Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 06:03:22 +0400 (MSD), "Alexander E. Kopilovich"
<aek@VB1162.spb.edu> wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
>> >> >Modern science deals also with budgets, management, conferences, grants,
>> >> >degrees and citations.
>> >>
>> >> that's scientific bureaucracy 
>> >
>> >Call it what you wish, but take into account that vast majority of scientists
>> >do not oppose it anymore, but participate in all that stuff rather actively.
>>
>> As cynical as "people of Ethiopia do not oppose hunger, but actively
>> participate it".
>
>Excellent argument for a live debate - thundery, breathtakingly annoying for
>the opponent, and distant enough (thus forcing the opponent to extend his
>logic to an unanticipated area).

Thanks! (:-))

> But for a slow discussion in a mostly
>technical newsgroup these features aren't very important and therefore the
>whole argument isn't good here.

Our off-topic is far from being technical. (:-))

>It will be too trivial to observe that the scientists who participate in
>conferences, earn degrees and obtain grants aren't too hungry, as a rule;
>also there are neither signs of prolonged famine in science nor destruction
>and exhaustion caused by recent wars. But what isn't so trivial and what is
>actually essential, is that more hungry people (more active participants in
>hunger, as you put it) in Ethiopia do not hold higher social status, they 
>aren't considered more successful, and do not manage, rule and control other
>(less hungry) people.

No, the point was that scientists do not willingly anticipate all that
bureaucratic dances, you wrote about. No more than Ethiopians do
hunger. It is merely the price scientists should pay for having an
ability to do science.

>> >There is a huge and principal difference between selling your products on open
>> >market and working for a firm that do that. When you are an individual seller
>> >you take decisions and see immediate results.
>>
>> Where you saw individual software sellers?
>
>I'm quite surprised by this question - don't you know, for example, that many
>authours of shareware products are individual sellers? Don't you know that
>sufficiently many of those shareware products have significant customer base?

Shareware products are irrelevant for the software market. They get
probably less than 0.1% of its volume. They are also irrelevant for
software development as a phenomenon. Because, it is clear that
software cannot be produced by individuals, at least at the current
level of technology. So shareware gives no answer to the question, how
humankind should organize software development.

>> The products we are
>> developing have weight of many man-years.
>
>So what? You are very proud of that, aren't you?

I won't tell you! (:-))

>You think that only those
>products that have weight of many man-years have a right to live and/or to be
>sold?

This is the problem. To solve real problems, you have to deal with
products of mid- and large size. This size switches you from so to say
laws of "quantum mechanics" to the laws of "macro" world. They are
quite different.

>Well, I'd like to remind you that those Microsoft products, which you
>apparently dislike, most probably have weight of many man-years also.

Yes. And not surprisingly quality of a product is inversely
proportional to its size.

>> >You choose the price for your
>> >product, and you income depends on whether your guess is right. But when you
>> >work for a firm (not as a top manager, but as a software developer), you do
>> >not take such decisions, and your salary does not immediately depend on the
>> >particular results. Yes, it is possible that you may somehow influence your
>> >firm's decisions regarding product prices and marketing policies in general,
>> >but this is very far from taking decision yourself. If you try that once then
>> >you'll see this acute difference.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
>My point here is that when you take general and final decision about your
>product, you have to take into account much more factors than if you just
>influence the decision (note, that multiplicity of factors often precludes
>high precision and comprehensive analysis). And when you are taking the
>decision you know that you'll deal with possible consequences.
>
>For example, if you product faulted and the user has right to sue for that
>then s/he will sue *you*. And then you'll spend time in court, you'll spend
>money for lawyers, and even if you win the case, you still may be ruined. And
>your competitor can relatively easily provide 10 doubtful cases for you -
>just to keep you detracted from your business for some time and as a
>consequence - ruined.

Why this does not happen (or very limited) in 90% of all other areas
of business activity, where one can sue? What is so special about
software, which forces us to treat it otherwise?

>> > quantum mechanics - it is a science, and there are things, which it
>> >can predict, but there are also severe limitations to its prediction power.
>>
>> You are comparing limitations of something with nothing.
>
>Something - only for those who knows/understands something, and nothing - for
>those who knows and understands nothing except of mass-media presentations of
>the subject. I guess that you have read and understand something, however
>introductory and scattered, relevant to quantum mechanics in some textbooks,
>but at the same time I guess that you totally neglected economical sciences,
>permitting newspapers and TV to educate you in that domain.

I read Microsoft license. Did you? If yes, then tell me what kind of
knowledge one have to possess to really understand all the secrets of
words "NO WARRANTY"?

>> >> I meant only the law, which should treat sold software as an insurance
>> >> contract rather than a "right to use". At least contract parties
>> >> should have equal rights.
>> >
>> >I don't quite understand that: do you mean that some insurance company must
>> >be always involved as a mandatory third party between a vendor and a user?
>> >That is, every software product to be legally sold must be insured by some
>> >insurance firm? Then who will be really (and legally) insured - vendor or 
>> >user?
>>
>> No, a vendor has to be liable to the software product it sells.
>> Because software products are not "consumed" as normal products are,
>> there seems to be only choice between "right of use" and "insurance"
>> models.
>
>I still can't get why you use term "insurance" here. Vendor and/or seller may
>or may not provide a warranty, but "insurance" is typically associated with
>third parties, it is a separate business.

Read above. Call it "obligatory support", if you do not like the word
"insurance".

>> "Right of use" model is what we have now. Its disadvantages
>> are quite clear:
>>
>> 2. It effectively stops any significant progress by suppressing
>> competition;
>
>What I see in reality is quite rapid progress. One may clain that the progress
>might be more rapid and more comprehensive if some other rules were in effect.

So far the only "rapid progress" you have specified was the number of
users. It is irrelevant.

>> 3. It gives customers no protection from fraud;
>
>But that gives vendors protection from dishonest or simply ignorant suits.

The legal system. It has been worked so far, so I don't see why it
should collapse because of software. (A car might well do, I know it
for sure.) Anyway, if you think it would, then prove it.

>> 4. It imposes real threat to basic human rights (see DCMA)
>
>I can't see how introduction of liability of vendor will prevent or destroy
>DCMA and alike.

Because you will not need "right of software use" to get money from.
This would eliminate software piracy, and with it all those helpless,
but dangerous attempts to prevent it.

>Generally, I don't see how can your "insurance" (or liability) decrease or
>suppress "right of use". I think that you propose to add that liability to
>"right of use".

I propose that bare "right of use" licenses shall be made void. If
Microsoft writes "NO WARRANTY", then it automatically loses its right
of *any* legal protection against piracy.

The state should protect copyrights and surpress piracy only in the
areas, where there is no other way to reward contributors.

>> >Note that market never chooses immediately and/or forever. It is a big and
>> >substantially stochasic system, and moreover, it is a multi-dimensional
>> >system. Sometimes we can see some clear and relatively stable preference and
>> >we call it a choice (done by the market).
>>
>> It is about game rules, which state should impose.
>
>Do you think that those rules should make the game well-predictable?

They are. Everybody knows that the copyright protection laws work much
less efficiently and have much more nasty side effects than ones
regulating product quality.

>> >Perhaps you mean car vendors
>> >here, but why should we bother ourselves with *their* problems?
>>
>> Because they decide.
>
>They will decide about *their* problems, very well. But they can't effectively
>decide about the things that aren't in their control or even influence (so
>far).

Oh, yes, that's right. I would only enjoy and much appreciate, if EU
and USA would wake up and require, that any software running in a car
has to be written in Ada. This was the starting point of the
discussion: enough is enough, the state should intervene.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de