Hi

I received a very interesting link:

www.e-balkani.com

The author argues that open source infrastructure is much more expensive in long-term calculations. I think there is something true in this position. But my frient thinks the book is scandalous. What do you think about this...?

Michael

Very Enlightening. I have been using windows ever since i have been using computers, but recently i was convinced by a friend to install linux. Since then i have been very impressed with the idea of "open source fairy tale" where everything is free! This book sheds a lot of light on this "free software movement" and I am once again reminded that there are no free lunches in the world. Most people are motivated by something in return, when they give away something. Anyways, it's an interesting book to read, however there is one question i have:

This book mentions that under the GPL, your code belongs to the public if you even used 1 line of code which is covered under GPL. I think OpenGL is also covered under GPL is it not? Id software has developed games under OpenGL and yet they havent had to give away their games...

Is it really true that under GPL, if you use any open source code, your entire code would also be open source and available freely to public?

For the best info on free software and open source, go to the GNU software project. This one of the grand-daddies of the open source movement.

From the site - `Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

If you improve or use any software that is under GPL, then you can not copyright it. You can sell it and make money on it, but you must also make the source code available. The source code doesn't have to be included w/ your software; it can be available on a web site. You can think of it as a small "security" measure; only the most gung-ho coders will bother to get a copy of it.

Regarding OpenGL, it's a graphics API. It can be used by anyone for creating 2d and 3d graphics. Applications developers don't have to license it, only hardware vendors. So, if you want to create a game using it, it's considered open source for you. But if you want to make a video card that can use OpenGL for video display, then you have to have a license. Open source usage of the API is free; closed source must pay.

There are many different open source licenses, such as GPL, BSD, et al. You can pick or create the license you want depending on how free you want it. If you GPL something, then anyone who uses your code must release the code that was contributed. But if you pick a more restrictive license you can, for example, decide that the code is free and open for open source projects but is copyrighted (and requires a paid-for license) for commercial, proprietary use.

One of the biggest arguments for free software is that, because the source code is always available, anyone can add features or bug fixes. You don't have to wait for a central company to decide what features to add and when to do it, and you don't have to what for bug patches.

The biggest argument I've heard against free software is that it's impossible to make $ at it. It depends on how it's used though. As I showed above, you can pick the license you want and make $ if you desire. But you can also sell your s.w. and make $ because the vast majority of people can't code. That means they will pay you for your s.w. and possibly pay for upgrades that are made, rather than open the code and put in what they want.

Does this help any???:

__________________
Start Programming with Python-A beginner's guide to programming and the Python language.
-------------
Common Sense v2.0-Striving to make the world a little bit smarter.

It is directly written in the licence:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License…”

First of all, for the record, I am a huge proponent of Linux and the Open Source movement. So this may come off with a bit of a biased twist.

Anyway, I think that there are some good points that are made in the article. But at the same time, I think that he is making some connections that just don't exist.

I use Linux servers exclusively at work. Not only have these saved me money in terms of licensing fees, but also in terms of maintenance fees. We spend much more time with Windows related issues than Linux relate issues. I never touch these Linux servers which are on all of the time and run every backend feature in my office, SMB file service, mySQL server, mail server, web server, ftp server, DNS server, DHCP server, etc. etc. One program that he mentioned in particular was apache and made the installation and maintenance of apache seem laborious. Most Linux distributions install this by default and then it is simply a process of editting a text file to get it to work. The more that I see graphical wizards and gui configuration tools, the more that I am convinced that these aren't always the best way to configuring things. In summary, my initial costs are way down and my TCO is much much less than Windows.

He also makes it appear that if I write code using a "free" opensource tool, whatever code I write has to be opensource as well. This is definitely not the case. (However, I may have misread this point.)

One more point. Linux is a *nix O/S which I have always found much more powerful and easier to use than the alternatives. It is also easier to tune and calibrate to do exactly what you want it to do.

I think that you need to be cautious of rhetoric on either side of this debate. You do need to be realistic. It is hard to make demands of people that are providing you "free" software. The attitude in most cases is that if it doesn't work on your system, you screwed it up (this is true in 99% of the cases though ). But at the same time it is hard to think that there is some sinister plot driving the Open Source movement. It is difficult to think of the people behind Linux, GNU, apache, openoffice.org, Samba, etc., etc. as being the villians for entrapping us with their free software.

Anyway, I don't want to start an O/S flamewar. I use Windows and ever since 2000, I have been quite satisfied with the direction the Windows O/S is taking. (although Longhorn worries me a bit). I just thought I would add my two bits to this article that does make some points, but some rather poor conclusions, IMHO.

i agree with dsmith, im not opposing open source or linux. people contributing their time and energy to open source projects such as linux are not really expecting anything back except for a little credit. It'd be good if a lot of home pc users switched to linux, there is so much software available under linux, and also so much help available online, that i dont think many people would have problems they would be unable to solve. It'd be good to break microsoft's monopoly in that area.

On the other hand, companies like IBM that are supporting linux, can be considered same as microsoft. They want the big fish aka the big companies by providing custom solutions based on linux. So it might turn out to be expensive for many businesses if they'd have to custom make everything they needed. Thats the point i think this guy is trying to make. However i think he is ignoring the fact that there is nothing wrong with making money when you are providing service, even if thats on something free such as linux. When linux products gain even half the market share as microsoft, plenty of developers can and will develop commercial products that work with linux without using any open source code. So that way the cost of maintainence and custom solutions for the users will eventually go down, and in the long run Linux will prove to be much cheaper.

When i first read the first few chapers of this book yesterday, i jumped to the conclusions and made my previous post, however the more i think about the things the author said, the more i believe that those are just his opinions and there isnt much truth to what he says, but ofcourse thats my opinion also

The only thing i guess we must realize that not EVERYTHING in open source is free, and deal with it, and make our decisions based on that. We must each do what suits us the most and leave others to make their own decisions.

I think this book is interesting, because it is based generally on true facts althougt the conclusions are not undeniable.