The International Telecommunications Union’s World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was last week. Of particular interest was a moderated debate on the issue of preferential treatment for open-source products in government procurement. John Carroll editorializes for proprietary software and RMS on the other side, against it.
In Defense and Attack of Proprietary Software
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I was listening to the head guy a SCO give a speech about how the GPL needs to be reworked so that more checks and balances were in place to ensure that nobody’s IP ends up getting included in any GPL’d code.
While I agree with this, I also think that the IP laws need to be reworked to ensure that companies don’t end up ‘abusing the system.’ I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with closed source, but too many greedy players out there are using devious practices to eliminate competition. And I think that is the very thing that sparked the free software movement – people were tired of vendor lock-in and paying outrageous prices for proprietary software.
The SCO guys was also talking about companies having to be very careful about not including GPL code in their stuff and inadvertently giving away their IP, but how is this any different than somebody releasing a software package and then finding out that they just infringed on somebody else’s patent(s)?
Personally, I like free software. While I may not always benefit from it directly, sometimes it is the only thing that keeps the greedy closed-source players in check, since the US government is obviously content to stand back and let corporate America do whatever the hell it wants.
But then again, I don’t write commercial off the shelf software like Microsoft.
I, like most developers, write custom in house applications or applications that fill a very very specific niche in which there would be no real advantage in being open source.
given the development process by which Microsoft applications are produced, in which features and changes are added to the codebase primarily by novice programmers who saw said codebase for the first time a few months ago, Microsoft products work surprisingly well. Why? Considerable regression testing, and excellent debugging work. Consequently, for the majority of people it’s rare for them to encounter a bug in a multimillion line codebase.
Typically open source development has Microsoft’s initial development process beaten hands down. Coding is done by a small group of “guru” programmers, most of which have probably been with the codebase since its inception and written considerable portions of it themselves. However, without the financial backing of corporations, regression testing comparable to what is seen on most commercially produced software never occurs.
Large multicomponent open source projects attempting to make large software suites comparable to what’s coming out of a corporation like Microsoft also suffer from lackluster development. While some components may blaze forward quickly, with no deadlines often programmers aren’t driven to complete development at the breakneck pace as others. Consequently these multicomponent projects often consist of a chunky stew of well polished, mature applications and immature, mostly unfinished applications.
So, in conclusion, commercially produced software is generally better tested and more consistent.
code red was regression tested quite nicely 😉
i keed i keed.
you do make some good points, bascule.
but personally i’d have to rephrase your conclusion like this:
“So, in conclusion, commercially produced DESKTOP software is generally better tested and more consistent.”
to lop in server software, and utilities would be ludicrous.
to lop in server software, and utilities would be ludicrous.
Yes, lord knows Solaris just can’t rival Linux, Oracle doesn’t come close to the features and performance of MySQL, WebSphere is ages behind Tomcat, and Zeus can’t hold a candle to Apache…</sarcasm>
Sheesh…
First you use the wrong terms. You should talk in terms of “free software” vs “proprietary software”. There is lots of commercial open source software, RedHat for instance. Commercial software is the wrong term.
Second Solaris CAN’T rival Linux. Linux runs on way more hardware just as good as Solaris does on its own and handles more processors on Altix than any Solaris machine on the planet. Plus open source development model is not flawed instead of regression testing testing is done by the community. Many eyes make all bugs shallow dude. I would say 1,000,000 people using your software would find a lot more bugs than 100 or so peopel hired to find bugs. You just don’t understand the open source development model.
And if Apache can’t hold a candle to Zeus, why is Zeus used by 1% of web servers and Apache by over two thirds, huh?
Plus open source development model is not flawed instead of regression testing testing is done by the community. Many eyes make all bugs shallow dude. I would say 1,000,000 people using your software would find a lot more bugs than 100 or so peopel hired to find bugs. You just don’t understand the open source development model.
