Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 01:12:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <va3etl$3iue9$4@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me>
	<20240408075547.000061e8@gmail.com>
	<g52cnWOOwoz_son7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me> <uvbfii$3mom0$1@news.xmission.com>
	<20240412094809.811@kylheku.com> <87il0mm94y.fsf@tudado.org>
	<way-20240413091747@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <87il0lldf8.fsf@tudado.org>
	<choices-20240413123957@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
	<v9lm2k$12qhv$1@dont-email.me> <v9m4gd$14scu$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240815182717.189@kylheku.com> <v9npls$1fjus$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9posc$1rpdj$1@dont-email.me> <v9pvoo$1sn55$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9r60h$2289h$2@dont-email.me> <v9sa91$2afht$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9tv8o$2iahp$1@dont-email.me> <v9uso3$2pdrg$2@dont-email.me>
	<v9v0e0$2q822$1@dont-email.me> <v9v7d4$2r6q2$1@dont-email.me>
	<va05a6$2vsf9$1@dont-email.me> <va1efc$39jph$1@dont-email.me>
	<va27ff$3ddkn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 03:12:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b7054728ccecf746f3a261c5985019ab";
	logging-data="3766729"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+M57WwhR5fTvf+/DwT0jE2"
User-Agent: Pan/0.159 (Vovchansk; )
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LNC+KBCrSthgNWMyr3seKbW803I=
Bytes: 3202

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:59:11 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:

> On 8/20/24 02:52, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> ...
>> It is no complain, merely stating an elementary economic fact. If the
>> price does not reflect the costs, there is no market. No market, no
>> competition. No competition, no quality.
> 
> The problem with that theory is that it doesn't line up with facts, at
> least, not as I've seen them. Free software is often of comparable or
> greater quality than commercial software, partly because a lot more eyes
> have examined the code for bugs.

Free software is still subject to the same laws of economics, but it 
changes the way the equation is applied.

Proprietary software is built on the concept of “artificial scarcity”: the 
cost of making copies of the software is inflated through the threat of 
lawsuits for copyright infringement, thereby making it more economical to 
keep paying more money to the copyright owners.

Free software doesn’t bother trying to make scarce that which is not 
naturally scarce: the software itself is freely copyable, but of course 
the skills in developing and maintaining it, and also in adapting it for 
different uses, are a different matter. Such a model also works because it 
results in better alignment between the customer’s needs and those of the 
software developer.

Think of it as the old “give away the razor, sell the razor blades” idea 
in a new form.