Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!eos!ames!husc6!bbn!gateway!RELAY-NSWC.NAVY.MIL!dsill
From: dsill@RELAY-NSWC.NAVY.MIL (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: Advertising on comp.emacs
Message-ID: <33444@bbn.COM>
Date: 13 Dec 88 14:58:05 GMT
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA
Lines: 68

In article <33379@bbn.COM> I write:
> the FSF *is* providing a service of great benefit to the community.
> Can you say the same about any for-profit organization?  

Rick Farris (rfarris@serene.cts.com) writes:
>Well, sure.  I'd say most for-profit organizations are providing
>services of great benefit to the community.  At least the ones that
>are making a profit.  Otherwise the community wouldn't be supporting
>them with their dollars.

Yeah, right, like Microsoft has really done computing a great service
by selling us MS-DOS.  There's no connection between commercial
success and benefit to the community.  And then there's the question
of motive.  Is Lotus a collection of Good Samaritans trying to make
users more productive or are they a bunch of money grubbing MBAs
trying to line their pockets?  (I'm not trying to pick on Microsoft or
Lotus, they're just handy examples.  They may be the nicest folks in
the business...)

>Don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating the FSF; I think they're
>doing a *great* job.  I just don't think that there's any difference
>in paying their programmers, and paying other programmers.

Ah, but there's all the difference in the world.  You're not just
paying programmers when you buy commercial software, you're giving
them profits.  Where do those profits go?  Use your imagination.

>The whole idea behind the FSF, as I understand it, is that they are
>volunteers, working for "the cause", not a paycheck.  

Yeah, but full-time volunteers need to eat, too.  I believe FSF also
uses funds to commission free software.  Isn't this how the GNU C
Compiler was developed?

>If we begin funding the programmers, then we've just turned them into
>another low priced software house that sells source code.

No, no, no.  Volunteers or not, it costs money to produce software.
And their product is always available at no cost if you can find
someone to make a copy for you or have net access. 

>I don't even have a problem with that, as long as it's clearly
>understood that that is what's happening. 
>
>> Would you rather fund more free software or some company president's
>> Jaguar?
>
>I don't really care, as long as I get a good product at a fair price,
>with good support.

Well I do.  All else being equal, and it rarely is, I'll at least use
non-profit status as a tie-breaker.  Usually, though, the GNU software
is better and much cheaper (especially when source code is
considered).  As for support, I find the Internet community is usually
more knowledgeable and quicker to respond with the correct answer than
most customer support "hotlines" staffed by twits that know less about
the product that I do.  Then there's the issue of updates.  GNU Emacs
is updated more frequently and more regularly than any commercial
software product I know of.

Well, I could go on and on, but the majority reading this is probably
already aware of the benefits of free software.

=========
The opinions expressed above are mine.

"Money is congealed energy."
					-- Joe Campbell