Please open source all the things

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by copse

Wouldn't it be the ultimate boost to a young kid who was working with this initiative, if they dug into the source code and fixed something that was really annoying to their peers. That's the kind of thing which builds a great programmer. To not open source in this case, seems a loss.

Well, given your next paragraph - how many bugs did you go fixing in the BBC ROM? Open source in that instance wouldn't have helped a great deal

I agree that it is an enormous boost to your confidence if you go into someone else's code and fix stuff - that's what happened to most of us that dabbled in type-in code in the 80s, as it appeared to me at the time. Take some code, modify it and make changes, learning as you go.

I grew up learning on BBC Model B's. We all had to learn how to write basic programs. Of course, who really learnt anything at that age? In this day and age you can get a toolstack that costs nothing and is open source as it needs to be and write an app that you can upload and sell.. it's so easy. That seems like a tremendously more useful learning opportunity.

I grew up learning to code in Sinclair BASIC (hence my current project above) and I learnt a lot about how a CPU works, even in BASIC - line numbers enforced the sequential nature of execution, GOTO/GOSUB are an almost perfect mapping for JP/CALL, variables map nicely to LD etc. Moving to machine code after BASIC was a breeze.

I do worry that all that has been lost with currently popular languages such as C/C++ in that the underlying method that the CPU uses is abstracted away under layers of OOP and nonsensical execution sequences, with confusion arising from header and include files...

But equally, the idea that the kinds of programs that people would like to write nowadays are so fantastically complex that there really isn't any other way without spending weeks and weeks on drudge code that is necessary to get even the smallest of task done.

When was the last time you started up a language and didn't have to spend more than a hundred lines of code setting up a graphical surface and a message loop? That sort of thing is fine for the experienced coder, but to an absolute beginner it's some sort of magic and not easy or logical at all.

But anyway, this is a little off-topic now

D.

[saimon69]

Originally Posted by Dunny

Well, yes, they are

There's numerous small utilities, but they're of no consequence. I created the Spectrum emulator ZXSpin in collaboration with a few members of the team, and we released the source when work stopped on that. It's quite popular - one of the all-time top-rated emulators for accuracy and ease of use, not to mention features that no other emulators have even now.

Then there's BASin, an IDE for creating Sinclair Spectrum software - also includes an emulator, with the IDE integrated into it:



It includes source editor, graphics/sprite editors, binary manipulation tools and a suite of debuggers that allow you watch what the BASIC interpreter (inside the emulated Spectrum) is doing at any level you choose.

The source for that is public domain.

Finally, my current project is SpecBAS - A "remake" of Sinclair BASIC with support for more colours, more speed, better sound, sprites and... well, everything I could think of. It's not terribly popular, but among those that are using it, it's well loved and a steady stream of requests for new features keeps my interest fresh.

The source for that is GPL.

There's currently some interest from a certain well-known figure's company in my work, and it looks like I'll be taking that job on soon - all based on the above projects. That project will likely be closed source though.

The way I see it is that I open my source up in case anyone wants to study it. It's unlikely that any of it will be popular enough for anyone else to want to fork or improve it, and as far as improvements go I'm more comfortable doing that myself - that's not to say that I wouldn't accept changes though.

D.

Wish somebody do something similar for Blitz Basic, that TED sometimes suck

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by saimon69

Wish somebody do something similar for Blitz Basic, that TED sometimes suck

Do what? There's a remake of Blitz on the PC if that's what you mean. Or do you mean TED for AmiBlitz? TED is open source and is regularly updated, but there's also work underway for a replacement IDE - if you download a current snapshot of AmiBlitz it includes an early preview version of AIDE, worth checking out!

[kolla]

Originally Posted by JimDrew

I can't imagine why any real developer would just give away years worth of work for free. I would rather delete my source than turn it over to open source. Besides the potential lost revenue, some nut will change your code to do something that was not part of your plan for the direction of the product (I have seen this happen a few times already). Open source is great for non-commercial applications. The commercial developers should keep their code so that product's integrity remains.

So stuck in the old ways that it is painfull to read.

No open source would pretty much mean we would not have Internet. This very forum is based on open source software. The operating system running the server is open source. The network components between you and this site is mostly based on open source. And if you are reading this on an Apple device, then good greef - you are using a product being sold with and running open source.

As system engineer, closed source solutions are in general to be avoided, as interoperability is extremely important today - I happily pay multiple as much for open source products than for closed source products, simply because all experience tells me open source solutions are way more flexible in the long run. As a "customer" using open source, I can take over "ownership" of software I use, and if necessary hire resources to update the software for me. With closed source that is not an option. Closed source software with security issues? Tough luck. Closed source software lacking backend support for my choice of backend protocols? Tough luck. Closed source software not supporting IPv6? Forget it.

[Photon]

Originally Posted by kolla

So stuck in the old ways that it is painfull to read.

No open source would pretty much mean we would not have Internet. This very forum is based on open source software. The operating system running the server is open source. The network components between you and this site is mostly based on open source. And if you are reading this on an Apple device, then good greef - you are using a product being sold with and running open source.

As system engineer, closed source solutions are in general to be avoided, as interoperability is extremely important today - I happily pay multiple as much for open source products than for closed source products, simply because all experience tells me open source solutions are way more flexible in the long run. As a "customer" using open source, I can take over "ownership" of software I use, and if necessary hire resources to update the software for me. With closed source that is not an option. Closed source software with security issues? Tough luck. Closed source software lacking backend support for my choice of backend protocols? Tough luck. Closed source software not supporting IPv6? Forget it.

Yeah, open source is fine for small interoperable utilities, drivers, and libraries. The bare bones, the things that takes you up from no system at all, the things you can't do without. There would be a motivation to release your work as open source for a larger project, such as an OS. Perhaps you would even be an appreciated key member of a team with even larger goals. You'd be one of the guys that laid the foundation.

As for things you can do without, things are different. You want it, not because it's vital, but because it's good. You have nothing to offer in return, but just ask to hand it over after it's been available to buy or perhaps even available to run freely.

I think those are two different things that are not to be confused, and bringing up things like drivers, libs etc from big projects that were open-source from the start is not relevant, or at least only relevant to such drivers, libs, etc that were in an open-source project from the start.

I think the only problem is the "we want this and this and this open source". I think that if you want the source, the job is yours to pick one "this" and convince the author to release it to you. I think many will, if you just tell them what it's for.

There is no "authors should" regarding their sources. The sources are the result of actual work and not some abstract substance to be assimilated into an impersonal, featureless information age Nirvana-fog.

[saimon69]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Do what? There's a remake of Blitz on the PC if that's what you mean. Or do you mean TED for AmiBlitz? TED is open source and is regularly updated, but there's also work underway for a replacement IDE - if you download a current snapshot of AmiBlitz it includes an early preview version of AIDE, worth checking out!

Nope, first am using the old Blitz 2.1, second would love (not gonna happen) an editor amiga-dev-oriented that integrates with UAE (or simply writes on it) and provides a built in WinUAE like the above with better debugger and decent editing capabilities. Or a notepad++ syntax plugin

Since this is a wishlist dont take it too seriously though

[Dunny]

How about the option to buy the source? I'd do that for some of my code - sell it for a fee. You can then use it however you like, but there would be restrictions - you can't give it to anyone else or sell it to anyone else. You can use it to augment your own code, or create something new based on it.

I think that one's a win all round!

D.

[Minuous]

Originally Posted by kolla

And if you are reading this on an Apple device, then good greef - you are using a product being sold with and running open source.

I don't think this is accurate. Or do you have a link where I can download the source code of iOS?

[Vot]

Originally Posted by Minuous

I don't think this is accurate. Or do you have a link where I can download the source code of iOS?

I think he is referring to the large potions of bsd that apple used.

