Linux 15.070 Themen, 107.540 Beiträge

soulfood

thomas woelfer / 8 Antworten / Baumansicht Nickles

vielleicht eine diskussion wert.... (gerade auf slashdot gesehen....)


http://staff.newtelligence.net/clemensv/PermaLink.aspx?guid=8fe41294-a988-4c73-948a-1bfab622fcce


( wenn der link nicht geht := slashdot-effekt... )


wenn slashdor-effekt, hier der text:


Dear Aiden,

I think you remember the conversation we had recently at this software conference in Dublin. You came up to me and told me how the stuff I was talking about was mostly useless, because it is closed-source, people need to pay for it and that companies charging for software are evil anyways - especially Microsoft. Unfortunately I don't have your email, but I am sure this will reach you.

First, I would like to thank you for the interesting conversation that developed and to make sure that none of what was said just fades away, I'll tell you here once again what I am thinking about what you do, what you think and - most importantly about your future.

When I was 21 - like you now - I was also at university and was pursing a computer science master degree. Back then, I was very enthusiastic about programming and creating stuff that mattered. And thought that I was the best programmer the field has ever seen and everyone else was mostly worthless. And I did indeed write some programs that mattered and made a difference. The program I spent some 3 years writing in Turbo Pascal from when I was 18 was for my father's business. Because the business he's in requires a lot of bureaucracy, he and my mother spent about 2-3 daily hours on average doing all of this stuff by hand. When I was done with my program and he started using it, that time went from 3 hours to about 15 minutes a day. That was software that absolutely improved the quality of life for the entire family! And his friends and colleagues loved it, too. I didn't sell many licenses at that time (I think I had 3 customers), but each one was worth 1500 German Marks and that was a huge heap of money for me. I mean - I was living at my parent's house, getting a monthly allowance of 120 German Marks and worked as a cable grip for a couple of TV stations every once in a while - maybe 2-3 times a month. And if I ever had 400 Marks per month I could really consider myself massively rich at the time and for my age, because I had very minimal additional expenses. So 4500 Marks on top of that? Fantastic. Where did the money go? I can't really remember where it all went, but I guess "lot of partying" or "Girls, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll" would be a reasonably good explanation. Hey, I was 21 and that's what one is supposed to do at that age, right?

That was in 1990 - let's fast forward to 2004 and you. All software that you and your father could possibly be interested in has already been written. That's probably not true, but it's hard to think of something, right? Ok, the software may not run on your favorite operation system and may cost money, but what you can immediately think of is likely there. So where do you put all your energy? Into this absolutely amazing open-source project you co-coordinate. I mean, really, the stuff that you and your buddies are doing there is truly impressive. There are a couple of things I'd probably do differently in terms of design and architecture, but it works well and that's mostly what matters. And you do make an impact as well. I know that hundreds of people and dozens of companies use your stuff. That's great.

However, I start to wonder where your benefit is. You are - out of principle - not making any money out of this, because it is open-source and you and your buddies insist that it must be absolutely free. So you are putting all of that time and energy into this project for what? Fame? To found a career? Come on.

If someone installs your work from disc 3 of some Linux distro, they couldn't care less who you are. The whole fame thing you are telling me only works amongst geeks. The good looking, intelligent girl over there at the bar that you'd really like to talk to doesn't care much whether you are famous amongst a group of geeks and neither does she even remotely fathom why you'd be famous for that stuff in the first place. I mean - get real here.

So once you get your degree from school, what's the plan?

Right now, your university education is free like in many places in Europe and you have plenty of time to work on your degree without too much financial pressure. Over here in Germany things are a bit extreme in that it is not uncommon that folks spend 6, 8 or even 10 years (!) in school until they finally get their masters degree. So you may not have to think about this much now and you probably don't. But let's talk about it anyways.

When you leave school, your parents will - honestly - be keen to get you out of their house. They've spent 25 years of their life being parents and now that they are in their early 50s, they want to enjoy their life and I am sure that your dad is keen to play with grandchildren - but just every once in a while. So you'll have to take care of yourself.

How so? Well, you need to get a job that pays. And you'll probably want to have your own car, your own apartment and if you really want to have a family you will have to be able to support it. All of that only works with money. Where does it come from? If you believe that the result of your own work must be free for everyone - who's going to pay for it?

No - in the end you are going to settle for a job that pays for your house, your car and your wife and children. You'll be a developer and, eventually, architect or project manager who produces software for money. That's your core skill and that's what you invested 6 years and more of your life into. That money will either come from some internal budget of the company that you work for as a "corporate developer" or it will come from the clients that license the software that your company produces. In the end, there's got to be money in your pocket. I know that's not very romantic and has very little to do with the "free software is love" sort of thing, but it's inevitable. Romantic is what you can get out of that money and that's a decent life with a house, a car and a family.

Yes, I know the argument. Software is supposed to be free and the money is made out of supporting it. Look around you. Read some industry magazines. Who exactly is making money out of "free"? IBM does, HP does and the large consulting companies do. They rake in the big bucks. But do they make the money on open-source software? No, they make that money on outsourcing deals, running data centers and selling hardware. That's not the side of the IT business that is at all concerned about creating software that you want to be in. That is the side of the IT business that runs software.

Where money is made from creating software, software isn't free. Either the software is paid for directly or it is cross-subsidized from budgets elsewhere in a company that also sells hardware or consulting services.

The whole thing about "free software" is a lie. It's a dream created and made popular by people who have a keen interest in having cheap software so that they can drive down their own cost and profit more or by people who can easily demand it, because they make their money out of speaking at conferences or write books about how nice it is to have free software. At the bottom of the food chain are people like you, who are easily fooled by the "let's make the world a better place" rhetoric and who are so enthusiastic about technology that writing open-source - or any source for that matter - is the absolutely best imaginable way to spend their time. It doesn't matter whether you love what you are doing and consider this the hobby you want to spend 110% of your time on: It's exploitation by companies who are not at all interested in creating stuff. They want to use your stuff for free. That's why they trick you into doing it.

And I sure understand the whole altruistic aspect of this and the idea of helping people to have better lives through free software. There's a saying that goes: "If you are 20 and you aren't a communist you have no heart.", but it continues "if you are 30 and you still are a communist, you lack rationality".

In the end, Aiden, it's your choice. Do you want to have a car, a house and a family when you are 30? Do you love being a software engineer at the same time? If so, you literally need to get a life. Forget the dream about stuff being free and stop advocating it. It's idiocy. It's bigotry. If you want to put your skills to work and you need to support a family, your work and work results can't be free. Software is the immediate result and the manifestation of what your learned and what you know. How much is that worth? Nothing? Think again.

With best wishes for your future

Clemens


 

this posting contains no tpyos.
bei Antwort benachrichtigen
NANÜ thomas woelfer „soulfood“
Optionen

Hi Thomas,
es geht um mehr als materielle Werte - auch wenn man einige nicht aus den Augen verlieren sollte, einfach weil sie Spass machen + im Alter einen absichern.

Gerade weil Linux frei ist und bleibt, wird es - in einigen Bereichen jetzt schon - in der Wirtschaftswelt aus verschiedensten Gründen auf immer mehr Resonanz stoßen und ich denke, daß viele vom Support leben werden + jetzt schon können und daß es auf eine gesunde Mischung aus OpenSource und trotzdem kommerziell hinausläuft.
Beispiel: wer lädt sich denn heute ohne Vorkenntnisse eine Distribution herunter, die meisten kaufen sie.
Beispiel 2: wer lädt sich KDE 3.2 oder GNOME 2.4 herunter, die meisten warten auf die nächste Distri und und und, die große Chance von OpenSource ist auch diese Art von Support.................

Der "Mehrwert" von Open-Source läßt sich natürlich nicht in einem Posting abhandeln, es gibt viele gute Gründe: eine Alternative zu M$, Sicherheitsaspekte, Spaß am BS und Zitat besonders der altruistische Gedanke. (eigentlich unersetzlich!)

An Linux-Programmierern wird es nicht fehlen, und sie werden auch trotz Verzicht auf ein Grundgehalt nicht darben, dafür sind ihre Fähigkeiten zu gefragt.

Das ist erstmal das, was mir spontan zum Artikel einfällt, dieses Thema ist bestimmt schon zig-mal diskutiert worden und mit mehr "Tiefgang"...........;-)

cu

NANÜ

bei Antwort benachrichtigen
NANÜ Nachtrag zu: „Hi Thomas, es geht um mehr als materielle Werte - auch wenn man einige nicht aus...“
Optionen

Teilweise "riecht" der Artikel nach: lern was anständiges!

bei Antwort benachrichtigen
higgl thomas woelfer „soulfood“
Optionen

interessant sind auch die reaktionen der gemeinde.
hier ein statement von Matthew Mastracci mit dem titel "Where do you want to go clemens?"

http://www.grack.com/news/WheredoyouwanttogoClemens.html

Oder hier:

Dear Clemens,

I've never spoken with you in person, and probably never will, but I feel compelled to answer your public letter on behalf of your friend, Aiden. I found it difficult to extract your argument from your letter, but I'll chalk it up to not understanding exactly what open-source is, or why people would ever consider sharing the fruit of their time with others.

I have a simplistic view of open-source that might make sense to you:

I give what I can (A). You give what you can (B). We both gain A+B=Z. Another hundred people come along and use it, giving nothing. They all get Z as well. Has this devalued my Z? Nope.

Now, a few weeks down the road, another person comes by and gives C. Everyone now has A+B+C=ZZ. You and me (and the other hundred people) all gained from each incremental addition.

Not only did I gain a major return on my investment, but I also end up getting to work on something that fuels my passion and keeps me interested. It's not something that my company tells me to do - it's something that I want to do. Sure, that girl at the bar doesn't care that there's a few dozen people using my profiler, but I'm confident and comfortable enough with myself that I can feel good about the quality and usefulness of my work without monetary reward.

It’s idiocy. It’s bigotry.

Nope. It's called sharing. If you think that giving without the expectation of receiving is "idiocy" or "bigotry", you're living an awefully selfish life. I've managed to contribute a fair bit of my time while still managing to provide for a family and keep up the payments for my car and house.

The world of open-source is so large and its interactions so complex that neither you nor I could describe it in a single letter. I know it's tough for a Microsoft Regional Director to see the ecology of open-source as it really is, but I urge you to take a deeper look before forming your opinions.

Perhaps then you might understand how symbiosis works, and how a single developer can work hand-in-hand with a mighty giant of a corporation while both can benefit.

Your idiotic and bigoted friend,
Matthew Mastracci

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
bei Antwort benachrichtigen
higgl Nachtrag zu: „interessant sind auch die reaktionen der gemeinde. hier ein statement von...“
Optionen

der wortwechsel geht noch weiter, hier die antwort von clemens:

Of course my letter to Aiden is prompting some opposition. It may be worth noting that a very large proportion of the code that I write ends up being public and there's more stuff brewing as we speak. There is little need to educate me about giving. I am an educator. Sharing insight and therefore sharing manifestations of that insight in form of source code is my mission and part of my business. But this is not the business my clients are in and neither is it the business of most of the thousands of developers I am honored to speak for at conferences each year. Their business is about being paid for writing software. If they weren't paid, I wouldn't be paid. My job description is to figure out fundamental stuff and use my natural "understand very complex things thoroughly and rapidly" skill that I was luckily blessed with, so that I can explain those things to them and they can focus on solving customer problems. My free stuff helps my customers and is also playing a marketing role for me an my company. Our free stuff is a calculated investment. We can and do attach a number to it. dasBlog is a freebie for others but represents a significant investment that's worth several tens of thousands of Euros. It's not free, at all.

We support a project that brings us some indirect value. However, we do not in any way force any code republishing requirements upon the folks who'd like to reuse our code (we have a strict "no GPL" policy; our code is BSD licensed). We don't depend on a community of volunteers to turn dasBlog into a dominant blogging tool that we can benefit from by commerically supporting it. We believe that if we wanted to benefit from the software directly, we would have to rearchitect and rebuild it (or at least restrict ourselves to newtelligence contributions) and then sell it as a fully supported commercial product. My personal sense of respect and fairness tells me that I will not and should not exploit the others guys that have contributed to the free version of dasBlog. It's their hobby and their work is their work. I think a company like Red Hat, which is a public company (which did yield a significant "going public benefit" to their founders) and is profiting from the work of countless unpaid volunteers and enthusiasts, is a very clever, but deeply unethical entity.

I do believe in giving and I do believe that there is value for the community at large in sharing insight through source code. But we don't share the view that software is free or should be free. Someone pays for it. We have an investment in software that is free for others to use, MySQL has, HP has, IBM has, Sun has and - believe it or not - even Microsoft has. We do that as part of a well thought out and well understood business strategy.

I understand open source. I do open source. I do so because I am aware of what it can and can not do for a company. I think I have a pretty good understanding on what's going on in this business. If it becomes the norm that the people providing outsourcing, system administration, hardware, and consulting make orders of magnitudes more money than the creative force, the software engineers and architects who are envisioning and building the foundation for this industry, something is stinking. And it stinks a lot already.

Also, if you say that I am confusing "free software" and "open source". I am not. "Open" is the political argumentation line, "free" is the economic argumentation line of the same thing. If this sort of confusion exists for mostly everyone and one of the most often repeated line in OSS arguments is "you don't understand the difference", then that's caused by the simple fact that these terms are simply two angles of looking at the same story. The OSS "eco-system" only functions because both is true.

Matthew, selfish is not the one who wants to get a tangible reward for his work. Selfish is the one who denies that reward.



Antwort von Matthew:

Thanks for the response, Clemens. I love a good debate.

After reading the response to my letter, I've finally discovered the argument that Clemens Vasters is trying to make. It's not that sharing is the problem - it's that people are making money off the work of these duped open-source kids that get nothing in return.

He's hidden his point underneath a cloak of hatred for open-source evangelists and companies, calling the companies that profit off open-source the selfish ones. Unfortunately, this is the result of not understanding the open-source ecology I mentioned before works whatsoever, despite his claims.

I enjoyed how he called RedHat, in particular, a "deeply unethical entity". As an open-source contributor, I find their actions to be highly beneficial to the community at large. RedHat has provided an aggregation and polishing service on top of all the relevant open- and free-software available. This is one of many ways of making money off open source, described in Eric S. Raymond's Magic Cauldron essay. As an aside, I suggest anyone considering attacking open-source read this first.

What distribution of Linux do I run at home? RedHat. They've given me the ability to toss a high-quality OS on my computer at home for zero cost. Not only is it "free" as in gratis, but I have the ability to fix bugs I find and submit them back. This is the "free" as in libre part of open-source that Clemens clearly does not understand. This is the part of the ecology Clemens has missed. This is how myself, as an individual, can hold the hand of a giant such as RedHat while both of us gain in return. At no time do I feel ripped of by RedHat. In fact, I get a personal sense of pride whenever I know that something I contributed, no matter how small, has made it into all of the copies of RedHat out there.

I'm pretty sure Clemens still don't understand this distinction I've described above. Sure I don't see any money from RedHat, but that's not the point of my life. I have a job that pays the bills. I contribute to open-source to reap the rewards of helping polish a solid OS at home that I like. If you want to make money on the side, go ahead - but don't call me an idiot because I choose altruistic rather than monetary reasons for my hobby.

Also, if you say that I am confusing "free software" and "open source". I am not. "Open" is the political argumentation line, "free" is the economic argumentation line of the same thing. If this sort of confusion exists for mostly everyone and one of the most often repeated line in OSS arguments is "you don't understand the difference", then that's caused by the simple fact that these terms are simply two angles of looking at the same story. The OSS "eco-system" only functions because both is true.

Here's where his argument breaks down. Freedom (free as in libre) is the most important part of open-source. It's a shame that english has lumped together libre and gratis- two related, but fundamentally different principals- under the same word. This is where most people are often tripped up. However, the mandate of the Free Software Foundation is pretty clear. In fact, the first words on their homepage are:

Free as in Freedom

I don't have the freedom to modify my Windows installation or the copy of the .NET framework installed on my system. In fact, if there's a bug, I'm at Microsoft's mercy to fix and distribute the patch. With the .NET framework itself, I've personally used reflector to track down and diagnose a number of bugs, but I haven't been able fix them. Our company ends up waiting a year for the next framework release while we try to create a band-aid around the problem in the meantime.

Now, fast-forward to the Mono project. I find a bug in their framework. Not only do I have the source available, but I can fix it and submit it back to the project for inclusion in the next release. I don't have to work around it in my own product. Oh yeah - the other users of Mono also benefit from this. This is just part of the freedom of open-source.

In his reponse, I found his statement of a "no-GPL" policy at his company to be counter to his original argument. If he finds companies that distribute the end result of an open-source project without rewarding the original programmers to be selfish, this the BSD license is absolute worst one could choose. There's nothing stopping me from taking dasBlog, polishing it up and turning it into a boxed product of my own and paying Clemens nothing. Not only that, but I benefit from your improvements while you see none of mine. Isn't this what you describe as selfishness?

Matthew, selfish is not the one who wants to get a tangible reward for his work. Selfish is the one who denies that reward.

Commercial software developers are not selfish. Expecting money for hard work is not selfish. When one insults others that give with no expectation of a reward, they are living in selfish world of their own. I'm puzzled by Clemens' personal contraditions with regards to giving. He donates his own time to maintaining an open-source blog product, but then turns around and calls others doing the same thing clueless. Strange. I'm pretty sure he believes that all open-source developers are poor, parent-mooching cheapskates. This is a sad way to view the world.I leave you now with the results of the FLOSS (free/libre open-source survey) results describing the reasons that open-source developers contribute. Perhaps with a little understanding, you might learn to hate us less:

die umfrage ist zu finden auf http://www.grack.com/news/Clemenspart2.html

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
bei Antwort benachrichtigen
KarstenW thomas woelfer „soulfood“
Optionen

Die Programmierer, die die Software programmieren, müssen auch ihre Rechnungen bezahlen. Aber ich sehe nicht ein das ich einem der reichsten Männer der Welt ,diesem Bill Gates eben, auch noch meine sauer verdiente Kohle hinterherschmweiß muß. Wie kann jemand mehrere Millarden Dollar Privatvermögen verdienen und so gut war Windows nun auch nicht (uralter 16bit Programmcode in Windows 98). Ich erwarte von einem Betriebsystem Sicherhet, die technisch möglich ist, und Stabilität. Ich bin eher bereit für Linux zu zahlen oder einem kommerziellen Unix als für dieses Windows, in moderaten Grenzen natürlich. Opensource muß nicht unbedingt kostenlos sein. Wennn man unter Linux mal' eine Art COM-Technologie wie unter Windows hat, um Programmcode einfacher wiederzuverwenden (ID-Dispatch-Schnittstelle u.s.w), dann wäre ich auch bereit dafür zu zahlen. Das spart eine Menge Programmierzeit und die macht sich wieder bezahlt. Opensource soll die Entwicklung von Linux weiter voranbringen. Es soll keine geschlossene Technologie sein, zu der nur wenige Programmierer Zugang haben.

Das ist was ich zu sagen habe. K

Debian GNU/Linux https://www.debian.org/index.de.html
bei Antwort benachrichtigen
KarstenW Nachtrag zu: „Die Programmierer, die die Software programmieren, müssen auch ihre Rechnungen...“
Optionen

Wenn die Programmierer nur in Ihrer Freizeit programmieren können, dann werden auch die Programme nicht schnell genug fertig. Es muß einen Kompromiß geben. Es gibt ja nicht einmal ein ordentliches Partitionierungsprogramm wie Partition Magic und ein gutes Imageprogramm wie Norton Ghost unter Linux. Außerdem fehlt mir ein Onlinebankingprogramm, welches für die Postbank geeignet ist.
Bei Linux fehlen ein paar gewisse Standards für Programmierer, aber das ist halt der Nachteil von Opensource. Man kann unter Windows mit Visual Studio leichter fremden Programmcode mit dieser COM-Technologie einbinden und muß deshalb auch nicht alles selbst programmieren. Das geht viel schneller.

Ich muß dazu sagen das ich selbst gern Linux verwende. Meine erste Version war Suse Linux 4.4. Da haben die bei Microsoft wahrscheinlich noch nicht gewußt was präemptives Multitasking (Stichwort Windows 3.1)überhaupt bedeutet.

Gruß K

Debian GNU/Linux https://www.debian.org/index.de.html
bei Antwort benachrichtigen
Rheinlaender thomas woelfer „soulfood“
Optionen

Clemens Vasters´ Argumentation ist sehr eindimensional. Der einzige Leitgedanke ist "Geld bekommen". Es ist völlig legitim für eine Leistung Geld zu fordern. Solange die Leistung entweder so gut ist, dass andere bereit sind, Geld dafür zu zahlen - oder solange sie keine kostenlose Alternative haben. (Wobei der zweite Fall leider auch immer ausgenutzt wird)
Jemanden aber als idiotisch oder scheinheilig hinzustellen, der das tut, was ihm Spass macht, ist unverschämt.
Auch abseits vom "altruistischen Gedanken":
Warum koche ich umsonst für Freunde?
Warum fährt meine Schwester mich kostenlos zum Flughafen?
Warum muss ich für Sex mit meiner Freundin nicht bezahlen?
Warum versuchen wir alle hier bei nickles.de Leuten mit Problemen zu helfen?
Idiotie?
Bigotterie?
Oder ist der erste Brief von CV vielleicht eher zu lesen als:

"Lieber Aiden,
bitte, bitte arbeite nicht an Open-Source-Projekten. Du entziehst mir damit meine Daseinsberechtigung."

Gruß
Rheinlaender

PS: the_mic hat letztens einen Link zu einem grandiosen Artikel gepostet, der passt meiner Meinung nach thematisch wie die brühmte Faust aufs Auge: Im Bett mit Microsoft

bei Antwort benachrichtigen
NANÜ Rheinlaender „Clemens Vasters Argumentation ist sehr eindimensional. Der einzige Leitgedanke...“
Optionen

Hi Rheinländer,
dieser Artikel ist wirklich extraklasse - ich kannte ihn noch nicht, sollte jeder lesen, der sich mit einer so vordergründigen Argumentation wie von CV auseinandersetzen will/ muß;
er ist mehr als "nur" eine Satire..........

cu

NANÜ

bei Antwort benachrichtigen