You guys are attached to one specific meaning/sense of the word while ignoring others.
Many dictionaries state that "to steal" can also mean "to obtain without permission", "to use without acknowledgement" and explicitly refer to ideas or work. For example: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/steal.
"While this explains some of the volunteer work, it doesn't explain why companies today employ people who contribute to open source projects on company time."
Maybe it is because the company sees the open source project as a strategic component to its product or service offerings and its in their best interest that the project succeeds and they can influence its direction?
"Il-Horn Hann and colleagues found that the salaries of Apache Software Foundation project contributors correlated positively with the contributor's rank in the Apache organization [6]. They therefore concluded that employers use a developer's rank within the foundation as a measure of productive capabilities."
For me, that is not right conclusion, or at least not the only one. It is often the case that people contributing to open source on company time only started contributing because they were told to by their employers. A developer salary at his company and their rank within the open source project are both determined by his technical skills and teamwork abilities.
If by "Java technology" you mean "Applets", I really hope so, because applets have done more harm than good to Java's reputation, and are not representative of the technology is about. But the actual Java technology is so pervasive nowadays that it would take at least half a dozen different "Java killers", one for each area Java is entrenched (application servers, networked apps, cell phones, embedded,...).
Thanks for the offer. I used to, both at work and at home, but slowly went back to Windows (needed Windows for running some apps, and got tired of the context switching when working on two machines at the same time). I don't doubt they can make sure that for most of the mainstream/well behaved applications it works. But the devil is in the details. Will they ever be able to support 100% of all applications that run 'flawlessly' on Windows? The simple fact that they keep a compatibility database of applications that run on Wine with varied levels of success shows how hard it is to achieve what they want, and that difficulty is inherent to the part of the stack they chose to attack, no matter how competent they are.
I am not saying that IBM's approach is better, because Wine and Java are different solutions to different problems.
I call Wine's approach a hack because it tries to support Windows applications on Linux by reimplementing the Windows API. A tremendous amount of work is required for it to be complete, and I don't think they will ever succeed here (think of all the quirks and bugs in the implementation that need to be replicated, the size of the API, undocumented API, etc). It will never be enough for running 100% of the Windows applications out there (or even close to that). I believe the approach of hardware virtualization is the only way of doing this right.
But that is for running native applications on other platforms. A company that wants to reach customers on more than one platform has to choose to develop against a truly multiplatform runtime environment instead of a specific native platform, Java+Eclipse being an obvious choice here. From a business perspective, IBM may or may not have interest in supporting the Notes client on platforms other than Windows and Linux, but technically that might be possible already.
The support to running on Linux was obtained by migrating the client to Java, not by providing some mechanism for running the Windows version on Linux. The benefits of doing it are:
- it is not a (incomplete) hack like Wine - shouldn't be too hard to have the client running on MacOSX, and all Unixes supported by the Eclipse platform (dependending on how much native code they have - I would suspect it not to be that much, as it goes against the decision of using Java + Eclipse).
"If your competition can just steal your methods, then you would have no incentive to innovate"
We don't need incentive to innovate, innovation is in the inner essence of the human race. Problems need to be solved, and someone will solve them first. There are many benefits of being an inventor or pioneer. And innovation is good for business as well, as it gives you a lead over the competition (no need to tie people down). There are ways you can prevent others from just stealing your work, such as copyrights, and trade secrets. That does not apply to business methods (you can still take credit for creating it, which can be good marketing). Here what matters is that you need to execute well and provide the better value for your customers.
Don't dismiss software development just yet. There is much more involved in building good software than mathematics. You might see some beyond-basic math in a CS degree, but in the real world, most of the time that stuff will be useless.
However, the fact that you like playing videogames or find technology amusing is not any good indicator you will like the stuff. The good thing is that you can get your feet wet before you make a decision. There are some introductory books that teach general programming concepts and at the same time teach the essentials of a programming language (back in the day, Pascal was the language of choice for that, I guess today most will use Java).
>You can run.Net 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 code side by side without breaking compatibility.
Are you saying that having only version 2.0 of the framework installed, I can run apps developed for.Net 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0? Or does it require to have multiple versions of the framework?
And what if I have a 1.0 or 1.1 application and want to take advantage of one new feature in 2.0 in one (and only one) of my classes? Why should I have to convert the entire application?
You might call it bashing, but it is not. Backward compatibility is a very important requirement, almost as much important as the feature set. It makes evolving a platform harder, but it can be done. Microsoft took the easy path, at expense of its customers. That is easy to do when you have vendor lock-in.
Not wanting to sound as a fan boy here, but Java is a great counter-example - I don't know of any deprecated API that had actually been removed or stopped working.
> at least we still have the ability to fork GPL codebases
Actually, GPL and any other open source license I know of. But the real issues are: will anybody step up to the plate? Will the development keep the same pace? Will quality suffer? The foundations backed by multiple vendors (Apache, Eclipse) will remain safe bets. Not the same can be said about projects found by a single company or a group of developers.
Here's a playfully clever idea: win slashdot Every post we make is a repost found using the database tool from anti-slash.org. Luckily the slashbots don't bother to remember what they've seen before and just automatically mod us up. All news articles are reposts found on digg. Using this strategy, we've managed to get Excellent karma in 3 DAYS. YOU KNOW YOU LIKE THAT!
It is part of our lives to have to find solutions for the problems we face. Many times, the solution is just the application of knowledge we have previously acquired (through education, experience). Sometimes we just buy a product that does what we need. But often you need to come up with a solution by going through a creative thinking process. In that case, chances are someone has gone through the same problem and solved it in a similar way, but in most cases this will be very hard (if not impossible) to find out, even if there is a public database containing all the ideas someone currently owns.
Why is the other person more entitled to use the idea than you? You went exactly through the same trouble! Why do you have to pay or find an alternative way of solving the problem you already solved?
I don't think that there will ever be a sane patent system. In that case, I would rather live in a world with no concept of intellectual property (even acknowledging that in some fewer cases that may be unfair to the original inventor) than the mess we are now.
Hmm... I think that it actually is *very* hard to compete with something that is free. I, for one, will go with something that has lesser quality if it is free. I don't use OpenOffice because I think it is better than MS Office, I use it because it is good enough and has better value for the price I pay.
As a software developer and wannabe entrepreneur, I have been having a hard time trying to come up with a decent business model that is profitable and at the same time not too vulnerable to open source competitors. Currently, there are none in my area of interest, but it is always a matter of time.
The JVM and the J2SE class libraries are the most important contributions made by Sun under the Java technology umbrella. The Java language itself is irrelevant. Many people dislike the language syntax, and they have the right to do so. Syntax is a matter of taste - everybody should be able to program using the language they like the most (for the task at hand). But portability, interoperability, security, and other core features of the Java runtime are often underestimated.
People should stop fighting over language syntax and recognize that what we should be striving for is a feature-rich platform independent runtime, and that is what Java is in its essence. Groovy, Jython and JRuby are initiatives that recognize that.
Eclipse has 2,425,709 lines of Java code and runs on any J2SE 1.4 (or newer) compliant JRE from any vendor on many platforms (the essential parts of it will run even on PDAs). I don't think any scripting language would have been up to this task.
My opinion is that Java is the best thing that could have possibly happened in the software development field in the last 20 years. The fact that it is an openly specified object-oriented runtime suitable for a *huge* variety of configurations (desktop, middleware, embedded, etc) is a blessing. Developers have been able to learn one language and develop any kind of applications on any platforms (while reusing many of the skills). Also, vendors can target a much wider market when they do not have to focus on a single platform. Not mentioning that Linux owes a lot of its success to Java.
Slashdot Mirror
You guys are attached to one specific meaning/sense of the word while ignoring others. Many dictionaries state that "to steal" can also mean "to obtain without permission", "to use without acknowledgement" and explicitly refer to ideas or work. For example: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/steal.
"While this explains some of the volunteer work, it doesn't explain why companies today employ people who contribute to open source projects on company time."
Maybe it is because the company sees the open source project as a strategic component to its product or service offerings and its in their best interest that the project succeeds and they can influence its direction?
"Il-Horn Hann and colleagues found that the salaries of Apache Software Foundation project contributors correlated positively with the contributor's rank in the Apache organization [6]. They therefore concluded that employers use a developer's rank within the foundation as a measure of productive capabilities."
For me, that is not right conclusion, or at least not the only one. It is often the case that people contributing to open source on company time only started contributing because they were told to by their employers. A developer salary at his company and their rank within the open source project are both determined by his technical skills and teamwork abilities.
Beat that, Negroponte!
If by "Java technology" you mean "Applets", I really hope so, because applets have done more harm than good to Java's reputation, and are not representative of the technology is about. But the actual Java technology is so pervasive nowadays that it would take at least half a dozen different "Java killers", one for each area Java is entrenched (application servers, networked apps, cell phones, embedded, ...).
Thanks for the offer. I used to, both at work and at home, but slowly went back to Windows (needed Windows for running some apps, and got tired of the context switching when working on two machines at the same time). I don't doubt they can make sure that for most of the mainstream/well behaved applications it works. But the devil is in the details. Will they ever be able to support 100% of all applications that run 'flawlessly' on Windows? The simple fact that they keep a compatibility database of applications that run on Wine with varied levels of success shows how hard it is to achieve what they want, and that difficulty is inherent to the part of the stack they chose to attack, no matter how competent they are.
I am not saying that IBM's approach is better, because Wine and Java are different solutions to different problems.
I call Wine's approach a hack because it tries to support Windows applications on Linux by reimplementing the Windows API. A tremendous amount of work is required for it to be complete, and I don't think they will ever succeed here (think of all the quirks and bugs in the implementation that need to be replicated, the size of the API, undocumented API, etc). It will never be enough for running 100% of the Windows applications out there (or even close to that). I believe the approach of hardware virtualization is the only way of doing this right.
But that is for running native applications on other platforms. A company that wants to reach customers on more than one platform has to choose to develop against a truly multiplatform runtime environment instead of a specific native platform, Java+Eclipse being an obvious choice here. From a business perspective, IBM may or may not have interest in supporting the Notes client on platforms other than Windows and Linux, but technically that might be possible already.
The support to running on Linux was obtained by migrating the client to Java, not by providing some mechanism for running the Windows version on Linux. The benefits of doing it are:
- it is not a (incomplete) hack like Wine
- shouldn't be too hard to have the client running on MacOSX, and all Unixes supported by the Eclipse platform (dependending on how much native code they have - I would suspect it not to be that much, as it goes against the decision of using Java + Eclipse).
We don't need incentive to innovate, innovation is in the inner essence of the human race. Problems need to be solved, and someone will solve them first. There are many benefits of being an inventor or pioneer. And innovation is good for business as well, as it gives you a lead over the competition (no need to tie people down). There are ways you can prevent others from just stealing your work, such as copyrights, and trade secrets. That does not apply to business methods (you can still take credit for creating it, which can be good marketing). Here what matters is that you need to execute well and provide the better value for your customers.
Don't dismiss software development just yet. There is much more involved in building good software than mathematics. You might see some beyond-basic math in a CS degree, but in the real world, most of the time that stuff will be useless.
However, the fact that you like playing videogames or find technology amusing is not any good indicator you will like the stuff. The good thing is that you can get your feet wet before you make a decision. There are some introductory books that teach general programming concepts and at the same time teach the essentials of a programming language (back in the day, Pascal was the language of choice for that, I guess today most will use Java).
Are you saying that having only version 2.0 of the framework installed, I can run apps developed for .Net 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0? Or does it require to have multiple versions of the framework?
And what if I have a 1.0 or 1.1 application and want to take advantage of one new feature in 2.0 in one (and only one) of my classes? Why should I have to convert the entire application?
You might call it bashing, but it is not. Backward compatibility is a very important requirement, almost as much important as the feature set. It makes evolving a platform harder, but it can be done. Microsoft took the easy path, at expense of its customers. That is easy to do when you have vendor lock-in.
