This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: freedom
- From: Jonathan Drews <j dot e dot drews at worldnet dot att dot net>
- To: gsl-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 23:55:00 -0600
- Subject: Re: freedom
- References: <3E886E9B.20208@stat.uni-muenchen.de>
On Monday 31 March 2003 10:36 am, Gangolf Jobb wrote:
> i mean those kinds
> of freedom that require money: the freedom to get rid of a boss who
> is paying the programmers wage and telling him or her what to do. the
> freedom to take holidays whenever the programmer likes to. the
> freedom to get rid of the house-owner to whom the programmer must
> pay rent each month and so on. there are people in this world who do
> not own anything and whose only chance to become free is by writing
> commercial software.
So you think you are the only one who has this problem? So do
musicians, mathematicians and artists. Those people have their regular
day job and they come home to their hobbies. If those hobbies pan out
in to a career, then that is a nice benefit.
Since "you have to pay to get quality" seems to be a favorite theme
these days, I would like to point that most of the things we enjoy in
life were developed by *volunteers*.
Healthy milk and juices: Louis Pasteur
High frequency capacitors: Henrich Hertz
(Without Hertz's discoveries you would not even have a computer)
Discovery of X- Rays: Konrad Roentgen
(Roentgen was subsidized by his parents while experimenting)
Discovery of the quantum: Max Planck
(In the late 19th century, Planck was paid very poorly as a theoretical
physicist; certainly he was not paid as well as modern technical
people.).
Complex analysis: Augustin Cauchy
A good part of Calculus: Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
( Leibniz did mathematics as a hobby, as did Pierre de Fermat)
None of the above people were paid to accomplish what they did. It was
a labor of love. In fact, it's a safe bet that the hundreds of men and
women listed at this site, were not payed in proportion to the value of
their contributions:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/BiogIndex.html
The point is that Libre software has the same aim. To provide quality
programs that are not hobbled by commercial needs. Companies are
concerned about profits not scientific precision. Libre software is not
about money its about creativity and the desire to learn.
> i could live very well with a gsl under the
> lesser gpl and i do not support intolerance against those who are
> producing proprietary software as it is stated with almost religious
> fanatism in Richard Stallman's articles.
What about the fanatical self congartulation corporations do? All the
hype, advertising and self promotion are self serving. If innovation
were driven by corporations we would be awash in pollution and living
in little huts. My good reasons to dislike proprietary software. 1)
it's not subject to peer review and 2) it comes with no warranties. Why
should I trust you to produce a quality product when you won't let me
thoroughly review the product and you won't warranty it? As far as I am
concerned commercial software is a scam. They charge expensive prices
for defective crap. Hey, I have to use software made by Agilent,
Dionex and Perkin Elmer. It's buggy crap and I could write an entire
treatise entitled "Oh well, they lied". Commercial software makers
never tell you about the bugs in their products. I have to cross
examine them to find out the truth. So the idea that the profit motive
animates innovation and quality is nonsense. Corporations enshrine
mediocrity, make an idol out of money and incline people to be ruthless
and greedy. Show me someone who is solely actuated by the profit motive
and I will show you a criminal.
Regards,
Jonathan