Dustin, It's interesting that you mention Quake. As I understand it Quake started out as a game written by the Carmack brothers because they liked it. In other words for their own and their friends use. Others liked it so they offered it as shareware for a while before it exploded and they started Id software to sell it. But I don't think that their original focus in writing it was to make money. At some point that obviously became a thought.
I think that a lot of software starts out as a labor of love then suddenly they or someone else says "hey we could sell this!" Also obviously just as many others go the philanthropic route. Will Lowe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dustin Puryear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [brlug-general] free, closed and practical software. > At 01:46 PM 7/9/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >OK, now I'm warmed up to the subject. > > > >Free software developers support themselves. They might do this by > >working directly for a company that wants an application, they might need > >the software to help with unrelated tasks or they might cut grass and > >develop for fun. People who are not in a stable financial situation can > >not commit to projects of any sort. The vast quantities of free software > >available shows that many people are being supported one way or > >another. None of us is going to join the NBA but some of us play > >basketball and public parks have courts anyway. > > This is all well and good, but it doesn't address my question. :) > > >Free software does a better job of making software. Dustin divided > >software into two groups, one that everyone wants and another that's > >specific to a single company or individual. GDB is an example of a > >program that everyone can use. It has > > This is incorrect. My question pertains to software that is not available > but has a market. For example, let's assume that no game of Quake's caliber > had been created yet. Next, Joe User wants to play the game. Here are his > options: > > 1. He can develop the game himself. > 2. He can wait for someone else to do it. > 3. He can pay a developer to do it. > > If he waits on someone else to do it then he is waiting on one of two groups: > > 1. Open source developers that feel like doing it. > 2. Commercial developers that will make money from doing it. > > Of the two, capitalism tells us that the commercial developer is more > likely to jump on the ball. Capitalism has this great way of finding > solutions for a market need. It's simple history, and I have a lot of > respect for it. Of course, I like the first option of the open source > developer doing it, but what if nobody feels like doing it? Or more likely, > what if nobody that *has the skills* feels like doing it? > > If this is the case then let's assume that Joe User, who prefers open > source, pays an open source developer for this. Joe User then bears the > total cost even though the open source developer might know there is a > market for the software. The developer has to pay rent, and he can't resell > his program to spread out the cost. > > Is there a solution to this dilemma? > > >more than sixty developers and the result is an excellent piece of > >software. Is there any commercial company that can devote those kinds or > >resources to a debugger? In the other case, of specific application, > >commercial software falls down again. > > Are you suggesting that there isn't an existing commercial market for > debuggers? > > > --- > Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Puryear Information Technology, LLC <http://www.puryear-it.com> > Providing expertise in the management, integration, and > security of Windows and UNIX systems, networks, and applications. > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
