The level of American ignorance of life in India is scary. Is this what you derive from your superior education and life? Most of you don't know a darned thing about any other culture, apart from stereotypes.
At least us Europeans have a better understanding of life in other countries.
Actually, you and I essentially agree on all the above points.
My grouse was with the post I replied to, in which the poster said that ALL software should be open-source.
Re:Aren't there some solutions
on
Meet the Nasalnaut
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's interesting. However, in some cases our sense of smell protects us. For example, when you smell leaking gas etc.
If astronauts were to use this spray to mask the smell from a particular non-hazardous source, they may be unable to detect, say, a fainter smell that could be from something potentially hazardous.
Yes yes yes! I understand the "free as in libre, not free as in beer" concept.
Why should I be required to make my source code available? Somebody could rip me off. I know the GPL has provisions to protect people that have released their IP under the GPL, but what guarantees do I have?
As everybody knows, copyright protection is not guaranteed in all parts of the world. If I worked on a project and the source code was available, what is to prevent Mr.X somewhere from literally lifting ideas or code from my work. Why should I then have to spend thousands of dollars in litigation?
If you want to release YOUR software under the GPL. Why do you think that ALL software should?
If you buy my software and have a security issue, talk to me about it. Those kinds of issues can be sorted out better by clients talking to the companies.
IF I could get paid well and easily live with the cash given to me by producing free code, then yes, maybe I would consider keeping some of my code unproprietary.
That's a very big IF, and till you show me a business model that makes this possible, I will not be able to see the validity of your arguments.
And please do not say "make money through support".
If my software was written well, it would require minimal support. In a "make money through support" etc model, my income would therefore be minimal.
I try to keep my software as bugfree as possible, and my documentation aims to help the user. Why should the user then require so much support from me that it becomes economically feasible for me to make money helping him/her?
I suggest Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". The arguments on both sides are very similar.
Much of it seems to be a rant against consumer trends in the US. I grant that this may be far from satisfactory.
However, there are a few areas where, in my opinion, you are too quick to generalize.
First: That capitalism doesn't care about resources. Clearly, this cannot be the case for all capitalists - only the short-sighted ones. For, as you yourself state, if this were so, soon there would be no resources, and then what are we going to have? Doesn't help anybody if there is no raw material, does it?
Second: Sweeping statements on politics, but that is for a different forum, and I may agree with you on some points and disagree on others.
Third: There will always be people more intelligent than others, just as you and I are more intelligent than some people in this world and less intelligent than others. It's a fact, and part of intelligence is realizing that.
Now the question of how you use this intelligence is subjective as far as eliciting a reply. Let us not waste time on that, but realize that seeking an equal intelligence level for all is rather ridiculous. Making everybody in the world literate and providing access to education is, however, a worthwhile and laudable goal.
Now the rest of your text is a little confusing to me. Still, my question is this:
If you want to share knowledge by writing "open-source" software and you want to give it away for free or for a "very affordable" price, WHO OR WHICH LAW IS STOPPING YOU?
Go ahead my friend, do it! And you very well may! By all means, live your life by your philosophy.
My problem with your view is that you're saying that by wanting people to pay for my intellectual work I'm somehow contributing to an unwanted streak in society. How is that???
I've been trying to say the same things in my earlier posts in this thread, and I would definitely like to hear why most OS proponents seem to insist that Open Source is MORALLY right, that wanting to charge for your work is reprehensible because you want "MONEY".
For those who've read "Atlas Shrugged", the comments of the OS-brigade should be eerily familiar.
Maybe you have some "utopian" worldview in which people will again be bartering goods for services, but NO, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
So you might as well stop trying to reinvent the hippie wheel and understand that just because people want money for their effort, it doesn't mean that they do not respect knowledge.
Bandying the failures or shortcomings of a few major companies doesn't give Open Sourcers (if I may) the right to generalize sentiments over the rest of the "closed-source" world.
Exactly, Wizardmax! Like I've said in earlier posts too, OS proponets are more than welcome to write SW and give it away for free or next-to-nothing, but why INSIST that this is the RIGHT business and moral model in the name of spreading knowledge?
