Funding Clojure - an open source project story
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
Any expectation of payment is absurd, since by definition volunteering means doing something for free! If you want payment, charge for the damn thing. Or don't. But please don't whine.
I guess he has some unrealistic expectations :) But the point here is that open-source project like this one are very fragile. The developer gets tired of working for nothing, and it gets abandoned. In theory, there could always be someone else to pick it up, but I haven't seen it happening in practice.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
In theory, there could always be someone else to pick it up, but I haven't seen it happening in practice.
Someone else will pick up only if the project has sufficient value for them or the project is highly advertised or both.
-
I don't know how many CPers know about Clojure, a Lisp dialect running on top of JVM (personally, I encourage you to look at IronScheme instead :) ), but in any case, I found this story[^] interesting: As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear that. Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on Clojure has been compensated. Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure, yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being forced to do so.
While I do understand that open source does not by definition mean free, that is nonetheless the general sense of it on the streets. In fact, it's common to hear the rallying cry of "information wants to be free," in open source circles, along with obligatory slaps at the evil commercial companies who have the audacity to charge for their software. The open source movement is, by and large, a group of anti-establishment types who give their software away for free because doing so is a part of their ideological belief system. Some truly feel that we should all write software and give it away for free for the greater good. Others are actively subversive, knowing that flooding the market with free software disrupts the financial opportunities for those who charge for it. Either way, the open source movement takes great pride in the fact that they're "not evil" because they're giving their stuff away for free, unlike those greedy, profit motivated corporations. Hey, if that's what you believe in, then I admire you for living true to your convictions. However, when people start whining about how much work they're doing for free and start soliciting money (sometimes accompanied by the threat of "otherwise I quit supporting the product you like"), I simply lose all respect for them. Either it's bait and switch, or you're dealing with someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Doesn't matter which it is to me. I promise you, I'm not reaching for my wallet. I'll give my financial support to the people who had the guts to launch a company and were honest about their motivations, not the ethically challenged. It's economically irrational for him to work on this project? People are clearly deriving benefit from his work? Welcome to open source. There's nothing to rectify. That's what you signed up for. You wanted to work for free, remember? If you want profit (and I'm certainly supportive of those who do) then start a company, launch a commercial product, and take your chances like other businesses. Oh, wait. I forgot. That's evil, right? :rolleyes:
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting
-
While I do understand that open source does not by definition mean free, that is nonetheless the general sense of it on the streets. In fact, it's common to hear the rallying cry of "information wants to be free," in open source circles, along with obligatory slaps at the evil commercial companies who have the audacity to charge for their software. The open source movement is, by and large, a group of anti-establishment types who give their software away for free because doing so is a part of their ideological belief system. Some truly feel that we should all write software and give it away for free for the greater good. Others are actively subversive, knowing that flooding the market with free software disrupts the financial opportunities for those who charge for it. Either way, the open source movement takes great pride in the fact that they're "not evil" because they're giving their stuff away for free, unlike those greedy, profit motivated corporations. Hey, if that's what you believe in, then I admire you for living true to your convictions. However, when people start whining about how much work they're doing for free and start soliciting money (sometimes accompanied by the threat of "otherwise I quit supporting the product you like"), I simply lose all respect for them. Either it's bait and switch, or you're dealing with someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Doesn't matter which it is to me. I promise you, I'm not reaching for my wallet. I'll give my financial support to the people who had the guts to launch a company and were honest about their motivations, not the ethically challenged. It's economically irrational for him to work on this project? People are clearly deriving benefit from his work? Welcome to open source. There's nothing to rectify. That's what you signed up for. You wanted to work for free, remember? If you want profit (and I'm certainly supportive of those who do) then start a company, launch a commercial product, and take your chances like other businesses. Oh, wait. I forgot. That's evil, right? :rolleyes:
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting
Christopher Duncan wrote:
I'll give my financial support to the people who had the guts to launch a company and were honest about their motivations
Ahem.. Ahem..
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
I'll give my financial support to the people who had the guts to launch a company and were honest about their motivations
Ahem.. Ahem..
