Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?

In article <umzav9xyv.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Kent M Pitman <pitman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But this conversation is going nowhere because the only people we're
talking to seem to have their minds closed.

In light of the fact that you have been complaining about this issue for
years now I'd say that train runs both ways. But we can do this little
experiment: I'll answer your question and we'll see how you respond.

Rather than beat a dead horse, then, I'd like to ask a question to get
the conversation back onto the real track I meant to open by starting
this subthread... something related directly to comp.lang.lisp and not
to abstract philosophy:

Suppose I have written a piece of software. (Not something that
solves problems for end-users. If it drove a vacuum cleaner, I'd pack
it in a vacuum cleaner and sell it like Apple sells Quicktime--free if
you just buy the large piece of metal and plastic required to run it.)
No, this piece of software helps programmers--the ones who, unlike
janitors, expect not to pay anything for anything.

Suppose I believe it is something others will want to use.

So this is the first problem. Your premise is that you BELIEVE it is
something others will want to use. Your belief is not necessarily
correct.

Something that doesn't exist. Something that will save time.

It is very rare that software saves time in an absolute sense. There is
always an up-front investment of time and risk. At best you have to
take the time to install the software (and possibly uninstall it if it
turns out to be buggy). In the more typical case you have to climb a
learning curve which can be very time consuming indeed.

Furthermore, counterintuitive as it may seem, saving time is not always
deemed a desirable outcome in software development. Those software
developers that do have jobs writing code have a vested interest in
maintaining the status quo where they get paid by the hour and
productivity measures are fuzzy and generally focused on the short term.

Something that long ago we would have said "people would pay for".

When was the last time someone made money on the kind of thing you have
in mind? It is not clear to me from your description whether this
utopia of yours ever existed, or if it has always been a fantasy.

I'm going to respond to something out-of-order now because I want to cut
straight to the chase before answering your specific questions:

I may not be an Einstein, but what I have to offer is not labor, it's
inspiration.

In that case you need to come to grips with the fact that you are not an
engineer but an artist. Since you have chosen to be an artist you will
need to live the way artists do. You may need to get a day job waiting
tables. You may need to struggle for years before achieving commercial
success. You may not receive the kind of recognition you feel you
deserve until after you are dead. It may be regrettable, but that's the
way it is for artists.

In that light...

But now, well, ... the question
is, what do I do now, in the present day, the one I'm supposed to get
used to and not fight.

I guess there are two questions:

(a) Suppose I grant for argument that it's a brave new world and
we do things differently now. Enlighten me. I have mouths to feed
in my household. I have something I think people want. Tell me how
I give away what I own for free and yet receive something that will
feed my family...

You don't have to give it away for free. You can sell your work. Many
artists (even those whose art form is code) do. Just don't expect
necessarily to make enough to live on that way.

(b) Suppose your answer is "you can't get money" or "don't expect enough
to feed your family" or even "don't expect enough to make it worth
your while to have made the item... Why should I release it at all?
Why should anyone?

Artists give away their work for "less than their fair market value" (I
put the phrase in scare quotes because it is "less" only as perceived by
the artist, not as perceived by the market) in order to hone their
craft, to supplement their table-waiting income, and to bide their time
while they wait for their Big Break.

Why shouldn't I just burn it and wait for someone
who values their time less than I to put something out?

Because if you are an artist, then no one else can produce art the way
you do. No one else will get it Right except you. And if you wait for
someone else, the half-assed job they will inevitably do will eat you up
inside.

Where is the incentive to make anything in this new world?

It's the same as it ever was. The problem is that you are blind to one
fundamental fact: the incentives provided by the market are only one
kind of incentive. There are other kinds of incentives. For example,
some things, like skiing for example, are simply fun. Some people get
paid to ski, but the vast majority of skiers actually PAY OTHERS (can
you imagine?) in order to ski.

Creating art is fun. Hacking on your own code your own way with no one
to answer to is fun. It should come as no surprise that in a free
market the competition to make money doing something fun is fierce and
very few will actually succeed. You may just not be good enough.

Where is the ability
of the market to act as a natural aggregator of wealth by directing
people with a need to join together to fund people with a product?

Everywhere. Needs are being met all around. We live in an abundance of
software, ski slopes, and art of all stripes. The only need that isn't
being met is *your* need to make a living doing exactly what you want on
your own terms. Well, too bad. That's the Way It Is.

