Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Jul 2012 23:06 UTC
In the News Okay, so this is entirely new to me. Sparrow is was an email client for Mac OS X and iOS (and Windows), which brought a decent Gmail experience to these platforms - as opposed to Apple's own not-so-good Gmail support and Google's Gmail iOS application which, well, is just a webpage. Google has now acquired Sparrow, and basically all hell has broken loose, to the point of Rian van der Merwe writing that 'we' lost "faith in a philosophy that we thought was a sustainable way to ensure a healthy future for independent software development, where most innovation happens".
Order by: Score:
Whining because they are Apple fanboys?
by ozonehole on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 00:06 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

This is a good post, Thom. I went and read the original story, and I honestly don't see what he's whining about. Like you said, he got everything he paid for, and then some, and this is for an app that costs US$15. The only thing I can conclude is that it's killing him that Google seems to have won. The guy is an Apple fanboy, and Apple/Microsoft hates Google, and thus anything that is good for Google is bad for Apple, or something like that, causing his head to explode.

Your suggestion - that Apple users consider open source - is like asking a group of religious fanatics to convert to atheism.

Reply Score: 15

Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27


Your suggestion - that Apple users consider open source - is like asking a group of religious fanatics to convert to atheism.


All Mac users are using open source as open source apps come with OS X.

http://www.apple.com/opensource/

Reply Score: 3

rufwork Member since:
2012-07-23

The important thing to remember is that the OS is using BSD-licensed stuff under the hood. That means it was open source, but isn't any more.

The BSD is far too permissive, and doesn't protect software. I'm surprised it's considered an Open-as-in-Free license at all sometimes. "Please plagiarize my code and call it your own! I'm begging you!"

Reply Score: 1

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

And Safari and other parts of the system use khtml, euh webkit. Which is LGPL (library GPL).

It is why Google Chrome even exists.

Reply Score: 2

kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

The important thing to remember is that the OS is using BSD-licensed stuff under the hood. That means it was open source, but isn't any more.

The BSD is far too permissive, and doesn't protect software. I'm surprised it's considered an Open-as-in-Free license at all sometimes. "Please plagiarize my code and call it your own! I'm begging you!"


Plagiarism implies theft.

Under the BSD license, the code is freely available and the license requires the original BSD licensee to be properly given credit. The BSD license is, in fact, a free/open license; it is just more closed source friendly.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

That means it was open source, but isn't any more.


Err no. It means the original code is still open source but there might be changes done and used by Apple that isn't open source.

The BSD is far too permissive, and doesn't protect software


Says you but fortunately that's only your opinion and you don't get to decide on this for anyone else. It's none of your business how anyone else license their code.

I'm surprised it's considered an Open-as-in-Free license at all sometimes.


I'm not surprised but maybe that's because I don't feel a need to force my choice of license on everyone else.

"Please plagiarize my code and call it your own! I'm begging you!"


It's not plagiarism. Do you even know what that is?

Edited 2012-07-25 20:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Your suggestion - that Apple users consider open source - is like asking a group of religious fanatics to convert to atheism.


Not exactly. I'd rather compare it to trying to convert hardcore money worshipers to altruists.

Edited 2012-07-22 02:45 UTC

Reply Score: 8

phti Member since:
2012-06-02

uh-oh, it looks like they don't accept lines of source code as a payment at the grocery store.

Reply Score: 2

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

No, but IBM, HP, Google, et. al. will pay you nicely for them - and the grocery store accepts the resulting cash.

You haven't thought this through, have you?

Reply Score: 9

phti Member since:
2012-06-02

so every developer must open source their software hoping that some big "not-evil" company will pay for it and ultimately sell it to the customers. yeah, that will surely work for everyone.

Reply Score: 2

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

so every developer must open source their software hoping that some big "not-evil" company will pay for it and ultimately sell it to the customers. yeah, that will surely work for everyone.


Oh, good grief, are you a child?

Nobody is forcing anyone to open source their software. Nobody is forcing anyone to sell their software only via corporations.

You have a choice as to employer or independent developer, self-marketing or app store or "for hire".

Just because you're unable to chart your own path doesn't mean nobody else can.

Reply Score: 6

sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Not exactly. I'd rather compare it to trying to convert hardcore money worshipers to altruists.


It's funny 'cause the biggest money worshipers use to be the biggest altruists: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Carlos Slim and so on.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You're confusing altruism with philanthropy.

Reply Score: 4

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I don't know about the others, but the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation aint no charity, it's a business model. A money making machine of it's own.

Reply Score: 3

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I don't know about the others, but the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation aint no charity, it's a business model. A money making machine of it's own.


It has to be, in order to self sustain. The money made here is only a means to an end.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I don't know.

You'd think a charity would have ethics, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation does not have that.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Interesting, any specific examples of evil committed by the gates foundation? Is it just that they are a self sustaining non-profit or is there jucy news I've missed?

Reply Score: 2

sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know about the others, but the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation aint no charity, it's a business model. A money making machine of it's own.


And God bless this "money making machine" because It gives dollars to people who need them.

Reply Score: 1

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The initial capital of the foundation came from an illegal monopoly and their ways for making money are still the same.

If that money was still in the economy instead that would have been a lot better I think.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

So, your problem is that now having more money than god, they are using that money to help other's around the world?

Don't late your brand hatred blind you to good things an organization may do.

Reply Score: 2

sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Philanthropy is a kind of altruism.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

> that Apple users consider open source - is like asking a group of religious fanatics to convert to atheism.

Not exactly. I'd rather compare it to trying to convert hardcore money worshipers to altruists.

No, it's probably quite apt comparison, actually... have you already forgot http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13416272 ? ("A team of neuroscientists scanned the brain of an Apple fan and it showed that the brand was stimulating the same parts of the brain as religious imagery does in people of faith"

Reply Score: 2

krreagan Member since:
2008-04-08

Your suggestion - that Apple users consider open source - is like asking a group of religious fanatics to convert to atheism.


Your complete ignorance of the Apple ecosystem is showing.

OSX and iOS are built on OSS.

Reply Score: 1

Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

Yes, but don't tell the fanboi's that, it'll shatter their perception of the universe forever

Reply Score: 0

NuxRo Member since:
2010-09-25

"Your suggestion - that Apple users consider open source - is like asking a group of religious fanatics to convert to atheism.


Your complete ignorance of the Apple ecosystem is showing.

OSX and iOS are built on OSS.
"

It's irrelevant what they build it on.

Reply Score: 7

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

this.

Nobody cares whether MacOSX and iOS have a BSD user land underneath, it is irrelevant, because most people do not interact with it directly.

Reply Score: 8

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

"Your suggestion - that Apple users consider open source - is like asking a group of religious fanatics to convert to atheism.


Your complete ignorance of the Apple ecosystem is showing.

OSX and iOS are built on OSS.
"

Certainly, but I'd say many do not know this, or are particularly blind to this, especially at the graphical application level.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The graphical stuff is done by Aqua or whatever they are calling it these days. It is not based on X or any open source component.

Reply Score: 3

mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Whining about the makers of an email client being acquired by Google seems asinine.

Of course, open source... Sure, go ahead and use the fantastic open source alternatives instead. The exceptionally high quality of OSS (far exceeding that of any paid OS or application) has been demonstrated over and over again, so it's amazing anyone pays for software nowadays, right? (OK, oddly the highest quality open source projects seem to be the ones that companies contribute time & resources to...)

Alternately, swallow the major $5 investment and be prepared to move on at some point. Nobody lines up to build you a car for free or drive you around town for free, so this Stallman expectation that people should give away their work for free because it's software is just f*cking ludicrous.

Reply Score: 1

jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Good point, funny thing is that OpenSource actually benefit big companies like IBM, RedHat, Google, even Apple and Microsoft. I'm not against or in favor of Open-source is basically the same thing and is up to the developer to decide. I think the article is overly sensationalistic. The "dangers" of closed source, no one is going to die or go bankruptcy just because Google bought an email client software company. At the end it just means that Google is trying to make some money out of Apple ecosystem. Funny thing is that even with all the Open-source advocates no one has develop an Open-source email client for the Appstore that matches a closed source one (Yes you can use Open-source for the Appstore)

Only a developer could care about Open or Closed Source because it can help them learn or develop, what consumers actually care about is the fact that they won't pay a dime for someone else hard work. By the way I'm not trying to look like a saint I have used pirated software in the past and I feel ashamed for that.

Reply Score: 2

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Sure, it's unlikely that anyone will die or go bankrupt over an email client...

But companies and individuals have suffered and gone bankrupt over other more critical software. I have seen all manner of companies that at some point thought it would be a good idea to buy into some proprietary application and base their entire workflow around it, only for that company to either discontinue the product or go totally bankrupt.

So now what?

Based on examples i've actually seen...

You cannot buy additional licenses, because noone is willing to sell you them, so you cant expand easily.

You might be able to continue running the licenses you have, but it requires an ancient OS which is also no longer sold, and ancient hardware which is unreliable (old hardware dies, capacitors leak, solder joints weaken, connectors corrode etc) and now getting difficult to source on ebay.

You cannot easily migrate to something else, because all the data is stored in proprietary formats and it would be extremely costly to hire programmers to reverse engineer the formats, and doing so may not even be legal.

The current copyright holder is not willing to sell you more copies, but could still prosecute you for pirating it.

You can't just install more copies, because there is some form of license management... You'd have to crack it.

No security patches are being made, either for the software itself or the OS it runs on. You have all your important company data on a server thats a security nightmare.


All in all, it's bad business sense to buy proprietary software. At the very least, you want a second source, access to source, an easy migration plan etc. You must plan for business continuity should the worst happen to your supplier.

Reply Score: 8

gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Of course, open source... Sure, go ahead and use the fantastic open source alternatives instead. The exceptionally high quality of OSS (far exceeding that of any paid OS or application) has been demonstrated over and over again, so it's amazing anyone pays for software nowadays, right?

If you're talking about something Gimp vs Photoshop, then yes, I'd ride along with your sarcasm. No graphics/imaging professional would actually use Gimp.

But with regards to Sparrow (which I have used) on OSX, I don't quite agree. It worked well enough on iOS (mainly because the users felt like second class citizens when comparing the iOS Gmail app to the Android version), but was a complete waste of money on OSX since there were numerous free (both cost and license) alternatives out there. Personally, I thought it wasn't even good enough to lick Mutt's paws.

Edited 2012-07-22 06:48 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

If you're talking about something Gimp vs Photoshop, then yes, I'd ride along with your sarcasm. No graphics/imaging professional would actually use Gimp.


Excuse me? You might not like it and of course you're free to not use it, but there are lots of professionals who do use and who do like The GIMP. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad.

Reply Score: 8

ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

I still miss the Color to Alpha feature from Gimp!

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Excuse me? You might not like it and of course you're free to not use it, but there are lots of professionals who do use and who do like The GIMP. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad.


Well then they are fools, Adobe suite is far advanced. This is a well known fact.

Reply Score: 1

Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

Well then they are fools, Adobe suite is far advanced. This is a well known fact.


There are a ton of things to consider before stating that as a fact. Tools are useful for those who use it. My art skills would still be crap if I used Photoshop. Claiming that a professional is a fool because he chooses to work with a different tool set is just being narrow minded.

Reply Score: 5

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

We are talking about professional graphic artists and what not. Industry standard is Adobe CS.

Reply Score: 2

Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

We are talking about professional graphic artists and what not. Industry standard is Adobe CS.


Professional graphic artists should be agnostic when it comes to image editing software because they should at least learn the fundamental usage regardless their preferences from Gimp to Corel Paintshop via Krita.

Reply Score: 4

kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

Real innovators and artists don't give a damn about your 'industry standards'.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well then they are fools, Adobe suite is far advanced. This is a well known fact.


Is that anything like those fools who run Windows servers? I mean, it is a well-known fact that Linux and BSD are far advanced so anyone using Windows server can surely not be a professional.

Reply Score: 6

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

We are talking about professional graphic artists, web designers etc, not me and you that might need to do some image manipulation. The industry standard is Adobe CS.

Linux and BSD servers more advanced than Windows ... err maybe when it was Win2000 server, we are on Windows Server 2008 R2 now.

It is honestly debatable now whether *nix based servers are better than Windows. It depends what you are doing TBH.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

We are talking about professional graphic artists, web designers etc, not me and you that might need to do some image manipulation.


So in other words, an industry you and I know nothing about yet you think you know what a professional in said industry should and should not use.

maybe when it was Win2000 server, we are on Windows Server 2008 R2 now.


I am fully aware of that since I run many myself.

It depends what you are doing TBH.


The same could be said for graphics apps; what you need depends on what you're doing and what you are comfortable with.

Reply Score: 3

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

oddly the highest quality open source projects seem to be the ones that companies contribute time & resources to..


So? Nobody ever said Open Source software could only be developed by amateurs. Open Source developed by paid developers working for large companies is a sustainable model that has been demonstrated to work over and over again. Why is that a problem?

Reply Score: 12

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

I'd say it was a good post too...with one exception and that is this: Frankly FOSS doesn't "guarantee" anything anymore than proprietary, it only gives the possibility, nothing more, that it may continue.

How many projects are lying dead right now on SourceForge? If one were to look at the top 100 FOSS programs from 2000, how many of them are still around?

Honestly i don't know the answers but I bet many are gone because just using the software doesn't magically make you a developer, nor does it give the fans enough capital to hire a full time dev team to support it.

In the end i say just use what works and if they go away tomorrow? Well if the software was in any way popular I'm sure someone will come along happy to take those users, if not? Well then you'll just have to find another program.

Reply Score: 7

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

I'd say it was a good post too...with one exception and that is this: Frankly FOSS doesn't "guarantee" anything anymore than proprietary, it only gives the possibility, nothing more, that it may continue.

That is the point. Duh.

Moreover, given how popular Sparrow was, I think it would have had no problem going on.

The point is that it can't. That. Is. The. Point.

Reply Score: 5

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

How many projects are lying dead right now on SourceForge? If one were to look at the top 100 FOSS programs from 2000, how many of them are still around?

We have to remember that a lot of programs simply have not use nowadays. In other cases, a lot of users have found better free/libre alternative programs, etc.

We have to be aware that Sourceforge is a not a good representative for long-life free/libre software, a lot of programs are developed and stopped there. Unless it's a specific case, people have better results going with selected software and combined efforts, I can talk about my case and I use
- The Linux kernel.
- VLC.
- Firefox.
- Selected programs from http://www.kde.org/applications/internet/ http://www.kde.org/applications/graphics/ http://www.kde.org/applications/multimedia/ http://www.kde.org/applications/utilities/ http://www.kde.org/applications/system/
- Etc.
since many years ago. It has been a safe bet in my case, but anyone can also benefit from equivalent software selections, make things to improve software, etc.

Edited 2012-07-22 11:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

> How many projects are lying dead right now on SourceForge? If one were to look at the top 100 FOSS programs from 2000, how many of them are still around?

We have to remember that a lot of programs simply have not use nowadays. In other cases, a lot of users have found better free/libre alternative programs, etc.

You have to remember, while escaping into this argument, that the scenario is pretty much the same with closed software...

Reply Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

if not? Well then you'll just have to find another program.

That's another problem :-( . A lot of proprietary software sellers are not interested in the free market and... will put severe obstacles to you and me to stop us finding another program :-(

Some of them have been sent to trial and convicted, for example:
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX...
Emails about the "problem" of "Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers" and employees being given the order "make sure that Office very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities".

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

More FUD.

In some cases this maybe true, but this is usually in terms of bespoke software not commercial.

Reply Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

It's in the egotists interests of a lot of people to make difficult for the others to choose alternatives. So this way they have a vendor "lock-in", earning money through monopolies, leaving people without choice.

> More FUD.
This is not FUD, I even gave a reference to a trial.

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It's in the egotists interests of a lot of people to make difficult for the others to choose alternatives. So this way they have a vendor "lock-in", earning money through monopolies, leaving people without choice.


Speculation.

I have said before and will say again, it is in the interests of companies that create bespoke software to lock people in, not necessarily consumer software.

yes because one trial represents the all the customers that provide closed source software. Logic Fail.

Reply Score: 2

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

More FUD.

In some cases this maybe true


So it isn't FUD

because one trial represents the all the customers that provide closed source software. Logic Fail.


Considering you last argument Logic Fail is a bit rich. However, I link an article from The European Committee for Interoperable Systems www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf "Microsoft
A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm"
I think it covers what Nth Man is saying and you may find it interesting - I don't think logic fail is an appropriate response.

Well then they are fools


Please try to be less offensive no doubt the users of GIMP have good reasons to use the this well considered software, reasons that you may not understand.

There is a lot of good software for Windows that can be bought that doesn't include malware or any other bollox.


Absolutely true and there is an awful lot of scumware too and this doesn't seem to affect Opensource s much as some proprietary operating systems.

Edited 2012-07-22 20:52 UTC

Reply Score: 4

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17


Absolutely true and there is an awful lot of scumware too and this doesn't seem to affect Opensource s much as some proprietary operating systems.


Quite clearly because it isn't an opaque black box, any perceived embedded scum in the software would typically be excised down the line.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

So it isn't FUD


Yes it is

Considering you last argument Logic Fail is a bit rich. However, I link an article from The European Committee for Interoperable Systems www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf "Microsoft
A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm"
I think it covers what Nth Man is saying and you may find it interesting - I don't think logic fail is an appropriate response.


One ruling does not cover the whole industry.

Please try to be less offensive no doubt the users of GIMP have good reasons to use the this well considered software, reasons that you may not understand.


No, I have worked for one of the largest gambling companies in the UK, the 5th largest charity in the UK, and a two bit web shop. Everyone used Adobe tools ... end of story. It is silly not to use them, compared to GIMP that has a 1.5 man team.

The feature disparity between photoshop and gimp is unreal.

You might want to see some of the stuff that CS 5.5 does (not even the newest version), it makes GIMP look like Paint.NET.

Absolutely true and there is an awful lot of scumware too and this doesn't seem to affect Opensource s much as some proprietary operating systems.


It doesn't affect open-source operating systems because they have less than 1% usage on desktops. Android has a lot of crap and that is open source ... th reason being it is popular.

Reply Score: 1

quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Think your missing the point, he's "whining" about the loss of innocence and completely misunderstanding the world he lives in. Hell, if I thought that somehow having an 'ethical' position of actually paying small developers for apps was the answer, for all the ills that permeate development and use of software, only to realise it wasn't, I'd be a little miffed.

