now that they're worth so much, how about not charging $70 bucks to buy it? Or at least make an offical CD that isn't ten times as expensive as cheapbytes....
They do! They give it away for free!!! Just download it from the internet. If you want a CD, just buy it from cheapbytes. It's the same damn software either way.
The $70 is the price that you pay for a printed manual, official support, and physical distribution of the media. If you want the software for less, then don't buy this version.
Redhat made a smart move by raising their prices. I used to buy official redhat CD's because I liked the distribution and wanted to help support the company. But by raising the prices, they are indicating that they don't want or need this type of help anymore. So just buy it from cheapbytes or download it for free. Support redhat by continuing the development of linux and other free/open source software. Or support them more directly by buying stock.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
I was watching ESPN the other day, and there was a commercial on and I swear that I saw a 4-foot tall dust-puppy in it! Yep, a big, fuzzy ball with big feet. I cannot remember what the commercial was for.
Does this ring a bell with anyone else?
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
But look at them now. They're going to be selling Merced/Linux systems. They don't make the hardware and they don't make the software. I'm sure the systems they sell will be high-end and quality systems, but we've seen a giant fall.
Now, don't go overboard. The correct statement is that they don't make the processor and they don't make the operating system. They will most likely continue to make all the other hardware, and all the other software. They make their own motherboards, AFAIK, and these puppies have some pretty fast, fat pipes pumping the bits around.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Ok all you conspiracy theorists, let me know what you think of this scenario:
AOL & Microsoft go to court over this. The court orders AOL to use an open standard. AOL is happy.
Sure, they now have to open their protocol, but they don't care because they had already opened it. They just didn't like the fact that Microsoft was making use of it.
They're happy because such a case could be used as precedent to force companies to use open protocols. Better yet, they would have tricked Microsoft's lawyers into making their case for them! In the future, when Microsoft tweeks their SMB protocol, or their Word formats, or the Windows API, AOL can just take them to court and force them to provide specs for the changes. This could be a way to destroy the Microsoft monopoly.
I'm sure there are holes in this theory, so fire away!
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
There will most likely be no need to hide the development. If someone wishes to develop a project for which a bounty exists, then he/she goes into an agreement with the company right away, stating that they are now the only person eligible to obtain that bounty. Now, that developer could add people to the group, and agree to split the profits, but otherwise they wouldn't have to worry about losing the bounty to someone else developing the same thing.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
But in general, I would say that the bazaar model would be far more productive (and enjoyable).
But they aren't mutually exclusive! Don't you see? Every project that starts off as a bounty project is destined to turn into an bazaar project once the bounty is collected!
The goal of the bounty model is to give some projects a little help getting off the ground, before the bazaar model can be very useful. That's all. It is not a replacement for the bazaar model. Remember, in order for the bazaar model to be effective, usable, testable code must exist first. The bounty model is simply Yet Another Way to get that code to be created.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
I think it would cause free software developers to compete with each other to the point of hiding information, and that isn't what's gotten free software as far as it is.
But it would only be hidden until the project was complete enough to collect the bounty. At that point, it comes out of hiding and becomes open-source.
I think the FSF idea about manual-writing is well-intentioned but you're right, it will burn a lot of bridges if multiple people work on it and only one person gets paid.
Again, I think the idea is to make some sort of agreement ahead of time that you would be the only one (or the only group of people) working on the project, and no other team could simply show up without prior arrangements and take the bounty from under you.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
I've already posted a counterpoint to his article on Freshmeat. The original is here
But I'll reproduce it here as well:
Now, I don't believe that the bounty model is going to take the world by storm as the open-source model has, but I do think it'll survive as a niche.
I think there are two flawed assumptions made in this essay:
1) That software developed in this model is only developed in this model.
2) That open-source software must start out that way in order to be of high quality.
Point-by-point:
1: It's Not The Community Model
As Eric Raymond stated in The Cathedral and the Bazaar:
It's fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode.
That is, software can start being developed (indeed, must be developed) in some other model before being released into the bazaar. It must first be a runnable, testable program before people will come along and turn their eyes to it.
The new bounty model is a model that fits just this first step. The program gets written. After the bounty has been collected, the program is now open source, and has all the benefits that any other open source program has.
2: It's Not The Inspired Developer's Model
3: It's Not The Annoyed Developer's Model
That's right - it's a new model. While we have seen that the Inspired and Annoyed Developer models can work, that does not mean that other models don't work. Many problems in the world are solved by people who need something fixed, but don't have the skills or time needed to do it. So they pay someone else to do it. It's a time-tested model that works.
But again, once the program has been created and released, these Inspired and Annoyed Developer models will start to be applied, as people start to use the program and fix the things that bother them, re-write the things they believe could have been done better, and add functionality that will make the program even more useful.
5: It's Technically Difficult
It's funny that you called this your weakest point, but I actually believe it was your strongest. This model has never been tried before, and the logistics are going to take some time to iron out. It could fail simply because people are too afraid to make changes needed to make use of this new model.
Another Approach
I don't believe your forum model would work all that well. In your model, many developers will state what they wish to work on. Some will go ahead and do it anyhow. Others might simply be blowing hot air. Businesses will not want to wade through the hundreds of postings on such a site to see if anything comes close to matching their needs.
In the bounty model, there are fewer posts, because only a few companies that are seriously interested in seeing a project completed will post projects. Some developers will undoubtedly look through this list, and even though they aren't currently interested in something, might find something that sounds interesting and want to give it a shot.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Just out of curiosity, have their been any repurcussions of the Littleton incident on your school's rifle teams?
I was a member of the rifle team back in high school, and I listened to heavy-metal music, and I can just imagine what sort of backlash I would have had to endure if this event happened during my school days.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
I had friends during high school who got into the Metal lifestyle (1980's), and they ended up destroying themselves
That doesn't mean that the "metal" lifestyle itself is destructive. I had one friend who lived it and destroyed himself. OTOH, I lived it myself, and I think that anyone would agree that I have a very good life!
Again, the problem is that you believe that since a few people who destroyed themselves lived this lifestyle, that everyone who lives the lifestyle will be destructive, and therefore we as a society have the right to ignore their rights and freedoms and treat them as the criminals that we somehow know they'll become!
The problem with your friends was just that - their problem. It wasn't caused by the music they listened to. It was caused by their entire, individual set of circumstances.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of
every man in it able to bear arms."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261
So am I a part of a well-regulated (ie, well-trained) militia? Yes.
I am just upset that today's America is so out of touch with its history that there are people who wish to remove the right to "keep (ie, own) and bear (ie, carry) arms".
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
It's fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode. Linus didn't try it. I didn't either. Your nascent developer community needs to have something runnable and testable to play with.
This is the problem with Mozilla. If I could actually grab mozilla source, compile it, and use it regularly, I would discover and fix all the things about it that I find annoying.
However, I am just not motivated to hack on some code that I either can't use, won't use, or (putting on asbestos undies) for which I won't get paid. If they get a mostly-running release out, I'll grab it in a heartbeat.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
My personal preference would be for moderators to be choosen by some kind of emergent criteria. That is, for example, a strong positive score on all posted comments. Of course, there needs to be some type of control on this, so people just don't score their friends high to get them to be moderators...
Why not use the method used by Google to rate web pages? That is, your ranking is based not only on the rankings that other people give your posts, but also on the rankings of the people who have ranked your post.
It seems to work extremely well for Google, and it would seem to be very applicable to this case as well.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Slashdot Mirror
What goes around, comes around.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
The $70 is the price that you pay for a printed manual, official support, and physical distribution of the media. If you want the software for less, then don't buy this version.
Redhat made a smart move by raising their prices. I used to buy official redhat CD's because I liked the distribution and wanted to help support the company. But by raising the prices, they are indicating that they don't want or need this type of help anymore. So just buy it from cheapbytes or download it for free. Support redhat by continuing the development of linux and other free/open source software. Or support them more directly by buying stock.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Does this ring a bell with anyone else?
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Now, don't go overboard. The correct statement is that they don't make the processor and they don't make the operating system. They will most likely continue to make all the other hardware, and all the other software. They make their own motherboards, AFAIK, and these puppies have some pretty fast, fat pipes pumping the bits around.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
AOL & Microsoft go to court over this. The court orders AOL to use an open standard. AOL is happy.
Sure, they now have to open their protocol, but they don't care because they had already opened it. They just didn't like the fact that Microsoft was making use of it.
They're happy because such a case could be used as precedent to force companies to use open protocols. Better yet, they would have tricked Microsoft's lawyers into making their case for them! In the future, when Microsoft tweeks their SMB protocol, or their Word formats, or the Windows API, AOL can just take them to court and force them to provide specs for the changes. This could be a way to destroy the Microsoft monopoly.
I'm sure there are holes in this theory, so fire away!
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
I just read an article in the June 14th Network World about the new Wyse terminal, and not once do they mention Linux. Sorry, I don't have a web link.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
There will most likely be no need to hide the development. If someone wishes to develop a project for which a bounty exists, then he/she goes into an agreement with the company right away, stating that they are now the only person eligible to obtain that bounty. Now, that developer could add people to the group, and agree to split the profits, but otherwise they wouldn't have to worry about losing the bounty to someone else developing the same thing.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
The goal of the bounty model is to give some projects a little help getting off the ground, before the bazaar model can be very useful. That's all. It is not a replacement for the bazaar model. Remember, in order for the bazaar model to be effective, usable, testable code must exist first. The bounty model is simply Yet Another Way to get that code to be created.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
But I'll reproduce it here as well:
Now, I don't believe that the bounty model is going to take the world by storm as the open-source model has, but I do think it'll survive as a niche.
I think there are two flawed assumptions made in this essay:
1) That software developed in this model is only developed in this model.
2) That open-source software must start out that way in order to be of high quality.
Point-by-point:
1: It's Not The Community Model
As Eric Raymond stated in The Cathedral and the Bazaar:
That is, software can start being developed (indeed, must be developed) in some other model before being released into the bazaar. It must first be a runnable, testable program before people will come along and turn their eyes to it.The new bounty model is a model that fits just this first step. The program gets written. After the bounty has been collected, the program is now open source, and has all the benefits that any other open source program has.
2: It's Not The Inspired Developer's Model
3: It's Not The Annoyed Developer's Model
That's right - it's a new model. While we have seen that the Inspired and Annoyed Developer models can work, that does not mean that other models don't work. Many problems in the world are solved by people who need something fixed, but don't have the skills or time needed to do it. So they pay someone else to do it. It's a time-tested model that works.
But again, once the program has been created and released, these Inspired and Annoyed Developer models will start to be applied, as people start to use the program and fix the things that bother them, re-write the things they believe could have been done better, and add functionality that will make the program even more useful.
5: It's Technically Difficult
It's funny that you called this your weakest point, but I actually believe it was your strongest. This model has never been tried before, and the logistics are going to take some time to iron out. It could fail simply because people are too afraid to make changes needed to make use of this new model.
Another Approach
I don't believe your forum model would work all that well. In your model, many developers will state what they wish to work on. Some will go ahead and do it anyhow. Others might simply be blowing hot air. Businesses will not want to wade through the hundreds of postings on such a site to see if anything comes close to matching their needs.
In the bounty model, there are fewer posts, because only a few companies that are seriously interested in seeing a project completed will post projects. Some developers will undoubtedly look through this list, and even though they aren't currently interested in something, might find something that sounds interesting and want to give it a shot.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Just out of curiosity, have their been any repurcussions of the Littleton incident on your school's rifle teams?
I was a member of the rifle team back in high school, and I listened to heavy-metal music, and I can just imagine what sort of backlash I would have had to endure if this event happened during my school days.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
I had friends during high school who got into the Metal lifestyle (1980's), and they ended up destroying themselves
That doesn't mean that the "metal" lifestyle itself is destructive. I had one friend who lived it and destroyed himself. OTOH, I lived it myself, and I think that anyone would agree that I have a very good life!
Again, the problem is that you believe that since a few people who destroyed themselves lived this lifestyle, that everyone who lives the lifestyle will be destructive, and therefore we as a society have the right to ignore their rights and freedoms and treat them as the criminals that we somehow know they'll become!
The problem with your friends was just that - their problem. It wasn't caused by the music they listened to. It was caused by their entire, individual set of circumstances.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
- "[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of
- every man in it able to bear arms."
- --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
- --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261
So am I a part of a well-regulated (ie, well-trained) militia? Yes."We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
I am just upset that today's America is so out of touch with its history that there are people who wish to remove the right to "keep (ie, own) and bear (ie, carry) arms".
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
From The Cathedral and the Bazaar:
It's fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode. Linus didn't try it. I didn't either. Your nascent developer community needs to have something runnable and testable to play with.
This is the problem with Mozilla. If I could actually grab mozilla source, compile it, and use it regularly, I would discover and fix all the things about it that I find annoying.
However, I am just not motivated to hack on some code that I either can't use, won't use, or (putting on asbestos undies) for which I won't get paid. If they get a mostly-running release out, I'll grab it in a heartbeat.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
My personal preference would be for moderators to be choosen by some kind of emergent criteria. That is, for example, a strong positive score on all posted comments. Of course, there needs to be some type of control on this, so people just don't score their friends high to get them to be moderators...
Why not use the method used by Google to rate web pages? That is, your ranking is based not only on the rankings that other people give your posts, but also on the rankings of the people who have ranked your post.
It seems to work extremely well for Google, and it would seem to be very applicable to this case as well.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...