Forum unknown
· SoftwareDevelopment
#MacWorks for the Amiga
31 messages in this thread
I thought my message would raise some eyebrows. No actually my message was not
ment to be specific to OnLine! or you but rather public dmain and shareware
programs in general. Just take a look at what happend in the IBM arena —
practically all the little guys have been driven out be all this "free"
software. Only the big boys are left with their $400 and up packages. Thank
goodness Borland has survived.
I wish there were more Borlands because thats where new ideas are made. Free
software may seem to be a dream come true but not if the cost is the demise of
the small software company.
-Steve
* Reply:
4365
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Free software, like free anything,
doesn't exist, can't exist, and is not moral by my morality. Read Ayn Rand for
more details …
I too am very pleased with Borland's success — I use Turbo Pascal for all
application development on my PC and love it. I hope they release it for the
Amiga soon.
I prefer U. K. LeGuin, and free software.
-Hazy Davy
So what? I prefer Ayn Rand and free trade. Perhaps you prefer a non-existent
fantasy world where magic prevails and no one has to work for a living; Russia
was started on that premise and has come closest to implementing it — in a
graveyard, no one has to work and eternal "peace" is certainly "achieved".
You claim that you prefer free trade, yet in calling public domain software
"immoral" and insisting that all software must be paid for, you are desiring
to impeach my freedom to give my software away. You can't seriously suggest
Russia — the Soviet Union is a totalitarian state with very little personal
freedom, reguardless of how they would describe themselves to the world.
Their entire Soviet system depends upon secrecy and the restriction of the
flow of information.
I am for the opposite — the completely free flow of information. To require
money in response for all software is to restrict the flow of information to
the rich. I see nothing wrong with selling a piece of software if you, the
author, desire to. It is your right for having created that piece. However,
personally I see a much greater benefit for myself and for the general Amiga
public in giving away anything that I may write, as is my right as author of
the piece.
-Hazy Davy
First, you ignored my previous point about "loss leaders" as a valid,
capitalistic concept for pushing other products.
Most importantly, you are attempting to blur the distinction between politics
and morality. Politics stem from morality but is quite different. To say a
person "should not" attempt to kill himself, or take drugs, or be a slave to
someone else, is not necessarily to say that the GOVERNMENT should stop the
person from that action. Properly, a capitalist social system enforces
individual rights, which means that if you want to cut your wrists, that fine
by the government — if you want to shoot an innocent person, that is not.
Ayn Rand fully treats the issue of ethics (which is just the third branch of
philosophy, which rests on metaphysics and epistemology, the foundations). If
life is the standard of value, then a person should live for his values, for
the promotion of his/her life (and the rational values associated with their
life, which includes other people such as one's wife and friends, to the
extent one values (one's spouse being higher on the hierarchy of values than
a casual friend, for example.))
So I reject your equation of morality with government force. I don't live
rationally because someone forces me too. I do so to further my life —
without sacrificing others to myself or myself to others, in the famous line
of Rand's hero, John Galt.
Better watch out, last time i talked about Ayn Rand, the sysops said it
didn't have anything to do with software development! (I reasoned that it was
my nickel, but why raise feathers.) I've been a student of Objectivism for
about 8 years, now. (certainly recommend Ayn Rand's books to anyone and
everyone) I've found that it's pretty useless to 'preach' objectivism to
unwilling listeners. Without some agreement on your premises, no real
communication is possible.
I agree with just about everrything you've said so far, and, being a
professional software developer, I can 'come where you're diggin' from.' The
'Hacker Mentality' as described by Levy, (i.e. information belongs to
everyone and no-one) is antithetical to human life. However, I have given
away small programs, or put them in public domain, basically for the heck of
it. I see nothing wrong with that, do you? I certainly wouldn't choose to
live in poverty, writing beautiful software as a gift to my fellow man.
By the way, personal computers are forbidden in USSR. Only politbureau
members have them. American PC's are considered a status symbol in the ruling
class! I thought it would be kinda neat to drop several hundred thousand
Sinclairs or somesuch out of a bomber over Moscow!
Yes, for some odd reason it's all right on some forums to advocate public
domain software, but anti-arguments are ah, not in the "public interest."
I don't try to convert leftists to Objectivism; my goal in destroying their
arguments is to make an alternative philosophy visible to others who are
confronting the issues who honestly don't know any other answers than the usual
altruist giveaway morality. Since software is my way of making a living, I
reason that it's my prerogative and "duty" to make a stand against those who
would obliterate my means of making a living — not by doing better stuff than
me and giving it away, I don't care about that — but by promoting the same
altruist mentality that has caused the deaths of about 50 million in this
century alone and degraded America into a welfare state.
(Reversing a cultural trend has to start *somewhere*, no?)
