Mandrake Linux files for Bankruptsy

[Asher]

Re: Re: Oh joy, one of them

Originally posted by Agathon
See what I mean - he could be Gates himself.

I can be Gates, you can be Linus.

How does that sound to you?

Give it time. I hope you don't mean that Windows controls jumbo jets - I may never fly again.

Not jumbo jets in particular that I know of.

Windows powers the US Navy's nuclear aircraft carriers and the like, though.

This is a blatantly one-eyed view. Proprietary software, by it's very nature results in monopolies

One of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Do you constantly worry about the demise of University based scientific research? I'm presuming you don't.

Actually, this is a very serious topic.

Many top universities, especially in Canada, are constantly complaining that there's no way they can compete with the private sector, who is recruiting the best & brightest for private R&D....

Well don't worry about open source software, which is just the application of the same principle to the software market.

Perhaps you should look more into the matter of University Research vs Private Research before linking it to Open Source -- it hurts your case.

I don't think you understand. A workable open source project doesn't need to involve "giving it away"

I don't think you understand.

As soon as you've opened up the source to something, it's free. You can still charge for it, virtually no one will pay for it. I've heard this argument way too many times, and I have to wonder what people are thinking when they make it?

That isn't their reasoning. Apple's reasoning is that they have no economic stake in designing their OS completely from the ground up. This is old time thinking. It is more efficient for Apple to use open source software and adapt it for their own needs.

Apple's reasoning is it's cheaper to base it off FreeBSD rather than spending money (that they don't have!) to develop their own.

They aren't giving away OS X (although it is cheaper than Windows)

Cheaper in what way?
Compare the price of, say, upgrading from MacOS 9 to MacOS X to Win98 to WinXP.

Win98->WinXP is actually cheaper.

nor are the Red Hat people giving that away (at least I couldn't see them doing so on their website).

What the hell? Are you totally clueless?

Red Hat is available for free...

You seriously thought Red Hat wasn't available for free? What am I doing debating this with you?

ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/8.0/en/iso/i386/

[Asher]

Also, the core of OS X which was used from an open source project is also certainly available for free.

The reason the whole of OS X (aside from Darwin, the kernel they used) is not open source is because it's proprietary.

You used proprietary software as an example of why open source doesn't mean you need to give it away for free.

[Agathon]

I still have to pay for support for Red Hat. I presume that this is how they are making their money.

And what you claim is complete rubbish. Of course proprietary software will tend to produce monopolies. How are other companies supposed to compete with a privately owned standard? That's just insane. You should know better than this - try taking economics 101.

Actually, this is a very serious topic.

Many top universities, especially in Canada, are constantly complaining that there's no way they can compete with the private sector, who is recruiting the best & brightest for private R&D....

Of course its a problem, but it has nothing to do with my central point which you have done nothing to refute. Private industry will not support the same kind of highly theoretical scientific research that public universities engage in because the risks are simply too great (there are other problems too, but this is the main one). The problem you have identified involves tweaking the system by paying University Professors more by increasing the tax take (this is in the long run in the interest of private companies too).

Your point is simply irrelevant when applied to my claim that sometimes public/private splits are the most efficient way of organising an activity, so I fail to see how it can be held up as refutation of it. I suggest you respond to my actual argument instead of wilfully misinterpreting it.

Private industries want to maximise return and minimize risk. There is simply no incentive for them to engage in this research. This is one of the reasons why we have publicly funded scientific research, numbskull (I can't believe I'm having to explain this point...).

As soon as you've opened up the source to something, it's free. You can still charge for it, virtually no one will pay for it. I've heard this argument way too many times, and I have to wonder what people are thinking when they make it?

Well this says more about your ham fisted understanding of the situation than the argument. Look I'll spell it out with a simple example. When you buy shampoo, you buy it from a private company. But some of the discoveries that went into making the shampoo were not made by scientists that the shampoo company paid. Rather they were no doubt discovered by scientists paid for through the public system. Now here we have a product which uses both "open" and "private" research. What's the problem here? Is the shampoo company giving the shampoo away for free? No. Is Apple giving away Mac OS X for free? No. Red Hat may give their software away for free, but that's because they have an alternative revenue model (which may or may not work in the long run).

Your argument is "either it is free or it isn't". Sorry, that's just stupid because some aspects of a product can be "open" doesn't mean all are. This is a simple point which is evidenced by almost every consumer product I can think of.

Now if you will admit the obvious point that companies can sell stuff that contains the fruits of "open source" activities, I fail to see what the problem is.

Now grow up and start arguing for real.

Apple's reasoning is it's cheaper to base it off FreeBSD rather than spending money (that they don't have!) to develop their own.

Yes it is. That is exactly Apple's reasoning. It is cheaper. It is also more efficient. Your argument says claims that "If it is cheaper, Apple must be doing it because they are skint". Compare, "If it is cheaper, Microsoft would never do it because they have lots of money".

Now I think you should take Logic 101 as well.

[Asher]

Of course proprietary software will tend to produce monopolies.

Proprietary software allows the use of a monopoly. It doesn't cause a monopoly, however.

Classic case of correlation does not mean causation.

Take the database industry, for example. Where's the monopoly? Open source competes with proprietary in this market.

Private industry will not support the same kind of highly theoretical scientific research that public universities engage in because the risks are simply too great (there are other problems too, but this is the main one).

The most important technological breakthroughs today are done in the private sector. In what way does this help you prove a point about open source?

When you buy shampoo, you buy it from a private company. But some of the discoveries that went into making the shampoo were not made by scientists that the shampoo company paid....(etc)

That's a very nice way of thinking.

But it just doesn't mean ANYTHING. There are also products out there using technology developed by private companies.

What does this prove?

Your argument is "either it is free or it isn't". Sorry, that's just stupid because some aspects of a product can be "open" doesn't mean all are. This is a simple point which is evidenced by almost every consumer product I can think of.

What are you smoking?
The second you have an industry where things are "open", any dumbass who can download a free compiler can compile this and distribute it for free. That's possible, by the very nature of "open".

Further, if it uses GNU's license, if it's ever used in a proprietary program, that whole damn program must be made open. Which means it is essentially free.

Now if you will admit the obvious point that companies can sell stuff that contains the fruits of "open source" activities, I fail to see what the problem is.

They can sell it, it doesn't mean people will buy it. Linux distros suffer with this, they rely on tech support to make them money. The problem with this, of course, is once you make the system reliable and easy to use, why do you need tech support? There goes the company.

There goes Mandrake.

Now grow up and start arguing for real.

Well, considering how silly you're being and you even thought Red Hat wasn't free...I honestly can't take anything you're saying seriously in an argument about open source. Clearly, you haven't put much thought into it...

Yes it is. That is exactly Apple's reasoning. It is cheaper. It is also more efficient.

Likewise most games today use licensed proprietary engines...your point is?

Your argument says claims that "If it is cheaper, Apple must be doing it because they are skint".

No.
My argument is: "Apple is in a bad financial situation, they acquired a company [NeXT] which did work with Darwin, Darwin is free, so they used Darwin".

Your interpretation is a strawman.

"If it is cheaper, Microsoft would never do it because they have lots of money".

Microsoft used BSD sockets before.

They're not above using open source things when they can, and I agree it can be quite cheaper when it's developed properly (BSD is awesome IMO), but it doesn't mean anything with regards to it always being cheaper. Or always being even an option. My assertion is open source can be used for commodity software only...

Now I think you should take Logic 101 as well.

I'm in 300 level Logic classes right now, actually.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Re: Re: Re: Oh joy, one of them

I can be Gates, you can be Linus.

Actually Linus doesn't care at all, he only develops software the way he finds the most efficient for him. May I be ESR ?

Originally posted by Asher
Windows powers the US Navy's nuclear aircraft carriers and the like, though.

Yeah, and we know what that led to . More generally, however, I would rather rely on OpenBSD than Windows for security, and in a similar way have a piece of peer-reviewed, open-source software monitor my heart in a hospital rather than a proprietary program. Knowing how things work makes it easier - for me - to trust them.

They can sell it, it doesn't mean people will buy it. Linux distros suffer with this, they rely on tech support to make them money. The problem with this, of course, is once you make the system reliable and easy to use, why do you need tech support? There goes the company.

There goes Mandrake.

Assuming Mandrake does go under, what will happen is that someone will pick up from where they left, downloading Cooker and changing only the branding ... perhaps adding stuff like a subscription-based package repository for easier updates or something. Which raises the question: How the hell is anyone getting any money out of this if anyone can just "pick up where foo left"? I have to say that I personally don't know. Maybe it isn't supposed to work but people just don't get Debian . Or maybe I need to reread The Magic Cauldron...

OTOH, if a company created a Linux distro that was so ubiquitous and reliable that people would notice they don't actually need tech support (RH and the like want people to think they need tech support, but to never actually call - it's the most profitable for them), it would spread so quickly that even the revenue from companies where the IT policy is to get a support contract with everyone and everything that supplies anything would be enough to rake in some profit (*) ... I just wish it was possible.

(*) Engineer economics. Known for excessive naivete, highly wishful thinking, ignorance the value of marketing, and often sheer brokenness.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher



Proprietary software allows the use of a monopoly. It doesn't cause a monopoly, however.

Don't be such a troll. You know very well that we are talking about the Windows monopoly here. The need (nay the necessity) for interoperability between computers means that there is going to be a monopoly of some sort at some level,

The most important technological breakthroughs today are done in the private sector.

This is simply failing to respond to my argument. Why would a private company engage in dereliction of its shareholders by funding research where the cost and risk are great. I'm sorry but it is a plain fact that the private sector focuses on research which promises fairly immediate commercial gain. However, the most radical breakthroughs in science occur at the high theoretical level which is subject to high levels of failure of investment - making it a lousy risk for individual companies. That's why we have public university research - it has a high failure rate but the successes tend to be more far reaching.

