"Of all the great programmers I can think of, I know of only one who would voluntarily program in Java. And of all the great programmers I can think of who don't work for Sun, on Java, I know of zero."
Paul Graham sounds a lot like Bill gates in "Programmers at Work" as he talks about great programmers. Gates definition of a great programmer happened to coincide with his own skills and in Graham's case, great programmers hold the same views on Java that he does (and by inference Graham must be a great programmer too, right?)
In both cases, this is self-serving crap. We can debate the value of Java, but let's drop the question begging and the self promotion.
In some theaters Star Wars played more than 52 weeks. You can't re-release a film that is still in distribution. The renaming first appeared when Star Wars was re-released between V and VI.
Maybe you're just growing up and your likes have changed. I was in college when episode IV came out and I found the cute aliens to be a bit much. Not as bad as Jar-Jar mind you, but from the same mindset.
It sounds like you didn't see Star Wars in 1977. The original version didn't have a subtitle. "Episode IV - A New Hope" was added when Star Wars was re-released with a trailer for "Return of the Jedi". By that time everyone on the planet that was old enough to see Star Wars and wanted to see it, had seen it (often multiple times). So it really wasn't a plot device, more of a marketing device.
If you go back to the start of this thread, I was responding to the claim that called FUD on the idea that open source would cause the loss of programming jobs. There are very few third-world nations with a large number of programmers, but those that do are almost exclusively developing closed source software.
So, I return to my primary argument: there is no solid evidence that open source will not lead to a loss of programming jobs and since open source advocates are suggesting a fundamental change in the status quo, they have the burden of proof.
Since I'm now repeating myself, I'll let you have the last word. I'm done.
You seem to be backing away a bit from your claim that developers "will call the shots".
In addition, I didn't claim that developers are "at the mercy of the end-users". It's just that if you ignore the needs of users, your software won't be widely adopted.
If Linux really takes off, vendors like Red Hat will have a lot more to do with the destiny of Linux (at least the version that most people use) than Linus will.
The idea that making IP freely available might put people out of work is a much more plausible conclusion that the idea that it won't. This is a case where the open source advocates have the burden of proof (not just speculation). I'll be waiting for the hard numbers.
"With F/OS software, the programmers ultimately call the shots because they're the ones that write the code."
You forgot my assumption. As long as F/OS remains a tiny niche, ordinary users have little influence on it. If the progammers continue to do it for themselves, the masses won't adopt it. They'll continue to use closed code because it better satisfies their needs.
Given the market share of the iPod, it's clear that it isn't being purchased exclusively by the "usual suspects". It remains to be seen if Job's distortion reality field can reach non-Mac iPod customers.
by not releasing the orginal versions prior to damaging the franchise with Episodes I & II. The perfect time would have been when the special editions were out in the theatres. I have the original movies on tape, for me the DVD's are just too late.
The economic advantages of GPL'd code are shared by BSD'd code, open source public domain code, and free closed source code.
As far as your "joint effort" theory is concerned consider these points:
1. Nothing prevents consumers of your BSD'd or open source public domain code from sharing their changes when they distribute their derived code, it's just not forced on them.
2. Downstream consumers of your GPL'd source code can fully comply with the terms of the GPL without providing you personally with the new code or informing you of the improvements. So there's no guarantee that you'll ever see the improvements.
3. There's also no guarantee that the changes that are made are relevant, appropriate, or at the same level of quality as your own.
The bottom line is that the unique benefits of the GPL are mostly theoretical.
"You know that MS has kept secret functionality in his OS, so their apps run better than competition apps, created on their compilers?"
The impact of the so-called secret API's is greatly exagerated. Hundreds of successful non-MS applications have been written for Windows and some like Quicken won the competition with MS. A pure.NET application doesn't use the Win32 API directly, so it's not really a factor anyway.
See, even free software advocates can't keep their "frees" straight. You can get cost-free tools from MS for.NET if cost is the issue. You don't get the source, of course, but that's not an economic problem.
"The overwhelming majority of software is written for in-house use by companies who have absolutely no interest in selling it to anyone."
Well, I'm not certain that's true, but in any case it's irrelevent to my post. I was responding to the guy who was talking about a software business that doesn't sell software. You're talking about a non-software business that writes a little in-house code.
Blame RMS. He should have chosen a more appropriate adjective. On the other hand, he may be more clever than he gets credit for.
