Re: TextMaker: Should we support FreeBSD at all?

["Robert G. (Doc) Savage" <dsavage@peaknet.net>]

On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 18:24, Harold Crouch wrote:
> Mike> TextMaker is a closed-source, proprietary product. Financially
> Mike> supporting them by purchasing their product does *nothing* to
> Mike> promote the use of Free Software - BSD-style *or* GPL-style.
> 
> 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.
> 
> How can you say that Softmaker is not promoting the use of Open-source
> software when they simultaneously release Windows and Linux versions
> of their products? 

Add "provides timely support to customers" to your list. I've purchased
several closed-source products that meet all your criteria (and mine),
including VMware Workstation and Chi Graphics' X servers. XFree86 has
improved to the point where I no longer buy or use Chi Graphics'
products. There's nothing in open-source that comes close to duplicating
VMware's stability, functionality, and customer support.

I may be in the minority here, but by itself I don't think a company's
stand on Free Software, whether BSD or GPL, is a meaningful reason to
buy or use their software. There are far more important reasons, such as
support for internationally recognized standards (W3C, IETF, UN/CEFACT,
OMG, ANSI, OASIS, OSI, ITU, ...). 

Offering both Windows and Linux versions (and BSD, OS X, Solaris, HP-UX,
AIX for that matter) is not easy for any company. I wish Intuit would
offer Linux versions of Quicken and TurboTax. Since they don't, I have
to use them in VMware. The same is true of deLorme's Street Atlas USA.

What really drives me nuts are companies that deliberately go out of
their way to _prevent_ the use of their software (and occasionally their
hardware -- e.g. DLink) under Linux. Why Microsoft would consider their
NTFS and Office file formats trade secrets is a complete mystery to me.
Keeping them proprietary generates no revenue, and prevents users from
enjoying the benefits and richness of 3rd party product support. I would
very much like to have access to a modified NTFS in which files and
directories are encrypted _after_ they're compressed. Redmond's
Wunderkind got the order bass-ackwards in NTFSv5, and every 2nd year CS
major should know you can't compress anything after it has been
encrypted/randomized.

--Doc


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