Return to BSD News archive
#! rnews 5793 bsd Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!openlink.one-o.com!rossix!joelga From: joelga@rossinc.com (Joel Garry) Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD Message-ID: <1995Dec28.153047.26599@rossinc.com> Organization: Ross Systems, Inc. References: <4aj6tv$g98@park.uvsc.edu> <4amduo$rnd@news.siemens.at> <4ao7hn$rf8@park.uvsc.edu> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 15:30:47 GMT Lines: 109 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:32320 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:11629 In article <4ao7hn$rf8@park.uvsc.edu> Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> writes: >mingo@news.siemens.co.at (Ingo Molnar) wrote: >] >] Terry Lambert (terry@lambert.org) wrote: >] : 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. >] >] This has nothing to do with "being a bad consumer". If you dont have the >] information, how can you make a good decision?? It's much more like russian >] roulette. Currently we are going towards "monopolized information", and >] i just dont like that. > >If you don't have the information, you *can't* make a good >decision! This is exaclty the point of difference between a >good and a bad consumer! The bad consumer makes the decision >anyway. Sounds like you are putting value judgements on consumers when they aren't in control. The evolutionary pressure favors "bad" marketing, that is, marketing which causes technically superior products to be overcome by the inferior. The consumer must make a decision anyways, and is only bad if he doesn't try to seek out all relevant information. If the information is withheld, that is what is bad. > >] So what do you do if ... Hitler took over Oracle, and he would >] declare that: >] >] " Oracle as a product is discontinued, because i want it so. >] The source code is already destroyed, all backups are burned. >] No more Oracle!" >] >] a pretty irrealistic, but possible scenario. He has the right to do so, and >] because no source code is published, all the information is lost. And quite >] a few companies would be screwed. If Oracle was GPLed, no such thing would >] be possible. > >Well, assuming your example came to pass: as a stockholder or >board memebr of Oracle, a publically held corporation, I'd >fire Hitler and get someone else in there. And if there was >anyone stupid enough to "just follow orders", I'd fire them >too. Actually, this scenario isn't so far out. When Oracle bought Rdb, there was a very real fear in the Rdb community that Rdb would be orphaned - that Larry Ellison was going to say, "Rdb as a product is discontinued, because I want it so." Fortunately, that hasn't happened. Who would fire Larry if it did? He is, after all, the "other billionare." However, look at some groups like vmsnet.pdp11 to see how people deal with a lack of source (or engineering docs). It is simply very expensive. > >] AND dont tell me i'm a bad costumer because i use Oracle!!! > >Naw. You're a bad customer because you depend on your SQL >server being oracle instead of just depending on it being >an SQL server (which as a commodity item can be obtained from >other than Oracle). BTW: here I am assuming Oracle isn't >publically held and you stupidly didn't write SQL engine >independent query software, which means you have two marks >against you being a good customer. Sounds like you are assuming interchangeability among SQL, but I can't exactly make out that last line. SQL servers are not a commodity item, unlike what MS would have you believe. All the vendors are both ahead and behind the standards. > >] Secrecy is power. > >Information is power. Secrecy is a form of centralization of >control of information. So are governments. Why are you >arguing with me instead of attempting to abolish governemnts? > >You have yet to prove that this is "a bad thing". Control of information is power. If everyone can get the information at little or no cost, it loses value. So he is right, secrecy is power. Hence, we have intellectual property laws to artificially maintain value. In the real world, knowing how something works often means easily figuring out how to get around the patent or copyright, so secrecy still does have value. Reverse engineering can be very expensive. Society has decided that intellectual property laws are a good thing, because they promote development of arts and technology (note that some societies don't think this!). However, the technology is currently outrunning the laws, there are some real paradoxes involved, and many issues are very far from being settled. Whether new drugs will be developed, new software will be written, safer industries will be promoted, is controlled by the strokes of a few pens. How rich would Gates be if "software piracy" were legal in the US? Until recently, it was in most countries. Information is neither good nor bad (aside from ascertaining its veracity). How it is used determines whether it is good or bad. If it is used to extort money, that is bad on its face. Send me $500,000,000 or I won't tell you why. So is charging support for bugfixes bad? It's certainly arguable both ways. Since it pays my bills, I have to rationalize it somehow. -- Joel Garry joelga@rossinc.com Compuserve 70661,1534 These are my opinions, not necessarily those of Ross Systems, Inc. <> <> %DCL-W-SOFTONEDGEDONTPUSH, Software On Edge - Don't Push. \ V / panic: ifree: freeing free inodes... O