Free speach, beer, or plain stupidity?
-
Sometimes I have a little argument with Open Source supporters :-O . I ask them why they think that only programmers should work for free. I mean, programmers develop i.e Samba or Apache, and then administrators in big companies use it for free to make money. Why there are no "open source" admins who would work for free? Or for that matter, "open source" doctors, lawyers, teachers... Everybody works for money, only for programmers it should be shear pleasure. I mean, it makes sense to write articles or some code that you might want to share with your fellow developers (there are technical articles in other professions too). But to waste your free time to develop software products that other people (or companies) will use to make money for themselves is plain stupid, IMHO. I vote pro drink :beer:
-
Sometimes I have a little argument with Open Source supporters :-O . I ask them why they think that only programmers should work for free. I mean, programmers develop i.e Samba or Apache, and then administrators in big companies use it for free to make money. Why there are no "open source" admins who would work for free? Or for that matter, "open source" doctors, lawyers, teachers... Everybody works for money, only for programmers it should be shear pleasure. I mean, it makes sense to write articles or some code that you might want to share with your fellow developers (there are technical articles in other professions too). But to waste your free time to develop software products that other people (or companies) will use to make money for themselves is plain stupid, IMHO. I vote pro drink :beer:
While there probably are some open source advocates that think programmers should work for free, I doubt that's the general impression. For instance, AFAIK, many of the Apache core developers work for Covalent, which is an Apache support company. It's more about free in the sense that it is freely available ("free speech"), not necessarily free as in it costs nothing ("free beer"). You are special and unique, just like everyone else.
-
Sometimes I have a little argument with Open Source supporters :-O . I ask them why they think that only programmers should work for free. I mean, programmers develop i.e Samba or Apache, and then administrators in big companies use it for free to make money. Why there are no "open source" admins who would work for free? Or for that matter, "open source" doctors, lawyers, teachers... Everybody works for money, only for programmers it should be shear pleasure. I mean, it makes sense to write articles or some code that you might want to share with your fellow developers (there are technical articles in other professions too). But to waste your free time to develop software products that other people (or companies) will use to make money for themselves is plain stupid, IMHO. I vote pro drink :beer:
Actually, I don't agree with you. How I spend my free time is none of your business (I don't mean that as harsh as it might sound.) But, unlike most of the OSS morons, how other people spend their time programming is none of my business. Pay or free, it doesn't bother me at all as long as it is your decision. When it becomes law or religion (GNU), then something is very wrong. Actually, to be perfectly honest, I think GNU is more of a huge con than a religion. People should read Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer". Specifically how Tom (or was it Huck) got other people to do his work for him. Not only that, he had them WANTING to do his work like mindless dogs. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
While there probably are some open source advocates that think programmers should work for free, I doubt that's the general impression. For instance, AFAIK, many of the Apache core developers work for Covalent, which is an Apache support company. It's more about free in the sense that it is freely available ("free speech"), not necessarily free as in it costs nothing ("free beer"). You are special and unique, just like everyone else.
One thing of note that people might not realize, Apache isn't GNU. Their license is for the most part, truely free. GNU claiming to be free is a total sham. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
Actually, I don't agree with you. How I spend my free time is none of your business (I don't mean that as harsh as it might sound.) But, unlike most of the OSS morons, how other people spend their time programming is none of my business. Pay or free, it doesn't bother me at all as long as it is your decision. When it becomes law or religion (GNU), then something is very wrong. Actually, to be perfectly honest, I think GNU is more of a huge con than a religion. People should read Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer". Specifically how Tom (or was it Huck) got other people to do his work for him. Not only that, he had them WANTING to do his work like mindless dogs. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: Actually, I don't agree with you. Actually, you do agree with me ;P I don't mind them working for free (it's their life, after all). I mind them preaching that all software should be free, which means that I should work for free as well. I vote pro drink :beer:
-
