[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[Digby]

> On Sat, 13 May 2000, Digby Tarvin wrote:
>
> > In your arguments, you seem to ignore the fact the the most popular
> > (and vastly inferiour) operating system on the market costs quite
> > a lot more than Plan9, and I don't see hordes of "NT/Windows" clones
> > out there because of it.
>
> No? How about DR Dos, DesqView(X), 4Dos, Wine, etc. There have been at
> least a half dozen efforts. Unfortunately everyone of them fell apart
> (well other than Wine).

None of these are Windows or NT clones. They are eather failed DOS
clones or subsystems which attempt to allow Windows API applications to
run on another operating system.

I certainly would not count Linux as a Windows clone, Wine or not...

And the reason there are no clones is that Microsoft don't
release their source, keep the interfaces a moving target, and
have an army of lawyers ready to pounce on anyone that puts a foot
wrong.

Threats to 'give it away or we will steal it' are the sort of thing
that can convince management to follow a similar closed strategy,
and put a stop to cheap source and free downloads.

> > Personally I am more than happy to pay US$350.00 for a source licence,
> > if that contributes to keeping the very talented people at Lucent
> > able to keep working.
>
> I'm more interested in keeping the OS alive then making sure a bunch of
> engineers at Lucent stay on the payroll.

I am sorry to hear that you do not think the people that created Plan9
deserve any reward for their efforts. It seems people only want to
give money to writers of poor operating systems.

The free software movement has a good record of being able to
duplicate good ideas, like Unix and 'C', but so far the invention
of these ideas has required commercial investment for which there
has been little enough return.

So I am more interested in seeing the group that produced Unix and
Plan9 survive to produce the next great system than trying to
force them to treat the software industry as a charity they
should donate their time to.

> > Lucent is a commercial company, so lets not bash them too much for
> > trying to stay in business. They may not be helping as much as
> > some of us think they could, but at least they are not actually
> > doing great harm like a certain Redmond based company..
>
> Let's bash all commercial companies who keep technology they have no
> interest or intent in developing closed licensed so others can't go
> forward.
>
> It's predatory.

I do not understand your definition of predatory.

To me being predatory involves taking something away, not failing
to give something away.

Lucent has done the industry a great service by making the ideas
available. So long as they don't prevent you from writing your
own code, I can see no cause to complain.

To take someone's code away from them because you don't think they
are making enough use of it would seem to be predatory.

If Lucent gave away the software, it would be very magnanamous of
them, but I don't think they have any moral responsibility to
do so unless they were publicly funded or had been found guilty
of using it to illegally monopolistically dominate the software
industry.

I see it as being similar to the biotech industry, where I don't
object to company's that do the research keeping the information
they discover proprietory so that can profit from it. But I do
object to giving them the ability to establish patents that prevent
competitors from discovering the same thing independently....

Anyway, as someone has already observed, it is unlikely that
anyone in a position to make such decisions would be reading
this list, so this is just an philosophical discussion that
is distracting us from more interesting technical questions...

Regards,
DigbyT
--
Digby R. S. Tarvin                                              digbyt@acm.org
http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[Christopher]

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Choate would say:
>I'd certainly be interested in a Open Source clone of Plan 9 to point
>of spending my own time and money to that end.

If that is your end, then I'd suggest looking at
<http://www.zendo.com/vsta/>.

It borrows ideas mostly from QNX and Plan 9, and should be "free
enough for your purposes."
--
"Purely applicative languages are poorly applicable." -- Alan Perlis
cbbrowne@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html>

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[Christopher]

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Choate would say:
>I'd certainly be interested in a Open Source clone of Plan 9 to point
>of spending my own time and money to that end.

If that is your end, then I'd suggest looking at
<http://www.zendo.com/vsta/>.

It borrows ideas mostly from QNX and Plan 9, and should be "free
enough for your purposes."
--
"Purely applicative languages are poorly applicable." -- Alan Perlis
cbbrowne@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html>

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[Tom]

> Let's bash all commercial companies who keep technology they have no
> interest or intent in developing closed licensed so others can't go
> forward.
>
> It's predatory.

This is a bizarre use of `predatory.'

Pricing goods below cost to drive out competition is predatory.

Causing your OS to derate the performance of
competitor's application software is predatory.

Acquiring your competitors in order to
shut them down is sometimes predatory.

But refusing to be a competitor's unpaid R&D
department is manifestly not predatory.

--
Tom Duff.  That's music in a nutshell.

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[Tom]

> Let's bash all commercial companies who keep technology they have no
> interest or intent in developing closed licensed so others can't go
> forward.
>
> It's predatory.

This is a bizarre use of `predatory.'

Pricing goods below cost to drive out competition is predatory.

Causing your OS to derate the performance of
competitor's application software is predatory.

