The ideology of open source is really one of sharing and openness, like the scientific ideals of collaboration and credit-sharing.
Some specifics answers?
<i> The SETI Institute is thinking about going to an open source model for some of our software. We have little experience with Open Source so we would like to ask the following: To what degree can an open-source project be self-managing -- how many of our staff will be needed to keep such an activity running productively? </i>
If you have a direction you want the project to specifically go, or preset milestones, then most likely you'll need to manage it.
<i>Some of our software controls hardware, for example the Allen Telescope Array; can such control software be developed using open source methods or are we better off focussing on the software-only systems, such as the next generation of our signal detectors? </i>
It sounds like your needs are very specific, so though your source may be open it may not draw intrest in someone else debugging your problems unless you have a shared problem. As such, you might be better into focusing your efforts on a common interface control module for your application, and writing a in-house driver to interface that software to your hardware. Other institutions with similar hardware can do the same and then you'd be sharing *part* of the costs of writing controls. (and they'll have a benefit from open development as well)
Even for the software only stuff, you'd do better if your code was useful for more applications, for example, genericized signal analyzer you can plug any sort of data in and then runs the selected analyses.:P Hey, it might even find collaborators in other places that require signal analysis algorithms, like the DoD. Though you might want to worry for something like that about hostile military uses. (and the export restrictions and other bs that goes along with that)
Good luck. Your best bet might be to use an OSS license, (lgpl most likely) but specifically contact other programs with similar needs to co-develop the software you need. (for your interface stuff) That's your best bet for finding other collaborators, but who knows, your software might find other collaborators in an unexpected direction, folks who have the similar needs as you and wouldn't mind adapting your software to interface theirs and contributing material back.
May I point out crazybrowser, which embeds IE in a tabbed, popupblocking, cookie-eating enviroment while maintaining compatability with IE-needing sites? I use it as my secondary browser (with Moz being primary)
Value is devrived from utility, not from price. I'd say that the 'value' of a product has no relation to it's pricing. You can gain in utility without making more money, and then again, you can make money without increasing utilty. If the dev-team for company A doesn't feel they're making enough money, they're free to raise their price(or salary) until they do feel fairly compensated.
And the obligatory anti-megacorp/sympathy dig is just silly and uncalled for.
Maybe the market can't support that number of engineers. Yes, it's your avocation. But lots of folks have to take vocations that are different than their avocations because there isn't a call for it.
Now if you're so dedicated in your avocation that you want it as your vocation, you'll have to be willing to understand that in a market economy, an overabundance of supply in the face of constant demand lowers prices. (Re: previous capitalist remarks) Only 'unfair' competition can change that.
As for benefits, job security, etc.. those are all implementation issues. Remember, most projects aren't 1 person jobs. A 'software company' can take on a task that requires management, divisions of labor, etc.. for a client and still have upward mobility.
Of course writing (some) programs is a creative process, and I understand wanting creative control. I guess open source doesn't work for you since you want that absolute creative control.
However, when you're dealing with a client with specifications and looking for you to implement a solution, the client's needs are as important as your own. (in a contract/employment scenario) They may want source code access to prevent an exclusive monopoly for their critical business function. Or they may want your code for debugging if you're not availiable.
As for your work and name, well, there's still trademarks. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus. *G* You can fork the the kernel code, make what you want of it, and if he doesn't like your patches and you want to distribute them anyways, you can, but just can't call them Linux.:P You can work the same way with your own works.
Again, the idea isn't *FREE* labor, but shared costs. Say exxon pays for (gives the developers a living by) a nifty openoffice that others find useful. Sure others will benefit, for 'free', but the developers were *paid*. And exxon might recieve something back when the plugin they paid for has a bug fixed by someone who recieved utility from the 'free' use of the plugin fixes a bug in it.
Who lost? Exxon didn't. They recieved lower costs by utilizing an existing codebase which they were able to customize. The Developers didn't. They were paid (a living wage) to extend the code. And the folks they shared the code with didn't. They got 'free' code.
