Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code - CP/M

This is a discussion on Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code - CP/M ; wrote in message news:q7tug4to3lej015guipp4o8rl4bb4tqu0k@4ax.com... On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:20:42 -0600, "Bill Buckels" wrote: >Maybe you're in the wrong line of work? Oh come-on now Bill. Surely you are not suggesting that I can't write software. The Shareware I write ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 120

Thread: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

  1. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    wrote in message
    news:q7tug4to3lej015guipp4o8rl4bb4tqu0k@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:20:42 -0600, "Bill Buckels"
    wrote:
    >Maybe you're in the wrong line of work?


    Oh come-on now Bill. Surely you are not suggesting that I can't write
    software.

    The Shareware I write is just fun stuff that's good enough but has no
    commercial purpose. It's only used because it's free and registration is
    voluntary...

    The Commercial Software that I get paid to write is also good enough but
    satisfies a real business need so it's worth something.

    I don't see how that is being in the wrong line of work. I have my pension
    and benefits as well as my salary and life is good.

    Shareware is, as far as I am concerned, to Commercial Software as Sport
    Fishing is to Commercial Fishing. I am not wrong and despite your examples,
    in my industry (the vertical business software industry... Retail and
    Financial, etc) normal scenario is that Shareware authors except exceptional
    ones do not have the resources to produce non-trivial applications that can
    compete head-on with those written by well-funded large commericial teams.

    I do agree however that just because something is commercial it does not
    ensure that it is not cr*p, and just because something is shareware or even
    free that it is not good. But it's been my experience that if one wants to
    make an income that one can count-on, fixed-bid contract programming and
    vertical product development with commitments in advance form a stronger
    basis for career development, and then if someone like me wants to fish with
    a trivial Shareware offering in their off-hours or buy a lottery ticket or
    two, one's wealth management and career will still be sustained.

    It sounds to me that you are looking at Shareware from a user's perspective.
    I look at all this from a career developer's perspective. My clients get a
    good solution and I get a steady paycheque. This freelance notion of the
    Software Industry with programmers as entreprenuers is certainly more
    exciting than the reality of most programmers, but to suggest that someone
    is in the wrong line of work simply because of a mistaken notion that
    programmers should be entrepreneurs is even more exciting. And wrong,
    although as you and I both say, sometimes even I am wrong.

    Over and Under,

    Bill



  2. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code


    Group: comp.os.cpm Date: Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 1:18pm (CST+2) From:
    discgolfdad@gEEmail.com (Joe*The*FrisbeeŽ)

    script:

    >Al Kossow wrote:
    >
    >>Their original BASIC was cross
    >>-assembled on Harvard's PDP-10
    >>with a cross-assembler that they wrote.

    >
    >>http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/altair/...rsions/ian.htm

    >
    >Hmm... it's a wonder they (Harvard) didn't
    >get after them for using their computers for >personal use.


    According to one anecdote I've read, after Paul Allen graduated, Harvard
    discovered the 'personal use'. They presented the bill ($40,000?) to
    Gates, and he told them to take a hike. They told him the same, and he
    left without his Maths degree.

    Since then, Univ of Wash has given Gates an honorary degree, and QE II
    has knighted him.

    Since nature is inherently unfair, Harvard has prolly honored him too.

    salaam,
    dowcom

    To e-mail me, add the character zero to "dowcom". i.e.:
    dowcom(zero)(at)webtv(dot)net.


  3. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:24:42 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
    wrote:

    and it is a somewhat gray area (if I purchase a DVD, I
    >absolutely should be able to transfer it to my PC, my iPod, etc., despite what
    >the MPAA may desire).


    If you buy an iMusic track for your iPod, it's clearly intended for
    one iPod user. Should you buy a public performance license to play it
    though a docking device in a car with 3 of your family and friends as
    an audience? Or at a party in your own home? Or to a firiend on
    splitter earphones.

