Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> Um, I don't see how.  Either that or SLE isn't broken enough. ;)
> 
> Jim

See! I _told_ you that Novell had its business model wrong :-D

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six years, 
> it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the point where 
> you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.

  Would you trust a software which version number is 1.0? Or would you wait
for at least something like 1.0.5?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> As it's included in commercial distributions,
>>
>> Commercial distributions of Linux?  That doesn't count. The more broken
>> it is, the more money they make.
> 
> Um, I don't see how. 

If you can copy it for free, the only business model is to charge to fix it. 
Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a living 
if all software is free?"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> FOSS version numbers usually grow at snail pace. 

Yes, and I used to think that was just because there was no pressure to 
market "new" versions. I found I was wrong. :-)

(I've also seen version numbers like 0.9.9.89 as well as version numbers 
that go backwards for some reason.)

IMO, when you release it to the outside world, that's 1.0. Anything less and 
you're just making excuses.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six years, 
>> it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the point where 
>> you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
> 
>   Would you trust a software which version number is 1.0? Or would you wait
> for at least something like 1.0.5?

It's not so much the version numbers. I used to think it was a problem with 
commitment or a problem with not having any marketing reason to declare 
"this is good enough to ship". I'm discovering that no, the 0.x stuff in 
FOSS sucks as much as the 0.X stuff in commercial software, pretty much.

Would I use 1.0?  Sure. I've used commercial stuff that had no version 
number at all because the company licensing it to us never intended it to 
leave the company. Not without some support, mind, which is where most of
the problems come in.  For lots of this stuff, there's no good place to
ask, or people have moved on to a version three after yours and want you
to rip out everything that works to support their new choice of build 
platform or whatever.

Funny conversation remembered from graduate days:
"Darren, do you want us to upgrade your workstation to SunOS 4.0?"
"Sure, why not?"
"Because it's the only workstation licensed to run the code you need."
"And?"
"And it's 4.0."
"Oh. You mean, do you want my to upgrade to 4.0.0!  No, leave it."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:22:52 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> As it's included in commercial distributions,
>>>
>>> Commercial distributions of Linux?  That doesn't count. The more
>>> broken it is, the more money they make.
>> 
>> Um, I don't see how.
> 
> If you can copy it for free, the only business model is to charge to fix
> it. 

Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole 
services model around software that's more than just charging to fix it.

Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have to 
distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to fix it, 
even.

> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
> living if all software is free?"

Consulting, custom programming, etc.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:47:30 +0100, Doctor John wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 
>> Um, I don't see how.  Either that or SLE isn't broken enough. ;)
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> See! I _told_ you that Novell had its business model wrong :-D

LOL, I've always said (particularly with regard to NetWare) that the 
software was *too* stable. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole 
> services model around software that's more than just charging to fix it.

Right. *All* of those fall down when the software is easy to use, stable, etc.

> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have to 
> distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to fix it, 
> even.

Sure. You charge for support contracts, not for the fixes.

>> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
>> living if all software is free?"
> 
> Consulting, custom programming, etc.

I.e., not via software, but via services. That's my point.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:14:33 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole
>> services model around software that's more than just charging to fix
>> it.
> 
> Right. *All* of those fall down when the software is easy to use,
> stable, etc.

Perhaps, though I might debate "consult" - sometimes consulting is 
brought in not because of ease-of-use issues but because of manpower 
issues.

>> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have
>> to distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to
>> fix it, even.
> 
> Sure. You charge for support contracts, not for the fixes.

Exactly.

>>> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
>>> living if all software is free?"
>> 
>> Consulting, custom programming, etc.
> 
> I.e., not via software, but via services. That's my point.

The same holds true for non-OSS in that case, so I'm not sure what your 
point is....?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Perhaps, though I might debate "consult" - sometimes consulting is 
> brought in not because of ease-of-use issues but because of manpower 
> issues.

That and expertise, yes.

>>>> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
>>>> living if all software is free?"
>>> Consulting, custom programming, etc.
>> I.e., not via software, but via services. That's my point.
> 
> The same holds true for non-OSS in that case, so I'm not sure what your 
> point is....?

Sorry? I can charge for non-OSS software, is what I mean. I can sell it 
twice and make twice as much money as selling it once. I.e., I don't have to 
do work every single time I make some money, so I can afford to make 
something that no one single person would pay for.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message