[plug] Fwd: [SLUG] Lucky 13 for Linux

[Greg Mildenhall]

On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, skribe wrote:
> Chris, just where did I express a poor opinion of free software?
I think Chris was confused somehow.

> All I said was that you're limited to what is `freely' available.
No, you're limited to what you can afford.
Witness the Free Software Bazaar:
http://visar.csustan.edu/bazaar/


> Linux and OSS do not provide the answers to all computer situations. Both
> have a long way to go before they ever come anywhere near that sort of 
> useability.  
But I don't think they have nearly as far to go as proprietary software.
I don't believe proprietary can _ever_ provide the answers to all
computing situations - it just lacks the flexibility, and often, noone is
going to think of a lacking feature except the person who needs it. With
free software, that person can complete it, or have it completed.

> In fact I doubt that OSS will ever become anything more than a short-term
> marketing ploy for the corporate world.  There just isn't enough money in it. 
But as the customers realise what is in their interests, demand for closed
software will plummet - I don't think there is money in selling software
at all, if the consumers get their act together and stop putting up with
how commercial software vendors have been treating them.
How can you make money by selling a product that costs nothing to 
duplicate? Only by restricting your customers, and when the customers wake
up - and they are waking up - they will seek software that doesn't put
chains on them.

> I hope that there is always free software.  I hope that there is always the
> choice of doing it yourself.  But I also hope that some enterprising youth (or
> otherwise) will have the skill and drive to make a buck or two from their
> endeavours so that I don't have to wait around forever for someone to write a
> driver, or application or whatever.
The way an enterprising youth earns a buck in the present system is by
_denying_ you access to their endeavours. That's what proprietary software
is about - coming up with an idea that could be universally used by
everyone without cost to the initiator, and then trying as hard as you can
to prevent anyone else getting anything out of your idea - or even
providing an alternative to your idea.

> The last thing the computer industry or the users need is for advocates to
> stifle discussion, to question the integrity of those who suggest opposing
> views or to so blindly believe in The Cause that they fail to recognise the
> problems in the industry and therefore miss the opportunity to fix them.
I hope that's not what I'm doing... I'm very open to discussion.

> Linux is not about free software. Linux is about building a better OS.
How can you have one without the other? A free distributable OS should
always be better than an unshared one.

> It was just made possible because Linus and countless others chose to forgo
> their proprietary interests.
You make that sound like an unusual choice. Isn't sharing natural? To me,
those who wish to prevent the world from benefitting from their
achievements are the ones making the abnormal choice. It sickens me that
our government interferes in the market in such a way as to allow these
people and company's to act against it's citizen's interests like this.


> But it doesn't mean that those who won't are any less capable.
They are less capable, because are restricting themselves. There are
certain benefits a program can only derive from being free in a FSF
sense, (see "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") even _after_ you consider that
the freeness is a major point in favour of the free software which the
closed software vendor can never match.

-Greg Mildenhall