Poll: why contributing on open source programs?

[elija]

Have you ever tried to sell something that the next guy is giving away?

As I said, that's basically how I make my living. I am good enough at what I do to make sure I can add the necessary value for my customers to pay me for what I add. I have released my own framework under the GPL in case anyone else finds it useful. After all, I benefit from the work of others so why shouldn't those who want to benefit from mine?

in no way necessitates that the way it is used today has nothing to do with the Microsoft monopoly.

Apart from the true anti-ms zealots, the only way I can think of is that most of us started our PC usage using MS so there is a natural comparison to be made. The anti-ms zealots are of course extremist by nature; they try to make it about the monopoly and as they shout loudly, people hear them.

Ask yourself why you use open source. Is it because of Microsoft or is it because it meets your needs?

Based purely on the number of forum posts that state it, I have to agree that most people first encounter open source (specifically Linux here) as they are fed up with Microsoft (specifically Windows here). However, most of them end up going back. Those who stay tend to be those who came at least partly for other reasons.

Are you really trying to convince me that the growth of open source and free software of all types has nothing to do with an alternative to Microsoft?

Based on market share it would seem so, but given that open source pre-dates Microsoft, would it not be more logical that Microsoft is the alternative to open source?

It doesn't mean that I think open source and free is immoral for christ's sake, I already told you I use it myself all the time.

I have just re-read my post and can't see that I did. I apologise if I upset you though. It wasn't my intention. I'm enjoying the discussion.

I think I'll see if a moderator can break this into a separate thread as we've kind of hijacked this one

[fguy64]

well, hijacking happens, the barn door is open and the cow has escaped, so we may as well keep going, no point in stopping now.

As I said, that's basically how I make my living. I am good enough at what I do to make sure I can add the necessary value for my customers to pay me for what I add. I have released my own framework under the GPL in case anyone else finds it useful. After all, I benefit from the work of others so why shouldn't those who want to benefit from mine?

Yes, well we were talking about trying to sell something that the next guy is giving away. Using yourself as an example here doesn't qualify, As quite clearly you are selling something different(some kind of value added that you have not defined) than what others are giving away.

Anyways, you are correct that the existence of open-source does provide money making opportunities, and it also takes some away. What the net effect is I'm not quite sure.

...
Ask yourself why you use open source. Is it because of Microsoft or is it because it meets your needs?

a little of both. In general I believe that MS dominance is not in my best interest, so I welcome the chance to use other products that meet my needs. And if by doing so I can somehow lessen the stranglehold a little, well that is a good thing. Also, and this is important, I, as do most others, like a good freebie.

Based purely on the number of forum posts that state it, I have to agree that most people first encounter open source (specifically Linux here) as they are fed up with Microsoft (specifically Windows here). However, most of them end up going back. Those who stay tend to be those who came at least partly for other reasons.

Thank you, I'll count that as a minor victory.

Based on market share it would seem so, but given that open source pre-dates Microsoft, would it not be more logical that Microsoft is the alternative to open source?

I've already answered that, but i'll do it again. No, that is not logical. And more than a little bit specious. And a little irrelevant. Just because a form of open source predates microsoft, that does not mean that there is no open source or free software today that exists as an alternative to MS. I'll quote a post from the first page to support my case, with apologies to GNU-Fan if necessary...

The OpenSource community has blessed me with a wealth of powerful software, as did the Free Software movement, to make me independent from greedy and powergrabbing entities.

I feel a desire to return/pass on that favour at least a little.

we could talk about Sun java (free, but maybe not open source) and why it was created, and whether or not that exists as an alternative to Microsoft, or whether or not it would even exists in it's current form without the dominance of microsoft in the first place.

I have just re-read my post and can't see that I did. I apologise if I upset you though. It wasn't my intention. I'm enjoying the discussion.

here is the way you concluded the post in question...

At the end of the day, everyone has to decide what their own principles are, what their sense of morality tells them and then decide how to act on that basis. If someone thinks that open source is morally wrong they can use commercial closed software and visa versa. And isn't that what freedom and choice is all about?

I'll concede that indeed there is a morality aspect to my post, though I don't really let it guide my actions. I'm just saying that there are issues about how our actions can negatively affect others. Anyways, I'm not really offended, we can let it go.

[elija]

well, hijacking happens, the barn door is open and the cow has escaped, so we may as well keep going, no point in stopping now.

Fair play

Yes, well we were talking about trying to sell something that the next guy is giving away. Using yourself as an example here doesn't qualify, As quite clearly you are selling something different(some kind of value added that you have not defined) than what others are giving away.

Personalisation, customisation to meet a specific need, installation, support and maintenance.

Anyways, you are correct that the existence of open-source does provide money making opportunities, and it also takes some away. What the net effect is I'm not quite sure.

Overall I think it is good as competition provides more innovation than monopoly. The strong survive.

Also, and this is important, I, as do most others, like a good freebie.

Ah yes, the freebie. We all like those but and this is even more important... I donate to a few small OS projects, either a financial one or time and resources. I encourage everyone to do the same as the important free is freedom.

Thank you, I'll count that as a minor victory.

Welcome My point still stands however. Nearly everyone who switched for purely that reason goes back because they seem to expect the paradox of it being both better and exactly the same and are disappointed when both are not true

I've already answered that, but i'll do it again. No, that is not logical. And more than a little bit specious. And a little irrelevant. Just because a form of open source predates microsoft, that does not mean that there is no open source or free software today that exists as an alternative to MS. I'll quote a post from the first page to support my case, with apologies to GNU-Fan if necessary...

I'm not going to try and argue the case that open source software isn't used or marketed as an alternative to Microsoft. I think that doing so and in particular I mean the marketing, is dangerous as it moves away from and dilutes the whole philosophy behind the community. In part GNU-Fan expresses why I use open source software although I usually phrase exactly the same sentiment in terms of choice and freedom.

This is not the same as why open source exists. From the admittedly small sample of developers I know who have released code as open source the motivations seem to be

• I think I could do this better
• This doesn't do what I want so I'll write my own
• I wonder if I could...
• I wonder if anyone else would find this useful

Not a single mention of Microsoft from anyone of them.

Linux, arguably the most famous Open Source project was started by an individual who wanted to learn about operating systems. Firefox was started as an attempt to provide a lighter browser than the Mozilla.org Internet suite which was a fork of Netscape. Again no mention of Microsoft from two of the most famous and biggest open source projects.

we could talk about Sun java (free, but maybe not open source) and why it was created, and whether or not that exists as an alternative to Microsoft, or whether or not it would even exists in it's current form without the dominance of microsoft in the first place.

Sun is a corporate entity that is in competition with Microsoft. While they do (or did) have temporary custody of a few open source projects, there isn't really much relevance to why open source exists.

here is the way you concluded the post in question...
.

Yes I tried to keep it as generic as possible

[fguy64]

elija, I know you can construct an logically consistent argument explaining the existence of open source that does not include Microsoft somewhere. I just don't think your argument address all the issues. I'm not saying that all open source exists because of Microsoft, therefore logic 101 dictates that you can't refute my point by providing a few counter examples that don't involve Microsoft.


Yes, Sun might not be relevant to why you think open source exists. But the reasons for the existence of Sun java, and why it was marketed the way it was, have things in common with the reasons for existence of some open source, and other free, software. It is an alternative to Microsoft. But of course if you will not accept the relevance of an "alternative to Microsoft", then you are unlikely to see any relevance of Sun Java to the discussion.

Anyways, I think we're gonna have agree to disagree. Honestly I think we spend most of our time arguing at cross purposes, which is to say we're not really debating the issues cause we don't even agree on what those issues are. It's been fun nonetheless, I'm gonna bow out.

[fguy64]

Sorry, I should have addressed this. On we go...

....

Overall I think it is good as competition provides more innovation than monopoly. The strong survive.

erm, so you are saying that one of the reasons why free software is good because it is competition? I'll put aside the point of whether or not anything free can be termed fair competition, and ask you this. Competition with what?

[elija]

Sorry, I should have addressed this. On we go...

Whoo hoo!

erm, so you are saying that one of the reasons why free software is good because it is competition? I'll put aside the point of whether or not anything free can be termed fair competition, and ask you this. Competition with what?

Open source software doesn't compete with anything. If you think it does then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of open source. Corporations however do use open source to compete with each other and with the closed source software companies.

Canonical compete with Red Hat competes with Novel competes with Sun competes with Apple competes with Microsoft competes with Google. None of these is open source. None of these is closed source. All of these are corporations.

If I was at gun point and I had to choose the primary reason for the existence of open source I would say there are those who believe in freedom even the freedom for others to make money from their work and have the convictions to stand by their beliefs.

I'm off to watch a movie.

[fguy64]

....
Anyways, you are correct that the existence of open-source does provide money making opportunities, and it also takes some away. What the net effect is I'm not quite sure.
...

Fair play
Overall I think it is good as competition provides more innovation than monopoly. The strong survive.

....
erm, so you are saying that one of the reasons why free software is good because it is competition? I'll put aside the point of whether or not anything free can be termed fair competition, and ask you this. Competition with what?
....

...
Open source software doesn't compete with anything. If you think it does then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of open source. Corporations however do use open source to compete with each other and with the closed source software companies.
...

The only thing I fundamentally misunderstand is your point. I doubt even you know what that is. You consistently refuse to address the issues I raise, and instead choose to nitpick and play games with semantics. It's turning into a big waste of time. Enjoy the movie.

[cien]

well, hijacking happens, the barn door is open and the cow has escaped, so we may as well keep going, no point in stopping now.

That's very nice of you fguy64. Thanks.

First of all, about your past comment on letting the talk digress to whatever it goes, let me tell you that, though there is no written etiquette, it is implicit that you should respect a bit the original intention of the message. Otherwise, there would be no use of a forum if whenever someone post something, people talk about something else. Eventually no one will post. You can always create a new post to discuss whatever you want.

It is true you are not the only one discussing but it's easy to see that you are the one pushing others for a discussion. Beside this, everyone else at least is aware that this is probably not the place for this type of discussion. You just keep insisting and pushing people.

Regarding some of your comments, the lack of originality in all your arguments is striking to me. The whole purpose of the post was to get opinions about why people do this. You are just rephrasing the original question and then asking ''why'' to every person who post a comment. You didn't add any value to the post that is not implicit in the original question.

The discussion about what would happen without Microsoft belongs to the realm of science fiction. It's not real and an argument can not be won. It will be speculative and arguing won't get you anywhere, except getting on my nerves.

I, though, understand now why is so hard for you to understand the existence of open source software. For one, you just rip off the intention of my post and appropriate as if the idea was even yours, which is fine because it's not copyrighted... and second, you take this public space and make it your own by imposing your personal agenda without any sort of empathy. Doing something for others doesn't seem in your nature.

Finally, about dumping... read an economic textbook or even Wikipedia.

Thanks everyone else for sharing your thoughts (even you fguy64, up to your first post).

[Lakshmipathi]

cien,
I can understand your disappointment - but something like this rarely happens.
Rarely people get aggressive/defensive about their opionion and hard to stop it - that happened few times with me and my window friends about "linux -- user-friendly?" on a mailing list.

Thanks everyone else for sharing your thoughts (even you fguy64,

You are welcome