Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1201 gnu.misc.discuss:636
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwvax!rang
From: rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Reverse engineering, piracy, etc. (was GNUclear Warfare)
Message-ID: <RANG.89Dec22000917@derby.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 22 Dec 89 06:09:17 GMT
References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
	<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
	<1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<4754@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1989Dec13.213445.13639@world.std.com>,
	<4757@sugar.hackercorp.com> <UZYPJk
Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: UW-Madison CS department
Lines: 73
In-reply-to: jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 22 Dec 89 05:02:40 GMT

In article <UZYPJke00W0TRLNsJO@andrew.cmu.edu> jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes:
[ much deleted, but well worth reading :-) ]
>rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) writes:
>>   Note that pirating a BIOS requires copying ROMs.  This requires
>> equipment that the average user doesn't have.
>
>Well, last time i checked (about 2 or 3 years ago), you could get an
>eprom burner and software (deluxe version) for $150 from ads in
>Computer Shopper.

  You probably still can.  The average user still doesn't have one,
though.  And spending $150 for it is probably more expensive than
buying a copy of the BIOS in the first place, anyway, so this only
makes sense if you want to mass-duplicate it.

>>   Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
>I don't think that this is a widely held attitude.  Very *few* people
>feel that way.

  I agree, but being in the minority doesn't mean my attitude is wrong. :-)

>Well, that is your perogative.  Taking even 3 or 4 years would make it
>seem like you would have to be *quite* the visionary in order to see a
>successful piece of software (for in 2 or 3 years, the hardware itself
>will be outdated).  

  A good piece of software generally isn't too dependent on the hardware
(this is a vast overgeneralization, of course--it is patently false
for, say, process control or real-time systems, and there are lots of
other examples).  I've got programs I wrote on my Apple ][+ (quite
out-of-date) which are still very useful (now that I've ported them
over to my Mac and a VAX).

>> If I need some graphics for a paper which is due in a week,
>> spending more than a week writing a graphics program is
>> counterproductive [therefore I leave out some features].
>
>Well, then why would you submit these to the public domain?

  So that other people don't need to duplicate my effort.  If someone
with enough computer knowledge not to need a nice user interface
happens to need a quick-and-dirty graphics program, this might fit
his/her needs.  If they want to write a neat user interface and add
some features, more power to them.

>I would count the user interface and extra features (or documented
>bugs :-) ) as part of the "well-done" or truly useful.

  It depends on the application.  I could write a library for doing
symbolic integration of functions, without having a pretty user
interface, and the code might still be very useful to a certain class
of users.  If someone were to add a nice user interface, it would be
usable by a wider range of users; if someone were to expand it to
handle more functions, this would also make it more useful.
  Functionality doesn't necessarily need to be built in to the first
version of a program--the low-level routines, at least, are often
useful over and over.

>It is true that most utilities i have seen are more of the quick and
>dirty types without great user interfaces....which is too bad.

  Well, most utilities I've seen are useful primarily only to the
people who are used to horrid interfaces (i.e. programmers :-).  There
are a few exceptions; Disinfectant (a Mac virus-removal program) comes
to mind.  I just haven't seen that many "utilities" which are useful
to "Joe User"....

		Anton
   
+---------------------------+------------------+-------------+
| Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison |
+---------------------------+------------------+-------------+