[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: The Corporation for Public Software/Natianal Endowment for the Bits

  In <01BD0EC5.0F538580@SERV_BDC>, on 12/22/97 
     at 10:36 AM, Chuck Swiger <cswiger@widomaker.com> said:
  >From: 	franklin@ideas4you.com[SMTP:franklin@ideas4you.com]
  >In <349E2012.67A133D2@blarg.net>, on 12/22/97 
  >>   at 03:08 AM, Mark Hinds <zoro@blarg.net> said:
  >>>I've been thinking of how to get Uncle Sam to create something like PBS
  >>>(CPB) for Software. It would be very helpful if most of the groups
  >>May I ask, who is NSF and are they government funded.
  >National Science Foundation, what used to run the Internet for a while.
  >"The National Science Foundation is an independent agency of the U.S.
  >Government, established by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950.
  >The NSF's mission is to promote the progress of science; to advance the
  >national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national
  >>If it was government funded then it would really be free would it.  The
  >>tax paying citizens of this country would be paying for, YOU A LINUX USER,
  >>to have FREE software that wasn't available for any other OS.  I'm sorry,
  >It most certainly would NOT be free, and would not be foised on anyone
  >who didn't want it, but would be a public standard for software and data
  >interchange for those who 1) want to leverage the power of modern data
  >processing 2) don't want to edit their CONFIG.SYS file. Again, for this
  >to fly, it'd have to have the support of enough public to get some
  >legislators to sign their careers onto it. And how many households have
  >PC's? What's the demographics? How many are happy with them and how many
  >are discontented?
  Please note the sarcasm about the "FREE SOFTWARE", maybe I should have put
  it in quotes.
  >>that, don't get me wrong, but most people just do not know enough about
  >>computers to use any form of UNIX.  Don't get me wrong,  I do programming
  >Most people don't know enough about electronics or internal combustion
  >engines but can use a microwave, watch TV or drive a car (as long as they
  >stay out of or aren't tempted to mess with the 'guts').
  We are not taking about a piece of hardware.  We are talking about
  software that is configurable by a user, hardware is a little tougher to
  play with, but with software uninformed users can and will mess with
  things they are not supposed to, thinking that they know what they are
  doing and mess thier systems up.
  >Notice also, that this would not directly effect any of your Java/Web
  >programming  done on your os of choice, if your final sellable product
  >runs on the naive consumers *nix box. What a 'default' consumer os
  >standard (which we all agree is currently  the privately owned M$
  >standard) would hurt is those who develope and sell into that monopoly. A
  >public os standard is 'just another alternative' - if someone wants to
  >buy and use Warp, NT, Win9X, etc, they can. If they want something
  >'basically' operational and trusted they can buy the govt. standard.
  >Granted, it'd be like issuing a currency, and will have to maintain a
  >high level of 'trust' so if, say, your hard drive craps out, the hw
  >vendor won't have an escape of saying "oh, it's that buggy govt. software
  >again!", w/ the innocent consumer left holding the bag.
  A government "standard" would solve the current problems with the Computer
  Industry. Your looking at a company that tells OEMs that if they want to
  sell a single preload of thier OS that they have to buy a copy of that OS
  for each computer whether or not they actually install it.  That is
  highway robbery and the one thing I don't understand why DOJ doesn't take
  them for to court for monopoly type actions on that account is beyond me.
  >You get this public domain CD - it's widely known, approved by academia,
  >publically debatable, you install it on your Intel monopol-box and it
  >runs (what ports to other hw platforms would do, like MS's "hardware
  >abstraction layer", to the 'standard' I haven't a clue). Any problem is a
  >'flaky system board'. You can wipe it and install NT, OS/2, System8, your
  >choice. It's just a choice for those who have no choice except for,
  >currently, M$.
  There are choices out there,  the problem is M$ business tactics force
  software and hardware vendors not to produce for other OS's.  If users
  could have a look at the contracts that M$ makes OEMs, hardware, and
  software manufactures sign most would through a fit and say no more M$. 
  The main thing about WIN (% is that it is what most games today are being
  design for.  That's where M$ is really getting ahead of others.  Games on
  a computer can be more interactive and have a generally unlimited
  size(CDs) and with WIN (% it is really designed around the gamers world
  just as DOS was becoming before WIN (%(DOS 7).  I've seen some fantastic
  games for WIN (% and personally I have nothing against M$ OS's.  I have a
  problem because thier tactics cause me, an OS/2 user, not to be able to
  get the software I want for my OS.