Slashdot Mirror
An Essay on Open Source
The ever diligent and kind David Niemi has written an essay
which talks about (and is titled) why software developers benefit from open source. It talks about the
advantages of open source from the viewpoint of someone working in a corporation, and he cites his own personal experience
in the paper. You may disagree with some of it, but it's very interesting, and worth a look.
So iD releases information and specs for tools for all their games since Doom2; Quake and Quake2, and soon Quake3.
They allow people to play and tinker with the games without charge; modify, remake, remodel, anything. They only things they keep to themselves, thus far, are the network engines and the graphics engines.
You can change the models, the graphics, the sounds, the levels, the gameplay, the mechanics, without paying for a bit, and as long as you release back into the community. If you want to sell your modifications you have to license from iD, but otherwise, it's essentially a free game engine and support structure.
What do you pay for when you buy the game? The graphics, the models, the maps. These things you don't need, but if you want to play, you need to get them somehow, and grabbing 600mb of data is mighty inconvenient for most people, and very reasonable for only 50 dollars. But you really don't need them to do anything with the game; you can create your own sounds, models, graphics, levels, weapons, monsters, and gameplay from all the available tools...
So id spends considerable amount of effort(4 people coding, 5 people on levels, graphics, sounds, and models) developing an engine and game, and except for the source for the engine, gives away everything. Yet for most it is defintely more convenient to buy to get all this base artwork and effort, and then modify off that and create your own. You pay for the effort and time they spent to do all this for you; if you don't want to, you don't have to, but you can't make money either without licensing their engine... So here is an essentially open source project making millions!
Of course Open Source purists would argue and find something wrong(feel free to comment!) and people who don't believe iD operates under any sort of Open-ness and makes it's money some other way will find things wrong(again, feel free to comment!)
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Who said there has to be a difference between OSS and "corporate development"? Already there are plenty of companies adopting OSS similar practices (and making money).
WTF is moolah anyway.
And about your assumption that OSS develpers would switch to "the dark side" for large amounts of "moolah", the best get quite a bit of "moolha" because of their OSS projects, and keep their OSS projects when they do.
The GPL is good.
The LGPL is wonderful.
The BSD license is great (but developers get screwed)
Proprietary software is poor, but you can choose it.
The MPL is great.
That leaves dishonest crap like the QPL and all
those "non-commercial use only" licences.
Maybe free software isn't going to be a booming market that companies will thrive in, but in my newly forming view of free software and linux that isn't point. Free software is good for the community, individuals and corporations. It creates a level playing field that is much higher than the playing field that is created in a solely proprietary software field. A playing field in which money is made by creating knowledge and then hording it. I am nieve enough to belief that we all benefit from free software. This doesn't mean that proprietary software doesn't also have a place, just that open source software benefits everyone. Free software encourages education and creates opportunities.
First Slashdot post...Flame away!
Brian
Funny how the Trashdotters always single out Red Hat ( note the space between the two words, there is no such entity as RedHat! ) for flames and complaints. Don't Caldera and SuSE make money from Linux distribution?
---------------------
John 3:16 - God's Public License
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
Did I write 'like' once in that? i don't think so.
Since you have nothing but a personal attack on me in your reply I will infer
1) You don't like what I've written
2) You have nothing intelligent to say about it.
Dude.
This is a great rebuttal to the fear that Linux is not a platform developers will want to support.
Open Source is much less of a threat than Microsoft is. It's better to compete on a level playing field. The best thing to do is to develop software on an operating system that is owned by everyone.
More software developers need to get this message. Maybe some of them have realized, and that's why we're getting more and more software being released for Linux.
That's why I said sorta...
The intent is very similar, I believe.
People have added, using dlls, clustering (a single game over multiple distributed servers), voice over network, and 3d sound as well as their own maps, levels, graphics, sounds, models, weapons, and gameplay, and re-release for free. You have to pay a licensing fee if you want to sell the game, since they put so much effort into providing the engine and such, but you also gets 100% access to the tools and source as well as help from id software... Sorta like contracting/hiring people to do your coding.
But if you define a game by its artwork, graphics, levels, gameplay, sound, and such, all that is 'free', in the sense of GPL open source, I think. It's just infintely easier to buy/use Id's base work for 50$ for a CD of 500mb of source work, rather than do it all yourself... But you are perfectly free to do so if you so want!
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
Yes, however in that context it was not a verbal crutch at all, but a completely appropriate usage. As far as I can tell from rereading my post, the one time I used "surfer slang" or whatever it is you are trying to suggest was when I said dude in the last sentance. So if you want to crucify me for that you're welcome, but it is really kind of boring. I'm all for flame-wars, but this is a little weak.
Obviously you think I'm full of shit and just mouthing off. Well, that's not the case. I am not just another do-nothing flamer, but have written linux device drivers. I actually have contributed to the OSS movement. But I don't really care if you believe me. Obviously I'm not going to talk about my program or any company I might found because then I would no longer be anonymous, would I. Nor will I actually point out the drivers that I've written.
Now, if you have something interesting to say about my post then I will happily continue the flaming. However, any more of this surfer crap and I'll just ignore you. It's really weak.
...to make the type of arguments you're trying to make. You're right, there is no Autocad or Mathematica (or mathCAD or Scientific Workplace) available for Linux right now. Then again, Linux has only come into its own (PR-wise) in the last 12 months. Your arguments attest to this fact, but do not provide evidence that these apps will NEVER exist.
As for how to make money with a niche-market, open-source app, I'll suggest that these apps are PRECISELY the ones that depend on value-added services, such as manuals, support and packaged upgrade materials. Additionally, small-market apps have to overcome the same barriers to market entry as other software companies (the software distributors of the world like to buy from big companies, ya know...). By open-sourcing an app, you allow a wider initial audience for your product, increasing your chances of survival.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
I have something in the works, and thank god I didn't release it in its current condidtion. Its not that I don't agree with this essay...because I can't agree....this article has no major point...I can see it filed under "advocacy", but it really doesn't present anything, or prove anything.
Sure, Flame me. But it is my opinion..there are good reasons for linux, there are good essays, but this one needs a little work.
Name *one* company that has developed an
open source product, from scratch, and is
now making a profit from that product.
For extra credit, name 5 such companies.
First you ask if it is possible to make money off free software and claim Red Hat is a "parasite" because you think they don't write software.
When that argument is demonstrated to be phony by pointing out the obvious -- that Red Hat does make money and does make software -- you change the argument.
Somehow you have decided that for Red Hat to be "making money on free software" they have to be able to pay the salary of everyone in involved in Linux. This is a red herring.
You make money writing free software by writing free software and showing a profit.
Will
Octave == Matlab ( Like Mathematica, but different)
Varkon == CAD
There's also open source Finite Element analysis programs.
http://www.linux3d.org
http://linux3d.netpedia.net/
have links to many scientific OSS applications which are generally as good as, or better than, their commercial counterparts, with the added advantage that you can mould them to your task if necessary.
A. N. Engineer.
I think that open source and commercial software can co-exist and feed off each other under Linux. I think that was the point that this essay made.
Open Source and commercial software have different motives and reasons behind them. There is really something in each of those models that can be sold to a particular market.
Because if you don't start from scratch, you're feeding off the work of others, just like RedHat
has been doing. You know how people always use RedHat as an example of a company that's doing well in the OSS business? Well, that's because they didn't pay a dime for the initial development.
Also, the only reason they sell any CD's anyway, is because linux is so damn big it's impractical to download yourself.
So basically, in order to make a profit with open source software, your software has to be:
But could they pay appropriate salaries for all developers involved with Linux? Not even a fraction of it. And why? Because a company can't make money out of free software, not enough to fund it atleast.
Think about what you're saying here for a moment. For a company to be sucessful, they have to totally reinvent the wheel 100% for everything they make? From the ground up? By your definition, a company would have to design and graph the circuitry of each and every motherboard in their custom-built-from-scratch computers lest they become a "parasite".
Yes, they do add value. THATS WHAT A VALUE-added reseller does! Only this time, you're free o take all those changes and incorporate them into your product. RedHat was under no obligation to release their utilities under the GPL, they did it "in the spirit of the community". And they make millions at it.
What about Caldera, SuSE, IBM, and others..? They all seem to be making some money in Open Source. And I'd hardly consider each and every one of the "parasites".
Are you saying that in order for a developer to make an honest buck, they have to manually code their program in binary? After all, they can't afford to pay "even a fraction" of the developers' time it took to create a compiler, or the OS under which it runs.
Sorry, you're reasoning just doesn't fly with me.
Building on the success of others is part of the joy of Open Source software. OSS allows me to use tools and libraries created by people all around the world (for free). You don't even HAVE to give your enhancements back to the community, but if you do, then someone will probably add something cool that you hadn't thought of to the mix.
It's commercial software that requires you to start over from scratch.
Just remember the vast majority of programmers don't work creating commercial software. Most programmers are already hired by companies to create software for their own use in house. None of these people are worried about how much money they can make off of their software, because the software doesn't belong to them, and software is not part of their company's product line. They just want something that works.
..enough willing people like RedHat, who don't care that somebody else DOES make money of their work.
/mill
RedHat make money on efforts of others and others can make money of RedHat's efforts.
"Name *one* company that has developed an open source product, from scratch, and is now making a profit from that product".. .. Jim Wilson works at Cygnus (which, admittedly, is different from saying that *Cygnus* wrote gcc, but nevertheless..)
Well
How would people feel if RedHat hired Linus Torvalds away from TransMeta to do paid Linux development/management work?
I understand that ~75% of all GCC development comes from Cygnus.
I won't say that open-source will completely supplant proprietary software development, but it does appear to be here to stay as a significant industrial presence.
The ever diligent and kind David Niemi...?
You surely haven't been to one LUG meeting here in VA. He's a damned, stuck up jerk! Are you kidding?
No wonder; Justin was the one who posted this one!
The only reason why me and many others keep reading "/." is because of Rob and Hemos. I truly believe they have way more conviction in what they post.
Imagine that. A society that shares ideas and helps each other. One where people resist temptations to join the commercial world. Its hard to believe its possible in 1999.
:-)
I'm getting worried that the y2k bug will be more than just another marketting scheme
Well, someone had to say it..
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
"why is everybody so stuck on that "from scratch" issue? the thing about open source is that you don't have to build software from scratch. instead of spending 5 million to build a custom piece of software from scratch you can spend 1 million to modify an existing piece of software to what you want it to be. "
And because of open source restrictions YOU COULDN'T CHARGE A PENNY FOR YOUR WORK.
Why does /. insist on posting every little bit of Linux advocacy that pops up? This web page should change its title to Linux Support Group or something because that is all that is posted here. NO MORE BORING ASS ARTICLES THAT REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN SAID A MILLION TIMES PLEASE!
Hmm.. If you're just talking about code...
John Cash for networking
John Carmack for rendering and just about everything else
Brian Hook for graphics
Dave Kirsch for ports...
Surprisingly enough, just a handful of people can outproduce the entire Internet in terms of game engine quality, speed, and functionality... So much for Open Source and distributed programming... =)
Please, no insult intended, but Quake is now 2, 3 years now, Quake 2 is at least a year, and Quake 3 is literally a month or two away, and Crystal Space still isn't functional in any way close to being a game...
Of course there are level designers and artists as well, but they contribute to the game and not the engine, if you choose to separate the two.
I actually think Quake and iD software very much fits into the Open Source/Free Software model; the only things they don't release are the source for the rendering engine and the network engine. They release the coding languages like QuakeC, the game specs so you can modify to your heart's content, tools to create your own levels, and the information needed to create your own models, graphics, weapons, and tools to create your own games... What else is needed, really, for it to be Free or Open? Is there any benefit for us in releasing the network code or the graphics code?
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
All the common Free Software licenses allow you to charge what you like, when source is included. You're thinking of shareware- "you have to register the Nifty Edition if you use it commercially".
There's the beginning of GNU Mathematica in a
package called Jacal. Actually, now that Guile
is very hot in development, it is only a matter
of time before someone takes up a GNU Mathematica
type project. It'd be crazy to try to do it
without a powerful Lisp-like language that
has extension capabilities.
Lets see...
www.labs.redhat.com
Parasite companies like RedHat don't really count, do they?
It's funny how when one wants to make their viewpoint valid, they suddenly throw the "sucess stories" off to the side as "parasite companies" or "the lone exception"
HELLO.. RedHat is making millions from Open Source.. when will you start seeing that it is a viable alternative?
RedHat doesn't "feed off" the community, they provide commercial support. A method which has been recommended by many in the Open Source community as a good way to make money here.
You don't have a stake on proprietary software, do you? Would explain alot of things..
>But of a freaked example, but in general this model doesn't work for more consumer oriented software. The >consumer doesn't want to develop it, he just wants to run it.
Right that's probably why everyone and their Grandmother doesn't program. However they also in general don't want to pay for a program that doesn't do what it's supposed to do until version 3.0 or the sixth patch. Answer: under Open Source the developers are less likely to hold to the attitude of "Just get it to compile" so the general quality of the code is higher.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
You don't have to go any farther than Apache for innovation. Once it's teamed with something like php or Qml, you've solved the problem of the user interface.
I remember (mostly in nightmares) putting together UIs in Paradox and dbase. I just don't miss it. The things that businesses need, programs to track client and revenue activities, now go together in a few evenings, rather than months.
Look at the booksellers, Linux books just fly off the shelves. Everybody is getting a piece of the action.
but of course I can just hear the screams, "What about profits?! It will never work!"
