Patrick O'Connor wrote:
> On 01/07/07, Michael Watterson <watty at eircom.net> wrote:
>> Kae Verens wrote:
>> > Patrick O'Connor wrote:
>> >> http://survey.patrickoconnor.ie/index.php?sid=1>> > unfortunately, I found this survey impossible to complete, as
>> > validation for questions 6 and 7 crap out if you choose "Benevolent
>> > Dictator".
>> > Also trying to save progress caused an error...
>> > Kae
>> to be balanced the survey should be taken by those not on an open source
>> related list, or with no use of open source to find out why they don't
>> use open source.
>> True, but people like that are insignificant insects! LOL
> Only kidding, but the aims of the survey are to get some empirical
> data on the motivations open source developers and users. If people
> aren't developing / using open source they are not motivated to do so
> and hence not relevant to the survey.
Surely why they have a apparently a lower motivation may be very
important to understanding the motivation.
I've developed SW for over 25 years. I've been deploying "open source"
solutions since 1998, but mostly closed source. Most of the software
I've ever developed has not been publish at all never mind released
under any of the licences that might be regarded as open source.
Personally I prefer a good well designed & Documented API to any amount
of open source. I haven't time to look at other people's source. only a
tiny percentage of time is beging able to view source important. Ease of
deployment, API, documentation are more important. I'd rather pay $100
for a licence and have a troubled free piece of software than get it for
free and have to fiddle with the source to make it go.
When it comes to cross-develepment on embedded platforms suddenly I'm
wanting source. If it's free or I have to pay something to commercially
deploy it is a separate issuse. There is no mature reuseable
transportable binary on PIC micros or tiny embedded linux gadgets.
So it's not simple and too much of the past of FSF / Open source seems
to be more about recreating a clone of UNIX that is unencumbered with
AT&T /Bell Lab patents/Copyright that should never have existed as much
was done in Universities. Spending 30 years recreating a "free" version
of a 1976 OS is not the best advertisement for Open Source. So many of
th prjects seem to be just attempts to have free clones of currently
available commercial SW, (Mono, Samba, Linux, Eclipse?) rather than
Now we are starting to get the kind of Multiprocessor architectures I
saw on Transputer in 1986, but without the tools as we are still using C
and C++ is still misused to prodcue C programs and ideas such as Occam,
Oberon, Modula-2 have died by the wayside in the lemming rush to reuse
old UNIX stuff in MS Windows, Mac OS and Linux. The success of UNIX
family on one hand and Microsoft on the other has held back CPU
archtecture and Computer sicence for 20 years.
To be relevant, open source needs to address these issues and not
simply be seen as a way to get free SW.
Rant over :)
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!