From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kal Lin
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Consolidated Remarks
<< I'm not going to argue about academia vs business. That's opinion
and I don't really care if people think I have it so good. >>
I don't think you have it so good. Academia is rough. Graduate level
academia is indetured servitude resurrected. But having beein in academia
and in industry, it is my opinion -- just that -- that the roughness in
academia still actively encourages pure intellectual pursuits; while the
roughness in industry often means that pure intellectual pursuits lead to
business collapse. In that regard, I do think you have it good. In other
regards -- the politics you must tolerate being the worst -- I think you
have it awful. Given the choice, I chose the bad in industry as being far
more tolerable than the bad in academia, because I don't do politics well.
<< I will argue about falsehoods being spread. Just because some in
the OGF community don't want to walk the difficult path Stallman
took, doesn't mean we should be making light of his sacrifices. >>
Then don't spread falsehoods. I never made light of Stallman's sacrifices. I
misremembered the order of a few events, and pointed out that regardless of
order, he was only able to make those sacrifices because he had other means
of support that are not available to most in the gaming cottage industry (or
to most in the software industry, either).
<< Stallman didn't receive his McArthur Foundation
Award until seven years after he started GNU. >>
Which still means that some of his most productive years were made easier.
That is, after all, the point of the MacArthur grants: to free up bright
people to create. In other words, to remove the pressures of economics.
<< The McArthur Foundation
is a private foundation. Stallman has not been supporting his ideology
on "public largesse" >>
Call it "private largesse", if you want. Still means he didn't have to earn
a living and was thus freed to think really hard about problems that
interested him.
<< Before the awards, he paid his bills by consulting. He only took jobs
that allowed him to give away the code. I would wildly estimate there
aren't a lot of firms willing to accept that condition in the 80s. >>
Then you're not reading the same biographies I am. At the time, he was
seriously called the best programmer in the country. Now that is simply an
unmeasurable term, but he had as legitimate of a claim to it as anybody
could have. And I can say for certainty that the best programmers I know --
NOT the best in the country, just the best I know personally -- can
effectively write their own tickets and even dictate certain policy changes
within their organizations. Can the Tiger Woods of programming find those
companies willing to accept his terms to get his work? Could he in the 80s?
Absolutely! From the biography I read, Stallman was VERY comfortable in his
consulting. And in some small ways, his clients DIRECTLY paid for the
development of GNU tools: because of the terms of his contract, he could
very freely develop particular tools on THEIR dollar if the tools helped him
solve their problems. This was all very smart businesswise, given the
leverage Stallman had. I give all credit for what he accomplished, both code
wise and licensing wise. But it is plainly true that he had advantages no OG
creator will ever have. Torvalds started out in the sheltered realm of
academe -- which actually put him on an even footing with many OG creators,
I'm sure --and had some liberty to pursue his dream. Again, just like many
OG creators will. BUT he was then able to get more and more lucrative jobs
depending on his considerable skills, thus allowing him to keep his focus on
his dream. That again gives him advantages that very few OG creators will
ever enjoy.
Martin
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
