In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Bernard Hill writes: >| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >| chemnitz.de>, Joerg Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >| > >| >A short remark about this. Somtimes "open source" is equated with >| >"cost free". But even if I'd produce a Qt-only version, you had >| >to pay a lot. Not to me but to the Qt developer Trolltech and >| >to Microsoft. >| >| So what encourages the developer to develop code if there is no payment >| to the developer? >| >| I confess I don't understand the Linux setup *at all*. > >It's basically simple: You get something that a lot of >people consider valuable, an OS and lots of software that >is very reliable. And since it's "open", you can dig into >it and quickly make it do what you want. If you find bugs, >you can fix them yourself. The only catch is that you have >to share your fixes with other users. But that's what makes >it valuable to everyone. > >An anecdote from a few years back that illustrates the idea >in a different form: I worked on a few projects where some >of the teams were developing on Apollo workstations, and >the rest were using Suns. The Apollo users were baffled by >why anyone would choose Sun, when for the same performance, >the Apollo workstations cost half as much. > >Invariably, all the teams had problems that they tracked >down into "the system". The Apollo users would ask Apollo, >and be told "We can't tell you; that's proprietary." The >Sun users would ask on the public Sun and/or unix >newsgroups, and would usually get an answer within hours. >More often than not, the answer would come from a Sun >engineer, and very often included big chunks of code. >"Here's exactly how it works." > >Because of this easy access to the innards of the system, >the teams working on Suns quickly had working products, >while the Apollo users were still trying to debug their >code without much understanding what was happening on the >inside. Even if the Sun-based systems were a bit more >expensive, having a working product was a LOT better than >not having one. > >It should be noted that Sun has since then made their >systems a lot more proprietary. And now they're facing a >real challenge from linux. The explanation is the same: >Software developers on linux can get answers to questions >very quickly. Meanwhile, someone developing on Solaris >faces brick walls they can't get behind. So the linux >developers get things to market much more quickly. Sun is >now starting to officially support linux on their boxes. > >Notice that price isn't the main concern here. The >important thing is whether, when you have a problem, you >can get an answer. The "open source" idea is based on this. >If the code is available, a programmer can (in principle) >find the answer to any question without even asking anyone. >In practice, it's even better to ask, because lots of >people have the source available, and chances are someone >will be able to find your answer very quickly. You don't >have to depend on a vendor who is likely to say "That's >proprietary; I can't tell you." > >There has been a lot of discussion lately of the mystery of >why the "open source" gang is able to produce software so >much faster (and of higher quality) than the industrial >model. It seems to violate everyone's mythology of how the >market works. But the above anecdote illustrates why it's >not a market phenomenon at all. Money doesn't speed up >technical achievements; information does. You can't bribe a >computer to do what you want; you have to hand it correct >software. Proprietary systems hide information from the >programmers. The linux, GNU, and other "open source" >approach hides nothing, so everything happens faster. >
... none of that tells me why anyone creates software in the first place. I do not start projects which are not going to bring money in. I see clearly that as an end-user having the source code is beneficial - but what's in it for the programmer who created it? Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
