Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!intercon!news From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm Subject: Re: NFS on the Mac Message-ID: <268AB2F4.43ED@intercon.com> Date: 29 Jun 90 01:46:27 GMT References: <6692@umd5.umd.edu> <855@mdavcr.UUCP> <268138A0.6F2B@intercon.com> <19724.2681dd74@merrimack.edu> <26867CE4.183F@intercon.com> <19780.2688cc11@merrimack.edu> <268A351B.3EEC@intercon.com> <8921@goofy.Apple.COM> Sender: usenet@intercon.com (USENET The Magnificent) Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA Lines: 68 [before we start waxing philosphical here... It seems that many people are now under the impression that InterCon makes a Macintosh NFS product, and that I should be putting disclaimers in my postings about NFS. We don't, which is why I didn't.] In article <8921@goofy.Apple.COM>, escher@Apple.COM (Michael Crawford) writes: > I am a capitalist. > I think software should be free. Why? Because I think software is a > beautiful and pure thing, that should not be held prisoner by capitalistic > interests. Hmm. I see what you are trying to say, but I still disagree; in particular, I do not think that capitalism "holds software prisoner," any more than art auctions at Sotheby's "hold art prisoner." Software is a strange thing. Even so, it still has value to people, and as such it is an economic good. People will want to buy it, and so other people will want to sell it. > I suppose my opinion could be analogous to the fact that highways are > free, but cars are not. Items of infrastructure, that would benefit > all, should be produced and distributed freely, if they can be, > the way software can be. Items meant for a particular use, or that > cannot be produced inexpensively, like a car, should be paid for > by the individual. My only problem with this is that most software is not inexpensive to produce. To take GNU as an example: after you strip away Stallman's political rhetoric, the FSF is simply a brilliant cooperative venture involving much of the academic and commercial computer community. FSF software is subsidized by industry and academia. This subsidy takes the form of time, money, and equipment. The things that make FSF different from other attempts at joint ventures are: - Stallman's vision, as unrealistic as it may be. - The fact that nobody has a controlling interest, and the organization's goals are very broad. - It's principle goal (a GNU OS) is explicitly long-term, unlike, say, OSF. They've done wonderful stuff, but I do not think that the FSF/GNU model is viable for anything except general-purpose software. I find it hard to imagine, say, "GNU Medical Billing," "GNU Inventory Control," or "GNU Electronic Funds Transfer Management" software... > You don't have to pay the gas tax to drive. Just make your own fuel. I don't like this analogy. All people can't use the same software, the way all cars can use (pretty nearly) the same gasoline. Most software is not a commodity. The more general-purpose it is, the closer it gets, which is why the GNU project has been most successful with broadly based software development tools. > I am an avid supporter of the Free Software Foundation. I am too. I just don't think that they've discovered The One True Way... > Note that the Free Software Foundation does not mean anything like > "Inexpensive Software Foundation", but more like "Software Freedom > Foundation". It is the software itself that is being set free. This is getting a little odd :-). Software is just information. What it does is set *people* free... -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation -- "Fear not those who argue, but those who dodge." -- Marie Ebner-Eschenbach