diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kragen-software.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kragen-software.html | 275 |
1 files changed, 275 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kragen-software.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kragen-software.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a93bc14 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kragen-software.html @@ -0,0 +1,275 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>People, places, things and ideas +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/kragen-software.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>People, places, things and ideas</h2> + +<p> +by <strong>Kragen Sitaker +<a href="mailto:kragen@pobox.com"><kragen@pobox.com></a></strong> +</p> + +<h3 id="SEC1">Software</h3> +<p> +Software is ideas. Information. It's different from people, places, +and things; it's infinitely reduplicable like fire, at almost no cost. +This is a truism, even a cliche. But it seems that there are +particular consequences that aren't well-explored. +</p> +<p> +One is that it doesn't work well to sell it the way you sell slaves, +places, and things; any of your customers can make an unbounded number +of copies at cost, or less. Market friction currently makes selling +software a viable business model. Perhaps branding does, too; there's +a question as to whether Red Hat sells CDs for $50 because people like +Red Hat's brand, or just because they don't know they can buy +essentially the same CD from CheapBytes for $2. +</p> + +<h3 id="SEC2">The past and the present</h3> +<p> +The traditional way to deal with this is to lock ideas up inside +people, places, and things. A lawyer can get quite a bit of money +simply for spitting out the appropriate ideas, not doing any actual +creative work, or simply for applying rote procedures — most +wills reportedly fall in this category. I have to go to the Georgia +O'Keeffe Museum to see old Georgia's paintings, because they don't +allow photography. Then they can charge me admission. (Great museum, +by the way. If you go there, don't get the four-day pass; their +collection is rather small.) A book can be sold for more than the +cost of printing it because the ideas are difficult to separate from +their physical manifestation. +</p> +<p> +Software makes it much easier to separate ideas from people, places, +and things. If I buy my computer to send email with, and I want to +make fractals, I don't have to buy a new fractal machine. I just have +to download some fractal software. If I want to calculate the yield +force of a strut, I don't have to hire a structural engineer; I can +download some <abbr title="Finite element analysis">FEA</abbr> +software and simulate stressing it until it yields. I don't have to +go to a museum to look at my neighbor's fractals; I can just pull them +up on my screen. (Once I download them, of course.) +</p> +<p> +This is a spectacular change. +</p> + +<h3 id="SEC3">Software locked up: the future?</h3> +<p> +And it was the nature of computer applications, in general, until +recently. But now we have the Web, and people are talking a lot about +application-specific embedded computers. Suddenly people can deliver +applications like the ones they used to deliver as computer software, +but they can lock up the software — the ideas — inside +places and things. +</p> +<p> +As an example, I have a CD-ROM containing aggregated US phone +listings. Given sufficient time and expertise, I can extract these +phone listings and put them up on a web site. (I need to +reverse-engineer the database structure they're stored in first.) I +can run correlation tests to see if people with certain last names tend +to have more biased exchange distributions within a city. (Which would +indicate that they lived close to their families, perhaps, or that the +city was ethnically segregated.) I can find out which spelling of +Cathy is most popular (Kathy? Cathi?), and I can see if people's +choices of spellings of Cathy are correlated with their last names. +</p> +<p> +There are also several web sites containing the same set of phone +listings, or newer versions. I can't do any of these things with +these web sites, because the phone listings — an idea — +are locked up in the web site — a place or a thing, depending on +how you look at it. +</p> +<p> +Another tack is to lock information up in things. The +<abbr title="National Security Agency">NSA</abbr>'s Skipjack algorithm +was classified for several years; implementations were widely +available, but only in special hardened devices. This allowed them to +deploy it widely behind the iron curtain that surrounds classified +research, and they intended to deploy it widely in the outside world, +too. (So far, I'm outside that curtain.) Recently, circumstances +forced them to distribute software implementations of Skipjack, and so +they declassified it. (See +<a href="https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/1998/0715.html#skip"> +http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9807.html#skip [archived]</a> +for more.) +</p> + +<h3 id="SEC4">Why I don't like this</h3> +<p> +Having the phone book myself gives me more freedom. On the other hand, +it also requires me to install software on my machine, giving that +software some degree of control over my machine. In this particular +case, the software runs under Win95, so it demands complete control +over my machine. So it's actually considerably more convenient for me +to just visit the web page and fill out a form to look up someone's +phone number. +</p> +<p> +Information in things is also considerably more convenient than +information in software; a special-purpose thing is often considerably +easier to use for that purpose than a general-purpose computer is. +Because of this, many industry pundits have been forecasting that +general-purpose computers will fall out of use in favor of +special-purpose devices. +</p> +<p> +I'm somewhat worried about this trend. I like using general-purpose +computers — though admittedly they are often difficult to use. +I like the freedom it gives me. The computer is just an extension of +my mind. +</p> +<p> +Web sites and special-purpose hardware are not like this. They do not +give me the same freedoms general-purpose computers do. If the trend +were to continue to the extent the pundits project, more and more of +what I do today with my computer will be done by special-purpose things +and remote servers. +</p> +<p> +What does freedom of software mean in such an environment? Surely it's +not wrong to run a Web site without offering my software and databases +for download. (Even if it were, it might not be feasible for most +people to download them. IBM's patent server has a many-terabyte +database behind it.) +</p> +<p> +I believe that software — open-source software, in particular +— has the potential to give individuals significantly more +control over their own lives, because it consists of ideas, not +people, places, or things. The trend toward special-purpose devices +and remote servers could reverse that. +</p> +<p> +What does it mean to have free software burned into a ROM? Is the +software still free if I have to desolder the ROM to read the source +code and burn a new ROM to run a modified version? What does it mean +to have free software running a remotely-accessible application on a +Web server? Even with the best of intentions, these technologies seem +make it difficult to give people the same kind of freedom they enjoy +with PCs. +</p> + +<h3 id="SEC5">How to fight it</h3> +<p> +It's more expensive to buy a new device than it is to download software +and install it on my machine. So people won't use special-purpose devices +if they provide no advantages. +</p> +<p> +But they do provide advantages. They're *much* easier to use than +current general-purpose computers. A button for every function; no +funny modes in which the buttons do something else, or nothing. A +display for every state variable; you don't have to click on things to +make them visible. I suspect that this is not an inherent limitation +of general-purpose computers, but a limitation of their current state. +</p> +<p> +Another big issue is that they just work. General-purpose computers +often don't, particularly when running Microsoft OSes. Even in the +best case, you still have to do a couple of seconds of irrelevant +stuff before getting to work on what you want to work on — +typing a letter or whatever. More typically, you have to click around +for ten seconds or so. At worst, you have to reinstall Windows and +the application, reconfigure some peripherals, and reinstall their +drivers before you can get anything done. +</p> +<p> +A third big issue is that they require software installation. If I +want to start using my machine for writing email different, I have to +install email software on it. While this is considerably less +expensive than buying a special-purpose email machine, it's +considerably less uncomfortable, intimidating, and confusing. (Or so +I'm told.) It also takes longer. +</p> +<p> +If general-purpose computers are to survive the onslaught of tiny, +cheap special-purpose boxes, they must become as easy to use, reliable, +and easy to install software on as those special-purpose boxes. +This requires a totally different operating environment than anything +we're using on the desktop today; not surprisingly, GNU/Linux is closer +than anything else I've used. (Squeak might be even better, but I +haven't tried it yet.) But GNU/Linux is an incredibly long way away. +This will require different hardware as well as different software. +</p> +<p> +The forces behind remote servers are similar — ease of use +because of uniform interfaces through a web browser, “just +working”, and no installation — just using. But they have +a couple of other advantages as well: they can provide services that +require massive storage or computational resources that can't +reasonably be provided on your own machine, unless you want to spend +wads of cash. (Downloading AltaVista's database every day would be a +very inefficient way to search the Web.) +</p> +<p> +I think these extra advantages are probably impossible to overcome at +the moment — although I'm interested in research on distributing +big computational jobs over many machines. +</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>This text is in the public domain.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2015/08/18 16:21:27 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |