Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> And this old hippy wants to know what's wrong with "open source"?

I don't know whether this is actually the question you were intending to ask (as
of now there wasn't any mention of anything being wrong with open source, just
with shareware) - but I as a professional software developer could make some
points.

Most importantly, the "aggressive" type of open source, as pushed by the FSF and
their GPL, if it succeeded, would (put a little bit to extreme to emphasize the
point) deprive individuals of their freedom to devote their whole life to
developing software, and share it with others in exchange for pizza, computer
hardware, and a roof above the head.

Sure, the FSF promotes sharing one's software in exchange for... what? Other
free software? Well, I can't eat that, plug my keyboard into it, or take
shelter from the rain in it.

The FSF's "free software" Utopia is based on the assumption that software is
developed as a pastime, or as a "spin-off" of some other occupation. While this
may be commonplace in the academic world, some people would want to opt for a
more drastically software-development-centered lifestyle, and they need to eat.
Anything wrong with shareware here? Don't think so.


But I guess this may get us off-topic a bit...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:57:51 EST, "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>> And this old hippy wants to know what's wrong with "open source"?
>
>I don't know whether this is actually the question you were intending to ask (as
>of now there wasn't any mention of anything being wrong with open source, just
>with shareware) - but I as a professional software developer could make some
>points.
>
[snip]

I understand that Christoph. But I would have thought that the "hippie
philosophy" would endorse "open source". Free love and all that.

>But I guess this may get us off-topic a bit...

True, but that has never stopped me ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Woody escreveu:
> Forgive my ignorance, what program did you use to convert from 3ds. Is it
> free/open source I currently only know of one shareware program, and I am not
> particularly keen on using it since it goes against my hippie philosophy of
> promoting open source.

Blender does the job as well as Wings 3D, both run natively on Linux.

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
news:crmbn457io812781v0vht4glfgca8hcdda@4ax.com...
> I understand that Christoph. But I would have thought that the "hippie
> philosophy" would endorse "open source". Free love and all that.

Indeed... Same question here. I use OpenOffice.org to (almost) full 
satisfaction, and without feeling guilty towards MS... ;-)

>>But I guess this may get us off-topic a bit...
>
> True, but that has never stopped me ;)

Neither does it me...

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> with shareware) - but I as a professional software developer could make some
> points.

I'm a professional software developer too -- though most probably not 
talking as close to the metal as some of you guys here seem to -- and I 
believe I can make a few points as well. ;)

> Most importantly, the "aggressive" type of open source, as pushed by the FSF and
> their GPL, if it succeeded, would (put a little bit to extreme to emphasize the
> point) deprive individuals of their freedom to devote their whole life to
> developing software, and share it with others in exchange for pizza, computer
> hardware, and a roof above the head.

I don't think so.  Most enterprises either build their private systems 
in house or pay a third party to build it and even hand over the source 
code anyway.  Private enterprise commercial systems are hardly portable 
or fittable to other organization needs so there's really no point in 
open-sourcing a one-fits-all kind of system and even if there was they 
would still hire software developers to customize it.

I see open-source primarily as a great way of diminishing production 
costs by sharing such cost of development and maintanence with other 
interested parties:  everyone benefit from it and the more interested 
parties, the better.  It's a very good development model geared 
primarily for general purpose infrastructure software, but not so much 
for user applications which are meant to be specific.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Indeed... Same question here. I use OpenOffice.org to (almost) full 
> satisfaction, and without feeling guilty towards MS... ;-)

It usually confuses matters to try to analyze "real" open source software 
(like the Linux kernel) with software that was created and given away as a 
competitive advantage to the creators. Some "open" software was originally 
created by a hardware company who wanted good software for their hardware 
that would compete with the software available for other hardware. Giving 
away the software made their hardware (where they made their actual money) 
more attractive.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

> "Woody" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Forgive my ignorance, what program did you use to convert from 3ds. Is it
>> free/open source I currently only know of one shareware program, and I am not
>> particularly keen on using it since it goes against my hippie philosophy of
>> promoting open source.
> 
> I guess you're not running Windows; otherwise I could recommend - without
> thinking - two free tools that do both 3ds import and POV export: Wings 3D and
> PoseRay.
> 
> For Linux, you may want to try the Wine / PoseRay combo. PoseRay claims to be
> running perfectly fine on Wine. Cheers!
> 
> 

   Wings3d works nicely on Linux too... and for me the current POV exporter 
does a good job on the geometry, although it could be more "edit-friendly".

