Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Open Sesame!

Redundancy is annoying.  I'm very forgetful, and oftentimes will lose a homework assignment, when I do, it really stinks, because I have to do it all again from scratch.  And being the procrastinator I am and already having a lot of homework, it's very difficult and lame.  I already did it once and learned what I needed to learn, so why should I have to do it again? Open source code exists for this very reason.  It helps programmer in a professional setting and prevents them from wasting time and allows people to share their work with the world.  However, I don't think everything should be open source, because then people would stop making money, and then the market for computers and programs would die (or be really maimed).  This would be caused by the lack of desire to improve and maintain them would disappear.  So we need both.  But what should be open source, and what shouldn't?  That's a very tough question.  Very tough.  A simplistic and cheesy answer suggests that anything not already being commercially advertised.  Or even simple code that just helps write some functions that can be kind of tricky, but I don't really know.  I'm just grateful some people do!  Because it makes my (professional) life easier and prevents me from making the "I love <3 redundancy!" mistake.  So, we need both kinds of code to make the world go round!

4 comments:

  1. Open source doesn't have to mean free. Often it means the code is free, but that doesn't mean it will always work on your computer. I love how Mcafee approached this, charging only for long term support.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like your analogy at the beginning of the paper. I can relate to the misplacing of homework.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like your comment about simple source code that helps us write other code. There are a lot of nice, open source libraries out there that implement the "tricky" stuff for us while we attack the higher level problems. What's even nicer is that if an open source library doesn't quite fit our needs, we can modify it ourselves!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would suggest software EVERYONE develops and EVERYONE uses be open-source. For example, you'd think people would stop letting Microsoft milk their wallets for the next version of Word, which offers little except performance improvements and UI overhauls. It's like charging people for air. Everyone needs it, and everyone uses it (at some point), and it's everywhere. It's rather ridiculous, when Apple offers iWorks for much less, and OpenOffice comes at no cost whatsoever (all of which can edit the same file formats).

    Microsoft is just offering different fragrances every two years. If you're going to pay for an office suite, the least they could offer is free upgrades. And why not make Word open-source? It's been around forever. How many trade secrets can a word processor have?

    ReplyDelete