Hey, you gotta show me a product first, dude. :-D
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services
-
While I do understand that open source does not by definition mean free, that is nonetheless the general sense of it on the streets. In fact, it's common to hear the rallying cry of "information wants to be free," in open source circles, along with obligatory slaps at the evil commercial companies who have the audacity to charge for their software. The open source movement is, by and large, a group of anti-establishment types who give their software away for free because doing so is a part of their ideological belief system. Some truly feel that we should all write software and give it away for free for the greater good. Others are actively subversive, knowing that flooding the market with free software disrupts the financial opportunities for those who charge for it. Either way, the open source movement takes great pride in the fact that they're "not evil" because they're giving their stuff away for free, unlike those greedy, profit motivated corporations. Hey, if that's what you believe in, then I admire you for living true to your convictions. However, when people start whining about how much work they're doing for free and start soliciting money (sometimes accompanied by the threat of "otherwise I quit supporting the product you like"), I simply lose all respect for them. Either it's bait and switch, or you're dealing with someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Doesn't matter which it is to me. I promise you, I'm not reaching for my wallet. I'll give my financial support to the people who had the guts to launch a company and were honest about their motivations, not the ethically challenged. It's economically irrational for him to work on this project? People are clearly deriving benefit from his work? Welcome to open source. There's nothing to rectify. That's what you signed up for. You wanted to work for free, remember? If you want profit (and I'm certainly supportive of those who do) then start a company, launch a commercial product, and take your chances like other businesses. Oh, wait. I forgot. That's evil, right? :rolleyes:
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting
Christopher Duncan wrote:
The open source movement is, by and large, a group of anti-establishment types who give their software away for free because doing so is a part of their ideological belief system. Some truly feel that we should all write software and give it away for free for the greater good. Others are actively subversive, knowing that flooding the market with free software disrupts the financial opportunities for those who charge for it. Either way, the open source movement takes great pride in the fact that they're "not evil" because they're giving their stuff away for free, unlike those greedy, profit motivated corporations.
Hi Christopher, This absurd generalization, and reductio ad absurdum, regarding the diverse, evolving, morphing, never-sitting-still, collection of people, and groups, and somewhat formal entities, and "quasi-commercial" entities, lumped into the terms "open source" : Don't fly. It smells of prejudice and stereotyping based on some emotional agenda of your own, or your own frustrations. To my mind "open source" includes Wikipedia, CodeProject, StackOverFlow, the countless large and small scale projects on Sourceforge and CodePlex that literally millions of people arcross the world participate in. It also includes people I "revere and respect" as "mentors," and "natural teachers," like Pete O'Hanlon, Mark Salbury, Luc Patyn, "visionaries" like Marc Clifton and Sacha Barber who, to my mind, are always "pushing the envelope," and others here on CP : on StackOverFlow folks like Jon Skeet, and Marc Gravell who selflessly devote a lot of time on to communicating their world-class knowledge ... (or for several years on the MS newsgroups : Nicolas Paldino : the one person "encyclopedia") And the idea of the "open source" movement as being "infested" by subversives whose motivation is to "disrupt" anything : well, imho, that hovers somewhere between farce and paranoia. But I used to know one character around Berkeley in the eighties code-named "Captain Crunch" who would be a good poster-boy for such types. Take another look at the glass : it may be "half-full," not "half-empty." best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numeri
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
The open source movement is, by and large, a group of anti-establishment types who give their software away for free because doing so is a part of their ideological belief system. Some truly feel that we should all write software and give it away for free for the greater good. Others are actively subversive, knowing that flooding the market with free software disrupts the financial opportunities for those who charge for it. Either way, the open source movement takes great pride in the fact that they're "not evil" because they're giving their stuff away for free, unlike those greedy, profit motivated corporations.
