The original poster got it wrong (you CAN read source), however his main point is correct. Using open-source software doesn't mean that the customer data is compromised in any way. What is open is the code--not the data. For example, MySQL is open-source but the data it holds is hardly open (unless you don't secure it or something).
Mozialla Firebird 0.7 has been crashing on me for some reason (it crashes once or twice a day, of heavy use). I think it may be related to the java plug-in and not the browser (I hate java--not the programming lanaguage but how Sun implements their APIs and stuff). Not sure what the cause is yet.
GnuCash isn't suited for business because it does not really use true double-accounting (note: I haven't checked it out in the last year so not sure what changed). Because of that, compared to Quicken it sucks and is totally unusuable for a business.
GnuCash is more comparable to MS Money. That's what it is: a personal finance management tool. It is ideal for personal use, such as managing your day-to-day costs, your stock/bond/whatever investments, student loans (or maybe adult loans;) ), etc. It is really tailored for the individual (like MS Money) and is great for that.
Personally, if it will only run on I.E. in Windows (wine/xover office notwithstanding), what's the point - may as well run a Windows app.
The point is using a web app is to ensure conformity, and ease of use. So it is still worthwhile to go for a web app even if it only supports IE...
I agree with your main point though: if one is selling a web-based platform, might as well make it compatible with everything. Not only will this mean that you are following standards and using proper coding, it might even increase the potential market share (even if only by a few percentage)...
The problem with that is that YOU will end up spending an inordinate amount of time & resources (as opposed to not spending any time at all, with a package solution)...This guy's business should not be wasting time building up their own interface to an SQL database. That defeats the whole point... Also, building your own SQL interface is not as easy as it sounds. The people who will be using it (business types) won't know SQL so it has to be easy to use, check basic errors, etc.
I don't necessarily agree with everything Micheal Moore says. However, I do agree with most of it...
Bush DID go AWOL...not that I care
Bush IS stupid... even his former secretary of treasury indicates it (note: I don't necessarily agree with a right winger like Justin Raimondo)
I agree with you that Bush is NOT a drug addict...
I also don't agree with the view that Bush stole the election... The Supreme Court decided it and if there is a problem, it lies with the courts...
Bush allegation, remember that after stripping away the
humor, you're just reading the rantings of a religious fanatic. His
religion is hatred.
I suppose in the upside world where Ann Coulter, Bill O'reilley and Rush Limbaugh preach love, Moore is preaching hatred...
Pushing this anti-Moore stunt precisely when the Bush administration is facing its biggest problems doesn't help you at all... A better stunt would be to revert to the classical 'anyone who criticizes the war is a traitor and a communist'. That stunt is more appropriate given what Bush is facing...
Unlike most countries, US schools are not subsidized. US is becoming more capitalistic by the day and privatizing schools is just one thing.
(* actually US schools are still subsidized a bit. Otherwise, tuition would be even higher. You'll start seeing this with truly private schools, as called for by capitalism).
This is a big test and we'll see if it works. Giving away books has always been thought of as a horrible way to make a living. This "experiment" being carried out will give indications of the feasibility of "free" books...
I'm not saying these countries are totalitarian. A truly totalitarian country is USSR. These don't compare. Also, USA isn't my idea of a perfect country. Even with its limited freedoms, I would rank Canada above USA (but then again, I might be biased:) ).
My point is that the Asian, Latin American, etc countries come nowhere near USA. If you think India is as democratic or free then you have either been brainwashed by the government, or you are an elite and have no clue of what the general population faces.
I'll admit that India has decent press. Not great but getting there. But there are MANY other problems. India would not even be at the half way point of the world when it comes to freedoms. Everything is an illusion. India is run by a highly corrupt hindu fundamentalist government. Just because you don't see any of the problems doesn't mean they don't exist.
I am not saying every hindu out there is killing a muslim, or vice versa. BUT as long as it does happen (especially hundreads of deaths with the police ignoring all of it), India hardly conforms to a decent society.
My point has nothing to do with USA. My view is an argument against capitalism, and the notion of "free trade". I'm just going to use USA as an example below, with China/India acting as counterbalance. I have nothing against China or India, and have nothing in favour of USA (I even get labelled anti-American, although that's for econopolitical reasons:) ). You can use whatever two countries you want.
"as much" is really vague when it comes to software. ie: Over the weekend I can write an app that in my mind is `worth' more than what 1000 engineers can think up over a year.
