Hi Tony,

Wish I had more time to play here but ...

Tony Gravagno wrote:
Seems to be true in this case also. LOL

A little comment is often an indication of a world view. This community
(PICK, MV, whatever we are calling it) has one of the strangest views
of the open source movement that I have ever seen:

'Infectious' is an odd word to use. To most this word would imply
something being attacked or invaded by something else (e.g. the human
body being invaded by salmonella or flu virus or ...). Just what is
being invaded by the inclusion of the GPL with a piece of software?

I have personally used open source software in my commercial endeavours
for many years and have yet to be 'infected' by anything (including the
virii/trojans that are drawn to Microsoft). In fact I have used a commercial
implementation of an open source project: Way back when I needed a web
server that could handle ssl traffic, the simplest way for me was to
buy Stronghold licenses. No infection there, even with the horror of
mixed licenses. Perhaps I simply have a strong immune system.

Huh??? Microsoft not only is not open but has worked pretty hard to kill the
open source movement.

Hmmmmm ... again very interesting. As an open source coder, I do not
use Winanything. In what way is it hypocritical for me to not waste
time learning about the quirks of a system for which I have no use?
Especially when this system is one which the developers have gone to
some lengths to hide the (often necessary) workings of the internals
from me.

Tony, I would expect you of all people to understand software
development. How can you miss the fact that the apples of open source
(freely available source) do not work that well with the oranges of
Microsoft (hide all of the source that we possibly can).

It isn't only Microsoft ... there are manufacturers of modems, mass storage
devices and so on who refuse to release the internals of their drivers.
These devices are often not supported by open source software that
would normally support them.

Apparently to you open source means something along the lines of:
'Since you say "open" you must provide your (donated) services for
anything that I choose to use.' So I will need to port everything to
Atari or Apple II or Next if you have chosen to use one of those? And
I am a hypocrite if I fail to bow to your misguided choices?

Just silly.

An overworked analog but: As the superior VHS format won out over the
inferior Beta format? Marketing is not equal to performance.

See above. What is _wrong_ with choosing to support that which makes
sense? Why is it _wrong_ to refuse to invest in something in which I
have no interest? If you think that any open source project needs Win32
support, dive in there and port it. That is what open source is about.

Not off topic ... these issues deal directly (IMHO) with the future of
the MV system as we know it.
-Tom

There are too many issues here and I'll only nitpick so far.

csigline (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:
Looking back at the text I can see where this conversation went wrong.
You're right Henry, the GPL doesn't prevent the OpenQM project from
being ported to Win32 but it's technically impractical for a non-guru.
The original point (and Elvis only knows why I stuck my neck out to
clarify a point that Ross made) was that OpenQM, even if it was
available for Win32, is tied to the GPL which has complex restrictions
against closed-source distribution or various forms of integration
with commercial solutions.
Ref:
http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm
http://openqm.com/id9.htm and related pages


Whoe horsey... I never said anything like that. All I said was that
many opensource developers choose to blame Microsoft because they (the
developers) choose to not port their code to Win32. It's like people
suing McDonalds for selling hot coffee because they can't hold their
cup straight. A lot of people in the world hate americans for this
sort of stupidity but I'm seeing a lot of that attitude playing out in
the international opensource community too. I'm just calling
attention to it. I'm not questioning the value of the GPL or passing
grand judgement on the people who use GPL code.


If that's what they do then shame on them - and considering they're
opensourcing a lot of their own code these days, double shame.


Again, I wasn't calling OSS viral, I was saying I've recognized a
trend for OSS developers to shun Win32 for political reasons and blame
their development choices on technology. These are decisions of
passion not logic, and it has nothing to do with open source -
commerical software developers can just as easily say "we aren't going
to support Win32 anymore because it sucks". I'm sorry but I don't
accept that as a valid basis for a business decision. The appropriate
business response is that the developer doesn't see a sufficient
target audience to support continuing efforts.

The problem is that with OSS we're not dealing entirely with business
people. In many cases we're dealing with tempermental artists who
don't need a reason to decide what platform they support, and "it
sucks" is as good a reason as any for why they won't support a
particular platform. This is the world that business users of OSS
have bought into and while I do support OSS entirely I think the whole
model is very precarious at this point. Only time will tell how it
all plays out.


I guess we're in full agreement on all of that.

T

Tony Gravagno wrote:

Somehow I get the impression that you are truly missing the point of
Open Source.

You refer to commercial software as if Open Source software somehow is
not commercial. You imply that developers are driven by emotions,
rather than logic, to choose the Open Source model over the proprietary
model and that is far far from the truth. As long as there has been
software there have been hackers who developed code strictly for their
own pleasure. But look at just one example, IBM. Does it appear that
IBM adopted the Open Source model for part of their business on the
basis of some kind of emotional decision? Of course not.

Companies like IBM, Ladybride and Microdyne and people like Tom
DeLombarde adopt the Open Source model because it allows them to
deliver more bang for the same buck to their customers. Instead of
delivering the work of five hackers in a typical Pick shop, we can
deliver the work of hundreds of hackers.

Instead of looking at Open Source as some kind of competitor, look at
it as a bunch of friends who, instead of enjoying getting together and
drinking beer, enjoy getting together and code. That they can do that
is merely a phenomenon of our time, the Internet, a virtual "bar" that
not only has enabled world wide dating for guys and gals but has also
enabled the worldwide dating for code. People have a natural tendency
of wanting to share their experiences so why don't we encourage more of
that on CDP? Why the resistance to something that is so natural, so
human?

If we as the Pick community are ever to get back some of our old
influence it will never be with the old proprietary model. The Open
Source model is our only hope and salvation. Don't get me wrong here.
I have no doubt that all the commercial versions of Pick that exist can
have a great future of their own but the "huh, what's MV" factor will
always be there until we change it with an Open Source fervor that kids
in schools can learn and participate in.

When the average hacker kid knows what Pick is, like they know what
MySQL is, we have a chance in the race because we are in the race then.
Until then we are just farting around in the pits.

Remember, only we, the existing Pick community can do that. When all
us old farts die without passing on the spirit of Dick Pick, the world
will have lost an ideal . . forever.

Henry

That is a really great point!!

csigline (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:
<snip>

I don't really think that's what Tony was saying - especially in light
of Tony's contributions to this newsgroup and elsewhere in the Pick
community.

What he seemed to be saying to me is that some people approach the
debate from a dogmatic (religious?) viewpoint rather than one based on
reason. That is, some people take the view that system A sucks
therefore I will develop using system B - but their reasons for
declaring system A to be bad are suspect and similar problems can be
found in their preferred system B.

I think Tony did suggest this thinking comes more strongly from the open
source movement - and I think that is true. There is a huge dislike and
distrust of Microsoft in the open source community that goes beyond the
real problems of software development to more of an ideological stance -
it is the rebel alliance versus the evil empire, or using another quote
from Animal Farm - Four legs good, two legs bad. Were all four legs
good, and all two legs bad - they had to start making exceptions for the
birds almost immediately. And were the pigs any better than the humans?

The issue in the end is not what system is the software running on, but
does it provide a solution to the problem? And if you close off one
path of software development for ideological reasons, in the end you are
simply limiting your options and future growth.

Beware entering an ideological war, because all your efforts will only
encourage the other side further <g>.

Cheers,

Brian Speirs
--
************************************************** *
Brian Speirs
h: (+64) (4) 479 9032 c: (+64) (21) 265 5906
e: bss59REMOVETHIS (AT) paradise (DOT) net.nz

Brian Speirs wrote:

Why is it wrong for me to reason for developing code in a cooperative
Open Source environment?

Why is it OK for you to reason for paying someone to use their
proprietary binaries?

