In many setting we don't care abuot the heat....just raw performance. The heat issue is of concern of course..just that when it comes to serious computation you only care about the processing performance....now for home users heat/electrcity becomes a much bigger concern...also I guess if you are building a 2000 node cluster...then the extra heat would translate into significant costs...
just my worthless 0.025431343 cents worth.
Well if you are right then I hope linux never competes.
Conversly I believe that people are becoming more and more educated about their computers...while linux is becoming easier and easier to use. Linux..maybe...but OSX...the coolness factor alone is about to put Apple back on the map for real...through in better processors for good luck and you have a winning solution for Joe six pack.
Just my worthless two cents
About 4 years ago dell had a different attidude. I bought a dell workstation class computer http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls =org.mozilla:en-US:officialpreinstalled with redhat...network card didn't work correctly tho!
There was a few year peiod in there where they pulled linux entirely.
fair enough. I was not discounting the effort it takes to reverse engineer a product. But for a kernal hacker there are several other options available at his disposal that would have worked quite well.
I guess I really don't have issues with all reverse engineering..but if it is done is a purley malicious manner then I take issue with that. There are plenty OSS developers who take issue with anyone making a profit from selling software...they think that everything should be open and free and they are willing to go to grat lengths to ensure that others are not able to make this profit...yeah I know a couple of guy's like this...can't have sensible converasation with them.
Also while it is your data...you did choose to use the proprietary format to store it in...I never use Word, Excel, PPT...unless I am asked to at my job...my data stays in open format software...but hey that is just me... hate microsofts closed format as much as the next guy, but I respect their right to do as the please....I just chose to not support them
BTW...thanks for a meaningful reply...I figured I would just get land blasted for my post.
Cheers
sorry I disagree with you. It would have been one thing if he said hey...biutkeeper kicks ass because of xyz features...I would love to have those features in addition to abc. Besides bitKeeper was free for open source projects...so his only real motivation for doing this was to undermine the business stratgey of BitKeeper. Shame on him. We need to pull our collective heads out of the open source sand some times.
Proprietary software has (and should) it's place in the free markets and it is not right to simple steal someone elses idea out right which is what reverse engineering is. Yeah it is fine to make a similar product that competes..but is is just plan lazy, uncreative, and dishonest to copy someone elses product exactly.
I personnaly don't have much respect for the reverse engineer...the should do something creative with their supposed talents.
However this is simply my opinion and as you say reverse engineering is technically legal.
I am looking forward to a break in super duper advanced hardware.....software development as a practice would greatly benifit from coders having to understand the algorithms and operations behind there code again. And on a geek note...long live the assembly language coder!!
ok so that comment was worth less than a hill of beans....but if you were starving then a hill of beans would be worth somthing.
I think we could probably make something as "smart/instinctual" as a honey bee. You should check out some of the cool autonomous robot stuff going on at MIT...sorry no time to find a link.
I guess it is all in the definition of smart...I mean we can certainly program/train software to emulate the behaviou of a bee...and if we could create a nifty little bee robot that was as agile as a real bee then it would probably pass the "bee" turing test.
well it sure hasn't help up for the last 18 months...I would say that is pretty much dead. Three years ago a top line pentium 4 was a ~2.4 Gz. Now we have what ~3.6....were is the double?
yeah yeah yeah...Ghz aren't everything but they are a pretty quick indicator (in the loosest sence of the word) of relative processor speed.
screw you man...I wasn't stroking my ego. I was trying to give some friendly advise to someone who asked...not you.
Yeah you lawyers did a great think ages ago...you are worth total crap now...you suck money out of the economy for now realy reason. Can't blame it all on you though...you are just opportuniests...most of us "common" folk are the reasons you have your sorry ass jobs.
I totally agree. I notice adds that are relavent to somethning that is of interest to me at the time...maybe...But by and large I just tune the rest of them out.
Oh..BTW my Ph.D. is in Medicinal Chemistry and I work as a computational chemist..figured that might interest you since you are also a chemistry major.
funny I have a Ph.D. from an american unviersity and I am doing fine...am I a millionaire...no. But I have a roof over my head and I sure don't live paycheck to paycheck. I guess it all depends oh what you mean by pay off....for me the payoff is in getting to do/explore somthiing that has potential to change the world. How many movie starts/lawyers/stock brokers/etc can say that. Sure they make more than me. But I am challeneged every day at my job...sure the corporate cog sucks but at least my research/work that is engaging enough that I can forget about all the crap.
You need to search your heart and determine why you are going into science. If it is for money then perhaps you should change...but like I said I make a descent salary 3 years out of school...In Albany NY this translates into about 71,000 a year....not really all that good for people with my positions...but plenty to live comfortably.
Cheers
from the article:
" but if the vendor doesn't ship his software, he doesn't need to show his source code. That means a bunch of innovation is being taken out. This is an important problem for us working on the new GPL to get right."
Yeah and how is this any different than other companies using GPL'd software inhouse for say drug discovery...and not releasing the code. This is a stupid revision. If people want to develop source code that will only be used by free software people then fine change your license....I for one like my code to be used by as many people as possible..if I release under the GPL that is my thought...If i want to make money from code...which I often do...then I release it under a different license..simple. Google is not taken away innvoation are you kidding me? Those guy's are innovating there asses off and they should be paid well for it...and they are.
It is quite a large step to go from raw computing power to intteligence. Sure computers will eventually have way more processing power than we humans do..hell they do right now if you assign them to a certain task, but that is a far cry from being intellent.
With that said I do side with the camp that says computers will do most mathematical proofs in the coming decades...why? Because researchers will find a way to get computers focused on this task...and as I already mentioned computers are way more powerful than our brains on a focused task.
I don't disagree...hardware vendors do benifit from open source software...because they can sell a working sytem that works out of the box for only the cost of the hardware.
But tell me what benifit IBM has in buildind open source scientific applications (actually they do quite a bit of scientific computing). I mean what about the guy's building small niche software. I would love more than anything to make money off open sourcing my software....and would if there was a business model besides support.
"OS requires a different business model, which actually eliminates the majority of basic software developmen"
very true indeed. I think of it this way. If it is something that all people must have to interact with their computers...OS's, compilers, etc...then it can and will become an open source application. It benifits everyone in the field if it does. Likewise I could see major pharmacuetical companies deciding that it is time to quit paying these ridiculas software fees...but not a single company is doing that yet. Also I guess since I really don't like the thought of working in some giant company the rest of my life I hope that I can make money selling software. If my company does take off I would like to have employees contribute both to open source tools that we use regulary...KDevelop, gcc, etc.. and also still produce code that we can sell. That is a tall order and one that requires cash. I hate the thought of all software jobs belonging to the big corporations..hell I hate the thought of most normal jobs belonging to the big corps. There is something to be said for the innovative little companies out there with a dedicated team.
Anyway there is really no right or wrong answer to either side of this argument....I do apologize for the heated comments from before...long streesfull day at my other giant company job! But since that is over it is time to right code that I enjoy.
Cheers
John
Your points are valid...and they are the exact reasons I have contributed to many OSS projects throughout the years. However your point about true innovation really does stop short. Of course many of us that are innovating at our jobs are blocked from doing so by non-compete agreements in the OS arena. You have a solid point about apache and I am not saying that no innovation is done. I am just saying that often times innovation requires a certain level of financial backing. Software is different in this regard, but at the same time there are other costs involved. Perhaps to pull of your next great innovative idea you might need a team of people who are willing to follow an exact design spec. How many open source projects proceed like that? Certainly non that I have worked on. In every case that I have been apart of people pretty much chose an itch they wanted scratch and then they scratched it. That is how it should be. I could care less about writing code to someone elses exact design spec just as much as you would probably care less about coding to mine. But sometimes truely grand ideas require this level of work and peopel should be paid to do it...and the people paying us/you should be allowed to make money by selling it.
It would be great if this was star trek and everyone was working for the better good of man...but seriously have you looked around at the world you live in... In my opinion OSS helps to make much better programmers....anyone can get a glimps of some truely great code...as well as some totally flaky code. But to say that people should not be allowed to charge for a product they produce is just assinine at best. If the business model supports a service fine do it that way. If it doesn't then don't. Who are we to critisize those that choose to sell there product. You dont' see auto manufactures giving cars away and the charging for service do you? Would you want to drive a car that required enough service to justify the cost?
OSS is great for us developers because we will actually crack the hood and see what goes on...but for most people this is simple not something that they want/can do.
Again I am not taking any shots at OSS. I use OSS tools everday in my company. But I also produce some closed sorce software and it is my source of revenue...one that I am entitled to just as the home builder is entilted to. If you want to give yours away for free fine...but I am not wrong for wanted to sell mine. Patents are a different issue with me. But charging for software...man that is just the way the world works and you are naive if you believe that it will change.
Ok...so I that simply reiterated my point. You absolutely can build 10 houses with your design...but you are gonna supply the labor and material costs...in software design the labor and material costs come from yor time building the product/house and from your costs in licensing fees for certain libraries you may need. I will sell you a software architectural design any day of the week...then you can simply sit down and spend the next 10 years of your life building it over and over again if you want to. But If i design it and build it then it is ok for people to purchase it...they do it with spec houses all the time.
BTW I used to frame houses before I designed software...and my dad owned the contracting company. So I do have a little knowledge about how both industries work. And you better believe that architects lock up their designs much like microsoft does.
Everyone can't make money by building the next greatest thing. Besides why should 10 different software companies be contracted by 10 different other companies to build a related item when one innovative company can sense this need and then build the item for them all.
There are cases were you are right....and there are cases were you are wrong. Personally I don't want to work in a service industry. I like the creativity and design that goes into my work and I would rather keep it that way. I could care less about comapny A comning to my company and saying hey build this gay little widget so I can do play with it. Again open source has it's place in many many areas..and those areas will continue to expand...but true innovation will almost always come from other avenues....why....because innovation is worth a lot of money and most people are driven by fear and greed.
Ok...sure a software architect can follow your model...now go show me the home builder who will work for free. Plumbers don't create they follow a spec. electric engineers quite often get paid for new innovations...depending on the industry.
Also it is possible for mySQL to make money off a small fee because so many people use it...now go try and build a peice of software that has a very limited market...for one few people will help build it (if any) and even fewer people will pay for it...so you may very well not make any money what-so-ever. Just try and charge 1000's of dollars for a peice of software with source code available. Everyone assumes that all software has a world wide market cap...simply is not the case. Besides what if you want to introduce a new product that is like an old one but better...few will pay for the new product if the old does the job. But free markets help kepp innovation alive and well...Again I love OSS, but very few innovations come from it...most innovations require time and effort and people should be paid for it.
And like I mentioned before....do you really want all the programmers in the world to compete for these few jobs....are you sure that you have what it takes to beat out 99% of all programmers in the world?
Both open and closed source have their place. Truth is....somethings will never get done if money is not involved...no amount of idealism is going to change the way the world has worked since the dawn of time.
And honestly...people do deserve to be paid for their invoations...do they deserve a lock on the market...that is a different story. Patents are a totally different story.
Question is do we all want to compete for those limited jobs? Don't get me wrong I love open source software. Have contributed to it. However all software can't and shouldn't be open source...unless of course you think that we should all use our fancy educations for minimum wage jobs so that we can afford power to code for free?
Neither closed source nor open source will dominate the market. There is room for both and both will prosper.
"And as we all know, the lone programmer is a myth."
Ah I have finally become a myth.
Seriously tho you are tottaly right. Python is cool , but it will take much improvment and time before it will competer with Java/C++.
Slashdot Mirror
In many setting we don't care abuot the heat....just raw performance. The heat issue is of concern of course..just that when it comes to serious computation you only care about the processing performance....now for home users heat/electrcity becomes a much bigger concern...also I guess if you are building a 2000 node cluster...then the extra heat would translate into significant costs... just my worthless 0.025431343 cents worth.
Well if you are right then I hope linux never competes. Conversly I believe that people are becoming more and more educated about their computers...while linux is becoming easier and easier to use. Linux..maybe...but OSX...the coolness factor alone is about to put Apple back on the map for real...through in better processors for good luck and you have a winning solution for Joe six pack. Just my worthless two cents
About 4 years ago dell had a different attidude. I bought a dell workstation class computer http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls =org.mozilla:en-US:officialpreinstalled with redhat...network card didn't work correctly tho!
There was a few year peiod in there where they pulled linux entirely.
fair enough. I was not discounting the effort it takes to reverse engineer a product. But for a kernal hacker there are several other options available at his disposal that would have worked quite well. I guess I really don't have issues with all reverse engineering..but if it is done is a purley malicious manner then I take issue with that. There are plenty OSS developers who take issue with anyone making a profit from selling software...they think that everything should be open and free and they are willing to go to grat lengths to ensure that others are not able to make this profit...yeah I know a couple of guy's like this...can't have sensible converasation with them. Also while it is your data...you did choose to use the proprietary format to store it in...I never use Word, Excel, PPT...unless I am asked to at my job...my data stays in open format software...but hey that is just me... hate microsofts closed format as much as the next guy, but I respect their right to do as the please....I just chose to not support them BTW...thanks for a meaningful reply...I figured I would just get land blasted for my post. Cheers
sorry I disagree with you. It would have been one thing if he said hey...biutkeeper kicks ass because of xyz features...I would love to have those features in addition to abc. Besides bitKeeper was free for open source projects...so his only real motivation for doing this was to undermine the business stratgey of BitKeeper. Shame on him. We need to pull our collective heads out of the open source sand some times. Proprietary software has (and should) it's place in the free markets and it is not right to simple steal someone elses idea out right which is what reverse engineering is. Yeah it is fine to make a similar product that competes..but is is just plan lazy, uncreative, and dishonest to copy someone elses product exactly. I personnaly don't have much respect for the reverse engineer...the should do something creative with their supposed talents. However this is simply my opinion and as you say reverse engineering is technically legal.
yes...but over 3 years...not 18 months..
I am looking forward to a break in super duper advanced hardware.....software development as a practice would greatly benifit from coders having to understand the algorithms and operations behind there code again. And on a geek note...long live the assembly language coder!! ok so that comment was worth less than a hill of beans....but if you were starving then a hill of beans would be worth somthing.
I think we could probably make something as "smart/instinctual" as a honey bee. You should check out some of the cool autonomous robot stuff going on at MIT...sorry no time to find a link. I guess it is all in the definition of smart...I mean we can certainly program/train software to emulate the behaviou of a bee...and if we could create a nifty little bee robot that was as agile as a real bee then it would probably pass the "bee" turing test.
well it sure hasn't help up for the last 18 months...I would say that is pretty much dead. Three years ago a top line pentium 4 was a ~2.4 Gz. Now we have what ~3.6....were is the double? yeah yeah yeah...Ghz aren't everything but they are a pretty quick indicator (in the loosest sence of the word) of relative processor speed.
screw you man...I wasn't stroking my ego. I was trying to give some friendly advise to someone who asked...not you. Yeah you lawyers did a great think ages ago...you are worth total crap now...you suck money out of the economy for now realy reason. Can't blame it all on you though...you are just opportuniests...most of us "common" folk are the reasons you have your sorry ass jobs.
I totally agree. I notice adds that are relavent to somethning that is of interest to me at the time...maybe...But by and large I just tune the rest of them out.
Oh..BTW my Ph.D. is in Medicinal Chemistry and I work as a computational chemist..figured that might interest you since you are also a chemistry major.
funny I have a Ph.D. from an american unviersity and I am doing fine...am I a millionaire...no. But I have a roof over my head and I sure don't live paycheck to paycheck. I guess it all depends oh what you mean by pay off....for me the payoff is in getting to do/explore somthiing that has potential to change the world. How many movie starts/lawyers/stock brokers/etc can say that. Sure they make more than me. But I am challeneged every day at my job...sure the corporate cog sucks but at least my research/work that is engaging enough that I can forget about all the crap. You need to search your heart and determine why you are going into science. If it is for money then perhaps you should change...but like I said I make a descent salary 3 years out of school...In Albany NY this translates into about 71,000 a year....not really all that good for people with my positions...but plenty to live comfortably. Cheers
from the article: " but if the vendor doesn't ship his software, he doesn't need to show his source code. That means a bunch of innovation is being taken out. This is an important problem for us working on the new GPL to get right." Yeah and how is this any different than other companies using GPL'd software inhouse for say drug discovery...and not releasing the code. This is a stupid revision. If people want to develop source code that will only be used by free software people then fine change your license....I for one like my code to be used by as many people as possible..if I release under the GPL that is my thought...If i want to make money from code...which I often do...then I release it under a different license..simple. Google is not taken away innvoation are you kidding me? Those guy's are innovating there asses off and they should be paid well for it...and they are.
LOL! where the hell are my mod points!!!
true...but what if I got with my competitors and said hey...we are all gonna buy this software..why not split the cost.
Yes but then your customers can give it to whom ever they choose for free.
It is quite a large step to go from raw computing power to intteligence. Sure computers will eventually have way more processing power than we humans do..hell they do right now if you assign them to a certain task, but that is a far cry from being intellent. With that said I do side with the camp that says computers will do most mathematical proofs in the coming decades...why? Because researchers will find a way to get computers focused on this task...and as I already mentioned computers are way more powerful than our brains on a focused task.
I don't disagree...hardware vendors do benifit from open source software...because they can sell a working sytem that works out of the box for only the cost of the hardware. But tell me what benifit IBM has in buildind open source scientific applications (actually they do quite a bit of scientific computing). I mean what about the guy's building small niche software. I would love more than anything to make money off open sourcing my software....and would if there was a business model besides support. "OS requires a different business model, which actually eliminates the majority of basic software developmen" very true indeed. I think of it this way. If it is something that all people must have to interact with their computers...OS's, compilers, etc...then it can and will become an open source application. It benifits everyone in the field if it does. Likewise I could see major pharmacuetical companies deciding that it is time to quit paying these ridiculas software fees...but not a single company is doing that yet. Also I guess since I really don't like the thought of working in some giant company the rest of my life I hope that I can make money selling software. If my company does take off I would like to have employees contribute both to open source tools that we use regulary...KDevelop, gcc, etc.. and also still produce code that we can sell. That is a tall order and one that requires cash. I hate the thought of all software jobs belonging to the big corporations..hell I hate the thought of most normal jobs belonging to the big corps. There is something to be said for the innovative little companies out there with a dedicated team. Anyway there is really no right or wrong answer to either side of this argument....I do apologize for the heated comments from before...long streesfull day at my other giant company job! But since that is over it is time to right code that I enjoy. Cheers John
Your points are valid...and they are the exact reasons I have contributed to many OSS projects throughout the years. However your point about true innovation really does stop short. Of course many of us that are innovating at our jobs are blocked from doing so by non-compete agreements in the OS arena. You have a solid point about apache and I am not saying that no innovation is done. I am just saying that often times innovation requires a certain level of financial backing. Software is different in this regard, but at the same time there are other costs involved. Perhaps to pull of your next great innovative idea you might need a team of people who are willing to follow an exact design spec. How many open source projects proceed like that? Certainly non that I have worked on. In every case that I have been apart of people pretty much chose an itch they wanted scratch and then they scratched it. That is how it should be. I could care less about writing code to someone elses exact design spec just as much as you would probably care less about coding to mine. But sometimes truely grand ideas require this level of work and peopel should be paid to do it...and the people paying us/you should be allowed to make money by selling it. It would be great if this was star trek and everyone was working for the better good of man...but seriously have you looked around at the world you live in... In my opinion OSS helps to make much better programmers....anyone can get a glimps of some truely great code...as well as some totally flaky code. But to say that people should not be allowed to charge for a product they produce is just assinine at best. If the business model supports a service fine do it that way. If it doesn't then don't. Who are we to critisize those that choose to sell there product. You dont' see auto manufactures giving cars away and the charging for service do you? Would you want to drive a car that required enough service to justify the cost? OSS is great for us developers because we will actually crack the hood and see what goes on...but for most people this is simple not something that they want/can do. Again I am not taking any shots at OSS. I use OSS tools everday in my company. But I also produce some closed sorce software and it is my source of revenue...one that I am entitled to just as the home builder is entilted to. If you want to give yours away for free fine...but I am not wrong for wanted to sell mine. Patents are a different issue with me. But charging for software...man that is just the way the world works and you are naive if you believe that it will change.
