There's a simple equation that will be useful to explain why this will never happen.
Imagine you create a program like photoshop, and it takes you 2 years to code with a team of people. Well I'd say that the time it took for you to get the source code ready is significant, and that the cost of going through this step is very high.
Now that you have your source code ready you can compile it and copy the program as many times as you want. Well this is not exactly that much expensive... = P
My point simply is, you pay for what you want to get. If I started selling a program with it's source code that is worth several thousand dollars then I pretend to be paid several thousand dollars by anyone getting it. I don't care at all about the fact that they "can't" use it for their programs because of copyright... the time and dedication I would need to control this never happens is not worth the effort (is this even possible for smaller developers anyway?).
Now I find a point in the middle, where everybody is happy, and I offer you a program that only took me a couple of seconds to duplicate for a fair price that in the long term will help me pay for the development proccess. I seriously don't think this is "unfair" as some people here seem to think. If you really really want the code then BE READY TO PAY IT'S PRICE.
And btw, a car is not like having the source code. Just look at the analogies before software development and the creation of cars... the thing that really costs money to Ford or Lotus is not making a "copy" of the car, but having the projects done, and all the blueprints. Seeing it this way makes me think that source code is more like the blueprints, and the car like the binary.
Btw, you can modify a car but you won't be able to copy it with a drag and drop.
What are you talking about? Selling software without the source code is not morally acceptable? Are you serious...?
You should really understand that what you're buying is NO MORE THAN WHAT THE CODER WANTS TO SELL TO YOU. And this is "morally acceptable" since the poor guy probably spent several years trying to get the thing working.
By giving away a car, it's not like giving away the blueprints. And still people can learn whatever they want by "reverse engineering" what the car company did, as much as they can reverse engineer the binaries but that doesn't mean I have to show them my whole documentation just because they paid $99!!
And btw, I have no problem in giving away my code to a client. They just have to pay enough for it and it's a deal, I'm not giving something that to me is worth a lot of money for the "fair" price of $99...
And if someone wants to make an Open Source competition to my software, so may be it... it means I'll have to work enough to make my product more interesting and complete.
Very nice post. I'll try and look again at XP's interface from your point of view.
As for reliability and stability I guess it depends on each person's experience with their OS. I've been using XP for home use mainly and I've had to reinstall everything in nearly 6 months because of 2 different problems in a period of nearly 6 months since my first installation. Both times the problems where caused by XP corrupting information in my HD. Both of them after a checkdisk if I remember right.
Fortunately with the latest patches things are getting a bit better, but before saying "XP is stable" I will need some more problems-free time with my box.
Btw, I know neither OS X or Linux are perfect either, but when it comes to having problems with my PC, in my short experience nothing beats Windows (even tho I repeat that things seem to be getting better).
Decameron
Unless you send the file twice, there is no way in which you can compare every bit with the original copy. I must admit that I don't know how such verification methods work, but I have a feeling someone could find a way to send a corrupted file without the program knowing about it.
By the way, another solution would be to simply share the file before it's available in the p2p community, making people think someone did the job already (so they wouldn't rip the CD, movie, whatever again).
Completely changing the GUI to make the OS look better won't make it more intuitive. For instance just click in the "Start" button in XP and read through the items that pop up. To me it looks like the menu has been slapped together in a day or two.
IMHO a good graphical user interface is one where you have 1 quick access point per important section of the OS. The need to have quick launch items all over the screen means poor design.
Windows isn't bad, and XP has some really nice improvements over older versions... unfortunately it can't compare to *nix bases OSes from the stability and reliability point of view. They have to show that they can win when it comes to ease of use over any other OS. And a good idea would be to spend some serious bucks on GUI research and then stick to whatever they liked most for at least a couple of windows OS generations.
Man, those big companies need nothing like DRM to stop p2p networks. They just need their boxes in the network sharing corrupted copies of their copyrighted content. Considering most of the new p2p sharing applications make use of advanced protocols that let you copy files from several people at the same time they would just need a few boxes sharing content on high-speed connections and voila'... you're making it hard to get the right thing. And this is DRM free.
Remember, the weak point of p2p networks is that not everyone wishes to share... so they would only need to make sure that what they want to share (the corrupted file) is ALWAYS available for a big number of connections. Hell someone could even start a company to offer this service to media giants for a small ammount of money, and I bet the bastard would become rich in a matter of weeks.
Heh, I better go copyright this idea before it's too late.;-P
The story made me thing about the way the internet works. It's clear to me that it promotes creativity and innovation, even if the purpose of such creativity and innovation is aiming at doing something that is considered WRONG by most people: from pirating software to promoting pornography and sending spam mail.
I sometimes wonder if complete freedom is a good thing for anyone, as my rights end where your rights start.
I think freedom is good, and the way in which media corporations can beat piracy, and we can beat spam is by outsmarting our enemies. Kind of like in a jungle, but instead of tearing spammers to pieces we can use our code to stop them. I wonder if there is any group working on open source solutions to stop spam. Anyone?
Decameron
Slashdot Mirror
Read this post:
7 71 774
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=46273&cid=4
I explain there why IMHO not releasing the source has to do with bringing food to your table. (I just didn't want to double post)
Decameron
There's a simple equation that will be useful to explain why this will never happen.
Imagine you create a program like photoshop, and it takes you 2 years to code with a team of people. Well I'd say that the time it took for you to get the source code ready is significant, and that the cost of going through this step is very high.
Now that you have your source code ready you can compile it and copy the program as many times as you want. Well this is not exactly that much expensive... = P
My point simply is, you pay for what you want to get. If I started selling a program with it's source code that is worth several thousand dollars then I pretend to be paid several thousand dollars by anyone getting it. I don't care at all about the fact that they "can't" use it for their programs because of copyright... the time and dedication I would need to control this never happens is not worth the effort (is this even possible for smaller developers anyway?).
Now I find a point in the middle, where everybody is happy, and I offer you a program that only took me a couple of seconds to duplicate for a fair price that in the long term will help me pay for the development proccess. I seriously don't think this is "unfair" as some people here seem to think. If you really really want the code then BE READY TO PAY IT'S PRICE.
And btw, a car is not like having the source code. Just look at the analogies before software development and the creation of cars... the thing that really costs money to Ford or Lotus is not making a "copy" of the car, but having the projects done, and all the blueprints. Seeing it this way makes me think that source code is more like the blueprints, and the car like the binary.
Btw, you can modify a car but you won't be able to copy it with a drag and drop.
Decameron
What are you talking about? Selling software without the source code is not morally acceptable? Are you serious...?
You should really understand that what you're buying is NO MORE THAN WHAT THE CODER WANTS TO SELL TO YOU. And this is "morally acceptable" since the poor guy probably spent several years trying to get the thing working.
By giving away a car, it's not like giving away the blueprints. And still people can learn whatever they want by "reverse engineering" what the car company did, as much as they can reverse engineer the binaries but that doesn't mean I have to show them my whole documentation just because they paid $99!!
And btw, I have no problem in giving away my code to a client. They just have to pay enough for it and it's a deal, I'm not giving something that to me is worth a lot of money for the "fair" price of $99...
And if someone wants to make an Open Source competition to my software, so may be it... it means I'll have to work enough to make my product more interesting and complete.
Decameron
Very nice post. I'll try and look again at XP's interface from your point of view. As for reliability and stability I guess it depends on each person's experience with their OS. I've been using XP for home use mainly and I've had to reinstall everything in nearly 6 months because of 2 different problems in a period of nearly 6 months since my first installation. Both times the problems where caused by XP corrupting information in my HD. Both of them after a checkdisk if I remember right. Fortunately with the latest patches things are getting a bit better, but before saying "XP is stable" I will need some more problems-free time with my box. Btw, I know neither OS X or Linux are perfect either, but when it comes to having problems with my PC, in my short experience nothing beats Windows (even tho I repeat that things seem to be getting better). Decameron
Unless you send the file twice, there is no way in which you can compare every bit with the original copy. I must admit that I don't know how such verification methods work, but I have a feeling someone could find a way to send a corrupted file without the program knowing about it.
By the way, another solution would be to simply share the file before it's available in the p2p community, making people think someone did the job already (so they wouldn't rip the CD, movie, whatever again).
Just a thought,
Decameron
I agree with this.
Completely changing the GUI to make the OS look better won't make it more intuitive. For instance just click in the "Start" button in XP and read through the items that pop up. To me it looks like the menu has been slapped together in a day or two.
IMHO a good graphical user interface is one where you have 1 quick access point per important section of the OS. The need to have quick launch items all over the screen means poor design.
Windows isn't bad, and XP has some really nice improvements over older versions... unfortunately it can't compare to *nix bases OSes from the stability and reliability point of view. They have to show that they can win when it comes to ease of use over any other OS. And a good idea would be to spend some serious bucks on GUI research and then stick to whatever they liked most for at least a couple of windows OS generations.
Just my 2 cents,
Decameron
Man, those big companies need nothing like DRM to stop p2p networks. They just need their boxes in the network sharing corrupted copies of their copyrighted content. Considering most of the new p2p sharing applications make use of advanced protocols that let you copy files from several people at the same time they would just need a few boxes sharing content on high-speed connections and voila'... you're making it hard to get the right thing. And this is DRM free.
;-P
Remember, the weak point of p2p networks is that not everyone wishes to share... so they would only need to make sure that what they want to share (the corrupted file) is ALWAYS available for a big number of connections. Hell someone could even start a company to offer this service to media giants for a small ammount of money, and I bet the bastard would become rich in a matter of weeks.
Heh, I better go copyright this idea before it's too late.
Decameron
The story made me thing about the way the internet works. It's clear to me that it promotes creativity and innovation, even if the purpose of such creativity and innovation is aiming at doing something that is considered WRONG by most people: from pirating software to promoting pornography and sending spam mail. I sometimes wonder if complete freedom is a good thing for anyone, as my rights end where your rights start. I think freedom is good, and the way in which media corporations can beat piracy, and we can beat spam is by outsmarting our enemies. Kind of like in a jungle, but instead of tearing spammers to pieces we can use our code to stop them. I wonder if there is any group working on open source solutions to stop spam. Anyone? Decameron