Re: Not "Satanism;" realism.

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Brett Glass wrote:

> At 10:06 AM 1/1/99 -0600, Steve Cohen wrote:
>
> >The architect who is too far removed from
> >realities of actual construction to know these things is not much of an
> >architect.
>
> This argument is irrelevant to the creation of software, as the architect
> virtually always has a hand in executing the design. Also, as you admit
> yourself, a bad architect is -- well -- a bad architect and is thus a
> bad example.
>
> >As for your other example of "inventing a way of building a house better"
> >where's
> >that going to come from - a permanent cadre of "inventors" or by practicising
> >tradespople who get an idea when the light goes on while they're working?  As
> >Thomas Edison said, "Genius is 98% perspiriation and 2% inspiration."
>
> Thomas Edison executed very few of his own designs. It was only his PR
> campaign that spread the image that he was a hard-working genius.
>
> >Am I giving away the family jewels when I show some young programmer a
> >better way
> >of doing something?
>
> You may be. That's what's called a trade secret.
>
> >> If you're willing to sell yourself short, you're the loser.
> >
> >But there are rewards, non-monetary to be sure, to putting code in the public
> >domain.
>
> Releasing code under the GPL is *not* putting it in the public domain.

You are correct.  My age is showing.  When I first messed around with this sort
of thing there was no GPL and we called what we were doing, "putting it in the
public domain".  Now there is a GPL which prevents others from getting rich off
our inventions, for good or for ill.

>
> It is, in fact, denying the use of that code to innovative programmers
> who would otherwise use it to build excellent commercial products.
> Using the GPL is, in fact, an insult to your peers. It says, "Here's
> the code, but I won't let you make the best possible use of it."
>
> >Maybe it's the respect of your peers which will translate into
> >monetary reward down the road.
>
> Maybe. But you should not attempt to make that decision for others.
> Publishing your code under the GPL is an attempt to do that.
>
> >You've said many times that gcc is an inadequate compiler.  It's certainly
> >generic.  It certainly doesn't have bells and whistles.  It's not hard to
> >see that a better mousetrap can be built.  I don't see how the mere existence
> >of gcc makes it impossible for you to do so.
>
> People have said many times that Internet Explorer is an inadequate browser.
> It's not hard to see that a better mousetrap can be built. I don't see how
> Micorosft's giving away of IE could possibly have injured Netscape.
>
>

The rapid rise of IE was not just due to its no-cost (after all, Netscape was
always free to individual users too) but to its place on the original desktop.
But I will concede that its lack of cost did hurt Netscape.