vladimir wrote:I have absolutely no problem with people covering costs. Just don't say the stuff is free, when it's obviously not.

The expenses involved, for which people can charge, are mostly related to distribution of free software. If the distribution is pretty much free of charge, such as in server downloads, which is the predominant form of distribution nowadays, there is rarely a charge for distribution. For example, all the software running on my laptop, is free of charge. The time of distributing by shipping CDs, is mostly over anyway.

eriksank wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Evil and must be shunned... Wow. Idealist are amusing. Especially when condemning others for wishing to preserve the fruits of their labors.

Google and Facebook are not doing that bad with respect to preserving the fruit of their labour, which they have built entirely on top of free software. Google is worth almost half a trillion dollars. That is quite a bit more than Microsoft in terms of fruits of their labour, isn't it? The only problem that we have with these companies, is about privacy of their users' data. But then again, privacy is not related to the efforts of the FSF (Free Software Foundation) but of the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation). So, they are not on the FSF watch list but on the one of the EFF. But then again, these companies seem to be quite cooperative and respond swiftly to complaints concerning privacy.

Really?
Where can I download google's search source code? Facebooks core source code for the site? Nowhere is the answer. They use these locked down proprietary systems to push put the other "free" systems that in turn push things back into their revenue stream. Even BOFHs example of Oracle benefits from MySQL only in that they bought Sun for the hardware side of things. Not because they love open source. Otherwise OracleDB source code would be available when I buy an OracleDB license.

And the worst part was that post about all the cost being in distribution... because it negates a developer's time as being worth anything. I could be out climbing everest instead of solving the latest software need... shouldn't that time spent be compensated?

Seems FB will even send you to jail for having their source code:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/26/facebo ... tells-all/

OrangeDragon wrote:Where can I download google's search source code? Facebooks core source code for the site? Nowhere is the answer. They use these locked down proprietary systems to push put the other "free" systems that in turn push things back into their revenue stream. Even BOFHs example of Oracle benefits from MySQL only in that they bought Sun for the hardware side of things. Not because they love open source. Otherwise OracleDB source code would be available when I buy an OracleDB license.

Google's pagerank algorithm is the only thing they have said they would keep secret.

"Core source code"? Come on. Facebook made vast improvements to PHP which they open sourced[1] and the community has grown a lot around it. Their Github account contains over 120 open source projects[2]. Oracle bought MySQL separately from the Swedish company that previously owned it, not Sun. Nobody said Oracle loves open source, I said Oracle benefits from keeping MySQL open source. Nobody uses SPARC and those that do are the ones that haven't migrated to x86. Even fewer people use SPARC for MySQL.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HipHop_Virtual_Machine
2: https://github.com/facebook

Let's stop talking about Facebook for a second. You've heard of Apache, you probably think it's the open source web server. Ever heard of Cassandra[3], CouchDB[4], Hadoop[5], Kafka[6] or Lucene[7]? They are all open source projects created by the Apache software foundation. The mentioned software covers a big portion of modern big data solutions. I'm talking billion dollar industry. And Apache is giving it all away for free! It's strange that they can survive so well from doing so, don't you think?

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Cassandra
4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CouchDB
5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Hadoop
6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Kafka
7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucene

There are certain software components that won't sell if they are not open source. Nobody would use OpenSSL if the source wasn't available for audit. This applies to any security related software. If it's closed source it gets shrugged off as snake oil[8] for good reasons. But, with your logic, we would have no industry for cryptographers and other critical portions of the security industry because they live in a world where nobody will use their products unless they are open source.

8: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil ... ography%29

Anyway, when did someone last donate $1M to your beloved Microsoft? How many copies of Shitdows do they need to sell before they can make $1M? Proprietary code really pays!

The FreeBSD Foundation is pleased to announce it has received a $1,000,000 donation from Jan Koum, CEO and Co-Founder of WhatsApp. This marks the largest single donation to the Foundation since its inception almost 15 years ago, and serves as another example of someone using FreeBSD to great success and then giving back to the community.

http://freebsdfoundation.blogspot.com/2 ... erous.html

Hell, even Microshit is powering Skype with grsecurity patched Linux kernels:

Microsoft has drastically overhauled the network running its Skype voice-over-IP service, replacing peer-to-peer client machines with thousands of Linux boxes that have been hardened against the most common types of hack attacks, a security researcher said.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05 ... microsoft/

OrangeDragon wrote:Really? Where can I download google's search source code? Facebooks core source code for the site? Nowhere is the answer.

Their source code runs on their own servers. There is no obligation whatsoever for them to distribute their source code. Free software is about software that runs on your own computer, not software that runs on someone else's.

OrangeDragon wrote:And the worst part was that post about all the cost being in distribution... because it negates a developer's time as being worth anything. I could be out climbing everest instead of solving the latest software need... shouldn't that time spent be compensated?

Google and Facebook programmers are amongst the highest paid professionals in the world. The founders of Google and of Facebook are programmers, and they are amongst the richest people in the world.

In other words, there is absolutely no need to grab control over the user's computer or to establish a dictatorship of proprietary software dictating what the user can or cannot do with his own computer, in order to make money. It is his computer. So, he gets to decide how it will run. You can be respectful of the user's rights and at the same time make good money. There is no contradiction whatsoever in that.

There are great pieces of open source software and great pieces of proprietary software too. This debate will still be running the day the human race dies out.

However, you feel about Microsoft their O/S, business apps, etc. have made billions and billions of dollars - there is no-one operating in the solely open source space that come close to Microsoft's profitability nor Apple's (which is also mainly proprietary software based).

There are no good open source alternatives to many proprietary packages for applications too. The Adobe Creative Suite, for example, simply has no open source rivals. Yes, GIMP may substitute for PhotoShop but it does not easily integrate with a dozen other packages to deliver the same kind of functionality as Adobe does. And so on...

The good news, of course, is that this delivers a competitive environment in which both kinds of software can thrive.

I run Linux and Windows boxes... mainly because I can. But for most of my work, I work on Windows because compatibility with client solutions is my priority rather than advocating for open source solutions they aren't that interested in.

TheGrinchSR wrote:However, you feel about Microsoft their O/S, business apps, etc. have made billions and billions of dollars - there is no-one operating in the solely open source space that come close to Microsoft's profitability nor Apple's (which is also mainly proprietary software based).

Just for the record, Apple's Darwin kernel (used in Mac OS X), is a fork of open source FreeBSD:

The BSD portion of the OS X kernel is derived primarily from FreeBSD, a version of 4.4BSD that offers advanced networking, performance, security, and compatibility features. BSD variants in general are derived (sometimes indirectly) from 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2 from the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at the University of California at Berkeley.

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac ... D/BSD.html

Microsoft had the Windows POSIX subsystem[1] up until Windows XP/Server 2003 when it was replaced by Windows Services for UNIX[2].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX

Seems to me like the companies that OD used as examples earlier to say that open source will never be this large are actually leeching from open source communities. It's one thing to write proprietary code, it's another to use open source code without giving back to the community. Without BSD, there would be no Microsoft and there would be no Apple. Morally, I consider it theft. In its defense, Microsoft contributes more to Linux than Canonical ever did.

TheGrinchSR wrote:I run Linux and Windows boxes... mainly because I can.

Same here. Xen for life.

TheGrinchSR wrote:there is no-one operating in the solely open source space that come close to Microsoft's profitability nor Apple's (which is also mainly proprietary software based).

Google is worth a lot more than Microsoft, and they only use open-source software. You see, we don't need Microsoft for anything, but we would have a hard time without Google Search or without Android.

TheGrinchSR wrote:The Adobe Creative Suite, for example, simply has no open source rivals.

Images and movies are actually a bad example. It is all mathematics. Adobe did not invent or publish any innovative mathematical theorems whatsoever. Adobe is only good at creating the illusion for dummies that they can do something in that field too. If you need advanced image/video mathematics, you will have to look elsewhere. Furthermore, if you ever met people with the math skills required to make a difference in that field, you would also know that they would never, ever work for Adobe. Someone who is excellent at math simply looks down on that kind of people. In other words, Adobe can only hire mediocre mathematicians. The same holds true for programmers. Top-level programmers look down with contempt upon companies like Adobe. If you can work on any interesting project of your choice, would you really work on Adobe's dumb stuff? That is why Adobe also has a hard time hiring great programmers. Again, with Sergey Brin and Larry Page at the top, Google has no trouble hiring the best and the brightest. If Google ever did something in image/video manipulation, Adobe would be toast in no time, no sweat.

TheGrinchSR wrote:The good news, of course, is that this delivers a competitive environment in which both kinds of software can thrive.

Not really. Adobe will just barely survive, until they disappear. Nobody who is good at anything would want that kind of leadership. So, Adobe suffers from an ongoing idiotization process. Anybody who is any good at anything will spontaneously leave, meaning that Adobe increasingly keeps sitting on only idiots. In the meanwhile, the competitive situation will keep punching at them, while they are unable to react. For example, Apple kicked Adobe's Flash stuff from the IPhone. Any meaningful reaction from Adobe? No. Too slow. Too stupid. Too incapable. They cannot handle the competition of adversaries, even when adversaries are only moderately smart. In other words, at some point Adobe will just collapse and finally be gone. Good riddance.

TheGrinchSR wrote:But for most of my work, I work on Windows because compatibility with client solutions is my priority rather than advocating for open source solutions they aren't that interested in.

You see, the more stupid the work, the more the client will eventually pressure you for discounts and lower rates. Furthermore, stupid work is not likely to contribute to any future skills that will turn out to be moneymakers. And then it truly becomes a race to the bottom. That is why I refuse to work with most clients who contact me, and yes, Windows has always been a show stopper. There are only 24 hours in a day and I am not touching Windows in any of them.

eriksank wrote:

TheGrinchSR wrote:there is no-one operating in the solely open source space that come close to Microsoft's profitability nor Apple's (which is also mainly proprietary software based).

Google is worth a lot more than Microsoft, and they only use open-source software. You see, we don't need Microsoft for anything, but we would have a hard time without Google Search or without Android.

TheGrinchSR wrote:The Adobe Creative Suite, for example, simply has no open source rivals.

Images and movies are actually a bad example. It is all mathematics. Adobe did not invent or publish any innovative mathematical theorems whatsoever. Adobe is only good at creating the illusion for dummies that they can do something in that field too. If you need advanced image/video mathematics, you will have to look elsewhere. Furthermore, if you ever met people with the math skills required to make a difference in that field, you would also know that they would never, ever work for Adobe. Someone who is excellent at math simply looks down on that kind of people. In other words, Adobe can only hire mediocre mathematicians. The same holds true for programmers. Top-level programmers look down with contempt upon companies like Adobe. If you can work on any interesting project of your choice, would you really work on Adobe's dumb stuff? That is why Adobe also has a hard time hiring great programmers. Again, with Sergey Brin and Larry Page at the top, Google has no trouble hiring the best and the brightest. If Google ever did something in image/video manipulation, Adobe would be toast in no time, no sweat.

TheGrinchSR wrote:The good news, of course, is that this delivers a competitive environment in which both kinds of software can thrive.

Not really. Adobe will just barely survive, until they disappear. Nobody who is good at anything would want that kind of leadership. So, Adobe suffers from an ongoing idiotization process. Anybody who is any good at anything will spontaneously leave, meaning that Adobe increasingly keeps sitting on only idiots. In the meanwhile, the competitive situation will keep punching at them, while they are unable to react. For example, Apple kicked Adobe's Flash stuff from the IPhone. Any meaningful reaction from Adobe? No. Too slow. Too stupid. Too incapable. They cannot handle the competition of adversaries, even when adversaries are only moderately smart. In other words, at some point Adobe will just collapse and finally be gone. Good riddance.

TheGrinchSR wrote:But for most of my work, I work on Windows because compatibility with client solutions is my priority rather than advocating for open source solutions they aren't that interested in.

You see, the more stupid the work, the more the client will eventually pressure you for discounts and lower rates. Furthermore, stupid work is not likely to contribute to any future skills that will turn out to be moneymakers. And then it truly becomes a race to the bottom. That is why I refuse to work with most clients who contact me, and yes, Windows has always been a show stopper. There are only 24 hours in a day and I am not touching Windows in any of them.

I love it when someone tries to turn rational into religion. Top mathematicians go where the money is and that's banking and finance.

My clients don't pressure me for lower rates and never will. In fact year-on-year I expect 10-20% increases in my hourly rate. You may have 24 hours in a day, I have 8 (7 when you take out lunch) and the only non-renewable resource I have is time. My clients know that and pay commensurately. While you're out worshiping the god of open source, I am worshiping Mammon... it's a much better way to approach running a business.

TheGrinchSR wrote:I love it when someone tries to turn rational into religion. Top mathematicians go where the money is and that's banking and finance.

Wrong, the National Security Agency is the largest employer of mathematicians in the United States, and perhaps the world:

The are a variety of government positions that require a mathematics degree. In particular, the National Security Agency (NSA) is the largest employer of mathematicians in the United States, and perhaps the world. Among other things, the NSA needs mathematicians to help create and break codes, analyze intelligence data, and perform signal analysis. The NSA looks for intelligent and imaginative thinkers who can contribute original ideas to the solution of many of our nation's most difficult problems. They hire people with a variety of technical degrees at all levels (undergraduate and graduate), and the pay and work conditions are often extremely good.

http://www.math.uh.edu/~tomforde/Web/Jobs.html

BOFH wrote:

TheGrinchSR wrote:I love it when someone tries to turn rational into religion. Top mathematicians go where the money is and that's banking and finance.

Wrong, the National Security Agency is the largest employer of mathematicians in the United States, and perhaps the world:

The are a variety of government positions that require a mathematics degree. In particular, the National Security Agency (NSA) is the largest employer of mathematicians in the United States, and perhaps the world. Among other things, the NSA needs mathematicians to help create and break codes, analyze intelligence data, and perform signal analysis. The NSA looks for intelligent and imaginative thinkers who can contribute original ideas to the solution of many of our nation's most difficult problems. They hire people with a variety of technical degrees at all levels (undergraduate and graduate), and the pay and work conditions are often extremely good.

http://www.math.uh.edu/~tomforde/Web/Jobs.html

They may be the largest employer but they are not the ones with the "top mathematicians" which was the argument. Nobody works for government when they can make 10-20 times as much in the real world. People work for government when the real world can't better their offer...