contrarian asks about open source concept
-
There's two underlying assumptions in your post that I believe need to be brought to light. First off, the assumption that there are "strings attached" to open source software (or, let's say, articles, such as the excellent to do list article here on CP). And I don't mean licensing strings, I mean emotional strings. Becoming an article author, I had to think long and hard about where I am regarding people using my code without telling me, asking permission, or even saying "thank you". I've developed the attitude that I am contributing freely and I have no emotional baggage regarding how it's used. The second assumption I feel you are making is that a reward must be monetary. Sure, the fellow could be collecting $5, but was that the motivation? Was it resume fodder? Was it cool points? Who knows. Each person contributes for their own reason, and we can't make any assumptions as to what those reasons are. There's another interesting implication here, that open source stifles competition because someone with a cool product that's free now makes it impossible for someone else with similar ideas to make a commercial one. Not only is that narrow sighted, it also isn't true. It's narrow sighted because a commercial product is more than just the software. It's the support, maintenance, upgrades, etc. Those apply to open source as well, but... (I'll just leave it at that). It also isn't true that you can't compete. Not only for the forementioned reasons, but also because it's choice that provides competition, not just that something is free. There's lots of free software out there but I choose to spend money on a commercial product for a variety of reasons. So, I would suggest first becoming more conscious of your implied assumptions regarding commercial and open source software and competition. That's my 3c (inflation, you know). Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
hose apply to open source as well, but... (I'll just leave it at that).
What did you mean by that (...) ?
company, work and everything else @ netis
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
hose apply to open source as well, but... (I'll just leave it at that).
What did you mean by that (...) ?
company, work and everything else @ netis
Zoltan Balazs wrote:
What did you mean by that (...) ?
The perception, right or wrong, that open source is less supported than a commercial product. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
There's two underlying assumptions in your post that I believe need to be brought to light. First off, the assumption that there are "strings attached" to open source software (or, let's say, articles, such as the excellent to do list article here on CP). And I don't mean licensing strings, I mean emotional strings. Becoming an article author, I had to think long and hard about where I am regarding people using my code without telling me, asking permission, or even saying "thank you". I've developed the attitude that I am contributing freely and I have no emotional baggage regarding how it's used. The second assumption I feel you are making is that a reward must be monetary. Sure, the fellow could be collecting $5, but was that the motivation? Was it resume fodder? Was it cool points? Who knows. Each person contributes for their own reason, and we can't make any assumptions as to what those reasons are. There's another interesting implication here, that open source stifles competition because someone with a cool product that's free now makes it impossible for someone else with similar ideas to make a commercial one. Not only is that narrow sighted, it also isn't true. It's narrow sighted because a commercial product is more than just the software. It's the support, maintenance, upgrades, etc. Those apply to open source as well, but... (I'll just leave it at that). It also isn't true that you can't compete. Not only for the forementioned reasons, but also because it's choice that provides competition, not just that something is free. There's lots of free software out there but I choose to spend money on a commercial product for a variety of reasons. So, I would suggest first becoming more conscious of your implied assumptions regarding commercial and open source software and competition. That's my 3c (inflation, you know). Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithThanks Marc - I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I take them to heart. The one about open sourcing not necessarily stifling competition especially seems valid. The other one about rewards don't have to be monetary - well that one I have a slightly different perspective on. NOT because I'm greedy but because as a lifelong lefty I see that saying "I don't care about money...." is a completely disempowering and naive way of thinking. There will be people who will figure out how to capture and maximize the value from what you are doing if you yourself don't - that's really my point. And those people may tend to be more of the ruthless, valueless, buck worshipping types of folk. Pretty soon they are calling you just a "content provider." They don't always have the love of the product and quality that you do -the bottom line is the only thing they value.
-
Most, probably the great majority of open source projects are essentially "stillborn". They get released to much hoopla and good intentions and then never go anywhere due to lack of committment. Just because there is a free software package available does not in any way make it a bad candidate to make a commercial competitor of that software: If your commercially competing software has a manual, your software is easy to use, the pricing is right, you support it like your life depends on it, there is a large enough market and most importantly: you market the *hell* out of it you will absolutely make money on *any* software regardless of the market conditions and competition. Smaller software companies are not in any way increasingly more difficult, they've always been difficult; ask any small business owner how much work they put in and you will rarely find one that puts in equal or less to a regular employee working a standard work week. The difference is that as a small business owner you are rewarded directly for any amount of work you put into it. I used to consider open source to be a much bigger risk to career software developers than outsourcing but after a few years of watching it I've come to the conclusion that aside from a few really popular projects it's never going to take away from a well produced commercial application.
-
Thanks Marc - I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I take them to heart. The one about open sourcing not necessarily stifling competition especially seems valid. The other one about rewards don't have to be monetary - well that one I have a slightly different perspective on. NOT because I'm greedy but because as a lifelong lefty I see that saying "I don't care about money...." is a completely disempowering and naive way of thinking. There will be people who will figure out how to capture and maximize the value from what you are doing if you yourself don't - that's really my point. And those people may tend to be more of the ruthless, valueless, buck worshipping types of folk. Pretty soon they are calling you just a "content provider." They don't always have the love of the product and quality that you do -the bottom line is the only thing they value.
dd314159 wrote:
The one about open sourcing not necessarily stifling competition especially seems valid.
Thanks! :)
dd314159 wrote:
I see that saying "I don't care about money...." is a completely disempowering and naive way of thinking.
But it's a thin line to becoming obsessed with money. I prefer (but usually fail) to treat money as a neutral thing, without any sympathy or antipathy towards it. The result is that I'm more conscious of concepts such as "donation", "work", and "need".
dd314159 wrote:
There will be people who will figure out how to capture and maximize the value from what you are doing if you yourself don't - that's really my point.
That's true. But why should that affect my behavior or attitudes? :)
dd314159 wrote:
They don't always have the love of the product and quality that you do -the bottom line is the only thing they value.
And they soon learn that the bottom line is affected by not paying attention to quality, perceived or real. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Hello All - I know a bit about why "open source" is/could be a good thing. But is it used by the wrong people and in the wrong situations? I got to thinking because i just downloaded a free,& very nice, to do list desktop application. It's open source and as i said free. Okay so maybe through multiple people adding to it and perfecting it - it will become ever more awesome. BUT - why shouldn't that person who wrote it benefit more from it that just getting cool points and resume fodder? What about all the people who want to contribute to it? Will they really? After all- those people won't get much even compared to the minimal rewards of the first creator. They and the first person will obviously get satisfaction and fun writing the app too BUT....there are other people out there who are playing the "big boys" games. They figure out how to capitalize on the cleverness that goes undervalued. They are the ones you work for. They are the ones who will keep the labor pools at certain levels so they don't have to pay you too much. They are the ones outsourcing etc...etc... I think it's time people figured out how to value and reap the value of their work. Not allow others to do that for you!!!!!!!! Could there be other models besides open sourcing possible? Especially for these smaller types of projects as opposed to say an operating system? What about developers getting together to run owner/worker companies? Anyway - I think the to do list person could easily collect $5 a pop for the download. All that is for most of us is a couple of "Big Gulps" - and who really needs those? Also let me say these thoughts came about because I was bummed to see this application available for free - because I had some wonderful ideas for a similar and graphically rich to do list project. I wanted to write one and make a little money off of it. You know just in case I get laid off... Please comment. I would love to hear other or similar perspectives. It seems to me free enterprise by and for the people (not just by and for the big boys) becomes harder and harder. Remember owner/worker companies can be wildly successful.
If I've written something for myself, it's done, and if I think others might like it, I'll give it away for free. If someone wants me to write something that I wouldn't write for myself, I'll charge them for it.
-
Hello All - I know a bit about why "open source" is/could be a good thing. But is it used by the wrong people and in the wrong situations? I got to thinking because i just downloaded a free,& very nice, to do list desktop application. It's open source and as i said free. Okay so maybe through multiple people adding to it and perfecting it - it will become ever more awesome. BUT - why shouldn't that person who wrote it benefit more from it that just getting cool points and resume fodder? What about all the people who want to contribute to it? Will they really? After all- those people won't get much even compared to the minimal rewards of the first creator. They and the first person will obviously get satisfaction and fun writing the app too BUT....there are other people out there who are playing the "big boys" games. They figure out how to capitalize on the cleverness that goes undervalued. They are the ones you work for. They are the ones who will keep the labor pools at certain levels so they don't have to pay you too much. They are the ones outsourcing etc...etc... I think it's time people figured out how to value and reap the value of their work. Not allow others to do that for you!!!!!!!! Could there be other models besides open sourcing possible? Especially for these smaller types of projects as opposed to say an operating system? What about developers getting together to run owner/worker companies? Anyway - I think the to do list person could easily collect $5 a pop for the download. All that is for most of us is a couple of "Big Gulps" - and who really needs those? Also let me say these thoughts came about because I was bummed to see this application available for free - because I had some wonderful ideas for a similar and graphically rich to do list project. I wanted to write one and make a little money off of it. You know just in case I get laid off... Please comment. I would love to hear other or similar perspectives. It seems to me free enterprise by and for the people (not just by and for the big boys) becomes harder and harder. Remember owner/worker companies can be wildly successful.
If everyone that contributes to open source software gets $5 then one copy of linux would be 450,000 dollars or more. If you say the other way that $5 should be divided amongst all contributers then the unit is to small to distribute and it would cost more than $5 a license to manage royalties.
File Not Found
-
If everyone that contributes to open source software gets $5 then one copy of linux would be 450,000 dollars or more. If you say the other way that $5 should be divided amongst all contributers then the unit is to small to distribute and it would cost more than $5 a license to manage royalties.
File Not Found
Well, there are other ways than the ones you've mentioned to pay someone. I'm certain some people have contributed huge amounts of design, analysis and code to linux. Others just a little. People could be paid based on contributions to the project. Given some more thought I'll bet we could price it competitively (and lucratively for the developers) If linux were a commercial project it is possible that it would be in more widespread use too - companies could buy it and as a business expense it comes off their taxable income. Also if it produced income streams - people would be knocking down doors to invest in it. The people involved in producing it would be richly rewarded and able to wield more influence in computer world and world at large. might actually start challenging windows...???? Investors, companies and developers would line up behind it in greater and greater numbers.
-
If I've written something for myself, it's done, and if I think others might like it, I'll give it away for free. If someone wants me to write something that I wouldn't write for myself, I'll charge them for it.
Okay - I can understand you would want to give it to friends, family, the software community you value. But that's not what I'm really talking about. I would rather someone like you get full value in the marketplace for their work than some financial shark who knows how to exploit the 'content providers'. My point - we should be hiring the financial people to work for us to gain maximum value for us. After all we are the creators and the brains behind lots of good stuff that improves productivity thousand fold.
-
dd314159 wrote:
The one about open sourcing not necessarily stifling competition especially seems valid.
Thanks! :)
dd314159 wrote:
I see that saying "I don't care about money...." is a completely disempowering and naive way of thinking.
But it's a thin line to becoming obsessed with money. I prefer (but usually fail) to treat money as a neutral thing, without any sympathy or antipathy towards it. The result is that I'm more conscious of concepts such as "donation", "work", and "need".
dd314159 wrote:
There will be people who will figure out how to capture and maximize the value from what you are doing if you yourself don't - that's really my point.
That's true. But why should that affect my behavior or attitudes? :)
dd314159 wrote:
They don't always have the love of the product and quality that you do -the bottom line is the only thing they value.
And they soon learn that the bottom line is affected by not paying attention to quality, perceived or real. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc, regarding your comment "That's true. But why should that affect my behavior or attitudes?" It doesn't have to nor am I saying it should. But I can see that if people took more control over their economic lives - they would direct more of what happens in the world. Not necessarily by trying to become rich and powerful but because every thing we buy, sell (work for), spend our time on, spend our attention on - gives power to some and not to others. As an example, What if nobody banked at Citibank anymore (they were part of Enron scandal, use untraceable numbered bank accounts in places like Luxemborg and the Cayman Islands, have been implicated in money laundering, mortgage fraud(subsidary of CitiBank) etc....) What if we absorbed more of the worth we produced? What if we directed our own retirement funds? Etc...Etc...
-
There's two underlying assumptions in your post that I believe need to be brought to light. First off, the assumption that there are "strings attached" to open source software (or, let's say, articles, such as the excellent to do list article here on CP). And I don't mean licensing strings, I mean emotional strings. Becoming an article author, I had to think long and hard about where I am regarding people using my code without telling me, asking permission, or even saying "thank you". I've developed the attitude that I am contributing freely and I have no emotional baggage regarding how it's used. The second assumption I feel you are making is that a reward must be monetary. Sure, the fellow could be collecting $5, but was that the motivation? Was it resume fodder? Was it cool points? Who knows. Each person contributes for their own reason, and we can't make any assumptions as to what those reasons are. There's another interesting implication here, that open source stifles competition because someone with a cool product that's free now makes it impossible for someone else with similar ideas to make a commercial one. Not only is that narrow sighted, it also isn't true. It's narrow sighted because a commercial product is more than just the software. It's the support, maintenance, upgrades, etc. Those apply to open source as well, but... (I'll just leave it at that). It also isn't true that you can't compete. Not only for the forementioned reasons, but also because it's choice that provides competition, not just that something is free. There's lots of free software out there but I choose to spend money on a commercial product for a variety of reasons. So, I would suggest first becoming more conscious of your implied assumptions regarding commercial and open source software and competition. That's my 3c (inflation, you know). Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
The second assumption I feel you are making is that a reward must be monetary. Sure, the fellow could be collecting $5, but was that the motivation? Was it resume fodder? Was it cool points? Who knows. Each person contributes for their own reason, and we can't make any assumptions as to what those reasons are.
How true! In the last months, since when I started running my own open source project, I got a few donations but above all I received 3 job offers from all around the world! I think that, in my case, the project itself is an investment for my future and an occasion to learn things. Excluding the biggest OS projects (Linux, Firefox, ...) I think that all the others are trying to accomplish the same goal, not to earn money (because simply they won't).
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] - My Photos Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 2.0 (2.0 RC is out)
-
Hello All - I know a bit about why "open source" is/could be a good thing. But is it used by the wrong people and in the wrong situations? I got to thinking because i just downloaded a free,& very nice, to do list desktop application. It's open source and as i said free. Okay so maybe through multiple people adding to it and perfecting it - it will become ever more awesome. BUT - why shouldn't that person who wrote it benefit more from it that just getting cool points and resume fodder? What about all the people who want to contribute to it? Will they really? After all- those people won't get much even compared to the minimal rewards of the first creator. They and the first person will obviously get satisfaction and fun writing the app too BUT....there are other people out there who are playing the "big boys" games. They figure out how to capitalize on the cleverness that goes undervalued. They are the ones you work for. They are the ones who will keep the labor pools at certain levels so they don't have to pay you too much. They are the ones outsourcing etc...etc... I think it's time people figured out how to value and reap the value of their work. Not allow others to do that for you!!!!!!!! Could there be other models besides open sourcing possible? Especially for these smaller types of projects as opposed to say an operating system? What about developers getting together to run owner/worker companies? Anyway - I think the to do list person could easily collect $5 a pop for the download. All that is for most of us is a couple of "Big Gulps" - and who really needs those? Also let me say these thoughts came about because I was bummed to see this application available for free - because I had some wonderful ideas for a similar and graphically rich to do list project. I wanted to write one and make a little money off of it. You know just in case I get laid off... Please comment. I would love to hear other or similar perspectives. It seems to me free enterprise by and for the people (not just by and for the big boys) becomes harder and harder. Remember owner/worker companies can be wildly successful.
I run my own open source project, and it's having a good success. I'm not earning money (just a few small donations), but I got some interesting job offers from all around the world, so I think that the project is being more an investment for my future, and so far its ROI is quite good! The biggest open source projects are run by some big company. Mozilla Foundation became Mozilla Corp., Mono is run by Novell, the whole Linux project itself is financed by many big companies (IBM, for instance), so they are not good for this topic. In other words, they became commercial projects a long ago. The small projects, though, don't earn much money, but allow the developers to build their own reputation, learn new things and, maybe, find a big sponsor to develop their project full-time and even earn money. The "open source philosophy" is quite a joke in my opinion. A very few people really believe in it, all the others just want free software, trying or forcing themselves to forget that there are hundreds of people who write the code and need money for their lives. I feel this new thought in the air: "Software must be free", but it's broken in its roots, it's unfair and cannot last very long, IMHO. I suggest you to read this paper[^]. It's very interesting.
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] - My Photos Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 2.0 (2.0 RC is out)
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Not only is that narrow sighted, it also isn't true.
Yes and it's conceivable that there being an open source or free version serves to "prime" the market for a much better and well supported commercial one to come along. I think there could be a pretty good business in looking at the most popular open source stuff that's just slightly below the super-popular open source stuff and choosing a few to make commercial replacements for. Personally I wouldn't touch or even look at a line of the original code, I'd just look at the ui and how it works and design something better from scratch. Reminds me of an old BBS days tag line: "I don't register shareware - I rewrite it"
John Cardinal wrote:
Personally I wouldn't touch or even look at a line of the original code, I'd just look at the ui and how it works and design something better from scratch.
There's another level below open source too. I'm working alone on a large, private project. Learning a lot all the time. Trying to improve my programming skills etc. But this project is really all about what it does... Things that I've been wanting to be able to do for years, and that are now becoming possible thanks to VS, CP etc. This stage is, of course, a proof of concept. Its quite possible, that once others see it working, they may want to use it too. That's when an open-source (or even commercial) project becomes a possibility. But then "I'd just look at the ui and how it works and design something better from scratch". After all, my programming skills (C++) were rather rusty when I started, and my C# skills (and C# and .NET) are still improving. James Ingram
-
Marc, regarding your comment "That's true. But why should that affect my behavior or attitudes?" It doesn't have to nor am I saying it should. But I can see that if people took more control over their economic lives - they would direct more of what happens in the world. Not necessarily by trying to become rich and powerful but because every thing we buy, sell (work for), spend our time on, spend our attention on - gives power to some and not to others. As an example, What if nobody banked at Citibank anymore (they were part of Enron scandal, use untraceable numbered bank accounts in places like Luxemborg and the Cayman Islands, have been implicated in money laundering, mortgage fraud(subsidary of CitiBank) etc....) What if we absorbed more of the worth we produced? What if we directed our own retirement funds? Etc...Etc...
dd314159 wrote:
But I can see that if people took more control over their economic lives - they would direct more of what happens in the world.
Aye, there's truth in that. Unfortunately, there actually is very little we can control in our economic lives. We pay taxes with little control over how it's spent, and what "control" we have is so indirect, via the people we put into office. We can choose where we shop and bank and buy gas, but that's about it. However, even there, most people really don't have a choice. They're too poor to be able to exercise choice. I probably spend twice what I would otherwise if I didn't buy organic and local produce, for example. I happen to think I make enough money to exercise that choice. But looking at what I owe for taxes this year, it's clear that I made the wrong choice. :( Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
dd314159 wrote:
But I can see that if people took more control over their economic lives - they would direct more of what happens in the world.
Aye, there's truth in that. Unfortunately, there actually is very little we can control in our economic lives. We pay taxes with little control over how it's spent, and what "control" we have is so indirect, via the people we put into office. We can choose where we shop and bank and buy gas, but that's about it. However, even there, most people really don't have a choice. They're too poor to be able to exercise choice. I probably spend twice what I would otherwise if I didn't buy organic and local produce, for example. I happen to think I make enough money to exercise that choice. But looking at what I owe for taxes this year, it's clear that I made the wrong choice. :( Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithFirst of all any piece of source code dumped into the public domain - open source or otherwise WILL be subject to abuse of one form or another no matter how many 'copyright', 'please credit me', 'don't modify without permission' notices you stick on it. Its going to happen - get used to it because not everyone is as nice as the (mainly) good folks here at Code Project ;) Therefore it doesn't make sense to have any emotional attachment. As for charging $5 (or whatever) - sure its only a couple of beers but we already have shareware - does anybody actually make any money from shareware? Does anyone really pay? I don't know. It would be really nice to be able to write a piece and make money from it through open source but I don't see how it would happen - its like throwing a lamb to the wolves and asking them nicely to save you a piece - they don't care about you, they have what they want - and when can you get some more!
-
Hello All - I know a bit about why "open source" is/could be a good thing. But is it used by the wrong people and in the wrong situations? I got to thinking because i just downloaded a free,& very nice, to do list desktop application. It's open source and as i said free. Okay so maybe through multiple people adding to it and perfecting it - it will become ever more awesome. BUT - why shouldn't that person who wrote it benefit more from it that just getting cool points and resume fodder? What about all the people who want to contribute to it? Will they really? After all- those people won't get much even compared to the minimal rewards of the first creator. They and the first person will obviously get satisfaction and fun writing the app too BUT....there are other people out there who are playing the "big boys" games. They figure out how to capitalize on the cleverness that goes undervalued. They are the ones you work for. They are the ones who will keep the labor pools at certain levels so they don't have to pay you too much. They are the ones outsourcing etc...etc... I think it's time people figured out how to value and reap the value of their work. Not allow others to do that for you!!!!!!!! Could there be other models besides open sourcing possible? Especially for these smaller types of projects as opposed to say an operating system? What about developers getting together to run owner/worker companies? Anyway - I think the to do list person could easily collect $5 a pop for the download. All that is for most of us is a couple of "Big Gulps" - and who really needs those? Also let me say these thoughts came about because I was bummed to see this application available for free - because I had some wonderful ideas for a similar and graphically rich to do list project. I wanted to write one and make a little money off of it. You know just in case I get laid off... Please comment. I would love to hear other or similar perspectives. It seems to me free enterprise by and for the people (not just by and for the big boys) becomes harder and harder. Remember owner/worker companies can be wildly successful.
Creating your own business even around a single software product is a very difficult venture and especially so if you are supporting this endeavor through a full-time job. I have been doing just that for several years now and have just reached a point where I am in the process of launching a brand new upgraded website along with two commercial product additions with a third as open-source. It has been a very arduous effort that I do not recommend for the "feint of heart". Nonetheless, if this is something you are interested in doing than take your idea and run with it. Just because a product already exists either commercially or open-sourced doesn't mean that your idea has no chance of yielding some income. MIne hasn't done so yet but that is not because I have a bad product or there are competing products out there. There are a lot of factors that go into any form of software development especially as a Micro-ISV that have noting to do with your idea. For example, my current site is simply not attractive enough to lure technicians to it though it is quite simple to use. My product is for very much of a niche area in development that has been overshadowed by industry promotion and hype for competing technologies. And, I haven't had enough time to market my product properly. These and other factors are all things that will contribute to the success or lack of it in your own endeavors. I still intend to keep going because my goal is to bring simple tools to technicians that we all use and thus need far more than the fancy products that are often promoted over those that simply get the job done. So if you believe in your idea than forget about the perceived competition or competing products. Simply do it and see where it takes you. You may find along the way that you have another idea that will succeed quite well...