[kolla]

Keep an eye on http://opensource.apple.com

Yes, the foundation (core OS components, kernel, libc and more) of both OSX and iOS comes from BSD, and unlike GPL, BSD licenses do not require anyone to release the modifications, meaning that Apple can bring BSD code into their systems without publishing anything - typically BSD licenses require you to mention that BSD code is used. Both OSX and iOS also have GPL and LGPL components and a lot more. On your iOS device, go to Settings-General-About-Rights and Juridic information (or something like that, I'm on Norwegian settings), and you see all relevant licenses, copyrights etc for various components used in iOS, quite a few of them showing the legacy back to NeXTStep, which was for most part BSD too.

It is fully possible to configure an OSX box to not boot into the "Mac interface", and instead boot into X.org and a display manager, just like any other BSD or Linux distro, and if anyone is interested in installing Darwin without the "OSX fluff", that is possible too:
http://www.puredarwin.org

Originally Posted by Vot

I think he is referring to the large potions of bsd that apple used.

Used? Uses!

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by saimon69

Nope, first am using the old Blitz 2.1, second would love (not gonna happen) an editor amiga-dev-oriented that integrates with UAE (or simply writes on it) and provides a built in WinUAE like the above with better debugger and decent editing capabilities. Or a notepad++ syntax plugin

Since this is a wishlist dont take it too seriously though

Ah, I see... Well, all I can say is that SuperTed is much better than the original Ted and is available in the Blitz Support Suite for 2.1, but chances are you've already got that. In any case, while it's a lot better, it still doesn't answer some of your questions unfortunately...

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Photon

There is no "authors should" regarding their sources. The sources are the result of actual work and not some abstract substance to be assimilated into an impersonal, featureless information age Nirvana-fog.

Well, I was merely commenting on Jim Drews bombastic and totally flawed oppinion about open source in general - look what he writes.

I can't imagine why any real developer would just give away years worth of work for free.

Does Jim suggest that open source developers are not "real" developers? Why does Jim think open source = "giving a way for free", wasn't that a discussion that was finished 15 years ago? Why are all big companies contributing to open source - could it be that in the end, it means better products and improved revenue for all?

I would rather delete my source than turn it over to open source. Besides the potential lost revenue, some nut will change your code to do something that was not part of your plan for the direction of the product (I have seen this happen a few times already).

Here he is essentially saying "FU" to his customers, they have no business improving his precious code. Of course, there is pretty much nothing he can do about people disassembling his products, creating patches, learning from his code. Remember Shapeshifter? Remember Joe and Jim's reaction when Shapeshifter was released? Today there is Basilisk II that is open source, cross platform and works well on modern, relevant systems, whereas Fusion... yeah, that's a funny story. Personally I could not care less if all Fusion software vanished - I have legal copies of both Fusion and iFusion, and I also have the Emplant board and whatever software came with it. None of these products worked well in my experience, and getting bugs fixed was hopeless as Jim and Joe were typically busy on the next "big thing", be it PPC emulation (which eventually became iFusion (crash party for me - MOL was way more useful and stable), or Fusion for PC, which I believe they eventually sold to a company that ironically released source code of all their products when they folded - except for the bits they had bought from Jim&Joe.

Open source is great for non-commercial applications. The commercial developers should keep their code so that product's integrity remains.

Software reflects the ideas and skills of the developers. Integrity is not necessarily a good thing. Here I see a person who certainly has skills, and who wrote some "great hacks" (mac68k emulators) a long time ago, products that I personally found buggy, unstable and overly hyped up, even back then. And this guy has been reactionary to any form of open spurce, for his entire professional life, but at the of the day - where is his superior software? Why are people today using open source Mac68k and MacPPC emulators? Why is there something called WinUAE? How does it even support PPC emulation? Yeah, because open source. Why do we have cloud computing? Because open source. Why do we have SDN (software defined network)? Because open source. Cheap and feature-rich Internet also to the developing world? Because open source. Android? Because open source. iOS? Because open source. Juniper and JunOS? Because open source. D-link, Huawei, LinkSys... because open source...

Open source has been the enabler for so much technology and so much scientific as well as social progress.

Luckily, Jim belongs to a dwindeling group of "developers" whos legacy is nothing and that will be forgotten, whereas what survives and pushes technology further, for most part is open source. It's just the evolution of the technology, survival of the fittest - open software is much easier to make fit. Real developers know this. Even Microsoft knows this, as they recently spoke about the possibility of open sourcing Windows. Revenue is now elsewhere for them, and open sourcing the OS enables it to remain relevant longer in an industry now dominated by cloud services.

[Photon]

Yes, things will get out of hand as soon as people throw generalisms and arguments from left right and center into the discussion. The topic title encourages that. I've urged twice before to get down to cases.

You too succumb to this. Global corporations who mushroomed from the availability of open-source components are irrelevant, and certainly Microsoft is. What they can do with their sources and what a single dev can do is completely different.

They're also bad examples; if you'd follow their lead, you'd use all the open-source software to write your own, make money off the product for a long time, and then release less than 10% of your own work as open-source, depending on whether there's still a chance of making money off it as closed source or not. That sounds more like the sensible commercial approach that most devs have. With the difference that it's far more likely to get a dev to release the source, if you just ask him.

You did get down to cases regarding Jim. Continue the discussion with him in a more productive and specific way than pointing to "because Linux and IOS" and maybe he will be convinced?

[kolla]

I have no interest in convincing him, I oppose his views and dislike a lot his long lasting habit on jumping on any discussion about open source only to tell the same old about how all open source developers must be out of their mind, and how much more perfect "his way" is, when clearly, the opposite is the truth. Remove all open source components from all amiga today and what would you have left? No MorphOS, no AROS, huge parts of OS4 lacking, no browser worth speaking of, no python, no gcc, no libpng, no libjpeg etc. To say "open source is bad" is just stupid.

Thanks to GPSoft releasing the sources to DOpus4 and 5, we now can enjoy those programs with support for large filesystems and on multiple operating systems. Yes, it is really terrible how that happened.

[wXR]

Originally Posted by Dunny

How about the option to buy the source? I'd do that for some of my code - sell it for a fee. You can then use it however you like, but there would be restrictions - you can't give it to anyone else or sell it to anyone else. You can use it to augment your own code, or create something new based on it.

I think that one's a win all round!

That's definitely not a win all around. That's a situation where the source can go no further than the NEXT developer who may lose interest in the project.

Dunny, look at a popular project on GitHub, click "forks". Do you see what is happening there? This is literally about these projects being "freed", so that whomever wishes to work on them, may do so.

Originally Posted by kolla

Luckily, Jim belongs to a dwindeling group of "developers" whos legacy is nothing and that will be forgotten, whereas what survives and pushes technology further, for most part is open source.

Harsh words, but amen.

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by wXR

That's definitely not a win all around. That's a situation where the source can go no further than the NEXT developer who may lose interest in the project.

It certainly is a win! You get the source, which is what you're after anyway. I get paid, which is what I'm after. You get to use the source in your own projects, but if anyone else wants to use it you have to point them to me, so they can also purchase it. You can give your portions away for free if you like.

I don't see a down side here tbh, and I charge about 450 quid/day for coding work, so the price of the source will be my hourly rate x the length of time I took to make it.

D.

[Korodny]

Originally Posted by Dunny

It certainly is a win!

It's a win for you and the guy buying your source of course - assuming the buyer weighed the costs of buying the source vs. writing the routines himself properly.

It's has absolutely nothing to do with "open source" or free software though.

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by Korodny

It's a win for you and the guy buying your source of course - assuming the buyer weighed the costs of buying the source vs. writing the routines himself properly.

It's has absolutely nothing to do with "open source" or free software though.

Given that the point of "open source" is to get your mitts on the source code, it has everything to do with it. It's just called "Open Source" in order to try and make it a moral issue - what people really want is to not have to write that code themselves. And it solves the issue that people who traditionally close their source code complain of most; they'll get paid for it.

As for free software, I'll agree there. However, given how militant and non-free the FSF are in their RYF rules, I'll stick with proprietary software - there's more freedom in it.

D.

[kolla]

So why are you using open source software?

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by kolla

So why are you using open source software?

I use whatever I need to use. Why do you?

D.