From bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM Mon Aug 13 14:25:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: bob@rattlesnake.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 21:25:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 76761 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 21:25:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 21:25:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (140.186.114.245) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 21:25:36 -0000 Received: by rattlesnake.com via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.111) for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC) To: pycyn@aol.com Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-reply-to: <18.10af9bf9.28a99144@aol.com> (pycyn@aol.com) Subject: Re: [lojban] New to lojban, any suggestions? Reply-to: bob@rattlesnake.com References: <18.10af9bf9.28a99144@aol.com> From: "Robert J. Chassell" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9526 The analogy fails precisely because an MS program isn't like a pencil... I was not comparing an MS program to a pencil.... I was comparing a pencil to software to which I have ownership-type legal rights. Yes, if you want to do all those things, then don't buy MS programs. Yes, you are right. ... A tiny group ... not being willing to do what would make that system available ... Right. You are criticizing IBM for spending a billion dollars this year on stuff related software that gives you freedom, and yet IBM is not offering you what you want. I would not or could not purchase what IBM is offering, either. (I cannot afford, and do not really want, a multimillion dollar S390 mainframe running free software.) Look to other vendors. Different vendors offer different products. ... for whatever blind reason, refuse to change from MS. In my experience, people usually do not want to change because of the transition costs. They do not want to spend the costly time relearning. (This is why otherwise boring issues like `international, public standards' become significant topics. If your software uses an international, public standard, it will be easy and cheap for you to change; if not, you pay a great deal to change. If you do not find it easier to change your software vendor than your grocer, you lack freedom in a practical sense.) ... pooh-poohing anything that has worked for years longer than their system has been in existence ... I don't understand you. I am writing this on software that was first written 27 years ago. This is before Bill Gates started his company. (The software has improved over the years; indeed, I sent in another suggestion this morning. The author and the current maintainer welcome suggestions.) ... It is especially bad for Lojban, since our growth is almost entirely computer based and alienating 90% of that base is not a good strategy for growth. I am confused by what you are saying. As you say, some people use MS, some don't. Right. But my impression as a lurker is that several of the current major lojban software contributors prefer their own freedom. There is a conflict going on over whether it is better for a society to use governmental coercion to preserve private corporations' monopoly or quasi-monopolistic power in this particular industry or whether a society should favor freedom in this industry. The conflict is inescapable (although I can assure you, most people I know want to escape it). (My apologies. Nowadays, I am a lurker on this list. Currently, I lack the time to study the most recent lojban as I have studied the various Loglans as I have in the past -- but I have been studying one or other Loglan on and off since the 1962 Scientific American article, so I expect to come back some time or other.) You may want to focus on Lojban as I do; but the problem with coercive actions is that you have no choice. This current imbroglio is what the confict between non-freedom and freedom involves. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com