Steve Naidamast Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@ix.netcom.com
-
Hello All - I know a bit about why "open source" is/could be a good thing. But is it used by the wrong people and in the wrong situations? I got to thinking because i just downloaded a free,& very nice, to do list desktop application. It's open source and as i said free. Okay so maybe through multiple people adding to it and perfecting it - it will become ever more awesome. BUT - why shouldn't that person who wrote it benefit more from it that just getting cool points and resume fodder? What about all the people who want to contribute to it? Will they really? After all- those people won't get much even compared to the minimal rewards of the first creator. They and the first person will obviously get satisfaction and fun writing the app too BUT....there are other people out there who are playing the "big boys" games. They figure out how to capitalize on the cleverness that goes undervalued. They are the ones you work for. They are the ones who will keep the labor pools at certain levels so they don't have to pay you too much. They are the ones outsourcing etc...etc... I think it's time people figured out how to value and reap the value of their work. Not allow others to do that for you!!!!!!!! Could there be other models besides open sourcing possible? Especially for these smaller types of projects as opposed to say an operating system? What about developers getting together to run owner/worker companies? Anyway - I think the to do list person could easily collect $5 a pop for the download. All that is for most of us is a couple of "Big Gulps" - and who really needs those? Also let me say these thoughts came about because I was bummed to see this application available for free - because I had some wonderful ideas for a similar and graphically rich to do list project. I wanted to write one and make a little money off of it. You know just in case I get laid off... Please comment. I would love to hear other or similar perspectives. It seems to me free enterprise by and for the people (not just by and for the big boys) becomes harder and harder. Remember owner/worker companies can be wildly successful.
This is kind of a why does open source work question, so I will bring up a very good book on the subject The Cathedral & the Bazaar[^]. Assuming you would rather not read a book let me offer a few points from my experience with open source. Why write an open source application? Most of the open source projects out there did not start as an open source project, but rather as a itch that needed scratching. For instance the TODO application you just downloaded obviously deals with TODO lists in a way that is more in line with what the author wanted than say Outlook. So why not charge for it? People rarely make decisions for one reason. Here are some that might come to mind. To collect money the "right" (read that as legal) way is a none trivial exercise. You must track how much you have made. You must track what you have spent on that software. Then you must fill out a different form of taxes. It is advisable to get a different bank account etc. Perhaps you don't think there is a broad market for it, but a friend wants to help out and share the program. An easy solution to this is to setup a source-forge project that you both have access too. Perhaps you really like the product and would like to show it off a little. Of course the reasons you mentioned are valid as well, such as resume fodder. Finally, several of the students I have interviewed have open source projects that they use as an example of the kind of code they are capable of writing. Will someone really help my open source project? The real question here is why would someone help. Let me tell you the story of Beowulf (Linux Clustering), as I understand it. NASA (The US National Air & Space Association) had a need to improve the speed and reduce the cost of their trajectory calculations. These calculations are complex as everything is moving in a circle and everything is effected by everything else. The obvious solution was to use a super computer, but time on a super computer is very expensive. A cheaper solution is to build a massively parallel computer using a clustering operating system. The issue was that the clustering Os's available were too expensive for NASA. Then they had an idea, what if they took an open source OS and added clustering to it. In this way they would not have to reinvent the wheel of the core OS services (Memory Management, I/O, various services, etc), and they wou
-
dd314159 wrote:
But I can see that if people took more control over their economic lives - they would direct more of what happens in the world.
Aye, there's truth in that. Unfortunately, there actually is very little we can control in our economic lives. We pay taxes with little control over how it's spent, and what "control" we have is so indirect, via the people we put into office. We can choose where we shop and bank and buy gas, but that's about it. However, even there, most people really don't have a choice. They're too poor to be able to exercise choice. I probably spend twice what I would otherwise if I didn't buy organic and local produce, for example. I happen to think I make enough money to exercise that choice. But looking at what I owe for taxes this year, it's clear that I made the wrong choice. :( Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithThe two of you sound like very intelligent an passionate people and you've struck a chord that I have been interested in for several years. I would very much like to come up with an alternative to the traditional models that would allow developers of code and content to be paid fairly for their work based on how much it is used. I have been able to generate some small amount of interest in the concept from developers, writers and artists, even from a few salespeople. I don't have any contacts among accounts and lawyers though and I think that for something like this to take off it would have to be structured legally. Would something like this be interesting to you? Do either of you know a lawyer or account that might be interested in a entrepreneurial venture? Feel free to bounce me an e-mail at jhegedus@centrifugeit.com if you'd like to chat a bit more about it. If you post here, I may or may not catch it. Thanks, Jeff
Yeah whatever...