Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:12:41 -0400 | From | Scott Robert Ladd <> | Subject | Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM] |
| |
Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> wrote: >>A very technocratic view, to be sure. Source code is no guranatee of >>future portability or viability; for the vast, vast majority of users -- >>we do care about those, don't we? -- source code is useless. > > I doubt that. You are probably right with your exact statement, meaning that > the _user_ cannot make use of the available source code himself (though the > only reason why is that he plays user and refuses to learn anything :-)
While I subscribe to the theory that specialization is for insects (ala Heinlein), I also recognize that no one can know everything. Having tried to be a universalist, I'm somewhat familiar with the limitations of time over genius; while it is certainly possible for me to perform surgery, for example, I would much rather have a trained professional do it.
Just because someone is not a programmer does not make them lazy. Most users have other tasks at hand; in my case, I would much rather my surgeon refine his skills the the scapel, than have him waste time writing his own diagnostic software.
> the manpower and brain invested in creation of this open source code is not > lost in space. Someone with brain and time can pick it up and revive it at any > given time. And this is a very big advantage in comparison to closed source > which simply vanishes with its producing company - and there already have been > quite a few of those.
I most certainly agree. Knowledge is built on knowledge, and if a Homo erectus had patented the flaked stone tool, we would all still be living in caves.
Of course, not everyone is capable of creating a sharp edge by banging the rocks together. And that's why different people do different things.
> So even if your statement looks correct in micro-economics, it is completely > wrong in macro-economics. As Larry already pointed out in another post software > development is often expensive. But it is only expensive if every company has > to re-invent the wheel. > > If you can simply use the wheel and go on producing a > car "on top" of it, you _saved_ money, time and manpower.
The mere act of making code open (or object-oriented) does not make people reuse it. I am constantly amazed by the amount of available information, and am disturbed by how few people take advantage of it.
Almost every company *does* reinvent the wheel -- and that can not be legitimately blamed on closed-source software. Witness the massive duplication of effort in the free software community -- KDE, Gnome, and other "desktops" being a salient example. Egos, license disputes, business concerns, and technical choices lead to duplication of effort; as a former evangelist of object-oriented programming, I'm more than aware that it is not technology that prevents code re-use, but psychology.
-- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) Professional programming for science and engineering; Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |