View Full Version : Open Source or not

04-08-2003, 11:26 AM
I was wondering, sence nearly everybody on this site is a programer, how do people feel about open source and providing software for free.

Is the common belief: Pro open source, provide for free

Or is it: Anti open source, you want it you buy it ?

04-08-2003, 11:54 AM
Open source is for communists running linux

04-08-2003, 12:03 PM
I'm a communist, and I like open source, but I don't like Linux. Windows is better, regardless of price.

04-08-2003, 01:10 PM
This can easily get into a flamewar about what OS is better, it all comes down to a matter of taste. One of the biggest problems linux has had was its difficulty to use, and I believe that is becoming a problem of the past. I have installed linux on various computers and not had one problem installing it, or using it yet.

And for the question you asked, I love open source, and I do not consider myself a communist. I don't understand why that came in.

04-08-2003, 01:37 PM
I believe the standards should be open source so that anyone could implement and use. Certain applications should also be open source, mostly those used in education and in development. For example, compilers should be open source. As for the actual implementations, closed-source. We are in a capitalist world so giving away your source is stupid.

04-08-2003, 01:58 PM
Remember free software can have a price, and you can make money by providing support for it, look at Red Hat. I like free software simply because I can learn from it. I don't program for money, Im content with my Mcdonalds like job forever, but for others who want more, I can see where this hatred of free software comes from.

04-08-2003, 02:02 PM
I truly think that OS v CS is along the same line as M$ v *nix. Personaly I dislike windows, because it takes too much controll away from me. What I dislike about what linux is becomeing (ie user friendly) is that also takes controll away from the user. Just one reason that I have chosen to not use any of the "user friendly" linux distrobutions.

But Lets not get in to a flame war on OS or distros.

They both have there places with reguards to the current environment. Closed source is where all the money is, and usualy it produces large quality programs (like Office suites, mail programs). I know that some companies are making money being opensource, however I really think that OS is good for people who want to get together and make a project.

I voted pro-OS however its mostly situation depended, and what I need.

04-08-2003, 02:28 PM
I just cant choose coz i would like to see lots of things open source ( i could learn alot from it). Then again you gotta live...so if there was a choice: Open source but giving support like Red Hat (as mentioned be4,) and otherz. Then i would go for that option but since its not there, im going for the OS.

04-08-2003, 03:06 PM
Without open-source I wouldn't know hardly anything when it comes to programming.

Besides that, I couldn't care less. If it's worth buying and I have the money, then I'll buy it.

04-08-2003, 05:24 PM
I am pro open-source for people who want their source available. I also wish that technology, standards, and education should be open-source. I don't know, there are just certain things that just "feel" like they need to be open-source and some that don't. I know it sucks for big game developers for their games getting pirated. I've only done it on like 2 games (RTCW and Warcraft III), but I might buy them later if I get the money. If I do get pirated software, it's just for like a demo purpose, I'll buy it if I like it, if not, I'll clear it off.

04-08-2003, 05:34 PM
In theory, OS is a great thing. However, OS depends upon the fact that people will buy software that they like. Although in concept this is honorable, it probably is not dependable.

Hence, in a way, the communism analogy had some merit, albeit very little. Both communism and OS depend on the concept that people will be honorable. In communism, the conept is that people will work hard without direct results. Most likely, neither of these will ever happen. In an internet community, things tend to be very idealistic because there is very little real world contact and most programmers are intellectuals, who have a tendency to believe in idealism. But, in the real world, things are not always (and very commonly are not) honorable and idealistic. Although something I'd like to see, OS is not practicle if a person wants to make a life out of programming.

On the other hand, the semi-OS strategies are more viable, but are still going to be difficult. For instance, having a paypal account or the like that needs to have a certain amount donated to it before the source becomes free.

04-08-2003, 08:59 PM
I'm pro open source, to a certain degree of course. I doubt we'd have the quality games made today if every developer was free and open source. I really like how ID releases the source to their older software... I think all companies should do this. I mean, what's the point in keeping the source to an application that you don't make any money off anyway? I say release it, help educate others.

04-08-2003, 09:09 PM
When I write software, I usually release it under the MIT open-source agreement. It lets people learn from the work I did, but at the same time it doesn't impose any real restrictions on the code. If someone wants to make it into a commercial app, they're more than welcome. IMO, the GPL is probably why a lot of closed-source advocates loathe open-source.

>look at Red Hat.<

And what's the value of their stock currently? :)

04-08-2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Hillbillie
And what's the value of their stock currently? :)


Red Hat: 5.68
Microsoft: 25.58 (And that's after it has bottomed out)

04-08-2003, 09:24 PM
I have mixed feelings about open source...but what I have found is that I absolutely love iD Software's policy on it.

iD Software releases all of their games for sale first, then gradually they release parts of their source code so mods can be created, etc., and then gradually they release all of their source code, but not until a good amount of time after they have released their original product.

This way, they can sell it initially and make the proffit that they want so much, and then a bit later it becomes open source and we can learn from what they did....I like that policy.

04-08-2003, 09:25 PM
Yeah, that seems to be a happy medium that is pretty successful.

dP munky
04-08-2003, 09:26 PM
>>This way, they can sell it initially and make the proffit that they want so much, and then a bit later it becomes open source and we can learn from what they did....I like that policy.

i agree, you have to make some money on your investment...you do have bills to pay

i think valve has a similar policy, half-life is open source now

Polymorphic OOP
04-09-2003, 12:06 PM
Everything completely open source is not a good idea because the more code there is accessible, the more people will use it and evolve it without coming up with solutions on their own.

That's what's good about being closed source. It's more competative -- other people see what your code does, but not how it does it, and they try to imitate it in their own way. The world gets many completely different solutions to the same problem, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

I always find that people who think everything should be open source are the people who just copy and past code and can't pogram themselves :p

Sure, open source is great, but not for everything.

04-09-2003, 02:55 PM
I think that this Poll is unfair. If everything in the world was OpenSource, then why dont we have OpenSource Cars? (You know, FREE CARS??!!). OpenSource is a good idea for those who want to help educate others, and education should not be denied to anyone. However, for example, if developers were not paid for software do you think that we would be at the stage we are now? Do you think people would want to make an OS like Windows for free?

04-09-2003, 05:44 PM
Open source appears to just be a new bandwagon fad...I don't mind showing people my code to stupid projects, helping people with their own by seeing a part of mine, but if I ever plan on making money with my work I'll be damned if I give out the whole thing. I'd probably work on the same basis as ID games. No doubt I'd show small bits of code not too far after release, but nothing mission critical.

Of course, that assumes I ever sell my own software.

I don't completely oppose open-source. I oppose the hive dillusion that so many fad-OSourcers appear to have, which is "All software should be completely open. The knowledge belongs to everyone" - wtf? Shut the hell up and get a job, you pinko-commie hippie bastard.

Let's say I write some code that can calculate numbers so precisely so fast, that it would blow your mind. Should I release it to everyone? Screw that. Sell to the US government. They'd kill to have it. Or maybe they actually WOULD kill to have it, and that'd be a BAD idea...either way, you get my point, whatever that is.

04-09-2003, 05:58 PM
I don't know if this has been said but:

Free like free speech, not free beer.

04-09-2003, 06:06 PM
I agree with some people on here, Id's policy rocks. Also, not everything should be open-source, such as games, I'm willing to pay for a game if it's good, but if it's good, a policy like Id's is a good idea.

I think open source is great not because of not having to pay, you can change it any way that you want, the OS is truly yours, you get to be educated and the products are updated more frequently then closed source ones.

All of the diffrent *nux distros are all built from the same thing, but you can have it any way you want, easy, networking, GUI's... you name it. The problem with, example MS is that they usually have a networking one, and an easy one, you can't change everything to you liking, or just tinker with it for fun. Your are at the bidding of the company to fix problems, with open source, YOU can fix it.

Maybe you have weird preferences and you want to have your OS be able to do certain things, you can do it, you don't have to wait for a company to do it, even IF they are going to do it.

Oh well, sorry for the long post.

dP munky
04-09-2003, 06:25 PM
>>The knowledge belongs to everyone" - wtf? Shut the hell up and get a job, you pinko-commie hippie bastard.

i agree w/this, knowledge does belong to everyone, but its none of your damned business how i rendered my models bioooootch. i wouldnt mind a few years after i released my game/software/driver etc. showing code but not right off the bat.....

04-09-2003, 09:17 PM
The knowledge belongs to everyone" - wtf? Shut the hell up and get a job, you pinko-commie hippie bastard.

ha, funny funny stuff...

I agree with the general consensus of the last few posts if anyone cares to know...

04-10-2003, 04:48 AM
I'm 100% for open source.

04-10-2003, 08:04 AM
I like Open Source
I like Linux

Open Source is 100% free, so why not loving it?

04-10-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by codingmaster
I like Open Source
I like Linux

Open Source is 100% free, so why not loving it?

If you spent 1 year working on a project, would you give it for free. I don't think so.

Programmers can't live on air alone.

RE earlier post: Good point about the share prices.