|
7
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by Is software for sale not the worst idea ever? Whatever happened to the ideals of software's forerunners like the pioneers of the Unix OS (Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, etc.)? These programmers oftentimes worked for different companies and on different projects but shared resources and utilities for the furtherance of the science -- until, of course, the secularization of the industry by capitalists. Thank goodness for the GNU public license, the forerunner of open source. Imagine a world where software developers all worked directly for hardware manufacturers ... or does that just make too much sense? We're living in a world that is dominated by mediocre software that's completely nonexclusive to the hardware. Software development is a science and (just like the cure for cancer) it should be freely distributed to everyone!
Add a Comment (25)
Email This
Message Author
uh.. last I heard cures for cancer (or just about anything else) are not freely distributed... at least on my little slice of the earth... even Canadians have to pay for their health care via taxes...
I'm sure there are very few people in Omninerd (and the world) that entertain your view of what I said. We're talking about principle. The principle that any one person should be denied the cure for cancer is wrong. Read the GNU Public license and it'll help you see my point of view.
Quake III source code was released in 2005 under the GNU public License...I think gaming would be a lot further along if that happened earlier as well...
Quake III source code was released in 2005 under the GNU public License...I think gaming would be a lot further along if that happened earlier as well...
Right, ID Software has actually been extremely good with the public in terms of letting people mod their games and eventually releasing source - DOOM and all the Quakes (as you mentioned). But would ID be a powerhouse with money and resources to innovate had they done it sooner? It's all speculative of course. But I think our society has definitely come to expect more and more for free. Take the rant from Trent Reznor when he was surprised how few people were willing to pay for the music when it was given away as free.
It's easy to say, "Well Microsoft/NIN/big-rich-entity-here you have plenty of money you should work on philanthropy." Welllll ... OmniNerd is more or less philanthropic and not doing too well on turning a profit! Maybe we'll be fielding those same questions a couple years down the road when we get out of our hover-cars in velvet robes as screaming fans take our pictures while hoping to hear words of wisdom from ....
I'm not saying they shouldn't do it. Obviously there's a point when Quake III means nothing to ID software's bottom line. Windows 95 means nothing to Microsoft's bottom line. But while it's profitable, I think it makes total sense business-wise for them to keep their trade secrets, well, secret.
OmniNerd is more or less philanthropic and not doing too well on turning a profit! Maybe we'll be fielding those same questions a couple years down the road when we get out of our hover-cars in velvet robes as screaming fans take our pictures while hoping to hear words of wisdom from ....
I think googles structure of advertising is excellent for such a challenge...also I contest that we wouldn't have as many challenges with obtaining funds if peoples mentality were different about the industry as a whole....that being said I know that we should be thinking progressively and I would love to hear some ideas on where else money could come from...
I know that we should be thinking progressively and I would love to hear some ideas on where else money could come from...
The ONE source of money that I despise the most is damages from a patent violation on something that should be considered obvious. Like one-click purchasing for example or the numerous lawsuits you read about on Slashdot. C'mon people!
You alluded to the fathers of C and UNIX in the original write-up and the environments they worked in. I'm curious how much of the work was funded by government grants and how much was simply reinvestment by AT&T, etc. In the case of government grants and subsidies for software, you begin to run a different kind of risk. While it could support an industry (perhaps), you may have to "include features for three letter organizations" since they're paying for it. It would also make you mistrust software from other nations for the same reasons. It also begins to scream of communism.
Which leads to the question - is that what society is slowly leaning towards - with music/movies/software being the stimulant? As everything becomes free and communal, the pendulum will eventually swing too far until nobody is motivated to do it anymore. There seems to be a fine line between capital greed and communal sharing where the industry thrives best. That still doesn't explain how a programmer will put food on the plate.
Although the old shareware/donationware model seemed to work for some. Didn't the inventor of BitTorrent quit his job and live on the proceeds from his software - and he even gave away the protocols and competes against other free applications.
Obviously there's a point when Quake III means nothing to ID software's bottom line.
Actually, you hit the nail right on the head there. ID realized early on that their real intellectual property wasn't the engine, it was the content of the levels. They had talented content designers and were banking on that.
When the released the engine source - and even earlier, when they released tools that let individuals make mods to the game - you'd get a short spate of cutesy little hacks, like turning that big pink monster into Barney the Dinosaur, singing "I Love You, You Love Me" as he charged, but then people would realize that building good content is a lot of really hard work.
That's why today, the gaming world is dominated by just a couple of engines - it's the content that you're really buying.
well put.
Microsoft is moving towards Open Source as well. (docx, xlsx, etc.)
I've been doing some thinking on how I think the entire computing industry SHOULD have been set up...everything should have originated on the hardware level (Which it did, we just moved away from that post-Gates.) every individual computer platform would have it's own glorified kernel...upon which an organic OS (Open Source) would exist, enabling it to communicate with other Open Source "Nodes" (Much like our internet is now) Now I know what you're thinking, "its already like that..." but I contest that Microsoft's cumbersome development of a bloated kernel and "full-service" OS is nothing more then a kludge...and that the Linux model is the closest to the structure I'm referring to...you can customize a Linux kernel in anyway you can think of...my model restricts the idea of a "Linux distro" to a specific hardware...so essentially you're selling the hardware, and the connectivity...NOT the software. This may not have been as profitable a model (for Microsoft at least) but it would have been the most innovative model. Imagine 100 different "Apple-Like" Companies (I defined "Apple-Like" earlier) all moving full-boar in different directions, innovating and devising different ways of interacting with computers...I contest that we probably wouldn't have to type on these cumbersome keyboards and use these inefficient point and click mice at this point if the industry had taken that direction...I think the industry is finally coming full circle after years of going in the wrong direction. Companies like Microsoft are doing more things that make sense, (like creating robust game consuls that perform one task, gaming, really well) and companies like Google who've shown that "yes, you can make money and still use an open-source model" It is a great day in computing history but it could have happened a lot earlier.
I have to admit, I'm having trouble visualizing how this might have flown at the time. There seems to be a certain amount of hindsight being applied to your setup. I am not really disagreeing with whether or not your system might be better, but I tend to believe that events happened like they did for a reason. Also you're saying: "how things should have been set up" as if there was a single overseer governing how the history and direction of computing was to evolve. I suppose it could be argued that Bill Gates was that overseer, but even he was (and still is) governed by what is marketable.
Companies like Microsoft are doing more things that make sense, (like creating robust game consoles that perform one task, gaming, really well.)
I'm not sure how old you are, but at one time in the mid and early eighties, there was equipment that performed a single task. One example was the word processor. Companies like Wang Computer, Xerox and even Exxon created this office equipment for the sole purpose of word processing. (My father brought the Exxon one home from work for a while. We had to move furniture to give it a place.)
Another example is CAD/CAM equipment. In the early eighties this also was specialized equipment solely created for its suited task, usually on a Unix operating system. They were very expensive. So the question is; why did this computing model go by the wayside (rather quickly) at the advent of the PC?
I can remember at my college there was a Wang word processor in the library. It was a gigantic thing that took those huge eight inch floppies. The next year they brought in a couple of IBM PC's. Everyone who dared to use a computer back then (and it wasn't many) quickly gravitated to the PC's which could perform many different functions. I guess that's what I meant when I said "marketable."
A while back scottb, gave his professional vision on the future of programming and operating systems that seems to relate to this discussion. I'll let him elaborate when he gets the chance.
Again, these anecdotes aren't there to prove anything right or wrong, just to show that computer use was a gradual thing, and people had to use what was there at the time.
I contest that we probably wouldn't have to type on these cumbersome keyboards and use these inefficient point and click mice at this point if the industry had taken that direction...
