Re: Petreley on commercial support for non-MS OSes

[stan johnson <sjohnson@gwi.net>]

** Reply to note from Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>  
Fri, 01 Jan 1999 23:53:37 -0700 
 
 If you can't easily justify drawing a line in a specific place, it's 
 probably because you're trying to draw the wrong line. It's time to 
 reframe the problem.  
 
So, there aren't lots of instances in which there are competing goods,   
or evils, in which some balance must be struck between mutually   
exclusive aims? In the real world, there are many such. People deal   
with them every day. It's only when you try to force complexity to fit   
neat categories that you insist on easy, neat solutions. 
 
  
 This doesn't mean that one cannot draw a line in a situation which 
 is not purely black and white. Phenomena that are continuous 
 rather than discrete can be described by curves that have minima, 
 maxima, and inflection points -- all of which may be justifiable 
 places in which to draw lines under some circumstances.  
 
Sure; human actions fit nicely into mathematical models, described by   
analytical equations. Not. Or if they do, they're equations with a   
near-infinite number of variables and as many parameters. We have   
never developed a calculus of human behavior and I don't think we   
ever will. If one is developed, it won't be by and about what we   
recognize as human beings. 
 
  
 In the case under discussion, however, there is no justifiable place 
 to draw a line because any distinction would be artificial.  
 
*Any* distinction, since it involves imposing a categorization and   
classification not existing in the continuous world of nature, is artificial.   
By your logic, then, there is never any justifiable place to draw any   
line. [Btw, your choices of extrema and inflections as places to draw   
lines are purely artificial. They are often chosen, simply because they   
have a characteristic that differentiates them from the typical point   
along the line (assuming we're not talking about actual analytical   
relationships), and thus gives them a meaningless prominence. They're   
convenient.] 
 
It is as 
 wrong to exhibit anti-competitive behavior in the realm of operating 
 systems as it is in, say, game software or spreadsheets or 
 browsers. This is the point of the Caldera case.  
 
Of course, you're right. Clearly we have no need for courts and all that   
rigamarole. The distinction is obvious and clear-cut; no need for trials   
and all that. Just impose the obvious solution. The only problem is:   
just whose version of the obvious solution do we impose???  
 
The real human world is complex and in principle not amenable to   
analytical description, if only because most of the important events   
happen in the mind, which is hardly knowable by the individual, to say   
nothing of the external observer. Actions are often complex and   
ambiguous; motives always. Effects are difficult to demonstrate and   
more difficult to prove.  
 
It's desirable to seek simple understandings, as William of Occam   
pointed out. It's not desirable to seek simplistic understandings. 
 
To get back to the never-ending GPL debate <sigh> : 
I prefer to allow the democratic process of each person choosing their   
own path, rather than the imposition of some one way chosen by   
self-appointed 'authorities'. Diversity is a positive survival trait. 
 
I'm dropping this; it's too far OT and too prolonged. 

-- 
Stan Johnson    TeamOS/2
sjohnson@gwi.net