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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-23 11:45:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Progress on AdaOS Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:36:45 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9m3ifu$bri$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9IFe7.12813$6R6.1221214@news1.cableinet.net> <9lghqu$ac6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B7C3293.76F49097@home.com> <9lhefg$lgd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B7D47F1.25D6FC78@boeing.com> <5ee5b646.0108171856.18631c4c@posting.google.com> <3B7F624B.7294D24F@acm.org> <9lr6je$5hj$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9ltoi7$4is$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B82789B.8D195045@home.com> <9ltuo8$70n$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B829450.879B0396@home.com> <9m0d08$51j$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B83DE1A.7770DC9C@home.com> <9m0rc6$ak0$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B83F894.D7082F9A@home.com> <9m12li$db7$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9m1u2m$baq2@news.cis.okstate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 998591806 12146 136.170.200.133 (23 Aug 2001 18:36:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Aug 2001 18:36:46 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12355 Date: 2001-08-23T18:36:46+00:00 List-Id: I think you can get pissed off at me as much as you like, but you're putting words in my mouth and that's not exactly fair. First off, any number of companies have been started as "garage operations" developing software with an eye toward "we'll make money on it later" philosophy. Are you seriously questioning that people start ventures to build software with no salary but an eye toward making money off of it later? Second, for every Open Source success story, you can probably find 10 successful, made for profit, sold for profit, software products under various other licenses. Proof? Go to CompUSA. Start at one end of the software sold for profit rack and keep counting until you get to the other end. Most of what you find there isn't under "Open Source" and even if it is, someone is sure making a profit by selling it. What's wrong with that? Third, in this particular case, I have not specifically brought up the ADCL - I have in fact in other posts indicated that I thought something like AdaOS could successfully be done under some version of Open Source (probably any version of the GPL license that you'd be satisfied with) and still be done "for profit" with the builders of the OS making money off of it. For some things this makes perfect sense. My contention here is that things done for profit often have a higher success rate because people have some kind of financial incentive at stake. Things done as volunteer, labor of love efforts are not at all prohibited from being successful, nor should they be banned by law as somehow intrinsically "evil" - just that they have more of a tendency to languish because nobody's paycheck or financial future is on the line over it. Why does that seem to be so mysterious? What is it that takes precidence in most of our lives? Our jobs or our hobbies? One might find all kinds of exceptions to this generalization, but I don't think that stops the generalization from being true. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "David Starner" wrote in message news:9m1u2m$baq2@news.cis.okstate.edu... > > Prove it. Linux is ample proof of our case. No one's going to argue > that if you give programmers a real salary, you can get an OS. But I > can't think of a single large program that was built on the "no salary; > we'll get money when we're done" shareware model. Show me an OS built > on this model. > > I think this is about my last post on the subject. All the talk in the > world won't prove that the ADCL and that model of software licensing > can produce serious large programs. Open source has convinced people it's > actually a usuable model, by demonstration. The ADCL is going to have to > do the same thing before people will buy into it. >