Linux-Advocacy Digest #596, Volume #30 Fri, 1 Dec 00 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful (Gary Hallock)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux is inevitable! (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Steve Mading)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux is awful ("don")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:55:29 +0200
"Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bzWV5.5500$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IMO, that should be abolished. You shouldn't have to refer to the manual
in
> > order to administer your computer.
>
> Oh? How do you admin a windows box? Many of the items on those cute
> gui screens certainly aren't intuitive. Maybe you use the help files?
> What's the difference between help files and man pages? (Other than
> the man pages actually contain information, not dumbed down like
> windows help).
Help files are easier to read & understand than man files, and provide just
as much information.
Reason is that MS can:
A> Keep them up to date.
B> Pay somebody to write them in mostly non-technical jargon that the user
can understand quite easily.
C> Right click>What is?
D> GUI is much easier to use than text files, as it doesn't require so much
knowlege. See LinuxConf as proof of this. You can recall images better than
text, most of the time. (That is how you recognize stuff around you, which
is builtin into Homo Sapiens before it was Homo, text is a new invention.)
Take this as example.
A woman seating in a chair, her hands folded on her laps, wide forhead, no
eyebrows, long black hair, dark green dress, which show just a bit of
cleavege.
What am I talking about? (no eyebrows is a *thick* hint)
http://www.monalisa-artmat.com/images/themonalisa.jpg
What would be more easily recognizable?
> Then let's discuss the registry, another stinking pile of dung from
> MS. The same information repeated multiple times under indecipherable
> keys with little or no documentation. I'll take text format files any
> day.
The registry is hard to deciphere.
You aren't suppose to work with it directly, not unless you've a good level
of understanding about it.
As for it to be undocumented, this is *false*.
There are *plenty* of resources to find out what each key or node or value
does.
Take a trip to *any* good NT/2K focused site, and you'll find plenty of
tips on what the registry does, how it does it, and how to change it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 18:56:59 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> I have KDE 2.0 on a seperate set of CD's. I tried to remove KDE as
> installed by Mandrake 7.2, then install the one on the CD. BANG! my system
> locked up tighter than a drum. Nothing responded, not even remote login.
>
If you are going to unistall the old KDE prior to installing the new
version, make sure that you do not do this while running KDE. The best
thing to do is to bring up Linux in command line mode (linux 3 from lilo)
first.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:07:27 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > VB is the easiest and most simple way to provide an application with GUI.
> > And if you take a look at the code, you'll see that there are no components
> > glued together.
> > The application use standard API call to read/write/modify the registry. You
> > could do the same with any language that has a compiler for windows.
> > It's usually very easy to convert VB code to C/C++, the reverse is not true,
> > of course. If you know C/C++/Java/<any programming language>, it shouldn't
> > be hard to understand what the application is doing.
>
> Oh, I'm not worried about understanding it. Having already mastered most
> aspects of C++, become familiar with MFC and the Win32 API, and now
> knowing pretty well knowing how to use C++ Builder (and hence, some Delphi),
> I have really no need for VB.
>
> Granted, it may have some hooks into entities that the above products don't
> give you, but, for the size of projects I work on, VB is not suitable.
> And it has other costs that I'm not keen on paying.
>
> The funny thing about VB is that is great for the simple apps such as
> you have written. But it has shortcomings in larger projects, and
> your workarounds then make it into a house of cards.
>
As many years have passed since its introduction, maybe the meaning of
BASIC has been forgotten.
It was developed at Dartmouth College in the mid 60's as a mean to teach
students how to program. I'd rather say as not to program. Nothing else
than a handy tool for quick things you use just once, IMO. And it's an
acronym for "Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Interpreter Compiler".
If you think that not many years later, with the same purpose (i.e.
teaching how to program) professor Wirth at Zurich Polytechnic School
created Pascal, well, you may see the difference.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is inevitable!
Date: 2 Dec 2000 00:08:26 GMT
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Linux is moving faster than expected! But hey, we knew it would!
Was the above oxymoron intentional?
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: 2 Dec 2000 00:05:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
: |>
: |>> >> Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
: |>> >
: | Not without root permissions, it can't. You really don't
: | understand the unix security model, which is causing you to fully
: | misunderstand why the scenario you describe cannot happen.
: The unix or NT security model is irrelevant since the trojan gets the
: security access of the user running it.
That's the whole point: "the security access of the user running it"
isn't enough to infect or replace system software on unix unless
the user running it happens to be root. That's true for all programs
run by a normal user - which is why trojans are less likely to succeed
on a unix environment, because even legit, normal programs run by that
user can't futz with the system. To futz with the system you have
to manually choose to activate root privileges by using the 'su'
command and entering the root password. There's no way a program can
do that silently for you unless: (A) that program knows the root
password on your machine (in which case your security has already
been broken), or (B) you provide the root password when prompted
(which should clue you in that the program is trying to do something
more than just be an application).
: The solution to the problem
: is to run all code in an environment with less rights than the user.
No. The solution is to make it so that normal user ID's can't
futz with the system, thus killing two birds with one stone by
also solving the problem of local system security.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:08:28 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Curtis wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your example had me wondering though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What practical real world task are you doing with you real world
> > > > > > operating system in the context of browsing that I can't achieve
> > with
> > > > > > IE? I use Netcaptor to be exact that uses the IE engine. I don't
use
> > OE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Avoiding Trojans comes to mind. Not to mention that NT/2000
require
> > > > > some serious reconfiguration to avoid myriads of problems due to
that
> > > > > leaky boat called "port 139".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Two settings changes are 'serious reconfiguration' hell you can turn
it
> > on
> > > > and off as desired. Or just implement IPSEC and still use it as
> > designed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This link provides something more than two setting, in order
> > > to provide a certain amount of security for NT. Is the
> > > fellow crazy or you're oversimplifying a bit?
> > >
> > > http://bunbun.ais.vt.edu/work/securing_nt.html
> >
> > Crazy, I would say.
> > But he wasn't talking about all the ways to secure NT box, he was
talking
> > how to disable the "leaky boat called "port 139" "
>
> He had also mentioned avoiding Trojans. Most of the stuff there is just
> intended for that purpose.
No, most of this stuff is useless.
Putting BIOS password & defining it to boot only from C, fex.
Given a screwdriver, I can "break" this in about 5 minutes, most of them
would be dedicated to openning the case.
This is being overly paranoid in an inefficent way.
Create a user who is explicably denied of any access to any part of the
system.
Use this user account (and runas command) to run untrusted exeutables (first
you'll have to let the limited user execute rights to the file, of
course.)
There are probably more elegent solutions, but this one works.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:18:41 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:909ebd$nc2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That's the whole point: "the security access of the user running it"
> isn't enough to infect or replace system software on unix unless
> the user running it happens to be root.
Which will be the case for 99% of home users who don't know better.
Si
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:15:55 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > VB is the easiest and most simple way to provide an application with
GUI.
> > > And if you take a look at the code, you'll see that there are no
components
> > > glued together.
> > > The application use standard API call to read/write/modify the
registry. You
> > > could do the same with any language that has a compiler for windows.
> > > It's usually very easy to convert VB code to C/C++, the reverse is not
true,
> > > of course. If you know C/C++/Java/<any programming language>, it
shouldn't
> > > be hard to understand what the application is doing.
> >
> > Oh, I'm not worried about understanding it. Having already mastered
most
> > aspects of C++, become familiar with MFC and the Win32 API, and now
> > knowing pretty well knowing how to use C++ Builder (and hence, some
Delphi),
> > I have really no need for VB.
> >
> > Granted, it may have some hooks into entities that the above products
don't
> > give you, but, for the size of projects I work on, VB is not suitable.
> > And it has other costs that I'm not keen on paying.
> >
> > The funny thing about VB is that is great for the simple apps such as
> > you have written. But it has shortcomings in larger projects, and
> > your workarounds then make it into a house of cards.
> >
>
> As many years have passed since its introduction, maybe the meaning of
> BASIC has been forgotten.
> It was developed at Dartmouth College in the mid 60's as a mean to teach
> students how to program. I'd rather say as not to program. Nothing else
> than a handy tool for quick things you use just once, IMO. And it's an
> acronym for "Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Interpreter Compiler".
> If you think that not many years later, with the same purpose (i.e.
> teaching how to program) professor Wirth at Zurich Polytechnic School
> created Pascal, well, you may see the difference.
VB is indeed the beginner approach to programming in windows.
It's quite handy at times like this one, when you need to create simple
applications easily & quickly.
Building not-so-simple applications can be done as well, but can be a pain
more often than not.
A programmer that tries to undertake a major task with VB should be taken
out and shot.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:18:44 +0200
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:909ebd$nc2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> : mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
> : |>
> : |>> >> Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
> : |>> >
> : | Not without root permissions, it can't. You really don't
> : | understand the unix security model, which is causing you to fully
> : | misunderstand why the scenario you describe cannot happen.
>
> : The unix or NT security model is irrelevant since the trojan gets the
> : security access of the user running it.
>
> That's the whole point: "the security access of the user running it"
> isn't enough to infect or replace system software on unix unless
> the user running it happens to be root. That's true for all programs
> run by a normal user - which is why trojans are less likely to succeed
> on a unix environment, because even legit, normal programs run by that
> user can't futz with the system. To futz with the system you have
> to manually choose to activate root privileges by using the 'su'
> command and entering the root password. There's no way a program can
> do that silently for you unless: (A) that program knows the root
> password on your machine (in which case your security has already
> been broken), or (B) you provide the root password when prompted
> (which should clue you in that the program is trying to do something
> more than just be an application).
Same with NT/2000/Whistler
> : The solution to the problem
> : is to run all code in an environment with less rights than the user.
>
> No. The solution is to make it so that normal user ID's can't
> futz with the system, thus killing two birds with one stone by
> also solving the problem of local system security.
Done on the non-9x line.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:30:15 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> As many years have passed since its introduction, maybe the meaning of
> BASIC has been forgotten.
> It was developed at Dartmouth College in the mid 60's as a mean to teach
> students how to program. I'd rather say as not to program. Nothing else
> than a handy tool for quick things you use just once, IMO. And it's an
> acronym for "Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Interpreter Compiler".
> If you think that not many years later, with the same purpose (i.e.
> teaching how to program) professor Wirth at Zurich Polytechnic School
> created Pascal, well, you may see the difference.
The BASICs now (even QuickBasic or PowerBasic) are much different
than they were before. Visual Basic really isn't quite BASIC any more,
just enough so Bill Gates can still use it <grin>. Visual Basic
has morphed into a horrid reflection of C++, scripting gone
mad. I still can't get used to the uses to which DIM has been put.
Obviously, a very powerful tool in the right hands. Not in my hands!
Chris
--
Do you have BASIC instincts?
------------------------------
From: "don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 21:04:26 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>After being called "Shithead" by one Linux Advocate, does that tell me
>>>the typical IQ of a LinuxUser?
>>
>>No, it tells you that you are indeed a "Shithead".
>
> It certainly tells me your IQ. Somewhere near your shoe size.
>
>
I would pit the IQ of the average linux user against the IQ of an average
Windows user any day of the week.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:43:48 GMT
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:33:14 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>StarOffice has an annoying way to load *everything* when you open it.
>*And*, it replace the familiar look of Windows with a totally new one,
>which I, presonally, don't like.
And that is enough to justify paying several hundred dollars instead of
taking the free one? I don't think so. Network effects and vendor
lock in explain it a lot better.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:43:53 GMT
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 06:26:05 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 02:31:10 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Then a copy cat comes along and creates a similar
>> >application, it is my responsibility to make sure he can read my files.
>>
>> Only...they aren't your files. They are your customer's files.
>
>Half rabbit. s/my files/my file formats/
You not wanting competitors to know your file format adversely affects
your customer's ability to use their own data. Your "rights" as a
vendor have to be balanced with your customer's rights to their data.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:43:58 GMT
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 06:30:13 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Huh? The quote BLANK FILE is still built to support all the current
>versions features and the old version still hadn't the prescience to be
>able to read those attributes.
HTML supports this by simply having the parser ignore tags it does not
understand. So it is _possible_ to build file formats such that older
parsers can still read part of the information.
In the past, PC software vendors didn't do it that way mainly because
they were so cramped on memory and CPU power that they ended up
designing their file formats to be fast to load rather than robust and
extensible. Old habits die hard, especially when there's a marketing
advantage to be gained by doing nothing.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:44:00 GMT
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:40:33 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But the only tool for generating Postscript shown in those
>links is that HTMLDOC product. Isn't there any thing for
>/producing/ documents in PostScript, aside from Adobe?
Install a Postscript printer driver (e.g. Apple Laserwriter or certain
HP drivers). Set it to "print to file". Go to any Windows app that
can print, and print. A box will pop up to ask for the file name. You
now have a PS file. You may have to edit it a bit to remove stray
control characters at the beginning (esp if you use the HP driver, as
it wants to tell the printer to switch modes), but other than that
it'll be a normal PS file.
Yeah, it's sort of the long way around but it works and you only have
to install the driver once. After that it's just a matter of selecting
a certain printer when you want a PS file.
To display PS and to print it on any Windows printer, get ghostscript
and ghostview. They work about the same as they do on Unix and are
freeware. Oh, and ghostscript can make PDF files from PS and can also
do some other useful things like converting PS to a Windows Metafile.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:44:53 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, the only thing I routinely use VB for is indeed small applications.
> > But in theory at least, you could do the GUI in VB, and store all your C/C++
> > code (the real work) in DLLs and call them from there.
>
> That's one of my pet peeves. We do projects, and it takes a long time,
> and the manager types start bringing up RAD environments. Never mind that
> we already have a reasonably good one (C++ Builder), they start suggesting
> LabView, or suggest stitching together an app using IE5+HTML+JavaScript+Acrobat
> (for a real-life example).
