Subject: Re: Thought crimes
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 19:58:18 +0900

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk> writes:

    Ben> The one argument that has been used to explain free software
    Ben> that doesn't fit this model is that contributors contribute
    Ben> for personal satisfaction and the respect of their peers. Of
    Ben> course, the snag with this argument, as far as I can see, is
    Ben> that it doesn't fit very well with what I observe to be
    Ben> happening - namely that the vast majority of free software
    Ben> work is done by people wanting to achieve a particular end -
    Ben> which would not be the case if all they desired was
    Ben> adulation.

While your point is basically well-taken, I would like to point out
that it is possible to be indifferent or averse to empty adulation,
while (in significant part) measuring one's success in achieving a
particular end in terms of the respect of one's peers.

This is especially important in a field like software, where
(realistically) you know you've just released a product that is far
from perfect and way over budget, and you need peer approval to
counter the sense of failure that engenders.

And you know something?  You're wrong, and they're right.  :-)


Happy holidays,

Steve

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."