Grant Bowman wrote:
> I should have checked Slashdot myself before posting. Here's Linux
> Torvalds reply:
Nice counter-post, Grant. Although I love the spirit of his reply,
I'm afraid that I am not as yet persuaded by his arguments.
He cites Enstein and Neils Bohr as counter-examples, but the comparison
is faulty. We are not talking about the discovery of basic principles
here, but the *implementation* of those ideas, the creation of products
that bring the benefits to others, in exchange for filthy luchre.
With that as a comparative basis, it is the chemical and manufacturing
industries which have brought forth the technological revolution
made possible by those discoveries. The computer manufacturers then
built on that foundation, and produced even more.
But in the software arena, if becoming filthy rich is impossible, will
there be the incentive and the consequent developments that turn great
research results into viable products?
That, to me, seems to be the crux of the argument. Linus' counter
argument, much though I applaud the sentiment, appears to beg the
question. (And true, he could be right that we simply haven't
found the right model yet. On the other hand, the original assertion
is tantamount to a "non-existence proof" -- an argument which
states that no such model *can* exist.
I've argued that he may be right -- at least within the context of
the financial world we live in, and that only by changing that
world (to what, I have no idea) would it be possible for such a
model to come into being.
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIemail@example.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 08 2001 - 03:55:02 PDT