>Does that involve programming? Maybe >the "tailor" part, but how do I get into that
>again?
You're basically asking how do you start a business. It's like any other business. Find an unmet or poorly met need and write an application to meet that need.
The question was how do you tailor an application...not write one.
Here's an example:
The company I work for has to deal with government driven change which occurs *very* frequently. The software we use must conform with these very frequent changes. I could easily see someone writing some Open Source software which is continuously revised to keep up with these changes and charging the company I work for a yearly fee (we already pay a yearly fee [big bucks] to our current vendor). Companies would pay for you supporting and updating the code to conform with new gov't rules and regulations. Currently there is a proprietary software company filling this niche but I see no practical reason why an OSS product could not be created to replace the proprietary one.
In essence it's all about finding a niche and filling it. There are tons of niches out there, you just have to somehow find out about them.
You just gave a textbook example of starting a business that could just as easily (and more profitably) be based on closed source.
Further, the closed source option gives you leverage, in that you can resell - for the same price - the solution that you develop for addressing the needs of that niche.
It is the leverage that is so extraordinarily powerful - and that is summarily rejected by the Open Source movement.
The only thing scarce in shelved software is the cd or box itself.
I must respectfully disagree. The scarce thing in shelved software is the development resources needed to create that software, as you point out yourself: A real scarcety is the actual time that developpers need to write it, or the support you need later.
I would add to that the skills needed by developers to write a useful application based on a set of design criteria (i.e. functional requirements, usability, hardware & network capabilities, timeliness etc.).
You can profit from that and it still can be either closed or open source.
Perhaps, but closed source will always enable developers to profit more efficiently.
He is trapped in the old thinking that software is a product that needs to be sold like it is scarce.
He thinks free software somehow makes it impossible to profit from.
And you seem to be trapped in new thinking that software is a free product that can't be sold. Have you moved out of your parents' home yet?
The point is that as a good programmer, you should be able to do much better than simply "not go hungry".
What the Open Source movement often overlooks is that a vast continuum of software businesses exists that are not monopolies, but still do a very good - and respected - business licensing closed source software. These softwware products benefits customers and partners who have a choice of suppliers, while delivering extraordinary rewards for employees.
It sometimes seems that Open Source rhetoric assumes that all Closed Source == Microsoft, and therefore must be eliminated.
There are MANY ways to earn a living with free software.
But most don't actually have anything to do with programming, as you show in your own examples below
Once you write a successful application, you have book deals.
But I don't want to write a book. I want to be paid for writing code.
OSS is a sure and quick way to show your prowess and become moderately famous overnight.
Again, fame does not necessarily lead to money (just ask RSM)
And Most importantly, I haven't yet met a boss who could take free code and use it. No matter how free and open code is, there is still a job market for people who can use it, tailor it, and integrate it into a business.
Does that involve programming? Maybe the "tailor" part, but how do I get into that again?
The list goes on. But as you can see. Writing OSS isn't throwing your time away.
You are going to have to think of more credible examples to convince me:(
Fix the bugs, not the security holes, and your code will be more secure.Patching is great. Patch Management is great. But it doesn't keep the bad guys out, it just stops some worms.
Huh? Patches do fix bugs. That is, patches are the vehicle by which bug fixes are brought to a system.
OK, I think I get it. So MySQL releases a version of its code (call it Snapshot A) into the GPL, but keeps a different version (call it Snapshot B) closed-source, available for licensing and possibly applying its own proprietary enhancements, right?
So, what impact do fixes and enhancements that are applied by the community to the GPL-ed Snapshot A have on the proprietary Snapshot B? Are MySQL and its licensees allowed to apply those changes to the (closed-source) Snapshot B, without revealing all of the other enhancements that they made to the proprietary version?
In other words, is it correct to think of GPL dual licensing kind of like a "private" BSD license, i.e. proprietary extensions are permitted but only to the owner of the copyight and its licensees?
I'm just trying to make sure I understand, thanks.
The only people I know that would use mysql as the backend for anything aren't DBA's. Why? Because it allows you to put crap in your database. This has been debated countless times on/.
