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.)