View Full Version : Open Source

10-27-2001, 08:11 PM
Well, I haven't seen whether there is a poll on this or not, but I'm posting it anyway


10-27-2001, 08:19 PM
another poll owned by me

10-27-2001, 09:21 PM
sorry, but anyway, look at it as I -reopened- the thread :)


Null Shinji
10-27-2001, 09:32 PM
Guess what i chose.... option #1

10-27-2001, 11:44 PM
Open source and free software are different entities. I am much more supportive of the former than the latter. As long as I am coding a project I have the right to distribute (IE, not a professional project) and it is substancial, I'll release it as open source. However, I believe people should have the right to distribute their software without releasing its source, if they so choose.

10-27-2001, 11:49 PM
Well I vote 1. However, to quote Daft Punk "People should have the freedom to be open-minded, or closed-minded. It's their choice". Well apply that if you will to Open Source. I'm more than happy to show someone my code and to use parts of it, but others might not. And that's cool - it should be up to the programmer or company whether or not they want to support OS or not.

10-28-2001, 07:45 PM
Its up to the programmer, to decide if he want to release his souce code. Neither one is right or wrong. If open source made you greate, then god pong would be making me millions. ;)

10-28-2001, 08:01 PM
I like open source because it allows others to build and expand on things. That's the way we came so far so fast. This whole new attitude being spurred by high power corperations that see only the money and not the challenge and drive are bad.

However I can certainly see the economic side of it...hey I'm an idealist...so sue me....

10-28-2001, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by gamegod3001
Its up to the programmer, to decide if he want to release his souce code. Neither one is right or wrong. If open source made you greate, then god pong would be making me millions. ;)

i bet some weird company in a third world country took your source and sold it to uncounted millions for a ridiculous profit as "Osama BinPong" or something to that sort... although they are probably being sued by Mr. Video Pong (spanish and japanese in nationality) for illegal and undocumented use of hist name publicly and for profit.

10-29-2001, 12:34 AM
>Daft Punk

right on... i agree...

10-29-2001, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by doubleanti
>Daft Punk

right on... i agree...


11-15-2001, 11:27 AM
I believe in cheap software, but not in OpenSource, if I am a third world programmer, how can I eat?, anyone could "steal" my five years work and flush my entire life.

Camilo Pino
(Future elite programmer in his last day of school)

11-15-2001, 06:02 PM
i agree with camilo... y'know, what about the rest of the world? seems that all of our concentration is pushing the envelope, but what about sealing it up...

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... harder better faster stronger...

The V.
11-15-2001, 09:20 PM
I think the current closed-source code is actually the best way to do things. There is enough code that is publically available that companies can't really horde secret ways of doing things -- I mean, so long as you use the same language, each group has the same tools available.

Closed source is just another form of competition. Competition *and* cooperation are necessary for progress. Companies each hire many people who cooperate with each other, but compete with other such teams in other companies. This leads to the most rapid progress. Without competition, there is stagnation, without cooperation, there is too much redundant work done.

And economically, for people who make a living from their code, to give it away free would put them on the streets. Sometimes, source code can be worth significant amounts of cash -- sometimes companies will sell their source code + licence to modify for hundreds of thousands of dollars. For some companies, source code is their primary means of making money.

Free exchange of ideas is important, but source only does so much in this respect. I mean, the crucial algorithms, protocols, etc. that any piece of software uses are almost always public domain information anyway. The only thing "hidden" is how they implement it, which isn't always very useful (except to rapidly develop an application similar to one alreay made).

11-16-2001, 02:48 PM
As a professional developer, my real problem with open source OS/layered products is simply support for my application. If I write some software against OS(x), (put whatver you like in that box), and test it to meet my ISO requirements, and then release it to a customer who runs OS(x), 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?

11-16-2001, 05:59 PM
>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)

11-16-2001, 06:58 PM
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.


11-17-2001, 09:24 AM
>>> 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?

11-18-2001, 01:40 AM
>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...

11-18-2001, 01:49 AM
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?

The V.
11-18-2001, 02:08 AM
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.

11-18-2001, 11:21 AM
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.

11-18-2001, 11:38 AM
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

11-18-2001, 11:43 AM
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).:o

11-18-2001, 11:47 AM
a few things i forgot to say:

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)

11-18-2001, 12:25 PM
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.


11-18-2001, 12:37 PM
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)

11-18-2001, 03:03 PM
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.

11-18-2001, 08:28 PM
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.

11-20-2001, 10:01 AM
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.


11-21-2001, 12:07 AM
Open Sores usually need tending to with Neosporin and a Band- Aid.

11-22-2001, 07:02 AM
Let's just say i agree with most of ppls opinions ( Those for open source and at the same time those who have something to say against it). Allthough i voted for #1. Yes, Open Source is great, but we shouldn't get standardised to ONLY open source or ONLY closed source. I found that Open Source is very helpfull for the programmer community. I mean, come on! Just go to programmersheaven.com and find all those packages with free source code. Programmers need mutual support and collaboration if they want to improve and advance. What's the point for competing just to get the extra buck? Why can't we all work toghether and make this world a little better? I'm not saying that OpenSource should take over. People should learn to accept it and understand the advantages of it.

Jeesh. :rolleyes:

11-22-2001, 11:42 AM
open source->cancer
free software->hunger
expensive software->nonaffordable
cheap software->solution

open source is a cancer because it bloats all the source it touches (Linux kernel is about a floppy, too big), free software makes people that wants to live programming in third world countries to be extremely poor, the expensive software does not need an explanation, and cheap software is the solution, I am going to live with some luxuries, and I can not monopolize the market.

'the ethics of greed'

11-22-2001, 12:49 PM
Free software(with a capital F) is what is generally referred to as cancer, but that's somewhat of a misnomer. Free software says that if you want to use part or all of the source code as part of your program, you have to share your source code, too.

It's sort of like, "if you share, I'll share too."

That doesn't apply to data processed by the program, contrary to some people's beliefs.(Just look at the GPL faq) And programs that run on Linux are not bound by that either.

Only RMS believes that ALL software should be Free. Most open source coders believe that Open Source software is better than closed source because of its inherently better quality once mature(and because it has no planned obsolescence. It can only become obsolete after the maintainer drops it and no one picks it up).

So it's more like Open Source -> Quality but slow initial development
free software -> silly
expensive software -> Okay in some rare cases
cheap software -> Legitimate

Most people believe that the best solution is to sell your commercial products that are revolutionary, then Open Source them to cut down on maintenance costs.(i.e. Quake became Open Source after it was no longer profitable).

11-25-2001, 01:50 PM
In a perfect world, open source would be the best. But in a western world, under capitalism, we are allways competing and such, and cannot trust others to our code, so in this world, I have to say it sux.


11-26-2001, 10:02 PM
So, you are saying, we are competing in school, so no one should ever help anyone else? Ok, make sure you don't ask anyone to help you when you are stuck... And don't ever ask to read someone else's work even though they got a better mark and it would be helpful to use it as reference to improve your own mark...

Sorry if I sounded mean there, but I think if the person is willing to give it out for the sake of helping others, it is definitely great... Though many people are not as generous as that...

11-27-2001, 10:30 AM
NOONE should EVER judge in that great an amplitude of someone you've never met. Obviousley you've been playing too many sports or something. I never said people shouldent help each other. I would love open source to be reasonable. But in this reality there are commercial products, and to survive we need to make money, I would love fullydemocratic startrek style socialism, but we dont have that. Most things im doign right now ARE open source.

I am appouled, SPH

11-27-2001, 10:17 PM
Geez, that was just my opinion, no offense...
And btw, I DON'T play too many sports... In fact, I so rarely take part in them that I am afraid I am going to die in PE next semester... um...
And sorry if you think I was really mean... I just think you can sell the source too when you sell the program, what harm can that do?

11-28-2001, 08:59 AM
The problem is that if you sell the source, its no longer yours, you can never sell another copy of your program, becouse someone else now has all of your ideas and how you did them. Meaning every 1 copy u sell u have to create a whole new program... Becouse someone will allways begin selling your program cheaper by recompiling and stealing ideas, unless you have a very good lawyer I would avoid it. I mean the sports thing becouse I have noticed a few things about athlets I wont get into... Its great to be open source with people u trust and on little projects, but if your into commercial stuff, dont let Micro**** or anyone get on it. As I have said, super democratic commun/socialism would be great, but as of now I dont think the human race is capable of that, instead whenever a communist nation popps up its IMMEDIETLY currupted and givena bad name, *sigh*. N-e wayz u sound like an interesting person, what is your AIM handle/MSN Email?


11-28-2001, 08:50 PM
Does "interesting" mean "annoying? Nah, just kidding...

No, I don't have AIM, sorry...

And I think that if you are selling a program, you would probably sell it via CD or downloading from the net. People can always redistribute those and get money for that. Like people can install a program several times on different computers while paying for one copy of it... Same thing here....

11-29-2001, 03:55 AM

Open source, Open mind

check it out and tell me what you think

11-29-2001, 05:56 AM
I would have never learned the things i know now if i didn't have a chance to look at other ppls sources. On the other hand if you are programming for money then it's normal that you should stick to Closed Source. But since i have so much time on my own and im NOT programming for money Open Source applies well to ppl like me.... :D

11-29-2001, 08:05 AM
if you want to learn, go and pay an university as most of the ones who write good software did, they deserve that money, they've invested it, they are not going to give it away!!!


11-29-2001, 02:28 PM
People care FAR less about the actual code, this can be rewritten in a matter of weeks. Its the ideas/technology thats worth millions/billions. U can allways read other's sources when learning how to draw a line to the screen, but u cant if your talking about a fractal program with brand new technology drawing lines in sucessions. You can learn fractals, and programming, and apply it. No harm in open source outside of the market, but once its professional open source its kinda out of the picture. I own a small software firm, and I couldent make any money if I was selling my software, thankfully I just use mine for projects such as movies, so open source is okay, but I would still be reluctant.


11-29-2001, 08:19 PM
Really? You own a software firm? Cool...
What movies do you use your programs for?

Well, at least I wouldn't mind making it open source, 'cause my software would never be good enough to sell! ^.^ NEways... Good luck on your firm...

11-29-2001, 09:26 PM
Well, im sure if you work on it u could allways cme out with a unique product. I am working on imaging software right now for a movie I MAY make, becouse I still need rights from the author of the book to publish it. But if I do get the rights, its a movie called 'Devil on my Back', its NOTHING to do with 'satan'. Its a sci fi movie about the future of mankind.