Toolkit

Story: My response to Richard Stallman

• 
• 

To NNTZ, the conehead responds............................

Sorry, that's just my recognition that my british picture makes me look like I have a pointed head. Hope that doesn't preincline Dilbert fans to view me a certain way.

> 1. If we assume, for the moment,
> that proprietary software damages
> freedom, why should we continue
> to support it? IOW, what are the
> benefits of proprietary software
> that you feel would mitigate any
> purported damage to freedom?

If the president was an alien, would it be wise to allow him to continue to lead? If gravity worked in the reverse, how would you build your cities. I'm not a science fiction author.

Okay, maybe that is too glib, but you're essentially asking that if I start from your foundation beliefs, how would I respond (if god is the angry god of the old testament, how should one guide one's life...okay, you get my point)? Here's a stab at it: do a cost/benefit analysis to figure out whether the "cost" of lack of freedom is truly outweighed by the "benefits" of a system that generates revenue for software companies. I think you would find that MOST people would care little about access to source code (just as people in Des Moines don't care about government-provided boats). In other words, the costs would be minimal, whereas the gains - a system that enables software companies to conduct lots of R&D and engage in close contact with - customers, provides a lot of benefits.

> 2. You've stated over and over again
> that proprietary software is better able
> to respond to volatile and uncertain
> market conditions than is free software.
> What evidence do you have for this? I
> know that you've said that
> 'experimentation' is expensive and
> that only proprietary software can
> meet this. If that's true, what evidence
> do you have that experimentation is
> expensive, generally, and, more
> specifically, that experimentation
> needs to be expensive?

Experimentation is expensive because in young markets you get a whole bunch of competing players all of whom attempt to figure out the best way to meet consumers needs. If one company were to provide all the varieties of software found in free markets as they figure out what customers want, it would be prohibitively expensive. Parallel companies, however, try slightly different angles in an attempt to attract clients. The one that wins does the best job of meeting customers needs, with a few also rans there to meet special needs that proved in sufficient quantities as to support a specialist company serving their needs.

Furthermore, witness the dififculties open source software has had in meeting the needs of "normal" users (read: not you or me). Open source software tends to be oriented around the needs of technical users, mostly because it is built by volunteers who are doing the things that interest them. That's find and good, but most users aren't the kinds of people who donate to the Linux development effort.

Software companies have a vested interest in catering to the needs of other people. It doens't mean they are perfect (they're still programmers, and thus still weird), but in the presence of a market which enables such compajnies to make money, multiple companies can provide the necessary experimentation required to really discern what those customers need.

Obviously, this isn't a definitive answer to your question, but it's a start.

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread