There are exactly three companies with a successful open source business model. Red Hat, Mozilla, and MySQL. Thats it. I'm not trolling for an argument about open source. You suggested that a video game could be sold proftiably using the open source method. I don't know how. I would like you to explain how. Especially given there are extra special conditions placed on the video game industry that don't exist in the general software industry. Such as the need for hard and concrete deadlines in order to keep up with graphics expectations, the need for good solid artwork, the need for great story tellers...etc. So somehow the open source development method would somehow accomodate not just the original project but any forks as well?
Thats not even beginning to take into account that open source development sucks at interface design. Compare GNOME or KDE to Windows or OS X for example. If they can't get a basic operating system interface right how on earth are they going to create attractive video games?
I'm sure you love your wife and all and perhaps get along with her fine, but why would you marry someone without sharing something so vital with her, in that you are into porn? Don't you think thats something she deserves to know and likewise don't you deserve a spouse who wouldn't judge you negatively on that?
If by "Open Source" you mean one of the open source licenses like the GPL or BSD....then thats pretty much free software isn't it? And how is a company producing such games supposed to make any money with which to pay its developers if anyone can attain their products for free?
Nothing would be hard about it if you were telling the truth. I've tried out many different distros and while some may have a somewhat easy install, upgrading the system or installing/removing applications beyond installation is amazingly difficult. With Windows there's the Remove Programs control panel. Its not as if your computer is going to remain in the same state it was in when you took it out of the box. The user needs to be able to keep it up to date easily.
Which distro should the home user use? How would a home user with a laptop get their 802.11g wifi gear working? Will any distro support brand new hardware such as video cards without a waiting period for open source developers to "catch up"?
The most important question though is if you don't care about the politics of free software, why would you put up with all this difficulty when you could buy a PC and run Windows or a Mac and run OS X?
Linux is in no way shape or form a threat to Apple because Linux represents the opposite of everything Apple is about. Apple is about "ease of use". Linux is about "Make it hard, Make it free too but goddamn it make sure its hard to use or I won't feel smart!"
I don't see much of a cross over between the two userbases.
"The appeal to the violence argument is ridiculous, too. Don't *add* porn, *remove* the violence! If that means that your kids (and you) end up watching less (or no) TV, and skip almost every movie, can you argue that you have been harmed in some way?"
Yes I can argue that. They'd be weird. I don't want my future kids to be weird. I want them to largely conform. And no I'm not being sarcastic in that oh so special Slashdot way. Conformity brings companionship, being a malcontent brings lonliness.
Most people buy a new computer when their operating system goes kablunk. They could just re-install the OS but the thought never occurs to them. Now you want to talk about people getting a HARDWARE issue fixed when they would dump the computer for a mere SOFTWARE issue? You have to remember, if the motherboard goes south when the Mac is under warranty then the Apple Stores will fix them for free. And if its out of warranty, and or beyond Apple Care people aren't going to be that willing to pour more money into what they'll percive by then to be an OLD computer. And despite the recent issues with the G3/G4 iBook logic boards, most Macs and computers in general have motherboards that last longer than 2 or 3 years.
While not open source, installing Windows or installing a new motherboard are still pretty geeky things to do and are things most people wouldn't even think of trying. So again there's no big loss here. Its like you are talking about Burger King not offering various brands of $900 caviar when none of their customers would buy it anyway. Its just not their customer base. Even of Windows users the number of people who upgrade their own systems is miniscule.
I've got a Mac Mini Core Duo and its the fastest computer I've ever owned and I've had some fast ones. I'm now selling my 2Ghz Pentium M Dell laptop cause I don't need it anymore. So yeah your PPC Mac may have been slow in comparison to your PCs but the Intel Macs sure won't be slower.
The bulk of your rant is about the round mouse Apple USED to sell. Your complaint was they wouldn't change it. They DID change it. Apple now sells a mouse called the "Mighty Mouse" and before that it wasn't the round mouse but a mouse similar to the Mighty Mouse.
Its good for the consumer because most consumers couldn't give a rats ass if something was open sourced or not. Apple's main theme is building complete and easy to use systems. Thats pretty much the total opposite of open source which is easy to configure only for geeks and comes in piecemeal fashion requiring one to venture all over to get everything they need. You've got to keep in mind that Slashdot folks are a subset of a niche of the general population. The things that concern a Slashdotter don't register in a non-slashdotter's mind.
