Linux World domination (was Re: [NCLUG] PC for Linux (Ubuntu))

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:10:01PM -0600, John L. Bass wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:23:59PM +0000, grant at amadensor.com wrote:
> >  
> >>Some developers who write applications for shrink-wrap may lose out,  
> >>but there are far more of us who write things for in-house use, and we  
> >>will be unaffected.   It will take less time to write the same code,  
> >>but they will not need less of us because we will be able to cost  
> >>effectively replace packaged software.
> >>    
> >
> >Agreed.
> >
> >There are many other business models that may also support software
> >developers as employees, and also don't depend on any copyright law at
> >all.  Writing code for Microsoft is not the only way to make money as a
> >developer and, in fact, that is a vanishingly small percentage of the
> >total number of paid developers in the world.
> >  
> 
> I also agree the FOSS doesn't take salaries away, by it's self. Public 
> domain software has been around longer than proprietary, and has thrived 
> side by side with proprietary. It's the small part of the FOSS movement 
> that also share the RMS manifesto goals, supported by those that do not 
> understand the value of the global intellectual property laws (that 
> allows GPL rights by law).

Please explain two things:

  1. What, exactly, is the value of "global intellectual property laws"?
  With this information, we might be able to more effectively address the
  matters under consideration.

  2. Why do you keep bringing up "the small part of the FOSS movement
  that also share the RMS manifesto goals" in this manner, rather than
  simply replying to the individuals in this discussion and their
  statements?  I would rather see your response to their statements than
  to those of RMS.


> 
> I do disagree that it's "vanishingly small percentage of the total 
> number of paid developers", and I've never seen any stats anywhere to 
> support such an argument, and walking thru any shrink wrap isle suggests 
> otherwise. Can you please cite?

There are no such stats anywhere, as far as I'm aware.  I admit my
statement is one without hard evidence, but a combination of anecdotal
evidence (e.g. experience), observation, deduction, and inference leads
me to believe that by far the majority of developers are not employees of
businesses whose entire business model depends upon copyright-enforced
productization of software.


> 
> One of the problems with advocating Linux on the desktop is quite the 
> opposite ... all the good titles are shrink wrap, and are not ported to 
> Linux because some in the FOSS movement are very hostile to proprietary 
> binary only products. This creates a chicken and egg problem, which 
> slows Linux progress on the desktop. Ditto with servers, where a lot of 
> core business application are developed only for Microsoft Servers, and 
> they refuse to port to Linux. Browse the shrink wrap software section, 
> and look for titles that install on Linux. Nearly all MS PC, with some Mac.

I have to disagree with the basis for this argument.  The highest quality
software I have encountered is, more often than not, open source.

I'm certainly not arguing that there aren't problems in the Linux-centric
"free software" community's attitudes toward software use.  On the other
hand, I don't see that it has been established that running a 100% open
system and advocating others do the same is a bad thing.

You refer to the "chicken and egg" problem of advocacy.  You have a valid
point here, of course.  That seems to be a complaint more about the
efficacy of Linux advocacy, rather than any ethical issues such as your
suggestion of unwarranted and unethical[1] attacks on closed source
"proprietary" software.

###

[1] Correct me if I misuse the term "unethical" here.  I'm still not
clear on what, exactly, is your complaint regarding attempts to supplant
closed source, copyright dependent models of development with open source
development.  Sometimes, you seem intent on calling such strong advocacy
an attempt to violate rights, others you make statements to the effect
you're only talking about the state of the law, and other times I'm just
not sure what you're saying about it other than that you think it's bad
somehow.

-- 
Power corrupts.  The command line corrupts absolutely.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nclug.org/pipermail/nclug/attachments/20080919/c8763467/attachment.pgp>