Explain the open source movement to me.

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Stupid. The software business exists based on competition, like every business. If everyone can edit the software, there is no need for competing software. If you want something in a program, request it from a company or get a competing product that has that funcionality.

Originally posted by: Deeko
Yes, I am looking at it from a business' point of view. If all software were open source, and there was no competition, the industry would die, and if that happens, the quality of software will drop signifigantly.

You're looking at it from an employee's perspective: "If I don't get paid, I don't do the work".

The OSS people are idealists...they honestly put a lot more work into some of their software than the wage slaves at FacelessCorporationSoft. Not all OSS software is good, true, but there's a lot of very high-quality stuff out there. And if you want something in a program, requesting it on a forum/email list for OSS will get you a much faster response than griping to a big company. Like, one of those idealists might take a couple hours that night to code it in, post it, and say "That what you were thinking?"

I think having both is a good idea. OSS is good because it allows the non-rich to enjoy good software, and it keeps the for-profit companies on their toes (if they slack off and produce crappy software, all of a sudden everyone is using FREE stuff from somewhere else). For-profit companies are good because it gives businesses a formal support structure, allows for niche software that might not get coded by the open-source guys, and gives the OSS community something to shoot for.

 

[SP33Demon]

I hear there's a penguin involved

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
AFAIK, RedHat isn't involved in Open Source software.

Actually they are:
http://www.redhat.com/about/mission/leadership/

Interesting. I figured they would be more about Free(GPL definition) Software instead.

All their Open source software is Free. You can be OSS and still be free but OSS doesn't mean you are as there are quite a few OSS licenses that are OSS but not Free. Now stop your definition BS and get back in the OS forum monkey.

Free is open source, but open source isn't necessarily free. I understand.

BSD > GPL.

 

[Cerb]

Open Source/Free software is not a magic bullet. The closed-source business will NOT die. It will merely need to change a bit to live in harmony. As long as standards are followed, all should be well. I'd say Apple is actually doing a pretty good job of it--partly open, can use free apps, but still closed parts, as well. All seems to work well.

Many things are done very well with free stuff. Try TV tuners for Windows. Hop over to Linux and run a few. First, you can run 'a few', and egenerally, each is better than what you get with your card. For many situations like this, getting rid of middlemen is good. You can actually have a small number of devs working a small number of hours, and still producing excellent apps. When it comes to firewalls, this is 100x as true as for desktop apps. Better, free, but with a support option. Open source, free or not, gets people into the hawking mindset, too, that someone might be watching, so they do better .

Also remember that artists and programmers tend to have a lot in common. There are issues. For example, it is the single-mindedness of MS and the closed environment that has allowed DirectX to make its great strides, and to do so rapidly but effectively. Free stuff generally takes longer, and splinters (save the Linux kernel).

Lastly, recall what happened with Stallman. He's an extreme, but he got burned a few times when his work got taken away, and he was left with nothing to show for it. This is a reality. Sure, you don't get true control with the GPL, but you get as much control as everyone else, and the little guy and commercial businesses are on even legal ground.

 

[alm4rr]

Imagine what society would save in licensing - schools, businesses, govt

Who cares about a bunch of unemployed software coders?

 

[nd]

Originally posted by: Deeko
I really don't understand this drive for open source software. Being a software developer myself, I don't understand why you'd want all software to be open source. Companies invest time & money developing code, why should the be expected to show you their code? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't have a strong desire for all software to be open source. But it is actually helpful to the software industry for some basic software tools and infrastructure to be available for free.

Mature open source (or Free Software) applications raise the playing field by making tools available to all developers and users. Take gcc (the GNU C Compiler) for example. Everyone can use this and benefit from it, and use it to create other things without worrying about developing or buying a C compiler.

Does that mean it's a great idea to open-source the firmware you developed for some custom embedded system? Not really, as this isn't nearly as useful to people.

Open source isn't killing commercial software development -- it just helps to remove the cost of certain software applications that are widely useful. It is wise for commercial software developers to adapt or die. Adapting could mean finding a niche product that isn't likely to be an open-source application. Contracting for custom software applications will almost always be necessary.

But the model of trying to sell a basic software tool targetted at everyone that could easily be replaced by an open source version is short-sighted. Same goes to Microsoft and their OS -- although they are obviously entrenched in the industry already and have a considerable advantage. I expect that to fade in the longterm.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: alm4rr
Imagine what society would save in licensing - schools, businesses, govt

Who cares about a bunch of unemployed software coders?

Schools, business, and the government are generally willing to pay for support though.

 

[nd]

I should add that all of my jobs have involved a lot of software development.

On the side, I contribute to Free/Open Source software. I have personally benefited tremendously with the use I've gotten from Linux and all of the software available for it. By contributing back, I am improving things for everyone. I do this with the hope that I can continue to benefit from open source software in the future. I would never consider trying to sell the open source software I develop commercially since there just isn't a good market for it today anymore.

Software I've done for my jobs have been custom engineering oriented applications intended to solve a specific problem, and would never realistically be threatened by open source software. Actually, the embedded system software development I've done has also significantly benefited from open source software.

 

[mugs]

Bunch of suckers writing software for free, I'm not complaining as long as I'm reaping the benefits.

You can make money off open-source software - support.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: snooker

Originally posted by: Deeko
Companies invest time & money developing code, why should the be expected to show you their code? It just doesn't make sense to me.

The $$$$$$$$$ is clouding you senses ;-)

Yes, I am looking at it from a business' point of view. If all software were open source, and there was no competition, the industry would die, and if that happens, the quality of software will drop signifigantly.

Yes because as we all know, no one can make money on OSS. Hell Redhat and IBM both lose money hand over fist right?

OSS is about eliminating the middlemen, the CEO's, the sales people and everyone else and the only ones getting paid for the OSS are the developers. Think about that.

i don't see how that is the case... redhat doesn't have a ceo? no sales people?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: snooker

Originally posted by: Deeko
Companies invest time & money developing code, why should the be expected to show you their code? It just doesn't make sense to me.

The $$$$$$$$$ is clouding you senses ;-)

Yes, I am looking at it from a business' point of view. If all software were open source, and there was no competition, the industry would die, and if that happens, the quality of software will drop signifigantly.

Yes because as we all know, no one can make money on OSS. Hell Redhat and IBM both lose money hand over fist right?

OSS is about eliminating the middlemen, the CEO's, the sales people and everyone else and the only ones getting paid for the OSS are the developers. Think about that.

i don't see how that is the case... redhat doesn't have a ceo? no sales people?

RedHat has both a CEO and sales people. I'm sure they get paid from the money they make doing support, and not from the sale of F/OSS.

 

[dman]

In the future people will be less concerned about possessions and more about futhering the human race. Opensource is just one of the early steps in that progress. Eventually our worldly cooperative efforts will pay off in other areas, we'll develop warp technology and space ships to travel beyond or solar system.

Of course, in our efforts we'll piss off Alien races who'll travel back in time and try and stop us, again.

 

[arcain]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: snooker

Originally posted by: Deeko
Companies invest time & money developing code, why should the be expected to show you their code? It just doesn't make sense to me.

The $$$$$$$$$ is clouding you senses ;-)

Yes, I am looking at it from a business' point of view. If all software were open source, and there was no competition, the industry would die, and if that happens, the quality of software will drop signifigantly.

Early software, was funded by research and essentially open source. Software as a form of research lends itself to being free (research publications, sharing of research with other researchers, development under government grants, etc). Software as a creative expression also lends itself to being free. Artists in earlier centuries had wealthy patrons (sometimes the government) that paid them to create.

Not all development is for money. I spend a great deal of my spare time programming for "fun".

You're only treating software as a commodity. You should also consider software as a service, especially nowadays with the Internet. There are open source search engines, but there are some people at there making lots of money off of it. Software (and software developers) to run a business will always be around (free software or not).