Actually, I don't agree with you. How I spend my free time is none of your business (I don't mean that as harsh as it might sound.) But, unlike most of the OSS morons, how other people spend their time programming is none of my business. Pay or free, it doesn't bother me at all as long as it is your decision. When it becomes law or religion (GNU), then something is very wrong. Actually, to be perfectly honest, I think GNU is more of a huge con than a religion. People should read Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer". Specifically how Tom (or was it Huck) got other people to do his work for him. Not only that, he had them WANTING to do his work like mindless dogs. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: People should read Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer". Specifically how Tom (or was it Huck) got other people to do his work for him. Not only that, he had them WANTING to do his work like mindless dogs. Interesting comparison, I'd never considered that angle. Must use that in some open-source arguments sometime. Maybe'll I create a Huck source-code licence ;-) Michael :-) Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
-
Tim Smith wrote: Actually, I don't agree with you. Actually, you do agree with me ;P I don't mind them working for free (it's their life, after all). I mind them preaching that all software should be free, which means that I should work for free as well. I vote pro drink :beer:
Then yes, we do agree. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
Tim Smith wrote: Actually, I don't agree with you. Actually, you do agree with me ;P I don't mind them working for free (it's their life, after all). I mind them preaching that all software should be free, which means that I should work for free as well. I vote pro drink :beer:
who says you have to work for free? there's a company down the road from me called RedHat that employees a few hundred people. none of them are working for free. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
-
Sometimes I have a little argument with Open Source supporters :-O . I ask them why they think that only programmers should work for free. I mean, programmers develop i.e Samba or Apache, and then administrators in big companies use it for free to make money. Why there are no "open source" admins who would work for free? Or for that matter, "open source" doctors, lawyers, teachers... Everybody works for money, only for programmers it should be shear pleasure. I mean, it makes sense to write articles or some code that you might want to share with your fellow developers (there are technical articles in other professions too). But to waste your free time to develop software products that other people (or companies) will use to make money for themselves is plain stupid, IMHO. I vote pro drink :beer:
I don't think open source is about programmers working for free (although it does happen), I think open source software is kind of a logical development (neil pauses to put on his asbestos suit). In any other field, knowledge passes from a proprietary state into the public domain. The knowledge in the public domain is then used as the base for new research and development. This is not happening in software. We're all still paying for word processors (paying more and more all the time I might add), even though they've been around for 20 years. Open source is an attempt to build some public domain software. If most companies use some type of office suite, at some point it becomes economical for them to get together and build an open source office suite rather than pay for a proprietary solution. Then they can spend their money on their business, hopefully it is developing new and exciting software. Neil Van Eps "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein
-
I don't think open source is about programmers working for free (although it does happen), I think open source software is kind of a logical development (neil pauses to put on his asbestos suit). In any other field, knowledge passes from a proprietary state into the public domain. The knowledge in the public domain is then used as the base for new research and development. This is not happening in software. We're all still paying for word processors (paying more and more all the time I might add), even though they've been around for 20 years. Open source is an attempt to build some public domain software. If most companies use some type of office suite, at some point it becomes economical for them to get together and build an open source office suite rather than pay for a proprietary solution. Then they can spend their money on their business, hopefully it is developing new and exciting software. Neil Van Eps "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein
1. MS-Word with HTML editing ability hasn't been around for 20 years. You make it sound like we are using the program that they created 20 years ago. That just isn't the case. 2. OSS is not about creating public domain software. In fact, GPL is one of the most restrictive licenses out there. 3. The "service model" doesn't work. In fact, our current model was hailed as being moving forward from the high cost service model. "Those who forget the past are doomed to relive it." Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
Sometimes I have a little argument with Open Source supporters :-O . I ask them why they think that only programmers should work for free. I mean, programmers develop i.e Samba or Apache, and then administrators in big companies use it for free to make money. Why there are no "open source" admins who would work for free? Or for that matter, "open source" doctors, lawyers, teachers... Everybody works for money, only for programmers it should be shear pleasure. I mean, it makes sense to write articles or some code that you might want to share with your fellow developers (there are technical articles in other professions too). But to waste your free time to develop software products that other people (or companies) will use to make money for themselves is plain stupid, IMHO. I vote pro drink :beer:
You're starting with the wrong premise. The idea that software should be freely available, readable, and modifiable doesn't mean that the programmers are supposed to work for free. In fact, very few Open Source and Free Software programmers are unpaid. Larry Wall (creator of Perl), Guido van Rossum (creator of Python), Linus Torvalds... they're all getting paid, and pretty well, from all accounts. But to waste your free time to develop software products that other people (or companies) will use to make money for themselves is plain stupid, IMHO. It is if your only criterion is your bank balance. If that's your criterion, why would anyone be contributing code to the Code Project when they could be selling it? And I'm not just talking about little snippets and articles, but things like PJ Naughter's large collection. If you're making something available for free, why does it bother you whether someone else is just using it "for fun", or making money from it? The effect to you isn't any different. See also this quote. Tim Lesher http://www.lesher.ws
-
You're starting with the wrong premise. The idea that software should be freely available, readable, and modifiable doesn't mean that the programmers are supposed to work for free. In fact, very few Open Source and Free Software programmers are unpaid. Larry Wall (creator of Perl), Guido van Rossum (creator of Python), Linus Torvalds... they're all getting paid, and pretty well, from all accounts. But to waste your free time to develop software products that other people (or companies) will use to make money for themselves is plain stupid, IMHO. It is if your only criterion is your bank balance. If that's your criterion, why would anyone be contributing code to the Code Project when they could be selling it? And I'm not just talking about little snippets and articles, but things like PJ Naughter's large collection. If you're making something available for free, why does it bother you whether someone else is just using it "for fun", or making money from it? The effect to you isn't any different. See also this quote. Tim Lesher http://www.lesher.ws
Tim Lesher wrote: In fact, very few Open Source and Free Software programmers are unpaid I would say quite the opposite. Very few of them are paid. Tim Lesher wrote: why would anyone be contributing code to the Code Project when they could be selling it Did you read my post? I mean, it makes sense to write articles or some code that you might want to share with your fellow developers (there are technical articles in other professions too). But to waste your free time to develop software products that other people (or companies) will use to make money for themselves is plain stupid, IMHO. Tim Lesher wrote: See also this quote. I will quote myself again: Why there are no "open source" admins who would work for free? Or for that matter, "open source" doctors, lawyers, teachers... I vote pro drink :beer:
-
You're starting with the wrong premise. The idea that software should be freely available, readable, and modifiable doesn't mean that the programmers are supposed to work for free. In fact, very few Open Source and Free Software programmers are unpaid. Larry Wall (creator of Perl), Guido van Rossum (creator of Python), Linus Torvalds... they're all getting paid, and pretty well, from all accounts. But to waste your free time to develop software products that other people (or companies) will use to make money for themselves is plain stupid, IMHO. It is if your only criterion is your bank balance. If that's your criterion, why would anyone be contributing code to the Code Project when they could be selling it? And I'm not just talking about little snippets and articles, but things like PJ Naughter's large collection. If you're making something available for free, why does it bother you whether someone else is just using it "for fun", or making money from it? The effect to you isn't any different. See also this quote. Tim Lesher http://www.lesher.ws
Tim Lesher wrote: The idea that software should be freely available, readable, and modifiable doesn't mean that the programmers are supposed to work for free. In fact, very few Open Source and Free Software programmers are unpaid. Larry Wall (creator of Perl), Guido van Rossum (creator of Python), Linus Torvalds... they're all getting paid, and pretty well, from all accounts. This is inaccurate. The guys you mention are the celebrities of the Open Source world. As far as application software goes.. there's no way to be paid if your source is public. Tim Lesher wrote: If you're making something available for free, why does it bother you whether someone else is just using it "for fun", or making money from it? The effect to you isn't any different. Speaking for myself and not the original poster: the avowed goal of OSS is to end the use of commercial software. That's how most of us make our money. OSS will unfortunately probably succeed. Net result: most professional programmers will probably end up working for banks and other large institutions, fixing bugs in code written by amateurs.
-
Tim Lesher wrote: The idea that software should be freely available, readable, and modifiable doesn't mean that the programmers are supposed to work for free. In fact, very few Open Source and Free Software programmers are unpaid. Larry Wall (creator of Perl), Guido van Rossum (creator of Python), Linus Torvalds... they're all getting paid, and pretty well, from all accounts. This is inaccurate. The guys you mention are the celebrities of the Open Source world. As far as application software goes.. there's no way to be paid if your source is public. Tim Lesher wrote: If you're making something available for free, why does it bother you whether someone else is just using it "for fun", or making money from it? The effect to you isn't any different. Speaking for myself and not the original poster: the avowed goal of OSS is to end the use of commercial software. That's how most of us make our money. OSS will unfortunately probably succeed. Net result: most professional programmers will probably end up working for banks and other large institutions, fixing bugs in code written by amateurs.
We will basically switch back to a model that was abolished 15 years ago. Programmers will work for in-house projects and the retail/public software model will die. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
We will basically switch back to a model that was abolished 15 years ago. Programmers will work for in-house projects and the retail/public software model will die. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
So what, what is the difference? You still get paid. There is no way that there will ever be enough free programmers around to fill the needs of the software industry. As I see it, in-house projects are where you get to really make a difference. It is really easy to see your work put to use, and that is what I am in this for (aside from the paycheck). Ryan Johnston
-
So what, what is the difference? You still get paid. There is no way that there will ever be enough free programmers around to fill the needs of the software industry. As I see it, in-house projects are where you get to really make a difference. It is really easy to see your work put to use, and that is what I am in this for (aside from the paycheck). Ryan Johnston
So you don't see a problem with the retail market bottoming? That is what we had with the old service/in house model. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
So you don't see a problem with the retail market bottoming? That is what we had with the old service/in house model. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: So you don't see a problem with the retail market bottoming? To be honest, I don't think it really will. The average consumer wants to be able to go to the store and buy a copy of a software program, and they want it to work with out modification or complex installation. I think it would take a lot more than what is currently out there (or could be developed in the near future) to convince a computer novice that they don't need Windows/Office anymore. Open source could hurt business applications. A lot of times out of the box solutions don't work for very specific needs. Large companies are willing to pay programmers to make it work for them. In the end, programmers still have jobs, the retail market still exists for home/small business, and large companies have an easier time of developing in-house solutions. Open source is not going to destroy anything. Ryan Johnston
-
Tim Smith wrote: So you don't see a problem with the retail market bottoming? To be honest, I don't think it really will. The average consumer wants to be able to go to the store and buy a copy of a software program, and they want it to work with out modification or complex installation. I think it would take a lot more than what is currently out there (or could be developed in the near future) to convince a computer novice that they don't need Windows/Office anymore. Open source could hurt business applications. A lot of times out of the box solutions don't work for very specific needs. Large companies are willing to pay programmers to make it work for them. In the end, programmers still have jobs, the retail market still exists for home/small business, and large companies have an easier time of developing in-house solutions. Open source is not going to destroy anything. Ryan Johnston
Can't have it both ways. A large potion of the OSS movement thinks that all software should be free. Thus there is no money in software that doesn't require some type of service revenue. I just don't see Quake IX making any money using a service model. And before you say that id software supports OSS, I would look closely at what they do. All they release is out dated software which has limited revenue outlook. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
Sometimes I have a little argument with Open Source supporters :-O . I ask them why they think that only programmers should work for free. I mean, programmers develop i.e Samba or Apache, and then administrators in big companies use it for free to make money. Why there are no "open source" admins who would work for free? Or for that matter, "open source" doctors, lawyers, teachers... Everybody works for money, only for programmers it should be shear pleasure. I mean, it makes sense to write articles or some code that you might want to share with your fellow developers (there are technical articles in other professions too). But to waste your free time to develop software products that other people (or companies) will use to make money for themselves is plain stupid, IMHO. I vote pro drink :beer:
Reading through this makes me feel a bit awkward. I am writing a framework that is OSS and free. I am also writing a development tool to use with it. I spend an enourmous amount of my time outside of work (yes I do have a job in the financial industry, albeit a boring one :) ) working on this for the epxress purpose that it will provide other developers with a freely available cross platform framework and IDE that currently do no exist to my satisfaction. Am I stupid ? Well according to Nemanja I am. Would I like to sell it? Absolutely. But as far as I can tell it will never sell. No one will ever actually pay for it, so I am essentially screwed if I want to pursue that avenue. So it seems to me I have a choice. Work at my boring job (no I cannot relocate, for a variety of reasons, all of them out of my control, and none of them relevant to this discussion), and never see anything I produce/code/develop get any sort of recognition or chance of real use. Or develop this stuff on my own (or with others if they choose to participate, the stupid leading the stupid, if you will :) ), and just maybe others will use it and I will have the satisfaction that I may have, perhaps, made a bit of a difference. I am not sure I see this as stupid. Is it ridiculously idealistic ? sure. But unless someone has a better idea I am not sure what is so bad about, particularly when the commerical companies refuse to write software like this, or at a level I can afford.
-
1. MS-Word with HTML editing ability hasn't been around for 20 years. You make it sound like we are using the program that they created 20 years ago. That just isn't the case. 2. OSS is not about creating public domain software. In fact, GPL is one of the most restrictive licenses out there. 3. The "service model" doesn't work. In fact, our current model was hailed as being moving forward from the high cost service model. "Those who forget the past are doomed to relive it." Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: 1. MS-Word with HTML editing ability hasn't been around for 20 years. You make it sound like we are using the program that they created 20 years ago. That just isn't the case HTML editors have been around for a long time, Microsoft only recently decided to get on the bandwagon. To use your example MS-Word, it seems to me most people use about 20% of the features, and the core features they use haven't changed much since Word 95. You and I may be more sophisticated and use newer features, but most of the public doesn't. Tim Smith wrote: 2. OSS is not about creating public domain software. In fact, GPL is one of the most restrictive licenses out there. Then what is it about? I use OpenOffice and Mozilla for free. GPL is not the only license in the open source world, and GPL is only restrictive if you want to modify the program, not for users. Tim Smith wrote: 3. The "service model" doesn't work. In fact, our current model was hailed as being moving forward from the high cost service model. "Those who forget the past are doomed to relive it." I'm not sure I know what you mean by the service model; from other posts it seems like you mean a model with only in-house programming, with no retail software. I'm not sure why open source would doom retail software. Everyone on this site (and to be fair on open source sites) is so all or nothing, the discussion seems to be dominated by zealots. I think open source software will be most successful in applications that are widely used, where many people stand to benefit from the finished product so they therefore will contribute. All software will not be free, new useful programs will always be worth buying. Neil Van Eps "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein