Why Software should be free...

Jan 2006
244
0
Boston, MA
#2
Here is something you and I can agree on. I agree 100% with on GNU philosophy and the GPL, LPGL, and BSD liscense. Open Source technology is going to push the limits in the future. I think every college kid should have a copy of Linux kernel tatored to their specific needs, i.e Slackware and College Linux. Open source technology also encourage competition. I code as little as a hobby (C, C++) I also took at course in Computing this semester.
 
Jan 2006
244
0
Boston, MA
#6
It bothers me how little interest there seems to be in this subject


There is anything, but little interest in the Open-Source movement. It has more of following in Europe and across the world due the on going battle between European Union and software patents. People in European Union and in country's like Germany believe that copyright's are ok, but Software Patents are out of control. They also make the argument that open-source software inspires competition. In the United States we have our asses kissed with Microsoft and other large commercial companies. They can also collect on software royalities for ridiculous things. John Carmack lead programmer of Doom get's ticked off by them, after he wrote a complicated data algorithm for Doom III called "Carmack's Reverse" that he invented off the top of his head for mapping game movements to spatial audio and 3D enviroments that snake oil of a company Creative Labs forced ID software to liscense their technology. He hadn't the slightest idea he infringed upon a patent for something that far out on a line.
 
Sep 2005
943
0
#7
What in tarnation? How did I miss this thread?



Anyhow, let me introduce my opinion: there is simply no way for this proposal to work in capitalism.



As some of you may know, I am a programmer. I work for a company which produces software and sells it to automotive companies. A business like mine might have a chance at surviving, but it is very unlikely. One corporation would not be very willing to shoulder the development costs of software when it means that their competitors would simply get the software at no cost. Why not just let someone else develop it, then grab it up? Once everyone gets into this mindset, no software is developed.



The corporations which would definitely not survive are the ones which produce products to be sold to individuals instead of businesses. Video games, for example, would completely cease production if they became available to everyone upon production. How could they make money?



Trying to say that people will continue to program for meager salaries because "programming is fun" is the most foolish thing I've ever heard. While programming an application you're interested in as a hobbie might be fun, programming a marketting application for an automotive company is completely boring, yet it's not quite as boring as designing and testing it.



If we followed the advice of this article, the development of software would fall dramatically. While it would certainly be easier to reuse code, there would be very little new code written to take advantage of that fact.



But make no mistake: there should be no questioning the rest of the logic of this article. If were were living in a form of communism which maintained the incentives to produce found in capitalism, we would be able to produce software infinitely faster, better and more efficiently than we do under capitalism.
 
Jul 2005
285
1
#9
Jaxian said:
What in tarnation? How did I miss this thread?



Anyhow, let me introduce my opinion: there is simply no way for this proposal to work in capitalism.



As some of you may know, I am a programmer. I work for a company which produces software and sells it to automotive companies. A business like mine might have a chance at surviving, but it is very unlikely. One corporation would not be very willing to shoulder the development costs of software when it means that their competitors would simply get the software at no cost. Why not just let someone else develop it, then grab it up? Once everyone gets into this mindset, no software is developed.



The corporations which would definitely not survive are the ones which produce products to be sold to individuals instead of businesses. Video games, for example, would completely cease production if they became available to everyone upon production. How could they make money?



Trying to say that people will continue to program for meager salaries because "programming is fun" is the most foolish thing I've ever heard. While programming an application you're interested in as a hobbie might be fun, programming a marketting application for an automotive company is completely boring, yet it's not quite as boring as designing and testing it.



If we followed the advice of this article, the development of software would fall dramatically. While it would certainly be easier to reuse code, there would be very little new code written to take advantage of that fact.



But make no mistake: there should be no questioning the rest of the logic of this article. If were were living in a form of communism which maintained the incentives to produce found in capitalism, we would be able to produce software infinitely faster, better and more efficiently than we do under capitalism.


Great post! Well-explained and yet concise.
 
Jan 2006
244
0
Boston, MA
#10
Trying to say that people will continue to program for meager salaries because "programming is fun" is the most foolish thing I've ever heard. While programming an application you're interested in as a hobbie might be fun, programming a marketting application for an automotive company is completely boring, yet it's not quite as boring as designing and testing it.


There are some exceptions. I just think that's all programming and engineering is motivated by the cash flow. I have no problem with this I mean after all there aren't to many people willing choose careers in the field unless they really enjoy it or have a strong worth ethic. I suppose if it was a small time start up company or a small business that would be one thing, but other than that I am not sure. I could never do it for a living and I think that's what a lot of people say before they decide to major in the field. Everyone is different though when it comes to the definition of the word "happiness". It depends upon the context of the software too.



The corporations which would definitely not survive are the ones which produce products to be sold to individuals instead of businesses. Video games, for example, would completely cease production if they became available to everyone upon production. How could they make money?


Right. The Video Game industry is an extremely competetive business I understand that. I am sure companies like EA Games pay top money to their employeer's, but for the amount of hours they need to put in and hectic schedule they have it's not worth it (I also don't think people would have the resources to develope a game independently on their own with some exceptions). Most of the time the open-source movement isn't about "free hippie socialists". A lot of open-source developers write code as hobby in their free time, but have full-time jobs in other fields. Not all software will ever be free, just software for certain applications.
 

Similar Discussions