Linux-Advocacy Digest #388, Volume #25 Fri, 25 Feb 00 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Phillip Lord)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Phillip Lord)
(Bannor)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Anders Larsen)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian ("Chad Myers")
Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:25:06 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I don't think this is what consumers want. Consumers want to try before they
> buy, they don't want to pay for vaporware.
That sounds good but I'm not sure that's entirely true.
First, consumers *do* buy vaporware. The very concept of vaporware exists
because it works. Companies pre-announce products and customers line up to
buy them. At the very least, customers do get mentally prepared for the idea
that they are going to buy the product before it exists, and there are even a
lot of geniune pre-orders for products that consumers know they're going to
want.
Second, there are classes of products where consumers do not "try before they
buy." Most packaged software is like that. You buy it and its yours, whether
you like it or not. Sometimes people try the software in the store (very few
stores allow you to do this, or are set up to do so) or some other user's
computer, but an awful lot of software gets bought sight unseen. Another
class of products which are typically bought without a "try before you buy"
phase are most big ticket items like automobiles. Sure, you can test-drive,
but its pretty clear that a test-drive doesn't give you a while lot of
information about what its like to own the car. Most people won't know that
until weeks or months after buying it.
Finally, it is possible there could be a "try before you buy" phase even with
advance sponsorship of software. That's because while free software is
unrestricted after released, there is nothing forcing its release. Demo
versions of the software could be released (as freeware). For example, a game
with only one or two "levels," limited features, etc., or maybe just a video
clip of a mock up. Users who want the full game to be developed need to
sponsor its development. If the necessary sponsorship doesn't materialize,
the developer drops the project and tries a different concept.
> If they get the software for free, then what is
> the incentive to pay for software when you can just wait and get something
> somebody else is paid for for free ?
There can be all sorts of incentives separate from the distribution of the
software itself. An obvious one is to make the names of sponsors and their
track record public, and rely on social pressure and reputation to prevent
freeloading. Does Citibank want to be known as a "freeloader?" Do you?
> The people who push this model, I'd argue, want something for nothing.
> In a nutshell, they expect other people to buy their software for them.
> It's one thing to advocate the goodness of volunteerism, but to advocate
> that others pay for all of your software seems expedient to say the least.
The problem with this reasoning is that you are framing it in terms that
assume that ownership of software is axiomatic: "people to buy *their*
software," "...others pay for all of *your* software..." If you don't make
this assumption, then your reasoning falls apart. If you view the existance
of the software as a public good, then you can start to make statements like,
"People want to live in a society where good software is developed," "(Some)
parents will raise their kids to value contributing to the advancement of
society by developing good software," and "Linus Torvalds is a great guy (and
a sharp programmer) because he developed some excellent software which is a
tremendous asset to society; lets hire him for our pre-IPO chip company and
give him a ton of stock options. Not only will he do good work for us, but it
looks good to hire and be associated with him." [No, I have no idea how many
stock options Linus has, but they're dumb if it isn't a huge number.]
> Yes, but still, the users of [Macintosh] Office had to buy licenses from
> Microsoft, right ?
Yes, but the model would clearly still work fine if they didn't. Microsoft
wasn't willing to develop the product at all just based on the potential sale
of licenses to end users. They were willing to develop it based on an advance
payment (plus sales of licenses). With a higher advance payment they might
well have developed it and released it free. You see, there are frequently
stakeholders who have in interest in seeing software get developed other than
the end users, and they're frequently willing to bankroll its development
ahead of time even if the users aren't.
> >Similarly, there are systems such as the Cosource where prospective users must
> >sponsor the development of software prior to its development.
>
> Again, this model does not work well for end user application software for
> reasons stated above.
Respectfully, you don't know that yet. No one does. This experiment is still
very much in progress.
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:43:50 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> We don't see companies write things like OpenSource word processors
You mean StarOffice StarOffice doesn't exist? (yeah, I know SCSL isn't open
source, but it is close).
> or in general GUI desktop applications.
They're not? http://www.eazel.com/press.html
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:59:11 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I don't think it's viable as a company's sole line of business
Certainly not, because *it isn't a business*. In general terms, free software
by its nature removes the software itself (but not necessarily the activities
which surround it, such as development, distribution, and support) from the
realm of commerce and moves it to something more like academia (with
publication, peer review, reputational motivation, etc.)