Nevermind the real world sucess stories, some people won't ever see it.
- Tiro Dianoga -
gcc was forked because the head developer was
incompetant, uncooperative, and very slow.
Development had stopped for about 2 years,
and people were leaving the project in frustration.
Now egcs is becoming the standard compiler.
XEmacs is another fork. At one time GNU emacs
was seriously behind. Project management was
again a major cause.
OpenBSD is a fork off of NetBSD. NetBSD still
sucks, and OpenBSD is a decent OS. OpenBSD is
secure but slow, while NetBSD is just slow.
What happens if Troll Tech decides to focus all
their effort on Windows? They could hack together
a buggy and bloated registry for the UNIX crowd,
while devoting most effort to producing a
seamless Windows toolkit. Sure we can produce
patches, but it sucks when your patch grows
larger than the original source code. Trading
patches against patches is just horrid.
Remember Minix? One reason Minux sucked was the
license. You could only share patches. People
did that, and the patches started to conflict.
It was a complicated mess, because nobody was
allowed to properly fork the tree.
Open-source software is also highly customer-driven, because customers directly contribute to and control its development.
This makes the assumption that those who develop or are able to develop for an OSS app are the best to provide feedback. This is often not the case, especially with usability issues - developers are often blind to usability problems and they don't often affect early-adopters/power-users, but it's a different story with the average, non-developer users that most user-interfaces are aimed at. The "average" user will only start using an app once it's in a post 1.0 stage, and if there are major usability problems they'll choose to stick with a commercial equivalent from a company that's funded proper user testing. As a result, many OSS apps suffer from major user-interface problems - even the ones whose primary purpose is usability (I'm thinking of GNOME here). I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem, but it's one that is easily overlooked, and statements like the one above perpetuate that.This essay illustrates a few points that many slashdoters can't seem to grasp. The fact that OSS isn't right for everything. It really pisses me off to hear people say that Quake2 should be open source. If the OSS movement is so perfect, then why is there no OSS 3d shooter? No demand? I think not. Millions of Quakers can attest to that. Perhaps the code is simply too involved, and requires full and prompt attention before it becomes obselete. And what about thousands of niche markets. I've never seen an OSS MRP system.
For all the talk of innovation in OSS, in reality I don't believe that there is a great deal of major innovation. Does everyone here honestly believe that every great idea sounds appealing on its face? So then how does one go about finding interested programmers when the project seems daunting or unappealing. Where would I go? Which page would I post on? Might it be that not every capable programmer is currently seeking out such a project. In commercial software atleast, you can hire people and get their attention with a salary. OSS is good for certain things, but not everything. Like the essay illustrates, Open Source is good to sort of fill in the blanks. When there is an obvious demand for the product, yet the existing commercial products are lacking in quality/support/etc.
One minor point. I think the author is wrong about why open source software exists. I believe that, for the most part, it exists to serve both the hacker and other advanced users. People write code to impress their friends, and what not. These friends are generally technically literate people. This is evident by the lack of easily digestible documentation, installation, and configuration(which the end user needs). Atleast Commercial software ultimately depends on the end user finding some redeeming quality in the product, which creates the demand that drives profits. The same can not always be said for OSS. That being said, I think OSS rules supreme in some areas. Such as networking APIs, security, etc. A thousand eyes looking at the code, improving technically upon it......
Would be a bit hard to sell if you don't add any value right?
So ofcourse they develop certain things themselves. But could they pay appropriate salaries for all developers involved with Linux? Not even a fraction of it. And why? Because a company can't make money out of free software, not enough to fund it atleast.
So yes, they are a parasite.
C'mon. Half the posts on /. is Linux-
related nowadays. There ARE other
subjects, you know.
Actually, Red Hat does feed of the community, but as you say, they give something back. So, as I said elswhere in this thread, Red Hat is a Symbiont rather than a parasite.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
The reaction by employers to open source coding projects has been consistantly, blatantly negative in my experience. Self-funded coding projects are viewed as amateurism and completely irrelevant compared to the "proper degree" or a "professionally developed" product. I should know since I never got the "proper degree" and hit employers purely with open source credentials.
As for open source projects I've had floating around for over 4 years, the downloaders aren't downloading the source code to modify, enhance, and praise. They just want something for free. Obviously it makes you feel good, it makes Slashdotters happy, but you have to make sure you're already employed before you link the bombshell to a web site.
I am talking about Open Source Software(tm), as in Free. Not merely code that has been eventually released to the general public.
Ok so quake is a work of art. But I've yet to see even an OSS proof of concept model that even compares to the Quake 1 engine. In my opinion, the real meat and potatoes of these games is the engine and the client server code. As you point out, thousands of users have already created custom mods. How many people created Quake2? Do you know? It was certainly more than one man.
Gnome, Window Manager, etc are all nice and efficient code. But they certainly didnt invent truely improve upon the GUI in any major way. They've made the GUI code more efficient, removed alot of the bloat, etc.
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
Sorry but this just doesn't hold water. His assertion that Software makes money solely from marketing and/or position is ludicrous. Sure, we've got linux, MySQL and other various commercial replacements, but where is GNUMathematica? Where is OSSAutocad? Do you honestly think that projects at these levels are going to be written by the OSS community any time soon? I personally doubt it. And another issue that is glossed over is the role of the individual programmer. Say I have a good idea for a technically sophisticated program. I'm not talking a compiler or shell or even OS, but some special design program that fills a very specific need. How do I make money if I release this as an open source product? Do I really care if people know my name so I can *gasp* perhaps have a better chance of working for a company and making money for it? Why the hell would I want that if I can have my own company marketing my specialized product.
Sorry dude. I'll release device drivers and simple things like that, but forget about the real shit.
--| LINUX - BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE |-----------------
s traight.html)
n ux.html
c ial.html
--| BY: JOHN PENNER |----------------------
And this is the law of the wild,
As old and as true as the sky.
And the wolf who keeps it will prosper,
But the wolf who breaks it will die!
Like the wind that circles the tree trunk,
this law runneth forward and back.
The strength of the pack is the wolf,
and the strength of the wolf is the pack.
(Rudyard Kipling)
As of late, many have been watching with great interest the rise of
a new phenomenon in the computer industry known as "Open Source
Software" (OSS). Traditionally, computers companies like Microsoft
have hoarded their intellectual investment in source code, and sold
only closed binary versions of their applications. Open source software,
such as Linux, completely defies conventional logic and turns this model
on its head by giving the source code away.
"The idea is that altruistic programmers, working together across
the Net on freely distributed code that's open for everyone's
perusal and tinkering, can develop more powerful and reliable
software than the old "closed shop" model of commercial software
producers like Microsoft. According to the Halloween Document,
[http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html] "Linux and other OSS
advocates are making a progressively more credible argument that
OSS software is at least as robust -- if not more -- than commercial
alternatives... The ability of the OSS process to collect and harness
the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet
is simply amazing." (Salon Magazine -
http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/rose/1998/11/04
What is the motivation for those that volunteer their time into
building and writing code which is given away for free? For many,
it is the satisfaction that comes from knowing that what is given
away benefits and gives strength to the community as a whole.
Effort contributed in this way increases the well being of all those
involved in the effort.
The Open Source movement has stumbled across a way of doing things
that is in full accord with what the early 20th century scientist
and philosopher, Rudolf Steiner, characterized as 'The Fundamental
Social Law':
'The well-being of a community of people working together
will be the greater, the less the individual claims for
himself the proceeds of his work, i.e. the more of these
proceeds he makes over to his fellow-workers, the more
his own needs are satisfied, not out of his own work but
out of the work done by others'. (Rudolf Steiner, 1905)
When an open source programmer volunteers his time into writing
code for an OSS project, s/he freely gives over the code they write
for the good of the OSS community; at the same time, they benefit
from the contributions of others within this community by getting
a really good, stable operating system and software, and so the
whole movement benefits and grows. People identified with the community
take pride in their work. They recieve satisfaction in knowing they have
contributed an excellent feature, or elegant piece of code. Compare
this to commercial programmers who code because they have to finish
some feature in return for a pay-cheque so they can go out and spend
it on what they "really" want. The one supports, and is supported by
their community; the other has as their motivation satisfaction of
ego-istic desires. The consequences of these different sources of
motivation lead to very different social arrangements.
"Every arrangement in a community that is contrary to this law will
inevitably engender somewhere after a while distress and want...
If anyone is to work for the community, he must perceive and feel
the value, the nature and importance, of this community. He can only
do this when the community is something quite differcnt from a more
or less indefinite summation of individuals... It must be informed
by an actual spirit, in which each single one has his part...
The community must have a... mission, and each individual must have
the will to contribute towards the fulfilling of this mission.
In every single member, down to the most solitary, this spirit
of the community must be alive..." (Rudolf Steiner, *The Reordering
of Society*)
Here, we see a good description of what is happening in the Open
Source community, and indeed with distributed work arrangements
all over the web in a greater and greater variety of forms.
We see parallels to the OSS movement in what is happening with
the Music industry -- volunteers creating, publishing, and
distributing their music through completely open means. Those
who have traditionally made their profits by trying to keep
the benefits of their work only for themselves are resisting
the new open ways of working, because it means a loss of income
FOR THEMSELVES ONLY, and instead requires that they depend on
the community for the overall satisfaction of their needs.
A new open economy is now becomming possible because people are
now able to join together in associations and groups based on a
common set of shared values. The Internet facilitates these sorts
of interactions in a way that is not bound by geographic proximity,
giving rise to "internet communities". We can look forward to
an increasing number of associations of this sort forming as
more and more people around the world begin to collaborate not
only on the basis of externally imposed work conditions, but on
the basis of working for causes to which they find inner sympathies.
"Wherever this law finds outer expression, wherever anyone is at
work on its lines--so far as is possible in that position in which
he is placed within the community--good results will be attained,
though it be but in the single case and in ever so small a measure.
And it is only a number of individual results attained in this way
that will together combine to the healthy collective progress of
society." (Rudolf Steiner, ibid).
The Open Source software movement is only the beginning of a new
way of working which can be extended into all areas of living with
benefits for all those who are willing to work together for the
common good.
References:
An original copy of this text can be found at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/socialLi
The complete text of Rudolf Steiner's "The Reordering of Society"
can be found at: http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Steiner-So
---
Even before their games become obsolete, they release the code specs, and information, to allow modification of their games.
For free.
You can change and modify and release without paying a dime, as long as you don't charge for it. If you do, you pay the license, but that's it. You can create brand spanking new games from scratch, even without owning a legal copy, by downloading the binaries and patches iD releases, and then creating all your own levels, maps, graphics, sounds, models, etc...
Then of course they happen to like to release their source as learning tools and gestures of good will a few years after they stop licensing the product.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Ah...and the suckers keep lining up to write code for free for the machine.
You guys are truly blind.
yeah, we do have a free engine
and look at how well it's doing too
it's popularity amongst hobbyists is astounding
in fact it amazes me how many games are currently being developed for it as i type
ahh sarcasm...how i love thee
D. Alan Hurst
WHERE?
Granted it is. But the engine is the skeleton upon which everything rests. My point is that it is still inconsistent with the strengths of the OSS model.
Source codes needs to have freedom for anyone to make their own code forks and modifications...
The only tried and true way to do this as the moment is to GPL your code.
Read the articles on: http://www.gnu.org...
Linux wouldn't have got this far if it hadn't been gpled...
Don't be locked into one vendor.. demand code freedom...
In case someone hasn't seen my posts elsewhere in this thread...
Id seems to be doing a dandy job with it's games...
And while it isn't open in the same way Linux is open, it is free...
You can actually download the binaries and dlls and such straight from id, I think.
Of course, you don't have the graphics, the models, the sounds, the levels, the weapons, or the gameplay... But you are perfectly free to use all the code, the tools, and the info to craft your own game from scratch. If you want to sell all of your effort, you just license from Id their engine, slap it on a CD, and burn, burn, burn.
It's also no secret that Id freely allows modification and customization of their stuff to anyone's hearts content. The original Quake engine had chess(Quess), racing(Quake Rally), a Descent-like game(AirQuake), soccer(Powerball), and many many more. All free, downloadable, and modifiable. Heck, there are even patches for distributed clustered Quake, voice over network, 3d sound, bots, capture the flag, and many other things... I'm not sure that they ever released their source, but surely is not because id doesn't release information!
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
I like this article, it seems more objective than the usual open-source-will-kill-proprietary-apps essay that /. normally runs. I think there is a place for well-done reasonably priced commercial applications (like word-perfect). Linux is mainly a reaction to 1) the crappy Windows OS, and 2) the prohibitively commercial unix operating systems. I don't have anything against closed source software.... just bad software.
The reason you need freedom to fork is so that a project leader never has an unstoppable monopoly over the code base - the only thing that can give someone the power of the main users is technical competancy alone (hence why no-one forks the linux code base, cos Linus does a fantastic job, but if Linus died we wouldn't be trapped with a linux made by his half-mad brother, we could just go with whoever is doing it best). So you can always be free to make a better version, or take over a project that the maintainer has lost interest in...
Most of all, it just gives the code freedom - there will be no chance the sole vendor can decide to change the licensing and charge you lots of money, or take the project in a stupid direction.
Software freedome means no reliance on a single vendor...
Please read all the articles at gnu.org
It really doesn't compare to Quake/Quake2/Quake3...