>
> Then comes the talk of how long it takes to make GUIs. For our projects,
> it's just a pure crap argument. With today's tools, the GUIs are the
> friggin' easiest part. What screws us up is having to invent complex
> sets of objects and protocols for services that we just cannot buy anywhere.
> No matter how good your tools, that kind of complexity just takes time
> to design, code, debug, test, and document. Even the internal interactions
> between GUI components, which RAD does little to address, can be pretty
> complex.
>
> It takes real bravery to argue with someone who claims they've djinned
> up this app that will fulfill the requirements of the project when the
> app does look like it does the job, but leaves many fundamental and
> somewhat hidden requirements (e.g. speed, reliability, and memory usage)
> unanswered. As far as the president or upper management is concerned,
> the job is done, when it is actually only 5% complete!
This reminds me of a joke I frequently use with our young programmers
(maybe I'm becoming a bit senile!). I ask them to estimate if when 90%
of the work has been done we are already halfway, or not yet!
As far as RAD are concerned, I'd give a look at Borland's Delphi. It
uses Object Pascal instead of C++, which, once you're familiar with it,
has a number of advantages. All the object logic is the same, so you
don't have to learn it twice, but there's quite a number of things which
make it much more friendly and fast to use.
I'd say that it addresses exactly the points you're stressing.
Just to mention the most trivial aspects, type checking is very strict,
and you don't need to maintain header files. Together with the quality
of the supplied libraries (all sources present, no need to figure out
what an object method will do, just look at the code), this makes
debugging and testing extremely faster and safer than with C++. Code
efficiency is by no means lower than C++, even if Delphi isn't so
fanatic about "early binding", meaning that an object member is always
Formx.Buttony.OnClick and not sometimes Formx->Buttony->OnClick .
It doesn't invent the right objects or protocols for you, but it gives
you a very good hand in writing them fast and robust, and testing and
debugging become fast and easy (well, almost).
Moreover, Delphi for Linux should be ready next month, so that
portability is strongly increased.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:51:23 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> (MS)IE is not open source.
No, it's open sores. (Just quipping! Don't give me a whipping!)
> But what I'm saying is true for all well-designed software. It should be
> able to be used without *requiring* you to buy support.
> Buying support for a product you don't know well is a Good Thing. Especially
> something as critical as an OS, such a Linux or FreeBSD.
> That way you get people who get *paid* because they *know* how to fix the
> system to *help* you.
True.
> The problem is that you can usually do *without* buying the support.
Only true for a certain class of intellect, I'm afraid. Like Heinlein said,
"Man is essentially a trained ape."
> Now, assuming that I make a good software, no matter what size it is, I
> would hope that people can learn to use it without *requiring* my help.
> Frankly, if I sell support and give the software away, I find myself in a
> conflict of interests. On the one hand, one of my definations of good
> software is that it's easy to use or learn.
> So I find myself in a troublesome situation, if I GPL the software and sell
> support, I've one of two routes to choose, make good software which won't
> require much support, those reducing my profits, or make bad software (not
> neccecaryily bad as inefficent/ineffective, but bad as in hard to use and
> overly complex) and increase my profits.
You'd be surprised at what some programmers will do in the name
of "job security".
> Since *very* few applications reach the point where I can make good
> software, GPL it, and trust the fact that I'll have enough users so I could
> count on the clueless/careful ones to buy support to pay up the bills.
> I can also try to sell the application, but how economical would this be
> with GPLed code? One user buy it, modify it slightly, and release it for
> free. Who would you go after, two application of exactly the same quality
> and usability, but one that cost money, the second is free?
I can go to the RedHat site and download Linux essentially for free,
and burn my disks. Or I can go order it from them, pay $30, and
get a nice boxed set in a couple of days. I've done both. I downloaded
RedHat 6.9.1 or some such, and burned a disk, and it was fast. Soon
thereafter, RedHat 7 came out, and the download times approached multiple
days over a cable modem. So I paid for the service of a delivery.
> Even worse, IMO, assuming that I GPLed the code, anyone might take it,
> modify it a little bit, release it as theirs, and make profit out of *my*
> work. Both scenarios will affect cause my profits to go down.
That's partly the point. Only those who wish to, for reasons of altruism
or gratitude, will release their code under the GPL. And, in truth,
much open-source code is indirectly supported by day jobs. (Still,
plenty of people find it convenient to pay for open-source code.)
> Are you aware of any company/coder(s) which sell applicaiton which they
> GPLed and make profit out of it?
> Any company/coder(s) which GPL their products and make profit out of it?
RedHat, SuSE, etc.
> I know this seems like a flame, but I think that those are real concerns
> when a programmer/company need to decide whatever to GPL their code or not.
Definitely.
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
