From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:01:50 +0200 Message-ID: <48B5F8FE.5000301@gmail.com> References: <48A5BAD7.8030302@emf.net> <48A740CB.4050404@emf.net> <20080816213508.GA8530@muc.de> <87hc9ka8eg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080817073124.GA1294@muc.de> <87ljyv5gy5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818101802.GA2615@muc.de> <87bpzqqk7b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818210927.GD2615@muc.de> <87wsidnxqp.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ljytkwpk.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <878wusz0v9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87vdxp27z6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87prnxe5hc.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <873aktck5d.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k5e5dsvq.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <48B44802.1080302@emf.net> <48B5D5EF.2030501@emf.net> <48B5DEBD.9090009@gmail.com> <48B5EFC6.5070102@emf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219885344 3276 80.91.229.12 (28 Aug 2008 01:02:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:02:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bob@rattlesnake.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Thomas Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 28 03:03:17 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KYVuu-0004mN-PJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:03:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49940 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYVtw-00050a-GV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:02:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYVts-0004zZ-98 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:02:12 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYVtq-0004yB-Q6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:02:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41203 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYVtq-0004y2-NY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:02:10 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]:45975) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KYVtk-0001yz-UQ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:02:05 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-151-176.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.151.176]:63565 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KYVtj-0000iN-3a; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:02:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <48B5EFC6.5070102@emf.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080827-0, 2008-08-27), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.151.176 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KYVtj-0000iN-3a. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1KYVtj-0000iN-3a 89bb8c241dc858ecd3c7d98e29f398e2 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:103063 Archived-At: Thomas Lord wrote: > Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: >> Thomas Lord wrote: >> >>> Consider a feature, X, which is desirable for practical purposes. >>> >>> Consider a feature, Y, which is banned. [....] >>> >>> >> >> Are you sure that reasoning is valid as an argument here? There will for >> example, as you even hint, be different economic incentives for >> different people. >> >> > > > Yes, I've seen it happen. Sure. > The "hat trick" -- the perfect three points for a non-free software > start-up -- are: (1) a program X that it is easy for me to write; (2) > where X is hard for YOU to write; (3) and people want X for > practical purposes. > > "That guy" for whom X is easy is rare but, in a sufficiently > large crowd, he is practically guaranteed to exist: so (1) is > almost a free point. And of course it is also guaranteed that there are quite a few in the group (1) ... > There are a lot of possible values of X that people might want so > (3) is practically a free point. Don't you have to have buyers too? That is a pretty important point in my opinion since actually implementing and polishing an idea so that it meets the end user is quite labor intensive. And this point may change the scene quite a lot. > The only touch bit is (2): X has to be hard for (most) *other* > people to write. And that's where the questions about banning > feature Y come in. Banning Y can only help "that guy" with (2). Perhaps you are right, but I am not sure. More specific examples might help. However looking at the economic incentives and possibilities is necessary and good. One way I have often wondered about is trying to raise money from governements for developing free software. They are probably large enough to directly benefit from it (in cost benefit terms) if suitable projects can be found. But then there must be people who are willing and able to write attractive software for them. > You can also do the thought experiment of imagining an (unachievable) > world in which any program you could possibly want was, somehow, > cheap and easy to write. Non-free software business models would not > thrive in such a world, not like they do now (mostly). I am not sure. The overall picture have to be taken into account. (That is part of the nature of power. It happens because it takes things into account - in perhaps an unconscious way.) > We can't every perfectly get to that world but we can get a lot closer > than we are -- and feature bans are a retreat from that objective. > > -t > > >