Well, except that really *is* what Blizzard is trying to do.
Blizzard says, 'Okay, writing code to automate game play is against THE RULES'. That much, I'm okay with. But now they have a lawsuit that says, 'Okay, releasing the source code you wrote or HELPING someone write a bot that breaks THE RULES is illegal'. And they want a court order to prevent the developer(s) of Glider from releasing the code/educating others on how to make a bot.
Automation of tasks performed by humans is something computers can be really good at. And it's something programmers do, simply by the nature of programming. I wrote a program that automates my monthly bill payment routine - it visits the websites of the various companies I owe money to, logs in, scrapes the screen to see what I owe and whether or not my automatic/scheduled payment went through.
Is that a 'bot'?
Well, it opens a web browser, waits for a page to load, enters text into the text boxes, clicks buttons, clicks links....I'd say that's pretty bot like.
What happens when some company releases a web-based RPG and the same web-automation that I do can be used to bot their game? Then they can sue me and say that my source code could lead to people developing bots that are 'against their rules' and now my code is illegal?
I wrote a tutorial on how to make a very simple Guild Wars bot. It used some win32 API calls to read specific pixels from the screen (if the pixel was a particular shade of red, it was your health bar, if it wasn't that shade of red, your health was below X%) - GetPixel and it used Win32 API calls to send key strokes. It would teleport to a new zone, run around randomly attacking things until it's health got too low, then it would try to heal itself. It didn't read any memory addresses or anything....
If the judge rules that Blizzard as a right to legally prevent people from helping others create a WoW Bot...would my crappy website that nobody visited with my tutorial on how to write a bot for GuildWars be illegal?
Could it help someone write a WoW bot...sure. It's not as sophisticated as Glider, not even close, but it certainly uses some of the same principles and could inspire someone to develop a bot further.
WoWSharp is already an open source WoW bot that was written in C# and was widely available on the internet at one point. I'm guessing that too, will be illegal, if the law finds in favor of Blizzard?
This is pretty new territory as far as legal precedents go and I'd certainly hate to wake up and find out I'm a criminal because I've read memory from a process running on my computer; because Blizzard is pissed someone wrote a bot for their game.
But lawsuits and the government shouldn't be the ones to give you a cheater free experience on a WoW Server hosted by Blizzard.
Blizzard should be the one to police it's virtual world. Blizzard runs the servers, Blizzard wrote the code, Blizzard collects money from paying customers like yourself who want to play WoW without worrying about other people botting or hacking.
Blizzard should take an active role in preventing/eliminating things they don't want in their world. If botting is going be against BLIZZARD'S RULES the punishment for botting should be ENFORCED BY BLIZZARD.
I have zero problem with Blizzard banning me/terminating my account/flagging my CD-Key as invalid if I'm caught violating their rules. Should it be *ILLEGAL* to break the rules Blizzard makes up for their virtual world? HELL NO.
That's like me making a web forum and telling everyone it's against the rules to post images...then taking to court anyone who writes an HTML book that includes the IMG tag. My rules that I've arbitrarily decided are NOT the law.
If some guy wants to publish the source to something he wrote, why shouldn't he be able to? Because some company somewhere doesn't like it? That seems a bit unfair to me. I'm sure Microsoft wasn't happy about Linux and the Open Source alternative OSes that exist. I'm sure you could argue that Microsoft's bottom line has been hurt from the OS community *AND* that much of the functionality of the OS communities products are based off of MS Software (Open Office can open.xls files - if not for Excel they wouldn't be able to do that, right?).
I'd expect this crap from a former high school football star or something...but seriously, this is pathetic.
If your kid LIKES computers, he'll be interested in them. Your attempt to poke, prod, force him into liking your particular brand of fun is...well...pathetic.
Don't do anything. He'll either learn it or he won't. If he's interested, he knows he can ask you for help.
Dirty in this context is the opposite of 'fair', if you scroll up you'll see, 'When you find yourself in a fair fight, it's time to reevaluate your tactics.'
To say that cops fight 'fair' or 'not dirty' is utterly wrong. I would hardly call it 'fair' to use superior weapons, or to call in your buddies to a fight.
I'm not saying cops *SHOULD* fight fair, but they certainly don't.
Words have always been cheap, but with recent advancements in technology talk on the internet is utterly worthless.
Seriously, you're just another e-thug until you can back up what you can say. And if you DO have that video showing you putting up 400+ pounds then you're clearly insecure and feel the need to brag about some fairly bland accomplishments.
For someone who replaces their car with a bicycle there is no way you can argue that they aren't saving money. For most people there is a monthly car payment of ~$150 + car insurance of ~$50 then a monthly gas bill of ~$75 + an average monthly maintenance (oil change, brake pads, tires, etc..) of $20 a month.
For $1000 dollars (probably less than the average down payment) you'd get very nice road bike. No car payments, no insurance, no gas...and possibly $5-10 dollars a month in flat tires.
Even if you ignore the fact that most Americans ALREADY eat too much food, which makes them FAT, and that if they rode their bicycle they'd actually lose fat and save a whole bunch of money in potential medical bills; most people ENJOY eating anyway. The bicycle riding *might* cost an extra $50 dollars in food...but it is still a significant savings.
FireFox stagged a publicity stunt and a bunch of anti-ms fanboys ate it up like candy.
First, FireFox asked/begged people to all download on a particular day to break this record. I've never been 'asked' to download any other piece of software on a particular day to break any record.
Second, what was the existing record? *GASP* you don't mean to tell me there *wasn't* an existing record? Well then....that's not really all that impressive - is it? WoW supposedly has 9 million users, and come patch day they'd all be glad to download files much larger than FF3....oh but that doesn't count because it's a patch? Gotcha.
So umm, basically, FireFox made up some very specific rules so that they could break a record held by nobody so they can get their name in the paper for something that will say, 'FireFox most downloaded browser ever!' or something.
Besides which, who exactly was counting the 8 million downloads?
2nd hand smoke is a non-issue. And with the bans of smoking in nearly every public place imaginable, the argument that the tax is needed to pay for the damages of 2nd hand smoke is pretty worthless.
To be fair - most bulimics never get skinny. They just eat a ton, vomit a lot. Sure, they might get sick, but the majority of them fall into the 'normal' weight range.
Anorexia is where it's at, if you want to be super thin. Anorexics certainly aren't above throwing up after a mean, but they'll try darn hard to avoid the meal in the first place.
I'd be very interested to see a picture of you. I'm not saying that to be a complete jerk or anything; but to look anorexic with a 34" waist; I'd have to imagine you've got HUGE frame.
I'd also be curious to know how much you weighed at the time.
I mean, look at music concerts. Personally, I hate them...but that's besides the point. People pay good money to wait in line, stand outside, in the summer sun, in 90 degree weather, to pay $3.00 for a coke, to stand in a parking lot, to be crowded and crushed by hundreds of other people, to listen to some drugged up rockers play rock music on a stage.
Now, the fact that you can hear those same songs performed better, with better studio-quality sound in any CD-player/mp3-player doesn't stop those people from shelling out cash for the rock show.
Heck, I've got about a dozen different devices capable of playing music in my house; but my girlfriend still wants to go out to a concert.
I fully support people choosing to do whatever they want with their free-time. My choosing to watch TV and someone else's choosing to work is NOT unfair at all.
But if I spend 10 hours writing professional-level quality code at work - I might earn $300 dollars.
If I spend 10 hours writing professional-level quality code for an oss project - I'll almost certainly earn $0.
From the perspective of an individual developer, who isn't looking to gain experience or pad his resume, who isn't employed at IBM or RedHat or a company paying him to develop oss....what's the point?
With most oss - the developers aren't getting a very good deal at all. They mostly work for free. Their hard work, that has a real value, gets consumed for free. The downloaders/users of oss who don't develop are getting a great deal.
What's fair about that? People who invest time and effort get the same thing as people who do nothing.
That's the economic unfairness that we're talking about. A quality oss application is worth something, but are almost always completely free. People like this, people love this...but as a developer - why should I like it?
I've actually addressed this exact topic several times...I guess you missed it.
You asked: "Are you losing $30 / hr when you come home and watch TV until bed? "
I've ALREADY answered: "My time spent eating dinner doesn't have that same value. Nobody, ever, has paid me to eat dinner. That doesn't make sense. Nobody pays a lawyer to eat dinner either."
As you can see, from the post I've already made...clearly, I don't feel that time spent watching TV has a fair-market value > $0.00; NOBODY has ever offered to pay me to watch TV.
I'm not talking about 'opportunity cost'. Opportunity cost is saying that for every hour you spend doing X, the opportunity cost is what you COULD have had, had you spent your time doing Y.
Right - so the opportunity cost of watching TV for 3 hours is whatever you could get paid for 3 hours of work.
I'm *not* talking about that.
I'm not saying people shouldn't have free time or do things that don't earn them money.
What I *am* saying is that, unlike 99% of 'free-time' activities that people do, writing code is something people get paid to do. If you are a developer who can write code well enough to produce a oss application; odds are, you could do that same thing and earn money.
So, if I enjoy working out, hiking, water skiing, watching movies, and writing code...
Nobody is going to pay me to work out (unless I'm a pro athlete or bodybuilder) Nobody is going to pay me to water ski (unless I'm a pro water-skier) Nobody is going to pay me to watch movies (unless I'm a famous critic)
But, for anyone who can write an application, they can almost certainly be earning money for that activity. Writing code is something with a fairly high 'fair-market' value.
So, unlike all of those other fun activities; unless you are an amazing, phenomenal, top.01% of the population - you *can't* get money for it. The fair market value for me watching a movie is $0 dollars. But as a developer, the fair market value for my time spent writing code *IS* greater than $0. Whether it's $10 an hour for $50 an hour, people are willing to pay me to write code.
If I work on an oss, I'm doing virtually the exact same thing for free, as I could do for money. It's the same activity that I get paid to do, but I do it for free and give away the fruits of my labor. That's, basically, the OSS model.
And like the article said, a lot of serious developers avoid that model because they feel like it isn't 'economically fair'.
And it isn't.
I can spend 10 hours working on a commercial product and get paid....or I can work on an oss and get nothing.
You can argue that my work on the oss project should be more enjoyable and so it doesn't have a 'cost' associated with it. But the fact remains - work on a commercial project for 10 hours and you have $$$. Work on an oss product, and you don't.
Writing code is enjoyable for me, but that doesn't mean I want to work for free. And when I look for part-time gigs, I *never* see anyone willing to pay me to develop an oss application.
My point is, working on oss is akin to donating to charity...some people do it and it's nice and all; but it mostly helps other people and most people would rather help themselves.
I agree with all of that, and I think it's a great thing.
But when the article spoke of/questioned the 'economic fairness' I didn't get the impression they were talking about paid/salaried employees at big companies who were working on oss projects.
In the example I gave and in the response given by someone else, I thought it was pretty clear that we were talking about individuals and not companies. If that isn't a common thing anymore, then I'm sorry and please ignore what I said:)
1.) Can be done without OSS for pay 2.) Can be done without OSS for pay 3.) Can be done without OSS for pay
Anyway, I'd totally agree with your point if I'd ever said anything implying that I thought all developers were the same as me.
In fact, on more than one occasion, I said that it wasn't the case. I think I said...
"Sure, since there isn't much financial incentive to write OSS for the majority of folks working on OSS - it's easy to say, 'Oh yeah - and money isn't even a big deal to them'; but that's because if money was a big deal to them - they wouldn't be doing OSS."
Obviously, that makes it quite clear that I'm differentiating between myself and people who do OSS. But the article is talking about guys who quit OSS because they aren't getting $$$, so that means I've discussed three types of developers
1.) Those who don't care about money and continue to do OSS 2.) Those who care about resume padding/learning and drop OSS once they can get a paid full-time gig 3.) Those (like myself) who don't do OSS because they already have a job and don't see any benefit from OSS. They might enjoy coding, but they enjoy coding for $$$ just as much as they enjoy doing it for free. Since some money is, generally, considered a good thing, these developers do extra coding for pay, not for free.
The quote from the article said, 'The other thing I think is missing is implementation of a basic principle of economic fairness' and I was responding to someone who was dismissing that. He was saying, essentially, 'Money doesn't matter to OSS guys anyway'
What I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who fall into the #2 and #3 types of developers. And because they do care about money and because there isn't an economic fairness; those developers aren't working on OSS.
It's the same as saying it's okay to have a 'Whites only pizza shop' because there hasn't been a black person in the shop in 10 years....so there is no problem with it.
Well, the reason no black people have been there in 10 years is because IT IS A WHITES ONLY PIZZA SHOP.
The same is the deal with OSS. Saying there isn't an issue or problem with the economics of working on an OSS project because, 'Everyone who does work on OSS doesn't seem to care' is short-sighted. There is a much, much larger pool of qualified, skilled developers who don't work on OSS only because they feel there is no economic incentive.
I won't get into the specifics (like how your $28 dollar an hour figure is crap; or how horrible the lawyer analogy is...lawyers don't get paid to eat dinner, but programmers get paid to write code) but....
Basically, your argument is that anything you enjoy doesn't have worth. Really, that is what you are saying. If I enjoy writing code and if my 'fair market' value for an hour spent writing code is $30 dollars....you think that the actual value of my work is $0, since it's fun and I enjoy it.
To me, that is completely insane. I'm not going to walk up to my boss and say, 'Boss, I enjoy my job - please, stop paying me'. I'm not going to say, 'Hey, I know I said I'd do this contract project for you at a rate of $75 an hour; but the truth is - I enjoy this project so much....I'm gonna do it for free'
And I'm not going to sit down and say, I enjoy writing software so much, I'm going to produce this awesome piece of software for free.
Because every hour I could spend in front of my computer writing code HAS A VALUE.
My time spent eating dinner doesn't have that same value. Nobody, ever, has paid me to eat dinner. That doesn't make sense. Nobody pays a lawyer to eat dinner either. But my time spent at a computer, writing code *DOES* have a value. That value, for a guy making $60k is going to be, roughly, $30 dollars. Actually a bit more when you consider paid-time-off, 401k, health benefits, etc. And any decent programmer can find 'side-work' that he can do in his or her spare time, and make money doing it...normally at a wage much higher (like > 2x) of their actual salary.
People who do OSS *donate* the cost of their time. (especially the hot-shot ones who earn a lot of money) but that doesn't mean it's free.
I'll have to wait until after work to listen to the pod cast (no headphones with me).
But, it's more than just a question of motivation, isn't it? It's about managing a limited resource (time).
If I had the free time and didn't need money, OSS is something that is pretty cool and I'd do it. But like most adults, I don't feel like I have the free-time and I do need money. So I'm going to prioritize.
When I was in college, I did all sorts of 'side projects' and 'just for fun' coding. OSS would have been great - I wasn't very aware of it at the time and ended up just writing my own crap and throwing it on a website nobody ever really went to. Still, it was fun.
Now though, OSS has nothing to offer me, as a developer except the 'fun factor' it gives. And since I spend 40-45 hours a week writing code anyway, the 'fun factor' isn't what it used to be. If I'm going to pick up an 'extra' project because I want to do more coding I can....
1.) Do work for my main job. I don't get OT pay - but it would me look good. 2.) Try to find a contract gig. I have trouble finding them when I want them, but the hourly wage is excellent. 3.) Write OSS
All three let me write code. I enjoy writing code. 1 & 2 put money in my hand and food on my table. What exactly does 3 offer me that makes it a better choice than 1 or 2?
#3 costs a lot of time. And time is money. If you make 60k a year; an 'hour' of your time is worth $30 dollars an hour. Writing/testing/documenting an application is not a trivial task.
So, you start a project and work on it for six months...it's very reasonable to assume you'd have invested $20,000 dollars into the project.
When it's finished, you get to #4. You get to use the software. You've spent $20,0000 dollars of your time and effort building the application! But yes - you get to use it.
#5 - Profit? That's a bit of a joke.
The traditional/old school software model would be that a company or individual fronts the development cost - the $20,000 dollars, and the hundreds/thousands of users each pay $40 dollars to use their copy.
Let's say this fictional software will be used heavily by 2,000 users.
With a traditional sales model - each user pays $40 dollars and gets to use the software. The guy who wrote it fronted $20k to develop it, and would earn back $80k. Of course, there'd be a lot of overhead, packaging, shipping, advertising, etc, etc - but the developer would walk away a nice chunk of change in the bank. Each user would pay $40 dollars for a quality product.
In OSS - one guy fronts all the time and effort - $20,000 worth. Then 2,000 people download it and use it for free.
It's a GREAT deal for the end-users; but not a great deal for the developer. And there are a lot more users than developers; and if Linux continues to become more user friendly, more and more of the Linux users are NOT going to be developers. They won't know how/won't care/won't want to learn how to write the software they want.
But the article is saying that, once these guys pad their resume/get some practice/get their name out there and can get a commercial gig - they take it.
And then they do.
And the project kinda dies.
I'm a full-time developer and if I were to try and do something Linux only to realize that there wasn't a good way for me to do that; odds are, I'm going to say, 'Yeah, I could re-learn some C (I'm a.Net guy these days), learn some more about Linux and programming in it, and I could spend 2-3 months developing a pretty decent application to do what I need - and I think other people would need it to....or I could go cut the grass, do some laundry, clean the house, do some minor home improvement, etc, etc...' and, I've got to say, unless I've *really* got a need for that software, there just isn't any way I'm going to work on it.
Even though it might end up being a really useful application.
Sure, since there isn't much financial incentive to write OSS for the majority of folks working on OSS - it's easy to say, 'Oh yeah - and money isn't even a big deal to them'; but that's because if money was a big deal to them - they wouldn't be doing OSS.
My resume is already padded, I'm already employed full-time, and if I really want side-work; I've been able to do a few paid consulting projects for a former employee at a pretty respectable hourly wage ($75 - which is a lot more than my hourly wage at my day job; but still nothing to brag about).
My point is, a lot more developers would write OSS if they had financial incentive.
And, realistically, if I'm going to write something and try to make it a full-functional, commercial quality application, and try to sell it or make it shareware...I'm not going to use OSS. While nothing prevents people from selling OSS - the fact is, most OSS make it a rule not to spend a penny on any piece of software. And targeting Linux as the platform for a desktop application means significantly limiting your target demographic.
"It Just Works" != "The problem is that if I give you a model, there's no guarantee that it'll have a supported chipset"
And that's pretty much my entire point.
However, I really do appreciate the links (seriously). I have had a lot of trouble looking for a semi-guaranteed to work wireless adapter; I'll probably pickup the Belkin you linked.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, except that really *is* what Blizzard is trying to do.
Blizzard says, 'Okay, writing code to automate game play is against THE RULES'. That much, I'm okay with. But now they have a lawsuit that says, 'Okay, releasing the source code you wrote or HELPING someone write a bot that breaks THE RULES is illegal'. And they want a court order to prevent the developer(s) of Glider from releasing the code/educating others on how to make a bot.
