The lesson learned from open source...

onequestion
reply to post by tanka418

 

Oh you took the technical side of things to serious. That was just an example.

I'm sorry; I thought you were discussing "lessons learned from Open Source"...my bad...bye

Linux is awesome, I just recently made the switch over to the open source operating system. I was thinking that maybe someone could make a complex machine capable of manufacturing itself with raw materials, and hand it out for free. Like a super sophisticated 3d printer capable of replicating almost anything. The only thing it would require is the raw materials, and energy, but if everyone had such a machine, they could make there own energy generating machinery. It would be like real life Minecraft ha ha.

reply to post by tanka418

Windows is available to any one who can program.

How so? Just because .NET is open source doesn't mean the Windows OS is open source. It is commercial software which costs money.

And the security advantage...In windows I have to try to "de-compile" the OS to figure out what's going on...with Unix/Linus...I can just read the source code.

Security through obscurity is not security at all.

I agree, Linux is wonderful. Both pclinuxos, and mintlinux are the easiest to use, and you can run some of the games with wine, such as world of warcraft.

I finally bought windows 7 to dual boot, as a platform due to microsoft taking over skype and interfering with webcams working.
Its like being in the dark ages when technology is advancing and suddenly its thrown back 20 years because of the dark forces ensuring things don't work well anymore.

I don't believe large entities, such as skype, should be allowed to be bought out by other big players, like microsoft, but that once established, the software should have been open sourced and belong to the people.

onequestion
Does anyone notice how the best system is the one thats free and thats open and available to everyone? Can and would that idea apply to other things in our economy? Could that work with anything else or am i just seeing something that isnt there?

I think its there! Its why the open source market is going to boom, imo.

We have a lot of smart people in our world, and they are not all employed by proprietary corporations. By using this to our advantage, we can advance products and technologies significantly more quickly. Proprietary corporations actually have it in their best interest to stall technology and have a controlled and steady stream of advancements (to gain the most profit).

Something like the Arduino board is a prime example. In the relatively short amount of time it has been available, the market for it has expanding like crazy. All they do is tell you how to build it, but also offer a pre-built version for a reasonable price. Not only do they encourage their market to hack their product, the have specifically designed it to be easy to do. Instead of controlling the market to create dependence on their product, they enable their market to become independent and self-sufficient. In the end, the technology advances more quickly.

We can focus on the value of the real world (the product and its relevance to our lives) rather than the advancement of a CEO's bank account. The internet makes this possible, in that you can instantly communicate ideas with anyone else who is connected.

You can technically have EVERY great mind in the world working on any project they wish, rather than having the requirement of employment by "X" corporation and an NDA.

I think that as participation grows, we will start to see a shift in a lot of things. I talked about this in part 2 of my signature. I actually think that by doing this, it has the possibility to create an entirely different kind of market and economy. Of course, one that will inevitably have problems all of its own, but might have more real world value.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by tanka418

 

How so? Just because .NET is open source doesn't mean the Windows OS is open source. It is commercial software which costs money.

And just "why" would you need access to the kernel? Do you know what an OS does? How it does it?

Security through obscurity is not security at all.

This is NOT security through obscurity>" As you put it...it is the way software works. When you have a compiled application, and no source code; One can only de-compile, and guess at what the software engineers were "saying". When One has the Source code, it is all laid out plain as day. Thus any hope of security is lost, since everyone can see exactly what is involved in your security schema. Thus no security at all...

The reality is that open source actually does very few people any good at all, and, it saves virtually no one any money. Most of it is "critically incomplete"; meaning that it is only a small part of a good idea, that typically doesn't work. The end result of most open source software is an increased "cost of ownership" over the "commercial" flavor of the same thing. An example: recently I was asked to give a website the ability to send PDF's. Commercial library to do this was around $500 vs open source. Would almost seem a "no brainer", the free open source should be the best choice; right?

Wrong...While the commercial was only $500, the free open source software was in such a condition that it could not operate in the environment required. It wouldn't bee too difficult to modify the library, but that could take 15 - 20 hours (including testing, etc.). The cost just became too great...now it's $500 commercial software vs almost $1000 for the open source.

Linus is a fine operating system, and works very well in environments like your car, phone, TV, or just about any other appliance, other places where Windows is not appropriate. But, Linux is most definitely not a general purpose operating system.

tanka418

onequestion
reply to post by tanka418

 

Oh you took the technical side of things to serious. That was just an example.

I'm sorry; I thought you were discussing "lessons learned from Open Source"...my bad...bye

Oh don't go away. This is a Gray Area (abstract thinking) thread. The OP had a figurative starting point, operating systems, but the open source philosophy can also be applied to other areas of human interest.

If I interpreted the thread correctly... as an example... the OP (hope I get it right) is openly speculating how the open source software philosophy could infect and assimilate the current closed system of world control groups.

It's not plausible to take up arms that would be lead to the exact opposite... another closed source system with agents protecting it.. The correct pathway to overcome closed source is to infect the cell, fight the agents who protect it, assimilate the organism and then copy that program until a fully realized open sourced government operating system is achieved.

That whole entire process requires investment, beta testers and marketing. In anticipation of a post-scarcity economy and an open source government, open your bios port to the open source primary code.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Well said good siiiir!!!

onequestion
reply to post by abecedarian

 

The plight of the artist continues.

I feel your pain... it's an all too familiar companion of mine. That often comes with thinking and, at least mentally, being outside the box.

I'm pretty sure I got the gist of your OP on first reading. Some might see it as leading to anarchy, most won't or, for whatever "reason" , can't even begin to understand. A few visionaries of the "what if?" type will grasp the concept and do their best to run with it.

reply to post by MacroHawk


Its always worth it if even just 1 visionary grasp the concept and runs with it.

Doesn't work as well for games. I've played a lot of games over the years and the open source games just do not measure up to the commercial games. There're a lot of good bug free open source games, mind you, I can't disagree. I just think if you're talking about who is putting out the most and the highest quality, it's commercial - no argument. I'm doing a facepalm right now.

Look at movies for example. Can you think of open source movies that can compare to Jurrasic Park and Avatar and the prequel Star Wars movies?

The problem is open source is great in small doses, but when you start talking about everything being open source then you're talking about a different world with a different set of circumstances and there's every possibility open source would not be better or even if it was there would be other compromises.

It costs time and money to make things whether it's software or not. Software development is just like any other job out there. Nobody is going to work for free unless they can afford to. If you're talking about the highest talent in the market, money tends to win the contest because people need to pay their bills.

I do not think we'd have PC's at this time if it weren't for Windows. Linux cannot say the same thing. IMHO, Linux received a free ride and now it's taking it for granted like a spoiled child. Linux couldn't do the heavy lifting because the heavy lifting required $$$$$$$$$$ - people require $$$$$$$$.

Personally I think you're talking apples and oranges. Windows has its place and Linux has its place, do not mix them up like they're equivalent. I'm not saying Windows won't fall from grace and Linux won't take its place, rather I'm saying all things considered, they each have had a role to play.

jonnywhite

It costs time and money to make things whether it's software or not. Software development is just like any other job out there. Nobody is going to work for free unless they can afford to. If you're talking about the highest talent in the market, money tends to win the contest because people need to pay their bills.

I do not think we'd have PC's at this time if it weren't for Windows. Linux cannot say the same thing. IMHO, Linux received a free ride and now it's taking it for granted like a spoiled child. Linux couldn't do the heavy lifting because the heavy lifting required $$$$$$$$$$ - people require $$$$$$$$.

This I think is the bottom line...

I'm a professional software developer. It is what I do for a living. If I couldn't make enough to live on, I'd do something else...

I've been doing software for 40+ years...

What I've noticed is that the "free" ware usually doesn't work...at least not well. It is usually poorly written(bad logic), or is very incomplete. And, it seems that the only open source ware that is worth anything are the "parts" that are sometimes released. By "parts" I mean methods (sub routines) that perform a "noticeable" task (like an "HTML Parser"...a bit of code that "takes apart" HTML and arranges it into different data structures. ). And usually even these need some "fixing", hence the reason I steer away from open source as it will likely require to much of my time to make t work...client doesn't want to pay for that (nor should he).

Windows isn't responsible for the state of the PC today. When PC's were first introduced there was no Windows, from anybody. We all ran DOS (which wasn't originally done by Microsoft). Dos was "good", Dos was and remains simple. Dos is a very primitive Operating System that can only work well on a small / simple computer system.

But after all that...the bottom line is still the $$$$$$.Individual software engineers have an expensive education t pay for, and then there is the rest of their life...open source sounds good, but, "it doesn't feed the Bulldog".

Also, currently I have a single application I'm supporting (my own work), it s used by a few businesses, and is moderately pricey (license is $500). This body of code is over 4000 lines and represents some 4 years of development. My question to the Open Source folks is; "Why should I give t away?" I put a lot of work, blood, sweat and tears; do I not have the RIGHT to expect compensation? Do I not have the right to use my creation to benefit myself? Should I not have the right to an "income" from this creation?

onequestion
reply to post by MacroHawk

 

Its always worth it if even just 1 visionary grasp the concept and runs with it.

Thats exactly what I have been doing and I have been running with it. Its what I talked about in my post as well.

At first, the proprietary tech will have an incumbent advantage, but that will be lost over time and with very specific releases. Not all technology is able to make the same amount of ripples. Interesting, in that way, how ideas can almost have mass in a way...

reply to post by onequestion


I've been told throughout my life that I think and process things differently than others.
Nowadays they say I run on a different operating system.

I have a crazy powerful brain...
but I forget the simplest things.

I have a creative brain.
If that means anything to you.

reply to post by tanka418


Hiya Tanka,

I've been doing software for 40+ years...

What I've noticed is that the "free" ware usually doesn't work...at least not well. It is usually poorly written(bad logic), or is very incomplete.

abstract metaphor response: I'll say that Windows is a bloated whale washed up on-shore and slowly suffocating with very little TTL. OSX is getting just as bad with the integrations, bloated code and locking in version compatibilities. I dislike both systems because they are ruthless and tyrannical.

On a totally different level, software coders really don't solve real world problems they create the software problems in a software universe that has nothing to do with the delivery of clean water or fresh fruit to people.

This is a major distinction and I'm not singling you out. I do my own share of computer work for a very large telco (35k+ employees) and Windows is just a front end for us. Really, just a front end.

Windows, at my company, is simply a front-end that gives spreadsheet compatibility, email, a browser, instant messaging, and all those little applications that make a business administration possible. However, there are utilities outside of Windows that can do all those things. It's a convenience, no matter what the cost, for a corporation to buy a Windows license for the Enterprise. It helps Windows to sell more licenses because, 8 times out of 10, the average worker would use a Windows system at home.

That being said - Windows, at my company, is a front-end for all our legacy systems which are going on 40 years old. e.g. legacy Bell system stuff and telco manufacturer propriety software. Our company is so behind in the software world of evolution that the majority is still running Windows XP. Each time we transition through a version of Windows there is a "time of sadness" for us when we have to re-configure/re-learn how to execute basic functionality through emulators that "talk" to our legacy systems.

Not only this but we have in-house software development teams which simply cannot keep up with the pace of technology, underfunded because the executives don't really understand the magnitude of the changes, which causes NEW project teams to be created to solve those problems. It's a total wash as far as productivity goes. An by the time we are through with our evolution from Windows 1 to 2 or 3.5 to 7 whatever.... we stay 4-5 years behind Windows for this very reason.

Do you know where our company gets it's productivity? Automation.

Once again, this is not directed at you Tanka. Sure programmers need to eat. But should they be paid anymore than a bus driver in the Soviet Union? Soviet bus drivers had work that was considered prestigious because they actually drive people to work which is a real-world-problem-solved. Software coders are not like that at all, they solve software problems in a software environment that is totally abstracted from clean water or fresh fruit.

Sorry, I just did a rant on my hatred for bloated software architecture. My bad.

ChaoticOrder

As a programmer I can tell you that my best work is done when I'm working on a personal project and not a job I'm getting paid for. I often procrastinate and put off working on jobs that I'm getting paid for because there's usually nothing interesting about them. But when I'm working on a personal project without any monetary incentive and without any time restraints I can spend hours on it without stopping because I actually find it fun and interesting. It becomes more of a hobby rather than work in that situation. I think the main difference is that open source coders choose what they want to work on based on what interests them. Commercial programmers don't get to choose to work on things which they have a personal interest in, they get forced to work on what ever is thrown at them and usually what they get is pretty boring stuff. So they lack passion and enthusiasm, the only thing motivating them is money but that's not as powerful as passion and enthusiasm.

Yes, that's very true. At my job there are parts which are interesting, and others for which I think, "OK that's what the paycheck is for."

Another phenomenon is that open source projects (note the word project and not "product") below the top tier often have large holes and bugs and poor usability, and poor support, precisely because the tasks which need to be done to fix those are boring. Some (not all) open source communities are hostile towards newbies because they are all volunteers---people resent hand-holding others for free. The newbies have no possible capability to contribute back or understand enough.

Also, large open source/volunteer programmer systems often become fragmented and poorly integrated for the reason that many self-motivated programmers think that the solution to a clunky existing segment is to throw it out and rewrite again in a new architecture, because that's much more fun than incremental community development across widely spaced teams of varying quality. The net result is that there is Yet Another Subsystem, none of which fully solves the problem very well. (Think of all the sound, notification and hardware management subsystems for various Linux distributions).

Cascade of Attention Deficit Teenager Development Model

If you were on Mac OS, you'd have a few powerful product managers define the scope of the problem, and be able to hire a significant number of skilled programmers working full time for years to get something really right in an internal culture which demands excellence. And have their salary and bonus dependent on how many bugs they fix/fail to create and if the outcome matches the expectation of the users and product managers.

Open source demands excellence in coding, but not in design, relability, user interface, consistency & stability.



There's another phenomenon too. The paid programmers are older and more emotionally and politically mature, which leads to a more successful community & respect for users and non-technical needs. Usually they have to work for closed source (which has plenty of business related bozo-city) because they need the paycheck for their family & house. Sometimes though they are sponsored by companies (usually selling other proprietary things) to work on open source software, and these can be the best.

For instance, the Linux kernel development, gcc and clang/llvm compiler projects have long-term continuity and contributions from full-time paid engineers with high skills.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by tanka418

 

Once again, this is not directed at you Tanka. Sure programmers need to eat. But should they be paid anymore than a bus driver in the Soviet Union? Soviet bus drivers had work that was considered prestigious because they actually drive people to work which is a real-world-problem-solved. Software coders are not like that at all, they solve software problems in a software environment that is totally abstracted from clean water or fresh fruit.

Sounds like you have the same problem many of my clients have; "IT" is in the way...happens all too frequently.

I'm not sure I agree that software types don't solve real-world problems. That may be a matter of perception...

Here is what I do; I have a software product that allows for the management of HTML forms. The system allows the end user to build simple to complex forms for the purpose of data collection. It takes care of all the database table creation, data collection and storage, and allows for the application of "processing" and some amount of "business logic". One company uses t to sell insurance on line. Some would think of that as a real world solution.

Don't worry about the "rant"; I know as well as most just how frustrating computers are...seriously...they do exactly what they are told...explicitly

reply to post by tanka418

Sounds like you have the same problem many of my clients have; "IT" is in the way...happens all too frequently.

Thanks for not taking me the wrong way. And I'm glad that you are a problem solver... in the real world working for real business... it's not your worry that the major operating systems are bloating beyond belief. Your goal is to have to solve a problem for specific customer and I can totally respect that.

You are the Soviet bus driver getting people to work!

Now Going Deeply Into Abstract Mode

Computer, bus, driver. All three things are inter-related. Computers have busses and drivers. The Soviet Union had bus drivers to get people to work. I have no idea where this idea came from or where it goes.... but there it is.

tanka418
My question to the Open Source folks is; "Why should I give t away?" I put a lot of work, blood, sweat and tears; do I not have the RIGHT to expect compensation? Do I not have the right to use my creation to benefit myself? Should I not have the right to an "income" from this creation?

First off, I don't recall anyone saying that you should give your software away.

Second, freeware doesn't always equal open source.

Now, I think the point of the thread is that selfless teamwork can get results that are as good, if not better than, $$$$$$ bottom line projects, without the contributers feeling like they've invested blood, sweat and tears and that this can apply to things besides software.

ATS and other mediums based on user generated content are a good example of this.

Of course there will be situations where a tailor made solution is desired or more efficient.

It isn't an either or situation. There is a place and time for each.

I think it has to do with what motivates people.

People motivated to earn fat paychecks do things for the corporation.

People motivated to help people do it because it's the right thing to do-at no cost for the consumer.