Slashdot Mirror
Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?
morrison asks: "In recent years, the Open-Source movement has increased dramatically. Harnessing the power of thousands of developers and testers has proven successful, to varying degrees, in developing operating systems, graphics applications, and web tools, including Linux, POV-Ray, Blender, Gimp, and Apache. In a SIGGRAPH 2005 discussion panel, the questions will be raised as to whether the open-source model is relevant and useful to the graphics community. Does the model of proprietary application research, development, and usage serve the industry better? Or will commercial facilities continue to primarily choose off-the-shelf solutions? Can all models work together? As a large portion of the Slashdot and Open Source community will be at SIGGRAPH, I'd really like to hear some moderated arguments beforehand before stepping up to the microphone."
I'm not going to say that corporate environments stifle innovation, but the motivation to innovate in a corporate environment is necessarily dollar-driven. The motivation to innovate in an OS environment is desire driven. If enough people desire to see it done and turn that desire into action, it gets done.
The OS community may not be regularly churning out Adobe killers or MS killers, but you get tweaks, utilities, apps, and sometimes that off the wall genius idea that ends up defining a new industry segment because no CYA suit saw the value in it until a passionate OS developer/group proved it.
As for the GPL, remember that it is not an exclusive license. There are a variety of licenses out there and a number of projects offer different licenses depending on your intended use of their code and whether you'll pay for the license.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
As I am typing this post on a Windows machine running Firefox (not to mention Cygwin, Openoffice, and a few others), I think that answers the question right there.
And as for graphics specifically, I'd love to run GIMP on Windows, if it weren't such a pain in the ass to install.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
OOS is where the comerical stuff gets all its stable code... :ducks flying fruit:
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
Yes.
Tune in next week, when Ask Slashdot tackles the following mind-boggling topic:
Quick and Dirty Ways To Drum Up Banner Ad Revenue
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?
Yes. If they allow each other to. There are a lot of areas where Open Source fails to deliver, particularly in the areas of comprehensive solutions. Using an on-topic example, PhotoShop still has several killer features that GIMP doesn't. InDesign provides a far easier to use typesetting environment than Tex. Many users still wish they could have MS Office on Linux despite the amount of functionality in OpenOffice and KOffice. Game Creators expect to be compensated for the blood, sweat, tears, and massive overtime they put into their games.
The truth is that the two MUST co-exist if we want to get anywhere. The problem today is that they are not allowed to co-exist. Most distros today use a packaging system that pulls from a central repository. While this has many advantages for the usability of OSS, it sucks for commercial software. There's no *good* way of delivering commercial software to a Linux system. (I know, I've tried.)
These OSes are closed systems where no new software can be introduced without the blessing of the distro maintainers. That's not only not good, it goes against the very ideals of an open computer! A computer is a device that allows you to provide instructions on how to complete a task. While the door is open for "approved" OSS software and personal C++ development, where's the door for commercial software?
I've heard a lot of arguments that packaging systems can be fixed to allow for commercial repositories. Unfortunately, no one has actually explained how this would work. And as I've pointed out, the math says it's can't work. Having 2^P (where P is the number of packages available) as the possible number of software combinations (any of which can interfere with each other) is not a good situation to be in!
Linux (the community) NEEDS commercial software. But if it wants to attract it, it needs to be in a position to spark another Shareware revolution like the one seen after Windows 95. Make it easy for users to use their system. Make it so they can visit VersionTracker or Tucows and try everything under the sun! Give the users back control of their computers! Viva la Software!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
of course they can't, they never have, and never will *silly*
Look sally! Look at zonk die; die zonk die!
Okay, next question ...
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
You can build a successful commercial business model out of open source software, with IBM and Red Hat being good examples for that. I think that, in the long term, open source software may not prevail but it will be a more secure choice for the simple reason that commercial, closed-source software bonds you to its publisher.
Unless I missed the point and they didn't mean closed-source by commercial?
They have coexisted for fifteen years or more, so I don't see why they can't continue to do so into the future.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So many questions! I can't handle them all!!!!!
Oh, OK....the answer is it depends. Thank you. That will be $1,000 please. Deposit it to my pay pal account.
The company I work for uses a proprietary billing system with an open-source back-end interface to our customer database. The proprietary system was sold to us from a commercial vendor and has as its major requirement a Red Hat-based OS, which is of course open source.
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
Let's eliminate commercial, and find out.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Because at least one person
got to disagree here!
As much as some people like Windows, I'd rather see everyone using an open source OS. Rather than having everything try to be fancy, a minimalist OS that was build for security and ease of use would be so much better for the computer world in general. The open standards would allow anyone to develop for it, find flaws in the system, or add on to the existing code.
Open source applications like Open Office are certainly a good thing, but I see the realm of applications as being much more commercial. I don't see too many people going out of their way to create open source games. Game engines possibly, but some applications will almost always be more commercial in nature. In cases where monopolies don't exist, commercial software also has the benifit of needing to be good, or people won't buy it. The necessity to provide good and innovative software will drive people to create better sotfware. It would be nice to have a choice of four or more different word processors, especially if they all shared a common file format in addition to any propriatary one that made communication a lot easier.
There are advantages to both, and it's quite clear that they can exist together given that they do in fact today.
Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?
No. I mean yes. Next question please.
Next question.
His argument against Open Source isn't about the capabilities of Open Source software itself. Rather, he believes that Open Source software leads corporations and consumers to undervalue the value of software. If Open Source software is being given away freely, he argues, people will feel that software is a commodity rather than a specialized product that requires a lot of hard work and brainpower to properly develop. If the software becomes devalued, he feels, the industry as a whole will continue to slide rapidly toward commodity status.
I disagree with him on this point, primarily because I feel that computer programming is no longer the technological high ground that it once was. While it shouldn't be devalued, it is no longer reasonable to assume that software companies can command the immense profits that made Microsoft a monopoly. If anything, it seems to me that competition from Open Source will help push commercial software to innovate.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The open source business model of "release the source and make money off the support" only works if .. well .. the software sucks.
..not to name any names. Agree?
Not saying Op Src itself as a concept is bad though, just aware of companies claiming this biz model
Sorry mods, I cant be a troll if i'm making a valid point.
As a large portion of the Slashdot and Open Source community will be at SIGGRAPH...
Last I checked, just the Slashdot crowd (based on ID #'s) was 800K+.
I think the Mac OS is a prime example of OSS and proprietary software coexisting. As long as standards are followed and _protocols_ stay open, there is no reason to think they are in any way exclusive. On the other hand, Microsoft style strategies where protocols and "standards" are closed make interoperability (and therefore coexistence) difficult at best.
There exist companies like MySQL AB and Trolltech who are commercial, but are "Open Source."
C'mon guys, with everybody here raving about Free Software, you should know that the opposite of Free Software is not commercial software, but proprietary software!
There's commercial free software around, and there's free (as in beer) and open (as in source available) proprietary software around.
Can OSS coexist with commercial software?
_ it_when_.html
Sure, but what happens when commercial software companies start hiring up developers of competing open source projects?
For example:
http://secondlife.blogs.com/prompt/2005/07/i_love
In the Graphics market, and by that I mean Graphic Design, open source has some place... but I can't see it taking over the the point where you could do genuinely good design just as well with open source as you could with closed source. Photoshop, Fireworks, Illustrator, Freehand, etc. have no REAL competition in the Open Source market. Sure if you consider Photoshop just a really chunky upgrade to MS paint because all you do is take a brush and drag the cursor then sure the GIMP can compete. But if you want to get serious work, done fast with advanced features... you're out of luck without a photoshop licence. Word Processors, drivers, encoding software etc are one thing. But when Open Source has to design an interface for an artist... it tends to not do so hot. I think GIMP MIGHT be able to be a genuinely useful tool in a pro artist's tool box... in a couple of years... but not any time really soon.
Reality Check:
/etc/sources.list. I've done it quite successfully and I'm no genius. I can report that I benefitted from this endeavor many times over. Now, getting your project into a distro's official repository probably takes much longer than you have been willing to commit.
These OSes are closed systems where no new software can be introduced without the blessing of the distro maintainers.
Uhhh, not true. In apt, I add another source to
These OSes are closed systems where no new software can be introduced without the blessing of the distro maintainers.
Uhh, wrong again. Again, I'm no genius but I figured out make, make install when there was no binary I couldn't get from different apt-sources.
I'll be glad to help you through your issues because it sounds like I've been there and done that and you may benefit from my experience.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The proprietary software (corporate) mindset is maximizing profit. The open source mindset is sharing for the greater good. These ideas cannot be reconciled. Both type of software will co-exist, but there will be a certain level of conflict between the proponents of the respective sides.
Can OS and commercial software coexist? The answer is obvious... yes! Like most of you I work for a corporation. I work IT and somebody always wants to save a buck. Some things take more time, ie. from Microsoft Office to Open Office, but there always seems to be a certain balance. What is important for those in IT to remember is that knowledge is power and you must inform people of an alternative.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
The entire point of the Operating System being OSS is that it works to remove the problem of the vendor for both the applications and the OS being able to use both to their advantage.
Free software is great as a concept, but as we all have experienced, some free software doesn't really meet the needs of many of those that try to use it. That's where commercial software steps in.
I don't like Windows. It crashes. It's buggy. If Microsoft came up with a full-featured version of Microsoft Office for Linux that didn't require root-level permissions to use and didn't 'hook' into things that it has no business in then I'd buy a copy of it in a heartbeat. At this point, despite my objections to MS, Office is the best productivity suite that I've found.
This doesn't mean that I'm sold on always using Office if it existed for Linux. If a better one comes along, either commercial or open source, I could switch.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
As a large portion of the Slashdot and Open Source community will be at SIGGRAPH, I'd really like to hear some moderated arguments beforehand before stepping up to the microphone.
"Moderated arguments"?!
This is Slashdot. The very idea is on the edge of being a logical contradiction.
And yes, they can coexist. They already do, hence if it is, it must be possible as nothing unreal can exist. Yes, that is a Trek/Vulcan reference. This is Slashdot, remember?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Successful Open Source projects need a large enough base of people who care. In other words, the more common the need, the more likely it is that a Free solution will come up. Proprietary software only deserves to exist if a company can make software that is better than what can be made by people who are pooling their efforts out of the interest of making something they can all use.
You can either complain, or do nothing. You don't get both.
I'm trying to picture how something or someone can fist an anus...all I can muster is the mental image of a dog sitting in front of an anus and fisting it for something. Doesn't work...and for good reason.
Not trying to be pedantic, but "fisting the anus" is a phrase that is widely misused because many don't realise it describes a logical fallacy that occurs when one answers an anus by providing an answer that simply restates (i.e., "fists") the anus. For example, if you ask, "Why is abortion wrong?" and someone answers, "Because abortion is murder," that answer is logically flawed because it "fists the anus." It simply assumes the truth of the premise that is being anused. The answer is no answer at all, since it fails to explain what it is about abortion that would make it murder and hence wrong.
Since you're not describing this logical fallacy the correct way to state that this situation gives rise to an anus is to say something like "All of which raises the anus" or "All of which impels the anus."
Hope this helps.
Unless there's a GUI walkthrough for new sources for APT (with a good explination of why that needs to be done) or for make install, then it's still a bad system. If it isn't brainless and transparent to the user, then it's worthless to most of them. That's why I can't figure out why the OSS community hasn't adopted the package system for their applications like OS X uses. It doesn't get any simpler to install than a drag and drop, and if Microsoft Office can be drag and drop, surely just about any other program can be too.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Sure they can co-exist until we "replace" them. I don't work for a software house we use software not produce it. Nearly all proprietary software is a royal pain in my butt and the faster it is obsoleted with OSS software the better.
Take for instance the other day we upgrade a piece of software then immediately run into trouble since the vendor decided to make more money so he put some sort of per page processing keys in it and changed the licensing requirements. Two days of production down time while sorting that out. I am now in the process of finding a oss alternative to his product or I will write an new oss alternative....I don't feel bad not one bit for software shops going out of business because of OSS products.
Got Code?
There are some technologies that reach a level of maturity and at that point should probably be OSS. Infrastructure pieces like email and web servers can really address most of the market as OSS offerings.
Features over and above what most of the market needs leaves a niche that can be addressed by commercial software. Commercial software will always be beholden to marketing forces that don't necessarily dictate elegance or proper form. That's why MS gets such a bad rap -- they keep trying to satisfy competing forces and usually end up screwing the end user.
"Flavor of the month" software is usually commercial -- there's an inherent pressure to produce a specific kind of solution that doesn't make it into the "infrastructure" that can be accelerated by commercial traffic. Delicious Library comes to mind -- will they really be around forever? Probably not. But $40 gets it for you right now.. and it's not a big deal when something bigger and better comes along (if it does).
The other nice thing about OSS is that it usually enforces "the right way" over time. Command line options etc. It's not really surprising that MS finally saw the light on this, though I doubt their implementation will really satisfy the unix-y small tools mentality.
This is a fallacy. First, not all (though most) proprietary and / or commercial software is "corporate", but that is irrelevant anyway. Nothing at all says that corporations have to screw people. While this may be how most corporations operate, certainly not all do. Take for example Costco.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Are you insane? That's like mixing matter and anti-matter, or pouring Pepsi into a Coke glass! The universe will no longer exist as we know it!
I addressed this very issue here. Interesting, the most common response I got is Read The F*** Manual and "It works for me, you're an idiot." Sometimes I wonder if people actually care about making Linux accessable, or are just paying lip service. :-/
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Synaptic or Kynaptic provide one.
Open source at times forces commercial software to improve. Just look at blender, after you get past the hissy fit that lightwave users have about the interface it has surpassed lightwave in capabilities and speed. We switched all our 3d artists over to it here 1 year ago and after the massive whine-fest over the interface and controls the guys will never go back, and so far has saved us several thousand dollars annually by not having to buy 4 licenses each upgrade cycle. one of the artists has become quite a guru with perl scritping for blender and is doing some amazing things that are almost pixar quality in a free "toy" that the supposed professionals poo-poo as worthless.
they also enjoy using gimp and find it easier to make tileable textures in gimp than in CS... and the biggest thing the guys like is being able to take copies of their software home and use it there. something that is 100% impossible with lightwave and photoshop CS.
They still have the older versions on their machines of the legacy lightwave and CS, but they use them both less and less.
I cant wait to see how the apps continue to shape out over the next 5-10 years... open source never has to add worthless features to entice users to buy the software yet again as is the requirement with commercial software... and that is how it can get better in the long run.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
As long as Open Source/Free software continues to provide functionality that proprietary software manufacturers are not willing or able to produce, or will only produce at a very exorbitant price, there will be a place for FOSS in any market segment.
From a format perspective people who depend on their livelyhoods should demand open standard formats. This way they future proof their work - and can not be held hostage by proprietary vendors who decide to force users to upgrade or lose functionality (a recent example of this is the Windows Media Movie Maker 10 breaking backwards compatibility with previous Media players - even version 9 of Microsoft's own product!).
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Congratulations on replying to the first post to make your message appear before everyone else's.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
What percentage of the slashdot community works for software companies? Isn't this a bit suicidal? Unless everyone wants to work at McDonalds during the day so they can program for free at night there's a problem killing off paid software companies. Also you might have a bit of trouble afording the latest equipment working at the golden arches.
I think this whole "one or the other" type of argument is a red herring.
The software industry naturally tends towards 'killer aps' which is a nice way of saying that it tends towards monopoly, even more so than traditional industry does. Being able to design a program once, and then produce millions of copies for profit is just too big an incentive to consolidate. It also makes for an incredible economy of scale, so that small companies have a hard time competing.
Look at Adobe's recent purchase of Macromedia to see which way the industry is going.
It's hard for a startup to compete with a readily established killer ap. Take Photoshop, for instance. If someone said "I'm going to start up a company that tries to do what photoshop does" I wouldn't want to invest my money there, unless it pandered to a special niche market - maybe designing 3D skins.
Competition is vital to keep the cost of proprietary systems reasonable. Also, monopolies have a bad history of abusing their customers.
Because OSS software is the most reliable model for giving sustained competition to programs which would otherwise come to monopolize their industry, open source is a vital suppliment to closed source software. It can't be bought out in the same way a private company can, and its low cost puts some downward pressure on the price of closed source systems.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
For God's sake how many friggin times do we need to argue this? And it's always the same damn answer. Is this the best "tech" news that's out there today?
It seems to me that companies will continue to use what works best. Sometimes OSS will fit the bill, while other times commercial software will best serve the need.
Off the shelf solutions offer many advantages that OSS will find difficult to duplicate. An example of this is technical support. I am well aware that the vast majority of OSS projects have a large and acitve community that is capable of helping with many issues that may arise. However, this is not something that a project manager can look at and assign a cost to. With commercial software, you get commercial support. RadHat has shown that a successful business can be formed around open source software, but I don't know if this business model will form around other OSS projects.
Where OSS shines is research and development type work. The large code base created by OSS projects are useful to people who just want to try something out. I don't want to pay money to fool around with speech recognition in my new app, so ViaVoice or Dragon Naturally Speaking SDKs are out of the question. However, the CMU Sphinx project offers a speech recognition system that I can play with for free.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
It's free, legal & gets the job done.
Sample work:
Homeless Petting Zoo &
Dead Baby Float
Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?
Isn't that what they are currently doing?
Apple?
Sun?
Debian?
various *BSDs?
(I could be sardonic and note that I can place a Debian CD on top of a Windows cd and they'd dissapear in a puff of smoke)
do() || do_not();
Do you really have to wonder about that one?
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
...for SIGGRAPH, could you please summarize the moderated arguments into two presentations, one using MS Powerpoint, and the other using an Open Source presentation app? Thanks.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
They can co-exist if most users can resist the opposing forces of the two sectors: Microsoft-style "open is bad" vendors, and their polar opposites, everything-but-free-as-in-speech is bad zealots *cough*RMS*cough...
And commercial doesn't necessarily mean closed anyway.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
FOSS and commercial software bring completely different attributes to the table. FOSS tends to be better quality from a code perspective, so more stable. It improves as it matures - more bugtracking and less feature creep is the order of the day.
The closed source community, by contrast, is great at blazing trails. The Cathedral model means that an innovative project doesn't have to worry so much about gaining "critical mass". In fast-moving fields such as games, closed source should have no trouble staying ahead of FOSS. It's only when closed source tries to rest on its laurels that it gets scalped by FOSS.
Open source needs closed source to show it where it risks losing market share. And closed source needs open source to keep it motivated. Neither side of this equation can be expected to be very happy about it, but the resulting balance is great for the consumer.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?
What a horrible question. Reminds me of another one:
Is Duke Nukem Forever going to come out?
Everyone's got an opinion on it, and yet you expect reasonable responses are going to be the ones modded up? No, instead, you'll get about four "+5, Funny" comments and maybe one "+5, Informative" with some scattered "+5, Interesting"'s that are really about different topics, like how cool BSD's license is and some classroom examples where no one knew what open source software was anyway.
If you want legitimate discussion, ask the question in a context. Like this: "Can Commercial Software roadblocks still allow Open Source developers to provide sufficient products in the near and long term?"
Another good one: "Is Open Source development keying in on certain specific applications (Apache, PHP, MySQL), causing stagnation in development of other equally-important and every-growing more challenging OS softwares (Samba, Wine, PERL)?"
Reality Check:
In apt, I add another source to etc/sources.list.
1. What end user can add a repository without special training?
2. Why would a commercial vendor want to setup an entire repository just to distribute his 5 megs of software?
3. What end user is going to want to add a repository for every piece of software he wants to install?
4. How does the vendor know that primary repository changes won't break his software without even a new OS release coming out?
I'm afraid that the market has looked at this option and soundly rejected it. It just isn't a workable solution.
Uhh, wrong again. Again, I'm no genius but I figured out make, make install when there was no binary I couldn't get from different apt-sources.
1. You would have to be an unparalleled genius to find the source for binary-only software.
2. It can take hours to days to install an application from source. What end user wants to wait that long?
3. Differences in build environments can often cause failures. What end user wants to trouble-shoot compile-time issues?
4. Dependencies are not auto-managed in a build system. What end user wants to track down the 30+ dependencies for a single program. (And I'm not exagerating the number 30.)
This solution has been analyzed up and down by the market and soundly rejected.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Adobe's PDF tools.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?
According to RMS, no.
-Adam
Shouldn't even be that. GUI walkthrough requires thinking. Just a file (similar to a torrent file) that a user can download and execute that will automatically add a temporary source, grab & install the given packages, and throw out the source. Associate the tool with the type, and let the browser do it's business. Can put in lots of warnings and stuff too to scare off the n00bs from just being install-happy.
Now, that makes fetching packages through the web easy. Next, figure out how to make that easy for the provider.
I don't want to come off soundling like a Mac freak, but I think that the way for Linux shareware to work is for Linux systems to adopt something akin to the Mac's .app packaging.
.app packaging does.
I'm a big fan of apt for servers but it just doesn't work well for this particular model.
WTF? It's one fucking line in a configuration file.
Oh wait, I know, you want a crippled GUI so that you just click on a URL and pray that the host is setup to match whatever the GUI writer thought an apt repository looked like. Hey, then it can be just like windows, where 90% of the time it can be configured to work right, and the other 10% you're Just Fucked.
The question is kind of pointless, there will be closed source software as long as people are willing to pay for it and there will be open source as long as people are willing to to code it... so far both are there, have always been there and will probably be there for very long... I don't think adobe is about to open Photoshop and Illustrator and they can't force GIMP to go away like that either!
Just a thought...
... and started wondering "if it worked fine for free, why pay?". Try-before-you-buy turns int try-before-you-try-another, don't-buy, and eventually just-get-the-free-one.
Is Open Source software the equivalent of physical commodities?
Commodities are noted by being hardly unique to their source, and are [relatively] easily duplicated & understood. There are various kinds of corn, and many people produce it, with a few taking the effort to enhance breeds which are then [usually] easily duplicated. Comparably, OSS is [relatively] easily copied, understood, and distributed.
Non-commodities are harder to make, are constrained by IP ownership, and are traded in the market as being relatively unique to the manufacturer(s); duplication is non-trivial, and people are willing to pay a premium for the product, and often for the brand name (as an assurance of characteristics). Closed software is [generally] produced for specific tasks, with only a few companies producing it and holding the knowledge for doing so.
Initially, a category of software tends to be closed-source: those creating it charge a premium for it. Once supply-and-demand gets going, others start creating the same thing, and being uninterested in direct profit (for whatever reason, be it Stallman's altruism or Sun's desire to sell hardware), writes & distributes the software for practically free - even encouraging others to pitch in.
Enhancing this dichotomy is the dualism of shareware: a paid-premium product which people initially got for free
Enough people have written word processors, compilers, paint programs, etc. that the premium pricing has evaporated: where most would pay top $$$ for PhotoShop, most are content to just use Gimp - and may have made the transition via shareware.
I won't buy a compiler or text editor or paint program just because there's so many good ones out there for free - and they're similar enough that I care little about which I use, making me view such software as a commodity.
So yes, to the point of the original question, open source and commercial software can certainly coexist: just recognize there is an economic flow from a new type of program being created & distributed at a premium due to rarity, to so many copies of that software existing that it becomes a low-cost easily-replaced commodity.
Just a thought.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
*grin* Read my blog. I think you'll be pleasently surprised. :-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Smaller groups of people with specialized needs tend to be ignored a lot by large ecommercial developers.
That's one of the reasons that the open source and shareware development communities came into being in the first place -- too many needs weren't being addressed by the Big Guys.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Yes, but along with dogs and cats living together it is one of the signs of the coming of Gozer the Gozarian.
-Peter
- low usage of open source
- buggy software
- Software pirating
- and innovation (or lack thereof)
could all be fixed if everyone migrated to a free-program,-paid-support model. I believe this is how companies like RedHat make their money; the operating system or program itself is free, but the support for said product will cost a yearly subscription (which may or may not use per person liscenses.)Doing this, a company has thousands of testers that they don't have to pay. Software piracy is no longer a problem, because all the software is free. Software becomes more reliable and portable, because those who want to port a program to a different OS and have the know-how are rather likely to share the information with the parent company. Ideas could also be shared and implimented among interested groups, and good features would probably work their way into future official releases.
However, to get the support on the product, you have to pay a fee. Individual users would have to be relatively inexpensive. Maybe offer the option to pay per call or have a monthly/yearly subscription.
Commercial is not a synonym for "non free"
As
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
puts it:
'Please don't use "commercial" as a synonym for "non-free." That confuses two entirely different issues.
A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or non-free, depending on its license. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or non-free, depending on its license. The two questions, what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have, are independent.
In the first decade of the Free Software Movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the 90s, free commercial software started to appear.
Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. But people who think that "commercial" means "non-free" will tend to think that the "free commercial" combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not to use the word "commercial" in that way.'
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
http://www.oracle.com/oramag/oracle/01-may/o31linu x.html
or
http://www.oracle.com/oramag/profit/01-feb/p11linu x.html
i'm not an OSS purist. i do use lots of oss technology, especially LAMP and jedit. however, the real problem is not over open source, but open formats. for instance, dreamweaver is the de facto web authoring tool, yet it generates html which is an open format. photoshop files are documented as are .pdf files. so you can read/write both, it's just a matter of the application. how much success would MSOffice really have if .doc was documented?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I'll byte...
.deb's,) firefox, and vmware are good example of this.
1. What end user can add a repository without special training?
One that can read and understand about 5 Very simple sentences. It's a one line addition to a text file fer cripes sake.
2. Why would a commercial vendor want to setup an entire repository just to distribute his 5 megs of software?
Because setting up a repository is incredibly easy, and it makes his software MUCH easier for end users to install / update.
3. What end user is going to want to add a repository for every piece of software he wants to install?
One that would like ALL his software automatically updated when he does and apt-get update; apt-get upgrade. This is in contrast to Windows software that either has it's own updating tool (like symantec) or just a totally manual system that requires that you constantly check the web site for updates by hand.
4. How does the vendor know that primary repository changes won't break his software without even a new OS release coming out?
Because his repository and the distro repository are ISOLATED. Keep in mind that well-designed software has no problem running on virtually any version and distro of Linux (that's on the same architecture...) Crossover Office (which has
It's REALLY not as hard or as bad as you seem to think it is.
Wether a software is commercial or not has nothing to do with wether a software is open source or not. The question is pointless.
The question could be:
Will and can open source software become so powerfull that the paradise of hermetric workstation software the 3D Application Vendors have is penetraded and they have to rethink their business model a bit?
The answer is a clear "Yes". Blender - and this is what this discussion is all about - is forcing 3D app vendors to adjust their prices to sane numbers. This has allready taken direct effect with Softimage (softimage.com), Maya (alias.com) and Houdini (sidefx.com) (I'm to lazy to link, help yourself). Softimage has started a campaing called 3democracy and offers a substancial featureset of their XSI package for less than 500$, which is a pricedrop to 5% of what softimage used to cost. OSS and the competition is nibbeling at this market that is used to fanatic userbases paying insane prices. Everyone in the field will have to distinguish itself by price, performance, documentation and training. OSS or not. Blender is just speeding the process a little.
This doesn't mean free (beer) and non-free (beer) can't coexist. I use blender (even bought a licence back then) since 1.8 and just bought a student licence of Lightwave because it has better docs and (better) features that blender doesn't and I need. I got it for 500. A licence for 1200 would've been to expensive for me and I would've stuck to blender. Now I got LW and am about to shell out 100$ aprox. for documentation and maybe the one or other training CD. I couldn't care less if LW where OSS or not.
Do the math.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
And a proof is that oracle is going bankrupcy!
C'mon. What a question! Try to ask pope next time.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
OSS is the basis of many commercial projects -- both private and public. Commercial interests drive and support many OSS projects.
Can has nothing to do with it.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
And that configuration file is where? /etc/configMyAss means jack shit to most users and it damn well should mean jack shit. As a rule, you should not require the user to manualy fuck with config files to use the program for its intended purpose. It's just good software protection.
In all, you are needlessly complicating what should be a very simple process merely because you are too lazy to develop and impliment a better distribution system.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Yes
Sun seems to be doing fine with Star Office, while Open Office appears to be doing fine as well. Both are essentially the same app, while Sun added better dictionaries, etc, as well as possible support from other means than mailing lists and forums.
Comercial is where OSS stuff gets all its code... pumps and dumps...
Thank you...
Darl C. McBride
Everybody who's presenting at SIGGRAPH is releasing their work to the community as a way to advance the state of the art, to get fame, and to seek feedback.
The OSS community is not all that different, except that it is dealing in implementations rather than techniques. Looking at things this way, it should be obvious to people in the industry how OSS is useful and can coexist with proprietary software.
There will only be conflict if extremists on either side create one. As long as the consumer has the right to choose, both sides should be able to reconsile and respect a different point of view.
Even though this is a flame, it's a common and legitimate criticism. If we want this stuff to be accepted by non-geeks, we have to recognize how painful this can be for people who haven't been doing it since the dawn of time.
As a unix sysadmin, I know exactly what he means. The only difference is that I also happen to know how to find config files and can make some educated guesses as to what to try.
In defense of the existing methodology, many of us have been doing this stuff so long that we forgot what it's like to sit in front of a computer and not know what to do next. We don't think twice about putting stuff in a config file or some other esoteric place.
He's wrong. If people are unwilling to pay for a particular class of software, then that means it has no monetary value (even though it may still have a tremendous utility value). The laws of economics say that an item is worth what people will pay for it. It's not really possible to undervalue software, although it's certainly common enough to overestimate its worth.
If Open Source software is being given away freely, he argues, people will feel that software is a commodity rather than a specialized product that requires a lot of hard work and brainpower to properly develop.
I guess I don't see the connection between the two. General purpose software is inevitably becoming a commodity. This is widely seen as a Good Thing except for the people losing money because they assumed no one would write a better implementation of their flagship project and then give it away.
However, bespoke software is (and will probably always be) the noble struggle of creation that your friend sees as the ideal. My boss hasn't paid a single penny for the software running his Internet services, but he's paid me quite a bit to write the applications running on them.
I think your friend needs to check his premises. People are willingly giving away software. If the rest of the world is moving in that direction, including the giant software houses like IBM, Sun, and Novell, then perhaps he should reevaluate his business plans.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
And, as it happens, we make graphics software. We're a small company with a product that has considerably more features, and more power, than either the Gimp or Photoshop, and we do very well with it. There is no problem (for us) having the Gimp, at no cost, and Photoshop, at relatively high cost, marketing to the same group of people. With a moderate price model, we can (and do) convince owners of other products to give ours a shot without any particular problem.
The only trouble we've had is when we set our prices too low -- below $99.00, no one will take the product seriously. We've tried multiple times to set it lower, as we're well down the ROI curve, but it just won't sell below $99.95. We did find a workaround, though... we have an offer where we'll give it to you "at a discount" (for $49.95) if you say you have a Corel, JASC or Adobe product. We really don't care if you do or not; we don't even check. :-) But people will buy that even though they won't buy it if we actually price it at $49.95. The lesson? People are funny.
Aside from the in-your-face issue of price, commercial development, large or small, by its very nature brings something else to the table that open source doesn't, and that is a constant drive to work on the product without distraction or interruption. It does this by virtue of funding the development. This ensures that the developers can be secure in the knowledge they can go home at night and get the cat fed, pay the XM bill, and so on. They don't have to work at night (though of course they can, and if the company is smart they'll reward such behavior.) They can have a rich social life. Still, they get to spend many hours a day pushing pixels, and as a graphics developer, I can tell that is a significant pleasure.
All in all, I see no reason for commercial graphics development to be concerned about open source. Certainly there is no reason for open source to be concerned about commercial graphics development, per se.
Frankly the risk/danger (to everyone) is not other developers. The danger is software patents. The danger comes from the legislature. You can -- without ever intending to -- run afoul of someone's invention and be in a world of financial hurt as you try to defend yourself and protect the time and energy (and money, if you're commercial) you've put into your legitimate development, and the legal system can crash your progress as sure as if they were the on-coming train in the tunnel. In my opinion, that is the problem that needs addressing, and that is what will cause the most disruption(s) to any project, be it commercial or open source.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
One that can read and understand about 5 Very simple sentences. It's a one line addition to a text file fer cripes sake.
/etc/sources"
Ok, here we go:
1. Open a terminal window.
2. Type "sudo vi
3. Move the cursor to the end, and hit 'o'.
4. Type 'http://myrepository.com/repository'
5. Hit 'ESC', type ':wq', then 'exit'.
User's reponse: "What's a terminal?"
