4 ms·

Forget the Linux Desktop, it's the Linux Laptop that matters

16 points by theoneill 19y ago

edw519 19y ago
Just as Microsoft took the crown from IBM in 1981, the open source community has taken it from Microsoft in 2007.
- mynameishere 19y ago
  The OS "community" cannot defeat the laws of economics in any real way--there are x number of programmers stupid enough to donate their time for the benefit of corporations, but that number is probably more limited than thought. Many OS programmers are bankrolled by companies that benefit from software commodification--companies like IBM. It's very, very sad that OSS has such a good reputation among programmers, when it can only hurt them.
  - tx 19y ago
    Yeah... I especially "like" this new trend in hiring: best programming jobs now REQUIRE candidates to participate in some open source project, while very few of those companies themselves make any significant contributions to OS community.
  - ashu 19y ago
    I think in a lot of cases (me, personally, for example) the motivation for contributing to OSS is just plain fun and education. Sometimes, I also end up improving some software that I personally use. That is the reason why OSS has a good reputation among programmers. The fact that some big companies stand to gain from it is inconsequential to me.
  - hollerith 19y ago
    If all software were proprietary, programmers would have less control over their own profession. Most worthwhile programming projects entail modifying existing software rather than only developing new independent software from scratch. Mostly this existing software is very widely used and because of this "popularity", if it were all proprietary, it would almost all be the intellectual property of corporations, which means that a programmer would need the cooperation or permission of executives and sometimes marketers, accountants or even investor or investment analysts to modify it. Since most people capable of making a technical contribution to a programming project do not have the (communications and impression-management) skills or social contacts to obtain this cooperation, in an all-proprietary-software world, programmers would undertake their own initiatives less often than they do now. They would be restricted more often to supporting the initiaviates of executive, marketers and owners of intellectual property -- as employees and contractors. If you have been reading conversations among programmers on the net for 15 years like I have, you will have noticed that the retired or older professional programmers of 10 and 15 years ago had a more fatalistic and passive attitude than programmers have nowadays, and it was a sad thing to witness. Lawyers, marketers, investment analysts and executives mostly do not trust or understand programmers (or engineers, or scientists, or artists) and consequently will try to reduce the influence and autonomy of programmers (which explains parts of intellectual-property law, the harshness of criminal penalties for computer vandalism and computer trespassing and the rush 10 years ago to outsourcing). Even though most programmers have never participated in any programmer-led initiatives, the initiatives have done much to make the day-to-day experience of being a professional programmer more satisfying and more dignified -- by preventing other occupational groups from dictating to programmers as much as they would have done otherwise. For example, much of the internet above the transport layer before corporate executives "discovered" it in 1993 and 1994 was created by the initiative of programmers working more or less with open-source practices. The internet has created working conditions for many professional programmers more pleasant than whatever corporate alternative (think Compuserve, AOL and MSN) would have arisen if the internet had not arrived first.
    - mynameishere 19y ago
      Most worthwhile programming projects entail modifying existing software Getting a job at a corporation, sure enough this is true: Most of the work is in modifying the existing code base. But the number of people forking an open source project for their own purpose is small (google does it) and the number doing so for purposes of resale is zero. you will have noticed that the retired or older professional programmers of 10 and 15 years ago had a more fatalistic and passive attitude This is an odd statement and one that would be hard to support with numbers. I know for a fact that where opportunities existed, they were exploited. A lot of COBOL programmers may have not understood the possibility of creating a software product, but there was no limit to the opportunities for people writing Atari 2600/Apple II/C64 assembler, etc. You were observing the wrong data set perhaps. It strikes me as sad that many small companies are making web knock-offs of products that were genuinely innovative in the bad old days (word processors, publishing software, spreadsheets, media players, etc.) I've said this before: Keep linux on the server, as it does keep the money "in the family"--between software professionals, more or less. But if Windows goes out of style, it's destroying a huge money flow from other businesses to software. This is mercenary, but that's how life is.

