Chris Fields wrote:
>... My problem stems from a lack of interest by our
> university in our research (they think such programs are, as Susan
> Hogarth so erroneously put it, 'luxury items').
Misunderstanding here. I meant that biology software was a luxury in the
"real" world - obviously, in the *academic* world, it is a neccesity.
What I *meant* was that software isn't something that deserves price
protection like bread or water or energy (if *they* even do). I see no
one complaining about the high cost of modern art...
My main contention still stands, though. A person who creates something
can trade it for whatever he wants, as long as there's someone willing
to give him what he asks for. Like this: I think my landlord asks *much*
more in rent than my hovel is worth - but I'm willing to pay it, so it
must be worth that much (in some sense at least). It doesn't mean I'm
clamoring for rent control.
> I understand that production of software needs to be paid for. So far,
> I haven't found too much justification in the pricing scheme for
> software as well as anything related to molecular biology, as Tim Cutts
> stated.
The only *justification* companies need is the orders that come in for
their software.
> I wish that other software developers would feel the same way. I never
> meant to imply that I want this for *free*. I just think that charging
> the price of a used car for a software package is ludicrous
Then don't buy it. Is that so difficult to understand? Haven't you heard
of "voting with your money"?
I'm not meaning to be rude or impolite here, but I really don't
understand what the fuss is about... if you're just complaining about
the price, fine - but if you are implying that something should be
*done*, I'm not sure I understand that...
--
Susan
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/sjhogart/public/home.html
Suszuki GS page: http://homepage.cistron.nl/~peterh/gsresources/
