Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Free Software Development Goes Public 73

Posted by Roblimo from the welcome-to-the-big-time dept.
The original concept of free, Open Source software was that of programmers writing software they wanted for themselves and sharing it with their peers like poets writing work that only other poets would ever read. Now Open Source and free software are getting major attention. There is suddenly an adoring public out there beyond the footlights. And the presence of this audience is changing the entire Open Source "movement." (more below)

Coming Out of the Programming Closet
I remember the first time I suggested an improvement to a piece of free, Open Source software. The testy response I got was, "Learn to program and do it yourself." This attitude was similar to that displayed by what I call "academic writers," whose fiction and poetry is so obscure that no one reads it except other academics.

But in the last few years, I've noticed a slow change in attitude among the Open Source and free software developers I know personally. More and more of them seem to be thinking in terms of writing software that is useful to others, not just what they want for themselves.

There is nothing wrong with this. Artists need audiences. So do techies. Sure, it's nice to write a "deep" piece of fiction that only top-rung English professors will appreciate, but it's also nice to write something that a whole bunch of people will read and understand, and perhaps even write you a letter or e-mail now and then that says "Thanks. Nice work."

Playing an instrument, reading a poem or performing a dramatic work on a stage in a theater full of adoring fans is certainly more gratifying than doing it alone, in private, or strictly in front of other musicians or actors.

Let's not veer off into the skeptical-but-valid "Is programming really an art?" question. Let's just say that it is a skill that takes both talent and practice, and that not everyone can do it well. In this way, if no other, it is similar to acting, singing, and other performing arts. And there is no reason talented programmers shouldn't get the same level of recognition as talented actors and musicians.

Will Success Spoil Rock Codeson?
It depends on what you call "success." By monetary standards, Bill Gates is more "successful" than Alan Cox a million times over. But I know who I'd rather invite over for a beer, and I'm sorry, Bill, it's not you. I can also think of dozens of actors and musicians whose work I think is wonderful, but who have never been (and may never be) nearly as famous or rich as others for whom I have no respect.

To go back to the theatrical metaphor, there are plenty of marvelous shows that run for months in off-Broadway and off-off-Broadway theaters without taking in one percent of what a big-time musical like Cats can earn on a single weekend night. But the small theatrical productions often have better acting than what you see in the "major" shows. The music is often more interesting. Scripts in low-budget shows are often far superior to the blanded-down words used in productions with millions of dollars invested in them, that have been tested and revised in so many out-of-town tryouts that somuch life has been squeezed out of them that all they have to offer is glitz and glitter with little or no underlying value. The soul of theater, if you will, is in people working out on the edge, going beyond the norm, thinking with their hearts instead of reading market research studies and holding "focus group" sessions with audience members.

There is beauty in putting your heart into a creation, and there is beauty in watching others respond to that creation. Whether that creation is a song or a piece of code hardly matters; the "click" that comes from connecting with an audience can and should be there in either case. Actors generally recognize this, which is why there are dozens of small stage theaters in and around Los Angeles where screen actors perform - almost always unpaid - works that would never make it onto TV or into movie theaters. There is commercial success, and there is satisfaction. The two are not always the same.

Most of the "free software" writers I know make their livings writing commercial software or from some sort of programming-related consulting. But, like auto mechanics who build race cars on weekends for fun, when they go home they work on projects of their own choosing.

Mechanics who prove their creds on the racetrack always have their pick of the best "shop" jobs. Actors who get good reviews in small stage productions tend to get steady work in movies and TV. And a programmer who has gained recognition by doing excellent free software development is likely to have his or her pick of jobs. In this sense, fame gained by writing free software has direct financial value, and if it is widely-used software, not something that will be used only by a few other programmers, that value is increased substantially.

Building a Portfolio
When an actor, musician or writer goes looking for a job, he or she is expected to show potential employers or freelance clients samples of previous performed or published work. If that work has been performed or published to great public acclaim, so much the better.

Right now, programmers, like auto mechanics, are in short supply. A resume that says you have worked for So-and-So inc. for X amount of time, and have experience with Y language (or for the mechanic, on Z make of car) will get you in the door and will probably land you a decent job. And if you're satisfied with that, fine. The world needs ordinary grunt-work coders and ordinary "do brake jobs all day" mechanics. But in either field, the plum jobs go to those who can point to extraordinary individual accomplishments.

For the mechanic, the best proof of accomplishment has traditionally been the winning race car. For the programmer, the stellar proof of personal accomplishment is a popular piece of free software.

Look at Miguel de Icaza. A few years ago he was an obscure listing in the Linux Source, best known for his work on Midnight Commander. Today he's running a well-financed startup, and I'm sure he didn't have to look very hard for backers. But his work on Midnight Commander and other free software projects, even before Gnome made him famous, was more than enough to guarantee him not only an excellent living as a programmer, but complete freedom from "industrial-style" code writing for the rest of his life.

I suspect we'll see a lot more energetic, imaginative young programmers following in Miguel's footsteps instead of going into the highest-paying jobs they can find as soon as they can find them. Will some of them be doing this so that they can reap great financial rewards later? Of course! Not everyone can be a saint like Richard M. Stallman; Jean-loup Gailly, previously best-known as the principal author/maintainer of gzip, is now CTO of MandrakeSoft. And I'm sure there are countless others whose free software fame is getting them not only kudos but excellent salaries. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Passing Batons
We can sit around and cry about how free software developers are being "corrupted" by fame and money, but it's pointless. For one thing, just as the mechanic who gets promoted to shop foreman can still build race cars on his own time, and successful movie actresses often do unpaid stage acting on the side, there's no reason for people who use free software work as a springboard to fortune to give up their prior love. And many don't. They keep on doing what they always did, after work, on their own time. (And a few exceptionally lucky ones actually get to develop free software all day long for pay, but they're still a rare breed.)

But today's free software developers are not the be-all and end-all of the idea. Free software is starting to produce enough success stories that even if all of today's luminaries end up working for Microsoft, Adobe, and other big proprietary development houses within the next decade, plenty of new ones will come along, as hungry for applause as any group of talented young actors and singers.

And as more free software developers realize that by treating users as adoring fans - not as annoyances - they can earn even more applause, there will be more users. And more applause. And more developers. And if this upward spiral can become self-perpetuating, in a few years movie stars may be asking free software developers for their autographs instead of the other way around.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Free Software Development Goes Public More

Free Software Development Goes Public

Comments Filter:

  • First Post (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I finally get a first post. Cool. Now, to be on topic, its exciting to see a new idea like Open Source evolve before our very eyes. The coming changes will prove the strength or weakness of the concept, and whether or not it will become a dominant paradigm for future software development. I am glad to be a (potential) part of this evolution since my company may well be producing software which will end up as GPLed when completed (not sure at the moment of its status). This is not a concept we would have entertained a few years ago. Viva la Revolution!