Now that’s funny! I’m not really sure how to respond to this. Where did you read this bullsh*t?
“So, in conclusion, commercially produced DESKTOP software is generally better tested and more consistent.”
Um, even this is strictly a matter of opinion. Windows is really that well tested??? You know it’s one thing for a person to say that Linux is not better than Windows, but to imply that Windows is something great because it’s proprietary, because it’s closed source is just plain suspect. True, Linux is not perfect. Not by a long shot, but Windows, with the backing of the world’s richest corporation, still has more than it’s share of problems as well. Open Source is a basically ad hoc arrangement, but what is the excuse of closed source for the buggy programming, for being a gateway for all the manner of worms and virii?
Microsoft’s products work surprisingly well? Well, shouldn’t they considering Microsoft can always hire the best programmers in the world, outbid any other company for their services, hire from the best schools, house it all on one huge “campus”. Microsoft’s products work surprisingly well for what? For the fact that they actually make it out the door, even if they’re always late? Or for the fact they don’t necessarily find the security holes until somebody embarrasses them like was done with this newest IE 6 exploit?
Please, while openly admitting Open Source is somewhat ad hoc, somebody explain to me what exactly is so impressive about closed source because I see the same kinds of bugs and security breaches whether the source is open or closed.
First you use the wrong terms. You should talk in terms of “free software” vs “proprietary software”. There is lots of commercial open source software, RedHat for instance. Commercial software is the wrong term.
You’re right that I should have used different terms. What I should have said was “commercially developed” versus “community developed” software. There is plenty of commercially developed “free software” to use the GNU semantics, such as SGI’s XFS, IBM’s Postfix, or Blender. I greatly dislike GNU’s “free software” versus “proprietary software” semantics as it requires one to redefine free in such a way that it isn’t particularly coherent with the English language, namely that “proprietary” freeware, which to the majority of the English speaking population would be considered “free”, is not “free software”. Embrace the GNU semantics if you wish… that’s your choice. I choose not to, and I will not have my word choice dictated to me by an organization like GNU and its blind followers.
Second Solaris CAN’T rival Linux. Linux runs on way more hardware just as good as Solaris does on its own and handles more processors on Altix than any Solaris machine on the planet.
I think Limp Bizkit wrote a song about you. It goes “Trolling trolling trolling… keep trolling trolling trolling”
Plus open source development model is not flawed instead of regression testing testing is done by the community. Many eyes make all bugs shallow dude. I would say 1,000,000 people using your software would find a lot more bugs than 100 or so peopel hired to find bugs. You just don’t understand the open source development model.
There are many problems with relying on the community to test software via use. The first is that the traditional “unit testing” approach is not taken, and bugs in components of the software may not expose themselves through casual use. These bugs can either be exposed by malicious individuals looking for input validation errors within the code, which may lead to buffer overflows amoung other problems, or the problems may reveal themselves at a later time after a code change. Or they may simply sit inside a bug tracker for years because no one is willing/able to address them.
And if Apache can’t hold a candle to Zeus, why is Zeus used by 1% of web servers and Apache by over two thirds, huh?
Sorry, you’ve just committed a logical fallacy known as argument ad populum (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_fallacy) By your argument, HDTV is better than NTSC because more people watch TV that way.
There are many problems with relying on the community to test software via use.
And besides that, who the hell is the community anyway, the end user? Personally, I’ve got better things to do than beta test someone else’s software.
Stallman makes the usual wiseass out of himself. Sorta like watching Yasir Arafat – you always knows what’s gonna come out next. Can’t and won’t answer questions, only redefines the terms of the argument in _his_ vocabulary. Always entertaining if cranks float your boat.
> I was listening to the head guy a SCO give a speech about
> how the GPL needs to be reworked so that more checks and
> balances were in place to ensure that nobody’s IP ends up
> getting included in any GPL’d code.
As long as there’s a way to ensure that nobody’s GPL’d or otherwise Open Source’d SW with stricter licenses terms than BSD-like licenses end up in proprietary SW, why not, I’m all for it.
<g>
I greatly dislike GNU’s “free software” versus “proprietary software” semantics as it requires one to redefine free in such a way that it isn’t particularly coherent with the English language, namely that “proprietary” freeware, which to the majority of the English speaking population would be considered “free”, is not “free software”. Embrace the GNU semantics if you wish… that’s your choice. I choose not to, and I will not have my word choice dictated to me by an organization like GNU and its blind followers.
Actually it is perfectly coherent:
free
adj. fre·er, fre·est
1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
That is the first definition, even before:
adv.
2. Without charge.
It is not that uncommon in the English language for one word to have two or more meanings.
There are many problems with relying on the community to test software via use. The first is that the traditional “unit testing” approach is not taken, and bugs in components of the software may not expose themselves through casual use.
A good UNIX programmer always builds large programs from smaller components. Besides, if the casual user does not experience the bug, it is not hindering use.
These bugs can either be exposed by malicious individuals looking for input validation errors within the code, which may lead to buffer overflows amoung other problems, or the problems may reveal themselves at a later time after a code change. Or they may simply sit inside a bug tracker for years because no one is willing/able to address them.
It sure is odd then that Microsoft code is so much more full of bugs.
Nice to see he’s no longer a one-man BS dept for .NET, but he is twisting the argument on this issue as well. For one thing, making revenue comparisions of OSS vs. proprietary misses the point: most revenue and jobs in the software business don’t come from large companies like MS or Oracle; they come from programmers who work for companies of all sizes that need custom software. The simple fact is that open source tools give programmers in less developed countries a lower barrier to entry than if they have to purchase commercial tools. Second, his notion that a proprietary SW industry is vital to fostering innovation is largely unfounded, as the sector that is most innovative with software is academia. It is there that you really see some new things being done in the realm of software engineering. Finally, his notion that “it is harder to sell something when a “secret” isn’t involved (in this case, the source code), and when there is no restriction on subsequent redistribution of the final product” is just plain wrong. You can still sell software under the GPL, you just have to pass along the source. Word to JC and RMS: not everyone wants to be a programmer!
The reason, quite simply, is that it is harder to sell something when a “secret” isn’t involved (in this case, the source code), and when there is no restriction on subsequent redistribution of the final product. This revenue-unfriendly model is by design in the case of GPLed software,
And he goes on that this is why redhat dropped the user distro.
Honestly, this guy is a complete ignorant. Open Source software let us profit easily because we can offer SERVICES at low cost, not PRODUCTS. OSS (and i mean the software itself, not what runs it) rarely is about PRODUCTS but platforms for SERVICES. When IBM, Compaq, Redhat, etc make a deal with an organization, such deal will allways include services like deployment, training, consulting, warranty, support, upgrades etc which is where they get profit from.
This is also why redhat dropped the ball with an user distro, they are popular enough now that they dont need it anymore and get most of their profits from services.
It is not that uncommon in the English language for one word to have two or more meanings.
The GNU semantics would have you discard the primary definition of the word in relation to something inanimate, at least in my opinion of the coloquial usage. I contend you find a layman who would say that “proprietary” freeware is not “free software”. Personally I find GNU’s attempts to redefine the English language as distasteful as the PC thugs who would have you do the same.
A good UNIX programmer always builds large programs from smaller components.
And are all those components seeing proper unit testing in every case? You can rest assured that in any reputable software design firm they are. Try talking to a professional software developer versus someone working on a community project, and ask how much branch coverage they’re getting on their unit tests. Chances are whoever that professional developer is working for will have a minimum level of branch coverage around 70%, whereas the community developer probably hasn’t done proper unit testing in the first place. While this is just an ad hoc example, it’s just an illustration of my point that commercial software developers place extreme importance on software testing and have well regimented methods, whereas in the open source world this will vary dramatically depending on the developers in charge of the project, the knowledge those developers have of software testing, and what tools they have at their disposal. It’s only recently that the open source world has even been able to produce a memory debugger (valgrind), but how many people are actually using it?
Besides, if the casual user does not experience the bug, it is not hindering use.
Yes, a buffer overflow in a networked suid application isn’t hindering use, but that certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t a potentially disasterous problem.
It sure is odd then that Microsoft code is so much more full of bugs.
And when you have no concrete arguments, turn to FUD. Please post something quantifiable on this matter… anything else is just the inane ramblings of a rabid zealot
“given the development process by which Microsoft applications are produced, in which features and changes are added to the codebase primarily by novice programmers who saw said codebase for the first time a few months ago, Microsoft products work surprisingly well. Why? Considerable regression testing, and excellent debugging work. Consequently, for the majority of people it’s rare for them to encounter a bug in a multimillion line codebase.”
I think most of us have encountered a number of bugs in Microsoft’s software.
For example, last week somebody sent me a one-page Word doc file – a form to fill in. Opening it in Word on a Win2k machine crashed the computer right back to rebooting (not convenient if you have other programs running with unsaved data). This happened consistently.
Another machine with presumably a different version of Word opened it and printed it but with Courier instead of Arial. A third printed it with the correct font but with the logo at the top replaced by three large type characters.
In the end I walked over to another building and got the sender to print it out on his machine. Correct font but still no logo. (Boxes this time).
Regression testing doesn’t appear to be very thorough at Microsoft.
For example, last week somebody sent me a one-page Word doc file – a form to fill in. Opening it in Word on a Win2k machine crashed the computer right back to rebooting (not convenient if you have other programs running with unsaved data). This happened consistently.
Mind e-mailing me a copy of this Word document? I’d certainly like to see it…
“And when you have no concrete arguments, turn to FUD. Please post something quantifiable on this matter… anything else is just the inane ramblings of a rabid zealot.”
Really now, Bascule, how is this different what you’re doing? I know that you’re not a Windows fanboy but it’s certainly sounding that way today. Open Source is rough around the edges, but I honestly don’t see closed source being all that much better despite all the advantages it has over Open Source.
Who is going to control the factors of production? Is it going to be MS or is it going to be decentralized by open source.
Who cares about software testing at MS.
“I was listening to the head guy a SCO give a speech about how the GPL needs to be reworked so that more checks and balances were in place to ensure that nobody’s IP ends up getting included in any GPL’d code.”
Is it really possible to inadvertently do this? How could a programmer not know? Or does this imply blatant theft going on?
While a bit off topic, I believe this is a valid point that needs some attention.
Let’s be honest… a service-based business model is far less desirable than than one that is product-based.
Consider the latter. One writes an application, and is then able to sell this appliction a theoretically limitless number of times. This allows for VERY small companies to become enormously successful; the game industry—consider id—is still, to some extent at least, a wonderful example of this (as was the shrink-wrapped software industry a decade or two ago).
Consider now the former: service-based. One must have enormous resources to support such a model. You illustrated this poignantly with the companies you named: IBM, Compaq, RedHat. This is an industry with no place for a tiny, briliant startup with great ideas.
OSS does not undermine the juggernauts who can staff hundreds in their support teams. What OSS eliminates are those two guys hacking in a garage, which is the reason why software development was so desirable in the first place.
“Second Solaris CAN’T rival Linux. Linux runs on way more hardware just as good as Solaris does on its own and handles more processors on Altix than any Solaris machine on the planet.”
The question is, does Sun care?
They are basking in a warm fuzzy feeling of having recently gotten a contract with the Chinese government to deliver 200 million Java desktop systems, which of course, runs Linux.
With a contract that size, Sun has really become a major player in the desktop market, and it has taken Linux along for the ride.
I’m sure Microsoft took notice of that one. Linux + Tiger is going to pose a real threat to Microsoft (a contract for 200 million systems has to make anyone take notice. That’s like providing a computer for 3/4 of all the people in the United States).
“Consider now the former: service-based. One must have enormous resources to support such a model. You illustrated this poignantly with the companies you named: IBM, Compaq, RedHat. This is an industry with no place for a tiny, briliant startup with great ideas.”
Are you kidding? The biggest tech market in smaller cities like mine consists of the small companies (1 to 10 employees) that maintain the computer systems and networks (Windows and Linux) of all the local non-tech companies. When a special need needs to be met, many of these companies can custom-write Linux software – a much cheaper alternative to buying all the Microsoft licenses and development platforms.
It seems logical to me that product-based economics still requires as much service as service-based models. But the economy can be more productive when everyone’s free to improve on the available open-source software, instead of re-inventing the wheel to compete with every single proprietary package.
Paul
I read both articles and was saddened not only by the things which RMS reported about having happened at the conference and in the run-up to it, but also by the unbelievable duplicity and disingenuousness of the article posted by John Carroll.
Richard presented a very interesting piece showing how much effort was made to stifle any dialogue concerning open source-and that in a conference which had as one of its main topics-the elimination(overcoming) of the digital divide.
John Carrolls arguments really only apply to the corporate based world of IP as it currently exists in the most advanced industrial nations. Therefore his comments are meaningless in the context of the digital divide-ie. the rest of the world outside of the corporate IP world.
Bascule laments Richards ‘semantics’. At least Bascule recognizes that ‘meaning’ and what something ‘means’ is at stake here, for even this is ofter overseen by many who attack Richard.
But what Richard is talking about is so mind-numbingly simple it completely eludes comprehension of so many. What does ‘source’ mean ? If one understands ‘source’ as being merely code, one completely fails to understand what Richard is talking about. The ‘source’ is that from whence somthing comes, ushers forth. In latin this is known as terminus ad quo.
This notion is ancient, yet amazingly timely as the open source community, correctly, emphasizes. If the tools that were necessary to build software were all propietary each and every developer would be enslaved in a rigid heirarchy of development, where some developers, those who work for the propietary software development corporations, who themselves recieve orders from non-developing managers and executives, would dictate how and with what all other developers work.
It really is that simple. If the FSF/GNU did not exist, each and every developer who attempted to break out of this heirarchy would necessarily have to replicate the entire chain of tools from scratch each time, repeating the mistakes of those that have gone before them. Now replicating the entire tool chain means writing an assembler, linker, compiler, library tools, parsing tools, command line tools – and this just to produce any workable program at all. Of all the existing alternative operating system projects none have had to do this-with the exception of Richards baby.
All other operating systems have had to make use of preexisting propietary tools, with contractual license stipulations and fees or purchase said propietary IP tools, which of course requires massive initial capital- or make use of what Richard and others, via the FSF/GNU, have given to the world. Any developer can contribute to the GNU project and enhance the tools that they themselves use and even create new ones-things which are impossible in the propietary world. If all developers need tools to write their software, which as seen is the case, then the ‘source’ is where these tools come from. If this ‘source’ is monopoly-based propietary IP developers have no input back into the source, they are in essence cut off from the source.
But the ‘source’ has another still deeper meaning-things only usher forth anew from the source as long as the flow back into the source is unhindered. And that is where *free* as in free software comes from. If one merely gives away the binary of their software, without the source, those who use it are dependent on he who gives it away-this of course is how monopolies work. Now this gift may be great indeed, as in the case of Nvidia drivers, or Freeware in general as we know from the world of windows software, but the gift itself is not giving, because there is no flow back into the source.
Although one may wish to denounce such thinking as simply being metaphorical, there is no such thing as a mere metaphore. Richard is deftly using semantical treasures buried in the values espoused by our common heritage and witnessed in our language. This alone qualifies him, beyond his fabulous coding contributions, as a genious in more senses than one. Richard comes on as holier-than-thou to many because there *is* wisdom in his words, something which in contemporary culture immediately becomes the object of attack becuase its reality is not measurable in facts.
Many take great issue with Richards’ semantics, but in reality they are taking issue with his values, which upon closer inspection reveal themselves as values which most of us trully share, and I wonder if those who do take issue with his thoughts have any grasp at all of the values they are actually espousing. The reflection necessary to see this wisdom is not easy and acknowledging the value of gifts which keep on giving is for those who reflect an often painful exercise. Richard is not selling an ideology. He is simply pointing something out which any thinking person has already encountered, however uncomforting such thought may be.
And of course, Richard is not alone in this. There are many voices that ring in the wisdom which Richard offers. Richard did none of this alone, there were many before him and many who at the same time realized what Richard realized-if this were not the case the FSF/GNU project would never have come into being, let alone persist for nearly 20 years now. Yes there is an inordinate amount of idealism the philosophy behind FSF/GNU. But the wording of the GPL/LGPL is everything but idealistic. There is a fascinating interplay of deep idealism and hard-core realism and utter pragmatism at work here. And these issues are *political*, not in the sense of parties or representation, but in the sense of the relationship of the public and private spheres. Most independent developers hold themselves to be quite apolitical. Just look at Slashdot, the largest congress of independent developers anywhere.
If you are not alone in the values you express your values are political. If you believe you can engage yourself in the market without expressing your values you are woefully naieve. In developing code your code embodies values, values which have political consequences. In acquiring and using software a “value” equation has already transpired, to which you may or may not wish to stand, whether or not you ever reflect upon it or intend it. And the political ramifactions of the values you espouse are not defined in the boundaries of domestic political battles between the political parties of your home country.Anything which pertains to the relationship of the difference between public and private sphere is political and Richard has succeeded in getting some of the most obstinate independent, isolate, often alienated, developers to the think about the whole of their actions, and the whole of which they are a part. What an amazing feat for ‘apolitical’ geeks……
IMO freedom goes both ways, freedom to choose and use any software you want (proprietary or not) but also freedom for the developer to sell his software with any license he chooses (proprietary or not).
Cheers
“The GNU semantics would have you discard the primary definition of the word in relation to
something inanimate, at least in my opinion of the coloquial usage. I contend you find a layman who
would say that “proprietary” freeware is not “free software”.
Free is defined as “enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery”. Surely software that allows you to do anything you want to/with it is more free then software you are not allowed to copy, modify, or fully understand. And if you think free primarily means, for no money, look it up in a dictionary some time.
> Are you kidding? The biggest tech market in smaller cities like mine consists of the small companies (1 to 10 employees) that maintain the computer systems and networks (Windows and Linux) of all the local non-tech companies.
Sounds good.
> When a special need needs to be met, many of these companies can custom-write Linux software – a much cheaper alternative to buying all the Microsoft licenses and development platforms.
This seems flawed. How about providing the customers with a solution that works for them, Windows or Linux. Seems like you are saying, we can’t afford MS licenses, so we will only develop on Linux for our customers. This is off-topic, but does not seem to be the best way to run the company.
> It seems logical to me that product-based economics still requires as much service as service-based models.
How do you figure. For a product, the user buys it and is done with the company. Support may be needed, but is usually not.
> But the economy can be more productive when everyone’s free to improve on the available open-source software, instead of re-inventing the wheel to compete with every single proprietary package.
Again, how do you figure. Yes, you may get better products, but where is the insentive to sell these products? Where is the insentive to market these products? How will the average person even know these products exist?
Without a way to sell there is no insentive. If people can get software for free, no one will buy it.
Free is defined as “enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery”. Surely software that allows you to do anything you want to/with it is more free then software you are not allowed to copy, modify, or fully understand. And if you think free primarily means, for no money, look it up in a dictionary some time.
Except the GPL doesn’t even vaguely let you do “anything you want to”, so it doesn’t really fit that definition either.
“Personally, I’ve got better things to do than beta test someone else’s software.”
Yes…that’s why I stopped buying new versions of Windows. I figure if I have to beta-test software, I don’t see why I should pay for it.
Actually, my favorite Windows-based software (QuickScore Elite), I “beta-tested” from version 5 to version 7, then it was orphaned, so I guess I have to keep using Version 7 “beta” forever, and never see it be improved again, because no one has the source code…..
Suggestion to free-software developers: Why not remove the “beta” designation earlier….that way, you can compete with proprietary/commercial software better. </sarcasm>
“given the development process by which Microsoft applications are produced, in which features and changes are added to the codebase primarily by novice programmers who saw said codebase for the first time a few months ago”
And where is this development process otherwise? I commited changed directly into Gnome’s or KDE’s CVS after sawing the respective code just maybe two weeks for the first time. And in some of my jobs for some small commercial software companies it was not otherwise.
Also I know some Microsoft programmers personally. Those are surely no novices but are definitly overqualified for the things they do there.
Also MS programmers don’t hack right away after they are hired. First they have to find bugs, do testing, help debugging etc. to get familiar with the code.
Of course there are places where service is a good business. Look at cars, theres so much in servicing cars from repair shops to maintenance to making the car look cool. Yet do we get the car for free? No. But that’s a physical example eh?
Yet the issue with software is the same. There’s plenty of servicing to go around, yet does that mean you make all ur money off servicing? They are in effect slightly independent markets. In this sense the open source idea of a good business model is like modern day printers. Essentially give away with the product, then make money on the maintenance (buying new ink).
Yes service/solution companies like IBM, SUN…are quick to pick up Open Source applications. It’s free (money-wise) and the source is available. Even online gaming could potentially be a place for Open Source apps, assuming they make money on the gaming network charges. But I guess I could just setup my own ‘free’ gaming network as well.
Yet, how about any purely software oriented application. Single player games, office suites, graphics software, tax software … These are markets virtually shut off from making money off the opensource model. They in a sense will either remain propietary or have to be ‘subsidized’ in the scope of larger projects.
As to naming…yeah I’m definitely annoyed at the use of ‘free’ software. There are several terms used to describe software and they’re not mutually exclusive.
-source included VERSUS binary only
-costs money VERUS product is free(money wise)
-follows open standards VERUS propietary means
What’s wrong with having a piece of software sold for free with the source included, but it does not use open standards.
Yamin
Yes there is an inordinate amount of idealism the philosophy behind FSF/GNU. But the wording of the GPL/LGPL is everything but idealistic. There is a fascinating interplay of deep idealism and hard-core realism and utter pragmatism at work here.
What bullshit. RMS is a third-rate thinker with an even worse sense of history.
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3058/1/
“What bullshit. RMS is a third-rate thinker with an even worse sense of history.
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3058/1/“
How amazing, what a thoughtful response. Nice to know you have nothing to say….
As for the link you provided:
I won’t get into all of the issues surrounding Richard’s sometimes bemusing rhetoric. A degree of hyperbole is definitely one thing he is (in)famous for. One is not apt to call him understated. Yet none of these issues touches on the substance of what he has said, much less what I said about him. And as far as programmers go-the FSF/GNU is tantamount to a ‘declaration of independence’, and what the FSF/GNU has brought about is most definitely revolutionary.
If you care to go beyond the use of explicatives to state your thought-through opposition to what I have written we could move on to a level of discussion slightly above that of the gutter(ie. its wet, dark, sticky and stinks down there from whence you are talking)
But I imagine you won’t, and you probably prefer being an anonymous coward. I can see it now- in ten years from now millions of software developers will be righting code in accordance with your sentiments and attributing it to you….Come back when you actually have a contribution to make.