My last question is; what sort of device or interface does yourself or anyone think has the most potential for replacing keyboards and mice? (Voice is out for me, I can't stand talking to inanimate objects, though I don't mind so much if they talk to me.)
Voice is out for me, I can't stand talking to inanimate objects, though I don't mind so much if they talk to me.
You're not the only one. In Iraq, all commanders whine and whine and whine about needing more and better ways to communicate back with headquarters (even when everything works they want more). So at one point, we configured a Ventrillo server (yes, the video game software) on our FOB and had each unit set up with a client. The clarity was fantastic on our network and the conferencing nature made it more useful than our FM radios and VoIP phones. But did anyone use it? No. And they cited the reason that "it feels a little weird to just talk to my laptop. It's not cool." The only good thing that came out of that was that nobody asked me for more communication mechanism, "uncool" wasn't a good enough criteria for me to find them anything else.
I'm not sure how old you are, but at one time in the mid and early eighties, there was equipment that performed a single task. One example was the word processor. Companies like Wang Computer, Xerox and even Exxon created this office equipment for the sole purpose of word processing. (My father brought the Exxon one home from work for a while. We had to move furniture to give it a place.)
Thats my point...computing was still great in the 80's...Apple came out with the SE, you had OS/2, Linux was in development...its Microsoft that snuffed this progress...am I missing something? The "Full-Service" OS stifled the development and creativity of computing...
My last question is; what sort of device or interface does yourself or anyone think has the most potential for replacing keyboards and mice? (Voice is out for me, I can't stand talking to inanimate objects, though I don't mind so much if they talk to me.)
I think for data entry we'd be stuck with the keyboard, its the most efficient way...but I'm positive we could have come up with a more ergonomic use for a mouse...my point is...my personal belief is that computings purpose is to make tasks easier...what should happen is that you walk into an environment and say, what tool can I use to make this environment more efficient, for a doctor that's constantly on the floors meeting patients, data entry is the least of her concern and therefore she shouldn't be burdened with a keyboard...imagine software being so organic that any piece of hardware, regardless of its "configuration" or processor type could communicate with it dynamically...it's a bit tough for me to explain what I envision in writting but lets put it this way...things are going in the right direction...check out microsofts newest touch surface computing and the way Apple is setting the stage for a touch screen laptop...I guess the real difference I would have expected is a faster evolution from a hardware perspective...and a hardware specific OS or at least (asI mentioned before) a "glorified kernal" upon which an opensource platform could be used to communicate with devises of any kind...
RSS
Then Everything Must Be Free by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 22 January 2008
Why is the creation of software any different than the creation or manufacture of anything else that requires skill or effort? I do understand the culture and atmosphere of sharing in the beginning research and discovery stages of any endeavor, but once a creation begins to take shape and have a value for other people, in a capitalist society anyway, the creators should be compensated for it. Unless we are going to have free cars, food, houses, medicine or any other thing that requires effort by someone else, software is something that should earn its market share by nature of its own virtue just like any other thing. This comes with its own price though. If someone charges money for their software, they now are obligated to support it and be responsible for it. The GNU general public license has a statement that clearly states the opposite:
"For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software."
RE: Then Everything Must Be Free by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 23 January 2008
a creation begins to take shape and have a value for other people, in a capitalist society anyway, the creators should be compensated for it
Same ol' argument. I never said anyone shouldn't be compensated. Thats entirely not the point...I'm referring to two major points...one, the entire reason that the concept of software was separated from the concept of hardware on the OS level. And second, the reason for the mediocrity of the software development industry is due to its secularization. Think outside the box for a minute (e.g. Microsoft) and imagine a world where Gnu dominated the industry, and OS programmers worked directly for hardware manufacturers...how much further along do you think we'd be right now? What if there were no Microsoft, there the were 100 Apple-like companies that ruled the computing frontier...and when I say "Apple-like" I mean companies that develop hardware and software in-house. (Obviously, I know that their hardware comes from a lot of different places but I referring to the structure more then the actual commodities. The only reason the concept of a virus has ever been successful is the lack of Open Source...I could continue but I'd like to hear more input on this subject.