It's a conundrum to be sure and I don't know the answer. As a user, think we're f'd either way and the future looks bleak.

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, there's some research suggesting that Apple devotion might be quite similar to ridiculousness of old-style mythologies...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13416272 "A team of neuroscientists scanned the brain of an Apple fan and it showed that the brand was stimulating the same parts of the brain as religious imagery does in people of faith"

Reply Score: 2

Sparrow complete
by Athlander on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 00:41 UTC
Athlander
Member since:
2008-03-10

I read an article dated March 14th about Sparrow on The Verge. According to Dominique Leca, one of the people behind it, "The problem with Sparrow is that I'm happy with what we've done." The article goes on to say that the next step for Sparrow is optimization and seeing what aspects of the app people actually use — seeing where people click and how the UI can be even further optimized.

So Sparrow probably wasn't going to get many more features anyway. I can see why people may be upset if they had been paying for a beta because they believed in a project and wanted to support the developers but in this case they have paid for a finished product that will continue to receive bug fixes and security patches for at least the near future.

I wonder if the reaction would have been the same if Apple had bought Sparrow. This seems more of an issue with Google than anything else.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Sparrow complete
by jptros on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 00:59 UTC in reply to "Sparrow complete"
jptros Member since:
2005-08-26

I think people are upset they never received push notifications in the iOS version which most people probably purchased in support and anticipation of that feature. In addition, who wants to use a piece of software for your day to day business that you know has no future? Email clients aren't a hobby OS or something you really play with for nostalgic reasons. In addition they say there will be bug fixes and what not, but hey, they said they were working hard on getting push notifications numerous times and look at how that has turned out. Personally, I think the developers saw a big pay day and new offices on the horizon and packed up shop and that is OK. It's their right, but that doesn't mean doing so didn't piss a few folks off.

Typo correction.

Edited 2012-07-22 01:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Sparrow complete
by OSNevvs on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 06:38 UTC in reply to "Sparrow complete"
OSNevvs Member since:
2009-08-20

And I disagree with this:

The one, only, and true way to ensure this doesn't happen is to use open source software


Wrong. How many open-source projects get abandonned and no one retrieves them to further develop them or apply security patches? Many, for instance v-webmail. If you aren't a developer (my case), you're left in the dark.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Sparrow complete
by chithanh on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Sparrow complete"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Wrong. How many open-source projects get abandonned and no one retrieves them to further develop them or apply security patches? Many, for instance v-webmail. If you aren't a developer (my case), you're left in the dark.

Then nobody is interested enough in the application to continue developing (or hiring someone to do it). So it gets abandoned. If on the other hand there is sufficient community interest, the development will continue.

With proprietary software nobody else can continue development, regardless of his skills and motivation.

Reply Score: 4

Missing the point...
by scarr on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 02:02 UTC
scarr
Member since:
2010-11-07

A lot of the frustration with Sparrow being sold is how it was handled. Two weeks ago they have a big sale and media blitz and sold a tonne of copies (shot way up on the app store charts). This is when a lot of us first heard of Sparrow and also purchased it. 5 bucks. yippee... a fancy coffee. No big deal...

Except, they had to know about the sale two weeks ago, so why didn't they just shut their big traps, stop promoting their app, and forget about a fire sale? Instead they went for one big last minute money grab assuming no one would care about "5 bucks".

Thankfully Apple is sending out refunds, you only need to ask.

Reply Score: 5

v RE: Missing the point...
by Radio on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 10:56 UTC in reply to "Missing the point..."
v RE[2]: Missing the point...
by scarr on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Missing the point..."
RE[3]: Missing the point...
by Radio on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Missing the point..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

If you bothered to take 2 seconds to consider what I was saying, it was the optics of the whole thing.
I did read what you said, about "why didn't they just shut their big traps", "last minute money grab" and "refunds".

Reply Score: 4

Danger?! You've gotta be kidding.
by ferrels on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 02:04 UTC
ferrels
Member since:
2006-08-15

You're using the term dangerous as if people will really be physically harmed by this, which by the way I find laughable. Software acquisitions happen all the time and the world hasn't come to an end. It is in no way uncommon for big software giants to buy up and kill off the competition. AutoDesk bought out and killed every AutoCAD clone they could find. That hasn't stopped anyone from continuing to write such clones, heck, even open source clones and work-alikes. And what's wrong when a talented programmer decides to sell out to one of the big software houses and live happily ever after? I say nothing. This guy got paid well for his work and he's happy with the deal. We shoud be happy for him instead of starting a software-socialism rant.

Reply Score: 2

The problem is with iOS, not open source
by tomz on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 02:09 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

You want it Opensource. Which license? GPL is incompatible - unless you want everyone to jailbreak. Apache or MIT? Then someone can clone the code (like the Pakastani app factories) and there will be 100 $0.99 apps that do gmail, each called something slightly different, but alphabetized, or marginally localized or something so they get the revenue, not the original author.

GPL enforces sharing, so a project could form around a GMail client, but iOS prohibits it.

So there is nothing between GPL which cannot be done on iOS and fully proprietary.

Calling it a "walled garden" doesn't make it not a prison-farm. You are locked up and down, and there are armed guard towers and razor wire. You can't leave except by dying. And now one bit got paroled. Don't worry, someone soon will be incarcerated to replace the lass.

Reply Score: 8

stew Member since:
2005-07-06

Then write your own license. Take the GPL and add an exception for App Store distribution - done.

Reply Score: 6

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Apache or MIT? Then someone can clone the code (like the Pakastani app factories) and there will be 100 $0.99 apps that do gmail, each called something slightly different, but alphabetized, or marginally localized or something so they get the revenue, not the original author.


The GPL does not prevent this from happening.

Reply Score: 3

beside the point but
by fran on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 02:14 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

I wonder how many people remember when Apple bought Logic and dropped the PC version.

Reply Score: 7

RE: beside the point but
by broken_symlink on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 04:08 UTC in reply to "beside the point but"
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

But thats different because its apple!

Reply Score: 8

"the dangers of closed source"
by martini on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 02:57 UTC
martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

Thom, I liked this post.

It may even sound strange but I can not believe that there are not laws that regulate the software business.

Since the source code is secret, software companies can boycott competition.
- Software developers may include intentionally instructions that make the software of their competitors to run slower.
- Developers can include secret backdoors inside software to gain access to you system or personal information.
- Since the source code is keep as a secret, it is hard to find out that the software you are using is taking your personal information without your permission.

Hi-Jack Customers. Customers may be hi-jacked by the software authors.
- Software authors may force the customers to pay for software updates by removing the support of older versions of the software
- There is no way to keep the same software and select a different author to support it, since the software authors has the exclusivity of the Source Code.
- Authors may force the customer to buy newer of different kind of hardware devices to support newer versions of the software.

Abandonware is not consider legal.
- When the software is discontinued by its author, or the company that produces the software goes out of business, the customer is left “High and Dry”
- The customer does not know if it legal of not to keep using and installing new licenses of this kind of software on their business.
- The software does not has any more possibilities to be improved. This harms the customer that relies on this software for performing their business activities.

The worst thing is that we think this is normal. (Business as usual)

Solution??
Use Open Source Software.

But I dream with the day that governments will force Software manufacturers to:

1) All software binaries offered for free or a price should have the source code available for inspection for their customers. (The source code can be under any license the author wants)

2) When the Software reaches the end of life marked by its author, or has been X years since it was released, the binary and source code will turn public domain or open source software.

3) Use, modification, distribution and reverse engineering of software binaries will be legal for products that reached the end of life, that had been discontinued, or when the software company went out of business.

Reply Score: 2

RE: "the dangers of closed source"
by ricegf on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 11:34 UTC in reply to ""the dangers of closed source""
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I believe that was the point of copyright (at least in the USA per our constitution) - you receive exclusive distribution control of your work for "limited times", then everybody can reuse your work for free.

Only it was corrupted with software, as the feds granted copyright on code but still allowed that code to be kept as a trade secret - and even outlawed reverse engineering that code from what was being distributed under copyright protection!

Of course, they also defined "limited times" as a couple of human lifetimes - but don't get me started on that!

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It was corrupted even earlier.
I mean, for text, the work itself is essentially its source code ...but it's already not really so with music or films, too. With those, that would be the multi-track version, before final output; and the highest-quality video, pre-mix audio, also models & textures and so on for 3D animations.

Sometimes I do think the condition for copyright should be placing the "code" of the work in some escrow system, to be made publicly available when the copyright lapses (or even when copyright holders show disinterest? Like with abandonware, or even music and films that aren't kept available for some long enough time).

As it stands, all different kinds of media are forced into a system designed for writers - even when (if?) they'll get into PD, they can't be mixed nearly so easily as text.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Oh more open source zealot bollox.

Seriously all the evils things that you are highlighted regarding privacy etc. are pretty easy to discover with a copy of fiddler/wireshark and a decompiler/hex editor.

The rest, how dare someone make a living by working to support a newer set of features, which take time and money to create.

This sort of rubbish continues because fundamentally a lot of open source proponents don't actually understand how software works ... they think they know how it works and think FOSS is the be all and end all.

Come back to me when you have actually been through a few death marches.

Edited 2012-07-22 17:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Keep sucking on that FUDgesicle. There's nothing that says you can't charge for support on FOSS. Red Hat, Inc. made a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS doing that last year.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That is because their product is significantly complicated to warrant it.

Something like that mail app isn't, and any programmer worth his salt could fork and/or clone it.

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

There's nothing that says you can't charge for support on FOSS. Red Hat, Inc. made a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS doing that last year.

Yeah, Red Hat did. Meanwhile, Mandriva or SUSE are mostly gone.
(plus, the support model has some issues - it kinda promotes software which needs that support, and/or which is used in the relatively few fields which fit with and can justify ongoing support costs)

Reply Score: 2

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

You dream of having the government forcing open source because economic realities don't fund enough of it.

That's price fixing and would wreak havoc on the software market. Company A would look at the source of Company B and then decide not to buy because they now (cough) have decided to go with their own internal solution. Or Company B now has SimilarProductForLess and they SWEAR it was just a coincidence that it came out after looking at Company's A source for security reasons. You're going to f--k up working business models because Stallmanology obviously has economic limits.

The problem is your religion. This is no different than the government forcing creationism in schools because there is zero natural drive within the sciences to teach it. Gee whiz maybe the old men (in your case man) didn't have all the answers? Or (GASP) might have been wrong about a few things?

Stallman expected "hackers" (unpaid developers) to write everything and bury the proprietary software world. That didn't happen but loonologists like yourself dream of forced-open source and creationists dream of burying evolution through force because your religion puts you at odds with reality. Proprietary software is no more evil than dinosaurs.

Edited 2012-07-22 22:15 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: "the dangers of closed source"
by martini on Tue 24th Jul 2012 02:58 UTC in reply to ""the dangers of closed source""
martini Member since:
2006-01-23

But, what to do when you are left "high and dry" with all the investment you made into an specific platform that the author refuses to continue developing it?

OS/2 user here ;)

I see a good way to FUD OSS here, too bad we are used with this kind of techniques in the past. We all understand Stallman's dogmatic approach, but that approach is not related to the OSS movement at all.

Open Source is superior than any other close source software. Not necessary technically, it is superior cause it reduce you the risk to have only one provider. It kills the single vendor dependance for any business.

I just go and visit my COBOL CICS, RPG, PL/I, fox, VisualBasic, Smalltalk, Kylix customers and see how they are screwed right now. What would happen if all that technology would be opened up at its time?

Edited 2012-07-24 03:03 UTC

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

There are some OS which got open-sourced like that... Symbian, GEM, CP/M. Didn't seem to help them a lot, with how they were already fading or dying (like OS/2 before it was largely dropped - but you still have support with eComStation).
With such, it's probably better to move as fast as you can on some more lively platform.

With some more crucial software, code escrow is commonly practised, anyway (and quickly checking CICS, RPG, PL/I that you mentioned ...they don't really seem abandoned? Also, Smalltalk implementations are around)

Reply Score: 2

Dr.Mabuse Member since:
2009-05-19

Reply Score: 1

Open Source Is Mortal
by westlake on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 03:31 UTC
westlake
Member since:
2010-01-07

The Open Source project can die.

Developers lose interest. Users lose interest. Platforms change.

The code base is incomplete, corrupted or too complex to be usable.

The money isn't there. The staffing isn't there.

The project depends on assets the programmer is ill-equipped to supply.

Black Mesa, for example, has a perfectly serviceable engine --- what it doesn't have is a game.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Open Source Is Mortal
by s-peter on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 06:05 UTC in reply to "Open Source Is Mortal "
s-peter Member since:
2006-01-29

The article is about software which is fully functional and has user interest. In such case, with open source, even if the original developers lose interest, or there is a platform change, others will carry on development.

I don't think people have issues with open source projects dying if they never reached usable state and/or have no user interest; such project will die open source or otherwise, and that's just the way of life.

Is Black Mesa developed in an open source model? I couldn't find the source repository/download anywhere.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Open Source Is Mortal
by kallisti5 on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 02:45 UTC in reply to "Open Source Is Mortal "
kallisti5 Member since:
2009-09-08

The Open Source project can die.

Developers lose interest. Users lose interest. Platforms change.

The code base is incomplete, corrupted or too complex to be usable.


This is bullshit.

Open source projects never die, they *can* fade away due to lack of interest (or incomplete, bad design, etc). *However* as long as a distribution network exists and users can find a 15-year old zip file with the sources to the application they need, projects can live on.

Experience: I've unearthed quite a few dead GPLv2 open source projects, modernized them, and placed them on life support at places like github.

Edited 2012-07-23 02:46 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Open Source Is Mortal
by lucas_maximus on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source Is Mortal "
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Open source projects never die, they *can* fade away due to lack of interest (or incomplete, bad design, etc). *However* as long as a distribution network exists and users can find a 15-year old zip file with the sources to the application they need, projects can live on.


Except we use quite a few old open source projects for Windows where the source cannot be found, the authors cannot be contacted or have moved on and we are SOL, it taking a lot of money to move our intranets.

So it not really true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Open Source Is Mortal
by zima on Thu 26th Jul 2012 02:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source Is Mortal "
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Open source projects never die, they *can* fade away due to lack of interest (or incomplete, bad design, etc). *However* as long as a distribution network exists and users can find a 15-year old zip file with the sources to the application they need, projects can live on.

Experience: I've unearthed quite a few dead GPLv2 open source projects, modernized them, and placed them on life support at places like github.

And you can put Egyptian mummies (or Lenin) on display ...doesn't make them particularly non-dead (though, in a way, much less dead than some scattered bone fragments, sure)

Reply Score: 2

Absolutely agree with the auther
by mantrik00 on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 06:22 UTC
mantrik00
Member since:
2011-07-06

At least open source would ensure the continuation of the App in some or the other form.
It is obvious that these whiners who are putting forth these kind weird arguments have an inherent dislike for Google and are likely to be Apple fans (if not in open, secretly).

Reply Score: 3

How to live from open source.
by moondevil on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 07:21 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

Sure there are lots of benefits in using open source applications, even I use lots of open source applications.

Having said this, as someone that works for leaving doing software I wouldn't sell my applications open source.

Open source only works in products where the developers can get the money by selling services on top of it, or hardware that makes use of the said software.

At the end of the day the developers need to bring money home, and there is none to be had when your software is 100% available for the others to take, and you cannot sell services on top of it.

This is the reason why most open source desktop applications suck, as they are developed by developers on their free time until they loose interest. Most earn money doing something else.

Reply Score: 3

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

This is the reason why most open source desktop applications suck.


Like Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, VLC, Mplayer, K3b, Libre Office

and Windows shareware is noted for its excellence?

Reply Score: 8

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"This is the reason why most open source desktop applications suck.


Like Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, VLC, Mplayer, K3b, Libre Office

and Windows shareware is noted for its excellence?
"

Most of the Firefox, Thunderbird developers work for Mozilla.

GIMP, VLC, Mplayer are developers get their money from other sources and lets be honest they are way off what professionals expect.

Nero runs circles around K3b.

Libre Office only got so far thanks to Sun's money.

As for shareware it depends where you look.

Reply Score: 5

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

So Nero stopped sucking again? Last time I used it, it was an overly complex resource hog.

I'm also not sure what you imagine "professionals" expect from video playing applications. MPlayer and VLC are popular for what they are, not for how well they work in some imaginary professional video watching market. Microsoft's and Apple's offerings aren't nearly as good.

Reply Score: 7

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

True.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Way to fail an reading comprehension.

He was talking about the amount of money those developers were getting.

Oh well.

Reply Score: 0

rr7.num7 Member since:
2010-04-30

Was he? I suppose you didn0t catch the plural. Here it is:

GIMP, VLC, Mplayer are developers get their money from other sources and lets be honest they are way off what professionals expect.


Plural. It is much more likely that he was refering to "those applications". Specially if you consider that it was a reply to a comment quoting his (moondevil's) own opinion that "most open source desktop applications suck".

So, I'd check my reading comprehension skills if I were you.

Reply Score: 1

Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

I'm also not sure what you imagine "professionals" expect from video playing applications. MPlayer and VLC are popular for what they are, not for how well they work in some imaginary professional video watching market.


I am no video professional, yet I needn't be one to see how VLC cannot get something as elementary as DVD playback right. While the movie is usually OK, the menu handling is abysmal.

About the article: I agree with the people who say open source is not the solution. It is a possibility, and nothing more. For an easy glimpse of how an OSS email client (just to stay on topic) can mess up, have a look at Kmail 2.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I am no video professional, yet I needn't be one to see how VLC cannot get something as elementary as DVD playback right. While the movie is usually OK, the menu handling is abysmal.

Also performance and seeking ( http://kyon.pl/img/9115.html ) tend to be somewhat inconsistent. Mplayer behaviour seems much nicer overall, but it's the VLC that got so much more traction - and probably for being, for a long time, an all-in-one installer for... Windows.

Reply Score: 2

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17


VLC, Mplayer


What is it that professionals expect from a video player? Frankly VLC plays far more files, and is far more tolerant than something like QT. I know lots of professionals that use VLC. Show me a better proprietary video player that supports all the options from VLC.


Nero runs circles around K3b.

Recently Nero has been turning into horrible trash (especially the interface). Plus I don't know of anybody that uses the more advanced features from nero. K3B is far better if you just want a simple interface that just works.


I'm not entirely disputing your previous point, but the examples I just mentioned really don't count.

Edited 2012-07-22 10:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

At the end of the day the developers need to bring money home, and there is none to be had when your software is 100% available for the others to take, and you cannot sell services on top of it.

This is the reason why most open source desktop applications suck


You make a reasonable point, Lunduke has being saying similar things on the Linux action show. I agree Open-source development is likely to be faster / better if funding is more obvious and available.

Then you blow it out of the water by saying Open-source software is crap (sorry you specify desktop) as presumably you realize that your argument would immediately fail if we considered server software. Now VLC / Mplayer being crap, I believe not, I can think of many proprietary media players that are far worse Winamp, Realplayer or even Windows media player. GIMP is good it may not be as good as Photoshop but is better than most proprietary graphics editors. Last time I used Nero it sucked, maybe it has improved but for the burning I do I don't need or want bloatware or the rest of the crap that comes with Nero.

Finally you make a reasonable point about how Libre office has made good progress due to funding from Sun - raising the point that funding is important.

Good luck with the finding of quality Windows shareware sorting through the maleware and porn, personally I pleased it's something I don't do anymore.

Reply Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Good luck with the finding of quality Windows shareware sorting through the malware and porn

And through crippleware (after a while, people find that the software is severely limited), closed formats, inability to audit or improve the software and a lot of factors that originated the word "shameware".

personally I pleased it's something I don't do anymore.

Me, too :-)

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually a lot of the best open source software is for Windows or can be run on Windows quite easily.

There is a lot of good software for Windows that can be bought that doesn't include malware or any other bollox.

It frequently overlooked and everything that seems to be a Linux advocate thinks it is still the late 90s.

f--king please.

Stop telling lies for Linux.

Edited 2012-07-22 17:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

There is a lot of good software for Windows that can be bought that doesn't include malware or any other bollox.

A lot of people think that they "bought" software but it wasn't true :-( . Later they could talk with their accounting department, if they had one, and see that it wasn't a buy, the software was not theirs.

If what you meant is that there is a lot of good free software for Windows that doesn't include malware(*)... yes, that's true. Nobody said the contrary. You'll probably have installed software of this kind.

A different case is, well, you probably know a lot of cases of people that were installing programs and left their computer/data affected because of treacheries. So "Gone fishing" wished good luck to them.

(*) Or is crippleware (after a while, people find that the software is severely limited), uses closed formats to make you dependant on them, causes the inability to audit or improve the software, installs porn toolbars or similar, changes the home page of the internet browser, installs in a way that is difficult to remove it, etc.

Edited 2012-07-22 17:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Now VLC / Mplayer being crap, I believe not, I can think of many proprietary media players that are far worse Winamp

Winamp is far superior with music ...and just a front-end to external playback mechanisms with video (which can be worse or better than the internal playback mechanism of VLC... http://kyon.pl/img/9115.html http://kyon.pl/img/17235.html ).
Also, I wouldn't call MPlayer (which I prefer for video BTW) a desktop application, it sucks at that - it's more a library used by front-ends, analogous to Winamp & external.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18



While VLC has it's problems I've never seen it screw up that badly.


Eh, I don't really see a noticeable difference except maybe on the subtitles.

it's more a library used by front-ends, analogous to Winamp & external.


I prefer SMPlayer to VLC and it is pretty sweet on both Linux and Windows.

Edited 2012-07-26 16:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

> http://kyon.pl/img/9115.html

While VLC has it's problems I've never seen it screw up that badly.

Hm? It screws up very often like that, while seeking. Yes, that is resolved when the next "full" frame is encountered ...still, some other players don't have that issue at all (and seemingly without performance impact, and with seeking being much more responsive and precise - MPlayer is like that, and I use SMplayer too)

And sure, the differences with 2nd link aren't that great (check out the last comment there... and do you compare on cheap TN screen? ;p ), but still (it's more about this common VLC propaganda of sorts, like it's the greatest video-playing achievement ever - it has many faults too, and it's momentum probably comes mostly just from being since the ~beginning an all-in-one installer for Windows)

Edited 2012-07-26 16:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Hm? It screws up very often like that, while seeking.


Ah, its while seeking, i thought it was while playing. I guess I have seen that then.

and do you compare on cheap TN screen?


I dunno. What's a "cheap TN screen"? This is on a ViewSonic vx1937wma.

Reply Score: 2

neutralTTY Member since:
2012-01-12

Nero runs circles around K3b.

With the difference that Nero Linux will not been developed anymore.

Reply Score: 3

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

And with the difference that K3b already does what I (and most of people) need: burning CDs and DVDs. And in a way that is free (as in "free speech" and as in "free beer").

Reply Score: 5

RE: How to live from open source.
by WorknMan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 18:59 UTC in reply to "How to live from open source."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

At the end of the day the developers need to bring money home, and there is none to be had when your software is 100% available for the others to take, and you cannot sell services on top of it.


This is a good point, as it is likely that Sparrow would never have existed as an open source app, because you're not going to make money like that by selling support services, or coffee mugs. And hey, not everybody wants to work for free.

And anyway, I recently read that an open source email app (Thunderbird) has had its development stopped recently, except for bug fixes and security updates. Will anybody fork it and continue working on it? Who knows. But really, how many open source projects have died on the vine because the developer got bored with it, or didn't have the time to work on it anymore.

The point is that whether you're using open or closed source apps, there's really no guarantees one way or the other, unless you personally plan to work on an open source app if it gets abandoned. Personally, I'd rather use an app where the developer gets paid for it, because then you know his livelihood depends on the continued development of the app, vs 'I just had a kid so I don't have time to work on this in the evenings anymore.' Sure, he may get bought out and the app killed, but like I said, there are really no guarantees one way or the other.

Reply Score: 3

RE: How to live from open source.
by ricegf on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 19:23 UTC in reply to "How to live from open source."
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Sure there are lots of benefits in using open source applications, even I use lots of open source applications.


Don't feel bad. Even hardcore open source haters use open source now. It's unavoidable.

Open source only works in products where the developers can get the money by selling services on top of it, or hardware that makes use of the said software.


Most large successful and high-quality open source products work because they receive corporate backing.

Android Linux is probably the best example, with IBM and Red Hat providing steady revenue for the kernel, Sun for the VM (at least pre-Oracle), and Google for the userland. Google also largely funded Firefox, which kicked proprietary monopoly IE's tail from Scranton to LA, and then Chromium, which made the browser market a three horse plus change race.

Small indie developers sometimes make good and change the world, of course (BitTorrent, anyone?), but the big names in large open source projects are funded by corporations that profit from them - for better or worse.

Reply Score: 4

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"Sure there are lots of benefits in using open source applications, even I use lots of open source applications.


Don't feel bad. Even hardcore open source haters use open source now. It's unavoidable.
"

Why should I feel bad?

My employer is able to charge the same consulting prices as with proprietary tools, but get the source code and the project tools for free, without giving anything back, thus increasing profits.

Edited 2012-07-23 07:16 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: How to live from open source.
by zima on Sat 28th Jul 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE: How to live from open source."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Even hardcore open source haters use open source now. It's unavoidable.

Now, if only some OSS-devotees - who likewise absolutely can't avoid depending on closed software behind large part of our modern world (perhaps even to a more fundamental degree) - would stop hatin'...

Edited 2012-07-29 00:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Research project
by Gone fishing on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 07:55 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

The difference between open and closed source, is that when you get a closed source piece of software, you are getting a product or a service and that can end. Open-source is more like a research project, if the original researchers (developers) drop the project, if the project is worth continuing (going somewhere interesting etc) it will be taken up by new researchers. This is a more natural development process than closed source. My problem with Richard Stallman is he is too interested in promoting his slightly misconceived notion of Freedom, what the FSF should be doing is trying to find innovative ways of Funding software research.

Reply Score: 4

Thunderbird
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 09:00 UTC
arpan
Member since:
2006-07-30

No one's mentioned Thunderbird yet?

http://www.osnews.com/story/26159/Mozilla_to_cease_development_on_T...

Isn't Thunderbird in the same boat? Mozilla has decided to stop developing it further and so it is only going to get big fixes! OS didn't help there.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Thunderbird
by NuxRo on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 09:05 UTC in reply to "Thunderbird"
NuxRo Member since:
2010-09-25

No one's mentioned Thunderbird yet?

http://www.osnews.com/story/26159/Mozilla_to_cease_development_on_T...

Isn't Thunderbird in the same boat? Mozilla has decided to stop developing it further and so it is only going to get big fixes! OS didn't help there.


It's hardly the case, development of T-bird hasn't ceased completely, and (this is the really crucial bit) should one individual or company need an enhanced version of T-bird they can do it themselves at any given time since the source is public.
For the moment there is no need for "OS" help.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Thunderbird
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 09:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Thunderbird"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

But for a user who can't program, both look the same.

Most likely, Sparrow will be back in a short time under the Google brand and with new features, while Thunderbird currently has no one developing it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Thunderbird
by raboof on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thunderbird"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

But for a user who can't program, both look the same.

Valid point
Most likely, Sparrow will be back in a short time under the Google brand and with new features, while Thunderbird currently has no one developing it.

Actually, I think it's the other way around. Thunderbird is still in wide use and will likely find maintainers and contributors, while the Sparrow guys are hired to be working on other Google products and not on Sparrow.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Thunderbird
by jptros on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thunderbird"
jptros Member since:
2005-08-26

Postbox is an enhanced version of thunderbird.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Thunderbird
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thunderbird"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Right, and it's closed source!

Is Postbox Open Source?

Not entirely, however, a source code version of certain portions of Postbox that may constitute “Covered Code” (as defined in the Mozilla Public License) is available


http://postbox-inc.com/?/blog/entry/an_awesome_alternative_for_thun...

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Thunderbird
by jptros on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thunderbird"
jptros Member since:
2005-08-26

And that disqualifies it why?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Thunderbird
by saponaope on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 14:38 UTC in reply to "Thunderbird"
saponaope Member since:
2012-07-23

The news about Thunderbird death are greatly exaggerated.
See, for example, http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/thunderbird-15-beta-1-lands-with...

Reply Score: 2

Open Source email clients
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 09:05 UTC
arpan
Member since:
2006-07-30

There are many free & Open Source email clients like Thunderbird. But for some reason Sparrow became popular.

It shouldn't be that hard to skin and modify Thunderbird to look and behave like Sparrow, but it didn't happen there, instead a much smaller team built a client that so many users are so passionate about.

And I'm pretty sure that this app will reappear under a new name pretty soon. It's not dead, just a small gap and a new brand name.

It doesn't matter if an application is Open Source or not. The success of the software depends on the people creating it. Very few projects succeed once the original people leave.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Open Source email clients
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 09:07 UTC in reply to "Open Source email clients"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Most of the Sparrow's users are probably non-programmers. I assume most of the Open Source devs are using Android. As such Sparrow's user base aren't equipped to continue development even if they had the source code.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Open Source email clients
by Nth_Man on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source email clients"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Most of the Sparrow's users are probably non-programmers. [...] As such Sparrow's user base aren't equipped to continue development even if they had the source code.

You know, people that can't do plumbing at their home... contract plumbers. If a user can't program, he can contract programmers.

If people has the source code, it leaves an open door.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Open Source email clients
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Source email clients"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Examples of this happening in the past. It takes a lot of effort, although something like kickstarter may be useful.

In the past I've seen stats from open source projects which mentioned that less than 1% of users donate to the project. That's not a lot.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Open Source email clients
by Nth_Man on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open Source email clients"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

something like kickstarter may be useful.
In the past I've seen stats from open source projects which mentioned that less than 1% of users donate to the project. That's not a lot.

There are a lot of stats, a lot of projects and a lot of percentages. For example, we could talk about Humble Indie Bundle 'V', getting more than 5.000.000$ from people who liked it. A better product is more likely to get money than another. But this discussion that I started was not about it.

The key is that if someone (*1) has the possibility of doing themselves the improvements (*2) or contracting someone (*3), it's better than not having this possibility. That's the key of that discussion that I started.

(*1) A user, a community of users, a company, a country, etc.
(*2) It can be a minor one, a medium one, a big one, etc. The bigger the improvement, the bigger will be the benefit for people.
(*3) It can be the original authors or some developer/s to negotiate the work with.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Open Source email clients
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Open Source email clients"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Sparrow was developed by a small team in a year.

If you have the budget, you can just hire a team of developers to recreate it with the features you need. Takes a little more effort, but just because there is one closed source app, it does not prevent you from creating another closed or open source app.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Open Source email clients
by westlake on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Open Source email clients"
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

For example, we could talk about Humble Indie Bundle 'V', getting more than 5.000.000$ from people who liked it.


The Humble Bundle is eight Indie games which have had broad exposure and good reviews on the Windows platform and sells for 5 to 10 percent of retail list.

The return is typically $8 from the Windows gamer.

3/4 of the total.

$12 from the Linux gamer.

1/8-1/4 of the total.

Purchases are framed as "donations" --- with the return split between charities, developers, and the Humble Bundle itself. I don't believe HB has ever published a chart of the breakdown.

The Humble Bundle is a promotion. It builds awareness of Indie gaming.

But the direct cash return to the developer is small.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Open Source email clients
by westlake on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Source email clients"
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

You know, people that can't do plumbing at their home... contract plumbers. If a user can't program, he can contract programmers.


At what cost per billable hour?

Mozilla's only significant source of revenue is the add-click.

The mother lode.

But not enough to keep Thunderbird from being retired to maintenance mode.

Google abandons projects at a dizzying pace and it has money to burn.

It is one thing to call in a plumber for a routine installation or repair.

If you have an ambitious custom job mind, say construction of a garden pool and waterfall, you'll need a contractor, maybe an architect or engineer, who specializes in these things and can see the problem as a whole.

Which means that the bill is likely to skyrocket.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Open Source email clients
by Nth_Man on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 17:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open Source email clients"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

> > people that can't do plumbing at their home... contract
> > plumbers. If a user can't program, he can contract
> > programmers.

> At what cost per billable hour?
This would have to be negotiated. As you have the source code and can improve it, you (a company, a user, a group of users, etc.) have available a lot of developers to negotiate it with, and see if the improvement is worth the money. Anyway if there are better alternatives, people are not going to pay a lot...

> But not enough to keep Thunderbird from being retired to
> maintenance mode.
> Which means that the bill is likely to skyrocket.
You have more developers available than Mozilla. Other people may develop or contract someone to improve Thunderbird, though... I'm not going to pay Mozilla or another developer to improve Thunderbird because I don't use Thunderbird but another program. So I understand if they simply start using another program or keep using Thunderbird if it fits their needs.

For not repeating myself, I wrote about this in http://www.osnews.com/thread?527710

Reply Score: 3

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 09:08 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

It is either open, or it's vulnerable to such situations. Business will always be a business.

Personally I don't trust people who do what they do not from their own passion, but the passion for money. It can never end in a good way.

That's why I use open sourced/free software exclusively. I do support it in many ways and boy ... I got a boatload of great stuff in return.

I never used Sparrow. I suppose it was good. I used Thunderbird, but - as they're are "closing the business" - I switched to Claws-Mail. Now, that's an e-mail client! It may not look compelling, but it is truly a work of passion.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by marcp
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 09:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Passionate people have to eat too!

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 10:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

That's one of the most rediculous thing we hear when someone says "Open Source", "Free Software", etc. It comes from misunderstanding.

*Open Source / Free Software does not imply lack of money / support / earnings*

In other words: you can live from Open Source / Free Software. License permits it and we have quite of the ecosystems built just for that purpose.

Having more from sharing less is a myth which was already debunked.

BESIDES: you never earn so little that you can't feed yourself, or your family. Let's put a scale on that, because it sounds stupid. You may not afford newest model of car, greates house on the earth, but you will not starve on Open Source / Free Software

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Other than browsers which make money when a user searches, how many successful consumer software products do you know that are open source?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Other than browsers which make money when a user searches, how many successful consumer software products do you know that are open source?


Virtually all web services run on, use or are built with open source software. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and a gazilion others - all consumer products. Then there's browsers (as you mentioned), Android (massive success story if there ever was one), Linux (powers god knows how many consumer products) - and this is just what I can think of without trying.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

All these successful open source products are used by developers like you and me. And these developers are capable of contributing back.

But the web services that the consumers use that you mentioned like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. are all closed source.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by moondevil on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Virtually all web services run on, use or are built with open source software. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and a gazilion others - all consumer products.


Closed source server side code, which is paid by the data they get from you to sell to 3rd parties.

Then there's browsers (as you mentioned), Android (massive success story if there ever was one), Linux (powers god knows how many consumer products) - and this is just what I can think of without trying.


Android development costs are covered by hardware sales.

All those examples are not desktop/native applications like Sparrow.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

I hope you did a research on your side.

Have you ever seen CMS, Blog, Web Portal, etc software of any sort? it usually shares open source model. It gives you "community" version, and paid one [commercial]. Feel free to contact the authors of this software. They won't tell you how much they earn, but I can assure you that these are successfull businessess.

Examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems

We also have Red Hat, IBM, HP using and promoting open source worldwide.

That's supplementary to what Thom have said.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

As I mentioned above, all these are tools that are used by developers who are capable of contributing back.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

I beg to differ. CMS, WordPress, etc are not limited to developers. In fact, most of these products are designed to be dead easy to use by regular users. You are not required to modify any source code of WordPress in order to use it. In fact, most users are not capable of it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by marcp
by lucas_maximus on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by marcp"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Wordpress IMHO is the only one that is easily setup by someone that is non-technical, and it usually offered free with most web hosting.

Reply Score: 3

At the MErcy of Developers
by Keybounce on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 11:13 UTC
Keybounce
Member since:
2012-04-24

Complaints about a loss of faith in a "philosophy" that amounted to expecting that buying a product meant you had an ethical claim on the vendor is nonsense.

All talk of "supporting" a product, in the closed and open worlds, is silly and naive.

Open source does not guarantee any product will survive. The arena is littered with products that died when their devlopers lost interest. Sure, other developers can pick them up or fork them, but they lose interest, as well.

Besides, a closed product like Sparrow can be emulated, rather than forked. Sparrow showed there is a market for a simple, cheap email client for OS X. Maybe someone else will try to exploit that.

In any case, users are at the mercy of developers, open and closed. If they don't want to code it, there's nothing we can do about it.

Reply Score: 5

...
by Hiev on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 16:10 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Is not clear to me what Google wants do do with Sparrow.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 16:43 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

The original developers aren't around, everyone makes the assumption because it is open source, it is easily supported.

Without a full set of documentation and a team willing to take over the project. Doesn't necessarily mean that the project will be taken over.

The million man developer army is a myth.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by _txf_ on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 17:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

The original developers aren't around, everyone makes the assumption because it is open source, it is easily supported.


Except nobody is saying that support is guaranteed. What is said is that the possibility of support is there. The chance that there is support depends on developer interest and user interest. I daresay that in this particular case, Sparrow would have no problem finding new contributors.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by arpan on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Except nobody is saying that support is guaranteed. What is said is that the possibility of support is there. The chance that there is support depends on developer interest and user interest. I daresay that in this particular case, Sparrow would have no problem finding new contributors.


Right, and so, even if the source code is not available, how is that preventing you or anyone else from recreating the app? It will just take a little longer.

Sparrow was built by a small team in a relatively short time. If the market really exists, then someone else can do it again. They don't even have to be very creative, they can just copy what Sparrow did. And Google's not going to sue them, especially if it is an Open Source clone of Sparrow.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by _txf_ on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

True, there is nothing preventing anybody from creating a clone. Having the source however, would reduce the barriers to entry and reduce any losses in the community whilst the clone is being created. By the time the clone has reached the level of the clonee then it is probably too late...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by arpan on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Too late for what?

It's not like Sparrow's going to stop working while you work on the clone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

A lot of debatable, which is the exactly the point.

Edited 2012-07-22 19:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v Stop playing Skyrim then
by ze_jerkface on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 21:53 UTC
RE: Stop playing Skyrim then
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2012 22:17 UTC in reply to "Stop playing Skyrim then"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Funny.

I can't recall me saying - in this article or any of the ten billion that came before it - that you shouldn't use closed source software. Heck, I use closed source software all the time, and write about it, too.

I think you're the one being the zealot here, with kneejerk responses, without actually thinking before you post.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Stop playing Skyrim then
by ze_jerkface on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 02:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Stop playing Skyrim then"
RE[3]: Stop playing Skyrim then
by _txf_ on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 06:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stop playing Skyrim then"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I'm just reporting the facts. I have a follow up story on how living in a black neighborhood increases the risk of getting mugged. I've never said I'm against living in a black neighborhood. Just reporting the dangers of living in a black neighborhood, that's all. I'm fair and balanced.


Er, It should be perfectly acceptable to report on the dangers of living in a BAD neighborhood, and one shouldn't expect people to come looking for false equivalencies.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It it quite obvious to anyone except for the zealots that this was

"look in this one case, closed source software is bad ... even though there is still security updates".

I have worked with some really evil software, some of it was closed, some of it was open ... there was an equal amount of both.

Ask some of the BSD guys about the number of Linuxism in code, ask about how the GNU compiler has been specifically designed so you can separate the parser form the rest of the compiler (delibrate so that people can't use it for their own projects).

How many years have the BSD community been trying to rid themselves of GCC compiler (look at the PCC and LLVM projects), because GCC has been gradually getting worse with each release?

The point is there is lock-in with open source products and projects ... why because design decisions are more important than the code itself.

Design decisions change the way you code. A bad API can make you code a mess (ask me I just finished integrating some Olympic results feeds into the CMS, the API was interesting to say the least).

What annoys me is the fact that open source is made out like this wonderful silver bullet that will instantly solve everything, if everyone followed the "true path".

And some of us react strongly against that. Because we simple do not think it is true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Stop playing Skyrim then
by ze_jerkface on Wed 25th Jul 2012 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stop playing Skyrim then"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

and one shouldn't expect people to come looking for false equivalencies.


There is no false equivalency.

It's pandering to sourceologists.

OSNews, Slashdot and Ars all pander to this crowd with these types of headlines.

You'll never see a headline about the dangers of open source just as you won't see Fox News run a headline about the dangers of Romney.

While I don't mind people making a buck off the religious I do get annoyed when what I do for a living becomes demonized, especially when the open source crowd is unable to compete in my area due to economic limitations.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Stop playing Skyrim then
by Soulbender on Wed 25th Jul 2012 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stop playing Skyrim then"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, some of us feel the same way when closed-sourceologists who can't compete demonizes what we do.

Reply Score: 2

Premature conclusions
by Soulbender on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 04:24 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

The fact that Sparrow got purchased by Google does not invalidate this theory/philosophy on paying for apps.
Sure, paying for the apps might help but unless your app is insanely succcessful, like Angry Birds or something, having a handful of users pay $5 isn't going to put food on the table.
But does this mean you should stop paying? Certainly not. Every little bit helps and the people paying probably helped Sparrow going longer than it would have otherwise.

On a related note, making your software OSS does not ensure it won't die. It just makes it easier for the community to continue the project if the original developers stop. Of course, this only works if there are developers in the community willing to do so.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Premature conclusions
by lucas_maximus on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 19:28 UTC in reply to "Premature conclusions"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Or the source code repository doesn't drop off the face of the earth.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 05:19 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

I really wish people would wake up and start paying attention to the world we live in.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by bouhko
by bouhko on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 12:52 UTC
bouhko
Member since:
2010-06-24

I'm wondering what would have been the reaction of the Apple crowd if Apple instead of Google had bought Sparrow.

More on the subject, I don't see why people are complaining. They paid for an app and as far as I know, they can still use the app and Sparrow even said they'll provide maintenance fixes.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by sicofante
by sicofante on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 15:56 UTC
sicofante
Member since:
2009-07-08

I'm all for open source, but what Sparrow highlights is the dangers of not going closed source for some desktop apps.

Consider for a minute what the Sparrow team achieved in about one year: they became the number 1 mail app for OS X, earned $10 from each of their thousands of users, and then they got 25 million USD for their company.

Now please explain how could they have done that by going open source. Remember this is an email client. No services, no support, no nothing to bring money home from that code. How on Earth would Sparrow devs and investors become financially healthy by giving away their code? Why would Google have to shell out those millions instead of just offering the (starving) guys some jobs?

If anything, this news shows very clearly that if anyone is thinking of doing some desktop apps they should go closed source, be very creative and expect some big guy to make the rest of their life a walk in the park, or just make a nice living by licensing their software to happy users, like Sparrow's were.

As a matter of fact, I'm thinking of just hiring people to develop a new e-mail client for Gmail (desktop and/and or webapp), since open source advocates are stubbornly settled on folders instead of labels and there's not even an IMAP server that does labels properly (and as far as I can tell, from diggin the mailing lists of the likes of Dovecot or Courier, that simply won't happen).

Open source applications can only be made by students being fed by their parents or teams sponsored by big corporations, like Mozila being sponsored by Google, or The Document Foundation being sponsored by a consortium of pretty big companies. Small teams of grown up individuals who live on their own must be crazy to go open source for their desktop apps development. The Sparrow experience encourages every adult developer not willing to work for huge corporations to go closed source, not the opposite.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by sicofante
by marcp on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 16:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by sicofante"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

If earning money [not writing the actual code. Joy of coding, anybody?] is your only motivation for creating and developing software, then you should probobly not do it. Otherwise you will make more harm and damages, than good. You will produce code of low quality, you will release it earlier, you will not test it, and all of this will be the result of one pursue: money. More money, less time to waste, worse code, less time to focus on a code of good quality. Your clients [otherwise called in open source community: users, friends] will suffer data loss, security failures and other unpleasant situations. All because of your greed and ongoing pursue for getting more and more money. You will end up being completely disconnected from the community of the users of your application, your ass will be sued continuously by dissapointed users, and there will be not much joy left.

I don't like that. If you like it - go ahead and create this filthy karma for yourself.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by sicofante
by lucas_maximus on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by sicofante"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

If earning money [not writing the actual code. Joy of coding, anybody?] is your only motivation for creating and developing software, then you should probobly not do it. Otherwise you will make more harm and damages, than good. You will produce code of low quality, you will release it earlier, you will not test it, and all of this will be the result of one pursue: money. More money, less time to waste, worse code, less time to focus on a code of good quality. Your clients [otherwise called in open source community: users, friends] will suffer data loss, security failures and other unpleasant situations. All because of your greed and ongoing pursue for getting more and more money. You will end up being completely disconnected from the community of the users of your application, your ass will be sued continuously by dissapointed users, and there will be not much joy left.


What an epic fail.

It like saying that every person that has a shop to make money only cares about making money and not their customers. If you have dissatisfied customers, you won't have repeat business.

Daisy Hosting I knew recently lost £500,000 contract with one of the largest charities in the UK

Some of us believe in providing quality code whatever the license is. Just because someone produces code for money doesn't mean they don't enjoy it ... what utter rubbish.

Bespoke proprietary software by agencies that don't care tend to be crap.

But we had a Web based Video library for the website, created by one guy and he did all the support and updates ... was one of the best products I have ever used. Very reliable and we only had the old codec problem.

I recently bought a bike from a bloke, and he was excellent ... cheap shipping (from the UK to Spain), beat the big guys on prices and was really friendly to boot and put in a few extra fun things.

