I've always had mixed feelings about the Open Source movement because while my feelings suggest that this is surely a great innovation in software development, there are other (many) things that I don't agree with. Nevertheless, I've been contributing to free software (or open source) since 1996 and I'm still doing it. Nothing famous or that you might have heard of, though. But enough that I feel I have some insight on the subject.
Post a Comment
boring....I prefer Stallman's view...
From my point of view, the fact that GPL is helping big companies to grow even more, is not a problem of GPL itself, but a characteristic of the social relations that govern capitalism.
It's well known that monopoly capital grows at expenses of smaller business (and free projects such as GPL). In the same manner that a cooperative industry cannot survive and compete within the capitalist market rules, GPL won't survive at least in the form of it's original conception. The future under this system for OSS movement is to be an appendix of the big business.
I think OSS is a true revolutionary method of making software, and I support it, but like all things made by men, it's subject to the social conditions in which it grows, evolves and dies. So from my (socialist, as you see) point of view, the change is not in OSS or not OSS alone, but a change in the social relations in which we live.
Just my 2 cents.
“But why is there this case-sensitive thing??”. This is just crazy but, to be nice, I use to reply is “Because it is this way”. Neverthless this is just crazy, even if people are standardizing about clicking on a file rather than on typing its name. This is just a little example of weird things surrounding the whole happy picture.
OMG, we have a true geek soul there.
" Second thing is killing this platform is so called freedom to modify and redistribute (or even sell!) sotware."
Right, now there's a true and deep understanding of GPL.
"Why should a mother pay for a “free Linux” just a few bucks less than she would do for Windows"
That's an unusual mother. She wants enterpise-class Linux software with customer support. She probably doesn't have a helpful relative or friend. Yes, in this case she should just simply pay.
"while developers who created that very useful feature will be awarded as being part of the great Linux community"
Fortunately, nowadays more and more Linux developers get to get paid. This is a very good thing.
"what would be the free software / open source movement if, all of sudden, IBM, Sun, Red Hat and Novell stopped to pump money into it? Could that movement keep living on its own?"
Right. Debian die die die.
"Windows2003 over a 2 years old machine "
2 year old is "old" for you ? Good for you.
"World deserves only one OS to be the foundation of its everyday life, which would enhance productivity and innovation"
As a FOSS developer, you're pretty narrow minded.
"but a free Windows"
Forgive Us Father, For We Have Sinned.
I think the point of my previous post is found in the article when the author says that RedHat, IBM, Sun are making money from people working for them and selling only patched products. That's true. Sadly, the author doesn't go correctly in any direction of his article.
Sure you can't build your business totally on free software, but you don't have to rely totally upon the software. Red Hat is most assuredly a company that was built and has grown around free software. It does it by selling something that cannot be given away for free: Support, the ability to call somebody up on the phone to shout at when something doesn't work. Sure somebody else can take Red Hat repackage and sell it (good luck getting on the Best Buy software racks though), but you won't get the same level of support.
I really don't see how a free version of windows is even possible. If it started to affect their business Microsoft would almost certainly resort to the patent option, and tear it appart. The only free windows is for now a pirated windows, and even thats just free as in beer. Saying IP should be banned is a nice sentiment, but its completely unrealistic. Not to mention that I'd much rather have a standard OS like Linux of BSD than some funky non-standard one.
Ultimately most people don't really care what OS they run. Put someone in front of a machine that is easy to use, works in a sensible way, and does what they want it to do, and they won't care who made it. If they need to run windows apps, theres Wine, and Mono.
As for games, there are plenty of development options, even several for dealing with direct x (notably cedega). The free options though are things like Open GL/Open AL, SDL, the various python games modules, I'm certain cairo and glitz will be used for games soon enough as well.
P.S. Let me say, I favor open liscenses for everything. Think about it, your drug company finds the cure for cancer, you release the drug IP for free, you've just eliminated a plague of mankind. Imagine the good will. You couldn't buy that with a multi billion dollar advertising campaign.
This article seems to completely lack focus. First it claims to be about Stallman's vision. Then the author admits he knows nearly nothing about Stallman or his ideas, but that he completely disagrees nontheless.
And then he starts complaining about case sensitivity...
He claims free software is helping big companies hurt smaller companies, without giving any explanation why free software would be hurting small companies more than big companies.
First he claims that Red Hat, Sun and IBM are getting all this free help without paying anything. Then he says that the open source world would be nothing without the support from these companies. Which is it?
I understand that the author isn't a native speaker (neither am I), but some parts of the text are really hard to parse and make sence of. Getting someone to proofread your article before you post it would probably be a good idea.
So anyway, what is the point of this article? That open source developers are hurting the world and that we would be much better of if all software were proprietary? That UNIX sux and Windows rulez and open source developers are too stupid to understand this? Or what?
I just spent some time editing the article to make it a little clearer, but for the sake of fairness, I wasn't able to help the author make his points better. That would have been very difficult for me, as I disagree with him on many points.
Balkanization of successful products is certainly a plague that hampers productivity in the open source world, but it's something that happens everywhere. How many commercial word processors have been written? Dozens. A waste of time, yes, but that's what the free market is all about. The scourge of the open source movement isn't a communistic command economy (there isn't one) but rather a capitalistic free market free-for-all that keeps developers from uniting behind a single banner and making real headway. Isn't that ironic?
And it's true that large companies feed on the work that open source developers do, but I don't agree that it's a major problem. I don't think that most open source developers really have a hope of capitalizing on their work in a big way. They're either doing it for pay already (working for a company that let's them contribute), doing it for in house consumption, or for clients that are paying them, or as part of academic pursuits, or just for fun. I think a small company can make money by producing and supporting open source software. It's not easy, but it's not easy to succeed in the software industry. Period.
The first thing I don't understand about Stallman's ideology (or philosophy) is the very concept of free software he expresses...
Few people do.
It's whether of not someone wants to do business online, it isn't about the software. If free software works and can be implemented today without license hassles, then thats what people will do, and have done. If I'm making music, and I want to distribute it today, I want to have free access to encoders, and for my prospective listeners to have free access to decoders. It's not about freedom from price, but about freedom from restrictions or loss of civil rights legally embedded in the EULA's by corporations on behalf of cowardly government officials.
I can't summarize my point here, but, OK, I'll try: you're wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. You really didn't get it, that's a pity.
If you think GPL is bad, than don't use it, period. If you think Linux isn't the right thing, why don't you stop bickering and trolling and use Windows? If you can't understand what it's all about, than why don't you try to find enlightment instead of starting inept flamewars like this one?
Go and read the "Art of Unix Programming" from ESR; get Stephen Levy's "Hackers", and read it too; then if you still can't understand, then stop worrying and PLEASE talk about something else.
Why should someone pay for a “free Linux” just a few bucks less than he or she would do for Windows, but with Windows would have software for free, patches for free, help for free and so on?
Ok, I have Windows. Now, where is my software for free?
Helo Mr.,
you probably never heard of that you can switch NTFS to being case sensitive?
and you also probably never heard of JFS - a FS for Linux from IBM's OS/2 - that is case insensitive...
_very_ good point.
It rather seems like the author is just too lazy to change his working style, using the ominous 90% crowd as an excuse...
Developers know what they need. They are good at writing development tools, libraries, frameworks.
Open source developers generally don't have a marketing department and lack the understanding necessary to develop end-user applications. For this, you need domain experience and programming skills, a rare combination.
A company can bring both talents into the same pool, and is driven by the profit that comes together with a successful product.
Not to talk down the FSF and open source: The guys actually turned Unix into a pleasant platform by bringing us replacements for Unix utilities that were way better than the originals. (Compare Bash with (k)sh, gnu find with find, gnu tar with tar etc.). Among these tools, GCC is the most wonderful.
Fantastic as they are, these are not applications but tools. I can think of very few OSS applications that live up to their claims. The GIMP, OpenOffice (company sponsored) and Mozilla and its shootouts come to mind.
What about accounting & finance? Good CAD apps? 3d modelling? Are sophisticated applications out of the reach of OSS?
