Letters

Regarding the news item "The Superest Computers" ("News & Views," DDJ, September 2003): This may be a bit curmudgeonly, but since Teraflop means "trillion floating-point operations per second," saying Teraflops-per-second would be a unit of acceleration...Still, the mentioned computers must be getting faster at an astonishing rate!

Greg Shonle

GShonle@exabyte.com

Software Piracy

Dear DDJ,

Just the other day, a coworker and I were discussing the impact of piracy—the same topic as Jonathan Erickson's September 2003 "Editorial." My coworker mentioned something about Microsoft's "lost revenue" on pirated copies of its office and OS software and new activation procedures designed to stop "casual" copying. Basically, the cost figures reported in magazines are assuming that people would pay the retail price for the software product if there was no other way to get the software.

In reality, if it were not so easy to copy, more people would: (a) Shop around for a cheaper solution; or (b) do without. Microsoft's virtual monopoly on OS and office software has probably benefited from "casual" copying, because if everyone shopped around for office software, I suspect the market share figures would be quite different.

Unfortunately, most software companies are not in Microsoft's position when it comes to developing and selling software. Those companies are the most hurt by pirating.

Kent Harris

kent.harris@telscreen.com

Dear DDJ,

As a believer in property rights, I believe software piracy is theft and therefore wrong. But Jonathan Erickson's economic arguments in his September 2003 "Editorial" are nonsense. If someone pirates a $100 piece of software, they don't then burn up the $100 they saved. They spend it somewhere else. That creates jobs and tax revenue just like it would have if they had paid for the software. It does shift resources among different industries, but it takes no revenue out of the economy as a whole.

Michael Anderson

m_anderson14@hotmail.com

Dear DDJ,

Jonathan Erickson's "Editorial" in the September 2003 DDJ was right on the mark. Piracy is a problem, and we need to take a creative, collaborative approach to solving it. My concern is the Business Software Alliance's grossly inflated figures. The last time I checked, these figures assume that, if piracy were suddenly impossible, all pirates would immediately purchase a copy of each pirated software package at the full retail price. These assumptions are patently absurd. In my opinion, the BSA's alarmist numbers are an obstruction to constructive dialog.

Alan Earnshaw

earnshac@apci.com

Dear DDJ,

I agree with Jonathan Erickson in his September 2003 "Editorial" that piracy is wrong, but I think that it is portrayed as worse than it is.

BSA. There could be many reasons why those estimates for the cost of piracy could be much higher than what the actual cost is. Users who copy software but would never buy it, users who would get other software, and so on.

MPAA. Piracy may even make them money because of people who copy a song and then decide to buy the CD. The net effect is probably a loss, but I don't think it is all bad. People listen to the radio but still buy CDs. I don't personally have much experience with this because I rarely buy music, but normally listen to music legally (free music, and the like). How can you stop the copying of music without using draconian measures? At a basic level, I could copy music by putting a mic to my speaker.

Piracy survey. If I was asked those survey questions, my answers would make it look like I support piracy, but that is just the opposite of the truth. There is a lot of software that allows copying and, the way the questions were written, a literal interpretation would mean that it is referring to all software.

Destroying computers. I think the fact that Senator Orin Hatch's web site was using pirated software shows that, often times, piracy is accidental, and destroying property so easily is extreme. It might be interesting to watch if it was implemented on cars. You could sit near a hill and watch the cars with cruise control on go too fast coming down the hill and explode! It would be even better when it is icy or the speed limit sign is hidden. Even if it were just computers, a nasty web-site designer could cause pirated software to download and explode computers (or trick them). I can see the ads now: "Click here to prevent your computer from blowing up!"

James Stauffer

jstauffe@spscommerce.com

On Being Professional Engineers

Dear DDJ,

As a "software engineer/software developer/programmer," I take issue with the folks taking issue with the term "software engineer." While I, too, went through a phase of thinking the term "software engineer" was incorrect, I'm now on the opposite side of the tracks. I find it humorous that these readers feel there is no "ownership" in software. I wish someone would tell my boss that! Otherwise, I must be imagining the wake-up phone calls, weekends, and holidays working trying to find some bug that does not exist simply because users can't comprehend some interface the "human-interaction engineering" team came up with.

While people may not realize that planes, trains, and automobiles need an engineering stamp, they also don't realize there are dozens of pieces of software in those items, as well as in support software running elsewhere, to make them more functional. It is humorous to believe that "short-cuts" are not taken in "real engineering" to make a deadline. Coming from an architecture background, I can assure you this is certainly not the case. I've seen many structures, that no "engineer" in their right mind would take ownership of, go up with short-cuts to make timelines and budgets hit the mark.

As for peer review, again it is humorous to believe there is none. Let's see, "real engineers" build a bridge every three weeks and update it every two. The problem is not with the term "engineering"—the problem is with the ridiculous notion that a "degree" means "more qualified." I've seen dozens of folks come into the "software engineering" door, then walk right out because the "design phase" they have become accustomed to has gone from months to days. Some of the best software-engineering folks I've crossed paths with are not from engineering or even computer-science backgrounds. They are from artistic and technical backgrounds. Why? Simply because they can think outside the rules that real engineers have been drilled to obey without question.

richchri@erols.com

DDJ