Real Programmers Appreciate Larry Wall

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Universe

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 5:00:52 PM1/16/02
to
"Larry Wall, the man with this unusual prescription, is a
leader in the open source software movement, which includes Linux.
He’s the linguist who created Perl, the programming language which
glues together much of the Internet.

"Computer programming is not about computers, Mr. Wall insists.
It’s about humans. What drives Mr. Wall and others in the open source
software movement? They have a sense of purpose: Improve the lot of
humankind. To do that, they create software -- FREE software. And
they share."

"Mr. Wall sees a basic philosophical shift in the computer
industry. Bigger companies which have traditionally kept their source
code propriety are beginning to open up. Doing so has many benefits,
according Mr. Wall and the growing numbers of people working (for
free) in the open source software world. There are already many
millions of Linux users, roughly a million Perl users, he reports. And
the numbers keep growing."

© 2000 The Paula Gordon Show.
All material copyrighted by The Paula Gordon Show
http://paulagordon.com/shows/wall/

Elliott
--
* Excelsior! * Avanti! *
* Ever Onward and Upward to an Exploitation Free World *
* Empiricist Free Science & Conservative Free Art *
3w.radix.net/~universe @ Elliott, 2002
--
Optimal software abstraction levels have project vocabulary and
key scope relevant role objects corresponding to the level's reality
entities.

______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 5:09:03 PM1/16/02
to

"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
news:dptb4u47aihpvtkf0...@4ax.com...

<snip>

I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to be
compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.

--
Shayne Wissler

"The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people
think." -- Aristotle

Phil Tomson

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 10:03:23 PM1/16/02
to
In article <3Sm18.32590$Vq.325092@rwcrnsc53>,

Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
>news:dptb4u47aihpvtkf0...@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>
>I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to be
>compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
>everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.

Isn't this a false dichotomy? Larry Wall, for example, wrote a tool that
many use and he released the code freely (under the artistic license,
though I think it may have originally been under GPL) and he has been
compensated via book royalties and by working for O'Reilly.

Phil


Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 10:32:24 PM1/16/02
to

"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:%9r18.11396$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...

> In article <3Sm18.32590$Vq.325092@rwcrnsc53>,
> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
> >news:dptb4u47aihpvtkf0...@4ax.com...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to
be
> >compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
> >everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.
>
> Isn't this a false dichotomy?

I don't see why.

> Larry Wall, for example, wrote a tool that
> many use and he released the code freely (under the artistic license,
> though I think it may have originally been under GPL) and he has been
> compensated via book royalties and by working for O'Reilly.

What Larry Wall does is Larry Wall's business. I'm not going to tell him not
to release code for free. What I'm talking about is the philosophy behind
GNU, which in part is: that software is not property, and that people don't
have a right to sell licenses to use.

GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights as
programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may on
the free market.

GNU is also destructive because it creates free, medium-quality UNIX tools,
thereby making it very hard for a commercial company who wants to make
high-quality, truely competitive UNIX tools to make a profit, and thereby
provide it a means of continuously improving its products. In my opinion,
GNU, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of UNIX to
improve to the point that it either a) dominates over Windows, or b) forces
Windows to come up with a higher-quality OS for programmers. The problem
certainly isn't technical, and it isn't because Windows was there first.
It's because the UNIX community is infested with Marxists.

Universe

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 10:32:41 PM1/16/02
to
> "Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message

>> "Larry Wall, the man with this unusual prescription, is a
>>leader in the open source software movement, which includes Linux.
>>He’s the linguist who created Perl, the programming language which
>>glues together much of the Internet.
>>
>> "Computer programming is not about computers, Mr. Wall insists.
>>It’s about humans. What drives Mr. Wall and others in the open source
>>software movement? They have a sense of purpose: Improve the lot of
>>humankind. To do that, they create software -- FREE software. And
>>they share.
>>
>> "Mr. Wall sees a basic philosophical shift in the computer
>>industry. Bigger companies which have traditionally kept their source
>>code propriety are beginning to open up. Doing so has many benefits,
>>according Mr. Wall and the growing numbers of people working (for
>>free) in the open source software world. There are already many
>>millions of Linux users, roughly a million Perl users, he reports. And
>>the numbers keep growing."
>>© 2000 The Paula Gordon Show.
>>All material copyrighted by The Paula Gordon Show

>I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to be


>compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
>everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.

Programmers and everyone else in society ideally should work to the
best of their ability and get the things they need to live a decent
life. I'm not for super salaries in sports, music, business, or any
area.

Ideally producers should produce get the resources they need to
produce, and produce to the best of their ability. They deserve no
more and no less, imo. Just as with individuals above.

What did GNU do/say that you find objectionable? If you mean create
duplicate software undercutting super salaries and corporate profits,
that's not a problem, as I see it.

Elliott
--
* Excelsior! * Avanti! *
* Ever Onward and Upward to an Exploitation Free World *
* Empiricist Free Science & Conservative Free Art *
3w.radix.net/~universe @ Elliott, 2002

______________________________________________________________________

Universe

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 10:44:39 PM1/16/02
to
"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
>idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights as
>programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may on
>the free market.
>
>GNU is also destructive because it creates free, medium-quality UNIX tools,
>thereby making it very hard for a commercial company who wants to make
>high-quality, truely competitive UNIX tools to make a profit, and thereby
>provide it a means of continuously improving its products. In my opinion,
>GNU, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of UNIX to
>improve to the point that it either a) dominates over Windows, or b) forces
>Windows to come up with a higher-quality OS for programmers. The problem
>certainly isn't technical, and it isn't because Windows was there first.
>It's because the UNIX community is infested with Marxists.

Grrrrreat!! You prompt me to join 'em! Despite your half-truths and
whole lies.

Spoken like a true, support 1% of the world population ruining land,
sea and climate, and oppresses and exploits the bent backs of the
other 90+% of the world population for profits, typical Randie.

Elliott
--
*For Cultless, Internationalist, non-mechanist Dialectics Revolution*

Universe

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 11:02:46 PM1/16/02
to
Universe <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote:

>Spoken like a true, support 1% of the world population ruining land,
>sea and climate, and oppresses and exploits the bent backs of the
>other 90+% of the world population for profits, typical

* adherent of the they don't realize it, but it really truly is *
* a kind of Empiricist, as are all anti-simulationists, trend *
>Randie.

>Elliott


--
Optimal software abstraction levels have project vocabulary and
key scope relevant role objects corresponding to the level's reality
entities.

______________________________________________________________________

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 12:44:50 AM1/17/02
to

"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cBr18.34222$uA.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...

Here's a URL with an analysis of the GPL:
http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3.

Richard Stallman on creativity: "Creativity can be a social contribution,
but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers
deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token
they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs... "

Spoken like a true Communist.

If you care for your job and for the health of the software industry, then
whatever you do, don't support GNU by sending them any kind of support, and
NEVER, EVER, put a GPL on your own code.

Dmitry A. Kazakov

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 5:25:52 AM1/17/02
to
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 03:32:24 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
<thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>What Larry Wall does is Larry Wall's business. I'm not going to tell him not
>to release code for free. What I'm talking about is the philosophy behind
>GNU, which in part is: that software is not property, and that people don't
>have a right to sell licenses to use.

How GNU phylosophy prevents *you* from selling your software? It is
not phylosophy, but the nature of human beings that makes selling
ideas hard.

>GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
>idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights as
>programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may on
>the free market.

This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
computer/software industry. It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
Word, C++ or even VB. GNU is an alternative, though it works neigther
(:-(). Maybe the government should subsidize software development as
it does in the case of fundamental research. However the consequences
are also well known.

Anyway to argue against alternatives is a bit unwise.

>GNU is also destructive because it creates free, medium-quality UNIX tools,
>thereby making it very hard for a commercial company who wants to make
>high-quality, truely competitive UNIX tools to make a profit, and thereby
>provide it a means of continuously improving its products. In my opinion,
>GNU, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of UNIX to
>improve to the point that it either a) dominates over Windows, or b) forces
>Windows to come up with a higher-quality OS for programmers.

UNIX is Windows of 80s. It was the worst case that time. Microsoft
just has maintained to produce something even worse than UNIX and thus
has deserved its commercial triumph.

>The problem certainly isn't technical, and it isn't because Windows was there first.

Yes.

>It's because the UNIX community is infested with Marxists.

and opportunists, revisionists, Trotskists (:-))

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 10:40:43 AM1/17/02
to

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
> computer/software industry.

BS. Tell that to the millions of Microsoft users who have something they
wouldn't otherwise have. Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented
amounts of cash.

> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
> Word, C++ or even VB.

Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out to
be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer. My
exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
programmers need into account.

I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives. Bill Gates
got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them ever
since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.

For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become a
monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.

Of course, that won't happen. From what I've read, Microsoft purposefully
dumbs down some of their software in order for it not to put some other
company out of business. So don't blame Microsoft, blame the antitrust laws.

Mike Smith

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 12:47:00 PM1/17/02
to
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
> computer/software industry. It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
> Word, C++ or even VB.

And in what way does this imply that the free market "does not work"? *You*
don't decide what "works" or doesn't "work"; the *market* (which consists of
*everyone* who seeks to buy and/or sell products) does. The market chooses
what it wants, based on the criteria that are important to those who
comprise the marketplace. If they choose Wintel and VB, then it's because
that's what works out best *for them*. Who are *you* (or Stallman, or any
other individual) to dictate otherwise?

--
Mike Smith

Tom Plunket

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 1:54:44 PM1/17/02
to
Shayne Wissler wrote:

> I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to be
> compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
> everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.

Obviously someone who has no idea what GNU and the FSF are all
about.

Why haven't I killfiled this joker yet?

Oh yeah- education. Nobody says that programmers shouldn't get
paid. They're saying that code should be free. Big difference.

-tom!

--
Tom Plunket to...@fancy.org
PlayStation2/3D Studio geek

Few people realize that pieces of coral, when
painted brown and attached to the skull with wood
screws, can make a child look like a deer.

Cagdas Ozgenc

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 2:13:26 PM1/17/02
to
I agree with you. It seems that Windows is only criticised by computer geeks
like us. We are not the pontential customers, so MS doesn't give a f***. If
AOL is the leader in ISP then it clearly means the potential customers are
not Einsteins. Well, let the tech-losers sitting at the table peeking
through their 10" focals into a cheap OEM monitor cry for their pathetic
lives, meanwhile I better go figure out a way to make some cash.


Phil Tomson

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 2:07:53 PM1/17/02
to
In article <cBr18.34222$uA.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,

Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
>news:%9r18.11396$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <3Sm18.32590$Vq.325092@rwcrnsc53>,
>> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
>> >news:dptb4u47aihpvtkf0...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to
>be
>> >compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
>> >everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.
>>
>> Isn't this a false dichotomy?
>
>I don't see why.
>
>> Larry Wall, for example, wrote a tool that
>> many use and he released the code freely (under the artistic license,
>> though I think it may have originally been under GPL) and he has been
>> compensated via book royalties and by working for O'Reilly.
>
>What Larry Wall does is Larry Wall's business. I'm not going to tell him not
>to release code for free. What I'm talking about is the philosophy behind
>GNU, which in part is: that software is not property, and that people don't
>have a right to sell licenses to use.

And nobody's forcing you to realease your code for free.

>
>GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
>idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights as
>programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may on
>the free market.

GNU doesn't encourage piracy. GNU encourages developers to release their
code under GPL. When they do so piracy is a non-issue. Sure, the very
zealous in the GNU organization would like all softare to be free and
under GPL, but even they do not encourage piracy of non-free software.

>
>GNU is also destructive because it creates free, medium-quality UNIX tools,
>thereby making it very hard for a commercial company who wants to make
>high-quality, truely competitive UNIX tools to make a profit, and thereby
>provide it a means of continuously improving its products. In my opinion,
>GNU, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of UNIX to
>improve to the point that it either a) dominates over Windows, or b) forces
>Windows to come up with a higher-quality OS for programmers. The problem
>certainly isn't technical, and it isn't because Windows was there first.
>It's because the UNIX community is infested with Marxists.

On the contrary.
Prior to the emergence of Linux and FreeBSD, UNIX offered no threat to
Windows at all. Now Linux is considered in many quartes to the the only
viable contender. Some may name OSX, but it's also a BSD derivitive.

Do you really think that if Linux were never created that Solaris would
now be considered a viable contender against Windows?! No way! Solaris
would still cost thousands.

And as for the GNU tools being considered 'medium-quality UNIX tools', I
know of one company nearby that, when they buy HPUX machines immediately
replace the HPUX tools with GNU tools because the GNU tools work.

Phil

Phil Tomson

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 2:18:37 PM1/17/02
to
In article <mxt18.39532$uA.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,

Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cBr18.34222$uA.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
>Here's a URL with an analysis of the GPL:
>http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3.
>
>Richard Stallman on creativity: "Creativity can be a social contribution,
>but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers
>deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token
>they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs... "
>
>Spoken like a true Communist.
>

Sure, Stallman is on the edge. But consider the large 'middle ground' of
the open source world represented by people like Larry Wall, Linus
Torvalds, Eric Raymond.

Yeah, Stallman is 'out there', but he is the father of free software and
as such he's done a lot of good. But consider the ballancing forces
within the movement.

>If you care for your job and for the health of the software industry, then
>whatever you do, don't support GNU by sending them any kind of support, and
>NEVER, EVER, put a GPL on your own code.

Actually, if you care about the health of the industry perhaps you should
consider releasing your code under GPL (or Artistic, or BSD type license -
I'm not a GPL zealot). Consider: Would the internet as we know it exist
without free, open-source software and open standards? How many software
companies benefit (save money) by using free, open source tools?

Just think of the time that has been saved by not having to reinvent the
wheel in many cases, for example. This efficiency results in economic
benefits (cost savings).

Phil

Phil Tomson

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 2:28:29 PM1/17/02
to
In article <%fC18.47361$JF.4...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,

Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
>news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
>> computer/software industry.
>
>BS. Tell that to the millions of Microsoft users who have something they
>wouldn't otherwise have. Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented
>amounts of cash.
>
>> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
>> Word, C++ or even VB.
>
>Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out to
>be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer. My
>exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
>programmers need into account.

Windows represents the lowest common denominator. It's pop computing, and
it sells. How many good singers are we missing out on because of Brittany
Speers' pop success?

However, you can argue that the Mac was even easier to use than Windows,
but it lost out to Windows. Capitalism is subject to falling into local
minimas.


>I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives. Bill Gates
>got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them ever
>since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
>but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
>
>For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become a
>monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
>have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.

wait a minute, you're the free market guy (at least I've surmised that
based on what you've been saying here) - if Microsoft acheives a monopoly
you won't see all the great features of UNIX in Windows because there will
be no incentive for Micro$oft to put them in.

Why did Billy Gates issue a memo yesterday saying that the main focus of
the company should now be on security? I would argue that it is because
of the pressure they're feeling from Linux - if Windows were the only game
in town he wouldn't care about security.

>
>Of course, that won't happen. From what I've read, Microsoft purposefully
>dumbs down some of their software in order for it not to put some other
>company out of business. So don't blame Microsoft, blame the antitrust laws.

LoL.... This is a waste of time. Bye.

Phil

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 2:54:38 PM1/17/02
to

"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:hsF18.12138$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...

> Sure, Stallman is on the edge. But consider the large 'middle ground' of
> the open source world represented by people like Larry Wall, Linus
> Torvalds, Eric Raymond.
>
> Yeah, Stallman is 'out there', but he is the father of free software and
> as such he's done a lot of good. But consider the ballancing forces
> within the movement.

That is precisely what Stallman wants. It is precisely what is happening.
And it's the worst possible alternative.

What's needed is a flexible, free-market-oriented approach, where progammers
can write these neat tools but retain full rights, so that when they become
popular, they can make a profit from them, thereby freeing them to work on
their pet project full-time. And there should be "open source" when the
authors decide to do that, but they should set the terms so that derived
works still owe someting to them if they ever make money. But with GNU and
GNUish BS around, it makes it much harder to get momentum up for this kind
of alternative.