If knowledge was all that we needed to live a comfortable life - and I mean comfortable in the generally accepted sense, let's not sit and dissect this. Some people can live like hermits and be comfortable...not me - then this approach would work I suppose.
However, this is not the way the world works and some people rightly choose to sell the products of their physical and mental efforts at a price at which they feel the consumer would be interested in purchasing said product.
Let them do this. Nobody's preventing you from distributing your OS software as you deem fit.
I just finished typing a reply to another poster...you might find it somewhere below if you will.
My question to all you romantics there is this: what's stopping you from coding software to your heart's content and giving it away for free or next to nothing WITHOUT having to call companies and individuals that want to charge others much more to buy it?
Do your thing, let Microsoft and other companies sell their software for their exorbitant prices.
If the general public doesn't like MS' prices, they'll stop buying from MS. After all, you are giving them an alternative aren't you?
On what basis are you passing a value judgement on them insinuating they are "Evil". I mean "you" here as the proponents of open-source.
You may not want a house right now with kids and a dog and a fence, but when you DO want it, or for the other people that do want to live that kind of life (and I surely hope you aren't going to say that is wrong too, cos it really is nobody's business how other people live...I'm not telling you how you should live) it should be clear that no amount of geek fame is going to get you those things...only money will. While I fully believe that money is not the be-all and end-all of life, it has it's importance and that's a substantial reason for our studying and working.
So you're free to LOVE the spirit of open-source software...I just don't think it's necessary to clamor for the entire world converting to OS.
And how did "closed-source" software ever prevent you from pursuing your dream?
This is what I don't get about the people that talk about the open-source and closed-source ideologies.
Everyone here seems to agree that you wouldn't make a lot of money coding open-source software.
How then do you expect to pay for a car, buy a house, etc etc etc. As the OP says, all his/her experince in coding open-source SW would help him/her to land a "good job".
What then is preventing you from practicing your SW skills on any number of free development systems, and then putting it all on your resume. Why the clamoring for Open Source?
Why do people pay so much for almost all the goods in the world? Market economics support certain prices, and that is an indication that people are willing to pay a certain amount of money for something they perceive has value.
What is this "social conscience" you talk about? Should I code software and give it away, and the source code, for next to nothing just because everybody in the world can then have it? Why should I pay 1000s of dollars for my college education and get paid next to nothing for putting the skills that I've learnt to some use?
This is not a rant, but a genuine attempt to understand the open-source viewpoint.
Why can't you just code whatever SW you want to distribute as open-source when you have the time to work on it (if you have a "good job"), or when you please, and share it.
Why should the whole world do this? Why do you want the government to convert to open-source - is it because of the money saving, or is it because of your philosophy of open-source?
Your answers, and those of other OS proponets would be appreciated.
I hadn't heard of Freenet before, so I decided to see what it was about and started reading their rather extensive FAQ.
Soon, I came across this precious gem:
What about child porn, offensive content or terrorism?
While most people wish that child pornography and terrorism did not exist, humanity should not be deprived of their freedom to communicate just because of how a very small number of people might use that freedom.
WHAT???
I don't believe I'm a prude, but this is fucking crazy! "Humanity" wouldn't feel deprived when it's "freedom" to post pictures of little kids being raped is revoked.
Thanks a lot you bunch of "I'm-part-of-the-intellectual-elite-cos-I-never-ta ke -a-stand" idiots!
I think your argument is flawed and extremely vague at many levels.
First: You say, "information wants to be free". Information "is". Information cannot "want" to do anything. It is what people do with information that makes information what it is, used in the way it is used etc.
Second: "And the programmers who work on the project will still get rewarded". My question is - HOW? Society may be free to use the results, but how do(es) the developer(s) earn a living? Surely, society's goodwill is insufficient.
Third: "If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution". While this may be true (I'm not so sure it is, without qualifiers), WHAT is the reward?
Fourth: "If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs". This line of argument is so terribly flawed, I don't have to elaborate
I just don't understand this: Forget this whole business of selling software?
