Tetris Creator Claims FOSS Destroys the Market 686
alx5000 writes "In an interview conducted last week with Consumer Eroski (link in Spanish; Google translation), the father of Tetris Alexey Pajitnov claimed that 'Free Software should have never existed,' since it 'destroys the market' by bringing down companies that create wealth and prosperity. When asked about Red Hat or Oracle's support-oriented model, he called them 'a minority,' and also criticized Stallman's ideas as 'belonging to the past' where there were no software 'business possibilities.'"
Re:Before everyone jumps on him (Score:3, Informative)
True, the Soviet government screwed him over, too, but only after Andromeda had sold the rights (which they didn't own) to Spectrum HoloByte (who got rich selling it in America).
Re:Russian to English Translation: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bringing down companies that create wealth (Score:5, Informative)
This is all covered in my book, Shit I Made Up About The Russian Software Industry.
Re:bringing down companies that create wealth (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Actually he's half right (Score:3, Informative)
It's almost impossible to find a large software company with multiple products that doesn't have some open source offerings, however, even if their main products are primarily closed source. Some examples are Apple [apple.com], Microsoft [microsoft.com] [also see Codeplex], Adobe [adobe.com] and Oracle [oracle.com].
Probably the best example I can think of for closed source is game companies like EA, Vivendi (Blizzard), etc. Carmack and Id are the exception, not the rule in that industry.
Re:News Flash: bitter ex communist hates communism (Score:1, Informative)
There is a difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism [wikipedia.org]
To be effective Lenin and Stalin created two goverments. That goverment enforced a sudo communism. It enforced it by the barrel of a gun.
What Stalin and Lenin figured out is all it takes is 1 dick to ruin it for everyone else. So they decided to be the 'dick'.
Re:Russian to English Translation: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:News Flash: bitter ex communist hates communism (Score:4, Informative)
"Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production." (from the (reasonable) Wikipedia defintion [wikipedia.org]) Nothing in this definition mentions the government. FOSS really is quite communistic in that everyone owns the means of production and the product. Up the irons!
Re:That's not really accurate, is it? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:News Flash: bitter ex communist hates communism (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, people and companies make good money selling bottled air. There's always a value-add, though. Dive stores sell compressed, filtered air to scuba divers, and 3000-psi compressors don't come cheap. Companies like Praxair and Air Liquide sell compressed or liquified components of air (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc); the value-add there is obvious too.
It's adding that value that creates wealth, and none of the above companies even try to sell air to people that just want to breathe (above water). (In fact, I believe the latter both refuse to sell to "oxygen bars" because of the lack of safety standards in same.)
Just nit-picking, I completely agree with your other points. (And come to think of it, back when I was diving, my regular dive store didn't charge for the air, but for the labor of filling the tank, thus avoiding sales tax on it.)
Re:News Flash: bitter ex communist hates communism (Score:2, Informative)
I always wanted to say that. But you are right. How many universities all over the world have whole classes that are essentially Adobe product training....like:
"Creative Imaging, VT2500" (photoshop)
"Creative Illustration, VT2600" (illustrator)
"Interactive Multimedia, VT3100" (flash)
and I could go on and on. Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, the list is long...These companies have made products that WE ALL have used to our benefit and have generated wealth for WAY more people than just the producers.
Introduction to Programming Environments 152
Systems Programming Design
Computer Communications 352
That's 3 units you take which are basically pure Unix, and then every unit except software engineering uses Linux in the Labs (at the Uni I went to).
And seriously stop confusing wealth redistribution IE gambling, taxation with wealth creation, raw materials -> product.
Taking bricks and mortar and building a house and selling it for more than the inputs is wealth creation.
Re:Actually he's half right (Score:3, Informative)
Wait a second, I don't know jack about programming, IT, computer science, or economics... but I know video games, and he's not just a one-hit wonder. He also designed Pandora's Box and Hexic HD.
He's just saying that because... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Re:I just don't understand... (Score:1, Informative)
You avoided the question entirely. Why are you modded +5 insightful? I actually think the original question was a very interesting one.
To prove the point, let me quote and criticize:
"I'm one of the vast majority of programmers who do not work for a company writing software for others. I write software for internal use at my company. We aren't going to sell it. We aren't going to give it away. It's never going to leave the confines of the company."
So, you fall into the category of "**The world-at-large is more productive for getting software for free.**" (from the original post)
Yes of course YOU benefit from getting software that you put no work into. You incorporate the code into your software, and avoid the GPL by not distributing your software. So you are not giving anything to the people who original wrote the software that you are using. One could argue that the original authors get no benefit from your usage of the software, except fame, and possibly a warm and fuzzy feeling that they made your life easier, and your business more profitable. So, the question that was originally posed, and I am posing again, is how do the writers of the FOS software benefit?
"(It's) like saying that the advent of the automobile was very bad for the people who made horse-drawn wagons, carriages and such, and the people who bred and sold horses to pull them: it pretty much meant the end of most of their business."
Personally, I think its more like someone invents a new kind of automobile, and all the competing auto companies just copy your design, without giving you anything in return.
I think that if you like FOSS, then you should apply your creativity to finding ways to support the software. The main software that I use is Ubuntu and Firefox, neither of which I fund directly. Ubuntu is privately funded, and Firefox is funded by Google, which is in turn advertisement supported, which is in turn supported by people buying stuff. I'm not sure how I can support those things, but I do appreciate there presence.
It seems that FOS is working as a niche in a wider non-FOSS market at the moment, and its not clear to me that it would work on a complete basis, ie the entire software industry being FOSS.