Please open source all the things

[Samurai_Crow]

Linux has no stable ABI since it was designed to run open source software only. Android uses a layer of compatibility over the top of the Linux kernel for that reason.

[BuZz]

That doesn't help with bugs in abandoned software though. Much Android software runs on a virtual machine anyway right ? I believe I've still seen cases where code doesn't work on x86 android as only arm binaries were available (When fiddling with Android on the o2 Joggler).

An open source library is far more useful to me than a closed source one.

But this is just going in circles anyway. People can carry on using closed source. I'll carry on using open. Everyone's happy. The Amiga situation is unlikely to change - Amiga users are stuck in their ways If this thread helps a few people try a different model with their development - or release their unmaintained old Amiga code, then something good has happened (imho).

[ps - apologies for changing this post after originally posting - I've spent too much time on wikis, and keep finding improvements]

[TCH]

I know, i shouldn't do this, but it's funny:

Originally Posted by BuZz

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=why+use+open+source

This search results in roughly 555 million hits.
http://google.co.uk/search?q=why+not+use+open+source
And this resulted in roughly 575 million hits. Teh internet haz decided.

(Sorry, couldn't miss the joke.)

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by BuZz

But this is just going in circles anyway. People can carry on using closed source. I'll carry on using open.

You don't always have a choice. You gotta use what you need.

Originally Posted by BuZz

Amiga users are stuck in their ways

It's because they're old

[Nosferax]

Originally Posted by Thorham

You don't always have a choice. You gotta use what you need.


It's because they're old

I prefer to say I'm experienced!

[TCH]

Originally Posted by Thorham

It's because they're old :p

I'm below 30. :P

[Mrs Beanbag]

in the current commercial project i'm working on, we use a number of different open source libraries. it is very fortunate for us that we don't have to write everything ourselves or we would get nowhere fast. one of our libraries *used* to be closed source but it stopped being maintained so we switched it for an open source alternative. and it is just as well some of them are open source because i have actually had to fix some bugs in our dependencies.

Also we were investigating another closed-source library, only the closed-source libraries often tend to be Windows-only and we are aiming at multi-platform in the long term (perhaps Linux, which i'm currently using to develop it, but definitely Mac).

Of course anyone who uses C++ already uses Standard Library! The code i'm working on was originally written by people of less experience, and they had really not taken as much advantage of Standard Library as they could have. If it seems like something a lot of people might want to do, there is probably an algorithm or data structure for it there already!

[BuZz]

Originally Posted by jsr

I know, i shouldn't do this, but it's funny:

This search results in roughly 555 million hits.
http://google.co.uk/search?q=why+not+use+open+source
And this resulted in roughly 575 million hits. Teh internet haz decided.

(Sorry, couldn't miss the joke.)

you win ;-)

[BuZz]

I'm also agreeing with a lot of the experience of Mrs Beanbag. +1

[wXR]

Bumping to post the bittersweet news that NovaCoder is leaving the Amiga scene...

http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=444

...But kindly open sourcing his projects!

[Mrs Beanbag]

i might open source a few things... PuzCat is open source. PuzCat 2 will also be open source. PuzCat from now on is an open source brand!

[TheBilgeRat]

Originally Posted by TMR

Look at all the Flappy Bird or [insert popular app title here but i don't have an iOs or Android device] clones, imagine how much easier it would be for a potential clone coder to just take the source code from a currently popular Amiga-flavoured project and generate their own "clone" from the original code if it were open sourced - just wrapping it in an emulator'd probably work.

i'm an 8-bit bunny and rarely release my source code, although that's usually been because i don't want people learning the dirtier techniques i tend to use or have to suffer the bespoke, "user unfriendly" conversion tools i end up churning out for each project. That said, on the few occasions i have released source the terms have usually been ignored by someone down the line.

i'm still not against people releasing source and might consider it myself on certain projects, but expecting everybody to do so with everything is simply unrealistic. Just out of interest wXR, how much source have you released personally...?

Releasing the source doesn't mean you can't be supreme overlord of the branch. If people submit crap patches or "upgrades", nothing prevents you from not taking their contributions. You could even go all Torvalds on them in some heated email exchange.

[TheBilgeRat]

Wow, that was a slog through some pretty crazy reading! I find it sad that there are so many misconceptions on what open source is.

First, I recommend reading this:
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cat...hedral-bazaar/

Conveniently, you can read it all online, or pay O'Reilly for the ability to get it on dead trees.

Secondly, I recommend reading how version control works. There also seem to be massive misunderstandings about that as well. Here is a decent summary as well as some follow-on material:
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/versioncontrol

[copse]

Originally Posted by TheBilgeRat

Wow, that was a slog through some pretty crazy reading! I find it sad that there are so many misconceptions on what open source is.

Note that it isn't so easy to understand, that you can set us all straight. Instead you point us off to some pontificatory written material, some of which is even regretted by the authors. Take for example the cathedral and the bizarre which I believe the author has misgivings about, and would do differently now.

My thoughts on this thread are that if there is something you want source for, then you have several options:

• Write a clone.
• Beg someone else to give away all their work in writing the original, or a clone.
• Pay for someone else to write a clone, or get mutually interested people to pay to get people to get a clone written. Or even pay for the original, paying what it's worth to get it open sourced.

The simplest and most achievable way to get the source released, is the paying option. The easiest way to go about trying to get source released, is the begging option. And the way that rewards hard work, like the rest of life, is the doing option. Mostly, open source is about getting someone else's hard work for nothing.

[TheBilgeRat]

Originally Posted by copse

Note that it isn't so easy to understand, that you can set us all straight. Instead you point us off to some pontificatory written material, some of which is even regretted by the authors. Take for example the cathedral and the bizarre which I believe the author has misgivings about, and would do differently now.

I'm not sure I was "setting anyone straight". Mainly I was trying to give even a small frame of reference to people who have loud voices and no understanding of even the basic premise of open source or how version control works. When you hear words bandied about like "stealing" "begging" and "loss of control" you can safely dismiss any other things stated by that person when it comes to either open source or version control. I would prefer NOT to dismiss such people - I would prefer they educate themselves. I gave simple starting points to gain some reference, not dogmatic treatise of the be-all-end-all. Opinions and assholes aside, you cannot expect stated opinion to not be challenged if the foundation of that opinion is based on at best misunderstanding and at worst absolutely nothing.

Also, Eric Raymond regrets nothing about the Cathedral and the Bazaar. In fact, it was written when he wasn't quite as bats**t insane as he is today:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond

Just because he went cuckoo-bird after 9/11 doesn't mean what's written in that book isn't a good primer on free software and/or open source. That's the problem with not being able to separate the person from the design concept. Lots of people still seem to use reiserFs and wouldn't dismiss its technical merits because Hans Reiser was involved. (just in case you don't know anything about Hans, he murdered his wife, buried her in the hills and is serving 15 to life for second degree murder, pled down from first on the condition that he show the court where he hid her body.)

As for the mountains of complexity that is supposedly open source software, perhaps this will help you:
http://bfy.tw/8oK
and
http://bfy.tw/8oM

If you don't like my choices, please read some supplied by the above google searches.

[rhester72]

Originally Posted by copse

Mostly, open source is about getting someone else's hard work for nothing.

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree here. I've headed up both the HandBrake (multi-platform video transcoder) and Tomato (third-party router firmware) projects, and in both cases, a great many enhancements and critical bugfixes were contributed by unexpected people taking an interest and getting involved, some of whom remain strong contributors to this day. I can honestly say that in the case of both pieces of software, they are _far better_ for having been open-source, and the community at large has both benefitted *and led to them being significantly improved upon*.

Granted, there are some open-source projects out there (Ex Plus Alpha nee *.emu comes to mind readily) that are "open" but nearly (if not) all contributions from others are ignored or outright rejected, but I do not believe they represent the spirit or common state of open source.

Rodney

[mld]

I think our project wouldn't be as far, without opened source, donated source and collaboration...

mld/uade team

[TMR]

Originally Posted by TheBilgeRat

Releasing the source doesn't mean you can't be supreme overlord of the branch. If people submit crap patches or "upgrades", nothing prevents you from not taking their contributions. You could even go all Torvalds on them in some heated email exchange.

Not entirely sure why you quoted my post before this, i was referring to situations where people could take the code from an open sourced project, run off with that code and do despicable things with it away from the original author's reach or influence...

Originally Posted by copse

My thoughts on this thread are that if there is something you want source for, then you have several options:

• Write a clone.
• Beg someone else to give away all their work in writing the original, or a clone.
• Pay for someone else to write a clone, or get mutually interested people to pay to get people to get a clone written. Or even pay for the original, paying what it's worth to get it open sourced.

If i ever win the lottery, one of the things i want to do is hire one of those outsourcing companies who occasionally spam with an offer to do programming at bargain basement rates - i'll want them to write a scrolling shoot 'em up for the Spectrum!

Originally Posted by rhester72

Granted, there are some open-source projects out there (Ex Plus Alpha nee *.emu comes to mind readily) that are "open" but nearly (if not) all contributions from others are ignored or outright rejected, but I do not believe they represent the spirit or common state of open source.

And if i were ever to release the source for something it'd be under the understanding that it's mine and i wouldn't be accepting changes... so probably best that i don't, really. (i would release the outsourced code that way though... =-)

[TheBilgeRat]

Originally Posted by TMR

Not entirely sure why you quoted my post before this, i was referring to situations where people could take the code from an open sourced project, run off with that code and do despicable things with it away from the original author's reach or influence...

Like what, exactly? I quoted your post at first because its these sorts of misconceptions and silliness that makes it hard to have a discussion of the merits of releasing source code. What you are saying is that someone might take your "super awesome groundbreaking code for an ancient computer system not being manufactured anymore", FORK IT (that's the term, not "run off with it"), then do something like...what...put huge penises on all your sprites and call it "dick dug" or something? And, even if they did that, that it would completely prevent you from somehow keeping your master branch pure of the dick sprites?

Here's the thing about version control and source code - YOU STILL CONTROL THE MASTER BRANCH. It doesn't freaking matter what Billy DickSprite does with a fork of the master. This is seriously version control 101. Is it really this complicated for people? That you cannot take two minutes to read "what is version control and how does it work"?

I feel like Mugatu right now:

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by TheBilgeRat

What you are saying is that someone might take your "super awesome groundbreaking code for an ancient computer system not being manufactured anymore", FORK IT (that's the term, not "run off with it"), then do something like...what...put huge penises on all your sprites and call it "dick dug" or something?

oh god i so hope someone does that with PuzCat it would be hilarious