According to Stallman: Free software means software that respects the four essential freedoms. Freedom 0: freedom to run the program; 1, the freedom to study the source code and change it; 2, the freedom to make copies and distribute them to others; 3, the freedom to publish a modified version.
I don't see anything that says you can not make money.
According to the GPL you can use and modify said "free" software as long as you don't attempt to limit any of the above 4 "freedoms". Again, I don't see anything that says you can not make money.
If someone (A) wants to write software and give it away, that's their choice. If someone (B) can figure out how to make money from it without violating the GPL, bully for them. B is not ripping off A.
The author falters when he postulates Free Software is handicapped without the resources of corporate entities and products like Openoffice.org. What the author fails to recognize is that Free Software survived well before the contributions of corporate entities, and will survive if, or when, their contributions cease.
Free software does not prevent professional programmers from earning a living. Quite the contrary, as computers become more prevalent and entrenched in our societies and lives, professional programmers and programming skills become essential. Like most professionals, programmers will make a living by employing creative ways to solve ever increasing and complex problems.
Many individuals, corporate entities and governments employ professional programmers to create customized solutions to their unique problems. These programmers are not paid for the software they produce, instead, they are paid for their services and skills. A business that looses grounds to free software, is a business that deserves to die.
You are entitled to your opinions. However, I doubt your opinions are potent enough to stop people from contributing to free software. Finally, the notion that free software has to be a perfect model is as unrealistic as it is baseless.
The article is logically flawed on so many counts, that I find it hard to believe the author spent any time reflecting on the issues he presents.
NO. Wrong. More Wrong. He (the author) is mistaking free software for 'free as in beer', NOT the 'free as in freedom' that Stallman uses the term for. Stallman uses the term to describe the freedoms that people have to study how the software works, re-use parts of it in their own projects, change it as they see fit, and to share the software and improvements with others. The GPL itself even suggests ways of making money by selling support or charging for the physical act of distributing the software.
The point is that anyone can use GPL software and innovate with it. This includes big companies, but the point is that they can never take it away and release new work under a proprietry license.
It stays free (as in freedom) for big and small companies, organisations, universities and individuals to innovate with.
Therefore new companies can come along and use the GPL to compete with the larger companies therefore they have to innovate and be efficient to win. Only the best survives just like a true competitive market economy.
GPL is clearly good for innovation and for the economy.
The US came out on top becuase of its competitive economy, not for any other reason.
"Ok, I have Windows. Now, where is my software for free?"
In as much as the Linux crowd hates it... There is an ever growing number of open source projects working on Windows applications. The number of totally free and extremely good Windows applications is rather enormus.
I'm not entirely sure the point the author is trying to make, however, I would like to say that this is fairly typical of most refutations of the FOSS, in that they cannot be taken seriously.
IMHO, I like FOSS for many reasons, not least because:
(a) I don't have to give my euros to the epitome of an evil corporation
(b) it gives corporations the opertunaty to give something back which otherwise, they would be less than inclined to do
(c) I think case /is/ important
I also think that GNU/Linux is, in a lot of places, technically superior, allowing people with enough time and determination to do some pretty clever and innovative things.
However, I think there are some fundamental "issues" that FOSS suffers from, which are very rarely expressed adequately. Most of the dissenters are firmly in the windows camp. In my experience, most constructive critism, that comes from within the community, is put down with dogmatic prescriptive retorts about the "superiority" of FOSS, which is scarily reminiscent of totalitarianism.
FOSS, like anything else, has its flaws. However, the community has to be aware (and form some kind of concensus) of the "issues" before things can progress. Simply dogmatically replying that FOSS is superior (so as to not give the enemy any ammunition...) is not adequate.
"Issues" that I have:
- "Nothing is ever easy the first time" syndrome. Infact, simple things are often very difficult (this is the role of the distributors IMHO)
- This is compounded by sparten documentation. e.g. gtk; great toolkit but you'd have to be /seriously/ committed to actually use it.
- Power vs. Ease of Use: the CLI is brilliant (most of the time), and some of the GUIs are getting there. What about linking the two together?
- User mode filesystem: why aren't the ftp, ssh, etc. filesystems from gnome and kde in the kernel?? (it makes me crazy!)
- there is a lot of bad code out there that would be easier to rewrite from scratch than retrofit (partiularly really bad APIs), but due to the popularity of the project, nothing much ever gets done about it.
I think I've written enough.
Oh yes, my point, erm, yes, something about public debate being important and the environment.
"The number of totally free and extremely good Windows applications is rather enormus."
He's not talking spyware-infected freeware, he's talking about actual open source applications. The only thing enormous( or as you put it "enormus") is the cost of Windows applications.
Sophisticated applications aren't out of the reach of free software developers. Free software has tools capable of producing almost any software application conceivable. The constraints are resources and motivation, not necessarily know-how. If hackers do not have pressing needs to develop an application, they wouldn't. The domain of free software application is generic software, not specialized software. For example, you wouldn't hear of a hacker writing code for a super computer in his spare time. It isn't impossible to do, it's just that I don't know too many hackers that own super computers.
http://www.linux.org/apps/all/Graphics/3D_Modelling.html
http://www.linux.org/apps/all/Graphics/CAD/CAM.html
http://www.linux.org/apps/all/Graphics/Image_Manipulation.html
http://www.linux.org/apps/all/Office/Financial.html
"The number of totally free and extremely good Windows applications is rather enormus."
He's not talking spyware-infected freeware, he's talking about actual open source applications. The only thing enormous( or as you put it "enormus") is the cost of Windows applications.
---
There are many very good windows applications. e.g. cygwin, erm, DC++, erm, WinSCP, etc. Just take a look at sourceforge.
the most important thing about the GPL and gnu free software is that it will never vanish just because some suit said so. as long as someone have a copy of the code a compiler and a ascii text editor they can continue to develop the app.
software development from a industrial standpoint is flawed, just like any other intellectual property based "industry". a industry is based on spitting out cookie cutter items on a conveyor belt. it works for cars and it works for toasters, but it does not work for ip as its a very individual prosess. sure, people can cooperate to make it, but just like a band can make music together, the individual is just as important as the whole.
the holy grail for ip industry thinkers is when you can press a button on a machine and have it spit out what you want, be it music, software, paintings or books with the quality of the greatest creative minds of past and present. but when that happens, have we not made the human obsolete?
a coder is more like a architect and engineer rolled into one. and those gets payed pr project, not pr use of whatever construction they erect.
original musicians, writers and painters where the same. they made stuff based on commission, not for later sale. a composer could and still can take payment for performance. a painter (of the modern photograph) still survive based on commission (alltho some special cases, like the press photograh gets payed by selling access to pictures he have at hand). only the writer is the one that survive based on ip protection alone.
this i guess is the problem, to broad laws. or laws that are applyed to fields that are on the surface similar but in the end have very clear seperations that makes the same law behave in diffrent ways based on that.
and i will not start on the beast that is software patenting, or like the article touched upon, patenting of prosesses that can be seen as vital for the continual survival of the human race. its like mafia tactics then.
"The GPL is the ONLY reason why Linux has taken off and the BSD sit still on the fringe. Linux would be just like the BSD's if it was licensed under anything BUT the GPL."
Yeah right. Linux is not superior, the GPL is not superior they both however have momentum in their favour. It is the same concept as when a losing product wins out over a winning product solely on marketing (and I am not saying that Linux is a losing product, just that it has a marketing edge right now).
In the end I think the "typical" consumer don't know what they want and they need big corporations to tell them what they want. Free software is not good at telling consumers what they want; they don't have huge marketing budgets to persuade consumers with. Free software also lacks the focus that their big corporation counterparts seem to have.
It's funny ~20 years ago I never would of guess Microsoft and its ms dos would of won the operating system wars when faced with IMHO better alternatives like mac os, atari gem os and amiga os. I guess they had better focus and or marketing than their competitors or maybe just a better product.
The scourge of the open source movement isn't a communistic command economy (there isn't one) but rather a capitalistic free market free-for-all that keeps developers from uniting behind a single banner and making real headway. Isn't that ironic?
