tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970055329001593038.post4640063964112562183..comments2024-03-26T03:40:08.295-07:00Comments on I Still Know What You Learned Last Summer: Why I can't afford proprietary softwarePhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12760478278391942483noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970055329001593038.post-53040785897744505892009-10-15T00:33:04.138-07:002009-10-15T00:33:04.138-07:00@Anonymous: absolutely. I use Octave in place of M...@Anonymous: absolutely. I use Octave in place of Matlab whenever possible. In this particular case I had to work with some already existing modules that had been written in Matlab.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12760478278391942483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970055329001593038.post-81530720632240117362009-10-14T23:50:38.802-07:002009-10-14T23:50:38.802-07:00you could be using octave, or other software inste...you could be using octave, or other software instead of matlabAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970055329001593038.post-52193771182855972722009-07-03T21:30:26.645-07:002009-07-03T21:30:26.645-07:00Tsukemonoki:
That's an important question, on...Tsukemonoki:<br /><br />That's an important question, one that people have suggested various answers for.<br /><br />The FSF likes to say that free software is a matter of liberty and not of price. Fortunately, I don't think there is an inherent contradiction between making software that doesn't restrict users and actually paying your engineers. I really only object to one particular business model, that of crippling software so one can restrict its usage. There are a few alternative arrangements that are common today, all of which are better than the usual model in terms of aligning the interests of developers and users:<br /><br />* Google, for example, employs engineers to work on free software projects like the Linux kernel, GCC, and many others. Google does this because it gets to direct improvements in those products that make its own services better (faster, more efficient, etc.). For a similar reason, many consumer electronics companies also pay people to work on various free software projects.<br /><br />* The desktop GNU+Linux companies (Red Hat, Novell, Canonical) employ engineers to work on various infrastructure and desktop projects (kernel, X, GNOME, apps). In turn, they make money by selling support contracts for these products.<br /><br />* Some projects have a bounty system, essentially allowing users to directly buy particular features. This also helps developers prioritize their time.<br /><br />* Developers on many projects consult for companies and lend their expertise to help with extending a product, making a deployment, etc.<br /><br />* Finally, the vast majority of programmers (or so I've heard) are actually employed writing software that is used internally within a company and never sold. Users' freedom is guaranteed because in this model developers are directly accountable to their users.<br /><br />One cool thing about free software is that there can actually be a competitive market for engineers (if you need something fixed in Microsoft Office, pronto, there's only one number you can call...). So while free software is not as lucrative, probably, there is the potential for a much larger and much more vibrant ecosystem for engineers than with proprietary software.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12760478278391942483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970055329001593038.post-14093942591876562482009-07-02T22:16:53.145-07:002009-07-02T22:16:53.145-07:00Interesting post. My only question is how are you ...Interesting post. My only question is how are you supposed to compensate the engineers who design the product. And should the company who built the product, be able to get something in return for the energy they put into it? I haven't read anything that the FSF might have written about this. <br /><br />Thanks for your post!Eugenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03371107097426938651noreply@blogger.com