>
> Open source -- you can look at it but you can't practically do anything
> with it because it is so badly written and not documented. It would be
> cheaper to just buy some software.
> ---> Thus a myth of free software: that anyone can improve it.
>
>> End User License Agreement - you have effectively no rights at all but
>> they can trawl around your hard disk for software they don't like and
>> disable it...
>
> The EULA for open source is called the GPL, it's purpose is to protect
> whoever gave you the code from you suing them when you have problems
> e.g. you lose your data.
Oops! I guess I should have read this before I made my reasoned reply,
thinking that there was someone who was actually honestly trying to make a
point.
Just another wintroll. I was naive. I'll have to start waiting for the
second postings before determining if I'm wasting my time.
Stefaan A Eeckels
x6...@yahoo.com (CaptainSpiffy) wrote:
> > I write free software. Some of it I get paid to
> > do. Some of it, I write for fun. And some of it I write because I need
> > it. Having written it, why should I not release it? What have I got to
> > loose?
>
> If the program can be sold, then you are losing money you could have
> gotten for the program.
Actually, it might cost more to market the program (with the
associated support costs, etc.) than the revenue from the
expected sales. Don't forget that commercial software firms
spend 50%-70% of cost of the software on pre-sales. That's
a hell of a lot of money for precious little real value.
> If there are commercial projects of the same
> type then your giving away your software for free could deprive other
> programmers of work in the end, and therefore your giving it away is
> unethical toward workers.
Lucky it's April 1st, or I might have thought for a moment
you were serious.
--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid
Bijan Soleymani
> If the program can be sold, then you are losing money you could have gotten
> for the program.
I don't believe this is unethical. Some people like to write free
software. It is very different from writing non-free software. Some
people may find it more rewarding. Doing more rewarding work for less
money is fine by me.
> If there are commercial projects of the same type then your giving
> away your software for free could deprive other programmers of work
> in the end, and therefore your giving it away is unethical toward
> workers.
No one has a right to do a particular job. Whatever job I do for a
living no other person can do at the same time, without duplicating my
labour.
Either you are saying that it is better never to work and let other
people work (but in the end someone has to work), or you are
advocating that there should be duplication and waste of labour.
Bijan
Steve
> > Those are my qualifications for judging what he/the FSF movement have
> > to say.
> > What about yours?
>
> I judge them based on the facts. Perhaps you can't respect the facts?
The claims you have made have been so general that they in effect say
nothing.
You haven't written anything to defend those claims.
You haven't written any specifics about why you believe what you
believe.
I have talked with the creator of the Free Software Foundation. I
have read his essays. I have heard and read his arguments. I have
read/heard the arguments of others involved in the free software
movement and the open source movement.
Steve
Bijan Soleymani
> > Having written it, why should I not release it? What have I got to
> > loose?
>
> If the software you write is half-decent, then money is what you lose,
> obviously. Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
> download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
It is not unethical to make less money.
> Perhaps you don't think much of your own code, perhaps you're too lazy
> to see the project through to completion, perhaps you only give away code
> to get attention.
Or perhaps he likes writing Free Software.
>At any rate, your behavior is irresponsible and
> reckless, like a used car salesman offering a klunker for almost
> no money and no caring what trouble it causes whoever ends up with it.
There is much high quality Free Software.
Bijan
Bijan Soleymani
> Drawing an analogy between Franklin and open source coders is inappropriate.
> You may be so vain and attention-starved to think that giving your code away
> makes you a big guy in the eyes of others, but judging from the public
> attitude toward geeky difficult to use software like Linux, no one except
> a few geeks like you are buying it. You need to get out a little bit.
> No one that matters is going to pat you on the back for writing a computer
> program.
I don't believe in analogies. But many people (e.g. geeks and
programmers) will be very thankful for any useful free software that
is written.
Much free software is user friendly. But caring about one's freedom
sometimes requires using a difficult to use program when an easier (free) one
is not available.
Bijan
TCS
>> Having written it, why should I not release it? What have I got to
>> loose?
>
> obviously. Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
> download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
Unless there's added value such as support, documentation or hard media.
Are you really so indredibly stupid that you can't fathom that many people
and companies have no problem paying linux distributors even though the
software is available for free from the web?
david lindauer
TCS wrote:
I agree with that... For large apps that I just want to use I will often buy
something rather than deal with the hassles involved with the free version, unless I
just want to tinker.
David
Dave Pearson
> > While it made no money for Franklin, there are others that used the
> > design and made fortunes. But his motivation was to help people in
> > general--a rather noble concept that seems to have fallen out of favor
> > these days in some circles.
>
> Drawing an analogy between Franklin and open source coders is
> inappropriate.
Unsurprisingly you don't actually say why.
> You may be so vain and attention-starved to think that giving your code
> away makes you a big guy in the eyes of others, but judging from the
> public attitude toward geeky difficult to use software like Linux, no one
> except a few geeks like you are buying it. You need to get out a little
> bit. No one that matters is going to pat you on the back for writing a
> computer program.
You talk like Linux is the sole platform in which people use free software.
Reality is quite different. As for the "pat on the back", you seem to be
mistaken. People pay for non-free software, people pay for free software. If
payment isn't a form of a "pat on the back" then, by your own admission,
non-free software suffers the same "problems" as free software.
Given that vanity and attention are the only motivations you can think of it
does suggest that you need to learn a little more about software
development, no matter the style of licence used.
Linønut
>> Just another wintroll
>
> I suspect everyone who even appears to disagree with your cult dogma
> is automatically a wintroll.
Nah. Your posting through google and stilted logic is sufficient.
Linønut
>> Having written it, why should I not release it? What have I got to
>> loose?
>
> If the software you write is half-decent, then money is what you lose,
> obviously.
Not obviously. Maybe you're writing a specialized driver. Maybe
you're writing code that could potentially compete with monopoly
software. Maybe you're floating some trial application to see
how others like it. Maybe you're floating some code to get people to
beta it for you.
No money lost there.
> Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
> download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
Wrong, old chap. There are many reasons to pay for free (free as in
speech) software: hardcopy manuals, support contracts, not having to
put up with slow/unreliable connections, feeling generous about
supporting (even if minimally) the generosity of another soul, getting
a tax deduction....
> Perhaps you don't think much of your own code, perhaps you're too lazy
> to see the project through to completion, perhaps you only give away code
> to get attention.
Sophist technique: Bring up only a partial set of reasons, with that
set being a highly biased selection.
> At any rate, your behavior is irresponsible and
> reckless, like a used car salesman offering a klunker for almost
> no money and no caring what trouble it causes whoever ends up with it.
Like a used-car salesman, yes. Irresponsible and reckless, no.
Even the lamest customer will not expect much from a free car.
Even the lamest user will be very careful about the free software and
its use.
The difference is that the free software is very often of high quality.
Linønut
>> We respect facts, but not the faulty deductions made from them, and not
>> the allusions made.
>
> But you're a cultist, and cultists by nature don't respect facts, and
> they draw their conclusions to support the cult and their delusions.
Sophist technique: Apply a denigrated label to a person, and proceed
as if that label is accurate.
Linønut
>> While it made no money for Franklin, there are others that used the design
>> and made fortunes. But his motivation was to help people in general--a
>> rather noble concept that seems to have fallen out of favor these days in
>> some circles.
>
> Drawing an analogy between Franklin and open source coders is inappropriate.
Sophist technique: Make a claim with no following argument to support
it.
> You may be so vain and attention-starved to think that giving your code away
> makes you a big guy in the eyes of others,
Sophist technique: Labelling.
> but judging from the public
> attitude toward geeky difficult to use software like Linux, no one except
> a few geeks like you are buying it. You need to get out a little bit.
Sophist technique: Tarring with a brush of pathology.
> No one that matters is going to pat you on the back for writing a computer
> program.
Sophist technique: Restricting the population until it allows you to
make your point.
Peter Hayes
>> Having written it, why should I not release it? What have I got to
>> loose?
>
> If the software you write is half-decent, then money is what you lose,
> obviously. Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
> download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
It's quite a relief not to have sales droids stalk you round the net.
> Perhaps you don't think much of your own code, perhaps you're too lazy
> to see the project through to completion, perhaps you only give away code
> to get attention. At any rate, your behavior is irresponsible and
> reckless,
Why? It's up to the authors of the code to release it under whatever licence
they wish, subject to any limitations imposed by any libraries, etc, that the
code depends on.
There's nothing in the GPL stopping anyone selling their software, they just
have to provide the source code. They can sell support, there's no licence
conditions involved here. There are plenty of revenue generating
opportunities related to OS software.
BTW, I take it you oppose the Microsoft monopoly since their irresponsible and
reckless behaviour has put a huge number of companies and programmers out of
business.
> like a used car salesman offering a klunker for almost
> no money and no caring what trouble it causes whoever ends up with it.
YABCA
No software has killed anyone, at least not directly, A "used car salesman
offering a klunker for almost no money and no caring what trouble it causes
whoever ends up with it" is completely different. The klunker can kill.
Besides, there's a clear implication in your analogy that OS software is bad
software, which is certainly no more the case than alleging CS software is
good software. The open-ness or otherwise of a software licence bears little
relation to quality, just look at the 14 security vulnerabilities in OE as a
classic example of poor quality CSS.
Factor in other examples of poor OE quality like the
begin bug and the broken sig-separator and you get the picture.
--
Peter
Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail
Peter Hayes
>> Just another wintroll
>
> I suspect everyone who even appears to disagree with your cult dogma
> is automatically a wintroll.
Very flatty-esque.
Bijan Soleymani
Although I disagree with the original poster I must admit that there
is less money to be made from these services than there is from the
"sale" of proprietary software.
The important point is that it isn't immoral to make less money. In
this case it's a better thing to do as it benefits all of society.
Bijan
Roodw...@core.com
>> Just another wintroll
>
> I suspect everyone who even appears to disagree with your cult dogma
> is automatically a wintroll.
Absolutely classic wintroll. You'll be on ignore from now on.
Stefaan A Eeckels
x6...@yahoo.com (CaptainSpiffy) wrote:
> > Having written it, why should I not release it? What have I got to
> > loose?
>
> If the software you write is half-decent, then money is what you lose,
> obviously.
As I said before, you forget to factor in the cost of
marketing and support. If you pay someone for a product,
you're entitled to a number of services that require an
infrastructure, and investments that must be recouped.
Someone writing a useful tool might not be interested
(or able) to set up a business for this purpose, and
thus releasing the tool as Free Software is a reasonable
alternative.
> Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
> download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
They might pay for support, though. Or they might be interested
in availing themselves of my services. For many people the
Free Software they write or contribute to is targetted advertising.
> Perhaps you don't think much of your own code, perhaps you're too lazy
> to see the project through to completion, perhaps you only give away
> code to get attention.
At least it's not to kill the competion like MS did with
Explorer. Now that was an unethical piece of work, that.
> At any rate, your behavior is irresponsible and
> reckless, like a used car salesman offering a klunker for almost
> no money and no caring what trouble it causes whoever ends up with it.
Why? Nobody forces anyone to use Free Software - the only
reckless and irresponsible persons are those who use it
without finding out what it's all about. And BTW, what
makes you believe that your used car salesman is irresponsible
and reckless? It's still caveat emptor, you know.
Isaac
<pe...@NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> No software has killed anyone, at least not directly, A "used car salesman
> offering a klunker for almost no money and no caring what trouble it causes
> whoever ends up with it" is completely different. The klunker can kill.
I don't think there is any question that bad software used in a critical
application (medical, aviation, traffic control, for example) can kill. I
suspect that no one is using free software for these kinds of things.
Isaac
Bijan Soleymani
Many people are. This is not a price issue. Free software can be
examined at the source level. You can have a team of engineers audit
the code.
Even non-free software that is used for critical applications must
often provide source (under a limited license) so that the customer
knows exactly what the software is doing.
If you look at most non-free software in the US (video games and such)
you will find that they are not certified for government or military
usage. Redhat a distributor of free software did get some sort of
certification for their GNU/Linux distribution a short while ago.
This is a quote from an article:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/02/12/HNrhat_1.html
" The U.S. Department of Defense Information Systems Agency has
certified Linux distributor Red Hat's Advanced Server operating system
as a "Common Operating Environment," meaning the server product meets
the agency's software security and interoperability specification. "
" A handful of other operating systems are also certified under the
COE: Sun Microsystems' Solaris, Microsoft's Windows NT, IBM's AIX, and
Hewlett-Packard's HP-UX. "
So IMHO a Free Operating (and by extension free software) can be used
in critical applications.
Bijan
Peter Köhlmann
> CaptainSpiffy wrote:
>
>>> Just another wintroll
>>
>> I suspect everyone who even appears to disagree with your cult dogma
>> is automatically a wintroll.
>
> Very flatty-esque.
>
Yup. Only problem with this guy is that he is posting with an IP of the TU
(technical university) Darmstadt. This is in germany, near Frankfurt.
Unless flattest mind found an open server, it is someone else. Does not
mean though that this someone else has more than 2 braincells, just like
flatfart. Even among guys with access to a universities computer there
are incredibly stupid people.
--
I just found out that the brain is like a computer.
If that's true, then there really aren't any stupid people.
Just people running Windows.
Linønut
Nor are they using Microsoft software for these kinds of things.
(Not even our own project. We can use Windows because our software is
not "mission critical".)
Sinister Midget
> CaptainSpiffy wrote:
>
>>> Just another wintroll
>>
>> I suspect everyone who even appears to disagree with your cult dogma
>> is automatically a wintroll.
>
>
> Absolutely classic wintroll. You'll be on ignore from now on.
Musta been google or a static IP. I never saw the original.
Killing google posts has been a real triumph over FUD. I still see the
aftermath because I don't kill respondents. But there's less temptation
to reply to them if I have to back up to a post I never saw.
I highly recommend killing everything emanating from google. Let them
talk to empty air. Or each other.......oops, I'm repeating myself again.
--
"One world, one web, one program" -- Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" -- Adolf Hitler
Isaac
> Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:20:00 +0000, Peter Hayes
>> <pe...@NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > No software has killed anyone, at least not directly, A "used car salesman
>> > offering a klunker for almost no money and no caring what trouble it causes
>> > whoever ends up with it" is completely different. The klunker can kill.
>>
>> I don't think there is any question that bad software used in a critical
>> application (medical, aviation, traffic control, for example) can kill. I
>> suspect that no one is using free software for these kinds of things.
>
> Many people are. This is not a price issue. Free software can be
> examined at the source level. You can have a team of engineers audit
> the code.
While access to the source code is essential, auditing the code is
often not enough to provide the high level of assurance required for
avionics or critical medical applications. I'm not aware of any
free software in which the complete development lifecycle is auditable
in ways that provide the required integrity levels.
Those kinds of development systems require signficant investments in
time and money and they might even be incompatible with some Bazaar type
open source models.
>
> This is a quote from an article:
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/02/12/HNrhat_1.html
>
> " The U.S. Department of Defense Information Systems Agency has
> certified Linux distributor Red Hat's Advanced Server operating system
> as a "Common Operating Environment," meaning the server product meets
> the agency's software security and interoperability specification. "
>
> " A handful of other operating systems are also certified under the
> COE: Sun Microsystems' Solaris, Microsoft's Windows NT, IBM's AIX, and
> Hewlett-Packard's HP-UX. "
>
> So IMHO a Free Operating (and by extension free software) can be used
> in critical applications.
Not safety critical applications. The examples I gave were of software
where an error would lead to harming or killing someone. Isn't the
certification you mention here a security rating and not a safety one?
Further, are you suggesting that Windows NT can be used in safety critical
applications? I'd be surprised if NT didn't come with a disclaimer that
it wasn't intended to be so used.
Isaac
Brad Sims
> I'll continue to admire old Ben Franklin and his stove design and invention
> of bifocals. If everything has to be about money and selfishness, then the
> human spirit is diminished. Billions of people of people have benefited
> from Ben's genius and generosity. Billions.
Greatest scientist of his day, inventor, statesman, printer, philosopher,
musician, economist, revolutionary.
Notorious for seducing 18yo women at the age of 70-plus
and for getting stone-drunk on Spanish wine... A man who quite seriously
proposed a pill to make farts smell pleasant so that one could break
wind publicly without embarrassment...
A true man for the ages. "Fart Proudly"
Damn, it would be interesting to talk with him.
--
"Black holes are where God divided by zero".
Isaac
> While watching the eternal hourglass, Isaac assayed this pronouncement:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:20:00 +0000, Peter Hayes
>> <pe...@NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> No software has killed anyone, at least not directly, A "used car salesman
>>> offering a klunker for almost no money and no caring what trouble it causes
>>> whoever ends up with it" is completely different. The klunker can kill.
>>
>> I don't think there is any question that bad software used in a critical
>> application (medical, aviation, traffic control, for example) can kill. I
>> suspect that no one is using free software for these kinds of things.
>
> Nor are they using Microsoft software for these kinds of things.
Of course. I didn't mean to imply that this was a closed source/open
source issue. I just wanted to suggest that software can kill people.
Isaac
Bijan Soleymani
> On 02 Apr 2003 14:54:06 -0500, Bijan Soleymani <bi...@psq.com> wrote:
> > Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:20:00 +0000, Peter Hayes
> >> <pe...@NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > No software has killed anyone, at least not directly, A "used car salesman
> >> > offering a klunker for almost no money and no caring what trouble it causes
> >> > whoever ends up with it" is completely different. The klunker can kill.
> >>
> >> I don't think there is any question that bad software used in a critical
> >> application (medical, aviation, traffic control, for example) can kill. I
> >> suspect that no one is using free software for these kinds of things.
> >
> > Many people are. This is not a price issue. Free software can be
> > examined at the source level. You can have a team of engineers audit
> > the code.
>
> While access to the source code is essential, auditing the code is
> often not enough to provide the high level of assurance required for
> avionics or critical medical applications. I'm not aware of any
> free software in which the complete development lifecycle is auditable
> in ways that provide the required integrity levels.
>
> Those kinds of development systems require signficant investments in
> time and money and they might even be incompatible with some Bazaar type
> open source models.
In this case (avionics for example) we're no longer talking about
software in the sense most people understand it. I meant things like
an OS, or a user application. These kinds of software are used in the
medical industry.
Firmware for avionics equipment or medical equipment is not what I had
in mind. In most cases you're going to be getting that from the
manufacturor of the hardware. It is rare for someone to buy a piece of
highly specialized and highly expensive hardware and have it come with
no firmware.
> >
> > This is a quote from an article:
> > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/02/12/HNrhat_1.html
> >
> > " The U.S. Department of Defense Information Systems Agency has
> > certified Linux distributor Red Hat's Advanced Server operating system
> > as a "Common Operating Environment," meaning the server product meets
> > the agency's software security and interoperability specification. "
> >
> > " A handful of other operating systems are also certified under the
> > COE: Sun Microsystems' Solaris, Microsoft's Windows NT, IBM's AIX, and
> > Hewlett-Packard's HP-UX. "
> >
> > So IMHO a Free Operating (and by extension free software) can be used
> > in critical applications.
>
> Not safety critical applications. The examples I gave were of software
> where an error would lead to harming or killing someone. Isn't the
> certification you mention here a security rating and not a safety one?
Software "that" specialized is going to be produced "specifically" as
a one shot solution. That is to say whatever the software license
whoever wants software that secure is going to have to hire people to
write it for him. You can't just go to the store and buy this kind of
software.
Therefore Free/Open vs. non-Free/Proprietary distribution doesn't
apply in this case.
> Further, are you suggesting that Windows NT can be used in safety critical
> applications? I'd be surprised if NT didn't come with a disclaimer that
> it wasn't intended to be so used.
This was for certification on a particular machine (make and model).
So that these operating systems are certified for some particular OS /
hardware combination.
I believe this certification was for reliability with regards to
top-level military usage.
Bijan
Roodw...@core.com
>
> Notorious for seducing 18yo women at the age of 70-plus
> and for getting stone-drunk on Spanish wine... A man who quite seriously
> proposed a pill to make farts smell pleasant so that one could break
> wind publicly without embarrassment...
>
> A true man for the ages. "Fart Proudly"
I can think of major celebrities whose careers are built on less.
--Rod
Robert Uhl
>
> The free software movement in a real sense is already harming people,
> because it is asking people to work for no money, as many religions
> do. Everybody knows that writing software is not a no-brainer--it
> requires work and attention over time--so this request for free labor
> is particularly outrageous.
What's particularly outrageous is your complete misunderstanding of what
free software involves. It doesn't involve costless labour, or even
costless software. What it involves is freedom: the freedom to use, the
freedom to modify and the freedom to distribute.
> Keep in mind: the FSF is over $1 million in assets, and has according
> to some people paid to have its "free" software written in the past.
> The EFF meanwhile has an income of $1 million per year. There is
> sufficient money to pay programmers, yet they apparently refuse to for
> the most part.
I've never heard that either has anywhere near that many assets. OTOH,
I have heard that the FSF does pay programmers. Why, BTW, should the
EFF pay for software? Their concern is digital freedom and civil
liberties, not software.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
By the time an Average American reaches 70, he'll have eaten 880
chickens, 14 beef cattle, 23 hogs, 35 turkeys, 12 sheep, 770 pounds of
fish, and a breathmint. --MacMillan Book of Facts
Robert Uhl
>
> I as an atheist like to point this out because I feel that religion is
> inherently vile, despite the occassonal good that some religious
> individuals try to do.
I nearly forgot:
*plonk*
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Security-wise, NT is a server with a 'kick me' sign taped to it.
--Peter Gutmann
Fergus Henderson
>No software has killed anyone, at least not directly, A "used car salesman
>offering a klunker for almost no money and no caring what trouble it causes
>whoever ends up with it" is completely different. The klunker can kill.
"No software has killed anyone"? You should read comp.risks more often!
There are numerous reports of vehicles such as planes, helicopters
or trains crashing due to software problems. Some of these have
resulted in many deaths. Also, there's this case:
| In the mid-1980s, a Canadian-built radiation therapy machine, the
| Therac-25, killed at least four people when a software error
| irradiated patients with massive overdoses.
--
Fergus Henderson <f...@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
Bijan Soleymani
> x6...@yahoo.com (CaptainSpiffy) writes:
> >
> > The free software movement in a real sense is already harming people,
> > because it is asking people to work for no money, as many religions
> > do. Everybody knows that writing software is not a no-brainer--it
> > requires work and attention over time--so this request for free labor
> > is particularly outrageous.
>
> What's particularly outrageous is your complete misunderstanding of what
> free software involves. It doesn't involve costless labour, or even
> costless software. What it involves is freedom: the freedom to use, the
> freedom to modify and the freedom to distribute.
>
> > Keep in mind: the FSF is over $1 million in assets, and has according
> > to some people paid to have its "free" software written in the past.
> > The EFF meanwhile has an income of $1 million per year. There is
> > sufficient money to pay programmers, yet they apparently refuse to for
> > the most part.
>
> I've never heard that either has anywhere near that many assets. OTOH,
> I have heard that the FSF does pay programmers. Why, BTW, should the
> EFF pay for software? Their concern is digital freedom and civil
> liberties, not software.
Well I'm pretty sure the FSF has much more in "assets". They own
emacs, gcc, etc. Those are assets. They're probably worth a lot.
Bijan
Bijan Soleymani
> Peter Hayes <pe...@NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >No software has killed anyone, at least not directly, A "used car salesman
> >offering a klunker for almost no money and no caring what trouble it causes
> >whoever ends up with it" is completely different. The klunker can kill.
>
> "No software has killed anyone"? You should read comp.risks more often!
> There are numerous reports of vehicles such as planes, helicopters
> or trains crashing due to software problems. Some of these have
> resulted in many deaths. Also, there's this case:
>
> | In the mid-1980s, a Canadian-built radiation therapy machine, the
> | Therac-25, killed at least four people when a software error
> | irradiated patients with massive overdoses.
The software in those cases is more like firmware. It is not user
applications running on general purpose hardware. And as such is
usually supplied by the hardware vendor.
Bijan
Isaac
>
> In this case (avionics for example) we're no longer talking about
> software in the sense most people understand it. I meant things like
> an OS, or a user application. These kinds of software are used in the
> medical industry.
I think that's an artificial distinction. No one would seriously
suggest that embedded software was not software. I think such
a qualification should have been explicit.
The original point was that bad software wouldn't kill anyone. As a
professional who evaluates safety critical software, perhaps I am
more sensitive than some to safety issues with software.
> Firmware for avionics equipment or medical equipment is not what I had
> in mind. In most cases you're going to be getting that from the
> manufacturor of the hardware. It is rare for someone to buy a piece of
> highly specialized and highly expensive hardware and have it come with
> no firmware.
On the other hand someone might buy an underlying OS without the
hardware with the intention of using it to support a safety critical
application.
> Software "that" specialized is going to be produced "specifically" as
> a one shot solution. That is to say whatever the software license
> whoever wants software that secure is going to have to hire people to
> write it for him. You can't just go to the store and buy this kind of
> software.
That's simply not true. There are general purpose RTOS sold for such
applications. Further, it would be possible for smaller general purpose
modules to be written for such applications.
Finally, some people write such code in high level languages
suggesting that there is a market for compilers and highly reliable
libraries to implement general purpose functions. Sure it's a niche
market, but that's not the same as saying that no one does it.
I don't think you've thought this through.
> Therefore Free/Open vs. non-Free/Proprietary distribution doesn't
> apply in this case.
Perhaps that's true, but not for the reasons you suggest.
>
>
>> Further, are you suggesting that Windows NT can be used in safety critical
>> applications? I'd be surprised if NT didn't come with a disclaimer that
>> it wasn't intended to be so used.
>
> This was for certification on a particular machine (make and model).
>
> So that these operating systems are certified for some particular OS /
> hardware combination.
>
> I believe this certification was for reliability with regards to
> top-level military usage.
Your post indicated certification for security purposes.
Isaac
CaptainSpiffy
> While watching the eternal hourglass, CaptainSpiffy assayed this pronouncement:
>
> >> We respect facts, but not the faulty deductions made from them, and not
> >> the allusions made.
> >
> > But you're a cultist, and cultists by nature don't respect facts, and
> > they draw their conclusions to support the cult and their delusions.
>
> Sophist technique: Apply a denigrated label to a person, and proceed
> as if that label is accurate.
Sophist technique: accuse everything the opponent does of being
sophistry.
Bijan Soleymani
> > It is not unethical to make less money.
>
> No, but if you mislead the public by claiming your monetarily free software
MONETARILY FREE!!!! Internet explorer is "free" in that sense. Heck
netscape is free in that sense. So is Sun's java. So is Solaris (my
friend got the version for intel for cost of postage). My school has a
license to "give away" copies of Windows and Visual Studio to
students.
Free Software (in the sense we mean) is not necessarily monetarily
free. At least that is not the most important part. The most important
part is that it is free in the sense that the user is free to modify
and copy it.
> is of good quality then that is unethical.
If this is immoral or unethical, then all the thousands of proprietary
software companies that develop crappy software should be shot! The
fact that I didn't get the source code to windows 95, didn't stop it
from crashing. It only prevented people from fixing it.
> > Or perhaps he likes writing Free Software.
>
> Nonsensical response.
It is not nonsensical. If someone likes doing something and it
benefits society then it's a win-win situation.
Your claim was that he is suffering by "giving away" his software. If
he enjoys writing Free Software, then that's a non-isssue.
> > There is much high quality Free Software.
>
> Only projects which are either sponsored or written by talented programmers
> are high quality. Even when these programs have some quality functionality,
> then are often very limiting.
Yes Linus Torvalds (Linux), Richard Stallman (emacs,gcc), Larry
Wall(perl), Alan Cox(Linux), etc. are talented programmers :)
Bijan
Bijan Soleymani
> > The important point is that it isn't immoral to make less money. In
> > this case it's a better thing to do as it benefits all of society.
>
> It could be considered unethical, if it consistutes dumping.
> Dumping is the technique of offering a product at below its real market value
> in order to force competitors out of the market.
First of all this is not dumping.
As far as i can tell dumping applies to one country vs. another.
This is from an article I found:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=439&sequence=1
" Dumping is the selling of an import at a price below its cost of
production or below the price at which the manufacturer sells the good
in its own domestic market. U.S. antidumping law views such imports as
being sold at less than fair value. Under the law, duties are imposed
on dumped imports that cause "material injury" to the competing
U.S. industry. Almost any injury that is not negligible is considered
to be material. The duties are set equal to the difference between the
market price and the administratively determined fair value. Many
other countries have similar laws. "
Second, laws do not dictate ethics.
Bijan
Bijan Soleymani
> On 02 Apr 2003 21:55:45 -0500, Bijan Soleymani <bi...@psq.com> wrote:
> >
> > In this case (avionics for example) we're no longer talking about
> > software in the sense most people understand it. I meant things like
> > an OS, or a user application. These kinds of software are used in the
> > medical industry.
>
> I think that's an artificial distinction. No one would seriously
> suggest that embedded software was not software. I think such
> a qualification should have been explicit.
Firmware is not general purpose software running on general purpose
machines. You may think that is an arbitrary distinction, but it is
not.
Embedded software by it's very nature is specific to each
application. You can't take embedded software from a cell phone and
use it to run a microwave. So there's no real way to reuse this
software in unrelated projects, so the software isn't generally
distributed.
With general purpose software on general purpose machines, software is
distributed. Distribution is where Free vs. Non-Free comes into play.
> > Firmware for avionics equipment or medical equipment is not what I had
> > in mind. In most cases you're going to be getting that from the
> > manufacturor of the hardware. It is rare for someone to buy a piece of
> > highly specialized and highly expensive hardware and have it come with
> > no firmware.
>
> On the other hand someone might buy an underlying OS without the
> hardware with the intention of using it to support a safety critical
> application.
Yes in that case the Free OS is secure enough to run the
application. The chances of Linux crashing and Windows crashing are
comparable.
> > Software "that" specialized is going to be produced "specifically" as
> > a one shot solution. That is to say whatever the software license
> > whoever wants software that secure is going to have to hire people to
> > write it for him. You can't just go to the store and buy this kind of
> > software.
>
> That's simply not true. There are general purpose RTOS sold for such
> applications. Further, it would be possible for smaller general purpose
> modules to be written for such applications.
Real Time Operating Systems are not real-time applications. I doubt
there are off the shelf real-time programs that can handle avionics,
and medicine, and etc. equally well without substantial development
work.
> Finally, some people write such code in high level languages
> suggesting that there is a market for compilers and highly reliable
> libraries to implement general purpose functions. Sure it's a niche
> market, but that's not the same as saying that no one does it.
>
> I don't think you've thought this through.
What I meant is that Free Software and operating system are secure
enough to run the critical software. But they are not the critical
software.
Linux (the kernel) can be used to run the critical software, gcc can
be used to compile it, emacs can be used to edit the source code. But
none of these themselves can by themselves "run" the specialized
systems that are required for these purposes.
>
> > Therefore Free/Open vs. non-Free/Proprietary distribution doesn't
> > apply in this case.
>
> Perhaps that's true, but not for the reasons you suggest.
Free vs. Non-Free really applies when the freedoms of Free Software
are relevant.
P.S. I forgot something that kind of makes this whole point moot. If
anyone has installed either Windows or Linux they will know that both
have a big warning screen that basically says "enter at your own
risk". So no one who "gives" software away claims that it is secure.
Bijan
Peter Hayes
> Peter Hayes <pe...@NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>No software has killed anyone, at least not directly, A "used car salesman
>>offering a klunker for almost no money and no caring what trouble it causes
>>whoever ends up with it" is completely different. The klunker can kill.
>
> "No software has killed anyone"? You should read comp.risks more often!
I subscribed at one time to comp.risks, or some similar group. Fascinating
stuff.
> There are numerous reports of vehicles such as planes, helicopters
> or trains crashing due to software problems.
The A350 (?) fly by wire passenger jet that thought the tops of trees was the
runway.
> Some of these have resulted in many deaths. Also, there's this case:
>
> | In the mid-1980s, a Canadian-built radiation therapy machine, the
> | Therac-25, killed at least four people when a software error
> | irradiated patients with massive overdoses.
But in the context of the post I was responding to,
> "Perhaps you don't think much of your own code, perhaps you're too lazy
> to see the project through to completion, perhaps you only give away code
> to get attention. At any rate, your behavior is irresponsible and
> reckless, like a used car salesman offering a klunker for almost
> no money and no caring what trouble it causes whoever ends up with it"
the software is extremely unlikely to be used in a mission critical or
life critical environment without many reviews and perhaps then only as one of
a voting system. Not something the average OSS programmer is likely to
release.
The used car salesman selling a klunker places a time bomb in the public
domain directly and knowingly, and for material gain.
--
Peter
Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail
Stefaan A Eeckels
x6...@yahoo.com (CaptainSpiffy) wrote:
> It could be considered unethical, if it consistutes dumping.
> Dumping is the technique of offering a product at below its real market
> value in order to force competitors out of the market.
Not below market value, but below cost. Your definition
would make competiton impossible, as the first entrant
sets the current market value.
But if it didn't cost anything to produce, then of course
you cannot dump it ;-)
phil hunt
>
>If the software you write is half-decent, then money is what you lose,
>obviously. Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
>download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
>to see the project through to completion, perhaps you only give away code
>to get attention.
Oh, there's a much better reason for writing open source / free
software:
It annoys people like you.
--
Philip Hunt <ph...@cabalamat.org>
Interested in adventure holidays in Spain?
Look at: <http://www.cabalamat.org/advcon/>
phil hunt
>
>What is user friendly to a geek or a grad student is very different from
>what is commonly thought of as user friendly. No "man in the street" would
>ever use Emacs or Tex -- he wants something like M$ Word.
Open office is "something like" MS Word :-)
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:25:10 +0100,
phil hunt <ph...@cabalamat.org> wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2003 05:49:20 -0800, CaptainSpiffy <x6...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>If the software you write is half-decent, then money is what you lose,
>>obviously. Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
>>download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
>>Perhaps you don't think much of your own code, perhaps you're too lazy
>>to see the project through to completion, perhaps you only give away code
>>to get attention.
>
> Oh, there's a much better reason for writing open source / free
> software:
>
> It annoys people like you.
>
Great idea, I feel the urge to let another one of my (admittadly small)
projects go on freshmeat :)
"It's worth it, if it annoys just one troll.."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+jJpJd90bcYOAWPYRAvcPAKC5JVXySoNHHjwQIly06Aj/dGPtPwCgw1NK
2sFqY73xlfEcwgrSl7rKSAU=
=1ArI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()
Brad Sims
>
>>
>> Notorious for seducing 18yo women at the age of 70-plus
>> and for getting stone-drunk on Spanish wine... A man who quite seriously
>> proposed a pill to make farts smell pleasant so that one could break
>> wind publicly without embarrassment...
>>
>> A true man for the ages. "Fart Proudly"
>
> I can think of major celebrities whose careers are built on less.
It made history a little more amusing for the nephews to know that <g>.
Gods, the schools go out of their way to make history dull...
I mean take the Lewis and Clark Expedition, here they thought
it was Rugged Wilderness and they were Manly Men for Braving It.
It was Sacajawa's backyard and she was lugging around a newborn while
doing everything the men did <g>. The niece got a kick of that version
of the story...
--
Take responsibility for your actions, put a lawyer out of buisness.
Sam Holden
>>
>>If the software you write is half-decent, then money is what you lose,
>>obviously. Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
>>download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
>>Perhaps you don't think much of your own code, perhaps you're too lazy
>>to see the project through to completion, perhaps you only give away code
>>to get attention.
>
> Oh, there's a much better reason for writing open source / free
> software:
>
> It annoys people like you.
It's amazing the motivation that argumentative, "one true way" trolling
posters have.
I relrease all my (admittadly not useful to many others at the moment)
software under the GPL. The only reason I do that is that the incessant
"GPV is evil" rantings annoyed me enough to do something that might
ever so slightly annoy that person.
So now my junk is released under the GPL instead of the BSD.
--
Sam Holden
CaptainSpiffy
How true! The more I deal with laws and the people who pay for them and
then benefit from them, the more I become a libertarian, desiring as few laws
as possible.
Look, I don't care anymore. If you want to give away software for free,
go ahead. Most consumers can discern what is worth paying for -- be it
with money or in the case of most free software with time and effort.
