On 16/04/13 14:04, Gordon Scott wrote:
> Hi Les,
>
> We probably don't disagree as much as you may think, but...
>
> On Tue, 2013-04-16 at 11:42 +0100, Leszek Kobiernicki 1 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 23:25 +0100, Daniel Llewellyn wrote: ( snip )
>>
>> Well, someone, somewhere has to pay something, somehow, or many people simply wouldn't produce 'free' (beer) software.
>>
>> *****************************
>>
>> Just look at reboot. pro: the devs. there don't charge, but do their
>> self-imposed tasks gratis.
> So _they_ are paying with their time.
>
>> Doubtless, they are in paid employment in a company,
> ...or possibly _they_ are paying.
>
>> so do their creative work, in their spare time, purely for the
>> love of it - which, to my mind, is a perfectly good arrangement ( I,
>> too, did the same, for many years ).
> Indeed.
>
> Lots of students produce software, too. If they're in private education,
> their parents are probably paying, if it's state education, then
> probably you and I are paying for stuff done in the UK, at east.
>
>> I would argue that it's entirely fair to charge for tech support
> absolutely.
>
>> in
>> resolving device-specific knotty problems
> Or indeed just where it may be more convenient to pay someone else to
> sort things out.
>
>> But software is only really a toolbox, and the tools should be free:
> That's where we do disagree. I don't expect to just wander down to B&Q
> and help myself to an electric drill without paying for it. Why should I
> or anyone else necessarily feel that a software tool should be free.
> Just because there's nothing physical, it doesn't mean that it cost
> nothing to produce or has no value.
>
>> it's the labour that.to me, is valuable, almost beyond price.
> Unless it's human labour expended making tools?
> Then it has no value?
>
>> The human input should rightly be valued - rather than the tools that do ( - or
>> don't effectively do - ) the job they are developed for.
>
>> Working in a software development house, I saw the human contribution
>> costed into overall Project costs, then recoverable through a hardware
>> implementation, powered by the associated software.
> So here the buyer of the hardware pays.
>
>> But the software
>> was only ever regarded as a form of activation, of the far more
>> important hardware being submitted, from proof-of-concept, to
>> prototyping.
> I use the exact same strategy myself, particularly where the hardware
> is, if you like, the 'dongle'. I also make tools to make my own life
> easier and I'm often happy to release those into the wild, gratis. But
> again _I_ paid for those tools (by building them myself).
>
>> This I consider a sounder basis for costing, pricing, &
>> fundamental IT investment, overall.
> That falls down somewhere when there's no hardware, though.
> Several of my tools are the CAD packages that I use to design the
> hardware. There's no hardware for the makers of those tools to recoup
> their costs.
>
> There is also a certain amount of "you get what you pay for", though
> some of the 'free'(beer) stuff is fabulously good and some of the
> paid-for is rubbish.
>
> I'm a big proponent of OpenSource and try to use it most of the time,
> and also encourage its use by others. But I also find there are times
> when the management effort with some is just too great. I use a
> commercial programming tool for embedded work, because I used to waste
> so much time working out why changes broke my environment. I need to
> earn a living and my time is better spent doing that that trying to find
> out, e.g., why OpenOCD isn't working today.
>
>> Dual-booting has been made more difficult than it inherently needs to
>> be, through deliberate software development to inhibit that capability;
>> accordingly, some hardware now needs a kind of team input, from more
>> than one head, to get it going properly ..
> I think maybe so. I think there's a good argument that they're
> protecting people from accidentally installing malware, though I'm
> unconvinced that argument stands up to any serious scrutiny.
>
> Kind regards,
> Gordon.
Many thanx for the kind response. It is always good, to tease out the
pros and cons, of any proposed, existing, or deployed strategy -----
I maintain that, to safeguard their integrity, independents should
donate a proportion of their creative time, to benefit all ( esp. good
friends ).
This I did for over 30 years, and never regretted a single moment, as it
helped a lot of other people, while consolidating my own commitment.
Sure, one needs to discriminate, applying trial-&-error to any resource,
method, or process, then to promulgate it as released working, fit for
individual customization. But approx one-third of one's creativity, is
not too much to grace the community with - gratis. That's what I believe.
As for the rest, it can be negotiated for contract payment, for those
still of a working age, thus avoiding " Pro Bono's " associated
pitfalls, of which there are many, and which could become a whirlpool,
sucking in all available time, if one is not careful to balance all
existing committments.
Since we are in the Open Source community, we ought to be donating
something to it, gratis .. So why not give a slice of our creative time ?
May be easier than parting with cash, which, if anyone is like myself,
is becoming increasingly harder to retain, given the massive price rises ..
Les
--
" The power of this life, if men will open their hearts to it, will heal
them, will create them anew, physically and spiritually. Here is the
gospel of earth, ringing with hope, like May mornings with bird-song,
fresh and healthy as fields of young grain. But those who would be
healed must absorb it not only into their bodies in daily food and
warmth but into their minds, because its spiritual power is more
intense. It is not reasonable to suppose that an essence so divine and
mysterious as life can be confined to material things; therefore, if our
bodies need to be in touch with it so do our minds. The joy of a spring
day revives a man's spirit, reacting healthily on the bone and the
blood, just as the wholesome juices of plants cleanse the body, reacting
on the mind. Let us join in the abundant sacrament--for our bodies the
crushed gold of harvest and ripe vine-clusters, for our souls the purple
fruit of evening with its innumerable seed of stars ". Vis Medicatrix
Naturae, by Mary Webb, in Spring of Joy: Nature Essays, Constable,
London, 1917 "
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