What you are saying is only true for a tiny fraction of the cases. There ARE some people/companies/whatever that are much better than others. These people are the best out there (on the whole planet). You may be one such person--or you may not. What matters is the situation faced by the majority. For the VAST majority of people in, say, USA, they cannot compete with low-cost countries. Overcoming wage differences of 3x or 4x will be too difficult.
When the differences are 3x or 4x, you just cannot compete. Your cost of living is VERY HIGH compared to these countries. Assuming that cost of living does not equalize (I don't think they will), you will be at significant disadvantage.
I've noticed that most jobs that are moving abroad are low skill programming. ie: making GUIs in VisualStudio, or writing DB interfaces, etc. Not actually building software that solves business problems.
First of all, the vast majority of jobs are in what can be called low skill programming, basically maintenance and support. For every architect, there are probably 50 support, testing, and maintenance people. Yes, these are the lowest of the low. But these fields employ the vast majority of the people. These people are the most important. The top ones are not, because there are so few of them. It's kind of like saying how the upper classes don't matter but the middle class does. One says this, not because the middle class is better off than the upper class, but because the middle class has the largest number of people. Similar thing here. The majority of people are in support roles and things like that.
Second, there is nothing stopping someone from another country from being as good (or even better) than you. Unless you are a racist, or have a superiority complex, you cannot really conclude that Americans (for example) are better off than, say, the Chinese or the Indians. US schools are better, etc but these other countries aren't bad either. I mean, you are talking about two countries with massive populations, and countries that have independently (for the most part) developed nuclear weapons, launched satellites, and so forth. The point is not the nuclear weapons (I'm against them), but that people throughout the world are pretty equal. If you can do something, I'm sure someone in China can too. So the day will come when higher level jobs are moved too.
Also, in software development, quantity does not equal quality. ie: id Software has very few developers, that somehow manage to compete with multi-billion dollar corporations with hundreds of times more resources.
iD software isn't as great as you imply. The larger companies (I imagine EA and others), produce many more games. Divisions of EA sports, for example, can pump out one new game each year, whereas iD takes 2-3 years. Other small companies comparable to iD, say Blizzard, are similar in size. Don't get me wrong: iD software is one of the top computer game companies out there (respect to John Carmack). But so what? EA, with its repetitive and quesionable quality, makes money too. I'm not saying quality doesn't matter; just that it isn't as big of a difference as you say. In any case, going back to my original point, only a few talented people are like that. The rest of the population isn't. Maybe you are talented. But if 90% of the rest of the population isn't doing so well, you are going
I am not a capitalist and do not support what passes for free trade. There is very little benefit to any country from modern "free trade". It is nothing more than an attempt by capitalists to enrich themselves. For instance, companies are moving to India right now. What happens in 10 years when wages rise in India? They will move to some other poorer country. And so on. In the long term, the benefits mainly accrue to the capitalists. One just needs to look at South America to see how capitalism has helped countries like Argentina and Ecuador.
Thanks for the insight... you look like you have been around:)
I still think that the British nationals don't mean anything. I follow the Charles-de-Gaulle line of thinking: countries have no friends; they only have interests. If the interests of USA diverges from that of Britain, USA will do whatever it wants (even if it hurts Britain). This goes for any country.
Your website is... well... simple. I guess that's why it's called Simple Sam:)
I'm unemployed and am very neutral. I support open-source but I am sympathetic to those that say it is restrictive from a development point of view.
The problem right now is that there isn't really a solid business model which allows you to make money off open-sourced software. NEarly all companies (not just software companies) make money by attempting to monopolize their markets (at least that's my theory). This could range from having a patent (only they can produce), to exclusive marketing deals (only their product is on the shelf), to implementing proprietary protocols (only can talk to their devices), and so forth.
Until a solid model for making money off open-source is developed, I understand the complaints of software developers. It's really tough to make money off open-source, when the present model is based on you having your code hidden from others. By open-sourcing the code, you lose the competitive advantage. In that sense, the evil trolls making up your legal group are correct. They are just after one thing: money. Closed source leads to money more easily than open-source.
I spent most of my afternoon trying to put across a certain position, not trolling, but almost holding out an olive branch, as it were.
Yeah... I noticed. You were getting dissed for holding the minority opinion (in this case, calling GPL more restrictive). People kept accusing you of things you never even said. Nothing like the masses on Slashdot turning against someone;)
I think gaming will be one area that will not be impacted as much when open-sourcing the software. Most of the game's value comes from content (graphics, story, innovativeness of the game, etc). I think you can still make money even if you give the source code away. You will NOT give the content away so one will still pay for the game.
