Re: Issues as of late

[Exegete <royandjanet@inebraska.com>]

vector wrote:

> "Greg Andrzejewski" <pressyourluck85@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:jm%Jd.715$UN1.541@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
> > Again, it's not my decision to make how new software is distributed. Maybe 
> > the author needs justification for the hours hammering out lines of 
> > assembly that could have been better spent on work or school. I wanted to 
> > pirate a copy of Harmonie. It would have been easy, too. But I realized 
> > that by paying for it that I am showing Joe Kohn and Bill Heineman that 
> > there still are those who use Apple II computers and appreciate the work 
> > being done to further extend the platform. Also, I feel good giving those 
> > with the power to do so the incentive to create more pieces of fine 
> > software.
>
>
> It seems to me that ongoing commercial software sales for retro platforms is 
> a tarnish at best, an insult at worst.  Software comes in two flavors: old, 
> and new.  For old software, please admit that your product has seen the end 
> of its viable commercial lifespan and release it to the community.  There is 
> no more blood to be squeezed from that stone.  For new software, why are you 
> demanding compensation for your work?  Just what is it you want compensation 
> for?  Your time?  If you don't enjoy what you do, why are you troubling 
> yourself to do it?
>
> Allegedly, we retro computing enthusiasts have a passion for these old 
> systems.  But compare us to the Linux community.  The majority of developers 
> in that world volunteer their time to create high-demand applications that 
> are stable, powerful and wonderful, only to give away the end product for no 
> cost.  As a business model, that's the exact opposite of charging money for 
> retro software.  They're creating high-demand products and giving them away 
> for nothing.  That's the sort of passion I expect from the retro community, 
> but I just don't see it.
>
> Of course, some of you are probably stammering now, "But Marinetti is on 
> SourceForge!"  And you're right.  That's *exactly* how it ought to be. 
> Richard Bennett-Forrest, Andrew Roughan, Tony Diaz, you guys rule.  My point 
> is: why isn't it all like that? 

Boy talk about arrogant!

Further, please note that some open source programmers are waging a 
"holy war" against the Evil Empire.

Attitude like yours suggest that Joe Kohn and the one or two others left 
who still get some or all of their income from work they did on the II 
are the moral equivalent of Bill Gates.

When reading your little post I had the mental image I've seen many 
times of some 3-5 year old throwing a temper tantrum in the toy 
department: kicking and screaming "I want my software for FREE!!!"

Roy