Hi Andreas, hi Steve,
> But then he writes this: "In fact, there are still those totally
Yes, that's the paragraph I was referring to! There's the assumption
that software developers and software 'consumers' are two distinct
groups, set up in opposition.
> this "Editor in Chief" obviously does not even know
He certainly knows a lot about recording technology, but Linux and
free software are relatively new to the pages of SoS, so I can
forgive the misunderstanding.
Indeed, there probably are people who refuse to ever pay for
proprietary software because they are just mean. The same kind of
people who try to get on the guest list for a benefit gig.
However, I strongly suspect that people complain about paying for
upgrades to Logic because they don't like the way they have been
treated by Apple. If I bought a guitar, and it turned out to be
unplayable because it hadn't been properly tested before leaving the
factory, then I'd be really upset if I had to pay again just to make
it work as expected. I'd probably demand that it was fixed for free
> One could (and should) ask what Sound On
If we were being cynical we could say that proprietary software
companies pay a lot to advertise in magazines like SoS, but I really
don't think that's a factor here. As Steve pointed out, the article
doesn't specifically mention Free Software, just the idea that
software should be free.
In my experience SoS is genuinely editorially independent, but you
have to bear in mind that the contributors have been running
proprietary music software for 20 years or more. They probably have
the same confusion as most of their readers between proprietary
freeware and free software. Or binaries with physical property, for
that matter. I hope my letter can help clear things up a bit.