[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Free software [was: [freeqt] FreeQt concerns]
From:       Kevin Forge <forgeltd () usa ! net>
Date:       1998-04-15 21:45:26
[Download RAW message or body]

Lars Nilsson wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> First a couple of axioms:
> 1. All software should be free (source available etc)
>
and we should get the full schematics specifications 
etc. of a cable box.
As is right now Commercial software companies sell 1% of the software
used in countries where Piracy laws are weak or enforcement is slack 
and nobody considers it "bad".
What dose it means in real terms ?  The Money made from Windows
3.0 and 3.1 in Jamaica was not enough to pay the goy who wrote 
"packager".  If the same pattern of 1 sale = 5,000 copies was
followed in the US Corral, MS and several other giants would be out
of business.  
Ever wondered why America sells more software than the rest of the 
world combined ?  American programers expect to make easy money
once the code is written ( the hard part ).  Other countries produce 
high quality programers who usually wind up telecomuting to an 
American office or moving there physically ( ~30,000 last year )
>
> 2. Programmers strive to make their programs better
>
Because there is more money to be made selling something which never 
needs support and then offering free support ( Hardware manufacturers
have been growing fat attempting to do that )
>
> 3. Programmers like their programs to be easy to use
>
No they like them to sell, or in the case of free software to be
popular.  Since those users who don't program care about ease
of use ... 
Do you know anyone who ever bought vi outright ?  Or paid someone
for tech support ?  Nope only the goys who stick it in an OS or
write a textbook can make money off a difficult program.
>
> 4. Programmers should only make money selling support.
>
See the rest of my reply. 
>
> Corollary:
> If programmers keep improving their program to such an extent that people
> won't need support in order to use it they will essentially put themselves
> out of business. Therefore, in order to stay in business, make the program
> unfriendly enough that people need to buy support from you. Is this the kind
> of software people would want in the first place? (Of course, given all the
> free support available on the net, many would probably turn to that instead
> of paying for it).
> 
> Anyone care to shoot a couple of holes in my logic?
>
No ... It is possible to make money selling support. but not for 
simple or commonly used programs.  E.g.  If anyone decided
to sell support for a word processor he would starve.  Even M$ 
doesn't try that with it's broken Word.  Yes support is for sale, 
but it is also free as much as possible because the it's cheaper 
for them if they never get a single support call and pay just 1 
tech support goy ( Maytag ? ) to sit and gather dust.  

They don't do that because of there programers inability to 
produce such perfect code ( can anybody ? )

The same goes for many other programs.  In fact anything with a 
competitive market and a low per unit cost, people will buy another
brand until they don't need support.  When you have something unique 
on the market with nothing approaching it you will starve selling 
support.

Without money to be made selling commercial software there would be few 
people writing free software.  Why ?  Contrary to popular belief the
people who write free software are as altruistic about it as the goy
who puts everything into playing Collage basketball.  He knows that
becoming good at that ( and having people notice ) will put him in 
a position to get one of 2 common and high paying jobs ( System 
administration or Programer ).

How much has the average Linux user paid for ALL the software on
his PC that runs in Linux ?  ( including tech support etc... ).
The average is around $5.  ( my estimate based on talking to 
other Linuxers etc... ).  The average Windows user on the other
hand has paid around $200 for the programs on his system ( probably 
less than the Linux goy has to boot ).  That $195 difference is what 
keeps software coming.  

For the record; dose anyone think Transmeta would have looked at
Linus if he wasn't known for banging out lots of really cool code 
( like our Kernel and bash ) ?  And if they did how many '0's would
have come off the salary they pay him ( My guess ~2 :)

RMS has done a world of good for the Free software community ( that's
us ), but like all humans ( except the one we celebrated last weekend )
he has his failings ... The all commercial software is evil concept
is it.

Forge.
-- 
A computer without Windows 95 and Internet Explorer is like 
a piece of chocolate cake without Catsup and Mustard.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]