The only 'loser' in this are those who would want to live off one creation for eternity-1 (or whatever the copyright is up to now)
Hey, apologies for any contempt. But are you really writing new software when as a end user/client I'm looking for features X, Y, and Z, and I ask you to write a brand new program, when there's already a product written for another company that has X and Y and all it really needs is feature Z? Wouldn't you rather go and just write feature Z?
That's the benefit of open source.
Hey, I want you to be able to make a living too.:P Price yourself so that writing feature Z will enable you to make a living, then. (How you do that is another question, whether it be writing enough different feature Z's, being the in-house specialist for the company for new developments, etc).
And remember, you might be a developer, but your'e also an end user.. so the benefits *are* tangible for you as well as everyone else.
Clients will still need someone to install/configure/customize their systems. And the terms of the license are as such that such customizations/upgrades are encouraged to be shared back into the common resource pool.
As for saving a corporation (OR individual) some money.. well, that user tends to do *something* Usually they have competitors. If they use their savings from open source to increase profits, while their competitors use it to lower their product cost, then the profit-maximizing company looses out by not competing as well. We're all good capitalists, right?
As for underminding profitable and lucrative markets.. I couldn't care less.:P I don't work for MS(or any other software vendor). As a end user, I benefit from lower prices, not MS employee/shareholder spending.
Software vendors could adapt or die. Isn't that the whole point of capitalism? Selecting for the process that is the most efficient? The profits may be less, but a proprietary vendor could reposition themselves as the 'experts' in a particular piece of software, and improvement requests could go to them. They can put up a 'we will implrement this feature for $xxx' sign, and once they recieve the funds neccessary to do that, they implement the feature. If I recall, the PostGresSQL folks are doing just that. Sure, they loose the *exclusive* right to do that, but that just opens up more... (magic word time) COMPETITION! No more natural monopolies, just a (closer to) perfectly competitve marketplace.
I'll have to disagree on all four of your points. "Follow the money" doesn't just count where the money goes, but where it comes from.
On your first point and the economics of open source... yes, there are fewer companies that can produce the same old code and sell it again as new. (Upgrades, etc) So at first it seems less money is being made, right? WRONG! The money that would have been spent on software upgrades (creating profit at little cost for the upgrading corporation) instead stays in the client's hands, where they can be spent on other things, funding new features (on an individual or cost-shared basis) So that's something to consider when dealing with open source and economics.
You missed also the fact that yes, you may not be able to maximize profits with open source. *shrug* Big loss. Profit isn't a right. Software enhancements will still be neccessary, and individuals (or companies) will still be hired on a single or cost shared (think bounty) basis to add features.
Companies represent nothing more than a convenient means for the collectivization of effort. Nothing more.
As for the business cases? Redhat pays the salary for Alan Cox as well as some of the other developers. IBM does as well. That's contributing back.
On 'better' software.
Open source products may not neccessarily be better in all areas, but they do tend to have the ability to rapidly have problems corrected and wanted features added. That's the advantage. Some would say that's 'better'.
Open source and the internet:
Actually, I would argue that open source did signifigantly contribute to the internet, in the forms of reference implementations that were copied.
Look NSCA HTTPD and Mosaic. Even today's IE browser has the following quote : "Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."
I'd say that's a form of open source that's helped, no?
As for where open source works? IMHO anywhere where multiple groups can benefit from the same product. All the clients can benefit (at the cost of 'profit' for the software companies, but *NOT* at the cost of the developers) since the unneccessary overhead is elimimated by the nature of open source.
As a programmer? Your lives remain the same. Code will still need to be developed, and jobs will still exist in an open source world. They'll just be funded by individual companies, instead of at a centralized 'software corporation'.
As for copyright? My ideas are open to be picked up and used by others, but my words are always my own. (As these ideas are a synthesis of ideas of others, of course)
Hey, I got all my CA tax back this year, nice thing about being.mil and stationed in another state (but still being a CA resident);P
Mind you, I did give some of that refund back.. oh, what was the checkblock, CA Endangered Species Fund.:P
*G* C'mon, let's use our market power and do even better things to the rest of the country, like make SUV's have fuel economy standards! Muahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
... about ways to mod your car for higher efficiency than more power. *G* I mean there's a thriving aftermarket in higher power output accessories... why isn't there one for more efficient accessories?
