What I resent is the attitude of taking free software for granted as
opposed
Peter, since your the one who is bringing up this off topic issue, Ill
respond, because posters on this thread have been harping about how
software companys have to get paid for their work and open source is somehow
cheating them out of profits.
To continue this OT thread
I'm not saying open source is cheating anyone out of profits. It just
requires a different business model. Offering free alternatives doesn't
violate any ones rights. I actually believe that open source software is a
really good thing, and actually can help the economy. It enables the
development of products that would not be viable without the help of open
source, and forces commercial alternatives to do better. This is one of the
reasons I signed this petition:
http://petition.eurolinux.org/, and I urge
you to do the same. And no, I'm not a big fan of Microsoft and their
questionable business ethics. But I realize that any other organisation in
their position will behave in the same way. It is the result of human
nature, which is unfortunately very difficult to change.
However the suggestion that it is criminal to charge money for ones efforts,
is IMO foolish. Offering a paid alternative doesn't violate any ones rights.
You are free to buy or not to buy something. If I feel a product is worth
its money I have no problem purchasing it. If it is not, or there is a free
alternative which meets my requirements I will go for the free alternative.
But if free alternatives don't meet my requirements and the commercial
product is not worth its money, you won't hear me bitching that the
commercial product is not free.
If I need some software I expect I have to pay for it because a lot of
effort goes into making these products. If I can get it for free I consider
that someone did me a very big favour. Expecting all software to be free is
IMO being ungrateful to the open source community. People who take free
software for granted often also expect full support, get rude when they
don't get it, and are intolerant for any imperfections the software might
have. Such an attitude might be tolerable if one paid big bugs for it but
not for free software. I know of several cases of open source authors
getting demotivated by people like this, and eventually dropping the project
altogether. I say we can do without people like that.
My responce to that is that is that
programming tools and software tools should conform to common standards,
If they don't, don't buy it. If enough people feel that way companies are
forced to be standard compliant, or simply loose their business. When
choosing development tools (or any other product for that matter), standards
compliance is a very big issue for me, even more so than its price. If you
have ever tried to get a non trivial C++ project compile and work with four
different compilers and on three different OSes, you will understand why I
feel so strongly about standardization and standards compliance.
and
no one company should corner the market for any development tools simply
because other companies are unable to make compatible tools to compete with
it.
They shouldn't in an ideal world, but it is a common business practise to
make the life of your competitors as difficult as possible. This is true for
any line of business.
I choose open source not because its free, but because I feel I'm
getting the best quality development tools, because the entire software
community has direct contol over it.
That sole fact that software is open source doesn't guarantee its quality. I
have run into plenty open source projects that are crap, just like I have
run into many commercial products that are crap.
And not only quality, but an open
standard that noone will be able to monopolize. This idea is totally lost in
the US justice systems attempt to stop Microsoft monopoly. They don't see
the problem with windows control of the OS market is because competitors are
unable make a competing OS that will work with software that runs on
windows. They instead try to "break up" Microsoft or take their money in
damage suits. And don't worry, just because development tools are made free
to open standards, there will be plenty of software work left.
Whether development tools are made to open standards and whether or not they
are free are two independant issues. Free tools can use their own standards
which no other tools support. Commercial tools can support open standards
which are supported by many other tools of other vendors. Given the choice I
would go for the one that doesn't tie me to one particular tool or company.
And don't worry Microsoft can only go downhill from now (unless something
really dramatic happens). If you analyse Microsofts situation carefully you
will see its future is not that bright.
You don't
hear companies like adobe or descreet complaining about opensource, because
software like Photoshop or 3Dstudiomax is simply better than anything
opensource programmers could ever do.
Though I agree with most what you say, I don't agree with the last part:
1. I do believe the open source community can provide better alternatives
for those products like Photoshop, but apparently lacks incentive to do so
(most people in the open source community are programmers rather than
graphic artists).
2. If they would be facing serious competition from the open source
community, you can bet they will start to complain and/or undermine the open
source alternatives, just like Microsoft does.
3. I don't feel that one should apply different moral standards for graphic
applications than for software development tools. For the graphics industry
those applications are what software development tools are for the software
industry.
4. Every company will try to corner the market given the chance to do so.
It is always funny how irrational and emotional people get when things like
"open source" or "Microsoft" enter the discussion.