I wouldn't argue against small demo programs for "educational" purposes;
Objectivism is not against benevolence, and it is in my best interest to share
certain discoveries I may make about the Amiga with others, and for others to
do likewise, up to a point. As you say, and as I have said before I think, what
I disagree with is the Richard Stallman type of attack against all commercial
software and the very concept of it. This is an issue which has the most
profound consequences to software development on the Amiga, indeed the whole
industry.
Glad to know there's a "sympathetic soul" out there …
Mr. Oliver, I do wish you would re-read your own references on Objectivism. You
say that you don't mind people giving away "small demo programs for educational
purposes".
I submit that as the owner of my own work, I am free under any rational code of
ethics to do with it as I see fit. If I choose to give it away for any reason,
that is my prerogative. That it is not being taken from me against my will is
sufficient grounds to make it of no concern to anyone but me.
There can be NO rational argument against public domain software provided that
the software is the property of the person doing the donating.
Oh, you mean if you choose to write software and give it to say Khadaffy for
use in terrorism, that is rational and moral? (After all, if you *want* to do
it, it's moral, according to your argument.)
You seem to be implying something I already answered. Morality does not equal
government force, or force at all, in the sense that "if you do this immoral
action, God (or "society") will use force against you." That is NOT my code
of morality. Only immoral actions that involve the use of force against
innocent persons is te domain of the government or personal self-defense.
What I am arguing against is the morality of altruism, which says that it is
evil to do anything for one's one self-interest, and as a consequence (one
consequence) that making money from software is evil.
Mr. Oliver, I had assumed you were intelligent enough to relize that my
comments were in relation to public domain software, and that I did not need
to spell out my entire philosophy for your benefit and to the detriment of
others who are wading through all this.
To use your particular brand of specious argument, might I ask if you think
it's moral or ethical to sell said software to Khadaffi rather than give it
to him? Don't bother answering that, I'm being facetious.
It might interest you to know that I am a follower wherever possible of Ayn
Rand's philosophies, but part of that philosophy states that in a true
democracy, we are all free to do whatever we please, provided that in doing
so we do not infringe the right of others to do the same. If you take that to
mean that the distribution of PD software is somehow infringing upon your
rights, then I fear you have not yet grasped the meaning of Objectivism.
I only make the above disclosure reluctantly, as I do not wish to be lumped
together with the more strident fanatics who take every opportunity to try to
ram their misguided opinions down everyone's throat.
As this is the last I will say in public on this subject, please leave any
further replies to me in Easyplex.
Mr. Oliver, I had assumed you were intelligent enough to relize that my
comments were in relation to public domain software, and that I did not need
to spell out my entire philosophy for your benefit and to the detriment of
others who are wading through all this.
To use your particular brand of specious argument, might I ask if you think
it's moral or ethical to sell said software to Khadaffi rather than give it
to him? Don't bother answering that, I'm being facetious.
It might interest you to know that I am a follower wherever possible of Ayn
Rand's philosophies, but part of that philosophy states that in a true
democracy, we are all free to do whatever we please, provided that in doing
so we do not infringe the right of others to do the same. If you take that to
mean that the distribution of PD software is somehow infringing upon your
rights, then I fear you have not yet grasped the meaning of Objectivism.
I only make the above disclosure reluctantly, as I do not wish to be lumped
together with the more strident fanatics who take every opportunity to try to
ram their misguided opinions down everyone's throat.
As this is the last I will say in public on this subject, please leave any
further replies to me in Easyplex.
Oh, you mean if you choose to write software and give it to say Khadaffy for
use in terrorism, that is rational and moral? (After all, if you *want* to do
it, it's moral, according to your argument.)
You seem to be implying something I already answered. Morality does not equal
government force, or force at all, in the sense that "if you do this immoral
action, God (or "society") will use force against you." That is NOT my code
of morality. Only immoral actions that involve the use of force against
innocent persons is te domain of the government or personal self-defense.
What I am arguing against is the morality of altruism, which says that it is
evil to do anything for one's one self-interest, and as a consequence (one
consequence) that making money from software is evil.
Mr. Oliver, I do wish you would re-read your own references on Objectivism. You
say that you don't mind people giving away "small demo programs for educational
purposes".
I submit that as the owner of my own work, I am free under any rational code of
ethics to do with it as I see fit. If I choose to give it away for any reason,
that is my prerogative. That it is not being taken from me against my will is
sufficient grounds to make it of no concern to anyone but me.
There can be NO rational argument against public domain software provided that
the software is the property of the person doing the donating.
RICHARD STALLMAN DESERVES EVERY PENNY OF HIS SALARY! Here here! I agree! When
I come up against a hostile leftist, (I used to be one myself, believe me!).
I simply state my position and that's that. I used to waste alot of time
arguing with lost causes, people whose philosophical premises were so hazy,
that, even if you scored a direct hit with every sentance, they wouldn't
realize it. I now only spend time arguing with people have a chance.
Grin — I'll second that part about the salary. You make a good point about
arguments, but every now and then an innocent bystander who still values
himself and his work and is wondering whether it's really right or not to
turn himself into a collectivist vegetable for the communal lunch, might take
notice. I value honest, intelligent people.
You're right, but I promised not to carry on further here on #9. I remember
being frustrated several times on CBM2000, trying to download the message
base on Amiga, seeing reams of totally irrelevent blabbering floating up the
screen. (Our current sysops are not innocent in this regard… and I've got
the disks to prove it!) Anyway. I'm not going to discuss this further, as
promised. I do agree that this subject is far more relevant and important to
Amiga Software development than 90% of the messages here, but, like the man
says, it's his nickel, too.
You're right, but I promised not to carry on further here on #9. I remember
being frustrated several times on CBM2000, trying to download the message
base on Amiga, seeing reams of totally irrelevent blabbering floating up the
screen. (Our current sysops are not innocent in this regard… and I've got
the disks to prove it!) Anyway. I'm not going to discuss this further, as
promised. I do agree that this subject is far more relevant and important to
Amiga Software development than 90% of the messages here, but, like the man
says, it's his nickel, too.
Grin — I'll second that part about the salary. You make a good point about
arguments, but every now and then an innocent bystander who still values
himself and his work and is wondering whether it's really right or not to
turn himself into a collectivist vegetable for the communal lunch, might take
notice. I value honest, intelligent people.
RICHARD STALLMAN DESERVES EVERY PENNY OF HIS SALARY! Here here! I agree! When
I come up against a hostile leftist, (I used to be one myself, believe me!).
I simply state my position and that's that. I used to waste alot of time
arguing with lost causes, people whose philosophical premises were so hazy,
that, even if you scored a direct hit with every sentance, they wouldn't
realize it. I now only spend time arguing with people have a chance.
Yes, for some odd reason it's all right on some forums to advocate public
domain software, but anti-arguments are ah, not in the "public interest."
I don't try to convert leftists to Objectivism; my goal in destroying their
arguments is to make an alternative philosophy visible to others who are
confronting the issues who honestly don't know any other answers than the usual
altruist giveaway morality. Since software is my way of making a living, I
reason that it's my prerogative and "duty" to make a stand against those who
would obliterate my means of making a living — not by doing better stuff than
me and giving it away, I don't care about that — but by promoting the same
altruist mentality that has caused the deaths of about 50 million in this
century alone and degraded America into a welfare state.
(Reversing a cultural trend has to start *somewhere*, no?)
I wouldn't argue against small demo programs for "educational" purposes;
Objectivism is not against benevolence, and it is in my best interest to share
certain discoveries I may make about the Amiga with others, and for others to
do likewise, up to a point. As you say, and as I have said before I think, what
I disagree with is the Richard Stallman type of attack against all commercial
software and the very concept of it. This is an issue which has the most
profound consequences to software development on the Amiga, indeed the whole
industry.
Glad to know there's a "sympathetic soul" out there …
Better watch out, last time i talked about Ayn Rand, the sysops said it
didn't have anything to do with software development! (I reasoned that it was
my nickel, but why raise feathers.) I've been a student of Objectivism for
about 8 years, now. (certainly recommend Ayn Rand's books to anyone and
everyone) I've found that it's pretty useless to 'preach' objectivism to
unwilling listeners. Without some agreement on your premises, no real
communication is possible.
I agree with just about everrything you've said so far, and, being a
professional software developer, I can 'come where you're diggin' from.' The
'Hacker Mentality' as described by Levy, (i.e. information belongs to
everyone and no-one) is antithetical to human life. However, I have given
away small programs, or put them in public domain, basically for the heck of
it. I see nothing wrong with that, do you? I certainly wouldn't choose to
live in poverty, writing beautiful software as a gift to my fellow man.
By the way, personal computers are forbidden in USSR. Only politbureau
members have them. American PC's are considered a status symbol in the ruling
class! I thought it would be kinda neat to drop several hundred thousand
Sinclairs or somesuch out of a bomber over Moscow!
First, you ignored my previous point about "loss leaders" as a valid,
capitalistic concept for pushing other products.
Most importantly, you are attempting to blur the distinction between politics
and morality. Politics stem from morality but is quite different. To say a
person "should not" attempt to kill himself, or take drugs, or be a slave to
someone else, is not necessarily to say that the GOVERNMENT should stop the
person from that action. Properly, a capitalist social system enforces
individual rights, which means that if you want to cut your wrists, that fine
by the government — if you want to shoot an innocent person, that is not.