16 points by theoneill 19y ago

edw519 19y ago

Just as Microsoft took the crown from IBM in 1981, the open source community has taken it from Microsoft in 2007.

mynameishere 19y ago
The OS "community" cannot defeat the laws of economics in any real way--there are x number of programmers stupid enough to donate their time for the benefit of corporations, but that number is probably more limited than thought. Many OS programmers are bankrolled by companies that benefit from software commodification--companies like IBM. It's very, very sad that OSS has such a good reputation among programmers, when it can only hurt them.
- tx 19y ago
  Yeah... I especially "like" this new trend in hiring: best programming jobs now REQUIRE candidates to participate in some open source project, while very few of those companies themselves make any significant contributions to OS community.
- ashu 19y ago
  I think in a lot of cases (me, personally, for example) the motivation for contributing to OSS is just plain fun and education. Sometimes, I also end up improving some software that I personally use. That is the reason why OSS has a good reputation among programmers. The fact that some big companies stand to gain from it is inconsequential to me.
- hollerith 19y ago
  If all software were proprietary, programmers would have less control over their own profession. Most worthwhile programming projects entail modifying existing software rather than only developing new independent software from scratch. Mostly this existing software is very widely used and because of this "popularity", if it were all proprietary, it would almost all be the intellectual property of corporations, which means that a programmer would need the cooperation or permission of executives and sometimes marketers, accountants or even investor or investment analysts to modify it. Since most people capable of making a technical contribution to a programming project do not have the (communications and impression-management) skills or social contacts to obtain this cooperation, in an all-proprietary-software world, programmers would undertake their own initiatives less often than they do now. They would be restricted more often to supporting the initiaviates of executive, marketers and owners of intellectual property -- as employees and contractors. If you have been reading conversations among programmers on the net for 15 years like I have, you will have noticed that the retired or older professional programmers of 10 and 15 years ago had a more fatalistic and passive attitude than programmers have nowadays, and it was a sad thing to witness. Lawyers, marketers, investment analysts and executives mostly do not trust or understand programmers (or engineers, or scientists, or artists) and consequently will try to reduce the influence and autonomy of programmers (which explains parts of intellectual-property law, the harshness of criminal penalties for computer vandalism and computer trespassing and the rush 10 years ago to outsourcing). Even though most programmers have never participated in any programmer-led initiatives, the initiatives have done much to make the day-to-day experience of being a professional programmer more satisfying and more dignified -- by preventing other occupational groups from dictating to programmers as much as they would have done otherwise. For example, much of the internet above the transport layer before corporate executives "discovered" it in 1993 and 1994 was created by the initiative of programmers working more or less with open-source practices. The internet has created working conditions for many professional programmers more pleasant than whatever corporate alternative (think Compuserve, AOL and MSN) would have arisen if the internet had not arrived first.
  - mynameishere 19y ago
    Most worthwhile programming projects entail modifying existing software Getting a job at a corporation, sure enough this is true: Most of the work is in modifying the existing code base. But the number of people forking an open source project for their own purpose is small (google does it) and the number doing so for purposes of resale is zero. you will have noticed that the retired or older professional programmers of 10 and 15 years ago had a more fatalistic and passive attitude This is an odd statement and one that would be hard to support with numbers. I know for a fact that where opportunities existed, they were exploited. A lot of COBOL programmers may have not understood the possibility of creating a software product, but there was no limit to the opportunities for people writing Atari 2600/Apple II/C64 assembler, etc. You were observing the wrong data set perhaps. It strikes me as sad that many small companies are making web knock-offs of products that were genuinely innovative in the bad old days (word processors, publishing software, spreadsheets, media players, etc.) I've said this before: Keep linux on the server, as it does keep the money "in the family"--between software professionals, more or less. But if Windows goes out of style, it's destroying a huge money flow from other businesses to software. This is mercenary, but that's how life is.