On 7/17/06, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Write the whole thing under an open source license? How much will that
> cost? Where will you find developers that will do this for free?
I dont know. Maybe someone has written it.
That's a maybe. Now will you enter a bid in case the government will
need that software, and offer to support software _you didn't write_
and take the fall for it failing? Of course you might, but then that's
a risk you will take, but the government should _not_ gamble with tax
payer's money to invest in something that doesn't assure any sort of
quality nor support. At least I wouldn't want my government to bet on
hap-hazardly written software acquired because it was cheaper than the
solution that worked and cost a bit more.
If you cant write it
yourself you pay someone who can. But then put it under an open source
license.
Just curious, why do you have to put it under an open source license?
Why not a proprietary _source available_ license? Government needs to
_use_ the software -- not redistribute nor modify it. If government
was an IT company, perhaps it would be alright for it to shoulder the
cost of modifying and maintaining the software -- but last I checked,
the government's role is not to write software.
If im the one paying and im the government its just as well.
other government branches can use it and that good for everybody.
government pay only once. and nobody can change the price on me later
or manage to shoot themselves in the foot and disappear with me left
holding the bag with a dead end product.
I don't get the point in this one...
nobody is being asked to code for free. the more urgent the need the
greater the willingness to pay. its just that the benefits are not
limited to those who payed for it. you all think its all or nothing.
nobody paid for software nobody get software. its not like that. a lot
of people code for free for various reasons. come on people are not
just about food shelter and clothing. people do get paid write
software but everybody get to use the software. thats the rub for most
people. its acceptable for some not to others. on the average though
it benefits everybody.
Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, and may not reflect anybody
else's opinion. Read at your own risk.
[Start of Opinion]
I write open source (and even Free as in Freedom) software because I
_can_ and _want to_. Now, expecting everybody else to be like me is
just immature and unrealistic. Yes, I work on non-open source
projects, and am a project director with a US based company but the
reality is: I need to eat, live in a comfortable home, and clothe
myself. Only since I can afford and am inclined to do so that I write
code for everybody to use. Not everybody is as altruistic as me, some
are even more altruistic and more capable -- but the reason why free
software is out there is because of the people who have the time and
capability to make them.
If not for Linus Torvalds who didn't have to worry about eating
everyday, getting clothes for the perpetual winter and a roof to stay
dry under, we wouldn't have Linux today as we know it -- it might not
even have started. If not for people like Mike Shuttleworth who would
shell out money for the advancement of the Ubuntu distribution which
will stay free so long as Canonical Ltd. can sustain it, we won't have
a good example of a distribution and development model for the Linux
desktop.
The reality is, people are first about food, shelter, clothing (or
survival) -- then only if the needs are met can people actuate their
full potential. Ghandi had the luxury of food that's why he fasted --
other people don't have the choice but not eat.
So expecting a developer to _just_ write open source code is a bit too
unrealistic -- and you're right that everybody has an agenda. If you
can barely afford anything, how do you think you can afford to give
anything to anyone else?
[End of Opinion]
>
> My idea of Software Engineering is making software that _works_. If it
> solves your problems today, then you might have done enough for the
> meantime -- but if the code you wrote is not easily extensible, nor
> easily maintainable, nor is hard to use and released under an open
> source license, how is that better than acquiring/using proprietary
> source available software that _already meets your needs NOW_ ?
>
yes but i doubt if you are willing to add a fee features you were not
able to guess beforehand or integrate with our c3system. we have
experienced that several times already.
What are you talking about? The point of writing extensible/reusable
software is so that you _anticipate_ that your software _will change_.
So from the start of the project, you already anticipate change --
only then can you prepare for it.
[snipped stuff not related to open source software]
come on nobody has a monopoly on good clean code. the advantage with
this case is that i can post it on the net and have everybody look at
it. and tell me what could be wrong.
Why can't you post your code on the net and have everybody look at it
and tell you what's wrong if your code wasn't released under an open
source license?
Nobody has a monopoly on good clean code, yes -- but what does that
have to do with open source software? Have you actually bothered
reading the design of a lot of the open source software you use? I did
try for a while when I had time to spare and found a few things: and
the gtk+ toolkit is brain-damaged, the Qt toolkit is too
bloated/inefficient for my taste, and there are only a handful of open
source libraries that are worth your efforts to use and not one of
them is under the GNU GPL.
most people believe that writing things from scratch is bad. thats
because they code up to a spec. not to whats needed. they prefer long
development cycles. this leads to creation of code thats not needed.
Is this truism backed by any facts?
With experience should come wisdom: writing software from scratch is
not easy, and not leveraging on existing libraries is just a sign of
bad practice. If you've already tried writing a fairly complex
framework on your own, I would like to think you would understand what
I'm talking about.
What's needed should be coded, and the software should perform
according to specifications. Long development cycles are an off-shoot
of mis-management, and poor foresight in the part of management.
But this has _nothing_ to do with open source software anymore.
nobody wants dead unclean or unextensible code. if you allow it to
accumulate by avoiding to rewrite you get unextensible code. if you
like to code in the big and optimize too early you get unclean code.
not to mention hard to debug code.
Have you ever heard of Refactoring? How about Design Patterns? How
about Domain Driven Development? Test Driven Development? Continuous
Integration?
You don't _always_ need to re-write -- you just need to do your best
so that software you write can withstand major surgery in the future.
and thats the killer. many people think this is where the development
process must spend the most. well my professor told me that. oh
well...
And you think better?
Then again, this has _nothing_ to do with Open Source Software in
Government, so I don't remember why I even bothered replying... ;)
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
C/C++ Software Architect
Orange and Bronze Software Labs
http://3w-agility.blogspot.com/
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
Mobile: +639287291459
Email: dean [at] orangeandbronze [dot] com
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
