Hi Dave,

> Two things...
>
> Trust me, I am well aware of your position after 10-12 years of it.
>
> Why don't you give your services away for free. In order to make this a
> better world and a better model. We could all go to a system of
> collective wealth (oh wait that is socialism). <

Actually I do give away some services. And I'll bet you do also, for friends and where they can do good. I'm not sure that warrants the red paint brush. I also make a living and the FOSS community is just fine with that. But, if you listen (read??) carefully, I very seldom opine on services, mostly products. If all the automation stuff became free tomorrow, it wouldn't turn the world upside down for most of us because the work we are needed for wouldn't change except for getting somewhat easier and probably more abundant. That's why I find the (mild) vitriol so interesting.

> You do what you do to make money rather than save the world from
> software oppression. I agree with you on many items including many open
> source theories (shocking). But unfortunately when it comes to ANY
> intellectual property, there will be protection of that property. <

We don't disagree on that either. I'm not sure why the OSS paradigm is equated to piracy. I don't want bootlegged proprietary closed drek, I want Open solutions that are Open in accordance with the authors wishes. When I write software that I release under the GPL, it's obvious that I care about Intellectual Property rights. Otherwise, I wouldn't license it at all or release it to Public Domain. The GPL provides very specific protection for the IP I place under it. It is simply where you consider your work to be more valuable.

> I have learned over the years to try to control the things I can
> control. The system is the system, affect it where I can and make it
> work for me where I cannot. <

I think you greatly undervalue your influence. People are directly responsible for the advances that have been made and they have drastically altered many "systems" in many areas. And these changes towards openness and away from monopoly have been spectacularly successful, including the incredible ease with which we share our views, which was inconceivable under the previous "systems". If everyone reading this simply demanded Open tools and rejected the artificial barriers and lock-in schemes, the change would be both swift and dramatic. And the dialog has steadily moved in that direction for a decade or so. It is only by the tolerance of the market for such excesses that they exist. There will be a tipping point.

> As repeated on this list 1,000,000 times.................."I am a tool
> user, not a tool maker...I use the tools of business to make money", If
> the tools cost more, I charge more. unfortunately if we make the tools
> cheaper, then we also must charge less. If the tools are free, it is not
> very long before I am asked why should they pay me, why not just hire an
> "Open Engineer", who will do it for us for free. <

I wish them all the luck in the world. Custom, one-off applications are almost never in the realm of OSS and even penguins need to eat. I wouldn't worry, if anything a greater number of choices will require more and better engineers.

> But once again, and again, and again....I do know your
> opinion..........very well. <

Sometimes I wonder.... :^)

Regards

cww

 

I think the answer to that is "I'm sure you can, but if they guy is a volunteer, you won't be able to dictate the project schedule, or to complain if he decides to stop the project halfway through and play World of Warcraft instead, or even find him in five years when you want changes or troubleshooting".

Both paradigms have their place, and if you're working for someone who WOULD do just as well with something available free off the internet, I have to ask why?

 

In reply to Dave Ferguson: I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning about how using free tools leads to no pay for the people using them. People in the computer software industry seem to make a lot more money than we do, and they've been using free software tools extensively for years.

Once upon a time, every model of computer came with its own special proprietary operating system, and was programmed its own special proprietary programming language, using its own special proprietary programming editor. Sort of like what we still do in this industry today.

Eventually, however, technology marched on. Computer hardware is now largely a commodity. Basic infrastructure software is going the same way. The companies that are willing to change to deal with that are prospering. The ones that aren't are going out of business. Customers are benefiting. They're getting more choice, lower costs, and better service from vendors. Sort of like what we wouldn't mind seeing in this industry today.

Your position seems to be that you are comfortable with the way things are and you don't want to see anything change. I can understand that. There were lots of people programming in COBOL on VAX-VMS who didn't want things to change either. I'm not sure where you would find those same people today though.

 

My note was sarcasm for all those that did not recognize it...

