Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer?  
Author Message
Jerry McBride





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 7:37:00 Top

java-programmer, Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

> Super Spinner coughed up:
>> Tim Tyler wrote:
>>> In comp.lang.java.advocacy Super Spinner <email***@***.com>
>>> wrote or quoted:
>>>
>>> [Eclipse plugins]
>>>
>>>> I'd say that anyone that came up with an extension wouldn't be able
>>>> to make money because an OSS group would make a knock-off and give
>>>> it away for free.
>>>
>>> Your argument apparently suggests that nobody can make money selling
>>> software. I think history has proven that that is not the case.
>>
>> I think that one can make money by selling software only if the
>> software is "complex", where "complex" means "too complex to be
>> satisfactorily knocked off by OSS". And the set of "complex" sofware
>> becomes smaller and smaller, as OSS commodotizes more and more
>> markets. I used to think that something like Excel was sufficiently
>> complex to be safe from OSS, but I now know that within the next 5
>> years the spreadsheet market will be fully commodotized and therefore
>> not profitable. The same goes for all "office"-type apps. The same
>> goes for Photoshop and the like.
>>
>> The only software that I can see being safe from commodotization is
>> software that requires special domain knowledge, knowledge that devs
>> themselves do not possess and aren't likely to obtain in a competent
>> manner. Something like tax preparation software; this requires expert
>> knowledge of the tax laws and accountants that have such knowledge
>> aren't foolish enough to work for free like software devs appear to be
>> eager to do. So I can't see OSS "winning" in that space (yes, there
>> are OSS tax preparation packages, but the vast majority won't trust
>> that the devs understand the tax laws enough to trust those packages).
>>
>> Now, as for IDE extensions, sorry, there's no way that those are out
>> of the reach of OSS commodotization. Any extension would be knocked
>> off within a year, so the developers of the original would only have
>> one year to recoup the initial investment of resources and I don't see
>> anyone bothering to try. So nearly all future IDE extensions will
>> have to come from OSS from the get-go.
>>
>> A lot of OSS starts life as poor man's versions of commercial software
>> and gradually improves, but as commercial software is killed off, new
>> software inventions will have to come from OSS itself.
>>
>> As for individual programmers, they'll have to make money by working
>> on in-house stuff or custom solutions for a contractor, because it'll
>> be quite difficult to make money selling software to the general
>> public since OSS competition will make such an effort prohibitive.
>
> I have said for a lonnng time that if you write free software, you are
> only
> making it more difficult for other software engineers to earn a living. I
> don't mean small little utilities, like OE_QuoteFix and the like. But
> creating entirely free large scale applications doesn't make you a hero,
> it makes you a villain.
>

There's an easy solution to this. All the "for money" people have to do is
WRITE BETTER software...

I can't believe that projects like Eclipse are doing so well, simply because
they are OSS. It's because they are better...


--

******************************************************************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
7:42pm up 10 days, 4:15, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.07, 0.03
 
Jerry McBride





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 7:37:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

> Super Spinner coughed up:
>> Tim Tyler wrote:
>>> In comp.lang.java.advocacy Super Spinner <email***@***.com>
>>> wrote or quoted:
>>>
>>> [Eclipse plugins]
>>>
>>>> I'd say that anyone that came up with an extension wouldn't be able
>>>> to make money because an OSS group would make a knock-off and give
>>>> it away for free.
>>>
>>> Your argument apparently suggests that nobody can make money selling
>>> software. I think history has proven that that is not the case.
>>
>> I think that one can make money by selling software only if the
>> software is "complex", where "complex" means "too complex to be
>> satisfactorily knocked off by OSS". And the set of "complex" sofware
>> becomes smaller and smaller, as OSS commodotizes more and more
>> markets. I used to think that something like Excel was sufficiently
>> complex to be safe from OSS, but I now know that within the next 5
>> years the spreadsheet market will be fully commodotized and therefore
>> not profitable. The same goes for all "office"-type apps. The same
>> goes for Photoshop and the like.
>>
>> The only software that I can see being safe from commodotization is
>> software that requires special domain knowledge, knowledge that devs
>> themselves do not possess and aren't likely to obtain in a competent
>> manner. Something like tax preparation software; this requires expert
>> knowledge of the tax laws and accountants that have such knowledge
>> aren't foolish enough to work for free like software devs appear to be
>> eager to do. So I can't see OSS "winning" in that space (yes, there
>> are OSS tax preparation packages, but the vast majority won't trust
>> that the devs understand the tax laws enough to trust those packages).
>>
>> Now, as for IDE extensions, sorry, there's no way that those are out
>> of the reach of OSS commodotization. Any extension would be knocked
>> off within a year, so the developers of the original would only have
>> one year to recoup the initial investment of resources and I don't see
>> anyone bothering to try. So nearly all future IDE extensions will
>> have to come from OSS from the get-go.
>>
>> A lot of OSS starts life as poor man's versions of commercial software
>> and gradually improves, but as commercial software is killed off, new
>> software inventions will have to come from OSS itself.
>>
>> As for individual programmers, they'll have to make money by working
>> on in-house stuff or custom solutions for a contractor, because it'll
>> be quite difficult to make money selling software to the general
>> public since OSS competition will make such an effort prohibitive.
>
> I have said for a lonnng time that if you write free software, you are
> only
> making it more difficult for other software engineers to earn a living. I
> don't mean small little utilities, like OE_QuoteFix and the like. But
> creating entirely free large scale applications doesn't make you a hero,
> it makes you a villain.
>

There's an easy solution to this. All the "for money" people have to do is
WRITE BETTER software...

I can't believe that projects like Eclipse are doing so well, simply because
they are OSS. It's because they are better...


--

******************************************************************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
7:42pm up 10 days, 4:15, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.07, 0.03
 
J鰎n W. Janneck





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 11:54:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
[snip]
> I have said for a lonnng time that if you write free software, you are
only
> making it more difficult for other software engineers to earn a living. I
> don't mean small little utilities, like OE_QuoteFix and the like. But
> creating entirely free large scale applications doesn't make you a hero,
it
> makes you a villain.

that sounds as if you thought that people have a moral right to be paid as
programmers. (?) why is it more villainous to make it difficult for someone
to get paid as a programmer than to expect people to pay you for something
that someone else would give them for free?

-- j



 
 
J鰎n W. Janneck





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 11:58:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> Tim Tyler coughed up:
>> In comp.lang.java.advocacy Thomas G. Marshall
>> <email***@***.com> wrote or
[snip]
>> Microsoft didn't charge for IE. Google didn't charge for the use of
>> their search engine. Sun didn't charge for Java. Giving away
>> freebies
>> is big business on the net.
>
> All three of those examples allow them to leverage /other/ money making
> enterprises of them. None of MS, Google, nor Sun survive on good wishes.

so giving away things out of generosity or a feeling of reciprocation is
wrong and makes someone a villain, but giving them away out of greed and in
the hope of making people pay for them in indirect ways is good and
laudable?

-- j


 
 
dave





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 16:06:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? "J鰎n W. Janneck" <jwjanneck at yahoo dot com> wrote:

>Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>[snip]
>> I have said for a lonnng time that if you write free software, you are only
>> making it more difficult for other software engineers to earn a living. I
>> don't mean small little utilities, like OE_QuoteFix and the like. But
>> creating entirely free large scale applications doesn't make you a hero,
> >it makes you a villain.
>
>that sounds as if you thought that people have a moral right to be paid as
>programmers. (?) why is it more villainous to make it difficult for someone
>to get paid as a programmer than to expect people to pay you for something
>that someone else would give them for free?

That is not the point. The point is that programmers with
too much free time are ruining other peoples' business.

This kind of thing can only happen in the software-industry
because all it takes to create (or better to say in this
context, copy) software is time (and expertise).

But, imagine this ; if some really, really rich person would start
creating cars which are almost identical as some existing brand
(for example, the Volkswagen Beetle) and would give them away
for free ?

This would obviously damage Volkswagen which has invested
a lot of money and time in developing this car in the first
place. This would be considered 'really unfair business'.

With software, this is no different. These OSS guys which
all are working on free versions of existing software are
ruining it all for programmers who actually DO HAVE a job.
 
 
jabailo@texeme.com





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 16:24:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? email***@***.com wrote:

> That is not the point. The point is that programmers with
> too much free time are ruining other peoples' business.

Most are employed in large businesses and institutions that have a need for
better quality software...which is why they write it.

Necessity is the Mother of Invention.

> This kind of thing can only happen in the software-industry
> because all it takes to create (or better to say in this
> context, copy) software is time (and expertise).

B.S. Writing good software is magic -- as magic as making music. Some can
create perfect programs, that are dry and never get used. Others throw
together the barest essentials, and yet garner great acceptance.

> But, imagine this ; if some really, really rich person would start
> creating cars which are almost identical as some existing brand
> (for example, the Volkswagen Beetle) and would give them away
> for free ?

Look -- for most middle class and above people, goods are essentially
'free'. THey are free in the sense that the burden of buying a car is no
longer something unbearable. Families can buy and replace cars easily.

> This would obviously damage Volkswagen which has invested
> a lot of money and time in developing this car in the first
> place. This would be considered 'really unfair business'.

Well, as in software, you just don't take a lot of money and do such things.
The De Lorean is an example. This person got all the money and funding and
resources and design and yet could not produce a car that people would
want.

> With software, this is no different. These OSS guys which
> all are working on free versions of existing software are
> ruining it all for programmers who actually DO HAVE a job.

Most programmers are not writing or selling office suites.

--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
 
 
Tim Tyler





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 17:41:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? In comp.lang.java.advocacy email***@***.com wrote or quoted:
> "J鰎n W. Janneck" <jwjanneck at yahoo dot com> wrote:
> >Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

> >> I have said for a lonnng time that if you write free software, you are only
> >> making it more difficult for other software engineers to earn a living. I
> >> don't mean small little utilities, like OE_QuoteFix and the like. But
> >> creating entirely free large scale applications doesn't make you a hero,
> > >it makes you a villain.
> >
> >that sounds as if you thought that people have a moral right to be paid as
> >programmers. (?) why is it more villainous to make it difficult for someone
> >to get paid as a programmer than to expect people to pay you for something
> >that someone else would give them for free?
>
> That is not the point. The point is that programmers with
> too much free time are ruining other peoples' business.
>
> This kind of thing can only happen in the software-industry
> because all it takes to create (or better to say in this
> context, copy) software is time (and expertise).
>
> But, imagine this ; if some really, really rich person would start
> creating cars which are almost identical as some existing brand
> (for example, the Volkswagen Beetle) and would give them away
> for free ?
>
> This would obviously damage Volkswagen which has invested
> a lot of money and time in developing this car in the first
> place. This would be considered 'really unfair business'.

You seem to be muddling two issues together here. One
is the issue of the cost of products. The other is the
issue of using other people's designs and ideas.

Are you suggesting free software is more prone to
copying the ideas of others than any other sort of
software is? If so, what evidence is there for that?

There /is/ a set of laws that prevent large powerful
agents from putting other companies out of business
by giving away goods that compete with their products.

These laws are anti-monopoly laws - and are there
to prevent organisations attaining dominant positions
- or extending existing dominant positions into
adjacent areas.

It is quite a strained analogy to think that these
apply to the distributors of most free software.

Those laws may have applied to Microsoft when
distributing IE free of charge, though.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ email***@***.com Remove lock to reply.
 
 
Kier





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 18:20:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:05:51 +0200, dave wrote:

> "J鰎n W. Janneck" <jwjanneck at yahoo dot com> wrote:
>
>>Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> I have said for a lonnng time that if you write free software, you are only
>>> making it more difficult for other software engineers to earn a living. I
>>> don't mean small little utilities, like OE_QuoteFix and the like. But
>>> creating entirely free large scale applications doesn't make you a hero,
>> >it makes you a villain.
>>
>>that sounds as if you thought that people have a moral right to be paid as
>>programmers. (?) why is it more villainous to make it difficult for someone
>>to get paid as a programmer than to expect people to pay you for something
>>that someone else would give them for free?
>
> That is not the point. The point is that programmers with
> too much free time are ruining other peoples' business.

Not all OSS programmer work in their 'free time'. And if your programs
aren't worth buying, no one will buy them, regardless of any free programs
others may create.

>
> This kind of thing can only happen in the software-industry
> because all it takes to create (or better to say in this
> context, copy) software is time (and expertise).
>
> But, imagine this ; if some really, really rich person would start
> creating cars which are almost identical as some existing brand
> (for example, the Volkswagen Beetle) and would give them away
> for free ?
>
> This would obviously damage Volkswagen which has invested
> a lot of money and time in developing this car in the first
> place. This would be considered 'really unfair business'.
>
> With software, this is no different. These OSS guys which
> all are working on free versions of existing software are
> ruining it all for programmers who actually DO HAVE a job.

