You're right, it is about how you build things, and how software is built predisposes one to a method of incremental improvements.
Yes, software generally predisposes itself to a method of incremental improvements. However, APIs don't. Microsoft has always been obsessed with maintain backwards compatibility with older programs. So the current Windows APIs "evolved" rather than were "developed". The result is some of the nastiest APIs (like Win32) ever created by a corporation of Microsoft's resources. IMO, this is the biggest reason why Windows has been and will remain such an unstable and insecure platform. They can't fix the APIs without losing backwards compatibility (which they are unwilling to do). And they can't fix something that evolved over the period of many years in a single month.
Here's a little lesson on our economy for slashdot readers...
Our country has many laws to protect companies AND consumers. These laws protect companies by ensuring that their products and services are not illegally used, and their innovations are not stolen. These laws also protect consumers by ensuring that consumers have choice. And whether Open Source advocates will admit it or not, this system, called the Free Market System, encourages the innovation that has made this country so wonderful.
If companies could not protect their products from being stolen (which basically is what using unlicensed software is), then they would neither have the incentive nor the money to invest in the R & D. Without this system, we would not have seen the telephone, the personal computer, or the transistor (amongst a great many other things) because Alexander Graham Bell, Steve Jobs, and Bell Labs produced these innovations with the sole goal of making a great deal of money.
However, the Free Market System is not one sided. If consumers do not like a product, they have the CHOICE OF NOT USING IT. If a company keeps producing less desirable products, they will lose market share to existing competitors, and new competitors will emerge. (As a side note, I think Apple is going to win back a lot of market share with OS X.) This competition gives companies the incentive to produce better products. Sometimes a company (Microsoft) becomes so dominant that competition breaks down. When that happens, the Free Market System mandates that the government should step in ( see the Justice Department vs Microsoft and the Justice Department vs AT&T ).
Whether slashdot readers and many other Open Source advocates like it or not, the Free Market System works and our government should protect it. Without it, we'd be living in the stone ages like Russia, or China. So, for crying out loud, if you don't like the Borland license, stop bitching about it, just DON'T USE IT.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, it is about how you build things, and how software is built predisposes one to a method of incremental improvements. Yes, software generally predisposes itself to a method of incremental improvements. However, APIs don't. Microsoft has always been obsessed with maintain backwards compatibility with older programs. So the current Windows APIs "evolved" rather than were "developed". The result is some of the nastiest APIs (like Win32) ever created by a corporation of Microsoft's resources. IMO, this is the biggest reason why Windows has been and will remain such an unstable and insecure platform. They can't fix the APIs without losing backwards compatibility (which they are unwilling to do). And they can't fix something that evolved over the period of many years in a single month.
Our country has many laws to protect companies AND consumers. These laws protect companies by ensuring that their products and services are not illegally used, and their innovations are not stolen. These laws also protect consumers by ensuring that consumers have choice. And whether Open Source advocates will admit it or not, this system, called the Free Market System, encourages the innovation that has made this country so wonderful.
If companies could not protect their products from being stolen (which basically is what using unlicensed software is), then they would neither have the incentive nor the money to invest in the R & D. Without this system, we would not have seen the telephone, the personal computer, or the transistor (amongst a great many other things) because Alexander Graham Bell, Steve Jobs, and Bell Labs produced these innovations with the sole goal of making a great deal of money.
However, the Free Market System is not one sided. If consumers do not like a product, they have the CHOICE OF NOT USING IT. If a company keeps producing less desirable products, they will lose market share to existing competitors, and new competitors will emerge. (As a side note, I think Apple is going to win back a lot of market share with OS X.) This competition gives companies the incentive to produce better products. Sometimes a company (Microsoft) becomes so dominant that competition breaks down. When that happens, the Free Market System mandates that the government should step in ( see the Justice Department vs Microsoft and the Justice Department vs AT&T ).
Whether slashdot readers and many other Open Source advocates like it or not, the Free Market System works and our government should protect it. Without it, we'd be living in the stone ages like Russia, or China. So, for crying out loud, if you don't like the Borland license, stop bitching about it, just DON'T USE IT.
Flame away!