Not wanting to sound as a fan boy here, but Java is a great counter-example - I don't know of any deprecated API that had actually been removed or stopped working.
Exactly, this is specially true in the case of niche applications for vertical markets, where open source competition is not an issue.
> at least we still have the ability to fork GPL codebases
Actually, GPL and any other open source license I know of. But the real issues are: will anybody step up to the plate? Will the development keep the same pace? Will quality suffer? The foundations backed by multiple vendors (Apache, Eclipse) will remain safe bets. Not the same can be said about projects found by a single company or a group of developers.You mean Wine 9.0.8, right?
Wikipedia's content is there to be taken, the content distribution license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the _GNU_Free_Documentation_License explicitly allows that. I agree it might be annoying to see all that redundancy, but that is completely fair use.
However 'lier' does exist ("the one who lies down"):
http://www.answers.com/lier
It runs on the general-purpose cross-platform runtime the industry has chosen.
Make Zope/Plone run on any standard JVM and that might change.
Win Slashdot (12/03/05) - PyWiz
Here's a playfully clever idea: win slashdot Every post we make is a repost found using the database tool from anti-slash.org. Luckily the slashbots don't bother to remember what they've seen before and just automatically mod us up. All news articles are reposts found on digg. Using this strategy, we've managed to get Excellent karma in 3 DAYS. YOU KNOW YOU LIKE THAT!
...but despite of the system.
It is part of our lives to have to find solutions for the problems we face. Many times, the solution is just the application of knowledge we have previously acquired (through education, experience). Sometimes we just buy a product that does what we need. But often you need to come up with a solution by going through a creative thinking process. In that case, chances are someone has gone through the same problem and solved it in a similar way, but in most cases this will be very hard (if not impossible) to find out, even if there is a public database containing all the ideas someone currently owns.
Why is the other person more entitled to use the idea than you? You went exactly through the same trouble! Why do you have to pay or find an alternative way of solving the problem you already solved?
I don't think that there will ever be a sane patent system. In that case, I would rather live in a world with no concept of intellectual property (even acknowledging that in some fewer cases that may be unfair to the original inventor) than the mess we are now.
Is that a sentance?????
Is that a word?????
Hmm... I think that it actually is *very* hard to compete with something that is free. I, for one, will go with something that has lesser quality if it is free. I don't use OpenOffice because I think it is better than MS Office, I use it because it is good enough and has better value for the price I pay.
As a software developer and wannabe entrepreneur, I have been having a hard time trying to come up with a decent business model that is profitable and at the same time not too vulnerable to open source competitors. Currently, there are none in my area of interest, but it is always a matter of time.
... Brain and Pink... actually, I think they started this trend. Amazing what big corporations can learn from highly intellectually developed mice.
Nope, we still do that, when a reasonably fair agreement cannot be reached.
The JVM and the J2SE class libraries are the most important contributions made by Sun under the Java technology umbrella. The Java language itself is irrelevant. Many people dislike the language syntax, and they have the right to do so. Syntax is a matter of taste - everybody should be able to program using the language they like the most (for the task at hand). But portability, interoperability, security, and other core features of the Java runtime are often underestimated.
People should stop fighting over language syntax and recognize that what we should be striving for is a feature-rich platform independent runtime, and that is what Java is in its essence. Groovy, Jython and JRuby are initiatives that recognize that.
Eclipse has 2,425,709 lines of Java code and runs on any J2SE 1.4 (or newer) compliant JRE from any vendor on many platforms (the essential parts of it will run even on PDAs). I don't think any scripting language would have been up to this task.
My opinion is that Java is the best thing that could have possibly happened in the software development field in the last 20 years. The fact that it is an openly specified object-oriented runtime suitable for a *huge* variety of configurations (desktop, middleware, embedded, etc) is a blessing. Developers have been able to learn one language and develop any kind of applications on any platforms (while reusing many of the skills). Also, vendors can target a much wider market when they do not have to focus on a single platform. Not mentioning that Linux owes a lot of its success to Java.
Man, too bad I just used my last moderation credit. You (and the rest of posters in this thread) just made my day.