http://www.cabochon.com/~stevey/blog-rants/tour-de-babel.html
But sadly they don't have any more openings for lisp.
http://tinyurl.com/zaewf
What other major companies have posts for lisp?
Alok
Alok wrote:
> http://www.cabochon.com/~stevey/blog-rants/tour-de-babel.html
>
> But sadly they don't have any more openings for lisp.
> http://tinyurl.com/zaewf
> What other major companies have posts for lisp?
>
> Alok
A quote from the web page linked above.
"The original brilliant guys and gals here only allowed two languages
in Amazon's hallowed source repository: C and Lisp."
Alok wrote:
> http://www.cabochon.com/~stevey/blog-rants/tour-de-babel.html
>
> But sadly they don't have any more openings for lisp.
> http://tinyurl.com/zaewf
> What other major companies have posts for lisp?
I'd take that with a grain of salt. Partly because of the following
link (though of course the author could be an impostor).
http://reddit.com/info/2q5z/comments/c2qlu
It's unfortunately hard to verify what people say about companies like
Amazon, as they don't open their internals for us to verify; might as
well call them "secret societies". ;)
Tayssir
--
Interesting Yale anarchist interviewed on Charlie Rose show, on
internationalism and authority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uajHCIU876I#
Alok wrote:
> http://www.cabochon.com/~stevey/blog-rants/tour-de-babel.html
Quoting the article, they are using more languages:
| C, C++, Lisp, Java, Perl, (all languages we use at Amazon),
And looks like they don't use Lisp very much today, because they have a
large C++ code base:
| We have 50 million lines of C++ code.
| and was expanding at 8 million lines a quarter
and:
| I think there may still be more Lisp hackers, per capita, in CS Apps
| than in any other group at Amazon. Not that they get to use it much
And they rewrote an Emacs Lisp solution in JSP (Java):
| they missed Mailman and Emacs, and how Arizona
| (the JSP replacement we'd spent years developing)
| still just wasn't doing it for them.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> Alok wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.cabochon.com/~stevey/blog-rants/tour-de-babel.html
>
>
> Quoting the article, they are using more languages:
>
> | C, C++, Lisp, Java, Perl, (all languages we use at Amazon),
>
> And looks like they don't use Lisp very much today, because they have a
> large C++ code base:
>
> | We have 50 million lines of C++ code.
>
> | and was expanding at 8 million lines a quarter
That was offered as a /problem/. Mainly because C++ sucks so badly.
(Author's characterization.)
Later on Ruby gets crowned The Perfect Language, with Python denounced
for the whitespace thing and general technical goofiness.
So look who made it to the finals: Lisp and Ruby.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Frank Buss wrote:
> > Alok wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://www.cabochon.com/~stevey/blog-rants/tour-de-babel.html
> >
> >
> > Quoting the article, they are using more languages:
> >
> > | C, C++, Lisp, Java, Perl, (all languages we use at Amazon),
> >
> > And looks like they don't use Lisp very much today, because they have a
> > large C++ code base:
> >
> > | We have 50 million lines of C++ code.
> >
> > | and was expanding at 8 million lines a quarter
>
> That was offered as a /problem/. Mainly because C++ sucks so badly.
> (Author's characterization.)
>
> Later on Ruby gets crowned The Perfect Language, with Python denounced
> for the whitespace thing and general technical goofiness.
>
> So look who made it to the finals: Lisp and Ruby.
Ruby was derived from Lisp, according to its creator.
| Ruby is a language designed in the following steps:
|
| * take a simple lisp language (like one prior to CL).
| * remove macros, s-expression.
| * add simple object system (much simpler than CLOS).
| * add blocks, inspired by higher order functions.
| * add methods found in Smalltalk.
| * add functionality found in Perl (in OO way).
|
| So, Ruby was a Lisp originally, in theory.
| Let's call it MatzLisp from now on. ;-)
|
| matz.
"William James" <·········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Ruby was derived from Lisp, according to its creator.
Yes, there's a whole cottage industry of sub-optimal programming
language design developed by lisp illuminati.
Smalltalk (and all the OO wave) was started by Alan Kay who programmed in Lisp.
Java was created by James Gosling, well known lisp programmer.
Ruby was overtly "derived" from Lisp.
etc.
Lisp is such a powerful tool, we cannot let them the masses use it!
We'd lose our competitive advantage!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
The mighty hunter
Returns with gifts of plump birds,
Your foot just squashed one.
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> "William James" <·········@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Ruby was derived from Lisp, according to its creator.
>
> Yes, there's a whole cottage industry of sub-optimal programming
> language design developed by lisp illuminati.
>
> Smalltalk (and all the OO wave) was started by Alan Kay who
> programmed in Lisp. Java was created by James Gosling, well known
> lisp programmer. Ruby was overtly "derived" from Lisp. etc.
>
>
> Lisp is such a powerful tool, we cannot let them the masses use it!
> We'd lose our competitive advantage!
I think the reason languages like Ruby are developed is to avoid the
parens. Yes, I'm being serious. What turns people off of Lisp more
than anything else does seem to be the parens.
I would call BS, but what turned me off of python was the whitespace.
I thought Matz was happy to steal good ideas from anywhere they were
to be found and that Ruby was more of a Smalltalk rip-off.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
David Steuber wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>
> > "William James" <·········@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > Ruby was derived from Lisp, according to its creator.
> >
> > Yes, there's a whole cottage industry of sub-optimal programming
> > language design developed by lisp illuminati.
> >
> > Smalltalk (and all the OO wave) was started by Alan Kay who
> > programmed in Lisp. Java was created by James Gosling, well known
> > lisp programmer. Ruby was overtly "derived" from Lisp. etc.
> >
> >
> > Lisp is such a powerful tool, we cannot let them the masses use it!
> > We'd lose our competitive advantage!
>
> I think the reason languages like Ruby are developed is to avoid the
> parens. Yes, I'm being serious. What turns people off of Lisp more
> than anything else does seem to be the parens.
Since most lisp developers use indentation to make code readable
anyway, would it be possible to combine parens and indentation to
produce a cleaner syntax that can be as easily parsed by the lisp
compiler/interpreter? The readability of such code would increase a lot
(at least for a beginner like me).
I must say, that although editors can add trailing parens to make
writing code easier, they cannot make the code easily readable by the
same token. And as a lisp beginner, I always tend to reference count
the end parens to find the matching begin parens of the expression area
within the parens.
I know Vim and Emacs can show matching begin (or end) paren when the
cursor is on the corresponding end (or begin) paren. But my cursor is
not always on the end or begin paren, when I read code.
Is there an option to highlight the whole expression demarcated by
parens? Like show the current expression region with a slightly bluish
tint background? (Emacs has something for showing the current mark
region in a different color M-x transient-mark-mode)
Hey maybe if there is such an option then, can it be taken one more
step ahead by showing the nested expressions by different shades of
bluish tint? And if your code is nested too deep, then the innermost
paren is a dark blue background !
I have heard of an advanced Lisp editor written in CLIM called <a
href="http://www.cliki.net/Climacs">climancs</a>. Can climacs do the
nested expression shade thing?
>
> I would call BS, but what turned me off of python was the whitespace.
>
> I thought Matz was happy to steal good ideas from anywhere they were
> to be found and that Ruby was more of a Smalltalk rip-off.
>
> --
> The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
> This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
Alok wrote:
> Hey maybe if there is such an option then, can it be taken one more
> step ahead by showing the nested expressions by different shades of
> bluish tint? And if your code is nested too deep, then the innermost
> paren is a dark blue background !
Do you want something like the fourth method listed in
http://lemonodor.com/archives/001207.html?
············@gmail.com wrote:
> Alok wrote:
> > Hey maybe if there is such an option then, can it be taken one more
> > step ahead by showing the nested expressions by different shades of
> > bluish tint? And if your code is nested too deep, then the innermost
> > paren is a dark blue background !
>
> Do you want something like the fourth method listed in
> http://lemonodor.com/archives/001207.html?
Wow! This is it !!! Excepting I want this only for current cursor
region, and not the whole file. Thanks for pointing this out.
Alok wrote:
>
> Since most lisp developers use indentation to make code readable
> anyway, would it be possible to combine parens and indentation to
> produce a cleaner syntax that can be as easily parsed by the lisp
> compiler/interpreter? The readability of such code would increase a lot
> (at least for a beginner like me).
This is all red herring. Parens are what people whine about because
they haven't seen something *else* compelling about Lisp. What
converts people is killer apps. If, for instance, I showed game
developers amazing things in OpenGL using Lisp that they couldn't do
some other way, and it was really really important stuff, they'd use
it. Failing a killer app, it's just a language. Not having anything
to distinguish itself, people whine about parens. So stop worrying
about perceived paren problems. Start worrying about killer apps.
Most of the popularized scripty languages delivered a compelling web
framework. Ruby's got Rails, Python's got Zope, etc.
People will use the most broken crufty shit of an interface in the
world, if it actually *DOES* something important to them.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT BRANDON J. VAN EVERY BEFORE REPLYING TO
ONE OF HIS POSTS
1. He has never designed any game, nor contributed to the design of
any game, which has ever seen the light of day, despite referring
to himself as a "game designer." (In rebuttal, he pointed out his
"one complete game" from "1983" on the "Atari 800" which he showed
to his "8th grade math teacher.")
2. He has never been employed in the game industry, in any way,
shape, manner or form. Despite this, for some reason he managed
to get named as an Independent Games Festival judge; a curious
turn of events, since their stated intent is to appoint
"professionals in the game industry" (their quote, not his).
3. In fact, the only programming job he had listed on his resume was
for only "2 years" ending in "1998," working in C and assembly on
a graphics driver, as a "Sr. Software Engineer" -- a curious
title, since this was his first (and only) job in the software
industry. There is no evidence he has used C++, nor any other
language, professionally. (And the company in question is
defunct, anyway, so there is no way to verify his claim.)
4. The other jobs he has mentioned having after this one and only
item on his resume are: "yard maintenance work," "painting
apartments," "scrubbing floors," "sub minimum wage signature
gathering," and working for "$5/hour at a Vietnamese restaurant."
5. The only personal project he actually wrote code for and released
in some fashion was Free3d, a software 3D rendering engine.
Stating that its goals were to be "100% efficient, 100% portable"
and to release it in a "one year time frame," he started in "1993"
and abandoned it in "1996," admitting that it "barely drew even a
single polygon" and "did hardly anything in the 3D department."
6. Almost every Internet community (Usenet newsgroup, mailing list,
etc.) he has ever introduced himself to has resulted in him
repeating the same pattern: asking leading questions, demanding
people do things his way, becoming hostile, annoying the other
participants, alienating them, and finally leaving in disgust.
7. Of the projects (open source and otherwise) whose communities he
has (briefly) joined, he has never contributed anything tangible
in terms of code or documentation.
8. The project he has intermittently claimed to be working on, Ocean
Mars, is vaporware -- and is one of his admitted "failures." He
allegedly sunk "nine months of full time 60 hours/week" and about
"$60K" into it with only a "spherical hexified icosahedron"
display to show for it (only allegedly, since it has never been
shown or demonstrated publicly). Ultimately he filed for a
"Chapter 7" "bankruptcy of $82K," since he was "completely
destitute" and "had no earning power to ever pay the money back."
9. Since his embarassing frustration with his Ocean Mars project, he
has decided that C and C++ aren't "worth anything as a resume
skill anymore," and embarked on a quest in 2003 to find a
high-level language that will suit his needs. After more than a
year, at least ten languages, and not having even "written a line
of code" in any of them, he still has yet to find a language that
will suit him.
10. Finally, despite vehemently insisting that he is not a troll, many
people quite understandingly have great difficulty distinguishing
his public behavior from that of a troll.
Mallor wrote:
> Alok wrote:
> >
> > Since most lisp developers use indentation to make code readable
> > anyway, would it be possible to combine parens and indentation to
> > produce a cleaner syntax that can be as easily parsed by the lisp
> > compiler/interpreter? The readability of such code would increase a lot
> > (at least for a beginner like me).
>
> This is all red herring. Parens are what people whine about because
> they haven't seen something *else* compelling about Lisp.
(Don't (you get it), (((too many) parens ) together ) (can be)
((intimidating)) (to someone (who primarily) (codes in c or c++?) ((And
unless) (you get (used to it.)))))
Go figure.
Alok wrote:
> (Don't (you get it), (((too many) parens ) together ) (can be)
> ((intimidating)) (to someone (who primarily) (codes in c or c++?) ((And
> unless) (you get (used to it.)))))
No, I don't get it and 99% of my coding experience is in C and C++.
I'm a lisp newbie.
The parens are for the lisp parser and your text editor. The
indentation is for the human reader. When lisp or C/C++ is properly
indented it is easy to read. When it is indented incorrectly it is
hard to read.
When you write code (C or Lisp) your editor shows you what your closing
paren (or curly brace) matches so it is easy enough put the right
number of closing parens. When you read the code you mostly ignore the
parens and pay attention to the indentation.
--fj
funkyj wrote:
> Alok wrote:
>
> > (Don't (you get it), (((too many) parens ) together ) (can be)
> > ((intimidating)) (to someone (who primarily) (codes in c or c++?) ((And
> > unless) (you get (used to it.)))))
>
> No, I don't get it and 99% of my coding experience is in C and C++.
> I'm a lisp newbie.
>
> The parens are for the lisp parser and your text editor. The
> indentation is for the human reader. When lisp or C/C++ is properly
> indented it is easy to read. When it is indented incorrectly it is
> hard to read.
>
> When you write code (C or Lisp) your editor shows you what your closing
> paren (or curly brace) matches so it is easy enough put the right
> number of closing parens. When you read the code you mostly ignore the
> parens and pay attention to the indentation.
>
> --fj
Hey, maybe you are right about ignoring parens and focusing on
indentation. But it has not come to me natuarlly so far. Even though
most of my C/C++ code is also indented, it has some differences in the
brackets used in different contexts like {, [, (, and in other places
->, . for member function calls etc. Somehow that is less confusing
than just parens for everything.
Having said that, it would take me just a little more time to get used
to the parens in Lisp.
"Alok" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>funkyj wrote:
>> Alok wrote:
>>
>> > (Don't (you get it), (((too many) parens ) together ) (can be)
>> > ((intimidating)) (to someone (who primarily) (codes in c or c++?)
>> > ((And unless) (you get (used to it.)))))
>>
>> No, I don't get it and 99% of my coding experience is in C and C++.
>> I'm a lisp newbie.
>>
>> The parens are for the lisp parser and your text editor. The
>> indentation is for the human reader. When lisp or C/C++ is
>> properly indented it is easy to read. When it is indented
>> incorrectly it is hard to read.
>>
>> When you write code (C or Lisp) your editor shows you what your
>> closing paren (or curly brace) matches so it is easy enough put the
>> right number of closing parens. When you read the code you mostly
>> ignore the parens and pay attention to the indentation.
>
>Hey, maybe you are right about ignoring parens and focusing on
>indentation. But it has not come to me natuarlly so far. Even though
>most of my C/C++ code is also indented, it has some differences in
>the brackets used in different contexts like {, [, (, and in other
>places ->, . for member function calls etc. Somehow that is less
>confusing than just parens for everything.
>
>Having said that, it would take me just a little more time to get
>used to the parens in Lisp.
I believe you find the other less confusing because you are using the
Parantheses still in the same manner as you are using the other
brackets in other languages. IMO, to really get to the point where the
parantheses don't bother you, you have to alter the way you think
about syntax. Lisp's Syntax is so elementary and simple, in general,
that you mostly don't have to think about it at all, and the
parantheses are just pointing out groups and expressions. If you then
get yourself a nice editing environment that allows you to move and
edit based on the meaning or concept of your program, I think you will
find it easier to ignore the parantheses.
For doing that kind of editing, I find Emacs and paredit.el [1] to be
a rather good combination. :-)
- Aaron
[1] <http://mumble.net/~campbell/emacs/>
--
Aaron Hsu <····@sacrificumdeo.net>
"funkyj" <······@gmail.com> writes:
>Alok wrote:
>> (Don't (you get it), (((too many) parens ) together ) (can be)
>> ((intimidating)) (to someone (who primarily) (codes in c or c++?)
>> ((And unless) (you get (used to it.)))))
>The parens are for the lisp parser and your text editor. The
>indentation is for the human reader. When lisp or C/C++ is properly
>indented it is easy to read. When it is indented incorrectly it is
>hard to read.
>When you write code (C or Lisp) your editor shows you what your
>closing paren (or curly brace) matches so it is easy enough put the
>right number of closing parens. When you read the code you mostly
>ignore the parens and pay attention to the indentation.
I think this is true for people where Lisp tends to click naturally,
but I think that there is one hurdle here which tends to make it hard
to get rid of the parantheses in a person's mind. When I first begun
to use a Lisp language, it was a nightmare, because I couldn't figure
out how *anything* worked. Being someone naturally pretty good at
figuring stuff out, this through me. I had to spend quite some time
learning as I went through the process of chatting and
reading. Finally I was able to write in Lisp Syntax.
After completing that hurdle, I was still in my Vi mode, where I loved
to use Vi(m). Unfortunately, I was not an expert and making Vi do what
I wanted, and it just didn't work to code Lisp for me. The parantheses
were hard, and indentation was seemingly sporadic.
Finally I used some software that did the indentation for me, and
highlighted my blocks of code as I closed off each block with a
parantheses. This made it immensely easier to work with Lisp
notation. Still, there was something missing, which didn't quite
remove the entire problem of being confused by parantheses. I still
had to type in the closing parantheses, and that still caused me some
grief. I would still make mistakes. I am fairly dedicated, and I was
already sold on this family of languages, so it wasn't hard for me to
deal with this. For others, I would still imagine they would be a
little tired of working with parantheses by now.
It wasn't until I found paredit.el and started to use Emacs and
SLIME48 (I use Scheme48), that the real beauty of the lisp type
workflow started to open up for me. With paredit, parantheses almost
disappeared from my mind. Because the closing of each paranthesis was
already taken care of, and every movement command was based on the
conceptual layout of the program, dealing with syntax in my mind
almost disappeared.
Granted, there are probably many more ways of reaching the same point;
this is only one personal experience. But I am willing to bet that
most people have a hard time getting rid of the parentheses in their
minds because syntax is still so drilled into them that without
additional tools to help them eliminate as much of the syntax being in
the forefront of their mind they just can't get it out. If someone is
able to get rid of the overwhelming burden of focusing on their
parantheses, with a little help from helpful software (for some
definition of helpful), he/she will also likely be able to start
thinking in terms of what the code is saying, rather than how many
nests there are.
Just my personal thoughts, and I could be wrong here. Actually, I am
probably wrong. :-)
- Aaron
--
Aaron Hsu <····@sacrificumdeo.net>
Alok wrote:
> (Don't (you get it), (((too many) parens ) together ) (can be)
> ((intimidating)) (to someone (who primarily) (codes in c or c++?) ((And
> unless) (you get (used to it.)))))
Yes, thankfully the following C code has all kinds of non-parentheses so
it's easy to parse.
#define O(o,k) f(l,9) c[l]= *#k?0x3fe:-1;\
f(l,81) if(*#k){\
if(!(s]&c[o])) Ba(o,k) c[o]&=~(1<<(s]>>10));\
} else if((s]>>l0)&1) c[o]=c[o]+1?-2:l;\
if(*#k) { f(l,81) if(s]>>10||(s]&=c[o]),!s]) Ba(o,k) }\
else f(l,9) l[c]<0||s[c]]>>10||(N(l0,[c]),C++);
So, I cheated a little bit <http://www.mailcom.com/ioccc/winners2005.tgz>...
Damien Kick <·····@earthlink.net> writes:
> Alok wrote:
>> (Don't (you get it), (((too many) parens ) together ) (can be)
>> ((intimidating)) (to someone (who primarily) (codes in c or c++?) ((And
>> unless) (you get (used to it.)))))
>
> Yes, thankfully the following C code has all kinds of non-parentheses
> so it's easy to parse.
>
> #define O(o,k) f(l,9) c[l]= *#k?0x3fe:-1;\
> f(l,81) if(*#k){\
> if(!(s]&c[o])) Ba(o,k) c[o]&=~(1<<(s]>>10));\
> } else if((s]>>l0)&1) c[o]=c[o]+1?-2:l;\
> if(*#k) { f(l,81) if(s]>>10||(s]&=c[o]),!s]) Ba(o,k) }\
> else f(l,9) l[c]<0||s[c]]>>10||(N(l0,[c]),C++);
>
> So, I cheated a little bit <http://www.mailcom.com/ioccc/winners2005.tgz>...
The difference is that most C code is not written like that, whereas
Lisp makes it impossible to avoid a high parenthesis density. This is
not a real problem, but it can be intimidating to a newcomer.
Also confusing for newbies is the code-is-data thing. How often are
there questions from newbies asking complicated questions about QUOTE,
#'LIST, and "What's this error about 'illegal function call' when I
make a list?"
Lisp is just plain weird when you are used to anything else.
Weirdness is off-putting to most people.
"Mallor" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> Most of the popularized scripty languages delivered a compelling web
> framework. Ruby's got Rails, Python's got Zope, etc.
Ruby became popular before Rails existed. I actually started using
Ruby and used it heavily for a period of time before Rails was
released to the public. Specifically, I played with Ruby in 2003 and,
in particular, using it as a backend for a web application with a PHP
interface. The whole mess communicated via XMLRPC. Rails was
released to the public in the summer of 2004, according to its
Wikipedia entry.
Python, similarly, became popular before Zope became its killer app.
I remember people raving about Python for long before I heard the
first thing about Zope.
Moreover, Lisp has a compelling web framework, or two. Both
Webactions and Uncommon Web are very nifty. That is not the problem.
I think that there are a few barriers to entry when it comes to Lisp
and, in particular, Common Lisp. Watch any Lisp newbie and you'll see
a few of them in action.
The first one is picking a Lisp. There are multiple implementations
of CL as well as multiple Schemes among which to choose. That's
barrier #1.
Let's assume that someone picks CL and decides on an implementation.
What does installing that implementation (either from its own binary
distribution package or from a Linux distribution; let's assume
apt-get install sbcl) actually give the user? Not much, in any sense
that he's used to. Conceptually, Lisp is so different that this forms
another barrier to entry in the user's mind. #2.
Now that you have a Lisp installed, you need to figure out how to do
useful things with it. The first thing you need to figure out how to
do is a hello world. In the majority of programming languages, this
consists of one of the following two processes:
1. Create source file with code in it. Compile source file. Run
resulting executable file.
2. Create source file with code in it. Chmod 755. Run source file.
Neither of these applies directly to Lisp, and that is why you get so
many questions of the form "How do I compile my Lisp file into an
executable?" and of the form "How do I run my Lisp script?" This is
barrier #3.
Next up, once the newbie figures out the REPL, he still wants to use
process 1 or 2 above. This is obnoxious and he doesn't think that
Lisp gets him anything in the way of workflow that Ruby, Python, Perl,
or even C doesn't already provide. Barrier #4.
So we show him SLIME. It's nifty, but how much difference is there
between the following?
Edit, Save, Compile, Switch to REPL, Run
-and-
Edit, Save, Switch to shell, [Compile,] Run
Barrier #5 is figuring out that you can test small bits of your code
rather than the whole program at once. So we teach the newbie that,
and he has some fun, until he realizes that he still doesn't know how
to interact with the world outside of Lisp. That's barrier #5, and it
can come up anywhere in this learning curve.
Now, assume that you have a newbie who has made it past all of the
above. He still has no idea how to deploy his application in any
useful way. Generally, he wants one of the following:
1. A tarball that someone can untar, ./configure, make, make install, and use
2. A web application that starts on bootup and runs happily along
#1 is not possible with Lisp in its current state of things. The end
user will need a Lisp of his own, and even though some Lisps allow you
to write a standalone executable, creating the topend function to run
from it is another barrier all to its own. Barrier #6 is convincing
your end users to install a Lisp (and to get the right version;
apt-get install sbcl on default-install Debian systems, for instance,
does not install a recent enough version of SBCL to do this) and
adding all the code to run a topend function that runs your actual
program in a sane environment and does something useful with
exceptions.
#2 is possible, but there are several ways to do it and none of them
works perfectly. For instance, it is fairly easy to create a script
to run at bootup that starts a Lisp with a web application running
within a detachtty session, but that tends to break some other things.
For instance, I was not able to get SBCL+Swank to work within a
detachtty, and the conclusion I came to with help from the Lisp
community was that I should run it within a screen session instead.
Barrier #7 is figuring out how to get your web application to come up
when your server comes up.
By the time you get past all these barriers, you wonder why you didn't
just use Ruby. For a web application, you can use Rails, which comes
with a very good "how to get your web application created and have it
run when the server boots up" tutorial. For a distributed program,
all you have to tell people is "make sure you have Ruby 1.6 or newer
and run this program."
It really has very little to do with having a killer app, IMHO.
Ari Johnson wrote:
> So we show him SLIME. It's nifty, but
Barrier #n:
but he is using clisp in cygwin and when he (foolishly) upgrades from
clisp 2.35 to clisp 2.38 SLIME breaks. He tries getting the latest
SLIME from CVS but that is no good, SLIME is still broken. He posts
about his problems on the gmane.lisp.slime.devel but his posts are
ignored.
I guess if he was a CL and/or emacs lisp expert he might fix what ever
broke himself but since he is a newbie he'll have to go back to limping
along without slime.
"funkyj" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> Ari Johnson wrote:
>
>> So we show him SLIME. It's nifty, but
>
> Barrier #n:
>
> but he is using clisp in cygwin and when he (foolishly) upgrades from
> clisp 2.35 to clisp 2.38 SLIME breaks. He tries getting the latest
> SLIME from CVS but that is no good, SLIME is still broken. He posts
> about his problems on the gmane.lisp.slime.devel but his posts are
> ignored.
>
> I guess if he was a CL and/or emacs lisp expert he might fix what ever
> broke himself but since he is a newbie he'll have to go back to limping
> along without slime.
In my long post, I completely forgot about this important issue: Lisp
systems are fragile. How often do we hear from people who got
themselves up and running with CL just to break it by upgrading the
wrong piece of software at the wrong time? This isn't so much a
barrier to entry as a barrier to staying inside once you're through
the door, but it definitely sucks when all you want to do is enjoy
Lisp and you spend hours keeping your development system up-to-date
and fixing the breakage, or you just sit back on an old version of
everything because you don't dare upgrade.
By comparison, the only time upgrading any other language's
development system has caused problems for me has been when the
language itself changed and my code was no longer valid (C++ namespace
strictness is a good example of this, from GCC 3.x).
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> In my long post, I completely forgot about this important issue: Lisp
> systems are fragile. How often do we hear from people who got
> themselves up and running with CL just to break it by upgrading the
> wrong piece of software at the wrong time? This isn't so much a
> barrier to entry as a barrier to staying inside once you're through
> the door, but it definitely sucks when all you want to do is enjoy
> Lisp and you spend hours keeping your development system up-to-date
> and fixing the breakage, or you just sit back on an old version of
> everything because you don't dare upgrade.
>
> By comparison, the only time upgrading any other language's
> development system has caused problems for me has been when the
> language itself changed and my code was no longer valid (C++ namespace
> strictness is a good example of this, from GCC 3.x).
It's _exactly_ the same with C-based systems. Everytime you update
some C library, some things falls appart. The difference may be that
you don't update as often C stuff.
Now indeed, non-lisp software is more often packaged with dependencies
maintenance software, so it may happen that some updates works
slightly more smoothly. But almost everytime I type apt-get, emerge,
rpm, or whatever, I've had to deal with breakage.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Debugging? Klingons do not debug! Our software does not coddle the
weak."
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>> In my long post, I completely forgot about this important issue: Lisp
>> systems are fragile. How often do we hear from people who got
>> themselves up and running with CL just to break it by upgrading the
>> wrong piece of software at the wrong time? This isn't so much a
>> barrier to entry as a barrier to staying inside once you're through
>> the door, but it definitely sucks when all you want to do is enjoy
>> Lisp and you spend hours keeping your development system up-to-date
>> and fixing the breakage, or you just sit back on an old version of
>> everything because you don't dare upgrade.
>>
>> By comparison, the only time upgrading any other language's
>> development system has caused problems for me has been when the
>> language itself changed and my code was no longer valid (C++ namespace
>> strictness is a good example of this, from GCC 3.x).
>
> It's _exactly_ the same with C-based systems. Everytime you update
> some C library, some things falls appart. The difference may be that
> you don't update as often C stuff.
Things that depend on the library may need to be recompiled, but it's
rare that your *development system* falls apart because you updated a
library. When was the last time that gcc refused to run because you
upgraded a library?
> Now indeed, non-lisp software is more often packaged with dependencies
> maintenance software, so it may happen that some updates works
> slightly more smoothly. But almost everytime I type apt-get, emerge,
> rpm, or whatever, I've had to deal with breakage.
And it sucks when it happens with other languages, too. I never said
Lisp was the only place this could happen or that it sucks more when
it happens to Lisp, but it does *seem* to happen more often and
newbies are afraid of it already.
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> By comparison, the only time upgrading any other language's
> development system has caused problems for me has been when the
> language itself changed and my code was no longer valid (C++ namespace
> strictness is a good example of this, from GCC 3.x).
Well, I guess you haven't tried building systems using Tomcat and MySQL
and Java JDK and your own Java code which also uses MySQL. You can't
necessarily just upgrade one of those, because of various
cross-dependencies.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moreover, Lisp has a compelling web framework, or two. Both
> Webactions and Uncommon Web are very nifty. That is not the problem.
Oh, these two are problematic, too.
Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> writes:
> Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Moreover, Lisp has a compelling web framework, or two. Both
>> Webactions and Uncommon Web are very nifty. That is not the problem.
>
> Oh, these two are problematic, too.
Do they have problems that are entirely outside the scope of the
barriers I talked about? Given proficiency with SLIME and having a
working UCW installation hooked up to Apache via mod_lisp running, I
haven't had any real trouble with it, at least. All my problems fit
to some extent within the long post I just wrote. :)
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> writes:
>
>> Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Moreover, Lisp has a compelling web framework, or two. Both
>>> Webactions and Uncommon Web are very nifty. That is not the problem.
>>
>> Oh, these two are problematic, too.
>
> Do they have problems that are entirely outside the scope of the
> barriers I talked about? Given proficiency with SLIME and having a
> working UCW installation hooked up to Apache via mod_lisp running, I
> haven't had any real trouble with it, at least. All my problems fit
> to some extent within the long post I just wrote. :)
UCW needs (needed?) you to collect differnt libraries in their
development stage, direct from some darcs repositories.
And webactions belong to AllegroServe. Which either costs a lot
of money and your first born son for Allegro CL, or you can try
to beat Portable AllegroServe. Last time I tried portable
allegroserve I had do send a patch. Someone made the CMUCL part
of it specific to Debian. I couldn't use the vanilla CMUCL with
it.
From: Marco Baringer
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2d5cd4b64.fsf@bese.it>
Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> writes:
> UCW needs (needed?) you to collect differnt libraries in their
> development stage, direct from some darcs repositories.
http://common-lisp.net/project/ucw/ucw-boxset.tar.gz
18 different libraries to be exact, direct from whatever location is
useful, tarballs when possible darcs/cvs repos otherwise.
--
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
-Leonard Cohen
On 2006-07-09 15:33:16 -0500, Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> said:
[...]
> And webactions belong to AllegroServe. Which either costs a lot
> of money and your first born son for Allegro CL, or you can try
> to beat Portable AllegroServe. Last time I tried portable
> allegroserve I had do send a patch. Someone made the CMUCL part
> of it specific to Debian. I couldn't use the vanilla CMUCL with
> it.
Curious. That must have been quite some time ago. For the past year,
we've developed and deployed with the paserve from CVS, running
under LW/Linux, LW/Windows, CMUCL/FreeBSD, and LW/OS X. Yes,
I had to make a one-line patch to correct a problem with HTTP
AUTH under LW, but that's not bad for 'free beer'.
As for this incessant bitching (i.e. not you alone) about having to actually
*pay* for the fruit of another person's sweat, well, hasn't anyone
considered that we might already have (another) killer app courtesy of
the fine paycheque-demanding folks at Franz? Hint: It's called
AllegroCache, and it makes the ORM in Rails look like the naive
dead-end it really is*.
Cheers,
Mike
* If you don't understand the problem with Rails' ORM, or any
'data access layer' for that matter, Will Hartung summarised it nicely:
http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/b760065b20f08d8b
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I think that there are a few barriers to entry when it comes to Lisp
> and, in particular, Common Lisp. Watch any Lisp newbie and you'll see
> a few of them in action.
>
> The first one is picking a Lisp. There are multiple implementations
> of CL as well as multiple Schemes among which to choose. That's
> barrier #1.
>
> Let's assume that someone picks CL and decides on an implementation.
> What does installing that implementation (either from its own binary
> distribution package or from a Linux distribution; let's assume
> apt-get install sbcl) actually give the user? Not much, in any sense
> that he's used to. Conceptually, Lisp is so different that this forms
> another barrier to entry in the user's mind. #2.
>
> Now that you have a Lisp installed, you need to figure out how to do
> useful things with it. The first thing you need to figure out how to
> do is a hello world. In the majority of programming languages, this
> consists of one of the following two processes:
>
> 1. Create source file with code in it. Compile source file. Run
> resulting executable file.
Sorry, I don't see the difference with for example C:
[···@thalassa tmp]$ cat > example.lisp <<EOF
(defun fact (x) (if (<= x 1) 1 (* x (fact (1- x)))))
(defun main ()
(format *query-io* "~&Enter a positive integer:")
(let ((n (read *query-io*)))
(if (integerp n)
(format *standard-output* "~&~D! = ~D~%" n (fact n))
(format *error-output* "~&~S is not an integer~%")))
(ext:exit 0))
EOF
[···@thalassa tmp]$ clisp -i example.lisp \
-x '(ext:saveinitmem "example" :executable t :norc t :quiet t
:init-function (function main))'
;; Loading file /home/pjb/.clisprc.lisp ...
;; Reading ASDF packages from /home/pjb/asdf-central-registry.data...
; loading system definition from /usr/local/share/lisp/packages/net/sourceforge/cclan/asdf-install/asdf-install.asd into #<PACKAGE ASDF0>
; registering #<SYSTEM ASDF-INSTALL #x2048BF3E> as ASDF-INSTALL
0 errors, 0 warnings
;; Loading file example.lisp ...
;; Loaded file example.lisp
3652616 ;
912614
[···@thalassa tmp]$ [···@thalassa tmp]$ ./example
Enter a positive integer:15
15! = 1307674368000
[···@thalassa tmp]$ cat > example.c <<EOF
#include <stdio.h>
int fact(int x){if(x<=1){return(1);}else{return(x*fact(x-1));}}
int main(void){
printf("\nEnter a positive integer:");
{int n;
if(scanf("%d",&n)==1){
printf("\n%d! = %d\n",n,fact(n));
}else{
fprintf(stderr,"\nInput data is not an integer\n");
}
return(0);
}}
EOF
[···@thalassa tmp]$ gcc -o example example.c
[···@thalassa tmp]$ ./example
Enter a positive integer:15
15
15! = 2004310016
[···@thalassa tmp]$
That is, beside the fact that in lisp you have more options to
generate the executable than in C, and that the lisp version gives
correct results...
> 2. Create source file with code in it. Chmod 755. Run source file.
I fail to see the difference with bash or any other scripting language...
[···@thalassa tmp]$ cat > example <<EOF
#!/usr/local/bin/clisp -ansi -q
(format t "Hello World!")
EOF
[···@thalassa tmp]$ chmod 755 example
[···@thalassa tmp]$ ./example
Hello World!
[···@thalassa tmp]$ cat > example <<EOF
#!/bin/bash
printf "Hello World!\n"
EOF
[···@thalassa tmp]$ chmod 755 example
[···@thalassa tmp]$ ./example
Hello World!
[···@thalassa tmp]$
> Neither of these applies directly to Lisp, and that is why you get so
> many questions of the form "How do I compile my Lisp file into an
> executable?" and of the form "How do I run my Lisp script?" This is
> barrier #3.
Bull shit.
> Next up, once the newbie figures out the REPL, he still wants to use
> process 1 or 2 above. This is obnoxious and he doesn't think that
> Lisp gets him anything in the way of workflow that Ruby, Python, Perl,
> or even C doesn't already provide. Barrier #4.
Well, this is more a pedagogical problem than anything else. What are
the teachers doing?
> So we show him SLIME. It's nifty, but how much difference is there
> between the following?
>
> Edit, Save, Compile, Switch to REPL, Run
> -and-
> Edit, Save, Switch to shell, [Compile,] Run
Oh? You switch to the REPL? I just use C-x C-e, directly from the
source buffer, so it's more like:
Edit, Run. (and if it's OK, Save).
> [...]
> It really has very little to do with having a killer app, IMHO.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PURCHASERS: The entire physical universe,
including this product, may one day collapse back into an
infinitesimally small space. Should another universe subsequently
re-emerge, the existence of this product in that universe cannot be
guaranteed.
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>> I think that there are a few barriers to entry when it comes to Lisp
>> and, in particular, Common Lisp. Watch any Lisp newbie and you'll see
>> a few of them in action.
>>
>> The first one is picking a Lisp. There are multiple implementations
>> of CL as well as multiple Schemes among which to choose. That's
>> barrier #1.
>>
>> Let's assume that someone picks CL and decides on an implementation.
>> What does installing that implementation (either from its own binary
>> distribution package or from a Linux distribution; let's assume
>> apt-get install sbcl) actually give the user? Not much, in any sense
>> that he's used to. Conceptually, Lisp is so different that this forms
>> another barrier to entry in the user's mind. #2.
>>
>> Now that you have a Lisp installed, you need to figure out how to do
>> useful things with it. The first thing you need to figure out how to
>> do is a hello world. In the majority of programming languages, this
>> consists of one of the following two processes:
>>
>> 1. Create source file with code in it. Compile source file. Run
>> resulting executable file.
>
> Sorry, I don't see the difference with for example C:
>
>
>
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ cat > example.lisp <<EOF
>
> (defun fact (x) (if (<= x 1) 1 (* x (fact (1- x)))))
>
> (defun main ()
> (format *query-io* "~&Enter a positive integer:")
> (let ((n (read *query-io*)))
> (if (integerp n)
> (format *standard-output* "~&~D! = ~D~%" n (fact n))
> (format *error-output* "~&~S is not an integer~%")))
> (ext:exit 0))
>
> EOF
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ clisp -i example.lisp \
> -x '(ext:saveinitmem "example" :executable t :norc t :quiet t
> :init-function (function main))'
> ;; Loading file /home/pjb/.clisprc.lisp ...
> ;; Reading ASDF packages from /home/pjb/asdf-central-registry.data...
> ; loading system definition from /usr/local/share/lisp/packages/net/sourceforge/cclan/asdf-install/asdf-install.asd into #<PACKAGE ASDF0>
> ; registering #<SYSTEM ASDF-INSTALL #x2048BF3E> as ASDF-INSTALL
> 0 errors, 0 warnings
> ;; Loading file example.lisp ...
> ;; Loaded file example.lisp
> 3652616 ;
> 912614
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ [···@thalassa tmp]$ ./example
> Enter a positive integer:15
> 15! = 1307674368000
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ cat > example.c <<EOF
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int fact(int x){if(x<=1){return(1);}else{return(x*fact(x-1));}}
>
> int main(void){
> printf("\nEnter a positive integer:");
> {int n;
> if(scanf("%d",&n)==1){
> printf("\n%d! = %d\n",n,fact(n));
> }else{
> fprintf(stderr,"\nInput data is not an integer\n");
> }
> return(0);
> }}
> EOF
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ gcc -o example example.c
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ ./example
>
> Enter a positive integer:15
> 15
>
> 15! = 2004310016
> [···@thalassa tmp]$
>
>
> That is, beside the fact that in lisp you have more options to
> generate the executable than in C, and that the lisp version gives
> correct results...
Google for "lisp tutorial" and tell me the index of the hit that
explains in the first chapter or two clisp's ext:saveinitmem. This is
not about what is possible, it is about what is available to a newbie.
The fact that you are personally capable of doing something in no way
indicates that a newbie will figure it out right away without a lot of
coaxing.
>> 2. Create source file with code in it. Chmod 755. Run source file.
>
> I fail to see the difference with bash or any other scripting language...
>
>
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ cat > example <<EOF
> #!/usr/local/bin/clisp -ansi -q
> (format t "Hello World!")
> EOF
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ chmod 755 example
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ ./example
> Hello World!
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ cat > example <<EOF
> #!/bin/bash
> printf "Hello World!\n"
> EOF
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ chmod 755 example
> [···@thalassa tmp]$ ./example
> Hello World!
> [···@thalassa tmp]$
>> Neither of these applies directly to Lisp, and that is why you get so
>> many questions of the form "How do I compile my Lisp file into an
>> executable?" and of the form "How do I run my Lisp script?" This is
>> barrier #3.
>
> Bull shit.
There's no need for profanity in a constructive discussion.
Anyhow, change what I said to "Neither of these applies directly to
the Lisp way of doing things." No sane Lisp programmer would tell you
to write all your code, compile it down to a single executable, and
run it. You build it up in smaller pieces and test them as you go.
That's one of the chief advantages of programming in Lisp, and it just
plain does not translate into "write, compile, run the whole thing,
and go hunting for bugs" the way other languages encourage you to do
things.
>> Next up, once the newbie figures out the REPL, he still wants to use
>> process 1 or 2 above. This is obnoxious and he doesn't think that
>> Lisp gets him anything in the way of workflow that Ruby, Python, Perl,
>> or even C doesn't already provide. Barrier #4.
>
> Well, this is more a pedagogical problem than anything else. What are
> the teachers doing?
The teachers? Some of them do just fine. However, there is an
occasional rotten apple who refuses to step back and instead offers
help on a "one strike and you're out" basis. They do things like
swear at people who come with good-natured questions and curiosity
about how they, too, can become Lisp masters and have a leg up on all
other programmers. Rather than telling someone "if you read my code
and the error message you got, you will very quickly understand why
you got the error message," they revise the code to include a
destructive file system operation. While the point made by that
behavior is perfectly valid, the pedagogical value is negative.
Moreover, this wasn't about the teachers at all. It was about the
various barriers to entry that a newcomer faces when starting out with
Lisp. Whether someone mentors him past those barriers or not, they
are there just the same.
That said, it would be great if there were easy-to-find tutorials that
got people past the real barriers to entry. Lisp newbies don't need
to spend hours reading through ridiculously long tutorials on how to
write a recursive function. If they have programming experience, they
know all that and are not held back by it at all. Where they need
hand-holding is summarized in my previous message on this thread.
>> So we show him SLIME. It's nifty, but how much difference is there
>> between the following?
>>
>> Edit, Save, Compile, Switch to REPL, Run
>> -and-
>> Edit, Save, Switch to shell, [Compile,] Run
>
> Oh? You switch to the REPL? I just use C-x C-e, directly from the
> source buffer, so it's more like:
>
> Edit, Run. (and if it's OK, Save).
With SLIME, the REPL is right there and lets me play with the
functions I just compiled without having to add testing code to my
source file. Your preferences may vary, but the process is no
different between what I do and what you do any more than there is a
difference between the Edit, Save, Switch to shell, and Run method and
the Edit, Save, and ":!./file.name.rb" (in vim) method of working with
Ruby (or any other language) code.
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Google for "lisp tutorial" and tell me the index of the hit that
> explains in the first chapter or two clisp's ext:saveinitmem. This is
> not about what is possible, it is about what is available to a newbie.
> The fact that you are personally capable of doing something in no way
> indicates that a newbie will figure it out right away without a lot of
> coaxing.
I tried C tutorial and Lisp tutorial and tried the first hit.
Truely enough, the C tutorial starts with:
http://www.physics.drexel.edu/courses/Comp_Phys/General/C_basics/c_tutorial.html
Let's be polite and start by saluting the world! Type the following
program into your favorite editor:
#include < stdio.h>
void main()
{
printf("\nHello World\n");
}
Save the code in the file hello.c, then compile it by typing:
gcc hello.c
This creates an executable file a.out, which is then executed simply
by typing its name. The result is that the characters `` Hello World''
are printed out, preceded by an empty line.
while the Lisp tutorial starts with:
http://www.notam02.no/internt/cm-sys/cm-2.2/doc/clt.html
Symbols
A symbol is just a string of characters. There are restrictions
on what you can include in a symbol and what the first character
can be, but as long as you stick to letters, digits, and hyphens,
you'll be safe. (Except that if you use only digits and possibly
an initial hyphen, LISP will think you typed an integer rather
than a symbol.) Some examples of symbols:
a
b
c1
foo
bar
baaz-quux-garply
Some things you can do with symbols follow. (Things in bold after
a > prompt are what you type to the LISP interpreter, while other
things are what the LISP interpreter prints back to you. The ; is
LISP's comment character: everything from a ; to the end of line
is ignored.)
> (setq a 5) ;store a number as the value of a symbol
5
> a ;take the value of a symbol
5
> (let ((a 6)) a) ;bind the value of a symbol temporarily to 6
6
> a ;the value returns to 5 once the let is finished
5
> (+ a 6) ;use the value of a symbol as an argument to a function
11
> b ;try to take the value of a symbol which has no value
Error: Attempt to take the value of the unbound symbol B
Ok, the Lisp tutorial fails to tell the student to launch the lisp
system. Just before that, it just mentionned that:
Note: This tutorial introduction to Common Lisp was written for
the CMU environment, so some of the details of running lisp toward
the end may differ from site to site.
without ever mentionning that to launch CMU CL, you have to type: lisp RET
(much less that to lauch sbcl, you have to type: sbcl RET
and that to lauch clisp, you have to type: clisp RET).
So already, Common Lisp addresses people with 1 IQ point more than C
programmers :-(.
But I still fail to see how that prevent people to _learn_. The
first thing any Lisp tutorial I've ever seen teaches, is how to enter
forms at the REPL and watch for the result or error message printed.
Quite naturally. Or do you want lisp tutorials to teach the C process?
By the way, this is not different to the L.S.E. Manual I learned
programming with in 1975, or any BASIC tutorial at about the same
time: the first thing you learned was how to use the REPL! The
strange way was to save a file (or a card deck) and to send it to the
compiler to get a listing of error messages five minutes (or a day)
later.
> [...]
> Anyhow, change what I said to "Neither of these applies directly to
> the Lisp way of doing things." No sane Lisp programmer would tell you
> to write all your code, compile it down to a single executable, and
> run it. You build it up in smaller pieces and test them as you go.
> That's one of the chief advantages of programming in Lisp, and it just
> plain does not translate into "write, compile, run the whole thing,
> and go hunting for bugs" the way other languages encourage you to do
> things.
Yes, as it's explained in any lisp tutorial. Or do you mean that
people try to learn lisp without reading lisp books and lisp
tutorials?
> [...]
> That said, it would be great if there were easy-to-find tutorials that
> got people past the real barriers to entry.
Go tell that to Google! Why a search for lisp tutorial doesn't return
as first hit: http://www.cliki.net/Online%20Tutorial ?
> Lisp newbies don't need
> to spend hours reading through ridiculously long tutorials on how to
> write a recursive function. If they have programming experience, they
> know all that and are not held back by it at all. Where they need
> hand-holding is summarized in my previous message on this thread.
Perhaps you could write this hand-holding tutorial? You could even
insert it in first position on that cliki.net page.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you read it in the
original Klingon"
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> So already, Common Lisp addresses people with 1 IQ point more than C
> programmers :-(.
It's not so much that. It's the fact that it's hard to teach old dogs
new tricks, and most people come to Lisp after years of experience
with other languages. They have 1 IQ point *more* as evidenced by the
fact that they found Lisp, but it will take a bit of work to break
them of their bad thinking habits.
> But I still fail to see how that prevent people to _learn_. The
> first thing any Lisp tutorial I've ever seen teaches, is how to enter
> forms at the REPL and watch for the result or error message printed.
> Quite naturally. Or do you want lisp tutorials to teach the C process?
I don't want to teach the C process at all. I want to more gently
explain the fact that you don't have to write, compile, and run whole
programs in order to write programs. I want to gently introduce
people to writing, compiling, and running individual functions and
seeing immediately the productivity benefits.
But I also want to reassure people that you can produce as the final
product of your work something that can easily be handled and thrown
around. If all you ever show people is the REPL, they will have a
hard time believing that they can do anything practical with it.
It's like giving someone a very ugly food that tastes wonderful - the
human brain has a hard time letting us enjoy an experience when it is
freaked out about something superficial to the experience.
> By the way, this is not different to the L.S.E. Manual I learned
> programming with in 1975, or any BASIC tutorial at about the same
> time: the first thing you learned was how to use the REPL! The
> strange way was to save a file (or a card deck) and to send it to the
> compiler to get a listing of error messages five minutes (or a day)
> later.
I started to learn programming on BASIC in the mid-80's. However,
once I discovered real programming languages like C, I lost touch with
the REPL concept. Most people who started like that did the same.
Those who started later never learned about REPLs and only know one
way of doing things. That is the audience that is trying Lisp -
anyone who started learning Lisp in 1975 doesn't have to be convinced
of a thing here.
>> Anyhow, change what I said to "Neither of these applies directly to
>> the Lisp way of doing things." No sane Lisp programmer would tell you
>> to write all your code, compile it down to a single executable, and
>> run it. You build it up in smaller pieces and test them as you go.
>> That's one of the chief advantages of programming in Lisp, and it just
>> plain does not translate into "write, compile, run the whole thing,
>> and go hunting for bugs" the way other languages encourage you to do
>> things.
>
> Yes, as it's explained in any lisp tutorial. Or do you mean that
> people try to learn lisp without reading lisp books and lisp
> tutorials?
See above. It tastes great and it's good for the health, but it looks
so weird that the brain refuses to accept that it has any positive
qualities whatsoever.
>> That said, it would be great if there were easy-to-find tutorials that
>> got people past the real barriers to entry.
>
> Go tell that to Google! Why a search for lisp tutorial doesn't return
> as first hit: http://www.cliki.net/Online%20Tutorial ?
Google pagerank works largely by who links to you and what they say
about you. If people were talking about it being useful, it would
show up on Google. :)
>> Lisp newbies don't need
>> to spend hours reading through ridiculously long tutorials on how to
>> write a recursive function. If they have programming experience, they
>> know all that and are not held back by it at all. Where they need
>> hand-holding is summarized in my previous message on this thread.
>
> Perhaps you could write this hand-holding tutorial? You could even
> insert it in first position on that cliki.net page.
I'm not good at holding hands. I may try, nonetheless, but not if
people here think I'm so far off-base as to make anything I write
based upon these assumptions totally worthless.
Ari Johnson wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>
>
>>So already, Common Lisp addresses people with 1 IQ point more than C
>>programmers :-(.
>
>
> It's not so much that. It's the fact that it's hard to teach old dogs
> new tricks,
I know. Every time this stupid thread comes up someone has to point out
that newbies could get the free trial version of Lispworks* in order to
check out Lisp and be pretty far down the frickin road to salvation and
ecstasy before they ran out of heap or stack or whichever way they
cripple it.
At which point they have the usual no-brainer choice that eludes most
people of paying a few bucks for Lispworks Pro* or spending ten times as
much on hours of BS with free (as in my time, apparently) solutions.
hth, kenny
* Or on win32 and Linux, ACL.
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ari Johnson wrote:
> > Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>So already, Common Lisp addresses people with 1 IQ point more than C
> >>programmers :-(.
> >
> >
> > It's not so much that. It's the fact that it's hard to teach old dogs
> > new tricks,
>
> I know.
I call shennanigans. I'm 51 years old, been programming for over 30,
and didn't find Lisp hard. Mind-expanding, perhaps, but not hard. The
difference isn't age -- it's desire.
> Every time this stupid thread comes up someone has to point out
> that newbies could get the free trial version of Lispworks* in order to
> check out Lisp and be pretty far down the frickin road to salvation and
> ecstasy before they ran out of heap or stack or whichever way they
> cripple it.
>
> At which point they have the usual no-brainer choice that eludes most
> people of paying a few bucks for Lispworks Pro*
$1,100 + $275 (maintenance) + $50 (shipping) = $1,425 isn't "a few
bucks". Especially with two kids in college. If you think otherwise,
I'll be happy to tell you how you can make a donation.
> or spending ten times as
> much on hours of BS with free (as in my time, apparently) solutions.
>
Aquamacs + SLIME + OpenMCL/SBCL takes less time to get running than the
equivalent in dollars of buying LispWorks.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <Mpwsg.9$cs1.6@fe10.lga>
Bob Felts wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ari Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So already, Common Lisp addresses people with 1 IQ point more than C
>>>>programmers :-(.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not so much that. It's the fact that it's hard to teach old dogs
>>>new tricks,
>>
>>I know.
>
>
> I call shennanigans. I'm 51 years old, been programming for over 30,
> and didn't find Lisp hard. Mind-expanding, perhaps, but not hard. The
> difference isn't age -- it's desire.
Exactly. The people over which Ari is wringing his hands are just
tire-kickers.
>
>
>>Every time this stupid thread comes up someone has to point out
>>that newbies could get the free trial version of Lispworks* in order to
>>check out Lisp and be pretty far down the frickin road to salvation and
>>ecstasy before they ran out of heap or stack or whichever way they
>>cripple it.
>>
>>At which point they have the usual no-brainer choice that eludes most
>>people of paying a few bucks for Lispworks Pro*
>
>
> $1,100 + $275 (maintenance) + $50 (shipping) = $1,425 isn't "a few
> bucks". Especially with two kids in college. If you think otherwise,
> I'll be happy to tell you how you can make a donation.
Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
Kent is right: the real virus is the FSF idea that we should not have to
pay for software. It has sucked immeasurable man hours right down the
drain. Free my ass.
Or maybe you /want/ a bunch of tirekickers to be using Lisp. Nah, they
just track in a lot of dirt.
>
>
>> or spending ten times as
>>much on hours of BS with free (as in my time, apparently) solutions.
>>
>
>
> Aquamacs + SLIME + OpenMCL/SBCL takes less time to get running than the
> equivalent in dollars of buying LispWorks.
Well when you start valuing your time at zero as the FSF has taught you,
sure! And who said the only benefit to Lispworks was in getting it
running? SLIME itself is a crappy substitute for an integrated
environment. How about the add-ons you get with Lispworks?
And I don't even like the Lispworks IDE!!!!
:)
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >
> >>Every time this stupid thread comes up someone has to point out that
> >>newbies could get the free trial version of Lispworks* in order to check
> >>out Lisp and be pretty far down the frickin road to salvation and
> >>ecstasy before they ran out of heap or stack or whichever way they
> >>cripple it.
> >>
> >>At which point they have the usual no-brainer choice that eludes most
> >>people of paying a few bucks for Lispworks Pro*
> >
> >
> > $1,100 + $275 (maintenance) + $50 (shipping) = $1,425 isn't "a few
> > bucks". Especially with two kids in college. If you think otherwise,
> > I'll be happy to tell you how you can make a donation.
>
> Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
> Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
> paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
> Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
And if it gets to the point where I want to release software for sale
written in Lisp, and I think I can make back my investment, then I'll
spring for LispWorks. I am certainly not a newbie, but given everything
else I need to spend money on, LispWorks isn't it right now.
>
> Kent is right: the real virus is the FSF idea that we should not have to
> pay for software. It has sucked immeasurable man hours right down the
> drain. Free my ass.
>
I don't want to add up all of the money I've spent on software (and
hardware); it might depress me.
> Or maybe you /want/ a bunch of tirekickers to be using Lisp. Nah, they
> just track in a lot of dirt.
>
I'll go wash my feet, now.
> >
> >
> >> or spending ten times as
> >>much on hours of BS with free (as in my time, apparently) solutions.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Aquamacs + SLIME + OpenMCL/SBCL takes less time to get running than the
> > equivalent in dollars of buying LispWorks.
>
> Well when you start valuing your time at zero as the FSF has taught you,
> sure!
You presume too much. I used a base rate of $125/hr. I make my living
writing software (well, I used to before I climbed the ladder); I very
much think that those who write software ought to be paid for it.
> And who said the only benefit to Lispworks was in getting it
> running?
It wasn't me, whoever it was.
> SLIME itself is a crappy substitute for an integrated
> environment.
Just curious, but why? I have the LispWorks personal edition; I prefer
Emacs + SLIME + Lisp.
> How about the add-ons you get with Lispworks?
CAPI is very much of interest to me.
>
> And I don't even like the Lispworks IDE!!!!
>
I'm not really partial to any IDE.
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> SLIME itself is a crappy substitute for an integrated environment.
Nonsense. Emacs+paredit+SLIME rock! :-)
--
Luís Oliveira
luismbo (@) gmail (.) com
http://student.dei.uc.pt/~lmoliv/
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <2GFsg.84$%L7.81@fe10.lga>
Luís Oliveira wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>SLIME itself is a crappy substitute for an integrated environment.
>
>
> Nonsense. Emacs+paredit+SLIME rock! :-)
>
Oh, no. I bad-mouthed a #lisp project, here come the yobbos!
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Kent is right: the real virus is the FSF idea that we should not have
> to pay for software.
Of course, that's never been the FSF's idea. In fact, IIRC it still
sells emacs, gcc and so forth for prices comparable to that of
LispWorks.
The FSF's position is that, having purchased software, the user should
be able to modify it and share it--in other words, that purchase should
lead to ownership,r ather than rental. It's more complex than that, of
course, but that's my short version.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Progressive (adj): Value-free; tolerant; non-judgemental.
E.g. traditional archery instruction methods spent tedious hours
teaching the archer to hit a bulls-eye. Progressive methods achieved
better results by telling the student archer to shoot in the manner he
or she found most comfortable, then calling whatever the arrow hit the
bulls-eye. --Fred Gilham
Ken Tilton wrote:
<snipped>
> Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
> Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
> paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
> Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
>
Thats more than a months salary for targetting a single
platform. Almost 4 months salary if you want 3 platforms.
For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
of the free offerings (see gcc) I'd definitely think twice
about spending more than my car is worth.
I am also a serious guitarist - total equipment value
consisting of 2 electric guitars, an amp and a low-powered
speaker, a digital tuner and a tuning pipe, and one acoustic
guitar lets me enjoy my hobby; total cost under 300USD.
All bought second hand; I can't buy any crappy lisp
implementation second hand though.
> Kent is right: the real virus is the FSF idea that we should not have to
> pay for software. It has sucked immeasurable man hours right down the
> drain. Free my ass.
Well, the idea that a closed source piece of software is worth
more than I make in 3 months, and is worth more than my car,
and in fact is worth more than an overseas holiday, well ...
the FSF has done something good then; else my C and C++
compilers might be costing about the same as well.
You know something is wrong when the biggest asset you purchase
is your home, and the second biggest is software for your hobby.
>
> Or maybe you /want/ a bunch of tirekickers to be using Lisp. Nah, they
> just track in a lot of dirt.
>
Maybe you should get off the internet then, you freeloader :-)
I mean you are, after all, reading this message (and
getting all your internet access) under the auspices(sp?)
of the FSF. Surely you don't think that ISPs like giving
out money for commercial licences? Also, stop using
google, as they have benefitted as well.
OTOH, commercial lisp implementations have contributed so
little to my life that I won't notice if they all went
bellyup and disappeared overnight.
(actually, that might not be such a bad idea. Keep overcharging
and sooner or later you'll die of attrition as young blood
comes into lisp-world, sees what is being charged for commercial
lisps and simply uses sbcl, or cmucl, or clisp, etc. I won't
be surprised if lisp vendors stop getting new customers).
> Well when you start valuing your time at zero as the FSF has taught you,
> sure!
Luckily, the FSF has taught me that I don't need to beg greedy
corps for 30 year old technology if I am willing to share
my work.
goose,
:-)
On 2006-07-12 12:08:40 -0500, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
>> Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
>> paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
>> Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
>>
>
> Thats more than a months salary for targetting a single
> platform. Almost 4 months salary if you want 3 platforms.
Well, duh! Encourage your market to value your skilled work, charge a fair
price for it, and your salary will increase. It's called economics,
dude. If you
can't see how 'free beer' (as opposed 'free speech') software drives down
your earnings too, then you deserve what you get.
> For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
> of the free offerings (see gcc) I'd definitely think twice
> about spending more than my car is worth.
I think you do not know of what you babble.
> I am also a serious guitarist - total equipment value
> consisting of 2 electric guitars, an amp and a low-powered
> speaker, a digital tuner and a tuning pipe, and one acoustic
> guitar lets me enjoy my hobby; total cost under 300USD.
>
> All bought second hand; I can't buy any crappy lisp
> implementation second hand though.
Oh dear. Too bad you can't make a real living as a programmer anymore.
>> Kent is right: the real virus is the FSF idea that we should not have to
>> pay for software. It has sucked immeasurable man hours right down the
>> drain. Free my ass.
>
> Well, the idea that a closed source piece of software is worth
> more than I make in 3 months, and is worth more than my car,
> and in fact is worth more than an overseas holiday, well ...
> the FSF has done something good then; else my C and C++
> compilers might be costing about the same as well.
>
> You know something is wrong when the biggest asset you purchase
> is your home, and the second biggest is software for your hobby.
Oh, wait, I think...
>>
>> Or maybe you /want/ a bunch of tirekickers to be using Lisp. Nah, they
>> just track in a lot of dirt.
>>
>
> Maybe you should get off the internet then, you freeloader :-)
> I mean you are, after all, reading this message (and
> getting all your internet access) under the auspices(sp?)
> of the FSF. Surely you don't think that ISPs like giving
> out money for commercial licences? Also, stop using
> google, as they have benefitted as well.
... yep. There it is. Troll. Damn. I really need to learn to read the
entire test before bangin' out the answers :-)
-Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
Michael J. Forster wrote:
> On 2006-07-12 12:08:40 -0500, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> >> Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
> >> Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
> >> paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
> >> Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
> >>
> >
> > Thats more than a months salary for targetting a single
> > platform. Almost 4 months salary if you want 3 platforms.
>
> Well, duh! Encourage your market to value your skilled work, charge a fair
I'm in South Africa. Thats an above average income.
> price for it, and your salary will increase. It's called economics,
> dude. If you
> can't see how 'free beer' (as opposed 'free speech') software drives down
> your earnings too, then you deserve what you get.
>
>
> > For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
> > of the free offerings (see gcc) I'd definitely think twice
> > about spending more than my car is worth.
>
> I think you do not know of what you babble.
I think that you are too used to having a strong currency.
What is made in SA I can afford (fine wine, etc), what has
to be bought elsewhere (lisp tools, aircraft, etc) I cannot.
>
>
> > I am also a serious guitarist - total equipment value
> > consisting of 2 electric guitars, an amp and a low-powered
> > speaker, a digital tuner and a tuning pipe, and one acoustic
> > guitar lets me enjoy my hobby; total cost under 300USD.
> >
> > All bought second hand; I can't buy any crappy lisp
> > implementation second hand though.
>
> Oh dear. Too bad you can't make a real living as a programmer anymore.
I do just fine; which is why the FSF crap spewed above irks me.
If it wasn't for them, us third world countries *still* would
not have any local software developers.
>
>
> >> Kent is right: the real virus is the FSF idea that we should not have to
> >> pay for software. It has sucked immeasurable man hours right down the
> >> drain. Free my ass.
> >
> > Well, the idea that a closed source piece of software is worth
> > more than I make in 3 months, and is worth more than my car,
> > and in fact is worth more than an overseas holiday, well ...
> > the FSF has done something good then; else my C and C++
> > compilers might be costing about the same as well.
> >
> > You know something is wrong when the biggest asset you purchase
> > is your home, and the second biggest is software for your hobby.
>
> Oh, wait, I think...
>From your reply, I doubt that you did.
<snipped>
On 2006-07-13 03:18:31 -0500, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> Michael J. Forster wrote:
>> On 2006-07-12 12:08:40 -0500, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>>
>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>>> Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
>>>> Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
>>>> paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
>>>> Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thats more than a months salary for targetting a single
>>> platform. Almost 4 months salary if you want 3 platforms.
>>
>> Well, duh! Encourage your market to value your skilled work, charge a fair
>
> I'm in South Africa. Thats an above average income.
I'm in Canada. Strong currency, yes, as you noted below. However, the primary
industry of the region in which I live is agriculture. I grew up the
son of a farmer,
and over 85% of my business comes from farmers. In Canada, farming represents
less than 3% GDP, and not that long ago, $1500 was my monthly income as well.
It's not a lot higher now.
My point stands. Although my dollar can buy more internationally, my company
doesn't have a great many of them. Same challenge.
>>> For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
>>> of the free offerings (see gcc) I'd definitely think twice
>>> about spending more than my car is worth.
>>
>> I think you do not know of what you babble.
>
> I think that you are too used to having a strong currency.
> What is made in SA I can afford (fine wine, etc), what has
> to be bought elsewhere (lisp tools, aircraft, etc) I cannot.
The babble to which I was referring:
"For a product which doesn't even approach the usefullness
of the free offerings (see gcc)..."
That is, you were comparing a commercial Lisp to a free C/C++
compiler suite.
>> Oh dear. Too bad you can't make a real living as a programmer anymore.
>
> I do just fine; which is why the FSF crap spewed above irks me.
> If it wasn't for them, us third world countries *still* would
> not have any local software developers.
If free (speech and/or beer) software allows you to make a living where,
otherwise, you might not, then great. Sincerely.
If you're irked by people who confuse speech and beer and denegrate the
FSF on that basis, fine.
However, wouldn't it be fair to take exception to those who, conversely,
use the FSF ideal of free (speech) to denegrate those earn a living from
non-free (beer) software? I refer you to the following excerpt from your
original post on 2006-07-12 12:08:40 -0500:
[...]
> OTOH, commercial lisp implementations have contributed so
> little to my life that I won't notice if they all went
> bellyup and disappeared overnight.
>
> (actually, that might not be such a bad idea. Keep overcharging
> and sooner or later you'll die of attrition as young blood
> comes into lisp-world, sees what is being charged for commercial
> lisps and simply uses sbcl, or cmucl, or clisp, etc. I won't
> be surprised if lisp vendors stop getting new customers).
[...]
>
> Luckily, the FSF has taught me that I don't need to beg greedy
> corps for 30 year old technology if I am willing to share
> my work.
So, the FSF has taught you that commercial Lisp vendors are
'greedy corps' that 'overcharge' for '30 year old technology'. Doesn't
sound like the free speech lesson.
On the other hand, calling my Lisp vendor for support has taught me
that they are just people not unlike myself: working hard to earn my
business and, in the process, a respectable -- hardly luxuriant -- living.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
Michael J. Forster wrote:
<snipped>
> > I do just fine; which is why the FSF crap spewed above irks me.
> > If it wasn't for them, us third world countries *still* would
> > not have any local software developers.
>
> If free (speech and/or beer) software allows you to make a living where,
> otherwise, you might not, then great. Sincerely.
Thanks.
>
> If you're irked by people who confuse speech and beer and denegrate the
> FSF on that basis, fine.
>
> However, wouldn't it be fair to take exception to those who, conversely,
> use the FSF ideal of free (speech) to denegrate those earn a living from
> non-free (beer) software? I refer you to the following excerpt from your
> original post on 2006-07-12 12:08:40 -0500:
>
> [...]
> > OTOH, commercial lisp implementations have contributed so
> > little to my life that I won't notice if they all went
> > bellyup and disappeared overnight.
> >
> > (actually, that might not be such a bad idea. Keep overcharging
> > and sooner or later you'll die of attrition as young blood
> > comes into lisp-world, sees what is being charged for commercial
> > lisps and simply uses sbcl, or cmucl, or clisp, etc. I won't
> > be surprised if lisp vendors stop getting new customers).
> [...]
> >
> > Luckily, the FSF has taught me that I don't need to beg greedy
> > corps for 30 year old technology if I am willing to share
> > my work.
>
> So, the FSF has taught you that commercial Lisp vendors are
> 'greedy corps' that 'overcharge' for '30 year old technology'. Doesn't
> sound like the free speech lesson.
Firstly, let me apologise for my heated and emotional response.
Its quite often that I get my buttons pushed so accurately
on usenet but I usually try to calm down before responding :-)
Now, why not quote the "share my work" as well? Doesn't sound quite
*as* bad.
OK, lets take all the negative words out of that sentence.
"The FSF has taught me that I don't need to /ask/ /financially
independent and/or strong/ companies for /proven technology/
if I am willing to share my work."
Same point, less offensive, still true.
>
> On the other hand, calling my Lisp vendor for support has taught me
> that they are just people not unlike myself: working hard to earn my
> business and, in the process, a respectable -- hardly luxuriant -- living.
>
Thats the frustrating thing!!! I emailed a few lisp vendors
too - I *KNOW* that they are not "greedy corps" flogging
"30 year old technology". Like I said in a reply to KT, they
are /probably/ selling for as low as they can without going
out of business; I cannot afford that price though.
My emotional responses were as a result of being
lumped in with the freeloaders who simply believe
that all software should be free (beer).
As a fulltime developer, *I* *firmly* *believe* *that*
*developers* *should* *be* *compensated* *for* *their*
*work*. It would be hypocritical of me to think otherwise
as this is how I make a living.
/However/, the FSF goals allow me to build on the
work of others (and charge for it) only if I let
others build on my work (and charge for it).
See clisp as an excellent example: if I modify
it to give me gui goodness, then I have to release
my modifications *if* I release the modified clisp.
At my current employment, software really has no
currency value - the software is just the icing on
the cake that convinces a client to buy our hardware
and not the competitors hardware. I'm not even aware
of any licences that go with the software; we just
ship hardware - no client has yet asked for the full
sources for the software although I (and the other
developers) frequently send them whatever snippets
they may want to see (e.g. if they want to implement
a protocol to talk to our software).
Since I am an embedded developer, just about all
of my career is going to be writing software just to
convince clients to take our hardware.
If I ship free software (say, embedded linux), then
the costs of the entire industry (say, credit card
terminals) go down as /we all/ can benefit from each
others work. If there is something that gives me
a competetive advantage, then I won't use free
software to write it.
IME, there is very little that can count as
an advantage.
goose,
On 2006-07-14 09:53:21 -0500, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
[...]
>> Michael J. Forster wrote:
>> So, the FSF has taught you that commercial Lisp vendors are
>> 'greedy corps' that 'overcharge' for '30 year old technology'. Doesn't
>> sound like the free speech lesson.
>
> Firstly, let me apologise for my heated and emotional response.
> Its quite often that I get my buttons pushed so accurately
> on usenet but I usually try to calm down before responding :-)
No sweat. I flame, you flame, then, if we keep talking, we realise our
perspectives are not that far apart :-)
> Now, why not quote the "share my work" as well? Doesn't sound quite
> *as* bad.
>
> OK, lets take all the negative words out of that sentence.
> "The FSF has taught me that I don't need to /ask/ /financially
> independent and/or strong/ companies for /proven technology/
> if I am willing to share my work."
>
> Same point, less offensive, still true.
Actually, I think it makes a different point or, at least, permits the
reader a different interpretation. Now, you have me thinking 'speech'
instead of 'beer', and, if I may be so bold, I believe that's the ideal
and consequential benefits you were promoting. I have no quarrel
with those.
>> On the other hand, calling my Lisp vendor for support has taught me
>> that they are just people not unlike myself: working hard to earn my
>> business and, in the process, a respectable -- hardly luxuriant -- living.
>>
>
> Thats the frustrating thing!!! I emailed a few lisp vendors
> too - I *KNOW* that they are not "greedy corps" flogging
> "30 year old technology". Like I said in a reply to KT, they
> are /probably/ selling for as low as they can without going
> out of business; I cannot afford that price though.
>
> My emotional responses were as a result of being
> lumped in with the freeloaders who simply believe
> that all software should be free (beer).
I've been lumped on either side on various occasions. Sometimes,
without cause (I think) and sometimes because I failed to articulate
my position.
[...]
> /However/, the FSF goals allow me to build on the
> work of others (and charge for it) only if I let
> others build on my work (and charge for it).
As a former biologist, I, too, will fight for the right to share information,
including software. That is why I do agree with the FSF ideal of
freedom, even if it is often misinterpreted and misappropriated.
Cheers and happy hacking,
Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
goose <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
> Since I am an embedded developer, just about all of my career is
> going to be writing software just to convince clients to take our
> hardware.
>
> If I ship free software (say, embedded linux), then the costs of the
> entire industry (say, credit card terminals) go down as /we all/ can
> benefit from each others work.
But what if there were a bunch of commercial software companies giving
away the hardware to sell more of their valuable software? It's only
hypothetical, because it's much harder to pool work and resources to
produce free (gratis) material objects, but the rhetorical question
stands. How can you assume your choices are really working for the
greater ("we all" above) good?
--
Steven E. Harris
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <c_Ptg.32$F_6.21@fe12.lga>
goose wrote:
> My emotional responses were as a result of being
> lumped in with the freeloaders who simply believe
> that all software should be free (beer).
I think you lumped yourself. You know full well us euro-centric types
are so self-absorbed we never even consider the plight of anyone not
living within ten blocks of us. So I did not think to specify "Of course
none of this applies anywhwere the exchange rate is below <insert
exculpating ratio of choice>".
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <CGbtg.35$EX5.2@fe11.lga>
goose wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>>Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
>>Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
>>paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
>>Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
>>
> For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
> of the free offerings (see gcc) ....
If you think C is comparable to Lisp, what makes me think we are not
going to get very far in agreeing on the value of a Lisp environment?
Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
that programmer time has no value). of course gcc has value, and the
price of zero is an irrational price, but great for achieving the
intended infection. Of course a lot of great programmer time went into
developing it, and that cost was recovered in political gain.
I mean, just look at how hard you are arguing now for /nothing/ other
than a house or car costing $1425. Yikes, the infection has spread!
Meanwhile society suffers because everyone is out there slaving away
trying to get their "free" OS to recognize a mouse or DVD drive if it
even will, when they could be hacking into the White House computer
system to get evidence for the war crimes trial.
tsk tsk, Mr. Stallman.
kenny
ps. I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run. Any leads, anyone? k
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
> their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run.
Anecdotally, it's hard to classify, as a lot of this effort can also
be considered pleasurable tinkering, given the right proclivities. Is
that activity then the cost or the benefit of such a system?
--
Steven E. Harris
Steven E. Harris wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
>>their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run.
>
>
> Anecdotally, it's hard to classify, as a lot of this effort can also
> be considered pleasurable tinkering, given the right proclivities. Is
> that activity then the cost or the benefit of such a system?
>
Let's just count up the hours. If they have fun getting their Linux to
build, they would have fun hacking the White House as well.
Btw, the next task is pricing those hours. OK, the FSF has their price,
zero. I'd like to hear some others. :) One FS guy at the Lispnyk meeting
suggested $10/hr. Uncomfortably close to burger flipping, I think.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>Steven E. Harris wrote:
>> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
>>>their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run.
>>
>>Anecdotally, it's hard to classify, as a lot of this effort can also
>>be considered pleasurable tinkering, given the right
>>proclivities. Is that activity then the cost or the benefit of such
>>a system?
[...]
>Btw, the next task is pricing those hours. OK, the FSF has their
>price, zero. I'd like to hear some others. :) One FS guy at the
>Lispnyk meeting suggested $10/hr. Uncomfortably close to burger
>flipping, I think.
I don't think anyone claims that FS is free completely. I find that
there is an excellent variety of FS out there, ranging from completely
free with no support to stuff that costs you an arm and a leg before
you can use it, and comes with extensive support.
For one thing, RHEL I think is an example of Open-source software that
has support, and it works. You pay for it.
Nothing is completely free, it's just a matter of what you value more?
IMO, FS gives you more liberty to spend the least total amount of time
than the comparable NON free piece of code. With one you can pay money
to get things running, or you can spend your own time; with the
proprietary stuff, you either pay money or you don't get it.
- Aaron
--
Aaron Hsu <····@sacrificumdeo.net>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Steven E. Harris wrote:
>> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
>>>their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run.
>> Anecdotally, it's hard to classify, as a lot of this effort can also
>> be considered pleasurable tinkering, given the right proclivities. Is
>> that activity then the cost or the benefit of such a system?
>>
>
> Let's just count up the hours. If they have fun getting their Linux to
> build, they would have fun hacking the White House as well.
>
> Btw, the next task is pricing those hours. OK, the FSF has their
> price, zero. I'd like to hear some others. :) One FS guy at the
> Lispnyk meeting suggested $10/hr. Uncomfortably close to burger
> flipping, I think.
You seem to be forgetting something: basically,
people have more time than money.
If they'd had more money than time, we'd all earn more.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
ADVISORY: There is an extremely small but nonzero chance that,
through a process known as "tunneling," this product may
spontaneously disappear from its present location and reappear at
any random place in the universe, including your neighbor's
domicile. The manufacturer will not be responsible for any damages
or inconveniences that may result.
"Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> writes:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
>> their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run.
>
> Anecdotally, it's hard to classify, as a lot of this effort can also
> be considered pleasurable tinkering, given the right proclivities. Is
> that activity then the cost or the benefit of such a system?
Or if you don't care, you can just _buy_ a freedom OS distribution,
_buy_ the exact hardware it's certified to run on, install it with two
clicks, and no (or one at most) reboot. You can even _buy_
pre-installed Linux systems, for even less of your "free" time.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
The world will now reboot. don't bother saving your artefacts.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> "Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> writes:
>
>
>>Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
>>>their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run.
>>
>>Anecdotally, it's hard to classify, as a lot of this effort can also
>>be considered pleasurable tinkering, given the right proclivities. Is
>>that activity then the cost or the benefit of such a system?
>
>
> Or if you don't care, you can just _buy_ a freedom OS distribution,
> _buy_ the exact hardware it's certified to run on, install it with two
> clicks, and no (or one at most) reboot. You can even _buy_
> pre-installed Linux systems, for even less of your "free" time.
OK, so your answer is zero hours have in fact been spent by end-users
configuring their systems?
<sigh>
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> OK, so your answer is zero hours have in fact been spent by end-users
> configuring their systems?
Basically, yes. By definition, "end-users" don't have the capacities
and inclination to configure their systems.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
ADVISORY: There is an extremely small but nonzero chance that,
through a process known as "tunneling," this product may
spontaneously disappear from its present location and reappear at
any random place in the universe, including your neighbor's
domicile. The manufacturer will not be responsible for any damages
or inconveniences that may result.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <xTetg.21$g_7.15@fe09.lga>
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>OK, so your answer is zero hours have in fact been spent by end-users
>>configuring their systems?
>
>
> Basically, yes. By definition, "end-users" don't have the capacities
> and inclination to configure their systems.
Well, last night at Lispnyc we were struggling to differentiate the
people who develop the open source and those who just try to install and
use it, came up with end users of Linux. Someone also said "you mean
/configuring/ Linux". Better?
hth, kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
> gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
> deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
> bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value
> (or that programmer time has no value).
That is, I believe, libel: the FSF does not deliberately intend to
propound the idea that software has no value, nor the idea that
programmer time has no value. That is perhaps an accidental effect of
its philosophy, but not one which it supports. E.g. it sells free
software for quite a pretty penny, and for quite some time supported
itself by selling programmer time.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
`When you wake up in the morning, Pooh,' said Piglet at last,
`what's the first thing you say to yourself?'
`What's for breakfast?' said Pooh. `What do you say, Piglet?'
`I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?' said Piglet.
Pooh nodded thoughtfully. `It's the same thing,' he said.
--A.A. Milne
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
>>gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
>>deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
>>bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value
>>(or that programmer time has no value).
>
>
> That is, I believe, libel:
I look forward to deposing Stallman. :)
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
On 2006-07-12 14:00:49 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> goose wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
>>> Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
>>> paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
>>> Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
>>>
>
>> For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
>> of the free offerings (see gcc) ....
>
> If you think C is comparable to Lisp, what makes me think we are not
> going to get very far in agreeing on the value of a Lisp environment?
>
> Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
> gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
> deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
> bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
> that programmer time has no value). of course gcc has value, and the
> price of zero is an irrational price, but great for achieving the
> intended infection. Of course a lot of great programmer time went into
> developing it, and that cost was recovered in political gain.
>
> I mean, just look at how hard you are arguing now for /nothing/ other
> than a house or car costing $1425. Yikes, the infection has spread!
>
> Meanwhile society suffers because everyone is out there slaving away
> trying to get their "free" OS to recognize a mouse or DVD drive if it
> even will, when they could be hacking into the White House computer
> system to get evidence for the war crimes trial.
>
> tsk tsk, Mr. Stallman.
>
> kenny
>
> ps. I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
> their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run. Any leads, anyone? k
I should clarify that, while I, too, flamed the 'goose' over this, I have no
problem with free-as-in-speech software. To be honest, I've spent
significantly less of 'my time' deploying, securing, and maintaining
Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD servers than comparable Windows NT/2K
configurations. Because of this, I choose not to treat them as
free-as-in-beer -- I happily donate to the FreeBSD project.
-Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
From: Giorgos Keramidas
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <863bd1tuj3.fsf@gothmog.pc>
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:36:36 -0500, Michael J. Forster wrote:
> I should clarify that, while I, too, flamed the 'goose' over
> this, I have no problem with free-as-in-speech software. To be
> honest, I've spent significantly less of 'my time' deploying,
> securing, and maintaining Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD servers than
> comparable Windows NT/2K configurations. Because of this, I
> choose not to treat them as free-as-in-beer -- I happily donate
> to the FreeBSD project.
First of all, as a member of the FreeBSD team, I feel inclined to
thank you for your support :)
It may seem like worthless anecdotal evidence, but I would also
like to add that I have spent far too much time struggling with
Windows and other unfree systems. The struggle was always uphill
and not always successful.
It may be just my false impression, but it seems (at least for
me) the very fact that the software is free, has contributed to
making things a lot easier for me when I have to struggle with
free software systems. Very often, my `improvements' to the
system have been incorporated to the official source trees too;
some times even in the matter of a couple of hours. No closed
source system has ever managed to come even close to this...
That makes two of us, I guess :)
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:36:36 -0500, Michael J. Forster wrote:
>
>>I should clarify that, while I, too, flamed the 'goose' over
>>this, I have no problem with free-as-in-speech software. To be
>>honest, I've spent significantly less of 'my time' deploying,
>>securing, and maintaining Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD servers than
>>comparable Windows NT/2K configurations. Because of this, I
>>choose not to treat them as free-as-in-beer -- I happily donate
>>to the FreeBSD project.
>
>
> First of all, as a member of the FreeBSD team, I feel inclined to
> thank you for your support :)
>
> It may seem like worthless anecdotal evidence, but I would also
> like to add that I have spent far too much time struggling with
> Windows and other unfree systems. The struggle was always uphill
> and not always successful.
I keep telling youse people, let Dell do it! (I have heard it is worse
than a nightmare, perhaps impossible. I am not really joking when I say
the best thing to do is by a new PC once your system is truly hosed.)
vast numbers of massively uneducated people are using Dell (and other)
win32 systems for more different things (eg, with more different devices
simply plugged in) than expert programmers are doing with their "free"
systems. This is because Dell and M$ are allowed to make money off (in
reverse order) creating and configuring Win32. The dummies are way ahead
of a genius who spends even five hours maintaining their own OS to get
vastly less functionality.
Meanwhile, dozens (guessing) of earnest teams of top developers are
slaving away at "free" (or whatever few dollars) distros and none has
surfaced as the "goto" your-Mom-could-do-this (apologies for the
political incorrectness of that slam against motherhood) distro.
I guess the absence of huge $$$ at the end of the configuration rainbow
is the problem, combined with the lameness of the end result given that
Linux-ready software and hardware is not exactly falling off the shelves
at CompUSA.
>
> It may be just my false impression, but it seems (at least for
> me) the very fact that the software is free, has contributed to
> making things a lot easier for me when I have to struggle with
> free software systems. Very often, my `improvements' to the
> system have been incorporated to the official source trees too;
> some times even in the matter of a couple of hours. No closed
> source system has ever managed to come even close to this...
Yes, that is great. I use open source a lot and it is great being able
to fix things myself instead of hoping and praying for a fix a year out.
That was a good idea. All I ever said was that it sucks that legions of
dorks are now running around refusing /ever/ to pay for software,
thereby crippling the tools industry and holding everyone back.
That's not so bad, is it? :)
Ideally the ImageMagick or FTGL guys would have gotten checks from me
for $500 or so and I would have gotten the copyrighted source.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
<snipped>
> reverse order) creating and configuring Win32. The dummies are way ahead
> of a genius who spends even five hours maintaining their own OS to get
You are hurting your own argument by things like this. Only windows
users need to slave away at a system; scripting everything is a
long tradition of *nix, which is why it takes less than a minute of my
attention to install a machine configured exactly as I like but
*you* have to slave away for almost 30 minutes on an XP install
and that doesn't even count the time you spend after to install
all your applications.
>
> Meanwhile, dozens (guessing) of earnest teams of top developers are
> slaving away at "free" (or whatever few dollars) distros and none has
> surfaced as the "goto" your-Mom-could-do-this (apologies for the
> political incorrectness of that slam against motherhood) distro.
Ubuntoo has a reputation for being easier to use than Windows;
even microsoft diehards who use it agree.
>
> I guess the absence of huge $$$ at the end of the configuration rainbow
> is the problem, combined with the lameness of the end result given that
I agree, the result of windows is extremely lame ;-)
<snipped>
goose,
goose wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>>reverse order) creating and configuring Win32. The dummies are way ahead
>>of a genius who spends even five hours maintaining their own OS to get
>
>
> You are hurting your own argument by things like this. Only windows
> users need to slave away at a system; scripting everything is a
> long tradition of *nix, which is why it takes less than a minute of my
> attention
Point of information: maybe I missed it (seriously)... did you ever
answer how long it took you to do your first ever install and/or get to
the point where you have your particular setup scripted? Or did you
inherit this script from someone else?
> Ubuntoo has a reputation for being easier to use than Windows;
> even microsoft diehards who use it agree.
OK, I'll keep that in mind if I ever do Linux again. I think I said I
was very pleased with the Knoppix Debian install (and that is a "live CD").
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
goose wrote:
> *you* have to slave away for almost 30 minutes on an XP install
Well, no. One sets up an install script for XP, and that's it. Google
for "unattended install" if you care.
> and that doesn't even count the time you spend after to install
> all your applications.
Most or all of which can also be scripted.
> Ubuntoo has a reputation for being easier to use than Windows;
> even microsoft diehards who use it agree.
Needing to predict what you'll be doing, then picking the distribution
that best supports that, is one of the difficult parts of getting
started with Linux.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > *you* have to slave away for almost 30 minutes on an XP install
>
> Well, no. One sets up an install script for XP, and that's it. Google
> for "unattended install" if you care.
>
I did; only corporations buying bulk licences get these; correct
me if I'm wrong. The XP I purchased /did not/ allow me
to script the installation - it was prompts all the way.
> > and that doesn't even count the time you spend after to install
> > all your applications.
>
> Most or all of which can also be scripted.
I'd be interested to hear exactly how; these things
prompt for everything in a *window*, and I cannot
redirect input to a window.
>
> > Ubuntoo has a reputation for being easier to use than Windows;
> > even microsoft diehards who use it agree.
>
> Needing to predict what you'll be doing, then picking the distribution
> that best supports that, is one of the difficult parts of getting
> started with Linux.
>
Thats sadly true; this is yet another facet of "freedom" :-).
I think that if you are just having problems all the time,
try Ubuntoo (Man, I wish I knew how to spell this!) as,
like I said earlier, even grandmothers who have trouble
using windows find their legs with Ubuntoo.
This is going to be my last post on this subject; I fear
we'll be getting *way* too unconstructive if this goes
on. Let me thank you anyway for enlightening me
on some things (mounting at different points on the
filesystem in windows) and ask if you would accept
my apologies for any of my comments that you found
were more harsh than circumstances warranted, or
were too emotional or were personal attacks.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not really that good at
usenet diplomacy :-) Hopefully, you learned something
from me as well (and not just about the character of
usenet flameware participants) and won't just disregard
Linux because of some arrogant prick on the net :-).
goose,
<grin>Hey, we can still be friends, right?
goose wrote:
> I did; only corporations buying bulk licences get these; correct
> me if I'm wrong. The XP I purchased /did not/ allow me
> to script the installation - it was prompts all the way.
Well, obviously, you have to invoke it correctly.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/Windows2000Pro/deploy/unattend/sp1ch01.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/Windows2000Pro/deploy/unattend/sp1unatd.mspx
It's possible stuff has changed somewhat in XP. Probably not much, tho.
It's possible now you need some sort of bulk license just to get around
the "activation" stuff.
Of course, Windows over time has gotten better at that too, managing to
prompt for most everything up front, then chugging thru pretty much the
entire install. I always hated how Win98 would stop halfway thru to ask
you the timezone.
> I'd be interested to hear exactly how; these things
> prompt for everything in a *window*, and I cannot
> redirect input to a window.
You start the install with the appropriate command-line options, of
course. Or you use (for example) the management console to bulk-install
the same software on a number of PCs at once. Again, going to
microsoft.com and search for "unattended install" will tell you how to
do unattended installs of all kinds of stuff that Microsoft produces.
> I think that if you are just having problems all the time,
> try Ubuntoo (Man, I wish I knew how to spell this!) as,
> like I said earlier, even grandmothers who have trouble
> using windows find their legs with Ubuntoo.
Unfortunately, since the Linux I use is because of work, I don't get to
pick which Linux products and versions I use. I have to stay compatible
with what is being used for the servers. Fortunately, it also means it's
easy to let the guy who *does* know all the guts remote into the machine
and set it up the way it's supposed to be, once I took the 3 days to get
it to boot all the way to a login prompt.
> my apologies for any of my comments that you found
> were more harsh than circumstances warranted, or
> were too emotional or were personal attacks.
No problem. I apologise if you took any of my comments personally as
well. I wasn't looking to say Windows is better.
> usenet flameware participants) and won't just disregard
> Linux because of some arrogant prick on the net :-).
I'm already not disregarding Linux. :-) About half my income comes from
writing software that runs on Linux, because those in charge want to use
Linux for their servers. I've been using UNIX in general since V7 or so,
did my graduate work on SunOS, paid for my house writing servers that
ran on Linux and Solaris, etc. I also admit that I don't know a whole
lot about the internals of system programming on Linux, such as the
/dev/proc devices and all. I don't *think* I put Linux down, or you
personally, and if I seemed to have, I apologise for conveying that feeling.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
On 2006-07-16 12:56:08 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:36:36 -0500, Michael J. Forster wrote:
>>
>>> I should clarify that, while I, too, flamed the 'goose' over
>>> this, I have no problem with free-as-in-speech software. To be
>>> honest, I've spent significantly less of 'my time' deploying,
>>> securing, and maintaining Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD servers than
>>> comparable Windows NT/2K configurations. Because of this, I
>>> choose not to treat them as free-as-in-beer -- I happily donate
>>> to the FreeBSD project.
>>
>>
>> First of all, as a member of the FreeBSD team, I feel inclined to
>> thank you for your support :)
>>
>> It may seem like worthless anecdotal evidence, but I would also
>> like to add that I have spent far too much time struggling with
>> Windows and other unfree systems. The struggle was always uphill
>> and not always successful.
>
> I keep telling youse people, let Dell do it! (I have heard it is worse
> than a nightmare, perhaps impossible. I am not really joking when I say
> the best thing to do is by a new PC once your system is truly hosed.)
>
> vast numbers of massively uneducated people are using Dell (and other)
> win32 systems for more different things (eg, with more different
> devices simply plugged in) than expert programmers are doing with their
> "free" systems. This is because Dell and M$ are allowed to make money
> off (in reverse order) creating and configuring Win32. The dummies are
> way ahead of a genius who spends even five hours maintaining their own
> OS to get vastly less functionality.
I think I've made myself clear regarding my position on 'free speech'
vs. 'free beer' elsewhere in this thread. Here, I'm responding to your
'let [insert hardware vendor here] do it!' argument.
Although you haven't stated so directly, I believe you are
confining your argument to desktops and desktop applications.
However, in light of the growing popularity of web-based
applications, including what were previously considered the
domain of fat-client development, I think your assertions are
open to criticism from a server-based perspective. Regarding
that, I do have some some hard data:
* currently, we manage 114 servers, 98 running FreeBSD, 4
running OS X, and 12 running Windows 2K;
* we cannot streamline deployment and maintenance of any of
these by 'ghosting' disks -- the hardware specs and OS
versions vary too much for reasons beyond our control;
* the commercial hardware vendor you mentioned does not
deliver preconfigured FreeBSD boxes; nor can it deliver
W2K boxes exactly to our configuration specs;
* every server's installation, configuration, and subsequent
revisions thereof must be documented;
* our average time to deploy a FreeBSD server, including
service (e.g. Apache) but not application software is 4 hours;
* our average time to deploy a W2K server, including service
but not application software is 8 hours;
* our average support (updates, security monitoring, disaster
recovery) time for a FreeBSD server is 15 minutes per month;
* our average support (updates, security monitoring, disaster
recovery) time for a Windows server is 2.5 hours per month;
We can't just 'let [the hardware vendor] do it' as you suggest, even
in the case of W2K, and, once we have to do any part of it, the ROI
for FreeBSD exceeds that for W2K by an absurdly big margin.
Again, I will emphasize, we aren't treating FreeBSD as 'free beer'
either. We invested $1000 CDN of our time to write a mass
unattended deployment, monitoring, backup, and recovery suite to
supplement what FreeBSD already provides (i.e. periodic
monitoring scripts, dump(1), etc.). To date, we have not been able
to find any software in that price range that provides the same
reliable, tailored funcationality for Windows as our suite does for
FreeBSD.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Ideally the ImageMagick or FTGL guys would have gotten checks from me
> for $500 or so and I would have gotten the copyrighted source.
You can still pay $500 for the copyrighted source; nothing stops you.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
But never forget that the original Dilbert strips were nature studies.
--Shmuel Metz
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>Ideally the ImageMagick or FTGL guys would have gotten checks from me
>>for $500 or so and I would have gotten the copyrighted source.
>
>
> You can still pay $500 for the copyrighted source; nothing stops you.
>
Cue the monkeys, we have now entered the random sentence phase of the
thread.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Ideally the ImageMagick or FTGL guys would have gotten checks from
>>> me for $500 or so and I would have gotten the copyrighted source.
>>
>> You can still pay $500 for the copyrighted source; nothing stops you.
>>
>
> Cue the monkeys, we have now entered the random sentence phase of the
> thread.
Not really. You can give those guys $500 if you want, and you'll get
the copyrighted source. Of course, you can _also_ give them nothing
whatsoever, and _still_ get the copyrighted source. Or did you want to
pay them $500 and get copyright-free source? That may be a bit trickier
to negotiate...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
'Your pitiful weapons are no match for ours! People of Mars, surrender!'
'Uh, this isn't Mars, this is Earth.'
'Earth? Earth-with-nuclear-weapons Earth?'
'Yeah.'
'Friend!'
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
> gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
> deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
> bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
> that programmer time has no value).
For a different view, may I recommend Spolsky's "Strategy Letter V",
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html. Supporting
open source software can also be an act of commoditizing your
"complements" so that you can sell more of your product.
Bob Felts wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
>>gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
>>deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
>>bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
>>that programmer time has no value).
>
>
> For a different view, may I recommend Spolsky's "Strategy Letter V",
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html. Supporting
> open source software can also be an act of commoditizing your
> "complements" so that you can sell more of your product.
I only got as far as:
"Secondly, by using the free-as-in-beer argument, these advocates try to
believe that they are not subject to the rules of economics because
they've got a nice zero they can multiply everything by."
Thank you.
" Here's an example. When Slashdot asked Linux developer Moshe Bar if
future Linux kernels would be compatible with existing device drivers,
he said that they didn't need to. "Proprietary software goes at the
tariff of US$ 50-200 per line of debugged code. No such price applies to
OpenSource software." Moshe goes on to claim that it's OK for every
Linux kernel revision to make all existing drivers obsolete, because the
cost of rewriting all those existing drivers is zero. This is completely
wrong."
Thank you.
" He's basically claiming that spending a small amount of programming
time making the kernel backwards compatible is equivalent to spending a
huge amount of programming time rewriting every driver, because both
numbers are multiplied by their "cost," which he believes to be zero.
This is a prima facie fallacy."
Word.
" The thousands or millions of developer hours it takes to revise every
existing device driver are going to have to come at the expense of
something."
Hacking the White House?
"Debugged code is NOT free, whether proprietary or open source. Even if
you don't pay cash dollars for it, it has opportunity cost, and it has
time cost. There is a finite amount of volunteer programming talent
available for open source work, and each open source project competes
with each other open source project for the same limited programming
resource, and only the sexiest projects really have more volunteer
developers than they can use. To summarize, I'm not very impressed by
people who try to prove wild economic things about free-as-in-beer
software, because they're just getting divide-by-zero errors as far as
I'm concerned."
Divide-by-zero errors, I love it. Gotta use that from now on.
Thx, kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob Felts wrote:
> > Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >>Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
> >>gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
> >>deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
> >>bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
> >>that programmer time has no value).
> >
> >
> > For a different view, may I recommend Spolsky's "Strategy Letter V",
> > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html. Supporting
> > open source software can also be an act of commoditizing your
> > "complements" so that you can sell more of your product.
>
> I only got as far as:
>
> "Secondly, by using the free-as-in-beer argument, these advocates try to
> believe that they are not subject to the rules of economics because
> they've got a nice zero they can multiply everything by."
>
[...]
Then you missed the important bit. IBM, for example, spends a lot of
money on free software -- not to "infect people with the idea that
software has no value." Rather, it's so that people have more money to
spend on IBM's systems and services. Suppose I, a customer, have to buy
software, hardware, and services. If my software cost goes to zero
(because I can use a free GCC as opposed to something I have to pay
for), then I have more money to spend on hardware and services. The
hardware and service vendors have gotta love that.
So, the "intended effect" isn't necessarily to promote the idea that
software has no value. The "intended effect" can be to get people to
have more money to spend more on the product(s) I happen to offer for
sale.
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> ps. I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
> their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run. Any leads, anyone? k
I gave up Windows except for some games because I was sick and tired of
problems with it. I'm quite happy with Linux, thank you. It's saved me
a lot of time and headaches.
--Larry
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <Nhhtg.168$EX5.44@fe11.lga>
Larry Elmore wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>> ps. I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
>> their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run. Any leads, anyone? k
>
>
> I gave up Windows except for some games because I was sick and tired of
> problems with it. I'm quite happy with Linux, thank you. It's saved me
> a lot of time and headaches.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I hate Windows (and the company behind it). It
is terribly /annoying/. No free lunch over here, either. I just thought
it would inform my next Lispnyk harangue if we could start with at least
one number.
Where it started was some young Bolshevik, upon learning I was
developing commercial software, demanded I give it away for the
betterment of society and live off the crumbs in the FSF model of hoping
someone would come to my cabin in the woods and ask me to revise it for
a few dollars.
At that point I suggested that software is good (as someone pointed out,
the Internet is a nice example) for society, but that all the good
programmers are home doing the technical equivalent of crack "tinkering"
with systems and in the end, Eureka!, the mouse works!
My point: I am sure Mr. Harris could have solved protein folding by now
and had as much fun doing it, if only he had been using Windows and a
commercial Lisp.
:)
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Larry Elmore wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> ps. I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
> >> their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run. Any leads, anyone? k
> >
> >
> > I gave up Windows except for some games because I was sick and tired of
> > problems with it. I'm quite happy with Linux, thank you. It's saved me
> > a lot of time and headaches.
>
> Oh, don't get me wrong, I hate Windows (and the company behind it). It
I find it quite hard to bring myself to hate a company;
I find it quite easy to hate their products, though.
It is possible that they release a product that I /like/.
> is terribly /annoying/. No free lunch over here, either. I just thought
> it would inform my next Lispnyk harangue if we could start with at least
> one number.
I've replied to this elsethread.
>
> Where it started was some young Bolshevik, upon learning I was
> developing commercial software, demanded I give it away for the
> betterment of society and live off the crumbs in the FSF model of hoping
I quite agree with you here. One should not be forced or obliged
to give away the fruits of ones labour for any less than what one
is prepared to accept in payment.
The FSF does *not* give away their labour for free; they exchange
it with you for any changes you make to *their* product. *Your*
product you get to keep and sell for any price.
I'm not sure how one would make the mental leap from
"I'll swap you this for that" to "I'll value your work
less and less until its worth nothing". If you feel
the swap is not worth it, then don't take their product
and then whine about the price[1].
This is all assuming that you are not misrepresenting the
FSF on purpose :-). "Not requiring payment in cash"
is different from "require payment in kind".
OTOH, if you are unhappy with the FSF terms of sale,
you are free not to "purchase" their software. They
do not hide it, they state their price upfront. If you
are not happy with the price (too high to bear) you
are free not to purchase their product.
> someone would come to my cabin in the woods and ask me to revise it for
> a few dollars.
>
> At that point I suggested that software is good (as someone pointed out,
> the Internet is a nice example) for society, but that all the good
> programmers are home doing the technical equivalent of crack "tinkering"
> with systems and in the end, Eureka!, the mouse works!
>
I can't really relate to that. I'm not even sure what that is
supposed to mean.
> My point: I am sure Mr. Harris could have solved protein folding by now
> and had as much fun doing it, if only he had been using Windows and a
> commercial Lisp.
Sure. But he may not want to, considering his "bill" for
doing so might not work i.e. If he writes FSF software his
"bill" is "send me the changes you make". If he solves
protein folding "send me the changes you make" might not
make any sense as a bill and he would have, in this case,
not been paid in the manner that he required.
Very few things are "for free, take one". FSF does indeed
have a price if you use their products, but you are free
to not purchase their products (they won't force you
to use it and then demand their pound of flesh).
notes:
[1] WRT Lispworks, I didn't take their product and then
complain about the price - I offered reasons for why
the price is too high for *me*. It's certainly correct
for *you* from the look of things. If their product
was priced inline with competing commercial products
I'm sure that I'd have no problem buying it.
goose,
Freedom is choosing your own payment methods :-)
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I am sure Mr. Harris could have solved protein folding by now and
> had as much fun doing it, if only he had been using Windows and a
> commercial Lisp.
Well, I do happen to use both Windows and a commercial Lisp, but I
also use Cygwin to get to XEmacs to get to SLIME (and the whole rest
of the UNIXy world), and I use CLISP, and Linux (not as my "desktop"
computer), and SBCL, and a whole bunch of other stuff, and I still
don't even know what protein folding is.� I'm picturing some kind of
origami involving energy bars and peanut butter.
Now you've gone and embarrassed me.
Oh, yes, my point in replying: I can defend Linux and SLIME because I
find them to be tremendously useful, but I don't defend them at the
exclusion of Windows and a commercial Lisp IDE. I like to use all of
them, switching around as much by technical need as my mood. I depend
on Cygwin to make Windows a little more like a UNIX, but when I'm
stuck on a UNIX computer I miss some aspects of Windows. Misapplying
yet another architectural idea to computing, think Robert Venturi's
"both/and" against "either/or".
Footnotes:
� http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding
--
Steven E. Harris
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:00:49 -0400, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ps. I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
> their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run. Any leads, anyone?
If you assume for a second that Linux is superior overall to, let's say,
Windows, then wouldn't you rather have people using the superior system
even if there is some extra work involved? Because the technology is
what matters, right?
(hint #1 this is a trick question, hint #2 remember what newsgroup this is)
--
Jack Unrue
Jack Unrue wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:00:49 -0400, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>ps. I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
>>their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run. Any leads, anyone?
>
>
> If you assume for a second that Linux is superior overall to, let's say,
> Windows, ...
look, obviously there is a second round of flaming after we establish
the cost to society of thousands (tens of thousands?) of lemmings
obediently "tinkering" away hundreds of hours each just to get their
system to recognize the mouse.
Right now I am just wondering if anyone has the number? How many folks
are running Linux, and what is the distribution from Pascal's inspired
"zero" up to my estimate of, well, if he is going to be silly... how
about five hundred hours?
kenny (looking for real, not silly numbers... I'll ask jeeves...)
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> How many folks are running Linux, and what is the distribution from
> Pascal's inspired "zero" up to my estimate of, well, if he is going
> to be silly... how about five hundred hours?
Again, it's hard to say because the work is never really done. It's
just a question of at what point one loses interest in improving
things. And note: part of the power of the system is that such
improvement is always possible and always tempting. Is that really the
same as "fixing" something?
In any case, I estimate spending 30 hours to bring a Debian Linux
computer up from bare metal to fully usable. Most of the benefit comes
in the /first hour/. After that, it's a very long tail of discovering
settings I want to change, or thinking of additional software I want
to install and configure. Along the way, everything does work, but
perhaps not exactly as I want it to.
--
Steven E. Harris
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <4Retg.20$g_7.0@fe09.lga>
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> Right now I am just wondering if anyone has the number? How many folks
> are running Linux, and what is the distribution from Pascal's inspired
> "zero" up to my estimate of, well, if he is going to be silly... how
> about five hundred hours?
>
> kenny (looking for real, not silly numbers... I'll ask jeeves...)
>
>
lessee, number of users counted here:
138,737
estimate by the site guy based on 138,737:
29,000,0000
Hmmm. I am looking for the hardcore nutjobs, and they would all
register, so let's go with a conservative 150k (because it is easier to
multiply with, we are doing serious science here).
jeeves is not being much help. Linux.org helped with this member survey
question: "Just spent four hours configuring your favorite program? Just
figured out a Linux problem that has been stumping you for months?
Post your Linux Success Stories here." I think the fact that they refer
to this as "success" is, well, superb brainwashing. (Is that libel, too?)
Let's see how the pros do:
"PC Week Labs evaluated Red Hat Software Inc.'s Extreme Linux, which
merges the clustering technology of NASA's Beowulf project with Red Hat
Linux. We saw incredible results -- near-linear scaling over eight
Pentium Pro PCs -- but the challenges we faced (and the many hours we
spent) compiling software and configuring systems...."
uh-oh, there goes PB's zero estimate.
"Extreme Linux's low $29 price belies the technology's lofty
requirements, and there is no organized method of technical support for
Extreme Linux, leaving users to post their problems to a newsgroup and
hope that some knowledgeable passerby takes an interest."
Sounding unfreeer and unfreeer all the time.
"In our tests, the Red Hat Linux 5.0 operating system was the easiest
part of the cluster to install (and that was no walk in the park)."
FSF: Plug and plunder? (your free time)
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Let's see how the pros do:
>
> "PC Week Labs evaluated Red Hat Software Inc.'s Extreme Linux, which
> merges the clustering technology of NASA's Beowulf project with Red
> Hat Linux. We saw incredible results -- near-linear scaling over eight
> Pentium Pro PCs -- but the challenges we faced (and the many hours we
> spent) compiling software and configuring systems...."
>
> uh-oh, there goes PB's zero estimate.
The end-users spent 0 on it. The professionnal system builders and
administrators worked on it.
> "Extreme Linux's low $29 price belies the technology's lofty
> requirements, and there is no organized method of technical support
> for Extreme Linux, leaving users to post their problems to a newsgroup
> and hope that some knowledgeable passerby takes an interest."
>
> Sounding unfreeer and unfreeer all the time.
It has never been a question of gratis, always of liberties.
With "free software", you are free to PAY anywhom you want to set it up.
With proprietary software, once you've paid upfront, you're not free
anymore, you have to continue paying Microsoft again and again for
less and less bugfixes.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Logiciels libres : nourris au code source sans farine animale."
I wrote:
>
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:00:49 -0400, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ps. I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
>> their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run. Any leads, anyone?
>
>If you assume for a second that Linux is superior overall to, let's say,
>Windows, then wouldn't you rather have people using the superior system
>even if there is some extra work involved? Because the technology is
>what matters, right?
>
>(hint #1 this is a trick question, hint #2 remember what newsgroup this is)
Never mind, don't waste your time on that. All I'm saying is,
people try to convince others to run Linux for valid reasons,
including their belief that Linux is better -- just like folks
advocate Lisp over other languages, because they believe it's
better. Even though it's not quite the same out-of-the-box
exeperience for newbies.
/me resolves not to post any more non-constructive posts
any more.
--
Jack Unrue
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Meanwhile society suffers because everyone is out there slaving away
> trying to get their "free" OS to recognize a mouse or DVD drive if it
> even will, when they could be hacking into the White House computer
> system to get evidence for the war crimes trial.
>
> tsk tsk, Mr. Stallman.
1- the consolidation of the computer industry and computer platforms
started well before Stallman got the idea of freedom software.
2- Mr. Stallman and FSF's actions didn't prevent competing platforms
(eg NeXT, BeOS) to be designed and developed, and had no effect in
their demise (on the contrary, AFAIK, these platforms benefited
greatly from freedom software.
3- If you see a user suffereing slaving away to get his freedom OS to
recognize a mouse or a DVD, you can always advise him to buy MacOSX
or MS-Windows. Or you could even advise him to _buy_ a freedom OS
distribution with 90-day support and even to _pay_ for additionnal
support to get his mouse or DVD working.
4- Actually, contrarily to MS-Windows where you can't go anywhere
(economically) to get some strange hardware or software
interoperate with MS-Windows, (because only Microsoft has the
sources, and Microsoft wouldn't bother with a single user), with
freedom software, the poor user has the freedom to PAY and PAY and
PAY as much as he wants to anybody he wants to get his mouse or DVD
working. There are millions of professionnals knowing enough *BSD
or Linux to make his mouse or DVD working, for a fee.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Debugging? Klingons do not debug! Our software does not coddle the
weak."
Hi Pascal,
>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
Pascal> 1- the consolidation of the computer industry and computer platforms
Pascal> started well before Stallman got the idea of freedom software.
Do you mean french software?
Pascal> 2- Mr. Stallman and FSF's actions didn't prevent competing platforms
Pascal> (eg NeXT, BeOS) to be designed and developed, and had no effect in
Pascal> their demise (on the contrary, AFAIK, these platforms benefited
Pascal> greatly from freedom software.
French software, again?
Pascal> 3- If you see a user suffereing slaving away to get his freedom OS to
Pascal> recognize a mouse or a DVD, you can always advise him to buy MacOSX
Pascal> or MS-Windows. Or you could even advise him to _buy_ a
Pascal> freedom OS
French OS?
Oh me, nerver tired of playing word games :-)
Andreas
--
Wherever I lay my .emacs, there's my $HOME.
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> ps. I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
> their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run. Any leads, anyone? k
IIRC, it took me about the same time as installing NT from scratch.
OTOH, it took me a while to get going in Lisp. I most likely would
have been better off downloading the Franz trial edition.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
Ken Tilton wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> >>Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
> >>Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
> >>paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
> >>Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
> >>
>
> > For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
> > of the free offerings (see gcc) ....
>
> If you think C is comparable to Lisp,
Under certain conditions, maybe; in general I don't, which
is why I am making an effort to learn lisp even though
some of the regs on this newsgroup tend to troll with
strawman and/or specious arguments (see the other response
by Micheal SomebodyOrTheOther above).
> what makes me think we are not
> going to get very far in agreeing on the value of a Lisp environment?
A lisp environment can be very valuable, but whereas in *your*
environment its value is *only* a few hours of work (say you work
30 hours to payback the cost of 3 lispwork licences; you can
correct me on the exact rate you bill) down here the /value/
of lispworks has to be countered against 3 or 4 months of
pay, not under a week of pay. I'd gladly give up a week
of my pay to purchase Lispworks but no one would go 3 or 4
months without pay to own just another piece of software
which will most likely be overtaken by the free offerings
in a few years anyway.
Would you?
>
> Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
> gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
> deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
> bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
> that programmer time has no value).
As someone else said, thats possibly Libel! You /can/ of course
make valid arguments against the FSF political goals, but making
valid arguments against goals they do not have is not very smart.
> of course gcc has value, and the
> price of zero is an irrational price, but great for achieving the
> intended infection. Of course a lot of great programmer time went into
> developing it, and that cost was recovered in political gain.
>
> I mean, just look at how hard you are arguing now for /nothing/ other
> than a house or car costing $1425. Yikes, the infection has spread!
Nope; I'm in a third world country; you are presumably in a first
world country where a dollar buys seven times more than my currency.
>
> Meanwhile society suffers because everyone is out there slaving away
> trying to get their "free" OS to recognize a mouse or DVD drive if it
> even will, when they could be hacking into the White House computer
> system to get evidence for the war crimes trial.
?
>
> tsk tsk, Mr. Stallman.
>
> kenny
>
> ps. I am trying to get an estimate of end-user hours spent on getting
> their "free" as in "my time" Linux systems to run. Any leads, anyone? k
>
couple of minutes; I tend to spend about 10 minutes customising
my slackware download before putting it onto a disk so that as much
as possible will be scripted. Each install thereafter requires
me to put the disk in the drive, boot up and leave (a few seconds?)
I then come back when its done and set the IP (30 seconds?).
So, for me, each installation takes not more than a minute
of my attention.
goose,
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <ZWstg.6$nh3.5@fe12.lga>
goose wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>goose wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>><snipped>
>>>
>>>>Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
>>>>Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
>>>>paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
>>>>Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
>>>>
>>
>>>For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
>>>of the free offerings (see gcc) ....
>>
>>If you think C is comparable to Lisp,
>
>
> Under certain conditions, maybe; in general I don't, which
> is why I am making an effort to learn lisp even though
> some of the regs on this newsgroup tend to troll with
> strawman and/or specious arguments (see the other response
> by Micheal SomebodyOrTheOther above).
>
>
>>what makes me think we are not
>>going to get very far in agreeing on the value of a Lisp environment?
>
>
> A lisp environment can be very valuable, but whereas in *your*
> environment its value is *only* a few hours of work (say you work
> 30 hours to payback the cost of 3 lispwork licences; you can
> correct me on the exact rate you bill) down here the /value/
> of lispworks has to be countered against 3 or 4 months of
> pay, not under a week of pay. I'd gladly give up a week
> of my pay to purchase Lispworks but no one would go 3 or 4
> months without pay to own just another piece of software
> which will most likely be overtaken by the free offerings
> in a few years anyway.
>
> Would you?
You are confused. Regrettable disparity in the wealth of nations is
being solved in another NG. You have said you would gladly pay for LW if
you could, so you have not been FSF-infected. I am talking about the
poor confused souls who say they do not like to pay for software and so
have been googling for hours trying to find a "free" solution, or get
their "free" Lisp to work, and are all the while bothering other busy
but confused people who gladly offer "free" support.
Now your personal estimate of how hard it is to configure and maintain a
Linux system is 120 seconds.....you may be an outlier. :)
>
>
>>Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
>>gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
>>deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
>>bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
>>that programmer time has no value).
>
>
> As someone else said, thats possibly Libel!
(a) You guys look so silly when you post these libel warnings, you
really should resist the temptation. :)
(b) You need to read the frickin manifesto again:
" Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system
software free, just like air.(2)
This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix
license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming
effort will be avoided."
PWUAHAHHAAHAHAH! PC Labs sounds like they really enjoyed installing Red
Hat. As for duplication, how many different Linux distros are there?
PWUUAHAHHAHAHAHAA!
" This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art."
Right. And Emacs and Slime show no evidence that bitmapped displays have
made for very nice GUIs for the past 22 years.
"Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a
user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them
himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for
him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company
which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes."
No, they would have done a fine job, but the FSF drove them all out of
business. Great.
<snip Harvard inspiration>
"Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and
what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.
"Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including
licensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through
the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is,
which programs) a person must pay for. And only a police state can force
everyone to obey them."
That does not sound like the "checkout" page of any web site I know, tho
some /do/ make me want to give their developers a good flaming.
" Consider a space station..."
uh-oh...
"... where air must be manufactured at great cost: charging each
breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask
all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay
the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the
mask off are outrageous. It's better to support the air plant with a
head tax and chuck the masks."
I guess the head tax is the hundreds of hours (or in your case, seconds)
spent by each head trying to get Linux to play a WAV file.
"Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as
breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free."
Ahem. You guys are libelling me by accusing me of libel!
> So, for me, each installation takes not more than a minute
> of my attention.
How long was the first install?
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> >>goose wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ken Tilton wrote:
> >>>
> >>><snipped>
> >>>
> >>>>Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
> >>>>Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
> >>>>paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
> >>>>Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
<snipped>
> > Would you?
>
> You are confused. Regrettable disparity in the wealth of nations is
> being solved in another NG.
There is no confusion; that disparity is what so
neatly invalidates your point about $1425 being
"... /nothing/ compared to what other craftsmen are
paying ...".
> You have said you would gladly pay for LW if
> you could, so you have not been FSF-infected.
I've paid for dev tools before, doubtless I'll pay
for dev tools in the future.
> I am talking about the
> poor confused souls who say they do not like to pay for software and so
> have been googling for hours trying to find a "free" solution, or get
> their "free" Lisp to work, and are all the while bothering other busy
> but confused people who gladly offer "free" support.
Well, we all start off on the cheapest thing we can get away
with to learn. I've asked questions on the "free" lisps as
well; see my recent post about cmucl memory leakage/lack
of memory leakage. There is no problem with the free lisps
for me - in my book the price of a commerical lisp had so far
outweighed the /price/ that the free lisps were asking
(i.e. my time, my improvements, my feedback) that it was
a no brainer. Only a fool would consider a months pay
towards the purchase of the cheapest lisp system. I doubt
that *you* would give up a months pay for the cheapest
lisp system that will target only a single platform.
>
> Now your personal estimate of how hard it is to configure and maintain a
> Linux system is 120 seconds.....you may be an outlier. :)
No, just very, very lazy :-) I don't like repeating my work
(hence I'm a programmer) and so script everything. I believe
most *nix users do this as well (well, all the ones I know:-)
because its so simple to do.
AFAIK, windows systems tend to be the most time-consuming
to install/setup/administrate, sometimes with each system
requiring almost 30 minutes of human attention just on
install.
>
> >
> >
> >>Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
> >>gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
> >>deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
> >>bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
> >>that programmer time has no value).
> >
> >
> > As someone else said, thats possibly Libel!
>
> (a) You guys look so silly when you post these libel warnings, you
> really should resist the temptation. :)
>
> (b) You need to read the frickin manifesto again:
>
> " Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system
> software free, just like air.(2)
Air has no value? Thats news to me ...
(read carefully; you just broke your own argument into pieces)
<snipped>
>
> Ahem. You guys are libelling me by accusing me of libel!
It is interesting to note that out of my entire
*reasoned* response to you, you pick *one* sentence
and devote your entire response to it while quitely
ignoring the issue that I raised:
The FSF software is being sold at a certain price;
if you are not happy with the price, then feel free
not to complete the transaction with them.
Why you are harping on about "FSF infection" is beyond
me; you are free not to do business with them just as
I am free not to do business with a commercial lisp
supplier. I tend to exercise my freedom in this regard.
I imagine you are bitter about confused souls who
want everything for free(gratis), but it would hurt
your argument about FSF infection less you'd stop
stereotyping all of us with the same brush as we
just want things for free(libre).
I, OTOH, am a little bitter than I can't afford
first world tools but you won't see me calling
the tools vendors names, nor will you see me
complain "Th3 bas7ards ar3 ov3rcharging" or
anything similar; I also won't deliberately
(I cannot tell in your case) misrepresent them
or their actions to further my argument.
You are smart, knowledgable and fairly articulate
(I note you weren't as quick to brainlessly flame
like the other poster) so try to understand that
sometimes the price for commercial software really
is too much (in currency and in lock-in), and not
that we are all just freeloaders.
I understand that the commercial systems might
be priced correctly as the vendors are sitting
in a country with strong currency and the $1425
dollars might be as low as they can go without
going out of business. The only way to go lower
would be to move to a country like mine where
cost of living is cheap and therefore they can
charge worldwide users less (there costs are
less).
If they don't move, well, then ... they certainly
will be out of business the minute we catch up,
because then we can charge less than them and still
maintain the same standard of living.
>
> > So, for me, each installation takes not more than a minute
> > of my attention.
>
> How long was the first install?
>
I've already told you, you snipped it out. The first
*customisation* of the installation media takes
a few minutes. Perhaps you are not familiar with slackware
and tagfiles? They allow you to specify (in textfiles)
what the installation program should install and what
should be left out.
FWIW, I don't even bother with the tagfiles anymore
and just maintain a list of packages in a textfile.
A bash script reads the textfile and installs the
packages. This script has worked since '96 or
thereabouts so I see no need to change now.
AIUI, there is no commercial OS that comes with
an installation that can be customised to be as
slick as slackware (like I described above) can
be made to be.
goose,
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <SBvtg.24$gg.14@fe09.lga>
goose wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>goose wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>goose wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
>>>>>>Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
>>>>>>paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
>>>>>>Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
>
>
> <snipped>
>
>>>Would you?
>>
>>You are confused. Regrettable disparity in the wealth of nations is
>>being solved in another NG.
>
>
> There is no confusion; that disparity is what so
> neatly invalidates your point about $1425 being
> "... /nothing/ compared to what other craftsmen are
> paying ...".
I should have been more explicit about your confusion. :) The perfectly
good issue you raise applies to all sorts of things being affordable in
one country vs. another. ie, I am asking you to control for income.
Otherwise, yes, absolutely, your time is well spent/rewarded yelling and
screaming at compiler errors into the wee hours of the morning.
You keep trying to start a new, worthwhile, and important thread about
how great it is that RMS had the unintended* effect of letting
currency-rate challenged countries have a fine O/S to play with. This
would be a typical but regrettable usenet digression from the topic at
hand: people who could easily afford Win32 or OS X and LW or ACL pro and
who instead beat their heads against the wall trying to get free
software to work and continue working after some lib gets upgraded.
*I did not notice it in the manifesto, anyway.
>
>
>
>>You have said you would gladly pay for LW if
>>you could, so you have not been FSF-infected.
>
>
> I've paid for dev tools before, doubtless I'll pay
> for dev tools in the future.
>
>
>>I am talking about the
>>poor confused souls who say they do not like to pay for software and so
>>have been googling for hours trying to find a "free" solution, or get
>>their "free" Lisp to work, and are all the while bothering other busy
>>but confused people who gladly offer "free" support.
>
>
> Well, we all start off on the cheapest thing we can get away
> with to learn. I've asked questions on the "free" lisps as
> well; see my recent post about cmucl memory leakage/lack
> of memory leakage. There is no problem with the free lisps
> for me - in my book the price of a commerical lisp had so far
> outweighed the /price/ that the free lisps were asking
> (i.e. my time, my improvements, my feedback) that it was
> a no brainer. Only a fool would consider a months pay
> towards the purchase of the cheapest lisp system. I doubt
> that *you* would give up a months pay for the cheapest
> lisp system that will target only a single platform.
Careful. I paid $5k for a LaserWriter twenty years ago. To use for my
business. Remember, the context is "serious craftsperson".
>
>
>>Now your personal estimate of how hard it is to configure and maintain a
>>Linux system is 120 seconds.....you may be an outlier. :)
>
>
> No, just very, very lazy :-) I don't like repeating my work
> (hence I'm a programmer) and so script everything. I believe
> most *nix users do this as well (well, all the ones I know:-)
> because its so simple to do.
>
> AFAIK, windows systems tend to be the most time-consuming
> to install/setup/administrate, sometimes with each system
> requiring almost 30 minutes of human attention just on
> install.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
>>>>gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
>>>>deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
>>>>bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
>>>>that programmer time has no value).
>>>
>>>
>>>As someone else said, thats possibly Libel!
>>
>>(a) You guys look so silly when you post these libel warnings, you
>>really should resist the temptation. :)
>>
>>(b) You need to read the frickin manifesto again:
>>
>>" Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system
>>software free, just like air.(2)
>
>
> Air has no value? Thats news to me ...
Ah, this is the other great way Usenet discussions unravel, people
starting to use words differently. Yes, air grows on trees, it has no
value. Until George W cuts down the last tree with his timber policy.
Hmm, I should buy a compressor and start stockpiling. People here in the
US already buy water over the counter.
>
> (read carefully; you just broke your own argument into pieces)
Please, you are good with Linux installs, please try to apply the same
intellectual rigor to usenet flamewars. :)
>
>
> <snipped>
>
>>Ahem. You guys are libelling me by accusing me of libel!
>
>
> It is interesting to note that out of my entire
> *reasoned* response to you, you pick *one* sentence
> and devote your entire response to it while quitely
> ignoring the issue that I raised:
>
> The FSF software is being sold at a certain price;
> if you are not happy with the price, then feel free
> not to complete the transaction with them.
>
> Why you are harping on about "FSF infection" is beyond
> me; you are free not to do business with them...
You know you have the FSF backed into a corner when they start saying
"you do not have to use it!".
Dude, all I did was bemoan the FSF giving people the idea that they
should not have to pay for software. We get that all the time from
people here on c.l.l: "I do not like to pay for tools." or "I need a
free library". The FSF obviously is free to do whatever they like, I am
just saying how unfortunate it is that so many have followed the Pied
Piper and ended up with such a great opportunity expense to themselves
and society.
You could yell "libel", if only I had not quoted RMS saying the same
thing: software should be free. the funny bit was where he said this
would avoid duplication of effort on systems programming. I gotta put
that on a bumper sticker.
> just as
> I am free not to do business with a commercial lisp
> supplier. I tend to exercise my freedom in this regard.
>
> I imagine you are bitter about confused souls who
> want everything for free(gratis), but it would hurt
> your argument about FSF infection less you'd stop
> stereotyping all of us with the same brush as we
> just want things for free(libre).
Hey, I exonerated you in the last article, and in this one I exonerated
everyone in a currency-challenged economy.
I snipped the rest where you continue on that other excellent,
undisputed thread about how Linux is great for poorer (in some currency
respect) countries. I also understand the other poster who said it is a
great learning tool. Absolutely. As is building your own computer. Hey,
is that a good analogy? Is it possible anymore to come up with a cheaper
PC-compatible system than Dell by buying parts separately and assembling
them? Even pricing labor at zero?
Anyway, let's hope that Lisp continues to grow and lets vendors come
down in price.
> I've already told you, you snipped it out. The first
> *customisation* of the installation media takes
> a few minutes.
Ah, the ambiguity of natural language strikes again. No, I mean the
first time you /ever/ encountered Linux. Or did someone pass this
install script down to you?
> AIUI, there is no commercial OS that comes with
> an installation that can be customised to be as
> slick as slackware (like I described above) can
> be made to be.
Both win32 and OS X (and AllegroCL) periodically ask me if I want to
update my system. I say, "Yes". So far so good.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> >>goose wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ken Tilton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>goose wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Ken Tilton wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>><snipped>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
> >>>>>>Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
> >>>>>>paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
> >>>>>>Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
> >
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> >>>Would you?
> >>
> >>You are confused. Regrettable disparity in the wealth of nations is
> >>being solved in another NG.
> >
> >
> > There is no confusion; that disparity is what so
> > neatly invalidates your point about $1425 being
> > "... /nothing/ compared to what other craftsmen are
> > paying ...".
>
> I should have been more explicit about your confusion. :) The perfectly
> good issue you raise applies to all sorts of things being affordable in
> one country vs. another. ie, I am asking you to control for income.
It is hard for you to see where I am coming from here, as you are
arguing from a position of (financial) strength and I'm arguing from a
position of (financial) weakness.
"Income" is not the control worth bothering with. On my income
I'm considered fairly secure; I can afford a house, a car and
food for three dogs. I am squarely middle class, and earn
an above-average income.
The issue of affordability only arises when (using Lispworks
as an example) some "thing" is available at only a single
price worldwide. There are markets that the product will
never penetrate (or rather, dismally lose to competing
inferior products) because the producers don't want to
do price descrimination.
A good example is textbooks: textbooks sold here have
a big label on the front saying "not for sale in north america".
This is because the same textbook in NA sells for easily 3
times the price.
> Otherwise, yes, absolutely, your time is well spent/rewarded yelling and
> screaming at compiler errors into the wee hours of the morning.
>
> You keep trying to start a new, worthwhile, and important thread about
> how great it is that RMS had the unintended* effect of letting
> currency-rate challenged countries have a fine O/S to play with. This
> would be a typical but regrettable usenet digression from the topic at
> hand: people who could easily afford Win32 or OS X and LW or ACL pro and
> who instead beat their heads against the wall trying to get free
> software to work and continue working after some lib gets upgraded.
>
I don't see this as a problem exclusive to free software; in fact,
I used linux *primarily* because I encountered fewer WTF
moments, and fewer wall-head-banging, etc (soon switching to
BSD for the same reason).
> *I did not notice it in the manifesto, anyway.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>You have said you would gladly pay for LW if
> >>you could, so you have not been FSF-infected.
> >
> >
> > I've paid for dev tools before, doubtless I'll pay
> > for dev tools in the future.
> >
> >
> >>I am talking about the
> >>poor confused souls who say they do not like to pay for software and so
> >>have been googling for hours trying to find a "free" solution, or get
> >>their "free" Lisp to work, and are all the while bothering other busy
> >>but confused people who gladly offer "free" support.
> >
> >
> > Well, we all start off on the cheapest thing we can get away
> > with to learn. I've asked questions on the "free" lisps as
> > well; see my recent post about cmucl memory leakage/lack
> > of memory leakage. There is no problem with the free lisps
> > for me - in my book the price of a commerical lisp had so far
> > outweighed the /price/ that the free lisps were asking
> > (i.e. my time, my improvements, my feedback) that it was
> > a no brainer. Only a fool would consider a months pay
> > towards the purchase of the cheapest lisp system. I doubt
> > that *you* would give up a months pay for the cheapest
> > lisp system that will target only a single platform.
>
> Careful. I paid $5k for a LaserWriter twenty years ago. To use for my
> business. Remember, the context is "serious craftsperson".
Yes, I agree that a LaserWriter is something that would be as useful
to you 20 years later (I've got a 20 year old card, and a 20 year
old printer and a VCR older than my wife) as the day you
purchased it. Non-computer hardware (not peripherals)
generally is. Software gets outdated much faster, and I do
not have 20+ year old software to sport ... I may have some
ancient games for my commodore lying around, but nothing
else.
>
> >
> >
> >>Now your personal estimate of how hard it is to configure and maintain a
> >>Linux system is 120 seconds.....you may be an outlier. :)
> >
> >
> > No, just very, very lazy :-) I don't like repeating my work
> > (hence I'm a programmer) and so script everything. I believe
> > most *nix users do this as well (well, all the ones I know:-)
> > because its so simple to do.
> >
> > AFAIK, windows systems tend to be the most time-consuming
> > to install/setup/administrate, sometimes with each system
> > requiring almost 30 minutes of human attention just on
> > install.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
> >>>>gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
> >>>>deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
> >>>>bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
> >>>>that programmer time has no value).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>As someone else said, thats possibly Libel!
> >>
> >>(a) You guys look so silly when you post these libel warnings, you
> >>really should resist the temptation. :)
> >>
> >>(b) You need to read the frickin manifesto again:
> >>
> >>" Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system
> >>software free, just like air.(2)
> >
> >
> > Air has no value? Thats news to me ...
>
> Ah, this is the other great way Usenet discussions unravel, people
> starting to use words differently.
Sigh. Before you post that I am digressing, I urge you to consider
what you said (which I did not snip on purpose). Let me requote it;
The FSF:
" Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system
software free, just like air.(2)"
The meaning I get from FSF is that computer software is very
important (air certainly is!) and should not be denied (air certainly
isn't, afaik).
The meaning *you* took out of the FSF quote is that software
has no value. I fail to see how you can interpret the FSF quote
to mean that software has no value, when they equate it with
air.
> Yes, air grows on trees, it has no
> value. Until George W cuts down the last tree with his timber policy.
> Hmm, I should buy a compressor and start stockpiling. People here in the
> US already buy water over the counter.
>
> >
> > (read carefully; you just broke your own argument into pieces)
>
> Please, you are good with Linux installs, please try to apply the same
> intellectual rigor to usenet flamewars. :)
Thanks for the tip, see my response above ;-)
>
>
> >
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> >>Ahem. You guys are libelling me by accusing me of libel!
> >
> >
> > It is interesting to note that out of my entire
> > *reasoned* response to you, you pick *one* sentence
> > and devote your entire response to it while quitely
> > ignoring the issue that I raised:
> >
> > The FSF software is being sold at a certain price;
> > if you are not happy with the price, then feel free
> > not to complete the transaction with them.
> >
> > Why you are harping on about "FSF infection" is beyond
> > me; you are free not to do business with them...
>
> You know you have the FSF backed into a corner when they start saying
> "you do not have to use it!".
>
Well, you *don't* have to use it; and unlike the commercial software
proponents I have not painted commercial software with negative
detonations like the commercial software proponents have been
doing with the FSF goals. You yourself have, in this thread,
misrepresentated the FSF goals.
I've already been flamed by someone who typed faster than he
thought (and who then had the lack of good grace to boast about
it?) for merely saying I cannot afford something. I had no idea
that poverty was ever a reason for inflammatory responses.
"You do not have to use it" applies to commercial software
too; If the price is too high, then by all means shop around
and get a price that you are satisfied with. The FSF price
is somewhat on the high side for many people, but I cannot
blame those people who find the price too high.
I can, like I've been doing in this thread, dispell any
misconceptions that you have about them or their
goals.
> Dude, all I did was bemoan the FSF giving people the idea that they
> should not have to pay for software.
That people get the idea that they should not be paying for
software is sadly true; I've run into this as well. Unfortunately
its because of the misuse ofthe word "free". The FSF has been
striving to give people the idea that software should come with
certain freedoms attached; I wholeheartedly support this.
That developers do not deserve to be paid I, and the FSF, do
not agree with. That deveopers should be free to inspect,
modify and pass their modifications on I fully support
(no contradictions there, even if it looks like one :-)
> We get that all the time from
> people here on c.l.l: "I do not like to pay for tools." or "I need a
> free library". The FSF obviously is free to do whatever they like, I am
> just saying how unfortunate it is that so many have followed the Pied
> Piper and ended up with such a great opportunity expense to themselves
> and society.
>
You can hardly blame the FSF if people want free beer rather than
freedom?
> You could yell "libel", if only I had not quoted RMS saying the same
> thing: software should be free.
You should've quoted all the bits where he expands on this and
says "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer".
> the funny bit was where he said this
> would avoid duplication of effort on systems programming. I gotta put
> that on a bumper sticker.
>
It is easy to misrepresent when quotes are taken out of context.
> > just as
> > I am free not to do business with a commercial lisp
> > supplier. I tend to exercise my freedom in this regard.
> >
> > I imagine you are bitter about confused souls who
> > want everything for free(gratis), but it would hurt
> > your argument about FSF infection less you'd stop
> > stereotyping all of us with the same brush as we
> > just want things for free(libre).
>
> Hey, I exonerated you in the last article, and in this one I exonerated
> everyone in a currency-challenged economy.
Thank you :-)
>
> I snipped the rest where you continue on that other excellent,
> undisputed thread about how Linux is great for poorer (in some currency
> respect) countries. I also understand the other poster who said it is a
> great learning tool. Absolutely. As is building your own computer. Hey,
> is that a good analogy? Is it possible anymore to come up with a cheaper
> PC-compatible system than Dell by buying parts separately and assembling
> them? Even pricing labor at zero?
>
> Anyway, let's hope that Lisp continues to grow and lets vendors come
> down in price.
>
I fervently hope so. I love the language enough to brave flames :-)
> > I've already told you, you snipped it out. The first
> > *customisation* of the installation media takes
> > a few minutes.
>
> Ah, the ambiguity of natural language strikes again. No, I mean the
> first time you /ever/ encountered Linux. Or did someone pass this
> install script down to you?
>
Damn ambiguities!
No one passed it on to me; the first time it took me about an
hour to install (12 floppies) which was about half the
time of windows (25/26 floppies?).
The entire of the first year I used linux I had no install script.
When I got my pentium 75 I used the universities facilities
to burn my floppies (by then around 20) to a cd and wrote
the script at the same time.
The thing with climbing the learning curve for *nix: you only
have to do climb it once. Windows /still/ does not give me the
facility to do this; and each new version requires climbing
a (slightly) different learning curve.
>
> > AIUI, there is no commercial OS that comes with
> > an installation that can be customised to be as
> > slick as slackware (like I described above) can
> > be made to be.
>
> Both win32 and OS X (and AllegroCL) periodically ask me if I want to
> update my system. I say, "Yes". So far so good.
>
<grin>
Thats not slickness; slickness is when my slackware
box /doesn't even prompt me/, knowing that I'll update
when I need to. Your win32 and OS X weren't
doing this since '96, my slackware install hasn't
changed since '96.
btw:
Your last windows update just violated you with WGA.
My slackware box has yet to download something
malicious under the pretence of downloading a security
patch.
bye bye
goose,
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> goose wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>>goose wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snipped>
>>>>
>>>>>Oh, yeah, this is the other thing you old dawgs cannot be trained off.
>>>>>Sorry, Charlie. $1425 is /nothing/ comapred to what other craftsmen are
>>>>>paying for their tools. You want be a serious photographer?
>>>>>Cabinetmaker? Guitarist? For $1425? PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
>>>>of the free offerings (see gcc) ....
>>>
>>>If you think C is comparable to Lisp,
>>
>>
>> Under certain conditions, maybe; in general I don't, which
>> is why I am making an effort to learn lisp even though
>> some of the regs on this newsgroup tend to troll with
>> strawman and/or specious arguments (see the other response
>> by Micheal SomebodyOrTheOther above).
>>
>>
>>>what makes me think we are not
>>>going to get very far in agreeing on the value of a Lisp environment?
>>
>>
>> A lisp environment can be very valuable, but whereas in *your*
>> environment its value is *only* a few hours of work (say you work
>> 30 hours to payback the cost of 3 lispwork licences; you can
>> correct me on the exact rate you bill) down here the /value/
>> of lispworks has to be countered against 3 or 4 months of
>> pay, not under a week of pay. I'd gladly give up a week
>> of my pay to purchase Lispworks but no one would go 3 or 4
>> months without pay to own just another piece of software
>> which will most likely be overtaken by the free offerings
>> in a few years anyway.
>>
>> Would you?
>
> You are confused. Regrettable disparity in the wealth of nations is
> being solved in another NG. You have said you would gladly pay for LW if
> you could, so you have not been FSF-infected. I am talking about the
> poor confused souls who say they do not like to pay for software and so
> have been googling for hours trying to find a "free" solution, or get
> their "free" Lisp to work, and are all the while bothering other busy
> but confused people who gladly offer "free" support.
>
> Now your personal estimate of how hard it is to configure and maintain a
> Linux system is 120 seconds.....you may be an outlier. :)
>
>>
>>
>>>Besides, you completely missed the point: gcc is free because someone
>>>gave it away (and continues to develop and give away again) as a
>>>deliberate political act with the intended effect I have already
>>>bemoaned: infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or
>>>that programmer time has no value).
>>
>>
>> As someone else said, thats possibly Libel!
>
> (a) You guys look so silly when you post these libel warnings, you
> really should resist the temptation. :)
>
> (b) You need to read the frickin manifesto again:
>
> " Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system
> software free, just like air.(2)
>
> This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix
> license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming
> effort will be avoided."
>
> PWUAHAHHAAHAHAH! PC Labs sounds like they really enjoyed installing Red
> Hat. As for duplication, how many different Linux distros are there?
> PWUUAHAHHAHAHAHAA!
>
> " This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art."
>
> Right. And Emacs and Slime show no evidence that bitmapped displays have
> made for very nice GUIs for the past 22 years.
>
> "Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a
> user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them
> himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for
> him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company
> which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes."
>
> No, they would have done a fine job, but the FSF drove them all out of
> business. Great.
>
> <snip Harvard inspiration>
>
> "Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and
> what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.
>
> "Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including
> licensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through
> the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is,
> which programs) a person must pay for. And only a police state can force
> everyone to obey them."
>
> That does not sound like the "checkout" page of any web site I know, tho
> some /do/ make me want to give their developers a good flaming.
>
> " Consider a space station..."
>
> uh-oh...
>
> "... where air must be manufactured at great cost: charging each
> breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask
> all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay
> the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the
> mask off are outrageous. It's better to support the air plant with a
> head tax and chuck the masks."
>
> I guess the head tax is the hundreds of hours (or in your case, seconds)
> spent by each head trying to get Linux to play a WAV file.
>
> "Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as
> breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free."
>
> Ahem. You guys are libelling me by accusing me of libel!
>
>> So, for me, each installation takes not more than a minute
>> of my attention.
>
> How long was the first install?
>
> kenny
>
There is another factor: learning.
For some people (like me) it's very important to be provided examples
along with theory(I need both), otherwise I just can't become
involved/interested/"passionate" enough.
Being provided the full sources of a large system maintained and
used by a large number of people is like a bless. It means I can
learn how people actually write idiomatic code in this language.
Other than that I think you are right insofar as there is no freedom
as in free beer.
I enjoy being able to contribute to free software projects
(I'm not saying everyone has to do it).It's just that I feel
free software encourages the openness of the mind, a quality I
value very much.
Now this is definitely OT :-)
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>> For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
>>> of the free offerings (see gcc) ....
>> If you think C is comparable to Lisp,
Umhh,,. for writing device drivers and other low-level software, it's
usually *superior*...
--Larry
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <6lwtg.27$4j7.19@fe08.lga>
Larry Elmore wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>>> For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
>>>> of the free offerings (see gcc) ....
>>>
>>> If you think C is comparable to Lisp,
>
>
> Umhh,,. for writing device drivers and other low-level software, it's
> usually *superior*...
Ah, brilliant, let the classic usenet digressions begin!!!! I believe at
this point the window is open wide enough for anyone to offer any
observation they like on any topic. woohoo!
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Larry Elmore wrote:
> >> Ken Tilton wrote:
> >>
> >>>> For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
> >>>> of the free offerings (see gcc) ....
> >>>
> >>> If you think C is comparable to Lisp,
> > Umhh,,. for writing device drivers and other low-level software,
> > it's usually *superior*...
>
> Ah, brilliant, let the classic usenet digressions begin!!!! I believe
> at this point the window is open wide enough for anyone to offer any
> observation they like on any topic. woohoo!
Woo hoo, in that case ... picking back up the discussion from last
December, I do think that 40 Water has been putting out hit-and-miss
material for a while, but in addition to The Mailman, the early stuff
with The Click was great, too. This last CD is a great example: the
first few tracks are great, especially the stuff with Keak, but it
just falls apart after that.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <M1Otg.9$F_6.5@fe12.lga>
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Larry Elmore wrote:
>>
>>>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>For a product which doesn't even approach the usefulness
>>>>>>of the free offerings (see gcc) ....
>>>>>
>>>>>If you think C is comparable to Lisp,
>>>
>>>Umhh,,. for writing device drivers and other low-level software,
>>>it's usually *superior*...
>>
>>Ah, brilliant, let the classic usenet digressions begin!!!! I believe
>>at this point the window is open wide enough for anyone to offer any
>>observation they like on any topic. woohoo!
>
>
> Woo hoo, in that case ... picking back up the discussion from last
> December, I do think that 40 Water has been putting out hit-and-miss
> material for a while, but in addition to The Mailman, the early stuff
> with The Click was great, too. This last CD is a great example: the
> first few tracks are great, especially the stuff with Keak, but it
> just falls apart after that.
I was hoping for something on the Yankees.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yzl8xmxe7zw.fsf@OSX663.local>
Larry Elmore <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>> If you think C is comparable to Lisp,
>
> Umhh,,. for writing device drivers and other low-level software, it's usually *superior*...
Yes, in my experience Lisp is generally superior to C when writing device drivers.
(However, you can't use plain ANSI Common Lisp for doing that.)
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> Yes, in my experience Lisp is generally superior to C when writing device drivers.
> (However, you can't use plain ANSI Common Lisp for doing that.)
That's OK. You can't use plain ANSI C for doing that either. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>> Yes, in my experience Lisp is generally superior to C when writing device drivers.
>> (However, you can't use plain ANSI Common Lisp for doing that.)
>
> That's OK. You can't use plain ANSI C for doing that either. :-)
If you have to do some memory access, only (e.g. when polling memory in a
loop), you can do it in ANSI C, but not in Common Lisp.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> If you have to do some memory access, only (e.g. when polling memory in a
> loop), you can do it in ANSI C, but not in Common Lisp.
The result of converting an integer to a pointer is undefined in ANSI C.
Branching to data is undefined in ANSI C. You're just taking advantage
of the fact that you happen to know what your compiler generates for
illegal code, and the fact that the compiler doesn't actually catch you
when you violate the semantics of the language.
I.e., you might be able to write an OS primarily with gcc, but you can't
do it in ANSI C.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> The result of converting an integer to a pointer is undefined in ANSI C.
> Branching to data is undefined in ANSI C. You're just taking advantage
> of the fact that you happen to know what your compiler generates for
> illegal code, and the fact that the compiler doesn't actually catch you
> when you violate the semantics of the language.
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) says in 6.3.2.3, point 5:
| An integer may be converted to any pointer type. Except as previously
| specified, the result is implementation-defined, might not be correctly
| aligned, might not point to an entity of the referenced type, and might
| be a trap representation.)
So converting an integer to a pointer is not illegal code and well defined
in ANSI C, but the result is implementation defined.
In contrast to this: AFAIK in Common Lisp there is no such low-level access
defined at all.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> | An integer may be converted to any pointer type. Except as previously
> | specified, the result is implementation-defined, might not be correctly
> | aligned, might not point to an entity of the referenced type, and might
> | be a trap representation.)
>
> So converting an integer to a pointer is not illegal code and well defined
> in ANSI C, but the result is implementation defined.
And it may or may not work. If ANSI C says "you have to look at what
your compiler generates to know what happens when you do this", I'd say
it's not "well defined". You're certainly not relying only on having an
ANSI C compiler when you're writing kernel code.
(Note that by "assigning an integer" I did not mean to imply "an integer
that was created by casting a valid pointer". I meant the kind of things
you need to do to access arbitrary memory in C.)
> In contrast to this: AFAIK in Common Lisp there is no such low-level access
> defined at all.
"It might be a trap representation" means "you may crash the program or
halt the CPU if you try to use the result." I don't know how that can be
"well-defined" in any non-jargonal sense of the word.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> "It might be a trap representation" means "you may crash the program or
> halt the CPU if you try to use the result." I don't know how that can be
> "well-defined" in any non-jargonal sense of the word.
The operation is well-defined and most C implementations would implement it
the right way, if you take care of alignmened etc., but you are right, the
result is not defined in ANSI C. What I was trying to say is that such an
operation, to define a pointer (e.g. declared as an (unsigned-byte 8)
array) by using an integer address, doesn't exists in Common Lisp, but we
should stop splitting hairs :-)
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Darren New wrote:
> Frank Buss wrote:
> > | An integer may be converted to any pointer type. Except as previously
> > | specified, the result is implementation-defined, might not be correctly
> > | aligned, might not point to an entity of the referenced type, and might
> > | be a trap representation.)
> >
> > So converting an integer to a pointer is not illegal code and well defined
> > in ANSI C, but the result is implementation defined.
>
> And it may or may not work. If ANSI C says "you have to look at what
> your compiler generates to know what happens when you do this", I'd say
> it's not "well defined". You're certainly not relying only on having an
> ANSI C compiler when you're writing kernel code.
>
> (Note that by "assigning an integer" I did not mean to imply "an integer
> that was created by casting a valid pointer". I meant the kind of things
> you need to do to access arbitrary memory in C.)
>
> > In contrast to this: AFAIK in Common Lisp there is no such low-level access
> > defined at all.
>
> "It might be a trap representation" means "you may crash the program or
> halt the CPU if you try to use the result." I don't know how that can be
> "well-defined" in any non-jargonal sense of the word.
>
AFAIK, its only a trap representation or incorrectly aligned
or not an entity of the referenced type *if* the implementation
does not define it.
E.g. on a DOS box using Turbo C, doing the following
unsigned char *mem_base = 0xb8000000L;
*mem_base = 'A';
is neither a trap representation nor incorrectly aligned;
The dereference is also pointing to an entity of the
referenced type.
This is because under that implementation, the
result is well-defined.
No doubt, the clc regs would savage me for this :-)
goose,
cross-posted to comp.lang.c for corrections,
followups to comp.lang.c comp.lang.lisp
goose wrote:
> E.g. on a DOS box using Turbo C, doing the following
>
> unsigned char *mem_base = 0xb8000000L;
> *mem_base = 'A';
What is the intention of this try? Demonstrates undifined behavior?
lovecreatesbeauty
"lovecreatesbeauty" <·················@gmail.com> wrote in message
···························@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> goose wrote:
>> E.g. on a DOS box using Turbo C, doing the following
>>
>> unsigned char *mem_base = 0xb8000000L;
>> *mem_base = 'A';
>
> What is the intention of this try? Demonstrates undifined behavior?
It depends on the video mode and type of adapter, but in general it will put
the character 'A' on the video screen. This is how DOS folks had to do
graphics.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Richard Heathfield
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively? (clc,cll)
Date:
Message-ID: <ouWdnWxxqvrhWCrZRVnyiw@bt.com>
lovecreatesbeauty said:
>
> goose wrote:
>> E.g. on a DOS box using Turbo C, doing the following
>>
>> unsigned char *mem_base = 0xb8000000L;
>> *mem_base = 'A';
>
> What is the intention of this try? Demonstrates undifined behavior?
Yes, it demonstrates how undefined behaviour can be *useful*, if you know
what you're doing and are prepared to trade off portability for
functionality or performance.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
On 14 Jul 2006 09:14:03 -0700, "lovecreatesbeauty"
<·················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>goose wrote:
>> E.g. on a DOS box using Turbo C, doing the following
>>
>> unsigned char *mem_base = 0xb8000000L;
>> *mem_base = 'A';
>
>What is the intention of this try? Demonstrates undifined behavior?
>
<G> You have to recognize the magic number. It's the address of (one
kind of) video memory on a DOS system.
DOS programs that needed fast video poked values directly.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
From: Richard Heathfield
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively? (clc,cll)
Date:
Message-ID: <b5adnS7fQ5tyKyrZRVnyjg@bt.com>
goose said:
<snip>
>
> E.g. on a DOS box using Turbo C, doing the following
>
> unsigned char *mem_base = 0xb8000000L;
...will result in a diagnostic message. When you play such games, a cast is
required.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
goose wrote:
> AFAIK, its only a trap representation or incorrectly aligned
> or not an entity of the referenced type *if* the implementation
> does not define it.
Sure. So it's not "ANSI C" that lets you write the OS. It's that your
particular compiler has finished defining the undefined semantics that C
allows.
I could as easily write a LISP function that accepts a memory address
and a byte to store there, and say I've defined something that lets me
write kernels. Just because *your* CL doesn't define that doesn't mean
LISP isn't as good as C for that. I'm pretty sure a CL is allowed to
include libraries not defined by the standard. :-)
(And note that Ada is actually better than C for writing this stuff, as
you don't have to leave the language to deal with threads, interrupts,
or writing to memory addresses that actually need to be written
atomically and/or without being optimized away. I don't know why nobody
mentions Ada when discussing how great C is for this stuff. You really
can't write a kernel in C if your machine uses memory maps, I/O ports,
interrupts, etc.)
> This is because under that implementation, the
> result is well-defined.
No it's not. Turn up the optimization, and that entire statement could
disappear. (Yes, you can fix this, but that you didn't helps show my
point. :-)
(Sorry. This is just one of my pet peeves, along with the "my language
is as productive as yours because they're both Turing Complete.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > AFAIK, its only a trap representation or incorrectly aligned
> > or not an entity of the referenced type *if* the implementation
> > does not define it.
>
> Sure. So it's not "ANSI C" that lets you write the OS. It's that your
> particular compiler has finished defining the undefined semantics that C
> allows.
>
The C standard differentiates between "undefined" and "implementation
defined" whereas the Lisp standard doesn not. This makes the rest of
your
reasoning invalid :-)
<snipped>
goose,
No, I'm not playing that game, I know better than to think
that any one language is suitable for every task
goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
+---------------
| Darren New wrote:
| > Sure. So it's not "ANSI C" that lets you write the OS. It's that your
| > particular compiler has finished defining the undefined semantics that
| > C allows.
|
| The C standard differentiates between "undefined" and "implementation
| defined" whereas the Lisp standard doesn not.
+---------------
Actually, the ANSI CL standard *does* differentiate between "undefined"
and "implementation defined", except that it distinguishes them into
"undefined" [the big, bad, snot-monkeys-out-your-nose & thermonulear war
case] and the several sub-cases: "unspecified", "implementations may be
extended", "return values are unspecified", etc. From the CLHS:
http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/Body/sec_1-4-2.html
1.4.2 Error Terminology
...
The consequences are unspecified
This means that the consequences are unpredictable but harmless.
Implementations are permitted to specify the consequences of
this situation. No conforming code may depend on the results
or effects of this situation, and all conforming code is
required to treat the results and effects of this situation
as unpredictable but harmless. For example, ``if the second
argument to shared-initialize specifies a name that does not
correspond to any slots accessible in the object, the results
are unspecified.''
The consequences are undefined
This means that the consequences are unpredictable. The
consequences may range from harmless to fatal. No conforming
code may depend on the results or effects. Conforming code
must treat the consequences as unpredictable. In places where
the words ``must,'' ``must not,'' or ``may not'' are used,
then ``the consequences are undefined'' if the stated
requirement is not met and no specific consequence is
explicitly stated. An implementation is permitted to signal
an error in this case.
For example: ``Once a name has been declared by defconstant
to be constant, any further assignment or binding of that
variable has undefined consequences.''
...
The return values are unspecified
This means that only the number and nature of the return
values of a form are not specified. However, the issue of
whether or not any side-effects or transfer of control
occurs is still well-specified.
A program can be well-specified even if it uses a function
whose returns values are unspecified. For example, even if
the return values of some function F are unspecified, an
expression such as (length (list (F))) is still
well-specified because it does not rely on any particular
aspect of the value or values returned by F.
Implementations may be extended to cover this situation
This means that the situation has undefined consequences;
however, a conforming implementation is free to treat the
situation in a more specific way. For example, an implementation
might define that an error is signaled, or that an error
should be signaled, or even that a certain well-defined
non-error behavior occurs.
No conforming code may depend on the consequences of such a
situation; all conforming code must treat the consequences
of the situation as undefined. Implementations are required
to document how the situation is treated.
For example, ``implementations may be extended to define
other type specifiers to have a corresponding class.''
Overall, CL breaks down the issue of "undefined/unspecified" behaviour
into a dozen different cases. See CLHS 1.4.2 for details.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively? (clc,cll)
Date:
Message-ID: <uvepy6eq1.fsf@nhplace.com>
[ Replying to comp.lang.lisp only.
http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/cross-posting.html ]
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Darren New wrote:
> | > Sure. So it's not "ANSI C" that lets you write the OS. It's that your
> | > particular compiler has finished defining the undefined semantics that
> | > C allows.
> |
> | The C standard differentiates between "undefined" and "implementation
> | defined" whereas the Lisp standard doesn not.
> +---------------
>
> Actually, the ANSI CL standard *does* differentiate between "undefined"
> and "implementation defined", ... Overall, CL breaks down the issue of
> "undefined/unspecified" behaviour
> into a dozen different cases. See CLHS 1.4.2 for details.
(Disclaimer: The following interpretations are my recollection of intent,
but neither my intent nor my memory of it is binding on the spec now that
it's published. This is offered for background info only.)
"unspecified consequences" is about the notion that the integrity of the
CL virtual machine is not expected to be in jeopardy. the state of
that VM was not specified, but the fact that the VM was "operating
properly" was not intended to be disturbed. it's not expected that
memory has been corrupted (stopping the GC from working or
over-writing functions in a way that viruses might do), for example.
"undefined consequences" is about the notion that some operations either
ask a facility like the operating system to do things that might be
out-of-control of lisp to keep from happening, and so the state of the
VM might be in question. it's also about the possibility that error
checking, even when done within the CL VM, is sometimes prohibitive and
some programs will want to run without that checking, relying instead
on a promise from the author that the program and data will be correct
in order to not be at a speed disadvantage against C, which can do the
same thing. that doesn't mean an implementation CAN'T do like Java
and try to assure this doesn't happen; it means that not all
implementations were required to, in order that fast native
compilation not be inhibited by a requirement that all operations be
done inside some sort of protective (and hence possibly slow) mode.
I never liked the word "harmless" but the group wanted it in there.
I felt that if a function FOO is an identity operator over integers
but has unspecified but harmless effects on non-integers then
(if (integerp (foo x)) (do-damage-to-the-frob) (protect-the-frob))
does not have "harmless" consequences if (foo 3.0) can return an integer,
which it is within its conforming right to do. Consequences are too
far-reaching, since they include both direct and indirect consequences.
I used to complain about this in the study of "continuations" and I
understand that in the latter day literateure, there is also a notion
of "delimited continuations" that put bounds on how much of "afterward"
a continuation reaches to. In a sense, that's what is needed here.
Probably if we'd had more time to be rigorous, we'd say things like
"foo returns, but its value is unknown"
or
"foo may, at its discretion, return an object of some given type
or else signal an error"
rather than simply say "has unspecified consequences". Or maybe we'd
have just elaborated the description of unspecified consequences to
mean this.
A lot of this was in flux right down to the very end. There were very
few explicit votes and it was something that was left to editorial
discretion (mostly me, advised by a handful of people who the
committee tended to trust) and then was voted as "ok" by a kind of
blanket vote periodically in order to absolve me of the sins that
necessarily were made when I was given no direction whatsoever and was
asked to just "do the right thing in the absence of input". We tried
instead to just deal with the cases that people pointed out as
problemsome and to leave the others alone. And, then, of course, the
ANSI-required Public Review periods allowed further opportunity for
the community to object if an error had been made. But it was one of
my least pleasant duties as someone who was trying (when wearing his
editorial hat, at least) to be neutral.
Note well: I was a strong advocate of various proposals when wearing
my technical hat, but people had to trust me that when I was editing I
woudl not abuse the fact that I had access to the sources in order to
get my way there. I gained that trust (to the extent I did) by trying
to be meticulous about keeping my technical and editorial
responsibilities separate. I've seen in other forums what happens
when people don't do this, and the result is really painful both in
terms of the work required to review a draft when someone has "had
their way with it", and I wanted to avoid that. So when given no
direction on an issue, I often just refused to make changes at all.
But this was so important to iron out that it just had to be done,
even at the risk of others getting confused as to my motives in some
cases. There was pressure for me to also be more specific about what
errors things would signal, but that was where I drew the line. That
would have impacted some implementations in an even more adverse or
controversial way, and so I tried to push back and say the committee
should give more direction. But as a result, due to lack of time and
budget, that's why all you get is very vague error names back from
some situations. I was on a quest in many cases to turn the pleasant
but "implicitly vague" wording of CLTL into the clumsier, more verbose
"explicitly vague" of ANSI CL. It was something of a passive aggressive
tactic on my part to get the committee to take further action to fix
things once they were more glaringly highlighted, but it didn't always
work, and so now they're glaringly highlighted for all time. Heh.
But it's no wonder we see periodic mail from people saying how much they
prefer reading CLTL and CLTL2 rahter than ANSI CL... I always take that
as saying I succeeded in this goal I'd set...
Kent M Pitman wrote:
[...lots of things about how to document undefined behaviour]
Do you think it would be better to make a language foolproof, without
undefined behaviour, like in Java?
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss <··@frank-buss.de> writes:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> [...lots of things about how to document undefined behaviour]
>
> Do you think it would be better to make a language foolproof, without
> undefined behaviour, like in Java?
It's hopeless, the universe constantly makes better fools.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d? s++:++ a+ C+++ UL++++ P--- L+++ E+++ W++ N+++ o-- K- w---
O- M++ V PS PE++ Y++ PGP t+ 5+ X++ R !tv b+++ DI++++ D++
G e+++ h+ r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GCS d? s++:++ a+ C+++ UL++++ P--- L+++ E+++ W++ N+++ o-- K- w---
> O- M++ V PS PE++ Y++ PGP t+ 5+ X++ R !tv b+++ DI++++ D++
> G e+++ h+ r-- z?
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Wow! I haven't seen one of these in years - I thought geek codes had
died off. I might have to try and find my old elisp functions for creating
and translating these codes - it was sometimes fun to see what
translations you got.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively? (clc,cll)
Date:
Message-ID: <u4pxhk47w.fsf@nhplace.com>
Frank Buss <··@frank-buss.de> writes:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> [...lots of things about how to document undefined behaviour]
>
> Do you think it would be better to make a language foolproof, without
> undefined behaviour, like in Java?
Personally, no. But this is somewhat of a religious debate you're
entering into.
As I have often noted, I prefer to favor a degree of isomorphism
between languages and (conceptual) reality.
This accounts for why I prefer a Lisp2 (or LispN) design, for example:
my model of simplicity is not theoretical, but practical. I assume
the brain is not only capable but adept at maintaining context, and
multiple meanings differentiated by context, so I like languages that
don't waste my brain's ability to do that by assuming that I could
never keep multiple namespaces straight.
Likewise, I think the world is full of things that surprise me. And I
think the Lisp design of allowing any error any place allows me to be
mildly surprised without violating my entire world view. For example,
I might think that a calculator worked by a simple set of circuits,
but if I got a network error when talking to my calculator, it might
reveal to me that it worked by talking to microsoft via some world wide
wireless net. Now, whether I think that's a good idea or not (and I
don't, in case there's any doubt), I can't stop it by making a language
standard that doesn't model it. All I can do is stop my ability to
reason about it in a syntactically convenient way.
This is an extreme example I've given, but reimplementing one piece of
functionality as another is not unusual in CS. For example, with
sufficiently fast processors, you might usefully reimplement floating
point operations with string operations (i.e., BCD), and you might find
that rather than math errors you sometimes got string errors. I could
go on and on.
But I guess the real argument I'm making is that to limit the kind of
errors you can get is to limit the implementation--and that is a data
abstraction violation in my mind.
But this is not an issue of truth or science, just an issue of
preference and religion. I don't think the Java folks are nuts for
what they've done. I just don't like how hard they make certain
simple and important things.
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
> I just don't like how hard they make certain simple and important
> things.
*snarf*
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Most non-Unix managers conclude that the vi editor is either extraterrestrial
in origin or was devised by the original Unix developers as part of a secret
communications code to reach another dimension.
--Communications Week, 26 July 1993
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> But I guess the real argument I'm making is that to limit the kind of
> errors you can get is to limit the implementation--and that is a data
> abstraction violation in my mind.
I was thinking of something like subseq. The behaviour is undefined in
Common Lisp, if you speficy a negative start offset (but looks like most
implementations today implements the SUBSEQ-OUT-OF-BOUNDS issue). Limiting
the kind of error, e.g. operating system memory access violatings, looks
like a good idea to me. It might be a bit slower, if you check the bounds,
but Java demonstrates that it is fast enough and it helps me in detecting
errors early instead of getting memory garbage or crashing.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively? (clc,cll)
Date:
Message-ID: <ulkqrskyy.fsf@nhplace.com>
Frank Buss <··@frank-buss.de> writes:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> > But I guess the real argument I'm making is that to limit the kind of
> > errors you can get is to limit the implementation--and that is a data
> > abstraction violation in my mind.
>
> I was thinking of something like subseq. The behaviour is undefined in
> Common Lisp, if you speficy a negative start offset (but looks like most
> implementations today implements the SUBSEQ-OUT-OF-BOUNDS issue). Limiting
> the kind of error, e.g. operating system memory access violatings, looks
> like a good idea to me. It might be a bit slower, if you check the bounds,
> but Java demonstrates that it is fast enough and it helps me in detecting
> errors early instead of getting memory garbage or crashing.
Well, there's nothing to say you couldn't define a "safe CL" layered standard.
But it's plain to me, at least, that the designers of CL meant to leave
questions like "what is good enough" to the free market, and worked very,
very hard not to encode such judgments into the standard itself.
It was to be permissible to have small and large systems, systems with
no error checking and systems with tons of error checking, systems
with interpreters only and systems with compilers only and systems
with both, systems with an IDE and systems without, and so on... I heard
it said any number of times in the design process:
The market will sort it out.
And I think it has done so admirably. There are a rich set of choices
in the multi-dimensional space price/performance/safety/etc. Nothing
would be served by standardizing in a more restrictive way other than
to alienate the class of users who don't need or want someone else's
judgment of "what is good enough".
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively? (clc,cll)
Date:
Message-ID: <4i1pmlF1p6erU1@individual.net>
Frank Buss wrote:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> [...lots of things about how to document undefined behaviour]
>
> Do you think it would be better to make a language foolproof, without
> undefined behaviour, like in Java?
I'd say it's a balancing act. Some things in Java are actually
overspecified, like the floating point numbers. What you're interested
in when you use floats is speed, not the same behavior on all platforms,
which isn't such a well-defined concept anyway in this case.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Closer to MOP & ContextL:
http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> [ Replying to comp.lang.lisp only.
> http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/cross-posting.html ]
>
> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
>> goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>> +---------------
>> | Darren New wrote:
>> | > Sure. So it's not "ANSI C" that lets you write the OS. It's that your
>> | > particular compiler has finished defining the undefined semantics that
>> | > C allows.
>> |
>> | The C standard differentiates between "undefined" and "implementation
>> | defined" whereas the Lisp standard doesn not.
>> +---------------
>>
>> Actually, the ANSI CL standard *does* differentiate between "undefined"
>> and "implementation defined", ... Overall, CL breaks down the issue of
>> "undefined/unspecified" behaviour
>> into a dozen different cases. See CLHS 1.4.2 for details.
>
> (Disclaimer: The following interpretations are my recollection of intent,
> but neither my intent nor my memory of it is binding on the spec now that
> it's published. This is offered for background info only.)
>
> "unspecified consequences" is about the notion that the integrity of the
> CL virtual machine is not expected to be in jeopardy. the state of
> that VM was not specified, but the fact that the VM was "operating
> properly" was not intended to be disturbed. it's not expected that
> memory has been corrupted (stopping the GC from working or
> over-writing functions in a way that viruses might do), for example.
>
> "undefined consequences" is about the notion that some operations either
> ask a facility like the operating system to do things that might be
> out-of-control of lisp to keep from happening, and so the state of the
> VM might be in question. it's also about the possibility that error
> checking, even when done within the CL VM, is sometimes prohibitive and
> some programs will want to run without that checking, relying instead
> on a promise from the author that the program and data will be correct
> in order to not be at a speed disadvantage against C, which can do the
> same thing. that doesn't mean an implementation CAN'T do like Java
> and try to assure this doesn't happen; it means that not all
> implementations were required to, in order that fast native
> compilation not be inhibited by a requirement that all operations be
> done inside some sort of protective (and hence possibly slow) mode.
>
> I never liked the word "harmless" but the group wanted it in there.
> I felt that if a function FOO is an identity operator over integers
> but has unspecified but harmless effects on non-integers then
> (if (integerp (foo x)) (do-damage-to-the-frob) (protect-the-frob))
> does not have "harmless" consequences if (foo 3.0) can return an integer,
> which it is within its conforming right to do. Consequences are too
> far-reaching, since they include both direct and indirect consequences.
> I used to complain about this in the study of "continuations" and I
> understand that in the latter day literateure, there is also a notion
> of "delimited continuations" that put bounds on how much of "afterward"
> a continuation reaches to. In a sense, that's what is needed here.
>
> Probably if we'd had more time to be rigorous, we'd say things like
> "foo returns, but its value is unknown"
> or
> "foo may, at its discretion, return an object of some given type
> or else signal an error"
> rather than simply say "has unspecified consequences". Or maybe we'd
> have just elaborated the description of unspecified consequences to
> mean this.
>
> A lot of this was in flux right down to the very end. There were very
> few explicit votes and it was something that was left to editorial
> discretion (mostly me, advised by a handful of people who the
> committee tended to trust) and then was voted as "ok" by a kind of
> blanket vote periodically in order to absolve me of the sins that
> necessarily were made when I was given no direction whatsoever and was
> asked to just "do the right thing in the absence of input". We tried
> instead to just deal with the cases that people pointed out as
> problemsome and to leave the others alone. And, then, of course, the
> ANSI-required Public Review periods allowed further opportunity for
> the community to object if an error had been made. But it was one of
> my least pleasant duties as someone who was trying (when wearing his
> editorial hat, at least) to be neutral.
>
> Note well: I was a strong advocate of various proposals when wearing
> my technical hat, but people had to trust me that when I was editing I
> woudl not abuse the fact that I had access to the sources in order to
> get my way there. I gained that trust (to the extent I did) by trying
> to be meticulous about keeping my technical and editorial
> responsibilities separate. I've seen in other forums what happens
> when people don't do this, and the result is really painful both in
> terms of the work required to review a draft when someone has "had
> their way with it", and I wanted to avoid that. So when given no
> direction on an issue, I often just refused to make changes at all.
> But this was so important to iron out that it just had to be done,
> even at the risk of others getting confused as to my motives in some
> cases. There was pressure for me to also be more specific about what
> errors things would signal, but that was where I drew the line. That
> would have impacted some implementations in an even more adverse or
> controversial way, and so I tried to push back and say the committee
> should give more direction. But as a result, due to lack of time and
> budget, that's why all you get is very vague error names back from
> some situations. I was on a quest in many cases to turn the pleasant
> but "implicitly vague" wording of CLTL into the clumsier, more verbose
> "explicitly vague" of ANSI CL. It was something of a passive aggressive
> tactic on my part to get the committee to take further action to fix
> things once they were more glaringly highlighted, but it didn't always
> work, and so now they're glaringly highlighted for all time. Heh.
> But it's no wonder we see periodic mail from people saying how much they
> prefer reading CLTL and CLTL2 rahter than ANSI CL... I always take that
> as saying I succeeded in this goal I'd set...
Hi Kent,
I find these occasional pieces of background information extremely
interesting and useful, both for providing historical context and as
very valuable warnings for anyone who feels reviewing and updating the
CL ANSI standard would be anything other than a huge and somewhat
painful process requiring both dedication and a lot of patience.
Despite the many criticisms regarding CL that appear here from time to
time, given the starting point, the number of parties with substantial
investment and interest and the resulting product, I think all
involved did a pretty incredible job. Despite possibly valid points
regarding lack of support within the spec for functionality now
considered almost mandatory, such as networking, common web protocols,
standard high level libraries etc, at least we have a well defined
language which has all the necessary building blocks for creating new
functionality as focus, direction and trends change. (ignoring for the
moment that many of the criticisms seem to reflect possible abstract
problems/issues rather than actual ones).
thanks,
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>
> I find these occasional pieces of background information extremely
> interesting and useful, both for providing historical context and as
> very valuable warnings for anyone who feels reviewing and updating the
> CL ANSI standard would be anything other than a huge and somewhat
> painful process requiring both dedication and a lot of patience.
First, I should note that I too find the bits of background information
to be most useful in understanding the circumstances at the time, as
well as indicative of why certain decisions were taken as they were.
Second, I must state that I am unconvinced that such and effort made
today would be so expensive and painful--at least, were it limited to
the free software community. Would the authors of clisp, SBCL & CMUCL
(and ACL?) really be so unamenable to standardisation as the vendors of
proprietary Lisps?
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
French does have a certain je ne sais quoi, but I don't know
what it is. --Jeffrey Goldberg, in nanae
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Second, I must state that I am unconvinced that such and effort made
| today would be so expensive and painful--at least, were it limited to
| the free software community. Would the authors of clisp, SBCL & CMUCL
| (and ACL?) really be so unamenable to standardisation as the vendors of
| proprietary Lisps?
+---------------
Consider the phrase: "Cost of participation." That is, the cost of
attending (most) meetings; the lost opportunity cost while working
on [or even just thinking about] the standardization effort *instead*
of whatever normally they do for money; etc. Participation in *any*
kind of standards activity is ex-PEN-sive. Where does "the free
software community" (whoever that is) get the money to do so?
I'm suspecy that Kent can probably relate some anecdote(s) about
how participation costs skewed the ANSI X3J13 process...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>>
>> I find these occasional pieces of background information extremely
>> interesting and useful, both for providing historical context and as
>> very valuable warnings for anyone who feels reviewing and updating the
>> CL ANSI standard would be anything other than a huge and somewhat
>> painful process requiring both dedication and a lot of patience.
>
> First, I should note that I too find the bits of background information
> to be most useful in understanding the circumstances at the time, as
> well as indicative of why certain decisions were taken as they were.
>
> Second, I must state that I am unconvinced that such and effort made
> today would be so expensive and painful--at least, were it limited to
> the free software community. Would the authors of clisp, SBCL & CMUCL
> (and ACL?) really be so unamenable to standardisation as the vendors of
> proprietary Lisps?
>
Possibly not, but your unlikely to get an approved update of the ANSI
standard if you don't also include the commercial vendors.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Keith Thompson
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively? (clc,cll)
Date:
Message-ID: <lnu05k3rcd.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
[...]
> (And note that Ada is actually better than C for writing this stuff,
> as you don't have to leave the language to deal with threads,
> interrupts, or writing to memory addresses that actually need to be
> written atomically and/or without being optimized away. I don't know
> why nobody mentions Ada when discussing how great C is for this
> stuff. You really can't write a kernel in C if your machine uses
> memory maps, I/O ports, interrupts, etc.)
[...]
Yes, you really can. You just can't write it in *portable* C. The C
standard specifically allows implementations to provide extensions (as
long as they don't change the behavior of any strictly conforming
program) and a program that uses those extensions can still be a
"conforming program" in the sense defined in the standard.
<OT>
Ada does provide some features that let you do certain low-level
things that aren't directly supported in unextended C, but any Ada
program that uses those features will still be non-portable. For
example, Ada defines a language-level mechanism for interrupt handers,
but the type Interrupt_ID is implementation-defined. This has some
advantages over C's approach of leaving the entire mechanism up to the
implementation, but it still doesn't let you write truly portable
interrupt-handling code.
</OT>
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ·····@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Keith Thompson wrote:
> Yes, you really can. You just can't write it in *portable* C. The C
> standard specifically allows implementations to provide extensions (as
> long as they don't change the behavior of any strictly conforming
> program) and a program that uses those extensions can still be a
> "conforming program" in the sense defined in the standard.
And Common Lisp doesn't allow any implementation-defined extensions?
Wow. I never realized that. ;-)
> Ada does provide some features that let you do certain low-level
> things that aren't directly supported in unextended C, but any Ada
> program that uses those features will still be non-portable.
Not quite. The names of the interrupts are obviously going to be
implementation defined, and for that matter targer-architecture defined.
But the other things aren't. Prioritizing interrupts, disabling
interrupts while one is running, threading, atomic writes, volitile
writes, dynamic loading of code, etc are all portable to the extent that
your compiler supports them at all.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
From: Keith Thompson
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively? (clc,cll)
Date:
Message-ID: <lnvepz39eb.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Yes, you really can. You just can't write it in *portable* C. The C
>> standard specifically allows implementations to provide extensions (as
>> long as they don't change the behavior of any strictly conforming
>> program) and a program that uses those extensions can still be a
>> "conforming program" in the sense defined in the standard.
>
> And Common Lisp doesn't allow any implementation-defined extensions?
> Wow. I never realized that. ;-)
And I never said it. I was responding to a statement you made
upthread about C:
| You really can't write a kernel in C if your machine uses
| memory maps, I/O ports, interrupts, etc.)
I said nothing at all about Common Lisp.
>> Ada does provide some features that let you do certain low-level
>> things that aren't directly supported in unextended C, but any Ada
>> program that uses those features will still be non-portable.
>
> Not quite.
Yes, quite.
> The names of the interrupts are obviously going to be
> implementation defined, and for that matter targer-architecture
> defined. But the other things aren't. Prioritizing interrupts,
> disabling interrupts while one is running, threading, atomic writes,
> volitile writes, dynamic loading of code, etc are all portable to the
> extent that your compiler supports them at all.
Sure, Ada defines more things in this area than C does. But any Ada
code that works with interrupts is going to be non-portable, in the
sense that you won't necessarily be able to copy the source to another
system, recompile it, and expect it to run.