Must this always be a "pull" process? Only build things the market
asks for?

Of course not. No one asked for the iPod.

Does that mean people who are inspired to innovate and
who want to "push" have no value?

Of course not. But just because something has value does not mean you
can get rich off it, or even support yourself with it. The part of the
economic equation you are leaving out is *scarcity*. The artist's
problem is not that inspiration has no value, but rather that it is
overly abundant (because it's fun to produce).

Because you're open to having
a free software sniper instantly de-value innovation and claim its
only value was the construction cost... as if the value of Einstein's
equation E=mc^2 was less than a penny since it can be written with a
pencil on a paper in about 1 second and plainly is a commodity that
should sell at its copying value, not its creation value.

If you really produce something as valuable as E=mc^2 you will have no
trouble making a living, just as Einstein had no trouble. You will not
make your living selling copies of your equation. You will be able to
make a living, as Einstein did, teaching, getting research grants,
consulting, and if you really become as famous as Einstein, you could
probably even sell your paintings at a profit.

I ask these questions not in the abstract. I ask what we tell people in our
community who want to deliver product. Because what point is there writing
programs if you can't sell them? Just for fun? I came to this as a career
and if the answer is that it's only a hobby now, I should just get another
line of work.

I hate to break it to you, but yes, programming is fun, and many people
do it just for fun.

And if you don't like my inspiration, at least
acknolwedge the possibility that there are people who are inspired.

Acknowledged.

And that you might want to incentivize them.

Why? The problem is not a scarcity of inspiration but an overabundance.
Additional incentives would exacerbate the problem.

What should they do with
their inspired ideas to get some money so they can eat?

This question assumes that inspired ideas alone have market value. They
do not, and never have. It has *never* been the idea alone that made
people rich, it is the *implementation* that makes money (because that's
the non-fun part).

If you can't suggest a process that will at least somewhat reliably
lead to income--enough that people can tell their families they're
going to risk their livelihood on without getting divorced, then why
are you building a superior society over the one we had before I
indulged this hypothetical, where there was an established mechanism
for selling for income... If there is a relatively reliable path, I'm
just overlooking it and eagerly awaiting insight.

Because money and wealth are not the same thing. It is entirely
possible for everyone to have less money and still be wealthier (and
vice versa).

Users often show up here and quite reasonably ask "how do I make an exe
file". It's a tough question, because the standard doesn't specify it.
But it's one we have various reasonable answers.

It's equally reasonable, in the set of delivery questions, to ask how to
economically deliver something and to get money back. What do we say?
Not just so that people can "selfishly" make money, but so that we as
consumers can "selflishly" attract inspired people and make it worth their
while to contribute things that keep us happy.

Somehow, telling them, "it's brutal out there. you deserve you lose if
you ask for money. ask for something more abstract." has a ring that
doesn't quite work for me... and I fear it won't really impress
Einstein Jr. either. He'll probably say "I think I'll just go back to
my job issuing software patents. At least that gets me a government
subsidy..."

If you really think Einstein worked on relativity because he thought it
would make him rich then you don't understand passion, and are therefore
unlikely to succeed as an artist. You might want to brush up on your
C++ (or your table-waiting skills).

rg
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
    ... then I've got to question what society is about. ... When was the last time someone made money on the kind of thing you have ... need to live the way artists do. ... problem is not that inspiration has no value, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
    ... Skill and inspiration are not the same thing. ... then I've got to question what society is about. ... I am saying that there is a glut of artists ... Only if your quality metric is how much money ends up in your pocket. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Avoiding LispWorks Personal annoyances
    ... A pure free market doesn't work well for intellectual goods, ... books and music from artists who are independently wealthy or otherwise ... patronage or who make a lot of money in some non-creative endeavor ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Why Online Games are So Fun
    ... That's what motivates me to keep making money. ... Most online games are far better than their mortar and brick ... However, unlike in brick and mortar games, or gaming with your ... Well, or at least, it's more fun. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.indy)
  • Why Online Games are So Fun
    ... That's what motivates me to keep making money. ... Most online games are far better than their mortar and brick ... However, unlike in brick and mortar games, or gaming with your ... Well, or at least, it's more fun. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.rally)
Loading