Automation of tasks performed by humans is something computers can be really good at. And it's something programmers do, simply by the nature of programming. I wrote a program that automates my monthly bill payment routine - it visits the websites of the various companies I owe money to, logs in, scrapes the screen to see what I owe and whether or not my automatic/scheduled payment went through.
Is that a 'bot'?
Well, it opens a web browser, waits for a page to load, enters text into the text boxes, clicks buttons, clicks links....I'd say that's pretty bot like.
What happens when some company releases a web-based RPG and the same web-automation that I do can be used to bot their game? Then they can sue me and say that my source code could lead to people developing bots that are 'against their rules' and now my code is illegal?
I wrote a tutorial on how to make a very simple Guild Wars bot. It used some win32 API calls to read specific pixels from the screen (if the pixel was a particular shade of red, it was your health bar, if it wasn't that shade of red, your health was below X%) - GetPixel and it used Win32 API calls to send key strokes. It would teleport to a new zone, run around randomly attacking things until it's health got too low, then it would try to heal itself. It didn't read any memory addresses or anything....
If the judge rules that Blizzard as a right to legally prevent people from helping others create a WoW Bot...would my crappy website that nobody visited with my tutorial on how to write a bot for GuildWars be illegal?
Could it help someone write a WoW bot...sure. It's not as sophisticated as Glider, not even close, but it certainly uses some of the same principles and could inspire someone to develop a bot further.
WoWSharp is already an open source WoW bot that was written in C# and was widely available on the internet at one point. I'm guessing that too, will be illegal, if the law finds in favor of Blizzard?
This is pretty new territory as far as legal precedents go and I'd certainly hate to wake up and find out I'm a criminal because I've read memory from a process running on my computer; because Blizzard is pissed someone wrote a bot for their game.
Oh I agree.
But lawsuits and the government shouldn't be the ones to give you a cheater free experience on a WoW Server hosted by Blizzard.
Blizzard should be the one to police it's virtual world. Blizzard runs the servers, Blizzard wrote the code, Blizzard collects money from paying customers like yourself who want to play WoW without worrying about other people botting or hacking.
Blizzard should take an active role in preventing/eliminating things they don't want in their world. If botting is going be against BLIZZARD'S RULES the punishment for botting should be ENFORCED BY BLIZZARD.
I have zero problem with Blizzard banning me/terminating my account/flagging my CD-Key as invalid if I'm caught violating their rules. Should it be *ILLEGAL* to break the rules Blizzard makes up for their virtual world? HELL NO.
That's like me making a web forum and telling everyone it's against the rules to post images...then taking to court anyone who writes an HTML book that includes the IMG tag. My rules that I've arbitrarily decided are NOT the law.
If some guy wants to publish the source to something he wrote, why shouldn't he be able to? Because some company somewhere doesn't like it? That seems a bit unfair to me. I'm sure Microsoft wasn't happy about Linux and the Open Source alternative OSes that exist. I'm sure you could argue that Microsoft's bottom line has been hurt from the OS community *AND* that much of the functionality of the OS communities products are based off of MS Software (Open Office can open .xls files - if not for Excel they wouldn't be able to do that, right?).
I'd expect this crap from a former high school football star or something...but seriously, this is pathetic.
If your kid LIKES computers, he'll be interested in them. Your attempt to poke, prod, force him into liking your particular brand of fun is...well...pathetic.
Don't do anything. He'll either learn it or he won't. If he's interested, he knows he can ask you for help.
Ummm....I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Dirty in this context is the opposite of 'fair', if you scroll up you'll see, 'When you find yourself in a fair fight, it's time to reevaluate your tactics.'
To say that cops fight 'fair' or 'not dirty' is utterly wrong. I would hardly call it 'fair' to use superior weapons, or to call in your buddies to a fight.
I'm not saying cops *SHOULD* fight fair, but they certainly don't.
Words have always been cheap, but with recent advancements in technology talk on the internet is utterly worthless.
Seriously, you're just another e-thug until you can back up what you can say. And if you DO have that video showing you putting up 400+ pounds then you're clearly insecure and feel the need to brag about some fairly bland accomplishments.
Either way, you're the fail.
That's a pretty bad argument if you ask me.
For someone who replaces their car with a bicycle there is no way you can argue that they aren't saving money. For most people there is a monthly car payment of ~$150 + car insurance of ~$50 then a monthly gas bill of ~$75 + an average monthly maintenance (oil change, brake pads, tires, etc..) of $20 a month.
For $1000 dollars (probably less than the average down payment) you'd get very nice road bike. No car payments, no insurance, no gas...and possibly $5-10 dollars a month in flat tires.
Even if you ignore the fact that most Americans ALREADY eat too much food, which makes them FAT, and that if they rode their bicycle they'd actually lose fat and save a whole bunch of money in potential medical bills; most people ENJOY eating anyway. The bicycle riding *might* cost an extra $50 dollars in food...but it is still a significant savings.
Also, FireFox didn't even come close to beating Flash for most downloads per day. This record is a sham.
And Adobe doesn't tell everyone to download on the same day either.
FireFox is full of fail.
FireFox stagged a publicity stunt and a bunch of anti-ms fanboys ate it up like candy.
First, FireFox asked/begged people to all download on a particular day to break this record. I've never been 'asked' to download any other piece of software on a particular day to break any record.
Second, what was the existing record? *GASP* you don't mean to tell me there *wasn't* an existing record? Well then....that's not really all that impressive - is it? WoW supposedly has 9 million users, and come patch day they'd all be glad to download files much larger than FF3....oh but that doesn't count because it's a patch? Gotcha.
So umm, basically, FireFox made up some very specific rules so that they could break a record held by nobody so they can get their name in the paper for something that will say, 'FireFox most downloaded browser ever!' or something.
Besides which, who exactly was counting the 8 million downloads?
Nothing to see here, just marketing hype.
I smoke alone in my basement.
2nd hand smoke is a non-issue. And with the bans of smoking in nearly every public place imaginable, the argument that the tax is needed to pay for the damages of 2nd hand smoke is pretty worthless.
Also, I don't actually smoke.
To be fair - most bulimics never get skinny. They just eat a ton, vomit a lot. Sure, they might get sick, but the majority of them fall into the 'normal' weight range.
Anorexia is where it's at, if you want to be super thin. Anorexics certainly aren't above throwing up after a mean, but they'll try darn hard to avoid the meal in the first place.
I'd be very interested to see a picture of you. I'm not saying that to be a complete jerk or anything; but to look anorexic with a 34" waist; I'd have to imagine you've got HUGE frame.
I'd also be curious to know how much you weighed at the time.
Why is this limited to obesity?
There *are* lots of costly medical conditions that 'run in the family'. Obesity isn't the only thing that makes people sick.
Haha - j00 g0t s3rv3d!
I agree.
I mean, look at music concerts. Personally, I hate them...but that's besides the point. People pay good money to wait in line, stand outside, in the summer sun, in 90 degree weather, to pay $3.00 for a coke, to stand in a parking lot, to be crowded and crushed by hundreds of other people, to listen to some drugged up rockers play rock music on a stage.
Now, the fact that you can hear those same songs performed better, with better studio-quality sound in any CD-player/mp3-player doesn't stop those people from shelling out cash for the rock show.
Heck, I've got about a dozen different devices capable of playing music in my house; but my girlfriend still wants to go out to a concert.
Lame.
No, no, no....
I fully support people choosing to do whatever they want with their free-time. My choosing to watch TV and someone else's choosing to work is NOT unfair at all.
But if I spend 10 hours writing professional-level quality code at work - I might earn $300 dollars.
If I spend 10 hours writing professional-level quality code for an oss project - I'll almost certainly earn $0.
From the perspective of an individual developer, who isn't looking to gain experience or pad his resume, who isn't employed at IBM or RedHat or a company paying him to develop oss....what's the point?
With most oss - the developers aren't getting a very good deal at all. They mostly work for free. Their hard work, that has a real value, gets consumed for free. The downloaders/users of oss who don't develop are getting a great deal.
What's fair about that? People who invest time and effort get the same thing as people who do nothing.
That's the economic unfairness that we're talking about. A quality oss application is worth something, but are almost always completely free. People like this, people love this...but as a developer - why should I like it?
I've actually addressed this exact topic several times...I guess you missed it.
You asked:
"Are you losing $30 / hr when you come home and watch TV until bed? "
I've ALREADY answered:
"My time spent eating dinner doesn't have that same value. Nobody, ever, has paid me to eat dinner. That doesn't make sense. Nobody pays a lawyer to eat dinner either."
As you can see, from the post I've already made...clearly, I don't feel that time spent watching TV has a fair-market value > $0.00; NOBODY has ever offered to pay me to watch TV.
I hope you can follow that; I typed it real slow.
I'm not talking about 'opportunity cost'. Opportunity cost is saying that for every hour you spend doing X, the opportunity cost is what you COULD have had, had you spent your time doing Y.
.01% of the population - you *can't* get money for it. The fair market value for me watching a movie is $0 dollars. But as a developer, the fair market value for my time spent writing code *IS* greater than $0. Whether it's $10 an hour for $50 an hour, people are willing to pay me to write code.
Right - so the opportunity cost of watching TV for 3 hours is whatever you could get paid for 3 hours of work.
I'm *not* talking about that.
I'm not saying people shouldn't have free time or do things that don't earn them money.
What I *am* saying is that, unlike 99% of 'free-time' activities that people do, writing code is something people get paid to do. If you are a developer who can write code well enough to produce a oss application; odds are, you could do that same thing and earn money.
So, if I enjoy working out, hiking, water skiing, watching movies, and writing code...
Nobody is going to pay me to work out (unless I'm a pro athlete or bodybuilder)
Nobody is going to pay me to water ski (unless I'm a pro water-skier)
Nobody is going to pay me to watch movies (unless I'm a famous critic)
But, for anyone who can write an application, they can almost certainly be earning money for that activity. Writing code is something with a fairly high 'fair-market' value.
So, unlike all of those other fun activities; unless you are an amazing, phenomenal, top
If I work on an oss, I'm doing virtually the exact same thing for free, as I could do for money. It's the same activity that I get paid to do, but I do it for free and give away the fruits of my labor. That's, basically, the OSS model.
And like the article said, a lot of serious developers avoid that model because they feel like it isn't 'economically fair'.
And it isn't.
I can spend 10 hours working on a commercial product and get paid....or I can work on an oss and get nothing.
You can argue that my work on the oss project should be more enjoyable and so it doesn't have a 'cost' associated with it. But the fact remains - work on a commercial project for 10 hours and you have $$$. Work on an oss product, and you don't.
Writing code is enjoyable for me, but that doesn't mean I want to work for free. And when I look for part-time gigs, I *never* see anyone willing to pay me to develop an oss application.
My point is, working on oss is akin to donating to charity...some people do it and it's nice and all; but it mostly helps other people and most people would rather help themselves.
I agree with all of that, and I think it's a great thing.
:)
But when the article spoke of/questioned the 'economic fairness' I didn't get the impression they were talking about paid/salaried employees at big companies who were working on oss projects.
In the example I gave and in the response given by someone else, I thought it was pretty clear that we were talking about individuals and not companies. If that isn't a common thing anymore, then I'm sorry and please ignore what I said
1.) Can be done without OSS for pay
2.) Can be done without OSS for pay
3.) Can be done without OSS for pay
Anyway, I'd totally agree with your point if I'd ever said anything implying that I thought all developers were the same as me.
In fact, on more than one occasion, I said that it wasn't the case. I think I said...
"Sure, since there isn't much financial incentive to write OSS for the majority of folks working on OSS - it's easy to say, 'Oh yeah - and money isn't even a big deal to them'; but that's because if money was a big deal to them - they wouldn't be doing OSS."
Obviously, that makes it quite clear that I'm differentiating between myself and people who do OSS. But the article is talking about guys who quit OSS because they aren't getting $$$, so that means I've discussed three types of developers
1.) Those who don't care about money and continue to do OSS
2.) Those who care about resume padding/learning and drop OSS once they can get a paid full-time gig
3.) Those (like myself) who don't do OSS because they already have a job and don't see any benefit from OSS. They might enjoy coding, but they enjoy coding for $$$ just as much as they enjoy doing it for free. Since some money is, generally, considered a good thing, these developers do extra coding for pay, not for free.
The quote from the article said, 'The other thing I think is missing is implementation of a basic principle of economic fairness' and I was responding to someone who was dismissing that. He was saying, essentially, 'Money doesn't matter to OSS guys anyway'
What I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who fall into the #2 and #3 types of developers. And because they do care about money and because there isn't an economic fairness; those developers aren't working on OSS.
It's the same as saying it's okay to have a 'Whites only pizza shop' because there hasn't been a black person in the shop in 10 years....so there is no problem with it.
Well, the reason no black people have been there in 10 years is because IT IS A WHITES ONLY PIZZA SHOP.
The same is the deal with OSS. Saying there isn't an issue or problem with the economics of working on an OSS project because, 'Everyone who does work on OSS doesn't seem to care' is short-sighted. There is a much, much larger pool of qualified, skilled developers who don't work on OSS only because they feel there is no economic incentive.
I won't get into the specifics (like how your $28 dollar an hour figure is crap; or how horrible the lawyer analogy is...lawyers don't get paid to eat dinner, but programmers get paid to write code) but....
Basically, your argument is that anything you enjoy doesn't have worth. Really, that is what you are saying. If I enjoy writing code and if my 'fair market' value for an hour spent writing code is $30 dollars....you think that the actual value of my work is $0, since it's fun and I enjoy it.
To me, that is completely insane. I'm not going to walk up to my boss and say, 'Boss, I enjoy my job - please, stop paying me'. I'm not going to say, 'Hey, I know I said I'd do this contract project for you at a rate of $75 an hour; but the truth is - I enjoy this project so much....I'm gonna do it for free'
And I'm not going to sit down and say, I enjoy writing software so much, I'm going to produce this awesome piece of software for free.
Because every hour I could spend in front of my computer writing code HAS A VALUE.
My time spent eating dinner doesn't have that same value. Nobody, ever, has paid me to eat dinner. That doesn't make sense. Nobody pays a lawyer to eat dinner either. But my time spent at a computer, writing code *DOES* have a value. That value, for a guy making $60k is going to be, roughly, $30 dollars. Actually a bit more when you consider paid-time-off, 401k, health benefits, etc. And any decent programmer can find 'side-work' that he can do in his or her spare time, and make money doing it...normally at a wage much higher (like > 2x) of their actual salary.
People who do OSS *donate* the cost of their time. (especially the hot-shot ones who earn a lot of money) but that doesn't mean it's free.
I'll have to wait until after work to listen to the pod cast (no headphones with me).
But, it's more than just a question of motivation, isn't it? It's about managing a limited resource (time).
If I had the free time and didn't need money, OSS is something that is pretty cool and I'd do it. But like most adults, I don't feel like I have the free-time and I do need money. So I'm going to prioritize.
When I was in college, I did all sorts of 'side projects' and 'just for fun' coding. OSS would have been great - I wasn't very aware of it at the time and ended up just writing my own crap and throwing it on a website nobody ever really went to. Still, it was fun.
Now though, OSS has nothing to offer me, as a developer except the 'fun factor' it gives. And since I spend 40-45 hours a week writing code anyway, the 'fun factor' isn't what it used to be. If I'm going to pick up an 'extra' project because I want to do more coding I can....
1.) Do work for my main job. I don't get OT pay - but it would me look good.
2.) Try to find a contract gig. I have trouble finding them when I want them, but the hourly wage is excellent.
3.) Write OSS
All three let me write code. I enjoy writing code. 1 & 2 put money in my hand and food on my table. What exactly does 3 offer me that makes it a better choice than 1 or 2?
The problem is with #3, #4 and #5.
#3 costs a lot of time. And time is money. If you make 60k a year; an 'hour' of your time is worth $30 dollars an hour. Writing/testing/documenting an application is not a trivial task.
So, you start a project and work on it for six months...it's very reasonable to assume you'd have invested $20,000 dollars into the project.
When it's finished, you get to #4. You get to use the software. You've spent $20,0000 dollars of your time and effort building the application! But yes - you get to use it.
#5 - Profit? That's a bit of a joke.
The traditional/old school software model would be that a company or individual fronts the development cost - the $20,000 dollars, and the hundreds/thousands of users each pay $40 dollars to use their copy.
Let's say this fictional software will be used heavily by 2,000 users.
With a traditional sales model - each user pays $40 dollars and gets to use the software. The guy who wrote it fronted $20k to develop it, and would earn back $80k. Of course, there'd be a lot of overhead, packaging, shipping, advertising, etc, etc - but the developer would walk away a nice chunk of change in the bank. Each user would pay $40 dollars for a quality product.
In OSS - one guy fronts all the time and effort - $20,000 worth. Then 2,000 people download it and use it for free.
It's a GREAT deal for the end-users; but not a great deal for the developer. And there are a lot more users than developers; and if Linux continues to become more user friendly, more and more of the Linux users are NOT going to be developers. They won't know how/won't care/won't want to learn how to write the software they want.
But the article is saying that, once these guys pad their resume/get some practice/get their name out there and can get a commercial gig - they take it.
.Net guy these days), learn some more about Linux and programming in it, and I could spend 2-3 months developing a pretty decent application to do what I need - and I think other people would need it to....or I could go cut the grass, do some laundry, clean the house, do some minor home improvement, etc, etc...' and, I've got to say, unless I've *really* got a need for that software, there just isn't any way I'm going to work on it.
And then they do.
And the project kinda dies.
I'm a full-time developer and if I were to try and do something Linux only to realize that there wasn't a good way for me to do that; odds are, I'm going to say, 'Yeah, I could re-learn some C (I'm a
Even though it might end up being a really useful application.
Sure, since there isn't much financial incentive to write OSS for the majority of folks working on OSS - it's easy to say, 'Oh yeah - and money isn't even a big deal to them'; but that's because if money was a big deal to them - they wouldn't be doing OSS.
My resume is already padded, I'm already employed full-time, and if I really want side-work; I've been able to do a few paid consulting projects for a former employee at a pretty respectable hourly wage ($75 - which is a lot more than my hourly wage at my day job; but still nothing to brag about).
My point is, a lot more developers would write OSS if they had financial incentive.
And, realistically, if I'm going to write something and try to make it a full-functional, commercial quality application, and try to sell it or make it shareware...I'm not going to use OSS. While nothing prevents people from selling OSS - the fact is, most OSS make it a rule not to spend a penny on any piece of software. And targeting Linux as the platform for a desktop application means significantly limiting your target demographic.
Well, I'll agree with you there. Ubuntu (and Linux as a whole) is really making some big improvements and is really a great OS.
"It Just Works" != "The problem is that if I give you a model, there's no guarantee that it'll have a supported chipset"
And that's pretty much my entire point.
However, I really do appreciate the links (seriously). I have had a lot of trouble looking for a semi-guaranteed to work wireless adapter; I'll probably pickup the Belkin you linked.