And why exactly should somebody not sell software? If a company hires and pays developers to write software, it has every right to expect payment for the finished product.
How much money would people pay for documentation? It's so easy to scan docs in and share them in any number of formats on the file-sharing networks.
I fully support the view that software is too expensive. However, selling an entire operating system for the cost of the media + shipping is rather ridiculous, in my opinion.
Let's say that some company tomorrow releases an OS with the best features of Linux and Windows - all the stability, ease of use, a gentle learning curve etc.
A lot of work would have gone into the development of this OS. Why should the company sell it for next to nothing? That is as ridiculous as selling it for $1000.
Just as if CDs were sold at a reasonable price - say $10 - piracy would not be as rampant, software should also be sold as a reasonable price.
I know the FAQ says not to "complain" about submitted articles not being accepted, and this isn't a complaint as much as a question to satisfy my curiosity.
A little while ago, I submitted the very same story. It was rejected. Now I see this on the front page. This has happened twice before.
I suppose this has happened to others too...any ideas on why somebody's submission on the same topic is accepted over others'?
Isn't that precious. Some dork called "Shut The Fuck Up!", no less, types some ignorant comment and he gets modded up +4 and "Funny" to boot.
And a post that actually tries to explain something to Mr. STFU and his ignorant buddies gets modded -1;Troll.
Keep up the good work!
And here's some info that you can spout at your next Xenophobes R Us meeting:
Mandara is not an Indian name, Mandira is (added bonus info: that's a woman's name)
I've never heard of Deepthanshu (I'm part Indian, and though I live in the US, know quite a bit about India) and even if it was, it would be a first name, and not a last name.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol! Well said!
Excellent reply!
The level of American ignorance of life in India is scary. Is this what you derive from your superior education and life? Most of you don't know a darned thing about any other culture, apart from stereotypes.
At least us Europeans have a better understanding of life in other countries.
Hmm...the very same peripheral issues are equally relevant in the US, especially now.
Funny how you don't have the balls to post using your ID when you make disparaging remarks about others.
At least have the courage to stand by your thoughts.
"What really are the most fundamental differences between Windows variants like 2003/XP and Unix variants like Linux "
What the hell is Windows 2003? Did I miss something?
Just out of curiosity, since when has a high SNR been considered bad ?
Funny how both McBride and the EV1 Server guy throw contradictory references to OJ.
lol..or worse still, no power for you if you don't pay your internet bill...
just kidding hehe
Actually, you and I essentially agree on all the above points.
My grouse was with the post I replied to, in which the poster said that ALL software should be open-source.
That's interesting. However, in some cases our sense of smell protects us. For example, when you smell leaking gas etc.
If astronauts were to use this spray to mask the smell from a particular non-hazardous source, they may be unable to detect, say, a fainter smell that could be from something potentially hazardous.
Yes yes yes! I understand the "free as in libre, not free as in beer" concept.
Why should I be required to make my source code available? Somebody could rip me off. I know the GPL has provisions to protect people that have released their IP under the GPL, but what guarantees do I have?
As everybody knows, copyright protection is not guaranteed in all parts of the world. If I worked on a project and the source code was available, what is to prevent Mr.X somewhere from literally lifting ideas or code from my work. Why should I then have to spend thousands of dollars in litigation?
If you want to release YOUR software under the GPL. Why do you think that ALL software should?
If you buy my software and have a security issue, talk to me about it. Those kinds of issues can be sorted out better by clients talking to the companies.
IF I could get paid well and easily live with the cash given to me by producing free code, then yes, maybe I would consider keeping some of my code unproprietary.
That's a very big IF, and till you show me a business model that makes this possible, I will not be able to see the validity of your arguments.
And please do not say "make money through support".
If my software was written well, it would require minimal support. In a "make money through support" etc model, my income would therefore be minimal.
I try to keep my software as bugfree as possible, and my documentation aims to help the user. Why should the user then require so much support from me that it becomes economically feasible for me to make money helping him/her?
I suggest Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". The arguments on both sides are very similar.
Thank you for your detailed reply.
Much of it seems to be a rant against consumer trends in the US. I grant that this may be far from satisfactory.
However, there are a few areas where, in my opinion, you are too quick to generalize.
First: That capitalism doesn't care about resources.
Clearly, this cannot be the case for all capitalists - only the short-sighted ones. For, as you yourself state, if this were so, soon there would be no resources, and then what are we going to have? Doesn't help anybody if there is no raw material, does it?
Second: Sweeping statements on politics, but that is for a different forum, and I may agree with you on some points and disagree on others.
Third: There will always be people more intelligent than others, just as you and I are more intelligent than some people in this world and less intelligent than others. It's a fact, and part of intelligence is realizing that.
Now the question of how you use this intelligence is subjective as far as eliciting a reply. Let us not waste time on that, but realize that seeking an equal intelligence level for all is rather ridiculous. Making everybody in the world literate and providing access to education is, however, a worthwhile and laudable goal.
Now the rest of your text is a little confusing to me. Still, my question is this:
If you want to share knowledge by writing "open-source" software and you want to give it away for free or for a "very affordable" price, WHO OR WHICH LAW IS STOPPING YOU?
Go ahead my friend, do it! And you very well may! By all means, live your life by your philosophy.
My problem with your view is that you're saying that by wanting people to pay for my intellectual work I'm somehow contributing to an unwanted streak in society. How is that???
Hails to you my friend! You're absolutely right!
I've been trying to say the same things in my earlier posts in this thread, and I would definitely like to hear why most OS proponents seem to insist that Open Source is MORALLY right, that wanting to charge for your work is reprehensible because you want "MONEY".
For those who've read "Atlas Shrugged", the comments of the OS-brigade should be eerily familiar.
Maybe you have some "utopian" worldview in which people will again be bartering goods for services, but NO, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
So you might as well stop trying to reinvent the hippie wheel and understand that just because people want money for their effort, it doesn't mean that they do not respect knowledge.
Bandying the failures or shortcomings of a few major companies doesn't give Open Sourcers (if I may) the right to generalize sentiments over the rest of the "closed-source" world.
Exactly, Wizardmax! Like I've said in earlier posts too, OS proponets are more than welcome to write SW and give it away for free or next-to-nothing, but why INSIST that this is the RIGHT business and moral model in the name of spreading knowledge?
If knowledge was all that we needed to live a comfortable life - and I mean comfortable in the generally accepted sense, let's not sit and dissect this. Some people can live like hermits and be comfortable...not me - then this approach would work I suppose.
However, this is not the way the world works and some people rightly choose to sell the products of their physical and mental efforts at a price at which they feel the consumer would be interested in purchasing said product.
Let them do this. Nobody's preventing you from distributing your OS software as you deem fit.
I just finished typing a reply to another poster...you might find it somewhere below if you will.
My question to all you romantics there is this: what's stopping you from coding software to your heart's content and giving it away for free or next to nothing WITHOUT having to call companies and individuals that want to charge others much more to buy it?
Do your thing, let Microsoft and other companies sell their software for their exorbitant prices.
If the general public doesn't like MS' prices, they'll stop buying from MS. After all, you are giving them an alternative aren't you?
On what basis are you passing a value judgement on them insinuating they are "Evil". I mean "you" here as the proponents of open-source.
You may not want a house right now with kids and a dog and a fence, but when you DO want it, or for the other people that do want to live that kind of life (and I surely hope you aren't going to say that is wrong too, cos it really is nobody's business how other people live...I'm not telling you how you should live) it should be clear that no amount of geek fame is going to get you those things...only money will. While I fully believe that money is not the be-all and end-all of life, it has it's importance and that's a substantial reason for our studying and working.
So you're free to LOVE the spirit of open-source software...I just don't think it's necessary to clamor for the entire world converting to OS.
And how did "closed-source" software ever prevent you from pursuing your dream?
This is what I don't get about the people that talk about the open-source and closed-source ideologies.
Everyone here seems to agree that you wouldn't make a lot of money coding open-source software.
How then do you expect to pay for a car, buy a house, etc etc etc. As the OP says, all his/her experince in coding open-source SW would help him/her to land a "good job".
