Freeware and only freeware?

[Semolina Pilchard]

/Gizzard ripping mode

I beg to differ. Most all of the best companies, ideas, and inventions have
come from the genius and determination of free-thinking individuals.
Collectives are mostly good for farming and enslaving people. I have nothing
against collaboration. Every great public work that has modernized the world
is the result of collaboration. However, collaboration is a means, not an
end in itself. We must continue to reward individual genius and risk taking.
Without it, we would most likely be communicating with a flat rock and a
chisel.

/Gizzard ripping mode

JK about the Gizzard ripping.

I don't think we DO differ - at least not to any significant extent.
I agree that we should reward individual genius, and I think we do,
very well. My difficulty with it is that, as I said, outside of a few
limited fields, like literature, art, drama etc., I don't find much
evidence of it.

Scratch the surface of any great enterprise and you'll find an anthill
of specialists working away, all making contributions. Does that make
the end product the result of the genius of the CEO? I hardly think
so.

There are damn few gods without feet of clay. There are very few
people around who can point to an individual ground-breaking idea that
they, alone, arrived at. That kind of thing's common in fiction, rare
in fact. OTOH, there's no end of admirable enterprises. How does one
equate the two?

I'm no follower of Neitzsche. I don't think the world progresses at
the heels of individual heroes. What I see, mostly, is one guy that's
good at grabbing the credit while everyone else does the work.

I would suggest to you that you may be confusing my position with a
political one. I take that from your use of the word "collectives".
That's not it at all. I'm just reporting what I see, and I'm to old
to believe in heroes, now.

 

[Bob Adkins]

I don't think we DO differ - at least not to any significant extent.
I agree that we should reward individual genius, and I think we do,
very well. My difficulty with it is that, as I said, outside of a few
limited fields, like literature, art, drama etc., I don't find much
evidence of it.

There are many creative geniuses outside our areas of expertise. Sadly, many
geniuses are literally robbed of their creations because they aren't leaders
or competent at marketing.

Scratch the surface of any great enterprise and you'll find an anthill
of specialists working away, all making contributions. Does that make
the end product the result of the genius of the CEO? I hardly think
so.

True, and this is the natural order of things. Not everyone can understand a
broad spectrum of technologies, yet be strong leaders that retain their
original vision for the product.

There are damn few gods without feet of clay.

I would say gods with feet of clay are not really gods.

There are very few
people around who can point to an individual ground-breaking idea that
they, alone, arrived at. That kind of thing's common in fiction, rare
in fact. OTOH, there's no end of admirable enterprises. How does one
equate the two?

Oh but there are! There are the business and technology icons of the present
and past. Without them, history would have been completely different. There
are the Burt Rutans, Dean Kamens, Robert Fischell, Bill Lears, and Robert
Langers times 1000. They are usually loners, and form companies just to
finance other projects in development. Most are not comfortable in positions
of leadership or directing corporations.

I think you are speaking of "after the fact". Once the true geniuses have
broken ground, it's up to mere mortals to make a buck from their products
and ideas. Perhaps you are thinking of the old "captains of industry"
stereotypes like Henry Ford from a bygone era. Yes, some of them did enrich
themselves on the backs of their workers who worked 10 hours a day, 6 days a
week. In their defense however, workers beat a path to their door for the
highest wages of the day.

Some geniuses' area of expertise is starting up a new company and running it
like few others could. For example, Fedex would not be what it is without
Fred Smith, and MS would not be what it is without Bill Gates. Yes, it takes
many people to run Fedex and MS. But it takes genius and vision to direct
those people to achieve the very best result.

I'm no follower of Neitzsche. I don't think the world progresses at
the heels of individual heroes. What I see, mostly, is one guy that's
good at grabbing the credit while everyone else does the work.

I'm not so cynical. I admit I admire great men, maybe even to the point of
hero worship. However, I do not know of any great men who grab credit from
their associates. Most are too wrapped up in technology and the future to
get involved in fame, popularity contests, and the here-and-now. Those who
grab credit and glory are small men, and it is usually reflected in the rest
of their lives.

I would suggest to you that you may be confusing my position with a
political one. I take that from your use of the word "collectives".
That's not it at all. I'm just reporting what I see, and I'm to old
to believe in heroes, now.

No, not really. However, everything is a tad political, isn't it?

Bottom line, software that is written by committee often performs like it
was written by a committee. When the hand of the creator is removed and it
is turned into a generic project, quality usually suffers. There are a few
exceptions.

-- Bob

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

I've stuck an [OT] in there; should have done so before.

I think I've changed my mind on the fundamental principle We do
disagree, profoundly.

I'm not so cynical. I admit I admire great men, maybe even to the point of
hero worship. However, I do not know of any great men who grab credit from
their associates. Most are too wrapped up in technology and the future to
get involved in fame, popularity contests, and the here-and-now. Those who
grab credit and glory are small men, and it is usually reflected in the rest
of their lives.

If you go through the lists of Nobel Prize winners in the areas of
science and technology, I think you'll find that most of them are in
this category: some grab credit, others have credit thrust upon them
because we have come to expect a poster-boy.

No, not really. However, everything is a tad political, isn't it?

I believe that much less than I did a decade or two ago. The
influences that affect how our lives are led are much more profound
than either the chimeras of dogma or the tawdry trade-offs of party
politicking. It's PEOPLE - writ large - that matter in this respect,
like most others, but the politicians need to believe they're
important, and they're fragile creatures, so we'll continue to
pretend.

Bottom line, software that is written by committee often performs like it
was written by a committee. When the hand of the creator is removed and it
is turned into a generic project, quality usually suffers. There are a few
exceptions.

Bottom line is, ALL software, barring the very odd exception, outside
the arenas of freeware and shareware, is written by huge teams with
distributed design reponsibilities. Has to be, it's immensely
labour-intensive. The ideas, such as The Wordprocessor, The Database
or The Graphics Editor, are cumulative. No one company, let alone one
individual, came up with the comprehensive blueprint for any of these.
Modern word processors like the recent versions of Word or OO Writer
stand on the shoulders of all the earlier programs right back as far
as the early line editors.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Bottom line is, ALL software, barring the very odd exception, outside
the arenas of freeware and shareware, is written by huge teams with
distributed design reponsibilities.

Exactly. That's why I seek out small, simple Freeware programs, which are
usually created by a single author on a mission of excellence.

So, I think we can agree that Opensource is more akin to shrink wrapped
commercial software than it is to typical Freeware and even Shareware.

-- Bob

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

Exactly. That's why I seek out small, simple Freeware programs, which are
usually created by a single author on a mission of excellence.

So, I think we can agree that Opensource is more akin to shrink wrapped
commercial software than it is to typical Freeware and even Shareware.

I believe we can.