This is a continuation of a THIS THREAD that veered a little: As I said before:
As long as source code is a commodity, some will stop all of it from being open to the public.For source code not to be a commodity, means it has no value, and that's not going to happen. Some will always seek to control the path that information takes external from themself - this is an absurd practise, but one with a long history. :) This history will take a long time to reverse itself, and I figure it will only take place under extreme circumstances. I believe in 'Open' information. Is 'Open' software a good thing?Hell yes! All information should be FREE!I really like the GPL movement.No, I don't feel like giving up my rights.What are those silly guys thinking, GNU, smoo!
Okay, I try to avoid these conversations, knowing they usually start holy wars. Is open source good or bad? Well, depends on whose perspective in question. I love to write software. When I want to write a program, toolkit, or library, it is my perogotive whether I want to distribute binaries or source. That said, lets contrast a bit. I sometimes consult for law enforcement agencies and write software. Under the terms of the agreement, I retain all rights to the source and use of the software. If I want to make it a product I can sell to other agencies or departments, I can. They only get view the source code if they need to review it for security purposes. Not to modify, extend, or whatever. Why? Because I won't ommitted that and had a department employee go into competition against me with my own software. If I write an IDE to be freely released, it is my choice to open the source or not. Perhaps I leave it closed because I rely on too many commercial libraries and toolkits. Perhaps I don't rely on anything, and simply don't feel like opening the source. Am I hampering the industry (especially if it becomes a popular program)??? What if I discover a really great new algorithm that changes the way we think... *must* I open it up just to appease a few people? On the other hand, if I'm writing tutorials, or manuals, or hobby programs I don't want to support in the first place or simply choose to enter them into the public and let other people take the torch, I'll open it up. That's my choice. Businesses on the other hand, may not be proven one way or the next to make more or less money by keeping proprietary or open source. Some might argue that. I think bad customer service mixed with too much licensing emphasis and litigation makes a company bad, as opposed to a proprietary technology that is very flexible. Microsoft, is proprietary and goes out of their way to encourage developers support and people develop, therefore people consume, and the company is highly successful. Commercial companies who make profit and sell the source, most definately restrict what you can do with that source lest you compete with their product or a derivative. That's perfectly acceptable. Lets say 75% of software was free or open. The problem with that, is that people will start to expect it that way and will shrug more likely than nought on commercial software. I'm not going to argue quality here, that's not important. I feel like most open source movement are spawned by the urge to break a dependency with a commerical rival, not out the good of one's heart. (in most cases -- not all). Programmers, most of them, are in it for the money or need to money to support a family. That's why it's called "Work". I'm not in it for the money, but because of it, I'm able to support myself better than if I was at McDonalds. Because so many people contribute now, while working other jobs, does not mean in any way, that if 75% software was open or free, and consumers expected that or demanded that, that many people who program for profit now would indeed program as a hobby. I'll be honest, I program as a hobby to keep my skills to compliment my work or vice versa. If I was not a professional programmer, I would devote less time. Because I program all day at work, I learn more quicker. Or what I learn on my own I apply at work and I grow. Take away the work factor, and I'll find something to do. I love programming, but, it needs to make sense for me to give my life to it before I will. I think that everything free is bad in the long run. We need people to capitolize it for it to keep the quality. To improve the research. The technique. Drive the force. Open source helps, but they usually spawn (as I said) out of competitive spirit, not to start a new paradigm (except Napster). I'm not an expert, so my comments may have been a bit wrong. These are only my opinions. It has it's place. Just because so many people feel that the world "owes" them something with free this,
I don't understand GNU, GPL and all those other liscenses so I can't really make an informed comment on them. However it my understanding of them that source code should be included with software then I oppose this. Most people don't want source code, they just want working programs. Other people put alot of work into programs and should be allowed to retain all rights to it. Unconditionally. Besides good source code is a waste of time, if its good (by good I mean that the programmer walked the correct line between small code and speed) then its also illegable, well asm is anyway. I'm a firm believer that you should write your procedures. Codeing should be exchanged through ideas, formula and hypetical scenarios not pure code. That said if the programmer wishs to then by including a working exapmle of their idea will greatly help those unable (be it through time constraints or otherwise) to write their own procedure benifit from it. A good example of this are Hutch's code samples of search algoritims.
I don't know, bitRAKe. It never happened to me before nor have I ever heard that complaint and the polling code hasn't changed. So it must be you, I guess. bitRAKE.
Hiroshimator, I didn't change anything - I just posted a reply and it was fixed. When the post first came up I got an error message in the message, so I clicked the reply button at the top - to let you know. When the reply came up it was fixed. Oh well, I always knew I was special. :P
I am inclined to think that polls are not worth the electrons required to display them. :) As far as Holy Wars, they are fun at times and I have never shied from partaking in one as they get ideas spread around. My comments in the thread started by Rene are based on what I perceive to be a fundamental difference between Rene and myself, I tend to see Rene as an idealist where I am very much a pragmatist. While Rene was building homes for a living, I have written code in a world dominated by Microsoft so i have a lot more first hand experience in the range of indiscretions that Microsoft have inflicted on the programming community from time to time. Part of my reaction to the situation over the last few years was to start on the project MASM32 to ensure that the power and freedom of assembler was passed on to the next generation and I think that the assumption about the young guys was correct. I am seeing some very good coding coming from the young guys that is original and well thought out. People like Iczelion, Ron Thomas, Test Department, Steve Gibson, Sven Schreiber, Randy Hyde and many others have worked hard to ensure this old skill was passed down in working order so that the brainpower and originality of the next generation could make new and clever things with it. Where I take Rene to task is in the effectiveness of his approach, Windows is with us NOW, bugs, bad manners and all and it is the best vehicle to write assembler in at the moment. The fundamental logic in programming will stay with programmers who have done the hard work learning assembler on the x86 platform and in the future, that skill will be applied by this generation to things that cranky old b****ards like myself will not see. There is a genuine desire in the younger programming market to avoid just playing with the current batch of "kiddies cyphers" and get into some real meat, in a very practical sense, MASM is the tool that will get them there. While I am happy to see Rene develop a new assembler and I hope that he can civilise it enough for people to start writing some code in it but it will be some time before it can deliver the sheer grunt that MASM already delivers. Waiting for any one particular environment to come to fruition would leave an entire generation out in the cold playing with the junk that is currently sold as programming packages. To do this properly in a Microsoft dominated world, MASM32 had to be true freeware, not crippled and conditional freeware and it is here that I disagree strongly with Rene, GPL in its various flavours assumes social theory that not everyone is willing to suffer. I can comfortably live with commercial software, freeware, open source, closed source and most of the variations among them but when someone wants to tell me that I must write code under any paticular one of them, I am inclines to tell them to "go jump into the Seine". What i write is mine and I will do as I wish with it, use it, delete it, sell it or give it away. Regards, firstname.lastname@example.org This message was edited by hutch--, on 6/11/2001 8:40:08 PM
I couldn't agree with you more Hutch - in no way should one person tell another how they should do something, or what they should do with how they have done something. :) I would prefer to hear the expression of ones experience: "I have do this thing, and I feel that this was the result." -- not: "I have thought about it, and given my experience this is what you should do." The difference between these two ideas can get a little blurry. If fact, if the passion for ones expression is great enough, it can seem as if that is what they are telling you that you must do. Of course, all this analysis is from many personal experience. :) I usually convert the second type of expression into the first, so that I may gain something from it - it works for me.
Lets all look at it this way.... if I buy a car, No one should tell me where I can drive that car at.. if I buy a can opener, no one should tell me what kind of products I can open with it, and if I buy a hammer, I should be able to build what I want with it. like wise, if you give something away for free, is it really free, if you can't use it the way you want? to define FREE is to say, it is free of everthing yours to do what you want with, if you don't want to give it away free and you want to put stipulations on it, don't hide behind the word free, cuz most people would rather buy the dam thing right out so they can use it there way, or not at all, so don't offer anything free with chains attached. example, here is a package to make money on the net, it's free as long as you don't use it to make money. duh, While I am at it I should write a book on how to READ, duh, anytime you have to do something to get something, it is not free. another example, someone has a program to submit your site, he says you can use it,as long as you place a link to his site, if I do this then it is not free it was paid for buy the work I did to place a link on my page to his site, a trade, he set the price, I paid. end of story. free is only free if it comes at NO cost at all. By the way, this is my 2 cents, therefore it was not free.
No matter how much information (be that tutorials or code) is availible on assembly language it certainly isn't free! The time/effort required to understand that material is very great. And to program in assembly well is far greater still. We all pay with time and effort in the least. When it costs you money on top of that, that money must be aquired from another source (ie you don't know enough to sell your work). So if there are no libraries with the books, I have no computer, and certainly not all the development software, then the cost is very great. The world is more free than it has ever been, but that is on average and from my perspective. To some freedom is living out in the country on a farm, and providing all that is need for their families survival. That kind of freedom is rarely seen in the US. I listen to my grandmother talk about freedom; and to her, she has lost all her freedoms to people from other countries that have come to the US. She is half native american, so I think that that certainly gives her the right to have that view, but it is not mine. I have had the freedom of living on a farm that was self-sufficient. But most of all my ancestors have given me the freedom of time - I will hopefully live longer than most of them. All freedoms do not come without structure, and some see that structure as a lack of freedom. Oh, boy do I carry on...;)