201–210 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manufacturers commonly include software in their products but no one buys a Mercedes for its software.
Really? If the car contained no software, people would still buy it over alternatives that contain software at various levels for a better driving experience, comfort, and entertainment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I'm comparing R and SAS for example in the above post. Same arguments apply. And again, these arent general to all cases, just a subset of highly regulated/conservative industries
In that case you're just not auditing being able to audit the closed source version, which I see as strictly worse than the situation with open source software which you could audit if you put effort into doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer to your question is in your comment. When you consistently have to pick commercial software over floss because of the usability, it makes sense to skip that step and go to the commercial software right away.
The problem with your reasoning is that often free software is better in usability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with your reasoning is that often free software is better in usability.
I would say "it depends". Photoshop is easier to use than Gimp. But I would choose any Unix over Windows for development any day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earlier you said copyright is unethical and also why should you be paid extra for work you did in the past . Architects have copyright to their work. They do sell the same plans over and over. No one can just copy their work without paying royalties or at least getting permission.
Wealthy, great architects make their fortunes on bespoke work. Even the plans they sell often have to be changed for each location - it's uncommon that the exact same building can be replicated in different locations over time, due to local planning constraints, preferences of their clients, new regulations, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could a programmer of great ability ever become wealthy living by your ethics?
I think you're assuming that most software work is confection. In reality, or at least in my case, pretty much all the money I've ever earned was in doing bespoke work. You _could_ see contributions to FLOSS as loss leaders; though that wouldn't be accurate, since there are definitely benefits beyond just advertising your skills. A key benefit: if there is a set of freelancers working around a single FLOSS code-base,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You bring up a fascinating point. In many large enterprises -- even those that make money in some aspect of computing -- the centralized IT organization controls everything related to computers. I think we would find it odd if, say, the John Deere Corporation was forced by their "Transportation Support" organization to use Honda ATVs for moving people and goods around their factory campus. Or if Yale Law School was n…
I think your examples actually show exactly why IT controls everything, and not people who want to do stuff because they feel like it that day. John Deere does not make ATVs, they don't make any tier of people moving equipment. The idea that they should use their own is ridiculous. If they didn't enforce the Honda rule, people would be riding around in the front of dozers. Much in the same way that if Stanford invent…
They most assuredly do, which is why I came up with that example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're really making the argument between writing something yourself versus using an open source solution, instead of picking between an open source and a proprietary solution.
No, I'm comparing R and SAS for example in the above post. Same arguments apply. And again, these arent general to all cases, just a subset of highly regulated/conservative industries
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sussman is not just "a professor at MIT." He's one of the inventors of Scheme and one of the authors of SICP. And perhaps most apropos for this article, one of the founders of the FSF, along with of course RMS.
> Sussman is not just "a professor at MIT." Your comment could be taken out of context here. I am no language expert, but it's better to use the form "Sussman is not only a professor at MIT, but also ...". "just" is probably overused these days. It has replaced words like "please" and structures like above. Contrast: a) Can you just do that b) Can you please get that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wealthy, great architects make their fortunes on bespoke work. Even the plans they sell often have to be changed for each location - it's uncommon that the exact same building can be replicated in different locations over time, due to local planning constraints, preferences of their clients, new regulations, and so on.
Great software developers deserve to make their fortune too and should be free to do so in a manner that suits both them and their (consenting adult) clients without name-calling from developers with different philosophy/orientation.
Or, in other words - the default state of things is that copyright does not exist, not that it does. It's on copyright proponents to prove that we have a better world with it than without.
Great software developers already largely make their fortune doing bespoke work for clients with a need for it. So do great lawyers, great doctors, great system administrators, great technical writers, and so on. This isn't a new idea.