On 2/8/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Denstizzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:] > > Are you proposing that the number of people who know C++, isn't that > > large? Or perhaps that it's so difficult to pick up a language, that > > there > > aren't many people familiar with them? I don't think that's the case, but > > you seem to imply that it's difficult to look at source and understand > > what is going on. Which it may be. For some people. > > For MOST people - in fact for almost ALL people! > > I am saying that for the products we're throwing around (Linux, Firefox, > Apache, etc) the number of programmers in their user communities are small > minorities.
Again, I get the relative part. I'm saying that doesn't invalidate what amounts to a quite powerful aspect of creation and innovation. .... > Now - can ANYBODY audit closed source - of course not. Bang. That's A + for security (with open source). Heck, you could pay some 3rd party to perform an audit. No NDAs or nada. =] > > For the vast majority of users there is essentially no difference between > > > open and closed source in this respect: when something goes wrong they > > > look > > > to the vendor to fix it. > > > > Well, there is one HUGE difference. With open source, the "vendor" can be > > anyone with the know-how. Closed, by definition, is less open. :) > > Yes - but that's a flawed analogy as well. The vendor isn't any guy on the > street - it's apache.org or mozilla.com. You download software from there, > you use it, if you find a problem with it you go back there. Nonsense. Again, I think you're coming from a biased perspective (as am I, of course ;). I was just pricing moodle support with my boss the other day. We weren't like "it's gotta be someone from moodle.org", but that's just how Open Source works-- if you realize that you have the option- I acknowledge that in general you're bang on tho. Numbers- wise, perhaps, but not necessarily successful-business wise. > The vast majority of people treat open source products exactly like closed > source products. Sure, that's the beauty. They fly the plane. But it's this sorta Utopian craft. I'm telling ya, this stuff just keeps getting better. > > I wouldn't be at all surprised, in fact, if the number of people seriously > > > working on, say, the Apache codebase was about equivalent to the number > > of > > > people working on the IIS codebase. > > > > I would. =] It's easy enough to look up. For Apache, at least. ;] > > And what's the number? Not the number of people that have looked at the > source, but the number of actual core developer's working on the project? Well, looked at the source is in the millions, I'd wager. If not more. Committed? Well, there is this page: http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html Which seems to imply it's not uncommon. Here's teh contrib page: http://httpd.apache.org/contributors/ That's almost fame, tho. ;) > > Basically all I'm saying is that the ability to look at the source is > > > important to very few people. > > > > I hear you on the whole "relative" part, but I still gotta say, "very > > few" can == millions. Still tho, I know most people just want to > > ride, vs. fly. And who really teaches themselves? ;-) > > But the point here that while the products we're talking about may indeed be > great for those wanting to learn programming the product itself rarely > requires any programming background at all to use. Well, I don't know about learn programing... but for sure see what's going on "behind the scenes" so to speak. I've been able to solve quite a few problems by just taking a gander at what something expects, etc. These problems happen while using the software, not necessarily wanking on core code. But I like me open source stuff. So of course I'm gonna experience that more often than not. And this is "living" code, so that's a bit different methodology than closed, more controlled paradigms. > > The basic requirements are the same for both open and closed source in any > > > segment. Things like security, usability, productivity, performance, > > etc. > > > > Sure. But in one case, only a "select" few can do anything. In the other, > > at least the selection is up to the individual (and is potentially > > limitless!). > > Potentially, sure, but not actually. I like potential. > There is also a downside to this: Open source projects generally seem to > attract a very specific kind of contributor. Whereas a closed-source > project defines its needs then hires people to meet them. > > Open source is notoriously poor at the "soft side" of development: design, > usability, consistency, etc. > > Some open source projects are large enough to overcome this somewhat, but > there are still signs of the problem. Others overcome this to a greater or > lesser extent, but are still more susceptible to contributor turnover than > closed source. I think a lot of this stems from the inherent differences between open architecture and closed, and perhaps a misconception of expectation regarding how open source works. =P I was about to type "of course there's a specific kind of contributer: the free will kind", or some such, about how nobody "has" to do anything, but then I remembered that a lot of these projects have people who were hired by 3rd parties to contribute to the core code. There are all kinds of different types of people contributing, too. :) (all kinds of different types... not redundant at all, neh? :)) > Some projects simply ignore that side of things (Apache is a prime example) > and focus on the core functionality and in many cases it works. I disagree with the premise that open source is kludgey, or of poor design. This is an ares that's impressed me quite a bit of late. The UIs have just been kicking ass. And there's this sorta moore's law or whatever-- it's exponential. Really tho, everything open source is easier than ever. Sickly. This stuff used to be rocket science, ya know. *sniff* > > But the idea that a problem in open source software is less problematic > > tha > > > in closed source because "you can just fix it yourself" always strikes > > me as completely silly. > > > > Well, I can see how it would, seeing as how you don't do it. But believe > > me, it IS POSSIBLE! Really, and truly. > > Again possible doesn't mean common. I guess we just have different backgrounds. I posit that it's more common than you may know. But I traffic the kinds of places where people are doing this stuff. Don't get me wrong, I like both sides of the tracks ;) I'm good with multi-million dollar SW packages. =] > > What I like more, is the ability to extend. It's awesome to add on to > > stuff. > > Software is software, there are problems, that's just part of the game. > > In my experience closed source and open source solve this problem in much > the same way. > > To extend Firefox you can modify the core source: which means that you've > now branched the source and will find it difficult to maintain parity with > the main branch. I think it's freaking awesome that this is possible. Think about it: a kick-ass branch of Internet Explorer. If it is popular and useful enough, it is merged back in / takes over. > Or you can use the more generally extension capabilities built into the core > product. Your extensions can be traded, posted, moved from version to > version, etc. > > Of course this is exactly the way you extend closed source software (at > least good closed source software). Scripting languages, object models, > extension hooks, filter interfaces, etc. > > Again - the vast majority of users will never do this - they'll use the > software as is. A much smaller, but still significant group will actively > explore and use third-party extensions. A much smaller group will actually > write their own extensions. The idea seems sorta unworkable, neh? How could small groups of people actually change the face of -- well, you know. Quark is a good example of a SW package with extensionality, etc.. Capitalized on, totally. > And, only in the case of open source, a much (I think MUCH) smaller group > will contribute to the core product. That's not always a bad thing. But judging by just the few OS projects I watch, it is not the case. > > But at least if I did some cool think^hg, *I* could profit off of it, vs. > > some big > > company that "owns" it all, and thus takes a cut (if they even let you do > > your thing). > > I don't see this. > > People rarely (very rarely actually) make money by modifying open source > applications (instead it's actually large companies that do: IBM and Apple > come to mind). Instead, just like closed source, they make money by > extending the products. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that it's actually the reverse of what you're saying. Numbers wise, I bet more "little guys" are making money off of open source than IBM or Apple. In that percent kind of way. Sure Apple and IBM [may] make money off of OS-- but as you state, the little guy can extend open source the same way (but has access to the core code, if they randomly happen to need it (which makes me think, do you use undocumented CF stuff? Ever dug into the coldfusion.jar to solve a problem/find some info (ain't java cool?)) .... > > important". I'd say the same argument you apply to CFML applies to, > > say, C++. But perhaps I have this whole programing/whatnot wrong? > > Not at all. In this I'm talking about the "distance" between the open > source component and the usage of that component. > > One extreme might be Firefox. There is no aspect of Firefox that requires > users to use the tools used to CREATE FireFox. The vast majority of FireFox > users just want a web browser (in fact like most desktop applications 80% of > them won't even alter the default preferences). Firefox is actually an interesting example. The stuff used to create it actually IS open source, iirc, and is itself a project or whatnot. UXL or something, right? One of the more easily modified/extended browsers, I would think, but I've not really looked into it much. I see the point about, why would some dude wanting to get from Mane to Eugine care if he could personally inspect some random bolt on the jet-- However, I still think the idea is quite nice. =] > Now at the other end of the scale let's take, say, Dojo. Dojo's written in > JavaScript but, importantly, to use it you HAVE to know some JavaScript. Actually, dojo is so sick, you don't. I had to re-learn some JS, when I did start digging in tho. (Different way of writing functions and stuff that is geared specifically for the Async stuff.) Dojo is pretty close to laszlo, which is pretty close to flex. Have you looked at those "Flex in 10" demos? It's all <DoItAllForMe:Now>. Sure you end up needing AS3, and whatnot, but you could whip out some pretty sick shtuff pretty darn quick and easy. (although, there is still a steep curve when you do dive in, if you've not done languages like 'em before-- same as all things, I reckon. 'cept BASIC. Har har.) > The gulf of understanding here is very small. The smaller that gulf, the > more likely that end users will take advantage of open source in this way. I don't think Dojo is a good example, just cuz of it's tag based whatnotables-- but I get your point. Totally makes sense & I agree. .... > In fact there is a point to be made that products like APACHE, FireFox, etc > are SO good at exposing extension opportunities that it actually becomes > LESS important to have access to the core source. Interesting. We may indeed be heading in this direction- lots of little interconnected bits and pieces- a sorta standard, tiny, hard core, and the rest just stuck on as needed, chained and whatnot y todo. > > Well, I get the gist of your argument. I think you're logic is biased at > > a low level though. What, pray tell, is bad about open source? If > > we're all passengers anyway, what does it matter, at that level? > > Now don't put words in my mouth. I never said that open source was bad: I > said the argument that open is good because "you just change it yourself!" > is weak. And annoying. ;^) Well, that's one of my arguments, so I guess I was all like, "those is scrapp'n words", only swap scrapp'n with discuss'n =]. I don't see anything weak or annoying about it- in fact, I think it's a Good Thing(tm). Heh. (I'm evil ;) > There are much more practical, reasonable arguments to be made in favor of > open source. > > Open source is great - for some things and is improving for other things. > It's clearly successful for "back end" solutions but so far has yet to truly > compete on a usability or design level. Messed with trixbox? Sick that you can have your own PBX, fer free, and in roughly 20 minutes. Back end is design, and if it weren't usable there wouldn't be more and more people using it. Personally, I want more contributerz ;-]. > All of my code is released - proudly - under the BSD license. At the same > time I still greatly prefer the usability and productivity gains of some > closed source software. I hear you. Gimp vs. Photoshop (well, perhaps in-design vs. some equiv OS product- all rough around the edges, & ugly). Hell, Navicat vs. het Query Browser or Admin stuff from MySQL (but, again, the GUI stuff is really starting to kick ass!). > > Open Source Rocks! Plain and simple. > > Open source is a method, nothing more. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. > > More applicable for some things, less applicable for others more applicable > for some teams, less applicable for others. At heart I'm with you in sentiment 100% Jim. It's all about all things, and there's good and bad, but no ultimate good or bad, etc.. There are kick as things about both mysql and oracle. (but I'm starting to lean back towards postgres... *nudges J* ;) I really wouldn't have it any other way- it's fun to watch it all unfold, as I've said before. What an adventure. And it seems like it just keeps getting faster. Isn't that a weird thing about aging? I bet for my kid, one minute is like 5 hours long. Relatively. =] PS I was just kidding about basic. I'm not biased. *cough*anymore*cough* (= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:227500 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
