Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpsmtc1!dlw From: dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: C++ on Mac Message-ID: <13010001@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> Date: 29 Jun 88 19:03:07 GMT References: <8806202049.AA00862@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Lines: 58 in:comp.lang.c++ / rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) implores: >Rather than looking for ways to produce more software for the >Macintosh system, it would be more useful in the long term (a couple >of years) to boycott Apple and encourage others to do likewise. In case you hadn't noticed Apple is a BUSINESS, not a not for profit foundation. It needs to produce revenue to pay salaries, make machines and to survive. Companies such as IBM are not about to sit around and let Apple own the graphical user interface business or the applications that run under them. Witness OS/2 and presentation manager....they will not be the best that a user can expect, but they will become the standard on PC's all 5 million + of them. Prior to IBM entering the personal computer business, Apple and others pretty much had it to themselves. Now IBM is the dominant pc maker (notice that they have sold over a million PS/2's in under a year). Apple after FOUR years of selling Macintoshes just now has achieved that sort of figure for the entire macintosh line. >Apple is attacking our freedom to write free software (as well as >other things). If they succeed, we will lose many useful pieces of >software that will be illegal to write. It is worth while to forego a >few temporary benefits to prevent this. Apple is merely trying to survive. IBM is now moving into the area that Apple had to itself for a long time...graphical user interfaces. Perhaps you might say, so what then let Apple die, you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but as you can see Apple wants to exist as a corporation. In this game it is not enough to have the best system technically--it bottom lines to how many units of product are sold and the perception of the general buying public. Many corporations now recognize the value a Macintosh can bring to their users in the areas of ease of use and graphics, but they are STILL planning to buy more IBM pcs because there is safety in the installed base of users and the quantity of software available. I sometimes think these people should just weigh it by the ton. I suppose you're going to propose we boycott IBM as well since they are going hard and fast against ALL makers of PC clones and ALL makers of RISC machines. Perhaps it does not concern you because they are not putting their VAST armies of lawyers on software YET and are only going after hardware. I imagine it will only be a matter of time before that comes to pass. >It's true that the boycott might not be widespread enough to work. >But it certainly can't work if we don't try. Someone has got to start >it, so I volunteer. I hope some of the rest of you will join and spread >the word. The majority of Macintoshes are now bought by businesses not hackers or wizards so Apple does'nt need you or me. Let me know when you start boycotting IBM... I'll watch their bottom line with keen interest for the difference..;) And now for a question! Does this qualify me for your reputed to exist enemies list? David L. Williams "These opinions are mine, and mine alone!!!!!!!!"