So if you're arguing that free software isn't viable as a business itself,
you're arguing with a shadow. Free software does enable many businesses,
because there are many real and potential businesses which *use* software.
Citibank uses software to process financial transactions, etc. In a different
way, but no less meaningfully, Red Hat and VA Linux *use* software to further
their business goals. All of these companies develop some of the software
they use internally and use some software which is developed externally.
If free software helps *users* of software, than all three of these companies
(and many, many more) benefit. Those best positioned to take full advantage
of free software's benefits will profit the most. Those trying to squeeze the
last drop of blood out of the largely failed "software as a business"
experiment of the late 20th Century are going to be Amazoned.
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 13:16:41 +0000
>>>>> "Donovan" == Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> me it seems that the little guy gets screwed over by the "free"
>> market full stop. It doesnt seem to make a lot of difference
>> whether this is a legal or an illegal free market.
Donovan> Well in a truly free market, this is not the case, because
Donovan> a "free market" is assumed to have no barriers to
Donovan> entry. The problem is that no market is truly free.
This might work if the market members of the market started
at the same time. Of course they dont, so there is always inertia, or
alternatively a class structure. The "free market" is a fiction, and I
think always will be.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 13:22:04 +0000
>>>>> "Donovan" == Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Donovan> On 24 Feb 2000 15:54:00 +0000, Phillip Lord wrote:
>> The point of my post was to say that a Marxist view point would
>> not involve attacking property ownership of the small scale
>> software producer, as in this society its one way in which people
>> can survive. It would however involve attacking the class system
>> which requires people to act in this way.
Donovan> Well it would appear that you're being consistent
Donovan> anyway. Once you move outside the constraints and
Donovan> assumptions of a market capitalist system, it becomes
Donovan> considerably less clear that any notion of intellectual
Donovan> property is valid.
I do try at least be vaguely consistant!
Donovan> One model which is interesting is the "public interest"
Donovan> model whereby software is primarily driven by public
Donovan> funding, in a similar manner to the way the University
Donovan> system often works ( in Australia for example, all the good
Donovan> Universities are public ). I like this model, but in a
Donovan> capitalist economy, this model can not be used to the
Donovan> exclusion of the licensing model.
This is also the case in the UK uni system that I work
within. Sadly even this idea is getting eroded because its not free
market enough. Its this idea that the "free market" is the only
possible way to go about things that I find so distressing. The
university (and entire education system) and the health service in my
country were forged out of a desire to support society not the free
market, but are now continually attacked by advocates of the free
market. And it really pisses me off. To an extent I see free software
as an upsurgance of the believe systems that gave rise to our health
service and education system. Its why the system appeals to me so
much. Its also why I treat the large scale entry of "free marketeers"
into the arena with trepidation as they have only had a negative
effect on the health service.
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bannor)
Subject:
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:29:02 GMT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 13:39:37 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:43:50 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> We don't see companies write things like OpenSource word processors
>
>You mean StarOffice StarOffice doesn't exist? (yeah, I know SCSL isn't open
>source, but it is close).
StarOffice was proprietary at the time of writing, and is not really ( as you
acknowledge ) OpenSource now. It was developed under an entirely closed model.
Sun Microsystems did *NOT* write StarOffice ( a German company called
Stardivision did ).
The first point is the most important, because it means that StarOffice
has no "free software inertia". This is a real problem as shown by other
packages such as Mozilla and Maxwell that were opened.
>> or in general GUI desktop applications.
>
>They're not? http://www.eazel.com/press.html
Promising is not the same as writing. And there's no evidence here that this
is actually a gainful business venture of any sort.
Now can you name just *one* killer OpenSource application, developed by a
company under an OpenSource model ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:21:58 +0100
Mario Klebsch wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch) writes:
>
> >> But in Linux, there is no ABI, and this is the problem.
>
> >True, but it's an industry-wide problem, not inherent to Linux.
>
> ... but in almost every other UNIX variant, it is much better as in
> linux. It does not help at all to se, how great Linux is compared to
> Windows. The ABI is a key concept required for binary software
> distribution, and this is missing in Linux. Windows at least tries to
> offer it.
Oh well, with Linux, distribution of the *source code* of applications
is certainly encouraged. :-)
IMHO, that is a Good Thing (tm)
> BTW, your observations of windows programs does not hit the target at
> all. The ABI is not everything, a specific version of an OS does offer
> to its applications, but only a well defined subset. No one can
> guarantee, that an applications uses an interface that is not part of
> the ABI. This seems to be common practis on Windows systems. Before
> blaming Windows for it, you should be sure, the applications failing
> are only requiering the ABI. Of a simple user, this almost is
> impossible, and expert users often cannot do this either.
If the Windows ABI is really such a "well defined subset", how come
that's not common knownledge (except, perhaps, within Microsoft, Inc.) ?
--
Anders Larsen
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:01:22 +0100
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
894d68$3d7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> Poor sods.... That Pacheco guy does not seem to have any experience with
> Unices and neither have you.
> I have used Ultrix (Digital Unix), Minix, Sinix, Aix, Solaris, FreeBSD and
> Linux... of these Linux is by far the superior version of Unix... Off
Whoa ! On what grounds do you flatly state that Linux is superior to FreeBSD
and Solaris ? An inquiring mind needs to know. :)
<SNIP> Some more stuff </SNIP>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 14:01:22 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:25:06 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> I don't think this is what consumers want. Consumers want to try before they
>> buy, they don't want to pay for vaporware.
>
>That sounds good but I'm not sure that's entirely true.
>
>First, consumers *do* buy vaporware.
Some consumers do. Most consumers do not. My statement applies to most,
but not all consumers.
>because it works. Companies pre-announce products and customers line up to
>buy them.
Again, a lot of customers don't. I certainly don't, and I wouldn't be prepared
to buy vaporware.
>Second, there are classes of products where consumers do not "try before they
>buy."
Yes they do. Shareware is based on this very idea. With other proprietary
packages, it is often true that they have seen and used the package before
they buy it.
>advance sponsorship of software. That's because while free software is
>unrestricted after released, there is nothing forcing its release. Demo
>versions of the software could be released (as freeware).
I see. Yes, this does make it sound more viable.
>> If they get the software for free, then what is
>> the incentive to pay for software when you can just wait and get something
>> somebody else is paid for for free ?
>
>There can be all sorts of incentives separate from the distribution of the
>software itself. An obvious one is to make the names of sponsors and their
>track record public, and rely on social pressure and reputation to prevent
>freeloading. Does Citibank want to be known as a "freeloader?" Do you?
A lot of people don't care and will obtain the product at the lowest price
possible regardless. I think the freeloaders would still make a lot
of money.
>> The people who push this model, I'd argue, want something for nothing.
>> In a nutshell, they expect other people to buy their software for them.
>> It's one thing to advocate the goodness of volunteerism, but to advocate
>> that others pay for all of your software seems expedient to say the least.
>
>The problem with this reasoning is that you are framing it in terms that
>assume that ownership of software is axiomatic: "people to buy *their*
>software," "...others pay for all of *your* software..." If you don't make
The people who write the software have a legitimate claim to ownership. The
software is a product of their labor, and unlike a patent, it is practially
impossible to independently produce the same thing, byte for byte.
>this assumption, then your reasoning falls apart. If you view the existance
>of the software as a public good,
The existence of *free* software is a public good. But I don't see why
developers should be forced to give up the fruits of their labor. Noone
else is expected to freely give away their productive labor on the grounds
that it's a "public good".
Of course, there's an argument that you could have free software funded through
a grants scheme on the grounds that free software is really in the public
interest. However, in a capitalist or "soft capitalist" economy, this should
not be seen as a substitute or replacement for free enterprise, rather it
is something that should coexist. On the other hand, if you're prepared
to dump capitalism altogether ( as Philip Lord is for example ), then that
does admittedly somewhat change the picture.
> then you can start to make statements like,
[ snip ]
But Linus is not developing end user application software. Where is the
economic incentive to develop such software under your model ?
Why insist that your model be practiced to the exclusion of other models ?
