[falconeye]

it depends which industry you mean. i agree that in some sectors, open source is behind (i already mentioned cad, there are others). but the it industry for instance is led by opensource and has been for quite some time (and that's hardly arguable ). or, if you wish, the web is opensource-"owned" (what was it, 80% apache?)

oss projects: the linux kernel? kde? (and please don't say it's a copy of windows, i would be very disappointed ), digikam? come on, there are many. it's easy to get into a "chicken and egg" debate, but most of them are not copycats

They're all copycats. linux copies unix, KDE copies CDE, ... you name it.
Apache is the most crappy source of Java code (the code quality of JDK is miles ahead of Apache). BTW, Apache started out as "a patched" httpd which is from CERN. There is no chicken and egg debate. IT industry is not led by open source. It's business model is much affected, yes. But not led.

I can find a few innovative oss projects, like httpd, mosaic. But as I said, research deliveries paid by tax (which is good use of it actually ). Still, in a world where research publications are for pay only, having their software for free is ... (good but) interesting

Dogma ... I just replied to your "i'd probably never go for non-open software" which I found painting a bit too black and white.

[nanok]

They're all copycats. linux copies unix, KDE copies CDE, ... you name it.

with all due respect, this is oversimplified at best. i can tell you (having worked with several) that unices are at the same time much alike and very different. interestingly, linux is not accepted as one of them anyway (it is not "unix-y enough"). as i noted, saying linux copies unix is like saying mazda copies the original model t. the design of linux (both the kernel, and a whole linux distro) is very far away from the original unix. linux is an operating system, it will be similar with other operating systems. as a side note, windows copies unix to at least an equal extent, if you look at it this way. i won't even start about kde and cde, it almost starts to sound like you're baiting me (shall we get on the subject of xerox and macintosh and windows while we're at it?)

from a sysadmin standpoint, there are two very strange sides of the coin: all operating systems are ultimately the same, once you reach a certain level of understanding. all operating systems are so different, at the same time, that i've seen people who can't administer a different linux distribution than what they are used to (and these are the majority), let alone different "unix flavors".

Apache is the most crappy source of Java code (the code quality of JDK is miles ahead of Apache).

i shamefully admit you lost me here. i don't see how you can relate apache and jdk directly? i'm no coder though, and no java fan either.

BTW, Apache started out as "a patched" httpd which is from CERN. There is no chicken and egg debate. IT industry is not led by open source. It's business model is much affected, yes. But not led.

maybe, it depends where you're standing. from where i'm standing, overall oss is at the forefront. in isolated cases, the huge amount of money pumped into development of code for a particular field can hardly be matched by an open community (especially per unit of time), but as a whole, my experience with both kinds of software consistently points to the overall conclusion that commercial software rarely matches the quality of open one, and in many (very sad) cases, the results from commercial development are so horrendous they could never be replicated in oss, and in this respect i have to admit, oss will always be behind (there is a dose of sanity which simply cannot be killed in oss development, its inherent, you would be hard put to have an open community develop a behemot similar to lotusnotes, for instance)

let me put it another way (if you really want a flame.. ): for example, today, the cases where one can rationally justify running windows as opposed to linux are scarce, i would say 90% of users in my experience would not only be fine with linux, but be much better off overall. furthermore, for "serious" production systems, while there are better and much more expensive solutions than running linux on x86, in the vast majority of cases it is difficult to justify choosing them. in a strange twist, microsoft probably makes more money by quietly allowing piracy than it would by enforcing legal usage of their os (and the oem deals they hold on to so dearly are an indirect sign that they know that all too well). but that's another topic altogether.

I can find a few innovative oss projects, like httpd, mosaic. But as I said, research deliveries paid by tax (which is good use of it actually ). Still, in a world where research publications are for pay only, having their software for free is ... (good but) interesting

the oss concept was born in the academic community actually, and from the way academic communities tend to work together. again, software for free and open source are two different and mostly unrelated issues. in this particular case, having it "for free" is in no way "good", it's mostly pointless. having it open however helps progress.

i do agree, that's probably one of the few good uses of tax money. in general, i find i can be content in the thought that i'm a working bee needed to fuel research at cern, for instance (in any way shape or form), much harder to accept other uses of my cash/efforts.

