Apple and Microsoft will soon kill all (Google's) opensource projects which commercial companies adopt with trival patents like double-click, drag-drop, touch to interact, push button to turn on etc... and Apple Samsung verdict is the starting point.
The US court (as it appears in this case and other cases) will always favour Apple and Microsoft killing all opensource competition legally and practically banning open source software.
In the mean time Google continues to be a spectator and an open target similar to GNU and wildebeest.
The best that you can get from Google is bland responses like --
“The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system and several are being re-examined by the U.S. Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players–including newcomers–are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.”
It appears, as good as Google is in collaborating with opensource communities to create good products and also profiting from it; it's equally bad when it comes to combating the law.
Google is an open target to various companies but it itself targets none.
Apple vs Samsung was the perfect case to review the case of software patents and expect some judgement from it, but it appears as always, Google is a spectator with another bland opinion like everyone else.
In case they don't know how bad are software patents --
It was inevitable that big corporations would get out of hand and start warring with each other. Science fiction writers wrote about it years ago as a warning. Apple and Microsoft don't like the idea of open source. They like the "me" paradigm. Google is more like the "we" paradigm. Scott McNealy when CEO at Sun stated a few years back that open source could be extended to more than just software. That idea does not sit well with "me" type wealthy industrialists. But in a world with a growing population of billions its the only paradigm that will work.
Yes, software patents are very bad because the Patent Office was gamed by clever attorneys who knew the office was clueless about technology.
> Apple and Microsoft will soon kill all (Google's) opensource projects which
> commercial companies adopt with trival patents like double-click,
> drag-drop, touch to interact, push button to turn on etc... and Apple
> Samsung verdict is the starting point.
> The US court (as it appears in this case and other cases) will always
> favour Apple and Microsoft killing all opensource competition legally and
> practically banning open source software.
> In the mean time Google continues to be a spectator and an open target
> similar to GNU and wildebeest.
> The best that you can get from Google is bland responses like --
> The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the
> patent claims. Most of these don t relate to the core Android operating
> system and several are being re-examined by the U.S. Patent Office. The
> mobile industry is moving fast and all players including newcomers are
> building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our
> partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don t
> want anything to limit that.
> It appears, as good as Google is in collaborating with opensource
> communities to create good products and also profiting from it; it's
> equally bad when it comes to combating the law.
> Google is an open target to various companies but it itself targets none.
> Apple vs Samsung was the perfect case to review the case of software
> patents and expect some judgement from it, but it appears as always, Google
> is a spectator with another bland opinion like everyone else.
> In case they don't know how bad are software patents --
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:56:07 PM UTC+5:30, jtoolsdev wrote:
> It was inevitable that big corporations would get out of hand and start > warring with each other. Science fiction writers wrote about it years > ago as a warning. Apple and Microsoft don't like the idea of open > source. They like the "me" paradigm. Google is more like the "we" > paradigm.
It's not 'me', it's $s.
> Scott McNealy when CEO at Sun stated a few years back that > open source could be extended to more than just software. That idea > does not sit well with "me" type wealthy industrialists. But in a world > with a growing population of billions its the only paradigm that will > work.
Another flaw with Google and device manufacturer's strategy was that they didn't publicize the fact that Android is itself developed for non-profit so it could bring a feeling of charity among the people so increased adaptation rates. This's the same thing which FF is doing, thus increased adaptation rates in recent times.
The common man still things that Android is Google propitiatory product.
> Yes, software patents are very bad because the Patent Office was gamed > by clever attorneys who knew the office was clueless about technology.
But question is, what's Google (one of the biggest supporters of opensource software apart from IBM) doing towards it?
If Google suffers, it's cause of it's own fault. Apple vs Samsung also seems to be the same case.
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:56:07 PM UTC+5:30, jtoolsdev wrote:
>> It was inevitable that big corporations would get out of hand and start
>> warring with each other. Science fiction writers wrote about it years
>> ago as a warning. Apple and Microsoft don't like the idea of open
>> source. They like the "me" paradigm. Google is more like the "we"
>> paradigm.
> It's not 'me', it's $s.
>> Scott McNealy when CEO at Sun stated a few years back that
>> open source could be extended to more than just software. That idea
>> does not sit well with "me" type wealthy industrialists. But in a world
>> with a growing population of billions its the only paradigm that will
>> work.