To put it bluntly, if your model is so darned good, should it not
be able to replace the traditional model without dismanteling the traditional
mdel entirely ?
>> Yes, but still, the users of [Macintosh] Office had to buy licenses from
>> Microsoft, right ?
>
>Yes, but the model would clearly still work fine if they didn't. Microsoft
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. It would definitely have a negative impact
on Microsoft's incentive to do the port.
>well have developed it and released it free. You see, there are frequently
>stakeholders who have in interest in seeing software get developed other than
>the end users, and they're frequently willing to bankroll its development
>ahead of time even if the users aren't.
Yes, but only "frequently", not "always". Which is why we don't see many
people using your model. How do you think your model would work for the
game market ? Are gamers supposed to wait around for some fortune 500 company
to buy a game for them ? Or are some gamers supposed to pay while others
freeload ?
>> Again, this model does not work well for end user application software for
>> reasons stated above.
>
>Respectfully, you don't know that yet. No one does. This experiment is still
>very much in progress.
Let me rephrase that as "we don't have much evidence on the record that this
works well for end user application software".
In the absence of such evidence, this model is just an idea, and until it
becomes more than just an idea, it's not an adequate replacement for
the traditional model.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 06:04:47 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> StarOffice was proprietary at the time of writing, and is not really ( as you
> acknowledge ) OpenSource now. It was developed under an entirely closed model.
> Sun Microsystems did *NOT* write StarOffice ( a German company called
> Stardivision did ).
I know that, but I disagree that it makes any significant difference. Sun
*bought* it, which means they paid the capitalized cost of developing it.
After making that expenditure (buy or build, it really doesn't matter) they
decided to (almost) open source it.
> The first point is the most important, because it means that StarOffice
> has no "free software inertia". This is a real problem as shown by other
> packages such as Mozilla and Maxwell that were opened.
I don't know about Maxwell, but part of the resistance to Mozilla was the
creation of yet another license, MPL, with all the complications therein.
Primarily it created the perception, whether true or not (I haven't studied
MPL closely myself), that contributors were giving special rights to Netscape
not shared by anyone else in the community. Most people's reaction to that
sort of license is to say "let them pay for development themselves." When you
create something that is not quite a public good, you can't expect too much in
the way of contributions of time and money from the public.
> >> or in general GUI desktop applications.
> >
> >They're not? http://www.eazel.com/press.html
>
> Promising is not the same as writing.
Actually, they've been writing for quite a while.
> And there's no evidence here that this
> is actually a gainful business venture of any sort.
There is no objective free market criterion for a "gainful" business venture,
except perhaps in retrospect. If investors want to spend their money on
something, in a free market you just have to conclude they *believe* it to be
gainful.
> Now can you name just *one* killer OpenSource application, developed by a
> company under an OpenSource model ?
There aren't many open source applications (killer or not) developed *by
companies* at all, because that's not how most such software is developed.
Most projects involve people from multiple companies and organizations. There
is simply no reason within the free software model for a project to limit
itself to a single company. The best people throughout the world contribute.
That said, there are some examples which were primarily if not entirely
developed by a single company, such as Ghostscript. The bulk of gcc
development of late has been done by Cygnus.
But really, who cares? It just doesn't matter whether software was written by
a company or not.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:06:27 GMT
"George Richard Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:53:43 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>You really can tell emacs was written by someone who used computers in the
> >>1970's.
> >
> > Use they menus if you don't like the keybindings.
>
> Point me to them. In the console version. Or the keybindings to open and
> navigate the bindings in the GUI (X|GNU(emacs)) versions, either.
>
> Menus should not be mouse accessible only, nor nested 10+ deep. The UI is a
> shambles.
Like most things in UN*X. Usability? What's that? We don't need no stinking
consistence or usability!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:09:34 GMT
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Can you delegate the access and/or modification of a specific
> > section of the conf file to a sub-administrator?
> >
>
> Yes, by using an appropriate group and changing the file's group
> to that one.
To a specific section? Like if you had
myexample.rc
;Section1
config1=blah
config2=blah
config3=blah
'Section2
config4=blah
config5=blah
config6=blah
How would you secure Section2? How would you secure config6?
-Chad
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
