Do you think that the fact that the free software movement (not the open source movement) are driven by political (socialist) motives is a problem? Will the masses like talk about politics when all they want is just an OS to run on their computers?
Shouldn't companies like redhat that sells software that other people have made for free contribute economically to those individuals and their families?
You have some in-house developers but overall you haven't paid much for your product (and your service that is build on that product).
It seems quite unethical that (at least for your redhat os boxes) you take all the revenue but don't pay anything to its developers and inventors.
It should be pointed out that in a capitalist society competition is _very_ important. And this is the reason why the DOJ is doing what they are doing (rightfully).
But this sure doesn't mean that giving software away and killing companies is a good thing.
What we really need are more software companies that sells software not clowns that thinks everyone should give everything away, eat grass and live in caves.
All hackers are certainly not communists or socialists. I'm sick and tired of all the people who suggest (mainly on this site) that a hacker is characterized by a socialistic political standpoint. That is just not true.
Among my hacker friends there are all kind of political opinions just as in the rest of the society.
Exactly, I can't see what the problem is here. Two parties have made an agreement and one party wants to check that the agreement is followed. This is a common situation in any business.
If less is charged for software, less money is made on software; less money exists to pay people working with it.
Of cause, the marketplace for programmers will not shrink to zero but it will be allot smaller than today.
Companies will never hire more programmers because they have more money, you must have some problem with your view on reality. They hire them because programming has do be done and want someone to do it.
In a few years there will be allot of people willing to do it for free (or for very little) and then it makes no sense what so ever to PAY people to do programming.
To be fair I may add that the short-term reason the big part is the increasing difficulty getting financing from investors because of the volatile stock market. This makes small companies go bankrupt and the job marketplace is flooded with programmers.
The long-term effect of open source will be harder to handle because it will strike against established companies incomes. Less income in a sector always mean lower salaries in this sector, as you should know if you studied your economics.
That's nothing compared to the flooding from open source programmers who don't charge at all for their work. The salaries in the field will go down substantially in the next five years.
It certainly wasn't. When hordes of programmers are willing to work for nothing it will get hard to earn any money. Why hire people when you can get their job for free?
Take redhat as an example, sure, they hire some programmers, maybe 50 or so. But there are thousands developing Linux so if you divide the total salary (50*(some sum)) with a few thousand you don't get a very large number.
Stallman himself have said (search the gnu homepage) that programmers will get less paid because profits will go down because of free software.
You better start reading my friend. Start with "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html on the gnu homepage. The whole idea with the free software foundation is to try to stop ownership when it comes to software, music, documentation and other forms of IP.
When you license your software with GPL you have just lost your ownership forever. That's the whole idea.
"... it's about having true competition in Software. "
Hehehe, no it certainly isn't. The author loses all his/hers ownership. The whole movement is against ownership as a concept, that's the whole point. This leaves the field open for big-corp. to sell other peoples work as redhat and others do without having to pay salaries.
A hounded year ago most value in all kind or products was in the product-cost directly. Nowadays almost everything in all products is intellectual property. What do you think the cost is for developing an Intel 4 processor? It's just a couple of dollars; the cost is in research and development. It goes for most things.
"Open source is the solution... the only solution that will bring about competition in software. That's a capitalist ideal! "
You can't be serious?!? In a capitalist society ownership is a very important concept and is in fact written into the United Nations declaration of human right. Article 17 to be more exact.
"Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
And yes, this includes intellectual property.
"anybody could make a motherboard or an adapter card, or memory "
That's right. In a capitalist society competition is the key thing, this is what delivers the best products to the consumers.
In a capitalist society you always have the balance between ownership and competition and there are laws to maintain this balance (copyright/patent/trademark on one side and anti-trust on the other). This is why DOJ is doing something about the MS monopoly now (rightfully so).
But this should not the confused with removing ownership.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think that the fact that the free software movement (not the open source movement) are driven by political (socialist) motives is a problem? Will the masses like talk about politics when all they want is just an OS to run on their computers?
Shouldn't companies like redhat that sells software that other people have made for free contribute economically to those individuals and their families?
You have some in-house developers but overall you haven't paid much for your product (and your service that is build on that product).
It seems quite unethical that (at least for your redhat os boxes) you take all the revenue but don't pay anything to its developers and inventors.
Don't they deserve to get paid?
It should be pointed out that in a capitalist society competition is _very_ important. And this is the reason why the DOJ is doing what they are doing (rightfully).
But this sure doesn't mean that giving software away and killing companies is a good thing.
What we really need are more software companies that sells software not clowns that thinks everyone should give everything away, eat grass and live in caves.