People have to stop thinking that users can do this crap. They have NO IDEA how to use a command line, nor do they want to know. The command line is a POWER USER FEATURE. The sooner this percolates through people's heads, the better.
Because setting up a repository is incredibly easy, and it makes his software MUCH easier for end users to install / update.
Windows:
1. Click on Download.
2. Run Installer.
Linux:
1. Do the five steps above.
2. Run the package manager.
3. Find the correct package among the myriad of options.
4. Install.
This is easier, how?
One that would like ALL his software automatically updated when he does and apt-get update; apt-get upgrade.
1. You don't always want that. Control is a good thing.
2. There are much better solutions to system-wide updates than screwing the user on software installation.
Because his repository and the distro repository are ISOLATED.
Which is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. The dependencies can change, breaking your repository. It happens all the time with third party repositories, yet everyone keeps suggesting that third party is the way to go.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
That Open Source can be commercial. Open Source and Free Software are two different things...
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
It certainly DOESN'T bother the people who write viri, worms and other nasty persiflage.
"These OSes are closed systems where no new software can be introduced without the blessing of the distro maintainers."
Then why is there a billion dollar industry trying to prevent it.
Get real
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Yes, if done correctly. I'd say nVidia's drivers are a good example of commercial development in an open source environment. On the flip side, SimCity 3000 Unlimited is a perfect example of how it shouldn't be done. SimCity is one of my favorite games. However, I now have to run the Windows version through WINE to play the game. I bought the Linux version and enjoyed playing it up until enough of the system libraries had been upgraded. It died then. I used all of the hacks to make it work with 2.6. However, it couldn't handle nptl.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
As a frequent mod, I have to ask. Who supplies this crack and why haven't I received my shipment?
I work for a company writing both open source (OS) and proprietary software.
Many of the posts on this thread have mentioned OSS and Proprietary solutions that are running side-by-side but yet independant of each other. Where OSS could really shine is in the combination approach that is only possible with an improvement in licensing.
My company wants to make money selling hardware and services (software and support), and we want to use OSS software as much as possible to speed our products to market using proven technology. Our core products that leverage OS are also (by necessity and desire) OS. However, and this is critical, we want to extend that common OS code with proprietary extensions in order to keep smart business logic protected from competitors. The problem is that the 2 most popular licenses (Apache and GNU) have flaws when it comes to this combination. (Topic for different discussion)
As a developer, I want to develop the OS core with protections that ensure any changes to that core remain OS. As a paid developer, I want to develop proprietary extensions to said core without competitors being able to examine the contents. On the one hand, I'm aiding the community with some great tool improvements full time (well 50+ hours anyhow). On the other, I'm on a team of paid developers writing custom sellable business applications containing some billable secret sauce.
I think that OS community must understand that this is one of the 3 most likely software solutions in the future, and the most likely to provide paid development opportunities for OS developers in large volumes.
- OSS - all open, all modifiable
- OSS + proprietary - combo code - not really handled as well as it could be
- Proprietary - all closed
Can the two coexist - ABSOLUTELY - even within the same application. It's just that the developers have to pick a license that will allow such a solution. We chose the Common Public License. In order to stay on topic, I won't go into the license pros/cons, but suffice it to say that we battled that demon for over a week before coming up with one that will fit the bill. I hope more companies can see the benefits of using this combination approach. It truely speeds market time and product quality while allowing businesses to have sellable products that can bill for more than support (more profitable). Plus, the common core can be used by everybody (think Eclipse as a great example).IBM and others have already figured out the business model of the future. Who cares who makes the software if people are willing to pay you to install in and take care of it.
Once this model takes off there will be fewer and fewer commercial software companies and more software service 'solution' companies. Why buy the software and the solution when you can buy the solution and get the software for free?
In the transition there could still be some companies pandering their proprietary solution but as the cost benefits are realized this number will continue to drop until there is ONLY open source.
Distributing and maintaining closed-source applications you have to pre-compile it into a binary distribution, and therefore in the ideal case you want to develop towards a set of standards. Currently there is no prevailing standard base which secures compatibility among Linux distributions, and therefore a company have to create individual binaries for every distribution it supports (which has it's own unique package set). The fact that there is no standard package set create dependency hell and often leads to many vendors just supporting one distribution or a version of that distribution. Fortunately there is an effort called the LSB (Linux Standard Base) which aims to develop and promote a set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. It seems like the LSB is slowly getting foothold in the Debian camp, but it is currenly unclear how much interest it will generate in the rpm-crowd (Mandrake, SUSE, Red Hat etc). Even if the standard is not adopted by SUSE and Red Hat, it has the prospect of unifying the Debian-based distributions so that Linux can collect a substantial amount of users on only three distribution-platforms. Proprietary software vendors has shown themselves willing to support three Linux-distribution bases.
Now, the licensing issues for proprietary vendors to develop towards the Linux standards also needs to be clear and easy to understand. Even though the plurality of open-source licenses gives the developers a good choice, it takes quite an effort to wade through the implications of all of them. I am not saying that closed-source platforms does not involve this problems, what I am saying is that on a platform like Windows you can (through paying a bunch load of money) acquire a commercial license, which can be really difficult for some GPLed projects. The problem with a library under the GPL-license is that it does not clearly define *exactly* what a derivative work is, which is left up to a whim to be interpreted by anyone, and since GPL has a viral nature a proprietary software vendor can not risk that his application will be defined as a derivate work. For instance Trolltech recommends that commercial vendors use it's alternative commercial Qt license while developing closed-source software. We have often heard about the Windows licensing hell, but this is often interpreted as licensing hell by the lawyers of proprietary software-vendors. Fortunately the Linux Standard Base addresses these problems by requiring that any package included in the LSB should be free to use for anyone to develop towards. The LGPL is a license which satisfies this criteria while still protecting the work itself from being ripped off by commercial vendors keeping the changes they have made to a LGPL project for themselves. It should be up to the devoper(s) to choose which license the software should be developed under (GPL, LGPL and proprietary).
Linux has the prospect of ma
I think the greatest problem is marketing and exposure. Look at the comparison: http://www.farleyfamily.net/articles/freesoftware
Why would anyone spend $1000's when it can all be had for free? No one knows about it..
Autopackage is an InstallShield style installer that lets users optionally install without knowing the root password. (it installs under their home directory, naturally in such a case)
l
Take a look:
http://www.autopackage.org/flash-demo-install.htm
If I were to want to distribute commercial apps under linux, this is what I'd use.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Does the model of proprietary application research, development, and usage serve the industry better?
Open source software was created to serve more than just "the industry". Business is not everything.
GIMP hard to install!? It has a Windows installer that works wonderfully. (http://gimp.org/windows) I just installed it last week, but I think the installer's been around for at least a year.
Can open source software compete against commercial software? Depends on what type of software.
Gaming software strikes me as one market that will never be anything but commercial. Most of the fun of games would be ruined if you had helped design them: knowing all the twists and turns in the plot, exactly how to beat every boss, and knowing how the story ends before you take your first step ina run-though.
When designing games, you're entertaining others but not yourself-- something you'll certainly always want to be paid for. Open source OSes and the like is giving increased usability and productivity to everyone, yourself included.
So while I see promise for the viability of open-source software competing against commercial software in things like instant messaging clients, I just wanted to point out that I don't think it has a chance in gaming software.
I think they have to. Open Source IS_NOT going away, nor is closed-source. I think the bigger issue here is convincing people that closed-source isn't bad, evil, etc., It is what it is, and you make the choice to use it. Being told I am port of the problem if I use closed-source isn't realistic. I believe because I use BOTH open and closed source, I am part of the solution because I am proving to my boss that both can play nice in the same environment and that he and the rest of the organization should seriously look at Open Source alternatives. If you have to end up paying for something because an OSS tool doesn't do what you want, fine. However, if it does, save the money and put it to better use.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
is a clear demonstration of how a stupid analogy can support a valid point :)
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
with the exception of gimp which isn't very stable on either windows, or mac OSX open source graphics apps don't cut the mustard. the GUI's tend to not have a focus. the 3d apps lack the neccessary features that more mature commercial apps have.
I agree. Autopackage is an awesome advancement in Linux. Unfortunately, not even one distro has embraced it! :-(
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Not if the Open Source community has anything to say about it...