Huh? It must have been debated when I was in my coma. The post was modded "Insightful", so it must be true. Can someone please clarify what it means to "put crap in your database", and what it is about MySQL that allows it? Which FM should I read to understand the issue better?
I tried building the Firebird code a few months ago, and found out that step 1 is...
...start with a running version of Firebird!
Bootstrapping might seem like a K00l trick, but there is something uncomfortable about self-referential build procedures (not to mention that it was a pain in the ass to find a preexisting version of Firebird to run).
Gimme a pile of c/cpp & h files and let me build it from scratch, dammit!
Is that possible today? Dunno...the build guide appears to be still under construction.
Even if a few lines out of millions got copied in the there, the concept of "de minimi" applies.
If you are going to start throwing legal terms like "de minimi" around, you had better reveal your legal credentials, or use a proper disclaimer like IANAL. Well, are you?
Intel likes Linux. Specifically because it isn't Microsoft.
...and Microsoft likes AMD. Specifically because it isn't Intel.
They were 'forced' into supporting AMD64 by Microsoft, because MS only wants one 64-bit OS.
Bzzt...wrong. MS has said from the beginning that it wanted a choice of 64-bit hardware platforms for Windows (it doesn't like being locked into a single supplier any more than other companies). That's why it signed up with AMD and its 64-bit alternative to begin with.
MS will continue to have two 64-bit versions of Windows...one for IA64, and one for X86-64.
Read the article more closely: "the Microsoft representative said. "There will be one operating system that will support all (64 bit) extended systems," the representative said."
They are talking about their own operating systems, and the statement applies to "64-bit extended systems"
To translate: MS will ship one OS for both the AMD and Intel versions of 64-bit X86 extensions. Since MS has already committed to supporting AMD's 64-bit extensions, this pretty much forces Intel to use the same extensions.
MS will also probably continue to have a version of Windows supporting Intel's Itanium-based 64-bit platform, which is not based on X86 extensions, but has a whole new instruction set architecture (IA64).
Net-Net: Microsoft is not going to have three 64-bit versions of Windows, they will most likely have two - one for the AMD (and now Intel) 64-bit extensions to X86, and one for IA64.
...turned out to be that Linux wasn't like Windows at all! It couldn't be used to run Windows applications, and didn't look or feel familiar to Windows users.
1) Think of really cool new application
2) Spend huge amounts of time programming and debugging the application
3) Give away free copies and all the source code
4) ???
5) Profit!
What in the world makes you think that IBM would be throwing away their MS Windows services just because they may end up using more Linux internally?
IBM's credibility as a supplier of Windows solutions will diminish as its internal use of that technology declines. If I'm a major Windows customer, which partners am I going to gravitate to? Those whose own operations are most aligned with with my own, of course. Why? It reduces the risk of encountering vague but unmistakeable NIH attitudes from IBM's representatives (at best), and downright incompatibility at worst (when more and more IBM support documents show up in inscrutable formats like SHW).
IBM's internal IT structure has nothing in the world to do with their hardware sales or their global services.
Actually, IGS provides many services to the IBM company itself, so they are in fact closely related.
I really can't imagine why they wouldn't be posting it on billboards.
IBM does *billions* of dollars of business selling Windows systems, and this declaration would be tantamount to throwing that all away.
The first rule for growing a business is to preserve the existing business above all else. Then you can figure out a way to obtain new business opprtunistically with an alternative offering.
When HP announces, all doubt will fade.
Not very likely. That would seriously confuse their customers, given the enormous investment HP is making in Itanium.
But in Windows there is basically a switch can install, can't install.
It's evident from this comment that you know very little about modern Windows security. When you get a chance, you should read up on Active Directory, particularly Group Policies.
Your comments would be much more persuasive if you did a little more research before posting them.
Slashdot Mirror
>Does that involve programming? Maybe
>the "tailor" part, but how do I get into that
>again?
You're basically asking how do you start a business. It's like any other business. Find an unmet or poorly met need and write an application to meet that need.
The question was how do you tailor an application...not write one.
Here's an example: The company I work for has to deal with government driven change which occurs *very* frequently. The software we use must conform with these very frequent changes. I could easily see someone writing some Open Source software which is continuously revised to keep up with these changes and charging the company I work for a yearly fee (we already pay a yearly fee [big bucks] to our current vendor). Companies would pay for you supporting and updating the code to conform with new gov't rules and regulations. Currently there is a proprietary software company filling this niche but I see no practical reason why an OSS product could not be created to replace the proprietary one. In essence it's all about finding a niche and filling it. There are tons of niches out there, you just have to somehow find out about them.
You just gave a textbook example of starting a business that could just as easily (and more profitably) be based on closed source.
Further, the closed source option gives you leverage, in that you can resell - for the same price - the solution that you develop for addressing the needs of that niche.
It is the leverage that is so extraordinarily powerful - and that is summarily rejected by the Open Source movement.
The only thing scarce in shelved software is the cd or box itself.
I must respectfully disagree. The scarce thing in shelved software is the development resources needed to create that software, as you point out yourself:
A real scarcety is the actual time that developpers need to write it, or the support you need later.
I would add to that the skills needed by developers to write a useful application based on a set of design criteria (i.e. functional requirements, usability, hardware & network capabilities, timeliness etc.).
You can profit from that and it still can be either closed or open source.
Perhaps, but closed source will always enable developers to profit more efficiently.
He is trapped in the old thinking that software is a product that needs to be sold like it is scarce. He thinks free software somehow makes it impossible to profit from.
And you seem to be trapped in new thinking that software is a free product that can't be sold. Have you moved out of your parents' home yet?
no one is going hungry as far as I know
The point is that as a good programmer, you should be able to do much better than simply "not go hungry".
What the Open Source movement often overlooks is that a vast continuum of software businesses exists that are not monopolies, but still do a very good - and respected - business licensing closed source software. These softwware products benefits customers and partners who have a choice of suppliers, while delivering extraordinary rewards for employees.
It sometimes seems that Open Source rhetoric assumes that all Closed Source == Microsoft, and therefore must be eliminated.
There are MANY ways to earn a living with free software.
:(
But most don't actually have anything to do with programming, as you show in your own examples below
Once you write a successful application, you have book deals.
But I don't want to write a book. I want to be paid for writing code.
OSS is a sure and quick way to show your prowess and become moderately famous overnight.
Again, fame does not necessarily lead to money (just ask RSM)
And Most importantly, I haven't yet met a boss who could take free code and use it. No matter how free and open code is, there is still a job market for people who can use it, tailor it, and integrate it into a business.
Does that involve programming? Maybe the "tailor" part, but how do I get into that again?
The list goes on. But as you can see. Writing OSS isn't throwing your time away.
You are going to have to think of more credible examples to convince me
Fix the bugs, not the security holes, and your code will be more secure. Patching is great. Patch Management is great. But it doesn't keep the bad guys out, it just stops some worms.
Huh? Patches do fix bugs. That is, patches are the vehicle by which bug fixes are brought to a system.
What is your definition of a patch?
OK, I think I get it. So MySQL releases a version of its code (call it Snapshot A) into the GPL, but keeps a different version (call it Snapshot B) closed-source, available for licensing and possibly applying its own proprietary enhancements, right?
So, what impact do fixes and enhancements that are applied by the community to the GPL-ed Snapshot A have on the proprietary Snapshot B? Are MySQL and its licensees allowed to apply those changes to the (closed-source) Snapshot B, without revealing all of the other enhancements that they made to the proprietary version?
In other words, is it correct to think of GPL dual licensing kind of like a "private" BSD license, i.e. proprietary extensions are permitted but only to the owner of the copyight and its licensees?
I'm just trying to make sure I understand, thanks.
...you sprinkle it on failing companies, and they spring back to life.
Can someone please give me a refresher in how dual-licensing with the GPL works?
I know that MySQL charges only when the user redistributes its code for a profit, while internal use is free.
But the MySQL code is still under GPL, right? Doesn't the GPL require that the code be redistributed for free?
The only people I know that would use mysql as the backend for anything aren't DBA's. Why? Because it allows you to put crap in your database. This has been debated countless times on /.
Huh? It must have been debated when I was in my coma. The post was modded "Insightful", so it must be true. Can someone please clarify what it means to "put crap in your database", and what it is about MySQL that allows it? Which FM should I read to understand the issue better?
I tried building the Firebird code a few months ago, and found out that step 1 is...
...start with a running version of Firebird!
Bootstrapping might seem like a K00l trick, but there is something uncomfortable about self-referential build procedures (not to mention that it was a pain in the ass to find a preexisting version of Firebird to run).
Gimme a pile of c/cpp & h files and let me build it from scratch, dammit!
Is that possible today? Dunno...the build guide appears to be still under construction.
Even if a few lines out of millions got copied in the there, the concept of "de minimi" applies.
If you are going to start throwing legal terms like "de minimi" around, you had better reveal your legal credentials, or use a proper disclaimer like IANAL. Well, are you?
I don't see "128-bit computing" becoming mainstream anytime soon.
Well, the designers of IBM's venerable AS/400 might disagree with you. Its architecture has been enabled for 128-bit computing since the early 1970's.
Intel likes Linux. Specifically because it isn't Microsoft.
...and Microsoft likes AMD. Specifically because it isn't Intel.
They were 'forced' into supporting AMD64 by Microsoft, because MS only wants one 64-bit OS.
Bzzt...wrong. MS has said from the beginning that it wanted a choice of 64-bit hardware platforms for Windows (it doesn't like being locked into a single supplier any more than other companies). That's why it signed up with AMD and its 64-bit alternative to begin with.
MS will continue to have two 64-bit versions of Windows...one for IA64, and one for X86-64.
Read the article more closely:
"the Microsoft representative said. "There will be one operating system that will support all (64 bit) extended systems," the representative said."
They are talking about their own operating systems, and the statement applies to "64-bit extended systems"
To translate: MS will ship one OS for both the AMD and Intel versions of 64-bit X86 extensions. Since MS has already committed to supporting AMD's 64-bit extensions, this pretty much forces Intel to use the same extensions.
MS will also probably continue to have a version of Windows supporting Intel's Itanium-based 64-bit platform, which is not based on X86 extensions, but has a whole new instruction set architecture (IA64).
Net-Net: Microsoft is not going to have three 64-bit versions of Windows, they will most likely have two - one for the AMD (and now Intel) 64-bit extensions to X86, and one for IA64.
This has nothing to do with Linux.
What ever happened to fiscal conservatism?
...turned out to be that Linux wasn't like Windows at all! It couldn't be used to run Windows applications, and didn't look or feel familiar to Windows users.
1) Think of really cool new application 2) Spend huge amounts of time programming and debugging the application 3) Give away free copies and all the source code 4) ??? 5) Profit!
What in the world makes you think that IBM would be throwing away their MS Windows services just because they may end up using more Linux internally?
IBM's credibility as a supplier of Windows solutions will diminish as its internal use of that technology declines. If I'm a major Windows customer, which partners am I going to gravitate to? Those whose own operations are most aligned with with my own, of course. Why? It reduces the risk of encountering vague but unmistakeable NIH attitudes from IBM's representatives (at best), and downright incompatibility at worst (when more and more IBM support documents show up in inscrutable formats like SHW).
IBM's internal IT structure has nothing in the world to do with their hardware sales or their global services.
Actually, IGS provides many services to the IBM company itself, so they are in fact closely related.
heh heh I had the stereo in my office turned on full-blast when I clicked on the link. everybody came running in and became transfixed on my screen.
I've never run into anything like this HTML-abuser. What flaw does it exploit?
I really can't imagine why they wouldn't be posting it on billboards.
IBM does *billions* of dollars of business selling Windows systems, and this declaration would be tantamount to throwing that all away.
The first rule for growing a business is to preserve the existing business above all else. Then you can figure out a way to obtain new business opprtunistically with an alternative offering.
That made it the first "official" UNIX for Intel (since it came from A.T.&T.)
Oops, it was invented.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bye!
*POOF*
When HP announces, all doubt will fade. Not very likely. That would seriously confuse their customers, given the enormous investment HP is making in Itanium.
But in Windows there is basically a switch can install, can't install.
It's evident from this comment that you know very little about modern Windows security. When you get a chance, you should read up on Active Directory, particularly Group Policies.
Your comments would be much more persuasive if you did a little more research before posting them.