"marketroid-speak"
What do you mean? It was quite straightforward, wasn't it?
The support doesn't compensate the developers. How much of the money red hat makes on their support do all the Linux developers get?
Giving products away or for a much lower cost (service&support) so that allot of people in tge tech industry loose their jobs is really a good way.
Get real.
All hackers are certainly not communists or socialists. I'm sick and tired of all the people who suggest (mainly on this site) that a hacker is characterized by a socialistic political standpoint. That is just not true.
Among my hacker friends there are all kind of political opinions just as in the rest of the society.
Exactly, I can't see what the problem is here. Two parties have made an agreement and one party wants to check that the agreement is followed. This is a common situation in any business.
People always want things for free.
You must be kidding me...?
If less is charged for software, less money is made on software; less money exists to pay people working with it.
Of cause, the marketplace for programmers will not shrink to zero but it will be allot smaller than today.
Companies will never hire more programmers because they have more money, you must have some problem with your view on reality. They hire them because programming has do be done and want someone to do it.
In a few years there will be allot of people willing to do it for free (or for very little) and then it makes no sense what so ever to PAY people to do programming.
Wait five years or so and we will se how many programmers that still laughs.
PS. With "this field" I meant software engineering as a profession.
Obviously, the market for programmers will not be zero, but it will be allot smaller.
To be fair I may add that the short-term reason the big part is the increasing difficulty getting financing from investors because of the volatile stock market. This makes small companies go bankrupt and the job marketplace is flooded with programmers.
The long-term effect of open source will be harder to handle because it will strike against established companies incomes. Less income in a sector always mean lower salaries in this sector, as you should know if you studied your economics.
You should be worried if open source programmers develop the same things as you do without charging anything. Why pay you then?
And just why are the parent post marked as troll?
When the software market is flooded by products that comes without cost the marketplace for this profession will shrink.
Go read some basic economics instead of modding down correct posts.
That's nothing compared to the flooding from open source programmers who don't charge at all for their work. The salaries in the field will go down substantially in the next five years.
"You *really* have to work on your trolling skills"
Since are math trolling?
"Unless that post was sarcasm"
It certainly wasn't. When hordes of programmers are willing to work for nothing it will get hard to earn any money. Why hire people when you can get their job for free?
Take redhat as an example, sure, they hire some programmers, maybe 50 or so. But there are thousands developing Linux so if you divide the total salary (50*(some sum)) with a few thousand you don't get a very large number.
Stallman himself have said (search the gnu homepage) that programmers will get less paid because profits will go down because of free software.
It will be allot less. Have no doubt about it.
The short term reasons for this are of cause others but in the long run open source will make most programmers loose their jobs.
"The GPL does not "remove ownership""
You better start reading my friend. Start with "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html on the gnu homepage. The whole idea with the free software foundation is to try to stop ownership when it comes to software, music, documentation and other forms of IP.
When you license your software with GPL you have just lost your ownership forever. That's the whole idea.
"What traits, exactly, do Open Source and/or the GPL have that are incompatible with capitalism?"
The GPL aims at removing ownership and ownership is the key thing in capitalism.
Are you aware that ownership (including intellectual property) in included in the United Nations declaration of human rights?
Cut-and-paste.
"Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
Amen.
DOJ is doing the right thing stopping monopolies but in a capitalist society ownership is ALSO very important!
You guys are just too much :-)
"... it's about having true competition in Software. "
Hehehe, no it certainly isn't. The author loses all his/hers ownership. The whole movement is against ownership as a concept, that's the whole point. This leaves the field open for big-corp. to sell other peoples work as redhat and others do without having to pay salaries.
A hounded year ago most value in all kind or products was in the product-cost directly. Nowadays almost everything in all products is intellectual property. What do you think the cost is for developing an Intel 4 processor? It's just a couple of dollars; the cost is in research and development. It goes for most things.
"Open source is the solution... the only solution that will bring about competition in software. That's a capitalist ideal! "
You can't be serious?!? In a capitalist society ownership is a very important concept and is in fact written into the United Nations declaration of human right. Article 17 to be more exact.
"Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
And yes, this includes intellectual property.
"anybody could make a motherboard or an adapter card, or memory "
That's right. In a capitalist society competition is the key thing, this is what delivers the best products to the consumers.
In a capitalist society you always have the balance between ownership and competition and there are laws to maintain this balance (copyright/patent/trademark on one side and anti-trust on the other). This is why DOJ is doing something about the MS monopoly now (rightfully so).
But this should not the confused with removing ownership.
Amen!