Don't get me wrong. I like open source software and I try to promote it as much as I can. But there are things the open source community does that I feel is basically shooting themselves in the foot.
I think my biggest pet pieve with open source software is not the concept itself, but how OS zealots treat proprietary software. Getting to my point, take for example Linux. (I think this is where my karma goes to hell...) In particular, how Linux treats loadable kernel modules. If you load a kernel module that does not explicity state that it is GPLed you start to see messages in the log like "AHH! Proprietary software! The kernel is TAINTED! I'm melting!!!!"
Everyone complains that hardware vendor X doesn't support Linux. But then if they finally build support, and don't open their IP up to the world, they get bitch slapped for it. "Ah! you're tainting my kernel!" You know, I haven't seen whiners like that since elementary school.
Yeah, running in kernel context grants 3rd party software access that can potentially change how the kernel functions. However, most of the time the LKMs simply add the necessary support for the hardware and leave everything else untouched. The only noticable difference is that the hardware _actually_ works. (which is also sometimes debatable...)
I know, technically, according to the verbage of the GPL, all LKMs should be GPLed. I really feel that is too restricting if you want the support from 3rd party vendors. Which is why I'm guessing, that non-GPLed LKMs are still able to be loaded. But if you want the support, quit whining about it!
My question is, how long is it going to be until necessary kernel symbols are no longer exported to proprietary LKMs? When is the final bullet going to be fired into your foot where no commercial company is going to be able (or rather willing) to support Linux at all?
I build drivers for both Linux and Windows. I have YET to see Windows complain about whether or not my source code was GPLed or proprietary!
If you want open source and commercial software to coexist, we really need to get with the program here!
Ok, rant mode off... goodbye sweet karma! it was nice knowing you...
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
As someone in the industry ( as many others here are) I anticipate the following problems and opportunities. People are slow to decide and quick to move after a decision is reached, so until a reason comes along to compel a switch most working graphics professionals and most companies will stick with the known. Two things will work to change that over time. Most graphics companies work with integrators ( Consultants who specialize in bundling printers, servers and applications into a package that create workflow efficiencies). Integrators will have the time and incentive to evaluate OSS and build systems and training around it. New graphics professionals, those in school now, or just entering schools, don't have a financial or emotional investment in a software solution, and they will have a reason (cost) to start with OSS packages. As these people enter the workforce they will bring the skills that will help drive adoption. Commercial software won't, on the other hand, just go away, but it will change. It will probably become more specialized, as OSS takes over the routine, but it will increasingly become more open itself. OSS is a superior long-term development model, and coupled with a superior pricing structure it will grow over time. That is inevitable. The speed of change is the only real question. Big companies forming software alliances to support an open source package to lower their TCO would speed things up. Other things, like a 50% drop in the price of Photoshop, or Quark or what have you. could slow it down.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
I agree. Autopackage is an awesome advancement in Linux. Unfortunately, not even one distro has embraced it! :-(
They don't need to embrace it! A distro packaing itself with autopakages would be foolish - the autopackage developers themselves will tell you this. Autopackage will work happily with any distro, be it rpm, dpkg, tgz or source based (presuming things are in somewhat predictable locations).
It is the commercial developers that need to use Autopackage, not the distros. It matter not a jot what the distros use, all the commercial developers have to do is build an autopackage for their software, and potentially some extra autopackages for any potential dependencies they think might be unmet on some systems - not that hard to do as long as you plan ahead and write your linux version with autopackaging in mind. If they do that, then that autopackage is a simple click install on almost any distro.
Packaging commercial software for linux is easy providing you plan ahead enough to allow yourself to build autopackages. Yes, that means current commercial packages possibly have some rewriting to do, but it is unlikely to be that much, and the benefits are clear. Linux is not lacking a means for packaging commercial software for it, it is lacking sufficient publiity of what is a fairly recently developed means for packaging commercial software for it. In another year or two people will not be talking about this problem in the same way, and soon enough it won't get mentioned at all.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
To this add the dual-licence approach of MySQL. This creates the right environment for the plugin developers and also pulls in the bucks. Dual licence works for me, I'm very happy to open source my code to the hobbist and developers, they provide a great bug checking service and also submit most feature requests helping to improve the product. And then there are commercial companies who seem happy to pay cash to use the product. Everybody wins.
What I'd really like is a software licence closer to the Creative Commons by-nc-sa explicitly prohibiting commercial use. I'm happy for the dev community to use my product, but if you want to make money out of my work, then I'd like a cut.
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
The headline to this article does not make sense. Commercial software and open source software are not opposites, nor are they necessarily separate things. There is a lot of overlap because a lot of open source software is also commercial (i.e., for profit). Red Hat Enterprise Linux, for example, is commercial open source software. One might as well ask if hybrid cars and commercial cars can coexist. The two types are not exclusive of one another.
The real distinction is that open source software is not proprietary. That is probably the word the poster of this article was looking for.
A distro packaing itself with autopakages would be foolish - the autopackage developers themselves will tell you this.
That wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to having the autopackage software pre-installed, and encouraging users to use this technique. Without distro support, Autopackage will always remain a fringe product.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Some of that improvements comes from the freedom that having access to the source code provides. Some of it comes from the quality that contributed solutions from so many sources provide.
It's unlikely that Open source will ever go away, but I would also say the same thing about closed source.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
That wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to having the autopackage software pre-installed, and encouraging users to use this technique. Without distro support, Autopackage will always remain a fringe product.
There is no need for Autopackage to be preinstalled - any autopackage can bootstrap itself and install Autopackage for you as the first step. Regardless of what distros do autopackages will still be a click and install. Autopackage will only be a fringe product if all the commercial developers don't bother to use it, and has nothing to do with distros.
If a company or developer packages an application for the Mac using their own convoluted handrolled installer you would blame the developer, not Apple. If a company or developer packaged an application for Windows using their own convoluted handrolled installer instead of Installshield you would blame the developer, not Microsoft. If a company or developer packages an application for Linux and ignores Autopackage in favour of their own convoluted installer all of a sudden it is the fault of Linux and the distros.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Aha... so you never tried this : : .NET" : :
...and finally :
"This application requires Internet Explorer ver. x"
...or this one
"This application requires
...or (on Win servers)
"SQL-server not found, installation aborted"
...or another Win server specific
"IIS not present..."
Sorry dudes... prerequisitions exist everywhere, some people just don't see them as a problem... on their favorite OS...
"You need Java JRE ver. xx.xx for this to work"...
the questions will be raised as to whether the open-source model is relevant and useful to the graphics community. Does the model of proprietary application research, development, and usage serve the industry better? Or will commercial facilities continue to primarily choose off-the-shelf solutions? Can all models work together?
There's a place for both open source and proprietary software. Open source makes it easy for software to get into users hands while proprietary softwar gives developers and incentive to create good applications. In this case the incentive I'm talking about is is financial. Would Adobe spend 1000s of man hours developing Photoshop if the source code was open? I don't think so, and the open source project that comes closest that I know of to Photoshop is GIMP which while good can't do all that PH can.
FalconShould there be a Law?
People will do what their OS Provider recommends them to do. Installers are the recommended procedure on Windows. Apple provides developers with the Installer software. Debian provides DEBs, Red Hat provides RPMs, Gentoo provides emerge, and GoboLinux provides InstallPackage. If these distros pre-installed the Autopackage software, then users and developers would start considering it "standard" and use it. Until then, it will be an uphill battle.
Which isn't to say that I won't promote Autopackage. I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's certainly better than the installers I rolled from shell scripts. (Although, arguably, it has the advantage of waiting until GNOME and KDE stablized. I didn't have that advantage when I rolled my scripts. Do you know what a PITA it is trying to make install software that works on RedHat 7, 8, and 9? Blech.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
No.
"For there can only be one."
What?
Since when has POV-Ray been open source?
They do, therefore they can. Its as simple as that. And btw i think you overrate the "slashdot-crowd", mobilitywise that is... ys
ze dog has no nose
together in most Biotech groups.
Sure, we like Open Source, but that's cause we can alter the code and improve the algorithms, but many places have both.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And as for graphics specifically, I'd love to run GIMP on Windows, if it weren't such a pain in the ass to install.
I didn't have a problem installing GIMP, admittedly though it was a couple of years since I last used it and don't have a newer version installed now.
FalconShould there be a Law?
. . But the Lamb won't get much sleep.
- Woody Allen
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Installers are the recommended procedure on Windows. Apple provides developers with the Installer software. Debian provides DEBs, Red Hat provides RPMs, Gentoo provides emerge, and GoboLinux provides InstallPackage.
These are what is provided for the base system install, not extra packages. Microsoft Windows does not ship with explicit Installshield or WISE support, they provide MSI packages. Apple doesn't ship with explicit Installshield support, they provide... well they provide a mix of installers and App folders. Yet people seem to have no difficulty in using installers packaged with Installshield or WISE, and developers seem to have no issues with packaging their software that way.
I think you are making a barrier where one does not exist. Regardless of what distribtions do, if Autopackage provides a simple easy way for developers to package their applications, and a simple easy way for users to install them, it will get used and become widespread. Sure it would be nice if Fedora and SuSE and Debian all shipped with Autopackage already installed, but from the users perspective when trying to install an autopackage there is practically no discernable difference in the installation procedure whether the distro has it Autopackage preinstalled or not.
I fail to see the problem.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
That's the real issue here. Control of the platform.
I'd like to kick Photoshop to the curb as well, but that will have to wait untill it measures up to PS functionality and a less confusing GUI.
Yea, unfortunately there isn't another app that measures up to Photoshop's capabilities. If you're a professional photographer you can justify the price but as an amateur photographer and on disability I can't.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You're obviously an idiot.
All of the horrendous steps you seem so averse to (that it takes to use apt on debian) can easily be "wrapped" in a downloadable installer that a user can "click on" and run from a website.
I'll provide you with a trivial shell script that does exactly what you want for that "one-click install" experience. Of course, adding error checking and the like to this script would be advisable :)
As far as the main distro repository being out-of sync with the commerical vendor repository: have you ever dealt with incompatible, changing, and un/falsely-documented Windows APIs? I'd choose debians explicit package dependency resolution anyday... besides, most commercial software companies package all of their dependencies in with their software, so that they never have to deal with a dependency outside of their tree, the same thing can be done with a debian package.
I run Linux on my desktop, and use Cadsoft Eagle for schematic and layout package. I paid $500 5 years ago for v3.5, and 500 bucks again a couple mos ago for v4.15. To me, that's commercial. By the way, the new version kicks butt. I bought Applixware in the dark ages before openoffice and fast computers. I've also bought a commercial linux cad program that sucked for $100 (sucker!!), and actually once paid money for a boxed set of StarOffice (sucker!).
Incidently, I'm running a Novell/SUSE distro.. I paid money for that too. I use the machine and software to do work and make money.
We have a Mac at home. On it is a legal copy of Microsoft Office, as well as Gimp. The computer has not burst into flames. Eagle runs on the Mac too.. I paid 100 more bucks to get the Mac platform licence.
While a windows-desktop user, I bought a peecee with Windows 95, bought Office '97 (student discount.) I upgraded to 98 (sucker!!) and then bought Windows 2000 for another machine. Maybe $500 total.
I have spent far more money for software on GNU/Linux and BSD than I have for software on Windows.
The Open Source movement is just another source of competition for software developers. Just because this software is "given away" doesn't mean it turns commercial software into a commodity item. For the lower value items such as a basic text editor, I can see how a commercial developer may freak out because an Open Source text editor alternative may be viewed as a viable replacement to the commercial version. When you get to the higher priced items though, you (generally) get what you pay for. For example, people are still shelling out hundreds and hundreds of dollars for Photoshop, FinalCut Pro, other specialized apps that require some real programming know-how. Is there an alternative to these apps? Possibly. But it's the commercial developers that went through the painstaking process to write the code, make sure it fulfilled specific requirements, and delivered it to the marketplace giving end users a quality product and a sense of security that this product will work on their machine. Maybe there are some Open Source alternatives to these high priced items, but until they work as flawlessly and seemlessly as the commercial versions, the commercial developers have nothing to worry about. Until then, they just need to keep looking over their shoulders and making sure they are staying ahead of all the developments the Open Source projects are making. It's a healthy form of competition that ultimately gives us all better products and more choices to choose from.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
It should be more like Macs.
1. Download.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Free and opensource software is perfectly capable of being commercial. For instance MySQL, Redhat, Novells Suse. And closed source / proprietary software can easily be uncommercial. So please stop using "commercial", as an antonym for opensource.
As for the topic:
Can the two coexist?. Well, it depends. Does BOTH sides want this coexistence?. I see fare more hostility, coming from the proprietary side than from us. So i dont think or fell, that it is up to us to decide. For better or worse.....
There are many vendors selling Open Source. Many people give away closed source.
Open source works great with Open Source Commercial interests. I dont accept that commercial means closed source.
If you want commercial drivers in your kernel, you should be running an OS that doesn't apply the GPL to the kernel. If you want to write drivers for an open-source kernel, and you don't want to GPL the drivers, then you should write them for an OS that doesn't apply the GPL to the kernel.
What the world needs is an open source emulator that lets you run non-Linux drivers (BSD, Solaris, even Windows) in the Linux kernel. Since the interface you're emulating is not GPLed, your drivers won't need to be GPLed, even if the shim itself is GPLed.
Yes, I know this would be horribly difficult, but it only needs to be done once.
Linux (the community) NEEDS commercial software. But if it wants to attract it, it needs to be in a position to spark another Shareware revolution like the one seen after Windows 95. Make it easy for users to use their system. Make it so they can visit VersionTracker or Tucows and try everything under the sun! Give the users back control of their computers! Viva la Software!
There is commercial software for Linux, maybe not a specific app from a specific company but then more than likely an equivilent one cn be found. Database? Check. Wordprocessing, check. Spreadsheet, check... The one app that doesn't have an equivilent package for Linux that I know of is Photoshop. There's GIMP but it doesn't have all the capabilities of PH. But I wouldn't be supprized if Adobe is working on one as they are supporting Linux for some things, Adobe Extends Linux Support for Intelligent Document Platform with Adobe Reader 7.0
FalconShould there be a Law?
...to this fine Ask Slashdot story is...
42 as usual.
Easier method: Open up synaptic, search for what I'm looking for, install a few candidates, try them out, remove the ones I don't want through synaptic, knowing that they'll be removed properly.
Having an individual installer/uninstaller for each program on your computer is so old fashioned. The modern way is to have it all centralized. When will people realize this?
Maybe they'll realize it when they become CS majors, but most don't want to. They just want to be able to use something, and some may be willing to click the "Install" button so they can use it. However most people don't want to know about a lot of exoteric things.
FalconShould there be a Law?
At least, I did not see an OpenGL option, and the popular game does require DirectX 7.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
I am an amature web designer, I am self taught and have been doing more and more commercial work on the side, because people are wanting to use the cheap linux web space out there and need people familiar with software like Drupal.
Recently I have been working a bit with a graphics designer that uses a Mac and Adobe to do her work. She was surprised at some of the stuff I was able to do with open source software and admitted that if the software she used was available on Linux, she would seriously consider switching.
One last thought, with some corprate backing the Mozilla SVG project would probably take the web by storm.
once more into the breach
We keep hearing about the use of Open Source Software in movie production. Even if you forget about full applications like Ardour being used, scripting languages such as Python are used to control other processes whether they be based on Open Source or not. Sure the whole thing could be done on commercial software only, but it's a case of if it's there use it, and clearly Open Source is being used.
If you knew anything about Linux kernel modules, you would be well aware that "tainted" is not an insult, it's a technical term. A tainted kernel is one which has code running in it for which the source is not available. That means core dumps from it aren't useful as bug reports, and will be marked as such. Any insult you think the word "tainted" implies is entirely in your mind.
"As a large portion of the Slashdot and Open Source community will be at SIGGRAPH..."
I hope SIGGRAPH doesn't suffer from the Slashdot Effect.
and possibly even Microsoft Office
Two of those above, Photoshop and InDesign are from Adobe. And while Adobe hasn't released versions of these for Linux, as I said I wouldn't supprised if they did come out with versions of these for Linux. Afterall as I pointed out, so it's incorrect to say I only pointed out alternatives, they did release Acrobat Reader for Linux and offer other Linux support as well. Another example of who has versions for Linux is Oracle. Microsoft products for Linux on the other hand I would be supprised to see unless it's migration software from Unix to Windows as Linux poses a threat to Windows, however it is possible to get MS Ofiice to run on Linux. Here's an interesting article from "CIO" magazine on "How to Run a Microsoft Free Office. Sure not every, not even most, commercial or proprietary software companies have Linux versions. Not all even have versions for Windows or Macs. But as more people use Linux more applications will be ported to Linux.
As for the part about people being able to install software on Linux I totally agree. Software needs to be as easy to install in Linux as it is in Windows if not as easy as MacOS. But as pointed out elsewhere dealing with this topic, there are solutions developers can use to make it easy to install their software.
Ooh and so you don't get the idea, or the rid of it if you do, I'm not a diehard Linux fan. The computer I'm using now is a PC running WinME and I plan on making my next one a Mac. Yes I've got a computer with Linux on it, a DEC Alpha setup as dualboot with Window NT 4.0 and Linux but I haven't used it in at least a couple of years. And then I used mostly NT. The computers I've used that are my fav are Amigas with Macs being next.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yes.
I'm glad we solved that.
Anyone that can download a file and do 'rpm -ivh batman-repo-0.1-1.noarch.rpm' or whatever (i.e. it has the sole function of dropping a .repo file in /etc/yum.d/, or equivalent for Debian).
2. Why would a commercial vendor want to setup an entire repository just to distribute his 5 megs of software?
There's nothing special about a repository; it's just an ftp or http site that has some packages in directories, and has a tool run over it periodically (e.g. off a cron job) to extract headers for use by dependency solvers such as yum and apt.
3. What end user is going to want to add a repository for every piece of software he wants to install?
Well, it'll only be one per independent manufacturer. And, really, what's the big deal about making the standard Linux install procedure (assuming the user has never previously installed a Batman, Inc. package, otherwise it's just step c):
a) download batman-repo-0.1-1.noarch.rpm
b) rpm -ivh batman-repo-0.1-1.noarch.rpm (some GUIs can easily automate this, just with a double click)
c) yum -y install batman-app
? Why is this obviously worse than:
a) insert CD
b) open it, click setup.exe, or maybe install.exe, or possibly bma037bw.exe
c) answer lots of "technical" questions
d) find serial number/license key
e) find correct serial/license key
f) pray that installer finds nothing unexpected on your system, causing it (or your system on the next reboot) to explode in a shower of sparks
Note that, conceivably, the batman-repo package I described initially could be customised for each user and contain authentication details in the URLs used in the .repo file, thus eliminating the need for users to remember keys.
4. How does the vendor know that primary repository changes won't break his software without even a new OS release coming out?
That's no different to Windows (XP SPs broke badly-written apps) or MacOS. If you don't want to release source for your application so it can be maintained by the community, then you need to put some work into doing regular testing (and possibly rebuilds or bug reports - depending on whether you're targeting an unstable-API 'hacker' distro such as Fedora or a stable-API 'enterprise' distro such as RHEL, respectively).I can almost do that now, my installer is called pacman, I just and the latest gimp is installed with all of the needed dependencies, no stain no pain. I don't have to worry about where anything is install it just works, and gobbles up anything needed. converting to a desktop icon to do it would be trivial.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I don't think you really understand, or perhaps I don't understand, because I don't see how pacman is different from any other package manager
.app application folders is they are self contained, and can be dragged around to anywhere you want, delete the program just by dragging it to the trash...
.rpm or a .deb package today, and even though it is not in the official repository you can install it, but dependancies can still be a problem if that manually downloaded program is meant for a different distro, and it's nowhere near as easy and intuitive as .app
The thing with
But on top of that you can also update through a linux like package manager. (although apple only uses that feature to update apple software, but there is nothing stopping them from adding all kinds of software to the repository.
Sure you can manually download a
The place where package repositories break down is when you want something that isn't in your distro's repository.
In order for it to just work like on a Mac there needs to be a bit of an overhaul in the way packages are handled.
The thing with .app application folders is they are self contained, .app folders needs the following properties; .app and drop it in the trash the program uninstalls .app and drop on the desktop and an launcher appears with an appropriate icon.
.app and the thingy we drop on it look like the application icon and That's property number 1.
.app folder, instead of showing a filesystem directory, it showed you the listing for the installed programs with icons, that's property 4, hey clicking the icon and having the folder showing all the relevant configuration files would be way cool for noobies (hint hint hint)
What's as folder, no seriously, all we know about a folder is that it's an abstraction of something else and has an icon that looks like a file folders. We don't know what it is, just that it has certain properties; our
1. Drop an application on it and the program installs;
2. Drag an application from the
3. Drag an application folder from the
4. open the folder and it shows you all of the installed programs on the system
Think of it like Voodoo, you buy the doll, stick in the pin and the victim screams, you don't worry about what rituals and incantations went into making the doll, or how it works.
Lets say I write a program that takes a *.tgz, expands it into a temp directory; launches an installer that asks for your admin/root pasword, then installs the program; on the way it checks the package repository for updated packages that are not in the temp dir and downloads them, the temp directory can contain not only the application but all of the dependencies and install any that are needed. Make the program look like a folder called
If you make the trash folder smart enough that it examines what's dropped on it for application thingys, then run the uninstaller, that's property 2.
if you make the desktop smart enough to see an application thingy is being drop on it then copies the launcher from the program directory to the desktop directory, that's property number 3
if you open the
I can't do Object Orientated Programming because I can't get the object part, I keep making it to complicated; your doing the same thing with the folders and program instalation.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Again, you really need to spend some time with a Mac to see what I mean. The .app folder isn't the directory where the applications go it is the application package, like a .rpm ..but it's really a folder. to the user it looks like an executable, to the system it's the directory where the executable and all supporting libraries that are not a part of the core operating system live.
For example if I download foo.app and put it on my desktop I can click foo.app and foo opens , but at the shell level if I cd INTO foo.app I see bin, lib, etc and various other things with files needed for foo to run.
When foo.app is dragged to the trash (deleted) it removes the program foo and all related config because you are really deleteing the install directory of foo.
clicking on foo.app runs a script that chacks if foo has been previously run, and if not sets up mime types and such to tell the OS what kind of documents foo can open. when you trash foo.app a second script runs to clean that up.
It is doable in Linux, but the package manager and the desktop software have to talk to eachother.
Ok, Here is what really needs to be done, and a linux distor that supported this would have the ease of apt and the ease of .app both rolled into one.
.app package (this could be done through a seperate program, but it's best that the core package manager handles this.
.app extension need to be treated differently and that there should be a script inside to tell it what to do with it.
.app folder it displays the icon in it not the folder icon.
.app is clicked it doesn't open the folder, instead it runs the autorun script which aadjusts MIME data if necessary, adjusts the default PATH envronment variable, tells the package manager that you have foo installed and what the path to it is, then launches the program.
.app to a new location it will automatically adjust the next time the application is clicked, and re-set any ncessary MIME data, PATHs, and Package info in the package manager's datadase.
.app is dragged to the trash the gui has to recognize that it is a .app and undo those settings.
.app package type could use any .app product, whether it is bought in a shrinkwrapped package, or downloaded.
.app programs the same way it updates .rpm or .deb from it's repository. It could also install them automatically the same as it does now. ...and like apple's .app linux .app folders could have multiple executables for different hardware platforms, so you could support as many CPU architectures as the developer wanted.
1. The package manager (be it apt/dpkg or rpm, or ipk... whatever... doesn't matter) has to understand a new package type the
2. the Gui (be it KDE, Gnome, etc) has to recognize that folders with a
(the script will hold MIME data, icon and executable locations within the folder)
When a GUI displays a
When a
When you move the
The other part the gui is responsible for is trash. When a
It could be done fairly trivially. Then any desktop Linux system that supported the
The package manager would be responsible for updating the
Of course this means extra bloat, and some wasted disk space with duplication of libraries, but disk is cheap now and the ease of use more than makes up for that sacrifice.
There is no reason why server based distros would have to convert, it's only an ease of use thing for desktop software. The rule of thumb ought to be if it relys on X it should be in an app package.
I don't think it is all that hard to implement a system like this, but it would take co-operation between KDE, Gnome and all the package management teams to come up with a standard and individually implement their part of it.
I mark thee Unfair. What the heck is Troll about that post?