"You're right, but there are for example lots and lots of eyeballs on the Linux kernel source. Also, at least FOSS has this possibility (and while not always being reality, it is sometimes)."
So how is that any different from what I said?
"Yes there can be profit in FOSS"
Of course there is.
"but its not usually from the software itself"
Quite on the contrary, it is usually from the software itself. Where it is usually not the case is in the closed source camp. Usually the revenue for closed source software developing companies comes from anywhere else but the software, typically, the licenses. The open source software developing companies, on the other hand, more times that not get their money from the very exercise of developing software itself.
"(by definition "free" as in usually both "free beer" and "freedom")"
By *YOUR* definition, you mean. In every other case, FOSS is about "free as in freedom" disregarding if it is "free as in beer" too or not.
"The "features on demand" that you mentioned, if sold for profit, aren't really FOSS are they"
Of course they are, how they couldn't be? I don't think you understood -which, by the way is no surprise since it seems the vast majority of people seem not to be able to grasp that the main source of revenue for a programmer and, by extension, for any company centered around software development should be... developing!
The company developed a somehow niche application and published it under an open license (GPLv2). Each time the company gets a contract to develop new functionality for the product it goes open source to the main product, which in turn makes it more attractive to new customers. Rinse and repeat. Add to that 24x7 managed services and support for the product and there you have a business plan.
It might happen the day comes that no new features are desired for the product (it's still far away but it might happen). On one hand this company is still the worldwide expert for the product so even in its "dog" phase it still will bring revenue for the company. On the other hand, part of the benefits during the "cash cow" phase are derived to R+D to create the next application to repeat the strategy.
"Hacking has evolved beyond the original "tinkering" definition of yesteryear. It's now associated with unauthorized access."
That was obviously not the meaning attributed by antifoidulus when sent the question.
""Hacking something together and pushing it into production" might not adhere to all the rules of extreme programming,"
It is not that it doesn't adhere to some rules but that it is against its very spirit. I won't consider here that all these "extreme" chaff is more about managing people's expectations than project management but on its technical side is about *guaranteeing* enough quality and serviceability despite the speed: it is the realm of unit testing, of continuous delivery and of standards adherence.
"As long as any software produces the correct result, how it achieves it is usually of secondary importance."
Exactly. And to insure this to happen quite a lot of things have to be considered, the main one being what the "correct result" is to start with. For a long running project part of the "correct result" necessarily is how maintainable is in the long run; for a highly distributable one, how deeply coupled or how scalable its elements are, etc.
And, in the end, any engineering is not about if it produces the correct result but how likely is in advance that the correct results *will* be produced. And, regarding software, that's the difference between hacking and engineering.
"with proprietary closed source software [...] compared to the FOSS model"
I think you are mistaking possibilities with realities. Yes, open source has the *potential* to more eyeballs but then, all so much FOSS projects have are the two eyeballs from its only developer. Yes, FOSS has the potential to get rid of absurd timelines but then you see so many projects that deliver on a deadline, ready or not ready, or answer you about a bug report with a variant of "I don't have time to deal with old bugs, I prefer to expend my time on more bug-ridden features". Yes FOSS is not necesarily driven by maximizing profit, but they aren't necesarily driven by its quality (i.e.: they can be driven by it fun factor).
"because there is no profit"
Who told you that? That's obviouosly false. They can and certainly are for profit in a lot of situations, it's only that their revenue stream is not on selling use licenses but in the development fact itself (features on demand; I worked for a company like that -the problem is when this becomes a freemium model where known to be necessary features are not developed unless something pay for them) or in installation and support (and then it can be possible that never good install procedures or documentation will ever be produce).
"I wouldn't call it "hacking" though. I think its actually called "extreme programming" or "agile software development". "
But then antifoidulus is right: hacking something together and pushing it into production is, well, hacking and certainly has nothing to do per se with extreme or agile programming. Your approach can lead to a good solution (if the problem realm is not so difficult and you are good at it) as well as to a fast pile of shit that only worses as time and feature crap goes by. As such is the opposite to engineering, which is about insure the results.
"That might work for him because his brain has the capacity to recall all the stuffs _after_ the class is over. Not me."
I think you have a point there.
Probably not every brain will work the same at that level. And not only because the brain itself but because of what have you accustomed yourself and the environment you are forced to live with.
Another poster noted that you shouldn't take notes during the class but right after it. Well, right after the class I usually had... another class. What then?
Others said that they can take notes or listen but not both. Well, my notes when at the uni usually took no more than one page per class, usually much less, sometimes just three-four words to recall what the lecturer had talked about -and I'm talking about physics, statistics or math. I suppose it's easier to take notes and listen when you just take some few words.
I had not brilliant but quite good qualifications but my point is that others, using a different methodology, one that fitted them, were able to reach qualifications as good as mine or even better so, in the end, what was the point again?
"I'm having trouble understanding why so many nations want to sign this monstrosity"
So would I... if it were nations the ones signing it.
But they aren't.
Where's the ACTA text, to start with? Did you see it? You are being abused by "the old paradigm": your brain still see the world in a certain form that is no more true.
What do you think that thingie "globalization" really means? I know this will sound like old fashioned marxism, but heck, it's the truth despite Marx, Adam Smith or whoever: globalization is the old fashion class struggle reloaded. It is no more Oceania versus Eurasia versus Eastasia but, plain and simple, a rich oligarchy against everybody else. The rich oligarchy, no matter if born in USA, Germany or Zimbabwe *do* benefit from ACTA, everybody else go damned.
With this I don't mean to support any conspiranoic theory where a secret cabal acts as the world puppetmaster; it rises as an emergent property of our society but, in the end, the net results are basically the same.
"ultimately they are paid to do what the electorate want"
Except when they aren't.
Electorate: we'll pay you 100.000 eur/year to do your job now.
Megacorp: do your job now and I'll pay you 2.000.000 eur/year plus bonus and benefits to do basically nothing except getting to know the kind of people that will make you these kind of offers (a decorative VP).
Now, who do you think that *really* pay them ultimately?
"Is this a cast of technology for the sake of technology?"
Letting aside the problems about electronic ballots themselves, voting is as good a case for cloud computing as it can be. "Only a secure website", you say? well, what do you want it for the four years between ballots?
""freedom" is the ability to choice what you want. Actually, that is free will, or volition, not "freedom"."
Well, not exactly. Free will is the ability to choose without the need or the limitation of external influences (i.e.: search for Buridan's ass).
I thought that freedom -at least in the phylosophical sense, requires knowledge (thus, perfect freedom requires perfect knowledge) was a settle issued from some centuries ago now.
"Your ability to act volitionally is not dependent on your knowledge of the choices available to you"
Absolutly true. I won't deny that. But volition and freedom are not the same thing.
"That knowledge only determines the variety of ways in which you can act"
Exactly. And the lack of knowledge takes out from you a part of that variety of choices and so, limits your freedom (even more so, the lack of knowledge avoids you to effectively choose what you'd want to choose otherwise, so without the knowledge you are not free to choose what would have been your true choice).
"Of course you can rest assured that if anyone compromises the server, they would simply take it offline rather than instructing it to send a deletion command to all clients"
How can you be so sure?
Why they closed megaupload? Why they would close Dropbox?
Exactly: because they host copyrights infringing data. So, what would be better than seize that cave of pirates *and* delete all that data that is ruining all those poor entertaiment megacorps?
"Consequences may be obvious, but the choice remains."
Exactly. And given the options, he choices to get the device and litigate for access to its source code. If you consider resign himself to die to be a valid option, I consider this at least as valid.
"freedom" is the ability to choice what you want. For that you need to know what your options really are and why so, yes, ignorance goes against freedom.
Truly free market, you say? Last I looked, one of the conditions for a "truly free market" was perfect knowledge for all the parties. Quite the opposite to "inside knowledge".
"No offence, but if you think that money either measures or buys respect (other than in the trivial gangster sense) you're a fucking moron."
No offence, but it might be the case that you are the fucking moron that neither thought in the slightiest how money can be a symbol of respect nor knows to keep his mouth shout prior to throw harsh words to others.
On one hand, as another poster already said, money can obviously buy you status which certainly relates to respect (the "awesome" kind of respect rich people get).
On the other hand, why do you think that people isn't glad to know that a colleague with their same job in the same company makes more than them? The amount of money your company pays you is the easiest way for the company to show respect to you -or at least, that's part of its percieved value.
"I'd say that most people generally want money in exchange for their work"
I don't think so. Most people generally want respect, being able to survive and have some commodities. It happens that money usually is quite a worthy currency and measure for them.
"Wanting a professional life doesn't have to involve making money you know."
Yes it does.
Given current society, your professional life will in most probability take you more than half you awaken time which means you *need* to make money out of it or else you won't be able to afford so much devoted time.
It was not always the case: see how many scientists, adventurers or sportmen from the eighteen/nineteen century didn't need to worry to earn a life, so they were able to pursue their non-money producing goals. Even now, some people can do it for a while, while living at their parents basement (it might be your case), or even their whole life for a minimal elite of rich heirs.
"Dude 1970 is calling you. Really big blocks have not been used in cars for about two decades in the US."
I'm not a car expert but let's see:
As per Forbes, the best selling car in USA 2011 was the Ford F-150 pickup which lower engine is a 3.7-liter V-6.
Now, as per the Daily Telegraph, the top selling car in Europe 2011 was the Volkswagen Golf which top of the rank (discounting special editions) was the 2.0.liter GTI (four cylinders).
So, for the blockbusters, the biggest engine in Europe is about half the size the tiniest in USA, go figure.
"Somebody has to drill for oil, and they are going to create oil spills, that's just a fact of life."
No, it isn't.
"We (humans) try to do the best we can when weighing costs and benefits"
No we don't usually do it or no company would go bankrupt except, maybe, by acts of god.
In the other hand, when we *do* properly factor costs and benefits you should include "to whom?" into the equation. Corporations have done quite a good work in assuring that most parts of the benefits will go to them while, at the same time, the gross parts of the costs will go anywhere else. Even within the corporations, quite a good system has been layed out so the benefits go just to a part of the company (corporate executives) while the costs go somewhere else, be it the environment, the low level workers or even the mass stockholders.
Do you know what happens when I have to ballance *my* benefits against *your* costs? Well, if you know that, then you know how a typical board of directors works.
"Everybody knows it, head hunters know it, employers know it, so why do they carry on asking those "skills"?"
At the very least it shows you can bend reality and your own inclinations to your (prospective) company desires. This might not make you a "social monster" but shows you to be a "good enough company minion".
"Dropbox just resells Amazon's S3 storage service. They have a slicker interface, but the heavy lifting is all done by Amazon."
Which is a very clever side of the Amazon's bussiness case.
Amazon surely bills a little bazillion to the likes of Dropbox or Netflix, so as long as the "new thing" happens to deal with them, the more successful they are, the more money ends up in Amazon's accounts.
But then, for each Netflix there are a thousand of wannabies that all will do is losing their shirts -but even them will move part of their money to Amazon's accounts.
So the end result is that Amazon wins always without taking the risks.
"You should just start with the assumption that every machine is facing the world and have a decent firewall on every machine."
Then you have failed from the start.
Just like you can't start with the assumption that people will remember a 16 randomized char password changing each week without sticking it to the monitor.
"what they are saying is that if you are developing a server application, you need to expect that there may not be a GUI and you should develop the application with that understanding"
Unless, of course, you are a fish big enough to state your conditions: your support contract requires your server to be Windows 2008 SP2, the GUI and you dancing a fox-trot while at the phone.
"It doesn't matter how they administer the server, as long as it's stable and secure."
Quite a sensible answer.
But then, please answer me quite a simple question: "today something has broken Âwhat has been changed since yesterday?"
This question has an almost trivial answer for the vast part of unix-like systems, not quite so in windows-world.
There it goes your stability and security.
And now, one thing is one server and another beast one thousand. Again, "I want one thousand servers just like this, but not exactly the same", an almost trivial answer on unix/bsd/linux, but a difficult one on windows with, again, resounding implications on the stability and security realm.
Slashdot Mirror
"You're right, but there are for example lots and lots of eyeballs on the Linux kernel source. Also, at least FOSS has this possibility (and while not always being reality, it is sometimes)."
So how is that any different from what I said?
"Yes there can be profit in FOSS"
Of course there is.
"but its not usually from the software itself"
Quite on the contrary, it is usually from the software itself. Where it is usually not the case is in the closed source camp. Usually the revenue for closed source software developing companies comes from anywhere else but the software, typically, the licenses. The open source software developing companies, on the other hand, more times that not get their money from the very exercise of developing software itself.
"(by definition "free" as in usually both "free beer" and "freedom")"
By *YOUR* definition, you mean. In every other case, FOSS is about "free as in freedom" disregarding if it is "free as in beer" too or not.
"The "features on demand" that you mentioned, if sold for profit, aren't really FOSS are they"
Of course they are, how they couldn't be? I don't think you understood -which, by the way is no surprise since it seems the vast majority of people seem not to be able to grasp that the main source of revenue for a programmer and, by extension, for any company centered around software development should be... developing!
The company developed a somehow niche application and published it under an open license (GPLv2). Each time the company gets a contract to develop new functionality for the product it goes open source to the main product, which in turn makes it more attractive to new customers. Rinse and repeat. Add to that 24x7 managed services and support for the product and there you have a business plan.
It might happen the day comes that no new features are desired for the product (it's still far away but it might happen). On one hand this company is still the worldwide expert for the product so even in its "dog" phase it still will bring revenue for the company. On the other hand, part of the benefits during the "cash cow" phase are derived to R+D to create the next application to repeat the strategy.
"Hacking has evolved beyond the original "tinkering" definition of yesteryear. It's now associated with unauthorized access."
That was obviously not the meaning attributed by antifoidulus when sent the question.
""Hacking something together and pushing it into production" might not adhere to all the rules of extreme programming,"
It is not that it doesn't adhere to some rules but that it is against its very spirit. I won't consider here that all these "extreme" chaff is more about managing people's expectations than project management but on its technical side is about *guaranteeing* enough quality and serviceability despite the speed: it is the realm of unit testing, of continuous delivery and of standards adherence.
"As long as any software produces the correct result, how it achieves it is usually of secondary importance."
Exactly. And to insure this to happen quite a lot of things have to be considered, the main one being what the "correct result" is to start with. For a long running project part of the "correct result" necessarily is how maintainable is in the long run; for a highly distributable one, how deeply coupled or how scalable its elements are, etc.
And, in the end, any engineering is not about if it produces the correct result but how likely is in advance that the correct results *will* be produced. And, regarding software, that's the difference between hacking and engineering.
"with proprietary closed source software [...] compared to the FOSS model"
I think you are mistaking possibilities with realities. Yes, open source has the *potential* to more eyeballs but then, all so much FOSS projects have are the two eyeballs from its only developer. Yes, FOSS has the potential to get rid of absurd timelines but then you see so many projects that deliver on a deadline, ready or not ready, or answer you about a bug report with a variant of "I don't have time to deal with old bugs, I prefer to expend my time on more bug-ridden features". Yes FOSS is not necesarily driven by maximizing profit, but they aren't necesarily driven by its quality (i.e.: they can be driven by it fun factor).
"because there is no profit"
Who told you that? That's obviouosly false. They can and certainly are for profit in a lot of situations, it's only that their revenue stream is not on selling use licenses but in the development fact itself (features on demand; I worked for a company like that -the problem is when this becomes a freemium model where known to be necessary features are not developed unless something pay for them) or in installation and support (and then it can be possible that never good install procedures or documentation will ever be produce).
"I wouldn't call it "hacking" though. I think its actually called "extreme programming" or "agile software development". "
But then antifoidulus is right: hacking something together and pushing it into production is, well, hacking and certainly has nothing to do per se with extreme or agile programming. Your approach can lead to a good solution (if the problem realm is not so difficult and you are good at it) as well as to a fast pile of shit that only worses as time and feature crap goes by. As such is the opposite to engineering, which is about insure the results.
"That might work for him because his brain has the capacity to recall all the stuffs _after_ the class is over. Not me."
I think you have a point there.
Probably not every brain will work the same at that level. And not only because the brain itself but because of what have you accustomed yourself and the environment you are forced to live with.
Another poster noted that you shouldn't take notes during the class but right after it. Well, right after the class I usually had... another class. What then?
Others said that they can take notes or listen but not both. Well, my notes when at the uni usually took no more than one page per class, usually much less, sometimes just three-four words to recall what the lecturer had talked about -and I'm talking about physics, statistics or math. I suppose it's easier to take notes and listen when you just take some few words.
I had not brilliant but quite good qualifications but my point is that others, using a different methodology, one that fitted them, were able to reach qualifications as good as mine or even better so, in the end, what was the point again?
"I'm having trouble understanding why so many nations want to sign this monstrosity"
So would I... if it were nations the ones signing it.
But they aren't.
Where's the ACTA text, to start with? Did you see it? You are being abused by "the old paradigm": your brain still see the world in a certain form that is no more true.
What do you think that thingie "globalization" really means? I know this will sound like old fashioned marxism, but heck, it's the truth despite Marx, Adam Smith or whoever: globalization is the old fashion class struggle reloaded. It is no more Oceania versus Eurasia versus Eastasia but, plain and simple, a rich oligarchy against everybody else. The rich oligarchy, no matter if born in USA, Germany or Zimbabwe *do* benefit from ACTA, everybody else go damned.
With this I don't mean to support any conspiranoic theory where a secret cabal acts as the world puppetmaster; it rises as an emergent property of our society but, in the end, the net results are basically the same.
"ultimately they are paid to do what the electorate want"
Except when they aren't.
Electorate: we'll pay you 100.000 eur/year to do your job now.
Megacorp: do your job now and I'll pay you 2.000.000 eur/year plus bonus and benefits to do basically nothing except getting to know the kind of people that will make you these kind of offers (a decorative VP).
Now, who do you think that *really* pay them ultimately?
"Is this a cast of technology for the sake of technology?"
Letting aside the problems about electronic ballots themselves, voting is as good a case for cloud computing as it can be. "Only a secure website", you say? well, what do you want it for the four years between ballots?
"I've been cultivating the idea that it's not "free markets" that we need now as much as "competitive markets"."
Perfect argument. I bow to yeh, sir.
""freedom" is the ability to choice what you want.
Actually, that is free will, or volition, not "freedom"."
Well, not exactly. Free will is the ability to choose without the need or the limitation of external influences (i.e.: search for Buridan's ass).
I thought that freedom -at least in the phylosophical sense, requires knowledge (thus, perfect freedom requires perfect knowledge) was a settle issued from some centuries ago now.
"Your ability to act volitionally is not dependent on your knowledge of the choices available to you"
Absolutly true. I won't deny that. But volition and freedom are not the same thing.
"That knowledge only determines the variety of ways in which you can act"
Exactly. And the lack of knowledge takes out from you a part of that variety of choices and so, limits your freedom (even more so, the lack of knowledge avoids you to effectively choose what you'd want to choose otherwise, so without the knowledge you are not free to choose what would have been your true choice).
Thanks for making my argument for me.
"Of course you can rest assured that if anyone compromises the server, they would simply take it offline rather than instructing it to send a deletion command to all clients"
How can you be so sure?
Why they closed megaupload? Why they would close Dropbox?
Exactly: because they host copyrights infringing data. So, what would be better than seize that cave of pirates *and* delete all that data that is ruining all those poor entertaiment megacorps?
"Consequences may be obvious, but the choice remains."
Exactly. And given the options, he choices to get the device and litigate for access to its source code. If you consider resign himself to die to be a valid option, I consider this at least as valid.
"freedom" is the ability to choice what you want. For that you need to know what your options really are and why so, yes, ignorance goes against freedom.
That's not "free market". That's "wild market".
Of course yes. We already knew that no perfect free market is possible without the help of a government so your point is?
Truly free market, you say? Last I looked, one of the conditions for a "truly free market" was perfect knowledge for all the parties. Quite the opposite to "inside knowledge".
"No offence, but if you think that money either measures or buys respect (other than in the trivial gangster sense) you're a fucking moron."
No offence, but it might be the case that you are the fucking moron that neither thought in the slightiest how money can be a symbol of respect nor knows to keep his mouth shout prior to throw harsh words to others.
On one hand, as another poster already said, money can obviously buy you status which certainly relates to respect (the "awesome" kind of respect rich people get).
On the other hand, why do you think that people isn't glad to know that a colleague with their same job in the same company makes more than them? The amount of money your company pays you is the easiest way for the company to show respect to you -or at least, that's part of its percieved value.
"I'd say that most people generally want money in exchange for their work"
I don't think so. Most people generally want respect, being able to survive and have some commodities. It happens that money usually is quite a worthy currency and measure for them.
"Wanting a professional life doesn't have to involve making money you know."
Yes it does.
Given current society, your professional life will in most probability take you more than half you awaken time which means you *need* to make money out of it or else you won't be able to afford so much devoted time.
It was not always the case: see how many scientists, adventurers or sportmen from the eighteen/nineteen century didn't need to worry to earn a life, so they were able to pursue their non-money producing goals. Even now, some people can do it for a while, while living at their parents basement (it might be your case), or even their whole life for a minimal elite of rich heirs.
"Dude 1970 is calling you. Really big blocks have not been used in cars for about two decades in the US."
I'm not a car expert but let's see:
As per Forbes, the best selling car in USA 2011 was the Ford F-150 pickup which lower engine is a 3.7-liter V-6.
Now, as per the Daily Telegraph, the top selling car in Europe 2011 was the Volkswagen Golf which top of the rank (discounting special editions) was the 2.0.liter GTI (four cylinders).
So, for the blockbusters, the biggest engine in Europe is about half the size the tiniest in USA, go figure.
"Somebody has to drill for oil, and they are going to create oil spills, that's just a fact of life."
No, it isn't.
"We (humans) try to do the best we can when weighing costs and benefits"
No we don't usually do it or no company would go bankrupt except, maybe, by acts of god.
In the other hand, when we *do* properly factor costs and benefits you should include "to whom?" into the equation. Corporations have done quite a good work in assuring that most parts of the benefits will go to them while, at the same time, the gross parts of the costs will go anywhere else. Even within the corporations, quite a good system has been layed out so the benefits go just to a part of the company (corporate executives) while the costs go somewhere else, be it the environment, the low level workers or even the mass stockholders.
Do you know what happens when I have to ballance *my* benefits against *your* costs? Well, if you know that, then you know how a typical board of directors works.
"Everybody knows it, head hunters know it, employers know it, so why do they carry on asking those "skills"?"
At the very least it shows you can bend reality and your own inclinations to your (prospective) company desires. This might not make you a "social monster" but shows you to be a "good enough company minion".
"This is /.. To quote Jack Palance, "the day ain't over yet...""
Hummm... I think Palance owes some royalties to Julius Caesar then (wait! is Caesar a RIAA member?)
"Dropbox just resells Amazon's S3 storage service. They have a slicker interface, but the heavy lifting is all done by Amazon."
Which is a very clever side of the Amazon's bussiness case.
Amazon surely bills a little bazillion to the likes of Dropbox or Netflix, so as long as the "new thing" happens to deal with them, the more successful they are, the more money ends up in Amazon's accounts.
But then, for each Netflix there are a thousand of wannabies that all will do is losing their shirts -but even them will move part of their money to Amazon's accounts.
So the end result is that Amazon wins always without taking the risks.
Very clever indeed.
"You should just start with the assumption that every machine is facing the world and have a decent firewall on every machine."
Then you have failed from the start.
Just like you can't start with the assumption that people will remember a 16 randomized char password changing each week without sticking it to the monitor.
"what they are saying is that if you are developing a server application, you need to expect that there may not be a GUI and you should develop the application with that understanding"
Unless, of course, you are a fish big enough to state your conditions: your support contract requires your server to be Windows 2008 SP2, the GUI and you dancing a fox-trot while at the phone.
There.
"It doesn't matter how they administer the server, as long as it's stable and secure."
Quite a sensible answer.
But then, please answer me quite a simple question: "today something has broken Âwhat has been changed since yesterday?"
This question has an almost trivial answer for the vast part of unix-like systems, not quite so in windows-world.
There it goes your stability and security.
And now, one thing is one server and another beast one thousand. Again, "I want one thousand servers just like this, but not exactly the same", an almost trivial answer on unix/bsd/linux, but a difficult one on windows with, again, resounding implications on the stability and security realm.