Having said that, it is very risky to open-source something right now--even gaming. As I say in another message (something you may not agree with), the ultimate goal of businesses is to monopolize their industry. That is what generates the high profits. If you want to monopolize the market, you want to keep the source code closed. For instance, if your game has really good AI then keeping it closed will ensure that only your (future) games will have that great AI. If you open-sourced it, competitors will incorporate your AI and you will lose your advantage. I just think the business model isn't there. I have my doubts that someone can make money by open-sourcing their software in the NEAR TERM.
In the long term, I still think that open-source is the way to go. Instead of your company spending a lot of time coding basic AI, or implementing some sound system, or whatever, you can use open-sourced existing components. Use open-sourced stuff and tailor it for your needs. But the business isn't there. I haven't seen any company really make much money off open-source. The only ones that have been able to are very small companies (eg. people offering linux solutions and services), or distribution companies (eg. Red Hat, SuSE/Novell).
I am a big supporter of open-source (at least from an ideological point of view). I really think it will help people, especially smaller countries, poorer people, etc. It is more efficient for a lot of small countries to pool together and contribute to one thing than to try doing it on their own. Having said that, I am sympathetic to the views of the software industry and those who say that making money off it is tough. The business model just isn't there yet.
It seems to me that claiming such a thing is the very essence of capitalism!
I'm not a capitalist so take my opinion for what it's worth:)
In my opinion, there is no such thing as overpriced and underpriced under capitalism. Whatever the market bears is the true cost. If a loaf of bread costs $1,000 tomorrow, a capitalist cannot really argue that it is too high. Similarly, if it costs $0.0001, he/she cannot argue that it is underpriced. People who claim something is overpriced or underpriced are really being hypocritical. This is more obvious when you look at wages. Is a CEO being overpaid? Under capitalism NO. The CEO gets paid whatever the market is willing to pay.
In my opinion, the only people who can argue something is overpriced/underpriced are non-capitalists. To do so, you need to use some sort of morality argument or consider the welfare of the people, or something. For instance, *I* can say an executive and an owner are overpaid because making 250x an average employee is too much in my system. But not under capitalism...
Should stop linking to articles requiring registration... Unless it's a big breaking story, or an innovative article not found elsewhere, there is no point linking to these sites. For most generic stories, the wire services (AP, Reuters, etc) or other print media will have the story at the same time (or even earlier).
I'm not nitpicking - I honestly don't understand how you see it as restrictive.
GPL is restrictive from a DEVELOPER point of view. It is more restrictive than BSD or LGPL or Apache style license from a DEVELOPER perspective. Of course, the ultimate free (as in freedom) licence (technically it's not a license) is public domain.
A developer (the one using the GPL code; not the one that created the GPL code) wants as much control over their code as possible. A developer wants to prevent his code from being copied, open-sourced, etc. GPL actually takes away a developer's freedom and gives it to the user. In contrast, the BSD allows you to keep your source closed and link it to other people's open-sourced works. If you want your software to be proprietary and closed, GPL is more restrictive. In fact, GPL won't allow you to keep it closed. In contrast, BSD/Apache/whatever allows you to keep your source closed yet use the open-source component.
All this makes more sense if you assume the software world is ruled by proprietary software. AND if you assume that the main way to make money is to keep it closed*.
* There is no proof of this, either way (I have not seen any scientific studies on this--in any case, the open-source market is too young to be worth analyzing now). But in my opinion, it's very hard to argue against keeping closed source right now (at least from a developer's point of view). You WILL make more money with closed-source than open-source software**. Open-sourcing provides many benefits (I don't need to list them here; Slashdot knows them). BUT keeping the source closed provides ONE HUGE advantage. By keeping software closed, you can MONOPOLIZE the market. Let's face it: regardless of what the capitalists and their American Libertarian friends say, businesses are out there to create monopolies. What seperates the really wealthy companies from the average company is the ability to transform your market into a monopoly (or at worst, an oligopoly). That's how you make the big bucks. Keeping software closed allows you to create a monopoly. Proprietary software is almost like patents--and patents are an easy way to make money.
** This actually depends on the circumstance. If your software can be easily cloned and duplicated, close-sourcing it may not be that big of an advantage.
Basically, the poster wants a BSD or LGPL type license. He wants to use some functions but not be forced to open-source his (supposedly proprietary) work. He is approaching this from a developer point of view (as opposed to the user point of view). His disagreement can be summed up as follows.
Licensing minor functions/libraries/whatever is too expensive. He claims that the price being charged is too high because the original developer doesn't have enough sales. Furthermore, what he desires is something minor (say just a component or a few functions). So his own works is far more valuable (i.e. greater) than the GPL stuff that he wants.
I don't know if the following is his view but this is how I interpret the situation. From his viewpoint, one can argue that GPLing software (especially things with low potential for revenue) is actually detrimental to the development community. Instead of everyone being allowed to use some component, it will not be used by many (unless they are ok with open-sourcing their stuff). If you check his "homepage" link you'll find a game company. I guess that's where he works (BTW, good luck with the game. It looks good). Now, say he wants to use something GPLed but is very minor--something that is nice to have but not a key element of the game. Under the present situation, he can't use it. Neither can you (assuming you are workign on a proprietary product). Let's say you start or join a software business. Even if you just want a minor GPLed component, you pretty much have to open-source your software. If you are at work and want to use some GPLed software, you can't (you either have to not use it, or open-source the whole thing). This doesn't help the present situation--from his view point.
What he says is important if you look at the present state of the industry. The vast majority of software companies use a proprietary model to make their money. Open-source might seem like big on Slashdot but only a few companies in the world are into it. If you work for such a company and want to use something GPLed, you can't. In that sense, GPLing software actually makes it less popular and more restrictive. If software companies did NOT use proprietary software to make money, it wouldn't matter. But that's not how things are.
Of course, the counterargument (and the reason for having the GPL the way it is) has to do with leeching. How do you prevent people from taking and not giving back (if you don't force others to open-source)?
Software sales are largely under a free market, and if you are a capitalist you cannot claim something is overpriced. I mean, that's what the market asks for. Besides, what are you comparing it to? Proprietary libraries (specialized for certain tasks eg. search algorithms, networking, etc) are pretty expensive too.
As far as GPL being restrictive, the context in which you are speaking (that of a developer) it's true. You are basically comparing GPL against public domain. Public domain would be the least restrictive in your view.
The chances that the US could pull off an action like this against UK interests are pretty slight, if you have ever been to NSA or GCHQ headquarters you will know exactly why.
Why?
---
As far as Bush's mission to Mars is concerned, no, it's not for lower wages. He is planning to invade Mars to bring "democracy" to the Martians.;)
No I haven't been to those countries but I do know about the situation. I don't know off the top of my head but here are some examples (I can't remember the details but if you want them, I can try finding them). Some examples of undesirable actions from India:
Some anti-nuclear weapons documentary in India was banned and the filmmaker threatened with penalties (including jail) if he didn't alter it significantly.
Some British Indian was charged (in absentia) for simply criticizing the Indian government
A politician from Tamil Nadu was jailed under the anti-terrorism laws for simply expressing something supporting the LTTE (there was no proof and even then, there was no direct connection)
Charges against the hindus who killed the muslims during the last riots are still nowhere to be seen. I suppose muslims don't matter as much as hindus huh?
Ignoring UN resolution that calls for a plebscite in Kashmir. What sort of government refuses to hold a referendum? Yep, the sort that is closer to an authoratarian govt than a libertarian one.
Those are just a few. Those sound vague because I don't remember the details. But if you really want it, I can try finding the full details (names, events, etc).
And you don't want me to get started on China, which as I said, is much worse...
Auto manufacturing is "special". By that, I am referring to the fact that it is heavily protected. There are all sorts of anti-capitalist measures enacted to protect it. Examples include tariffs, import restrictions, strong unions, etc. This is why the auto industry never left USA/Canada in the 80's, even though Japan was FAR better with their cars. There were massive tariffs slapped on imported cars so a Japanese car ended up costing the same or more than an American one, even though the Japanese car was cheaper to produce. This is also why Japanese companies relocated some of their manufacturing to USA/Canada--it let them avoid some tariffs. There was no reason for a Japanese company to open a plant in USA/Canada in the 80's. Some of these restrictions have been weakened over time but they are still largely there.
Another industry that can be considered "special" is farming. Countries like USA HEAVILY subsidize their farmers. If there was a truly free market, most farmers in USA will go out of business and most goods will be produced in some of the poor countries (where costs are lower).
As far as semiconductor manufacturing is concerned, I think you are wrong. The examples you cite are true. However, the general trend isn't there. Opening one factory here and there isn't good enough. You have to look at the whole picture. And my IMPRESSION is that semiconductor manufacturing is NOT picking up in USA--and it never will. We can figure out who is right by looking at some figures. Hopefully someone reading this message and knowledgeable about these matters can link to a website which shows if semiconductor manufacturing has increased in recent years (I think not, you think opposite).
That's a reason why it is even LESS likely for software to rebound in, say, USA. Because there isn't any fixed costs for software, literally ANYONE can do it. It will all come down to labour. Since cost of living in many other countries is SIGNIFICANTLY lower, it will be hard for Americans (and others) to compete. If someone in India, or China, or wherever, costs 1/4 less than in USA, there is no way someone in USA can compete. Since capitalism is based on output (i.e. you get paid based on output), an American, in this case, would have to produce 4x as much to compete. This is highly unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
The original poster got it wrong (you CAN read source), however his main point is correct. Using open-source software doesn't mean that the customer data is compromised in any way. What is open is the code--not the data. For example, MySQL is open-source but the data it holds is hardly open (unless you don't secure it or something).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Mozialla Firebird 0.7 has been crashing on me for some reason (it crashes once or twice a day, of heavy use). I think it may be related to the java plug-in and not the browser (I hate java--not the programming lanaguage but how Sun implements their APIs and stuff). Not sure what the cause is yet.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
GnuCash isn't suited for business because it does not really use true double-accounting (note: I haven't checked it out in the last year so not sure what changed). Because of that, compared to Quicken it sucks and is totally unusuable for a business.
;) ), etc. It is really tailored for the individual (like MS Money) and is great for that.
GnuCash is more comparable to MS Money. That's what it is: a personal finance management tool. It is ideal for personal use, such as managing your day-to-day costs, your stock/bond/whatever investments, student loans (or maybe adult loans
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Personally, if it will only run on I.E. in Windows (wine/xover office notwithstanding), what's the point - may as well run a Windows app.
The point is using a web app is to ensure conformity, and ease of use. So it is still worthwhile to go for a web app even if it only supports IE...
I agree with your main point though: if one is selling a web-based platform, might as well make it compatible with everything. Not only will this mean that you are following standards and using proper coding, it might even increase the potential market share (even if only by a few percentage)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The problem with that is that YOU will end up spending an inordinate amount of time & resources (as opposed to not spending any time at all, with a package solution)...This guy's business should not be wasting time building up their own interface to an SQL database. That defeats the whole point... Also, building your own SQL interface is not as easy as it sounds. The people who will be using it (business types) won't know SQL so it has to be easy to use, check basic errors, etc.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't necessarily agree with everything Micheal Moore says. However, I do agree with most of it...
Bush DID go AWOL...not that I care
Bush IS stupid... even his former secretary of treasury indicates it (note: I don't necessarily agree with a right winger like Justin Raimondo)
I agree with you that Bush is NOT a drug addict...
I also don't agree with the view that Bush stole the election... The Supreme Court decided it and if there is a problem, it lies with the courts...
Bush allegation, remember that after stripping away the humor, you're just reading the rantings of a religious fanatic. His religion is hatred.
I suppose in the upside world where Ann Coulter, Bill O'reilley and Rush Limbaugh preach love, Moore is preaching hatred...
Pushing this anti-Moore stunt precisely when the Bush administration is facing its biggest problems doesn't help you at all... A better stunt would be to revert to the classical 'anyone who criticizes the war is a traitor and a communist'. That stunt is more appropriate given what Bush is facing...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Unlike most countries, US schools are not subsidized. US is becoming more capitalistic by the day and privatizing schools is just one thing.
(* actually US schools are still subsidized a bit. Otherwise, tuition would be even higher. You'll start seeing this with truly private schools, as called for by capitalism).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This is a big test and we'll see if it works. Giving away books has always been thought of as a horrible way to make a living. This "experiment" being carried out will give indications of the feasibility of "free" books...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not saying these countries are totalitarian. A truly totalitarian country is USSR. These don't compare. Also, USA isn't my idea of a perfect country. Even with its limited freedoms, I would rank Canada above USA (but then again, I might be biased :) ).
My point is that the Asian, Latin American, etc countries come nowhere near USA. If you think India is as democratic or free then you have either been brainwashed by the government, or you are an elite and have no clue of what the general population faces.
I'll admit that India has decent press. Not great but getting there. But there are MANY other problems. India would not even be at the half way point of the world when it comes to freedoms. Everything is an illusion. India is run by a highly corrupt hindu fundamentalist government. Just because you don't see any of the problems doesn't mean they don't exist.
I am not saying every hindu out there is killing a muslim, or vice versa. BUT as long as it does happen (especially hundreads of deaths with the police ignoring all of it), India hardly conforms to a decent society.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
My point has nothing to do with USA. My view is an argument against capitalism, and the notion of "free trade". I'm just going to use USA as an example below, with China/India acting as counterbalance. I have nothing against China or India, and have nothing in favour of USA (I even get labelled anti-American, although that's for econopolitical reasons :) ). You can use whatever two countries you want.
"as much" is really vague when it comes to software. ie: Over the weekend I can write an app that in my mind is `worth' more than what 1000 engineers can think up over a year.
What you are saying is only true for a tiny fraction of the cases. There ARE some people/companies/whatever that are much better than others. These people are the best out there (on the whole planet). You may be one such person--or you may not. What matters is the situation faced by the majority. For the VAST majority of people in, say, USA, they cannot compete with low-cost countries. Overcoming wage differences of 3x or 4x will be too difficult.
When the differences are 3x or 4x, you just cannot compete. Your cost of living is VERY HIGH compared to these countries. Assuming that cost of living does not equalize (I don't think they will), you will be at significant disadvantage.
I've noticed that most jobs that are moving abroad are low skill programming. ie: making GUIs in VisualStudio, or writing DB interfaces, etc. Not actually building software that solves business problems.
First of all, the vast majority of jobs are in what can be called low skill programming, basically maintenance and support. For every architect, there are probably 50 support, testing, and maintenance people. Yes, these are the lowest of the low. But these fields employ the vast majority of the people. These people are the most important. The top ones are not, because there are so few of them. It's kind of like saying how the upper classes don't matter but the middle class does. One says this, not because the middle class is better off than the upper class, but because the middle class has the largest number of people. Similar thing here. The majority of people are in support roles and things like that.
Second, there is nothing stopping someone from another country from being as good (or even better) than you. Unless you are a racist, or have a superiority complex, you cannot really conclude that Americans (for example) are better off than, say, the Chinese or the Indians. US schools are better, etc but these other countries aren't bad either. I mean, you are talking about two countries with massive populations, and countries that have independently (for the most part) developed nuclear weapons, launched satellites, and so forth. The point is not the nuclear weapons (I'm against them), but that people throughout the world are pretty equal. If you can do something, I'm sure someone in China can too. So the day will come when higher level jobs are moved too.
Also, in software development, quantity does not equal quality. ie: id Software has very few developers, that somehow manage to compete with multi-billion dollar corporations with hundreds of times more resources.
iD software isn't as great as you imply. The larger companies (I imagine EA and others), produce many more games. Divisions of EA sports, for example, can pump out one new game each year, whereas iD takes 2-3 years. Other small companies comparable to iD, say Blizzard, are similar in size. Don't get me wrong: iD software is one of the top computer game companies out there (respect to John Carmack). But so what? EA, with its repetitive and quesionable quality, makes money too. I'm not saying quality doesn't matter; just that it isn't as big of a difference as you say. In any case, going back to my original point, only a few talented people are like that. The rest of the population isn't. Maybe you are talented. But if 90% of the rest of the population isn't doing so well, you are going
I am not a capitalist and do not support what passes for free trade. There is very little benefit to any country from modern "free trade". It is nothing more than an attempt by capitalists to enrich themselves. For instance, companies are moving to India right now. What happens in 10 years when wages rise in India? They will move to some other poorer country. And so on. In the long term, the benefits mainly accrue to the capitalists. One just needs to look at South America to see how capitalism has helped countries like Argentina and Ecuador.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Thanks for the insight... you look like you have been around :)
I still think that the British nationals don't mean anything. I follow the Charles-de-Gaulle line of thinking: countries have no friends; they only have interests. If the interests of USA diverges from that of Britain, USA will do whatever it wants (even if it hurts Britain). This goes for any country.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Your website is... well... simple. I guess that's why it's called Simple Sam :)
I'm unemployed and am very neutral. I support open-source but I am sympathetic to those that say it is restrictive from a development point of view.
The problem right now is that there isn't really a solid business model which allows you to make money off open-sourced software. NEarly all companies (not just software companies) make money by attempting to monopolize their markets (at least that's my theory). This could range from having a patent (only they can produce), to exclusive marketing deals (only their product is on the shelf), to implementing proprietary protocols (only can talk to their devices), and so forth.
Until a solid model for making money off open-source is developed, I understand the complaints of software developers. It's really tough to make money off open-source, when the present model is based on you having your code hidden from others. By open-sourcing the code, you lose the competitive advantage. In that sense, the evil trolls making up your legal group are correct. They are just after one thing: money. Closed source leads to money more easily than open-source.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I spent most of my afternoon trying to put across a certain position, not trolling, but almost holding out an olive branch, as it were.
;)
Yeah... I noticed. You were getting dissed for holding the minority opinion (in this case, calling GPL more restrictive). People kept accusing you of things you never even said. Nothing like the masses on Slashdot turning against someone
I think gaming will be one area that will not be impacted as much when open-sourcing the software. Most of the game's value comes from content (graphics, story, innovativeness of the game, etc). I think you can still make money even if you give the source code away. You will NOT give the content away so one will still pay for the game.