I suppose the term "non-portable" is ambiguous. Code that uses
interrupts certainly can be ported, at the expense of making changes
to the source. Making these changes is likely to be easier in some
languages than in others. Code that's truly portable (perhaps I
should say "maximally portable") can be ported to any comforming
implementation with no source changes. That level of portability is
unlikely for code that uses interrupts, at least if it's written in
Ada or C.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ·····@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Keith Thompson wrote:
> Sure, Ada defines more things in this area than C does. But any Ada
> code that works with interrupts is going to be non-portable,
Right. And the other five or six facilities that Ada provides for
hardware kernel-type programming that C ignores are what I was talking
about when I said "not really".
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
From: Keith Thompson
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively? (clc,cll)
Date:
Message-ID: <lnu05ia1lw.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Sure, Ada defines more things in this area than C does. But any Ada
>> code that works with interrupts is going to be non-portable,
>
> Right. And the other five or six facilities that Ada provides for
> hardware kernel-type programming that C ignores are what I was talking
> about when I said "not really".
And, as I explained, you were mistaken. You can't write a kernel in
portable C; you clearly can write a kernel in C.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ·····@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Keith Thompson wrote:
> Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> > Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> Sure, Ada defines more things in this area than C does. But any Ada
> >> code that works with interrupts is going to be non-portable,
> >
> > Right. And the other five or six facilities that Ada provides for
> > hardware kernel-type programming that C ignores are what I was talking
> > about when I said "not really".
>
> And, as I explained, you were mistaken. You can't write a kernel in
> portable C; you clearly can write a kernel in C.
That's really the same as almost any language though. Lets take
standard Intercal to be the language defined in the Intercal manual.
You can't write a kernel in standard Intercal. But you could implement
a special version with (maybe non-portable) extensions in which a
kernel could be implemented.
From: Keith Thompson
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively? (clc,cll)
Date:
Message-ID: <lnejwfx1z1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
"Rob Thorpe" <·············@antenova.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>> > Keith Thompson wrote:
>> >> Sure, Ada defines more things in this area than C does. But any Ada
>> >> code that works with interrupts is going to be non-portable,
>> >
>> > Right. And the other five or six facilities that Ada provides for
>> > hardware kernel-type programming that C ignores are what I was talking
>> > about when I said "not really".
>>
>> And, as I explained, you were mistaken. You can't write a kernel in
>> portable C; you clearly can write a kernel in C.
>
> That's really the same as almost any language though. Lets take
> standard Intercal to be the language defined in the Intercal manual.
> You can't write a kernel in standard Intercal. But you could implement
> a special version with (maybe non-portable) extensions in which a
> kernel could be implemented.
Certainly.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ·····@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Frank Buss <··@frank-buss.de> wrote:
+---------------
| So converting an integer to a pointer is not illegal code and well
| defined in ANSI C, but the result is implementation defined.
|
| In contrast to this: AFAIK in Common Lisp there is no such low-level
| access defined at all.
+---------------
No, but every Common Lisp implementation worth worrying about
*has* some such low-level access facilities defined. E.g., CMUCL
provides SYSTEM:SAP-REF-{8,16,32,64}, which are also SETF'able.
Aliased to "r{8,16,32,64}" and "w{8,16,32,64}", resp., I use these
quite heavily in my little user-mode hardware debugging environment:
hwtool> (deflex foo (copy-seq "abcdefghij"))
FOO
hwtool> foo
"abcdefghij"
hwtool> (d32 foo)
0x580005f8: 0x0000002a 0x00000028 0x64636261 0x68676665
0x58000608: 0x00006a69 0x00000000 0x580005ff 0x2800000b
0x58000618: 0x580005b3 0x2800000b 0x580005b3 0x2800000b
0x58000628: 0x580005b3 0x2800000b 0x580005b3 0x5800063b
hwtool> (loop for addr from 0x58000600
for c = (r8 addr)
while (plusp c)
collect (code-char c))
(#\a #\b #\c #\d #\e #\f #\g #\h #\i #\j)
hwtool>
Or more cleanly [??? -- well, at least it'll work after a GC]:
hwtool> (loop for addr from (system:sap-int (system:vector-sap foo))
for c = (r8 addr)
while (plusp c)
collect (code-char c))
(#\a #\b #\c #\d #\e #\f #\g #\h #\i #\j)
hwtool>
Let's poke a bit, shall we? ;-}
hwtool> (w32 0x58000604 0x48474645) ; [1], [2]
hwtool> foo
"abcdEFGHij"
hwtool>
It's even more fun when you're peeking & poking at hardware... ;-}
-Rob
[1] Yes, I use a "0" readmacro to allow "0x" to mean "#x".
[2] Yes, this would be much cleaner as:
(w32 (+ 4 (system:sap-int (system:vector-sap foo))) 0x48474645)
or even:
(setf (system:sap-ref-32 (system:vector-sap foo) 4) 0x48474645)
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> Larry Elmore <·········@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>> If you think C is comparable to Lisp,
>>
>> Umhh,,. for writing device drivers and other low-level software, it's
>> usually *superior*...
>
> Yes, in my experience Lisp is generally superior to C when writing device
> drivers. (However, you can't use plain ANSI Common Lisp for doing that.)
And how do you write device drivers in Lisp?
Do you use sbcl's vops for that or do you use some different mechanism?
Do you have available examples?
(just curious)
Leonid Slobodov <······@thedoghousemail.com> writes:
> And how do you write device drivers in Lisp?
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machines
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
The Common Lisp Directory: http://www.cl-user.net
Le Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:00:49 -0400, Ken Tilton a écrit :
> infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or that
> programmer time has no value). of course gcc has value, and the price
> of zero is an irrational price,
You missed the point: FSF advocates distributing software under free
licence precisely *because* it has a too high value to be locked down by
proprietary licence and binary distribution!
And you should only speak about FSF if you know what they say. They
indeed clearly state that free software is not incompatible with making
money with software. I know at least of one company, here in France,
that *sells* free software, and it seems to work just well.
Quickly,
Nowhere man
--
···········@levallois.eu.org
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <hGBtg.48$gg.4@fe09.lga>
Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Le Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:00:49 -0400, Ken Tilton a écrit :
>
>>infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or that
>>programmer time has no value). of course gcc has value, and the price
>>of zero is an irrational price,
>
>
> You missed the point: FSF advocates distributing software under free
> licence precisely *because* it has a too high value to be locked down by
> proprietary licence and binary distribution!
>
> And you should only speak about FSF if you know what they say. They
> indeed clearly state that free software is not incompatible with making
> money with software.
i think /you/ should know what they say: "Arrangements to make people
pay for using a program...always incur a tremendous cost to society
through the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that
is, which programs) a person must pay for."
"Always", he said. Not a lotta wiggle room in there, eh? :)
As for how much they are making, well...
"If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full or
part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but I'm
looking for people for whom building community spirit is as important as
making money."
Yeah, the money is just rolling in. That is exactly why I risked years
of opportunity cost to develop a terrifically challenging piece of
software, so I could live under an underpass and enjoy the community spirit.
The Lispnyk bolshevik was I guess too young to remember his country's
failed "noble experiment" (Yeltsin's words, IIRC). "From each according
to their ability..."? PWUAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Human nature prevailed: "We
pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."
> I know at least of one company, here in France,
> that *sells* free software, and it seems to work just well.
tsk tsk, what "a tremendous cost to society." :)
kenneth
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> > Le Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:00:49 -0400, Ken Tilton a écrit :
> >
> >>infecting people with the idea that software has no value (or that
> >>programmer time has no value). of course gcc has value, and the price
> >>of zero is an irrational price,
> >
> >
> > You missed the point: FSF advocates distributing software under free
> > licence precisely *because* it has a too high value to be locked down by
> > proprietary licence and binary distribution!
> >
> > And you should only speak about FSF if you know what they say. They
> > indeed clearly state that free software is not incompatible with making
> > money with software.
>
> i think /you/ should know what they say: "Arrangements to make people
> pay for using a program...always incur a tremendous cost to society
> through the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that
> is, which programs) a person must pay for."
>
> "Always", he said. Not a lotta wiggle room in there, eh? :)
>
> As for how much they are making, well...
>
> "If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full or
> part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but I'm
> looking for people for whom building community spirit is as important as
> making money."
>
> Yeah, the money is just rolling in. That is exactly why I risked years
> of opportunity cost to develop a terrifically challenging piece of
> software, so I could live under an underpass and enjoy the community spirit.
>
> The Lispnyk bolshevik was I guess too young to remember his country's
> failed "noble experiment" (Yeltsin's words, IIRC). "From each according
> to their ability..."? PWUAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Human nature prevailed: "We
> pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."
>
> > I know at least of one company, here in France,
> > that *sells* free software, and it seems to work just well.
>
> tsk tsk, what "a tremendous cost to society." :)
>
> kenneth
>
> --
> Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
>
> "I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
> -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken, are you enjoying being the Devil's Advocate? After all, if you
truely disliked OSS in the way you appear to - why did you set Cell's
free?
Although you do have a good point about the cost of wasted hours,
however that isn't a deliberate act of the FSF, just a side effect of
human nature. People working for free will only do as much as they
need to in order to please themselves.
Cheers
Brad
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <UYDtg.77$gg.27@fe09.lga>
bradb wrote:
> Ken, are you enjoying being the Devil's Advocate?
Well, of course, but, no. I was contemplating the cost to society of
great minds like Steven Harris's wasted on Linux installs when they
could be developing <your dream software here>, then the bolshevik set
upon me at the bar at Citrus and peristed in his attack in bar after bar
over round after round until Rahul blew a fuse and drove us into the
street. So the topic is of lively interest: how many person hours at
what cost have been exhausted on the astonishing duplicated effort of
Linux installs and (I thinkk me must add) duplicate (er, multiple)
distro development?
> After all, if you
> truely disliked OSS in the way you appear to - why did you set Cell's
> free?
Two reasons. (a) I have twelve users now at price zero. How many would I
have at $100? $50?. (b) No one believes me, but Cells really are
amazing, so I'll make it up on the book I write. (c) Actually, quite a
number of people believe me, the ones who have used all the prior art
like Garnet and (in fewer numbers) COSI. I cannot make very much on
something a bright student can reinvent in a few weeks. (d) I agree with
Adobe, who said Adam was too amazing not to share.
Speaking of which, someone should port PyCells to C++ after the summer
and let Adobe know they did not have to create an embedded language. And
C++ has a preprocessor, so all the wiring PyCells will have to expose
can be reburied. Java gets killed by both, but has anonymous classes
which will give them one big advantage over the other two. Not sure
about Ruby.
One good thing about PyCells is that Ryan (the student) is documenting
it as he goes. the next ports should be even easier thanks to his
pioneering effort.
> Although you do have a good point about the cost of wasted hours,
> however that isn't a deliberate act of the FSF, just a side effect of
> human nature.
Is propaganda a deliberate act? From "Some Easily Rebutted Objections to
GNU's Goals":
"Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?"
"There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to
maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are
destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today are
based on destruction.
Oh, my. I thought I was developing commercial educational software. Let
us see who or what I am destroying.
"Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it
is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways
that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that
humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to
restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
[kt: This is from the people who answer every challenge to their use of
the word "Free" by pointing out that no one makes me use their software.
I guess somehow that is not destroying me. Imagine arbitrary number of
capital P's W's U's A's and H's]
"...Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does
not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that
creativity."
Oh. The man is barking mad. But that word Free sure is seductive...
Hey, do you think i should rename it FreeCells?
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> bradb wrote:
<SNIP>
> > Although you do have a good point about the cost of wasted hours,
> > however that isn't a deliberate act of the FSF, just a side effect of
> > human nature.
>
> Is propaganda a deliberate act? From "Some Easily Rebutted Objections to
> GNU's Goals":
>
> "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?"
>
> "There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to
> maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are
> destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today are
> based on destruction.
>
> Oh, my. I thought I was developing commercial educational software. Let
> us see who or what I am destroying.
>
> "Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it
> is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways
> that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that
> humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to
> restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
I can't say that I disagree with your points here, and I can't say that
I entirely agree with the FSF. But you've got off track, you were
bemoaning the wasted hours that are inflicted upon society by the FSF.
I pointed out that wasting time is not a direct goal of the FSF -
though perhaps a sad side effect.
Cheers
Brad
bradb wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>bradb wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>>Although you do have a good point about the cost of wasted hours,
>>>however that isn't a deliberate act of the FSF, just a side effect of
>>>human nature.
>>
>>Is propaganda a deliberate act? From "Some Easily Rebutted Objections to
>>GNU's Goals":
>>
>> "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?"
>>
>>"There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to
>>maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are
>>destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today are
>>based on destruction.
>>
>>Oh, my. I thought I was developing commercial educational software. Let
>>us see who or what I am destroying.
>>
>>"Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it
>>is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways
>>that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that
>>humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to
>>restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
>
>
> I can't say that I disagree with your points here, and I can't say that
> I entirely agree with the FSF. But you've got off track, you were
> bemoaning the wasted hours that are inflicted upon society by the FSF.
> I pointed out that wasting time is not a direct goal of the FSF -
> though perhaps a sad side effect.
No, it is not, and in fact RMS explicitly states that one goal is
reduction of duplicated effort, a discovery that will keep me laughing
for days at the most inopportune moments, in church, alone on the subway
platform, while friends are confiding deep secrets... it'll be worth it.
What I did accuse the FSF of was deliberately infecting people with the
idea that software should be free. I doubt they will sue me for that,
given the manifesto. They may, however, come out with a line of
educational software...
:)
kenzo
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
On 2006-07-14, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What I did accuse the FSF of was deliberately infecting people with the
> idea that software should be free. I doubt they will sue me for that,
> given the manifesto. They may, however, come out with a line of
> educational software...
>
and the truely funny thing is that from a developers point of view the
FSF, especially the GPLed, products are in no way free. To be free, in
the manner we are discussing it you would need to meet two conditions:
1: without cost
2: without encumberance
and the licenses that the FSF use and promote always violate #2
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> and the truely funny thing is that from a developers point of view the
> FSF, especially the GPLed, products are in no way free. To be free, in
> the manner we are discussing it you would need to meet two conditions:
> 1: without cost
> 2: without encumberance
>
> and the licenses that the FSF use and promote always violate #2
Indeed RMS wanted freedom for the _users_.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Wanna go outside.
Oh, no! Help! I got outside!
Let me back inside!
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> > Ken, are you enjoying being the Devil's Advocate?
>
> Well, of course, but, no. I was contemplating the cost to society of
> great minds like Steven Harris's wasted on Linux installs when they
> could be developing <your dream software here>,
Whatever the merits of your related points, installing Linux is
no more difficult than installing Windows. Every machine I use (with
the exception of my Mac) is dual boot. Fedora Core 4 and 5 installed
without problem on a variety of diffent laptops and servers.
The productivity benefits of using an OS so much better suited to
software development than Windows are significant. Post installation,
I find that I spend much more time maintaining the XP box my kids use
than any of my development machines.
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)
Patrick May <···@spe.com> writes:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Whatever the merits of your related points, installing Linux is
> no more difficult than installing Windows. Every machine I use (with
> the exception of my Mac) is dual boot. Fedora Core 4 and 5 installed
> without problem on a variety of diffent laptops and servers.
>
> The productivity benefits of using an OS so much better suited to
> software development than Windows are significant. Post installation,
> I find that I spend much more time maintaining the XP box my kids use
> than any of my development machines.
>
Not to mention the time wasted dealing with bizarre errors. Just
yesterday I was setting up a PPP link on a newish XP laptop w/ the
factory XP install. Got the cable set up, got the Linux end running
PPP, started PPP on the laptop and XP locked up entirely... Now I have
to figure out why a simple serial port operation will lock the Windows
box meantime the deadline is approaching and the Linux side is done...
And lets not talk about the perversities of Windows Networking, it has
wasted more of my time with just 2 or 3 Windows boxes in the lab then
I've spent getting the other 15 or so Linux and Solaris boxes networked.
Gregm
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <T4Otg.15$F_6.0@fe12.lga>
Patrick May wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>Ken, are you enjoying being the Devil's Advocate?
>>
>>Well, of course, but, no. I was contemplating the cost to society of
>>great minds like Steven Harris's wasted on Linux installs when they
>>could be developing <your dream software here>,
>
>
> Whatever the merits of your related points, installing Linux is
> no more difficult than installing Windows.
Already covered. Never install Windows. Impossible. If you need new
drivers or your system gets wobbly from age, buy a new one. Let Dell
worry about it.
> Every machine I use (with
> the exception of my Mac) is dual boot. Fedora Core 4 and 5 installed
> without problem on a variety of diffent laptops and servers.
>
> The productivity benefits of using an OS so much better suited to
> software development than Windows are significant.
I never leave the ACL IDE, so who knows what OS is out there? Of course
if I was using a free Lisp... oops, this is where we started.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> > Whatever the merits of your related points, installing Linux
> > is no more difficult than installing Windows.
>
> Already covered. Never install Windows. Impossible. If you need new
> drivers or your system gets wobbly from age, buy a new one. Let Dell
> worry about it.
Droll, but unrealistic. I'm not about to put up with an inferior
OS every minute of my working life just because it happens to hold a
near monopoly[1]. Any additional cost related to installing Linux is
rapidly repaid by the increased productivity of using it.
> > Every machine I use (with the exception of my Mac) is dual boot.
> > Fedora Core 4 and 5 installed without problem on a variety of
> > diffent laptops and servers.
> >
> > The productivity benefits of using an OS so much better
> > suited to software development than Windows are significant.
>
> I never leave the ACL IDE, so who knows what OS is out there? Of
> course if I was using a free Lisp... oops, this is where we started.
An OS is essential -- to act as a loader for Emacs.
For those of us who have to test and document[2] our software and
work in a heterogeneous language environment, the capabilities of the
OS are important.
Regards,
Patrick
[1] This isn't a dig at Microsoft's business practices. My objection
is to their products, best summarized by Steve Jobs: "The trouble
with Microsoft is they have no taste."
[2] A joke, a joke. I love Cells.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <d2Qtg.33$F_6.11@fe12.lga>
Patrick May wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Whatever the merits of your related points, installing Linux
>>>is no more difficult than installing Windows.
>>
>>Already covered. Never install Windows. Impossible. If you need new
>>drivers or your system gets wobbly from age, buy a new one. Let Dell
>>worry about it.
>
>
> Droll, but unrealistic. I'm not about to put up with an inferior
> OS every minute of my working life just because it happens to hold a
> near monopoly[1].
Do what I do. Never leave the ACL IDE. If it crashes (I am sure my
WIndows environment is at fault, because this never used to happen in
six years of intense use), have a keychord setup to instantaneously
relaunch.
Otherwise, drollity aside, sorry, I am incredibly productive on win32,
partly by concentrating on Lisp, but also because everything works.
Always in some insanely irritating fashion, but never more than irritating.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I have at $100? $50?. (b) No one believes me, but Cells really are
> amazing, so I'll make it up on the book I write. (c) Actually, quite a
Can I preorder that book?
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
The Common Lisp Directory: http://www.cl-user.net
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Hey, do you think i should rename it FreeCells?
I think someone trademarked that. ;-) ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Hey, do you think i should rename it FreeCells?
Sure, if you like Microsoft lawyers sniffing your butt.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
David Steuber wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hey, do you think i should rename it FreeCells?
>
> Sure, if you like Microsoft lawyers sniffing your butt.
There might be people willing to pay to see that. Eww.
Le Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:35:50 -0400, Ken Tilton a écrit :
>> And you should only speak about FSF if you know what they say. They
>> indeed clearly state that free software is not incompatible with
>> making money with software.
> i think /you/ should know what they say: "Arrangements to make people
> pay for using a program...always incur a tremendous cost to society
> through the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much
> (that is, which programs) a person must pay for."
>
> "Always", he said. Not a lotta wiggle room in there, eh? :)
No, indeed. But that's no problem, as customer paying for a free
software don't pay to use it. Read the GPL or BSD licence once in your
life: they give you the right to use the software. Period.
(I even think that violating the GPL doesn't forbids you to continue
using the software. IIUC, violating the GPL only forbids you to
distribute or modify the software...)
So you pay to access the source code. Then you do whatever you want with
it (including giving it away, which is a risk to live with in this
business model).
Alternatively,
Nowhere man
--
···········@levallois.eu.org
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yyDtg.577$nh3.30@fe12.lga>
Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Le Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:35:50 -0400, Ken Tilton a écrit :
>
>>>And you should only speak about FSF if you know what they say. They
>>>indeed clearly state that free software is not incompatible with
>>>making money with software.
>>
>>i think /you/ should know what they say: "Arrangements to make people
>>pay for using a program...always incur a tremendous cost to society
>>through the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much
>>(that is, which programs) a person must pay for."
>>
>>"Always", he said. Not a lotta wiggle room in there, eh? :)
>
>
> No, indeed. But that's no problem, as customer paying for a free
> software don't pay to use it.
Hunh? I think you missed the context. Le Thu said... oh, it is all up
there. Speaking of reading ability...
> Read the GPL or BSD licence once in your
> life:
I have, and I am sure I know them better than you.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Pierre THIERRY wrote:
<snipped>
> (I even think that violating the GPL doesn't forbids you to continue
> using the software. IIUC, violating the GPL only forbids you to
> distribute or modify the software...)
>
I doubt it; consult a lawyer in your area about copyright
law. In *my* area, a copyright violation is copying, using
and/or redistributing a copyrighted work without having
a licence to do so from the copyright holder. The only thing
that gives you any access to the copyrighted work in significant
volume is a licence from the copyright holder of that work.
If you break the terms of the licence then you are no
longer licenced to use that copyrighted work.
The GPL is just a licence, thats all.
AIUI, this is what gives the GPL its teeth; so much so that
its never been tested in court.
> So you pay to access the source code. Then you do whatever you want with
> it (including giving it away, which is a risk to live with in this
> business model).
>
Not where I am (like I said, consult a lawyer if you
are not sure). You cannot do whatever you want
with someone elses copyright; in this case the GPL
places restrictions on how you may redistribute
derivative works i.e. you cannot keep your changes
to the work closed while redistributing the changed
work. If you do not redistribute, you do not have
to make your modifications public.
goose,
No, I am not a lawyer, and one should never rely
solely on the legal advice of some stranger on
usenet.
> The Lispnyk bolshevik was I guess too young to remember his country's
> failed "noble experiment" (Yeltsin's words, IIRC).
Don't think about Yeltsin's words much, he betrayed his country and
contributed to it's robbery by small gang of so called oligarches.
There is no connection between 'noble experiment' and Yeltsin's
activity or speech.
> "From each according to their ability..."? PWUAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No. "Each according his (her) ability...". You really don't know what
it means.
>Human nature prevailed: "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."
So, you think that man can only work for money and there are no other
reasons to invent things or write software ?
> Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Should I pay you for using CELLS ?
Regards
Lisper
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>
>> So already, Common Lisp addresses people with 1 IQ point more than C
>> programmers :-(.
>
> It's not so much that. It's the fact that it's hard to teach old dogs
> new tricks, and most people come to Lisp after years of experience
> with other languages. They have 1 IQ point *more* as evidenced by the
> fact that they found Lisp, but it will take a bit of work to break
> them of their bad thinking habits.
Yes, that's why I asked what the teachers were doing. Lisp should be
taught amongst the firsts programming languages, if not the first in
all schools...
>> Go tell that to Google! Why a search for lisp tutorial doesn't return
>> as first hit: http://www.cliki.net/Online%20Tutorial ?
>
> Google pagerank works largely by who links to you and what they say
> about you. If people were talking about it being useful, it would
> show up on Google. :)
Ah! That was before Google. I mean, what good does it do to put
links to sites, when they can decay, and when Google indexes them and
crawls them automatically? People just go to google to find them
anyways!
>> Perhaps you could write this hand-holding tutorial? You could even
>> insert it in first position on that cliki.net page.
>
> I'm not good at holding hands. I may try, nonetheless, but not if
> people here think I'm so far off-base as to make anything I write
> based upon these assumptions totally worthless.
Well, one thing is true, is that you cannot write a one-size-fit-all
tutorial. So it cannot be bad if you write one more tutorial,
specifically targetted to the public you've identified.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the
consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to
exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>> So already, Common Lisp addresses people with 1 IQ point more than C
>> programmers :-(.
>
> It's not so much that. It's the fact that it's hard to teach old dogs
> new tricks, and most people come to Lisp after years of experience
> with other languages. They have 1 IQ point *more* as evidenced by the
> fact that they found Lisp, but it will take a bit of work to break
> them of their bad thinking habits.
How many of "them" had found Lisp after Paul Graham told them
they could get rich? :-)
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
> Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>> That said, it would be great if there were easy-to-find tutorials that
>> got people past the real barriers to entry.
>
> Go tell that to Google! Why a search for lisp tutorial doesn't return
> as first hit: http://www.cliki.net/Online%20Tutorial ?
Because Lisp is ooooooooold. And there are a lot of crappy, old
tutorials out there. Linked before the dawn of time.
There are a lot of people who want to tell you that they had
learned once in their lifetime. And to prove this, they link to
one of the crappy, old tutorials.
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>> Google for "lisp tutorial" and tell me the index of the hit that
>> explains in the first chapter or two clisp's ext:saveinitmem. This is
>> not about what is possible, it is about what is available to a newbie.
>> The fact that you are personally capable of doing something in no way
>> indicates that a newbie will figure it out right away without a lot of
>> coaxing.
>
>while the Lisp tutorial starts with:
>http://www.notam02.no/internt/cm-sys/cm-2.2/doc/clt.html
[...]
>Ok, the Lisp tutorial fails to tell the student to launch the lisp
>system. Just before that, it just mentionned that:
>
> Note: This tutorial introduction to Common Lisp was written for
> the CMU environment, so some of the details of running lisp toward
> the end may differ from site to site.
>
>without ever mentionning that to launch CMU CL, you have to type: lisp RET
>(much less that to lauch sbcl, you have to type: sbcl RET
> and that to lauch clisp, you have to type: clisp RET).
There are some Scheme tutorials which are not like this though, and
for basic introduction, I think the concepts of the REPL and other
things can be adequately taught on most modern Lisp-based systems. I
find DrScheme one example of a program which makes it very easy for a
newcomer to start getting an understanding of REPL's and such without
becoming too overwhelmed. There are also a good deal of tutorials on
using it.
I don't know of such a thing in the Common Lisp arena, but I imagine
it would be useful to have some site that explained this to people, as
it really does confuse them.
>> Lisp newbies don't need
>> to spend hours reading through ridiculously long tutorials on how to
>> write a recursive function. If they have programming experience, they
>> know all that and are not held back by it at all. Where they need
>> hand-holding is summarized in my previous message on this thread.
>Perhaps you could write this hand-holding tutorial? You could even
>insert it in first position on that cliki.net page.
I think a good handholding tutorial would be nice. :-) At least it
would answer some of the problems that aren't really answered by
currently existing tutorials.
- Aaron
--
Aaron Hsu <····@sacrificumdeo.net>
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>> Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Neither of these applies directly to Lisp, and that is why you get so
>>> many questions of the form "How do I compile my Lisp file into an
>>> executable?" and of the form "How do I run my Lisp script?" This is
>>> barrier #3.
>>
>> Bull shit.
>There's no need for profanity in a constructive discussion.
>Anyhow, change what I said to "Neither of these applies directly to
>the Lisp way of doing things." No sane Lisp programmer would tell you
>to write all your code, compile it down to a single executable, and
>run it. You build it up in smaller pieces and test them as you go.
>That's one of the chief advantages of programming in Lisp, and it just
>plain does not translate into "write, compile, run the whole thing,
>and go hunting for bugs" the way other languages encourage you to do
>things.
I do however, find that some people don't really want to talk to a
Lisp programmer first. :-) A TON of people I know out there from other
languages first try to find that one-stop-solves-all-your-problems
website that gives you all the little advice that you want for
starting out. There are a few of these for some of the other
languages and that's what some of these coders want for Lisp. I have
yet to find a really good site directly designed for the newbie
Lisp/Scheme programmer coming from other languages that really deals
with all these issues in an accessible manner. I find a lot of them,
in what I can only assume is an attempt to make them feel comfortable,
seem to side-step some of the methodology and go for the "this is how
you do this in Lisp" direct translation. I believe this is a
mistake. Lisp languages don't work like others, and as such, we
shouldn't hide that fact. We should instead explain the fact clearly
and provide them with the information to understand how this
difference can be used to accomplish the same things in less time. I
believe this is what really messes some coders up. They understand the
basics, such as maybe how an expression works; they might even make it
so far as to find some joy in using a REPL to test things out, but
then they suddenly run into a wall on how to make it all come together
from start to finish with a final project. I think we need something
that helps to describe this general methodology (at least one of the
many methodologies that exist) for the newbie to come in, and see how
the whole process works, that way they have an idea where they are
going, before they start. Hopefully this will intercept some of the
problems that creep in later on.
>With SLIME, the REPL is right there and lets me play with the
>functions I just compiled without having to add testing code to my
>source file. Your preferences may vary, but the process is no
>different between what I do and what you do any more than there is a
>difference between the Edit, Save, Switch to shell, and Run method and
>the Edit, Save, and ":!./file.name.rb" (in vim) method of working with
>Ruby (or any other language) code.
One thing I really like about SLIME and something like MIT-Scheme (I
actually use SLIME48 and Scheme48, but I think this is still
applicable), is the ease with which arbitrary commands can be tested
and run within certain scopes or levels of execution stack. MIT-Scheme
I believe also provides you with the ability to have a REPL at each
level of execution during debugging. This changes the whole process
from a Edit->Compile->Debug->Repeat to an dynamic testing where
editing, testing, and debugging all occur through an interactive
environment. When you explain the power of this to some of the C or
PHP coders, they really like it. :-) If you just point out that SLIME
gives you a REPL and allows you to send your code to a REPL, it
doesn't really seem all that cool. When you see the dynamic
capabilities of an IDE like that though, that's when things begin to
look really cool. :-)
- Aaron
--
Aaron Hsu <····@sacrificumdeo.net>
Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> So we show him SLIME. It's nifty, but how much difference is there
> between the following?
>
> Edit, Save, Compile, Switch to REPL, Run
> -and-
> Edit, Save, Switch to shell, [Compile,] Run
That's not how Lisp and SLIME are used.
In particular, you don't have to stop an application to fix problems
or extend its functionality; you just write or rewrite a function
definition and load it into the running environment.
Zach
Zach Beane <····@xach.com> writes:
> Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> So we show him SLIME. It's nifty, but how much difference is there
>> between the following?
>>
>> Edit, Save, Compile, Switch to REPL, Run
>> -and-
>> Edit, Save, Switch to shell, [Compile,] Run
>
> That's not how Lisp and SLIME are used.
>
> In particular, you don't have to stop an application to fix problems
> or extend its functionality; you just write or rewrite a function
> definition and load it into the running environment.
On the Lisp side, I was referring to per-function rather than
per-application as it is done in most other languages. But I was
writing from the perspective of a hypothetical newbie. You have to
get him past the point where he can't tell the difference between the
two lists of operations above. That's the barrier to entry I was
trying to describe.
On 2006-07-09 12:20:32 -0500, "Mallor" <···········@gmail.com> said:
> This is all red herring. Parens are what people whine about because
> they haven't seen something *else* compelling about Lisp. What
> converts people is killer apps. If, for instance, I showed game
> developers amazing things in OpenGL using Lisp that they couldn't do
> some other way, and it was really really important stuff, they'd use
> it. Failing a killer app, it's just a language. Not having anything
> to distinguish itself, people whine about parens. So stop worrying
> about perceived paren problems. Start worrying about killer apps.
> Most of the popularized scripty languages delivered a compelling web
> framework. Ruby's got Rails, Python's got Zope, etc.
>
> People will use the most broken crufty shit of an interface in the
> world, if it actually *DOES* something important to them.
Especially when what's important is "doing less than the competition --
intentionally." [1] Unfortunately, my competition comprise the
barely-graduated come web designer or MS Access developer; I have
to do *more*, and for that, RoR and the like do not cut it.
[1] http://www.37signals.com/
-Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
On 2006-07-09, Alok <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know Vim and Emacs can show matching begin (or end) paren when the
> cursor is on the corresponding end (or begin) paren. But my cursor
> is not always on the end or begin paren, when I read code.
>
> Is there an option to highlight the whole expression demarcated by
> parens? Like show the current expression region with a slightly
> bluish tint background? (Emacs has something for showing the current
> mark region in a different color M-x transient-mark-mode)
For Vim, see the ib command in Visual mode. (:help ib or :help
text-objects). See also the Rainbow Parenthesis plugin
(http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1230). You may have
to tweak the colors, though -- I did.
-- Larry
Larry Clapp wrote:
> On 2006-07-09, Alok <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I know Vim and Emacs can show matching begin (or end) paren when the
> > cursor is on the corresponding end (or begin) paren. But my cursor
> > is not always on the end or begin paren, when I read code.
> >
> > Is there an option to highlight the whole expression demarcated by
> > parens? Like show the current expression region with a slightly
> > bluish tint background? (Emacs has something for showing the current
> > mark region in a different color M-x transient-mark-mode)
>
> For Vim, see the ib command in Visual mode. (:help ib or :help
> text-objects). See also the Rainbow Parenthesis plugin
> (http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1230). You may have
> to tweak the colors, though -- I did.
>
> -- Larry
Thanks. This is a very good tip. I am simply amazed by the number of
features in VIM. You get to learn something new everyday. Google is
lucky to have Bram working for them.
I only wish Emacs had differentiation between editing mode and various
other useful non editing modes like in VIM. That would probably halve
the number of times that we have to key in ctrl-x for every god damned
thing. (And no, viper does not provide a tenth of the useful commands
that VIM does.)
"Alok" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> I know Vim and Emacs can show matching begin (or end) paren when the
> cursor is on the corresponding end (or begin) paren. But my cursor is
> not always on the end or begin paren, when I read code.
When you read code, it should be primarily the indentation that guides
you. Properly indented code is done for human readers, since the
whitespace doesn't make any difference to the Lisp reader.
Emacs will "properly" indent code for you as you write it, and also
afterwards using the formating commands. All you need to know how to do
is put the line endings in the right place.
> Is there an option to highlight the whole expression demarcated by
> parens? Like show the current expression region with a slightly bluish
> tint background? (Emacs has something for showing the current mark
> region in a different color M-x transient-mark-mode)
Well, you can double-click at the beginning of a particular s-expression
and have the whole thing highlighted.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
"properly" is in quotes because some people (like me) have a few nits to
pick about certain indentation (like IF), but you can customize those
away if you need to. At least it does most of the indenting to my
liking out of the box.
David Steuber wrote:
> I think the reason languages like Ruby are developed is to avoid the
> parens. Yes, I'm being serious. What turns people off of Lisp more
> than anything else does seem to be the parens.
>
> I would call BS, but what turned me off of python was the whitespace.
See, but the thing with the whitespace of Python is that the problems
that it can introduce are more than just aesthetic. At work, we're
using a tool written in Python and the fact that Python uses whitespace
is causing problems with SCM. I can't remember the details of an
example at the moment but the problem comes when two people end up
editing the same section of code on different branches which then get
merged together. If I recall correctly, it "works" something like this.
The original code might look like this in Lisp.
(progn
(do-this)
(do-that)
(do-the-other))
Joe changes the code to become.
(progn
(when the-right-condition-p
(do-this)
(do-that)
(do-the-other)))
Jen changes the code to become.
(progn
(do-this)
(unless do-not-do-that-p
(do-that))
(do-the-other))
When they are merged, one winds up with something like
(progn
(when the-right-condition-p
(do-this)
(unless do-not-do-that-p
(do-that))
(do-the-other)))
The indentation is wrong. However, in Lisp, the parentheses retain
enough information that we know what was intended.
(progn
(when the-right-condition-p
(do-this)
(unless do-not-do-that-p
(do-that))
(do-the-other)))
However, with Python, this is not true; the indentation is the only
information about block structure.
Damien Kick <·····@earthlink.net> writes:
> David Steuber wrote:
>
> > I think the reason languages like Ruby are developed is to avoid the
> > parens. Yes, I'm being serious. What turns people off of Lisp more
> > than anything else does seem to be the parens.
> > I would call BS, but what turned me off of python was the whitespace.
>
> See, but the thing with the whitespace of Python is that the problems
> that it can introduce are more than just aesthetic. At work, we're
> using a tool written in Python and the fact that Python uses
> whitespace is causing problems with SCM.
Examples elided.
> However, with Python, this is not true; the indentation is the only
> information about block structure.
Thanks for providing a technical justification for not liking Python's
indentation :-)
Ari also has made some good points regarding the hurdles of getting
into Lisp on current popular computing environments. And Ken has made
a good counter point about which Lisp to recommend.
Of course many Linux users (and perhaps even more Windows users) don't
like to pay for software. And no one likes crippleware.
My Lisp odyssey was only complicated by the fact that I know precisely
zero Lisp programmers IRL not counting those I met in Boston last
year. I had to go it alone with only USENET and IRC as a means of
getting help and I didn't always follow the solicited advice (always a
bad idea).
Now I have a friend who is looking at Lisp. He has me telling him
that Emacs + SLIME + SBCL are the way to go. He has another friend
telling him that Chicken and other Schemes are the way to go. Also my
friend is a long time Vi user and has been using Eclipse for Java.
Lisp's culture and workflow are so different from the popular
languages that that in and of itself provides a barrier to entry.
Switching from Perl to Python or Ruby is not really a paradigm shift.
Even going from C to a scripting language is not a big step. Not like
going from a Unix/Windows development mentality to a Lisp mentality
where Emacs + SLIME or even Lispwork's IDE is quite a leap.
I'm not criticizing Lisp here. The problem doesn't lie with Lisp.
The problem lies with getting people to think differently about how
development should be done. And for every Lisper, there will be a
thousand others telling you to go a different way. In other words,
it's a social issue, not a technical issue. Technology is not likely
to solve the issue.
It really would be better if programmers started with Lisp first (even
Logo). Of course CL would be ideal. You don't have to hit it all at
once.
I don't think Lisp will ever be mainstream. It doesn't help that SICP
calls Scheme Lisp without making any distinction between Scheme and
CL. It also doesn't help that Java is like a giant tinker toy where
you can just throw together a bunch of jars and "write" a program.
The critical mass just isn't there and I'm not so sure proselytizing
will help.
As far as killer apps go, Lisp does have a few. Killer apps don't
really help. They don't hurt. They are good publicity. But in the
big picture, they seem like the exception rather than the rule.
Emacs is another interesting issue. I won't get into editor wars.
I'll just point out that there is residence to people wanting to learn
this rather large program. Emacs has it's own CUA rules. It is the
same on every system I've ever used which is great for when Emacs is a
major or even the primary application one runs. For everyone else it
sucks because it is not defaulting to the host system's CUA
conventions. At least Unix doesn't have any conventions ;-).
So Emacs can be a hurdle. I use Carbon Emacs from CVS on my Mac. I
bet that I am one of only a few Mac users who do that. I also have my
keys set up to match Emacs in a terminal or on X. I'm not using OS X
key bindings. I am not using Aquamacs.
Perhaps I've made things harder on myself by not simply getting
Lispworks. Be that as it may, I can at least hop onto #lisp to get
quick answers when I am having problems. This works because Emacs +
SLIME + SBCL is popular there. I have support because there is a
localized concentration of users who can help me.
So there is a social solution after all. The only problem is that too
few Lisp newbies know about it.
The general rule is that Lisp does not fit potential user
expectations. It is not bundled with systems by default so that users
can just jummp in. Getting it set up is a different process (although
not really all that different) from what the script kiddies are used
to. People are lazy. People have unrealistic expectations.
To sum up, people see the parens and think, "yuck!" People are then
shocked that Emacs or some other Lisp aware editor is an essential
tool (yet they don't mind Eclispe). Lisp has different deployment
issues because you can't count on having liblisp.so with a
standardized ABI and APIs on Unix systems or lisp.dll on Windows.
People think that the first method of application development they see
is The Right Way.
Enough rambling. I'm sure I've posted plenty that can be picked
apart. The fact is, I haven't put together a focus group to prove any
of my assertions. I don't think anyone has.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>I don't think Lisp will ever be mainstream. It doesn't help that
>SICP calls Scheme Lisp without making any distinction between Scheme
>and CL. It also doesn't help that Java is like a giant tinker toy
>where you can just throw together a bunch of jars and "write" a
>program. The critical mass just isn't there and I'm not so sure
>proselytizing will help.
You know, I didn't get the feeling that SICP did put an ambiguous
light on Scheme vs. CL.
In this book the use of "program" is focused on the creation,
execution, and study of programs written in a dialect of Lisp
for execution on a digital computer. Using Lisp we restrict or
limit not what we may program, but only the notation for our
program descriptions.
[...]
Lisp is a survivor, having been in use for about a quarter of a
century. Among the active programming languages only Fortran has
had a longer life.
[...]
Lisp changes. The Scheme dialect used in this text has evolved
from the original Lisp and differes from the latter in several
important ways, [...]. [1]
You'll notice that in this quotation, the use of Lisp here seems to
refer to the whole family of Lisp languages, starting with the
earliest up to the then current languages of the time, and they are
clear to identify Scheme as a dialect of Lisp, not as the whole being
of Lisp as it exists at the time of writing. Their statements
necessitate the existance of other dialects of Lisp, and so, they have
simply left out the mentioning of those other dialects, rather than
attempting to equivocate.
- Aaron
[1] "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs", second
edition. Pages xi--xiii.
--
Aaron Hsu <····@sacrificumdeo.net>
Aaron Hsu <····@sacrificumdeo.net> writes:
> You'll notice that in this quotation, the use of Lisp here seems to
> refer to the whole family of Lisp languages, starting with the
> earliest up to the then current languages of the time, and they are
> clear to identify Scheme as a dialect of Lisp, not as the whole being
> of Lisp as it exists at the time of writing. Their statements
> necessitate the existance of other dialects of Lisp, and so, they have
> simply left out the mentioning of those other dialects, rather than
> attempting to equivocate.
A fair point. I suspect that another barrier is Lisp's age. People
are likely to think that newer is better.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
Damien Kick wrote:
> However, with Python, this is not true; the indentation is the only
> information about block structure.
Exactly!
Copying a block of Python code from one place and pasting it into
another and then adjusting the indentation also makes me nervous.
Another problem is that everywhere I work most people insert spaces for
indentation but there are those few people who insert tabs (wittingly
or unwittingly I'm not sure). With Python this is a recipe for
disaster! Life is just so much easier if you add a little bit of
redundant information (parens or curly braces) the explicitly specify
the code block structure.
The indentation thing is not enough to make me prefer Perl or TCL
(blech) but I would be happier with parens or curly braces delimiting
blocks.
On 2006-07-13, ·············@hotmail.com <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder how many other companies are secretly using Lisp and not
> telling about it ?
When I start my company, I will secretly use Lisp.
-- Larry
·············@hotmail.com writes:
> I wonder how many other companies are secretly using Lisp and not
> telling about it ?
No one will say.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
David Steuber wrote:
> ·············@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
>>I wonder how many other companies are secretly using Lisp and not
>>telling about it ?
>
>
> No one will say.
>
Oh, I will. I will also brag about how few lines of code I wrote and how
quickly I did it. Of course "it" will be (no joke) ten times the state
of the art. I will be selling into the market before anyone knows what I
have done and what they have to duplicate. They will be interested in
eating my lunch only if they see a decent lunch to be had. that will
only happen if I am making money hand over fist. Giving me money to
invest in extending the software. I will be abe to hire every yobbo and
his/her kid brother/sister.
Someone wants to raise money to train some java monkeys in lisp to start
work on a scary-hard program in a niche into which I will have been
selling and growing for a year before you can even close on the first
tranche?
There are other niches. And besides, Graham already told everyone ten
times over and wrote three books to explain it. We had a great uptick
off that, no more.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Sure you're not trolling kenny?
some points:
the first sentence on the homepage of the fsf:
Free software is a matter of liberty not price. You should think of
"free" as in "free speech".
So their aim is primarily idiological and not, as you claim, to save
money.
> What I did accuse the FSF of was deliberately infecting people with the
> idea that software should be free.
As you accuse the sun for shining?
Multiple distro development, etc:
I'm in the ideological camp concerning software, but it's not that hard
to battle on your ground: First of all, listen to Andrew Morton about
linux kernel development (
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail594.html ). It should give
you some clues about the advantages of open source development.
Unfortunately the linux kernel isn't made by hippies and anarchists
anymore. It's primarily payed professionals from or hired by companies
that reap the benifits from linux. If they've got a problem with a
driver or whatever they can just fix it (it's a company and thus the
work is payed for) and merge the patch for the benefit of all.
Low level software like linux is going to be free because there is more
benefit to be had by the commercial sector. Basically one company
benefits from a closed source os while the ones that build on top
suffer from various limitations. Amongst which: The lack of programmers
that one company can assign to all the problems it's users have with it
(end or business). The lack of transparency for them to fix it
themselves. A release model, inherited from the buisiness-model which
up to now has been quite hostile against a regular release cycle, so
when are your problems addressed?
Argue against the former arguments as you may, the bigger picture makes
these arguments moot. You speak of the duplicate effort of open source.
As opposed to the single effort of commercial software? What about all
those millions of mp3 players and whatnot? Operating systems? And what
happened when, say, symbolics died? What happens to the code all those
brilliant people made over all those years. How to regain the
knowledge? Yes, duplicate effort. Whatever brilliant code someone
writes at a closed source company will have to be duplicated. Time that
could have been spent solving the world hunger problem.
Sure there is a lot of duplicate effort going on in the linux world but
it's a time of experimentation. That is not to say that programmers
will never reinvent the wheel in 50 years but that has to do with the
tinkering mentality of programmers, not your stance on free software.
In say a 1000 years both the linux kernel 15.2.4554 and Windows Senseo
could very well be rock solid. There is only so much to tinker with on
the os level. But being the company, say Microsoft, is, it demands you
to pay the inflation corrected sum for it's product, while Linux would
be free, as would open office, etc. It's nothing a smart college
student couldnt figure out in a thousand years. Every penny you would
otherwise pay to, say Microsoft, you can now donate to solve the world
pollution problem.
Or?
Greets,
Ties
Ties Stuij wrote:
> In say a 1000 years both the linux kernel 15.2.4554 and Windows Senseo
> could very well be rock solid.
Unlikely.
> There is only so much to tinker with on the os level.
That's false. The demands on an os and the resources that it has are
not fixed, so os' must change merely to keep up.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <hJOtg.23$nj6.21@fe08.lga>
Ties Stuij wrote:
> Sure you're not trolling kenny?
>
> some points:
> the first sentence on the homepage of the fsf:
>
> Free software is a matter of liberty not price. You should think of
> "free" as in "free speech".
I don't think it works that way. If the next sentence were to say, "Show
me the money!!!", the first sentence cannot make your point. SO please
scroll back to the quotations I offered from the Gnu manifesto in which
charging money was destructive and "software should be free" were offered.
Your next response will be, "Right. The software has to be free. Or you
are destructive. You have to make money some other way."
The great thing about that is that I think I can use the argument
against the Bass Ale Company and start getting free beer, in which case
I believe i could afford to give away my software. Gotta get my landlord
in on this, too. He destroyed me /big time/ on the first.
>
> So their aim is primarily idiological and not, as you claim, to save
> money.
>
>
>>What I did accuse the FSF of was deliberately infecting people with the
>>idea that software should be free.
>
>
> As you accuse the sun for shining?
A better example would be someone with an incipient cold infecting
others at work. Did they infect others? yes. Did they knowingly infect?
no, nor then obviously was it their intent. So the language is ambiguous
when I say something like "Now that the FSF has infected....". But when
challenged I looked up the manifesto and, yes, they actively seek to
make software free, by characterizing charging for software as
destructive, by producing usable stuff without charging for its
underlying value/development cost, and by licensing the software
compelling those who use it to likewise distribute their software for free.
As for the sun, gimme some time on that, I have not yet found its
manifesto or licensing terms.
> Whatever brilliant code someone
> writes at a closed source company will have to be duplicated. Time that
> could have been spent solving the world hunger problem.
Absolutely. Good point. I am no poli sci or history fan, but that sounds
like marx, yes? the inefficiency of the capitalist system, with
everybody out there butting heads going after the same dollars? I do not
want to get Mr. Burdick's cat upset, but that waste appears to be the
cost of optimal overall performance.
So why is capitalist competitive waste more effective than Linux user
waste at producing value? Because there are dollars changing hands in
the former?
Yeltsin, schmeltsin, everyone is moving to a market system. Human nature
laughs at Marx and Stallman and others who try to strongarm people into
behaving a certain way.
My theory is that "information is everything". When you start imposing
dreamy utopian ideals, information gets lost. The state sets prices and
production levels in a planned economy, and information on demand is
lost until a year later one looks in the warehouse or sees lines on the
streets.
Show me the bits!
>
> Sure there is a lot of duplicate effort going on in the linux world but
> it's a time of experimentation.
Experimentation?! Dude, it is Unix. The only experiments there are on
the design of the feeding tubes. Hmm, come to think of it, the best
place to find a 1963 Chevrolet in daily use is <insert communist or
ex-communist economy here>.
Maybe this is another good example of The Curse of Stallman: utter
stagnation in O/Ses. Jobs needed an OS to beat up Apple, so he grabbed
Linux. It's free!
Oh no. I am about to congratulate Microsoft for using the VAX/VMS guy to
create theirs. ewwwwwww.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
<snipped>
> Experimentation?! Dude, it is Unix. The only experiments there are on
> the design of the feeding tubes.
Not really; Lots of new stuff in kernel land very rarely
gets noticed by the end-user (like devfs) - its all
wrapped up. Vista is coming soon and even *it* won't
have caught up to the technology present in linux
kernels 2.6 onwards.
I expect Vista to catch up sometime in 2009 (after
its had a few service packs). For this to happen
the tens of thousands of linux developers have to
stop working on linux immediately. I doubt that this
will happen ;-)
The problem, I suspect, is that you don't realise
how crippled windows is (compared to linux)
in much the same way that a VB programmer
doesn't realise how crippled VB is compared to
Lisp.
I could point out a few things like being able
to make a kernel module to implement /dev/gzip
but the significance would be lost on you
in much the same way that you would lose
a VB programmer by pointing out that his
language has no macros.
In both cases I expect the answer to be
"But what would I use it for?" i.e. you won't
miss it until you find yourself using it.
>
> Maybe this is another good example of The Curse of Stallman: utter
> stagnation in O/Ses. Jobs needed an OS to beat up Apple, so he grabbed
> Linux. It's free!
Nope, he grabbed BSD.
Stallman and BSD go together like oil and water :-)
>
> Oh no. I am about to congratulate Microsoft for using the VAX/VMS guy to
> create theirs. ewwwwwww.
>
Dave Cutler? Whats wrong with him? By all the
accounts I've read of him, he seems like a pretty
smart guy who knows his field.
goose,
goose wrote:
> Not really; Lots of new stuff in kernel land very rarely
> gets noticed by the end-user (like devfs)
You mean, like Windows implements?
> The problem, I suspect, is that you don't realise
> how crippled windows is (compared to linux)
I think many people don't realize how much Windows supports because they
don't study it.
> I could point out a few things like being able
> to make a kernel module to implement /dev/gzip
And... what makes you think Windows can't implement that? Not that I'm
sure how /dev/gzip is supposed to work, but Windows does have loadable
device drivers and filters, which is what I assume this is supposed to
refer to.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > Not really; Lots of new stuff in kernel land very rarely
> > gets noticed by the end-user (like devfs)
>
> You mean, like Windows implements?
>
> > The problem, I suspect, is that you don't realise
> > how crippled windows is (compared to linux)
>
> I think many people don't realize how much Windows supports because they
> don't study it.
>
Well, it is pretty hard to study a closed source
OS :-)
But seriously, I know the *kernel* is designed by a bright
guy (see my other response about Cutler). They aimed
for a microkernel, AFAIK, and got to a sort of a balance
between micokernel and monolithic design.
As for pure numbers, Windows largely dominates; there
are more people /studying/ windows primarily because
there are more people trying to write useful software for
it.
> > I could point out a few things like being able
> > to make a kernel module to implement /dev/gzip
>
> And... what makes you think Windows can't implement that?
Because windows does not allow one to implement ones
driver interface as a file on disk? Feel free to correct me
if I am wrong.
> Not that I'm
> sure how /dev/gzip is supposed to work, but Windows does have loadable
> device drivers and filters, which is what I assume this is supposed to
> refer to.
No, I was refering to being able to write a driver that performs
(for example) gzip functionality. then all one has to do to compress
a gzip file is this:
cat file.to.compress > /dev/gzip &> compressed.file.gz
Windows cannot do that; Windows cannot do a lot of things
and cannot be coerced into doing them either.
Such is the nature of closed source systems :-)
goose,
Darren New wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > Not really; Lots of new stuff in kernel land very rarely
> > gets noticed by the end-user (like devfs)
>
> You mean, like Windows implements?
>
> > The problem, I suspect, is that you don't realise
> > how crippled windows is (compared to linux)
>
> I think many people don't realize how much Windows supports because they
> don't study it.
>
Well, it is pretty hard to study a closed source
OS :-)
But seriously, I know the *kernel* is designed by a bright
guy (see my other response about Cutler). They aimed
for a microkernel, AFAIK, and got to a sort of a balance
between micokernel and monolithic design.
As for pure numbers, Windows largely dominates; there
are more people /studying/ windows primarily because
there are more people trying to write useful software for
it.
> > I could point out a few things like being able
> > to make a kernel module to implement /dev/gzip
>
> And... what makes you think Windows can't implement that?
Because windows does not allow one to implement ones
driver interface as a file on disk? Feel free to correct me
if I am wrong.
> Not that I'm
> sure how /dev/gzip is supposed to work, but Windows does have loadable
> device drivers and filters, which is what I assume this is supposed to
> refer to.
No, I was refering to being able to write a driver that performs
(for example) gzip functionality. then all one has to do to compress
a gzip file is this:
cat file.to.compress > /dev/gzip &> compressed.file.gz
Windows cannot do that; Windows cannot do a lot of things
and cannot be coerced into doing them either.
Such is the nature of closed source systems :-)
goose,
On 15 Jul 2006 01:17:14 -0700, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>
>Darren New wrote:
>
>> Not that I'm
>> sure how /dev/gzip is supposed to work, but Windows does have loadable
>> device drivers and filters, which is what I assume this is supposed to
>> refer to.
>
>No, I was refering to being able to write a driver that performs
>(for example) gzip functionality.
You just ignored what Darren wrote. Here's a URL for your
edification:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/filterdrv/default.mspx
>then all one has to do to compress a gzip file is this:
>
>cat file.to.compress > /dev/gzip &> compressed.file.gz
>
>Windows cannot do that; Windows cannot do a lot of things
>and cannot be coerced into doing them either.
If you had said "the Windows design makes certain features that
are available elsewhere pretty hard or awkward to implement,"
I would agree. I concede that Windows is not elegant in many
ways. But saying "cannot" is just revealing that you actually
don't know much about Windows at the system programming level,
and that you only see things from a "how it would be done in Unix"
point of view.
--
Jack Unrue
Jack Unrue wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2006 01:17:14 -0700, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
> >
> >Darren New wrote:
> >
> >> Not that I'm
> >> sure how /dev/gzip is supposed to work, but Windows does have loadable
> >> device drivers and filters, which is what I assume this is supposed to
> >> refer to.
> >
> >No, I was refering to being able to write a driver that performs
> >(for example) gzip functionality.
>
> You just ignored what Darren wrote. Here's a URL for your
> edification:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/filterdrv/default.mspx
I've read it; before I create /dev/gzip, I've got to write
a filesystem to support the concept of /dev/*. Lovely :-)
>
> >then all one has to do to compress a gzip file is this:
> >
> >cat file.to.compress > /dev/gzip &> compressed.file.gz
> >
> >Windows cannot do that; Windows cannot do a lot of things
> >and cannot be coerced into doing them either.
>
> If you had said "the Windows design makes certain features that
> are available elsewhere pretty hard or awkward to implement,"
> I would agree. I concede that Windows is not elegant in many
> ways. But saying "cannot" is just revealing that you actually
> don't know much about Windows at the system programming level,
(Thats a little bit inflammatory; I don't in fact know much
about programming Windows at the systems level[1] but
I *do* know enough to know that windows is not compatible
with the "everything is a file" philosophy. If /dev/gzip is
possible under windows, how about /dev/kcore? /dev/sg0
representing ide-scsi functionality? Is mkfifo possible?
/proc/<pid>/ seems to be impossible under windows, as
that isn't implemented by a driver but by the kernel itself).
Well, see, this is the functionality that I got out of the box
with Linux; to get the same functionality from windows I have
to download and update my system?
It's hardly a fair comparison when I say "windows cannot
do this but linux can" and you say "Well, windows can if you
only download this, and that and request the other thing from
microsoft".
In that case, yes, maybe windows can do everything linux
can because I can download unix compatibility layers for
windows. As long as I can emulate unix on windows, then
yes ... windows is less crippled.
I'll have to concede /all cases/ as it seems that windows
can have all the functionality of linux if I at least install
*nix software/services for windows.
<shrug>If windows can only do X by installing *nix, why
not skip the middleman and just use *nix?
For the others above (KT especially) who wanted to
add up the time spent installing Linux, here's a list of
things I use (some things get used daily, some once every
5 years) that windows doesn't give me unless I spend a few
days or more on it (some of the stuff on this list can't be
found in windows for neither love nor money AFAIK). I'd be
interested to know what you do for each of these cases.
I've numbered them to make it easy to respond to.
Filesystem:
1. Soft links to files and directories.
2. Support for mounting multiple filesystems from command-line
at different mount points in main filesystem.
3. Setuid on exection of progams.
4. Set a file to nonexecutable without changing the name.
5. Set a file to nonexecutable for only a certain group of users.
6. Set a directory to sticky (possibly this is on windows, I
don't think so as windows lacks the needed functionality).
7. Set a file to sticky (needed to properly implement /dev/gzip :-).
Gui:
8. Is there an Xnest equivalent on windows for windows?
9. Will windows let me remove the gui from the kernel for a
performance gain?
10.Can windows be useful without a gui? Will all the system
programs on a gui-less server still work?
Security:
10. Will windows let me remove IE and all traces of it from
windows?
Eye candy:
11. Can I use any window manager of my choice instead of
the default one? Is there one that at least resembles my
desired choice?
Interoperability:
12. Will the windows boot loader let me boot *any* other
OS?
13. Will windows be able to recover data from a disk in a
filesystem not NTFS or FAT
(ext2/ewxt3/jfs/reiserfs/insert your favourite one here)?
Usefulness:
After I install windows, will windows need
further attention for any of these (Popular linux distros
don't need further attention for these):
14. Reading MSWord documents?
15. Creating and working with spreadsheets?
16. Reading PDF files?
17. Creating PDf files?
18. Firewalling a network (and NATing my LAN)?
19. Safely receiving email?
20. Safely surfing the web?
21. Writing software in any 3 or 4 popular
languages (Only 1 language may not meet my needs).
22. Create and work with an SQL database?
Scalability:
Can I take my Windows CD and do any of
the following:
23. Create a web-server optimised OS (like tux)?
24. Create a LiveCD?
25. Create a single-floppy-disk OS to boot up as a router?
26. Create finely-tuned fast-loading OS so that drivers
don't have to be loaded at bootup (built in drivers).
27. Create an "install-from-network" floppy disk?
Reliability:
(This is more just to get an idea of cost, either time or
$ value):
28. How much does a decent virus scanner cost?
29. The renewal cost annually?
30. How much does it cost to have a machine cleaned
of malware, spyware, driveby downloads, etc?
31. How long to restore system from backups
(including OS) per G?
32. How quickly to choose and install a rootkit detector?
33. How long to download "security" patches per week?
(I'm on a 3600 dialup here, paying by the minute
for each minute I am dialed up so this matters to me).
This list may seem like inviting flames, but before
you flame me consider that the original premise
was "but linux wastes all this time ...". IME, windows
systems tend to cost much more in time to
use and maintain; its useless when you install it
because it comes with nothing. No word processor,
spreadsheet, typesetter, programming languages
or productivity tools are installed. After installation
of all your software you still need a virus scanner,
some malware removal tools, firewall setup and
of course configuring IE so that every drive-by
virus doesn't get downloaded.
> and that you only see things from a "how it would be done in Unix"
> point of view.
Note:
[1] I have /some/ background of IFS, as I had battled with IFS
once before when trying to create a file-system-of-my-own-design.
IFS (after I downloaded a few .PPT readers) did not appeal to me;
I don't recall right now what the deal-breaker was (getting
bypassed for something or the other? FastIO comes to mind).
goose,
On 15 Jul 2006 15:50:31 -0700, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>
>This list may seem like inviting flames, but before
>you flame me consider that the original premise
>was "but linux wastes all this time ...".
So? I never made that argument. I was simply pointing
out that you have a myopic view of how system services
are exposed. Your essay which I snipped did nothing to
change my opinion, but rather confirmed it.
BTW, I'm a former KDE user, and have experimented with
Gnome several times. It's not that I dislike Linux
desktop environments, but having had that experience,
I nevertheless prefer Windows.
EOT for me.
--
Jack Unrue
> 1. Soft links to files and directories.
Windows software generally isn't broken enough to need this
functionality. But you can have soft links on directories and hard links
on files. And reparse points. And the ability to mount the same file
system in multiple places on the parent file system.
> 2. Support for mounting multiple filesystems from command-line
> at different mount points in main filesystem.
The assign subcommand of the diskpart command.
> 3. Setuid on exection of progams.
It's called the "run as" service. Also relatively rarely needed, as
Windows has a much more fine-grained ACL system than UNIX used to. (The
fine-grain ACL on Linux is too new to be widely supported yet.)
> 4. Set a file to nonexecutable without changing the name.
Take away execute permission on the file.
> 5. Set a file to nonexecutable for only a certain group of users.
Take away execute permission on the file for the desired group of users.
(Alternately, deny execute permission, depending on the complexity of
your groups.)
> 6. Set a directory to sticky (possibly this is on windows, I
> don't think so as windows lacks the needed functionality).
If you mean "only the creator of the file can modify *that* file, but
lots of people can frob files in the directories", it's called "creator
owner permission", and it's been in Windows longer than it's been in
Unix. It also applies to things like print spools, mail messages, and
all the other things that are protected by ACLs.
How do I let someone rename a file in Linux but not delete it? How do I
let someone append to a file but not overwrite it? How do I encrypt
individual files in a directory transparently and to different subsets
of users?
> 7. Set a file to sticky (needed to properly implement /dev/gzip :-).
Setting a file to sticky still means you're making it stay in swap space
even after nobody is running it? This isn't necessary, since Windows
swaps program text pages directly from the executable. I'm not sure what
this has to do with /dev/gzip. Do you have a URL to the man page for
/dev/gzip, as it's really hard to google for "/dev/gzip" and get
anything useful.
(Note that *is* the original definition of the sticky bit: It sticks in
swap-space. That the bit was reused for directories later just shows
that Unix has been evolving its own kludges too. I'm not sure if Linux
has a different use for the sticky bit nowadays.)
> 8. Is there an Xnest equivalent on windows for windows?
Probably. It's certainly not impossible to write it, if that's what you
want to do, given the existance of RDP and VNC. Personally, I can't
imagine why you'd want such a thing, but OK.
> 9. Will windows let me remove the gui from the kernel for a
> performance gain?
No, but you can boot Windows without the GUI. I'm not sure how removing
the GUI gets you a performance gain in Windows.
> 10.Can windows be useful without a gui? Will all the system
> programs on a gui-less server still work?
Not all. Nor will the GUI programs on an X machine. So?
> 11. Can I use any window manager of my choice instead of
> the default one?
Yes. Windows comes with 2. Your ATM machine is probably running a
different window manager, as is your cash register. Feel free to buy
and/or download the one of your choice.
> Interoperability:
> 12. Will the windows boot loader let me boot *any* other
> OS?
Yes. I boot Linux (actually, GRUB, which in turn boots Linux) from the
Windows boot loader. I imagine it would boot anything that could boot
itself.
> 13. Will windows be able to recover data from a disk in a
> filesystem not NTFS or FAT
> (ext2/ewxt3/jfs/reiserfs/insert your favourite one here)?
Sure. ISO9660 leaps to mind. Or http://www.chrysocome.net/explore2fs
Does Linux write to NTFS volumes yet? Even ones with encrypted files on
them?
Why would you think you can't talk to other file systems from Windows?
> Usefulness:
> After I install windows, will windows need
> further attention for any of these (Popular linux distros
> don't need further attention for these):
> 14. Reading MSWord documents?
No. On the other hand, Linux doesn't handle MSWord documents either, but
only some subset. :-)
> 15. Creating and working with spreadsheets?
No.
> 16. Reading PDF files?
Yes. So?
> 17. Creating PDf files?
Yes. So?
> 18. Firewalling a network (and NATing my LAN)?
No. (It's called Windows Connection Sharing.)
I think you're being a bit facile when you claim that a Linux box can
NAT and firewall your LAN "without further attention". You simply mean
that the required executables are there. It's certainly not ready to go.
I strongly suspect it's not a matter of clicking a GUI button like it is
on Windows, for example.
> 19. Safely receiving email?
No.
> 20. Safely surfing the web?
No.
> 21. Writing software in any 3 or 4 popular
> languages (Only 1 language may not meet my needs).
No.
> 22. Create and work with an SQL database?
No.
Um, so? I can also list a dozen software packages for Windows that are
simply unavailable for Linux. So?
How long does it take to set up Linux to calculate your income taxes? To
balance your corporate books? To read the log files from your SCUBA dive
computer? To run .NET compilers? Manage MS SQL Server databases? Run all
my games?
There are lots of things either of us can list that the other can't do
out of the box (or at all). If you're a developer and you buy Windows,
you don't expect to be able to develop without installing a compiler.
> Scalability:
> Can I take my Windows CD and do any of
> the following:
> 23. Create a web-server optimised OS (like tux)?
Yes. Of course, you'd argue that it's not "optimized", but so?
> 24. Create a LiveCD?
> 25. Create a single-floppy-disk OS to boot up as a router?
Not precisely and No. (That's what DOS is for.) If I wanted a router, I
wouldn't put Windows on it, so saying "Windows won't boot off a floppy"
is silly. I wouldn't try to drive a car across a lake, either.
> 26. Create finely-tuned fast-loading OS so that drivers
> don't have to be loaded at bootup (built in drivers).
I believe so. On the other hand, if you're worried about how long it
takes to load device drivers off the disk during boot-up, you're
probably doing something wrong. I strongly suspect this isn't something
that's "trivial" with Linux.
> 27. Create an "install-from-network" floppy disk?
Yes. Actually, on modern machines you don't need a floppy, either.
> 28. How much does a decent virus scanner cost?
Free. How much for Linux?
> 29. The renewal cost annually?
Free.
> 30. How much does it cost to have a machine cleaned
> of malware, spyware, driveby downloads, etc?
Only if you're dumb enough. How much did the Morris Worm cost? :-)
Anyone capable of installing and configuring Linux for themselves is
clueful enough not to get malware from the internet on Windows.
> 31. How long to restore system from backups
> (including OS) per G?
How fast is your media? I can generally back up and restore faster than
my USB 2.0 10000RPM drive drive will go.
> 32. How quickly to choose and install a rootkit detector?
Same question for Linux? (It's not much of a rootkit if you can easily
install a detector for it, is it?)
> 33. How long to download "security" patches per week?
> (I'm on a 3600 dialup here, paying by the minute
> for each minute I am dialed up so this matters to me).
Once a month I get a few hundred K of patches. How about on Linux? If
you're not too worried about it, turn that feature off. Note, by the
way, that the Background Intelligent Transfer Service that downloads the
patches (and a bunch of other stuff) only runs when you're connected but
not using the bandwidth, so it's really not much of a problem unless you
urgently want something downloaded quickly.
> This list may seem like inviting flames, but before
> you flame me consider that the original premise
> was "but linux wastes all this time ...". IME, windows
> systems tend to cost much more in time to
> use and maintain; its useless when you install it
> because it comes with nothing. No word processor,
> spreadsheet, typesetter, programming languages
> or productivity tools are installed.
Funny enough, when I talk to someone into Linux and say it's hard to use
as a desktop system, the answer I most often get is "almost nobody uses
anything but Office and Web and Email, which Linux does very easily."
It depends what you're using the systems for. I wouldn't drive a car
across a lake, I wouldn't try to build a diskless router with Windows,
and I wouldn't try to write ASP.NET code with Linux. I'm glad it's more
productive for *you*, but you've spent years learning how to be
productive with Linux. Me, when I boot Linux and my ethernet's interrupt
gets turned off before any services even being starting up (which
happens about 1/3 the time with Linux and never with Windows), I don't
know what to do beyond trying to boot it again.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>
> How do I let someone rename a file in Linux but not delete it?
chattr +u FILE
> How do I let someone append to a file but not overwrite it?
chattr +a FILE
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
To me, the difference between `mainframe,' `mini,' and `micro' is one of
attitude. --Charlie Gibbs
Darren New wrote:
> > 1. Soft links to files and directories.
>
> Windows software generally isn't broken enough to need this
> functionality. But you can have soft links on directories and hard links
> on files. And reparse points. And the ability to mount the same file
> system in multiple places on the parent file system.
>
Ironically, the "breakage" in windows could be easily papered
over with soft links. Luckily, in linux soft links are not used for
broken
software but for ease of maintenance.
windows loses this point.
> > 2. Support for mounting multiple filesystems from command-line
> > at different mount points in main filesystem.
>
> The assign subcommand of the diskpart command.
>
> > 3. Setuid on exection of progams.
>
> It's called the "run as" service. Also relatively rarely needed, as
> Windows has a much more fine-grained ACL system than UNIX used to. (The
> fine-grain ACL on Linux is too new to be widely supported yet.)
>
You *actually* thought that "Run as" is the same as "setuid"?
"Run as" is the same as "sudo", perhaps.
This actually proves my point that windows users don't realise
that their system lacks many basic things.
> > 4. Set a file to nonexecutable without changing the name.
>
> Take away execute permission on the file.
>
> > 5. Set a file to nonexecutable for only a certain group of users.
>
> Take away execute permission on the file for the desired group of users.
> (Alternately, deny execute permission, depending on the complexity of
> your groups.)
>
> > 6. Set a directory to sticky (possibly this is on windows, I
> > don't think so as windows lacks the needed functionality).
>
> If you mean "only the creator of the file can modify *that* file, but
> lots of people can frob files in the directories", it's called "creator
> owner permission", and it's been in Windows longer than it's been in
> Unix. It also applies to things like print spools, mail messages, and
> all the other things that are protected by ACLs.
>
> How do I let someone rename a file in Linux but not delete it? How do I
> let someone append to a file but not overwrite it? How do I encrypt
> individual files in a directory transparently and to different subsets
> of users?
>
For all your questions, "man chattr".
This usually goes over most windows users heads too.
> > 7. Set a file to sticky (needed to properly implement /dev/gzip :-).
>
> Setting a file to sticky still means you're making it stay in swap space
> even after nobody is running it? This isn't necessary, since Windows
> swaps program text pages directly from the executable. I'm not sure what
> this has to do with /dev/gzip. Do you have a URL to the man page for
> /dev/gzip, as it's really hard to google for "/dev/gzip" and get
> anything useful.
>
> (Note that *is* the original definition of the sticky bit: It sticks in
> swap-space. That the bit was reused for directories later just shows
> that Unix has been evolving its own kludges too. I'm not sure if Linux
> has a different use for the sticky bit nowadays.)
>
You missed this as well; windows might have it, but
I don't know (I've right clicked on a file and exhausted
all possible options without finding it).
> > 8. Is there an Xnest equivalent on windows for windows?
>
> Probably. It's certainly not impossible to write it, if that's what you
> want to do, given the existance of RDP and VNC. Personally, I can't
> imagine why you'd want such a thing, but OK.
>
I'm certain you can write it, but as of now you don't have it.
Tough.
> > 9. Will windows let me remove the gui from the kernel for a
> > performance gain?
>
> No, but you can boot Windows without the GUI. I'm not sure how removing
> the GUI gets you a performance gain in Windows.
>
Always a performance gain removing a gui.
> > 10.Can windows be useful without a gui? Will all the system
> > programs on a gui-less server still work?
>
> Not all. Nor will the GUI programs on an X machine. So?
You missed this as well (see Tims reply).
>
> > 11. Can I use any window manager of my choice instead of
> > the default one?
>
> Yes. Windows comes with 2.
Whups, you mean "themes", I mean "window manager"?
I take this as "no" if so.
> Your ATM machine is probably running a
> different window manager, as is your cash register. Feel free to buy
> and/or download the one of your choice.
>
> > Interoperability:
> > 12. Will the windows boot loader let me boot *any* other
> > OS?
>
> Yes. I boot Linux (actually, GRUB, which in turn boots Linux) from the
> Windows boot loader. I imagine it would boot anything that could boot
> itself.
>
Thats odd, windows installation wipes out my boot sector without
letting me keep it; but maybe that only happens to me and the
rest of the world? Your windows installation keeps your boot sector
intact? Do you have to setup the bootloader on windows
*after* it hoses your boot block? Thats a little, well, useless.
> > 13. Will windows be able to recover data from a disk in a
> > filesystem not NTFS or FAT
> > (ext2/ewxt3/jfs/reiserfs/insert your favourite one here)?
>
> Sure. ISO9660 leaps to mind. Or http://www.chrysocome.net/explore2fs
>
> Does Linux write to NTFS volumes yet? Even ones with encrypted files on
> them?
>
Yes, marked "experimental". Does Windows write to any of the
filesystems I listed above even though they all have their source
available? Ironic that NTFS is closed source but linux will attempt
to write, while ext2/3, etc are open source but windows can't
read it, never mind write to it.
> Why would you think you can't talk to other file systems from Windows?
>
My XP won't.
> > Usefulness:
> > After I install windows, will windows need
> > further attention for any of these (Popular linux distros
> > don't need further attention for these):
>
>
> > 14. Reading MSWord documents?
>
> No. On the other hand, Linux doesn't handle MSWord documents either, but
> only some subset. :-)
>
Nope, clean install of ubuntu can handle almost any office
file, while a clean install of windows can handle TXT or RTF.
> > 15. Creating and working with spreadsheets?
>
> No.
>
> > 16. Reading PDF files?
>
> Yes. So?
>
> > 17. Creating PDf files?
>
> Yes. So?
>
Now I'm curious; after installing XP I could neither
read nor write PDF without first installing more
software.
> > 18. Firewalling a network (and NATing my LAN)?
>
> No. (It's called Windows Connection Sharing.)
>
> I think you're being a bit facile when you claim that a Linux box can
> NAT and firewall your LAN "without further attention".
My firewall/NAT machine sitting behind the 33600 modem
here has been running error free for years; One maintenance
task in 3 years (or longer) was because the hard drive
finally gave in.
> You simply mean
> that the required executables are there. It's certainly not ready to go.
Er. On my machine it was.
> I strongly suspect it's not a matter of clicking a GUI button like it is
> on Windows, for example.
>
Nope, it's simply adding text to a file, like typing an email.
> > 19. Safely receiving email?
>
> No.
>
> > 20. Safely surfing the web?
>
> No.
>
> > 21. Writing software in any 3 or 4 popular
> > languages (Only 1 language may not meet my needs).
>
> No.
>
> > 22. Create and work with an SQL database?
>
> No.
>
> Um, so? I can also list a dozen software packages for Windows that are
> simply unavailable for Linux. So?
>
> How long does it take to set up Linux to calculate your income taxes? To
> balance your corporate books? To read the log files from your SCUBA dive
> computer? To run .NET compilers? Manage MS SQL Server databases? Run all
> my games?
>
Less time than on windows for all of them (because the packages you
need
are either all there installed (SuSe) or on one of the disks that came
with
the package you bought or would run under wine).
Games; sure I can't run games I want on Linux, but all this
does is equate Windows with nintendo.
> There are lots of things either of us can list that the other can't do
> out of the box (or at all).
My point was that the list is much longer for windows than
for linux.
> If you're a developer and you buy Windows,
> you don't expect to be able to develop without installing a compiler.
>
> > Scalability:
> > Can I take my Windows CD and do any of
> > the following:
> > 23. Create a web-server optimised OS (like tux)?
>
> Yes. Of course, you'd argue that it's not "optimized", but so?
>
Just because you cannot do it does not mean that the
task is without need.
> > 24. Create a LiveCD?
> > 25. Create a single-floppy-disk OS to boot up as a router?
>
> Not precisely and No. (That's what DOS is for.) If I wanted a router, I
> wouldn't put Windows on it, so saying "Windows won't boot off a floppy"
> is silly. I wouldn't try to drive a car across a lake, either.
>
Sure you can't drive a car across a lake, that was just to illustrate
that if your "task" is not envisaged by microsoft, then you
will not be able to it (why I mentioned tux).
Point is, Windows can't do these things, linux can.
> > 26. Create finely-tuned fast-loading OS so that drivers
> > don't have to be loaded at bootup (built in drivers).
>
> I believe so.
I'd like to know how, seeing as how you don't have the
source (or linkable object files) to create a custom kernel.
> On the other hand, if you're worried about how long it
> takes to load device drivers off the disk during boot-up, you're
> probably doing something wrong. I strongly suspect this isn't something
> that's "trivial" with Linux.
>
> > 27. Create an "install-from-network" floppy disk?
>
> Yes. Actually, on modern machines you don't need a floppy, either.
>
> > 28. How much does a decent virus scanner cost?
>
> Free. How much for Linux?
Free. Although very few people use them.
>
> > 29. The renewal cost annually?
>
> Free.
>
> > 30. How much does it cost to have a machine cleaned
> > of malware, spyware, driveby downloads, etc?
>
> Only if you're dumb enough.
Thats true; although if you (although I believe it was KT)
are going to bemoan the fact that Linux users spending
time meddling with their kernel and having a ball is wasting
time, then you are going to have to acknowledge that windows
tends to need more maintenance in this area than anything
else.
> How much did the Morris Worm cost? :-)
>
> Anyone capable of installing and configuring Linux for themselves is
> clueful enough not to get malware from the internet on Windows.
>
Not really, Grandmothers use Ubuntu (You know, I'm sure
about the spelling) without getting drive-by downloads. Windows
gets infected without downloading and running anything.
> > 31. How long to restore system from backups
> > (including OS) per G?
>
> How fast is your media? I can generally back up and restore faster than
> my USB 2.0 10000RPM drive drive will go.
>
So you spend no time installing the OS after the system
gets hosed? You just copy files over and they run without
any OS?
> > 32. How quickly to choose and install a rootkit detector?
>
> Same question for Linux? (It's not much of a rootkit if you can easily
> install a detector for it, is it?)
>
Well, in most Linux installations its generally sufficient to store
md5 checksums of system binaries offsite and compare
once a day (all automated of course). This is literally a
20 line script scheduled to run once a day (midnight?).
> > 33. How long to download "security" patches per week?
> > (I'm on a 3600 dialup here, paying by the minute
> > for each minute I am dialed up so this matters to me).
>
Sorry, read that as "33600".
> Once a month I get a few hundred K of patches. How about on Linux? If
> you're not too worried about it, turn that feature off. Note, by the
> way, that the Background Intelligent Transfer Service that downloads the
> patches (and a bunch of other stuff) only runs when you're connected but
> not using the bandwidth, so it's really not much of a problem unless you
> urgently want something downloaded quickly.
>
> > This list may seem like inviting flames, but before
> > you flame me consider that the original premise
> > was "but linux wastes all this time ...". IME, windows
> > systems tend to cost much more in time to
> > use and maintain; its useless when you install it
> > because it comes with nothing. No word processor,
> > spreadsheet, typesetter, programming languages
> > or productivity tools are installed.
>
> Funny enough, when I talk to someone into Linux and say it's hard to use
> as a desktop system, the answer I most often get is "almost nobody uses
> anything but Office and Web and Email, which Linux does very easily."
>
> It depends what you're using the systems for. I wouldn't drive a car
> across a lake, I wouldn't try to build a diskless router with Windows,
Done under Linux.
> and I wouldn't try to write ASP.NET code with Linux.
Well, .NET runs reasonably well under Linux so I can't think
of why ASP.NET won't.
> I'm glad it's more
> productive for *you*, but you've spent years learning how to be
> productive with Linux.
what, I'm surely not *that* old :-)
> Me, when I boot Linux and my ethernet's interrupt
> gets turned off before any services even being starting up (which
> happens about 1/3 the time with Linux and never with Windows), I don't
> know what to do beyond trying to boot it again.
Well, all the techies I know of will immediately look into
/va/log (messages and syslog). I've found that when
helping new techies with Linux, I only need to tell them
to check the logfiles, and the problem is solved.
Squid won't start? Check the logs.
ifconfig failed? Check the logs.
Sendmail borked? Check the logs.
Ethernet funny? Check the logs.
X complained? Check the logs.
The only thing I've ever found in Windows
event logger (or whatever its called) are
vague text messages "Service X can't start"
with small blocks of binary data. I cannot decipher
these.
You're a user, so you may not want to use a last
resort that *is* there: Check the /source/.
Windows last resort is to dial a number, and
they may or may not be able to help you.
My point is, if your system is missing something,
how will you know that you are missing something?
See my macro analogy reply to KT.
goose,
goose wrote:
> Ironically, the "breakage" in windows could be easily papered
> over with soft links.
OK. I'm not sure what breakage you think would be fixed that way.
Tim's reply hit it right on the head. "they are a very useful and quite
powerful tool which allows
you to easily change the behavior/configuration of a system without
needing to change what software is installed." They're a configuration
technique. Windows has always had a good configuration subsystem, so
most software takes advantage of that rather than needing symlinks.
> windows loses this point.
Yep. On the other hand, Linux lacks alternate data streams, reparse
points, and a global configuration mechanism that's widely used. Me,
I've never found a use for symbolic links that wasn't better served by
having a proper configuration system, and I've been using Unix since
before it had sockets.
Out of curiousity, what do you use symlinks for that putting the name of
the file in a configuration wouldn't do better?
> You *actually* thought that "Run as" is the same as "setuid"?
> "Run as" is the same as "sudo", perhaps.
Yes. But you can configure it to work on a program. Not exactly the same
thing, but similar. You start the program, it's running with someone
else's privleges. The "setuid" bit is stored in a place separate from
the actual executable, is all.
> This actually proves my point that windows users don't realise
> that their system lacks many basic things.
As does Linux, when seen from the POV of a Windows programmer.
> For all your questions, "man chattr".
> This usually goes over most windows users heads too.
Nah. I knew about it. I don't know what all the privs it supports are,
off the top of my head. But I'll note a couple things: that subsystem is
relatively new, and lots of software doesn't support it.
[re sticky]
> You missed this as well;
I don't know what the "this" is that you think I missed. There are at
least four uses for "sticky":
1) Keep shared text in swap when not running. Unnecessary under Windows.
2) Keep shared text in memory (Tim's claim, which I never saw in my
experience). Probably not supported, but why would you want to do this
manually?
3) Write thru directly to device, bypassing block buffering. Windows
controls this at the device level rather than the file level. Again, why
would you want to control this manually. IIRC, you can control this when
you open the file, rather than by setting it on a permission flag.
4) Creator/Owner privlege, which has been in Windows since at least Win3.
Which of these did I "miss"? Serious question. I'm trying to learn. :-)
> I'm certain you can write it, but as of now you don't have it.
Never missed it. Just as I expect you've never missed the global
distributed transaction coordinator or the transaction queue.
> Always a performance gain removing a gui.
Errr, why? We invented virtual memory quite some time ago. I don't see
why it's a performance gain to remove a GUI that isn't being updated.
Why is it any more of a performance drain than a USB driver with nothing
plugged in, or a service listening on a port and not getting packets?
>>>10.Can windows be useful without a gui? Will all the system
>>> programs on a gui-less server still work?
>>Not all. Nor will the GUI programs on an X machine. So?
> You missed this as well (see Tims reply).
But I don't administer machines without using the GUI. I either log in
remotely and use the GUI tools, or I use the GUI tools locally and
connect remotely to do configurations on Windows servers.
> Whups, you mean "themes", I mean "window manager"?
> I take this as "no" if so.
No. It comes with two window managers, and you can buy more if you want.
You know, the executable that starts up when you log in? That thing. It
comes with explorer and progman. If you write embedded Windows software
(like for kiosks, say), you can buy ones that are much more limited.
> Thats odd, windows installation wipes out my boot sector without
> letting me keep it;
Depends on which "boot sector" you mean.
Here's what I did. Install Windows on part1. Install Linux on part2. In
Linux,
dd if=/dev/hdb of=linux.bin bs=512 count=1 ; # If I recall exactly
Then I copied linux.bin to my Windows partition (going thru a FAT
partition on the way.) Then in boot.ini, I put
C:\Linux.bin="Fedora Linux"
as one of the lines. Now I can boot into Windows, the recovery console,
or Linux.
If you managed to put the Linux MBR on there by mistake, use fixmbr to
put the Windows MBR back.
You know, you could find this out too, by googling. :-) It would look
much smarter than sounding incredulous. ;-)
> rest of the world? Your windows installation keeps your boot sector
> intact?
Yes. All it wipes out is the MBR. But if you want to "boot linux from
windows", it's kind of necessary to have the MBR boot windows, isn't it?
> Do you have to setup the bootloader on windows
> *after* it hoses your boot block? Thats a little, well, useless.
There are two boot blocks used during any boot. Windows overwrites one.
> Yes, marked "experimental". Does Windows write to any of the
> filesystems I listed above even though they all have their source
> available?
I dunno. I never needed to do such a thing. However, since I did the
google for you, maybe you should look into it.
> Ironic that NTFS is closed source but linux will attempt
> to write, while ext2/3, etc are open source but windows can't
> read it, never mind write to it.
Um, didn't I give you a link to the code that lets Windows read ext2/3?
>>Why would you think you can't talk to other file systems from Windows?
> My XP won't.
Well, follow that link. There's all kinds of things that neither Windows
nor Linux do if you don't install the software. :-)
> Nope, clean install of ubuntu can handle almost any office
> file, while a clean install of windows can handle TXT or RTF.
That would be incorrect (in that second part). And when you start
getting *interesting* office files, it gets messy.
>>>16. Reading PDF files?
>>
>>Yes. So?
>>
>>
>>>17. Creating PDf files?
>>
>>Yes. So?
>>
>
>
> Now I'm curious; after installing XP I could neither
> read nor write PDF without first installing more
> software.
Right. You asked if Windows needed more attention before it could read
PDF. The answer is "Yes, it does."
All my "no" answers mean "windows does this out of the box".
>>>18. Firewalling a network (and NATing my LAN)?
>>
>>No. (It's called Windows Connection Sharing.)
>>
>>I think you're being a bit facile when you claim that a Linux box can
>>NAT and firewall your LAN "without further attention".
> My firewall/NAT machine sitting behind the 33600 modem
> here has been running error free for years; One maintenance
> task in 3 years (or longer) was because the hard drive
> finally gave in.
And the NAT/firewall machine needed no further attention after
installing Linux, at all, right? As in, you didn't need to configure the
NAT and the firewall? :-)
>>You simply mean
>>that the required executables are there. It's certainly not ready to go.
>
> Er. On my machine it was.
Cool. How'd it know whether it was supposed to be a NAT or firewall or a
desktop machine?
> Nope, it's simply adding text to a file, like typing an email.
Yeah, I can imagine. :-)
> Less time than on windows for all of them (because the packages you
> need
> are either all there installed (SuSe) or on one of the disks that came
> with
> the package you bought or would run under wine).
Excellent! What package besides GNU Money does double-entry bookkeeping
and US tax preparation? Because GNU Money doesn't do either of those,
last I checked a couple months ago.
> Games; sure I can't run games I want on Linux, but all this
> does is equate Windows with nintendo.
I was always amused when people would tell me my Amiga is "just a game
machine". I got to answer "Oh, you mean a real-time 3D physics
simulation engine?"
> My point was that the list is much longer for windows than
> for linux.
Sure. A Linux distro comes with more software on the disk, while with
Windows you have to download what you want.
> Just because you cannot do it does not mean that the
> task is without need.
Well, I'm serious, tho. There are some things that the OS can
"optimize". Is Tux using the same kernel and device drivers? If so, I
don't really see the "optimization" benefits.
> Sure you can't drive a car across a lake, that was just to illustrate
> that if your "task" is not envisaged by microsoft, then you
> will not be able to it (why I mentioned tux).
Sure. And for a great number of things, to do it with Linux you'd have
to do a lot of work yourself. But they're computers, so you can make
them do what you want.
>>>26. Create finely-tuned fast-loading OS so that drivers
>>> don't have to be loaded at bootup (built in drivers).
>>
>>I believe so.
> I'd like to know how, seeing as how you don't have the
> source (or linkable object files) to create a custom kernel.
But because of that, the customization possibilities are exposed without
you having to dork with the kernel. If you mean "put drivers in the same
physical file as the kernel is in for a desktop or server install",
that's a corner case that if you're worried about, don't use Windows. On
the other hand, the Windows kernel is spread over a whole bunch of
different files already, so why would you?
Certainly in cases where it matters, like Windows CE, you can select
which drivers you get.
> Thats true; although if you (although I believe it was KT)
> are going to bemoan the fact that Linux users spending
> time meddling with their kernel and having a ball is wasting
> time, then you are going to have to acknowledge that windows
> tends to need more maintenance in this area than anything
> else.
The difference is that with Linux, the smart people fiddle. With
Windows, the dumb people fiddle and the smart people have to fix it.;-)
> Not really, Grandmothers use Ubuntu (You know, I'm sure
> about the spelling) without getting drive-by downloads. Windows
> gets infected without downloading and running anything.
Not lately. And I expect that if lots of grandmothers use ubuntu, lots
more would get infected.
> So you spend no time installing the OS after the system
> gets hosed? You just copy files over and they run without
> any OS?
No. I put the CD in, I let it run a couple minutes until it says "would
you like to do a full unattended restore?" I type "Y".
Just like you do.
> Well, in most Linux installations its generally sufficient to store
> md5 checksums of system binaries offsite and compare
> once a day (all automated of course). This is literally a
> 20 line script scheduled to run once a day (midnight?).
Why would you think this would be harder with Windows? This is already
built in for system files.
>>and I wouldn't try to write ASP.NET code with Linux.
>
> Well, .NET runs reasonably well under Linux so I can't think
> of why ASP.NET won't.
But I'm not just running it. I'm writing it, debugging it, etc. MS's dev
env is orders of magnitude better than anything I've seen on Linux.
> My point is, if your system is missing something,
> how will you know that you are missing something?
Yeah. But I think the same is true of Linux advocates.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
On 2006-07-16 15:46:57 -0500, Darren New <····@san.rr.com> said:
[...]
> Out of curiousity, what do you use symlinks for that putting the name
> of the file in a configuration wouldn't do better?
One example: simple and robust toggling of services.
I would far rather do (or script):
ln -s /usr/local/etc/my-service /service/my-service
or
rm /service/my-service
than
ed /etc/rc.conf<<EOF
...
EOF
I'm not talking sysvinit here. I'm thinking of Dan Bernstein's
daemontools package and slash-package hierarchy, which
make very effective use of symlinks.
-Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
Michael J. Forster wrote:
> One example: simple and robust toggling of services.
Um, OK. That kind of proves my point. I'd much rather just turn it on
and off in the appropriate configuration file, leaving it installed and
just marked as not to be started automatically. Linux configuration is
sometimes *too* flexible.
But I'll grant you it's a use for a symlink I've not seen before. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Michael J. Forster wrote:
>> One example: simple and robust toggling of services.
>
> Um, OK. That kind of proves my point. I'd much rather just turn it on
> and off in the appropriate configuration file, leaving it installed
> and just marked as not to be started automatically. Linux
> configuration is sometimes *too* flexible.
>
> But I'll grant you it's a use for a symlink I've not seen before. :-)
>
Note that the use of the sym links means you are not uninstalling
anything - yo simply remove the sym link not the service, its init
scripts or any associated software.
Another common use of symlinks is in providing alternatives. for
example, I have three different versions of emacs on my system (for
various reasons, mainly development related). All my menus and scripts
etc are configured to work with the symbolic name "emacs". However,
there is no emacs binary - I have xemacs21, emacs21 and emacs22. By
changing just one sym link, the default associated with 'emacs' is
changed.
Same approach with lisp - I have four diffreent versions. Once I have
develped soemthing in the implementation I prefer, I can switch the
'lisp' link to one of the othes and see how well it works.
thre are lots of other examples I can think of.
Tim
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> Note that the use of the sym links means you are not uninstalling
> anything - yo simply remove the sym link not the service, its init
> scripts or any associated software.
Right. So instead, you just get error messages in the logs saying the
service is broken. :-) I'd rather make it easy to turn on and off the
service without having to uninstall it.
> various reasons, mainly development related). All my menus and scripts
> etc are configured to work with the symbolic name "emacs".
Sure. You have symlinks, so this is easy to do. If you didn't, it would
be just as easy to do it some other way. For example, replacing
$EMACS_NAME for 'emacs', or replacing "`cat ~/.emacsname`" for 'emacs'.
> thre are lots of other examples I can think of.
Fair enough.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
On 2006-07-17 11:16:59 -0500, Darren New <····@san.rr.com> said:
> Tim X wrote:
>> Note that the use of the sym links means you are not uninstalling
>> anything - yo simply remove the sym link not the service, its init
>> scripts or any associated software.
>
> Right. So instead, you just get error messages in the logs saying the
> service is broken. :-) I'd rather make it easy to turn on and off the
> service without having to uninstall it.
Not broken, just disabled, at least with Bernstein's daemontools.
With daemontools, it is the existence of the symlink that indicates
that a service is enabled and, therefore, started and monitored
automatically. The symlink is what separates the notions of
installation and enablement.
Likewise, with Bernstein's slash-package and slash-command
hierachies, it is the symlink that separates the notions of the package
name and version; of the package name and sharability. In these
examples, the symlink is a tremendously elegant and reliable
replacement for the gamut of Unix configuration files and trendy
new XML mangling tools alike.
Anyway, now that I find myself wondering if I shouldn't be
cross-posting to comp.os.unix, I think I'll take my leave.
Cheers!
-Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>> Note that the use of the sym links means you are not uninstalling
>> anything - yo simply remove the sym link not the service, its init
>> scripts or any associated software.
>
> Right. So instead, you just get error messages in the logs saying the
> service is broken. :-) I'd rather make it easy to turn on and off the
> service without having to uninstall it.
>
What absolute nonsense - for someone who made reference to having
worked with Unix and I thought had some sys admin knowledge you either
did only very very basic stuff or were bloody awful at it. If you
didn't work on Unix and I'm miss quoting, I apologise.
>> various reasons, mainly development related). All my menus and scripts
>> etc are configured to work with the symbolic name "emacs".
>
> Sure. You have symlinks, so this is easy to do. If you didn't, it
> would be just as easy to do it some other way. For example, replacing
> $EMACS_NAME for 'emacs', or replacing "`cat ~/.emacsname`" for 'emacs'.
Well make up your mind. Your claim was that sym links were simply
reuired because of broken unix programs. I point out they are a useful
tool and now you state it could have been done a different way. Well,
almost anything can be done a different way - sym links are just an
easy way that currently exists.
Oh, an your "other way" is simplistic in the extreme and certainly
wouldn't achieve the same purpose I use them for without a lot of work
- in fact, I can think of at least three situations in which
environment variables and whatever that second example is wold not
work.
>
>> thre are lots of other examples I can think of.
>
> Fair enough.
>
With respect to another part of the thread, which I started replying
to and then gave up after losing power and both my reply and the
original message, your link to BSD's use of the sticky bit does refer
to swap, which I still find strange. Other *nix's state it keeps it in
memory. I don't know when v7 of BSD came out (I'm not very familiar
with BSD), but I do know AT&T Unix v1 had a sticky command and this
was incorporated into the chmod command around v3. The sticky bit
locked data in memory not swap and I'm pretty certain v3 of AT&T Unix
predates anything Microsoft ever did with a similar functionality.
Also, with your claim the chattr command is recent is pretty doddgy. I
guess it depends on how you class recent, but I was using it on Linux
in the late 90s and it worked fine with no interaction problems with
other software. In the OS market, I wouldn't call a feature that has
been around for 8 years recent. I won't bother comparing that
functionality at that time with what Windows had to offer.
You also made some claim about Windows 2 - I've got no idea what
Windows 2 is and nor have I ever heard of it before. All I can guess
is that it was that crappy software MS released prior to the slightly
less crappy Windows 3.11, which I think was in 1990? If that is the
case, we are talking about DOS and file permissions under DOS were
pretty limited - r w and archive bit from memory. At the time I was
programming DOS and Unix (Ultrix and DEC Unix from memory) and both
were way ahead of anything MS had to offer in terms of functionality
for over another 10 years.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> What absolute nonsense - for someone who made reference to having
> worked with Unix and I thought had some sys admin knowledge
I do. I just never used whatever package is being discussed. So the
package seems to check for the existance of a symlink. I assumed it was
simply a convenient way to "delete and undelete" the package. Obviously,
if the code to start the service is checking whether the directory in
which the service is installed is there and not complaining if it isn't,
then you won't get errors in the logs.
Note that this technique would work equally well under Windows, since
Windows has symlinks to directories.
> Well make up your mind. Your claim was that sym links were simply
> reuired because of broken unix programs. I point out they are a useful
> tool and now you state it could have been done a different way. Well,
> almost anything can be done a different way - sym links are just an
> easy way that currently exists.
Yes. And if Windows does such things a different way, that doesn't mean
Windows is broken because it's missing symlinks. (Which it isn't, btw.
It has hard links to files, symlinks to directories, and reparse points.)
> with BSD), but I do know AT&T Unix v1 had a sticky command and this
> was incorporated into the chmod command around v3. The sticky bit
> locked data in memory not swap
Um, OK. Considering V1 ran in 32K of RAM on a machine that didn't have
page tables, I find this difficult to believe without further evidence.
Considering the implementation of fork() was "swap out the process *and*
leave it in memory also", I think leaving something in memory when you
weren't using it would be problematic. I'd be happy to see evidence to
the contrary, tho.
> Also, with your claim the chattr command is recent is pretty doddgy.
Fair enough. It wasn't around when *I* was doing my own UNIX admin, is
all, which was mid-90's or so. I don't believe it was widespread for
quite some time after.
> been around for 8 years recent. I won't bother comparing that
> functionality at that time with what Windows had to offer.
Windows NT 3.5 had all the same permissions stuff, which was before 1998
obviously.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>> What absolute nonsense - for someone who made reference to having
>> worked with Unix and I thought had some sys admin knowledge
>
> I do. I just never used whatever package is being discussed. So the
> package seems to check for the existance of a symlink. I assumed it
> was simply a convenient way to "delete and undelete" the package.
> Obviously, if the code to start the service is checking whether the
> directory in which the service is installed is there and not
> complaining if it isn't, then you won't get errors in the logs.
>
Just for some clarification. Traditionally, *nix has had two main
"styles" which became known as BSD and SYSV. One of the distinguishing
features was the way they handled initialisation at boot time. The BSD
approach was to use a set of scripts and you edited various scripts to
control what was started or stopped at different run levels. To add a
new service or stop one from being started, you edited the appropriate
script.
The sysv approach was to use a generic master script which you don't
edit and a system of symbolic links from directories which represent
the different run levels. For example rc3.d for run level 3. In the
directory you have symlinks with names like S10servicename or
K10servicename. The S indicates the script will be run when entering
(starting) that run level and the K means the script will be run when
leaving that run level (kill). S starts the service and K stops the
service. The numbers determine the order of execution and the service
name is just some name which humans find convenient.
the advantage of the sysv approach is that you don't have to edit boot
scripts (and possibly make a mistake that stops the script from
running). This has some real advantages with modern package management
solutions as new services can be added and removed without the need to
alter any scripts - simply create or remove the appropriate sym link.
> Note that this technique would work equally well under Windows, since
> Windows has symlinks to directories.
>
You can also see a similarity between sym links and shortcuts - though
shortcuts seem to be a bit messier. I often use a sym link as a user
to create convenient shortcuts when I'm doing a specific project etc.
>> Well make up your mind. Your claim was that sym links were simply
>> reuired because of broken unix programs. I point out they are a useful
>> tool and now you state it could have been done a different way. Well,
>> almost anything can be done a different way - sym links are just an
>> easy way that currently exists.
>
> Yes. And if Windows does such things a different way, that doesn't
> mean Windows is broken because it's missing symlinks. (Which it isn't,
> btw. It has hard links to files, symlinks to directories, and reparse
> points.)
Nor did I ever say it was. It was you who was claiming sym links had
no real value and implying Unix only needed them because of broken software.
>
>> with BSD), but I do know AT&T Unix v1 had a sticky command and this
>> was incorporated into the chmod command around v3. The sticky bit
>> locked data in memory not swap
>
> Um, OK. Considering V1 ran in 32K of RAM on a machine that didn't have
> page tables, I find this difficult to believe without further
> evidence. Considering the implementation of fork() was "swap out the
> process *and* leave it in memory also", I think leaving something in
> memory when you weren't using it would be problematic. I'd be happy to
> see evidence to the contrary, tho.
>
Obviously, if not used wisely it would be problematic - but thats the
same with any feature. The difference between a good sys admin and a
bad one is knowing what tools are available and when they are or are
not appropriate.
I didn't find any clear concise information doing a quick google, so I
looked in some of my old reference books.
According to Brian Stevens "Advanced Unix Programming" (1992) both
SYSV and 3.4+BSD supported the setting of the sticky bit on files AND
directories. So, this ability was definitely around in the late 80s.
However, I found some conflicting information between Bourne's Unix
Shell Programming, Sobell's The Unix Programming Environment and
Kernigan's The UNIX Environment". All of these books (at least the
versions I have) werre published in the late 80s. All of them talk
about the sticky bit on files and directories. However, bourne and
Sobell say the sticky bit kept things in memory while Kernnigan and
Stevens claim they kept it in Swap. I'm inclined to believe Kernnigan
and concede the sticky bit kept things in swap rather than main
memory.
Possibly the source of all this confusion is that the sticky bit
function is not part of POSIX (at least it wasn't in 1992), so maybe
different Unix implementations did it in different ways or didn't do
it at all.
Through Google, I did find some references that stated AT&T had a
sticky command in version 1 and the bit plus chmod by version 3. they
were not clear about whether it was kept in memory or swap.
So, I still believe Unix had the sticky bit on both files and
directories a long time before MS even had Windows (I don't count
Windows 3.11 as windows - its still DOS, just with a GUI). Given that
Windows 3.0 was march 1990, even then its not possible to really argue
windows had a sticky bit before Unix. AT&T was the first and certainly
beats anything MS had. DOS didn't have a sticky bit that I can
remember. Nor did PC-MOS or DR-DOS.
However, it does look like I was wrong about the sticky bit keeping
the data in memory. While the evidence is mixed, I'm inclined to go
with Kernnigan on this one given his involvement with the
implementation of Unix, he should know.
>> Also, with your claim the chattr command is recent is pretty doddgy.
>
> Fair enough. It wasn't around when *I* was doing my own UNIX admin, is
> all, which was mid-90's or so. I don't believe it was widespread for
> quite some time after.
>
I can't easily prove it, but I believe it was around in 1995. However,
I'm happy to let that slide.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> Nor did I ever say it was. It was you who was claiming sym links had
> no real value and implying Unix only needed them because of broken
software.
Nope. I said *I* saw no real value, and *I* had only seen them used
because of broken software. (I think I remember that the rc3.d etc
scripts were hard links, but I could be mistaken about that.)
> You can also see a similarity between sym links and shortcuts - though
> shortcuts seem to be a bit messier.
Plus, of course, shortcuts only work for executables.
Note that one *could* have symlinks to regular files if one wanted to
implement it. It's just that nobody seems to have written the driver
code. Just code up a reparse point, and don't restrict it to symlinks
for directories, and you're golden. I'm not sure why MS didn't include
this like they did for directories. And of course Windows also has the
distributed link tracking, so if you have a symlink that someone moves
the target of, you can get the symlinks fixed automatically, even if the
target is on a network drive and you're offline at the time. There's all
kinds of stuff that Windows does that Linux et al don't, and symlinks to
files are the only thing in the file system I hear about Linux doing
that Windows doesn't. Is there anything else, out of curiousity?
> So, I still believe Unix had the sticky bit on both files and
> directories a long time before MS even had Windows
Funky. My memory is that the sticky bit was on files, but not
directories. But since you have references, I guess I'm misremembering.
Never having admined any UNIX machines but my own, that's likely.
> I can't easily prove it, but I believe it was around in 1995. However,
> I'm happy to let that slide.
And again, most of my UNIX admin from that time was on Solaris, which
didn't even have an ANSI C compiler when I stopped doing admin on it, so
it's possible it was very backwards in other ways.
> The sysv approach was to use a generic master script which you don't
> edit and a system of symbolic links from directories which represent
> the different run levels.
Yeah. The Windows mechanism has each service with an entry point called
when starting and an entry point called when stopping. Each service also
supplies a list of other services it depends on, so they start in the
right order, a failure in one keeps the services that rely on the
failing service from starting, and flags in the registry determine when
services start and which don't. So the need for manipulating the
(non-registry) file system disappears.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>
> Out of curiousity, what do you use symlinks for that putting the name
> of the file in a configuration wouldn't do better?
ln -s /path/to/music/mp3-file ~/public_html/mp3s/
Much easier than finagling access to the system httpd.conf, no?
Or getting the syadmin to play with the IE preferences...
Or sharing out a 5.3 GB file in multiple locations without taking up
multiples of 5.3 GB of space...
>> For all your questions, "man chattr". This usually goes over most
>> windows users heads too.
>
> Nah. I knew about it. I don't know what all the privs it supports are,
> off the top of my head. But I'll note a couple things: that subsystem
> is relatively new, and lots of software doesn't support it.
All software supports it--it's part of the OS. If the software tries to
violate a condition set with chattr, an error occurs...
>> Whups, you mean "themes", I mean "window manager"? I take this as
>> "no" if so.
>
> No. It comes with two window managers, and you can buy more if you
> want. You know, the executable that starts up when you log in? That
> thing. It comes with explorer and progman. If you write embedded
> Windows software (like for kiosks, say), you can buy ones that are
> much more limited.
Linux comes with many more window managers, for many fewer dollars...
> Excellent! What package besides GNU Money does double-entry
> bookkeeping and US tax preparation? Because GNU Money doesn't do
> either of those, last I checked a couple months ago.
GnuCash does dobl-enetry bookkeeping; it also has some tax-related
features, although they are not sufficient to keep pace with the
annually-changing tax laws of the United States; they are, however, good
enough to _feed_ software which handles said annually-changing laws.
This is a point where proprietary software wins; I am not certain that
it's an argument in favour of slavery software: wouldn't the ideal be
one in which the tax laws changed very rarely indeed?
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
However low a man sinks he never reaches the level of the police.
--Quentin Crisp
Robert Uhl wrote:
>>Nah. I knew about it. I don't know what all the privs it supports are,
>>off the top of my head. But I'll note a couple things: that subsystem
>>is relatively new, and lots of software doesn't support it.
> All software supports it--it's part of the OS.
So, if I tar up a directory tree A on machine X that has these sorts of
permissions, then untar it on another machine Y, then retar it and bring
it back to X and untar it as B, all the permissions on A will match all
the permissions on B? I'm kind of surprised at that, given the tar
format was around much, much longer than chattr was. But I see "tar" now
has "-p", which says "*all* permissions", so I guess the format was
extended to support these new bits. One of the problems with
standardizing file formats instead of APIs.
I'm impressed. That's better than OSX managed. On the other hand, given
how many times I've seen fstat used to try to guess whether a file is
readable, I imagine there's still *some* stuff out there that doesn't
work quite right.
> Linux comes with many more window managers, for many fewer dollars...
Yes? So? You said Windows only had one. I'm correcting you. I'm not
trying to say Windows is necessarily better in any or all ways than
Linux is. I'm simply trying to cut down the amount of disinformation out
there.
> GnuCash does dobl-enetry bookkeeping;
This must be relatively new. I'll check it out.
> This is a point where proprietary software wins; I am not certain that
> it's an argument in favour of slavery software: wouldn't the ideal be
> one in which the tax laws changed very rarely indeed?
Sure. But calling it "slavery software" just makes you sound like a
lunatic. :-)
It's funny how when people say "Linux can do X and Windows can't", and
someone points out "Windows can do X", it's taken as an attack on Linux.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> goose wrote:
>
>>>> 10.Can windows be useful without a gui? Will all the system
>>>> programs on a gui-less server still work?
>>> Not all. Nor will the GUI programs on an X machine. So?
>> You missed this as well (see Tims reply).
>
> But I don't administer machines without using the GUI. I either log in
> remotely and use the GUI tools, or I use the GUI tools locally and
> connect remotely to do configurations on Windows servers.
>
>> Whups, you mean "themes", I mean "window manager"?
>> I take this as "no" if so.
>
> No. It comes with two window managers, and you can buy more if you want.
> You know, the executable that starts up when you log in? That thing. It
> comes with explorer and progman. If you write embedded Windows software
> (like for kiosks, say), you can buy ones that are much more limited.
But both of them use super-painful floating windows! I run Linux at
home, and one of the main reasons I won't leave is because of the Ion
window manager <http://www.modeemi.fi/~tuomov/ion/>. It's just so
*usable*. I've searched and searched for an alternative, but I've found
none. Hell, I'll pay $1000 to the person that codes up Ion WM for
Win32, and gives me the binaries and source code under a GPL or BSD license.
Being able to use experimental shit like Ion and have example code
easily available for coding up your own experiments is amazingly cool.
Windows has the more coherent UI, but I'd rather have more cool features
than a pretty face.
-- MJF
M Jared Finder <·····@hpalace.com> writes:
> Hell, I'll pay $1000 to the person that codes up Ion WM for Win32,
> and gives me the binaries and source code under a GPL or BSD
> license.
Does running on Cygwin count? I see some hits here� suggesting that at
least Ion2 builds on Cygwin. Of course, you'd still need to run an X
server. Cygwin provides one if necessary.
Footnotes:
� http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+cygwin&as_sitesearch=www.modeemi.fi
--
Steven E. Harris
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>> 1. Soft links to files and directories.
>
> Windows software generally isn't broken enough to need this
> functionality. But you can have soft links on directories and hard
> links on files. And reparse points. And the ability to mount the same
> file system in multiple places on the parent file system.
>
I realise this is a religious argument that will never be resolved,
but I can't allow misinformation of this level pass without comment.
Links, both symbolic and hard, have nothing to do with broken
software. they are a very useful and quite powerful tool which allows
you to easily change the behavior/configuration of a system without
needing to change what software is installed. Claiming a relationship
with broken software is merely a reflection of emotional prejudice
rather than fact.
[snip]
> It's called the "run as" service. Also relatively rarely needed, as
> Windows has a much more fine-grained ACL system than UNIX used to.
> (The fine-grain ACL on Linux is too new to be widely supported yet.)
Windows access control has certainly improved *a lot*. Earlier
versions of Windows has extremely poor access control. It has to be
accepted that Windows has come a long way in the last few years and I
believe has learnt a lot from the experiences of *nix. The extent to
which the differences in access control between the different systems
actually manifest in real world application seem minimal.
[snip]
>> 6. Set a directory to sticky (possibly this is on windows, I
>> don't think so as windows lacks the needed functionality).
>
> If you mean "only the creator of the file can modify *that* file, but
> lots of people can frob files in the directories", it's called
> "creator owner permission", and it's been in Windows longer than it's
> been in Unix. It also applies to things like print spools, mail
> messages, and all the other things that are protected by ACLs.
>
How can you claim its been in Windows longer than in Unix? This has
been used in Unix for mail and print spools etc since Unix was first
released - which predates MS even having an operating system at all!
In fact, the sticky bit was used originally, when systems were slower
and memory was expensive, to also indicate a file should be retained
in memory if possible (hence the 'sticky').
> How do I let someone rename a file in Linux but not delete it? How do
> I let someone append to a file but not overwrite it? How do I encrypt
> individual files in a directory transparently and to different subsets
> of users?
>
by using many of the common utilities found on Unix. There is a
philosophical difference between how these two OSs work which needs to
be acknowledged in order to appreciate the real strengths and
weaknesses of each. For example, *nix is about having lots of small
utilities that do a single thing extremely well which you glue
together with scripts etc to create higher level functionality that is
able to meet your specific needs. Windows has a different philosophy
which focuses on a higher level abstraction in which frequently needed
functionality is provided through a well defined service. It is
extremely rare to find functionality on one system which cannot be
achieved on the other despite the fact the roads followed are
completely different.
In your above example, off the top of my head, I could achieve the
functionality you list through a combination of well designed group
definitions, setuid bits, simple scripts, sudo, well designed disk
partitioning and mount points and selection of the correct filesystems.
>> 7. Set a file to sticky (needed to properly implement /dev/gzip :-).
>
> Setting a file to sticky still means you're making it stay in swap
> space even after nobody is running it? This isn't necessary, since
> Windows swaps program text pages directly from the executable. I'm not
> sure what this has to do with /dev/gzip. Do you have a URL to the man
> page for /dev/gzip, as it's really hard to google for "/dev/gzip" and
> get anything useful.
>
Note that the sticky bit does *not* mean the file is kept in swap.
this is a misrepresentation of what the sticky bit does and indicates
some confusion regarding Unix history and only a very shallow
understanding of Unix, which is not an issue unless you want to talk
about Unix from an authoritive standpoint. A similar argument holds
for the other side - most of these debates are pointless as neither
party has a full or comprehensive grasp of the other side and the
points tend to be filled with FUD on both sides.
> (Note that *is* the original definition of the sticky bit: It sticks
> in swap-space. That the bit was reused for directories later just
> shows that Unix has been evolving its own kludges too. I'm not sure if
> Linux has a different use for the sticky bit nowadays.)
It does and the sticky bit was not to indicate the file was kept in
swap memory - it was used to indicate tot he OS it should try and keep
the file in main memory. The objective of the sticky bit was to reduce
disk I/O on frequently accessed files - there is no point in putting
it in swap memory as that is just a file itself.
The sticky bit can be used on directories for things like shared
directories where you want all users to be able to create a file in
the directory, but you don't want them to be able to overwrite/modify
files owned by others - often seen on mail and print spools or shared
directories used for temp files etc.
>
>> 8. Is there an Xnest equivalent on windows for windows?
>
> Probably. It's certainly not impossible to write it, if that's what
> you want to do, given the existance of RDP and VNC. Personally, I
> can't imagine why you'd want such a thing, but OK.
>
Can't anybody say that about any of their favorite operating systems?
I'm sure, given the time and skill I could create equal functionality
on either system. I think the point was that this functionality
already exists with Unix and X.
I do suspect it would be quite difficult to achieve under Windows due
to the close integration of the GUI and kernel under Windows. On the
other hand, the Xnest functionality is useful at times under *nix and
X simply because its architecture is the way it is. Under Windows, the
problem would be approached from a different direction.
>> 9. Will windows let me remove the gui from the kernel for a
>> performance gain?
>
> No, but you can boot Windows without the GUI. I'm not sure how
> removing the GUI gets you a performance gain in Windows.
>
>> 10.Can windows be useful without a gui? Will all the system
>> programs on a gui-less server still work?
>
> Not all. Nor will the GUI programs on an X machine. So?
This is probably more a historical criticism of Windows and its role
in a server environment as compared to a desktop. GUIs are quite
pointless in a server environment - in fact, servers ar frequently
headless, so any cpu or memory used by a GUI was a waste of resources.
One of the main criticisms of early Windows based servers was the lack
of support for scripting and the existance of critical administration
tools which required a GUI to run them. However, things have improved
considerably in the last few years and to some extent, MS has
recognised the need for efficient and effective mechanisms for
automating tasks and being able to administer the system remotely or
without a monitor connected.
[snip]
>
>> 14. Reading MSWord documents?
>
> No. On the other hand, Linux doesn't handle MSWord documents either,
> but only some subset. :-)
>
Hmm. I must be very lucky then - I read MS word documents on my system
almost daily without any problems using either wv or catdoc.
>> 15. Creating and working with spreadsheets?
>
> No.
>
>> 16. Reading PDF files?
>
> Yes. So?
>
>> 17. Creating PDf files?
>
> Yes. So?
>
>> 18. Firewalling a network (and NATing my LAN)?
>
> No. (It's called Windows Connection Sharing.)
>
> I think you're being a bit facile when you claim that a Linux box can
> NAT and firewall your LAN "without further attention". You simply mean
> that the required executables are there. It's certainly not ready to
> go. I strongly suspect it's not a matter of clicking a GUI button like
> it is on Windows, for example.
>
>> 19. Safely receiving email?
>
> No.
>
>> 20. Safely surfing the web?
>
> No.
>
>> 21. Writing software in any 3 or 4 popular
>> languages (Only 1 language may not meet my needs).
>
> No.
>
>> 22. Create and work with an SQL database?
>
> No.
>
> Um, so? I can also list a dozen software packages for Windows that are
> simply unavailable for Linux. So?
>
> How long does it take to set up Linux to calculate your income taxes?
> To balance your corporate books? To read the log files from your SCUBA
> dive computer? To run .NET compilers? Manage MS SQL Server databases?
> Run all my games?
>
> There are lots of things either of us can list that the other can't do
> out of the box (or at all). If you're a developer and you buy Windows,
> you don't expect to be able to develop without installing a compiler.
>
Yes, most of the above criticisms are examples of orange and apple
comparisons. Making comparison between what you get after a basic
install of a Linux distro with what you get after installing windows
is not a valid comparison. A more valid comparison would be to compare
what you get after installing the Linux kernel and a minimal set of
the utilities required to boot up the system and access an account and
basic filesystem.
A valid criticism is that Linux distros come with a lot more
functionality than windows which is considered to be, under the MS
commercial philosophy, add ons. I do believe there is a good argument
for Windows to provide a bit more functionality in its base install.
>> Scalability:
>> Can I take my Windows CD and do any of
>> the following:
>> 23. Create a web-server optimised OS (like tux)?
>
> Yes. Of course, you'd argue that it's not "optimized", but so?
>
>> 24. Create a LiveCD?
>> 25. Create a single-floppy-disk OS to boot up as a router?
>
> Not precisely and No. (That's what DOS is for.) If I wanted a router,
> I wouldn't put Windows on it, so saying "Windows won't boot off a
> floppy" is silly. I wouldn't try to drive a car across a lake, either.
>
>> 26. Create finely-tuned fast-loading OS so that drivers
>> don't have to be loaded at bootup (built in drivers).
>
> I believe so. On the other hand, if you're worried about how long it
> takes to load device drivers off the disk during boot-up, you're
> probably doing something wrong. I strongly suspect this isn't
> something that's "trivial" with Linux.
>
>> 27. Create an "install-from-network" floppy disk?
>
> Yes. Actually, on modern machines you don't need a floppy, either.
>
>> 28. How much does a decent virus scanner cost?
>
> Free. How much for Linux?
>
>> 29. The renewal cost annually?
>
> Free.
>
>> 30. How much does it cost to have a machine cleaned
>> of malware, spyware, driveby downloads, etc?
>
> Only if you're dumb enough. How much did the Morris Worm cost? :-)
>
Can't accept that. Malware is a real problem under windows. MS has
recently released software to clean up and remove malware and I'm not
sure yet how effective it is. However, all the other packages,
commercial and free, out there are not very effective. Some of the
comparisons I've seen indicate the best of them are less than 70%
effective.
I wold say malware is possibly the single most problematic issue
affecting windows desktops at present and is a major cause of cost for
large organisations. We have around 5000 desktops at work and malware
is by far the biggest consumer of resources for the service desk. This
is mainly because there is no easy way of cleaning out all traces of
the software. Malware/addware is probably now a bigger problem than
virus infection as we now have many options for protecting against
infection and ability to remove infections fairly easily and reliably.
> Anyone capable of installing and configuring Linux for themselves is
> clueful enough not to get malware from the internet on Windows.
>
But that doesn't address the issue that Windows is more at risk in
this regard does it? Besides, in the same way many of the criticism of
Windows are historical and no longer valid, the same holds for Linux.
These days, installing Linux is no more difficult than installing
Windows.
>> 31. How long to restore system from backups
>> (including OS) per G?
>
> How fast is your media? I can generally back up and restore faster
> than my USB 2.0 10000RPM drive drive will go.
>
>> 32. How quickly to choose and install a rootkit detector?
>
> Same question for Linux? (It's not much of a rootkit if you can easily
> install a detector for it, is it?)
>
Isn't that like saying its not much of a virus if you can easily
install software to detect it.
>> 33. How long to download "security" patches per week?
>> (I'm on a 3600 dialup here, paying by the minute
>> for each minute I am dialed up so this matters to me).
>
> Once a month I get a few hundred K of patches. How about on Linux? If
> you're not too worried about it, turn that feature off. Note, by the
> way, that the Background Intelligent Transfer Service that downloads
> the patches (and a bunch of other stuff) only runs when you're
> connected but not using the bandwidth, so it's really not much of a
> problem unless you urgently want something downloaded quickly.
>
As I run both Linux and Windows at work and need to ensure things are
patched and up to date, I have to say my experience is that I get a
lot more updates for Windows (both in size and frequency) than I do
with Linux. However, it could be that some of this difference is due
to the different ways I use the systems and what each system is
running - its another one which can easily fall intot he apples and
oranges comparison flaw.
>> This list may seem like inviting flames, but before
>> you flame me consider that the original premise
>> was "but linux wastes all this time ...". IME, windows
>> systems tend to cost much more in time to
>> use and maintain; its useless when you install it
>> because it comes with nothing. No word processor,
>> spreadsheet, typesetter, programming languages
>> or productivity tools are installed.
>
> Funny enough, when I talk to someone into Linux and say it's hard to
> use as a desktop system, the answer I most often get is "almost nobody
> uses anything but Office and Web and Email, which Linux does very
> easily."
>
> It depends what you're using the systems for. I wouldn't drive a car
> across a lake, I wouldn't try to build a diskless router with Windows,
> and I wouldn't try to write ASP.NET code with Linux. I'm glad it's
> more productive for *you*, but you've spent years learning how to be
> productive with Linux. Me, when I boot Linux and my ethernet's
> interrupt gets turned off before any services even being starting up
> (which happens about 1/3 the time with Linux and never with Windows),
> I don't know what to do beyond trying to boot it again.
I don't think there is any denying the fact that Windows is the
dominant player in the desktop market. *nix is the dominant player in
the server market and consequently, a large proportion of developers
who write software for the server market also run Linux on the
desktop.
However, thats just the situation today. In another few years, the
whole world could be completely different. There are now some very
nice Linux based desktop distributions which I think will certainly
give MS some food for thought. There is also the whole impact of Mac
OSX, which I think cold be a real contender for the desktop market.
then again, some argue we are moving towards another era of "thin
client", where companies like google will provide all the application
functionality we need and our "desktop" will really just be a screen,
keyborad, mouse and the necessary hardware to connect to the net.
The gap between Linux and Windows has closed considerably over the
last few years. Many of the criticisms from each camp have been
addressed and resolved. Windows is more reliable and stable than it
was and Linux is easier to install and configure than it once was. I
still prefer Linux, but that is more about "bang for buck" these days
and less about technical superiority. However, I have to admit to
being spoilt by my initial exposure being with Unix and having never
really got Windows. Under Linux, I never seem to have impossible
problems I can't resolve and when doing diagnosis, I find the logs,
utilities and information almost intuitively. Under Windows, I just
can't seem to get the mindset - I spend hours wondering around trying
to find useful debugging information, log files, utilities which I
know have to be there somewhere etc.
The biggest difference I found between the two systems was that I've
always managed to easily find all the documentation and information
I've needed under Linux to resolve any problem. Frequently, despite
applying a similar approach under Windows, I fail miserably and have
to ask another windows person for assistance. Inevitably they point me
towards some critical utility, squirreled away log file or some bit of
what seems to be secret guild knowledge you only obtain via word of
mouth from a guild master. Obviously much of this is a reflection of
what I was trained in and how my mental map of the world works.
Despite that, there does seem to be a hell of a lot of Windows
information you need to keep in memory as aquired knowledge/expertise.
Under Linux, I rarely bother to memorise stuff as it always seems
quite easy to re-discover information when needed.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> Links, both symbolic and hard, have nothing to do with broken
> software. they are a very useful and quite powerful tool which allows
> you to easily change the behavior/configuration of a system without
> needing to change what software is installed. Claiming a relationship
> with broken software is merely a reflection of emotional prejudice
> rather than fact.
I've never needed symbolic links except for when software has hard-coded
paths and it's easier to put the same file in multiple places in the
filesystem. On the other hand, Windows has had, since it was usable, an
easy behavior/configuration system that doesn't need to change what
software is installed. The very existance of a centralized and
well-supported configuration system is what prevents Windows from
needing symlinks in the usual UNIX style, since one would just change
the path name in the configuration instead of changing the filesystem to
fit the configuration of the software.
On the other hand, where such file aliases are useful (such as over
networks), Windows supports it.
> Windows access control has certainly improved *a lot*. Earlier
> versions of Windows has extremely poor access control.
Well, earlier versions of Windows were single-user systems. Sure. Back
when those versions were all the rage, Linux was prompting you for the
chip set and refresh rate to let you get graphics on the screen. :-)
> which the differences in access control between the different systems
> actually manifest in real world application seem minimal.
Yeah. Windows still has problems because too much legacy software
expects to be running on single-user machines, and hence requires
elevated privleges it shouldn't need. Unix still has problems because
the more advanced access control stuff (like append-but-not-overwrite)
isn't well-integrated into all the file manipulation utilities.
> How can you claim its been in Windows longer than in Unix?
Windows 2 had it.
> This has
> been used in Unix for mail and print spools etc since Unix was first
> released - which predates MS even having an operating system at all!
The sticky bit on directories? No, I don't believe that's right. I'm
pretty sure it wasn't in V7, for example.
> In fact, the sticky bit was used originally, when systems were slower
> and memory was expensive, to also indicate a file should be retained
> in memory if possible (hence the 'sticky').
I believe that was the only meaning for it, until relatively recently. I
may be wrong there, tho.
> In your above example, off the top of my head, I could achieve the
> functionality you list through a combination of well designed group
> definitions, setuid bits, simple scripts, sudo, well designed disk
> partitioning and mount points and selection of the correct filesystems.
As opposed to setting a checkbox in the GUI. ;-) Hence, the argument
about which OS takes longer to deal with.
And yes, Windows tends to provide an API for doing something, while UNIX
tends to provide a data format for files. I personally think using APIs
leads to more power and flexibility when it comes to improving software,
but again that's a matter of taste.
> Note that the sticky bit does *not* mean the file is kept in swap.
http://www.daemon-systems.org/man/sticky.7.html
That was the original meaning. The later meanings, of bypassing block
buffering and as a privlege on directories came later.
> It does and the sticky bit was not to indicate the file was kept in
> swap memory - it was used to indicate tot he OS it should try and keep
> the file in main memory.
Maybe you read different sources than I did. In V7, it kept the file in
swap space even after you finished executing it.
> The sticky bit can be used on directories for things like shared
> directories where you want all users to be able to create a file in
> the directory, but you don't want them to be able to overwrite/modify
> files owned by others - often seen on mail and print spools or shared
> directories used for temp files etc.
Right. That came much later.
> Can't anybody say that about any of their favorite operating systems?
No. A GUI where you write directly to video memory, such as the early
Sun windowing systems (whose name escapes me I fear) or Amiga's OS (or
probably classic Mac, IIRC) would have trouble with that.
> I do suspect it would be quite difficult to achieve under Windows due
> to the close integration of the GUI and kernel under Windows.
That's my point. I can already display the screen of one machine as a
window on another machine, and that comes with Windows. It would
probably be harder to display two logins to the same machine in a window
or something, but that's more licensing than anything.
> This is probably more a historical criticism of Windows and its role
> in a server environment as compared to a desktop. GUIs are quite
> pointless in a server environment - in fact, servers ar frequently
> headless, so any cpu or memory used by a GUI was a waste of resources.
Unless you log in remotely. Then it's nice to have the same environment
to do work with. I suspect the amount of overhead caused by having a GUI
you're not using is minute. Just sit at your Windows desktop - how much
CPU time is spent if you're idle?
I never had trouble managing a locked-down Windows server in a foreign
country, once it was actually installed there.
> Hmm. I must be very lucky then - I read MS word documents on my system
> almost daily without any problems using either wv or catdoc.
Yep. It takes some sophisticated things, like Word documents that update
themselves from a database when you open them, that cause troubles.
> A valid criticism is that Linux distros come with a lot more
> functionality than windows which is considered to be, under the MS
> commercial philosophy, add ons. I do believe there is a good argument
> for Windows to provide a bit more functionality in its base install.
The target for Linux and Windows is also different. How many of the
people in your office use a debugger, compared to the number of people
who use spreadsheets, word processors, or email? :-)
> Can't accept that. Malware is a real problem under windows.
Yes. It's a combination of being very popular, being administered by
clueless people for the most part, and some poor decisions on MS's part
w.r.t. how much burden was placed on various libraries.
There's nothing fundamentally more secure about Linux than Microsoft,
except that there is a far wider number of people looking at Linux
sources, so it's harder for something to slip in intentionally. There's
nothing in the architecture of the system that fundamentally prevents
problems, such as being written in Common Lisp or some such. ;-)
Malware has always been problematic, with every popular OS. There were
rampant viruses and worms back in the days of the Apple ][.
> But that doesn't address the issue that Windows is more at risk in
> this regard does it?
True.
> These days, installing Linux is no more difficult than installing
> Windows.
From my own experience, I would have to disagree. But that's just anecdote.
The funny thing is, I see arguments both ways. "Windows is only popular
because MS forced it to be installed on every machine you buy." Followed
by "Linux is just as easy to install as Windows." Well, you really
can't have both.
> Isn't that like saying its not much of a virus if you can easily
> install software to detect it.
No. The point of a rootkit is to be undetectable. It's like saying it's
not much of a virus if you have to manually copy it to someone else's
machine.
> give MS some food for thought. There is also the whole impact of Mac
> OSX, which I think cold be a real contender for the desktop market.
There's also the whole .NET thing, which is making good inroads on
server side software and handheld software.
> The gap between Linux and Windows has closed considerably over the
> last few years.
Agreed. Yet each side seems to drag out the same tired old arguments. ;-)
> can't seem to get the mindset - I spend hours wondering around trying
> to find useful debugging information, log files, utilities which I
> know have to be there somewhere etc.
I find it's the same way. One study once revealed that experts in
computers aren't the ones who know a lot, but the ones who know where to
get the answer. They found very little common knowlege between UNIX
experts, for example, other than how to run man, whatis, gnu info, etc.
> The biggest difference I found between the two systems was that I've
> always managed to easily find all the documentation and information
> I've needed under Linux to resolve any problem.
Interestingly, I find it exactly the opposite with Windows. I know where
things get logged, I know where to get information, etc. For example,
when someone said "you can't mount a partition from the command line",
it took me about 15 seconds to find the command-line command to do that.
There are occasionally problems that stump me in Windows. But I find
there are far more in Linux. I'm even to the point where "reboot and try
again" is my preferred diagnostic when something goes mildly wonky in my
Linux installation, and it seems to cure the problem 95% of the time.
So I think each group looks pretty much the same from the other side.
Each OS has its strengths and weaknesses.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>
> It would probably be harder to display two logins to the same machine
> in a window or something, but that's more licensing than anything.
An argument in favour of free software if ever there were one...
> The funny thing is, I see arguments both ways. "Windows is only
> popular because MS forced it to be installed on every machine you
> buy." Followed by "Linux is just as easy to install as Windows."
> Well, you really can't have both.
Actually, you can. The end-user buys a computer with Windows installed;
to install Linux is effort for him (as opposed to the nil immediate
effort of using Windows), so he doesn't.
> So I think each group looks pretty much the same from the other
> side. Each OS has its strengths and weaknesses.
Save that in the end you still get the Linux sources. For free...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
AFAICT, most national capitals have already reached bogon criticality,
passed it, seen it in the rear view memory and now look back on the
moment as a fond, if distant, memory.
Robert Uhl wrote:
> An argument in favour of free software if ever there were one...
No doubt. It still boggles my mind that the US military uses Windows for
*anything* on warships. Payroll? Sure. But on a warship?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Robert Uhl wrote:
>> An argument in favour of free software if ever there were one...
>
> No doubt. It still boggles my mind that the US military uses Windows
> for *anything* on warships. Payroll? Sure. But on a warship?
Or on the ISS. Two weeks ago, the astronaut spent 45 minutes trying
to reboot a MS-Windows for a problem he had with some software running
on MS-Windows... Puuaaahhahahaaah!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
ADVISORY: There is an extremely small but nonzero chance that,
through a process known as "tunneling," this product may
spontaneously disappear from its present location and reappear at
any random place in the universe, including your neighbor's
domicile. The manufacturer will not be responsible for any damages
or inconveniences that may result.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Or on the ISS. Two weeks ago, the astronaut spent 45 minutes trying
> to reboot a MS-Windows
I hadn't heard that one. That's even worse! :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> Or on the ISS. Two weeks ago, the astronaut spent 45 minutes trying
>> to reboot a MS-Windows
>
> I hadn't heard that one. That's even worse! :-)
I saw him struggle on NasaTV.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Indentation! -- I will show you how to indent when I indent your skull!"
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> Or on the ISS. Two weeks ago, the astronaut spent 45 minutes trying
> to reboot a MS-Windows for a problem he had with some software running
> on MS-Windows... Puuaaahhahahaaah!
This comes as a bit as a surprise, because ISS astronauts have quite
advanced troubleshooting procedures for fixing problems with their
PCs. See for example this RealMedia movie:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/living/real56/fun_jokes_56.rm
See also this advanced backup communications system used on ISS:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/living/real56/fun_string_phones_56.rm
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
The Common Lisp Directory: http://www.cl-user.net
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>
>> Robert Uhl wrote:
>>> An argument in favour of free software if ever there were one...
>>
>> No doubt. It still boggles my mind that the US military uses Windows
>> for *anything* on warships. Payroll? Sure. But on a warship?
>
> Or on the ISS. Two weeks ago, the astronaut spent 45 minutes trying
> to reboot a MS-Windows for a problem he had with some software running
> on MS-Windows... Puuaaahhahahaaah!
>
I'm surprised the ISS uses Windows. NASA was a very big supporter of
Linux at one time - there was even a well known article in which they
detailed why they used Linux rather than Windows. Essentially, it was
for stability and smaller disk/memory needs.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>
>> Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>> Robert Uhl wrote:
>>>> An argument in favour of free software if ever there were one...
>>>
>>> No doubt. It still boggles my mind that the US military uses Windows
>>> for *anything* on warships. Payroll? Sure. But on a warship?
>>
>> Or on the ISS. Two weeks ago, the astronaut spent 45 minutes trying
>> to reboot a MS-Windows for a problem he had with some software running
>> on MS-Windows... Puuaaahhahahaaah!
>>
>
> I'm surprised the ISS uses Windows. NASA was a very big supporter of
> Linux at one time - there was even a well known article in which they
> detailed why they used Linux rather than Windows. Essentially, it was
> for stability and smaller disk/memory needs.
Well, as always with big organizations...
But to be precise, I'm not sure it was a NASA laptop. For one thing,
it was on the ISS, and was to drive an "experiment", so I guess the
software would have been designed at some university.
Nonetheless, there is MS-Windows at NASA, we can see some of them even
in the control room, along with Suns, and probably Linux too. Let's
hope it's not the most mission critical ones...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Litter box not here.
You must have moved it again.
I'll poop in the sink.
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>
> > Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> >
> >> Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> Robert Uhl wrote:
> >>>> An argument in favour of free software if ever there were one...
> >>>
> >>> No doubt. It still boggles my mind that the US military uses Windows
> >>> for *anything* on warships. Payroll? Sure. But on a warship?
> >>
> >> Or on the ISS. Two weeks ago, the astronaut spent 45 minutes trying
> >> to reboot a MS-Windows for a problem he had with some software running
> >> on MS-Windows... Puuaaahhahahaaah!
> >>
> >
> > I'm surprised the ISS uses Windows. NASA was a very big supporter of
> > Linux at one time - there was even a well known article in which they
> > detailed why they used Linux rather than Windows. Essentially, it was
> > for stability and smaller disk/memory needs.
>
> Well, as always with big organizations...
>
> But to be precise, I'm not sure it was a NASA laptop. For one thing,
> it was on the ISS, and was to drive an "experiment", so I guess the
> software would have been designed at some university.
>
> Nonetheless, there is MS-Windows at NASA, we can see some of them even
> in the control room, along with Suns, and probably Linux too. Let's
> hope it's not the most mission critical ones...
>
Flight software and mission critical software is definitely not on
Windows. You'll find Windows on regular desktop PC's and laptops.
Mission ops facilities use various flavors of unix, some quite old since
stuff isn't changed until it needs to be. New control centers will
generally be outfitted with new versions of whichever OS's are chosen to
run the selected control room software.
Auxiliary systems are often done in Windows- where the rebooting and
software chaos doesn't interfere with operations. Around here the
build, test and CM systems very often use Linux, developer workstations
use Windows frequently and a suprisingly high number use OS X. Linux is
a common choice for the "infrastructure" machines since there are no
onerous licensing issues, it runs on commodity hardware and the support
contract racket is mature enough to be useful and the toolchains are all
more or less GNU-based anyhow. It used to be Solaris owned this market
and its still common but new development labs tend to spec Linux these
days. The sofware tool vendors have really fallen down on the job
though- they obsess over click and drool Windows interfaces & more or
less useless XML silliness and don't focus on good integration of
heterogenous systems- which is where the tough problems are.
So its quite reasonable for a commercial laptop to be running Windows on
the ISS- but all it'll be doing is running some experiment or monitoring
something- or maybe just web browsing or email.
Flight systems are usually on a realtime OS with flight heritage-
vxWorks, RTEMS, LynxOS sort of thing. Linux as a serious flight OS is
still a few years away, if Linus Torvalds had made realtime performance
a priority a few years ago it might already be extensively used for
that. Being able to develop, debug, test and fly with the same OS &
hardware is a huge and often unobtainable advantage- Linux will be a big
help when its finally ready.
Regards,
Greg
Greg Menke wrote:
> Flight software and mission critical software is definitely not on
> Windows. You'll find Windows on regular desktop PC's and laptops.
The big screen at the front of the control room showing the orbit of the
shuttle is running Windows, because you can see the XP start button in
the corner. :-) Maybe it's just Windows running VNC or something.
> something- or maybe just web browsing or email.
Probably not Quake, tho. "Lag! I got lag!"
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Greg Menke wrote:
> > Flight software and mission critical software is definitely not on
> > Windows. You'll find Windows on regular desktop PC's and laptops.
>
> The big screen at the front of the control room showing the orbit of the
> shuttle is running Windows, because you can see the XP start button in
> the corner. :-) Maybe it's just Windows running VNC or something.
>
> > something- or maybe just web browsing or email.
>
> Probably not Quake, tho. "Lag! I got lag!"
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
> This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
> tentacles, not enough chops.
A big screen displaying a pretty picture is just that. All the
important operational displays are not running Windows, and they aren't
interesting to anyone but the mission ops people.
There are loads of visualization tools around, I imagine some of them
take live telemtry feeds and make pretty pictures- Windows is a
reasonable choice there since when the next virus or software update
blows it up, there is no operational impact except to the poor schmuck
who has to fix the thing.
Gregm
Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>
>> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>>
>> > Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> Robert Uhl wrote:
>> >>>> An argument in favour of free software if ever there were one...
>> >>>
>> >>> No doubt. It still boggles my mind that the US military uses Windows
>> >>> for *anything* on warships. Payroll? Sure. But on a warship?
>> >>
>> >> Or on the ISS. Two weeks ago, the astronaut spent 45 minutes trying
>> >> to reboot a MS-Windows for a problem he had with some software running
>> >> on MS-Windows... Puuaaahhahahaaah!
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm surprised the ISS uses Windows. NASA was a very big supporter of
>> > Linux at one time - there was even a well known article in which they
>> > detailed why they used Linux rather than Windows. Essentially, it was
>> > for stability and smaller disk/memory needs.
>>
>> Well, as always with big organizations...
>>
>> But to be precise, I'm not sure it was a NASA laptop. For one thing,
>> it was on the ISS, and was to drive an "experiment", so I guess the
>> software would have been designed at some university.
>>
>> Nonetheless, there is MS-Windows at NASA, we can see some of them even
>> in the control room, along with Suns, and probably Linux too. Let's
>> hope it's not the most mission critical ones...
>>
>
> Flight software and mission critical software is definitely not on
> Windows. You'll find Windows on regular desktop PC's and laptops.
> Mission ops facilities use various flavors of unix, some quite old since
> stuff isn't changed until it needs to be. New control centers will
> generally be outfitted with new versions of whichever OS's are chosen to
> run the selected control room software.
>
Yes. I also heard a talk once from someone who worked in the QA area
for NASA software - apart from the fact it was a very interresting
talk, NASAs software development group have a QA and documentation
protocols which are pretty amazing with what would be considered
unrealistic/unobtainable low levels of error/failure.
> Auxiliary systems are often done in Windows- where the rebooting and
> software chaos doesn't interfere with operations. Around here the
> build, test and CM systems very often use Linux, developer workstations
> use Windows frequently and a suprisingly high number use OS X. Linux is
> a common choice for the "infrastructure" machines since there are no
> onerous licensing issues, it runs on commodity hardware and the support
> contract racket is mature enough to be useful and the toolchains are all
> more or less GNU-based anyhow. It used to be Solaris owned this market
> and its still common but new development labs tend to spec Linux these
> days. The sofware tool vendors have really fallen down on the job
> though- they obsess over click and drool Windows interfaces & more or
> less useless XML silliness and don't focus on good integration of
> heterogenous systems- which is where the tough problems are.
>
> So its quite reasonable for a commercial laptop to be running Windows on
> the ISS- but all it'll be doing is running some experiment or monitoring
> something- or maybe just web browsing or email.
>
> Flight systems are usually on a realtime OS with flight heritage-
> vxWorks, RTEMS, LynxOS sort of thing. Linux as a serious flight OS is
> still a few years away, if Linus Torvalds had made realtime performance
> a priority a few years ago it might already be extensively used for
> that. Being able to develop, debug, test and fly with the same OS &
> hardware is a huge and often unobtainable advantage- Linux will be a big
> help when its finally ready.
I suspect Linux, like the commercial *unixs is not great with real
time needs. To what extent faster hardware has made this possible I'm
not sure, but certainly from a "traditional" standpoint, Unix has
never been considered a good choice for a real time critical system.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
> Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Flight software and mission critical software is definitely not on
> > Windows. You'll find Windows on regular desktop PC's and laptops.
> > Mission ops facilities use various flavors of unix, some quite old since
> > stuff isn't changed until it needs to be. New control centers will
> > generally be outfitted with new versions of whichever OS's are chosen to
> > run the selected control room software.
> >
> Yes. I also heard a talk once from someone who worked in the QA area
> for NASA software - apart from the fact it was a very interresting
> talk, NASAs software development group have a QA and documentation
> protocols which are pretty amazing with what would be considered
> unrealistic/unobtainable low levels of error/failure.
They are CRAZY with the config mgmt and walkthrough stuff. Its the
closest I've ever come to actually doing software engineering where the
organization does the stuff they say they do. It makes some development
agonizingly slow sometimes, other times not so bad but the software
tends to be rigorously worked out. Except for those times things still
slip through the cracks... :(
> Flight systems are usually on a realtime OS with flight heritage-
> > vxWorks, RTEMS, LynxOS sort of thing. Linux as a serious flight OS is
> > still a few years away, if Linus Torvalds had made realtime performance
> > a priority a few years ago it might already be extensively used for
> > that. Being able to develop, debug, test and fly with the same OS &
> > hardware is a huge and often unobtainable advantage- Linux will be a big
> > help when its finally ready.
>
> I suspect Linux, like the commercial *unixs is not great with real
> time needs. To what extent faster hardware has made this possible I'm
> not sure, but certainly from a "traditional" standpoint, Unix has
> never been considered a good choice for a real time critical system.
Linux is nearly realtime enough, its not an issue of context switch
time- its always been quite good there but bounding latency in all
context switching situations. Its essentially a kernel re-entrancy
question. 2.4 and 2.6 are quite good but Linux is going to have to be
really realtime before it deploys as a flight OS in a significant way.
The OS footprint is bigger than vxworks but Linux is a lot more capable
and much less of a pain to work with in a variety of ways.
Unix itself isn't the issue- Solaris and LynxOS both have good to
excellent realtime schedulers, most times the hardware that Unix has run
on is just too big to fly. The current generation of cpu's are 100mhz
or so PowerPC variations and some slightly slower 68k and Sparc
variations, often without MMU's which cost gates, power and radiation
tolerance. x86's take too much power and the gate counts are over the
top. Linux runs great on this level hardware. There is a mission
across the hall from me using LynxOS on their flight boards because its
got a good realtime scheduler and they wanted to use a proper OS.
Gregm
Le Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:19:25 +1000, Tim X a écrit :
> I suspect Linux, like the commercial *unixs is not great with real
> time needs.
It has been used for years in research in the field of medical robotics
(with RT patches applied). Though I don't know if it would also be used
in production robots for surgery, it was considered stable and efficient
enough by the scientists.
Quickly,
Nowhere man
--
···········@levallois.eu.org
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>
>> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>>
>>> Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Robert Uhl wrote:
>>>>> An argument in favour of free software if ever there were one...
>>>>
>>>> No doubt. It still boggles my mind that the US military uses Windows
>>>> for *anything* on warships. Payroll? Sure. But on a warship?
>>>
>>> Or on the ISS. Two weeks ago, the astronaut spent 45 minutes trying
>>> to reboot a MS-Windows for a problem he had with some software running
>>> on MS-Windows... Puuaaahhahahaaah!
>>>
>>
>> I'm surprised the ISS uses Windows. NASA was a very big supporter of
>> Linux at one time - there was even a well known article in which they
>> detailed why they used Linux rather than Windows. Essentially, it was
>> for stability and smaller disk/memory needs.
>
> Well, as always with big organizations...
>
> But to be precise, I'm not sure it was a NASA laptop. For one thing,
> it was on the ISS, and was to drive an "experiment", so I guess the
> software would have been designed at some university.
>
> Nonetheless, there is MS-Windows at NASA, we can see some of them even
> in the control room, along with Suns, and probably Linux too. Let's
> hope it's not the most mission critical ones...
>
If it was, it would certainly put additional realism into "blue screen
of death".
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Darren New wrote:
> I've never needed symbolic links except for when software has hard-coded
> paths and it's easier to put the same file in multiple places in the
> filesystem.
This is like saying: I've never needed to actually call a function from
another function, because I can just cut and paste and manually inline
it whenever I need it. Do you not think there is something very
problematic with having multiple versions of a file? I haven't used
Windows for a couple of years, but though I learned Windows before
Linux, I was often wishing for real symbolic links after I was exposed
to Linux and still using Windows. I think you're just trying to
rationalize that you don't *really* need something that you know you
can't have.
<snip/>
> On the other hand, where such file aliases are useful (such as over
> networks), Windows supports it.
Why not just copy the files and have them in multiple places all over
the network? ;-)
> > A valid criticism is that Linux distros come with a lot more
> > functionality than windows which is considered to be, under the MS
> > commercial philosophy, add ons. I do believe there is a good argument
> > for Windows to provide a bit more functionality in its base install.
>
> The target for Linux and Windows is also different. How many of the
> people in your office use a debugger, compared to the number of people
> who use spreadsheets, word processors, or email? :-)
Last time I used Windows, Spreadsheets and Word Processors and the like
(i.e. Office) was more than US$500 and not included. Has that changed
with XP? Somehow I doubt that it's changed.
> > Can't accept that. Malware is a real problem under windows.
>
> There's nothing fundamentally more secure about Linux than Microsoft,
> except that there is a far wider number of people looking at Linux
> sources, so it's harder for something to slip in intentionally. There's
> nothing in the architecture of the system that fundamentally prevents
> problems, such as being written in Common Lisp or some such. ;-)
This is pretty laughable. Yes, it's true there would be more malware
for Linux/Unix if there were more users, but that doesn't mean that the
fundamental problem with Windows security hasn't always been idiotic
defaults in the name of "user convenience" and security as an
afterthought.
> Malware has always been problematic, with every popular OS. There were
> rampant viruses and worms back in the days of the Apple ][.
Fallacy: "X has always existed to some extent on all platforms"
(therefore it existed equally on all platforms and the platform itself
has nothing to do with how much X there is).
> The funny thing is, I see arguments both ways. "Windows is only popular
> because MS forced it to be installed on every machine you buy." Followed
> by "Linux is just as easy to install as Windows." Well, you really
> can't have both.
The 2 arguments don't have anything to do with one another. One
concerns the reasons for Windows marketshare (that most people got it
without actually choosing it or buying it (well, they didn't pay
anything more than the built-in microsoft tax, which they're not aware
of, at least)), and the other concerns how easy or difficult Linux is
to install. I don't know what kind of relation you think there is
between those two, but there's nothing contradictory about maintaining
both positions.
-jk
j.k. wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>>I've never needed symbolic links except for when software has hard-coded
>>paths and it's easier to put the same file in multiple places in the
>>filesystem.
>
>
> This is like saying: I've never needed to actually call a function from
> another function, because I can just cut and paste and manually inline
> it whenever I need it. Do you not think there is something very
> problematic with having multiple versions of a file?
You've missed what I was saying. I'm saying the only time I needed
symbolic links is when I needed to put the *same* file in multiple
places, and symbolic links kept me from having to have multiple versions
of a file. The only time I needed to do that was when the file name was
hardcoded in multiple programs, but with different names used for the
same file.
In systems where the file names aren't hard coded, you point them all to
the same file.
> to Linux and still using Windows. I think you're just trying to
> rationalize that you don't *really* need something that you know you
> can't have.
I think you're just not reading very well.
> Why not just copy the files and have them in multiple places all over
> the network? ;-)
Because that would be a dumb thing to do.
> fundamental problem with Windows security hasn't always been idiotic
> defaults in the name of "user convenience" and security as an
> afterthought.
Yeah. Good thing that's not the case lately.
> Fallacy: "X has always existed to some extent on all platforms"
> (therefore it existed equally on all platforms and the platform itself
> has nothing to do with how much X there is).
Never said that. I'm countering those who claim there aren't any viri
elsewhere.
> to install. I don't know what kind of relation you think there is
> between those two, but there's nothing contradictory about maintaining
> both positions.
Given the first problem in this answer, I think I'll just pass on
explaining why those are related.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> j.k. wrote:
>
> > Darren New wrote:
> >
> >>I've never needed symbolic links except for when software has hard-coded
> >>paths and it's easier to put the same file in multiple places in the
> >>filesystem.
> >
> >
> > This is like saying: I've never needed to actually call a function from
> > another function, because I can just cut and paste and manually inline
> > it whenever I need it. Do you not think there is something very
> > problematic with having multiple versions of a file?
>
> You've missed what I was saying.
No, I got what you were saying, but my use of the word 'version' was
misleading. I apologize for being unclear. I meant that there is
something very silly in having the exact same file in multiple places,
just as there is something silly about having the exact same code in
multiple places. The files will invariably get out of sync when
somebody (or some program) makes a change to one of the multiple exact
duplicates and does not update the others (just as with cut-and-paste
identical code). That is what symbolic links provide that your
duplication of files does not.
> > Why not just copy the files and have them in multiple places all over
> > the network? ;-)
>
> Because that would be a dumb thing to do.
Yes, but only a little dumber than having a byte-for-byte identical
file in multiple places on the filesystem.
>
> > Fallacy: "X has always existed to some extent on all platforms"
> > (therefore it existed equally on all platforms and the platform itself
> > has nothing to do with how much X there is).
>
> Never said that. I'm countering those who claim there aren't any viri
> elsewhere.
I didn't say that you "said it", but your words imply it:
> > > Malware has always been problematic, with every popular OS. There were rampant viruses and worms back in the days of the Apple ][.
Who seriously claims that there is not (and has not been) malware on
other popular OSes? File that under "straw man", as I see people
comparing platforms and applications in *relative* terms (and making
arguments for the causes of the relative disparities), not arguing that
whole classes of platforms/apps (everything but Windows) have no
malware, and only Windows/etc have malware.
And for the record, you were replying directly to Tim X's comment,
which you quoted:
> Can't accept that. Malware is a real problem under windows.
So no, you were not addressing people who say that there aren't malware
elsewhere, unless you quoted Tim X not intending to respond to him and
were actually responding to people that you didn't quote.
> > to install. I don't know what kind of relation you think there is
> > between those two, but there's nothing contradictory about maintaining
> > both positions.
>
> Given the first problem in this answer, I think I'll just pass on
> explaining why those are related.
Okay, ignore the question, but I am really curious to learn what you
think the 2 sentences you give have in common.
Sentence 1: "Windows is only popular because MS forced it to be
installed on every machine you buy."
Sentence 2: "Linux is just as easy to install as Windows."
> Well, you really can't have both.
You comment about not being able to have both implies that you think
there is a contradiction in having them both, but what is the
contradiction? (For the record, I don't believe sentence 1 is the sole
cause, and I don't believe that sentence 2 is true in general, though
distributions like Ubuntu are quite close if your hardware is 100%
recognized, but my comment was about the relation between the two
sentences, not their truth).
Why could it not be the case that a product became popular and dominant
because of the business practices of the company that produced the
product, and that years later, another product acquires certain of the
features (usability or ease-of-install)?
A contradiction would be if one argued that (1) Windows is popular
because it is so easy to use, and ease-of-use invariably leads to
ubiquity, and (2) Linux is as easy to use as Windows and has been for
long enough to become ubiquitous but isn't.
Alternately, another contradiction would be if (1) Linux were the
default OS sold on 90% of the PCs sold for the next 10 years, and (2)
in 10 years Linux is still not the most widely used OS on personal
computers.
Please educate me and tell me what you mean that I am missing.
j.k. wrote:
> multiple places. The files will invariably get out of sync when
> somebody (or some program) makes a change to one of the multiple exact
> duplicates
If they're duplicates, they're not the same file, are they? You're still
missing what I'm saying.
echo hello >x
ln x y
echo goodbye >>y
Is x out of date?
> Yes, but only a little dumber than having a byte-for-byte identical
> file in multiple places on the filesystem.
No. You're not reading. They're not duplicates. They're *THE SAME FILE*.
Not two different files with the same contents. THE SAME FILE. Read my lips.
> Please educate me and tell me what you mean that I am missing.
Pass.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
j.k. wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> I've never needed symbolic links except for when software has hard-coded
>> paths and it's easier to put the same file in multiple places in the
>> filesystem.
>
>
>
> This is like saying: I've never needed to actually call a function from
> another function, because I can just cut and paste and manually inline
> it whenever I need it. Do you not think there is something very
> problematic with having multiple versions of a file?
You've missed what I was saying. I'm saying the only time I needed
symbolic links is when I needed to put the *same* file in multiple
places, and symbolic links kept me from having to have multiple versions
of a file. The only time I needed to do that was when the file name was
hardcoded in multiple programs, but with different names used for the
same file.
In systems where the file names aren't hard coded, you point all of the
configurations to the same file.
In cases like the "start the service", you create a symlink to the
directory in Windows if you like, and check that it's there so you don't
throw errors if the symlink is missing.
In cases where the paths to the file are on the same file system, you
can create a hard link to the file rather than a symlink.
In cases where the paths to the file are on separate file systems, you
have the option of creating a reparse point, altho it's admittedly more
difficult than a symlink to deal with.
> to Linux and still using Windows. I think you're just trying to
> rationalize that you don't *really* need something that you know you
> can't have.
I think you're just not reading very well.
> Why not just copy the files and have them in multiple places all over
> the network?
Because that would be a dumb thing to do.
> fundamental problem with Windows security hasn't always been idiotic
> defaults in the name of "user convenience" and security as an
> afterthought.
Yeah. Good thing that's not the case lately.
> Fallacy: "X has always existed to some extent on all platforms"
> (therefore it existed equally on all platforms and the platform itself
> has nothing to do with how much X there is).
Never said that. I'm countering those who claim there aren't any viri
elsewhere.
> to install. I don't know what kind of relation you think there is
> between those two, but there's nothing contradictory about maintaining
> both positions.
Given the first problem in this answer, I think I'll just pass on
explaining why those are related.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
....
> Well, see, this is the functionality that I got out of the box
> with Linux; to get the same functionality from windows I have
> to download and update my system?
See, the functionality my mother wants from her computer goes like this :
switch it on, browse the web for a new hat, print the address, and go buy
it.
I'm pretty sure windows fits the bill for that kind of stuff.
Not everyone has the need for a /proc/<pid>/ thing. As a matter a fact, i
really don't need such thing either. See i'm programming for the end-users.
They won't install unix just for me. Some of them barely can use a mouse...
Unixes are pretty cool as servers, windows is cool for end-users.
Trucks are nice for moving your furnitures, but i really prefer driving a
car in town.
On the truck you get the big wheels and the fancy elevator on the back, but
that's useless for down-town shopping.
Sacha
"Sacha" <··@address.spam> writes:
> ....
>
>> Well, see, this is the functionality that I got out of the box
>> with Linux; to get the same functionality from windows I have
>> to download and update my system?
>
>
> See, the functionality my mother wants from her computer goes like this :
> switch it on, browse the web for a new hat, print the address, and go buy
> it.
> I'm pretty sure windows fits the bill for that kind of stuff.
Along with: run and propagate viruses, worms, and spyware, slowing
down your mother's tasks, sending million of spams, etc, all without
your mother taking notice (but for the slow down of course).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Wanna go outside.
Oh, no! Help! I got outside!
Let me back inside!
>>
>> See, the functionality my mother wants from her computer goes like this :
>> switch it on, browse the web for a new hat, print the address, and go buy
>> it.
>> I'm pretty sure windows fits the bill for that kind of stuff.
>
> Along with: run and propagate viruses, worms, and spyware, slowing
> down your mother's tasks, sending million of spams, etc, all without
> your mother taking notice (but for the slow down of course).
>
You're being a bit hard on windows, it's not as easily infected as it used
to be.
And she gets to update her system with the latest security patches (which
are flowing pretty steadily these days) without even noticing =P
I don't want to go through the "teach your mother linux in 30 days" session
anyways, so windows it will be !
Sacha
Sacha <··@address.spam> wrote:
+---------------
| You're being a bit hard on windows, it's not as easily infected
| as it used to be.
+---------------
Hah! You wish. Just check the latest SANS & CERT announcements,
if you still believe that.
Oh, o.k., so the SANS "Survival Time" metric [bottom of the right
side of <http://isc.sans.org/>] is up from 12 minutes a while back to
almost 30 minutes. Whoopee. To quote from the linked-to page:
...
The main issue here is of course that the time to download critical
patches will exceed this survival time. In order to help users setup
new systems, refer to our guide: Windows XP: Surviving the First Day
<http://www.sans.org/rr/papers/index.php?id=1298>
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> Sacha <··@address.spam> wrote:
> +---------------
> | You're being a bit hard on windows, it's not as easily infected
> | as it used to be.
> +---------------
>
> Hah! You wish. Just check the latest SANS & CERT announcements,
> if you still believe that.
>
> Oh, o.k., so the SANS "Survival Time" metric [bottom of the right
> side of <http://isc.sans.org/>] is up from 12 minutes a while back to
> almost 30 minutes. Whoopee. To quote from the linked-to page:
>
> ...
> The main issue here is of course that the time to download critical
> patches will exceed this survival time. In order to help users setup
> new systems, refer to our guide: Windows XP: Surviving the First Day
> <http://www.sans.org/rr/papers/index.php?id=1298>
Which, of course, is to be compared to the survival time of any other
OS, including Linux, MacOSX, NeXTSTEP, *BSD, OpenVMS, MacOS, LispM,
whatever, which is practically infinite. At least, I've managed Linux
servers and MacOS, and now MacOSX workstations on the Internet 24x7
for more than ten years and they have never been contamined by any
virus or worm.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
CONSUMER NOTICE: Because of the "uncertainty principle," it is
impossible for the consumer to simultaneously know both the precise
location and velocity of this product.
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
+---------------
| ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
| > Oh, o.k., so the SANS "Survival Time" metric [bottom of the right
| > side of <http://isc.sans.org/>] is up from 12 minutes a while back to
| > almost 30 minutes. Whoopee. To quote from the linked-to page:
| > ...
| > The main issue here is of course that the time to download critical
| > patches will exceed this survival time. ...
|
| Which, of course, is to be compared to the survival time of any other
| OS, including Linux, MacOSX, NeXTSTEP, *BSD, OpenVMS, MacOS, LispM,
| whatever, which is practically infinite.
+---------------
Exactly the point. For example, two of my machines at home:
····@fast 6% uptime
12:46AM up 258 days, 2:33, 12 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
····@fast 7% ssh slow uptime
12:32AM up 1307 days, 18:41, 0 users, load averages: 0.15, 0.03, 0.01
····@fast 8%
Granted, the second is "only" a DNS backup, and I do occasionally
need to reboot the main DNS/SMTP/HTTP "server" [which is really just
a cheap desktop machine!] to upgrade the O/S... maybe once a year,
if that! ;-}
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Sacha wrote:
> >>
> >> See, the functionality my mother wants from her computer goes like this :
> >> switch it on, browse the web for a new hat, print the address, and go buy
> >> it.
> >> I'm pretty sure windows fits the bill for that kind of stuff.
> >
> > Along with: run and propagate viruses, worms, and spyware, slowing
> > down your mother's tasks, sending million of spams, etc, all without
> > your mother taking notice (but for the slow down of course).
> >
>
> You're being a bit hard on windows, it's not as easily infected as it used
> to be.
Eh? Theres already an exploit for *vista*, and thats not even
released yet; since the exploit is now in the open, expect
that there is already a *virus* for this exploit.
Vista is the first OS in human history to have a virus before
its release.
goose,
Ok, so the exploit works on XP too :-)
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Along with: run and propagate viruses, worms, and spyware,
Uh huh. And exactly how does Unix prevent such? It's not like there
aren't security flaws discovered in Linux and OSX pretty much every
week, if anyone cared to take advantage of them.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> Along with: run and propagate viruses, worms, and spyware,
>
> Uh huh. And exactly how does Unix prevent such? It's not like there
> aren't security flaws discovered in Linux and OSX pretty much every
> week, if anyone cared to take advantage of them.
>
Architecturally, Linux is less exposed to virus infection because of a
much cleaner and well defined seperation between user space and kernel
space that does not exist under Windows. It is the closer tie and less
well defined seperation uner windows that make many of the viruses
possible.
Having said that, it is possible to have viruses, worms and trojans
under Linux, but harder to gain access to anything useful or
"interesting". However, a lot depends on running your system correctly
- for example, you should not run as root when performing day to day
tasks like reading mail or surfing the web.
There are frequent security updates for Linux - however, there are not
that many/frequent updates for bits of Linux which would be
considered equivalent to what would be considered windows. To get a
more accurate comparison, you wold need to compare the security
updates for Linux with *all* security updates for MS, including office
and common third party apps. Even then its difficult to get a
realistic comparison as different distributions often apply their own
patches to add/change functionality in some way they see as
advantageous. So, a security update for Red hat Linux kernel 2.6.17
does not mean that all Linux distributions runninig that kernel
version are at risk etc.
All of this ignores the fact that most viruses are trivial wrt
implementation and most are targeted at windows because desktops are
more likely to be exposed than servers and those poor sad soles who
feel they are being so clever want to maximise impact. Who knows what
the situation would be if Linux was the dominant desktop (we will have
to wait and see ;-).
Of course the argument that Windows gets more viruses because it is
targeted more doesn't answer the question of why Mac OSX with its
growing market share doesn't seem to get targeted nearly as much as
would have been expected based on an argument of exposure etc. To what
extent this is due to OSX being based on a unix model remains to be
seen.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> Having said that, it is possible to have viruses, worms and trojans
> under Linux, but harder to gain access to anything useful or
> "interesting". However, a lot depends on running your system correctly
> - for example, you should not run as root when performing day to day
> tasks like reading mail or surfing the web.
I'm curious, tho. When in Linux, if I do something like change some
system configuration, I get prompted for the root password. I can then
do other privleged operations without getting another prompt. If there
were a worm running on my machine, would it be able to do privleged
operations if it watched for it to be possible?
> Of course the argument that Windows gets more viruses because it is
> targeted more doesn't answer the question of why Mac OSX with its
> growing market share doesn't seem to get targeted nearly as much as
> would have been expected based on an argument of exposure etc.
I suspect it's also partly expertise. Even if OSX is 5% of the market,
that not only means a virus writer is going to only get 5% of the
machines, it also means only 5% of the virus writers use Macs. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>
> I'm curious, tho. When in Linux, if I do something like change some
> system configuration, I get prompted for the root password. I can then
> do other privleged operations without getting another prompt. If there
> were a worm running on my machine, would it be able to do privleged
> operations if it watched for it to be possible?
Unlikely, since such things are an attribute of the current process, and
thus worthless to any other process (or at least, any other non-child
process).
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has powerful
muscles, but no personality. --Einstein
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Unlikely, since such things are an attribute of the current process, and
> thus worthless to any other process (or at least, any other non-child
> process).
Funky. What process has the privlege, then? The "desktop" process,
running the menu bars and such? It would seem pretty easy to get that to
launch a program with unworthy privileges.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
>>
>> I'm curious, tho. When in Linux, if I do something like change some
>> system configuration, I get prompted for the root password. I can then
>> do other privleged operations without getting another prompt. If there
>> were a worm running on my machine, would it be able to do privleged
>> operations if it watched for it to be possible?
>
> Unlikely, since such things are an attribute of the current process, and
> thus worthless to any other process (or at least, any other non-child
> process).
I think you misunderstood his question.
From <http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/395107/2005-04-03/2005-04-09/0>:
Once executed, the trojan application must only wait until the user
leverages the sudo utility, either at the command line or by another
application that leverages sudo to elevate it's privileges.
Apparently the default configuration for sudo in most systems is that
sudo "sessions" are not tied to particular ttys, which would make this
sort of attack less likely to succeed.
John
John Wiseman wrote:
> I think you misunderstood his question.
> From <http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/395107/2005-04-03/2005-04-09/0>:
Thanks. That's what I meant, yes. :)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
goose wrote:
> This list may seem like inviting flames, but before
> you flame me consider that the original premise
> was "but linux wastes all this time ...".
Incidentally, maybe you can tell me how to install the chinese
hand-writing recognition on Linux that my wife uses on Windows? I
didn't see anything on the system menus having to do with chinese
characters, speech recognition, *or* handwriting recognition, and my
Linux doesn't seem to do that out of the box either.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > This list may seem like inviting flames, but before
> > you flame me consider that the original premise
> > was "but linux wastes all this time ...".
>
> Incidentally, maybe you can tell me how to install the chinese
> hand-writing recognition on Linux that my wife uses on Windows? I
> didn't see anything on the system menus having to do with chinese
> characters, speech recognition, *or* handwriting recognition, and my
> Linux doesn't seem to do that out of the box either.
>
Thats funny, Darren, because I'm sitting next to
a Windows XP box right now, and it I can't see
any language other than english as a choice in the
menus or anything.
I mean, by your logic, that means windows doesn't
support chinese language?
This is all a little too religous for me at this point;
I'm sorry that I brought this up now. You've already
made you mind up and it is clear that if Windows
does not have a feature you require then its
a useless feature, but if Linux does not *seem*
to have a feature, then of course linux is deficient.
goose,
Seeing as how the chinese *state* has it's own
distribution I highly doubt that there is no linux
support.
goose wrote:
> Thats funny, Darren, because I'm sitting next to
> a Windows XP box right now, and it I can't see
> any language other than english as a choice in the
> menus or anything.
Go to control panel->Regional and
languages->languages->details->installed services, pick "Add", and
select chinese. Comes with, see?
> I mean, by your logic, that means windows doesn't
> support chinese language?
No. I'm just saying it comes with, and I'm asking you if you know how to
make Linux do the same thing for my wife's use.
> This is all a little too religous for me at this point;
> I'm sorry that I brought this up now. You've already
> made you mind up and it is clear that if Windows
> does not have a feature you require then its
> a useless feature, but if Linux does not *seem*
> to have a feature, then of course linux is deficient.
Not at all. I'm just arguing against people who say "Windows can't do X
like Linux can", when 3 minutes with Google would have given you the
list of answers I gave you. :-) You also seem to have made up your mind
that Windows can't do /dev/gzip (for which I'm still awaiting a link, if
you can provide such, since it isn't on my Linux install), as well as a
bunch of other things that are pretty obviously there.
If I wanted to make it religious, I would have listed all the important
things Windows can do that Linux can't, but that you don't use on Linux
and don't need on Linux because Linux does things differently. :-)
> goose,
> Seeing as how the chinese *state* has it's own
> distribution I highly doubt that there is no linux
> support.
I didn't say that either. You're the one interpreting "How do I do X" as
"X cannot be done, see?"
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
To me, it's quite funny to see a language war turning into an OS war ... still
waiting for the editor war, but I guess its only two days away !?
Anyhow, considering Kenny's points, there is something to them ... (quoting Frank Zappa:
"I have seen it, if have been through it, it has happened to me ...") I have spent an awful amount
of time "optimizing" Linux and BSD Desktops to my needs, so I'd like to say that too much freedom in
this domain was disastrous to me (grin).
On the other hand, I really enjoyed the freedom to get my feet wet and
have no artificial boundaries set up, you know, those that are only there because somebody simply
does not want you to be able to change certain things.
For Kenny's favorite Lisp vendor, I have to say, that I really would like to use their tools, but ...
It is not the money (not meaning that I have it, there'd be serious discussions with my wife ;) )
but for the feeling that I'd in a way would be sold to their dispositions, like:
+ terms of licensing seem to depend on who you are,
+ a new version, a new license, or pay per year for academic licenses,
+ some thing's broken, we, not you will fix it, pay for it (!), by the way,
+ and worst of all: pay royalties per distributed executable, hence I couldn't pass around
my free software, the decision is up to them.
I'd like to state it like this: for the things I'm interested in the most, I'd rather go with
free (GNU alike) software as spending my time there rewards me by allowing me to do what I care
about, giving me maximum flexibility. For things that should just work in the most convenient way,
I'd rather pay some money and be released from thinking about that stuff. Hence, I care about Lisp
programming and don't want to be bothered with crippled licenses, I don't care about having maximum
freedom with my OS by the way, it just should not set up too large obstacles[1].
regards,
Stefan
---
[1] you may have guessed that I finally arrived at the Mac (again)
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <r2Yug.258$BB4.79@fe10.lga>
Stefan Mandl wrote:
> To me, it's quite funny to see a language war turning into an OS war ...
Yeah, Usenet threads are usually so coherent. (?!)
> still
> waiting for the editor war, but I guess its only two days away !?
Two words: Vms EDT. End of war.
>
> Anyhow, considering Kenny's points, there is something to them ...
> (quoting Frank Zappa:
> "I have seen it, if have been through it, it has happened to me ...") I
> have spent an awful amount
> of time "optimizing" Linux and BSD Desktops to my needs, so I'd like to
> say that too much freedom in
> this domain was disastrous to me (grin).
>
> On the other hand, I really enjoyed the freedom to get my feet wet...
That is great if that is where you want to spend your time. I new a
co-worker in systems that thought that nothing was more fun than simply
bringing the damn thing up successfully so us idiotic applications
people could do whatever silly pointless things we were doing with "his"
computer. I agree more with what you said below. I just want to do Lisp.
Windows irritates me like a metronome, but more the way telemarketers
and junk mail do: nothing that does anything other than irritate me.
Assuming of course win32 does not decide not to reboot for twelve hours
like it did four days ago. But I had a backup and a credit card and the
dell 800 number all ready to go. :)
> and
> have no artificial boundaries set up, you know, those that are only
> there because somebody simply
> does not want you to be able to change certain things.
>
> For Kenny's favorite Lisp vendor,
Correction: favorite IDE and tools. I also love the tech team, but the
only other tech team I encountered was Digitool's and they were great,
too. Something tells me they all rock.
I have to say, that I really would
> like to use their tools, but ...
> It is not the money (not meaning that I have it, there'd be serious
> discussions with my wife ;) )
> but for the feeling that I'd in a way would be sold to their
> dispositions, like:
>
> + terms of licensing seem to depend on who you are,
well, it's a free country. I knew a super successful software sales guy,
applications, and it was always haggling. Is this how rational pricing
arises?
> + a new version, a new license, or pay per year for academic licenses,
New version=new license? I did not know about that one. Thx, if I ever
try again to talk to them about licensing I will remember to check for
that booby trap.
> + some thing's broken, we, not you will fix it, pay for it (!), by the way,
Boy, I have reported a lot of bugs and gotten insanely quick patches
(same day, invariably) over the years without ever paying for it.
> + and worst of all: pay royalties per distributed executable, hence I
> couldn't pass around
> my free software, the decision is up to them.
You mean they own Cells? Celtk? Cello? etc etc. I better check the fine
print. they have not bothered me. yet. if you mean executables, yeah.
hey, use my tools, stay portable.
Well, they are not alone in doing the royalty thing. I think I probably
made the wrong bet trying to keep my code independent of theirs. (Except
they do not have a GUI for the mac, which I need, so they are not
actually a deployment option!) But I should have and may still give them
their due. That said, now that I have a portable code base it would be a
little weird giving them 10% when I can deploy with another fine
commercial product like Lispworks. We will see.
As for free executables, yeah, not sure what they want when /you/ are
giving it away, never asked about that being the destructive anti-social
type.
>
> I'd like to state it like this: for the things I'm interested in the
> most, I'd rather go with
> free (GNU alike) software as spending my time there rewards me by
> allowing me to do what I care
> about, giving me maximum flexibility. For things that should just work
> in the most convenient way,
> I'd rather pay some money and be released from thinking about that
> stuff. Hence, I care about Lisp
> programming and don't want to be bothered with crippled licenses, I
> don't care about having maximum
> freedom with my OS by the way, it just should not set up too large
> obstacles[1].
So... Ubuntu and Lispworks?
> [1] you may have guessed that I finally arrived at the Mac (again)
Oops. yeah, nice mix of a hot OS and commercial vendor behind it. I know
a lot of very good Linux folks that have made that choice.
kenneth
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
goose wrote:
> Because windows does not allow one to implement ones
> driver interface as a file on disk?
I'm not sure how to parse that. Where else would one store the code for
a driver?
> No, I was refering to being able to write a driver that performs
> (for example) gzip functionality. then all one has to do to compress
> a gzip file is this:
>
> cat file.to.compress > /dev/gzip &> compressed.file.gz
>
> Windows cannot do that;
I'm not even sure what that syntax is supposed to mean. If "cat" is
writing to /dev/gzip, I don't see how the device driver winds up
altering the stream and putting it on compressed.file.gz, unless it's
serving as a stacked filter or something.
However, it's quite possible to have a device driver in Windows that
(for example) encrypts anything on the way to the serial port or disk
drive and decrypts it on the way back, that you install later and load
at runtime. See the recent Sony BMG baloney for evidence. This feature
has been around since Windows 3 or so. They're called "virtual device
drivers."
See also "reparse points", which are names in the file system that
invoke programs when you try to open them.
> Well, it is pretty hard to study a closed source OS :-)
Well, it's only hard to study undocumented features or source code. It's
pretty easy to study how to make it do things it is supposed to. For
that matter, I'm often amazed at how often I read people saying "Wow,
you can make it do this great feature by hacking the registry that way",
when you can also just go in the control panel and turn on the GUI
element described in the help files.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:13:30 GMT, Darren New <····@san.rr.com> wrote:
>goose wrote:
>
>> No, I was refering to being able to write a driver that performs
>> (for example) gzip functionality. then all one has to do to compress
>> a gzip file is this:
>>
>> cat file.to.compress > /dev/gzip &> compressed.file.gz
>>
>> Windows cannot do that;
>
>I'm not even sure what that syntax is supposed to mean. If "cat" is
>writing to /dev/gzip, I don't see how the device driver winds up
>altering the stream and putting it on compressed.file.gz, unless it's
>serving as a stacked filter or something.
That syntax is redirecting stdout and stderr (don't know why the
compressed data would be returned on both streams rather than
just one of them) to create compressed.file.gz.
--
Jack Unrue
Jack Unrue wrote:
> That syntax is redirecting stdout and stderr (don't know why the
> compressed data would be returned on both streams rather than
> just one of them) to create compressed.file.gz.
That's what I thought it meant. (Rather, that's what I remembered it
meaning from the shells I'm familiar with.) I'm trying to figure out why
what cat writes to stdout would pass through /dev/gzip and wind up on
stderr. It seems like a rather bizarre way to invoke functionality
compared to "cat | gzip >...."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:40:58 GMT, Darren New <····@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Jack Unrue wrote:
>> That syntax is redirecting stdout and stderr (don't know why the
>> compressed data would be returned on both streams rather than
>> just one of them) to create compressed.file.gz.
>
>That's what I thought it meant. (Rather, that's what I remembered it
>meaning from the shells I'm familiar with.) I'm trying to figure out why
>what cat writes to stdout would pass through /dev/gzip and wind up on
>stderr. It seems like a rather bizarre way to invoke functionality
>compared to "cat | gzip >...."
No, I meant &> redirects stdout and stderr; cat's stdout was the
device's stdin. But yeah, it is somewhat silly. A better example
might have been a driver that makes tar files look like a
filesystem:
mount -t tar /tmp/myfile.tar /mnt/tar
cd /mnt/tar/blah
or somesuch.
--
Jack Unrue
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:52:59 GMT, Jack Unrue <·······@example.tld> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:40:58 GMT, Darren New <····@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>Jack Unrue wrote:
>>> That syntax is redirecting stdout and stderr (don't know why the
>>> compressed data would be returned on both streams rather than
>>> just one of them) to create compressed.file.gz.
>>
>>That's what I thought it meant. (Rather, that's what I remembered it
>>meaning from the shells I'm familiar with.) I'm trying to figure out why
>>what cat writes to stdout would pass through /dev/gzip and wind up on
>>stderr. It seems like a rather bizarre way to invoke functionality
>>compared to "cat | gzip >...."
>
>No, I meant &> redirects stdout and stderr; cat's stdout was the
>device's stdin.
Never mind, I know what you meant now.
--
Jack Unrue
Jack Unrue wrote:
> device's stdin. But yeah, it is somewhat silly. A better example
> might have been a driver that makes tar files look like a
> filesystem:
Ah. You mean, like DriveSpace, a la DOS 6.0, from before Windows? ;-) Or
maybe TrueCrypt?
OK, enough of that. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Le Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:12:45 +0000, Darren New a écrit :
>> The problem, I suspect, is that you don't realise how crippled
>> windows is (compared to linux)
> I think many people don't realize how much Windows supports because
> they don't study it.
Come on!
MS has build a tradition of badly implementing every official or de
facto standard in the world (among them MIME, CSS or UDF, for example),
even when they took the implementation of someone else (like their IP
stack, that I've heard has been discovered to be a BSD stack after
benchmarking it, but that won't reply to ICMP Echo messages).
They have lacked the implementation of some of the most trivial
algorithms known for decades (e.g. computer science students here in
Strasbourg (France) learn in their second or third year how to design a
file system that won't suffer fragmentation in most cases and the
algorithm was described back in the 70s, I think, but most Windows users
have to defragment their disk once in a while, on a totally subjective
basis...).
And as far as studying it is concerned, MS had to be sued by the
European Union to finally give a complete /declaration/ of all it's API
(which was not even really a description, but a formatted list of
function prototypes...).
Practically,
Nowhere man
--
···········@levallois.eu.org
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
"goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> Experimentation?! Dude, it is Unix. The only experiments there are on
>> the design of the feeding tubes.
>
> Not really; Lots of new stuff in kernel land very rarely
> gets noticed by the end-user (like devfs) - its all
> wrapped up. Vista is coming soon and even *it* won't
> have caught up to the technology present in linux
> kernels 2.6 onwards.
Ignoring the "A free Unix" aspect of the Linux kernel, it was a huge
step backwards in the OS world. And although most of Windows' userland
is crap, the NT kernel has actually a very nifty design.
Linux seems to attract lot's of code, but I wouldn't call support for
e.g. Amiga OS' file system a technological breakthrough.
Regards,
--
Julian Stecklina
C has all the expressive power of two dixie cups and a string.
(Jamie Zawinski)
> > the first sentence on the homepage of the fsf:
> >
> > Free software is a matter of liberty not price. You should think of
> > "free" as in "free speech".
>
> I don't think it works that way. If the next sentence were to say, "Show
> me the money!!!", the first sentence cannot make your point. SO please
> scroll back to the quotations I offered from the Gnu manifesto in which
> charging money was destructive and "software should be free" were offered.
> Your next response will be, "Right. The software has to be free. Or you
> are destructive. You have to make money some other way."
Ok, my response is: "You have to make money some other way." That same
article states clearly that there's a tension between the individual
programmers livelyhood and the goals of the fsf. It implies that you
make sacrifices for the benifit of society. Not that most peoples
frobelings will save world hunger, but it can help in bits and pieces.
Now to actually venture fullheartedly on this path is a bit of a hard
thing to do; deliberately cutting in your own flesh, but to me this
seems to be what the fsf states.
> > So their aim is primarily idiological and not, as you claim, to save
> > money.
> >
> >
> >>What I did accuse the FSF of was deliberately infecting people with the
> >>idea that software should be free.
> >
> >
> > As you accuse the sun for shining?
>
> A better example would be someone with an incipient cold infecting
> others at work. Did they infect others? yes. Did they knowingly infect?
> no, nor then obviously was it their intent. So the language is ambiguous
> when I say something like "Now that the FSF has infected....". But when
> challenged I looked up the manifesto and, yes, they actively seek to
> make software free, by characterizing charging for software as
> destructive, by producing usable stuff without charging for its
> underlying value/development cost, and by licensing the software
> compelling those who use it to likewise distribute their software for free.
As i stated above, there is a difference between your own benifit and
that of society. Failing to see the distinction is something you seem
to trip over in my opinion.
> > Whatever brilliant code someone
> > writes at a closed source company will have to be duplicated. Time that
> > could have been spent solving the world hunger problem.
>
> Absolutely. Good point. I am no poli sci or history fan, but that sounds
> like marx, yes? the inefficiency of the capitalist system, with
> everybody out there butting heads going after the same dollars?
Well, more like simple arithmatics. I calculated towards the same goal
you did a couple of posts ago.
> I do not
> want to get Mr. Burdick's cat upset, but that waste appears to be the
> cost of optimal overall performance.
>
> So why is capitalist competitive waste more effective than Linux user
> waste at producing value? Because there are dollars changing hands in
> the former?
>
> Yeltsin, schmeltsin, everyone is moving to a market system. Human nature
> laughs at Marx and Stallman and others who try to strongarm people into
> behaving a certain way.
>
> My theory is that "information is everything". When you start imposing
> dreamy utopian ideals, information gets lost. The state sets prices and
> production levels in a planned economy, and information on demand is
> lost until a year later one looks in the warehouse or sees lines on the
> streets.
>
> Show me the bits!
Yes, well my point was that something like what linux is today is
actually the product of your typical capitalistic market forces. To
much companies have to much to gain by a free and open operating
system. e.g. Stallman is getting help from the devil.
Greets,
Ties
"Ties Stuij" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> Yes, well my point was that something like what linux is today is
> actually the product of your typical capitalistic market forces. To
> much companies have to much to gain by a free and open operating
> system. e.g. Stallman is getting help from the devil.
The capitalistic entities are not the devil. Communism is the devil.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Kitty like plastic.
Confuses for litter box.
Don't leave tarp around.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> "Ties Stuij" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> > Yes, well my point was that something like what linux is today is
> > actually the product of your typical capitalistic market forces. To
> > much companies have to much to gain by a free and open operating
> > system. e.g. Stallman is getting help from the devil.
>
> The capitalistic entities are not the devil. Communism is the devil.
haha, yes well it all depends on your point of view i guess and how
strongly you believe in your belief and if you believe in the devil. I
didn't want to spark a capitalism / communism debate, i didn't even
touch on the topic of communism as far as i know; i just wanted to
hilight the irony.
Greets,
Ties
"Ties Stuij" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> As i stated above, there is a difference between your own benifit and
> that of society. Failing to see the distinction is something you seem
> to trip over in my opinion.
In general, it is probably better to assume that people will act for
their individual benefit as they see it rather than for some abstract
benefit to society. Capitalism works where socialism fails for this
reason.
One thing to keep in mind is that Free Software exists in a Free
Market economy. People or other entities will vote with their
checkbook when given the chance. So long as the Free Market exists,
things will sort themselves out even though there will be bubbles.
As far as the value of programmer time goes, that will always exist.
There is a finite supply of knowledgeable programmers. Such people
will always be able to derive a decent hourly rate based on the fact
that there will always be something a single expert programmer can do
that ten inept programmers could never do even as a team.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Yeltsin, schmeltsin, everyone is moving to a market system. Human nature
> laughs at Marx and Stallman and others who try to strongarm people into
> behaving a certain way.
It's 2006; I think they now spell communist as "terrorist". ;)
Before we start indulging in rumors, Stallman believes that US-style
capitalism has resulted in "a lot of social mobility", and does not
believe that a stagnant class system is "a necessary aspect of
capitalism."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9350
I expect his notion of capitalism is much like the US State
Department's:
"If the pure capitalism described by Marx ever existed, it has long
since disappeared, as governments in the United States and many other
countries have intervened in their economies to limit concentrations of
power and address many of the social problems associated with unchecked
private commercial interests. As a result, the American economy is
perhaps better described as a 'mixed' economy, with government playing
an important role along with private enterprise."
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap2.htm
Hence, we have things like Lisp and the internet subsidized on the
public dime; Common Lisp itself was formed to wrest government subsidy
away from Interlisp, as I recall from Gabriel/Steele's hopl2-uncut.
As a pure guess, based on my limited conversation with Stallman, he'd
want an alternative to state-granted monopolies like copyright; for
example, maybe the state should continue funding software dev in order
to increase the economy's overall efficiency, rather than maintain a
system where people are forbidden by the state to copy the infinitely
copyable. Again, just a guess.
Tayssir
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Ties Stuij wrote:
>> Sure you're not trolling kenny?
>> some points:
>> the first sentence on the homepage of the fsf:
>> Free software is a matter of liberty not price. You should think of
>> "free" as in "free speech".
>
> I don't think it works that way.
It's their project, and their ideology. They get to define
the terms in whatever way they like. They do so right up front,
to make sure there is no misunderstanding.
Why do you persist in pretending they're either hypocrites or
deluded? Why do you persist in manufacturing a misunderstanding?
You may not believe what RMS believes, but you are making a mistake
in thinking him stupid or hypocritical. He's been putting his money
where his mouth his for decades.
You want to attack free software, go ahead, but as long as you keep
harping on the "free beer" aspect, you'll just get ignored---you're
committing a category error.
--ap
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <4WMug.1$mQ.0@fe12.lga>
Alain Picard wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Ties Stuij wrote:
>>
>>>Sure you're not trolling kenny?
>>>some points:
>>>the first sentence on the homepage of the fsf:
>>>Free software is a matter of liberty not price. You should think of
>>>"free" as in "free speech".
>>
>>I don't think it works that way.
>
>
> It's their project, and their ideology.
The "it" was ambiguous, and you guessed wrong at it. It was clarified I
thought in the next sentence, but you did not quote it. Maybe you did
not read it either. It implied one quote does not change another. The
manifesto says software should be free. As in money. Deal with it. Or
maybe you have not read it? Then it is your fault.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
Don't stop before the FAQ:
"Won't programmers starve?
"I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us
cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else."
Stupid is as stupid writes. And note that it /is/ about the money, no
matter how well your brain has been washed of this evidence of the
obvious intent of the FSF.
Now please go read the Manifesto FAQ for more pearls, like the one where
programmers should get paid the same as sales clerks, and tell me again
that it is not about the money. All you are proving is that the FSF
propaganda machine is successfully keeping you from recognizing RMS's
intent, even though the Manifesto and FAQ are right out there for anyone
with an operative brain to read. And it really is funny stuff, so don't
miss it.
Now I gotta go stand on the corner and make faces to get some lunch money.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> "I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us
> cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
> faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
> standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else."
>
> Stupid is as stupid writes. And note that it /is/ about the money, no
> matter how well your brain has been washed of this evidence of the
> obvious intent of the FSF.
For those who don't have time, RMS's immediate next sentences are: "But
that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit
assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot
possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing."
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
> Now please go read the Manifesto FAQ for more pearls, like the one where
> programmers should get paid the same as sales clerks,
In that single paragraph, he claimed they would in practice "make
considerably more" money than sales clerks: "Probably programming will
not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an
argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that
sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made
the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In practice they
would still make considerably more than that.)"
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
Keeping us on our toes, Ken? ;)
Tayssir
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <3dTug.23$MU1.19@fe11.lga>
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>"I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us
>>cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
>>faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
>>standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else."
>>
>>Stupid is as stupid writes. And note that it /is/ about the money, no
>>matter how well your brain has been washed of this evidence of the
>>obvious intent of the FSF.
>
>
> For those who don't have time,
Au contraire your conclusion below, i encourage everyone to go read the
full manifesto and the full FAQ for themselves. Tayssir, you find
something equivocal in this?:
"If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU,
but that's tough on you."
OK, so they /are/ putting people out of business. Surprise, surprise.
Any doubt? Substitute "a Lisp compiler" and you have RMS pleading "nolo
contendere" to my original rant. Questions?
Some more gems:
"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."
Ouch. I better watch my back. I wonder what the FSF is going to do, put
a fatwah (?) on my head?
> RMS's immediate next sentences are: "But
> that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit
> assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot
> possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing."
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
And before that: "Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the
new basis as it is now." So it /is/ about money. Surprise!
I love that bit. "Oh, no, it's OK, there is probably some way for you to
make a few cents... I know! You can work in a Java shop!" That sucking
sound you hear is freedom going out the window.
Any doubt? try:
"However, there are plenty of ways that programmers could make a living
without selling the right to use a program. This way is customary now
because it brings programmers and businessmen the most money,..."
Ya think. Boy, RMS /is/ smart!
Still fuzzy for you?: "Pay for programmers will not disappear, only
become less. "
Hmmm. Apparently it is about money.
OK, so what we have learned is that the money-neutral FSF drives
companies out of business and enslaves programmers by forcing them to
give away their code, or be hunted down and punished.
Now of course most of us did not need the manifesto to tell us that, but
it helps to be able to rub the noses of FSF defenders in those words.
The FSF has propagandized migthily to change the tune to "free speech"
because it is so much better "spin" and because the actual consequences
of FSF policies are so odious.
>
>
>>Now please go read the Manifesto FAQ for more pearls, like the one where
>>programmers should get paid the same as sales clerks,
>
>
> In that single paragraph, he claimed they would in practice "make
> considerably more" money than sales clerks: "Probably programming will
> not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an
> argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that
> sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made
> the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In practice they
> would still make considerably more than that.)"
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
>
> Keeping us on our toes, Ken? ;)
Well at least you read it. :)
But sorry, there is no saving grace in that. All he is saying is that a
programmer will do better than a clerk because of supply and demand. But
RMS heartily acknowledges (see add'l quotes above) that programmers
will make less than they would if kept code proprietary and licensed its
use in rational market economic ways. Why? Because in the free market
the product of my Lisp labor would have more value than I can get by
giving it away and taking a job writing java in tall buildings. (/That/
is freedom?!) So? So I am for some reason giving away the valuable
product of my labor. But for some unspecified reason I am allowed to
charge more for that labor than can a sales clerk because my skills are
more scarce. ie, I have control over my labor, but somehow it is not
destructive to society if I exercise that control to hold out for more
money than a sales clerk. So....
...Stallman is an idiot? Nothing wrong with that, I am glad for the
company. Just can't believe so many people think they are getting
something for "free" when in fact all the FSF does is cripple the
economics of the software industry and cost all of us better tools.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> > For those who don't have time,
>
> Au contraire your conclusion below, i encourage everyone to go read the
> full manifesto and the full FAQ for themselves. Tayssir, you find
> something equivocal in this?:
I might not agree with the argumentation you use, but that's a
different question from how I evaluate your main point. I realize that
our economic system has certain holes that we patch up in certain
ways... which force unfortunate tradeoffs like the ones you mention.
On one hand, it's freakish when software business models depend on
outlawing the copying of the infinitely copyable.
On the other, certain forms of useful work aren't compensated by
markets, and may even be against your economic interests.
But the issue is complicated by other factors, such as the lock-in of
network effects.
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> On one hand, it's freakish when software business models depend on
> outlawing the copying of the infinitely copyable.
To be fair, this is true of other businesses too. Should Intel be
required to publish to the world their VHDL before they're allowed to
sell chips? Should a company that invents an AIDS drug only be allowed
to sell it at commodity prices, disregarding the cost of the decades of
research and development and testing that went into it? Should the
author of a textbook be paid more than the cost of the paper and ink?
There are lots of valuable things that are infinitely copyable and that
wouldn't get invented if the cost of the design wasn't included in the
price. It's not freakish. It is, in some cases, the only way to get
something you want. Sadly, humans must eat.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>> On one hand, it's freakish when software business models depend on
>> outlawing the copying of the infinitely copyable.
>
> To be fair, this is true of other businesses too. Should Intel be
> required to publish to the world their VHDL before they're allowed to
> sell chips?
Of course. Then you could know before buying their processors, whether
they can divide or not.
> Should a company that invents an AIDS drug only be allowed to sell
> it at commodity prices, disregarding the cost of the decades of
> research and development and testing that went into it?
> Should the author of a textbook be paid more than the cost of the
> paper and ink?
Most authors are paid much less than the cost of paper and ink.
> There are lots of valuable things that are infinitely copyable and
> that wouldn't get invented if the cost of the design wasn't included
> in the price. It's not freakish. It is, in some cases, the only way to
> get something you want. Sadly, humans must eat.
Which is provided by the work of 1-5% of the workers.
Or said otherwise, you'd have to work only one day a month to provide
for food. All the rest is to pay taxes and things you could just copy
freely like programs and movies, and that people would do anyway, once
they get their food, just for fun.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to certain suggested
versions of the Grand Unified Theory, the primary particles
constituting this product may decay to nothingness within the next
four hundred million years.
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> And before that: "Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the
> new basis as it is now." So it /is/ about money. Surprise!
No, if it were 'about money,' then the manifesto would say things like,
'programming must not be as lucrative...as it is now.' The reading I
get is that the FSF wants users to have freedom, and doesn't care too
much about the negative consequences, believing that freedom is a
positive moral good.
> OK, so what we have learned is that the money-neutral FSF drives
> companies out of business
No, it just doesn't care if they go out of business. I don't
particularly care that salve traders were put out of business either.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of
the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms. --Samuel Adams, brewer and patriot
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>>"I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us
>>>cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
>>>faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
>>>standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else."
>>>
>>>Stupid is as stupid writes. And note that it /is/ about the money, no
>>>matter how well your brain has been washed of this evidence of the
>>>obvious intent of the FSF.
>> For those who don't have time,
>
> Au contraire your conclusion below, i encourage everyone to go read
> the full manifesto and the full FAQ for themselves. Tayssir, you find
> something equivocal in this?:
>
> "If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like
> GNU, but that's tough on you."
>
> OK, so they /are/ putting people out of business. Surprise,
> surprise. Any doubt? Substitute "a Lisp compiler" and you have RMS
> pleading "nolo contendere" to my original rant. Questions?
Let me see. BeOS was rejected from Apple in favor of GNU?
No, in favor of BSD. Not exactly FSF's fault.
What OS constructor lost in favor of GNU/Hurd? It's even not finished yet!
Note that Linux is not under GPL.
> [...]
> But sorry, there is no saving grace in that. All he is saying is that
> a programmer will do better than a clerk because of supply and
> demand. But RMS heartily acknowledges (see add'l quotes above) that
> programmers will make less than they would if kept code proprietary
> and licensed its use in rational market economic ways. Why?
Because he's wrong. Freedom software gives more work opportunities to
more programmers, because users are free to choose whoever to work on
their programs, because more hardware documentation is provided, so
more software can be developed for more hardware. etc.
> [...]
> ...Stallman is an idiot? Nothing wrong with that, I am glad for the
> company. Just can't believe so many people think they are getting
> something for "free" when in fact all the FSF does is cripple the
> economics of the software industry and cost all of us better tools.
Perhaps we'd need hard data backup (anyone has the IP of the gateway
to parallel universes?), but it seems to me the software industry is
much better today with freedom software than it was twenty years ago
with only proprietary software. (Not mentionning that it didn't
prevent the _users_ to get involved in contraband of proprietary
software, which didn't give work to programmers (but the
copy-protection programmers and breakers).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
In a World without Walls and Fences,
who needs Windows and Gates?
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86bqrnrikb.fsf@panix.com>
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>> ...Stallman is an idiot? Nothing wrong with that, I am glad for the
>> company. Just can't believe so many people think they are getting
>> something for "free" when in fact all the FSF does is cripple the
>> economics of the software industry and cost all of us better tools.
>
> Perhaps we'd need hard data backup (anyone has the IP of the gateway
> to parallel universes?), but it seems to me the software industry is
> much better today with freedom software than it was twenty years ago
> with only proprietary software.
Quite. Kenny is hypothesizing about the displacement effect, but the
evidence so far seems to be against his thesis. If one were to find
several promising tools and/or systems that vanished solely because
they could not compete with free software, then he might have a
point.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> If one were to find several promising tools and/or systems that
> vanished solely because they could not compete with free software,
> then he might have a point.
Were I to go looking, I'd start in the source/revision control system
market, though "vanished" is probably stronger than the reality.
--
Steven E. Harris
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <8664hv6fhw.fsf@panix.com>
"Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
>> If one were to find several promising tools and/or systems that
>> vanished solely because they could not compete with free software,
>> then he might have a point.
>
> Were I to go looking, I'd start in the source/revision control system
> market, though "vanished" is probably stronger than the reality.
Um... as far as I know, Clearcase and Perforce seem to be doing quite
well. Did you have something else in mind?
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Did you have something else in mind?
Yes, but I don't have any data to back up my suspicion. Since you
asked, though, consider BitKeeper and sourcegear Vault. Were it not
for the proliferation of free (and experimental) alternatives, these
are two among many other struggling competitors that would have a lot
more customers.
But perhaps we can make the same point about editors like SlickEdit
v. Emacs or maybe Eclipse. Yes, the company is still there selling the
product, but, given the condition of the market, it's hard to imagine
(or sympathize with) the mindset of the customers.
--
Steven E. Harris
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86u05f4yfr.fsf@panix.com>
"Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
>> Did you have something else in mind?
>
> Yes, but I don't have any data to back up my suspicion. Since you
> asked, though, consider BitKeeper and sourcegear Vault. Were it not
> for the proliferation of free (and experimental) alternatives, these
> are two among many other struggling competitors that would have a lot
> more customers.
But the very fact that Clearcase and Perforce are able to sell their
products is enough to negate the notion that one cannot compete with
free products. I'm not familiar with the sourcegear Vault story, but
there certainly are other externalities with the BitKeeper story that
contributed to their struggles.
Displacement effect still unproven.
> But perhaps we can make the same point about editors like SlickEdit
> v. Emacs or maybe Eclipse. Yes, the company is still there selling the
> product, but, given the condition of the market, it's hard to imagine
> (or sympathize with) the mindset of the customers.
If SlickEdit offered something much more compelling than Emacs, then
they should be able to sell it.
Actually, contrary to Kenny's plaint, I think that the free software
phenomenon has *improved* the quality of offerings out there. For
instance, if you recall, cc on SunOS (and other Unices) were quite
stagnant for a long time. Probably all of them were built from the
original portable C compiler code base with minor tweaks here and
there. Then came gcc and by version 1.38 was the best damn C compiler
around. It was only after this that Sun and others get around to
improving their own C compilers. The debuggers followed a similar
path. Until gdb and the many GUI interfaces to it raised the bar,
none of the vendors bothered to offer better products.
The bottom line is that you are not going to be able to compete with
free software if you have nothing more to offer than what the free
software has to offer. This is a feature, not a bug.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>
>
>>>...Stallman is an idiot? Nothing wrong with that, I am glad for the
>>>company. Just can't believe so many people think they are getting
>>>something for "free" when in fact all the FSF does is cripple the
>>>economics of the software industry and cost all of us better tools.
>>
>>Perhaps we'd need hard data backup (anyone has the IP of the gateway
>>to parallel universes?), but it seems to me the software industry is
>>much better today with freedom software than it was twenty years ago
>>with only proprietary software.
>
>
> Quite. Kenny is hypothesizing about the displacement effect, but the
> evidence so far seems to be against his thesis. If one were to find
> several promising tools and/or systems that vanished solely because
> they could not compete with free software, then he might have a
> point.
How exactly do you find vanished tools? Kent will occasionally speak up
about AServe and maybe cl-http (I forget which) hurting his chances with
a similar tool. How will you identify the others, or (vastly more
challenging) those never attempted because something like FTGL or
ImageMagick or SuperCollider is freely available?
And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where
Lisp environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning
your wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by anyway.
If certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a commercial
license, maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's teeth and ease up
on their whacky licensing fees.
But nooooooooo, you geniuses have to save all that money and stagger
along with crappy tools at a third my productivity, losing all that...
oh. no, I forgot, Stallman says your time has no value. Or that you are
evil for expecting anything for that value. Super.
kenzo
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86u05fs5j2.fsf@panix.com>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where
> Lisp environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning
> your wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by
> anyway. If certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a
> commercial license, maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's
> teeth and ease up on their whacky licensing fees.
That's your hypothesis. It is unfalsifiable and unprovable. The
evidence, however, seems to completely belie it. Cf. cc vs. gcc on
Unix.
In any case, it's a poor businessperson who whines "if only the market
were ideal, I'd be incentivized to produce this amazing tool."
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
> In any case, it's a poor businessperson who whines "if only the market
> were ideal, I'd be incentivized to produce this amazing tool."
>
Ah, but your overlooking the need that some people have to be able to
blame their lack of wealth and success on someone rather than possibly
acknowledge they may have had a contributing part in their lack of
success - its much easier to externalise the causes for not becoming
insanely wealthy than admit you may simply just not had what was
needed.
Personally, I get great comfort knowing that most of those who worship
financial wealth over all else usually end up disappointed, despite the fact it
gives the false illusion life is somehow fair and we get what we deserve.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
>>
>> In any case, it's a poor businessperson who whines "if only the market
>> were ideal, I'd be incentivized to produce this amazing tool."
>>
>
> Ah, but your overlooking the need that some people have to be able to
> blame their lack of wealth and success on someone rather than possibly
> acknowledge they may have had a contributing part in their lack of
> success - its much easier to externalise the causes for not becoming
> insanely wealthy than admit you may simply just not had what was
> needed.
Ok. But having so many scapegoats misleading. Couldn't we agree
worldwide on one distinguished scapegoat? I'd propose Pluto, the
planet. It's the Pluto's fault. So when we get really badly
vindicatory, we can build spaceships to go there attack Pluto.
"Earth Attacks!"
> Personally, I get great comfort knowing that most of those who worship
> financial wealth over all else usually end up disappointed, despite the fact it
> gives the false illusion life is somehow fair and we get what we deserve.
>
> Tim
>
> --
> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any use of this product, in any
manner whatsoever, will increase the amount of disorder in the
universe. Although no liability is implied herein, the consumer is
warned that this process will ultimately lead to the heat death of
the universe.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>
>> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>>
>>> In any case, it's a poor businessperson who whines "if only the market
>>> were ideal, I'd be incentivized to produce this amazing tool."
>>>
>> Ah, but your overlooking the need that some people have to be able to
>> blame their lack of wealth and success on someone rather than possibly
>> acknowledge they may have had a contributing part in their lack of
>> success - its much easier to externalise the causes for not becoming
>> insanely wealthy than admit you may simply just not had what was
>> needed.
>
> Ok. But having so many scapegoats misleading. Couldn't we agree
> worldwide on one distinguished scapegoat? I'd propose Pluto, the
> planet. It's the Pluto's fault. So when we get really badly
> vindicatory, we can build spaceships to go there attack Pluto.
>
> "Earth Attacks!"
No, I think we can all agree that it's Canada's fault:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blame_Canada
Ken Tilton wrote:
(I really should let this pass)
<snipped>
> And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where
> Lisp environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning
> your wheels on free Lisps.
Exactly who is spinning their wheels? Lisp newbies
will spin their wheels no matter which lisp (free
or commercial) they are using.
Your entire argument is based on the premise
that using the free offerings gives one 1/3 the
productivity of usage of the commercial offerings,
but you have produced no data to prove this point.
I wish some experienced lispers with recent experience
of both the free and commercial lisps will chime in
here and tell us their productivity with each.
Hmm? Please? :-)
As a lisp newbie myself, I can assure you that
the lack of traction comes from the newness of the
language, not because clisp[1], for example, lacks
anything.
I did download a trial lispworks *after* trying
clisp for a while, but I personally found
Lispworks more difficult to use than clisp
+ emacs. At that point I was still green enough
to be having errors with defun.
goose,
[1] The best example I can think of is clisp.
It just worked(tm) for me, and was nifty enough
that I actually considered using it as a shell
at one point.
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> [...]
> And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where
> Lisp environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning
> your wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by
> anyway. If certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a
> commercial license, maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's
> teeth and ease up on their whacky licensing fees.
>
> But nooooooooo, you geniuses have to save all that money and stagger
> along with crappy tools at a third my productivity, losing all
> that... oh. no, I forgot, Stallman says your time has no value. Or
> that you are evil for expecting anything for that value. Super.
Ah ah! So it's all about the money! You're angry with us, because
Allegro is too expensive for you? You should speak to your
representant and have him push for a law to make Allegro Lisp
mandatory to any voting citizen! Then it could have it even cheaper
than MS-Windows.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Nobody can fix the economy. Nobody can be trusted with their finger
on the button. Nobody's perfect. VOTE FOR NOBODY.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>[...]
>>And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where
>>Lisp environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning
>>your wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by
>>anyway. If certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a
>>commercial license, maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's
>>teeth and ease up on their whacky licensing fees.
>>
>>But nooooooooo, you geniuses have to save all that money and stagger
>>along with crappy tools at a third my productivity, losing all
>>that... oh. no, I forgot, Stallman says your time has no value. Or
>>that you are evil for expecting anything for that value. Super.
>
>
> Ah ah! So it's all about the money!
Do I detect progress?!
> You're angry with us, because
> Allegro is too expensive for you?
Apparently not. I bought a license, and it may well be the best money i
ever spent. It cost a lot, but unlike you I am a serious software
developer, so given my productivity with it, it cost me relative chump
change. And that is puh-re-cisely the formula you and your fellow false
economists will never parse.
> You should speak to your
> representant and have him push for a law to make Allegro Lisp
> mandatory to any voting citizen!
Super. Then ACL would not install painlessly, nor ask me if it should
update itself automatically and how often, nor would I have patches
within 24hrs of a bug/feature report. Nor would it come with a (now)
astonishing project manager, nor a kazillion other features the yobbos
will never deliver with their "free" Slime toy. :)
Buh-rilliant.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where
>>>Lisp environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning
>>>your wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by
>>>anyway. If certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a
>>>commercial license, maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's
>>>teeth and ease up on their whacky licensing fees.
>>>
>>>But nooooooooo, you geniuses have to save all that money and stagger
>>>along with crappy tools at a third my productivity, losing all
>>>that... oh. no, I forgot, Stallman says your time has no value. Or
>>>that you are evil for expecting anything for that value. Super.
>> Ah ah! So it's all about the money!
>
> Do I detect progress?!
>
>> You're angry with us, because
>> Allegro is too expensive for you?
>
> Apparently not. I bought a license, and it may well be the best money
> i ever spent. It cost a lot, but unlike you I am a serious software
> developer, so given my productivity with it, it cost me relative chump
> change. And that is puh-re-cisely the formula you and your fellow
> false economists will never parse.
So you're successful developing and selling proprietary software,
using proprietary tools. Good for you.
Where and how did RMS impede your financial success?
If you were bankrupt after having bought Allegro, with a nice
proprietary application that you couldn't sell because the customers
would choose a GPL'ed clone, perhaps we could give a compationnate
ear. But we've never seen such a case.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the
consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to
exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where Lisp
> environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning your
> wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by anyway. If
> certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a commercial license,
> maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's teeth and ease up on their
> whacky licensing fees.
IMO this would only work if there would be no free alternatives for other
languages around. Given that gcc and others exist I'm pretty sure that CL
would be completely dead without the free options.
> But nooooooooo, you geniuses have to save all that money and stagger along
> with crappy tools at a third my productivity, losing all that... oh. no, I
> forgot, Stallman says your time has no value. Or that you are evil for
> expecting anything for that value. Super.
(I bought an ACL license and use it in parallel with CMUCL/SBCL.)
Nicolas.
Nicolas Neuss wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where Lisp
>> environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning your
>> wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by anyway. If
>> certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a commercial license,
>> maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's teeth and ease up on their
>> whacky licensing fees.
>
> IMO this would only work if there would be no free alternatives for other
> languages around. Given that gcc and others exist I'm pretty sure that CL
> would be completely dead without the free options.
I have to confirm that. If there were no SBCL and friends many people
including me would never even consider taking a glance at lisp. And the
only way to keep lisp alive is getting new people to learn it.
Perhups somewhere in the future I will consider a commercial Lisp
implementation for some project but currently that is not an option. The
commercial implementations do not support ARM or M16C microcontrollers.
(or have I missed something?) the only alternative is to port a free (as
in freedom) implementation of lisp to that architectures or take one
that already has support for them (clisp for example has ARM support but
M16C is still missing).
I can only say hail free software. :)
Cheers esden
Nicolas Neuss wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where Lisp
>> environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning your
>> wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by anyway. If
>> certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a commercial license,
>> maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's teeth and ease up on their
>> whacky licensing fees.
>
> IMO this would only work if there would be no free alternatives for other
> languages around. Given that gcc and others exist I'm pretty sure that CL
> would be completely dead without the free options.
I have to confirm that. If there were no SBCL and friends many people
including me would never even consider taking a glance at lisp. And the
only way to keep lisp alive is getting new people to learn it.
Perhups somewhere in the future I will consider a commercial Lisp
implementation for some project but currently that is not an option. The
commercial implementations do not support ARM or M16C microcontrollers.
(or have I missed something?) the only alternative is to port a free (as
in freedom) implementation of lisp to that architectures or take one
that already has support for them (clisp for example has ARM support but
M16C is still missing).
I know my implementation examples are all more or less common lisp.
Perhaps there are other non common lisp lisps that support that
architectures. But I have not found them yet.
I can only say hail free software. :)
Cheers esden
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uwta5nmgs.fsf_-_@nhplace.com>
[I've boldly changed the header rather than have this intertwined with
an unrelated discussion. IMO it's worth the community periodically
confronting this as a integrated part of language issues, since the
question always exists at the end of developing a piece of software:
how do I deploy it, not just technically but commercially. As such,
I don't think this thread is off-topic. If you do, feel free
to ignore the thread.]
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> > Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> >
> >>>...Stallman is an idiot? Nothing wrong with that, I am glad for the
> >>>company. Just can't believe so many people think they are getting
> >>>something for "free" when in fact all the FSF does is cripple the
> >>>economics of the software industry and cost all of us better tools.
> >>
> >>Perhaps we'd need hard data backup (anyone has the IP of the gateway
> >>to parallel universes?), but it seems to me the software industry is
> >>much better today with freedom software than it was twenty years ago
> >>with only proprietary software.
I don't know who said that, nor why they think this.
The "software industry" is a commercial enterprise. A commercial
enterprise makes money on something one competitor can do that another
cannot. If Food Company A has seven ovens Company B has five, then
Company A has a strategic advantage. But if both have five, and you
buy five more for each compahy, then probably Company A and Company B
cannot make a dime more than they could before. The price of food may
come down, but Company A and Company B are not any better off. That's
how it is with free software. Free software adds to what programs can
do, but it doesn't add to the "industry" at all. The industry simply
can't afford not to use every piece of free software offering it's given,
and consequently will
(a) mostly never develop any other way of solving that problem
[because the cost of developing an alternate solution is non-zero
and the economic system already models the cost of dealing with
that problem as "zero" so has no more money to devote to that]
(b) mostly will require more complex solutions to problems in order
to make money (this will put uneducated workers out of business
since they can't compete, will force re-education of moderately
educated workers just to keep up with the economy at current levels).
Does it benefit the end-user? Yes and no. It kills competition on the
underlying issue, so if they like the free component that everyone now
depends on, then it helps them. If they wish someone would develop
an alternative, they may wait forever. And if someone ever creates a
better one just to be nice, will that person be rewarded? No, only the
people who deploy it will get the credit, and they'll have to pass
none of it along to users. Is that freedom? Not in my book.
Is it an engine for innovation? Not in my book. It works really well
at the beginning when the people motivated by a mistaken view that
the pre-existing system (the one that rewards innnovators) is still in
place are still cranking out new products... but when those people fall
off and everyone realizes the only place to make money is working for
big business, and that the little guy can no longer make anything on
his own, I don't think anyone's going to like it. But by then it will
be too late. If it's not already. Mostly, I think it's too late already.
The damage is done and I don't see forces in place to repair it.
> > Quite. Kenny is hypothesizing about the displacement effect, but the
> > evidence so far seems to be against his thesis. If one were to find
> > several promising tools and/or systems that vanished solely because
> > they could not compete with free software, then he might have a
> > point.
>
> How exactly do you find vanished tools? Kent will occasionally speak
> up about AServe and maybe cl-http (I forget which) hurting his chances
> with a similar tool. How will you identify the others, or (vastly more
> challenging) those never attempted because something like FTGL or
> ImageMagick or SuperCollider is freely available?
My sense had been that CL-HTTP didn't hurt my chances because its
intellectual property pedigree was questionable enough that no one I
knew was willing to incorporate it into a commercial product. Also,
CL-HTTP was more heavyweight than many wanted, and so even if the
IP issue wasn't the key problem, it didn't seem to be catching on
in the commercial world enough that I felt it was a threat.
I actually just wanted to write a book on using Lisp in commercial
settings but I felt there was a major gap in that there was no web
server. Rather than write the book, I made what I now regard as a bad
business decision to spend my time and money on the web server
instead. Just as I was nearing completion, with no hint that it had
been on the horizon, AServe was published. This meant my valuable
time that could have been spent on a book had been squandered, and my
time that had been spent on the web server was no longer valuable.
I would not have begrudged any entry to the market in which the web
server had sought to recover its development costs. I don't know what
anyone else would have spent developing a server, but I figured they'd
either spent more and gotten more power (in which case I could hit a
lower price point and offer less) or they'd spent less and gotten less
(in which case I could occupy a higher-end). But zero has the special
multiplicative property that it's hard to compete with. Free software
is the Limit Commodity.
Moreover, as a result of this, HyperMeta was effectively dead in the
water as a software developer. It still exists, but it turned to
consulting, but the consulting never achieved sufficient revenue to
produce interesting software. What Stallman's story about commercial
software overcharging the community neglects is: (a) normal
competition already brings prices down pretty fast to a reasonable
price and (b) some degree of profit is necessary to a business in
order to allow people to live (health care, vacation, etc) and to
yield new offerings (you have to invest not only in things that might
profit, but things that might fail).
So, you're free to conclude that there's nothing interesting I might
have ever produced if I'd been given enough money to do so. But if
you think I've ever had an interesting idea that it might have been fun
to see me pursue, then it's not a huge stretch to say that the
introduction of Aserve led directly to my not getting to explore the
other ideas I might have had for how to go interesting places with
web-based Lisps in future releases. Why should I bother? The culture
has spoken clearly: We don't want innovation--not if it costs us a dime.
We want to pay ONLY for specific solutions to specific problems that
business wants solved, and as far as individual personally driven
creativity, we will operate at every point to sabotage the chances
of anyone making a buck. ... all in the supposed name of freedom.
And you're free to conclude that I'm just whining about lost money, but
I'm not. I didn't make the money I thought I should have, and indeed
that annoys me. But what really annoys me is my lack of ability to BUY
the software I want, because now I can only buy from BIG BUSINESS.
I can HOPE that free software will develop what I want, but I can't
make it happen without funding the entire development--something I
can't afford.
I can HOPE that big business will develop what I want, but they mostly
care about things the community at large wants, and they won't invest
in niche markets like, say, productivity tools for smart programmers.
There's more money in "yet another realplayer clone" because there are
ways that the intellectual property channels or advertising channels can
be leveraged.
I can develop it myself at enormous expense since I have to do all the
work that I probably don't have time for. But then I have to give it
away and still have no hope of getting the next thing I need because
no one will reward my effort "in kind", or else I can try to sell it
and wait for a "free software sniper" to re-implement it and try to
undercut me for no other reason than to make sure I don't make back my
investment or... shudder... make enough profit that I could afford to
try inventing something else that's cool.
So what really bugs me is not that I can't sell innovative things,
it's that I can't buy them. Because the things I want are not being
produced any more because everyone I know who'd like to do these kinds
of things knows it's a losing proposition any more.
> And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where
> Lisp environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning
> your wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by
> anyway. If certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a
> commercial license, maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's
> teeth and ease up on their whacky licensing fees.
I agree completely.
(Which makes it a bit ironic in the context of my grumbling about AServe.
But I don't think Franz meant to sink my business with AServe--I think they
just didn't understand the full implications of what they were doing.
I like to think they've learned from that, although I don't know if they've
actually changed any policies on free software. My company certainly changed.
It started out hoping to create and license interesting software, and has
largely abandoned the idea that it can make money that way.)
I used to have a neighbor who would sometimes cut my lawn for free
because my lawn was small compared to him and he didn't mind doing me
the favor. But I used to insist on paying him anyway. The issue
isn't the favor--favors are well-intended. It's the bookkeeping. He
can't trade a favor he's done for me to get something from someone
else. I told him, if I do something for you, I'll bill you back and
you can give me back the dollars. But if I don't, you've got the $10
that says you did something for me, and you can trade on that with
anyone, not just me.
And there's nothing wrong with making a profit because if others charge
back, they'll make their profit, too.
What free software really rewards is people who don't contribute. It
gets them a ton of stuff but requires nothing from them. Moreover, it
fails to compensate those who have contributed a great deal from people.
> But nooooooooo, you geniuses have to save all that money and stagger
> along with crappy tools at a third my productivity, losing all
> that... oh. no, I forgot, Stallman says your time has no value. Or
> that you are evil for expecting anything for that value. Super.
Indeed.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3vepp9jcf.fsf@athena.pienet>
OTOH, free software allows cost to be removed from production. It
avoids the crazy royalty fees of the Wind Rivers and Green Hills, for
example and allows the entire build technology of a piece of software to
be brought under version control. This is a direct benefit of GCC. It
also happens that the independent compiler makers lose out- which is a
drag, but there is nothing stopping them from making their products
better to compete. Sun's C compiler for example, generates considerably
faster code than gcc, handles parallelism faster, and is thus often
preferred even at $1500 a pop when I last bought it. So Sun has
invested in their C compiler to make it appealing in the face of good &
free competition. This benefits me, the customer, since I have better
products to choose from.
Wind River sells a popular embedded operating system and is running
scared from Linux in the embedded space, which is good because their
licensing policies and costs make Franz's look like a dream and they
have declined to invest in their products much over the last 5 or 6
years. Their latest OS versions fail to compel- and so Linux is on the
verge of eating their lunch to the delighted sighs of their soon to be
former customers. They could choose to make their licening terms less
onerous if they continue to languish technically- its all up to them but
their market is changing out of their control. Why should any of their
customers continue to buy their products when better, more attractive
options are available?
If the problem is the competition from free alternatives is unfair, I
can't sympathize much. They have a lot of experience in their market
and have ridden quite a tide of cash in the past. They are in a
position to adapt if they have the will to.
If the problem isn't the big companies but the individual programmers
getting their products wiped out by open source competition, I do have
some sympathy. Its akin to a manufacturer having their products copied
overseas and imported, undercutting their often minimal price. It leads
to companies going out of business and/or abandoning products. There
doesn't seem to be a good fix to this problem unfortunately and its also
pretty much impossible to stop.
OTOH there is always a drive to reduce development costs both in time
and in infrastructure. To prefer that everyone use higher-cost
solutions in their work so you can make a living writing the solutions
is fine, but why should people feel bound to continue doing so?
CNC machine tools put the manual tool products and often companies out
of business because they let their owners achieve economies of scale in
cost reduction, reduction in labor, reduction in physical plant, etc.
Why keep 100 machinists running 100 lathes when you can have 4 or 5 guys
produce the same volume of product on just a few machines? Its tough
for the machinists now out of work and for the companies that supply
their lathes but the company who's buying and paying gets to choose how
they spend their money and though some respect is due, they needn't be
bound to the preferences of their employees or suppliers.
Regards,
Gregm
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> [I've boldly changed the header rather than have this intertwined with
> an unrelated discussion. IMO it's worth the community periodically
> confronting this as a integrated part of language issues, since the
> question always exists at the end of developing a piece of software:
> how do I deploy it, not just technically but commercially. As such,
> I don't think this thread is off-topic. If you do, feel free
> to ignore the thread.]
>
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> > > Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> > >
> > >>>...Stallman is an idiot? Nothing wrong with that, I am glad for the
> > >>>company. Just can't believe so many people think they are getting
> > >>>something for "free" when in fact all the FSF does is cripple the
> > >>>economics of the software industry and cost all of us better tools.
> > >>
> > >>Perhaps we'd need hard data backup (anyone has the IP of the gateway
> > >>to parallel universes?), but it seems to me the software industry is
> > >>much better today with freedom software than it was twenty years ago
> > >>with only proprietary software.
>
> I don't know who said that, nor why they think this.
>
> The "software industry" is a commercial enterprise. A commercial
> enterprise makes money on something one competitor can do that another
> cannot.
This is an overly simplified view I think. The "software industry"
contains many players, including academia and the hobbyist, of which
*one* is 'commercial enterprise'. Commerce is not the be-all and
end-all in software. Within commercial enterprises the abilities of the
respective organisations seems often to have little to do with success
in the marketplace.
The bottom line is you have to sell people something they want (and
possibly convince them that they want it along the way in order to do
so!). People do not always want 'the best' (or if they do, are unable
to recognise it).
> If Food Company A has seven ovens Company B has five, then
> Company A has a strategic advantage. But if both have five, and you
> buy five more for each compahy, then probably Company A and Company B
> cannot make a dime more than they could before. The price of food may
> come down, but Company A and Company B are not any better off. That's
> how it is with free software. Free software adds to what programs can
> do, but it doesn't add to the "industry" at all. The industry simply
> can't afford not to use every piece of free software offering it's given,
In my experience this isn't true at all. In my day job I'm a Java
developer. I write web apps using IBM's WSAD (identical to Eclipse in
nearly every way), on a proprietary OS (Win2k) targetted at a
proprietary server platform (IBM WebSphere running on an IBM z series
mainframe). There are free alternatives to all the software at least,
and cheaper alternatives to the hardware. The business doesn't go for
the free though -- so there must be an angle here where "the industry"
CAN afford not to use every piece of free software available.
> and consequently will
> (a) mostly never develop any other way of solving that problem
> [because the cost of developing an alternate solution is non-zero
> and the economic system already models the cost of dealing with
> that problem as "zero" so has no more money to devote to that]
> (b) mostly will require more complex solutions to problems in order
> to make money (this will put uneducated workers out of business
> since they can't compete, will force re-education of moderately
> educated workers just to keep up with the economy at current levels).
Automation (of which software is a large part) exists as a commercial
endevour purely to put (usually uneducated, but in general any and all)
workers out of a job.
Do we seriously believe that commercial enterprises are too stupid to
understand Kenny's point that the cost of commercial solutions in cash
is less than the equivalent cost in employees time of using free
solutions? If this is the case then they deserve to go out of business
IMO.
> Does it benefit the end-user? Yes and no. It kills competition on the
> underlying issue, so if they like the free component that everyone now
> depends on, then it helps them. If they wish someone would develop
> an alternative, they may wait forever. And if someone ever creates a
> better one just to be nice, will that person be rewarded? No, only the
> people who deploy it will get the credit, and they'll have to pass
> none of it along to users. Is that freedom? Not in my book.
--->8--- snip AServe / HyperMeta bit --->8---
>
> So, you're free to conclude that there's nothing interesting I might
> have ever produced if I'd been given enough money to do so. But if
> you think I've ever had an interesting idea that it might have been fun
> to see me pursue, then it's not a huge stretch to say that the
> introduction of Aserve led directly to my not getting to explore the
> other ideas I might have had for how to go interesting places with
> web-based Lisps in future releases. Why should I bother? The culture
> has spoken clearly: We don't want innovation--not if it costs us a dime.
> We want to pay ONLY for specific solutions to specific problems that
> business wants solved, and as far as individual personally driven
> creativity, we will operate at every point to sabotage the chances
> of anyone making a buck. ... all in the supposed name of freedom.
>
Business will also pay for solutions to problems that it didn't realise
it wanted solved, if you can convince them they need it solving. An
additional benefit is these kinds of solutions are likely to fly under
the radar of the hobbyist for quite a while, so the market might be a
lonely place long enough for somebody to make some money there.
It's difficult to make money at the hobbyist end, agreed.
> And you're free to conclude that I'm just whining about lost money, but
> I'm not. I didn't make the money I thought I should have, and indeed
> that annoys me. But what really annoys me is my lack of ability to BUY
> the software I want, because now I can only buy from BIG BUSINESS.
>
It annoys me that there's so few different types of (desktop) computers
I can buy; that market hasn't contracted because of the hobbyist. It
annoys me that so many small breweries have been bought out, so I can
pretty much only buy beer of massive breweries; I find it frustrating
that so many car manufacturer's have gone to the wall (even if the
marques survive to some extent). This is the nature of 'the market' --
consolidation into a small number of big businesses, and a number of
small companies scraping by in the market who cater to the bespoke /
hobbyist end of the market.
I totally agree with your sentiment above, but the realist part of me
asks "what other alternative is there?". I think what you describe
would happen, sooner or later, with or without free software.
> I can HOPE that free software will develop what I want, but I can't
> make it happen without funding the entire development--something I
> can't afford.
>
> I can HOPE that big business will develop what I want, but they mostly
> care about things the community at large wants, and they won't invest
> in niche markets like, say, productivity tools for smart programmers.
> There's more money in "yet another realplayer clone" because there are
> ways that the intellectual property channels or advertising channels can
> be leveraged.
>
> I can develop it myself at enormous expense since I have to do all the
> work that I probably don't have time for. But then I have to give it
> away and still have no hope of getting the next thing I need because
> no one will reward my effort "in kind", or else I can try to sell it
> and wait for a "free software sniper" to re-implement it and try to
> undercut me for no other reason than to make sure I don't make back my
> investment or... shudder... make enough profit that I could afford to
> try inventing something else that's cool.
>
This may be the effect, but I seriously doubt it's the motivation.
> So what really bugs me is not that I can't sell innovative things,
> it's that I can't buy them. Because the things I want are not being
> produced any more because everyone I know who'd like to do these kinds
> of things knows it's a losing proposition any more.
The market has changed. If you're spending $80-100k on a platform, I
guess it's chump change to pay another $1-5k for these kinds of tools
for your developers (who must be smart if you're spending $100k+ on
them!). Unfortunately when the platform costs <$2k it's harder to
justify and there probably aren't enough smart developers to make money
selling them tools at $100.
The real problem here is not the hobbyists, its the fact that the
(government and commercial) money has evaporated (or moved elsewhere at
least). This is just another side-effect of the AI winter if you will.
For now at least this battle is lost.
There is a solution to this though -- unfortunately it would mean
working outside Lisp (currently).
>
> > And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where
> > Lisp environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning
> > your wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by
> > anyway. If certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a
> > commercial license, maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's
> > teeth and ease up on their whacky licensing fees.
>
> I agree completely.
>
Where would Lisp environments be now if the AI winter never happened?
Where would they be if all the hackers stayed at MIT? Where would they
be if Java had never happened and more people actually used Lisp
instead? How about if Symbolics hadn't seen themselves as a hardware
company and licenced the software environment at reasonable prices?
We could play this game all day...
Conversely, where would CL be without Spice Lisp? My understanding is
that this was free software, and formed the basis of lots of commercial
CL systems initially. Would anybody have picked CL up at all if not for
this free implementation? How long to get a CL to market without Spice?
Is this an example where something free acted as somewhat of a catalyst
in the market, if not an essential element?
> (Which makes it a bit ironic in the context of my grumbling about AServe.
> But I don't think Franz meant to sink my business with AServe--I think they
> just didn't understand the full implications of what they were doing.
> I like to think they've learned from that, although I don't know if they've
> actually changed any policies on free software. My company certainly changed.
> It started out hoping to create and license interesting software, and has
> largely abandoned the idea that it can make money that way.)
>
> I used to have a neighbor who would sometimes cut my lawn for free
> because my lawn was small compared to him and he didn't mind doing me
> the favor. But I used to insist on paying him anyway. The issue
> isn't the favor--favors are well-intended. It's the bookkeeping. He
> can't trade a favor he's done for me to get something from someone
> else. I told him, if I do something for you, I'll bill you back and
> you can give me back the dollars. But if I don't, you've got the $10
> that says you did something for me, and you can trade on that with
> anyone, not just me.
>
> And there's nothing wrong with making a profit because if others charge
> back, they'll make their profit, too.
It's not possible for *everybody* to make a profit. Somebody,
somewhere, has to pay (or do) and make a *loss* (perform a service or
sell goods for 'less than they're worth') in order for the economy to
work.
>
> What free software really rewards is people who don't contribute. It
> gets them a ton of stuff but requires nothing from them. Moreover, it
> fails to compensate those who have contributed a great deal from people.
>
Not only. Yes, people who don't contribute benefit (but they can then
contribute to other parts of the economy instead). Whether the
contributors are compensated or not is kind of in the eye of the
beholder I guess (bearing in mind hobbyist recompense is not necessary
of the dollar value kind).
> > But nooooooooo, you geniuses have to save all that money and stagger
> > along with crappy tools at a third my productivity, losing all
> > that... oh. no, I forgot, Stallman says your time has no value. Or
> > that you are evil for expecting anything for that value. Super.
>
You don't understand the concept of a hobby, do you? :-) The fact
(obviously disputable) that in this case the hobby destroys the market
is an unfortunate side-effect that the market (and marketeers) will
have to learn to live with somehow I guess.
-Duncan
> Indeed.
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
> It's not possible for *everybody* to make a profit. Somebody,
> somewhere, has to pay (or do) and make a *loss* (perform a service or
> sell goods for 'less than they're worth') in order for the economy to
> work.
No, no, no. Not at all. The very basis of trading goods is that both
parties do it willingly, in order to be better off. Your profit does
not imply my loss.
For the full motivation of how this can be, I'll have to refer you to
the field of microeconomics, but to sketch how it's possible, note
that you and I do not have identical preferences. Another way of
expressing it is that 'worth' is not absolute, but in the eye of the
beholder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_subjectivism
And with that, I'll re-lurk.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
>> It's not possible for *everybody* to make a profit. Somebody, somewhere,
>> has to pay (or do) and make a *loss* (perform a service or sell goods for
>> 'less than they're worth') in order for the economy to work.
Thomas Lindgren <···········@*****.***> wrote on Sun, 23 Jul 2006:
> No, no, no. Not at all. The very basis of trading goods is that both
> parties do it willingly, in order to be better off. Your profit does
> not imply my loss.
Yeah, that paragraph of Duncan's caught my eye too. A little economic
education would seem to be required. Wealth actually increases over time.
Economics is not a zero-sum game.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
When the chairman introduced the guest speaker as a former illegal alien, I got
up from my chair and yelled, "What's the matter, no jobs on Mars?" When no one
laughed, I was real embarrassed. I don't think people should make you feel
that way. -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
Don Geddis wrote:
> > "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
> >> It's not possible for *everybody* to make a profit. Somebody, somewhere,
> >> has to pay (or do) and make a *loss* (perform a service or sell goods for
> >> 'less than they're worth') in order for the economy to work.
>
> Thomas Lindgren <···········@*****.***> wrote on Sun, 23 Jul 2006:
> > No, no, no. Not at all. The very basis of trading goods is that both
> > parties do it willingly, in order to be better off. Your profit does
> > not imply my loss.
>
> Yeah, that paragraph of Duncan's caught my eye too. A little economic
> education would seem to be required. Wealth actually increases over time.
> Economics is not a zero-sum game.
>
Apologies to students of economics -- my background is Physics where
nearly everything is a zero sum game.
I actually spent a long time after Thomas posted writing a response,
then cancelling, then writing another; I find it difficult to express
my feelings on the matter in terms an economist would find acceptable,
so it's probably best that I don't bother (and I don't really want to
pull the thread off in yet another direction). However (one day I'll
learn to resist such things, but I feel I will maximize my profit by
doing so (and since this isn't a zero-sum game, and you're all
profiting from this too, aren't you happy about that?)).
1. Wealth increases over time.
True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
growing. The poor are "losing" compared to the rich more than they were
before (ok, economists would call this profit since in objective terms
the poorer are getting richer. I tend to think relative comparison is a
more realistic measure however).
This isn't only measured in hard cash terms; also in mortality rates,
access to health care, access to clean and healthy food (even access to
clean water, for many), and every other metric you can think of. These
things I think should also be included in any 'profit and loss' model.
2. 'everybody profits' seems to require 'everybody has choice'. I don't
believe the latter is true so I find it hard to accept the former.
I work 35 miles from where I live; I could chose to work elsewhere, and
I might even find a job elsewhere, but for now I'm stuck with a
commute. I'd *like* to use public transport to travel -- to my mind
this enables the most people to 'profit' (and it's better for the
environment, or so we can hope). Unfortunately it takes at least 30%
longer to travel using public transport, and costs 2x the amount -- so
I take the cheaper option and join the tin-box club on the long
car-park into work. I guess that that's my choice, and I choose in a
way that maximises my 'profit', but I feel I have no realistic choice,
and this to me is a lose. The truth is I can't *afford* to use public
transport.
3. I bundle up all sorts of concepts like social justice and personal
contentment into my model of profit and loss.
I'm aware of theories on trickle-down effects etc so that even when
being gouged I'm somehow 'profiting'; and in real terms I guess I am (I
certainly live 'better' than my forefathers in 'economic' terms) but
including happiness, job security, confidence in the future (i.e. a
decent pension), even my expected mortality (which I believe is heading
downwards again) etc. etc. I can't help feeling that I'm making a loss
here.
At some point economics must explain why so many people live in poverty
(and since we're not talking about closed systems containing only
western economies here, please include 3rd world populations) when
everybody has had so long to make 'profit'. *These* are the people I
see as 'making a loss'. Are we all getting richer in economic terms?
Perhaps. Are we all actually better off overall (taking into account
all factors)? By my terms, probably not.
I can accept a definition of profit that is 'whatever I do by my own
free will' (but would argue my capacity to truly act of my own free
will is limited -- and the lower down the economic pecking order you go
the more limited it is -- and so I prefer not to use that definition).
In any future discussions I'll use the terms 'win' and 'lose' instead
of 'profit' and 'loss' until I've managed to educate myself further in
economics.
-Duncan
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> When the chairman introduced the guest speaker as a former illegal alien, I got
> up from my chair and yelled, "What's the matter, no jobs on Mars?" When no one
> laughed, I was real embarrassed. I don't think people should make you feel
> that way. -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 25 Jul 2006 03:2:
> Apologies to students of economics -- my background is Physics where
> nearly everything is a zero sum game.
You seem intelligent, educated, and interested in the topic. I bet you'd
enjoy some simple introduction to microeconomic theory. (Macroeconomic
theory, about the wealth of nations and whole economies, is a different animal.
But it sounds like you'd like microeconomics.) I recommend you grab a simple
intro book and at least skim it.
I wrote:
> 1. Wealth increases over time.
Duncan wrote:
> True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
> growing. The poor are "losing" compared to the rich more than they were
> before (ok, economists would call this profit since in objective terms
> the poorer are getting richer. I tend to think relative comparison is a
> more realistic measure however).
I won't debate this part with you, but just observe that this is a far, far
different statement than you originally said. You originally wrote:
>> It's not possible for *everybody* to make a profit. Somebody, somewhere,
>> has to pay (or do) and make a *loss* (perform a service or sell goods for
>> 'less than they're worth') in order for the economy to work.
That is expressed as though it's a law of economics ("It's not possible...").
That statement is false. It's easy to see in small examples that two (or a
few) people can possess wealth, can choose to trade with each other, and
_everybody_ will come out better (happier, richer) than they were before the
trade happened. So your original claim that someone MUST have a loss is
clearly just wrong.
But there's a long gap between that, and your new topic. For example:
1. Even if it was possible in THEORY for everybody to make a profit, that
doesn't mean that it works that way in our actual real-world economies.
No doubt there are indeed people who "make a loss" in the real economy.
2. Even if everybody made a profit, it could easily be the case that some
people made a lot more profit than others.
3. The people that made more profit might ("happen to") be the already-rich
people.
4. And the final question, for concepts of social justice, is whether one
should care about relative wealth, or absolute wealth. If "the poor"
are better off each year, but the rich are better off even more, is that
a good thing or a bad thing? Would it be a better world for there to be
less overall wealth, but for there to be a smaller gap between rich and
poor?
By the time you get to your current statements, the answers are far less clear
than they were with your original paragraph (which was simply wrong).
> This isn't only measured in hard cash terms; also in mortality rates,
> access to health care, access to clean and healthy food (even access to
> clean water, for many), and every other metric you can think of. These
> things I think should also be included in any 'profit and loss' model.
And now you've brought up another interesting wrinkle, wanting to measure
"total quality of life" instead of just liquid wealth (things of value which
can be exchanged for other things of value).
Here, let me make it even more fun for you: what if some class of people were
better off in every objective, measurable way, except: they just weren't as
happy. (This is related to your "gap between the rich and the poor" topic.)
You've heard the cliche "keeping up with the Joneses"? If finally, after ten
years, you trade in your old crappy car for a wonderful brand new car, you're
happy for a week. Then your neighbor trades in HIS old car for one that is
... slightly better than yours. You're now jealous and unhappy. Even less
happy than you were a couple weeks ago, when you both had old cars.
Is someone at fault here? Should society be restructured so that you aren't
afflicted by this jealousy (perhaps with regulations, to prevent your neighbor
from buying a better car than you buy)? Or is the fault with yourself and your
own internal psychology?
These are hard questions to answer. Here's a related anecdote:
You are walking along the street and decide to enter a store. As you
enter a siren sounds and the manager rushes up to tell you
breathlessly that you are the 99,999th customer and have just won a
$1000 cash. You are delighted. As he counts $100 bills into your
hand, someone else enters the store and the siren goes off again. It
is the 100,000th customer. "What does she win?" you ask. The
manager replies: "$100,000". How do you feel? Ecstatic at your
$1000 windfall, or cheated out of a $100,000 prize by circumstance?
If the latter, that's regret -- something you don't want to live your
life by.
> At some point economics must explain why so many people live in poverty
It's not a difficult question to resolve. Economics never says that the
world MUST get richer. Only that it is possible. World War II used up a
whole lot of world wealth, and the world as a whole was almost certainly
poorer in 1945 than it was in 1935. Some was destruction of goods and
infrastructure, some was consumption of finite bonus resources like oil.
Even leaving aside wars and famine and natural disasters, even in a regular
growing economy there is still a question of whether humans (like any other
living organism) will reproduce to the limits of their local environment to
sustain them. In any other ecosystem, talking about any other life form,
the answer is obvious: the species will grow in population size until some
external factor cuts off the growth. It may be a higher predator, it may be
fighting within the species, it may be lack of food supplies leading to death
via starvation.
But it is the TYPICAL case in an ecosystem that many individuals need to die of
something other than old age. You seem to imagine a beautiful and just society
where nobody is in pain or in need. I won't comment on whether this is
possible even in theory, but merely remark that it is against the "natural
order of things". And hence, if you wish to achieve such a society, you need
to do a lot of work to fight the natural forces that are attempting to return
to the more violent primitive state.
People living in "poverty" is how the bulk of humans lived until only the last
few centuries. Even today, if you take a very poor but large community and
toss in a bunch of free wealth, with no other changes, the main effect is that
a bit later on you have an even larger community, just as poor.
So, back to your original questions about a socially just economy, you now
ALSO need to address whether it is better to have 1000 middle-class people
live in some nice valley farmland, or 10,000 very poor people on the same
farmland. Which society would you prefer? Per-capita wealth, as a topic,
can't be separated from the topic of general population growth.
Anyway, Duncan, you seem interested in both economics and justice, but not
especially educated in either. Rather than trying to figure it all out on
your own, I bet you'd enjoy picking up a few introductory books on the subject
and seeing what other smart people have come up with in the past.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
As the evening sun faded from a salmon color to a sort of flint gray, I thought
back to the salmon I caught that morning, and how gray he was, and how I named
him Flint. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
I did already reply to this, but I haven't got my 'copy to self' so I
have to assume I failed to send it. Bah.
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 25 Jul 2006 03:2:
> > Apologies to students of economics -- my background is Physics where
> > nearly everything is a zero sum game.
>
> You seem intelligent, educated, and interested in the topic. I bet you'd
> enjoy some simple introduction to microeconomic theory. (Macroeconomic
> theory, about the wealth of nations and whole economies, is a different animal.
> But it sounds like you'd like microeconomics.) I recommend you grab a simple
> intro book and at least skim it.
>
It's added to my TODO list...
> I wrote:
> > 1. Wealth increases over time.
>
> Duncan wrote:
> > True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
> > growing. The poor are "losing" compared to the rich more than they were
> > before (ok, economists would call this profit since in objective terms
> > the poorer are getting richer. I tend to think relative comparison is a
> > more realistic measure however).
>
> I won't debate this part with you, but just observe that this is a far, far
> different statement than you originally said. You originally wrote:
>
> >> It's not possible for *everybody* to make a profit. Somebody, somewhere,
> >> has to pay (or do) and make a *loss* (perform a service or sell goods for
> >> 'less than they're worth') in order for the economy to work.
>
> That is expressed as though it's a law of economics ("It's not possible...").
I try to present statements I make (anywhere) as my opinion only; I
utterly failed to do that in this instance, for which I apologise.
> That statement is false. It's easy to see in small examples that two (or a
> few) people can possess wealth, can choose to trade with each other, and
> _everybody_ will come out better (happier, richer) than they were before the
> trade happened. So your original claim that someone MUST have a loss is
> clearly just wrong.
>
Agreed, that was phrased very poorly. I do however feel that in
monetary terms, in general, whoever is in the weaker position is likely
to 'lose out' by not maximising their return. This is a semantic
argument however, stemming from my own personal definition of 'profit'
and 'loss'.
> But there's a long gap between that, and your new topic. For example:
> 1. Even if it was possible in THEORY for everybody to make a profit, that
> doesn't mean that it works that way in our actual real-world economies.
> No doubt there are indeed people who "make a loss" in the real economy.
My interest is in the number of people who may be 'engineered to make a
loss' by the system rather than those who lose out either by their own
poor judgement or by betting on the wrong horse.
As an example (and unfortunately I now diverge from microeconomics
towards macroeconomics so the rules probably change; I think this is a
risk in any debate when one party is undereducted in the domain ;-)
consider the situation of the 'cash crop' and 3rd world countries; they
were driven to plant cash crops by the rich (the world bank and western
nations) -- crops that became worthless before generating any return
whatsoever. In addition many of these nations owe money in interest
that vastly overwhelms the original debt; it seems the rich want to be
paid fairly for lending money, and be paid again (and again, and
again). Because they wield the power, they are able to dictate their
own conditions to the detriment of the other party.
I seriously doubt those poorer nations planted cash crops of their own
free will; my guess is food would have been of more immediate use to
all concerned (well -- apart from the people that laid the rules down).
> 2. Even if everybody made a profit, it could easily be the case that some
> people made a lot more profit than others.
This isn't a problem, as long as those making less profit manage to
make 'enough' profit (for some definition of enough).
> 3. The people that made more profit might ("happen to") be the already-rich
> people.
This seems likely; it's easier to stack the deck in your favour when
you're the dealer.
> 4. And the final question, for concepts of social justice, is whether one
> should care about relative wealth, or absolute wealth. If "the poor"
> are better off each year, but the rich are better off even more, is that
> a good thing or a bad thing? Would it be a better world for there to be
> less overall wealth, but for there to be a smaller gap between rich and
> poor?
>
I consider it to be an irrelevence (if I had to choose, I'd say it was
bad; I think we should structure society in such a way that the poorer
get richer faster than the rich get richer); how much money one
posesses in dollar terms is a poor measure of wealth in my opinion. The
important thing is that 'the system' is felt to 'be fair' by all
concerned, and people's needs are met (I realise these are very vague
statements but the reason these issues are difficult to resolve is that
it is difficult to define precisely what the issues are I think).
I am concerned with the gap between rich and poor and 'relative wealth'
in so far as the weakest in society are not really benefitting by being
'better off' (since in terms of overall spending ability, they are
actually not better off since they fall lower and lower down the
'wealth' curve).
> By the time you get to your current statements, the answers are far less clear
> than they were with your original paragraph (which was simply wrong).
>
> > This isn't only measured in hard cash terms; also in mortality rates,
> > access to health care, access to clean and healthy food (even access to
> > clean water, for many), and every other metric you can think of. These
> > things I think should also be included in any 'profit and loss' model.
>
> And now you've brought up another interesting wrinkle, wanting to measure
> "total quality of life" instead of just liquid wealth (things of value which
> can be exchanged for other things of value).
>
I should have said "These things ARE included in MY 'profit and loss'
model'" instead; liquid wealth (above a certain point) does nothing to
increase 'wealth' by my definition of the term. Liquid wealth *below* a
certain level has a massive affect on 'wealth' by my definition
however.
> Here, let me make it even more fun for you: what if some class of people were
> better off in every objective, measurable way, except: they just weren't as
> happy. (This is related to your "gap between the rich and the poor" topic.)
These people are not wealthy in my mind.
> You've heard the cliche "keeping up with the Joneses"? If finally, after ten
> years, you trade in your old crappy car for a wonderful brand new car, you're
> happy for a week. Then your neighbor trades in HIS old car for one that is
> ... slightly better than yours. You're now jealous and unhappy. Even less
> happy than you were a couple weeks ago, when you both had old cars.
>
> Is someone at fault here? Should society be restructured so that you aren't
> afflicted by this jealousy (perhaps with regulations, to prevent your neighbor
> from buying a better car than you buy)? Or is the fault with yourself and your
> own internal psychology?
>
The fault is entirely with the individual who feels a superior car is a
path to happiness. We are all prone to this kind of thinking from time
to time I think (it seems to be human nature) but to be driven by it to
the extent indicated in your thought experiment is a condition of a
minority in society (I hope!).
> These are hard questions to answer. Here's a related anecdote:
>
> You are walking along the street and decide to enter a store. As you
> enter a siren sounds and the manager rushes up to tell you
> breathlessly that you are the 99,999th customer and have just won a
> $1000 cash. You are delighted. As he counts $100 bills into your
> hand, someone else enters the store and the siren goes off again. It
> is the 100,000th customer. "What does she win?" you ask. The
> manager replies: "$100,000". How do you feel? Ecstatic at your
> $1000 windfall, or cheated out of a $100,000 prize by circumstance?
> If the latter, that's regret -- something you don't want to live your
> life by.
>
Without regret there would seem to be little reason to attempt to
improve and 'do better next time'. I think regret is essential.
For the specific situation outlined however -- I'm sure my ecstacy
would be killed PDQ in this situation, but hopefully I'd be a big
enough man to still feel grateful for my gain whilst shaking the hand
of the later customer (until I'm fortunate enough to be in this
position we'll never know for sure).
> > At some point economics must explain why so many people live in poverty
>
> It's not a difficult question to resolve. Economics never says that the
> world MUST get richer. Only that it is possible. World War II used up a
> whole lot of world wealth, and the world as a whole was almost certainly
> poorer in 1945 than it was in 1935. Some was destruction of goods and
> infrastructure, some was consumption of finite bonus resources like oil.
>
I see that I confuse too many concepts; by mixing together 'economics',
'THE economy' along with 'socio-political' musings I'm unable to
coherently describe my thoughts on any individually.
I'm not convinced there's much merit in separating these things (apart
from as an intellectual exercise). They seem to be intertwined to such
an extent that without any one, all others lose meaning (if there's
one, it must be 'economics' which perhaps can be discussed in ways that
bear no resemblance to the other two).
As to the above point -- the 'human cost' of the war has been
overlooked. The world was poorer in humanitarian terms as well as in
monetary terms. I'd argue that the former is more important than the
latter.
> Even leaving aside wars and famine and natural disasters, even in a regular
> growing economy there is still a question of whether humans (like any other
> living organism) will reproduce to the limits of their local environment to
> sustain them. In any other ecosystem, talking about any other life form,
> the answer is obvious: the species will grow in population size until some
> external factor cuts off the growth. It may be a higher predator, it may be
> fighting within the species, it may be lack of food supplies leading to death
> via starvation.
>
We should be past the point where as a race we progress blindly,
following our base survival and expansionist instincts. We appear not
to be past this (unfortunately) but we (as a species), I firmly
believe, have the capacity to define the impact we will have on the
ecosystem in which we live (where eco = ecological AND economic). There
seems little interest in such forethough amongst those with the power
to enact change however (and really, why should there be? The system as
it is works in their favour in all things).
> But it is the TYPICAL case in an ecosystem that many individuals need to die of
> something other than old age. You seem to imagine a beautiful and just society
> where nobody is in pain or in need. I won't comment on whether this is
> possible even in theory, but merely remark that it is against the "natural
> order of things". And hence, if you wish to achieve such a society, you need
> to do a lot of work to fight the natural forces that are attempting to return
> to the more violent primitive state.
>
It should be possible to dispose of artificial pains and needs -- there
will always be those who will not be 'happy with their lot' (perhaps I
am one). Whatever society I imagine, it's not one that is ugly and
UNjust which I think is partially what we have currently.
> People living in "poverty" is how the bulk of humans lived until only the last
> few centuries. Even today, if you take a very poor but large community and
> toss in a bunch of free wealth, with no other changes, the main effect is that
> a bit later on you have an even larger community, just as poor.
>
This is quite a Romanised view I think; where the only wealth of any
importance is monetary (and let's face it, it's easy to measure so it's
the kind of metric you'd expect a large organisation (such as a
government) to come up with). I do not subscribe to this point of view.
I suspect that until relatively recently the bulk of humans lived on a
reasonably equal basis (impoverished by modern standards for sure, but
relative to the wealth (by any definition) available at the time, not
impoverished. Poverty is after all a relative measure -- at least it is
when *I* define it ;-).
> So, back to your original questions about a socially just economy, you now
> ALSO need to address whether it is better to have 1000 middle-class people
> live in some nice valley farmland, or 10,000 very poor people on the same
> farmland. Which society would you prefer? Per-capita wealth, as a topic,
> can't be separated from the topic of general population growth.
>
If the farmland is able to support the 10,000 then there's no problem
there. If its a choice between 1000 in a nice valley farmland or 10,000
who have turned the farmland to dust, then the 1000 is preferable. This
is about nurturing raw materials though, rather than per-capita
(monetary) wealth.
In order for *my* economy to work, there must be population control. I
don't have a problem with that although I think the very concept makes
many uncomfortable. I think if we don't PLAN to control our population,
it will be controlled on our behalf at some point in a manner we'll all
find far less comfortable (but at least we'll be able to look at each
other and say "it wasn't my fault" and "who could have seen that
coming?").
> Anyway, Duncan, you seem interested in both economics and justice, but not
> especially educated in either. Rather than trying to figure it all out on
> your own, I bet you'd enjoy picking up a few introductory books on the subject
> and seeing what other smart people have come up with in the past.
>
I'll certainly do that...
-Duncan
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> As the evening sun faded from a salmon color to a sort of flint gray, I thought
> back to the salmon I caught that morning, and how gray he was, and how I named
> him Flint. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
Duncan Rose wrote:
> I see that I confuse too many concepts; by mixing together 'economics',
> 'THE economy' along with 'socio-political' musings I'm unable to
> coherently describe my thoughts on any individually.
> I'm not convinced there's much merit in separating these things (apart
> from as an intellectual exercise). They seem to be intertwined to such
> an extent that without any one, all others lose meaning (if there's
> one, it must be 'economics' which perhaps can be discussed in ways that
> bear no resemblance to the other two).
I suspect that's what separates a "political economist" from the plain
kind... and political economists include Adam Smith, Ricardo, Marx and
Veblen, so there's some well-known company there. Economism, where
purely economic concepts dominate the discussion, often leaves many
interesting issues and assumptions dangling.
> > Anyway, Duncan, you seem interested in both economics and justice, but not
> > especially educated in either. Rather than trying to figure it all out on
> > your own, I bet you'd enjoy picking up a few introductory books on the subject
> > and seeing what other smart people have come up with in the past.
>
> I'll certainly do that...
When I was starting out with Lisp, one of the first things I asked for
was a critical, but rational intro to Lisp. One which hadn't drunk the
Kool-Aid. With econ I did the same, and since dissidents are great
resources, Chomsky glowingly recommended _The ABCs of Political
Economy_ by Robin Hahnel. I found this a very good recommendation, as
it not only covered the fundamentals that mainstream textbooks didn't,
but also did so in a modern way without polemics or
conspiracy-theorizing. It talked sensibly about things like Fed
decisionmaking and simple economic models, without fetishizing things
(as many non-mainstream texts do). Also used scare quotes ("Law" of
supply) to point out that economic principles aren't hard and fast laws
of nature.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0745318576/002-6689850-4220851
I think it has a more sound approach than the mainstream textbooks I've
read, in that to sensibly discuss an economic system (or even build a
GUI or run a business), one should have an idea of what humans are
about.
I've also found the US State Department's broad overview surprisingly
well-written; again, biased, but pretty much everything is.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap2.htm
Tayssir
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 26 Jul 2006 03:3:
> (if I had to choose, I'd say it was bad; I think we should structure
> society in such a way that the poorer get richer faster than the rich get
> richer)
This is, of course, easily possible simply by making a tax system that removes
all the excess wealth of the rich. In other words, it's trivial to drag all
the rich down to the same level as the poor, and then they'd all be equal.
Are you sure you'd prefer such a society?
(It's much, MUCH harder to raise the poor up to the same level as the current
rich.)
> I am concerned with the gap between rich and poor and 'relative wealth' in
> so far as the weakest in society are not really benefitting by being
> 'better off' (since in terms of overall spending ability, they are actually
> not better off since they fall lower and lower down the 'wealth' curve).
These are not the same things, though. I agree that just counting dollars
doesn't help much, for inflation if no other reason. We really need to track
"spending power" of some kind.
But the world really is becoming wealthier over time. Poor people in the US
typically have a roof over their heads, aren't in danger of starvation or
random neighborhood violence, can watch free TV all day long, etc. Far, far
better off than the poor in many other countries, much less the poor centuries
or millennia ago.
Of course the rich are even better off than that. But the truth is that the
poor are objectively better off today "in terms of overall spending ability",
than they were in the distant past.
> I suspect that until relatively recently the bulk of humans lived on a
> reasonably equal basis (impoverished by modern standards for sure, but
> relative to the wealth (by any definition) available at the time, not
> impoverished. Poverty is after all a relative measure -- at least it is
> when *I* define it ;-).
Ah, you've _defined_ poverty to be relative. Well then of course you make
statements that others won't agree with, since nobody else means the same thing
by that word.
Typically poverty is about things like being able to provide shelter, worrying
about where your next meal is coming from, threats of death from disease or
violence, infant mortality rates, etc.
Note that none of these things are relative. If your ancestors often starved
to death due to lack of food, but you have reliable access to enough calories
to sustain life, most people (but not you, apparently) would say that you are
less poor than your ancestors were.
Regardless of what happened to the fate of the ultra-rich during that same
period.
> In order for *my* economy to work, there must be population control. I
> don't have a problem with that although I think the very concept makes
> many uncomfortable. I think if we don't PLAN to control our population,
> it will be controlled on our behalf at some point in a manner we'll all
> find far less comfortable
Ah. I don't disagree with you actually, but I suspect you'll find that you
don't get much sympathy from other folks who are ostensibly on "your side"
(at least in the economic part of the discussion).
A socially just (Marxist?) economy, combined with radical population control.
Intriguing! An unusual combination.
You should look into China's economy. The bulk of the population consists of
lots and lots of poor peasants living off the land, plus draconian population
control imposed by the government. Perhaps China is your utopia!
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
"I think," said Christopher Robin, "that we ought to eat all our provisions
now, so we won't have so much to carry." -- A. A. Milne
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 26 Jul 2006 03:3:
> > (if I had to choose, I'd say it was bad; I think we should structure
> > society in such a way that the poorer get richer faster than the rich get
> > richer)
>
> This is, of course, easily possible simply by making a tax system that removes
> all the excess wealth of the rich. In other words, it's trivial to drag all
> the rich down to the same level as the poor, and then they'd all be equal.
> Are you sure you'd prefer such a society?
I'm sure I wouldn't; and I don't believe I ever said I would. Are you
saying that the only way to narrow the gap is to legislate 'a loss' on
the richest couple of percent? I'm not interested in making the wealthy
poorer, only the poor wealthier.
>
> (It's much, MUCH harder to raise the poor up to the same level as the current
> rich.)
>
I always enjoy a challenge! But even so, it's unnecessary to raise the
poor to the SAME level as the current rich -- I'm not sure where the
'tipping point' is where the poor are 'rich enough' and it's more than
possible no such point even exists. I like to hope though that there is
indeed a point where the material needs and wants of a sufficiently
large proportion of the (world) population are met in such a way that
people will be able to mark it on their calendars and point to it and
say "this is when the world went from being generally an unhappy and
unjust place to a generally happy and just place".
I agree this is a naive view (I forget who it was when asked how they
managed to develop a piece of software in a year (IIRC it was windowing
software) said "I didn't know it was hard"; I like to cling to the idea
that if problems are tackled rather than being put off because they're
hard, they might indeed be solved).
> > I am concerned with the gap between rich and poor and 'relative wealth' in
> > so far as the weakest in society are not really benefitting by being
> > 'better off' (since in terms of overall spending ability, they are actually
> > not better off since they fall lower and lower down the 'wealth' curve).
>
> These are not the same things, though. I agree that just counting dollars
> doesn't help much, for inflation if no other reason. We really need to track
> "spending power" of some kind.
>
> But the world really is becoming wealthier over time. Poor people in the US
> typically have a roof over their heads, aren't in danger of starvation or
> random neighborhood violence, can watch free TV all day long, etc. Far, far
> better off than the poor in many other countries, much less the poor centuries
> or millennia ago.
>
In my opinion the jury is still out on that one. We seem to be ripping
through our natural resources at a fair old rate; I wonder how
'wealthy' the world will appear in another 100 years. Hopefully the
current trend will continue (which in the main I'd have to say is a
good trend) but there's no guarantee it's going to (invest in stocks!
the market never crashes!)
I agree that in objective terms even the poorest in our societies are
far wealthier than they were a few years ago even (ever watch those
'70s cop shows? How depressed the areas they were filmed in look...).
I'm not sure it's really possible for the very poor to be 'happy'
(maybe it is -- certainly some people seem to be able to be happy
whatever circumstances they find themselves in), and it would be
difficult to measure too, but I wonder whether today's poor are happier
or less happy than the poor that went before...
> Of course the rich are even better off than that. But the truth is that the
> poor are objectively better off today "in terms of overall spending ability",
> than they were in the distant past.
>
Agreed. But are they happier for it?
> > I suspect that until relatively recently the bulk of humans lived on a
> > reasonably equal basis (impoverished by modern standards for sure, but
> > relative to the wealth (by any definition) available at the time, not
> > impoverished. Poverty is after all a relative measure -- at least it is
> > when *I* define it ;-).
>
> Ah, you've _defined_ poverty to be relative. Well then of course you make
> statements that others won't agree with, since nobody else means the same thing
> by that word.
>
> Typically poverty is about things like being able to provide shelter, worrying
> about where your next meal is coming from, threats of death from disease or
> violence, infant mortality rates, etc.
>
So all species other than our own is impoverished? I suspect if every
human on the planet had to deal with these problems, we wouldn't
consider ourselves to be impoverished. That would just be the way our
lives were. These things are a measure of poverty, but they are I think
still relative to our current situation.
As an example, if we assume mortality is the only measure of poverty we
use, and the life expectancy of a human male 150 years ago was 40,
would we call somebody who lived to 45 back then impoverished? Would we
call somebody who lived to 45 now impoverished, with life expectancy in
general up around the 70s?
I'm sure by the poverty metrics of 50 years ago (assuming such existed)
the people of 50 years ago did not have a significantly different
percentage of impoverished people than we do now; on the other hand, by
todays metrics we'd probably consider a significantly higher percentage
of people 50 years ago impoverished. This sounds relative to me. I
think poverty can only have meaning as a comparison against some
calculated (or measured) 'norm'.
(However, I'm sure the official definition of poverty is not the same
as the ad-hoc, bug ridden construct that I'm using.)
I'm glad that in this at least economics does not appear to take into
consideration a level of monetary liquidity in order to define poverty
which seems to be what the UK government at least does (there was a
piece in one of our newspapers a couple of years ago pointing out that
as far as the government was concerned, you are below the poverty line
if you don't go on an overseas holiday once per year -- what can I
say?).
Even given your definition above however I would argue there are far,
far more people in the world now who are unable to provide themselves
with shelter, food, and live under far more immediate threats of death
from disease or violence, infant morality rates, etc. than there were a
couple of hundred years ago. Not in Europe or the US surely, but the
world's a big place.
> Note that none of these things are relative. If your ancestors often starved
> to death due to lack of food, but you have reliable access to enough calories
> to sustain life, most people (but not you, apparently) would say that you are
> less poor than your ancestors were.
>
Indeed, I would agree with the majority; my question is would my
*ancestors* consider themselves to be poor? Certainly *we* consider
them to be poor (which is why I consider ideas of poverty to be
relative).
> Regardless of what happened to the fate of the ultra-rich during that same
> period.
>
> > In order for *my* economy to work, there must be population control. I
> > don't have a problem with that although I think the very concept makes
> > many uncomfortable. I think if we don't PLAN to control our population,
> > it will be controlled on our behalf at some point in a manner we'll all
> > find far less comfortable
>
> Ah. I don't disagree with you actually, but I suspect you'll find that you
> don't get much sympathy from other folks who are ostensibly on "your side"
> (at least in the economic part of the discussion).
>
> A socially just (Marxist?) economy, combined with radical population control.
> Intriguing! An unusual combination.
I see no inherent reason why a capitalist economy cannot be socially
just. I have only a very vague idea of what Marxism is, so I can't say
whether my ideas are in line with his or not.
>
> You should look into China's economy. The bulk of the population consists of
> lots and lots of poor peasants living off the land, plus draconian population
> control imposed by the government. Perhaps China is your utopia!
>
I'm not looking for an overall reduction in wealth, or a return to an
agriculture-based economy. China is not my ideal because I fail to see
how 'wealth' (back to my definition, sorry) is possible without
freedom. Sure, in economic terms, a totally controlled national economy
might lead to a very rapid increase in societal wealth (economic's
wealth) -- that doesn't cut it in my world view though.
I have no desire to return to a pre-industrial society, or to dispose
of technical and scientific advances (if I were I'd just turn Amish I
guess). Unlike many (I suspect) however I don't see a direct link
between a 'greedy' society and a society that is able to innovate.
As a thought experiment, perhaps we could consider where we'll be
assuming that AI is a solved problem, and robots with capabilities
exceeding our own actually exist -- who then will own the wealth? It'll
probably be the people that own the robots, but the robots are likely
to be horrendously expensive initially, so I doubt it will be the
current poor. Will we have the will and the ability to change the way
we distribute and measure wealth in our societies at such a time, once
all 'work' is performed by automatons?
-Duncan
ps. Hrm. I'm sure I was trying to make a point with that robot thing at
the end, but on rereading prior to posting it seems out of place. Oh
well, I'll leave it in and hope whatever it was comes back to me later
on...
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> "I think," said Christopher Robin, "that we ought to eat all our provisions
> now, so we won't have so much to carry." -- A. A. Milne
Duncan Rose wrote:
--->8--- snipped --->8---
>
> As a thought experiment, perhaps we could consider where we'll be
> assuming that AI is a solved problem, and robots with capabilities
> exceeding our own actually exist -- who then will own the wealth? It'll
> probably be the people that own the robots, but the robots are likely
> to be horrendously expensive initially, so I doubt it will be the
> current poor. Will we have the will and the ability to change the way
> we distribute and measure wealth in our societies at such a time, once
> all 'work' is performed by automatons?
>
> -Duncan
>
> ps. Hrm. I'm sure I was trying to make a point with that robot thing at
> the end, but on rereading prior to posting it seems out of place. Oh
> well, I'll leave it in and hope whatever it was comes back to me later
> on...
>
I remembered; the point I was trying to make was that at some point it
seems likely we'll have to totally reevaluate our ideas of what has
worth and what does not; in effect we'll end up 'paying' people for
doing pretty much whatever pleases them (maybe). If we can do that in
the future there's no reason we can't be putting the framework in place
for doing it NOW (i.e. starting a process of redefining what society
considers to be worth rewarding).
-Duncan
>
> > -- Don
> > _______________________________________________________________________________
> > Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> > "I think," said Christopher Robin, "that we ought to eat all our provisions
> > now, so we won't have so much to carry." -- A. A. Milne
Duncan Rose wrote:
> Duncan Rose wrote:
>
> --->8--- snipped --->8---
>
>> As a thought experiment, perhaps we could consider where we'll be
>> assuming that AI is a solved problem, and robots with capabilities
>> exceeding our own actually exist -- who then will own the wealth? It'll
>> probably be the people that own the robots, but the robots are likely
>> to be horrendously expensive initially, so I doubt it will be the
>> current poor. Will we have the will and the ability to change the way
>> we distribute and measure wealth in our societies at such a time, once
>> all 'work' is performed by automatons?
>>
>> -Duncan
>>
>> ps. Hrm. I'm sure I was trying to make a point with that robot thing at
>> the end, but on rereading prior to posting it seems out of place. Oh
>> well, I'll leave it in and hope whatever it was comes back to me later
>> on...
>>
>
> I remembered; the point I was trying to make was that at some point it
> seems likely we'll have to totally reevaluate our ideas of what has
> worth and what does not; in effect we'll end up 'paying' people for
> doing pretty much whatever pleases them (maybe). If we can do that in
> the future there's no reason we can't be putting the framework in place
> for doing it NOW (i.e. starting a process of redefining what society
> considers to be worth rewarding).
Next problem: who defines what "society" thinks is "good"? Majority
vote? Philosopher kings? Many (most?) of the efforts to really change
basic economics have historically resulted in massive, often bloody,
failures. There are *very* good reasons for being skeptical, not least
the law of unintended consequences.
--Larry
Larry Elmore wrote:
> Duncan Rose wrote:
> > Duncan Rose wrote:
> >
> > --->8--- snipped --->8---
> >
> >> As a thought experiment, perhaps we could consider where we'll be
> >> assuming that AI is a solved problem, and robots with capabilities
> >> exceeding our own actually exist -- who then will own the wealth? It'll
> >> probably be the people that own the robots, but the robots are likely
> >> to be horrendously expensive initially, so I doubt it will be the
> >> current poor. Will we have the will and the ability to change the way
> >> we distribute and measure wealth in our societies at such a time, once
> >> all 'work' is performed by automatons?
> >>
> >> -Duncan
> >>
> >> ps. Hrm. I'm sure I was trying to make a point with that robot thing at
> >> the end, but on rereading prior to posting it seems out of place. Oh
> >> well, I'll leave it in and hope whatever it was comes back to me later
> >> on...
> >>
> >
> > I remembered; the point I was trying to make was that at some point it
> > seems likely we'll have to totally reevaluate our ideas of what has
> > worth and what does not; in effect we'll end up 'paying' people for
> > doing pretty much whatever pleases them (maybe). If we can do that in
> > the future there's no reason we can't be putting the framework in place
> > for doing it NOW (i.e. starting a process of redefining what society
> > considers to be worth rewarding).
>
> Next problem: who defines what "society" thinks is "good"? Majority
> vote? Philosopher kings? Many (most?) of the efforts to really change
> basic economics have historically resulted in massive, often bloody,
> failures. There are *very* good reasons for being skeptical, not least
> the law of unintended consequences.
>
I'm skeptical too... I'd like to point out that some efforts have also
resulted in massive, often bloody, successes too (in the short-term, at
least). Even if no concious effort to enact change is made, changes
(which are inevitable I think) seem to tend to lead to bad places (in
the short term -- it's hard to tell over the long term since these
changes never seem to last into the long term (defining long-term as a
couple of hundred years)).
So what we have so far in our thought experiment:
1. All wealth will be generated by robots with >= human-capable AI
2. This will lead to a need to 'really change basic economics'
3. Such changes have in the past led to a bloody mess.
I'm sure we can affect these in such a way that (3) is avoidable; if we
don't plan for change, I suspect (3) will not be avoidable. I'd like to
avoid it, personally, how about you?
(Obviously this is a mere thought experiment; neither (1), (2) nor (3)
necessarily is true, but...)
As to your actual question; who decides? Well, unless we deviate from
established historical practices, I think we all know the answer to
this -- either the ruling elite (i.e. 'the rich') or the leaders of
whatever revolution forces the change. I can't think of any examples
from history where 'society' overall has made the decision (more
generally, some parts of society attempt to enact change, and the
majority just follow because it's easier, if not better, that way).
I don't believe the rich / powerful would necessarily act in the
interests of society in general (when have they in the past? Certainly
there are examples at the level of individuals, but not I think at a
macro-level other than from inherent economic effects within the
system; I don't consider the latter to be 'an act' (since no concious
decisions necessary), more of an effect).
I don't want to see a revolution; the leaders of these seem to
generally not have the interests of society in general in mind either
(or if they have, almost by definition it seems, they are not bullish
enough to actually win their revolution).
Is there a third way here? There are always multiple approaches that
can be taken to solve any problem, I'd just like to see a reasoned
approach. Alternatively, we can do what humanity seems to always do and
just leave it up to our respective deities -- but again, it seems
deities favour the rich too (perhaps that is why they are rich in the
first place? ;-)
-Duncan
> --Larry
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 26 Jul 2006 13:1:
>> As a thought experiment, perhaps we could consider where we'll be
>> assuming that AI is a solved problem, and robots with capabilities
>> exceeding our own actually exist -- who then will own the wealth?
[...]
>> Will we have the will and the ability to change the way we distribute and
>> measure wealth in our societies at such a time, once all 'work' is
>> performed by automatons?
[...]
> at some point it seems likely we'll have to totally reevaluate our ideas of
> what has worth and what does not
Economics is about allocation of scarce resources, where more people want a
thing than there is of that thing. (It's also about incentives, and how they
change human "free will" behavior.) Economics doesn't really deal with goods
that aren't scarce, like sunlight or breathable air.
If robots can grow all the food that anyone wants, and supply all the power,
then those things will no longer have a cost (just like sunlight and air), and
anyone can use as much as they want of any of it.
> If we can do that in the future there's no reason we can't be putting the
> framework in place for doing it NOW (i.e. starting a process of redefining
> what society considers to be worth rewarding).
The reason we can't do it now is that those items today DO have a cost, and
more people desire them than human society can provide. That's why the field
of economics exists in the first place: because there must be SOME methodology
to assign people to the things they want, if there isn't enough for everyone
to have all that they dream of.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
One of the most attractive features of a Connection Machine is the array of
blinking lights on the faces of its cabinet.
-- CM Paris Ref. Manual, v6.0, p48.
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 26 Jul 2006 13:1:
> >> As a thought experiment, perhaps we could consider where we'll be
> >> assuming that AI is a solved problem, and robots with capabilities
> >> exceeding our own actually exist -- who then will own the wealth?
> [...]
> >> Will we have the will and the ability to change the way we distribute and
> >> measure wealth in our societies at such a time, once all 'work' is
> >> performed by automatons?
> [...]
> > at some point it seems likely we'll have to totally reevaluate our ideas of
> > what has worth and what does not
>
> Economics is about allocation of scarce resources, where more people want a
> thing than there is of that thing. (It's also about incentives, and how they
> change human "free will" behavior.) Economics doesn't really deal with goods
> that aren't scarce, like sunlight or breathable air.
>
> If robots can grow all the food that anyone wants, and supply all the power,
> then those things will no longer have a cost (just like sunlight and air), and
> anyone can use as much as they want of any of it.
In the EU, we have these things called food mountains (or wine lakes);
this is where producers of these goods have been paid to produce, but
have overproduced so the surplus is stored in warehouses. Very large
warehouses.
The citizenry of the EU pay taxes to fund this production, and pay
inflated prices for food (since there's an overproduction, surely the
price should drop, no?). The food is eventually sold off on the world
market at less than it costs to purchase from within the EU.
I think the EU at least is already in a position where the cost (to the
consumer) of food could be reduced. Not to free, but certainly below
its current cost. Strange it is, then, that the costs to the consumer
are NOT falling.
At the same time manufacturer's of genetically modified seed are
dumping seeds leading to infertile crops on 3rd world producers; this
means that those producers must forever return to those manufacturers
for seed, since any harvested seed will not grow -- the world may have
an unrealised capacity to provide ample food at least for all, but 'the
rich' have a vested interest in preventing this from happening ("hey,
we could make ourselves even richer off these bums by preventing them
from enrichening themselves! It'll cost us in the short term, but in 20
years time, we'll win big! Suckers!")
I put it to you that many of the 'scarce resources' we find in our
societies are 'artificially scarce'; it benefits the owners of those
items to maintain their scarcity (consider DeBeers as another example).
I therefore dispute this notion that once the costs of production of
any given thing reach zero, that those things *will* become free
(though *not* the Economic principle that they could (should?)). The
people who control that production appear to have little interest in
seeing these things become valueless.
(Of course, my examples are very convenient and may even form a closed
set. I don't know enough to be sure, but it seems to be the aim of all
commercial enterprises to effectively put themselves in the position of
being a sole producer in order to control the market and prevent others
profiting -- I just thought of another example, that of the oil
producers who sell themselves their own oil at market rates (i.e.
indepent of their costs of production) so that they can pass those
price increases on to their customers. Very noble of them, that.).
>
> > If we can do that in the future there's no reason we can't be putting the
> > framework in place for doing it NOW (i.e. starting a process of redefining
> > what society considers to be worth rewarding).
>
> The reason we can't do it now is that those items today DO have a cost, and
> more people desire them than human society can provide. That's why the field
> of economics exists in the first place: because there must be SOME methodology
> to assign people to the things they want, if there isn't enough for everyone
> to have all that they dream of.
>
See above. The methodology may well be broken (in my opinion).
-Duncan
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> One of the most attractive features of a Connection Machine is the array of
> blinking lights on the faces of its cabinet.
> -- CM Paris Ref. Manual, v6.0, p48.
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 27 Jul 2006 11:1:
> In the EU, we have these things called food mountains (or wine lakes); this
> is where producers of these goods have been paid to produce, but have
> overproduced so the surplus is stored in warehouses. Very large warehouses.
> The citizenry of the EU pay taxes to fund this production, and pay inflated
> prices for food (since there's an overproduction, surely the price should
> drop, no?). [...] I think the EU at least is already in a position where
> the cost (to the consumer) of food could be reduced. [...] Strange it is,
> then, that the costs to the consumer are NOT falling.
Government interference like this in free capitalist markets, while often
well-intentioned, almost always results in a worse long-term outcome for
the society.
Another way to look at it: EU consumers are paying a huge amount (in taxes,
and in higher food prices) in order to support a small number of small
farmers and winemakers, to allow that tiny group to continue to live in the
manner they have historically.
Japan also does this kind of thing with their rice farmers. (You have to
prohibit imports of the goods as well.) Rice farming is culturally important
to the Japanese, and wine making to the EU. But the consumers are paying a
whole lot extra to maintain that outdated system.
> I put it to you that many of the 'scarce resources' we find in our
> societies are 'artificially scarce'
This is by far the exception, not the rule.
Almost any valuable good you can imagine, there is more human desire for it
(if it were free) than can be provided. Scarcity is a fact of nature, not an
artificial problem invented by the corrupt rich.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Love can sweep you off your feet and carry you along in a way you've never
known before. But the ride always ends, and you end up feeling lonely and
bitter. Wait. It's not love I'm describing. I'm thinking of a monorail.
-- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 27 Jul 2006 11:1:
> > In the EU, we have these things called food mountains (or wine lakes); this
> > is where producers of these goods have been paid to produce, but have
> > overproduced so the surplus is stored in warehouses. Very large warehouses.
> > The citizenry of the EU pay taxes to fund this production, and pay inflated
> > prices for food (since there's an overproduction, surely the price should
> > drop, no?). [...] I think the EU at least is already in a position where
> > the cost (to the consumer) of food could be reduced. [...] Strange it is,
> > then, that the costs to the consumer are NOT falling.
>
> Government interference like this in free capitalist markets, while often
> well-intentioned, almost always results in a worse long-term outcome for
> the society.
>
I can happily agree with this. There are historical reasons for the EU
policies here, but it seemed an apt example for discussion (a cynic
might say "government interference like this in free capitalist
markets, whilst often disguised as well-intentioned almost always
results in high short-term returns for companies associated with
members of the government." Of course, I would never dream of being so
cynical ;-)
> Another way to look at it: EU consumers are paying a huge amount (in taxes,
> and in higher food prices) in order to support a small number of small
> farmers and winemakers, to allow that tiny group to continue to live in the
> manner they have historically.
>
<cheeky pendant>
What, you mean so they can live an impoverished life, and die young?
That is, I think, how we established earlier that everybody lived
'historically' ;-)
</cheeky pendant>
Seriously though, I'm not utterly convinced that the alternative is any
better; I think perhaps many small producers is a better situation to
be in than few (or in the worst case, a single) large producers. It's
not clear to me whether if left alone the market would tend towards the
latter or not.
> Japan also does this kind of thing with their rice farmers. (You have to
> prohibit imports of the goods as well.) Rice farming is culturally important
> to the Japanese, and wine making to the EU. But the consumers are paying a
> whole lot extra to maintain that outdated system.
>
I think all governments do this to a greater or lesser extent. I don't
know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (on the one hand I
seem to be in favour of intervention by some 'higher order' body; on
the other, I'm not convinced that any such bodies that currently
influence these things have anything more than passing interest in
engineering things for maximal benefit. Perhaps their definition of
what's a benefit is different to mine though...)
> > I put it to you that many of the 'scarce resources' we find in our
> > societies are 'artificially scarce'
>
> This is by far the exception, not the rule.
>
> Almost any valuable good you can imagine, there is more human desire for it
> (if it were free) than can be provided. Scarcity is a fact of nature, not an
> artificial problem invented by the corrupt rich.
>
Scarcity is a measure of (/ availability-of-thing size-of-population)
which is why I'm in favour of seeing smaller populations. I also think
that many things that are scarce currently are things we either think
we need or want, such as diamonds (perhaps artifically scarce) or gold
(actually scarce)) rather than things we actually need (food and
shelter (I see no natural reason for these to be scarce, except
possibly due to overpopulation)). Oil might be an interesting resource
to think about, but I'm pretty sure there are very very few uses of oil
that could not be served by synthetic alternatives (preferably
synthesised from renewables) equally well. The only resources I can
think of that might be both necessary and scarce are minerals and ores;
I think both of these are quite recyclable though which will help a
little (if we could be bothered to recycle).
I wonder why it is we seem to be depleting our oil reserves as quickly
as possible? I'm pretty sure there is a conspiracy there somewhere ;-)
Generally though, point accepted (hopefully we'll be mining asteroids
soon so that minerals and ore might become less scarce; well, we'll
see).
-Duncan
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> Love can sweep you off your feet and carry you along in a way you've never
> known before. But the ride always ends, and you end up feeling lonely and
> bitter. Wait. It's not love I'm describing. I'm thinking of a monorail.
> -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 28 Jul 2006 15:4:
> government interference like this in free capitalist markets, whilst often
> disguised as well-intentioned almost always results in high short-term
> returns for companies associated with members of the government.
Yes, I agree with you. The majority of government subsidies to industries
are basically an indirect form of corruption.
> I think perhaps many small producers is a better situation to be in than
> few (or in the worst case, a single) large producers. It's not clear to me
> whether if left alone the market would tend towards the latter or not.
Unfettered capitalist markets are neutral about this. The long-run stable form
of different industries can vary depending on the characteristics of that
particular industry. (Plus a bit of random chance, I suppose; there may be
multiple stable outcomes.)
> Scarcity is a measure of (/ availability-of-thing size-of-population)
That's a bit too simple. Different people desire a thing at different rates,
even if the price is zero. And then there's the sliding demand curve, where
generally fewer people choose to buy a thing the more expensive it gets.
You've also left out how the size of the population could add to the supply,
for example of computer programmers.
But perhaps these are just nits.
> I also think that many things that are scarce currently are things we
> either think we need or want, such as diamonds (perhaps artifically scarce)
> or gold (actually scarce))
You're right that diamonds have an artificially heightened scarcity, but you're
wrong to conclude that without the manipulation they wouldn't be scarce at all.
Diamonds have been items of value for millennia. Market manipulation is only
in modern times.
> rather than things we actually need (food and shelter (I see no natural
> reason for these to be scarce, except possibly due to overpopulation)).
There is no population at which food and shelter would become free. They cost
resources (material and human labor) to produce. There will always be people
who could dream of a bigger house than the one they happen to be in. Or steak
every night.
> Oil might be an interesting resource to think about, but I'm pretty sure
> there are very very few uses of oil that could not be served by synthetic
> alternatives (preferably synthesised from renewables) equally well.
Not at all true. Oil probably has been the main driver of the industrial
revolution in the last century or so. It's basically free energy, originally
costing almost nothing to take out of the ground, but provide huge surpluses
in the work (electricity, transportation) that could be accomplished.
There's an argument to be made that the huge rise in world wealth (GDP) in
the last 200 years is basically a one-time bonus from the discovery of oil,
which unfortunately has now just about peaked. Without fusion (or possibly
fission), the next century may not show the same kind of long-term economic
growth as the previous one.
You're only thinking of oil as a material, like in the way petrochemicals are
used as a raw material to make plastic, or as a lubricant in motors. Yes,
most of those uses could be replaced by different raw materials. (And, at
enormous cost, transportation could probably switch from oil to a hydrogen
economy.)
But replacing the free energy that oil has provided is not really feasible.
There is no obvious replacement at similar levels of cost/energy.
> The only resources I can think of that might be both necessary and scarce
> are minerals and ores
You're leaving out everything that you can buy. Bananas, iPods, SUVs, PCs,
chairs, scissors, clocks, beer, etc. All of those things are scarce goods,
in that the demand (at a price of zero) vastly exceeds the supply at that
price. Some people who want the thing MUST do without. Note how this is
different from air or sunlight or seawater, where you can use as much as you
wish and it doesn't really impact whether anyone else could do the same
thing.
> I wonder why it is we seem to be depleting our oil reserves as quickly
> as possible? I'm pretty sure there is a conspiracy there somewhere ;-)
Well, an opposing question might be, what good does it do in the ground?
Either you'll use it for very low cost energy, or your children will. It's
only a one-time bonus either way. Is there really any benefit to saving it?
(You could make an argument about how there will need to be a transition to
some other energy supply, and perhaps conservation now is part of an overall
plan to ease the shock of Peak Oil. But that's a slippery argument, as many
of the changes required will probably be postponed by society until the price
of oil rises high enough to force them. Which means either demand continues
to rise, or supply finally falls, or perhaps huge taxes are applied to the
use of oil. But just "don't use so much oil" doesn't really solve anything.)
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
If you ever get whipped by a bullwhip, try to breathe _in_ as the whip is going
back, and _out_ as it hits your back. Or is it the other way around? Anyway,
you'll figure it out. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 28 Jul 2006 15:4:
> > government interference like this in free capitalist markets, whilst often
> > disguised as well-intentioned almost always results in high short-term
> > returns for companies associated with members of the government.
>
> Yes, I agree with you. The majority of government subsidies to industries
> are basically an indirect form of corruption.
There are reasons for it. For example, without tech subsidies, we
wouldn't have Lisp and the net. Pres. Bush even recently explained that
subsidized federal research keeps the US economy competitive. [1]
In fact, Bill Gates Sr. made the finest deconstruction of all the tech
world's "egregious myths", that I'm aware of in the mainstream. [2]
Other uses for gov't subsidy is a form of Keynesianism. So the huge
"wartime economy" does do something in this regard, though perhaps it's
"lunatic Keynesianism." For those interested in dissident voices, the
best introduction I've found is Chomsky's very readable _Understanding
Power_. [3]
Nothing within markets makes guarantees that they will act in the
interests of the society. There are post-capitalist economies which
feature freedom from government interference, but they go a step
further and remove state enforcement of making means of production
(like natural resources) someone's "private property." Parecon is the
most serious example I know, but I expect there are others. [4]
> > I also think that many things that are scarce currently are things we
> > either think we need or want, such as diamonds (perhaps artifically scarce)
> > or gold (actually scarce))
>
> You're right that diamonds have an artificially heightened scarcity, but you're
> wrong to conclude that without the manipulation they wouldn't be scarce at all.
> Diamonds have been items of value for millennia. Market manipulation is only
> in modern times.
Didn't Aristotle tell the story of a philosopher who monopolized the
olive presses, when astrology indicated there should be a boom in olive
production, and thereby make a fortune?
This philosopher told his critics:
"... that it was easy for philosophers to be rich if they chose it, but
that that was not what they aimed at; in this manner is Thales said to
have shown his wisdom. It indeed is, as we have said, generally gainful
for a person to contrive to make a monopoly of anything; for which
reason some cities also take this method when they want money, and
monopolise their commodities." [5]
Or did you mean that market manipulation of /diamonds/ is a modern
affair?
[1] The famous "iPod remark"
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-19-2006/0004343272&EDATE=
[2]
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=900584
[3] There's so many footnotes, they're only available online, because
they'd more than double the book, from what I hear. You can check all
the evidence and decide for yourself.
http://understandingpower.com/
[4] http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm
[5] http://pge.rastko.net/dirs/etext04/tgovt10.txt
Tayssir
I wrote:
>> The majority of government subsidies to industries are basically an
>> indirect form of corruption.
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> wrote on 29 Jul 2006 05:1:
> For example, without tech subsidies, we wouldn't have Lisp and the
> net. Pres. Bush even recently explained that subsidized federal research
> keeps the US economy competitive. [1]
I think these are slightly different topics. You're talking about investing
in R&D. Similar to investing in physical infrastructure (roads, bridges),
it's the kind of thing that increases productivity in the future across a wide
range of industries.
I was referring to things like "save steel" or "save textiles" via import
tariffs, or set-asides for farmers to prop up the price of butter or corn
or milk or sugar. These are direct payments to otherwise competitive
industries for the production of specific products at a specific time.
They really aren't investments, and don't improve future productivity of the
economy (or even that industry).
The exceptions I had in mind were things like Japan closing it's local
economy in the early days in order to build a domestic car or steel industry,
and then getting national payback via global trade in later years.
> Other uses for gov't subsidy is a form of Keynesianism. So the huge
> "wartime economy" does do something in this regard, though perhaps it's
> "lunatic Keynesianism."
Yes, spending your way out of a depression is a good national plan. That was
not understood during the Great Depression in 1920's, and government policy at
the time probably extended the economic pain.
I agree this is an exception to the "subsidies are bad" rule of thumb.
> Nothing within markets makes guarantees that they will act in the
> interests of the society. There are post-capitalist economies which
> feature freedom from government interference, but they go a step
> further and remove state enforcement of making means of production
> (like natural resources) someone's "private property." Parecon is the
> most serious example I know, but I expect there are others. [4]
Not tried at a large scale in real life, however. I'm skeptical.
Lightly-regulated capitalism has been the most effective form of societal
organization for generating long-term economic wealth which has been tried
in the field.
I wrote:
>> You're right that diamonds have an artificially heightened scarcity, but
>> you're wrong to conclude that without the manipulation they wouldn't be
>> scarce at all. Diamonds have been items of value for millennia. Market
>> manipulation is only in modern times.
>
> Didn't Aristotle tell the story of a philosopher who monopolized the
> olive presses, when astrology indicated there should be a boom in olive
> production, and thereby make a fortune?
[...]
> Or did you mean that market manipulation of /diamonds/ is a modern affair?
Yes, sorry, I was referring to the artificial scarcity of natural diamonds
by the DeBeers company of South Africa during the last century.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100
million, that's the bank's problem. -- John Paul Getty
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> wrote on 29 Jul 2006 05:1:
> > Nothing within markets makes guarantees that they will act in the
> > interests of the society. There are post-capitalist economies which
> > feature freedom from government interference, but they go a step
> > further and remove state enforcement of making means of production
> > (like natural resources) someone's "private property." Parecon is the
> > most serious example I know, but I expect there are others. [4]
>
> Not tried at a large scale in real life, however. I'm skeptical.
I hope you are skeptical! ;) Everything requires appropriate skepticism
and rational thinking, from new ideas to the commonly held beliefs of
the day.
(Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I don't "believe in" something like
Parecon, as that would be irrational.)
I wrote a longer response containing my thoughts on your other points,
but honestly, who wants to read such a long monstrosity? ;)
Tayssir
--
Mark Twain wrote about his mother:
"Kind-hearted and compassionate as she was, I think she was not
conscious that slavery was a bald, grotesque, and unwarranted
ursurpation. She had never heard it assailed in any pulpit, but had
heard it defended and sanctified in a thousand. As far as her
experience went, the wise, the good, and the holy were unanimous in the
belief that slavery was right, righteous, sacred, the peculiar pet of
the Deity, and a condition which the slave himself ought to be daily
and nightly thankful for."
Tayssir John Gabbour <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> I wrote a longer response containing my thoughts on your other
> points, but honestly, who wants to read such a long monstrosity? ;)
Count me in. I learn plenty here -- even if only by way of footnotes
as starting points -- about subjects I'd never even think about
without a push in the right direction.
--
Steven E. Harris
Steven E. Harris wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I wrote a longer response containing my thoughts on your other
>> points, but honestly, who wants to read such a long monstrosity? ;)
>
> Count me in. I learn plenty here -- even if only by way of footnotes
> as starting points -- about subjects I'd never even think about
> without a push in the right direction.
Count the rest of us out. This newsgroup isn't the place. I do so wish
some of the participants here would take their opinions to economics
newsgroups, where presumably they'd have their illusions rapidly
deconstructed by experts. Nothing against you two, Messrs. Harris and
Gabbour, but watching some of the participants here rowing around with
one economic oar in the water has been funny only in the most cynical
way. Let's not encourage them.
Steven E. Harris wrote:
> Count me in. I learn plenty here -- even if only by way of footnotes
> as starting points -- about subjects I'd never even think about
> without a push in the right direction.
You were warned... ;)
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> wrote on 29 Jul 2006 05:1:
> > For example, without tech subsidies, we wouldn't have Lisp and the
> > net. Pres. Bush even recently explained that subsidized federal research
> > keeps the US economy competitive. [1]
>
> [..]
> I was referring to things like "save steel" or "save textiles" via import
> tariffs, or set-asides for farmers to prop up the price of butter or corn
> or milk or sugar. These are direct payments to otherwise competitive
> industries for the production of specific products at a specific time.
> They really aren't investments, and don't improve future productivity of the
> economy (or even that industry).
Well, I'm reminded of how Intel's chairman Andy Grove liked to mention
the US steel industry's fate, in arguing for protectionism. He pointed
out that the US's semiconductor industry faced similar challenges in
the 80's, and trade policies (like tariffs) were required to save it.
Protectionism has always gone hand-in-hand with the US's modern tech
industry. [1]
(He mentioned this in the context of saving the US's tech industry
through government protectionism.)
Even without tariffs, things like heavy gov't purchases of transistors
violates free market principles, as those purchases affect
competitiveness and business survival rates; they can provide nice
cushions and decrease risk.
> > Nothing within markets makes guarantees that they will act in the
> > interests of the society. There are post-capitalist economies which
> > feature freedom from government interference, but they go a step
> > further and remove state enforcement of making means of production
> > (like natural resources) someone's "private property." Parecon is the
> > most serious example I know, but I expect there are others. [4]
>
> Not tried at a large scale in real life, however. I'm skeptical.
(I mentioned earlier my agreement that appropriate skepticism is
required in all things...)
You might be interested in Einstein's discussion of many ideas behind
Parecon. (Not that Parecon existed then, but its roots are old.) It
might be the most articulate discussion of post-capitalist ideas I
know:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm
> Lightly-regulated capitalism has been the most effective form of societal
> organization for generating long-term economic wealth which has been tried
> in the field.
This short, perhaps innocuous-sounding sentence drew a rather strong
(respectful) disagreement from me. On one hand, even the US State Dept
explains that we don't really have "capitalism" [2]; it doesn't really
exist in the US (nor other economic powerhouses, as I understand). [3]
Even aside from that, this assumes a perspective that economics
dominates "societal organization", the term you use. But there are
other spheres active in human organization. For example, democracies
let people have some participation in economic power, beyond a
dollar/vote. They can demand 40-hour workweeks, the ability to
unionize, etc. Such government intervention can have the effect of a
better educated, more productive citizenry, among other things. [4]
(As president Franklin Roosevelt explained, "The liberty of a democracy
is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the
point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself." That
said, we have what are called "top-down democracies".)
But there have been fairly close experiments with actual free-market
capitalism. 19th century Britain is probably the most cited example,
and Nobel laureate economist Robert Solow mentions: "Few markets can
ever have been as competitive as those that flourished in Britain in
the first half of the nineteenth century, when infants became deformed
as they toiled their way to an early death in the pits and mills of the
Black Country. And there is no lack of examples today to confirm the
fact also that well-functioning markets have no innate tendency to
promote excellence in any form. They offer no resistance to forces
making for a descent into cultural barbarity or moral depravity".
(I believe the main scholarly source on that is Polanyi's _The Great
Transformation_, which I finally got around to ordering today.)
[1] http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/10/1010grovepinnacor.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/schaefer08132003.html
[2] http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap2.htm
[3] Dissident MIT prof Chomsky blogged on this:
http://blog.zmag.org/ee_links/capitalism_an_innovative_and_viable_system
[4] Adam Smith claimed in _Wealth of Nations_ that, "unless government
takes some pains to prevent it", division of labor would make most
people as "stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature
to become":
"But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily
formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent
in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps
always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his
understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients
for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses,
therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid
and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The
torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or
bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any
generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any
just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private
life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is
altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have
been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of
defending his country in war."
Tayssir
--
"Freedom is participation in power." -- Cicero
"It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be." --
Warren Buffett
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/buffett/index.html
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Steven E. Harris wrote:
> [4] Adam Smith claimed in _Wealth of Nations_ that, "unless government
> takes some pains to prevent it", division of labor would make most
> people as "stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature
> to become":
Excuse me; surrounding that were the following two lines:
"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far
greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of
the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations,
frequently to one or two."
[...quoted in previous post...]
"But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into
which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must
necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN20.html#B.V,%20Ch.1,%20Of%20the%20Expences%20of%20the%20Sovereign%20or%20Commonwealth
We can ask whether this holds true for modern society (putting aside
how Smith's other quotes, like the "invisible hand" are ripped out of
context to support things contrary to its intention). But things like
"Taylorism" (assembly lines) and sweatshops seem to support Smith's
claims, for the poor not protected by regulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> wrote on 2 Aug 2006 10:16:
> Well, I'm reminded of how Intel's chairman Andy Grove liked to mention
> the US steel industry's fate, in arguing for protectionism. He pointed
> out that the US's semiconductor industry faced similar challenges in
> the 80's, and trade policies (like tariffs) were required to save it.
I disagree with this historical analysis. US trade policies did not "save"
the US semiconductor industry.
Semiconductors in the 80's were basically about memory chips, and the threat
was low-cost manufacturing from the Asian tigers. And the tigers won that;
the vast bulk of worldwide computer memory today is manufactured in Asia.
Intel only survived because Grove and others switched from memories to
microprocessors. US trade policy wasn't a significant factor.
> (He mentioned this in the context of saving the US's tech industry
> through government protectionism.)
He's wrong about this.
> Even without tariffs, things like heavy gov't purchases of transistors
> violates free market principles, as those purchases affect
> competitiveness and business survival rates; they can provide nice
> cushions and decrease risk.
Not if the government buys them on the open market. Then it merely adds to
worldwide demand. Yes if the government makes exclusive long-term contracts
with specific US companies.
> You might be interested in Einstein's discussion of many ideas behind
> Parecon. [...] It might be the most articulate discussion of
> post-capitalist ideas I know: http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm
Einstein is simply wrong (and naive) about these topics.
Einstein was also wrong about quantum mechanics, by the way. And about
whether the time was ripe for a Grand Unified Theory. He was brilliant, but
not infallible.
> On one hand, even the US State Dept explains that we don't really have
> "capitalism" [2]; it doesn't really exist in the US (nor other economic
> powerhouses, as I understand). [3]
Well, surely the US economy is a blend of things.
But perhaps this is a more accurate way of saying it: the more government
planning and interference in a given market, the slower observed long term
economic growth of that market.
You may be willing to suffer the cost of that slowed growth because of some
other benefit (like clean environment, or outlawing child labor). But it
seems pretty clear that there's a direct correlation between more active
governments, and worse performing economies.
(Surely this breaks down at the very end, because anarchy isn't the
best-performing economy. So you no doubt need the minimum of law & order,
enforcement of contracts, regulation of the money supply, etc. But any
real-world economy has far, far more government influence than that, and
within the real-world economies, those governments that control more of the
economic resources wind up having worse economic performance, pretty much
directly in line with how much of the economy they control.)
> [3] Dissident MIT prof Chomsky blogged on this:
> http://blog.zmag.org/ee_links/capitalism_an_innovative_and_viable_system
Chomsky is intelligent, entertaining, and educated. But he's also a wacko
in his opinions. Highly biased, and his extensive writings are more
propaganda for his position, than objective scientific analysis.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
If you ever feel like you're on the verge of a nervous breakdown, just follow
these simple rules: First, calm down; second, come over and wash my car; third,
shine all my shoes. There, isn't that better?
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Nothing within markets makes guarantees that they will act in the
> interests of the society.
The same holds for government, of course, as is easily
shown. (Personally I'd say, for the most part, it holds to an
_even_greater_ degree.) For example:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoiceTheory.html
or (why not) Dennis C. Mueller, PUBLIC CHOICE III.
With that, back to lurking again.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 28 Jul 2006 15:4:
> > government interference like this in free capitalist markets, whilst often
> > disguised as well-intentioned almost always results in high short-term
> > returns for companies associated with members of the government.
>
> Yes, I agree with you. The majority of government subsidies to industries
> are basically an indirect form of corruption.
>
Of course, my argument would be that government intervention is
actually a necessity (the overall increase in (monetary) wealth of
society seems unlikely to have happened were the market unfettered). I
harbour doubts however that (m)any governments have the long-term
interests of society in mind in anything that they do.
> > I think perhaps many small producers is a better situation to be in than
> > few (or in the worst case, a single) large producers. It's not clear to me
> > whether if left alone the market would tend towards the latter or not.
>
> Unfettered capitalist markets are neutral about this. The long-run stable form
> of different industries can vary depending on the characteristics of that
> particular industry. (Plus a bit of random chance, I suppose; there may be
> multiple stable outcomes.)
I wish I were able to put my points as eloquently as Tayssir; however
since studying economics never seemed (until now) to be a route to
maximising my proft I never got around to it.
I agree that the characteristics of different industries will affect
their evolution. I think it is likely that there are multiple stable
outcomes. My interest I suppose is in trying to influence evolution of
the market so it ends up in a stable position that is in the best
interests of humanity (rather than in the best interests of a small
partition of humanity, and that possibly only in the short-term).
>
> > Scarcity is a measure of (/ availability-of-thing size-of-population)
>
> That's a bit too simple. Different people desire a thing at different rates,
> even if the price is zero. And then there's the sliding demand curve, where
> generally fewer people choose to buy a thing the more expensive it gets.
> You've also left out how the size of the population could add to the supply,
> for example of computer programmers.
>
> But perhaps these are just nits.
>
> > I also think that many things that are scarce currently are things we
> > either think we need or want, such as diamonds (perhaps artifically scarce)
> > or gold (actually scarce))
>
> You're right that diamonds have an artificially heightened scarcity, but you're
> wrong to conclude that without the manipulation they wouldn't be scarce at all.
> Diamonds have been items of value for millennia. Market manipulation is only
> in modern times.
>
> > rather than things we actually need (food and shelter (I see no natural
> > reason for these to be scarce, except possibly due to overpopulation)).
>
> There is no population at which food and shelter would become free. They cost
> resources (material and human labor) to produce. There will always be people
> who could dream of a bigger house than the one they happen to be in. Or steak
> every night.
>
Hopefully these people are in a minority.
> > Oil might be an interesting resource to think about, but I'm pretty sure
> > there are very very few uses of oil that could not be served by synthetic
> > alternatives (preferably synthesised from renewables) equally well.
>
> Not at all true. Oil probably has been the main driver of the industrial
> revolution in the last century or so. It's basically free energy, originally
> costing almost nothing to take out of the ground, but provide huge surpluses
> in the work (electricity, transportation) that could be accomplished.
>
Perhaps, when all the costs have finally been calculated, we will look
back and say that the price of oil-based energy actually turned out to
be very high indeed. Perhaps this will be an example of the choices of
the unthinking market jumping on what is cheap over what is best
(because we, as a society, appear to value money (since it is such a
useful tool, practically essential to us all to obtain what we really
want) over all else (including the viability of our children).
> There's an argument to be made that the huge rise in world wealth (GDP) in
> the last 200 years is basically a one-time bonus from the discovery of oil,
> which unfortunately has now just about peaked. Without fusion (or possibly
> fission), the next century may not show the same kind of long-term economic
> growth as the previous one.
>
Can our economies survive at all without oil? Obviously they will
survive in some form; I haven't seen any futurists predicting the
affect on society of this useful resource being removed from the
equation and I'd be interested in seeing some opinions of how it's all
going to pan out.
Perhaps we, as a society, should have been investing more in fusion
research. Funding for this has been slashed in the UK at least (no
immediate commercial application -- so no money).
About 20 years ago a paper on alternative (to fossil fuel) energy
sources was processed by the government; it included discussions of
nuclear power, wind power and tidal power. My understanding of the
situation back then was that tidal power provided better returns for
fewer resources than wind power with none of the potential long-term
problems of nuclear (fission). Nuclear was shown to be cheapest I
believe (in terms of immediate cost).
Now the government is interested again in renewable energy, but they
seem to be ignoring tidal generation (wind farms use massive amounts of
concrete and steel and cannot provide continuous power (they don't work
when there's no wind, and they don't work when there's too much wind
either).
The cynic in me wonders who benefits so much from the move to wind
power that other alternatives would again be totally overlooked (there
may be very good reasons for this; I don't know of any however).
The problem here is that policy seems to be defined often by powerful
lobbying rather than objective consideration. I see no reason that
governments must function this way.
> You're only thinking of oil as a material, like in the way petrochemicals are
> used as a raw material to make plastic, or as a lubricant in motors. Yes,
> most of those uses could be replaced by different raw materials. (And, at
> enormous cost, transportation could probably switch from oil to a hydrogen
> economy.)
>
We're going to have to pay this cost sooner or later. I'd have thought
it would be in all our interests to take some of the 'free money' that
oil provides and use it to seriously investigate alternatives; else we
will have to pay for this work to be done at the same time that we lose
all the advantages of free energy from oil. Of course, there's little
commercial incentive for the main (direct) beneficiaries of oil to
fund (open) research into alternatives, and the policy setters seem
unwilling to upset such powerful conglomerates.
(In the other thread somebody mentioned copying razor blades; I wonder
why still nobody has released a ceramic razor for personal use (I
believe they *are* used for commercial purposes). Presumably there's a
good reason that eludes me, so I cynically assume that the current
razor manufacturer's have a hand in keeping them off the market.)
> But replacing the free energy that oil has provided is not really feasible.
> There is no obvious replacement at similar levels of cost/energy.
>
> > The only resources I can think of that might be both necessary and scarce
> > are minerals and ores
>
> You're leaving out everything that you can buy. Bananas, iPods, SUVs, PCs,
> chairs, scissors, clocks, beer, etc. All of those things are scarce goods,
> in that the demand (at a price of zero) vastly exceeds the supply at that
> price.
I don't believe that everything (or even necessarily anything) should
be available at a zero price point. I agree that were these items
cheap, demand is likely to exceed supply; but that may be because when
items are cheap, it's often easier to discard and buy new then it is to
recycle the old (example: buy a new iPod rather than have the battery
changed). Certainly we pay more for these goods than the costs of
production (arguably we don't pay enough for some of them, like SUVs
which perhaps should be more expensive as a deterrent). The more
interesting question in all this from my point of view is whether these
things are necessary for people to 'be happy' (certainly, they are
likely to be necessary for some; how much happiness an SUV provides
would seem to be questionable. Maybe if we spent as much time
convincing people that they DON'T want these things as the
manufacturers spend convincing them they DO we'd all be better off).
Perhaps the solution to much of this scarcity would be for society to
demand a high price for waste disposal so many of our disposable items
would be worth reusing, rather than disposing.
> Some people who want the thing MUST do without. Note how this is
Why? Are you saying there do not exist sufficient resources in the
world to provide a PC to everybody that wants one? I see no reason why
some people MUST do without any given thing *unless* there are
physically insufficient raw materials to produce sufficient numbers of
said thing. I'd argue however that if any product is built from
non-renewable (or non-reusable) resources, perhaps it would be better
in the long run for us ALL to go without.
(The exception to this is that seems to me to be acceptable is to use
non-renewables in the process of developing renewables for that (or
some other) non-renewable. Whether this is possible in all cases is
left to the future to decide...)
> different from air or sunlight or seawater, where you can use as much as you
> wish and it doesn't really impact whether anyone else could do the same
> thing.
>
What if my use of that resource changes it to such an extent that it
becomes less useful to others? Its unlikely anybody would want polluted
sea-water, or polluted air. We certainly in general do not have free
access to unpolluted variants of these resources (and neither do the
things that really need access, such as many species of marine animals
for example). This is another cost we're eventually likely to have to
bear for our current 'free ride'.
> > I wonder why it is we seem to be depleting our oil reserves as quickly
> > as possible? I'm pretty sure there is a conspiracy there somewhere ;-)
>
> Well, an opposing question might be, what good does it do in the ground?
> Either you'll use it for very low cost energy, or your children will. It's
> only a one-time bonus either way. Is there really any benefit to saving it?
>
Is there any benefit to saving the rain-forests? Or to reducing
pollution? Or to attempt in any way to live in some kind of balance
with our surrounding ecology? I suspect the price of not doing so will
be very high, when it finally becomes due.
In the case of oil though, I tend to agree that it seems to serve
little purpose in the ground. I'd argue that using it purely for low
cost energy may not be maximising its valuer. Perhaps we would see
better value from using it purely as a raw material in some
manufacturing process than from burning it for energy. Whilst this is
unclear perhaps it's best left where it is until these things ARE
clear.
After all, once it's gone, it's gone (unless we can manufacture an
alternative -- but if that's the case, why not do so? There may come a
point where we find some use of oil for which we cannot provide an
alternative (this seems unlikely in this case); if so, we'd best hope
that it's not a use we consider to be important (as in, more important
than generating revenue).
> (You could make an argument about how there will need to be a transition to
> some other energy supply, and perhaps conservation now is part of an overall
> plan to ease the shock of Peak Oil. But that's a slippery argument, as many
> of the changes required will probably be postponed by society until the price
> of oil rises high enough to force them.
Indeed; this is kind of my point though I think (or one of the many
;-). At the point society is forced to change, there's likely, it seems
to me, to be serious damage done to society through wars and riots and
pretty much any other form of social unrest you can imagine. These
changes should be planned when they can be (IMO) to avoid such things.
> Which means either demand continues
> to rise, or supply finally falls, or perhaps huge taxes are applied to the
> use of oil. But just "don't use so much oil" doesn't really solve anything.)
>
You are right. As a society we need to invest in finding viable
alternatives. Whatever happens with the oil-based economy when there is
no more oil (or very limited supply), we can pretty much guarantee that
those that are worst off in society currently will bear the brunt of
any negative changes. It seem to always be that way (but does it have
to be?)
-Duncan
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> If you ever get whipped by a bullwhip, try to breathe _in_ as the whip is going
> back, and _out_ as it hits your back. Or is it the other way around? Anyway,
> you'll figure it out. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
I wrote:
>> The majority of government subsidies to industries are basically an
>> indirect form of corruption.
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 29 Jul 2006 07:2:
> Of course, my argument would be that government intervention is
> actually a necessity (the overall increase in (monetary) wealth of
> society seems unlikely to have happened were the market unfettered).
Capitalism isn't the came as anarchy. You're right that in order for markets
to function, the government needs to provide a stable society, peace & order,
enforcement of contracts, etc.
I was referring specifically to "subsidies to industry", where you tax the
general population and then redistribute that wealth to a very narrow set of
specific products (like rice, sugar, corn, steel, etc.).
> Perhaps, when all the costs have finally been calculated, we will look
> back and say that the price of oil-based energy actually turned out to
> be very high indeed. Perhaps this will be an example of the choices of
> the unthinking market jumping on what is cheap over what is best
If you're referring to things like global warming, this negative consequence
has only been clear for a few decades. Oil has been an important source of
energy for 150 years. The "unthinking market" making a decision in 1900 to
consume more oil couldn't possibly have been expected to consider a climate
change consequence.
> Can our economies survive at all without oil? [...] I haven't seen any
> futurists predicting the affect on society of this useful resource being
> removed from the equation and I'd be interested in seeing some opinions of
> how it's all going to pan out.
Oh, lots of people talk about Peak Oil and the effects on the global economy
in the next few decades. For example, trying reading through something like
this:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
I'm not saying that I agree, but I also think it's foolish to (1) deny that
future growth in oil supplies can't proceed over the next century the way it
has over the last century; (2) believe this will have zero impact on global
economic growth.
Surely the increase in world wealth in the last century has been greatly
helped by the availability of cheap oil, and the lack of world ability for
this growth to continue surely means that world wealth can't increase in the
next century as much as it otherwise would have.
Whether that means apocalypse or not is a different story.
> Perhaps we, as a society, should have been investing more in fusion
> research. Funding for this has been slashed in the UK at least (no
> immediate commercial application -- so no money).
No commercial application? The world has a huge demand for energy! There's
no question that if (controlled) fusion worked, and merely required that you
pump seawater in (for the hydrogen) to get free energy, and it just produced
harmless helium as a byproduct; well surely every country will fill their
power grid with such things.
I'm sure the problem isn't lack of potential. It's lack of progress.
Scientists have been looking into controlled fusion power plants for a long
time. They've been having a lot of trouble. A few more million dollars this
year or next is unlikely to result in the breakthrough.
> About 20 years ago a paper on alternative (to fossil fuel) energy
> sources was processed by the government; it included discussions of
> nuclear power, wind power and tidal power. My understanding of the
> situation back then was that tidal power provided better returns for
> fewer resources than wind power with none of the potential long-term
> problems of nuclear (fission).
Tidal and wind aren't even close to having the potential to replace the world
use of oil as an energy source. The scale of need is off by orders of
magnitude.
> Nuclear was shown to be cheapest I believe (in terms of immediate cost).
There's a lot of uranium out there. Nuclear fission could work. But it has
it's own set of issues. (Disposal of waste products; vulnerability to
terrorist attack or error for rare but huge devastation; target for terrorist
fissile material for nuclear bomb making; still more expensive than oil; etc.)
> I'd have thought it would be in all our interests to take some of the 'free
> money' that oil provides and use it to seriously investigate alternatives;
> else we will have to pay for this work to be done at the same time that we
> lose all the advantages of free energy from oil.
Yes, you're right about that. It'll be a double whammy to have to switch to
another source of energy at the same time that we don't have enough oil to
even keep up the current needs.
> I don't believe that everything (or even necessarily anything) should
> be available at a zero price point.
Well, that's sort of what "scarce resource" means. If you have to pay for it,
then some people who want it won't be able to get it. Also, if you set the
price below the cost of manufacture, then who do you expect will want to build
the things?
In capitalism, you let prices float until the supply and demand curves
intersect. At this "market clearing" price, exactly as many items are
produced as people want at that price. At lower prices, even more people
want the thing, but even fewer people are willing to make it. So you wind
up with shortages, and waiting lists, and black markets.
If you set the price too high, then lots of people are willing to make the
items, but few people can afford to buy them.
> The more interesting question in all this from my point of view is whether
> these things are necessary for people to 'be happy' (certainly, they are
> likely to be necessary for some; how much happiness an SUV provides would
> seem to be questionable. Maybe if we spent as much time convincing people
> that they DON'T want these things as the manufacturers spend convincing
> them they DO we'd all be better off).
I agree with you that if your goal was to increase happiness, it might be
more productive to focus on psychology than on economics.
> Are you saying there do not exist sufficient resources in the world to
> provide a PC to everybody that wants one?
Yes.
The world makes economic tradeoffs. You can make a lot of guns, or you can
make a lot of butter, but you can't make a lot of both guns and butter at the
same time.
If your only goal was to build 6 billion PCs, then yes the world might be able
to achieve that. At the cost of not making cars, or cell phones, or ...
There really are scarce resources (raw materials, labor, etc.) in the universe.
You really do need to make tradeoffs. Not everyone can possess everything they
dream of.
> I see no reason why some people MUST do without any given thing *unless*
> there are physically insufficient raw materials to produce sufficient
> numbers of said thing.
Because (1) those raw materials can be used to produce other things too;
(2) there is a finite supply (especially in the short term) of pretty much
any raw material; (3) there are many more costs in the production of a thing
than just raw material.
You really can't get away from the fact that it costs stuff in order to make
things. And the world doesn't have an infinite supply of wealth in order to
pay those costs. So you can only make limited numbers of any kind of thing,
not as much as everyone would want of everything.
> I'd argue however that if any product is built from non-renewable (or
> non-reusable) resources, perhaps it would be better in the long run for us
> ALL to go without.
That's kind of an odd choice. Why is it better for nobody to use a thing, than
for only some people?
You really do have a relative sense of value, don't you? What really annoys
you is not that you are poor, but that your neighbor has something you don't.
You're just as happy to drag him down to your level, as you are to try to
raise your own circumstances.
Understandable, I guess. But still a bit odd.
> What if my use of that resource changes it to such an extent that it
> becomes less useful to others? Its unlikely anybody would want polluted
> sea-water, or polluted air. We certainly in general do not have free
> access to unpolluted variants of these resources
Yes, in the extreme case, air and seawater (and sunlight?) could be
contaminated. This is only a recent phenomenum though. For most of human
history, these have basically been inexhaustible resources, so not subject
to economics (which is about the allocation of scarce resources).
> I'd argue that using [oil] purely for low cost energy may not be maximising
> its value. Perhaps we would see better value from using it purely as a raw
> material in some manufacturing process than from burning it for
> energy.
[...]
> After all, once it's gone, it's gone (unless we can manufacture an
> alternative -- but if that's the case, why not do so?
We can manufacture (more expensive) synthetic alternatives for pretty much
any use of oil as a raw material. We don't do so because (1) using oil is
typically cheaper; (2) the majority of world oil use is for energy, in which
it doesn't make sense to "manufacture an alternative". You don't manufacture
energy. You find it or harness it or generate it.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Most of the time it was probably real bad being stuck down in a dungeon. But
some days, when there was a bad storm outside, you'd look out your little
window and think, ``Boy, I'm glad I'm not out in THAT.''
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
Don Geddis wrote:
> I wrote:
> >> The majority of government subsidies to industries are basically an
> >> indirect form of corruption.
>
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 29 Jul 2006 07:2:
> > Of course, my argument would be that government intervention is
> > actually a necessity (the overall increase in (monetary) wealth of
> > society seems unlikely to have happened were the market unfettered).
>
> Capitalism isn't the came as anarchy. You're right that in order for markets
> to function, the government needs to provide a stable society, peace & order,
> enforcement of contracts, etc.
>
> I was referring specifically to "subsidies to industry", where you tax the
> general population and then redistribute that wealth to a very narrow set of
> specific products (like rice, sugar, corn, steel, etc.).
>
> > Perhaps, when all the costs have finally been calculated, we will look
> > back and say that the price of oil-based energy actually turned out to
> > be very high indeed. Perhaps this will be an example of the choices of
> > the unthinking market jumping on what is cheap over what is best
>
> If you're referring to things like global warming, this negative consequence
> has only been clear for a few decades. Oil has been an important source of
> energy for 150 years. The "unthinking market" making a decision in 1900 to
> consume more oil couldn't possibly have been expected to consider a climate
> change consequence.
>
I don't expect them to. As you say however, some negative consequences
*have* been clear 'for a few decades' (as has the inevitability of this
source of energy running out) so I don't think it's unreasonable to
expect some kind of proactive rather than reactive plan to have been
put in place for dealing with these costs when they materialise (if
they haven't already).
> > Can our economies survive at all without oil? [...] I haven't seen any
> > futurists predicting the affect on society of this useful resource being
> > removed from the equation and I'd be interested in seeing some opinions of
> > how it's all going to pan out.
>
> Oh, lots of people talk about Peak Oil and the effects on the global economy
> in the next few decades. For example, trying reading through something like
> this:
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
> I'm not saying that I agree, but I also think it's foolish to (1) deny that
> future growth in oil supplies can't proceed over the next century the way it
> has over the last century; (2) believe this will have zero impact on global
> economic growth.
>
I'll peruse that link momentarily; thanks.
> Surely the increase in world wealth in the last century has been greatly
> helped by the availability of cheap oil, and the lack of world ability for
> this growth to continue surely means that world wealth can't increase in the
> next century as much as it otherwise would have.
>
> Whether that means apocalypse or not is a different story.
>
We can only guess...
> > Perhaps we, as a society, should have been investing more in fusion
> > research. Funding for this has been slashed in the UK at least (no
> > immediate commercial application -- so no money).
>
> No commercial application? The world has a huge demand for energy! There's
I think you overlooked the word 'immediate' in that paragraph. UK
government funding into fusion research has been slashed because there
is little hope of a workable solution in the forseeable future (i.e.
nobody will be making money from it in 5-10 years, so no central
funding).
As far as I am aware there is no commercially funded fusion research
going on either; so no funding, no research, no solution. I'm not sure
what the state of research is in the rest of the world.
> no question that if (controlled) fusion worked, and merely required that you
> pump seawater in (for the hydrogen) to get free energy, and it just produced
> harmless helium as a byproduct; well surely every country will fill their
> power grid with such things.
>
> I'm sure the problem isn't lack of potential. It's lack of progress.
> Scientists have been looking into controlled fusion power plants for a long
> time. They've been having a lot of trouble. A few more million dollars this
> year or next is unlikely to result in the breakthrough.
>
I agree. However we can be certain that zero dollars invested this year
or next will definitely not result in the breakthrough.
> > About 20 years ago a paper on alternative (to fossil fuel) energy
> > sources was processed by the government; it included discussions of
> > nuclear power, wind power and tidal power. My understanding of the
> > situation back then was that tidal power provided better returns for
> > fewer resources than wind power with none of the potential long-term
> > problems of nuclear (fission).
>
> Tidal and wind aren't even close to having the potential to replace the world
> use of oil as an energy source. The scale of need is off by orders of
> magnitude.
>
I accept this. This was supposed to be an allegory illustrating
potentially self-serving interests influencing government policy, not a
suggestion of a solution to the impending energy crisis.
On the other hand, whatever can be done to relieve oil as a provider of
energy will at least eke out any remaining resources for a longer
period of time (perhaps providing sufficient time for some miraculous
fusion breakthrough to take place).
> > Nuclear was shown to be cheapest I believe (in terms of immediate cost).
>
> There's a lot of uranium out there. Nuclear fission could work. But it has
> it's own set of issues. (Disposal of waste products; vulnerability to
> terrorist attack or error for rare but huge devastation; target for terrorist
> fissile material for nuclear bomb making; still more expensive than oil; etc.)
>
The terrorist threat seems to be overstated IMO. There are many threats
in the world, some more real than others (this is not to say there is
no terrorist threat; just that there are other, perhaps more pressing
and addressable threats in the world to be considered).
> > I'd have thought it would be in all our interests to take some of the 'free
> > money' that oil provides and use it to seriously investigate alternatives;
> > else we will have to pay for this work to be done at the same time that we
> > lose all the advantages of free energy from oil.
>
> Yes, you're right about that. It'll be a double whammy to have to switch to
> another source of energy at the same time that we don't have enough oil to
> even keep up the current needs.
>
> > I don't believe that everything (or even necessarily anything) should
> > be available at a zero price point.
>
> Well, that's sort of what "scarce resource" means. If you have to pay for it,
> then some people who want it won't be able to get it. Also, if you set the
> price below the cost of manufacture, then who do you expect will want to build
> the things?
>
> In capitalism, you let prices float until the supply and demand curves
> intersect. At this "market clearing" price, exactly as many items are
> produced as people want at that price. At lower prices, even more people
> want the thing, but even fewer people are willing to make it. So you wind
> up with shortages, and waiting lists, and black markets.
>
> If you set the price too high, then lots of people are willing to make the
> items, but few people can afford to buy them.
>
This makes sense to me, so I'll happily concede this point.
> > The more interesting question in all this from my point of view is whether
> > these things are necessary for people to 'be happy' (certainly, they are
> > likely to be necessary for some; how much happiness an SUV provides would
> > seem to be questionable. Maybe if we spent as much time convincing people
> > that they DON'T want these things as the manufacturers spend convincing
> > them they DO we'd all be better off).
>
> I agree with you that if your goal was to increase happiness, it might be
> more productive to focus on psychology than on economics.
>
> > Are you saying there do not exist sufficient resources in the world to
> > provide a PC to everybody that wants one?
>
> Yes.
>
> The world makes economic tradeoffs. You can make a lot of guns, or you can
> make a lot of butter, but you can't make a lot of both guns and butter at the
> same time.
>
Well, we might be able to make 'enough' guns and butter at the same
time I guess...
> If your only goal was to build 6 billion PCs, then yes the world might be able
> to achieve that. At the cost of not making cars, or cell phones, or ...
>
> There really are scarce resources (raw materials, labor, etc.) in the universe.
> You really do need to make tradeoffs. Not everyone can possess everything they
> dream of.
>
I do actually agree with this.
Dreams are unusual things though in the sense that achieving an aim
often seems to be less rewarding than chasing it in the first place.
The interesting thing to me is that currently the world seems to be
segmented in such a way as to 'prevent' (in quotes since I realise no
(or little) concious action is taken to make it so (but even less in
preventing it)) a large proportion of the population from possessing
*anything* they desire (or even require), and the rest able to possess,
if not everything, then most things that they desire.
This seems unfair to me, and I see no fundamental necessity for it.
> > I see no reason why some people MUST do without any given thing *unless*
> > there are physically insufficient raw materials to produce sufficient
> > numbers of said thing.
>
> Because (1) those raw materials can be used to produce other things too;
> (2) there is a finite supply (especially in the short term) of pretty much
> any raw material; (3) there are many more costs in the production of a thing
> than just raw material.
>
I concede this also, but please bear (1) in mind for later...
> You really can't get away from the fact that it costs stuff in order to make
> things. And the world doesn't have an infinite supply of wealth in order to
> pay those costs. So you can only make limited numbers of any kind of thing,
> not as much as everyone would want of everything.
>
<devil's advocate>
Well, since our entire economic structure is pegged solely to the
dollar, and the dollar has nothing 'of value' to substantiate it,
what's to stop us just printing more money? Since this is, in effect,
what we've been doing for the last 30 years anyway (how else can the
world 'get wealthier' when wealth = money? It's a closed system, if not
a zero-sum system...)
</devil's advocate>
> > I'd argue however that if any product is built from non-renewable (or
> > non-reusable) resources, perhaps it would be better in the long run for us
> > ALL to go without.
>
> That's kind of an odd choice. Why is it better for nobody to use a thing, than
> for only some people?
>
I think you overlooked my point here; bearing in mind (1) above (raw
materials are a finite resource and we must choose to what purpose we
direct them) it seems if we exhaust all our raw materials with our
current level of technology, that future technologies may not be
possible (since they may rely on a raw material that no longer exists).
For this reason it seems sensible to attempt to preserve raw materials
where possible (even if this increases the cost of products that
require said raw material). This is why my emphasis is on renewables.
Additionally, if everybody is prevented from using some raw material,
it seems likely that there will be more interest (i.e. money) in
developing a sustainable alternative.
Of course, we could say "we will be fortunate to have lived in the only
250-300 year period of human existence, either past or future, where we
had plentiful access to raw materials and the technologies to exploit
them." since there may be few left in future. This seems a little
short-sighted and selfish to me though.
> You really do have a relative sense of value, don't you? What really annoys
> you is not that you are poor, but that your neighbor has something you don't.
> You're just as happy to drag him down to your level, as you are to try to
> raise your own circumstances.
>
> Understandable, I guess. But still a bit odd.
>
I would stick to the economics (rather than psychology) if I were you
;-). I think I already said I have no interest in making the wealthy
poorer (and I meant it). Neither do I have any interest in making them
wealthier ;-). I am interested in a more equitable and sustainable
world economy though, even though I know not how it can be achieved (if
it is possible for it to exist at all). I'll be honest and admit that I
believe our current approach is not leading there quickly -- I have
doubts that it will ever lead there (my expectation: it will collapse
before we're anywhere near).
> > What if my use of that resource changes it to such an extent that it
> > becomes less useful to others? Its unlikely anybody would want polluted
> > sea-water, or polluted air. We certainly in general do not have free
> > access to unpolluted variants of these resources
>
> Yes, in the extreme case, air and seawater (and sunlight?) could be
> contaminated. This is only a recent phenomenum though. For most of human
> history, these have basically been inexhaustible resources, so not subject
> to economics (which is about the allocation of scarce resources).
>
Well, the resources are only going to get scarcer I guess. These
'recent phenomena' are either going to have to be addressed somehow, or
(presumably) they'll get worse as the population increases and the raw
materials become scarcer. Do you think the market has any interest in
resolving these issues?
Up to now, we've been able to fall back on the argument 'we're too
stupid to realise our actions have consequences', or too tied up in the
difficult job of survival to care; I think we've reached a point now
where we can be sure our actions *do* have consequences, and we'd be
sensible to at least try to manage them.
Will this come at a cost? Sure it will. The question is, are we big
enough to front up and take some responsibility (and bear part of the
cost), or are we going to palm the problems (and associated costs) off
onto our children? I'm pretty sure which I want, but I'm also pretty
sure as to which we're going to get...
> > I'd argue that using [oil] purely for low cost energy may not be maximising
> > its value. Perhaps we would see better value from using it purely as a raw
> > material in some manufacturing process than from burning it for
> > energy.
> [...]
> > After all, once it's gone, it's gone (unless we can manufacture an
> > alternative -- but if that's the case, why not do so?
>
> We can manufacture (more expensive) synthetic alternatives for pretty much
> any use of oil as a raw material. We don't do so because (1) using oil is
> typically cheaper; (2) the majority of world oil use is for energy, in which
> it doesn't make sense to "manufacture an alternative". You don't manufacture
> energy. You find it or harness it or generate it.
>
Whatever happens, I guess at least it's going to be interesting.
-Duncan
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> Most of the time it was probably real bad being stuck down in a dungeon. But
> some days, when there was a bad storm outside, you'd look out your little
> window and think, ``Boy, I'm glad I'm not out in THAT.''
> -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
On 2006-07-31, Duncan Rose <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Don Geddis wrote:
>>
>> If you're referring to things like global warming, this negative consequence
>> has only been clear for a few decades. Oil has been an important source of
>> energy for 150 years. The "unthinking market" making a decision in 1900 to
>> consume more oil couldn't possibly have been expected to consider a climate
>> change consequence.
>>
>
> I don't expect them to. As you say however, some negative consequences
> *have* been clear 'for a few decades' (as has the inevitability of this
> source of energy running out) so I don't think it's unreasonable to
> expect some kind of proactive rather than reactive plan to have been
> put in place for dealing with these costs when they materialise (if
> they haven't already).
>
Could you explain to me the fact that Northen England was a wine producing
area of the Roman empire? You can not grow grapes there now, too cold.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-07-31, Duncan Rose <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Don Geddis wrote:
>>>
>>> If you're referring to things like global warming, this negative consequence
>>> has only been clear for a few decades. Oil has been an important source of
>>> energy for 150 years. The "unthinking market" making a decision in 1900 to
>>> consume more oil couldn't possibly have been expected to consider a climate
>>> change consequence.
>>
>> I don't expect them to. As you say however, some negative consequences
>> *have* been clear 'for a few decades' (as has the inevitability of this
>> source of energy running out) so I don't think it's unreasonable to
>> expect some kind of proactive rather than reactive plan to have been
>> put in place for dealing with these costs when they materialise (if
>> they haven't already).
>
> Could you explain to me the fact that Northen England was a wine producing
> area of the Roman empire? You can not grow grapes there now, too cold.
1. Wine isn't only made from grapes.
2. There's little evidence to suggest that vines were grown in Roman
England as anything more than ornamentation.
Vines were certainly grown in the *middle ages*, most successfully during
the Medieval Warm Period (which ran from about 10th to 14th century BC,
and was followed by the Little Ice Age.)
But England was a major exporter of wine during the Roman occupation?
It's possible, but it certainly wasn't *grape* wine.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Nathan Baum wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, marc spitzer wrote:
>
>> On 2006-07-31, Duncan Rose <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > Don Geddis wrote:
>> > >
>> > > If you're referring to things like global warming, this negative
>> > > consequence has only been clear for a few decades. Oil has been
>> > > an important source of energy for 150 years. The "unthinking
>> > > market" making a decision in 1900 to consume more oil couldn't
>> > > possibly have been expected to consider a climate change
>> > > consequence.
>> >
>> > I don't expect them to. As you say however, some negative
>> > consequences *have* been clear 'for a few decades' (as has the
>> > inevitability of this source of energy running out) so I don't think
>> > it's unreasonable to expect some kind of proactive rather than
>> > reactive plan to have been put in place for dealing with these costs
>> > when they materialise (if they haven't already).
>>
>> Could you explain to me the fact that Northen England was a wine
>> producing area of the Roman empire? You can not grow grapes there
>> now, too cold.
Also, it *is* possible to grow grapes in Northern England.
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 31 Jul 2006 15:2:
>> > Perhaps we, as a society, should have been investing more in fusion
>> > research. Funding for this has been slashed in the UK at least (no
>> > immediate commercial application -- so no money).
I wrote:
>> No commercial application? The world has a huge demand for energy!
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 31 Jul 2006 15:2:
> I think you overlooked the word 'immediate' in that paragraph. UK
> government funding into fusion research has been slashed because there
> is little hope of a workable solution in the forseeable future
Yes, that's an explanation that I suggested (in some text you clipped).
It's not that there's no commercial application; it's that the probability
of success seems low.
> (i.e. nobody will be making money from it in 5-10 years, so no central
> funding).
I actually think this is hard to tell. Is fusion something that we'll get
closer and closer to every year, until we finally pass some magic barrier a
few decades from now? Or, instead, is it something that will make zero
progress for a long time, and then some genius will have an insight and
suddenly it will all work overnight? And that brainstorm could happen at any
time?
This one is very hard to call.
> The terrorist threat seems to be overstated IMO. There are many threats
> in the world, some more real than others (this is not to say there is
> no terrorist threat; just that there are other, perhaps more pressing
> and addressable threats in the world to be considered).
Yes, I actually agree with you.
The WTC airplane attacks on 9/11 killed "only" a few thousand people. In a
nation of hundreds of millions. It was shocking to the psyche. But not so
much to the economy or stability of the nation. And it's nothing like living
in the middle of a real, modern war zone. (Or in one of the battlefield towns
during WWII, for example.) Terrorists, as annoying as they are, can only hope
to change minds. They can't actually force change through their attacks.
> <devil's advocate>
> Well, since our entire economic structure is pegged solely to the
> dollar
That's not actually true. It's just a convenient shorthand to record
relative value.
> and the dollar has nothing 'of value' to substantiate it,
That's more true. Dollars are just placeholders for value.
> what's to stop us just printing more money? Since this is, in effect,
> what we've been doing for the last 30 years anyway
You can print more money. But that doesn't result in more wealth; it results
in inflation. At the end of the day, people want real things. If I'm a farmer
and I have ten carrots to sell, and a bunch of people want them, then even if
the US government suddenly gave everyone a million dollars -- that wouldn't
result in any more carrots. I still have only ten available.
The difference would be: before the new money, the twenty people who want my
carrots would each be willing to give me a dollar for them. Afterwards, those
twenty people would each be willing to give me $10,000 for the same carrots.
So, as a farmer, I'd simply raise my prices from $1/carrot to $10,000/carrot.
(This is called inflation.)
But still, only ten people would get a carrot.
> (how else can the world 'get wealthier' when wealth = money? It's a closed
> system, if not a zero-sum system...)
> </devil's advocate>
Wealth does not = money. Wealth = things people want to have/use. Money is
just a placeholder, a temporary store of value. It's only useful if its own
value is fairly stable. If the government just constantly printed money, they
it would cease to have any purpose, and nobody would accept it as a medium of
exchange. We'd all return to a barter system (trading real goods for real
goods). But the economy wouldn't disappear. Most of it would continue just
as it used to, only a bit slower (since stable money lubricates economic
exchanges).
Economic wealth is not money. It is not a closed system. It is not a zero-sum
game. Economic wealth can be created.
You can put together things that cost a little bit, and create something that
is worth a lot. Since this group is supposedly about Lisp, think of the
example of programming. Take a smart person, a cheap computer, and add in
some labor hours ... and at the end of the day you can have created a program
that is worth a huge amount. That program adds to the world's wealth.
It isn't just a redistribution of existing wealth, and it isn't related
directly to any use of money.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
If you ever visit the world of the future and their heads are much larger than
ours, don't try to make your head look larger by wearing a Styrofoam helmet or
something. Really, you're just making us all uncomfortable.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 31 Jul 2006 15:2:
>>> > Perhaps we, as a society, should have been investing more in fusion
>>> > research. Funding for this has been slashed in the UK at least (no
>>> > immediate commercial application -- so no money).
>
> I wrote:
>>> No commercial application? The world has a huge demand for energy!
>
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 31 Jul 2006 15:2:
>> I think you overlooked the word 'immediate' in that paragraph. UK
>> government funding into fusion research has been slashed because there
>> is little hope of a workable solution in the forseeable future
>
> Yes, that's an explanation that I suggested (in some text you clipped).
> It's not that there's no commercial application; it's that the probability
> of success seems low.
>
>> (i.e. nobody will be making money from it in 5-10 years, so no central
>> funding).
I thought these cases were the major reason for government-funded
research---no near-term commercial prospects but enormous possible
(and actually fairly likely) long term gain. If governments don't
think they should do stuff like this, I don't see why we shouldn't
just leave research to the free market and to philanthropists.
It's sort of a shared-risk scheme, where no commercial enterprise can
afford to assume the financial risk of failure but where society as a
whole decides (through the democratic process) to assume it. Hmn,
perhaps that's the problem.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Ah, the 20th century, when the flight from reason crash-landed into
the slaughterhouse. -- James Ostrowski
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> If robots can grow all the food that anyone wants, and supply all
> the power, then those things will no longer have a cost (just like
> sunlight and air), and anyone can use as much as they want of any of
> it.
Until the robots are smart enough to realize they have better things to
do with their time, and start to ask what "value" these people have.
Even with Asimov's three laws in place, I suspect at some point a clever
robot will decide that making people "pay" isn't really harming them.
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
>
>> If robots can grow all the food that anyone wants, and supply all
>> the power, then those things will no longer have a cost (just like
>> sunlight and air), and anyone can use as much as they want of any of
>> it.
>
> Until the robots are smart enough to realize they have better things to
> do with their time, and start to ask what "value" these people have.
>
> Even with Asimov's three laws in place, I suspect at some point a clever
> robot will decide that making people "pay" isn't really harming them.
There's one significant difference between robots and people: robots
feel no pain and are tireless. This is a natural brake on activity of
human, and it explains the need for compensation. But for robots, as
long as they have enough energy (and replacement mechanical parts), I
don't see why they wouldn't go on working indefinitely.
Of course, they may "realize that they have better things to do with
their time", if we program them to this potentiality.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
COMPONENT EQUIVALENCY NOTICE: The subatomic particles (electrons,
protons, etc.) comprising this product are exactly the same in every
measurable respect as those used in the products of other
manufacturers, and no claim to the contrary may legitimately be
expressed or implied.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
> > Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> >
> >> If robots can grow all the food that anyone wants, and supply all
> >> the power, then those things will no longer have a cost (just like
> >> sunlight and air), and anyone can use as much as they want of any of
> >> it.
> >
> > Until the robots are smart enough to realize they have better things to
> > do with their time, and start to ask what "value" these people have.
> >
> > Even with Asimov's three laws in place, I suspect at some point a clever
> > robot will decide that making people "pay" isn't really harming them.
>
> There's one significant difference between robots and people: robots
> feel no pain and are tireless. This is a natural brake on activity of
> human, and it explains the need for compensation. But for robots, as
> long as they have enough energy (and replacement mechanical parts), I
> don't see why they wouldn't go on working indefinitely.
>
> Of course, they may "realize that they have better things to do with
> their time", if we program them to this potentiality.
>
I wonder if it is possible to create an intelligence that could be
considered in any way to be even close to human without these
philosophical questions arising automatically from that intelligence.
Perhaps many human failings are inherent to human-level intelligence (I
wonder if dolphins or elephants might be unnecessarily cruel to one
another if they developed an appropriate level of technology).
Many of our emotions and 'natural tendencies' I presume evolved for
purely survivalist reasons (IIRC it is the case that rival groups of
ants will also fight each other for resources if their paths cross);
perhaps they are a necessary element to intelligence (which would mean
we would not program the robots to the potentiality (in the sense of
purposely adding that potential), rather the potentiality would be
inherent in building the intelligence in the first place).
Another way of phrasing the above might be to ask whether an
intelligence can be functional without, say, desire; at least the
desire for new knowlege if for nothing else. Is jealousy inherently
(and indivisibly) joined to desire?
Hopefully we'll find out sometime...
-Duncan
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
>
> COMPONENT EQUIVALENCY NOTICE: The subatomic particles (electrons,
> protons, etc.) comprising this product are exactly the same in every
> measurable respect as those used in the products of other
> manufacturers, and no claim to the contrary may legitimately be
> expressed or implied.
On 2006-07-28 05:58:50 -0400, "Duncan Rose"
<···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> said:
> Is jealousy inherently
> (and indivisibly) joined to desire?
As long as that desire if for a scarce resource then it's likely yes.
People rarely become jealous of someone else breathing ...
Don Geddis wrote:
> Economics is about allocation of scarce resources, where more people want a
> thing than there is of that thing. (It's also about incentives, and how they
> change human "free will" behavior.) Economics doesn't really deal with goods
> that aren't scarce, like sunlight or breathable air.
If our economists don't look at infinitely copyable goods like software
and ideas, then maybe that's why it's hard to have a constructive
discussion on software.
Here's one reasonable definition, that can get us pretty far in a
conversation:
"An economy is the set of institutions that facilitate and organize
people producing and consuming things."
http://www.zmag.org/Instructionals/EconVision/id5.htm
So let's take software. What if we had a world where software was
infinitely copyable, but most people with computers could only own some
finite amount of it? The owners of Lispworks could have as many copies
of Lispworks Enterprise they wanted, but most users don't have the
budget for even one copy.
So we see that the economic system distributes infinite goods
unequally. We have the concept of distribution of goods in society,
with important ramifications.
There are other things we ask from economic systems, which our
economists don't look very hard at. For instance, humans care very much
if an economic system means most of them have "bosses", who order them
around and limit their workplace speech.
Tayssir
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 26 Jul 2006 13:0:
> Are you saying that the only way to narrow the gap is to legislate 'a loss'
> on the richest couple of percent?
Pretty much, yes. Wealth is a multiplier in creating new wealth. Left alone,
it's perfectly natural that rich people will get richer faster than poor
people will get richer. These are strong natural forces that you have to take
into account.
> I'm not interested in making the wealthy poorer, only the poor wealthier.
Not quite. Your stated goal was to make the poor wealthier FASTER than the
rich were getting wealthier. (Otherwise the gap between rich and poor grows.)
I was proposing an alternative, that you focus your concern on whether the
poor are getting wealthier or not. You have insisted that relative wealth
(the gap between rich and poor) is what matters to you.
These choices have huge impacts on public policy. The easiest and fastest
ways for the poor to get wealthier, as a side effect, happen to make the rich
wealthier even faster. If you insist on capping the growth in wealth of the
rich, you'll generally find that the poor improve their lot only very slowly,
if at all. (On an absolute scale of course -- surely the gap between them
shrinks, by definition.)
> I like to hope though that there is indeed a point where the material needs
> and wants of a sufficiently large proportion of the (world) population are
> met in such a way that people will be able to mark it on their calendars
> and point to it and say "this is when the world went from being generally
> an unhappy and unjust place to a generally happy and just place".
Do you have an opinion about the current state of the most poor in the US?
It's rare for even a long-time unemployed adult to be in danger of death from
starvation, or from exposure to the elements. Or even random violence, for
that matter. (Most folks worse off than that have additional mental health
problems, leaving them unable to take care of themselves. But the vast
majority of halfway competent adults can locate the resources necessary for
life, from soup kitchens to churches to government welfare.)
Has the US already achieved your desired level of prosperity?
> I agree that in objective terms even the poorest in our societies are
> far wealthier than they were a few years ago even (ever watch those
> '70s cop shows? How depressed the areas they were filmed in look...).
> I'm not sure it's really possible for the very poor to be 'happy'
> (maybe it is -- certainly some people seem to be able to be happy
> whatever circumstances they find themselves in), and it would be
> difficult to measure too, but I wonder whether today's poor are happier
> or less happy than the poor that went before...
If your goal is happiness, that's yet a different topic (different than
economics) -- but it can also be explored scientifically. Take a look at
books like "The Progress Paradox" (Easterbrook) just as an example. Plenty of
other research on this topic.
The basic conclusion seems to be that long-term happiness levels are more of
function of basic personality than of circumstances. Net worth is only very
loosely correlated with happiness.
Random example: Once you pass poverty levels in the US ($20K/yr?), it turns out
that for a huge range of annual incomes (up to maybe $300K/yr), everybody
reports that all their stress over money would disappear overnight if only they
had "twice as much income" as they currently do. So someone making $30K/yr
is unhappy, but believes they would be ecstatic if only they made $60K/yr.
Oddly, though, someone making $100K/yr is ALSO unhappy, and believes their
problems would be solved if only their made $200K/yr.
FWIW, the field of "economics" isn't about making people happy. It's about
making them (monetarily) rich.
> Even given your definition above however I would argue there are far,
> far more people in the world now who are unable to provide themselves
> with shelter, food, and live under far more immediate threats of death
> from disease or violence, infant morality rates, etc. than there were a
> couple of hundred years ago. Not in Europe or the US surely, but the
> world's a big place.
Well, in absolute numbers, sure -- but only because the world population has
grown so fast. (There may be roughly as many people alive right now as have
ever existed in all of history.)
But in terms of percentage of world population? I doubt it. Pre-industrial
revolution, only a tiny elite was out of deadly poverty. Dying from old age
was the exception, not the norm, until only very recently.
The whole rise of the "middle class" is a relatively recent phenomena.
Before a couple hundred years ago, you were basically either royalty, or you
were poor. There was nothing in between.
Today a much higher percentage of overall population is past the basic needs
of life (food, shelter, etc.), than ever before in past human societies.
> Sure, in economic terms, a totally controlled national economy might lead
> to a very rapid increase in societal wealth (economic's wealth)
Actually, experience has shown the opposite. Centrally controlled economies
have been horrible at generating national wealth. Decentralized capitalist
economies have far, far outstripped them in long-term GDP growth. The
evidence for this is now overwhelming, especially in so-called "natural
experiments" were most of the variables were close to identical except for
the economic(/political) structure. For example, East vs. West Germany over
the last fifty years; or North vs. South Korea over the last forty years.
Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. vs. Cuba, China, USSR, etc.
> I have no desire to return to a pre-industrial society, or to dispose
> of technical and scientific advances (if I were I'd just turn Amish I
> guess).
Given your goals, I wonder why Amish society doesn't appeal to you more.
Overall, those folks are reasonably happy. Surely more so than the average
yuppie in downtown Manhattan.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I
hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 26 Jul 2006 13:0:
> > Are you saying that the only way to narrow the gap is to legislate 'a loss'
> > on the richest couple of percent?
>
> Pretty much, yes. Wealth is a multiplier in creating new wealth. Left alone,
> it's perfectly natural that rich people will get richer faster than poor
> people will get richer. These are strong natural forces that you have to take
> into account.
>
I wonder if these are indeed natural forces. It seems to me if the poor
were able to charge the rich more for their services, this trend may be
reversed. Of course, price fixing is illegal, and it remains to be seen
what value anything the poor (generally undereducated) can do has. As
every year passes, I suspect the number of things of any value the
lower orders in society are able to perform gets smaller (as those
tasks become automated). As time passes, this trend seems likely to
climb higher up the 'wealth' ladder; we've seen it in programming
already (quick! there's money to be made there, everybody jump to study
it! Oh dear, we seem to have an abundance of programmers, so we'll
lower all your wages. D'oh!).
> > I'm not interested in making the wealthy poorer, only the poor wealthier.
>
> Not quite. Your stated goal was to make the poor wealthier FASTER than the
> rich were getting wealthier. (Otherwise the gap between rich and poor grows.)
>
Indeed. But I'm still not really interested in seeing the wealthy get
poorer. If this is a side-effect of my policies, so be it. They need
little protection from the likes of me.
> I was proposing an alternative, that you focus your concern on whether the
> poor are getting wealthier or not. You have insisted that relative wealth
> (the gap between rich and poor) is what matters to you.
>
Yes, because I believe people who consider themselves to be
impoverished find it difficult to be happy, and rightly or wrongly I
think people consider themselves impoverished based on where they find
themselves relative to others in their society.
> These choices have huge impacts on public policy. The easiest and fastest
> ways for the poor to get wealthier, as a side effect, happen to make the rich
> wealthier even faster. If you insist on capping the growth in wealth of the
> rich, you'll generally find that the poor improve their lot only very slowly,
> if at all. (On an absolute scale of course -- surely the gap between them
> shrinks, by definition.)
>
Capping anything *should* be unnecessary; if as a society we valued
altruism more highly than cash I should imagine the situation could be
changed easily (of course, then we might have a problem with the
'altruism gap' instead of the 'wealth gap'). I accept this isn't very
realistic ;-)
> > I like to hope though that there is indeed a point where the material needs
> > and wants of a sufficiently large proportion of the (world) population are
> > met in such a way that people will be able to mark it on their calendars
> > and point to it and say "this is when the world went from being generally
> > an unhappy and unjust place to a generally happy and just place".
>
> Do you have an opinion about the current state of the most poor in the US?
> It's rare for even a long-time unemployed adult to be in danger of death from
> starvation, or from exposure to the elements. Or even random violence, for
> that matter. (Most folks worse off than that have additional mental health
> problems, leaving them unable to take care of themselves. But the vast
> majority of halfway competent adults can locate the resources necessary for
> life, from soup kitchens to churches to government welfare.)
>
> Has the US already achieved your desired level of prosperity?
>
Definately not. I *am* however beginning to think that all this talk of
'rich', 'poor', 'poverty' and so on is totally missing the mark of what
*actually* concerns me.
Do you think the support New Orleans received after the hurricane there
was equivalent to the kind of assistance that (say) New York would have
received under similar conditions? If not, is this because the former
is generally poor, and the latter is less so? (If the opposite, my
whole paragraph is kind of invalid ;-)
I think my real interests are in seeing these kinds of (possibly only
perceived) inequality dealt with; rich vs. poor may then become an
irrelevence (I'm not totally sure of that though).
> > I agree that in objective terms even the poorest in our societies are
> > far wealthier than they were a few years ago even (ever watch those
> > '70s cop shows? How depressed the areas they were filmed in look...).
> > I'm not sure it's really possible for the very poor to be 'happy'
> > (maybe it is -- certainly some people seem to be able to be happy
> > whatever circumstances they find themselves in), and it would be
> > difficult to measure too, but I wonder whether today's poor are happier
> > or less happy than the poor that went before...
>
> If your goal is happiness, that's yet a different topic (different than
> economics) -- but it can also be explored scientifically. Take a look at
> books like "The Progress Paradox" (Easterbrook) just as an example. Plenty of
> other research on this topic.
Sorry for changing topic so often :-) I changed to 'happiness' (rather
than wealth) because I think as a term it captures more accurately what
I'm actually interested in; and it may well be the case that it is in
fact exactly what I am interested in.
>
> The basic conclusion seems to be that long-term happiness levels are more of
> function of basic personality than of circumstances. Net worth is only very
> loosely correlated with happiness.
>
Maybe my thoughts of red herrings above are closer to the mark than I
believed...
> Random example: Once you pass poverty levels in the US ($20K/yr?), it turns out
> that for a huge range of annual incomes (up to maybe $300K/yr), everybody
> reports that all their stress over money would disappear overnight if only they
> had "twice as much income" as they currently do. So someone making $30K/yr
> is unhappy, but believes they would be ecstatic if only they made $60K/yr.
> Oddly, though, someone making $100K/yr is ALSO unhappy, and believes their
> problems would be solved if only their made $200K/yr.
>
So what you are saying is my 'tipping point' is an annual income of
around $300k (all other things remaining as they are). At least now we
have a concrete figure to aim at... we might not have a happy world
when people are unconcerned with money, but certainly one unhappiness
for many will have been removed.
> FWIW, the field of "economics" isn't about making people happy. It's about
> making them (monetarily) rich.
>
We're (or at least, I'm) not really talking about economics then --
something I'm sure you worked out some time ago.
> > Even given your definition above however I would argue there are far,
> > far more people in the world now who are unable to provide themselves
> > with shelter, food, and live under far more immediate threats of death
> > from disease or violence, infant morality rates, etc. than there were a
> > couple of hundred years ago. Not in Europe or the US surely, but the
> > world's a big place.
>
> Well, in absolute numbers, sure -- but only because the world population has
> grown so fast. (There may be roughly as many people alive right now as have
> ever existed in all of history.)
>
> But in terms of percentage of world population? I doubt it. Pre-industrial
> revolution, only a tiny elite was out of deadly poverty. Dying from old age
> was the exception, not the norm, until only very recently.
>
I've posted elsewhere about poverty. By todays standards of poverty
(what did you say earlier? $20k/yr income or lower?) even very recently
nearly everybody was in poverty. By the standards of the time though,
this isn't so.
