Re:Paid to solve problems
on
Men of Zeal
·
· Score: 2
True, customized solutions in themselves are rarely useful as free software, but the building blocks and tools used for customized solutions are. You will also notice, that this is the area where free software has been most succeful, even before the hype money came.
Solving a problem often involves improving a generic tool, rather than writing everything from scratch. So, rather than say, writing your own HTTP server in order to solve a specific need for which there exists no pre-fabricated solution, you take Apache, add the missing functionality, and present it as a cheap to solution to your happy employer. In order to save your employer money on a longer term, you spend some extra money now to make the solution nicely generic, and submit it back to the Apache team. That way, he will not have to redo the work when he need a functionality from a newer version of Apache.
...
All the examples you gave exists not only as free software, but as free software projects where the lead programmers are paid to work full time on the project. Of the other programmers, many are paid to work full time on solutions, and like above use some of the time to make the free software work as part of a solution.
The one exception is games. I do not know if free software works as a development model in all areas, even though it obviously works in some areas, like development tools. One area I could imagine it doesn't work is the modern type of game, you play once and marvel over the artwork, and then buy another game. Free software works best where incremental improvements are natural. Modern games are more like movies, and you don't go back and improve old movies apart from a rare "directors cut", you start working on a new one. I see games like much the same. The tools and building blocks for creating games on the other hand, are natural candidates for free software. I notice Loki software seems to agree.
Paid to solve problems
on
Men of Zeal
·
· Score: 2
My employer has specific problems he want to solve. I'm hired to solve the problems. I write free software as part of the solution. Everybody wins. My employers problems are solved, I'm getting paid, and more free software is produced.
I do not understand why this concept seems so hard to grasp, that some people claim that it cannot work, despite the fact that is *does* work. I *am* getting my salary. My employer *is* getting his problems solved. I *am* writting free software.
Maybe you think all programmers are creating products. Some are. They are a small minority. Far most programmers are employed in the internal infrastructure side of various commercial or non-commercial organizations. Our work is less visible than those who create shrink-wrap products, but it is no less important.
It duplicates parts of the standard library. For programmers who already uses the standard library, it means you have to deal with two string classes, two vector classes, etc. If nothing else, that is ugly.
What I am saying is that Red Hat is spending their development money to make Red Hat (and Linux in general, since that's their strategy) more attractive to developers of both free and non-free applications.
Troll Tech is spending their ressources to make their product (Qt) more attractive to their customers, and part of their strategy is to give it away for free to people who wouldn't be able to pay anyway.
Both strategies make commercial sense, and both strategies benefit both the free software community, and Linux(/Unix) users in general.
I don't see the need to take side, or declare one for the moral winner.
Gtk-- never had the backing of a company like Troll Tech og Red Hat, it was (is) one of these old fashioned free software projects made by volunteers in their spare time. You may laugh at that, but I think they did made some incredible good work, compensating with clever design for the lack of manpower. Sometime driven hackers can do that.
I'm happy the design will be reused in Inti, it probably represents a much larger part of the work put into Gtk-- than the main code.
I haven't used Gtk-- in anything but a pilot project, but it as a joy to use. Compared to Qt i liked that it was just a GUI library (which Inti unfortunately won't be), that it used STL, and that it didn't depend on a preprocessor. I believe Gtk-- has always been driven by technical goals, not commercial or political goals, so the Qt license or "Stallmans decrees" have never been important. Inti will probably be driven by commercial goals, but if they keep the good design from Gtk-- and add full-time programming ressources, that will be fine with me.
> Qt is already available under a perfectly free > software license.
Yes, but not all Red Hat's customers write free software. Red Hat need a competitive solution for them too. And currently Qt is much more expensive than any of the other widespread GUI tools. You can buy Delphi _and_ C++Builder _and_ Visual C++ (with MFC) for less than the price of a single Qt license.
On the other hand, a zillion one-man projects doesn't get us anywhere. And that is what we will get, since there aren't two programmers who agree on everything.
Which means free software programmers should think very hard before staring their own project. Is your own better design ideas really so much better, that they outweight the advantage of sharing the work with other programmers in an existing project? And don't overestimate your own programmimng ability, like most programmers do.
Sometimes the answer is yes. This might be one of them. But most times, it is not.
Maybe so, but in that case I don't think it is worth celebrating. Enforcing your own preferences with violence on other people does not seem like a good thing.
I don't like McDonalds food, so I don't eat there. I don't see how this give me the right to deny others the choice of eating at McDonald.
I also don't like the ridiculously small portions served at most of the higher class restourants here in Denmark, most of which subscribe to the French "Nouvelle Cousine" (the food is fine, there is just too little of it). Does this give me the right to vandalize all the French resteaurants in Denmark?
Maybe traditional Danish cousine should be the only option in Denmark. That would be fried pork, potatoes, and vegetables from which all taste have been boiled out.
I think the point is that it, in practice, is easier to make a license for some code "looser" than to make it "stricter". Yes, theoretically you can do it both ways, but if you make it stricter it will be hard to prove that violaters doesn't use the code derived from what you released under the old loose license. So in pratice, the new restrictions will be hard to enforce.
The EU does recognize software / algorithm patents
Well, Denmark doesn't. In paragraph 1.2.3 of the Danish patent law, programs for computers ("datamaskiner") is explicitly excempted. However, as an earlier poster pointed out, algorithms can still be patented as part of a larger system.
Note that the EU doesn't recognize software patents, so er *can* export reimplementations of the patented algorithms. If this goes through, US citizens will be the only one unable to benefit from US developed encyption technology.
I know you are troll, but I have a personal answer nonetheless.
The reason there _can_ live 6 billion people is technological development. Without it, we wouldn't have starving children in Somalia, their parents would have starved to dead long ago. Of course, the most direct relevant technology is agriculture. I happen to work at the Agricultural University of Denmark. We work together with the Danish foreign aid service (among others) on projects in Africa and Asia. One of the things we do, is to calculate the most efficient and non-poluting use of fertilizers with the help computer simulations. I program these. The big simulations can take a month to run on a classroom full of PC's (we cannot afford specialized hardware, so we borrow the student PC's when they have vacation). When the PC's get faster, we can make better simulations. Which improve our agricultural techniques. Which help the starving children Somalia.
Yes, I know the technology isn't made for our sake, but nonetheless it benefits much more than just teenage boys wanting to play cool computer games (not that these run AS/400).
> Does Microsoft have *any* actual input into the > decision-making process/control of GCC?
At least one of their engineers are active one the GCC development list, which means Microsoft has about as much influence as anyone else. GCC is run by engineers, not companies. Anyone who can contribute, is welcome.
Actually, there continue to be lots of innovation in the free software community. It just gets less attention from the newly converted Linux users and/.'ers, who, naturally, are looking for applications that look similar to what they are used to from the MS world. The mail agent I use, Gnus, has a single optional feature inspired from MS, namely graphical presentation of smileys. Apart from that, it is probably the most innovative mail agent in existence. It is certainly the most featureful. However, since it doesn't look anything like an MS application, it isn't what the new generation of Linux users are looking for. They will look for something like the MS Windows application they used before, and then complain about the lack of innivation.
> > Why should there be source for the cell phone > > switches? And why should "the compiler and > > tools" be part of such a switch?
> Then obviously you have never had to make sure > these beasts keep running and current.
You misunderstood my "should". I didn't ask why source for the cell phone switch would be *nice*, but what obligation Motorola have to provide it. Be doesn't provide source for BeOS, even though they include gcc.
> Considering I've SEEN this 'data', > why don't YOU verify it? Go buy a phone switch.
Why should I? I have no need for a phone switch, and you have presented zero evidence that there is a problem. Would you spend *any* money verifying *any* claim from an anonymous/. poster?
Then explain the compiler and tools that are included in cell phone switches, for which there is NO SOURCE for. This doesn't fit the model you mention.
It doesn't even make sense as stated. Why should there be source for the cell phone switches? And why should "the compiler and tools" be part of such a switch?
The actual problem is/.'ers extrapolating on rumors, rather than verificable data. The FSF is contractually bound to only distribute gcc as free software. To see whether they have violated or found a loophole in these contracts, we would need details and facts rather than loose rumors from anonymous/.'ers.
It also has a price, in administration, in confusion, and in synchronizing changes to the two branches. It is probably worth the extra work for a project like Linux, but for projects with a small user base I don't believe the benefits outweight the costs.
It goes the other way too, if you want to influence a free software project, you should respect the people doing the work. Including the fact that they may accationally be too busy to answer.
I maintain some minor free software packages, and the flames/whining[1] vs. praise in my email is about 0.1 or so. I.e. much more positive email than negative. I talked to a friend who put in a lot of work to maintain a web site / database about cultural events, and asked if he didn't feel the positive feedback compensated for the hard work, expecting a similar ratio. But he answered that the ratio was the opposite.
Which makes me wonder: Are users of free web sites a lot more inclined to whine and flame the people who provide them, than the users of free software? It certainly fit the way some/. posters act personally insulted, each time an/. makes an editorial choice they disagree with.
[1] I distinguish between "whining" and constructive critisism by the whiners seeming to think they have a right to *demand* improvements, or feel cheated if the free software doesn't solve their particular problems.
Slashdot Mirror
True, customized solutions in themselves are rarely useful as free software, but the building blocks and tools used for customized solutions are. You will also notice, that this is the area where free software has been most succeful, even before the hype money came.
Solving a problem often involves improving a generic tool, rather than writing everything from scratch. So, rather than say, writing your own HTTP server in order to solve a specific need for which there exists no pre-fabricated solution, you take Apache, add the missing functionality, and present it as a cheap to solution to your happy employer. In order to save your employer money on a longer term, you spend some extra money now to make the solution nicely generic, and submit it back to the Apache team. That way, he will not have to redo the work when he need a functionality from a newer version of Apache.
...
All the examples you gave exists not only as free software, but as free software projects where the lead programmers are paid to work full time on the project. Of the other programmers, many are paid to work full time on solutions, and like above use some of the time to make the free software work as part of a solution.
The one exception is games. I do not know if free software works as a development model in all areas, even though it obviously works in some areas, like development tools. One area I could imagine it doesn't work is the modern type of game, you play once and marvel over the artwork, and then buy another game. Free software works best where incremental improvements are natural. Modern games are more like movies, and you don't go back and improve old movies apart from a rare "directors cut", you start working on a new one. I see games like much the same. The tools and building blocks for creating games on the other hand, are natural candidates for free software. I notice Loki software seems to agree.
My employer has specific problems he want to solve. I'm hired to solve the problems. I write free software as part of the solution. Everybody wins. My employers problems are solved, I'm getting paid, and more free software is produced.
I do not understand why this concept seems so hard to grasp, that some people claim that it cannot work, despite the fact that is *does* work. I *am* getting my salary. My employer *is* getting his problems solved. I *am* writting free software.
Maybe you think all programmers are creating products. Some are. They are a small minority. Far most programmers are employed in the internal infrastructure side of various commercial or non-commercial organizations. Our work is less visible than those who create shrink-wrap products, but it is no less important.
From the FSF link you posted:
But non-copylefted free software also exists.
Exactly which part of that statement is it you have trouble understanding?
Too bad, their discussions on the gtk-- lists where always interesting and insightful, even if somewhat longish.
"*(int*)NULL" isn't legal C++, although most compilers accept it.
It duplicates parts of the standard library. For programmers who already uses the standard library, it means you have to deal with two string classes, two vector classes, etc. If nothing else, that is ugly.
What I am saying is that Red Hat is spending their development money to make Red Hat (and Linux in general, since that's their strategy) more attractive to developers of both free and non-free applications.
Troll Tech is spending their ressources to make their product (Qt) more attractive to their customers, and part of their strategy is to give it away for free to people who wouldn't be able to pay anyway.
Both strategies make commercial sense, and both strategies benefit both the free software community, and Linux(/Unix) users in general.
I don't see the need to take side, or declare one for the moral winner.
Gtk-- never had the backing of a company like Troll Tech og Red Hat, it was (is) one of these old fashioned free software projects made by volunteers in their spare time. You may laugh at that, but I think they did made some incredible good work, compensating with clever design for the lack of manpower. Sometime driven hackers can do that.
I'm happy the design will be reused in Inti, it probably represents a much larger part of the work put into Gtk-- than the main code.
I haven't used Gtk-- in anything but a pilot project, but it as a joy to use. Compared to Qt i liked that it was just a GUI library (which Inti unfortunately won't be), that it used STL, and that it didn't depend on a preprocessor. I believe Gtk-- has always been driven by technical goals, not commercial or political goals, so the Qt license or "Stallmans decrees" have never been important. Inti will probably be driven by commercial goals, but if they keep the good design from Gtk-- and add full-time programming ressources, that will be fine with me.
> Qt is already available under a perfectly free > software license.
Yes, but not all Red Hat's customers write free software. Red Hat need a competitive solution for them too. And currently Qt is much more expensive than any of the other widespread GUI tools. You can buy Delphi _and_ C++Builder _and_ Visual C++ (with MFC) for less than the price of a single Qt license.
On the other hand, a zillion one-man projects doesn't get us anywhere. And that is what we will get, since there aren't two programmers who agree on everything.
Which means free software programmers should think very hard before staring their own project. Is your own better design ideas really so much better, that they outweight the advantage of sharing the work with other programmers in an existing project? And don't overestimate your own programmimng ability, like most programmers do.
Sometimes the answer is yes. This might be one of them. But most times, it is not.
Maybe so, but in that case I don't think it is worth celebrating. Enforcing your own preferences with violence on other people does not seem like a good thing.
I don't like McDonalds food, so I don't eat there. I don't see how this give me the right to deny others the choice of eating at McDonald.