That is ironic considering that many of these open-source types also tend to be the neo-socialist types too. I guess these people like to play hardcore libertarian in the open-source play world and a statist in the real world.
Why every attempt to criticize GNU generates such a nervous response ? Because the GNU zealots alone feel something is wrong with their idea! It's a desperate attempt to mask the lack of logic argument by religious fervidness.
The IT word has changed very much from the time clever young people on universities could not afford an OS to play with. They deided to "liberate" computing by providing a free system to everyone. A good idea, only if they were faster. In the meantime Microsoft provided the planet by a practical widespread system which is not entirely free,
but certainly affordable for everyone. (Not mentioning you can easily steal it if desperate)
There is a big advantage having one predominant system on the planet. It stimulates software development. The cost of a program is indirectly proportional to the number of copies sold. Windows made possible to code for one consistent backward compatible system everyone has. It's a big achievement deserving respect. Compare it with the hundreds of incompatible Linux distributions toady.
In some sense Windows is more open than GNU today. Every company can easily write and distribute kernel mode driver for its hardware. Try this with Linux. There is no problem to write self consistent program every user can install by one mouse click on EVERY windows system. Try this with Linux ...
". Every company can easily write and distribute kernel mode driver for its hardware. Try this with Linux. There is no problem to write self consistent program every user can install by one mouse click on EVERY windows system. Try this with Linux ."
tell me really. do you believe this is because windows is more open?
stallman is even more relevant with things like software patents suck so much
Yes, let's have a constructive debate! But please don't try to take part in it since a basic knowledge of the subject is required.
> Power vs. Ease of Use: the CLI is brilliant (most of the time), and some of the GUIs are
> getting there. What about linking the two together?
Please explain how to take advantage of regular expressions, completion and for-loops by using a mouse.
> User mode filesystem: why aren't the ftp, ssh, etc. filesystems from gnome and kde
> in the kernel?? (it makes me crazy!)
What the *hell* are you talking about? ftp and ssh are *NOT* filesystems and they neither belong to Gnome nor KDE.
There is a big advantage having one predominant system on the planet. It stimulates software development. The cost of a program is indirectly proportional to the number of copies sold. Windows made possible to code for one consistent backward compatible system everyone has. It's a big achievement deserving respect. Compare it with the hundreds of incompatible Linux distributions toady.
In Fiona Apple's name, someone who shares my view! I'm... Touched 
.
Anyway, as I expressed before, I have absolutely no problems with open source/free software. The only problem I have, is that an open source model simply cannot be the foundation of creating a desktop operating system.
A good example is the open source Syllable and closed source SkyOS. They both needed an up-to-date browser. With SkyOS, it was "simple". Robert made the descision to port FireFox and one month later FF was ready and now SkyOS has an up-to-date browser.
The Syllable guys, on the other hand, have been argueing over the browser issuees for a long time now, and still no descision has been made.
Another advantage a closed source model has over an open source model in OS design is the fact that with a closed-source design, the people inside the closed design knwo allthe libraries and such inside out, they have written them themselves. With open source desktop OS's, like Desktoplinux, ever file comes from another source, no one knows everything inside out.
However.
On the application and programs side, OSS excels. People around here are often trying to make it look as if I hate OSS, which simply isn't true. OSS has created very fine pices of software, and anyone claiming otherwise is a loon. GIMP, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla & Co, etc. etc.
The fact that OSS applications are decent and succesfull is because with an app, one doesn't have to rely on endless number of people from all over the planet to explain to you how their code works.
Simply put:
Applications + OSS = good (not all of the time of course, though)
Desktop OS + OSS = bad.
Now, Eu, dpi, and others, bring it on .
This was a terrible piece of writing. It has no coherence, and is full of misinformation.
I cant believe that Eugenia would post junk like this.
I do believe that the GPL deserves widespread consideration and discussion. It consequences are far reaching. This article fails to get there at all.
"Yes, let's have a constructive debate! But please don't try to take part in it since a basic knowledge of the subject is required."
Well, if you say so I suppose...
GUI's are much more than just "a mouse". My point is that there is a conflict between the power of the CLI and the ease of use of the GUI. It is difficult to make a powerful GUI. Likewise (evidently) it is often difficult to make an easy to use, accessible CL tool.
I disagree about ftp and the like. They are ways of accessing a remote filesystem (very much like smb), and that is what I would like to do; mount a remote filesystem using some protocol like ftp, ssh, etc. Currently, files can be accessed transparently using the gnome vfs and kde vfs (kio). I think that /all/ applications should have this facility; it's what Hurd was planning on doing and (I think) Plan9 does.
FOSS is moving toward licensing oblivion in the United
States. Open source licenses that attempt to keep the source
code open in programs offered to the public for modification
and derivative distribution are preempted by U.S. copyright
law.
A "preexisting" original author using an open source
form license is attempting to use his lawful monopoly in
authorizing derivative works of his "preexisting" original
work to control the exclusive rights granted to all
subsequent offerees' modifications to that "preexisting"
derivative work. The Copyright Act states:
Section 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and
derivative works.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work
extends only to the material contributed by the author of
such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material
employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right
in the preexisting material. THE COPYRIGHT IN SUCH WORK IS
INDEPENDENT OF, AND DOES NOT AFFECT OR ENLARGE THE SCOPE,
DURATION, OWNERSHIP, OR SUBSISTENCE OF, ANY COPYRIGHT
PROTECTION IN THE PREEXISTING MATERIAL.(my emphasis)
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled:
"The grant to the author of the special privilege of a
copyright carries out a public policy adopted by the
Constitution and laws of the United States, "to promote the
Progress of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited
Times to [Authors] ... the exclusive Right ..." to their
"original" works. United States Constitution, Art. I, 8,
cl. 8, 17 U.S.C. 102. But the public policy which includes
original works within the granted monopoly excludes from it
all that is not embraced in the original expression. It
equally forbids the use of the copyright to secure an
exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by the
Copyright Office and which is contrary to public policy to
grant." -- Lasercomb America Inc. v. Reynolds 911 F.2d 970
(4th Cir. 1990);
The offeree who accepts a non-negotiable open source license
offer must not just grant a waiver of rights to the offeror
but must also offer a waiver to the general public
concerning his copyright monopoly -- the offeree's "rights
against the world" -- rights granted by the Copyright Act.
All federal circuits now recognize "misuse of copyright".
"The doctrine of misuse 'prevents copyright holders from
leveraging their limited monopoly to allow them control of
areas outside the monopoly.' A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster,
Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2001);" -- ASSESSMENT
TECHNOLOGIES OF WI, INC., 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003)
A new "standard form" contract of adhesion, is required to
be offered to the general public (all third parties) by an
accepting licensee as a term of the license... this is
nothing more than an attempt to regulate another's "right
against the world"... rights excluded by statute from the
preexisting licensor's original work.
It is the offer to the general public that violates public
policy. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in ProCd v.
Zeitenburg, 86 F.3d 1447, stated:
"A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by
contrast, generally affect only their parties; strangers may
do as they please, so contracts do not create “exclusive
rights.” Someone who found a copy of SelectPhoneTM on the
street would not be affected by the shrinkwrap license –
though the federal copyright laws of their own force would
limit the finder’s ability to copy or transmit the
application program... But whether a particular license is
generous or restrictive, a simple two-party contract is not
“equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the
general scope of copyright” and therefore may be enforced.
Recursive multi-party contracts are not simple two-party
contracts. Someone on the street finding a copy of a program
licensed under the Common Public License would be affected
by its license offer. It invites any member of the general
public to join as a contractual party.
This "copyright misuse" violates the will of Congress as
expressed by section 301(a) of the Copyright Act. Congress'
intent was that general copyright law be a single uniform
set of federal statutes. Non-negotiable licenses to regulate
copyrights that effect the general public -- "rights against
the world" -- may not be created by contract law:
"By substituting a single Federal system for the present
anachronistic, uncertain, impractical, and highly
complicated dual system, the bill would greatly improve the
operation of the copyright law and would be much more
effective in carrying out the basic constitutional aims of
uniformity and the promotion of writing and scholarship."
H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476
The federal courts will never enforce these form licenses
whose primary purpose conflicts with Congress' express
wishes in public policy.
Daniel Wallace
Daniel Wallace said...
<snip>
Can you summarise all that? Are you saying that the courts will never enforce the GPL?
I'd like to see the debate cast in market terms of transaction management.
We see that the GPL is on one end, the proprietary/intellectual capital camp at the other, and the "BSD, do what you will, and don't sue me" camp is vaguely in the middle.
I think that the three philosophies have their time and place, and the economy is greater than the sum of the three camps.
I'm an FSF member, and have an MSDN subscrition, as well.
I can forsee personal GPL contributions just as readily as I can forsee proprietary, corporate ones. All licenses respected in context.
Leave the theology in your house of worship, say I.
No he is saying that all open source licenses are now invalid which is crap of course
> ...and that is what I would like to do; mount a remote filesystem using some protocol
> like ftp, ssh, etc...
Then what are you waiting for?
If you can't understand what it's all about, than why don't you try to find enlightment instead of starting inept flamewars like this one?
And what about those who understand what OSS is and believe in it, but do not like the direction the "movement" is going or the underpinning ideology attached to it by RMS.What about those that would like to see all the factions come together and create a OSS solution that is better based on its technical superiority as opposed to those that use OSS to make some kind of obscure political statement who rush to the nearest podium and beat their fists trying to convince everyone that it’s the best becasue its free. Its time to abandon RMS and point free software in a new direction, people like Linus have started doing this already. Its time for regime change in OSS
I don't think he's saying that -- I think he's saying that copy-lefting is a misuse of copyright. That is, you have the right to your copyright, but not to the copyright from the derivative portion of derivative works. Or did I misunderstand?
Regardless, the post was interesting. (Much more so than the original article, obviously.) I think it's probably safe to say that no one in the FSF wants the GPL to be seriously challenged in court...
> ...and that is what I would like to do; mount a remote filesystem using some protocol
> like ftp, ssh, etc...
Then what are you waiting for?
--
I really don't have time. But that doesn't mean it's not something that:
a) I don't want
b) that other people would find extremely useful
There is a userspace filesystem (like ftp), but last time I checked it really didn't work very well.
I wonder how thick-headed you are because your fallacies have been pointed out to you ad-nauseum and yet you continue in spreading FUD about the GPL.
Get it through your skull that the GPL does not transfer copyrights nor does it require transfer of copyrights. Ownership of any copyrights in modifications remain with the modifier.
By your logic, contributing to the public domain is pre-empted by copyright law. Licensing code under the GPL is voluntary so there is no "forcing" to be done. If you don't want to distribute modifications as GPL, then you have no license to modify in the first place. If you accept the license and decide to modify then you are bound by your promise (having accepted the license).
This is simply law 101 and if you had any clue you should know better than to suggest otherwise. I hope you'll shut your trap when the bribe you've received from whoever runs out.
...a bit pro-Windowsy.
Case sensitivity really has nothing to do with the topic; just because Linux is case sensitive and Windows isn't doesn't mean GPL = case sensitive.
"no-one cares to give Linux a free DirectX-compatible framework to port games to" - OpenGL. It's not DirectX compatible as such, but if it's good enough for Doom3 it's damn well good enough for everyone else.
I'm not sure about the idea of the world having only one OS; you might as well suggest the world having only one kind of car.
"If the same hard work which has been pumped into Linux, had been pumped into a free Windows version, we would have had it now and different stories could have been told"
Now let's all grow a brain. Back when the GNU project kicked off, there was no Windows. When Linus came to write his kernel, Windows was a 16-bit GUI overlaid onto MS-DOS. Not exactly something anyone was going to be drastically keen on cloning.
It's a bit different now; hence we have ReactOS.
But I think his basic point, that IP is a Bad Thing, is fair enough :-P
> I really don't have time...
Then check out lufs.
"The scourge of the open source movement isn't a communistic command economy (there isn't one) but rather a capitalistic free market free-for-all that keeps developers from uniting behind a single banner and making real headway. Isn't that ironic?
That is ironic considering that many of these open-source types also tend to be the neo-socialist types too. I guess these people like to play hardcore libertarian in the open-source play world and a statist in the real world."
This is a bit off-topic, but I would like to point out that there are two kinds of socialism: state socialism (communism) and libertarian socialism (anarchism). The decentralised nature of open source software is actually very much compatible with the anti-statist anarchist point of view.
I would also like to disagree on the point that the open source movement is a "capitalistic free market free-for-all". The capitalist economy is charactarized by centralised control and hierarchy (within companies). Open source projects, on the other hand, are usually decentralised and have very little hierarchy. Moreover, open source is a reaction to the artificial scarcity created by the capitalist system, when in reality there is no scarcity, since information can be copied at virtually no costs. Capitalism can't function without scarcity, which is why intellectual property laws were created. I can agree that open source creates certain freedoms which also exist within a capitalist economy, but in my view that would hardly make it capitalistic.
He's not talking spyware-infected freeware, he's talking about actual open source applications. The only thing enormous( or as you put it "enormus") is the cost of Windows applications.
Well, let's have a look at sourceforge:
Linux (21454 projects)
WinXP (Microsoft Windows XP) (5212 projects)
Knowing that you must _really_ look hard to find a commercial application for Linux and you claim Windows doesn't have a big open source community... That's about 1/4 and if that's not "huge" compared to Linux, than what is?
I forgot to add that there are many more free (freeware, shareware, trial) applications availible for Windows as there are for Linux, (I'm guessing here) since software for Linux is only considered free when it's source is availible
There is a big advantage having one predominant system on the planet. It stimulates software development. The cost of a program is indirectly proportional to the number of copies sold. Windows made possible to code for one consistent backward compatible system everyone has. It's a big achievement deserving respect.
There is also one big disadvantage when the one predominant system is developed by a company: It's bound to become a monopoly.
And it's not a big achievement. It was bound to happen. Microsoft was just lucky to be the company in the right place at the right time. It didn't get so dominant because they were so very clever, they became dominant because the competition between hardware vendors made the PC cheep.
Meanwhile, the share of costs due to the Windows operating system increased from 5% to 17% when buying a new computer.
No other commercial system could stand the network effects that made Microsoft what it is today. Without GNU and Linux, Micosoft would be even more expensive, and even less secure - for the simple fact that a monopoly don't need to improve to be able to sell their products.
Your argument started good but you missed the conclusion.
Yes, because no other type of software is free. It just doesn't cost anything. Freeware, trials, shareware - none of those are free (and the second two aren't even gratis).
This is the second attempt I've seen recently to make opensource developers feel greedy seeing how others make proffit from their work.
Big enterprises will come, put as money as they want, some people will get corrupted and do nothing more if there's no dollars behind, the others will remain when the big ones change to another business area. (I hope)
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean my theories are far from reality.
Very slashdotish I'm afraid...
Freedom is the start--it begets competition which begets choice which begets standards which begets compatability. We are only just now in the choice phase. Things seem crazy just because "freedom" gives us alternate avenues to travel on. If you can't abide by that, you can't abide by freedom, no matter what you *think* your values are.
Sheesh, you'd think by now he would have given up his pathetic diatribe against the GPL, or at least gotten half a clue that his reasoning is faulty, but no...he is still spewing the same incomprehensible gibberish about how the GPL illegally prevents downstream copyright holders from exercising their exclusive rights on their copyrighted work.
For some reason he can't get through his thick head that when you create a derived work, you have to get the permission of the copyright holder of the original work. In that respect, copyright law most decidedly does impose a restriction on downstream copyright holders: they have to get permission from the upstream copyright holders to create a derived work, or be in violation of their copyright.
He also can't seem to get through his thick head that the GPL is a grant of permission from upstream copyright holders for downstream copyright holders to create a derived work. Without that permission, copyright law kicks in.
It's pretty clear that Daniel Wallace hates the GPL for the same reason that certain proprietary software companies hate it: they can't rip off software protected by the GPL by creating a proprietary derivative. Fortunately for us, Daniel's ravings are not legally sound, no matter how many times he repeats it.