What is dogmatic about either position?

So what if we put a meter on that and it turns out that you are right?
Does it affect anyone's ability to buy proprietary software? Did such
strong feelings from the Open Source community interfere with anyone's
rights and abilities to develop proprietary software? Aha, I know, it
interferes with the pricing model and it forces the proprietary model
to justify its prices. Just good old competition. I love it. What
would the world be like if there were only blondes?

Yes, indeed there is the well documented practice of Microsoft using
its cash hoard to buy politicians for the purpose of interfering with
the Open Source model that is causing that dislike and distrust.

So you are saying that those who favor proprietary software have no
ideology?

That's how America was born!

Exactly! If I need the source code to either finetune my application
or to sleep at night, proprietary software seldom gives me either.

Again, why is it OK to develop only on a proprietary platform and not
OK to only develop on an Open Source platform. It is the lack of
ideology, the wishy washy attitude that scares me more than that
someone who lives by convictions.

We limit our options and future growths every second of every day that
we are in business. Those who aspire to be jack's of all trades become
masters of none. The Open Source movement is growing about as much as
it can logically grow. Think of a simple example of a guy like me
building chairs. Should I aspire to build thousands of chairs each day
like Steelcase does? Of course not. I purposely limit my growth to
what I can handle. From the way it looks in the market place, the Open
Source developers have more than enough business to keep them busy
through this year to give them time to add people and facilities to
grow some more next year.

Brian, what can we in the Open Source community do to encourage the
other side, by which you probably mean Microsoft, further in their stance of
preferring to remain a monopoly?

Henry Keultjes

Hi Henry,

See comments embedded:

csigline (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:
NO-ONE has said it is wrong.

What IS being said is that you are welcome to use whichever environment
you like. What is also being said is that SOME people choose one
environment over another for religious reasons rather than for
technical ones.

Dogma comes not from the position you take, but the reason why you take
the position, and the degree to which you are open to changing your
position.

We haven't said anything about those things, and no-one is going to
challenge you on those points.

Likewise, we haven't claimed that Microsoft is pure as the driven snow.

But where their products are good and widely used, there are times it
makes sense to use them.

Once again, we haven't said anything of the sort.

<snip>
Henry, I don't think our viewpoint is that different. We both agree
that Microsoft is/can be a bully. We both agree that people should be
free to use the software of their choice.

All that is really being debated here is the reason WHY some (not all)
people choose one system over another. If there are technical and/or
financial reasons to favour one product over another, then go for it.
However, if the reason is straight bias dressed up as something else,
then that is hypocritical.

In the end, this is a criticism of some PEOPLE rather than any comment
on the systems they are using (and no, I'm not criticising you or any
person in particular - it is a general comment only).

I think that most people here want the open source movement to succeed.
But that still doesn't excuse dogmatic positions from the open source
movement, or bullying on the part of Microsoft.


Brian
--
************************************************** *
Brian Speirs
h: (04) 479 9032 c: (021) 265 5906
e: bss59REMOVETHIS (AT) paradise (DOT) net.nz

Hi Brian,

Astute observation, Brian. In this thread there is a great example:

Also sprach Tony G:
'Infectious' as applies to a development model???

'do something wrong' and 'hypocritical' by making a choice about the
tools one uses???

On the other hand, I guess that this _is_ CDP, isn't it? LOL

Suspect??? LOL

Please see my response to the above in this thread. Why is it that you
think that I (or anyone else) is intellectually dishonest because I
choose not to develop for the system of _your_ choice? What earthly
concern of yours is the rationale for any choices I may make?

The answer to all of this is quite simple: If you wish it to be
developed for your system of choice, do it. If you haven't the
capacity to do it, hire someone to do it. If you can't afford to hire
someone to do it, don't carp at others for how they choose to invest
their donated time and resources or whine about the corruption of the
open source system.

Sheesh.
-Tom