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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-13 22:12:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!isdnet!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Market pressures for more reliable software Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:09:31 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 992495491 22290 137.194.161.2 (14 Jun 2001 05:11:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:11:31 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <9g8lrk$37c$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8709 Date: 2001-06-13T22:09:31-07:00 From: Bob Leif To: Marin David Condic et al. Thank you for your kind words on the Ada Developer's Cooperative License. Since you mentioned "or similar", I always have stated that what I wrote was a draft. I would be gratified if others would enhance it. I should explain that since a good part of my training is in biology, I tried to create a system that would benefit from Darwinian selection or in engineering terms feedback. Evolving a system with good feedback is an excellent way to optimize. The combination of ASIS and the Ada package structure offers the possibility of creating a market economy for software. Or reverting to my biological training, we Ada mammals can destroy the present software dinosaurs. We can develop a very low overhead distributed, profitable, equitable software development system. -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Marin David Condic Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:27 PM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Market pressures for more reliable software Yes, presuming the company that made the product is willing to go this route. (Free in what sense?) They have to see their future income as coming from selling support or other stuff if they are going to give away the program. (Not all software has this potential - do people regularly buy support for, say, a computer game?) If they *sell* the program with the source code, you *do* have the option of fixing it yourself - but there may be real good reasons why they don't fix the bugs themselves. (If its crap code, it may be real hard or impossible to fix.) So saying "Yeah, it's a turd, but you're welcome to polish it up for yourself..." doesn't really get you out of it. They took your money and gave you crap and had a little salve for their conscience because they gave you the source. Now there might be something to the notion of software developed under the Ada Developer's Cooperative License (or similar) in that the guys who build the code only get paid if the code gets used and sold. The only way for that to work consistently is if what they wrote is reliable enough for other developers to have confidence in it and reuse it. There is incentive to fix and improve components rather than pitch them all and start from bottom-dead-center as is often done in C/C++ consumer software development. Its not like you can sell the code up front and say "Tough Noogies!" if it turns out it sucks. So presuming someone builds "Ada$oft Works (tm)" in Ada utilizing subsystems and components under the ADCL, it might increase the probability that the end-product doesn't suck because a) the developers of the code have a stake in its quality and b) its written in Ada which improves the quality right there. Could it help? 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/ "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:zeQV6.7400$pb1.285004@www.newsranger.com... > In article <40gfitgrvd8cgu27r3vfib6eptmapb3pfl@4ax.com>, Roedy Green says... > 4. Free Software. If it doesn't quite do what you want, you've lost nothing but > your evaluation time. Even better, you have more options than just trying > something else. You can fix it yourself to do what you want, or pay someone else > (preferably someone intamately familiar with the code) to do it for you. >