Why do you assume that they don't have jobs either? Or that they'll all
working on free versions of existing software? Or, indeed, that they don't
have the right to create software for free? Or that the world owes
*anyone* a living?

--
Kier
 
 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 19:45:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? begin In <email***@***.com>, on 06/21/2005
at 10:05 AM, email***@***.com said:

>That is not the point. The point is that programmers with too much
>free time are ruining other peoples' business.

If they were doing that with the intent of creating and cashing in on
a monopoly, then that would be bad. I see nothing wrong with doing so
pro bono publico. I've been programming for decades, and what I see as
bad is software that is distributed without source code, whether or
not I have to pay for it. Was it evil that programmers in the 1950s
and 1960s routinely exchanged code in order to save effort?


>But, imagine this ; if some really, really rich person would start
>creating cars which are almost identical as some existing brand
>(for example, the Volkswagen Beetle) and would give them away for
>free ?

As long as he did not use that as a way of creating a monopoly, I see
nothing wrong with it.

>This would be considered 'really unfair business'.

Only if he started charging after he had driven out the competition.

>With software, this is no different. These OSS guys which all are
>working on free versions of existing software are ruining it all for
>programmers who actually DO HAVE a job.

Hogwash; at worst they are ruining it for greedy corporations. Most
programmers are involved in writing software tailored to the needs of
their employers, not in writing general purpose software.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to email***@***.com

 
 
Lin鴑ut





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 19:47:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? email***@***.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> But, imagine this ; if some really, really rich person would start
> creating cars which are almost identical as some existing brand
> (for example, the Volkswagen Beetle) and would give them away
> for free ?
>
> This would obviously damage Volkswagen which has invested
> a lot of money and time in developing this car in the first
> place. This would be considered 'really unfair business'.

No, it would be considered "philanthropy".

> With software, this is no different. These OSS guys which
> all are working on free versions of existing software are
> ruining it all for programmers who actually DO HAVE a job.

No. I use "free" software extensively. Yet I also have a job
programming.

Please let me know when OSS comes up with free air-traffic control
facility software. Our clients would be interested.

--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
 
dave





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 20:25:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:47:07 -0500, Lin鴑ut <lin鴈mail***@***.com> wrote:

>email***@***.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> But, imagine this ; if some really, really rich person would start
>> creating cars which are almost identical as some existing brand
>> (for example, the Volkswagen Beetle) and would give them away
>> for free ?
>>
>> This would obviously damage Volkswagen which has invested
>> a lot of money and time in developing this car in the first
>> place. This would be considered 'really unfair business'.
>
>No, it would be considered "philanthropy".
>
>> With software, this is no different. These OSS guys which
>> all are working on free versions of existing software are
>> ruining it all for programmers who actually DO HAVE a job.
>
>No. I use "free" software extensively. Yet I also have a job
>programming.
>
>Please let me know when OSS comes up with free air-traffic control
>facility software. Our clients would be interested.


Well, you can only hope that the demand for your company's software
is not big enough to make it 'worthwile' to create a free version.

But if some twisted mind decides to create air-traffic control software
with some help of his air-trafic-buddies and then starts to give it away
for free, then what ?..

Then your company would probably go bankrupt.
 
 
Tim Tyler





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 20:43:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? In comp.lang.java.advocacy email***@***.com wrote or quoted:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:47:07 -0500, Lin鴑ut <lin鴈mail***@***.com> wrote:
> >email***@***.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> >> But, imagine this ; if some really, really rich person would start
> >> creating cars which are almost identical as some existing brand
> >> (for example, the Volkswagen Beetle) and would give them away
> >> for free ?
> >>
> >> This would obviously damage Volkswagen which has invested
> >> a lot of money and time in developing this car in the first
> >> place. This would be considered 'really unfair business'.
> >
> >No, it would be considered "philanthropy".
> >
> >> With software, this is no different. These OSS guys which
> >> all are working on free versions of existing software are
> >> ruining it all for programmers who actually DO HAVE a job.
> >
> >No. I use "free" software extensively. Yet I also have a job
> >programming.
> >
> >Please let me know when OSS comes up with free air-traffic control
> >facility software. Our clients would be interested.
>
> Well, you can only hope that the demand for your company's software
> is not big enough to make it 'worthwile' to create a free version.
>
> But if some twisted mind decides to create air-traffic control software
> with some help of his air-trafic-buddies and then starts to give it away
> for free, then what ?..
>
> Then your company would probably go bankrupt.

