OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)

[Shari]

>I've heard for years that open source is going to overcome closed 
>source. I've listened to various people espousing it, heard examples 
>of where this is said to be taking place - yet it isn't.  Open 
>Source is no more logical than "Open Supermarkets" where food is 
>given away.  Neither work in what is a Capitalistic world - a world 
>I whole heartedly support as the only model we have that works most 
>of the time at least for some of the people.  It's not perfect but 
>the alternatives are worse.
>
>Scott

Bottoms up to Ayn Rand!  Hear hear!

Isn't Open Source about the same as creating freeware?  Lots of 
people enjoy the benefits, one or few people do all the work, without 
ever getting paid for it.  Which means either you are doing it as a 
hobby, or are independantly wealthy which takes us back to it being a 
hobby, or you have a strong desire to give something to the world, so 
you are doing it as a contribution.  Or maybe you're doing it because 
you need it, and choose to give it away rather than sell it.  Or 
using it to practice your programming skills, as with a school 
project.  Yes, in some cases not as common, freeware can be used as a 
marketing tool for selling something else, but this method only works 
for a select few.

I wouldn't want an Open Source Revolution.  Where nobody is 
ultimately responsible for the bugs they create.  Where anybody can 
muddle and there's no telling what mischief goes forth.  Case in 
point, the whole discussion about whether a Mac Universal build 
should work on all flavors of OSX, or only the newer ones.

Doesn't Open Source mean that one person can randomly make that 
decision, and implement it at his will?  One person with a particular 
set of beliefs, that all people should have the newest computers out 
there with the latest and greatest OS's, goes into the source code 
and "breaks" it for anything older.

Then a week later, somebody else goes in and makes it backwards 
compatible again?

Maybe I don't know enough about Open Source, but it sounds more like 
anarchy to me.  Or am I misunderstanding what Open Source means?  I'm 
under the impression it means any programmer, anywhere in the world, 
can modify the code, without permission from anyone.  Or am I 
misunderstanding it?

I am also under the impression that Open Source software is geared 
toward programmers who are willing to modify the code if needed or 
broken, rather than a non-programmer who just wants to use a piece of 
software, and trust others to maintain it.

Especially with something as complex as Revolution, where many people 
are relying on it working properly for their bread and butter.   At 
least we have someone right now who knows the code inside and out, 
the history of, and the future of.  I sure wouldn't want Revolution 
to become some grand experiment.  It is far too complex for that.

I think they have created an unbelievably awesome product, and they 
absolutely should profit from it.  Their profit is our best hope of 
continuing our own profits.

I believe that hard work should always be rewarded.  We already have 
too many people in this world who think everything should be free, 
and that somebody else should do all the work.

Think of the battle that authors of shareware wage against the very 
perception of shareware being the equivalent of freeware in the minds 
of many.  How do you convince someone to buy it, when everybody is 
telling your consumers that it's supposed to be free?


Shari
-- 
Windows and Macintosh shareware games
BIackjack Gold
http://www.gypsyware.com