Slashdot Mirror
Should We Be Wary Of Free-Beer Software?
semis asks: "It's interesting to see the number of free-beer (free for non-profit) software that is popping up. From StarOffice to the recently reported CAD software Cycas, the number of free-beer software packages is rapidly increasing. Sure -- this is good, until/if the OSs get market share, then happy hour finishes and the free-beer becomes expensive-beer. Is this trend a Good Thing (tm) or will it see our beloved OSs lose their open-source vision and simply become the new medium for commercial software?"
Why knock a good thing? At the moment Linux needs some decent applications to allow people to do all the basic tasks - word processing, spreadsheets, graphics etc. Whether or not they are open source is currently irrelevent - their presence aids the acceptance of Linux outside of the tech community.
If and when Linux "succeeds" on the desktop and gains enough market share for these products to be sold at a price, this will only be a bad thing if there are no other alternatives to them, and if people can't learn to do without. As long as there are no alternatives at all then they will dominate the market and we'll be forced to buy them, but if there are open sourced, free software alternatives then whether or not they charge will be irrelevent - we'll only pay for an application that is truly worth it.
if you consider the alternatives, specifically software with price tag and trial version, this model doesn't look so bad. ok, so it's not totally free, but at least you can get a return on the effort you've put into the application and a lot of people still get to use free of charge.
This is a good thing for Linux, because many users just couldn't care less about product being FSF-free. They care about how it works first (functionality), then about how much it costs. And that's it - if they are OK with those two, they buy it.
From the other point, it's also good for free software (FSF-free) movement, because they'll get rid of accusations in "hurting usability and user's choice in favor of some strange ideas". Nobody prohibits one to develop free (FSF and beer senses) software in commercial world - there's a lot of beer-free and almost-free software on Windows, for example. Just ones that would better pay for commercial now than wait for free software to be there - will get what they want. And since commercial software still wins in terms of rapid-development, it's good to have both - good for Linux, good for free software, good for commercial software.
The only catch here is some companies thinking that stamping "linux" on their producs will automatically get them big bucks. They'll eventually fail if they don't have good product indeed, and their falure can create image of "Linux market is no good". One must realize that working on developing market requires a lot of... uhm, a lot of work, actually.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
The most important thing is that standards are kept open.
The author of this "ask slasdot" seems to think that commercial software is going to somehow kill the open source movement. Since when has this been true?
.
As long as there are people willing to write software and contribute to the community, we'll have open source alternatives to most if not all types of software. Thats the way it will always be. Of course, the commercial vendors have a lot of money they can toss around in order to get things out the door sooner, but thats nothing new.
Besides this, since when is commercial software bad? I love OSS, but I don't mind paying for software if it is good and there isn't a free alternative. A great example of this is games. I have bought 3 titles so far from Loki, and I'll continue to buy from them as long as they continue to offer a service I feel is valuable. (ie. good games for an OS that I like)
Anyways, I guess the point of this post is that this "ask slashdot" is pointless. Not only that, but it has been discussed more than once, and I'm sure anybody here has thought about it. What kind of answer do you want? "Lets overthrow the corporations! Outlaw commercial software!" Is that what you are looking for? Because if it is, thats pretty sad.
The fact is, there isn't really an answer to this. The companies are going to do what they feel is in their best interest, and we're not going to somehow magically decide for every corporation in the world how things will work.
Anyways, my $0.02
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
'Free speech' applications in many areas are currently in development. Changine free-beer software to expensive-beer software can only serve to promote the production of free-speeck software such as Abiword and the KOffice suite.
--
"You take a distribution! Rename! Stamp CD's! IPO!"
- CmdrTaco, Geeks in Space, Episode 2 from 6:18 to 6:23.
"Chiswick! Fresh horses!"
The more layers of the final cake that are visible, and open source, the better. In a perfect world, everyone can see and some can help fix the layers, if they so desire. If an application takes off in Linux space, there will be open source alternatives, that provide some competition, and keep things alive. The trend seems to be toward open source, for a number of reasons including culture. I hope it's a stable trend.
As long as we keep people from hijacking standards, we'll be ok.
Now if we could find a way to fund a complete, free, replacement for Office97, it would be a very good thing.
--Mike--
It's completely absurd to think that having widespread industry support from commercial applications written for a platform could ever damage the platform unless the creators of the platform want it to happen. The authors of application software aren't the ones effecting change on the underlying O/S. It's the other way around.
The faction within the Linux community that fears the prospect of making money off of software needs to come to grips with the reality that some people have families to feed and working for free in a Western Capitalist Society isn't really a good way to satisfy that requirement. Once that little hurdle is passed, it is really irrelevant whether someone chooses to give their software away or charge for it. The market will pick the best solution after weighing costs and benefits.
Trying to impose some sort of external, artificial pricing model (i.e., "free") is at odds with the underlying economy and society in which most of us live. Just like bad O/S ideas, the world is rife with failed government experiments as well, most of which fall along the lines of socialism/communism where everyone thought it was a good idea for everything to be "free".
I'm definitely not equating OSS with communism, so don't even go there. My point is that it's silly to be worried about people supporting Linux with commercial software. The market will bear what the market will bear and it's not up to a bunch of free O/S afficianados to try and second guess the commercial market. Rather, the Linux community should continue to move the platform forward and let the applications take care of themselves.
And be very, very glad that the 99% of the software industry that is for-profit sees it as a viable platform. The alternative is to be ignored by that 99% and all of their customers and be forever relegated to a niche market.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
This kind of software is a Good Thing because it encourages people to try out new OS's for free - and actually get something out of them.
StarOffice is a good example. Anyone can replace a standard Win95, Office 97 machine at home with a RedHat disk and a cover CD with SO5.1 on it. Great. They then get exposure to a new system, new alternatives and a new way of working.
But what happens when somebody in the IT department decides that everyone in the building needs this setup? Hello support contract. Now you're tied to Sun rather than Microsoft, and you're paying for it. Sounds like commercial software to me.
If there aren't enough GOOD AND FREE alternatives to Free-beer software, like you suggest, it could take the public-perception of Linux to be just as commercial as 'doze.
insignificant sig
And free beer is only better.
The high cost of proprietary software is the "lock in." If you've payed your ms tax and found out that the micosoft platform does not fit your needs, you're fucked out of thousands of dollars.
Making that same mistake on linux costs you nothing, zero, zippo, bumpkiss, null set, void, not one thin dime. The upside is huge because for the same zero, zippo, no cost you can copy the platform onto as many computers as you want all over your network.
Picture the meeting with the CFO when you show him how you deployed all the software on all 544 of your 32 bit workstations for zero dollars. Imagine the meeting with the CFO when you point out how on the first day of deployment you have a 100%=ROI! PAYOFF=INSTANT! TCO=0!
___
I think the trend is worrying.
.so type dynamic libraries" I explained, "Then you will be able to read the emails I send you from my eleet Linux workstation".
For instance, people might try a free-beer package just because it is free, and so think they are getting value for money.
In fact, if they got an OS package, that didn't work as well, they could help improve it and would end up with a much better package.
For instance, I found out my Mum was using a free beer package, Eudora. I explained to her that she should use an OS mail program, preferably one that didn't really work yet, as all the ones that did work had undergone a feature freeze in 1989.
"This program is broken" I told her. "It works with a very high tech GUI system called Gnome that is also broken. It will display the pictures we send you, but only once you've installed an image viewer with a really 'kewl' name like 'electric eyes' or something. This image viewer won't work either, because you won't have the required libraries to make it compile first time."
"So, first, I want you to learn about
"Now, it would be silly for me to expect you to help fix all this broken crap, because you don't know C or C++", I continued, "However, everytime you can't open an attachment, you should go to this web site where you can fill in a bug report."
"That way, other people will fix all the problems, and in a year or two you'll have the best software ever in the whole world."
Sadly my mother is still using Eudora, and is still able to send and recieve email from not only me on my eleet Linux workstation, but also from many other people.
This situation has got to stop.
-----
Red Hat and a whole other bunch of companies are not aiming at getting paid for the software (which is open source, and thus free), but they do want to get paid for the support and consulting. This model is being adapted at a lot of companies nowadays...
IBM for example, has decided to drop their own webserver development in favor of Apache, because it is far more worthwile selling consultancy and support services and putting resources in that, than it is to invest a lot of money in developing their own webserver, while there is something as apache as the alternative.
Services will become the next cash cow, not software.
--
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
Free beer software is the same as shareware. They all want to be Bill Gates but don't have the distribution and existing monopoly to pull it off. If they believed in free software, their software would be free.
KDE Office really rocks, and shows that open source is getting just as good or better, even on the "office"-front. There are two reasons for this: STAROFFICE: Is free but slow. OFFICE 95-2000: Is pretty fast, but expensive. KOFFICE: Is free, and incridible fast, and gives what the user want's ;)
This fear of using software that someone makes money from is misplaced.
...................
...................
...................
free for non-profit ... until/if the OSs get market share, then happy hour finishes and the free-beer becomes expensive-beer
The "free for non-profit, pay for commercial" question is different from the "free to gain market share, pay once you are addicted" (which perhaps we should call the Microsoft model: remember when Office could be had as a competitive upgrade for $99?) And, you've entirely left out the question of whether the source is opened.
I think the key here is whether the source is opened, in the sense of, can the user see the source? A model that has not been explored in a long time is the "you pay for software, you get to see the source, you don't get to redistribute the source." Now, before you start flaming me, I'm not proposing that model, I'm saying that I never hear it proposed. If the user of software is always entitled to see the source, we will never be beholden to monopolists and their unproductive anti-social value destroying proprietary non-standards. Whether a community can develop and give away free beer on a sustainable basis is an open question, but there would be a reasonable limit on Microsoft's (and Sun's, and Oracle's) raping of the customer if their API's, protocols and formats were open. Opened source achieves this. Would it allow their competitor's to "steal" their copyrighted code? No! because in this system the competitors code would also be opened.
From an economics perspective, the pay only for commercial use model is an extreme form of price discrimination, but it meshes well with the reality of sales and metering anyway: companies selling software always go after the corporate account. One sale represents a whole bunch of licenses. Conversely, it is really expensive to sell to individuals. So, give to individuals who bootleg like crazy anyway and sell to corporatists (threw that in for Katzian nitwits) who pay and are easy to monitor makes the most sense as a way of competing in a highly competitive market that includes Free and Open source licensing.
We're not talking about the curvy singer that used to be married to Sonny, but we're talking about market share. It's the key goal of any software company (free or not) seaking lockin.
In the proprietary model, the user pays for the platform while the company moves around the API, security model, file formats, in an effort to gain market share. Each time a change/upgrade is made, you pay again and again in the form of development costs around the new changes.
In the free software model, you get to take advantage of a companies quest for share. If at some date later down the the line that same company decides to change the EULA and start charging it's users, you have all the source, openly documented API and open standard file formats to help you with the migration to the *next* company on a quest for share.
___
Example : StarOffice, and things like Abiword... Abiword is only a component of the soon-to-come free (speech) equivalent of StarOffice.
My two cents.
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
Any opinions on Cycas CAD software mentioned above ? I am an AutoCAD user bound to MS Operating systems because of few alternatives to match it in the Linux world.
Cycas's CAD packages is hobbled: one layer, no printing above letter sized... It's demoware. No one really professional is going to use it, but a student brought up on it might ask for it in a commercial setting.
The important thing in this is the license, and source code. If the license says non-revokable for this version, and the version includes source, then hey, when the company gets annoying, you can start with the old and build up from there. Hence OpenSSH.
If you like a program, there is always a cost. Even if you never paid a dime for it, you have a moral obligation towards the programmers who brought it to you. Whether you build them a shrine, send them cash, stand them a few beers of merely hold a door open for them, you must do something. The nice thing is that they let you use your imagination, and require nothing.
Commercial companies merely demand cash. But this situation illustrates the idea of hidden cost.
The cost for using software that might change it's conditions for continued use is allowing yourself into a blackmail situation, where to continue work, you must have a new license of the software.
Sometimes this is overt, such as timeout demoware.
Sometimes it's covert, like packages that have a free version, but no support, and no bug fixes beyond the catastrophic. The cost here is in discovering you have sunk 6 months into a learning and internally supporting a package just to discover that to get it to do what you need, you must pay out large sums of money that you might not have.
So treipidation is warranted, but I'd say not for erosion of freedom reasons.
Pin the spig.
I think people are missing the point.
The aim of "free" (as in beer) software is to limit the excessive prices charged by mainstream publishers. In a sense the free version is the minimum base level functionality (or quality check) that should be expected from a risk-free investment in software. Then you can compare the marginal improvement in the price of the commercial version and evaluate the prospective gains rationally (assuming a free and informed choice without excessive branded benchmarketing).
