Who Pays For Free Software?

[Zane Thomas]

"Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote:

Geesh, when I saw the number of lines in your post I wondered what you had
quoted from above. Now I see it was not much.

You'll have to forgive me for skimming and giving short replies, I have
some important development-related email to get out this evening.


>You hit upon the one key part of what I was digging at though with
>your counter-overgeneralization<g> about the
>corporate-mentality/-organizational damper-effect on those within the
>comporations who attempt to drive new/innovative technology adoption. ...
>The overgeneralized <again> result is that the larger the
>organization, the slower they tend to be in adopting new
>technologies/methodologies, and vice-versa.

And that's where things get interesting. If the early adopters get lucky
their short response time enables them to innovate _and_ get paid for it -
always an important consideration. Of course there are dangers in that
too, I won't ever forget how badly I got burned on OS/2.


>Consequently, it is these [past and perhaps future] fast-adopters who will
>now have more, larger VB5-6/COM generation codebase investments than the
>slower-adopters <YMMV, of course>.

Good point - assuming the slower-adopters from the previous generation
survived at all. Even the smartest companies/individuals need to find a
balance between relying on their current investment and ensuring a future
by making new ones. There's a lot of subjectivity in finding that
balance, with some of us being just too thrilled by new opportunity to
even worry about it.


>So, what happens when these guys are ...slower on the uptake of .Net because
>of their current investments in the previous-generation VB/COM technology? I
>think the ripple effects of that would be to discourage the slower adopters
>even more because those slower-adopter folks often are the ones who wait and
>read the magazines articles written by those "bleeding edge" fast-adopters ...

Guess I should write a couple of articles for VBPJ eh? I did that when
ATL first came out.

>Let's just say that I have learned - the hard way - never to take those
>promises of interop/compatibility to be worth more than the dollar bills
>they were<n't> printed on. To say the least, I'm suspicious.

Fortunately you have everything you need to explore that space now. The
early beta provides some badly-needed time for everyone to examine how
well the interop story works for them, and to make their plans
accordingly.


>Somebody has a whole lot to prove to me about ...

Uhm, the proof is in the pudding.

>... I found something we both agree
>on!<g>

Says you.

>[I]n VB we had a presumption of the premise that what
>we did now was not going to be totally trashed by what MS did tomorrow
....
>How do you think those "bleeding-edgers" <from above> will react to the
>sudden feeling wearing of egg on their faces? gladly? I hardly think so.

Depends upon whether they're bleeding-edgers by nature or not, seems to
me. If what they expect is to achieve advantage and then have a stable
niche within which they can prosper forever, then I think they're
neglecting fundamental properties of life and evolution.

>This, as I've said earlier, will give them reason to pause, and ask
>themselves "is this the way we want go go from here on? Can we trust MS not
>to do this to us again?"

My perspective on this is that I can (still) trust MS to innovate and make
my life interesting. YMMV.


>> >... we'd all have had several years to make a decision about what to do
>>
>> I think you do have at least a couple of years to decide. This is the
>> first time I've seen an MS language in wide-distribution so long before
>> release.
>
>How long are the lives of the mission-critical VB6/COM business systems that
>the "bleeding-edgers" have created with the current-generation tools?

You misinterpreted my comment. I was refering to new development, I
assume that most existing VB6/COM applications will continue to run as
long as needed.

>...and will YOU <you're Bill Gates here, remember?> ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE -
>in $$ - that those future 64-bit platforms that will rule the server side in
>the not-too-distant future, won't have _any_ problems or issues running the
>VB5-6 COM/DCOM/COM+ components that our existing mission-critical apps
>currently depend on?

Any? That's a bit much to ask. Software is complex and evolving.


>Well, if there's a 6.5 scenario ...

Why? No one has told me why there _must_ be a 6.5.


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Alessandro Coppo]

Do you need a provably Capitalistic (that is "Good") example of Free
Software?

What about the US legal system? Once a lawyer provides a successful argument
for his/her client, everybody can freely use it for other people. No
royalties, no patents, no closed source. I think that everybody will agree
that US lawyers are not begging at street corners, aren't they? So how do
they live?

They live because you, not lawyer, need them. They have the expertise and
know how for helping you. It is not productive for you to study law; it is
easier, better and quicker to ask for professionals. They do not attack each
other besides trial fights (which are the "game").

Alessandro Coppo
a.coppo@iol.it

P.S.: would you buy a car with the hood wielded shut, with the danger of
legal actions should you open it and with the only service provided by the
car builder in Detroit (which is known not to fix problems)?

[Jon Ogden]

"Alessandro Coppo" <a.coppo@iol.it> wrote in message
news:3a79516e@news.devx.com...

> What about the US legal system? Once a lawyer provides a successful
argument
> for his/her client, everybody can freely use it for other people. No
> royalties, no patents, no closed source. I think that everybody will agree
> that US lawyers are not begging at street corners, aren't they? So how do
> they live?

Well, once I have written a letter in Word and emailed it with Outlook,
anyone can read it. But they can't use my copy of Word to write another
letter, they'll have to pay a fee to my lawyer if they want him to provide
legal services for them, and they'll have to get a new license from
Sheridan, if they want to use my CD to install another copy of UltraGrid.

> P.S.: would you buy a car with the hood wielded shut, with the danger of
> legal actions should you open it and with the only service provided by the
> car builder in Detroit (which is known not to fix problems)?

I guess I am missing the relevance -- Is VB.NET a car with it's hood welded
shut, or are you talking my lawyer? (When he's on my dime, his mouth is
welded open, does that count?)

Good Luck
Jon

[Alessandro Coppo]

Jon Ogden wrote in message <3a7975f6$1@news.devx.com>...
>I guess I am missing the relevance -- Is VB.NET a car with it's hood welded
>shut, or are you talking my lawyer? (When he's on my dime, his mouth is
>welded open, does that count?)


The original post uses at the end a car analogy. The wielded hood is the
car's one (I presume lawyers do not have hoods, at least wieldable ones
;-)). The car and lawyer analogies are standards of the OSS community to
show that:
1) you can make a living out of open source (as sharks... pardon lawyers
do);
2) as a user, closed source vs. open source is not a theoretical subject,
but a highly real issue.

Anyway, I am NOT trying to make ANYBODY reconsider his/hers ideas: it is a
long time I have determined this is the most impossible and fruitless task
the exists.

Alessandro Coppo
a.coppo@iol.it

[ds]

I think you are missing one important point here. Somebody HAD to pay the
lawyer in the first place and somebody HAD to pay for the car too. For most
of open source software nobody paid for it in the first place.

I don't believe that you can make money with open source. In fact to correct
that, you can by selling the others people work. And Zane point that it
looks a lot like communism is the same that I had for a long time. You
create ideology for people and find the fools that will blindly follow it,
then you use their work to make money for yourself while talking about
higher cause.

db


"Alessandro Coppo" <a.coppo@iol.it> wrote in message
news:3a798d63@news.devx.com...
> Jon Ogden wrote in message <3a7975f6$1@news.devx.com>...
> >I guess I am missing the relevance -- Is VB.NET a car with it's hood
welded
> >shut, or are you talking my lawyer? (When he's on my dime, his mouth is
> >welded open, does that count?)
>
>
> The original post uses at the end a car analogy. The wielded hood is the
> car's one (I presume lawyers do not have hoods, at least wieldable ones
> ;-)). The car and lawyer analogies are standards of the OSS community to
> show that:
> 1) you can make a living out of open source (as sharks... pardon lawyers
> do);
> 2) as a user, closed source vs. open source is not a theoretical subject,
> but a highly real issue.
>
> Anyway, I am NOT trying to make ANYBODY reconsider his/hers ideas: it is a
> long time I have determined this is the most impossible and fruitless task
> the exists.
>
> Alessandro Coppo
> a.coppo@iol.it
>
>
>
>

[Zane Thomas]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:58:00 +0100, "Alessandro Coppo" <a.coppo@iol.it>
wrote:

>Once a lawyer provides a successful argument
>for his/her client, everybody can freely use it for other people.

Using your analogy, a legal argument can be viewed as an application of a
number of algorithms to a _specific_ set of circumstances. There's a lot
more to making a winning argument in court than simply picking up someone
else's brief and submitting it as your own. The specific circumstances
need to be considered, the strength and perspective of the opposition
needs to be understood, and a _new_ argument which addresses the specific
circumstances and facts needs to be constructed - and argued in court.

That's much more like writing an application than simply picking one up
off the net.

Before writing an application requiring any complex algorithms a sane
programmer will do some research. Hopefully finding similar problems and
solutions to those problems. However, work is still required to create
the actual application. It's the same in legal work.


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Mike Mitchell]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:13:40 +0100, "Alessandro Coppo" <a.coppo@iol.it>
wrote:

>car's one (I presume lawyers do not have hoods, at least wieldable ones

All this talk of lawyers and hoods, and you being Italian an' all,
well, this is getting a little hot for my liking!

MM

"Ode to the Cozy Nostril"

[Jon Ogden]

"Alessandro Coppo" <a.coppo@iol.it> wrote in message
news:3a798d63@news.devx.com...

The car and lawyer analogies are standards of the OSS community to
> show that:
> 1) you can make a living out of open source (as sharks... pardon lawyers
> do);

Well the analogy doesn't hold very well, does it? At best it's a metaphor
and metaphors are as unreliable as a horse with two legs.

> 2) as a user, closed source vs. open source is not a theoretical subject,
> but a highly real issue.

I suppose it is, but quality, and reliability are paramount, aren't they?

> Anyway, I am NOT trying to make ANYBODY reconsider his/hers ideas: it is a
> long time I have determined this is the most impossible and fruitless task
> the exists.

Amen to that, but sometimes an open exchange of opposing views helps make
everyone think.

Good Luck,
Jon

[Zane Thomas]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:02:23 -0500, "Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote:

>> Anyway, I am NOT trying to make ANYBODY reconsider his/hers ideas: it is a
>> long time I have determined this is the most impossible and fruitless task
>> the exists.
>
>Amen to that, but sometimes an open exchange of opposing views helps make
>everyone think.


People who _want_ to learn take exchange and opposition as opportunity.


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Jon Ogden]

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
news:3b6e6e87.1566187828@news.devx.com...
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:02:23 -0500, "Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote:

>> sometimes an open exchange of opposing views helps make
> >everyone think.
>
>
> People who _want_ to learn take exchange and opposition as opportunity.

I think that an awful lot of folks who wander in here want to learn -- at
least part of the time <grin>. F'rinstance, I was delighted you started
this thread. I have always wondered how in bloody blue blazes open source
boyos figure they are going to keep a roof over their kids' heads. I found
that article analyzing Borland's marketing strategy re: Linux fascinating.
If I understood it correctly, simply having a copy available to license if
you want to create commercial software will be enough to outrage many of the
open-sourcers.

Good Luck
Jon

[Zane Thomas]

Jon,

Hey I'm glad we're friends now, things weren't looking so good for a while
there.

>> People who _want_ to learn take exchange and opposition as opportunity.
>
>I think that an awful lot of folks who wander in here want to learn -- at
>least part of the time <grin>.

No doubt - probably most of the lurkers fit in that category. Those of us
who don't lurk - especially the ones with big egos - are in the most
difficult situation. We've all been abused in the school system - and
elsewhere - for not having 'the right answer' and so we find it difficult
to give up incorrect answers. Or something like that, there are lots of
factors at play.

Balancing that is the desire to learn. We all learn here, but many of us
would never admit it. Especially if we were to learn something from Mike
Mitchell - as if that's even a possibility! If I did learn something from
him I'd have to think about whether admitting it would provide positive
reinforcement for good behaviour, or contribute to his obvious
megalomania. Nothing personal Mike - it just seemed that using you as a
hypothetical example would be illustrative.


>F'rinstance, I was delighted you started this thread. I have always wondered
>how in bloody blue blazes open source boyos figure they are going to keep a
>roof over their kids' heads.

Great, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Looks to me like the open-source kiddies
are pinko-commies at heart, being exploited by greedy capitalist pigs. :-)

>I found that article analyzing Borland's marketing strategy re: Linux
>Fascinating.

Right, that's what made me make concrete some things about the open source
idea which have been rattling around just beneath consciousness.


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message <news:3b74a819.1580926062@news.devx.com>...

> Jon,

> >I think that an awful lot of folks who wander in here want to learn -- at
> >least part of the time <grin>.
>
> No doubt - probably most of the lurkers fit in that category. Those of us
> who don't lurk - especially the ones with big egos - are in the most
> difficult situation. We've all been abused in the school system - and
> elsewhere - for not having 'the right answer' and so we find it difficult
> to give up incorrect answers. Or something like that, there are lots of
> factors at play.

I've posted a number of "answers" which I sincerely hoped were wrong,
but I phrased them as, "You cannot do that that way, though I'd love
to be proven wrong!"

> Great, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Looks to me like the open-source kiddies
> are pinko-commies at heart, being exploited by greedy capitalist pigs. :-)

Most of the free VB/VBA source I've posted because I'm sick of seeing
the exact same screwups time and time again. If I'm going to have to
fix other people's code, at least let there be some interesting *new*
cruft instead of the same old crap! Then there's the free code I've
done in anger, as if to say, "How can my favorite language be just a
toy if it can do *this*?" So, how blurry can we make the line between
pure altruism and naked self-interest or darker motives? >=)

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Space Cooties! <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Jon Ogden]

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
news:3b74a819.1580926062@news.devx.com...

> Hey I'm glad we're friends now, things weren't looking so good for a while
> there.

I think some of my questions were pushing your buttons when I didn't mean
them to, and I know that some of your responses pushed mine. It's sohhh
f-ing easy to get riled up in newsgroups and so f-ing silly. I apologize
again.

> No doubt - probably most of the lurkers fit in that category. Those of us
> who don't lurk - especially the ones with big egos - are in the most
> difficult situation. We've all been abused in the school system - and
> elsewhere - for not having 'the right answer' and so we find it difficult
> to give up incorrect answers. Or something like that, there are lots of
> factors at play.

For one, we are proud of our learning, and rightfully think we deserve a wee
bit of respect for it.

> Balancing that is the desire to learn. We all learn here, but many of us
> would never admit it. Especially if we were to learn something from Mike
> Mitchell - as if that's even a possibility! If I did learn something from
> him I'd have to think about whether admitting it would provide positive
> reinforcement for good behaviour, or contribute to his obvious
> megalomania. Nothing personal Mike - it just seemed that using you as a
> hypothetical example would be illustrative.

I try very hard to read the parts of Mike's posts that he hasn't written
before.
>
> >F'rinstance, I was delighted you started this thread. I have always
wondered
> >how in bloody blue blazes open source boyos figure they are going to keep
a
> >roof over their kids' heads.
>
> Great, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Looks to me like the open-source kiddies
> are pinko-commies at heart, being exploited by greedy capitalist pigs. :-)

as we say in New England - eh-yup. Most of my limited open source experience
has been in the Perl community. They are nice fellas individually, but they
do tend to foam at the mouth when MSFT is mentioned.

> Right, that's what made me make concrete some things about the open source
> idea which have been rattling around just beneath consciousness.

It's always dangerous to argue religion with a True Believer. Once he
understands that he's not going to convert you, he may try to put you on the
altar and cut your heart out. Those guys _believe_ with messianic intensity,
and seek out heresy with bell, book, candle and burning stake.

[Mark Burns]

"Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote in message
news:3a7d6c34$3@news.devx.com...
>
> "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
> news:3b74a819.1580926062@news.devx.com...
>
> > Hey I'm glad we're friends now, things weren't looking so good for a
while
> > there.
>
> I think some of my questions were pushing your buttons when I didn't mean
> them to, and I know that some of your responses pushed mine. It's sohhh
> f-ing easy to get riled up in newsgroups and so f-ing silly. I apologize
> again.

WILL YOU TWO KNOCK IT OFF!!
I mean, after all, we have a wild-west, hot-lead-flying reputation to
maintain 'round here & all...so we can't have everyone settling down &
acting like mature, civilized adults & all. No sireee.

Now, Jon, ruffle those feather back up and toss a snide comment back at
Zane, please, and Zane, say something stinging to Jon again, and things will
be back to normal...alllrighty? <sheesh!> <Next thing you know Zane, Phil,
Dan B, Karl, Jeord, J.A & M.M. will be in lockstep agreement with most
everyone else, and THEN where will we be? vb.dotnet.discussion.boredomville,
that's where!> ;-)

> > Right, that's what made me make concrete some things about the open
source
> > idea which have been rattling around just beneath consciousness.
>
> It's always dangerous to argue religion with a True Believer. Once he
> understands that he's not going to convert you, he may try to put you on
the
> altar and cut your heart out. Those guys _believe_ with messianic
intensity,
> and seek out heresy with bell, book, candle and burning stake.

Heh... I like that description, BTW...lets put that into the ".NOT-ers'"
Handbook on page 3 with the caption: "Remember to look in the mirror before
hitting send, and if you look like this, stop and do it over so that you
don't!" ...else we will always be dismissed merely as "radicals" and/or
"kooks"...which would not help the cause.

[Jason Kaczor]

"Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote:
>
>I think that an awful lot of folks who wander in here want to learn -- at
>least part of the time <grin>. F'rinstance, I was delighted you started
>this thread. I have always wondered how in bloody blue blazes open source
>boyos figure they are going to keep a roof over their kids' heads. I >found
that article analyzing Borland's marketing strategy re: Linux
>fascinating. If I understood it correctly, simply having a copy available

>to license if you want to create commercial software will be enough to
>outrage many of the open-sourcers.

I myself still don't fully *grok* open source, but as a consultant I rarely
*own* my source bases anyways. If the industry moves in that direction my
daughter will still end up having a higher education.

Even if most corporations move to opensource, they are still going to need
people to program their internal-connections, move data, architect the final
solutions, etc...

It's the shipping software folks that will have the most problems... But
they could steal ideas just the same. Open the code, but sell a newer version,
the code of which would trickle out after "x-time-intervals"... etc.

Try the following link for the "basics":
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

This is a great book, has many POV's, check out the case study on Cygnus
(now part of RadHat):
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opens.../book/toc.html

>Good Luck
>Jon

Regards
Jason Kaczor