This is also an example of the government corrupting the industry. They fund
a lot of GNU development. Who can compete with government funded projects?
Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.

> >If you care for your job and for the health of the software industry,
then
> >whatever you do, don't support GNU by sending them any kind of support,
and
> >NEVER, EVER, put a GPL on your own code.
>
> Actually, if you care about the health of the industry perhaps you should
> consider releasing your code under GPL (or Artistic, or BSD type license -
> I'm not a GPL zealot). Consider: Would the internet as we know it exist
> without free, open-source software and open standards? How many software
> companies benefit (save money) by using free, open source tools?

It's impossible to predict how much benefit there would be in eliminating
things like GNU and replacing them with free-market alternatives. You're
merely judging the sequence of events without weighing the alternatives.

> Just think of the time that has been saved by not having to reinvent the
> wheel in many cases, for example. This efficiency results in economic
> benefits (cost savings).

GNU is a false alternative. What could exist doesn't exist, because of GNU.

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 3:00:27 PM1/17/02
to

"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:diF18.12136$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...

> >GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
> >idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights
as
> >programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may
on
> >the free market.
>
> GNU doesn't encourage piracy.

Oh yes they do. They explicitly encourage people to violate
reverse-engineering licenses in order to build clones. Perhaps you should go
read some of their material before arguing with me about this.

> On the contrary.
> Prior to the emergence of Linux and FreeBSD, UNIX offered no threat to
> Windows at all. Now Linux is considered in many quartes to the the only
> viable contender. Some may name OSX, but it's also a BSD derivitive.

No free software will ever be a viable contender with Windows. Not unless
the government steps up its harrassment of Microsoft and its funding of
"free" software (brought to you compliments of higher income taxes).

> Do you really think that if Linux were never created that Solaris would
> now be considered a viable contender against Windows?! No way! Solaris
> would still cost thousands.

I agree with that, but that's because Sun is a crappy company (also, the
government is a big customer, so no surprise there). A better-run company
would do better.

> And as for the GNU tools being considered 'medium-quality UNIX tools', I
> know of one company nearby that, when they buy HPUX machines immediately
> replace the HPUX tools with GNU tools because the GNU tools work.

I say "medium quality" in comparison to Microsoft. People whine about MS,
but for what they're building their tools for, they're extremely nice.

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 3:07:03 PM1/17/02
to

"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:xBF18.12142$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...

> >Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out
to
> >be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer. My
> >exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
> >programmers need into account.
>
> Windows represents the lowest common denominator. It's pop computing, and
> it sells. How many good singers are we missing out on because of Brittany
> Speers' pop success?

Well, my statements are based on my opinion that you can have a powerful
development system and a "pop" system integrated into one, with benefits
flowing either way.

> However, you can argue that the Mac was even easier to use than Windows,
> but it lost out to Windows. Capitalism is subject to falling into local
> minimas.

No, MS offered a better deal than Apple. It wasn't a local minima at all.
Apple was stupid, and the free market gave them what they deserved.

> >I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives. Bill
Gates
> >got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them
ever
> >since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
> >but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
> >
> >For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become
a
> >monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
> >have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.
>
> wait a minute, you're the free market guy (at least I've surmised that
> based on what you've been saying here) - if Microsoft acheives a monopoly
> you won't see all the great features of UNIX in Windows because there will
> be no incentive for Micro$oft to put them in.

The only way for them to become a "monopoly" (without government help) is to
build such a vastly superior product that they squelch all the alternatives.
If they did that, I'd be happy.

> Why did Billy Gates issue a memo yesterday saying that the main focus of
> the company should now be on security? I would argue that it is because
> of the pressure they're feeling from Linux - if Windows were the only game
> in town he wouldn't care about security.

That's a weird interpretation, given that all the viruses are designed to
attack Windows machines, that virus companies are making millions, and that
the attacks seem to be getting worse. It has nothing to do with Linux, and
everything to do with the modern practicalities of having millions of
machines on the internet.

> >Of course, that won't happen. From what I've read, Microsoft purposefully
> >dumbs down some of their software in order for it not to put some other
> >company out of business. So don't blame Microsoft, blame the antitrust
laws.
>
> LoL.... This is a waste of time. Bye.

Go ahead and laugh. I read an article by an ex-MS employee who was pissed
off because his 3D engine didn't get added to IE. Why? MS was afraid of
swiftly killing Netscape.

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 3:12:29 PM1/17/02
to

"Tom Plunket" <to...@fancy.org> wrote in message
news:kd7e4ucue3hgqjp79...@4ax.com...

> Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> > I appreciate Larry Wall. I don't appreciate GNU. Programmers deserve to
be
> > compensated for their efforts. Particularly those who write tools that
> > everyone wants to use, including for-profit companies.
>
> Obviously someone who has no idea what GNU and the FSF are all
> about.
>
> Why haven't I killfiled this joker yet?

I think you're a moron too. I haven't killfiled you either, probably because
it's easy to choose to ignore or reply to your idiocy.

> Oh yeah- education. Nobody says that programmers shouldn't get
> paid. They're saying that code should be free. Big difference.

You'd do a lot better job attacking me if you got your facts straight.

Stallman himself admits that under his scheme, programmers would make
substantially less. But according to his standards, they still ought to be
able to make a reasonable living. How nice for him to dictate to me what a
reasonable living is.

Richard MacDonald

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 3:32:57 PM1/17/02
to
"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:v3G18.42229$uA.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...

>
> No free software will ever be a viable contender with Windows.

Obviously, *better* software has the same problem.

And snipping out of context:

> Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.

I don't. I blame the "law of increasing returns". Same bad result.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/arthur.html?topic=investing_ipos&topic_set=neweconomy


Richard MacDonald

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 3:34:44 PM1/17/02
to
"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:H9G18.42244$uA.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...

>
> The only way for them to become a "monopoly" (without government help) is to
> build such a vastly superior product that they squelch all the alternatives.

Nope, there is another way.
"Law of increasing returns".


Phil Tomson

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 3:53:24 PM1/17/02
to
OK, just one more...

In article <H9G18.42244$uA.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,


Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message

>> >got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them
>ever
>> >since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
>> >but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
>> >
>> >For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become
>a
>> >monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
>> >have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.
>>
>> wait a minute, you're the free market guy (at least I've surmised that
>> based on what you've been saying here) - if Microsoft acheives a monopoly
>> you won't see all the great features of UNIX in Windows because there will
>> be no incentive for Micro$oft to put them in.
>
>The only way for them to become a "monopoly" (without government help) is to
>build such a vastly superior product that they squelch all the alternatives.
>If they did that, I'd be happy.

But Micro$oft has an effective monopoly on the desktop (not the server
space) with Windows (I'd say that the governement found them guilty of
monopolistic practices, but I don't think that would mean anything to you).
Some argue that M$ should be allowed to have a monopoly on the desktop,
that that would just make it easier for everybody - I don't agree. What
you have on the desktop is a monoculture which can be likened to growing
the same type of corn everywhere - what happens when that strain of corn
becomes infected with a virus... there goes the whole crop.

Look up 'network externalities' on google. It's a problem for the free
market. To say that only the government can create a monopoly is
misleading.

Did Micro$oft become a monopoly on the desktop by building a "vastly
superior product" - You'll get a lot of disagreement with that notion.

>
>> Why did Billy Gates issue a memo yesterday saying that the main focus of
>> the company should now be on security? I would argue that it is because
>> of the pressure they're feeling from Linux - if Windows were the only game
>> in town he wouldn't care about security.
>
>That's a weird interpretation, given that all the viruses are designed to
>attack Windows machines, that virus companies are making millions, and that
>the attacks seem to be getting worse. It has nothing to do with Linux, and
>everything to do with the modern practicalities of having millions of
>machines on the internet.
>

Sure viruses abound on Windows, but if Linux didn't exist in the server
space (and if Bill wasn't afraid that there is an outside chance that
it'll make a grab for the desktop), what incentive would Bill have to
improve it? Where would you go to get an alternative? Micro$oft is
feeling a lot of pressure on the security front because a lot of their
customers are making noises about Linux.


