--- Tim Fournet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ransom is good. It allows the potential users of the > software to not > have to cooperate. > > I read somewhere that the majority of software, at > least 80% IIRC, is > written for in-house use. A lot of this is software > that could be shared > in terms of both use and development, saving money > for everyone who > wants to use it, and improving the quality. If more > people would open > source their software and share the changes they > make to it, a lot of > work would not have to be repeated. All software in > general could be at > a higher level by now if this had been going on more > already.. > > -Tim >
I think Dustin is looking for data for a new write-up. None-the-less he is asking the question that all of the industry is asking. "Where do we go from here, and how do we get there?" The monolithic closed software model has flaws. The open source model has flaws. Here is a bit of news. There is no true form of either model. Software was and will be sort of a stepchild. At the bottom line software is a way of handing hardware a series of on or off commands. This is not news to most of us. It is mind-numbing to to most people. In five years software will be a way of telling hardware yes, no, maybe, and guess, and/or ask me again. Keep that in mind. Consumers want devices to make life easier. End of conversation. That is technology's job at the end of the day. Now, I am not trying to be elitist or non-PC, but I want to point out a couple of facts. There is an average level of intellignce. Half of all people fall below that mark. Software is sold to the medium. This comprises a few ranges above and below the mark Side note: I want to appoligize for typos and spelling errors, but I have a cat and three inside dogs that think I should be playing with them while working on the "up front" box. So, the Border Collie is lifting my arm to pet her while the Terriers and the cat take turns jumping into my lap. It really helps me with maintaining my concentration at work. It does not help my typing at home. Sorry. OK, we have established that in the real world different people have different levels of intelligence, and therefor different needs. We aslo know that software needs to continually evolve. We also know that there are multiple models of producing software. Where does that lead us? In my research (and I have done a good deal of it looking for free software to accomplish IT tasks, and robotic programming tasks), I have found a really not surprising theme. The more peole that need a piece of software, the more likly it is to be cheap or free. For instance, providing a currency converter is considered a simple service for most travel agencies. Consider for minute the labor that goes in to keeping that accurate. The programming is simple, but someone must enter the current exchange rates. They paid for the program. They pay for the updating. This cost is paid for by their customers. I can use it at will for free, but I do not pay for it. It isn't free, I am just passing my usage costs on to to their customers until, or unless I become a customer. They're betting I will become a customer because of their services. They may be right, it has happened before. A currency converter is really common. What if the software was for a heat exchanger or a catalytic converter at a chemical plant? Well, is it is damned unlikely I would want the world to know my specifications if I were Exxon-Moblie! Even if I did make it Open Source, without my particular configuration, the software would be useless. The depth and breadth of the consumer group define the useability of software. Here we hit the weak point of closed source software. If it is widely used, and deeply necessary to the basic fundamentals of the BASIC company functions, it is ubiquitous, and therefore cheap. This is the Microsoft weakness. They are selling a commodity as a special product. They are really dead if they persist. An operating system is an old, ubiqutous, and simple. OK, an OS is not simple, but it is everywhere. Why should anyone pay for Win98, XP, or anything else? The interface is the deal. In the next five years the Operating Systewm will become useless. The interace id then the key. Not Linux, not Microsoft, just the abillity to function. What a concept??!!! What will be the tie that binds us? Java? Dot Net, Bluetooth, or, more likley, something we have not expected --- That is the way to bet! ===== Warmest Regards, Doug Riddle http://www.dougriddle.com http://fossile-project.sourceforge.net/ http://www.libranet.com -- "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' Liberty Teeth." - George Washington -- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
