Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!pt!dld
From: dld@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (David Detlefs)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Manifesto question
Message-ID: 
Date: 17 Aug 89 16:11:15 GMT
Organization: CMU CS Department
Lines: 31

In the GNU Manifesto RMS often uses the phrase "system software."
We all have an intuitive feel for what this means; I assume that the
world of software is split between "system software" and "application
software."  I gather that roughly speaking the "system software" is
the stuff that almost everyone uses, while a piece of application software is
used by only a subset of users.  (I welcome any better definitions,
particularly the one that RMS had in mind when he wrote the Manifesto.)

The arguments in the Manisfesto mostly refer to system software such
as operating systems, editors, and compilers.  For these, I think they
make a great deal of sense -- we know now to do these; keeping these
proprietary and expensive impedes the progress of the state of the
art.  However, it's not clear to me that the arguments in the
Manifesto make sense for application software.  It's impossible to
predict what application software will be useful in the near future --
certainly the eventual users of that software are not qualified to
predict what they will want.  In technological fields, the ability to
do something often creates demand, rather than vice-versa.  I think
the free market is a proven system for stimulating technological
and economic innovation -- even Eastern Europe seems to agree these
days.

So, in summary -- was the phrase "system software" used in any
technical sense in the manifesto?  If so, were different standards
supposed to apply the converse of system software, which I take to be
application software?
--
Dave Detlefs			Any correlation between my employer's opinion
Carnegie-Mellon CS		and my own is statistical rather than causal,
dld@cs.cmu.edu			except in those cases where I have helped to
				form my employer's opinion.  (Null disclaimer.)