Ok...so I that simply reiterated my point. You absolutely can build 10 houses with your design...but you are gonna supply the labor and material costs...in software design the labor and material costs come from yor time building the product/house and from your costs in licensing fees for certain libraries you may need. I will sell you a software architectural design any day of the week...then you can simply sit down and spend the next 10 years of your life building it over and over again if you want to. But If i design it and build it then it is ok for people to purchase it...they do it with spec houses all the time. BTW I used to frame houses before I designed software...and my dad owned the contracting company. So I do have a little knowledge about how both industries work. And you better believe that architects lock up their designs much like microsoft does. Everyone can't make money by building the next greatest thing. Besides why should 10 different software companies be contracted by 10 different other companies to build a related item when one innovative company can sense this need and then build the item for them all. There are cases were you are right....and there are cases were you are wrong. Personally I don't want to work in a service industry. I like the creativity and design that goes into my work and I would rather keep it that way. I could care less about comapny A comning to my company and saying hey build this gay little widget so I can do play with it. Again open source has it's place in many many areas..and those areas will continue to expand...but true innovation will almost always come from other avenues....why....because innovation is worth a lot of money and most people are driven by fear and greed.
Ok...sure a software architect can follow your model...now go show me the home builder who will work for free. Plumbers don't create they follow a spec. electric engineers quite often get paid for new innovations...depending on the industry. Also it is possible for mySQL to make money off a small fee because so many people use it...now go try and build a peice of software that has a very limited market...for one few people will help build it (if any) and even fewer people will pay for it...so you may very well not make any money what-so-ever. Just try and charge 1000's of dollars for a peice of software with source code available. Everyone assumes that all software has a world wide market cap...simply is not the case. Besides what if you want to introduce a new product that is like an old one but better...few will pay for the new product if the old does the job. But free markets help kepp innovation alive and well...Again I love OSS, but very few innovations come from it...most innovations require time and effort and people should be paid for it.
And like I mentioned before....do you really want all the programmers in the world to compete for these few jobs....are you sure that you have what it takes to beat out 99% of all programmers in the world? Both open and closed source have their place. Truth is....somethings will never get done if money is not involved...no amount of idealism is going to change the way the world has worked since the dawn of time. And honestly...people do deserve to be paid for their invoations...do they deserve a lock on the market...that is a different story. Patents are a totally different story.
Question is do we all want to compete for those limited jobs? Don't get me wrong I love open source software. Have contributed to it. However all software can't and shouldn't be open source...unless of course you think that we should all use our fancy educations for minimum wage jobs so that we can afford power to code for free? Neither closed source nor open source will dominate the market. There is room for both and both will prosper.
"And as we all know, the lone programmer is a myth." Ah I have finally become a myth. Seriously tho you are tottaly right. Python is cool , but it will take much improvment and time before it will competer with Java/C++.