To be fair shouldn't you also include in your calculations the combined salaries that all OSS contributors would have made had they instead of working on free software went to work for a proprietary software company? Since there are many many thousands of OSS developers I think the total cost of say Linux for example would far outweigh whatever Microsoft has spent developing Windows. On top of that you have to add the lost sales of the finished product, Linux since it can be obtained for free. Microsoft recoups their development costs and then some, Linux developers do not.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just ask people to respect the intellectual property of others and to not download things they have not purchased? Or would that be too much to ask?
Simply put I myself grew up on the internet, having it alone in my room. Discovered all sorts of things including yes porn and I did not grow up to become a murder or sex offender or anything of the link. So if it was ok for me, why wouldn't it be ok for my kids? Or even your kids?
P.S. I'm looking for something deeper here than just "Well I'm not you, so I'd do things differently.."
If you don't expect a return from a Charity then your're a moron. You have to hold them accountable so you know that they're spending YOUR money wisely to achieve their stated goals.
Even if it is not a business model there are charities out there that do a better job of supporting themselves than Open Source does. Its shameful how bad so many open source projects are at staying above water.
I would strongly dispute your claim that most OSS isn't funded at all. The Mozilla Foundation is the most well funded and aside from Linux developes some of the most important software to the OSS movement. Then there's Red Hat and IBM both of which provide heavy and ongoing financial support to Linux itself. There's MySQL AB which supports MySQL...... To me a project doesn't count just because it exists. It needs first to have users, and then to have support.
Thats great in theory, but whats the probability of that actually happening? Not too many people find the prospect of donating and volunteering labor to something which will not support you to be that attractive.
Did you notice your comment was modded funny? I'm not sure you meant it as a joke but thats how people are seeing it. The number of voters who would vote based on OSS issues alone is extremely small. There is a way for a software writer to stay out of bankrtuptcy, its known as charging for your work via proprietary methods. What Open Source is, is a failed business model. If you want to make money, don't be an idiot and release the fruits of your labor under the GPL or BSD license. If you don't mind starving and being taken advantage of, then go right ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
There are exactly three companies with a successful open source business model. Red Hat, Mozilla, and MySQL. Thats it. I'm not trolling for an argument about open source. You suggested that a video game could be sold proftiably using the open source method. I don't know how. I would like you to explain how. Especially given there are extra special conditions placed on the video game industry that don't exist in the general software industry. Such as the need for hard and concrete deadlines in order to keep up with graphics expectations, the need for good solid artwork, the need for great story tellers...etc. So somehow the open source development method would somehow accomodate not just the original project but any forks as well?
Thats not even beginning to take into account that open source development sucks at interface design. Compare GNOME or KDE to Windows or OS X for example. If they can't get a basic operating system interface right how on earth are they going to create attractive video games?
I'm sure you love your wife and all and perhaps get along with her fine, but why would you marry someone without sharing something so vital with her, in that you are into porn? Don't you think thats something she deserves to know and likewise don't you deserve a spouse who wouldn't judge you negatively on that?
You still haven't explained how the company would make money with a product that people could download for free.
If by "Open Source" you mean one of the open source licenses like the GPL or BSD....then thats pretty much free software isn't it? And how is a company producing such games supposed to make any money with which to pay its developers if anyone can attain their products for free?
How do you earn a living in such a scheme?
Nothing would be hard about it if you were telling the truth. I've tried out many different distros and while some may have a somewhat easy install, upgrading the system or installing/removing applications beyond installation is amazingly difficult. With Windows there's the Remove Programs control panel. Its not as if your computer is going to remain in the same state it was in when you took it out of the box. The user needs to be able to keep it up to date easily.
Which distro should the home user use? How would a home user with a laptop get their 802.11g wifi gear working? Will any distro support brand new hardware such as video cards without a waiting period for open source developers to "catch up"?
The most important question though is if you don't care about the politics of free software, why would you put up with all this difficulty when you could buy a PC and run Windows or a Mac and run OS X?
Linux is in no way shape or form a threat to Apple because Linux represents the opposite of everything Apple is about. Apple is about "ease of use". Linux is about "Make it hard, Make it free too but goddamn it make sure its hard to use or I won't feel smart!"
I don't see much of a cross over between the two userbases.
I think it has more to do with being counter culture than anything else.
"The appeal to the violence argument is ridiculous, too. Don't *add* porn, *remove* the violence! If that means that your kids (and you) end up watching less (or no) TV, and skip almost every movie, can you argue that you have been harmed in some way?"
Yes I can argue that. They'd be weird. I don't want my future kids to be weird. I want them to largely conform. And no I'm not being sarcastic in that oh so special Slashdot way. Conformity brings companionship, being a malcontent brings lonliness.
Most people buy a new computer when their operating system goes kablunk. They could just re-install the OS but the thought never occurs to them. Now you want to talk about people getting a HARDWARE issue fixed when they would dump the computer for a mere SOFTWARE issue? You have to remember, if the motherboard goes south when the Mac is under warranty then the Apple Stores will fix them for free. And if its out of warranty, and or beyond Apple Care people aren't going to be that willing to pour more money into what they'll percive by then to be an OLD computer. And despite the recent issues with the G3/G4 iBook logic boards, most Macs and computers in general have motherboards that last longer than 2 or 3 years.
While not open source, installing Windows or installing a new motherboard are still pretty geeky things to do and are things most people wouldn't even think of trying. So again there's no big loss here. Its like you are talking about Burger King not offering various brands of $900 caviar when none of their customers would buy it anyway. Its just not their customer base. Even of Windows users the number of people who upgrade their own systems is miniscule.
I've got a Mac Mini Core Duo and its the fastest computer I've ever owned and I've had some fast ones. I'm now selling my 2Ghz Pentium M Dell laptop cause I don't need it anymore. So yeah your PPC Mac may have been slow in comparison to your PCs but the Intel Macs sure won't be slower.
The bulk of your rant is about the round mouse Apple USED to sell. Your complaint was they wouldn't change it. They DID change it. Apple now sells a mouse called the "Mighty Mouse" and before that it wasn't the round mouse but a mouse similar to the Mighty Mouse.
Its good for the consumer because most consumers couldn't give a rats ass if something was open sourced or not. Apple's main theme is building complete and easy to use systems. Thats pretty much the total opposite of open source which is easy to configure only for geeks and comes in piecemeal fashion requiring one to venture all over to get everything they need. You've got to keep in mind that Slashdot folks are a subset of a niche of the general population. The things that concern a Slashdotter don't register in a non-slashdotter's mind.
To be fair shouldn't you also include in your calculations the combined salaries that all OSS contributors would have made had they instead of working on free software went to work for a proprietary software company? Since there are many many thousands of OSS developers I think the total cost of say Linux for example would far outweigh whatever Microsoft has spent developing Windows. On top of that you have to add the lost sales of the finished product, Linux since it can be obtained for free. Microsoft recoups their development costs and then some, Linux developers do not.
So when did Linux surpass Windows? Isn't it still hard to use, with much less applications available for it?
Wouldn't it be simpler to just ask people to respect the intellectual property of others and to not download things they have not purchased? Or would that be too much to ask?
Maybe your gf just isn't any good at multitasking. I can carry on multiple conversations at the same time without negelecting any conversation.
Simply put I myself grew up on the internet, having it alone in my room. Discovered all sorts of things including yes porn and I did not grow up to become a murder or sex offender or anything of the link. So if it was ok for me, why wouldn't it be ok for my kids? Or even your kids?
P.S. I'm looking for something deeper here than just "Well I'm not you, so I'd do things differently.."
If you don't expect a return from a Charity then your're a moron. You have to hold them accountable so you know that they're spending YOUR money wisely to achieve their stated goals.
You've just defined a charity.
Even if it is not a business model there are charities out there that do a better job of supporting themselves than Open Source does. Its shameful how bad so many open source projects are at staying above water.
I would strongly dispute your claim that most OSS isn't funded at all. The Mozilla Foundation is the most well funded and aside from Linux developes some of the most important software to the OSS movement. Then there's Red Hat and IBM both of which provide heavy and ongoing financial support to Linux itself. There's MySQL AB which supports MySQL...... To me a project doesn't count just because it exists. It needs first to have users, and then to have support.
Thats great in theory, but whats the probability of that actually happening? Not too many people find the prospect of donating and volunteering labor to something which will not support you to be that attractive.
Did you notice your comment was modded funny? I'm not sure you meant it as a joke but thats how people are seeing it. The number of voters who would vote based on OSS issues alone is extremely small. There is a way for a software writer to stay out of bankrtuptcy, its known as charging for your work via proprietary methods. What Open Source is, is a failed business model. If you want to make money, don't be an idiot and release the fruits of your labor under the GPL or BSD license. If you don't mind starving and being taken advantage of, then go right ahead.