An Essay on Open Source 79
The ever diligent and kind David Niemi has written an essay
which talks about (and is titled) why software developers benefit from open source. It talks about the
advantages of open source from the viewpoint of someone working in a corporation, and he cites his own personal experience
in the paper. You may disagree with some of it, but it's very interesting, and worth a look.
iD games are sorta Open Source and they make money (Score:1)
They allow people to play and tinker with the games without charge; modify, remake, remodel, anything. They only things they keep to themselves, thus far, are the network engines and the graphics engines.
You can change the models, the graphics, the sounds, the levels, the gameplay, the mechanics, without paying for a bit, and as long as you release back into the community. If you want to sell your modifications you have to license from iD, but otherwise, it's essentially a free game engine and support structure.
What do you pay for when you buy the game? The graphics, the models, the maps. These things you don't need, but if you want to play, you need to get them somehow, and grabbing 600mb of data is mighty inconvenient for most people, and very reasonable for only 50 dollars. But you really don't need them to do anything with the game; you can create your own sounds, models, graphics, levels, weapons, monsters, and gameplay from all the available tools...
So id spends considerable amount of effort(4 people coding, 5 people on levels, graphics, sounds, and models) developing an engine and game, and except for the source for the engine, gives away everything. Yet for most it is defintely more convenient to buy to get all this base artwork and effort, and then modify off that and create your own. You pay for the effort and time they spent to do all this for you; if you don't want to, you don't have to, but you can't make money either without licensing their engine... So here is an essentially open source project making millions!
Of course Open Source purists would argue and find something wrong(feel free to comment!) and people who don't believe iD operates under any sort of Open-ness and makes it's money some other way will find things wrong(again, feel free to comment!)
AS
AS
It indeed doesn't work (Score:1)
Dude, like why can't your talk better? (Score:1)
Did I write 'like' once in that? i don't think so.
Since you have nothing but a personal attack on me in your reply I will infer
1) You don't like what I've written
2) You have nothing intelligent to say about it.
Dude.
Developers should compete on a level field! (Score:1)
Open Source is much less of a threat than Microsoft is. It's better to compete on a level playing field. The best thing to do is to develop software on an operating system that is owned by everyone.
More software developers need to get this message. Maybe some of them have realized, and that's why we're getting more and more software being released for Linux.
Quake is OpenSource... Sorta (Score:1)
The intent is very similar, I believe.
People have added, using dlls, clustering (a single game over multiple distributed servers), voice over network, and 3d sound as well as their own maps, levels, graphics, sounds, models, weapons, and gameplay, and re-release for free. You have to pay a licensing fee if you want to sell the game, since they put so much effort into providing the engine and such, but you also gets 100% access to the tools and source as well as help from id software... Sorta like contracting/hiring people to do your coding.
But if you define a game by its artwork, graphics, levels, gameplay, sound, and such, all that is 'free', in the sense of GPL open source, I think. It's just infintely easier to buy/use Id's base work for 50$ for a CD of 500mb of source work, rather than do it all yourself... But you are perfectly free to do so if you so want!
AS
AS
*sigh* (Score:1)
Yes, however in that context it was not a verbal crutch at all, but a completely appropriate usage. As far as I can tell from rereading my post, the one time I used "surfer slang" or whatever it is you are trying to suggest was when I said dude in the last sentance. So if you want to crucify me for that you're welcome, but it is really kind of boring. I'm all for flame-wars, but this is a little weak.
Obviously you think I'm full of shit and just mouthing off. Well, that's not the case. I am not just another do-nothing flamer, but have written linux device drivers. I actually have contributed to the OSS movement. But I don't really care if you believe me. Obviously I'm not going to talk about my program or any company I might found because then I would no longer be anonymous, would I. Nor will I actually point out the drivers that I've written.
Now, if you have something interesting to say about my post then I will happily continue the flaming. However, any more of this surfer crap and I'll just ignore you. It's really weak.
It's too early... (Score:1)
As for how to make money with a niche-market, open-source app, I'll suggest that these apps are PRECISELY the ones that depend on value-added services, such as manuals, support and packaged upgrade materials. Additionally, small-market apps have to overcome the same barriers to market entry as other software companies (the software distributors of the world like to buy from big companies, ya know...). By open-sourcing an app, you allow a wider initial audience for your product, increasing your chances of survival.