I don't think this author made very good points. The companies are not essential to the OSS movement at all. In using a gnu/linux-based distro nothing ever seems to be overtly "corporatized".
IBM has contributed a lot to the kernel and i believe HP has contributed either directly or indirectly to the development of Xorg, but the exciting applications are still being started by "the movement" (i.e. scattered developers).
Just today, bloodshed.net announced Wired, a new and promising Digital Multitrack program. I didn't see Sun's logo anywhere on the website.
Right now the free software movement is accepting help from companies who are willing to participate, but if we didn't have Open Office, i guarantee there'd be something else. That's how it works: There's an itch and someone writes the software that scratches the itch. Then a swarm of developers help improve the software.
Just because there isn't a competing suite (although Gnome-Office is pretty nice) doesn't mean we'd be lost without it, for the same reason there isn't "Another Gimp". We all have access to the code, so there's no reason to have 2 projects when we can make one excellent.
Mike
Mate, you just don't get it. At all. Even slightly.
The only thing I can be arsed to say is stop being obsessed about who is going to win, or whether Linux will take Window's throne. That's not the spirit of open source, and thus the GPL, or thus what Stallman cares about. You can't attack him before you have succesfully understood what you are attacking.
I for one would be over the moon if someone tried to sell one of my applications that I've GPLd. Yeah that's right. Over the moon.
Also I should also add, that I'd love for Linux to "win". I'm just pointing out that this isn't the motivation behind 90% of open source development.
Hope you read this. Cheers.
When the author says that big corporations use code by free software developers to build their free software products and grow on the expense of unpaid free software programmers, he is obviously talking about programmers exploitation, and he is completely wrong. But i wont waste my time explaining it here. I'll just point you to the article that is nicely refuting the programmers exploitation thing:
http://www.libervis.com/modules/wfsection/dossier-5.html - "Free software and programmers exploitation"
As for other arguments i can only say the guy is way of line and true understanding of free software movement, it's ideology and it's economy. It is actually not in any way a negative force to anyone on this planet. It can only lead to positive things. What's negative is proprietary software, IP and other restrictors on free information (and software is just one form of information). To understand it better read:
http://www.libervis.com/modules/wfsection/dossier-9.html - "Free software movement and post-capitalistic society" (a free information society)
And to trully understand free software, listen and absorb RMS's words and dig www.gnu.org completely. Dig, research and you will know that it is right, just as i when once had doubts have come to know.
Thank you
Danijel Orsolic
>And what about those who understand what OSS is and believe
>in it, but do not like the direction the "movement" is
>going or the underpinning ideology attached to it by RMS.
>What about those that would like to see all the factions
>come together and create a OSS solution that is better
>based on its technical superiority as opposed to those that
>use OSS to make some kind of obscure political statement
>who rush to the nearest podium and beat their fists trying
>to convince everyone that it’s the best becasue its free.
Dude... this "ideology" is the foundation on which your free rights to do whatever you want are based. If you want, just _take_ everything the free software movement has created so far, and lead it to whatever direction you want to see it go. It free for you to do this.
If your goal is a techically superior product, just do it! Nobody will polter against you, and you can even base your work on whats already been done, no need to start from scratch. What do you want more?
>Its time to abandon RMS and point free software in a new
>direction, people like Linus have started doing this
>already. Its time for regime change in OSS
There is _no_ regime in the free software movement. Everything Stallmann and Co. fight for is your _right_ to do _whatever you want_ with the available free software. You are free to abandon him and his views, and youre also free to take this all in this "new direction" you wet dream about. Just do as it pleases you! But dont just bitch about it, work!
But when I am right, you wont do anything of this, but just troll around on message boards. Why? Because you most probbably do eschew all the work combined with taking FOSS to this "new direction", and youd like to be able to force your views on the developing community, which, so far, saw no need to develop anything in the direction you'd like.
Start a project, start a movement, create a philosophy people would like, define this "new direction" and its goals exactly, propagate it, win peoples minds, gain momentum, change something, but at the end _do something_! But whatever you do, please stop bitching that something you are not contributing to, moves in a direction you dont like.
> WTF is that? Meditate on the words of the supreme leader and
> you will find enlightenment, isn't that what you're actually
> saying here?
Youre in the minority here. The vast majority of the Free Software movement chose the GPL and the underlying philosophy as a legit way to share their software. The philosophy behind it is at least as important as the software itself, and is well documented on gnu.org.
> Damn cultists, fly back to the mothership.
You are free to use it, youre free to modify it, youre free to sell it, do whatever you want to. Youre even free to ignore it _completely_. There is no need to get insulting here yust because some of us here value freedom more than you.
Is it possible that you just aren't reading the same text as me? There's something incredibly creepy about that section I quoted.
There is no need to get insulting here yust because some of us here value freedom more than you.
And you presuming that you value freedom more than me isn't insulting?
I don't like zealotry. It's got nothing to do with supporting/not supporting the FSF/GPL/OSS. It's blind faith that I find irritating as hell.
The author seems to have run all his emotions, facts, fiction and what have you, through a blender! Language issues aside this a rather an unfortunate example of why some items do need proof reading.
The initial delivery seems to put the ball into a reasonably chosen ballpark but then the bat starts swinging at basically anything that's come close enough to be within memory range.
RMS or Mr Stallman if you like have chosen his agenda and I believe the "Bit Land Prince" ought to make his own way through life rather than trying to "reform" RMS. Whereas the GPL is concerned - "If you wanna play the game, you must be able to endure the rules" (Roger Zapfe) - if you don't like the dessert you shouldn't have a go at the main course.
> I don't like zealotry. It's got nothing to do with
> supporting/not supporting the FSF/GPL/OSS. It's blind faith
> that I find irritating as hell.
> And you presuming that you value freedom more than me isn't
> insulting?
If you call the standpoint "first freedom, then everything else" zealotry, then its questionable how much you really value this freedom. I dont see here any "blind faith", and there are really no truths to blindly believe in, besides that freedom has to be protected first.
The section you quoted is obvious to be meant ironically, and is not to be taken so serious as you did.
I will not even go deep about prooving it, there is so many falses absumtions is so little space... Not even even close to explain or comprehend Stallman's view.
woah, that was a freaky quote. Sounded like something ive heard on a 70s horror flick
I don't know what's worse. The author's *opinion* or the strange, stark aggresiveness with which he's approached. How would you guys feel if you for example finally wrote something only to be slaughtered by insult.
These types of comments of our so called defenders of software freedom are the #1 reason I will never get involved into GPL/OSS/FSF.
It's the same with for example Eric Raymond. He can write nice stuff about software, but then elsewere he tries to convince me it's a good thing that everybody must be able to have a gun and I should get one or else I'm a retard. What kind of attitude is this people? What attitude is this when you defend your "freedom" but I cannot disagree with you because else I'm a retard, thick head, clueless moron and all these other terrible things you guys tend to say.
What is wrong with you people?
"Well, let's have a look at sourceforge:
Linux (21454 projects)
WinXP (Microsoft Windows XP) (5212 projects)
Knowing that you must _really_ look hard to find a commercial application for Linux and you claim Windows doesn't have a big open source community... That's about 1/4 and if that's not "huge" compared to Linux, than what is?"
Of course it's huge. It's the dirty little secret which the Linux folks don't want to talk about.
Open source cuts both ways, and whats good for Linux is nearly as good for Windows. Many of the better applications ever done under the GPL are also available for Win32. Nearly all of the open source office suites, web applications, and the better utils also have win32 binaries.
Saying that open source is only available for non-windows platforms is utter nonsense.
Open source devs are stubborn blind geeks. They cant understand that having 18 text editors, 9 IM, 16 file managers, 3 sound servers etc etc doesnt do any good for the community. Nope, those fools just go ahead and start writing projects in the hope of getting famous/$ and fail miserably. The only successful open software are those that monopolizes the field (apache for httpd, firefox for web, linux for kernel etc). Before people understand this and join forces, oss isnt going anywhere, very upsetting.
Open source devs are stubborn blind geeks.
That says more about you then them...
They cant understand that having 18 text editors, 9 IM, 16 file managers, 3 sound servers etc etc doesnt do any good for the community.
So many people say similar things, "theres to much choice!", no one makes you use 18 different text editors.
I fail to understand how choice has a negitive effect, everyone likes different things, hell, right now im in ratpoison, now if the folk that wrote this had thought "hey..theres already x wm's, we dont need anymore" then I'd be without my most perfect window manager. (probably sitting in a fullscreened konsole running screen amongst the bloat of KDE I wonder?)
Nope, those fools just go ahead and start writing projects in the hope of getting famous/$ and fail miserably.
*cough* wtf.
The only successful open software are those that monopolizes the field (apache for httpd, firefox for web, linux for kernel etc).
Your definition of successful is akin to being popular - where as I'd call any project that meets its goals successful.
Before people understand this and join forces, oss isnt going anywhere, very upsetting.
OSS *is* going somewhere, I can see it going, I've watched it spread. And now your trying to tell me that this isnt the case?
They cant understand that having 18 text editors, 9 IM, 16 file managers, 3 sound servers etc etc doesnt do any good for the community.
Why does nobody complain there are so much different cars to choose from?Some people especially the ones who make a living out of developing spend more time with their editor then they drive their car.
That says more about you then them...
And why is that? I have a arguement (followed by that statement). Wheres yours??
I fail to understand how choice has a negitive effect,
Blinded? Just because you dont have to use all different 18 editors, doesnt mean no harm is done. The work is already duplicated, time wasted that could have made one fine editor. Nope, again stubborn.
probably sitting in a fullscreened konsole running screen amongst the bloat of KDE I wonder?
What? Open software bloated? Thanks for this one. And exactly why? Because devs like to rewrite 500 useless variants? No harm in choice. Right.
*cough* wtf.
Unlogical arguments, no thanks.
Your definition of successful is akin to being popular - where as I'd call any project that meets its goals successful.
Yes popular is one means of measuring success, and so is goal. However, explain what exactly is the goal of having 10+ media players? I would love to know!
OSS *is* going somewhere, I can see it going, I've watched it spread. And now your trying to tell me that this isnt the case?
Sorry, more specifically, it IS going where, just at a horribly slow pace due to the development obstacles given.
Nobody creates a text editor just because they want to get famous (or rich). People create (yet) another text editor because there's something they're looking for in an editor that they can't find anywhere else. Sure, they could try to add the feature to another editor, but which one? I simply don't grok emacs, and have only a basic understanding of vi (enough to edit files, but not much else). My 'perfect' command-line text editor would essentially be a clone of DOS's edit with syntax hilighting and the ability to select w/ a mouse.
Sure, there's a lot of 'duplicate' software out there. None of the projects you mentioned were started in order to monopolize the field.
Linus simply wanted a decent OS for his 386 PC. If a full-featured UNIX had been affordable to him, we wouldn't have Linux now.
The firefox core liked the mozilla framework, but thought core mozilla project had gotten a bit bloated, and decided to focus on the browser rather than an entire 'suite'. Firefox could have been just like any number of other spin-offs, but they managed to get it right, and it became popular.
The beauty of the FLOSS community is that if you have an itch to scratch, or simply see room for improvement in an application you use, you aren't left at the mercy of whoever created the application. You have the power to make the change.
People join forces on projects that scratch more than one person's itch, but no project starts in a position to monopolize its field, and the only way for a project to reach that point is for it to be started.
The various text editors exist because they are actually different on some pretty fundemental levels, or because somebody decided that a text editor would make a pretty interesting learning project. The various IM programs exist quite simply because most of them were developed at first to support *one* pre-existing IM protocol (ICQ, Microsoft IM, Yahoo IM, etc). Some were started with the express goal of mimicing the original as much as possible, others were started with the goal of improving the UI (heck, there's probably at least one out there that is a CLI program). Later IM projects were started from a more generic stand point with a goal of being able to support any IM protocol. How do you tell before any of these projects is started which one is going to be the 'successful' one that everyone should band behind.
Expecting to only have one piece of software for any particular job is a bit silly. Joe needs to get to and from work every day, and lives 1/4 mile from his office in a city. He uses a bike. Therefore Richard should use a bike? No, he lives 35 miles from work, so he uses a sports car. Mark lives just as far from work as Richard does, so obviously, he should drive a sports car, too. Right? Nope, Mark likes to go camping with his family, and a sports car couldn't carry his family and their tent, so he drives a van. Every last one of those vehicles serves the primary purpose of getting their user to and from work, but they have different feature sets because their users have different needs.
Why does nobody complain there are so much different cars to choose from?
Thats a fair question. But are you into cars? Do you understand that cars of different brands can have very different behavior, looks and reliability? Which isnt the case I'm discussing here because the different software are just downright duplicated features, with the same look, coming from the same place (random oss dev)? In the real market, it regulates itself to give just enough choice for everyone, any more than demanded and someone will go out of biz. But nope, not in the oss world, endless stream of stubborn devs continue to offer redudant choices and this continues, because $ is not involved, they're in it for the fame.
Sorry, more specifically, it IS going where, just at a horribly slow pace due to the development obstacles given.
Strange, I'd argue that it's going where it is as quicky as it is *because* of what you call 'wasted effort'. That duplicate development is a feature which enables the community as a whole to travel around roadblocks faster than any single project could.
I see it like a bucket of ice cubes (several independant projects with similar goals) vs. a block of granite (a single project). They're both solid, but if you drop them down a pipe, ice will get to the end faster than the granite if there's anything in the way. Sure the ice cubes might not look the same when they get to the end, some may have fused, or split, or even be water at that point), but roadblocks that will stop the granite completely will only slow down the ice.
The various text editors exist because they are actually different on some pretty fundemental levels, or because somebody decided that a text editor would make a pretty interesting learning project. The various IM programs exist quite simply because most of them were developed at first to support *one* pre-existing IM protocol (ICQ, Microsoft IM, Yahoo IM, etc). Some were started with the express goal of mimicing the original as much as possible, others were started with the goal of improving the UI (heck, there's probably at least one out there that is a CLI program). Later IM projects were started from a more generic stand point with a goal of being able to support any IM protocol. How do you tell before any of these projects is started which one is going to be the 'successful' one that everyone should band behind.
You do know which to stand behind, the most popular one. Your examples make sense on the surface, but stop for a sec and think. Why didnt they improve the original one when a new concept emerges? When you needed multi IM protocol, why didnt you change the original most popular IM (licq or whatever)? No, instead people started new projects, for what? Fame, pride, money, and many other greedy thoughts. Of course, some one could also be doing it to learn, or just for fun. But at any rate, the only person gaining from it, it the dev himself, and not the community. Which is my point, that the community isnt moving forward at all.
A honest question, are you actually a dev? I am, a full time one at sybase. Do you understand that writing a new project is infinitly harder than extending one? Esp when the src is given? Did we learn anything from the past 30 years of computing? OO? Libraries? for what? Code reuse anyone?
Expecting to only have one piece of software for any particular job is a bit silly. Joe needs to get to and from work every day, and lives 1/4 mile from his office in a city. He uses a bike. Therefore Richard should use a bike? No, he lives 35 miles from work, so he uses a sports car. Mark lives just as far from work as Richard does, so obviously, he should drive a sports car, too. Right? Nope, Mark likes to go camping with his family, and a sports car couldn't carry his family and their tent, so he drives a van. Every last one of those vehicles serves the primary purpose of getting their user to and from work, but they have different feature sets because their users have different needs.
That would make sense, except in the oss world with your analogy, joe who rides the bike would have 7 bikes. One for each day of the week, with the only difference on the bike being the color.
I see it like a bucket of ice cubes (several independant projects with similar goals) vs. a block of granite (a single project). They're both solid, but if you drop them down a pipe, ice will get to the end faster than the granite if there's anything in the way. Sure the ice cubes might not look the same when they get to the end, some may have fused, or split, or even be water at that point), but roadblocks that will stop the granite completely will only slow down the ice.
