I find all these comments about Eclipse not being novel, etc. boring. (that was a nice inviting way to start a reply eh?). Who cares if it's novel or not? Not much is these days. All that matters is if it is worth using.
One other thing that's interesting. A lot of folks tout it as a great IDE/editor/environment because it does a nice job with their Java work, etc. I primarily work in Java, but, as I would guess many others do, I also use Perl, HTML, XML, Python, PHP, bash/sh, and various others.
I've used JBuilder, and if you truly only work in Java, it's pretty rockin (I found it nicer than NetBeans, VisualAge, Together, Emacs, etc.). But, at least for me, I like to have a single editor (which is what I spend 80%+ of my time in) that works for everything I do. This is pretty tough, as various languages and tasks are can have wide ranging needs. Personally, I've solved this for my needs with Visual SlickEdit. It won't be for everyone, but for me, it supports all the languages I use, and does so very well, provides a nice UI, starts up just as fast as vi (and massively faster than Emacs), isn't as cryptic to use as Emacs, yet is equally as powerful (in my use/needs), and runs on the platforms I need (Linux, Windows).
Secondly, as others have pointed out, my environment (i.e. place I work, companies I work for, etc.) require the ability to integrate or use a variety of other tools, including varying source code control systems, build/make systems, debuggers, and so on.
Therefore, to me, Eclipse is very interesting because it is language and tool independent, yet provides a nice environment to work in, that works on all the platforms I need (although I'd like to see this further expanded say to MacOS X), and has the potential to appeal to nearly any developer because of it's flexibility and expandability. Once they have variety of keybindings, and probably get a few more versions along (with more tool, language, etc. support), it seems like it may be incredibly appealing to a huge number of developers. Throw in the open source and free aspect and it becomes that much more appealing. The money I spent on SlickEdit is hands down the best money I've ever spent on software, but I'd still prefer it be open source, and secondarily, free.
For the time being, "X Windows" as someone else said, is my IDE. Now I just wish Windows 2000 had a nice virtual desktop system like X Windows:)
reasons: GPL, patent infringements, etc.
on
Opposing Open Source?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Someone touched on this a bit earlier, but depends on if you mean using open source software or developing it, or developing using pieces of open source.
If you work for a commercial software company, who may not want to make their source open (because they have some proprietary algorithms or whatever - the reasons do not matter for my point), then you simply won't be able to use GPL'ed software. If you have a closed source app, or any software product that doesn't use the GPL, then you can't put GPL code into your app (without making your app GPL essentially). So, my point here is, you will have to beware of the licenses and how they impact your business and your code/application.
Second is a big one: patent infringement. There is a ton of open source software out there that comes with various licenses and such that say "no warranty", or more specifically "AS IS". What this means is that if you use this code (we'll call it "Code A") in your own code, yet Code A infringes on some patent, you can be held responsible for that patent infringement. Through legal wrangling, if the company who released Code A is reputable and well known, you may have recourse and be able to show that they should have known, etc, etc., but not always, and it may be a tough fight.
There are many benefits, but these couple things can be extremely serious issues to content with depending on your use of open source.
I'd like to see this documentation. Granted, companies always have ship dates to meet, and thus bugs get deferred, but I have still yet to see the case where they say "hmm, no, leave that bug in there, cuz then the user will be forced to upgrade later, which brings us more revenue".
I find it interesting that so many people think that [all|most] commercial software companies specifically leave or put bugs into products so that they can make money down the road. My entire professional career has been with commercial software companies, covering a fairly broad range. Never during this time did I see evidence or even hear of anything that backs this kind of idea. Maybe it does happen at Microsoft (I haven't worked there), and maybe at some others, but it seems libelous to speak such sweeping statements about commercial software companies. It should also be noted that many Linux vendors are really commercial software companies as well - they happen to sell a product that is open source, but they're still a commercial endevor. Even if you change "commercial" to be "closed source", I still have yet to see evidence of this apparent common act from software publishers.
Having said all that, I do think there are plenty of crappy licensing situations. It is great if these companies turn to various open source products as a result, but honestly, many of these companies just seem stupid for not doing so sooner, regardless of licensing issues. Why anyone would choose to run IIS for their web server is beyond me. You could make Apache cost money, and I'd still prefer it. This doesn't hold true for all products, but I think aside from licensing there are plenty of other reasons. Maybe it takes something like licensing to make these companies pull their head out and truly examine what their choices are and make a decision based more heavily on quality of product, as opposed to say ease of purchase or that the company's name is recognizeable to some high up (e.g. CIO) who has only heard of Microsoft and hasn't heard of Apache, for example.
Whether these decisions save them money or not is to be seen. In general I would expect it to cost less, but it depends. The purchase price of the product, as pointed out is rarely the biggest cost, and just because an open source product is free, doesn't mean it costs nothing to support (but in the same note, that doesn't mean you shouldn't spend that money, or even spend more - as the quality all around may be worth far more than the potentially increased (or decreased) cost).
