Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!aplcomm!capd.jhuapl.edu!waltrip
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Freewhare hurts the NeXT (was Re: Desktop publishing)
Message-ID: <1991Apr1.002732.1@capd.jhuapl.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 91 05:27:32 GMT
References: <1446@toaster.SFSU.EDU> <1991Mar30.063733.27117@news.cs.indiana.edu> <70367@brunix.UUCP> <1991Mar31.084853.18232@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Lines: 59

In article <1991Mar31.084853.18232@news.cs.indiana.edu>, 
jashley@loanshark.cs.indiana.edu (J. Michael Ashley) writes:
> In article <70367@brunix.UUCP> you write:
>>In article <1991Mar30.063733.27117@news.cs.indiana.edu> 
jashley@loanshark.cs.indiana.edu (J. Michael Ashley) writes:
>>>It's bad, because GNU cc is *not* the last word in C compilers.  I am
>>>positive that several or even lots of people out there are capable of 
>>>writing a C compiler that will smoke gcc, but they're never going to write
>>>it, because they can't compete against a free product.  Why should the
>>
	Somehow your original post didn't make it to our site (yet?) and I
	don't know whether the excerpts properly convey your point so please
	excuse me if my responses are inappropriate.  However, the thrust of
	your point seems to be that free software is an ultimate damper on
	the development of better "not-free" software that would have to
	compete with the free software.  

	Perhaps in some cases this is true but I would point out that we can
	all take heart from the fact that a number of other machines that have
	a large base of freeware seem to be doing well (Macs, PeeCees, Amigas)
	and UNIX in general has a large body of freeware that seems to be a
	major attraction to many of us.  So freeware in general is not
	necessarily a problem...but, on the other hand, I suspect you CAN point
	out some specific instances where existence of a free package inhibited
	development of a better "not-free" alternative.  But that probably
	did not adversely affect the prosperity of the platform on which the
	freeware ran.

	[...material deleted...]

> I'm not questioning the fact that GNU software is good.  My point is that
> somebody can *always* do *better*.
> 
	Your choice of GNU software as an illustration is probably unfortunate.
	Their reputation is the best and I suspect you will get a lot of
	responses to that effect.  More to the point, it's not clear that
	"somebody can always do better".  Very few companies will turn a first
	class programmer loose to do his/her own thing.  You usually do your
	boss' own thing...or a committee's own thing(s).  So SOME free software
	is a labor of love offered as a creative expression of how someone
	feels something should be done.  It's hard to top that even for money.

	The issue of support was also mentioned, I believe, in your original
	post (at least I've seen it attributed in some other posted responses).
	This would also be unfortunate to associate with the NeXT compiler which
	IS supported by NeXT.  The fact that it is based on the GNU compiler is
	irrelevant to the issue of support...and I have no reason to believe
	the support is inferior to what we are accustomed to in the rest of the
	commercial world.  In fact, the fact that something is a commercial
	product is no guarantee that it will be supported as I have discovered
	first hand.  Having read comp.sys.next for a while, I see no
	reason to be concerned about the quality of support for the compiler
	for the NeXT.

c.f.waltrip

Internet:  <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>

Opinions expressed are my own.