Don't we all wish that there were more Torvalds, Thompsons, Stallmans, Raymonds, etc out there, making this world a better place for all of us? Thank you Dr. Palmes for these insights.
Pablo Manalastas *** --- On Fri, 4/3/09, paul <ppal...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: paul <ppal...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [plug] Corporate contributions to free software (Pablo > Manalastas) > To: p...@lists.linux.org.phree > Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 3:23 AM > hi, > > just my random thoughts.... > > actually, AT&T never intended to make profit from > UNIX in the beginning. i think the early development > of UNIX was similar to linux. ken thompson wanted > to play games (as a hobby) so he created an OS. AT&T > did not tell ken to create UNIX so that they can sell it. > it was an individual effort out of self-motivation... > hobby. > even during the early phase, nobody thought that > UNIX could be a multimillion dollar business. they gave it > away.... not because of whatever law prohibiting them > but they didn't think OS was a good business.... > whoever would have thought that UNIX would become > important in the development of internet? > > ever wonder why IBM ask bill for the DOS instead of > creating one? > during that time, IBM could afford to hire developers for > the OS but > nobody saw it as an important business case for personal > computing. > during that time, OS was an added value to the hardware. > ken and company developed UNIX as a hobby and many > contributed to it (more like a project... extended it in > universities and research labs)... until AT&T saw > a business opportunity and owned it literally. > > the same thing happened to linux. it was a hobby.... > then shared to the world... until IBM and other big > companies join and made business out of it.... > these two are examples of innovation not really > driven by *PROFIT*. linus created LINUX because > he wants to install UNIX-os in his computer for free. > it was never intended for profit in similar way > that ken created UNIX. > > dennis ritchie even mentioned that UNIX is just one of > hundreds > of mini projects/utilities they developed to get things > done or > satisfy their hobbies. fortunately, some of these > miniprojects > like UNIX were shared to the world... but he said that many > got lost... > maybe, if these other projects found their way to the > world, > their impacts would have been more significant than UNIX... > but AT&T were not interested of marketing those other > miniprojects because they were just tools or products which > were not in line with the business of AT&T. UNIX just > got > lucky.... or the world just got lucky. > > i would say that the early development of these > technologies > were not driven by business agenda... so in this case, > innovation was not driven or directed by *a corporation*... > look what happened to *multics*. it was *a corporation* > project and somehow it failed... compare it with UNIX > and linux which started with a very simple target and > shared to the world. > > one main reason why many significant inventions came > from Bell labs was their policy of attracting the best > graduates > of MIT and other top US universities... gave them huge > amount of money... and told them to create whatever they > want from that money within a period of time.... Bell Labs > gave total freedom to these researchers to create things... > things the interest them... like a hobby. this policy is > different > policy from a typical company where products are created > based on what the market dictates. AT&T just > capitalized > the creativity of individuals to create new things in the > same way that STALLMAN advocates every person > to have the power to create things that interest them > by giving them full access to the environment they work... > in this case the source code. do you think this is a bad > philosophy? _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