As long as the car still meets the minimum performance specs for the way I drive, of course.
Of course, a totally modular car would be neat, too. I had a vision of something hybrid based, not the current types of parallel (electric motor boosting a gas engine) hybrid but one that's a series hybrid with swappable components. Say, a generator (using diesel currently, upgradeable as technology progresses) hooked to a temporary energy storage device (your choice of lead-acid, ultracapacitors, gyroscopic battery, or whatever) then to some electrical motors (variable number, say minimum 1 for a RWD vehicle, up to multiple per tire if you're really nutzo and want lots of horses).
Is that too much to ask? Huuuh?:P
And can't you see the spec discussions?
"I've got a 1 terawatt storage system!" "Yeah, you don't have enough drive motors to burn that energy, though" "Well, my next upgrade...."
Actually, I use a palm (powered, it's a visor edge) device because of the longer battery life as compared to PocketPC, plus the fact that (for me) the windows environment adds unneccesary baggage to a handheld.
Anyways, I also use Jot on my palm. It takes graffiti (which still works) and enhances it with some of the things that I wish they built into it.
Trusting that there will be enough people who care about your materiel to support your publication costs?
Fact is, most of these materiels are being sold to university libraries who have open/semi open access to the materiel as a mission statement. These organizations will still subscribe whether or not these materiels are found 'in the open'. For one, they have to behave legitimately, and for another they know that the best way to continue the existence of these materiels would be to keep paying their dues.
At the same time, these dues which constantly come in support you currently, correct? Are you just trying to maximize profit or is there a genuine concern of people switching to non legitimate sources and thus a problem with continued existiece? If it's the former, SHAME! The latter, well, publicise that information. Show real data about not being able to survive and then ask slashdot again.
And who knows, open access seems to work for some academic publishers, who know that the dues to continue their existence will come in because people care to support the content. Maybe it'll even work for you.
For a commercial example of the same, do check out the baen free library and what it has done to their sales. (www.baen.com)
Access restrictions on these materiels are commonly done on a domain limited basis. Many university libraries have a proxy server for folks who attend the university (authorized users) who aren't on campus to access these materiels. There usually is a rather open or trust-based process to access these proxies, and as such they pretty much grant global access to the materiels.
One of the primary uses of my Visor Edge (and Palm3XE before that) is reading books from www.baen.com:P Sci fi, non-drm ebooks, and a virtual 'try before you buy' free library.:P
Oh, I also put down duty days, etc, all the things that a forgetful geek needs.
Um, you do know most parts come with their own warantees, right? Usually 1-3 years, at that.
I haven't had to pay to fix a system yet. =)
While we're on that note, though, the only prebuilt systems I buy are IBM Laptops, because laptops aren't exaclty friendly to self maintence. And even then the two times I've had a problem with my laptop, I'm able to tell the tech on the other end what the problem is specifically and how I diagnosed it, walked through their diagnoses, confirmed the problem, and if they can ship out the part to me (bad memory, once) they did so airborne express in 2 days.
Slashdot Mirror
*lol*
Is this study being sponsorded by the Howards? And the subjects a family named Long?
*check watch* Is it time for the theocracy to come into power yet?
*lol* Hey, at least it's a few light-miliseconds closer to the sattelite than conventional sat internet :P
The ideology of open source is really one of sharing and openness, like the scientific ideals of collaboration and credit-sharing.
:P Hey, it might even find collaborators in other places that require signal analysis algorithms, like the DoD. Though you might want to worry for something like that about hostile military uses. (and the export restrictions and other bs that goes along with that)
Some specifics answers?
<i>
The SETI Institute is thinking about going to an open source model for some of our software. We have little experience with Open Source so we would like to ask the following: To what degree can an open-source project be self-managing -- how many of our staff will be needed to keep such an activity running productively?
</i>
If you have a direction you want the project to specifically go, or preset milestones, then most likely you'll need to manage it.
<i>Some of our software controls hardware, for example the Allen Telescope Array; can such control software be developed using open source methods or are we better off focussing on the software-only systems, such as the next generation of our signal detectors? </i>
It sounds like your needs are very specific, so though your source may be open it may not draw intrest in someone else debugging your problems unless you have a shared problem. As such, you might be better into focusing your efforts on a common interface control module for your application, and writing a in-house driver to interface that software to your hardware. Other institutions with similar hardware can do the same and then you'd be sharing *part* of the costs of writing controls. (and they'll have a benefit from open development as well)
Even for the software only stuff, you'd do better if your code was useful for more applications, for example, genericized signal analyzer you can plug any sort of data in and then runs the selected analyses.
Good luck. Your best bet might be to use an OSS license, (lgpl most likely) but specifically contact other programs with similar needs to co-develop the software you need. (for your interface stuff) That's your best bet for finding other collaborators, but who knows, your software might find other collaborators in an unexpected direction, folks who have the similar needs as you and wouldn't mind adapting your software to interface theirs and contributing material back.
May I point out crazybrowser, which embeds IE in a tabbed, popupblocking, cookie-eating enviroment while maintaining compatability with IE-needing sites? I use it as my secondary browser (with Moz being primary)
Value is devrived from utility, not from price. I'd say that the 'value' of a product has no relation to it's pricing. You can gain in utility without making more money, and then again, you can make money without increasing utilty. If the dev-team for company A doesn't feel they're making enough money, they're free to raise their price(or salary) until they do feel fairly compensated.
And the obligatory anti-megacorp/sympathy dig is just silly and uncalled for.
Maybe the market can't support that number of engineers. Yes, it's your avocation. But lots of folks have to take vocations that are different than their avocations because there isn't a call for it.
.. for a client and still have upward mobility.
Now if you're so dedicated in your avocation that you want it as your vocation, you'll have to be willing to understand that in a market economy, an overabundance of supply in the face of constant demand lowers prices. (Re: previous capitalist remarks) Only 'unfair' competition can change that.
As for benefits, job security, etc.. those are all implementation issues. Remember, most projects aren't 1 person jobs. A 'software company' can take on a task that requires management, divisions of labor, etc
Of course writing (some) programs is a creative process, and I understand wanting creative control. I guess open source doesn't work for you since you want that absolute creative control.
:P You can work the same way with your own works.
However, when you're dealing with a client with specifications and looking for you to implement a solution, the client's needs are as important as your own. (in a contract/employment scenario) They may want source code access to prevent an exclusive monopoly for their critical business function. Or they may want your code for debugging if you're not availiable.
As for your work and name, well, there's still trademarks. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus. *G* You can fork the the kernel code, make what you want of it, and if he doesn't like your patches and you want to distribute them anyways, you can, but just can't call them Linux.
Again, the idea isn't *FREE* labor, but shared costs. Say exxon pays for (gives the developers a living by) a nifty openoffice that others find useful. Sure others will benefit, for 'free', but the developers were *paid*. And exxon might recieve something back when the plugin they paid for has a bug fixed by someone who recieved utility from the 'free' use of the plugin fixes a bug in it.
Who lost? Exxon didn't. They recieved lower costs by utilizing an existing codebase which they were able to customize. The Developers didn't. They were paid (a living wage) to extend the code. And the folks they shared the code with didn't. They got 'free' code.
The only 'loser' in this are those who would want to live off one creation for eternity-1 (or whatever the copyright is up to now)
But (theoretically) you got paid writing the software for the first company. Why should you keep reaping the rewards of one occurance over and over?
Your labor wasn't free. (unless you donated it) But one act isn't going to make you rich for life.
Hey, isn't that a lot of people's complaint about the other 'intelectual property' issues?
Hey, apologies for any contempt. But are you really writing new software when as a end user/client I'm looking for features X, Y, and Z, and I ask you to write a brand new program, when there's already a product written for another company that has X and Y and all it really needs is feature Z? Wouldn't you rather go and just write feature Z?
:P Price yourself so that writing feature Z will enable you to make a living, then. (How you do that is another question, whether it be writing enough different feature Z's, being the in-house specialist for the company for new developments, etc).
That's the benefit of open source.
Hey, I want you to be able to make a living too.
And remember, you might be a developer, but your'e also an end user.. so the benefits *are* tangible for you as well as everyone else.
Clients will still need someone to install/configure/customize their systems. And the terms of the license are as such that such customizations/upgrades are encouraged to be shared back into the common resource pool.
.. well, that user tends to do *something* Usually they have competitors. If they use their savings from open source to increase profits, while their competitors use it to lower their product cost, then the profit-maximizing company looses out by not competing as well. We're all good capitalists, right?
.. I couldn't care less. :P I don't work for MS(or any other software vendor). As a end user, I benefit from lower prices, not MS employee/shareholder spending.
... (magic word time) COMPETITION! No more natural monopolies, just a (closer to) perfectly competitve marketplace.
As for saving a corporation (OR individual) some money
As for underminding profitable and lucrative markets
Software vendors could adapt or die. Isn't that the whole point of capitalism? Selecting for the process that is the most efficient? The profits may be less, but a proprietary vendor could reposition themselves as the 'experts' in a particular piece of software, and improvement requests could go to them. They can put up a 'we will implrement this feature for $xxx' sign, and once they recieve the funds neccessary to do that, they implement the feature. If I recall, the PostGresSQL folks are doing just that. Sure, they loose the *exclusive* right to do that, but that just opens up more
I'll have to disagree on all four of your points. "Follow the money" doesn't just count where the money goes, but where it comes from.
... yes, there are fewer companies that can produce the same old code and sell it again as new. (Upgrades, etc) So at first it seems less money is being made, right? WRONG! The money that would have been spent on software upgrades (creating profit at little cost for the upgrading corporation) instead stays in the client's hands, where they can be spent on other things, funding new features (on an individual or cost-shared basis) So that's something to consider when dealing with open source and economics.
On your first point and the economics of open source
You missed also the fact that yes, you may not be able to maximize profits with open source. *shrug* Big loss. Profit isn't a right. Software enhancements will still be neccessary, and individuals (or companies) will still be hired on a single or cost shared (think bounty) basis to add features.
Companies represent nothing more than a convenient means for the collectivization of effort. Nothing more.
As for the business cases? Redhat pays the salary for Alan Cox as well as some of the other developers. IBM does as well. That's contributing back.
On 'better' software.
Open source products may not neccessarily be better in all areas, but they do tend to have the ability to rapidly have problems corrected and wanted features added. That's the advantage. Some would say that's 'better'.
Open source and the internet:
Actually, I would argue that open source did signifigantly contribute to the internet, in the forms of reference implementations that were copied.
Look NSCA HTTPD and Mosaic. Even today's IE browser has the following quote : "Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."
I'd say that's a form of open source that's helped, no?
As for where open source works? IMHO anywhere where multiple groups can benefit from the same product. All the clients can benefit (at the cost of 'profit' for the software companies, but *NOT* at the cost of the developers) since the unneccessary overhead is elimimated by the nature of open source.
As a programmer? Your lives remain the same. Code will still need to be developed, and jobs will still exist in an open source world. They'll just be funded by individual companies, instead of at a centralized 'software corporation'.
As for copyright? My ideas are open to be picked up and used by others, but my words are always my own. (As these ideas are a synthesis of ideas of others, of course)
Feh. We pay out more in taxes federally than we get back. (Last I heard we got 24% of the federal budget, but contributed 25%)
.. RHODE ISLAND!
And our representatives per capita is actually fairly low compared, to say
Now where's my California Republic flag?
*lol* :p
.mil and stationed in another state (but still being a CA resident) ;P
:P
Hey, I got all my CA tax back this year, nice thing about being
Mind you, I did give some of that refund back.. oh, what was the checkblock, CA Endangered Species Fund.
*G* C'mon, let's use our market power and do even better things to the rest of the country, like make SUV's have fuel economy standards! Muahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
... about ways to mod your car for higher efficiency than more power. *G* I mean there's a thriving aftermarket in higher power output accessories... why isn't there one for more efficient accessories?