Just because someone is making money doing something doesn't mean they are just in it to make money.

I am sorry you think that every business just wants to screw you over but that just isn't true.

Edited 2012-07-23 19:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by sicofante
by marcp on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sicofante"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

Just because someone is making money doing something doesn't mean they are just in it to make money.


That is NOT what I meant. First: I was not talking about any and every business. Second: I was talking in favor of open source. I was pointing out positive sides of Open Source by giving examples of close source failures. I realize it was some kind of generalization. I'm sure there are some good developers who write excellent code under closed source agreements. However: we don't know how many of them do it, because there is no access to their source code.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by sicofante
by lucas_maximus on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by sicofante"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

So you were talking in favour while saying everything about open source was a load of rubbish.

You know what that is ... propaganda, FUD or lies.

Have a nice day.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by sicofante
by Gone fishing on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sicofante"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Why do you insist on being so aggressive your response has almost nothing to do with marcp's post - epic fail is just rude. Your response is a proprietary software fanboy rant and that is getting very boring.

Edited 2012-07-23 20:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by sicofante
by lucas_maximus on Mon 23rd Jul 2012 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by sicofante"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

He just generalized every developer that doesn't release their the source code as money grabbing scum.

Sorry, I think that is incredibly rude and not representative of that work producing products and doing our best to write quality software against red tape, deadlines and mismanagement.

So I think it is an epic fail, because he simply believes we are not dedicated. I have myself walked out of a room in front of management because I believe in doing things right, I almost lost my job on that occasion.

I have seen developers work all nighters to get a product that works well, and they write bloody good code.

So don't f--king tell me I am doing some drumbeat about proprietary software.

Quite frankly it is f--king insulting, how you guys speak about developers like myself.

As for me being a fanboy, I actually buy OpenBSD releases, used to be a Linux Admin and now a web developer (first PHP and now ASP.NET) and currently learning Ruby on Rails ... :|

Edited 2012-07-23 21:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by sicofante
by marcp on Tue 24th Jul 2012 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by sicofante"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

Hello again,

As I already said I do realize I generalized the problem. However, the real issue remains unsolved: we have NO access to proprietary code. Nobody can see if it's really good, or if it's just a badly written code.
How would you measure code quality if you don't have an access to the source? DO you want to judge upon such factors as "stability"? Well, this can be accomplished by using dirty hacks, tricks inside the code. Everything runs just fine, but the code is NOT good, which is something you should already know as an OpenBSD user [I am an OpenBSD user and OpenBSD [3rd party] software developer myself, so I thought we should share the same point here].

As of the other things you mentioned: I do not say that every proprietary code developer writes "crap". I just say we have no ways to see what's the real value of proprietary code.

Bye and sorry it it makes you angry. That was not the point. It was and is all about access, knowledge and quality.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by sicofante
by lucas_maximus on Tue 24th Jul 2012 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by sicofante"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

As I already said I do realize I generalized the problem. However, the real issue remains unsolved: we have NO access to proprietary code. Nobody can see if it's really good, or if it's just a badly written code.[/quote]

TBH all that matters to a user that it works as advertised aka to requirements. The development team is the only people that should be worried about code quality as bad code costs the business development time.

It is also rather trivial to see how a program works (profiling, tools such as wireshack, to how a program is working behind the scenes).

[q]How would you measure code quality if you don't have an access to the source? DO you want to judge upon such factors as "stability"? Well, this can be accomplished by using dirty hacks, tricks inside the code.


I don't have to measure code quality, I am the user not the development team.

Everything runs just fine, but the code is NOT good, which is something you should already know as an OpenBSD user [I am an OpenBSD user and OpenBSD [3rd party] software developer myself, so I thought we should share the same point here].


I might be a user but I do not believe in an extreme philosophy that all code my be open and one cannot judge quality unless we can see the complete source code.

As of the other things you mentioned: I do not say that every proprietary code developer writes "crap". I just say we have no ways to see what's the real value of proprietary code.


You said it was crap code and they will be sued and a lot of other nonsense.

Bye and sorry it it makes you angry. That was not the point. It was and is all about access, knowledge and quality.


You are taking things to an extreme, it doesn't help anyone. Sorry what you have is a belief.

I will keep on saying it, open source isn't magical bullet. It works for some projects and companies ... others it would kill their business model.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by sicofante
by Soulbender on Tue 24th Jul 2012 04:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by sicofante"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

If earning money [not writing the actual code. Joy of coding, anybody?] is your only motivation for creating and developing software, then you should probobly not do it.


Who said it is *only* for the money?

You will produce code of low quality, you will release it earlier, you will not test it, and all of this will be the result of one pursue: money


Sure, if your only motivation is money but that is often not the case. There are of course those who's only motivation is money but far from all closed-source developers are motivated only by money.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by sicofante
by Soulbender on Tue 24th Jul 2012 04:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by sicofante"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

earned $10 from each of their thousands of users , and then they got 25 million USD for their company.


Unless the thousands of users are more than 10k they didn't exactly rake in the profits.

How on Earth would Sparrow devs and investors become financially healthy by giving away their code?


How do you know they where financially healthy? Actually, you said they where starving.

Now please explain how could they have done that by going open source.


Neither the GPL nor the BSD/MIT license prohibits you from selling your product at a profit.

As a matter of fact, I'm thinking of just hiring people to develop a new e-mail client for Gmail


Good for you. Sounds like an interesting project.

Open source applications can only be made by students being fed by their parents or teams sponsored by big corporations


Wow, what a bunch of nonsense. There's plenty of proof to the contrary.
Stop talking before you make an ever bigger fool of yourself.

The Sparrow experience encourages every adult developer not willing to work for huge corporations to go closed source, not the opposite.


Well, that's their choice then. They should do what they feel suits them the best, be it open source or closed.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by sicofante
by sicofante on Tue 24th Jul 2012 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by sicofante"
sicofante Member since:
2009-07-08

"earned $10 from each of their thousands of users , and then they got 25 million USD for their company.


Unless the thousands of users are more than 10k they didn't exactly rake in the profits.
"

Whatever they made selling their software is much more than ZERO, which is exactly what they would have got by giving their software away. Being a prominent app in the OS X market place gives you plenty beyond 10K users, but even that is not the point.

"How on Earth would Sparrow devs and investors become financially healthy by giving away their code?


How do you know they where financially healthy? Actually, you said they where starving.
"

Maybe you should read my comment again, slowly. They WOULD BE starving if they had gone open source. I know they were financially healthy because they attracted investors (who are financially healthy by definition). You can bet those investors wouldn't be interested in an e-mail application that anyone can download for free. If you believe otherwise, please show examples and make reasonable assumptions that show you're right.

"Now please explain how could they have done that by going open source.


Neither the GPL nor the BSD/MIT license prohibits you from selling your product at a profit.
"

That's hardly the point. They don't prohibit that, but the effect is exactly the same: once I must publish the code, anyone can compile it and has no need to pay for my work. That's so obvious not even those explaining how to make money from open source consider the option of selling the software itself.

You haven't answered the question.

"Open source applications can only be made by students being fed by their parents or teams sponsored by big corporations


Wow, what a bunch of nonsense. There's plenty of proof to the contrary.
"

I'm eager to know about a single ONE proof. Just name one small company making a simple desktop app -akin to an e-mail client, which is what we're talking about here- that is making money out of selling it. Just one.

Until I see that proof, I stand by my point: open source desktop applications are made either by students (who are being fed by their parents) or by corporations (who make the money by using the software as a means to sell other products or services).

Edited 2012-07-24 22:44 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Beket_
by Beket_ on Tue 24th Jul 2012 14:18 UTC
Beket_
Member since:
2009-07-10

Has anyone suggested them to opensource sparrow?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Beket_
by sicofante on Tue 24th Jul 2012 22:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by Beket_"
sicofante Member since:
2009-07-08

It's Google's code now so the original developers don't have a word on this.

It's just a guess, but Google is not interested in the desktop app (as a matter of fact they are interested in people NOT using desktop apps to use Gmail) but the iOS port. Of course they are hiring the Sparrow team to improve the mobile Gmail experience, and eventally the web app too. There's no benefit for Google in releasing the code. But again, that's just my guess.

Reply Score: 1

What's wrong
by LB06 on Wed 25th Jul 2012 06:33 UTC
LB06
Member since:
2005-07-06

What exactly is wrong with a (proper) mobile web page? I hate it when companies start developing apps for absolutely no good reason, other than just to have an app. HTML5 is cross-platform compatible and usually provides a consistent experience across various platforms.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What's wrong
by lucas_maximus on Wed 25th Jul 2012 10:13 UTC in reply to "What's wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because it significantly drives up the costs of development.

Truely responsive web pages are hard to build, you do need to do device detection (should I server this flash, should I serve this images etc), you have to consider they more limited bandwidth these devices have.

It not just having a responsive layout.

Edited 2012-07-25 10:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Sparrow lite
by henderson101 on Wed 25th Jul 2012 15:02 UTC
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

Well.. I just installed the ad supported version of Sparrow to see what all the fuss is about, and it's very nice. I can't really say I'm missing much, the adds are small and unobtrusive and I think I'm going to use it as my default for a few weeks to see how I get on with it.

Reply Score: 2