Re: Linux stifles innovation...

["James A. Sutherland" <jas88@cam.ac.uk>]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Michael Bacarella wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:29PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> > >It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
> > >Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
> > >misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
> > >unexpected. And to the comment "It is not American to steal", well,
> > >it may not be "American", but it's for sure been part of the way of
> > >doing business in this country for years. It's not right, it's not
> > >ideal, but it IS the way it's done in too many cases.
>
> > Its not a "stealing" issue. Its about whether its worthwhile, dollar-wise,
> > to finance innovation. With free source, its not, because you have to give
> > away  your investment and then anyone can use it equally.
>
> Untrue.
>
> Ogg Vorbis is a perfect example of free software innovation. It is one
> of the most advanced audio codecs available to date. The libraries are
> LGPL'd and the specifications are now and forever public. An audio
> codec is only the beginning.

Yes, Ogg Vorbis is an excellent example.

> The fact that it's freely available and patent unencumbered can only
> be good for it's investors, who happen to be hardware vendors and
> content providers (among others).

It's a shame those investors didn't invest in a WWW site for it: it was
being run on someone's DSL line at home. Their ISP has now folded, leaving
them offline without a site to host www.vorbis.com on...

> Funding free software innovation is only a bad idea if the principle way you
> plan to make money with it is by controlling it's use (such as MP3).

Yes. The people who "developed" CSS had to keep it proprietary because
that was all they had: if they were able and willing to make money by
selling real products for a reasonable price, they wouldn't need
"security" through obscurity and court cases.

> > Secondly, the
> > "open-source" community openly shuns binary distributions (A. Cox never
> > misses an opportunity), so there is no avenue for commercial innovation
> > that is "worthwhile".
>
> As they should. Binary distributions are always inferior.

Not really. Souce availability does not automatically make a piece of
software good, nor does a lack of source make it bad. Having the source
code is a good thing, but it doesn't affect the quality of the software
itself.

> I'm glad to have a binary instead of nothing, but I really should've
> had the foresight to buy better supported hardware.

Yes. I just wish it were a bit easier to determine which hardware that
is...


James.