Oops, you're right. My bad. I was thinking of Wolfenstein. I'm not your biggest game player. But I do think Quake also was offered as shareware.
The point was that I don't think they started out as commercial products.They started out being personal use motivated. I just think that a lot of software starts out that way. Some programmer says I need something to do this job and then after he writes it someone else sees it and wants it. At that point he makes a decision to give it away or offer it for sale.Obviously he must be making money while he is writing the program.That maybe "stolen time" from other projects or it may be "stolen time" from his own free time. In either option the funding for the development is transferred from another source. Either him or who he works for. If it winds up as a philanthropic gesture (open source) and from his employer most employers condone that because it does have a certain value to them ( advertisement, industry recognition, employee knowledge expansion, etc). Obviously there are a lot of other directions software development can take but I was focusing on open source. Will Lowe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 12:45 AM Subject: RE: [brlug-general] free, closed and practical software. > Quake or Wolfenstein? > > Jim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Lowe > > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:22 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [brlug-general] free, closed and practical software. > > > > > > 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_brlu> g.net > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > General mailing list > > [email protected] http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >
