"As Eric Raymond says, "scratch one's itch" does not imply listening to users."
Of course it implies it. And in a very agile way too. Scratching one's itch implies listening to the very key-user of the project: me.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
"You wouldn't benefit from increased compatibility from most major manufacturers?"
Yes. And I usually push for it the way I find the most cost effective for me: voting with my money. No Linux support Mr. Epson? OK, no problem; it's only you won't get to see my wallet, Mr HP will do.
"I'm honestly surprised you had to ask how one could benefit from a larger adoption."
Benefit as in net benefit. Do you benefit if I give you a dime? Surely. What if you have to go for it 1000 miles away? Maybe it's not quite a good bussiness anymore. Will I benefit from Linux' mass adoption? Surely. Would it mean net benefit? It depends on the effort it will take from my part versus how much difference it will do to my live. In other words: will Humankind benefit from terraforming Mars? Surely: currently a stone the size of Manhattan (a tiny grain of salt compared with the whole planet) falling from the sky would most probably extinguish the whole human race. Would you push money out of your nose to the point of almost starve to make it happen? Hummm. But, but... all humankind extinguished is surely worse than people almost starving (*almost*, but not quite starving, I said). I think you get the point, so please no more abstract afirmations about what hardware manufacturers would do if something I really can't make happen would happen.
You were talking about average Joe and I'm talking about average Developer. I do have audio, video, a USB disk, mobile phone... all on a nice environment to work with *and* with current rates of Linux adoption. Will do I net benefit from Linux' wider adoption? Specifically, do I net benefit from Linux' wider adoption at the price of making it more Windows-like when I went away from Windows because I dislike the way it were to begin with?
The first Linux distribution I started using on a day-to-day basis was Red Hat (about the days of its 4.2 version if I recall properly). Now Red Hat has matured and it's the strongest commercial Linux distribution over there both in terms of economical benefits and number of deployments. I'd call that a success. And d'you know what? I don't use it anymore (or to be truer, I only use it under strong economical incentives -that's the second option I mentioned on a different post about "making in happen" on FOSS along with "hack it yourself" and "take what is given to you for free and be grateful"). Do you know why? Because it becomed too user friendly in the Windows' bad sense. It has a lot of wizards, assistants and graphical tools that are very helpful for unkwoledgeable people but, alas, at the expense of doing things "their own way" and being in the middle if you happen to know your trade. It happens I know my trade and it happens I avoid working on Red Hat now as much as possible.
With all the feedback I gave to you I think you won't be surprised when I tell you I usually don't care so much about greater Linux adoption by the Joe Sixpacks of this world (I don't think I'd get such a big benefit from it) and that I explicitly don't want greater adoption if it's at the cost of "windowzing" it (I know it would directly hurt me). It's not elitism but simply the way it most benefits me.
When I deploy a little script, fill a bug report or create a patch for a program I use, I scratch my own itch; I have a problem, expend some time/money/effort and get it solutioned. Let's take the example of the script: maybe I publish so others can take advantage for it. Then someone makes a constructive criticism about some new function than can be added. Well, it can be added, but it's my own itch no more. How will it benefit *me* having him using my script? I know the world will be a better place with that new feature; I know that user will benefit from having that new feature. But does it mean a net benefit for me *now*? I ask this not out of nothing but because my time is limited and I do have other things to do that will mean a net benefit for me now (even if in such esoteric and subjective terms as the minutes
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
"If a manufacturer makes a MOBO that doesn't support a type of HDD that PC World is selling, it isn't the manufacturer's fault, but it is their problem. At least, it is their problem if they want more people to buy their MOBOs."
What for? Oh, yes, I see! The manufacturer makes more money the more MOBOs they sell, that's why they want more people buing them... So cute!
"But if there are people that actually want linux to gain market share on the desktop"
What for?
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
"its *not* the developer's fault but it *IS* their problem. The problem is that a lot of people have all this hardware that won't work with Linux and won't just spend money that they probably don't have just so they can use Linux."
And now, how those other people's problem becomes the developer's problem? The developer owns a hardware that will work with his system; he can hack his way out when there's a problem and he won't either get a dime nor owe a dime on those other nonworking systems. How is it that it is his problem?
He, of course, can take the burden of *making* those other people's problems their own problems, but that doesn't mean it *is* his problem, only that he will take the path of Teresa of Calcutta to resolve it out of his own good will.
"So its their problem insofar as they have to figure out a way to pass this hurdle, otherwise you'll never reach critical mass in terms of people adopting Linux."
I've been succesfully and almost exclusively using Linux since about 2000 (I used HP-Ux, Solaris, FreeBSD and minimally, some version of Windows too). I'm decently satisfied with its performance and usability. Can you please provide me with moving reasons about why I should push out of my expenditure for a wider Linux adoption? I know it might be of benefit for you, or for average Joe, but how will it benefit me and by extension the very people that can not only talk about it but effectively make it happen?