The biggest problem is that the "costs" of software is not reflected in the actual sale price. Quality control, amount of training, help-desk support, risk of inappropriate design/placement are the invisible costs that really determine whether a piece of software will be taken up enterprise-wide. It is too easy to shift the negative externalities onto other people (a case of privatising the profits, socialising the costs) and I suspect users will revolt one day and rethink their purchasing strategies if there were any real studies done of productivity gains.
LL
I think people should also realize that if these are infact the trends of free-beer software, that by the time it is implemented, the GPLed code for currently under developement office products will have matured to the point where commercial/closed options will become less and less an obligatory purchase. Several products are already under way that in most cases, can achieve the complexity needed by the *average* user. I believe that given five more years of developement would reveal several lines of open source products which will be modular in design and extremely familiar to use to the average user.
I do understand that free-beer software entails many products other than office tools, but I believe them to be a prime example.
* There seems to be comfusion between the words commercial and prprietary. I use Redhat Linux, a commericial product, released under an open source license for Redhat's own interests [gaining money from my potentially purchasing support]. My company is developing some open - source software for our commerical need of showcasing our development talents and gaining mindshare of our market.
* StarOffice would be an infinitely better product if it were under an open sourece license. Many users complain about about many small issues it would be trivial to fix if the source were publicly availiable.
- A computer magazine I write for has to enter into a legal agreement with sun to distribute StarOffice, taking around six months of red tape each time
- StarOffices installer is much more complex than the basic click-and-install RPM method most new Linux users are taught. It is very difficult to redistribute an RPM StarOffice
- Almost all users on all platforms fins StarOffices taking over the Start Menu / Kpanel / whatever rather irritating. it would be simple to make this feature optional
- Legal agreements prevent LUGs from installing StarOffice on nLinux newbies PCs. This is bad for both Sun, the LUG, and the Linux user.
- The words Redhat, Debian, and Linux aren't spellchecker. *I* could be bothered fixing it. Sun can't anytime soon.
- Staroffice is built arround it's own widget set, which looks uncomfortable surrounded by typical GTK and QT Linux applications.
All of the above would be trivial to fix with appropriate access to the code. Ahh, but we have access you say? True - but I want to work on a project for my own benefit, not for Suns pissing contest with Microsoft. They are not an independent body, not a meritocracy [as are most GPL or similar based projects] and have themselves as their primary concern.
Forgive my typos. Despite the browser wars, nobodys been inoovative enough to include a spellchecker for forms yet. Mozilla?
Who cares if proprietary software (even if zero-cost) switches from proprietary operating systems to open-source operating systems? Who could be harmed by this?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I'm amazed to see how many people in the open source community fear commercial software. It seems to me as obvious that, as linux and other alternate OSes to Windows will gain popularity, we will see more and more commercial software developped for them.
It's true that a lot of software for linux and other open source OSes are free (as in beer) mostly because the companies making them seek to gain acceptance in the open source community. If there had been a larger market, they might have sold it instead. For a lot of companies, it's more of a marketing strategy than pure belief that software should be free (as in freedom).
The thing is, it doesn't change anything. Whatever happens, open source projects can never be "taken over" by greedy profit-driven companies, because the nature of open-source itself won't allow it. Commercial software can't hurt linux, it's quite the opposite. I can understand that a company could want to make money with their powerful, 3D-Studio like application. What's wrong with that? People can use their Free OS to run a commercial program just like any GPLed one. More software, open-source or not, free or not, would help linux get a larger user-base and that's a Good Thing.
Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
These new "free beer" software packages we find are probably not a good thing. This is because these "free" programs fill a need, and the average joe user who isn't one of RMS's zealots and has at most a vague idea of the distinctions between software that is just free of cost and software that grants him freedom won't really care. And since these packages tend to be more complete than the embryonic Free Software packages that exist, they gain market share, at the expense of software that is Free (speech). Thus the motivation for developing the Free Software versions is decreased, because someone has already filled that need. And the decreased user base for the Free Software variants means development will tend to slow down. And these free (beer) packages, even if Happy Hour never ends (which is extremely unlikely), suffer from all the drawbacks all proprietary software does, and then some. Apart from the fact that you again have secret file formats and the danger of lock-in, as someone has already mentioned, since you aren't paying for it you can't possibly expect any kind of warranty. At least if you payed mucho dinero for a copy of M$ Office, you could at least have the (albeit remote) possibility of getting some useful tech support off M$'s support numbers. Free beer packages probably will not provide any kind of support at all. And there's obviously no possibility of your getting into the guts of the code to fix the problem yourself because it's closed source. The average joe user is at this point only concerned with getting results, and freedom is only an incidental thing for them as of now. These closed-source, free (beer), proprietary packages are a stumbling block in their path because it tends to make them value their freedom less. The average joe user needs to learn to value the freedom granted by true Free Software, and these "free" programs are making that process harder.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
semis,
You should be very wary about starting to use any proprietary software, especially software that purports to be "free". That's not to say that you should never use it, just that you should consider the long-term costs to you.
The core issue isn't really the software per se, it's the amount of your time that you would spend if you had to switch to another package. For example, let's say that "Moose and Squirrel Compilers, inc" chose to release a C compiler in binary-only form. As long as you don't use too many of their proprietary hooks then you're probably OK since the bulk of the data that you spend your time creating is in a data format ("C") which can easily be moved over to another compiler if need be.
Now let's consider a CAD program. Since you're likely building your CAD models inside the program, and the program likely has a very proprietary data model, you would almost certainly be screwed if you tried to change to another CAD program. Sure, your new program might claim to import your old program's data files, but it would be unlikely to do it well.
Office suites probably fall somewhere in the middle. They use proprietary formats by default but you can usually save in something (HTML, RTF) that can be read reasonably well by other tools.
Now, let's turn the proprietary software FUD back against itself. When the software that you paid nothing for fails, "who you gonna sue?" Even if you could sue Oracle or Microsoft if you paid them a lot of money (ha!), what would you do when the software that they gave you for free didn't work? It's worth what you paid for, right?
So from a support perspective you're in the worst place imaginable: the vendor isn't really incented to give you support (what's in it for them?), you have zero leverage with your vendor, and you can't go anywhere else for support.
The difference between "free beer" software and free software is the difference between "buyer beware" and "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." The "free beer" software is an attempt to sell you something, the free software is a gift from the developers to you.
Good luck!