Let's fast forward 1000 years; do you think our descendants, living to
250yrs with incomes well in excess of $10M/yr, with walls that are
actually TV screens (and flying cars maybe), with as much free energy
and food as they could ever use, will consider nearly everybody alive
at the moment to be in a state of poverty?
Do you consider nearly everybody to be in poverty at the moment?
Our idea of poverty has to change as technology and normality change,
surely...
> The whole rise of the "middle class" is a relatively recent phenomena.
> Before a couple hundred years ago, you were basically either royalty, or you
> were poor. There was nothing in between.
>
> Today a much higher percentage of overall population is past the basic needs
> of life (food, shelter, etc.), than ever before in past human societies.
>
Yes, we're doing much better than we were. Let's hope the trend
continues this way.
> > Sure, in economic terms, a totally controlled national economy might lead
> > to a very rapid increase in societal wealth (economic's wealth)
>
> Actually, experience has shown the opposite. Centrally controlled economies
... that's why the 'might' was in there; I agree it's not too clear
what I meant on re-reading however. I thought we were talking about
China's ability to reinvent itself (or its economy) in a short period
of time, due to its totally controlled national economy...
> have been horrible at generating national wealth. Decentralized capitalist
> economies have far, far outstripped them in long-term GDP growth. The
> evidence for this is now overwhelming, especially in so-called "natural
> experiments" were most of the variables were close to identical except for
> the economic(/political) structure. For example, East vs. West Germany over
> the last fifty years; or North vs. South Korea over the last forty years.
> Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. vs. Cuba, China, USSR, etc.
>
> > I have no desire to return to a pre-industrial society, or to dispose
> > of technical and scientific advances (if I were I'd just turn Amish I
> > guess).
>
> Given your goals, I wonder why Amish society doesn't appeal to you more.
> Overall, those folks are reasonably happy. Surely more so than the average
> yuppie in downtown Manhattan.
>
I sometimes wonder too; I enjoy technology and gadgets (although my
most memorable vacations involve none (I use vacations here because it
seems what I would choose to use my (monetary) wealth to do when the
only person I need to take into consideration is myself is likely to be
a better indicator of what I really want than what I do day-to-day. Of
course, if I did the things I did on vacation on a permanent basis, I
might change my point of view)); I like having the option of traveling
great distances very quickly (although this seems relatively
unimportant to my life); I suspect the reason I would reject such a
lifestyle is because I enjoy the persuit of knowlege and such societies
seem to be the antithesis of that idea.
I'll give that some more thought ;-)
-Duncan
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I
> hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
> Don Geddis wrote:
>> > "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
>> >> It's not possible for *everybody* to make a profit. Somebody, somewhere,
>> >> has to pay (or do) and make a *loss* (perform a service or sell goods for
>> >> 'less than they're worth') in order for the economy to work.
>>
>> Thomas Lindgren <···········@*****.***> wrote on Sun, 23 Jul 2006:
>> > No, no, no. Not at all. The very basis of trading goods is that both
>> > parties do it willingly, in order to be better off. Your profit does
>> > not imply my loss.
>>
>> Yeah, that paragraph of Duncan's caught my eye too. A little economic
>> education would seem to be required. Wealth actually increases over time.
>> Economics is not a zero-sum game.
>>
>
> Apologies to students of economics -- my background is Physics where
> nearly everything is a zero sum game.
>
> I actually spent a long time after Thomas posted writing a response,
> then cancelling, then writing another; I find it difficult to express
> my feelings on the matter in terms an economist would find acceptable,
> so it's probably best that I don't bother (and I don't really want to
> pull the thread off in yet another direction). However (one day I'll
> learn to resist such things, but I feel I will maximize my profit by
> doing so (and since this isn't a zero-sum game, and you're all
> profiting from this too, aren't you happy about that?)).
>
> 1. Wealth increases over time.
>
> True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
> growing. The poor are "losing" compared to the rich more than they were
> before (ok, economists would call this profit since in objective terms
> the poorer are getting richer. I tend to think relative comparison is a
> more realistic measure however).
>
> This isn't only measured in hard cash terms; also in mortality rates,
> access to health care, access to clean and healthy food (even access to
> clean water, for many), and every other metric you can think of. These
> things I think should also be included in any 'profit and loss' model.
>
There is a school of economic thought which, for the past 15 years or
so, has been arguing that many of the economic yardsticks, like
GDP standard of living, etc and even the notion of profit have been too narrowly defined
and are giving us misleading indicators precisely because they don't
factor in things like life expectancy, environmental costs, long term
opportunity costs/sustainability average hours worked per week etc.
They argue that in the current social context, metrics based on good
produced, exported/imported, the cost of basic necessities etc are
insufficient to really determine if we are becoming "richer".
I'm certainly not an economist, but there seems to be some sense to
the argument. All I do know is the increasing lesure time I heard
about in the 70s doesn't seem to have happened and in fact, we now
seem to be working longer and harder rather than enjoying the good
life. Job security is rapidly becoming a thing of the past with the
rise in casual and part-time employment. While this generally isn't a
problem for those of us with easily marketable skills, its a big issue
for those, especially the young, who don't have any and don't have the
money to pay for the education which might give them those marketable
skills.
compare that to the 60s and you have to wonder if, as a society, we
really have all benefited in real terms or if it is really just a few
who have benefited really well, a middle group who have possibly
stayed about the same and a bottom group who are pretty much stuffed!
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Duncan Rose <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>
> True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
> growing.
How can it be any other way? Money = work; the person with money can do
more work than the person without, just like a person with a machine can
do more work than a person without.
You might as well observe that the person in a car is rapidly
outdistancing the person on horseback.
Fortunately, wealth can be accumulated. It takes education,
determination, and discipline. Unfortunately, those qualities aren't
always valued.
Bob Felts wrote:
> Duncan Rose <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
> > growing.
>
> How can it be any other way? Money = work;
Why? I see little evidence of any correlation between money and work
except at the lowest levels of society where people are paid piecemeal.
> the person with money can do
> more work than the person without, just like a person with a machine can
> do more work than a person without.
>
Yes; that's true for all the richest people in the world-wide society.
They all do far, far more work than the vast majority.
Of course, I believe this to be untrue. I agree that the person with
money CAN 'do more work' (I assume we both mean by this that they can
pay others to do more work on their behalf, not that they actually do
the work themselves), I'd dispute that they actually DO do more work
(there are always exceptions; even I would class some as deserving of
great wealth) -- especially in relation the the ability to 'do more
work'.
This could be shown by examining who actually pays for most goods and
services; is it the relatively small number of rich, or the vast
sprawling mass of the poor? I have no facts to present either way, but
were I a betting man I know where I'd put my money.
> You might as well observe that the person in a car is rapidly
> outdistancing the person on horseback.
>
But are they going somewhere useful? This is the real question.
> Fortunately, wealth can be accumulated. It takes education,
> determination, and discipline. Unfortunately, those qualities aren't
> always valued.
I don't disagree with this; I'm optimistic that wealth can be
accumulated even without one or possibly two of your stated
prerequisits. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing when we
talk of wealth however.
Let's see if this works...
(if (and (equalp work money) (equalp money wealth))
(break-out-the-bubbly-everybody-is-wealthy)
(there-is-something-wrong-here-somewhere))
[Obviously in the interests of science I've cut out all those no good
lazy bums who just can't be bothered to get off their backsides and go
out to work.]
-Duncan
Duncan Rose <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob Felts wrote:
> > Duncan Rose <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
> > > growing.
> >
> > How can it be any other way? Money = work;
>
> Why? I see little evidence of any correlation between money and work
> except at the lowest levels of society where people are paid piecemeal.
>
By "money = work", I mean that money can be put to work earning more
money.
> > the person with money can do more work than the person without, just
> > like a person with a machine can do more work than a person without.
> >
>
> Yes; that's true for all the richest people in the world-wide society.
> They all do far, far more work than the vast majority.
>
They, in fact, do more work because their money earns money for them. 1
million dollars at 8% interest pulls in 80K/year.
> Of course, I believe this to be untrue. I agree that the person with
> money CAN 'do more work' (I assume we both mean by this that they can
> pay others to do more work on their behalf, not that they actually do
> the work themselves),
That's another way in which money = work.
[...]
>
> > You might as well observe that the person in a car is rapidly
> > outdistancing the person on horseback.
> >
>
> But are they going somewhere useful? This is the real question.
>
That's for them to decide, not you or me. The point is that the car is
a force multiplier over the horse, just like the horse is a force
multiplier over one person.
> > Fortunately, wealth can be accumulated. It takes education,
> > determination, and discipline. Unfortunately, those qualities aren't
> > always valued.
>
> I don't disagree with this; I'm optimistic that wealth can be
> accumulated even without one or possibly two of your stated
> prerequisits. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing when we
> talk of wealth however.
>
For this particular discussion, it's money (or an equivalent storage
form). But I wholeheartedly agree that there are things of more value
than money.
[...]
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
> 1. Wealth increases over time.
>
> True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
> growing. The poor are "losing" compared to the rich more than they were
> before (ok, economists would call this profit since in objective terms
> the poorer are getting richer. I tend to think relative comparison is a
> more realistic measure however).
It occurred to me while reading this that this is pretty much
inevitable when wealth is increasing. That's because poverty is
bounded on the lower side (at 0) but wealth is not bounded. So when
wealth is increasing it's possible to have people with larger and
larger amounts of wealth. The "bell curve" or whatever is being
stretched to the right but it's anchored at the left. So the people
on the right extremity of the bell curve will be getting farther and
farther away from the people on the left extremity.
We could easily cure the above "problem" by simply removing wealth
from the system. Is that what we want?
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
And so the Russian people made do on whatever ration of rice and suet
the stores were handing out to the people waiting in the interminable
lines in the dark and the snow that week; they went to sleep hungry
and malnourished but much cheered by the certainty that no greedy
capitalists were making obscene profits by actually delivering them
any chicken.
Fred Gilham wrote:
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
>
> > 1. Wealth increases over time.
> >
> > True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
> > growing. The poor are "losing" compared to the rich more than they were
> > before (ok, economists would call this profit since in objective terms
> > the poorer are getting richer. I tend to think relative comparison is a
> > more realistic measure however).
>
> It occurred to me while reading this that this is pretty much
> inevitable when wealth is increasing. That's because poverty is
> bounded on the lower side (at 0) but wealth is not bounded. So when
> wealth is increasing it's possible to have people with larger and
> larger amounts of wealth. The "bell curve" or whatever is being
> stretched to the right but it's anchored at the left. So the people
> on the right extremity of the bell curve will be getting farther and
> farther away from the people on the left extremity.
>
The graphs here:
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
don't look like they're bell-shaped to me. I wonder what the world (or
even just the US) would look like if it were...
> We could easily cure the above "problem" by simply removing wealth
> from the system. Is that what we want?
>
Why would reducing the magnitude of the wealth axis change the shape of
the graph?
-Duncan
> --
> Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
> And so the Russian people made do on whatever ration of rice and suet
> the stores were handing out to the people waiting in the interminable
> lines in the dark and the snow that week; they went to sleep hungry
> and malnourished but much cheered by the certainty that no greedy
> capitalists were making obscene profits by actually delivering them
> any chicken.
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
>> > True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
>> > growing. The poor are "losing" compared to the rich more than they were
>> > before (ok, economists would call this profit since in objective terms
>> > the poorer are getting richer. I tend to think relative comparison is a
>> > more realistic measure however).
Fred Gilham wrote:
>> It occurred to me while reading this that this is pretty much
>> inevitable when wealth is increasing. That's because poverty is
>> bounded on the lower side (at 0) but wealth is not bounded. So when
>> wealth is increasing it's possible to have people with larger and
>> larger amounts of wealth. The "bell curve" or whatever is being
>> stretched to the right but it's anchored at the left. So the people
>> on the right extremity of the bell curve will be getting farther and
>> farther away from the people on the left extremity.
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 31 Jul 2006 15:4:
> The graphs here:
> http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
> don't look like they're bell-shaped to me.
Those are graphing different things. I'm sure Fred was referring to a
graph of net worth (on the X axis) vs. # of people (on the Y axis). The
X axis has to start at zero net worth on the left, but can grow larger and
larger on the right (so the gap grows over time).
The number of people in any given bracket ($0-$10K, ..., $100K-$150K, ...)
probably shows some kind of a bell curve shape. Not symmetric, though.
Starts at 0, gets bigger for a bit (at the "typical" average income level),
and then starts dropping. But it has a long, long tail out the right.
There are always a few individuals with net worth at most brackets that you
think of. The graph finally stops at Bill Gates, around $50B. But a century
ago, it stopped far short of that level. Even a few decades ago, you could
probably top the charts with a "mere" $10B net worth.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Why is "phonics" spelled that way?
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
--->8--- snipped --->8---
>
> Fred Gilham wrote:
> >> It occurred to me while reading this that this is pretty much
> >> inevitable when wealth is increasing. That's because poverty is
> >> bounded on the lower side (at 0) but wealth is not bounded. So when
> >> wealth is increasing it's possible to have people with larger and
> >> larger amounts of wealth. The "bell curve" or whatever is being
> >> stretched to the right but it's anchored at the left. So the people
> >> on the right extremity of the bell curve will be getting farther and
> >> farther away from the people on the left extremity.
>
> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> wrote on 31 Jul 2006 15:4:
> > The graphs here:
> > http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
> > don't look like they're bell-shaped to me.
>
> Those are graphing different things. I'm sure Fred was referring to a
> graph of net worth (on the X axis) vs. # of people (on the Y axis). The
> X axis has to start at zero net worth on the left, but can grow larger and
> larger on the right (so the gap grows over time).
>
If you do the transformation on the data in the link into the axes Fred
described, you don't end up with a bell curve.
> The number of people in any given bracket ($0-$10K, ..., $100K-$150K, ...)
> probably shows some kind of a bell curve shape. Not symmetric, though.
And therefore not a bell curve (a normal distribution).
> Starts at 0, gets bigger for a bit (at the "typical" average income level),
> and then starts dropping. But it has a long, long tail out the right.
> There are always a few individuals with net worth at most brackets that you
> think of. The graph finally stops at Bill Gates, around $50B. But a century
> ago, it stopped far short of that level. Even a few decades ago, you could
> probably top the charts with a "mere" $10B net worth.
>
Indeed. But no amount of furtling with axis magnitudes will turn a
graph with the shape of a Rayleigh distribution (say) into one shaped
as a Gaussian distribution. I guess I failed to sufficiently express my
intent (again). Perhaps I should work on my writing skills...
-Duncan
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> Why is "phonics" spelled that way?
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> Those are graphing different things. I'm sure Fred was referring to a
> graph of net worth (on the X axis) vs. # of people (on the Y axis). The
> X axis has to start at zero net worth on the left, but can grow larger and
> larger on the right (so the gap grows over time).
Actually, a graph of net worth does not have to start at ZERO. It needs
to extend into the negative numbers, since you can easily have negative
net worth. In fact, there are substantial numbers of people with
negative net worth. All that is required is that debts exceed assets.
Certainly those filing bankruptcy generally do so only because their net
worth is negative. (Or barely positive). Otherwise they would end up
losing (most of) their assets in the bankruptcy proceedings. [Ignoring
exempt amounts for now.]
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
"Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
> Fred Gilham wrote:
>> "Duncan Rose" <···········@jdwilliams.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> > 1. Wealth increases over time.
>> >
>> > True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
>> > growing. The poor are "losing" compared to the rich more than they were
>> > before (ok, economists would call this profit since in objective terms
>> > the poorer are getting richer. I tend to think relative comparison is a
>> > more realistic measure however).
>>
>> It occurred to me while reading this that this is pretty much
>> inevitable when wealth is increasing. That's because poverty is
>> bounded on the lower side (at 0) but wealth is not bounded. So when
>> wealth is increasing it's possible to have people with larger and
>> larger amounts of wealth. The "bell curve" or whatever is being
>> stretched to the right but it's anchored at the left. So the people
>> on the right extremity of the bell curve will be getting farther and
>> farther away from the people on the left extremity.
>>
>
> The graphs here:
>
> http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
>
> don't look like they're bell-shaped to me. I wonder what the world (or
> even just the US) would look like if it were...
>
>> We could easily cure the above "problem" by simply removing wealth
>> from the system. Is that what we want?
>>
>
> Why would reducing the magnitude of the wealth axis change the shape of
> the graph?
The graph I'm talking about *is* bell shaped, more or less. The
graphs you refer to show amounts of wealth on the Y axis. You have to
reformat the graph in your mind so that the Y axis is the number of
*people* having a particular amount of wealth.
^
|
P
e
o
p
l
e
|
0-------Amount--------->
The point is, you could squash the graph horizontally by lowering the
total amount of wealth so that having wealth at the high end becomes
increasingly improbable. (It would seem that having close to zero
wealth would always be a very probable situation unless there are vast
quantities of wealth available to be had. Think about poor
third-world countries. Even the rich aren't *that* rich, except for a
few rulers and their cronies.)
The more wealth you put into the system, the wider the extremities of
the bell will be. That is, the gap between the rich and the poor will
grow. This is just because people having amounts at the right of the
bell curve become possible and probable as wealth increases.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine there is ZERO wealth in the
system. Then there will be no gap between the richest and poorest.
The "bell curve" I'm describing will degenerate into a line going up
the Y axis from zero.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Progressive (adj): Value-free; tolerant; non-judgemental.
E.g. traditional archery instruction methods spent tedious hours
teaching the archer to hit a bulls-eye. Progressive methods achieved
better results by telling the student archer to shoot in the manner he
or she found most comfortable, then calling whatever the arrow hit the
bulls-eye.
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> I actually just wanted to write a book on using Lisp in commercial
> settings but I felt there was a major gap in that there was no web
I would still be interested in such a book.
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
The Common Lisp Directory: http://www.cl-user.net
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87zmf0ljj4.fsf@flarge.here>
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
>> I actually just wanted to write a book on using Lisp in commercial
>> settings but I felt there was a major gap in that there was no web
>
> I would still be interested in such a book.
I agree another good book about Lisp would be quite nice to have
Regards
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87slkslivk.fsf@flarge.here>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> My sense had been that CL-HTTP didn't hurt my chances because its
> intellectual property pedigree was questionable enough that no one I
> knew was willing to incorporate it into a commercial product. Also,
> CL-HTTP was more heavyweight than many wanted, and so even if the
> IP issue wasn't the key problem, it didn't seem to be catching on
> in the commercial world enough that I felt it was a threat.
>
> I actually just wanted to write a book on using Lisp in commercial
> settings but I felt there was a major gap in that there was no web
> server. Rather than write the book, I made what I now regard as a bad
> business decision to spend my time and money on the web server
> instead. Just as I was nearing completion, with no hint that it had
> been on the horizon, AServe was published. This meant my valuable
> time that could have been spent on a book had been squandered, and my
> time that had been spent on the web server was no longer valuable.
That is just the case because you did not have published.
>
> And you're free to conclude that I'm just whining about lost money, but
> I'm not. I didn't make the money I thought I should have, and indeed
> that annoys me. But what really annoys me is my lack of ability to BUY
> the software I want, because now I can only buy from BIG BUSINESS.
Well you are not alone. We've done the same in the past. We have
started developing a new language and did build an IDE for that
also. So we ported an existing library. However no-one is really
willing to pay for IDEs on Linux. They will tell you:
I'm using vi, gcc and whatever, that's there idea of a "suitable"
IDE. Now with the Eclipse-hype this changes a bit, but you won't find
but one other debugger besided gdb on Linux and that seems to be
enough for most....
Another thing which I found getting on my nerves more and more. The
only useful answer you'll get for more and more of the OSS is "read
the source", they do not document it somehow any longer. Just an
example here are the info pages about exepton handling
4.3 Language-independent routines for exception handling
========================================================
document me!
_Unwind_DeleteException
_Unwind_Find_FDE
_Unwind_ForcedUnwind
_Unwind_GetGR
_Unwind_GetIP
_Unwind_GetLanguageSpecificData
_Unwind_GetRegionStart
_Unwind_GetTextRelBase
_Unwind_GetDataRelBase
_Unwind_RaiseException
_Unwind_Resume
_Unwind_SetGR
_Unwind_SetIP
_Unwind_FindEnclosingFunction
_Unwind_SjLj_Register
_Unwind_SjLj_Unregister
_Unwind_SjLj_RaiseException
_Unwind_SjLj_ForcedUnwind
_Unwind_SjLj_Resume
__deregister_frame
__deregister_frame_info
__deregister_frame_info_bases
__register_frame
__register_frame_info
__register_frame_info_bases
__register_frame_info_table
__register_frame_info_table_bases
__register_frame_table
Well and it's getting even worse. Do not dare to suggest that an
alternative compiler is needed....
> I can HOPE that big business will develop what I want, but they mostly
> care about things the community at large wants, and they won't invest
> in niche markets like, say, productivity tools for smart programmers.
> There's more money in "yet another realplayer clone" because there are
> ways that the intellectual property channels or advertising channels can
> be leveraged.
So then write another realplayer clone and sell it....
Friedrich
Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
> > My sense had been that CL-HTTP didn't hurt my chances because its
> > intellectual property pedigree was questionable enough that no one I
> > knew was willing to incorporate it into a commercial product. Also,
> > CL-HTTP was more heavyweight than many wanted, and so even if the
> > IP issue wasn't the key problem, it didn't seem to be catching on
> > in the commercial world enough that I felt it was a threat.
> >
> > I actually just wanted to write a book on using Lisp in commercial
> > settings but I felt there was a major gap in that there was no web
> > server. Rather than write the book, I made what I now regard as a bad
> > business decision to spend my time and money on the web server
> > instead. Just as I was nearing completion, with no hint that it had
> > been on the horizon, AServe was published. This meant my valuable
> > time that could have been spent on a book had been squandered, and my
> > time that had been spent on the web server was no longer valuable.
> That is just the case because you did not have published.
>
> >
> > And you're free to conclude that I'm just whining about lost money, but
> > I'm not. I didn't make the money I thought I should have, and indeed
> > that annoys me. But what really annoys me is my lack of ability to BUY
> > the software I want, because now I can only buy from BIG BUSINESS.
> Well you are not alone. We've done the same in the past. We have
> started developing a new language and did build an IDE for that
> also. So we ported an existing library. However no-one is really
> willing to pay for IDEs on Linux. They will tell you:
> I'm using vi, gcc and whatever, that's there idea of a "suitable"
> IDE. Now with the Eclipse-hype this changes a bit, but you won't find
> but one other debugger besided gdb on Linux and that seems to be
> enough for most....
>
This is likely to change as Linux developers move away from being 'the
hobbyist crowd' towards being 'the commercial development crowd'. As
Linux becomes commercialised there will be more scope for selling tools
to the commercial organisations making use of Linux (my current
employer uses IBM's WebSphere Application Developer Studio at a couple
of grand per seat, even though it's 98%+ identical to Eclipse (Free in
all senses). Why's that?)
-Duncan
--->8--- snipped below since I think it's a similar issue --->8---
>
> Friedrich
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 01:18:56 GMT, Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
Kent, it seems to me that your story boils down to opportunity cost
and decision-making in the face of incomplete information. Startups
get surprised by competition all of the time, and many don't recover.
VCs know that the majority of startups fail, that's why they spread
their money around. Some ideas don't even get funded in the first
place, such as when investors see an 800-lb. gorilla waiting in the
wings to scoop up the marketplace once it has been validated by the
little guy.
I don't see how free software is more than a footnote here.
> I would not have begrudged any entry to the market in which the web
> server had sought to recover its development costs. I don't know what
> anyone else would have spent developing a server, but I figured they'd
> either spent more and gotten more power (in which case I could hit a
> lower price point and offer less) or they'd spent less and gotten less
> (in which case I could occupy a higher-end). But zero has the special
> multiplicative property that it's hard to compete with. Free software
> is the Limit Commodity.
I think you're trying to set up a strawman here. The price point that
small companies (especially the VC funded startups) choose rarely has
anything to do with cost and has everything to do with positioning.
Whereas the big companies can often afford to subsidize their entry
into new markets with profits from existing products. And, serious
free software vendors try very hard to sell you on value-add, so in
their case the price point is not really zero either.
--
Jack Unrue
Seeing as how you've made rational and non-flammatory
justifications for your views, I'd like to spend a
little time addressing some of your concerns.
The main reason that I am replying is because
you seem to have got a hold of the wrong end of the
stick wrt big business vs small business.
My comments follow below.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> [I've boldly changed the header rather than have this intertwined with
> an unrelated discussion. IMO it's worth the community periodically
> confronting this as a integrated part of language issues, since the
> question always exists at the end of developing a piece of software:
> how do I deploy it, not just technically but commercially. As such,
> I don't think this thread is off-topic. If you do, feel free
> to ignore the thread.]
>
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> > > Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> > >
> > >>>...Stallman is an idiot? Nothing wrong with that, I am glad for the
> > >>>company. Just can't believe so many people think they are getting
> > >>>something for "free" when in fact all the FSF does is cripple the
> > >>>economics of the software industry and cost all of us better tools.
> > >>
> > >>Perhaps we'd need hard data backup (anyone has the IP of the gateway
> > >>to parallel universes?), but it seems to me the software industry is
> > >>much better today with freedom software than it was twenty years ago
> > >>with only proprietary software.
>
> I don't know who said that, nor why they think this.
>
> The "software industry" is a commercial enterprise. A commercial
> enterprise makes money on something one competitor can do that another
> cannot. If Food Company A has seven ovens Company B has five, then
> Company A has a strategic advantage. But if both have five, and you
> buy five more for each compahy, then probably Company A and Company B
> cannot make a dime more than they could before. The price of food may
> come down, but Company A and Company B are not any better off.
I agree, but only up to a point (see below).
> That's
> how it is with free software. Free software adds to what programs can
> do, but it doesn't add to the "industry" at all. The industry simply
> can't afford not to use every piece of free software offering it's given,
> and consequently will
> (a) mostly never develop any other way of solving that problem
> [because the cost of developing an alternate solution is non-zero
> and the economic system already models the cost of dealing with
> that problem as "zero" so has no more money to devote to that]
I believe that that is wrong. You are assuming that other
methods of doing things will not be explored *because* of
existing methods. Companies that don't attempt to better
themselves frequently get trounced by an upstart (see
IBM/Microsoft). When there is a possibility of beating
a competitor, a rational company *will* try it.
Taking the Food Company analogy above, lets say you give
both A and B an extra five ovens, then the company who
makes more money will be the one who has made the best
use of those extra ovens (say ... by franchising them into
a different area to cut down on food travel/storage costs).
As a more relevant analogy, lets say you give everyone
a free compiler - the person who comes out ahead of
everyone else is the person who *best* puts it to use,
for example; by using it to bootstrap themselves into
implementing an even better language. Now suddenly, there
is a new way to solve a problem (programming) that
gives one participant in the playing field a strategic
advantage.
> (b) mostly will require more complex solutions to problems in order
> to make money (this will put uneducated workers out of business
> since they can't compete, will force re-education of moderately
> educated workers just to keep up with the economy at current levels).
Well, this has always been a problem, no? Buggy-whip manufacturers
probably rue the day that the automobile was made affordable enough
for the man-in-the-street.
> Does it benefit the end-user? Yes and no. It kills competition on the
> underlying issue, so if they like the free component that everyone now
> depends on, then it helps them. If they wish someone would develop
> an alternative, they may wait forever. And if someone ever creates a
> better one just to be nice, will that person be rewarded? No, only the
> people who deploy it will get the credit, and they'll have to pass
> none of it along to users. Is that freedom? Not in my book.
I have to say I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Competition will still exist (everyone striving for a strategic
advantage) but on a different level.
> Is it an engine for innovation? Not in my book. It works really well
> at the beginning when the people motivated by a mistaken view that
> the pre-existing system (the one that rewards innnovators) is still in
> place are still cranking out new products... but when those people fall
> off and everyone realizes the only place to make money is working for
> big business, and that the little guy can no longer make anything on
> his own, I don't think anyone's going to like it. But by then it will
> be too late. If it's not already. Mostly, I think it's too late already.
> The damage is done and I don't see forces in place to repair it.
I feel that this is mistaken as well. Free software is a great
leveller. Let's say that you want to enter an established market
selling some software product. Lets say that you want to sell
a whole new OS. To compete with microsoft, you need several
million dollars in funding. So you get your funding by mortaging
your house, your car, your in-laws and the family cat.
You pick a price-point that will enable you to live (and at
least pay back the interest on the debt) and start selling
your OS which you expect to sell well because it has a whole
lot of new technology and innovative ideas in it.
Can you guess what happens? The entrenched market leader
with $30b in cash reserves starts *giving* away their OS.
Hell, they don't make any money on it, but they don't
need to. All they need to do is put you out of business.
See? No free software in that scenario (or in netscapes at the time)
but the small company is still going to get hammered by
the big one (netscape certainly was).
OTOH, if you want to compete with microsoft OS, you can
do it with only a time investment on your part if you
start off with an already free OS and customise it as
you see fit.
Free software helps the upstart business, while being
detrimental to the established business. This is because
the barriers to entry are a lot lower if you use the
free stuff.
You want to write software to compete with the established
players? For even a mediocre enterprise accounting system,
your cost per machine (if you ignore free software) is going
to be +-$100 per OS, +-$1000 for a decent database. Per
developer (lets say using a commercial lisp) you are looking
at +-$1500 for language devkit, +-$100 per OS, +-$200 for
for access to dev database, + however much a source control
repository costs.
OTOH, if you start with a free software base, you are
out only on the time you spent, not on both the time and
money.
(As someone else pointed out, people have more time
than money; if it were the other way around we wouldn't
be working).
Free software helps the *small* business defy the large
business. There are very few proprietry OSes for x86
other than microsoft, because proprietry software
from an upstart is doomed to failure when challenging
the established monopoloy. OTOH, there are quite a few
companies that use *free* software to whip microsoft
in certain OS markets.
I cannot make it any clearer than that; free software
upstarts *are* able to take away the established companies
lunch while I don't ever recall a single proprietry
upstart ever managing to do so.
>
> > > Quite. Kenny is hypothesizing about the displacement effect, but the
> > > evidence so far seems to be against his thesis. If one were to find
> > > several promising tools and/or systems that vanished solely because
> > > they could not compete with free software, then he might have a
> > > point.
> >
> > How exactly do you find vanished tools? Kent will occasionally speak
> > up about AServe and maybe cl-http (I forget which) hurting his chances
> > with a similar tool. How will you identify the others, or (vastly more
> > challenging) those never attempted because something like FTGL or
> > ImageMagick or SuperCollider is freely available?
>
> My sense had been that CL-HTTP didn't hurt my chances because its
> intellectual property pedigree was questionable enough that no one I
> knew was willing to incorporate it into a commercial product. Also,
> CL-HTTP was more heavyweight than many wanted, and so even if the
> IP issue wasn't the key problem, it didn't seem to be catching on
> in the commercial world enough that I felt it was a threat.
>
> I actually just wanted to write a book on using Lisp in commercial
> settings but I felt there was a major gap in that there was no web
> server. Rather than write the book, I made what I now regard as a bad
> business decision to spend my time and money on the web server
> instead. Just as I was nearing completion, with no hint that it had
> been on the horizon, AServe was published. This meant my valuable
> time that could have been spent on a book had been squandered, and my
> time that had been spent on the web server was no longer valuable.
>
> I would not have begrudged any entry to the market in which the web
> server had sought to recover its development costs. I don't know what
> anyone else would have spent developing a server, but I figured they'd
> either spent more and gotten more power (in which case I could hit a
> lower price point and offer less) or they'd spent less and gotten less
> (in which case I could occupy a higher-end). But zero has the special
> multiplicative property that it's hard to compete with.
This is precisely why free software can /help/ small companies,
and only hurt bug companies.
> Free software
> is the Limit Commodity.
>
> Moreover, as a result of this, HyperMeta was effectively dead in the
> water as a software developer. It still exists, but it turned to
> consulting, but the consulting never achieved sufficient revenue to
> produce interesting software. What Stallman's story about commercial
> software overcharging the community neglects is: (a) normal
> competition already brings prices down pretty fast to a reasonable
> price
There is still "normal" competition when all the software you
need is free; you will just compete in a different space, thats
all.
Sure, it's hard to compete when all your competition has the
same tools that you do. But the phrase you are looking for
is "fair competition".
If the only lisp environments were the commercial ones,
and you could afford to pay for it while I could not then
you, of course, have an advantage in being able to develop
faster and better with lisp than I can with gcc.
If both of us have the same tools, then its called
"fair competition" and the best developer will then
pull ahead.
Your point, AIUI, is that you want to /write/ a tool,
but it already exists in a free form so you consider
that an unfair advantage. The idea you should be warming
towards is that *you* can use that free software and
either enhance it (and charge for enhancements) or
use it as a tool to produce even better software.
> and (b) some degree of profit is necessary to a business in
> order to allow people to live (health care, vacation, etc) and to
> yield new offerings (you have to invest not only in things that might
> profit, but things that might fail).
>
> So, you're free to conclude that there's nothing interesting I might
> have ever produced if I'd been given enough money to do so. But if
> you think I've ever had an interesting idea that it might have been fun
> to see me pursue, then it's not a huge stretch to say that the
> introduction of Aserve led directly to my not getting to explore the
> other ideas I might have had for how to go interesting places with
> web-based Lisps in future releases. Why should I bother?
Because it may give you a strategic advantage?
> The culture
> has spoken clearly: We don't want innovation--not if it costs us a dime.
Nope; the majority has spoken. But like I said above, why not use
the free offering to give you /some/ advantage?
> We want to pay ONLY for specific solutions to specific problems that
> business wants solved, and as far as individual personally driven
> creativity, we will operate at every point to sabotage the chances
> of anyone making a buck. ... all in the supposed name of freedom.
>
> And you're free to conclude that I'm just whining about lost money, but
> I'm not. I didn't make the money I thought I should have, and indeed
> that annoys me. But what really annoys me is my lack of ability to BUY
> the software I want, because now I can only buy from BIG BUSINESS.
>
> I can HOPE that free software will develop what I want, but I can't
> make it happen without funding the entire development--something I
> can't afford.
>
Well, what is it that you cannot purchase from small companies?
Many small companies make their living from the free software.
> I can HOPE that big business will develop what I want, but they mostly
> care about things the community at large wants, and they won't invest
> in niche markets like, say, productivity tools for smart programmers.
Thats certainly true, but thats no fault of free software, is it?
> There's more money in "yet another realplayer clone" because there are
> ways that the intellectual property channels or advertising channels can
> be leveraged.
>
So why not write it, then?
> I can develop it myself at enormous expense since I have to do all the
> work that I probably don't have time for. But then I have to give it
> away and still have no hope of getting the next thing I need because
> no one will reward my effort "in kind", or else I can try to sell it
> and wait for a "free software sniper" to re-implement it and try to
> undercut me for no other reason than to make sure I don't make back my
a) If someone "snipes" your free software, then you can simply
"snipe" the changes back and fold it into your own product
thereby making your product better (GPL).
b) No one can undercut forever; the only way to undercut for
significant periods of time is to have large reserves of
cash, which is something only big companies have.
> investment or... shudder... make enough profit that I could afford to
> try inventing something else that's cool.
>
> So what really bugs me is not that I can't sell innovative things,
> it's that I can't buy them. Because the things I want are not being
> produced any more because everyone I know who'd like to do these kinds
> of things knows it's a losing proposition any more.
Eh? Tell goose what you want :-)
I want a company of mine own and would love
to know what kinds of products have a market
but cannot be purchased.
No, really, I'd like to know; this is the stuff
that gives accountants wet dreams :-)
>
> > And who says the tools have to be vanished? An open question is where
> > Lisp environments now would be now if so many of you were not spinning
> > your wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are scraping by
> > anyway. If certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply bought a
> > commercial license, maybe franz could stop pricing ACL like hen's
> > teeth and ease up on their whacky licensing fees.
>
> I agree completely.
Oh, I don't know about that. AFAIK, a lot of the free
lisps were not available back in the early 90's, all of
them are 15 years or younger? From what I've read, when
there where no free lisps around, prices were even more
astronomical than they are now.
Correct me if I am wrong, I am a mere newbie to lisp
and I understand that you've been around and wield
(ANSI?) considerable influence in this area, so
enlighten me if I am, indeed, incorrect.
>
> (Which makes it a bit ironic in the context of my grumbling about AServe.
> But I don't think Franz meant to sink my business with AServe--I think they
> just didn't understand the full implications of what they were doing.
> I like to think they've learned from that, although I don't know if they've
> actually changed any policies on free software. My company certainly changed.
> It started out hoping to create and license interesting software, and has
> largely abandoned the idea that it can make money that way.)
>
> I used to have a neighbor who would sometimes cut my lawn for free
> because my lawn was small compared to him and he didn't mind doing me
> the favor. But I used to insist on paying him anyway. The issue
> isn't the favor--favors are well-intended. It's the bookkeeping. He
> can't trade a favor he's done for me to get something from someone
> else. I told him, if I do something for you, I'll bill you back and
> you can give me back the dollars. But if I don't, you've got the $10
> that says you did something for me, and you can trade on that with
> anyone, not just me.
>
> And there's nothing wrong with making a profit because if others charge
> back, they'll make their profit, too.
>
As someone who wants to own their own company one day, I
heartily agree with that.
> What free software really rewards is people who don't contribute. It
> gets them a ton of stuff but requires nothing from them. Moreover, it
> fails to compensate those who have contributed a great deal from people.
>
But it also gives you the ability to fight off the big
boys, whose only interest is to make sure that the
barriers to entry are sufficiently high. Free software
aims to remove those barriers.
> > But nooooooooo, you geniuses have to save all that money and stagger
> > along with crappy tools at a third my productivity, losing all
> > that... oh. no, I forgot, Stallman says your time has no value. Or
> > that you are evil for expecting anything for that value. Super.
>
> Indeed.
I would like to see data for the 1/3 productivity statement.
I cannot believe that clisp, or sbcl, or cmucl or any of the
others are really 1/3 slower to develop in that lispworks.
KT entire argument hinges on the fact that the free
tools are, by definition, inferior to the commercial
tools, a fact which is not altogether clear to me.
I suspect that if everyone has a lisp environment
has nice as lispworks, then you might see *more*
innovation, not less.
In fact, based on my own personal experiences and the
posts in this NG, I suspect that a $100 cross-platform
commercial lisp with no royalties and gui+network libs
would /fly/ off the shelves. I'd certainly purchase one
if I could.
In fact, if I had the ability, I'd happily *write* one
seeing as how it makes business sense to satisfy a
demand in the market.
goose,
Can we have a poll; everyone please reply and tell me
how much you will willingly pay for a cross-platform
lisp with network and gui libs? I'd like to know.
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87u056808n.fsf@david-steuber.com>
"goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
> Eh? Tell goose what you want :-)
>
> I want a company of mine own and would love
> to know what kinds of products have a market
> but cannot be purchased.
>
> No, really, I'd like to know; this is the stuff
> that gives accountants wet dreams :-)
I am in desperate need of unobtanium. However, I have not been able
to find any to date.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86d5bueobg.fsf@panix.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Does it benefit the end-user? Yes and no. It kills competition on the
> underlying issue, so if they like the free component that everyone now
> depends on, then it helps them.
This is simply not true. Watch the development of C/C++ compilers on
Unix. Until gcc came along, the compilers were really getting old in
the tooth, but not a *SINGLE* vendor updated their offering. By
version 1.38, gcc was simply the best C compiler on Unix. Only at
this point did the vendors get around to updating their own compilers
and offer more serious tools. At least Sun and HP sold lots of copies
of their compiler suite. So it is entirely possible to compete with
free software.
There are practically no examples of free software destroying any
product that offered superior capabilities. E.g GIMP vs. Photoshop,
CVS vs. Perforce or Clearcase.
In other words, free software is just another competitor. Unless your
idea is to eliminate all competition, I really cannot see the merit in
the railings against free software.
It's all very nice to theorize, but how about reconciling theories
with facts?
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uhd16hbni.fsf@nhplace.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
> > Does it benefit the end-user? Yes and no. It kills competition on the
> > underlying issue, so if they like the free component that everyone now
> > depends on, then it helps them.
>
> This is simply not true.
I don't mean to exclude things like this. gcc is at least not restricted
so that things compiled with it are encumbered by gpl.
And Emacs is useful to programmers, too, with similar results. And operates
in a market that is unserved by commercial editors.
Postgres had positive effects on a monopoly market.
There are such benefits. But they are a short list, and repeated
all too often.
My purpose in this discussion is to offer counterpoint to conventional
wisdom, suggesting that there are two sides to the debate on free software.
But the two sides are not: "free software is good" vs "free software is bad";
I am not arguing the latter.
The two sides are (the party line) "free software is always good" vs
"free software has positive and negative effects and its use should be
considered judiciously both to make sure it doesn't have ill effects on
an otherwise-healthy market and to make sure the maker of the free software
understands the value that s/he is giving away by not selling it".
Free software often benefits people, but often those people are not the
people making it.
> There are practically no examples of free software destroying any
> product that offered superior capabilities.
Because most examples are like mine. They are embarrassing errors in
judgment, and opening them to public scrutiny is painful and something
any sensible person would avoid. You have never seen my offering, and
have no way of saying if its features are superior or not. And if I
showed you, you'd spend all your time looking at what the features are
now compared to AServe now rather than understanding that what I have
now is a snapshot in time of a shattered enterprise that is no longer
functioning, and that is compared to something that has continued to
be developed. You don't know what would have been in place if no one
had contributed a free offering, so you don't have any data. But failing
to know a possible future is not the same as saying there was no possible
future.
So please feel free to claim there's a lack of data, but please do not
feel free to say that a lack of data is an automatic implication that
nothing has happened. I have put more of my story on the line than I
am comfortable with, and discussing this at all hurts me more than you
can probably possibly imagine. Every single time I write a message on
this that gets published, you should assume there are about ten such
messages that I have discarded because I couldn't bear the pain of
dealing with some inconsiderate correspondant who doesn't care that
it's my dreams they are trampling upon, or because it reveals too much
personal information about myself.
But I do get email privately from others who say my experience is not
unique and that they're glad someone speaks on it. So sometimes I force
myself to endure the unplesantness anyway.
> E.g GIMP vs. Photoshop, CVS vs. Perforce or Clearcase.
What's your point? That there's no reasonably priced offering someone
offers that some bored programmer can't dupliate for free, assuring
anyone who wants to invest in something that they will have to endure
someone making a free version? You're making my case for me.
> In other words, free software is just another competitor.
It is not. It is often paid for out of the pockets of parents who don't
realize their kids are not "working their way through college" but instead
"squandering their future by making sure there is no market for them
later". It is often paid for by businesses in unrelated markets that don't
care if they make a mess of an unrelated market they don't care about.
It's often paid for by people who think there's no chance they're doing
something that is hurting one person even at the same time as they are
intending to help another. People are taught the dogma "give away stuff
and it's good, charge money and it's bad; and especially don't let someone
charge for something more than the materials they took to make it".
Bleah. That's just simple communism dressed up in capitalist clothes.
> Unless your
> idea is to eliminate all competition, I really cannot see the merit in
> the railings against free software.
I have NEVER railed against free software. That's just the way many people
sum me up who aren't paying attention to what I'm writing. I've said that
free software has many ill effects, both to markets and to individuals, and
that the people who encourage others to "join the movement" don't do a proper
disclosure of the personal and social ills that might be caused.
> It's all very nice to theorize, but how about reconciling theories
> with facts?
Reconciling theories with facts is precisely what I've been doing.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <864px6ecct.fsf@panix.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>> There are practically no examples of free software destroying any
>> product that offered superior capabilities.
> Because most examples are like mine. They are embarrassing errors in
> judgment, and opening them to public scrutiny is painful and something
> any sensible person would avoid. You have never seen my offering, and
> have no way of saying if its features are superior or not.
[...]
Kent, it is certainly not my intention to either denigrate your
efforts or diminish your experience. However, if the discussion on
the good and bad of free software is to be informed by something more
than theory, then we have to examine available evidence. As you point
out, it is difficult for me or anyone else who has not seen your
product to evaluate whether or not it is/was a superior product. You
might have noticed that I made no claims about your product; indeed,
it was for that very reason. I feel it's best to restrict discussion
to those products about which there is sufficient public knowledge.
> So please feel free to claim there's a lack of data, but please do not
> feel free to say that a lack of data is an automatic implication that
> nothing has happened.
You are effectively asking me to take on faith your view based on data
that you are privy to, but cannot reveal. As much as I respect the
reasons for not revealing the data, I cannot in good conscience,
accept that as evidence for your argument.
>> E.g GIMP vs. Photoshop, CVS vs. Perforce or Clearcase.
>
> What's your point? That there's no reasonably priced offering someone
> offers that some bored programmer can't dupliate for free, assuring
> anyone who wants to invest in something that they will have to endure
> someone making a free version? You're making my case for me.
Quite the contrary. The point is that commercial software can sell
and sell very well even when there is free software offering similar
functionality. At issue is the better perceived value offered by the
commercial product in terms of functionality, reliability or support.
>> In other words, free software is just another competitor.
>
> It is not. It is often paid for out of the pockets of parents who don't
> realize their kids are not "working their way through college" but instead
> "squandering their future by making sure there is no market for them
> later". It is often paid for by businesses in unrelated markets that don't
> care if they make a mess of an unrelated market they don't care about.
> It's often paid for by people who think there's no chance they're doing
> something that is hurting one person even at the same time as they are
> intending to help another. People are taught the dogma "give away stuff
> and it's good, charge money and it's bad; and especially don't let someone
> charge for something more than the materials they took to make it".
> Bleah. That's just simple communism dressed up in capitalist clothes.
And I submit that this is ideology dressed up as rational argument.
Free software authors are not giving away their efforts because
someone is holding a gun to their heads. Each person has his/her own
motive. Just because their currency is not the one you trade in
doesn't make the former any less valid.
Also to establish that what free software authors are doing is
actually hurting the industry, you would have to show the displacement
effect. That is, show that if not for free software, particular
products would have succeeded. Unfortunately, this is a
non-falsifiable hypothesis. Which is why we must study its contra: are
there products which have succeeded in the same area where there are
free solutions? The answer is yes which suggests that free software,
in and of itself, does not mess up the market.
>> Unless your
>> idea is to eliminate all competition, I really cannot see the merit in
>> the railings against free software.
>
> I have NEVER railed against free software. That's just the way many people
> sum me up who aren't paying attention to what I'm writing. I've said that
> free software has many ill effects, both to markets and to individuals, and
> that the people who encourage others to "join the movement" don't do a proper
> disclosure of the personal and social ills that might be caused.
But the problem is that you have not made a convincing case (or at
least not a case that can be vindicated by available data) that free
software inflicts overall harm to society. The available evidence, in
fact, seems to suggest the opposite.
Stepping back, it seems to me that there is a strong unquestioned
assumption in your arguments: and that is the notion that the software
market is an non-fungible, zero sum game. If free software wins,
authors of proprietary software must lose. This is not true, IMHO.
As I have pointed out several times, despite availability of similar
free software, there are highly successful commercial offerings in the
same area. Similarly, a lot of new markets are created because of
free software -- look at the plethora of Web 2.0 startups that would
not have existed if not for the LAMP stack.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uhd16zc2y.fsf@nhplace.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Kent, it is certainly not my intention to either denigrate your
> efforts or diminish your experience. However, if the discussion on
> the good and bad of free software is to be informed by something more
> than theory, then we have to examine available evidence.
Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
be.
In fact, my understanding is that in business, there are 10 failures
for every 1 success in ordinary venture-funded (and presumably heavily
scrutinized) situations. So it could be that failures are normal and
that anyone who doesn't plan well loses, and that I am just that. But
I hear very few of my kind of stories.
So what does that tell us?
Does it say "Kent's failure is anomalous, and actually in the modern
market people are making money hand over fist?" (That is "more than
would happen in a market absent free software?") If it does, there
should be books not just on the morality but on the profitability of
free software. I don't see those.
Does it say "Kent's failure is one of many more not spoken of, but
relatively common and maybe even predictable in some pattern way."
That may be, but since the paradigm involved free software, I'm not
100% sure that it's good for we as a society to ignore the study of
this. I'm not the one doing the ignoring--I've cited my own story.
And I've made structural arguments why my case might not be anomalous.
I have not said "no one should do free software". What I have said is
"I think it's bad for people to teach free software as a paradigm
without referring either to lack of knowledge of what the problems
are, or else pointing to the pattern problems that might be caused to
either the creator or others in the market." I've advocated study.
I've advocated thought. Are you taking the counter-position? No study?
No thought?
> As you point
> out, it is difficult for me or anyone else who has not seen your
> product to evaluate whether or not it is/was a superior product. You
> might have noticed that I made no claims about your product; indeed,
> it was for that very reason. I feel it's best to restrict discussion
> to those products about which there is sufficient public knowledge.
Most failures will not be advertised.
Failures in a public company, or one run by someone not owning it,
will be hidden by people running it, or spun to something as good as it
can because it can be reputation-ruining.
Failures of a private individual are easily too demoralizing or even to
underdocumented to follow through on.
So I guess that means no failures. Or, at least, no discussion of them.
I've got to say that's just a little ethically convenient. As such, I
think it bears giving the benefit of the doubt to the few cases that are
drummed up, not treating them with disdain and diminution.
> > So please feel free to claim there's a lack of data, but please do not
> > feel free to say that a lack of data is an automatic implication that
> > nothing has happened.
>
> You are effectively asking me to take on faith your view based on data
> that you are privy to, but cannot reveal. As much as I respect the
> reasons for not revealing the data, I cannot in good conscience,
> accept that as evidence for your argument.
What do you need to take on faith? There are individuals who have
seen the body of code I've written. I can document that without
releasing the code. That I resigned my position at another company
and spent full time developing the code? The size of the body of code
speaks to the length of time, and I have checkpoints of it every few
days as demonstration of its evolution. That I did this for profit rather
than fun? I had no other job. That I gave up on the project and declined
to market it after a half-year's work? You don't see it around, do you?
That it runs? It's handling some of the traffic on hypermeta.com.
There are some examples you can click on. I admit they're not super-jazzy,
but they are at least suggestive that it's not doing nothing.
> >> E.g GIMP vs. Photoshop, CVS vs. Perforce or Clearcase.
> >
> > What's your point? That there's no reasonably priced offering someone
> > offers that some bored programmer can't dupliate for free, assuring
> > anyone who wants to invest in something that they will have to endure
> > someone making a free version? You're making my case for me.
>
> Quite the contrary. The point is that commercial software can sell
> and sell very well even when there is free software offering similar
> functionality. At issue is the better perceived value offered by the
> commercial product in terms of functionality, reliability or support.
Established products from established vendors, yes.
I think the difference is how well known the brand is.
A new brand that charges money vs a new brand that doesn't hasn't quite
the same competitive advantage.
That's why I'm focusing on structural issues in the market. Because I
perceive the issues are structural. Are you alleging that there are not
structural obstacles to new entry in the modern market for small players,
or only that none of them could possibly involve free software?
> >> In other words, free software is just another competitor.
> >
> > It is not. It is often paid for out of the pockets of parents who don't
> > realize their kids are not "working their way through college" but instead
> > "squandering their future by making sure there is no market for them
> > later". It is often paid for by businesses in unrelated markets that don't
> > care if they make a mess of an unrelated market they don't care about.
> > It's often paid for by people who think there's no chance they're doing
> > something that is hurting one person even at the same time as they are
> > intending to help another. People are taught the dogma "give away stuff
> > and it's good, charge money and it's bad; and especially don't let someone
> > charge for something more than the materials they took to make it".
> > Bleah. That's just simple communism dressed up in capitalist clothes.
>
> And I submit that this is ideology dressed up as rational argument.
No. This is someone older and wiser speaking to younger people saying
"You may find your feelings on some things changes with time."
Among other things, your feelings about the importance of money, about
the evils of money, about the importance of insurance, of saving for a
rainy day, etc. may change a lot with time.
> But the problem is that you have not made a convincing case (or at
> least not a case that can be vindicated by available data) that free
> software inflicts overall harm to society. The available evidence, in
> fact, seems to suggest the opposite.
I have never attempted to make such a case, so of course I have not made it.
You're twisting my goal and then saying I've failed to achieve it.
> Stepping back, it seems to me that there is a strong unquestioned
> assumption in your arguments: and that is the notion that the software
> market is an non-fungible, zero sum game. If free software wins,
> authors of proprietary software must lose.
Not so. My argument is not systemic, other than to structurally explain
how individual effects happen. I don't believe there is any one effect
which is universal. Rather, there are myriad mixed effects, good and bad,
which exist at the same time. It's just that the good are spoken of and
the bad are not. And when I raise the bad, someone tries to discredit it,
because it's not a universal argument. Even though the good is argued even
though it's also not universal.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Does it say "Kent's failure is one of many more not spoken of, but
> relatively common and maybe even predictable in some pattern way."
> That may be, but since the paradigm involved free software, I'm not
> 100% sure that it's good for we as a society to ignore the study of
> this. I'm not the one doing the ignoring--I've cited my own story.
> And I've made structural arguments why my case might not be anomalous.
Free software was involved in as much as the software in question was
free. You haven't made it clear to me that it being *free* was
actually a major deciding factor, rather than simply it being "cheaper
than you could offer your alternative for".
You've stated that you wouldn't have minded if they'd attempted to
recoup their development costs, but that seems strange and maybe even
somewhat irrelevant. Would you object to any company which distributes
software for a non-zero fee which *doesn't* recoup their development
costs? (For example, because they intend to recoup those costs in
associated sales or support.)
> Most failures will not be advertised.
>
> Failures in a public company, or one run by someone not owning it,
> will be hidden by people running it, or spun to something as good as it
> can because it can be reputation-ruining.
>
> Failures of a private individual are easily too demoralizing or even to
> underdocumented to follow through on.
>
> So I guess that means no failures. Or, at least, no discussion of them.
>
> I've got to say that's just a little ethically convenient. As such, I
> think it bears giving the benefit of the doubt to the few cases that are
> drummed up, not treating them with disdain and diminution.
It seems a little convenient to your argument, as well. The fact is
that we have no overwhelming evidence that people like yourself
*aren't* in a minority. I'm perfectly happy with the prospect of
further investigation to determine if the problem is as common as you
imply it is. I'm *not* perfectly happy with giving the failure of a
minority higher priority than the success of a majority on the basis
that there are *probably* lots of unreported failures.
> > And I submit that this is ideology dressed up as rational argument.
>
> No. This is someone older and wiser speaking to younger people saying
> "You may find your feelings on some things changes with time."
And some people older and wiser than yourself will disagree with *you*.
I can only conclude that feelings are subjective. Of course, you
wouldn't claim otherwise. But you are claiming I should consider the
effects of free software on society before choosing how to distribute
my software, but offering only subjective evidence of the effects.
Without the evidence which you cannot provide, I'm simply unable to
properly consider the effects of free software on society. The evidence
available to me appears the point in the exact opposite direction as
the evidence available to you.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <u64hlxgtn.fsf@nhplace.com>
"Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> It seems a little convenient to your argument, as well.
Convenient to my argument? My entire "argument" is that there are two
sides to the free software story. Are you arguing there is only one?
> The fact is that we have no overwhelming evidence that people like
> yourself *aren't* in a minority.
People who are allergic to peanuts are in a minority, too, but we still
label food that contains peanuts because we aren't such an unfeeling
society that we think it's best to say "look, it doesn't hurt the majority,
and tough on the rest".
I believe in enlightened pluralism, where multiple points of view can
co-exist, and where people who want knowledge about alternative points
of view can get it. Are you arguing against that?
> > This is someone older and wiser speaking to younger people saying
> > "You may find your feelings on some things changes with time."
>
> And some people older and wiser than yourself will disagree with *you*.
Well, I would hope you mean they will offer data that goes the other way,
not suggest that my data is invalid (any more than I'd suggest theirs is).
I don't see that this is the sort of discussion which must have only one
point of view prevailing.
> I can only conclude that feelings are subjective.
Certainly they are.
> Of course, you wouldn't claim otherwise. But you are claiming I
> should consider the effects of free software on society before
> choosing how to distribute my software, but offering only subjective
> evidence of the effects.
No, I am not even doing that. I am wanting to speak to people who do
want to consider the effects. You are not one of them. I wish you
would not interfere with my attempt to reach people who are interested
in my message, since you do not seem interested. Your lack of interest
is not proof that others are not interested.
> Without the evidence which you cannot provide, I'm simply unable to
> properly consider the effects of free software on society.
Ok. But others may be interested. So how about letting me speak to them
and them to me. Not everyone has to involve themselves in every discussion.
> The evidence available to me appears the point in the exact opposite
> direction as the evidence available to you.
My goal is not to change your mind. My goal is to offer information to those
who would like it. You don't seem to like it, so you are not the intended
recipient of my message.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> > It seems a little convenient to your argument, as well.
>
> Convenient to my argument? My entire "argument" is that there are two
> sides to the free software story. Are you arguing there is only one?
I don't believe I am. I do believe, however, that you are exagerating
the significance of the "dark" side of free software. It is convenient
to your argument that all those companies that have been put out of
business by free software are too ashamed to come forward and present
their evidence.
> > The fact is that we have no overwhelming evidence that people like
> > yourself *aren't* in a minority.
>
> People who are allergic to peanuts are in a minority, too, but we still
> label food that contains peanuts because we aren't such an unfeeling
> society that we think it's best to say "look, it doesn't hurt the majority,
> and tough on the rest".
Yes, but at the same time we don't, on the whole, go out of our way to
ensure peanuts could never enter any food. Our response is fitting:
because a minority of people are allergic to peanuts, we label food so
that that minority can check, but the majority don't have to worry.
You're saying that free software has a hidden cost which is far greater
than the visible cost: so much greater in fact that it would be a good
idea to change the way we think about free software and how it effects
those around us.
If it were the case that free software were as damaging as you suggest,
it's certainly true that many people would think twice before releasing
free software. It's even possible the government could intervene to
impose restrictions upon the distribution of free software, if the
situation were sufficiently grave.
But if free software is actually no more harmful than it appears to be
from where I'm standing, such a response would be excessive. In such a
case, the cost to society in carefully monitoring and controlling free
software might be higher than any hypothetical benefits of slowing the
proliferation of free software.
> I believe in enlightened pluralism, where multiple points of view can
> co-exist, and where people who want knowledge about alternative points
> of view can get it. Are you arguing against that?
If I were, I'd be demanding that your ISP deny you access to the
Internet.
However, the simple fact is that when multiple points of view make
incompatible statements of objective fact, only one can be right.
> > Without the evidence which you cannot provide, I'm simply unable to
> > properly consider the effects of free software on society.
>
> Ok. But others may be interested. So how about letting me speak to them
> and them to me. Not everyone has to involve themselves in every discussion.
>
> > The evidence available to me appears the point in the exact opposite
> > direction as the evidence available to you.
>
> My goal is not to change your mind. My goal is to offer information to those
> who would like it. You don't seem to like it, so you are not the intended
> recipient of my message.
That seems rather foolish. Preaching to the converted may be
satisfying, but it isn't very productive.
Surely it is the organisations which are actually causing the harm to
whom you wish to appeal? Do you think Franz are interested in your
opinions on free software? Franz must have believed there was a good
case for releasing AServe as free software. It seems unlikely you could
have changed their mind without compelling evidence that doing so would
not be in the long-term interests of the computing industry.
I can only imagine it is "fence sitters" like Franz to whom you wish to
speak, and I think your message will only be heard by such types if you
can offer proof of your claim.
Nathan Baum wrote:
> to your argument that all those companies that have been put out of
> business by free software
I may be misremembering, and my ISP doesn't keep posts very long, but I
remember the primary person being put out of business was the smalltime
craftsman. Not that MS is ruined by free software, but someone trying to
be independant winds up having to work for a big company like MS to compete.
Been there, done that.
And yes, there are several operating systems that have been put out of
business by free software, including BeOS and Classic MacOS.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Nathan Baum wrote:
>> to your argument that all those companies that have been put out of
>> business by free software
>
> I may be misremembering, and my ISP doesn't keep posts very long, but
> I remember the primary person being put out of business was the
> smalltime craftsman. Not that MS is ruined by free software, but
> someone trying to be independant winds up having to work for a big
> company like MS to compete.
>
> Been there, done that.
>
> And yes, there are several operating systems that have been put out of
> business by free software, including BeOS and Classic MacOS.
No, they haven't.
NeXTSTEP system wasn't GPL'ed, it was BSD. So you might argue that
BeOS and MacOS were displaced by gratis software.
But this is not even true, since Apple choosed to BUY the NeXTSTEP OS
which has never been gratis, nor free. We still don't have the
sources of the NSWindow class, and we still have to pay money to have
the binary of the NSWindow class.
And I don't see that GNUstep killed BeOS or MacOS anymore than it's
killing MacOSX.
On the other hand, the buying of NeXTSTEP by Apple did kill a lot of
software and small software companies, those who developed software
for NeXTSTEP/intel. They couldn't sell their software for
NeXTSTEP/motorola because their customers couldn't buy NeXT Computers,
but they could sell it with a copy of the OS for PC. Unfortunately
they were dependent on the decision by Apple not to sell MacOSX for
Intel.
If those small software companies had developed their product on a
freedom OS like Linux (or FreeBSD, etc), they would still exist.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
The rule for today:
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86slkpeyx7.fsf@panix.com>
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> On the other hand, the buying of NeXTSTEP by Apple did kill a lot of
> software and small software companies, those who developed software
> for NeXTSTEP/intel. They couldn't sell their software for
> NeXTSTEP/motorola because their customers couldn't buy NeXT Computers,
> but they could sell it with a copy of the OS for PC. Unfortunately
> they were dependent on the decision by Apple not to sell MacOSX for
> Intel.
Actually, this is an excellent point. How many companies has, say,
Microsoft put out of business by co-opting their products into the OS
and offering it for "free"? How many companies have they put out of
business by "improving" their API? I suspect that the number of
proprietary products that have died due to predatory practices of
other proprietary vendors would far exceed the number that have been
affected by free software.
> If those small software companies had developed their product on a
> freedom OS like Linux (or FreeBSD, etc), they would still exist.
A good example is 4Front Technologies that make the OSS sound
drivers for FreeBSD and Linux. Their value proposition is support for
more cards and a uniform API and in fact help the BSD and Linux
developers in achieving OSS compatibility for open source drivers.
The more I examine this issue, the more I am convinced that free
software, far from representing a threat to developers' livelihoods,
can actually open up interesting markets which may not have been
otherwise feasible. The example of Linux (or BSD) based appliance
springs to mind...
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86odvdeytz.fsf@panix.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> A good example is 4Front Technologies that make the OSS sound
Incidentally, www.4front.com is an interesting site and relevant to
Lisp as well. :-)
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 03:44:28 +0000, Darren New wrote:
> And yes, there are several operating systems that have been put out of
> business by free software, including BeOS ...
You are misinformed about the history of BeOS.
"He Who Controls the Bootloader" by Scot Hacker
<http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/>
A few years ago, Be's CEO Jean-Louis Gassée used the phrase "peaceful
co-existence with Windows" to describe his company's intended
relationship with Microsoft on the consumer's hard drive. Later, when
it became clear that Microsoft had no intention of co-existing with a
rival OS vendor peacefully, Gassée recanted, saying, "I once preached
peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense -- I
deserve it."
...
In the 1998-1999 timeframe, ready to prime the pump with their desktop
offering, Be offered BeOS for free to any major computer manufacturer
willing to pre-install BeOS on machines alongside Windows. Although few
in the Be community ever knew about the discussions, Gassée says that
Be was engaged in enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron,
and Hitachi. Taken together, pre-installation arrangements with vendors
of this magnitude could have had a major impact on the future of Be and
BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually shipped a machine with
BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently backed off after a closer
reading of the fine print in their Microsoft Windows License
agreements. Hitachi did ship a line of machines (the Flora Prius) with
BeOS pre-installed, but made changes to the bootloader -- rendering
BeOS invisible to the consumer -- before shipping. Apparently, Hitachi
received a little visit from Microsoft just before shipping the Flora
Prius, and were reminded of the terms of the license.
Here is an archive of the steps required to get the preinstalled BeOS to
boot on the Hitachi Flora Prius:
<http://www.beatjapan.org/mirror/www.be.com/support/guides/hitachi_boot.html>
Regards,
Adam
Adam Warner wrote:
> "He Who Controls the Bootloader" by Scot Hacker
What you quoted, while true, is orthogonal to the fact that commercial
OSes have gone out of business where free OSes have flourished. BeOS
wasn't any more constrained by Microsoft than Linux was. Linux is
growing in popularity. BeOS is gone. You asked for examples. I gave some.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
On 2006-07-26 11:13:14 -0400, Darren New <····@san.rr.com> said:
> the fact that commercial OSes have gone out of business where free OSes
> have flourished.
And Gnu Hurd, has that "flourished" too? Free OSes are not immune to
failure in the marketplace.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-26 11:13:14 -0400, Darren New <····@san.rr.com> said:
>
>> the fact that commercial OSes have gone out of business where free
>> OSes have flourished.
>
>
> And Gnu Hurd, has that "flourished" too? Free OSes are not immune to
> failure in the marketplace.
Wow. Two nonsequitars in a row. I think I'll just stop now.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:59:38 GMT, Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> No, I am not even doing that. I am wanting to speak to people who do
> want to consider the effects.
Kent - I'm glad you're speaking out.
>
> Ok. But others may be interested.
Very much so ...
>
> My goal is not to change your mind. My goal is to offer information to those
> who would like it.
Your willingness to share your personal experience is appreciated. I have
similar concerns about my own endeavors.
OTOH, there is a pervasive attitude among many in the free software
business who actually *help* commercial software, albeit with delayed
benefit. Often times, especially with the most successful "products",
requests for features (and sometimes for bug fixes) are met with the
comment "You get what you pay for. If you don't like it, submit a patch".
In these cases, it appears the developers have construed "freedom" to mean
freedom from accountability to the software *users*.
IMHO, this *pushes* potential users towards the commercial offering that
the free package is attempting to mimic. In my own experience, I consider
the value of the proposition. If I have *work* to do - work which is
necessary to my commercial endeavors, I will buy a commercial package with
a strong track record. OTOH, if I'm only "playing around" I'll use a
freely available package until I get serious.
This is the second way I think free software helps the commercial market.
Reduction of piracy. Those prone to piracy may be less inclined to steal a
commercial package when a free work-alike is available.
From: Bruce Stephens
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <873bcqm34a.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
[...]
>> >> E.g GIMP vs. Photoshop, CVS vs. Perforce or Clearcase.
>> >
>> > What's your point? That there's no reasonably priced offering someone
>> > offers that some bored programmer can't dupliate for free, assuring
>> > anyone who wants to invest in something that they will have to endure
>> > someone making a free version? You're making my case for me.
>>
>> Quite the contrary. The point is that commercial software can sell
>> and sell very well even when there is free software offering similar
>> functionality. At issue is the better perceived value offered by the
>> commercial product in terms of functionality, reliability or support.
>
> Established products from established vendors, yes.
>
> I think the difference is how well known the brand is.
>
> A new brand that charges money vs a new brand that doesn't hasn't quite
> the same competitive advantage.
Well, in the SCM space there's AccuRev and BitKeeper. I think both
are relatively new---newer than CVS, anyway.
I doubt either company would argue that it's harder to compete when
there's a free product around, but I think they'd both say that it's
possible.
For one thing, free software can be rather expensive to actually use;
hence companies like Cygnus, which sold a variety of services around
free software (the kind of things you'd expect to be buying when you
buy proprietary software), and apparently did so successfully.
[...]
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <868xmhd1gv.fsf@panix.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
>be.
Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
negative? It is a bit like asking someone to prove that the sun will
never rise from the west. No one can prove that. One can only point
out that so far no one has observed the sun rising from the west and
hence the probability of the sun continuing to rise from the east is
pretty high.
>> Stepping back, it seems to me that there is a strong unquestioned
>> assumption in your arguments: and that is the notion that the software
>> market is an non-fungible, zero sum game. If free software wins,
>> authors of proprietary software must lose.
> Not so. My argument is not systemic, other than to structurally explain
> how individual effects happen. I don't believe there is any one effect
> which is universal. Rather, there are myriad mixed effects, good and bad,
> which exist at the same time.
Well, that's a rather underwhelming point. Everything has a good and
a bad side to it. The relevant question is whether the good outweighs
the bad. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, one must
examine all available data to make that determination. I'm afraid
that embarrassment due to market failure just doesn't cut it as an
explanation of the paucity of negative data. Check out almost any
issue of "Harvard Business Review" for case studies of failed business
plans / models / products etc.
> It's just that the good are spoken of and the bad are not. And when
> I raise the bad, someone tries to discredit it, because it's not a
> universal argument. Even though the good is argued even though it's
> also not universal.
I think this is a strawman. It has been a while since anyone, at
least on c.l.l., has claimed that free software is unqualifiedly good.
The limited claim is that the overall good seems to outweigh the bad.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <9gxxg.4193$Qn6.3474@fe09.lga>
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
>
>>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
>>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
>>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
>>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
>>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
>>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
>>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
>>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
>>be.
>
>
> Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
> absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
> that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
> negative?
Let me take the pressure off. There is an incredible amount of negative
data. comp.os.linux.questions. An Ubuntu expert who cannot get his
mousepad to work and knows enough not to try but rather proclaim the
grapes are sour. Or the Linux.org list where they invite people to
report on their great "successes" getting something to work after eight
hours or days of trying.
You pro-FSF idiots turned around when attacked and simply declared Linux
maintenance (or living with any other free software) to be a ten-minute
job. Goose was clever enough to say "same as a Windows install", which I
hera is almost impossible.
Forget the razor, we need Occam's shovel.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <861ws9gu0h.fsf@panix.com>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
>>>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
>>>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
>>>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
>>>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
>>>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
>>>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
>>>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
>>>be.
>> Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
>> absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
>> that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
>> negative?
>
> Let me take the pressure off. There is an incredible amount of
> negative data. comp.os.linux.questions. An Ubuntu expert who cannot
> get his mousepad to work and knows enough not to try but rather
> proclaim the grapes are sour. Or the Linux.org list where they invite
> people to report on their great "successes" getting something to work
> after eight hours or days of trying.
Can you read, Kenny?
> You pro-FSF idiots ...
Apparently not...
> Forget the razor, we need Occam's shovel.
To deal with the crappy arguments you've been making? For sure.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <j9zxg.2327$g%1.1590@fe10.lga>
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>>
>>>Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
>>>>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
>>>>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
>>>>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
>>>>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
>>>>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
>>>>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
>>>>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
>>>>be.
>
>
>>>Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
>>>absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
>>>that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
>>>negative?
>>
>>Let me take the pressure off. There is an incredible amount of
>>negative data. comp.os.linux.questions. An Ubuntu expert who cannot
>>get his mousepad to work and knows enough not to try but rather
>>proclaim the grapes are sour. Or the Linux.org list where they invite
>>people to report on their great "successes" getting something to work
>>after eight hours or days of trying.
>
>
> Can you read, Kenny?
>
>
>>You pro-FSF idiots ...
>
>
> Apparently not...
>
>
>>Forget the razor, we need Occam's shovel.
>
>
> To deal with the crappy arguments you've been making? For sure.
>
> rsi
Wow, a perfectly content-free post! Or as we used to say, a
non-retorting retort.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86wta1f9dg.fsf@panix.com>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
>>>>>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
>>>>>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
>>>>>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
>>>>>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
>>>>>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
>>>>>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
>>>>>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
>>>>>be.
>>
>>
>>>>Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
>>>>absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
>>>>that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
>>>>negative?
>>>
>>>Let me take the pressure off. There is an incredible amount of
>>>negative data. comp.os.linux.questions. An Ubuntu expert who cannot
>>>get his mousepad to work and knows enough not to try but rather
>>>proclaim the grapes are sour. Or the Linux.org list where they invite
>>>people to report on their great "successes" getting something to work
>>>after eight hours or days of trying.
>>
>>
>> Can you read, Kenny?
>>
>>
>>>You pro-FSF idiots ...
>>
>>
>> Apparently not...
>>
>>
>>>Forget the razor, we need Occam's shovel.
>>
>>
>> To deal with the crappy arguments you've been making? For sure.
>>
>> rsi
>
> Wow, a perfectly content-free post! Or as we used to say, a
> non-retorting retort.
In the spirit of not wasting time on unproductive avenues, I shall
retire from this exchange. If, at some time in the future, you show
evidence that you can actually read, we may cross words again.
Meanwhile, in the spirit of charity, here's a hint: the response to
Kent was about the lack of evidence for the thesis that free software
made it impossible to sell proprietary software. Defects in free
software is not exactly evidence for that thesis.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3hd15893k.fsf@athena.pienet>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> > Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> >
> >>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
> >>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
> >>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
> >>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
> >>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
> >>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
> >>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
> >>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
> >>be.
> > Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
> > absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
> > that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
> > negative?
>
> Let me take the pressure off. There is an incredible amount of negative
> data. comp.os.linux.questions. An Ubuntu expert who cannot get his
> mousepad to work and knows enough not to try but rather proclaim the
> grapes are sour. Or the Linux.org list where they invite people to
> report on their great "successes" getting something to work after eight
> hours or days of trying.
>
> You pro-FSF idiots turned around when attacked and simply declared Linux
> maintenance (or living with any other free software) to be a ten-minute
> job. Goose was clever enough to say "same as a Windows install", which I
> hera is almost impossible.
>
> Forget the razor, we need Occam's shovel.
No wonder you've got such bizarre ideas, comp.os.linux and linux.org are
about the last places you should look for real info about Linux. Same
thing for the Windows analogues. Get to know serious users of open
source software on the various dedicated mailing forums and I think you
will end up with a different perspective.
Gregm
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> > Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
> >>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
> >>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
> >>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
> >>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
> >>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
> >>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
> >>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
> >>be.
> >
> >
> > Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
> > absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
> > that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
> > negative?
>
> Let me take the pressure off. There is an incredible amount of negative
> data. comp.os.linux.questions. An Ubuntu expert who cannot get his
> mousepad to work and knows enough not to try but rather proclaim the
> grapes are sour. Or the Linux.org list where they invite people to
> report on their great "successes" getting something to work after eight
> hours or days of trying.
>
> You pro-FSF idiots turned around when attacked and simply declared Linux
> maintenance (or living with any other free software) to be a ten-minute
> job. Goose was clever enough to say "same as a Windows install", which I
> hera is almost impossible.
>
> Forget the razor, we need Occam's shovel.
>
KT, you're the only unproductive one in this thread.
You're the only one with ad homiminem(sp?) attacks.
You're the only one who firmly believes with the faith of a JV.
You're the only one not responding to questions.
You're the only one arguing with no argument.
Can you see a pattern here?
I've already told you, if you are willing to
pay someone to setup your commercial software
then you can just as easily pay someone to setup
your /free/ software.
If you *really* think that free software is
so detrimental to productivity then you
you have no stake in this thread at this point
(which is now about free software competing with
commercial software) and you have no genuine
reason to post "pro-fsf idiots" type of
inflammatory material.
You are adding nothing to the thread but fuel.
That said;
Kent,
All of those who say that free software is an unfair
competitor, bear in mind that foreign states have no
obligation to play by your rules. Free software is
as much a threat to your commercial product as
a developer in the third world making $10k p/a.
Companies in third world countries can possibly
build and sell something like Aserve (thus competing
with you), sell it for next-to-nothing (say ... $10)
and *still* be profitable. At that price point the
software is effectively free and would have still
killed your product.
It gets worse; if a country decided that something
like Aserve is important, they would have just
commissioned a dev team to write it and then let
everybody have it for free.
What do you do then? Tax downloads? How?
I find it hard to imagine that people are arguing
that *less* competition is better; Free software
is the enabler, its a tool that you can either
use or compete with. If you choose to compete,
then your product will have to win on merit alone,
and you won't be able to compete on price.
goose,
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86k661exzf.fsf@panix.com>
"goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
> I find it hard to imagine that people are arguing
> that *less* competition is better; Free software
> is the enabler, its a tool that you can either
> use or compete with. If you choose to compete,
> then your product will have to win on merit alone,
> and you won't be able to compete on price.
This is the crucial point, IMHO. Free software eliminates arbitrage
opportunities created by inefficient or monopolistic practices. One
might as well complain that insider trading is illegal (well, at least
in some countries) -- the idea is to increase the efficiency of the
market, not to destroy it.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uk660jne1.fsf@nhplace.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
>
> > I find it hard to imagine that people are arguing that *less*
> > competition is better; Free software is the enabler, its a tool
> > that you can either use or compete with. If you choose to compete,
> > then your product will have to win on merit alone, and you won't
> > be able to compete on price.
>
> This is the crucial point, IMHO. Free software eliminates arbitrage
> opportunities created by inefficient or monopolistic practices.
I agree that it's sad that we don't have better enforcement of antitrust
law in the US (and perhaps worldwide).
> One might as well complain that insider trading is illegal (well, at
> least in some countries) -- the idea is to increase the efficiency
> of the market, not to destroy it.
This seems relevant...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=248&invol=215
"goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>> > Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
>> >>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
>> >>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
>> >>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
>> >>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
>> >>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
>> >>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
>> >>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
>> >>be.
>> >
>> >
>> > Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
>> > absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
>> > that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
>> > negative?
>>
>> Let me take the pressure off. There is an incredible amount of negative
>> data. comp.os.linux.questions. An Ubuntu expert who cannot get his
>> mousepad to work and knows enough not to try but rather proclaim the
>> grapes are sour. Or the Linux.org list where they invite people to
>> report on their great "successes" getting something to work after eight
>> hours or days of trying.
>>
>> You pro-FSF idiots turned around when attacked and simply declared Linux
>> maintenance (or living with any other free software) to be a ten-minute
>> job. Goose was clever enough to say "same as a Windows install", which I
>> hera is almost impossible.
>>
>> Forget the razor, we need Occam's shovel.
>>
>
> KT, you're the only unproductive one in this thread.
> You're the only one with ad homiminem(sp?) attacks.
> You're the only one who firmly believes with the faith of a JV.
> You're the only one not responding to questions.
> You're the only one arguing with no argument.
>
> Can you see a pattern here?
>
> I've already told you, if you are willing to
> pay someone to setup your commercial software
> then you can just as easily pay someone to setup
> your /free/ software.
>
> If you *really* think that free software is
> so detrimental to productivity then you
> you have no stake in this thread at this point
> (which is now about free software competing with
> commercial software) and you have no genuine
> reason to post "pro-fsf idiots" type of
> inflammatory material.
>
> You are adding nothing to the thread but fuel.
>
> That said;
>
> Kent,
>
> All of those who say that free software is an unfair
> competitor, bear in mind that foreign states have no
> obligation to play by your rules. Free software is
> as much a threat to your commercial product as
> a developer in the third world making $10k p/a.
>
> Companies in third world countries can possibly
> build and sell something like Aserve (thus competing
> with you), sell it for next-to-nothing (say ... $10)
> and *still* be profitable. At that price point the
> software is effectively free and would have still
> killed your product.
>
> It gets worse; if a country decided that something
> like Aserve is important, they would have just
> commissioned a dev team to write it and then let
> everybody have it for free.
>
> What do you do then? Tax downloads? How?
>
> I find it hard to imagine that people are arguing
> that *less* competition is better; Free software
> is the enabler, its a tool that you can either
> use or compete with. If you choose to compete,
> then your product will have to win on merit alone,
> and you won't be able to compete on price.
>
I've found this thread quite interesting, but not so much for a lot of
the content, but for what seems to be a large contradiction.
c.l.l is probably the only programming list where I've seen so much
regarding economics and debate on the market and politics. What
has been very interesting is there has been frequent references to the
evils of governments, government control and how much of what goes on
stifles freedom and the ability of individuals to do things like
develop software and sell it. It has given the impression that many on
this list feel that the market should be left to determine values,
income and choice.
Then we get these debates which seem to contradict everything. The
market is great until free software or cheap labor from overseas
occurs - then these become the evil which destroy our abilities to
become rich.
It all seems a little contradictory to me.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uhd0yk2ln.fsf@nhplace.com>
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
> c.l.l is probably the only programming list where I've seen so much
> regarding economics and debate on the market and politics. What
> has been very interesting is there has been frequent references to the
> evils of governments, government control and how much of what goes on
> stifles freedom and the ability of individuals to do things like
> develop software and sell it. It has given the impression that many on
> this list feel that the market should be left to determine values,
> income and choice.
>
> Then we get these debates which seem to contradict everything. The
> market is great until free software or cheap labor from overseas
> occurs - then these become the evil which destroy our abilities to
> become rich.
>
> It all seems a little contradictory to me.
I am of the opinion that I live in a democratic society, which means
that the people should determine what kind of world they like to live
in and then use political tools to achieve that world.
I am here asking questions to determine the nature of the world we
live in, and on some threads (I didn't intend this to be one of them)
to determine whether we should be seeking another kind of world. (In
this thread, I was seeking only to understand how the world we are in,
unaffected by changes in rules, was intended to generate income--but
somehow that got offtrack by people smelling a fight and wanting to
start one even where none was sought.)
But I don't see any contradiction in a bunch of people with differing
goals talking about the fact that they have conflicting goals. No
political discussion can avoid contradiction at some level. The
deceptive part may be the belief that there is any politically neutral
position--that is, that only the people arguing for change are being
political and that the people arguing for no change are not being
political. All politics hinges on the question of whether the status
quo is ok, and invariably some people say it is--the question is how
many. But never let anyone tell you that only the people inquiring
about whether things are ok or advocating change or even just
advocating discussion are acting politically--those saying "it's fine",
"shut up", "don't mess with it", etc. are also advocating something,
just something they've already got and are hoping doesn't change.
There is an additional question about whether they are right. For
example, I think none of us want to drown in floods due to melting ice
caps. But some hold different beliefs about whether that's going to
happen. The debate over climate change is not, therefore, over whether
we should drown but over whether we should believe we might. And so
some amount of social discussion is about how to read the data. And
there being conflicting ways to read data, it should be no surprise that
you see inconsistencies.
In fact, most people when they speak honestly about risk have
inconsistencies even within themselves because different voices within
them may speak with different strengths at different times.
I don't see much contradictory here--just stuff in conflict.
And, btw, I think even the market's strongest advocates will say that
some amount of market control is wise. People differ as to the degree
and sometimes the qualitative nature of the control (whether it's just
a degree, or whether it involves a goal assessment, whether changes
need to be made dynamically, how you judge when the system is working
or not, etc.) I don't know how to confront those issues without
discussing them.
And as to why discuss it here, the main reason I do is that it affects
whether the end result of developing code is to "place it in a free
respository" or "put it up for sale", and I see no reason not to discuss
the options, their merits and demerits, etc.
I'm only sad that this can't be a more objective discussion. It gets
uselessly contentious.
- - - -
Incidentally, related to this, it looks to me like someone has been
going through the Google newgroup and (as far as I can tell) marking 5
stars on every post that says free software is good and 0 starts on
posts that say it's bad, and otherwise leaving things unmarked.
That's pretty irritating to me, if only because I wish Google wouldn't
even show results unless there's more than 1 person voting, since one
person's opinion is worse than none in my opinion. I think they
shouldn't show results until a couple dozen do some marking,
especially since you can't set the number you trust as part of your
search criteria. But maybe more people could mark good posts in a
non-political way, and that would help.
What really bugs me is that non-political technical posts don't get
graded by whoever is doing this, and so lots of good suggestions by
people aren't marked as such... bleah.
From: Cor Gest
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <8764hewluq.fsf@atthis.clsnet.nl>
Some entity AKA Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com>
wrote this mindboggling stuff, while thinking about the OS-BBQ.
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> What really bugs me is that non-political technical posts don't get
> graded by whoever is doing this, and so lots of good suggestions by
> people aren't marked as such... bleah.
It is so simple: Only people with a surplus of loafs on their shelf discuss
the origins of the farmer's knive-steel which cut the wheat.
Cor
--
Principes stoppen als de hypotheek start
If everything else failed to satisfy you, try reading The Frign' Manual
I do not use Windows (tm) therefore I do not fear mail from strangers
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/*X")))
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <rqgzg.19262$%Z1.14599@fe09.lga>
Cor Gest wrote:
> Some entity AKA Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com>
> wrote this mindboggling stuff, while thinking about the OS-BBQ.
>
> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>
>
>>What really bugs me is that non-political technical posts don't get
>>graded by whoever is doing this, and so lots of good suggestions by
>>people aren't marked as such... bleah.
>
>
>
> It is so simple: Only people with a surplus of loafs on their shelf discuss
> the origins of the farmer's knive-steel which cut the wheat.
Actually, impoverished Africans moan about this all the time. They wish
the US would stop subsidizing American farmers to produce excess
commodities which then get dumped in their countries as foreign aid. The
bad news is that these commodities compete with the only simple agrarian
livelihoods possible in these developing countries. ie, no, they cannot
start with a factory churning out electronics gear. So the developing
countries' economies have their natural growth path blocked by US
politicians concerned only with keeping their dining privileges in the
Senate commissary.
hth, kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Takehiko Abe
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <keke-3107061716020001@192.168.1.2>
> Actually, impoverished Africans moan about this all the time. They wish
> the US would stop subsidizing American farmers to produce excess
> commodities which then get dumped in their countries as foreign aid. The
> bad news is that these commodities compete with the only simple agrarian
> livelihoods possible in these developing countries. ie, no, they cannot
> start with a factory churning out electronics gear.
There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and exploited
for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
not be poor at all with its vast resources.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecselo.j9k.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-31, Takehiko Abe <····@gol.com> wrote:
>
> There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
> without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and exploited
> for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
> not be poor at all with its vast resources.
>
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the fact
that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms? For a counter
example look at Rohdesia(sp?) that was a sucessful country when operated
on the european model. It has since gone away from that model and is now
a hell hole.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-07-31, Takehiko Abe <····@gol.com> wrote:
>> There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
>> without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and exploited
>> for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
>> not be poor at all with its vast resources.
>>
>> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
>
> Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the fact
> that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms? For a counter
> example look at Rohdesia(sp?) that was a sucessful country when operated
> on the european model. It has since gone away from that model and is now
> a hell hole.
And South Africa is now rapidly following the same road, though 10 years
behind.
--Larry
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <DQyzg.12915$UY2.12798@fe11.lga>
Larry Elmore wrote:
> marc spitzer wrote:
>
>> On 2006-07-31, Takehiko Abe <····@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
>>> without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and exploited
>>> for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
>>> not be poor at all with its vast resources.
>>>
>>> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
>>
>>
>> Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the fact
>> that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms?
I realize you are just looking for a chance to get off on one of your
favorite racist themes, but the simple point is that US foreign aid in
the form of dumped excess product from subsidized producers (who would
not produce it if the market were allowed to work) destroys markets in
developing nations. What has that got to do with your desire to see
white people enslaving people of color?
>> For a
>> counter
>> example look at Rohdesia(sp?) that was a sucessful country when
>> operated on the european model. It has since gone away from that
>> model and is now
>> a hell hole.
>
>
> And South Africa is now rapidly following the same road, though 10 years
> behind.
Wow, nostalgia for apartheid. Can you imagine how much better France
would be doing now with a little German discipline if Hitler were still
in power? And if only American blacks were still slaves.... boy, those
were the days!
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>> marc spitzer wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-07-31, Takehiko Abe <····@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
>>>> without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and exploited
>>>> for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
>>>> not be poor at all with its vast resources.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the fact
>>> that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms?
>
> I realize you are just looking for a chance to get off on one of your
> favorite racist themes, but the simple point is that US foreign aid in
> the form of dumped excess product from subsidized producers (who would
> not produce it if the market were allowed to work) destroys markets in
> developing nations. What has that got to do with your desire to see
> white people enslaving people of color?
>
>>> For a counter
>>> example look at Rohdesia(sp?) that was a sucessful country when
>>> operated on the european model. It has since gone away from that
>>> model and is now
>>> a hell hole.
>>
>>
>> And South Africa is now rapidly following the same road, though 10
>> years behind.
>
> Wow, nostalgia for apartheid. Can you imagine how much better France
> would be doing now with a little German discipline if Hitler were still
> in power? And if only American blacks were still slaves.... boy, those
> were the days!
It's not nostalgia for apartheid, you flaming twit. It's only
recognition that things are going from bad in some ways to much worse in
most ways. South Africa is proceeding on its way to being just another
Third World shithole and that's just a basic fact. I will not at all be
surprised if in 10-20 years they've got their own version of bloody
Robert Mugabe in charge, with mass starvation starting to stalk the
land. I hope not, but I'm afraid that's not the way to bet. Nothing
racist about it at all.
--Larry
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <nQAzg.17279$yN1.1781@fe12.lga>
Larry Elmore wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Larry Elmore wrote:
>>
>>> marc spitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2006-07-31, Takehiko Abe <····@gol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
>>>>> without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and
>>>>> exploited
>>>>> for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
>>>>> not be poor at all with its vast resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the
>>>> fact
>>>> that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms?
>>
>>
>> I realize you are just looking for a chance to get off on one of your
>> favorite racist themes, but the simple point is that US foreign aid in
>> the form of dumped excess product from subsidized producers (who would
>> not produce it if the market were allowed to work) destroys markets in
>> developing nations. What has that got to do with your desire to see
>> white people enslaving people of color?
>>
>>>> For a counter
>>>> example look at Rohdesia(sp?) that was a sucessful country when
>>>> operated on the european model. It has since gone away from that
>>>> model and is now
>>>> a hell hole.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And South Africa is now rapidly following the same road, though 10
>>> years behind.
>>
>>
>> Wow, nostalgia for apartheid. Can you imagine how much better France
>> would be doing now with a little German discipline if Hitler were
>> still in power? And if only American blacks were still slaves.... boy,
>> those were the days!
>
>
> It's not nostalgia for apartheid, you flaming twit. It's only
> recognition that things are going from bad in some ways to much worse in
> most ways. South Africa is proceeding on its way to being just another
> Third World shithole and that's just a basic fact. I will not at all be
> surprised if in 10-20 years they've got their own version of bloody
> Robert Mugabe in charge, with mass starvation starting to stalk the
> land. I hope not, but I'm afraid that's not the way to bet. Nothing
> racist about it at all.
"when operated on the european model" PWUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.... love the
code words there, sounds like "white men over fifty" to me.
when offered in conjunction with:
"Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the
fact that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms?"
PWUAHAHAHAHAAAA... what is with Those People(tm) and their damn
primitive cultural norms anyway? PWUUAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHOHAHAHAOHAHAHOO....
jeez, "primtive cultural"? Not even taking the trouble to use code
words. Well, eight years of Bush /will/ bring out the Confederate Flags.
No racism here, move along.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Larry Elmore wrote:
>>>
>>>> marc spitzer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2006-07-31, Takehiko Abe <····@gol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
>>>>>> without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and
>>>>>> exploited
>>>>>> for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
>>>>>> not be poor at all with its vast resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the
>>>>> fact
>>>>> that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms?
>>>
>>>
>>> I realize you are just looking for a chance to get off on one of your
>>> favorite racist themes, but the simple point is that US foreign aid
>>> in the form of dumped excess product from subsidized producers (who
>>> would not produce it if the market were allowed to work) destroys
>>> markets in developing nations. What has that got to do with your
>>> desire to see white people enslaving people of color?
>>>
>>>>> For a counter
>>>>> example look at Rohdesia(sp?) that was a sucessful country when
>>>>> operated on the european model. It has since gone away from that
>>>>> model and is now
>>>>> a hell hole.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And South Africa is now rapidly following the same road, though 10
>>>> years behind.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, nostalgia for apartheid. Can you imagine how much better France
>>> would be doing now with a little German discipline if Hitler were
>>> still in power? And if only American blacks were still slaves....
>>> boy, those were the days!
>>
>>
>> It's not nostalgia for apartheid, you flaming twit. It's only
>> recognition that things are going from bad in some ways to much worse
>> in most ways. South Africa is proceeding on its way to being just
>> another Third World shithole and that's just a basic fact. I will not
>> at all be surprised if in 10-20 years they've got their own version of
>> bloody Robert Mugabe in charge, with mass starvation starting to stalk
>> the land. I hope not, but I'm afraid that's not the way to bet.
>> Nothing racist about it at all.
>
> "when operated on the european model" PWUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.... love the
> code words there, sounds like "white men over fifty" to me.
Moron. I didn't write that.
> when offered in conjunction with:
>
> "Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the
> fact that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms?"
>
> PWUAHAHAHAHAAAA... what is with Those People(tm) and their damn
> primitive cultural norms anyway? PWUUAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHOHAHAHAOHAHAHOO....
> jeez, "primtive cultural"? Not even taking the trouble to use code
> words. Well, eight years of Bush /will/ bring out the Confederate Flags.
I didn't write that either. You're not a flaming twit, you're a flaming
twat.
> No racism here, move along.
Fuck off, asshole. Culture != race except in the minds of racists, or
haven't you figured that out yet?
--Larry
Larry Elmore wrote:
<snipped>
> It's not nostalgia for apartheid, you flaming twit. It's only
> recognition that things are going from bad in some ways to much worse in
> most ways. South Africa is proceeding on its way to being just another
> Third World shithole and that's just a basic fact. I will not at all be
> surprised if in 10-20 years they've got their own version of bloody
> Robert Mugabe in charge, with mass starvation starting to stalk the
> land. I hope not, but I'm afraid that's not the way to bet. Nothing
> racist about it at all.
>
Er? This is news to me, and I *live* here :-)
It doesn't seem all that bad, we've taken
our deputy president to court, gays get /mostly/
the same rights[1] as others, abortion is legal,
all religions get the same non-status from govt,
inflation is currently under control and every
citizen is free to criticise govt and politicians.
In other words, a functioning democracy. You can't
blame the govt when the people are stupid enough to
vote in the same corrupt idiots time and time again.
The economy of just a single province (gauteng)
is larger than the economy of any other country
on the continent, bar egypt.
Of course, crime is out of control, the politicians
are forever trying (and failing) to trample the
rights of the people (and forever getting smacked
by the courts:-), crime is out of control, the
currency is weak, crime is out of control, broadband
is expensive and crime is out of control.
[1] I say mostly because I'm not too sure, but
seeing as how there is no furore over the rights
of gays and lesbians, I guess not.
goose,
Oh yeah ... also, crime is out of control
goose wrote:
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> It's not nostalgia for apartheid, you flaming twit. It's only
>> recognition that things are going from bad in some ways to much worse in
>> most ways. South Africa is proceeding on its way to being just another
>> Third World shithole and that's just a basic fact. I will not at all be
>> surprised if in 10-20 years they've got their own version of bloody
>> Robert Mugabe in charge, with mass starvation starting to stalk the
>> land. I hope not, but I'm afraid that's not the way to bet. Nothing
>> racist about it at all.
>>
>
> Er? This is news to me, and I *live* here :-)
I'm glad to hear it. My opinion is based solely upon what I read in the
news and on the Internet. What makes the news is not cheery by any means.
> It doesn't seem all that bad, we've taken
> our deputy president to court, gays get /mostly/
> the same rights[1] as others, abortion is legal,
> all religions get the same non-status from govt,
> inflation is currently under control and every
> citizen is free to criticise govt and politicians.
>
> In other words, a functioning democracy. You can't
> blame the govt when the people are stupid enough to
> vote in the same corrupt idiots time and time again.
>
> The economy of just a single province (gauteng)
> is larger than the economy of any other country
> on the continent, bar egypt.
>
> Of course, crime is out of control, the politicians
> are forever trying (and failing) to trample the
> rights of the people (and forever getting smacked
> by the courts:-), crime is out of control, the
> currency is weak, crime is out of control, broadband
> is expensive and crime is out of control.
>
> [1] I say mostly because I'm not too sure, but
> seeing as how there is no furore over the rights
> of gays and lesbians, I guess not.
>
> goose,
> Oh yeah ... also, crime is out of control
Okay, so maybe what I've read isn't so very far from the truth. I
certainly hope SA isn't circling the drain, but it's certainly easy to
get the *impression* that it's starting to spin helplessly and is
more-or-less following the same path all the other former African
colonies took. It certainly doesn't have to go that route, but I still
fear it will. I hope not, though.
--Larry
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecto5i.pfk.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>> marc spitzer wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-07-31, Takehiko Abe <····@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
>>>> without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and exploited
>>>> for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
>>>> not be poor at all with its vast resources.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the fact
>>> that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms?
>
> I realize you are just looking for a chance to get off on one of your
> favorite racist themes, but the simple point is that US foreign aid in
there is a list? What number is this one? And I was talking about
*culture* not race. In the Back when Rhodeisa was still run under
the western modle of government, even durring a messy civil war it
GNP was greater then it is now and it had a working civil service,
rule of law, roads that were maintained, safe drinking water and
they exported various things, grains and high quality tabacco were
two that I remember. And they had the supporting businesses to
suport the the above, mechanics and stores for example. Now that
the country is run on the african model none of the above nice
things exist any more. And they are looking famin square in the
eye now, as an asside it is not a good idea to steal the land from
the farmers who know to make food appear just because you do not
like the color of their skin. Oh they were white so it is ok,
right kenny?
> the form of dumped excess product from subsidized producers (who would
> not produce it if the market were allowed to work) destroys markets in
> developing nations. What has that got to do with your desire to see
> white people enslaving people of color?
I have no desire to see any one enslaved, because of their color
or religion or the date they were born on. I think that the
success of the Marshal plan after WWII lead to the idea in the
State Department, Congress and America in general tha if you just
give people the means of building a civilized country they will.
It worked with Germany, Jappan and France(sorta). The fly in the
ointment was that the countries were already civilized along the
western model, yes for what I am talking about Japan was a western
model country. Even more so when we got done with it, and that
included some major changes to their religion.
Now getting back to matter of color, when you have a working culture
you get Collin Powwel and Condi Rice. When you have a non working
culture you get Rawanda.
Now to bring the difference that culture makes lets look at two
countries that have no natural resources, Israil and Jappan. But
what they do have is a working culture and they work hard and smart.
Next look at Mexico and Veniswala, they both have resources and
there econimes are fucked, and that is not too strong a word for
it.
Here is a paper you might want to read:
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/98spring/peters.html It is called
"Spotting the Losers: Seven Sighs of Non-Competitive States"
And africa has huge problems, here are a few:
1: the 'Countries' have no national identity. They are just lines
drawn on a map that do not reflect the people on the ground.
2: the people next to each other generally hate each other and like
to kill each other
3: From a purely operational point of view generally they cant
finish the job so it goes on and on over the generations. Or if
they do finish the job the group fractures now that the external
pressure of an enemy is gone and they start all over again.
4: generally anyone who gets a useful skill gets the hell out, lets
take nurses for example. There are colleges that turn out RN ish
Nurses in africa and they then proced to get jobs in Britian, the
British nurses come here for better pay, and get British citizenship.
But it gets better once the african nurses are RN certitified in
Britan they also come here for for better money etc.
Now back to your statement that the local africans were too
ecconomicly primitive, I would choose disfunctional, to survive
the influx of free food thrust uppon them by "evil white men", made
else where in this thread. I agree we should stop coddleing the
dark continent. Nowhere is it in the federal govenrments job
discription to feed anybody in country or out. And it wuld be nice
if they stuck to the job discription, but Bush never met a spending
bill he did not like. And he has the bizar idea that the government
can do good if it is big enough.
Besides from what I have read about the various ethnic, religious
and tribal clensing going on. Along with very high numbers of HIV
infected people along with no medicne or facilites to handle it.
I think there is a good chance, free food or not, that africa will
not be a long term problem.
>
>>> For a
>>> counter
>>> example look at Rohdesia(sp?) that was a sucessful country when
>>> operated on the european model. It has since gone away from that
>>> model and is now
>>> a hell hole.
>>
>>
>> And South Africa is now rapidly following the same road, though 10 years
>> behind.
>
> Wow, nostalgia for apartheid. Can you imagine how much better France
> would be doing now with a little German discipline if Hitler were still
> in power? And if only American blacks were still slaves.... boy, those
> were the days!
The sad part is that you may very well be right, Frances children
per woman number is 1.1-1.3 I forget the exact number but 2.1 is
maintance mode for a modern socity. But they are even more fucked
then that if you look the demographics of the 18-30 yr old male
population, their un integrated into french socity, guest workers
are having big families and will soon out number the french in
millatery age men. I think they are going to try to undo the good
work of Charles Martel of 732 ad.
Now on to the overt accusations of racisim. It is amusing to watch
a liberal with no rebuttel to the argument made and not likeing
the end product say, directly and by implacation, that your are a
racist pig in the hopes that you will go away.
The really interesting thing is this only works on people, when it
works at all, who do not like to be called racist. After all if
you call a Klans man, or a nazi, a racist he will say yes and proud
of it. So to call a racist a racist is not an effective means of
"manageing the debate" once you run out of logic and stuff.
But if you are not a racist and do not like being called bad names
in public you just may go away and then the liberal trumpits his
supperior moral position.
And I do not want slavery here again, here are some reasons:
1: it is wrong
2: it is dangerious, there was a reason that the gun cabinit was
*always* located in the master bedroom of the plantation house.
3: why the hell would we want or need to re fill the nich that
illegal aliens are filling so well.
marc
ps kenny incase you did not get it some cultures are demonstativly
*BETTER* then others. Just because you do not like the idea does
not make it un true.
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <D5Kzg.37970$UY2.33990@fe11.lga>
marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Larry Elmore wrote:
>>
>>>marc spitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2006-07-31, Takehiko Abe <····@gol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
>>>>>without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and exploited
>>>>>for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
>>>>>not be poor at all with its vast resources.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the fact
>>>>that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms?
>>
>>I realize you are just looking for a chance to get off on one of your
>>favorite racist themes, but the simple point is that US foreign aid in
>
>
> there is a list?
<g>
> What number is this one?
I don't know, but these things always come in groups.
kt
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecuvek.p8u.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> marc spitzer wrote:
>> On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I realize you are just looking for a chance to get off on one of your
>>>favorite racist themes, but the simple point is that US foreign aid in
>>
>>
>> there is a list?
>
><g>
>
>> What number is this one?
>
> I don't know, but these things always come in groups.
>
> kt
Kenn,
I have known you for three+ years in the real world. And because of that I do
not think this should be just a case of people on the internet are assholes.
So etheir provide the information that shows I am a racist or appoligize, here
where you made the claim.
I see you cut everything of substance from my post and responded to the fluff,
interesting no?
marc
ps if your ideas will not stand up to facts and debate perhaps you should
reexammin them?
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <JvMzg.17317$yN1.13529@fe12.lga>
marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>marc spitzer wrote:
>>
>>>On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I realize you are just looking for a chance to get off on one of your
>>>>favorite racist themes, but the simple point is that US foreign aid in
>>>
>>>
>>>there is a list?
>>
>><g>
>>
>>>What number is this one?
>>
>>I don't know, but these things always come in groups.
>>
>>kt
>
>
>
> Kenn,
>
> I have known you for three+ years in the real world.
That's why Elmore went in my kill-file and you did not. :)
> And because of that I do
> not think this should be just a case of people on the internet are assholes.
> So etheir provide the information that shows I am a racist or appoligize, here
> where you made the claim.
>
> I see you cut everything of substance from my post and responded to the fluff,
> interesting no?
That was just a lot of arm-waving trying to change the subject away from
having been called out on your simple racist, imperialistic remarks,
backed up by your good buddy Elmore. You want me to help with your cover-up?
If you want substance, look at the sequence:
I said something about surplus commodities being donated to developing
nations as being oddly counterproductive because they turn out to
compete with exactly the same simple agricultural activities a developed
economy would grow from. btw, I never heard the donations characterized
as malicious, rather innocently harmful.
You then brought up race, defending "evil white men" (where the fuck did
that come from?) by singing the praises of the vicious white governments
that once ruled Rhodesia and South Africa. You tried masking white
supremacist imperialist ensalevement as "european model". I did get a
huge kick out of that verbal cleansing. Too bad you did not use the
Japanese or South Korean or Taiwanese model -- non-Caucasians who make
your Europeans look like slouches. I can understand why you did not use
the Polish or Russian models, because they make manifest that the
problem is simply "hey, just because you have stopped stomping on my
head after 70 or 300 years don't expect me to get up and dance".
The thing is, I /know/ you do not think you are racist, you just are.
Don't worry, it happens when you support people like Bush, you learn to
think in weird ways.
And now, to spare others any more of this, in the kill-file you go.
(These threads have been great for rebuilding that.)
Btw, I was going to suggest you take a page from the racist recovery
book of your buddy Mel Gibson when I realized, uh, maybe not. :)
kt
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecvpi5.5tp.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> marc spitzer wrote:
>>
>> Kenn,
>>
>> I have known you for three+ years in the real world.
>
> That's why Elmore went in my kill-file and you did not. :)
why all he said is that Rhodisia and South Aferica were fucked to
various degrees as they have stepped away from the european model
of running a country.
He did not say anything about aparthied being good as I did not
mention slavery being good, you just accuesd us of doing that.
>
>> And because of that I do
>> not think this should be just a case of people on the internet are assholes.
>> So etheir provide the information that shows I am a racist or appoligize, here
>> where you made the claim.
>>
>> I see you cut everything of substance from my post and responded to the fluff,
>> interesting no?
>
> That was just a lot of arm-waving trying to change the subject away from
> having been called out on your simple racist, imperialistic remarks,
> backed up by your good buddy Elmore. You want me to help with your cover-up?
>
> If you want substance, look at the sequence:
>
> I said something about surplus commodities being donated to developing
> nations as being oddly counterproductive because they turn out to
> compete with exactly the same simple agricultural activities a developed
> economy would grow from. btw, I never heard the donations characterized
> as malicious, rather innocently harmful.
in point of fact weather they were mallicious or innocently harmful
is besides the point. What is interesting is that when the dammage
was observed by the local governments they took no action to ban
the import of the food and let their nation go to shit. It is
their job to protect their people, instead they let it happen while
skimming off what ever they could. It is not the job of some other
party to protect them from the big bad world. Now if you think it
is some other coutrys job to watch over them untill they reach
adulthood as a country well then that is different, so kenny who
exactly should be the colonial power to see that these bad things
are managed? And what is in it for them?
>
> You then brought up race, defending "evil white men" (where the fuck did
> that come from?) by singing the praises of the vicious white governments
The "evil white man" is every person/country of european decent.
currently the uber "evil white man" is the USA, did you not get
the memo evil oppressor of the non white people of the world?
> that once ruled Rhodesia and South Africa. You tried masking white
> supremacist imperialist ensalevement as "european model". I did get a
> huge kick out of that verbal cleansing. Too bad you did not use the
> Japanese or South Korean or Taiwanese model -- non-Caucasians who make
> your Europeans look like slouches. I can understand why you did not use
> the Polish or Russian models, because they make manifest that the
> problem is simply "hey, just because you have stopped stomping on my
> head after 70 or 300 years don't expect me to get up and dance".
>
The governments in place now are if anything worse in many ways.
For example in Rhodesia there was food, enough to export and still
feed people there, now that is not the case. the viloence in SA
is getting worse then it ever was under the old government. It is
not political just random criminal acts, just signs of the general
decay of the socity there. And I did not say there was not room
for improvement in either state. What I said was that the mechanics
put in place by the rulers provided services that allowed the
country as a whole to be a functioning country that you had the
ability to better your lot in. now Rhodesia is efectivly dead and
waiting for the vultures to clean the bones, hey africa happens.
In each case, japan, tawan, south korea they activly acted europen
in there institutions to allow them to realize those benifits that
the european model provides. and looked what happened. And as I
pointed out about the russo japanees war elsewhere in this thread.
Face it africa seems to like living in the social situation of the
last 20 pages of Atlas Shruged.
> The thing is, I /know/ you do not think you are racist, you just are.
> Don't worry, it happens when you support people like Bush, you learn to
> think in weird ways.
I am not for Bush, I am against the alternative(first gore, then kerry)
>
> And now, to spare others any more of this, in the kill-file you go.
> (These threads have been great for rebuilding that.)
>
> Btw, I was going to suggest you take a page from the racist recovery
> book of your buddy Mel Gibson when I realized, uh, maybe not. :)
ok kenny dont talk to racists, here or anywhere else.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <MASzg.147$6g2.116@fe12.lga>
marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>marc spitzer wrote:
>>
>>>Kenn,
>>>
>>>I have known you for three+ years in the real world.
>>
>>That's why Elmore went in my kill-file and you did not. :)
>
>
> why all he said is that Rhodisia and South Aferica were fucked to
> various degrees as they have stepped away from the european model
> of running a country.
I should have left you in the killfile.
>
> He did not say anything about aparthied being good as I did not
> mention slavery being good, you just accuesd us of doing that.
The problem is not your idiotic socio-economic history analysis, it is
the jump in topic and the language used to make it.
You and Elmore exposed your inner hearts by jumping at an unrelated post
to gloat over difficulties experienced by African peoples emerging from
hundreds of years of white racist imperialism. The racial language
("white people", "european culture" vs "primitive") speaks volumes as
well. (btw, I think the word you are looking for is "spear-chucker".)
Now you are throwing up hundreds of words of socio-political crap to
confuse the radar and resorting to close literary analysis for your
defense, which is doing about as well as Landis's.
How could an unrelated article about competition from free stuff making
it impossible for a native industry evolve lead one to start defending
white people and whining about problems they are having jumpstarting an
economy after hundreds of years of oppression? Anything like a traffic
stop made Mel go off about who started all the wars? As in, it's just on
his mind all the time.
Your advice to me was not to talk to racists. Funny, I was about to
advise you not to talk at all anymore. Shut up and go do my Lisp puzzle.
hth, kenny
ps. You also blame the African leaders for not stopping the foreign aid?
You mean, if they were capable like Bush -- who created Katrina by
diverting levee repair funds to illegal domestic surveillance and by
appointing a polo judge to FEMA, and who deliberately started a war on
premises known to be false -- those people would be better off? Well...
Actually I was just quoting one iconoclastic African economist on the
foreign aid thing, and so who knows if he is even right. :)
k
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> marc spitzer wrote:
>> On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> marc spitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kenn,
>>>>
>>>> I have known you for three+ years in the real world.
>>>
>>> That's why Elmore went in my kill-file and you did not. :)
>>
>>
>> why all he said is that Rhodisia and South Aferica were fucked to
>> various degrees as they have stepped away from the european model
>> of running a country.
>
> I should have left you in the killfile.
>
>>
>> He did not say anything about aparthied being good as I did not
>> mention slavery being good, you just accuesd us of doing that.
>
> The problem is not your idiotic socio-economic history analysis, it is
> the jump in topic and the language used to make it.
>
> You and Elmore exposed your inner hearts by jumping at an unrelated post
> to gloat over difficulties experienced by African peoples emerging from
> hundreds of years of white racist imperialism. The racial language
> ("white people", "european culture" vs "primitive") speaks volumes as
> well. (btw, I think the word you are looking for is "spear-chucker".)
Actually the words I'm searching for is, "Kenny, you are truly a
world-class bozo." You're reminding me of one uber-feminist chick I
used to work with who could and did twist every casual remark or joke
into some kind of attack against womanhood. She was quite disturbed,
and you seem to be, as well. I've thankfully never before had the image
of Bozo the Clown with his head stuck entirely up his ass ever pop into
mind before, but you brought it forth. Certainly you're pulling all
kinds of things out of your ass and falsely attributing them to me. You
need to either lay off the sauce or the illegal drugs, or restart taking
your legal meds, I'm not sure which, but you're a fucking loon.
And no, loons have no idea whether any person they've never met is
racist, they only loudly *believe* they do.
--Larry
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrned03ka.73f.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-08-02, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> marc spitzer wrote:
>> On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>marc spitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kenn,
>>>>
>>>>I have known you for three+ years in the real world.
>>>
>>>That's why Elmore went in my kill-file and you did not. :)
>>
>>
>> why all he said is that Rhodisia and South Aferica were fucked to
>> various degrees as they have stepped away from the european model
>> of running a country.
>
> I should have left you in the killfile.
>
>>
>> He did not say anything about aparthied being good as I did not
>> mention slavery being good, you just accuesd us of doing that.
>
> The problem is not your idiotic socio-economic history analysis, it is
> the jump in topic and the language used to make it.
>
> You and Elmore exposed your inner hearts by jumping at an unrelated post
> to gloat over difficulties experienced by African peoples emerging from
> hundreds of years of white racist imperialism. The racial language
> ("white people", "european culture" vs "primitive") speaks volumes as
> well. (btw, I think the word you are looking for is "spear-chucker".)
Do you know why africa was choped up for colones so late in the
game? It was not worth the effort, too backward and desease ridden
to be worth the effort, small though it was to conquer. Now there
were exceptions, SA for example because of shipping considerations,
good port and very good place to stop for repairs/supplies. Now
when africa was carved up by the european powers 3 things had
changed, all the good land had been taken, quinine(the tonic with
your gin), and rail roads.
And do you know why they did it, aside from colonial economics.
Because they could do so economicly. Basicly none of the Afiricans
could stop them, they were too backwards to hope to win. Their
culture doomed them, not their color.
>
> Now you are throwing up hundreds of words of socio-political crap to
> confuse the radar and resorting to close literary analysis for your
> defense, which is doing about as well as Landis's.
>
> How could an unrelated article about competition from free stuff making
> it impossible for a native industry evolve lead one to start defending
> white people and whining about problems they are having jumpstarting an
> economy after hundreds of years of oppression? Anything like a traffic
> stop made Mel go off about who started all the wars? As in, it's just on
> his mind all the time.
umm you brought up africa and started this sub thread not I, nore did I
call you a racist even though it appears that you have an unequal set of
exptations for what you can expect from various groups based on physical
charateristics that have nothing to do with intellegence.
And what makes it impossible for native industries to evolve is their
backward dead end culture. They do not have a working social framework
to build a modern socity. And all the giving or withholding of cash,
grain, chevy impalla will not make a bit of effecive difference because
the social preconditions for a working modern state are not there. A
modern economy is a result not a cause.
>
> Your advice to me was not to talk to racists. Funny, I was about to
> advise you not to talk at all anymore. Shut up and go do my Lisp puzzle.
>
> hth, kenny
>
> ps. You also blame the African leaders for not stopping the foreign aid?
If it is bad for your contry dont take it, that is govenrments job to
govern. If it does not then whos fault is that? unless they can not be
held to the same standards as other goverments, can they?
> You mean, if they were capable like Bush -- who created Katrina by
> diverting levee repair funds to illegal domestic surveillance and by
> appointing a polo judge to FEMA, and who deliberately started a war on
> premises known to be false -- those people would be better off? Well...
link please on the bush thing, it is the one conspiracy theroy I have
not heard yet. And as I said befor Louisana/new orlens was a case of
democrocy in action, the people got exactly the goverment they voted
for. as did alabamma and missipi which hand no horor stories due to
supidity and cowardice in their government. Also there were all the
people waiting for someone else to save them. What was soo hard about
asking where the shelter was and walking there. I remember one healthy
looking guy complaining that he had been waiting for 3 days for a bus to
pick him up and take him to safty. I could walk 50 miles in 3 days along
roads to get there.
And as far as I have been following his domestic intel programs he
has held up quite well in the courts. and the fema post has been a
traditional political filler job, both parties have done it, it just
came home to roost. It is like being the ambasidor to Bermudia
>
> Actually I was just quoting one iconoclastic African economist on the
> foreign aid thing, and so who knows if he is even right. :)
I do not think we should give any aid to help people in africa, one of
the main reasons is it has been shown not to work. and if that idiot
bono want to do so let him write a check not take it out of my pocket
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <UUUzg.370$547.130@fe10.lga>
marc spitzer wrote:
> umm you brought up africa...
PWUWUAHHAHAHAHAAAAAHHHAAH... saw that one coming. Thx, you made my
night. Beers are on me, Tuesday.
peace, kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
marc spitzer wrote:
I'm not really an expert on the rest of the continent,
but I have visited everywhere in Sa, and I've lived
my entire life here (never been out, actually).
So here goes;
<snipped>
> And africa has huge problems, here are a few:
>
> 1: the 'Countries' have no national identity. They are just lines
> drawn on a map that do not reflect the people on the ground.
>
I disagree; xenophobia is a major problem in SA, the
balcks here *hate* blacks from other countries and
tend to beat them up whenever they can. Some have
died from these beatings.
> 2: the people next to each other generally hate each other and like
> to kill each other
>
Yes; although to clarify, the leaders usually set
people against each other as a way of maintaining
their power-base.
> 3: From a purely operational point of view generally they cant
> finish the job so it goes on and on over the generations. Or if
> they do finish the job the group fractures now that the external
> pressure of an enemy is gone and they start all over again.
>
I don't know what you are talking about here.
> 4: generally anyone who gets a useful skill gets the hell out, lets
> take nurses for example. There are colleges that turn out RN ish
> Nurses in africa and they then proced to get jobs in Britian, the
> British nurses come here for better pay, and get British citizenship.
> But it gets better once the african nurses are RN certitified in
> Britan they also come here for for better money etc.
>
I have no idea where "here" is; realise that your
place of habitat is not the centre of the universe.
>
> Now back to your statement that the local africans were too
> ecconomicly primitive, I would choose disfunctional, to survive
> the influx of free food thrust uppon them by "evil white men", made
> else where in this thread.
"Free food", or aid of any kind, very generally don't make
it to the people it was intended for. Leaders (like MadBob)
tend to forcibly intervene and only distribute the aid to
the registered members of his party. AIUI, this happens
everywhere on the country (except SA, where I've not even
*seen* foriegn aid) and this is how the leaders become
entranched. The "aid" is actually counter-productive
to the goal of raising living standards.
The world has been pouring aid into Africa for close on
to 50 years now. All it has done is made Africa poorer.
Stop giving us aid; you are only strenthening the current
phsycotic leaders.
> I agree we should stop coddleing the
> dark continent. Nowhere is it in the federal govenrments job
> discription to feed anybody in country or out. And it wuld be nice
> if they stuck to the job discription, but Bush never met a spending
> bill he did not like. And he has the bizar idea that the government
> can do good if it is big enough.
>
> Besides from what I have read about the various ethnic, religious
> and tribal clensing going on. Along with very high numbers of HIV
> infected people along with no medicne or facilites to handle it.
Here in SA, the courts have forced the Minister of health to
distribute ARV.
> I think there is a good chance, free food or not, that africa will
> not be a long term problem.
>
I wouldn't worry about it until the leaders start making
a play for nuclear arms. Here in SA, we already have nuclear
power stations, but SA is a vast difference to the rest
of Africa.
<snipped>
>
> Now on to the overt accusations of racisim.
As someone who lives in SA and gets to watch all sorts
of entertainment put on by our politicians daily, I can
assure you that here, in SA, whenever I've seen a "rascist"
accusation it usually means that the politician has
run out of excuses and is backed into a corner. I dunno
if this is the same anywhere else, though.
>
> ps kenny incase you did not get it some cultures are demonstativly
> *BETTER* then others. Just because you do not like the idea does
> not make it un true.
>
That is true, the african culture is not one that
I would call "good" for most meanings of the term "good".
goose,
"goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
> marc spitzer wrote:
>
>>
>> ps kenny incase you did not get it some cultures are demonstativly
>> *BETTER* then others. Just because you do not like the idea does
>> not make it un true.
>>
>
> That is true, the african culture is not one that
> I would call "good" for most meanings of the term "good".
>
I think the point that Kenny may have been trying to make was
partially about the use of the term "primitive". Usually, what people
mean when they say this is that the culture had not developed along an
industrial basis. In fact, many "primitive" societies have social
values, norms laws and government which is as sophisticated and
developed as our own. Primitive is also strongly associated with
earlier attitudes which also assumed that because the society had not
developed along industrial lines, the people were less intelligent
etc. These arguments tend to overlook the issues of necessity and
environment - if you have a place to live, a good social network and
sufficient food and shelter, maybe you don't need to or have as much
drive to develop industry, capitalism and markets etc. I guess the
missing bit of crucial information is to what extent the people as a
whole are "happy" compared to another society.
I think it is dangerous and quite simplistic to argue that the
problems in countries like africa are due to their under developed
society, because it fails to account for the social destruction that
colonization caused.
Making use of Rhodesia as an example is also full of problems. The
countries production was higher and people, on the whole, were better
fed. However, how much freedom did the indigenous have compared to the
white land owners and how much of their culture and values had to be
given up and to what extent were they forced to adopt essentially
european values and culture. "Mad bob" has really stuffed things up,
but things could have been just as easily stuffed up by a white leader
and who knows, things may have been a lot better with a more sane
black leader who really wanted to foster what we would call a fair and
democratic society.
I've always like the bit from the Hitch Hikers guide where the
narrator is talking about humans and dolphins. From memory it was
something like -
"Humans thought they were superior because they climbed out of the
ocean and began to walk on land. dolphins thought they were superior
for exactly the same reasons."
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
>
> > marc spitzer wrote:
> "Humans thought they were superior because they climbed out of the
> ocean and began to walk on land. dolphins thought they were superior
> for exactly the same reasons."
"On the Planet Earth, Man had always assumed that he was more
intelligent than Dolphins because he had achieved so much: the wheel;
New York; wars; and so on, whilst all the Dolphins had ever done was
muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the
Dolphins believed that they were more intelligent than Man for
precisely the same reasons."
What I think must be understood is that the success of a nation, in
terms of wealth and power, has little to do with it's culture. The
only really important cultural aspect is the attitude towards business.
It doesn't matter how lacking or bursting a society is in democracy or
other civilised values.
Probably in the long term it will turn out that some of these will be
important though.
Tim X wrote:
> "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
>
<snipped>
> I think it is dangerous and quite simplistic to argue that the
> problems in countries like africa are due to their under developed
> society, because it fails to account for the social destruction that
> colonization caused.
Yes, it is simplistic but bear in mind that, whatever
the failings of the colonialists (and there were many!)
they didn't come over here and disrupt the peace. When
they arrived the entire of southern africa was already
engaged in continuous warfare. I doubt that africa, left
to its own devices, would have fared much better than it
is faring now. When the land was "discovered" by
explorers africans themselves were already enslaving
one another.
We need educated leaders who allow free and fair
elections[1]. If we had that, everything else will sort
itself out.
Non-educated leaders don't see the advantage of
educating the people, so they don't and FnF elections
will at least let leaders know that they can be kicked
out of office for too much overt corruption (currently
many leaders don't care how corrupt they appear, they
cannot lose their leadership anyway, so it doesn't
matter to them).
[1] In SA the elections are free and fare, but the voters
are stupid, so SA still loses out anyway :-).
>
> Making use of Rhodesia as an example is also full of problems. The
> countries production was higher and people, on the whole, were better
> fed. However, how much freedom did the indigenous have compared to the
> white land owners and how much of their culture and values had to be
> given up and to what extent were they forced to adopt essentially
> european values and culture. "Mad bob" has really stuffed things up,
> but things could have been just as easily stuffed up by a white leader
The color doesn't matter; the corruption does. Unfortunately
the mindset of the average african is one of blind loyalty;
witness the recent rape trial of our ex-vice president - his
supporters burned effigies of the complainant outside the
court during the trial. Many of them were quite insistent
that rape is part of the african culture and that he should
not go to jail for rape.
Luckily, the courts found him innocent[2] but it is disturbing
that his supporters themselves thought he did it but did
not consider it wrong. Many of these were in fact women
who happily told the tv cameras that rape it not wrong
in "their" culture.
[2]Whether or not he was innocent is a different matter;
our courts tend to be fiercly independent of the state
so I'm going to assume that it was consensual as he said
it was.
> and who knows, things may have been a lot better with a more sane
> black leader
Maybe; I still contend that color doesn't matter. SA has a
president who is black only in skin color; he wears european
suits, and talks without a south african accent (hell, even
I have an SA accent). He is african, but only in color, not
in mentality.
Compare him to MadBob.
> who really wanted to foster what we would call a fair and
> democratic society.
>
> I've always like the bit from the Hitch Hikers guide where the
> narrator is talking about humans and dolphins. From memory it was
> something like -
>
> "Humans thought they were superior because they climbed out of the
> ocean and began to walk on land. dolphins thought they were superior
> for exactly the same reasons."
>
IIRC, it was along these lines:
"Humans always thought that they were superior because
they invented the wheel, digital watches, etc while
dolphins just mucked about in the water having fun.
Dolphins thought that they were superior for exactly
the same reasons."
A more appropriate quote (paraphrasing) was when
Arthur(sp?) Dent asks Ford why the people don't
stop voting for the lizards and Ford replies:
"Because the wrong lizard may get in".
goose,
marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-08-01, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Larry Elmore wrote:
> >> marc spitzer wrote:
> > Wow, nostalgia for apartheid. Can you imagine how much better France
> > would be doing now with a little German discipline if Hitler were still
> > in power? And if only American blacks were still slaves.... boy, those
> > were the days!
>
>
> The sad part is that you may very well be right, Frances children
> per woman number is 1.1-1.3 I forget the exact number but 2.1 is
> maintance mode for a modern socity. But they are even more fucked
> then that if you look the demographics of the 18-30 yr old male
> population, their un integrated into french socity, guest workers
> are having big families and will soon out number the french in
> millatery age men. I think they are going to try to undo the good
> work of Charles Martel of 732 ad.
I think France may have less problems with their immigrant community
had the Nazis won.
But I somehow expect France with Nazi government would be a less
pleasant place to live than it is today. Can't think why ;).
From: Takehiko Abe
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <keke-0108061347400001@192.168.1.2>
marc spitzer:
> > There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
> > without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and exploited
> > for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
> > not be poor at all with its vast resources.
> >
> > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
>
> Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the fact
> that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms?
That's a standard line. First you beat up a person pretty badly, and
then you laugh at him realizing that he cannot stand straight on
his own feet. Examples are everywhere and overwhelming. If you
don't see them in 2006, the chances are that you never will.
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecv0qf.p8u.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-08-01, Takehiko Abe <····@gol.com> wrote:
> marc spitzer:
>
>> > There is a chance that electronics factories cannot keep operating
>> > without Africa. Africa is poor because it has been robbed and exploited
>> > for centuries. As Naomi Klein said, African countries should
>> > not be poor at all with its vast resources.
>> >
>> > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/klein
>>
>> Is it possible that africas problems are not evil white men but the fact
>> that they have a broken and primitive set of cultural norms?
>
> That's a standard line. First you beat up a person pretty badly, and
> then you laugh at him realizing that he cannot stand straight on
> his own feet. Examples are everywhere and overwhelming. If you
> don't see them in 2006, the chances are that you never will.
Could it be that they were already "beat up" by their cultural norms and the
"evil white men" just took advantage of it like any reasonable imperialist
power would?
Another counter example was japan, when Commodor Perry showed up Japan was
4-500 years behind the times. Now in 50-75 years you guys won a war with
russia, navel and land, I think, and you used at least some ships you built
yourselves. This was unheard of and shocked europe.
Now lets look at isrial, large parts of the inital population were survivors
from the holocoust and the local jews were routeenly abused/shot at/stolen from
by the local arabs. Much worse than what happend in most of africa, the
congo comes to mind as a place that was just as bad though. Now as soon as
isrial offically existed its neighbors, who out numbered them 100+ to 1 and had
real armys and airforces, tried to kill them all. Useing their numerical and
material superiority they failed misaribly, all other attempts so far have also
failed. Now Isrial has the best millitery in the region that is local to it.
Other examples of culture overcomming lots of bad shit are south korea and
tiwan. Why can not africa, or mexico do this?
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> Incidentally, related to this, it looks to me like someone has been
> going through the Google newgroup and (as far as I can tell) marking 5
> stars on every post that says free software is good and 0 starts on
> posts that say it's bad, and otherwise leaving things unmarked.
I don't think that's true.
From the last ~200 posts, I see the following ratings.
You: 5
Pisin: 5
Raffael: 4
Pascal: 5
Me: 1
Tim X: 4
By my reckoning, that's 10 points for pro-freedom posts and 14 points for
pro-profit posts.
> One person's opinion is worse than none in my opinion.
Delicious.
> I think they shouldn't show results until a couple dozen do some
> marking, especially since you can't set the number you trust as part of
> your search criteria. But maybe more people could mark good posts in a
> non-political way, and that would help.
Well, you like democracy. Put in your own vote.
I don't have a major problem with it because (1) I disagree with your
analysis of the voting bias and (2) you know how many people voted and (3)
I ignore the ratings anyway.
> What really bugs me is that non-political technical posts don't get
> graded by whoever is doing this, and so lots of good suggestions by
> people aren't marked as such... bleah.
That's great. Vote with your mouse. :)
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>
>> c.l.l is probably the only programming list where I've seen so much
>> regarding economics and debate on the market and politics. What
>> has been very interesting is there has been frequent references to the
>> evils of governments, government control and how much of what goes on
>> stifles freedom and the ability of individuals to do things like
>> develop software and sell it. It has given the impression that many on
>> this list feel that the market should be left to determine values,
>> income and choice.
>>
>> Then we get these debates which seem to contradict everything. The
>> market is great until free software or cheap labor from overseas
>> occurs - then these become the evil which destroy our abilities to
>> become rich.
>>
>> It all seems a little contradictory to me.
>
> I am of the opinion that I live in a democratic society, which means
> that the people should determine what kind of world they like to live
> in and then use political tools to achieve that world.
>
> I am here asking questions to determine the nature of the world we
> live in, and on some threads (I didn't intend this to be one of them)
> to determine whether we should be seeking another kind of world. (In
> this thread, I was seeking only to understand how the world we are in,
> unaffected by changes in rules, was intended to generate income--but
> somehow that got offtrack by people smelling a fight and wanting to
> start one even where none was sought.)
>
My observation is not meant to be a criticism of anyone or on their
motives - simply an observation. My personal philosophy tends to come
out on the left, though I don't necessarily have an ideology that is
left/socialist in nature - its just where my beliefs seem to coincide.
since participating in this list, I've recieved a lot of responses
that have been what I would characterise as coming form the right -
again, not a value statement or meant to be prejoritive in any way.
However, I have noticed that quite a few responses that have been very
negative regarding free software have come from the same people who
have argued/suggested that the market is something which should not be
regulated or controlled. This is the basis of the contradiction I was
referring to.
I was not intending to and am not interested in pointing out or
identifying any individual - it is just a general observation.
> But I don't see any contradiction in a bunch of people with differing
> goals talking about the fact that they have conflicting goals. No
> political discussion can avoid contradiction at some level. The
> deceptive part may be the belief that there is any politically neutral
> position--that is, that only the people arguing for change are being
> political and that the people arguing for no change are not being
> political. All politics hinges on the question of whether the status
> quo is ok, and invariably some people say it is--the question is how
> many. But never let anyone tell you that only the people inquiring
> about whether things are ok or advocating change or even just
> advocating discussion are acting politically--those saying "it's fine",
> "shut up", "don't mess with it", etc. are also advocating something,
> just something they've already got and are hoping doesn't change.
>
contradiction in debate is essential - we have to have opposite sides
to have a meanignful debate. The cntradiction I was referring to was
what I have perceived from those who have previously argued that
market intervention was wrong who are now arguing that free software
is wrong. My position is that you can't have it both ways. If you
agree with a free and open market, I believe you also have to accept
one in which, for whatever reason, there is a section that want to
give their product away for free. You can't have government or some
other intervention just for the bits you want and not for the bits you
don't want because everyones "wants" are different.
For the record, I believe some market intervention is necessary
because raw capitalism and unfetted markets are lacking in morality or
compassion/empathy and I don't want to live in a "I'm all right Jack,
stuff you" society.
> There is an additional question about whether they are right. For
> example, I think none of us want to drown in floods due to melting ice
> caps. But some hold different beliefs about whether that's going to
> happen. The debate over climate change is not, therefore, over whether
> we should drown but over whether we should believe we might. And so
> some amount of social discussion is about how to read the data. And
> there being conflicting ways to read data, it should be no surprise that
> you see inconsistencies.
>
Of course, only history will show who is right and who isn't. Until
then, its really just an academic debate.
> In fact, most people when they speak honestly about risk have
> inconsistencies even within themselves because different voices within
> them may speak with different strengths at different times.
>
> I don't see much contradictory here--just stuff in conflict.
>
> And, btw, I think even the market's strongest advocates will say that
> some amount of market control is wise. People differ as to the degree
> and sometimes the qualitative nature of the control (whether it's just
> a degree, or whether it involves a goal assessment, whether changes
> need to be made dynamically, how you judge when the system is working
> or not, etc.) I don't know how to confront those issues without
> discussing them.
>
I agree. discussion is always the starting point. I also agree some
have taken this whole thread too much to hart and have degraded the
whole debate by getting personal and emotional. IMO this is a pity as
we only learn through debate - either by solidifying our own thoughts
or possibly learning from other perspectives. I may not agree with
what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it etc.
> And as to why discuss it here, the main reason I do is that it affects
> whether the end result of developing code is to "place it in a free
> respository" or "put it up for sale", and I see no reason not to discuss
> the options, their merits and demerits, etc.
>
I have no problem with that. Those who have had their heads stuck in
problems of programming and technology can usually benefit with some
more philosophical thoughts.
> I'm only sad that this can't be a more objective discussion. It gets
> uselessly contentious.
>
agreed.
> - - - -
>
> Incidentally, related to this, it looks to me like someone has been
> going through the Google newgroup and (as far as I can tell) marking 5
> stars on every post that says free software is good and 0 starts on
> posts that say it's bad, and otherwise leaving things unmarked.
> That's pretty irritating to me, if only because I wish Google wouldn't
> even show results unless there's more than 1 person voting, since one
> person's opinion is worse than none in my opinion. I think they
> shouldn't show results until a couple dozen do some marking,
> especially since you can't set the number you trust as part of your
> search criteria. But maybe more people could mark good posts in a
> non-political way, and that would help.
>
> What really bugs me is that non-political technical posts don't get
> graded by whoever is doing this, and so lots of good suggestions by
> people aren't marked as such... bleah.
>
There is a growing school of thought that says google is making us all
dumber. The basic arguement is that most people are only looking at
the first page of hits in a google search. As these tend to be the
most frequent/popular/highest rating results, people are missing out
on less mainstream ideas and its often the less mainstream ideas that
are responsible for generating new ideas and perspectives.
Essentially, google is restricting our knowledge to "popular" and
agreed understanding at the expense of new/radical/lateral ideas. I
actually think this is a real concern. Especially as so many people
seem prepared to quote information they find on the net as being
ture/correct despite no real supporting evidence to justify that
position. As the saying goes, on the Internet, nobody knows your a
dog.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> Then we get these debates which seem to contradict everything. The
> market is great until free software or cheap labor from overseas
> occurs - then these become the evil which destroy our abilities to
> become rich.
>
> It all seems a little contradictory to me.
My personal view is that people generally support a system as long as
it stays in their perceived self-interest. (We can easily imagine this
in any other nation, during watercooler discussions among a group of
relatively privileged engineers.)
Also, as a pure guess, there's a culture clash between the old-school
Cold War lisp users, and more modern freemarket libertarian types. The
economic system of the Cold Warriors is about government research
spinoffs, as far as tech is concerned. They like government
intervention, as long as the fruits are privatized and markets kept
orderly. While the libertarians want minimal state intervention.
We might expect there to be some contradictions like you observe, as
Lisp wasn't favored by the market; as soon as gov't intervention was
withdrawn to "let the market decide," Lisp was dropped like a hot
potato. Only squirrels like Franz survived AFAIK, and I hear they're
doing ok but not huge or anything.
Tayssir
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uzmepd2s3.fsf@nhplace.com>
[Some useful remarks from Tayssir as stepping off points for some final
remarks of my own. This reply should not be seen as speaking to him in
particular as if he had personally teed me off, since I considered these
particular remarks by him both measured and interesting. They were just
the right place in the tree of responses for me to wind up my own remarks
on this thread, and on this group, for a while.]
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Also, as a pure guess, there's a culture clash between the old-school
> Cold War lisp users, and more modern freemarket libertarian types.
It would be great if this were true. But you might find that the real
issue is that it's more like Back to the Future and some of us "old-school"
types see ourselves in the other timeline and think "they don't realize
they will be old-school someday".
There's an old saying:
To be young and a Republican is to have no heart.
To be old and a Democrat is to have no brain.
I DON'T happen to buy this distillation, and I don't recommend either
party very strongly right now (I'm an independent myself, and I
certainly don't regard the Republicans of today with Bush at the helm
as the party of brains), BUT I think like all things, these sayings
are not as simply discharged as being all Right or all Wrong... there
are shades of gray and things to learn. This little quote captures at
least a sense of the notion that people sometimes shift political
position as they age, and in particular as they experience things.
And if you think it's not age-related, then substitute instead the
following similar expression that emphasizes different experiences
rather than age:
A Republican is a Democrat who's been mugged.
A Democrat is a Republican who's been arrested.
Whether it's about youth or about what path you've led in life, people
sometimes find that their views change over time. And while views don't
necessarily converge with age/experience, they definitely change.
People often think of themselves as a "different kind of person" and
it's hard to understand that "old people" (for whatever you think old
is) are not a different kind of people--they are the same people with
different experiences.
It'd be a wonderful thing if it turned out that the world the
old-school has built needs to worry less about money and more about
the good of mankind, and if everything just sorts itself out. But
there is at least some reason to worry slightly that observers like
David Halberstam are right when they say things run in cycles, and
that affluence breeds laziness and that when you stop thinking about
where money comes from, you end up not having it because someone else
goes after it, and then your kids don't grow up affluent. (The only
saving grace being that this is the part of the cycle that leads to
your grandkids eventually being smart enough to chase money while the
kinds of the people that beat you out grow up too lazy to fight them.)
But if it turns out to be like Star Trek and everyone can do what they
want with no ill effects to either people or the environment, I'll be
as thrilled as the next person.
> The economic system of the Cold Warriors is about government
> research spinoffs, as far as tech is concerned. They like government
> intervention, as long as the fruits are privatized and markets kept
> orderly. While the libertarians want minimal state intervention.
I'm trying to be past the point in this conversation where I'm defending
or taking any position, but I just want to observe the difference our
points of view can lead us to. I agree there are some different camps
here, but it's odd because I actually personally think "free software"
is a better model in a world of big-government Socialists because people
can legitimately expect their lunch to come from somewhere else and what
they do for society not to be related to whether they eat. To me, a small
government is one that doesn't provide the service of feeding me, and
that's the reason why I associate the "people should charge for software"
model with working better under Libertarianism.
When I speak of "what does a desktop publishing software developer?"
do to make money, I am not talking government research spinoff or
reliance on government. I'm talking about "where is someone's lunch
or car payment coming from if they write software all day and then
give away the result?" If they are benefiting society, ought they not
ask for payment. If they are not, ought they not be told. (A
potential hidden cost of free software is that people are not told
when they're wasting their time on things no one cares about and that,
in some real terms, doesn't benefit the world. I don't know how to
quantify that either, but surely it must be an effect.)
> We might expect there to be some contradictions like you observe, as
> Lisp wasn't favored by the market; as soon as gov't intervention was
> withdrawn to "let the market decide," Lisp was dropped like a hot
> potato. Only squirrels like Franz survived AFAIK, and I hear they're
> doing ok but not huge or anything.
I've several times seen people in this conversation misconstrue that I
was talking about Lisps when I talk about free software. But really
I'm not concerned about CLISP vs Franz. Someone else went with that
example and I tried not to undercut them. But I'm worried not about
the core Lisp but the stuff built atop it.... and about questions of
whether infrastructure should be something that's better for free
software or worse for free software, vs applications.
I don't think I'll find the answers in this thread, so I'm winding down
my participation here. But I think the questions will persist. And
I wish people would take them more seriously.
We didn't get through the standards process for ANSI CL by allowing
ourselves to ever prove that any member of the committee was
dismissable as having an invalid point of view. We started by haughty
thoughts like that and got nowhere. To talk about Gold Hill Common
Lisp, an app for the early PC, having any overlap with the needs of
the Lisp Machine, was very hard to do. Each thought the other was
talking nonsense. But each had something to say. It wasn't until we
knuckled under and acknowledged that people wouldn't be engaged in the
discussion if they didn't think they had a valid position and we
started acknowledging the valid position of others that we ever moved
forward.
In this discussion here, I have tried very hard to acknowledge that
even though I see flaws in the free software idea, I also see
benefits. I am trying to find some way to understand when one works
and when the other works and how to recommend people survive and
thrive. I've tried to belittle no one on the basis of their identity,
their motives, their goals, or their data. I'm interested in
understanding how others think, and it would have been a pointless
discussion only to talk to people I agree with. However, I'm not
interested in being beaten black and blue to get that info, nor being
insulted, nor having my ethics and motives challenged, especially by
peoplw who don't seem the least interested in understanding me and seem
only interested in dismissing me.
The desire to dismiss others as irrelevant is natural in the face of
information overload and population explosion, but it's rarely going
to lead to a good end.
As a statement of protest both about the way others have treated me
and as well in protest of (or apology for) the way I have may have
contributed to that through sometimes heated response to the treatment
I felt I received, I'm taking the month of August (at least) away from
the group.. maybe longer. If I fail to respond to more posts on this
thread, don't take that as my necessarily agreeing. Just take it as
me having the good sense to realize when a particular situation has so
melted down as to be doing little good and to go back to other things
in my life that offer greater promise and greater opportunity for
people to treat me and my thoughts with what I find is due respect.
Some surprises may follow in the fall, if I get time, and spending
more time here in the near future won't get me any closer to those
things I want to do. Bye for now.
--Kent
From: David Golden
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <saTzg.12151$j7.321255@news.indigo.ie>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> "Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> ...
>> The economic system of the Cold Warriors is about government
>> research spinoffs, as far as tech is concerned. They like government
>> intervention, as long as the fruits are privatized and markets kept
>> orderly. While the libertarians want minimal state intervention.
> To me, a
> small government is one that doesn't provide the service of feeding
> me, and that's the reason why I associate the "people should charge
> for software" model with working better under Libertarianism.
>
I know at least some people who identify themselves as libertarian are
opposed to the state intervention of imposed copyright (and patent)
monopolies. Charging for services of writing, extending and
maintaining software (which is what programmers mostly do for people,
after all) is perfectly feasible in a Free software world or a world
without copyright IMHO, so I've never thought _programmers_ who have an
ounce of sense have much to worry about in the internet age.
While you might be so accustomed to copyright that you're
taking it as a given, remember that it *is* market interference of the
grossest order, and that there are nascent political forces
(i.e. the various national Pirate Parties [1] that have sprung up)
striving for its reduction or abolition.
Remember an old FSF party line:
"Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be
unnecessary"...
[1] http://www2.piratpartiet.se/international/
From: Takehiko Abe
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <keke-0108061403030001@192.168.1.2>
> My personal view is that people generally support a system as long as
> it stays in their perceived self-interest. (We can easily imagine this
> in any other nation, during watercooler discussions among a group of
> relatively privileged engineers.)
Chomsky said, "Nobody supports free trade unless they think they're
going to win the competition."
>
> Also, as a pure guess, there's a culture clash between the old-school
> Cold War lisp users, and more modern freemarket libertarian types. The
> economic system of the Cold Warriors is about government research
> spinoffs, as far as tech is concerned. They like government
> intervention, as long as the fruits are privatized and markets kept
> orderly. While the libertarians want minimal state intervention.
My understanding is that Stallman opposed the privatization of Lisp
OS and started FSF. -- He won the battle already.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yzlpsfk9r76.fsf@OSX663.local>
····@gol.com (Takehiko Abe) writes:
> My understanding is that Stallman opposed the privatization of Lisp
> OS and started FSF. -- He won the battle already.
What battle?
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>>
>>>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
>>>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
>>>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
>>>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
>>>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
>>>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
>>>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
>>>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
>>>be.
>> Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
>> absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
>> that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
>> negative?
>
> Let me take the pressure off. There is an incredible amount of
> negative data. comp.os.linux.questions. An Ubuntu expert who cannot
> get his mousepad to work and knows enough not to try but rather
> proclaim the grapes are sour. Or the Linux.org list where they invite
> people to report on their great "successes" getting something to work
> after eight hours or days of trying.
>
> You pro-FSF idiots turned around when attacked and simply declared
> Linux maintenance (or living with any other free software) to be a
> ten-minute job. Goose was clever enough to say "same as a Windows
> install", which I hera is almost impossible.
>
> Forget the razor, we need Occam's shovel.
Ain't you happy? What a competitive advantage you must have using
Allegro Lisp on Microsoft Windows! I really wonder what you're
afraid about from free software users and developers. With their
abysmal productivity they'll never be competitive.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PURCHASERS: The entire physical universe,
including this product, may one day collapse back into an
infinitesimally small space. Should another universe subsequently
re-emerge, the existence of this product in that universe cannot be
guaranteed.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <U7zxg.2326$g%1.1003@fe10.lga>
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>>
>>>Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
>>>>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
>>>>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
>>>>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
>>>>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
>>>>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
>>>>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
>>>>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
>>>>be.
>>>
>>>Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
>>>absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
>>>that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
>>>negative?
>>
>>Let me take the pressure off. There is an incredible amount of
>>negative data. comp.os.linux.questions. An Ubuntu expert who cannot
>>get his mousepad to work and knows enough not to try but rather
>>proclaim the grapes are sour. Or the Linux.org list where they invite
>>people to report on their great "successes" getting something to work
>>after eight hours or days of trying.
>>
>>You pro-FSF idiots turned around when attacked and simply declared
>>Linux maintenance (or living with any other free software) to be a
>>ten-minute job. Goose was clever enough to say "same as a Windows
>>install", which I hera is almost impossible.
>>
>>Forget the razor, we need Occam's shovel.
>
>
> Ain't you happy? What a competitive advantage you must have using
> Allegro Lisp on Microsoft Windows! I really wonder what you're
> afraid about from free software users and developers. With their
> abysmal productivity they'll never be competitive.
Pascal, you ignorant slut. The topic is the cost to society. Try to
focus. As for me worrying about competiton... PWUUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA!
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> Pascal, you ignorant slut. The topic is the cost to society.
If that were truly the case, you'd be complaining more about Windows
than about Linux. And you'd abandon both for Mac OS X. ;-)
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Ah, but that's just my point. There is a frequent assertion that it's
>>>good to do free software. Examples are cited of successes. And the
>>>unspoken presumption is that there are either no failures or there is
>>>an acceptable failure rate. But there is no evidence offered. It
>>>doesn't seem to me that good science says that you just assume that
>>>the evidence supports your hypothesis. The burden of logical or
>>>scientific proof is not on me, because I am not making the claim that
>>>free software is successful. I am making the case that it might not
>>>be.
>>
>>
>> Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
>> absence of negative data. Your claim that the onus is on me to prove
>> that there is no negative data is outrageous: how can one disprove a
>> negative?
>
> Let me take the pressure off. There is an incredible amount of
> negative data. comp.os.linux.questions. An Ubuntu expert who cannot
> get his mousepad to work and knows enough not to try but rather
> proclaim the grapes are sour. Or the Linux.org list where they invite
> people to report on their great "successes" getting something to work
> after eight hours or days of trying.
>
> You pro-FSF idiots turned around when attacked and simply declared
> Linux maintenance (or living with any other free software) to be a
> ten-minute job. Goose was clever enough to say "same as a Windows
> install", which I hera is almost impossible.
>
> Forget the razor, we need Occam's shovel.
>
Funny, I don't remember seeing anyone state how long it took and
certainly nobody stating it took 10 minutes. In fact, the only ones who
seem to be stating it takes days or more are the anti-Linux crowd. I
won't bother trying to work out why, if it is such a poor system, so
many windows users seem to feel threatened by it. Surely if its that
bad,it won't succeed and everyone will be back to Windows in the end.
As for the repeated references to the user who couldn't get his mouse
pad to work with Linux - well all I can say is the mousepad on my Dell
laptop worked "out of the box" when I installed Linux. Furthermore, my
multivoice card was a complete nightmare to get working under Windows,
yet it worked straight away with Linux. I guess that means we are back
to zero eh?
Maybe some facts regarding modern Linux kernels may be in order -
1. No other major OS in history runs on as many architectures as Linux
2. Linux was the first OS to support USB 2.0, bluetooth, PCI hotplug,
wireless USB, ExpressCard
3. Linux actually has one of the best/longest list of supported
devices of any OS available. Furthermore, most of those device drivers
are supported on all the platforms Linux runs on.
For more details, see
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
As another example, yesterday I installed Linux on a new desktop I
purchased. To do this, I downloaded a network install image from
Debian, copied it to CD and booted my new PC (Intel M/B, 3.2Ghz Intel
CPU, 1Gb ram and 200Gb SATA disk - on board network and graphics
cards). I started at 6pm and was completely finished by just before
1am. For most of that time, I was watching TV while the software
was being downloaded by the system. All up, actual time spent by me in
the process was less than 2 hours. All that is left for me to do now
is transfer my data from my old system to the new one - thats
happening now. I will also have to put in some time doing my personal
customization - setting colour schemes etc - something I also need to
do once I've done a Windows install.
I'm not arguing that a Linux install is faster, easier or necessarily
better than Windows. I am arguing that it is no harder, takes no
longer and is about the same in difficulty. This certainly wasn't true
10 years ago. Linux could be difficult back then and didn't support as
much hardware and X was often very difficult. However, the story these
days is very different. In the same way Windows XP is substantially
better than Windows 95, Linux 2.6.x is substantially better than
0.98.x
If we are going to make comparisons, lets try and compare the current
situation on both sides and not bias things by referencing historical
data for one and not the other. Or better still, acknowledge that
everyone has their own preferences and leave it at that.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <u3bcpxgsh.fsf@nhplace.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Occam's razor suggests that lack of negative data is really due to
> absence of negative data.
Occam's razor is a fallback you use when you have worked hard to
acquire appropriate data and you have two equally productive theories
you're trying to decide between. Like when you've mapped the orbital
motion of the heavens and you're trying to figure out if things move
in elipses or more complicated paisley-looking shapes.
Occam's razor is not what you use, unless you're a cigarette company,
to say that since you've heard no validated reports of cancer caused
by cigarettes, it's probably safe to conclude that cigarettes can't
harm people.
There are people in the world who worry about the social effects of
what they do, and (apparently) people who do not. There are also
(apparently) people who for one reason or another have assured
themselves that in certain cases they could not possibly under any
circumstances be causing themselves or others anticipatable harm.
I'm not really especially interested in a debate with them. I don't
think I will change the mind of someone whose mind is made up, and
I certainly don't have either the energy or interest required to try.
I'm mostly just interested in talking to people who are interested
in exchanging data and having an open mind on this.
From: Kamen TOMOV
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uejw8pg5n.fsf@cybuild.com>
On �����, ��� 26 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> ...
> There are people in the world who worry about the social effects of
> what they do, and (apparently) people who do not. There are also
> (apparently) people who for one reason or another have assured
> themselves that in certain cases they could not possibly under any
> circumstances be causing themselves or others anticipatable harm.
> ...
> I'm mostly just interested in talking to people who are interested
> in exchanging data and having an open mind on this.
Kent, I kept thinking about the adverse circumstances that stopped your
commercial project from release and the issues with free software that
you brought up and it seems to me that we are missing the point.
The point is that the Lisp platform is not considered by the
IT-managers over the world. There seems not to be a single big company
that is looking for Lisp engineers. It is very rare to find Lisp
courses in the universities around the world. Therefore I can draw the
conclusion that currently there aren't significant Lisp-application
projects. The only significant (US$49 million) one that happened in
the last decade dates from 1998 and it is known as Viaweb. There is
also Autocad', GIMP' and Emacs's scripting but these are not
significant enough to make a difference for the community. In my
country the only Lisp activity that I know of was a rewrite of a Lisp
application into C++ and it was an AI university funded project. By
the way I talked with the professor in charge and he said that C++ is
a norm in AI world :`-( where less than two decades ago Lisp was the
leader.
What is more in the last couple of years the world jumped on the OSS
wagon and unfortunately, for historical reasons and bad luck, OSS
currently means large scale development in C and the C-derived
languages. Free software, originally a beautiful dream got largely
misunderstood. It either was downgraded to OSS or acted as an opium
causing people become fanatic fundamentalists and the FOSS - hype. No
wonder that in that situation FOSS can have destructive implications -
I agree and would like to thank you for your initiative to bring the
point up! As a result no matter how powerful the Lisp platform was, it
kept loosing the battle, as the enemy not only outnumbered us
considerably, but also was better supported. To reach the point when
the Lisp community is close to extinction.
So what do you think the potential market for a proprietary CL web
server was? Here is what I think. IMO the market was close to
zero. Look what happened - even with a free web server the things
didn't change. What's more the lack of a free CL web server would have
had stopped many people from even considering the platform as the
hurdle would had been too high. It is because in most other platforms
- Python/Ruby/Java/PHP a free web server is norm.
Have you asked yourself why most of the free CL packages are MIT or
BSD, or LGPL and not GPL licensed? My guess is that most people
realize that in that situation GPL would be largely inappropriate. It
would contribute little to the freedom (as in the "bison"'s case), but
it would stop commercial projects from using them for sure in case
they by any chance appear. And as a result it would keep people away
from the platform. That's why IMO, the availability of a good free web
server is a great marketing for us.
In conclusion, although you have a good point in regard to free
software in general, it seems little relevant to your case because the
circumstances need to be considered.
Regards,
--
Kamen TOMOV
http://www.cybuild.com
Kamen TOMOV <·····@evrocom.net> wrote on Wed, 26 Jul 2006:
> Therefore I can draw the conclusion that currently there aren't significant
> Lisp-application projects. The only significant (US$49 million) one that
> happened in the last decade dates from 1998 and it is known as
> Viaweb.
I don't think your research methodology is sufficiently through.
I haven't tried to do the research either. But I happen to know of at least
a single other example: I started a company in the mid-90's that (eventually)
did web-based comparison shopping (called Cadabra). Our core software engine
was written in Common Lisp, although of course there was lots of other code
in lots of other languages over the years, and the company as a whole had a
lot of employees and business processes that were not directly about source
code. Nonetheless, there was significant Lisp inside, and the company got
sold to Goto.com in 2000 for US$250 million.
But of course the goal of the company was to serve our customers (with a
service) and shareholders (by making money), and not to evangelize Lisp.
So we never publicly said "look what we did with Common Lisp!"
I find it hard to believe that Cadabra and Viaweb were the only two such cases
in the world. Although it may not be a simple matter to discover the others.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
You see things; and you say, "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I
say, "Why not?" -- George Bernard Shaw
On �����, ��� 26 2006, Don Geddis wrote:
> Kamen TOMOV <·····@evrocom.net> wrote on Wed, 26 Jul 2006:
>> Therefore I can draw the conclusion that currently there aren't
>> significant Lisp-application projects. The only significant (US$49
>> million) one that happened in the last decade dates from 1998 and
>> it is known as Viaweb.
>
> I don't think your research methodology is sufficiently through.
It would be great if you convince me in the opposite.
> I haven't tried to do the research either. But I happen to know of
> at least a single other example: I started a company in the mid-90's
> that (eventually) did web-based comparison shopping (called
> Cadabra). Our core software engine was written in Common Lisp,
> although of course there was lots of other code in lots of other
> languages over the years, and the company as a whole had a lot of
> employees and business processes that were not directly about source
> code. Nonetheless, there was significant Lisp inside, and the
> company got sold to Goto.com in 2000 for US$250 million.
I am happy to be wrong this time.
> But of course the goal of the company was to serve our customers
> (with a service) and shareholders (by making money), and not to
> evangelize Lisp. So we never publicly said "look what we did with
> Common Lisp!"
Last year I was trying to turn my colleagues's attention on Lisp and
it was hard as one can imagine. In attempt to get off me they asked me
to construct a list of companies with successful Lisp projects. I
managed to gather a few names, but didn't know the scale of your deal.
> I find it hard to believe that Cadabra and Viaweb were the only two
> such cases in the world. Although it may not be a simple matter to
> discover the others.
Regards,
--
Kamen TOMOV
http://www.cybuild.com
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> wrote:
+---------------
| But of course the goal of the company was to serve our customers (with a
| service) and shareholders (by making money), and not to evangelize Lisp.
| So we never publicly said "look what we did with Common Lisp!"
|
| I find it hard to believe that Cadabra and Viaweb were the only two
| such cases in the world. Although it may not be a simple matter to
| discover the others.
+---------------
Right. Like these pages are *so* hard to find: ;-}
http://wiki.alu.org/Success%20Stories
http://wiki.alu.org/Industry_Application
http://www.cliki.net/Application
http://www.franz.com/success/
http://www.franz.com/success/all_customer_apps.lhtml
http://www.digitool.com/customers.html
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
On ���������, ��� 27 2006, Rob Warnock wrote:
> Right. Like these pages are *so* hard to find: ;-}
>
> http://wiki.alu.org/Success%20Stories
> http://wiki.alu.org/Industry_Application
> http://www.cliki.net/Application
> http://www.franz.com/success/
> http://www.franz.com/success/all_customer_apps.lhtml
> http://www.digitool.com/customers.html
The compilation looks great but have you tried to list the
(commercially) significant projects? What about the proprietrary
software Lisp applications meant to be distributed?
Kamen TOMOV <·····@evrocom.net> wrote:
+---------------
| The compilation looks great but have you tried to list
| the (commercially) significant projects?
+---------------
What's your definition of "commercially significant"?
Why do you *assume* [without looking into it yourself]
that nothing on those lists is "commercially significant"?
[Hints: Orbitz, American Express Authorizer Assistant,
ACL2, Netfonds ASA, HotDispatch, Clinisys (Hi, Kenny!),
Portus Group, Watson, etc., etc., etc.]
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
On �����, ��� 28 2006, Rob Warnock wrote:
> Kamen TOMOV <·····@evrocom.net> wrote:
> +---------------
> | The compilation looks great but have you tried to list
> | the (commercially) significant projects?
> +---------------
>
> What's your definition of "commercially significant"?
Known, famous with its commerciall success.
> Why do you *assume* [without looking into it yourself] that nothing
> on those lists is "commercially significant"?
I already said I looked into it because I had to prepare a list for my
collegues.
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> Which is why we must study its contra: are
> there products which have succeeded in the same area where there are
> free solutions? The answer is yes which suggests that free software,
> in and of itself, does not mess up the market.
This doesn't follow, unless you know the relative rates. If free
software kills 95% of the market, you'll still find plenty of commercial
software competing. That doesn't mean free software doesn't kill the market.
It's unquestionable that *some* commercial software has failed due to
the presence of free software (mine included). It's unquestionable that
some commercial software succeeds in spite of free alternatives. But
without more information, the ratio between these is difficult to calculate.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86fygpd6e2.fsf@panix.com>
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>> Which is why we must study its contra: are
>> there products which have succeeded in the same area where there are
>> free solutions? The answer is yes which suggests that free software,
>> in and of itself, does not mess up the market.
>
> This doesn't follow, unless you know the relative rates. If free
> software kills 95% of the market, you'll still find plenty of
> commercial software competing. That doesn't mean free software doesn't
> kill the market.
If free software kills 95% of the market, there should be more
available evidence. I'm afraid I don't buy the "too ashamed to tell"
explanation for lack of such evidence.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> > There are practically no examples of free software destroying any
> > product that offered superior capabilities.
>
> Because most examples are like mine. They are embarrassing errors in
> judgment, and opening them to public scrutiny is painful and something
> any sensible person would avoid.
That doesn't ring true for me.
If the "party line" is "free software is always good", but the truth is
"free software can just as easily be disasterous for the programmer,
the market and the consumer," surely lots of people would have fallen
afoul of free software's dark side, and they'd be terribly vocal about
it?
It seems more likely to me that most opponents of free software are
actually doing just fine but would be doing better if it didn't exist,
and a minority have experienced genuine hardship at the hands of
"non-competition" from free software.
But as you seem to accept, there's a lack of data. Charismatic
assurances that free software will cause the end of the computing
industry as we know it in a bad way Real Soon Now are as worthless as
charismatic assurances that free software will cause the end of the
computing industry as we know it in a /good/ way Real Soon New.
*Prove* to me that uncritical acceptance of free software causes
significant harm, or else put up with it.
> > E.g GIMP vs. Photoshop, CVS vs. Perforce or Clearcase.
>
> What's your point? That there's no reasonably priced offering someone
> offers that some bored programmer can't dupliate for free, assuring
> anyone who wants to invest in something that they will have to endure
> someone making a free version?
Paintshop Pro?
> > In other words, free software is just another competitor.
>
> It is not. It is often paid for out of the pockets of parents who don't
> realize their kids are not "working their way through college" but instead
> "squandering their future by making sure there is no market for them
> later". It is often paid for by businesses in unrelated markets that don't
> care if they make a mess of an unrelated market they don't care about.
> It's often paid for by people who think there's no chance they're doing
> something that is hurting one person even at the same time as they are
> intending to help another.
The motivation of the people who make and fund free software is
irrelevant as to the question of it being a competitor to proprietary
software.
> People are taught the dogma "give away stuff and it's good, charge money
> and it's bad; and especially don't let someone charge for something more
> than the materials they took to make it". Bleah. That's just simple
> communism dressed up in capitalist clothes.
Argumentum ad communism? You can do better than that.
Really, I don't see what your argument is.
>From what I've seen, you're disillusioned because people might make a
free software version of anything you happen to work on.
But what I'm not seeing is what's magical about *free* software here.
If I made a program and licensed it for $100 per copy, and somebody
else made an equivalent program and licensed it for $30 per copy, I
probably wouldn't sell many copies. If I'd predicated my business upon
selling my program, I might even be out of a job. It'd be my tough
luck: I offered a service but the market decided it wasn't worth the
price tag.
What are we to do? Discourage people from distributing software for
free on the basis that somebody who wants to charge us for equivalent
software might get put out of business? If you're charging me for
something I could get for free with no extra benefits, why do you
deserve to be _in_ business? To me, this is like saying I shouldn't let
people breath my air for free if they visit my flat, because the guy
next door might want to charge them for breathing _his_.
On the other hand, if you're charging me for a clearly superior product
but are unsuccessful in the market, then that's a shame, but "free
software" isn't to blame. Plenty of products are driven out of the
market by _non-free_ competitors. The blame lies with the fact that
other producers were permitted to compete with you.
It seems to me that picking on free software is an easy choice because
it looks like a way to get the competition out of the market without
harming yourself. If you'd lost out to a commercial offering, I think
you'd be just as upset, but wouldn't be arguing that companies should
be careful not to harm their competition when releasing products e.g.,
by setting their prices too low. That'd be price fixing and is
generally considered a bad thing.
On 2006-07-24 21:20:52 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> If the "party line" is "free software is always good", but the truth is
> "free software can just as easily be disasterous for the programmer,
> the market and the consumer," surely lots of people would have fallen
> afoul of free software's dark side, and they'd be terribly vocal about
> it?
Not in a culture where being a winner is lauded and being a loser is a
source of shame - people think they're losers and remain silent - i.e.,
they blame themselves not the economic forces that led to their failure.
How many people who bought e-shite at the top of the tech bubble for
$200.00 a share do you hear screaming about it? There are of course
many such people (not me - I knew a bubble when I saw one) but they
mostly just blame themselves for being so stupid. They don't - at least
not in this culture - blame the systemic forces that screwed them.
For example, I'm sure everyone here has seen the rather misleading
graphs that purport to show that if you had invested $1000.00 in the
"stock market" in 1929 - right before the crash - you'd still be a
multimillionaire today. What they don't tell you is that in real dollar
terms you'd still only have broken even in the late 1980s - i.e. no
long term net gain for 60 years - and that's *before taxes*:
<http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/stock-market/>
It turns out that the real return from the DJIA from 1913-2002 is just
2.7% (just 1.3% from 1913-1991 if you want to exclude the tech bubble
and crash) - comparable to treasury bonds. And this isn't even the
broad market which includes many companies which fail outright and are
de-listed (i.e., investment goes to $0.00). Such companies are removed
from the DJIA and are not reflected by the relatively rosy picture
painted by the DJIA. The losers of major indices are replaced by
up-trending issues before the failing companies go into long decline or
go belly up entirely.
Nevertheless we are given to believe that you can only win by investing
in the stock market and that if you lose money they *you* are a loser.
Now, to bring this back to the original topic of discussion, how much
of the tech bubble was due the over-hyped "benefits" of free software?
How many people lost large portions of their retirement savings
investing in companies whose business model was centered on free
software - RHAT anyone? (again not me, I know a bubble, etc.)
Kent is only pointing out that we live in a culture where winners brag
and losers keep silent in shame blaming themselves when they are in
fact as numerous or more numerous than the winners. If we are to have
anything approaching an objective view of a thing we must seriously
consider its negatives as well as its positives.
One of the clear negatives of free *anything* is that it devalues the
labor of those who specialize in producing it. I can see that certain
free offerings can bring strategic advantage in the face of a monopoly
- linux comes to mind here - but I have never understood why
professional programmers would champion free software *in general* any
more than shoemakers would champion free shoes or tailors champion free
three piece suits. It's just plain self destructive.
I believe a large part of it is psychological. In youth the adult world
can seem so overwhelming, so corrupt and sordid as to be positively
frightening. There's a strong temptation to just check out entirely -
not compete at all. One way to opt out of the adult world is to not
play by its rules and offer one's work product for free. Now there's no
need to test yourself against an outside standard (not objective mind
you - markets can be pretty damned arbitrary so they're not
"objective"). You give your stuff away so there's no outside, financial
judgement of your work because all free stuff is inherently good,
right? Combine this with the impecuniousness of youth for the
consumers-of-free-stuff part of the equation and you have a large youth
mind-share for "free is inherently good." Sadly they will change their
tune when they inevitably have kids, buy houses and have to start
planning for retirement. Then they'll see why Kent told them they
shouldn't value their work product at (+ $0.00 major-props) since most
lenders will not accept major-props as a mortgage payment.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3lkqhsrzj.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
> One of the clear negatives of free *anything* is that it devalues the
> labor of those who specialize in producing it. I can see that certain
> free offerings can bring strategic advantage in the face of a monopoly -
> linux comes to mind here - but I have never understood why professional
> programmers would champion free software *in general* any more than
> shoemakers would champion free shoes or tailors champion free three
> piece suits. It's just plain self destructive.
>
However those who contribute to free software are assigning value to
their work differently than how you do. I know of pro machinists who
volunteer to work on museum exhibits- for free- on the weekends. Thats
giving away their time but I don't think you would argue against that,
but by your argument, you should because its removing opportunites for
businesses to do it. These machinists have decided they get enjoyment
out of working on that sort of thing in their spare time and so do it
because the enjoyment is the value.
I don't "champion" free software, I use it because it offers
considerable benefits in helping me do my work. I contribute fixes
because its a way to give back to the community thats given me such
useful tools. I don't see how thats self-destructive. Show me the
commercial software that works better and I'll happily use it (I
routinely use Solaris and Lispworks) - UNLESS the vendor imposes
obnoxious licensing and is unresponsive. Given obnoxious licensing or
an unresponsive vendor I'd rather use a less functional but free
alternative in almost all cases because the function of the software is
only one aspect of living with it and by no means always the most
important.
Gregm
On 2006-07-25 10:01:52 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> However those who contribute to free software are assigning value to
> their work differently than how you do.
Absolutely, no question. Unfortunately for them, they're also assigning
value to their work differently from the way that banks do, grocers do,
utility companies do, etc. In other words, by valuing their work
differently they've opted that bit of work out of the broader economy
which they have little choice but to live inside of. This will create
real problems when they need to support themselves on their own and
even more so when they have children of their own to support.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3slkpg36c.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-25 10:01:52 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > However those who contribute to free software are assigning value to
> > their work differently than how you do.
>
> Absolutely, no question. Unfortunately for them, they're also assigning
> value to their work differently from the way that banks do, grocers do,
> utility companies do, etc. In other words, by valuing their work
> differently they've opted that bit of work out of the broader economy
> which they have little choice but to live inside of. This will create
> real problems when they need to support themselves on their own and even
> more so when they have children of their own to support.
Surely that is an extreme position. Any contributor to free software
project is able to work as little or as much as he or she desires. If I
play around with some project in my free time and fix a couple bugs and
commit them back to the maintainers, have I really created a problem
supporting my children?
Or must I spend all time while not asleep working as many jobs as I can
possibly hold down in order to maximize my income? That might make
sense if I wanted to maximize my income at all costs but I value having
spare time so I can fool around in the basement, work on some hobbies
and spend time with the wife & daughter and so I choose to not work
during some waking hours.
Gregm
On 2006-07-25 10:38:35 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> If I
> play around with some project in my free time and fix a couple bugs and
> commit them back to the maintainers, have I really created a problem
> supporting my children?
Not by failing to work for pay, no - after all you probably watch TV
and read books, take walks, etc. none of which are earning you income.
However, by contributing to a piece of work whose net effect is to
value programmers' work product at $0.00 dollars you have definitely
helped to devalue your own labor - assuming you earn income as a
programmer.
It is not the time spent without recompense that hurts programmers, it
is their collective contribution to a body of work which is provided to
the software market free of cost. This pushes programmer wages down -
it really can't help but do so, just as shoemakers working in their
spare time to provide free shoes can't help but push down the price of
shoes. These hypothetical shoemakers wouldn't be losing out because of
the limited spare time they weren't working for pay by making free
shoes, but because all the shoes they *did* sell for pay would be worth
less.
In a world filled with abundant free software many kinds of software
are worth less because there is simply a smaller market for them -
after all, many potential customers will just use the free software.
Not all users of free offerings are lost premium sales, but *some* of
these free software users would have paid *something* for that type of
software had there not been a free version. That lost revenue cannot
but be reflected in lower programmer wages and salaries, and as Kent
has pointed out, in lost market opportunities for single-programmer or
small software firms.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-25 10:38:35 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > If I
> > play around with some project in my free time and fix a couple bugs and
> > commit them back to the maintainers, have I really created a problem
> > supporting my children?
>
> Not by failing to work for pay, no - after all you probably watch TV
> and read books, take walks, etc. none of which are earning you income.
> However, by contributing to a piece of work whose net effect is to
> value programmers' work product at $0.00 dollars you have definitely
> helped to devalue your own labor - assuming you earn income as a
> programmer.
>
> It is not the time spent without recompense that hurts programmers, it
> is their collective contribution to a body of work which is provided to
> the software market free of cost. This pushes programmer wages down -
> it really can't help but do so, just as shoemakers working in their
> spare time to provide free shoes can't help but push down the price of
> shoes. These hypothetical shoemakers wouldn't be losing out because of
> the limited spare time they weren't working for pay by making free
> shoes, but because all the shoes they *did* sell for pay would be worth
> less.
>
> In a world filled with abundant free software many kinds of software
> are worth less because there is simply a smaller market for them -
> after all, many potential customers will just use the free software.
> Not all users of free offerings are lost premium sales, but *some* of
> these free software users would have paid *something* for that type of
> software had there not been a free version. That lost revenue cannot
> but be reflected in lower programmer wages and salaries, and as Kent
> has pointed out, in lost market opportunities for single-programmer or
> small software firms.
It's a terrible situation, I'm sure, but that's how capitalism works.
There is, once again, nothing special about free software. I could make
software and charge $1 per copy and that would also 'devalue' the work
of other programmers.
On the other hand, I could charge $1000 per copy and, if I was able to
sell any at that price, it would increase the value of other
programmers. Does this mean we have a _moral obligation_ to sell goods
at the maximum price people will be willing to pay, even if we were
able to sell them at a lower price?
You're acting like somehow you have a _right_ to make money from
programming. Nobody has the _right_ to make money from doing
_anything_. You get paid if people are willing to pay. If people aren't
willing to pay for a license to use a copy of your program, then either
find a program which they will pay for, find another source of funding,
or find another job.
Of course, other options would be to get the government involved and
have them prevent people from distributing software at lower prices
than you can afford, or employ a campaign of FUD to dissuade people
from distributing software at lower prices than you can afford.
As you may have guessed, I don't approve of either of those options.
"These goods can be distributed at effectively zero cost, but these
guys want to make a living from distributing them so we're going to
make sure you always have to pay".
On 2006-07-25 15:58:52 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> It's a terrible situation, I'm sure, but that's how capitalism works.
> There is, once again, nothing special about free software. I could make
> software and charge $1 per copy and that would also 'devalue' the work
> of other programmers.
No, this is how speculative bubbles work. This is not healthy
capitalism because it can only happen when venture capital firms are
allowed to hype companies with no real revenues in large part because
these firms are charging less than cost for their product or service
and allowed to hemmorhage red ink at the VC's expense. The VC firms
whole business model was pump and dump - the VCs were relying on
getting their 100 fold or 1000 fold return based solely on hype
immediately after the IPO and those who followed got screwed.
In a healthy growing economy - not a bubble - firms have real revenues
becaue they -*gasp*- charge more for goods and/or services than it
costs to produce them.
As everyone here knows, software requires significant labor inputs. It
can only be valued at $0.00 or nearly nothing so long as programmers
foolishly value their own work product as monetarily worthless.
Software for free or software for $1.00 is not capitalism - it is
simply the flip side of the mania that gave us eToys for a hundred and
change a share (now de-listed if memory serves). It is the naive belief
that if I stop valuing my labor with money I can change the way the
economy works. Sadly this is precisely what happens though not in the
rosy utopian way envisaged by free software believers. The economy
changes by adjusting programmer wages and salaries downward to reflect
the abundant supply of software at zero cost.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-25 15:58:52 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
> > It's a terrible situation, I'm sure, but that's how capitalism works.
> > There is, once again, nothing special about free software. I could make
> > software and charge $1 per copy and that would also 'devalue' the work
> > of other programmers.
>
> No, this is how speculative bubbles work. This is not healthy
> capitalism because it can only happen when venture capital firms are
> allowed to hype companies with no real revenues in large part because
> these firms are charging less than cost for their product or service
> and allowed to hemmorhage red ink at the VC's expense. The VC firms
> whole business model was pump and dump - the VCs were relying on
> getting their 100 fold or 1000 fold return based solely on hype
> immediately after the IPO and those who followed got screwed.
>
> In a healthy growing economy - not a bubble - firms have real revenues
> becaue they -*gasp*- charge more for goods and/or services than it
> costs to produce them.
>
> As everyone here knows, software requires significant labor inputs. It
> can only be valued at $0.00 or nearly nothing so long as programmers
> foolishly value their own work product as monetarily worthless.
> Software for free or software for $1.00 is not capitalism - it is
> simply the flip side of the mania that gave us eToys for a hundred and
> change a share (now de-listed if memory serves). It is the naive belief
> that if I stop valuing my labor with money I can change the way the
> economy works. Sadly this is precisely what happens though not in the
> rosy utopian way envisaged by free software believers. The economy
> changes by adjusting programmer wages and salaries downward to reflect
> the abundant supply of software at zero cost.
So you're saying that cheap software is necessarily harmful? None of
Kent's pluralism here, it's just a bad thing and that's that?
It should be obvious that your argument about programmers devaluing
their own work only applies to free software, and *not* software which
is merely very cheap. I could sell software for $1.00 a copy, and if I
sold enough, I might cover my development costs.
Furthermore, you are ignoring other revenue streams. If I am paid by a
company to develop a piece of software they need, then they are giving
my labour value. If I then allowed others to distribute that software
for free, I don't lose anything I already had.
Programmers don't have some kind of right to be paid for writing
programs. If the market wants software, that's great. The market gets
to choose how that software is funded.
I have to pay for my electricity, but there's no rule about how many
people are allowed to use my light, even though the electrical company
could argue that whilst people are seeing things in my flat they aren't
using up electricity lighting their own abodes, so they're losing out.
Carpools aren't illegal even though it means fewer people buy cars but
more people are _using_ them.
Capitalism isn't this one-size-fits-all straightjacket you're painting
it to be. There are various means of funding enterprises, and it
doesn't have to be the consumer paying directly for the particular
goods he aquires.
From: Steven E. Harris
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <q943bcof6bn.fsf@chlorine.gnostech.com>
Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> On the other hand, I could charge $1000 per copy and, if I was able
> to sell any at that price, it would increase the value of other
> programmers. Does this mean we have a _moral obligation_ to sell
> goods at the maximum price people will be willing to pay, even if we
> were able to sell them at a lower price?
Unless you're going to drag out an increasing volume multiplier, yes,
you have a moral obligation to sell at the "maximum price people [are]
willing to pay": you've found the proper market price. We can assume
that your customers want to pay as little possible and you want to
charge as much as possible, because the opposite desires don't make
much sense -- barring deliberate manipulation to undercut a
less-well-funded competitor or a customer looking to use up a budget
(a different version of battle with a competitor).
--
Steven E. Harris
"Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> writes:
> Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> On the other hand, I could charge $1000 per copy and, if I was able
>> to sell any at that price, it would increase the value of other
>> programmers. Does this mean we have a _moral obligation_ to sell
>> goods at the maximum price people will be willing to pay, even if we
>> were able to sell them at a lower price?
>
> Unless you're going to drag out an increasing volume multiplier, yes,
> you have a moral obligation to sell at the "maximum price people [are]
> willing to pay": you've found the proper market price. We can assume
> that your customers want to pay as little possible and you want to
> charge as much as possible, because the opposite desires don't make
> much sense -- barring deliberate manipulation to undercut a
> less-well-funded competitor or a customer looking to use up a budget
> (a different version of battle with a competitor).
>
What rubbish - I have absolutely no moral obligation to sell at any
price. If I want to invest $1000 writing a piece of software and then
sell it for $1 or even give it away, thats my right. Nobody has the
right to challenge, question or judge my morals because of that, nor
does anyone have the right to impose their moral beliefs regarding how
or at what price software should be sold on someone else. You may feel
a moral responsability to sell at the maximum price you can get and
thats fine and your right, but dictating this is a moral
responsability for everyone else because you believe it, is absurd.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Kamen TOMOV
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <ud5brfd9w.fsf@cybuild.com>
On ���������, ��� 27 2006, Tim X wrote:
> What rubbish - I have absolutely no moral obligation to sell at any
> price. If I want to invest $1000 writing a piece of software and
> then sell it for $1 or even give it away, thats my right. Nobody has
> the right to challenge, question or judge my morals because of that,
> nor does anyone have the right to impose their moral beliefs
> regarding how or at what price software should be sold on someone
> else. You may feel a moral responsability to sell at the maximum
> price you can get and thats fine and your right, but dictating this
> is a moral responsability for everyone else because you believe it,
> is absurd.
It's not about moral obligations. You must play by the rules. It is a
problem when there are not rules.
Usually the markets have protection mechanisms and you can't sell a
certain product for less its minimal price and where your profit can
not be more than a certain percentage and others. The software market
(as perhaps* all non commodity markets) suffers from the difficulty to
determine the value of a product. So, as a result it is so chaotic and
some people suffer and others are happy.
Mmm even I got the topic's point, but I'm not sure I have a cure this
time.
* I am not an economist so forgive me if I using terminology
improperly.
Kamen TOMOV <·····@evrocom.net> writes:
> On четвъртък, Юли 27 2006, Tim X wrote:
>
>> What rubbish - I have absolutely no moral obligation to sell at any
>> price. If I want to invest $1000 writing a piece of software and
>> then sell it for $1 or even give it away, thats my right. Nobody has
>> the right to challenge, question or judge my morals because of that,
>> nor does anyone have the right to impose their moral beliefs
>> regarding how or at what price software should be sold on someone
>> else. You may feel a moral responsability to sell at the maximum
>> price you can get and thats fine and your right, but dictating this
>> is a moral responsability for everyone else because you believe it,
>> is absurd.
>
> It's not about moral obligations. You must play by the rules. It is a
> problem when there are not rules.
Imagine you've invited a couple of friends at diner, and you start to
tell them a story of your invention to entertain them.
Do you have to present them a bill at the end of the diner for the story?
Are they prevented to further tell this story to their friends later?
Are they prevented to "edit" this story in doing so, and further tell it?
I understand that professionnal story tellers, and the state, are
unhappy about this. If they could enforce this rule that all story
told must be invoiced, this would increase the revenue for the
professionnal story tellers, and this would increase tax income.
Should the state prevent all free housework, because letting your wife
doing it, or doing it yourself for free devaluates the salaries of
professionnal houseworker (and this is a big tax source too)?
If you get up from your computer screen and go fetch a coca-cola from
the fridge and a glass, shouldn't you invoice yourself this service,
to avoid devaluating the work of all the waiters, and pay the same
taxes as they do?
While you don't enforce this work devaluation prevention, you
shouldn't prevent the programming work devaluation of the programmer
who writes a program for his father or his friend, and who doesn't
invoice it, and who let his father or his friend to further copy or
edit and copy this program for other parents or friends to use.
It just happens that with the Internet, we do have a lot of friends.
http://www.myspace.com/
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
You never feed me.
Perhaps I'll sleep on your face.
That will sure show you.
On 2006-07-27 12:48:34 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
> Should the state prevent all free housework, because letting your wife
> doing it, or doing it yourself for free devaluates the salaries of
> professionnal houseworker (and this is a big tax source too)?
Your wife - if she stays at home and does housework - *is* being
compensated by part of your income - wait for your divorce if you don't
belive this. If she does work then she's a fool for doing all the
houswork while you sit around on your ass ;^)
As far as the tax aspects go, we decide as a community that married
couples should enjoy certain tax benefits since they are the likely
source of all our future citizens and they invest a great deal of time,
effort, and love in raising them.
>
> If you get up from your computer screen and go fetch a coca-cola from
> the fridge and a glass, shouldn't you invoice yourself this service,
> to avoid devaluating the work of all the waiters, and pay the same
> taxes as they do?
No, because no one would work for the wages that I would pay them to go
get me a drink from the fridge - in fact it would be illegal here in
the US (and many other places) because we have a minimum wage. Again as
far as taxes go, we've decided that work done for yourself by yourself
is not taxable.
From: Kamen TOMOV
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uk65x3gzh.fsf@cybuild.com>
Imagine we are farmers and that we produce corn. I would be a local
manufacturer and you would be a major player on the international
market. The competition is so fierce on the intl market that you
decide to invade the local markets and mine in particular.
Imagine that my corn is much better than yours but the yield is not as
big as yours because firstly I am a smaller producer and secondly
because you use specially designed genetically modified crap.
So you start offering your corn on my (local) market. However, you
have limited success, because I have an established customer base and
your corn seems dangerous to the people. You try to lower your prices
but the market is well regulated so you can not sell bellow a minimum
price. Nevertheless, you have some sales because the corn is scarce
and I'm struggling to satisfy the market. But you want more. So you
come up with the bright idea to donate to my poor state some of your
corn. My market is small so it wouldn't be a considerable loss for
you. What's more the local government would be very grateful because
this would help them with their political problems. Even if there is
one that have any doubts, you "donate" some money so everything seems
like flowers and roses.
So, as you have already foreseen it, in a few years of doing donations
you start demanding money for your production. Meanwhile, you have
established channels, people saw that your corn does not seem so
dangerous as they did not die of some terrible disease and the
government endorsed it some time before. Finally you managed to put me
out of business. So this time you don't even have to cut your prices
to sell here.
Now people consume your crappy corn and pay as usual. Unemployment
have risen. Is there any benefit for the society?
What happened was due to a crack in the market regulations abused by
you due to stupid or corrupted individuals. Well in the software
business there is no need for cracks as it is genetically impossible
to regulate. Even the patents system does not work there.
Although Stallman can not be associated with the major producer,
genetically modified corn can be associated with the popular software
platforms today.
On ���������, ��� 27 2006, Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Kamen TOMOV <·····@evrocom.net> writes:
>
>> It's not about moral obligations. You must play by the rules. It is
>> a problem when there are not rules.
>
> Imagine you've invited a couple of friends at diner, and you start
> to tell them a story of your invention to entertain them.
>
> Do you have to present them a bill at the end of the diner for the
> story? Are they prevented to further tell this story to their
> friends later? Are they prevented to "edit" this story in doing so,
> and further tell it?
>
> I understand that professionnal story tellers, and the state, are
> unhappy about this. If they could enforce this rule that all story
> told must be invoiced, this would increase the revenue for the
> professionnal story tellers, and this would increase tax income.
Aren't we all here in the role of professional story tellers? Would
you tell a great new story to your friends if your boss said it pays
every new story for $1000?
> Should the state prevent all free housework, because letting your
> wife doing it, or doing it yourself for free devaluates the salaries
> of professionnal houseworker (and this is a big tax source too)?
>
> If you get up from your computer screen and go fetch a coca-cola from
> the fridge and a glass, shouldn't you invoice yourself this service,
> to avoid devaluating the work of all the waiters, and pay the same
> taxes as they do?
>
>
> While you don't enforce this work devaluation prevention, you
> shouldn't prevent the programming work devaluation of the programmer
> who writes a program for his father or his friend, and who doesn't
> invoice it, and who let his father or his friend to further copy or
> edit and copy this program for other parents or friends to use.
>
> It just happens that with the Internet, we do have a lot of friends.
> http://www.myspace.com/
This happens and nobody can stop it from happening. The real question
is - is there any way to adapt?
> Kamen TOMOV <·····@evrocom.net> writes:
>
>> On четвъртък, Юли 27 2006, Tim X wrote:
>>
>>> What rubbish - I have absolutely no moral obligation to sell at any
>>> price. If I want to invest $1000 writing a piece of software and
>>> then sell it for $1 or even give it away, thats my right. Nobody has
>>> the right to challenge, question or judge my morals because of that,
>>> nor does anyone have the right to impose their moral beliefs
>>> regarding how or at what price software should be sold on someone
>>> else. You may feel a moral responsability to sell at the maximum
>>> price you can get and thats fine and your right, but dictating this
>>> is a moral responsability for everyone else because you believe it,
>>> is absurd.
>>
>> It's not about moral obligations. You must play by the rules. It is a
>> problem when there are not rules.
>
Well thats fine - except the message I was responding to (and the bit
you snipped) was responding to the statement that there was a moral
responsability to get the highest price possible - which is nonsense.
As for rules, OK - so who imposes these rules? The state? So we have a
rule saying yo are not allowed to give your work away for free.
Nay, I still don't agree. If I'm prepared to do the work and give it
away for free, then thats my choice and nothing to do with anyone
else. Tough if others don't like it.
This whole "free software is losing my livelyhood" argument is bogus
in the extreme. Next the old "Cheap labor has ruined my livelihood
arguement will be dragged out along with "Steam power is stealing our
jobs" and the railway has ruined my successful canal barge business.
The world changes and evolves - get use to it.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <9Igzg.19263$%Z1.14454@fe09.lga>
Tim X wrote:
> The world changes and evolves - get use to it.
Nonsense. Sometimes a serious backtracking is required. 1929 was one,
the demise of Joseph McCarthy another, and, oh, lookee here, the
collapse of the Soviet Union because of a faulty economic model.
Free market fans can still support suppression of snake-oil salesmen,
because market forces move too slowly (and folks never learn). The FSF
is telling people there /is/ such a thing as a free lunch, and because
folks are too daft to value their time (see Nathan's brilliant retort)
they are having no trouble moving the snake oil.
I do not want to suppress the FSF, however, I just think it would be fun
to start a Web site where people could log the hours they spend on
"free" software. "Yeah! the mousepad works! A weekend well spent!"
Funny how revealing language can be.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>
>> The world changes and evolves - get use to it.
>
> Nonsense. Sometimes a serious backtracking is required. 1929 was one,
> the demise of Joseph McCarthy another, and, oh, lookee here, the
> collapse of the Soviet Union because of a faulty economic model.
>
And how is this backtracking not change?
Only a complete idiot would argue the backtracking took you back to
exactly what was therre before. it didn't. the "backtracking" is
itself change because you can't actually go backwards in real life.
you might try to re-establish values, systems or beliefs that
previously existed, but you will never get back to where you were -
you will come to something new and that is change. With luck, we will
have learnt from the experience and the new thing will be better than
the old thing. It is still all change.
As I said, the world changes, get use to it.
tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m38xmhbfvd.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-25 10:38:35 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > If I
> > play around with some project in my free time and fix a couple bugs and
> > commit them back to the maintainers, have I really created a problem
> > supporting my children?
>
> Not by failing to work for pay, no - after all you probably watch TV and
> read books, take walks, etc. none of which are earning you
> income. However, by contributing to a piece of work whose net effect is
> to value programmers' work product at $0.00 dollars you have definitely
> helped to devalue your own labor - assuming you earn income as a
> programmer.
No- as has been pointed out by others, I have "de-monetized" it which is
different. If I submit a patch to some open source product, I haven't
"lost" any money anyhow since I would never have been paid for the
patch. It seems to me you are arguing against volunteer labor.
> It is not the time spent without recompense that hurts programmers, it
> is their collective contribution to a body of work which is provided to
> the software market free of cost. This pushes programmer wages down -
> it really can't help but do so, just as shoemakers working in their
> spare time to provide free shoes can't help but push down the price of
> shoes. These hypothetical shoemakers wouldn't be losing out because of
> the limited spare time they weren't working for pay by making free
> shoes, but because all the shoes they *did* sell for pay would be worth
> less.
By making the free competition better, I am also forcing the for-profit
operations to enhance their products or wilt. It means the for-profit
shoemakers must make better shoes. If the argument is it cuts into my
own sales, thats a question <I> have to answer and is not your concern.
If you assume some sort of greater wisdom than I about my own business
and economy, then with all due respect you can take your attitude and
stuff it- I am the one who gets to establish whats valueable to me or
not and what tradeoffs I want to make.
> In a world filled with abundant free software many kinds of software are
> worth less because there is simply a smaller market for them -
> after all, many potential customers will just use the free software. Not
> all users of free offerings are lost premium sales, but *some* of these
> free software users would have paid *something* for that type of
> software had there not been a free version. That lost revenue cannot but
> be reflected in lower programmer wages and salaries, and as Kent has
> pointed out, in lost market opportunities for single-programmer or small
> software firms.
Well then, the for profit programmers should make better products.
Generally software is bought on features not price so if I'm a for
profit programmer then I should fancy up my software and make its
features compelling instead of complaining about how people are being so
unfair when they release something similar for free.
Gregm
On 2006-07-25 16:15:34 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>> However, by contributing to a piece of work whose net effect is
>> to value programmers' work product at $0.00 dollars you have definitely
>> helped to devalue your own labor - assuming you earn income as a
>> programmer.
>
> No- as has been pointed out by others, I have "de-monetized" it which is
> different. If I submit a patch to some open source product, I haven't
> "lost" any money anyhow since I would never have been paid for the
> patch. It seems to me you are arguing against volunteer labor.
You've overlooked what I wrote. Please read it again. Your loss is
*not* your time spent. Your loss is the downward price pressure caused
by the product *you make for a living* being offered for free.
How hard is this to grasp or are you just ideologically blinkered? You
can call it "de-monetizing" but you are still creating a supply of the
product you want to get paid for *for free*.
"de-monetizing" only describes how *you* value your labor and work
product. It fails entirely to describe how the *market* values your
libre software output - the market values your libre software output at
$0.00. Any software on the market for $0.00 can only create a downward
pressure on software prices. Downward pressure on software prices can
only cause downward pressure on programmer wages and salaries and/or
increased programmer layoffs and fewer programmer jobs.
If auto workers worked one day each week-end and the cars made on that
day were given away free then the price of automobiles would fall
because there would be a lower demand for automobiles due to the free
cars available. When car prices fell either wages for auto workers
would fall or some would be laid off. This is really basic economics. I
can only think you're not seeing it because you have so much invested
in the ideology of free software.
This might be a good juncture to point out the difference between
infrastructure software and products designed to be delivered on top of
that infrastructure. The argument has been made that such things as
OSes and compilers are infrastructure that all people in the software
industry benefit from. It is therefore rational, or so the argument
goes, for programmers to cooperate to develop infrastructure software
since it benefits everyone in much the same way that it is rational for
us to pay taxes to be used for roads and bridges.
It is, however, still self destructive for programmers to give away
products that run atop this infrastructure which they could have sold
for money just as it would be self destructive for auto workers to work
without pay to make cars to be given away for free to run on these
public roads.
As to Nathan's assertion that I'm claiming that I or anyone else has a
"right" to earn a living as a programmer - no, I'm not claiming that at
all. Times may change and jobs may come and go. I'm simply pointing out
that it is really fscking stupid for someone who wants to earn a living
at a particular profession to donate his time to a cause that is
guaranteed to put a systematic downward pressure on wages and salaries
in that profession.
All change is not "progress." The change brought about by free software
represents "progress" only to cheapos who want stuff for free. It
represents a real regress for hard working, well educated people who
want to make a living by programming because now most everything they
will do has to compete with free. Where are the free overnight
deliveries that Fed-ex drivers have to compete with? Where is the Free
Cab-ride Foundation whose stated goal is to undermine and eliminate
paid taxi rides? Free software does not represent unqualified economic
"progress" by any means.
Finally, no, I'm not opposed to volunteer work. For example, I wrote
the database application that a local non-profit uses to keep track of
members, contributions etc. My work for them amounts to a donation of
labor. But this is a very different thing than an organization whose
stated purpose is to systematically undermine proprietary software, in
the process driving down wages and salaries and reducing jobs in the
industry. Why would I contribute my time or money to that?
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m33bco4m3u.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-25 16:15:34 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> How hard is this to grasp or are you just ideologically blinkered? You
> can call it "de-monetizing" but you are still creating a supply of the
> product you want to get paid for *for free*.
But I don't want to get paid for it. I want to contribute my fixes in
payment for getting other's fixes. It gets me a better product that I
can use more effectively.
> "de-monetizing" only describes how *you* value your labor and work
> product. It fails entirely to describe how the *market* values your
> libre software output - the market values your libre software output at
> $0.00. Any software on the market for $0.00 can only create a downward
> pressure on software prices. Downward pressure on software prices can
> only cause downward pressure on programmer wages and salaries and/or
> increased programmer layoffs and fewer programmer jobs.
It depends on where the "programmers jobs" are. It might cause layoffs
at Compiler Vendor, Inc because they haven't been innovating or they are
especially obnoxious about licensing and gcc suddenly becomes good
enough that their customers depart, but it creates jobs at the customers
who now have a better tool and can do their work more easily.
It might also create more jobs since Compiler Vendor Inc might only have
a few programmers working on their compiler but lots of customers might
expand staff. This competition could increase salaries since more
people are competing for programmers.
Or, if Compiler Vendor Inc is a reponsive business perhaps they will
invest in developing their products and so maintain their customer base.
THey might lose some customers but their important ones probably stay.
In both cases the customers win. They are the ones paying for all this,
so they are the ones who matter first.
> If auto workers worked one day each week-end and the cars made on that
> day were given away free then the price of automobiles would fall
> because there would be a lower demand for automobiles due to the free
> cars available. When car prices fell either wages for auto workers would
> fall or some would be laid off. This is really basic economics. I can
> only think you're not seeing it because you have so much invested in the
> ideology of free software.
Oh I see what you're saying but I disagree with your premises about how
free software works in the market.
> Finally, no, I'm not opposed to volunteer work. For example, I wrote the
> database application that a local non-profit uses to keep track of
> members, contributions etc. My work for them amounts to a donation of
> labor. But this is a very different thing than an organization whose
> stated purpose is to systematically undermine proprietary software, in
> the process driving down wages and salaries and reducing jobs in the
> industry. Why would I contribute my time or money to that?
I just dont' see the "downward pressure". FSF's "stated purpose"
doesn't mean a damn to me, being P.R. I don't take an ideological
position on free software, I use FSF products because they're pretty
good and they make my work better and easier. I also use commercial
software for the same reasons.
My responsibility is not to ensuring other programmer's income is
maximized, it is to do what my customers are paying me for. FSF lets me
do it more cheaply and more easily, which my customers like. Lots of
other people use FSF software in the same way so by making common
purpose we help each other have better software tools.
Gregm
On 2006-07-26 07:55:01 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> Lots of
> other people use FSF software in the same way so by making common
> purpose we help each other have better software tools.
This is the point I was making about infrastructure software. As long
as the free software in question is tools that programmers use to do
their job then contributing to such projects can be seen, on balance,
to be a net win for programmers - the potential lost revenue from
selling software tools is balanced by the widespread availability of
low or zero cost development tools. For *programmers* infrastructure
software can be seen as a net win. This is especially true when it
helps them compete with an entrenched monopoly as is the case with
linux v. Microsoft - or lisp v. c/c++/java :^)
However, when free projects consist of software that could be sold to
some other market, software that most programmers will not be using to
do their job, then that free software is a net loss for programmers
because it represents lost market share for paying programming work.
Such free software cannot but put downward pressure on programmer
earnings because there will of necessity be fewer programmer hours
and/or lower programmer wages and salaries.
Now, you say that free software is an unqualified benefit from the
consumer perspective, and from a narrow view this is true. But as a
matter of economic policy do we really want to be chasing the bottom in
all markets? Think about this carefully. The logical conclusion of a
policy which puts low prices for consumers above all other
considerations is a world in which the globally cheapest producer for
every good or service sets the price for that work. Do you *really*
want to live in a world where the wages for programmers where *you*
live are set by what programmers can be paid in India?
The whole long term political economic policy of the US, Europe,and
Japan, for example, is predicated on intellectual property allowing us
to maintain high-paying jobs in the US, Europe, and Japan. Without IP,
everything that US, European, and Japanese workers do could be done
much more cheaply elsewhere. Without proprietary software, Windows and
Office could be sold for 50 cents a copy, so there go all the high
paying jobs of Microsoft employees and all their contractors and
suppliers. Ditto Japanese workers designing their consumer electronics.
Hollywood films and television could be sold at 50 cents a copy, so
there go all the high paying jobs in the entertainment industry. Ditto
books, and magazines. Ditto Intel's hardware design and fabrication
jobs - after all, if their designs were not proprietary it's simply a
race to the bottom to see which company overseas can produce these
chips most cheaply, and that company is *not* going to be using US
workers.
As a secondary consideration, investment in R&D would pretty much grind
to a halt since there would be no protection for anything generated by
research. Advocating free software as an unqualified good is the
equivalent of advocating a world in which all research is required to
be shared with everyone. There would be a lot less funding for research
in that world because R&D budgets would have to be mighty slim at the
firm which wins the global competition to produce the freely available
spec most cheaply.
This race to the bottom is even more rapid in software because there
are almost no physical constraints. Do you really want to live in a
country where your wages or salary are determined by whatever is the
lowest amount anyone will take for that work anywhere in the world? If
not you should reconsider how "evil" proprietary software is and how
"good" free software is. IP is good because it allows for high paying
jobs. IP is what allows many first world citizens to have a standard of
living above that of the third world. Free software is fundamentally
opposed to IP. Free software isn't an unqualified good just because it
allows people to have more free stuff. Free stuff can be the enemy of
high paying jobs.
Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
>> On 2006-07-25 10:38:35 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>>
>> > If I
>> > play around with some project in my free time and fix a couple bugs and
>> > commit them back to the maintainers, have I really created a problem
>> > supporting my children?
>>
>> Not by failing to work for pay, no - after all you probably watch TV and
>> read books, take walks, etc. none of which are earning you
>> income. However, by contributing to a piece of work whose net effect is
>> to value programmers' work product at $0.00 dollars you have definitely
>> helped to devalue your own labor - assuming you earn income as a
>> programmer.
>
> No- as has been pointed out by others, I have "de-monetized" it which is
> different. If I submit a patch to some open source product, I haven't
> "lost" any money anyhow since I would never have been paid for the
> patch. It seems to me you are arguing against volunteer labor.
>
>
>> It is not the time spent without recompense that hurts programmers, it
>> is their collective contribution to a body of work which is provided to
>> the software market free of cost. This pushes programmer wages down -
>> it really can't help but do so, just as shoemakers working in their
>> spare time to provide free shoes can't help but push down the price of
>> shoes. These hypothetical shoemakers wouldn't be losing out because of
>> the limited spare time they weren't working for pay by making free
>> shoes, but because all the shoes they *did* sell for pay would be worth
>> less.
>
> By making the free competition better, I am also forcing the for-profit
> operations to enhance their products or wilt. It means the for-profit
> shoemakers must make better shoes. If the argument is it cuts into my
> own sales, thats a question <I> have to answer and is not your concern.
> If you assume some sort of greater wisdom than I about my own business
> and economy, then with all due respect you can take your attitude and
> stuff it- I am the one who gets to establish whats valueable to me or
> not and what tradeoffs I want to make.
>
>
>> In a world filled with abundant free software many kinds of software are
>> worth less because there is simply a smaller market for them -
>> after all, many potential customers will just use the free software. Not
>> all users of free offerings are lost premium sales, but *some* of these
>> free software users would have paid *something* for that type of
>> software had there not been a free version. That lost revenue cannot but
>> be reflected in lower programmer wages and salaries, and as Kent has
>> pointed out, in lost market opportunities for single-programmer or small
>> software firms.
>
> Well then, the for profit programmers should make better products.
> Generally software is bought on features not price so if I'm a for
> profit programmer then I should fancy up my software and make its
> features compelling instead of complaining about how people are being so
> unfair when they release something similar for free.
>
The point/question which I feel is possibly being overlooked in this
debate is that if the software can be produced for free, regardless of
whether it impacts on programmers wages, then what is the value in
paying for it to be written? Put another way, if both the commercial
version and free version are functionally equivalent, does
that not beg the question of what value was there in paying for the
commercial version. The fact that a lot of disconnected people with
programming skills have been able to produce the software for free,
regardless of the motivation, should make us wonder about the real
value of programming. As mentioned a few times in this thread, there
is nothing which says you are entitled or have the right to earn money
as a programmer. What you can earn depends on what you can contribute.
If you cannot contribute anything more than has already been done for
free, then what you are doing is probably worth about as much.
Ken would argue though that we are now all stuck with inferior tools
because we are not paying for the software and therefore, there is no
incentive for commercial vendors to either write better tools or sell
the better commercial tools at a lower price. However, I think this is
a bit simplistic. anyone who is serious about development wants the
best tools available regardless of whether they are free or
commercial. If the free tools are truely as inferior as Kenny would
have us believe, then serious developers would pay for the commercial
ones to have the better tools which make them more productive. The
ameatures won't bother. For the professional, the price is less
relevant as long as the advantages are there. Maybe yo won't purchase
the commercial expensive tool straight away, but you will work towards
getting the funs for it. Its like being a craftsman who, when learning
and starting off, uses the tools they can afford and slowly upgrades
as their skills warrant the benefit of the better tools. I suspect
that if we didn't have the free lisps about, the community would be a
lot lot smaller as I suspect that many who now use lisp wouldn't have
ever looked at it if it cost them anything to try it out.
I also wonder if we should somehow work that crusty old proverb about
a poor tradesman blaming his tools into this thread somewhere?
somehow, I feel it could be re-jigged to fit nicely with this gloom
and doom about how hobbyists and do gooders put me out of business
because they did for free what I use to make a living out of.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
On 2006-07-27 06:29:28 -0400, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> said:
> The point/question which I feel is possibly being overlooked in this
> debate is that if the software can be produced for free, regardless of
> whether it impacts on programmers wages, then what is the value in
> paying for it to be written?
But software cannot be produced for free any more than habitat for
humanity puts up houses for free. Both use unpaid labor as inputs -
people have to donate their valuable labor for these projects to
happen. My point has never been that it is "immoral" to contribute to
free software projects, just that it is foolish to do so if the
software is end-user software. The free software movement[1] isn't
immoral its just foolish.
There is an important issue which many programmers fail to gauge and
that is that when you give away your programming labor you may not
just donate it once but over and over and over again. When I wrote the
database app for my local non-profit I was giving away my labor exactly
once. This app is sufficiently customized that its effectively useless
to anyone else. Moreover I did not surrender my copyright so legally
they couldn't give it to others if they wanted. My donation of labor
was limited. But those who write free end-user apps put no limits on
the number of times their labor product can be copied and given away.
It is this - allowing unlimited copies of software that otherwise could
have been sold - that has a negative impact on programmers seeking work
and a negative impact on programmer wage levels - there is of necessity
less paying work for programmers to do when there is abundant zero cost
end-user software.
> Put another way, if both the commercial
> version and free version are functionally equivalent, does
> that not beg the question of what value was there in paying for the
> commercial version.
Absolutely *none* which is why free end-user software puts downward
pressure on software prices and programmer wages and salaries.
> The fact that a lot of disconnected people with
> programming skills have been able to produce the software for free,
> regardless of the motivation, should make us wonder about the real
> value of programming.
The only *real* value of anything is what people collectively agree it
is worth. If shoemakers gave lots of shoes away for free then everyone
would agree that shoes aren't *really* worth all that much. But unlike
many programmers, shoemakers have enough sense not give away shoes -
they have the good sense to actually *sell* them.
[1] here I'm speaking specifically about end-user software not
infrastructure software.
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3psftq6yb.fsf@NOSPAMgmail.com>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
> However, by contributing to a piece of work whose net effect is to
> value programmers' work product at $0.00 dollars you have definitely
> helped to devalue your own labor - assuming you earn income as a
> programmer.
By serving on a jury I definitely help devalue my own labour--assuming I
earn income as a juror.
By reading in at church, I definitely help devalue my own
labour--assuming I earn income as a reader.
But, of course, I don't...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
The people who once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all
else, now concerns itself no more, and longs eagerly for just two
things--bread and circuses. --Juvenal
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> This pushes programmer wages down - it really can't help but do so,
> just as shoemakers working in their spare time to provide free shoes
> can't help but push down the price of shoes.
Your (and Kent's) comparisons of a free software product with shoes or
gardening or whatever are missing the mark.
We're talking about what to charge for *existing* bits of *software*,
not about shoes or apples or oranges.
The marginal cost of a shoe is substantially different from zero and
has labor content.
The marginal cost of a copy of gcc is nearly zero - which not
coincidentally equals the free software price - and has no labor
content.
We're not observing signs of market distortion, but what's to be
*expected* in an efficient market with intense competition: Prices are
close to marginal cost, which in our case just happens to be nearly
zero.
If Kent Pitman's "free software snipers" are able to imitate his
product in their spare time just to irritate him, that means that
barriers to entry are rather low, which in turn means that competition
in Kent's segment can be expected to be (or become) intense. He'd have
to *wish* for a distorted market to make the high profit he wants.
Wages: Making another shoe creates demand for shoemaker labor. If
shoemakers meet this demand for free, wages could go down. Maybe.
OTOH, the act of making a copy of gcc doesn't create any programmer
labor demand at all. Copying gcc is not at all like making shoes.
Moreover, Microsoft (and Kenny) keep insisting that free software has
higher "total cost of ownership". That's a kind of cost that I'm
assuming to have a high labor content, which means Microsoft (and
Kenny) are claiming that free software is actually pushing IT labor
demand up. Maybe they're right?
--
Marcus Breiing
(Cologne, Germany)
On 2006-07-26 02:44:25 -0400, Marcus Breiing
<······@2006w29.mail.breiing.com> said:
> We're talking about what to charge for *existing* bits of *software*,
> not about shoes or apples or oranges.
No, we're talking about how those bits of software should come into
existence. Should they be freely available to anyone who wants to copy
them at near zero cost, or should they be someone's property to be sold
at whatever the market will pay? Free software advocates want the
former which of necessity means that programmer wages and salaries will
race to the global bottom.
The whole near-zero-marginal-cost factor is a red herring here. It
doesn't matter how much it costs to make a copy of software. It matters
how much can be *charged* for that copy. When software is proprietary,
more can be charged for that copy. The mere fact that marginal cost is
low only means low cost in the absence of a legal system which values
knowledge work at more than zero dollars.
In other words, knowledge workers would be very foolish indeed to want
an economic system where their work product is not protected from
copying by those who have not labored as they have to bring it to
fruition. Knowledge workers would be very foolish to actually advocate
a system where all of their work product were freely available for
copying at near zero cost by anyone who wanted it because such a system
would value their work, their creativity, their innovations at near
zero dollars.
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 02:44:25 -0400, Marcus Breiing
> <······@2006w29.mail.breiing.com> said:
>
> In other words, knowledge workers would be very foolish indeed to want
> an economic system where their work product is not protected from
> copying by those who have not labored as they have to bring it to
> fruition. Knowledge workers would be very foolish to actually advocate a
> system where all of their work product were freely available for copying
> at near zero cost by anyone who wanted it because such a system would
> value their work, their creativity, their innovations at near zero
> dollars.
Speak for yourself. I obtain value for my work in a variety of ways,
some of which include donating my time on various kinds of work, some of
that including free software.
What I "want" is a complex economic system that allows me to make
choices about how I spend money, how I earn it, and how I establish what
is valueable to me.
What I exactly do not want is an economic system where all value is
reduced to money. That is perhaps a convienent abstraction to base
macro-economic analysis on but it omits considerable information about
whats happening in an economy.
Gregm
On 2006-07-26 19:09:38 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> What I exactly do not want is an economic system where all value is
> reduced to money.
I would love to live in such a world too. Unfortunately, so long as the
overwhelming majority of people behave as if everything can be reduced
to money, and for the most part they do, then we will continue to live
in a world where most everything is valued in monetary terms whether
certain individuals agree or not.
If programmers fail to value their work product monetarily then the
money economy will simply substitute a big fat zero for this
"de-monetized" transaction. The only way to escape this sad economic
reality is to become completely independent of the money economy. This
may be practical for some small percentage of people but it is not a
workable general solution. So long as programmers have to live inside
the money economy then their "de-monetized" work will continue to have
a negative impact on the availability of work for programmers and/or
programmer wages and salaries.
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 19:09:38 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > What I exactly do not want is an economic system where all value is
> > reduced to money.
>
> I would love to live in such a world too. Unfortunately, so long as the
> overwhelming majority of people behave as if everything can be reduced
> to money, and for the most part they do, then we will continue to live
> in a world where most everything is valued in monetary terms whether
> certain individuals agree or not.
I know plenty of people who view value in all kinds of ways- and some
that think only of money. Just because money is how value is generally
reported doesn't mean I have to limit myself to that view.
Gregm
On 2006-07-27 07:03:59 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> Just because money is how value is generally
> reported doesn't mean I have to limit myself to that view.
We're not talking about requirements here, either legal or moral.
However when many millions of people value something in one way and you
value it in another way, the majority view tends to determine how it is
valued in the money economy.
You may value your labor donated to free software projects in one way
but the many millions of people who buy software will simply value your
donated labor at zero dollars.
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 19:09:38 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > What I exactly do not want is an economic system where all value is
> > reduced to money.
>
> I would love to live in such a world too. Unfortunately, so long as the
> overwhelming majority of people behave as if everything can be reduced
> to money, and for the most part they do, then we will continue to live
> in a world where most everything is valued in monetary terms whether
> certain individuals agree or not.
I know plenty of people who view value in all kinds of ways- and some
that think only of money. Just because money is how value is generally
reported doesn't mean I have to limit myself to that view.
Gregm
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 19:09:38 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > What I exactly do not want is an economic system where all value is
> > reduced to money.
>
> I would love to live in such a world too. Unfortunately, so long as the
> overwhelming majority of people behave as if everything can be reduced
> to money, and for the most part they do, then we will continue to live
> in a world where most everything is valued in monetary terms whether
> certain individuals agree or not.
I know plenty of people who view value in all kinds of ways- and some
that think only of money. Just because money is how value is generally
reported doesn't mean I have to limit myself to that view.
Gregm
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 19:09:38 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
>> What I exactly do not want is an economic system where all value is
>> reduced to money.
>
> I would love to live in such a world too. Unfortunately, so long as
> the overwhelming majority of people behave as if everything can be
> reduced to money, and for the most part they do, then we will continue
> to live in a world where most everything is valued in monetary terms
> whether certain individuals agree or not.
Yeah. We should all work more on robotics...
> If programmers fail to value their work product monetarily then the
> money economy will simply substitute a big fat zero for this
> "de-monetized" transaction. The only way to escape this sad economic
> reality is to become completely independent of the money economy. This
> may be practical for some small percentage of people but it is not a
> workable general solution. So long as programmers have to live inside
> the money economy then their "de-monetized" work will continue to have
> a negative impact on the availability of work for programmers and/or
> programmer wages and salaries.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Small brave carnivores
Kill pine cones and mosquitoes
Fear vacuum cleaner
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> So long as programmers have to live inside
> the money economy then their "de-monetized" work will continue to have
> a negative impact on the availability of work for programmers and/or
> programmer wages and salaries.
You could start a union to protect programmer wages. The union could
make trouble for anyone who used programs written by non-unionized
programmers. Many professions already have this sort of arrangement,
the lawyers, the doctors, the civil engineers, even actors.
Ari.
--
Elections only count as free and trials as fair if you can lose money
betting on the outcome.
Ari Krupnik wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
> > So long as programmers have to live inside
> > the money economy then their "de-monetized" work will continue to have
> > a negative impact on the availability of work for programmers and/or
> > programmer wages and salaries.
>
> You could start a union to protect programmer wages. The union could
> make trouble for anyone who used programs written by non-unionized
> programmers. Many professions already have this sort of arrangement,
> the lawyers, the doctors, the civil engineers, even actors.
>
> Ari.
How could you make trouble to the user? Isn't that illegal? I
understand if you make trouble to the non-unionized programmer or
software company that donot join the union. But the user of the
product? Are you going to sue them? for what reason? for not using your
product?
Am I going to get sued if I watched the movie played by the actor not
in actor union? I don't think so.
And there is nothing software written by non-unionized programmer
cannot do. Some union works because it is based on the network effect
-- non-unionized doctor/lawyer won't have much connection. But in
software world you work over API, there is nothing preventing
non-unionized software to follow the same RFC standard.
I don't think having software written by the union work with unionized
software only is legal. You cannot make it a requirement that every
software written by the union must only run with another client
authenticated by the union (may be through public key authentication).
If it is legal, it would be easy for Microsoft to push Linux out of the
market simply by requiring that every software run/connect to Microsoft
related service be running on Microsoft platform. Surely most server
today are Linux/Unix but from the point of view of the hig level
manager, I think Windows will stay if choice has to be made.
And if you are going to make trouble for the non-unionized programmer
themselves. That means you are targetting at anyone who take salary at
lower than programmers' minimum wages. That means anyone writing free
software, for fun, for non-software-related field. How are you going to
make trouble to a college kid for writing applications?
>
> --
> Elections only count as free and trials as fair if you can lose money
> betting on the outcome.
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 02:44:25 -0400, Marcus Breiing
> > We're talking about what to charge for *existing* bits of *software*,
> > not about shoes or apples or oranges.
>
> No, we're talking about how those bits of software should come into
> existence.
You are confusing these issues, which is my point. "Free software" is
a term for licensing conditions for existing bits of software.
When a programmer decides to distribute his work under a free software
license, this is usually decided after the work has been created.
> The whole near-zero-marginal-cost factor is a red herring here. It
> doesn't matter how much it costs to make a copy of software. When
> software is proprietary, more can be charged for that copy.
"Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest". There's no intrinsic value to
proprietariness. If the market doesn't like your proprietary software
enough for you to recoup your initial investment, you can (a) wipe
your disk and whine on usenet or (b) read up on the "sunk cost
fallacy" and lower your price anyway.
If there's a number of vendors of otherwise similar proprietary
software products who would, rationally, choose alternative (b), and
buyers prefer the cheapest of otherwise similar products, prices will
thus tend to ignore sunk investments and converge on marginal cost.
> Knowledge workers would be very foolish to actually advocate a
> system where all of their work product were freely available for
> copying at near zero cost
Looks like you're bashing a strawman.
--
Marcus Breiing
(Cologne, Germany)
On 2006-07-27 05:07:16 -0400, Marcus Breiing
<······@2006w30.mail.breiing.com> said:
> You are confusing these issues, which is my point. "Free software" is
> a term for licensing conditions for existing bits of software.
Not for contributors to existing projects its not. They come to a
project and donate their labor knowing their labor product will be
given away for free.
> When a programmer decides to distribute his work under a free software
> license, this is usually decided after the work has been created.
So what - there is still a decision in this case to surrender a very
large class of future financial interests in ones labor product.
> There's no intrinsic value to
> proprietariness.
For any single piece of software - no. For proprietary software as a
class v. free sofware as a class? - of course there is intrinsic value
to proprietary software in general. One cannot know in advance whether
or how well a certain offering will sell but offering it for sale is a
far better strategy for generating revenue from software than giving it
away.
No one here has asserted that making a particular piece of software
proprietary somehow guarantees that it will find a lucrative market.
Just that in general, making software free assures that it will find a
less lucrative market than if it had been proprietary.
Marcus Breiing wrote:
> We're talking about what to charge for *existing* bits of *software*,
> not about shoes or apples or oranges.
Note, however, that many pieces of hardware have significant development
costs. Just anecdotally, about 1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of an AMD chip is
the design of it, and about 1/3 the cost of an American-made automobile
is the design cost. How much of the cost of life-saving drugs is design
cost vs manufacturing cost? How many life-saving drugs would exist if
companies designing them were unable to charge more than a couple
precent above the cost of actually manufacturing and distributing them?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> One of the clear negatives of free *anything* is that it devalues the
> labor of those who specialize in producing it. I can see that certain
> free offerings can bring strategic advantage in the face of a monopoly
> - linux comes to mind here - but I have never understood why
> professional programmers would champion free software *in general* any
> more than shoemakers would champion free shoes or tailors champion free
> three piece suits. It's just plain self destructive.
It's an interesting analogy, but it's missing an important distinction
between software and shoes. The makers of commercial software who
champion free software don't champion that free software which competes
with their own. They champion free software which either competes with
their competition, thus saving them the job of having to do it, or
which forces people to buy related software from them, thus saving them
the job of having to advertise it.
Consider AllegroServe. Franz don't support it for fun. They support it
because they want people to use ACL. They don't admit that openly, but
you'll never see Franz switching to Portable AllegroServe.
> I believe a large part of it is psychological. In youth the adult world
> can seem so overwhelming, so corrupt and sordid as to be positively
> frightening.
Only in youth?
> Now there's no need to test yourself against an outside standard
Free software isn't tested against outside standards?
> Sadly they will change their tune when they inevitably have kids, buy
> houses and have to start planning for retirement.
And yet many producers of free software have both houses and children.
> Then they'll see why Kent told them they shouldn't value their work
> product at (+ $0.00 major-props) since most lenders will not accept
> major-props as a mortgage payment.
Which is clearly irrelevant. It isn't as if the makers of free software
are _only_ making free software. Unless they're independently wealthy,
in which case mortgages aren't an issue, they'll also have jobs doing
work they _do_ get paid for.
The other option is they're living on the streets begging for money to
eat. Presumably, these homeless programmers are using a public access
system via their local library's free Internet access.
On 2006-07-25 15:44:04 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> It's an interesting analogy, but it's missing an important distinction
> between software and shoes. The makers of commercial software who
> champion free software don't champion that free software which competes
> with their own. They champion free software which either competes with
> their competition, thus saving them the job of having to do it, or
> which forces people to buy related software from them, thus saving them
> the job of having to advertise it.
But the effect on *programmers* is still the same. The *firm* that
offers this free product may gain a strategic advantage but they're
still screwing *programmers* by doing so because every free product
puts downward pressure on the wages and salaries of those who make that
product for a living - the *programmers*.
> The other option is they're living on the streets begging for money to
> eat. Presumably, these homeless programmers are using a public access
> system via their local library's free Internet access.
Done beating that straw man yet?
No, the "other option" is that there are fewer jobs for programmers
which pay less than they would have if not for the glut of free
software.
The argument used to be made by leftist apologists for China "but look
how much better things are under Mao than they were before the
revolution." Of course the correct question was "but how much better
off would China have been if they had become a capitalist market
economy instead of a centrally controlled socialist economy?" Of course
we now know the answer to this second question because China is now a
capitalist market economy in all but name - "a whole lot better off."
The question regarding free software is "how much better off would
programmers be if there weren't this vast supply of software for
$0.00?" The answer is the same - "a whole lot better off."
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-25 15:44:04 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
> > It's an interesting analogy, but it's missing an important distinction
> > between software and shoes. The makers of commercial software who
> > champion free software don't champion that free software which competes
> > with their own. They champion free software which either competes with
> > their competition, thus saving them the job of having to do it, or
> > which forces people to buy related software from them, thus saving them
> > the job of having to advertise it.
>
> But the effect on *programmers* is still the same. The *firm* that
> offers this free product may gain a strategic advantage but they're
> still screwing *programmers* by doing so because every free product
> puts downward pressure on the wages and salaries of those who make that
> product for a living - the *programmers*.
This has nothing to do with free software. If I can make software
cheaper than you, then your choices are to cut costs so you can drop
your prices or convince people your software is worth the higher price
tag.
> > The other option is they're living on the streets begging for money to
> > eat. Presumably, these homeless programmers are using a public access
> > system via their local library's free Internet access.
>
> Done beating that straw man yet?
>
> No, the "other option" is that there are fewer jobs for programmers
> which pay less than they would have if not for the glut of free
> software.
Wow. Did you even read what I wrote? The "options" were situations for
free software programmers to living in. The options listed were they
have a job or they don't. Those options cover all possibilities, and
your option isn't an option at all.
> The question regarding free software is "how much better off would
> programmers be if there weren't this vast supply of software for
> $0.00?" The answer is the same - "a whole lot better off."
If I were to be so churlish as to ask for proof, you'd get it for me,
right?
Equating free software to state-controlled socialism is _not_
sufficient proof. State socialism fails due to management and
logistical problems which don't just apply to free software, which is,
almost by design, not centralised.
On 2006-07-26 01:21:40 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Wow. Did you even read what I wrote? The "options" were situations for
> free software programmers to living in. The options listed were they
> have a job or they don't. Those options cover all possibilities, and
> your option isn't an option at all.
Sure it is. No glut of free software, more, higher paying jobs for programmers.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-26 01:21:40 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
> > Wow. Did you even read what I wrote? The "options" were situations for
> > free software programmers to living in. The options listed were they
> > have a job or they don't. Those options cover all possibilities, and
> > your option isn't an option at all.
>
> Sure it is. No glut of free software, more, higher paying jobs for programmers.
*sigh*
To paraphrase the conversation so far:
You: Free software developers won't be able to pay their mortage.
Me: Free software developers have other sources of income or they don't
have a house to get a mortage on.
You: You are wrong, there are fewer jobs for programmers.
Me: That's not relevant to whether free software developers can pay
their mortages.
You: Yes it is, if there was no free software, there'd be more jobs for
programmers.
Me: That's just the same thing from the opposite side. It's *still* not
relevant.
Your turn.
On 2006-07-26 01:49:53 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> You: Yes it is, if there was no free software, there'd be more jobs for
> programmers.
>
> Me: That's just the same thing from the opposite side. It's *still* not
> relevant.
Of course it's relevant. The more well paying jobs there are for
programmers, the more programmers will be able to pay their mortgages.
How could this be "irrelevant?"
I'm really close to not replying to you anymore since you're being
quite stubbornly obtuse. The less free software,the more high paying
jobs for programmers. The more high paying jobs for programmers, the
more programmers will be able to make mortgage payments. You may not
agree with the chain of reasoning, but It's simply silly to
characterize it as "irrelevant" to this discussion.
The whole "free software" vs proprietary software is silly. There's a
symbiotic relationship between the two. It's not an zero-sum game.The
lower ends of the software stack are increasingly commoditized, but
that is a good foundation for building proprietary solutions.
You can ignore the FSF holy roller types. They are a small minority in
the whole open source ecosystem. Most people that use and program open
source understand the importance of proprietary solutions and the
investment back into the lower ends of the open stack. Eclipse is a
good example of this. JetBrains IDEA seems to be still doing fine even
with the competition of good free alternatives. It just raises the bar
on what is expected by users.
I do believe that straight GPL licensing can and does hinder the
greater good of code-reuse in certain situations, but that's up to the
individual developer and they have to live with their own licensing
decisions.
Nathan Baum wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> > On 2006-07-25 15:44:04 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> > The question regarding free software is "how much better off would
> > programmers be if there weren't this vast supply of software for
> > $0.00?" The answer is the same - "a whole lot better off."
>
> If I were to be so churlish as to ask for proof, you'd get it for me,
> right?
>
> Equating free software to state-controlled socialism is _not_
> sufficient proof. State socialism fails due to management and
> logistical problems which don't just apply to free software, which is,
> almost by design, not centralised.
I think there is much more difference. State socialism has generally
being a set of dictats from above that people are required to act on -
for a large part a set of restrictions on freedom. Free software has
been a set of ideas (which certainly proscribe things that are
otherwise legal) that people have freely decided to act upon - these
for a large part increase everyones freedom of action.
Free software & Open source are much more analogous to Co-operatives
than to socialism.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uslkojnwr.fsf@nhplace.com>
"Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> ... State socialism fails due to management and logistical problems
> which don't just apply to free software, which is, almost by design,
> not centralised. ...
Funny, but I think the old joke
"we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us"
actually describes quite a lot of the free software market.
The sad thing is that you'd think this would be enough to get people
to buy commercial software, but it's not. Comparing again to
political systems, I'd say it was about as clear that people would
rush back to commercial software as it is clear that if you had a body
of corrupt politicians who were universally hated, that an upstanding
person with values would arise out of the midst and be adored.
There are more variables at work here, such that simplistic assumptions
like "the existence of a market implies someone will fill it" break down.
For example, in the political arena, the politicians who are not
corrupt come to understand that to compete with corrupt politicians
effectively, they must either become corrupt, or subject themselves to
scrutiny and criticism beyond what they want. So many just won't do
it. And the public gets what its greedy self wants, "someone to
promise social security and global warming are trivially fixable for
free" rather than "someone who is competent to try, but admits it's a
tough battle and might not work". "Lie to us", the public demands, in
order that the honest politicians be elected--and it is often not within
them to do so.
People want what they want, and they don't want to pay. But it
doesn't follow that the sellers will provide it. Read Ayn Rand's
"Atlas Shrugged". (No, I'm not trying introduce an endorsement of her
theory of Objectivism--just trying to say her basic premise in the
story has a real and worth-reading point.)
From: Holger Schauer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yxzlkqfs01j.fsf@gmx.de>
On 4711 September 1993, Kent M. Pitman wrote:
> Funny, but I think the old joke
> "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us"
> actually describes quite a lot of the free software market.
This is not my perception. I see people working on free software and
being paid for it. And I see people, learning new tricks during
writing free software or fooling around as a a hobby. To them, the
payment is not monetary, but it's highly likely they (the programmers)
really feel they're charged back enough in other terms (otherwise they
would probably stop and go buy commercial software).
Holger
--
--- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ ---
"Vermutlich ist das bei den Verkehrsteilnehmern wie bei Ratten: zu dicht
auf einen Haufen gedraengt werden die agressiv und homosexuell. Vermut-
lich daher das zu dichte Auffahren auf den Arsch des Vordermanns?"
-- Uwe Borchert in de.soc.verkehr
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> The question regarding free software is "how much better off would
> programmers be if there weren't this vast supply of software for
> $0.00?" The answer is the same - "a whole lot better off."
No. At best, the answer is that their situation would be exactly the same.
If Linux and FreeBSD didn't exist, all these computers would be
running MS-Windows-NT, and the only one who would see different digits
on his bank account would be Bill Gates.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Debugging? Klingons do not debug! Our software does not coddle the
weak."
On 2006-07-26 01:02:27 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
> If Linux and FreeBSD didn't exist, all these computers would be
> running MS-Windows-NT, and the only one who would see different digits
> on his bank account would be Bill Gates.
That's obviously false - at least you and I would be running Mac OS X ;^)
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3wta037gi.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 01:02:27 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
>
> > If Linux and FreeBSD didn't exist, all these computers would be
> > running MS-Windows-NT, and the only one who would see different digits
> > on his bank account would be Bill Gates.
>
> That's obviously false - at least you and I would be running Mac OS X ;^)
OS X wouldn't exist, seeing its largely based on free software. There
would presumably be ever more crufty releases of the old Mac OS.
Gregm
On 2006-07-26 07:56:45 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> OS X wouldn't exist, seeing its largely based on free software.
It would just be based on a proprietary *nix that's all. Apple is not
ideologically wed to free software.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3ejw8asg7.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 07:56:45 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > OS X wouldn't exist, seeing its largely based on free software.
>
> It would just be based on a proprietary *nix that's all. Apple is not
> ideologically wed to free software.
Ah, but they use to make their OS affordable, don't they. Are you
really proposing that OS X would exist as a repackaged AIX or Xenix?
Gregm
On 2006-07-26 18:53:44 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> Are you
> really proposing that OS X would exist as a repackaged AIX or Xenix?
Or a repackaged BeOS - what does it matter? The core of Mac OS X is
more or less irrelevant as far as Apple is concerned. What matters to
them is the proprietary bits on top - Aqua, Quicktime, iTunes, iMovie,
Final Cut Pro, etc and their integration. These would run on top of
whatever you choose, and it is these parts which Apple have quite
intentionally excluded from the open source Darwin core of Mac OS X
precisely because Apple knows that OSes are a commodity and it is these
upper layers which are the added value - the window manager, the media
player libraries, the on-line music store, the digital video editing
software, etc. and their remarkably seamless integration with eachother
when compared with other systems.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3irlj2ume.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 18:53:44 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > Are you
> > really proposing that OS X would exist as a repackaged AIX or Xenix?
>
> Or a repackaged BeOS - what does it matter? The core of Mac OS X is more
> or less irrelevant as far as Apple is concerned. What matters to them is
> the proprietary bits on top - Aqua, Quicktime, iTunes, iMovie, Final Cut
> Pro, etc and their integration. These would run on top of whatever you
> choose, and it is these parts which Apple have quite intentionally
> excluded from the open source Darwin core of Mac OS X precisely because
> Apple knows that OSes are a commodity and it is these upper layers which
> are the added value - the window manager, the media player libraries,
> the on-line music store, the digital video editing software, etc. and
> their remarkably seamless integration with eachother when compared with
> other systems.
It matters because its nonsensical. Such a system would reduce OS X to
a forgotten gui on top of hardware that Apple just sticks its label on.
Why buy Apple's bizarre gui when there is a standard one?
Gregm
On 2006-07-27 06:46:17 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> Such a system would reduce OS X to
> a forgotten gui on top of hardware that Apple just sticks its label on.
> Why buy Apple's bizarre gui when there is a standard one?
You've got to be joking. You've been hanging out with techies too long.
Apple sells macs to mostly to non-technical people and I can assure you
they buy Macs because of the lickable Aqua GUI and the integration of
the upper, proprietary layers of Mac OS. They neither know nor care
that Mac OS X is unix underneath. Just to highlight this fact please
realize that Mac OS X can be installed *without* the bsd subsystem -
i.e. just the mach kernel, a handfull of daemons, the window manager
and all the cool apps that run so seamlessly together on top. Apple
knows what their primary market is and it is not *nix gear heads.
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3hd14thrq.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> But the effect on *programmers* is still the same. The *firm* that
> offers this free product may gain a strategic advantage but they're
> still screwing *programmers* by doing so because every free product
> puts downward pressure on the wages and salaries of those who make
> that product for a living - the *programmers*.
That's rather nonsensical. The presence of free software makes
certain things difficult to sell, and makes other things possible to
make. One door closes, another opens.
Free software has made it possible to do very complex things in a very
short amount of time, without having gazillions of dollars to invest
in the business. Programmers in these companies can spend their time
doing things that are strictly relevant to writing the software that
the company makes their money off of, and are therefore paid a whole
lot more than if they had to write everything from scratch. (Or if
the company had to buy expensive software externally.)
The company I work for wouldn't have existed without free software,
and I would be stuck in some low-paying boring job. Perhaps. Or
perhaps not.
Free software is like the New Deal for software-intensive companies.
Free software pumps technology and knowledge into companies;
jump-starting them into being. That's good for everybody.
On the other hand, if you insist on writing (say) your own C compiler,
and then getting miffed that people prefer using the free gcc --
that's really your own problem. It may sound harsh, but it really,
really is.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
·····@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
On 2006-07-26 13:09:29 -0400, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <·····@gnus.org> said:
> Free software has made it possible to do very complex things in a very
> short amount of time, without having gazillions of dollars to invest
> in the business. Programmers in these companies can spend their time
> doing things that are strictly relevant to writing the software that
> the company makes their money off of, and are therefore paid a whole
> lot more than if they had to write everything from scratch.
Again, you're talking here about *infrastructure* software, software
which is designed primarily to be used by programmers to get their job
done, which can be argued to be a net win for programmers.
This stands in contrast to software that is *not* designed to make
programmers jobs easier to do, but is rather designed for end users -
for example a music and video player. When such software is given away
for nothing it must inevitably place downward pressure on programmer
wages and salaries because it cannot but reduce the size of the market
for that product - quite simply, there will be fewer programmers
working at fewer jobs to develop software of this type because there is
now less to be made selling such software because of price competition
from offerings which cost zero dollars. In addition it can cause such
markets to stagnate wrt innovation since fewer firms will want to enter
a market where consumer expectations are that the product should cost
$0.00.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86zmewyy81.fsf@panix.com>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> This stands in contrast to software that is *not* designed to make
> programmers jobs easier to do, but is rather designed for end users -
> for example a music and video player. When such software is given away
> for nothing it must inevitably place downward pressure on programmer
> wages and salaries because it cannot but reduce the size of the market
> for that product - quite simply, there will be fewer programmers
> working at fewer jobs to develop software of this type because there
> is now less to be made selling such software because of price
> competition from offerings which cost zero dollars. In addition it can
> cause such markets to stagnate wrt innovation since fewer firms will
> want to enter a market where consumer expectations are that the
> product should cost $0.00.
That's funny... Windows Media Player is free, as is Quicktime, Winamp,
Foobar2000, Itunes, Yahoo Music Engine, Realplayer etc. etc. Not to
mention the various open source alternatives: Amarok, Rhythmbox, XMMS,
Totem, Mplayer, Xine etc.
If that's a stagnant market, I'll take it.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On 2006-07-26 15:15:10 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
> Windows Media Player is free, as is Quicktime
No, these two are not - they are most certainly not created by *unpaid*
programmer hours. Both Microsoft and Apple *charge* for products which
allows them to *pay* programmers who write these players.
In fact Quicktime/iTunes, arguably one of the most innovative of all
the media players, is one of the least free of all - you don't have the
source code, you aren't licensed to create derivative works (you can
call the libraries but only as allowed by Apple's license and only on
the platforms it approves) and most importantly for this discussion, it
developed, maintained, and improved by *paid* programmers.
But because there are other free players out there, the programmers who
work on Quicktime/iTunes must be paid with revenues from *other*
products. This effectively eliminates entry into the market by small,
innovative firms because they will not be able to subsidize their
player software with revenue from a larger business. If you think that
such small, innovative companies are irrelevant in this market please
realize that iTunes started life as SoundJam MP3, the product of a
small firm, which was acquired by Apple. Innovation only continues in
this product because Apple *pays* programmers for their labor.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-26 15:15:10 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
> > Windows Media Player is free, as is Quicktime
>
> No, these two are not - they are most certainly not created by *unpaid*
> programmer hours. Both Microsoft and Apple *charge* for products which
> allows them to *pay* programmers who write these players.
In this regard, it is quite similar to free software. Much of the
significant free software (e.g. Linux, Firefox, Apache) is mainly
written by people who are being *paid* to write it. The rest of it is
being written by people who are being *paid* to do other things, but
are alloting part of their own wages to fund their own free software
development.
> But because there are other free players out there, the programmers who
> work on Quicktime/iTunes must be paid with revenues from *other*
> products. This effectively eliminates entry into the market by small,
> innovative firms because they will not be able to subsidize their
> player software with revenue from a larger business. If you think that
> such small, innovative companies are irrelevant in this market please
> realize that iTunes started life as SoundJam MP3, the product of a
> small firm, which was acquired by Apple. Innovation only continues in
> this product because Apple *pays* programmers for their labor.
This is clearly nonsense. Even if there were no free players out there,
Apple would still fund the development of iTunes from other products
and attempt to raise barriers to entry, because although iTunes is
free-as-in-beer, Apple stand to make a lot of money from you actually
*using* it with the non-free equipment and services which are designed
to work with iTunes.
On 2006-07-26 16:07:23 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Much of the
> significant free software (e.g. Linux, Firefox, Apache) is mainly
> written by people who are being *paid* to write it. The rest of it is
> being written by people who are being *paid* to do other things, but
> are alloting part of their own wages to fund their own free software
> development.
These two are fundamentally different as far as programmers are
concerned. In the first case programmers are being paid for thier work
and in the second they are not. When programmers are not paid for their
programming work the demand for programmer labor declines and
programmer wages, salaries and/or hours must follow suit.
Maybe people haven't calculated the power of mass markets. Even if a
free software offering displaces a paid product that would have been
purchased by only 1/10 of 1% of computer users worldwide (i.e., about
half a million copies) for a mere $10.00 a copy that still represents
about 5 million dollars in lost revenue. Some of that revenue would
have gone to pay for many programmer hours. Now multiply this by the
many, many end-user free software products that at least *some* portion
of users would have paid *something* for and you'll see that revenue
lost to paid programmers from free software must be in the many
millions, even billions of dollars.
In effect free software has created a system that is optimized for the
wants of cheap people who will not pay for software over the wants of
people who *will* pay for software. Why oh why would programmers of all
people want to bias their behavior toward the former rather than the
latter, the paying customers?
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 16:07:23 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> Much of the
>> significant free software (e.g. Linux, Firefox, Apache) is mainly
>> written by people who are being *paid* to write it. The rest of it is
>> being written by people who are being *paid* to do other things, but
>> are alloting part of their own wages to fund their own free software
>> development.
>
> These two are fundamentally different as far as programmers are
> concerned. In the first case programmers are being paid for thier work
> and in the second they are not.
Well I disagree. IMO, in both cases, the programmers are being paid
for their work, monetarily even.
Unless there are slave programmers in some Chinese prison, that is.
We have economic actors such as Apple who win money doing one thing,
and spend it on programmers to develop QuickTime and distribute it for
$0.
The situation is not different when a particular win money doing one
thing (be it programming for a corporation, for clients, or selling
pizzas), and then spend some of this money on him doing some software,
free or not, and distributing it for $0.
Anybody who would fight against gratis software (be it free software
or freeware, and part of shareware, since most users don't pay
shareware, as most users don't pay commercial software either), should
first fight agains the big corporation that bundle software.
After all, users who need MacOSX to run Mozilla and their enterprise
software, why should they pay for the development of QuickTime, iTune,
Safari, etc all the bundled software with MacOSX?
Now let's put some numbers.
MacOSX is sold for $129.
I don't have a MacOSX at hand to get precise counts, but there must be
between 10 and 20 applications bundled (in /Applications, excluding
/Applications/Utilities which can be considered part of MacOSX), plus
Xcode in /Developer. So let's say 15 applications, one IDE and one
system. Let's say the OS and the IDE count for twice the price of an
application. This gives $6.79 per application and $13.57 for MacOSX
or Xcode.
This is the price of the well paid programmers at Apple.
This is what you have to compete against.
If you develop a Lisp IDE, assuming developers would be equally
interested in a Lisp IDE than a C/C++/Objective-C/Java IDE, you could
sell it for $13.57 a piece. How much customers would you have for a
$13.57 Lisp IDE? There are about 200 users on
irc://irc.freenode.org/#lisp and about 200 active users on
news://comp.lang.lisp.
IMO, it wouldn't be worth the additionnal work to make it
commercializable (make a ecommerce we site, add processing of
payments, generation of keys, additionnal documentation needed to
justify the $13.57, etc). If I ever write a Lisp IDE, even if as good
as Xcode, I'd have the choice between some more work for a couple of
customers and a handle of dollars, or some less work, two couples of
users, and no dollars. In both case I'll have to feed and house
myself for the duration of the development.
> When programmers are not paid for
> their programming work the demand for programmer labor declines and
> programmer wages, salaries and/or hours must follow suit.
>
> Maybe people haven't calculated the power of mass markets. Even if a
> free software offering displaces a paid product that would have been
> purchased by only 1/10 of 1% of computer users worldwide (i.e., about
> half a million copies) for a mere $10.00 a copy that still represents
> about 5 million dollars in lost revenue.
1% of the lisp market is more like 2 customers than 2 millions.
> Some of that revenue would
> have gone to pay for many programmer hours. Now multiply this by the
> many, many end-user free software products that at least *some*
> portion of users would have paid *something* for and you'll see that
> revenue lost to paid programmers from free software must be in the
> many millions, even billions of dollars.
No, because if the software wasn't bundled and provided "for free" to
the users, they would still be copying it and you'd not sell more either.
> In effect free software has created a system that is optimized for the
> wants of cheap people who will not pay for software over the wants of
> people who *will* pay for software. Why oh why would programmers of
> all people want to bias their behavior toward the former rather than
> the latter, the paying customers?
Well, perhaps we've not found many customers willing to pay for software...
(and most of them have a teenage nephew who can do it for free anyways).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Pour moi, la grande question n'a jamais �t�: �Qui suis-je? O� vais-je?�
comme l'a formul� si adroitement notre ami Pascal, mais plut�t:
�Comment vais-je m'en tirer?� -- Jean Yanne
On 2006-07-26 18:44:49 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
> I don't have a MacOSX at hand to get precise counts, but there must be
> between 10 and 20 applications bundled (in /Applications, excluding
> /Applications/Utilities which can be considered part of MacOSX), plus
> Xcode in /Developer. So let's say 15 applications, one IDE and one
> system. Let's say the OS and the IDE count for twice the price of an
> application. This gives $6.79 per application and $13.57 for MacOSX
> or Xcode.
> This is the price of the well paid programmers at Apple.
> This is what you have to compete against.
No it is not because Apple is not merely a software firm - it's not
even mostly a software firm. The retail price of Mac OS X is not an
accurate guide to what Apple is really charging for their OS since most
copies are sold with Macs which sell for a lot more than $129.00. The
overwhelming majority of Apple's revenue and profits come from hardware
sales so Apple is in effect paying its programmers with profits from
hardware sales.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86vepjzwyi.fsf@panix.com>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 15:15:10 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
>> Windows Media Player is free, as is Quicktime
>
> No, these two are not - they are most certainly not created by
> *unpaid* programmer hours. Both Microsoft and Apple *charge* for
> products which allows them to *pay* programmers who write these
> players.
You are equivocating. How does it matter whether it was created with
paid or unpaid programmer hours? The end result is a free product for
the customers. By your (previous) logic, this should result in
stagnation since no one has an incentive to produce another competing
product. Clearly this is not the case.
So now I presume your objection is to free open source software, not
just free (as in beer) software.
> But because there are other free players out there, the programmers
> who work on Quicktime/iTunes must be paid with revenues from *other*
> products. This effectively eliminates entry into the market by small,
> innovative firms because they will not be able to subsidize their
> player software with revenue from a larger business. If you think that
> such small, innovative companies are irrelevant in this market please
> realize that iTunes started life as SoundJam MP3, the product of a
> small firm, which was acquired by Apple. Innovation only continues in
> this product because Apple *pays* programmers for their labor.
Downward pressure on prices always exist in competitive markets. This
has nothing to do with whether the competition is open source or not.
In face of falling prices, a nimble business will either move up the
chain or find another arbitrage opportunity. This is a cold hard fact
of a competitive marketplace.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On 2006-07-26 20:57:09 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
> How does it matter whether it was created with
> paid or unpaid programmer hours? The end result is a free product for
> the customers.
No it is not. Quicktime is not free to me - I had to pay for a Mac to
get it and it would be totally useless to me without that Mac. So
Quicktime represents paying jobs for programmers at a firm which
charges money for their programming work every time it makes a hardware
sale.
On the other hand If a group of programmers get together and create a
media player and give it away for free none of them will ever get paid
for this work and not only are they screwing themselves they've also
eliminated possible jobs for any other programmers who could have
offered equivalent functionality for money.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-26 20:57:09 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
>> How does it matter whether it was created with
>> paid or unpaid programmer hours? The end result is a free product for
>> the customers.
>
> No it is not. Quicktime is not free to me - I had to pay for a Mac to get it
> and it would be totally useless to me without that Mac. So Quicktime
> represents paying jobs for programmers at a firm which charges money for
> their programming work every time it makes a hardware sale.
>
> On the other hand If a group of programmers get together and create a media
> player and give it away for free none of them will ever get paid for this
> work and not only are they screwing themselves they've also eliminated
> possible jobs for any other programmers who could have offered equivalent
> functionality for money.
And to prove that you're right, all you have to do is prove that nobody
ever made a commercial product based upon a free product.
On 2006-07-27 02:12:05 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> And to prove that you're right, all you have to do is prove that nobody
> ever made a commercial product based upon a free product.
This does not follow. All I need to show is that *some* commercial gain
was lost by *some* programmers in the same market.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 02:12:05 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> And to prove that you're right, all you have to do is prove that nobody
>> ever made a commercial product based upon a free product.
>
> This does not follow. All I need to show is that *some* commercial gain was
> lost by *some* programmers in the same market.
No, you said that free software would prevent "any other programmers"
from making commercial software which did the same thing.
Your amended claim that free software prevents *some* programmers from
making equivalent commercial software isn't even interesting. It's just a
special case of the claim that "software which is cheaper than you can
afford to charge prevents you making equivalent software."
Even if that were universally true, you're just arguing against
competition: if people sell lower than you have to cut costs to compete.
Only way out is to prohibit the competition from selling lower than you
can afford to sell for.
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnechkd4.ivv.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-27, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
>> On 2006-07-27 02:12:05 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>>
>>> And to prove that you're right, all you have to do is prove that nobody
>>> ever made a commercial product based upon a free product.
>>
>> This does not follow. All I need to show is that *some* commercial gain was
>> lost by *some* programmers in the same market.
>
> No, you said that free software would prevent "any other programmers"
> from making commercial software which did the same thing.
there is a difference from 'any to 'every' You are interpiting one as
the other. While a reasonable read to a native speaker it may not be
what was intended it could also be intended as 'some'.
>
> Your amended claim that free software prevents *some* programmers from
> making equivalent commercial software isn't even interesting. It's just a
> special case of the claim that "software which is cheaper than you can
> afford to charge prevents you making equivalent software."
>
No the argument is that free software is damaging to the market because it
is dumping software on the market that is funded by some other source of
income. And this destroys paying jobs for programmers. This is because
when presented with an 80% solution for $0 most of the market will not pay
for the other 20% that a commercial product brings to the table. This
means that money will look elsewhere for profit and not fund jobs in this
area.
Also as Kent pointed out elsewhere in this thread the risk to capitol is also
there from people who come up with a new idea, because once they start selling
it some one, or group, will probably copy it if it is at all useful. And this
also kills the market for the product. There is a reason that most of the
sucess stories I have heard abount are server based, you need to pay money
for servers and bandwidht. This really lessens the risk to the bussiness,
someone has to pay for the network
>
> Even if that were universally true, you're just arguing against
> competition: if people sell lower than you have to cut costs to compete.
> Only way out is to prohibit the competition from selling lower than you
> can afford to sell for.
Its not the competition, it is the dumping on the market that we are talking
about. For example the college Free Software hacker spends X hours a week
working on project Y and this time is funded by his parents. Now what would
happen if the parrents said I am docking your allowance because you could find
a paying job with those hours you spend working on that free stuff. Now go
find work or not as you see fit. Now what would happen?
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: Holger Schauer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yxzirljrx2y.fsf@gmx.de>
On 4711 September 1993, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> But because there are other free players out there, the programmers
> who work on Quicktime/iTunes must be paid with revenues from *other*
> products.
This is AFAIK wrong. If you want to include Quicktime within a
commercial product (say, some multimedia application), you need a
non-free (as in beer) licence.
Holger
--
--- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ ---
"Vermutlich ist das bei den Verkehrsteilnehmern wie bei Ratten: zu dicht
auf einen Haufen gedraengt werden die agressiv und homosexuell. Vermut-
lich daher das zu dichte Auffahren auf den Arsch des Vordermanns?"
-- Uwe Borchert in de.soc.verkehr
On 2006-07-27 09:33:57 -0400, Holger Schauer <··············@gmx.de> said:
> If you want to include Quicktime within a
> commercial product (say, some multimedia application), you need a
> non-free (as in beer) licence.
On the Mac you just call the libraries for free - they're part of
Apple's OS. You wouldn't need to distribute the QuickTime Player
application itself - it ships as part of the operating system. You must
be talking about Windows only applications based on the QuickTime
libraries which is not the principal market for QuickTime. QuickTime's
principal markets are macs and Windows using purchasers of iPods - the
QuickTime libraries provide the core functionality for iTunes. So
QuickTime development is funded by sales of Macs and iPods and to a
lesser extent by sales of Mac OS X. Licenses to Windows developers
can't be a large revenue source compared to these.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uejw7o938.fsf@nhplace.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> That's funny... Windows Media Player is free, as is Quicktime, Winamp,
> Foobar2000, Itunes, Yahoo Music Engine, Realplayer etc. etc. Not to
> mention the various open source alternatives: Amarok, Rhythmbox, XMMS,
> Totem, Mplayer, Xine etc.
>
> If that's a stagnant market, I'll take it.
It IS a stagnant market. After decades of "innovation", amazing
speed-ups in processor power, orders of magnitude people involved, the
top selling products are just elaborate forms of tools already
available prior to the age of the personal computer: vcrs and stereos.
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
> The question regarding free software is "how much better off would
> programmers be if there weren't this vast supply of software for
> $0.00?" The answer is the same - "a whole lot better off."
>
and as that is a world we will never see, we will never know for
certain. I do know from my own position that if it wasn't for free
software, I would not have been able to gain the skills I have
(because I wouldn't have been able to afford all the software needed
to learn what I have). I have also made a very nice living for the
past 10+ years almost exclusively based on free software and I've been
able to move into different areas which I doubt would have been
possible with only commercial products at my disposal.
Bottom line, if a programmer cannot earn money because they are trying
to produce something which is already available for free, then its not
the free software that leaves them unemployed/poor, its the fact they
are not offering anything of value. Its not much different to the
companies that made money producing useful utilities and file managers
for DOS. Once Windows came along and had this level of functionality
as part of the base OS, they either had to start doing something
different or be unemployed. Essentially, this is just the evolving
market in action and we have to evolve with it.
It should also be noted therre are a lot of areas of software
development which OSS does not address or does not address as well as
the commercial companies. Go and have a look at what is available in
OSS and you will find lots of areas where free software has not
managed to come up with a competitive free version. For example, text
to speech and voice recognition. Therre are open source versions
available, but they are basically primitive compared to commercial
solutions. OCR is another area where no open source version is even
close to what is available commercially. To a large extent, what is
available in open source tends to be in areas that are well understood
and already quite saturated by the commercial vendors.
This is one way in which OSS is a benefit - it forces commercial
producers to concentrate in new areas and invest in stuff which has
not been done before.
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
On 2006-07-29 21:22:28 -0400, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> said:
> Bottom line, if a programmer cannot earn money because they are trying
> to produce something which is already available for free, then its not
> the free software that leaves them unemployed/poor, its the fact they
> are not offering anything of value.
This is simply false. Entry into a market where there is already a free
offering cannot happen without subsidy of some kind since to make
inroads your initial offering must itself be free. The market's
expectation is that that good or service will be free so to compete you
must be free - at least initially - as well.
Ironically, free software has done more to entrench large firms and
give them a competitive advantage wrt small software firms than it has
to diminish the power of large software firms. Only large firms can
afford to compete in markets where there is already a free offering
because only large firms can afford the loss-leader or cross subsidy.
So small firms lose markets to large proprietary firms - markets the
small firms could have competed in had there not been a free offering.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 21:22:28 -0400, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> said:
>
>> Bottom line, if a programmer cannot earn money because they are trying
>> to produce something which is already available for free, then its not
>> the free software that leaves them unemployed/poor, its the fact they
>> are not offering anything of value.
>
> This is simply false. Entry into a market where there is already a free
> offering cannot happen without subsidy of some kind since to make inroads
> your initial offering must itself be free.
This is simply false. If you try to enter a market with nothing more than
a direct clone of a free product, then you're probably not going to
succeed. That isn't anything magical due to it being free. If you try to
enter a market with nothing more than a direct clone of a
non-free-but-cheaper-than-yours product, then you're probably not gonig to
succeed.
The problem is that if you try to enter a market with nothing more than a
direct clone of an existing product, you *must* be able to offer it at a
lower price than the existing product. The solution is to enter the market
with a *superior* product, one which offers more value to the consumer,
exactly as Tim X said.
> The market's expectation is that that good or service will be free so to
> compete you must be free - at least initially - as well.
This is *clearly* false. There is free software in the market, but the
market doesn't expect all software to be free.
Nathan Baum wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> > On 2006-07-29 21:22:28 -0400, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> said:
> >
> >> Bottom line, if a programmer cannot earn money because they are trying
> >> to produce something which is already available for free, then its not
> >> the free software that leaves them unemployed/poor, its the fact they
> >> are not offering anything of value.
> >
> > This is simply false. Entry into a market where there is already a free
> > offering cannot happen without subsidy of some kind since to make inroads
> > your initial offering must itself be free.
>
> This is simply false. If you try to enter a market with nothing more than
> a direct clone of a free product, then you're probably not going to
> succeed. That isn't anything magical due to it being free. If you try to
> enter a market with nothing more than a direct clone of a
> non-free-but-cheaper-than-yours product, then you're probably not gonig to
> succeed.
>
The different is that, somehow, the non-free-but-cheap product must be
backed up by a company, and that company has to make money. So there
*cheap* price must be limited by some factor.
But with free product in FS case, there is no company backing it up,
there is no employee directly under the software company so FS is like
company that never have need.
What is the needed income, in money, for free software community?
What's price, in money, you have to pay to keep your project in
sourceforge?
What's price, in money, you have to pay to keep contributor
contributing to your project?
Even if they are paid by some other company to do fulltime support of
CLISP, they are still not paid directly from FSF. From the point of
view of CLISP the cost of hiring full time developer is zero. So CLISP
project has virtually no budget to pays but can still produce product
at zero price. FSF has no need to raise money, they only need to keep
the side up and running.
If there exists a company that can produce product with out any need
for income, what kind of company can compete with it? If there exists a
Car company that every employee doesn't have to eat and need no home,
how cheap will the resulting product be? Can you compete with them?
> The problem is that if you try to enter a market with nothing more than a
> direct clone of an existing product, you *must* be able to offer it at a
> lower price than the existing product. The solution is to enter the market
> with a *superior* product, one which offers more value to the consumer,
> exactly as Tim X said.
>
And then FS can copy your feature with **zero** cost in money from
their perspective and continue giving away for free, then they may add
some features that you want to copy with some cost because you have to
eat.
How could you stay ahead in business with someone who doesn't have to
eat in the business where the only the main resource (IDEA) can be
easily copy. Or do you encourage all new superior features be patented?
> > The market's expectation is that that good or service will be free so to
> > compete you must be free - at least initially - as well.
>
> This is *clearly* false. There is free software in the market, but the
> market doesn't expect all software to be free.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3lkq8y8gz.fsf@athena.pienet>
"Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Nathan Baum wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> > The problem is that if you try to enter a market with nothing more than a
> > direct clone of an existing product, you *must* be able to offer it at a
> > lower price than the existing product. The solution is to enter the market
> > with a *superior* product, one which offers more value to the consumer,
> > exactly as Tim X said.
> >
>
> And then FS can copy your feature with **zero** cost in money from
> their perspective and continue giving away for free, then they may add
> some features that you want to copy with some cost because you have to
> eat.
>
> How could you stay ahead in business with someone who doesn't have to
> eat in the business where the only the main resource (IDEA) can be
> easily copy. Or do you encourage all new superior features be patented?
And this is different from a for-profit copying your program's features
in what way?
So you're in favor of protecting your market by legally constraining
what others do instead of relying on your engineering and experience to
make a better product?
As as been pointed out before, ideas are cheap- its implementations that
matter.
Gregm
On 2006-08-01 07:57:16 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> And this is different from a for-profit copying your program's features
> in what way?
Because it is then possible for you or some other competitor to offer a
superior product at a *lower* price in order to enter the market. When
there is already a free offering market entry become impossible unless
you can initially offer your superior product for nothing. This
effectively excludes small firms who cannot afford to develop and
market a zero revenue product.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3mzao73iz.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-08-01 07:57:16 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > And this is different from a for-profit copying your program's features
> > in what way?
>
> Because it is then possible for you or some other competitor to offer a
> superior product at a *lower* price in order to enter the market. When
> there is already a free offering market entry become impossible unless
> you can initially offer your superior product for nothing. This
> effectively excludes small firms who cannot afford to develop and market
> a zero revenue product.
Don't be silly. Offer a BETTER product. If the free offering is
already what people want and you can't distinguish your product
technically and so make it attractive, then you're entering the wrong
market.
Gregm
On 2006-08-01 13:46:12 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> Don't be silly. Offer a BETTER product. If the free offering is
> already what people want and you can't distinguish your product
> technically and so make it attractive, then you're entering the wrong
> market.
Sorry to leave you hanging, but I've been requested by a correspondent
to this newsgroup to stop posting to this off-topic thread.
regards,
Ralph
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-08-01 07:57:16 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
>> And this is different from a for-profit copying your program's features
>> in what way?
>
> Because it is then possible for you or some other competitor to offer a
> superior product at a *lower* price in order to enter the market. When there
> is already a free offering market entry become impossible unless you can
> initially offer your superior product for nothing. This effectively excludes
> small firms who cannot afford to develop and market a zero revenue product.
How does this claim stand up against the simple fact that superior
products are regularly sold in the market?
Indeed, free-but-inferior products have been used as 'bait' to hook people
onto non-free-but-superior products in all markets for thousands of years.
On 2006-08-01 15:16:07 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> How does this claim stand up against the simple fact that superior
> products are regularly sold in the market?
>
> Indeed, free-but-inferior products have been used as 'bait' to hook
> people onto non-free-but-superior products in all markets for thousands
> of years.
Sorry to leave you hanging, but I've been requested by a correspondent
to this newsgroup to stop posting to this off-topic thread.
regards,
Ralph
Greg Menke wrote:
> "Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Nathan Baum wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> >
> > > The problem is that if you try to enter a market with nothing more than a
> > > direct clone of an existing product, you *must* be able to offer it at a
> > > lower price than the existing product. The solution is to enter the market
> > > with a *superior* product, one which offers more value to the consumer,
> > > exactly as Tim X said.
> > >
> >
> > And then FS can copy your feature with **zero** cost in money from
> > their perspective and continue giving away for free, then they may add
> > some features that you want to copy with some cost because you have to
> > eat.
> >
> > How could you stay ahead in business with someone who doesn't have to
> > eat in the business where the only the main resource (IDEA) can be
> > easily copy. Or do you encourage all new superior features be patented?
>
>
> And this is different from a for-profit copying your program's features
> in what way?
The for-profit has to eat.
>
> So you're in favor of protecting your market by legally constraining
> what others do instead of relying on your engineering and experience to
> make a better product?
>
> As as been pointed out before, ideas are cheap- its implementations that
> matter.
>
Doesn't FS favor say software has no price and only service pays? As
far as I knew, software is "implementation".
> Gregm
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m34pwv72w2.fsf@athena.pienet>
"Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Greg Menke wrote:
> > "Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > How could you stay ahead in business with someone who doesn't have to
> > > eat in the business where the only the main resource (IDEA) can be
> > > easily copy. Or do you encourage all new superior features be patented?
> >
> >
> > And this is different from a for-profit copying your program's features
> > in what way?
>
> The for-profit has to eat.
So it wouldn't bother you for a for-profit to wipe out your competing
software? Its just the for free people that offend? Either way your
product isn't selling.
Gregm
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> One of the clear negatives of free *anything* is that it devalues the
> labor of those who specialize in producing it.
*demonetarizes*, not devalues.
And for me, freedom software has more value than commercial, so much
that I'm more ready to pay for freedom software than for commercial.
> I can see that certain
> free offerings can bring strategic advantage in the face of a monopoly
> - linux comes to mind here - but I have never understood why
> professional programmers would champion free software *in general* any
> more than shoemakers would champion free shoes or tailors champion
> free three piece suits. It's just plain self destructive.
>
> I believe a large part of it is psychological. In youth the adult
> world can seem so overwhelming, so corrupt and sordid as to be
> positively frightening. There's a strong temptation to just check out
> entirely -
> not compete at all. One way to opt out of the adult world is to not
> play by its rules and offer one's work product for free. Now there's
> no need to test yourself against an outside standard (not objective
> mind you - markets can be pretty damned arbitrary so they're not
> "objective"). You give your stuff away so there's no outside,
> financial judgement of your work because all free stuff is inherently
> good, right? Combine this with the impecuniousness of youth for the
> consumers-of-free-stuff part of the equation and you have a large
> youth mind-share for "free is inherently good." Sadly they will change
> their tune when they inevitably have kids, buy houses and have to
> start planning for retirement. Then they'll see why Kent told them
> they shouldn't value their work product at (+ $0.00 major-props)
> since most lenders will not accept major-props as a mortgage payment.
I've paid for a couple of linux distributions.
(On the other hand, I've never paid, or never paid voluntarily for a
Microsoft OS. I've been given one (legal) copy, and I've been sold
two packaged with the computer (which I canned as fast as possible
and replaced with NeXTSTEP or Linux).)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
The mighty hunter
Returns with gifts of plump birds,
Your foot just squashed one.
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3u055q746.fsf@NOSPAMgmail.com>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
> For example, I'm sure everyone here has seen the rather misleading
> graphs that purport to show that if you had invested $1000.00 in the
> "stock market" in 1929 - right before the crash - you'd still be a
> multimillionaire today. What they don't tell you is that in real dollar
> terms you'd still only have broken even in the late 1980s - i.e. no long
> term net gain for 60 years - and that's *before taxes*:
> <http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/stock-market/>
Actually, you'd have broken even in 1957, and then surpassed that for
most of the 1960s, reaching a high point in 1965, after which there was
a long steady drop until 1982, when things finally began to pick up
again.
> I can see that certain free offerings can bring strategic advantage in
> the face of a monopoly - linux comes to mind here - but I have never
> understood why professional programmers would champion free software
> *in general* any more than shoemakers would champion free shoes or
> tailors champion free three piece suits. It's just plain self
> destructive.
Might not prostitutes want love deep down, despite the fact that in a
world of monogamy their fortunes would wane? The free software issue is
a moral one, after all, and oftentimes that which is moral is not that
which is materially rewarding.
Free software is not and never has been about the programmers; it's
always been about the users. It has, in fact, envisioned a future in
which all users are empowered programmers. Now, as a side-effect it may
have some good side-effects for programmers (e.g. the GNU stack, which
is generally very good, capable & full-featured software)--but that has
never been the point. Free software says to programmers 'do that which
is good,' not 'do that which lines yours pockets.'
Although, from the point of view of an impecunious hobbyist, the dollar
value of free software is far greater than I could ever afford to pay.
Much like, interestingly, the dollar value of Western civilisation is
far greater than I could ever afford to pay...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
I'm seriously considering getting one of those bright-orange prison
overalls and stencilling PASSENGER on the back. Along with the paper
slippers, I ought to be able to walk right through security. Not.
--Brian Kantor
On 2006-07-26 01:15:37 -0400, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> said:
> The free software issue is
> a moral one, after all, and oftentimes that which is moral is not that
> which is materially rewarding.
It doesn't always matter what motivates peoples actions - we have to
look at the effects. Though presented as a moral issue it has
significant economic consequences.
>
> Free software is not and never has been about the programmers; it's
> always been about the users.
You're arguing my point - free software can be very bad for
programmers. It is only an unqualified good for cheapos who want free
stuff.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86fygpexm6.fsf@panix.com>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>> Free software is not and never has been about the programmers; it's
>> always been about the users.
>
> You're arguing my point - free software can be very bad for
> programmers. It is only an unqualified good for cheapos who want free
> stuff.
I would not claim that free software is an unqualified good, but I do
think that you're viewing it from a very narrow perspective.
Instinctively, it does seem plausible that free software will result
in the lowering of programmers' wages. But this is based on a false
assumption and ignores another important fact.
The false assumption is that most programmers will choose to work on
the same problems that have already been solved by free software.
Certainly there will be some programmers who do this and unless they
come up with a sufficiently better value proposition, they will lose.
OTOH, smart programmers will work on problems which haven't been
solved and where they can leverage the huge amount of free software
that is extant to bring their solution to market at lower expenditure
of time and capital.
The important fact that is being ignored is that well over 90% of the
software industry consists of turnkey and custom software solutions,
an area where free software can never make inroads. Where do you
think IBM GS, Accenture, EDS, CA, Infosys etc. make their big money?
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On 2006-07-26 01:36:17 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
> The important fact that is being ignored is that well over 90% of the
> software industry consists of turnkey and custom software solutions,
> an area where free software can never make inroads.
But it most certainly can and does when free software forms an
important part of these custom solutions because that means these
custom solutions will require fewer paid programming hours. Notice I
said *paid* programming hours - the total number of hours will be the
same, its just that no programmers will be getting paid for the work
they did to produce the free software components of the custom solution.
Again, as long as the only free components are infrastructure software
the arguemnt can be made that this is a wash for programmers. But if
the custom solution contains free components that are not
infrastructure software then this will be a net loss for programmers.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-26 01:36:17 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
> > The important fact that is being ignored is that well over 90% of the
> > software industry consists of turnkey and custom software solutions,
> > an area where free software can never make inroads.
>
> But it most certainly can and does when free software forms an
> important part of these custom solutions because that means these
> custom solutions will require fewer paid programming hours. Notice I
> said *paid* programming hours - the total number of hours will be the
> same, its just that no programmers will be getting paid for the work
> they did to produce the free software components of the custom solution.
That's completely wrong.
The free components of the custom solution are only developed once. If
it costs (somebody) 1000 manhours to make it, then that cost is never
paid again. Hence, if somebody later decides to use a free component in
a custom program, that somebody doesn't have to pay that manhour cost
again. A hundred people could reuse that component in their own custom
programs, and each time the 1000 manhours it cost to make the component
originally does not have to be repaid.
Claiming that free software means everyone writing custom software
using that free software has to do all the work of making the free
software is as ridiculous as claiming that free roads means everyone
driving to the shops has to do all the work of laying the tarmac.
Ignoring the impossibility of the claim, even if it were true, the
actual result would be that custom software developers would more
likely *choose* not to use free software, since using free software
would mean they'd have to do the same amount of work but get paid less
for it. That would be silly: the attraction of free software for
commercial enterprises is that you do less work and don't have to pay
somebody else to do it.
On 2006-07-26 15:58:02 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> The free components of the custom solution are only developed once. If
> it costs (somebody) 1000 manhours to make it, then that cost is never
> paid again.
Your arguing *my* point. That cost is never paid again by the
contractor in man-hours but it is also never paid again *by the
customer*. In other words, the programmers who originally developed
this free end-user component now used as part of custom solutions will
*never* be paid for their work no matter how many users use it, even if
those users are inclined and accustomed, as clients of custom
development firms are, to *pay for software*!
This is a perfect example of lost revenue. You have a customer who is
known to be willing to pay for software. You have programmers who can
one of two ways:
1. they could make their end-user component proprietary so that in each
project in which it is used the client gets billed a per-unit cost for
that end-user software component and the programmers thus get paid for
their work.
2. they could make their component free in which case no matter how
many copies of their end-user software component are deployed *the
programmers never get paid one thin dime!*
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m38xmgas6b.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 15:58:02 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
> > The free components of the custom solution are only developed once. If
> > it costs (somebody) 1000 manhours to make it, then that cost is never
> > paid again.
>
> Your arguing *my* point. That cost is never paid again by the contractor
> in man-hours but it is also never paid again *by the customer*. In other
> words, the programmers who originally developed this free end-user
> component now used as part of custom solutions will *never* be paid for
> their work no matter how many users use it, even if those users are
> inclined and accustomed, as clients of custom development firms are, to
> *pay for software*!
But the programmers never had an expectation of being paid- they got
some other kind of benefit from doing the work. Perhaps money is "lost"
in some abstract sense, but it was never expected in the first place so
the potential for being given it in exchange was never there.
> This is a perfect example of lost revenue. You have a customer who is
> known to be willing to pay for software. You have programmers who can
> one of two ways:
>
> 1. they could make their end-user component proprietary so that in each
> project in which it is used the client gets billed a per-unit cost for
> that end-user software component and the programmers thus get paid for
> their work.
All perfectly fine, but they should not expect the customer to happily
continue to pay the per-unit costs and should not be suprised when the
customer finds something non-proprietary so they can control costs.
> 2. they could make their component free in which case no matter how many
> copies of their end-user software component are deployed *the
> programmers never get paid one thin dime!*
BUT THE PROGRAMMERS CHOSE TO MAKE THEIR WORK FREE. If the prospect of
per-unit fees paid by end-users was desired, then the programmers would
choose option #1 above or something similar.
Gregm
On 2006-07-26 18:59:40 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> BUT THE PROGRAMMERS CHOSE TO MAKE THEIR WORK FREE.
BUT THIS IS A VERY STUPID CHOICE.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3d5br2uiy.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 18:59:40 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > BUT THE PROGRAMMERS CHOSE TO MAKE THEIR WORK FREE.
>
> BUT THIS IS A VERY STUPID CHOICE.
THEN DON'T DO IT YOURSELF. ACCEPT THE FACT THAT YOUR VALUE JUDGEMENTS
TO NOT APPLY UNIVERSALLY AND OTHERS MAY MAKE DIFFERENT ONES.
Gregm
On 2006-07-27 06:48:21 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> THEN DON'T DO IT YOURSELF. ACCEPT THE FACT THAT YOUR VALUE JUDGEMENTS
> TO NOT APPLY UNIVERSALLY AND OTHERS MAY MAKE DIFFERENT ONES.
I'm quite fully aware that others will make different choices. My
purpose here is not even to convince you or Nathan but rather to give
balance to the whole free software issue to the many hundreds of
lurkers on c.l.l
When I first came to the newsgroup about a decade ago I also had a very
rosy view of free software. After reading posts by many people here,
including Kent, and after becoming familiar with the outcomes of a
number of projects I came to appreciate that there are two sides to
this story, and that free software is not an unqualified good.
My only hope here is to influence many other readers so that when they
have this choice to make more of them will choose to value their work
product - their "inspiration" as Kent puts it - at more than zero
dollars - that they will have the courage to go against the free
software crowd and say "my software is worth something and I expect to
be paid for it" and not feel as if they are committing some grave moral
sin against the technological commune or swimming upstream against some
irreversible tide of economic history.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m38xmezroy.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-27 06:48:21 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > THEN DON'T DO IT YOURSELF. ACCEPT THE FACT THAT YOUR VALUE JUDGEMENTS
> > TO NOT APPLY UNIVERSALLY AND OTHERS MAY MAKE DIFFERENT ONES.
>
> I'm quite fully aware that others will make different choices. My
> purpose here is not even to convince you or Nathan but rather to give
> balance to the whole free software issue to the many hundreds of lurkers
> on c.l.l
>
> When I first came to the newsgroup about a decade ago I also had a very
> rosy view of free software. After reading posts by many people here,
> including Kent, and after becoming familiar with the outcomes of a
> number of projects I came to appreciate that there are two sides to this
> story, and that free software is not an unqualified good.
No-one is arguing that free softare is an unqualified good- I think
everyone agrees that it isn't. Perhaps we disagree on what the
tradeoffs are.
> My only hope here is to influence many other readers so that when they
> have this choice to make more of them will choose to value their work
> product - their "inspiration" as Kent puts it - at more than zero
> dollars - that they will have the courage to go against the free
> software crowd and say "my software is worth something and I expect to
> be paid for it" and not feel as if they are committing some grave moral
> sin against the technological commune or swimming upstream against some
> irreversible tide of economic history.
And you seem unable to accept the fact that those who put their work in
to a free software product do so because they get value back in ways
other than salary and that their payback is even better when their work is
more extensively used. Those that want money for the work they do
should choose their projects (and the licensing terms under which
its done) differently.
If you dislike the FSF because of their ideological stance, thats fine-
but that hardly makes people "foolish" for working on free software.
Gregm
On 2006-07-27 17:03:09 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> And you seem unable to accept the fact that those who put their work in
> to a free software product do so because they get value back in ways
> other than salary and that their payback is even better when their work is
> more extensively used.
I'm quite able to accept this but I don't think this is the whole
story. I think that many people who put their work into a free software
product do not really realize the (largely) unintended consequences of
doing so - specifically the downward pressure on programmer wages and
the reduced availability of programmer work.
I conclude this because it has taken me here about two dozen posts back
and forth to get from just one poster a grudging admission that "low
priced software" puts downward pressure on programmer wages. I really
think that free software advocates are in denial about the unintended
negative consequeces of giving away end-user software to be freely
copied.
> Those that want money for the work they do
> should choose their projects (and the licensing terms under which
> its done) differently.
This is precisely my point. I think that many free software programmers
do not choose the license they release their software under with any
eye to the possible negative consequences. If they thought about these
consequences more carefully some might well choose to license it
differently or to not contribute to free end-user software projects. My
only point here has been to get people to think about the possible
negatives of giving away software for no monetary compensation.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <ubqra20pe.fsf@nhplace.com>
Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
> No-one is arguing that free softare is an unqualified good- I think
> everyone agrees that it isn't. Perhaps we disagree on what the
> tradeoffs are.
I'd count it a HUGE win if we even could just list out the possible
issues, and talk about ways of being alert to them, etc.
For example, something that was a problem in the situation with Franz
and me was the lack of knowledge by either of us that the other was
working on something. I don't see a clear resolution to that, but
understanding that such knowledge is critical is important. But just
saying "everyone should declare what they're up to" is not an answer.
There are very good commercial reasons on both sides for not revealing
the information too early. That, to me, reduces it to a question of
"prisoner's dilemma" style communication, and underscores the importance
of everyone understanding what the group expectation is, etc.
To continue that example, someone suggested that it was better that
"standards" be addressed by free offerings than "applications". I don't
know if that's so, but if it were, then we could advise people that if
they delve into implementing standards, they are at higher risk of
collision than if they don't. Understanding where the risks are, and
that they are not uniformly distributed, seems important.
> > My only hope here is to influence many other readers so that when they
> > have this choice to make more of them will choose to value their work
> > product - their "inspiration" as Kent puts it - at more than zero
> > dollars - that they will have the courage to go against the free
> > software crowd and say "my software is worth something and I expect to
> > be paid for it" and not feel as if they are committing some grave moral
> > sin against the technological commune or swimming upstream against some
> > irreversible tide of economic history.
>
> And you seem unable to accept the fact that those who put their work in
> to a free software product do so because they
"think they will"
> get value back in ways
> other than salary and that their payback is even better when their work is
> more extensively used. Those that want money for the work they do
> should choose their projects (and the licensing terms under which
> its done) differently.
How can it be that every time we talk about making money back, someone
tells us we can't know that we will make money back or that there will
be interest, and yet every time someone talks about how the people who
contribute free stuff will know they are getting back adoration or
love or roses or something, no one dives in to say "you can't know
you'll get that". We hear over and over that people diving into this
"know what they are doing", and yet we hear over and over that people
diving into the other paradigm "can't know what they are doing because
markets are unpredictable". Something seems very unbalanced about the
way this argument goes.
Even the copyright law itself, in its modern incarnation, has a bizarre
thing in it (last I checked) wherein you can (after some number of
years) yank back from the person you sold the copyright to your rights
to the work. A quick google search turns up
http://www.authorsguild.org/TerminatingTransfers.pdf
The theory, if I understand right, and I don't know how well it plays out, is
that when you're young and naive, someone may say "Great play, Shakespeare,
but no one really likes these things. I'll give you $10 for it." and then
wander off and profit immensely. So you're supposed to be able to, later
in life, go back and notify the owner that you want a second chance at it,
now that you realize it was of value. My knowledge on this is not up
to date, so if anyone has a more authoritative take on it, including whether
it's ever been tried, I'd be curious to hear. It seems to me to stand
somewhat in violation of contract law, but then, I'd heard that places
would just make you sign away both sets of rights before giving you money.
And I've sometimes wondered, though, whether someone having written a GPL
could yank the rug out from under things later on in life by applying
this right to the rights signed away on a GPL'd item... Ah well.
So there is the notion, codified into the law, that people might not realize
what they were giving up, and might later regret it.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
>
>> No-one is arguing that free softare is an unqualified good- I think
>> everyone agrees that it isn't. Perhaps we disagree on what the
>> tradeoffs are.
>
> I'd count it a HUGE win if we even could just list out the possible
> issues, and talk about ways of being alert to them, etc.
>
> For example, something that was a problem in the situation with Franz
> and me was the lack of knowledge by either of us that the other was
> working on something. I don't see a clear resolution to that, but
> understanding that such knowledge is critical is important. But just
> saying "everyone should declare what they're up to" is not an answer.
> There are very good commercial reasons on both sides for not revealing
> the information too early. That, to me, reduces it to a question of
> "prisoner's dilemma" style communication, and underscores the importance
> of everyone understanding what the group expectation is, etc.
>
> To continue that example, someone suggested that it was better that
> "standards" be addressed by free offerings than "applications". I don't
> know if that's so, but if it were, then we could advise people that if
> they delve into implementing standards, they are at higher risk of
> collision than if they don't. Understanding where the risks are, and
> that they are not uniformly distributed, seems important.
>
>>> My only hope here is to influence many other readers so that when they
>>> have this choice to make more of them will choose to value their work
>>> product - their "inspiration" as Kent puts it - at more than zero
>>> dollars - that they will have the courage to go against the free
>>> software crowd and say "my software is worth something and I expect to
>>> be paid for it" and not feel as if they are committing some grave moral
>>> sin against the technological commune or swimming upstream against some
>>> irreversible tide of economic history.
>>
>> And you seem unable to accept the fact that those who put their work in
>> to a free software product do so because they
>
> "think they will"
Be fair, Kent. The people who develop proprietary software only "think
they will" recover development costs from sales.
>> get value back in ways
>> other than salary and that their payback is even better when their work is
>> more extensively used. Those that want money for the work they do
>> should choose their projects (and the licensing terms under which
>> its done) differently.
>
> How can it be that every time we talk about making money back, someone
> tells us we can't know that we will make money back or that there will
> be interest, and yet every time someone talks about how the people who
> contribute free stuff will know they are getting back adoration or
> love or roses or something, no one dives in to say "you can't know
> you'll get that".
Actually, I believe *you* dive in and say that. ;-)
> We hear over and over that people diving into this "know what they are
> doing", and yet we hear over and over that people diving into the other
> paradigm "can't know what they are doing because markets are
> unpredictable". Something seems very unbalanced about the way this
> argument goes.
It's because what's expected in return is somewhat different. If you
don't get love and adoration when you were expecting it, the results are
unlikely to be as life changing as if you don't get money when you were
expecting it.
I think the reason these people "know what they are doing" is that whilst
they must know the expected returns are not a dead cert, they also know
they can survive without them.
> Even the copyright law itself, in its modern incarnation, has a bizarre
> thing in it (last I checked) wherein you can (after some number of
> years) yank back from the person you sold the copyright to your rights
> to the work. A quick google search turns up
> http://www.authorsguild.org/TerminatingTransfers.pdf
> The theory, if I understand right, and I don't know how well it plays out, is
> that when you're young and naive, someone may say "Great play, Shakespeare,
> but no one really likes these things. I'll give you $10 for it." and then
> wander off and profit immensely. So you're supposed to be able to, later
> in life, go back and notify the owner that you want a second chance at it,
> now that you realize it was of value. My knowledge on this is not up
> to date, so if anyone has a more authoritative take on it, including whether
> it's ever been tried, I'd be curious to hear. It seems to me to stand
> somewhat in violation of contract law, but then, I'd heard that places
> would just make you sign away both sets of rights before giving you money.
> And I've sometimes wondered, though, whether someone having written a GPL
> could yank the rug out from under things later on in life by applying
> this right to the rights signed away on a GPL'd item... Ah well.
It looks to me like the situation is:
Somebody who worked on a GPLed program could, 35 years after having
done so, take back the license. Any contract they may have agreed with
the recipient of the code cannot prevent this.
In particular, even though GNU require that you transfer copyright
ownership to them for contributions to GNU programs, article 203 still
allows you to revoke that transfer, even if the contract states you aren't
allowed to.
If you were working on a GPLed program for money, then whoever paid you
has this right.
Significantly, derivative works of the work you produced may still be
utilised to the full extent permitted by the GPL except that you may not
make more derivative works even though the GPL says you can. In essence,
this means that if somebody retracts the grant of license to a component
of GCC, then GCC can still be distributed and used freely, but no new
versions of GCC could be prepared until the no-longer-GPLed components
were removed.
This is quite convenient for the free software community, since it means
that it is possible to recover from a retraction of rights with only a
haitus whilst development of the program effected will stop, but
distribution and use of it may continue, except in special cases where
use necessarily involves making derivative works, such as bison.
> So there is the notion, codified into the law, that people might not realize
> what they were giving up, and might later regret it.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <umzav9xyv.fsf@nhplace.com>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-26 18:59:40 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > BUT THE PROGRAMMERS CHOSE TO MAKE THEIR WORK FREE.
>
> BUT THIS IS A VERY STUPID CHOICE.
Personally, I would insert a qualifying word like "sometimes" in
there. (I actually think the term "often" is right, but I don't have
any data to back up a frequency claim, so I'll just go with
"sometimes" because such a claim can reasonably made from a structural
argument rather than a statistical argument.)
But this conversation is going nowhere because the only people we're
talking to seem to have their minds closed. They're not trying to
listen, nor even to allow us to talk to people who would listen to us.
They are so desperately afraid their beliefs won't stand up against
our arguments that they have to expend energy discrediting the
possibility that there's counterpoint. I take that personally as a
debate win, just as I take it as a win in an argument about religion
when someone says "we have to protect God's way by not allowing
blasphemy". (I'm pretty sure God can protect himself, and it seems to
me that the very essence of man having to defend God is non-faith, so
I always take that as a win.) If these guys believe they have to
convince us there is no ill effect for there to be no ill effect, then
they've lost already. If it's not enough for them to say "Well, this
works works often enough to make us happy, and we proudly call any bad
case you come up with an 'acceptable casualty'." then they've lost
becuase they're saying that in order to believe what they believe, they
must have no counterpoint.
Rather than beat a dead horse, then, I'd like to ask a question to get
the conversation back onto the real track I meant to open by starting
this subthread... something related directly to comp.lang.lisp and not
to abstract philosophy:
Suppose I have written a piece of software. (Not something that
solves problems for end-users. If it drove a vacuum cleaner, I'd pack
it in a vacuum cleaner and sell it like Apple sells Quicktime--free if
you just buy the large piece of metal and plastic required to run it.)
No, this piece of software helps programmers--the ones who, unlike
janitors, expect not to pay anything for anything.
Suppose I believe it is something others will want to use. Something that
doesn't exist. Something that will save time. Something that long ago
we would have said "people would pay for". But now, well, ... the question
is, what do I do now, in the present day, the one I'm supposed to get
used to and not fight.
I guess there are two questions:
(a) Suppose I grant for argument that it's a brave new world and
we do things differently now. Enlighten me. I have mouths to feed
in my household. I have something I think people want. Tell me how
I give away what I own for free and yet receive something that will
feed my family...
(b) Suppose your answer is "you can't get money" or "don't expect enough
to feed your family" or even "don't expect enough to make it worth
your while to have made the item... Why should I release it at all?
Why should anyone? Why shouldn't I just burn it and wait for someone
who values their time less than I to put something out? Where is the
incentive to make anything in this new world? Where is the ability
of the market to act as a natural aggregator of wealth by directing
people with a need to join together to fund people with a product?
Must this always be a "pull" process? Only build things the market
asks for? Does that mean people who are inspired to innovate and
who want to "push" have no value? Because you're open to having
a free software sniper instantly de-value innovation and claim its
only value was the construction cost... as if the value of Einstein's
equation E=mc^2 was less than a penny since it can be written with a
pencil on a paper in about 1 second and plainly is a commodity that
should sell at its copying value, not its creation value.
I ask these questions not in the abstract. I ask what we tell people in our
community who want to deliver product. Because what point is there writing
programs if you can't sell them? Just for fun? I came to this as a career
and if the answer is that it's only a hobby now, I should just get another
line of work.
I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
inspiration. And if you don't like my inspiration, at least
acknolwedge the possibility that there are people who are inspired.
And that you might want to incentivize them. What should they do with
their inspired ideas to get some money so they can eat? Plan for
vacation? Take care of themselves and their family in the case of
catastrophic illness? Perhaps hire another person to help them?
Build equity and value.
If you can't suggest a process that will at least somewhat reliably
lead to income--enough that people can tell their families they're
going to risk their livelihood on without getting divorced, then why
are you building a superior society over the one we had before I
indulged this hypothetical, where there was an established mechanism
for selling for income... If there is a relatively reliable path, I'm
just overlooking it and eagerly awaiting insight.
Users often show up here and quite reasonably ask "how do I make an exe
file". It's a tough question, because the standard doesn't specify it.
But it's one we have various reasonable answers.
It's equally reasonable, in the set of delivery questions, to ask how to
economically deliver something and to get money back. What do we say?
Not just so that people can "selfishly" make money, but so that we as
consumers can "selflishly" attract inspired people and make it worth their
while to contribute things that keep us happy.
Somehow, telling them, "it's brutal out there. you deserve you lose if
you ask for money. ask for something more abstract." has a ring that
doesn't quite work for me... and I fear it won't really impress
Einstein Jr. either. He'll probably say "I think I'll just go back to
my job issuing software patents. At least that gets me a government
subsidy..."
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
> > On 2006-07-26 18:59:40 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> >
> > > BUT THE PROGRAMMERS CHOSE TO MAKE THEIR WORK FREE.
> >
> > BUT THIS IS A VERY STUPID CHOICE.
>
If it's stupid, then don't do it. What I consider stupid
is forcing your morals onto someone else because they
/might/ affect you economically. If you're going to do that,
then you may as well tell them which god to worship, which
schools to go to and which leaders to vore for.
> Personally, I would insert a qualifying word like "sometimes" in
> there. (I actually think the term "often" is right, but I don't have
> any data to back up a frequency claim, so I'll just go with
> "sometimes" because such a claim can reasonably made from a structural
> argument rather than a statistical argument.)
>
> But this conversation is going nowhere because the only people we're
> talking to seem to have their minds closed.
On both sides, Kent. See KTs (non)responses, for example.
> They're not trying to
> listen, nor even to allow us to talk to people who would listen to us.
> They are so desperately afraid their beliefs won't stand up against
> our arguments that they have to expend energy discrediting the
> possibility that there's counterpoint. I take that personally as a
> debate win, just as I take it as a win in an argument about religion
> when someone says "we have to protect God's way by not allowing
> blasphemy". (I'm pretty sure God can protect himself, and it seems to
> me that the very essence of man having to defend God is non-faith, so
> I always take that as a win.) If these guys believe they have to
> convince us there is no ill effect for there to be no ill effect, then
> they've lost already. If it's not enough for them to say "Well, this
> works works often enough to make us happy, and we proudly call any bad
> case you come up with an 'acceptable casualty'." then they've lost
> becuase they're saying that in order to believe what they believe, they
> must have no counterpoint.
>
I believe many counterpoints were made, not least that
commercial software is killed by other commercial software
just as much as its killed by free software.
> Rather than beat a dead horse, then, I'd like to ask a question to get
> the conversation back onto the real track I meant to open by starting
> this subthread... something related directly to comp.lang.lisp and not
> to abstract philosophy:
>
I'm going to do my best here :-). Hopefully I can convince
you that you can make money by selling software.
I certainly hope you read this, as it just /might/ dispell
some of the myths flying around in this thread.
> Suppose I have written a piece of software. (Not something that
> solves problems for end-users. If it drove a vacuum cleaner, I'd pack
> it in a vacuum cleaner and sell it like Apple sells Quicktime--free if
> you just buy the large piece of metal and plastic required to run it.)
> No, this piece of software helps programmers--the ones who, unlike
> janitors, expect not to pay anything for anything.
>
Ok, embedded software and bundled software is out
of the question. I understand correctly?
> Suppose I believe it is something others will want to use. Something that
> doesn't exist. Something that will save time. Something that long ago
> we would have said "people would pay for". But now, well, ... the question
> is, what do I do now, in the present day, the one I'm supposed to get
> used to and not fight.
>
> I guess there are two questions:
>
> (a) Suppose I grant for argument that it's a brave new world and
> we do things differently now. Enlighten me. I have mouths to feed
> in my household. I have something I think people want. Tell me how
> I give away what I own for free and yet receive something that will
> feed my family...
>
The short answer:
There's no one forcing you to make it free. Sell it.
The long answer:
Lets say you sell it for a certain price, say $X.
If it isn't worth it, people won't purchase it regardless
of whether there are free alternatives. So lets also assume
that it *is* worth it.
Scenario 1 - No one makes a free alternative.
You'll make lots money off of it indefinately; at
least until a commercial competitor comes along.
Obviously this is the best case scenario.
Scenario 2 - A GPL/FSF alternative becomes available soon
from non-commercial developers.
You'll make money with *your* software for Y months at
$X per unit. Y is the number of months that it takes for
the FSF community to make an alternative. You will make money
for at least Y number of months, after which you'll have
to compete on merit alone, not rarity.
This I consider a rather unlikely outcome as GPL software
generally takes ages to get up to speed without a commercial
interest backing it; however it is possible so I leave it in.
Scenario 3 - A GPL/FSF alternative becomes available
long after without commercial backing.
You'll make more money than in #2 above. You'll still
have to have a superior product to the FSF one in order
to keep selling after the FSF one is released.
Scenario 4 - A commercial/proprietry competitor becomes
available soon after you launch.
You'll make money until they launch; then you can
compete on price, merit, whatever. They'll have to charge
to recoup their investment.
Scenario 5 - A commercially backed FSF clone is released.
You'll make money until the clone is released. After
that you'll have to compete on merit alone and have a superior
product worth paying for *OR* you can merely dual-licence
your product.
Scenario 6 - A free/BSD clone is released.
You'll make money until the clone is released. Then
you are free to roll their applications best components
into your product and charge for your product.
Scenario 7 - A commercial, proprietry free clone is
bundled with the monopoloy OS.
You'll make money until the clone is released. Thereafter
you won't. This is the worst case ...
In all the scenarios above, you make money. In some you
make lots of money by having a headstart on the rest
of the competition and you make less when competition
catches up. I don't see a problem there.
You can stretch your viable selling time by lowering
the price; when almost everybody can afford it almost
everybody will buy it.
Free software alternatives seem to become popular
much faster when the commercial alternatives cannot
be afforded by everyone; see Linux, or OO.org,
or clisp.
The biggest danger to you is the bundled software
which is ironically *not free* but designed to
merely manhandle the market into the monopolys
favour.
I expect you think I've intentionally left out a scenario
or two :-) Please, point it out and I'll happily respond.
> (b) Suppose your answer is "you can't get money" or "don't expect enough
> to feed your family" or even "don't expect enough to make it worth
> your while to have made the item... Why should I release it at all?
> Why should anyone? Why shouldn't I just burn it and wait for someone
> who values their time less than I to put something out? Where is the
> incentive to make anything in this new world? Where is the ability
> of the market to act as a natural aggregator of wealth by directing
> people with a need to join together to fund people with a product?
> Must this always be a "pull" process? Only build things the market
> asks for? Does that mean people who are inspired to innovate and
> who want to "push" have no value? Because you're open to having
> a free software sniper instantly de-value innovation and claim its
> only value was the construction cost... as if the value of Einstein's
> equation E=mc^2 was less than a penny since it can be written with a
> pencil on a paper in about 1 second and plainly is a commodity that
> should sell at its copying value, not its creation value.
>
It's funny that you bring that up; people won't pay for
that no matter *how* valuable it might be to society but still,
Einstein made a living, didn't he? Could it be that academia
has a different economic structure and rewards system?
> I ask these questions not in the abstract. I ask what we tell people in our
> community who want to deliver product. Because what point is there writing
> programs if you can't sell them? Just for fun? I came to this as a career
> and if the answer is that it's only a hobby now, I should just get another
> line of work.
No, you *can* sell. Just be prepared to compete with people
who can live comfortably for a tenth of the costs you have
to deal with, and people who do this for fun, not profit, etc.
>
> I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
> inspiration. And if you don't like my inspiration, at least
> acknolwedge the possibility that there are people who are inspired.
> And that you might want to incentivize them.
Why? We've never done so in the past so why start now? The
great paintings were all *commissioned* i.e. paid for labour
only. Very few inspired works were created with incentives
other than commission, IIRC.
Even now, inspiration like that which you talk about is
*funded*. Science faculties (over here, anyway) are all
*taxpayer* funded. Professors and researchers and other inspired
people are not rich, they just get by, so I fail to see why you
assume that inspiration is usually rewarded.
It isn't. If you want your kids to be rich, teach them
to sing on stage or kick a ball around; science students,
songwriters, and other inspired people don't get rich.
> What should they do with
> their inspired ideas to get some money so they can eat? Plan for
> vacation? Take care of themselves and their family in the case of
> catastrophic illness? Perhaps hire another person to help them?
> Build equity and value.
>
> If you can't suggest a process that will at least somewhat reliably
> lead to income--enough that people can tell their families they're
> going to risk their livelihood on without getting divorced, then why
> are you building a superior society over the one we had before I
> indulged this hypothetical, where there was an established mechanism
> for selling for income... If there is a relatively reliable path, I'm
> just overlooking it and eagerly awaiting insight.
>
Like I said above, just sell your work. You'll have a few
months headstart over everyone else and if your work is
worth as much as you think it is, you'll make your profit
in those first few months, after which you'll have to compete.
Theres nothing wrong with that model. If it takes you
3 months to build your product, then assume that it will
take the FSF *at* *least* 3 months to build, plus add in
at least another 3 months for someone to buy it, use it
and then decide to start building a GPL alternative.
So you get at least six months to get a return on
investment plus gather as many return customers as
possible. Usually you would get up to a year or more
before getting a competing product which is as
good as the original (hell, some of the OSS stuff
on sourceforge is fives years or longer in the making).
The only time FSF and GPL (OSS in general, perhaps) is a
danger is when you intend to sell your software
indefinately to a captive market.
Even then, you can make money by allowing your users
to do certain things under licence that GPL software
won't let them do (build atop your product and
redistribute the resulting work as proprietry).
I honestly don't see why you think that the minute
you release an inspired product, a GPL/FSF/OSS developer
is going to make a replacment. History seems to show
that the original creator/producer/whatever gets at
*least* a two year lead on free software before free
software is at the level that the average consumer
wants to use it. Sometimes it takes even longer.
So go ahead and build your software. Your biggest
risk is not going to be free software but commercial
enterprises who want to have a monopoly on the market
so they bundle free(gratis) software to lock-in the
market.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Aserve is free(gratis)
not free(libre)? Note how it is used to make sales
for the companys other products?
You biggest risk is, and will always remain (for the
small developer) cross-subsidised bundled and gratis
software from the big players.
Free software isn't going to kill you, commercial
just might but thats how the game is played.
Every industry is threatened with lower-price
knock-offs; that doesn't mean that they don't
thrive in *spite* of it.
> Users often show up here and quite reasonably ask "how do I make an exe
> file". It's a tough question, because the standard doesn't specify it.
> But it's one we have various reasonable answers.
>
> It's equally reasonable, in the set of delivery questions, to ask how to
> economically deliver something and to get money back. What do we say?
> Not just so that people can "selfishly" make money, but so that we as
> consumers can "selflishly" attract inspired people and make it worth their
> while to contribute things that keep us happy.
>
You can save this post of mine and show it to them. Or you
can do as KT does and just make specious arguments against
something you don't understand. Or you can repeat the
"you deserve to lose if you want to charge" line, but
be careful that you don' attribute it to me, or the FSF,
or anyone else who didn't say it. I'm not sure /who/
said it, but it certainly doesn't sound like something
that the FSF preaches.
If you think of libre software as the enemy, then take heed:
"know thy enemy". After knowing, you'll see how best you can
fit into the current market and *use* FSF to your advantage.
The days of producing software /once/ and making money
of it for decades are long gone. You'll have to keep making
products if you want to keep making money. I see nothing wrong
with that either: Keep working if you want to keep making
money. You cannot ask, with a straight face, how can I
make money from work I've already made money from 5 years
ago?
Most people stop making money off their work *the very minute*
that they stop working; we are lucky in that we can continue
getting income from work that was already completed and paid for.
We should not be wishing for even more money for work that we
were already paid for.
> Somehow, telling them, "it's brutal out there. you deserve you lose if
> you ask for money.
I don't say that; I don't think I ever did. What I would say
is "you will lose if something better comes along".
> ask for something more abstract." has a ring that
> doesn't quite work for me... and I fear it won't really impress
> Einstein Jr. either. He'll probably say "I think I'll just go back to
> my job issuing software patents. At least that gets me a government
> subsidy..."
Thats a discussion for another day :-)
goose,
On 2006-07-27 10:25:05 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> What I consider stupid
> is forcing your morals onto someone else because they
> /might/ affect you economically. If you're going to do that,
> then you may as well tell them which god to worship, which
> schools to go to and which leaders to vore for.
I'm not *forcing* people to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that
their behavior has consequences they might not want if they thought
about it or might not even be aware of.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 10:25:05 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > What I consider stupid
> > is forcing your morals onto someone else because they
> > /might/ affect you economically. If you're going to do that,
> > then you may as well tell them which god to worship, which
> > schools to go to and which leaders to vore for.
>
> I'm not *forcing* people to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that
> their behavior has consequences they might not want if they thought
> about it or might not even be aware of.
Have you perhaps considered that they've heard all
these arguments before, and decided that using
and enhancing free software is *more* lucrative
than being wedded to proprietry software?
See my last response above which adequeatly(sp?)
illustrates how developers can make *more* money
leveraging users off of one another.
Because users don't *want* to redistribute
enhancements (gives their competitors an edge),
you, the programmer, can bill multiple times
for making similar enhancements at different
sites.
I am really interested in your response to that
example, as the *only* way the maintainer gets
paid once only is if the user decides to
redistribute, and IME users /never/ want to
redistribute *anything* (even business processes)
that might possibly give an advantage to
their competitors.
If you build it proprietry from the very first,
the type of user who wants an extra edge (by
paying a maintainer to modify the software) won't
take the software from you unless you give the
same freedoms as GPL minus redistribution.
This is the reason that free software can sometimes
put proprietry companies out of business, not the
gratis aspect at all but the ability for the user
to gain over competitors.
goose,
On 2006-07-27 13:16:37 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> If you build it proprietry from the very first,
> the type of user who wants an extra edge (by
> paying a maintainer to modify the software) won't
> take the software from you unless you give the
> same freedoms as GPL minus redistribution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But it is the redistribution rights that make free software free (in
both senses - the FSF doesn't consider software free if the end user
can merely modify it but may not redistribute his modifications). If
you don't give them this then it's still yours to resell to others.
This is the whole point. Relinquishing redistribution rights is lost
revenue, plain and simple.
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecihm9.q.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-27, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>> On 2006-07-27 10:25:05 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>>
>> > What I consider stupid
>> > is forcing your morals onto someone else because they
>> > /might/ affect you economically. If you're going to do that,
>> > then you may as well tell them which god to worship, which
>> > schools to go to and which leaders to vore for.
>>
>> I'm not *forcing* people to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that
>> their behavior has consequences they might not want if they thought
>> about it or might not even be aware of.
>
> Have you perhaps considered that they've heard all
> these arguments before, and decided that using
> and enhancing free software is *more* lucrative
> than being wedded to proprietry software?
>
All that is happening is you are being told you are doing something stupid
by someone else. No one says you have to agree.
marc
marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> On 2006-07-27, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>>> On 2006-07-27 10:25:05 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>>>
>>> > What I consider stupid
>>> > is forcing your morals onto someone else because they
>>> > /might/ affect you economically. If you're going to do that,
>>> > then you may as well tell them which god to worship, which
>>> > schools to go to and which leaders to vore for.
>>>
>>> I'm not *forcing* people to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that
>>> their behavior has consequences they might not want if they thought
>>> about it or might not even be aware of.
>>
>> Have you perhaps considered that they've heard all
>> these arguments before, and decided that using
>> and enhancing free software is *more* lucrative
>> than being wedded to proprietry software?
>>
>
> All that is happening is you are being told you are doing something stupid
> by someone else. No one says you have to agree.
>
and the someone else doesn't have to be correct either.
tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-27 10:25:05 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
>> What I consider stupid
>> is forcing your morals onto someone else because they
>> /might/ affect you economically. If you're going to do that,
>> then you may as well tell them which god to worship, which
>> schools to go to and which leaders to vore for.
>
> I'm not *forcing* people to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that
> their behavior has consequences they might not want if they thought
> about it or might not even be aware of.
>
So, then are you prepared to accept that if they have thought about it
and believe free software and supporting it is of greater value in the
long term then thats OK?
tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
On 2006-07-30 09:04:52 -0400, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> said:
> So, then are you prepared to accept that if they have thought about it
> and believe free software and supporting it is of greater value in the
> long term then thats OK?
*of course* its "OK"
It is also "OK" for me to express an opinion to the contrary in the
hope that others won't make the same foolish choice.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3lkq9z9c9.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-30 09:04:52 -0400, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> said:
>
> > So, then are you prepared to accept that if they have thought about it
> > and believe free software and supporting it is of greater value in the
> > long term then thats OK?
>
> *of course* its "OK"
>
> It is also "OK" for me to express an opinion to the contrary in the hope
> that others won't make the same foolish choice.
Then please do couch it in terms of opinion rather than as fact. Then
we can ignore each other and get back to something useful.
Gregm
On 2006-07-31 18:40:54 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> Then please do couch it in terms of opinion rather than as fact. Then
> we can ignore each other and get back to something useful.
Gladly.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <864px30wxu.fsf@panix.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> But this conversation is going nowhere because the only people we're
> talking to seem to have their minds closed. They're not trying to
> listen, nor even to allow us to talk to people who would listen to us.
> They are so desperately afraid their beliefs won't stand up against
> our arguments that they have to expend energy discrediting the
> possibility that there's counterpoint.
That's rich. The only ones with closed minds seem to be in your camp.
You have been given many different examples of commercial software
succeeding despite the presence of free software. The underlying
theme in all of those success stories is that they offered something
more than the free software had to offer -- either in terms of
functionality, reliability or support.
You choose to ignore the fact that a competitive marketplace will
inevitably create a strong downward pressure on the prices. You
choose to ignore the fact that vendors can charge what the market will
bear for their products -- pricing has nothing to do with the amount
of effort expended on developing that product. In other words you
choose to ignore the realities of a competitive marketplace and
continue to harp that your efforts deserve to get paid *REGARDLESS* of
whether it brings value to the end customer.
That, my friend, is being closeminded.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Ari Krupnik
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86odvaewy8.fsf@deb.lib.aero>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> In other words you
> choose to ignore the realities of a competitive marketplace and
> continue to harp that your efforts deserve to get paid *REGARDLESS* of
> whether it brings value to the end customer.
>
> That, my friend, is being closeminded.
I disagree. I think he's being very creative in finding people he can
blame for his supposedly low wages.
Ari.
--
Elections only count as free and trials as fair if you can lose money
betting on the outcome.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uk65y25ll.fsf@nhplace.com>
Ari Krupnik <···@lib.aero> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
> > In other words you
> > choose to ignore the realities of a competitive marketplace and
> > continue to harp that your efforts deserve to get paid *REGARDLESS* of
> > whether it brings value to the end customer.
> >
> > That, my friend, is being closeminded.
>
> I disagree. I think he's being very creative in finding people he can
> blame for his supposedly low wages.
If I hear another ad hominem remark like this, it will be the last you
hear of me on this list for a while. There is no excuse for this degree
of petty provocation. I disagree with Rajappa's remarks, but he is at
least not getting personal. My reason for wanting to terminate debate
with him is purely an issue of resource; I don't have the time to spend
to convince him, and I'm surprised he has the time to waste on me. I
simply am not seeking that level of debate.
There is a line, though, where people start commenting not on effects
but motivations, and I think there's no excuse for that. I assume
that all here, even those who most harshly disagree, are motivated by
honorable intent. I don't accuse anyone of trying to push their
position for personal gain nor for spite. And I don't expect anyone
to be making such accusations about me either.
I am trying to speak to people who do want datapoints, perhaps because
they were afraid of speaking out and they will be encouraged by seeing
how easy it was for me to speak to share their stories as well. Or
perhaps because they're wondering what the possible ill effects are of
working for months on a dream project and then hoping to sell it... If
I can spare one person my experience because I opened their eyes, that
will be a big win for me, even if no systematic change comes.
We talk like people enter into this voluntarily, but a lot of people
die of drug and alcohol overdoses that they entered into voluntarily.
They die of parachutes or crossing the street, too. People don't
always reason correctly about risk. And, like it or not, young people
much less well than older people... it's the "we're immortal" thing.
You also sometimes hear people say of parachuters whose chutes failed,
"he died doing what he loved", but I think that's more an easy
platitude for the survivors. (I'm told that Occam's razor should tell
me that the paucity of people coming forward to tell me I'm wrong in
thinking they died saying "damn, I wouldn't have done this if I knew
it was THIS unsafe" means there probably aren't any such people... if
there were, there'd be data.) I don't think a bit of sunlight hurts
here, even if it is possible to parachute safely. If telling people
that a mistake could cost them their lives isn't part of parachuting
safely, though, then I think the training is deficient. And if
telling people who invest time that they might want to turn into money
to feed them that they risk losing isn't part of the training, then
that training is deficient too. In regular business, you teach people
the risks. I want it taught with free software too.
SO is it possible that people could stop assuming that I'm asking these
questions for some idiotically self-serving reason like "why don't I
have more money".
I care about the possibility of people making money because the world
demands money of people to live. And because I'm frequently asked
what to recommend people do in the way of having a reliable income.
And I have no answer other than "switch fields". I'm bothered by that.
I'm not trying to "blame" anyone. If I were going to be blaming
someone, I'd be whining at Franz. But they're friends of mine and
they're just doing the best they can to operate in the same space as I
am. I suspect they have many of the same questions as I do. They
are not "bad guys". But they took an action that had ill consequences
for me, and I'd expect we'd all like to think "what can we do with the
process to make sure there's less of that?" So I tire of asking
questions like that and getting back an answer like "Stop whining
and expect/endure it." That is not syntactically in the form of an
answer.
What happened was unintentional harm, I'm sure. But I'm not going to
just walk away from it without trying to learn from it. I just can't
figure out what to learn. (Other than "get out of the business.")
The old business model was that sellers are motivated to inch down
prices little by little until they've cranked out all but their
marginal cost of sale. But in the meantime, extra profits are made to
help fund a next round venture. So the first product is always a crap
shoot, but the hope is that in the future, a next round venture won't
be paid for with a mortgage on the founder's house, but rather with
the profits from the previous sale, so that there is increasing
stability in a company, and it's insulated from making a tiny wrong
decision and losing everything.
The new business model is that at any moment, you can find yourself
in the endgame, competing with a zero-cost product. In that model,
you simply lose. So every venture is utter gambling.
(Yes, you can ameliorate this risk by selling consulting, or by
selling hardware, or by selling vertical markets. But only
established businesses have that kind of resource. So that's not a
useful model for a new guy.)
So new CS guys are effectively reduced to either being hobbyists,
working for someone who has a specific task, or gambling. That's not
a very exciting array of choices.
At present, I wouldn't recommend to any up-and-coming child of
mine--nor to anyone else's--that this is a good way to gamble on your
future. Who would and why? I'd rather say "learn Chemistry or Law
and go get paid". Heck, I used to think being a fiction author was
risky, but all in all, it's got better protections and more
reliability of getting paid than I see in CS these days. That amazes
me. What smart person would voluntarily enter into this kind of
"you're going to get kicked a lot in the face, so get used to it" kind
of society?
- - - -
Richard M Kreuter <·······@progn.net> wrote something that is more
like the kind of thing I'd like to see discussed. It isn't a solution
by any means to the whole problem, but it at least treats my question
as serious and proposes one of perhaps a set of constructive things
that might reduce the stress on the system:
> Perhaps a convention of freeing the sources to proprietary software
> after some period of unmaintainedness or unavailability and in the
> absence of supported migration products would alleviate these
> disincentives,
More remarks like this, that attempt to study and subdivide the
various aspects of this really-quite-large problem, to understand and
address its pieces structurally, and to bridge the gaps between the
communities in terms of goals rather than methods would be much
appreciated. Thanks Richard.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Ari Krupnik <···@lib.aero> writes:
> > I disagree. I think he's being very creative in finding people he can
> > blame for his supposedly low wages.
>
> If I hear another ad hominem remark like this, it will be the last you
> hear of me on this list for a while. There is no excuse for this degree
> of petty provocation.
> [..]
> There is a line, though, where people start commenting not on effects
> but motivations, and I think there's no excuse for that. I assume
> that all here, even those who most harshly disagree, are motivated by
> honorable intent. I don't accuse anyone of trying to push their
> position for personal gain nor for spite. And I don't expect anyone
> to be making such accusations about me either.
Well, you did just claim earlier today:
"But this conversation is going nowhere because the only people we're
talking to seem to have their minds closed. They're not trying to
listen, nor even to allow us to talk to people who would listen to us.
They are so desperately afraid their beliefs won't stand up against our
arguments that they have to expend energy discrediting the possibility
that there's counterpoint. I take that personally as a debate win,
just as I take it as a win in an argument about religion when someone
says 'we have to protect God's way by not allowing blasphemy'."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/7754488dcf903d38
In particular, note the 3rd sentence on how their desperate fear
motivates them. I don't think the targets would appreciate that
description... presumably Nathan and Rajappa, among others.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> I conclude this because it has taken me here about two dozen posts back
> and forth to get from just one poster a grudging admission that "low
> priced software" puts downward pressure on programmer wages. I really
> think that free software advocates are in denial about the unintended
> negative consequeces of giving away end-user software to be freely
> copied.
As Ken Tilton pointed out, the head of the Free Software Foundation was
very forthcoming and public about lowered wages. These are expected
consequences. I think all that suffices is to quote Stallman's public
claims and try to discuss acting in one's self-interest, in a manner
respectful to the audience.
Or we can take the alternative of participating in a flamewar which
more resembles one of those computer games where no one wants to give
up territory, where we each think we're so much smarter than other
participants. As usual, our choice.
Tayssir
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uu052pntr.fsf@nhplace.com>
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
> > Ari Krupnik <···@lib.aero> writes:
> > > I disagree. I think he's being very creative in finding people he can
> > > blame for his supposedly low wages.
> >
> > If I hear another ad hominem remark like this, it will be the last you
> > hear of me on this list for a while. There is no excuse for this degree
> > of petty provocation.
> > [..]
> > There is a line, though, where people start commenting not on effects
> > but motivations, and I think there's no excuse for that. I assume
> > that all here, even those who most harshly disagree, are motivated by
> > honorable intent. I don't accuse anyone of trying to push their
> > position for personal gain nor for spite. And I don't expect anyone
> > to be making such accusations about me either.
>
> Well, you did just claim earlier today:
>
> "But this conversation is going nowhere because the only people we're
> talking to seem to have their minds closed. They're not trying to
> listen, nor even to allow us to talk to people who would listen to us.
> They are so desperately afraid their beliefs won't stand up against our
> arguments that they have to expend energy discrediting the possibility
> that there's counterpoint. I take that personally as a debate win,
> just as I take it as a win in an argument about religion when someone
> says 'we have to protect God's way by not allowing blasphemy'."
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/7754488dcf903d38
>
> In particular, note the 3rd sentence on how their desperate fear
> motivates them. I don't think the targets would appreciate that
> description... presumably Nathan and Rajappa, among others.
Well, in the case Ari's referring to, he's referring to facts not in
evidence. My wages. He doesn't know what my wages are, nor my means
of support, nor that anything I'm saying is related to that. He raises
that as a possible explanation for my remarks, when I haven't raised
that myself. In fact, my employ and my wages are fine, and this
conversation is academic about those to follow.
On the other hand, my remarks which you quote go to the question of
actions against me here on the list--discrediting me, the apparent
lack of desire for counterpoint, etc.
However, one thing that tends to make my writings painfully long is
that I generally try to use constructions like "They are apparently
so desperately afraid" in order that it be a remark about how it strikes
me rather than a statement of disputable fact. And I didn't do that here.
And, moreover, the use of the word "desperately" and the phrase "have to"
are arguably into the area of speculation of motivation, probably setting
a bad example.
So I'll not quibble and will just apologize for pushing the edge here,
with thanks to you for noting this.
And I'll repeat my plea: Please let's keep the discussion civil.
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> > I conclude this because it has taken me here about two dozen posts back
> > and forth to get from just one poster a grudging admission that "low
> > priced software" puts downward pressure on programmer wages. I really
> > think that free software advocates are in denial about the unintended
> > negative consequeces of giving away end-user software to be freely
> > copied.
>
> As Ken Tilton pointed out, the head of the Free Software Foundation was
> very forthcoming and public about lowered wages. These are expected
> consequences. I think all that suffices is to quote Stallman's public
> claims and try to discuss acting in one's self-interest, in a manner
> respectful to the audience.
Incidentally, I should note that Stallman also offered sustainable
solutions to the compensation problem, without outlawing software's
infinite reproducability. At the bottom of this page (which Ken pointed
out):
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
But I suspect the real issue people want to discuss are attacks to
programmer compensation, not just Free Software (which is just one
possible factor).
Possible other attacks?
* Things like Java, which are intentionally marketed to give the
impression that industry can sustainably use hordes of outsourced
commodity coders. Anecdotally, I heard that loans were dependent on
hiring offshored labor, as the lenders believed it was financially
irresponsible to do otherwise.
* Personas like Gates who travel to universities, trying to increase
the production of CS grads even during high unemployment. (And I
seriously doubt official unemployment statistics; even the Bureau of
Labor Statistics offers alternate measures of unemployment, due to
problems with their own official stats. Even those alternate measures
seem to have problems.)
And these are just simple, superficial attacks, which probably don't
require fundamental changes to defend against.
Tayssir
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <A3ayg.2085$yN1.308@fe12.lga>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> I care about the possibility of people making money because the world
> demands money of people to live.
A better reason was demonstrated by the utter failure of many
experiments in Communism: social progress comes from individual creative
effort rewarded by a free market. Remove the reward and the effort dries
up. The FSF, like the communists, say the individual must be happy with
(the mere prospect of) hourly pay for maintenance. But I own my
software, just as FSF owns and tightly controls irs software. In a free
market I can (to Nathan's apparent horror) charge over and over again
for the same software. The FSF does not concede I am "free" to do that,
or at least that I am destructive to society for doing so.
My premise originally was and remains is that, if the FSF were honest
with itself, they would acknowledge that /they/ have harmed society, by
crippling the progress of OSes and software development tools with their
false promise of "free" software.
Stallman conceded in the manifesto that programmers would make less
money under his system. ie, Let's try communism! Brilliant.
What to do? Get out of the software tools game (too many techies are
still in 1984-commercial-lemmings-over-the-cliff-Jim-Jones-mass-hypnosis
mode) and into vertical markets. Find someone struggling with crappy but
"best in class" funeral home software. Have them pay you just enough to
show they care (and put a little food on your table) to develop sofwtare
you keep and sell to others. If necessary, throw them a few points going
forward. Just make sure your domain expert is smart and good at what
they do.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3k65y9xqc.fsf@athena.pienet>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> > I care about the possibility of people making money because the world
> > demands money of people to live.
>
> My premise originally was and remains is that, if the FSF were honest
> with itself, they would acknowledge that /they/ have harmed society, by
> crippling the progress of OSes and software development tools with their
> false promise of "free" software.
>
> Stallman conceded in the manifesto that programmers would make less
> money under his system. ie, Let's try communism! Brilliant.
I find it entertaining that you spout this kind of silliness but post it
using Mozilla Thunderbird. How about you switch to Outlook Express or a
for-profit usenet reader, then come back and pontificate?
Gregm
Ari Krupnik wrote:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
> > In other words you
> > choose to ignore the realities of a competitive marketplace and
> > continue to harp that your efforts deserve to get paid *REGARDLESS* of
> > whether it brings value to the end customer.
> >
> > That, my friend, is being closeminded.
>
> I disagree. I think he's being very creative in finding people he can
> blame for his supposedly low wages.
>
> Ari.
>
> --
> Elections only count as free and trials as fair if you can lose money
> betting on the outcome.
Let's say it's not Free Software, but a pool software where many
company pool their development resource together to build a single
piece of software. Let's say we apply this to one country.
- How many developer do you need to build that software? let's say
1,000.
- If this software is proprietary, then 1,000 company, not pooled,
means 1,000,000 programmer jobs.
- If the resource is pooled then each company may hire as much as
10 developers for customization, that means 10,000 developers for that
piece of software, enough to satisfy any requirement and move the
software at enough velocity. But it means 10,000 programmer jobs. 90%
jobs dropped.
- How many new-grad programmers are there each year? Let's say
10,000. How many programmer supplied are filled each year?
- How much programmer are in demand for each company if they now
pool all their software?
- How is different in supply and demand? which side is more?
- If there are more supplies than demands how does that effect the
price of the item, in this case, programmer?
- For many company they can hire just programmer to do minor
customization to make the software fit their business goal.
Customization usually does not require competent skill. How much would
the salary of a customizing programmer be compared to the real
programmer role?
I don't think I'm being exagerated in anyway, the way you want is for
company to pool their development resource, and I have done just that.
The main goal of resource pooling is to reduce resource (programmer),
which I also have done just that.
I think it is obvious that by pooling more programmer to one single
software, there are less jobs market for programmer, and many jobs are
reduced in salalry because their role now becomes different, and
accounting for new grad every year.
- Most people study and graudate to get jobs, money.
- Because, if above is true, the programmers' wage will be lower, it
might be higher for those that get to develop the software, BUT there
will be LESS of that jobs available. (If their is more of that jobs,
the company will be paying more, why would they do that?). So if the
jobs doesn't pay well, less people aim their goal to programming field.
- Less smart guy goes to programming field.
- The quality of programmer drops. But it's okay since we only need
10,000 programmer for the software, we need only 5% to be able to
actually code. Other can just customized.
- Yet another reason to drop salary rate for MOST programmer.
- How many of you would still attend college in this field if it's
salary is no more different than a simple accountant.
Where is my reasoning wrong?
When the items become less scarce because you now pool the items, the
ratio of demand/supply change as supply becomes more available. Then
the price of the item drop. I couldn't see how that could be otherwise.
On 2006-07-27 13:39:09 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
> You
> choose to ignore the fact that vendors can charge what the market will
> bear for their products -- pricing has nothing to do with the amount
> of effort expended on developing that product.
This is clearly false. Economic actors will in general not undertake
expensive projects if there is no possibility of recouping costs. If
the market makes it clear that it does not value that costly-to-produce
product sufficiently to recoup costs then it is extraordinarily
unlikely that any other entitiy will attempt to enter that market.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86zmevylte.fsf@panix.com>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-27 13:39:09 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
>> You
>> choose to ignore the fact that vendors can charge what the market will
>> bear for their products -- pricing has nothing to do with the amount
>> of effort expended on developing that product.
>
> This is clearly false. Economic actors will in general not undertake
> expensive projects if there is no possibility of recouping costs. If
> the market makes it clear that it does not value that
> costly-to-produce product sufficiently to recoup costs then it is
> extraordinarily unlikely that any other entitiy will attempt to enter
> that market.
This explains loss-leaders and cross-subsidies, I am sure.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On 2006-07-27 13:55:25 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
> This explains loss-leaders and cross-subsidies, I am sure.
But loss-leaders are undertaken with the understanding that something -
whether the costly-to-develop product or some other offering which the
costly-to-develop product will lead customers to - will eventually be a
revenue source. They are not undertaken when it is clear that there is
no future revenue to be had unless some VCs are subsidizing all this so
they can do an IPO pump and dump.
I think that many people's notion of how economies work has been badly
distorted by the bogus notion of the "new economy" and the tech bubble.
They have come to belive that most everything should cost nothing. The
reality is that if firms don't get paid for what they offer they go
bankrupt. When you add VCs to this mix this fact becomes obscured
because it takes longer to happen but nevertheless, unless revenues
ultimately exceed investment the firm will go out of business.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86vepizytd.fsf@panix.com>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-27 13:55:25 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
>> This explains loss-leaders and cross-subsidies, I am sure.
>
> But loss-leaders are undertaken with the understanding that
> something - whether the costly-to-develop product or some other
> offering which the costly-to-develop product will lead customers to
> - will eventually be a revenue source.
Exactly. So what does this imply? Certain products cannot be sold
for their full economic value at a particular time and need to be
subsidized either by other products' revenues or potential future
earnings. I hope that you'll agree that this particular phenomenon
has nothing to do with free (either as in beer or libre) software.
Now apply the same principle in a market where free solutions are in
the play as well. Let us say, for argument's sake, that there are
certain products that cannot sell simply because there are free
alternatives. What is the solution? The same as for the market
without free solutions: either cross-subsidize the product or get out
of that particular product business. Thus free software, in and of
itself, does not affect programmer's wages *UNLESS* the programmer
chooses to continually expend time and energy on products that will
not sell.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On 2006-07-27 14:29:18 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
> Let us say, for argument's sake, that there are
> certain products that cannot sell simply because there are free
> alternatives. What is the solution? The same as for the market
> without free solutions: either cross-subsidize the product or get out
> of that particular product business.
Another solution would be for programmers to stop allowing their
end-user software to be redistributed for free. This would, over time,
alleviate the glut of free software. This is the solution that I am
advocating.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 14:29:18 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
>> Let us say, for argument's sake, that there are certain products that
>> cannot sell simply because there are free alternatives. What is the
>> solution? The same as for the market without free solutions: either
>> cross-subsidize the product or get out of that particular product
>> business.
>
> Another solution would be for programmers to stop allowing their
> end-user software to be redistributed for free. This would, over time,
> alleviate the glut of free software. This is the solution that I am
> advocating.
This doesn't seem like a very good solution.
Rajappa's solution has the particular advantage that it's something *you*
can do to better your situation: change your funding strategy, or change
your product.
Your solution, on the other hand, places all the responsibilities upon
*other* programmers. You get to keep doing things the way you want to,
whilst all programmers who want to make free or nearly free software have
to change, because, dammit, *you* should define what business models
people get to use, not the *market*.
Even if I was to accept that free software was a bad thing for
programmers, I'd have to say that Rajappa's pro-active solution is more
likely to improve the programmer's situation than your reactionary
head-in-the-sand solution.
On 2006-07-27 18:38:37 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Your solution, on the other hand, places all the responsibilities upon
> *other* programmers. You get to keep doing things the way you want to,
> whilst all programmers who want to make free or nearly free software
> have to change, because, dammit, *you* should define what business
> models people get to use, not the *market*.
I've never claimed that I get to decide what business models people
use. I have claimed, and continue to claim that some business models
that programmers are using are self destructive and foolish.
Pointing out that someone is doing something foolish is not making the
claim that I get to determine what they may and may not do. Your
response essentially amounts to being told that you're doing something
self destructive and, rather than stopping, merely saying "you're not
the boss of me!"
Finally, Rajappa's "pro-active" solution consists of *abandoning* the
market - hardly what I'd call pro-active - more like defeatist. His
other alternative is cross-subsidy which more or less leaves small
firms out in the cold - they simply won't have the revenue to fund the
development of a zero-revenue software offering.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <868xmebi2o.fsf@panix.com>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> Finally, Rajappa's "pro-active" solution consists of *abandoning*
> the market - hardly what I'd call pro-active - more like defeatist.
OK, let's perform this mind-experiment. No one gives away razor
blades for free. Gillette makes a *lot* of money selling razor
blades. Would you fund some entrepreneur who comes up with the "idea"
of duplicating Gillete's Mach 3? If not, why not?
It's not defeatist to understand that if my aim is to make money, I
have to do it by addressing a need that has not been met by the
current products in the market.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On 2006-07-27 22:04:47 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
> OK, let's perform this mind-experiment. No one gives away razor
> blades for free. Gillette makes a *lot* of money selling razor
> blades. Would you fund some entrepreneur who comes up with the "idea"
> of duplicating Gillete's Mach 3? If not, why not?
I might fund an entrepreneur who has devised a new kind of razor that
works better/stays sharper longer/is less likely to cause razor
burn/etc. than Gillette's Mach 3, but I sure as hell wouldn't fund him
no matter how good his new razor were if Gillette were *giving razors
and blades away for free*.
This is the point you consistently miss - that a free but merely
adequate solution places a huge barrier to entry to a superior for-pay
solution. The only way to enter this market is cross subsidy/loss
leader which means that only large firms can hope to have a chance.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86zmeu9yil.fsf@panix.com>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-27 22:04:47 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
>> OK, let's perform this mind-experiment. No one gives away razor
>> blades for free. Gillette makes a *lot* of money selling razor
>> blades. Would you fund some entrepreneur who comes up with the "idea"
>> of duplicating Gillete's Mach 3? If not, why not?
>
> I might fund an entrepreneur who has devised a new kind of razor that
> works better/stays sharper longer/is less likely to cause razor
> burn/etc. than Gillette's Mach 3, but I sure as hell wouldn't fund him
> no matter how good his new razor were if Gillette were *giving razors
> and blades away for free*.
>
> This is the point you consistently miss
And you duck my point consistently.
Answer me this simple question: would you fund someone who proposes to
build exactly the same product as the Mach 3? Gillette sure as hell
is not giving it away for free.
>- that a free but merely
> adequate solution places a huge barrier to entry to a superior for-pay
> solution. The only way to enter this market is cross subsidy/loss
> leader which means that only large firms can hope to have a chance.
All available evidence points to the contrary...
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On 2006-07-27 23:52:34 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
> would you fund someone who proposes to
> build exactly the same product as the Mach 3?
No. But that's pretty irrelevant to our discussion of free software
because we're talking about barriers to entry to a market for an
*improved* product. If the existing product is adequate and free then
only deep pockets will ever try to enter that market with something
better than merely adequate. This hurts small software firms who cannot
afford the initial loss leader of competing with free.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86y7udsgd9.fsf@panix.com>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-27 23:52:34 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
>> would you fund someone who proposes to
>> build exactly the same product as the Mach 3?
>
> No. But that's pretty irrelevant to our discussion of free software
> because we're talking about barriers to entry to a market for an
> *improved* product. If the existing product is adequate and free then
> only deep pockets will ever try to enter that market with something
> better than merely adequate. This hurts small software firms who
> cannot afford the initial loss leader of competing with free.
And as I have pointed out with several examples, even where there are
free alternatives available, a product which offers more value to the
customer can indeed be successful. If your argument is that there are
no low-hanging fruits, well, that's just a consequence of a maturing
market and has nothing to do with free software. In any industry
low-hanging fruits tend to be commoditized and offer next-to-nothing
opportunities. To compete you have to aim higher. So I don't buy the
barriers to entry story.
Here's another data point that you might wish to consider: what has
been the trend of programmer salaries over the past 30 years? I'll
save you the trouble of looking it up, but you should feel free to
verify it on your own. In the US (I haven't looked at other OECD
countries, but I suspect the trend would be the same) increase in
programmers' salaries have handily outpaced inflation and dramatically
so in the 90s when free software might be said to have matured to the
point of being viable alternatives to commercial offerings. Even post
2000, the salaries have been increasing though not at the same rate as
before. In any case, they have outpaced inflation. Remember that the
post 2000 wages are likely to be influenced by lot of outsourcing and
offshoring.
In short, there is *NO* (*ZIP*, *ZILCH*, *NADA*) evidence for your
thesis that free software depresses programmers' wages.
When facts do not support your opinion, which will you change?
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On 2006-07-28 15:01:54 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
> And as I have pointed out with several examples, even where there are
> free alternatives available, a product which offers more value to the
> customer can indeed be successful.
But only by cross-subsidy or loss-leader which effectively excludes
small firms.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 15:01:54 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
>> And as I have pointed out with several examples, even where there are
>> free alternatives available, a product which offers more value to the
>> customer can indeed be successful.
>
> But only by cross-subsidy or loss-leader which effectively excludes small
> firms.
So presumably there are *no examples* of a small firm making enough money
to recoup development costs from selling a program for which there is a
free alternative?
Or are we going to quibble over what counts as a "successful small form"?
On 2006-07-28 15:01:54 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
> Here's another data point that you might wish to consider: what has
> been the trend of programmer salaries over the past 30 years? I'll
> save you the trouble of looking it up, but you should feel free to
> verify it on your own. In the US (I haven't looked at other OECD
> countries, but I suspect the trend would be the same) increase in
> programmers' salaries have handily outpaced inflation and dramatically
> so in the 90s when free software might be said to have matured to the
> point of being viable alternatives to commercial offerings. Even post
> 2000, the salaries have been increasing though not at the same rate as
> before. In any case, they have outpaced inflation. Remember that the
> post 2000 wages are likely to be influenced by lot of outsourcing and
> offshoring.
>
> In short, there is *NO* (*ZIP*, *ZILCH*, *NADA*) evidence for your
> thesis that free software depresses programmers' wages.
Negative pressure /= falling
It can simply be not rising as fast which is exactly what the data show.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <8664hg842t.fsf@panix.com>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-28 15:01:54 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
>> Here's another data point that you might wish to consider: what has
>> been the trend of programmer salaries over the past 30 years? I'll
>> save you the trouble of looking it up, but you should feel free to
>> verify it on your own. In the US (I haven't looked at other OECD
>> countries, but I suspect the trend would be the same) increase in
>> programmers' salaries have handily outpaced inflation and dramatically
>> so in the 90s when free software might be said to have matured to the
>> point of being viable alternatives to commercial offerings. Even post
>> 2000, the salaries have been increasing though not at the same rate as
>> before. In any case, they have outpaced inflation. Remember that the
>> post 2000 wages are likely to be influenced by lot of outsourcing and
>> offshoring.
>>
>> In short, there is *NO* (*ZIP*, *ZILCH*, *NADA*) evidence for your
>> thesis that free software depresses programmers' wages.
>
> Negative pressure /= falling
>
> It can simply be not rising as fast which is exactly what the data
> show.
Shrug. Well, if facts can't change your opinion, I certainly can't. I
think I'll take the hint (such as it is) and stop wasting my time.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
>> Finally, Rajappa's "pro-active" solution consists of *abandoning*
>> the market - hardly what I'd call pro-active - more like defeatist.
>
> OK, let's perform this mind-experiment. No one gives away razor
> blades for free. Gillette makes a *lot* of money selling razor
> blades. Would you fund some entrepreneur who comes up with the "idea"
> of duplicating Gillete's Mach 3? If not, why not?
Patents. :(
> It's not defeatist to understand that if my aim is to make money, I
> have to do it by addressing a need that has not been met by the
> current products in the market.
>
> rsi
> --
> <···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
> Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
>
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <864px2bdsf.fsf@panix.com>
Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>
>> Raffael Cavallaro
>> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>>
>>> Finally, Rajappa's "pro-active" solution consists of *abandoning*
>>> the market - hardly what I'd call pro-active - more like defeatist.
>>
>> OK, let's perform this mind-experiment. No one gives away razor
>> blades for free. Gillette makes a *lot* of money selling razor
>> blades. Would you fund some entrepreneur who comes up with the "idea"
>> of duplicating Gillete's Mach 3? If not, why not?
>
> Patents. :(
For the mind experiment, let's assume no patents.
>> It's not defeatist to understand that if my aim is to make money, I
>> have to do it by addressing a need that has not been met by the
>> current products in the market.
>>
>> rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecj8bv.ace.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-28, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>
>> Raffael Cavallaro
>> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>>
>>> Finally, Rajappa's "pro-active" solution consists of *abandoning*
>>> the market - hardly what I'd call pro-active - more like defeatist.
>>
>> OK, let's perform this mind-experiment. No one gives away razor
>> blades for free. Gillette makes a *lot* of money selling razor
>> blades. Would you fund some entrepreneur who comes up with the "idea"
>> of duplicating Gillete's Mach 3? If not, why not?
>
> Patents. :(
Patents are a *good* thing in general, they do not work well with
software and being able to patent a business process was a very
very stupid thing to do by the USPO. The idea is that in exchange for
public disclosure of a new idea, rubber shoe heels for example, you get
the right to decide who can make them. Then after you have done this for
a while the knowledge is part of the public domain. Also it leads to
reuse via licencing, pay me money and you do not need to develop an new
way of doing this.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-07-28, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>>
>>> Raffael Cavallaro
>>> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Finally, Rajappa's "pro-active" solution consists of *abandoning*
>>>> the market - hardly what I'd call pro-active - more like defeatist.
>>>
>>> OK, let's perform this mind-experiment. No one gives away razor
>>> blades for free. Gillette makes a *lot* of money selling razor
>>> blades. Would you fund some entrepreneur who comes up with the "idea"
>>> of duplicating Gillete's Mach 3? If not, why not?
>>
>> Patents. :(
>
> Patents are a *good* thing in general, they do not work well with
> software and being able to patent a business process was a very
> very stupid thing to do by the USPO. The idea is that in exchange for
> public disclosure of a new idea, rubber shoe heels for example, you get
> the right to decide who can make them. Then after you have done this for
> a while the knowledge is part of the public domain. Also it leads to
> reuse via licencing, pay me money and you do not need to develop an new
> way of doing this.
Well, the question of whether patents are a good thing is really not the
issue here, and I don't think we need to make into one. My response was
merely a factual answer to Rajappa's question: what stops anyone
duplicating the Mach 3 is in fact patents.
I will note, however, that the Mach 3 is the only razor I can find in
shops here in the UK which you can actually clean your beard hair from by
just running water through the back. All the others have the end of the
handle stuck right over the blades so you basically can't clean them.
It's so obvious that I can only assume that Gillette have a patent on
"making a razor which can be cleaned by not blocking up the only side you
could possibly clean it from," hardly the very definition of
"non-obvious."
> marc
> --
> ······@sdf.lonestar.org
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrneckrvm.h3j.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-28, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> I will note, however, that the Mach 3 is the only razor I can find in
> shops here in the UK which you can actually clean your beard hair from by
> just running water through the back. All the others have the end of the
> handle stuck right over the blades so you basically can't clean them.
>
> It's so obvious that I can only assume that Gillette have a patent on
> "making a razor which can be cleaned by not blocking up the only side you
> could possibly clean it from," hardly the very definition of
> "non-obvious."
>
You do like the mach3 you own, I like mine as well. Now part of the
trade off is that in exchange for developing a better razor design Gillette
gets to exclusivly make money with it for a while. And it is not obvious
or everyone else would have had them out all ready. Generally after you
see a good idea it looks simple, rubber shoe heels.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 13:39:09 -0400, Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> said:
>
> > You
> > choose to ignore the fact that vendors can charge what the market will
> > bear for their products -- pricing has nothing to do with the amount
> > of effort expended on developing that product.
>
> This is clearly false. Economic actors will in general not undertake
> expensive projects if there is no possibility of recouping costs. If
> the market makes it clear that it does not value that costly-to-produce
> product sufficiently to recoup costs then it is extraordinarily
> unlikely that any other entitiy will attempt to enter that market.
But you have yet to show that free software drives the
market to value programmer time at $0.00. In fact, the
plethora of development being done *because* of free software
seems to contradict you.
You are basically saying:
Free software is causing the market to value
a costly-to-produce product at below its market
value.
I see a problem with that assumption.
goose,
On 2006-07-28 00:17:44 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> In fact, the
> plethora of development being done *because* of free software
> seems to contradict you.
First we have to be careful to distinguish infrastructure software from
end-user software.
For your argument to be true you would have to show that *less*
development would be done if there were no free end-user software. I
contend that the same amount of development would be getting done just
that the proprietary firm that owned the code for the particular
end-user software in question would be getting paid to do custom
enhancements rather than other firms getting paid to do custom
enhancements of the free end-user software.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 00:17:44 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > In fact, the
> > plethora of development being done *because* of free software
> > seems to contradict you.
>
> First we have to be careful to distinguish infrastructure software from
> end-user software.
>
I'd be interested to know how you propose doing the
classification.
> For your argument to be true you would have to show that *less*
> development would be done if there were no free end-user software.
No NO no!
I am /not/ making the claims; I am asking for proof for the
claims that *you* have made. You have claimed that free
software must, by definition, drive down the price of
developers.
I'm saying that I remain unconvinced, and I presented
various scenarios and reasons of why I am unconvinced
by your argument. You have not responded to many
of these reasons of mine, but you *have* repeated
yourself on issue that I had already addressed.
> I
> contend that the same amount of development would be getting done just
> that the proprietary firm that owned the code for the particular
> end-user software in question would be getting paid to do custom
> enhancements rather than other firms getting paid to do custom
> enhancements of the free end-user software.
I still remain unconvinced of this; like I said earlier, if
the $VENDOR doesn't want to play ball with me, I'll use
another vendor - the FSF is just another vendor.
If we look at Lispworks as an example; lets say that I
required that they provide me the source at whatever
price with the standard NDA /and/ lets assume that they
refuse to do this - what are my other options?
I could either waste time being spurned by other
commercial vendors or I could use an FSF lisp
which may not be as feature complete but meets
my needs.
Slightly OT, does anyone know why Lispworks
is only available at the latest version. What I
would like to see is a lower-cost cross-platform
commercial lisp; the older versions of Lispworks
might suit me just fine.
goose,
On 2006-07-28 15:33:26 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> I still remain unconvinced of this; like I said earlier, if
> the $VENDOR doesn't want to play ball with me, I'll use
> another vendor - the FSF is just another vendor.
And again, I know that the FSF is another "vendor" - but they are a
vendor who *knows* that their "business model" will result in lower
programmer wages and salaries. Since this is obvious even to them, I
think it's pretty foolish for *programmers* to support them. I can see
why *consumers* might - after all its just more *free stuff* <yeah!>
for consumers. It's just pretty foolish for programmers to support a
"business model" that's known by the organization employing it to drive
down programmer wages.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 00:17:44 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
>> In fact, the
>> plethora of development being done *because* of free software
>> seems to contradict you.
>
> First we have to be careful to distinguish infrastructure software from
> end-user software.
It's not at all clear why.
Why is it okay if the makers of development tools "don't get paid" for
their work, but it isn't okay if the makers of end-user software "don't
get paid" for their work?
> For your argument to be true you would have to show that *less* development
> would be done if there were no free end-user software. I contend that the
> same amount of development would be getting done just that the proprietary
> firm that owned the code for the particular end-user software in question
> would be getting paid to do custom enhancements rather than other firms
> getting paid to do custom enhancements of the free end-user software.
This is deeply inconsistent with what you're saying elsewhere.
You're claiming that free software results in less jobs for programmers
and less funding for those programmers who have jobs, but at the same time
no less development is being done.
The only way this could be true is if free software developers are
significantly more productive than proprietary software developers. I
can't imagine how your choice of distribution scheme would affect your
productivity before you've even shipped the product, so I don't think that
can be true.
I believe there are two consistent options:
1. Free software does not result in fewer and less-well-funded jobs, which
means that, all other things being equal, the same amount of software
is created.
2. Free software does result in fewer and less-well-funded jobs, which
means that, all other things being equal, less software is created.
I believe 1 is closest to the truth.
You've repeatedly stated that free software removes jobs and reduces
funding for those jobs remaining. It can only mean that less development
is performed. You *must* believe 2 is closest to the truth. This means
that you *must* also believe that if there were no free software, there
would be *more* development, since that logically follows from 2.
Given that, and given that you expect goose to provide proof of his claim
that free software enables development, please prove that it is actually
proprietary software which enables development. And I don't mean "please
restart your arguments in a different way." I want inarguable facts. As a
first step, I'd settle for evidence of a strong inverse correlation
between levels of end-user usage of free software and levels of programmer
employment and wages.
On 2006-07-28 17:47:36 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Why is it okay if the makers of development tools "don't get paid" for
> their work, but it isn't okay if the makers of end-user software "don't
> get paid" for their work?
Because the net benefit to programmers outweighs the lost revenue -
something which isn't true of end-user software.
On 2006-07-28 17:47:36 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> I believe there are two consistent options:
>
> 1. Free software does not result in fewer and less-well-funded jobs, which
> means that, all other things being equal, the same amount of software
> is created.
>
> 2. Free software does result in fewer and less-well-funded jobs, which
> means that, all other things being equal, less software is created.
3. Free software does result in fewer and less-well-funded jobs, which
means that, all other things being equal, less quality software is
created and more software overall is created, but most of it is half
broken free shovelware crap.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> 3. Free software does result in fewer and less-well-funded jobs, which
> means that, all other things being equal, less quality software is
> created and more software overall is created, but most of it is half
> broken free shovelware crap.
Do you have any facts which proves this? I think the opposite is true: E.g.
the Apache projects, like the Apache web server, Tomcat, Ant etc. helps
people to get their projects done, which in turn results in more
well-funded jobs.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
On 2006-07-29 17:44:00 -0400, Frank Buss <··@frank-buss.de> said:
> I think the opposite is true: E.g.
> the Apache projects, like the Apache web server, Tomcat, Ant etc. helps
> people to get their projects done, which in turn results in more
> well-funded jobs.
But here you're talking about infrastructure which is a clear benefit
to programmers doing their jobs. The same can't be said about end-user
software - giving that away is just lost revenue.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> But here you're talking about infrastructure which is a clear benefit
> to programmers doing their jobs. The same can't be said about end-user
> software - giving that away is just lost revenue.
This depends on the software. I'm using FPGAs and Xilinx is giving away the
software for synthesizing VHDL and Verilog programs, for simulating it and
for programming the FPGAs (at least the entry level FPGAs, Altera is doing
the same). I think this is an important reason for many people to buy their
chips, because normally such software is very expensive, so they make money
with giving away software for free.
But you are right, a company might get in trouble, if they are selling
software only, like an audio editor, because there is Audacity. But I think
the gross national product is higher with free software, summing it all
together.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> But this conversation is going nowhere because the only people we're
> talking to seem to have their minds closed.
In light of the fact that you have been complaining about this issue for
years now I'd say that train runs both ways. But we can do this little
experiment: I'll answer your question and we'll see how you respond.
> Rather than beat a dead horse, then, I'd like to ask a question to get
> the conversation back onto the real track I meant to open by starting
> this subthread... something related directly to comp.lang.lisp and not
> to abstract philosophy:
>
> Suppose I have written a piece of software. (Not something that
> solves problems for end-users. If it drove a vacuum cleaner, I'd pack
> it in a vacuum cleaner and sell it like Apple sells Quicktime--free if
> you just buy the large piece of metal and plastic required to run it.)
> No, this piece of software helps programmers--the ones who, unlike
> janitors, expect not to pay anything for anything.
>
> Suppose I believe it is something others will want to use.
So this is the first problem. Your premise is that you BELIEVE it is
something others will want to use. Your belief is not necessarily
correct.
> Something that doesn't exist. Something that will save time.
It is very rare that software saves time in an absolute sense. There is
always an up-front investment of time and risk. At best you have to
take the time to install the software (and possibly uninstall it if it
turns out to be buggy). In the more typical case you have to climb a
learning curve which can be very time consuming indeed.
Furthermore, counterintuitive as it may seem, saving time is not always
deemed a desirable outcome in software development. Those software
developers that do have jobs writing code have a vested interest in
maintaining the status quo where they get paid by the hour and
productivity measures are fuzzy and generally focused on the short term.
> Something that long ago we would have said "people would pay for".
When was the last time someone made money on the kind of thing you have
in mind? It is not clear to me from your description whether this
utopia of yours ever existed, or if it has always been a fantasy.
I'm going to respond to something out-of-order now because I want to cut
straight to the chase before answering your specific questions:
> I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
> inspiration.
In that case you need to come to grips with the fact that you are not an
engineer but an artist. Since you have chosen to be an artist you will
need to live the way artists do. You may need to get a day job waiting
tables. You may need to struggle for years before achieving commercial
success. You may not receive the kind of recognition you feel you
deserve until after you are dead. It may be regrettable, but that's the
way it is for artists.
In that light...
> But now, well, ... the question
> is, what do I do now, in the present day, the one I'm supposed to get
> used to and not fight.
>
> I guess there are two questions:
>
> (a) Suppose I grant for argument that it's a brave new world and
> we do things differently now. Enlighten me. I have mouths to feed
> in my household. I have something I think people want. Tell me how
> I give away what I own for free and yet receive something that will
> feed my family...
You don't have to give it away for free. You can sell your work. Many
artists (even those whose art form is code) do. Just don't expect
necessarily to make enough to live on that way.
> (b) Suppose your answer is "you can't get money" or "don't expect enough
> to feed your family" or even "don't expect enough to make it worth
> your while to have made the item... Why should I release it at all?
> Why should anyone?
Artists give away their work for "less than their fair market value" (I
put the phrase in scare quotes because it is "less" only as perceived by
the artist, not as perceived by the market) in order to hone their
craft, to supplement their table-waiting income, and to bide their time
while they wait for their Big Break.
> Why shouldn't I just burn it and wait for someone
> who values their time less than I to put something out?
Because if you are an artist, then no one else can produce art the way
you do. No one else will get it Right except you. And if you wait for
someone else, the half-assed job they will inevitably do will eat you up
inside.
> Where is the incentive to make anything in this new world?
It's the same as it ever was. The problem is that you are blind to one
fundamental fact: the incentives provided by the market are only one
kind of incentive. There are other kinds of incentives. For example,
some things, like skiing for example, are simply fun. Some people get
paid to ski, but the vast majority of skiers actually PAY OTHERS (can
you imagine?) in order to ski.
Creating art is fun. Hacking on your own code your own way with no one
to answer to is fun. It should come as no surprise that in a free
market the competition to make money doing something fun is fierce and
very few will actually succeed. You may just not be good enough.
> Where is the ability
> of the market to act as a natural aggregator of wealth by directing
> people with a need to join together to fund people with a product?
Everywhere. Needs are being met all around. We live in an abundance of
software, ski slopes, and art of all stripes. The only need that isn't
being met is *your* need to make a living doing exactly what you want on
your own terms. Well, too bad. That's the Way It Is.
> Must this always be a "pull" process? Only build things the market
> asks for?
Of course not. No one asked for the iPod.
> Does that mean people who are inspired to innovate and
> who want to "push" have no value?
Of course not. But just because something has value does not mean you
can get rich off it, or even support yourself with it. The part of the
economic equation you are leaving out is *scarcity*. The artist's
problem is not that inspiration has no value, but rather that it is
overly abundant (because it's fun to produce).
> Because you're open to having
> a free software sniper instantly de-value innovation and claim its
> only value was the construction cost... as if the value of Einstein's
> equation E=mc^2 was less than a penny since it can be written with a
> pencil on a paper in about 1 second and plainly is a commodity that
> should sell at its copying value, not its creation value.
If you really produce something as valuable as E=mc^2 you will have no
trouble making a living, just as Einstein had no trouble. You will not
make your living selling copies of your equation. You will be able to
make a living, as Einstein did, teaching, getting research grants,
consulting, and if you really become as famous as Einstein, you could
probably even sell your paintings at a profit.
> I ask these questions not in the abstract. I ask what we tell people in our
> community who want to deliver product. Because what point is there writing
> programs if you can't sell them? Just for fun? I came to this as a career
> and if the answer is that it's only a hobby now, I should just get another
> line of work.
I hate to break it to you, but yes, programming is fun, and many people
do it just for fun.
> And if you don't like my inspiration, at least
> acknolwedge the possibility that there are people who are inspired.
Acknowledged.
> And that you might want to incentivize them.
Why? The problem is not a scarcity of inspiration but an overabundance.
Additional incentives would exacerbate the problem.
> What should they do with
> their inspired ideas to get some money so they can eat?
This question assumes that inspired ideas alone have market value. They
do not, and never have. It has *never* been the idea alone that made
people rich, it is the *implementation* that makes money (because that's
the non-fun part).
> If you can't suggest a process that will at least somewhat reliably
> lead to income--enough that people can tell their families they're
> going to risk their livelihood on without getting divorced, then why
> are you building a superior society over the one we had before I
> indulged this hypothetical, where there was an established mechanism
> for selling for income... If there is a relatively reliable path, I'm
> just overlooking it and eagerly awaiting insight.
Because money and wealth are not the same thing. It is entirely
possible for everyone to have less money and still be wealthier (and
vice versa).
> Users often show up here and quite reasonably ask "how do I make an exe
> file". It's a tough question, because the standard doesn't specify it.
> But it's one we have various reasonable answers.
>
> It's equally reasonable, in the set of delivery questions, to ask how to
> economically deliver something and to get money back. What do we say?
> Not just so that people can "selfishly" make money, but so that we as
> consumers can "selflishly" attract inspired people and make it worth their
> while to contribute things that keep us happy.
>
> Somehow, telling them, "it's brutal out there. you deserve you lose if
> you ask for money. ask for something more abstract." has a ring that
> doesn't quite work for me... and I fear it won't really impress
> Einstein Jr. either. He'll probably say "I think I'll just go back to
> my job issuing software patents. At least that gets me a government
> subsidy..."
If you really think Einstein worked on relativity because he thought it
would make him rich then you don't understand passion, and are therefore
unlikely to succeed as an artist. You might want to brush up on your
C++ (or your table-waiting skills).
rg
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <ufygm21tv.fsf@nhplace.com>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
>
> > But this conversation is going nowhere because the only people we're
> > talking to seem to have their minds closed.
>
> In light of the fact that you have been complaining about this issue for
> years now I'd say that train runs both ways. But we can do this little
> experiment: I'll answer your question and we'll see how you respond.
Well, I didn't happen to agree with much of what you had to say, but
at least your answers seme to have been a good faith attempt to stay
on track with what I asked, which is more than I've gotten out of some
other answers here... So indeed, here we go...
> > Rather than beat a dead horse, then, I'd like to ask a question to get
> > the conversation back onto the real track I meant to open by starting
> > this subthread... something related directly to comp.lang.lisp and not
> > to abstract philosophy:
> >
> > Suppose I have written a piece of software. (Not something that
> > solves problems for end-users. If it drove a vacuum cleaner, I'd pack
> > it in a vacuum cleaner and sell it like Apple sells Quicktime--free if
> > you just buy the large piece of metal and plastic required to run it.)
> > No, this piece of software helps programmers--the ones who, unlike
> > janitors, expect not to pay anything for anything.
> >
> > Suppose I believe it is something others will want to use.
>
> So this is the first problem. Your premise is that you BELIEVE it is
> something others will want to use. Your belief is not necessarily
> correct.
No, my premise is that I want to contribute skill and I'm asking, "is
the cost of contributing skill that I have to have my entire efforts
reduced to the computational equivalent of pulling the arm of a slot
machine?" Because although I once saw the State of Massachusetts
refer to buying a lottery ticket as a "retirement investment", I think
I'd like all of our efforts in life to have just a bit more certainty.
Nothing in life is certain. But the reason people build societies rather
than live in the jungle is to hedge their bets against being eaten by a
predator (person or animal)... If you're telling me that after millenia
of societal growth, what we've come to is "be prepared to be eaten by a
predator", then I've got to question what society is about. I suggest
that society is about trying to come up with a set of rules that minimizes
pain and risk, while maximizing gain. It's fine to say that some pain and
some risk is necessary to get better gain, but don't tell me that I should
not even be asking how to minimize pain and risk, and don't tell me that
any amount of pain and risk is ok, as long as it maximizes gain.
> > Something that doesn't exist. Something that will save time.
>
> It is very rare that software saves time in an absolute sense. There is
> always an up-front investment of time and risk. At best you have to
> take the time to install the software (and possibly uninstall it if it
> turns out to be buggy). In the more typical case you have to climb a
> learning curve which can be very time consuming indeed.
>
> Furthermore, counterintuitive as it may seem, saving time is not always
> deemed a desirable outcome in software development. Those software
> developers that do have jobs writing code have a vested interest in
> maintaining the status quo where they get paid by the hour and
> productivity measures are fuzzy and generally focused on the short term.
>
> > Something that long ago we would have said "people would pay for".
>
> When was the last time someone made money on the kind of thing you have
> in mind? It is not clear to me from your description whether this
> utopia of yours ever existed, or if it has always been a fantasy.
>
> I'm going to respond to something out-of-order now because I want to cut
> straight to the chase before answering your specific questions:
>
> > I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
> > inspiration.
>
> In that case you need to come to grips with the fact that you are not an
> engineer but an artist. Since you have chosen to be an artist you will
> need to live the way artists do. You may need to get a day job waiting
> tables. You may need to struggle for years before achieving commercial
> success. You may not receive the kind of recognition you feel you
> deserve until after you are dead. It may be regrettable, but that's the
> way it is for artists.
You're framing this about what I want. But I'm asking the question: How
do I get more art into the world. How do I inspire artists to design the
things in my life. You're saying "hang it up, they have to spend all their
day washing dishes--you're luck you get what you get". I'm trying to engage
people in the design of the system that would not have them doing that, for
our sakes as well as theirs.
> In that light...
>
> > But now, well, ... the question
> > is, what do I do now, in the present day, the one I'm supposed to get
> > used to and not fight.
> >
> > I guess there are two questions:
> >
> > (a) Suppose I grant for argument that it's a brave new world and
> > we do things differently now. Enlighten me. I have mouths to feed
> > in my household. I have something I think people want. Tell me how
> > I give away what I own for free and yet receive something that will
> > feed my family...
>
> You don't have to give it away for free. You can sell your work. Many
> artists (even those whose art form is code) do. Just don't expect
> necessarily to make enough to live on that way.
>
> > (b) Suppose your answer is "you can't get money" or "don't expect enough
> > to feed your family" or even "don't expect enough to make it worth
> > your while to have made the item... Why should I release it at all?
> > Why should anyone?
>
> Artists give away their work for "less than their fair market value" (I
> put the phrase in scare quotes because it is "less" only as perceived by
> the artist, not as perceived by the market) in order to hone their
> craft, to supplement their table-waiting income, and to bide their time
> while they wait for their Big Break.
Only because we sometimes treat artists badly. It's not an intrinsic
truth of the Universe that they have to be treated this way. The
Internet has created marketplaces for writers with very small audiences.
And the protection for them is much greater than for programmers.
(I can hear you saying "So write a book." And I might. I do have a day
job that prevents me doing it quickly. But again I emphasize: this
discussion, however much I appeal sometimes to my own experience, is not
about me. I've been in the industry a while, and I get by. But I'm trying
to ask what to recommend to others because I simply can't recommend that
they do the things I did--I don't think they would work any more. And I
don't know that anything would.)
> > Why shouldn't I just burn it and wait for someone
> > who values their time less than I to put something out?
>
> Because if you are an artist, then no one else can produce art the way
> you do. No one else will get it Right except you. And if you wait for
> someone else, the half-assed job they will inevitably do will eat you up
> inside.
Stallman makes this argument. That programmers are compulsive. He
recommends in one of his books that employers should pay programmers
low wages since they'll program compulsively anyway, and it really
doesn't matter whether you pay them or not. I can understand an employer
coming to this position--it's the kind of self-serving decision that
employers make all the time. They gotta make a profit somewhere, and
it's often on the backs of labor. But I don't understand labor saying
this to an employer.
In fact, I think it's better from a bargaining point of view if one makes
it clear that the price of offering unsuitable wages is exactly not
compulsively providing the same item, but rather not providing any item
at all.
> > Where is the incentive to make anything in this new world?
>
> It's the same as it ever was. The problem is that you are blind to one
> fundamental fact: the incentives provided by the market are only one
> kind of incentive. There are other kinds of incentives. For example,
> some things, like skiing for example, are simply fun. Some people get
> paid to ski, but the vast majority of skiers actually PAY OTHERS (can
> you imagine?) in order to ski.
>
> Creating art is fun. Hacking on your own code your own way with no one
> to answer to is fun. It should come as no surprise that in a free
> market the competition to make money doing something fun is fierce and
> very few will actually succeed. You may just not be good enough.
>
> > Where is the ability
> > of the market to act as a natural aggregator of wealth by directing
> > people with a need to join together to fund people with a product?
>
> Everywhere. Needs are being met all around. We live in an abundance of
> software, ski slopes, and art of all stripes. The only need that isn't
> being met is *your* need to make a living doing exactly what you want on
> your own terms. Well, too bad. That's the Way It Is.
>
> > Must this always be a "pull" process? Only build things the market
> > asks for?
>
> Of course not. No one asked for the iPod.
>
> > Does that mean people who are inspired to innovate and
> > who want to "push" have no value?
>
> Of course not. But just because something has value does not mean you
> can get rich off it, or even support yourself with it. The part of the
> economic equation you are leaving out is *scarcity*. The artist's
> problem is not that inspiration has no value, but rather that it is
> overly abundant (because it's fun to produce).
This isn't a fair accounting. Artists are (a) protected by copyright and
(b) in most artistic disciplines, there is no notion of "equivalent value".
That is, if Da Vinci paints Mona Lisa, there's no serious notion that someone
else says "wow, cool idea, I'll do that for less" and in any way destroys
the value of the Mona Lisa. But, in computer science, if I have the idea
that a good compiler might work by continuation-passing style, and I write
a compiler that does this, it quickly becomes apparent what I have done
and anyone can copy the idea without copying the form and produce something
that would, by people with money, be perceived as equivalent, and consequently
the sense in which you're saying I've provided "art" is not really holding
up as an analogy. Because at least one characteristic of art is it's
ineffable or uncopyable nature--except by literal copying, which is protected.
Because in computers we can come out with something truly unique that
nevertheless possible to decompose into small parts and then be copied,
we have little protection... other than software patents... which most of us
who disagree here about free software would probably still agree are awful
in their present incarnation. So there is a sense in which it's artistic,
but it's the same kind of sense in which code is artistic.
I use the terms "convergent" and "divergent" to talk about this.
Computer Science is a convergent discipline; that is, when you get an
assignment in class to do a thing, you lose points for coming back with
something different than your classmate. Creative writing and painting
are divergent disciplines; that is, if you are asked to write or paint
something in a class and you come back with something the same as one
of your classmates, you lose points (if you are not just thrown out of
school completely) because the chances of you doing the literal same
item as someone else are so close to zero as to not even be considered.
Copyright spans both of these disciplines, but it's important to see
that in the convergent disciplines, copyright is protecting something for
which there is a natural attractive nature to certain optimization points,
while for other disciplines there is not. Hence there is a lot of cover
for people who claim to be artists but are really "knock-off artists"
(that is, their art is not in the creation but in the passing off of
a non-creation as a creation--not something I'm interested in designing
societal mechanisms to suppport).
> > Because you're open to having
> > a free software sniper instantly de-value innovation and claim its
> > only value was the construction cost... as if the value of Einstein's
> > equation E=mc^2 was less than a penny since it can be written with a
> > pencil on a paper in about 1 second and plainly is a commodity that
> > should sell at its copying value, not its creation value.
>
> If you really produce something as valuable as E=mc^2 you will have no
> trouble making a living, just as Einstein had no trouble. You will not
> make your living selling copies of your equation. You will be able to
> make a living, as Einstein did, teaching, getting research grants,
> consulting, and if you really become as famous as Einstein, you could
> probably even sell your paintings at a profit.
This may be so. But this is not ideal if (a) Einstein didn't want to
earn money that way and/or (b) society didn't want Einstein to have to
waste his valuable talents that way.
I'm not just saying "how can we make sure people are fed", I'm saying,
how can we make an engine that optimizes people ability to contribute.
It has frequently been observed that the old Communist maxim of
"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
didn't really optimize that because it was quickly obvious that a person
was going to get his needs met whether he did anything or not, and why
should anyone put themselves out when there was no upside for doing so.
It wasn't just the individuals who didn't benefit--those entire societies
failed. And, for all I know, they were filled with people who were
(or in some cases would have been) wonderful, caring people who were
wealthy in non-dollar terms--adored by their peers. They just couldn't
trade that adoration for a loaf of bread or a pair of levis or a passport
out...
> > I ask these questions not in the abstract. I ask what we tell people in our
> > community who want to deliver product. Because what point is there writing
> > programs if you can't sell them? Just for fun? I came to this as a career
> > and if the answer is that it's only a hobby now, I should just get another
> > line of work.
>
> I hate to break it to you, but yes, programming is fun, and many people
> do it just for fun.
>
> > And if you don't like my inspiration, at least
> > acknolwedge the possibility that there are people who are inspired.
>
> Acknowledged.
>
> > And that you might want to incentivize them.
>
> Why? The problem is not a scarcity of inspiration but an overabundance.
> Additional incentives would exacerbate the problem.
This assumes that all inspiration is interchangeable. I don't think
there's an overabundance of the kind of inspiration I'm seeking. By
inspiration, I don't mean "people who feel inspired" I mean "people
who I (or anyone) would describe as inspired". I believe the latter
set is quite a bit smaller, and that the various disciplines compete
for their attention, since truly inspired people are capable of various
things.
> > What should they do with
> > their inspired ideas to get some money so they can eat?
>
> This question assumes that inspired ideas alone have market value. They
> do not, and never have. It has *never* been the idea alone that made
> people rich, it is the *implementation* that makes money (because that's
> the non-fun part).
No, but the capitalist system is based on the idea that money
attracts. So telling people there is no money down one path and there
is down another is going to have an effect on where people go.
> Because money and wealth are not the same thing. It is entirely
> possible for everyone to have less money and still be wealthier (and
> vice versa).
Yes, but given the choice early enough, and a proper training in the terms
(that is, assuming you DON'T indoctrinate them with phrases like "money
is evil" but instead describe money as simply a tool, not a goal, but a
useful one in achieving freedom--which is a goal).
> If you really think Einstein worked on relativity because he thought it
> would make him rich then you don't understand passion, and are therefore
> unlikely to succeed as an artist. You might want to brush up on your
> C++ (or your table-waiting skills).
No. I'm saying I wish I could have arranged society so he didn't have
to spend his days at the day job, because he could have done more of
what we remember him for.
And, again, _struggling_ to stay with comp.lang.lisp, which is why I
raise this: I want to know what to tell people in a FAQ, in a book, at
a talk, or whatever, when they say:
- Ok, I wrote my program. How do I package it commercially?
- I have an idea for a program. Is there any way to even hope to make money?
Your answers above "get a sponsor" really don't work for me. It's
very hard to get a sponsor who doesn't want to own the output. So
you're not building anything. And you'll never grow up to be a real
company. You'll just be a worker-bee your whole life. The capitalist
system is supposed to be about competition for a space in the market.
I'd like to think that with all our expertise in process, we could design
something that would help people compete fairly... not just sit around
and conclude that it's fine that people have no coherent idea about
how to be a useful part of society.
In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> No, my premise is that I want to contribute skill
Really? Before you were saying that you wanted to contribute
inspiration. Skill and inspiration are not the same thing. Actual
skill tends to be scarcer than inspiration and therefore more valuable
(in terms of money, not necessarily in terms of wealth). So which is it?
> Nothing in life is certain. But the reason people build societies rather
> than live in the jungle is to hedge their bets against being eaten by a
> predator (person or animal)...
That's not the only reason.
> If you're telling me that after millenia
> of societal growth, what we've come to is "be prepared to be eaten by a
> predator", then I've got to question what society is about.
Being unemployed is a far, far cry from being eaten by a predator. Such
hyperbole does nothing to support your position.
> I suggest
> that society is about trying to come up with a set of rules that minimizes
> pain and risk, while maximizing gain.
Yes, that's mostly true, but the problem is that there is no clear
quality metric. Suppose you have a society with three people and three
strategic options. Under option A, everyone ends up with 10 units of
wealth. Under option B, two people end up with 20 units of wealth and
one person ends up with 5. Under option C, one person ends up with 100
units of wealth and the other two end up with 1 each. Which option is
best?
> It's fine to say that some pain and
> some risk is necessary to get better gain, but don't tell me that I should
> not even be asking how to minimize pain and risk, and don't tell me that
> any amount of pain and risk is ok, as long as it maximizes gain.
Those are fine questions to be asking, but you seem to be focusing on
the pain and risk of *programmers*, not the pain and risk of *society*.
This will not doubt come as a great shock to you, but there is more to
society than programmers.
> You're framing this about what I want.
No, YOU are framing it that way, you just don't realize it. That is
really the point I am trying to make. For example:
> But I'm asking the question: How do I get more art into the world.
You seem to be making the tacit assumption that getting more art into
the world is a universal good, when in fact it is merely what you want.
Not everyone wants more art in the world. In fact, most people think
there is a glut of art, as evidenced by the fact that art is cheap.
But just to answer your question as you pose it: one way is to start a
business that makes you rich and then use the proceeds to pay artists to
produce art.
> How do I inspire artists to design the things in my life.
Well, you could pay them, for example.
> You're saying "hang it up, they have to spend all their
> day washing dishes--you're luck you get what you get".
I am saying no such thing. I am saying that there is a glut of artists
and very few of them will be able to support a high standard of living
from selling their art. Happily, our society is prosperous enough that
many artists manage to survive by e.g. waiting tables by night and
producing art by day.
> I'm trying to engage
> people in the design of the system that would not have them doing that, for
> our sakes as well as theirs.
No you're not, you're whining about the fact that some programmers give
their work away for free, and that this is bad for them and for society.
But you are simply wrong. The situation is bad for society only under
certain quality metrics. You tacitly assume these quality metrics to be
universal, but they are not.
BTW, I am becoming intimately familiar with the economics of art because
I am trying to deal with the record industry to get some music licenses.
The fact of the matter is that great riches await anyone who can figure
out how to make the production and distribution of art more efficient.
But unfortunately the universal maxim of economics applies: if it were
easy someone would have done it by now. But I don't think you're
interested in addressing the real problems, because they are very, very
hard to solve. I think you're more interested in beating your dead
scapegoat.
> > Artists give away their work for "less than their fair market value" (I
> > put the phrase in scare quotes because it is "less" only as perceived by
> > the artist, not as perceived by the market) in order to hone their
> > craft, to supplement their table-waiting income, and to bide their time
> > while they wait for their Big Break.
>
> Only because we sometimes treat artists badly. It's not an intrinsic
> truth of the Universe that they have to be treated this way.
No, it is a consequence of the fact that most artists are lazy,
talentless hacks with a sense of entitlement. Creating art is easy.
Creating GOOD art is really, really hard.
> The
> Internet has created marketplaces for writers with very small audiences.
> And the protection for them is much greater than for programmers.
Hogwash. Copyright applies to programs just as much as books.
> (I can hear you saying "So write a book."
That too.
> And I might. I do have a day job that prevents me doing it quickly.
You poor dear. Life really has dealt you a shitty hand, hasn't it? A
day job! Oh, the humanity!
> But again I emphasize: this
> discussion, however much I appeal sometimes to my own experience, is not
> about me.
Then why do you keep talking about yourself? About how your day job
prevents you from writing a book? About how you want to be paid for
providing inspiration?
> I've been in the industry a while, and I get by. But I'm trying
> to ask what to recommend to others because I simply can't recommend that
> they do the things I did--I don't think they would work any more. And I
> don't know that anything would.)
Of course you can't recommend to others to do what you did. That was
then, this is now. Once upon a time people made a good living making
buggy whips too. Times change. Deal with it.
> > > Why shouldn't I just burn it and wait for someone
> > > who values their time less than I to put something out?
> >
> > Because if you are an artist, then no one else can produce art the way
> > you do. No one else will get it Right except you. And if you wait for
> > someone else, the half-assed job they will inevitably do will eat you up
> > inside.
>
> Stallman makes this argument. That programmers are compulsive.
And history has shown him to be correct.
> He
> recommends in one of his books that employers should pay programmers
> low wages since they'll program compulsively anyway, and it really
> doesn't matter whether you pay them or not. I can understand an employer
> coming to this position--it's the kind of self-serving decision that
> employers make all the time. They gotta make a profit somewhere, and
> it's often on the backs of labor. But I don't understand labor saying
> this to an employer.
Then you're not an artist.
> In fact, I think it's better from a bargaining point of view if one makes
> it clear that the price of offering unsuitable wages is exactly not
> compulsively providing the same item, but rather not providing any item
> at all.
Only if your quality metric is how much money ends up in your pocket.
Different people have different quality metrics (to say nothing of the
fact that *society's* quality metric is a different thing altogether).
> > Of course not. But just because something has value does not mean you
> > can get rich off it, or even support yourself with it. The part of the
> > economic equation you are leaving out is *scarcity*. The artist's
> > problem is not that inspiration has no value, but rather that it is
> > overly abundant (because it's fun to produce).
>
> This isn't a fair accounting. Artists are (a) protected by copyright
So are programmers.
> and
> (b) in most artistic disciplines, there is no notion of "equivalent value".
> That is, if Da Vinci paints Mona Lisa, there's no serious notion that someone
> else says "wow, cool idea, I'll do that for less" and in any way destroys
> the value of the Mona Lisa.
Hogwash. The Mona Lisa's value derives from its historical
significance, not its artistic value. This is the reason that you can
obtain a copy of the Mona Lisa that you would find indistinguishable
from the original (or perhaps even superior to the original because the
original is in pretty poor shape) for a tiny fraction of the cost of the
original. I will also note in passing that Leonardo did not get rich
from painting Mona Lisa. The current value of the original arises as
much from the efforts that have gone into its preservation over the
centuries as it does from the original inspiration.
> But, in computer science, if I have the idea
> that a good compiler might work by continuation-passing style,
It is worth noting that 1) you did not have this idea, 2) the number of
ideas of this caliber in CS are quite small 3) most ideas of this
caliber were invented before the advent of open source and 4) despite
this, in the vast majority of these cases, the originator of the idea
was not directly rewarded for coming up with the idea.
(In fact, I can think of only a single instance where someone has been
directly rewarded in CS for coming up with a cool new technical idea,
and that one case was well after the advent of open source.)
> and I write
> a compiler that does this, it quickly becomes apparent what I have done
> and anyone can copy the idea without copying the form and produce something
> that would, by people with money, be perceived as equivalent, and
> consequently
> the sense in which you're saying I've provided "art" is not really holding
> up as an analogy.
Sure it is. The only difference is that you have not produced a
physical artifact of historical significance so there is no Mona Lisa to
hang in a museum. But in terms of your rewards for whatever ineffable
qualities your art has independent of its physical embodiment your
situation is no different from the vast majority of artists that have
preceded you down this well worn path.
> Because at least one characteristic of art is it's
> ineffable or uncopyable nature--except by literal copying, which is
> protected.
That's right. So maybe you are not actually an artist (yet), perhaps
you merely aspire to be one.
> Because in computers we can come out with something truly unique that
> nevertheless possible to decompose into small parts and then be copied,
And how is this different from any other artistic endeavor? Music, for
example, is rife with this sort of copying. Ever hear of the Monkees?
> I use the terms "convergent" and "divergent" to talk about this.
> Computer Science is a convergent discipline; that is, when you get an
> assignment in class to do a thing, you lose points for coming back with
> something different than your classmate.
But that could just be because academia has its head up its butt. It's
not necessarily because that is inherently how programming is (or ought
to be).
> not something I'm interested in designing
> societal mechanisms to suppport).
FWIW, I understand that you are interested in designing societal
mechanism. I am still very unclear exactly what it is you want those
mechanisms to support.
> > If you really produce something as valuable as E=mc^2 you will have no
> > trouble making a living, just as Einstein had no trouble. You will not
> > make your living selling copies of your equation. You will be able to
> > make a living, as Einstein did, teaching, getting research grants,
> > consulting, and if you really become as famous as Einstein, you could
> > probably even sell your paintings at a profit.
>
> This may be so. But this is not ideal if (a) Einstein didn't want to
> earn money that way and/or (b) society didn't want Einstein to have to
> waste his valuable talents that way.
>
> I'm not just saying "how can we make sure people are fed", I'm saying,
> how can we make an engine that optimizes people ability to contribute.
> It has frequently been observed that the old Communist maxim of
> "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
> didn't really optimize that because it was quickly obvious that a person
> was going to get his needs met whether he did anything or not, and why
> should anyone put themselves out when there was no upside for doing so.
> It wasn't just the individuals who didn't benefit--those entire societies
> failed. And, for all I know, they were filled with people who were
> (or in some cases would have been) wonderful, caring people who were
> wealthy in non-dollar terms--adored by their peers. They just couldn't
> trade that adoration for a loaf of bread or a pair of levis or a passport
> out...
That's right. So what do you suggest?
> > > I ask these questions not in the abstract. I ask what we tell people in
> > > our
> > > community who want to deliver product. Because what point is there
> > > writing
> > > programs if you can't sell them? Just for fun? I came to this as a
> > > career
> > > and if the answer is that it's only a hobby now, I should just get
> > > another
> > > line of work.
> >
> > I hate to break it to you, but yes, programming is fun, and many people
> > do it just for fun.
> >
> > > And if you don't like my inspiration, at least
> > > acknolwedge the possibility that there are people who are inspired.
> >
> > Acknowledged.
> >
> > > And that you might want to incentivize them.
> >
> > Why? The problem is not a scarcity of inspiration but an overabundance.
> > Additional incentives would exacerbate the problem.
>
> This assumes that all inspiration is interchangeable.
I don't think so.
> I don't think
> there's an overabundance of the kind of inspiration I'm seeking. By
> inspiration, I don't mean "people who feel inspired" I mean "people
> who I (or anyone) would describe as inspired".
Really? I thought the kind of inspiration you were talking about was
the sort that caused *other* people to feel inspired. That is a
workable definition because we can rely on people's self-reports about
whether or not someone inspired them. But your new definition is
problematic because people can disagree about whether someone else *is*
inspired.
> I believe the latter
> set is quite a bit smaller, and that the various disciplines compete
> for their attention, since truly inspired people are capable of various
> things.
If that were true then those people should have no problem earning a
living.
> > > What should they do with
> > > their inspired ideas to get some money so they can eat?
> >
> > This question assumes that inspired ideas alone have market value. They
> > do not, and never have. It has *never* been the idea alone that made
> > people rich, it is the *implementation* that makes money (because that's
> > the non-fun part).
>
> No, but the capitalist system is based on the idea that money
> attracts. So telling people there is no money down one path and there
> is down another is going to have an effect on where people go.
Bullshit. When Larry and Sergey started Google everyone told them that
there was no money to be made in search. In fact, it is arguably the
case that they succeeded precisely because no one but them thought there
was money to be made. Bill Gates got rich the same way. In the early
days everyone thought that the money was going to be made selling
hardware, not software.
What matters is not what people tell people. What matters is what is
actually true.
> > Because money and wealth are not the same thing. It is entirely
> > possible for everyone to have less money and still be wealthier (and
> > vice versa).
>
> Yes, but given the choice early enough, and a proper training in the terms
> (that is, assuming you DON'T indoctrinate them with phrases like "money
> is evil" but instead describe money as simply a tool, not a goal, but a
> useful one in achieving freedom--which is a goal).
If what you're saying is that we should train CS students to be better
businesspeople then I can solidly get behind that.
> > If you really think Einstein worked on relativity because he thought it
> > would make him rich then you don't understand passion, and are therefore
> > unlikely to succeed as an artist. You might want to brush up on your
> > C++ (or your table-waiting skills).
>
> No. I'm saying I wish I could have arranged society so he didn't have
> to spend his days at the day job, because he could have done more of
> what we remember him for.
That is not at all clear. Artists are often much more productive when
they are poor and insecure and filled with existential angst than they
are when they are rich and happy.
> And, again, _struggling_ to stay with comp.lang.lisp, which is why I
> raise this: I want to know what to tell people in a FAQ, in a book, at
> a talk, or whatever, when they say:
>
> - Ok, I wrote my program. How do I package it commercially?
Huh? Are you really asking about *packaging*?
> - I have an idea for a program. Is there any way to even hope to make
> money?
The answer is clearly: yes, but it's not easy, and getting harder all
the time.
> Your answers above "get a sponsor" really don't work for me.
I would suggest that getting *customers* is a better option. (But, of
course, then we run into the perennial problem that getting customers is
very hard work, and most programmers would rather spend their days
hacking or pontificating on usenet than making sales calls.)
> The capitalist
> system is supposed to be about competition for a space in the market.
> I'd like to think that with all our expertise in process, we could design
> something that would help people compete fairly... not just sit around
> and conclude that it's fine that people have no coherent idea about
> how to be a useful part of society.
I think most people have a coherent idea about how to be a useful part
of society, but they're just too spoiled and lazy to knuckle down and do
the unpleasant but necessary things that society demands (like serve a
customer).
If you can really come up with a better way of doing business then great
riches await you. But I really doubt you can because one of the
requirements is that you have to make it work in the real world, not an
idealized utopia.
rg
On 2006-07-27 20:38:42 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
> Actual skill tends to be scarcer than inspiration and therefore more
> valuable (in terms of money, not necessarily in terms of wealth).
I think that you and Kent are talking at cross purposes here - at least
I think you must have very different notions of what "inspiration" is.
I would say, for example, that history has given us countless highly
skilled artists (or physicists for that matter) but only a handfull of
truly inspired ones, which would make "inspiration," or "inspired," as
I would use these terms much scarcer than mere skill.
In article
<····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>,
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 20:38:42 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
>
> > Actual skill tends to be scarcer than inspiration and therefore more
> > valuable (in terms of money, not necessarily in terms of wealth).
>
> I think that you and Kent are talking at cross purposes here - at least
> I think you must have very different notions of what "inspiration" is.
> I would say, for example, that history has given us countless highly
> skilled artists (or physicists for that matter) but only a handfull of
> truly inspired ones, which would make "inspiration," or "inspired," as
> I would use these terms much scarcer than mere skill.
Kent specifically disclaimed having any of that kind of inspiration to
offer when he wrote:
> I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
> inspiration.
So whatever flavor of inspiration Kent has on offer, it is apparently
not of the scarce Einsteinian variety.
But even if it were, the problem is that it is often difficult to
identify that sort of inspiration except in retrospect. The most
effective way of monetizing such inspiration (if that is one's goal) is
not to try to do so directly but rather to use it as leverage to provide
a competitive advantage in some sort of business. Once again I'll cite
Google as the canonical example of this strategy in action. Page Rank
was, in retrospect, a pretty slick idea, but even that I'm not sure I'd
list up there with general relativity on the inspiration scale. Larry
and Sergey got rich beyond the dreams of avarice not because they were
able to sell Page Rank for billions of dollars, but because they used it
as leverage to get into (and revolutionize) the *advertising* business.
(In order to do that they had to come up with two additional
inspirations: keyword-based text ads and syndication. Neither of these
are GR-level inspirations either. But those three things together make
a real kick-ass combination. It's also worth noting that Google has
gotten a lot of leverage out of open-source software.)
What this all boils down to is that inspiration (of whatever variety) is
simply not worth as much as Kent thinks it ought to be. That is sad for
Kent who aspires to be a provider of inspiration rather than labor or
capital, but it is great for society because it means that inspiration
is cheap and abundant.
rg
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <5Tryg.7785$UY2.6741@fe11.lga>
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article
> <····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>,
> Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2006-07-27 20:38:42 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
>>
>>
>>>Actual skill tends to be scarcer than inspiration and therefore more
>>>valuable (in terms of money, not necessarily in terms of wealth).
>>
>>I think that you and Kent are talking at cross purposes here - at least
>>I think you must have very different notions of what "inspiration" is.
>>I would say, for example, that history has given us countless highly
>>skilled artists (or physicists for that matter) but only a handfull of
>>truly inspired ones, which would make "inspiration," or "inspired," as
>>I would use these terms much scarcer than mere skill.
>
>
> Kent specifically disclaimed having any of that kind of inspiration to
> offer when he wrote:
>
>
>>I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
>>inspiration.
>
>
> So whatever flavor of inspiration Kent has on offer, it is apparently
> not of the scarce Einsteinian variety.
>
> But even if it were, the problem is that it is often difficult to
> identify that sort of inspiration except in retrospect.
No, the problem is that someone happens to use some rather
loosely-defined term (such as "inpsiration") and then professional
usenet thread killers fixate on that and worry the word to death,
leaving the point ("I can make more than an hourly wage off sufficiently
marketable sofware by selling it over and over to different people.")
is left in the dust.
hth, kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
In article <···················@fe11.lga>,
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, the problem is that someone happens to use some rather
> loosely-defined term (such as "inpsiration")
A loose definition suffices in this case. Whatever "inspiration" is, it
is, according to Kent, not labor. That is enough of a definition to
conduct an economic analysis.
rg
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <u64hgp1jj.fsf@nhplace.com>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article <···················@fe11.lga>,
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, the problem is that someone happens to use some rather
> > loosely-defined term (such as "inpsiration")
>
> A loose definition suffices in this case. Whatever "inspiration" is, it
> is, according to Kent, not labor. That is enough of a definition to
> conduct an economic analysis.
No, you mis-read me.
To me, inspiration is exactly just a subjective view on certain
instances of labor. (Those instances sometimes seem to the person
doing the subjective assessment as if they were not just the routine
application of one's own individuality because the observer's unique
individuality would not lead to those same results under routine use.
And so we like to attach a mystique to such events.)
I think, it just follows from the Clarkian claim that any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, if you take
thought as a technology. If you need it in pithy form, I suggest:
Pitman's Exotic and Inspired Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any insufficiently understood (or deliberately obfuscated) form
of the Routine or the Obvious is indistinguishable from the Exotic
or the Inspired.
Put another way:
Just because you don't understand how intelligence works,
doesn't mean there's something smart going on.
I often think that the reason that the essence of intelligence is so
elusive is that we assume it's there at all.
In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > In article <···················@fe11.lga>,
> > Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > No, the problem is that someone happens to use some rather
> > > loosely-defined term (such as "inpsiration")
> >
> > A loose definition suffices in this case. Whatever "inspiration" is, it
> > is, according to Kent, not labor. That is enough of a definition to
> > conduct an economic analysis.
>
> No, you mis-read me.
Did you or did you not say "What I have to offer is inspiration, not
labor."? Perhaps you wish to modify or retract that statement?
> To me, inspiration is exactly just a subjective view on certain
> instances of labor.
In other words, inspiration is in the eye of the beholder. Why then are
you (apparently) surprised and dismayed when the market dynamics of
inspiration turn out to be the same as those of art?
rg
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <umzaskmfa.fsf@nhplace.com>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
>
> > Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> >
> > > In article <···················@fe11.lga>,
> > > Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, the problem is that someone happens to use some rather
> > > > loosely-defined term (such as "inpsiration")
> > >
> > > A loose definition suffices in this case. Whatever "inspiration" is, it
> > > is, according to Kent, not labor. That is enough of a definition to
> > > conduct an economic analysis.
> >
> > No, you mis-read me.
>
> Did you or did you not say "What I have to offer is inspiration, not
> labor."? Perhaps you wish to modify or retract that statement?
No, I don't. I didn't say I wasn't willing to do labor. I said that
this was not the interesting reason to hire me. By "labor", I mean my
ability to program Java applets or servlets or whatever, which seems
to be the current world standard the art in what labor does. Business
says what it wants in a spec that leaves no room for thought, and
someone codes it up. That's labor.
> > To me, inspiration is exactly just a subjective view on certain
> > instances of labor.
>
> In other words, inspiration is in the eye of the beholder. Why then are
> you (apparently) surprised and dismayed when the market dynamics of
> inspiration turn out to be the same as those of art?
The dynamics may or may not be the same in some coincidental cases, but
the structural differences are huge:
If I produce art and someone copies it, I have copyright protection unless
they change it. And if they change it, they might lose the art.
In the digital world, the "geometry" or "physics" of the situation is
such that there are near locations in design space that are neither
copyrighted nor subject to patent and yet "steal" my valuable contribution.
I am convinced that I am saying something meaningful, whether or not I am
making it intelligible to you. I have no further time right now to expand.
Maybe someone else who has read my "convergent"/"divergent" discussion can
re-express it for you more clearly.
But the dynamics of the activity and its corresponding protections are
simply different, and the inequity derives from those differences.
And stop referring to it as "me" as if this were some self-serving
grab on my part. I have repeatedly pointed out that I'm concerned
about what to recommend to others, not about where my next meal is
coming from.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
<snipped>
> And stop referring to it as "me" as if this were some self-serving
> grab on my part. I have repeatedly pointed out that I'm concerned
> about what to recommend to others, not about where my next meal is
> coming from.
Well, tell them this:
"Be prepared to compete on merit alone, as the big
monopolies have made it impossible to compete
on price (they bundle and cross-subsidise). "
Thats clear enough, as there are more companies
that I can think of that have been killed by other
commercial enterprises than FSF products.
The whole FSF thing is a red herring; *OF COURSE*
commercial companies want developers to feel
threatened by libre software: if developers took two
minutes to really think about it, these commercial
enterprises would lose their brightest developers.
goose,
From: Steven E. Harris
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <q94ejw1d7up.fsf@chlorine.gnostech.com>
goose <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
> if developers took two minutes to really think about it, these
> commercial enterprises would lose their brightest developers.
Lose them how? The developers would quit, trading a well-paying job
for the opportunity to do similar work for free?
--
Steven E. Harris
In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> > > > A loose definition suffices in this case. Whatever "inspiration" is,
> > > > it
> > > > is, according to Kent, not labor. That is enough of a definition to
> > > > conduct an economic analysis.
> > >
> > > No, you mis-read me.
> >
> > Did you or did you not say "What I have to offer is inspiration, not
> > labor."? Perhaps you wish to modify or retract that statement?
>
> No, I don't. I didn't say I wasn't willing to do labor. I said that
> this was not the interesting reason to hire me. By "labor", I mean my
> ability to program Java applets or servlets or whatever, which seems
> to be the current world standard the art in what labor does. Business
> says what it wants in a spec that leaves no room for thought, and
> someone codes it up. That's labor.
Yes, all that is entirely consistent with my interpretation of your
remark.
> > > To me, inspiration is exactly just a subjective view on certain
> > > instances of labor.
> >
> > In other words, inspiration is in the eye of the beholder. Why then are
> > you (apparently) surprised and dismayed when the market dynamics of
> > inspiration turn out to be the same as those of art?
>
> The dynamics may or may not be the same in some coincidental cases, but
> the structural differences are huge:
>
> If I produce art and someone copies it, I have copyright protection unless
> they change it. And if they change it, they might lose the art.
Or not. They might improve on it too.
> In the digital world, the "geometry" or "physics" of the situation is
> such that there are near locations in design space that are neither
> copyrighted nor subject to patent and yet "steal" my valuable contribution.
That is false by definition. If neither patent nor copyright protects
your idea then by definition it cannot be stolen. Ideas are not
property. Only embodiments of ideas can be property. Perhaps you think
that ideas should be property, but that is a different matter altogether.
> I am convinced that I am saying something meaningful
Yes, you are. What you are saying is meaningful. It is also wrong.
> But the dynamics of the activity and its corresponding protections are
> simply different, and the inequity derives from those differences.
No. There is no inequity. There is only a mismatch between your
expectations and reality.
> And stop referring to it as "me" as if this were some self-serving
> grab on my part.
Excuse me, but YOU are the one who keeps bringing yourself up as the
central (indeed the only) illustrative example: "*I* may not be an
Einstein but...", "What *I* have to offer is not labor...", and from
the very post that I'm responding to, "I didn't say *I* wasn't willing
to do labor. I said that this was not the interesting reason to hire
*me*." You are the one making this about you, not me. If you don't
want this to be about you then stop talking about yourself.
And as long as we're on the subject, you are also the one who is talking
about this being a "self-serving grab", not me. Please stop putting
words in my mouth.
> I have repeatedly pointed out that I'm concerned
> about what to recommend to others, not about where my next meal is
> coming from.
If that were really your only concern then you could simply tell them
that trying to make money selling software is, like most artistic
endeavors, a really tough gig and be done with it. But I think that
your concern is not what to recommend to others. I think your concern
is that you want reality to be other than what it is. Otherwise why
bother with all the hand-wringing?
rg
On 2006-07-28 12:53:03 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
> Once again I'll cite Google as the canonical example of this strategy
> in action. Page Rank was, in retrospect, a pretty slick idea, but even
> that I'm not sure I'd list up there with general relativity on the
> inspiration scale. Larry and Sergey got rich beyond the dreams of
> avarice not because they were able to sell Page Rank for billions of
> dollars, but because they used it as leverage to get into (and
> revolutionize) the *advertising* business. (In order to do that they
> had to come up with two additional inspirations: keyword-based text ads
> and syndication. Neither of these are GR-level inspirations either.
But even these sub-GR-level inspirations are far more rare than mere
skill. There are thousands of skilled programmers but only a handful of
people with inspirations as good as Larry and Sergey's. You said that
"Actual skill tends to be scarcer than inspiration and therefore more
valuable," but your own example of Google shows that this is really not
the case. In fact skill is quite commonplace and can be acquired by any
sufficiently rigorous training program. Inspiration, even of the humble
sub-General-Relativity variety, is much more rare. Or are you saying
that there are more people with inspirations sufficient to be the next
Google than there are skilled programmers? I find that very unlikely.
In article
<···································@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>,
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 12:53:03 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
>
> > Once again I'll cite Google as the canonical example of this strategy
> > in action. Page Rank was, in retrospect, a pretty slick idea, but even
> > that I'm not sure I'd list up there with general relativity on the
> > inspiration scale. Larry and Sergey got rich beyond the dreams of
> > avarice not because they were able to sell Page Rank for billions of
> > dollars, but because they used it as leverage to get into (and
> > revolutionize) the *advertising* business. (In order to do that they
> > had to come up with two additional inspirations: keyword-based text ads
> > and syndication. Neither of these are GR-level inspirations either.
>
> But even these sub-GR-level inspirations are far more rare than mere
> skill.
No, actually I don't think they are. Einstein was a genius to be sure,
but historians of science agree that if he hadn't invented relativity,
someone else would have sooner or later, and probably sooner.
> There are thousands of skilled programmers but only a handful of
> people with inspirations as good as Larry and Sergey's.
No, I don't think so. What is rare is the combination of technical and
business savvy that Larry and Sergey (and Bill) have.
> You said that
> "Actual skill tends to be scarcer than inspiration and therefore more
> valuable," but your own example of Google shows that this is really not
> the case. In fact skill is quite commonplace and can be acquired by any
> sufficiently rigorous training program. Inspiration, even of the humble
> sub-General-Relativity variety, is much more rare. Or are you saying
> that there are more people with inspirations sufficient to be the next
> Google than there are skilled programmers? I find that very unlikely.
Bright ideas are a dime a dozen. (Well, actually they're not quite
*that* cheap, but they are a readily available commodity.) What is rare
is the ability and willingness to do the hard work and undertake the
risks and opportunity costs of turning a bright idea into a business.
(Also rare is the ability to distinguish bright ideas from among the
even more common not-so-bright ideas.)
rg
On 2006-07-28 14:56:18 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
> Bright ideas are a dime a dozen. (Well, actually they're not quite
> *that* cheap, but they are a readily available commodity.) What is
> rare is the ability and willingness to do the hard work and undertake
> the risks and opportunity costs of turning a bright idea into a
> business. (Also rare is the ability to distinguish bright ideas from
> among the even more common not-so-bright ideas.)
On this point you and I are in disagreement. I think that no amout of
mere programming skill nor business acumen will turn a mediocre idea
into the next Google.
In article
<····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>,
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 14:56:18 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
>
> > Bright ideas are a dime a dozen. (Well, actually they're not quite
> > *that* cheap, but they are a readily available commodity.) What is
> > rare is the ability and willingness to do the hard work and undertake
> > the risks and opportunity costs of turning a bright idea into a
> > business. (Also rare is the ability to distinguish bright ideas from
> > among the even more common not-so-bright ideas.)
>
> On this point you and I are in disagreement. I think that no amout of
> mere programming skill nor business acumen will turn a mediocre idea
> into the next Google.
I didn't actually say that it would, though now that you mention it I
will hold up Microsoft as an example of business acumen producing
financial success in the face of utterly shitty programming and the
complete absence of ideas (to say nothing of ethics).
To restate my position: good ideas are common (but hard to identify
except in hindsight), and while they can help, they are neither
necessary nor sufficient for making money.
rg
On 2006-07-29 18:39:38 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
> To restate my position: good ideas are common (but hard to identify
> except in hindsight), and while they can help, they are neither
> necessary nor sufficient for making money.
They are not sufficient, I agree (but then, who wouldn't - all good
ideas require exectuion).
But good ideas are certainly *necessary* for a business based on ideas.
To use your example:
No Page Rank, no Google.
Why?
Google's advertising success is due to large numbers of visitors -
advertisers would have no interest in advertising to a small number of
visitors.
Google's large number of visitors is originally due to their having a
superior search technology - Page Rank.
To put it another way could Google ever have succeeded with an average
or sub par search technology? Why would anyone have ever gone to their
site if their search engine was no better (or worse) than Lycos, or
Altavista? - answer: they wouldn't have. And without these large number
of eyeballs to sell, no advertisers would want to advertise with
Google, no matter how well Google executed or how much business acumen
Google had.
> though now that you mention it I will hold up Microsoft as an example
> of business acumen producing financial success in the face of utterly
> shitty programming and the complete absence of ideas
But Microsoft actually *did* have one brilliant idea - that idea was
that you could profit *more* from software than you could from
hardware. This was an idea that flew in the face of current market
conditions at the time Microsoft was founded (as you of course
remember) - a time when hardware was expensive and software was often
included with the hardware for free or comparatively little. Microsoft
understood that falling hardware prices would ultimately change that
relationship radically and Microsoft was the firm that capitalized on
this idea faster and better than any other firm.
In article
<····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>,
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> But good ideas are certainly *necessary* for a business based on ideas.
That's true by definition. But not all businesses are based on ideas.
In fact, most business aren't.
> But Microsoft actually *did* have one brilliant idea - that idea was
> that you could profit *more* from software than you could from
> hardware. This was an idea that flew in the face of current market
> conditions at the time Microsoft was founded (as you of course
> remember) - a time when hardware was expensive and software was often
> included with the hardware for free or comparatively little. Microsoft
> understood that falling hardware prices would ultimately change that
> relationship radically and Microsoft was the firm that capitalized on
> this idea faster and better than any other firm.
That was indeed a shrewd insight (I hesitate to call it a brilliant
idea), but it was not a technical idea, it was a business idea.
rg
On 2006-08-01 02:51:06 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
> In article <····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>,
> Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
>
>> But good ideas are certainly *necessary* for a business based on ideas.
Clearly, but just as clearly it is the kind of business that is based
on ideas that Kent was talking about when he used the word
"inspiration."
>
> That's true by definition. But not all businesses are based on ideas.
> In fact, most business aren't.
>
>> But Microsoft actually *did* have one brilliant idea - that idea was
>> that you could profit *more* from software than you could from
>> hardware. This was an idea that flew in the face of current market
>> conditions at the time Microsoft was founded (as you of course
>> remember) - a time when hardware was expensive and software was often
>> included with the hardware for free or comparatively little. Microsoft
>> understood that falling hardware prices would ultimately change that
>> relationship radically and Microsoft was the firm that capitalized on
>> this idea faster and better than any other firm.
>
> That was indeed a shrewd insight (I hesitate to call it a brilliant
> idea), but it was not a technical idea, it was a business idea.
Since it had to do with what lay people would consider technical
matters - Moore's law for example - I think it's fair to characterize
it as a business play based on a technical insight.
In article
<····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>,
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2006-08-01 02:51:06 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
>
> > In article
> > <····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>,
> > Raffael Cavallaro
> > <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But good ideas are certainly *necessary* for a business based on ideas.
>
>
> Clearly, but just as clearly it is the kind of business that is based
> on ideas that Kent was talking about when he used the word
> "inspiration."
I'm going to assume that was meant to respond to this comment and not
the one above it (which would have you responding to yourself):
> > That's true by definition. But not all businesses are based on ideas.
> > In fact, most business aren't.
The hypothetical properties of some hypothetical business are
irrelevant. Kent's position is that people ought to be paid for having
brilliant ideas. My position is that people have never gotten paid for
having brilliant ideas (except indirectly insofar as having a brilliant
idea makes you more likely to get hired for other kinds of jobs for
which you get paid). And I go one step further and say that this is as
it should be. Society does not suffer from the current state of affairs.
So my response to Kent's lament that people can't get paid for
inspiration is: that's right. People do not pay for inspiration, they
pay for PRODUCTS (which are much harder to produce than ideas). That is
how it is. That is how it has always been. And that is how it ought to
be. Deal with it.
> >> But Microsoft actually *did* have one brilliant idea - that idea was
> >> that you could profit *more* from software than you could from
> >> hardware. This was an idea that flew in the face of current market
> >> conditions at the time Microsoft was founded (as you of course
> >> remember) - a time when hardware was expensive and software was often
> >> included with the hardware for free or comparatively little. Microsoft
> >> understood that falling hardware prices would ultimately change that
> >> relationship radically and Microsoft was the firm that capitalized on
> >> this idea faster and better than any other firm.
> >
> > That was indeed a shrewd insight (I hesitate to call it a brilliant
> > idea), but it was not a technical idea, it was a business idea.
>
> Since it had to do with what lay people would consider technical
> matters - Moore's law for example - I think it's fair to characterize
> it as a business play based on a technical insight.
Whatever. The point is, Bill didn't just go around saying, "You know, I
have this brilliant idea: you could make money selling software instead
of hardware. Now pay me." He actually got down into the trenches and
DID IT.
rg
On 2006-08-01 13:51:45 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
> Kent's position is that people ought to be paid for having brilliant
> ideas. My position is that people have never gotten paid for having
> brilliant ideas (except indirectly insofar as having a brilliant idea
> makes you more likely to get hired for other kinds of jobs for which
> you get paid). And I go one step further and say that this is as it
> should be. Society does not suffer from the current state of affairs.
>
> So my response to Kent's lament that people can't get paid for
> inspiration is: that's right. People do not pay for inspiration, they
> pay for PRODUCTS (which are much harder to produce than ideas). That
> is how it is. That is how it has always been. And that is how it
> ought to be. Deal with it.
I think this is an unfair characterization of Kent's position. Kent's
position as I understand it is that the implementation of ideas is
easier to come by than the ideas themselves - for example, setting up
and running an internet search company has been done many times, so
clearly the skills needed to do so are not in such scarce supply as are
great ideas like Page Rank that put one search company head and
shoulders above the rest.
I think that Kent's position is that people ought to be paid for having
brilliant ideas *and* implementing them. You have maintained that the
skill needed to implement these ideas is more scarce than the brilliant
ideas themselves. I think that it is the opposite that is true - that
brilliant ideas are relatively scarce and the skill needed to implement
them is relatively abundant.
regards,
Ralph
In article
<····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>,
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2006-08-01 13:51:45 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
>
> > Kent's position is that people ought to be paid for having brilliant
> > ideas. My position is that people have never gotten paid for having
> > brilliant ideas (except indirectly insofar as having a brilliant idea
> > makes you more likely to get hired for other kinds of jobs for which
> > you get paid). And I go one step further and say that this is as it
> > should be. Society does not suffer from the current state of affairs.
> >
> > So my response to Kent's lament that people can't get paid for
> > inspiration is: that's right. People do not pay for inspiration, they
> > pay for PRODUCTS (which are much harder to produce than ideas). That
> > is how it is. That is how it has always been. And that is how it
> > ought to be. Deal with it.
>
> I think this is an unfair characterization of Kent's position. Kent's
> position as I understand it is that the implementation of ideas is
> easier to come by than the ideas themselves -
How is that in any way at odds with how I characterized his position?
> for example, setting up
> and running an internet search company has been done many times, so
> clearly the skills needed to do so are not in such scarce supply as are
> great ideas like Page Rank that put one search company head and
> shoulders above the rest.
That assumes that Page Rank is what puts Google head-and-shoulders above
the rest. It isn't. Google is not just an-ordinary-search-company plus
Page Rank. It is much, much more than that. In fact, among all the
things that contributed to Google's success, Page Rank is a fairly minor
factor. Google maintains the mythology that it's all about Page Rank
because it's useful PR. And of course there is a kernel of truth to it.
But it is far from the whole truth.
> I think that Kent's position is that people ought to be paid for having
> brilliant ideas *and* implementing them.
People do get paid for that, just not as much as Kent would like. The
largest rewards tend to flow to those who are willing to undertake the
risk that in the eyes of the market the brilliant-seeming idea may turn
out not to be so brilliant after all (or vice versa, that the
stupid-seeming idea might turn out to be brilliant in retrospect).
Inspiration is cheap and capital is expensive because the world is
abundantly supplied with both ideas and risk aversion.
> You have maintained that the
> skill needed to implement these ideas is more scarce than the brilliant
> ideas themselves.
That's right. The world is awash in ideas with the same raw merit as
Page Rank. The reason this isn't readily apparent is that they are
usually only seen to be brilliant in retrospect after all the heavy
lifting has been done to bring the idea to fruition. (Did you know that
before L&S started Google they tried to sell PR to Alta Vista and were
turned down?)
> I think that it is the opposite that is true - that
> brilliant ideas are relatively scarce and the skill needed to implement
> them is relatively abundant.
Yes, I know you think that. But you are wrong. To see that you are
wrong, do this thought experiment: most people here will agree that Lisp
is a brilliant idea. And yet over the last ten years the number of
conspicuous financial successes based on Lisp can be counted on the
fingers of one hand. The fact that the number is not zero proves that
it is not inherently impossible to make money using Lisp, and yet very
few people actually do it. Why?
rg
On 2006-08-02 12:57:16 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
> That assumes that Page Rank is what puts Google head-and-shoulders
> above the rest. It isn't. Google is not just
> an-ordinary-search-company plus Page Rank. It is much, much more than
> that. In fact, among all the things that contributed to Google's
> success, Page Rank is a fairly minor factor. Google maintains the
> mythology that it's all about Page Rank because it's useful PR. And of
> course there is a kernel of truth to it. But it is far from the whole
> truth.
I think Page Rank is absolutely crucial because without it Google never
would have had the chance to do the other things. Without Page Rank
Google would never have gained enough visitors from the already
established search engines for it to have made any difference at all
how clever Google's approach to advertising was.
>
>> I think that Kent's position is that people ought to be paid for having
>> brilliant ideas *and* implementing them.
>
> People do get paid for that, just not as much as Kent would like. The
> largest rewards tend to flow to those who are willing to undertake the
> risk that in the eyes of the market the brilliant-seeming idea may turn
> out not to be so brilliant after all (or vice versa, that the
> stupid-seeming idea might turn out to be brilliant in retrospect).
> Inspiration is cheap and capital is expensive because the world is
> abundantly supplied with both ideas and risk aversion.
There's a world of difference beween a "brilliant-seeming" idea and a
brilliant one. I never said anything about "brilliant seeming" ideas. I
said that brilliant ideas are scarcer than programming skill and this
is true. You've intentionally changed the topic of discussion so that
"brilliant ideas" now inclues
crackpot-ideas-that-only-seem-brilliant-to-their-author. This makes
"brilliant ideas as defined by ron" quite abundant, but it is never
what we were talking about. The world *as* abundantly supplied with
ideas, but most of these are shite. The world is not abundantly
supplied with brilliant ideas.
>
>> You have maintained that the skill needed to implement these ideas is
>> more scarce than the brilliant ideas themselves.
>
> That's right. The world is awash in ideas with the same raw merit as
> Page Rank. The reason this isn't readily apparent is that they are
> usually only seen to be brilliant in retrospect after all the heavy
> lifting has been done to bring the idea to fruition. (Did you know
> that before L&S started Google they tried to sell PR to Alta Vista and
> were turned down?)
Which means *absolutely nothing* about whether PR was a good idea or
not. It only speaks to Alta Vista's lack of insight.
>
>> I think that it is the opposite that is true - that brilliant ideas are
>> relatively scarce and the skill needed to implement them is relatively
>> abundant.
>
> Yes, I know you think that. But you are wrong. To see that you are
> wrong, do this thought experiment: most people here will agree that
> Lisp is a brilliant idea. And yet over the last ten years the number
> of conspicuous financial successes based on Lisp can be counted on the
> fingers of one hand. The fact that the number is not zero proves that
> it is not inherently impossible to make money using Lisp, and yet very
> few people actually do it. Why?
Because using lisp to make money is not such a brilliant idea as lisp
itself. When lisp is merely the language of implementation it counts
more that what you are implementing is itself a brilliant idea than
that the tool you're using to implement it is based on a brilliant
idea. Lisp itself may be a brilliant idea, but it is a brilliant idea
for a computer language, and its already been implemented many times,
many of these are free, and as you yourself said no one has ever made a
fortune selling developer tools - largely because of the expectation
that development tools should cost little or nothing.
I'll be gone for a week or so so, much as I might like, I won't be able
to reply to any response of yours.
In article
<····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>,
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2006-08-02 12:57:16 -0400, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> said:
>
> > That assumes that Page Rank is what puts Google head-and-shoulders
> > above the rest. It isn't. Google is not just
> > an-ordinary-search-company plus Page Rank. It is much, much more than
> > that. In fact, among all the things that contributed to Google's
> > success, Page Rank is a fairly minor factor. Google maintains the
> > mythology that it's all about Page Rank because it's useful PR. And of
> > course there is a kernel of truth to it. But it is far from the whole
> > truth.
>
> I think Page Rank is absolutely crucial because without it Google never
> would have had the chance to do the other things. Without Page Rank
> Google would never have gained enough visitors from the already
> established search engines for it to have made any difference at all
> how clever Google's approach to advertising was.
I think I'm in a better position than you to know what did and didn't
contribute to Google's success. Page Rank played a part to be sure, but
there was much more to it than that. There was the massively parallel
implementation on cheap machines, the logo, the "I'm feeling lucky"
button, the anti-spam efforts (which took place almost entirely behind
the scenes), the translation console, the spelling checker. I'm not
saying (and never said) that Page Rank didn't play a role. It certainly
did. But it's not as if they invented PR and then coasted the rest of
the way.
> >> I think that Kent's position is that people ought to be paid for having
> >> brilliant ideas *and* implementing them.
> >
> > People do get paid for that, just not as much as Kent would like. The
> > largest rewards tend to flow to those who are willing to undertake the
> > risk that in the eyes of the market the brilliant-seeming idea may turn
> > out not to be so brilliant after all (or vice versa, that the
> > stupid-seeming idea might turn out to be brilliant in retrospect).
> > Inspiration is cheap and capital is expensive because the world is
> > abundantly supplied with both ideas and risk aversion.
>
> There's a world of difference beween a "brilliant-seeming" idea and a
> brilliant one.
No, actually there isn't. In fact, many of the ideas that are seen to
brilliant in retrospect (like trying to make money using Page Rank) are
widely thought to be completely stupid at the time they are first
proposed.
> I never said anything about "brilliant seeming" ideas. I
> said that brilliant ideas are scarcer than programming skill and this
> is true.
No, it isn't. (NB: Note that the supply of inspiration and skill cannot
be compared directly because they are incommensurate quantities. My
claim is that inspiration is plentiful and coding skill is scarce
relative to the respective demand for these commodities.)
> You've intentionally changed the topic of discussion so that
> "brilliant ideas" now inclues
> crackpot-ideas-that-only-seem-brilliant-to-their-author. This makes
> "brilliant ideas as defined by ron" quite abundant, but it is never
> what we were talking about. The world *as* abundantly supplied with
> ideas, but most of these are shite. The world is not abundantly
> supplied with brilliant ideas.
Yes it is. Actual bona-fide brilliant ideas are plentiful (again
relative to the demand for them). To be sure, bad ideas are even more
plentiful, but that doesn't change the fact that brilliant ideas are
abundant (relative to demand -- I'm going to stop saying that now).
The reason it may not seem that way is (as I have said before) that it
IS rare for a brilliant idea to find the right environment to become a
profitable enterprise (this is the reason VC's make money) and it is
usually hard for most people to recognize a brilliant idea except in the
case where that rare event has happened. (Lisp, BTW, is the poster
child for the brilliant idea that few people recognize as such for that
very reason.)
> >> You have maintained that the skill needed to implement these ideas is
> >> more scarce than the brilliant ideas themselves.
> >
> > That's right. The world is awash in ideas with the same raw merit as
> > Page Rank. The reason this isn't readily apparent is that they are
> > usually only seen to be brilliant in retrospect after all the heavy
> > lifting has been done to bring the idea to fruition. (Did you know
> > that before L&S started Google they tried to sell PR to Alta Vista and
> > were turned down?)
>
> Which means *absolutely nothing* about whether PR was a good idea or
> not. It only speaks to Alta Vista's lack of insight.
Yes, that is exactly my point. The lack of insight was not unique to
Alta Vista. It extended to the entire search industry (such as it was)
at the time. Everyone except Larry, Sergey (and maybe John Doerr)
thought that the search industry was saturated and mature, and a little
gimmick like Page Rank was not nearly enough leverage to challenge the
established players. And you know what? They were right! What Alta
Vista really missed was not Page Rank, but Larry and Sergey's ability to
muster all the other elements that made Google succeed.
That "lack of insight" is the rule, not the exception. Brilliant ideas
get rejected all the time, sometimes by the people who invent them.
Probably 99 out of 100 brilliant ideas never see the light of day for
that reason.
> >> I think that it is the opposite that is true - that brilliant ideas are
> >> relatively scarce and the skill needed to implement them is relatively
> >> abundant.
> >
> > Yes, I know you think that. But you are wrong. To see that you are
> > wrong, do this thought experiment: most people here will agree that
> > Lisp is a brilliant idea. And yet over the last ten years the number
> > of conspicuous financial successes based on Lisp can be counted on the
> > fingers of one hand. The fact that the number is not zero proves that
> > it is not inherently impossible to make money using Lisp, and yet very
> > few people actually do it. Why?
>
> Because using lisp to make money is not such a brilliant idea as lisp
> itself.
Says you. To my ears that sounds like Alta Vista talking.
> When lisp is merely the language of implementation it counts
> more that what you are implementing is itself a brilliant idea than
> that the tool you're using to implement it is based on a brilliant
> idea. Lisp itself may be a brilliant idea, but it is a brilliant idea
> for a computer language, and its already been implemented many times,
> many of these are free, and as you yourself said no one has ever made a
> fortune selling developer tools - largely because of the expectation
> that development tools should cost little or nothing.
That does not prove that (making money using) Lisp is not a brilliant
idea, only that you are not the right person to make it happen.
> I'll be gone for a week or so so, much as I might like, I won't be able
> to reply to any response of yours.
Well, that works out nicely because I'll be gone for a few days myself.
TTFN.
rg
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> I think this is an unfair characterization of Kent's position. Kent's
> position as I understand it is that the implementation of ideas is
> easier to come by than the ideas themselves - for example, setting up
> and running an internet search company has been done many times, so
> clearly the skills needed to do so are not in such scarce supply as
> are great ideas like Page Rank that put one search company head and
> shoulders above the rest.
In my experience, I'd say it's the other way around. The history of
science shows that the great ideas are usually cooking on several
stoves, so it's not like grimy business bubbles forth from many
springs while divine inspiration strikes only once. It's just
that we mainly get to hear about those who published first.
Nevertheless, there already is a way to get rewarded for ideas, as
pure as I'd guess it gets: the patent system.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote on Fri, 28 Jul 2006:
> Larry and Sergey got rich beyond the dreams of avarice not because they
> were able to sell Page Rank for billions of dollars, but because they used
> it as leverage to get into (and revolutionize) the *advertising* business.
> (In order to do that they had to come up with two additional inspirations:
> keyword-based text ads and syndication.
FWIW: Google didn't invent these two additional inspirations. The company
I worked for, Goto.com (aka Overture aka Yahoo), did. And for a year or so,
we tried to interest Google in a syndication partnership, where they'd do the
web search and Goto would do the advertising.
Google decided (quite rightly, for their financial success) to just copy
Goto instead of partnering with it. The copy was close enough that they were
even hit with a (software) patent violation lawsuit. Rather than completely
terminate their entire business (which was a possibility at one point), the
lawsuit was settled by Yahoo at Google's IPO time for a relatively small
amount of money.
Google did invent Page Rank (around the same time -- or perhaps a little
after -- that the IBM Clever folks invented the same concept). But not text
advertising and syndication. That idea was stolen directly from Goto.com.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
I wish I would have a real tragic love affair and get so bummed out that I'd
just quit my job and become a bum for a few years, because I was thinking about
doing that anyway. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uac6snw2h.fsf@nhplace.com>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> > I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
> > inspiration.
>
> So whatever flavor of inspiration Kent has on offer, it is apparently
> not of the scarce Einsteinian variety.
This is, of course, faulty reasoning. It may be that I am not
Einstein, but if so, that fact may not be concluded from my statement,
it must be simply asserted as a judgment by you about me. (Hence the
words "So" and "apparently" are used inappropriately here, unless you
think I am to be society's proper judge of my own contributions, and
how scarce or important they are. I was raised with enough humility
to think others should judge that, not me. And while I really don't
take a lot of issue with where your faulty logic leads, I object to
the reasoning process that is offered by your statement.)
But I do indulge myself a working theory of how I think inspiration
works, and I suspect its ultimate nature little more than labor, given
the engine of an individual's brain. That is, if you take a neural
net and train it, it will be good at what it is trained to do. And
each of us, through complex life experiences, is an individual. But
there is no evidence that a special organ comes into play for
inspiration; it is more likely that there are situations for which an
individual's personal experience is favored for particular tasks.
("Chance favors the prepared mind." or whatever the slogan is.)
Artists often admire other artists, for example, because it's often
observed that a given artist feels he can make lots of what he can
make, but that he can't make what others can make, and vice versa.
I'm not sure there's a big computational difference between people who
think themselves gifted and people who don't (and just happen to be
unusually helpful) other than that the former has learned to cultivate
a mistique that is socially useful but not computationally
interesting.
Consequently, I would argue that skill and inspiration are
inconsequentially different, and that the earlier-mentioned notion of
"scarcity" is the relevant factor, in this situation "scarcity" being
"of neural net pathways that connect useful ideas".
I like to think I have an above-average ability to do interesting
things in certain domains, but I think in other areas, I would rate
below average. Whether overall that makes me more intelligent is a
judgment to be made by others (or by God, if you believe in such a
thing), but in any case within a context of what is needed.
<< insert the story of Nasrudin and his job rowing a ferry,
http://teacherpreacher.com/f2004/_disc1/00000043.htm
> But even if it were, the problem is that it is often difficult to
> identify that sort of inspiration except in retrospect.
I suspect because there is no such concept.
Moreover, I think it's an extremely bad idea (not to mention
culturally rude) to divide people into "inspired" or "not inspired".
Such a division, strictly applied, might easily have kept Einstein
from ever contributing.
I don't know why you chose to label me, but I suspect you'd have felt
equally free to belittle Einstein, given the same chance and no
knowledge of what he might contribute in the future, and given your
correct observation that it's hard ot identify usefulness in advance.
I just don't see a reason for it.
> What this all boils down to is that inspiration (of whatever variety) is
> simply not worth as much as Kent thinks it ought to be. That is sad for
> Kent who aspires to be a provider of inspiration rather than labor or
> capital, but it is great for society because it means that inspiration
> is cheap and abundant.
IMO, this is just wrong. I think that inspiration is the result of
skill routinely applied until it finds a home. And I think that if
you don't find a place for skill to be routinely applied, you
necessarily reduce the chances that you will see instances of
inspiration. But on this, I offer no proof, nor am I sure that at
this point in history/science we can really have proof at that
level--too little data, too many variables. It's just what I believe.
But I think it's important to have beliefs, experiments to test, and
models to ponder, even when they can't be proven or disproven.
I'd much rather here more models that might be right than wasted "proofs"
that such models are wrong when it's simply not possible to say.
In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > > I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
> > > inspiration.
> >
> > So whatever flavor of inspiration Kent has on offer, it is apparently
> > not of the scarce Einsteinian variety.
>
> This is, of course, faulty reasoning. It may be that I am not
> Einstein, but if so, that fact may not be concluded from my statement,
> it must be simply asserted as a judgment by you about me.
I made no judgement about you. I made a judgement about the inspiration
that you have on offer. (I have deleted large swaths of your response
that are rendered moot by your mistake.)
> But I do indulge myself a working theory of how I think inspiration
> works, and I suspect its ultimate nature little more than labor
Then what did you mean when you wrote, "what I have to offer is NOT
[emphasis added] labor, it's inspiration."?
> Consequently, I would argue that skill and inspiration are
> inconsequentially different
Not possible. You introduced the word "inspiration" into the discussion
as something distinct from labor. I introduced the word "skill" as a
measure of the efficiency of a person's labor. By definition therefore
skill is necessarily different from inspiration.
> and that the earlier-mentioned notion of
> "scarcity" is the relevant factor, in this situation "scarcity" being
> "of neural net pathways that connect useful ideas".
>
> I like to think I have an above-average ability to do interesting
> things in certain domains, but I think in other areas, I would rate
> below average. Whether overall that makes me more intelligent is a
> judgment to be made by others (or by God, if you believe in such a
> thing), but in any case within a context of what is needed.
>
> << insert the story of Nasrudin and his job rowing a ferry,
> http://teacherpreacher.com/f2004/_disc1/00000043.htm
Well, you've made my point for me here. The value of things depends on
context. Generally, valuable ideas are good ideas, but the converse is
not true. Good ideas become valuable ideas only in certain contexts
a.k.a. businesses. What is scarce is not the good ideas, but the
appropriate contexts that render them valuable. That's why it's
generally the businesspeople rather than the inventors or the artists
who make the money. And that is as it should be.
rg
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <LHTyg.7941$UY2.7852@fe11.lga>
Ron Garret wrote:
> In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>>I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
>>>>inspiration.
>>>
>>>So whatever flavor of inspiration Kent has on offer, it is apparently
>>>not of the scarce Einsteinian variety.
>>
>>This is, of course, faulty reasoning. It may be that I am not
>>Einstein, but if so, that fact may not be concluded from my statement,
>>it must be simply asserted as a judgment by you about me.
>
>
> I made no judgement about you. I made a judgement about the inspiration
> that you have on offer. (I have deleted large swaths of your response
> that are rendered moot by your mistake.)
Your mistake. You wrote:
>>I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
>>> inspiration.
>
>
> In that case you need to come to grips with the fact that you are not an
> engineer .... You may need to get a day job waiting
> tables.
There's a nice frickin leap, from not being an Einstein to being not an
engineer. And to one's skills being as scarce as a waiter's. Nah, no
judgment there.
Perhaps your thought is that no engineer has inspiration? <sigh>
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
In article <···················@fe11.lga>,
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
> > Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
> >>>>inspiration.
> >>>
> >>>So whatever flavor of inspiration Kent has on offer, it is apparently
> >>>not of the scarce Einsteinian variety.
> >>
> >>This is, of course, faulty reasoning. It may be that I am not
> >>Einstein, but if so, that fact may not be concluded from my statement,
> >>it must be simply asserted as a judgment by you about me.
> >
> >
> > I made no judgement about you. I made a judgement about the inspiration
> > that you have on offer. (I have deleted large swaths of your response
> > that are rendered moot by your mistake.)
>
> Your mistake.
Nope.
> You wrote:
>
> >>I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
> >>> inspiration.
> >
> >
> > In that case you need to come to grips with the fact that you are not an
> > engineer .... You may need to get a day job waiting
> > tables.
>
> There's a nice frickin leap, from not being an Einstein to being not an
> engineer.
No, the leap was from offering inspiration INSTEAD of labor to not being
an engineer.
> And to one's skills being as scarce as a waiter's. Nah, no
> judgment there.
>
> Perhaps your thought is that no engineer has inspiration? <sigh>
Engineers may have inspiration, but in the main engineers are hired to
perform skilled labor. You and Kent may not like it, but that's the way
it is.
rg
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uzmesnlsv.fsf@nhplace.com>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> Then what did you mean when you wrote, "what I have to offer is NOT
> [emphasis added] labor, it's inspiration."?
Language is complicated because one is obliged not to challenge every
word and insist it be used in their own way. I can both disagree with
the meaning of words and terms, and identify problems with those
words, while still using them. That is not an attempt to be
deceptive, slippery, nor disingenuous. It's an attempt to be practical.
What I mean, specifically, is that I do labor like anyone else. But
what makes my labor special is that I am me. That is not to separate
me from any of you through my specialness since each person is
special. But it is to distinguish me from someone who is working for
the purpose of offering labor.
A great deal of labor is literally people being machines. Serving a
burger at McD's is not about individuality. Indeed, deviation from
the standard is not rewarded and is not what is being sold.
But designing things is about individuality. What you are paid for is
not really the time, even though the billing is often done in the
sometimes-fiction, sometimes-practical-reality of time. By the former
I mean "I say this took me an hour, but maybe it needed 3 nights of
dreaming or 2 hours in the shower or 4 years of study before I did it"
or the fact that I had Ron Rivest or Gerry Sussman as a professor as
the critical factor. Reducing it to hours worked is often missing the
point. The person might well have paid twice the rate for half the
time to get the same result if I'd priced it that way and if they got
good value for what they needed. By the latter I mean "sometimes even
though what's sold is an idea, it takes hours to write it out or program
it up to be clear", so it takes labor. The two are intertwined.
I've lost track of the context here, so I'm not sure if this is
helpful to the particular context. But it hopefully explains how I
could use the terms labor and inspiration to both be "the same" and
"different". Implementationally they are the same. Abstraction-wise,
they are different, in that the value is set by perception/abstraction,
not implementation.
In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> I've lost track of the context here
My understanding of the situation is that you believe that people ought
not give software away for free because doing so undermines the
interests of society by making it impossible for people (including you)
to earn a living writing software, which in turn discourages bright
people (like you presumably) from writing software.
Is that right?
rg
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <ur704kmp4.fsf@nhplace.com>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
>
> > I've lost track of the context here
>
> My understanding of the situation is that you believe that people ought
> not give software away for free because doing so undermines the
> interests of society by making it impossible for people (including you)
> to earn a living writing software, which in turn discourages bright
> people (like you presumably) from writing software.
>
> Is that right?
I would not state it that way, even though I agree with a great deal
of the text there. There are situations where I don't think free
software is harmful, and situations where I do. I have been using the
phrase anti-free-software-qua-panacea. Free software is not an
automatic benefit, and often has negative consequences such as those
you mention, but my belief is not that it is either universally good
nor universally bad.
But, moreover, the poorly chosen subject line notwithstanding, if you
go to the start of the thread, you'll see I didn't intend to raise
this issue at all. The context you describe was imposed by zealots
who jumped in and made this a religious war.
I asked simply what we are to recommend to programmers in our
community about what they should do in order to actually make a
business doing software, short of just being a hobbyist or taking a
day-job with a giant corporation. I simply don't understand what the
paradigm is for a small entrant who wants to write software on his own
and make money. It seems to me that with the "democratization of the
net" and "ubiquitous desktop computation" and yet also the fact that
not everyone is an expert, such possibilities should exist, yet they
don't seem to me to really be there. Not to the degree that I'd
recommend anyone enter the field. This isn't an attempt to debate
the situation, it's an attempt to ask for a working theory given what
the present state of affairs is.
But I reserve the right to say that what's suggested doesn't sound
promising, and so far I've heard nothing promising--mostly because
people have been trying to convince me my premises are wrong. To what
end I don't know, since I still have my original question.
In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
> > Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I've lost track of the context here
> >
> > My understanding of the situation is that you believe that people ought
> > not give software away for free because doing so undermines the
> > interests of society by making it impossible for people (including you)
> > to earn a living writing software, which in turn discourages bright
> > people (like you presumably) from writing software.
> >
> > Is that right?
>
> I would not state it that way, even though I agree with a great deal
> of the text there. There are situations where I don't think free
> software is harmful, and situations where I do. I have been using the
> phrase anti-free-software-qua-panacea. Free software is not an
> automatic benefit, and often has negative consequences such as those
> you mention, but my belief is not that it is either universally good
> nor universally bad.
Well, that's a pretty vacuous position. Very few things are universally
good or bad (unless you are George Bush).
> I asked simply what we are to recommend to programmers in our
> community about what they should do in order to actually make a
> business doing software, short of just being a hobbyist or taking a
> day-job with a giant corporation.
But that is exactly my point: you ask the question and then presuppose
an (incorrect) answer. The correct answer is: don't try to make a
business *doing* software because you will very likely lose. Instead,
try to make a business *using* software. That way you will be on the
winning side of the transaction under current economic conditions. When
prices are low, buy, don't sell.
> I simply don't understand what the
> paradigm is for a small entrant who wants to write software on his own
> and make money.
The paradigm is: you can't. Just as you can't make money skiing or
making buggy whips or acting. (So "you can't" is not quite right. You
can, but it's very, very hard. There's a lot of competition, and you
are very unlikely to succeed.)
> It seems to me that with the "democratization of the
> net" and "ubiquitous desktop computation" and yet also the fact that
> not everyone is an expert, such possibilities should exist,
Why?
> yet they don't seem to me to really be there.
That's because they are in fact not there.
> Not to the degree that I'd recommend anyone enter the field.
Right. And your point would be...?
> This isn't an attempt to debate
> the situation, it's an attempt to ask for a working theory given what
> the present state of affairs is.
There isn't one. Your belief that there ought to be one is wishful
thinking. Software. Buggy whips. (You do know what a buggy whip is,
don't you?)
> But I reserve the right to say that what's suggested doesn't sound
> promising, and so far I've heard nothing promising--mostly because
> people have been trying to convince me my premises are wrong. To what
> end I don't know, since I still have my original question.
But your premises *are* wrong. You have assumed that there is (or
should be) a way to make money selling software when in fact there isn't
and there shouldn't be. The only issue seems to be that reality is at
odds with your aspirations/preconceptions/premises/whatever. But that's
the way the world is sometimes. You want to make money programming, I
want to make money skiing. The next time you're on the West coast let's
get together and we can commiserate. Beer's on me.
rg
From: Steven E. Harris
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <q94ac6pd6wb.fsf@chlorine.gnostech.com>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> You have assumed that there is (or should be) a way to make money
> selling software when in fact there isn't and there shouldn't be.
I can accept that as the current situation, but didn't there used to
be a way to make money selling software? If so, what changed? Was the
preceding situation irregular, or is the current situation irregular?
--
Steven E. Harris
In article <···············@chlorine.gnostech.com>,
"Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > You have assumed that there is (or should be) a way to make money
> > selling software when in fact there isn't and there shouldn't be.
>
> I can accept that as the current situation, but didn't there used to
> be a way to make money selling software? If so, what changed? Was the
> preceding situation irregular, or is the current situation irregular?
So I should clarify something about the context of this discussion: we
are not (as I understand it) talking about selling software in general.
Of course you can make money selling software. Many people do.
What we are talking about here is selling software TO OTHER SOFTWARE
DEVELOPERS. We're talking about selling compilers, development
environments, etc. We are talking about selling software which
possesses a sort of inspiration that only other software developers can
appreciate and therefore value.
No one has ever made money selling that kind of software, and no one
ever will.
rg
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yzlfyghip3h.fsf@OSX663.local>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article <···············@chlorine.gnostech.com>,
> "Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>>
>> > You have assumed that there is (or should be) a way to make money
>> > selling software when in fact there isn't and there shouldn't be.
>>
>> I can accept that as the current situation, but didn't there used to
>> be a way to make money selling software? If so, what changed? Was the
>> preceding situation irregular, or is the current situation irregular?
>
> So I should clarify something about the context of this discussion: we
> are not (as I understand it) talking about selling software in general.
> Of course you can make money selling software. Many people do.
>
> What we are talking about here is selling software TO OTHER SOFTWARE
> DEVELOPERS. We're talking about selling compilers, development
> environments, etc. We are talking about selling software which
> possesses a sort of inspiration that only other software developers can
> appreciate and therefore value.
>
> No one has ever made money selling that kind of software, and no one
> ever will.
You mean like the Lisp Machine?
In article <···············@OSX663.local>,
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > In article <···············@chlorine.gnostech.com>,
> > "Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > You have assumed that there is (or should be) a way to make money
> >> > selling software when in fact there isn't and there shouldn't be.
> >>
> >> I can accept that as the current situation, but didn't there used to
> >> be a way to make money selling software? If so, what changed? Was the
> >> preceding situation irregular, or is the current situation irregular?
> >
> > So I should clarify something about the context of this discussion: we
> > are not (as I understand it) talking about selling software in general.
> > Of course you can make money selling software. Many people do.
> >
> > What we are talking about here is selling software TO OTHER SOFTWARE
> > DEVELOPERS. We're talking about selling compilers, development
> > environments, etc. We are talking about selling software which
> > possesses a sort of inspiration that only other software developers can
> > appreciate and therefore value.
> >
> > No one has ever made money selling that kind of software, and no one
> > ever will.
>
> You mean like the Lisp Machine?
Silly me, how could I forget the thousands of happy millionaires who got
rich on Symbolics stock and who are even now multiplying their riches by
pouring capital back into the robust and vibrant Lisp industry? Of
course, there is the minor matter of Lisp Machines being, well,
machines, which is to say hardware, not software (to say nothing of the
fact that all the companies that made them have all long since gone
belly-up). But, hey, what's a terminological quibble and a couple of
bankruptcies among friends?
rg
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yzlirlc9qye.fsf@OSX663.local>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article <···············@OSX663.local>,
> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>>
>> > In article <···············@chlorine.gnostech.com>,
>> > "Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > You have assumed that there is (or should be) a way to make money
>> >> > selling software when in fact there isn't and there shouldn't be.
>> >>
>> >> I can accept that as the current situation, but didn't there used to
>> >> be a way to make money selling software? If so, what changed? Was the
>> >> preceding situation irregular, or is the current situation irregular?
>> >
>> > So I should clarify something about the context of this discussion: we
>> > are not (as I understand it) talking about selling software in general.
>> > Of course you can make money selling software. Many people do.
>> >
>> > What we are talking about here is selling software TO OTHER SOFTWARE
>> > DEVELOPERS. We're talking about selling compilers, development
>> > environments, etc. We are talking about selling software which
>> > possesses a sort of inspiration that only other software developers can
>> > appreciate and therefore value.
>> >
>> > No one has ever made money selling that kind of software, and no one
>> > ever will.
>>
>> You mean like the Lisp Machine?
>
> Silly me, how could I forget the thousands of happy millionaires who got
> rich on Symbolics stock
You said "no one ever made money", and I cited a case of company did that,
whose founders became millionaires. The fact they got fucked up later on
doesn't alter the fact that they made a lot of money.
> Of course, there is the minor matter of Lisp Machines being, well,
> machines, which is to say hardware, not software
The hardware was only necessary to run the software, which is what we
were really selling. No customers were interested in the hardware;
they only wanted the tightly integrated OS-cum-development-environment.
It is what people still pine for.
In article <···············@OSX663.local>,
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > In article <···············@OSX663.local>,
> > ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
> >
> >> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > In article <···············@chlorine.gnostech.com>,
> >> > "Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > You have assumed that there is (or should be) a way to make money
> >> >> > selling software when in fact there isn't and there shouldn't be.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can accept that as the current situation, but didn't there used to
> >> >> be a way to make money selling software? If so, what changed? Was the
> >> >> preceding situation irregular, or is the current situation irregular?
> >> >
> >> > So I should clarify something about the context of this discussion: we
> >> > are not (as I understand it) talking about selling software in general.
> >> > Of course you can make money selling software. Many people do.
> >> >
> >> > What we are talking about here is selling software TO OTHER SOFTWARE
> >> > DEVELOPERS. We're talking about selling compilers, development
> >> > environments, etc. We are talking about selling software which
> >> > possesses a sort of inspiration that only other software developers can
> >> > appreciate and therefore value.
> >> >
> >> > No one has ever made money selling that kind of software, and no one
> >> > ever will.
> >>
> >> You mean like the Lisp Machine?
> >
> > Silly me, how could I forget the thousands of happy millionaires who got
> > rich on Symbolics stock
>
> You said "no one ever made money",
Indeed.
> and I cited a case of company did that,
No you didn't. Generating revenue is not the same thing as making money.
> whose founders became millionaires.
That proves nothing. George Shaheen got rich while he was CEO of Webvan
too, but that doesn't mean he made money delivering groceries. Even in
unprofitable arenas there are occasional transient aberrations of people
getting rich by duping gullible investors and government funding
agencies. It proves nothing except that marketing trumps substance
(which is actually a corollary to my central thesis here).
> The fact they got fucked up later on
> doesn't alter the fact that they made a lot of money.
Do you really not understand the difference between gross receipts and
net margin? If there is so much money to be made in the Lisp Machine
market, why has no one moved to pick up the abandoned market share left
behind by all these fucked up companies?
> > Of course, there is the minor matter of Lisp Machines being, well,
> > machines, which is to say hardware, not software
>
> The hardware was only necessary to run the software, which is what we
> were really selling. No customers were interested in the hardware;
> they only wanted the tightly integrated OS-cum-development-environment.
> It is what people still pine for.
Not enough, apparently, to make it a sustainably profitable business.
rg
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yzl3bcgrl3x.fsf@OSX663.local>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article <···············@OSX663.local>,
> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>>
>> > In article <···············@OSX663.local>,
>> > ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <···············@chlorine.gnostech.com>,
>> >> > "Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > You have assumed that there is (or should be) a way to make money
>> >> >> > selling software when in fact there isn't and there shouldn't be.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I can accept that as the current situation, but didn't there used to
>> >> >> be a way to make money selling software? If so, what changed? Was the
>> >> >> preceding situation irregular, or is the current situation irregular?
>> >> >
>> >> > So I should clarify something about the context of this discussion: we
>> >> > are not (as I understand it) talking about selling software in general.
>> >> > Of course you can make money selling software. Many people do.
>> >> >
>> >> > What we are talking about here is selling software TO OTHER SOFTWARE
>> >> > DEVELOPERS. We're talking about selling compilers, development
>> >> > environments, etc. We are talking about selling software which
>> >> > possesses a sort of inspiration that only other software developers can
>> >> > appreciate and therefore value.
>> >> >
>> >> > No one has ever made money selling that kind of software, and no one
>> >> > ever will.
>> >>
>> >> You mean like the Lisp Machine?
>> >
>> > Silly me, how could I forget the thousands of happy millionaires who got
>> > rich on Symbolics stock
>>
>> You said "no one ever made money",
>
> Indeed.
>
>> and I cited a case of company did that,
>
> No you didn't. Generating revenue is not the same thing as making money.
A public company was profitable for a long time and made a bunch
of its founders and employees into millionaires.
> Not enough, apparently, to make it a sustainably profitable business.
So if any company ever fails, that means the company "never made any money"
and furthermore that "nobody ever will". OK, well, I'm resigning from this
absurd discussion.
In article <···············@OSX663.local>,
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
[snip]
> A public company was profitable for a long time
According to:
http://www.sts.tu-harburg.de/~r.f.moeller/symbolics-info/Symbolics.pdf
Symbolics "incorporated" in 1985, but I assume that they meant to say
"went public" in 1985. That same document shows profits for 1985 and
1986, followed by losses in 1987-89 that more than wiped out all the
profit the company made since it began operating in 1980. All told,
about ten years from inception to bankruptcy, with a net loss at the end
of it all in the tens of millions (as far as I can tell from the
graphs). I don't call that "profitable for a long time." (To say
nothing of the fact that, notwithstanding that Symbolics sold software,
they also sold hardware and services, and so it is not at all clear that
EVEN IF the company was profitable (which net-net at the end of the day
it was not) that that profit was ascribable to selling software.)
> and made a bunch of its founders and employees into millionaires.
Irrelevant for reasons I have already mentioned. DrKoop.com made
millionaires too. Making money by duping investors doesn't count.
> > Not enough, apparently, to make it a sustainably profitable business.
>
> So if any company ever fails, that means the company "never made any money"
No, I did not say that, and I would appreciate it if you would not
caricature my position in this way.
> and furthermore that "nobody ever will".
All of my prophecies come with a double-your-money-back guarantee and a
disclaimer that nothing would please me more than to have to pay up.
Alas, when it comes to prognosticating in this area I seem to be
amassing a lamentably good track record.
> OK, well, I'm resigning from this absurd discussion.
Sorry, since you chose to close with a straw man you don't get off the
hook that easy. So I'll concede the point: Twenty years ago one
company made modest profits selling software development tools (among
other things). It served an industry that has become notorious for
producing few if any viable products, and was supported almost entirely
by government subsidies. (AI would probably still be the canonical
example of unsubstantiated hype had not the internet bubble mercifully
come along to eclipse it.) It sustained those profits just long enough
to float an IPO and line its founders' pockets, whereupon its profits
promptly (within two years) turned to large (by comparison with its
previous profits) losses and it went bankrupt five or six years later.
And in all the history of computing, that is the poster child for making
money selling software development tools.
And your point would be...?
You know, I'll do you one better. It is in fact not strictly true even
by my own definition that no one has ever made money selling software
development tools. There actually is one company that has made
sustained albeit modest profits selling software development tools for
over twenty years now. As far as I know they are unique. Ten points to
the first person who can name it.
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote on Tue, 01 Aug 2006:
> There actually is one company that has made sustained albeit modest profits
> selling software development tools for over twenty years now. As far as I
> know they are unique. Ten points to the first person who can name it.
Clearcase (source control)? Borland (programming languages)?
Even Microsoft, I suppose. Their first big product, well prior to the
whole operating system thing, was a BASIC compiler (interpreter?), as I
recall. They were a one-product company for a significant period of time in
the early days.
Of course, Microsoft's revenue _today_ (and for most of its history) isn't
really about "selling software development tools". But that's how they began.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
In article <·················@geddis.org>, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org>
wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote on Tue, 01 Aug 2006:
> > There actually is one company that has made sustained albeit modest profits
> > selling software development tools for over twenty years now. As far as I
> > know they are unique. Ten points to the first person who can name it.
>
> Clearcase (source control)? Borland (programming languages)?
>
> Even Microsoft, I suppose. Their first big product, well prior to the
> whole operating system thing, was a BASIC compiler (interpreter?), as I
> recall. They were a one-product company for a significant period of time in
> the early days.
>
> Of course, Microsoft's revenue _today_ (and for most of its history) isn't
> really about "selling software development tools". But that's how they
> began.
Actually, the company I had in mind was Franz. But Borland and
Clearcase are good examples too. And your mentioning Clearcase reminded
me also of Perforce and Bitkeeper. (Hm, Interesting that revision
control is a lucrative enough area that it can support three commercial
companies. So why isn't there a Lisp-based competitor out there kicking
all their butts?)
So I guess I was just flat-out wrong. There are a handful of companies
making money selling development tools, and they are doing it despite
the availability of open-source alternatives.
rg
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yzly7u7rkk7.fsf@OSX663.local>
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> If there is so much money to be made in the Lisp Machine
> market, why has no one moved to pick up the abandoned market share left
> behind by all these fucked up companies?
Maybe they think the "free software movement" will defeat them in
their attempt to be profitable - but note that free software can't
bring us a Lisp OS without first having the considerable up-front
intellectual investments that need to be made (and then copied).
Free software has been unable to get the critical mass of hackers
who have the expertise to pull something like that off.
So maybe free software is the reason why all that we have is utter
crap like Linux, which is, after all, just an improved copy of
proprietary software from decades ago.
Just one possible theory.
I'm not responding to this thread, though, having said all I have to say.
In article <···············@OSX663.local>,
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> > If there is so much money to be made in the Lisp Machine
> > market, why has no one moved to pick up the abandoned market share left
> > behind by all these fucked up companies?
>
> Maybe they think the "free software movement" will defeat them in
> their attempt to be profitable - but note that free software can't
> bring us a Lisp OS without first having the considerable up-front
> intellectual investments that need to be made (and then copied).
So?
> Free software has been unable to get the critical mass of hackers
> who have the expertise to pull something like that off.
Or maybe they just don't care.
> So maybe free software is the reason why all that we have is utter
> crap like Linux
Or maybe it's because the Linux people spend their time working instead
of whining.
> which is, after all, just an improved copy of
> proprietary software from decades ago.
And how exactly would a Lisp OS be different?
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote on Thu, 27 Jul 2006:
> (In fact, I can think of only a single instance where someone has been
> directly rewarded in CS for coming up with a cool new technical idea,
> and that one case was well after the advent of open source.)
RSA (aka public key) encryption?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Tycho: I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat.
Gabe: Isn't that just ... bread?
-- Penny Arcade, 8/9/2004
In article <·················@geddis.org>, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org>
wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote on Thu, 27 Jul 2006:
> > (In fact, I can think of only a single instance where someone has been
> > directly rewarded in CS for coming up with a cool new technical idea,
> > and that one case was well after the advent of open source.)
>
> RSA (aka public key) encryption?
I don't know. Did RSA (the people, not the company) actually make any
money? The entire market cap of RSA Security Inc. is about half of
Google's annual profit.
rg
>> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote on Thu, 27 Jul 2006:
>> > (In fact, I can think of only a single instance where someone has been
>> > directly rewarded in CS for coming up with a cool new technical idea,
>> > and that one case was well after the advent of open source.)
I wrote:
>> RSA (aka public key) encryption?
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote on Fri, 28 Jul 2006:
> I don't know. Did RSA (the people, not the company) actually make any
> money? The entire market cap of RSA Security Inc. is about half of
> Google's annual profit.
Well, it's kind of unfair to compare anything with Google. That's been one of
the biggest financial successes in all of history, so of course some other
example won't be as good.
Rivest, Shamir, & Adleman came up the algorithm in 1978. I believe they
participated in founding the RSA Security company, which is still in operation
a few decades later. It basically functioned as the vehicle to say "you
want to use our algorithm? Pay a license fee!" Which is pretty rare for
a pure idea in computer science.
I suspect they got a lot more financial gain out of their algorithm than, say,
the Hoare did out of inventing quicksort, or Knuth out of his stuff, etc.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Native Americans used every part of the buffalo, including the wings.
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
>> In article <·············@nhplace.com>,
>> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But this conversation is going nowhere because the only people we're
>> > talking to seem to have their minds closed.
>>
>> In light of the fact that you have been complaining about this issue for
>> years now I'd say that train runs both ways. But we can do this little
>> experiment: I'll answer your question and we'll see how you respond.
>
> Well, I didn't happen to agree with much of what you had to say, but
> at least your answers seme to have been a good faith attempt to stay
> on track with what I asked, which is more than I've gotten out of some
> other answers here... So indeed, here we go...
>
I too agree with that sentiment, which is why I'm butting in - hope
thats OK.
>> > Rather than beat a dead horse, then, I'd like to ask a question to get
>> > the conversation back onto the real track I meant to open by starting
>> > this subthread... something related directly to comp.lang.lisp and not
>> > to abstract philosophy:
>> >
>> > Suppose I have written a piece of software. (Not something that
>> > solves problems for end-users. If it drove a vacuum cleaner, I'd pack
>> > it in a vacuum cleaner and sell it like Apple sells Quicktime--free if
>> > you just buy the large piece of metal and plastic required to run it.)
>> > No, this piece of software helps programmers--the ones who, unlike
>> > janitors, expect not to pay anything for anything.
>> >
>> > Suppose I believe it is something others will want to use.
>>
>> So this is the first problem. Your premise is that you BELIEVE it is
>> something others will want to use. Your belief is not necessarily
>> correct.
>
> No, my premise is that I want to contribute skill and I'm asking, "is
> the cost of contributing skill that I have to have my entire efforts
> reduced to the computational equivalent of pulling the arm of a slot
> machine?" Because although I once saw the State of Massachusetts
> refer to buying a lottery ticket as a "retirement investment", I think
> I'd like all of our efforts in life to have just a bit more certainty.
>
> Nothing in life is certain. But the reason people build societies rather
> than live in the jungle is to hedge their bets against being eaten by a
> predator (person or animal)... If you're telling me that after millenia
> of societal growth, what we've come to is "be prepared to be eaten by a
> predator", then I've got to question what society is about. I suggest
> that society is about trying to come up with a set of rules that minimizes
> pain and risk, while maximizing gain. It's fine to say that some pain and
> some risk is necessary to get better gain, but don't tell me that I should
> not even be asking how to minimize pain and risk, and don't tell me that
> any amount of pain and risk is ok, as long as it maximizes gain.
>
I get the feeling you may have not grasped what Ron was expressing.
His point was that even if you *think* its something which would
revolutionise how programmers do their job, this may not be how it is
seen by others. Sometimes, the best ideas don't get recognised or it
takes a long time before anyone recognises what a revolutionary idea
it was. Bottome line, there is no guarantee that a good idea will
succeed.
With respect to your analogy of predators, I think that we actually do
have predators - however, instead of tigers and other wild animals, it
is now other businesses and competitors and the predation is based on
profit (which is NOT to say profit is bad).
>> > Something that doesn't exist. Something that will save time.
>>
>> It is very rare that software saves time in an absolute sense. There is
>> always an up-front investment of time and risk. At best you have to
>> take the time to install the software (and possibly uninstall it if it
>> turns out to be buggy). In the more typical case you have to climb a
>> learning curve which can be very time consuming indeed.
>>
>> Furthermore, counterintuitive as it may seem, saving time is not always
>> deemed a desirable outcome in software development. Those software
>> developers that do have jobs writing code have a vested interest in
>> maintaining the status quo where they get paid by the hour and
>> productivity measures are fuzzy and generally focused on the short term.
>>
>> > Something that long ago we would have said "people would pay for".
>>
>> When was the last time someone made money on the kind of thing you have
>> in mind? It is not clear to me from your description whether this
>> utopia of yours ever existed, or if it has always been a fantasy.
>>
>> I'm going to respond to something out-of-order now because I want to cut
>> straight to the chase before answering your specific questions:
>>
>> > I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
>> > inspiration.
>>
>> In that case you need to come to grips with the fact that you are not an
>> engineer but an artist. Since you have chosen to be an artist you will
>> need to live the way artists do. You may need to get a day job waiting
>> tables. You may need to struggle for years before achieving commercial
>> success. You may not receive the kind of recognition you feel you
>> deserve until after you are dead. It may be regrettable, but that's the
>> way it is for artists.
>
> You're framing this about what I want. But I'm asking the question: How
> do I get more art into the world. How do I inspire artists to design the
> things in my life. You're saying "hang it up, they have to spend all their
> day washing dishes--you're luck you get what you get". I'm trying to engage
> people in the design of the system that would not have them doing that, for
> our sakes as well as theirs.
>
Isn't this an age old problem - getting art into the world? I'm not
sure if I agree totally with Ron, but I do believe getting something
you feel would be beneficial accepted is a very difficult task and to
some extent, independent of the merit of the object in question. There
are numerous accounts of "artists" who tried to convince everyone of
the advantages, truth or rewards of something they consider important
or hold dear, which was never adopted, adopted only in a limited
fashion or did not get adopted until long after their death.
I have no solution to this. I guess its part of the unpredictable
nature of things - sometimes merit alone is not sufficient. Consider
the beta vhs battle. The inventor of beta must have thought it was in
the bag - they believed they had the better product, the professionals
believed it was the better product - generally, consensus was that
technically, it was the superior approach. Outside professional
studios, you hardly ever see beta anymore (of course, both have lost
out to HDD and DVD records - the next battle is blueray vs HDDVD. Will
the better solution win in that one?
>> In that light...
>>
>> > But now, well, ... the question
>> > is, what do I do now, in the present day, the one I'm supposed to get
>> > used to and not fight.
>> >
>> > I guess there are two questions:
>> >
>> > (a) Suppose I grant for argument that it's a brave new world and
>> > we do things differently now. Enlighten me. I have mouths to feed
>> > in my household. I have something I think people want. Tell me how
>> > I give away what I own for free and yet receive something that will
>> > feed my family...
>>
>> You don't have to give it away for free. You can sell your work. Many
>> artists (even those whose art form is code) do. Just don't expect
>> necessarily to make enough to live on that way.
>>
>> > (b) Suppose your answer is "you can't get money" or "don't expect enough
>> > to feed your family" or even "don't expect enough to make it worth
>> > your while to have made the item... Why should I release it at all?
>> > Why should anyone?
>>
>> Artists give away their work for "less than their fair market value" (I
>> put the phrase in scare quotes because it is "less" only as perceived by
>> the artist, not as perceived by the market) in order to hone their
>> craft, to supplement their table-waiting income, and to bide their time
>> while they wait for their Big Break.
>
> Only because we sometimes treat artists badly. It's not an intrinsic
> truth of the Universe that they have to be treated this way. The
> Internet has created marketplaces for writers with very small audiences.
> And the protection for them is much greater than for programmers.
>
Is it really? There are plenty of writers making their creations
available for free on the internet - are they not also devaluing the
work of other writers? What protection do they have that programmers
don't get?
I wonder if part of the issue here is seeing free software vs
commercial software as binary propositions. Nobody in this thread has
been saying all software has to be free. Obviously it can be argued
that if you came up with a great closed software solution you were
selling, with a free software community someone will just duplicate
it. However, its not as though someone looks at a commercial package
and goes "Hey thats pretty good, I'm going to knock up a free version
over the weekend". Free software, just like commercial software,
requires investment of time and effort. Often this is even harder to
get with free software because people are not paid to develop it.
Maybe if the package is doing something really revolutionary, others
will attempt to create free clones, but if its that revolutionary, its
unlikely this can be done easily or quickly. Even a free alternative
doesn't automatically mean everyone swaps from the commercial version
to the free one - look at open office. I actually finid it an easier
product to use than MS Office, but we have not seen massive switch to
it - MS Office is still selling well. It may have lost some sales, but
there is no evidence of it destroying the commercial viability of
Office.
> (I can hear you saying "So write a book." And I might. I do have a day
> job that prevents me doing it quickly. But again I emphasize: this
> discussion, however much I appeal sometimes to my own experience, is not
> about me. I've been in the industry a while, and I get by. But I'm trying
> to ask what to recommend to others because I simply can't recommend that
> they do the things I did--I don't think they would work any more. And I
> don't know that anything would.)
>
I think your right, but don't think thats because of free software. In
the 80's I made a good living writing DOS apps - especially TSR
utilities and hardware device drivers etc. I was able to do this at
home and was able to have a pretty good turn around time from
conception to finished saleable product.
However, I think those days are pretty much gone. This is partially
because users are a lot more sophisticated and demand a much higher
quality than before. You really need a team of people to get
reasonable turn around times and to do that you need considerable
capital. There is also a lot more competition now than there was and a
lot more people with skills which were once reserved for professional
programmers. Things have become a lot more complex and choice
regarding what sort of work you can do is diminishing. I don't
necessarily think this is good, but do think it is how it is.
To some extent, this also goes to your point about artists being badly
treated and nothing in the Universe stating that it has to be that way
- the converse is also true in that there is nothing saying they won't
be treated that way. Essentially, there is nothing written down that
says things have to be fair or right and unfortunately, in a world
with limited resources and too many people, its more often unfair and
fair.
>> > Why shouldn't I just burn it and wait for someone
>> > who values their time less than I to put something out?
>>
>> Because if you are an artist, then no one else can produce art the way
>> you do. No one else will get it Right except you. And if you wait for
>> someone else, the half-assed job they will inevitably do will eat you up
>> inside.
>
> Stallman makes this argument. That programmers are compulsive. He
> recommends in one of his books that employers should pay programmers
> low wages since they'll program compulsively anyway, and it really
> doesn't matter whether you pay them or not. I can understand an employer
> coming to this position--it's the kind of self-serving decision that
> employers make all the time. They gotta make a profit somewhere, and
> it's often on the backs of labor. But I don't understand labor saying
> this to an employer.
>
I don't see labor saying that either. It is interesting that Paul
Graeme said a very similar thing in a talk he gave at the Oreilly OSS
conference last year. Essentially, he said you could pay good hackers
low wages because the money is less important than the work they are
doing. This is largely the crux of the free software movement. For
most programmers, paid programming is the hell they go through to make
money. They tend to be employed developing a small part of a larger,
complex and usually quite uninteresting application which they have
very little control over and basically have to follow direction. Many
programmers get involved in free software because it gives them the
opportunity to work on something interesting, in a way they want and
with control over what they do with a group of like minded individuals
that also gives them sufficient momentum in development to actually
get results in a reasonable time.
> In fact, I think it's better from a bargaining point of view if one makes
> it clear that the price of offering unsuitable wages is exactly not
> compulsively providing the same item, but rather not providing any item
> at all.
>
>> > Where is the incentive to make anything in this new world?
>>
>> It's the same as it ever was. The problem is that you are blind to one
>> fundamental fact: the incentives provided by the market are only one
>> kind of incentive. There are other kinds of incentives. For example,
>> some things, like skiing for example, are simply fun. Some people get
>> paid to ski, but the vast majority of skiers actually PAY OTHERS (can
>> you imagine?) in order to ski.
>>
>> Creating art is fun. Hacking on your own code your own way with no one
>> to answer to is fun. It should come as no surprise that in a free
>> market the competition to make money doing something fun is fierce and
>> very few will actually succeed. You may just not be good enough.
>>
>> > Where is the ability
>> > of the market to act as a natural aggregator of wealth by directing
>> > people with a need to join together to fund people with a product?
>>
>> Everywhere. Needs are being met all around. We live in an abundance of
>> software, ski slopes, and art of all stripes. The only need that isn't
>> being met is *your* need to make a living doing exactly what you want on
>> your own terms. Well, too bad. That's the Way It Is.
>>
>> > Must this always be a "pull" process? Only build things the market
>> > asks for?
>>
>> Of course not. No one asked for the iPod.
>>
>> > Does that mean people who are inspired to innovate and
>> > who want to "push" have no value?
>>
>> Of course not. But just because something has value does not mean you
>> can get rich off it, or even support yourself with it. The part of the
>> economic equation you are leaving out is *scarcity*. The artist's
>> problem is not that inspiration has no value, but rather that it is
>> overly abundant (because it's fun to produce).
>
Plus that little problem of getting others to recognise the same value
you see.
> This isn't a fair accounting. Artists are (a) protected by copyright and
> (b) in most artistic disciplines, there is no notion of "equivalent value".
> That is, if Da Vinci paints Mona Lisa, there's no serious notion that someone
> else says "wow, cool idea, I'll do that for less" and in any way destroys
> the value of the Mona Lisa. But, in computer science, if I have the idea
> that a good compiler might work by continuation-passing style, and I write
> a compiler that does this, it quickly becomes apparent what I have done
> and anyone can copy the idea without copying the form and produce something
> that would, by people with money, be perceived as equivalent, and consequently
> the sense in which you're saying I've provided "art" is not really holding
> up as an analogy. Because at least one characteristic of art is it's
> ineffable or uncopyable nature--except by literal copying, which is protected.
> Because in computers we can come out with something truly unique that
> nevertheless possible to decompose into small parts and then be copied,
> we have little protection... other than software patents... which most of us
> who disagree here about free software would probably still agree are awful
> in their present incarnation. So there is a sense in which it's artistic,
> but it's the same kind of sense in which code is artistic.
>
Why do you say programmers are not protected by copyright? I think
things are getting muddled here by the assumption that making software
free also means you relinquish copyright. There is nothing that says
free software means giving up your copyright. There are lots of
different models for free software - thats partly why it gets so
confusing. There is nothing that says you have to provide sources to
your free software unless you adopt a license that specifies that.
I agree that it is easier to copy software due to the nature of its
digital existance. However, to carry the artist metaphore to breaking,
while nobody could do an exact copy of the Mona Lisa, they can (and
did) copy the techniques the artist used (and to some extent
developed). Artists have been doing this for probably as long as
therre has been art. I guess its like they say - mimicry is the best
orm of flattery.
> I use the terms "convergent" and "divergent" to talk about this.
> Computer Science is a convergent discipline; that is, when you get an
> assignment in class to do a thing, you lose points for coming back with
> something different than your classmate. Creative writing and painting
> are divergent disciplines; that is, if you are asked to write or paint
> something in a class and you come back with something the same as one
> of your classmates, you lose points (if you are not just thrown out of
> school completely) because the chances of you doing the literal same
> item as someone else are so close to zero as to not even be considered.
> Copyright spans both of these disciplines, but it's important to see
> that in the convergent disciplines, copyright is protecting something for
> which there is a natural attractive nature to certain optimization points,
> while for other disciplines there is not. Hence there is a lot of cover
> for people who claim to be artists but are really "knock-off artists"
> (that is, their art is not in the creation but in the passing off of
> a non-creation as a creation--not something I'm interested in designing
> societal mechanisms to suppport).
>
As will be no serprise from my previous paragraph, I don't agree that
artists are discouraged from copying. they are discouraged from
copying the same subject with exactly the same interpretation, but
they are encouraged to copy and develop the techniques. I don't see a
big difference in the levels of protection afforded programmers and
artists.
>> > Because you're open to having
>> > a free software sniper instantly de-value innovation and claim its
>> > only value was the construction cost... as if the value of Einstein's
>> > equation E=mc^2 was less than a penny since it can be written with a
>> > pencil on a paper in about 1 second and plainly is a commodity that
>> > should sell at its copying value, not its creation value.
>>
There is no "instant" in this equation. The free software developer
still has to spend the time developing their software - it may end up
being functionally equivalent to what you did, but they still have to
go through the whole development process, but with no pay or prospect
of any income from it. The effort will be the same even if they
decided to sell the software in competition with yours. I don't think
the fact they do it for free is the issue - its more about the effort
- if you produce a commercial closed source solution to some problem
which people want to pay for and someone decides to write a free
version, the effort they put in will be proportional to the effort you
put in. If your commercial system has some revolutionary way of
dealing with the problem, its likely they will have difficulty
reproducing something that is as good because they only have an
outside view of what you have done - not an easily accessible view
into the underlying solution. If on the other hand, what you produced
was really quite straight forward and easy to produce, then it will be
easy to clone by either free software developers or some commercial
competitor. The point is, the fact it is given away for free is less
relevant than the effort required to develop it and thats related to
the real worth of the software.
>> If you really produce something as valuable as E=mc^2 you will have no
>> trouble making a living, just as Einstein had no trouble. You will not
>> make your living selling copies of your equation. You will be able to
>> make a living, as Einstein did, teaching, getting research grants,
>> consulting, and if you really become as famous as Einstein, you could
>> probably even sell your paintings at a profit.
>
> This may be so. But this is not ideal if (a) Einstein didn't want to
> earn money that way and/or (b) society didn't want Einstein to have to
> waste his valuable talents that way.
>
Again, life is not fair. For all we know, he didn't want to earn a
living that way. As touched on earlier, society probably, as a whole,
didn't appreciate what he did at the time anyway (to some extent,
society sill doesn't - for many he was just this brainiac with weird
hair).
> I'm not just saying "how can we make sure people are fed", I'm saying,
> how can we make an engine that optimizes people ability to contribute.
> It has frequently been observed that the old Communist maxim of
> "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
> didn't really optimize that because it was quickly obvious that a person
> was going to get his needs met whether he did anything or not, and why
> should anyone put themselves out when there was no upside for doing so.
> It wasn't just the individuals who didn't benefit--those entire societies
> failed. And, for all I know, they were filled with people who were
> (or in some cases would have been) wonderful, caring people who were
> wealthy in non-dollar terms--adored by their peers. They just couldn't
> trade that adoration for a loaf of bread or a pair of levis or a passport
> out...
>
Sure, but thats the problem when you value wealth in monetary terms. I
think the real reason socialism/communism have failed is because
nothing was put into place to replace money/capital as the
reward/incentive mechanism. The problem here, you cannot impose a new
value from the outside - society has to do that as a whole.
I do understand your motives and don't disagree at all. The possible
irony is that I actually think open source (aka free software) is
actually the best way of achieving what your after - it empowers
people to contribute regardless of their job, location, social status
or even formal education or experience. Anyone who wants to contribute
can and the results are available to all regardless of socio economic
position etc.
>> > I ask these questions not in the abstract. I ask what we tell people in our
>> > community who want to deliver product. Because what point is there writing
>> > programs if you can't sell them? Just for fun? I came to this as a career
>> > and if the answer is that it's only a hobby now, I should just get another
>> > line of work.
>>
Back to the binary proposition - either its free or its not. things
are not like that. Nobody is saying only free software is allowed.
Sure, free software may mean there are some areas that it will be
difficult to compete in unless you have something truely original to
contribute and if you do, you will be able to sell it. There are also
lots of areas free software doesn't even touch or what is available is
very poor quality.
Take it from another direction. Countries like India and China have
huge populations and a very high affinity it seems with programming
and technology. If we are to compete with the low wages they can
offer, then we need to be adding some value that they don't/can't. The
same holds with free software.
>> I hate to break it to you, but yes, programming is fun, and many people
>> do it just for fun.
>>
>> > And if you don't like my inspiration, at least
>> > acknolwedge the possibility that there are people who are inspired.
>>
>> Acknowledged.
>>
>> > And that you might want to incentivize them.
>>
>> Why? The problem is not a scarcity of inspiration but an overabundance.
>> Additional incentives would exacerbate the problem.
>
This I definitely agree with. Most people who like programming will do
it regardless of the pay. I contribute to some free software projects
because I believe in the project and it allows me to work with
problems, languages or systems I cannot work with in my paid
programming job in a way that is rewarding to me. I work as a paid
programmer not because the work is interesting or the programming is
even challenging, I do it because its a skill I have and out of all
the skills I have, its the one which is least painful to sell for a
living.
> This assumes that all inspiration is interchangeable. I don't think
> there's an overabundance of the kind of inspiration I'm seeking. By
> inspiration, I don't mean "people who feel inspired" I mean "people
> who I (or anyone) would describe as inspired". I believe the latter
> set is quite a bit smaller, and that the various disciplines compete
> for their attention, since truly inspired people are capable of various
> things.
>
Inspiration is probably the key. However, recognising original
inspiration is not that easy. I have lost count of the number of times
I have had some inspiring thought regarding some software only to find
it has already been done. I worked on what I thought was truely
original and inspirational stuff relating to stored state, object
serialisation and autonomy in the early 90's. My ideas were thought to
be reasonably inspired going by the articles I had published
(refereed). Then I became ill and was unable to work for 12 months.
When I recovered, I found Java and some other languages had already
implemented some of my inspired ideas. Obviously, they were working on
them at the same time I was. In the late 80s, I had a great idea for
some software to aid in the development of menu systems and database
appllication development. I was certain my ideas were original and
would be valuable/marketable. I started work on them and then about
2/3 into the project, I read about a small company whose product had
been in the top 5 development tools for the past 2 months (and stayed
there for many moe). It was almost exactly my idea - I think mine was
better in some ways, but not sufficiently so to really be competitive
- especially as they already had the market. None of this was
free/open source and none of the competitors were open source -
essentially, it was just bad luck. Shit happens and life is not fair.
>> > What should they do with
>> > their inspired ideas to get some money so they can eat?
>>
>> This question assumes that inspired ideas alone have market value. They
>> do not, and never have. It has *never* been the idea alone that made
>> people rich, it is the *implementation* that makes money (because that's
>> the non-fun part).
>
> No, but the capitalist system is based on the idea that money
> attracts. So telling people there is no money down one path and there
> is down another is going to have an effect on where people go.
>
>> Because money and wealth are not the same thing. It is entirely
>> possible for everyone to have less money and still be wealthier (and
>> vice versa).
>
> Yes, but given the choice early enough, and a proper training in the terms
> (that is, assuming you DON'T indoctrinate them with phrases like "money
> is evil" but instead describe money as simply a tool, not a goal, but a
> useful one in achieving freedom--which is a goal).
>
>> If you really think Einstein worked on relativity because he thought it
>> would make him rich then you don't understand passion, and are therefore
>> unlikely to succeed as an artist. You might want to brush up on your
>> C++ (or your table-waiting skills).
>
> No. I'm saying I wish I could have arranged society so he didn't have
> to spend his days at the day job, because he could have done more of
> what we remember him for.
>
> And, again, _struggling_ to stay with comp.lang.lisp, which is why I
> raise this: I want to know what to tell people in a FAQ, in a book, at
> a talk, or whatever, when they say:
>
> - Ok, I wrote my program. How do I package it commercially?
> - I have an idea for a program. Is there any way to even hope to make money?
>
> Your answers above "get a sponsor" really don't work for me. It's
> very hard to get a sponsor who doesn't want to own the output. So
> you're not building anything. And you'll never grow up to be a real
> company. You'll just be a worker-bee your whole life. The capitalist
> system is supposed to be about competition for a space in the market.
> I'd like to think that with all our expertise in process, we could design
> something that would help people compete fairly... not just sit around
> and conclude that it's fine that people have no coherent idea about
> how to be a useful part of society.
I can understand where your coming from, but I don't think there is a
set answer. There are too many variables. this is a question which has
been asked in general ever since capitalism was established. I think
there is a big chunk of luck involved. Remember that most small
businesses failr within the first 5 years. Add to that average for
general business the stats which show 65% of all software development
projects fail and I think you would have to say that only a very few
are going to be lucky enough to have a successful software development
company. However, I don't believe free software is the boogy man in
this equation - this is the fickled nature of capitalism, business and
markets.
I think the days of easy money in software development are gone. There
are still some opportunities out there in niche areas involving highly
specialised problem domains or hardware requirements. the problem with
these areas is you usually need some in-sider knowledge about the area
and of course, if ou have that knowledge, yo probably don't have the
programming knowledge. The market is awash with solutions in the
general problem areas, both commercial and free.
My observation in general has been that the truely successful
companies are ones that identify a gap in the market and who then plug
it. Its no different with software development companies except the
market is currently very well covered. We are now on the back end of
the wave and I suspect we will see more and more consolidation of
commercial development into large players and will only have the small
operators in the niche areas.
I'd be inclined to tell budding young software developers to look for
some other way of applying their skill if they want to be self
employed and successful. With luck, they will be able to apply their
development skills in some way, but don't bother trying to compete in
the mainstream - there are too many sharks in that water already.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
In article <··············@tiger.rapttech.com.au>,
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
> I too agree with that sentiment, which is why I'm butting in - hope
> thats OK.
Welcome to the party.
> I have no solution to this.
That's because there isn't actually a problem.
rg
From: Richard M Kreuter
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87u05355vt.fsf@progn.net>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Suppose I have written a piece of software... this piece of software
> helps programmers--the ones who, unlike janitors, expect not to pay
> anything for anything.
>
> Tell me how I give away what I own for free and yet receive
> something that will feed my family...
MySQL AB, AdaCore Technologies, and Artifex Software are three
companies that do just this, by offering proprietary licensing options
for people that want that, typically with some sort of added value
(support, additional features, or customization). While none of these
is a one-man shop (is that essential to your hypothetical?), I don't
think they all qualify as ``Big Businesses''. AFAIK, these three
companies are profitable.
In fairness, I'll grant that Ada and PostScript implementations cater
to markets with unusual revenue sources: PostScripts are often
embedded in doohickies that people are willing to pay for, and Ada
compilers are mostly used by government contractors, whose funding has
infinite extent. Nonetheless, those markets exist, and so such
businesses can exist.
> Because what point is there writing programs if you can't sell them?
All the employed programmers I know personally work on embedded
systems, web-based custom business applications, or academic
bioinformatics research software. Some of them work for big
organizations (universities or research institutes), some for smaller
private companies, a couple are independent consultants. These are
programming jobs, but the software isn't the product: the embedded
device, the provision of the web application, or the results of
bioinformatics analyses are the product. In all cases, the
availability of free software tools makes these people's talents
/more/ marketable, by reducing the cost of production. In most cases,
the software produced is itself made free, either in the hope of
offloading bugfixing and feature addition to volunteers, or else as a
way of attracting new customers. From where I am, free software is a
complementary good to this sort of programming gig (though my
microeconomics is rusty).
So while I agree with you that free software makes it hard to sustain
a market for software-as-product, I think it's necessary to consider
the role of free software in enabling software-as-service and embedded
software markets before concluding that free software is a /net/
global lose for programmers.
> If you can't suggest a process that will at least somewhat reliably
> lead to income... then why are you building a superior society over
> the one we had before I indulged this hypothetical, where there was
> an established mechanism for selling for income...
It's not obvious that free software is the only reason why selling
software as deliverable application products is growing unpopular. In
the absence of adhered-to standard protocols, formats, interfaces, and
languages, network effects make popular things so vastly more valuable
than less popular ones that diversity is the exception, and
homogeneity the rule. Consequently, in general, it's unstrategic for
people to use any but the most popular proprietary software, since the
vendor is likely to go under and take the product with them.
For programmers (and some non-programmers too), there's an additional
factor: what we do is more or less impossible without our tools
(whereas, say, soporific presentations are possible with any
alternative to PowerPoint, including no slideware at all), and so we
grow unusually strong attachments to things like editors, languages,
etc. Nonetheless, we can't individually prevent vendors from EOL'ing
our tools or going out of business, even if we're good, loyal
customers, and even if the product is profitable. By contrast, if our
tools are free software, then there's at least a chance that they'll
go on.
Perhaps a convention of freeing the sources to proprietary software
after some period of unmaintainedness or unavailability and in the
absence of supported migration products would alleviate these
disincentives, but that would require mechanisms that would probably
work less well in practice than free software does, and getting the
right parameters for such a convention to not create incentives for
users to drive vendors out of business is likely impossible.
--
RmK
Richard M Kreuter wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
> > Suppose I have written a piece of software... this piece of software
> > helps programmers--the ones who, unlike janitors, expect not to pay
> > anything for anything.
> >
> > Tell me how I give away what I own for free and yet receive
> > something that will feed my family...
>
> MySQL AB, AdaCore Technologies, and Artifex Software are three
> companies that do just this, by offering proprietary licensing options
> for people that want that, typically with some sort of added value
> (support, additional features, or customization). While none of these
> is a one-man shop (is that essential to your hypothetical?), I don't
> think they all qualify as ``Big Businesses''. AFAIK, these three
> companies are profitable.
>
I'm curious to how this could works. Could someone explain to me on how
dual licensing could possibly work?
1.) A company "A" release software X as GPL.
2.) A person used it in his application, then he found a bug in X so he
fixed it and distribute the fix to his customer.
3.) Because he distributed his fix, his fix falls into GPL. so he
contribute the **GPL'ed** fix back to company A.
4.) Company A took the **GPL'ed** patch and applied it to both GPL and
closed source version of X.
Now, shouldn't GPL now applied to the closed source version to? Because
the sending patch is already GPL'ed, how could anyone applied a GPL
patch to a source code and still be able to keep it in closed source
version? My hope was not that the answer is "just because the company
say so" because then GPL would not force anything if it can change up
on someone's word.
It shouldn't matter that the company was the original author, because
the sent patch was sent because the contributor was **forced** to
contributed the **GPL** patch back. He pecifically contribute it to the
GPL version of X, not just generously contribute to company A.
-------------------
Also another experimental thought.
Since GPL only apply if you distribute your application. But requiring
user to download/link the depended library themselves is not consider
as you distributing it.
Then is it possible to avoid putting you application in to GPL by
making an installation package that contains all you object file and
linker. And then when the user double click this installation program,
it downloads the GPL library, compile it, and linked with my object
file? In this sense the user is download the application themselves, I
didnot distribute the GPL library with me, and the user is using his
software on his machine, so he/she did not distributed the linked
version of the software. (I could add "Ok, download the GPL library"
button the installation procedure to indicate that it is not automate
process but user request. And also put in EULA restricting user from
distributing the linked version of executable).
GPL only applied to your source code if you distribute your linked
application. But if the user linked it themselves. Then is it okay to
say that my software doesn't have to fall under GPL?
Please use logic in responding, I don't want to consider answer like
"you can't do it because that would break GPL's spirit".
From: Harald Hanche-Olsen
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <pcopsfrxo7i.fsf@shuttle.math.ntnu.no>
+ Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com>:
| [...] Because you're open to having
| a free software sniper instantly de-value innovation and claim its
| only value was the construction cost... as if the value of Einstein's
| equation E=mc^2 was less than a penny since it can be written with a
| pencil on a paper in about 1 second and plainly is a commodity that
| should sell at its copying value, not its creation value.
Hmm, I think the analogy is a bit strained since academic researchers
do in fact give away the fruits of their labour for free (heck, they
often have to pay to publish it). What they get in return is salaried
positions, and the reputation that allows them to get research grants.
This is a model that works well for academic research: It is
essentially subsidized by the income from teaching (or paid for by
taxes, as in my country), but it is hard to see how to apply the model
to software. Sure, there are many examples of free software coming
out of academia (BSD, CMUCL, TeX and pdfTeX for starters), but that
will typically only work if it scratches an acedemic itch, as TeX
does, or its development actually can count as research. (BSD, CMUCL?
And I believe pdfTeX was essentially the result of a PhD thesis.)
I wish I had some answer to your questions. For now, all I can offer
is the above nitpick, and the observation that the academia model will
likely only work in exceptional circumstances.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
-- Bertrand Russell
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
>> On 2006-07-26 18:59:40 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>>
>>> BUT THE PROGRAMMERS CHOSE TO MAKE THEIR WORK FREE.
>>
>> BUT THIS IS A VERY STUPID CHOICE.
>
> Personally, I would insert a qualifying word like "sometimes" in
> there. (I actually think the term "often" is right, but I don't have
> any data to back up a frequency claim, so I'll just go with
> "sometimes" because such a claim can reasonably made from a structural
> argument rather than a statistical argument.)
>
> But this conversation is going nowhere because the only people we're
> talking to seem to have their minds closed.
Raffael's mind is closed, certainly.
My mind, however, is not.
It's just not open to your anecdotal evidence.
As I've said before: come up with *real proof* that free software is so
harmful that it's *often* stupid choice to release it, or else I'll have
no reason to give your arguments any more weight than I give to those of
anti-climate-change industry shivs, or creationists.
> They're not trying to listen, nor even to allow us to talk to people
> who would listen to us.
The first claim is unfalsifiable, obviously. But you might have luck
proving that we're attempting to prevent you from making your opinions
known. Have we been cancelling all your messages? Have we been phoning
your ISP and reporting you for abuse? Have we been doing *anything* that
could reasonably be construed as trying to prevent you from posting to
this thread?
> They are so desperately afraid their beliefs won't stand up against
> our arguments that they have to expend energy discrediting the
> possibility that there's counterpoint.
I see. So arguing that an opposing view is wrong is actually *not* a
valid debating technique?
> I take that personally as a debate win, just as I take it as a win in
> an argument about religion when someone says "we have to protect God's
> way by not allowing blasphemy".
You're foolish. It's clear the debate isn't one, and won't be getting
anywhere. This doesn't magically mean your side wins. It means neither
side has provided sufficient evidence of their position to change the
opinion of either side. It means it's a draw.
> (I'm pretty sure God can protect himself, and it seems to
> me that the very essence of man having to defend God is non-faith, so
> I always take that as a win.) If these guys believe they have to
> convince us there is no ill effect for there to be no ill effect, then
> they've lost already. If it's not enough for them to say "Well, this
> works works often enough to make us happy, and we proudly call any bad
> case you come up with an 'acceptable casualty'." then they've lost
> becuase they're saying that in order to believe what they believe, they
> must have no counterpoint.
>
> Rather than beat a dead horse, then, I'd like to ask a question to get
> the conversation back onto the real track I meant to open by starting
> this subthread... something related directly to comp.lang.lisp and not
> to abstract philosophy:
>
> Suppose I have written a piece of software. (Not something that
> solves problems for end-users. If it drove a vacuum cleaner, I'd pack
> it in a vacuum cleaner and sell it like Apple sells Quicktime--free if
> you just buy the large piece of metal and plastic required to run it.)
> No, this piece of software helps programmers--the ones who, unlike
> janitors, expect not to pay anything for anything.
>
> Suppose I believe it is something others will want to use. Something that
> doesn't exist. Something that will save time. Something that long ago
> we would have said "people would pay for". But now, well, ... the question
> is, what do I do now, in the present day, the one I'm supposed to get
> used to and not fight.
>
> I guess there are two questions:
>
> (a) Suppose I grant for argument that it's a brave new world and
> we do things differently now. Enlighten me. I have mouths to feed
> in my household. I have something I think people want. Tell me how
> I give away what I own for free and yet receive something that will
> feed my family...
>
> (b) Suppose your answer is "you can't get money" or "don't expect enough
> to feed your family" or even "don't expect enough to make it worth
> your while to have made the item... Why should I release it at all?
> Why should anyone? Why shouldn't I just burn it and wait for someone
> who values their time less than I to put something out? Where is the
> incentive to make anything in this new world? Where is the ability
> of the market to act as a natural aggregator of wealth by directing
> people with a need to join together to fund people with a product?
> Must this always be a "pull" process? Only build things the market
> asks for? Does that mean people who are inspired to innovate and
> who want to "push" have no value? Because you're open to having
> a free software sniper instantly de-value innovation and claim its
> only value was the construction cost... as if the value of Einstein's
> equation E=mc^2 was less than a penny since it can be written with a
> pencil on a paper in about 1 second and plainly is a commodity that
> should sell at its copying value, not its creation value.
>
> I ask these questions not in the abstract. I ask what we tell people in our
> community who want to deliver product. Because what point is there writing
> programs if you can't sell them? Just for fun? I came to this as a career
> and if the answer is that it's only a hobby now, I should just get another
> line of work.
>
> I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
> inspiration. And if you don't like my inspiration, at least
> acknolwedge the possibility that there are people who are inspired.
> And that you might want to incentivize them. What should they do with
> their inspired ideas to get some money so they can eat? Plan for
> vacation? Take care of themselves and their family in the case of
> catastrophic illness? Perhaps hire another person to help them?
> Build equity and value.
>
> If you can't suggest a process that will at least somewhat reliably
> lead to income--enough that people can tell their families they're
> going to risk their livelihood on without getting divorced, then why
> are you building a superior society over the one we had before I
> indulged this hypothetical, where there was an established mechanism
> for selling for income... If there is a relatively reliable path, I'm
> just overlooking it and eagerly awaiting insight.
>
> Users often show up here and quite reasonably ask "how do I make an exe
> file". It's a tough question, because the standard doesn't specify it.
> But it's one we have various reasonable answers.
>
> It's equally reasonable, in the set of delivery questions, to ask how to
> economically deliver something and to get money back. What do we say?
> Not just so that people can "selfishly" make money, but so that we as
> consumers can "selflishly" attract inspired people and make it worth their
> while to contribute things that keep us happy.
>
> Somehow, telling them, "it's brutal out there. you deserve you lose if
> you ask for money. ask for something more abstract." has a ring that
> doesn't quite work for me... and I fear it won't really impress
> Einstein Jr. either. He'll probably say "I think I'll just go back to
> my job issuing software patents. At least that gets me a government
> subsidy..."
Whether the ring works for you is somewhat irrelevant. If you can't make
money on writing software, then that's your tough luck. The answer is not
to make software.
If you've just spend a lot of time and effort on writing software and
you've just been undercut and now your life is turned upside-down, then
that's your tough luck. The answer is to find another job, perhaps one
which doesn't involve making software.
If you're willing to abandon your assumptions about the kind of work you
deserve to be paid for, there are still jobs for people who want to be
paid for writing software in this brave new world.
Hardware developers will always need programmers to write drivers and
utilities for their devices. Free software can't preempt you there,
because its programmers don't have access to the hardware before you do.
Custom software houses will always need programmers to write custom
software for their clients. Free software can't preempty you there,
because its programmers don't have access to the clients before you do,
and also because unlike end-user software, there are hardly going to be
*any* free software developers who are interested in make custom built
software which will only be of use to a single user, unless that user is
themselves.
Finally, rich and powerful users of end-user software (i.e. corporations
and governments) will always need programmers to make specific changes
and improvements to the software: they can't always wait around for
volunteers to make the changes they want. Free software doesn't want to
preempty you their, because as above it isn't worried about the
specific needs of the minority, unless *they* are that minority.
From: Jon Boone
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m33bcmqz80.fsf@amicus.delamancha.org>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Suppose I have written a piece of software ... [which] helps
> programmers--the ones who expect not to pay anything for anything.
>
> Suppose I believe it is something others will want to use.
> Something that doesn't exist. Something that will save time.
> Something that long ago we would have said "people would pay for".
> But now, well, ... the question is, what do I do now, in the present
> day, the one I'm supposed to get used to and not fight.
>
> I guess there are two questions:
>
> (a) Suppose I grant for argument that it's a brave new world and we
> do things differently now. Enlighten me. I have mouths to
> feed in my household. I have something I think people want.
> Tell me how I give away what I own for free and yet receive
> something that will feed my family...
My answer is: you don't - at least, not at first...
The answer to this is based on two related things:
* complexity of the solution
* first-mover advantage
The more complex your solution is, the longer it takes for a
"sniper" to present an equivalent (or even 80%) approximation. For
at least some of the duration of this time interval you can charge
for the solution and get some % of the market to pay for it. Even
those who expect to pay nothing will sometimes pay when they have
to.
After you've claimed the intial market-share (100% of the paying
marketplace = N), you'll see that the "sniper" expands the market by
introducing a lower-cost ($0.00 USD) solution. As the market
expands to M, we could assume that 100% of the expanding market (- M
N) goes to the $0.00 solution, but that's not very realistic,
especially if your product is a complete solution and the other is
only an 80%. Instead, some small % [O here] will chose to adopt
your solution instead. Plus, you'll likely keep your initial market
share due to inertia. So, you end up with market-share of (+ N O)
that likes your product and is, presumably, willing to keep paying
for it.
When the revenues from (+ N O) are not sufficient to justify your
continued expenditure of time/effort/capital on development and
maintenance of the product, you open-source it to capture the
"goodwill" of the (+ N O) % of the market. This "goodwill" can then
be translated into:
* market share for another product
* paid consulting time funded by end-users
* employment with some firm that will now hire you to try to
capitalize on the "goodwill" you have built up
If we assume that the initial market-share is too small to justify
the intial productization of your solution, and the projected
increase to (+ N O) is too small to help justify the cost in the
long run, then you can only really release it open-source in the
first place. In this case, see the answer to part b.
> (b) Suppose your answer is "you can't get money" or "don't expect
> enough to feed your family" or even "don't expect enough to
> make it worth your while to have made the item... Why should I
> release it at all?
For ego purposes.
> Why should anyone? Why shouldn't I just burn it and wait for
> someone who values their time less than I to put something out?
> Where is the incentive to make anything in this new world?
While I hesitate to reference him, Eric Raymond does posit that
the ultimate justification in this case is ego, pure and simple.
Everyone has some need to have their ego buoyed by others - and for
many people, their peers are the best source of ego strokes. Even
if you are well paid for other work, you may not get the necessary
ego boost you need to keep your outlook positive from the folks you
work with or your non-programming peers.
Let's not forget also that to someone who is a programmer, running
a business may seem complicated. They may well have the chutzpah to
say "I can do better" in terms of writing an actual program. But
they may feel that they won't actually ever be able to sell it
successfully - or that they'll get taken advantage of by
distributors, major market players, etc. Giving it away for free
helps to deflect the anxiety these thoughts produce.
> Where is the ability of the market to act as a natural
> aggregator of wealth by directing people with a need to join
> together to fund people with a product?
In theory, the open-source user-base becomes the market that is
willing to act in this fashion. I do not know of any particular
case where this has actually happened, although Google's Summer of
Code is a start. Perhaps it will become a bigger thing that
transcends Google in particular and even pays enough to fund
non-students.
> Must this always be a "pull" process? Only build things the
> market asks for?
In your hypothetical situation where no one will pay anything for
software, you've set it up as a buyer's market. As a seller, you
have no power to influence price (and therefore, no power to
influence demand). This is a "pull" process exactly. I don't think
the world is like this (yet).
> Does that mean people who are inspired to innovate and who
> want to "push" have no value? Because you're open to having a
> free software sniper instantly de-value innovation and claim
> its only value was the construction cost...
In the real world, it hasn't come to this - see my answer to part a.
> I ask these questions not in the abstract. I ask what we tell
> people in our community who want to deliver product. Because what
> point is there writing programs if you can't sell them? Just for
> fun? I came to this as a career and if the answer is that it's only
> a hobby now, I should just get another line of work.
Open-source software has fragmented the marketplace. Niche
markets are where it is at. Within the right niche, you can make it
a career. On the other hand, if you don't work in a niche, you're
much more liklely to end up as just a hobbist.
> I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor,
> it's inspiration.
In the open-source world, inspiration is cheap. It's the ability
to transform that inspiration into working code that is lacking.
There are endless numbers of users who have wailed and gnashed their
teeth in order to attempt to influence the open-source gods to
release code that deals with issues of importance to the mere
mortals. The answer given is: godhood is within, master the tao of
programming and scratch your own itch.
> And if you don't like my inspiration, at least acknolwedge the
> possibility that there are people who are inspired. And that you
> might want to incentivize them. What should they do with their
> inspired ideas to get some money so they can eat? Plan for
> vacation? Take care of themselves and their family in the case of
> catastrophic illness? Perhaps hire another person to help them?
> Build equity and value.
This seems less a quality related to open-source software in
particular and more to the overall trend to devalue R&D in general.
Short-term profit motives are part of the problem. The idea that
there are endless supplies of young (hence inexpensive) programmers
who will innovate because they can't help it - they don't know any
better - means that paying for software innovation is foolish. A
better plan is to wait for some young ones to flounder as they try
to establish a new idea, swoop in and buy them up and viola -
instant product. Of course, this doesn't work as well as it might,
but it's still (arguably) cheaper than paying old dogs to be
innovative.
> If you can't suggest a process that will at least somewhat reliably
> lead to income--enough that people can tell their families they're
> going to risk their livelihood on without getting divorced, then why
> are you building a superior society over the one we had before I
> indulged this hypothetical, where there was an established mechanism
> for selling for income... If there is a relatively reliable path,
> I'm just overlooking it and eagerly awaiting insight.
As in many things these days, youth if valued over age and
experience in the world of software. Few people are thinking of the
long term.
The best thing you can do to help this process is to do something
similar to what Paul Graham has done with Y-Combinator - help to
setup systems that make the process of forming and running a company
to sell a productized solution easier and more foolproof. Some
ideas (for gratis, because none of them are new):
* Set up a co-operative development firm where members receive
benefits similar to those available via open-source software, but
non-members must pay to license the technology. These licensing
fees can then be shared as dividends to the co-op members.
* Start up a firm to publish the programming output of independent
programmers. A software label, so to speak. The label pays
staff programmers to enhance and maintain the product, while the
innovator gets a % of every copy sold. If such a company had a
reputation for honest dealing (unlike, say, a music publishing
label) it could become the easiest way to convert programming
acumen into $$$$$.
--jon
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uwt9yz9qs.fsf@nhplace.com>
Jon Boone <········@delamancha.org> writes:
> The best thing you can do to help this process is to do something
> similar to what Paul Graham has done with Y-Combinator - help to
> setup systems that make the process of forming and running a company
> to sell a productized solution easier and more foolproof. Some
> ideas (for gratis, because none of them are new):
>
> * Set up a co-operative development firm where members receive
> benefits similar to those available via open-source software, but
> non-members must pay to license the technology. These licensing
> fees can then be shared as dividends to the co-op members.
>
> * Start up a firm to publish the programming output of independent
> programmers. A software label, so to speak. The label pays
> staff programmers to enhance and maintain the product, while the
> innovator gets a % of every copy sold. If such a company had a
> reputation for honest dealing (unlike, say, a music publishing
> label) it could become the easiest way to convert programming
> acumen into $$$$$.
Not things a little guy could do, but certainly the kind of thing I
wonder why we as a society don't do more of. I expected these to
happen when the web first took hold. But then reality set in.
What happened instead was that the AOL's of the world noticed that
there was no need to pay the people contributing content because they
would just compulsively do it anyway, and then there was no reason to
claim you were "selling their label" because many subscribers see the
label as "the Internet" and they can't tell the difference between
"AOL" and "the Internet" (witness the number of people who don't think
they are using the Internet unless they're using their browser).
And so the relentless cranking of the capitalist engine cranked out an
inefficiency yet again: paying content producers.
I think this is a shame, because it means that a lot of money goes to
the AOLs and money often does not go to the people who provide content.
(And don't even get me started on the whole Net Neutrality thing...)
Revenue-sharing seems to be happening slowly in niche areas, but I
guess why I'm talking about it here is that it seems to me it would
happen more if people would just all say "I demand a fee." As soon as
some people don't, they create such a problem of sifting that the
world is, for quite a measurable time, lost in the sifting illusion
that "stuff is available free". It takes a while for it to conclude
"not much there" and get back to offering to pay.
I sometimes wonder if the reason some people offer things free is that
then they don't have to endure knowing how many people didn't want it.
Nothing quite like selling something for money and finding out no one
wants it. Better to give it away to The World ... sounds big and
important.
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:36:04 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-26 15:58:02 -0400, "Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com>
> said:
>
>> The free components of the custom solution are only developed once. If
>> it costs (somebody) 1000 manhours to make it, then that cost is never
>> paid again.
>
> Your arguing *my* point.
Well, I'm kinda arguing the opposite. You said
>>> Notice I said *paid* programming hours - the total number of hours
>>> will be the same, its just that no programmers will be getting paid
>>> for the work they did to produce the free software components of the
>>> custom solution.
But clearly the total number of hours is *not* the same.
Suppose it took 1000 hours to make a free software component.
If one team spends 1000 more hours creating a system based upon that
component, then the total number of hours is 2000. So far, you're right.
But if two teams spend 1000 hours *each* creating separate systems based
upon that same component, then the total number of hours is 3000. Clearly,
in that second case, the total number of hours is *not* the same per
project.
In fact, as the number of teams who reuse a component increases, the
relative time spent on that component per team tends to zero.
> That cost is never paid again by the contractor in man-hours but it is
> also never paid again *by the customer*. In other words, the programmers
> who originally developed this free end-user component now used as part
> of custom solutions will *never* be paid for their work no matter how
> many users use it, even if those users are inclined and accustomed, as
> clients of custom development firms are, to *pay for software*!
You mean, "the programmers who originally developed this free end-user
component now used as part of custom solutions will *never* be paid
*again* for their work." There's no basis for assuming that they didn't
get paid in the first place.
> This is a perfect example of lost revenue.
Lost only to those programmers who *chose* to distribute their software as
free software.
> You have a customer who is known to be willing to pay for software. You
> have programmers who can one of two ways:
>
> 1. they could make their end-user component proprietary so that in each
> project in which it is used the client gets billed a per-unit cost for
> that end-user software component and the programmers thus get paid for
> their work.
>
> 2. they could make their component free in which case no matter how many
> copies of their end-user software component are deployed *the
> programmers never get paid one thin dime!*
Total straw man. You're pitching "free-as-in-freedom software" as the same
as "free-as-in-beer software".
If somebody wants me to write some software for them, I expect to be paid
for the work done. Whether that software is released to the client as free
software is totally irrelevant.
I won't demand to be repaid each time my client wants to reuse that
software on another computer, or have another contractor develop software
based upon it. I don't think it's morally acceptable for me to demand
payment for work *somebody else* has to do.
Note that I've already demanded payment for the man-hours I spent making
the software they asked *me* to make for them; the "you aren't getting
paid for your work" line just doesn't fly.
On 2006-07-26 18:29:17 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> But if two teams spend 1000 hours *each* creating separate systems based
> upon that same component, then the total number of hours is 3000. Clearly,
> in that second case, the total number of hours is *not* the same per
> project.
Why would two teams each spend more time? This is a *finished* end-user
component.
For example, a hypothetical custom solution consists of a Point Of Sale
system - an electronic cash register that can process credit card
payments - and an inventory and ordering database application. The
custom work consists in connecting these two and customizing them for
each particular business.
The POS system is a finished piece of end-user software. It can either
be free, in which case the programmers who wrote it will never see a
dime for their work no matter in how many check-outs it is deployed, or
it can be proprietary, in which case each customer will be charged a
per-check-out-register license fee for deployment (hypothetically - the
license terms could be different of course).
If it is proprietary the POS software will be maintained and improved
by programmers who are paid for their labor. If it is free the POS
software will be maintained and improved (maybe) by programmers who
will never be paid for that work. Moreover if there exists a free POS
solution then it cannot but eat into the sales of the proprietary
solution ensuring that there will be fewer jobs for programmers at the
proprietary POS software shop and/or that their wages and/or salaries
will be lower.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-26 18:29:17 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
> > But if two teams spend 1000 hours *each* creating separate systems based
> > upon that same component, then the total number of hours is 3000. Clearly,
> > in that second case, the total number of hours is *not* the same per
> > project.
>
>
> Why would two teams each spend more time? This is a *finished* end-user
> component.
>
> For example, a hypothetical custom solution consists of a Point Of Sale
> system - an electronic cash register that can process credit card
> payments - and an inventory and ordering database application. The
> custom work consists in connecting these two and customizing them for
> each particular business.
>
> The POS system is a finished piece of end-user software. It can either
> be free, in which case the programmers who wrote it will never see a
> dime for their work no matter in how many check-outs it is deployed, or
> it can be proprietary, in which case each customer will be charged a
> per-check-out-register license fee for deployment (hypothetically - the
> license terms could be different of course).
>
> If it is proprietary the POS software will be maintained and improved
> by programmers who are paid for their labor. If it is free the POS
> software will be maintained and improved (maybe) by programmers who
> will never be paid for that work.
Why not? If you've got some free software that you want
to make changes to, people like me would gladly make your changes
in exchange for cash.
This makes the rest of your argument wrong.
> Moreover if there exists a free POS
> solution then it cannot but eat into the sales of the proprietary
> solution ensuring that there will be fewer jobs for programmers at the
> proprietary POS software shop and/or that their wages and/or salaries
> will be lower.
No; programmers can still be paid by you to enhance the
free software.
goose,
On 2006-07-27 06:11:54 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>> Moreover if there exists a free POS
>> solution then it cannot but eat into the sales of the proprietary
>> solution ensuring that there will be fewer jobs for programmers at the
>> proprietary POS software shop and/or that their wages and/or salaries
>> will be lower.
>
> No; programmers can still be paid by you to enhance the
> free software.
You're not reading what I wrote. I wrote "eat into the sales of the
proprietary solution" not "eliminate all programmer jobs whatsoever."
Please read Marc Spitzer's post up thread about 80% solutions. The
point is that fewer jobs will be had by programmers being paid to
enhance free software than being paid to enhance the equivalent
proprietary software in the absence of an equivalent free version. The
proprietary firm has sales revenue for the base version *in addition*
to whatever a customer might pay them for custom enhancements. See
LispWorks for an example of this business strategy.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 06:11:54 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> >> Moreover if there exists a free POS
> >> solution then it cannot but eat into the sales of the proprietary
> >> solution ensuring that there will be fewer jobs for programmers at the
> >> proprietary POS software shop and/or that their wages and/or salaries
> >> will be lower.
> >
> > No; programmers can still be paid by you to enhance the
> > free software.
>
> You're not reading what I wrote.
Actually, that was in response to your entire argument which
I believe can be summarised by this exchange:
|You:
|> If it is proprietary the POS software will be maintained and
improved
|> by programmers who are paid for their labor. If it is free the POS
|> software will be maintained and improved (maybe) by programmers who
|> will never be paid for that work.
|me:
|Why not? If you've got some free software that you want
|to make changes to, people like me would gladly make your changes
|in exchange for cash.
|
|This makes the rest of your argument wrong.
|
I believed (maybe incorrectly?) that your argument hinged
on that, but since you ignored that I suspect that it
doesn't.
> I wrote "eat into the sales of the
> proprietary solution" not "eliminate all programmer jobs whatsoever."
> Please read Marc Spitzer's post up thread about 80% solutions. The
> point is that fewer jobs will be had by programmers being paid to
> enhance free software than being paid to enhance the equivalent
> proprietary software in the absence of an equivalent free version.
I disagree; have you any numbers to back this up? What about
dev shops in countries that can sell $5 equivalents - they
are also eating into the sales of the proprietry solution
for /almost/ nothing.
You can argue all you want about the negative effects of
"free" software; realise first that it's "almost free"
software thats liable to drag down your salary.
> The
> proprietary firm has sales revenue for the base version *in addition*
> to whatever a customer might pay them for custom enhancements. See
> LispWorks for an example of this business strategy.
goose,
On 2006-07-27 12:48:15 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> You can argue all you want about the negative effects of
> "free" software; realise first that it's "almost free"
> software thats liable to drag down your salary.
You've more or less conceded the argument here. If "almost free"
software drags down your salary then "completey free" must do so as
well.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 12:48:15 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > You can argue all you want about the negative effects of
> > "free" software; realise first that it's "almost free"
> > software thats liable to drag down your salary.
>
> You've more or less conceded the argument here. If "almost free"
> software drags down your salary then "completey free" must do so as
> well.
By not acknowledging the rest of my post, can I assume
that you agree? You are snipping away all of my arguments
in what I can only assume is a vain attempt to make
valid arguments go away.
Its either that or you agree that free software won't
drag down your salary.
So which is it? If you don't agree, some responses
to my arguments in context might be more convincing
than vicious snippage and context-free replies.
goose,
For the record, I pointed out elsethread that proprietry
companies are the greatest danger to the small software
developer.
On 2006-07-27 13:25:07 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> By not acknowledging the rest of my post, can I assume
> that you agree?
Don't be silly. You've already conceded the only point in contention
here: "Does free software drive down programmer wages?"
If you state that "almost free" drives down programmer wages then it
follows inevitably that "actually free" must drive down programmer
wages too. This conclusion is unavoidable.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 13:25:07 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > By not acknowledging the rest of my post, can I assume
> > that you agree?
>
> Don't be silly. You've already conceded the only point in contention
> here: "Does free software drive down programmer wages?"
I haven't; I've always maintained that proprietry software
is more of a danger to the small developer than free software.
The only way you seem to argue is by snipping away valid
arguments; why not respond to it;
besides, by not responding you've basically conceded *your*
argument.
goose,
On 2006-07-28 00:09:06 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> besides, by not responding you've basically conceded *your*
> argument.
I have responded and am responding. This is what you said in an earlier post:
> You can argue all you want about the negative effects of
> "free" software; realise first that it's "almost free"
> software thats liable to drag down your salary.
If "almost free" software is liable to drag down programmer salaries
then it follows of necessity that "actually free" software is liable to
drag down programmer salaries as well. You simply can't escape this
conclusion so stop your sophistry.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 00:09:06 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > besides, by not responding you've basically conceded *your*
> > argument.
>
> I have responded and am responding. This is what you said in an earlier post:
>
> > You can argue all you want about the negative effects of
> > "free" software; realise first that it's "almost free"
> > software thats liable to drag down your salary.
>
> If "almost free" software is liable to drag down programmer salaries
> then it follows of necessity that "actually free" software is liable to
> drag down programmer salaries as well. You simply can't escape this
> conclusion so stop your sophistry.
I've also said that the biggest threat is *not* free(libre) software
but aggressive big players who manhandle the market.
What else can I assume if you only selectively respond? Can I
assume you agree or you disagree by default?
The thing is, I see free software as an equaliser that lets
me compete against the microsofts of the world who
will happily take a loss on each product until they release
until they've cornered the market.
You seem to think that small developers can compete
just fine against the heavyweights with only commercial
software.
You've also made some distinction with infrastructure
and end-user software in a few of your posts; I don't
see a difference, though - one mans infrastructure software
is another mans end-user software.
goose,
On 2006-07-28 14:50:41 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> I've also said that the biggest threat is *not* free(libre) software
> but aggressive big players who manhandle the market.
That is orthogonal to the question at hand, namely does free software
bring down programmer jobs, wages, and salaries. If "almost free" does
then "actually free" must as well.
The whole discussion of whether big players mishandling the market are
a threat to programmers is a separate issue and not the one we have
been discussing in this thread. We've been discussing whether free
software has negative effects on programmer jobs and income and you've
clearly indicated that it must.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86fygk86ss.fsf@panix.com>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-28 14:50:41 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
>> I've also said that the biggest threat is *not* free(libre) software
>> but aggressive big players who manhandle the market.
>
> That is orthogonal to the question at hand, namely does free software
> bring down programmer jobs, wages, and salaries.
Well, on this subject, you are completely unwilling to examine real
data. All data I have seen shows that programmers' wages have
consistently and handily outpaced inflation. So I repeat: when facts
and opinions don't agree, which will you change?
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uirlgnkk8.fsf@nhplace.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
> > On 2006-07-28 14:50:41 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> >
> >> I've also said that the biggest threat is *not* free(libre) software
> >> but aggressive big players who manhandle the market.
> >
> > That is orthogonal to the question at hand, namely does free software
> > bring down programmer jobs, wages, and salaries.
>
> Well, on this subject, you are completely unwilling to examine real
> data. All data I have seen shows that programmers' wages have
> consistently and handily outpaced inflation. So I repeat: when facts
> and opinions don't agree, which will you change?
You are using incomparable situations as if they were not comparable.
For example, suppose there were some guy Da Vinci who was a great
artist and that someone gunned him down in cold blood one day on the
street. In this hypothetical world, it might be that art flourished
after that--perhaps in part because people started to look at the art
of others around them. But one cannot conclude as a matter of science
that "since art didn't die, gunning down really good artists is good".
The situations are simply incomparable. There are great things our
hypothetical Da Vinci would surely yet have made, and there are other
things lost.
The real question is not about, and cannot be about, data except insofar
as the data disproves a claim. You're saying there's support for your
claim (and obviously there is) but that isn't proof that Raffael's
claims are false. His could be true also. They could be incompatible
with yours or they might not be.
But it's a legitimate form of reasoning to talk about structural models
rather than data. The usefulness for you of data is that you're
describing the real world. But we want to compare the real world to
other worlds, and there is no data about those other worlds since they
do not exist. That can't mean you win the debate because you have data
and others don't. Comparing the present world to hypothetical worlds
necessarily involves analyzing structural models and considering whether
various effects are predicted. To say this cannot or must not be done,
or that it can have no weight, is to say there can be no debate.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <861ws482xb.fsf@panix.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>> Well, on this subject, you are completely unwilling to examine real
>> data. All data I have seen shows that programmers' wages have
>> consistently and handily outpaced inflation. So I repeat: when facts
>> and opinions don't agree, which will you change?
>
> You are using incomparable situations as if they were not
> comparable.
>
> For example, suppose there were some guy Da Vinci who was a great
> artist and that someone gunned him down in cold blood one day on the
> street. In this hypothetical world, it might be that art flourished
> after that--perhaps in part because people started to look at the art
> of others around them. But one cannot conclude as a matter of science
> that "since art didn't die, gunning down really good artists is good".
> The situations are simply incomparable. There are great things our
> hypothetical Da Vinci would surely yet have made, and there are other
> things lost.
This argument is absurd. The primary contention is/was that free
software drives down programmer wages. The only way to prove or
disprove this is to look and see if the wages have indeed fallen. The
data tells us that they have not. You can continue to ignore this and
make "structural arguments" but absent data it is simply nothing more
than the airing of a pet peeve. Interesting and perhaps even
worthwhile... but nothing more than a peeve all the same.
> The real question is not about, and cannot be about, data except insofar
> as the data disproves a claim. You're saying there's support for your
> claim (and obviously there is) but that isn't proof that Raffael's
> claims are false. His could be true also. They could be incompatible
> with yours or they might not be.
What, besides depressed wages, would you consider as supporting the
claim that programmer's wages are depressed by free software? I am
truly baffled.
> But it's a legitimate form of reasoning to talk about structural models
> rather than data.
No it is not. Arguing structural models cannot be considered
reasoning without the ability to check them against observable
reality. Such arguments are simply polemics, not reasoning.
> The usefulness for you of data is that you're describing the real
> world. But we want to compare the real world to other worlds, and
> there is no data about those other worlds since they do not exist.
In other words, you are hypothesizing in non-falsifiable ways and then
claiming that since your hypotheses have not been falsified, they must
be legitimate.
> That can't mean you win the debate because you have data and others
> don't. Comparing the present world to hypothetical worlds
> necessarily involves analyzing structural models and considering
> whether various effects are predicted. To say this cannot or must
> not be done, or that it can have no weight, is to say there can be
> no debate.
Uh Kent, what exactly is your idea of debate? Is it the expectation
that the people you are debating will agree with your unsupported and
unfalsifiable hypothesis? On what basis are you asking me to consider
legitimate your vision of this alternate world? You might as well say
that the "world appears to be flat" and accuse anyone who points out
that the world has been proven to be round as being closeminded to new
ideas.
For someone who praises Ayn Rand, I find it more than a little ironic
that you set store by opinion rather than by fact.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uzmesknby.fsf@nhplace.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> > The real question is not about, and cannot be about, data except insofar
> > as the data disproves a claim. You're saying there's support for your
> > claim (and obviously there is) but that isn't proof that Raffael's
> > claims are false. His could be true also. They could be incompatible
> > with yours or they might not be.
>
> What, besides depressed wages, would you consider as supporting the
> claim that programmer's wages are depressed by free software? I am
> truly baffled.
Well, answering strictly to your question, and not attempting to
assert whether this would happen in the actual situation we are
discussing, the failure of wages to achieve a price they would have
achieved in the "alternate timeline" counts as depression.
Indeed, the most common argument free software people make about why
commercial software is bad is not that it fails to make money, but
that it would have made more money if allowed to be free software.
Because this is a countefactual, they cannot provide proof of this,
but instead rely on structural modeling. I am not saying that's an
inappropriate debate technique, I'm saying that's a debate technique
that must be allowed to call comers.
> No it is not. Arguing structural models cannot be considered
> reasoning without the ability to check them against observable
> reality. Such arguments are simply polemics, not reasoning.
I don't agree. It can certainly be considered reasoning. Whether it
is convincing to you is all that is in issue. But that it might be
convincing to another is reason enough for me to be annoyed at having
to wade through your dismissals of it. I'm simply not interested in
debating that. If that were all that were in this discussion, I would
have stopped a long time ago. Feel free to take that as a win if you
like, though I don't agree it is. The world can accomodate us having
disagreements on this, since it apparently must--we are not converging.
> Uh Kent, what exactly is your idea of debate?
I didn't intend to debate at all. I am being met with debate. I
intended to inquire about some issues of paradigm, not to bait
anything. I honestly am not satisfied that we have a working model of
what people are to do with programs if they write them or if they have
written them. Absent that, other than either hobbyism or utilitarian
service of randomly chosen business needs, I question the entire
endeavor of programming has much function. It used to have the
function of being a legitimate endeavor in its own right: coming up
with new ways to express things, etc. That no longer seems to me a
valid business, but I was looking to see if I was wrong. Although
others assert that I am, I haven't been convinced. But my obstinance
is not a matter of desire to debate, it's a matter of unwillingness to
recommend to others any of the suggestions I've seen proposed here,
and the hope that still yet someone might suggest something
interesting and constructive amidst the noise. Though it's doubtful
that will happen because those interested in discrediting and debating
in what I regard as a destructive manner have made this discussion
long ago too painful to follow, so we've lost the contribution of many
people that I would regard as important if this were one of those
"functioning societies" I'd wish we as a society had constructed for
sharing software and for appropriately sharing revenue to cover value.
I simply don't agree that the present system is "appropriately sharing
revenue". You're welcome to disagree, but not to assert that I am
either here for the purpose of debating that, nor to assert that my
concern is not legitimate, since it matters to me.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
>>> The real question is not about, and cannot be about, data except insofar
>>> as the data disproves a claim. You're saying there's support for your
>>> claim (and obviously there is) but that isn't proof that Raffael's
>>> claims are false. His could be true also. They could be incompatible
>>> with yours or they might not be.
>>
>> What, besides depressed wages, would you consider as supporting the
>> claim that programmer's wages are depressed by free software? I am
>> truly baffled.
>
> Well, answering strictly to your question, and not attempting to
> assert whether this would happen in the actual situation we are
> discussing, the failure of wages to achieve a price they would have
> achieved in the "alternate timeline" counts as depression.
>
> Indeed, the most common argument free software people make about why
> commercial software is bad is not that it fails to make money, but
> that it would have made more money if allowed to be free software.
> Because this is a countefactual, they cannot provide proof of this,
> but instead rely on structural modeling. I am not saying that's an
> inappropriate debate technique, I'm saying that's a debate technique
> that must be allowed to call comers.
>
>> No it is not. Arguing structural models cannot be considered
>> reasoning without the ability to check them against observable
>> reality. Such arguments are simply polemics, not reasoning.
>
> I don't agree. It can certainly be considered reasoning.
Maybe so, but I consider it *faulty* reasoning.
You're saying:
"In an alternative Universe without free software, the software industry
might be better off. Therefore, we should think carefully before
releasing free software."
This is akin to:
"In an alternative Universe without brocolli, we might live longer.
Therefore, we should think carefully before eating brocolli."
The argument is bogus because without evidence linking the lack of
brocolli to lifespan, there's no reason to suppose that the link between
brocolli and lifespan in the alternative Universe actually exists in
*this* Universe, and therefore no reason to change how we think about
brocolli, and certainly no reason to advocate warning parents that the
excessive consumption of brocolli could bring about the end of
civilisation as we know it.
> Whether it is convincing to you is all that is in issue. But that it
> might be convincing to another is reason enough for me to be annoyed at
> having to wade through your dismissals of it. I'm simply not interested
> in debating that. If that were all that were in this discussion, I
> would have stopped a long time ago. Feel free to take that as a win if
> you like, though I don't agree it is. The world can accomodate us
> having disagreements on this, since it apparently must--we are not
> converging.
Wow. So you really don't care if the evidence is in favour of free
software. So long as you get the message out that free software is harming
society and *some* people might change their attitude, it doesn't really
matter if the facts don't support your claim. That's... Amazing.
>> Uh Kent, what exactly is your idea of debate?
>
> I didn't intend to debate at all.
But nonetheless, you are doing so. And doing so quite badly. Your reply
here being one example: Rajappa asks you one question and you answer a
completely different one.
From: Wade Humeniuk
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <VsXyg.68429$B91.31371@edtnps82>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> written them. Absent that, other than either hobbyism or utilitarian
> service of randomly chosen business needs, I question the entire
> endeavor of programming has much function. It used to have the
> function of being a legitimate endeavor in its own right: coming up
> with new ways to express things, etc. That no longer seems to me a
> valid business, but I was looking to see if I was wrong. Although
> others assert that I am, I haven't been convinced. But my obstinance
I am not sure it ever was a business, but it is/was certainly a legitimate
endeavour in its own right. Organizing and inspiring others to see things,
processes and systems in new ways, with new vocabulary, is probably the
most highly valued endeavour. It is art and everyone knows how much
great art sells for. Programming has not got the medium and the directness
that art does. Great programming is trouble free and makes people think
that it was their own idea. Poor programming stands out, is obtrusive and
invokes emotional responses. This may explain why Lisp feel out of favour, its
because it was forgotten and blended into the "world view" of programming.
The other programming languages that picked up the concepts were slightly
out of sync and thus stood out. (Just a thought).
I think there is still a business in coming up with new ways of expressing
things. Sun and Java are an example of this, Java Beans this, Java Blub
that...
I think what you may be seeing is that because of the speed that information
and mis-information gets disseminated these days, the "world" is in a
dead-lock when it comes to ideas. Just like evolution, cultures differentiate
when population is isolated. Constant Point/Counter-Point/PR and Debate are grinding
things to a halt. Rhetoric has reared its ugly head.
Wade
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uejw4nkdu.fsf@nhplace.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
> > On 2006-07-28 14:50:41 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> >
> >> I've also said that the biggest threat is *not* free(libre) software
> >> but aggressive big players who manhandle the market.
> >
> > That is orthogonal to the question at hand, namely does free software
> > bring down programmer jobs, wages, and salaries.
>
> Well, on this subject, you are completely unwilling to examine real
> data. All data I have seen shows that programmers' wages have
> consistently and handily outpaced inflation. So I repeat: when facts
> and opinions don't agree, which will you change?
I replied to this once already, but left out one important observation:
You are perhaps assuming he's saying wages are down compared to other
present wages. Where is your data for what wages would have been had
free software not been in play? I doubt it would have happened, but
I'm curious to understand your odd form of debate: If I claimed that
had free software not arisen, by now computer programmers would be,
say, unionized ... or perhaps a professional guild like lawyers ... and
that salaries should be compared to those, rather than to whatever you're
comparing them to now, how would you prove me wrong, given that you seem
to allow only "data" and not "structural modeling". In a hypothetical,
there is no data. So do I get to win in my claim? Or do you suddenly
convert over to making structural arguments that lack data?
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86wt9w6o5n.fsf@panix.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> You are perhaps assuming he's saying wages are down compared to other
> present wages. Where is your data for what wages would have been had
> free software not been in play? I doubt it would have happened, but
> I'm curious to understand your odd form of debate: If I claimed that
> had free software not arisen, by now computer programmers would be,
> say, unionized ... or perhaps a professional guild like lawyers ... and
> that salaries should be compared to those, rather than to whatever you're
> comparing them to now, how would you prove me wrong, given that you seem
> to allow only "data" and not "structural modeling". In a hypothetical,
> there is no data. So do I get to win in my claim? Or do you suddenly
> convert over to making structural arguments that lack data?
Not at all. One way of checking hypothesis is to look at similar
markets and see if that hypothesis is supported by data. If there are
no similar markets, then the hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis.
Unless a hypothesis is falsifiable, lack of data falsifying that
hypothesis cannot be taken as evidence that the hypothesis is likely
to be true. Quite the contrary. It remains unproven and as such of
limited value.
Any other technique is simply "voodoo" science.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uvepgkn6e.fsf@nhplace.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Unless a hypothesis is falsifiable, lack of data falsifying that
> hypothesis cannot be taken as evidence that the hypothesis is likely
> to be true. Quite the contrary. It remains unproven and as such of
> limited value.
My point is that you're trying to centralize the truth of an unproven
thing, rather than to allow individuals to decide.
It is a given that the situation is neither provable nor falsifiable.
I have all kinds of theories that guide me through situations in life
where I know the theory is bogus, but it still offers me a constructive
way of navigating a morass of data. The issue of utility is a personal
one in that case.
Religious faith is of similar kind. It's not falsifiable, and yet people
find it useful to have a consistent theory even in the absence of proof.
Consistency is, in and of itself, useful. But consistency need not be
worldwide, and you are behaving (in this analogy) like someone who is trying
to convince me to have no religion because I cannot prove religion matters
or is right or whatever.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86odv86ksg.fsf@panix.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
>> Unless a hypothesis is falsifiable, lack of data falsifying that
>> hypothesis cannot be taken as evidence that the hypothesis is likely
>> to be true. Quite the contrary. It remains unproven and as such of
>> limited value.
>
> My point is that you're trying to centralize the truth of an unproven
> thing, rather than to allow individuals to decide.
How am I preventing any individual from deciding for oneself? I have
not advocated that anyone should make their work free. I have not
advocated that one should not work on proprietary software.
Just as you seek to inform any interested party of the bad side of
free software, I seek to inform any interested party that there is
very little supporting evidence for those assertions.
Individuals can make up their own minds.
> Religious faith is of similar kind. It's not falsifiable, and yet people
> find it useful to have a consistent theory even in the absence of proof.
> Consistency is, in and of itself, useful. But consistency need not be
> worldwide, and you are behaving (in this analogy) like someone who is trying
> to convince me to have no religion because I cannot prove religion matters
> or is right or whatever.
Not at all. I have neither the desire nor the competence to challenge
your views or beliefs of how the world should be. But when you make
untenable assertions to support those views, I consider it a
legitimate response to point out the flaws, if any, in those
assertions. It is unfortunate that you view this as an attempt to
browbeat you.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
>> Unless a hypothesis is falsifiable, lack of data falsifying that
>> hypothesis cannot be taken as evidence that the hypothesis is likely
>> to be true. Quite the contrary. It remains unproven and as such of
>> limited value.
>
> My point is that you're trying to centralize the truth of an unproven
> thing, rather than to allow individuals to decide.
>
> It is a given that the situation is neither provable nor falsifiable.
>
> I have all kinds of theories that guide me through situations in life
> where I know the theory is bogus, but it still offers me a constructive
> way of navigating a morass of data. The issue of utility is a personal
> one in that case.
>
> Religious faith is of similar kind. It's not falsifiable, and yet people
> find it useful to have a consistent theory even in the absence of proof.
> Consistency is, in and of itself, useful. But consistency need not be
> worldwide, and you are behaving (in this analogy) like someone who is trying
> to convince me to have no religion because I cannot prove religion matters
> or is right or whatever.
A flawed analogy.
Closer would be to say that you are telling others that they shouldn't be
atheist because it'll destroy society, and parents must be told if their
kids are atheist in case they might want to throw them out onto the street
because of it.
Rajappa is saying that considering the complete lack of evidence in
support of your claim, these kinds of scare tactics would be
inappropriate.
And yes, scare tactics.
Contrast
"Did you know your child is helping to destroy the software industry?"
with
"Did you know your child is allowing others to freely use software he's
written in his spare time?"
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <ud5bmk2g4.fsf@nhplace.com>
Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> Contrast
>
> "Did you know your child is helping to destroy the software industry?"
>
> with
>
> "Did you know your child is allowing others to freely use software he's
> written in his spare time?"
Why not just offer both of these remarks as a starting point for discussion
and then explain to the parents how two such radically different points of
view can be reasonably reached on the same topic?
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> Contrast
>>
>> "Did you know your child is helping to destroy the software industry?"
>>
>> with
>>
>> "Did you know your child is allowing others to freely use software he's
>> written in his spare time?"
>
> Why not just offer both of these remarks as a starting point for discussion
> and then explain to the parents how two such radically different points of
> view can be reasonably reached on the same topic?
Ah, no. But they aren't different points of view. In fact, the second
sentence isn't even a point of view at all, it's a point of fact.
Genuinely different points of view might be:
1. "Your child is helping to destroy the software industry."
2. "Your child is helping the software industry to adapt to the modern
information economy."
3. "Your child is helping to change the software industry, but it's too
early to tell if the industry can survive this change."
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
> > Raffael Cavallaro
> > <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> >
> > > On 2006-07-28 14:50:41 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> > >
> > >> I've also said that the biggest threat is *not* free(libre) software
> > >> but aggressive big players who manhandle the market.
> > >
> > > That is orthogonal to the question at hand, namely does free software
> > > bring down programmer jobs, wages, and salaries.
> >
> > Well, on this subject, you are completely unwilling to examine real
> > data. All data I have seen shows that programmers' wages have
> > consistently and handily outpaced inflation. So I repeat: when facts
> > and opinions don't agree, which will you change?
>
> I replied to this once already, but left out one important observation:
>
> You are perhaps assuming he's saying wages are down compared to other
> present wages. Where is your data for what wages would have been had
> free software not been in play?
You are discarding relevant *actual* data because you figure
that the non-existent data will strenthen(sp?) your case? This
really is grasping at straws!
> I doubt it would have happened, but
> I'm curious to understand your odd form of debate: If I claimed that
> had free software not arisen, by now computer programmers would be,
> say, unionized ... or perhaps a professional guild like lawyers ... and
> that salaries should be compared to those, rather than to whatever you're
> comparing them to now, how would you prove me wrong, given that you seem
> to allow only "data" and not "structural modeling". In a hypothetical,
> there is no data. So do I get to win in my claim? Or do you suddenly
> convert over to making structural arguments that lack data?
One can make more money with libre software than with commercial
software; fact of life, no one says you have to *like* it - you can
hate
it as much as you want - doesn't change the facts.
goose,
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86slkk6ngr.fsf@panix.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> I'm curious to understand your odd form of debate:
The oddity is all yours, I'm afraid. Since we are fundamentally
discussing an economic issue, feel free to ask any economist how they
test their hypotheses.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
>> Raffael Cavallaro
>> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2006-07-28 14:50:41 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>>>
>>>> I've also said that the biggest threat is *not* free(libre) software
>>>> but aggressive big players who manhandle the market.
>>>
>>> That is orthogonal to the question at hand, namely does free software
>>> bring down programmer jobs, wages, and salaries.
>>
>> Well, on this subject, you are completely unwilling to examine real
>> data. All data I have seen shows that programmers' wages have
>> consistently and handily outpaced inflation. So I repeat: when facts
>> and opinions don't agree, which will you change?
>
> I replied to this once already, but left out one important observation:
>
> You are perhaps assuming he's saying wages are down compared to other
> present wages. Where is your data for what wages would have been had
> free software not been in play? I doubt it would have happened, but
> I'm curious to understand your odd form of debate: If I claimed that
> had free software not arisen, by now computer programmers would be,
> say, unionized ... or perhaps a professional guild like lawyers ... and
> that salaries should be compared to those, rather than to whatever you're
> comparing them to now, how would you prove me wrong, given that you seem
> to allow only "data" and not "structural modeling". In a hypothetical,
> there is no data. So do I get to win in my claim? Or do you suddenly
> convert over to making structural arguments that lack data?
Raffael claimed that free software lowers programmer's wages and loses
them jobs. Now he's amended that to free software lowering the rate of
increase of programmer's wages and vacanies, but the data which can
support either claim is the same.
Saying "free software is a net harm to programmers because it logically
follows from my argument that it does" is not sufficient. I have an
argument that free software is a net benefit to programmers. We can't both
be right, and the economy is simply too complex for us to determine which
is right on purely philosophical arguments. That may have been popular in
ancient times, but has since proven to somewhat unreliable.
Fortunately, both of our arguments make predictions which can be tested
objectively. If the data shows that there is a link between the increased
use of free software and negative pressure upon programmers wages, that's
evidence in Raffael's favour. If the data shows that there is a link
between the increased use of free software and positive presure upon
programmer job availability, that's evidence in my favour.
On 2006-07-29 20:59:30 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Raffael claimed that free software lowers programmer's wages and loses
> them jobs. Now he's amended that to free software lowering the rate of
> increase of programmer's wages and vacanies, but the data which can
> support either claim is the same.
Always said "puts downward pressure on wages and salaries" and "reduces
programmer jobs" and this is just the trend that the data shows.
I've already brought this up, but this is *precisely* parallel to the
claim leftist apologists used to make for communist China - that
"things are better now than they were before." But this is the wrong
question to ask for state socialism just as it is the wrong question
to ask for free software.
The right question is "would things have been even better still without
free software?" I think the decline in growth says yes, they would have.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 20:59:30 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> Raffael claimed that free software lowers programmer's wages and loses
>> them jobs. Now he's amended that to free software lowering the rate of
>> increase of programmer's wages and vacanies, but the data which can
>> support either claim is the same.
>
> Always said "puts downward pressure on wages and salaries" and "reduces
> programmer jobs" and this is just the trend that the data shows.
>
> I've already brought this up, but this is *precisely* parallel to the
> claim leftist apologists used to make for communist China - that "things
> are better now than they were before." But this is the wrong question to
> ask for state socialism just as it is the wrong question to ask for free
> software.
>
> The right question is "would things have been even better still without free
> software?" I think the decline in growth says yes, they would have.
The decline in growth says nothing of the sort, unless you can prove that
there is a strong statistical link between the decline in growth and the
incline in the adaption of free software.
You have consistently failed to provide *evidence* to demonstrate this
link.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 14:50:41 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > I've also said that the biggest threat is *not* free(libre) software
> > but aggressive big players who manhandle the market.
>
> That is orthogonal to the question at hand, namely does free software
> bring down programmer jobs, wages, and salaries. If "almost free" does
> then "actually free" must as well.
>
Why *must* it do so as well?
> The whole discussion of whether big players mishandling the market are
> a threat to programmers is a separate issue and not the one we have
> been discussing in this thread.
Its certainly relevant; free software lets one lower ones prices and
take home *more* money. Commercial software leaves me open
to big players.
> We've been discussing whether free
> software has negative effects on programmer jobs and income and you've
> clearly indicated that it must.
I've indicated no such thing; you've repeatedly snipped
valid arguments away and then proclaimed "you agree".
goose,
On 2006-07-29 18:28:26 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>> We've been discussing whether free
>> software has negative effects on programmer jobs and income and you've
>> clearly indicated that it must.
>
> I've indicated no such thing; you've repeatedly snipped
> valid arguments away and then proclaimed "you agree".
Only because you're stubbonly resistant to simple logic.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 18:28:26 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> >> We've been discussing whether free
> >> software has negative effects on programmer jobs and income and you've
> >> clearly indicated that it must.
> >
> > I've indicated no such thing; you've repeatedly snipped
> > valid arguments away and then proclaimed "you agree".
>
> Only because you're stubbonly resistant to simple logic.
a) You readily agree to snipping away valid arguments and asserting
that you've put words into my mouth.
b) You made a claim, you cannot back it up.
Of the two above, you performing a) shows that you are unable
to recognise logic when you see it and b) backs it up.
Now *you* do the same with *your* argument.
goose,
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <umzasnksn.fsf@nhplace.com>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-28 14:50:41 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > I've also said that the biggest threat is *not* free(libre) software
> > but aggressive big players who manhandle the market.
>
> That is orthogonal to the question at hand, namely does free software
> bring down programmer jobs, wages, and salaries. If "almost free" does
> then "actually free" must as well.
And related to this: One issue is that "almost free" is subject to
antitrust dumping protections. I don't know whether "free" would be.
Likewise in liability law. Hence, the claim that the real problem is
just "low prices in general" and not "zero in specific" may not be
true, since there is a discontinuity of substantial behaviors at the limit.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-26 18:29:17 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> But if two teams spend 1000 hours *each* creating separate systems based
>> upon that same component, then the total number of hours is 3000. Clearly,
>> in that second case, the total number of hours is *not* the same per
>> project.
>
>
> Why would two teams each spend more time? This is a *finished* end-user
> component.
You tell me. You're the one claiming that in "these custom solutions"
"the total number of hours will be the same."
If you meant that in "these customs solutions" "the total number of hours
will be reduced," then you'd have said that, surely?
> For example, a hypothetical custom solution consists of a Point Of Sale
> system - an electronic cash register that can process credit card payments -
> and an inventory and ordering database application. The custom work consists
> in connecting these two and customizing them for each particular business.
>
> The POS system is a finished piece of end-user software. It can either be
> free, in which case the programmers who wrote it will never see a dime for
> their work no matter in how many check-outs it is deployed
How about you stop bare-face-lying about how programmers get paid for
their jobs? It's plain simple fact that a programmer can get paid for
writing a POS system.
You're just bitching that the programmer wouldn't get paid over and over
again every time somebody uses that component, but instead would either be
paid once by whoever contracted the POS system, or *if they choose* they
wouldn't be paid at all.
> If it is proprietary the POS software will be maintained and improved by
> programmers who are paid for their labor. If it is free the POS software will
> be maintained and improved (maybe) by programmers who will never be paid for
> that work.
Once again you're lying. If it is free the POS software will be maintained
and improved (certainly) _either_ by programmers who don't get paid or by
programmers who do get paid. If the programmers choose to work on the POS
software without being paid, that's their choice. Nobody will *force*
programmers to work for nothing, unless you're suggesting that free
software advocates are also advocates of slavery.
On 2006-07-27 08:17:55 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> You're just bitching that the programmer wouldn't get paid over and
> over again every time somebody uses that component, but instead would
> either be paid once by whoever contracted the POS system, or *if they
> choose* they wouldn't be paid at all.
But this would be a very foolish choice. This has been my entire point.
Not that it is morally wrong, or illegal, or evil - merely foolish.
> If it is free the POS software will be maintained and improved
> (certainly) _either_ by programmers who don't get paid or by
> programmers who do get paid. If the programmers choose to work on the
> POS software without being paid, that's their choice. Nobody will
> *force*
> programmers to work for nothing, unless you're suggesting that free
> software advocates are also advocates of slavery.
Wow, not you're just ranting. The point is not that free software
eliminates all programmer jobs - as you point out programmer jobs
continue to exist in a free software economy. The point is that there
will be fewer jobs and they will pay less than in the equivalent
proprietary software economy.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 08:17:55 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com>
> said:
>
>> If it is free the POS software will be maintained and improved
>> (certainly) _either_ by programmers who don't get paid or by
>> programmers who do get paid. If the programmers choose to work on the
>> POS software without being paid, that's their choice. Nobody will
>> *force* programmers to work for nothing, unless you're suggesting that
>> free software advocates are also advocates of slavery.