Hi Christopher, This absurd generalization, and reductio ad absurdum, regarding the diverse, evolving, morphing, never-sitting-still, collection of people, and groups, and somewhat formal entities, and "quasi-commercial" entities, lumped into the terms "open source" : Don't fly. It smells of prejudice and stereotyping based on some emotional agenda of your own, or your own frustrations. To my mind "open source" includes Wikipedia, CodeProject, StackOverFlow, the countless large and small scale projects on Sourceforge and CodePlex that literally millions of people arcross the world participate in. It also includes people I "revere and respect" as "mentors," and "natural teachers," like Pete O'Hanlon, Mark Salbury, Luc Patyn, "visionaries" like Marc Clifton and Sacha Barber who, to my mind, are always "pushing the envelope," and others here on CP : on StackOverFlow folks like Jon Skeet, and Marc Gravell who selflessly devote a lot of time on to communicating their world-class knowledge ... (or for several years on the MS newsgroups : Nicolas Paldino : the one person "encyclopedia") And the idea of the "open source" movement as being "infested" by subversives whose motivation is to "disrupt" anything : well, imho, that hovers somewhere between farce and paranoia. But I used to know one character around Berkeley in the eighties code-named "Captain Crunch" who would be a good poster-boy for such types. Take another look at the glass : it may be "half-full," not "half-empty." best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numeri
Well, I've been absurd for most of my life so I see no reason to stop now. :) If you don't think that many in the Linux community are motivated by the fact that a free, high quality operating system works against Microsoft's domination of the OS business, you should really spend more time on Slashdot. I've been known to wear a great many hats at parties (at least as best I remember), but they're rarely tinfoil. CP, Stack Overflow and other such forums and code sharing sites are not open source projects. Sourceforge, however, is a great collection of open source projects. As for the projects themselves, you won't have much trouble finding religion if you look for it. The open source movement is without question driven to a large degree by ideology, much of it benevolent. That said, anti establishment sentiment, as well as anti commercialism, are also common. Is this ideology a bad thing? To a degree I find it little more than tilting at windmills, the time honored birthright of youth. And believe me, I've done plenty of it myself. As for the whole "all software should be free" thing, I absolutely disagree. If you want to give it away for free, rock on. But those of us who like to do it for a living shouldn't be excluded from the party. We provide value, and there's no dishonor in being compensated for that. This doesn't mean that free software should go away. It just means I don't believe commercial software should go away, either. There are plenty in the open source community who would disagree strongly with that last statement. Of course, none of this was my primary point. I was just saying that some guy spending his spare time writing free software because it was a labor of love looks very foolish when he suddenly turns around and whines because he's not being compensated. He's getting exactly the experience he signed up for. As for the glass, I'm a geek. I say it's neither half empty nor half full, merely twice as big as it needs to be. :-D
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services
-
I don't know how many CPers know about Clojure, a Lisp dialect running on top of JVM (personally, I encourage you to look at IronScheme instead :) ), but in any case, I found this story[^] interesting: As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear that. Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on Clojure has been compensated. Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure, yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being forced to do so.
Same old story, been living that way for the last 7 years. I have not even had time for IronScheme in the last month due to work deadlines and other unforeseen shit. In the end, never expect anything more than a thanks. At least Clojure has a nice user base, for IronScheme, I have about 5-10 (feeling optimistic this early). That is not even something I ever considered, nevermind would ask. I do dream of that white knight to arrive someday... dont need much, just enough to pay rent and internet and food.
xacc.ide
IronScheme - 1.0 RC 1 - out now!
((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x))) The Scheme Programming Language – Fourth Edition -
I've been there and I'm still there. I know the feeling (see signature). Ads cover the hosting bills in my case, yet I have spent an outrageously huge amount of time, with very little donations (A 10$ donation every couple of months? Come on, it doesn't even pay the electricity I use for developing the project). I had to start selling commercial licenses to somewhat justify the time and money spent. The problem is that open-source projects are a joke. Not technically (they can be excellent) but commercially, as in paying developers' work. The whole open-source model does not work unless you are funded by a large company (e.g. Mono and Novell or Mozilla that is paid by Google), or you develop a product that your own company needs (opensourcing it gets you some visibility and quite possibly some patches or contributions). I'm personally tired of the whole thing. There are people who save or earn money thanks to me and other hundreds developers who basically work for free. I enjoy my work, but it does not make any sense. You work hard to get more users, then you figure out that having more users equals more work, most of the time boring work like answering questions. I spend 3-5 hours a week answering the same questions again and again, babysitting lazy users who don't even try to search the docs, trying not to be rude with users that are rude to me because there's a bug or the thing does not work when used from their cellphone. Fuck you and your cellphone. Really, it just becomes a job over time. A terribly underpaid job. Hopefully things will change soon. </rant>
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
Dario Solera wrote:
A 10$ donation every couple of months?
Not a single one to me either, not even a stick of gum. The 'donate' link is just wasting space on my blog I think. And being on WordPress and Codeplex, there is not even beer money to be had from ads.
xacc.ide
IronScheme - 1.0 RC 1 - out now!
((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x))) The Scheme Programming Language – Fourth Edition -
Dario Solera wrote:
A 10$ donation every couple of months?
Not a single one to me either, not even a stick of gum. The 'donate' link is just wasting space on my blog I think. And being on WordPress and Codeplex, there is not even beer money to be had from ads.
xacc.ide
IronScheme - 1.0 RC 1 - out now!
((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x))) The Scheme Programming Language – Fourth Editionleppie wrote:
Not a single one to me either, not even a stick of gum. The 'donate' link is just wasting space on my blog I think.
I guess it depends on the number of users and, probably, the perceived usefulness of the project. I have never donated to a project that I don't use. We have roughly 6600 downloads/month and total donations this year have been roughly 50€...
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
-
I don't know how many CPers know about Clojure, a Lisp dialect running on top of JVM (personally, I encourage you to look at IronScheme instead :) ), but in any case, I found this story[^] interesting: As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear that. Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on Clojure has been compensated. Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure, yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being forced to do so.
I really do admire the people putting countless hours every day / week into a project that benefits a community. I do have very little experience and grasp of the various open source licenses and "free" software and the open source business model, but if i were this guy i'd be looking into other ways of generating income based on my work. Income mechanisms that didnt make my userbase feel uncomfortable about using my work. One thing i'd look into is a paid extended support license, the software is free, there is a limited support, but if you want premium support on it, pay. Another would be to put alot of my time into doing contract work for others, by using that software, and letting it mature with the usage. This way i'd also get more direct experience on the way the software is used, and in what areas the software would need to be improved.
-
Same old story, been living that way for the last 7 years. I have not even had time for IronScheme in the last month due to work deadlines and other unforeseen shit. In the end, never expect anything more than a thanks. At least Clojure has a nice user base, for IronScheme, I have about 5-10 (feeling optimistic this early). That is not even something I ever considered, nevermind would ask. I do dream of that white knight to arrive someday... dont need much, just enough to pay rent and internet and food.
xacc.ide
IronScheme - 1.0 RC 1 - out now!
((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x))) The Scheme Programming Language – Fourth EditionHi Leppie, I always enjoy your contributions and comments here, and on StackOverFlow ! Lisp was my first real programming language (after 6809 assembly language) back in the late paleolithic; and that served me very well when by luck, and serendipity, and hard work, I got to a "guru" level in the PostScript language (PostScript is really LISP wearing a "face" of RPN and explicit stacks, imho). If only my admiration for you could turn into $ in your bank account :) If this were a "better world," we would have a had some "ownership" of the major os's by public national or international trusts, not monopolies controlled by giant cartels; if this were a "better world," we'd have a public tax on computer hardware that helped subsidize open-source. But, it's still a beautiful world (I'm looking at it through sixty-six year old eyes). I have total admiration for people who follow their dream no matter what the cost, at the same time I recognize, and feel for, people who have the demands on them to support children, and pay their mortgages, pay for health care, and take care of their aging parents, who have to compromise "following their dream" with the current harsh economic realities of today's marketplace. I know I'm so fortunate in that most of my life I've loved my work and the financial rewards were secondary. best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
-
I thought that the whole point of open source was that loosen the reins of ownership of an idea and let others become involved. If you have been solo developing a project and it is becoming too much to handle, let it go. The "community" will pick it up and run with it if there are enough people who like it. I also have a hobby that I could let occupy me far more than full time. I don't think anyone will pay me for doing it!
The reality being that virtually all open source projects are either driven by commercial interest (where people are paid to write code), or by one or a very few very motivated, selfless individuals without whom the project would die.
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server -
Hi Leppie, I always enjoy your contributions and comments here, and on StackOverFlow ! Lisp was my first real programming language (after 6809 assembly language) back in the late paleolithic; and that served me very well when by luck, and serendipity, and hard work, I got to a "guru" level in the PostScript language (PostScript is really LISP wearing a "face" of RPN and explicit stacks, imho). If only my admiration for you could turn into $ in your bank account :) If this were a "better world," we would have a had some "ownership" of the major os's by public national or international trusts, not monopolies controlled by giant cartels; if this were a "better world," we'd have a public tax on computer hardware that helped subsidize open-source. But, it's still a beautiful world (I'm looking at it through sixty-six year old eyes). I have total admiration for people who follow their dream no matter what the cost, at the same time I recognize, and feel for, people who have the demands on them to support children, and pay their mortgages, pay for health care, and take care of their aging parents, who have to compromise "following their dream" with the current harsh economic realities of today's marketplace. I know I'm so fortunate in that most of my life I've loved my work and the financial rewards were secondary. best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
BillWoodruff wrote:
If only my admiration for you could turn into $ in your bank account
Thanks. I have the same level of respect and admiration for you. Now if only we can figure out step 2. You know: 1. Admiration 2. ??????? 3. PROFIT!
xacc.ide
IronScheme - 1.0 RC 1 - out now!
((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x))) The Scheme Programming Language – Fourth Edition -
Well, I've been absurd for most of my life so I see no reason to stop now. :) If you don't think that many in the Linux community are motivated by the fact that a free, high quality operating system works against Microsoft's domination of the OS business, you should really spend more time on Slashdot. I've been known to wear a great many hats at parties (at least as best I remember), but they're rarely tinfoil. CP, Stack Overflow and other such forums and code sharing sites are not open source projects. Sourceforge, however, is a great collection of open source projects. As for the projects themselves, you won't have much trouble finding religion if you look for it. The open source movement is without question driven to a large degree by ideology, much of it benevolent. That said, anti establishment sentiment, as well as anti commercialism, are also common. Is this ideology a bad thing? To a degree I find it little more than tilting at windmills, the time honored birthright of youth. And believe me, I've done plenty of it myself. As for the whole "all software should be free" thing, I absolutely disagree. If you want to give it away for free, rock on. But those of us who like to do it for a living shouldn't be excluded from the party. We provide value, and there's no dishonor in being compensated for that. This doesn't mean that free software should go away. It just means I don't believe commercial software should go away, either. There are plenty in the open source community who would disagree strongly with that last statement. Of course, none of this was my primary point. I was just saying that some guy spending his spare time writing free software because it was a labor of love looks very foolish when he suddenly turns around and whines because he's not being compensated. He's getting exactly the experience he signed up for. As for the glass, I'm a geek. I say it's neither half empty nor half full, merely twice as big as it needs to be. :-D
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services
Well, Christopher, That was a very cool reponse, and reflected exactly the wit, intelligence, and dignity I would expect to see bouncing back from a mind like yours in reponse to my off-the-wall back-hand serve of "just desserts flambe." If you have been "absurd" most of your life, then we have a lot in common; it came naturally to me :) But I admit I have also consciously cultivated it. I am not familiar with Slashdot : please remember you are speaking to someone here (an American) who has not set foot in the US for over seven years, and in many ways has, by conscious choice, dis-connected himself from television and US popular culture (with the exception of written literature). But, it looks like an interesting site, and I'd like to have a sense of who its clientele are, and what its "uber-agendas" are : if any. It is the "center of gravity" for those who perceive Microsoft as the Sauron of Redmond ? I was once a "dues-paid-in-full" member of the "Cult of Mac" although the PostScript expertise that earned my "daily bread" (and got me to Adobe finally) certainly had nothing to do with Mac software other than functioning as a massive (and awkward) translation system between the really pathetic graphic model of QuickDraw and the much more powerful graphic model embodied in PostScript in a full-blown LISP like Turing-equivalent language. In hindsight I can now see that the "Mac thing" was a lifestyle choice as much as technology (I was brainwashed, you might say), and today, I believe there's no more "closed" system in terms of hardware and software than the Mac. And Apple's recent cartel like domination of IPhone software brings the words "anti-trust" to my mind. Clearly our operating definitions of "open source" are quite different, so I think I should apologize for not having taking the time to have queried you on how you are defining open-source before firing off my broadside. Clearly what you express about "open source" has to do with very specific technologies, companies, and people. I once spent several years of my (much younger) life directly serving people with severe mental and physical problems, some dying slowly, some dying quickly, some insane, some just isolated and cooped up in flea-bag hotels, some whose lives were just completely disrupted because they had to go broke and lose their homes first before they qualified for the expensive medical care they needed : so perhaps I have more of a feeling, through observation, that at the end of a life, the extent to which you "followed your