> us over until the free speech comes to the
> rescue.
Yup. That's how it's often been so far.
I hope that Sun, for example, elects to properly OpenSource the StarOffice suite when it hits the wall as far as direct political usefulness goes (if not before) since I'd value the opportunity to put that on a diet and install a squillion copies.
In this vein, Open Sourcing faces a dilemma for a commerce-oriented company like Sun. If they stick a rider on, requiring derivatives of their software to continuously display an unadulterated "derived from Sun software" logo (something I would be more than happy to suffer), they then face an image issue
I have another suggestion for Sun in particular, to do right now: consider semi-open-sourcing StarOffice on a may-not-sell-or-distribute basis (ie private use only for derivatives) but with a fixed time-bomb that automatically GPLs it (maybe at the end of 2002, but give a definite date) (even with a must-display-this-logo rider).
This would work for Sun because:
How say you?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
So GCC is just going to up and magically disappear the moment someone releases a non-GPL compiler? That's the point of the original post; non-Free software is not exclusive.
There are three things that make this whole subject moot. First, the GPL *demands* Free software to remain free. So no one who has a GPLed product can suddenly turn around and close the source. Second is the point made by blaine. So long as there are people who believe in Free and open source software, and are making the programs, it will continue to flourish. And since open sourced software defies ownership, a product can never be "killed" as long as people want to use it. Look at it this way, Freeing software isn't just letting out the genie, it's shattering the bottle.
The third point, and my personal favorite, is that freedom works both ways. To be a champion of freedom, you have to allow for all forms of expression. You can't say that you're promoting freedom and be telling people what they can and can't do at the same time. Trying to wage a holy war against closed source and commercial software will only set back Linux, and would be somewhat hypocritical. Sure, I may not like non-Free software as much, but prohibiting it will accomplish nothing. I want to see Free software succeed and it has to do it in an open marketplace, where it goes head-to-head with commercial software and proves itself worthy beyond doubt. Shutting it out from the world and making empty claims of superiority, on the other hand, will destroy Free software, if anything.
So go ahead, bring commercial software to Linux. I am not afraid. Blue is my favourite colour!
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
I'm not sure whats funnier, the post or the mis-moderation :)
Wonder what'll happen in meta-mod. It deserved to be moderated up, but it got the wrong tag applied. I think we should just have +1, or -1 moderation, otherwise its just confusing these poor people.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Samuel Adams is to Linux as Budweiser is to Windoze.
Sam Adams is brewed in relatively small quantities. It is a rich, full flavored beer that is (or at least originally was) brewed to German standards of purity for beer. Cost is $7/6-pack.
Bud is brewed in mass quantities. It is a light, inoffensive beer that is brewed with the best ingredients that allow it to be competitively priced for the average American who drinks beer. Cost is $4/6-pack.
Sam Adams "competes" with other microbreweries, which produce the likes of Anchor Steam and other delights. The microbreweries produce their art out of a love and passion for what they do. They don't always produce the very best, but that's usually their goal and they come pretty darned close. Profit margin on the product is low. [In OS terms, there is considerable personal upfront cost to learn how to use Linux.]
If Sam Adams (The Boston Beer Company) departs from being their very best, their followers will know and will depart in an instant. Whether they follow Anchor Brewing or Dominion or other, they will seek the best.
Bud "competes" for early mindshare and a captive audience. If mom and pop drink Bud, there's a good chance daughter and son will do the same. Anheuser-Busch sells "lifestyle" probably even more than they sell beer. Advertising is of the nature, "Drink our beer and Be One Of Us." It works not only with Bud or beer, but with many products. Profit margin is high. [In OS terms, there is little personal upfront cost to learn how to use Windoze.]
Bud drinkers generally stay Bud drinkers as long as Anheuser-Busch doesn't depart from what it sells for lifestyle and as long as the overall flavor of the beer doesn't change. Flavor migrations translate to a new brand that can be marketted without abandoning its current share.
Now back to operating systems.
If Linux departs from what it is, if it somehow becomes perverted, it will be rejected by its followers and will be supplanted by something else.
Graham
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
It is my experience from when I was using Windows that all the best software came free, at least for home using. The only exception maybe Quicken. I had a rule with my old Windows: if they want to charge for it, its probably not worth it. Point in case: for IRC the best Windows client is mIRC, it's "shareware" and always have been, with no limits to how long you use it. Other greats: RealAudio- RealPlayer. Netscape. Cu-Seeme. And all the multitude of very functional and good quality programs out there for windows that are either shareware or freeware. Linux can only benefit from this, in my opinion.
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
But it can be downloaded for zero price with no restrictions on its use. The money people - including myself - have paid for manuals and keys has gone back into the development of the program. I believe the Blender team were at E3 showing off version 2.0 which is touted to be a game development modelling system.
The team have not ruled out GPL'ed source in the future but right now it makes no sense to them given the way they manage their source tree. If they don't release the source so what? There are plenty of GPL'ed modellers out there for anyone to download and improve. It's just that the quality of Blender and the enthusiasm of its user base gives it more than enough momentum right now.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
I think, however, this software can't do much harm, simply because it will with time be inferior of OSS.
Remember, free-beer software isn't Peer Reviewed! ESR argues impressingly for that what makes OSS software so good, is the very extensive (informal) Peer Review every piece of code goes through.
Therefore, free-beer software will with time get OSS competitor(s), that, when matured, are technically superior, but costs no more. Then, it has no advantage, so it will be "open the source or perish". I hope...
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
The answer is of course, to remember the end-user when releasing OS packages; non-programmers may actually want to use software too.. :-)
Been up all night so maybe i missed something, but it did seem insightful to me...
I'm all for the hippie ethic of giving it away and asking nothing in return. This is a cool idea, but everyone doesn't have to agree. It is okay for someone to charge money for their software, and just because they initially give it away doesn't meant they are trying to bait a young generation.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Let's see... I've used commercial, pay-for Applix on Linux and found it generally satisfactory, but I now use StarOffice as my primary means of dealing with Microsoft documents, spreadsheets, etc. because SO's file import process is somewhat easier/faster than Applix's.
.doc imports, but doesn't do Excel spreadsheets. And Gnumeric, as nice an idea as it is, and much as I like Miguel, simply doesn't give me enough functionality and an easy enough file import/export path to be as useful as StarOffice. Maybe someday it will, but I need to read (and sometimes modify or add notes to) Excel-generated spreadsheets *now* if I am going to communicate with Windows-using accountants to make sure all our freelancers get paid.
