NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/sys/next/misc/19031

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-27 | 5.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!news!spock.dis.cccd.edu!maurices
From: [e-mail] (Maurice Shihadi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
Subject: Re: BackSpace/NextWorld
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:00:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Coast Community College District, Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 87

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nicholas Weaver) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Backspace is now an example on the 3.0 release CD-Rom
>>(NextDeveloper/Examples/AppKit). That probably has something to do with why
>>NeXT has requested that Backspace is no longer distributed...
>
>    No.  This first part of the story is clouded in shadow.  Apparantly,
>some developer who was planning or was marketing a screen saver/screen
>locker got rather put off by a NeXT employee making and releasing BackSpace
>to the world.  A few months (By which time Backspace was a staple of the
>NeXT community), the complaint apparantly occured.  Or something like that.
>The result was that NeXT requested the removal of BackSpace, and the author,
>Samuel G. Strepper, complied.  Actually, BackSpace shouldn't have been
>released in the first place, upon afterthought, and all PD/Shareware
>releases by NeXT employees need to now be cleared by NeXT before doing so.
>Just common sense.  NeXT employees should not undercut developers needlessly.
>
>    But there was such a ROAR over the removal fo backspace, that a few
>weeks later, a couple of days before the Expo, they announced that it would
>be included in the next OS release as an example.  Alas, it was too late for
>me, as I had already made up my "Save BackSpace" T SHirt to wear to the
>expo.  But at least I saw what the results were.  The calibre of screen
>saver entries at the expo is much higher then there probably would have
>been, as well as creating a unified screen saver image format.  Metro-tools,
>a multi use program, includes its own and can run BackSpace modules.  And
>PixelSaver, a preferences driven, root level, works when logged out, also
>includes a module to run backsapce modules.  So i think it was beneficial in
>the long run.  Enough ranting.  Ciao all.
>--
>                             Nicholas C. Weaver
>[e-mail]                           [e-mail]
>It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, .signifying nothing.



Now let me get this straight;  what this policy means is that NeXT
employees will now have to release public domain stuff under "pen
names" unnafiliated with NeXT?

Isn't the whole idea of object oriented programming for all of us
to be able to share code?  When are we as developers gonna start
producing, distributing, and supporting custom OBJECT LIBRARIES instead of
complaining about unfair competition when someone builds on a concept?
The reason I bought a NeXT was so I could hire a couple of C programmers
and guide their efforts toward writing encapsulated Object Code,
sell the use of the Object Code in addition to selling SUPPORT to
those who need more guidance in putting together their own custom apps.
Service is where the competition should lie.

As long as I'm on a roll:
I also wonder why all these major companies (such as Wordperfect) are
porting their apps straight accross to NeXT as if it were just another
Dos or Mac platform.  It would have been great if Wordperfect chopped
up their application into a wordprocessing Object Library having each
object copyprotected (if possible or necessary) along with a screen
allready painted and connected in IB; then all we'd have to do is compile
and purchase the use of newer Objects as they get created and made
available if we so desired.  They (Wordperfect) could even write into
the licensing agreement that users are not allowed to use other objects
from third parties if it made them feel better but alas, this probably
won't happen until everyone else goes RISC and Object Oriented programming
becomes more of a reality than a marketing catch phrase.  In addition,
"developers" that spend their spare momemts creating objects could solicit
companies to act as publishers to distribute and could either sell their
object code outright or seek some kind of royalty payment.

It seems to me that if we are paying for the use of a program, the least
we could do is understand the concepts involved and into what context
they apply.



maurices


P.S.  I wrote this thing because recently I demo'd and almost purchased
a program that was obviously created using the objects from the library
allready provided by NeXT.  The "copy" in the brochure really peaved me
off because it had a very inflated list price followed by a discount if you
"buy it now".  Again,  I would have happily payed for support and the use
of custom objects but I got stuck with a twentieth century mentality and
business ethic.  Yea, I know, some of us don't have the developer library;
so why can't a company charge a copying fee in addition to a consulting fee
and a use of custom object library fee.  After all, anyone who has a NeXT
is also automatically licensed to use the developer stuff aren't they?
Even if they are not I'm sure NeXT would not mind picking up some extra
money allowing limited use of NeXT object libraries to NeXT owners.