The bottom line here is choice. As a developer I have the right to
release my code under an open source license if I want to. And doing so
won't lead to (global warming, global communism, destruction of the ozone
layer,massive unemployment for software engineers, tooth decay, the end
of the world as we know it) as the Micro$oft propaganda machine would
have you believe. The reason Micro$oft is making so much noise about
evils of open source software is because they realize that it's the only
paradigm that can keep them from complete market domination.

The main philosophy of the free software camp is simply that we can all
benefit by sharing code. If I share code with you and you don't share
your code with me then you benefit and I don't. If we both share we can
both benefit by saving time by not having to reinvent the wheel. Think in
terms of code libraries: If I always had to re-implement a hash
table or linked list every time I moved to a new company (because the
old company didn't let me take my code with me) then it would cause a huge
amount of 'friction' in the software development community. Fortunately
there are freely available code libraries with data structures and
algoritms that I can use, but by your argument this is an evil thing - by
your argument I should have to either reimplement the linked list or buy one.

Now that's not to say that all code HAS to be free - it's your choice.

Phil

Phlip

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 4:03:01 PM1/17/02
to
> "The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people
> think." -- Aristotle

My colleague's a polymath with a 20 year computer science resume,
including writing several Smalltalk kernels.

I told him the Subject of this thread, and I wish I had a WAV file of
his response - "Who the HELL is Larry Wall???"

I answered his question using a standard industry joke - "He's the
inventor of executable line noise."

"SNOBOL is executable line noise!"

>sigh< Guess I'l just have to find a way to appreciate (lazy &
hubris-full) programmers who just don't appreciate Larry Wall.

--
Phlip
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?PhlIp
-- In the future everyone will be Andy Warhol for 15 minutes --

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 4:43:43 PM1/17/02
to

"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:8RG18.18$h31....@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...

> But Micro$oft has an effective monopoly on the desktop (not the server
> space) with Windows (I'd say that the governement found them guilty of
> monopolistic practices, but I don't think that would mean anything to
you).

This is false. Apple makes quite a bit of money on the desktop. And MS
doesn't have a monopoly on apps either. MS *is* very succesful, but they
don't have a monopoly, not by a long shot.

> Did Micro$oft become a monopoly on the desktop by building a "vastly
> superior product" - You'll get a lot of disagreement with that notion.

Consumers--who chose MS above other alternatives--think otherwise. Who are
you to dictate to them what they should be buying?

> Sure viruses abound on Windows, but if Linux didn't exist in the server
> space (and if Bill wasn't afraid that there is an outside chance that
> it'll make a grab for the desktop), what incentive would Bill have to
> improve it? Where would you go to get an alternative?

I think you need to educate yourself on the principles of the free market.
If Linux didn't exist and MS was crap, someone would invent another OS. Read
"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", by Ayn Rand.

We'd be better off if Linux were privately owned and promoted by Linus
(using a creative licensing scheme to allow developers to add value and earn
a return), rather than being GPL.

> Micro$oft is
> feeling a lot of pressure on the security front because a lot of their
> customers are making noises about Linux.

There would be choice without Linux. There's Apple. There's BeOS, and
probably others. I like Linux, I just wish Linus had kept full rights and
tried to make a profit.

> The bottom line here is choice. As a developer I have the right to
> release my code under an open source license if I want to. And doing so
> won't lead to (global warming, global communism, destruction of the ozone
> layer,massive unemployment for software engineers, tooth decay, the end
> of the world as we know it) as the Micro$oft propaganda machine would
> have you believe. The reason Micro$oft is making so much noise about
> evils of open source software is because they realize that it's the only
> paradigm that can keep them from complete market domination.

Ha! Their software's not that good. And if you think it is, I don't see why
you're complaining about them.

> The main philosophy of the free software camp is simply that we can all
> benefit by sharing code. If I share code with you and you don't share
> your code with me then you benefit and I don't. If we both share we can
> both benefit by saving time by not having to reinvent the wheel. Think in
> terms of code libraries: If I always had to re-implement a hash
> table or linked list every time I moved to a new company (because the
> old company didn't let me take my code with me) then it would cause a huge
> amount of 'friction' in the software development community. Fortunately
> there are freely available code libraries with data structures and
> algoritms that I can use, but by your argument this is an evil thing - by
> your argument I should have to either reimplement the linked list or buy
one.

I don't argue against licensing schemes to allow for this. Maybe I should
post more details on what I think the alternative to GNU is.

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 4:47:43 PM1/17/02
to

"Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
news:ZxG18.3526$Cj6.105...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

> > Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.
>
> I don't. I blame the "law of increasing returns". Same bad result.
>
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/arthur.html?topic=investing_ipos&top
ic_set=neweconomy

"Law of increasing returns" is just old economic fallacies repackaged.

Read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", by Ayn Rand, and check out the
following:

http://www.capitalism.org/
http://www.moraldefense.com/

jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 5:32:49 PM1/17/02
to
In article <8RG18.18$h31....@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com>,

Phil Tomson <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote:
>OK, just one more...
>
>In article <H9G18.42244$uA.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
>Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
>>> >got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them
>

<snip>

>But Micro$oft has an effective monopoly on the desktop (not the server
>space) with Windows (I'd say that the governement found them guilty of
>monopolistic practices, but I don't think that would mean anything to you).
>Some argue that M$ should be allowed to have a monopoly on the desktop,
>that that would just make it easier for everybody - I don't agree. What
>you have on the desktop is a monoculture which can be likened to growing
>the same type of corn everywhere - what happens when that strain of corn
>becomes infected with a virus... there goes the whole crop.
>
>Look up 'network externalities' on google. It's a problem for the free
>market. To say that only the government can create a monopoly is
>misleading.
>
>Did Micro$oft become a monopoly on the desktop by building a "vastly
>superior product" - You'll get a lot of disagreement with that notion.

MS got dominant market share by offering a better price/performance ratio early
on. Back in 1987 - when I bought a PC - I looked at Macs first as a former
Apple II user. $5K for a Mac. 9" screen, 10 MB hard drive

PC with DOS - $3k, 40 MB hard drive, 13" screen

I went with the PC. As with most consumers of the day, I did <not> rate
the Mac's superior ease of use as being worth $2k. Apple stayed with that
price disparity <for years>, and IBM tried to lock OS/2 users into the PS/2
proprietary hardware channel. Again, consumers went with the better
price/performance solution.

When you say Windows is 'worse', you have to also ask - 'worse than what' - and
ask it in consumer terms. Mac was way too expensive for the early market.
OS/2 was as well. Now, Linux may be free - but it's way too hard for the
average person to set up.

simple example - say you decide that you would rather have 800x600 resolution
than 1024x768. On windows, there's a pop up menu on the desktop. On Linux,
there's text editing of the XFree86 config file. Try explaining that to
someone who just wants to do some photo editing.

>
>>
>>> Why did Billy Gates issue a memo yesterday saying that the main focus of
>>> the company should now be on security? I would argue that it is because
>>> of the pressure they're feeling from Linux - if Windows were the only game
>>> in town he wouldn't care about security.
>>
>>That's a weird interpretation, given that all the viruses are designed to
>>attack Windows machines, that virus companies are making millions, and that
>>the attacks seem to be getting worse. It has nothing to do with Linux, and
>>everything to do with the modern practicalities of having millions of
>>machines on the internet.
>>
>
>Sure viruses abound on Windows, but if Linux didn't exist in the server
>space (and if Bill wasn't afraid that there is an outside chance that
>it'll make a grab for the desktop), what incentive would Bill have to
>improve it? Where would you go to get an alternative? Micro$oft is
>feeling a lot of pressure on the security front because a lot of their
>customers are making noises about Linux.
>

That's the beauty of the market at work - there are alternatives. Just not
as many consumer oriented ones. Had Apple priced intelligently years ago,
things might well be different

>Phil
>


--
James A. Robertson
Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
jar...@mail.com
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>

Universe

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 5:50:23 PM1/17/02
to
"Cagdas Ozgenc" <co...@antispam.cornell.edu> wrote:

>I agree with you. It seems that Windows is only criticised by computer geeks
>like us. We are not the pontential customers, so MS doesn't give a f***.

As long as the practices of underhanded robber bully baron competitive
crushing and bending people over in the marketplace are condoned - as
by US DoJ - then you're right M$ doesn't have to give a f***.

M$ floods technological mediocrity because it rakes the most bucks and
they're allowed to robber baron style to stomp out better technology
by snipping genitals.

The more people, state governments, and organizations buck against
monopoly bully barons, the less they'll be able to get away with their
(ugly)**10, rapacious and criminal acts.

>AOL is the leader in ISP then it clearly means the potential customers are
>not Einsteins. Well, let the tech-losers sitting at the table peeking
>through their 10" focals into a cheap OEM monitor cry for their pathetic
>lives, meanwhile I better go figure out a way to make some cash.

Never dawned on you that the primary reason for low pay, and cheap OEM
monitors are the crimes against humanity committed by the
*socio-economic domination* and *political rule* of corporate-banking
monopoly capitalist fat cat, bully barons and their lapdog, bribed
politicians?

And if you think I, or most other sanely thinking scientists,
engineers and philosophers are like that, you've lived a far narrower,
and sterile life than you think.

Elliott
--
* Excelsior! * Avanti! *
* Ever Onward and Upward to an Exploitation Free World *
* Empiricist Free Science & Conservative Free Art *
3w.radix.net/~universe @ Elliott, 2002

______________________________________________________________________

Universe

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 7:12:26 PM1/17/02
to
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Richard Stallman on creativity: "Creativity can be a social contribution,
>but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers
>deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token
>they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs... "
>
>Spoken like a true Communist.

A damn perceptive communist!

Wissler, if it's true it's f****ing true!

Who's says it, or why they say it is irf***ingrevelant to the truth of
their statements.

Your bullsh**ing beliefs give you the illusion that whatever you
believe is it, no questions asked. To the silly point of rejecting
the truth based upon who says it. T-h-a-t i-s n-u-t-s !-!-!

Elliott
--
You prove correctness by correspondence with specific contextual facts
validated by practice.
--
Truth is proven by _long term_ validation in practice.

Universe

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 7:34:13 PM1/17/02
to
"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cBr18.34222$uA.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
>Here's a URL with an analysis of the GPL:
>http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3.
>
>Richard Stallman on creativity: "Creativity can be a social contribution,
>but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers
>deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token
>they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs... "
>
>Spoken like a true Communist.
>
>If you care for your job and for the health of the software industry, then
>whatever you do, don't support GNU by sending them any kind of support, and
>NEVER, EVER, put a GPL on your own code.

WILL YOU EVER BE MORE THAN 50% IN THE RATIO OF LINES OF
CONCRETE SUBSTANCE DIVIDED BY LINES OF HOT F****ING AIR??!!

As many, many, if not most think you should try to do! I seriously
doubt it! You are more interested in attempting to wreak havoc due to
your psychosis than anyf***ing else.

You really, really, really look like a horses pettute! Far from the
mental mega-giant your psychosis is an expression and which reinforces
you to fool yourself into believing!

Elliott
--
Be scientific at all points, in all directions!
Forward to a Bright OO Simulationist Future!
3w.radix.net/~universe *^* @ Elliott, 2002

Daniel Parker

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 7:45:19 PM1/17/02
to

"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3EH18.48383$JF.4...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...

>
> "Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
> news:ZxG18.3526$Cj6.105...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.
> >
> > I don't. I blame the "law of increasing returns". Same bad result.
> >
>
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/arthur.html?topic=investing_ipos&top
> ic_set=neweconomy
>
> "Law of increasing returns" is just old economic fallacies repackaged.
>
How much extra do you think it would cost Microsoft to ship one more unit of
Windows? And another? And another? What is your argument for believing
that the marginal cost curve would eventually rise?

Regards,
Daniel Parker
https://sourceforge.net/projects/presentingxml/


Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 8:57:43 PM1/17/02
to

"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
news:dlpe4ugikb8c60lre...@4ax.com...

> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Richard Stallman on creativity: "Creativity can be a social contribution,
> >but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers
> >deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same
token
> >they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs...
"
> >
> >Spoken like a true Communist.
>
> A damn perceptive communist!
>
> Wissler, if it's true it's f****ing true!
>
> Who's says it, or why they say it is irf***ingrevelant to the truth of
> their statements.
>
> Your bullsh**ing beliefs give you the illusion that whatever you
> believe is it, no questions asked. To the silly point of rejecting
> the truth based upon who says it. T-h-a-t i-s n-u-t-s !-!-!

Be careful Elliott. You might get my ire up again. You wouldn't want me to
start asking you questions you can't answer, now would you?

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 8:59:35 PM1/17/02
to

"Daniel Parker" <danielp@spam?nothanks.windupbird.com> wrote in message
news:ndK18.29483$4i5.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...

That's not the entire substance of the so-called law.

Daniel Parker

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 11:56:26 PM1/17/02
to

"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bkL18.986$Lj2....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...

>
> "Daniel Parker" <danielp@spam?nothanks.windupbird.com> wrote in message
> news:ndK18.29483$4i5.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > >
> > How much extra do you think it would cost Microsoft to ship one more
unit
> of
> > Windows? And another? And another? What is your argument for
believing
> > that the marginal cost curve would eventually rise?
>
> That's not the entire substance of the so-called law.
>
Sorry, I should have said declining average cost curve, not declining
marginal cost curve. It's been sixteen years since I left the economics
profession for this one. But for what it's worth, a declining average cost
curve _is_ what "increasing returns to scale" means in the economics
literature. And it does seem to me to characterize significant parts of the
software industry, as the extra cost of cutting another CD and supporting
one more customer cannot be that large. I would be interested in hearing an
argument to the contrary.

Regards,
Daniel Parker


Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 12:32:49 AM1/18/02
to

"Daniel Parker" <danielp@spam?nothanks.windupbird.com> wrote in message
news:NUN18.29881$4i5.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...

Pardon me. I think I've allowed this to get off-track.

I originally said:

"Law of increasing returns" is just old economic fallacies repackaged.

I should have said this: The so-called "law of increasing returns" is a
flawed concept. It's a fabrication, used as a means of providing a
pseudo-justification for bad economics.

Before I go further, I want to state the fact that whatever the truth is in
economics, it does not change morality: Economics doesn't trump an
individual's right to property. So this little diversion is irrelevant to
the broader questions about Microsoft and antitrust. Their software is
theirs, and the government has absolutely no right to barge in telling them
what they will and won't do with it. See http://www.moraldefense.com for
more information.

To repeat, the ethics of the situation is the important point here. The
technical details of economics are meaningless outside the context of
morality. "Competition" is not a value if you've thrown out all values in
order to achieve it.


Of course the CD's get cheaper as you produce more. The reason why is
economies of scale, accounted for by standard capitalist economic theory.
Mass production has always been cheaper, per unit, than one-of-a-kind
production. So the "law of increasing returns" is merely usurping a standard
economic concept for a vile purpose.

The "law of increasing returns" purports to override the law of diminishing
returns. But the law of diminishing returns has only ever applied to a fixed
set of physical resources: for any fixed set of resources, putting more
effort into extracting value out of them results in diminishing returns.

Even if we regard customers as a resource (they aren't, and it's fallacious
to regard them that way in economic theory), even if we take into account
economies of scale, there are only so many customers. There are diminishing
returns in trying to get them to buy your product. Yes, the CD's get cheaper
and cheaper, but the marketing costs get more and more expensive as you try
to gain more market share for a given product (it may get cheaper as it
gains popularity, but past a certain point there are only customers left who
simply don't like your product--convincing them will be expensive indeed).

Cagdas Ozgenc

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 2:14:09 AM1/18/02
to
No wonder you cannot control your urge to reply. Think about the way you
act, loser.

"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message

news:8bje4u4brbhjb135u...@4ax.com...

Dmitry A. Kazakov

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 5:06:09 AM1/18/02
to
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:47:00 -0500, "Mike Smith"
<smi...@michaelsmithHATESSPAM.org> wrote:

>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
>news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for

>> computer/software industry. It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,


>> Word, C++ or even VB.
>

>And in what way does this imply that the free market "does not work"? *You*
>don't decide what "works" or doesn't "work"; the *market* (which consists of
>*everyone* who seeks to buy and/or sell products) does. The market chooses
>what it wants, based on the criteria that are important to those who
>comprise the marketplace.