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:52:03 +0100, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
>news:crmbn457io812781v0vht4glfgca8hcdda@4ax.com...
>> I understand that Christoph. But I would have thought that the "hippie
>> philosophy" would endorse "open source". Free love and all that.
>
>Indeed... Same question here. I use OpenOffice.org to (almost) full 
>satisfaction, and without feeling guilty towards MS... ;-)
>

I don't feel guilty any more I'm even cured of distaste for "Big Blue".

I gave up using OpenOffice.org as I still use M$ at work and my fingers can only
remember so many shortcuts ;)

>>>But I guess this may get us off-topic a bit...
>>
>> True, but that has never stopped me ;)
>
>Neither does it me... 
>

Well OT gets a bit On Topic at times :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:23:51 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Indeed... Same question here. I use OpenOffice.org to (almost) full 
>> satisfaction, and without feeling guilty towards MS... ;-)
>
>It usually confuses matters to try to analyze "real" open source software 
>(like the Linux kernel) with software that was created and given away as a 
>competitive advantage to the creators. Some "open" software was originally 
>created by a hardware company who wanted good software for their hardware 
>that would compete with the software available for other hardware. Giving 
>away the software made their hardware (where they made their actual money) 
>more attractive.

Some capitalists are sneaky :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I don't think so.  Most enterprises either build their private systems
> in house or pay a third party to build it and even hand over the source
> code anyway.  Private enterprise commercial systems are hardly portable
> or fittable to other organization needs so there's really no point in
> open-sourcing a one-fits-all kind of system and even if there was they
> would still hire software developers to customize it.

Okay, we're talking about two different worlds here (yet again): You're thinking
of custom-tailored corporate inhouse software; I'm thinking of stuff that is
typically distributed as shareware (say, for example, tools like UltraEdit).

Then again, there's companies like the one I currently happen to work for,
trying to do stuff with embedded Linux; it's an awful hassle, as we found out.
How can you build a Linux box that will be built into a car?

It basically requires you to (1) use GPL'ed software, because you can't write
*all* the stuff from scratch, nor can you buy it - there's no true commercial
alternatives out there; because of that it requires you to (2) release *all*
the source code of the final product under the GPL as well, and provide
interested users all necessary tools to - well, let's just call it by name -
basically "hack" the box and flash their own software into it; but at the same
time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
bus protocol details and such) secret, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.

So it's no surprise the embedded Linux idea has not really reached full speed
yet.

While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
of free software.

An old african proverb says, if elephants (here: big companies and the FSF)
fight, it is the grass (here: small developers) that suffers.


> I see open-source primarily as a great way of diminishing production
> costs by sharing such cost of development and maintanence with other
> interested parties:  everyone benefit from it and the more interested
> parties, the better.  It's a very good development model geared
> primarily for general purpose infrastructure software, but not so much
> for user applications which are meant to be specific.

The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
applications custom-tailored for an individual website.

Their agenda leaves absolutely no doubt about it: Their aim is to make *every*
single piece of software "free" and open-sourced. They're just not going full
gear for strategic reasons (read for example their statements about when to use
the LGPL and the GPL to see for yourself).

Honestly, I'd liken this to communism or socialism: The basic ideas might have
been good ones, but they have been bred in academic brains a bit too far from
reality (e.g. too optimistic about the nature of man), then pushed by
enthusiastic masses too far from the academic ideas, to ultimately fail - after
having caused a great mess that will not be so easy to clean up.

Post a reply to this message