That's what tends to happen in a capalist economy where a competitor
develops a good product at a lower cost - and the company facing that
competition is too inflexible to either reduce their own prices or move
on to another market.

Historically, software has been a lucrative market place, with lots
of money to be made in it. I should think there's not much need to
bitch about those pitching ultra-low cost products into the market,
in the hope of finding a foothold.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ email***@***.com Remove lock to reply.
 
 
Thomas G. Marshall





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 22:05:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? J鰎n W. Janneck coughed up:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>> Tim Tyler coughed up:
>>> In comp.lang.java.advocacy Thomas G. Marshall
>>> <email***@***.com> wrote or
> [snip]
>>> Microsoft didn't charge for IE. Google didn't charge for the use of
>>> their search engine. Sun didn't charge for Java. Giving away
>>> freebies
>>> is big business on the net.
>>
>> All three of those examples allow them to leverage /other/ money
>> making enterprises of them. None of MS, Google, nor Sun survive on
>> good wishes.
>
> so giving away things out of generosity or a feeling of reciprocation
> is wrong and makes someone a villain, but giving them away out of
> greed and in the hope of making people pay for them in indirect ways
> is good and laudable?

Most of the time yes, with regards to products! Giving things away "out of
greed" is how employees get paid, how the economy does well, and when the
economy does well fewer people die or do without. It's true: More people
get health coverage, more kids eat better, more children get braces, etc.


--
Doesn't /anyone/ know where I can find a credit card company that
emails me the minute something is charged to my account?


 
 
Kristian Thy





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 22:54:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? Quoth Thomas G. Marshall:
>> so giving away things out of generosity or a feeling of reciprocation
>> is wrong and makes someone a villain, but giving them away out of
>> greed and in the hope of making people pay for them in indirect ways
>> is good and laudable?
>
> Most of the time yes, with regards to products! Giving things away "out of
> greed" is how employees get paid, how the economy does well, and when the
> economy does well fewer people die or do without. It's true: More people
> get health coverage, more kids eat better, more children get braces, etc.

Hey, I like that. What's more, it can be boiled down to a nice little
slogan:

"Open Source Software Hurts People"

Neat, innit?

Of course, you can count on the same firms who make good money by
(rightfully) exploiting the capitalist market system to be the biggest
whiners when they are undercut by the competition.

--
\\kristian
 
 
Ray Ingles





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 23:02:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? In article <email***@***.com>, email***@***.com wrote:
>>that sounds as if you thought that people have a moral right to be paid as
>>programmers. (?) why is it more villainous to make it difficult for someone
>>to get paid as a programmer than to expect people to pay you for something
>>that someone else would give them for free?
>
> That is not the point. The point is that programmers with
> too much free time are ruining other peoples' business.

Economic dislocations happen. Nobody gets rich selling buggy whips
since the automobile came along. Should they? Should we pass a law that
a certain percentage of profits from auto sales go to the buggy whip
manufacturers?

> This kind of thing can only happen in the software-industry
> because all it takes to create (or better to say in this
> context, copy) software is time (and expertise).

Perhaps this qualitative difference has some implications for what
economic models suit the field best?

Hollywood was absolutely terrified of VCRs when they first came out,
insisting that if they weren't suppressed then the entertainment
industry would collapse. Now, VHS movies and DVDs make more money
than box office receipts.

There are ways to make money off of software with open source,
but they are different from the current standard way:

http://rsss.anu.edu.au/~janeth/OSBusMod.html#d9

> With software, this is no different. These OSS guys which
> all are working on free versions of existing software are
> ruining it all for programmers who actually DO HAVE a job.

If the pro version isn't better than the free version - better
enough to justify paying for it - then why does it deserve money
at all?

--
Sincerely,

Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

In October 1965, the Selective Service announced that married men
without children could then be drafted. Exactly nine months and
two days later... [Dick Cheney's] first child was born.
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/01/draft/index.html
 
 
JEDIDIAH





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 23:30:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? On 2005-06-21, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <email***@***.com> wrote:
> begin In <email***@***.com>, on 06/21/2005
> at 10:05 AM, email***@***.com said:
>
>>That is not the point. The point is that programmers with too much
>>free time are ruining other peoples' business.

So? That's the whole POINT of the market. Even with perfect
competition, unmolested either by monopolies or governmental interference
there will be winners and losers. Eventually, even the best mousetrap
will become a commodity.

This process is really the whole point of capitalism and one of
the primary mechanisms through which capitalist societies build their
wealth.

>
> If they were doing that with the intent of creating and cashing in on
> a monopoly, then that would be bad. I see nothing wrong with doing so
> pro bono publico. I've been programming for decades, and what I see as
> bad is software that is distributed without source code, whether or
> not I have to pay for it. Was it evil that programmers in the 1950s
> and 1960s routinely exchanged code in order to save effort?

[deletia]

They're just whining about one form of open competition. It's
fine for the 800lb gorilla to undermine companies and their business
model but it's not allowable for smaller entities to do likewise.

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

 
 
Arkady Duntov





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 23:50:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? On Tuesday 21 June 2005 02:05, email***@***.com <email***@***.com>
(<email***@***.com>) wrote:

> That is not the point. The point is that programmers with
> too much free time are ruining other peoples' business.

That's an attempt to make nonsense into a point.

> [snip unsupportable comparison with material good production]

> With software, this is no different. These OSS guys which
> all are working on free versions of existing software are
> ruining it all for programmers who actually DO HAVE a job.

The diesel locomotive ruined the jobs of the firemen on coal-fired
locomotives. If your job is endangered by free software, you may
wish to find a different job.
 
 
Arkady Duntov





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 23:53:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? On Tuesday 21 June 2005 08:04, Thomas G. Marshall
<email***@***.com>
(<Z7Vte.6034$Wb.5029@trndny03>) wrote:

> Giving things away "out of greed" is how employees get paid, how the
> economy does well, and when the economy does well fewer people die or do
> without.

Free software causes collapse of the economy. Film at 11.

 
 
Arkady Duntov





PostPosted: 2005-6-21 23:55:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? On Tuesday 21 June 2005 08:16, Thomas G. Marshall
<email***@***.com>
(<NiVte.119$Z.80@trndny05>) wrote:

> But that product is frightfully expensive, and if you think that the price
> doesn't disuade people from using it, then you're wrong. I won't touch the
> thing for that reason alone!

Children are starving to death because you won't buy expensive software.
 
 
Lin鴑ut





PostPosted: 2005-6-22 1:15:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? email***@***.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:47:07 -0500, Lin鴑ut <lin鴈mail***@***.com> wrote:
>
>>Please let me know when OSS comes up with free air-traffic control
>>facility software. Our clients would be interested.
>
> Well, you can only hope that the demand for your company's software
> is not big enough to make it 'worthwile' to create a free version.

Why would I "hope"? If I were boss, I'd be thinking of that
possibility, and prepare for it.

Of course, your idea of prep might be to start lobbying Congress to pass
laws against OSS.

>
> But if some twisted mind decides to create air-traffic control software
> with some help of his air-trafic-buddies and then starts to give it away
> for free, then what ?..

That would be cool, if they can get up to speed on the arcane knowledge
we need, much of which is provided by former ATC people.

> Then your company would probably go bankrupt.

Nah. There's always more work to do.

Even if all software packages were covered by OSS, we would still have
to do configuration, QA, testing, installations, documentation, software
customization, and so on.

And new software ideas would come forward that haven't yet been covered
by OSS.

--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
 
Dave





PostPosted: 2005-6-22 3:54:00 Top

java-programmer >> Is Eclipse the Commercial IDE Killer? I don't believe any of this would have happened had companies like
Borland or Microsoft not gone overboard and tried to get $1000 for
development suites.

Had they charged $50-$100 we might all be using their tools today.

I still pay for software in cases where there are free alternatives but
I doubt I'd pay more than $40-$50 for it. For me, if a piece of
software costs $50 I will still consider it against open source
alternatives on the basis of features, not price.

When the choice is $500+ for JBuilder, or $0 for a fully functional
environment like eclipse, I'm not going to worry about weighing feature
lists. Whatever JBuilder has that eclipse doesn't can't be worth $500.