If we complain about the software distribution and proprietary system and how it should be free (OSes etc.), then how long is it before people are asking why pay for standard Engineering (prints, meetings, design review, etc.) when they are mostly commodity items, and why should that not be free also (insert cheaper Engineer from India here)? Notice that the very IT people you talk about are complaining about this now.

In other words we think that there should be protection for our intellectual property (the work WE do) but do not want there to be the same freedom to make money for the Software Engineers at say Rockwell or Microsoft to protect their work and code and not distribute it freely in the name of "goodness" to mankind.

If they wish to give it away that is their right (and I like it) just like if they chose to "protect and charge" for it is their right.

Who are YOU to decide what should and should not be free and open... that is THEIR choice. Of course you can vote with your dollars or try to "push" your opinions on others, but remember someone may later push theirs upon you and ask you to "Open" up your work to them also...

Have a great day:

Dave

 

I've pointed out, both here and other places, that the "Open Source" phenomena has metamorphisized from the early days in a way very few anticipated back then.

Back in the good old days of B-news and Usenet the code that we shared was tools that made our jobs easier, not the employing company product. Therein lies the difference between then and now - then the open source code made our companies *MORE* money because it helped make things more productive, whereas now the open source code competes directly with the company in the market. Also, as far as the OS was concerned, AT&T was not allowed to sell computers or UNIX directly, so all the work on the OS tools didn't impact the cash flow. A completely free operating system *COULD NOT* impact AT&T back then because they were legally block from that market. Do you really think that Sun has benefited from the fact that Sun OS (or Solaris if you prefer) is no longer a marketable product. Insert other examples ad nauseum here if you like.

MB
--
Michael Batchelor
www.IndustrialInformatics.com

 

Dave: "Who are YOU to decide what should and should not be free and open..."

I vote with my wallet.

Hey, wait, you already addressed that!

Dave: "Of course you can vote with your dollars or try to 'push' your opinions on others, but remember someone may later push theirs upon you and ask you to 'Open' up your work to them also..."

My company has always used an "open" style of coding for our customers. When we write an application in C, ladder, Karel, or whatever, we give it to the customer. It's theirs. They never have to call us again if they don't want to. They could buy 100 more machines and tell us they don't want the programming, they'll just copy our old one. Fine by us.

-James Ingraham
Sage Automation, Inc.

 

I don't think it's quite accurate to lay the blame
for Solaris becoming a less marketable product on the OSS folks. The UNIX world was nearing room temperature before OSS had any meaningful impact. And proprietary UNIX and more open varieties have peacefully coexisted since the very beginning. It was the Windows juggernaut that almost wiped the UNIX business out. In fact, anyone marketing *NIX products and services actually owe a large debt of gratitude to the OSS folks for the resurgence of all things *NIX. The lowest point for commercial UNIX predates most people ever having heard of Linux for example, and BSD is not a factor because they forked way before the decline of the empire. That's the perspective of a long time UNIX admin and fan who saw the whole thing play out and has the bruises to prove it. Since about V7.

Regards

cww

 

Yes, it strikes me as questionable ethically to write code for someone on their nickel, compile it, and give them only the binary. Especially if done overtly or covertly to extort money from them because you have possession of _their_ code. Now, it they explicitly and with full understanding, agree to this, that's fine. But, not too many people think ahead until they've been burned by this. The minimum I would agree to would be an escrow of the source against the chance that the authors or responsible parties become unavailable or contracts are breached. Contrast this to the typical shrinkwrap license and see which is more fair for both parties.

Regards

cww

 

In reply to Michael Batchelor: I think that Sun might disagree with you over whether Solaris is a marketable product. They and their customers certainly seem to think it is. You can get OpenSolaris for "free", but it doesn't come with a service contract.

Anybody putting in the sort of system that Sun sells is going to get a service contract for the complete system. Sun is primarily a hardware company, not a software company. Solaris, Java, etc. are tools to sell more Sun server hardware and associated support contracts.