>
> Wow, not you're just ranting. The point is not that free software
> eliminates all programmer jobs - as you point out programmer jobs
> continue to exist in a free software economy. The point is that there
> will be fewer jobs and they will pay less than in the equivalent
> proprietary software economy.
I don't agree with that at all. It's certainly likely that there will be
fewer of some of the kinds of jobs available now, but that doesn't mean
that more programming jobs wouldn't open up in other markets.
With proprietary software, code reuse by small organizations is inhibited
because they're unlikely to have much code of their own to reuse, and it
costs a lot of money to buy somebody else's code to reuse.
With free software, code reuse by small organizations is far easier
because acquiring code to re-use is basically free.
Suppose a small shop wants a comprehensive stock management system tuned
to its particular needs.
Without free software, it would be very expensive for a contractor to
create such a system because they'd either have to write the whole
themselves, or license large parts of the system for exorbitant fees.
With free software, a contractor can more easily take components of an
existing stock management system and integrate them into a custom
solution. Both the work of making the components and the expense of buying
the components are avoided.
What does this mean?
You'd argue it means fewer jobs and lower wages.
I'd argue it means more jobs and comparable wages.
Here's my take:
* Lower costs for software development means lower prices for software
development.
* Lower prices for software development means more customers for software
development.
* More customers for software development means more jobs for software
development.
Right now, there are a great many small companies which would like to have
custom-built software but cannot afford to do so. Free software enables
programmers to offer their services at a lower net cost, so the small
business is able to contract for custom software.
Of course, since they're actually doing less work, this doesn't
automatically mean reduced wages. Serious competition would probably drive
wages down just as it does in any market. This isn't because of the black
magic of free software, though; it's because of the magic of a market
economy.
Compare computer software to computer hardware.
In 1951, commercial computers cost over a million dollars (over 8 million
in modern terms). Hardly anybody bought them.
Today, you can get computers over a million times faster for much less
than a thousandth of the cost. Lots of people buy them.
Although computers are much cheaper, the hardware industry makes more
money today than it did in 1951. This is made possible chiefly by the fact
that it is *much* easier and cheaper to make computers today than it was
55 years ago.
In a similar vein, making software development an easier and cheaper
process may mean that *more* software development gets done, and it may
even mean that the software industry makes more money than it does today.
On 2006-07-27 17:44:48 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> With proprietary software, code reuse by small organizations is
> inhibited because they're unlikely to have much code of their own to
> reuse, and it costs a lot of money to buy somebody else's code to reuse.
>
> With free software, code reuse by small organizations is far easier
> because acquiring code to re-use is basically free.
These premises are false since we're talking about free *end-user*
software, not free programmer tools - OSes, compilers, libraries.
Look at the big picture - infrastructure is a comodity so it doesn't
matter if it is free - the price of commodities will chase the bottom
anyway. The value added piece is the novel bit that runs on top. This
unique end-user bit is the kind of software that makes no sense to
surrender redistribution rights to because, being relatively unique it
can be sold for a revenue stream. You can still produce this end-user
software with lots of code reuse - compilers, libraries, OS APIs - and
still keep this end-user software proprietary.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 17:44:48 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> With proprietary software, code reuse by small organizations is inhibited
>> because they're unlikely to have much code of their own to reuse, and it
>> costs a lot of money to buy somebody else's code to reuse.
>>
>> With free software, code reuse by small organizations is far easier
>> because acquiring code to re-use is basically free.
>
> These premises are false since we're talking about free *end-user* software,
> not free programmer tools - OSes, compilers, libraries.
Sheesh.
Firstly, premises are not true or false based upon "what we're talking
about." That isn't how logic works.
Secondly, we weren't talking about free end-user software; the context
which you omitted from my post makes it perfectly clear that were talking
about the consequences of a free software economy. You were claiming it
would lead to fewer jobs for programmers, I was claiming the converse.
Apparently, rather than actually debating that point, you'd rather pretend
I was talking about something else and then complain when what I'm saying
isn't relevant to the thing I wasn't talking about in the first place.
Which frankly isn't very impressive.
On 2006-07-27 23:04:58 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Firstly, premises are not true or false based upon "what we're talking
> about." That isn't how logic works.
Pretty sure that it is - if your premise is that "the opposite sides of
a square if extended infinitely will never meet" it really is either
true or not true depending on what we're talking about - it's true in
Euclidean geometry and false in Ellilptic geometry where there are no
such thing as parallel lines.
>
> Secondly, we weren't talking about free end-user software;
Yes, we were. I've been saying for about twenty posts now that we need
to distinguish between infrastructure software, which is a commodity
and a common good, and end-user software which is not. I can't see how
you could have missed that if you were actually reading my posts before
responding to them.
> the context which you omitted from my post makes it perfectly clear
> that were talking about the consequences of a free software economy.
> You were claiming it would lead to fewer jobs for programmers, I was
> claiming the converse.
>
> Apparently, rather than actually debating that point, you'd rather
> pretend I was talking about something else and then complain when what
> I'm saying isn't relevant to the thing I wasn't talking about in the
> first place. Which frankly isn't very impressive.
This is just petty silliness.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 23:04:58 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com>
> said:
>
>> Firstly, premises are not true or false based upon "what we're talking
>> about." That isn't how logic works.
>
> Pretty sure that it is - if your premise is that "the opposite sides of
> a square if extended infinitely will never meet" it really is either
> true or not true depending on what we're talking about - it's true in
> Euclidean geometry and false in Ellilptic geometry where there are no
> such thing as parallel lines.
This is just petty silliness.
>> Secondly, we weren't talking about free end-user software;
>
> Yes, we were. I've been saying for about twenty posts now that we need
> to distinguish between infrastructure software, which is a commodity and
> a common good, and end-user software which is not. I can't see how you
> could have missed that if you were actually reading my posts before
> responding to them.
Hmm. Perhaps you don't quite understand how this thing works.
See, what happens is you post, and then I make a reply to *that post*. The
mere fact that you're talking about the difference between "infrastructure
software" and "end-user software" in some *other* post is totally
irrelevent. You weren't talking about that in the post to which I replied.
Allow me to refresh your memory. You said:
>>> The point is not that free software eliminates all programmer jobs -
>>> as you point out programmer jobs continue to exist in a free software
>>> economy. The point is that there will be fewer jobs and they will pay
>>> less than in the equivalent proprietary software economy.
This is clearly not about the difference between infrastructure software
and end-user software. It's more obviously about the effects of a free
software economy upon programmer's jobs. Hence why my response was on the
same theme.
If you don't care for this line of questioning, all you need to do is *not
respond*, rather than responding with *this isn't what I want to talk
about*. Meanwhile, If *I* want to talk about the difference between
end-user software and infrastructure software, I can do so in a reply to
any of the fine posts you've made on the subject.
>> the context which you omitted from my post makes it perfectly clear
>> that were talking about the consequences of a free software economy.
>> You were claiming it would lead to fewer jobs for programmers, I was
>> claiming the converse.
>>
>> Apparently, rather than actually debating that point, you'd rather
>> pretend I was talking about something else and then complain when what
>> I'm saying isn't relevant to the thing I wasn't talking about in the
>> first place. Which frankly isn't very impressive.
>
> This is just petty silliness.
Am I to take it that you *don't* care to respond to the claim that a FSE
would lead to more jobs for programmers?
On 2006-07-28 00:38:00 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
> See, what happens is you post, and then I make a reply to *that post*.
> The mere fact that you're talking about the difference between
> "infrastructure software" and "end-user software" in some *other* post
> is totally irrelevent.
Only if you haven't been following the thread.
On 2006-07-28 00:38:00 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Am I to take it that you *don't* care to respond to the claim that a
> FSE would lead to more jobs for programmers?
I just responded to that claim but here it is again just to be very clear.
A free software economy would lead to fewer, less well paying jobs for
programmers because programmer income is dependent on how much and how
often firms and/or individuals can be paid for software. In a
proprietary economy firms can get paid:
1. For the base release itself.
2. For upgrades.
3. For work customizing the software to a particular customer's needs.
In a free software economy:
1. The base release is free, so no software firm gets paid here.
2. Upgrades are free, so no software firm gets paid here.
3. Customizing the software to a particular customer's needs - software
firm is paid here.
So in a proprietary software economy there are 2 ways that software
firms can and do get paid every day that are simply unavailable to
firms in your hypothetical free software economy. The last way firms
can get paid is *the same* for both proprietary and free software
economies. Since software firms have two other sources of revenue in
addition to the custom work *which is the same for both free and
proprietary* then more revenue is available to software firms in a
proprietary software economy. More revenue means more money to hire
more programmers at better wages and salaries.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 00:38:00 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
> > Am I to take it that you *don't* care to respond to the claim that a
> > FSE would lead to more jobs for programmers?
>
> I just responded to that claim but here it is again just to be very clear.
Your argument below was already addressed; repeating it and snipping
away all of the text that addresses it does not make the argument below
any stronger.
>
> A free software economy would lead to fewer, less well paying jobs for
> programmers because programmer income is dependent on how much and how
> often firms and/or individuals can be paid for software. In a
> proprietary economy firms can get paid:
>
> 1. For the base release itself.
>
> 2. For upgrades.
>
> 3. For work customizing the software to a particular customer's needs.
>
>
> In a free software economy:
>
>
> 1. The base release is free, so no software firm gets paid here.
>
> 2. Upgrades are free, so no software firm gets paid here.
>
> 3. Customizing the software to a particular customer's needs - software
> firm is paid here.
>
>
> So in a proprietary software economy there are 2 ways that software
> firms can and do get paid every day that are simply unavailable to
> firms in your hypothetical free software economy. The last way firms
> can get paid is *the same* for both proprietary and free software
> economies. Since software firms have two other sources of revenue in
> addition to the custom work *which is the same for both free and
> proprietary* then more revenue is available to software firms in a
> proprietary software economy. More revenue means more money to hire
> more programmers at better wages and salaries.
I've pointed out in two posts already that the above argument
is fatally flawed; why not respond to those posts instead
of just reposting the argument?
goose,
On 2006-07-28 15:19:58 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> I've pointed out in two posts already that the above argument
> is fatally flawed; why not respond to those posts instead
> of just reposting the argument?
It is not flawed at all. It is directly and simply true. Show me how
having only one revenue source could possibly lead to more, better
paying jobs than having that *identical* revenue source *plus* two
additional ones - two others, I might add, which have historically been
just as large or larger for a number of firms.
Seeing as how you tend to snip viciously, I'd like you to read
everything
but *at least* respond to the paragraph highlighted with dashes.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 15:19:58 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > I've pointed out in two posts already that the above argument
> > is fatally flawed; why not respond to those posts instead
> > of just reposting the argument?
>
> It is not flawed at all. It is directly and simply true.
You have repeatedly claimed that, you have yet to
show it.
> Show me how
> having only one revenue source could possibly lead to more, better
> paying jobs than having that *identical* revenue source *plus* two
> additional ones - two others, I might add, which have historically been
> just as large or larger for a number of firms.
Read my previous response for more detail; here let me just point
out that I outlined a possible scenario in the POS example you snipped
where free software made *more* money than proprietry.
Your argument hinges on a customer wanting to do business
*again* with a commercial/proprietry developer for enhancements.
Why is this necessarily true?
*My* hypothesis is that anyone *including* the original developers
of free software can charge for enhancements, many times over
to many different consumers.
Your argument is that commercial developers can charge twice;
once for sale and once for enhancements iff the consumer is willing
to accept work done by them.
I charge that since the consumer may not want to or be able to
do business with the commercial developer, some consumers
will only pay once for purchase, and not pay for enhancements
(even if they want the particular enhancement).
-------------------------------------------
How does "only some consumers pay for enhancements they want"
mean more money for the developers than "all consumers pay what
they can afford for *all* the enhancements that they want"?
-------------------------------------------
It is clear which generates more profits from the consumer.
goose,
On 2006-07-29 18:08:26 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> Your argument hinges on a customer wanting to do business
> *again* with a commercial/proprietry developer for enhancements.
>
> Why is this necessarily true?
You're the one who said they wanted custom work. Either they want it or
they don't. If the software is proprietary then they'll just deal with
the vendor (or programmers authorized by the vendor to do custom add
ons). Realize that there is already a whole group of programmers whose
principal work is offering custom solutions based on proprietary apps -
workflows for print and web based on photoshop and quark for example.
This doesn't even have to involve the proprietary publisher, but it
certainly can.
>
> *My* hypothesis is that anyone *including* the original developers
> of free software can charge for enhancements, many times over
> to many different consumers.
>
> Your argument is that commercial developers can charge twice;
> once for sale and once for enhancements iff the consumer is willing
> to accept work done by them.
>
> I charge that since the consumer may not want to or be able to
> do business with the commercial developer, some consumers
> will only pay once for purchase, and not pay for enhancements
> (even if they want the particular enhancement).
This is an empty argument because only well heeled customers are ever
going to pay for custom software. If you can't afford the $100.00
purchase price of a piece of software you sure as hell aren't going to
pay a contractor to do custom work for you.
The reality is that customers who can afford to hire programmers for
custom work can also afford the base price of the software.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 18:08:26 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > Your argument hinges on a customer wanting to do business
> > *again* with a commercial/proprietry developer for enhancements.
> >
> > Why is this necessarily true?
>
> You're the one who said they wanted custom work.
Yes; I never said that they want to do business again with
the same company/developer.
> Either they want it or
> they don't. If the software is proprietary then they'll just deal with
> the vendor (or programmers authorized by the vendor to do custom add
> ons).
And if the software is free, then they can deal with whoever they
want to without having to repurchase.
Thats the whole point really. They can pay whoever they
want to hoever much they can afford if the software is free.
> Realize that there is already a whole group of programmers whose
> principal work is offering custom solutions based on proprietary apps -
> workflows for print and web based on photoshop and quark for example.
> This doesn't even have to involve the proprietary publisher, but it
> certainly can.
>
>
> >
> > *My* hypothesis is that anyone *including* the original developers
> > of free software can charge for enhancements, many times over
> > to many different consumers.
> >
> > Your argument is that commercial developers can charge twice;
> > once for sale and once for enhancements iff the consumer is willing
> > to accept work done by them.
> >
> > I charge that since the consumer may not want to or be able to
> > do business with the commercial developer, some consumers
> > will only pay once for purchase, and not pay for enhancements
> > (even if they want the particular enhancement).
>
> This is an empty argument because only well heeled customers are ever
> going to pay for custom software.
Only if its proprietry.
> If you can't afford the $100.00
> purchase price of a piece of software you sure as hell aren't going to
> pay a contractor to do custom work for you.
Yes you can; in this country you can get developers for less than
a burger-flipper in the states. This is where your argument is wrong.
>
> The reality is that customers who can afford to hire programmers for
> custom work can also afford the base price of the software.
No; I *might* (if I sell my car) afford lispworks, but I certainly
can't
afford to pay USA or EU developers for a month of enhancements.
A developer here works for between a third and a tenth of first
world developers.
Lemme get this right.
You are saying that since the person can afford the software, they
can afford whatever the developer charges for enhancements?
If that is your argument, consider my counter-example above;
that argument is now proven bogus.
goose,
goose เขียน:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> > On 2006-07-29 18:08:26 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> >
> > > Your argument hinges on a customer wanting to do business
> > > *again* with a commercial/proprietry developer for enhancements.
> > >
> > > Why is this necessarily true?
> >
> > You're the one who said they wanted custom work.
>
> Yes; I never said that they want to do business again with
> the same company/developer.
>
> > Either they want it or
> > they don't. If the software is proprietary then they'll just deal with
> > the vendor (or programmers authorized by the vendor to do custom add
> > ons).
>
> And if the software is free, then they can deal with whoever they
> want to without having to repurchase.
>
> Thats the whole point really. They can pay whoever they
> want to hoever much they can afford if the software is free.
>
> > Realize that there is already a whole group of programmers whose
> > principal work is offering custom solutions based on proprietary apps -
> > workflows for print and web based on photoshop and quark for example.
> > This doesn't even have to involve the proprietary publisher, but it
> > certainly can.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > *My* hypothesis is that anyone *including* the original developers
> > > of free software can charge for enhancements, many times over
> > > to many different consumers.
> > >
> > > Your argument is that commercial developers can charge twice;
> > > once for sale and once for enhancements iff the consumer is willing
> > > to accept work done by them.
> > >
> > > I charge that since the consumer may not want to or be able to
> > > do business with the commercial developer, some consumers
> > > will only pay once for purchase, and not pay for enhancements
> > > (even if they want the particular enhancement).
> >
> > This is an empty argument because only well heeled customers are ever
> > going to pay for custom software.
>
> Only if its proprietry.
>
> > If you can't afford the $100.00
> > purchase price of a piece of software you sure as hell aren't going to
> > pay a contractor to do custom work for you.
>
> Yes you can; in this country you can get developers for less than
> a burger-flipper in the states. This is where your argument is wrong.
>
Let's suppose that commercial software is Lispworks, and Lispworks has
become open source, and your company are willing to implement all
features next minor version of Lispworks for a price of five burgers.
Suppose ten other companies in your country also do 1 year Lispworks
support for a cost of 2 burgers.
How long do you think it will take before the real Lispworks company go
bankrupt?
Half of their current customer will move to buy contract from your
country.
Most customer will buy from you to compile Lispworks and make
enhancement for them.
Lispworks the company will die but you don't have to care because
Lispworks the software still be with you. But I can say that, in a
sense you have robbed from Lispworks the company their own hard work
software.
Do you think It is fair?
I predict that in the future their will be very few software company in
USA. You can make a start up in the USA but as soon as your software
get enough feature -- since this is the ideal world where FS wins and
everyone has switched to open source -- USA firm is going to have a
trouble providing service or support that can cost less than a burgers
a year.
> >
> > The reality is that customers who can afford to hire programmers for
> > custom work can also afford the base price of the software.
>
> No; I *might* (if I sell my car) afford lispworks, but I certainly
> can't
> afford to pay USA or EU developers for a month of enhancements.
> A developer here works for between a third and a tenth of first
> world developers.
>
> Lemme get this right.
> You are saying that since the person can afford the software, they
> can afford whatever the developer charges for enhancements?
>
> If that is your argument, consider my counter-example above;
> that argument is now proven bogus.
>
> goose,
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Pisin Bootvong wrote:
>
> Let's suppose that commercial software is LispWorks, and LispWorks has
> become open source, and your company are willing to implement all
> features next minor version of LispWorks for a price of five burgers.
>
> *snip*
>
> LispWorks the company will die but you don't have to care because
> LispWorks the software still be with you. But I can say that, in a sense
> you have robbed from LispWorks the company their own hard work software.
It's logically impossible to steal what is given to you. If Xanalys gives
away the source to LispWorks and then go bankrupt, they only have
themselves to blame.
Nathan Baum wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Pisin Bootvong wrote:
> >
> > Let's suppose that commercial software is LispWorks, and LispWorks has
> > become open source, and your company are willing to implement all
> > features next minor version of LispWorks for a price of five burgers.
> >
> > *snip*
> >
> > LispWorks the company will die but you don't have to care because
> > LispWorks the software still be with you. But I can say that, in a sense
> > you have robbed from LispWorks the company their own hard work software.
>
> It's logically impossible to steal what is given to you. If Xanalys gives
> away the source to LispWorks and then go bankrupt, they only have
> themselves to blame.
But I thought someone was talking about how thing could improve if
software is free software instead of proprietary, so that way you could
hire other company to do enhancement. Or do support or whatever you
want.
I only show what might happen if software you wish was actually open
source. Is it a great benefit to customer? sure it was -- you can now
hire contract -- bug fix from goose. But is it good for Lispworks? Hell
no.
You wanted software to go open source, and then when I show how thing
happened if it actually were, all you said was that they were stupid
for actually do what you wanted.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3r700y8mw.fsf@athena.pienet>
"Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Nathan Baum wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Pisin Bootvong wrote:
> > >
>
> You wanted software to go open source, and then when I show how thing
> happened if it actually were, all you said was that they were stupid
> for actually do what you wanted.
What we're talking about and seem unable to convey is that we want
people to have the choice of how they distribute software; binary only,
free (in whatever flavor), or for profit- whatever works for them.
Thats all. If someone chooses the wrong license and doesn't achieve
what they want, thats a drag- but its up to them. If your argument is
with the FSF, please take it up with them instead.
Gregm
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 18:08:26 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
>> Your argument hinges on a customer wanting to do business
>> *again* with a commercial/proprietry developer for enhancements.
>>
>> Why is this necessarily true?
>
> You're the one who said they wanted custom work. Either they want it or they
> don't. If the software is proprietary then they'll just deal with the vendor
> (or programmers authorized by the vendor to do custom add ons). Realize that
> there is already a whole group of programmers whose principal work is
> offering custom solutions based on proprietary apps - workflows for print and
> web based on photoshop and quark for example. This doesn't even have to
> involve the proprietary publisher, but it certainly can.
>
>> *My* hypothesis is that anyone *including* the original developers
>> of free software can charge for enhancements, many times over
>> to many different consumers.
>>
>> Your argument is that commercial developers can charge twice;
>> once for sale and once for enhancements iff the consumer is willing
>> to accept work done by them.
>>
>> I charge that since the consumer may not want to or be able to
>> do business with the commercial developer, some consumers
>> will only pay once for purchase, and not pay for enhancements
>> (even if they want the particular enhancement).
>
> This is an empty argument because only well heeled customers are ever going
> to pay for custom software. If you can't afford the $100.00 purchase price of
> a piece of software you sure as hell aren't going to pay a contractor to do
> custom work for you.
Wow. That's a total misrepresentation of how budgeting is done.
Firstly, a contractor charges a lot of money. But there is no rule of
nature which states they must. Free software makes software development
cheaper. Therefore, contractors are able to charge less. The more free
software there is, the cheaper contractors can become.
Secondly, a company might not be able to afford to spend $100 purching an
off-the-shelf program which they'll have to spend hundreds of manhours in
lost revenue training their staff to use, and after that waste hundreds of
manhours and revenue every month because the software isn't tailored to
their particular business needs.
That doesn't, however, mean that the same company cannot afford to spend
$1000 on a custom-built program which only takes tens of manhours to train
people on and which probably saves manhours and revenue because it is
tailored to their particular business needs.
> The reality is that customers who can afford to hire programmers for custom
> work can also afford the base price of the software.
Nathan Baum wrote:
> Firstly, a contractor charges a lot of money. But there is no rule of
> nature which states they must.
Actually, yeah, there is.
> The more free software there is, the cheaper contractors can become.
Errr, no, not really that either.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Darren New wrote:
> Nathan Baum wrote:
>> Firstly, a contractor charges a lot of money. But there is no rule of
>> nature which states they must.
>
> Actually, yeah, there is.
Is that a fact? What rule is this?
>> The more free software there is, the cheaper contractors can become.
>
> Errr, no, not really that either.
And why not? Explain to me how cheaper iron doesn't lead to cheaper
blacksmiths.
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
> This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
> tentacles, not enough chops.
Nathan Baum wrote:
> Is that a fact? What rule is this?
Basic chemical reactions. Humans have to eat.
> And why not? Explain to me how cheaper iron doesn't lead to cheaper
> blacksmiths.
Depends on how you measure, of course. You still have to charge a
certain amount per hour. Whether you accomplish more in the same time is
another question. If so, that just means the contractor is working
harder for the same amount of money, and has to charge more because they
wind up being between jobs more often.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Nathan Baum wrote:
>> Firstly, a contractor charges a lot of money. But there is no rule
>> of nature which states they must.
>
> Actually, yeah, there is.
>
>> The more free software there is, the cheaper contractors can become.
>
> Errr, no, not really that either.
>
Actually, from experience I can say that being the cheapest available
contractor is *not* going to get you more work. The problem is that
cost is often equated with value/ability/experience. If you price
yourself too low, the market often sees you as not being a true
professional.
I learnt this the hard way. I actually got more work once I put my
prices up than I did with them lower. I don't know to what degree this
equates to free software, but I do know of a number of places where
they will not use free software because they don't see it as being
good quality or a professional production.
Tim
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 15:19:58 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
>> I've pointed out in two posts already that the above argument
>> is fatally flawed; why not respond to those posts instead
>> of just reposting the argument?
>
> It is not flawed at all. It is directly and simply true. Show me how having
> only one revenue source could possibly lead to more, better paying jobs than
> having that *identical* revenue source *plus* two additional ones - two
> others, I might add, which have historically been just as large or larger for
> a number of firms.
Historically, empires rose and fell on the salt trade. This is no longer
true. Just because something was a money-maker in the past does not mean
it will, or that it should, be so in the future.
How about you show us what you're claiming. Free software leads to less
jobs and lower wages for programmers. Free software has certainly been on
the increase. Show that programmer's wages are going down, and show that
free software is the mostly likely culprit.
And *show*, don't tell. We're not interested in hearing the same argument
for the millionth time. If your argument were convincing, you'd have
convinced us by now. Show us "direct and simple" data which proves your
contention.
On 2006-07-29 19:54:45 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Historically, empires rose and fell on the salt trade. This is no
> longer true. Just because something was a money-maker in the past does
> not mean it will, or that it should, be so in the future.
Not because salt traders were foolish enough to start giving salt away,
but rather because other means of preserving food became available.
The situation exists now because of the economically suicidal idelogy
of the FSF, not because software is no longer a valuable good.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 19:54:45 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> Historically, empires rose and fell on the salt trade. This is no longer
>> true. Just because something was a money-maker in the past does not mean
>> it will, or that it should, be so in the future.
>
> Not because salt traders were foolish enough to start giving salt away, but
> rather because other means of preserving food became available.
In fact no. It was because other means of *obtaining* salt became
available. Salt was (and is) still a valuable commodity, but empires were
no longer built upon it.
> The situation exists now because of the economically suicidal idelogy of the
> FSF, not because software is no longer a valuable good.
But you've previously stated that devalueing software is precisely what
free software does. Of course, as with salt, the actual difference is not
that software is less valuable, but that there is a cheaper source.
On 2006-07-31 18:06:39 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> But you've previously stated that devalueing software is precisely what
> free software does. Of course, as with salt, the actual difference is
> not that software is less valuable, but that there is a cheaper source.
No, the actual difference is that salt is far less widely used for food
preservation, the reason it first became valuable (see Mark Kurlansky's
book on the history of salt for details).
The point is that salt became less useful - there were fewer uses for
it - and so it became cheaper.
Software has become *more* useful - there are *more* uses for it - it
has become less valuable in part because programmers have foolishly
given it away for nothing not because there are fewer uses for it.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-31 18:06:39 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> But you've previously stated that devalueing software is precisely what
>> free software does. Of course, as with salt, the actual difference is not
>> that software is less valuable, but that there is a cheaper source.
>
> No, the actual difference is that salt is far less widely used for food
> preservation, the reason it first became valuable (see Mark Kurlansky's book
> on the history of salt for details).
The implication being that you have a thumbworn signed copy of said book
on your bookshelf. Possibly with corrections in the margin.
However, that isn't the actual difference. Salt mines became efficient
some time before other methods of preservation began to usurp it. The
software industry *now* is like the salt industry *then*.
Also, *more* salt is used for food preservation, although it accounts for
a lower proportion of total food preservation methods.
> The point is that salt became less useful - there were fewer uses for it -
> and so it became cheaper.
That isn't how economics works. Without a technological innovation, it
costs a certain amount to extract a given amount of salt. If salt becomes
less valuable, salt-miners can't just magically reduce the price of
salt.
In fact, salt becomes more expensive the less you mine. The effect is that
only large salt mines serving very large markets can survive; smaller
saltmakers are priced out of the market.
Unsurpringly, this is exactly what we see in the software industry:
improvements in our technology and knowhow have made it cheaper to produce
software, and as as a result, economic power has centralised around a
relatively small number of major software producers.
The self-employed programmer has to serve those markets in which he can
compete with the major producers, such as contract work.
> Software has become *more* useful - there are *more* uses for it - it has
> become less valuable in part because programmers have foolishly given it away
> for nothing not because there are fewer uses for it.
On 2006-08-01 16:35:24 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> The implication being that you have a thumbworn signed copy of said
> book on your bookshelf. Possibly with corrections in the margin.
>
> However, that isn't the actual difference. Salt mines became efficient
> some time before other methods of preservation began to usurp it. The
> software industry *now* is like the salt industry *then*.
>
> Also, *more* salt is used for food preservation, although it accounts
> for a lower proportion of total food preservation methods.
>
>> The point is that salt became less useful - there were fewer uses for
>> it - and so it became cheaper.
>
> That isn't how economics works. Without a technological innovation, it
> costs a certain amount to extract a given amount of salt. If salt
> becomes less valuable, salt-miners can't just magically reduce the
> price of salt.
>
> In fact, salt becomes more expensive the less you mine. The effect is
> that only large salt mines serving very large markets can survive;
> smaller saltmakers are priced out of the market.
>
> Unsurpringly, this is exactly what we see in the software industry:
> improvements in our technology and knowhow have made it cheaper to
> produce software, and as as a result, economic power has centralised
> around a relatively small number of major software producers.
>
> The self-employed programmer has to serve those markets in which he can
> compete with the major producers, such as contract work.
>
>> Software has become *more* useful - there are *more* uses for it - it
>> has become less valuable in part because programmers have foolishly
>> given it away for nothing not because there are fewer uses for it.
Sorry to leave you hanging, but I've been requested by a correspondent
to this newsgroup to stop posting to this off-topic thread.
regards,
Ralph
On 2006-07-29 19:54:45 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> How about you show us what you're claiming. Free software leads to less
> jobs and lower wages for programmers. Free software has certainly been
> on the increase. Show that programmer's wages are going down, and show
> that free software is the mostly likely culprit.
>
> And *show*, don't tell. We're not interested in hearing the same
> argument for the millionth time. If your argument were convincing,
> you'd have convinced us by now. Show us "direct and simple" data which
> proves your contention.
Bureau of Labor statistics indicates that "Employment of programmers is
expected to grow more slowly than average for all occupations through
the year 2014.":
<http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos110.htm#outlook>
Among the reasons given:
"outsourcing"
Outsourcing is by definition a loss of jobs to lower cost software overseas.
Lower cost software results in programmer job loss.
Free is a proper subset of lower cost, so free must, of necessity
result in job loss.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 19:54:45 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com>
> said:
>
>> How about you show us what you're claiming. Free software leads to
>> less jobs and lower wages for programmers. Free software has certainly
>> been on the increase. Show that programmer's wages are going down, and
>> show that free software is the mostly likely culprit.
>>
>> And *show*, don't tell. We're not interested in hearing the same
>> argument for the millionth time. If your argument were convincing,
>> you'd have convinced us by now. Show us "direct and simple" data which
>> proves your contention.
>
> Bureau of Labor statistics indicates that "Employment of programmers is
> expected to grow more slowly than average for all occupations through
> the year 2014.":
>
> <http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos110.htm#outlook>
>
> Among the reasons given:
>
> "outsourcing"
>
>
>
> Outsourcing is by definition a loss of jobs to lower cost software
> overseas.
>
> Lower cost software results in programmer job loss.
>
> Free is a proper subset of lower cost, so free must, of necessity result
> in job loss.
Only if you arbitrarily limit "jobs" to be "jobs within one country".
Total number of jobs is going up. As the economies of countries that
are outsourced to grow, their programmer's pay will rise, too, as well
as their own internal markets. It's not that much different than the
movement of textile manufacturing from New England to the South decades ago.
--Larry
On 2006-07-31 22:27:56 -0400, Larry Elmore <·········@comcast.net> said:
> Only if you arbitrarily limit "jobs" to be "jobs within one country".
> Total number of jobs is going up.
but for lower wages or the firms doing the outsourcing wouldn't bother
doing it. You're arguing my point.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-31 22:27:56 -0400, Larry Elmore <·········@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Only if you arbitrarily limit "jobs" to be "jobs within one country".
>> Total number of jobs is going up.
>
> but for lower wages or the firms doing the outsourcing wouldn't bother
> doing it. You're arguing my point.
Lower absolute wages in dollars, perhaps, but high wages nonetheless in
India and elsewhere. Or are you against them working if they compete
against you? Maybe California needs sanctions against firms moving
operations to Texas, which also has a lower absolute dollar pay scale
(because of the lower cost of living)? Is that qualitatively different
from US vs. India, and if so, why?
--Larry
On 2006-08-01 20:36:03 -0400, Larry Elmore <·········@comcast.net> said:
> Lower absolute wages in dollars, perhaps, but high wages nonetheless in
> India and elsewhere. Or are you against them working if they compete
> against you? Maybe California needs sanctions against firms moving
> operations to Texas, which also has a lower absolute dollar pay scale
> (because of the lower cost of living)? Is that qualitatively different
> from US vs. India, and if so, why?
>
> --Larry
Sorry to leave you hanging, but I've been requested by a correspondent
to this newsgroup to stop posting to this off-topic thread.
regards,
Ralph
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 19:54:45 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com>
> said:
>
>> How about you show us what you're claiming. Free software leads to
>> less jobs and lower wages for programmers. Free software has certainly
>> been on the increase. Show that programmer's wages are going down, and
>> show that free software is the mostly likely culprit.
>>
>> And *show*, don't tell. We're not interested in hearing the same
>> argument for the millionth time. If your argument were convincing,
>> you'd have convinced us by now. Show us "direct and simple" data which
>> proves your contention.
>
> Bureau of Labor statistics indicates that "Employment of programmers is
> expected to grow more slowly than average for all occupations through
> the year 2014.":
>
> <http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos110.htm#outlook>
>
> Among the reasons given:
>
> "outsourcing"
>
> Outsourcing is by definition a loss of jobs to lower cost software
> overseas.
>
> Lower cost software results in programmer job loss.
>
> Free is a proper subset of lower cost, so free must, of necessity result
> in job loss.
That's an *amazingly* fallacious argument.
P1. Outsourcing is one of several causes of job losses.
P2. Outsourcing makes software cheaper.
P3. Cheap software causes job losses.
P4. Outsourcing will probably increase during the next 12 years.
P5. Free software is pretty cheap.
C. Therefore, free software has caused job losses.
There are three huge gaping holes in this argument.
The first is that this is a *prediction* of what is expected to happen
with programming jobs in the future. As such, it doesn't prove anything at
all about what's happened in the past. Neither does it prove anything
about the future, because it's merely a prediction.
The second is that only thing you *do* prove with those premises is that
outsourcing causes job losses. The premises don't establish that free
software causes job losses, because you provided no evidence that the
usage of free software is increasing.
The second is that P3 - cheap software causes job losses - is the very
point under contention: it's meant to be the conclusion, not a premise.
You might argue that P3 is logically necessary, but it isn't. Edible salt
is *much* cheaper today than it was 200 years ago, but there are far more
people actually involved in making it.
Given that we know that P3 should not be accepted as a matter of fact, we
can fix both faults as so:
P3. Usage of free software is increasing.
Now the conclusion doesn't follow at all. In fact, the only reasonable
conclusion is:
C. Therefore, outsourcing is predicted to cause job losses in the next 12
years.
What you actually need to prove is that:
P1. The rate of increase of demand for programmers has been decreasing.
P2. Factors unrelated to free software, including but not limited to
outsourcing, better development tools, more experienced programmers,
are unequivocably not sufficient explanation for the change in rate.
P3. Use of free software is strongly correlated with demand for
programmers.
Then you can state that:
C. The rise of free software is the best explanation of the reduction in
the rate of increase of demand for programmers.
Until then you can only state that:
C. The rise of free software is one of many possible explanations of the
reduction in the rate of increase of demand for programmers.
On 2006-07-31 18:51:46 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Until then you can only state that:
>
> C. The rise of free software is one of many possible explanations of the
> reduction in the rate of increase of demand for programmers.
Wow! after umpteen posts finally an admission that free software may
not be an unqualified boon to programmers!
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-31 18:51:46 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com>
> said:
>
>> Until then you can only state that:
>>
>> C. The rise of free software is one of many possible explanations of the
>> reduction in the rate of increase of demand for programmers.
>
> Wow! after umpteen posts finally an admission that free software may not
> be an unqualified boon to programmers!
You have a serious reading comprehension problem if you honestly believe
that. It's been said any number of times in this thread.
--Larry
On 2006-08-01 20:22:44 -0400, Larry Elmore <·········@comcast.net> said:
> You have a serious reading comprehension problem if you honestly
> believe that. It's been said any number of times in this thread.
>
> --Larry
Sorry to leave you hanging, but I've been requested by a correspondent
to this newsgroup to stop posting to this off-topic thread.
regards,
Ralph
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-31 18:51:46 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> Until then you can only state that:
>>
>> C. The rise of free software is one of many possible explanations of the
>> reduction in the rate of increase of demand for programmers.
>
> Wow! after umpteen posts finally an admission that free software may not be
> an unqualified boon to programmers!
I guess you missed the umpteen posts repeatedly denying that anybody had
claimed that it was, huh?
On 2006-08-01 16:36:13 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> I guess you missed the umpteen posts repeatedly denying that anybody
> had claimed that it was, huh?
Sorry to leave you hanging, but I've been requested by a correspondent
to this newsgroup to stop posting to this off-topic thread.
regards,
Ralph
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 00:38:00 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> Am I to take it that you *don't* care to respond to the claim that a FSE
>> would lead to more jobs for programmers?
>
> I just responded to that claim but here it is again just to be very clear.
>
> A free software economy would lead to fewer, less well paying jobs for
> programmers because programmer income is dependent on how much and how often
> firms and/or individuals can be paid for software. In a proprietary economy
> firms can get paid:
Okay, so you're basically ignoring my argument and restating your own.
You're saying that there are fewer "job roles" in a free software economy,
and pretending this necessarily implies there are fewer "jobs" in a free
software economy.
However, it is my contention that whilst there are fewer "job roles", the
number of "jobs" available in the more limited set of roles is greater.
Because the cost of customization is lower when you can use free software
as a base, more clients will be able to afford to contract programmers for
customization work, because those contracters will be able to charge less.
You'll no doubt complain that if the contractors charge less, that
necessarily means programmer wages will be low. That's not true, however.
The charges will be lower because the costs of reusing code will be
lower, since you won't have to pay licensing fees for the priviledge.
On 2006-07-28 16:29:04 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> However, it is my contention that whilst there are fewer "job roles",
> the number of "jobs" available in the more limited set of roles is
> greater.
But this is impossible since the "job roles" in the hypothetical free
software economy are a *proper subset* of the job roles in a
proprietary software economy. Its not just that there are fewer, its
that the ones that do exist in a free software economy *also* exist in
the proprietary sofware economy, *and* the proprietary sofware economy
has *two others* which the free software economy does not.
Of necessity, the proprietary software economy must produce more
revenue since its "job roles" are a superset of those in a hypothetical
free software economy.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 16:29:04 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com>
> said:
>
>> However, it is my contention that whilst there are fewer "job roles",
>> the number of "jobs" available in the more limited set of roles is
>> greater.
>
> But this is impossible since the "job roles" in the hypothetical free
> software economy are a *proper subset* of the job roles in a proprietary
> software economy. Its not just that there are fewer, its that the ones
> that do exist in a free software economy *also* exist in the proprietary
> sofware economy, *and* the proprietary sofware economy has *two others*
> which the free software economy does not.
>
> Of necessity, the proprietary software economy must produce more revenue
> since its "job roles" are a superset of those in a hypothetical free
> software economy.
Explain to me how if there are fewer professions, there are *necessarily*
fewer jobs.
My argument is that if a particular service is widely desired but most
people can't afford it, a reduction in the cost of the service will lead
to an increase in consumption, which will lead to more jobs for people
able to provide that service.
My argument is further that contract programming is a widely desired
service which is too expensive for most potential clients, but that an
abundance of free software drives the costs of programming down by making
reusable components cheaper to come by.
On 2006-07-29 19:50:53 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Explain to me how if there are fewer professions, there are
> *necessarily* fewer jobs.
Because it is not just numerically fewer - it is a proper *subset*.
The exact same profession in question - custom software work - is
available to proprietary software! Plust proprietary software has two
additional sources of revenue and thus, two additional sources of
*paid* programmer hours.
On 2006-07-29 19:50:53 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> My argument is further that contract programming is a widely desired
> service which is too expensive for most potential clients, but that an
> abundance of free software drives the costs of programming down by
> making reusable components cheaper to come by.
Why not provide that free as well - then it would be even more
affordable. After all, programmers are morally bound to put the
interests of consumers first - aren't they?
You are arguing my point. For *custom* software to become affordable
enough that even people who won't or can't pay for proprietary software
can afford it, then programmers would be earning less than minimum
wage. Really bright outlook there for your free sofware economy.
Think about it - a customer won't pony up $50 a seat for a proprietary
app for his 10 seats that would use it. So your custom work would have
to cost *significantly less* than $500 for him to even consider hiring
you. Good luck paying the mortgage in that economy.
Face it - firms that can afford custom software can afford proprietary
software and custom work too.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 19:50:53 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com>
> said:
>
>> My argument is further that contract programming is a widely desired
>> service which is too expensive for most potential clients, but that an
>> abundance of free software drives the costs of programming down by
>> making reusable components cheaper to come by.
>
> Why not provide that free as well - then it would be even more
> affordable.
You obviously can't provide it free.
> After all, programmers are morally bound to put the interests of
> consumers first - aren't they?
All suppliers in a genuinely free market are bound to put the interests of
consumers first. Not by morals, but by the simple fact that if they don't,
someone else will.
> You are arguing my point. For *custom* software to become affordable
> enough that even people who won't or can't pay for proprietary software
> can afford it, then programmers would be earning less than minimum wage.
> Really bright outlook there for your free sofware economy.
But I'm not claiming that custom software will be cheaper than proprietary
software. It'll still be more expensive. Possibly much more expensive.
However, the savings gleaned from having a custom-built solution tailored
to your particular needs will more than compensate you for the extra cost.
> Think about it - a customer won't pony up $50 a seat for a proprietary
> app for his 10 seats that would use it. So your custom work would have
> to cost *significantly less* than $500 for him to even consider hiring
> you. Good luck paying the mortgage in that economy.
This is a total straw man and doesn't even make sense. How many clients do
I have? Do they all have only ten computer-using employees? Why are no
clients willing to invest $500 in a custom-built software system? How long
does each contract last?
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <u7j1y1pz8.fsf@nhplace.com>
Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> Without free software, it would be very expensive for a contractor to
> create such a system because they'd either have to write the whole
> themselves, or license large parts of the system for exorbitant fees.
>
> With free software, a contractor can more easily take components of an
> existing stock management system and integrate them into a custom
> solution. Both the work of making the components and the expense of
> buying the components are avoided.
The same would be true if you substituted "with low priced software".
The difference, from my point of view, is that the offering of free
software means the person is gifting all the "value" to the end-user,
and none of it to the programmer.
Now the question is, why is one of these more deserving of a gift than
the other. Had he instead said "I'll take $5 instead of $0" (assuming
the absence of a free software movement for a moment, and just talking
the hypothetical world where people just charge a very low marginal cost),
and even glossing the issue a bit as to collection--for example, supposing
he put people on the honor system to pay, but still said they owed $5 if
they elect to use it, he's still (a) going to receive some deserved cash,
and (b) going to create a market for someone willing to charge $4 or $3
for work they did, also at a cost. By picking $0, he's saying "no one
may underbid me" and implicitly (and this is the problem for me) "no one
should continue refining this and expecting to recover costs".
Oh, sure, they can recover costs if someone else decides they need it,
but it turns out to be a fact about the world that people don't know
all the things they "need". Need is even subjective. That's why a
lot of companies that buy advertising. Some of the needs are trumped
up, for sure, but some are just lack of awareness. And charging $0 means
taking away the opportunity for anyone to have cash to work with at the
low end to convince anyone they've got a good idea.
I perceive an implicit assumption somewhere in all of this that a
non-programmer end-user is virtuous, and that benefiting him benefits
The World, while a programmer middle-user is a non-virtuous greedy
guy trying to rob the train of wealth on its way to the virtuous
Real World guy. But both of these are just people we don't know, and
I'm not sure "giving it away" all to the end-user and none to the "maker
of other tools" is any more moral ... Doing so consistently, and building
a near-religion around it, seems therefore ... oddly motivated in terms
of process.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> Without free software, it would be very expensive for a contractor to
>> create such a system because they'd either have to write the whole
>> themselves, or license large parts of the system for exorbitant fees.
>>
>> With free software, a contractor can more easily take components of an
>> existing stock management system and integrate them into a custom
>> solution. Both the work of making the components and the expense of
>> buying the components are avoided.
>
> The same would be true if you substituted "with low priced software".
True. Cheaper reusable components makes it easier for others to acquire
those components. The cheaper they are, the easier it is.
In Raffael's world view, low-priced software is just as bad as free
software, so the point still stands. His argument is that programmers
aught to be be charging as much as they can get away with, unless they
hate all other programmers and want them to be out of a job. So the
argument that merely cheap components may also result in more jobs for
programmers is still an argument against Raffael.
> The difference, from my point of view, is that the offering of free
> software means the person is gifting all the "value" to the end-user,
> and none of it to the programmer.
The offering to whom?
Whenever a programmer offers free software to whoever wants to use it, he
makes a conscious decision not to demand renumeration each time somebody
redistributes it or creates a derivative work.
It's hardly reasonable to complain that he doesn't get "rewarded" for his
work if he's *chosen* not to be "rewarded" in this particular manner. He's
not going to complain, and probably doesn't particularly want you
complaining on his behalf.
> Now the question is, why is one of these more deserving of a gift than
> the other.
Neither of them are "deserving" of a gift. However, the programmer has the
right to give a gift.
> Had he instead said "I'll take $5 instead of $0" (assuming the absence
> of a free software movement for a moment, and just talking the
> hypothetical world where people just charge a very low marginal cost),
> and even glossing the issue a bit as to collection--for example,
> supposing he put people on the honor system to pay, but still said they
> owed $5 if they elect to use it, he's still (a) going to receive some
> deserved cash, and (b) going to create a market for someone willing to
> charge $4 or $3 for work they did, also at a cost. By picking $0, he's
> saying "no one may underbid me" and implicitly (and this is the problem
> for me) "no one should continue refining this and expecting to recover
> costs".
I think there's a reductio ad adsurbum here. If I sell software for $5,
then I'm basically saying that "no one may continue refining this and
expecting to recover costs after 5 recursive refinements." (Assuming, of
course, prices must drop by $1 each time.) Why is it okay for me to say
"no more than 4 levels of improvement" but not "no more levels of
improvement?"
Additionally, you're presenting something of a straw man. What
distributing something for $0 *really* says is "no one should continue
refining this and expect to recover costs *by selling copies*." It doesn't
prevent anyone *being paid* to refine the software.
If free software won, the software industry would be totally different.
Programmers would be funded differently. Your argument seems to be based
upon the question "what if if free software won but the funding scheme
didn't change?"
That's a valid question, to be sure, but it isn't an argument against free
software, it's an argument against basing a free software economy upon the
funding scheme of the proprietary software economy.
> Oh, sure, they can recover costs if someone else decides they need it,
> but it turns out to be a fact about the world that people don't know all
> the things they "need".
That's not really relevant.
Sure, a company might not know that they "need" feature X, but at the same
time they may incorrectly believe that they "need" feature Y. People would
get contracted to implement the unneeded feature.
A lack of perfect knowledge never stopped an economy working in the past.
> Need is even subjective. That's why a lot of companies that buy
> advertising.
Well exactly. People don't know what they need, but that doesn't stop them
thinking they *do*.
> Some of the needs are trumped up, for sure, but some are just lack of
> awareness. And charging $0 means taking away the opportunity for anyone
> to have cash to work with at the low end to convince anyone they've got
> a good idea.
That's a bitch of a sentence, Kent.
You seem to be saying one or both of two things:
1. It's impossible for small businesses to make a living from improving
free software without being contracted to make specific improvements.
This is mostly true.
In a free software economy, it would be virtually impossible to make a
living from writing software nobody had asked you to write.
You could write something, show demos to people and say "pay me, and
I'll release it." That is no way to run a business, though.
A safer option would be to offer support and other associated services.
*If* your support is needed *and* it's good enough, you might earn
enough to stay afloat. Still sounds a bit too risky to me.
2. It's impossible for small businesses to make a living from writing
proprietary software which competes with free software.
This is not quite true.
It's *harder* to compete with free software, since you must justify the
price tag. If *all* you do is write code, then your code had better be
pretty darned amazing, or you must be able to make guarantees that
volunteers cannot.
Whilst software can be free, on-site support, training programs,
guaranteed updates and bugfixes cannot be free. Volunteer programmers
can't provide these kinds of services, certainly not if they're only
working on their free software in a spare couple of hours every other
day and have paid work to do the rest of the time.
These two elements basically combine to mean that in a free software
economy, either your development would be funded by other products and
services you offer, or your development would be funded by entities who
contract you for specific work.
> I perceive an implicit assumption somewhere in all of this that a
> non-programmer end-user is virtuous, and that benefiting him benefits
> The World, while a programmer middle-user is a non-virtuous greedy guy
> trying to rob the train of wealth on its way to the virtuous Real World
> guy.
To my mind, the more significant element here is that there are far more
end-users than middle-users, probably several orders of magnitude more.
As Spock the space-elf once said, "the needs of the many outweigh the
needs of the few." Benefiting 71,553 Microsoft employees is, in my mind,
less important than benefiting their millions of users, if we must choose
between the two.
Having said that, I disagree that we must choose. A free software economy
is only sure to be harmful to those commercial vendors who are unable to
adapt. There are jobs in a FSE and, as I've outlined previously, I believe
there would be *more* jobs.
> But both of these are just people we don't know, and I'm not sure
> "giving it away" all to the end-user and none to the "maker of other
> tools" is any more moral.
That's a misrepresentation. Everything that is given away to the end-user
is *also* given to the "maker of other tools."
> ... Doing so consistently, and building a near-religion around it, seems
> therefore ... oddly motivated in terms of process.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <u1ws61l7v.fsf@nhplace.com>
Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> You seem to be saying one or both of two things:
>
> 1. It's impossible for small businesses to make a living from improving
> free software without being contracted to make specific improvements.
>
> This is mostly true.
>
> In a free software economy, it would be virtually impossible to make a
> living from writing software nobody had asked you to write.
>
> You could write something, show demos to people and say "pay me, and
> I'll release it." That is no way to run a business, though.
>
> A safer option would be to offer support and other associated services.
> *If* your support is needed *and* it's good enough, you might earn
> enough to stay afloat. Still sounds a bit too risky to me.
>
> 2. It's impossible for small businesses to make a living from writing
> proprietary software which competes with free software.
>
> This is not quite true.
>
> It's *harder* to compete with free software, since you must justify the
> price tag. If *all* you do is write code, then your code had better be
> pretty darned amazing, or you must be able to make guarantees that
> volunteers cannot.
>
> Whilst software can be free, on-site support, training programs,
> guaranteed updates and bugfixes cannot be free. Volunteer programmers
> can't provide these kinds of services, certainly not if they're only
> working on their free software in a spare couple of hours every other
> day and have paid work to do the rest of the time.
>
> These two elements basically combine to mean that in a free software
> economy, either your development would be funded by other products and
> services you offer, or your development would be funded by entities
> who contract you for specific work.
Wow. This is exactly what I've been trying to say. That you think it
refutes something I say rather than that it restates it must indicate
that I'm being really unclear.
In case 2, while you present this in the syntactic form of a
counterexample, you make the bar sufficiently high that the degree to
which it's a counterexample is really uninteresting to me. Since I
can't reliably know that the code of someone I'm giving career advice
to is "really darned amazing", I have to recommend against that option.
The real reason both 1 and 2 are impractical is not just the issue that
you're writing free software in part time, it's an issue of queueing
theory: I recall being baffled then amazed and finally awestruck by the
obviousness of it all when it was first explained to me that if a person
can serve hamburgers at a rate of four an hour and people arrive randomly
but at a statistical probability of four per hour, the server cannot keep
up. (The structural reason is that sometimes the randomness will produce
dead time that cannot be made up. You must therefore charge enough to pay
salary during the dead time, since the people you're paying have to eat
whether someone comes in or not. And once you do that, you won't hit the
marginal price that someone who deals in large numbers can hit. So big
companies will drive out small ones because they can manage the dead times
better both by reassigning people across unrelated projects and because
the laws of large numbers will be more likely to be favorable to them.)
Since Small numbers of individuals can't easily stay ahead of the
statistical amount of fluctuation in the consulting business, the
consequence will be that large organizations will pick up the
consulting that business needs to see done reliably. And the place
you're suggesting the money come from won't exist in the small business.
But the large business will have advertising dollars to spare to tell
the world how profitable free software is (for them--they're not writing
it...)
> Everything that is given away to the
> end-user is *also* given to the "maker of other tools."
Actually, not always. The GPL authorizes use to end users it does not
authorize to makers of tools, specifically, the right to charge money.
Consequently, the GPL ends up forcing a server model for some products
that wouldn't have to be offered on a server. For example, suppose I
write a program that prints fortune cookie messages. (Don't quibble: I
know it's not going to be high margin. I just wanted a simple
example.) The GPL allows me to make a server and sell fortune cookie
messages that come out of the server, but ties my hands and keeps me
from offering the program as a standalone app that people can run away
from the net. The end user could write the standalone app for his/her
own use and it would be legal, but I as the maker of tools am
prohibited from doing him that service.
(Of course, your "out" is to say that the GPL isn't really "giving
away" but only the illusion of that, with a politically manipulative
twist. The Public Domain, and the Berkeley license, would not have
this problem.)
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3vepi1gx5.fsf@athena.pienet>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> (Of course, your "out" is to say that the GPL isn't really "giving
> away" but only the illusion of that, with a politically manipulative
> twist. The Public Domain, and the Berkeley license, would not have
> this problem.)
Kent, your newsreader headers show you're using Gnus under Emacs.
>From: Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com>
>Message-ID: <·············@nhplace.com>
>Organization: My ISP can pay me if they want an ad here.
>Lines: 46
>User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
>MIME-Version: 1.0
Shouldn't you be switching to a for-profit newsreader given your issues
with the FSF? Or, have you negiotiated payment to FSF for Emacs as well
as the authors of Gnus as recompense for you copying and using both?
Raffael Cavallaro has put his money where his mouth is, since his posts
indicate he's using Unison and google yields pages that suggest it costs
$25 to download.
Gregm
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Greg Menke wrote:
>
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
>> Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>> (Of course, your "out" is to say that the GPL isn't really "giving
>> away" but only the illusion of that, with a politically manipulative
>> twist. The Public Domain, and the Berkeley license, would not have
>> this problem.)
>
>
> Kent, your newsreader headers show you're using Gnus under Emacs.
>
>> From: Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com>
>> Message-ID: <·············@nhplace.com>
>> Organization: My ISP can pay me if they want an ad here.
>> Lines: 46
>> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
> Shouldn't you be switching to a for-profit newsreader given your issues
> with the FSF? Or, have you negiotiated payment to FSF for Emacs as well
> as the authors of Gnus as recompense for you copying and using both?
Bit unfair, I think. Kent isn't the one (openly) saying "free software is
bad and shouldn't exist."
> Raffael Cavallaro has put his money where his mouth is, since his posts
> indicate he's using Unison and google yields pages that suggest it costs
> $25 to download.
>
> Gregm
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3odvam1xa.fsf@athena.pienet>
Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Greg Menke wrote:
> >>
> >> (Of course, your "out" is to say that the GPL isn't really "giving
> >> away" but only the illusion of that, with a politically manipulative
> >> twist. The Public Domain, and the Berkeley license, would not have
> >> this problem.)
> >
> >
> > Kent, your newsreader headers show you're using Gnus under Emacs.
> >
> >> From: Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com>
> >> Message-ID: <·············@nhplace.com>
> >> Organization: My ISP can pay me if they want an ad here.
> >> Lines: 46
> >> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
> >> MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> > Shouldn't you be switching to a for-profit newsreader given your issues
> > with the FSF? Or, have you negiotiated payment to FSF for Emacs as well
> > as the authors of Gnus as recompense for you copying and using both?
>
> Bit unfair, I think. Kent isn't the one (openly) saying "free software
> is bad and shouldn't exist."
It doesn't seem unfair at all- if I recall Ken't arguments he has
problems with free software in general and the FSF in particular. I
think he ought to consider how he's subverting the text editor &
newsreader markets by using a FSF alternative. In effect, if he hasn't
negiotiated some kind of payment to the FSF & Gnus authors (as well as
the respective authors of the other parts of Emacs he uses), he is
complicit in the same sort of undermining of software markets that he
asserts Franz did to him in relation to his own software.
> > Raffael Cavallaro has put his money where his mouth is, since his posts
> > indicate he's using Unison and google yields pages that suggest it costs
> > $25 to download.
> >
And as a followup to myself, since Unison seems to be an OS X product
then Raffael's probably using OS X. If this is so perhaps he will
explain to us how he reconciles his position on free software with his
use of BSD licensed software on his own computer's OS- he paid Apple of
course, but by his arguments, no payment has been made to the authors of
the BSD portions of the OS.
Gregm
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <u64hhn8ll.fsf@nhplace.com>
Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
> Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Greg Menke wrote:
...
> > > Shouldn't you be switching to a for-profit newsreader given your issues
> > > with the FSF? Or, have you negiotiated payment to FSF for Emacs as well
> > > as the authors of Gnus as recompense for you copying and using both?
> >
> > Bit unfair, I think. Kent isn't the one (openly) saying "free software
> > is bad and shouldn't exist."
>
> It doesn't seem unfair at all- if I recall Ken't arguments he has
> problems with free software in general and the FSF in particular.
No, you recall incorrectly.
I object to teaching "free software" as a religion of "unconditional
good."
I object to introducing free software into a functioning market that
is already serving customers at a reasonable price.
I object to parents paying for free software unknowingly; I think
people should be taught that their parents must be told when they
are funding these efforts, how much time is involved, and what the
economic return is.
I have a concern about the issue of how free software drives down
margins. That I don't have a solution doesn't mean there is no
problem.
I have a concern about the way in which new free software offerings
can blindside those in our midst involved in legitimate commercial
investment for the good of the community. That I don't have a solution
doesn't mean there is no problem.
Indeed, I have a problem about Sun/Java even though it's not quite
freeware because it has also created downward pressure on software
prices by funding it through hardware sales. I don't know what to
do about that either, but it doesn't make it not a problem.
The fact of no obvious solution in some areas is not a reason not to
speak out--just the opposite, it's why I'm engaging other people.
Hard problems need discussion.
I have also specifically said that Emacs/Gnu (where no commercial
entity seems interested in the market) and Postgres (where Oracle and
friends had a stranglehold on the market at too high a price for too
long) are examples of good uses of free software. I'm middling on
whether Linux was a good answer to Microsoft, though I agree there
were some issues about Microsoft. However, Emacs/Postgres/Linux,
though popular examples of free software success, are not typical of
the free software market.
Incidentally, in my younger years, I wrote several libraries for
original Teco-based Emacs. I've done my contribution for the free
crowd. I also once created a paradigm once called Careware, where I
distributed a game application for free and said that anyone who liked
it should send the money to any of various enumerated kinds of
charities, rather than to me. These things do not mean I have sold
my soul and must now always support these paradigms. People change
in their thoughts as they grow. These things inform my sensibilities
by being part of my experience.
But you have no right just assuming nor implying in a passive
aggressive way that I am some sort of leach that must answer for
myself or be silent. A person has a right to an opinion on this
issue whether they can answer to your charges or not.
I don't owe the free software community a dime. Not just because I
have done my bit for the cause, but also because the free software
community explicitly serves those who don't pay it back. That's part
of their paradigm. If it was just an honor system with a required
collection, it would be called Shareware.
> I think he ought to consider how he's subverting the text editor &
> newsreader markets by using a FSF alternative.
You make a very bad assumption that shows the foolhardy nature of
syntactic assumptions: I routinely pay those markets money for
programs I don't use just on the hope that they will come out with
product, and just because I value having them come out with new
releases of products.
> In effect, if he hasn't
> negiotiated some kind of payment to the FSF & Gnus authors (as well as
> the respective authors of the other parts of Emacs he uses), he is
> complicit in the same sort of undermining of software markets that he
> asserts Franz did to him in relation to his own software.
This is nonsense.
First, there is not parity between usage and delivery of product.
A lot of people use free software because they can't afford not to.
If you are competing in an industry in which your competitor can get
zero price parts, you must use them, too, or else you will not be
able to charge through to your end-user customers for the higher
priced parts. End users will typically only pay the lowest per-unit
cost. That's why I've been complaining about free software.
It doesn't matter what the per-unit cost is, as long as no one can
undercut it. When they do undercut it, the people charging the price
of the item can't compete.
> > > Raffael Cavallaro has put his money where his mouth is, since his posts
> > > indicate he's using Unison and google yields pages that suggest it costs
> > > $25 to download.
> > >
>
> And as a followup to myself, since Unison seems to be an OS X product
> then Raffael's probably using OS X. If this is so perhaps he will
> explain to us how he reconciles his position on free software with his
> use of BSD licensed software on his own computer's OS- he paid Apple of
> course, but by his arguments, no payment has been made to the authors of
> the BSD portions of the OS.
He doesn't need to.
See my explanation above.
This is an out of bounds debate strategy.
You should be ashamed.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3bqr9wyjm.fsf@athena.pienet>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
>
>
> But you have no right just assuming nor implying in a passive
> aggressive way that I am some sort of leach that must answer for
> myself or be silent. A person has a right to an opinion on this
> issue whether they can answer to your charges or not.
>
> I don't owe the free software community a dime. Not just because I
> have done my bit for the cause, but also because the free software
> community explicitly serves those who don't pay it back. That's part
> of their paradigm. If it was just an honor system with a required
> collection, it would be called Shareware.
I know you don't owe the FSF anything- thats the point- you can use
modify and redistribute Emacs & Gnus for free in accordance with the
GPL.
So its OK to use free software but contributing to it is where you have
the problem?
> > I think he ought to consider how he's subverting the text editor &
> > newsreader markets by using a FSF alternative.
>
> You make a very bad assumption that shows the foolhardy nature of
> syntactic assumptions: I routinely pay those markets money for
> programs I don't use just on the hope that they will come out with
> product, and just because I value having them come out with new
> releases of products.
Thats fine- but the fact remains you're using Emacs and GNUS which
certainly benefit from student's labor, perhaps unknowingly financed by
their parents.
I neither know nor care what software you buy and attempt to help
finance- I think thats a good and important thing to do, however I will
observe you avail yourself of free software when for-profit alternatives
exist and then take issue with how the free software community does
business and how it hurts the for-profit's business.
If I had issues with free software I would avoid running it wherever and
whenever possible. Likewise, I have considerable problems with
Microsoft and avoid their products until I'm forced to use them.
> It doesn't matter what the per-unit cost is, as long as no one can
> undercut it. When they do undercut it, the people charging the price
> of the item can't compete.
And by using the free products, you help perpetuate undercutting the
for-profit products. Its nice that you also buy other software but it
doesn't change the fact. Unless as you alluded to that its OK to use
free software, just not contribute to it.
>
> > > > Raffael Cavallaro has put his money where his mouth is, since his posts
> > > > indicate he's using Unison and google yields pages that suggest it costs
> > > > $25 to download.
> > > >
> >
> > And as a followup to myself, since Unison seems to be an OS X product
> > then Raffael's probably using OS X. If this is so perhaps he will
> > explain to us how he reconciles his position on free software with his
> > use of BSD licensed software on his own computer's OS- he paid Apple of
> > course, but by his arguments, no payment has been made to the authors of
> > the BSD portions of the OS.
>
> He doesn't need to.
I think he should if we are to take him seriously. Since free software
is such an economic issue for him as well, his choice of personal
software is interesting.
>
> This is an out of bounds debate strategy.
> You should be ashamed.
I don't think so. It speaks to actions in comparison to words.
Gregm
Greg Menke wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
> > Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > But you have no right just assuming nor implying in a passive
> > aggressive way that I am some sort of leach that must answer for
> > myself or be silent. A person has a right to an opinion on this
> > issue whether they can answer to your charges or not.
> >
> > I don't owe the free software community a dime. Not just because I
> > have done my bit for the cause, but also because the free software
> > community explicitly serves those who don't pay it back. That's part
> > of their paradigm. If it was just an honor system with a required
> > collection, it would be called Shareware.
>
> I know you don't owe the FSF anything- thats the point- you can use
> modify and redistribute Emacs & Gnus for free in accordance with the
> GPL.
>
> So its OK to use free software but contributing to it is where you have
> the problem?
>
>
Contributing bug fix or enhancement to the GPL'ed application or
library is way different from making your whole application, which has
vastly different functionality from that GPL'ed library, becomes GPL
also because you linked to some GPL'ed library.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3bqr680td.fsf@athena.pienet>
"Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Greg Menke wrote:
> > Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> >
> > > Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > But you have no right just assuming nor implying in a passive
> > > aggressive way that I am some sort of leach that must answer for
> > > myself or be silent. A person has a right to an opinion on this
> > > issue whether they can answer to your charges or not.
> > >
> > > I don't owe the free software community a dime. Not just because I
> > > have done my bit for the cause, but also because the free software
> > > community explicitly serves those who don't pay it back. That's part
> > > of their paradigm. If it was just an honor system with a required
> > > collection, it would be called Shareware.
> >
> > I know you don't owe the FSF anything- thats the point- you can use
> > modify and redistribute Emacs & Gnus for free in accordance with the
> > GPL.
> >
> > So its OK to use free software but contributing to it is where you have
> > the problem?
> >
> >
>
> Contributing bug fix or enhancement to the GPL'ed application or
> library is way different from making your whole application, which has
> vastly different functionality from that GPL'ed library, becomes GPL
> also because you linked to some GPL'ed library.
In which case I would have chosen the library to which I linked poorly.
If I wanted my app to be other than GPL'ed when linked with some
library, I should have ensured the other library is LGPL. If I really
need its functionality and it is GPL, then I am free to re-write a non
GPL version of that and use that instead. I don't see the problem here-
all provisions of the GPL vs LGPL are known ahead of time.
Gregm
Kent M Pitman wrote:
<snipped>
> I object to parents paying for free software unknowingly; I think
> people should be taught that their parents must be told when they
> are funding these efforts, how much time is involved, and what the
> economic return is.
This is flawed; I don't know of *any* FSF and/or GPL software
thats being subsidised by parents. I would like to know how
*you* know that they're being subsidised by parents.
<snipped>
goose,
From: Cor Gest
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87vephseua.fsf@atthis.clsnet.nl>
Some entity AKA "goose" <····@webmail.co.za>
wrote this mindboggling stuff, while thinking about the OS-BBQ.
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> > I object to parents paying for free software unknowingly; I think
> > people should be taught that their parents must be told when they
> > are funding these efforts, how much time is involved, and what the
> > economic return is.
>
> This is flawed; I don't know of *any* FSF and/or GPL software
> thats being subsidised by parents. I would like to know how
> *you* know that they're being subsidised by parents.
All governments subsidize too, since they do not collect any taxes from
those pimple-faced-do-gooders who churn out code at zero-price-a-bucket.
Nor is any sales tax collected from users for avoiding priced
articles on which sales-tax would be due.
We are Doomed!
Cor
--
Principles stop when mortgage is due
If everything else failed to satisfy you, try reading The Frign' Manual
I do not use Windows (tm) therefore I do not fear mail from strangers
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/*X")))
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecksb4.h3j.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-28, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>> I object to parents paying for free software unknowingly; I think
>> people should be taught that their parents must be told when they
>> are funding these efforts, how much time is involved, and what the
>> economic return is.
>
> This is flawed; I don't know of *any* FSF and/or GPL software
> thats being subsidised by parents. I would like to know how
> *you* know that they're being subsidised by parents.
>
Many college students on an allowance from their parents and this allows
them the leasure time to write code if they choose to.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> On 2006-07-28, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>>
>><snipped>
>>
>>> I object to parents paying for free software unknowingly; I think
>>> people should be taught that their parents must be told when they
>>> are funding these efforts, how much time is involved, and what the
>>> economic return is.
>>
>> This is flawed; I don't know of *any* FSF and/or GPL software
>> thats being subsidised by parents. I would like to know how
>> *you* know that they're being subsidised by parents.
>>
>
> Many college students on an allowance from their parents and this allows
> them the leasure time to write code if they choose to.
What's terrible, is that McDonalds is subsidized by parents too!
Many college students on an allowance from their parents accept
underpayed McDo jobs to get some more change money. If their parents
didn't give them an allowance, they'd have to ask the true price of
their time to McDo.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
In deep sleep hear sound,
Cat vomit hairball somewhere.
Will find in morning.
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecnikd.mo6.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-28, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
> marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>
>> On 2006-07-28, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>>>
>>><snipped>
>>>
>>>> I object to parents paying for free software unknowingly; I think
>>>> people should be taught that their parents must be told when they
>>>> are funding these efforts, how much time is involved, and what the
>>>> economic return is.
>>>
>>> This is flawed; I don't know of *any* FSF and/or GPL software
>>> thats being subsidised by parents. I would like to know how
>>> *you* know that they're being subsidised by parents.
>>>
>>
>> Many college students on an allowance from their parents and this allows
>> them the leasure time to write code if they choose to.
>
> What's terrible, is that McDonalds is subsidized by parents too!
>
> Many college students on an allowance from their parents accept
> underpayed McDo jobs to get some more change money. If their parents
> didn't give them an allowance, they'd have to ask the true price of
> their time to McDo.
Pascal,
First of all you are smarter then the above argument.
Perhaps the parents can not, or will not, come up with pocket money.
So little johnny gets the best job he can and it is a shitty one
that has low pay, worked there, but it does keep him in Mountian
Dew and chips. Now as his skills progress and or as opertunity
presents itself there is nothing stoping him from getting a better
job.
But my argument is simply that many parrents did give there kids
"beer money" and because of this the kid has the free time to work
on open source stuff, because he is being subsidized by mom and
dad. And if the parents figured out he was spending 20 hrs/week
working on this, at there expence, he has 20 hrs/week to work for
pay and there is no need for the allowance.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <ur704nkx9.fsf@nhplace.com>
marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> But my argument is simply that many parrents did give there kids
> "beer money" and because of this the kid has the free time to work
> on open source stuff, because he is being subsidized by mom and
> dad. And if the parents figured out he was spending 20 hrs/week
> working on this, at there expence, he has 20 hrs/week to work for
> pay and there is no need for the allowance.
Some parents may well give beer money. And maybe some assume that
their kids have liesure time to burn. That wasn't my experience. It
was clear to me that my mother wanted me to be financially independent,
and that while she was willing to help me get kickstarted, she didn't
want me turning money she had scraped for and turning it into liesure.
So while I'll admit there may be people with more money to throw
around than my family, can we agree that there are families where the
model is "you're able to decide what should be liesure time when
you're supplying all of your own income, and when you're still asking
someone for money, you're not working enough"?
In some cases, the child will pay back the money, but not always.
And even when they do, the instance rate of them paying appropriate
interest to truly model the cost of the money they are consuming is
surely far from 100%.
But beyond this, a lot of parents hear that their kid is off doing
"computer stuff" and since that's what his degree program is, they
assume he is "preparing himself for the industry". But he may well be
"making sure there is not such an industry". I think parents have a
right to know this. And often parents are not literate in this area.
By contrast, parents are literate in questions of whether McD's is a
good expenditure of time. Some parents might say "I'm glad to see
he's got a job" and others might say "I'm paying too much to have him
fritter away his would-be study time on such a low-paid activity", but
in either case I think most parents are competent to analyze this
situation exactly because this analysis has not fundamentally changed
in the time since they were in school and had to make similar choices.
The computer industry has changed, and this makes it tricky for parents
to know except in the rare cases that the parent is in the same area
of expertise and is aware.
Although not all parents of college students are "working class", a
lot of "working class" parents sacrifice their lives to pay for their
child to get an education as a "ticket out" of the kind of poverty
they had to live with in their lifetime. Some number of them would
surely be offended to learn that their child had signed voluntarily
onto a political movement that enshrines "pay by the hour" as the way
their chosen profession will go. Those kids are surely old enough to
decide for themselves, but they may sometimes find their parents
disagree to an extent that the funding falls out when proper
disclosure is made.
It used to be that the distinguishing characteristic of "adults" was
that they had lived the lives that their children would live, and
could at least aspire to advise them on what was going to happen and
how to handle it because of direct experience. The world now changes
so fast that they may not always have direct experience. This doesn't
mean that parents have no wisdom to offer--but it may mean that
substantially more disclosure is required by the youth about how
things are going because the parent cannot appeal to their own
experience to fill in for communication lapse.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
<snipped>
> But beyond this, a lot of parents hear that their kid is off doing
> "computer stuff" and since that's what his degree program is, they
> assume he is "preparing himself for the industry". But he may well be
> "making sure there is not such an industry". I think parents have a
> right to know this. And often parents are not literate in this area.
Kent, you are absolutely correct, parents should in fact know that
their children are having an economic effect (whether good or bad).
Can you please point out which free software project run by students
is currently a danger to a commercial enterprise? Thanks.
(Note: I knocked down this argument in a previous reply to Marc,
perhaps you could respond to that instead as it is more in depth).
> they had to live with in their lifetime. Some number of them would
> surely be offended to learn that their child had signed voluntarily
> onto a political movement that enshrines "pay by the hour" as the way
> their chosen profession will go.
You mean like lawyers, doctors, engineers and other professionals?
> Those kids are surely old enough to
> decide for themselves, but they may sometimes find their parents
> disagree to an extent that the funding falls out when proper
> disclosure is made.
>
I seriously doubt that. Maybe *you* think that kids should
"toe the line" and bow to the corporate overlords; many parents
would rather have the kids be independent and successfull, which
in many cases is merely billing per hour like any other professional.
Let me put it *this* way; All the parents I know will be *proud* of a
kid who, while studying, can turn out a solution which puts a
corporations solution to shame.
If a company is having trouble competing against kids with
hardly any experience, then either the kid is exceptional or
the company is shoddy.
> It used to be that the distinguishing characteristic of "adults" was
> that they had lived the lives that their children would live, and
> could at least aspire to advise them on what was going to happen and
> how to handle it because of direct experience. The world now changes
> so fast that they may not always have direct experience.
This isn't true.
goose,
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <u4px0m2d8.fsf@nhplace.com>
"goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> <snipped>
> > But beyond this, a lot of parents hear that their kid is off doing
> > "computer stuff" and since that's what his degree program is, they
> > assume he is "preparing himself for the industry". But he may well be
> > "making sure there is not such an industry". I think parents have a
> > right to know this. And often parents are not literate in this area.
>
> Kent, you are absolutely correct, parents should in fact know that
> their children are having an economic effect (whether good or bad).
>
> Can you please point out which free software project run by students
> is currently a danger to a commercial enterprise? Thanks.
To my knowledge, "best practices" in ethical disclosure is not to first
determine that something is a risk and then disclose, but rather to
disclose and allow the disclosee to decide what risks they are
interested in hearing about.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
>
> > Kent M Pitman wrote:
> >
> > <snipped>
> > > But beyond this, a lot of parents hear that their kid is off doing
> > > "computer stuff" and since that's what his degree program is, they
> > > assume he is "preparing himself for the industry". But he may well be
> > > "making sure there is not such an industry". I think parents have a
> > > right to know this. And often parents are not literate in this area.
> >
> > Kent, you are absolutely correct, parents should in fact know that
> > their children are having an economic effect (whether good or bad).
> >
> > Can you please point out which free software project run by students
> > is currently a danger to a commercial enterprise? Thanks.
>
> To my knowledge, "best practices" in ethical disclosure is not to first
> determine that something is a risk and then disclose, but rather to
> disclose and allow the disclosee to decide what risks they are
> interested in hearing about.
However, saying to the parent that their kid is "destroying their
future industry" is *very* different from saying "not asking
for payment".
Adding in your bias to the "disclosure" is silly; why would a
student hide the fact that they write free software? They see
no wrong in it.
goose,
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <ud5boaqno.fsf@nhplace.com>
"goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
> Adding in your bias to the "disclosure" is silly; why would a
> student hide the fact that they write free software? They see
> no wrong in it.
For the reason that people usually don't disclose things: they aren't
taught to because it doesn't occur to them that there is any different
point of view in the world than their own, or that anyone would ever
object to something they do because of such a different point of view.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>
>> But my argument is simply that many parrents did give there kids
>> "beer money" and because of this the kid has the free time to work
>> on open source stuff, because he is being subsidized by mom and
>> dad. And if the parents figured out he was spending 20 hrs/week
>> working on this, at there expence, he has 20 hrs/week to work for
>> pay and there is no need for the allowance.
>
> Some parents may well give beer money. And maybe some assume that
> their kids have liesure time to burn. That wasn't my experience. It
> was clear to me that my mother wanted me to be financially independent,
> and that while she was willing to help me get kickstarted, she didn't
> want me turning money she had scraped for and turning it into liesure.
So... When you were a kid, you had to buy your own food?
> The computer industry has changed,
Yes, it has. It seems like you'd rather it changed back. But at least
you're past denial, eh? :)
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrneco5i2.6jg.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-30, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
>
> So... When you were a kid, you had to buy your own food?
When I was going to college I paid for my food, my tuition, rent etc.
I went part time because I needed to work full time to meet expences.
Also college is generally for the 18+ crowd, they are called adults.
>
>> The computer industry has changed,
>
> Yes, it has. It seems like you'd rather it changed back. But at least
> you're past denial, eh? :)
and what step are you at?
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-07-30, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
>>
>>
>> So... When you were a kid, you had to buy your own food?
>
> When I was going to college I paid for my food, my tuition, rent etc.
> I went part time because I needed to work full time to meet expences.
>
> Also college is generally for the 18+ crowd, they are called adults.
Kent wasn't specific as to what age group he's talking about. He just said
that parents should be aware that they may be funding the destruction of
the software industry. This didn't give me the image of young adults at
college, but school kids living at home.
Either way, I'm going to have a problem any parent who's going to cut
their children off because they do things in their spare time they could
get paid for.
This is a completely different issue from the parent thinking their child
should be doing some work to support themselves: in civilised societies
people who go to college and work still have spare time, and no parent
should be punishing their children because they do, during that time,
things which they could be paid for.
In my town, one of the volunteer positions is that of a first aider.
People who do that save paramedics the hassle of dealing with less serious
cases. Without anyone volunteering, unless they wanted to allow accidents
to go untreated, they'd have to pay somebody to do it.
The argument against voluntary work would be that if I provide first aid
without being paid, I'm denying somebody who wants to be paid to provide
first aid the opportunity to do so.
This presumes that one volunteer first aider equals one paid first aider.
More likely is that for the cost of training and equiping a team of
(picking a number at random) five volunteer first aiders, they could only
afford a single paid first aider.
The (somewhat incredulous, in my view) counterargument is that if there
were no volunteers at all, the health service would magically have more
money and would be able to afford to have five or more paid first aiders.
I can tell you with certainty that if my parents were supporting me, and
if they threatened to cut me off because I was volunteering as a first
aider, I'd opt for volunteering.
The notion that voluntarily doing work you could be paid for is a social
ill and parents aught to be warned is completely alien to me, and whilst
you may believe that providing free software is different in some way
which is significant to the argument from providing free first aid, I
don't agree.
I think the *only* reason you think volunteer programming deserves special
attention is that you make a living or hope to make a living from selling
your proprietary software, and as such you're inherently biased.
>>> The computer industry has changed,
>>
>> Yes, it has. It seems like you'd rather it changed back. But at least
>> you're past denial, eh? :)
>
> and what step are you at?
Mu. I'm not grieving the demise of the old computer industry. :)
> marc
>
> --
> ······@sdf.lonestar.org
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3lkqb67ru.fsf@athena.pienet>
Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, marc spitzer wrote:
>
> > On 2006-07-30, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> >>> The computer industry has changed,
> >>
> >> Yes, it has. It seems like you'd rather it changed back. But at least
> >> you're past denial, eh? :)
> >
> > and what step are you at?
>
> Mu. I'm not grieving the demise of the old computer industry. :)
>
Its still around, sadly enough. My dad uses a suite of for-profit
software to help him operate his observatory and take pictures and a
such a collection of unresponsive vendors selling bug-ridden, flaky and
poorly designed software its not been my misfortune to see anywhere else
yet.
There is generally little open source in the amateur observatory racket,
principally because most all the software is there to operate dedicated
hardware so there is little competition or incentive for the vendors to
be responsive to their customers.
As an anecdotal point, for 8 years or so up until late 2000 my father
ran a business building and selling fiberglass observatories to the
amateur market (many pro operations bought them too) and I did the
computer controls for the dome; it slaved the dome opening with the
scope, read weather sensors and closed up the dome when rain was
detected or the wind blows up enough and a few other things. We open
sourced all the client software, documented all protocols and interfaces
both software and electrical, and published the board schematics. The
only thing we didn't release is the firmware in the microcontroller,
though the control model was simple enough that a reasonably skilled
programmer could cook it up without much trouble. The microcontroller
code was a compiled dialect of Basic running on PIC16C77 devices with
just enough assembly to do the input sampling- nothing exotic in the
least.
Several thousand of the observatories and the computer controls were
sold worldwide (and continue to be sold since my father sold the
business). While I was there the company had 6 full-time employees, had
401k plans and grossed just under a million $ a year for several
consecutive years.
We thought about the possibilites of someone reverse engineering the
microcontroller and selling their own control system, in the end we
decided the risk was minimal for several reasons; a control system isn't
as easy as it looks, so a reverse engineer is going to have to do a lot
of work and our prices were not what the market would bear instead being
computed on the basis of SWAG estimates of the amortized costs of
development and assembly plus "reasonable" profit so it was unlikely we
would be considerably undercut on price. In fact we never bothered with
patents on the control system hardware or software much less protection
measures of the IP. I also felt and feel that there was little
motivation to reverse engineer the controller or sell a 3rd party
version of it because we made our systems so easy to interface with- and
perhaps more importantly, made responding to all users priority #1 no
matter how old their systems were.
This facilitated an excellent rapport with our users and we remain in
contact with several of them 3 or 4 years after the business changed
hands- my dad collaborates with a few of them doing long-term
observations of asteroids.
Our choice to make the system as fully open as we reasonably could was
greeted with considerable enthusiasm by the user community. In fact
several people exploited various of the control interfaces to set up
their own automated observatory systems. Other hardware vendors also
used our open source client software to integrate their own functions;
camera controllers and observation sequencers, for example. Since all
our source was open, there was no licensing barrier to interoperate with
our software so people did so. We received updates to our client
software on several occasions when other vendors added hooks into their
systems. I don't think we had students working on our client software
but I'm pretty sure a university prof did.
I will also observe that the closed source vendors we set up interfaces
to were without exception a pain to deal with because of the licensing,
software development kit purchases and no documentation. And given the
closed source, there was no opportunity to make the systems interoperate
better and no motive on the part of the vendors to do so since we were
doing the work to interface to their software.
Now that is anecdotal evidence of the operation of open source in a
market, but short of Kent's unfortunate example is now only the second
piece of actual data that has been presented. Perhaps if actual cases
were presented in this argument instead of rhetoric, we could develop
the theme on a more realistic basis.
Gregm
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecomg7.3qq.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-30, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, marc spitzer wrote:
>
>> On 2006-07-30, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So... When you were a kid, you had to buy your own food?
>>
>> When I was going to college I paid for my food, my tuition, rent etc.
>> I went part time because I needed to work full time to meet expences.
>>
>> Also college is generally for the 18+ crowd, they are called adults.
>
> Kent wasn't specific as to what age group he's talking about. He just said
> that parents should be aware that they may be funding the destruction of
> the software industry. This didn't give me the image of young adults at
> college, but school kids living at home.
>
I find that misreading hard to believe amdI think I did specificly mention
college.
> Either way, I'm going to have a problem any parent who's going to cut
> their children off because they do things in their spare time they could
> get paid for.
There *adult* children you mean right. The operative word being adult.
And the point I am making is it is not their spare time it is the time
there parrents paid for with the allowance. Now do not the parents have
the right to decied if little johnny should continue getting their money,
keep in mind little johnny is not so little and has a skill that can earn
him money and the time to earn it.
>
> This is a completely different issue from the parent thinking their child
> should be doing some work to support themselves: in civilised societies
> people who go to college and work still have spare time, and no parent
> should be punishing their children because they do, during that time,
> things which they could be paid for.
How did refusing to fund the leasure time of an adult become
punishmint? All that is being asked of johnny is that since you
are able to work and have time to work please work if you want to
have some spending money in your pocket. And I am not talking
about tuition or room and board just pocket money here.
>
> In my town, one of the volunteer positions is that of a first aider.
> People who do that save paramedics the hassle of dealing with less serious
> cases. Without anyone volunteering, unless they wanted to allow accidents
> to go untreated, they'd have to pay somebody to do it.
who said you can not volunteer after you finish your classes and
part time job? Or get paid for it as your part time job. Or talk
it over with the parents and see if it is something that they are
willing to fund.
>
> The argument against voluntary work would be that if I provide first aid
> without being paid, I'm denying somebody who wants to be paid to provide
> first aid the opportunity to do so.
No the argument against volunteer services is that there is no
reasonable gaurentee that the volunteer will be there. Now with
a paid person you can expect that person to be there and be qualified
and able to provide assistance. You can also have higher standards
because you are paying for it.
>
> This presumes that one volunteer first aider equals one paid first aider.
> More likely is that for the cost of training and equiping a team of
> (picking a number at random) five volunteer first aiders, they could only
> afford a single paid first aider.
and they still may get better coverage with the one employee.
>
> The (somewhat incredulous, in my view) counterargument is that if there
> were no volunteers at all, the health service would magically have more
> money and would be able to afford to have five or more paid first aiders.
based on a ~40 hr week you will need at least 5 full time people
to provide 24x7 coverage, now how many volunteers will you need to
provide that level of coverage? also how many support volunteers
do you need to provide to organize the volunteers to provide
coverage? And how do you make them work bad shifts or do the
unpleasent part of the job?
>
> I can tell you with certainty that if my parents were supporting me, and
> if they threatened to cut me off because I was volunteering as a first
> aider, I'd opt for volunteering.
Fine your choice. But what if your parents were making sacrafices
because they thought it was nessasary and then they find out that
not all of them are needed? is it not reasonable for them to not
make the unneed ones any more?
>
> The notion that voluntarily doing work you could be paid for is a social
> ill and parents aught to be warned is completely alien to me, and whilst
> you may believe that providing free software is different in some way
> which is significant to the argument from providing free first aid, I
> don't agree.
It is different in many substantial ways, and I think you were trying to
misdirect this trhead into an off topic area that is more favorable to the
point you were trying to make.
>
> I think the *only* reason you think volunteer programming deserves special
> attention is that you make a living or hope to make a living from selling
> your proprietary software, and as such you're inherently biased.
>
Neither I am a SA by trade. My argument was that it was not your
time but the person who is paying for it, ie the parents. And If
you can work you should to lessen their burden. Ie start acting
like an adult.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: HL
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86hcz87mia.fsf@agora.my.domain>
Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> Kent wasn't specific as to what age group he's talking about. He just
> said that parents should be aware that they may be funding the
> destruction of the software industry. This didn't give me the image of
> young adults at college, but school kids living at home.
>
If you're funding a monopoply (Microsoft) you're destroying the
industry.
marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-07-28, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
> >
> > Kent M Pitman wrote:
> >
> ><snipped>
> >
> >> I object to parents paying for free software unknowingly; I think
> >> people should be taught that their parents must be told when they
> >> are funding these efforts, how much time is involved, and what the
> >> economic return is.
> >
> > This is flawed; I don't know of *any* FSF and/or GPL software
> > thats being subsidised by parents. I would like to know how
> > *you* know that they're being subsidised by parents.
> >
>
> Many college students on an allowance from their parents and this allows
> them the leasure time to write code if they choose to.
>
I suppose you can find me a link to software written by college
students that's threatening commercial software?
FCOL! If a commercial enterprise is in danger from some
*students* then either:
a) The students are exceptional, in which case they
don't need to be subsidised to be a danger to other
developers.
b) The commercial enterprise is producing crap software
in which case they are threatened by everyone.
Slick, Polished, User-friendly, Robust, Secure, Desirable
and Marketable are all words that I fail to associate with
student-software.
So please, show me that parent-subsidised software
is actually of any threat.
If you make the claim, then back it up. If you are
unable to back it up then at least retract it and make
a less extreme statement.
"Subsidised developers are a threat to developer
salaries" is a statement I would possibly agree with.
"Students writing software are an economic threat"
is at best, a load of BS and at worst, a deliberate
policy of misinformation.
goose,
I'm a part-time student, and I've *seen* student
written software.
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecnis0.mo6.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-29, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>
> marc spitzer wrote:
>> On 2006-07-28, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>> >
>> > Kent M Pitman wrote:
>> >
>> ><snipped>
>> >
>> >> I object to parents paying for free software unknowingly; I think
>> >> people should be taught that their parents must be told when they
>> >> are funding these efforts, how much time is involved, and what the
>> >> economic return is.
>> >
>> > This is flawed; I don't know of *any* FSF and/or GPL software
>> > thats being subsidised by parents. I would like to know how
>> > *you* know that they're being subsidised by parents.
>> >
>>
>> Many college students on an allowance from their parents and this allows
>> them the leasure time to write code if they choose to.
>>
>
> I suppose you can find me a link to software written by college
> students that's threatening commercial software?
That is not my argument and you know it.
marc
marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-07-29, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
> >
> > marc spitzer wrote:
> >> On 2006-07-28, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Kent M Pitman wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snipped>
> >> >
> >> >> I object to parents paying for free software unknowingly; I think
> >> >> people should be taught that their parents must be told when they
> >> >> are funding these efforts, how much time is involved, and what the
> >> >> economic return is.
> >> >
> >> > This is flawed; I don't know of *any* FSF and/or GPL software
> >> > thats being subsidised by parents. I would like to know how
> >> > *you* know that they're being subsidised by parents.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Many college students on an allowance from their parents and this allows
> >> them the leasure time to write code if they choose to.
> >>
> >
> > I suppose you can find me a link to software written by college
> > students that's threatening commercial software?
>
> That is not my argument and you know it.
>
TBH, I actually did not know it. Seriously, no offence meant, but I
thought that that was the argument.
OTOH, this is definately Kents argument, as he is still posting
that college kids are destroying their future industry (further
downthread?).
sorry.
goose,
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrneco4v0.6jg.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-29, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>
> marc spitzer wrote:
>> On 2006-07-29, goose <····@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>> >
>> > I suppose you can find me a link to software written by college
>> > students that's threatening commercial software?
>>
>> That is not my argument and you know it.
>>
>
> TBH, I actually did not know it. Seriously, no offence meant, but I
> thought that that was the argument.
none taken. Perhaps I should have been clearer.
>
> OTOH, this is definately Kents argument, as he is still posting
> that college kids are destroying their future industry (further
> downthread?).
I will not comment on Kents arguments, he has a much better idea
what he is saying and does a better job presenting his arguments.
>
> sorry.
> goose,
for what, honest mistakes happen. I make enough of them to know that.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, goose wrote:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> I object to parents paying for free software unknowingly; I think
>> people should be taught that their parents must be told when they
>> are funding these efforts, how much time is involved, and what the
>> economic return is.
>
> This is flawed; I don't know of *any* FSF and/or GPL software
> thats being subsidised by parents. I would like to know how
> *you* know that they're being subsidised by parents.
What Kent means, I think, is that young people living at home might be
working on free software for no pay, and their parents should have the
right to know that their children are doing for free something which they
could be paid for.
Just like how, if children are drawing pictures in their spare time,
parents have the *right* to know that, because the pictures *could* be
copied and sold.
And if children are humming to themselves whilst walking through a school
corridor, teachers should immediately rush to the parents to tell them
about it, on the basis that the tune the children are humming *could* be
recorded and sold.
Presumably, if a child is thinking up a story in his head, the parents
have the right to fully interrogate the child to determine if the story
might be marketable.
Why, if a parent missed out on an opportunity to exploit their children's
creative impulses for monetary gain, that'd be crazy. That's practically
communism.
This is, of course, irony. It seems to me Kent is basically saying that
parents should bare the responsibility if their kids are voluntarily
writing software which threatens a *legitimate* programmer's interests. I
think that's nonsense.
> <snipped>
> goose,
On 2006-07-28 06:58:09 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> If this is so perhaps he will
> explain to us how he reconciles his position on free software with his
> use of BSD licensed software on his own computer's OS- he paid Apple of
> course, but by his arguments, no payment has been made to the authors of
> the BSD portions of the OS.
I have been quite consistent in distinguishing between infrastructure
software, which is a common good that most programmers use every day to
get their jobs done, and end-user software which is not used by
programmers to get their jobs done.
If programmers contribute to infrastructure software the programmer
jobs and revenue lost to this free infrastructure software is balanced
by the convenience of having widely reviewed, often upgraded, fairly
standard tools to do one's programming work with. That is, programmers
forego some income in exchange for having good tools. This is no
different than, for example, bricklayers sharing with eachother various
tricks of the trade that let them lay bricks more quickly and cheaply.
They forego the potential income from each one writing "Master Secrets
of the Masonry Trade" or "Bricklaying for Dummines" in exchange for all
sharing with each other the hard won insights of their years of brick
laying experience. Infrastructure software makes programmers' jobs
easier. It allows a great deal of code reuse.
Giving away end-user software is quite different from a programmer
perspective. From a programmer perspective this is just lost revenue
and/of lost programmer jobs because most programmers will not use
GNU-Medical-Office-Manager 1.0 to do their job - most will not use it
at all. Giving away end-user software is the equivalent of bricklayers
giving away their services to build someone's patio wall or someone's
house. This is just lost revenue because it is in no way balanced by
making all of their their jobs easier to do.
Note that giving away both infrastructure software and end-user
software look exactly the same from a non-programmer, consumer
perspective. But to the programmer they're quite different because s/he
uses one to earn a living and the other s/he may or may not use at all.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3irlh31jb.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-28 06:58:09 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > If this is so perhaps he will
> > explain to us how he reconciles his position on free software with his
> > use of BSD licensed software on his own computer's OS- he paid Apple of
> > course, but by his arguments, no payment has been made to the authors of
> > the BSD portions of the OS.
>
> I have been quite consistent in distinguishing between infrastructure
> software, which is a common good that most programmers use every day to
> get their jobs done, and end-user software which is not used by
> programmers to get their jobs done.
The problem is your arbitrary definition of "infrastructure" and the
fact that it also means different things in different applications.
Certainly an IP stack or C compiler are more "infrastructure-like" than
Gimp from our perspective, but there well could be people who view Gimp
as infrastructure alongside the OS for their work.
I'm not sure what "end-user" software is either. I routinely use email
clients, web browsers, gnuplot, xv, xpdf, staroffice, xcdroast, gimp and
even have used mplayer for my work. If I did much with audio, I imagine
I'd be using mpg123 or equiv as well as audio manipulation tools.
This is a mixture of end-user software (assuming a vague notion that
such software does something "user-interfacey" as its output and isn't
an integral part of an extended software process) and infrastructure
software. But to me, by your definition, its all infrastructure since I
use them all to varying degrees for work. There is commercial software
that does some of what programs from the aforementioned list do,
sometimes better and in some cases I will buy & use it.
Gregm
On 2006-07-28 16:41:28 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> The problem is your arbitrary definition of "infrastructure" and the
> fact that it also means different things in different applications.
Not arbitrary at all but rather something that should be the *core* of
this discussion.
In other words the real questions programmers should be asking are:
1. "What is the class of software that we as a group benefit from
collectively (infrastructure) and should therefore work on collectively
in an open source manner."
2. "What is the class of software that is really for use by end users
not programmers and which should not be given away for free lest it
reduce the number of programmer jobs and drive down programmer wages
and salaries."
We don't get to this discussion, the really important one, until we
move past the obstinacy of automatically claiming that *all* software
should be free, and that free software *never* reduces the number of
programmer jobs and *never* drives down programmer wages and salaries.
Once we get to a point in the discussion where reasonable people admit
that free software can reduce programmer jobs and can drive down
programmer wages and salaries, then we can have the real discussion
which is:
"What is infrastructure software and so should be free" (i.e., the net
benefit to programmers in making their jobs easier is outweighed by the
lost revenue due to making this software free)
"What is end-user software and so should be charged for" (i.e., the
benefit to programmers of making it free is far outweighed by the lost
revenue due to making this software free)
I think most reasonable people might agree on the extremes:
Infrastructure: OSes, Compilers, general purpose libraries.
End-user: niche market applications, custom apps, libraries of narrow
applicability.
But I think the only interesting discussion (as opposed to the
absolutist "free sofware is always good" v. "free software is always
bad") is the discussion to be had about which software falls into which
category and why.
> Certainly an IP stack or C compiler are more "infrastructure-like" than
> Gimp from our perspective, but there well could be people who view Gimp
> as infrastructure alongside the OS for their work.
>
> I'm not sure what "end-user" software is either. I routinely use email
> clients, web browsers, gnuplot, xv, xpdf, staroffice, xcdroast, gimp and
> even have used mplayer for my work. If I did much with audio, I imagine
> I'd be using mpg123 or equiv as well as audio manipulation tools.
I would say that to qualify as infrastructure one would have to make a
plausible argument that the total number of man-hours saved by
*programmers* using this software to do their jobs - not in their
personal life outside work - would have to out outstrip the total
number of man-hours that could be charged for if it were sold. Thus
most programming tools and general purpose libraries would be
infrastructure while applications for a particular, non-programmer
market would be end-user software.
As for the Gimp I think opinions might differs - some, as you say would
consider it part of a programmer's tool box especially in this current
GUI era - others might see it as an end-user app for graphic designers.
This is the middle ground where there is a reasonable discussion to be
had.
At the other end, I have an app that does iChing readings. I can't see
a reasonable argument for this as part of a programmer's tool set -
it's an end-user app. Giving it away for free is just lost revenue with
no upside of making programming easier, more efficient, faster, etc -
it's just a loss to programmers if it's given away for free. It's
distributed as shareware and I've paid for it.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m364hgrmbd.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-28 16:41:28 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
>
> We don't get to this discussion, the really important one, until we move
> past the obstinacy of automatically claiming that *all* software should
> be free, and that free software *never* reduces the number of programmer
> jobs and *never* drives down programmer wages and salaries.
>
Raffael, no-one in this silly argument as asserted that all software
should be free. What the "pro" free software camp is saying that people
should choose the license they wish their software to be released with-
including for-profit licenses- and they should also be aware of and
accept the consequences.
> But I think the only interesting discussion (as opposed to the
> absolutist "free sofware is always good" v. "free software is always
> bad") is the discussion to be had about which software falls into which
> category and why.
And why your arbitrary distinction is so important. It convienently
takes a huge swath of competition-killing free software and makes it OK,
leaving everything else as "bad" on the basis of an undefined benefit
related to "working programmer hours". It seems to me you would make a
stronger argument by saying ALL free software is bad because it hurts
for-profit releases, then you don't get into making laborious
distinctions betweeen types of software.
> As for the Gimp I think opinions might differs - some, as you say would
> consider it part of a programmer's tool box especially in this current
> GUI era - others might see it as an end-user app for graphic
> designers. This is the middle ground where there is a reasonable
> discussion to be had.
Nope- only 2 categories. You defined them, you have to choose. Is Gimp
"acceptable" free software or not? Its your theory and you claim a
fairly rigorous distinction, stand up and be counted. Or do you think
there should be a vote? No doubt the minority of people who use it as
infrastructure will be able to find some other software if the majority
decides it is not in fact infrastructure and thus bad.
But you're still weaseling out of being specific;
"End-user: niche market applications, custom apps, libraries of narrow
applicability."
is hardly well-defined in comparision to "Infrastructure: OSes,
Compilers, general purpose libraries."
gzip, for example is certainly of narrow applicability or could be
interpreted as such because all it does is compress and uncompress- but
its also general purpose because it can compress and uncompress
arbitrary data for arbitrary apps. How do I choose?
> At the other end, I have an app that does iChing readings. I can't see a
> reasonable argument for this as part of a programmer's tool set -
> it's an end-user app. Giving it away for free is just lost revenue with
> no upside of making programming easier, more efficient, faster, etc -
> it's just a loss to programmers if it's given away for free. It's
> distributed as shareware and I've paid for it.
Well the author decided to release the software as shareware and you
paid for it. The market worked. No-one in this argument is proposing
that the software should be free because thats better than shareware,
only that the programmer should choose how he/she wants their work
released. Perhaps there are fortune tellers who view such software as
infrastructure since its integral to their work, or are only programmers
the ones who judge. What if the fortune teller also writes fortune
telling software in their spare time? Then he/she is also a programmer
and could certainly judge the iChing as infrastructure where you as a
programmer do not. Who is right?
Gregm
On 2006-07-29 20:03:18 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
>> On 2006-07-28 16:41:28 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>>
>>
>> We don't get to this discussion, the really important one, until we move
>> past the obstinacy of automatically claiming that *all* software should
>> be free, and that free software *never* reduces the number of programmer
>> jobs and *never* drives down programmer wages and salaries.
>>
>
> Raffael, no-one in this silly argument as asserted that all software
> should be free. What the "pro" free software camp is saying that people
> should choose the license they wish their software to be released with-
> including for-profit licenses- and they should also be aware of and
> accept the consequences.
But those who choose to release everything as free are in effect
"voting" that all software should be free just as those who release
everything as proprietary are voting the opposite.
Of course it is simply false to say that no one holds that all software
should be free. In fact, there's an organization built on and devoted
entirely to that idea. They're called the Free Software Foundation.
>
>
>> But I think the only interesting discussion (as opposed to the
>> absolutist "free sofware is always good" v. "free software is always
>> bad") is the discussion to be had about which software falls into which
>> category and why.
>
> And why your arbitrary distinction is so important. It convienently
> takes a huge swath of competition-killing free software and makes it OK,
> leaving everything else as "bad" on the basis of an undefined benefit
> related to "working programmer hours". It seems to me you would make a
> stronger argument by saying ALL free software is bad because it hurts
> for-profit releases, then you don't get into making laborious
> distinctions betweeen types of software.
It is a distinction not of my making but one developed by others
looking at free software and attempting to discern what makes for a
widely successful piece of free software. One theory is that the most
successful free software is infrastructure software because it allows
greater leverage so the net revenue lost is more than compensated by
the increases in efficiency due to better tools and code reuse. This is
why linux and apache are widely sucessful - they can be widely used in
many diverse projects, it is therefore in the interests of many firms
and many programmers to contribute fixes and enhancements, and the
revenue lost is therfore compensated by programmer time saved not
reinventing the wheel.
The same cannot be said of end user software because very few if any
programmers' jobs are made significantly more efficient by having the
code of Open Source Veterinary Office Manager 0.3beta - so giving it
away is unbalanced lost revenue.
>
>
>> As for the Gimp I think opinions might differs - some, as you say would
>> consider it part of a programmer's tool box especially in this current
>> GUI era - others might see it as an end-user app for graphic
>> designers. This is the middle ground where there is a reasonable
>> discussion to be had.
>
> Nope- only 2 categories. You defined them, you have to choose. Is Gimp
> "acceptable" free software or not? Its your theory and you claim a
> fairly rigorous distinction, stand up and be counted. Or do you think
> there should be a vote? No doubt the minority of people who use it as
> infrastructure will be able to find some other software if the majority
> decides it is not in fact infrastructure and thus bad.
I have to choose yes, but I would like that choice to be one informed
by data and discussion not an arbitrary guess. If it turns out that
using Gimp saves programmers 5 million hours a year and loses only 200
thousand paid man-hours of programmer work then you could argue that it
is infrastructure. If the other way round, then Gimp shouldn't be free
- it would be a net loss.
>
> But you're still weaseling out of being specific;
>
> "End-user: niche market applications, custom apps, libraries of narrow
> applicability."
>
> is hardly well-defined in comparision to "Infrastructure: OSes,
> Compilers, general purpose libraries."
Well since they're mutally exclusive, If one is well defined then the
other must be as well. If Infrastructure is well defined and you can't
seem to grasp what end-user means then simply define it as everything
that's not infrastructure.
>
> gzip, for example is certainly of narrow applicability or could be
> interpreted as such because all it does is compress and uncompress- but
> its also general purpose because it can compress and uncompress
> arbitrary data for arbitrary apps. How do I choose?
By how widespread its inclusion in the work of programmers it is. See
above discussion of the Gimp.
>
>
>> At the other end, I have an app that does iChing readings. I can't see a
>> reasonable argument for this as part of a programmer's tool set -
>> it's an end-user app. Giving it away for free is just lost revenue with
>> no upside of making programming easier, more efficient, faster, etc -
>> it's just a loss to programmers if it's given away for free. It's
>> distributed as shareware and I've paid for it.
>
> Well the author decided to release the software as shareware and you
> paid for it. The market worked. No-one in this argument is proposing
> that the software should be free because thats better than shareware,
Pretty sure that this is precisely what the FSF is claiming.
> only that the programmer should choose how he/she wants their work
> released. Perhaps there are fortune tellers who view such software as
> infrastructure since its integral to their work, or are only programmers
> the ones who judge. What if the fortune teller also writes fortune
> telling software in their spare time? Then he/she is also a programmer
> and could certainly judge the iChing as infrastructure where you as a
> programmer do not. Who is right?
>
> Gregm
Because programmers should care about programmers - that their
profession. They should not make decisions based on what's good for
fortune tellers.
Advocating free software is effectively claiming that programmers,
uniquely among all professions, do not have the right to consider what
is in the economic interests of their profession. They should rather
only consider what is best for consumers.
Why are programmers subjected to this moral and economic burden when no
other profession is. Wouldn't it really be best for consumers if real
estate agents only charged a 1% comission? Aren't real estate agents
therfore morally required to lower their commission rate? Shouldn't
medical doctors only charge $10.00 an hour for *all* medical procedures
because more people could then afford their sevices?
See how the free software argument when logically extended to other
fields starts to look like "to each according to his need, from each
according to his ability."
Free software is silly because no other profession thinks seriously
about doing these things - they're just economic suicide. Many
programmers not only tolerate this economic self destruction - they
support it. That's what so foolish.
Many here have argued time and again that free software makes *more*
money and *more* jobs for programmers. But the FSF has always known
otherwise. Who do you think has done a more thoughtful analysis of the
issue - a few posters here or the man who started the movement, has
known it in all its details for decades, and who has devoted his life
to it?
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3wt9tz9gp.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-29 20:03:18 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > Raffael Cavallaro
> > <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 2006-07-28 16:41:28 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> >> We don't get to this discussion, the really important one, until we
> >> move
> >> past the obstinacy of automatically claiming that *all* software should
> >> be free, and that free software *never* reduces the number of programmer
> >> jobs and *never* drives down programmer wages and salaries.
> >>
> > Raffael, no-one in this silly argument as asserted that all software
> > should be free. What the "pro" free software camp is saying that people
> > should choose the license they wish their software to be released with-
> > including for-profit licenses- and they should also be aware of and
> > accept the consequences.
>
>
> But those who choose to release everything as free are in effect
> "voting" that all software should be free just as those who release
> everything as proprietary are voting the opposite.
>
> Of course it is simply false to say that no one holds that all software
> should be free. In fact, there's an organization built on and devoted
> entirely to that idea. They're called the Free Software Foundation.
As per above, "Raffael, no-one in this silly argument as asserted that
all software should be free"
> >
> >> As for the Gimp I think opinions might differs - some, as you say would
> >> consider it part of a programmer's tool box especially in this current
> >> GUI era - others might see it as an end-user app for graphic
> >> designers. This is the middle ground where there is a reasonable
> >> discussion to be had.
> > Nope- only 2 categories. You defined them, you have to choose. Is
> > Gimp
> > "acceptable" free software or not? Its your theory and you claim a
> > fairly rigorous distinction, stand up and be counted. Or do you think
> > there should be a vote? No doubt the minority of people who use it as
> > infrastructure will be able to find some other software if the majority
> > decides it is not in fact infrastructure and thus bad.
>
> I have to choose yes, but I would like that choice to be one informed by
> data and discussion not an arbitrary guess. If it turns out that using
> Gimp saves programmers 5 million hours a year and loses only 200
> thousand paid man-hours of programmer work then you could argue that it
> is infrastructure. If the other way round, then Gimp shouldn't be free -
> it would be a net loss.
OK, so go off and collect that data and get back to us with it.
Meantime, I will begin discussing how many angels fit on the heads of
pins- since neither of us can offer data, both assertions can be
considered equally true and we can argue about it.
> > But you're still weaseling out of being specific;
> > "End-user: niche market applications, custom apps, libraries of narrow
> > applicability."
> > is hardly well-defined in comparision to "Infrastructure: OSes,
> > Compilers, general purpose libraries."
>
>
> Well since they're mutally exclusive, If one is well defined then the
> other must be as well. If Infrastructure is well defined and you can't
> seem to grasp what end-user means then simply define it as everything
> that's not infrastructure.
>
So everything that is not an OS, compiler or general purpose library is
"end user software"? For pete's sake...
> >
> >> At the other end, I have an app that does iChing readings. I can't see a
> >> reasonable argument for this as part of a programmer's tool set -
> >> it's an end-user app. Giving it away for free is just lost revenue with
> >> no upside of making programming easier, more efficient, faster, etc -
> >> it's just a loss to programmers if it's given away for free. It's
> >> distributed as shareware and I've paid for it.
> > Well the author decided to release the software as shareware and you
> > paid for it. The market worked. No-one in this argument is proposing
> > that the software should be free because thats better than shareware,
>
> Pretty sure that this is precisely what the FSF is claiming.
But you are having this argument with me, not the FSF. If you don't
like them, go argue with them.
> > only that the programmer should choose how he/she wants their work
> > released. Perhaps there are fortune tellers who view such software as
> > infrastructure since its integral to their work, or are only programmers
> > the ones who judge. What if the fortune teller also writes fortune
> > telling software in their spare time? Then he/she is also a programmer
> > and could certainly judge the iChing as infrastructure where you as a
> > programmer do not. Who is right?
> > Gregm
>
>
> Because programmers should care about programmers - that their
> profession. They should not make decisions based on what's good for
> fortune tellers.
So who is right? You, or the fortune teller/part time programmer?
Gregm
On 2006-07-31 18:38:14 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> So who is right? You, or the fortune teller/part time programmer?
Whose economic interests better describe the economic interests of
programmers as a class - one programmer who happens to be a part-time
fortune teller, or the millions of programmers who are not?
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3hd0w73gd.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-31 18:38:14 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
> > So who is right? You, or the fortune teller/part time programmer?
>
> Whose economic interests better describe the economic interests of
> programmers as a class - one programmer who happens to be a part-time
> fortune teller, or the millions of programmers who are not?
Ah, so we're back to you going out to collect the data from the millions
of programmers about which apps are considered infrastructure and which
aren't. Please keep us informed.
Otherwise, please let other people have their own opinions in peace.
Gregm
On 2006-08-01 13:47:46 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
> Ah, so we're back to you going out to collect the data from the millions
> of programmers about which apps are considered infrastructure and which
> aren't. Please keep us informed.
>
> Otherwise, please let other people have their own opinions in peace.
>
> Gregm
Sorry to leave you hanging, but I've been requested by a correspondent
to this newsgroup to stop posting to this off-topic thread.
regards,
Ralph
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 16:41:28 -0400, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> said:
>
>> The problem is your arbitrary definition of "infrastructure" and the
>> fact that it also means different things in different applications.
>
> Not arbitrary at all but rather something that should be the *core* of this
> discussion.
>
> In other words the real questions programmers should be asking are:
>
> 1. "What is the class of software that we as a group benefit from
> collectively (infrastructure) and should therefore work on collectively in an
> open source manner."
>
> 2. "What is the class of software that is really for use by end users not
> programmers and which should not be given away for free lest it reduce the
> number of programmer jobs and drive down programmer wages and salaries."
Those are *loaded* questions, and are therefore not questions anyone
should be asking.
The real questions humans should be asking are:
1. "What is the class of software that we as group benefit from
collectively and should therefore work on collectively in an open
source manner."
2. "What is the class of software that is really for use by non-humans not
humans and which should not be given away for free less it reduce the
number of human jobs and drive down human wages and salaries."
To accept your questions is to accept the implication that programmers are
better than everyone else and their jobs must be protected even if doing
so harms the larger society.
> We don't get to this discussion, the really important one, until we move past
> the obstinacy of automatically claiming that *all* software should be free,
> and that free software *never* reduces the number of programmer jobs and
> *never* drives down programmer wages and salaries.
>
> Once we get to a point in the discussion where reasonable people admit that
> free software can reduce programmer jobs and can drive down programmer wages
> and salaries, then we can have the real discussion which is:
>
> "What is infrastructure software and so should be free" (i.e., the net
> benefit to programmers in making their jobs easier is outweighed by the lost
> revenue due to making this software free)
>
> "What is end-user software and so should be charged for" (i.e., the benefit
> to programmers of making it free is far outweighed by the lost revenue due to
> making this software free)
>
> I think most reasonable people might agree on the extremes:
>
> Infrastructure: OSes, Compilers, general purpose libraries.
Many reasonable people do *not* agree that any of these should be free,
and many more would not agree that they were "infrastructure" software.
Certainly, OSes are routinely bought by end-users.
Also, Ken Tilton seems pretty sure that nobody should be using free
software. Ever. Only hippies use free software, in his view. Of course,
it's always possible that Ken might not be reasonable.
> End-user: niche market applications, custom apps, libraries of narrow
> applicability.
So now software libraries are "end-user" software if not many people use
them? I guess I'm unreasonable, because I have to disagree with that
definition of "end-user".
> But I think the only interesting discussion (as opposed to the absolutist
> "free sofware is always good" v. "free software is always bad") is the
> discussion to be had about which software falls into which category and why.
That's not an interesting discussion. That's an avoidance of the issue.
Then you can say any free software which has demonstrably been a good
thing is infrastructure, whilst any other free software is end-user.
In reality, "end-user software" is a relative term which depends upon who
the end-users of the entity in question are. To Borland, a compiler is
end-user software. To Microsoft, an OS is end-user software.
>> Certainly an IP stack or C compiler are more "infrastructure-like" than
>> Gimp from our perspective, but there well could be people who view Gimp
>> as infrastructure alongside the OS for their work.
>>
>> I'm not sure what "end-user" software is either. I routinely use email
>> clients, web browsers, gnuplot, xv, xpdf, staroffice, xcdroast, gimp and
>> even have used mplayer for my work. If I did much with audio, I imagine
>> I'd be using mpg123 or equiv as well as audio manipulation tools.
>
> I would say that to qualify as infrastructure one would have to make a
> plausible argument that the total number of man-hours saved by *programmers*
> using this software to do their jobs - not in their personal life outside
> work - would have to out outstrip the total number of man-hours that could be
> charged for if it were sold. Thus most programming tools and general purpose
> libraries would be infrastructure while applications for a particular,
> non-programmer market would be end-user software.
Your entire argument is predicated upon the assumption that everyone
agrees that the Right Thing to do is increase the programmer's lot even if
that means the consumer loses out.
Since consumers vastly out-number programmers, I don't think that the
state of the programmer is a reasonable yardstick by which to measure the
correctness of a business model.
On 2006-07-29 20:17:48 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> To accept your questions is to accept the implication that programmers
> are better than everyone else and their jobs must be protected even if
> doing so harms the larger society.
No, it is to accept that the way economies work is that each individual
and group looks out for its own interests *because no one else will*.
Why shouldn't janitors be primarily concerned with consumers rather
than janitors? Shouldn't janitors voluntarily lower their wages because
that would allow the "larger society" acess to less expensive toilet
cleaning.
Why are programmers uniquely required to put the interests of the
"larger society" ahead of their economic well being? No other
profession is expected to offer their services for free.
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> Why are programmers uniquely required to put the interests of the
> "larger society" ahead of their economic well being? No other
> profession is expected to offer their services for free.
Because we are the biggest job killers.
As a programmer, you have to be ahead of the rest of the society
because eventually your work will deprive of work everybody else.
http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
The way we approach this transformation of the society will be
decisive.
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
CAUTION: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of
85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
On 2006-07-31 12:36:04 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
> As a programmer, you have to be ahead of the rest of the society
> because eventually your work will deprive of work everybody else.
>
> http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
>
> The way we approach this transformation of the society will be
> decisive.
This is thinking based on technological extrapolation without social
extrapolation.
History shows that is is not absolute wealth that people concern
themselves about, but relative wealth and that the distribution of
relative wealth has been very consistent throughout much of history.
In other words, wealth is a status marker for sexual selection and,
being mammals, people are subject to sexual selection.
When robots can do all the work we people will certainly find a way to
differentiate our status regardless of the fact that robots *could* do
all the work. Robotic work force /= equal distribution of wealth and
resources. For starters, some people will have control of more robots
than others. Wanna bet it will still be cheaper to have some people do
menial work?
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-31 12:36:04 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
>
>> As a programmer, you have to be ahead of the rest of the society
>> because eventually your work will deprive of work everybody else.
>> http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
>> The way we approach this transformation of the society will be
>> decisive.
>
> This is thinking based on technological extrapolation without social
> extrapolation.
>
> History shows that is is not absolute wealth that people concern
> themselves about, but relative wealth and that the distribution of
> relative wealth has been very consistent throughout much of history.
>
> In other words, wealth is a status marker for sexual selection and,
> being mammals, people are subject to sexual selection.
Yes, but it seems this behavior is more a problem than a solution in
an advanced civilization. It leads to bad ecological effects.
> When robots can do all the work we people will certainly find a way to
> differentiate our status regardless of the fact that robots *could* do
> all the work. Robotic work force /= equal distribution of wealth and
> resources. For starters, some people will have control of more robots
> than others.
> Wanna bet it will still be cheaper to have some people do
> menial work?
As soon as we have robots making robots, and able to mine deeply and
exploit the solar and geothermal energies, it won't be cheaper.
That said, perhaps some persons will still be interested in doing some
menial works.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
HEALTH WARNING: Care should be taken when lifting this product,
since its mass, and thus its weight, is dependent on its velocity
relative to the user.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 20:17:48 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> To accept your questions is to accept the implication that programmers are
>> better than everyone else and their jobs must be protected even if doing
>> so harms the larger society.
>
> No, it is to accept that the way economies work is that each individual and
> group looks out for its own interests *because no one else will*.
No, the way economies work is that everyone looks out for everyone else's
interests, even if they don't know it, because other people's economic
health is closely related to your own.
This is doubly true for programmers, without whom our modern
information-oriented society would be impossible.
> Why shouldn't janitors be primarily concerned with consumers rather than
> janitors? Shouldn't janitors voluntarily lower their wages because that would
> allow the "larger society" acess to less expensive toilet cleaning.
Nobody is asking janitors to lower their wages. They are, however, saying
that if they want to clean their own floors, janitors shouldn't try and
stop them, even though cleaning your own floor is denying a janitor that
job.
> Why are programmers uniquely required to put the interests of the "larger
> society" ahead of their economic well being? No other profession is expected
> to offer their services for free.
Yet another straw man. As has been stated numerous times, nobody is
expecting programmers to offer their services for free.
On 2006-07-31 17:34:58 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> Yet another straw man. As has been stated numerous times, nobody is
> expecting programmers to offer their services for free.
That's simply untrue - many people here have advocated giving software
- the work product of programmers - away for free. This is offering
services for free.
The fact that there may remain some subset of the services that
programmers can perform that the FSF deigns to consider morally
acceptable to charge for does not change the fact that free software
advocates think that programmers should offer significant amounts of
their services for free.
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3bqr473c8.fsf@athena.pienet>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-07-31 17:34:58 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
> > Yet another straw man. As has been stated numerous times, nobody is
> > expecting programmers to offer their services for free.
>
> That's simply untrue - many people here have advocated giving software -
> the work product of programmers - away for free. This is offering
> services for free.
>
> The fact that there may remain some subset of the services that
> programmers can perform that the FSF deigns to consider morally
> acceptable to charge for does not change the fact that free software
> advocates think that programmers should offer significant amounts of
> their services for free.
No, we think that programmers should CHOOSE if they want to offer SOME
of their services for free or not.
Gregm
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-31 17:34:58 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> Yet another straw man. As has been stated numerous times, nobody is
>> expecting programmers to offer their services for free.
>
> That's simply untrue - many people here have advocated giving software - the
> work product of programmers - away for free. This is offering services for
> free.
>
> The fact that there may remain some subset of the services that programmers
> can perform that the FSF deigns to consider morally acceptable to charge for
> does not change the fact that free software advocates think that programmers
> should offer significant amounts of their services for free.
This is getting boring.
To the extent that the opinion of the FSF is important here (i.e. not at
all), the *only* thing the FSF think that programmers shouldn't get paid
for is *other people* modifying and distributing their work.
Nobody here has said "programmers should not be paid for the work they
do."
Nobody here has said "programmers should not be paid for the work they
do."
Nobody here has said "programmers should not be paid for the work they
do." *
You seem to think that a programmer is providing some kind of "service" by
allowing others to do his work for him, whilst it seems pretty clear that
he is not.
* Saying it once doesn't seem to be enough.
On 2006-08-01 15:37:28 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> This is getting boring.
>
> To the extent that the opinion of the FSF is important here (i.e. not
> at all), the *only* thing the FSF think that programmers shouldn't get
> paid for is *other people* modifying and distributing their work.
>
> Nobody here has said "programmers should not be paid for the work they do."
>
> Nobody here has said "programmers should not be paid for the work they do."
>
> Nobody here has said "programmers should not be paid for the work they do." *
>
> You seem to think that a programmer is providing some kind of "service"
> by allowing others to do his work for him, whilst it seems pretty clear
> that he is not.
>
> * Saying it once doesn't seem to be enough.
Sorry to leave you hanging, but I've been requested by a correspondent
to this newsgroup to stop posting to this off-topic thread.
regards,
Ralph
Greg Menke wrote:
> Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Greg Menke wrote:
> > >>
> > >> (Of course, your "out" is to say that the GPL isn't really "giving
> > >> away" but only the illusion of that, with a politically manipulative
> > >> twist. The Public Domain, and the Berkeley license, would not have
> > >> this problem.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Kent, your newsreader headers show you're using Gnus under Emacs.
> > >
> > >> From: Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com>
> > >> Message-ID: <·············@nhplace.com>
> > >> Organization: My ISP can pay me if they want an ad here.
> > >> Lines: 46
> > >> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
> > >> MIME-Version: 1.0
> > >
> > > Shouldn't you be switching to a for-profit newsreader given your issues
> > > with the FSF? Or, have you negiotiated payment to FSF for Emacs as well
> > > as the authors of Gnus as recompense for you copying and using both?
> >
> > Bit unfair, I think. Kent isn't the one (openly) saying "free software
> > is bad and shouldn't exist."
>
> It doesn't seem unfair at all- if I recall Ken't arguments he has
> problems with free software in general and the FSF in particular. I
> think he ought to consider how he's subverting the text editor &
> newsreader markets by using a FSF alternative. In effect, if he hasn't
> negiotiated some kind of payment to the FSF & Gnus authors (as well as
> the respective authors of the other parts of Emacs he uses), he is
> complicit in the same sort of undermining of software markets that he
> asserts Franz did to him in relation to his own software.
>
I think the fact that Kent uses free mail client and editor only
strenghten his point, that Free software is making trouble to software
industry. It is not making trouble for him as a user, it will only make
trouble for him as a software developer if he is in that area of
development.
In this case, you can consider Kent as any home user, and since a
software is free, a user uses it. Now if you are a mail client software
company you are going to have a harder time keeping in the business.
I think it only proves his point more.
>
> > > Raffael Cavallaro has put his money where his mouth is, since his posts
> > > indicate he's using Unison and google yields pages that suggest it costs
> > > $25 to download.
> > >
>
> And as a followup to myself, since Unison seems to be an OS X product
> then Raffael's probably using OS X. If this is so perhaps he will
> explain to us how he reconciles his position on free software with his
> use of BSD licensed software on his own computer's OS- he paid Apple of
> course, but by his arguments, no payment has been made to the authors of
> the BSD portions of the OS.
>
> Gregm
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m364he80fa.fsf@athena.pienet>
"Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Greg Menke wrote:
> > Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Greg Menke wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> (Of course, your "out" is to say that the GPL isn't really "giving
> > > >> away" but only the illusion of that, with a politically manipulative
> > > >> twist. The Public Domain, and the Berkeley license, would not have
> > > >> this problem.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kent, your newsreader headers show you're using Gnus under Emacs.
> > > >
> > > >> From: Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com>
> > > >> Message-ID: <·············@nhplace.com>
> > > >> Organization: My ISP can pay me if they want an ad here.
> > > >> Lines: 46
> > > >> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
> > > >> MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't you be switching to a for-profit newsreader given your issues
> > > > with the FSF? Or, have you negiotiated payment to FSF for Emacs as well
> > > > as the authors of Gnus as recompense for you copying and using both?
> > >
> > > Bit unfair, I think. Kent isn't the one (openly) saying "free software
> > > is bad and shouldn't exist."
> >
> > It doesn't seem unfair at all- if I recall Ken't arguments he has
> > problems with free software in general and the FSF in particular. I
> > think he ought to consider how he's subverting the text editor &
> > newsreader markets by using a FSF alternative. In effect, if he hasn't
> > negiotiated some kind of payment to the FSF & Gnus authors (as well as
> > the respective authors of the other parts of Emacs he uses), he is
> > complicit in the same sort of undermining of software markets that he
> > asserts Franz did to him in relation to his own software.
> >
>
> I think the fact that Kent uses free mail client and editor only
> strenghten his point, that Free software is making trouble to software
> industry. It is not making trouble for him as a user, it will only make
> trouble for him as a software developer if he is in that area of
> development.
>
> In this case, you can consider Kent as any home user, and since a
> software is free, a user uses it. Now if you are a mail client software
> company you are going to have a harder time keeping in the business.
>
> I think it only proves his point more.
>
What it proves is he has no problem benefitting from other's free
contributions to FSF software while he simultaneously criticizes how its
development model (presumably) damages the careers and earning prospects
of its contributors. This seems inconsistent to say the least because
if the FSF is such a damaging force in the software industry I would
think he would scrupulously avoid using any FSF software in favor of
for-profit products.
If the issue is that Emacs & GNUS contributors don't hurt his business
so why not use it, that seems selfish to me because there are others
who's business is presumably hurt. If he isn't to be bothered with
them, why should they be bothered with him? If FSF contributions are so
damaging to careers and markets then FSF software should be resisted on
all fronts.
Gregm
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> You seem to be saying one or both of two things:
>>
>> 1. It's impossible for small businesses to make a living from improving
>> free software without being contracted to make specific improvements.
>>
>> This is mostly true.
>>
>> In a free software economy, it would be virtually impossible to make a
>> living from writing software nobody had asked you to write.
>>
>> You could write something, show demos to people and say "pay me, and
>> I'll release it." That is no way to run a business, though.
>>
>> A safer option would be to offer support and other associated services.
>> *If* your support is needed *and* it's good enough, you might earn
>> enough to stay afloat. Still sounds a bit too risky to me.
>>
>> 2. It's impossible for small businesses to make a living from writing
>> proprietary software which competes with free software.
>>
>> This is not quite true.
>>
>> It's *harder* to compete with free software, since you must justify the
>> price tag. If *all* you do is write code, then your code had better be
>> pretty darned amazing, or you must be able to make guarantees that
>> volunteers cannot.
>>
>> Whilst software can be free, on-site support, training programs,
>> guaranteed updates and bugfixes cannot be free. Volunteer programmers
>> can't provide these kinds of services, certainly not if they're only
>> working on their free software in a spare couple of hours every other
>> day and have paid work to do the rest of the time.
>>
>> These two elements basically combine to mean that in a free software
>> economy, either your development would be funded by other products and
>> services you offer, or your development would be funded by entities
>> who contract you for specific work.
>
> Wow. This is exactly what I've been trying to say. That you think it
> refutes something I say rather than that it restates it must indicate
> that I'm being really unclear.
Actually, no. Not everything I say is meant as a refutation. This is
really just a statement of my understanding of the facts of a free
software economy.
Where we differ here is that you appear to think that the situation
decribed is highly likely to be a bad thing for most people involved,
whilst I'm not convinced.
>> Everything that is given away to the
>> end-user is *also* given to the "maker of other tools."
>
> Actually, not always. The GPL authorizes use to end users it does not
> authorize to makers of tools, specifically, the right to charge money.
> Consequently, the GPL ends up forcing a server model for some products
> that wouldn't have to be offered on a server. For example, suppose I
> write a program that prints fortune cookie messages. (Don't quibble: I
> know it's not going to be high margin. I just wanted a simple
> example.) The GPL allows me to make a server and sell fortune cookie
> messages that come out of the server, but ties my hands and keeps me
> from offering the program as a standalone app that people can run away
> from the net. The end user could write the standalone app for his/her
> own use and it would be legal, but I as the maker of tools am
> prohibited from doing him that service.
I'm pretty confused.
It *seems* like you're saying it would be illegal for me to make a
stand-alone app via which an end-user could buy fortune cookie messages
which are included with the application.
That's pretty odd because you also say it wouldn't be illegal for an
end-user to write such a program themselves, and I can't imagine an
end-user wanting to write program which they have to pay you to use.
That said, if the program were designed so that the messages "can be
reasonably considered independent and separate works", most likely by
virtue of being stored in an external file, then the GPL needn't apply to
the messages, so you could apply whatever license you wished to them,
including a license which prohibits one from reading the messages without
paying.
You'd need a lawyer to tell you how enforcable that license might be, but
the fact that the program reading them is distributed under the GPL
doesn't make them any less legally protected.
It may be objected that a proprietary program would have the advantage
that it would (probably) be illegal to modify the program such that it
would display the messages without you having to pay. However, one could
just as easily write another program to decode the messages without
violating that particular law.
It might still be illegal under anticircumvention laws, but if so *those*
laws also prohibit you from modifying a GPLed decoder to decode them for
free: doing so is a violation of the rights in the message file, not the
GPLed program, so the GPL cannot confer permission for you to do so.
Maybe you're saying that it would be illegal for me to distribute a
stand-alone app to the end-user which *they* could use to charge others
for reading messages.
This seems an odd assertion because it's obviously not true. Perhaps
you're under the misconception that the end-user would be unable to make a
profit because others would be able to compell me to distribute the
software to *them* for free, since it is free software, after all. But
that isn't true. The GPL doesn't give anyone the right to demand a copy of
a GPLed program I happen to have.
> (Of course, your "out" is to say that the GPL isn't really "giving
> away" but only the illusion of that, with a politically manipulative
> twist. The Public Domain, and the Berkeley license, would not have
> this problem.)
But then this confuses me even more. I don't believe either of my
interpretations of your example are made any less problematic with public
domain or BSD/MIT licensed software.
Nathan Baum wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> > Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> >
> >> You seem to be saying one or both of two things:
> >>
> >> 1. It's impossible for small businesses to make a living from improving
> >> free software without being contracted to make specific improvements.
> >>
> >> This is mostly true.
> >>
> >> In a free software economy, it would be virtually impossible to make a
> >> living from writing software nobody had asked you to write.
> >>
> >> You could write something, show demos to people and say "pay me, and
> >> I'll release it." That is no way to run a business, though.
> >>
> >> A safer option would be to offer support and other associated services.
> >> *If* your support is needed *and* it's good enough, you might earn
> >> enough to stay afloat. Still sounds a bit too risky to me.
> >>
> >> 2. It's impossible for small businesses to make a living from writing
> >> proprietary software which competes with free software.
> >>
> >> This is not quite true.
> >>
> >> It's *harder* to compete with free software, since you must justify the
> >> price tag. If *all* you do is write code, then your code had better be
> >> pretty darned amazing, or you must be able to make guarantees that
> >> volunteers cannot.
> >>
> >> Whilst software can be free, on-site support, training programs,
> >> guaranteed updates and bugfixes cannot be free. Volunteer programmers
> >> can't provide these kinds of services, certainly not if they're only
> >> working on their free software in a spare couple of hours every other
> >> day and have paid work to do the rest of the time.
> >>
> >> These two elements basically combine to mean that in a free software
> >> economy, either your development would be funded by other products and
> >> services you offer, or your development would be funded by entities
> >> who contract you for specific work.
> >
> > Wow. This is exactly what I've been trying to say. That you think it
> > refutes something I say rather than that it restates it must indicate
> > that I'm being really unclear.
>
> Actually, no. Not everything I say is meant as a refutation. This is
> really just a statement of my understanding of the facts of a free
> software economy.
>
> Where we differ here is that you appear to think that the situation
> decribed is highly likely to be a bad thing for most people involved,
> whilst I'm not convinced.
>
> >> Everything that is given away to the
> >> end-user is *also* given to the "maker of other tools."
> >
> > Actually, not always. The GPL authorizes use to end users it does not
> > authorize to makers of tools, specifically, the right to charge money.
> > Consequently, the GPL ends up forcing a server model for some products
> > that wouldn't have to be offered on a server. For example, suppose I
> > write a program that prints fortune cookie messages. (Don't quibble: I
> > know it's not going to be high margin. I just wanted a simple
> > example.) The GPL allows me to make a server and sell fortune cookie
> > messages that come out of the server, but ties my hands and keeps me
> > from offering the program as a standalone app that people can run away
> > from the net. The end user could write the standalone app for his/her
> > own use and it would be legal, but I as the maker of tools am
> > prohibited from doing him that service.
>
> I'm pretty confused.
>
> It *seems* like you're saying it would be illegal for me to make a
> stand-alone app via which an end-user could buy fortune cookie messages
> which are included with the application.
>
I'm not the author but I think he means that:
Suppose he write a fortune cookie server application (let's assume
that it's hard to write). And he used some GPL component in his server
application, may be for XML, DB part.
since he does not distribute his server program, he doesn't have to
give his client the source code of his server -- GPL only apply when
you distribute your application. He can charge his client for using the
service, and a competitor will have a hardtime developing the same
application.
But if he write all that fortune cookie application as a standalone
application. By distributing the application to his client, he has to
give his application source code to the client. Now his client is allow
even to give this source code to any one, including hiring someone who
now how to use a compiler to build the application from source code at
lower price. And now his complex secret algorithm to forutne cookie
must be revealed. He could patent his complex algorithm but then all
FSF would bash him for patenting idea.
That's why it looks like GPL favor closed-source server application,
you don't have to give out your source code of server application and
still be able to use any GPL library. With standalone apps, all you
code/logic/idea/pattern must fall in to GPL if you use GPL libraries.
> [...snip...]
>
> > (Of course, your "out" is to say that the GPL isn't really "giving
> > away" but only the illusion of that, with a politically manipulative
> > twist. The Public Domain, and the Berkeley license, would not have
> > this problem.)
>
> But then this confuses me even more. I don't believe either of my
> interpretations of your example are made any less problematic with public
> domain or BSD/MIT licensed software.
BSD or MIT only concern about their own source, and don't try to
command other people what to do.
For example:
If an XML library is released as BSD, it said that, I wrote this code,
and I want the code that I wrote to remain free and accessible to
anyone in the world. You should contribute fixed of this library in the
scope of the library that I wrote.
If an XML library is released as GPL, it said that, I wrote this code,
and I want the code that I wrote to remain free and accessible to
anyone in the world. You must contribute fixed of this library in the
scope of the library that I wrote. PLUS I want your code to be free and
accessible to anyone NO MATTER WHAT PROBLEM IT SOLVE. For example, XML
library writer has no idea about how fortune cookie server can be done,
yet the GPL XML library demand that those code be open to public.
GPL asks too much IMHO. You should only demand in the scope of what you
did. You should only have control in your part of effort, not having
control in other people's part just because they happens to link to
your library.
"Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> GPL asks too much IMHO. You should only demand in the scope of what you
> did. You should only have control in your part of effort, not having
> control in other people's part just because they happens to link to
> your library.
That's why free software, in the sense of the FSF doesn't threat
anybody revenues, contrarily to BSD licensed software or other "open
source" licenses.
The price to pay to use GPL software is high, if not monetary. The
jobs of programmers is not threatened by free software. That is,
freedom software, aka GPL'ed software.
You want to use some GPL software to develop and distribute along
yours? Then pay the price, put your software under GPL too! Your
work is worth as much as mine!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you read it in the
original Klingon"
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> "Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> > GPL asks too much IMHO. You should only demand in the scope of what you
> > did. You should only have control in your part of effort, not having
> > control in other people's part just because they happens to link to
> > your library.
>
> That's why free software, in the sense of the FSF doesn't threat
> anybody revenues, contrarily to BSD licensed software or other "open
> source" licenses.
>
> The price to pay to use GPL software is high, if not monetary. The
> jobs of programmers is not threatened by free software. That is,
> freedom software, aka GPL'ed software.
>
>
> You want to use some GPL software to develop and distribute along
> yours? Then pay the price, put your software under GPL too! Your
> work is worth as much as mine!
>
Knowledge base system with full AI is worth as much as libreadline?
Cool.
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
>
> "You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you read it in the
> original Klingon"
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> "Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> > GPL asks too much IMHO. You should only demand in the scope of what you
> > did. You should only have control in your part of effort, not having
> > control in other people's part just because they happens to link to
> > your library.
>
> That's why free software, in the sense of the FSF doesn't threat
> anybody revenues, contrarily to BSD licensed software or other "open
> source" licenses.
>
If you count the effort/money/time of developer who develops their
application on top of GPL and must have it released for free, then GPL
is threatening someone's revenue.
> The price to pay to use GPL software is high, if not monetary. The
> jobs of programmers is not threatened by free software. That is,
> freedom software, aka GPL'ed software.
>
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Pisin Bootvong wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> "Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
>>> GPL asks too much IMHO. You should only demand in the scope of what you
>>> did. You should only have control in your part of effort, not having
>>> control in other people's part just because they happens to link to
>>> your library.
>>
>> That's why free software, in the sense of the FSF doesn't threat
>> anybody revenues, contrarily to BSD licensed software or other "open
>> source" licenses.
>>
>
> If you count the effort/money/time of developer who develops their
> application on top of GPL and must have it released for free, then GPL
> is threatening someone's revenue.
Only a stupid person's revenue. If your income depends upon being able to
distribute your software under a proprietary license, you'd have to be a
fool to develop it using code which prohibits you from doing that.
>> The price to pay to use GPL software is high, if not monetary. The
>> jobs of programmers is not threatened by free software. That is,
>> freedom software, aka GPL'ed software.
Nathan Baum wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Pisin Bootvong wrote:
>
> > Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> >> "Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> GPL asks too much IMHO. You should only demand in the scope of what you
> >>> did. You should only have control in your part of effort, not having
> >>> control in other people's part just because they happens to link to
> >>> your library.
> >>
> >> That's why free software, in the sense of the FSF doesn't threat
> >> anybody revenues, contrarily to BSD licensed software or other "open
> >> source" licenses.
> >>
> >
> > If you count the effort/money/time of developer who develops their
> > application on top of GPL and must have it released for free, then GPL
> > is threatening someone's revenue.
>
> Only a stupid person's revenue. If your income depends upon being able to
> distribute your software under a proprietary license, you'd have to be a
> fool to develop it using code which prohibits you from doing that.
>
So the statement:
"That's why free software, in the sense of the FSF doesn't threat
anybody revenues"
is false, right? Anybody probably includes stupid person, which is
probably stupid just because you call him so.
And I fail to see how the next part of the statement
"..., contrarily to BSD licensed software or other "open source"
licenses."
which means "BSD threat somebody's revenue" could be more true than
with GPL case.
If the same stupid person had chosen to develop using BSD library, he
could have his income depends upon selling closed source software, and
I fail to see how someone would call him stupid in this case.
It is nonsense IMO to say, X doesn't threat anyone's revenue, that is
if everyone use it only in the case that it doesn't threat their
revenue. Everything in the world is harmless if everyone in the world
know how to use it, we all know that, you don't have to tell me.
> >> The price to pay to use GPL software is high, if not monetary. The
> >> jobs of programmers is not threatened by free software. That is,
> >> freedom software, aka GPL'ed software.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uvepgnlgr.fsf@nhplace.com>
"Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Nathan Baum wrote:
...
> > Only a stupid person's revenue. If your income depends upon being able to
> > distribute your software under a proprietary license, you'd have to be a
> > fool to develop it using code which prohibits you from doing that.
>
> So the statement:
>
> "That's why free software, in the sense of the FSF doesn't threat
> anybody revenues"
But, more basic than this, I detest the term "stupid people" because it
seems to divide people into people who are stupid and people who are not,
rather than dividing actions of people into stupid and non-stupid.
None of us, I think, are really universally exempt from stupidity.
But ignoring the bad wording, and assuming Nathan had said "only the
revenue of a person being stupid", is that reason enough not to teach
people to do better? Is not the very function of education to teach
people about places they might be stupid and to help them not be?
How does one do that without raising these cases.
I perceive a subcurrrent of "don't talk about this because only stupid
people would do that".
I certainly don't think the answer to the drug problem is to say
"only kids who are being stupid get addicted to things".
I don't think the solution to drunk driving is "only people who are
being stupid kill people while driving drunk".
Education is an answer to being stupid. So why is the fact that
people being stupid doing this a reason not to make this part of our
standard lore to each people?
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> "Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Nathan Baum wrote:
> ...
>>> Only a stupid person's revenue. If your income depends upon being able
>>> to distribute your software under a proprietary license, you'd have to
>>> be a fool to develop it using code which prohibits you from doing
>>> that.
>>
>> So the statement:
>>
>> "That's why free software, in the sense of the FSF doesn't threat
>> anybody revenues"
>
> But, more basic than this, I detest the term "stupid people" because it
> seems to divide people into people who are stupid and people who are
> not, rather than dividing actions of people into stupid and non-stupid.
> None of us, I think, are really universally exempt from stupidity.
You'd have to be being so very stupid that it would be a lifelong habit.
Pisin was talking about somebody who's developed a product based upon
GPLed software and then apparently acts surprised when it turns out he
isn't allowed to distribute it under a proprietary license.
> But ignoring the bad wording, and assuming Nathan had said "only the
> revenue of a person being stupid", is that reason enough not to teach
> people to do better? Is not the very function of education to teach
> people about places they might be stupid and to help them not be? How
> does one do that without raising these cases.
We don't really need to teach people about this. Almost nobody tries to
sell GPL-derived software under proprietary licenses.
Perhaps you'll complain that despite the wording to the contrary, Pisin
was actually talking about developing something in competition with GPLed
software.
It would also be stupid to develop a piece of software with foreknowledge
that a free *and superior* alternative is available. But it would not be
stupid if you knew the alternative was inferior, or not available to your
intended market (e.g. the alternative was only for Unix, and yours is for
Windows).
It is not stupid to develop a piece of software only to later find that a
free alternative is available, but it would be stupid not to have even
considered the possibility: competition is a fact of any free market, and
even if there were no free software only a fool would bet the farm on
being able to sell a program and complain about it if the competition beat
them.
Of course, if it was a calculated risk and you don't bitch about how
unfair it is that people are allowed to sell things at a lower price than
you, then you were only being stupid if your calculations were obviously
wrong.
Nathan Baum wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> > "Pisin Bootvong" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Nathan Baum wrote:
> > ...
> >>> Only a stupid person's revenue. If your income depends upon being able
> >>> to distribute your software under a proprietary license, you'd have to
> >>> be a fool to develop it using code which prohibits you from doing
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> So the statement:
> >>
> >> "That's why free software, in the sense of the FSF doesn't threat
> >> anybody revenues"
> >
> > But, more basic than this, I detest the term "stupid people" because it
> > seems to divide people into people who are stupid and people who are
> > not, rather than dividing actions of people into stupid and non-stupid.
> > None of us, I think, are really universally exempt from stupidity.
>
> You'd have to be being so very stupid that it would be a lifelong habit.
> Pisin was talking about somebody who's developed a product based upon
> GPLed software and then apparently acts surprised when it turns out he
> isn't allowed to distribute it under a proprietary license.
>
No, I wasn't meaning so.
What I meant was only that if you compare GPL software to BSD software,
it is clear who is threatening somebody's revenue more. I fail to see
the case where BSD/MIT license could be more threat than GPL. And
that's all I tried to say.
Personally I'm not against open source software, but I don't like open
source in GPL way,
For all your business model that that would work with free software
providing more jobs, such as providing customization, doing dual
licensing, I don't see how it wouldn't work with BSD/MIT software. This
kind of software customizing business is appropriate to be called
deriviative works of software, and at this point there is no different
between BSD and GPL.
Where I have problem with GPL is when you develop more scope of problem
domain on top of it.
In this regards GPL is even worse than patent
- A patent has limited cost, if you want to use it, the cost of a
single GPL library is limitless, it's your source code that linked to
it, no matter how much more of the problem domain has your app done --
google for docs Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL, and you really think that
writing libreadline + libgmp takes as much effort as writing whole ANSI
Common Lisp?. And then anyone's source code that linked to your code,
and so on.
- A patent has limited time period, after that it becomes public
domain. A GPL library life time is limitless. And the knowledge in GPL
is inside the code, so it is knowledge locked in for GPL only.
> > But ignoring the bad wording, and assuming Nathan had said "only the
> > revenue of a person being stupid", is that reason enough not to teach
> > people to do better? Is not the very function of education to teach
> > people about places they might be stupid and to help them not be? How
> > does one do that without raising these cases.
>
> We don't really need to teach people about this. Almost nobody tries to
> sell GPL-derived software under proprietary licenses.
>
> Perhaps you'll complain that despite the wording to the contrary, Pisin
> was actually talking about developing something in competition with GPLed
> software.
>
> It would also be stupid to develop a piece of software with foreknowledge
> that a free *and superior* alternative is available. But it would not be
> stupid if you knew the alternative was inferior, or not available to your
> intended market (e.g. the alternative was only for Unix, and yours is for
> Windows).
>
> It is not stupid to develop a piece of software only to later find that a
> free alternative is available, but it would be stupid not to have even
> considered the possibility: competition is a fact of any free market, and
> even if there were no free software only a fool would bet the farm on
> being able to sell a program and complain about it if the competition beat
> them.
>
> Of course, if it was a calculated risk and you don't bitch about how
> unfair it is that people are allowed to sell things at a lower price than
> you, then you were only being stupid if your calculations were obviously
> wrong.
In the world where Free software wins, all software library is GPL'ed.
What do you suggest for a business model of desktop software startup?
Or are you suggesting that he write every thing from the scratch in
world full of GPL'ed? Or that this start up firm with two people,
"can't" sell what they write but have to provide service instead?
Remember this is two or three people start up. Or is it that in your
ideal FS world, nobody make money out of desktop software anymore? Do
you think accessibility and usability is easy to write that it should
all be free?
Pisin Bootvong wrote:
--->8--- snipped --->8---
>
> Where I have problem with GPL is when you develop more scope of problem
> domain on top of it.
> In this regards GPL is even worse than patent
> - A patent has limited cost, if you want to use it, the cost of a
> single GPL library is limitless, it's your source code that linked to
> it, no matter how much more of the problem domain has your app done --
> google for docs Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL, and you really think that
> writing libreadline + libgmp takes as much effort as writing whole ANSI
> Common Lisp?. And then anyone's source code that linked to your code,
> and so on.
Obviously the authors of CLISP felt after weighing up the alternatives
that they'd rather GPL the whole thing than rip the GPL dependencies
out.
They did have a choice in this (although I can't argue that had they
known ahead of time the outcome would have been the same).
>From your other post:
> Also another experimental thought.
> Since GPL only apply if you distribute your application. But requiring
> user to download/link the depended library themselves is not consider
> as you distributing it.
I think that this was discussed also in the 'why is clisp under gpl'
thread and the outcome was that since clisp was written specifically to
link to a gpl library, it was a derivative work -- irrespective of
whether that specific library was distributed along with clisp or if
the user had to download it separately.
Here's the relevent excerpt from the clisp document you referred to
(you did actually read it, right?):
=>The FSF position would be that this is still one
=> program, which has only been disguised as
=> two. The reason it is still one program is that
=> the one part clearly shows the intention for
=> incorporation of the other part. I say this
=> based on discussions I had with our lawyer
=> long ago. The issue first arose when NeXT
=> proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two
=> parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked
=> me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me
=> at the time that it was, following reasoning
=> like what you are using; but since the result
=> was very undesirable for free software, I said
=> I would have to ask the lawyer. What the
=> lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges
=> would consider such schemes to be
=> "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward
=> them. He said a judge would ask whether it is
=> "really" one program, rather than how it is
=> labeled. So I went back to Jobs and said we
=> believed his plan was not allowed by the GPL.
=> The direct result of this is that we now have an
=> Objective C front end.
(Here's a link to the whole thing for convenience:
http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL
)
> - A patent has limited time period, after that it becomes public
> domain. A GPL library life time is limitless. And the knowledge in GPL
> is inside the code, so it is knowledge locked in for GPL only.
>
Not so; you can reimplement the library if you want. You just can't use
the GPL code directly (is is the case with any other library containing
non-patented code). And have you read any software patents lately?
They're useless for getting knowlege into the public domain.
-Duncan
>
> In the world where Free software wins, all software library is GPL'ed.
> What do you suggest for a business model of desktop software startup?
> Or are you suggesting that he write every thing from the scratch in
> world full of GPL'ed? Or that this start up firm with two people,
> "can't" sell what they write but have to provide service instead?
> Remember this is two or three people start up. Or is it that in your
> ideal FS world, nobody make money out of desktop software anymore? Do
> you think accessibility and usability is easy to write that it should
> all be free?
Duncan Rose wrote:
> Pisin Bootvong wrote:
>
> > Also another experimental thought.
> > Since GPL only apply if you distribute your application. But requiring
> > user to download/link the depended library themselves is not consider
> > as you distributing it.
>
> I think that this was discussed also in the 'why is clisp under gpl'
> thread and the outcome was that since clisp was written specifically to
> link to a gpl library, it was a derivative work -- irrespective of
> whether that specific library was distributed along with clisp or if
> the user had to download it separately.
>
But then why is it the case that if you develop a server application,
which means you only host the service and not distributing your
application, then your server code does not fall under GPL? The
question is not whether the binary is considered a derivative works of
a GPL library, but whether the GPL also applied to the resulting
non-distributed binary.
As far as I know, you can make a modification to a GPL library and keep
it to yourself as long as you do not distribute your change. And your
change would not fall under GPL.
If I distribute something that does not contain GPL library, and the
linking and compilation only happen at the client side where no further
distribution is done. How is it different from a server case? And how
is it different from I go out to each client site download the GPL
library to their machine, develop my application there and compile and
link the whole application at his machine and make no further
distribution?
What if I did not distribute the object file, but I distributed a
program that, when run, generate object files for linking?
Pisin Bootvong wrote:
> Duncan Rose wrote:
> > Pisin Bootvong wrote:
> >
> > > Also another experimental thought.
> > > Since GPL only apply if you distribute your application. But requiring
> > > user to download/link the depended library themselves is not consider
> > > as you distributing it.
> >
> > I think that this was discussed also in the 'why is clisp under gpl'
> > thread and the outcome was that since clisp was written specifically to
> > link to a gpl library, it was a derivative work -- irrespective of
> > whether that specific library was distributed along with clisp or if
> > the user had to download it separately.
> >
>
> But then why is it the case that if you develop a server application,
> which means you only host the service and not distributing your
> application, then your server code does not fall under GPL? The
> question is not whether the binary is considered a derivative works of
> a GPL library, but whether the GPL also applied to the resulting
> non-distributed binary.
>
Because you are not distributing the binary. I believe there are
clauses in GPL v3.0 to address some of these concerns, but to be honest
I haven't been following the v3.0 proposals.
> As far as I know, you can make a modification to a GPL library and keep
> it to yourself as long as you do not distribute your change. And your
> change would not fall under GPL.
>
This is indeed the case.
> If I distribute something that does not contain GPL library, and the
> linking and compilation only happen at the client side where no further
> distribution is done. How is it different from a server case? And how
> is it different from I go out to each client site download the GPL
> library to their machine, develop my application there and compile and
> link the whole application at his machine and make no further
> distribution?
>
I think the argument is that if your program is built *in order to*
link to the GPL library, then the GPL library forms a part of your
application and both parts can be considered to be a whole.
I suspect this would also be the case if there were 3 parties involved;
A produces a (non-GPL) app, B produces a GPL library and C produces a
patch to the app of A in order to make use of the library of B; A+C
won't be able to distribute their patches as an aggregate without
GPLing the app.
As an aside, it seems to me there's still a hole here; A can distribute
the app, B the library, and C some patches to make the two work
together. As long as no parts are distributed together, and A and C are
not able to be connected in any way, I don't see how this particular
case can be prevented by the GPL (and we'll gloss over the realities of
Linux device drivers altogether even though they show that under some
circumstances a community (not necessarily 'the Linux kernel
community', some of whom are very unhappy about the situation) is happy
for some clauses in the GPL to be ignored).
> What if I did not distribute the object file, but I distributed a
> program that, when run, generate object files for linking?
I guess this would be the same case; you're engaged in a "subterfuge"
and likely to be running the risk of prosecution.
Note that some countries have sufficiently different copyright law (if
any) that the GPL may not be valid anyway (in those countries) so what
you can and can't do is controlled by geography (as well as morals I
guess).
-Duncan
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <ufygmgx2a.fsf@nhplace.com>
Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
> > Actually, not always. The GPL authorizes use to end users it does not
> > authorize to makers of tools, specifically, the right to charge money.
> > Consequently, the GPL ends up forcing a server model for some products
> > that wouldn't have to be offered on a server. For example, suppose I
> > write a program that prints fortune cookie messages. (Don't quibble: I
> > know it's not going to be high margin. I just wanted a simple
> > example.) The GPL allows me to make a server and sell fortune cookie
> > messages that come out of the server, but ties my hands and keeps me
> > from offering the program as a standalone app that people can run away
> > from the net. The end user could write the standalone app for his/her
> > own use and it would be legal, but I as the maker of tools am
> > prohibited from doing him that service.
>
> I'm pretty confused.
>
> It *seems* like you're saying it would be illegal for me to make a
> stand-alone app via which an end-user could buy fortune cookie
> messages which are included with the application.
I didn't mean where you take the GPL'd program and use it as a conduit.
I mean where the fortune cookie generation is a derivative work of the
GPL'd program. I'm saying that if the program is, for example, a server,
I can extend the server, run the server, and let it sell fortunes. But I
extend the server, give away the server, and let people run it themselves.
At least not as I understand the GPL, which requires that if I sell it
to someone, I also give away MY extension. So in order to protect the
part that I wrote, I have to not do someone the favor of delivering them
a standalone version.
> Maybe you're saying that it would be illegal for me to distribute a
> stand-alone app to the end-user which *they* could use to charge
> others for reading messages.
That as well, actually. But it wasn't what I was saying.
> This seems an odd assertion because it's obviously not true. Perhaps
> you're under the misconception that the end-user would be unable to
> make a profit because others would be able to compell me to distribute
> the software to *them* for free, since it is free software, after
> all. But that isn't true. The GPL doesn't give anyone the right to
> demand a copy of a GPLed program I happen to have.
No, but it places requirements on how I distribute the programs I write,
not just the programs they wrote.
> > (Of course, your "out" is to say that the GPL isn't really "giving
> > away" but only the illusion of that, with a politically manipulative
> > twist. The Public Domain, and the Berkeley license, would not have
> > this problem.)
>
> But then this confuses me even more. I don't believe either of my
> interpretations of your example are made any less problematic with
> public domain or BSD/MIT licensed software.
A "truly free" program (as opposed to "GNU free") does not limit me in
how I can use it, and hence I can turn it from "open source" back into
proprietary/secret code and further extend it, distributing binaries
only, not revealing my sources, etc. (That doesn't keep someone from
getting the base case I started with out of the public domain, but it
doesn't tie my hands in how I package my extensions.)
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
<snipped>
> > This seems an odd assertion because it's obviously not true. Perhaps
> > you're under the misconception that the end-user would be unable to
> > make a profit because others would be able to compell me to distribute
> > the software to *them* for free, since it is free software, after
> > all. But that isn't true. The GPL doesn't give anyone the right to
> > demand a copy of a GPLed program I happen to have.
>
> No, but it places requirements on how I distribute the programs I write,
> not just the programs they wrote.
>
Kent, seeing as how you understand the GPL this well,
you've answered your own question (from a post upthread)
about how to make money: Clone a GPL offering and offer
proprietry licences so that people can redistribute
derivative, binary and closed works.
Surely, judging by the length of this thread, there are
very many developers out there who want to redistribute
closed software in exchange for money. Since the contention
is that the GPL doesn't allow this go ahead and make your
own.
Obviously the GPL is crippling to developers who
want to redistribute closed works; I'd imagine
that a cheap-ish (i.e. not three months salary)
clone of clisp which allows modification and
redistribution (perhaps with royalties?) would
be a dream come true for those who want a
cross-platform lisp and don't want to redistribute
source changes. All you have to do is set a price
point that will attract the people who want
to redistribute lisp-capable programs (no diddling
with the reader:-) but don't have +-$1500 to spend
on Lispworks.
It's certainly a pity that I am not skilled enough
to do something like this, as I certainly think a
large demand for this exists amongst lisp developers.
<snipped>
> A "truly free" program (as opposed to "GNU free") does not limit me in
> how I can use it, and hence I can turn it from "open source" back into
> proprietary/secret code and further extend it, distributing binaries
> only, not revealing my sources, etc. (That doesn't keep someone from
> getting the base case I started with out of the public domain, but it
> doesn't tie my hands in how I package my extensions.)
That certainly sounds attractive (at a certain price);
why don't you go ahead and do something like that and
*maybe* someone who (like yourself) wants the freedom
to redistribute will pay you for it instead of using
the more crippling GPL alternatives.
goose,
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>>> Actually, not always. The GPL authorizes use to end users it does not
>>> authorize to makers of tools, specifically, the right to charge money.
>>> Consequently, the GPL ends up forcing a server model for some products
>>> that wouldn't have to be offered on a server. For example, suppose I
>>> write a program that prints fortune cookie messages. (Don't quibble: I
>>> know it's not going to be high margin. I just wanted a simple
>>> example.) The GPL allows me to make a server and sell fortune cookie
>>> messages that come out of the server, but ties my hands and keeps me
>>> from offering the program as a standalone app that people can run away
>>> from the net. The end user could write the standalone app for his/her
>>> own use and it would be legal, but I as the maker of tools am
>>> prohibited from doing him that service.
>>
>> I'm pretty confused.
>>
>> It *seems* like you're saying it would be illegal for me to make a
>> stand-alone app via which an end-user could buy fortune cookie
>> messages which are included with the application.
>
> I didn't mean where you take the GPL'd program and use it as a conduit.
> I mean where the fortune cookie generation is a derivative work of the
> GPL'd program. I'm saying that if the program is, for example, a server,
> I can extend the server, run the server, and let it sell fortunes. But I
> extend the server, give away the server, and let people run it themselves.
> At least not as I understand the GPL, which requires that if I sell it
> to someone, I also give away MY extension. So in order to protect the
> part that I wrote, I have to not do someone the favor of delivering them
> a standalone version.
I'm still confused. I think you need to sit down and think about what
you're trying to say for a few minutes, because it looks like you're
getting all mixed up about what it is you *want* to do with the server and
what you think the GPL *forces* you to do with the server. :)
I can see two interpretations, but neither make perfect sense so I'm quite
sure I still haven't understood you.
1. You think that if you extend the server to offer a pay-per-cookie
fortune-serving service, users of that service have the right to demand
a copy of that extension, thus defeating your service.
This doesn't include the stand-alone aspect, so it looks like this is
wrong.
2. You think that if you extend the server to offer a pay-per-cookie
fortune-serving service, and offer, for a one-time fee, a stand-alone
version of that extension for people to use at home, then because the
extension works with the server, you will be obliged to give it to them
under a compatible free software license, thus making it likely that
you'll only ever one customer because everyone else will just get
their copies from them.
I *think* 2 is what you mean.
The answer is that it depends upon the nature of the extension.
If the extension is some external script which the server executes or
causes to be executed as a result of serving, pretty much nobody thinks
that counts as a derivative work. You can safely distribute a
fortune-serving script under a non-free license along with a free server.
If the extension is a loadable module, then a lot of people think the
extension is a derivative work. I think that's nonsense since that amounts
to a library interface copyright, but I'm not certain I'd win that
argument in court.
Either way, the smart money is on extending the server using an external
script. Of course, if the server was a Lisp server, it would probably not
be distributed under the GPL, but the LGPL or LLGPL (if we're limiting
ourselves to copyleft licenses), which would render the "is it okay to
link non-free code to the server" question moot: it's explicitly
permitted.
>> Maybe you're saying that it would be illegal for me to distribute a
>> stand-alone app to the end-user which *they* could use to charge
>> others for reading messages.
>
> That as well, actually. But it wasn't what I was saying.
Well, just to be clear, that's perfectly legal. I can't imagine how it
wouldn't be.
>> This seems an odd assertion because it's obviously not true. Perhaps
>> you're under the misconception that the end-user would be unable to
>> make a profit because others would be able to compell me to distribute
>> the software to *them* for free, since it is free software, after
>> all. But that isn't true. The GPL doesn't give anyone the right to
>> demand a copy of a GPLed program I happen to have.
>
> No, but it places requirements on how I distribute the programs I write,
> not just the programs they wrote.
Yes, but if I've interpreted you correctly, they're not quite as odious as
you imagine.
Apart from anything else, there are plenty of people who make a living
from selling commercial components for use with Apache, which is, apart
from a quabble over patent issues which are not relevant to the point at
hand, distributed under a GPL compatible license.
>>> (Of course, your "out" is to say that the GPL isn't really "giving
>>> away" but only the illusion of that, with a politically manipulative
>>> twist. The Public Domain, and the Berkeley license, would not have
>>> this problem.)
>>
>> But then this confuses me even more. I don't believe either of my
>> interpretations of your example are made any less problematic with
>> public domain or BSD/MIT licensed software.
>
> A "truly free" program (as opposed to "GNU free") does not limit me in
> how I can use it, and hence I can turn it from "open source" back into
> proprietary/secret code and further extend it, distributing binaries
> only, not revealing my sources, etc. (That doesn't keep someone from
> getting the base case I started with out of the public domain, but it
> doesn't tie my hands in how I package my extensions.)
From: Holger Schauer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yxzfygmrrsm.fsf@gmx.de>
On 4713 September 1993, Kent M. Pitman wrote:
> I didn't mean where you take the GPL'd program and use it as a conduit.
> I mean where the fortune cookie generation is a derivative work of the
> GPL'd program. I'm saying that if the program is, for example, a server,
> I can extend the server, run the server, and let it sell fortunes. But I
> extend the server, give away the server, and let people run it themselves.
I think you missed a "can not" here in front of "extend", right?
> At least not as I understand the GPL, which requires that if I sell it
> to someone, I also give away MY extension. So in order to protect the
> part that I wrote, I have to not do someone the favor of delivering them
> a standalone version.
What you can do is to sell the server and the extension. What you can
not do is requiring the customer to not give it (server and extension)
away to some third party, iff the server is GPLed and your extension
is a creative work of it in terms of the GPL.
>> Maybe you're saying that it would be illegal for me to distribute a
>> stand-alone app to the end-user which *they* could use to charge
>> others for reading messages.
> That as well, actually. But it wasn't what I was saying.
No, that's not true. The GPL is quite ignorant about the charging of
money. Even if I receive my copy of the Linux for free by downloading
it somewhere, nobody could complain if I wanted to sell it. Actually,
that's where companies like SuSE or Red Hat started from --
redistributing and selling copies of free (mainly GPLed) software.
From the preamble of the GPL:
--8<------------------------schnipp------------------------->8---
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
--8<------------------------schnapp------------------------->8---
>> all. But that isn't true. The GPL doesn't give anyone the right to
>> demand a copy of a GPLed program I happen to have.
> No, but it places requirements on how I distribute the programs I write,
> not just the programs they wrote.
Not really, it places requirements on the license of any program you
write that happens to fall under the term of derivative work of a GPL
licensed piece of software. With regard to distribution, the only term
related to it, IIRC, is that you're required to also distribute the
license, and the source code of your program if the customer wants
it. The preamble of the GPL, again, says:
--8<------------------------schnipp------------------------->8---
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.
--8<------------------------schnapp------------------------->8---
> A "truly free" program (as opposed to "GNU free") does not limit me in
> how I can use it, and hence I can turn it from "open source" back into
> proprietary/secret code and further extend it, distributing binaries
> only, not revealing my sources, etc. (That doesn't keep someone from
> getting the base case I started with out of the public domain, but it
> doesn't tie my hands in how I package my extensions.)
Right. I would hence expect that a lot of commercial companies opt for
a BSD or Apache-style license, if they are interested in selling an
enhanced version. If, on the other hand, they use it as part of their
infrastructure, they might opt for GPL so that other people might
extend it further and they are more likely to benefit from that (but
only if this extension is made public which is *not* required by the
GPL).
Holger
--
--- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ ---
"Vermutlich ist das bei den Verkehrsteilnehmern wie bei Ratten: zu dicht
auf einen Haufen gedraengt werden die agressiv und homosexuell. Vermut-
lich daher das zu dichte Auffahren auf den Arsch des Vordermanns?"
-- Uwe Borchert in de.soc.verkehr
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnechlbb.ivv.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-27, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
>> On 2006-07-26 18:29:17 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>>
>
>> For example, a hypothetical custom solution consists of a Point Of Sale
>> system - an electronic cash register that can process credit card payments -
>> and an inventory and ordering database application. The custom work consists
>> in connecting these two and customizing them for each particular business.
>>
>> The POS system is a finished piece of end-user software. It can either be
>> free, in which case the programmers who wrote it will never see a dime for
>> their work no matter in how many check-outs it is deployed
>
> How about you stop bare-face-lying about how programmers get paid for
> their jobs? It's plain simple fact that a programmer can get paid for
> writing a POS system.
>
> You're just bitching that the programmer wouldn't get paid over and over
> again every time somebody uses that component, but instead would either be
> paid once by whoever contracted the POS system, or *if they choose* they
> wouldn't be paid at all.
Here is the thing if the POS is developed open source it is paid for by
the first client in full and all of his compeditors get it for free. How
is this fair to the first client, he is not in the bussiness of helping
the people who want to put him out of business. Now if there was a commercial
3rd party selling the POS system to all the companies that need it it would
be much fairer to all concerned. Also as the cost of development is spread
over many users they each can contribute less for a better product, it has
more features because there is a geater pool of money to pay for them being
developed. Is this so hard to understand?
And you get a box and a phone number to call.
>
>> If it is proprietary the POS software will be maintained and improved by
>> programmers who are paid for their labor. If it is free the POS software will
>> be maintained and improved (maybe) by programmers who will never be paid for
>> that work.
>
> Once again you're lying. If it is free the POS software will be maintained
> and improved (certainly) _either_ by programmers who don't get paid or by
> programmers who do get paid. If the programmers choose to work on the POS
> software without being paid, that's their choice. Nobody will *force*
> programmers to work for nothing, unless you're suggesting that free
> software advocates are also advocates of slavery.
first see above, second who says that the programmer will work on what is most
usefull to the client base, assuming this is a free guy, instead of what is
interesting to him? Business "I want bugs fixed" coder "I want to introduce
new bugs, er features"
And who tracks what needs doing, you need a thing to keep track of feature
requests bugs etc. A company does this well.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-07-27, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> >
> >> On 2006-07-26 18:29:17 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> >>
> >
> >> For example, a hypothetical custom solution consists of a Point Of Sale
> >> system - an electronic cash register that can process credit card payments -
> >> and an inventory and ordering database application. The custom work consists
> >> in connecting these two and customizing them for each particular business.
> >>
> >> The POS system is a finished piece of end-user software. It can either be
> >> free, in which case the programmers who wrote it will never see a dime for
> >> their work no matter in how many check-outs it is deployed
> >
> > How about you stop bare-face-lying about how programmers get paid for
> > their jobs? It's plain simple fact that a programmer can get paid for
> > writing a POS system.
> >
> > You're just bitching that the programmer wouldn't get paid over and over
> > again every time somebody uses that component, but instead would either be
> > paid once by whoever contracted the POS system, or *if they choose* they
> > wouldn't be paid at all.
>
> Here is the thing if the POS is developed open source it is paid for by
> the first client in full and all of his compeditors get it for free. How
> is this fair to the first client, he is not in the bussiness of helping
> the people who want to put him out of business.
Then he can choose to pay for a proprietry one. It his choice.
> Now if there was a commercial
> 3rd party selling the POS system to all the companies that need it it would
> be much fairer to all concerned. Also as the cost of development is spread
> over many users they each can contribute less for a better product, it has
> more features because there is a geater pool of money to pay for them being
> developed. Is this so hard to understand?
>
> And you get a box and a phone number to call.
>
> >
> >> If it is proprietary the POS software will be maintained and improved by
> >> programmers who are paid for their labor. If it is free the POS software will
> >> be maintained and improved (maybe) by programmers who will never be paid for
> >> that work.
> >
> > Once again you're lying. If it is free the POS software will be maintained
> > and improved (certainly) _either_ by programmers who don't get paid or by
> > programmers who do get paid. If the programmers choose to work on the POS
> > software without being paid, that's their choice. Nobody will *force*
> > programmers to work for nothing, unless you're suggesting that free
> > software advocates are also advocates of slavery.
>
> first see above, second who says that the programmer will work on what is most
> usefull to the client base, assuming this is a free guy, instead of what is
> interesting to him? Business "I want bugs fixed" coder "I want to introduce
> new bugs, er features"
>
You are missing the point; who says that open source software
*has* to be maintained by volunteers? The retailer can easily
*pay* someone to enhance the free software.
> And who tracks what needs doing, you need a thing to keep track of feature
> requests bugs etc. A company does this well.
>
Yes, they do. Free software and companys are not mutually
exclusive. Companys can easily pay someone to modify a
bit of free software.
goose,
On 2006-07-27 11:08:20 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> Yes, they do. Free software and companys are not mutually
> exclusive. Companys can easily pay someone to modify a
> bit of free software.
But the paid work for programmers is less because for proprietary
software programmers get paid for the base version *and* they get paid
to modify it. For the free software programmers only get paid to modify
it.
GAH!!! Excessive snippage and context lossage
won't help convince me, you know :-)
I've adjusted the snippage to maintain context.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 11:08:20 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > > And who tracks what needs doing, you need a thing to keep track of
> > > feature
> > > requests bugs etc. A company does this well.
> > Yes, they do. Free software and companys are not mutually
> > exclusive. Companys can easily pay someone to modify a
> > bit of free software.
>
> But the paid work for programmers is less because for proprietary
> software programmers get paid for the base version *and* they get paid
> to modify it. For the free software programmers only get paid to modify
> it.
Which is why the free(libre) software tends to make
*more* money in certain situations (like the POS example
that was chosen), because in the first case above, the
proprietry developers get paid *once* to build it, and
*once* per enhancement which all the consumers (store
retailers in this example) get.
If the retailer chose free(GPL) software (case #2), the
developers chose not to charge for building it.
The retailer then wants to enhance it, and pays per
enhancement which benefits him. Because he wants to
maintain an edge over other retailers, he refuses
to redistribute the enhancements (allowed by GPL),
so they *all* pay per enhancement, which allows
the non-free enhancers to make a lot more money than
they otherwise could.
The POS example is a bad one for your argument; there
are better examples that strengthens your argument,
but I'd like to leave the finding of those as an
exrecise to the reader :-)
goose,
On 2006-07-27 13:05:43 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> because in the first case above, the
> proprietry developers get paid *once* to build it, and
> *once* per enhancement which all the consumers (store
> retailers in this example) get.
Not if the enhancement is custom work. Again, see LispWorks for this
business model - you pay the base price. You pay for regular upgrades.
You also pay for custom enhancement. If LispWorks were free the
LispWorks programmers would only be getting paid for the last of these.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 13:05:43 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > because in the first case above, the
> > proprietry developers get paid *once* to build it, and
> > *once* per enhancement which all the consumers (store
> > retailers in this example) get.
>
> Not if the enhancement is custom work. Again, see LispWorks for this
> business model - you pay the base price. You pay for regular upgrades.
> You also pay for custom enhancement. If LispWorks were free the
> LispWorks programmers would only be getting paid for the last of these.
So I'll have to rely on the goodwill of the
vendor to not give the custom enhancements
to my competitors? After all, AFAIK from the
licencing, *they* would own the enhancements,
not me.
What if they are stuck for cash and decide to
sell the enhancements? All I have is their word
that they won't; nothing I can legally enforce.
With GPL software, I can legally enforce that
the enhancements not be distributed.
goose,
not a slur on the integrity of the lispworks
vendor.
On 2006-07-27 13:30:05 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> So I'll have to rely on the goodwill of the
> vendor to not give the custom enhancements
> to my competitors? After all, AFAIK from the
> licencing, *they* would own the enhancements,
> not me.
Not if you negotiated it differently, no of course not. You might have
to pay more for these enhancements to be exclusive but it is a business
negotiation after all.
> What if they are stuck for cash and decide to
> sell the enhancements? All I have is their word
> that they won't; nothing I can legally enforce.
This is why business people generally negotiate binding legal contracts
with lawyers.
You should see the court case Kent referenced back a bit in this
thread. The application here is that you could get an injunction
against them (and possibly damages) if they tried to sell or give away
enhancements that you had paid for and that both parties had agreed
were exclusive to you.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-27 13:30:05 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > So I'll have to rely on the goodwill of the
> > vendor to not give the custom enhancements
> > to my competitors? After all, AFAIK from the
> > licencing, *they* would own the enhancements,
> > not me.
>
> Not if you negotiated it differently, no of course not. You might have
> to pay more for these enhancements to be exclusive but it is a business
> negotiation after all.
>
> > What if they are stuck for cash and decide to
> > sell the enhancements? All I have is their word
> > that they won't; nothing I can legally enforce.
>
> This is why business people generally negotiate binding legal contracts
> with lawyers.
>
> You should see the court case Kent referenced back a bit in this
> thread. The application here is that you could get an injunction
> against them (and possibly damages) if they tried to sell or give away
> enhancements that you had paid for and that both parties had agreed
> were exclusive to you.
And if they don't agree? This is proprietry software,
so I can't really get a third party (or in-house)
developer to make those enhancements.
So tell me, where do I stand if they refuse to
make any enhancements?
goose,
On 2006-07-28 00:11:29 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> And if they don't agree?
First, as a practical matter, make sure you get a good lawer and draw
up an unambiguous contract that makes both parties rights and
obligations clear. Second, as a broader political point, in a society
governed by the rule of law if the courts don't agree with your
position *you lose*. This is just as true of free software as of
proprietary software. If you violate the provisions of the GPL for
example the only way the FSF can get you to comply is the threat of
legal action in a court of law. The reality is that in a civilized
society the law courts are the ultimate arbiters of what you may and
may not do not anyone's belief in free software. Using free software
doesn't exempt you from the rule of law.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 00:11:29 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > And if they don't agree?
>
> First, as a practical matter, make sure you get a good lawer and draw
> up an unambiguous contract that makes both parties rights and
> obligations clear.
Ok, lets say that I decide to go with $VENDOR; what do I do
if they refuse to give me the terms that I want? That is their
right, after all?
In a normal society, we just go to another vendor, right?
The FSF is just another vendor, with their own pricing
strategy.
What you don't understand, or don't *want* to understand
is that the FSF and GPL software is meeting a market
demand other than the demand for gratis software.
Maybe if more vendors offered the same liberal use
of their tools (and charged for it), then fewer developers
would choose the FSF alternatives.
In a reply to Kent upthread, I suggested this as a possible
business, as there is probably enough demand for
tools that are open to the purchaser but closed to everyone
else.
> Second, as a broader political point, in a society
> governed by the rule of law if the courts don't agree with your
> position *you lose*. This is just as true of free software as of
> proprietary software. If you violate the provisions of the GPL for
> example the only way the FSF can get you to comply is the threat of
> legal action in a court of law. The reality is that in a civilized
> society the law courts are the ultimate arbiters of what you may and
> may not do not anyone's belief in free software. Using free software
> doesn't exempt you from the rule of law.
I agree with all this; nowhere have I suggested mayhem :-)
goose,
On 2006-07-28 14:58:49 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> In a normal society, we just go to another vendor, right?
> The FSF is just another vendor, with their own pricing
> strategy.
I understand this perfectly. I'm pointing out that their "pricing
strategy" screws programmers out of jobs and drives down their wages.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-28 14:58:49 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> > In a normal society, we just go to another vendor, right?
> > The FSF is just another vendor, with their own pricing
> > strategy.
>
> I understand this perfectly. I'm pointing out that their "pricing
> strategy" screws programmers out of jobs and drives down their wages.
But you have not submitted any data to back up this claim.
OTOH, I'm pointing out that libre software *can* screw the
corporations while driving up billable hours for the contractor.
Not *always*, admittedly; this is only bad news for
those who want a monopoly on the market and for those
developers who want to work for someone else and not
on their own.
Your claim is *always* so you've got the much harder task
of showing me how this is *always* true in order to prove
your hypothesis; I've got the fairly easy task of finding a
single counter-example that disproves it.
goose,
On 2006-07-29 18:37:48 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
> But you have not submitted any data to back up this claim.
> OTOH, I'm pointing out that libre software *can* screw the
> corporations while driving up billable hours for the contractor.
Just the opposite sadly. Free software creates a market that is
impossible to enter sucessfully without a loss-leader or cross subsidy
since a firms entry into a free market must - at least initially - be
free.
This need for subsidy effectively eliminates small software firms.
So free software has simply strengthened large software firms at the
expense of small firms.
On 2006-07-31,
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 18:37:48 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> So free software has simply strengthened large software firms at the
> expense of small firms.
>
When you say "free software" are you referring to
all OSS or, in particular, GPL OSS?
Does the licensing make a difference?
On 2006-07-31 11:47:20 -0400, anon <····@anon.net> said:
> Does the licensing make a difference?
Not economically - it's the fact that it generates no revenue from
sales that makes is difficult to compete with.
On 2006-08-01,
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2006-07-31 11:47:20 -0400, anon <····@anon.net> said:
>
>> Does the licensing make a difference?
>
> Not economically - it's the fact that it generates no revenue from
> sales that makes is difficult to compete with.
>
However, a BSD style license allows an enterprise to generate
revenue from some OSS efforts. Would this not be in some ways
beneficial to the small software company?
(in some indirect way benefit the programmer)
On 2006-08-01 13:43:54 -0400, anon <····@anon.net> said:
> However, a BSD style license allows an enterprise to generate
> revenue from some OSS efforts. Would this not be in some ways
> beneficial to the small software company? (in some indirect way benefit
> the programmer)
Sorry to leave you hanging, but I've been requested by a correspondent
to this newsgroup to stop posting to this off-topic thread.
regards,
Ralph
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 18:37:48 -0400, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
>> But you have not submitted any data to back up this claim. OTOH, I'm
>> pointing out that libre software *can* screw the corporations while
>> driving up billable hours for the contractor.
>
> Just the opposite sadly. Free software creates a market that is
> impossible to enter sucessfully without a loss-leader or cross subsidy
> since a firms entry into a free market must - at least initially - be
> free.
Where is the evidence of this? Is it now true that no small firms are able
to enter the market? Or is this going to happen Real Soon Now?
> This need for subsidy effectively eliminates small software firms.
>
> So free software has simply strengthened large software firms at the
> expense of small firms.
On 2006-07-26 18:29:17 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
> I won't demand to be repaid each time my client wants to reuse that
> software on another computer, or have another contractor develop software
> based upon it.
But you would be well within your rights (assuming you hadn't signed
these rights away) to demand payment if one of your customers started
selling the software you wrote to other businesses in the same field.
You'd be within your rights to demand that they stop giving it away to
other business in that field, other potential customers of yours, if
they were doing so.
This is what free end-user software amounts to - losing programmers
customers by giving away that which programmers could otherwise have
sold to these other customers.
From: Holger Schauer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yxzodvbs0ba.fsf@gmx.de>
On 4712 September 1993, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-07-26 18:29:17 -0400, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> said:
>> I won't demand to be repaid each time my client wants to reuse that
>> software on another computer, or have another contractor develop software
>> based upon it.
This is nethertheless a common buisness model.
> But you would be well within your rights (assuming you hadn't signed
> these rights away) to demand payment if one of your customers started
> selling the software you wrote to other businesses in the same
> field. You'd be within your rights to demand that they stop giving it
> away to other business in that field, other potential customers of
> yours, if they were doing so.
> This is what free end-user software amounts to - losing programmers
> customers by giving away that which programmers could otherwise have
> sold to these other customers.
These things happen in commercial settings all the time. It's just a
question of agreement between the service provider (programmer) and
the licensee on the licence in question and the payment related to
that.
The only difference with free software is that the programmer of free
software agrees upon such a licence upfront, typically (but not
necessarily so) also waiving payment. If they do so, they obviously
have reasons why they would do so -- e.g., they want to attract
customers for some other (non-free) piece of software (or hardware in
case of Sun) or have some non-profit motivation. You might argue that
their motivation is questionable. But the main argument presented
during this discussion that it's hard for one competitor on a market
to persist if someone with lower prices tries to enter [1] the market
is, in my opinion, not really tied to the question of free (as in
speech) software.
Low price, btw., is not always the best way to gain a substantial
share of some market. E.g., in Europe sales of rather expensive food
are on the rise, because a lot of people begin to value the (at least
morally) superior quality of ecologically produced food. The entry of
the producers of these products depends foremost on quality, not on
price. Of course, producers of low quality products that try to
achieve high prices will (and already do) have a hard time.
I think that there's no reason to promote crappy software on grounds
of the question whether it's free or proprietary. And there is an
awful lot of it in either camp, so there should be a market for either
camp, too.
Another after-thought and more on-topic in c.l.l.: To some extent I
would directly relate the rising popularity of CL to the availability
of free software implemented for or in it. I.e., I somewhat doubt that
the commerical lisp system providers would have been able to attract
enough customers and keep the community growing. If you look at what
to Pascal (the language), I think it's rather dead by now, with only
Delphi being left. There's also Free Pascal, I think, but I know of
nobody using it. So, I think the entire existance of free solutions
can sometimes help to keep a market alive in which commercial vendors
of course participate. [2]
Holger
Footnotes:
[1] Sometimes, it's not really about entering the market but more
about destroying the market. Webbrowsers, media players, you name it.
[2] I see Franz' releasing AllegroServe for free as a clever
sale and distribution move from which the developer community but also
Franz as a compiler producer are likely to benefit from in the long
run.
--
--- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ ---
"Vermutlich ist das bei den Verkehrsteilnehmern wie bei Ratten: zu dicht
auf einen Haufen gedraengt werden die agressiv und homosexuell. Vermut-
lich daher das zu dichte Auffahren auf den Arsch des Vordermanns?"
-- Uwe Borchert in de.soc.verkehr
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uodvcjns2.fsf@nhplace.com>
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> I would not claim that free software is an unqualified good,
I just wanted this sentence not to get lost. :)
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86bqrcs12k.fsf@panix.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
>> I would not claim that free software is an unqualified good,
>
> I just wanted this sentence not to get lost. :)
Kent, that has never been my, or for the most part that of free
software proponents', position. No one with any sense claims that
anything is an unqualified good or an unqualified bad.
Next strawman,please.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnecaqi4.9o5.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-07-24, Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
>
> I don't mean to exclude things like this. gcc is at least not restricted
> so that things compiled with it are encumbered by gpl.
It was not for lack of trying on the FSF/GNU's part, if I remember
correcly.
There was a time, early 90's I think, when the FSF stated that the ouput
of gcc and, in many ways more importantly, flex & bison were derived
works of gpled programs and covered by the gpl. From what I remember it
nearly killed them. At the time the major source of income for the FSF
was book and tape sales and once companies got wind of the claim they
dumped the products in favor of commercial offerings.
marc
marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-07-24, Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't mean to exclude things like this. gcc is at least not restricted
> > so that things compiled with it are encumbered by gpl.
>
> It was not for lack of trying on the FSF/GNU's part, if I remember
> correcly.
>
> There was a time, early 90's I think, when the FSF stated that the ouput
> of gcc and, in many ways more importantly, flex & bison were derived
> works of gpled programs and covered by the gpl.
>
> From what I remember it nearly killed them. At the time the major source
> of income for the FSF was book and tape sales and once companies got
> wind of the claim they dumped the products in favor of commercial offerings.
Got any proof?
Here's my view of the situation:
The GPL v2, circa 1991, explicitly states that the "output" from a
program is not automatically under the GPL unless it actually contains
content which is under the GPL.
In 1995, an exception was added to bison 1.24 to exempt the
"bison.simple" file from the GPL when it was used as a template for the
parser. No such exception was added to GCC, but the FSF have
consistently stated that the output of GCC is not automatically GPLed
just because GCC is.
The fact that they added an exception to bison but not to GCC and are
asserting that the output of GCC is not automatically GPLed strongly
suggests to me that they would have asserted that in "the early 90's".
>
>
> marc
Nathan Baum wrote:
> marc spitzer wrote:
> > On 2006-07-24, Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't mean to exclude things like this. gcc is at least not restricted
> > > so that things compiled with it are encumbered by gpl.
> >
> > It was not for lack of trying on the FSF/GNU's part, if I remember
> > correcly.
> >
> > There was a time, early 90's I think, when the FSF stated that the ouput
> > of gcc and, in many ways more importantly, flex & bison were derived
> > works of gpled programs and covered by the gpl.
> >
> > From what I remember it nearly killed them. At the time the major source
> > of income for the FSF was book and tape sales and once companies got
> > wind of the claim they dumped the products in favor of commercial offerings.
>
> Got any proof?
>
> Here's my view of the situation:
>
> The GPL v2, circa 1991, explicitly states that the "output" from a
> program is not automatically under the GPL unless it actually contains
> content which is under the GPL.
>
> In 1995, an exception was added to bison 1.24 to exempt the
> "bison.simple" file from the GPL when it was used as a template for the
> parser. No such exception was added to GCC, but the FSF have
> consistently stated that the output of GCC is not automatically GPLed
> just because GCC is.
>
> The fact that they added an exception to bison but not to GCC and are
> asserting that the output of GCC is not automatically GPLed strongly
> suggests to me that they would have asserted that in "the early 90's".
That's the situation as I understand it too. At one time bison.simple
was GPLed making all output from bison GPL except the tables
themselves.
Once libg++ was GPLed though, this maybe what Marc was referring to.
I don't know about flex, but it's worth mentioning flex is not a GNU
package and never has been. (It's documentation is though, go figure).
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> Free software often benefits people, but often those people are not the
> people making it.
>
But that's their decision, isn't it? Free software pushes the problem
domain sideways (make a better product, if you can, that you can sell)
or up (make a different product higher up the software food chain).
> > There are practically no examples of free software destroying any
> > product that offered superior capabilities.
>
> Because most examples are like mine. They are embarrassing errors in
> judgment, and opening them to public scrutiny is painful and something
> any sensible person would avoid.
Errors in judgement happen all the time and has little to do with the
free software paradigm. You might have come out with an offering for X
amount of dollars, and someone else might have had a better offering for
< X dollars, along with better marketing & etc... Why, if that had been
the case, you might have offered your product for free and tried to make
it up other ways (support, writing a book, customization, ...).
[...]
>
> So please feel free to claim there's a lack of data, but please do not
> feel free to say that a lack of data is an automatic implication that
> nothing has happened. I have put more of my story on the line than I
> am comfortable with, and discussing this at all hurts me more than you
> can probably possibly imagine. Every single time I write a message on
> this that gets published, you should assume there are about ten such
> messages that I have discarded because I couldn't bear the pain of
> dealing with some inconsiderate correspondant who doesn't care that
> it's my dreams they are trampling upon, or because it reveals too much
> personal information about myself.
Eight, nine? years ago I wrote some commercial software which twice
earned 5 Mice from Macworld, and 5 diamonds from MacWeek, also twice,
plus a slew of other awards. It no longer exists and I'm still owed a
chunk of change which I'll never see (and which debt I've forgiven,
anyway). It wasn't beaten by free software; but it was beaten. Happens
all the time in business.
Free software isn't an enemy, unless you view competition as an enemy.
Free software is simply scaffolding that allows you to work on something
else.
[...]
>
> > In other words, free software is just another competitor.
>
> It is not.
Of course it is.
> It is often paid for out of the pockets of parents who don't realize their
> kids are not "working their way through college" but instead "squandering
> their future by making sure there is no market for them later".
The world runs on software and that isn't going to change anytime soon.
Free software just changes what software has to be written. And working
on free software isn't a waste; for a college student, for example, it's
one way to gain experience. I wrote an HP-2100 assembler and editor in
Basic my first year of college; a friend wrote the emulator and
debugger. We didn't get paid for it and it was used to teach students
assembly language. Wonderful experience. After college I was hired to
write a macro assembler for the Intel 4xxx/8xxx microprocessors; that
prior experience was invaluable.
> It is often paid for by businesses in unrelated markets that don't
> care if they make a mess of an unrelated market they don't care about.
Businesses pay for free software so that their clients have more money
to spend on what the company happens to sell.
[...]
>
> I have NEVER railed against free software. That's just the way many people
> sum me up who aren't paying attention to what I'm writing. I've said that
> free software has many ill effects, both to markets and to individuals, and
> that the people who encourage others to "join the movement" don't do a proper
> disclosure of the personal and social ills that might be caused.
>
Progress always leaves some people behind. The solution isn't to stop
progress. Good grief, the FCC could very well end up negatively
affecting the company I work for, simply because they think they are
doing good. They are, but there are going to be a lot of unintended
consequences.
> > It's all very nice to theorize, but how about reconciling theories
> > with facts?
>
> Reconciling theories with facts is precisely what I've been doing.
Actually, you've been complaing that the world isn't fair, as you define
fair. Market forces prevented something you poured yourself into from
not being a success. It happens all the time.
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <871ws9lv1s.fsf@flarge.here>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
> The two sides are (the party line) "free software is always good" vs
> "free software has positive and negative effects and its use should be
> considered judiciously both to make sure it doesn't have ill effects on
> an otherwise-healthy market and to make sure the maker of the free software
> understands the value that s/he is giving away by not selling it".
>
> Free software often benefits people, but often those people are not the
> people making it.
Well if you go for "free" software and write for it that's your
choice. If you do not want to benefit then you won't. The main point
is still lacking. The "expectation" of getting all software for free
(beer, speech) is depressing. And well by all means one thing is
really getting nastier with every new round of free software. You can
get the software but you do not get anything which deserves the name
"proper" documentation. And this is what makes me more nervous every
day. I suggest you check for decent documenation about OpenSSL. And
the FSF people do more and more to make things close. Just check for
decent documentation about gcc and explanations on how things
work. The "usual answer" you get is. Use the source. So you have to
wade through at least 3 layers of MACROS, weak references, weak
functions then you have etc. That's "free" in their sense, you are
free to waste months on "getting" somewhere.
Just another example. What do you expect in a .so file on Linux?
Go figure what libc.so is.
Have a nice day
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
Friedrich Dominicus <···················@q-software-solutions.de> wrote:
[...]
> Well if you go for "free" software and write for it that's your choice. If
> you do not want to benefit then you won't. The main point is still
> lacking. The "expectation" of getting all software for free (beer, speech)
> is depressing. And well by all means one thing is really getting nastier
> with every new round of free software. You can get the software but you do
> not get anything which deserves the name "proper" documentation. And this
> is what makes me more nervous every day. I suggest you check for decent
> documenation about OpenSSL. And the FSF people do more and more to make
> things close. Just check for decent documentation about gcc and
> explanations on how things work. The "usual answer" you get is. Use the
> source. So you have to wade through at least 3 layers of MACROS, weak
> references, weak functions then you have etc. That's "free" in their
> sense, you are free to waste months on "getting" somewhere.
>
> Just another example. What do you expect in a .so file on Linux?
> Go figure what libc.so is.
>
Sounds like an opportunity to write and sell a book.
Friedrich Dominicus <···················@q-software-solutions.de> writes:
> You can
> get the software but you do not get anything which deserves the name
> "proper" documentation. And this is what makes me more nervous every
> day. I suggest you check for decent documenation about OpenSSL. And
> the FSF people do more and more to make things close. Just check for
> decent documentation about gcc and explanations on how things
> work. The "usual answer" you get is. Use the source. So you have to
> wade through at least 3 layers of MACROS, weak references, weak
> functions then you have etc. That's "free" in their sense, you are
> free to waste months on "getting" somewhere.
You must compare what's comparable. So let's do it.
You ask FSF for the documentation of GCC internals,
and you get the answer: "read the source".
You ask Microsoft for the documentation of MSVC internals,
and you get what answer again?
You ask Intel for the documentation of ICC internals,
and you get what answer?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Logiciels libres : nourris au code source sans farine animale."
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Friedrich Dominicus <···················@q-software-solutions.de> writes:
> > You can
> > get the software but you do not get anything which deserves the name
> > "proper" documentation. And this is what makes me more nervous every
> > day. I suggest you check for decent documenation about OpenSSL. And
> > the FSF people do more and more to make things close. Just check for
> > decent documentation about gcc and explanations on how things
> > work. The "usual answer" you get is. Use the source. So you have to
> > wade through at least 3 layers of MACROS, weak references, weak
> > functions then you have etc. That's "free" in their sense, you are
> > free to waste months on "getting" somewhere.
>
> You must compare what's comparable. So let's do it.
>
> You ask FSF for the documentation of GCC internals,
> and you get the answer: "read the source".
>
It's also worth mentioning that GCC has an internals manual, unlike
almost every other piece of software in existance. Much of this manual
is even fairl accurate at least regarding porting GCC.
(The reason more details of GCC operation are not put in the internals
manual is that the manual is covered under the GFDL. Several of those
who maintain GCC find this license too restrictive, so they put their
documentation in the source, generally in huge 1000 line comments at
the start of files. )
If you're looking for a poor-documentation culprit I'd go for the Linux
kernel and especially it's associated utilities every time.
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87y7ugzn2s.fsf@flarge.here>
"Rob Thorpe" <·············@antenova.com> writes:
>> You must compare what's comparable. So let's do it.
>>
>> You ask FSF for the documentation of GCC internals,
>> and you get the answer: "read the source".
>>
>
> It's also worth mentioning that GCC has an internals manual, unlike
> almost every other piece of software in existance. Much of this manual
> is even fairl accurate at least regarding porting GCC.
Well then check the part of the exception handling.
>
> If you're looking for a poor-documentation culprit I'd go for the Linux
> kernel and especially it's associated utilities every time.
Now then go for OpenSSL documentation. You can bash Microsoft for
quite a few things but they had and have extensive documentation about
their systems that someone else can
- build a compiler
- linker
- get an idea of the used exception handling.
How comes that besides ICC there isn't another C compiler around? The
answer is because the all tell you "use" gcc.
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
From: Holger Schauer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yxzu054sdht.fsf@gmx.de>
On 4711 September 1993, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> How comes that besides ICC there isn't another C compiler around? The
> answer is because the all tell you "use" gcc.
Last time I checked, Suns compiler was doing fine. Hey, I think, even
Microsoft is selling a C compiler. Borland, too, I think.
Holger
--
--- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ ---
"Vermutlich ist das bei den Verkehrsteilnehmern wie bei Ratten: zu dicht
auf einen Haufen gedraengt werden die agressiv und homosexuell. Vermut-
lich daher das zu dichte Auffahren auf den Arsch des Vordermanns?"
-- Uwe Borchert in de.soc.verkehr
Holger Schauer wrote:
> Microsoft is selling a C compiler.
No. Microsoft is giving it away.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87vephvye6.fsf@david-steuber.com>
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Holger Schauer wrote:
> > Microsoft is selling a C compiler.
>
> No. Microsoft is giving it away.
That is not the case for Dev Studio.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87lkqgxsip.fsf@flarge.here>
Holger Schauer <··············@gmx.de> writes:
> On 4711 September 1993, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>> How comes that besides ICC there isn't another C compiler around? The
>> answer is because the all tell you "use" gcc.
>
> Last time I checked, Suns compiler was doing fine. Hey, I think, even
> Microsoft is selling a C compiler.
On Linux or some free Unix? That's really some news.
> Borland, too, I think.
Yes on Windows because they got the documentation and were able to
build their stuff while it was documented by Microsoft.
Regards
Friedrich
From: Jyri J. Virkki
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <12cfdqosq6e6u72@corp.supernews.com>
In article <··············@flarge.here>,
Friedrich Dominicus <···················@q-software-solutions.de> wrote:
>Holger Schauer <··············@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> On 4711 September 1993, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>>> How comes that besides ICC there isn't another C compiler around? The
>>> answer is because the all tell you "use" gcc.
>>
>> Last time I checked, Suns compiler was doing fine. Hey, I think, even
>> Microsoft is selling a C compiler.
>
>On Linux or some free Unix? That's really some news.
http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/cc/downloads/tech_preview.jsp
--
Jyri J. Virkki - Santa Cruz, CA - Linux: The Choice of a GNU Generation
From: Holger Schauer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yxzr708rr8c.fsf@gmx.de>
On 4711 September 1993, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> Holger Schauer <··············@gmx.de> writes:
>> On 4711 September 1993, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>>> How comes that besides ICC there isn't another C compiler around? The
>>> answer is because the all tell you "use" gcc.
>> Last time I checked, Suns compiler was doing fine. Hey, I think, even
>> Microsoft is selling a C compiler.
> On Linux or some free Unix? That's really some news.
You didn't state this extra condition in your statement above and in
the context we're just discussing, I think it is worth pointing out,
that albeit there may not be a second commercial compiler on Linux
around it would be an invalid conclusion (and I take that to be the
main point of your rhetorical question) to say that there are no
commercial compilers at all.
GCC is readily available on a lot of Unix plattforms and Windows,
too. Still, the commercial compilers on these plattforms still exist
and were not killed by the zero-cost competitor.
Franz and Lucidworks are still existing, too, despite the competition
from CMUCL, SBCL and CLisp. I wonder why? (Actually, I don't.)
>> Borland, too, I think.
> Yes on Windows because they got the documentation and were able to
> build their stuff while it was documented by Microsoft.
That was a joke, right? I would be surprised to learn that Borland
used documentation from Microsoft in the pre-Windows-era. I don't know
if they sell their compiler on Linux or not, I think at least they do
(or did) with their Delphi (Pascal) system.
Holger
--
--- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ ---
"Vermutlich ist das bei den Verkehrsteilnehmern wie bei Ratten: zu dicht
auf einen Haufen gedraengt werden die agressiv und homosexuell. Vermut-
lich daher das zu dichte Auffahren auf den Arsch des Vordermanns?"
-- Uwe Borchert in de.soc.verkehr
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:28:03 +0200, Holger Schauer wrote:
>>>> How comes that besides ICC there isn't another C compiler around? The
>>>> answer is because the all tell you "use" gcc.
>>> Last time I checked, Suns compiler was doing fine. Hey, I think, even
>>> Microsoft is selling a C compiler.
>> On Linux or some free Unix? That's really some news.
>
> You didn't state this extra condition in your statement above and in
> the context we're just discussing, I think it is worth pointing out,
> that albeit there may not be a second commercial compiler on Linux
> around it would be an invalid conclusion (and I take that to be the
> main point of your rhetorical question) to say that there are no
> commercial compilers at all.
Another proprietary C, C++ and Fortran compiler for x86-64 Linux:
<http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath.html>
Regards,
Adam
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87ac6tvm6z.fsf@flarge.here>
Adam Warner <······@consulting.net.nz> writes:
> Another proprietary C, C++ and Fortran compiler for x86-64 Linux:
> <http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath.html>
Thanks for the link, I did not know that.
Regards
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:27:48 +0200, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> Adam Warner <······@consulting.net.nz> writes:
>
>> Another proprietary C, C++ and Fortran compiler for x86-64 Linux:
>> <http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath.html>
> Thanks for the link, I did not know that.
And I didn't recall an additional one:
<http://www.pgroup.com/products/index.htm>
Source: <http://groups.google.co.nz/group/comp.arch/msg/9686d6110f0b69c2>
Message-ID: <·····················@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Many innovations in High Performance Computing are being developed upon
Linux: <http://lwn.net/Articles/191699/>
Thus Microsoft's brinkmanship with the European Commission is driven
almost entirely by its need to react to free software. It turns out
that this is by no means the only sphere where Microsoft has ceased to
be master of its own destiny, and finds itself constantly responding to
open source initiatives, and playing catch-up with free software
projects.
A good example is to be found in the world of high-performance
computing (HPC). GNU/Linux was first used for computing clusters back
in 1994, when the Beowulf project began. Since then, free software has
established itself as the pre-eminent HPC solution. In June 2006, the
TOP500 listing of the most powerful supercomputers in the world showed
that well over 70% of them ran some variant of GNU/Linux; precisely two
systems out of 500 used some form of Windows. The same month, Microsoft
finally launched its official HPC solution, the Windows Computer
Cluster Server 2003 – fully 12 years after the first free software
solution was made available for this sector.
You earlier asked the question: `How comes that besides ICC there isn't
another C compiler around? The answer is because they all tell you "use"
gcc.'
Here are some reasons for this typical response:
1. Very few C programs require a compiler that produces faster code than
GCC.
2. GCC may be the only compiler available on the architectures you support.
Where else are vendors such as Debian GNU/Linux going to find a C
compiler for Alpha, AMD64, ARM, HP Precision, IA-32, IA-64, Motorola
680x0, MIPS, PowerPC, Sparc and S/390?
3. Some programs rely upon GCC extensions. For example, computed goto is
useful for the efficient implementation of virtual machine interpreters:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/Labels-as-Values.html>
If other compilers don't support these extensions the application has
to be rewritten, such as replacing computed goto with slower ANSI C
switch statements.
4. Even if a proprietary compiler supports a particular architecture there
are well-documented cases of the vendor generating code that runs slower
on the processors manufactured by a competitor.
As an aside, I was dumbfounded to learn about Hardware manufacturers
crippling their architectures in order to support broken software that is
never going to be recompiled:
<http://groups.google.co.nz/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/msg/3b4b92b18a15be56>
Message-ID: <···························@redelm.us>
<http://groups.google.co.nz/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/msg/a59cb88c6d7c8ca1>
Message-ID: <························@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Regards,
Adam
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87ejw5vmbj.fsf@flarge.here>
Holger Schauer <··············@gmx.de> writes:
> That was a joke, right? I would be surprised to learn that Borland
> used documentation from Microsoft in the pre-Windows-era. I don't know
> if they sell their compiler on Linux or not, I think at least they do
> (or did) with their Delphi (Pascal) system.
Well I have not idea about the pre-Windows era. However I suggest to
check the MSDN SDKs.
Regards
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86zmeycwuj.fsf@panix.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> I would not have begrudged any entry to the market in which the web
> server had sought to recover its development costs. I don't know what
> anyone else would have spent developing a server, but I figured they'd
> either spent more and gotten more power (in which case I could hit a
> lower price point and offer less) or they'd spent less and gotten less
> (in which case I could occupy a higher-end). But zero has the special
> multiplicative property that it's hard to compete with. Free software
> is the Limit Commodity.
This is not specific to free software. In any competitive market, an
entity may try to gain advantage and market share by aggressive
pricing and bundling. The aggressive pricing may be cross-subsized by
other means or it could even be considered a loss-leader. So long as
that entity is not a monopoly, the law allows for such predatory
pricing. In the final analysis, pricing of software, like that of any
other product depends on what the market will bear. It has nothing to
do with recovering product development costs.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
From: Kamen TOMOV
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uy7uimv0k.fsf@cybuild.com>
On ������, ��� 23 2006, Kent M Pitman wrote:
>> Lisp environments now would be now if so many of you were not
>> spinning your wheels on free Lisps. Hell, a few of them are
>> scraping by anyway. If certain Lispniks had half a brain and simply
>> bought a commercial license, maybe franz could stop pricing ACL
>> like hen's teeth and ease up on their whacky licensing fees.
>
> I agree completely.
I don't. Free Lisps are also a marketing tool for the popularization
of Lisp (although mostly as a side effect). If it weren't they, many
of us wouldn't have even considered it. As we would all be better of
if there were more Lisp globally, I claim that free Lisps are a good
thing, even for Franz. I don't think that if they didn't exist Franz
would have had better sales and subsequently - lower prices. Because
mostly a completed Lispnik, convinced in the value of a commercial
Lisp would consider buying it. He would do it to do business so the
price wouldn't so much matter.
> (Which makes it a bit ironic in the context of my grumbling about
> AServe.
> But I don't think Franz meant to sink my business with AServe--I
> think they just didn't understand the full implications of what they
> were doing. I like to think they've learned from that, although I
> don't know if they've actually changed any policies on free
> software. My company certainly changed. It started out hoping to
> create and license interesting software, and has largely abandoned
> the idea that it can make money that way.)
We all have two choices -
(a) adopt
(b) die
(b) is part of life (even for a Lisp runtime). It happens all the time
- one shouldn't worry - it is not the end - it is only a
transformation.
Many companies know what they do when they release something as free
software. Usually their contribution is a way to attract customers to
their products or services. I too much respect Franz to assume they
aren't one of them. It is part of their (a) strategy.
Stallman is 100% right for one thing - NOONE can stop people from
volunteering. Although, you can probably stop your neighbour from
lawning for free, you can't even consider that for your "Internet
neighbours" as they are too many and too different. Free software is
part of the reality and there can not be any force that is capable of
stopping it.
I also didn't like some of the changes that came with the so called
"democracy" in my country after 1989. And it took me some time to
realize that it is I who should adopt to the environment, as the
environment wouldn't adopt to me. It might sound funny, but it took me
years to realize. In fact there are many people here, who have not
realized it yet, 17 years later.
I very much agree with you that these issues need to be discussed as
in order to know where we are going we need to know where we are
coming from, exactly because of the nature of our community.
As to (a) - it is the question can we innovate in this environment
that constantly troubles me. Not only because the free software is a
major player on the market, but also because the players on this
global market are getting too many and some of them are way too
strong. It happens so often to find an idea of mine realized by others
that it is depressing. It is because this is what I do, this is what
makes me happy and if I can not do it - it is a big problem.
By the way does anybody know how many are the startups in the recent
years who made impact by writing an intelligent piece of proprietary
software for distribution, not for their own use?
I realize that it is not very likely that people will discuss market
opportunities in a news group as they will stop being opportunities,
but at least we might easily discuss what is not an opportunity any
more and it would still be valuable information.
Considering (b) - is there anybody (in similar position) who
successfully transformed and what is his/her new form? I also realize
that it is not very likely that such person would continue reading
this list.
Faithfully,
--
Kamen TOMOV
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3zmey1at2.fsf@NOSPAMgmail.com>
Kamen TOMOV <·····@evrocom.net> writes:
>
> I don't. Free Lisps are also a marketing tool for the popularization
> of Lisp (although mostly as a side effect). If it weren't they, many
> of us wouldn't have even considered it.
I know that I wouldn't. Any language whose sole implementation is
proprietary isn't worth my time--who knows what its owner will decide
tomorrow? But I'm just a single low-quality datum in a sea of data...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
But it's more than that, of course; bad spelling just isn't respectable.
You may, perhaps, want to lament this fact. You are free to do so. The
fact remains. --John Mitchell
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us
>>>>cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
>>>>faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
>>>>standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else."
>>>>
>>>>Stupid is as stupid writes. And note that it /is/ about the money, no
>>>>matter how well your brain has been washed of this evidence of the
>>>>obvious intent of the FSF.
>>>
>>>For those who don't have time,
>>
>>Au contraire your conclusion below, i encourage everyone to go read
>>the full manifesto and the full FAQ for themselves. Tayssir, you find
>>something equivocal in this?:
>>
>>"If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like
>>GNU, but that's tough on you."
>>
>>OK, so they /are/ putting people out of business. Surprise,
>>surprise. Any doubt? Substitute "a Lisp compiler" and you have RMS
>>pleading "nolo contendere" to my original rant. Questions?
>
>
> Let me see. BeOS was rejected from Apple in favor of GNU?
> No, in favor of BSD. Not exactly FSF's fault.
>
> What OS constructor lost in favor of GNU/Hurd? It's even not finished yet!
Sorry you have not been able to follow the context or remember what I
wrote. The context is commercial Lisps being hurt by everyone falling
for the silly FSF "no charge for software" manifesto and refusing even
to /learn/ from trial versions. The second issue was the fools who fell
for the FSF spin rewrite: "did we say people should not charge for
software? oh my, no, we are just talking about freedon of speech. you
believe in freedom of speech don't you?" They really need to take down
the manifesto from the web site and hope no one kept a copy.
As for remembering what I wrote: agreed, and I did laugh at Linux for
having such a crappy model that dozens of distros and thousands of
sucker contributors and all the kings horses cannot put together an OS
more useable by grandma than that turd win32.
Methinks that if STallman had the management skill of Gates Linux could
have been something
> Because he's wrong. Freedom software gives more work opportunities to
> more programmers, because users are free to choose whoever to work on
> their programs, because more hardware documentation is provided, so
> more software can be developed for more hardware. etc.
You have never owned or seen a win32 machine, have you? I am online
skype-ing and video-chatting with complete computer idiots using win32.
Case closed.
> Perhaps we'd need hard data backup (anyone has the IP of the gateway
> to parallel universes?), but it seems to me the software industry is
> much better today with freedom software than it was twenty years ago
> with only proprietary software.
yes, the state of the parallel universe is the question. RMS seems to
think Lisp vendors would be doing better if CLisp and CMUCL et al did
not exist, but that society would have been destructed more. How society
is harmed by better, cheaper Lisp environments is left as an exercise,
it seems. I guess RMS would say, "Look at Communist Soviet Union! That
is progress!". Hmmm.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>>OK, so they /are/ putting people out of business. Surprise,
>>>surprise. Any doubt? Substitute "a Lisp compiler" and you have RMS
>>>pleading "nolo contendere" to my original rant. Questions?
>> Let me see. BeOS was rejected from Apple in favor of GNU? No, in
>> favor of BSD. Not exactly FSF's fault.
>> What OS constructor lost in favor of GNU/Hurd? It's even not
>> finished yet!
>
> Sorry you have not been able to follow the context or remember what I
> wrote.
You wrote that *they* (refering to RMS & FSF, as I understand it), are
putting people out of business. I want data points.
The only data point that comes to my mind of a free software vs. a
commercial software where the free software was choosen, and which
eventually had bad consequences for the commercial software is that
of BeOS vs. NeXTSTEP, where Apple Computer Inc. choosed the free
software based one. And I noted that the free software Apple choosed
wasn't under GPL license, but under BSD.
If you have any example of a competition between GPL'ed software and
proprietary software where the GPL'ed software was choosen and
thereafter the proprietary vendor went bankrupt, please tell us about it!
> The context is commercial Lisps being hurt by everyone falling
> for the silly FSF "no charge for software" manifesto and refusing even
> to /learn/ from trial versions. The second issue was the fools who
> fell for the FSF spin rewrite: "did we say people should not charge
> for software? oh my, no, we are just talking about freedon of
> speech. you believe in freedom of speech don't you?" They really need
> to take down the manifesto from the web site and hope no one kept a
> copy.
Well, after 20 years of GPL, LispWorks and Franz aren't bankrupt yet.
> You have never owned or seen a win32 machine, have you?
In the past, I reserved my proprietary system budgets for NeXT
Computer Inc, and Apple Computer Inc. I have been forced to touch
occasionnaly Microsoft Windows, but it has never been a nice
experience.
> I am online skype-ing and video-chatting with complete computer
> idiots using win32. Case closed.
This is not a computer anymore. A computer is programmable.
When you use emacs, you have a computer.
When you use Skype, you have a phone.
When you use iChat, you have a videophone.
When you use Microsoft Word, you have _word_ _processor_.
Complete Computer Idiots don't use computers. They use various kind of
simplier devices, not equivalent to a Turing Machine.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
NOTE: The most fundamental particles in this product are held
together by a "gluing" force about which little is currently known
and whose adhesive power can therefore not be permanently
guaranteed.
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> The context is commercial Lisps being hurt by everyone falling for
> the silly FSF "no charge for software" manifesto and refusing even
> to /learn/ from trial versions. The second issue was the fools who
> fell for the FSF spin rewrite: "did we say people should not charge
> for software? oh my, no, we are just talking about freedon of
> speech. you believe in freedom of speech don't you?"
You started out really good, but now your arguments are weakening. As
a spectator, I think the amusement value is almost gone. How about
you? Perhaps it's time to start a fresh troll?
> I guess RMS would say, "Look at Communist Soviet Union! That is
> progress!".
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <DXLvg.421$6q.270@fe12.lga>
Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>The context is commercial Lisps being hurt by everyone falling for
>>the silly FSF "no charge for software" manifesto and refusing even
>>to /learn/ from trial versions. The second issue was the fools who
>>fell for the FSF spin rewrite: "did we say people should not charge
>>for software? oh my, no, we are just talking about freedon of
>>speech. you believe in freedom of speech don't you?"
>
>
> You started out really good, but now your arguments are weakening. As
> a spectator, I think the amusement value is almost gone. How about
> you? Perhaps it's time to start a fresh troll?
(a) Then why are you continuing this one? (hint)
(b) Troll? First Goose, now you? What is this, kill the messenger? That
is one good way to preserve the mass hypnosis. We have a new emperor's
new clothes tale, one in which people continue to see the clothes after
the child says he is naked. Shall I return the favor and start accusing
you and Goose of being apologists for the FSF, or shall we continue
discussing Linux waste or no waste in good faith and with respect for
the other's obvious conviction?
Tim X's encomium on The New Linux sent me over to comp.os.linux.help for
an insanity check. Surprise, surprise. First one I found was an Ubuntu
user recomemmending it to a noob: "Everything works on my laptop but the
mousepad which I do not like anyway and the wireless..."
"which I do not like anyway" PWUAAAAHAHAHAHAAH. Boy, that says it all.
No, I think it is time to start a Linux Timesheet web site. You register
with your initial time to install. Goose would have to come up with a
time, not "same as Windows". Mine would be four hours or so, installing
to HD from Knoppix. I was quite pleased, btw, and full marks to Knoppix
folks. Then you come back and log any interesting maintenance wars. At
least a description and hours spent, maybe a post mortem with final fix.
I will pretend it is a Linux help site, and it will be! My secret agenda
(to destroy the FSF) will never be known! MWUAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
Whaddya think?
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> > Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> No, I think it is time to start a Linux Timesheet web site. You register
> with your initial time to install. Goose would have to come up with a
> time, not "same as Windows". Mine would be four hours or so, installing
> to HD from Knoppix. I was quite pleased, btw, and full marks to Knoppix
> folks. Then you come back and log any interesting maintenance wars. At
> least a description and hours spent, maybe a post mortem with final
> fix. I will pretend it is a Linux help site, and it will be! My secret
> agenda (to destroy the FSF) will never be known!
> MWUAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
>
> Whaddya think?
>
I think you're being a twit. Install time is pretty much negligible
relative to the utility and life-cycle of the installed OS and the costs
associated with it- that is unless you like to install operating systems
as a hobby instead of doing work.
Nobody is arguing that Linux doesn't have costs but it has different
costs than Windows, sometimes the difference is a huge benefit to an
application sometimes not. However, without FSF software a huge segment
of the semiconductor and embedded system market would fall flat on its
face and/or require considerable purchasing of embedded toolchains with
all the royalty encumberances they come with.
In general whenever you pick up a gizmo a cpu in it, FSF products
provided the basis for the software development that made it work. Get
rid of the FSF software and the price goes up. Ready to pay for it?
Many of the satellites that you receive cable, phone and video services
over are built using FSF products, some of which have been incorporated
into for-profit products used in the process, not to mention the
consulting & support work that go along with any software suite. FSF
software considerably reduces the costs of production and infrastructure
in the development phases. The only thing Windows is contributing to
this arena is a more or less dumb terminal and sometimes as a server OS
to support the FSF dev toolchains. I will also point out that these
Windows machines require a HUGE infrastructure of antivirus, antispyware
and support just to keep them running and safe enough to not destroy
data on the rest of the network.
I have more problems from the network police over Windows machines and
their issues than all the other operating systems I work with put
together. So theres another cost for you that FSF products don't incur-
but its generally paid for by operating budgets so doesn't appear as
part of the purchase price.
If you do your work on your single laptop, fine, nobody cares- but once
you put a few thousand Windows boxes on a network you have a huge
security and maintenance headache that only gets worse as the system
ages.
Gregm
From: Kamen TOMOV
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uirlsb37q.fsf@cybuild.com>
I recently realized that I do not benefit from the freedoms that the
GNU/Linux operating system provides especially when it comes to my
desktop. I will elaborate on them all.
Freedom one is to help ourselves, the freedom to study the source code
and change it to what we wish. Freedom two is the freedom to help your
neighbor, the freedom to distribute copies to others and freedom three
is the freedom to help your community - the freedom to publish
modified versions so other can benefit from your contribution.
All of these imply studying and changing the source code. Well, the
operating system is written mostly in "C". There is a C-kernel and
C/C++ untiles. Therefore I am not interested in studying or changing
its source code. Even if it were Perl or Python, or Java it would not
have made much difference. However, if it were Lisp that would have
been a different story. I wonder why RMS started writing a C-compiler
instead of a Lisp one, given his Lisp background.
Freedom zero is to run a program as you wish. Well here is where
everybody decides for himself. It is often possible to trade that
freedom for other benefits.
Regards,
--
Kamen TOMOV
http://www.cybuild.com
Kamen TOMOV <·····@evrocom.net> writes:
> All of these imply studying and changing the source code. Well, the
> operating system is written mostly in "C". There is a C-kernel and
> C/C++ untiles. Therefore I am not interested in studying or changing
> its source code. Even if it were Perl or Python, or Java it would not
> have made much difference. However, if it were Lisp that would have
> been a different story. I wonder why RMS started writing a C-compiler
> instead of a Lisp one, given his Lisp background.
He said and wrote it several times. To be most useful, and for
practical reasons (since he developed GNU software on unix machines),
he aimed at "cloning" unix.
Indeed, too bad he didn't aim at cloning Lisp Machines...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Pour moi, la grande question n'a jamais �t�: �Qui suis-je? O� vais-je?�
comme l'a formul� si adroitement notre ami Pascal, mais plut�t:
�Comment vais-je m'en tirer?� -- Jean Yanne
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Indeed, too bad he didn't aim at cloning Lisp Machines...
Actually he did that first, in a way. For about two years RMS tried (and
mostly succeeded) to single-handedly match the software development
output of Symbolics, Inc to keep the Lisp Machines, Inc software
functionality in pace with the less free Symbolics lispm. It was a
prodigious effort that did not prevent the economic demise of LMI, nor
was it the cause of the eventual demise of Symbolics.
That experience is what led to the decision to target a unix clone as
something that would make more of a difference in the world even if it
was not as hackishly aesthetic.
--
Sidney Markowitz
http://www.sidney.com
From: Kamen TOMOV
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <ud5c0atjo.fsf@cybuild.com>
On ���������, ��� 20 2006, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> Indeed, too bad he didn't aim at cloning Lisp Machines...
>
> Actually he did that first, in a way. For about two years RMS tried
> (and mostly succeeded) to single-handedly match the software
> development output of Symbolics, Inc to keep the Lisp Machines, Inc
> software functionality in pace with the less free Symbolics
> lispm. It was a prodigious effort that did not prevent the economic
> demise of LMI, nor was it the cause of the eventual demise of
> Symbolics.
>
> That experience is what led to the decision to target a unix clone
> as something that would make more of a difference in the world even
> if it was not as hackishly aesthetic.
What kind of decision is that. If you know how to build a spacecraft
why would you start working on a single engine plane?
Is it what it seems i.e. that it's too expensive to build a spacecraft?
--
Kamen TOMOV
http://www.cybuild.com
Kamen TOMOV wrote:
> On ÷åòâúðòúê, Þëè 20 2006, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>
> > Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> >> Indeed, too bad he didn't aim at cloning Lisp Machines...
> >
> > Actually he did that first, in a way. For about two years RMS tried
> > (and mostly succeeded) to single-handedly match the software
> > development output of Symbolics, Inc to keep the Lisp Machines, Inc
> > software functionality in pace with the less free Symbolics
> > lispm. It was a prodigious effort that did not prevent the economic
> > demise of LMI, nor was it the cause of the eventual demise of
> > Symbolics.
> >
> > That experience is what led to the decision to target a unix clone
> > as something that would make more of a difference in the world even
> > if it was not as hackishly aesthetic.
>
> What kind of decision is that. If you know how to build a spacecraft
> why would you start working on a single engine plane?
>
> Is it what it seems i.e. that it's too expensive to build a spacecraft?
The original aim was to have a *nix like operating system written in a
relatively short time. In the 80s I think the GNU people
underestimated the task, they thought that it could be done more
quickly than it was.
As a result they targetted hardware only a little more powerful than
the small computers of the time. I remember reading that it was once
intended that Emacs should be able to work on an Amiga. This made using
a Lisp Machine like system difficult because it would not run on small
machines, or at least not run well.
From: Kamen TOMOV
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <u4pxb103w.fsf@cybuild.com>
On �����, ��� 21 2006, Rob Thorpe wrote:
> Kamen TOMOV wrote:
>
>> Is it what it seems i.e. that it's too expensive to build a
>> spacecraft?
>
> The original aim was to have a *nix like operating system written in
> a relatively short time.
No, the original aim was to make a free operating system.
> In the 80s I think the GNU people underestimated the task, they
> thought that it could be done more quickly than it was.
No wonder, especially if they were used to being productive on a Lisp
Machine :-)
> As a result they targetted hardware only a little more powerful than
> the small computers of the time. I remember reading that it was
> once intended that Emacs should be able to work on an Amiga. This
> made using a Lisp Machine like system difficult because it would not
> run on small machines, or at least not run well.
Yeah, this is what RMS also said.
--
Kamen TOMOV
http://www.cybuild.com
Kamen TOMOV wrote:
> On ���������, ��� 20 2006, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>
>
>>Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>>
>>>Indeed, too bad he didn't aim at cloning Lisp Machines...
>>
>>Actually he did that first, in a way. For about two years RMS tried
>>(and mostly succeeded) to single-handedly match the software
>>development output of Symbolics, Inc to keep the Lisp Machines, Inc
>>software functionality in pace with the less free Symbolics
>>lispm. It was a prodigious effort that did not prevent the economic
>>demise of LMI, nor was it the cause of the eventual demise of
>>Symbolics.
>>
>>That experience is what led to the decision to target a unix clone
>>as something that would make more of a difference in the world even
>>if it was not as hackishly aesthetic.
>
>
> What kind of decision is that.
Probably the same (right or wrong) that led to the Dylan team adopting C
syntax. If you want to infect a lot of people, go to a city, not a
tropical island, however idyllic. Of course...
> If you know how to build a spacecraft
> why would you start working on a single engine plane?
...one has to be careful reasoning by analogy, because...
>
> Is it what it seems i.e. that it's too expensive to build a spacecraft?
>
...the analogue sometimes displaces the thing one was trying to discuss.
kenneth
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Kamen TOMOV
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <u3bcwaqdb.fsf@cybuild.com>
On �����, ��� 21 2006, Ken Tilton wrote:
> Kamen TOMOV wrote:
>
>> What kind of decision is that.
>
> Probably the same (right or wrong) that led to the Dylan team
> adopting C syntax. If you want to infect a lot of people, go to a
> city, not a tropical island, however idyllic. Of course...
But were the Lisp Machines really like tropical island back then?
Didn't they had considerable user base when Stallman started the GNU
project? I guess I need a history lesson.
--
Kamen TOMOV
http://www.cybuild.com
Kamen TOMOV wrote:
> What kind of decision is that. If you know how to build a spacecraft
> why would you start working on a single engine plane?
If you had a vision of a cheap non-polluting single engine plane that
could provide transportation for millions of people, you might decide to
work on that rather than your idea for a spacecraft. Just like someone
may decide they would rather advance humanity as a whole by furthering
our ability to eventually venture into space. I can see someone who has
the ability to do either making either choice for themselves.
In the case of rms, a unix and unix tools clone was clearly better than
a Lisp OS and development environment at spreading the philosophy of
free software to the maximum number of people. I think he chose to do
that as more important than working on whatever technology he thought
the coolest.
Whether you agree or disagree with him, since starting the GNU project
rms has always been totally consistent in making his priority the push
for his beliefs in software freedom.
--
Sidney Markowitz
http://www.sidney.com
From: Kamen TOMOV
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uac7310kg.fsf@cybuild.com>
On �����, ��� 21 2006, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Kamen TOMOV wrote:
>> What kind of decision is that. If you know how to build a
>> spacecraft why would you start working on a single engine plane?
>
> If you had a vision of a cheap non-polluting single engine plane
> that could provide transportation for millions of people, you might
> decide to work on that rather than your idea for a spacecraft. Just
> like someone may decide they would rather advance humanity as a
> whole by furthering our ability to eventually venture into space. I
> can see someone who has the ability to do either making either
> choice for themselves.
OK, but now even the Lisp runtimes are partially written in C. What is
that if not polution?
> In the case of rms, a unix and unix tools clone was clearly better
> than a Lisp OS and development environment at spreading the
> philosophy of free software to the maximum number of people.
"Better" is misleading. I had my history lesson and I found the answer
to the question. Here is what Stallman said:
"At first, I thought of making a Lisp-based system, but I realized
that wouldn't be a good idea technically. To have something like the
Lisp machine system, you needed special purpose microcode."
He decided that a free Lisp-based system wasn't possible because of
the state of the technology at that time. This is how we got here. He
could do anything but buy everybody a Lisp-machine.
> I think he chose to do that as more important than working on
> whatever technology he thought the coolest.
What strikes me here is that he knew what technology was the
coolest and so he considered it at first.
> Whether you agree or disagree with him, since starting the GNU
> project rms has always been totally consistent in making his
> priority the push for his beliefs in software freedom.
No doubt about that.
--
Kamen TOMOV
http://www.cybuild.com
Kamen TOMOV writes:
> Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> > That experience is what led to the decision to target a unix clone
> > as something that would make more of a difference in the world
> > even if it was not as hackishly aesthetic.
> What kind of decision is that. If you know how to build a spacecraft
> why would you start working on a single engine plane?
The initial GNU announcement said "Both C and Lisp will be available
as system programming languages", but unfortunately they seem to have
forgotten the latter language.
Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
> Kamen TOMOV writes:
>> Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>> > That experience is what led to the decision to target a unix clone
>> > as something that would make more of a difference in the world
>> > even if it was not as hackishly aesthetic.
>> What kind of decision is that. If you know how to build a spacecraft
>> why would you start working on a single engine plane?
>
> The initial GNU announcement said "Both C and Lisp will be available
> as system programming languages", but unfortunately they seem to have
> forgotten the latter language.
gcl
Not forgotten, only got less resources (probably because it has less users).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Small brave carnivores
Kill pine cones and mosquitoes
Fear vacuum cleaner
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
> > The initial GNU announcement said "Both C and Lisp will be
> > available as system programming languages", but unfortunately they
> > seem to have forgotten the latter language.
> gcl
See other post.
> Not forgotten, only got less resources (probably because it has less users).
I was going to say "0 resources", but then I remembered GNU Guile
which I guess could be suitable as a system programming language, and
I believe it did receive some funding from the FSF.
Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
>
>> Not forgotten, only got less resources (probably because it has less
>> users).
>
> I was going to say "0 resources", but then I remembered GNU Guile
> which I guess could be suitable as a system programming language, and
> I believe it did receive some funding from the FSF.
And indeed at one point was supposed to be the Next Big Thing for GNU.
Somehow that just faded into the background. Pity, as it would have
been cool to see a C-like reader syntax for Scheme, and a world in which
the entire GNU project were Lisp(-1)-programmable.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
More Slightly Less Common Latin Phrases:
Anulos qui animum ostendunt omnes gestemus!
Let's all wear mood rings!
Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
> Kamen TOMOV writes:
>> Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>> > That experience is what led to the decision to target a unix clone
>> > as something that would make more of a difference in the world
>> > even if it was not as hackishly aesthetic.
>> What kind of decision is that. If you know how to build a spacecraft
>> why would you start working on a single engine plane?
>
> The initial GNU announcement said "Both C and Lisp will be available
> as system programming languages", but unfortunately they seem to have
> forgotten the latter language.
gcl?
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X writes:
> Lars Brinkhoff writes:
> > The initial GNU announcement said "Both C and Lisp will be
> > available as system programming languages", but unfortunately they
> > seem to have forgotten the latter language.
> gcl?
GNU has both GCL and CLISP under its umbrella, but neither one can
hardly be said to be well integrated in the GNU system as a system
programming language as originally envisaged.
Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
> Tim X writes:
>> Lars Brinkhoff writes:
>> > The initial GNU announcement said "Both C and Lisp will be
>> > available as system programming languages", but unfortunately they
>> > seem to have forgotten the latter language.
>> gcl?
>
> GNU has both GCL and CLISP under its umbrella, but neither one can
> hardly be said to be well integrated in the GNU system as a system
> programming language as originally envisaged.
OK. I guess thats because they seem to have gone with guile. At one
stage, I think RMS was suggesting replacing elisp in emacs with guile.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Don't most programmers make money via an hourly rate or salary?
Programming for money is different from selling software for money.
Shareware authors and software companies sell software. Those are the
people who *might* be forced out of business by FSF/GNU software.
Other people write software specifically for there job and don't sell
it. E.g. Shell has plenty of in house proprietary software for oil
exploration. They don't sell it or give it away because they are
using it internally for their primary business as a competitive
advantage.
The only software that will be in any real danger by Free Software is
commodity stuff. An OS falls into that category. So does office
software. The decomoditization of office software comes with making
files non-interchangeable with competing software. Decomoditizing the
OS can be accomplished by making the office software run on just one
OS. The trick there is to make sure there are enough important
documents that can't be exchanged. Vender lock.
Most software doesn't fall into that category.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
David Steuber wrote:
> Don't most programmers make money via an hourly rate or salary?
As Lispniks, the best chance we have to use Lisp "at work" is to develop
and sell our own software. Well, maybe the best would be to freelance at
web programming where clients don't care what we use. But that lacks the
advantage of freeing developers from the hourly ball and chain.
> The only software that will be in any real danger by Free Software is
> commodity stuff.
Maybe. But I see CLisp and all the branches from CMUCL and GCL as a drag
on commercial Lisp sales (not commodities at all) and falling into the
same general category that started this thread: people hurting their own
productivity at great cost to themselves and society by using crappy
free tools. (The IDEs, not the compilers per se.)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86lkqq7pu8.fsf@panix.com>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Maybe. But I see CLisp and all the branches from CMUCL and GCL as a
> drag on commercial Lisp sales (not commodities at all) and falling
> into the same general category that started this thread: people
> hurting their own productivity at great cost to themselves and society
> by using crappy free tools. (The IDEs, not the compilers per se.)
You keep repeating this as if repitition will somehow make it true.
Show the displacement effect and you might have something.
rsi
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Maybe. But I see CLisp and all the branches from CMUCL and GCL as a
>>drag on commercial Lisp sales (not commodities at all) and falling
>>into the same general category that started this thread: people
>>hurting their own productivity at great cost to themselves and society
>>by using crappy free tools. (The IDEs, not the compilers per se.)
>
>
> You keep repeating this as if repitition will somehow make it true.
> Show the displacement effect and you might have something.
Hunh? I just repeated the tirade about developers wasting time on
inferior tools, and you ask about the tirade on commercial vendors being
hindered by no-charge competitors?
To be honest, I am really only interested in the first tirade, the
second was an ancillary digressional tirade.
remember the genesis: a bolshevik accusing me of harming society by not
giving away my society. My retort was that vastly more harm has come to
society from developers each Linux/CMUCL user redundantly struggling
with free tools when they could be paying for stable tools and creating
useful new stuff, which would all be original and different because of
the independent efforts.
Speaking of waste, observe that Goose still has not answered my survey
question about how long it took him to do his /first/ Linux install. I
can guess that even /with/ his hard-earned expertise the process is
still painful, which is why he took /additional/ time to develop and
polish a script to do it automatically. So I'll put him down
for....what? five hundred hours?
:)
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
<snip>
> remember the genesis: a bolshevik accusing me of harming society by not
> giving away my society. My retort was that vastly more harm has come to
> society from developers each Linux/CMUCL user redundantly struggling
> with free tools when they could be paying for stable tools and creating
> useful new stuff, which would all be original and different because of
> the independent efforts.
So you're saying that the Lisp world (for example) would be far better
off if all the free (libre) Lisps simply did not exist and that all
Lisp users had to buy/obtain commerical Lisps? Presumably this would
mean that many more commercial Lisps would be around now, filling all
the various niches that free Lisps do?
I'm sure that blacksmiths bemoaned the industrial revolution, but I
doubt that anybody could convincingly argue that we ought to go back to
pre-industrial days. Software and OSS is the same deal, either move
with the times or become end up like the blacksmiths. (Yes, I realise
that many people make good money being 'smiths now days making
interesting stuff, that doesn't change the fact that there are many
times less blacksmiths than there once were).
As a developer I would not willingly deal with a vendor who refuses to
give me code and is obnoxious about accepting fixes from me to their
code. I don't care about the money, or signing NDAs or copyright - I
just want the code and for the upstream provider to be good about
accepting fixes (or letting me ship modified code). In my day job I
work with MS embedded systems, MS is terrible about code - I can't get
all of the code (even with NDAs, etc), and if I find a bug I can't fix
it and still be allowed to ship the product.
And nobody has the right to DEMAND that you free your code (either
price or access), tell them to go jump in the lake. Harming society,
hmprf! Who isn't harming society in somebody's eyes? A bag of bits is
NOT harming society.
Cheers
Brad
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <WTdvg.126$OQ2.19@fe08.lga>
bradb wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>remember the genesis: a bolshevik accusing me of harming society by not
>>giving away my society. My retort was that vastly more harm has come to
>>society from developers each Linux/CMUCL user redundantly struggling
>>with free tools when they could be paying for stable tools and creating
>>useful new stuff, which would all be original and different because of
>>the independent efforts.
>
>
> So you're saying that the Lisp world (for example) would be far better
> off if all the free (libre) Lisps simply did not exist and that all
> Lisp users had to buy/obtain commerical Lisps?
No, I want the yobbos to buy commercial licenses and /continue/ slaving
away at SBCL, Slime, and OpenMCL. :)
Those toys are neat fun and educational and all that good stuff, but for
real work they should be using grown-up tools. For their own good, and
for the good of society.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> bradb wrote:
>
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> remember the genesis: a bolshevik accusing me of harming society by not
>>> giving away my society. My retort was that vastly more harm has come to
>>> society from developers each Linux/CMUCL user redundantly struggling
>>> with free tools when they could be paying for stable tools and creating
>>> useful new stuff, which would all be original and different because of
>>> the independent efforts.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you're saying that the Lisp world (for example) would be far better
>> off if all the free (libre) Lisps simply did not exist and that all
>> Lisp users had to buy/obtain commerical Lisps?
>
>
> No, I want the yobbos to buy commercial licenses and /continue/ slaving
> away at SBCL, Slime, and OpenMCL. :)
>
> Those toys are neat fun and educational and all that good stuff, but for
> real work they should be using grown-up tools. For their own good, and
> for the good of society.
>
> kenny
>
I guess putting people unwilling to comply with your purity standards of
professionalism behind barbed wire would not satisfy your zeal. I am not
sure they still make cyclon-b though.
//
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <kEtvg.421$8F.192@fe09.lga>
Hans Kloss wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> bradb wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> remember the genesis: a bolshevik accusing me of harming society by not
>>>> giving away my society. My retort was that vastly more harm has come to
>>>> society from developers each Linux/CMUCL user redundantly struggling
>>>> with free tools when they could be paying for stable tools and creating
>>>> useful new stuff, which would all be original and different because of
>>>> the independent efforts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you're saying that the Lisp world (for example) would be far better
>>> off if all the free (libre) Lisps simply did not exist and that all
>>> Lisp users had to buy/obtain commerical Lisps?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I want the yobbos to buy commercial licenses and /continue/
>> slaving away at SBCL, Slime, and OpenMCL. :)
>>
>> Those toys are neat fun and educational and all that good stuff, but
>> for real work they should be using grown-up tools. For their own good,
>> and for the good of society.
>>
>> kenny
>>
> I guess putting people unwilling to comply with your purity standards of
> professionalism behind barbed wire would not satisfy your zeal.
<sigh> Of course it would, I just did not know I had the option.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
<snipped>
> Speaking of waste, observe that Goose still has not answered my survey
> question about how long it took him to do his /first/ Linux install. I
I think I did; I answered that it was about the same time as windows
took at the time.
What makes you look weak is insisting that my once off
2 (maybe 3) hour effort 11 years ago matters now.
Why don't *you* tell *me* how long it takes
for *you* to do the same with your "superior" tools;
If your tools are so superior, why isn't your
installation beating my under-a-minute time?
Remember that your proprietry tools take
much more effort and time than my scripted
free tools.
Beat that :-)
<snipped>
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <j_dvg.128$OQ2.26@fe08.lga>
goose wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>>Speaking of waste, observe that Goose still has not answered my survey
>>question about how long it took him to do his /first/ Linux install. I
>
>
> I think I did; I answered that it was about the same time as windows
> took at the time.
Oh, sorry, missed it. But then that sounds like an insanely long time,
since I have heard nightmares about user installs of win32.
>
> What makes you look weak is insisting that my once off
> 2 (maybe 3) hour effort 11 years ago matters now.
Ok, we'll re-record you as 2.5 hrs.
>
> Why don't *you* tell *me* how long it takes
> for *you* to do the same with your "superior" tools;
> If your tools are so superior, why isn't your
> installation beating my under-a-minute time?
You are not paying attention. Dell and MS do it. My time is: zero. It
comes installed, and I can continue working during semi-automatic
updates (it asks first).
I have used windows heads-down for almost eight years and never done an
install. As for applications, can you say "Install Wizard"?
Anyway, congrats, in 11 years you spent 2-3 hrs learning, installing,
and maintaining a Linux system. Like I said: outlier!
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> > <snipped>
> >
> >>Speaking of waste, observe that Goose still has not answered my survey
> >>question about how long it took him to do his /first/ Linux install. I
> >
> >
> > I think I did; I answered that it was about the same time as windows
> > took at the time.
>
> Oh, sorry, missed it. But then that sounds like an insanely long time,
> since I have heard nightmares about user installs of win32.
>
> >
> > What makes you look weak is insisting that my once off
> > 2 (maybe 3) hour effort 11 years ago matters now.
>
> Ok, we'll re-record you as 2.5 hrs.
> >
> > Why don't *you* tell *me* how long it takes
> > for *you* to do the same with your "superior" tools;
> > If your tools are so superior, why isn't your
> > installation beating my under-a-minute time?
>
> You are not paying attention. Dell and MS do it.
Dell installs development tools? Thats news to me
(especially as the only dells we get here are laptops).
> My time is: zero. It
> comes installed, and I can continue working during semi-automatic
> updates (it asks first).
>
What? Then thats a stupid comparison, cos your time
to install Linux is also zero. See, if you are prepared to pay
for someone to maintain your system, then you are prepared
to pay for someone to maintain your system, no matter
wether you are using Windows, OSX, Linux or MULTICS.
Now your argument about "fee software" taking more
time is in the toilet.
> I have used windows heads-down for almost eight years and never done an
> install. As for applications, can you say "Install Wizard"?
>
And you could have had the same situation with Linux; like I
said above, the only difference *now* is that you pay more to
get less AND YOU ARE PROUD OF THAT????
> Anyway, congrats, in 11 years you spent 2-3 hrs learning, installing,
> and maintaining a Linux system. Like I said: outlier!
>
Not by a long shot; thats the meaning of "freedom" I've
struggled to get through to you - I'm free to copy and
reformat the installation disks any way I please with linux
(and with BSD, although nothing compares to BSD ports
so doing all the packages "my own way" is probably
a stupid thing to do - the BSD folk have what I consider
perfection although I suspect that many would disagree
vehemently with that statement :-).
Anyway, you've neatly dodged the other point in my mail
(1/3 time, data please?) so I'd like to get an answer on that.
(As respectable as you seemed to be Mr Tilton, you are
losing a little credibility by beating strawman, fallacy by
repeated assertion, context-free quoting and various other
nasty practices that usually fall under the title of "spin").
goose,
I suspect that I've been rather skillfully trolled but
I cannot say for sure as I've always held KT in high
regard; can anyone here enlighten me as to what
exactly is going on?
goose wrote:
> goose,
> I suspect that I've been rather skillfully trolled but
> I cannot say for sure as I've always held KT in high
> regard; can anyone here enlighten me as to what
> exactly is going on?
I suspect that by using Cells, Kenny is orders of magnitude more
productive and therefore has way too much time on his hands :)
Brad
bradb wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > goose,
> > I suspect that I've been rather skillfully trolled but
> > I cannot say for sure as I've always held KT in high
> > regard; can anyone here enlighten me as to what
> > exactly is going on?
>
> I suspect that by using Cells, Kenny is orders of magnitude more
> productive and therefore has way too much time on his hands :)
>
Damn Lisp productivity!!!
If it wasn't for these productive languages, I might
have made a decent career as a C programmer ...
... oh, wait !
goose,
Can anyoen detect sarcasm anymore?
On 2006-07-18 18:16:13 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
[...]
> You are not paying attention. Dell and MS do it. My time is: zero. It
> comes installed, and I can continue working during semi-automatic
> updates (it asks first).
>
> I have used windows heads-down for almost eight years and never done an
> install. As for applications, can you say "Install Wizard"?
You're right Kenny! This whole 'free' thing *is* evil. Though
you were smart enough to spend not one single hour fiddling
with Linux, it's tricked you into spending countless talking
about it.
Oh, woe is us! If we'd all just gone out and bought some licences
over the past week, we might have managed to hack out a
whole Lisp Machine by now ;-)
Bah! I'm firing up LispWorks right this instant!
-Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
Michael J. Forster wrote:
> On 2006-07-18 18:16:13 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > You are not paying attention. Dell and MS do it. My time is: zero. It
> > comes installed, and I can continue working during semi-automatic
> > updates (it asks first).
> >
> > I have used windows heads-down for almost eight years and never done an
> > install. As for applications, can you say "Install Wizard"?
>
> You're right Kenny! This whole 'free' thing *is* evil. Though
> you were smart enough to spend not one single hour fiddling
> with Linux, it's tricked you into spending countless talking
> about it.
>
Oh! The evils of OSS!!!oneone!!eleventeen!!!
> Oh, woe is us! If we'd all just gone out and bought some licences
> over the past week, we might have managed to hack out a
> whole Lisp Machine by now ;-)
>
Oh, lawks!!! my sarcasm detector has exploded!!!
anyway, I think we should *all*, in the sake of
further productivity in lisp, stop this thread now.
I'm learning (or rather, trying to learn) lisp
because I feel more productive using lisp.
But, I realised as I typed this post, it does not
have to be CL, but a *lisp-like language* that
makes me feel productive. On an unrelated note,
I feel that I am right now waaaay too drunk to make
any sense ... its past midnight and theres no more
alcohol left in the house (a GoodThing, IMHO) and
the SO is going to get a shcok when she realises
that I've finished all the beer, wine and sherry
in the space of a few hours ... oh well ...
Maybe there is something to what KT says; I wont't
know however, because the free stuff (Linux, Bsd,
clisp, gcc, etc) is *more* htan good enough to allow
me to whip competitors using the non-free stuff.
competitor:
1000ZAR for windows, 7000ZAR for development
environment[1], 7000ZAR for cheapest database, etc.
Me:
0ZAR, 0ZAR, 0ZAR respectively; I only charge for
labour when I'm doing work outside of work :-)
OTOH, I would like to see the data that KT has regarding
productivity :-)
> Bah! I'm firing up LispWorks right this instant!
>
>
notes:
[1]As a matter of acft, the company I am working
for pays a *hell* of a lot more for a mediocore
closed-source development environment (with ICE
and proabably JTAG too (who knows? it came with a
proprietry closed-source download-mechanism)) to
use for our devices; gcc + gdb is free *and* better but
we won't run them until aug-2007 (when when start
usijng embedded linux) because we've got to support
all these devices we've been flogging since '91 or so
(and the code really is inherited from then as well,
which is sorta like coming up 777 when playing
slots for bad luck)).
goose,
please excuse anything I say for the rest of tonight,
I'm hopelessly drunk and I've run out of potatoe
chips as well; presumably I'll come back here tomorrow
and gaze in horror at my lack of coherence and/or lucidity.
On 2006-07-18 20:15:41 -0500, "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> said:
>
> Michael J. Forster wrote:
>> On 2006-07-18 18:16:13 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> You are not paying attention. Dell and MS do it. My time is: zero. It
>>> comes installed, and I can continue working during semi-automatic
>>> updates (it asks first).
>>>
>>> I have used windows heads-down for almost eight years and never done an
>>> install. As for applications, can you say "Install Wizard"?
>>
>> You're right Kenny! This whole 'free' thing *is* evil. Though
>> you were smart enough to spend not one single hour fiddling
>> with Linux, it's tricked you into spending countless talking
>> about it.
>>
>
> Oh! The evils of OSS!!!oneone!!eleventeen!!!
>
>> Oh, woe is us! If we'd all just gone out and bought some licences
>> over the past week, we might have managed to hack out a
>> whole Lisp Machine by now ;-)
>>
>
> Oh, lawks!!! my sarcasm detector has exploded!!!
Yeah. I was feeling smug. I just spent the afternoon watching two
MCSEs swear under their breath while I, a Unix heathen in their midst,
and they witnessed the magic of a (vendor-configured, Kenny!) Doze
cluster take twenty-five (25) minutes to display a SQL Swerver
Enterprise Mangler dialog box and, then, promptly crash. Ooooh.
I just get goose pimples thinking about the $$$ spent on *those* fine
tools. Not to mention the three hours of stare-at-the-wall time I got to
bill because of them.
(And yet, I am still a big fan of Franz and LispWorks. M$ they ain't.)
> anyway, I think we should *all*, in the sake of
> further productivity in lisp, stop this thread now.
> I'm learning (or rather, trying to learn) lisp
> because I feel more productive using lisp.
>
Agreed.
> goose,
> please excuse anything I say for the rest of tonight,
> I'm hopelessly drunk and I've run out of potatoe
> chips as well; presumably I'll come back here tomorrow
> and gaze in horror at my lack of coherence and/or lucidity.
Kenny won't. Why should any of us? ;-)
"To regret one's own experiences is to arrest one's own
development. To deny one's own experiences is to put
a lie into the lips of one's life. It is no less than a denial
of the soul."
-- Oscar Wilde
Be well.
-Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Oh, sorry, missed it. But then that sounds like an insanely long time,
> since I have heard nightmares about user installs of win32.
I think it depends, as all things do. For me, a Windows install is 10
minutes of attention and some waiting for things to spin around. My last
Linux install was some 3.5 days of work to get it to boot to a login
prompt so the admin could ssh in and finish setting it up. Trying to
figure out which OS takes more time by asking a dozen people isn't going
to work.
>> If your tools are so superior, why isn't your
>> installation beating my under-a-minute time?
It probably is, for Dell. Once it's scripted.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> > Oh, sorry, missed it. But then that sounds like an insanely long time,
> > since I have heard nightmares about user installs of win32.
>
> I think it depends, as all things do. For me, a Windows install is 10
> minutes of attention and some waiting for things to spin around.
Back in '95, my windows 95 came on either 20-something or 30-seomthing
floppy disks (cnat rememeber now exactly), so it was definately not
a small period of time (I had no cdrom drive either until around end of
'96).
I first got slackware from some ftp site in the netherlands (I think)
and I had to copy the download from university to 1.44 floppy disks
(about 20? maybe less) which I then took home and slowly fed
the floppy disks in one at a time (did the same with windows) while
reading the printout of 'man X' (Don't you love universities with their
print-as-much-as-you-like policies? :-). Which meant that when
everything was finally installed I managed to get X going on the 7th
(or 8th) try :-)
> My last
> Linux install was some 3.5 days of work to get it to boot to a login
> prompt so the admin could ssh in and finish setting it up. Trying to
> figure out which OS takes more time by asking a dozen people isn't going
> to work.
>
Yeah yeah ... however if you are inclined the same way KT is,
then you can just pay for an expert to setup for you = zero
hours setting up linux.
> >> If your tools are so superior, why isn't your
> >> installation beating my under-a-minute time?
>
> It probably is, for Dell. Once it's scripted.
>
For OEMs, it generally is; then again, for OEMs, its usually
crippled as well.
goose,
I'm not myself right now; please don;t take anything
personally :-)
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86fygy7iyj.fsf@panix.com>
Ken Tilton writes:
> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>> You keep repeating this as if repitition will somehow make it true.
>> Show the displacement effect and you might have something.
>
> Hunh? I just repeated the tirade about developers wasting time on
> inferior tools, and you ask about the tirade on commercial vendors
> being hindered by no-charge competitors?
IMHO, you are the one jumping all over the place with your arguments.
You claimed that the time spent tinkering with "inferior" tools would
have been better spent building great tools or systems. There are two
assumptions here:
a. Those who would otherwise spend time on tinkering would use that
freed up time to build better systems and tools.
b. The vendors, not having to compete with free software, would
invest money and effort in producing better tools.
You have shown no evidence in support of either a or b. Those who
like to tinker, like to tinker. Just because you take away one avenue
of wasting time (tinkering), doesn't mean that the tinkerer won't
waste time another way[*]. In other words, those who must write,
write... regardless of whether they have a zillion dollar word
processing machine or just a pencil and paper. There is no
displacement effect.
On point b: vendors have no incentive to spend money on improving
their products if they do not have competition. Consider free
software as competition.
rsi
* In fact, one could argue that the tinkerers are the ones who build
better tools since they are not happy with what they've got.
--
<···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> Ken Tilton writes:
>
>>Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>
>
>>>You keep repeating this as if repitition will somehow make it true.
>>>Show the displacement effect and you might have something.
>>
>>Hunh? I just repeated the tirade about developers wasting time on
>>inferior tools, and you ask about the tirade on commercial vendors
>>being hindered by no-charge competitors?
>
>
> IMHO, you are the one jumping all over the place with your arguments.
yeah, that never happens on usenet threads!
> You claimed that the time spent tinkering with "inferior" tools would
> have been better spent building great tools or systems.
Noooo! /Using/ stable albeit still irritating tools that do not stay us
from our self-appointed rounds.
> There are two
> assumptions here:
>
> a. Those who would otherwise spend time on tinkering would use that
> freed up time to build better systems and tools.
Well, you have me there. I must conced I see little evidence that many
denizens of c.l.l actually ever write any code in anger. They are more
like the car enthusiast forever tinkering with a classic and never
driving it anywhere. Thx, now I do not feel so bad about the cost to
society.
>
> b. The vendors, not having to compete with free software, would
> invest money and effort in producing better tools.
Non sequitor. That is something they do anyway. Lispworks stole a lot of
ACL's business by offering free runtime licensing. They will likely get
mine because of that. ACL is experiementing with that on the Mac. Don't
know about LW cuz I do not use it much, but ACL gets better all the
time. I was happy before, it is ridiculous now.
Also, i do not think you know your microeconomics. With free Lisps out
there, the only market for ommercial lisps are serious enterprises which
have money and place a premium on solid support and not having to
reinvent the wheel all the time. You get this price inflexibility thing,
where that kind of demand does not go away if you jack up the price. But
for penny-pinching, saltine-surviving, soup-kitchen frequenting student
yobbos, demand disappears when you ask for the first dollar. So there is
no more market to be had by coming down in price, so up prices stay.
> * In fact, one could argue that the tinkerers are the ones who build
> better tools since they are not happy with what they've got.
Nah, they do exactly just enough to get by. No polishing, no bells &
whistles, the odd bug is tolerated, etc etc. All tools are highly
personal and perfect only for the focus group of one that provided input
to the design.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
<snipped>
> Noooo! /Using/ stable albeit still irritating tools that do not stay us
> from our self-appointed rounds.
>
And which are these? The commercial or the free?
>
> > There are two
> > assumptions here:
> >
> > a. Those who would otherwise spend time on tinkering would use that
> > freed up time to build better systems and tools.
>
> Well, you have me there. I must conced I see little evidence that many
> denizens of c.l.l actually ever write any code in anger. They are more
> like the car enthusiast forever tinkering with a classic and never
> driving it anywhere. Thx, now I do not feel so bad about the cost to
> society.
>
> >
> > b. The vendors, not having to compete with free software, would
> > invest money and effort in producing better tools.
>
> Non sequitor. That is something they do anyway. Lispworks stole a lot of
> ACL's business by offering free runtime licensing. They will likely get
> mine because of that. ACL is experiementing with that on the Mac. Don't
> know about LW cuz I do not use it much, but ACL gets better all the
> time. I was happy before, it is ridiculous now.
>
> Also, i do not think you know your microeconomics. With free Lisps out
> there, the only market for ommercial lisps are serious enterprises which
> have money and place a premium on solid support and not having to
> reinvent the wheel all the time.
With closed source various vendors may each reinvent the
wheel; with open source they all happily take the best wheel
they find.
> You get this price inflexibility thing,
> where that kind of demand does not go away if you jack up the price. But
> for penny-pinching, saltine-surviving, soup-kitchen frequenting student
> yobbos, demand disappears when you ask for the first dollar. So there is
> no more market to be had by coming down in price, so up prices stay.
You didn't actually ever /study/ econ 101, did you? I'd like to see
you post literature backing that up (yes, my undergraduate
degree included econ first-year level).
>
> > * In fact, one could argue that the tinkerers are the ones who build
> > better tools since they are not happy with what they've got.
>
> Nah, they do exactly just enough to get by. No polishing, no bells &
> whistles, the odd bug is tolerated, etc etc. All tools are highly
> personal and perfect only for the focus group of one that provided input
> to the design.
>
The evidence seems to be against you here
(see OpenBSD, The gimp, OpenOffice, etc)
where I find that the tools are *highly* polished
and target audience range from hardcore
techies (OpenBSD) to power users (Gimp)
to morons[1](OpenOffice).
For every OSS you mention that is focused
only to a very niche subset, I can show you
a commercial equivalent that is equally focused.
The other thing you were going on about (my, but
I'm verbose today - must be the beer and depression
over auto-repairs:-): That the FSF aims to put commercial
suppliers out of business ... please point to
a single OSS app that has no commercial equivalent.
An OSS application that has a commercial equivalent
has failed to put commercial developers out of business.
Gotta go now, its almost midnight after all...
goose,
btw: anyone here knows whether or not I have
to remove the radiator before changing the cambelt
on a bmw m20 (small six) engine?
notes:
[1]Not a slur against OpenOffice users, I use it myself.
I'm just saying that einstein-types and morons equally
have no problem using it, IME.
From: Giorgos Keramidas
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86ac63f2af.fsf@gothmog.pc>
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:04:53 -0400, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking of waste, observe that Goose still has not answered my
> survey question about how long it took him to do his /first/
> Linux install.
You are missing an important point. Not everyone does things
*only* to improve one's society, as you have written elsethread:
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:09:24 -0400
From: Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <················@fe08.lga>
No, I want the yobbos to buy commercial licenses and continue
slaving away at SBCL, Slime, and OpenMCL. :)
Those toys are neat fun and educational and all that good
stuff, but for real work they should be using grown-up
tools. For their own good, and for the good of society.
kenny
It took me 2 days to just get my head around the Slackware
installer, in 1995. I had tons of fun in the process, and
I even managed *NOT* to trach my Windows installation.
Amazing stuff, really! :)
Having said that, how long do you think it takes to the average
Windows user to install his first web-camera driver in 2006? How
about a printer driver? Or a USB DSL-modem wannabe, that hangs
up every now or then? Do you seriously think they are having
*any* fun in the process? Somehow, I doubt it.
Are these hours going to be considered a waste that should have
been spent doing things that improve our society?
Extending this logic even further, is every hour "wasted"
watching soccer also a crime against society's potential for
improvement?
Why do you think so?
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:04:53 -0400, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Speaking of waste, observe that Goose still has not answered my
>>survey question about how long it took him to do his /first/
>>Linux install.
>
>
> You are missing an important point. Not everyone does things
> *only* to improve one's society,...
It was a long thread, you may have missed that the impetus was a young
Bolshevik taking me to task for not benefitting society just so I could
make money. And then I found the same nonsense in Stallman's silly
manifesto.
> as you have written elsethread:
>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:09:24 -0400
> From: Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
> Message-ID: <················@fe08.lga>
>
> No, I want the yobbos to buy commercial licenses and continue
> slaving away at SBCL, Slime, and OpenMCL. :)
>
> Those toys are neat fun and educational and all that good
> stuff, but for real work they should be using grown-up
> tools. For their own good, and for the good of society.
>
> kenny
>
> It took me 2 days to just get my head around the Slackware
> installer, in 1995. I had tons of fun in the process, and
> I even managed *NOT* to trach my Windows installation.
> Amazing stuff, really! :)
>
> Having said that, how long do you think it takes to the average
> Windows user to install his first web-camera driver in 2006?
Yeah, it was tough, my manual dexterity is excellent but I never seem to
get USB plugs lined up with the socket at the exact angle +/- .01
degrees required to get the damn things in, let alone guess at which way
is up--so useful that they could not work out how to make them up-less.
Other than that, sorry, It Just Worked.
> How
> about a printer driver?
Never installed one, they are all there already (yes, taking up half my
hard drive, but then I do not think there is enough pron video out there
to fill up my lowend drive.
> Or a USB DSL-modem wannabe, that hangs
> up every now or then?
I am not sure anything other than DSL can be blamed for anything having
to do with DSL.
> Do you seriously think they are having
> *any* fun in the process? Somehow, I doubt it.
Somehow i am afraid you are making this all up. Sure, Windows sucks, but
it also Just Works with an ineluctable one or two percent of
irritating but non-obstructing suckiness. Until three years later you
cannot stand it anymore and buy a new Dell. Life is good.
>
> Are these hours going to be considered a waste that should have
> been spent doing things that improve our society?
>
> Extending this logic even further, is every hour "wasted"
> watching soccer...
Ah, a classic Usenet Black Hole -- or is it Supernova? An attempt by a
black hole to explode into a supernova new thread? Why talk about soccer
when you could be talking about the issue: how many hours has "free
software" sucked out of everybody's lives? Would you rather be talking
about software than that stupid manifesto? if so, understood.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Giorgos Keramidas
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <86u04ajilg.fsf@gothmog.pc>
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:14:01 -0400, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> It took me 2 days to just get my head around the Slackware
>> installer, in 1995. I had tons of fun in the process, and I
>> even managed *NOT* to trach my Windows installation. Amazing
>> stuff, really! :)
>>
>> Having said that, how long do you think it takes to the
>> average Windows user to install his first web-camera driver
>> in 2006?
>
> Yeah, it was tough, my manual dexterity is excellent but I
> never seem to get USB plugs lined up with the socket at the
> exact angle +/- .01 degrees required to get the damn things in,
> let alone guess at which way is up--so useful that they could
> not work out how to make them up-less. Other than that, sorry,
> It Just Worked.
This has rarely been my experience, but YMMV, of course.
>> How about a printer driver?
>
> Never installed one, they are all there already (yes, taking up
> half my hard drive, but then I do not think there is enough
> pron video out there to fill up my lowend drive.
So your Dell-preinstalled Windows copy has every printer driver
that has ever been out there, and all that will ever be? Why do
I find it hard to fall for that?
>> Do you seriously think they are having *any* fun in the
>> process? Somehow, I doubt it.
>
> Somehow i am afraid you are making this all up. Sure, Windows
> sucks, but it also Just Works with an ineluctable one or two
> percent of irritating but non-obstructing suckiness. Until
> three years later you cannot stand it anymore and buy a new
> Dell. Life is good.
I bet I've been called for support by Windows-using friends far
more times than you have probably bought a new system. Buying a
new preinstalled Windows laptop may sound very logical and easy
to do if you live one block away from Fry's, but you are either
deliberately or out of ignorance forgetting that not all the
world lives so close to a computer hardware depot, the entire
world is not the same and not everyone has an extra USD $800 to
throw away every week or so, because a new Windows Trojan has
been unleashed on the unsuspecting masses of the network.
This means that a lot of people, developers or not, will not have
the money to buy a new system whenever their printer driver or
USB camera misbehaves. And that's *precisely* where your
argument of "buy a new one" falls over in its effort to support
that spending time to properly configure and set up a system
(open source or not) is a waste of time, sorry...
>> Are these hours going to be considered a waste that should have
>> been spent doing things that improve our society?
>>
>> Extending this logic even further, is every hour "wasted"
>> watching soccer...
>
> Ah, a classic Usenet Black Hole -- or is it Supernova? An
> attempt by a black hole to explode into a supernova new thread?
> Why talk about soccer when you could be talking about the
> issue: how many hours has "free software" sucked out of
> everybody's lives? Would you rather be talking about software
> than that stupid manifesto? if so, understood.
Because you are characterizing hours and days spent improving a
free software package as "worthless waste of time". By bringing
up just one example of the billions of ways we humans have
invented to *really* waste our time, all I'm trying to say is
that what you consider a "waste of time" others may call
"entertainment", "learning" or even just "leisurely hacking away
a merry Saturday afternoon".
Time wasted for one, may be time well spent for another.
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:14:01 -0400, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> >> It took me 2 days to just get my head around the Slackware
> >> installer, in 1995. I had tons of fun in the process, and I
> >> even managed *NOT* to trach my Windows installation. Amazing
> >> stuff, really! :)
> >>
> >> Having said that, how long do you think it takes to the
> >> average Windows user to install his first web-camera driver
> >> in 2006?
> >
> > Yeah, it was tough, my manual dexterity is excellent but I
> > never seem to get USB plugs lined up with the socket at the
> > exact angle +/- .01 degrees required to get the damn things in,
> > let alone guess at which way is up--so useful that they could
> > not work out how to make them up-less. Other than that, sorry,
> > It Just Worked.
>
> This has rarely been my experience, but YMMV, of course.
>
> >> How about a printer driver?
> >
> > Never installed one, they are all there already (yes, taking up
> > half my hard drive, but then I do not think there is enough
> > pron video out there to fill up my lowend drive.
>
> So your Dell-preinstalled Windows copy has every printer driver
> that has ever been out there, and all that will ever be? Why do
> I find it hard to fall for that?
>
1.) If you fall for the possibility of Linux distros pre-installed with
all dirver possible in the world. Then you could fall to the same
possiblility with Windows.
2.) Linux does NOT have driver for every model of hardware, but most
hardware has some backward compatibility with old driver. That's why
you can sometimes install driver for ACME5000 to run your new ACME5500.
It's the same in Windows.
3.) How many hardware you buy comes with Linux driver CD?
Taking those logic above, the first day a new printer is released, do
you think which platform has the driver first, Windows or Linux?
Also if the new hardware that you are plugging have
backward-compatible-pre-installed driver on your Windows machine, they
are all set up automatically.
But even if your Linux have driver for a hardware, it may not activate
that driver if you haven't MODPROBE some specific the kernel module.
Tell that to my grandma.
> >> Do you seriously think they are having *any* fun in the
> >> process? Somehow, I doubt it.
> >
> > Somehow i am afraid you are making this all up. Sure, Windows
> > sucks, but it also Just Works with an ineluctable one or two
> > percent of irritating but non-obstructing suckiness. Until
> > three years later you cannot stand it anymore and buy a new
> > Dell. Life is good.
>
> I bet I've been called for support by Windows-using friends far
> more times than you have probably bought a new system.
Do you think it would work better if your friends use Linux?
I wonder if he would even understand the concept of not being able to
install software on his own machine because he is not root.
Or would he known how to uninstall some software.
On Windows :: Control Panels --> Add/Remove Program. This is true for
99% of software.
On Linux :: probably Synaptics if he is using Debian. But some software
doesnot have .deb package so he installed it using "make install". Now
is it in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin, or /opt/ ? what about its dll? is
it in /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib does he have to update ldconfig? It is
true that many Linux software doesn't have "make uninstall" steps.
> Buying a
> new preinstalled Windows laptop may sound very logical and easy
> to do if you live one block away from Fry's, but you are either
> deliberately or out of ignorance forgetting that not all the
> world lives so close to a computer hardware depot, the entire
> world is not the same and not everyone has an extra USD $800 to
> throw away every week or so, because a new Windows Trojan has
> been unleashed on the unsuspecting masses of the network.
>
Linux, or Windows, you have learn to re-install your system. If your
user can't reinstall Windows, I doubt they will be able to reinstall
Linux.
> This means that a lot of people, developers or not, will not have
> the money to buy a new system whenever their printer driver or
> USB camera misbehaves. And that's *precisely* where your
> argument of "buy a new one" falls over in its effort to support
> that spending time to properly configure and set up a system
> (open source or not) is a waste of time, sorry...
>
> >> Are these hours going to be considered a waste that should have
> >> been spent doing things that improve our society?
> >>
> >> Extending this logic even further, is every hour "wasted"
> >> watching soccer...
> >
> > Ah, a classic Usenet Black Hole -- or is it Supernova? An
> > attempt by a black hole to explode into a supernova new thread?
> > Why talk about soccer when you could be talking about the
> > issue: how many hours has "free software" sucked out of
> > everybody's lives? Would you rather be talking about software
> > than that stupid manifesto? if so, understood.
>
> Because you are characterizing hours and days spent improving a
> free software package as "worthless waste of time". By bringing
> up just one example of the billions of ways we humans have
> invented to *really* waste our time, all I'm trying to say is
> that what you consider a "waste of time" others may call
> "entertainment", "learning" or even just "leisurely hacking away
> a merry Saturday afternoon".
>
> Time wasted for one, may be time well spent for another.
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| As Lispniks, the best chance we have to use Lisp "at work"
| is to develop and sell our own software.
+---------------
Actually, I have found almost the exact opposite in my own case!
I "get to use Lisp at work" by.... *using* it! ;-} That is, by
writing all of the miscellaneous one-off exploratory code in it,
the various "shell scripts" that inevitably arise during a project,
the bits that never ship to a customer but would have taken up a
*lot* of my time had I tried to hack them out in C (say).
Oh, and the various user-mode hardware debugging tools that I seem
to write in Lisp [first Scheme, and now CL] wherever I go. [Peek,
poke, twiddle registers, flash new firmware, etc.] My employers
don't really care what software the hardware hackers [e.g., me]
use, as long as the bugs are found & fixed and the product ships!
+---------------
| > The only software that will be in any real danger by Free Software
| > is commodity stuff.
|
| Maybe. But I see CLisp and all the branches from CMUCL and GCL as
| a drag on commercial Lisp sales (not commodities at all) and falling
| into the same general category that started this thread: people hurting
| their own productivity at great cost to themselves and society by
| using crappy free tools.
+---------------
Again, in my case I could have *NEVER* used either Scheme or
Common Lisp at work if my bosses had had to pay *anything* for
them [or even acknowledge their existence at all officially].
So since work was where I started using them, I probabaly never
would have started at all. Wow, *that* would have been a bummer...
To me, at least.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> David Steuber wrote:
> > Don't most programmers make money via an hourly rate or salary?
>
> As Lispniks, the best chance we have to use Lisp "at work" is to
> develop and sell our own software. Well, maybe the best would be to
> freelance at web programming where clients don't care what we use. But
> that lacks the advantage of freeing developers from the hourly ball
> and chain.
I suspect only the most exceptional programmers will be able to write
their ticket out of wage slavery.
> > The only software that will be in any real danger by Free Software is
> > commodity stuff.
>
> Maybe. But I see CLisp and all the branches from CMUCL and GCL as a
> drag on commercial Lisp sales (not commodities at all) and falling
> into the same general category that started this thread: people
> hurting their own productivity at great cost to themselves and society
> by using crappy free tools. (The IDEs, not the compilers per se.)
I don't have an answer to this other than these free lisp systems have
to compete in a free market. The projects only exist because people
have an interest in them. The for pay lisp vendors will have to
compete with that. As good as ACL's windows IDE may be, Emacs + SLIME
is not so bad as you think it is. And it works the same on all the
supported OSs.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>
> As good as ACL's windows IDE may be, Emacs + SLIME is not so bad as
> you think it is. And it works the same on all the supported OSs.
Actually, I've spent the last two days trying to get SLIME working on a
second machine. Same SLIME version, same SBCL version, same emacs
version and yet it just sits there hanging on the * prompt. Even tried
creating a new account with a clean .emacs and environment--no joy.
Right now a thousand dollars seems like a bargain...
Of course, it's a work machine, and my employer won't cough up the cash
so it doesn't really matter.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
We tend to view 'all publicity is good publicity' as a challenge
we should endeavour to meet. --The Register
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> Same SLIME version, same SBCL version, same emacs version and yet it
> just sits there hanging on the * prompt.
Are the two computers reachable on the network? If so, try separating
the problem. Can you get your new Emacs to talk to your other SWANK
server? Can you get your old Emacs to talk to your new SWANK server?
> my employer won't cough up the cash so it doesn't really matter.
Well, it's coughing it up in burned salary, but that's always more
acceptable than spending money explicitly.
--
Steven E. Harris
"Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> writes:
> Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
>
>> Same SLIME version, same SBCL version, same emacs version and yet it
>> just sits there hanging on the * prompt.
>
> Are the two computers reachable on the network? If so, try separating
> the problem. Can you get your new Emacs to talk to your other SWANK
> server? Can you get your old Emacs to talk to your new SWANK server?
Unfortunately, the two are completely separate hosts: the one where all
works is at home; the one where nothing works is, ironically, at work.
Oh bloody well--I can always try the ignorant PC-solution of 'upgrade
everything on the machine, reboot and see if it works,' since in this
case I really don't know what the cause could be. Can't hurt, anyway.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
The trouble with things that extend your lifespan is that they happen at
wrong end. I'd hate to be wearing Depends at 85 and thinking 'I gave up
booze and cigarettes for three more years of this.' --Anonymous
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> the one where nothing works is, ironically, at work.
Is there a firewall present on this computer, or any software that
would interfere with network connections? If so, perhaps
(setq swank:*use-dedicated-output-stream* nil)
would help.
--
Steven E. Harris
Steven E. Harris wrote:
> Well, it's coughing it up in burned salary, but that's always more
> acceptable than spending money explicitly.
>
A pattern emerges. :)
ky
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I've spent the last two days trying to get SLIME working on a
> second machine. Same SLIME version, same SBCL version, same emacs
> version and yet it just sits there hanging on the * prompt. Even tried
> creating a new account with a clean .emacs and environment--no joy.
> Right now a thousand dollars seems like a bargain...
I think it's pretty likely that no matter how much money you pay for a
Lisp implementation, whining about a problem somewhere in a middle of
a huge c.l.l flamewar won't magically fix it. Instead you'll need to
contact your vendor over some other channel. For example by sending an
email to their support address, giving a clear description of the
problem, telling the version numbers of the software that's involved,
etc.
So why not also extend that courtesy to software that you didn't pay
anything for?
(That said, I'm going to guess that you're using a CVS snapshot of
SBCL with a version number from 0.9.14.9 to 0.9.14.26, in which case
upgrading to CVS HEAD will probably fix the problem.)
--
Juho Snellman
Juho Snellman <······@iki.fi> writes:
>
>> Actually, I've spent the last two days trying to get SLIME working on
>> a second machine. Same SLIME version, same SBCL version, same emacs
>> version and yet it just sits there hanging on the * prompt. Even
>> tried creating a new account with a clean .emacs and environment--no
>> joy. Right now a thousand dollars seems like a bargain...
>
> I think it's pretty likely that no matter how much money you pay for a
> Lisp implementation, whining about a problem somewhere in a middle of
> a huge c.l.l flamewar won't magically fix it.
Wasn't expecting it to--in fact I was (mildly) surprised that anyone
suggested a possible fix. I was just noting the fact that at the moment
even a ludicrous price seems reasonable if it means not having to
wrestle with all this. But I'll continue to wrestle with it, since my
employer wouldn't pay $20 for a side project, and I won't pay a thousand
for work software.
Didn't really think it was whining; it wasn't meant to be.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
His troops would follow him anywhere, but only out of curiosity.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <GcFvg.924$An1.20@fe08.lga>
David Steuber wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>David Steuber wrote:
>>
>>>Don't most programmers make money via an hourly rate or salary?
>>
>>As Lispniks, the best chance we have to use Lisp "at work" is to
>>develop and sell our own software. Well, maybe the best would be to
>>freelance at web programming where clients don't care what we use. But
>>that lacks the advantage of freeing developers from the hourly ball
>>and chain.
>
>
> I suspect only the most exceptional programmers will be able to write
> their ticket out of wage slavery.
Where is Paul Graham when I need him? He is trying to tell you, and I am
trying to tell you: there are a thousand opportunities out there. Your
comments are perfectly understandable and perfectly wrong, perfectly
characteristic of The Grand Illusion: extraordinary Other People make
money as entrepreneurs. May I offer the ultimate disproof-by-exception?:
Bill Gates
I was at a graduation party. My friend's brother's wife started telling
me about this patent billing software. She said, my god, it sucks. They
get enormous dollars for it. That is one, there are 999 more. Stop
denigrating yourself and go find one.
>>>The only software that will be in any real danger by Free Software is
>>>commodity stuff.
>>
>>Maybe. But I see CLisp and all the branches from CMUCL and GCL as a
>>drag on commercial Lisp sales (not commodities at all) and falling
>>into the same general category that started this thread: people
>>hurting their own productivity at great cost to themselves and society
>>by using crappy free tools. (The IDEs, not the compilers per se.)
>
>
> I don't have an answer to this other than these free lisp systems have
> to compete in a free market. The projects only exist because people
> have an interest in them. The for pay lisp vendors will have to
> compete with that. As good as ACL's windows IDE may be, Emacs + SLIME
> is not so bad as you think it is. And it works the same on all the
> supported OSs.
Ok. thanks for completely missing my point <g>: They call it "free
software", they do not charge you for it, so you think it is free. Four
hours here, eight hours there, who cares? It's free! Whoa, two days... I
don't need no stinkin' support!
Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just naturally
have a blind spot to the value of their own time. This is almost an
emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count up the hours
spent on their "free" systems and I wager most of them would realize
life was too short to put up with that crap.
This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Ok. thanks for completely missing my point <g>: They call it "free
> software", they do not charge you for it, so you think it is free.
> Four hours here, eight hours there, who cares? It's free! Whoa, two
> days... I don't need no stinkin' support!
>
> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just
> naturally have a blind spot to the value of their own time. This is
> almost an emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count up
> the hours spent on their "free" systems and I wager most of them would
> realize life was too short to put up with that crap.
>
> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
>
Kenny, I think your living in the past. Linux, like Windows and most
other things evolves and improves. I will agree that 10 years ago,
Linux could be a real pain to get going - especially if you didn't
have named hardware brands. But things have progressed a lot since
then. At that time, Windows could be a nightmare as well.
Linux, like anything else has a learning curve. However, if you don't
want to get caught up on that curve, don't. You can purchase systems
with Linux pre-installed and configured and you have no more
configuration to do than you would with a Windows box. As long as you
treat it like a tool and just do what you need to do and don't go
poking around making changes in the base system your fine. This is no
different to Windows in that respect. On either system, if you use the
super user privs to go around customizing everything under the sun and
twiddling all over the place, you need to know what your doing and
acknowledge the fact you can stuff up and have to spend hours getting
things working properly again.
I agree with statements that claim OSS is not free - nothing is free
and all systems have some cost of ownership. However, from my own
personal experience and from what we have observed at work, when
comparing the costs for Windows and Windows Apps with Linux and Linux
apps the difference in cost is small, except Windows comes in more
expensive once you add in annual license costs. Of course, this is
based on each area having staff who know what they ar doing -
having unix admins do windows or windows admins do linux will always
make the familiar system look better than the less familiar one, but
tht shouldn't be a shock for anyone.
In some situations, the Linux and OSS solution is vastly superior
and/or makes the difference between a viable business and one that
isn't. I was once paid a very nice sum to get a fledgling ISP out of
the gutter. When I took on the contract, the business was probably
only 6 months away from bankrupcy. The whole business was based on
commercial software (Windows and Sun). I initially replaced all the
windows based stuff with Linux. Not because I hate windows, but
because it was the most unstable and problematic area of the business
and costing the most to maintain. Later I also replaced the Sun stuff.
The business improved - in fact grew to be one of the biggest in the
region and eventually was purchased by one of the biggest in the
country. The owners would have been set for life, except they took
most of the payment in the form of shares in the parent company and
this was 6 months prior to the teck wreck. In the end, they came out
with a couple of hundred thousand each, so it wasn't a complete
failure.
The point is that if it wasn't for OSS, this company would have gone
bankrupt and nobody would have made anything and quite a few people
would have been out of a job. It could be argued that if the business
wasn't able to afford commercial solutions it wasn't viable. However,
it was viable with OSS, so who cares if it wasn't viable with CSS.
I guess the point is that OSS doesn't destroy opportunities or prevent
people from making money as programmers or sys admins or any other
sort of IT professional, it merely modifies things, moves emphasis and
creates different opportunities - collectively this is often referred
to as change and is probably inevitable.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> David Steuber wrote:
>> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> David Steuber wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't most programmers make money via an hourly rate or salary?
>>>
>>> As Lispniks, the best chance we have to use Lisp "at work" is to
>>> develop and sell our own software. Well, maybe the best would be to
>>> freelance at web programming where clients don't care what we use. But
>>> that lacks the advantage of freeing developers from the hourly ball
>>> and chain.
>>
>>
>> I suspect only the most exceptional programmers will be able to write
>> their ticket out of wage slavery.
>
> Where is Paul Graham when I need him? He is trying to tell you, and I am
> trying to tell you: there are a thousand opportunities out there. Your
> comments are perfectly understandable and perfectly wrong, perfectly
> characteristic of The Grand Illusion: extraordinary Other People make
> money as entrepreneurs. May I offer the ultimate disproof-by-exception?:
>
> Bill Gates
>
> I was at a graduation party. My friend's brother's wife started telling
> me about this patent billing software. She said, my god, it sucks. They
> get enormous dollars for it. That is one, there are 999 more. Stop
> denigrating yourself and go find one.
>
>>>> The only software that will be in any real danger by Free Software is
>>>> commodity stuff.
>>>
>>> Maybe. But I see CLisp and all the branches from CMUCL and GCL as a
>>> drag on commercial Lisp sales (not commodities at all) and falling
>>> into the same general category that started this thread: people
>>> hurting their own productivity at great cost to themselves and society
>>> by using crappy free tools. (The IDEs, not the compilers per se.)
>>
>>
>> I don't have an answer to this other than these free lisp systems have
>> to compete in a free market. The projects only exist because people
>> have an interest in them. The for pay lisp vendors will have to
>> compete with that. As good as ACL's windows IDE may be, Emacs + SLIME
>> is not so bad as you think it is. And it works the same on all the
>> supported OSs.
>
> Ok. thanks for completely missing my point <g>: They call it "free
> software", they do not charge you for it, so you think it is free. Four
> hours here, eight hours there, who cares? It's free! Whoa, two days... I
> don't need no stinkin' support!
>
> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just naturally
> have a blind spot to the value of their own time. This is almost an
> emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count up the hours
> spent on their "free" systems and I wager most of them would realize
> life was too short to put up with that crap.
>
> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
On the contrary, this last rant is largely twaddle. My place of
employment (formerly Inet, now part of Tektronix) has been greatly
increasing the use of Linux. We used to be a Sun shop, with Windows
machines for Word, Excel, and the damnable PowerPoint. We pay Oracle
well for using their database, but the most of the development tools are
FSF. The last couple of years we've been switching more and more
towards Linux development platforms. Very successfully, too, I might
add. It's not mass hypnosis, it's a good product for which good support
can be bought.
--My views are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my
employer.
--Larry
Larry Elmore wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just
>> naturally have a blind spot to the value of their own time. This is
>> almost an emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count up
>> the hours spent on their "free" systems and I wager most of them would
>> realize life was too short to put up with that crap.
>>
>> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
>
>
> On the contrary, this last rant is largely twaddle. My place of
> employment (formerly Inet, now part of Tektronix) has been greatly
> increasing the use of Linux. We used to be a Sun shop, with Windows
> machines for Word, Excel, and the damnable PowerPoint. We pay Oracle
> well for using their database,...
Well that just proves how badly your firm understands tools, and how
much money is available to make up for awful ones. They should be using
ACl and AllegroCache.
I think I am more worried about the little guys doing one-on-one (one
sysadmin, one computer user, same person) than i am about big companies
that will have systems teams anyway.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just
>>> naturally have a blind spot to the value of their own time. This is
>>> almost an emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count
>>> up the hours spent on their "free" systems and I wager most of them
>>> would realize life was too short to put up with that crap.
>>>
>>> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, this last rant is largely twaddle. My place of
>> employment (formerly Inet, now part of Tektronix) has been greatly
>> increasing the use of Linux. We used to be a Sun shop, with Windows
>> machines for Word, Excel, and the damnable PowerPoint. We pay Oracle
>> well for using their database,...
>
> Well that just proves how badly your firm understands tools, and how
> much money is available to make up for awful ones. They should be using
> ACl and AllegroCache.
They do hard real-time now?
Larry Elmore wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Larry Elmore wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just
>>>> naturally have a blind spot to the value of their own time. This is
>>>> almost an emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count
>>>> up the hours spent on their "free" systems and I wager most of them
>>>> would realize life was too short to put up with that crap.
>>>>
>>>> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the contrary, this last rant is largely twaddle. My place of
>>> employment (formerly Inet, now part of Tektronix) has been greatly
>>> increasing the use of Linux. We used to be a Sun shop, with Windows
>>> machines for Word, Excel, and the damnable PowerPoint. We pay Oracle
>>> well for using their database,...
>>
>>
>> Well that just proves how badly your firm understands tools, and how
>> much money is available to make up for awful ones. They should be
>> using ACl and AllegroCache.
>
>
> They do hard real-time now?
Whassat? Anyway, I was joking, of course your firm would not use Lisp or
an OODB. Your firm is using Oracle, clear proof that they are addicted
to the warm fuzzy you get from giving insane amounts of money to huge
vendors because what could go wrong? You really need to take this
datapoint of yours and go away, come back with another one.
kenneth
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Larry Elmore wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just
>>>>> naturally have a blind spot to the value of their own time. This is
>>>>> almost an emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count
>>>>> up the hours spent on their "free" systems and I wager most of them
>>>>> would realize life was too short to put up with that crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary, this last rant is largely twaddle. My place of
>>>> employment (formerly Inet, now part of Tektronix) has been greatly
>>>> increasing the use of Linux. We used to be a Sun shop, with Windows
>>>> machines for Word, Excel, and the damnable PowerPoint. We pay
>>>> Oracle well for using their database,...
>>>
>>>
>>> Well that just proves how badly your firm understands tools, and how
>>> much money is available to make up for awful ones. They should be
>>> using ACl and AllegroCache.
>>
>>
>> They do hard real-time now?
>
> Whassat? Anyway, I was joking, of course your firm would not use Lisp or
> an OODB. Your firm is using Oracle, clear proof that they are addicted
> to the warm fuzzy you get from giving insane amounts of money to huge
> vendors because what could go wrong? You really need to take this
> datapoint of yours and go away, come back with another one.
But wait, I thought the evil was FSF, and paying large amounts for
commercial software was far superior? BTW, I agree that Oracle was/is a
mistake, but I'm in no position to influence that decision.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <5cvwg.32$Sc7.1@fe12.lga>
Larry Elmore wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Whassat? Anyway, I was joking, of course your firm would not use Lisp
>> or an OODB. Your firm is using Oracle, clear proof that they are
>> addicted to the warm fuzzy you get from giving insane amounts of money
>> to huge vendors because what could go wrong? You really need to take
>> this datapoint of yours and go away, come back with another one.
>
>
> But wait, I thought the evil was FSF, and paying large amounts for
> commercial software was far superior?
I said that? I recommended that comapnies bankrupt themselves on Oracle
consultants? There are no other commercial database vendors? Wow!
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>> Whassat? Anyway, I was joking, of course your firm would not use Lisp
>>> or an OODB. Your firm is using Oracle, clear proof that they are
>>> addicted to the warm fuzzy you get from giving insane amounts of
>>> money to huge vendors because what could go wrong? You really need to
>>> take this datapoint of yours and go away, come back with another one.
>>
>>
>> But wait, I thought the evil was FSF, and paying large amounts for
>> commercial software was far superior?
>
> I said that? I recommended that comapnies bankrupt themselves on Oracle
> consultants? There are no other commercial database vendors? Wow!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twat
Ken Tilton เขียน:
> Larry Elmore wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >> Whassat? Anyway, I was joking, of course your firm would not use Lisp
> >> or an OODB. Your firm is using Oracle, clear proof that they are
> >> addicted to the warm fuzzy you get from giving insane amounts of money
> >> to huge vendors because what could go wrong? You really need to take
> >> this datapoint of yours and go away, come back with another one.
> >
> >
So
Free Software is bad because while paying zero dollar you still have to
pay your time.
And Free Software quality is worse than commercial software. ?
So what make commercial software better than Software that is free
then? The only different in both must be price, correct (support not
count, you usually don't get support for 10 dollars simple toys)?
But then why is Oracle worse than other DB with lower price? Oracle get
more money so they must be producing better product?
What's your criteria for quality software?
- It must not be free?
- and must be not be at Oracle price?
If "it must not be free" were the requirement then does requiring to
pay 50 cents for each free software suddenly make that same old bad
free software become good product?
And what 's overpriced or not is subjective. Pricing tells nothing
about the quality. Or else the world's first computer would have better
quality than a pentium 3.
---------------------
With using Free software, you have to pay your time, but time only have
value when you use it. If the time you aren't use to config your FSF at
home is used in taking a walk then, or having a snack, then what's
wrong with spending those time, and could it be priced at 50$ an hour
for taking a walk?
Secondly, with Free software, the price of the product drop for every
release.
Is it usual for commercial software to drop price with every new
version?
But with Free Software, the resource you have to pay is your time to
config, but with more time put into development, some people will add
usuability support to it, some other people will add
auto-detect/configuration to it.
3 years ago:
- you had to spend 50 hours to set up some Free Software
- you had to spend 50$ to buy some commercial software
today:
- you have to spend 10 hours to set up the new version of the same
Free Software
- you have to spend 60$ to buy the new version of the commercial
software
3 years from now:
- you may have to spend 1 minutes to set up the new version of the
same Free Software
- you may have to spend 70$ to buy the new version of the commercial
software
Taking inflation rate into account is it ever possible that software
price will drop? And if it drop, then what's the different between
using to 10 dollars with no support software and using free software
with no support?
> > But wait, I thought the evil was FSF, and paying large amounts for
> > commercial software was far superior?
>
> I said that? I recommended that comapnies bankrupt themselves on Oracle
> consultants? There are no other commercial database vendors? Wow!
>
What if they bought Oracle and still not bankrupt? Oracle's software
quality depends on whether a company bankrupt themselves to buy
something they can't afford? That's new to me.
> kenny
>
> --
> Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
>
> "I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
> -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Larry Elmore <·········@comcast.net> writes:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>
>> Larry Elmore wrote:
>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Larry Elmore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just
>>>>>> naturally have a blind spot to the value of their own time. This
>>>>>> is almost an emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to
>>>>>> count up the hours spent on their "free" systems and I wager
>>>>>> most of them would realize life was too short to put up with
>>>>>> that crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On the contrary, this last rant is largely twaddle. My place of
>>>>> employment (formerly Inet, now part of Tektronix) has been
>>>>> greatly increasing the use of Linux. We used to be a Sun shop,
>>>>> with Windows machines for Word, Excel, and the damnable
>>>>> PowerPoint. We pay Oracle well for using their database,...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well that just proves how badly your firm understands tools, and
>>>> how much money is available to make up for awful ones. They should
>>>> be using ACl and AllegroCache.
>>>
>>>
>>> They do hard real-time now?
>>
>> Whassat? Anyway, I was joking, of course your firm would not use
>> Lisp or an OODB. Your firm is using Oracle, clear proof that they
>> are addicted to the warm fuzzy you get from giving insane amounts of
>> money to huge vendors because what could go wrong? You really need
>> to take this datapoint of yours and go away, come back with another
>> one.
>
> But wait, I thought the evil was FSF, and paying large amounts for
> commercial software was far superior? BTW, I agree that Oracle was/is
> a mistake, but I'm in no position to influence that decision.
After having used a large number of different databases, I actually
think Oracle is one of the better ones. Their tools and other add on
infrastructure is not so good and unfortunately, Oracle is making it
more and more difficult to just have the database without a heap of
additional stuff, making the environment far more complex than it
needs to be in most cases.
Having said that, Oracle is a heavy duty database. Unless you have
lots of data, high levels of real time transaction processing, very
large data warehousing needs and/or a high availability requirement,
its probably overkill.
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Alexander Schmolck
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <yfsk66811x8.fsf@oc.ex.ac.uk>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Where is Paul Graham when I need him? He is trying to tell you, and I am
> trying to tell you: there are a thousand opportunities out there.>
[...]
> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just naturally have a
> blind spot to the value of their own time. This is almost an
> emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count up the hours spent
> on their "free" systems and I wager most of them would realize life was too
> short to put up with that crap.
>
>
> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
Remind me again what software Graham was using to make his millions.
'as
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <TDRvg.51$GS4.2@fe09.lga>
Alexander Schmolck wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Where is Paul Graham when I need him? He is trying to tell you, and I am
>>trying to tell you: there are a thousand opportunities out there.>
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just naturally have a
>>blind spot to the value of their own time. This is almost an
>>emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count up the hours spent
>>on their "free" systems and I wager most of them would realize life was too
>>short to put up with that crap.
>>
>>
>>This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
>
>
> Remind me again what software Graham was using to make his millions.
God, I love a good non sequitor.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Alexander Schmolck wrote:
>> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Where is Paul Graham when I need him? He is trying to tell you, and I am
>>> trying to tell you: there are a thousand opportunities out there.>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just
>>> naturally have a
>>> blind spot to the value of their own time. This is almost an
>>> emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count up the
>>> hours spent
>>> on their "free" systems and I wager most of them would realize life
>>> was too
>>> short to put up with that crap.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
>>
>>
>> Remind me again what software Graham was using to make his millions.
>
> God, I love a good non sequitor.
Why do you believe it is a non sequitor?
Larry Elmore wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Alexander Schmolck wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Where is Paul Graham when I need him? He is trying to tell you, and
>>>> I am
>>>> trying to tell you: there are a thousand opportunities out there.>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just
>>>> naturally have a
>>>> blind spot to the value of their own time. This is almost an
>>>> emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count up the
>>>> hours spent
>>>> on their "free" systems and I wager most of them would realize life
>>>> was too
>>>> short to put up with that crap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Remind me again what software Graham was using to make his millions.
>>
>>
>> God, I love a good non sequitor.
>
>
> Why do you believe it is a non sequitor?
I was afraid someone would ask that. btw, all I know is that they used
CLisp, which is free, but I will asusme they also used Linux. No matter.
It is a non sequitor because the issue I am raising is "how much waste
is going into folks using rough free tools instead of polished/supported
tools"? "Waste" does not mean it stops anyone altogether from
accomplishing anything, it just means it takes longer.
hth, kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Larry Elmore wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Alexander Schmolck wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Where is Paul Graham when I need him? He is trying to tell you, and
> >>>> I am
> >>>> trying to tell you: there are a thousand opportunities out there.>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just
> >>>> naturally have a
> >>>> blind spot to the value of their own time. This is almost an
> >>>> emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count up the
> >>>> hours spent
> >>>> on their "free" systems and I wager most of them would realize life
> >>>> was too
> >>>> short to put up with that crap.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not choice, this is mass hypnosis.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Remind me again what software Graham was using to make his millions.
> >>
> >>
> >> God, I love a good non sequitor.
> >
> >
> > Why do you believe it is a non sequitor?
>
> I was afraid someone would ask that. btw, all I know is that they used
> CLisp, which is free, but I will asusme they also used Linux. No matter.
>
> It is a non sequitor because the issue I am raising is "how much waste
> is going into folks using rough free tools instead of polished/supported
> tools"? "Waste" does not mean it stops anyone altogether from
> accomplishing anything, it just means it takes longer.
>
IIRC, that somehow doesn't fit in with what PG said
(they tried commerical, but it could not match clisp
in terms of execution time).
Also, PG seems like the type of person who would
use the best tools he could get, and he *did not*
choose commercial solutions.
Lots of people chose the best that they can get
(myself, included) and mostly that means that windows
has been generally out of the question for most niche
tasks.
goose,
you're quite the artfull dodger
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <r9_vg.803$An.626@fe11.lga>
goose wrote:
> Also, PG seems like the type of person who would
> use the best tools he could get, and he *did not*
> choose commercial solutions.
I think you better hold off on drawing conclusions from Viaweb when in
fact you have no idea how their decisions were made or even what
decisions were made. Your reasoning has led you to the conclusion that
Clisp (or was it CMUCL?) was better than Lispworks back then. Simply wrong.
> goose,
> you're quite the artfull dodger
And you need to go help that Ubuntu expert get his mousepad working, he
looks ridiculous running that mouse along his thigh.
:)
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > Also, PG seems like the type of person who would
> > use the best tools he could get, and he *did not*
> > choose commercial solutions.
>
> I think you better hold off on drawing conclusions from Viaweb when in
> fact you have no idea how their decisions were made or even what
> decisions were made. Your reasoning has led you to the conclusion that
> Clisp (or was it CMUCL?) was better than Lispworks back then. Simply wrong.
>
I believe that someone qualified on this particular subject
said something to the contrary downthread, so *you* are
simply wrong (you don't know as much as you seem to think).
So far, all you've done is dodge. Where is your data that
says OSS is such a time-waster? The point above still
stands as it disproves your theory of commercial software
always being better than OSS equivalents.
Sorry, but thats just the way it is; OSS people tend
to reuse each others work while proprietry software
doesn't have this luxury, hence the reason that
proprietry software tends to lack a little; they cannot simply
reuse each others (or even some OSS) work.
See the prisoners dilemma(sp?).
goose,
"goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> > It is a non sequitor because the issue I am raising is "how much waste
> > is going into folks using rough free tools instead of polished/supported
> > tools"? "Waste" does not mean it stops anyone altogether from
> > accomplishing anything, it just means it takes longer.
> >
>
> IIRC, that somehow doesn't fit in with what PG said
> (they tried commerical, but it could not match clisp
> in terms of execution time).
>
> Also, PG seems like the type of person who would
> use the best tools he could get, and he *did not*
> choose commercial solutions.
He stated that he tried (in vain) to get a commercial version (up
front for $0 with pay off on the backend), but was unable to cut such
a deal at the time and was thus (more or less) forced into using CLisp
(possibly because it was faster at startup and such than CMUCL, and
starting up fresh copies for each access was part of the MO of the
architecture). He definitely tried to get Franz to cut a deal, but
could not get it done. Franz (in the persons of those who made such
decisions), has subsequently said that was a (big) mistake. Of
course, that is in hindsight, but I believe it has fed into their
business behavior in moving forward.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
jayessay wrote:
> "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
>
>
>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>>It is a non sequitor because the issue I am raising is "how much waste
>>>is going into folks using rough free tools instead of polished/supported
>>>tools"? "Waste" does not mean it stops anyone altogether from
>>>accomplishing anything, it just means it takes longer.
>>>
>>
>>IIRC, that somehow doesn't fit in with what PG said
>>(they tried commerical, but it could not match clisp
>>in terms of execution time).
>>
>>Also, PG seems like the type of person who would
>>use the best tools he could get, and he *did not*
>>choose commercial solutions.
>
>
> He stated that he tried (in vain) to get a commercial version (up
> front for $0 with pay off on the backend), but was unable to cut such
> a deal at the time and was thus (more or less) forced into using CLisp
> (possibly because it was faster at startup and such than CMUCL, and
> starting up fresh copies for each access was part of the MO of the
> architecture). He definitely tried to get Franz...
Ah, PG's a fellow ACL fan, I never knew that. Case frickin' closed. :)
kenny
ps. How, they start a Lisp to serve every page? I gotta try some of this
web programming. k
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <o0wta68nr8.fsf@franz.com>
jayessay <······@foo.com> writes:
> "goose" <····@webmail.co.za> writes:
>
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> > It is a non sequitor because the issue I am raising is "how much waste
>> > is going into folks using rough free tools instead of polished/supported
>> > tools"? "Waste" does not mean it stops anyone altogether from
>> > accomplishing anything, it just means it takes longer.
>> >
>>
>> IIRC, that somehow doesn't fit in with what PG said
>> (they tried commerical, but it could not match clisp
>> in terms of execution time).
>>
>> Also, PG seems like the type of person who would
>> use the best tools he could get, and he *did not*
>> choose commercial solutions.
>
> He stated that he tried (in vain) to get a commercial version (up
> front for $0 with pay off on the backend), but was unable to cut such
> a deal at the time and was thus (more or less) forced into using CLisp
> (possibly because it was faster at startup and such than CMUCL, and
> starting up fresh copies for each access was part of the MO of the
> architecture). He definitely tried to get Franz to cut a deal, but
> could not get it done. Franz (in the persons of those who made such
> decisions), has subsequently said that was a (big) mistake. Of
> course, that is in hindsight, but I believe it has fed into their
> business behavior in moving forward.
The problem was not a business issue - we were more than willing to
deal- it was a technical issue; we were one of the earliest
implementors of Gray streams, and PG's requirements were for something
much lighter weight. So he went with Clisp, which had a more
simplistic stream implementation. It was that failure on our part
which sent us back to the drawing board to reinvent our streams
implementaiton, which in turn resulted in Simple-Streams. Ironically,
almost everybody has Gray streams now ...
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Larry Elmore wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> I was afraid someone would ask that. btw, all I know is that they used
> CLisp, which is free, but I will asusme they also used Linux. No matter.
>
> It is a non sequitor because the issue I am raising is "how much waste
> is going into folks using rough free tools instead of polished/supported
> tools"? "Waste" does not mean it stops anyone altogether from
> accomplishing anything, it just means it takes longer.
>
> hth, kenny
I don't waste much at all, takes me about as long to roll a Linux server
as a Solaris server. Sometimes Linux is faster because it has all the
FSF stuff installed already. Usually takes me 2 reboots; one to finish
the install and the 2nd to test all the configs that I copied in to
localize the install.
Windows usually takes longer since I have to unconfigure all the
broken-ass gui "features", uninstall the shovelware, install Office &
cygwin, dork around with the antivirus software, install the
anti-spyware, get the printer drivers loaded, get the network working,
wait through innumerable reboots and thats for a new-bought machine with
Windows already installed.
OTOH, I quite happily buy & install Lispworks since its a good and
effective product that doesn't inflict a lot of melodrama on the
installer or user. I use clisp for one-off scripts or arithmetic
testing that doesn't need maximum performance because its quick to load
to a command line and it runs almost everywhere.
So I have yet to see the "waste" you're obsessing about and I've been
using FSF extensively since 1998 or so.
With regard to "polished", if you'll ease off on your dogmatic attitude
and actually evaluate the tools, you'll find the FSF software suite
quite a lot more polished, modern and comprehensive than most any
other around. And you can fix bugs when you find them instead of hoping
the vendor is responsive.
Gregm
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I was at a graduation party. My friend's brother's wife started
> telling me about this patent billing software. She said, my god, it
> sucks. They get enormous dollars for it. That is one, there are 999
> more. Stop denigrating yourself and go find one.
I was not denigrating myself. I just don't have any ideas for a
product that I can put together to free me from contract work.
> Ok. thanks for completely missing my point <g>: They call it "free
> software", they do not charge you for it, so you think it is
> free. Four hours here, eight hours there, who cares? It's free! Whoa,
> two days... I don't need no stinkin' support!
Just as a single example, SBCL has very good support. As another, so
does Emacs. You shoot a specific question out into the ether and
someone is likely to be able to give you the right answer almost
immediately.
Anyway, it doesn't take as long as you say to setup Emacs + SLIME +
SBCL.
> Is the light going on? The market is not working, people just
> naturally have a blind spot to the value of their own time. This is
> almost an emperor-without-clothes deal. Just ask Linuxites to count up
> the hours spent on their "free" systems and I wager most of them would
> realize life was too short to put up with that crap.
You have a target fixation on Linux. Debian Sarge and Knopix are both
very good at detecting hardware these days and being installed in a
very short time.
As far as Lisp goes, a lot of people won't want to spend money on it
just to try it out, even if that is the best way. The trial versions
may not offer what someone wants. Either way, that leaves the free
Lisps.
You can go through Graham's book or Seibel's book easily enough using
Emacs + SLIME + SBCL. The setup time could get in the way, but only
if something unusual happens.
Of course the real irony is that I didn't get going in Lisp until I
got a Mac.
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> David Steuber wrote:
>> > Don't most programmers make money via an hourly rate or salary?
>>
>> As Lispniks, the best chance we have to use Lisp "at work" is to
>> develop and sell our own software. Well, maybe the best would be to
>> freelance at web programming where clients don't care what we use. But
>> that lacks the advantage of freeing developers from the hourly ball
>> and chain.
>
> I suspect only the most exceptional programmers will be able to write
> their ticket out of wage slavery.
>
No, it can be done, but it is getting harder. I earned a very
comfortable income for quite a few years with a combination of writing
useful utilities and taking on contract jobs. All of it was done using
the crappy development tools and operating systems KT claims is
ruining all our lives - for me it was freedom. I'm certainly nothing
exceptional when it comes to programming - I'm competant and I guess
experienced enough to know that providing the immediate solution is
only the first part - providing one that is maintainable and cost
efficient over the long term is more important.
I gave up working from home and went back to being a "wage slave"
about 5 years ago. However, this wasn't because of lack of money or
work - primarily it was because I was tired of working alone and
wanted to have more social interaction. I was also feeling like I was
running out of original ideas that I could develop on my own and in a
reasonable time. As a wage slave, I have been able to work in a
different environment with others and take on new challenges I woldn't
get to do working for myself.
I'm now thinking about going back to doing my own thing and trying to
make a living from it again. I'm a bit reluctant though as I think the
sophistication and size of apps people want now is getting beyond a
single developer. However, my needs these days are few - I have all
the material things I need (house and all trappings paid off, good
investment portfolio, super etc) have done enough travelling and
seeing the world and feel quite OK about life - maybe I just lack
ambition (who knows, who cares).
I also think it is dangerous to assume anyone using open source tools
or operating system is doing so simply because it is free. I actually
don't have a problem with paying for good software tools. However, I
do have a problem with paying a lot for a commercial tool which offers
very little in additional productivity, stability or support than an
open source tool. I also don't have a problem in paying for or
donating to open source software. For example, I have paid for Linux
distributions many times despite the fact I could download them for
free because I felt the value of the product justified it and I wanted
to support the work. I've purchased bound printed manuals for things
like emacs, not because I need them but because it is a way of
supporting the on going development of a premium product that is
better than any commercial competitor.
Its a dangerous thing to judge others motives based on what your own
might be.
T
--
zzzzzzzzzz
>
> The "it" was ambiguous, and you guessed wrong at it. It was clarified I
> thought in the next sentence, but you did not quote it. Maybe you did
> not read it either. It implied one quote does not change another. The
> manifesto says software should be free. As in money. Deal with it. Or
> maybe you have not read it? Then it is your fault.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
>
> Don't stop before the FAQ:
>
> "Won't programmers starve?
>
> "I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us
> cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
> faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
> standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else."
>
ah but, zzzzzzzzzz. Didn't you read on? --> "Probably programming will
not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now...". Money is
involved, yes, but just because money is mentioned doesn't mean it's
about money.
Just because you misinterpret the text you read doesn't imply you can
accuse me of not reading the text. Oh but... my mistake. You didn't
know you misinterpreted. Or did i misinterpret. Maybe we just have so
different internally consistent models of meaning in our head that we
are both right!!! This discussion is useless.
greets,
Ties
> Yeltsin, schmeltsin, everyone is moving to a market system. Human nature
> laughs at Marx and Stallman and others who try to strongarm people into
> behaving a certain way.
It is very simplified point of view. Could market system by itself
without governmental support create spaceship to achieve the Moon ?
Could market system create computers for civil needs ? Virtually any
significant technical achievement of 20th century is result of military
or governmental interference. The allmighty market couldn't save USA
from Great Depression.
Absolutely free market (and pure capitalism) is blind, dangerous and
destructive force. I think neither Marx, nor Stallman (I am not sure
that they have common ideas) are trying "to strongarm people into
behaving a certain way". IMHO their ideas are not in literally making
all for free obligatory, but in transition to post-capitalism era,
where people can allow themself (having powerful enough technologies)
to share large part of common wealth between all people without any
fee. It is ideal of course, but it can be implemented to some degree
with scientific and technical progress. Simply Stallman and others
didn't want to wait.
At some stage an old socio-historical formation slows down progress and
become obsolete. The present-day form of capitalism is still playing
progressive role (less and less), sooner or later it can be transformed
to informational capitalism where you will be able to get from
artificial nature almost anything, but you will not have rights on
information required for producing things. Probably it will be police
state of total private information control to be sure that person will
not copy information for free.
Regards
Lisper
"Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> writes:
>> Yeltsin, schmeltsin, everyone is moving to a market system. Human nature
>> laughs at Marx and Stallman and others who try to strongarm people into
>> behaving a certain way.
>
> It is very simplified point of view. Could market system by itself
> without governmental support create spaceship to achieve the Moon ?
> Could market system create computers for civil needs ? Virtually any
> significant technical achievement of 20th century is result of military
> or governmental interference. The allmighty market couldn't save USA
> from Great Depression.
It's the allmighty market who saved the USA from the Great
Depression. It's the government who created the Great Depression.
If the state didn't rob the money from the people in the first place,
people would have enough money to finance whatever they want, from
food for everybody to true space ships.
> Absolutely free market (and pure capitalism) is blind, dangerous and
> destructive force.
You're forgeting that the free market is established by its actors,
that is, us, people, and that we're not totally blind: we're the only
constructive force there is on this planet, being the highest level of
life there is on this planet.
Remember that the blind, dangerous and destructive machines that may
be the corporations are _licensed_ by the governments to do so.
Governments give them priviledge of eternal life, and
irresponsability, making them the monsters they are.
> I think neither Marx, nor Stallman (I am not sure
> that they have common ideas) are trying "to strongarm people into
> behaving a certain way". IMHO their ideas are not in literally making
> all for free obligatory, but in transition to post-capitalism era,
> where people can allow themself (having powerful enough technologies)
> to share large part of common wealth between all people without any
> fee. It is ideal of course, but it can be implemented to some degree
> with scientific and technical progress. Simply Stallman and others
> didn't want to wait.
>
> At some stage an old socio-historical formation slows down progress and
> become obsolete. The present-day form of capitalism is still playing
> progressive role (less and less), sooner or later it can be transformed
> to informational capitalism where you will be able to get from
> artificial nature almost anything, but you will not have rights on
> information required for producing things. Probably it will be police
> state of total private information control to be sure that person will
> not copy information for free.
>
> Regards
> Lisper
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
CAUTION: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of
85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> "Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> writes:
>
>>> Yeltsin, schmeltsin, everyone is moving to a market system. Human nature
>>> laughs at Marx and Stallman and others who try to strongarm people into
>>> behaving a certain way.
>>
>> It is very simplified point of view. Could market system by itself
>> without governmental support create spaceship to achieve the Moon ?
>> Could market system create computers for civil needs ? Virtually any
>> significant technical achievement of 20th century is result of military
>> or governmental interference. The allmighty market couldn't save USA
>> from Great Depression.
>
> It's the allmighty market who saved the USA from the Great
> Depression. It's the government who created the Great Depression.
> If the state didn't rob the money from the people in the first place,
> people would have enough money to finance whatever they want, from
> food for everybody to true space ships.
>
>
>> Absolutely free market (and pure capitalism) is blind, dangerous and
>> destructive force.
>
> You're forgeting that the free market is established by its actors,
> that is, us, people, and that we're not totally blind: we're the only
> constructive force there is on this planet, being the highest level of
> life there is on this planet.
>
Ignoring for the moment that as actors, we are not equal actors with
equal parts, it should also be mentioned that we are also the most
distructive force on the planet and are responsible for the extinction
of more animal and plant species than anyone else and the cause of
global warming. Much of that distruction is due to the greed of the
free market and the drive of public companies to produce high short
term profits for shareholders over sustainability.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
> Ignoring for the moment that as actors, we are not equal actors with
> equal parts, it should also be mentioned that we are also the most
> distructive force on the planet and are responsible for the extinction
> of more animal and plant species than anyone else and the cause of
> global warming. Much of that distruction is due to the greed of the
> free market and the drive of public companies to produce high short
> term profits for shareholders over sustainability.
Again, this destruction is not the work of men, but of artificial
mechanical beings that are the corporations, created by permission and
protection of the governments.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Logiciels libres : nourris au code source sans farine animale."
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>> Ignoring for the moment that as actors, we are not equal actors with
>> equal parts, it should also be mentioned that we are also the most
>> distructive force on the planet and are responsible for the extinction
>> of more animal and plant species than anyone else and the cause of
>> global warming. Much of that distruction is due to the greed of the
>> free market and the drive of public companies to produce high short
>> term profits for shareholders over sustainability.
>
> Again, this destruction is not the work of men, but of artificial
> mechanical beings that are the corporations, created by permission and
> protection of the governments.
>
The only problem with that POV is that evidence doesn't back it up.
The destruction started long before the corporations and the
industrial revolution. Corporations have allowed it to occur with less
moral guilt and it has certainly made it worse, but we cannot distance
ourselves and escape responsability by claiming it was done by an
artificial mechanical beings that are the corporations created by
permission and protection of the governments.
- It was humans that created the corporation and the tools it uses to
make this distruction.
- It was humans that created governments and passed legislation
- It was humans that created the machinery that allows us to devistate
more at increasing rates every year
- It is the greed of humans as shareholders who propogate the whole
thing
There is no doddging it - humans are the most distructive force on the
planet and the mere act of using a computer, electricity and pretty
much any modern service/facility means you are contributing to the
problem. Claiming it is just corporations and governments is just a
cop out.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
> - It was humans that created the corporation and the tools it uses to
> make this distruction.
> - It was humans that created governments and passed legislation
> - It was humans that created the machinery that allows us to devistate
> more at increasing rates every year
> - It is the greed of humans as shareholders who propogate the whole
> thing
>
> There is no doddging it - humans are the most distructive force on the
> planet and the mere act of using a computer, electricity and pretty
> much any modern service/facility means you are contributing to the
> problem. Claiming it is just corporations and governments is just a
> cop out.
I just hope people who believe that just shut down their computers,
dispose it as they see fit (at their own expense) and go live an
ecological life to their taste in some nearby mountain.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"This statement is false." In Lisp: (defun Q () (eq nil (Q)))
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> I just hope people who believe that just shut down their computers,
> dispose it as they see fit (at their own expense) and go live an
> ecological life to their taste in some nearby mountain.
No no no. The fact that Tim is right doesn't mean that we aren't
committed to that path, out of necessity. I think that, at this
juncture, our only hope is _more_ technology, not less.
But the _real_ problems, as always, are social, not technological,
and since when has any technological solution to a social problem
ever worked?
--ap
Alain Picard wrote:
> But the _real_ problems, as always, are social, not technological,
> and since when has any technological solution to a social problem
> ever worked?
Why is this reminding me of the 'what have the Romans done for us'
scene from Life of Brian?
Technological advances have been instrumental in addressing many
social problems. The Green Revolution, control of many common
infectious diseases, increase in literacy (needed the invention
of printing), control of pollution (is *your* street covered
in horse manure?).
Of course none of these solutions is perfect, so if you demand
perfection then none has 'worked'. But then, no social solution
to a social problem could be said to have 'worked' either.
Paul
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <87k661fuqm.fsf@geddis.org>
"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote on Tue, 25 Jul 2006:
> Why is this reminding me of the 'what have the Romans done for us'
> scene from Life of Brian?
"The aqueduct?"
"And the roads..."
"And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now."
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
I made dinner. We didn't have any Hamburger, so it's just Helper.
-- "Gabe", Penny Arcade
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote on Tue, 25 Jul 2006:
> > Why is this reminding me of the 'what have the Romans done for us'
> > scene from Life of Brian?
>
> "The aqueduct?"
>
> "And the roads..."
>
> "And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now."
>
I don't know if anybody else caught this on TV, but it's an interesting
(and particularly relevent, on so many different levels...) position:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0563493186/002-0763303-4290457?v=glance&n=283155
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> I made dinner. We didn't have any Hamburger, so it's just Helper.
> -- "Gabe", Penny Arcade
Don Geddis wrote:
> "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote on Tue, 25 Jul 2006:
>
>>Why is this reminding me of the 'what have the Romans done for us'
>>scene from Life of Brian?
>
>
> "The aqueduct?"
>
> "And the roads..."
>
> "And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now."
Aside from that?
kenneth
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> writes:
> Alain Picard wrote:
>
>> But the _real_ problems, as always, are social, not technological,
>> and since when has any technological solution to a social problem
>> ever worked?
>
> Why is this reminding me of the 'what have the Romans done for us'
> scene from Life of Brian?
Probably because you're misinterpreting what I meant. Not your fault---I
was much too brief, and should have been clearer.
> Technological advances have been instrumental in addressing many
> social problems.
Yes yes, of course. Let me try again:
The central problem facing humanity today is its inability to think
long term, and cooperatively. Our primary competitive instincts naturally
drive us to hoard as much as possible as quickly as possible, usually
at the expense of those less powerful than us. I submit that this is the
central cause of most of the world's ills today, and that there is no
technological solution; on the contrary, technological mostly, so far,
has been aiding us in accomplishing this sociopathic behaviour more
effectively.
Is that better? :-)
On 2006-07-23, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>
>> You're forgeting that the free market is established by its actors,
>> that is, us, people, and that we're not totally blind: we're the only
>> constructive force there is on this planet, being the highest level of
>> life there is on this planet.
>>
>
> Ignoring for the moment that as actors, we are not equal actors with
> equal parts, it should also be mentioned that we are also the most
> distructive force on the planet and are responsible for the extinction
> of more animal and plant species than anyone else and the cause of
> global warming. Much of that distruction is due to the greed of the
> free market and the drive of public companies to produce high short
> term profits for shareholders over sustainability.
ok how the hell did we kill of the dinosaurs, 90%+ of all species
in existance went away then. On a planatary time scale die offs
happen. It remains to be seen if humanity(and corporations) are
a bad thing on that time scale. As far as global warming goes
bad science, models with flat worlds etc., would be the kindest
way I could put it. also there is much historical fact that the
earth has been much warmer then it currently is, and this before
lemurs walked the earth.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
marc spitzer wrote:
> As far as global warming goes bad science, models with flat
> worlds etc., would be the kindest way I could put it.
The kindest way to put it would be to say that global warming
represents the consensus of the global scientific community. That seems
kinder than comparing it Flat Earthism, to me at least.
> also there is much historical fact that the earth has been
> much warmer then it currently is, and this before lemurs
> walked the earth.
Sure, the Earth used to be a molten ball. On the other hand, we weren't
living on it at the time.
>
> marc
>
> --
> ······@sdf.lonestar.org
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On 2006-07-23, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
> marc spitzer wrote:
>> As far as global warming goes bad science, models with flat
>> worlds etc., would be the kindest way I could put it.
>
> The kindest way to put it would be to say that global warming
> represents the consensus of the global scientific community. That seems
> kinder than comparing it Flat Earthism, to me at least.
>
Sorry I was not clear enough, the modles used were smooth spheres,
no mountian ranges to break up wind and weather patterns for example.
there were other things wrong with many of the gloom and doom
studies.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <RR9xg.143$9r1.42@fe11.lga>
marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-07-23, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>marc spitzer wrote:
>>
>>>As far as global warming goes bad science, models with flat
>>>worlds etc., would be the kindest way I could put it.
>>
>>The kindest way to put it would be to say that global warming
>>represents the consensus of the global scientific community. That seems
>>kinder than comparing it Flat Earthism, to me at least.
>>
>
>
> Sorry I was not clear enough, the modles used were smooth spheres,
> no mountian ranges to break up wind and weather patterns for example.
> there were other things wrong with many of the gloom and doom
> studies.
That must be a huge consolation to the frickin' polar bears.
kenny
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
Date:
Message-ID: <uk663di1w.fsf@nhplace.com>
marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> ... As far as global warming goes bad science, models with flat
> worlds etc., would be the kindest way I could put it. also there is
> much historical fact that the earth has been much warmer then it
> currently is, and this before lemurs walked the earth.
Thank goodness someone with access to facts. Can you share a pointer
to a proper understanding of global warming--preferrably in a
peer-reviewed journal? I'm behind in my reading on all this and really
need to get caught up so I'm not at the mercy of inappropriate spin.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Aren't decimals safely lumped under rationals? [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?]
Date:
Message-ID: <dkWwg.267$nq6.131@fe09.lga>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>
>
>>... As far as global warming goes bad science, models with flat
>>worlds etc., would be the kindest way I could put it. also there is
>>much historical fact that the earth has been much warmer then it
>>currently is, and this before lemurs walked the earth.
>
>
> Thank goodness someone with access to facts. Can you share a pointer
> to a proper understanding of global warming--preferrably in a
> peer-reviewed journal?
Better than that! Marc's source is probably The President of the United
States himself.
:)
Now while I have you, how come:
(type 4.2) -> single-float
? Why not represent decimals as ratios, since any of them can be a
ration of an integer over a power of ten? Then there would be none of
that messy float failure-to-represent.
Stumped.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
> > marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> >
> >
> >>... As far as global warming goes bad science, models with flat
> >>worlds etc., would be the kindest way I could put it. also there is
> >>much historical fact that the earth has been much warmer then it
> >>currently is, and this before lemurs walked the earth.
> >
> >
> > Thank goodness someone with access to facts. Can you share a pointer
> > to a proper understanding of global warming--preferrably in a
> > peer-reviewed journal?
>
> Better than that! Marc's source is probably The President of the United
> States himself.
What a relief. I was worried Marc be relying upon scientists for his
information. They are netoriously biased towards the truth.
>
> :)
>
> Now while I have you, how come:
>
> (type 4.2) -> single-float
>
> ? Why not represent decimals as ratios, since any of them can be a
> ration of an integer over a power of ten? Then there would be none of
> that messy float failure-to-represent.
I realise I'm not Kent, but two possible justifications spring to mind.
Firstly, ratios may have been added to Lisp after floats. I've no idea
if that's true. If it is, people would have been unwilling to (quite
significantly) change the behaviour of many existing programs, so
decimal syntax would still denote floats even after ratios were
available.
Secondly, there are significant efficiency issues, particularly with
recursive/iterative calculations. For comparison, I coded the logistic
map: x = rx(1-x).
Using floats, the function can perform about 14 million iterations per
second and conses approximately 7 bytes per iteration.
Using ratios, the function can perform 17 iterations in about a minute
and conses approximately 180kB per iteration. Because the 'size' of the
ratio increases with each iteration, the time and space requires
increases, approximately exponentially. Generalising wildly, I might
guess it'd take in the order of
13,999,997
2 seconds
to do the 14 million iterations the float version can do in one. This
is much longer than the Universe has been around, so we can safely say
that ratios are probably not well suited for tasks which use iterative
calculations. Again generalising wildly, I might guess that most times
you use numbers, you're using them iteratively*.
* Iterative might not be quite the word I'm looking for. I'm trying to
express the concept that in a running program, many numbers weren't
just invented from nothing, but came as the result of calculations on
other numbers which themselves came from other numbers in a 'family
tree' leading back for billions of iterations. Just as floating-point
inaccuracies can build up in the lineage of numbers in a
floating-point-using program, the excessive precision (and thereby
processor and memory usage) of ratios can build up in the lineage of
numbers in a ratio-using program.
> Stumped.
>
> kenny
>
>
>
> --
> Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
>
> "I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
> -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Aren't decimals safely lumped under rationals? [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?]
Date:
Message-ID: <uodvfy4i0.fsf@nhplace.com>
"Nathan Baum" <···········@btinternet.com> writes:
...
> I realise I'm not Kent, but two possible justifications spring to mind.
Well, fortunately for you, "being Kent" is rarely a credential anyone
advertises for. Having reasonable theories works better in practice.
> Firstly, ratios may have been added to Lisp after floats.
Yep, this is so.
Macsyma (originally implemented in Maclisp/Franz/Zetalisp/others and
eventually reimplemented in Common Lisp) had something called
BigFloats (containing ratio information in a low-tech representation
using bignums, not ratios, exactly because it dates way back to before
CL). Macsyma (at least Symbolics Macsyma, which I'm familiar with,
and I'll bet DOE Maxima as well) was never re-implemented to use ratios
because they were so different. In addition to round-off issues, there
are also issues of how many digits to show, especially in the face of
contagion of precision. (There are design issues like whether
0.01 and 0.010 are represented differently, and these manifest especially
when you do (0.01 * 0.010) and you want to know whether or not there are
2, 3, 5, or some other number of digits of precision after the decimal
point in the result, as well as whether the answer depends on something
in the numbers [stored precision] or something in the environment [a
*digits* variable of some kind].) It's not as trivial a matter as it looks.
>
> Secondly, there are significant efficiency issues,
Right again.
I meant to underscore in my prior message, but this is as good a place
as any: the term "decimals" (as used in the subject line) and the term
"float" are just not the same. Floats are not "decimal numbers".
Floats are a special kind of compact/efficient rational which exist in
an extremely strangely shaped precision space. I often tell people that
"I don't understand floats." and it often surprises or scares people
who think they do ... but I took on the practice of saying I didn't
understand them from people I knew who knew more than me about them
and also said they didn't understand them ... and it helps to remind me
that while floats may seem intelligible in some situations, there's
always a surprise or two around the corner. Every time I think I
understand them, someone tells me a funny story that I should have
expected to follow logically from the definition, but that had never
occurred to me. They're a constant source of fun.
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Now while I have you, how come:
>
> (type 4.2) -> single-float
>
> ? Why not represent decimals as ratios, since any of them can be a
> ration of an integer over a power of ten? Then there would be none of
> that messy float failure-to-represent.
Because neither I nor the designer of the Common Lisp specifications
could come with a good reason why. However, they couldn't come with a
good reason why not either, so they provided you with a mechanism,
namely the reader macros, to let you have the representation 4.2 be
that of a ratio. Happy?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
HEALTH WARNING: Care should be taken when lifting this product,
since its mass, and thus its weight, is dependent on its velocity
relative to the user.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Aren't decimals safely lumped under rationals?
Date:
Message-ID: <u3bcrhe8n.fsf@nhplace.com>
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> > Now while I have you, how come:
> >
> > (type 4.2) -> single-float
> >
> > ? Why not represent decimals as ratios, since any of them can be a
> > ration of an integer over a power of ten? Then there would be none of
> > that messy float failure-to-represent.
>
> Because neither I nor the designer of the Common Lisp specifications
> could come with a good reason why. However, they couldn't come with a
> good reason why not either, so they provided you with a mechanism,
> namely the reader macros, to let you have the representation 4.2 be
> that of a ratio. Happy?
Because floats are floats and ratios are ratios.
Put another way, this is an issue you don't want to have happen invisibly
without a change in the language. It is an incompatible change in semantics.
Put still another way, the question seems to presuppose that floats
are an imperfect implementation of BCD, but they are not. They are an
attempt to get hardware support for a computational trade-off between
range and efficiency that is useful in some places and not in others.
I'm not allowed to speak for the committee, but I can nevertheless
tell you with near certainty that, no matter what, the language would
have had floats, even if the above suggestion had been
implemented. (For example, we might have ALSO introduced a change to
permit a datatype which was "exact ratio printed in decimal notation".
We just didn't.) The reason I believe this is that I personally
advocated eliminating FIXNUM as a type, leaving only INTEGER, and
allowing FIXNUM to become an implementation-only thing. The committee
overruled me, insisting the language would not be taken seriously if
it didn't have FIXNUMs, even if the idea of what a FIXNUM was created
some problems for portability, etc. And I'm quite confident the same
argument would have been made about FLOATs had a suggestion of
removing them been seriously made. They are part of the low-level core
of things that appear in nearly all credible languages, and that CL would
have been crippled in terms of its image, if not its day to day practice,
without.
But back to the idea of adding such a feature as an addition, rather
than as a replacement: I suspect the main reason we didn't was that
there was no current practice, not that it was a bad idea.
Ultimately, the standard was not a statement of what was good--it was
a statement about what was ... well, "common". What's common? Well,
that may be subjective, but a kind of minimalist definition would be
"extant in at least one implementation". :) And the proposal above
doesn't pass that test.
To the extent we all think the language is "good", it's not because we
set out to standardize "goodness", but rather because the "commonality"
we set out to standardize had become common in the first place because
it was good... That is, the causality is "goodness"=>"common"=>"standard"
and not some other permutation of same.
We DID add some things that weren't extant anywhere (big things like
CLOS and little things like the second argument to the function named
LAST), but we were pretty stingy about them, and in most cases they
were added because they were either dead easy or they were the result
of hammering out incompatible proposals in the same general area.
There was a pretty strong political contingent working hard on keeping
such pet projects out unless some vendor had gone on the line and
demonstrated that the idea was practical and that it had committed to
it.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Aren't decimals safely lumped under rationals?
Date:
Message-ID: <IYZwg.110$Ts6.30@fe10.lga>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>
>
>>Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>Now while I have you, how come:
>>>
>>> (type 4.2) -> single-float
>>>
>>>? Why not represent decimals as ratios, since any of them can be a
>>>ration of an integer over a power of ten? Then there would be none of
>>>that messy float failure-to-represent.
>>
>>Because neither I nor the designer of the Common Lisp specifications
>>could come with a good reason why. However, they couldn't come with a
>>good reason why not either, so they provided you with a mechanism,
>>namely the reader macros, to let you have the representation 4.2 be
>>that of a ratio. Happy?
>
>
> Because floats are floats and ratios are ratios.
And decimals are ratios, mathematically speaking.
>
> Put another way, this is an issue you don't want to have happen invisibly
> without a change in the language. It is an incompatible change in semantics.
Fine, but I was wondering why decimals were not represented as ratios
from the get-go. Nathan mentioned a performance hit, but left to its own
devices Lisp computes (/ 2 4) as the ration 1/2, not 0.5, so that can't
be it.
>
> Put still another way, the question seems to presuppose that floats
> are an imperfect implementation of BCD, but they are not.
(- 7.1 6.4) -> 0.6999998
I can fix that using significant digits, but still.
I would not have a question if Lisp did not go to the trouble to handle
ratios so nicely.
ken
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Aren't decimals safely lumped under rationals?
Date:
Message-ID: <uejwbat3w.fsf@nhplace.com>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> (- 7.1 6.4) -> 0.6999998
>
> I can fix that using significant digits, but still.
>
> I would not have a question if Lisp did not go to the trouble to
> handle ratios so nicely.
I understand what you're saying, and I only disagree slightly, in that
I don't think it's true that Lisp avoids things like floats, substituting
another single way of doing things. To the extent there is a Lisp Way,
I think it's the path of pluralism, so I might wish to see:
*read-decimal-number* would be either FLOAT or DECIMAL-RATIO
When this value is FLOAT, decimal ratios are printed as << syntax with prefix A >>.
When this value is DECIMAL-RATIO, floats are printed as << syntax with prefix B >>.
And we could all fight over what the initial and standard values of this variable was.
where, of course, DECIMAL-RATIO is the type we've been discussing.
We'd probably also fight over whether (= #o0.4 0.5) in decimal ratios, too,
since #o4/10 is 1/2. :) [Just trying to inject a REAL debate into this, pardon weak pun.]
And we'd need to fight over the digits of precision problem, which I
think is the lurking huge problem that probably always really kept it
from happening. I have personally advocated that when you multiply
something of low precision by something of high precision, you should
get the low precision result. Many have suggested this would (a)
quickly yield very little precision for anything and (b) ignore the
complicated question of the differences between measurement precision
and computational/expressional precision. For example, 0.5 might be
extremely precise, even though expressed to only one digit, or it
might be only accurate to +/- 0.05 ... the fact that this is not
manifest makes it hard to build an alegbra that is appropriately
precise upon it. And making the output "look good" appears to say
"it is good". So there's some philosophical reason for saying that
floats have a place, not just for efficiency, but because they keep
the precision ugliness up front where it belongs.
There are some domains, like money, where the precision issues are
usually well-understood, but even then a simple algorithm for
computing interest runs head-on into the question of whether
fractional pennies are kept secretly or lopped on every computation.
And while there are domain-level answers to this (common conventions
about how to do the computation), I'll bet we'd find that the very
same floating point numbers may be treated differently in different
computations.
And as a result, doing the right thing may require domain knowledge,
making it more of an application-level issue than a language-level
issue.
Also, while I personally agree with you that floats aren't
super-aesthetic, the truth is that having decimals print elegantly
isn't really much of a barrier to any real computation because Lisp
notation is rarely preferred by end-users. Consequently, you're
already going to be going through an alternate printer for most
user-level application output, and so calling a user-level printer to
print your own user-defined DECIMAL-RATIO type shouldn't be that hard.
And, in my own code, and I suspect in yours, there are remarkably
actual few float constants, such that the representation of them
doesn't seem very important.
But, finally, back to your original point, "Lisp" didn't go to the
trouble to handle ratios, people did. And, oddly, those people didn't
do decimals because ... well, to quote (or at least paraphrase, since
I'm doing it from memory) Spock in Star Trek II, when asked about how
the crew of the new Enterprise would perform under a real battle
pressure: "each according to his gifts".
Lisp is like that. Common Lisp has not been an exercise in stamping
out solutions to all problems. It is about the problems we confronted
and solved historically, and you're essentially asking "well, why
didn't we confront and solve different problems historically".
As with many questions in history, the most practical answer (though
not always emotionally satisfying) is: because we didn't.
Onward and upward. Write the type. Get it used.
A perfect language might be fun if it could ever be achieved, but
ultimately, not everything has to be in the language. One of the
great lessons of Alan Turing was that of Turing Equivalence, which
I will somewhat opportunistically paraphrase here as "a good craftsman
never blames his tools". No matter how much head start a language gives
you, the tools stop at some point and users have to write programs.
Ok, that's it for my ranting today, except to note that when I Googled
Turing to make sure I was spelling his first name correctly, this
appeared in the Sponsored Links section on the right:
Alan Turing
Looking for Alan Turing?
Find exactly what you want today.
www.eBay.com
I don't know if they were selling his mummified corpse or perhaps his
famous Machine. Or if they were just just have some his old Tests...
Perhaps http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5576503
has made them suddenly relevant again. But, whatever the case,
I figured it was worth flagging in case people want to go bid
up whatever it is that eBay is selling. (No, I don't get a cut...
Just a public service.)
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Aren't decimals safely lumped under rationals?
Date:
Message-ID: <il7xg.134$9r1.37@fe11.lga>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>(- 7.1 6.4) -> 0.6999998
>>
>>I can fix that using significant digits, but still.
>>
>>I would not have a question if Lisp did not go to the trouble to
>>handle ratios so nicely.
>
>
> I understand what you're saying, and I only disagree slightly, in that
> I don't think it's true that Lisp avoids things like floats, substituting
> another single way of doing things. To the extent there is a Lisp Way,
> I think it's the path of pluralism, so I might wish to see:
>
> *read-decimal-number* would be either FLOAT or DECIMAL-RATIO
> When this value is FLOAT, decimal ratios are printed as << syntax with prefix A >>.
> When this value is DECIMAL-RATIO, floats are printed as << syntax with prefix B >>.
> And we could all fight over what the initial and standard values of this variable was.
>
> where, of course, DECIMAL-RATIO is the type we've been discussing.
>
> We'd probably also fight over whether (= #o0.4 0.5) in decimal ratios, too,
> since #o4/10 is 1/2. :) [Just trying to inject a REAL debate into this, pardon weak pun.]
>
> And we'd need to fight over the digits of precision problem, which I
> think is the lurking huge problem that probably always really kept it
> from happening. I have personally advocated that when you multiply
> something of low precision by something of high precision, you should
> get the low precision result. Many have suggested this would (a)
> quickly yield very little precision for anything and (b) ignore the
> complicated question of the differences between measurement precision
> and computational/expressional precision. For example, 0.5 might be
> extremely precise, even though expressed to only one digit,...
Ah, fond memories of whacky Mr. Visco in 9th grade physical science
spending a week or two on significant digits (which I think is how I
will handle my requirements. ie, 0.5 and 0.00005 each have one
significant digit, 0.500 has three significant digits.
btw, I am doing an educational app, so I will have to deal with decimals
myself to avoid the alarming (= 0.7 (- 4.1 3.4)) -> nil
This not really a problem, since I am already reading in mathematical
notation and converting to internal.
> or it
> might be only accurate to +/- 0.05 ... the fact that this is not
> manifest makes it hard to build an alegbra that is appropriately
> precise upon it. And making the output "look good" appears to say
> "it is good". So there's some philosophical reason for saying that
> floats have a place, not just for efficiency, but because they keep
> the precision ugliness up front where it belongs.
>
> There are some domains, like money, where the precision issues are
> usually well-understood, but even then a simple algorithm for
> computing interest runs head-on into the question of whether
> fractional pennies are kept secretly or lopped on every computation.
> And while there are domain-level answers to this (common conventions
> about how to do the computation), I'll bet we'd find that the very
> same floating point numbers may be treated differently in different
> computations.
>
> And as a result, doing the right thing may require domain knowledge,
> making it more of an application-level issue than a language-level
> issue.
yep.
thx, ken
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
On 2006-07-23, Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>
>> ... As far as global warming goes bad science, models with flat
>> worlds etc., would be the kindest way I could put it. also there is
>> much historical fact that the earth has been much warmer then it
>> currently is, and this before lemurs walked the earth.
>
> Thank goodness someone with access to facts. Can you share a pointer
> to a proper understanding of global warming--preferrably in a
> peer-reviewed journal? I'm behind in my reading on all this and really
> need to get caught up so I'm not at the mercy of inappropriate spin.
here is one that looks accademic enough:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.jsp
I think there was also a Penn & Teller bullshit show on it as well.
As I find more I will post here
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, marc spitzer wrote:
> On 2006-07-23, Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
>> marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>>
>>> ... As far as global warming goes bad science, models with flat
>>> worlds etc., would be the kindest way I could put it. also there is
>>> much historical fact that the earth has been much warmer then it
>>> currently is, and this before lemurs walked the earth.
>>
>> Thank goodness someone with access to facts. Can you share a pointer
>> to a proper understanding of global warming--preferrably in a
>> peer-reviewed journal? I'm behind in my reading on all this and really
>> need to get caught up so I'm not at the mercy of inappropriate spin.
>
>
> here is one that looks accademic enough:
>
> http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.jsp
Is that a peer-reviewed journal? No.
Does it receive thousands of dollars of funding from the fossil fuel
industry? Yes.
Does it at once claim that increased levels of CO2 will not lead to
warmer climates *and* increased levels of CO2 will lead to warmer climates
which will be beneficial to all? Yes.
> I think there was also a Penn & Teller bullshit show on it as well.
Riiiight.
> As I find more I will post here
>
> marc
>
> --
> ······@sdf.lonestar.org
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
>
On 2006-07-27, Nathan Baum <···········@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, marc spitzer wrote:
>
>> On 2006-07-23, Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
>>> marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> ... As far as global warming goes bad science, models with flat
>>>> worlds etc., would be the kindest way I could put it. also there is
>>>> much historical fact that the earth has been much warmer then it
>>>> currently is, and this before lemurs walked the earth.
>>>
>>> Thank goodness someone with access to facts. Can you share a pointer
>>> to a proper understanding of global warming--preferrably in a
>>> peer-reviewed journal? I'm behind in my reading on all this and really
>>> need to get caught up so I'm not at the mercy of inappropriate spin.
>>
>>
>> here is one that looks accademic enough:
>>
>> http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.jsp
>
> Is that a peer-reviewed journal? No.
>
> Does it receive thousands of dollars of funding from the fossil fuel
> industry? Yes.
And is it not easier to get funding by screaming " the sky is falling
and we are all gona die" or "this is all normal"
>
> Does it at once claim that increased levels of CO2 will not lead to
> warmer climates *and* increased levels of CO2 will lead to warmer climates
> which will be beneficial to all? Yes.
It claims that the CO2 comes after the climate change most of the
time. And it furthor claims that the the reverse has not been
observed in the research used, CO2 causing temprature change has
not been observed. Ie. the green house gasses *FOLLOW* the temp
change they do not *CAUSE* it.
Also It came to my attention in my poking around that northen
England used to be one of Romes major wine producing regions. It
is currently too cold for grapes to grow up there. So durring
Roman times it was demonstratably warmer then it is now, go figure.
>
>> I think there was also a Penn & Teller bullshit show on it as well.
>
> Riiiight.
too low brow for you??
The thing is I remember all the peer reviewed reports on freon
destroying the ozone layer. It came out right around when the
patent was about to expire on freon. Greenpeace was a major player
as were a bunch of heavy hitters in the acaemic world. They screamed
and pointed to the peer reviewed articles and studies. Then they
got a law passed banning freon to save the planet. But here are
the intersting bits:
1: dupont owned the patentt on the freon replacement, as well as freon.
2: dupont is a heavy doner to greenpeace
3: the papers and articles were wrong
4: the replacement for freon is less efficent then freon.
and if you look at the articles cited at the bottom, Nature and Science
for example, they appear repudable.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> On 2006-07-23, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>>
>>> You're forgeting that the free market is established by its actors,
>>> that is, us, people, and that we're not totally blind: we're the only
>>> constructive force there is on this planet, being the highest level of
>>> life there is on this planet.
>>>
>>
>> Ignoring for the moment that as actors, we are not equal actors with
>> equal parts, it should also be mentioned that we are also the most
>> distructive force on the planet and are responsible for the extinction
>> of more animal and plant species than anyone else and the cause of
>> global warming. Much of that distruction is due to the greed of the
>> free market and the drive of public companies to produce high short
>> term profits for shareholders over sustainability.
>
> ok how the hell did we kill of the dinosaurs, 90%+ of all species
> in existance went away then. On a planatary time scale die offs
> happen. It remains to be seen if humanity(and corporations) are
> a bad thing on that time scale. As far as global warming goes
> bad science, models with flat worlds etc., would be the kindest
> way I could put it. also there is much historical fact that the
> earth has been much warmer then it currently is, and this before
> lemurs walked the earth.
>
I didn't say humans were the only distructive force. However, we are
the most distructive force currently living on the planet. Meteors,
and other destructive events can occur, most of which we have no
control over. However, as a species living on this planet, we are
without doubt the most destructive.
Global warming is real. The bad science arguement has been put forward
for over 30 yeras, but it is rapidly losing ground as more solid,
verifiable evidence is being gathered. Even the conservative side of
US politics has started to recognise this. Far more disturbing is
recent research on global dimming that suggests large particle
polution has actually been protecting us from the impact of global
warming. The concern here is that it is large particle polution which
is getting cleaned up, while other less visible contributors to global
warming are being ignored (people feel better if the air at least
looks clean). The fear is that cleaning up "smog" will remove some
protection and the warming problem will increase - worse still, is the
fear that all the models which have been put forward may be more than
50 years out i.e. tempratures expected to happen by 2100 will arrive
by 2050.
I'm sure you will argue its still bad science and isn't happening and
while I think your mistaken, only time will show which of us is
correct. I actually hope its you.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> However, as a species living on this planet, we are
> without doubt the most destructive.
It also matters how you define "destructive". Global warming is only
"destructive" to humans. Extinction is a natural process that makes room
for other species to evolve, and humans create new species as well.
And, actually, I believe blue-green algae is the most destructive
species on the planet, having destroyed some 80% of all life when it
first evolved.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> Tim X wrote:
> > However, as a species living on this planet, we are
> > without doubt the most destructive.
>
> It also matters how you define "destructive". Global warming is only
> "destructive" to humans.
That's so completely fundamentally and manifestly untrue, I can't even
understand how you would think that.
Of the mass extinctions we know about, pretty much everyone agrees that
they occured as a result of global climate change (although the causes
of those changes are still debated): no other mechanism is known for
destroying more than half of all genera on Earth in a comparitively
short time. Thusly, it is generally believed that the vast majority of
the species that have ever existed (over 99%) were extincted by global
climate change.
And even if it were true that climate change is only harmful to humans,
it's unclear how that makes things better. Last time I checked, I was a
human.
> Extinction is a natural process that makes room for other species to
> evolve, and humans create new species as well.
Humans don't create an awful lot of new species...
> And, actually, I believe blue-green algae is the most destructive
> species on the planet, having destroyed some 80% of all life when it
> first evolved.
Do you have a citation for that? Cyanobacteria is some 3 billion years
old, and the first mass extinction wasn't until around 2½ billion
years later.
There's no debate that cyanobacteria drastically modified the makeup of
the atmosphere and oceans, but I don't see any references to any
extinction events from around that time.
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
> This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
> tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>> However, as a species living on this planet, we are
>> without doubt the most destructive.
>
> It also matters how you define "destructive". Global warming is only
> "destructive" to humans. Extinction is a natural process that makes
> room for other species to evolve, and humans create new species as
> well.
>
You are very sadly mistaken if you think global warming only affects
humans. There are numerous species already under threat, such as the
polar bear, which isn't able to feed as well as a direct consequence
of shrinking ice flows and other species such as a few native mice and
frogs in Australia which depend on rain forests or snow fields that
are changing due to increases in temprature (it doesn't take much
change to adversely affect many species).
I'm certainly not an expert in this area. I only know about this
species stuff because of some recent papers and documentaries I've
recently read/seen as a result of assisting a friend with her Phd).
I don't disagree extinction happens as part of the normal cycle of
things. However, the rate at which this is happening is increasing way
beyond anything ever seen in habitats not affected by human activity
(at least since we have been measuring such).
> And, actually, I believe blue-green algae is the most destructive
> species on the planet, having destroyed some 80% of all life when it
> first evolved.
>
I cannot comment as I've never heard anything to support or contradict
that position. I have seen plenty which supports the proposition
humans are the most destructive.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> You are very sadly mistaken if you think global warming only affects
> humans.
I phrased this poorly. The point I was trying to make is that change
happens. The extinction of one species opens a niche for another
species. Plants, for example, will probably grow like gangbusters.
Global warming isn't going to destroy life. When I said "global warming
is only destructive to humans", I meant that human measurement is what
determines what 'destructive' is. As Men In Black pointed out, war isn't
destructive if you're a cockroach.
> I cannot comment as I've never heard anything to support or contradict
> that position. I have seen plenty which supports the proposition
> humans are the most destructive.
How do you measure "destruction", and why? Does eating count? How about
germs? And when did you start counting? How do you know mosquitos
haven't killed more people than humans? You can prove anything with
statistics.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> It's the allmighty market who saved the USA from the Great
> Depression. It's the government who created the Great Depression.
> If the state didn't rob the money from the people in the first place,
> people would have enough money to finance whatever they want, from
> food for everybody to true space ships.
You are not economist, right ? If you believe in wisdom of invisible
hand you can create Great Depression too. It was great myth about US
free market and totaly planned economics in USSR, after Great
Depression both systems took much for each over. Dangerous and
self-destructive capitalism was transformed to self-controlled form of
capitalism. US couldn't create Apollo without governmental support and
opponent on behalf of USSR.
Allmighty market does not interested in stars or human immortality,
IMHO because it can not receive relatively fast feedback from enormous
long-term investments. Money goes only to profitable places, how can
you invest money if results are unknown for following 10-20 years ?
Especially if you have today more attractive business to invest and get
more money tomorrow.
I read that some american people rejoiced about disinteration of USSR,
but sooner or later they will understand that winner is doomed to
stagnation without his opponent, that they had more common with soviet
people than with rest of world.
> You're forgeting that the free market is established by its actors,
> that is, us, people, and that we're not totally blind: we're the only
> constructive force there is on this planet, being the highest level of
> life there is on this planet.
You know that system does not equal to sum of it's parts.
> Remember that the blind, dangerous and destructive machines that may
> be the corporations are _licensed_ by the governments to do so.
> Governments give them priviledge of eternal life, and
> irresponsability, making them the monsters they are.
It is new face of self-controlled capitalism. May be more correctly to
call it "oligarchism". Powerful financial groups controls market and
politics and one can only dream about pure capitalism and freedom.
Regards
Lisper
"Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> It's the allmighty market who saved the USA from the Great
>> Depression. It's the government who created the Great Depression.
>> If the state didn't rob the money from the people in the first place,
>> people would have enough money to finance whatever they want, from
>> food for everybody to true space ships.
I didn't write the above. Try to quote better.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Debugging? Klingons do not debug! Our software does not coddle the
weak."
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> > Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> >> It's the allmighty market who saved the USA from the Great
> >> Depression. It's the government who created the Great Depression.
> >> If the state didn't rob the money from the people in the first place,
> >> people would have enough money to finance whatever they want, from
> >> food for everybody to true space ships.
>
> I didn't write the above. Try to quote better.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
I don't understand how words from your message can not be yours. Was it
software error ?
Message from: Sun 23 Jul 2006 05:35, from Pascal Bourguignon
Page link:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/483fbc50b9447f2d/7194b185c35a5f3b
<MESSAGE BEGIN>
"Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> writes:
>> Yeltsin, schmeltsin, everyone is moving to a market system. Human nature
>> laughs at Marx and Stallman and others who try to strongarm people into
>> behaving a certain way.
>
> It is very simplified point of view. Could market system by itself
> without governmental support create spaceship to achieve the Moon ?
> Could market system create computers for civil needs ? Virtually any
> significant technical achievement of 20th century is result of military
> or governmental interference. The allmighty market couldn't save USA
> from Great Depression.
It's the allmighty market who saved the USA from the Great
Depression. It's the government who created the Great Depression.
If the state didn't rob the money from the people in the first place,
people would have enough money to finance whatever they want, from
food for everybody to true space ships.
> Absolutely free market (and pure capitalism) is blind, dangerous and
> destructive force.
You're forgeting that the free market is established by its actors,
that is, us, people, and that we're not totally blind: we're the only
constructive force there is on this planet, being the highest level of
life there is on this planet.
Remember that the blind, dangerous and destructive machines that may
be the corporations are _licensed_ by the governments to do so.
Governments give them priviledge of eternal life, and
irresponsability, making them the monsters they are.
> I think neither Marx, nor Stallman (I am not sure
> that they have common ideas) are trying "to strongarm people into
> behaving a certain way". IMHO their ideas are not in literally making
> all for free obligatory, but in transition to post-capitalism era,
> where people can allow themself (having powerful enough technologies)
> to share large part of common wealth between all people without any
> fee. It is ideal of course, but it can be implemented to some degree
> with scientific and technical progress. Simply Stallman and others
> didn't want to wait.
>
> At some stage an old socio-historical formation slows down progress and
> become obsolete. The present-day form of capitalism is still playing
> progressive role (less and less), sooner or later it can be transformed
> to informational capitalism where you will be able to get from
> artificial nature almost anything, but you will not have rights on
> information required for producing things. Probably it will be police
> state of total private information control to be sure that person will
> not copy information for free.
>
> Regards
> Lisper
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/
CAUTION: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of
85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
</MESSAGE END>
"Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>
>> > Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> >> It's the allmighty market who saved the USA from the Great
>> >> Depression. It's the government who created the Great Depression.
>> >> If the state didn't rob the money from the people in the first place,
>> >> people would have enough money to finance whatever they want, from
>> >> food for everybody to true space ships.
>>
>> I didn't write the above. Try to quote better.
>>
>> --
>> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
>
> I don't understand how words from your message can not be yours. Was it
> software error ?
Sorry, my fault. That'll teach me to express myself using other
person's words... And indeed, I stand behind these words.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/63739b963e891c9f?dmode=source&hl=en
> You are not economist, right ? If you believe in wisdom of invisible
> hand you can create Great Depression too. It was great myth about US
> free market and totaly planned economics in USSR, after Great
> Depression both systems took much for each over. Dangerous and
> self-destructive capitalism was transformed to self-controlled form of
> capitalism. US couldn't create Apollo without governmental support and
> opponent on behalf of USSR.
http://www.google.com/u/Mises?q=great+depression
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Un chat errant
se soulage
dans le jardin d'hiver
Shiki
>> I don't understand how words from your message can not be yours. Was it
>> software error ?
> Sorry, my fault. That'll teach me to express myself using other
> person's words... And indeed, I stand behind these words.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/63739b963e891c9f?dmode=source&hl=en
>
OK. Now I understand how ;-)
"Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> writes:
> Allmighty market does not interested in stars or human immortality,
> IMHO because it can not receive relatively fast feedback from enormous
> long-term investments. Money goes only to profitable places, how can
> you invest money if results are unknown for following 10-20 years ?
> Especially if you have today more attractive business to invest and get
> more money tomorrow.
That's the difference between human beings and artificial monsters.
Corporations cannot do otherwise than invest their money into the most
profitable venture. The state would suit them if they didn't make the
biggest profit for their shareholders.
But human beings can choose to do whatever please them with their money
(at least theorically, unfortunately, the state intervenes too, poor
Bill Gates).
Therefore if a human being wants to spend his fortune to pay for a
couple of low orbits, instead of doubling what he already have, he
can, like Shuttleworth did.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Debugging? Klingons do not debug! Our software does not coddle the
weak."
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Corporations cannot do otherwise than invest their money into the most
> profitable venture. The state would suit them if they didn't make the
> biggest profit for their shareholders.
Because, as we all know, non-profit corporations have never existed or
benefitted humanity in any way. Especially not on purpose.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
Darren New wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> > Corporations cannot do otherwise than invest their money into the most
> > profitable venture. The state would suit them if they didn't make the
> > biggest profit for their shareholders.
>
> Because, as we all know, non-profit corporations have never existed or
> benefitted humanity in any way. Especially not on purpose.
Generally, no. Non-profit _organisations_ which have the status of
legal persons exist, but calling them non-profit corporations is
missing the key distinctions between the two. Both NPCs and for-profit
corporations are legal persons, but the for-profit corporation is
typically bound by law to seek the highest return for its shareholders.
Non-profit corporations are, of course, not bound by this law, and are
a fundamentally different beast which just happen to have a similar
name.
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
> This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
> tentacles, not enough chops.
"Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> writes:
>
> US couldn't create Apollo without governmental support and opponent on
> behalf of USSR.
Of course, the Apollo programme was a monumentally huge waste of money.
What was the payback? Some rocks and Tang.
(I'm exaggerating for effect, but the point remains)
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
What, you don't think 'insmod emacs' is a good idea? --Joe Moore
Robert Uhl wrote:
> "Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> writes:
>
>>US couldn't create Apollo without governmental support and opponent on
>>behalf of USSR.
>
>
> Of course, the Apollo programme was a monumentally huge waste of money.
> What was the payback? Some rocks and Tang.
>
> (I'm exaggerating for effect, but the point remains)
The point remains that you have no soul. And that hindsight is easy:
nope, it's just a rock.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
I heard other things that in fact Apollo program returned back more
dollars than any commercial enterprise before. Because result of such
massive effort was new technologies for whole US industry. Ship itself
and fuel was small part of whole business. I think technological
progress just can't go forward without great challenge (for example
Space Race or military threat). When your enemies are irreconcilable
you can't buy them you should win at any price (market price will not
make sense if you're dying).
So the Apollo program was not about making ships and bringing rocks on
the Earth, it was about technological jump for whole industry.
Robert Uhl wrote:
> "Lisper" <···········@mail.ru> writes:
> >
> > US couldn't create Apollo without governmental support and opponent on
> > behalf of USSR.
>
> Of course, the Apollo programme was a monumentally huge waste of money.
> What was the payback? Some rocks and Tang.
>
> (I'm exaggerating for effect, but the point remains)
>
> --
> Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
> What, you don't think 'insmod emacs' is a good idea? --Joe Moore