  • Many just go for the underdog (Score:3)

    by Hanno ( 11981 ) on Monday November 22, 1999 @05:22AM (#1513159) Homepage
    I see a problem with the fact that many vocal supporters of the open source world are basically just here because it's the underdog.

    Right now, it's "cool" to do Linux so that you have a chance to diss those Windows lamers... (visit any usenet discussion about it.)

    Now that Linux starts being successful, it seems that many people already look out for the next underdog. With Linux usage not being a sign of Elite anymore...

    ------------------

  • MS (Score:1)

    by Rabbins ( 70965 )
    So what if Microsoft opens it's source code?
    Allowing the different tiers of their users the ability to use the "stock" version, or to customize it to their own likes and dislikes.

    That will not make the "alternative" quite so alternative (or atractive) to new users anymore.
  • because post modernism is a self reflective art, and you cant evolve past it, it is the top.

    The same thing applies to the open source software movement, you can't have a new underdog if the domminant group is FREE, it doesn't make sense. A ne OS, sure fine; a new language? No Problem, about time for D anywhay, but where could you go after open source?
    -Crutcher

  • I suspect we'll see a lot more energetic, imaginative young programmers following in Miguel's footsteps instead of going into the highest-paying jobs they can find as soon as they can find them.

    Young? But what about old farts like me?

    Jack

  • What's wrong with Open Source style development becomming commercialized? For quite a few products, it's a sensible move for the most part (depending on your choice of license), so I don't see any problems there. Corporate support of Open Source style development is the shot in the arm that many projects need - it allows people who worked on a project as a hobby to work on the same project as a job, something akin to being paid to do what you loved to do in the first place! As for the people behind the source becoming interested in making money, either from the work that they have done on Open Source style projects, or on projects independant of Open Source projects (IE - having a real job, or building a new company) - So? Most of them will continue to contribute as they have time for doing so, just like they do now. And the desire to have a decent life and not spend all of thier time struggling just to pay the bills isn't bad - nor is actually accomplishing the goal. As for the increased number of followers of the Open Source style development - I can only view that as a good thing. Yeah, new lamers come along into the scene (*SIGH*), but, new coders come along with that. More people are now working on projects. The people who did all the original work on Open Source style projects are getting credit and recognition for thier efforts. I can't see any of this as bad, and none of it seems like a corrupting influence. I'm still not sure what the point of this article was, to be honest. Was it to point out the personality of these people involved in Open Source style projects? Was it to point out that many of them are moving on and doing something different with thier lives? Was it to point out the obvious, that Open Source style development is getting a larger and larger following? I read it twice, just to make sure, and it's a very all over the road type of piece, IMHO, that seems to not attempt to address a single issue, but instead, just rambles. Next time, pick an area, and stick with it. (Yeah, you can moderate me down for that comment... but read the article again, and realize it's true.)

  • reality check (Score:3)

    by evenflow ( 62280 ) on Monday November 22, 1999 @05:43AM (#1513165)
    Making money on free software might be possible in theory, but in real life it's not that easy. I seem to get contacted by one or two companies every month nowadays with job offerings as a programmer (programming ordinary commercial closed source software). I don't know of any company I could apply for a job where I could be doing free source development.

    For every job where you get paid to write free software there are several order of magnitudes many more "commercial" closed source job offerings. And I don't see this changing in the near future either (sadly). Sure, open-source jobs might pop up here and there, but the majority of jobs available will be closed source jobs for a very long time to come.

    I'm now working more than half time and studying full time, and I don't really buy into that "code free software in your free time" argument (1) I don't have any free time 2) if I had any I'd go out for beer). Besides, full time development on an application can't be compared to putting down a couple of hours per weekend.

    And another point; the majority of ordinary companies don't care one bit about if you've done free source development. All that counts is experience from a commercial environment. (This is at least my experience from going to job interviews).

    And the comparsion between open source coders and artists is flawed. If I'm a real good actor I can get a job at a a theater. If I'm a real good open source coder I go to work on closed software. If I'm a really bad closed source programmer I go to work on closed software (might take a little longer before I get a raise though ;).

  • Open Source Problems (Score:4)

    by hburch ( 98908 ) on Monday November 22, 1999 @05:45AM (#1513166)
    'Open Source' is sucessful because the coders can get good jobs? Give me a break.

    The sucessfulness of open source should be base on usage, not on how much the people working on it make. Microsoft is not successful, IMHO, because it makes a lot of money, but because they sell so much stuff. Of course, they make a lot of money because they sell a lot of stuff, so there is a linkage.

    Apache is successful because it is wide-spread in usage.

    Linux is quasi-successful because it is wide-spread in usage for servers (but not nearly so for personal machines)

    Has Linus become rich? To the best of my knowledge, no. However, I would call Linux, as a open source example, much more successful than Midnight Commander (this is not a judgement about the quality of either program, just usage).

  • Young? But what about old farts like me?

    Same as ever. Your working style is as young as your mortgage, partner and kids will permit.

    "To live free and happily, one must sacrifice boredom.
    It is not always an easy sacrifice."
    Richard Bach, I think
    (Which I guess qualifies me as an old fart !)

  • Regression towards the mean... (Score:3)

    by Matt Bridges ( 97198 ) on Monday November 22, 1999 @05:49AM (#1513168)
    Looking at what has happened to the software industry as whole, it seems to be remarkably similar to a concept in genetics (and mathematics) known as "regression towards the mean." In this concept, a given community with a large degree of diversity (such as the set of companies in the software industry) will, in successive generations (or years), slowly move from a diverse set of subjects to a less diverse set where most companies hover near the mean in respect to various measurements. In the context of the software industry, an anomalous mutation (such as a hypergreedy company like Microsoft) skewed the mean, causing companies in the future to move towards the new way of business. Then, the widespread adoption of Open Source philosophies, (and maybe even the antitrust suit!) created a second anomoly that is balancing the mean away from the region Microsoft had skewed it to. So, to make a VERY (sorry!) long post short, do we as a movement want the mean to keep moving towards pure open source philosophies, or do we want the mean that future efforts will regress to to be closer to benevolent yet profitable companies like Red Hat and MandrakeSoft?
  • It will be interesting to see how Linux evolves once it becomes 'popular'. I'm always caught between the desire for Linux to hit it big (to redeem myself in the eyes of the unbelievers) and the desire to keep it a nice, obscure product hidden away from the disrespectful fingers of the 'ordinary user'. I migrated to Linux because it was a cheap, powerful operating system, but also because it had that sort of fringe appeal that I like. What will happen to our beloved Linux once Big Business gets involved? I wonder if there is anything fundamentally different about Linux that makes it immune to the pollution of popularity or if it will just end up like all the other money-making products on the market.

    Every revolutionary thinks they're going to change the world, but often when they usurp the position of power, they find themselves just doing more of the same. I'd like to think that the GPL is what makes Linux different, but it makes you wonder.

    Since Linux was built by open source developers, it will remain the great product that it is today as long as there are open source developers willing to work on it. However, if Linux loses it's appeal to these fringe developers (the cream of the crop), then it will surely go down the drain like everything else, and the fringe developers will start working on something that's more fun (Linux TNG).
  • where could you go after open source?


    Good question... How about enforced source? ;)
    Open source permits you to get the source for anything you want. The new, revolutionary enforced source license (FGPL) forces you to get the source, and allows you to use a product only if you pass its source on to at least 2 other people.

    (Did anyone actually try turning something into a virus by the license??)
  • I agree completely. I'm going to plug myself here, rather than try to restate my opinions in their entirety. This [slashdot.org] was on slashdot last August.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • I think Roblimo is absolutely right to say,
    There is commercial success, and there is satisfaction. The two are not always the same.

    Also I've been worrying a bit about the 'negative spiral' which results only in the goods bits of the "ivory-tower" nature of software becoming commercialised and lusers getting their hands on it, etc. To see the "upwards spiral" instead is much more enlightening - "by treating users as adoring fans - not as annoyances - they can earn even more applause, there will be more users. And more applause. And more developers."

    Now where was I with my book on ML...?
  • Something we need to keep in mind and watch when signing employment contracts is intellectual property agreements.

    A previous employer of mine owned any work I designed and developed related to my job whether I performed the work on work hours or off work hours.

    I wasn't a coder (just a router grease monkey) so it didn't concern me too much, but I suspect it could conflict with some GPL aspects if a company attempts to assert "intellectual property rights" on a piece of GPL/free software.
    --
    John Kramer
  • That's not really true. This has nothing to do with implementation. While the article focused on Open Source, the poster was suggesting that the software, as a whole (including Linux), is being taken up because it is the underdog.

    Following that, it's easy to see who the under-dog to underdogs like Linux are. BSD? Hurd, maybe? Anything that has less supporters is, by definition, the under-dog.

    To your last point, I can easily see there being an underdog to certain Open Source implementations. Look at the individual licenses: There are varying degrees of freedom in the Open Source world. The BSD license is arguably more free than the GPL license. That doesn't make it better, but since most of the free software out there today is under the GPL, it does make the BSD-license an underdog. It all depends on how you look at it, I guess.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Jingoistic Rhetoric (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If Open Source was so widely adored, we would not have to suffer a constant flow of propoganda being shoved in our faces on an almost deadly basis.

    This is merely another student trying to look 'cool' amongst his/her peers.

    Dont dignify this with further comment. CODE - its where the value of our worth lies.

    I appreciate that this is going against the dogma of the Nerd World, but what the heck - its still true. Moderators - just deal with it.

  • Has Linus become rich? To the best of my knowledge, no.

    There are other measures of success than the size of your income (it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it ;-) ).

    Linus is quite successful. He can have any programming job he wants, making plenty of money to live very comfortably, doing what he wants.

    If that's not success, then I don't know what is.

    ...richie

  • Open source has been around for a long, long time. Since the days computers were born, programmers have been sharing source code. It was the primary way people learned how to program (next to experimentation) since there weren't rows and rows of books that you could just run out and buy.

    Its just recently that its been given a Buzz Word of "Open Source".

    Open Source will only be commercialized if people think they can make money off of it.

    Major companies will not give anything away for free unless they see another way to get money from something "FREE".

  • Ok that's how to become a great mechanic and small plays make you great actor (that waitress must the best actress there is).

    But really how many people have landed good jobs from working on open source projects? Sure Rob gave a couple of examples but in the multi billion dollar IT industry there are a lot of great jobs. Certainly more than there are famous open source developers worshiped by slashdot readers.

    Any job can be gotten with resume successfull previous experience open source or not.

    • I don't know of any company I could apply for a job where I could be doing free source development.

    Well, I can't comment about your qualifications, but there are a number of companies offering employment for free source developers.

    To name a few; Cygnus, Red Hat, Corel, Caldera, SGI, IBM, Sun and Compaq all are employing people who primarily do free source development.

    There are any number of smaller groups that are trying to adopt an Open Source model commercially, giving away the source in hopes of making money on support. We'll see if they are successful.

  • Commercialisation can kill anything, music, movies, art, etc.... sadly Linux is becoming more commercial, but opensource is where it is going to be different, because the users, will *always* have the corporations by the balls. True, some may go on to make a great living from their early days of coding free software on free systems, but there will always be the new breed of geeky teens looking to quench their curiosty and keep the movement flowing. People are constantly looking for the alternative, linux met the desire of many frustrated windows users, promoting a "kewl" fresh image, which gained it instant popularity, but it will never become truly commercial because it can never be owned by one single company, it is truly free, and thus ever evolving, to make it just that little more 'leet' every time ;o) cheers [Avatar]
  • Well, think about it. If Windows was open-sourced, and became stable, it would only be a good thing. If Windows had been stable, or if Windows had been free or open-sourced from the beginning, there wouldn't really be any need for the "Alternative."

    The issue isn't something like "Linux vs. Windows" or "BSD vs. Windows" or "etc. vs. Windows" but it's free open-sourced software vs. closed-source software. and especially about freedom of choice. If M$ had the idea like "Windows is just one choice among many... we just try to make it the best." rather than "Windows is the only choice. You have to put up with whatever we give you." then I could stand it.

    Open source is great because it promotes excellence through programmers egos--coders want a peice of the pie, and writing bad code isn't going to get them a slice--where closed-source builds egos through the secrecy, it doesn't matter if your chunk of code sucks, nobody has to know anything more than you worked on this major program.

    Well, I suppose that was about $0.02 worth of words.
  • If you think that a licence being more free is not necessarily better, does it not follow then that a licence which is less free is not necessarily worse?

    Anyway, I don't really think that "most of the free software out there" is under the GPL, anyway. Look at X. Look at Apache. Look at the languages, like Perl, Tcl, and Python. Look at virtually all the stuff that comes with BSD.

    But I'm not sure that it matters.

  • Many people have said that the GPL is a virus, as it 'infects' any program its code it copied to, meaning that it too must be released as GPL.

    I don't agree with this description though - The GPL is not like a virus because it does not spread itself and it makes no attempt to replicate. The only way it can 'spread' is if an author chooses to release their code as GPL or chooses to include existing GPL code in their program. This process is entirely under the control of the programmer. A virus would not offer such choice.

    --
    MartinG.
  • Yeah, that's the media angle, and probably why some lusers are attracted to Linux. However, I doubt it is the motivation for a significant fraction of the developers or contributers.

    Not being able to fix a bug in an application you use and share the fix is so annoying for a programmer, once you have tried using free software.

  • Re:Some agreement (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think Roblimo is absolutely right to say,

    There is commercial success, and there is satisfaction. The two are not always the same.

    Yes and no... it is true, there's commercial "success" and there's personal satisfaction... when I try to explain to people why is it some developers "work for free", I always tell them that eventually, it boils up to the fun of it. There's people who think building model trains is amusing, there's people who think paiting or playing the piano is amusing... some of them are good at it, and some are amazing. It's the same with free software developers: they do it because it's fun. I do it, too, and I can tell you, the minute it stops being fun, that's the minute I stop doing it.

    And how can it be no more fun? Simple, when users (and here lusers is well deserved) start demanding stuff from the developers, "I want it and I want it now!". Some people have thick skins, some have ticker skins, but noone's skin is infinitely thick.

    The funny thing here is you don't have anywhere else to hide... sure, there was Windows with all its users, you just had to move to some form of Unix and you were "protected", but supposse Linux goes mainstream... if Linux goes mainstream, it will take BSD and everyother Unix along. It's the beauty of it, the thing is portable. Sure, there are some annoying details (signals, headers, file locations, whatever) but it's all easy to overcome in most cases. What's left? The HURD? I don't think so [debian.org]...

    Let me put it another way. When I was 14 people knew me as the kid who was skillful with computers. Eventually everyone I knew had a computer, and they kept me asking question about this and that, and I answered them merrily. But it got to the point where everyone was asking me about the stuff because I was this person who "knows a lot about it, is very kind and can explain things in a very simple way, go ask him", and I snapped. Suddenly, I was presented with Unix, a "new" thing, more interesting than plain old DOS and Windows. And a bit later I met Linux. And the best part of it was noone knew about them, so noone was going to be asking annoying questions on Saturday afternoon (of course, I realized this just a while ago, at the moment I was mesmerized by the fancy shell). Sure, they kept asking about Windows, and eventually about 95... but it became obvious that I had no idea what the heck a wizard was (beyond the D&D realm, that is) or how to change the backdrop in a PowerPoint slide (in fact, up to this day, I have never used PowerPoint) because I used "this weird thing Leenucks". But now they are starting to ask about it. They've heard or read about it in the news (WTH, I have helped it make it to the news, in my homeland), and I merrily talk about Linux, I explain all they want explained, and sometimes I even help them to get it installed, so it's starting all over again... one of these days I'll get a phonecall on a Saturday afternoon asking me why the printer is shifting the page one millimeter to the right when using KPresenter... and you'll hear me scream, no matter where in the world you are...

  • Several people have posted that there aren't really very many jobs for writing Open Source software. Many others have rebutted, naming RedHat, Cygnus (aka RedHat), Compaq, etc.

    But those are all technology companies, and there are many programming jobs that aren't in technology companies. Almost every medium-to-large company has an IS department that has real technology problems to solve every day, and it's in this kind of results-centirc environment that Linux and its kin have flourished in the past, and they still do today.

    One shining example of this is Burlington Coat Factory. They have been using Unix for about as long as there has been Unix to use. They have an IS department that is constantly creating and improving the software that they need to use every day to sell coats. They have long realized that opening the source code for many of their tools can only help them, and that by using Open Source tools that already exist, they can leverage good stable code as a basis for their own future improvements. People in thier IS department have been contributing to projects like lprng [astart.com] , and the Red Hat distribution. It is in no small part due to their positive experiences with these projects that they felt comfortable embracing Linux [computerworld.com].

    There have got to be plenty of jobs doing real programming work for non-technology companies where Open Source is so natural a solution that it's hardly worth mentioning, and thus rarely gets news coverage.

    I do not work for Burlington Coat Factory, although I have friends that do. I do not speak for BCF.

    --Chouser

  • Re:Open Source Problems (Score:3)

    by StenD ( 34260 ) on Monday November 22, 1999 @07:18AM (#1513189)
    > 'Open Source' is sucessful because the coders can get good jobs?

    That's a nice strawman, but Roblimo didn't say that The closest he comes is that some open source coders can get good jobs because of their Open Source work. It's not the reason Open Source is successful, but a result of it being successful.

    Similarly, Open Source projects are not successful because they have wide-spread usage. Some Open Source projects are have wide-spread usage because of Open Source being successful. Again, you're confusing cause and effect. I will say that the usage of a project is a better measure of its success than the jobs held by (or offered to) its developers.

    So, why is Open Source successful? I'm not going to regurgitate ESR's writings, but Roblimo adds a new factor which I don't think ESR touches upon. Traditionally Open Source writers have written what they needed, and released it to the world. If many other people needed the same thing, its usage became widespread, and it was successful. The change that Roblimo notes, before he burys it in a discussion of fame and fortune, is that Open source writers are now deliberately looking at what users want and providing it, while still working on things that interest them and releasing it to the world. While this is something that people like Linus have been calling for for several years, it's really just starting to show results.
  • The OpenSource movement reminds me of the software industry in the late 70's and early 80's. It seemed like the only people involved in computer work were the "geeks", and most did it more for love than money (and especially for the chance to use nice hardware, which was much more expensive then). Some techies came up with cool ideas, like the spreadsheet, and formed startup companies to sell them. When some of these startups became wildly successful, the money attracted business people; and soon managers (lots of them), and marketing departments were running the companies, with the techies subordinate to them. And techies were told to stop wasting time on their "cool ideas", because there was no market for them. Besides, there were too many Windows bugs that they had to work around before the next release.

    I see OpenSource as a reaction against purely profit-driven software, much of which is dull (as in how many Windows fix-it programs does the world need?) and lifeless (like, why are 80% of the game titles in the stores FPS's?). In fact, OpenSource reminds me a lot of Alternative Rock in the 80's, which finally swept away the cheesy disco and boring balads of the previous decade.

    Should the new software "artists" profit from their work? I certainly believe they should. And they should also be careful to keep control of it.

  • Let's look at things collectively and long-term here...

    There is commercial software. Commercial software operates on standard capitalism principles -- there's a demand, you create a supply, you profit off meeting the need. This system is self-sustaining because the profits of one product can keep a group solvent enough to go on to create another (or to improve further on their original design).

    There's free software. This is given out for free, for whatever purpose -- bragging rights, ulterior motives (like locking people into your platform or software model), or just because you're a really nice person who wants to share with the world.

    Then there's open software. This is often done for bragging rights, for philanthropic reasons, and one major added bonus -- it allows other people to help you get around the platform issue that a single person in a garage might not be able to handle (I don't have an SGI Irix machine around, but if I release something open source, I'm sure someone could pick it up and make sure it works on their Indy).

    Lately, commercial software has gotten a bad rap, and open source is in the limelight. The problem is that I personally don't see open source being self-sustaining. Look at this original message -- people writing the best open source code have lucrative day jobs. What happens if open source hits the marketplace in such a fashion that software companies can't compete aside from releasing free products (cf. DoJ vs. Microsoft [gpo.gov])? There are quite a few major software development firms out there, sustained by a commercial market. If open source is reliant on people who have lucrative jobs (and thus, the outside money to support the open source development), what happens when those jobs slim down? Are we all going to become graduate students looking for grant money for the rest of our lives?

    This is not to say that I disapprove of the free software initiative, or the open source efforts. However, I do not see either of these forms of software development becoming more prevalent (Drat, I can never remember how to spell that word) than commercial software.

    Worse yet, I see people's hangups on the whole free software thing has being detrimental to what they often support. Linux is a free OS. Great. How do you expect to get very high-quality applications for it if you're unwilling to shell out the money to support people doing concentrated software development for that platform? I put down $50 for LokiSoft's port of "Civilization: Call To Power" [lokisoft.com] and I fully plan to purchase Railroad Tycoon II as soon as I see it. These are quality software products that deserve my money, and I want to communicate to LokiSoft (and the rest of the industry) that I, for one, want to pay for high quality software.

    You can't live on high praise. For all those people giving their work out the public, THANK YOU sincerely and truly. But for everyone else, realize that free software is a privilege, not a right.


    --
    If it's not important, you can probably find it in...

  • The issue isn't something like "Linux vs. Windows" or "BSD vs. Windows" or "etc. vs. Windows" but it's free open-sourced software vs. closed-source software. and especially about freedom of choice.

    I don't think the issue is as much "open-source" vs "closed-source" when it comes to Windows vs something else. Or are you suggesting Microsoft, Sun, HP, SGI, etc are all in one camp, and *BSD and Linux in another? "open-source" vs "closed-source" is just one aspect - "Unix" vs "Windows" has many aspects that aren't related to closed-source.

    I can live without Linux or *BSD. I've only be using Linux just shy of 7 years. But I wouldn't be a happy camper if I had to switch to Windows. I'd choose a closed-source Unix over an open-source Windows every time.

    Quality is important. Open source can improve quality, but it's neither a necessity, nor a requirement.

    -- Abigail

  • I have written the same sorts of programs over and over again. I think you'd find it probably doesn't matter company-to-company that you are using the same code again, since you are using the same brain, so to speak.

    I haven't asked anyone yet, but perhaps if you talked with your boss about it, you might convince him to let you release the code. In any case, it doesn't hurt to ask. If the project needs to be done, say as polietly as possible, you'd prefer to release it under the GPL. Claim that people who use it must also release the source, so that in fact, you could have other people work for the company...

    The majority of companies don't know much about what open source development is. Heck, I had my boss say he was afraid if we wrote a game for Linux, we'd have to release the source or something. You could always point your browser to some page like freshmeat, and show how many people d/l'd your package, or to the credits list in the Linux kernel, and maybe people would think that's interesting. They might think you have initiative, but at worse, were some geeky computer hobbist, but they like the sound of people who work for free.

  • Any large retail business's system running Linux is important. Selling coats doesn't mean they're less relevant, neither is a business that sells dirt or sand or cheeseburgers. Their software is relevant, since POS software is a huge, huge market.

    And they are not the ONLY example, but probably the only one they thought of.
  • The issue isn't something like "Linux vs. Windows" or "BSD vs. Windows" or "etc. vs. Windows" but it's free open-sourced software vs. closed-source software. and especially about freedom of choice. If M$ had the idea like "Windows is just one choice among many... we just try to make it the best." rather than "Windows is the only choice. You have to put up with whatever we give you." then I could stand it. Hear hear! I find myself wondering if all the hub-bub about free software/open source is more of a desperate solution to the monopoly problem posed by Microsoft, than a real 'evolution' of software distribution principles. It seems as though open source is being approached as "the solution to thwart Microsoft", which it isn't. People also often forget the "common man" factor. Open source means dinkus to Joe Shmoe on the street. 99% of the people in the market wouldn't know how to compile open source software if it came with step-by-step instructions (Warning: Percentage pulled out of ass). So what's the benefit of open source to them? Quality, perhaps. Open source does benefit from the fact that people will be looking at the code, and the more eyes a piece of code receives, the more likely bugs are going to be spotted and corrected. Low cost, definitely -- open source software is usually free. But how about the most important factor in the market, convenience? Open source gets a big goose egg in that respect, I think. It is all about the freedom of choice, as you said. I don't think the free software/open source bandwagon would've gotten rolling if it weren't for the fact that Microsoft had no legitimate market competition in the mass market arena. Unfortunately, I don't think open source/free software is going to be able to change that on its own. It may help against the "barrier to entry", but it's not enough on its own.
    --
    If it's not important, you can probably find it in...
  • If open source is reliant on people who have lucrative jobs (and thus, the outside money to support the open source development), what happens when those jobs slim down?

    Nothing much. The market mechanisms work perfectly well in situations like that. Viz.

    Lotsa commercial software ->
    Lotsa developers with day jobs ->
    Lotsa free software ->
    Less commercial software ->
    Less developers with day jobs ->
    Less free software ->
    More commercial software ->
    More developers with day jobs ->

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    How do you expect to get very high-quality applications for it if you're unwilling to shell out the money to support people doing concentrated software development for that platform?

    It's a question of need and value. If you need a high-quality application, you'll pay for it (if necessary) -- by definition. If you don't need one, you won't buy it. And yes, I quite agree that too many people think that there is a right to free software, and yes, there ain't no such thing.

    Kaa
  • The analogies made are a bit misleading. Try to think of programmers as music performers. RMS is like those rock stars that are not very very popular but still admired wildly by enthusiasts of music. Well, actually trying to build systems targeted primarily, if not only, at average users is like trying to become like a pop star, say Ricky Martin.

    For the enthusiast your work will no more carry value. Sorry, I don't buy Ricky Martin crap. And I don't see why someone who is a "pop programmer" is really more likely to get a decent job.

    After all, I've got an autograph from RMS. It reads "Happy Hacking!" and that's exactly what I want to do.

    Read the GNU Coding standards some time, GNU proggys provide reasonable defaults and a basic usage but are highly flexible and contain advanced features. So... keep that in mind.

    .

  • I fear that Open Source as a 'movement' has a few stigma to surmount before it can really be successful in *my* eyes.

    I need to be able to depend on the authors who are out there to make good on their Open Source commitments and pledges. That is, if I hear that someone's planning to do something, that it actually get done. I can't make solid plans myself if I depend on someone else who doesn't follow through. This problem exists in Industrial/Commercial software too, but not to the same extent as the nascent Open Source community that is still figuring out how to be organized.

    Example One: Whether for good or for bad, there's little doubt out there that Microsoft will ship Windows 2000, and if it's not in the promised February, it won't be far behind, and press releases are made occasionally when there've been slips or advances along that path. IS departments founded on Windows NT are making plans around the expected release of Windows 2000.

    Example Two: the GNU pages list a lot of what has been written, but not a lot about what is planned. A few requests out there for hobbyists to slip in some changes, bug fixes, or pick up some project ideas, but not much in the way of "you can pick up GNU HotApp_1.4.605.3.tar.z in two weeks, and it will have HotFeature, HotGizmo and HotThingy completed. HotWishItem is planned for 1.5.000.0 in two months."

    Example Three: I won't say where I've grabbed this quote, but you can find it yourself with one click from the page you're reading now. It was written by someone I think is safe to call an Open Source advocate. It was written before the company that was responsible for posting it announced a pending stock IPO. It was written about ten months ago, with no visible change since then.

    You can download an ancient version of [the source code] below. Someday I'll post a new version, but honestly its a lower priority to me than it ought to be. I'm to busy ironing out kinks and adding features to take a couple days and create a distributable tar ball. It'll happen, but not tomorrow. I'm already working pretty much every waking second of the day.

    It's almost as if we're the pre-1988 Olympics of software. No corporate branding, no professionals in the competition, nobody but amateurs who write code for the sport of it, for the achievement of pushing the envelope. I say almost because many if not most of the developers of Open Source code are doing it in their "copious free time," not as a job or profession. The phrase "copious free time" is always said with sarcasm, because there's never enough time to get to those lower-priority things like writing code that someone else might need. Packaging an after-dinner software project doesn't buy the dinner, while packaging software written at a day-job does.

    I certainly don't want Open Source to be more Industrial or Commercial than it is, but until Open Source is treated as a professional pursuit, with published goals and objectives that can be met by the people who pick up projects, then we're stuck where we are... bad as it sounds, a "fringe" group instead of a powerful force that can succeed.

  • In the way I read the article the author meant that the "open source" philosophy and not the products were successful. And the fact that developers can now make their lives only conding open source software (be it midnight command, Linux or apache) is a very good sign that the idea of open source is working and has given another step into a wider acceptabilility (is this a word?).

    --
    "take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabitt hole goes"
  • Lotsa commercial software ->
    Lotsa developers with day jobs ->
    Lotsa free software ->
    Less commercial software ->
    Less developers with day jobs ->
    Less free software ->
    More commercial software ->
    More developers with day jobs ->

    This cycle is definitely possible, and probable, but one big question would be how long it takes to happen.

    Look at what would be needed to break the barrier to entry that free software would present -- If the world becomes accustomed to using decent applications for free, what market will there be for someone who wants to charge $20 a copy? In light of the Microsoft Maneuver, is there any possibility that anyone can, in the forseeable future, produce a web browser that they profit from, regardless of what platform it ran on?

    Once there are satisfactory products in the market that have zero cost to the consumer, it becomes extremely difficult to promote and profit from a pay-for product. Unfortunately, without some form of income, further development is often stymied, either due to lack of time (because of the need to maintain a personal form of income, ie. day job) or resources (why work on a product that can't be sold when you could work on one that can?) I think perhaps AOL [aol.com] is finding this scenario with their acquisition of Netscape [netscape.com].

    Profitable software ventures now become a question of being the first in some niche, rather than producing a superior product. Be the first, grab the market share, make a profit quick before someone else undercuts you. As you said, "Lather, Rinse, Repeat".

    "Invent, Bail, Repeat"

    Free software is at a stage now where it's forcing commercial software to improve itself. But I think there's going to come a time where it's going to OVERachieve this goal, and will simply put many commercial sources out of the market. Is this good? Is this bad? Probably a little of both. A high quality free product can more easily create a monopoly than one that has an associated cost. However, it is in even more danger of causing a stagnation in development. From a profit standpoint, there's no reason to compete with a free product, especially if it's of a high enough quality.

    If Apache could do everything IIS could do (and vice versa), but IIS was 1% more stable, would you pay $100 for that bit of improvement? $50? $5? The market has been fighting in terms of functions, not quality. It's as though Ford tried to make their Pintos more appealing by giving them flight capability rather than fixing the exploding gas tank problem. Compare:

    "Sure, the Pinto explodes occasionally, but it does something the Chevy doesn't -- it can fly!"

    "Sure, IE opens your computer to viruses, but it does something Netscape doesn't -- it can use ActiveX controls!"

    Unfortunately, unlike a flying Pinto, it's much easier to sell added features than it is to sell improved quality. Laypeople just don't understand (or care about) why Linux is seen as better than Windows, or why so many people hate Microsoft products.

    I'm babbling again. Sorry.


    --
    If it's not important, you can probably find it in...

  • I have seen several posts on this saying things like "Now that Open Source software is out in the mainstream," and "Now that everyone knows about Open Source," etc etc etc. But from what I've seen very few normal (as in not /. readers) people know about OSS. I work for a training and tech support company, and I have talked to several of my coworkers, (who granted are not geeks but they do work with computers everyday) and I have only found one that didn't say "Open Source? What're you talking about?"

    All I'm trying to say is that I don't think OSS is as popular and mainstream as some people have proposed. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just want to throw a reality check in.

  • <SARCASMGreat, art is dead. What am I going to do with all this poetry?

    Someone tell Judy Chicago, Norman Mailer and Krzysztlof Kieslowski, I'll get the lights.</SARCASM

    Post-modernism is a critical stance, subject to the whim of fashion and the dead-hand of time; art is in no way so constrained.

  • My biggest problem is that I have to hold a real job to pay my rent and buy pizza and computer parts which blows quite a bit of my time. Does anyone else really feel like programming by the time they're done getting their brain pumped all day? Now and then I do but it leads to slow coding. I've always found I write my best code when I can do it in a solid stream. Y'know sit down and don't get up for 3 days and when you look you have some wonderful amazing piece of code. My usual attitude is once I've done it then I throw it out to the community (I've never actually licensed code but if I had anything I deemed perfect it'd probably be GPL'd instead of public domain) and let them build off of it. While some of my code has been highly used it is usually highly specialized stuff that 99.999% of people would have no idea what the description even meant. Any idea how to turn such things into a nice job that lets me code GPL'd stuff for a living?
  • Why are all these comments trying to figure out a way to 'Pay' for the free software being produced? Writing free software demonstrates a freedom that shows that businesses are limited to a selfish ideaology. Even one of the main points of the original article(?) was that open source development was popular enough to get someone a high-paying job. Selfishness permeates our society. Most people constantly hope they can get a big raise or higher paying job or position. We try to train ourselves to increase our potential worth. Commercials target our desire to be better looking to be more successful. My CEO said in my last company newsletter, 'and we know why we're all here...to make money.' (Maybe taken slightly out of context though.) What drives free software? Stallman says he doesn't do it for money, or fame, or even thanks. Basically, he says he does it for the way of life. On a very basic level the selfishness of business and the ideaology of free software are incompatible, maybe even opposite. At a convention Stallman told O'Reilly they were hurting the Open Source Movement by not providing "FREE" documentation for the "FREE" software. Why you ask? He says it's because noone will create the documentation for free if there already is an available supply of quality docs. Working for free does work. There are volunteer fireman, police, EMT's, greenpeace, missionaries, etc. etc... Maybe Open Source is the software version of the red cross.
  • I realize this comment will be orphaned as soon as the above post gets moderated down as flamebait, and I shouldn't be responding to flamebait in the first place. But the alternative is actual work in MS Hell, so what the heck.

    If Open Source was so widely adored, we would not have to suffer a constant flow of propoganda being shoved in our faces on an almost deadly
    basis.


    If you suffer from reading /. to the point of finding it deadly you really ought to stop. It's not that interesting.


    This is merely another student trying to look 'cool' amongst his/her peers.


    As far as I can tell, Roblimo is an old geezer. Hardly a student.


    Dont dignify this with further comment.


    Spoilsport.
  • "There are volunteer fireman, police, EMT's, greenpeace, missionaries, etc. etc... Maybe Open Source is the software version of the red cross."

    "Money makes the world go 'round". It's a question of whether or not the state is self-sustaining or not. There are volunteer firemen, police, etc, but they are supported by public funding. Greenpeace is supported by donations, as are missionaries. See the common factor here? Money. Free software doesn't have money coming into it. This all but precludes any form of dedicated development.

    This creates a major drag factor on free software development. There's a reason the land speed record was broken by a guy with boku commercial sponsorship, and not buy that guy tricking out his car on weekends. Concentrated development, where sundry concerns of how to pay for the pizza you eat every night in front of the keyboard are addressed and no longer a problem, is always more effective than spare-time development -- either more effective by being more robust, or simply more effective by being faster.

    Money is the difference between cable access major networks. What are the chances a cable access show done by some guy on their weekends is going to be of better quality than something that people are working on 40 hours a week? Pretty slim. Open source/free software is the cable access of the software world. There are a few gems out there ("Wayne's World, Wayne's World, Party Time, Excellent!" ;) but it doesn't have the market reach or the funding to truly compete.

    What it does have going for it, however, is that the costs to do development are very small; perhaps that's the only reason why free software is becoming so successful -- the physical outlay of money is negligible these days.

    It's like a food chain, where everything (supposedly) goes around in a circle. Little fish eat plants, big fish eats little fish, big fish dies and provides fertilizer for plants, which get eaten by little fish, etc.

    Commercial development reflects this cycle. Group uses money to develop product, product gets bought with money, which the group uses to develop next product. Take the money out of the equation, and things start to look grim: Group uses money to develop product, product distributed for free, group does not have money to further development -- the cycle breaks. There HAS to be some influx of time and/or money into the cycle to be sustained. Free software, if it were to dominate the "market", is not self-sustaining, primarily because of money.


    --
    If it's not important, you can probably find it in...

  • What a great deal of the posters have appeared to have missed is that development of Open Source products contribute to advertising your skills.

    The most important thing about this form of advertising is that you are telling potential employers/investors that, given a completely free reign, I can create high quality, groundbreaking software

    Posters have noted that you'll get a job, if you've got a good resume, open source or not. While that is true, if you're stuck doing VB hacking in Microsoft hell, contributing to other projects can show potential employers that you've got more strings to your bow.

    Besides, it's fun. And that's the most important reason to me.

  • If the world becomes accustomed to using decent applications for free, what market will there be for someone who wants to charge $20 a copy?

    None. But you speak of this as if it were a Bad Thing -- why? I see no harm in the fact that if something if freely available, people find it hard to charge for it. Of course, people who used to make a living this way (SCO UNIX comes to mind) could think it's unfair to them, but OTOH nobody ever claimed that life is fair...

    Once there are satisfactory products in the market that have zero cost to the consumer, it becomes extremely difficult to promote and profit from a pay-for product. Unfortunately, without some form of income, further development is often stymied

    Again, the market will decide. Let's say there is a free piece of software that draws reasonably cute wiggles on my desktop. I like it and use it, it fulfils my needs. I don't need cuter wiggles and will not pay $20 for a commercial program which has them. On the other hand, let's say I am a day trader. There are free market-tracking programs, but there is that $200 program that gives me information 5 seconds faster and in a better format. Will I buy it? Hell, yes. I need these five seconds and am willing to pay for them.

    In other words, it's worth improving the software only if there is a need for the improvement. If everybody is happy with the 95% solution that is free, so be it. The last 5% will never be finished, but that's OK because the time and energy for the last 5% will get channeled to something else, likely newer and more interesting.

    Kaa
  • "In other words, it's worth improving the software only if there is a need for the improvement. If everybody is happy with the 95% solution that is free, so be it. The last 5% will never be finished, but that's OK because the time and energy for the last 5% will get channeled to something else, likely newer and more interesting."

    Don't you think this might lead to a stagnation in software development? It sounds like a marketing rule (which it probably is), but it's true to some degree: "People don't know what they need until you tell them." My mother doesn't know anything outside of AOL, and probably never would if I didn't tell her about various things. She doesn't know, she doesn't care. Ignorance is bliss.

    Software has advanced primarily because there are companies out there trying to make a buck. The competition for market dollars is what's kept people developing new/better applications. Development under a pure pro bono scheme would be slowed horrendously due to outside factors.

    It used to be, "Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door." But the software world is moving away from that. We've got mousetraps, but the market isn't looking for better ones -- only different ones.

    Maybe it's not because of free software that developers are being forced to look for "new" rather than "improved" -- perhaps it's the general public doesn't understand the products enough to see the value of "improved". How many Windows users realize just how unstable their operating system is? How many would believe that having to reboot their machines every three hours is simply the de facto standard among operating systems? How many could understand why OS/2 Warp was so much technically superior to Windows 3.11? Probably very few.

    But they can see the difference in functionality. They just have to compare the boxes on the shelves. Slap a label on the box that says, "Now with new Widget support!" and the customer automatically knows this is a superior product. Doesn't phase them in the least that the software still contains the same bugs they've put up with for the last three years, new Widget support is obvious progress, and certainly must be a better product!

    We're a bunch of technogeeks. We know better. But what a lot of us don't usually remember is that we are the minority. By a LOT. How many people buy new cars based on the type of welds used on the chassis, compare that to how many people buy cars because they look cool, or because they have an in-dash CD player rather than a tape deck?

    Of course, all this conjecture is based on the idea that a specific free software package becomes the dominant package in some area. This has probably already happened in one or two places, but for the bulk of the market, probably has not, and probably will not, especially if the problem set is complex enough. It will be interesting to see if this happens, but my guess is that it will not be able to compare to the rapid development cycles that can be provided for by commercial development environments.


    --
    If it's not important, you can probably find it in...

  • My current employer has an IP agreement but it is only for work I do within work hours or on work equipment. The software I develope on my own (out of hours and on my own equipment) is my own.

    At one time I was going to do some part-time work at a local Radio Shack. Their IP agreement stated that all work I did, on their time or my time was theirs. So I'll never work for Radio Shack unless that has changed (and I need a part-time job).
  • I have to say that this all sounds somewhat convincing, but I think we're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
    People program because they enjoy programming.

    This is self-evident, but it's necessary to consider it simply because from the business point of view, you put money into one side of the equation, and out comes code on the other. This is a more a situation of: If a tree grows in the forest, will it die if no one waters it? In the wild, we have countless examples of species that prosper without intervention, and in many cases, intervention or interference can kill the said species. Open source programmers produce an end product that benfits many, with little or no contribution from others. They may do better with help and more resources, or they may not. The fact is, they are a naturally-occuring resource and will continue to produce as long as they are able and willing. Likewise, short of contributing to this resource, there is little way of increasing their output. You might as well ask the tree in the forest to grow faster.
    You are in no place to make demands on the programmers out there. The reason open source succeeds is because not only can you contribute to the project by giving resources, you can also essentially "join the species", and increase the population of producing individuals. This is why projects can live beyond their current maintainer, and what makes open source so incredible. As long as there are interested, capable people, there is growth and increased quality, diversity, and output.

    To come full-circle, businesses can take advantage of these resources, but only to a point. They can then add to the value of the resource by contributing themselves, and that's the missing link (IMHO) to legitimacy and the schedules people want.
  • Well, this is all very droll. We cn see the new direction that open source is taking, but the real question is "Will it survive??"

    Back in the old DOS days I released some high memory drivers for the 286 (Still needed at the time so that you could access a full Meg of memory) for free to the internet and BBS'es. Alot of people used these things. Then AOL started listing them for download. Now I spent too much time responding to user mail, and on into the 486 era, I would get the occasional rude paniced phone call asking me why my program didn't work.

    Those of you who run LUG's know what I'm talking about. We gave out LUG info to get noticed, and now our home phone #'s are splattered across the Red Hat pages, Linux.com, etc... Now I get phone calls at 9:00 A.M. and I work nights. Needless to say I am none too cordial when woken up. (BTW, attempts to get this info off various pages does not work. If the offending site takes it down, some other site has picked it up before then and the cycle perpetuates.)

    With a market share equal to that of Microsoft would the community crumble or flourish??

    The future of Open Source is much more likely going to be a corporate/individual shared effort.

    For Linux to survive, the Open Source movement will need to evolve to encompass corporate culture as well. Look at Rasterman and Red Hat.

    Bleach and boobaroo!
    Jason Maggard
  • Both the article and many of the comments don't mention the fact that there are a growing number of programmers who made enough money from "paid" jobs to have the choice not to work for money, or at the very least, to be very choosey about what kind of work they do.

    I am one of those people, and I write open source, zero cost software for electronic music composition and processing. I do this as almost a full time job (well, it seems that way). I do it because I like programming, I like creating music, and I like combining both interests in a context that is free of commercial BS.

    The company I helped start has produced several hundred paper millionares, and quite a few actuals. There are stories like this happening a lot these days, and it has the potential to create a pool of programmers who can choose to do things their own way.

    I don't honestly know how much impact this will have, but I think that it will have some.

    --p

  • You are so amazingly ignorant it frightens me. Many IS depts use Linux internally. More than you can POSSIBLY imagine. IS is not high profile. IS does not market a product to the consumer. IS has no need for advertising. IS has no need for market share. IS has no need for focus groups. IS has no need for people like you.

    The original poster is correct. IS needs solutions that work, NOW, that can be debugged NOW. Not by a deadline. Not when tech support calls you back 3 weeks later with a reference to a completely useless "Knowledge Base" entry for a bug fix they have renamed "supplement". Not to meet an RFP. Not to meet some PHBs retarded marketing requirements. Get a real IS job before you even start to comment.
  • I think there are a few very valid points here, but the one i'm interested in is working on these projects. I'm a newbie to linux and to programming. Hell i haven't even been able to get my sound card working yet, but i'm more then eger to find a project and start cracking. The problem is, and i will go out on a ledge to say i'm not alone on this, is where to start. I don't have a good idea (yet) myself, and i don't even have a lot of coding experance yet, but i know some C and i'm willing to spend a bunch of hours over this long winter break, in front of my computer. i've always learned by trying to code in the past. I'd love to hear how some of the more influencial people, to linux, got their start. Do i just knock on someones door and ask if they need help? Especially with the widespread fame of some these programs. what if i screw up, i'll never be allowed in on a project again! well, i may be thinking about this a little too much, but i'd love to hear someone else's story.

  • Traditionally Open Source writers have written what they needed, and released it to the world. If many other people needed the same thing, its usage became widespread, and it was successful. The change that Roblimo notes, before he burys it in a discussion of fame and fortune, is that Open source writers are now deliberately looking at what users want and providing it, while still working on things that interest them and releasing it to the world. While this is something that people like Linus have been calling for for several years, it's really just starting to show results.

    *I* think it's because with GNOME and KDE there is enough growth and transition in the platform that *I* can prefer it to what else I can use at work, all day, 24x7.

    Now that I can use what I want (and be productive). There is a lot more incentive to add new programs that make *my* life better. I'm not really seeking out an Open Source project so much as I have a whole lot more itches that need scratching. In essence: the itch domain is much greater than it was last year. Last year I didn't do Linux on every machine I own. I'm not the only one either, and that's important too.

    So I keep Hyping and Hoping because soon there will be a critical mass too.

  • Don't you think this might lead to a stagnation in software development? ... [snip] ... "People don't know what they need until you tell them."

    Nope. Remember, the 95% are already ready. Completing the last 5% will not create anything *new* -- it is polishing we are talking about. The situation is actually the opposite: because the market for a particular type of software is saturated, people are forced to try completely new approaches and somebody somewhere will make a breakthrough.

    Software has advanced primarily because there are companies out there trying to make a buck

    So far, no. Advances in software mostly came either from individuals (who may have started companies later on) like Dan Bricklin who invented a spreadsheet, or from academia, where most of networking was developed, or from corporation think-tanks, like Xerox's PARC. The situation may change, but so far it's not the profit motive that's been driving innovation in software.

    perhaps it's the general public doesn't understand the products enough to see the value of "improved"

    Or perhaps their needs are different.

    How many people buy new cars based on the type of welds used on the chassis, compare that to how many people buy cars because they look cool, or because they have an in-dash CD player rather than a tape deck?

    Very few, and that's *normal*. I am, probably, a technogeek, but I don't care about chassis welds and I'll tell you why. Better welds will, most likely, give me a couple of percent better probability that my chassis will not fall apart after 100,000 miles (speaking off the top of my head, but you get the idea). I don't care about that. These couple of percentage points are too insignificant and too far away into the future for me to care. A cool look, or a CD player, on the other hand, are here and now and I'll use them every day. So I would argue that picking a car based on its looks as opposed to chassis welds is the right thing to do.

    Of course, all this conjecture is based on the idea that a specific free software package becomes the dominant package in some area. This has probably already happened in one or two places

    Yes. Emacs is the primary example. Basically, for a long time nobody has been developing text editors because emacs already does it all sufficiently well. Sure there can be improvements -- for example, I would like to have Emacs with perl as the internal language, rather than lisp (switching one's thinking mode from lispish to proceduralish (C, C++, Perl) and back is hard and painful). However, Emacs is what is known as a "category killer" and unless somebody can come up with a major breakthrough in functionality, Emacs is going to remain king of the hill.

    Kaa
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Close