Acquiring your competitors in order to
shut them down is sometimes predatory.

But refusing to be a competitor's unpaid R&D
department is manifestly not predatory.

--
Tom Duff.  That's music in a nutshell.

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[Anthony]

//I'm more interested in keeping the OS alive then making sure a
//bunch of engineers at Lucent stay on the payroll.

there are, in my mind, two things that make Plan 9 an
interesting and enjoyable system to use: ideas and
implementation. while proliferation of the OS may likely
help keep the "ideas" portion of that equation going, i'm
more than a little skeptical of what it would do to the
"implementation" portion. well beyond just being "neat"
or "cool", Plan 9 is _elegant_, maybe even beautiful. i
look at the comparative quality of systems (in terms of
code quality, consistancy, usefulness, etc.) between the
various BSDs and Linux, and the BSDs always come out
ahead (not to say their coding is so great...). that's
precisely because of the fact that some central body has
(in most cased) kept some sort of control over the BSD
development/distribution process, while Linux is alot
more open. and i'm sorry, but while twenty high school
or college kids mucking around in their basement may get
drivers for that new ReallySuper 3D9000 video card or my
Nintendo Power Glove produced faster than jmk's turning
out drivers, all of them in the world arn't going to
come close to designing a _system_ nearly as nice as the
folks who've done Plan 9 in the labs. and not only do i
think they deserve to be rewarded for that, but i think
it's in MY (our) interests to keep them employed, to
keep them working on the project, and to keep them in
control of the project.

also note above that i'm talking about systems, not
parts of systems. Plan 9 is a new system in a way that
Linux/BSD/etc. are not. it's harder to do systems right
than it is to do stand-alone apps, even large ones.

or maybe it's just me.
: anothy;

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[Alexander]

On Sat, 13 May 2000, Jim Choate wrote:

> > Personally I am more than happy to pay US$350.00 for a source licence,
> > if that contributes to keeping the very talented people at Lucent
> > able to keep working.
>
> I'm more interested in keeping the OS alive then making sure a bunch of
> engineers at Lucent stay on the payroll.

OK, that's it. May I politely ask you what the greed bloody fsck did you
contribute to either Plan 9 or Linux or _anything_ aside of reposts to
cypherpunks list? Nothing?

> > Lucent is a commercial company, so lets not bash them too much for
> > trying to stay in business. They may not be helping as much as
> > some of us think they could, but at least they are not actually
> > doing great harm like a certain Redmond based company..
>
> Let's bash all commercial companies who keep technology they have no
> interest or intent in developing closed licensed so others can't go
> forward.

	Keyword being "others", indeed... Sorry for rudeness, but I'm sick
and tired of *.advocacy trash like you trying to wank on l-k about your
rights and responsibility of everyone else to do what you want. So you are
doing it here. And pretend to advocate Linux, in bargain. Thank you _so_
much for associating yourself with us. Sheesh...

				Al, _very_ PO'd Linux kernel hacker.

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[Digby]

> On Sat, 13 May 2000, Digby Tarvin wrote:
>
> > In your arguments, you seem to ignore the fact the the most popular
> > (and vastly inferiour) operating system on the market costs quite
> > a lot more than Plan9, and I don't see hordes of "NT/Windows" clones
> > out there because of it.
>
> No? How about DR Dos, DesqView(X), 4Dos, Wine, etc. There have been at
> least a half dozen efforts. Unfortunately everyone of them fell apart
> (well other than Wine).

None of these are Windows or NT clones. They are eather failed DOS
clones or subsystems which attempt to allow Windows API applications to
run on another operating system.

I certainly would not count Linux as a Windows clone, Wine or not...

And the reason there are no clones is that Microsoft don't
release their source, keep the interfaces a moving target, and
have an army of lawyers ready to pounce on anyone that puts a foot
wrong.

Threats to 'give it away or we will steal it' are the sort of thing
that can convince management to follow a similar closed strategy,
and put a stop to cheap source and free downloads.

> > Personally I am more than happy to pay US$350.00 for a source licence,
> > if that contributes to keeping the very talented people at Lucent
> > able to keep working.
>
> I'm more interested in keeping the OS alive then making sure a bunch of
> engineers at Lucent stay on the payroll.

I am sorry to hear that you do not think the people that created Plan9
deserve any reward for their efforts. It seems people only want to
give money to writers of poor operating systems.

The free software movement has a good record of being able to
duplicate good ideas, like Unix and 'C', but so far the invention
of these ideas has required commercial investment for which there
has been little enough return.

So I am more interested in seeing the group that produced Unix and
Plan9 survive to produce the next great system than trying to
force them to treat the software industry as a charity they
should donate their time to.

> > Lucent is a commercial company, so lets not bash them too much for
> > trying to stay in business. They may not be helping as much as
> > some of us think they could, but at least they are not actually
> > doing great harm like a certain Redmond based company..
>
> Let's bash all commercial companies who keep technology they have no
> interest or intent in developing closed licensed so others can't go
> forward.
>
> It's predatory.

I do not understand your definition of predatory.

To me being predatory involves taking something away, not failing
to give something away.

Lucent has done the industry a great service by making the ideas
available. So long as they don't prevent you from writing your
own code, I can see no cause to complain.

To take someone's code away from them because you don't think they
are making enough use of it would seem to be predatory.

If Lucent gave away the software, it would be very magnanamous of
them, but I don't think they have any moral responsibility to
do so unless they were publicly funded or had been found guilty
of using it to illegally monopolistically dominate the software
industry.

I see it as being similar to the biotech industry, where I don't
object to company's that do the research keeping the information
they discover proprietory so that can profit from it. But I do
object to giving them the ability to establish patents that prevent
competitors from discovering the same thing independently....

Anyway, as someone has already observed, it is unlikely that
anyone in a position to make such decisions would be reading
this list, so this is just an philosophical discussion that
is distracting us from more interesting technical questions...

Regards,
DigbyT
--
Digby R. S. Tarvin                                              digbyt@acm.org
http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[Jim]

On Sat, 13 May 2000, Digby Tarvin wrote:

> > On Sat, 13 May 2000, Digby Tarvin wrote:
> >
> > > In your arguments, you seem to ignore the fact the the most popular
> > > (and vastly inferiour) operating system on the market costs quite
> > > a lot more than Plan9, and I don't see hordes of "NT/Windows" clones
> > > out there because of it.
> >
> > No? How about DR Dos, DesqView(X), 4Dos, Wine, etc. There have been at
> > least a half dozen efforts. Unfortunately everyone of them fell apart
> > (well other than Wine).
>
> None of these are Windows or NT clones. They are eather failed DOS
> clones or subsystems which attempt to allow Windows API applications to
> run on another operating system.

There are clones as well as direct competitors.

The point is, the field is not as barren as you paint.

> I certainly would not count Linux as a Windows clone, Wine or not...

Wine allows Windows programs to be executed, in most peoples minds that is
close enough.

> And the reason there are no clones is that Microsoft don't
> release their source, keep the interfaces a moving target, and
> have an army of lawyers ready to pounce on anyone that puts a foot
> wrong.

Clones don't require source access and considering the current attitude it
would be wise to employ clean room development from the beginning. Provide
nothing but the documentation of the basic API's as a starting point.

They also don't publish all their API's in totality.

However, none of this has kept people from trying.

> Threats to 'give it away or we will steal it' are the sort of thing
> that can convince management to follow a similar closed strategy,
> and put a stop to cheap source and free downloads.

You're the ONLY party suggestion anything be stolen.

In general your reaction is a tad, how shall I say, apologetic.

I'd certainly be interested in a Open Source clone of Plan 9 to point of
spending my own time and money to that end. The less that goes to ATT (for
their non-action/support) the better.

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?

                                        O[rphan] D[rift>]
                                        Cyber Positive

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[Jim]

On Sat, 13 May 2000, Digby Tarvin wrote:

> In your arguments, you seem to ignore the fact the the most popular
> (and vastly inferiour) operating system on the market costs quite
> a lot more than Plan9, and I don't see hordes of "NT/Windows" clones
> out there because of it.

No? How about DR Dos, DesqView(X), 4Dos, Wine, etc. There have been at
least a half dozen efforts. Unfortunately everyone of them fell apart
(well other than Wine).

> Personally I am more than happy to pay US$350.00 for a source licence,
> if that contributes to keeping the very talented people at Lucent
> able to keep working.

I'm more interested in keeping the OS alive then making sure a bunch of
engineers at Lucent stay on the payroll.

> Lucent is a commercial company, so lets not bash them too much for
> trying to stay in business. They may not be helping as much as
> some of us think they could, but at least they are not actually
> doing great harm like a certain Redmond based company..

Let's bash all commercial companies who keep technology they have no
interest or intent in developing closed licensed so others can't go
forward.

It's predatory.

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?

                                        O[rphan] D[rift>]
                                        Cyber Positive

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

[9fans] Re: Plan9 should be free distributable

[b]

"Anthony C. Zboralski Gaius" <acz@hert.org> writes:

%The plan9 technology is amazing and if it doesn't become freely available it will be cloned and we will
%start an open plan9 distribution, there might be patent issues but only in the USA... Software patents
%are not enforced everywhere, they are abusive and void.
%
I fear the same thing. Unkind acts of hacking some other open source with
Plan 9 features implemented half-assed'y and that gaining more momentum than
the real one... (sometimes even that thought does not seem so bad)