Ayn Rand fully treats the issue of ethics (which is just the third branch of
philosophy, which rests on metaphysics and epistemology, the foundations). If
life is the standard of value, then a person should live for his values, for
the promotion of his/her life (and the rational values associated with their
life, which includes other people such as one's wife and friends, to the
extent one values (one's spouse being higher on the hierarchy of values than
a casual friend, for example.))
So I reject your equation of morality with government force. I don't live
rationally because someone forces me too. I do so to further my life —
without sacrificing others to myself or myself to others, in the famous line
of Rand's hero, John Galt.
You claim that you prefer free trade, yet in calling public domain software
"immoral" and insisting that all software must be paid for, you are desiring
to impeach my freedom to give my software away. You can't seriously suggest
Russia — the Soviet Union is a totalitarian state with very little personal
freedom, reguardless of how they would describe themselves to the world.
Their entire Soviet system depends upon secrecy and the restriction of the
flow of information.
I am for the opposite — the completely free flow of information. To require
money in response for all software is to restrict the flow of information to
the rich. I see nothing wrong with selling a piece of software if you, the
author, desire to. It is your right for having created that piece. However,
personally I see a much greater benefit for myself and for the general Amiga
public in giving away anything that I may write, as is my right as author of
the piece.
-Hazy Davy
So what? I prefer Ayn Rand and free trade. Perhaps you prefer a non-existent
fantasy world where magic prevails and no one has to work for a living; Russia
was started on that premise and has come closest to implementing it — in a
graveyard, no one has to work and eternal "peace" is certainly "achieved".
I prefer U. K. LeGuin, and free software.
-Hazy Davy
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Free software, like free anything,
doesn't exist, can't exist, and is not moral by my morality. Read Ayn Rand for
more details …
I too am very pleased with Borland's success — I use Turbo Pascal for all
application development on my PC and love it. I hope they release it for the
Amiga soon.
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Free software, like free anything,
doesn't exist, can't exist, and is not moral by my morality. Read Ayn Rand for
more details …
I too am very pleased with Borland's success — I use Turbo Pascal for all
application development on my PC and love it. I hope they release it for the
Amiga soon.
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Free software, like free anything,
doesn't exist, can't exist, and is not moral by my morality. Read Ayn Rand for
more details …
I too am very pleased with Borland's success — I use Turbo Pascal for all
application development on my PC and love it. I hope they release it for the
Amiga soon.
Sorry Steve, I have absolutely no sympathy for any of the "little guys" that
have been driven out, as you put it, by freeware and/or PD software.
There is a big market out there, and it includes people willing to pay a lot
of money for software, as well as people who will use only PD programs or
their own efforts. This market is what will determine the fate of any given
item, and if a vendor's program is not suficiently better and/or less costly
than one from another source, then the program will fail to sell. The
solution for the vendor is to cut prices or improve their product, not to
whine about the "unfair" competition. (I'm not accusing you of whining, but
you are showing an attitude that is very close to being "the world owes me a
living")
If you want to get an idea of what constitutes value in the software area, it
pays to watch the PD stuff. (Freeware is just another way of marketing) PD
programs, no matter how good, were obviously considered by their authors to
be short of those qualities that would allow them to be sold in good
conscience. I have put many programs into the public domain for PETs and 64s,
and a few of them have drawn comments to the effect that I should have
marketed them. Frankly, they didn't meet my own criteria of what constitutes
good value. If more people and vendors thought this way, we would never have
seen the likes of Maxicomm.
I wish you good fortune with your company's offering, and when I see it, I
will make my decision to buy or not based upon whether it offers good value.
And that's what it's all about.
Sorry Steve, I have absolutely no sympathy for any of the "little guys" that
have been driven out, as you put it, by freeware and/or PD software.
There is a big market out there, and it includes people willing to pay a lot
of money for software, as well as people who will use only PD programs or
their own efforts. This market is what will determine the fate of any given
item, and if a vendor's program is not suficiently better and/or less costly
than one from another source, then the program will fail to sell. The
solution for the vendor is to cut prices or improve their product, not to
whine about the "unfair" competition. (I'm not accusing you of whining, but
you are showing an attitude that is very close to being "the world owes me a
living")
If you want to get an idea of what constitutes value in the software area, it
pays to watch the PD stuff. (Freeware is just another way of marketing) PD
programs, no matter how good, were obviously considered by their authors to
be short of those qualities that would allow them to be sold in good
conscience. I have put many programs into the public domain for PETs and 64s,
and a few of them have drawn comments to the effect that I should have
marketed them. Frankly, they didn't meet my own criteria of what constitutes
good value. If more people and vendors thought this way, we would never have
seen the likes of Maxicomm.
I wish you good fortune with your company's offering, and when I see it, I
will make my decision to buy or not based upon whether it offers good value.
And that's what it's all about.