Considering how much *real* science there is to work on--stuff that actually affects us--this kinda random theorizing is such a ridiculous waste. It's not science if you can't prove it.
I know what you're talking about. I'm the same way with lower than 85Hz. refresh, visual glitches, etc. There are several possible causes for this and likewise a number of possible solutions:
1.) Your mouse sampling rate is set too low. This would cause even a very fast system to seem sluggish at dragging windows whilst displaying their contents because the system simply doesn't even try to update any faster. You could edit your XF86Config under the section "InputDevice" and add a line something like:
Option "SampleRate" "100" ## I think the maximum is 200 and default 50.
2.) Your video card is not fully accelerated by the XFree86 driver you're using. You'll have to read the docs to find out what is and isn't. Make sure you're using the latest X release. New versions often have improved drivers. If you're using an NVidia board, you might need to get their proprietary drivers for full performance. (lame!)
3.) Bitmapped titlebars, widgets, etc. always slow things down a little. That goes for KDE's various 'gradient' themes too. Disable these on a slow machine. Win95-2k didn't use them either so no fair comparing apples and oranges.
4.) Depending on what else you're running, you might want to give X itself a higher priority. Set it's nice value to -10 or something.
5.) Windows builds the GDI right into the OS kernel, thereby sacrificing stability and wasting resources if a GUI is unneeded. This, on the other hand, improves responsiveness somewhat. XFree86 sits on top of the kernel like any other app. If X dies, your system doesn't. Modular design allows more flexibility too. And X is far more feature rich than the Windows GDI to begin with.
hahaha 3 people took the bait and wasted their moderator points on that post. Morons. Mod good comments up, don't mod bad ones down.
Oh, btw.. for you misinformed folk who think the Mac gui somehow makes it the only *nix accessible to "ordinary non-tech people," may I suggest that you check out KDE. I've yet to meet someone who was incapable of immediately using it after being familiar with Mac or Windows interfaces.
Turns out he falls in love, to the point of abandoning Linux and taking up OS X full time.
MacOS X is a joke and entirely redundant and unnecessary. Anyone who actually uses it doesn't know what they're doing. And that's for whom it was designed.. with a big bloated cheezy ugly GUI to try to hide as much of its BSD roots as possible. You/. editors need to get a clue. Stop posting stories about how MacOSX is so great and so up-and-coming. It is a proprietary, non-free, non-open OS with no technical advantage whatsoever over Linux or modern BSD kernels. Oh, and did I mention the GUI is ugly? Frankly, we don't care.
Linux has already won all of my desktops. It has been ages since I booted The Evil OS for anything--even multimedia-related apps. In fact, I couldn't completely switch back to Windows even if I wanted to and was some kind of l33t warez d00d. I have become dependant on the greater flexibility afforded me by all the wonderful OSS out there. 'Critical mass' can't be far away now. My eye is on K and Open Office for bringing about the turning point for the non-tech population.
It would seem to me that most companies large enough to actually NEED a 'mission critical' server farm would have their own IT staff. So why would they outsource the work of setting it up when their own people can do it cheaper? Seems like MCL really limited themselves from the start.
To those Open Source consultants among you, think small business.
ATI Radeon 64DDR. The power supply is made by Aopen and is rated 300W. The same supply had no problem with the same hardware but Tbird 800 and AMD 761.
Frankly, the idea of compiling absolutely everything from source 'just because' seems a little bit of a waste of time. The vast majority of software will only see very very minimal performance increase compared to a well built Debian package with the usual careful choice of compiler flags. (Note: compiling for your CPU's architecture vs. generic i386 makes little difference today since all modern CPU's do very extensive instruction scheduling and out-of-order execution.) Furthermore, from what I saw of Sorcerer, the chosen compiler flags are system-wide instead of being based on the individual packages needs. This is not wise. So, I personally think that Sorcerer is redundant considering the quality and ease of use of Debian source packages for the few programs that can really benefit from hand-tuned compiler flags (such as data compression or encryption software). You just edit the rules and run two commands.
I don't know if this could be partially related, but I've had numerous problems in both Win2k and Linux with this Soyo (Athlon) board. I know that there are some PCI latency issues with the Via KT266A chipset for one. There are some hacks floating around to re-configure some of the PCI registers. Unfortunately, this has not been a total solution in my case. My SB Live! still locks the system solid upon any access. Sometimes the Via 'Rhine' ethernet controller built into this board will also die under heavy load.
So I'm wondering: is this a massive flaw in Soyo's design or is it something that can be fixed via hacking the BIOS and/or chipset registers. Anybody with a good reply to this deserves to be modded up to 5. (-:
I see CS people as wanting to be with the next big thing, not the last big thing.
The next 'big thing' is a bunch of small, humble things that make 'big things' irrelevant: that is, the work being done by the Open Source community to fix the mistakes of the past. The next big thing... is software that actually works and meets needs. Find your niche and dig in. For those who majored in CS for the money rather than a love for the art and know only MS garbage, I really can't sympathize much. "Big Software Corp" is a dying beast. And that's a beautiful thing.
Hardware compatibility
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
For those who think the tech industry can provide a 'more reasonable solution,' think again. Any DRM system is based fundamentally on encryption and obfuscation. The only way it can 'work' is if all hardware and software involved is proprietary, because otherwise, it would be trivial to break. Somewhere, the decryption key(s) must be transmitted and stored. This is partly why CSS was cracked so easily. There's no need to brute-force the keyspace if you can disassemble the crypto mechanism itself. Obviously, this is what DMCA was designed to fight against. Because the user has physical access to both the ciphertext and key, encryption becomes only an obfuscation technique. So anyways, because OS-level software must be involved if you're going to design a complete computer system this way, the code for it must be proprietary. Otherwise, you could just watch the plaintext and/or keys being passed back and forth throughout authentication and playback. The possible implications for Open Source software and operating systems are fairly obvious. For example, how is the Linux kernel supposed to access a disk if the ATA and SCSI interfaces themselves require authentication? You could use a proprietary module, but at such a low level, what would talk it? The whole VM subsystem would have to be proprietary too.. and the video subsystem, and sound.. and eventually, you wouldn't even have the Linux kernel anymore. Then you move beyond the kernel and every application that touches "protected" content must be fully proprietary along with all libraries used and any interfaces with the rest of the system, probably X included. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if SSSCA would, in effect, make nearly all Open Source software illegal. And if SSSCA doesn't get passed and the tech industry comes up with it's own solution, the DMCA will then make Open Source software illegal on new hardware because the only way it could work is by breaking the whole DRM scheme.
That being said, I really doubt this kinda crap will go through. The tech industry realizes full well the possible ramifications.
Anyone who's ever been to / lived in San Fran. or San Jose and seen the insane suburban population density there knows that those cities have some major disadvantages despite the wonderful weather. Some people like it, but for many, it's just not their style. Also the cost of living there is downright ridiculous compared to say.. the mid-west or north-east US.
Computer A.. - Includes Windows, MS Word, some cheezy games - Has all sorts of obnoxious copy controls
Computer B.. - Includes Linux, StarOffice, Gaim/Licq, CD writer software, XMMS, Gnutella/Fastrack/OpenNap clients, and everything else he could possibly ever need--all pre-installed and with seperate/home so that the 'recovery CD' will not cause loss of his data should he screw up his machine somehow. Oh yeah.. probably has some cheezy games too.. except they might actually be fun. - No copy controls whatsoever
At least legally, nobody. And it should stay that way. The market will force proprietary software companies to fix their bugs faster or else the market will choose Open Source software instead. I'm hoping for the latter.
I'm not going to continue the nonsense back and forth, going-nowhere part of the argument. Lets cut to facts only.
when money gets tight expenditures on all forms of outsourcing - consultants, freelancers, custom development and support contracts - are the first to go. The service income that you posit as a substitute for product income dries up, leaving nothing for open-source developers. It's not a coincidence that open-source software rose to prominence during an economic boom, and has receded during the ensuing decline.
OK.. this is a sensible argument. I'm not sure why you didn't make it originally. I'm not sure I totally agree with part of it, so here goes.. You say that outsourcing is the first thing to get cut, and that's true. However, look for a moment only at firms that do not have an IT staff. They still need software. They still need someone to maintain their systems. If they can get the same software / service they need for cheaper, they will switch. In many cases, Open Source software already exists that meets the vast majority of a need and the only reason a proprietary package gets deployed instead is because 1.) they aren't aware of the free software or 2.) they are but have nobody with the knowledge required to install it.
For larger companies with an IT staff that doesn't want to outsource software consulting, there's no reason their IT staff can't include some in-house programmers that work on open projects. In fact, that's probably the biggest option right now. Develop it because you need it and the framework already exists. Give it away because it's too expensive to maintain yourself. As long as a company is saving money, it makes sense. Or, if the cost is too great, the company could actually *gasp* coordinate a software project with others in the industry via a consortium of some sorts. Spread the cost and still eliminate the middle-man (software company).
You think you're real smart by posting 'fallacy this, fallacy that' don't you. The question to you was whether these people you know (let me guess.. all from the same dotBomb startup?) had tried consulting-related Open Source business models. Judging by the fact that you didn't answer, it is my guess that what I "excluded" was what they in fact tried. And if so, I'm not surprised they failed miserably. If you believe that their example is proof that making money from Open Source doesn't work, then I'm afraid it is you that is making the logical fallacy.
I personally know about two dozen who tried. About half eventually ended up working on proprietary software. The other half are unemployed.
"Two dozen" doesn't tell me anything. What exactly did they try? If you're talking about people who wrote free software and then put a 'donations' box on their website, that doesn't count. Silly dotBomb attempts like making their own distro or trying to provide generic tech support also don't count.
Let me put it more bluntly. There are what are known as "Microsoft Solutions Providers" who go around setting up Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc. for small/medium sized companies. The idea is to provide a complete solution using MS products. Companies pay big bucks to have this work done for them *plus* the exorbitant MS client/server licensing fees. My idea is to do the same thing but with free OSS. At the same time, consultants can provide a *better* solution than the MS people because the software is flexible and can be modified/extended to suit needs. If the client pays less than they would have for proprietary software, there is no reason why they shouldn't go with this option, especially if the resulting setup makes their business more efficient.
How many programmers actually make a living doing open-source programming full time today?
How many programmers actually try? Not many. I'm trying to change that. You're following the herd.
This "phenomenon" you rant about, this wave that's going to overwhelm us all, was barely even statistical noise even at its peak
Yes folks, that's right. All this "Open Source" stuff is just "statistical noise." Go delete your Linux/BSD partitions because it doesn't matter anymore as this poster has so brilliantly pointed out to us. And this comment gets modded up to 5?
Been there? Done that? No, didn't think so.
How about you, bud? You ever try it? No, didn't think so. Well shut your trap then because some of us have open minds and guts to try new things. It's called innovation. People who rant like you are the opposite.
You haven't provided any compelling argument that society would be better off without them. (proprietary software)
Oh, you mean like.. less re-inventing of the wheel? Are you that blind to think that the current proprietary software industry is beneficial to society?
That, my friend, is called argumentum ad hominem and it's frowned upon as a fallacy.
Is that so? Because you use the same technique all throughout your response. For readers who need a clue, argumentum ad hominem is when you attack the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. And I notice that not once in your opposing argument did you actually address what I'm proposing as reasonable or unreasonable. You just made blanket statements and got modded up become some idiots apparently thought your "pragmatist" views were more mature. If you want to stand on the sidelines, fine. But either keep your mouth shut or make an intelligent argument.
I've probably done more for open source than you ever will
Really? Who's the one that's dead set on having a day job doing proprietary software because all that fancy-smancy Open Source stuff doesn't put bread on the table? Eh?
here are some figures: prop software: $1000 + $2000 per year. support OSS: $3000 per year it's all the same to a company. Just money. The only people that care are the zealous programmers that would like to bring the ideals of a communist society, to the technology world.
You couldn't possibly be more thick-skulled could you. You make up random numbers to make it look like you know what you're talking about and then claim that Open Source has something to do with communism--which it has absolutely none of whatsoever. Go crawl back in your hole.
Software as a service is fine, but don't expect your clients to let you open-source it. Do you think GE wants you posting the specs to their latest and greatest medical equipment on the internet, for the benefit of their competitors ? Think again. In the service model, you're most likely going to be writing software that is strictly for use in-house, and either not available to customers, or available on an NDA basis.
That's a valid point. I'm not talking about in-house software carrying trade secrets. I'm talking about software that is normally licensed to many customers with nearly identical needs.
Say I'm going to extend an existing Open Source accounting program to meet a client's needs. Obviously, I'm not going to publicize customizations that apply only to their business. However, if the improvements could help other people who need accounting software, those will most definitely be re-released into the GPL codebase. The client may argue that this will help his/her competitors. This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because: 1.) accounting software is not their core competency; it's an overhead cost that should be minimized 2.) their competitor will no doubt have different needs and still have to pay a consultant to do the same type of work, even if just to integrate the software.
That's in 100% of the contracts I write -- and it's fairly common. If I'm paying for your time I own your product.
Maybe it's time for programmers to stop getting raped and refuse to write that in their contracts with clients. In reality, it's better for you too, because as I reuse code I wrote for you with other customers, I'll improve it and give you the improvements as well. It's not like there's no return on the investment. It just prevents wheels from being re-invented. As such, your cost goes down because I didn't have to start from scratch to write the software you needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering how much *real* science there is to work on--stuff that actually affects us--this kinda random theorizing is such a ridiculous waste. It's not science if you can't prove it.
I know what you're talking about. I'm the same way with lower than 85Hz. refresh, visual glitches, etc. There are several possible causes for this and likewise a number of possible solutions:
1.) Your mouse sampling rate is set too low. This would cause even a very fast system to seem sluggish at dragging windows whilst displaying their contents because the system simply doesn't even try to update any faster. You could edit your XF86Config under the section "InputDevice" and add a line something like:
Option "SampleRate" "100"
## I think the maximum is 200 and default 50.
2.) Your video card is not fully accelerated by the XFree86 driver you're using. You'll have to read the docs to find out what is and isn't. Make sure you're using the latest X release. New versions often have improved drivers. If you're using an NVidia board, you might need to get their proprietary drivers for full performance. (lame!)
3.) Bitmapped titlebars, widgets, etc. always slow things down a little. That goes for KDE's various 'gradient' themes too. Disable these on a slow machine. Win95-2k didn't use them either so no fair comparing apples and oranges.
4.) Depending on what else you're running, you might want to give X itself a higher priority. Set it's nice value to -10 or something.
5.) Windows builds the GDI right into the OS kernel, thereby sacrificing stability and wasting resources if a GUI is unneeded. This, on the other hand, improves responsiveness somewhat. XFree86 sits on top of the kernel like any other app. If X dies, your system doesn't. Modular design allows more flexibility too. And X is far more feature rich than the Windows GDI to begin with.
hahaha 3 people took the bait and wasted their moderator points on that post. Morons. Mod good comments up, don't mod bad ones down.
Oh, btw.. for you misinformed folk who think the Mac gui somehow makes it the only *nix accessible to "ordinary non-tech people," may I suggest that you check out KDE. I've yet to meet someone who was incapable of immediately using it after being familiar with Mac or Windows interfaces.
Turns out he falls in love, to the point of abandoning Linux and taking up OS X full time.
/. editors need to get a clue. Stop posting stories about how MacOSX is so great and so up-and-coming. It is a proprietary, non-free, non-open OS with no technical advantage whatsoever over Linux or modern BSD kernels. Oh, and did I mention the GUI is ugly? Frankly, we don't care.
