Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]

[Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com>]

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.