This is seriously hilarious. I wish I had the mod points to mod this up! Ironically, I'll probably be a moderator in my NEXT visit, now that I've posted this...
Within the first few sentences of this story there are several glaring spelling errors. Does nobody double-check these stories before they go up? Failing that, can't they even run some kind of rudimentary spellcheck before hitting the "send to millions" button?? It's pathetic and embarassing that this site is still so amateurish...
For a number of years, development groups (and id licensees) such as Raven Software have used another company's 3D gaming engines, adding their own unique story, art, music, etc. While their work certainly constitutes competitive intellectual property, there is a case to be made that this is not necessarily the case with the 3D engine. Many would say that the benefits of open source development could be leveraged to build a quality 3D gaming engine, and the role of the gaming developers could be reduced to what they are really good at and what makes their games unique: story, art, music, and gameplay. Do you feel that open source is a valid development model for the most technological aspects of videogame creation, such as 3d engines? Do you see yourself ever participating in a project such as this, either as part of id Software or as an individual?
I hate Stallman's abrasiveness, and I agree that he's incredibly arrogant, but this is an extremely good point. Whether AC's point was actually Stallman's intention (instead of simply being a glory whore) might be up in the air, but it's at least an interesting argument.
While that might be considered "dwarfed," when you're talking about an installation that costs $25 million the license cost is still quite significant. I've seen and read about many implementations in which the total cost of the licenses approaches 50%.
1) An announcment is vastly different than a working app. Not even an alpha exists.
2) ERP installs are eventually totally customized to the business's needs. Many features and improvements people might contribute to the system over time would be a reflection of a business's proprietary processes, revealing their competitive advantages. How many companies would allow their internal processes and competitive advantages to be contributed to a free (speech, not beer) code base?
3) The announced system is specifically targetted to "small and medium sized businesses." Still nothing for Boeing, which uses Baan, or GM, which uses Peoplesoft (nevermind MS, which uses SAP). Somebody would still need to be building systems capable of supporting their needs, and I contend that it would be impossible to do so on a free (no charge AND no restrictions) basis.
It's an interesting idea, and if you can get other backers than more power to you. As a final point, though, I'd point out that most Linux contributors today (with the exception of some of Red Hat's staff a few others) aren't paid for their contributions, and don't need to be. They do it because it's fun, helps them solve a problem they're facing, or fulfills some other type of desire/need they have. How many developers will want to spend their time worrying about the general ledger effects of an accrual accounting style on a complicated, industry-specific supply chain?
One thing that few people have commented on is the fact that some software just won't ever be free. If free software comes about because it scratches a developer's "itch," as ESR puts it, then what developer in the world would have the "itch" to create a totally free supply-chain management application on an IBM S/390?
While I agree that there is an inherent evil in the limitation of freedom for software that individuals use, what about software that only gigantic companies use? Oracle's Financial and HR applications, for example, are never going to be used or paid for by an individual. They are built specifically to handle the business management problems of running a company with thousands - ne, tens of thousands - of employees. Software like this would never be built unless huge companies needed it and was willing to pay for it. So why shouldn't Oracle be paid for developing proprietary software for big corporations? Ditto SAP, Peopleware, Baan, JD Edwards, etc.?
Slashdot Mirror
This is seriously hilarious. I wish I had the mod points to mod this up! Ironically, I'll probably be a moderator in my NEXT visit, now that I've posted this...
"Morphology, longevity, incept dates."
"Don't know -- I, I don't know such stuff. I just do eyes. Just eyes -- Just genetic design -- just eyes!"
Within the first few sentences of this story there are several glaring spelling errors. Does nobody double-check these stories before they go up? Failing that, can't they even run some kind of rudimentary spellcheck before hitting the "send to millions" button?? It's pathetic and embarassing that this site is still so amateurish...
Hey ESR, after you read Atlas Shrugged in your sophomore year of high school, you're supposed to read other books.
For a number of years, development groups (and id licensees) such as Raven Software have used another company's 3D gaming engines, adding their own unique story, art, music, etc. While their work certainly constitutes competitive intellectual property, there is a case to be made that this is not necessarily the case with the 3D engine. Many would say that the benefits of open source development could be leveraged to build a quality 3D gaming engine, and the role of the gaming developers could be reduced to what they are really good at and what makes their games unique: story, art, music, and gameplay. Do you feel that open source is a valid development model for the most technological aspects of videogame creation, such as 3d engines? Do you see yourself ever participating in a project such as this, either as part of id Software or as an individual?
>a shareware anti-virus company. How times have
>changed (cue weepy music)
I wonder where these sentiments were when you heard about the Andover IPO...
"I'm about to become a multi-millionaire, but (sigh) I can remember when the site was just a side project run out of the dorms (cue weepy music)"
Who'da thunk it - a valuable AC post.
While that might be considered "dwarfed," when you're talking about an installation that costs $25 million the license cost is still quite significant. I've seen and read about many implementations in which the total cost of the licenses approaches 50%.
1) An announcment is vastly different than a working app. Not even an alpha exists.
2) ERP installs are eventually totally customized to the business's needs. Many features and improvements people might contribute to the system over time would be a reflection of a business's proprietary processes, revealing their competitive advantages. How many companies would allow their internal processes and competitive advantages to be contributed to a free (speech, not beer) code base?
3) The announced system is specifically targetted to "small and medium sized businesses." Still nothing for Boeing, which uses Baan, or GM, which uses Peoplesoft (nevermind MS, which uses SAP). Somebody would still need to be building systems capable of supporting their needs, and I contend that it would be impossible to do so on a free (no charge AND no restrictions) basis.
It's an interesting idea, and if you can get other backers than more power to you. As a final point, though, I'd point out that most Linux contributors today (with the exception of some of Red Hat's staff a few others) aren't paid for their contributions, and don't need to be. They do it because it's fun, helps them solve a problem they're facing, or fulfills some other type of desire/need they have. How many developers will want to spend their time worrying about the general ledger effects of an accrual accounting style on a complicated, industry-specific supply chain?
> If you don't like Richards attitude don't use GNU
Sounds like a Software Licensing Agreement to me...
While I agree that there is an inherent evil in the limitation of freedom for software that individuals use, what about software that only gigantic companies use? Oracle's Financial and HR applications, for example, are never going to be used or paid for by an individual. They are built specifically to handle the business management problems of running a company with thousands - ne, tens of thousands - of employees. Software like this would never be built unless huge companies needed it and was willing to pay for it. So why shouldn't Oracle be paid for developing proprietary software for big corporations? Ditto SAP, Peopleware, Baan, JD Edwards, etc.?