On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 20:49 -0400, Bruce Dawson wrote: > In contrast - I like the term "legacy software" for the likes of > proprietary software. > > We're talking about changing mindsets here - not the mindsets of those > who read mailing lists like this one, but the PHBs who justify the > purchase of proprietary software.
Point one. > > This is a good way of letting them know that Windows and the like is > "old hat". Point two. > > And the more people (especially their peers) who says this, the more > they'll believe it! Bulls-eye > > --Bruce > > On 08/06/2011 08:34 PM, Lori Nagel wrote: > > I actually kind of liked the term legacy software, well, at least at > > first. Then I thought about it a bit more and realized that legacy > > software could easily be confusingly applied to things like the old > > Athena Widget set, and X11 user interface being used currently in the > > Wograld project. (I could never get the basics of SDL to work or > > figure it out, plus SDL is upgrading to a new broke version from what > > I read on the SDL list.) > > But if Legacy software was used like this, then I guess my old Athena > > Widget set and X11 user interface for Wograld is "New, trendy and up > > to date" okay, I'm a hardcore dork and proud of it. > > > > Conversely, there is unfortunately new proprietary software being > > written everyday, including new versions of things like Skype and > > Flash. I think it's going to take a while to convince all the > > programmers not to write proprietary software anymore, part of it is > > being paid to write proprietary software, and the other half is > > companies making the decisions that the business model relies > > on closing the source up. > > > > I think what has to change is some of the business models and the ways > > people think about making money. I think people are already being > > forced to change some business models whether they like it or not. If > > proprietary software isn't a viable business model anymore, people > > will probably stop making it (with the exception of some crazy > > paranoid hobbyist who doesn't want anyone to see his code, but then > > who would care about using it anyway if everyone considers proprietary > > software a bad thing.) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Joshua Judson Rosen <roz...@geekspace.com> > > *To:* Greater New Hampshire <gnhlug-disc...@gnhlug.org> > > *Sent:* Friday, August 5, 2011 7:42 PM > > *Subject:* Terminology: FOSS vs. `Legacy Software'? > > > > I originally wrote this as a private e-mail, but I figured I'd send it > > along to greater GNHLUG--because I realised that I would actually like > > to engage you all...: > > > > -------------------- > > > > maddog has written a blog-post proposing that the terms "closed-source" > > and "proprietary" be replaced by the term "legacy software": > > > > > > http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/Blogs/Paw-Prints-Writings-of-the-maddog/Do-not-say-Closed-Source-or-Proprietary-Software-instead-say-Legacy-Software > > > > I've been thinking a lot about this, myself--following mainly from > > a couple of recent conversations with friends and family: > > one that came out of the `cobbled whole-home audio' thing, and another > > that took place upon someone seeing my NanoNote (sayng, `More Linux? > > Really, what can Linux do that Windows or Mac OS X can't?'); > > and, actually, now I remember that there was another relevant one-- > > with the owner of the local pharmacy down on Main St., about > > their digital signature-pads; and another with my wife (the nurse) > > about software-based medical devices and the modern `medical science' > > (or lack thereof) behind them.... > > > > I agree with the idea that maddog's expressed, but I'm not so sure > > about the specific choice of terminology. > > > > I should, perhaps, apologise for the length of this, up front > > (there's a pile of other suggested terms toward the end--actually, > > more toward the middle--with context between here and there...). > > > > I've been thinking about what terms would best help to articulate to > > `the typical uncaring luddite', which required me examine the terms > > in which *I* actually think about the issues; and I think it's, > > basically, mainly along two lines.... > > > > One way that I think about these issues is, as a maker, something like: > > > > I have a project to do, and my choices of collaborators are > > either a cooperative community, or a hostile corporation > > that's going to fight me at every step (and charge me a premium > > for it!). Which would you pick? I don't really care for > > the `Nerd Fight-Club' thing.... > > > > I guess that's in the same vein as `my favourite paintings are bought > > as blank canvases, et idem for books'.... And maybe it's telling that > > I really wanted to remember my friend's question as "What can YOU do > > WITH Linux that YOU can't do WITH Windows or Mac OS X?", when I'm > > pretty sure that's not how he asked it. > > > > The second line of thought, which probably makes for more generally- > > applicable conversation, could be classed as the decison between > > `permanent vs. disposable' systems. Like, with the home-audio thing.... > > A friend and colleague remarked that it was `hilarious that I had > > cobbled together an audio system far nicer than what some major > > players in the home-audio market have been able to do'. My response > > to him was (bear with me...): > > > > The *really* funny part is that I *was* ready to just put a switch/amp > > into the basement and run speaker-wire all over the house..., but then > > I went looking into ways of doing remote control fo the > > switch/amplifier, > > and didn't find any open/standard mechanism for that other than > > goofy IR stuff (like `relay infrared signals through a wire to a > > serial port and write custom code to deal with the lack of standards > > in IR signalling'). > > > > Then I remembered that I knew of a company that made this sort of > > stuff-- > > because I'd actually worked there a few years back. Of course, > > when I was there, they were using a junky, home-grown protocol > > (with a single-layer `stack') which was basically unworkable > > for anyone outside the company (it was close enough to unworkable > > for people *inside* the company...). So, I thought: I wonder > > if they're off of their weird-proprietary-junk protocol yet..., > > or if anyone else has actually filled the `use open standards' hole'. > > > > So I looked at their current lineup, and found that it was using > > something called `Gridcast'--which made me wonder: > > > > `Gridcast'? WTF is that? Yet another weird, proprietary thing...? > > > > I was also reminded that their prices were multiple orders > > of magnitude more than I wanted to spend (especially for something > > that's not clearly extensible--throw-away stuff is supposed to be > > *cheap*...). > > > > Since it wasn't obvious that there was any open standard for > > doing remote control of audio switches, and the "AV" in the > > "HomePlug AV" term that I'd seen associated with `Gridcast' > > didn't actually seem to have anything to do with Audio or Video > > aside from being `a fast-enough link for audio and video'..., > > the thought occurred to me: maybe circuit-switching really is > > finally dead? > > > > So, then I went looking at all-digital audio distribution, went > > looking > > for ready-made products (like `Gridcast', I guess...), and ended up > > figuring that it was probably going to be quicker to just hack it up > > myself (possibly with some gently-repurposed standards) than to even > > figure out what any of the consumer products I saw were even actually > > doing..., and then it worked. > > > > Maybe there's something wrong when you find yourself saying > > things like, `I'll do it myself because I don't have time > > for the ready-made solutions'. > > > > Maybe I should be an entrepreneur.... > > > > > > It's illustrative of my more general thought-process, which often > > starts with: > > > > "I'm not even sure what my needs are right now, let alone what > > they'll be in the future...." > > > > ... and resolves as: > > > > "I'm not going to pay a premium to lock myself into something that > > might not meet my needs, and certainly not something that it may > > not even be possible to *make* meet my needs." > > > > Is that how it resolves for everyone? Or do most people think > > something more like, `I don't know what my needs are--but surely > > the provider of my solution does!'? > > > > I know I'm too young to be saying this (and I'm probably in entirely > > the wrong eneration)..., but I hate throw-away junk. I remember > > someone on Slashdot actually had a good quip--oh, here it is > > <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1691504&cid=32625306 > > <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1691504&cid=32625306>>: > > > > > People are not engineers: they buy air conditioners, > > > refrigerators and cars. Very few people can design, build and > > > service them. > > > > It's not about being an "engineer". It's about taking > > responsibility for yourself and not buying into American > > anti-intellectualism where it's actually trendy to be helpless and > > stupid. > > > > It's so trendy to be helpless and stupid that you're discouraged > > from knowing enough to even recognize a well made device. > > > > Though, it's not that throw-away items are all bad *per se*-- > > it's just..., like I wrote above: if the throw-away actually > > costs more than the option that lasts and grows with your needs, > > then the economy's all backward and it's a bum deal. > > > > So, trying to come up with a vocabulary to express that pithily, > > here's some free-association type stuff from my notebook > > (in two generally-opposing columns): > > > > free proprietary > > high-margin > > open-source closed-source > > open-ended closed(-?) > > limited > > restricted > > permanent disposable > > durable (as in `durable goods'?) throw-away > > reusable single-use > > extensible limited-use > > growable (as in `grows w/ your needs') limited-(?) > > expandable > > organic manufactured > > > > repairable (as in `user-'? irreparable > > serviceable (as in `user-'?) ?-serviced > > > > ¿commodity? (either col: unsure connotation) > > > > renewable constrained > > free-market captive-market > > free-range cage-raised (cathedral) > > peer-reviewed unreviewed > > > > > > "Commodity" is in the middle, surrounded by uncertainty, because > > "commodity" can have either a very good connotation (a good investment > > due to matching standards and being easily replaced/extended, and > > being cost-effective) or a very bad one (cheap crap) depending on > > context--and "commodity" can be aptly applied to either FOSS > > (for all of the good reasons) or proprietary systems (with all of > > the negative connotations), but I'm not sure how stable that is. > > > > And I'm not sure if it's noticeable, but there's a certain theme > > in some parts of the collection above, that leads to "legacy" > > not being present as a `standard term of deprecation': one of > > the problems with proprietary software (and I've heard this complaint > > from at least one developer of proprietary software) is that > > the throw-away nature of binary-only software means that it basically > > `doesn't work as a legacy'. > > > > I seem to recall, several years ago, hearing someone say something like: > > > > "Gosh, I've been maintaining my resume in troff for 20 years-- > > what's the likelihood that a given piece of [what we're now > > considering calling `legacy'] software will survive 20 years, > > let alone long enough to really be `someone's legacy'?" > > > > (kudos if the person who said it remembers that it was him :)) > > > > > > I guess I have two issues with the word, "legacy", in this context: > > one issue is that a person must be somewhat technical to understand > > it when it's used in the `legacy system' sense--or to even parse it > > as an adjective; consulting my `dict' command, the only adjectival > > form of "legacy" I find is in FOLDOC (via the Jargon File): > > > > legacy system > > legacy > > legacy code > > legacy software > > > > <jargon> A computer system or {application program} which > > continues to be used because of the cost of replacing or > > redesigning it and often despite its poor competitiveness and > > compatibility with modern equivalents. The implication is > > that the system is large, monolithic and difficult to modify. > > > > If legacy software only runs on antiquated {hardware} the cost > > of maintaining this may eventually outweigh the cost of > > replacing both the software and hardware unless some form of > > {emulation} or {backward compatibility} allows the software to > > run on new hardware. > > > > (1998-08-09) > > > > > > And, yes--that's perfecly (*perfectly*!) in line with maddog's > > suggestion :) > > > > But (and here's my second issue): if it's parsed as a *noun* > > (as by a less-technical person) then "legacy" stands a fair chance > > of being interpreted as meaning something *good*.... :( > > > > Take, for example, this quip by Markus Fix (which I found > > on lispmeister.com, back when it still existed--it's since > > been living in my private `fortune' file): > > > > "I bought the Meisterstueck No 149 at age 20, and it served me well > > during all my travels throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, America > > and the Pacific Islands. It's a remarkable and beautiful piece > > of engineering. During the same timespan I worked through > > more than 30 keyboards. People keep asking me: "Why do you keep > > a journal in longhand using a fountain pen, isn't that a bit > > archaic?" > > > > "People have been asking me the same kind of questions about > > Lisp. The answer is: > > > > "You can't leave a legacy using ephemeral technology." > > > > > > It seems like `legacy software is no way to leave a legacy' has > > enough hackish irony in it to be dangerous.... > > > > > > -- > > "Don't be afraid to ask (?f.((?x.xx) (?r.f(rr))))." > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > _______________________________________________ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/