> Another flaw with Google and device manufacturer's strategy was that they
> didn't publicize the fact that Android is itself developed for non-profit
> so it could bring a feeling of charity among the people so increased
> adaptation rates. This's the same thing which FF is doing, thus increased
> adaptation rates in recent times.
> The common man still things that Android is Google propitiatory product.
>> Yes, software patents are very bad because the Patent Office was gamed
>> by clever attorneys who knew the office was clueless about technology.
> But question is, what's Google (one of the biggest supporters of opensource
> software apart from IBM) doing towards it?
> If Google suffers, it's cause of it's own fault. Apple vs Samsung also
> seems to be the same case.
We do have the news item this morning that Japan has rejected Apple's patent claims against Samsung. Remember this is more than a US issue.
Patents used to be about whole devices but tech patents were like someone patenting the gear in a device because no one had ever patented a gear.
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:23:41 PM UTC-7, dE wrote:
> Another flaw with Google and device manufacturer's strategy was that they > didn't publicize the fact that Android is itself developed for non-profit . > . .
They can't advertise that because it isn't true. Google is a for-profit organization, so are all the manufacturers. I'm not saying that's bad - I'm a capitalist myself.
Android was developed as opensource because it fit Google's business strategies, not because of some benevolent desire to make the world a better place by raining down free software and technology available to the common
so it could bring a feeling of charity among the people so increased
> adaptation rates.
Or it might contribute to users thinking that developers that charge money for apps are somehow taking advantage of the system if their apps aren't also free and open source.
I doubt that the "feeling of charity" has been or would be a big contributor to Android's growth. If you know of research that does suggest that, be sure to post it.
> The common man still things that Android is Google propitiatory product.
Perhaps. But the top used apps on Android include Android Market, Gmail, Google Search, Google Maps and YouTube. Those are all Google proprietary last I checked.
No, I think the common man doesn't know, and possibly doesn't care, what Open Source means. As they do, it might conjure up images of a utopian society, or possibly an open and flexible company as opposed to a closed conformist that makes some other phones that are popular.
And why should they care? Customers care more about results. For fans, it means variety, customization, and flexibility. For critics, it means fragmentation, inconsistencies, more bugs, and more of a learning curve.
A hard core open source person might even say that Android is not Open Source enough. Since Honeycomb source was locked up for a year and all. (note, I haven't really used Android Source, and don't have a horse in that war). But don't count on some new platform like the FireFox Mobile OS succeeding just because it is more open source. Users are going to want features, usability, or other reasons besides seeing Open Source written on a sticker.
Yes, software patents are very bad because the Patent Office was gamed
>> by clever attorneys who knew the office was clueless about technology.
> But question is, what's Google (one of the biggest supporters of > opensource software apart from IBM) doing towards it?
Lobbying for better patent laws, I suppose. Trying to buy up patents for defensive purposes. Letting the hardware manufacturers take the brunt of the patent fights.
If Google suffers, it's cause of it's own fault. Apple vs Samsung also
> seems to be the same case.
Are you saying that the patent trouble has resulted from Google failing to tout Open Source ness enough?
If so, I don't agree. What does the one thing have to do with the other?
FireFox Mobile OS *will* have patent lawsuits, if any manufacturers manage to make profit from it. And if there is no profit in it, manufacturers will not use it.
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 3:55:42 AM UTC+5:30, Nathan wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:23:41 PM UTC-7, dE wrote:
>> Another flaw with Google and device manufacturer's strategy was that they >> didn't publicize the fact that Android is itself developed for non-profit . >> . .
> They can't advertise that because it isn't true. Google is a for-profit > organization, so are all the manufacturers. I'm not saying that's bad - I'm > a capitalist myself.
> Android was developed as opensource because it fit Google's business > strategies, not because of some benevolent desire to make the world a > better place by raining down free software and technology available to the > common
How does Google benefit by making the project opensource?
> so it could bring a feeling of charity among the people so increased >> adaptation rates.
> Or it might contribute to users thinking that developers that charge money > for apps are somehow taking advantage of the system if their apps aren't > also free and open source.
> I doubt that the "feeling of charity" has been or would be a big > contributor to Android's growth. If you know of research that does suggest > that, be sure to post it.
In recent times, we see a boost in usage of FF (otherwise it was falling in front of chrome) and recently I noticed there've been attempts by Mozilla to increase awareness about opensource and the fact that Firefox is developed for non-profit and Mozilla is itself a non profit organization.
