|
Daniël Pelsmaeker wrote:
Other open source programs do very well, and you'll have to admit that.
So far my experiences with various "open source libraries" where dissastrous. Im programming since almost 17 years now, and I've tried to use many promissing libraries (promissing here is not meant as pro-missing). With the exception of so few that I can count them on one hand (well, half hand), I ended up with writting my own solution because the open source code was just not commercial enough. It seems that Microsoft stole the "It Just Works (IJW)" from the open source community: the software just works (within its very limited boundaries) but dont expect it to work always and correctly.
The very same is true with 95% of the source code available here at codeproject. IJW, but dont try to use it in a commercial application.
If you take the view that its all about knowledge and not about the code, yes, its great. Its even phantastic. Nowhere else you'll find such a diversity of ideas and solutions. But - just understand the idea and dont use the code if you are going to write a commercial application.
Open Source should be understood only as a knowledge pool, not as a source code repository.
Finally moved to Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
SaurweinAndreas wrote:
So we know already about 2 OS projects which come with tests. What about the other 70,861 which are hosted at SourceForge? Or, how many of the 8652 projects there which claim to be "Production/Stable" have regression tests? Or any functionality tests at all.
At least, with Open Source you know how rigorous it was. With closed source, by definition, you have no access to the test suite, if any.
Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet.
-- Bruce Schneier
By the way, dog_spawn isn't a nickname - it is my name with an underscore instead of a space. -- dog_spawn
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Turini wrote:
With closed source, by definition, you have no access to the test suite, if any.
True, but at least I know where to complain when it breaks. And most companies are greatful to hear about bugs instead of users silently swallowing them.
With Open Source you can fix the bug yourself, yeah great. Did anybody every try to figure out how to fix a bug in the Linux kernel? How many weeks does it take an average programmer to even find the location of the bug, not to talk about fixing it.
Finally moved to Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
SaurweinAndreas wrote:
True, but at least I know where to complain when it breaks. And most companies are greatful to hear about bugs instead of users silently swallowing them.
I don't report bugs to Microsoft. It would take me all day! I just silently try again, or work around it.
SaurweinAndreas wrote:
With Open Source you can fix the bug yourself, yeah great. Did anybody every try to figure out how to fix a bug in the Linux kernel? How many weeks does it take an average programmer to even find the location of the bug, not to talk about fixing it.
And if you are such a person who can't fix that bug, then report it. From those hundreds op used who can fix the bug, one must be able to do it. By tomorrow, a new fresh fixed CVS version awaits you...
Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a table. "Hey Albert," said Marilyn. "Imagine if we had a baby and it had my looks and your brains-it could do anything it wanted." "Yes, my dear," replied Einstein. "But what if it has my looks and your brains?"
|
|
|
|
|
Daniël Pelsmaeker wrote:
I don't report bugs to Microsoft. It would take me all day! I just silently try again, or work around it.
Well then, probably you are too Open Minded and should just stay using Open Source and help making it better, spreading the word to the unbelievers.
Me, for one, will just stop arguing here. Open Source does not work for me and my company. If it works for you, great. Go ahead.
Have a nice day. I will right now update my commercial software which was just released with some neat bugfixes.
Finally moved to Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
Daniël Pelsmaeker wrote:
I don't report bugs to Microsoft. It would take me all day! I just silently try again, or work around it.
In my experience i would have to disagree with your statement. On two seperate occasions that i have felt the need to report problems to microsoft i have found that they quickly get escalated to the right people working on the code.
The first incident involved a memory leak with IE4. Once i had written some code to show the problem i very quickly had emails from the development team with hotfixes for now and release schedules as to when the fixed version would be available.
More recently i was working with the XmlTextReader class in .NET and found a problem using it with a NetworkStream. Again, once i had written some code to demonstrate the problem and contacted microsoft it took just 4 internal emails to get to the actual developer responsible for the XmlTextReader class and they responded again with the offer of a patch for now and the assurance that it will be fixed in SP1 of the 1.1 framework.
In the meantime i'd also found that there was a workaround to the issue anyway which involved manually setting up a bunch of encoding stuff for the class to use.
I found both of these instances amazing, there are plenty of small companies where you struggle to get answers so to have this experience with a company of microsofts size is outstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniël Pelsmaeker wrote:
I don't report bugs to Microsoft. It would take me all day! I just silently try again, or work around it
People seem to relate closed source software with microsoft...
Why?
theJazzyBrain
Excelence is not an act, but a habit Aristotle
|
|
|
|
|
Sites like www.sourceforge.net specialize in open source projects. The problem you describe is indeed an actual problem, but thanks to Bug Trackers, and places where you can post patches and feature requests, these are integrated quickly.
As someone who has extensively used SF for the past three years working on OS projects, I can absolutely say that this is utter bunk.
The trackers in and of themselves do NOT make one iota of difference in terms of regression testing, or any sort of testing for that matter, which was the primary point of his question.
And even if a patch is submitted it is still up to the maintainer(s) of the project to apply them and test them.
Furthermore, the SF bug tracker is fairly weak. Now I understand it's a free service, so I am happy enough to have anything, but it still is not very sophisticated and there exists (AFAIK) no way to customize it in any signifgant way.
In other words, the presence of these helps towards the collection of various data (bugs, patches), but it in no way indicates the speed at which they'll be applied.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
|
|
|
|
|
I think that anyone who comes here and uses libraries found on this website (in one way or another) then argues how bad open source software is should shut their hypocritical mouths.
knowledge is power. information feeds knowledge. closed source systems do not allow for the growth and dissemination of in information and knowledge. they do however allow growth of local economies, so closed source programs are usefull too.
what would be attractive about a university if you only paid for the deploma? instead value is created by people knowing things. open source allows for this.
money will always be made by those who know what others do not. but knowledge that isn't shared is usless.
all in all good article.
|
|
|
|
|
The MadHatter wrote:
I think that anyone who comes here and uses libraries found on this website (in one way or another) then argues how bad open source software is should shut their hypocritical mouths.
So did you actually read my entire post? (I'm assuming you're criticising me, if not, then I apologise for misunderstanding you).
I disagreed with the statements that Open Source software development was somehow magically better than Closed Source software, particularly as they were made without reference to any research (or even convincing anecdotal evidence) made on the subject. I also stated that I thought Open Source was preferable in certain places. I will also quite happily use any software that works for my needs, regardless of origin (examples in point being VirtualDub and occasionally Mozilla).
However, that does not mean that I should not make a point where I think Open Source is lacking (something very few people seem to be doing). My main concern and criticism over the seeming lack of regression testing in Open Source software is quite valid, and I would hope that all developers, regardless of what they actually work on, take that to heart.
As for the rest of your post:
The MadHatter wrote:
knowledge is power. information feeds knowledge. closed source systems do not allow for the growth and dissemination of in information and knowledge. they do however allow growth of local economies, so closed source programs are usefull too.
Not having access to say, the source code for Internet Explorer doesn't stop me from being able to write my own Windows-based Web Browser (Opera being the case in point). The W3C specs for HTML, HTTP, etc are available, as is the documentation on the APIs (graphics, UI Toolsets, network), that I'd use to write such a program.
If I were to write a web browser from scratch, I probably wouldn't look at an existing web browser purely because untangling the important information on what the Web Browser is meant to be doing from the source code is more work than reading the HTML/HTTP specs and deciding on the design of browser from that.
Even if I needed to directly duplicate functionality from another (Open Source) web browser, I'd still take the clean room approach (how Compaq got their own BIOS without wholesale copying IBMs back when the first PC clones came out), purely because of the risk of being sued for copyright infringement.
money will always be made by those who know what others do not. but knowledge that isn't shared is usless.
Not to the guy who already knows it (joke)
--
Ian Darling
"The moral of the story is that with a contrived example, you can prove anything." - Joel Spolsky
|
|
|
|
|
yea, my comments weren't directed to you in particular (sorry bout that). I should have started my own thread for my comment but didn't.
it was more a shot at those who cant stand open source, what ever the license, and come here and partake of "open source" anyway
as far as the ie example, this is true. but even ie is built off of mosiac. ms just takes the high road, and buys their source code. open source is for the rest of the world who doesn't want to re-invent the wheel and isn't the most wealthy ententity in the world with billions at their disposal.
as far as re-writing something that already exists, sometimes this is the only way to do something, though from my experience not the most efficient or effective. I mean how far would we be if we had to re-write the STL every time we wanted to use a basic data-structure. I know this isn't exactly the same thing, but if you think of what's already written as a possible tool in the toolbox it makes sense. being able to change that tool on the fly with out building it from scratch (if scratch is a valid starting point), is a powerful thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Do I understand correctly that I can use LGPL in a commercial program without revealing my own source code?
Is there somewhere an overview of all libraries that can be used in a commercial program without revealing my own source code?
|
|
|
|
|
You are almost right. You are then allowed to link to the library from your own non-free program. How about including the source code in your own program? Please read the LGPL license carefully.
Just look for programs (usually libraries) licenses under the LGPL (also known as the Library General Public License), for example on Sourceforge.net.
Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a table. "Hey Albert," said Marilyn. "Imagine if we had a baby and it had my looks and your brains-it could do anything it wanted." "Yes, my dear," replied Einstein. "But what if it has my looks and your brains?"
|
|
|
|
|
Just some thoughts,
> Faster software development
Does this mean that I can give my spec to the 'community' and ask them to code "feature x", why would they do it any faster than the guy I'm paying to do it.
> Faster bug fixes
How are the bug fixes faster?
> More people will use the program
But will more people pay for using the program?
> The wishes of the general community will be automatically integrated in the program
How is this a good thing? A product needs a fixed set of aims and goals otherwise it becomes a nightmare to support and maintain. By having extra and probably un-needed functionality added by somebody who thought it was a 'cool' idea is the best way to have a project start slipping.
> Less development costs
Is there any figures to back this up? Surely the extra project management time, code reviewing time for checking for code developed by untrusted sources, extra testing etc add more to the development costs than if it was all done in-house by a team getting paid.
GPL is an interesting idea, one with ideals that are worthy but our current society will never embrace it fully because it impacts on our ability to pay the bills.
Can you name one succesful GPL product that pays the bills, but isn't aimed exclusivly at geeks, developers, or the general internet. Something in the real world that the rest of us can relate too.
Michael
'Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority.' - The Doctor: The Wheel in Space
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
> Faster software development
Does this mean that I can give my spec to the 'community' and ask them to code "feature x", why would they do it any faster than the guy I'm paying to do it.
More people work on it. And more people improve it *in their own way*. I.e. the result will be something that the general community likes (since it is created by them). You can give the idea of "feature x", and may even provinde the implementation. Or find someone else who likes this feature and implements it for the project.
Michael P Butler wrote:
> Faster bug fixes
How are the bug fixes faster?
Because when more people work on and with the program, the chances of noticing a bug increase, and fixing can be done by the person him/her self, or by posting this bug on a forum, and someone else will fix it.
Michael P Butler wrote:
> More people will use the program
But will more people pay for using the program?
Take for example, the Magic Library[^]. This library was Open Source, so it got developed by other people. Now that it has reached a state of completeness, the owner changed the license of their own code, and now you'll have to pay for it. They can improve the program on their very own, but those earlier versions that float around may still be used, improved, and further developed.
Michael P Butler wrote:
> The wishes of the general community will be automatically integrated in the program
How is this a good thing? A product needs a fixed set of aims and goals otherwise it becomes a nightmare to support and maintain. By having extra and probably un-needed functionality added by somebody who thought it was a 'cool' idea is the best way to have a project start slipping.