But, I will say this, most free software is aimed at geeks who often use
Linux and it therefore marginalizes itself. 95% of the market is -- often for
the worse, I know -- controlled by Windows.
paul cooke
>> Second, laws do not dictate ethics.
>
> How true! The more I deal with laws and the people who pay for them and
> then benefit from them, the more I become a libertarian, desiring as few
> laws as possible.
>
> Look, I don't care anymore. If you want to give away software for free,
> go ahead. Most consumers can discern what is worth paying for -- be it
> with money or in the case of most free software with time and effort.
>
> But, I will say this, most free software
^^^^
weasel word or what???
> is aimed at geeks who often use
^^^^^
unnecessary derogatory comment
> Linux and it therefore marginalizes itself.
ISTR that it was only the geeks as you call them who were originally using
windows in the first place. It and the hardware was far too expensive for
normal users who couldn't justify the high cost. It was the proliferation
of games and other recreational items that broke through with people being
to rationalise the purchase as being for "doing the home accounts" whilst
they were really buying the machines for the games... I know... I'm guilty
as charged m'lud. I bought my dos computer ostensibly for doing resumes and
keeping the home inventory on and balancing the chequebook... but really I
was thrashing the Soviet navy in games of Harpoon and killing countless red
hordes in various turn based computerised board wargames...
> 95% of the market is -- often
> for the worse, I know -- controlled by Windows.
not for much longer... there is a paradigm shift in progress... :)
I think when people realise that they can get their pron just as easily
using Linux and not catch nasty computer viruses etc whilst doing so there
will be a stampede for the distro sites...
Bijan Soleymani
> > As I said before, you forget to factor in the cost of
> > marketing and support.
>
> 1. Marketing is much cheaper now due to the Web. Do you know the
> term "marketing channel"?
>
> 2. Support can be provided via the Web also, maybe not to the
> satisfaction of every user, but that is one reason why a money-back
> guarantee should be offered.
>
> > At least it's not to kill the competion like MS did with
> > Explorer. Now that was an unethical piece of work, that.
>
> I will grant, that if you want to avoid spyware then
> open source can help there. However open source is more open to
> crackers, as when XV was vulnerable to JPEG-based viruses.
XV was and is shareware.
Bijan
zcerro
success by the number of converts rather than distance to goal, you
can probably call it a cult pretty safely.
steves...@yahoo.com (Steve) wrote in message news:<6f8cb8c9.0303...@posting.google.com>...
> x6...@yahoo.com (CaptainSpiffy) wrote in message news:<9fc3d090.03033...@posting.google.com>...
> > Just a little skepticism here, but when I speak with free software
> > advocates, this is the way it seems: whatever free software could have
> > become, it is not just another cult. It appears to conform to all of the
> > following criteria:
>
> I've met Richard Stallman ( creator of the Free Software Foundation,
> the GPL ),
> I've read "Free As In Freedom" and "Free Software, Free Society".
>
> So, to use your terms I've met the cult leader and I read his
> religious texts.
>
> Those are my qualifications for judging what he/the FSF movement have
> to say.
>
> What about yours?
>
>
>
>
> >
> > 1. Make the belief system sound profound and significant.
>
> Guilty. Stallman has made very good arguments about how free software
> can help guard against corporate control of digitized
> information.......where all information is headed in the future...or
> most of it.
>
> >
> > 2. Base the belief system on claims that are nonsense or practically
> > impossible to prove.
>
> Read his book. His arguments are essays.......ie based on logic and
> not empirical proof. Many of his arguments work, some don't, but that
> is IMHO>
>
>
> >
> > 3. Support the belief system with theories (from scientists or not)
> > that you claim are proven.
>
> See number 2. Stallman's essays do a decent job of justifying his
> view points.
>
>
> >
> > 4. Use empty claims to prove the belief system is superior.
>
> Haven't seen this at all
>
>
> >
> > 5. Have the leader (you?) claim that they are the originators of the
> > belief system.
>
> Stallman *is* the creator of the Free Software Foundation and he *is*
> the creator of the Gnu Pulbic License
>
>
> >
> > 6. Invent and repeatedly present a history of the movement and its
> > belief system which supports everything the belief system claims.
>
> The history of the movement( fsf & "open source" ) has been recorded
> by outsiders. See O'Reilly's "Free as in Freedom".
>
>
> >
> > 7. Redefine commonly used words for your own purposes.
>
> Hasn't happened.
>
> >
> > 8. Devise and often repeat cliches to entice your followers and
> > to discourage critical thinking.
>
> Haven't seen it.
>
> >
> > 9. Remember: your enemies are either idiots or Devils.
>
> Many people here use proprietary softwar and work as proprietary
> programmers
>
> >
> > 10. Remove anything in the belief system that may suggest that you
> > don't know or that you may be wrong.
>
> Haven't seen it
> >
> > 11. Discourage people from questioning the belief system by claiming
> > its ideas are inherently logical, true, and right.
>
> see #2....Stallman makes arguments for his beliefs and his claims.
>
> >
> > 12. Do not point to or otherwise provide any mechanism by which
> > the validity of the belief systems ideas and claims can be questioned.
>
> The FSF is about promoting the free flow of information........how
> does your claim fit in #12 jive without that? :).
>
>
>
> Steve
Stefaan A Eeckels
x6...@yahoo.com (CaptainSpiffy) wrote:
> > As I said before, you forget to factor in the cost of
> > marketing and support.
>
> 1. Marketing is much cheaper now due to the Web. Do you know the
> term "marketing channel"?
>
> 2. Support can be provided via the Web also, maybe not to the
> satisfaction of every user, but that is one reason why a money-back
> guarantee should be offered.
How would a single developer find the time to do these
things (which do not bring in any money), unless there
are sufficient sales of the program? It's a chicken-and-egg
problem, requiring the developer to invest in distribution
and support infrastructure without any guarantee of
success. You'll have to accept that one can be a programmer
without being an entrepeneur. There are off course very
successful shareware authors, but a far greater number of
unsuccessful ones.
> > At least it's not to kill the competion like MS did with
> > Explorer. Now that was an unethical piece of work, that.
>
> I will grant, that if you want to avoid spyware then
> open source can help there. However open source is more open to
> crackers, as when XV was vulnerable to JPEG-based viruses.
