"That would not invalidate the new value they add and the money they pay their engineers to do it -- just like anyone else is free to do the same."
You keep missing the point. There's only so many money-making Linux distros possible (assuming Red Hat has actually made money over it's entire life, something I'm not certain of). You can't prove the viability of orginal OSS projects based on Red Hat's experience.
"Nope, all that matters is that IBM's hardware and services business is doing better with Free software than it would WITHOUT Free software."
That's pretty much the question I posed to you and you didn't provide any evidence to support it.
"ANYONE working with Linux will contribute "very little" - it doesn't matter if they are a business or not."
So I guess Linus has contributed "very little" to Linux since he qualifies as someone working with Linux.
My point was that the economic viability of developing for OSS can't be judged by Red Hat's experience because 95% development was already done before they got involved.
"You imply that proprietary, shrink-wrap style software pays for 100% of IBM's involvement."
I don't know the relative numbers of hardware, software, and service income IBM earns, but proprietary software is certainly part of it. Do you claim that IBM's hardware and service income is growing faster now that it supports Linux than it did before? That would be the relevent question if you wanted to prove that OSS was economically viable.
I recently watched a rerun of a DS9 episode in which Sisko's former mentor was attempting to overthrow the government with the excuse of protecting earth from changelings.
One of the changelings (in the form of O'Brian) taunted Sisko saying that the "solids" were going to defeat themselves.
There was also great commentary on how the Dominion had already won if earth was going to live under martial law.
Given our (USA) current perpetual War on Terror, this resonated with me more than it did the first time I saw it.
"1) Redhat makes money, the employees of Redhat make money. Redhat works with 100% Free software, thus working with Free software CAN and IS profitable"
So what percentage of Linux development has been done by Redhat? Very little. They mostly distributors of other's work. They have more in common with Walmart then MS.
"2) Last I read, IBM currently has over 600 engineers employed working on Free software, maybe even just Linux alone. Those guys are getting paid and IBM ain't doing it for charity, they are doing it to add value to the services and products that they sell their customers."
Yes IBM is using OSS to drive the sale of proprietary software. It's the sale of proprietary software that funds their OSS code.
"Being an open source developer gets you recognition, and recognition can get you business from people, organizations, or businesses that need closed source software."
Name ten rank-and-file OSS developers (no Gurus please) that even 10% of Slashdotters would recognize. The fact is that unless you're a major player in OSS, you won't get any more recognition than you would in a typical closed source job.
That's what an old fart gets for using the current fad words.
Old farts shouldn't worry though, a few years down the road n00b and newb will be like neat and groovy - words used only by the next generation of old farts.
"Personally I find Java's cutesyPooCapitalizationRules very annoying. Hashtable and HashMap indeed."
I don't know much about Java's naming conventions. Was your intent to show that they are inconsistently applied? That's common practice with most naming conventions. Any set of rules that aren't enfoced by the compiler aren't going to get followed very well.
Also in my experience, a lot of productivity is sucked up by convention hard-cases, who feel the need to "correct" non-compliant code when they could be chasing down real functional defects.
I think naming conventions and style conventions are more about compulsiveness and xenophobia than they are about comprehensiveness or maintainability.
It's not that you can't understand This_Is_A_Big_Name when you're used to ThisIsABigName, it just that it disturbs and annoys you.
I'm not sure if Gates really stated that, but if he did, he was defeated long before Linux came along. There have always been multiple OS's around and there always will be, with or without Linux.
"Sure thing! We can refuse to procreate. Less children = less sickness worldwide."
It's hard to raise children in your parent's basement, not to mention the problems in actually getting a date, so I think many Slashdotters are doing all they can to fight population growth.
What happened to the argument about selling services and support? What happened to the argument that progammers can still make a decent living developing OSS/free software?
If those arguments are valid, there should be a lot of money around.
Every company that screwed up the transition from DOS to Windows blamed it on being fooled into developing for OS/2.
It's ironic that Corel who was an early Windows developer with it's Corel Draw product eventually ended up with WordPerfect that failed because WordPerfect corp didn't believe in GUIs and kicked and screamed it's way into Windows.
I think you're compressing time a bit here. Borland bought DBASE (Ashton-Tate) and released Turbo C++ both in 1991. Delphi didn't come along until 1995. It was between these two events when Borland lost most of its market share.
I don't think there was much talk about "enterprise" development back in 1991, but if you were to check the language used for all Windows applications from Windows 1.0 to today, I'll bet that there are more based on C than on VB, OWL, MFC, or.NET.
"I would say it's more akin to growing and harvesting and processing the beans... you're comparing a thirty second process to something that even for small projects will take weeks or months, I hardly think it's an apt metaphor."
It wasn't really intended to be a direct comparison. It was just pointing out the flaw in the argument that a company shouldn't do an activity just because it's not its primary business.
The first thing you should think about before brewing coffee rather than purchase it is: Is our organization a coffee house? If you aren't a coffee house, what makes you think you can successfully brew coffee?
Seriously, all companies do work that they are not in the business of doing. As is usually the case, you have to determine the best course of action on a case-by-case basis.
Well, I don't know how qualified Slashdot editors really are. Do they have prior professional editing experience?
In any case, since space is not as much of a limited quantity on a web site as it is in a printed publication, I don't think editing is really required. Just delete the "first-posts", GNAA, animal sex, etc and let the rest come through unfiltered.
Let Slashdotters make a personal choice about what is a troll, interesting, insightful, etc. They can think on their own.
The real value of the current moderation is for Slashdot marketing - zealots love to hide the opinions of those they disagree with.
"By its very needs, supervision is a centraliced process; when the system is under heavy use by many people, it becomes impossible (see Slashdot moderation as an example)."
I would consider Slashdot moderation to be evidence against the value of a decentralized system.
My theory about early NTG was that Gene Roddenberry felt the weight of his legacy and wanted to ban violence and to make all the plots about missunderstandings. This is a disease that seems to affect George Lucas today (Greedo shoots first).
What made later years of NTG great in my opinion was the way the writers bent Roddenberry's "rules" without entirely breaking them. We got the action and novel ideas together.
Look at my other post and read about Rational Visual Test which IBM killed but won't release the source for. That shows that even as recently as 2 years ago IBM was still doing business as usual.
Slashdot Mirror
"That would not invalidate the new value they add and the money they pay their engineers to do it -- just like anyone else is free to do the same."
You keep missing the point. There's only so many money-making Linux distros possible (assuming Red Hat has actually made money over it's entire life, something I'm not certain of). You can't prove the viability of orginal OSS projects based on Red Hat's experience.
"Nope, all that matters is that IBM's hardware and services business is doing better with Free software than it would WITHOUT Free software."
That's pretty much the question I posed to you and you didn't provide any evidence to support it.
"ANYONE working with Linux will contribute "very little" - it doesn't matter if they are a business or not."
So I guess Linus has contributed "very little" to Linux since he qualifies as someone working with Linux.
My point was that the economic viability of developing for OSS can't be judged by Red Hat's experience because 95% development was already done before they got involved.
"You imply that proprietary, shrink-wrap style software pays for 100% of IBM's involvement."
I don't know the relative numbers of hardware, software, and service income IBM earns, but proprietary software is certainly part of it. Do you claim that IBM's hardware and service income is growing faster now that it supports Linux than it did before? That would be the relevent question if you wanted to prove that OSS was economically viable.
I recently watched a rerun of a DS9 episode in which Sisko's former mentor was attempting to overthrow the government with the excuse of protecting earth from changelings.
One of the changelings (in the form of O'Brian) taunted Sisko saying that the "solids" were going to defeat themselves.
There was also great commentary on how the Dominion had already won if earth was going to live under martial law.
Given our (USA) current perpetual War on Terror, this resonated with me more than it did the first time I saw it.
"1) Redhat makes money, the employees of Redhat make money. Redhat works with 100% Free software, thus working with Free software CAN and IS profitable"
So what percentage of Linux development has been done by Redhat? Very little. They mostly distributors of other's work. They have more in common with Walmart then MS.
"2) Last I read, IBM currently has over 600 engineers employed working on Free software, maybe even just Linux alone. Those guys are getting paid and IBM ain't doing it for charity, they are doing it to add value to the services and products that they sell their customers."
Yes IBM is using OSS to drive the sale of proprietary software. It's the sale of proprietary software that funds their OSS code.
"A career is something you build. It is a "path" that you follow with some goal at the end."
Is the goal at the end unemployment or death?
"Being an open source developer gets you recognition, and recognition can get you business from people, organizations, or businesses that need closed source software."
Name ten rank-and-file OSS developers (no Gurus please) that even 10% of Slashdotters would recognize. The fact is that unless you're a major player in OSS, you won't get any more recognition than you would in a typical closed source job.
It takes one to know one I guess.
That's what an old fart gets for using the current fad words.
Old farts shouldn't worry though, a few years down the road n00b and newb will be like neat and groovy - words used only by the next generation of old farts.
"There was a time when EVERY SINGLE ONE of the laptops you would see would be running Windows."
Sure, but what about the INVISIBLE laptops?
"Personally I find Java's cutesyPooCapitalizationRules very annoying.
Hashtable and HashMap indeed."
I don't know much about Java's naming conventions. Was your intent to show that they are inconsistently applied? That's common practice with most naming conventions. Any set of rules that aren't enfoced by the compiler aren't going to get followed very well.
Also in my experience, a lot of productivity is sucked up by convention hard-cases, who feel the need to "correct" non-compliant code when they could be chasing down real functional defects.
I think naming conventions and style conventions are more about compulsiveness and xenophobia than they are about comprehensiveness or maintainability.
It's not that you can't understand This_Is_A_Big_Name when you're used to ThisIsABigName, it just that it disturbs and annoys you.
I'm not sure if Gates really stated that, but if he did, he was defeated long before Linux came along. There have always been multiple OS's around and there always will be, with or without Linux.
Since we are talking about a small form-factor computer, wouldn't a better analogy be that Apple is bunting?
"For 700 bucks I get a DVD burner, 80 Gig HD and the best OS on the planet."
Which planet are you referring to?
"Sure thing! We can refuse to procreate. Less children = less sickness worldwide."
It's hard to raise children in your parent's basement, not to mention the problems in actually getting a date, so I think many Slashdotters are doing all they can to fight population growth.
"How can we? We don't sell anything"
What happened to the argument about selling services and support? What happened to the argument that progammers can still make a decent living developing OSS/free software?
If those arguments are valid, there should be a lot of money around.
Every company that screwed up the transition from DOS to Windows blamed it on being fooled into developing for OS/2.
It's ironic that Corel who was an early Windows developer with it's Corel Draw product eventually ended up with WordPerfect that failed because WordPerfect corp didn't believe in GUIs and kicked and screamed it's way into Windows.
I think you're compressing time a bit here. Borland bought DBASE (Ashton-Tate) and released Turbo C++ both in 1991. Delphi didn't come along until 1995. It was between these two events when Borland lost most of its market share.
.NET.
I don't think there was much talk about "enterprise" development back in 1991, but if you were to check the language used for all Windows applications from Windows 1.0 to today, I'll bet that there are more based on C than on VB, OWL, MFC, or
Borland killed Borland. They did two stupid things:
1. Bought DBASE
2. Were so excited about C++, that they waited until their C++ tools were ready before making the leap into Windows.
"I would say it's more akin to growing and harvesting and processing the beans... you're comparing a thirty second process to something that even for small projects will take weeks or months, I hardly think it's an apt metaphor."
It wasn't really intended to be a direct comparison. It was just pointing out the flaw in the argument that a company shouldn't do an activity just because it's not its primary business.
The first thing you should think about before brewing coffee rather than purchase it is: Is our organization a coffee house? If you aren't a coffee house, what makes you think you can successfully brew coffee?
Seriously, all companies do work that they are not in the business of doing. As is usually the case, you have to determine the best course of action on a case-by-case basis.
Well, I don't know how qualified Slashdot editors really are. Do they have prior professional editing experience?
In any case, since space is not as much of a limited quantity on a web site as it is in a printed publication, I don't think editing is really required. Just delete the "first-posts", GNAA, animal sex, etc and let the rest come through unfiltered.
Let Slashdotters make a personal choice about what is a troll, interesting, insightful, etc. They can think on their own.
The real value of the current moderation is for Slashdot marketing - zealots love to hide the opinions of those they disagree with.
"By its very needs, supervision is a centraliced process; when the system is under heavy use by many people, it becomes impossible (see Slashdot moderation as an example)."
I would consider Slashdot moderation to be evidence against the value of a decentralized system.
Yes, I guess I am.
My theory about early NTG was that Gene Roddenberry felt the weight of his legacy and wanted to ban violence and to make all the plots about missunderstandings. This is a disease that seems to affect George Lucas today (Greedo shoots first).
What made later years of NTG great in my opinion was the way the writers bent Roddenberry's "rules" without entirely breaking them. We got the action and novel ideas together.
Look at my other post and read about Rational Visual Test which IBM killed but won't release the source for. That shows that even as recently as 2 years ago IBM was still doing business as usual.