Re: TextMaker: Should we support FreeBSD at all?

[mike808@users.sourceforge.net]

> I have no problem purchasing closed-source proprietary software if:
>  It's reasonably priced,
>  I can save data in non-proprietary formats,
>  The programmer is not taking advantage of GPL'ed code,
>  The company competes based on product quality alone.
>  
> To the best of my knowledge, Softmaker meets all those criteria.

So if Dell included a copy of Windows on every computer it sells "free" of
charge, you'd be standing in line to buy one, too? By your criteria, I posit
that Dell meets them as well.

By purchasing and using a non-free software product, you make the world a 
poorer place for the rest of us, for you cannot share _any_ benefits of 
using that software. Think about that for a minute.

To the best of my knowledge SoftMaker's success in any or all of those criteria
are no indicator for future success in any of them. With Free Software, I am
guaranteed *all* of them (except the inverse of the GPL'd code bit) will occur,
not only today, but forever.

All free software is guaranteed to reach a "reasonable" price, for it is trivial
for someone to offer it for less - it's free (as in speech) to do so.

It will always support non-proprietary formats - the peope who write the code
will  ensure this feature's existence - if it's needed it will be in. In
contrast, it *may* also support any number of proprietary formats (reverse
engineered). A closed source, proprietary package is only interested in
supporting its own self-serving formats - and that list is not the same as the
one in mind by the users. Today, maybe it supports open data formats - 
tomorrow, who knows?

Who wants to re-invent the wheel? Or be forced to put lipstick on a pig to fit 
a "marketing strategy"? Natural efficiency in Free Software development 
process guarantees re-use GPL'd (or other free code). Shareholders and 
management impose an artificial priority as to the optimal components in a 
given piece of software. Very different than who gets to decide what's in Free
Softare.

And Free software can only compete on product quality, since it is trivial to
fork free software and be competing with oneself, making price competition
meaningless within one generation of distribution.

Yet with non-Free Software, what you have today may meet those criteria, 
but who knows with the next version? With Free Software *you* decide what the
critical features are - with non-free software, the *shareholders* do.

Proprietary, closed-source, Non-Free Software is a product of a race to maximize
the exploitation of a scarce resource (or to make it artificially scarce if not
already). Every purchase serves to re-inforce and support that economy.

For example, Microsoft Word stores its data in a non-proprietary format - XML.
Why stop at TextMaker and just buy "the real deal" Cadillac of word processors,
then? And by running it on a Windows OS, you're certain they're not being held
up by the crutch of GPL'd code, either.

But, you're certainly entitled to your position that you (and us all) are 
better off after you've purchased your closed-source proprietary software
instead of "purchasing" Free Software with an equivalent financial exchange.

You "Building a better future, one Windows system at a time" folks need to ...

OK, I _really_ need to stay away from those RMS events for longer ... <g>

Mike/

---------------------------------------------
http://www.valuenet.net



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.