First, XV is an old piece of software that has been without
active maintenance for at least five years. It's also shareware,
not freeware. That it would be vulnerable to JPEG virusses is
not a surprise - it's about as relevant as saying that Word97
is vulnerable to macro virusses.
Second, security through obscurity is not a good approach.
Even though access to the source allows people to discover
flaws, that's true, it assures that these flaws are corrected
quickly. In any case, most of the "black hats" don't need
source code to discover vulnerabilities, but security audits
_do_ depend on the availability of the source.
David Kastrup
> It is the mark of a person who has an inferior argument
> to resort to personal insults. What are you going to do next,
> ask your cousin Saddam to sent his guards around to "silence" me?
> He who cannot win a debate with ideas resorts to primitive tactics
> like insults. And THAT is not the sign of a civilized person.
Pot, kettle, black.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
David Kastrup
> If there are commercial projects of the same type then your giving
> away your software for free could deprive other programmers of work
> in the end, and therefore your giving it away is unethical toward
> workers.
With that argument, any progress of technology is unethical.
David Kastrup
> > While it made no money for Franklin, there are others that used
> > the design and made fortunes. But his motivation was to help
> > people in general--a rather noble concept that seems to have
> > fallen out of favor these days in some circles.
>
> Drawing an analogy between Franklin and open source coders is
> inappropriate. You may be so vain and attention-starved to think
> that giving your code away makes you a big guy in the eyes of
> others, but judging from the public attitude toward geeky difficult
> to use software like Linux, no one except a few geeks like you are
> buying it.
Please make up your mind. First you claim that producing Free
Software is unethical because it deprives proprietary software author
of their way of income, then you claim that Free Software is not
used, anyway.
> You need to get out a little bit. No one that matters is going to
> pat you on the back for writing a computer program.
Oh, Linus Torvalds got quite a few stock options as a pat on the
back.
David Kastrup
> > Having written it, why should I not release it? What have I got to
> > loose?
>
> If the software you write is half-decent, then money is what you lose,
> obviously. Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
> download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
Tell that to RedHat.
> Perhaps you don't think much of your own code, perhaps you're too
> lazy to see the project through to completion, perhaps you only give
> away code to get attention. At any rate, your behavior is
> irresponsible and reckless, like a used car salesman offering a
> klunker for almost no money and no caring what trouble it causes
> whoever ends up with it.
Well, your parents were irresponsible and reckless, turning some
person totally void of understanding cooperation and volunteering
loose upon the world without caring what trouble he advertises.
David Kastrup
> I think it's more a case of them hiding behind the free software
> mantra. If the software is really good, they can claim bragging
> rights. If the software sucks, they can hide behind the "well it's
> free" excuse.
And what claim are you making about your posts? They suck.
David Kastrup
> When it prefers to preach rather than reach its goals, and it
> measures success by the number of converts rather than distance to
> goal, you can probably call it a cult pretty safely.
Just because they have failed to make you stop top posting does not
mean that there is not currently a variety of highly performant Free
Operating systems available.
BTW, has Microsoft by now managed to move Hotmail from FreeBSD to some
Windows variant? I remember that they failed a few times trying to
get the move done, but purportedly they might have finally gotten a
robust enough version of some Windows at least internally that at the
expense of (comparatively affordable) massive supplementation of
computing power might be made to run reliably enough for a service
like that? Just a question of credibility, even if requiring a
surplus amount of hardware dollars.
Tristan Miller
On Sunday 06 April 2003 20:58, David Kastrup wrote:
>> If the software you write is half-decent, then money is what you lose,
>> obviously. Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
>> download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
>
> Tell that to RedHat.
Why, do they have statistics on the number of people who buy their software
despite their ability to download it? Or did you not take into account
that a significant portion of their revenue may derive from people for whom
it is impossible or impractical to download their software, and from people
who are really buying the packaged version for the printed manuals and
technical support?
CaptainSpiffy's argument may be wrong, but I'm skeptical of your refutation.
--
\\\ Tristan Miller [en, (fr, de, ia)]
\\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ (personal)
\\\ http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~psy/ (academic)
David Kastrup
> Greetings.
>
> On Sunday 06 April 2003 20:58, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> If the software you write is half-decent, then money is what you lose,
> >> obviously. Because no one is going to pay for a program that they can
> >> download for free from the Web, so there are no sales involved.
> >
> > Tell that to RedHat.
>
> Why, do they have statistics on the number of people who buy their
> software despite their ability to download it?
He says "nobody is going to pay for a program". "Nobody" is
obviously overstating the case, or RedHat would not be even close to
profitable (it currently is oscillating about the black/red mark).
Of course, a _lot_ people just download or copy it. But that spreads
it. Having 1% of 10 million users actually pay is still preferable
to having 100% of 1000 users pay. Of course, dreaming about 100% of
10 million users would be still nicer, but it doesn't work that way...
Tristan Miller
On Monday 07 April 2003 13:01, David Kastrup wrote:
> He says "nobody is going to pay for a program". "Nobody" is
> obviously overstating the case, or RedHat would not be even close to
> profitable (it currently is oscillating about the black/red mark).
No he doesn't -- he qualifies "nobody". He says that nobody *that can
download the software for free* will pay for it. I suggested that those
who *cannot* download the software may be the ones contributing to RedHat's
sales, and perhaps also those who can download the software but want the
extra perks of the packaged version (namely, a printed manual and
professional technical support). I know of many such people -- I, for
example, have a horribly slow GPRS connection and no CD burner.
Consequently, SuSE just became about 10 000 HUF richer from the shiny new
DVD I bought.
Robert Uhl
>
> No he doesn't -- he qualifies "nobody". He says that nobody *that can
> download the software for free* will pay for it. I suggested that
> those who *cannot* download the software may be the ones contributing
> to RedHat's sales, and perhaps also those who can download the
> software but want the extra perks of the packaged version (namely, a
> printed manual and professional technical support).
The original statement is still trivially false. I've purchased several
versions of RedHat and one of SuSE despite being able to easily and
quickly download & burn anytime I like. And I certainly don't need the
manuals. I can download it for free, and yet I pay for it. Proof by
modus tollens.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Moore's law dictates that my socks can wage war for the entire nation by 2003.