Having said that, it is very risky to open-source something right now--even gaming. As I say in another message (something you may not agree with), the ultimate goal of businesses is to monopolize their industry. That is what generates the high profits. If you want to monopolize the market, you want to keep the source code closed. For instance, if your game has really good AI then keeping it closed will ensure that only your (future) games will have that great AI. If you open-sourced it, competitors will incorporate your AI and you will lose your advantage. I just think the business model isn't there. I have my doubts that someone can make money by open-sourcing their software in the NEAR TERM.
In the long term, I still think that open-source is the way to go. Instead of your company spending a lot of time coding basic AI, or implementing some sound system, or whatever, you can use open-sourced existing components. Use open-sourced stuff and tailor it for your needs. But the business isn't there. I haven't seen any company really make much money off open-source. The only ones that have been able to are very small companies (eg. people offering linux solutions and services), or distribution companies (eg. Red Hat, SuSE/Novell).
I am a big supporter of open-source (at least from an ideological point of view). I really think it will help people, especially smaller countries, poorer people, etc. It is more efficient for a lot of small countries to pool together and contribute to one thing than to try doing it on their own. Having said that, I am sympathetic to the views of the software industry and those who say that making money off it is tough. The business model just isn't there yet.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It seems to me that claiming such a thing is the very essence of capitalism!
:)
I'm not a capitalist so take my opinion for what it's worth
In my opinion, there is no such thing as overpriced and underpriced under capitalism. Whatever the market bears is the true cost. If a loaf of bread costs $1,000 tomorrow, a capitalist cannot really argue that it is too high. Similarly, if it costs $0.0001, he/she cannot argue that it is underpriced. People who claim something is overpriced or underpriced are really being hypocritical. This is more obvious when you look at wages. Is a CEO being overpaid? Under capitalism NO. The CEO gets paid whatever the market is willing to pay.
In my opinion, the only people who can argue something is overpriced/underpriced are non-capitalists. To do so, you need to use some sort of morality argument or consider the welfare of the people, or something. For instance, *I* can say an executive and an owner are overpaid because making 250x an average employee is too much in my system. But not under capitalism...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Should stop linking to articles requiring registration... Unless it's a big breaking story, or an innovative article not found elsewhere, there is no point linking to these sites. For most generic stories, the wire services (AP, Reuters, etc) or other print media will have the story at the same time (or even earlier).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not nitpicking - I honestly don't understand how you see it as restrictive.
GPL is restrictive from a DEVELOPER point of view. It is more restrictive than BSD or LGPL or Apache style license from a DEVELOPER perspective. Of course, the ultimate free (as in freedom) licence (technically it's not a license) is public domain.
A developer (the one using the GPL code; not the one that created the GPL code) wants as much control over their code as possible. A developer wants to prevent his code from being copied, open-sourced, etc. GPL actually takes away a developer's freedom and gives it to the user. In contrast, the BSD allows you to keep your source closed and link it to other people's open-sourced works. If you want your software to be proprietary and closed, GPL is more restrictive. In fact, GPL won't allow you to keep it closed. In contrast, BSD/Apache/whatever allows you to keep your source closed yet use the open-source component.
All this makes more sense if you assume the software world is ruled by proprietary software. AND if you assume that the main way to make money is to keep it closed*.
* There is no proof of this, either way (I have not seen any scientific studies on this--in any case, the open-source market is too young to be worth analyzing now). But in my opinion, it's very hard to argue against keeping closed source right now (at least from a developer's point of view). You WILL make more money with closed-source than open-source software**. Open-sourcing provides many benefits (I don't need to list them here; Slashdot knows them). BUT keeping the source closed provides ONE HUGE advantage. By keeping software closed, you can MONOPOLIZE the market. Let's face it: regardless of what the capitalists and their American Libertarian friends say, businesses are out there to create monopolies. What seperates the really wealthy companies from the average company is the ability to transform your market into a monopoly (or at worst, an oligopoly). That's how you make the big bucks. Keeping software closed allows you to create a monopoly. Proprietary software is almost like patents--and patents are an easy way to make money.
** This actually depends on the circumstance. If your software can be easily cloned and duplicated, close-sourcing it may not be that big of an advantage.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Basically, the poster wants a BSD or LGPL type license. He wants to use some functions but not be forced to open-source his (supposedly proprietary) work. He is approaching this from a developer point of view (as opposed to the user point of view). His disagreement can be summed up as follows.
Licensing minor functions/libraries/whatever is too expensive. He claims that the price being charged is too high because the original developer doesn't have enough sales. Furthermore, what he desires is something minor (say just a component or a few functions). So his own works is far more valuable (i.e. greater) than the GPL stuff that he wants.
I don't know if the following is his view but this is how I interpret the situation. From his viewpoint, one can argue that GPLing software (especially things with low potential for revenue) is actually detrimental to the development community. Instead of everyone being allowed to use some component, it will not be used by many (unless they are ok with open-sourcing their stuff). If you check his "homepage" link you'll find a game company. I guess that's where he works (BTW, good luck with the game. It looks good). Now, say he wants to use something GPLed but is very minor--something that is nice to have but not a key element of the game. Under the present situation, he can't use it. Neither can you (assuming you are workign on a proprietary product). Let's say you start or join a software business. Even if you just want a minor GPLed component, you pretty much have to open-source your software. If you are at work and want to use some GPLed software, you can't (you either have to not use it, or open-source the whole thing). This doesn't help the present situation--from his view point.
What he says is important if you look at the present state of the industry. The vast majority of software companies use a proprietary model to make their money. Open-source might seem like big on Slashdot but only a few companies in the world are into it. If you work for such a company and want to use something GPLed, you can't. In that sense, GPLing software actually makes it less popular and more restrictive. If software companies did NOT use proprietary software to make money, it wouldn't matter. But that's not how things are.
Of course, the counterargument (and the reason for having the GPL the way it is) has to do with leeching. How do you prevent people from taking and not giving back (if you don't force others to open-source)?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Software sales are largely under a free market, and if you are a capitalist you cannot claim something is overpriced. I mean, that's what the market asks for. Besides, what are you comparing it to? Proprietary libraries (specialized for certain tasks eg. search algorithms, networking, etc) are pretty expensive too.
As far as GPL being restrictive, the context in which you are speaking (that of a developer) it's true. You are basically comparing GPL against public domain. Public domain would be the least restrictive in your view.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The chances that the US could pull off an action like this against UK interests are pretty slight, if you have ever been to NSA or GCHQ headquarters you will know exactly why.
;)
Why?
---
As far as Bush's mission to Mars is concerned, no, it's not for lower wages. He is planning to invade Mars to bring "democracy" to the Martians.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'll respond later...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Would need some help... but Canada is known to be friendly so I'm sure many will aid us.
:) If you invade Canada, it will be the end of USA--one way or another ;)
Canada+Europe+Asia+South America+Russia can beat USA any day of the week
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Those are just a few. Those sound vague because I don't remember the details. But if you really want it, I can try finding the full details (names, events, etc).
And you don't want me to get started on China, which as I said, is much worse...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Auto manufacturing is "special". By that, I am referring to the fact that it is heavily protected. There are all sorts of anti-capitalist measures enacted to protect it. Examples include tariffs, import restrictions, strong unions, etc. This is why the auto industry never left USA/Canada in the 80's, even though Japan was FAR better with their cars. There were massive tariffs slapped on imported cars so a Japanese car ended up costing the same or more than an American one, even though the Japanese car was cheaper to produce. This is also why Japanese companies relocated some of their manufacturing to USA/Canada--it let them avoid some tariffs. There was no reason for a Japanese company to open a plant in USA/Canada in the 80's. Some of these restrictions have been weakened over time but they are still largely there.
Another industry that can be considered "special" is farming. Countries like USA HEAVILY subsidize their farmers. If there was a truly free market, most farmers in USA will go out of business and most goods will be produced in some of the poor countries (where costs are lower).
As far as semiconductor manufacturing is concerned, I think you are wrong. The examples you cite are true. However, the general trend isn't there. Opening one factory here and there isn't good enough. You have to look at the whole picture. And my IMPRESSION is that semiconductor manufacturing is NOT picking up in USA--and it never will. We can figure out who is right by looking at some figures. Hopefully someone reading this message and knowledgeable about these matters can link to a website which shows if semiconductor manufacturing has increased in recent years (I think not, you think opposite).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's a reason why it is even LESS likely for software to rebound in, say, USA. Because there isn't any fixed costs for software, literally ANYONE can do it. It will all come down to labour. Since cost of living in many other countries is SIGNIFICANTLY lower, it will be hard for Americans (and others) to compete. If someone in India, or China, or wherever, costs 1/4 less than in USA, there is no way someone in USA can compete. Since capitalism is based on output (i.e. you get paid based on output), an American, in this case, would have to produce 4x as much to compete. This is highly unlikely.
Sivaram Velauthapillai