    I'm sure the MPAA would like to say YES.
    --
    Peter Hill
    Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
    Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
    Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

  4. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    *Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch* wrote on Mon, 08-11-03 23:21:
    >The second isn't even "stealing" but "making an unauthorized copy".


    If you let someone clean your house without paying them, by your
    definition that's not stealing either. While you're technically right,
    that does not make it an honest transaction.

    If you find someone else's labour beneficial and make use of the
    results, then that labour ought to be remunerated. And if you find it
    too expensive, then the answer is not defauding the other party, but
    cleaning your house yourself.

    One serious downside of commercial software remains though. If I want
    to buy a car, I can usually try it out before deciding whether to buy.
    The same goes for shareware. But I have several items of fully paid
    commercial software, which I binned after five minutes or so of trying
    them. That's why I do advocate copying, but with all the moral and
    legal oblications of shareware.
    Unfortunately many people fully equate "unenforceable" with
    "nonexistant" and "getting away with it" with "being honest". There is
    little that can be done about that with one exception. Whenever this
    kind of people publicly brag about their exploits, like the above or
    cheating their insurance, you should just as publicly give them a bit
    of your mind. It will be you that's frowned on, though, not them,
    that's the kind of society we live in.


  5. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    *Joe Forster/STA* wrote on Tue, 08-11-04 00:32:
    >So, even if you in theory have the rights for what you created, in
    >practice the company licenses it and you have no power to change that
    >license.


    Don't ignore the reverse side: If you spend years on something that in
    the end proves unsellable and that noone wants or likes, then you will
    still have your salary.
    Comparing employment and self-employment you can't just pick only the
    benefits of both.


  6. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    *Joe Forster/STA* wrote on Tue, 08-11-04 00:32:
    >We have no lawyers in our family and proud of that.


    Being a lawyer is expressly forbidden in Mishnaic law.

  7. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Michael Mattias" wrote in message
    news:9qJPk.7296$YU2.853@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
    > Second, why is it so different to steal $10, 000 worth of "hard goods" than
    > stealing a $10,000 software license? (Answer: there is NO difference!).


    Of course there is. If you steal $10,000 cash, the personal you took it from
    clearly suffered $10,000 in damages. If you steal a $10,000 piece of
    software, 99.9% of the time, the person you stole it from didn't suffer
    $10,000 in damages. Software piracy (and other intellectual property crimes)
    is a somewhat gray area because it's usually very difficult to demonstrate
    what the damage really is. Indeed, as some people in this thread have
    mentioned, it's possible that pirating software can actually *benefit* a
    company ("negative damages"), by making it more popular! Now, punishment in
    the U.S. is based on (1) compensating victims for actual damages and then (2)
    some additional amount that's meant to be a deterrent to future infractions.
    Hence, while it's clear that software piracy should be dealt with via some
    form of punishment to fulfil purpose (2) up there, the appropriate "amount" is
    not at all clear-cut.




  8. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Joel Koltner wrote:

    > Indeed, as some people in this thread have
    > mentioned, it's possible that pirating software can actually *benefit* a
    > company ("negative damages"), by making it more popular!


    giana sisters \o/

    --

    http://www.hitmen-console.org
    http://www.pokefinder.org
    http://ftp.pokefinder.org

    Java is high performance. By high performance we mean adequate. By adequate
    we mean slow.




  9. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:33:47 -0600, I waved a wand and this message
    magically appears in front of bud:

    > >Hmm... it's a wonder they (Harvard) didn't
    > >get after them for using their computers for >personal use.

    >
    > According to one anecdote I've read, after Paul Allen graduated,
    > Harvard discovered the 'personal use'. They presented the bill
    > ($40,000?) to Gates, and he told them to take a hike. They told him
    > the same, and he left without his Maths degree.


    And this is the man who made 'billions', and wrote that stupid open
    letter?
    --
    http://www.munted.org.uk

    Fearsome grindings.


  10. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    In article <20081105084801.2aac15dc@lithium.local.net>,
    Alex Buell writes:
    > On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:33:47 -0600, I waved a wand and this message
    > magically appears in front of bud:
    >
    >> >Hmm... it's a wonder they (Harvard) didn't
    >> >get after them for using their computers for >personal use.

    >>
    >> According to one anecdote I've read, after Paul Allen graduated,
    >> Harvard discovered the 'personal use'. They presented the bill
    >> ($40,000?) to Gates, and he told them to take a hike. They told him
    >> the same, and he left without his Maths degree.

    >
    > And this is the man who made 'billions', and wrote that stupid open
    > letter?


    And, it is in all likelihood just another urban legend.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  11. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Joel Koltner" wrote in message
    news:lO5Qk.253543$6p1.3218@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
    > "Michael Mattias" wrote in message
    > news:9qJPk.7296$YU2.853@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >> Second, why is it so different to steal $10, 000 worth of "hard goods"
    >> than stealing a $10,000 software license? (Answer: there is NO
    >> difference!).

    >
    > Of course there is. If you steal $10,000 cash, the personal you took it
    > from clearly suffered $10,000 in damages. If you steal a $10,000 piece of
    > software, 99.9% of the time, the person you stole it from didn't suffer
    > $10,000 in damages.


    Oh, but I did.

    I developed the software based on the likely number of licenses I would sell
    at what price, balanced against my investment in creating it.

    It's really no different from stealing any other copyright performance such
    as a rock concert, opera, or professional sporting event.

    Of course from a moral perspective, the dollar amount is immaterial; "Thou
    Shalt Not Steal " does not come with a value disclaimer, does it?


    MCM





  12. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Joel Koltner wrote:
    > Indeed, as some people in this thread have
    > mentioned, it's possible that pirating software can actually *benefit* a
    > company ("negative damages"), by making it more popular!


    Give me a break.

    Using that logic, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler would be begging us to
    steal some of their vehicles to bolster their sales.

    MCM








  13. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch" wrote in message
    news:6ndpjeFkre17U8@mid.uni-berlin.de...
    > And "Thou Shalt Not Make Unauthorized Copies" should have an exception
    > for "retro computing" stuff IMHO, where it is sometimes hard to
    > impossible to get authorized copies, e.g. when it is unclear who may
    > authorize a copy anyway.


    Let's not confuse "what the secular|moral law is" with "HOW a copyright
    owner chooses to offer licenses."

    If I as a publisher offer license terms which are overly restrictive in the
    eyes of a potential licensee, I lose the sale. My bad.

    I can only *offer* my product to the public with certain features at certain
    prices with certain terms; the market makes the ultimate decision.

    I know many people have trouble with the concept that intellectual property
    is , well, *PROPERTY*; I know I did at one time.

    However, for the past fourteen years intellectual property has been the sole
    source of food on my table.

    Trust me, when it's *your* food on *your* table, you develop an
    appreciation for the concept.

    MCM


















  14. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Alex Buell wrote:
    > bud wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    >> According to one anecdote I've read, after Paul Allen graduated,
    >> Harvard discovered the 'personal use'. They presented the bill
    >> ($40,000?) to Gates, and he told them to take a hike. They told
    >> him the same, and he left without his Maths degree.

    >
    > And this is the man who made 'billions', and wrote that stupid
    > open letter?


    Obviously you believe anything you read. I have this unique bridge
    for sale, built in the 19th century, and carrying daily traffic in
    and out of Manhattan. It is considered an artistic gem. I can
    sell it to you quite cheaply.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]:
    Try the download section.

  15. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    > Of course from a moral perspective, the dollar amount is immaterial; "Thou
    > Shalt Not Steal " does not come with a value disclaimer, does it?


    I jaywalk often.

  16. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Michael Mattias" wrote in message
    news:aXhQk.6909$be.458@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
    > I developed the software based on the likely number of licenses I would sell
    > at what price, balanced against my investment in creating it.


    The number of licenses you can *sell* isn't realistic if it's based on,
    "anyone who uses the software will be paid for it." This is true in the
    non-software/intellectural property world as well: All business plans for,
    e.g., Wal*Mart assume that there'll be a certain amount of theft from the
    store that's unavoidable.

