From: demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc
Subject: Re: Stallman and friends
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:09:23 GMT
	<1993Jan05.231932.21087@eng.umd.edu>
	<c99K035xc7gF00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<haley.726402086@husc.harvard.edu>
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab: Fine Food and Coffee


Before I start, I have to say at the outset I completely agree with Alan.
I have never agreed with Stallman or his objectives...I certainly 
don't agree with his methods. I have debated with Stallman during 
open question sessions in many conferences, although his ego would
probably cause him not to remember any such conversations. His 
views are amazing naive...whenever you corner him on a point of
contention, he conviently switches gears or moves on to another topic.

If he wasn't so dangerous, it would be amusing.


In article <haley.726402086@husc.harvard.edu> haley@husc11.harvard.edu (Elizabeth Haley) writes:

>alan@xserver.uts.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) writes:

>>Gosh I hate to step into a political argument but I thought
>>I was the only one who had trouble with FSF.  They don't mind
>>making money on software (you pay FSF to develop software) but
>>they do make it impossible to distribute the cost of software
>>development (once FSF delivers the software you paid them to
>>develop you must give it away).  This philosophy if followed
>>by others would certainly stop speculative software development....
>>Why would I pay FSF (or anyone else with the same philosophy)
>>X thousand dollars to develop software and then have no way
>>to recover my costs?  Because it is good for society?  I have
>>heard these arguments before in other political and economic
>>discussions.  Who is paying for development of GCC?  Why?

>Everyone. Everyone should. that would make it very cheap to produce,
>and even cheaper to maintain...

This is a ridiculous viewpoint, Elizabeth...and one perpetuated by
the FSF. The FSF maintains that software, like information, should
be free. They have stated that programmers should be paid enough to
live in the economy and nothing more. As proof, they point to all of 
their GNU software, and happily proclaim: "See! It can be done."

Let's examine GNU emacs for a minute. Sure, Stallman started it 
years ago and then threw it into the open domain for modifications.
scores of folks have hacked on it, and made it an excellent 
product. But....it's *extreme* economic naivity to claim that 
work was done for free. Where was the work performed? In Stallman's
basement? Of course not....1000's if not 100,000's of person hours
have gone into making GNU emacs what it is right now. Where did that
time come from? Do you think it was donated? More often then not,
the companies that employ the scores of emacs-hackers are paying for
it and they don't even know they are doing it.

You sight the case of Harris, Elizabeth...but they are the exception
not the rule. You take an hour here or there to write an emacs macro,
or correct a bug. Do you report it to your employer? I doubt it....

>>Do you think there would be such excellent software in such
>>large volumes for the Mac (or any other system) if there were
>>no way for the developers of that software to make money?  Semantec
>>would give away SAM?  I must be a capitalist or something.

>If anyone ought to release their source code, it is Apple, as well as
>many of the other Mac Developers...

What?! Why the hell should Apple, MicroSoft, IBM or anyone release their
software? It's cost them a *bundle* to make it. They should get a 
return on their investment. 

This brings me to another complaint I have about Stallman: one of his
intents in the FSF is to try and bring quality software to market 
and "break the back" of the "big guys." (Presumable AT&T, IBM,
MicroSoft, etc.) Who do you think they are hurting? Microsoft?
Give me a break...if they are doing any damage they are hurting 
the "mom & pop" software houses. How can a small 2-10 person company
compete with the FSF folks? They can't really...

>I was never so shocked to see a magazine article say that a piece of
>software "Only crashed once"...
>This is an attitude brought on by the rush-it-to-market actions of the
>big software houses, who value timing more than quality...

No...it's a quality of software. There are several computation theory
proofs floating around out there that QED that bugless software is 
impossible. As the software gets more complex, as is the case with 
modern windowing systems, the bugs are more pronounced. There's also
no pleasing some people...a company rushes to get something to market,
people accuse them of being careless...a company tries to get something
right, and people accuse them of taking too long to get to market.

Which is it, Elizabeth?

>Sure, he has stated that he thought software development ought to be
>subsidied by the state, but the was just a suggestion...

Uh huh. You ever talk with this guy? I have...it ain't no suggestion.

>I believe the thing he objects to is Corporate Raiders with no
>knowledge of computers beyond how to use their spreadsheets making
>money off of the sweat of honest programmers, and honest programmers
>turning into Corporate greedheads...

I see. So, no one can protect an investment of time and energy? 
If they try, then they are corporate greedheads as decreed by 
Elizabeth Haley?

>I can't believe people DARE to complain about GNU charging people for
>distribution and complaining that he threatens your jobs.
>If AT&T were seling that package, they'd charge $10,000 and you
>wouldn't get source code...

So? Listen...I can't afford a Porchse, but I sure don't expect the 
company to give the damn thing away.

Here's the skinny: Sure, corporations screw up and they get greedy.
People and programmers screw up, and they get greedy. Fundamental
principles (hash tables, adding two numbers together, etc) should
be uncopyrightable....but Stallman is the clear other extreme. 
I *refuse* to give my work away...my time is too valuable. Once your
out of school, Elizabeth, you'll realize yours is also. 

If you wanna be one of the dweebie wanna-bes that follow Stallman 
around Cambridge, fine...but frankly, life is too short. There are
*real* issues in computer and science law to be worrying about:
rushing genetic research, copyrighting *ideas,* stealing software,
preventing the public from accessing data obtained with public funds,
outdated copyright and patent laws...there's a zillion of them.
Stop whining about people making money off of their code. For
every Bill Gates that makes 6 Billion dollars off of a poorly designed
OS, there's a half a million people whi fail with really great 
products. It all evens out in the end...


>-- 
>=------------------THE-AUTHOR-OF-THIS-SIGNATURE-IS-A-GERBIL!----------------=
>=The author of this letter is a fabulously intelligent person and is very>=
>=Silly. She is also remarkably well loved, by the author of this signature. =
>=---------------------------haley@husc9.harvard.edu-------------------------=

Uh huh.
--


 - Rob DeMillo			| Internet: 	  demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu
   MIT Lincoln Lab 		| America Online: exgalileo@aol.com
   Weather Sensing - Group 43	| Reality:        617-981-2105 (office)

"Operation Goofy now in effect!"
	--- Tom Servo, "Gamera vs. Gaos," Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer