One simply flies at high altitude above the weather, its not as if you have a internal combustion or jet engine that needs oxygen to function.
The only penality they'll pay is the heating and oxygen kit the pilots would need.
My guess is that they will probably climb during the day and charge batteries then glide all night with a small power draw to the batteries extending the glide.
If they can climb enough during the day then they might not need to use batteries, and just glide until the morning.
It should be possible to build such a machine with less than 100ft/min sink rate, perhaps even 50ft/min. Thanks 3000-6000 ft lost per hour, 8 hours is 24000-48000ft height loss.
Manned flight makes this more complicated though with needing oxygen and heating the pilot at high altitudes.
Actually I was trying to say I believe close source more viable for general end user application development than open source is.
So I certainly don't believe open source development is for everyone. However, using open souce middleware certainly makes alot of sense for most software development companies. Once viable open source middleware becomes available I think it will eclipse close source middleware pretty quickly.
As for the community and contributions, about half our source code base is contributed, the community are all mature, and often very skilled. Glad to say the single to noise ratio is general very high.
There is more money is closed source apps, so perhaps at later date I might venture into developing end user apps ontop the OSG. Right now my focus on the getting the core library to 1.0 and provide consultancy and support ontop the libray. Since this business model is viable I'm more than happy to stick with a model I know that works and is growing in momentum.
Robert.
The OpenScenGraph - its an open source scene graph, which takes an OO approach to doing real-time computer graphics.
>What market do you compete in?
The main markets are Visual Simulation, Virtual Reality, Games and Scientific Visualization.
> What is the name of your company?
OpenSceneGraph Professional Services, based in Scotland.
> Web site?
http:://www.openscenegraph.org
The is also http://www.andesegineering.com which is a partner company that also provide services ontop of the OpenSceneGraph and related projects. Andes Engineering has now been in business for over two years, based in California.
> I prefer Free Software, but the overwhelming majority of
software companies (and by extension job oppurtunities)
I see could not exist on service and support contracts
alone.
I believe the sweet spot for open source is in the realm of OS's and middleware. Making money in these areas with commericial products is very difficult (unless you have a stranglehold monolopy) and doesn't provide as good a service to end users - who are often developers themselves. Developers using middleware & components of the OS have the most to gain from access to the source, and often have the skills to put effort back into the OS/middleware. So both the Open Source developer and user/developer have something to gain. The gains for the Open Source developer is that they can achieve much more with a smaller sized team, that in turn requires less of a revenue stream then need to bring in to make things viable.
I see the sweet spot for being closed source end user applications, especially specialist applications. In these areas the Open source project itself provide little more than lower cost and the being non proprietary, the source ain't much use to 99.9% of users. Also 99.9% of users have none of the skills to put back into he product. Here the Open Source user has much less to gain from being open sourced. Whereas the closed source developer has the opportunity for collecting greater revenues which in turn support developers, testers etc. to do the job of the developing the product.
I am stunned that people of some many are skeptical on how FSB's coud work. They can and do work very well.
I have been successfully running my own Free Software Business for the past 2 1/2 years. Every quater I hit or exceed my targets, and comfortably in profit - might not be rich but certainly have perfectly viable long term business.
My company provides consultancy, support and training ontop of the open source project I lead. The key to success is that the project competes well in terms of functionality and robustness with equivilant commericial products, and that you provide the services that the market requires ontop of that product.
FSB's really are little different than conventional companies, if you provide and product or service that the market want at a price that is reasonable for the customer, yet profitable to provide, then you're in business. It really is very simple.
Robert Osfield.
Slashdot Mirror
One simply flies at high altitude above the weather, its not as if you have a internal combustion or jet engine that needs oxygen to function. The only penality they'll pay is the heating and oxygen kit the pilots would need.
My guess is that they will probably climb during the day and charge batteries then glide all night with a small power draw to the batteries extending the glide. If they can climb enough during the day then they might not need to use batteries, and just glide until the morning. It should be possible to build such a machine with less than 100ft/min sink rate, perhaps even 50ft/min. Thanks 3000-6000 ft lost per hour, 8 hours is 24000-48000ft height loss. Manned flight makes this more complicated though with needing oxygen and heating the pilot at high altitudes.
Actually I was trying to say I believe close source more viable for general end user application development than open source is. So I certainly don't believe open source development is for everyone. However, using open souce middleware certainly makes alot of sense for most software development companies. Once viable open source middleware becomes available I think it will eclipse close source middleware pretty quickly. As for the community and contributions, about half our source code base is contributed, the community are all mature, and often very skilled. Glad to say the single to noise ratio is general very high. There is more money is closed source apps, so perhaps at later date I might venture into developing end user apps ontop the OSG. Right now my focus on the getting the core library to 1.0 and provide consultancy and support ontop the libray. Since this business model is viable I'm more than happy to stick with a model I know that works and is growing in momentum. Robert.
The OpenScenGraph - its an open source scene graph, which takes an OO approach to doing real-time computer graphics.
>What market do you compete in?
The main markets are Visual Simulation, Virtual Reality, Games and Scientific Visualization.
> What is the name of your company?
OpenSceneGraph Professional Services, based in Scotland.
> Web site?
http:://www.openscenegraph.org
The is also http://www.andesegineering.com which is a partner company that also provide services ontop of the OpenSceneGraph and related projects. Andes Engineering has now been in business for over two years, based in California.
> I prefer Free Software, but the overwhelming majority of software companies (and by extension job oppurtunities) I see could not exist on service and support contracts alone.
I believe the sweet spot for open source is in the realm of OS's and middleware. Making money in these areas with commericial products is very difficult (unless you have a stranglehold monolopy) and doesn't provide as good a service to end users - who are often developers themselves. Developers using middleware & components of the OS have the most to gain from access to the source, and often have the skills to put effort back into the OS/middleware. So both the Open Source developer and user/developer have something to gain. The gains for the Open Source developer is that they can achieve much more with a smaller sized team, that in turn requires less of a revenue stream then need to bring in to make things viable.
I see the sweet spot for being closed source end user applications, especially specialist applications. In these areas the Open source project itself provide little more than lower cost and the being non proprietary, the source ain't much use to 99.9% of users. Also 99.9% of users have none of the skills to put back into he product. Here the Open Source user has much less to gain from being open sourced. Whereas the closed source developer has the opportunity for collecting greater revenues which in turn support developers, testers etc. to do the job of the developing the product.
Robert Osfield
I have been successfully running my own Free Software Business for the past 2 1/2 years. Every quater I hit or exceed my targets, and comfortably in profit - might not be rich but certainly have perfectly viable long term business.
My company provides consultancy, support and training ontop of the open source project I lead. The key to success is that the project competes well in terms of functionality and robustness with equivilant commericial products, and that you provide the services that the market requires ontop of that product.
FSB's really are little different than conventional companies, if you provide and product or service that the market want at a price that is reasonable for the customer, yet profitable to provide, then you're in business. It really is very simple. Robert Osfield.