MacOS X is a joke and entirely redundant and unnecessary. Anyone who actually uses it doesn't know what they're doing. And that's for whom it was designed.. with a big bloated cheezy ugly GUI to try to hide as much of its BSD roots as possible. You
Linux has already won all of my desktops. It has been ages since I booted The Evil OS for anything--even multimedia-related apps. In fact, I couldn't completely switch back to Windows even if I wanted to and was some kind of l33t warez d00d. I have become dependant on the greater flexibility afforded me by all the wonderful OSS out there. 'Critical mass' can't be far away now. My eye is on K and Open Office for bringing about the turning point for the non-tech population.
It would seem to me that most companies large enough to actually NEED a 'mission critical' server farm would have their own IT staff. So why would they outsource the work of setting it up when their own people can do it cheaper? Seems like MCL really limited themselves from the start.
To those Open Source consultants among you, think small business.
ATI Radeon 64DDR. The power supply is made by Aopen and is rated 300W. The same supply had no problem with the same hardware but Tbird 800 and AMD 761.
Frankly, the idea of compiling absolutely everything from source 'just because' seems a little bit of a waste of time. The vast majority of software will only see very very minimal performance increase compared to a well built Debian package with the usual careful choice of compiler flags. (Note: compiling for your CPU's architecture vs. generic i386 makes little difference today since all modern CPU's do very extensive instruction scheduling and out-of-order execution.) Furthermore, from what I saw of Sorcerer, the chosen compiler flags are system-wide instead of being based on the individual packages needs. This is not wise. So, I personally think that Sorcerer is redundant considering the quality and ease of use of Debian source packages for the few programs that can really benefit from hand-tuned compiler flags (such as data compression or encryption software). You just edit the rules and run two commands.
I don't know if this could be partially related, but I've had numerous problems in both Win2k and Linux with this Soyo (Athlon) board. I know that there are some PCI latency issues with the Via KT266A chipset for one. There are some hacks floating around to re-configure some of the PCI registers. Unfortunately, this has not been a total solution in my case. My SB Live! still locks the system solid upon any access. Sometimes the Via 'Rhine' ethernet controller built into this board will also die under heavy load.
So I'm wondering: is this a massive flaw in Soyo's design or is it something that can be fixed via hacking the BIOS and/or chipset registers. Anybody with a good reply to this deserves to be modded up to 5. (-:
I see CS people as wanting to be with the next big thing, not the last big thing.
The next 'big thing' is a bunch of small, humble things that make 'big things' irrelevant: that is, the work being done by the Open Source community to fix the mistakes of the past. The next big thing... is software that actually works and meets needs. Find your niche and dig in. For those who majored in CS for the money rather than a love for the art and know only MS garbage, I really can't sympathize much. "Big Software Corp" is a dying beast. And that's a beautiful thing.
For those who think the tech industry can provide a 'more reasonable solution,' think again. Any DRM system is based fundamentally on encryption and obfuscation. The only way it can 'work' is if all hardware and software involved is proprietary, because otherwise, it would be trivial to break. Somewhere, the decryption key(s) must be transmitted and stored. This is partly why CSS was cracked so easily. There's no need to brute-force the keyspace if you can disassemble the crypto mechanism itself. Obviously, this is what DMCA was designed to fight against. Because the user has physical access to both the ciphertext and key, encryption becomes only an obfuscation technique. So anyways, because OS-level software must be involved if you're going to design a complete computer system this way, the code for it must be proprietary. Otherwise, you could just watch the plaintext and/or keys being passed back and forth throughout authentication and playback. The possible implications for Open Source software and operating systems are fairly obvious. For example, how is the Linux kernel supposed to access a disk if the ATA and SCSI interfaces themselves require authentication? You could use a proprietary module, but at such a low level, what would talk it? The whole VM subsystem would have to be proprietary too.. and the video subsystem, and sound.. and eventually, you wouldn't even have the Linux kernel anymore. Then you move beyond the kernel and every application that touches "protected" content must be fully proprietary along with all libraries used and any interfaces with the rest of the system, probably X included. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if SSSCA would, in effect, make nearly all Open Source software illegal. And if SSSCA doesn't get passed and the tech industry comes up with it's own solution, the DMCA will then make Open Source software illegal on new hardware because the only way it could work is by breaking the whole DRM scheme.