RE: Then Everything Must Be Free by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 23 January 2008
and when I say "Apple-like" I mean companies that develop hardware and software in-house. (Obviously, I know that their hardware comes from a lot of different places but I referring to the structure more then the actual commodities.)
I think the industry would grind to an ugly halt ... well, more like become cripplingly insane. Just take a look at open source device driver development. Back in the day, the problem was sound cards. Today it's making wireless drivers. If the industry had its software more tied to the hardware, I think interoperability would suffer massively. Many innovations wouldn't get past niche audiences or even be created because it would be cost prohibitive for a manufacturer to gamble programmer time on making their equipment work in different software environments and electrical environments.
The PC made it mainstream not because of Microsoft's DOS, rather it made it mainstream because IBM released all the specifications for it. Anybody could write anything for it and build anything for it. Apple and Amiga products struggled against that because they were so proprietary.
RE: Then Everything Must Be Free by AnonBCA :: NR6 :: on 23 January 2008
The PC made it mainstream not because of Microsoft's DOS, rather it made it mainstream because IBM released all the specifications for it. Anybody could write anything for it and build anything for it. Apple and Amiga products struggled against that because they were so proprietary.
I beg to differ. Yeah, Apple struggled but it wasn't because of cloning wars...Apple has always had a loyal following because it's maintained the integrity of its product. Apples struggles were in most part due to Microsoft DOS...no matter what the clone was, DOS was on it, like a parasite and no other programmers had any input. Now that may sound like double talk because Apple was stingy with its software but I contest that was only because of the direction that the industry had already taken. And the other part of the challenges that Apple had was poor marketing. (I know they're saying thank goodness for Steve Jobs now) Microsoft was an absolute factor in the complete disabling of the software industry as it was once known, and the introduction of mediocre utilities (VB, DOS, etc. etc. etc.) and it will be the demise of Microsoft (as it is now known) that will reverse its crippling effects
RE: Then Everything Must Be Free by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 23 January 2008
Apples struggles were in most part due to Microsoft DOS...no matter what the clone was, DOS was on it, like a parasite and no other programmers had any input.
But the reason DOS was everywhere was because IBM had let all the programmers know how to utilize their hardware.
Unless I misunderstood, the premise of the blog is that programmers should be associated with the hardware manufacturer. This, to me, seems like it would dramatically INCREASE the amount of "proprietaryness" in the industry because there would be no reason at all for a manufacturer to release interface specifications to anybody else, after all, software is in house.
Back to the DOS statement, if IBM had continued in the standard modus operandi of the times and kept their hardware and software to the themselves, Microsoft would have been limited to whomever they had a deal with to make their operating system. DOS would have been much less ubiquitous and the spread of PC's, in my opinion, would have been much slower. Consumers would have been hesitant to purchase something so expensive that may not be around next year or not be interoperable with the equipment at work.
So I think it's a chicken and egg scenario. Would we have gotten where we are today through complete and open means, pure proprietary means, or a hybrid of both. I think we got here as a "phased hybrid" of both - just in the opposite direction of your proposition. Now that we're here, though, it might be doable to have software and hardware linked together again. Wouldn't things be more useful as firmware interfaces anyway?
RE: Then Everything Must Be Free by AnonBCA :: NR6 :: on 23 January 2008
But the reason DOS was everywhere was because IBM had let all the programmers know how to utilize their hardware.
Wha? Bill Gates signed a contract with IBM that put a copy of DOS on every computer on their assembly line...the industry standardized and the rest is history.
Microsoft would have been limited to whomever they had a deal with to make their operating system.
My point exactly. I contest that Microsoft should never have existed...at least not in the format that it was in...they were the FIRST "Software company" I think its a silly notion to be honest...it left a lot of programmers of the time scratching their heads...which...again, was the reason for the development of GNU which came out in the umm.. early 80s I think...
RE: Then Everything Must Be Free by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 23 January 2008
Bill Gates signed a contract with IBM that put a copy of DOS on every computer on their assembly line.
http://world.std.com/~swmcd/steven/rants/pc.html I didn't know that - I thought IBM had it's own brand of DOS. There were dozens of DOS's running around for awhile. And once loaded, most programs didn't even need it aside from needing to access the filesystem easily. But even then, a lot of programmers resorted to calling BIOS interrupts instead of DOS's 21h interrupt.
To which I see the point that ...
I contest that Microsoft should never have existed...
When I began assembly programming on the hardware (pre-Win95) I really didn't see the point of DOS at all. How the empire was built on DOS alone is quite amazing. And people used to think "Oh! DOS 6.22 is so much better than DOS 6."
A prime example of software not relying on DOS were games. A lot of games utilized their own memory extensions or used the Flat Memory model to access the RAM above 1MB. As soon as that happened, DOS was as useless as the BIOS. Remember having to customize each game to the soundcard?
I think a lot of the interfaces that exist now (like DirectX or OpenGL) should not be software interfaces as much as they should be firmware interfaces. Then you have a plug 'n play system where the processor on board the hardware interprets what the code wants. The problem is getting hardware vendors to want to do that. It's been shown before that graphics cards would cheat in benchmarks by making use of the CPU and having the drivers do some of the work instead of strictly the GPU.
RE: Then Everything Must Be Free by AnonBCA :: NR6 :: on 23 January 2008
I didn't know that - I thought IBM had it's own brand of DOS. There were dozens of DOS's running around for awhile.
yeah check it out
How the empire was built on DOS alone is quite amazing.
Actually, its quite simple...DOS was sold to businesses. People went to work and used this crappy OS for 8 hours. Naturally, when the desktop interface came out, they wanted an interface they were used to...thats why everyone keeps saying silly things like, "Mac's aren't compatible with anything!" and "Macs are too hard to figure out, and use." People are drones, and they're drawn to go towards what they're used to. That doesn't make it right though.
RE: Then Everything Must Be Free by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 23 January 2008
Imagine a world where software developers all worked directly for hardware manufacturers ...
I guess I have a question at this point. Are you talking about all software being freely distributed, or just operating systems?
I work with CAD/CAM software. Solid modeling, generating tool paths for machining, etc. It's hard to imagine these companies that charge 15,000 a seat would want to give it away for free, or freely distribute the 'secrets' of a patented tool path algorithm to the world. But, that’s working under the present system of distribution as you described.
I have to admit, it's an interesting thing to imagine what might have happened if Microsoft never came to be. On one hand, software may still have developed into a "product" like it is today, because there are so many different specialty applications, especially in industry. It's also very possible that systems like Linux might never have evolved. I always sense the burning hatred toward Microsoft when out on the net. I've always felt that this vehement aversion is what actually drives much of the innovation in the GNU/free software arena. Without a Microsoft, is the spark gone, or would there just be something else to hate?
Had Microsoft Never Been by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 24 January 2008
I have to admit, it's an interesting thing to imagine what might have happened if Microsoft never came to be.
If Microsoft hadn't come to be, one possible outcome would be that we'd simply have bowed to a different software master. Maybe OS/2?
I think the more likely outcome of a non-Microsoft world would be that computers would have become a lot more like cars. We operate them all pretty much the same in that there are some basic controls and some basic features inherent to the product. The layout, the feedback and implementation of those controls tends to be different per car but generally the same effect to the user. I think without Microsoft, computers would have developed a niche use because nobody would want their computer to be more difficult to use than a competitor and in order to lure a user away, their interface must essentially be the same. As such, I think the software on those machines would have been much more commodity oriented without a lot of bells and whistles - because the addition of those extras would not be worth the manufacturing delay or extra cost. I suppose you could think of the computer as having gone the way of the cell phone - everyone knew how to use 'em, they all pretty much offered the same thing, but none of them did it awesomely due to short life cycles.
There would of course continued to be powerful machines with cool applications on them - but these would have been limited to people who actually cared like scientists or data processors. I think the video game console would have become much huger than it is now as well.
RE: Had Microsoft Never Been by AnonBCA :: NR6 :: on 24 January 2008
If Microsoft hadn't come to be, one possible outcome would be that we'd simply have bowed to a different software master. Maybe OS/2?
I think the more likely outcome of a non-Microsoft world would be that computers would have become a lot more like cars.
I completely disagree with this conjecture. I believe that the converse is true. The industry has become a lot like your average car lot...lots of options , no real innovation. I think Apple's was the most successful architecture to rival the CISC processor of IBM...(RISC)
If there was no Microsoft the idea of "standardization" would be a much more fluid concept to the industry...the challenge Microsoft faces is that that their ability to innovate has been stifled by their need to meet their enormous overhead and remain backwards compatible...I don't believe that this should have been a problem the computer industry should have faced. I envision a market saturated with a variety of computer architectures and interfaces to chose from...not the way it is currently...hmmm...do I want an AMD or a Pentium...a mac or ummm maybe a PC...dual core or...yawn....quad core...sigh...whatever's cheapest...now for the OS...Windows 2000,ME(God forbid),XP,Vista...bah! all the same...oh well...whatever it comes with I'll use...what a boring life we have!
RE: Then Everything Must Be Free by AnonBCA :: NR6 :: on 28 January 2008
Are you talking about all software being freely distributed, or just operating systems?
Great Question! I think that software for Sale has its place, but moer from a support perspective and less from a per install perspective (think linux distros) also I think that if we (programmers) had worked closer with hardware guys in the first place I think that the idea of an OS would be much more organic, and a lot less restrictive...depending on the context I think just about anything can be built into the core of an OS although at this point I do think the Unix infrastructure of each process running independent of the Kernal to be a lot more stable, I think we could have come up with more novel (and open-source) ways of interacting...in networking you learn about how packages are "layered" to support multiple levels of interaction with a system, I think we could have standardized a less convoluted system the Microsoft standardized. That being said, I think we eventually will, I'm just saying it could have been done a lot sooner if we had standardized an open source OS instead of Microsoft/IBM
It's hard to imagine these companies that charge 15,000 a seat would want to give it away for free
Of coarse thats hard to imagine, because software (for the most part) isn't currently free...I think it would have been a hard concept for Ken and Dennis to see us paying 15000 a seat for a piece of software...to be honest I don't know how we would have dealt with 3rd party suites in this "hypothetical industry" of mine but it would definitely be based on open-source, the money would be made on the standardization of support.
It's also very possible that systems like Linux might never have evolved.
Highly unlikely...if Linus Torvolds had made that deal with IBM instead of Microsoft there would have been just as much if not more incentive for the industry to grow and evolve just in a more dynamic way, instead of Microsoft's couple hundred thousand employees developing a mediocre OS you'd have a user community that at this point would have spanned the globe supporting an infinitely better system (look at Wikipedia for example, is it not better and more resourceful then any extraordinarily expensive encyclopedia set you've ever purchased?!)
I always sense the burning hatred toward Microsoft when out on the net.
I hated Microsoft when I was 15, since then I've grown up and realized the challenges of things like putting food on my table, I now understand concepts like economic cycles and supply and demand...I'm less likely to bash Microsoft specifically...if Bill hadn't done it, someone else would have...I'm talking more about the system in general, having one dominate OS is not like having one dominate type of car...an OS should be organic, hence the name "Soft-ware" I dunno...just an opinion, call me a purist.
Without a Microsoft, is the spark gone, or would there just be something else to hate?
Yeah, we'd have been just fine without Microsoft. ;-)