Software is different from other commodities in that the cost of software is not extremely related to the cost of producing that software. The economic analysis that was applied to software made the assumption that any economic model for software would involve per user/per use fees. This makes sense on the surface, since the users of the software would pay for what they use, and the writers of the software would get paid, but the important difference is that producing new copies does not add any value to the product (i. e. nothing is actually being produced, just copied), but consumers must pay for it.
Consumers must bear this extra cost without any gain. An ideal solution to the problem of software economics is to have some way of having programmers be paid an hourly wage, but give the software away. At first this seems like a ludicrous, since no company could make money on software. The only way that this system could work is if there is no company making money on software. The company which paid the programmer would not be in the software business at all, but be in some other business which used a software product. If the software that is available is not adequate for their purposes, then the company would pay their programmer to modify it so that it was adequate. They would give away the software thus produced, at no cost to them. The company would benefit from the changes in the software, and other companies or individuals would benefit too.
Software would no longer cost companies or individuals, but software development would continue. The cost of software would simply be the cost of paying programmers. No money would be wasted on marketing or other such silly corporate processes. Everyone would benefit and it would cost far less. The only people who lose out are the Bill Gateses of the world who make lost of money without contributing that amount of value to the economy.
Grab it the day of release!
on
Linux 2.2.1
·
· Score: 1
In order for opern source projects to work, people need to grab the source as soon as possible and test it. The developers can't do all the coding and testing by themselves, and testing gives the people who haven't ever written a single line of code a chance to participate.
The more people who grab it and test it, the fewer bugs that there will be in the next release.
So, wait for a later release if you feel the need, but I say grab it and go with it.
I find it interesting that most of the flames that are posted are posted from the point of view "we", which I assume means all/. readers.
I can say that I personally have really enjoyed this series of articles, and much of what he says about Linux is right on target. (i. e. Linux, besides being technically superior to many other OSes, is really about freedom)
You can flame if you like, but please do it from the viewpoint "I" instead of "we", because your flames insult the intelligence of the entire/. community.
Slashdot Mirror
Software is different from other commodities in that the cost of software is not extremely related to the cost of producing that software. The economic analysis that was applied to software made the assumption that any economic model for software would involve per user/per use fees. This makes sense on the surface, since the users of the software would pay for what they use, and the writers of the software would get paid, but the important difference is that producing new copies does not add any value to the product (i. e. nothing is actually being produced, just copied), but consumers must pay for it.
Consumers must bear this extra cost without any gain. An ideal solution to the problem of software economics is to have some way of having programmers be paid an hourly wage, but give the software away. At first this seems like a ludicrous, since no company could make money on software. The only way that this system could work is if there is no company making money on software. The company which paid the programmer would not be in the software business at all, but be in some other business which used a software product. If the software that is available is not adequate for their purposes, then the company would pay their programmer to modify it so that it was adequate. They would give away the software thus produced, at no cost to them. The company would benefit from the changes in the software, and other companies or individuals would benefit too.
Software would no longer cost companies or individuals, but software development would continue. The cost of software would simply be the cost of paying programmers. No money would be wasted on marketing or other such silly corporate processes. Everyone would benefit and it would cost far less. The only people who lose out are the Bill Gateses of the world who make lost of money without contributing that amount of value to the economy.
That other post asking for the info was from me.
In order for opern source projects to work, people need to grab the source as soon as possible and test it. The developers can't do all the coding and testing by themselves, and testing gives the people who haven't ever written a single line of code a chance to participate.
The more people who grab it and test it, the fewer bugs that there will be in the next release.
So, wait for a later release if you feel the need, but I say grab it and go with it.
I find it interesting that most of the flames that are posted are posted from the point of view "we", which I assume means all /. readers.
/. community.
I can say that I personally have really enjoyed this series of articles, and much of what he says about Linux is right on target. (i. e. Linux, besides being technically superior to many other OSes, is really about freedom)
You can flame if you like, but please do it from the viewpoint "I" instead of "we", because your flames insult the intelligence of the entire
Josh Hoyt