I never said that my letting other people develop a program, that they will code features that have nothing to do with the program. I just mean that when 'the general community' works on a program, it's improvements are good improvements in the eyes of those people, which mean that they like it. If they do, more (non developers) will propeably also like it.
For example, NSIS[^]. This is an open source installer for the Windows platform. People suggested a look like the new Windows XP look. The program didn't support that before, and now it does. People are happy.
People asked for multilingual support, which wasn't integrated by default. After many versions, multilingual support has been archieved (Right-to-left text, uncommon character sets, translated versions). The general community is happy...
Michael P Butler wrote:
> Less development costs
Is there any figures to back this up? Surely the extra project management time, code reviewing time for checking for code developed by untrusted sources, extra testing etc add more to the development costs than if it was all done in-house by a team getting paid.
I mentioned this from a hobby-developer point of view. I don't have to pay anything to let my programs develop. Neighter does Mono, the open source .NET framework replacement library, in contrast to Microsoft, who put millions of dollars into .NET.
Michael P Butler wrote:
Can you name one succesful GPL product that pays the bills, but isn't aimed exclusivly at geeks, developers, or the general internet. Something in the real world that the rest of us can relate too.
If I understand you correctly, you want me to name an open source product from which the developers (or the owning company) will earn money, right?
SuSE linux (not downloadable, still open source, you'll have to buy it). They provide the full source code with the distribution, unde rthe GPL licese which says that you may distribute and modify the source code. But people don't. SuSE develops it much better and all bugs and fixes, patches and feature requests are send to SuSE. So they earn money.
Same for that Magic library I mentioned.
Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a table. "Hey Albert," said Marilyn. "Imagine if we had a baby and it had my looks and your brains-it could do anything it wanted." "Yes, my dear," replied Einstein. "But what if it has my looks and your brains?"
|
|
|
|
|
Haha SuSE?! You're telling me that's aimed at the general public? No sir, you're dreaming.
I view open source as a way to spread and share knowledge, but it'd be suicidal to use an open source business model. Prove me wrong.
The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
|
|
|
|
|
Judah H. wrote:
I view open source as a way to spread and share knowledge, but it'd be suicidal to use an open source business model. Prove me wrong.
Those companies who let themselves in with open source 'didn't commit suicide'. Prove me wrong, by giving one example of a company which developed an open source program and died from it..
And I never said anything about having a complete open source business model.. Just about developing an open source application.
Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a table. "Hey Albert," said Marilyn. "Imagine if we had a baby and it had my looks and your brains-it could do anything it wanted." "Yes, my dear," replied Einstein. "But what if it has my looks and your brains?"
|
|
|
|
|
Hello
Open Source is an idea, which I really like. I would love to code in world where all programs are open source. But generally it's a dream. As long as I have to earn money to live, I will not give away my progs for free -> why should I do this? Do you give keys to your apartment to anyone on the street? Tell me why -> I think that some people might come and tell you that you should for example buy another sofa, cause this one does not match color of the walls. If you open car doors and leave, it is probably that next day you will find your car intact (someone might borrow it, and return).
But as long as we close doors, as long as we keep keys to our cars, and as long as we have to earn money to live, I do not believe in open source.
I am now wondering: if you have enough courage please tell us what do yo do for living, them tell me what I should do for living (I am a chief programmer currently, but I am writing non-open source stuff).
Waiting for your answer
Mukkie
|
|
|
|
|
Mukkie wrote:
I am a chief programmer currently
You're Da Man, obviously.
You are of utmost importance and towering competence, that you really had no time to think from a broader perspective. Hence your moronic comparisons in the first part of your post.
Next time, when you are no longer anonymous, I will even answer you polite and without sarcasm.
We all, as we are on CodeProject use OpenSource a great deal. It seems to work, and there are obviously a lot of people contributing and still make money for a living.
So, at least partially Open Source seems to work.
Closed source seems partially not to work, as we see with the raging software patent nonsense.
Most of the not-dot-com-bubble companies of the new economy had some sound business strategy that involves software *as part* of solutions for some problem. Not software *as* solution lacking a problem.
Software is not a product in itself. It is part of a system an end user uses to solve its
problem. In this way, open source is no thread, as the specific knowledge of a company is in its people and 'engeneering knowledge' anyway.
Mukkie wrote:
I do not believe
A huge loss for the world, indeed.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello!
Truly saying, I am happy, cause I got the anwser from You
"Sarcasm is one of the weapons, where arguments fail"
Well, I think that there is no point to cry argue or kill someone hehe... and anyway it is not a matter of faith, but reality. You know, I have a friend that claims that Amiga is still alive. Good! I know people (many people) that says that open source is good. I will not judge them all, but my opinion is built based on my experience.
And if we live in world, where we work for money, to live -> we have to work for money to live.
Let's imagine situation: I am rich. I do not have to work for money, cause I have enough of them. I love coding - so I would spend some of my time to develop applications, and give them for free. Why not? ... someone would learn from my code, or I could learn from other's code.
Hope to get answer from You.
This time, try to convience me harder
|
|
|
|
|
Mukkie wrote:
I know people (many people) that says that open source is good. I will not judge them all, but my opinion is built based on my experience.
Ok. What experience do you have with working in a Company that makes a living from producing solution from open source software?
None?
How can you say that it will not work.
Don't pretend to be naive. You seem to argue that Open Source does mean everyone codes fulltime for free. That can't be the full extent of your knowledge about open source projects?
You do not sell your finished product, but the knowledge it takes.
I for example, program an application that is sold ridiculously cheap. In fact, it is often used as some sort as a rebate-bait: It is thrown in to keep the price of the whole system up.
So - I do work for free!
But I get my regular paycheck.
While this is not about Open Source, it is about not selling a program, but giving it away 'for free'.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello!
True: I have no experience with working in company that makes open-source software. But still, I cannot understand, how this company will pay for office, will pay salaries. Of course there will be people who pay for open-source code, but let's say that there are people who walk on the moon :P
I would pay for open-source, only if I would have enough money for me and my family. In most cases for most of us, it is impossible.
Discussion is rather simple for me. Open Source is a great idea in the world of free stuff: free buses, free tv's, free soft. It is possible, but I do not think that in my live (though maybe I regret)
If free soft, why not free gas? And If we are spoking bout technology:
if free soft, why not Sony gives us all it's specs bout technology: tv, ps2, etc. Many of home-engineers would work on new ps3 console - is not that right?
Why Sony does not want to make world better by allowing someone to make better tv?
Still
(Well I made a storm)
Best Regards
Magitian
|
|
|
|
|
Mukkie wrote:
I cannot understand, how this company will pay for office, will pay salaries.
Ah, this is the point!
But that is just you, lacking the creativity to come up with a viable business model:
Other people did, and it worked!
Rest assured that I am also incapable to come up with something so sound that I would bet my existence on it...
Mukkie wrote:
Sony...tv
What is the link between them?
Why Sony does not want to make world better by allowing someone to make better tv?
They have no word to say if you design a better TV-set. As long as you are not infringing on their patent (but that is a whole different story).
TV are made by a lot of companies. Each one thake the base technologies and tries to make better products from the specs that are common knowledge.
This way, TVs get better and better: 100Hz, PAL and NTSC in one set, improved videotext, Harddisk recorder build in etc.
None of this has been brought to us by Sony.
Yet they are making big money with it (you can bet they would have left the market if not)!
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello!
But I want to code in my TV better menu - I think I am able to do this. But (my tv is Sony) Sony did not give me specs. Why? It would for sure make their product better - anyone could find bugs, and post possible fixes
Best Regards
Magitian
|
|
|
|
|
Mukkie wrote:
But I want to code in my TV better menu...Sony did not give me specs Why?
No idea. Probably people like you (and me!) are less than one permille of the Sony-customers.
The business model of Sony Inc. does have no impact on Open Source and making money with it.
Who is 'General Failure'? And why is he reading my harddisk?!?
|
|
|
|
|