Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!olivea!wetware!nntp-hub.barrnet.net!inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com!news.caldera.com!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 12 Dec 1995 06:19:43 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 153
Message-ID: <4aj6tv$g98@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a14v5$1lq@dyson.iquest.net> <4a2kme$32d@josie.abo.fi <4agsg2$bqc@uriah.heep.sax.de> <4ai8rk$maf@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:29950 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10193
byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:
]
] In article <4agsg2$bqc@uriah.heep.sax.de>,
] J Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> wrote:
] >This causes many pieces of software to be re-invented over and over
] >again. This is a sad side-effect of the GPL, and i bet it contradicts
] >the original intentions of RMS. (I believe that's why he's been
] >creating the LGPL later.)
]
] No it doesn't. From what I understand RMS wants all source code
] to be available to everyone and any changes an updates to that
] source code to be available too. For some reason everyone
] equates commercial with cannot release the source code. The GPL
] is designed to combat that equation.
Under what circumstances can I, as a programmer, make money under
this model?
I won't go into details, but the model you suggest that RMS
wants stifles innovation. There is no mechanism where you can
continue to make money off your product *and* till have time
for revolutionary instead of evolutionary advance.
A "pure license economy" provides little incentive to do work,
unless you *aren't a professional programmer. Then you can
"putter" on your free time from your real job.
Meanwhile terrorists can analyze the source code to the GPL'ed
air traffic control system...
] Corporate folks thrive on secrecy. It creates monopolies and locks
] consumers into proprietary systems and forces consumers to depend on
] the company for support. This is a bad model because if the company
] disappears or doesn't do a proper job of support, then the consumer is
] screwed. So secrecy is strictly for the benfit of the company.
This is not a bad model. Consumers who do not do a proper job
of picking the company which they buy from are screwed. This
provides a nice, desirable, evolutionary pressure which has the
effect of eliminating bad consumers.
So secrecy is strictly for the benefit of society as a whole.
] Open source code forces companies to be on their toes. The consumer now
] has a choice of companies to send their business. If the consumer is
] dissatisfied then the consumer can support themselves or can hire someone
] else to support them. Consumers win, companies have to work much harder and
] produce better product/support. See why the corporate culture rejects the
] idea?
Open source code forces licensing and other contractual mechanisms
to be used. Otherwise, there is no benefit to being the first
to invent anything, since it costs less to copy it from you
competitor.
Thus there is no mechanism for amortizing developement costs over
a product life cycle, and thus there is no money for research
and thus we have "putter"'s writing all our code.
See why sane people reject the idea?
] The best discussion I've seen on the subject is the Cygnus premise that
] software companies need to shift from the "software as product" model
] to the "sfotware as service" model. You need look no further than America
] OnLine to see that software can be secondary to service and still create
] a wildly successful company.
AOL is successful because their server software, line protocol,
and transfer encodings are proprietary.
You need to look no further than the fact that no other company
yet exists such that you can use the AOL client software from
the "bury the planet in floppies" conspiracy with the publication
companies with their server instead of AOL's.
] See software is a unusual type of product. It cost much to create but once
] created it costs almost nothing to dupicate and distribute.
What's your point? Where do you propose that the money to create
the software come from in the first place?
] However because of the complexity of software nowadays, only
] the most competent computer user can utilize most software
] without help. Books, consultations, classes, upgrades, and on
] site service are required with almost every software
] installation.
Oh, this is total BS. Intentional obfuscation of interfaces
is as effective a means of copy protection as a dongle. And
don't think it isn't used.
] The other thing that companies need to realize is that less
] than 1 percent of their customers would have any clue what
] to do with the source code anyway. So the only real threat
] are other companies and since all the code is GPL, they must
] release all changes/upgrades back into the open arena. So
] the bottom line is whoever provides the best service will get
] the most customers.
No, the bottom line is that the customer will buy from the
cheapest source if support isn't required, and support is
generally required for reasons other than those you cite.
] A perfect example about how anal retentive the companies are
] is clearly pointed out with the hardware guys. Folks like
] Xircom, Connectix (sp), and Visioneer hamper the effort to
] create drivers for their products by actively (via NDA's and
] licences which prohibit reverse engineering) or passively
] (by not releasing the interface specifications for their
] products) preventing driver writers from getting the
] information they need to write drivers for the hardware products.
I can think of at least one case where this is "the right thing".
Diamond.
It is the right thing for Diamond because they have EE's doing
their video BIOS, and EE's typically don't know how to program.
Or rather, they can program (translate a process into code), but
they can't software engineer (solve a problem using software).
The distinction is subtle.
Diamond did not disclose programming information because they
designed their cards so that they can be upgraded without changing
the card design... brings their fabrication costs way, way, down.
But the design they used, matching the BIOS video modes PAL
selection values with the PAL that provided their clock chip
data, didn't take into account non-BIOS access of the control
registers, and so the latch value for the PAL could vary from
card to card, with no way to tell them apart. So a latch value
for 1024x768 on one card my fry another card completely.
If they had employed a Software Engineer, they would have had
a table at an identifiable location and in a published format
in the ROM, and the BIOS would use that table -- and the device
driver writer for a protected OS could write one driver that
works with all the cards.
I, for one, would not like to live in a world where there was
no such thing as a professional programmer.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.