Toolkit

Story: My response to Richard Stallman

• 
• 

John Carrol revaricated in the following manner:

> That's doublespeak. It's a fancy way of
> saying "what's important for developers is
> really important for the general public, and
> we are thus HELPING those less
> enlightened customers to get what they
> really need." In other words, the
> needs/wants of (some) developers are
> being made the standard. I don't agree with
> that in the least.

There is no way an intelligent person could have construed your conclusion from the quote I gave. The quote says precisely that the goal is to "elevate the users' needs" to be [b]equal[/b] to those the developers." So, it is the needs/wants of the [b]users][/b] that are being made the standard. Good lord, read the bleedin' quote, mate!!!!! Apparently, we are to assume that, when RMS writes something, his words mean what John Carroll says they mean rather than what the writings of Richard Stallman themselves may say.

You know, John, you sound glib and reasonable but I'm beginning to think you're actually wearing a tin-foil hat.

> I'm attacking the premise that its a good idea
> for all software to be free That kills
> software companies.

Even if this were true (a point I'm not conceding, here,) why should that matter to software [b]users[/b], John? Why? You keep saying that it should matter but you provide no evidence that it should. If users are provided with inexpensive software that does what they want (i.e. built to users' specifications) why should we care how many software companies there are? There will be enough companies to produce the software that people will adopt, no? You're always on about free market and let the market decide. Let's let the market decide... You seem to insist that we should choose proprietary software whether or not it's better for freedom. All I ask is why? Concede, for a moment, that freedom is the prefered option. If then, what? That's the only way you can refute an opponent's argument: to show it to be logically inconsistent.

> To some, that's no big deal, but I think it's
> dangerous because software companies
> are the best entities to integrate new
> technology in ways customers can use.

Yes, blahblahblah, In your opinion, it's dangerous. We've all read that too many times. You've [b]NEVER[/b] posted [b]anything[/b] that wasn't strictly your opinion. Then, when people point out, repeatedly, that your opinion is full of holes, well, you come out with a new article and make all the same absurd claims over there, abandoning the tough questions here. Your strategy is transparent, John: give it up.

> you need lots of experimentation, which
> takes money, and LOTS of close interaction
> with real customers. Open source, being
> mostly a creation of highly-technical
> volunteers, has had a harder time of
> meeting regular user needs.

Once again, you've spouted this stuff many times and have yet to post one piece of evidence to support your argument other than more opinion. Pray tell, John, what evidence do you have that proprietary software is more responsive to changes in the marketplace? What evidence can you provide that "experimentation," as you call it, is expensive and, don't miss this part, [b]needs[/b] to be expensive (i.e. can't be accomplished elsewise.)

The rest of your post is just more of the same. News flash: "Carroll says that proprietary software is important, in his opinion" Yeah, like we want to read that article again.

Why don't you just set up a batch job to send in the same article once a month or whatever it is you post, here.

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread