Java will always be slow compared to native alternatives.
Shell script, perl, and VB are also dog slow, but they are still useful. I wouldn't write a ray tracer in java, but a network client could easily be written in java ( or perl for that matter ), and the portability would offset the "speed" loss ( which is negligeable, since bandwidth is the main limitation in this example )
This is exacly what I am saying. With the growth of Linux and a braoder knowledge of OSS, consumers as a whole will NOT be willing to pay for software.
Not true. At present, people are willing to pay, including linux users. Your claim is purely unfounded conjecture at this point.
Can I make a copy of my long distance service, give it to my friends, and still have my long distance service?
You are not really "replicating" either service: the service is there to begin with ( ie the software or the telecommunications infrastructure ) and you are paying for the right to use it. Just because dishonesty is easier with software doesn't make it more ethical.
But in anser to your question, yes, there are ways you can defraud the long distance companies, and get long distance calls for the price of a local call. You can teach all your friends how to do it, hence "duplicate" the service.
You don't pay the phone company for building the phone system,
Imagine that it cost them twice as much to build and maintain the infrastructure. Do you believe that this would have no effect on pricing ?
you pay them for renting a line.
This is not true with long distance service. You don't "rent" the line.
Of course service has value, but me copying software is not the software company doing me a service.
Using the software is the programmer doing you a service.
If you want to get paid for coding, find someone to pay you for coding!
The programmers do that. The software company pays them, and in turn, the software company recovers the money by enterring into contractual agreements with customers.
If you aren't willing to pay someone to write ms word, which will then be available to all, then as a matter of simple economics ms word can't and shouldn't be written.
"Simple economics" says that MS word can and should be written if there are people willing to enter into an agreement with MS to use MS Word under certain terms and conditions. These terms and conditions include not redistributing the software. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, simple contract law says you can't and shouldn't use the software.
By the way, if you really believe that commercial software shouldn't exist, why not put your money where your mouth is, and instead of pirating commerical software, just use free software.
How many other "services" do you know of that are, in effect, infinite?
Telecommunications. An international call doesn't cost on a per-call basis in real terms.
"Service" is when I call tech support and someone takes the TIME to help me.
Apparently, you don't consider your long distance telephone service to be a "service" ?
The "new" work required to handle specific problems or tasks can be billed on an hour by hour or instance by instance basis.
Don't be silly. Can you afford to pay someone to write MS Word ?
The previous effort that has gone into building software, because of softwares infinite nature, is worth nothing.
Again, this is hogwash. If it's really worth nothing, then why is the market willing to pay for the "previous effort" ? ( btw, note that your reasoning implies that you needn't pay long distance telephone bills, since the infrastructure is also there in advance ) Surely, if what you were saying was correct, the market would not be willing to pay for software, and commercial software as we know it would cease to exist.
Substitute for the variable $(PRODUCT) any tangible object, like "washing machine."
This is your first error. Software is a service, not a good. The fact that software is a service rather than a commodity doesn't make it worthless.
We may question how the developer arrived at the price, but the decision is ultimately up to the guy(s) who created $(PRODUCT). Therefore, the price assigned to $(PRODUCT) is arbitrary and has nothing whatsoever to do with its development costs.
This would be true if the developer lived in a vacuum, but they don't. The market value of $PRODUCT is determined by many factors, cost of production being one of them. Competition gaurantees that there is *SOME* relationship between cost of development and shelf price.
So, how stupid do you have to be before you stand there proclaiming that you have an inalienable right to expect people won't copy your stuff, when the medium is fundamentally designed to behave otherwise?
Perhaps because it's unethical and illegal ? Just as it is unethical to use any service that you are not prepared to pay for.
Okay, say you don't buy that line of reasoning. Try this out: If I take away your $(PRODUCT), I have deprived you of the ability to exchange it for the price you have assigned it. (This is true whether I purchased it from you or shoplifted it; the end result is that you don't have it anymore.) If I make a copy of your $(PRODUCT), you still have the original. You still have the ability to exchange it for your chosen price.
Wrong. You have taken the developer for a ride and not payed for it. It's analagous to not aying for your rides at the circus, or not paying your whore. You took the ride, so you should pay the person who provided the service to you their due.
Making copies of things, no matter what they may be, is not theft. Period, end of chapter.
Again, I dispute this. You are attempting to argue that services do not have value -- that only goods have value. Because by your logic, no service has any value ( even after you take the service, others are free to use it and pay for it )
As another poster noted, it's the scarcity of programmers that dictates what they get. That is to say, if there were a gross oversupply of programmers, they would earn about as much as your local school teacher.
The scarcity of their skills obviously determines their pay. However, if there is an oversupply of programmers, people capable enough to become programmers will enter other career paths, since they are capable of learning other skills. In this sense, the numbers of programmers in the industry is self regulating.
Your post seems to presume that a programmer's wage is calculated as some proportion of his or her company's profit. That is rare compared to the main thing that happens, *especially* in the software industry: profit margins are high, and those profits circulate in the hands of a relatively small group of investors.
The programmers pay will be proportional to the market value of his labour ( if it wasn't, he could leave and found his own company, which some programmers actually do ) The profits aren't kept to the investors - the programmers typically get equity in their company as part of their package deal. Of course the profit is shared between others, but to say that a programmers pay is not proportional to the market value of their work is absurd.
It's for the companies to set appropriate pricing schemes to get their software into the hands of users. You don't have any right to use a service that you aren't prepared to pay for. In some sense, the piraters are taking a free ride (it's comparable to sneaking into the cinema without paying ). It's definitely true that *SOMEONE* loses because of the pirates, though it's admittedly difficult to place hard numbers on the actual amount.
THis is comparable to organising a car theft ring. This guy didn't pirate one package, he was the "pirate king". The amount of software pirated from his site vastly outwieghs the cost of a car.
If you had bothered to read the survey results, you would have discovered that 70% of the survey participants are unwilling to spend more than $300 on a complete development environment.
Firstly, several of the survey participants are releasing under an open source license. So the QT license costs are not an issue.
Secondly, as far as large commerical projects go, they are really asking the wrong people. The programmers do not set the budgets.
It's really ironic that somebody from the Linux community would call 1500 dollars "peanuts",
I don't see what's so ironic about it. Repeat after me: Free speach, not free beer.
Furthermore, please keep in mind that $1500 will only buy you a single license for a single developer. If Microsoft decided to port Office to KDE, how much would they have to spend on Qt license fees alone?
If it saved two weeks of development time over using GTK, it would be substantially cheaper to use QT. It is important to keep the costs in perspective.
Lastly, why do you presume that everyone who doesn't want to release the source code for his product has to be a commercial developer? This fee can apply to freeware programs as well, if they don't comply with the Open Source mantra.
Personally, I wish closed source "freeware" would roll over and die. Why would anyone want to give the software away and keep the code secret anyway ?
I use KDE but think it would be dead wrong and bad for Borland to make Qt the only bindings available in their templatized RAD. Being able to select either for RAD would be best, but would be a development nightmare for Borland. GTK+ wins solely on the fact that it is non-restrictive.
Not necessarily. I could see Troll Tech licensing QT to Borland, and collecting some royalties. If Troll had reason to believe that such a toolkit would be a big seller, it would make sense for them to sell it at a lower price. This would be a win-win-win: Troll rake in money in on the kit (which would generate a lot of commercial QT sales ) , Borland can use a stable kit that is carefully documented and maintained by professionals, and the users can develop with the best available toolkit.
Borland need something that's good, not something that's cheap ( note that the respondents said that they were willing to pay ). This in itself rules out GTK.
$1500 is peanuts, when you look at it in the context of "how much does a week of a developer's time cost". I'd say $1500 is no more than a weeks worth ( remember that the "TCO" per-developer exceeds the developers salary. ) QT has some nice time-saving features -- such as documentation and support. Witness the gap between the state of the GNOME and KDE projects as concrete evidence that QT is a time saver.
On the other hand, I don't see any commercial outfits flocking to GTK. A development kit isn't just software -- it's a package that includes documentation and support. QT has this. GTK doesn't.
Addressing some of your points: it's not clear that those 3820 people really want MS SQL on linux. Maybe they are connecting to an MS SQL server *from* linux. I'd agree that the ASP and VB was kind of odd though (-;
Interestingly enough, QT and GTK don't make use of those files ( well, KDE sets X-resources to match it's own configuration ). KDE already has a control panel and GUI tools to configure those things ( as does GNOME )
Re:Linus Torvalds on Modularity
on
Is X The Future?
·
· Score: 1
It's a little OT, he's making a reference to Linus's comments on micro-kernels. Search dejanews for "Linus on micro kernels" , where the man himself has quite a lot to say ( but not about GUIs )
Raw Xlib ? Motif ? Lesstif ?????
on
Is X The Future?
·
· Score: 1
Interestng article, but I take issue with his views on GUI toolkits. I agree with some of his points, but the foolishness of his suggestion that we program in raw Xlib is only surpassed by the suggestion that we can all use Motif because "Lesstif is available". Maybe he's using a commercial UNIX which includes motif, and he hasn't seen how bad lesstif really is.
Motif is not really feasible on linux because linux distributions ( unlike commercial UNIX ) do not come with run time motif licenses. Lesstif is *not* adequate. I don't know how many times I've seen some idiot report a bug for a motif app because it doesn't work properly in Lesstif. ( they really should report the bug to the Lesstif people... ) Lesstif is NOT acceptable as a standard. We are much better off with QT ( for which we get runtime and a restricted developers license ).
Sounds to me like he's just striking back at all the ignorami who think we need to discard X, despite having no idea what X actually does. I agree with him, and I'm a math PhD student with no vested interests in the computer industry.
Re:Implementations vs. Standards.
on
Is X The Future?
·
· Score: 1
Linux seems more GNU-compliant than POSIX-compliant.
As for the GNU project, some of what they do is possibly defensible in the name of innovation ( eg they've added useful features to many of the utilities ) but in some cases, they seem to almost willfuly break compatibilty ( eg bash which includes extra features even in "posix" mode ), which is annoying.
Fortunately, the GNU software is all free, so you can install it on anything, and it's become something of a standard ( and in some ways , a good standard ) in it's own right.
There is no reason why X precludes a "web GUI". X does not deal with user interface issues, it deals with drawing graphics on the screen. You could have a pure web interface without getting rid of X.
We don't need to replace X with a GUI, X is not a GUI and hence will not become obsoleted by the existence of a GUI. What we *DO* need a GUI on top of X. That's what the KDE/GNOME projects are about.
You talk about video performance issues, but the SGI workstations do just fine with X. The issue at hand is driver support, not the architecture of X.
BTW, improved font support for X is already underway.
Thanks for playing...
Re:No we don't. We need a standard audio server
on
Is X The Future?
·
· Score: 1
There's no reason why we need to make the audio server a part of X. What we need is consolidation. This will happen when KDE and GNOME can standardise on the same audio system. In the long term, my guess is that KDE and GNOME will become the new GUI standard(s) in the UNIX world.
I'd agree. I think linux will be marketed at the low end. This is going to put Sun in the hot seat, since IBM will be going after them from all sides and the "low end" linux on the Merced could well be a viable competitor to the cheaper SPARC servers if the kernel dev team get SMP working in a manner half respectable.
Just because X doesn't do networked sound doesn't mean that it precludes you from doing so. There's nothing to stop you running an audio server on a different port which clients can connect to.
Slashdot Mirror
Shell script, perl, and VB are also dog slow, but they are still useful. I wouldn't write a ray tracer in java, but a network client could easily be written in java ( or perl for that matter ), and the portability would offset the "speed" loss ( which is negligeable, since bandwidth is the main limitation in this example )
Not true. At present, people are willing to pay, including linux users. Your claim is purely unfounded conjecture at this point.
Can I make a copy of my long distance service, give it to my friends, and still have my long distance service?
You are not really "replicating" either service: the service is there to begin with ( ie the software or the telecommunications infrastructure ) and you are paying for the right to use it. Just because dishonesty is easier with software doesn't make it more ethical.
But in anser to your question, yes, there are ways you can defraud the long distance companies, and get long distance calls for the price of a local call. You can teach all your friends how to do it, hence "duplicate" the service.
Imagine that it cost them twice as much to build and maintain the infrastructure. Do you believe that this would have no effect on pricing ?
you pay them for renting a line.
This is not true with long distance service. You don't "rent" the line.
Of course service has value, but me copying software is not the software company doing me a service.
Using the software is the programmer doing you a service.
If you want to get paid for coding, find someone to pay you for coding!
The programmers do that. The software company pays them, and in turn, the software company recovers the money by enterring into contractual agreements with customers.
If you aren't willing to pay someone to write ms word, which will then be available to all, then as a matter of simple economics ms word can't and shouldn't be written.
"Simple economics" says that MS word can and should be written if there are people willing to enter into an agreement with MS to use MS Word under certain terms and conditions. These terms and conditions include not redistributing the software. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, simple contract law says you can't and shouldn't use the software.
By the way, if you really believe that commercial software shouldn't exist, why not put your money where your mouth is, and instead of pirating commerical software, just use free software.
Telecommunications. An international call doesn't cost on a per-call basis in real terms.
"Service" is when I call tech support and someone takes the TIME to help me.
Apparently, you don't consider your long distance telephone service to be a "service" ?
The "new" work required to handle specific problems or tasks can be billed on an hour by hour or instance by instance basis.
Don't be silly. Can you afford to pay someone to write MS Word ?
The previous effort that has gone into building software, because of softwares infinite nature, is worth nothing.
Again, this is hogwash. If it's really worth nothing, then why is the market willing to pay for the "previous effort" ? ( btw, note that your reasoning implies that you needn't pay long distance telephone bills, since the infrastructure is also there in advance ) Surely, if what you were saying was correct, the market would not be willing to pay for software, and commercial software as we know it would cease to exist.
This is your first error. Software is a service, not a good. The fact that software is a service rather than a commodity doesn't make it worthless.
We may question how the developer arrived at the price, but the decision is ultimately up to the guy(s) who created $(PRODUCT). Therefore, the price assigned to $(PRODUCT) is arbitrary and has nothing whatsoever to do with its development costs.
This would be true if the developer lived in a vacuum, but they don't. The market value of $PRODUCT is determined by many factors, cost of production being one of them. Competition gaurantees that there is *SOME* relationship between cost of development and shelf price.
So, how stupid do you have to be before you stand there proclaiming that you have an inalienable right to expect people won't copy your stuff, when the medium is fundamentally designed to behave otherwise?
Perhaps because it's unethical and illegal ? Just as it is unethical to use any service that you are not prepared to pay for.
Okay, say you don't buy that line of reasoning. Try this out: If I take away your $(PRODUCT), I have deprived you of the ability to exchange it for the price you have assigned it. (This is true whether I purchased it from you or shoplifted it; the end result is that you don't have it anymore.) If I make a copy of your $(PRODUCT), you still have the original. You still have the ability to exchange it for your chosen price.
Wrong. You have taken the developer for a ride and not payed for it. It's analagous to not aying for your rides at the circus, or not paying your whore. You took the ride, so you should pay the person who provided the service to you their due.
Making copies of things, no matter what they may be, is not theft. Period, end of chapter.
Again, I dispute this. You are attempting to argue that services do not have value -- that only goods have value. Because by your logic, no service has any value ( even after you take the service, others are free to use it and pay for it )
Not quite. A lot of companies include stock options as part of the employees package.
only what the market will bear for the talent they need
And presumabely, if their software brings more money to the table, the market will bear more for their services.
The scarcity of their skills obviously determines their pay. However, if there is an oversupply of programmers, people capable enough to become programmers will enter other career paths, since they are capable of learning other skills. In this sense, the numbers of programmers in the industry is self regulating.
Your post seems to presume that a programmer's wage is calculated as some proportion of his or her company's profit. That is rare compared to the main thing that happens, *especially* in the software industry: profit margins are high, and those profits circulate in the hands of a relatively small group of investors.
The programmers pay will be proportional to the market value of his labour ( if it wasn't, he could leave and found his own company, which some programmers actually do ) The profits aren't kept to the investors - the programmers typically get equity in their company as part of their package deal. Of course the profit is shared between others, but to say that a programmers pay is not proportional to the market value of their work is absurd.
THis is comparable to organising a car theft ring. This guy didn't pirate one package, he was the "pirate king". The amount of software pirated from his site vastly outwieghs the cost of a car.
Firstly, several of the survey participants are releasing under an open source license. So the QT license costs are not an issue.
Secondly, as far as large commerical projects go, they are really asking the wrong people. The programmers do not set the budgets.
It's really ironic that somebody from the Linux community would call 1500 dollars "peanuts",
I don't see what's so ironic about it. Repeat after me: Free speach, not free beer.
Furthermore, please keep in mind that $1500 will only buy you a single license for a single developer. If Microsoft decided to port Office to KDE, how much would they have to spend on Qt license fees alone?
If it saved two weeks of development time over using GTK, it would be substantially cheaper to use QT. It is important to keep the costs in perspective.
Lastly, why do you presume that everyone who doesn't want to release the source code for his product has to be a commercial developer? This fee can apply to freeware programs as well, if they don't comply with the Open Source mantra.
Personally, I wish closed source "freeware" would roll over and die. Why would anyone want to give the software away and keep the code secret anyway ?
Not necessarily. I could see Troll Tech licensing QT to Borland, and collecting some royalties. If Troll had reason to believe that such a toolkit would be a big seller, it would make sense for them to sell it at a lower price. This would be a win-win-win: Troll rake in money in on the kit (which would generate a lot of commercial QT sales ) , Borland can use a stable kit that is carefully documented and maintained by professionals, and the users can develop with the best available toolkit.
Borland need something that's good, not something that's cheap ( note that the respondents said that they were willing to pay ). This in itself rules out GTK.
On the other hand, I don't see any commercial outfits flocking to GTK. A development kit isn't just software -- it's a package that includes documentation and support. QT has this. GTK doesn't.
It's a little OT, he's making a reference to Linus's comments on micro-kernels. Search dejanews for "Linus on micro kernels" , where the man himself has quite a lot to say ( but not about GUIs )
Motif is not really feasible on linux because linux distributions ( unlike commercial UNIX ) do not come with run time motif licenses. Lesstif is *not* adequate. I don't know how many times I've seen some idiot report a bug for a motif app because it doesn't work properly in Lesstif. ( they really should report the bug to the Lesstif people ... ) Lesstif is NOT acceptable as a standard. We are much better off with QT ( for which we get runtime and a restricted developers license ).
As for the GNU project, some of what they do is possibly defensible in the name of innovation ( eg they've added useful features to many of the utilities ) but in some cases, they seem to almost willfuly break compatibilty ( eg bash which includes extra features even in "posix" mode ), which is annoying.
Fortunately, the GNU software is all free, so you can install it on anything, and it's become something of a standard ( and in some ways , a good standard ) in it's own right.
You talk about video performance issues, but the SGI workstations do just fine with X. The issue at hand is driver support, not the architecture of X.
BTW, improved font support for X is already underway.
Thanks for playing ...