That being said, I really doubt this kinda crap will go through. The tech industry realizes full well the possible ramifications.
Galeon is a small download but can be difficult to upgrade due to its Mozilla and GNOME dependencies.
Don't know what kind of broken Linux distribution you guys are using that doesn't handle dependancies. On mine, installing galeon is as easy as:
apt-get install galeon
Debian all the way!
Anyone who's ever been to / lived in San Fran. or San Jose and seen the insane suburban population density there knows that those cities have some major disadvantages despite the wonderful weather. Some people like it, but for many, it's just not their style. Also the cost of living there is downright ridiculous compared to say.. the mid-west or north-east US.
Which would he buy?
/home so that the 'recovery CD' will not cause loss of his data should he screw up his machine somehow. Oh yeah.. probably has some cheezy games too.. except they might actually be fun.
Computer A..
- Includes Windows, MS Word, some cheezy games
- Has all sorts of obnoxious copy controls
Computer B..
- Includes Linux, StarOffice, Gaim/Licq, CD writer software, XMMS, Gnutella/Fastrack/OpenNap clients, and everything else he could possibly ever need--all pre-installed and with seperate
- No copy controls whatsoever
The brat would have downloaded it otherwise. Who cares. If he wants to use inferior software, let him go ahead.
At least legally, nobody. And it should stay that way. The market will force proprietary software companies to fix their bugs faster or else the market will choose Open Source software instead. I'm hoping for the latter.
I'm not going to continue the nonsense back and forth, going-nowhere part of the argument. Lets cut to facts only.
when money gets tight expenditures on all forms of outsourcing - consultants, freelancers, custom development and support contracts - are the first to go. The service income that you posit as a substitute for product income dries up, leaving nothing for open-source developers. It's not a coincidence that open-source software rose to prominence during an economic boom, and has receded during the ensuing decline.
OK.. this is a sensible argument. I'm not sure why you didn't make it originally. I'm not sure I totally agree with part of it, so here goes.. You say that outsourcing is the first thing to get cut, and that's true. However, look for a moment only at firms that do not have an IT staff. They still need software. They still need someone to maintain their systems. If they can get the same software / service they need for cheaper, they will switch. In many cases, Open Source software already exists that meets the vast majority of a need and the only reason a proprietary package gets deployed instead is because 1.) they aren't aware of the free software or 2.) they are but have nobody with the knowledge required to install it.
For larger companies with an IT staff that doesn't want to outsource software consulting, there's no reason their IT staff can't include some in-house programmers that work on open projects. In fact, that's probably the biggest option right now. Develop it because you need it and the framework already exists. Give it away because it's too expensive to maintain yourself. As long as a company is saving money, it makes sense. Or, if the cost is too great, the company could actually *gasp* coordinate a software project with others in the industry via a consortium of some sorts. Spread the cost and still eliminate the middle-man (software company).
Point is, there are always new options.
Where can you buy this stuff in the US for a reasonable price?
You think you're real smart by posting 'fallacy this, fallacy that' don't you. The question to you was whether these people you know (let me guess.. all from the same dotBomb startup?) had tried consulting-related Open Source business models. Judging by the fact that you didn't answer, it is my guess that what I "excluded" was what they in fact tried. And if so, I'm not surprised they failed miserably. If you believe that their example is proof that making money from Open Source doesn't work, then I'm afraid it is you that is making the logical fallacy.
I personally know about two dozen who tried. About half eventually ended up working on proprietary software. The other half are unemployed.
"Two dozen" doesn't tell me anything. What exactly did they try? If you're talking about people who wrote free software and then put a 'donations' box on their website, that doesn't count. Silly dotBomb attempts like making their own distro or trying to provide generic tech support also don't count.
Let me put it more bluntly. There are what are known as "Microsoft Solutions Providers" who go around setting up Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc. for small/medium sized companies. The idea is to provide a complete solution using MS products. Companies pay big bucks to have this work done for them *plus* the exorbitant MS client/server licensing fees. My idea is to do the same thing but with free OSS. At the same time, consultants can provide a *better* solution than the MS people because the software is flexible and can be modified/extended to suit needs. If the client pays less than they would have for proprietary software, there is no reason why they shouldn't go with this option, especially if the resulting setup makes their business more efficient.
How many programmers actually make a living doing open-source programming full time today?
How many programmers actually try? Not many. I'm trying to change that. You're following the herd.
This "phenomenon" you rant about, this wave that's going to overwhelm us all, was barely even statistical noise even at its peak
Yes folks, that's right. All this "Open Source" stuff is just "statistical noise." Go delete your Linux/BSD partitions because it doesn't matter anymore as this poster has so brilliantly pointed out to us. And this comment gets modded up to 5?
Been there? Done that? No, didn't think so.
How about you, bud? You ever try it? No, didn't think so. Well shut your trap then because some of us have open minds and guts to try new things. It's called innovation. People who rant like you are the opposite.
You haven't provided any compelling argument that society would be better off without them. (proprietary software)
Oh, you mean like.. less re-inventing of the wheel? Are you that blind to think that the current proprietary software industry is beneficial to society?
That, my friend, is called argumentum ad hominem and it's frowned upon as a fallacy.
Is that so? Because you use the same technique all throughout your response. For readers who need a clue, argumentum ad hominem is when you attack the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. And I notice that not once in your opposing argument did you actually address what I'm proposing as reasonable or unreasonable. You just made blanket statements and got modded up become some idiots apparently thought your "pragmatist" views were more mature. If you want to stand on the sidelines, fine. But either keep your mouth shut or make an intelligent argument.
I've probably done more for open source than you ever will
Really? Who's the one that's dead set on having a day job doing proprietary software because all that fancy-smancy Open Source stuff doesn't put bread on the table? Eh?
here are some figures: prop software: $1000 + $2000 per year. support
OSS: $3000 per year it's all the same to a company. Just money. The only people that care are the zealous programmers that would like to bring the ideals of a communist society, to the technology world.
You couldn't possibly be more thick-skulled could you. You make up random numbers to make it look like you know what you're talking about and then claim that Open Source has something to do with communism--which it has absolutely none of whatsoever. Go crawl back in your hole.
Which is scarier? artificial intelligence or a NYC cab driver?
Software as a service is fine, but don't expect your clients to let you open-source it. Do you think GE wants you posting the specs to their latest and greatest medical equipment on the internet, for the benefit of their competitors ? Think again. In the service model, you're most likely going to be writing software that is strictly for use in-house, and either not available to customers, or available on an NDA basis.
That's a valid point. I'm not talking about in-house software carrying trade secrets. I'm talking about software that is normally licensed to many customers with nearly identical needs.
Say I'm going to extend an existing Open Source accounting program to meet a client's needs. Obviously, I'm not going to publicize customizations that apply only to their business. However, if the improvements could help other people who need accounting software, those will most definitely be re-released into the GPL codebase. The client may argue that this will help his/her competitors. This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because: 1.) accounting software is not their core competency; it's an overhead cost that should be minimized 2.) their competitor will no doubt have different needs and still have to pay a consultant to do the same type of work, even if just to integrate the software.
That's in 100% of the contracts I write -- and it's fairly common. If I'm paying for your time I own your product.
Maybe it's time for programmers to stop getting raped and refuse to write that in their contracts with clients. In reality, it's better for you too, because as I reuse code I wrote for you with other customers, I'll improve it and give you the improvements as well. It's not like there's no return on the investment. It just prevents wheels from being re-invented. As such, your cost goes down because I didn't have to start from scratch to write the software you needed.