I also don't like the ridiculously small portions served at most of the higher class restourants here in Denmark, most of which subscribe to the French "Nouvelle Cousine" (the food is fine, there is just too little of it). Does this give me the right to vandalize all the French resteaurants in Denmark?
Maybe traditional Danish cousine should be the only option in Denmark. That would be fried pork, potatoes, and vegetables from which all taste have been boiled out.
I think the point is that it, in practice, is easier to make a license for some code "looser" than to make it "stricter". Yes, theoretically you can do it both ways, but if you make it stricter it will be hard to prove that violaters doesn't use the code derived from what you released under the old loose license. So in pratice, the new restrictions will be hard to enforce.
Well, Denmark doesn't. In paragraph 1.2.3 of the Danish patent law, programs for computers ("datamaskiner") is explicitly excempted. However, as an earlier poster pointed out, algorithms can still be patented as part of a larger system.
Note that the EU doesn't recognize software patents, so er *can* export reimplementations of the patented algorithms. If this goes through, US citizens will be the only one unable to benefit from US developed encyption technology.
I know you are troll, but I have a personal answer nonetheless.
The reason there _can_ live 6 billion people is technological development. Without it, we wouldn't have starving children in Somalia, their parents would have starved to dead long ago. Of course, the most direct relevant technology is agriculture. I happen to work at the Agricultural University of Denmark. We work together with the Danish foreign aid service (among others) on projects in Africa and Asia. One of the things we do, is to calculate the most efficient and non-poluting use of fertilizers with the help computer simulations. I program these. The big simulations can take a month to run on a classroom full of PC's (we cannot afford specialized hardware, so we borrow the student PC's when they have vacation). When the PC's get faster, we can make better simulations. Which improve our agricultural techniques. Which help the starving children Somalia.
Yes, I know the technology isn't made for our sake, but nonetheless it benefits much more than just teenage boys wanting to play cool computer games (not that these run AS/400).
> Does Microsoft have *any* actual input into the
> decision-making process/control of GCC?
At least one of their engineers are active one the GCC development list, which means Microsoft has about as much influence as anyone else. GCC is run by engineers, not companies. Anyone who can contribute, is welcome.
> Grow some nuts and actually innovate.
/.'ers, who, naturally, are looking for applications that look similar to what they are used to from the MS world. The mail agent I use, Gnus, has a single optional feature inspired from MS, namely graphical presentation of smileys. Apart from that, it is probably the most innovative mail agent in existence. It is certainly the most featureful. However, since it doesn't look anything like an MS application, it isn't what the new generation of Linux users are looking for. They will look for something like the MS Windows application they used before, and then complain about the lack of innivation.
Actually, there continue to be lots of innovation in the free software community. It just gets less attention from the newly converted Linux users and
> > Why should there be source for the cell phone
/. poster?
> > switches? And why should "the compiler and
> > tools" be part of such a switch?
> Then obviously you have never had to make sure > these beasts keep running and current.
You misunderstood my "should". I didn't ask why source for the cell phone switch would be *nice*, but what obligation Motorola have to provide it. Be doesn't provide source for BeOS, even though they include gcc.
> Considering I've SEEN this 'data',
> why don't YOU verify it? Go buy a phone switch.
Why should I? I have no need for a phone switch, and you have presented zero evidence that there is a problem. Would you spend *any* money verifying *any* claim from an anonymous
It doesn't even make sense as stated. Why should there be source for the cell phone switches? And why should "the compiler and tools" be part of such a switch?
The actual problem is
> split the tree into a developmental release.
It also has a price, in administration, in confusion, and in synchronizing changes to the two branches. It is probably worth the extra work for a project like Linux, but for projects with a small user base I don't believe the benefits outweight the costs.
It goes the other way too, if you want to influence a free software project, you should respect the people doing the work. Including the fact that they may accationally be too busy to answer.
I maintain some minor free software packages, and the flames/whining[1] vs. praise in my email is about 0.1 or so. I.e. much more positive email than negative. I talked to a friend who put in a lot of work to maintain a web site / database about cultural events, and asked if he didn't feel the positive feedback compensated for the hard work, expecting a similar ratio. But he answered that the ratio was the opposite.
/. posters act personally insulted, each time an /. makes an editorial choice they disagree with.
Which makes me wonder: Are users of free web sites a lot more inclined to whine and flame the people who provide them, than the users of free software? It certainly fit the way some
[1] I distinguish between "whining" and constructive critisism by the whiners seeming to think they have a right to *demand* improvements, or feel cheated if the free software doesn't solve their particular problems.
Just ask former president Noriega.
Most GNU programs contain ChangeLogs, with detailed information about who did what.