Wow...it was almost worth the read (Score:1)
Sure, Flame me. But it is my opinion..there are good reasons for linux, there are good essays, but this one needs a little work.
Linux (Score:1)
Open Source and commercial software have different motives and reasons behind them. There is really something in each of those models that can be sold to a particular market.
It indeed doesn't work (Score:1)
It's commercial software that requires you to start over from scratch.
Just remember the vast majority of programmers don't work creating commercial software. Most programmers are already hired by companies to create software for their own use in house. None of these people are worried about how much money they can make off of their software, because the software doesn't belong to them, and software is not part of their company's product line. They just want something that works.
It indeed doesn't work (Score:1)
RedHat make money on efforts of others and others can make money of RedHat's efforts.
gnumeric? (Score:1)
Quake2 (Score:1)
John Cash for networking
John Carmack for rendering and just about everything else
Brian Hook for graphics
Dave Kirsch for ports...
Surprisingly enough, just a handful of people can outproduce the entire Internet in terms of game engine quality, speed, and functionality... So much for Open Source and distributed programming... =)
Please, no insult intended, but Quake is now 2, 3 years now, Quake 2 is at least a year, and Quake 3 is literally a month or two away, and Crystal Space still isn't functional in any way close to being a game...
Of course there are level designers and artists as well, but they contribute to the game and not the engine, if you choose to separate the two.
I actually think Quake and iD software very much fits into the Open Source/Free Software model; the only things they don't release are the source for the rendering engine and the network engine. They release the coding languages like QuakeC, the game specs so you can modify to your heart's content, tools to create your own levels, and the information needed to create your own models, graphics, weapons, and tools to create your own games... What else is needed, really, for it to be Free or Open? Is there any benefit for us in releasing the network code or the graphics code?
AS
AS
RedHat doesn't make software? (Score:1)
Lets see...
www.labs.redhat.com
RedHat doesn't make software? (Score:1)
Right that's probably why everyone and their Grandmother doesn't program. However they also in general don't want to pay for a program that doesn't do what it's supposed to do until version 3.0 or the sixth patch. Answer: under Open Source the developers are less likely to hold to the attitude of "Just get it to compile" so the general quality of the code is higher.
Common misconception (Score:1)
Open-source software is also highly customer-driven, because customers directly contribute to and control its development.
This makes the assumption that those who develop or are able to develop for an OSS app are the best to provide feedback. This is often not the case, especially with usability issues - developers are often blind to usability problems and they don't often affect early-adopters/power-users, but it's a different story with the average, non-developer users that most user-interfaces are aimed at. The "average" user will only start using an app once it's in a post 1.0 stage, and if there are major usability problems they'll choose to stick with a commercial equivalent from a company that's funded proper user testing. As a result, many OSS apps suffer from major user-interface problems - even the ones whose primary purpose is usability (I'm thinking of GNOME here). I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem, but it's one that is easily overlooked, and statements like the one above perpetuate that.A reasonable voice in the OSS world (Score:1)
This essay illustrates a few points that many slashdoters can't seem to grasp. The fact that OSS isn't right for everything. It really pisses me off to hear people say that Quake2 should be open source. If the OSS movement is so perfect, then why is there no OSS 3d shooter? No demand? I think not. Millions of Quakers can attest to that. Perhaps the code is simply too involved, and requires full and prompt attention before it becomes obselete. And what about thousands of niche markets. I've never seen an OSS MRP system.
For all the talk of innovation in OSS, in reality I don't believe that there is a great deal of major innovation. Does everyone here honestly believe that every great idea sounds appealing on its face? So then how does one go about finding interested programmers when the project seems daunting or unappealing. Where would I go? Which page would I post on? Might it be that not every capable programmer is currently seeking out such a project. In commercial software atleast, you can hire people and get their attention with a salary. OSS is good for certain things, but not everything. Like the essay illustrates, Open Source is good to sort of fill in the blanks. When there is an obvious demand for the product, yet the existing commercial products are lacking in quality/support/etc.
One minor point. I think the author is wrong about why open source software exists. I believe that, for the most part, it exists to serve both the hacker and other advanced users. People write code to impress their friends, and what not. These friends are generally technically literate people. This is evident by the lack of easily digestible documentation, installation, and configuration(which the end user needs). Atleast Commercial software ultimately depends on the end user finding some redeeming quality in the product, which creates the demand that drives profits. The same can not always be said for OSS. That being said, I think OSS rules supreme in some areas. Such as networking APIs, security, etc. A thousand eyes looking at the code, improving technically upon it......