    There's no way of knowing for certain, but in general I suspect that number of
    people who pirate software who would actually go and buy the software if it
    were impossible to pirate is probably well under 1%. (Although I'd readily
    admit that it could be much higher for certain "core" programs like operating
    systems (e.g., Windows) and perhaps office productivity software.)

    > Of course from a moral perspective, the dollar amount is immaterial; "Thou
    > Shalt Not Steal " does not come with a value disclaimer, does it?


    No, it doesn't, but of course the tricky part is defining "stealing:" When it
    comes to intellectual property, while it's quite clear that copying a Word
    install CD is stealing, in general it's nowhere near as obvious. I.e., if you
    use word, like a particular feature in it and implement that feature in a
    program of your own, is that stealing?

    ---Joel



  17. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Joel Koltner" wrote in message
    news:7mnQk.234325$1p1.35777@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com...
    > "Michael Mattias" wrote in message
    > news:aXhQk.6909$be.458@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >> I developed the software based on the likely number of licenses I would
    >> sell at what price, balanced against my investment in creating it.

    >
    > The number of licenses you can *sell* isn't realistic if it's based on,
    > "anyone who uses the software will be paid for it." This is true in the
    > non-software/intellectural property world as well: All business plans for,
    > e.g., Wal*Mart assume that there'll be a certain amount of theft from the
    > store that's unavoidable.


    In my case, it actually IS pretty realistic. None of my products are
    "consumer" products... they are only used by businesses.

    And to be honest, these days buinesses themselves are some of the best
    "license enforcers" out there.


    --
    Michael C. Mattias
    Tal Systems Inc.
    Racine WI
    mmattias@talsystems.com



  18. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Joel Koltner schreef:
    > "Michael Mattias" wrote in message
    > news:aXhQk.6909$be.458@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >> I developed the software based on the likely number of licenses I would sell
    >> at what price, balanced against my investment in creating it.

    >
    > The number of licenses you can *sell* isn't realistic if it's based on,
    > "anyone who uses the software will be paid for it." This is true in the
    > non-software/intellectural property world as well: All business plans for,
    > e.g., Wal*Mart assume that there'll be a certain amount of theft from the
    > store that's unavoidable.
    >
    > There's no way of knowing for certain, but in general I suspect that number of
    > people who pirate software who would actually go and buy the software if it
    > were impossible to pirate is probably well under 1%. (Although I'd readily
    > admit that it could be much higher for certain "core" programs like operating
    > systems (e.g., Windows) and perhaps office productivity software.)


    If it would be impossible to pirate the software people might be more
    inclined to buy/use cheaper alternatives.

  19. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Michael Mattias" wrote in message
    news:mxnQk.4809$D32.2158@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
    > In my case, it actually IS pretty realistic. None of my products are
    > "consumer" products... they are only used by businesses.


    Suing a business that pirated your software (and is actively using it to
    further their business interests) will definitely garner a higher
    fine/punishment than suing some pimpy-faced teenager who did just did it for
    the "thrill"... and I certainly support such a "heightened" penalty in that
    scenario.

    My mother grew up in Racine, so I've had the occasion to visit a few times...
    seems like a nice town.

    ---Joel



  20. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Dombo" wrote in message
    news:49120d81$0$24411$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl...
    > If it would be impossible to pirate the software people might be more
    > inclined to buy/use cheaper alternatives.


    Good point... the vast majority of people who pirate something like Microsoft
    Office would be perfectly well served by 100% free alternatives like
    OpenOffice, IMO.

    I don't *like* Microsoft product activation for Windows/Office, but I don't
    find it particularly onerous either: I've never had a problem getting valid
    installations activated, and thereafter they have "just worked." In the back
    of my mind, though, I sometimes worry that I'll be out in the middle of
    nowhere when suddenly it does decide to deactivate itself. :-(



+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast