From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Coherent?
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 00:54:27 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:

[about downloading Linux which costs $$$$]
>> So did I to get my first copy of Linux. However, you might be able to get
>> Linux on disk by mail. That might be cheaper.
>Disks cost about $4 apiece.  With 15 disks, that's $60.

HD white label disks cost $1 here and brand label cost $2. You're buying
very expensive disks.

>> >gotten the rest of the SLS distribution from tsx-11.mit.edu via DEC's
>> >ftpmail server.  That means I've added a TON of time to the process just
>> >decoding the stuff when it comes in.
>> Bad luck for you.
>Well, depends on your definition of bad luck.  I didn't feel like spending more
>money, so the time offset the cost in this case.

Bad luck, because you really don't know what you miss...

>> >No, Linux isn't free.
>> It is free, but not necessarily in the sense of gratis.
>Well, that's the bottom line to many people.  The noble sense of a 'free'
>project doesn't move a lot of people into supporting it.

Oh yes, it does. Look at comp.os.linux and comp.unix.bsd and you'll see it
does. You forget a few simple facts. Free software allows people to have
all the sources. Thus many people port the software to other platforms. Only
well written software is portable across a wide variety of platforms. That
means that that software can't rely on idiosyncracies of a certain platform.

>I have several
>clients who would rather pay for a commercial software package rather than use
>a 'free' one, simply because they don't trust the motives behind what is now a
>'free' system.  It takes all kinds to make the world go around.

What is your point? I mean, I don't see what this has to do with free software.
I think it shows more about the shortminded vision of your clients than about
free software. Really, because all software that is copyrighted with a GNU
copyleft is save. First because a licence can't be removed. Second because the
GNU copyleft itself says that you can choose which version of the licence you
want to use. The version 2 copyleft grants almost everything except making the
software proprietary. Conclusion: you can do almost everything you want with
free software and that freedom can't be removed. So there is no reason to not
trust the motives.

The motives of the FSF, which is responsible for all the GNU software, is
written down in the GNU Manifesto. Do you really think that companies like
NeXT Inc., BSDI, Mt Xinu, etc. are more stupid than your clients? They ship
GCC with their systems, and maybe many other GNU utilities too.

>> >There is
>> >definitely a case to be made for paying the bucks and getting Coherent.
>> Coherent costs fl. 350,- here in Holland. One hour long distance is about
>> fl. 6,- (in the evening). A decent UNIX book costs about >fl. 60,-. So buying
>> Coherent is equal to buying 3 to 4 UNIX books and 10 hours downloading.
>Well, Linux costs $60 to buy the SLS disks.  Combine that with a good Unix book
>at ~$30, you're already there.  It's a wash.

But I already had the UNIX books and I didn't need 10 hours to download it. It
only shows that for the price of Coherent, you can have a better system with
more than 3 good books instead of one and still pay less. Note, this is a worst
kind scenario. If you don't need the books, you save yourself bucks. If you
can copy it from a friend you save bucks. For Coherent there is one way to save
money: to not buy it.

>> Linux has a Taylor UUCP port. The GNU emacs helpfiles which are part of Taylo
>> UUCP are very good, just like the rest of the Taylor UUCP package. There is
>> more information availlable than you (and I) know, but finding it is often th
>> big problem.
>Precisely why a decent manual up-front can make a big difference.

You can buy a decent manual in the book store. You can have more than 3 for
the price of the one that is delivered with Coherent. Any on-line documentation
is an additional (and often also free) help. The Dutch USENET backbone uses
Taylor UUCP instead of the normal UNIX UUCP because it is much better then the
commercial UUCP's that are bundled with UNIX.

Look, free in the sense of the GNU copyleft doesn't mean gratis. Free in the
GNU sense means that you are not limited as to what you want to do with that
software. If you want to copy it, fine. If you want to change it, fine. As long
as you don't make it a proprietary piece of software.

BTW, this message is written on a free editor, posted by a free newsreader,
processed by a free news package and transported by a free UUCP program suite.
And everything was done on a free operating system.

Greetings,
Peter Busser
Newsgroups: alt.bbs