|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why does anyone pay for software?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
no prophet,
Not that you are required to, bu you have not answered my question of why you should expect free service from the labour of others?
Or, if you do not like that, there is Eutychus' observation.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think the open-source ethos could survive without the proprietary environment: they are symbiotic.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
People write free software, or give away what they have already written, because they want to.
The best software is written by people who know what it is to be used for and are going to use it themselves That's why system software is being taken over almost entirely by open source. Sort of inevitably, programmers know about software and use it.
Application software, which is what end users care about - and all they really care about, from their point of view hardware and systems software are irrelevant - application software is completely differrent. Whether its architecture drawings or office applications or student databases or finance or or whatever (except possibly games) its mostly written by people who wouldn't have written it if they weren't being paid to.
But system software? Its done. Free software has one. No-one will ever write another Unix-like OS from scratch. They will all reuse Linux, BSD, and the Gnu tools. Probably no-one will ever write any general-purpose OS again without taking stuff from those. (And yes, same goes for Windows - vast amounts of old unix and internet code has ended up in system tools and utilities in Windows)
And as for GCC - that's all but ubiquitous now. Maybe no-one will ever write a general-purpose compiler again (other than as a teaching excercise). If you need a compiler that does something cool or clever that isn't available chances are that its cheaper and easier to add it to gcc than to write a new one.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
People write free software, or give away what they have already written, because they want to.
And, as mentioned above, because they have real jobs to pay the bills. Most often writing commercial software.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The best software is written by people who know what it is to be used for and are going to use it themselves
Absolutely, whole-heartedly disagree.
Programmers know what they want, not what I want. They are often happy with keyboard shortcuts, clunky interfaces and their own logic.* Which is fine for them.
Photoshop is better than GIMP. This is an opinion based on the use of both.
Photoshop is more capable, more powerful. This is not opinion.
I think it is easier to use as well, but this may well be preference.
I hate both MS Office and Open Office, so I will not offer an opinion here beyond MS office is the devil I know.
Many commercial softwares are too bloody expensive, and I loathe with the fire of a billion suns the #$@%!$!!! subscription model. But the flip side of this is constant feature additions and improvements. These are often user driven. Features unpaid developers may or may not wish to include.
Open source is terrific if you are a programmer.
Or if you employ programmers.(Hey, where did that "free" go?)
Please do not get me wrong, I love open source software existing. This keeps pressure on commercial developers, offers alternatives to those who cannot afford the outrageous highway robbery erpetrated by some companies. (Hello, Apple, Autodesk and Adobe)
I simply do not think it can exist on its own.
*Ever repair your own motor? Get half-way through a procedure and be told to loosen apart X which is adjacent part Y. However, one is never told where part Y is. Same problem.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Nope. No software costs with the server. We have a local company which tweaked Zimbra for us, no Window$, runs on Linux. No software costs specifically. But deployment costs. It's a little ideological of us to avoid large companies and work with other small businesses.
So you are using a scaled-down, free version. That might work for you but not for everybody and there are certain trade-offs.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
People write free software, or give away what they have already written, because they want to.
And, as mentioned above, because they have real jobs to pay the bills. Most often writing commercial software.
Not most often actually. At least if you measure it by the total size of contributions, the vast majority of work done on Linux for example, is done by people working for commercial companies who are being paid to do it. Companies like IBM, Intel and of course RedHat and Canonical. The idea that most Open Source software is produced by hobbyists in their spare time is largely a myth.
Now these companies obviously see value in this work. Crucially it's often cheaper and easier to maintain Open Source software than to write your own from scratch, particularly if we're talking about what ken calls systems software I.e. infrastructure. Because such software is a cost and not a competitive advantage. Imagine if there were no public roads but a group of companies got together and agreed to maintain their own network. It would both make sense for them to pay for the work - they need roads - and for the network to be open - you want your customers and suppliers to have transport links to you.
Now this applies less to application software as ken said.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The best software is written by people who know what it is to be used for and are going to use it themselves
Absolutely, whole-heartedly disagree.
Programmers know what they want, not what I want. They are often happy with keyboard shortcuts, clunky interfaces and their own logic.* Which is fine for them.
Photoshop is better than GIMP. This is an opinion based on the use of both.
And you're talking about application software in response to a point about systems software. So you may disagree with someone but it's not what ken said.
quote:
Open source is terrific if you are a programmer.
Or if you employ programmers.(Hey, where did that "free" go?)
See the libre/gratis distinction someone made earlier.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
My apologies, ken. I completely missed a paragraph of your post. Thank you, Late Paul for pointing to this error.
Well, it will not be the first time I posted whilst stupid, nor likely the last.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And as for GCC - that's all but ubiquitous now. Maybe no-one will ever write a general-purpose compiler again (other than as a teaching excercise). If you need a compiler that does something cool or clever that isn't available chances are that its cheaper and easier to add it to gcc than to write a new one.
LLVM
You can easily download it for Linux systems. It is open source and independent of GCC and more recent. And used in very serious applications. Apple adopted it in place of GCC I think (look up "clang" in Wikipedia).
LLVM can work with GCC and it can work completely independently of GCC as a competing product. But GCC is certainly not the last word in compilers, not even in free and open source general compilers.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Open source is terrific if you are a programmer.
Or if you employ programmers.(Hey, where did that "free" go?)
See the libre/gratis distinction someone made earlier.
The problem is, if my software is libre, although I can charge for it if I want, there's nothing stopping someone buying one copy then giving it away free (gratis) to everyone in the world. That's explicitly allowed by the license.
So in practice, libre implies gratis.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
I'd like people to have paid employment so I do not begrudge paying for things I use.
It's rather like I avoid those do it yourself "let's make everyone unemployed and render no service" lanes at the supermarket.
Folk are very keen to parade their virtuousness about Fairtrade overseas... while happily stiffing people who are trying to earn an honest crust for an honest day's work here.
Most of the big label open source projects (Apache, Tomcat, Linux) are coded, tested and so on by staffers from companies like HP, IBM, Oracle, Redhat and so on. Linus Torvald is paid.
Just because it is free to use does not mean nobody gets paid to write it. Or, quite frankly, that some body isn't making big bucks off the back of it as well as many getting the honest crust.
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
The idea that most Open Source software is produced by hobbyists in their spare time is largely a myth.
Then why is it so shitty?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
LLVM
Although in fairness to Ken, LLVM began its life as a graduate research project, which is not terribly distant from his (other than as a teaching excercise) qualifier.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
The idea that most Open Source software is produced by hobbyists in their spare time is largely a myth.
Then why is it so shitty?
Firefox vs Internet Explorer? IE has consistently and continuously been the loser.
Thunderbird vs Outhouse? That one's closer - recent versions of Microsoft's offering are much improved, and if you want the complete solution, you can buy Exchange and get the integrated calendaring and so on - none of the open source offerings get you such a complete package. If you don't want the extra bits, you don't want Exchange, though.
Apache vs IIS? LaTeX vs, well, anything? And I have no idea at all what I'd buy to replace emacs. Perl. Python.
On the other hand, nobody can touch Mathematica (even though Sage is, frankly, pretty awesome).
Many people have complained about (Open|Libre)Office, and I think it is a little clunkier than Microsoft's suite, although most of the complaints are "it's not exactly compatible with Office" which is hardly a level playing field. GIMP isn't quite Photoshop, but it's perfectly adequate for my personal needs.
There is really no sensible open source CAD solution, though, let alone something like Cadence or ANSYS.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Open Office is putrescent. Firefox is good for most things but there are still pages I must open in IE because Firefox chokes on them. I use GIMP all the time; I will admit it does what I need.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Libre Office is the open source fork several years ago. There are several other alternative office suites though they are less elaborate. Firefox I don't use. With open source unlike closed source you have many other alternatives. From computer I use Srware Iron which is Chrome without tracking. Choking? I pretend I am running something else.
Sent fom Tint browser from Debian OS on an Android phone.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
With open source unlike closed source you have many other alternatives.
The number of alternatives hardly matters if they're all bad.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Some random thoughts on this.
Word etc. - I've got this because you have to have it to communicate with the rest of the world. However, it is overpriced by a factor of at least double, if not treble. It is also ponderous, bloated and not easy to use. Excel is particularly bad. All this combines to make one resent M******ft, and regard it as unconscionably exploiting its market position.
LibreOffice - I have got this but do not use it enough to be familiar with it. One of its great advantages, though is that it is more able to open unfamiliar formats.
Pages - Quite easy to use but the format situation is a muddle at the moment.
IE - I used to use this before I retired because it was what the office supplied. It is possible that I may only be familiar with an old version, but it was slow, and inflexible. It did not even have tabs. Firefox is much better by a factor of at least 10.
Gimp - I have never been able to get the hang of this one. Also, I haven't got Photoshop and so cannot compare them. I suspect both are dependent on more knowledge than I have.
Latex etc - I tried to understand this. From a description that somebody gave me about the way it uses command codes, I thought it might have had a feature that I really miss from WordPerfect long ago. However, I found it completely incomprehensible, unfriendly and very inflexible.
Unix/Linux etc - Far too techie for ordinary people like me to use. Even the instructions start from assumptions that the rest of us do not have. Complete waste of time.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
OO cannot create a true docx. I discovered this the hard way when I tried to publish on Lulu. It was a nightmare. It couldn't take it straight, and converting the file to PDF was something between a joke and an invitation to murder.
The main reason for this is that "a true docx" is not, and is not meant to be, in true OpenDocument format.
Microsoft's business model is based, and always has been based, on customer lock-in a.k.a. vendor lock-in. Both terms mean that you do everything you can get away with to force your existing customers to keep using your products and buying the new versions of those products and/or pay regular maintenance-fees.
Actually Microsoft traditionally goes a step further by using any means possible to lure new customers in. The best-known method is forcing hardware-manufacturers to bundle Windows with any computer-system sold. Another tactic is lowering prices for products that experience competition from other vendors, if needed (hopefully temporarily) even giving them away until competitors are wiped out. Occasionally Microsoft gets fined for these practices, but even in the case of the EU-fines that amounts to a tiny fraction of the profits they make with these practices.
When it dawned on Microsoft that free Office-replacements based on the OpenDocument/OASIS standard were eating away at Microsoft-Office market-share and profits, one of the tactics to counter this threat was announcing to build in support for the OpenDocument/Oasis standard in Microsoft-Office, the ***x format. Problem is that Microsoft predictably "improved" their OpenDocument implementation, in many cases making the ***x files incompatible with the od* formats.
So, your nightmare is most likely the result of Microsoft's tactics to preserve market-share at all costs.
Thankfully these tactics are not always successful. In spite of large-scale efforts by Microsoft the majority of tablets and smartphones use Android or IOS. UEFI (purportedly meant to protect PC's from malicious software) has not succeeded in keeping PC's free of Linux. There are still other internet-browsers besides IE. And so on.
Microsoft is by no means alone in applying customer lock-in -and various other monopolistic- tactics. Countless competitors (some long forgotten, some surviving, and some even thriving) rely on these tactics. Simply because it profits them, and is extremely hard and costly to prove.
People should be aware that services like Skype, various free cloud-services, free web-based Office-services (by Microsoft, Google, Adobe, etc.) will only stay free as long as there is competition, and the possibility that you upgrade to a paid for premium-service).
The crux of the matter is whether you will still be able to read your documents, view your pictures, listen to your music-files, in twenty years time, without paying a -possibly extortionate- license fee for proprietary software.
Using software that truly adheres to a widely-accepted non-proprietary standard is the only way to go.
And it is extremely unlikely that Microsoft Office will ever do that.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Machine Elf
Irregular polytope
# 1622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
What I wonder about is why wouldn't we have a situation where all software is free and available? The IT people make their living doing service, not by reselling software. It's only big corps which want to make money that way.
Having worked all my life as a software engineer in R&D departments, and never in an IT department (IT was outsourced in about half my employers), I can tell you that how the IT people make their money has almost nothing to do with the costs involved in creating software (the R&D department creating the software has to pay the IT department for the compute resources they use; all other costs are nothing to do with IT).
You might as well say cars should be free because mechanics get paid for servicing them. It could work - you'd end up with something like Cuba's fleet of 1950s USA cars where the current cost of the car has almost nothing to do with its R&D cost.
Not that there aren't companies whose business model is to recoup the R&D costs through service contracts, but that isn't always successful - one of my previous employers nearly went to the wall because the service department was in a different silo to R&D so it got all the money and R&D none, and it couldn't guarantee no-one else serviced its products.
[ 08. February 2014, 10:32: Message edited by: The Machine Elf ]
--------------------
Elves of any kind are strange folk.
Posts: 1298 | From: the edge of the deep green sea | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
LLVM
Although in fairness to Ken, LLVM began its life as a graduate research project, which is not terribly distant from his (other than as a teaching excercise) qualifier.
I don't actually think that is very relevant. Ken wasn't excluding all projects that *start* as academic projects, he was excluding all projects that *remain* mere academic projects (i.e. that never have more than trivial use in the real world). Any academic project that turns into a serious contender to GCC in the real world is the very thing that overturns Ken's assertion about GCC's finality.
Many open source projects have started out in the academic world - the difference is that quite a few (like, say, the database server PostgreSQL that I use extensively at work) become successful non-academic projects. That is the case with LLVM - it has moved well beyond the academic world to become a serious contender to GCC in the commercial world. It has become "terribly distant" from his "teaching exercise" qualifier.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Using software that truly adheres to a widely-accepted non-proprietary standard is the only way to go.
And when all the people I need to send documents to do that, then I can too. Until then, I cannot, despite all the flowery bullshit proponents of non-proprietary standards spew.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Nope. No software costs with the server. We have a local company which tweaked Zimbra for us, no Window$, runs on Linux. No software costs specifically. But deployment costs. It's a little ideological of us to avoid large companies and work with other small businesses.
So you are using a scaled-down, free version. That might work for you but not for everybody and there are certain trade-offs.
No again. As I mentioned a local company tweaked it for us, so instead of a general package, it is specifically for us. We paid/pay for service not software, which is the point I want to make.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
With open source unlike closed source you have many other alternatives.
The number of alternatives hardly matters if they're all bad.
This is uninformed. As is the next post you made. It doesn't matter what operating system or program others use. We can work with any. No one even has to know what we're using because we retain what they want.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We paid/pay for service not software, which is the point I want to make.
And the counterpoint repeated made is someone paid for that software to be developed. And your proposed model is somewhat questionable in a business environment and completely out the window in the non-business environment.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Not sure where these ideas come from?
-Google & Yahoo both run on Linux, with Yahoo also running freeBSD.
Here's another link to 50 companies/gov'ts etc who are doing it. Includes various gov't agenices/departments (including USA post service which I though was interesting), a series of governments (China, Spain, civic and state governments), many universities and schools around the world.
Additional companies doing it: Novell, IBM, Panasonic, Cisco, Amazon, New York Stock Exchange, Toyota, Sony...
My ISP's server is Linux.
Again: software and operating systems are free. The development and preparing it for the specific environment for use is something you pay for. I like that I don't have to pay foreigners for that and deal with local business.
The idea that it cannot be used in non-business or has trouble in business environments is simply not true; scan through the second link I posted to the 50.
[ 09. February 2014, 14:43: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
With open source unlike closed source you have many other alternatives.
The number of alternatives hardly matters if they're all bad.
This is uninformed. As is the next post you made. It doesn't matter what operating system or program others use. We can work with any. No one even has to know what we're using because we retain what they want.
This is inept. I was not talking about operating systems, I was talking about applications. If there are no applications that will do what I want, save commercially-produced ones, then the call to ditch commercially-produced software is idiotic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Nope. No software costs with the server. We have a local company which tweaked Zimbra for us, no Window$, runs on Linux. No software costs specifically. But deployment costs. It's a little ideological of us to avoid large companies and work with other small businesses.
So you are using a scaled-down, free version. That might work for you but not for everybody and there are certain trade-offs.
No again. As I mentioned a local company tweaked it for us, so instead of a general package, it is specifically for us. We paid/pay for service not software, which is the point I want to make.
Again, you paid for the development. It was not free. I'm familiar with Zimbra. If you look at their website they sell a more upscale version with more bells and whistles. You got the scaled down version. You made a trade-off.
I'll "out" myself a little bit. I purchase software for a living. You mentioned Yahoo! up thread. My previous job was doing just that for Yahoo!. I'm willing to bet I'm more familiar with their software usage than anyone else here. Yes, they are a Linux house. There is still a cost associated with using Linux. The article you linked even mentioned that they have to pay Red Hat for support. I can assure you that this is not a small bill.
Again, there is nothing "free". There are costs,internal or external, to using software. I know, I've had to model them out.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I certainly feel more "free" using proprietary software that functions independently on my computer to any form of Software As A Service (which might be presented to me as open-source software with me paying for "maintenance") where I am at the whim of an internet connection and tweaks I didn't ask for.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I certainly feel more "free" using proprietary software that functions independently on my computer to any form of Software As A Service (which might be presented to me as open-source software with me paying for "maintenance") where I am at the whim of an internet connection and tweaks I didn't ask for.
In the case of f.i. servers you do have a point.
When it comes to the software you use for documents, pictures, music, you are better of in the long run with software that adheres to a widely accepted standard, is platform-independent, and of which the source-code is freely available. Then you can either choose to use a compiled version supplied by an independent volunteer organization, or compile it yourself. The latter may seem insurmountably difficult for an ordinary user, but is in fact a lot easier than getting Windows 8.1 to properly do what the average user wants it to do.
LibreOffice/OpenOffice, Gimp, are prime examples of that kind of software.
Microsoft Office, Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop are examples of the exact opposite.
They may seem reasonably priced at this moment, but should they ever be able to shake off their (free and commercial) competitors, you will pay through the nose to be able to access everything you archive now for possible use in say ten years time.
In (supplier) theory proprietary software and formats may be meant to give the customer the best product/service possible.
In practice they produce customer lock-in.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
In the case of f.i. servers you do have a point.
I'm sorry but I don't know what this abbreviation means!
quote:
When it comes to the software you use for documents, pictures, music, you are better of in the long run with software that adheres to a widely accepted standard
A point I tried to make earlier is that these "widely accepted standards" may themselves be the subject of intense lobbying by firms such as Adobe that have incorporated open-source solutions in proprietary packages. I am far from an expert in this area, but I think that behind this controversy about Microsoft's implementation of ODF lies some serious lobbying by competitors to affect the content of the "widely accepted standards" - in favour, not simply of the open source ethos, but indirectly of their competing products that use it.
[ 10. February 2014, 09:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
When it comes to the software you use for documents, pictures, music, you are better of in the long run with software that adheres to a widely accepted standard, is platform-independent, and of which the source-code is freely available. Then you can either choose to use a compiled version supplied by an independent volunteer organization, or compile it yourself. The latter may seem insurmountably difficult for an ordinary user, but is in fact a lot easier than getting Windows 8.1 to properly do what the average user wants it to do.
Spoken like someone who knows how to compile code. I don't think you have an inkling what "compiling code" looks like to the average user. Hint: think "Linear B."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
The idea that most Open Source software is produced by hobbyists in their spare time is largely a myth.
Then why is it so shitty?
It isn't. I use Perl, MySQL, and Apache, pretty much ever working day. Occasionally GCC, Python, PHP. Also half a dozen unix shell tools. They are fine. And at some of them so good they've driven commercial software out of the market.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
I think most opensource software is entirely usable for most people. I can understand that some people need to use software in specific professional ways might find it hard to use.
The difficulty is that opensource software is usually full of bugs and is being constantly updated. So to be sure that you are using the lastest stable release (if one exists), you need to constantly be prepared to update.
Secondly you have to be prepared to spend a lot of time solving problems. I've reformatted my hard-drive and reloaded linux several times - because the automatic updates never seem to work for me. Ask anyone who uses linux a lot and they'll tell you about the times when it all fell apart. My personal bugbear is the soundcard, which often seems to break the software.
Say what you like about Windows, but it doesn't ask this much from users. Hence people are prepared to pay for it. I assume the same thing happens with other software.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And when all the people I need to send documents to do that, then I can too. Until then, I cannot, despite all the flowery bullshit proponents of non-proprietary standards spew.
Yeah, but that's not a comment on the quality of open source software, it's a comment on the network effects of proprietary software and the fact that they've gained a lock in of sorts.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Current open source software sounds akin to what I've heard regarding the early days of personal computing.
The conflicts, the workarounds, the manually configuring everything to work with everything else, the reconfiguring when anything new was added.
And all the geeks happy as clams as this, despite the bitching, was what they liked.
It was not until things started getting locked down that normal people began to flock to computers.
Can't imagine my Gran figuring out how to setup a Linux box.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I've reformatted my hard-drive and reloaded linux several times - because the automatic updates never seem to work for me. Ask anyone who uses linux a lot and they'll tell you about the times when it all fell apart.
In my experience Linux has been more stable and much easier to install than proprietary Unix systems. I've had far less trouble with it than with Solaris (which I have been using pretty much since the day it was released)
quote:
Say what you like about Windows, but it doesn't ask this much from users. Hence people are prepared to pay for it. I assume the same thing happens with other software.
Installing windows has been no problem since NT4 came out over 15 years ago. Upgrading windows is still harder than Linux though far easier than it was - both systems are in effect 99% automatic as long as you have a fast Internet connection and you trust the update repository. Installing new software on Linux tends to be a little easier than on windows as long as you are using a distro with a good package manager. Pretty much fire-and-forget these days.
Where windows loses out is setting it up for local circumstances. It usually takes me a few hours to get a new Windows system the way I want it - networking, backups, locally defined users, firewall, my own data going where I want it, not where windows wants it - unix/linux is much quicker and simpler. I'd reckon windows takes roughly four times as long to get right. OK that's still only a few hours out of the two or three years you are likely to be using the system, but its boring!
Macs win hands down on this sort of thing. Three or four minutes to get started rather than the three or four hours windows is likely to take. But only up to a point - if you do any but the most basic customisation then you are dealing with a unix system without a decent modern package manager and things take longer.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It seems to me that a lot of this debate depends on the perspective of who is answering: is it an ideological perspective, are you a systems manager, an end user, a developer...?
My perspective as a freelance end user is based on a) compatibility with clients b) not letting my business processes be locked in more than necessary. In practice this means I use Windows and Office.
I also use proprietary CAT software, but the most open and geeky version there is (Déjà Vu, if anyone is interested), I export everything to widely compatible formats, and I could manage without it.
However, I eschew fancy SAAS-type turnkey project management systems because any old spreadsheet does me just as well, helps me keep a grip on what's going on, and could be done manually at a pinch.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Aaahhh, project management software!
Thank you, Eutychus, there was something worrying my brain every time software as a service was mentioned.
Project management and asset management software, even those a client purchases, often run on this model. The client is then held hostage to the service provider for any changes or integrations.
Oh, you wish a new feature? £€¥$!
Oh, you wish the new feature to cooperate with existing features? £€¥$!
Oh, you wish us to fix bugs in the features we wrote? £€¥$!
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
There is a large and infamous translation company that has gone one better, and actually charges freelancers working for it to use its online translation software, mandatory for all assignments done for them. Some people actually seem to think this is a good thing ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
[ 10. February 2014, 16:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is a large and infamous translation company that has gone one better, and actually charges freelancers working for it to use its online translation software, mandatory for all assignments done for them. Some people actually seem to think this is a good thing
That's comparable to a haulage company charging its lorry drivers for parking in the depot car park.
Name and shame, that's what I say.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
