Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

[ray]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:05:39 -0800, Karen Hill wrote:

> Tried running a modern game in Cedega and it worked.  In Wine it seg
> faulted.  Cedega is a commercial closed source port of Wine.  Wine is
> free.
> 
> Commercial for profit developers create software that works better in
> Linux than unpaid developers.  The only reason the Linux kernel is even
> halfway decent for a _unix_ system is because of Redhat.  Redhat
> charges an arm + leg for their Distro to pay the top guys like Tom Lane
> to work on Postgres and Alan Cox to work on Linux.
> 
> Remember XEmacs VS Emacs?  Stallman was almost crying because the
> XEmacs team was backed by a commercial venture and the old emacs could
> barely keep up.  XEmacs cost about a million dollars to create.  In
> some of the mailing lists, stallman admitted that he couldn't even
> understand some of the code because it was so advanced and he feared
> emacs would fall really behind.
> 
> Why try to fight this reality?  Why not admit "Free" software is
> impossible?  The best software is commercial where people vote with
> their wallets.
> 
> Until there is a Free Doctors Foundation, Free Food Foundation, Free
> Car Foundation, and Free Housing Foundation the will not be a quailty
> free software product that is not restricted by commercial interests.
> Redhat does not allow you to use their distro for free.  You must
> modify all logos etc.  For the price of one year of Redhat service you
> could buy Windows 2003 Server which is supported for 7 years.

Right. All commercial software is better than all free software. And the
immediate corollary is that the more expensive the software, the better it
is.