What then is preventing you from practicing your SW skills on any number of free development systems, and then putting it all on your resume. Why the clamoring for Open Source?
Why do people pay so much for almost all the goods in the world? Market economics support certain prices, and that is an indication that people are willing to pay a certain amount of money for something they perceive has value.
What is this "social conscience" you talk about? Should I code software and give it away, and the source code, for next to nothing just because everybody in the world can then have it? Why should I pay 1000s of dollars for my college education and get paid next to nothing for putting the skills that I've learnt to some use?
This is not a rant, but a genuine attempt to understand the open-source viewpoint.
Why can't you just code whatever SW you want to distribute as open-source when you have the time to work on it (if you have a "good job"), or when you please, and share it.
Why should the whole world do this? Why do you want the government to convert to open-source - is it because of the money saving, or is it because of your philosophy of open-source?
Your answers, and those of other OS proponets would be appreciated.
Thanks!
I hadn't heard of Freenet before, so I decided to see what it was about and started reading their rather extensive FAQ.
Soon, I came across this precious gem:What about child porn, offensive content or terrorism? While most people wish that child pornography and terrorism did not exist, humanity should not be deprived of their freedom to communicate just because of how a very small number of people might use that freedom.
WHAT???
I don't believe I'm a prude, but this is fucking crazy! "Humanity" wouldn't feel deprived when it's "freedom" to post pictures of little kids being raped is revoked.
Thanks a lot you bunch of "I'm-part-of-the-intellectual-elite-cos-I-never-ta ke -a-stand" idiots!
the birth of the next corporate monster...now totally unfettered by the chains of debt
I think your argument is flawed and extremely vague at many levels.
First: You say, "information wants to be free". Information "is". Information cannot "want" to do anything. It is what people do with information that makes information what it is, used in the way it is used etc.
Second: "And the programmers who work on the project will still get rewarded". My question is - HOW? Society may be free to use the results, but how do(es) the developer(s) earn a living? Surely, society's goodwill is insufficient.
Third: "If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution". While this may be true (I'm not so sure it is, without qualifiers), WHAT is the reward?
Fourth: "If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs". This line of argument is so terribly flawed, I don't have to elaborate
I just don't understand this: Forget this whole business of selling software? And why exactly should somebody not sell software? If a company hires and pays developers to write software, it has every right to expect payment for the finished product. How much money would people pay for documentation? It's so easy to scan docs in and share them in any number of formats on the file-sharing networks. I fully support the view that software is too expensive. However, selling an entire operating system for the cost of the media + shipping is rather ridiculous, in my opinion. Let's say that some company tomorrow releases an OS with the best features of Linux and Windows - all the stability, ease of use, a gentle learning curve etc. A lot of work would have gone into the development of this OS. Why should the company sell it for next to nothing? That is as ridiculous as selling it for $1000. Just as if CDs were sold at a reasonable price - say $10 - piracy would not be as rampant, software should also be sold as a reasonable price.
I know the FAQ says not to "complain" about submitted articles not being accepted, and this isn't a complaint as much as a question to satisfy my curiosity.
A little while ago, I submitted the very same story. It was rejected. Now I see this on the front page. This has happened twice before.
I suppose this has happened to others too...any ideas on why somebody's submission on the same topic is accepted over others'?
Shrikanth Narayanan was at Bell Labs too, for close to seven years I think. Perhaps they knew each other then.
I graduated from USC last year and a took a couple of Narayanan's classes...very interesting...and the man's driven!
Isn't that precious. Some dork called "Shut The Fuck Up!", no less, types some ignorant comment and he gets modded up +4 and "Funny" to boot. And a post that actually tries to explain something to Mr. STFU and his ignorant buddies gets modded -1;Troll. Keep up the good work!
LOL, you xenophobic freak!
And here's some info that you can spout at your next Xenophobes R Us meeting:
Mandara is not an Indian name, Mandira is (added bonus info: that's a woman's name)
I've never heard of Deepthanshu (I'm part Indian, and though I live in the US, know quite a bit about India) and even if it was, it would be a first name, and not a last name.