...and re-advocate Stallman's assertion that the right to form a community is more important than the ability to use particular software.
Fine. It's merely a disagreement between pragmatics and philosophy.
It's great to advocate for 'rights', but most people don't see software development as a political process. Some developers do. Users typically don't.
.
It's fine if a group of authors want to demand the ability to take any work of fiction, change a couple of sentences, and re-publish: They can avocate any cause they want. But, most readers don't care that much.
Your article is fine, if not a little soft. Be careful of making statements suggesting a product's usefulness, or effectiveness, is secondary to the political or philosophical movement surrounding it. Many users don't want the extra baggage.
In the end, most software is merely a product. Its 'success' is based on its usefulness. Everybody sees the usefulness of gcc, Perl, Python, and the Linux kernal (hence their success). Not everybody sees the usefulness of many projects languishing on SourceForge, despite the obvious market justification for their existence.
Strong principles are a sign of character, but they don't fill the belly. Developers may have strong character (and I think it's good that they *do*), but businesses exist to fill their own belly. We don't always agree with that, and aren't always happy with that, but it's not 'wrong'.
Most users see a software product's intrinsic value derived from its usefulness. If you want to suggest that its intrinsic value is based on what it represents (i.e., manifestation of cooperation within a community), that's fine, but most people searching for a software package to solve real needs want a tool, not an evangelist telling them how to think.
The silliest assertion by the FSF is the constant drone that business users should 'settle' for software that is not as good as commercial counterparts, simply because of a philosophical assertion, rather than business justification. Or, it's the assertion that these same business users should be more interested in advancing this cause than running their business. Many businesses have no need nor interest (nor resource luxury) to become political activists in addition to their core purpose, which is to run their business and provide products and services to their users.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: charleyb on January 08, 2004 09:05 PMFine. It's merely a disagreement between pragmatics and philosophy.
It's great to advocate for 'rights', but most people don't see software development as a political process. Some developers do. Users typically don't.
.It's fine if a group of authors want to demand the ability to take any work of fiction, change a couple of sentences, and re-publish: They can avocate any cause they want. But, most readers don't care that much.
Your article is fine, if not a little soft. Be careful of making statements suggesting a product's usefulness, or effectiveness, is secondary to the political or philosophical movement surrounding it. Many users don't want the extra baggage.
In the end, most software is merely a product. Its 'success' is based on its usefulness. Everybody sees the usefulness of gcc, Perl, Python, and the Linux kernal (hence their success). Not everybody sees the usefulness of many projects languishing on SourceForge, despite the obvious market justification for their existence.
Strong principles are a sign of character, but they don't fill the belly. Developers may have strong character (and I think it's good that they *do*), but businesses exist to fill their own belly. We don't always agree with that, and aren't always happy with that, but it's not 'wrong'.
Most users see a software product's intrinsic value derived from its usefulness. If you want to suggest that its intrinsic value is based on what it represents (i.e., manifestation of cooperation within a community), that's fine, but most people searching for a software package to solve real needs want a tool, not an evangelist telling them how to think.
The silliest assertion by the FSF is the constant drone that business users should 'settle' for software that is not as good as commercial counterparts, simply because of a philosophical assertion, rather than business justification. Or, it's the assertion that these same business users should be more interested in advancing this cause than running their business. Many businesses have no need nor interest (nor resource luxury) to become political activists in addition to their core purpose, which is to run their business and provide products and services to their users.
#