:P
...."
As long as the car still meets the minimum performance specs for the way I drive, of course.
Of course, a totally modular car would be neat, too. I had a vision of something hybrid based, not the current types of parallel (electric motor boosting a gas engine) hybrid but one that's a series hybrid with swappable components. Say, a generator (using diesel currently, upgradeable as technology progresses) hooked to a temporary energy storage device (your choice of lead-acid, ultracapacitors, gyroscopic battery, or whatever) then to some electrical motors (variable number, say minimum 1 for a RWD vehicle, up to multiple per tire if you're really nutzo and want lots of horses).
Is that too much to ask? Huuuh?
And can't you see the spec discussions?
"I've got a 1 terawatt storage system!"
"Yeah, you don't have enough drive motors to burn that energy, though"
"Well, my next upgrade
etc etc
Actually, I use a palm (powered, it's a visor edge) device because of the longer battery life as compared to PocketPC, plus the fact that (for me) the windows environment adds unneccesary baggage to a handheld.
Anyways, I also use Jot on my palm. It takes graffiti (which still works) and enhances it with some of the things that I wish they built into it.
Trusting that there will be enough people who care about your materiel to support your publication costs?
Fact is, most of these materiels are being sold to university libraries who have open/semi open access to the materiel as a mission statement. These organizations will still subscribe whether or not these materiels are found 'in the open'. For one, they have to behave legitimately, and for another they know that the best way to continue the existence of these materiels would be to keep paying their dues.
At the same time, these dues which constantly come in support you currently, correct? Are you just trying to maximize profit or is there a genuine concern of people switching to non legitimate sources and thus a problem with continued existiece? If it's the former, SHAME! The latter, well, publicise that information. Show real data about not being able to survive and then ask slashdot again.
And who knows, open access seems to work for some academic publishers, who know that the dues to continue their existence will come in because people care to support the content. Maybe it'll even work for you.
For a commercial example of the same, do check out the baen free library and what it has done to their sales. (www.baen.com)
A synopsis of why open proxies are 'bad'...
Access restrictions on these materiels are commonly done on a domain limited basis. Many university libraries have a proxy server for folks who attend the university (authorized users) who aren't on campus to access these materiels. There usually is a rather open or trust-based process to access these proxies, and as such they pretty much grant global access to the materiels.
Got it?
Eh? Don't you mean SCO? :P
*whistles and hides the unix and embedded linux systems in the space*
Yes. And our TEMPEST shielded radio room can process traffic from signals sent to us because our antennas are OUTSIDE the TEMPEST shielding. Duuuh. :P
So if you TEMPEST shield the car radio, it should block the IF output, since the IF source is not hooked up to the antenna. Yeesh.
Mmmm.. intresting.
.. :P Or maybe Mexican Polka... *CACKLE*
So I wonder if we can jam it so it thinks everyone is listening to NPR
One of the primary uses of my Visor Edge (and Palm3XE before that) is reading books from www.baen.com :P Sci fi, non-drm ebooks, and a virtual 'try before you buy' free library. :P
Oh, I also put down duty days, etc, all the things that a forgetful geek needs.
Situation Normal All Fouled (fscked) Up.
SNAFU.
Um, you do know most parts come with their own warantees, right? Usually 1-3 years, at that.
I haven't had to pay to fix a system yet. =)
While we're on that note, though, the only prebuilt systems I buy are IBM Laptops, because laptops aren't exaclty friendly to self maintence. And even then the two times I've had a problem with my laptop, I'm able to tell the tech on the other end what the problem is specifically and how I diagnosed it, walked through their diagnoses, confirmed the problem, and if they can ship out the part to me (bad memory, once) they did so airborne express in 2 days.
No 'bringing it to the store' required.
On our boat we use Fiber. =) Problem solved. (Military vessel)
Personally, I wouldn't ground the cables, to reduce the chance of them being hit during a lightning strike (on a small civilian boat)
It realy depends on what sort of vessel.