From: ray@xrt.dfrf.nasa.gov (Jeff Ray)
Subject: Re: Stallman and friends
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Organization: NASA (Dryden)/Woodside Summit
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:27:45 GMT

Competition improves the breed.  (I, at least, take that as a given.)

Where is the competition against gcc?  What is the INCENTIVE for a
commercial house to devote resources to producing a better compiler?

Are we willing to take GNU as the new "religion", and accept a computer
"world" where no dissenting voice, meaning no competition, will be
permitted, since it would be economic suicide to compete?

Lets say someone comes up with a way to make a compiler produce 10% faster
code.  Against a for-money competitor, I would expect to see that 10%
faster compiler eventually reach market.  Against GNU, I do not.  (Since I
am not so naive as to think that, being unable to make a buck off it, the
developer of said process would donate the sweat of his brow to GNU.  Some
do, I know, but I have too realistic a view of humanity to expect that to
be the norm. To paraphrase R. A. Heinlein, "Do not put you trust into a
man's better nature; he may not have one.  Appealing to his self-interest
gives you more leverage.")

Let me cast another analogy (ANALOGY, ok?  Flame the concept, not the
details.)  I remember a time, not so long ago, when the clones of a certain
computer architecture, selling for a bare commodity markup over
manufacturing costs, killed off nearly all significant development within a
fairly large slice of the small computer industry.  I suggest that no
significant development occured therein until a competitor arose to
challenge the "architecture monopoly" in a way that was difficult to clone.

I'm not trying to say one was better than the other.  I'm trying to say
both were improved because competition drove them to do so.  So again I
state:  Where is the competition for gcc?

Or does Richard Stallman believe that his nest of hackers are so good that
gcc will always be the very best compiler in existance?

Would the MacOS, or Windows, or the X GUIs be as good as they are without
the others driving them on?

(The Soviets tried a little experiment in low-cost, low-competition,
supported-
by-the-state economics.  I don't seem to recall the consumer being the big
beneficiary, with lots of high-quality, low-cost goods available to him. 
But then, what do I know?  I'm just a cynic harping unfairly on a single
data point.  Everyone knows how much better China and Cuba and East Germany
are doing...)  (Smell that?  That's sarcasm.)

I have a question.  Considering the anti-competitive ramifications of GNU's
activities, why hasn't the Justice Department decided to join the fray? 
Last I heard, "dumping", the intentional "selling" of a product for less
than the "legitimate" cost of development and production, was illegal.  (I
don't consider grant money to be income in the competitive sense.:

But let it not be said that I'm beating unfairly on only one side of this
little fray; allow me to fire off a salvo in the other direction...

Knock off the whining that "Stallman is taking away my livelyhood".  He is,
but that is the nature of capitalism.  Stop looking at Stallman as a
socialist, and instead look at him as a very shrewd businessman.  After
all, Stallman's bills are getting paid, aren't they?  He's getting paid by
someone.  What he's done is tip the playing field in an unexpected
direction.  Why don't some of you capitalistic software houses form a
competing consortium(s)?  Go to a few hardware manufacturers, preferably
some of the ones supporting GNU, and make them an old-fashioned "better
deal".  For starters, try offering to develop for them a better compiler
for less than they give to GNU.  Try COMPETING with Stallman, on his own
terms and his own turf, and let's see if you can deliver.  Or is
bellyaching the only thing you can produce now?

Jeff Ray, Curmudgeon

DISCLAIMER
My opinions!  Mine, mine, mine!  But if you'd like to make me an offer...