Quake is 2 or 3 years old now, Quake 2 about a year, and Quake3 just about a couple months from now... 3 functional games, engines, and tools before any real game is out or available from Crystal Space. Not to harsh the product or the project, but in a real sense allowing iD to specialize in producing great graphics and network engines while others produce the games, art, and gameplay is a very nice and convenient setup.
And it is free enough that you don't need to own the game to do any of this; The binaries and dlls are availble freely, and the tools and info to create the graphics, levels, maps, monsters, weapons, and gameplay to create things like Sin, Half Life, Heretic2, Kingpin, Daikatana, and Anachronix, among others.
I really doubt that Crystal Space will fill any niche other than people wanting to learn/extend their graphics skills, as people interested in making games are more likely to use iD's engines, and license them if they want to produce commercial quality games...
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
I must of missed those. What development houses make money off of Open Source again?
Hint: Redhat and VA Research aren't software development houses.
Another example of the Open Source model - and one that corporate management is quite comfortable with - is the model called Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. In an annual report, you don't see references to GAAP with a trademark from the AICPA. The standards are maintained by a community of people who think the principles and problems of Accounting are fascinating and worth spending time on. The business community seems to be able to support this.
No, because someone else already will have. And by the license they'll have contributed their changes back to the tree so that everyone can benefit.
You're assuming that software needs to be developed further at all. If it doesn't, then everyone can freely use it.
Entertainment software is something of a special case. And even then you can always do what ID does, and release the source once the game no longer is profitable.
good to see... another essay?!? Oh well.. it is probably good for the community. Hopefully we can see Redhat and Gnome put together an awesome package to get more people to notice linux. Good job.
The argument I sorta twisted and stretched to make was one of platform vs content.
Is the Intel PC platform OpenSource? What does it mean to apply OpenSource to the hardware? Yet Linux run's atop it, and it is OpenSource.
Then take iD's rendering and network engine as a platform that is closed source; the game itself is all open and non-proprietary, and if you so wish, by analogy, could be considered OpenSource.
In the literal sense of free and distributable source, the network and rendering engines are entirely closed and proprietary.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
And you have every right to grab their distribution, rename it and sell it yourself. You wouldn't event have to add anything and it is perfectly legal (or you could modify it like mandrkae-linux did). Redhat is not preventing anyone else from making money off free software, so who do they harm?
IBM? Netscape? Are you guys all either insane, or totally retarded?
Netscape gave out the code ON THEIR NON-MONEY MAKER after being beaten. This was after their net profits dropped through the floor, and after maintaining one of the most proprietary, protected regimes in software's history. Yes, our friend the loser Netscape. Netscape making money with open source....bwahahahahahahaha
And as per IBM...again...bwahahahahahahaahaha
You guys keep fooling yourself.
As for funding, who's to say you can't fund Free Software development? Surely not Alan Cox, who does get paid to write Free Software.
More than anything, Free Software exists to (if you'll pardon the borrowed expression) 'scratch an itch' a developer had. If a developer has the need (and in a lot of cases the specs, for eg their hardware) to develop, it'll be developed. It's as simple as that.
I may have been stretching some to make the analogy;
But Id's network and rendering engines, while closed and proprietary, are akin to Intel's PC hardware, the AGP, the Rambus spec, Slot-1, and Socket370...
It's not free, nor can you modify/change/rerelease it.
On top of this platform exists Linux and the open source movement.
Id provides a similar platform, via Quake/Quake2 technologies, and atop this platform many games have/are released, some commercially after licensing, some freely available.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Not to expand this thread too much, but I'm surprised people feel the need to attack, again, the -person- instead of the -issue-. Did you agree with the content of the paper? Can you make a better point? This smacks of some 'Whack-A-Poster' game.
Speaking from my own experience, David's been very helpful when others at the LUG were there to show off their wonderous Enlightenment skills. Above and beyond, I'd say. My $.02 only.
I also like the paper. Essays are windows into opinion, and you can either learn something new from it or not. Sorry your experiences with the writer have been bad.
It's amazing how much more one learns while
working on a net project, than one learns in
the course of their day to day job. There is
a noticeable distinction between commercial
"do it quickly" and the "do it right" approach
in net projects.
---
Join The Altima Project - the free multiplayer roleplaying game development project.
Indeed, they "developed" a frontend for rpm (which itself was funded by Caldera and written by the Bogus people). What a big deal! For a skillful programmer writing something like glint takes between one and two days.
Gartner is wrong: Linux a survivor/winner.
.. because i have get to see the other brand reccommend a non ms solution.
Just like to say the worlds first OS started off open source (IBM's MVS) and its still is the best.
When it went OCO - object code only, I would say it lost a band of follower's, then numerical market share.
Then it became non-open, and universities and the like switched to Unix. Then Unix started not to be so free, then the stampede to LINUX, which is rapidly advancing past comfortable, for a few sales execs who need to justify their existance.
While LINUX won't go the way certain flavours of UNIX did, I would hate to see certain bits locked up because of software licencing.
The real dollars follow the total package. dont want halfwit managers saying, well linux may be good, but it dosent interface with this and that- MS, and a few other wet excuses.
Linux is a good way from being 'mature'. Splitting off bits, licence hassles, just makes the opposition rub their hands with glee; divided they fall.
Lets stay united, at least till one other popular OS dies off. Very soon, those boses will run out of excuses. So far a 5% reduction in reliability is being brushed aside, with some lame SOE excuse.
As is linux cant be SOE as well.
Go linux.
PS Go training nuts (Linux certified engineer)
Well of course OSS isn't going to destroy corporate development. The almighty buck is far more powerful than any element at work in the OSS community. Even most of the virulent OSS supporters would switch to the "dark side" is enough moolah was flashed in their face.
you know, its kinda starting to get old. I think that we have seen enough essays on how open source is great and all that jazz. I understand that at a point it was necessary to constantly go on and on about how open source is the greatest shit ever but why post that at slashdot? thats even become an old topic and c/net news.com. this is news for nerds, not news for clueless monkeys.
Oh, here I thought Cygnus was *selling* a proprietary extension to their compiler.
And is IBM's open source project their *primary* source of income? Is Netscape's?
Je ne parle pas francais.
Isn't Quake/Quake2 in real way already Open Source?
Anyone can download the binaries, the tools, the editors, the resources to make their own game from scratch, without owning/buying/paying for any of the commercial products. However, you can't use the commercial sounds, the commercial models, the commercial maps, or the commercial graphics. If you decide to use any of the above commercial products, then you just can't sell or redistribute for payment for your product without a license; but free distribution is fine! Well, as long as you don't violate someone else's intellectual property(Aliens, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc).
What part of Quake/Quake2 isn't open? The fact that you can't hack around in the rendering engine or the network code? You can get free binaries of both, but not the source if a bug exists... Nor can you modify either. But you can modify the gameplay and game mechanics using dlls, libraries, and QuakeC, as well as the graphics, the maps, the weapons, the characters, the monsters, the sounds....
And it still makes iD software and many other upcoming design teams( Valve's Half Life, Ritual's Sin, Raven's Heretic, and soon to come Xatrix's Kingpin and Ion Storm's Daikatanna and Anachronix).
Any arguments or comments?
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Well you proved my point, didn't you: no money to be made from OSS.
(there is? gee, how much did RedHat make off of you?)
That's exactly the point. The toy store doesn't want to have to develop their word processor, they just want a word processor with certain features. If an open source vendor wants to sell to them, they have to develop and support those features, so the vendor suplies the programmers to develop the wanted features. Everyone wins.
Acutally Ghostscript is very free. It's not scrictly OpenSource though.
Ghostscript is one of those unusual products that IHVs are willing to pay licencing for.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
the trick is that in an open source environment companies don't have to make anything from scratch. so where they would have spent 5 million to make something from scratch they can now take something that already exists and for a mere 1 million change it into what they want.
---
the Gods have a sense of humor,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
> A toystore wants to use word processer, now they
> have to hire a programmer to fix it?
No. They're much better to spent small heap of money
on Phone Tech Support and so on and half a day on
reinstalling whatever-it-is.
BTW. Some guys are just paranoid about
Word Processors'. Buy a typewriter.
Subject says it all
You're missing the point. RedHat makes money doing nothing but Linux work. It is in their best interest to help free software succeed.
Other companies want to use the software. If it is missing something than they have to hire someone to contribute. Everyone profits because everyone gets to use the software.
Software is not an end. It is a means to an end. And under free software, everyone has the means to achieve any end that they desire. You can use the software to make profits doing something else without actually having to profit on the software itself.
Aladdin. Or did you miss the interview where the owner explained he was now rich enough from the proceeds of ghostscript to be able to retire?
/* Parasite companies like RedHat don't really count, do they? They just feed of a community, they don't actually
produce their software themselves. */
Right, Red Hat is a parasite... and gnome development isn't bankrolled by Red Hat, Red Hat never developed an installation tool, rpm doesn't exist, linuxconf is a fantasy, there is no control-panel...
Will
If this company has produced a worthless product for kicks and giggles than yes, they get nothing.
But in my world, one I like to call reality, people make software to solve problems.