Xref: utzoo alt.security:1344 alt.folklore.computers:4662 comp.society.futures:1971
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.folklore.computers,comp.society.futures
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!xenitec!lsuc!eci386!clewis
From: clewis@eci386.uucp (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: Feedback on Computer Crime
Message-ID: <1990Aug10.213727.883@eci386.uucp>
Reply-To: clewis@eci386.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
References: <14443@wpi.wpi.edu> <9008081452.AA18175@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> <14462@wpi.wpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 21:37:27 GMT

In article <14462@wpi.wpi.edu> dmorin@wpi.wpi.edu (Duane D Morin) writes:

> I understood Levy's opinion of Stallman to be that he was the last of a dying
> breed, trying to fight for an ethic that was as good as gone.  I may, of
> course, be wrong, but that is what I got out of that section.

That very well may have been what Levy was trying to say about Stallman,
but I think *this* network (USENET) is perfect evidence that *Levy's* wrong.

> You took that quote out of context.  I went on to say that people circulate
> software most notably in piracy, such as trying to get the newest game to as
> many of their friends as possible.  There are even bulletin board operators 
> who support themselves by alowing pirated software to circulate their boards.
> I fully agree that people will support the type of 'groupware' thing that
> Stalman tried to create with GNU, but simply that it will never flourish like
> it could when people can get the new Sierra game, which is definitively the
> state of the art in adventure games, for free, or something written by a
> handful of high school kids after school which simply isnt as good.  Some 
> do work, granted (Minix comes to mind immediately), but I dont think that the
> quality of the freeware in the world will ever match the commerical stuff. 

USENET is one of the biggest computer networks in the world.  USENET
isn't a network in the same sense that the INTERNET or BITNET or UUCPNET
is, but is an application implemented on top of all of these networks.
Through gateways USENET accessibility is far wider than any other single net.

One of the most interesting things about USENET is that questionable
activities of BBS's (such as software piracy, calling card numbers etc.)
are almost completely non-existent.  And when they do occur, they're roundly
denounced, and physical steps to correct the situation (such as removal
of software) invariably follow.  Because such activities are so glaringly
obvious when they occur.

Secondly, as is obvious from the software flow on USENET, there are literally
thousands of people with similar attitudes towards software as Stallman
has.  I'm not talking the whole GNU-manifesto thing, I'm talking about the
willingness to make the fruits of their labors *available* to everyone
on the net.  Certainly many people retain copyright ownership of the software
they post, but almost invariably the copyright notice says "you can do anything
you want with this software except make money off it".  Certainly it's
a bit of an ego trip to see lots of people using your software (hi psroff
users!), but so what?  It's constructive...

And finally, most of the software distributed on USENET isn't of particularly
high quality.  For the simple reason that people wrote the software to
fulfill a specific task in a specific environment, and the facts of life
(such as eating, and a roof over your head) preclude spending the time
necessary to make a truly polished product.  The average quality of USENET
distributed software is somewhat higher than what you see on BBS's
for the simple reason that USENET users tended to be computer professionals
with long experience rather than high school BASIC hackers which were
more typical of a BBS.  This is changing somewhat because USENET is growing
like it is, and the "average" poster is less experienced than used to be.
BUT....

SOME of the stuff that goes by on USENET FAR exceeds commercial standards.
Having been in this industry for almost 20 years I've seen what commercial
standards are really like, though I'll refrain from mentioning my personal
hit list of stupid commercial developers.  What I will mention instead are
some of the triumphs of the non-commercial world, much of which is available via
USENET: Perl, B-news, C-news, rn, nn, TeX, Minix, tons of GNU stuff,
(dare I add psroff? ;-), and most importantly, UNIX itself (UNIX wasn't
a commercial venture for many years, most of the most valuable innovation was
done under public funding, or as backroom "have fun" research).  One need
only see how much of this stuff is being adopted by commercial vendors
to see how highly these packages are thought of.  Not to mention that
many of these packages run on more platforms than any single-vendor's package
*EVER* has.

And besides, even some of the crummiest USENET software is supported better
than most commercial stuff.  How long did it take ALL of the vendors to
REALLY fix the holes exploited by the Internet worm?  Much too long.
But if you had source, you could have fixed it the *same day* that
the holes were identified during the attack, because of the people working
on it.  Or, another example: Larry's support of Perl.  Often same day
source fixes or at least a workaround.  Without song and dance about license
numbers....
-- 
Chris Lewis, Elegant Communications Inc, {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!lsuc!eci386!clewis
Ferret mailing list: eci386!ferret-list, psroff mailing list: eci386!psroff-list
Psroff information/questions: psroff-request@eci386