From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 1158e3,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gid1158e3,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-14 10:57:21 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,ccomp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml,comp.lang.java.advocacy Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news-hub.siol.net!zur.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news From: David Chase Subject: Re: Market pressures for more reliable software Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself) Message-ID: <3B28FAD5.5FFB643F@world.std.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:56:37 GMT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <3B25D5FB.15C9B240@dresdner-bank.com> <9g5as6$hbq$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g5ipg$roq$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9g614i$at4$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g7r02$mni$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9g840k$qjt$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <40gfitgrvd8cgu27r3vfib6eptmapb3pfl@4ax.com> <9g8lrk$37c$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Ed Jensen wrote: > In comp.lang.java.programmer Ted Dennison wrote: > : When I capitalize "Free", its to indicate that I'm talking about FSF-style "Free > : Software". > > Is anyone else annoyed that the FSF has decided to redefine the term > "free software" for marketing purposes? Compared to most for-profit marketing, it is incredibly tame. > I think I'll scoop up some doggie poo, put it in a bowl, and place a > sticker on it that says "Rose Petals". Your implicit comparison of free software with dog poo is completely unjustified, and reflects more on your experience and judgement than it does on Free Software. > -Ed, who thinks "Free Software" (GPL-style) is unethical. If you think it's unethical, you aren't much of a thinker. I don't believe all the FSF dogma, but their code works as advertised, and I always have the option of not using their code as a basis for my own work. That "option" is the mandatory default if I use (just for example, and MS is by no means the only example) Microsoft products. We USE Free software in our own work all the time, and we treat it almost exactly (*) as we treat software that we pay for, because in either case the licensing terms do not allow us unencumbered modification and redistribution of the software. (*) we're more likely to report bugs in Free software, partly because we have access to the source code. We also copy it from machine to machine with less concern for licensing, because their licensing doesn't include any significant restrictions on the creation/distribution of binary copies within a company. I am also very impressed with the compatibility over time that I have seen in one "Free" effort, which is MikTeX and the new version of LaTeX. It processed a 15-year old document without any problems at all, and with only a three-line change in the header the document could be processed in modern (instead of "compatibility") mode, allowing me access to features like generation of PDF files with automatic inclusion of indexing and thumbnails. Compare this with Word, which is not even compatible between installations (of the same version) on different machines. The quality of Free software is also generally quite high. I find bugs in it, but I find bugs in most software, and the bug rate is no higher than that in un-Free products. David Chase