Exactly. It is the market, which wants Windows! Now, either Windows is
excellent or it is something wrong with that market.

>If they choose Wintel and VB, then it's because that's what works out best *for them*.

Let's say, they believe in that.

This is the greatest problem of the humankind, I mean the democracy
vs. oligarchy problem.

The democratic model does not work in case of software because
software is very close to science [at least by now]. Alas scientific
questions cannot be decided by voting.

The oligarchic model is so disgusting that it isn't worth to discuss.

> Who are *you* (or Stallman, or any other individual) to dictate otherwise?

Nobody, as well as all other players of free market. And note that
0*n=0.

No matter how many idiots you take they won't produce the theory of
gravitation. That's the problem.

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov

Dmitry A. Kazakov

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 5:47:43 AM1/18/02
to
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:40:43 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
<thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
>news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
>> computer/software industry.
>

>BS. Tell that to the millions of Microsoft users who have something they
>wouldn't otherwise have.

What would not they have otherwise? Please, prove that without
Microsoft there wouldn't be home computers. As far as I know Microsoft
has invented nothing, except that famous blue screen.

>Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented amounts of cash.

Is that Microsoft which pays us? [maybe you, but definitely not me
(:-))]

Then a more phylosophic question, is it really so good that we invest
so much in software? And what for SOFTWARE!

Wouldn't be better to explore the solar system, or to develop fusion
reactors, or to reforest Sahara?

>> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
>> Word, C++ or even VB.
>

>Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out to
>be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer.

Oh my. Have you even tried Windows as a game platform?

>My exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
>programmers need into account.

Should it? The millions of Microsoft users ain't programmers!

>I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives.

Why on earth programmers, but not bicyclists? Have you made a
sociological research?

[BTW, Marxists are not theives, they are robbers (:-))]

>Bill Gates
>got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them ever


>since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
>but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
>
>For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become a
>monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
>have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.

Oh yes, vi would definitely add glance to Windows (:-)). Seriously,
there is POSIX, Cygwin, gcc, OpenGL, X11 under Windows. Well, all that
works not very well, but what else someone could expect from Windows?
(:-))

What else do you need?

>Of course, that won't happen. From what I've read, Microsoft purposefully
>dumbs down some of their software in order for it not to put some other
>company out of business. So don't blame Microsoft, blame the antitrust laws.

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov

jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 8:29:25 AM1/18/02
to
In article <3c47f56b....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,

Dmitry A. Kazakov <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:40:43 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
><thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
>>news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>>> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
>>> computer/software industry.
>>
>>BS. Tell that to the millions of Microsoft users who have something they
>>wouldn't otherwise have.
>
>What would not they have otherwise? Please, prove that without
>Microsoft there wouldn't be home computers. As far as I know Microsoft
>has invented nothing, except that famous blue screen.
>

What they 'invented' was a product they made available at a price/performance
level that made home computing viable for large numbers of people. DOS
(and later Windows) enabled the mass market for the PC space by driving
prices down.

>>Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented amounts of cash.
>
>Is that Microsoft which pays us? [maybe you, but definitely not me
>(:-))]
>
>Then a more phylosophic question, is it really so good that we invest
>so much in software? And what for SOFTWARE!
>
>Wouldn't be better to explore the solar system, or to develop fusion
>reactors, or to reforest Sahara?
>

When you run your very own company, you can make those calls. Until then,
you get to make choices based on other people's (i.e., the market's) choices.

>>> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
>>> Word, C++ or even VB.
>>
>>Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out to
>>be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer.
>
>Oh my. Have you even tried Windows as a game platform?
>

Yes. What is bad about it?

>>My exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
>>programmers need into account.
>
>Should it? The millions of Microsoft users ain't programmers!
>
>>I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives.
>
>Why on earth programmers, but not bicyclists? Have you made a
>sociological research?
>

Sigh. Windows is a consumer product, just like AOL. As such, it has
to be simple enough for the average consumer to use without frustration.

Developers are <not> 'average consumers' in that sense.

>[BTW, Marxists are not theives, they are robbers (:-))]
>
>>Bill Gates
>>got burned by them early in his career, and has decided to ignore them ever
>>since. I can't blame him if that's what he's doing. It serves them right,
>>but unfortunately, good programmers miss out as well.
>>
>>For the record, I'd love nothing more than for Microsoft to really become a
>>monopoly (it obviously isn't one now). Because that would mean they would
>>have ended up implementing all the features I miss from UNIX.
>
>Oh yes, vi would definitely add glance to Windows (:-)). Seriously,
>there is POSIX, Cygwin, gcc, OpenGL, X11 under Windows. Well, all that
>works not very well, but what else someone could expect from Windows?
>(:-))
>
>What else do you need?
>
>>Of course, that won't happen. From what I've read, Microsoft purposefully
>>dumbs down some of their software in order for it not to put some other
>>company out of business. So don't blame Microsoft, blame the antitrust laws.
>
>Regards,
>Dmitry Kazakov

Richard MacDonald

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 10:01:25 AM1/18/02
to
"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3EH18.48383$JF.4...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...

>
> "Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
> news:ZxG18.3526$Cj6.105...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.
> >
> > I don't. I blame the "law of increasing returns". Same bad result.
> >
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/arthur.html?topic=investing_ipos&top
> ic_set=neweconomy
>
> "Law of increasing returns" is just old economic fallacies repackaged.

And you say I'm predictable.
I've done quite a bit of nonlinear dynamic math.
This law is so obvious in that world I was surprised it was new to economists
when I first heard of it.

> Read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", by Ayn Rand, and check out the
> following:
>
> http://www.capitalism.org/
> http://www.moraldefense.com/

Show me where these refs contradict the basic math of the law of increasing returns.


Richard MacDonald

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 10:10:00 AM1/18/02
to
"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3EH18.48383$JF.4...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...

>
> "Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
> news:ZxG18.3526$Cj6.105...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > Don't blame the free-market for lack of alternatives.
> >
> > I don't. I blame the "law of increasing returns". Same bad result.
> >
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/arthur.html?topic=investing_ipos&top
> ic_set=neweconomy
>
> "Law of increasing returns" is just old economic fallacies repackaged.

Less true today but relevant 10-15 yrs ago:
I am a developer with a new product idea.
I can write it for the Mac or Win/PC.
With the Mac, the effort with be half, but the customers will be 1/10.
With the PC, the effort will be doubled, but 10 times the customers.
The business decision is therefore to write for the PC. (Free-market forces at work.)
Now my great app makes people buy PCs to run it.
Now for my next app, its 11 times the customers.

Some "economic fallacy".
I read your followups. You're getting further off track.
The relevant line is at the top of this post:
"The free-market allows a lack of alternatives."


Dmitry A. Kazakov

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 10:20:47 AM1/18/02
to
On 18 Jan 2002 08:29:25 -0500,
jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net wrote:

>In article <3c47f56b....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
>Dmitry A. Kazakov <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:40:43 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
>><thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
>>>news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>>
>>>> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
>>>> computer/software industry.
>>>
>>>BS. Tell that to the millions of Microsoft users who have something they
>>>wouldn't otherwise have.
>>
>>What would not they have otherwise? Please, prove that without
>>Microsoft there wouldn't be home computers. As far as I know Microsoft
>>has invented nothing, except that famous blue screen.
>>
>What they 'invented' was a product they made available at a price/performance
>level that made home computing viable for large numbers of people.

Is that an invention? Isn't PC actually called IBM PC? And as far as I
recall the best price/performance always had DEC. Where is DEC now?

> DOS (and later Windows) enabled the mass market for the PC space by driving
>prices down.

I do not see how MS-DOS [as compared with CP/M or dozens other monitor
programs existed that time] enabled the mass market for the PC.
Numbers of alternatives existed all the time. It is the mass marked
which chose the worst of them.

>>>Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented amounts of cash.
>>
>>Is that Microsoft which pays us? [maybe you, but definitely not me
>>(:-))]
>>
>>Then a more phylosophic question, is it really so good that we invest
>>so much in software? And what for SOFTWARE!
>>
>>Wouldn't be better to explore the solar system, or to develop fusion
>>reactors, or to reforest Sahara?
>
>When you run your very own company, you can make those calls.

Those were questions, not calls. But wait, is there a company capable
to design a fusion reactor?

>Until then, you get to make choices based on other people's (i.e., the market's) choices.

If you are trying to say that there is no free choice because
Microsoft is a monopolist, then I agree with you. But do not tell me
that this is the reason why we should also be deprived of the right to
think. It is too much even for dear Microsoft.

>>>> It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
>>>> Word, C++ or even VB.
>>>
>>>Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out to
>>>be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer.
>>
>>Oh my. Have you even tried Windows as a game platform?
>
>Yes. What is bad about it?

No further questions.

>>>My exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of what
>>>programmers need into account.
>>
>>Should it? The millions of Microsoft users ain't programmers!
>>
>>>I have a theory as to why. Many programmers are Marxist theives.
>>
>>Why on earth programmers, but not bicyclists? Have you made a
>>sociological research?
>
>Sigh. Windows is a consumer product, just like AOL. As such, it has
>to be simple enough for the average consumer to use without frustration.

I do not see why a friendly user interface should excuse or lead to
low quality. Flying an airliner you'd better concentrate on its
quality and not on how friendly stewardesses are.

Very soon software will massively reach the areas where it would
directly threaten human lives. I just wonder which excuses will be
found then.

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov

Ian

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 10:33:18 AM1/18/02
to
In article <v3G18.42229$uA.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,

Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> "Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:diF18.12136$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
>> >GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with the
>> >idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our rights
> as
>> >programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we may
> on
>> >the free market.
>>
>> GNU doesn't encourage piracy.
>
> Oh yes they do. They explicitly encourage people to violate
> reverse-engineering licenses in order to build clones. Perhaps you should go
> read some of their material before arguing with me about this.

At least in my country (and in fact the whole of the European Union) reverse
engineering for the purpose of providing interoperability is allowed by
law. No license agreement that I didn's sign with a real autograph (and
I believe even if I did sign it) of whatever company stands above the
law. These license agreements are therefore bogus.

In general, the open source advocates that I know of, do not encourage
piracy and they do not encourage breaking the law.

Ian.

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 11:54:00 AM1/18/02
to

"Ian" <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote in message
news:slrna4gfr...@jester.vuurwerk.nl...

> In article <v3G18.42229$uA.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
> Shayne Wissler wrote:
> >
> > "Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:diF18.12136$WM6.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> >
> >> >GNU is destructive to our industry, because it inclucates people with
the
> >> >idea that software piracy is virtuous. GNU wants to strip away our
rights
> > as
> >> >programmers to set the terms of use for our work, and to earn what we
may
> > on
> >> >the free market.
> >>
> >> GNU doesn't encourage piracy.
> >
> > Oh yes they do. They explicitly encourage people to violate
> > reverse-engineering licenses in order to build clones. Perhaps you
should go
> > read some of their material before arguing with me about this.
>
> At least in my country (and in fact the whole of the European Union)
reverse
> engineering for the purpose of providing interoperability is allowed by
> law. No license agreement that I didn's sign with a real autograph (and
> I believe even if I did sign it) of whatever company stands above the
> law. These license agreements are therefore bogus.
>

Do you think that just because it's legal to own slaves, you're in your
rights to own one?

It is immoral to agree to the license terms and then violate them. Just
because the laws are immoral doesn't give you a right to violate your
agreement.

Shayne Wissler

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 12:03:03 PM1/18/02
to

"Richard MacDonald" <rmacd...@appliedreasoning.com> wrote in message
news:cVW18.1959$kc7.103...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

Whoops. Thanks for getting me back on track.

Your so-called law has nothing to do with the free market. It has to do with
the fact that established infrastructure provides economic benefits by
virtue of the fact that it's established. This would be true regardless of
whether the market was free or whether it was socialist or communist.

Take the railroad. It's extremely expensive to set up tracks. If someone
decides they don't like the distance between the rails later, it's unlikely
to be worth it to rip up all the old rails or replace them with new rails.
In order to justify such a huge expense, there'd better be a huge economic
benefit from moving the rails. Otherwise, it's idiocy to rip them up, even
if someone says they'd be able to go 20% faster if the rails were 10"
further from each other. Again, this has nothing to do with capitalism vs.
socialism; it has to do with the fact of the expense.

So don't blame the free market for this one. If you want to blame something,
blame reality. Now where does that put you?

Richard MacDonald

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 1:06:26 PM1/18/02
to
"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bzY18.4356$5Z6.40458@rwcrnsc54...

>
> So don't blame the free market for this one. If you want to blame something,
> blame reality. Now where does that put you?
>
Where I already was. Just someone not willing to proclaim the free-market
as the perfect ideal. YMMV.


Universe

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 1:11:21 PM1/18/02
to
Ian <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote:

> In general, the open source advocates that I know of, do not encourage
> piracy and they do not encourage breaking the law.

I don't give a damn about the bourgeois property rights historically used
to enrich a handful while sticking up everyone else in society. It was
the history of society's ideas and society's collective educational
systems, material technology and social production processes that made the
invention by the inventor even remotely possible.

Ahoy mateys! Lets' steal a bright exploitation free future!

Elliott
--
http://www.radix.net/~universe ~*~ Enjoy! ~*~
Hail OO Modelling! * Hail the Wireless Web!
@Elliott 2001 my comments ~ newsgroups+bitnet OK

Phil Tomson

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 2:14:49 PM1/18/02
to
In article <IqY18.4399$Lj2....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,

No. Do you believe that just because the license tries to take away your
right to reverse-engineer that it's legal for them to restrict this right?
It sounds like the EU has protected the right to reverse engineer. Since
we've lost it expect all manner of incompatible, proprietary protocols to
emerge from Redmond.

>
>It is immoral to agree to the license terms and then violate them. Just
>because the laws are immoral doesn't give you a right to violate your
>agreement.

The problem is that the laws have been manipulated by the big
corporations so that as soon as you open up the box you're considered to
have 'agreed' to the license without even having had the oportunity to
read it. Perhaps the laws in Europe have not been so corrupted yet.

Is it moral to force me to accept a license without having an oportunity
to read it?

Shayne: I used to be a Libertarian, but the more I looked at the
computing industry and the domination of Micro$oft the more I realized
that Libertarianism is naive: the philosophy assumes that only governments
are evil and ignores the fact that corporations can attain
'government-like' powers and abuse them as well. So we need checks and
balances between governement and corporations because they are both
capable of acting in evil ways.

Phil

jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 2:54:59 PM1/18/02
to
In article <a29og9$p6v$3...@news1.Radix.Net>,

Universe <univ...@radix.undonet> wrote:
>Ian <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote:
>
>> In general, the open source advocates that I know of, do not encourage
>> piracy and they do not encourage breaking the law.
>
>I don't give a damn about the bourgeois property rights historically used
>to enrich a handful while sticking up everyone else in society. It was
>the history of society's ideas and society's collective educational
>systems, material technology and social production processes that made the
>invention by the inventor even remotely possible.
>

Please show an example of a society that did not protect property rights and
simultaneously had a free people.


>Ahoy mateys! Lets' steal a bright exploitation free future!
>
>Elliott
>--
> http://www.radix.net/~universe ~*~ Enjoy! ~*~
> Hail OO Modelling! * Hail the Wireless Web!
> @Elliott 2001 my comments ~ newsgroups+bitnet OK
>

Ian

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 4:34:58 PM1/18/02
to
In article <IqY18.4399$Lj2....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,

It's not legal, so it is pointless to question this. But no, I wouldn't be
at that. However, your point was that the open source movement (perhaps
generalizing your opinion a little too much, but you get my drift)
encourages piracy. The open source movement does not encourage me to
own slaves, and they do not have slaves themselves, on the contrary.
So what point are you trying to make here with regard to your "open
source people encourage piracy" statement?

>
> It is immoral to agree to the license terms and then violate them. Just
> because the laws are immoral doesn't give you a right to violate your
> agreement.

And who decides that the laws are immoral? You!? Whatever you think of the
laws, they're there, live with em or run for president/congressman and
change them. Morality is also a personal opinion, what I think is morally
right doesn't mean that someone else has to feel the same way, but
the law is the law, like it or not. And *no* company has the moral or
the legal right to take away rights that I have by law, wether it be
a petty law or a constitutional one, because once we allow that, where
do we draw the line?

Ian.

Mike Smith

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 4:40:37 PM1/18/02
to
"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
news:dlpe4ugikb8c60lre...@4ax.com...

> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Richard Stallman on creativity: "Creativity can be a social contribution,
> >but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers
> >deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same
token
> >they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs...
"
> >
> >Spoken like a true Communist.
>
> A damn perceptive communist!
>
> Wissler, if it's true it's f****ing true!

Why is it true? Because Stallman says so? 'Cuz I certainly can't think of
any *logical* justification for it.

--
Mike Smith


Mike Smith

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 4:41:49 PM1/18/02
to
"Universe" <univ...@directvinternet.undocom> wrote in message
news:j2qe4ukjc6kp75tvo...@4ax.com...

>
> WILL YOU EVER BE MORE THAN 50% IN THE RATIO OF LINES OF
> CONCRETE SUBSTANCE DIVIDED BY LINES OF HOT F****ING AIR??!!
>
> As many, many, if not most think you should try to do! I seriously
> doubt it! You are more interested in attempting to wreak havoc due to
> your psychosis than anyf***ing else.
>
> You really, really, really look like a horses pettute! Far from the
> mental mega-giant your psychosis is an expression and which reinforces
> you to fool yourself into believing!

Um, read this post again, Elliott. If anyone around here is looking like a
horse's ass right now, it's *you*. Blow your stack much?

--
Mike Smith


Mike Smith

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 4:48:07 PM1/18/02
to
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
news:3c47ef15....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:47:00 -0500, "Mike Smith"
> <smi...@michaelsmithHATESSPAM.org> wrote:
>
> >"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
> >news:3c469af5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> >>
> >> This is exactly the problem. The free market does not work for
> >> computer/software industry. It chooses the worst case: x86, Windows,
> >> Word, C++ or even VB.
> >
> >And in what way does this imply that the free market "does not work"?
*You*
> >don't decide what "works" or doesn't "work"; the *market* (which consists
of
> >*everyone* who seeks to buy and/or sell products) does. The market
chooses
> >what it wants, based on the criteria that are important to those who
> >comprise the marketplace.
>
> Exactly. It is the market, which wants Windows! Now, either Windows is
> excellent or it is something wrong with that market.

Just because you *say* this, doesn't make it true. Windows is not
excellent; it's *good enough*. And *good enough* is what the market wants.
Excellence costs too damn much, and the marginal benefit of excellence isn't
sufficient to justify it. (At least not *right now*; of course, the better
the product the market becomes accustomed to, the better the product it will
*want*, and so quality will spiral upward to meet demand.)

> >If they choose Wintel and VB, then it's because that's what works out
best *for them*.
>
> Let's say, they believe in that.
>
> This is the greatest problem of the humankind, I mean the democracy
> vs. oligarchy problem.

What "problem"? What's the "problem"?

> The democratic model does not work in case of software because
> software is very close to science [at least by now]. Alas scientific
> questions cannot be decided by voting.

What do you mean "does not work"? Software is not a science; it's a
*product*, paid for by people to suit their needs. Why *shouldn't* they get
what they want? (Keep in mind, of course, that there really is no "they" -
"they" is comprised of many thousands of *individual* "hes" and "shes", each
of whom has needs and some amount of willingness to pay for those needs.)

> No matter how many idiots you take they won't produce the theory of
> gravitation. That's the problem.

Again, there's no "problem" here. Gravitation is not a *product* in a
marketplace; software *is*.

--
Mike Smith

Universe

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 4:48:56 PM1/18/02
to
jar...@pcp256047pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net wrote:

>In article <a29og9$p6v$3...@news1.Radix.Net>,
>Universe <univ...@radix.undonet> wrote:
>>Ian <ai...@jester.vuurwerk.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> In general, the open source advocates that I know of, do not encourage
>>> piracy and they do not encourage breaking the law.
>>
>>I don't give a damn about the bourgeois property rights historically used
>>to enrich a handful while sticking up everyone else in society. It was
>>the history of society's ideas and society's collective educational
>>systems, material technology and social production processes that made the
>>invention by the inventor even remotely possible.

>Please show an example of a society that did not protect property rights and
>simultaneously had a free people.

Genuine freedom is freedom from exploitation and self-determination.
Despite the illusions propagated by capitalist rule, Bill of Rights
freedoms are a small part of it, not the whole enchilada. It is an
important part, but while a necessary condition for freedom is not
sufficient to be fully and truly free.

Genuinely true and real freedom for the people is where they are free
from economic want, and from economic exploitation by capitalists -
private appropriation by capitalists of surplus wealth created by
workers in production (wealth realized beyond that invested by the
capitalists).

It also means things like being free from the suffering and loss life
of being forced under pain of prison to fight wars determining
division of "booty" - resources and sections of the world - by real
pirates and thieves - i.e. the monopoly corporate-finance bourgeoisie
(capitalists) and their bribed lapdog politicians.

There has never been a society where bourgeois property right was
totally wiped out. That can only happen with the complete abolition
of classes. Before that happens it plays generally an increasingly
smaller role from the time of socialist revolution onward to the
complete abolition of classes.

From the time of internationalist oriented, socialist revolutionary
overthrow of the dictatorship of the monopoly corporate-finance
bourgeoisie there is required a long step by step process of constant
struggle against the overthrown capitalists tied with socializing
transformation of all aspects and domains of society - especially
including right in the government and party - in order to finally
abolish classes and totally eliminate bourgeois property rights. This
is the achievement of genuine communism - the complete absence of
classes and bourgeois property rights.

This is what the Mao and the Gang of Four were doing in leading the
Chinese Cultural Revolution from '66 to early '70's. As you see they
lost. So it is a back and forth, not straight line process.

>>Ahoy mateys! Lets' steal a bright exploitation free future!

Elliott
--

Universe

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 5:04:29 PM1/18/02
to
"Mike Smith" <smi...@michaelsmithHATESSPAM.org> wrote:

>Just because you *say* this, doesn't make it true. Windows is not
>excellent; it's *good enough*. And *good enough* is what the market wants.

!?!

It's incredible that you really believe that.

Elliott
--
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
~ Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law

Mike Smith

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 5:05:40 PM1/18/02
to
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmi...@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
news:3c47f56b....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

>
> What would not they have otherwise? Please, prove that without
> Microsoft there wouldn't be home computers.

If not Microsoft, then some other company, that perceived what the
marketplace wanted, and could bring it to them.

> As far as I know Microsoft
> has invented nothing, except that famous blue screen.
>
> >Tell that to the programmers earning unprecedented amounts of cash.
>
> Is that Microsoft which pays us? [maybe you, but definitely not me
> (:-))]

I don't work for MS either, but yeah, I'm doing all right. As are, I would
imagine, software developers in lots of places in the world (relative to
what the people around them are getting paid).

> Then a more phylosophic question, is it really so good that we invest
> so much in software? And what for SOFTWARE!
>
> Wouldn't be better to explore the solar system, or to develop fusion
> reactors, or to reforest Sahara?

That's not for you to decide. If you want to reforest the Sahara, then take
*your* money and do it. You have no claim on the use anyone else's money;
that's up to *them*.

> >
> >Those aren't the worst case. Windows isn't as bad as people make it out
to
> >be either. It's simply fantastic if you're a home user or a gamer.
>
> Oh my. Have you even tried Windows as a game platform?

Oh my. Have *you*? Other than toy consoles, what other game platforms are
even worth talking about?

> >My exclusive complaint about Windows is that it doesn't take enough of
what
> >programmers need into account.
>
> Should it? The millions of Microsoft users ain't programmers!

It should, if Microsoft wants people to write good apps for Windows. (Of
course, that is by no means a foregone conclusion...)

--
Mike Smith


Mike Smith

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 5:13:32 PM1/18/02