>> The common man still things that Android is Google propitiatory product.
> Perhaps. But the top used apps on Android include Android Market, Gmail, > Google Search, Google Maps and YouTube. Those are all Google proprietary > last I checked.
If Yahoo, Microsoft and other device manufactures didn't come up to contribute or fork the project to support other web service providers, there's nothing Google can do about.
> No, I think the common man doesn't know, and possibly doesn't care, what > Open Source means. As they do, it might conjure up images of a utopian > society, or possibly an open and flexible company as opposed to a closed > conformist that makes some other phones that are popular.
> And why should they care? Customers care more about results. For fans, it > means variety, customization, and flexibility. For critics, it means > fragmentation, inconsistencies, more bugs, and more of a learning curve.
> A hard core open source person might even say that Android is not Open > Source enough. Since Honeycomb source was locked up for a year and all. > (note, I haven't really used Android Source, and don't have a horse in that > war). > But don't count on some new platform like the FireFox Mobile OS succeeding > just because it is more open source. Users are going to want features, > usability, or other reasons besides seeing Open Source written on a sticker.
We support opensource cause it's supposed to do betterment for the people (themselves and the world), and with Android we see that.
When we say people are not aware of opensource, we also mean that they don't know the benefits of opensource technology and Android as opposed to iOS or Windows phone.
Largest e.g. is Linux desktop, who's administrations despite being hard is used by ~1.5% of the world and the primary reason for most of these people is that it's GPLed software.
So we can't conclude that people will not given a damn about Apache/GPL/GNU projects, had it been so the 1000s of developers wouldn't have volunteered to develop opensource software and development is quiet a lot of effort for charity, finally they're also people. And we see even more of non-developer contributors daily.
Also no doubt -- functionality comes first, but if a closed source and opensource alternative are functionally equal (or even if the opensource alternative is a bit lesser), a person who's aware of advantages of opensource software will prefer the opensource alternative.
Take my e.g., I perfer FF for Android, but cause it has a lot of memory leaks, I cant use it, I use Dolphin (which uses Android webkit).
> Yes, software patents are very bad because the Patent Office was gamed >>> by clever attorneys who knew the office was clueless about technology.
>> But question is, what's Google (one of the biggest supporters of >> opensource software apart from IBM) doing towards it?
> Lobbying for better patent laws, I suppose. Trying to buy up patents for > defensive purposes. Letting the hardware manufacturers take the brunt of > the patent fights.
This's not right, I wrote about this in my blog --
Get royalties from the source, not consumers
> If Google suffers, it's cause of it's own fault. Apple vs Samsung also >> seems to be the same case.
> Are you saying that the patent trouble has resulted from Google failing to > tout Open Source ness enough?
> If so, I don't agree. What does the one thing have to do with the other?
> FireFox Mobile OS *will* have patent lawsuits, if any manufacturers manage > to make profit from it. And if there is no profit in it, manufacturers will > not use it.
Also it's to be noted that when companies adopt opensource software in doing business, it's supposed to be a good thing; it benefits the common public if it does (there're a lot of advantages which I'm going to post in my blog).
The same thing Samsung did and got prosecuted. Samsung did not gain with opensource, they simply used an opensource infrastructure which is equally open to all other vendors, they did not get a competitive edge using Android, thus they did not gain anything using it. They gained by selling hardware which had Android preinstalled.
Also, if you need an e.g. of how people believe in non-profit organization and support it, see the e.g. of Wikipedia.
> How does Google benefit by making the project opensource?
That's a fait accompli: The fact that it was open source gave it a competitive advantage over iOS and Windows Mobile in the eyes of the various hardware manufacturers, because they could customize it however they liked to "differentiate" their phones.
Honestly that "differentiation" was mostly awful, but it was what they WANTED from a phone OS, and so they chose Android (except Nokia, R.I.P. [1]).
> Largest e.g. is Linux desktop, who's administrations despite being
> hard is used by ~1.5% of the world and the primary reason for most of
> these people is that it's GPLed software.
Linux desktop is losing market share to OS X. Sad, but true. And having tried to use Linux desktops, I can't blame them, though personally I can't stand being forced to use the mouse on OS X (how do you call up the menu from the keyboard? You can't.), and so would jump to Linux desktop myself rather than reduce my productivity if I needed to leave the Windows platform.
> So we can't conclude that people will not given a damn about
> Apache/GPL/GNU projects, had it been so the 1000s of developers
> wouldn't have volunteered to develop opensource software and
> development is quiet a lot of effort for charity, finally they're
> also people. And we see even more of non-developer contributors
> daily.
Developers who care about open source are a small, small fraction of people -- there certainly are not enough of them to make a difference in something like a consumer cell phone market. It only takes a few developers to make a product used by millions, and frankly all the millions really care about is "free" and the user experience.
Windows is losing (a lot) of market share to OSX. Linux is still small, but growing.
De Icaza's article, right? :D
Maybe Gnome is losing Linux market share, but just because they broke it so hard even I, after more than 10 years, had to abandon it in favor of XFCE, Cinnamon and (now) Mate.
On 3 September 2012 16:35, Tim Mensch <tim.men...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/1/2012 3:29 AM, dE wrote:
>> How does Google benefit by making the project opensource?
> That's a fait accompli: The fact that it was open source gave it a
> competitive advantage over iOS and Windows Mobile in the eyes of the various
> hardware manufacturers, because they could customize it however they liked
> to "differentiate" their phones.
> Honestly that "differentiation" was mostly awful, but it was what they
> WANTED from a phone OS, and so they chose Android (except Nokia, R.I.P.
> [1]).
>> Largest e.g. is Linux desktop, who's administrations despite being
>> hard is used by ~1.5% of the world and the primary reason for most of
>> these people is that it's GPLed software.
> Linux desktop is losing market share to OS X. Sad, but true. And having
> tried to use Linux desktops, I can't blame them, though personally I can't
> stand being forced to use the mouse on OS X (how do you call up the menu
> from the keyboard? You can't.), and so would jump to Linux desktop myself
> rather than reduce my productivity if I needed to leave the Windows
> platform.
>> So we can't conclude that people will not given a damn about
>> Apache/GPL/GNU projects, had it been so the 1000s of developers
>> wouldn't have volunteered to develop opensource software and
>> development is quiet a lot of effort for charity, finally they're
>> also people. And we see even more of non-developer contributors
>> daily.
> Developers who care about open source are a small, small fraction of people
> -- there certainly are not enough of them to make a difference in something
> like a consumer cell phone market. It only takes a few developers to make a
> product used by millions, and frankly all the millions really care about is
> "free" and the user experience.
Also to throw the spanner: large chunk (much bigger than 1%) of
non-consumer IT is open source. See web browsers, web servers, whole
application stacks, programming languages, non-Oracle databases, big
data IT, IAAS/SAAS offerings to name the few. In the TOP500 computers,
MS's share is 0.4%
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems)
Open Source is big and working within it has many (also financial)
benefits for both individuals and for enterprise.
On Monday, September 3, 2012 9:05:32 PM UTC+5:30, Tim in Boulder wrote:
> On 9/1/2012 3:29 AM, dE wrote: > > How does Google benefit by making the project opensource?
> That's a fait accompli: The fact that it was open source gave it a > competitive advantage over iOS and Windows Mobile in the eyes of the > various hardware manufacturers, because they could customize it however > they liked to "differentiate" their phones.
> Honestly that "differentiation" was mostly awful, but it was what they > WANTED from a phone OS, and so they chose Android (except Nokia, R.I.P. > [1]).
What customization? Extra apps, a bit different UI, extra shortcuts/widgets on the desktops and extra buttons?
Google could've easily designed a closed source OS which allowed these modifications at the API level. You need the source when you're changing fundamental infrastructure like the security model, architecture, package management etc... Which which phone manufacturer wants that?
> > Largest e.g. is Linux desktop, who's administrations despite being > > hard is used by ~1.5% of the world and the primary reason for most of > > these people is that it's GPLed software.
> Linux desktop is losing market share to OS X. Sad, but true. And having > tried to use Linux desktops, I can't blame them, though personally I can't > stand being forced to use the mouse on OS X (how do you call up the menu > from the keyboard? You can't.), and so would jump to Linux desktop myself > rather than reduce my productivity if I needed to leave the Windows > platform.
What're your sources?
Linux market share has remained constant for a long time.
The primary reason why people use Linux cause it's GPLd software, that's the primary driving force.
> > So we can't conclude that people will not given a damn about > > Apache/GPL/GNU projects, had it been so the 1000s of developers > > wouldn't have volunteered to develop opensource software and > > development is quiet a lot of effort for charity, finally they're > > also people. And we see even more of non-developer contributors > > daily.
> Developers who care about open source are a small, small fraction of > people -- there certainly are not enough of them to make a difference in > something like a consumer cell phone market. It only takes a few developers > to make a product used by millions, and frankly all the millions really > care about is "free" and the user experience.
Compared to the average userbase and total number of developers, the % amount is less, but it's large enough.
As of the people, there's no awareness, otherwise if they're aware they will prefer opensource alternative even if it's a little inconvenient.
Developers who code for opensource software, have interest in coding; it's not about money, it's about the topic. As a result, you get high quality code and a lot of them. When you hire people who develop solely for money (your average closed source software developer working for a company without no contribution or interest in doing so), you get stuff like Windows and various other MS products.
>> The primary reason why people use Linux cause it's GPLd software, that's
the primary driving force.
I would have to argue that's not the case. I use Linux and have for over a decade not because it's GPL but because it's useful and remains fairly constant over time. In a past life I used IBM mainframe OS's for the same reason. Those "old fashioned" machines were amazingly upwardly compatible. Old software would run just as well or even better on new releases of the OS as they did on the old. That could never be said of Microsoft or even Apple.
I hate Microsoft for that reason. Anytime MS offers an upgrade, it's really a downgrade in capability and an increase in costs. I've been through a dozen iterations of "nix" software and each time it was smooth and everything that previously worked still worked.
>>> The primary reason why people use Linux cause it's GPLd software, that's
> the primary driving force.
> I would have to argue that's not the case. I use Linux and have for over a
> decade not because it's GPL but because it's useful and remains fairly
> constant over time. In a past life I used IBM mainframe OS's for the same
> reason. Those "old fashioned" machines were amazingly upwardly compatible.
> Old software would run just as well or even better on new releases of the
> OS as they did on the old. That could never be said of Microsoft or even
> Apple.
> I hate Microsoft for that reason. Anytime MS offers an upgrade, it's really
> a downgrade in capability and an increase in costs. I've been through a
> dozen iterations of "nix" software and each time it was smooth and
> everything that previously worked still worked.
> -John Coryat
I agree on Linux. I do my Android development on Ubuntu though I may move to Linux Mint next upgrade. May do a test on a 16 GB USB stick before to make sure it all works smoothly. I also have the SDK installed on a Windows 7 64-bit machine for testing apps mainly with Monkey. I use the Windows machine for video editing, graphics and other things that aren't available under Linux. But Windows is SO annoying with their pop up reminders for updates that often take away the focus of a Window you are working in. Much prefer the way Linux handles updates. And don't you just love "Libraries" on Windows? So hard to find files on a large drive that I just use Search. Libraries was another one of their lame ideas.
> On Monday, September 3, 2012 9:05:32 PM UTC+5:30, Tim in Boulder wrote:
> Honestly that "differentiation" was mostly awful, but it was what
> they WANTED from a phone OS, and so they chose Android (except
> Nokia, R.I.P. [1]).
> What customization? Extra apps, a bit different UI, extra > shortcuts/widgets on the desktops and extra buttons?
Completely custom hardware features. Extra custom APIs for that hardware. They DISCOURAGE manufacturers from doing that, but that doesn't mean that they don't.
> Linux market share has remained constant for a long time.
You might be right. But (other than Android) Linux isn't taking over the world any time soon.
> The primary reason why people use Linux cause it's GPLd software, that's the primary driving force.
And yet, almost every web/start-up developer I know is using an OS X laptop. SOME installed Linux on them, but most don't.
> Developers who code for opensource software, have interest in coding; > it's not about money, it's about the topic. As a result, you get high > quality code and a lot of them. When you hire people who develop > solely for money (your average closed source software developer > working for a company without no contribution or interest in doing > so), you get stuff like Windows and various other MS products.
And I still use Windows, despite hating the fact that I use Windows, because it's easier to use and it has software that has features I need. Free alternatives -- because there's no profit motive -- typically (with a few notable exceptions) satisfy the developers' needs minimally, and that's it. If I need something different, or with more sophisticated features, I'm stuck with the Windows ecosystem.
>> Developers who code for opensource software, have interest in coding;
it's not about money
It's always about money, unless you're a hobbyist. Any endeavor that isn't self sustaining is doomed to failure. Open source works because people use it to make money. Sure, developers also contribute selflessly to such projects. They also need to feed themselves and unless they earn money from those efforts, they eventually have to move on to something that will.
I've made huge buckets of money directly off of open source systems. However, if they didn't stack up to the commercial offerings, I would have jumped ship years ago.
Don't fool yourself. Money does make the world go around.
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:52:43 AM UTC+5:30, Tim in Boulder wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 8:45 AM, dE wrote:
> On Monday, September 3, 2012 9:05:32 PM UTC+5:30, Tim in Boulder wrote:
>> Honestly that "differentiation" was mostly awful, but it was what they >> WANTED from a phone OS, and so they chose Android (except Nokia, R.I.P. >> [1]).
> What customization? Extra apps, a bit different UI, extra > shortcuts/widgets on the desktops and extra buttons?
> Completely custom hardware features. Extra custom APIs for that hardware. > They DISCOURAGE manufacturers from doing that, but that doesn't mean that > they don't.
That's irrelevant. All manufactures buy chipsets from chip manufactures. The chipset manufacturer should support the OS (provide drivers, or contact the OS vendor for the purpose). So comparability and drivers etc... are not relevant to the end manufacturer.
And what will be done with the extra API?
> Linux market share has remained constant for a long time.
> You might be right. But (other than Android) Linux isn't taking over the > world any time soon.
> > The primary reason why people use Linux cause it's GPLd software, that's > the primary driving force.
> And yet, almost every web/start-up developer I know is using an OS X > laptop. SOME installed Linux on them, but most don't.
This seconds my point that people use Linux cause it's GPLd software. And that's what driving the ~1.5% users.
> Developers who code for opensource software, have interest in coding; it's > not about money, it's about the topic. As a result, you get high quality > code and a lot of them. When you hire people who develop solely for money > (your average closed source software developer working for a company > without no contribution or interest in doing so), you get stuff like > Windows and various other MS products.
> And I still use Windows, despite hating the fact that I use Windows, > because it's easier to use and it has software that has features I need. > Free alternatives -- because there's no profit motive -- typically (with a > few notable exceptions) satisfy the developers' needs minimally, and that's > it. If I need something different, or with more sophisticated features, I'm > stuck with the Windows ecosystem.
> Tim
Well it's not Linux's fault you know. It was Microsoft's plan, and you fell for it; you're the victim as the rest of the world.
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 7:49:01 AM UTC+5:30, John Coryat wrote:
> >> Developers who code for opensource software, have interest in coding; > it's not about money
> It's always about money, unless you're a hobbyist. Any endeavor that isn't > self sustaining is doomed to failure. Open source works because people use > it to make money. Sure, developers also contribute selflessly to such > projects. They also need to feed themselves and unless they earn money from > those efforts, they eventually have to move on to something that will.
What I meant was that, if you're a hobbyist and are paid for an opensource project which you like to develop (commonly, a former developer) or even if you're doing it as a contribution, then the resultant code quality is a lot better than devs who code solely for money. Finally, why will one be interested in developing solely for the profit of a company? Most probably he'll be interested in developing software which benefits the public and he also gets paid for it (cause the company also benefits.
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 7:49:01 AM UTC+5:30, John Coryat wrote:
>> >> Developers who code for opensource software, have interest in coding;
>> >> it's not about money
>> It's always about money, unless you're a hobbyist. Any endeavor that isn't
>> self sustaining is doomed to failure. Open source works because people use
>> it to make money. Sure, developers also contribute selflessly to such
>> projects. They also need to feed themselves and unless they earn money from
>> those efforts, they eventually have to move on to something that will.
> What I meant was that, if you're a hobbyist and are paid for an opensource
> project which you like to develop (commonly, a former developer) or even if
> you're doing it as a contribution, then the resultant code quality is a lot
> better than devs who code solely for money.
Firstly code quality is a very nebulous term and means different
things depending on the context.
The assertion that when something is being done for money rather than
as a hobby lowers the quality of said work (whichever way you
understand quality) is false.
Look at any mission critical software (medical, car safety systems,
nuclear power station management) and try to have it delivered by
hobbyists. To expand the argument further, look at professional sports
vs. amateur sports.
It is true that hobbyists have more enthusiasm and energy, but they
usually lack efficiencies and best practices of professional setups.
> Finally, why will one be
> interested in developing solely for the profit of a company?
Might sound controversial, but people do work for their employers
benefit, because they are being rewarded for their work.
I work, they pay. Simple as that. Money however is only one side of the coin.
If I have a choice and do either bad work or good work for the same
pay (lets assume that my effort and my expense are the same in both
cases), why would I ever choose to do bad work?
I would be doing disservice only to myself, lowering my standards,
becoming complacent and lazy, eventually to lose my enthusiasm about
anything to do with my work. Work being big part of our modern lives,
this bad blood would spill outside of work too.
Or I could do a good job, or perhaps the best job that I can, and be
more satisfied about my work and life in general. I could try to learn
how to deliver best possible product within constraints of commercial
development and in general contribute to the pool of positive energy
floating around. The choice is yours.
Problem is that few managers and few workers can see things like that.
I am all for OSS and am not advocating against it at all, but
arguments for or against it require a bit more effort I think. Both
sides can learn from each other.
However this discussion became very OT.
Patent system does not deal with the complexity and esoteric nature of
software at all and normal human greed drives people to start
patenting everything or trolling left, right and centre.
>> Or I could do a good job, or perhaps the best job that I can, and
be more satisfied about my work and life in general. I could try to learn how to deliver best possible product within constraints of commercial development and in general contribute to the pool of positive energy floating around. The choice is yours.
We used to call this "Work ethic" but that idea has been lost on the "me me me" generation who seem more obsessed with the silly side of life than being a productive and contributing citizen.
> Firstly code quality is a very nebulous term and means different > things depending on the context. > The assertion that when something is being done for money rather than > as a hobby lowers the quality of said work (whichever way you > understand quality) is false. > Look at any mission critical software (medical, car safety systems, > nuclear power station management) and try to have it delivered by > hobbyists. To expand the argument further, look at professional sports > vs. amateur sports. > It is true that hobbyists have more enthusiasm and energy, but they > usually lack efficiencies and best practices of professional setups.
By hobbyists I mean paid hobbyists. A person who's not a hobbyist, will try finishing the job earliest possible and get paid, a hobbyist on the other hand (if he's hired) will try to code better, in a more efficient manner to as to reduce bugs, security flaws etc... we'll see the same trend when designing the software architecture.
Cause making such software is the hobbyist's hobby, it has to do with things other than money. A non-hobbyist thinks on his work only during work, whereas hobbyists take it to their personal lives, cause coding is a major part of their lives and would do it even if they didn't get paid.
The result is interest and good quality code. It's a hobbyist who tries to make code more manageable, more readable, more maintainable, etc ... i.e. professional.
And we see this in real life. Linux, BSD, Apache, MySQL, SAMBA etc... beat the crap out of their propitiatory counterparts when it comes to reliability and performance.
Also, all professional athletes who're successful are also hobbyists. There're no professional athletes who do sports for money only; but that's not true in the the IT field.
> > Finally, why will one be > > interested in developing solely for the profit of a company?
> Might sound controversial, but people do work for their employers > benefit, because they are being rewarded for their work. > I work, they pay. Simple as that. Money however is only one side of the > coin.
> If I have a choice and do either bad work or good work for the same > pay (lets assume that my effort and my expense are the same in both > cases), why would I ever choose to do bad work? > I would be doing disservice only to myself, lowering my standards, > becoming complacent and lazy, eventually to lose my enthusiasm about > anything to do with my work. Work being big part of our modern lives, > this bad blood would spill outside of work too.
> Or I could do a good job, or perhaps the best job that I can, and be > more satisfied about my work and life in general. I could try to learn > how to deliver best possible product within constraints of commercial > development and in general contribute to the pool of positive energy > floating around. The choice is yours.
> Problem is that few managers and few workers can see things like that.
And the workers who do are usually of top quality.
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:51:18 PM UTC+5:30, John Coryat wrote:
> >> Or I could do a good job, or perhaps the best job that I can, and > be more satisfied about my work and life in general. I could try to > learn how to deliver best possible product within constraints of > commercial development and in general contribute to the pool of positive > energy floating around. The choice is yours.
> We used to call this "Work ethic" but that idea has been lost on the "me > me me" generation who seem more obsessed with the silly side of life than > being a productive and contributing citizen.
