Board index » delphi » Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial


2005-06-06 02:56:58 AM
delphi168
Florent Ouchet <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
Netscape, Mozilla
and Firefox introduce a lot of new features in web browsing
Both Netscape ad IE were innovating like hell when Netscape was a commercial
business.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

"Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<42a348bf$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
>By
>your argument, they must be absolutely better than a monetary
>(capitalist) system. T

Jake, come on. I know you can think more clearly than that.
I notice you did not address my point though. I think you've been caught in
an inconsistency, and are trying to reconcile it in your mind. If you find a
way to reconcile the idea that anything voluntary is optimally efficient with
your opposition to voluntary communism, then by all means, please share it
with me.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

L505 <delphi505_at__z505.com_>writes
<42a33b3a$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
The market is not a newsreader, but rather a combination suite.
Bingo. Anyone who hopes to make money on these types of products needs to
compete with Outlook, not Outlook Express.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

|
| You are confusing politics and economics. I am not interested in denying
| anybody their right to do what they want with their time. In fact, I am not
| addressing rights at all. I am pointing out that "free" software is not
free,
| it does come at a cost. The time used to produce FOSS is time that is not
| available for those individuals to use for something else. Furthermore,
the
| impact of free software on long-term innovation and salaries IS a negative
| externality that makes this my business, your business, and the business
of
| everyone interested in making a living from writing software. That
| externality is a cost that demonstrates that resources are NOT being
| optimally allocated.
|
| The fact that you like to entertain the myth that individuals are
| self-contained microcosms can't undo the fact that this cost exists.
|
There would be no internet without open technologies. Even if not exactly
OSS or strictly OSS, things like HTTP and TCP/IP wouldn't exist without
cooperation minus the money. If we all had to pay for TCP/IP and HTTP
licenses, or each company had a patent on it is own protocol, we wouldn't be
here on the internet. We'd have intranets, but no internet. that is why
things like Apple's firewire is not as successful. It has patents. The
corporate way, the business way. Things like microsoft are really miniscule,
if you consider all the money that could be made selling "http licenses".
Imagine if you had to pay for using HTTP protocol, because someone had a
patent on it.. a nice little corporation. Imagine if you had to pay a
royalty every time you used HTTP. THere has to be some open-ness or it just
won't work. The companies just profit by getting away with as much opennesss
as they can in one area, but then charging heaps of money for other areas.
I.e borland doesn't charge you consulting fees for these newsgroups, but
that's because the newsgroups are promoting their thousands of dollars worth
of software
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

"Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<42a34856$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
Captain Jake writes:

>In all these cases, the cost to society is equal to the difference in
>productivity between the volunteers and the professionals.

How so? Who's to say that there is any difference?
I would like to think that when firms pay actual money to professional
software developers that they are doing so because they feel that
professional software developers are more productive than volunteers or
non-professionals would be. Otherwise they are just throwing money away by
hiring professional software developers.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

Quote
Both Netscape ad IE were innovating like hell when Netscape was a commercial
business.
Having a powerfull internet client is a good goal. Having a safe
internet client is an other one, there are nearly no closed source
client that come with few bugs.
--
Florent Ouchet
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

"Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<42a34598$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
Captain Jake writes:

>Who's rights are violated when firms voluntarily pollute the air or
>water?

Mine and yours.
But the transaction that created the pollution was entirely voluntary. You
and I were just not a party to that transaction.
So apparently you are willing to admit that social welfare is not always
optimized by voluntary exchange? This opens to the door to my point that even
though people might voluntarily devote their own time to OSS that doesn't
mean that others are not adversely affected.
Quote
>Who's rights are violated when a sex
>offender voluntarily moves into a neighborhood and lowers the
>property values?

No ones.
But it is still harmful. You said that anything voluntary that violates
nobody's rights can not be harmful.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

"Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<42a34569$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
And I applaud and commend you for it -- but don't be surprised if they
/aren't/ willing to pay for it.
Right now I would be surprised if many were willing to pay for it, in it is recent
form as just a newsreader.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

"Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<42a34537$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
People getting products that they want at a low price is generally
considered to be a good thing.
Yes, that is a very common example of "money illusion", a myth that I think
most people believe in. Most people think that if all prices were cut in half
that they would be twice as well off.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

"Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<42a34507$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
Captain Jake writes:

>the most beneficial way for people to organize themselves (at least
>for things like software). Think of all the benefits that would
>accrue to consumers if everything was free!

Wow, that was an impressive leap to that conclusion. Surely you aren't
serious.
I am. It is a logical extension of your argument.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

Larry Drews <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
But are you not ignoring the poster who pointed out that OS software has
not been removed from the monetary pricing system, but rather the price has
been reduced to 0?
No, because a price of zero means that product is *not* part of the monetary
exchange system. Monetary exchange means that money has changed hands. What
money changes hands with free software?
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

"Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<42a344d6$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
>Then true communism, where everything is free, is the most efficient
>type of economic system.

That's a total non-sequitur. First, nothing is free in Communism.
Secondly, as far as I know, all FOSS work is freely and willingly done.
Sigh. I am not talking about soviet-style "Communism". I am talking about true
communism, where a group of people voluntarily choose to share everything
they make and have. Everything is free in such a system.
Why isn't such a system the most efficient if
1) every member has voluntarily joined AND
2) all production costs are zero
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

"Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<42a331e9$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
All decisions we make have opportunity costs, sure. But FOSS
developers produce things that others value. Clearly that is a
benefit. it is the height of hubris for /you/ to say that someone
else's time could be spent more efficiently.
Only if you feel that economics itself is the height of hubris, since the
efficiency of how humans organize themselves is the subject of economics.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

At 20:50:40, 05.06.2005, Captain Jake writes:
Quote
"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<xn0e33ylymxme003h-velthuis@www.teamb.com>
>There is still a lot of innovation in browsers, especially in the
>Firefox camp. Actually, the one that stifles innovation most is not
>OSS, it is a proprietary product, with its own standards.

Because it is free and ubiquitous.
But proprietary. If it were OSS, people could innovate as much as they
wanted.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"Go away...I'm alright." - H.G.Wells, dying words
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

"Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
<42a33165$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote
And who are you to argue that said time isn't the most productive use
of that time?
That's a different issue. My statement here in this threadlet was that OSS is
not free, it has very similar economic costs to commercial software.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.779
 

Re: Open Source vs. Commercial

Quote
Why isn't such a system the most efficient if
1) every member has voluntarily joined AND
2) all production costs are zero
3) because FOSS development is not a full-time job.
--
Florent Ouchet