Slashdot Mirror
I find all these comments about Eclipse not being novel, etc. boring. (that was a nice inviting way to start a reply eh?). Who cares if it's novel or not? Not much is these days. All that matters is if it is worth using.
:)
One other thing that's interesting. A lot of folks tout it as a great IDE/editor/environment because it does a nice job with their Java work, etc. I primarily work in Java, but, as I would guess many others do, I also use Perl, HTML, XML, Python, PHP, bash/sh, and various others.
I've used JBuilder, and if you truly only work in Java, it's pretty rockin (I found it nicer than NetBeans, VisualAge, Together, Emacs, etc.). But, at least for me, I like to have a single editor (which is what I spend 80%+ of my time in) that works for everything I do. This is pretty tough, as various languages and tasks are can have wide ranging needs. Personally, I've solved this for my needs with Visual SlickEdit. It won't be for everyone, but for me, it supports all the languages I use, and does so very well, provides a nice UI, starts up just as fast as vi (and massively faster than Emacs), isn't as cryptic to use as Emacs, yet is equally as powerful (in my use/needs), and runs on the platforms I need (Linux, Windows).
Secondly, as others have pointed out, my environment (i.e. place I work, companies I work for, etc.) require the ability to integrate or use a variety of other tools, including varying source code control systems, build/make systems, debuggers, and so on.
Therefore, to me, Eclipse is very interesting because it is language and tool independent, yet provides a nice environment to work in, that works on all the platforms I need (although I'd like to see this further expanded say to MacOS X), and has the potential to appeal to nearly any developer because of it's flexibility and expandability. Once they have variety of keybindings, and probably get a few more versions along (with more tool, language, etc. support), it seems like it may be incredibly appealing to a huge number of developers. Throw in the open source and free aspect and it becomes that much more appealing. The money I spent on SlickEdit is hands down the best money I've ever spent on software, but I'd still prefer it be open source, and secondarily, free.
For the time being, "X Windows" as someone else said, is my IDE. Now I just wish Windows 2000 had a nice virtual desktop system like X Windows
Someone touched on this a bit earlier, but depends on if you mean using open source software or developing it, or developing using pieces of open source.
If you work for a commercial software company, who may not want to make their source open (because they have some proprietary algorithms or whatever - the reasons do not matter for my point), then you simply won't be able to use GPL'ed software. If you have a closed source app, or any software product that doesn't use the GPL, then you can't put GPL code into your app (without making your app GPL essentially). So, my point here is, you will have to beware of the licenses and how they impact your business and your code/application.
Second is a big one: patent infringement. There is a ton of open source software out there that comes with various licenses and such that say "no warranty", or more specifically "AS IS". What this means is that if you use this code (we'll call it "Code A") in your own code, yet Code A infringes on some patent, you can be held responsible for that patent infringement. Through legal wrangling, if the company who released Code A is reputable and well known, you may have recourse and be able to show that they should have known, etc, etc., but not always, and it may be a tough fight.
There are many benefits, but these couple things can be extremely serious issues to content with depending on your use of open source.
I'd like to see this documentation. Granted, companies always have ship dates to meet, and thus bugs get deferred, but I have still yet to see the case where they say "hmm, no, leave that bug in there, cuz then the user will be forced to upgrade later, which brings us more revenue".
I find it interesting that so many people think that [all|most] commercial software companies specifically leave or put bugs into products so that they can make money down the road. My entire professional career has been with commercial software companies, covering a fairly broad range. Never during this time did I see evidence or even hear of anything that backs this kind of idea. Maybe it does happen at Microsoft (I haven't worked there), and maybe at some others, but it seems libelous to speak such sweeping statements about commercial software companies. It should also be noted that many Linux vendors are really commercial software companies as well - they happen to sell a product that is open source, but they're still a commercial endevor. Even if you change "commercial" to be "closed source", I still have yet to see evidence of this apparent common act from software publishers.
Having said all that, I do think there are plenty of crappy licensing situations. It is great if these companies turn to various open source products as a result, but honestly, many of these companies just seem stupid for not doing so sooner, regardless of licensing issues. Why anyone would choose to run IIS for their web server is beyond me. You could make Apache cost money, and I'd still prefer it. This doesn't hold true for all products, but I think aside from licensing there are plenty of other reasons. Maybe it takes something like licensing to make these companies pull their head out and truly examine what their choices are and make a decision based more heavily on quality of product, as opposed to say ease of purchase or that the company's name is recognizeable to some high up (e.g. CIO) who has only heard of Microsoft and hasn't heard of Apache, for example.
Whether these decisions save them money or not is to be seen. In general I would expect it to cost less, but it depends. The purchase price of the product, as pointed out is rarely the biggest cost, and just because an open source product is free, doesn't mean it costs nothing to support (but in the same note, that doesn't mean you shouldn't spend that money, or even spend more - as the quality all around may be worth far more than the potentially increased (or decreased) cost).