They never count (Score:1)
Actually, Red Hat does feed of the community, but as you say, they give something back. So, as I said elswhere in this thread, Red Hat is a Symbiont rather than a parasite.
Employers consistantly oppose open source projects (Score:1)
As for open source projects I've had floating around for over 4 years, the downloaders aren't downloading the source code to modify, enhance, and praise. They just want something for free. Obviously it makes you feel good, it makes Slashdotters happy, but you have to make sure you're already employed before you link the bombshell to a web site.
A reasonable voice in the OSS world (Score:1)
Ok so quake is a work of art. But I've yet to see even an OSS proof of concept model that even compares to the Quake 1 engine. In my opinion, the real meat and potatoes of these games is the engine and the client server code. As you point out, thousands of users have already created custom mods. How many people created Quake2? Do you know? It was certainly more than one man.
Gnome, Window Manager, etc are all nice and efficient code. But they certainly didnt invent truely improve upon the GUI in any major way. They've made the GUI code more efficient, removed alot of the bloat, etc.
Sophistry (Score:1)
Sorry but this just doesn't hold water. His assertion that Software makes money solely from marketing and/or position is ludicrous. Sure, we've got linux, MySQL and other various commercial replacements, but where is GNUMathematica? Where is OSSAutocad? Do you honestly think that projects at these levels are going to be written by the OSS community any time soon? I personally doubt it. And another issue that is glossed over is the role of the individual programmer. Say I have a good idea for a technically sophisticated program. I'm not talking a compiler or shell or even OS, but some special design program that fills a very specific need. How do I make money if I release this as an open source product? Do I really care if people know my name so I can *gasp* perhaps have a better chance of working for a company and making money for it? Why the hell would I want that if I can have my own company marketing my specialized product.
Sorry dude. I'll release device drivers and simple things like that, but forget about the real shit.
Id does more than just release source... (Score:1)
For free.
You can change and modify and release without paying a dime, as long as you don't charge for it. If you do, you pay the license, but that's it. You can create brand spanking new games from scratch, even without owning a legal copy, by downloading the binaries and patches iD releases, and then creating all your own levels, maps, graphics, sounds, models, etc...
Then of course they happen to like to release their source as learning tools and gestures of good will a few years after they stop licensing the product.
AS
AS
a free engine exists (Score:1)
and look at how well it's doing too
it's popularity amongst hobbyists is astounding
in fact it amazes me how many games are currently being developed for it as i type
ahh sarcasm...how i love thee
a free engine exists (Score:1)
Granted it is. But the engine is the skeleton upon which everything rests. My point is that it is still inconsistent with the strengths of the OSS model.
It does! Id software does it! (Score:1)
Id seems to be doing a dandy job with it's games...
And while it isn't open in the same way Linux is open, it is free...
You can actually download the binaries and dlls and such straight from id, I think.
Of course, you don't have the graphics, the models, the sounds, the levels, the weapons, or the gameplay... But you are perfectly free to use all the code, the tools, and the info to craft your own game from scratch. If you want to sell all of your effort, you just license from Id their engine, slap it on a CD, and burn, burn, burn.
It's also no secret that Id freely allows modification and customization of their stuff to anyone's hearts content. The original Quake engine had chess(Quess), racing(Quake Rally), a Descent-like game(AirQuake), soccer(Powerball), and many many more. All free, downloadable, and modifiable. Heck, there are even patches for distributed clustered Quake, voice over network, 3d sound, bots, capture the flag, and many other things... I'm not sure that they ever released their source, but surely is not because id doesn't release information!
AS
AS
a free engine exists (Score:1)
Quake is 2 or 3 years old now, Quake 2 about a year, and Quake3 just about a couple months from now... 3 functional games, engines, and tools before any real game is out or available from Crystal Space. Not to harsh the product or the project, but in a real sense allowing iD to specialize in producing great graphics and network engines while others produce the games, art, and gameplay is a very nice and convenient setup.
And it is free enough that you don't need to own the game to do any of this; The binaries and dlls are availble freely, and the tools and info to create the graphics, levels, maps, monsters, weapons, and gameplay to create things like Sin, Half Life, Heretic2, Kingpin, Daikatana, and Anachronix, among others.
I really doubt that Crystal Space will fill any niche other than people wanting to learn/extend their graphics skills, as people interested in making games are more likely to use iD's engines, and license them if they want to produce commercial quality games...
AS
AS
Another example of Open Source (Score:1)
RedHat doesn't make software? (Score:1)
You're assuming that software needs to be developed further at all. If it doesn't, then everyone can freely use it.
Entertainment software is something of a special case. And even then you can always do what ID does, and release the source once the game no longer is profitable.
iD games are sorta Open Source and they make money (Score:1)
Is the Intel PC platform OpenSource? What does it mean to apply OpenSource to the hardware? Yet Linux run's atop it, and it is OpenSource.
Then take iD's rendering and network engine as a platform that is closed source; the game itself is all open and non-proprietary, and if you so wish, by analogy, could be considered OpenSource.
In the literal sense of free and distributable source, the network and rendering engines are entirely closed and proprietary.
AS
AS
RedHat doesn't make software? (Score:1)
And you have every right to grab their distribution, rename it and sell it yourself. You wouldn't event have to add anything and it is perfectly legal (or you could modify it like mandrkae-linux did). Redhat is not preventing anyone else from making money off free software, so who do they harm?
I disagree (Score:1)
As for funding, who's to say you can't fund Free Software development? Surely not Alan Cox, who does get paid to write Free Software.
More than anything, Free Software exists to (if you'll pardon the borrowed expression) 'scratch an itch' a developer had. If a developer has the need (and in a lot of cases the specs, for eg their hardware) to develop, it'll be developed. It's as simple as that.
I disagree.. id isn't an OSS company.. (Score:1)
But Id's network and rendering engines, while closed and proprietary, are akin to Intel's PC hardware, the AGP, the Rambus spec, Slot-1, and Socket370...
It's not free, nor can you modify/change/rerelease it.
On top of this platform exists Linux and the open source movement.
Id provides a similar platform, via Quake/Quake2 technologies, and atop this platform many games have/are released, some commercially after licensing, some freely available.
AS
AS
The ever diligent and kind David Niemi...? (Score:1)
Speaking from my own experience, David's been very helpful when others at the LUG were there to show off their wonderous Enlightenment skills. Above and beyond, I'd say. My $.02 only.
I also like the paper. Essays are windows into opinion, and you can either learn something new from it or not. Sorry your experiences with the writer have been bad.
The OSS paradigm busters (Score:1)
Heard of Cygnus? Heard of IBM? Heard of Netscape? (Score:1)
And is IBM's open source project their *primary* source of income? Is Netscape's?
Quake is OpenSource... Sorta (Score:1)
Anyone can download the binaries, the tools, the editors, the resources to make their own game from scratch, without owning/buying/paying for any of the commercial products. However, you can't use the commercial sounds, the commercial models, the commercial maps, or the commercial graphics. If you decide to use any of the above commercial products, then you just can't sell or redistribute for payment for your product without a license; but free distribution is fine! Well, as long as you don't violate someone else's intellectual property(Aliens, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc).
What part of Quake/Quake2 isn't open? The fact that you can't hack around in the rendering engine or the network code? You can get free binaries of both, but not the source if a bug exists... Nor can you modify either. But you can modify the gameplay and game mechanics using dlls, libraries, and QuakeC, as well as the graphics, the maps, the weapons, the characters, the monsters, the sounds....
And it still makes iD software and many other upcoming design teams( Valve's Half Life, Ritual's Sin, Raven's Heretic, and soon to come Xatrix's Kingpin and Ion Storm's Daikatanna and Anachronix).
Any arguments or comments?
AS
AS
Close, but no cigar (Score:1)
Ghostscript is one of those unusual products that IHVs are willing to pay licencing for.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
RedHat doesn't make software? (Score:1)
---
the Gods have a sense of humor,
RedHat doesn't make software? (Score:1)
Other companies want to use the software. If it is missing something than they have to hire someone to contribute. Everyone profits because everyone gets to use the software.
Software is not an end. It is a means to an end. And under free software, everyone has the means to achieve any end that they desire. You can use the software to make profits doing something else without actually having to profit on the software itself.
Easy (Score:1)
RedHat doesn't make software? (Score:1)
But in my world, one I like to call reality, people make software to solve problems.