Moreover, the scientific peer review system cannot be equalled by the private sector, where financial interests tend to get in the way of the truth coming out. Same goes for open source software - the peer review system is simply far better.

In what way does this help you prove a point about open source?

I thought it would have been obvious. Just as there is a private/public division in science (and in many other areas) to maximise efficiency, there is need for a similar system in the case of software. One is beginning to come of age.

That's a very nice way of thinking. But it just doesn't mean ANYTHING. There are also products out there using technology developed by private companies.

You just don't get it. Of course there are products which use private technology - but almost none of these fail to use publicly funded discoveries as well. Technology research in our society is organised this way for reasons of efficiency (since high risks are better dealt with when pooled among everybody). Open source software is one way of doing this.

What does this prove?

1) That people like you, who don't understand economics at all, shouldn't be beating up on open source.

2) That open source (I'm not talking about the wild anarchists claims, but about its use by companies like Apple) is efficient in a way that proprietary software cannot be, just like private science doesn't do exactly what public science does.

The second you have an industry where things are "open", any dumbass who can download a free compiler can compile this and distribute it for free. That's possible, by the very nature of "open".

Why do you think that Linux users often say that free software means something like "free speech" rather than "free cookies". I am talking about an open source community in which companies like Apple use open source software to help them produce so called "proprietary" (although it is really a mix, like OS X) software that they sell - just as the shampoo company uses ideas from the public scientific community

You seem to think that open source software means that it will all be given away for free. It won't necessarily. As long as people pay money for what Red Hat and the others do and IBM et al fund it as a way of getting at MS, it can be distributed free of charge. However, if this ends I expect to see the industry doing what Apple does - relying on open source components that can't be used on their own, but can be sold with proprietary elements to make money (MS does this too, but to a lesser extent).

Further, if it uses GNU's license, if it's ever used in a proprietary program, that whole damn program must be made open. Which means it is essentially free.

Mac OS X is certainly not free - so I don't see your point. I agree that this model of open source software will probably have some problems, but that doesn't mean that all will.

They can sell it, it doesn't mean people will buy it. Linux distros suffer with this, they rely on tech support to make them money. The problem with this, of course, is once you make the system reliable and easy to use, why do you need tech support? There goes the company.

So what. Perhaps Red Hat will fail. That doesn't mean that Apple will.

Well, considering how silly you're being and you even thought Red Hat wasn't free...I honestly can't take anything you're saying seriously in an argument about open source. Clearly, you haven't put much thought into it...

This is just hand waving because you can't be bothered to make an attempt on my actual argument. My mistake about Red Hat (which I just forgot about if you want to know the truth) has nothing to do with the rest of my argument.

My argument is: "Apple is in a bad financial situation, they acquired a company [NeXT] which did work with Darwin, Darwin is free, so they used Darwin".

Then it is false. Apple's doing OK - last time I looked they had a wad in the bank. The fact that they've made consecutive losses notwithstanding I think they'll be around for a while. Are you telling me that you are privy to Apple's private business decisions?

Your interpretation is a strawman.

Because your argument is poorly formed.

They're not above using open source things when they can, and I agree it can be quite cheaper when it's developed properly (BSD is awesome IMO), but it doesn't mean anything with regards to it always being cheaper.

This is my point - you are agreeing with me - even MS use open source stuff for reasons of efficiency. What's at stake isn't whether open source is used or not, but how much it is used and what the model of funding it would be. No open source by itself isn't always more efficient - but open source used to contribute to software which is then sold promises efficiency gains. If even you accept this then all there is left is to argue about how much open source will result in the most efficient outcome overall.

Or always being even an option. My assertion is open source can be used for commodity software only...

Explain don't assert.

I'm in 300 level Logic classes right now, actually.

It is obviously not doing you much good (and before you start - I am far beyond the 300 level in philosophy - you do not want to get into a bragfest about this with me).

[CICSMaster]

You all miss the point.
Open Source and in particular Linux and it's GNU bretheren is FREE!

All software under the GNU license is FREE!

Why would a company create open source code under the GNU license? Because they are stupid, or, because they want access to a greater pool of development resources than they could employ on their own.
The quid pro quo for this access is that they provide the software to everyone FREE of charge.

Open Source is a way of defraying your development costs, especially if you are not interested is selling the software but USING it.

The reason for LINUX is not to sell, it's to USE. The users are intimately involved in its development - if they want to be.

This is the same with all the GNU software. The users are taking direct control of the function that they want out of their sofware.

Something like GIMP, is not being produced to SELL like the ADOBE products. It's user base wants it to USE and they don't want to pay ADOBE or some other company to load it with function that they have no say on. Instead, they help write it and load it with functions that perform exactly what they want.

