Re: Ada is getting more popular!

["Thomas Løcke" <tl@ada-dk.org>]

On 2010-10-26 01:29, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> In the area of particular facts opposed to other particular facts, I
> could oppose Windows ease of use or MacOS hight quality UI to Linux
> desktop, as well as I could oppose Opera to FireFox, or Borland Turbo
> Pascal to GNU Pascal, and so on. That will never prove close is better
> than open or open is better than close.


My point exactly.

We cannot prove these things - all we can do is rely on our own experiences.

Mine is that for the most part open source > closed source. Your 
experience might differ completely.


> Talking about processes (if things are like they are, there must be a
> process which leads to it, isn't it ?), the hypothesis that a monopole
> tends to care less seems to explain more things to me. While the debate
> close vs open does not, as any one could always cite counter examples
> (as I just did), which means this is not relevant (a theory is not
> relevant if it cannot predict anything).


Well, sometimes a process might span decades. Things might happen ever 
so slow, that it's hard to figure out the why, what and where.

If more and more people are having the same experiences as me, then more 
and more people are going to start caring. Perhaps it's just plain old 
evolution at work.


> What you qualify “a lot”, is actually a few compared to the personal
> area and the overall count of users of computers. I maintain the point
> this is no more than 95/98% of consumers.


You maintain it, yes. But you have yet to back up the claim.

Do you have hard numbers, or is it "just" your experience?  :o)


> Yes, but you were helped in return : pretty sure you were salary of a
> company.


No. I run and own the business. I contributed to AWS  because I foresee 
a long term benefit for my company and my employees by doing so.

I handed over the copyright of my code to AdaCore because I believe they 
have a good product on their hands, and I hope AWS will play a small 
part in keeping them successful.


> But ask others which could not get a job due to social dumping,
> or to someone trying to create something and to whom people said “don't
> sell you software unless you want to be evil, give it for free instead
> and try to get earn given it for free and selling t-shirt labeled I Love
> SoftXYZ”.


I'm not telling anybody to give away their software for free.

Open source does not equal free.

And who are these people who can't get jobs due to "social dumping"? 
Again, do you have any numbers to back up such a claim?

I'm first and foremost a businessman, and I'm telling you that I would 
_much_ rather buy open source software than closed source software. The 
operative word here being BUY.


> Is the value of a software in a t-shirt ? In ads ? In the
> request to solve troubles which comes with it ?


The value in software is in its ability to help solve problems.

I'm willing to pay good money for that value, and I suspect that I'm not 
alone.


>> I'd like to see some hard numbers backing up those two claims.
> Would be difficult, there are all dead. On the other hand, I see a lot
> of attempt which fails, and not because the software is not good, just
> because consumers want it for nothing,


That's a completely different discussion. A lot of consumers copy, 
steal, borrow and torrent left and right. Be it movies, music or software.

But "a lot" does not equal everybody. I'm sure I'm not the only one who 
actually want to give credit where credit is due.


> because some one tell them “if
> someone ask you earn for a software, he/she is evil, insist to get it
> for nothing” and justified this with a “the value of a software is in
> the cost of the copying process, if copying cost nothing, then the soft
> should cost nothing”.


I don't subscribe to that, and I don't think it has anything to do with 
open source.

What you're talking about is free software - free as in free beer.

AFAIK what we're talking about here is open vs. closed.


> Does really the value of a software is in the cost
> of its copy ?


No. Not to me at least. The value is in its ability to help solve my 
problems, help make me more successful, help me build a better business.


> The author must give the consumer the right to redistribute for free.


What?

Open source does not mean that the author automatically give the user 
rights to redistribute.

Open source simply means that the source for a program is made available 
to the user.

The license then dictates whether or not the buyer can redistribute, 
copy, sell or whatnot.


> Guess what the consumer gonna do ? Guess how this will end for the
> author ? The author cannot expect to do say 1000 sells for $20 or $50,
> because as soon as he will sell the first one copy for $20 or $50, he
> will not sell a second one. So he must do one sell for 1000 * $20, that
> is $2000. But whom consumer gonna agree to paid the big price ? Do you
> think they gonna want to be the one who paid the big price or the all
> other one who get the free copy ?
>
> And that is how things go.


Do you have any real numbers to back this up?

And how is this different from closed source software? Thiefs will 
steal, no matter what.

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who find a $100 note 
in a restaurant and hand it over to the waiter, and those who find the 
$100 note and put it in their own pocket.

It's no different with software.


>> Open source does not equal free, as in free beer. I pay for each and
>> every Slackware release and I often donate to open source projects
>> that are valuable to me. I'm sure other users do the same.
> How many people do that ? 0.0001% ?
>
> Its all about destructive economy, just like the destruction of European
> economy with Chinese imports, or the destruction of the African economy
> with massive European exports (at a so much low cost that it killed the
> African local economy). You promise the big affair (free), but that is
> for the short run, as on the long run, every one become poorer and poorer.
>
> You talk about free, but you are probably a salary. See the paradox ?


I don't talk about free. You keep bringing it up. There's no paradox 
here. And I'm not a salary.

Open source does not equal free.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  :o)

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Løcke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke