Who Pays For Free Software? - Page 2


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Who Pays For Free Software?

  1. #16
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

    "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

  2. #17
    Alessandro Coppo Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

    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)?



  3. #18
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?


    "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



  4. #19
    Alessandro Coppo Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

    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





  5. #20
    ds Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

    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
    >
    >
    >
    >




  6. #21
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

    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

  7. #22
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

    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"

  8. #23
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?


    "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



  9. #24
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

    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

  10. #25
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?


    "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



  11. #26
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

    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

  12. #27
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?

    "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!



  13. #28
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?


    "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.



  14. #29
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?


    "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.




  15. #30
    Jason Kaczor Guest

    Re: Who Pays For Free Software?


    "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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center