That's why most of the OFFICE like products on LINUX are derided by people brought up on Microsoft products. The Linux office products are pared down to do the job their users require of them and no more. So they may never be as feature rich as "proprietary" products, but then they are free and they do exactly what the user base wants.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Don't be such a troll. You know very well that we are talking about the Windows monopoly here.

I'm sure this made perfect sense in your own little world...

You stated that "proprietary software tends to lead to a monopoly", and now you've backed out of that and have said "Windows is proprietary and has a monopoly". Sorry, what's your point?

This is simply failing to respond to my argument. Why would a private company engage in dereliction of its shareholders by funding research where the cost and risk are great. I'm sorry but it is a plain fact that the private sector focuses on research which promises fairly immediate commercial gain.

Depends what you mean by immediate. Companies like Intel and IBM focus on really extreme and cool stuff for R&D. Some of it works, some of it doesn't. Shareholders support such extreme research because they know that once the company does make a breakthrough (and patents it) they'd make a fortune off of it. That model has work exceedingly well in the technology sector, I don't see your point...

That's why we have public university research - it has a high failure rate but the successes tend to be more far reaching.

You're right in that public unis focus more on things not really useful in the shortterm (<20 years or so), and that it's nice to have them, but I'm having trouble relating this to open source code...

Moreover, the scientific peer review system cannot be equalled by the private sector, where financial interests tend to get in the way of the truth coming out. Same goes for open source software - the peer review system is simply far better.

Do you understand that peer review happens at companies like Microsoft?
It's not on the scale of that of open source projects, but it doesn't need to be. You'd be a fool to think open source projects are immune to things because of peer review that proprietary aren't -- in fact there was an interesting article a while back asserting that open source proponents have a false sense of security due to the huge peer review system. The problem is, VERY few peers actually bother to review the code. Just so you know, non-Windows vulnerabilities outnumber Windows one on the latest SANS list...

I thought it would have been obvious. Just as there is a private/public division in science (and in many other areas) to maximise efficiency, there is need for a similar system in the case of software. One is beginning to come of age.

You claim to have a high level of experience in the philosophy of logic, and then you assert that:
1) Research is efficient. Not only that, but it's a MAXIMIZED efficiency?
2) Because research is efficient, open source products (PRODUCTS, not research...) is more efficient also?

What's the missing link?

You just don't get it. Of course there are products which use private technology - but almost none of these fail to use publicly funded discoveries as well.

This is just patently false.
Almost all of the common algorithms used by programs have been discovered publically...

1) That people like you, who don't understand economics at all, shouldn't be beating up on open source.

I understand it just fine. The problem is you're not making a coherent argument, at all. You're asserting that research in unis is efficient because it's a mixed public/private environment, and therefore open source is most efficient as well.

You do realize that you're talking out of your ass with that, right?

2) That open source (I'm not talking about the wild anarchists claims, but about its use by companies like Apple) is efficient in a way that proprietary software cannot be, just like private science doesn't do exactly what public science does.

I've never said get rid of it, in fact I said that it can be cheaper when used properly, but that doesn't mean the whole industry is going to start moving to desktop-based Linux and the like as you asserted a while ago.

The problem is simply standardization. I've already been through this, though...

Why do you think that Linux users often say that free software means something like "free speech" rather than "free cookies".

LOL.
You can at least get the analogies right.
It's "free as in free speech, not free beer". Of course they insist that, because technically you can sell open source products. But why don't you think about it, logically (since you're so capable), why would somebody pay for something where it's open and they can compile the source for free?

You seem to think that open source software means that it will all be given away for free. It won't necessarily.

It is an absolute necessity. If it's truly open source, then it's going to be given away for free.

The parts of Apple's OS based off open source software is free...

Mac OS X is certainly not free - so I don't see your point.

Mac OS X uses the (much better) BSD license rather than GNU.

And Darwin, the kernel for MacOS and the section based off open source software, is certainly free.

The only parts that aren't free are the proprietary parts. You picked two bad examples for your case with Red Hat and Apple.

Then it is false. Apple's doing OK - last time I looked they had a wad in the bank.

They've been losing marketshare for a while now, they're posting losses too...

Are you telling me that you are privy to Apple's private business decisions?

No, I just don't think Apple's a very successful company. I never said they're going to go under anytime soon, perhaps you should read what I write rather than make stuff up so you can think you did well in the debate?

This is my point - you are agreeing with me - even MS use open source stuff for reasons of efficiency.

No, not efficiency -- convenience.

BSD sockets have been replaced now by (superior) NT-sockets.

It is obviously not doing you much good (and before you start - I am far beyond the 300 level in philosophy - you do not want to get into a bragfest about this with me).

Didn't mean to brag, just letting you know.

I'm assuming that because you went so far in philosophy you have little to no real computer science education...since that's the impression that I get from reading your posts.

[Asher]

I'll sum up in a simple post for you why your whole research analogy is laughable:

Code is a product, not an idea.

It's fundamentally different from research. Code needs to be maintained, code needs to be written for infinitely many applications, with the vast majority of these applications being too small to warrant attention from open source coders. Open source coders do commodity products, for the most part, because that's open source's strong suit.

You've built an entire argument around open source being good because it "increases efficiency". I'm wondering if you've ever coded a program in your life.

Once your start borrowing code from an open source project, you first have to make sure it does what you want, specifically. Chances are it won't. Which means you need to modify it. But you didn't code this, someone else did? Do you understand how time consuming and annoying it is to modify someone else's code to do something you want? Further, the result ends up more as a kludge rather than good piece of code since you're basing it off someone else's. Further still, chances are it uses the GNU license, which means it's impossible to make proprietary software with it when you're done!

Not to mention the fact that most programs being made today are for specific applications. Commodity products like Office suites and web browsers are easy to do open source, but once you start doing applications that are important but don't have that large of a userbase (which is where most software development happens), open source becomes useless for the most part.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CICSMaster
You all miss the point.
Open Source and in particular Linux and it's GNU bretheren is FREE!

All software under the GNU license is FREE!

This is not my point (which I have been trying to explain to Asher).

My point is that it can make good business sense to open source part of your code. If enough companies do this there can be massive efficiency gains, which means cheaper and better software.

When you think about it, there are many human activities which involve the same basic principle (science as it is conducted, or should be conducted in Universities is a case in point.

The problem for open source software is that people expect to pay nothing for it which would mean that any business selling it would fail. But it doesn't have to be that way. A financially viable open source movement would probably entail a great deal of code being free, code which is necessary, but not sufficient to run the tasks that people need it for. Such code would benefit from the open peer review system in the same way that science benefits from it. Companies make money by providing the additional code required to make it usable for most people. This is exactly what Apple is doing. I think it is a good idea.


That's it. What's so radical and strange about that?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm sure this made perfect sense in your own little world...

You stated that "proprietary software tends to lead to a monopoly", and now you've backed out of that and have said "Windows is proprietary and has a monopoly". Sorry, what's your point?

Stop behaving like a troll. Are you saying that every time someone makes a claim they must supply the complete context of whatever they say - discourse would be impossible if that's the case. Have we or have we not been talking about Windows and Linux? Was that not the context of the discussion?

Shareholders support such extreme research because they know that once the company does make a breakthrough (and patents it) they'd make a fortune off of it. That model has work exceedingly well in the technology sector, I don't see your point...

So shareholders would support their company investing in string theory or would have invested in attempts to formulate Quantum mechanics.

The point is a fairly commonplace one amongst economists. It is that investment in products with "positive externalities" tends to be lower than it should be. Things like scientific theories have a great degree of positive externality because you can't efficiently sell ideas when someone can just tell someone else the idea. That's one reason we have publicly funded science (and education for that matter).

You're right in that public unis focus more on things not really useful in the shortterm (<20 years or so), and that it's nice to have them, but I'm having trouble relating this to open source code...

The point is twofold. If we make some code open source, it benefits from the same sort of peer review system as public science. That's a great benefit as this is the best way to make sure that bad things are abandoned and good things are kept.

Secondly, freeing research from immediate commercial concerns increases the likelihood of radically beneficial discoveries (for the same reason that it works in public unis).

Do you understand that peer review happens at companies like Microsoft?

Yeah. But I'm making the general point that there is no better scientific review system than the open one. I agree that open source software is nothing like this yet, but there is no reason why it shouldn't evolve (after all my first post merely claimed that I was sanguine about the prospects for open source despite Mandrake's problems).

You claim to have a high level of experience in the philosophy of logic, and then you assert that:
1) Research is efficient. Not only that, but it's a MAXIMIZED efficiency?
2) Because research is efficient, open source products (PRODUCTS, not research...) is more efficient also?

I said this?

This is just patently false.
Almost all of the common algorithms used by programs have been discovered publically...

I don't understand this since you seem to be agreeing with my point.

I understand it just fine. The problem is you're not making a coherent argument, at all. You're asserting that research in unis is efficient because it's a mixed public/private environment, and therefore open source is most efficient as well.

That's not what I said. My claim is that a combination of public and private research is more efficient than completely private research or completely public research. Our society seems to have realised this since that's how research is conducted. Or are you saying that we don't have pubic institutions and private ones.

I'm afraid I was right - you didn't understand me.

You do realize that you're talking out of your ass with that, right?

You do realise that you haven't presented an argument.

I've never said get rid of it, in fact I said that it can be cheaper when used properly, but that doesn't mean the whole industry is going to start moving to desktop-based Linux and the like as you asserted a while ago.

Did I say they were going to for this reason? My argument has basically been that I think that some form of Mixed opensource commercial software will supplant highly proprietary software because it will be produced more efficiently. It doesn't have to be Linux. As to whether this will pan out I don't know for sure.

The problem is simply standardization. I've already been through this, though...

What a priori argument can you give that this won't happen?

You can at least get the analogies right.

As if that is what really matters. Grow up.

It's "free as in free speech, not free beer". Of course they insist that, because technically you can sell open source products. But why don't you think about it, logically (since you're so capable), why would somebody pay for something where it's open and they can compile the source for free?

Because, that's not how I see it panning out. That system probably won't work. The GNU probably won't work in its present form. But none of this is set in stone, so to say that it is impossible for open source code to make contributions to commercial software is simply ridiculous.

It is an absolute necessity. If it's truly open source, then it's going to be given away for free.

The parts of Apple's OS based off open source software is free...

Can't you read? Apple is selling Mac OS X. The fact that some of it is given away for free hasn't stopped Apple making money out of it.

Mac OS X uses the (much better) BSD license rather than GNU.

You are assuming that I think the GNU or GNU-like licenses are the only possibility for open source. I never said that. It is not an unreasonable assumption to make on your part, but it is not what I think and I didn't say it. My current opinion is that totally free software probably won't work - that doesn't mean there aren't other options.

And Darwin, the kernel for MacOS and the section based off open source software, is certainly free. The only parts that aren't free are the proprietary parts.

For the last time. How can something I agree with be raised as a refutation of my own position?

No, I just don't think Apple's a very successful company. I never said they're going to go under anytime soon, perhaps you should read what I write rather than make stuff up so you can think you did well in the debate?

The pot calling the kettle....

No, not efficiency -- convenience.

What's the difference here?

BSD sockets have been replaced now by (superior) NT-sockets.

So. One example suffices for a generalisation. Oh Jeez....

I'm assuming that because you went so far in philosophy you have little to no real computer science education...since that's the impression that I get from reading your posts.

This is an economic argument, so what's your point. As far as I know efficiency is an economic concept rather than something from CS. It is a quite general argument about the benefits of publicly available free information (and code is information BTW). You have done nothing to refute it apart from misunderstand it and raise irrelevant objections. And to cap it all you've argued that one can't make money from open source when Apple is clearly doing so with Mac OS X (which is the sort of thing I've been claiming is a feasible prospect).

I mean, I don't know what the **** is wrong with you. Here you have an example of open source software being sold and people paying money for it. If you want to make money from open source software, the open source software you use has to be necessary and not sufficient for everyday use. You make money by supplying the rest - it is more efficient because you didn't have to do the whole thing yourself.

What's so weird about that?



If you want to brag about your CS experience then go for it, but it is irrelevant. I'd like to see proper arguments from you. I certainly wouldn't brag about being a CS major - the difficulties with women and the image of the uncultured no-friends loser that goes with it are enough to put most people off.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
I'll sum up in a simple post for you why your whole research analogy is laughable:

Code is a product, not an idea.

This is a spurious distinction. It's like saying Plato's Republic is a product when it's just a collection of ideas. Can't ideas be products (i.e. my university employs me to produce them)? Both are pieces of information. Would you care to provide some reasoning for this spurious distinction?

Not to mention the fact that most programs being made today are for specific applications. Commodity products like Office suites and web browsers are easy to do open source, but once you start doing applications that are important but don't have that large of a userbase (which is where most software development happens), open source becomes useless for the most part.

Great, finally some serious argument. I agree completely. I'd add OSes. Open source software is not a panacea (neither is publicly funded science). I did not say that it would create efficiency gains everywhere but that doesn't entail that it's useless everywhere.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Stop behaving like a troll. Are you saying that every time someone makes a claim they must supply the complete context of whatever they say - discourse would be impossible if that's the case. Have we or have we not been talking about Windows and Linux? Was that not the context of the discussion?

No, that was not the context of the discussion.
The context of the discussion was proprietary versus open source software...

So shareholders would support their company investing in string theory or would have invested in attempts to formulate Quantum mechanics.

Yes and yes.

The point is twofold. If we make some code open source, it benefits from the same sort of peer review system as public science. That's a great benefit as this is the best way to make sure that bad things are abandoned and good things are kept.

Peer review is very common in the proprietary world, too. I think you're grossly overstating the effect of peer review in the open source world -- sure the source is publically available, but how many people actually look at the code and analyze it?

And how does this differ from MS' Shared Source program, where universities and governments can review the code upon request? How does it differ from their internal policy of peer review, too?

The only difference between the two is Open Source allows anyone to review it, MS only allows qualified professionals. I believe you'd find the quantity of the people to be similar reviewing the code, but the quality of the people would probably be much higher in the corporate world...

Secondly, freeing research from immediate commercial concerns increases the likelihood of radically beneficial discoveries (for the same reason that it works in public unis).

Open source is not research. I have no idea why you keep talking about it like they're even remotely similar.

Open source isn't about making "discoveries", it's about making products -- products that anyone can look at and modify the code to.

That's not what I said. My claim is that a combination of public and private research is more efficient than completely private research or completely public research.

Again, can you explain the relevance of this? I've never once advocated going to a completely proprietary or a completely open source method. They each have their strongpoints. Open source is good for a minority of products, that's just the sad truth.

Did I say they were going to for this reason? My argument has basically been that I think that some form of Mixed opensource commercial software will supplant highly proprietary software because it will be produced more efficiently. It doesn't have to be Linux. As to whether this will pan out I don't know for sure.

You're changing your argument.
You originally stated you thought Linux in particular would supplant commercial software.

And I think it's bull, for the reasons I've stated before. Open source flies in the face of standardization, by it's very nature. It'll work fine for servers and geek computer OSes, but it'll never fly on the consumer desktop until it's one standard system. Which means it wouldn't exactly be open anymore.

What a priori argument can you give that this won't happen?

You've taken logic courses. Think about it.

Standardization on the desktop is absoltely critical for mainstream success, on many levels. I'm not going to waste my time explaining something that should be patently obvious...

If you don't understand that concept, why don't we both just give it a break since it'd be hopeless to argue?

As if that is what really matters. Grow up.

Well, it's just more proof that you really don't understand the software market if you can't get one of the most famous and basic analogies that's been around for years...

But none of this is set in stone, so to say that it is impossible for open source code to make contributions to commercial software is simply ridiculous.

I agree, and I've never said that AT ALL...

To say that it makes the process "more efficient" is also simply ridiculous, mind you.

Can't you read? Apple is selling Mac OS X. The fact that some of it is given away for free hasn't stopped Apple making money out of it.

That's entirely not the point.
Only part of the product is open source. You've stated open source doesn't mean it must be given away for free. The part that is open source is given away for free, consumers are paying for the proprietary components.

You are assuming that I think the GNU or GNU-like licenses are the only possibility for open source.

You've stated that you believe Linux will supplant Winodws...guess what license Linux uses?

This is an economic argument, so what's your point. As far as I know efficiency is an economic concept rather than something from CS. It is a quite general argument about the benefits of publicly available free information (and code is information BTW). You have done nothing to refute it apart from misunderstand it and raise irrelevant objections.

Because it's impossible to "refute" that!
It's like telling you that I believe red socks are the most efficient, refute it!

And to cap it all you've argued that one can't make money from open source when Apple is clearly doing so with Mac OS X (which is the sort of thing I've been claiming is a feasible prospect).

Apple is NOT making money from open source. The open source component of their OS is *FREE*. They're making money off the proprietary components of the OS which they sell to consumers, bundled with the free Darwin kernel...

I mean, I don't know what the **** is wrong with you. Here you have an example of open source software being sold and people paying money for it.

You still don't understand!
The open source part is FREE! FREE! FREE! FREE!

The people are paying money for the proprietary parts!

What's so weird about that?

It's not weird. Who said it was weird?
It's one way to do things. It doesn't necessarily make it more efficient, it makes it more convenient. The Mach kernel wasn't the best one they could base it off of. Just ask Linus Torvalds what he thinks of the Mach kernel Apple used...

I certainly wouldn't brag about being a CS major - the difficulties with women and the image of the uncultured no-friends loser that goes with it are enough to put most people off.

People can think what they want. I really don't care.

CS is my field, I'm good at it, and it's entirely relevant to this argument. CS is far more relevant in this debate than economics or philosophy, which you apparently have a strong background in.

You truly need to understand the software development cycle before you can claim one method is more efficient than the other, and I don't think you have the slightest clue about how modern software is developed...

And for future reference, I don't seem to have a problem with people thinking I'm undesireable, contrary to the CS setereotype.

This is a spurious distinction. It's like saying Plato's Republic is a product when it's just a collection of ideas. Can't ideas be products (i.e. my university employs me to produce them)? Both are pieces of information. Would you care to provide some reasoning for this spurious distinction?

It's painfully obvious to those who've taken software engineering classes...

Code is not an idea. It's the implementation of ideas. Code needs to be developed into a working PRODUCT before it becomes useful, code needs to be MAINTAINED, and code needs to be SUPPORTED in some way to be successful.

Research is ideas and proving those ideas. Research contributes to how code is done, but research is not code. Code is implemented research. There are infinitely different ways to implement something.

[Agathon]

This is becoming tedious....

Originally posted by Asher

No, that was not the context of the discussion.
The context of the discussion was proprietary versus open source software...

Oh, so the context of the discussion is what YOU think it is, not what other discussants imagine it to be. Interesting but strange view.

Yes and yes.

Proof.

Peer review is very common in the proprietary world, too. I think you're grossly overstating the effect of peer review in the open source world -- sure the source is publically available, but how many people actually look at the code and analyze it?

I didn't say that it wasn't common. I just remarked that freer is better.

And how does this differ from MS' Shared Source program, where universities and governments can review the code upon request? How does it differ from their internal policy of peer review, too?

