Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware

["Jedi Tek'Unum" <jeditekunum@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 2:36:29 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Jedi Tek'Unum" wrote:
> >...but when something isn't available for Solaris something is wrong.
> 
> Nothing is available for Solaris. :-) I don't know why anyone would bother 
> making anything for a dead system. How do you get tax software or 
> bookkeeping software or any of the other things that one needs to do on a 
> computer? My home computer runs Windows 98. I don't complain that nothing 
> new runs on it anymore. :-)
> 
> We started a version for SunOS once, but that never went anywhere. So these 
> days Janus/Ada is only available on Windows. I'd like to have it on Linux 
> and possibly OSX, but I really see no point in anything else for a host. 
> (Targets of course are a different issue.)

Wow. I see your :-) but that really impacts credibility. The world has
never been about Windows, +Linux, +OSX. The desktop realm is not the
universe and, as you point out, mostly dead from a revenue perspective. There
is a lot of important stuff that runs elsewhere - and the bulk of it isn't
embedded stuff. You are starting to sound like one of those tribes I
mentioned earlier (Windows?). If so, then you are certainly out of date
as well - Windows is a zombie that doesn't yet understand it is dead :-)

I can't stand Windows or Linux; that is my *personal* preference. I want
important infrastructure software to run EVERYWHERE - equally! If I write
a pile of software I don't want my options constrained by what somebody
else thinks is worthwhile.

If Ada only means desktops and embedded targets then I'm definitely
without interest.

Is Ada just another tribe or does it mean MORE?

> Ada has never been "controlled by" one company. It's controlled by the Ada 
> standard, which has been independently maintained since it was originally 
> created.
> 
> Perhaps it bothers you that all of the Ada implementations were created by 
> commercial companies that are trying to make money. But it's rather 
> un-American to be against capitalism. :-)

A language without widespread availability, the same implementation or
not, is bound to be a failure. Widespread doesn't mean desktops + embedded.

> >Seems that Sun was able to create Java and monetize it
> 
> Really? The primary reason Sun went out of business was that they couldn't 
> monetize Java enough for investors. They had to sell at a fire sale price to 
> Oracle.

That sounds pretty tribal to me. For someone that used to work in that market
segment I know that is not the case. Sun had to sell because its biggest
buyers (banks, government, etc) stopped buying when the economy collapsed.
What did that have to do with product? They just didn't have enough other
revenue sources like professional services to ride it through.

I'd say Sun/Oracle is healthier than IBM or HP (which are just professional
services orgs now). Microsoft isn't in good shape either.

Why hasn't free software suppressed Apple? Does their universe not revolve
around software? (I know why - because its that much better!)
[Not perfect - better.] 

> > (even more so with Oracle).
> 
> Everything I read suggests that Oracle has done more harm than good for the 
> stuff that they acquired from Sun. They killed off OpenOffice and several 
> other such products by trying to extract money -- they ended up forked or 
> disappeared. Java survives in spite of Oracle's monitization attempts, not 
> because of it.

I wouldn't disagree about Oracle. Yet here I am still running the latest
Solaris and Studio (C/C++) on my x86_64 server for free. Note I said server.
I don't play with Java but I could. (My desktop is OSX.)

OpenOffice lives at Apache Foundation. A good thing. I suspect VirtualBox
is headed the same way - another good thing. I somewhat wish Solaris would go
the same way but then it would decay quickly due to the mob of inferior
"developers". If Oracle decided they weren't going to allow free non-commercial
use AND the cost was commensurate with the value, I would be willing to pay
for it because it is just that good.

Interesting how you so willing cast aside the best industrial strength
OS ever made while pontificating the best programming language.

> >Yet I can still use it for my own development for free.
> 
> And you get what you pay for. :-)

I don't pay for Ada. :-)

And so by your reasoning I could have the wonderful walled garden if
I paid. I doubt it.

> almost all projects of interest at least have the potential for becoming 
> commercial. And then what? You either have to change to something else or 
> pay $$$$. Nice bait-and-switch. At least with the GPL you know the score 
> going in.

Yep, you get something that you cannot depend on at all.

I can see that your gripe is that you make a living selling Ada products
and services. And indirectly that if Ada can't generate revenue for someone
that it shouldn't be used. Hence the hostage term I've used.

I don't like what totally free garbage software has done to the world -
and is going to continue to make worse in the future. But I also know that
bloodthirsty capitalism doesn't work either. Both extremes result in
chaotic fragmented mediocrity.