Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends

			      USENET Archives

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sri-unix!
From: dan@sri-...@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Three cheers for Lauren's reply to GNU
Message-ID: <12290@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Oct-83 18:03:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12290
Posted: Mon Oct  3 18:03:00 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Oct-83 07:09:25 EDT
Lines: 5

I agree with Lauren Weinstein's arguments against GNU.  I also believe
that this is not the forum for such an argument, so I will say no more.
(I only send this note to show that he is not alone in his opinion).


Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sbcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sbcs!rick
From: r...@sbcs.UUCP (Rick Spanbauer)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Whats GNU with you?
Message-ID: <498@sbcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Oct-83 01:38:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: sbcs.498
Posted: Wed Oct  5 01:38:45 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Oct-83 03:11:33 EDT
Organization: SUNY at Stony Brook
Lines: 59

	Sorry, Lauren, I for one agree with most of RMS's stated 
	principals.  The commercialization of Unix is sure to cause
	only trouble for those of us in the research community; I fully
	expect that at some point in the future Unix sources will be
	made unavailable to universities.  The excuse will read something
	like ".. We consider this material proprietary ....".

	My personal feeling is that the commonly accepted principal
	of free flow of scientific knowledge should apply in the
	case of programs.  We will all benefit in the long run if
	projects can be accomplished by rewriting, modifying, or
	cannablizing existing code (ie - a software equivalent to
	the hardware hackers junkbox).  For example, it is considerably
	easier to modify an existing compiler to produce code for a new
	target machine than it is to rewrite a new compiler.

	I suggest that if businesspersons will always choose to pay for a
	fully supported product, there is no loss of revenue in giving
	software away free (well, at a nominal copying charge) to 
	programmers who request it, and letting some private company sell it 
	to businesses.  The terms of the programmers license agreement 
	might be: no support, and that the product cannot be resold for 
	commercial gains.  This way, we can continue our research, I can 
	hack in peace on my home Unix machine, programmers can eat, and 
	businesspersons can pay their $$ and have their hands held and 
	questions answered.  

	Your point of stabilizing programs so that unsophisticated
	users may rely on them is well taken, but not to the extreme
	that I cannot "do my own thing".  Is it your view (to quote
	a line from TWOK) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs
	of the few" ??

	Another motivation for obtaining sources (aside from adding
	value to existing systems) is that many, many products are
	released today without being fully debugged.  The best response 
	time from bug report to bug fix that I have grown to expect is
	roughly 2 months.  While I am waiting for the company to fix
	their $$%%&?! software, it costs me more time and effort to
	work around the bug than it would to fix it!

	If you feel these fears are irrational, I can relate the problems
	I have had in (unsuccessfully) getting a prominent west coast
	workstation manufacturer to release their sources.  Or about the
	semiconductor manufacturer who insisted that I pay $50K for
	their UNIX port (they have since reduced the university price
	to $1000 - fortunately there are some enlightened companies).
	Or about the company who sold us a $10000 Pascal compiler that
	we literally found 1 code generation bug/week over the course
	of several months; they often took 3 months to repair the simplest 
	problem.  Etc, etc, etc.

	Convinced that copyrights, trademarks, patents, regulations
	and so called "proprietary information" will be our ultimate 

						Rick Spanbauer
						SUNY/Stony Brook

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!houxm!ihnp4!
From: j...@ut-sally.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Three cheers for Lauren's reply to GNU
Message-ID: <120@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Oct-83 11:18:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.120
Posted: Sun Oct  9 11:18:45 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Oct-83 23:37:59 EDT
References: <12290@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 19

Lauren's arguments about software fragmentation don't really seem to have
been answered adequately by the GNU people.  I support Lauren, so far.

Also, it's a bit hard to believe that anybody posting to net.unix-wizards
could not be aware that that newsgroup has been gatewayed to the UNIX-WIZARDS
mailing list on the ARPANET practically forever (forever being defined as
the beginning of USENET, as the ARPANET list existed long before that).
Just because an article was posted from USENET does not mean it doesn't
have to conform to ARPANET standards, not in net.unix-wizards.  Posting
something that endangers the gateway because it clearly violates the standards
strikes me more as irresponsible than as a manifestation of high ethics.
(There are such things as paper mail and telephones where the GNU message
could have gotten out with no restrictions, regardless of money matters.)

It also seems a bit disingenious to open the discussion of GNU in unix-wizards
and then try to suppress it when GNU meets criticism.
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ogcvax!omsvax!hplabs!sri-unix!chesson@shasta
From: chesson%sha...@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: GNU comment
Message-ID: <12306@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 00:07:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12306
Posted: Mon Oct 10 00:07:00 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Oct-83 07:08:03 EDT
Lines: 11

From:  Greg Chesson <chesson@shasta>

Self-appointed GNURU's are just that, self-appointed.

REAL guru's may or may not eat quiche, are not self-appointed,
and don't need the help of the Arpanet, Lauren, or anyone else
to create.

RMS deserves a congratulation for doing what he does best:
getting everyone confused.  I'm disappointed to learn that
GNU doesn't already exist as some emacs thunderclap.

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb: