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

Rajappa Iyer <rsi@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Kent M Pitman <pitman@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Does it benefit the end-user? Yes and no. It kills competition on the
underlying issue, so if they like the free component that everyone now
depends on, then it helps them.

This is simply not true.

I don't mean to exclude things like this. gcc is at least not restricted
so that things compiled with it are encumbered by gpl.

And Emacs is useful to programmers, too, with similar results. And operates
in a market that is unserved by commercial editors.

Postgres had positive effects on a monopoly market.

There are such benefits. But they are a short list, and repeated
all too often.

My purpose in this discussion is to offer counterpoint to conventional
wisdom, suggesting that there are two sides to the debate on free software.

But the two sides are not: "free software is good" vs "free software is bad";
I am not arguing the latter.

The two sides are (the party line) "free software is always good" vs
"free software has positive and negative effects and its use should be
considered judiciously both to make sure it doesn't have ill effects on
an otherwise-healthy market and to make sure the maker of the free software
understands the value that s/he is giving away by not selling it".

Free software often benefits people, but often those people are not the
people making it.

There are practically no examples of free software destroying any
product that offered superior capabilities.

Because most examples are like mine. They are embarrassing errors in
judgment, and opening them to public scrutiny is painful and something
any sensible person would avoid. You have never seen my offering, and
have no way of saying if its features are superior or not. And if I
showed you, you'd spend all your time looking at what the features are
now compared to AServe now rather than understanding that what I have
now is a snapshot in time of a shattered enterprise that is no longer
functioning, and that is compared to something that has continued to
be developed. You don't know what would have been in place if no one
had contributed a free offering, so you don't have any data. But failing
to know a possible future is not the same as saying there was no possible
future.

So please feel free to claim there's a lack of data, but please do not
feel free to say that a lack of data is an automatic implication that
nothing has happened. I have put more of my story on the line than I
am comfortable with, and discussing this at all hurts me more than you
can probably possibly imagine. Every single time I write a message on
this that gets published, you should assume there are about ten such
messages that I have discarded because I couldn't bear the pain of
dealing with some inconsiderate correspondant who doesn't care that
it's my dreams they are trampling upon, or because it reveals too much
personal information about myself.

But I do get email privately from others who say my experience is not
unique and that they're glad someone speaks on it. So sometimes I force
myself to endure the unplesantness anyway.

E.g GIMP vs. Photoshop, CVS vs. Perforce or Clearcase.

What's your point? That there's no reasonably priced offering someone
offers that some bored programmer can't dupliate for free, assuring
anyone who wants to invest in something that they will have to endure
someone making a free version? You're making my case for me.

In other words, free software is just another competitor.

It is not. It is often paid for out of the pockets of parents who don't
realize their kids are not "working their way through college" but instead
"squandering their future by making sure there is no market for them
later". It is often paid for by businesses in unrelated markets that don't
care if they make a mess of an unrelated market they don't care about.
It's often paid for by people who think there's no chance they're doing
something that is hurting one person even at the same time as they are
intending to help another. People are taught the dogma "give away stuff
and it's good, charge money and it's bad; and especially don't let someone
charge for something more than the materials they took to make it".
Bleah. That's just simple communism dressed up in capitalist clothes.

Unless your
idea is to eliminate all competition, I really cannot see the merit in
the railings against free software.

I have NEVER railed against free software. That's just the way many people
sum me up who aren't paying attention to what I'm writing. I've said that
free software has many ill effects, both to markets and to individuals, and
that the people who encourage others to "join the movement" don't do a proper
disclosure of the personal and social ills that might be caused.

It's all very nice to theorize, but how about reconciling theories
with facts?

Reconciling theories with facts is precisely what I've been doing.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Free software vs. commercial software Was: Comparing Lisp conditions to Java Exceptions
    ... the fact is that I don't recall Kent mentioning that he has been ... > The real pain of free software is that one can't afford NOT to use ... being proved for the special case of a commodity market. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: the free software paradigm [was Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
    ... Not in a culture where being a winner is lauded and being a loser is a source of shame - people think they're losers and remain silent - i.e., they blame themselves not the economic forces that led to their failure. ... And this isn't even the broad market which includes many companies which fail outright and are de-listed ... Now, to bring this back to the original topic of discussion, how much of the tech bubble was due the over-hyped "benefits" of free software? ... How many people lost large portions of their retirement savings investing in companies whose business model was centered on free software - RHAT anyone? ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Comparing Lisp conditions to Java Exceptions
    ... > One could make the same complaint about Microsoft as it absorbs all ... > depriving utility writers of a market. ... submitted a heap of proposals for changes to the language. ... Back to the topic of free software, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Comparing Lisp conditions to Java Exceptions
    ... He helped explain why our bonds of community are much weaker than before. ... They claim that we've transitioned to a free market morality, ... too much stuff in the government; in Europe: ... would likely sponsor production of free software. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Comparing Lisp conditions to Java Exceptions
    ... > I'd much rather just code software and give it away. ... not impossible to sell a product in the same market. ... think for-profit software can have an advantage here at least for larger ... free software types can, they have a product that will sell. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)