Interesting and would hold, IF the resource for each open source project is equal to one single commercial product. Which isnt the case. If it is tho, you are correct and through a darwnian process, some great software will eventually excel. But, given such limited devs (relative to commercial software say, ms, sun, etc), it is important to focus. Since we dont, the oss software move, at a rate almost unnoticeable compared to commercial software. Take browser for eg, it evolved and firebox is finally born, which is great, but only 10 years late. Conclusion: commercial software will continue to lead the software industry with the majority market share.
your article was really interesting but i donot know was it my poor english or yours that at times i felt completely lost..But in essence i do agree with your idea. That where is FSF/OSS heading ?? Helping the same giants they set on to defeat. Linuxers shud sit down and give that a thought what are they the Mascots of freedom or unpaid employees of IBM , NOvell etc. Keep aside the big corporation a lot of small compnies have also come up taking the advantage of the disillusioned OSS developers take for instane transgaming. People in wine are burning there mid night oil and one day some body patches there code and adds graphical installer to it and sells it to the world.
such examples also bring out a basic flaw in the philosphy of FSF/OSS...Let me put that forward slowly. In my native language (which is Hindi ) There is a famous saying "If A lion Befriends a goat then what will it eat ??" similarly "If a programmer gives u everything for free what will he eat ??" . Big corporations who invest millions in software ,hardware reasearch and development have the right to charge for the risk they have taken. The concept of "Freedom in Software " came forth only when These Giants we love to hate brought in the idea of Hardware and software...So lets face it OSS/FSF are only good at hobby level taking them beyond that and branding them as enlightment is just a big fraud..
Sorry for the spells few of the keys in my keyboard are not working well
bye
and Happy Diwali to All of U
I, as an Open Source (Linux, in my case) user, think that it is GOOD that there are good pieces of software I use in Linux that are also usable in Windows.
I think that by having quality apps like Firefox, OpenOffice.org and others spread, it will make the underlying OS less important. Linux would be much more attractive to a broad range of users then.
Heck, even Tuxracer is ported to Windows. 
> A honest question, are you actually a dev? I am, a full time one at sybase.
I see, you must have a sound understanding of the subject then...
> Do you understand that writing a new project is infinitly harder than extending one?
> Esp when the src is given? Did we learn anything from the past 30 years of computing?
> OO? Libraries? for what? Code reuse anyone?
But disappointingly enough you do not seem to. In fact, code is reused all the time in the open source world. Why? Because everybody who desires to do so actually is able to take a look at it! And why do people not using a distribution with a decent package management complain about dependency hell? Exactly, because among the ``stubborn blind geeks'' -- as you like to call open source developers -- it is very common to take advantage of freely available libraries in order to not reinvent the wheel.
> The work is already duplicated, time wasted that could have made one fine editor.
Now I know at least two absolutely fantastic open-source editors (guess which...). Could you please give an example of a closed source editor that proofs your point?
"Now I know at least two absolutely fantastic open-source editors (guess which...). Could you please give an example of a closed source editor that proofs your point?"
Not sure which point you would like to prove however if quality is what you have in mind Ultraedit is going to be mighty damn tough to top no matter how you look at it. Not exactly personal opinion either as it has won walls full of awards from many of the finest organizations.
(closed source btw)
Yeah... that's really something...
Example given, arguement shown, opinion unchanged. Typical oss advocates.
But disappointingly enough you do not seem to. In fact, code is reused all the time in the open source world. Why? Because everybody who desires to do so actually is able to take a look at it! And why do people not using a distribution with a decent package management complain about dependency hell? Exactly, because among the ``stubborn blind geeks'' -- as you like to call open source developers -- it is very common to take advantage of freely available libraries in order to not reinvent the wheel.
Its quite obvious the discussion here focuses on the lack of code reuse with different projects WITHIN the same functionality domain. Does it help if 18 text editors all uses glibc? Lack of common sense?
Geez, there are tons of individual libraries for a specific functionality classes. Do some reading before you reply to this. And don't expect me to make a serious comparison between emacs/vim and ultraedit.
What I'm trying to say is that, the text editors could all get together and develop 1-2 projects and share the code/ideas. It doesnt even involve the topic "library", it was only brought up as an example why code reuse is important, which is severely lacking in oss. How much code is duplicated in the 18 editors? Let me guess, 80% * 18??
Ultraedit is much better than emac/vim, similarly opera is better than firefox (as of now). Do some research before you spread FUD thanks.
To stick to the editor example: both vim and emacs use libncurses, the shared libraries for terminal handling. Now that's certainly not the same functionality domain to you, is it?
> Ultraedit is much better than emacs/vim
Just try to be serious for a second alright?
> it was only brought up as an example why code reuse is important, which is severely
> lacking in oss.
And how much code is shared between IE and Opera?
Ill informed, how did this article make it past editorial?
score -5 troll
Ultraedit is much better than emacs/vim
"Just try to be serious for a second alright?"
I'll be serious for a good deal longer than a second.
Did you stop taking your meds again?
There is no comparison between Ultraedit and emacs/vim.
You are attempting to compare a Cadillac with a Fiat.
Come on, guys. Stop it! You're killing me!
"Come on, guys. Stop it! You're killing me!"
Looks to me like they did.... They certainly left you nothing to say and nothing to point to.
Feel good to have your ass handed to ya....? Pick fight you can win, rather than ones you can.
I'll be serious for a good deal longer than a second.
Did you stop taking your meds again?
There is no comparison between Ultraedit and emacs/vim.
You are attempting to compare a Cadillac with a Fiat.
Thats a most humourous start to the day
I honestly looked at Ultraedit, regardless of wheither its better then vim or not, I'm not going to use it for the following reasons:
It only has a windows version [or was there a Linux ver hiding away? Even if there was what about a Open/NetBSD one?
Even if it were to run in *nix land it needs X [This is unacceptable to me for a text editor.
It's shareware, after 45 days I'm obligated to pay for it. [35USD is alot to me :]
Now what we have here is a example of what a two folk here think is a most excellent application, but to me its unusable. I feel like a broken record here, replaying everyone elses tune - There is no one text editor to suit everyone. End of story.
As for code reuse......uh, I would have thought the occurrence of code reuse in the OSS world far exceeded that in the non-OSS proportionately. I dont have any stats though, Im just assumming, speaking from what I've wrote personally, I'm constantly ripping code off other people, but you know, we're allowed . Such behavior in a closed source world would be rather difficult and maybe somewhat illegal.
At any rate the the choice to reuse someone elses code seems alot easier to make in a community where everythings GPL|BSD'ed
Random remark: heres download.com's listing if 275 different chat clients for windows (; http://www.chat.com/?tag=dir
Hmmm, that was a confused mess. What's case sensitivity got to do with Stallman's beliefs? He seems to hate large companies a lot too.
> They certainly left you nothing to say and nothing to point to...
By saying ``ultraedit rulez and emacs/vim suck ballz''? Yeah, that is a killer... Actually, I would have to say so much about this, I don't even know where to start.
In any case, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with an intellectually challenged cowboy like you.
a "free windows" was _IMPOSSIBLE_ TO DO
a "free"(dom) UNIX was possible thanks to the POSIX documentation, huge litterature about Unix and many patent-free protocols and specifications
please, learn History. there are REASONS behind choices.
I tried to carefully read what other people posted, their comments. That's what I call a discussion: being able to listen to others' opinion and expose yours. I found that lack of arguments most posts show is amazing but that didn't come as a surprise. A very few number of posts actually cared to provide arguments while most others just repeated the same song on and on: you don't know, you can't understand, you didn't absorb the Word (sic). Since I'm not a flamer nor trolling I will simply ignore those comments and I just suggest that people to learn how to partecipate in a discussion: zealotry won't bring them to Heaven.
I would also like to better refine a couple of concepts which I tried to express but I'm not sure they got the importance I wish they had, either because of my bad English or because zealotry.