Dogma ... I just replied to your "i'd probably never go for non-open software" which I found painting a bit too black and white.

strange. quoting out of context does not seem to be your style. i did explain anyway in detail what i meant by that, i doubt it was still unclear the last time you used the word. it's simply a "first choice", as long as it suits my needs, it ends there. if i really need something i can't get otherwise, i'll look into closed software. as simple as that. as i said, life's just to short, i cannot spend it all making individual case-by-case choices for each and every piece of code i need, it's a shortcut that works for me, if you will (find something open source first, if it's good, keep using and go about what you really want to do in the time thus spared)

generally, i consider both models necessary and think they should co-exist (for various reasons). in practice, i am honestly so sick of all the junk closed stuff i've ran across, had to administer, debug, and so on, that i try to stay away from it as much as possible. and the bigger the company (and thus "decision" chain) the worse it will get. i've mostly had good or decent experiences only with apps coming from relatively small (sometimes even "nutty") companies (if you've ever worked in a corporation you might know what i mean). in a perfect world, perhaps, junk wouldn't sell and die, in this world, intrinsic value has nothing to do with "sellability", when money is at stake, it seems there are people who can and will sell _anything_, and other people who will buy anything; it seems, for some reason, when money is not directly connected (not the driving factor), and rather the pride to do things well, how many people find your work useful, and so on, the quality of the results goes up, and the bullshit goes down, it's better to introduce the money making scheme after this point it appears, if you want something good. it's not as easy though, at least at first glance.

my impression is that oss tends to develop based on need and functionality requirements (plus the mandatory cool factor ), rather than what sells. so far, that works better for me, i'll take something that lives because it's good rather than because it's sellable, any day. if you make software that is good and you can sell it, my hat goes off in respect for you, but, i am sorry, you are in a minority, and unfortunately on very thin ice in my experience.

[falconeye]

nanok, I think we agree more than we disagree. I'm more often defending oss than not. I just wanted to add some shades of gray to the discussion.

with all due respect, this is oversimplified at best. [...] saying linux copies unix is like saying mazda copies the original model t.

Yes, it is oversimplified. But it really is important to do so. I'm serious.

You may not be a party who actually invented new software technology. We did. A whole new programming paradigm.

From the perspective of somebody who uses and administers software, the oss packages may be unique. From an inventor's point of view, they're all copycats.

Copycats are not unique to oss, as C# is a copycat of Java, Windows UI of MacOS which in turn copies Xerox etc. But oss lacks the genuine inventions.

The point you're missing is the huge intellectual achievement to imagine a new product out of the blue without a clear reference. Take for instance the iPhone. Huge achievement from a team with vision. Google Android in turn is just a copycat. Once you "see" the original, it is soooo easy to copy (and actually steal) the core ideas. And impossible to prevent. Even Apple couldn't prevent it and they certainly tried.

Another example is Aperture. LR is just a copycat as is any oss raw converter.

And yes, most cars are copycats too. Maybe not of Model T. But of some early pioneering models well protected by patents at their time.

i shamefully admit you lost me here. i don't see how you can relate apache and jdk directly? i'm no coder though, and no java fan either.

Apache software foundation. The apache web server is not that interesting.

from where i'm standing, overall oss is at the forefront. in isolated cases, the huge amount of money pumped into development of code for a particular field can hardly be matched by an open community (especially per unit of time)

You reverse effect and cause.
Where oss hasn't already stopped the flow of money into new technology, you still see the occasional great software product.

E.g., most of my developpers prefer IntelliJ over the Eclipse IDE. But Eclipse (oss) almost brought IntelliJ (closed) development to a halt. But it does still lead.

the oss concept was born in the academic community actually, and from the way academic communities tend to work together. again, software for free and open source are two different and mostly unrelated issues.

Yes, the spirit of oss is the exchange of code. But most people just consume without ever giving back.

strange. quoting out of context does not seem to be your style. i did explain anyway in detail what i meant by that, i doubt it was still unclear the last time you used the word.

The context is this thread. But I think you explained what you mean. That you prefer OSS when you have a serious choice. Which is fair enough and I do the same.

in practice, i am honestly so sick of all the junk closed stuff
[...]
it seems, for some reason, when money is not directly connected (not the driving factor), and rather the pride to do things well

There is a certain distortion field at work here too. It works for Apple as it does for oss. Sometimes, people simply don't know the commercial alternatives well enough because oss is so readily accessible. Like when people praise Eclipse w/o actually knowing any alternative.

I use OpenOffice. Since the days it was closed source and belonged to StarDivision in Hamburg. Great guys btw. The fact it went oss changed nothing. But a lot of people started praising it after the switch. Actually, I felt better as it was closed source than I do now with Oracle involved in the oss project.

Then add the fact that most people contributing or running oss projects do that to raise their reputation. Also because reputation in IT means money. So, oss favours projects where the immediate benefit is clear and proven w/o technical hurdles and w/o too much work to be done to make a first impact.

This works nicely as long as you find enough small and useful products you can copy.

my impression is that oss tends to develop based on need and functionality requirements (plus the mandatory cool factor )

see above.

Yes, oss is cool. Because it is able to break monopolistic structures and dependencies. And gives exposure to individual developers who deserve it.

But this coin too, has two sides.

[jbinpg]

Sorry, Falk, but your main premise is weak. There is nothing stopping someone with a vision from using either closed source or open source. The choice would come down to if and how that individual wishes to make money off their invention, and how they wish to protect their IP. The statement that true visionaries use closed source only is laughable.

Jack

[falconeye]

The statement that true visionaries use closed source only is laughable.

Jack, yes, that's laughable indeed.

But I didn't say so. At least, I hope I didn't.
Even Apple which is very close as a whole uses a lot of open source internally, even contributes (like for webkit).

I said that true visionaries don't turn their visions into open source products. The open source comes after the invention and after the risk when others (read lesser minds) see a chance to step in. At least if I am not missing something.

I talk about first compiler, first TCP/IP (DARPA), first word processor, first spread sheet, first paint program, first photoshop, first Aperture, first postscript, first Unix, first webserver (CERN), first browser (National Center for Supercomputing Applications), first object-oriented language (Norsk Regnesentral), first VM languages (Smalltalk and Java, Xerox and Sun), first 3D modelling and rendering software, first CAD, first voice recognition, first text recognition, ... it goes on and on and on.

I have a real esteem for open source programmers.

But they simply don't measure up to the real pioneers who push things forward when nothing is there to serve as a point of reference.

[jbinpg]

So where does Pranav Mistry fit in?

Pranav Mistry: The thrilling potential of SixthSense technology | Video on TED.com

The above URL may break due to length.

Jack

[falconeye]

So where does Pranav Mistry fit in?

Proprietary product with parts of the software released as oss. It is as open source as an Apple computer is (Darwin is oss ...).

[Bramela]

I have to say CR's comment is the comment of the year, I enjoyed that one.

It's supposed to warm up toward next week to just barely freezing. Right now we are expecting -20C overnight (-4 F) so it is a bit chilly out there.

A bit chilly?? We are sweltering in up to almost 40degC at the moment. "A bit chilly"???
To me, "Bloody downright freezin" would be my words. (excuse the expletives)
I reckon I would die in temperatures like that.

No offense intended , CR

[ManuH]

This debate of innovation vs open source is about money. If you have an original idea, it would be stupid not to try to make money from it. Most OSS are copycats because they know that they couldn't make money easily from something that is just a copy. At least not at first. When Microsoft launched IE they knew that they couldn't make any money or market penetration with it if it was not free (I know it's not oss, and oss is not necessarily free).

For a developer, making an OSS is also freedom from having to support and have any responsibility. Making commercial software is harder than it seems, it's not just building the software, that's almost the easy part of it. You have to make documentation (BTW a lot of OSS is poorly documented), support your users (in whatever configuration they might have), market the product, etc. etc.

[nanok]

falk: i will reply to you later (too tired and too busy, killer combination ), but i'm curious if you know about nomachine (it's almost offtopic, but it reminded me of it when you were talking about vision and such). actual reply coming later