You see, going every morning to my job is quite a shitty proposition, but my boss provides me with moving reasons to do it, namely a decent paycheck at the end of the month. Now, let see what you can put on the table for me working on things I'm not really so interested in.
"The option of offering constructive criticism should be there as well"
It is. It is within the "and be grateful" part of the "take what is given to you for free and be grateful" option.
"but, with the understanding that [...] there's no reason for them to listen to constructive criticism."
You nailed it. Indeed there's no reason at all. Or, better said, of course there are reasons humans possesing free will, but they of course belong to them and you (or me) are nobody to question them. Constructive criticism, I can assure you, are almost always well recieved -it can be taken into account or not, but they are almost always well recieved. Just pay attention that when talking about open community driven open source projects (that is, the typical "hippy driven" project as stated from the typical close source FUD agent), you already pleasured of the free gift they offered with asking nothing for compensation. *NOTHING*, even your constructive criticism. But then, there's a fair chance they did it for the joy of it and the joy of their own habilites being expressed. That's why constructive criticism is almost always positively recieved.
But the point is that so many times, constructive criticism is not so constructive. I'm sure there's a subjective bias on it, not being many times due to malice, but the fact is that so many times, such a "constructive criticism" looks more like the developer oweing something to the users. Bad luck: the "for the joy of it" developer owes the user nothing, not even being polite to their criticism, specially if found with or without reason, not being so constructive.
"If the developer is interested in linux being adopted by average end users more often"
What a big and unsubstantiated "if". Surely there will be some "for the joy of it" developers that will be honestly interested in Linux being widely adopted by average end users but, surprise, people like Eric S. Raymond, me or in my experience, most of the "for free" FOSS developers are interested on Linux mass adoption almost nothing. Why they should? Of course, there're collateral advantages on Linux mass adoption, like the expectancy for better third party hardware drivers but, as a general matter, in all instances of this life, the hope or need for mass adoption is only related to economical benefit.
I look for FOSS because it allow to scratch my own itches better than any other software distribution licenses I'm aware of. It is *me*, not you nor by extension any of those "yous" needed for mass adoption, the one I'm interested in and I don't think that should mean a surprise for anybody.
And then you return to my three points: do you know who will be genuinely interested on Linux being mass adopted? The ones that win the more as more people adopts it. And that basically means the ones that can bill in proportion to adoption. Do you want to maximize the options of your constructive criticism being accepted? Vote with your wallet then. It's as easy as that.
"I think a lot of the people that say "Linux should do XYZ to make it more popular!" don't realize that not everyone is working towards the same goal."
I think that a lot of the people that say "Linux should do XYZ to make it more popular" are the ones that neither hack the way to go where their mouths are, nor pay for it, nor are grateful for what they take for free. It comes as no surprise their opinions are not taken is such a high regard.
"Then when I need a change in Amarok, I'm sure they'll jump in and add that patch immediately."
Of course not. If you want premium support, you'll need to pay premium cash; just as with any other bussiness. I'm not a Red Hat supporter but I know that they, if enough cash involved, will send a knowledgeable hacker to live with you.
"You're so deep in the forest, you can't see the forest through the trees."
I see quite well through the trees, thank you. It is you the one that expects some kind of magics just because a software distribution license being this or that. I'm quite knowledgeable about what can be expected in proportion with the money involved. And I can say you that usually you can expect better bang for your dollars on the open source camp. That's all.
"When someone comes up with an honest point that indicates FOSS is less than perfect"
No: it is *you* the one expecting FOSS being at least perfect or more. I'm quite aware about what FOSS can and can't do being that I use it for free, I pay for punctual development, I maintain local branches of some programs and I pay customary support on some others. It is *you* the one that somehow expects somebody "jumping to patch amarok" for free at your command.
"But try MS and see how bad THEY are."
That's a "common ground" example. That's why it's so used (and abused). But taking into account your ability to discern the bare point without the need of exemplary cases, then I'll rewrite for you: please mention *any* company in the world that will work for free; that will "jump" to do anything without enough cash involved.
"That another way is bad is no justification"
I was justificating nobody or anything. What for? I don't own Red Hat shares. I was *explaining* to you your options. I will repeat now in case you wasn't paying attention. Regarding FOSS you can:
1) Hack it yourself
2) Pay others to do it
3) Take what is given to you for free and be grateful
Now, I may ask you, please explain us, the very interested audience, which other software licensing paradigm offers more than that.
"That assumes that you either know the language the kernel or a program is written in, AND have the time to investigate and make the change [...] only a small, and I mean very small, percentage of users, actually have the resources to make changes in a FOSS program. That's like saying, "This is great for 3% of all users out there so"
So do you *really* think companies able to expend 2000~3000 and have an almost immediate ROI are just 3% of all users?
"EVERYONE should use it because of that." It totally ignores the needs of 97% of all users."
Everyone is unable to pay few bucks to, say, Red Hat, become a supported user and then ask it for what they want? Being that the vast majority of users are already paying Microsoft *without* the support (at least on new computers) you will have to be very convincing for me to accept a "no" for an answer.
You can either hack it yourself, or (gasp!) pay others to do it, or take what is given to you for free and be grateful.
"You create a market to the extent that your actions reasonably lead the suppliers to conclude that there is a demand."
This doesn't follow. There's a demand for free food on Third World, but it doesn't seem to be so much black market on providing food for free to Ethyopia. What moves unscrupulous bussinessmen is just the same that moves legal bussinessmen: money. No money, no bussiness. And someone that can't get in touch with me can't get into bussiness with me; plain simple.
Maybe the "for free" is their bait for a bussiness case (as it's the case with adult pornography on the Internet), so be it. If there *is* a bussiness, prosecute it; anywhere there's somebody harrasing children, prosecute them but don't make knowledge an offense; it's stupid and as stupid as it is it gets into stupid situations.
It's really not so hard to grasp: just forget a second about the real case and think it as a general issue: if you want to prosecute "A"; prosecute "A", don't go for stupid workarounds since it will always follow stupid outputs. So don't prosecute possession in order to avoid production: prosecute production in order to avoid production. It's that simple.
"Hypothetical scenario: imagine a child pornography site funded 100% by advertisers"
Then you have one making bussiness out of child pornography: prosecute this. I could even accept prosecuting the kwnoledging distribution of child pornography under some circumnstance but posession? It's stupid and gets you into stupid situations as the one on this notice: I could give you the pictures so you know what exactly is the case against your defendants, but then I'd have to put you in jail for possession of illegal material. Oh! And I'll charge for distribution because the pictures *might* be distributed without neither your consent nor fault to due diligence. The right to proper defense goes below some hipothetical damages to the victim (which going from stupidity to surrealism happens to be the accused herself)? What the fucking!!!???
"does this not result in a market for child pornography, even though the viewers don't pay, wouldn't pay, and are not expected to pay?"
Maybe yes, maybe not. Anyway, the situation is the same: prosecute the offenders, the ones producing and getting direct benefits out of child pornography, that is. See? You have to restort to hypothetical examples to make your case and even then it's a moving target*1. My position is simpler, I don't have to change it no matter what your examples are and it's warranteed to always work without strange corner cases. What position do you think it's easier to take as a basis for sensible laws?
Of course your legal system smells far beyond simple short-ranged solutions if the situation of children prosecuted as adults on crimes against themselves that wouldn't be crimes were they not be children to begin with is not even thinkable but crudely true, but it would be a beginning.
*1 By the way, why not prosecute TV news? Everybody knows that their earnings come from their audience; their audience goes higher when providing morbose news and child pornography news goes almost to the top. Maybe CNN promotes child pornography under the hood, we don't know for sure, but hey, better safe than sorry, isn't it your base argument? You know, think of the children!
"Except that if you are looking at that kind of thing, you are creating a market for the abuse."
How can I be "creating a market" if I didn't pay, wouldn't pay and I'm not expected to pay, may I ask?
The one that harrashed the minor is guilty. The one that payed is (probably) guilty. The one that naonymously reached a picture from a site in the other corner of the world with no contact nor chance to contact with the author or the molester maybe is a deviate but it certainly shouldn't be consider a criminal more than somebody watching a reality.
"If you get off on pictures from that, you are, indeed, part of the problem and a criminal."
Of course yes. After all thoughtcrime is a standard since Roman days, isn't it?
"If you use an illegal drug, you are guilty of a crime."
Yes, in the States you are a criminal. Fortunately in developed countries you are sick, being the criminal the one trafficking with forbidden substances.
"That said, I do nominally support your basic idea that smaller economies can be planned and survive for a time."
Smaller? You are not comparing IBM to a monasterie, do you? It's quite more like a small country (and not one of the smallest or poorest). And it *is* an example of planned economy. Maybe you don't consider IBM to be a successful company; then choose the one you more prefer and there you will see it: it will be too an example of planned economy.
"Hayak was right, in that planned economies do fail."
But that was not his point. Of course planned economies fail, as free market ones do fail. His point was that *all* planned economies fail, my point being that's untrue an not only that: that each and every company in the world will choose a planned economy instead of a free one for its own internal development.
"You do understand that free markets and liberalism still allow people to do things as a group, right?"
Yes of course. Do you understand that I was explicitly speaking about corporations, not global society, right?
"In a liberal society there can be sole proprietorships"
"You also seem to be suggesting that every time a married couple makes a budget that they're participating in a planned economy"
Of course yes.
"which is really pushing the definition of "economy"."
Not. It is pushing the example. The way and means economic means are managed within a familiar unit *is* economy. It is not, however a valuable comparation against a country or a big corporation.
On the other hand, IBM gross income in 2008 was 16,715 Billion US$ roughly the gross domestic product of countries like Zambia, Bahrein or Jordan, quite more like an apples to apples comparation. And a fact is that 1000 out of 1000 companies will choose to manage their economics in a way that resembles quite to the very detail that of a communist country.
And, of course and that was my main point, they are clearly under a planified economy regime.
"Which part of the statement you quoted involved doing something outside the intellect?"
The part that it is not what you said but what you left out. How many IT systems do you think require going beyond calculus 101? No: IT systems are mostly about paying almost paranoid attention to details, hard, constant work, common sense and knowledge about what does work and what doesn't backed by vast ammounts of experience. No one of these require an intelligence so much beyond average.
"Spoken like someone who doesn't grasp the complexity of IT systems."
Spoken as someone that successfully deployed IT systems for tens of thousands people, used by international companies and local governments.
"There is a reason you can go all the way to the PhD level without ever leaving the study of the complexity of IT systems."
Are you sure you are not mistaking algorithm and systems complexity with IT complexity? I've modelled both IT systems and ecological systems and I can tell you for sure which one is more complex (both in terms of algorithm complexity or using some more "exotic" measures like Lyapunov exponents, when it made sense) and which one is more an intellectual challenge. Hint: it is not the IT one.
"Yes, of course: properly planned economies, or what did you think?
They exist?"
Of course they do. Do you want an example? No; wait a minute: I'll give you one thousand examples, see: "Fortune-1000". There.
Yes: albeit how fond we are about free market and liberalism, as soon as we are given the chance to put our actions -and money, were our mouth is, we all go for communist-style economics. Each and every company in the world is an example of planified economy, central ownership of the production means, banning of private property, banning of free speech and predefined compensation for your efforts. Just change "politbureau" with "board of directors", "state" with "corporation" and "gulag" with "lay out" and you will see it.
Now, since examples of successful corporations can be given, each and every one of them are examples of properly planified economy.
"like conceptualizing the inner working of a computer and the interaction of a dozen disparate software processes to determine the source of the subtle expression of the system not performing as desired?"
What part of "purely" didn't you understand? On the other hand, if you really think grasping complexity of IT systems is such a hard intelectual work you have a big problem to start with.
"But in my experience the most versatile IT people are the ones who fix the problem by understanding the system and the problem and applying that understanding to determine the fix."
Which much more about experience than anything else.
"I was just pointing out that age IS a legitimate factor."
No: you were (and are) failing at supporting that age is a legitimate factor.
"*I* think the trend to hire younger is based solely on pay scale. Older, experienced employees expect better pay."
Don't forget they are harder to strongarm and to fool and you'll have the whole picture. As nobel prize Gabriel García Márquez stated once, "all I learnt after I turned forty was saying 'no' when it's 'no'".
"Sharp as a whip - he's why I know in my heart that the whole "smartness falls off at 27" study is a load of bullshit."
You are right and wrong at the same time. You are wrong, since it's obvious that while that guy is very smart on his seventies you offer no proof the he wasn't even sharper when he was twenty (he probably was).
And then, you are right in that you yourself not understanding the obviousness of this, are a living demonstration that "smartness doesn't fall off at 27": it can be fallen off from the very beginning.
"Recent research actually shows that mental faculties begin to decline as early in life as the 20's."
That very study shows that the ability to manage situations due to experience more than compensate this unless you are working on something hard an purely intelectual (say, pure theoretical physics research) so it grows steadily up to the age of 60.
"there is a basis for IT discrimination based on age."
That'll be the day when real world IT is more about quantic mechanics than about experience, matureness and hard work. Do you want a keen and fast youngster that will wreak havoc on those hard cash servers or will you prefer a mature, experienced worker although maybe not so sharp? (that without going into the *hugh* individual differences: somebody at 50 maybe is not as sharp as when he was 20 but still sharper than 90% of twentiers).
"you're going to be 35 anyway. There's not a damn thing you can do about that, except die. if you don't go to school and get your bachelor's degree, then will it be any easier for you if you're an "old man" without a CS degree?"
That's not the point. You put the remark on the "degree", but the important part is "CS" (given his other point about CS being this or that).
He could go for a CS degree or, say, an MBA (let's presume that with more or less equally effort). Now, the point is would he be better with CS or with an MBA?
"Whatever about Red Hat, I've found Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS to be eminently suitable for the desktop."
My thoughts were more or less on the same path. How is it that I've been using Linux on the destop both at home and at work since about 2000 and it's still "not ready" for the desktop? And while I'm professionally tied to computers I'm not on the league of the uberfreaks. I mostly limit myself on the desktop to "use" the system.
Slashdot Mirror
"As Eric Raymond says, "scratch one's itch" does not imply listening to users."
Of course it implies it. And in a very agile way too. Scratching one's itch implies listening to the very key-user of the project: me.
"You wouldn't benefit from increased compatibility from most major manufacturers?"
Yes. And I usually push for it the way I find the most cost effective for me: voting with my money. No Linux support Mr. Epson? OK, no problem; it's only you won't get to see my wallet, Mr HP will do.
"I'm honestly surprised you had to ask how one could benefit from a larger adoption."
Benefit as in net benefit. Do you benefit if I give you a dime? Surely. What if you have to go for it 1000 miles away? Maybe it's not quite a good bussiness anymore. Will I benefit from Linux' mass adoption? Surely. Would it mean net benefit? It depends on the effort it will take from my part versus how much difference it will do to my live. In other words: will Humankind benefit from terraforming Mars? Surely: currently a stone the size of Manhattan (a tiny grain of salt compared with the whole planet) falling from the sky would most probably extinguish the whole human race. Would you push money out of your nose to the point of almost starve to make it happen? Hummm. But, but... all humankind extinguished is surely worse than people almost starving (*almost*, but not quite starving, I said). I think you get the point, so please no more abstract afirmations about what hardware manufacturers would do if something I really can't make happen would happen.
You were talking about average Joe and I'm talking about average Developer. I do have audio, video, a USB disk, mobile phone... all on a nice environment to work with *and* with current rates of Linux adoption. Will do I net benefit from Linux' wider adoption? Specifically, do I net benefit from Linux' wider adoption at the price of making it more Windows-like when I went away from Windows because I dislike the way it were to begin with?
The first Linux distribution I started using on a day-to-day basis was Red Hat (about the days of its 4.2 version if I recall properly). Now Red Hat has matured and it's the strongest commercial Linux distribution over there both in terms of economical benefits and number of deployments. I'd call that a success. And d'you know what? I don't use it anymore (or to be truer, I only use it under strong economical incentives -that's the second option I mentioned on a different post about "making in happen" on FOSS along with "hack it yourself" and "take what is given to you for free and be grateful"). Do you know why? Because it becomed too user friendly in the Windows' bad sense. It has a lot of wizards, assistants and graphical tools that are very helpful for unkwoledgeable people but, alas, at the expense of doing things "their own way" and being in the middle if you happen to know your trade. It happens I know my trade and it happens I avoid working on Red Hat now as much as possible.
With all the feedback I gave to you I think you won't be surprised when I tell you I usually don't care so much about greater Linux adoption by the Joe Sixpacks of this world (I don't think I'd get such a big benefit from it) and that I explicitly don't want greater adoption if it's at the cost of "windowzing" it (I know it would directly hurt me). It's not elitism but simply the way it most benefits me.
When I deploy a little script, fill a bug report or create a patch for a program I use, I scratch my own itch; I have a problem, expend some time/money/effort and get it solutioned. Let's take the example of the script: maybe I publish so others can take advantage for it. Then someone makes a constructive criticism about some new function than can be added. Well, it can be added, but it's my own itch no more. How will it benefit *me* having him using my script? I know the world will be a better place with that new feature; I know that user will benefit from having that new feature. But does it mean a net benefit for me *now*? I ask this not out of nothing but because my time is limited and I do have other things to do that will mean a net benefit for me now (even if in such esoteric and subjective terms as the minutes
"If a manufacturer makes a MOBO that doesn't support a type of HDD that PC World is selling, it isn't the manufacturer's fault, but it is their problem. At least, it is their problem if they want more people to buy their MOBOs."
What for?
Oh, yes, I see! The manufacturer makes more money the more MOBOs they sell, that's why they want more people buing them... So cute!
"But if there are people that actually want linux to gain market share on the desktop"
What for?
"its *not* the developer's fault but it *IS* their problem. The problem is that a lot of people have all this hardware that won't work with Linux and won't just spend money that they probably don't have just so they can use Linux."
And now, how those other people's problem becomes the developer's problem? The developer owns a hardware that will work with his system; he can hack his way out when there's a problem and he won't either get a dime nor owe a dime on those other nonworking systems. How is it that it is his problem?
He, of course, can take the burden of *making* those other people's problems their own problems, but that doesn't mean it *is* his problem, only that he will take the path of Teresa of Calcutta to resolve it out of his own good will.
"So its their problem insofar as they have to figure out a way to pass this hurdle, otherwise you'll never reach critical mass in terms of people adopting Linux."
I've been succesfully and almost exclusively using Linux since about 2000 (I used HP-Ux, Solaris, FreeBSD and minimally, some version of Windows too). I'm decently satisfied with its performance and usability. Can you please provide me with moving reasons about why I should push out of my expenditure for a wider Linux adoption? I know it might be of benefit for you, or for average Joe, but how will it benefit me and by extension the very people that can not only talk about it but effectively make it happen?
You see, going every morning to my job is quite a shitty proposition, but my boss provides me with moving reasons to do it, namely a decent paycheck at the end of the month. Now, let see what you can put on the table for me working on things I'm not really so interested in.
"The option of offering constructive criticism should be there as well"
It is. It is within the "and be grateful" part of the "take what is given to you for free and be grateful" option.
"but, with the understanding that [...] there's no reason for them to listen to constructive criticism."
You nailed it. Indeed there's no reason at all. Or, better said, of course there are reasons humans possesing free will, but they of course belong to them and you (or me) are nobody to question them. Constructive criticism, I can assure you, are almost always well recieved -it can be taken into account or not, but they are almost always well recieved. Just pay attention that when talking about open community driven open source projects (that is, the typical "hippy driven" project as stated from the typical close source FUD agent), you already pleasured of the free gift they offered with asking nothing for compensation. *NOTHING*, even your constructive criticism. But then, there's a fair chance they did it for the joy of it and the joy of their own habilites being expressed. That's why constructive criticism is almost always positively recieved.
But the point is that so many times, constructive criticism is not so constructive. I'm sure there's a subjective bias on it, not being many times due to malice, but the fact is that so many times, such a "constructive criticism" looks more like the developer oweing something to the users. Bad luck: the "for the joy of it" developer owes the user nothing, not even being polite to their criticism, specially if found with or without reason, not being so constructive.
"If the developer is interested in linux being adopted by average end users more often"
What a big and unsubstantiated "if". Surely there will be some "for the joy of it" developers that will be honestly interested in Linux being widely adopted by average end users but, surprise, people like Eric S. Raymond, me or in my experience, most of the "for free" FOSS developers are interested on Linux mass adoption almost nothing. Why they should? Of course, there're collateral advantages on Linux mass adoption, like the expectancy for better third party hardware drivers but, as a general matter, in all instances of this life, the hope or need for mass adoption is only related to economical benefit.
I look for FOSS because it allow to scratch my own itches better than any other software distribution licenses I'm aware of. It is *me*, not you nor by extension any of those "yous" needed for mass adoption, the one I'm interested in and I don't think that should mean a surprise for anybody.
And then you return to my three points: do you know who will be genuinely interested on Linux being mass adopted? The ones that win the more as more people adopts it. And that basically means the ones that can bill in proportion to adoption. Do you want to maximize the options of your constructive criticism being accepted? Vote with your wallet then. It's as easy as that.
"I think a lot of the people that say "Linux should do XYZ to make it more popular!" don't realize that not everyone is working towards the same goal."
I think that a lot of the people that say "Linux should do XYZ to make it more popular" are the ones that neither hack the way to go where their mouths are, nor pay for it, nor are grateful for what they take for free. It comes as no surprise their opinions are not taken is such a high regard.
"Then when I need a change in Amarok, I'm sure they'll jump in and add that patch immediately."
Of course not. If you want premium support, you'll need to pay premium cash; just as with any other bussiness. I'm not a Red Hat supporter but I know that they, if enough cash involved, will send a knowledgeable hacker to live with you.
"You're so deep in the forest, you can't see the forest through the trees."
I see quite well through the trees, thank you. It is you the one that expects some kind of magics just because a software distribution license being this or that. I'm quite knowledgeable about what can be expected in proportion with the money involved. And I can say you that usually you can expect better bang for your dollars on the open source camp. That's all.
"When someone comes up with an honest point that indicates FOSS is less than perfect"
No: it is *you* the one expecting FOSS being at least perfect or more. I'm quite aware about what FOSS can and can't do being that I use it for free, I pay for punctual development, I maintain local branches of some programs and I pay customary support on some others. It is *you* the one that somehow expects somebody "jumping to patch amarok" for free at your command.
"But try MS and see how bad THEY are."
That's a "common ground" example. That's why it's so used (and abused). But taking into account your ability to discern the bare point without the need of exemplary cases, then I'll rewrite for you: please mention *any* company in the world that will work for free; that will "jump" to do anything without enough cash involved.
"That another way is bad is no justification"
I was justificating nobody or anything. What for? I don't own Red Hat shares. I was *explaining* to you your options. I will repeat now in case you wasn't paying attention. Regarding FOSS you can:
1) Hack it yourself
2) Pay others to do it
3) Take what is given to you for free and be grateful
Now, I may ask you, please explain us, the very interested audience, which other software licensing paradigm offers more than that.
"That assumes that you either know the language the kernel or a program is written in, AND have the time to investigate and make the change [...] only a small, and I mean very small, percentage of users, actually have the resources to make changes in a FOSS program.
That's like saying, "This is great for 3% of all users out there so"
So do you *really* think companies able to expend 2000~3000 and have an almost immediate ROI are just 3% of all users?
"EVERYONE should use it because of that." It totally ignores the needs of 97% of all users."
Everyone is unable to pay few bucks to, say, Red Hat, become a supported user and then ask it for what they want? Being that the vast majority of users are already paying Microsoft *without* the support (at least on new computers) you will have to be very convincing for me to accept a "no" for an answer.
You can either hack it yourself, or (gasp!) pay others to do it, or take what is given to you for free and be grateful.
It's not as if you have no options.
"The official branch is where ever the big distros decide to pull from."
May I offer a rewrite?
The official branch is where ever the knowledgeable gurus decide to push into.
"You create a market to the extent that your actions reasonably lead the suppliers to conclude that there is a demand."
This doesn't follow. There's a demand for free food on Third World, but it doesn't seem to be so much black market on providing food for free to Ethyopia. What moves unscrupulous bussinessmen is just the same that moves legal bussinessmen: money. No money, no bussiness. And someone that can't get in touch with me can't get into bussiness with me; plain simple.
Maybe the "for free" is their bait for a bussiness case (as it's the case with adult pornography on the Internet), so be it. If there *is* a bussiness, prosecute it; anywhere there's somebody harrasing children, prosecute them but don't make knowledge an offense; it's stupid and as stupid as it is it gets into stupid situations.
It's really not so hard to grasp: just forget a second about the real case and think it as a general issue: if you want to prosecute "A"; prosecute "A", don't go for stupid workarounds since it will always follow stupid outputs. So don't prosecute possession in order to avoid production: prosecute production in order to avoid production. It's that simple.
"Hypothetical scenario: imagine a child pornography site funded 100% by advertisers"
Then you have one making bussiness out of child pornography: prosecute this. I could even accept prosecuting the kwnoledging distribution of child pornography under some circumnstance but posession? It's stupid and gets you into stupid situations as the one on this notice: I could give you the pictures so you know what exactly is the case against your defendants, but then I'd have to put you in jail for possession of illegal material. Oh! And I'll charge for distribution because the pictures *might* be distributed without neither your consent nor fault to due diligence. The right to proper defense goes below some hipothetical damages to the victim (which going from stupidity to surrealism happens to be the accused herself)? What the fucking!!!???
"does this not result in a market for child pornography, even though the viewers don't pay, wouldn't pay, and are not expected to pay?"
Maybe yes, maybe not. Anyway, the situation is the same: prosecute the offenders, the ones producing and getting direct benefits out of child pornography, that is. See? You have to restort to hypothetical examples to make your case and even then it's a moving target*1. My position is simpler, I don't have to change it no matter what your examples are and it's warranteed to always work without strange corner cases. What position do you think it's easier to take as a basis for sensible laws?
Of course your legal system smells far beyond simple short-ranged solutions if the situation of children prosecuted as adults on crimes against themselves that wouldn't be crimes were they not be children to begin with is not even thinkable but crudely true, but it would be a beginning.
*1 By the way, why not prosecute TV news? Everybody knows that their earnings come from their audience; their audience goes higher when providing morbose news and child pornography news goes almost to the top. Maybe CNN promotes child pornography under the hood, we don't know for sure, but hey, better safe than sorry, isn't it your base argument? You know, think of the children!
"Except that if you are looking at that kind of thing, you are creating a market for the abuse."
How can I be "creating a market" if I didn't pay, wouldn't pay and I'm not expected to pay, may I ask?
The one that harrashed the minor is guilty. The one that payed is (probably) guilty. The one that naonymously reached a picture from a site in the other corner of the world with no contact nor chance to contact with the author or the molester maybe is a deviate but it certainly shouldn't be consider a criminal more than somebody watching a reality.
"If you get off on pictures from that, you are, indeed, part of the problem and a criminal."
Of course yes. After all thoughtcrime is a standard since Roman days, isn't it?
"If you use an illegal drug, you are guilty of a crime."
Yes, in the States you are a criminal. Fortunately in developed countries you are sick, being the criminal the one trafficking with forbidden substances.
"My church (First Baptist Church, Augusta, GA) is where the Southern Baptist Convention started. It's a giant brick building."
Yeah, but if it weighs the same as a goose, then it's a witch, you are warned.
"That said, I do nominally support your basic idea that smaller economies can be planned and survive for a time."
Smaller? You are not comparing IBM to a monasterie, do you? It's quite more like a small country (and not one of the smallest or poorest). And it *is* an example of planned economy. Maybe you don't consider IBM to be a successful company; then choose the one you more prefer and there you will see it: it will be too an example of planned economy.
"Hayak was right, in that planned economies do fail."
But that was not his point. Of course planned economies fail, as free market ones do fail. His point was that *all* planned economies fail, my point being that's untrue an not only that: that each and every company in the world will choose a planned economy instead of a free one for its own internal development.
"You do understand that free markets and liberalism still allow people to do things as a group, right?"
Yes of course. Do you understand that I was explicitly speaking about corporations, not global society, right?
"In a liberal society there can be sole proprietorships"
"You also seem to be suggesting that every time a married couple makes a budget that they're participating in a planned economy"
Of course yes.
"which is really pushing the definition of "economy"."
Not. It is pushing the example. The way and means economic means are managed within a familiar unit *is* economy. It is not, however a valuable comparation against a country or a big corporation.
On the other hand, IBM gross income in 2008 was 16,715 Billion US$ roughly the gross domestic product of countries like Zambia, Bahrein or Jordan, quite more like an apples to apples comparation. And a fact is that 1000 out of 1000 companies will choose to manage their economics in a way that resembles quite to the very detail that of a communist country.
And, of course and that was my main point, they are clearly under a planified economy regime.
"Which part of the statement you quoted involved doing something outside the intellect?"
The part that it is not what you said but what you left out. How many IT systems do you think require going beyond calculus 101? No: IT systems are mostly about paying almost paranoid attention to details, hard, constant work, common sense and knowledge about what does work and what doesn't backed by vast ammounts of experience. No one of these require an intelligence so much beyond average.
"Spoken like someone who doesn't grasp the complexity of IT systems."
Spoken as someone that successfully deployed IT systems for tens of thousands people, used by international companies and local governments.
"There is a reason you can go all the way to the PhD level without ever leaving the study of the complexity of IT systems."
Are you sure you are not mistaking algorithm and systems complexity with IT complexity? I've modelled both IT systems and ecological systems and I can tell you for sure which one is more complex (both in terms of algorithm complexity or using some more "exotic" measures like Lyapunov exponents, when it made sense) and which one is more an intellectual challenge. Hint: it is not the IT one.
"Yes, of course: properly planned economies, or what did you think?
They exist?"
Of course they do. Do you want an example? No; wait a minute: I'll give you one thousand examples, see: "Fortune-1000". There.
Yes: albeit how fond we are about free market and liberalism, as soon as we are given the chance to put our actions -and money, were our mouth is, we all go for communist-style economics. Each and every company in the world is an example of planified economy, central ownership of the production means, banning of private property, banning of free speech and predefined compensation for your efforts. Just change "politbureau" with "board of directors", "state" with "corporation" and "gulag" with "lay out" and you will see it.
Now, since examples of successful corporations can be given, each and every one of them are examples of properly planified economy.
"like conceptualizing the inner working of a computer and the interaction of a dozen disparate software processes to determine the source of the subtle expression of the system not performing as desired?"
What part of "purely" didn't you understand? On the other hand, if you really think grasping complexity of IT systems is such a hard intelectual work you have a big problem to start with.
"But in my experience the most versatile IT people are the ones who fix the problem by understanding the system and the problem and applying that understanding to determine the fix."
Which much more about experience than anything else.
"I was just pointing out that age IS a legitimate factor."
No: you were (and are) failing at supporting that age is a legitimate factor.
"Is there another kind of planned economy?"
Yes, of course: properly planned economies, or what did you think?
"*I* think the trend to hire younger is based solely on pay scale. Older, experienced employees expect better pay."
Don't forget they are harder to strongarm and to fool and you'll have the whole picture. As nobel prize Gabriel García Márquez stated once, "all I learnt after I turned forty was saying 'no' when it's 'no'".
"Sharp as a whip - he's why I know in my heart that the whole "smartness falls off at 27" study is a load of bullshit."
You are right and wrong at the same time. You are wrong, since it's obvious that while that guy is very smart on his seventies you offer no proof the he wasn't even sharper when he was twenty (he probably was).
And then, you are right in that you yourself not understanding the obviousness of this, are a living demonstration that "smartness doesn't fall off at 27": it can be fallen off from the very beginning.
"I'm working with one on a project right now who is pulling his hair out trying to understand object-oriented programming."
The problem then is not that he is 60. OOP has been standard for, what? almost 20 years now?
"Recent research actually shows that mental faculties begin to decline as early in life as the 20's."
That very study shows that the ability to manage situations due to experience more than compensate this unless you are working on something hard an purely intelectual (say, pure theoretical physics research) so it grows steadily up to the age of 60.
"there is a basis for IT discrimination based on age."
That'll be the day when real world IT is more about quantic mechanics than about experience, matureness and hard work. Do you want a keen and fast youngster that will wreak havoc on those hard cash servers or will you prefer a mature, experienced worker although maybe not so sharp? (that without going into the *hugh* individual differences: somebody at 50 maybe is not as sharp as when he was 20 but still sharper than 90% of twentiers).
"you're going to be 35 anyway. There's not a damn thing you can do about that, except die. if you don't go to school and get your bachelor's degree, then will it be any easier for you if you're an "old man" without a CS degree?"
That's not the point. You put the remark on the "degree", but the important part is "CS" (given his other point about CS being this or that).
He could go for a CS degree or, say, an MBA (let's presume that with more or less equally effort). Now, the point is would he be better with CS or with an MBA?
"Planned economies do fail like this"
*Badly* planned economies fail like this. There, corrected for you.
"According to alexa, archive.org is the 386th most visited site on the internet"
386? I would think that with all those Sun boxes they already were 64 bits at least!
"Whatever about Red Hat, I've found Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS to be eminently suitable for the desktop."
My thoughts were more or less on the same path. How is it that I've been using Linux on the destop both at home and at work since about 2000 and it's still "not ready" for the desktop? And while I'm professionally tied to computers I'm not on the league of the uberfreaks. I mostly limit myself on the desktop to "use" the system.