As I wrote that I'm not against open source software, it's easy to understand that that's not a point to talk about. The question was: has the GPL (or better the fact that it allows to change AND redistribute, or like I say "sell" because that's what happen under cover of distribution costs, others' code helped the open source community or is that harmful?
2nd: has that huge hole in GPL (as per #1) helped big companies to exploit programmers' work and create a business model in which they make money and programmers get nothing?
Beside comments to Capitalism itself (yeah, that's the problem, but we can't widen scope so much), a few people tried to bring arguments about those simple questions. I appreciated the one who posted links to a couple of articles covering those questions though I find that solutions they exposed are very weak. Saying that companies needs programmers so they will keep paying them is like saying that Ford (car maker) needs workers. Of course! But problem is it's very unlikely that all Ford workers would stop working at same time and that big software companies also have a workforce which could replace the community, if needed. And that's what usually happens when they release "custom versions". The fact is they didn't pay for uncustomized versions! The very fact is: they wouldn't need a "community", they're just using it because they get "advantages" in doing that. It's not needed to tell that "advantages" a company has means "money" and nothing but money.
3rd question is: is that GPL hole (I consider that an hole, others have different opinions) suitable to plan a business model based on GPL or is Stallman vision of this a bit too simple? Again, my opinion is Stallman's vision about business model based on GPL is very simplistic and doesn't take care of basic facts that one should consider.
If we want to play Capitalism game (you should have understood that I'm not a Capitalism fan... didn't you?), we should also consider the basis of that game. And the base of that game is competition. Software companies get their competitive advantages from ideas and code (given that anyone with enough money could plan a suitable marketing campaign...). If companies (or individuals) yeld their competitive advantages by allowing others to distribute (sell) their code and their ideas, that can be good to save their souls but that won't simply pay their bills. And money they don't get is not wasted, because it would simply be absorbed by other companies. To make this bad chain to work, big companies drop some oil over wheels by releasing a few money to original developers. But, in the end, big companies are getting (big) money that programmers are rejecting and then programmers asks big companies for a (few) money. It's that simple.
My take is: want to break that bad chain? Open source IS good, collaboration IS good, helping each other and sharing ideas and code IS good, but a GPL-based business model simply DOESN'T work. So if we want to build a free community, with free ideas sharing between members, helping each other to grow and learn, rejecting money IS NOT enough. We should also ensure that no-one can actually get money from it. That's the only way they start to become human knowledge.
For a live example about GPL-based business model think about this: who's really doing R&D in this field? The community, who relies on money of big companies to pay phone bills and (for example) can't afford to buy hardware to make tests on? In this (simplistic) model only big companies can do REAL R&D, so REAL knowledge and real innovation are still safe in their hands. And they can still choose if they wish to release it and loose their competitive advantage or not... (just think about Mac OS X and Darwin...). And that's also what I meant when I wrote that Linux would be far less attractive without a couple of "things" like Java and OpenOffice. Sure, someone could have developed them, but did they do?
We should try to start wondering why community is able to release tens of IM programs, tens of text editors, tens of command line tools, tens of MP3 player but it can't release tens of CAD/CAM software, tens of airport managment software, tens of nuclear facility managment software, tens of car auto-pilot software, tens of .NET/JAVA/OpenOffice/Photoshop software.
Thats exactly the kind of metaility that needs to be thrown out of the window in order for oss to survive. "It doesnt run on linux therefore it sucks....blah blah". No one cares if it does. If it does the job right, they'll use it, they'll use the os/software along with it that makes it work. THATS exactly how windows keep beating linux. THATS exactly how ultraedit sells, vi/emacs doesnt.
Regarding code reuse, just because you CAN share code in oss, doesnt mean people will. Again, I've said this numerious times already. It's a proven fact that in oss there are absurd amount of redudencies (pls dont make me list them again), so what exactly are you arguing again? That it is not? or it does no harm? I could understand the latter, but anyone bringing up the former again is just either illogical or retarded.
Nobody says: "Let's write up more redundant code!". It's no good, but your claim that the situation is any better in the closed source world is illogical, unjustified and *wrong*.
Again, what's with those 275 chat clients on download.com that Roscoe mentioned? How do you explain that? And where do I see any evidence that there is more code shared between IE and Opera than between Firefox and Konqueror?
>Thats exactly the kind of metaility that needs to be thrown out of the window in order for oss to survive.
OSS survived for years _because_ of this mentality. OSS is used, now more than ever before, and it will be used in the future. If its used, it survives. So you have no point.
>"It doesnt run on linux therefore it sucks....blah blah". No one cares if it does.
No, no one besides of the _entire_ target audience cares. You can see yourself that the windows version of the most Linux/Unix software lags behind the original versions _badly_. How to explain that? The most devs do simply not care if their software is used behind the boorders of their target audience.
>If it does the job right, they'll use it,
Who? Who will use it? Somebody who the software isnt created for in the first place? Why should somebody bother with _that_?
>they'll use the os/software along with it that makes it work. THATS exactly how windows keep beating linux.
Windows doesnt _beat_ Linux because the two systems have never actually entered the ring. I know that you and many others would like to have it that way, but it certainly _isn't so_. Its a mystery for me why you imply that the first concern when writing software is to _beat_ somebody at something. Well, I'll tell you, it isnt. OSS developing doesnt abide laws of companies fighting competition to death, I suppose you just dont understand that. Just look how most projects started: as hobbies, for fun, learning, at academic institutions. There are no traces of developers of similar projects saying "dudes, lets team up and beat someone up and out of business", this just isnt how things work here. Understand that.
>THATS exactly how ultraedit sells, vi/emacs doesnt.
UltraEdit serves no other purpose to his author than to sell it. UltraEdit and the other software products Ian Mead makeswould not even be ever developed if the author didnt make money with them. Their only purpose is to be better than the competition and to drive more monetary software expenditures to Ultraedit's author than to the competition.
You dont see differences between these two software development models? You dont see the differences between the target audiences of Ultraedit and, say, vim?
>Regarding code reuse, just because you CAN share code in oss, doesnt mean people will. Again, I've said this numerious times already. It's a proven fact that in oss there are absurd amount of redudencies (pls dont make me list them again), so what exactly are you arguing again?
Code _is_ getting reused, but you seem to simply look over that. Fundamental libraries and development frameworks are being reused the whole friggn time. As for the code reuse of end user products... just because you CAN share code in oss, doesnt mean people _should_. Every developer or developing community have their own unique agenda, styles, habbits and goals and simply no competition that would force them to team up. Difficult to understand when you look at it from your "homo homini lupus"-world, i know. But you dont seem to even try to understand it.
>That it is not? or it does no harm?
It does no harm. It would do harm if "Linux" would be a for profit company, and developing 20 similar products at the same time. But theres no such company. What would be a incentive for the devs of joe/jove/jed/pico/nano/elvis/nvi/vim to give up their projects and gather around one of the others? No one sells their work, nor do they get paid for developing it, so what would a incentive be? Ebating Windows? I doubt they would care if Microsoft went broke tomorrow morning. To make Linux more popular? What if they here again simply do not care? have you thought up a way to motivete somebody working voluntarily and non-profit to trash their own work and then do something they may not even be ok with?
>I could understand the latter, but anyone bringing up the former again is just either illogical or retarded.
Thanks for the insults.
Since I wasted my time reading the article, I may as well waste some time responding. Warning! The following is a totally useless comment but it is also correct at the same time.
This guy is seriously confused...totally bonkers. There wasn't a valuable statement in the entire piece. I'd suggest he begin to understand the issues better, but it's quite obvious he doesn't have the hamster-power to do it.
Start a project, start a movement, create a philosophy people would like, define this "new direction" and its goals exactly, propagate it, win peoples minds, gain momentum, change something, but at the end _do something_! But whatever you do, please stop bitching that something you are not contributing to, moves in a direction you dont like.
I am one of those guys that can and does make decisions whether or not OSS lives or dies in the enterprise. I am the System admin that uses and deploys applications and or operating systems. I evaluate everything based on its technical merits. Currently I cannot personally recommend the majority of OSS software because there are technically superior closed source solutions or other reasons. Free isn’t good enough.