View Poll Results: Do you agree with open source software?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, Open source gives people the freedom they need

    25 47.17%
  • Yeah, We can all get benefited, but there must be no-open-source software

    9 16.98%
  • I don't care, I just use the software, I don't see its source

    2 3.77%
  • Nah, MY source is private, People shouln't see it, but I heve to see OTHER pepole's code

    6 11.32%
  • No, Open source sucks, people shouldn't have the right to see your code 'cause it's hard work

    7 13.21%
  • Excuse my ignorance, but what is open source?

    4 7.55%

Open Source

This is a discussion on Open Source within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; >and then one of their whizz kid programmers modifies the OS so now my app doesn't work anymore, who is ...

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    79
    >and then one of their whizz kid programmers modifies the OS so now my app doesn't work anymore, who is legally liable for this?<

    If Microsoft makes a new OS that breaks your program, are you going to sue them?

    On the practical side, just blow your customer off like all the other software companies do. ("this program does not support unstable kernel versions", or the like)

    Most of you are approaching the Open Source philosophy backwards. You're saying, "Why give away your hard work?", when in reality, the question should be, "Why not split the effort with other volunteers?". Most Open Source people actually *enjoy* coding(a difficult concept if you do it for a living instead of as a hobby). And the coding they do, they do because they need some feature that isn't available in a product that is within their price range(or isn't available at all).

    They're not giving away their hard work--they're allowing the other kids on the beach to play with their sandcastle.

    >i mean to say, the average of the condition of the world can be improved if we go the lesser countries and get them up to speed...<
    It would take three earths to supply the entire world's population with enough resources to bring them all up to the US's standard of living.(at least with capitalism/consumerism)
    All generalizations are false

  2. #17
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    955
    I don't like open source, that's the main reason I hate linux.

    Open source may accelerate the process of software development, but it may not.

    Oskilian

  3. #18
    It's full of stars adrianxw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,831
    >>> If Microsoft makes a new OS that breaks your program,

    I've never had that happen.

    >>> , just blow your customer off like all the other software companies do.

    No, why should I sink to their level?
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.

  4. #19
    Linguistic Engineer... doubleanti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,459
    >who is legally liable for this?

    speaking of which! [and this is aggravating me...] my bought copy of final fantasy seven does not read the disks when i run the installed program... i'm under me and i am frustrated since this did happen before too...

    so, in that light, i would place the liability on, of course, the os developer... i would hope standardization would help prevent this... but at what extent is backward compatibility the way to go? tradition?... hmmm...
    hasafraggin shizigishin oppashigger...

  5. #20
    Back! ^.^ *Michelle*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    568
    I don't really get how linux is "open source"...
    DO you mean you can see the source code of all the softwares you install on the computer? That doesn't make sense...

    Well, I think it depends if you are going to left others use your software...If you are then I think you should have it open source, cause you are letting ppl use the product, so why not let them know how it is made too?
    Michelle (o^.^o)
    *Unique*
    Kaomoji House

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    412
    Well, but if something is open source, you lose a LOT of leverage. Plus, why should programmers have to give out their work for free? Some do so voluntarily, including myself, but if I was making a living selling source code for $100,000 or more per license, I'd not give something like that for free.

    Bottom line: Open source is all well and good if people want to give out their stuff for free. Anyone can provide goods or services for free if they choose, but at the same time, people should not be required nor looked down upon if they don't want to give out their work for free.

  7. #22
    MKN
    MKN is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3
    I think that open scores for small programs is not worth except for learning but the hard work must not be free for any one. (that depends on the programmer)
    Some like to give the work for improvement and evaluation.

  8. #23
    Registered User jasrajva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    99
    offcourse i voted 1
    and i live in a third world country too

    open source has to be it peepl bcoz thats what is the greatest accelerator too technological advancement

    the main advantage here is that thousands of other people can see your code and improve on it also really extreme testing gets done for free
    unlike the micro buggers who we pay to do their testing and then repay to but an upgrade

    i think that there is no point in keeping your prog closed source bcoz what it does is there to be seen by everyone so someone else could obviously figure out how to do it

    so someone else could also write a similar program but then he/she would have wasted many man hrs in
    'reinventing the wheel'

    instead if the source was originally made available those man hrs could have been used to improve or build upon the original software

    also bugs get noticed and fixed faster than any other way

    the best example is obviously Linux/GNU

    what started as a coll project became a competitor to win only coz it was open source

    i believe that closed source must have pushed back tech advancement atleast 10 years by now so the faster we open up the better

  9. #24
    A Banana Yoshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    857
    Take a look at the Linux OS (RH, Open, Mandrake) they are all opensource. They even included the source code (though it is useless for most people). However, the software inside are from others so you cannot amend most of the softwares inside the OS (GIMP).
    Yoshi

  10. #25
    Registered User jasrajva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    99
    a few things i forgot to say:

    1)
    MKN said
    I think that open scores for small programs is not worth except for learning but the hard work must not be free for any one. (that depends on the programmer)
    open source is not for learners
    its definitely not something that people throw out to the lesser us so that we can peep into the code and be enlightened(or copy from it)

    it is much more than that
    and larger the program the more rigorous testing it requires so larger programs are more suited to open source
    example linux abt 10 million lines of code

    2) the notion that open source means a hungry programmer
    that is absolutely untrue

    look at companies like redhat, caldera and a host of other Lin driven companies

    i'm sure they dont send their programmers back home hungry

    3) even microsoft is doing some "giving out source with the binaries" it gave its 200 source to 1000 of its top customers(thats what i read somewhere ok)

  11. #26
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    955
    I don't think that open source can accelerate knowledge because, if everyone knows the source for a certain program, eveyody will make their updates, this is good IF, and ONLY IF you can gather all enhancements and make them into a newer version. But, since this is a capitalist world, you have no motivation to keep on doing it, maybe some rich people who don't have to worry about money for the rest of their lives would, but since programming is a knowledge, you should profit from your own knowledge. Therefore, I disagree with open source and with cheap software, this means that I agree with the prices Microsoft gives to their software, because, if you think economically, Microsoft has to pay all the people who work for it, and specially developers.

    We are all humans or something like it, but we still have to eat someting and have a place to sleep.

    If I ever make software that can be sold, I WILL sell it, and it will not be cheap, because hard work pays, and you should not give your hard work for free.

    Oskilian

  12. #27
    Registered User jasrajva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    99
    If I ever make software that can be sold, I WILL sell it, and it will not be cheap, because hard work pays, and you should not give your hard work for free.
    but then soon there will be an open source product that does the same job atleast as well as your expensive one does and you will have to resort to microsoft like negative publicity for opensource to kill the competition

    anyway the notion that cheap is bad is as incorrect abt software as any other thing in life

    i think capitalism means that the product that is the most competitively priced wins(all things being equal and there being no microsoft to rig the markets)

  13. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    79
    What if developing is not an occupation? Suppose there was a world in which everyone wrote the code that they needed. Would there be anything wrong with giving away that code?

    The famous Apache webserver is open source. It was written because there was a need: there weren't ANY webservers. The purpose of the WWW was to promote cross-linking electronic documents, so what good was it if it cost money? There would only be one website--one belonging to the developers of the webserver.

    GiNaC is a computer algebra system that was designed by high-energy physicists to help them write a program to generate Feynman diagrams. It is open source(actually, it's Free software, which is a subset that requires that you make any programs linked to it Free software as well).

    PERL, a scripting language that is used extensively in CGI scripts, is open source. It was created because previous scripting languages weren't flexible or featureful enough.

    PHP, a scripting language similar to PERL and embedded in HTML like ASP, was created to make creating the creator's own website easier.

    Phorum, a message board system written in PHP similar to the one we're using, was written because the others were too expensive or too difficult to extend, correct and improve, or were too slow.

    CVS, concurrent versioning system, was created because people kept uploading updated source code files via ftp at the same time too often.(usually on Open Source projects)

    There are a few projects that weren't created because of a need:

    All GNU tools were created because Richard M. Stallman believes that software should be free(because if price is directly proportional to demand and inversely proportional to supply, then when supply is infinite(as is the approximate case with computers), price should drop to zero)

    The Linux kernel was developed because Linus thought it was fun(and partially because there were no Unix kernels available for the Intel x86 chip series)

    They were all expanded because people a)were annoyed by a bug, b)needed a feature, or c)thought the project was cool/fun.
    All generalizations are false

  14. #29
    Registered User Cruxus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    87
    If I were to write a program worth releasing, I might release under a license like the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL). I expect to program as a job in the future, so I'll also be working on closed-source projects.

    My belief is that free, open-source software can coexist with closed-source software. One can work on closed-source software for a job, and work on an open-source project during part of one's spare time. I also believe that free, open-source software is not anti-American, anti-capitalist, or communist in nature. Open-source software is just one alternative to the software provided by Microsoft, Corel, etc.

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    197

    WE NEED OPEN SOURCE

    I think Open Source is necessary to keep freedom alive(cryptography etc.!!).
    Open Source saves also the users right to have a software with high quality.

    klausi
    When I close my eyes nobody can see me...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Open source 64 bit compilers?
    By abachler in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 03:31 AM
  2. Open source library for graphical presentation
    By Vogel in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-20-2005, 05:54 AM
  3. Open Source or not
    By spidereen in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-10-2003, 12:23 PM
  4. What happened the Open source poll
    By spidereen in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-08-2003, 01:53 PM
  5. Open source: is it secure?
    By samGwilliam in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-28-2002, 08:58 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21