:)
AbiWord is good for
I'm experimenting with GNUCash for my personal bookkeeping; it's good enough for my simple needs, but it's certainly not adequate to handle the bookkeeping and accounting for any business much more complicated than my one-horse limo company, and it does not interface directly with my bank's software, as does QuickBooks. I would find a commercial QuickBooks-equivalent accounting package for Linux awfully tempting if it offered $50 or $100 (or whatever it cost) more functionality than GNUCash.
If, indeed, KDE2 or a future version of Gnome turns out to have a better, more stable browser than Netscape, Mozilla or Opera, full support for MS file formats, and the other basic office functions I need in my work, then I'll use nothing else, and I'll be very, very, happy.
Remember, I am a *writer and editor* who also has a lot of administrative tasks to handle, not a programmer. I am a software user, not a developer, and my primary concerns are program stability, usability, and compatibility. Sure, I can and do use Nedit (the simplest and most stable text editor I've found for Linux so far) for 90% of my actual writing, but what about dealing with book publishers like, say, MacMillan? They have whole huge systems built around MS Word, and they aren't going to change them just because I don't want to use Windows or a Mac. The best compromise right now, when dealing with Windows-locked companies, is StarOffice.
I tried WordPerfect, but it had installation "issues" with my home network, and even when I finally got it going, it crashed more than a few times on me during my first day of use (which was also my last). This level of (non)stability is unacceptable for someone who is trying to turn out a novel in his (scant) spare time; when my head is full of characters, plot, scenes, dialogue, and other writerly things, there is no room left in it for worrying about applications that crash. Right now, as far as I'm concerned, WordPerfect is for computer hobbyists, not for people who are trying to use their computers as productivity tools.
The problem with cutting yourself off from all commercial software -- even "free beer" commercial software -- is that this position not only imposes severe limits not only on what you, yourself, can do with your computer, but also cuts you off from many collaborative projects.
Sure, I wish StarOffice was GPLed, and I wish there were a dozen better, less bloated, truly free alternatives available. Someday I'm sure there will be. I long for that day. But right now, my pragmatic choice is between using non-free applications on a truly free operating system, and using non-free applications on a non-free proprietary operating system.
My choice is to use the free operating system exclusively and to "bend" on the applications. At least for now.
- Robin
Has this sort of hypothetical situation ever actualized itself, or is this yet another example of pie-in-the-sky paranoid pessimism that yet again shoves Slashdot into the realm of irrelevency?
If anyones heard of a situation were free beer software has been given away, then once dependence has been established, charged for up the ying-yang like so much virtual Crack, then please testify!
I've never heard of that other than the occasional anecdote from an unreliable/unverifiable source. Sounds like just another Paranoid Persecution Fantasy to me...
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
I would clarify this concern with the fact that nobody is born with knowledge on how to operate a computer. Yes it's true that many new employees have learned the application at another company. Yes it's true that many users have it at home.
What's more is most of the these same people already have aquired basic computer skills (point and click, RAM, hard drive, file structure). The cost in retraining these basic computer skills will not be redone. That cost has already been realised.
As a result of the user base already having basic computer skills, the cost in additional migration training to a new platform is less than the cost of the original training.
___
Speaking as a "tech user with limited time on his/her hands" (as you put it so well), I must chime in here and say YES.
;-)
I love open-source software. I've been using Linux since '95 (almost exclusively since '97), but I've got a lot of irons in the fire and an active social life. I'm no "guru" but I've set up entire sites from scratch before (including hardware), so I'm no newbie, either. But I really wish I didn't have to *work* so hard at getting things running in Linux.
Once I do get things working, I almost always find that it was worth the effort to "learn" my way through the process. But sometimes I'd rather be out playing pool and drinking beer with friends. I enjoy tinkering and fiddling with things, but sometimes I just want the thing to WORK, without having to worry about which "bleeding-edge" library I've got to download and compile...
There's a place for FreeBeer software in the future of the open-source "space".
Bottom line: if the software gets the job done, it's a contender for my patronage. If I can get an OSS solution to work without too much grief, I'll always perfer that option. But if there were a program like good ol' Eudora 1.5x in Linux -- that I could install in 90 seconds with ZERO sweat, I'd be all over it, if it proved as reliable as that old standby from my Windoze days. (I was particularly fond of the "Auto-save Attachments feature that put incoming attachments in a separate directory, rather than keeping them in one huge mailbox file.) The only reason I don't still use it is because it doesn't run in Linux.
The only way a FreeBeer program could "change the direction" of the OSS movement would be if it turned out to be the "Next Killer-App"[tm]... something on the level of a paradigm-shift, that takes to a whole new level above the hardware->BIOS->OS->App hierarchy. In that case, the whole OS layer would go the way of the BIOS.
Remember the early 80s, when you had to check the BIOS manufacturer before buying a motherboard or system, because some were more compatible with BigBlue than others?
I'm getting off topic now. Better go drink some beer!
--jd
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
This stuff usually comes in tarballs . I mean listen to how this sounds. Can beer that comes in a tarball be useful? Just compare those neat packages and the outstanding documentation that you get with expensive beer. Not to mention that nice silver disk.
Mr Stallman admits he's a communist. At least some of hist statements bear ideas of freedom and community. This is bad for big corporations. Mr. Raymond is probably also a communist, albeit a more articulate one.
Free beer software is distributed with source code. I mean shheeesh, get real! This stuff is grammatically so bad and the authors use far too many semicolons.
Think about how bad free beer software is for Corporate America. Do you really believe that the nice Intel company can crank out new, probably error prone, but at least expensive CPUs every three month when the expensive beer software is not able to distribute it's bloatware?
So people, Grow up! Give all your money to Mr. Gates and Mr. Ellison. Those are the people that make America the greatest place in the world.ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Agreed. Not only do I sometimes want to drink beer more than fiddle with the software, at times I'd actually like to *use* the software... :-) ... As much as fiddling is an Enjoyable Thing, I need as much time as I can get *using* the app in my project. I like to be able to fiddle when I want to, but Forced Fiddling reduces productivity.
This article has an excellent discussion of the need for attention to the end user's needs in OS development. It focuses on interface issues, but has a good analysis of the problems of perspective.
I like the idea of comparing things in terms of *learning-curve* cost, instead of $$$ cost.
It's also an apt analogy, between Linux=SamAdams on the one side and Windoze=Bud on the other.
You get what you "pay" for...
--jd
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
... But I'm sure as hell still gonna use them...
Energy moves in waves. Our biosphere is sustained by the cycling energy of daily rotations and seasonal shifts. Each member of the food chain reciprocates what it gets with what it gives. But what is given back in free beer software?
The credo of those opposing Free or Open Source software movements is usually TANSTAAFL. As mentioned in this article, software from a business can be free to some (such as non-profits) while its net pricetag is subsidized by others. Yet, the GNU project and the standards of Internet weren't built by businesses as much as they were built by individuals, each taking the personal cost of contributing. (For instance, HTML was largely inspired by Ted Nelson's early quest for Xanadu.) Some are paid back in microcelebrity or even better jobs and grants. Others have given unconditionally without reward. These pioneers made the effort, not so much for money, as for the personal empowerment of software.
Love really does make the world go around: The thing that best guarantees success is for human attention and concern to be lavished skillfully on a goal. Sometimes it seems that corporations will totally rule the world... until the court of public opinion turns the tide against them. These are like yin and yang cycling over one another: Propriety-mindedness and control versus personal liberty.
We're seeing a turn of this cycle happen when businesses turn to businesses (B2B) in a trend away from catering to consumers (B2C). Consumer backlash sometimes sparks this trend. Still, consumers have little use for computers without personal empowerment, so they will empower their own. (C2C?)
Free Beer Software will flourish just out of the human attention it gets. One day, the wireless web will be so pervasive that we can call out URLs like incantations, summoning any manner of program to be carried out. Such a post-scarcity world will be glorious!
I really don't see how this helps anyone do these apps ever leave the company that ordered them? Does any of this development allow me to get a better program on my computer? I think not.
What is power if not for the furtherance of power. Power is a gift in it's own right and a means unto itself.
My question is this: does the development of 'free beer' software (or for that matter commercial software) for free OSes slow down or stop development of free/open software?
Availability of Windows hasn't stopped development of Linux or the *BSDs (although Windows isn't really 'free beer', it is beer most people have already been forced to pay for).
There are also quite a number of free/open office productivity products out there, despite StarOffice being available as 'free beer' for quite a while and despite commercial packages like Word Perfect and Applix being available. The CAD software situation is a little more tricky to judge, since CAD software is generally very high end and complex. I do know that there are at least a couple of free/open CAD projects going out there, and at least a couple of commercial CAD packages out for Linux at least. I'd be hesitant to try to predict the future on how that situation shakes out.
Some people will still be more interested in free software because of idealogical reasons, or merely due to long term fear for their wallets.
'Free beer' or commercial software may also provide competition that spurs free software developers to work harder. If the free OS market continues to grow, is there room for both free/open software and 'free beer'/commercial software? More competition and more options is generally a good thing.
Your four points intrigue me but I disagree with some of them. 1. The knowledge is good but programmers aren't cheap. The ammount of money to learn to program as well as the people who program the apps or pay someone even more it still costs several thousand dollars. Being self taught is nice but still that learning paradigm dosn't work very well for most (that's why we have schools to teach people). 2. I don't know that just because the medium changes to open source programming that means that the programmers are any better. While I don't agree with everything in the world I can see intelligence where it is due. The people who designed the QNX core and everything are probably the smartest programmers that are there. 3. I really doubt that. Most people today are attracted to wizbang features and are not interested in content. This means that unnecessary features like network features, blaring sound affects, massive system bogging 3d rendering graphics. Very little data generation or stability, or minimal resources. In short nothing that people are traditionally taught as programming practice. This I think is the problem today. This is also why computers are always going to be slow and always going to be expensive. Also it's the reason that CS is becomming almost impossible to master. When you get into the realm of doing fancy wizbang features you get into more caotic phenomena meaning that you really, really have to be a pro. Why do you think C++ was developed why were massive 3d graphics cards developed, all of the superflous Microsoft APIs. Even the stuff with GNOME. All bad karma. 4. This is usually not done or it changes the character of the project. It has potential but still falls short.
What is power if not for the furtherance of power. Power is a gift in it's own right and a means unto itself.
$799.00
X 500 seats=
$399,500
OpenSource platform
$0
X 500 seats=
$0
What would you do with your network is you had an extra $399,500.00?
___
I feel like I could have written this myself. I had *exactly* the same experience/reaction with Applix, StarOffice, Nedit, AbiWord, AND WordPerfect.
I'm sure there are plenty of other people in the same situation.
Free (or OS) software meets enough of my computing needs that I only keep a Windoze box around for video editing. (And Linux is getting close enough that I should be able to abandon even that in the next year or so.)
But I do keep a VMware/Win setup at the office for those stubborn DOC and XLS files...
The good news is, OSS is already unstoppable. It's only a matter of time now.
--jd
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
$400,000!
That's just nuts!
You're paying $400,000.00 for the priviage of knowing you'll have to pay it again when Office 2002 comes out.
It's like an abusive cycle. Break the Cycle.
___
So is VA Linux, Penguin Computing, and a lot of other companies. There is a big difference between commercial (trying to make a profit and charging for goods and services) and proprietary (closing the doors to knowledge and curiosity and cutting oneself off from consumers). If MS were not proprietary I would gladly pay for their stuff. (Well, there's also the issues of their lousy code and questionable business practices but....)
The Real Microsoft Killer: Open File Formats
--jd
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
While some types of free-as-in-beer software may go IPO and make loads and loads (and charge loads and loads), there will always remain free-as-in-speech software, software that is so dedicated to being free-as-in-beer and open source that they'll never charge you for the software.
OpenBSD is a great example of this. Mozilla, while I'm not all up on it, seems to be dedicated to open source as well. Other systems are so global that it'd be impossible to charge for the next system, like XFree86.
Regardless, we can always fork off of old versions of formerly-open source projects. Like we talked about in a discussion of removal of Junkbuster-esque features from Mozilla, we can always just pick up where they left off.
So, as long as someone (like SourceForge.net ) is keeping CVSs of all this crap. I mean, there may be some hazy legal issues with SourceForge (IANAL), but the geek community tends to disregard most of those anyway. So, to answer your question: I wouldn't worry.
Then again, I'm 15. Erg.
Mike "Doesn't Know What He's Talking About" Greenberg
http://www.yourmothernaked.com
The GNU/Linux operating system has an attribute that few other OSs share. It isn't the most stable OS. There are others that are more stable---heck my Gnome setup has failed on me. There are others with faster performance, perhaps BeOS. There are certainly OSs with better usability. But GNU/Linux and the BSDs have permissive licenses and source code. But it goes farther.
When you are allowed to change software, someone somewhere does. In addition, there exists an entire community where volunteer contribution is encouraged. If you want your OS as fast as BeOS, it is possible.
But with free-beer software, all of this goes away. You are again waiting for Company X to release version <current+1> of its software. Because you are not allowed to change it.
Yes, we should be wary of free-beer software. Because it is so easy. It is easy to pick up on free-beer software and rely on it. But when you do, you are no longer in control. They are.
Now reading some of the other responses, including strange beer-analogies, I can't help but wonder: do you even understand what this is about? Let me list some things:
1. We do not fear commercial software. We fear propietary software.
2. To reiterate the above point, we do not fear making money with software.
3. **Sometimes** the software companies don't have our best interests at heart. If they are distributing Free Software, this doesn't matter.
4. Every commonly relied upon propietary package commonly used on GNU/Linux has a Free equivilent in development. This is a measure of the community's committment.
5. Once GNU/Linux begins to rely on propietary software, I will start looking somewhere else for my OS needs.
I can understand if you need certain software for compatibility and I think there is room for temporary compromise. If there wasn't, then I would be a hypocrite. I use Netscape until Mozilla comes out. I even have to Windows for my parents.
So if you are going to start relying free-beer software because it costs nothing and because it is useful, take a hard look at your great OS and understand what it is that makes it great. Then you will know what you are losing.
What you chose to ignore is the productivity cost for users that are experienced in one platform to shift to another. I have a PC running Windows.
And I have a Mac running Mac OS. When I came to college, I had to learn Windows 98 like everybody else. Is it really that much harder to migrate Windows -> KDE than Mac -> Windows?
Now factor in that I can get dedicated tech support from the commercial vendor
Then buy your boxen from VA Linux Systems or Penguin Computing.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The words Redhat, Debian, and Linux aren't spellchecker.
That's because Red Hat is two words, and that's how Red Hat Software spells it. And unless an editor (word processors are still glorified editors) is a total piece of SHIT, the word "red" is in the dictionary, and the word "hat" is also in the dictionary. Any dictionary that fails on basic English words found in Seuss (of all things) should be thrown away immediately and replaced with AbiWord (wonder when AbiExcel and AbiPowerPoint and AbiOutlook will come out).
Will I retire or break 10K?
if OSS/Free software was REALLY that much better than commericalized software, slashdot wouldn't have to say it so much. If it is, show me. Don't tell me over-and-over. And trying to convince people that OSS software is better than commercial software, strictly because it's "free" is a joke. Most of the commercial software that I have seen is better. It's not in my head either. Free software is often "hacked" together, with no structure/organization. The reason there are so many "updates" to an OSS piece of sodtware, is because it can be released with 5000 bugs, and it wouldn't matter..It's Free. Commercial/closed source software, on the other hand, usually goes through major checks before it is released.Most of this doesn't matter anyway...It's like arguing with a Brick Wall..The majority of slashdotters have an ironically closed mind anyway.
The same (capitalist) economic theory also says markets do always choose, but admits markets are not always perfect. In the economics sense of the word, "perfect markets" (often mistakenly called free markets) can only be achieved when certain conditions are met, including no "externalities". "Network externalities" (e.g. "my friends use Word's proprietary format so I want/need to use Word too") are one example of how markets can allow participants only imperfect choices. Another example of a market imperfection would be, "...but Word is not available for Linux, so I need Windows, but Windows is controlled by a monopolist guilty of price-gouging and 'tying'".
The the only things I rail against (and I will grandstand to be heard :) are imperfect markets and fuzzy economics.
So, while it is completely on-topic to respond to a post and point out how it is flawed, you've expressed a desire to hear my opinion on the original question (or, at least you complained that I didn't offer it :) No time to write down the whole economic argument, but as an overview: yes, in the short run, "free-beer" apps with no opened source can hinder the emergence of opened source alternatives, but in the long run will not. Due to the above mentioned network externalities, harm could theoretically be done to the prospects for open source platforms also, but I don't think that will happen, at all in the long run, nor much in the short run.
Great analogy. I hope a moderator bumps you up +1 so your post is more visible.
1000 SlashDot sigs
expensive beer isn't all that bad, just don't let them give us warm beer, or non alcoholic beer.
eof
There is nothing wrong with commercial software.
It seems that most of the people who promote free software to the exclusion of anything else are free riders. They like the fact that they get high quality tools and applications without having to contribute anything back to their creator. This is the main problem in any communist system.
Free software exists for the benefit of the people who create it and their peers. Powerful robust operating systems, compilers, widget libraries, etc are all of great use to developers and other computer professionals but are of little direct use to end users. They may benefit as well, but only indirectly. All end users want is something they can write a report on or do web surfing. They don't know what a compiler is let alone how to use it and they think linux is a friend of Charlie Brown.
This is why we see lots of developer oriented free products but very few free end user products that are anywhere near as complete. Gimp is a sole exception and even it is used by people who are at least semi-professionals such as web developers.
Now here come apps and programs that are free for use but not open source, and people are worried. What if Linux becomes popular for commercial software? Get used to the idea because it will surely come to pass if linux ever becomes more than a hacker (hacker != cracker) and server OS.
The reason? The people who have wants and needs, namely end users, cannot supply themselves with the things they need. Developers who need a good compiler or widget library can create one given enough time. But a secretary has neither the skill nor the time to create something like wordperfect or msword just so she can type up her dictation.
Anytime you have one group with wants and needs and another group with the means to fulfill those needs, you've got a market.
If you don't like the idea of paying for a type of software package, put your money where your mouth is and start working on one of your own.
The open source model is a good compliment to the proprietary model. In many areas it is the best way to go, such as operating systems and development tools. But it doesn't work as well for other type of products because the people doing the development aren't the types to be using what they are developing. A programmer uses a compiler all day long. He may use a word processor type app, but when he does its likely to be something like emacs or vi, not word. He or she has no incentive to create a replacement for word because they won't use it themselves.
Lee
Although the free in the question is really concerned with software where the binary (without source code) is distributed free of charge to the user. The definitions being confused here are :
.oO0Oo.
Free Software defined by GNU
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
here
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer.''
``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
Open Source (according to the Open Source definition - http://www.opensource.org/osd.html - here)
doesn't just mean access to the source code.
there are anumber of qualifying factors which i wont repeat here
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
er but they do give access to the ftp server so you can download it without cost ('cept for your call charges)
.oO0Oo.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Your reply is off-topic. The author of the story asked will it see our beloved OSs lose their open-source vision and simply become the new medium for commercial software?"
I answered his question. You are responding to something I never said.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I use linux because it is the best, but I do not have a problem buying software, in fact the other day I droped ~$100 for Corel Office 2000 because I felt that they had a beter spreed sheat then I have found for my Linux box.
I've had my eye on Cycas for awhile now, and I've fiddled with the free public version a bit, but that doesn't give me much scope. How good would it be for professional purposes? So far, I think its safe to say its the best I've seen, but has anyone seen better? Free or commercial, I'm a little more concerned with quality.
I don't care whether the software is free or not, I care whether or not it is open/free(libre).
Anyway, the problem is that the general public doesn't care. They look at anything GNU, and think, "Oh good, I don't have to pay." This, as the AskSlashdot poster theorized, leads to dilution of the vision of GPL.
Free(beer) software is in my experience both limiting, and inferior, so I generally try to avoid it. If it's worth giving up freedom for, it's worth paying for. If it is free, it's all the more worth paying for.
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
It's important to understand this, that someone will have to pay the programmers. In the past, it was the hardware houses who were hiring programmers to write specialized applications for their hardware.
Nowadays it ranges from places like redhat, who pay their programmers with the money they reap off of support, to microsoft (we obviously know how they pay their programmers), to places like IBM and some of hte more obscure UNIX vendors (Data General for instance) who are still doing it the old way.
IMO, the old way is the best way to do it, but that almost directly collides with open source. However, if systems were open enough to where the programmers working at these software houses were actually writing software to release as source, this would workout almost perfectly, and we would get the benefits of specialized hardware (such as the S/390 which was a topic of discussion this week) and the benefit of being able to modify the source code.
I don't see this happening in the future, but it does allow flexing of the idealistic part of the brain, eh?
-Erik-
Yawn. I must've woken up in 1998 again. Back to sleep...
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Windows systems are haunted by elusive and destructive spirits. Soon Linux systems will be also.
And even if we solve the install problem, you have to wonder if it's worth creating a new user for each proprietary package. To get the most use out of software, I want to run it under my normal UID. But if this means having my .mailcap, .bashrc, .Xdefaults, etc modified on the random whim of some Windows programmer who never quite understood the UNIX environment, then the annoyance outweighs any benefits the software could offer.
The influx of commercial freeware means that we will be dealing more and more with software conceived in the Windows world and only reluctantly ported to UNIX. The consequences of this shift will be far-reaching and unpleasant. Windows programs install on the assumption that nobody is adminning the box; it's just a free-for-all between competing applications which modify anything in the filesystem to suit their immediate needs. This concept is readily transplanted to the UNIX environment with the mandate that 'this script must be run by root.'
There is a full featured CAD program using DWG as native format with all the standard tools you can ask for an Autocad alike. It can be downloaded for free, used for any purpose, even commercial, unlike StarOffice. It only lacks the photorealistic render engine, some additional fonts, and VBA support. It uses DWG for native format. It runs soomthly on windows and it's much lighter than Acad14. I believe there is a linux version in development and the source can be accessed if you register as developer. It can be found at www.cadopia.com BTW I've posted this before, but it was ignored because i didn't login. I hope this gets to the architects complaining because the lack of alternative the time the Cycas story was posted
I'll keep this short, simple and to the point: I don't mind paying for software. What really irks me is when I give a company hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars and their package doesn't work and I don't have and can't get the source to fix it. It was exactly this problem that caused RMS to create the FSF, and I think we need to push companies more towards opening their source code even if it's only to their customers.
My 2 bits,
-"Zow"
Design your program well and you should be able to port it to another API with minimal effort. An effective way achieving portability is to use abstracting patterns ([Abstract] Factory, Prototype,...) to hide GUI, process management and other OS/hardware-specific details. This way your free software can be easily ported not only to different X APIs but also to Windows, for instance. All you have to do is to code the GUI specific part so that the rest of the program can access it through a common GUI interface. Same applies to memory handling, too. You may want to have a different memory allocation technique for single and many processor machine in order to improve performance.
Obviously there's slight overhead, but at least to me good portability signals better software quality than blindingly fast execution on one, specific platform. Maintaining and extending well designed codebase is also easier.
Unfortunately free software projects rarely seem to go through a design phase before rushing to the coding stage. This unprofessionality shows embarrasingly well since the source code is available (in contrast to badly designed closed source programs). That's fine with small projects, but not if you're trying to produce something like an office suite or OS.
I'm still waiting for a free software project to release full design specifications for community peer review. If the thousands of pairs of eyes can better pinpoint faults in source code, then why not employ the same technique to the design specs and prevent structural faults even before a line of code has been written?
That is true. I think it is also further evidence that free-as-in-beer and even free as in five-finger-discount won't stop free-as-in-speech software.
--
The number of people I meet (and judging by various comments on /. - they are here, too) who don't understand Free Software.
As noted hundreds of times before by greater people than I, the word "Free" in Free Software isn't about monetary value. The "Free" should really be read as "Freedom", and thus "Freedom" Software.
People, don't you get it? Such software is better for everyone, corporations included. The main driving force behind Free(dom) Software is this idea:
Some companies today (most who sell large software packages, generally not shrink-wrapped systems) will allow the client to get the source code to the package, for a fee (generally a large fee). The code isn't open, and it isn't free, it definitely isn't Free(dom) - but it is available.
The problem comes if said software company goes under - where does the licensing stand? Many times, nowhere - the client can't modify and sell the code, or improve on it, or support other clients who have the code base or the bianry version - that is, nobody can fill the gap, and the clients may very well go out of business because of it (though I do know that in this business, code is stolen, reworked and sold all the time, with nary a hiccup).
Enter Free(dom) Software. Maybe the client still has to pay for the source code - but after they have paid, they can't be prevented from doing what they need to with it - the code can exist seperate from the parent company. The clients can possibly stay in business, even if the parent of the code dies.
One other side effect - if the code is always available, after the parent company goes out of business - it may be possible that the company could be reformed - if the business practices that caused the failure can be identified and fixed prior to the re-startup. If it was the immaturity of the code that caused the failure, then just wait until the code matures (or better yet, help it mature yourself), then restart...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon