Re: Ada is getting more popular!

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:39:01 +0200, Thomas Løcke <tl@ada-dk.org> a écrit:
> I've been buying and using both closed and open source software since  
> the mid 90's, and I can tell you that, in general, the quality of open  
> source software is much higher than it's closed counterpart.
>
> Much. Higher.
>
> Let me give you a few examples:
>
> [Summary: Cisco and MS application are not so good]
That is just one example opposed to another, we may go nowhere like this.  
What is worth, is processes and to understand why this or that leads to  
this or that (not something like I/I-want-to believe that or that). This  
already has been answered : MS is a monopole. I do not know enough about  
Cisco and the market share inb the network hardware area, but as I read  
you, I may guess Cisco has a so big market share that it does not feel the  
need to do better (someone may confirm or infirm).

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.

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).


> Open source matters to a lot of us, even though we don't personally  
> audit every line of code. What's important, is that we have the freedom  
> to do so. We have the freedom to both fix bugs and add functionality to  
> the software we use. We have the freedom to hire one or more programmers  
> and add features and/or fix problems.
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.


> I've contributed to the AdaCore AWS project, and I've done so because I  
> had an itch that needed scratching. If my contribution helps someone  
> else do something of value with AWS, then YAY!
Yes, but you were helped in return : pretty sure you were salary of a  
company. 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”. Is the value of a software in a t-shirt ? In ads ? In the  
request to solve troubles which comes with it ?

> 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, 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”. Does really the value of a software is in the cost of its copy ?  
You guess now why using C or Ada does not bother a lot of developer, and  
why even C may look more attractive… what ever, “the value is in the cost  
of the copying process”, as said someone.

More than that, the ISP, which does not create anything has more rights  
than the authors. The one who create the thing and must provide the copy  
for free has less rights than the one which transport the copy. Did you  
ever heard someone ISP does not offer the service for free ?

And to say even more, its even worse than the belief “the value is in the  
cost of the copy” : hosting a download server does not cost nothing. Do  
you know a lot of consumer which agree to give for that ? It even goes a  
step further.

Any other questions ? Still have a doubt ? Know someone who could get some  
right in such a context ?

> Open source does not mean that an author gives up his copyright, nor  
> does it mean that he can't sell his software.
The GPL is actually known as the source of one of the biggest license hell  
(was a topic on the french CLA about it).

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

> 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 ?


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.