Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1156 gnu.misc.discuss:569 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jb3o+ From: jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: GNUclear Warfare Message-ID: Date: 19 Dec 89 20:49:36 GMT References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu>, <4774@sugar.hackercorp.com> Organization: Class of '92, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 125 In-Reply-To: <4774@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu>, jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: > Noice to hear. I've been getting the impression that the FSF folks see only > two sides: themselves the likes of Apple. It's true - it's true - some of us really *do* get carried away, don't we? > Not me. I couldn't care less if they released Bison or not. In fact I wish > they weren't on the market. They're making it harder for the folks trying > to get REALLY freely-redistributable stuff accepted. Noted. I think that GNU could block free (as in NO-restrictions) software from being accepted, as long as people don't distinguish between Free software and what somone earlier called GNUfree software. > Fine. No problem with that. > > The problem is that Microsoft doesn't try to assert rights over other people's > source code. Apple does, but then I agree with the folks who call Apple > unethical. I don't really see that much difference between RMS and Apple. > > Your argument *here* seems to be "RMS is more moral than Apple, therefore > he's a saint.". I just think he's less of a scoundrel. You're right, he is less of a scoundrel. The point is that there are *no* saints - we're all scoundrels to some degree or another :-) Better to hang your hat with a scoundrel like rms than with scoundrels like Sculley and Jobs. Also, Gates is no saint, either. > BIOS is software. Used to run hardware! (but, of course, you knew that!) > Maybe they are. It's *expensive* to reverse-engineer IBM's bugs. True. And *time* consuming. You can also get a severe case of insomnia just from contemplating the task. I, for one, can't figure out why the guys did it. Unless it was for fun, money, or slack. > I haven't seen *any* PD software that wasn't either (a) oriented towards > computer geeks, or (b) strictly limited in utility. Prove me wrong. Provide > a counter-example. I don't deal in PD software for the most part. That is - the software i use is either a) licensed by the university (saving me the cost of doing so myself) or b) contributed by the users: note: this is not necessarily PD software - it still belongs to the people who wrote it - but it is available for public use and sometimes public perusal. > Never even implied they were. Fine. That's not what i read into your posts, but that is *my* problem. > Hell no. I'm a computer nerd. And proud of it. Takes one to know one, right? Funny thing that - most of us *are* proud to be computer nerds. > I have a spreadsheet. It's called SC. It's freely redistributable. It's > also pretty limited by comparison with commercial versions. Did you write it? Did the authors not understand how to write a spreadsheet (not an uncommon thing in PD software, i suppose)? Did they not have enough time, interest, slack? > It's no fun. Well, if it's no fun for you, what makes you think it wouldn't be fun for someone else. Now, *i* don't write one, cuz i don't know *how*. > [ long discussion of how he works for free and lives off my tax money ] I seriously *doubt* that i live off of *your* tax money - most of *your* tax money goes to defense and the war on the constitution...er...i mean drugs. All in all, i probably see maybe about $1 or so of your tax money, if you pay a *whole lot of taxes*. So, tell you what .... you give me your address, and i'll send you $1. Also, i *dont'* work for free. I get *paid* to watch the cluster. Part of my limited responsibilities are helping users. Most of the time, though, i help users, even when i'm *not* getting paid. Also, i don't charge $25 to $50 an hour, cuz i'm not *comfortable with that price range*. You, of course, might be. > Go ahead and charge for your services. I do. > Hell no. I'm all in favor of free software. I write free software. And I write > for-pay software. I just don't agree with coercing people to write free > software. Assuming there is something wrong with coercion in the first place, then i would have to agree with you. However, i'm still not sure that there's anything wrong with coercion. Note: i do not *like* to be coerced, but then again, if i did, it wouldn't be coercion, now would it? > Them's fighting words. Remember: 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Depends on what you consider hard work (ie. perspiration) I *like* to debug programs, especially mine (good thing too - most of my programs have more bugs than a swamp in the summer time). Others consider this the "hard" part of programming. > I've done it, when I needed to. I'd certainly like to have more source > available. I just don't feel justified in forcing people to give it to me. That's understandable. I don't feel justified in forcing peopel to give me $50 an hour. To each his own. > -- > Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva > `-_-' > 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere" iain the flippant | You'll PAY To Know What You REALLY Think | jb3o@andrew.cmu.edu(INTERNET) | Your MIND Left Intentionally Blank | R746JB3O@cmccvb(BITNET) | SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS| disclaimer: anything I say may be wrong - I don't represent anyone but me