Unsubscribed.
mschaef: Upgrades sometimes change things and require changes in the stuff that uses them. That’s just part of life. I don’t know how you can seriously claim that because an update introduces incompatibilities it is effectively a completely new product and the old version (product) is now discontinued. That seems mad to me. VB6 and XP are not products, they are versions of products.
It’s not like there are never updates to free/open source products which don’t require changes. Especially if software was breaking the rules but getting away with it on the previous version of the product. (Which isn’t always the reason for things breaking, but often is.)
What I don’t get is why you chose VB6 and XP when there are plenty of better examples of commercial software that has been discontinued.
(PS: I wish that Visual Basic really had been discontinued!)
The right approach would be: just buy programs that you find it to be better than anything you can get for free or just buy programs that you really can’t afford…
Jennifer
http://www.firenzedascoprire.com
“Can you give an example of an industry-standard Open Source product?”
Sure. The GNAT Ada Compiler.
But to get back to Jeff’s remarks: as long as there are companies out there that are very reluctant to use any OpenSource product, there will also be commercial software.
Interestingly the same company which refuses to use OpenOffice.org just “because it’s free”, also uses Java as their choice of development platform, although both free products are even labeled by the same big corporation.
Let’s face it: Neither of us actually wants to pay for software. But most of us would happily pay for support.
Personally, as a developer I’d rather use an open source product where I can file bug reports or even patches back to the development team, than being dependent on the slow process of writing a support email, getting back the response that this bug is entirely my fault and ten mails later after proving them that it isn’t, getting the advice to wait for the next release which might have this issue fixed and - according to their roadmap - might be available in six months already, but only if all goes well and their lead programmer doesn’t get hit by a bus until then. And of course, there’s a price tag on the “update”…
ExamDiff Pro is way better than BeyondCompare.
Oops, submitted too soon. Sorry for the plug, but this is only a tangential discussion so I don’t know that it belongs here. I just posted a discussion on the use of tools in software development here:
http://rogthefrog.com/blog/?p=61
and I’d love to hear what folks have to say, either here or at that blog.
The thing about free software is that it is really just free advertising. And advertising is rather important in business.
So, for you for example giving away your blog for free brings to the business you are trying to make free advertising.
Jeff brings up a good point, perhaps not intentionally–what are software development tools for? “Whatever makes your life easier” is too vague, IMO.
What a complete waste of precious time this post was (again).
It’s sad to see the quality of this blog go down from day to day…
That said, get your facts straight, please.
Open source has nothing to do with free an sich.
There are lots of high quality open source projects that you need to pay for, on the other hand there are also lots of high quality open source projects that you don’t have to pay for.
Eg: the Apache web server, nothing comes close.
So calling Open Source enthousiasts pirates is a little low to the ground.
But, hey, feel free to write whatever microsoft pays you for.
Maybe you can apply for a job at ISO.
I’m confident you would blend in with the team nicely.
@Leo Davidson: “Upgrades sometimes change things and require changes in the stuff that uses them. That’s just part of life.”
Agreed, and it’s even true of OSS. There have been a number of breaking changes in the OSS community, including Linux. The difference is that OSS gives you more control about when and if you pay the costs.
“I don’t know how you can seriously claim that because an update introduces incompatibilities it is effectively a completely new product and the old version (product) is now discontinued. That seems mad to me. VB6 and XP are not products,”
VB6 and XP are different animals in this regard. Windows XP is a version of the Windows NT code base (v5.1, IIRC). VB6 is the end of life for that codebase. VB.Net is a totally new product that makes attempts to work similarly to VB6, but also makes some radically different choices. Just as a few more examples, VB6 is built around COM objects, .Net is built around the CLR. VB6 builds a native EXE, .Net builds to bytecode JITted by the CLR. VB.Net does implementation inheritance, VB6 does not.
@Neil Young and gwenhwyfaer
I agree, it seems like a policy of liability would not be able to work. It was emailed out after I had turned in my two weeks notice, so for me it was the last in a series of draconian responses to issues. The liability issue struck me as odd, but to be fair it was not the only reason given. Others made some sense, such as limiting the support corporate IT had to do. For example, an employee would get a piece of OSS, find it very useful, and pass it on. More often than not, one or more employees would get a hold of it, have a problem, and call
IT support. Most of the time they would have no idea what the software did. So there was confusion and consternation. My idea of what follows is…
Management would be aghast at the cost in labor for this, the executive board would demand a total, 100% solution to the problem. Thus use of all but officially approved software was banned. The approved Vendor would then come in and plead that only software purchase through them was valid. And, therefore, no ‘free’ software is allowed. Explain it to the underpaid masses as a liability issue, and be done.
Like I said, it was the last of the policies I saw. One of the others that sticks out was a ‘One size fits all’ approach to hardware and software. All employees would have the same type of PC, with the same CPU, memory, HD, etc. One image would be needed to install, so setup and licensing would be easy. The spec for this was as I remember a 1Ghz CPU, 512Mb RAM, a single 19" monitor, Windows XP, Office, Internet Explorer, and Outlook. It would be cheap, require minimal staff to support, and save a ton of costs. It must have looked good on
paper. When HR informed the employees via email, I think they were shocked by the backlash. A good share of the data entry personnel needed an Oracle client, software development was done in C, C++, PowerBuilder, Java, .NET, and VB6. This required Visual Studio 6, PowerBuilder, Eclipse, Visual Studio 2003, terminal software, code analyzers, and on and on. The standard config would be unworkable for any of it. The email went out about 10 AM, and a retraction
was sent by noon stating the policy would be revisited.
Do I believe they thought the liability issue through? I doubt it. It was almost a government entity where no one in the company had a clue about all that the company did, but were asked to provide solutions to be implemented across it.
After reading Marc Andreesen’s blog, which is as irrelevant as a blog can possibly be, I hope your blog remains relevant since you now have this audio-driven distraction called stackoverflow.com.
A podcast? A 46-min podcast? And questions to be submitted in audio format?
Writing good code (if that is the intent of stackoverflow.com) should start with a VB/VB.NET bonefire. Now that .NET world is finally embracing MVC as a standard framework, this is the time to celebrate.
Also, Joel Spolsky needs some new material. It is like listening to a standup comedian with the same material over and over again.
Since you are asking for topics and questions, here is one. Why not revisit the worlds of difference between focus required to produce great code with OO language vs. copy/paste AAD approach allowed by some other languages out there?
Another question. Is automatic garbage collection really progress? How difficult is it to clean up allocated memory if you know what was allocated and for what? (this should be routine with good code). Is it progress when sloppy coders can code for a living?
And yet another question. Who are the people behind memory leaks at Microsoft, years after Microsoft press and others have drummed the benefits of avoiding, erm, stack/buffer overflows?
Sorry, no audio submission but hope this will resonate (sic!) with the intent of stackoverflow.com
I just want to clarify a few details lest people get the wrong impression. What I meant with “over here” in that comment is my employer, personally I have no problems with buying a $30 software. What I do have a problem with though is using my own cash to buy something that my employer should buy, it’s a matter of principle.
To bDan/b:
Sorry, but you’re inserting your own ideas into the statement. His exact quote was:
blockquoteThese people used to be called pirates. Now they’re open source enthusiasts./blockquote
So he is uprecisely saying/u that today’s open source enthusiasts were yesterday’s pirates. He’s explicitly equating people who today promote non-proprietary software were yesterday stealing proprietary software. He says nothing about other peoples views, but is instead making a emdirect comparison/em. And that comparison is both a sign of some degree of elistism on Jeff’s part as well as being a false dichotomy (“either you pay for software or you’re stealing”).
Your essay is confusing because it mashes together orthogonal concepts. If you’re talking about free as in cost (gratis) you’re not talking about “open source”. The open source movement isn’t anti-commercial (in fact this movement started in order to convince businesses to take advantage of the community developers willing to work for them).
There is plenty of proprietary software available gratis. This software is no more trustworthy than commercially available proprietary software. Programmers should understand the benefits of maintaining control over your data and your computer by maintaining control over the software you run. So when you say “These people used to be called pirates. Now they’re open source enthusiasts.” you’re not only conflating physical harm (real piracy) with copyright infringement, commercial versus gratis, but also developing software according to a particular development methodology with entering a class-based system where users and developers are purposefully kept from being equals.
I am not a member of the open source movement, I find its ideals to be far too shallow leaning toward helping business better exploit programmers talents. But your comparison seems inaccurate to describe either piracy or open source enthusiasts.
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
mail@digitalcitizen.info
http://digitalcitizen.info/
Hard not to read this with cynical eyes, after yesterday’s unfortunate post calling OSS enthusiasts ex-pirates.
Still, congratulations, 5000 is no small money. I wish more of the .NET developer supported (hell, at least understood) what the open source movement is about.
Your naivety amuses me. I yet have to meet ANYONE who pays for his/her software.
I really don’t understand the FOSS movement. How is anybody supposed to eat if all the software is f@#4^ing free. THERE REALLY ISN’T ANY SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.
Ahh, now this is the crux of the issue, isn’t it. See, people (especially software developers) seem to think that the only way to make money from software is by licensing the software. This is not true. Open source projects can make LOTS of money in various ways such as:
- Offering paid support with a service level agreement (see mysql)
- Offering paid-for modifications and enhancements
- Offering consultancy and managed installs (there are many that do this)
- Offering to completely host the software, in the case of server-based applications
- Selling a hardware appliance (think firewalls and m0n0wall)
So yes, its easy to see that given a bit of thought, there is MONEY (lots of it) to be made in open source, and corporations will PAY for these extra services because they need the tech support!
The benefit of course is that the source remains free and if these extra carrots are no longer dangled in front of the donkey, the donkey will keep moving as for any popular piece of open source software, someone else will just pick up the mantle, if it is not already forked.
As the author of a popular piece of open source chat software i see many commercial sites migrating to our software every day simply because we offer ‘enterprise’ features such as LDAP and SQL authentication of users. All other programs offering these features charge money for them. Even without the prospect of paid support, BUSINESSES (not just home user hobbyists) take up this software and even more surprisingly, they contribute back! They send us donations, they send us patches, and some (for example star dock) have even taken a personal interest and submitted large amounts of code!
Still think there’s no benefit at all to open source? Think again!
Please donate your old boxes to a church-group or some needy student in these hard times! To comply with the law, and with Microsoft’s leasing policy, you can now replace Microsoft OS with the free (download from the net) Ubuntu OS, which can be set to erase the hard drive of all traces of the illegal Microsoft system, before donation! Now, explain to your lucky recipient that all the manuals they will ever need are available for free on the internet! Just ask for them in Google! OpenOffice, which is installed already is plenty adequate for homework assignments and with a little exploring, everything else can work well too! Happy commuting!