When I think of this argument I think of Gay Blue Jeans Day in college. The idea was that if you supported gays you should wear blue jeans to school on a particular day. Of course many people wore blue jeans that day that didn't intend to support gays (it was in the late 70's).
In a similar manner, many people use "free" software because it's cost-free, but zealots like RMS can claim the growth of "free" software is a victory for the cause.
"GPL makes sense to the programmer, whose business IS producing software, because if you modify a GPLd software, you have no obligation to give it back. But if you modify it AND distribute it (ie, you sell it), you must give it back to the world, under the GPL."
So it appears you're saying that if your business is producing software but you aren't going to sell it, you don't have to give anything back. So what kind of software business doesn't sell software?
"To the programmer, BSD makes no sense."
To this programmer, your statement makes no sense. If I want to keep my source closed, I keep it to myself. If I want to make my source avaliable, I don't give a rat's ass what people do with it. If I incorporate somebody else's code in mine, why would I want to choose GPL'd code with all the restrictions that go with it?
Using the long obsolete Windows 98 is like using a rope to secure your front door. Anybody who can afford broadband can afford to upgrade to Windows XP.
Of course, you can install Linux instead if Windows compatability isn't important. In either case, you may have to update or replace your computer hardware.
I guess by intention, they were heroes, but I'd dispute the idea that these shuttle flights have done anything to advance the human race and I don't believe we have done any manned space exploration since the moon missions.
The point is based on this thread. The claim was made that if XP source were opened, MS would benefit because the OSS community could improve it. Improving it from the context of current customers would mean at a minimum maintaining all the current functionality and compatiblity and then increasing speed etc.
There are two different approaches to do this:
1. You can modify the existing code and live with the current architecture however flawed you may believe it to be.
2. You can start from scratch and do it "right".
Option 2 doesn't support the original argument since opening XP source is not required to perform it.
So I go back to my original point. There's no evidence that MS would benefit from opening their source code.
Slashdot Mirror
"Of all the great programmers I can think of, I know of only one who would voluntarily program in Java. And of all the great programmers I can think of who don't work for Sun, on Java, I know of zero."
Paul Graham sounds a lot like Bill gates in "Programmers at Work" as he talks about great programmers. Gates definition of a great programmer happened to coincide with his own skills and in Graham's case, great programmers hold the same views on Java that he does (and by inference Graham must be a great programmer too, right?)
In both cases, this is self-serving crap. We can debate the value of Java, but let's drop the question begging and the self promotion.
In some theaters Star Wars played more than 52 weeks. You can't re-release a film that is still in distribution. The renaming first appeared when Star Wars was re-released between V and VI.
Cute aliens in the bar scene, cute aliens in the desert, cute wookie, cute robots ...
Maybe you're just growing up and your likes have changed. I was in college when episode IV came out and I found the cute aliens to be a bit much. Not as bad as Jar-Jar mind you, but from the same mindset.
Actually, the Episode IV subtitle wasn't part of the orginal release, it was added years later.
It sounds like you didn't see Star Wars in 1977. The original version didn't have a subtitle. "Episode IV - A New Hope" was added when Star Wars was re-released with a trailer for "Return of the Jedi". By that time everyone on the planet that was old enough to see Star Wars and wanted to see it, had seen it (often multiple times). So it really wasn't a plot device, more of a marketing device.
In other words, you were unable to find one.
If you go back to the start of this thread, I was responding to the claim that called FUD on the idea that open source would cause the loss of programming jobs. There are very few third-world nations with a large number of programmers, but those that do are almost exclusively developing closed source software.
So, I return to my primary argument: there is no solid evidence that open source will not lead to a loss of programming jobs and since open source advocates are suggesting a fundamental change in the status quo, they have the burden of proof.
Since I'm now repeating myself, I'll let you have the last word. I'm done.
You seem to be backing away a bit from your claim that developers "will call the shots".
In addition, I didn't claim that developers are "at the mercy of the end-users". It's just that if you ignore the needs of users, your software won't be widely adopted.
If Linux really takes off, vendors like Red Hat will have a lot more to do with the destiny of Linux (at least the version that most people use) than Linus will.
Name one wealthy nation that doesn't have strong IP protection.
The idea that making IP freely available might put people out of work is a much more plausible conclusion that the idea that it won't. This is a case where the open source advocates have the burden of proof (not just speculation). I'll be waiting for the hard numbers.
"With F/OS software, the programmers ultimately call the shots because they're the ones that write the code."
You forgot my assumption. As long as F/OS remains a tiny niche, ordinary users have little influence on it. If the progammers continue to do it for themselves, the masses won't adopt it. They'll continue to use closed code because it better satisfies their needs.
The Open Source community is not like a trade guild. A trade guild is a real organization with explicitly stated rules and policies.
If the day ever comes that the non-programming OSS users outnumber the nebulous OSS community, it won't even matter what the community thinks.
Given the market share of the iPod, it's clear that it isn't being purchased exclusively by the "usual suspects". It remains to be seen if Job's distortion reality field can reach non-Mac iPod customers.
by not releasing the orginal versions prior to damaging the franchise with Episodes I & II. The perfect time would have been when the special editions were out in the theatres. I have the original movies on tape, for me the DVD's are just too late.
The economic advantages of GPL'd code are shared by BSD'd code, open source public domain code, and free closed source code.
As far as your "joint effort" theory is concerned consider these points:
1. Nothing prevents consumers of your BSD'd or open source public domain code from sharing their changes when they distribute their derived code, it's just not forced on them.
2. Downstream consumers of your GPL'd source code can fully comply with the terms of the GPL without providing you personally with the new code or informing you of the improvements. So there's no guarantee that you'll ever see the improvements.
3. There's also no guarantee that the changes that are made are relevant, appropriate, or at the same level of quality as your own.
The bottom line is that the unique benefits of the GPL are mostly theoretical.
"You know that MS has kept secret functionality in his OS, so their apps run better than competition apps, created on their compilers?"
.NET application doesn't use the Win32 API directly, so it's not really a factor anyway.
The impact of the so-called secret API's is greatly exagerated. Hundreds of successful non-MS applications have been written for Windows and some like Quicken won the competition with MS. A pure
See, even free software advocates can't keep their "frees" straight. You can get cost-free tools from MS for .NET if cost is the issue. You don't get the source, of course, but that's not an economic problem.
"The overwhelming majority of software is written for in-house use by companies who have absolutely no interest in selling it to anyone."
Well, I'm not certain that's true, but in any case it's irrelevent to my post. I was responding to the guy who was talking about a software business that doesn't sell software. You're talking about a non-software business that writes a little in-house code.
Blame RMS. He should have chosen a more appropriate adjective. On the other hand, he may be more clever than he gets credit for.
When I think of this argument I think of Gay Blue Jeans Day in college. The idea was that if you supported gays you should wear blue jeans to school on a particular day. Of course many people wore blue jeans that day that didn't intend to support gays (it was in the late 70's).
In a similar manner, many people use "free" software because it's cost-free, but zealots like RMS can claim the growth of "free" software is a victory for the cause.
"GPL makes sense to the programmer, whose business IS producing software, because if you modify a GPLd software, you have no obligation to give it back. But if you modify it AND distribute it (ie, you sell it), you must give it back to the world, under the GPL."
So it appears you're saying that if your business is producing software but you aren't going to sell it, you don't have to give anything back. So what kind of software business doesn't sell software?
"To the programmer, BSD makes no sense."
To this programmer, your statement makes no sense. If I want to keep my source closed, I keep it to myself. If I want to make my source avaliable, I don't give a rat's ass what people do with it. If I incorporate somebody else's code in mine, why would I want to choose GPL'd code with all the restrictions that go with it?
Using the long obsolete Windows 98 is like using a rope to secure your front door. Anybody who can afford broadband can afford to upgrade to Windows XP.
Of course, you can install Linux instead if Windows compatability isn't important. In either case, you may have to update or replace your computer hardware.
Well, NASA is examining that possiblity now. Given the rover successes on Mars, a remote repair robot in earth orbit seems quite feasible.
In any case, you could replace the existing Hubble with a small fraction of the money spent on the Shuttle program.
And how many men are on board the Hubble?
I guess by intention, they were heroes, but I'd dispute the idea that these shuttle flights have done anything to advance the human race and I don't believe we have done any manned space exploration since the moon missions.
The point is based on this thread. The claim was made that if XP source were opened, MS would benefit because the OSS community could improve it. Improving it from the context of current customers would mean at a minimum maintaining all the current functionality and compatiblity and then increasing speed etc.
There are two different approaches to do this:
1. You can modify the existing code and live with the current architecture however flawed you may believe it to be.
2. You can start from scratch and do it "right".
Option 2 doesn't support the original argument since opening XP source is not required to perform it.
So I go back to my original point. There's no evidence that MS would benefit from opening their source code.