Less incentive for people to participate since they can't use the code for their own purposes.

The only difference between the two is Open Source allows anyone to review it, MS only allows qualified professionals. I believe you'd find the quantity of the people to be similar reviewing the code, but the quality of the people would probably be much higher in the corporate world...

How many great things are invented by people messing around in their sheds.

Open source is not research. I have no idea why you keep talking about it like they're even remotely similar.

Both products.

Again, can you explain the relevance of this? I've never once advocated going to a completely proprietary or a completely open source method. They each have their strongpoints. Open source is good for a minority of products, that's just the sad truth.

So what's the problem.

You're changing your argument.
You originally stated you thought Linux in particular would supplant commercial software.

That seems the best bet at present, but who can tell what Linux will be like in 5 years time.

And I think it's bull, for the reasons I've stated before. Open source flies in the face of standardization, by it's very nature..

That's a strong claim - in fact it's almost an a priori claim. Back it up.

Well, it's just more proof that you really don't understand the software market if you can't get one of the most famous and basic analogies that's been around for years...

Like understanding the basic workings of a sneaker market requires that we know "Just do it". Come on, you can do better than that.

Only part of the product is open source. You've stated open source doesn't mean it must be given away for free. The part that is open source is given away for free, consumers are paying for the proprietary components.

Ah, the penny's dropped. They can't use the open source stuff without the proprietary material so what difference does it make.

You've stated that you believe Linux will supplant Winodws...guess what license Linux uses?

Linux, or something like it. I don't know - I think it will be something created along the same lines as OS X and that it will be adopted because it is far cheaper.

It's like telling you that I believe red socks are the most efficient, refute it!

Utter BS - this is pathetic.

Apple is NOT making money from open source. The open source component of their OS is *FREE*. They're making money off the proprietary components of the OS which they sell to consumers, bundled with the free Darwin kernel...

This is just sophistry. They are using open source as components of a finished OS which they then sell. They are using the opensource software to create the OS. If they weren't using the opensource code, they wouldn't be making any money.

You still don't understand!
The open source part is FREE! FREE! FREE! FREE! The people are paying money for the proprietary parts!

Which they can't use without the opensource code.

Please consider the monumental stupidity of what you are claiming. There are many siutations in which I pay for something to realise the benefits of something I can get for free. For example, if I want to have fun in the snow, I can buy a snowmobile. Snow is free, but I can't use the snowmobile without it. Snow is necessary but not sufficient for engaging snowmobiling. Yet it is perfectly alright to say that in a real sense, snowmobilers are making money out of the fact that there is snow. Ditto Apple is making money out of opensource software - the existence of opensource software is part of the explanation of why Apple is making money.

It's one way to do things. It doesn't necessarily make it more efficient, it makes it more convenient.

What's the difference here? After all the concepts of efficiency and convenience are related, via utility. Convenience roughy means satisfactorily efficent (e.g. this is a conveniently placed lavatory - it does the job). At most one is choosing the satisfactorily efficient over the maximally efficient - unfortunately the only reason for a company to do this is for some further efficiency gain.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Code is not an idea. It's the implementation of ideas. Code needs to be developed into a working PRODUCT before it becomes useful, code needs to be MAINTAINED, and code needs to be SUPPORTED in some way to be successful.

So this is your answer to why an idea is different from a product. An answer which defines neither term and doesn't exclude the claim that ideas are a type of product.

You may be good at CS, but you are a lousy thinker.

Research is ideas and proving those ideas. Research contributes to how code is done, but research is not code. Code is implemented research. There are infinitely different ways to implement something.

This is a confusing farrago of ideas (perhaps I shouldn't have used that term since you seem to have difficulty with it).

Research is not ideas. Research is an activity, ideas are not. In Aristotle's useful terminology research is an energeia (activity) but ideas are ousiai (subtances [perhaps]). Activities are not substances. Research produces ideas. Coding is an activity, it produces code. I can research code by coding.

Reseatch is not code. Obviously. It can produce code - I can think about how best to accomplish a certain task - the result if successful is some code - the code or the particular implementation is my idea - I produced it - it is a product because it was produced.

Perhaps there are infinitely many ways to implement something, but generally people prefer the best.

[Asher]

This is becoming tedious....

I agree, and I'm beginning to suspect you're nothing more than a troll.

Not only have you changed the argument slightly in each post to better suit your case, you still show some fundamental misunderstandings with how the software industry works.

Open source: Good for cheap commodity products. It is, by no means, more "efficient" (look at Mozilla's history as an obvious counterexample). It is, by no means, "better". It's a different model. Open Source is heavily based in theory, not in reality. Much like communism now that I think about it.

Out of curiousity, what do you do?

As for you not understanding the difference between "efficient" and "convenient"...you should take some high level CS courses.

I'm still utterly amazed that you think code is comparable to research.

And to call me a "poor thinker" after what you demonstrated in this thread -- classic.