In contrast - I like the term "legacy software" for the likes of proprietary software.
We're talking about changing mindsets here - not the mindsets of those who read mailing lists like this one, but the PHBs who justify the purchase of proprietary software. This is a good way of letting them know that Windows and the like is "old hat". And the more people (especially their peers) who says this, the more they'll believe it! --Bruce On 08/06/2011 08:34 PM, Lori Nagel wrote: > I actually kind of liked the term legacy software, well, at least at > first. Then I thought about it a bit more and realized that legacy > software could easily be confusingly applied to things like the old > Athena Widget set, and X11 user interface being used currently in the > Wograld project. (I could never get the basics of SDL to work or > figure it out, plus SDL is upgrading to a new broke version from what > I read on the SDL list.) > But if Legacy software was used like this, then I guess my old Athena > Widget set and X11 user interface for Wograld is "New, trendy and up > to date" okay, I'm a hardcore dork and proud of it. > > Conversely, there is unfortunately new proprietary software being > written everyday, including new versions of things like Skype and > Flash. I think it's going to take a while to convince all the > programmers not to write proprietary software anymore, part of it is > being paid to write proprietary software, and the other half is > companies making the decisions that the business model relies > on closing the source up. > > I think what has to change is some of the business models and the ways > people think about making money. I think people are already being > forced to change some business models whether they like it or not. If > proprietary software isn't a viable business model anymore, people > will probably stop making it (with the exception of some crazy > paranoid hobbyist who doesn't want anyone to see his code, but then > who would care about using it anyway if everyone considers proprietary > software a bad thing.) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Joshua Judson Rosen <roz...@geekspace.com> > *To:* Greater New Hampshire <gnhlug-disc...@gnhlug.org> > *Sent:* Friday, August 5, 2011 7:42 PM > *Subject:* Terminology: FOSS vs. `Legacy Software'? > > I originally wrote this as a private e-mail, but I figured I'd send it > along to greater GNHLUG--because I realised that I would actually like > to engage you all...: > > -------------------- > > maddog has written a blog-post proposing that the terms "closed-source" > and "proprietary" be replaced by the term "legacy software": > > > http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/Blogs/Paw-Prints-Writings-of-the-maddog/Do-not-say-Closed-Source-or-Proprietary-Software-instead-say-Legacy-Software > > I've been thinking a lot about this, myself--following mainly from > a couple of recent conversations with friends and family: > one that came out of the `cobbled whole-home audio' thing, and another > that took place upon someone seeing my NanoNote (sayng, `More Linux? > Really, what can Linux do that Windows or Mac OS X can't?'); > and, actually, now I remember that there was another relevant one-- > with the owner of the local pharmacy down on Main St., about > their digital signature-pads; and another with my wife (the nurse) > about software-based medical devices and the modern `medical science' > (or lack thereof) behind them.... > > I agree with the idea that maddog's expressed, but I'm not so sure > about the specific choice of terminology. > > I should, perhaps, apologise for the length of this, up front > (there's a pile of other suggested terms toward the end--actually, > more toward the middle--with context between here and there...). > > I've been thinking about what terms would best help to articulate to > `the typical uncaring luddite', which required me examine the terms > in which *I* actually think about the issues; and I think it's, > basically, mainly along two lines.... > > One way that I think about these issues is, as a maker, something like: > > I have a project to do, and my choices of collaborators are > either a cooperative community, or a hostile corporation > that's going to fight me at every step (and charge me a premium > for it!). Which would you pick? I don't really care for > the `Nerd Fight-Club' thing.... > > I guess that's in the same vein as `my favourite paintings are bought > as blank canvases, et idem for books'.... And maybe it's telling that > I really wanted to remember my friend's question as "What can YOU do > WITH Linux that YOU can't do WITH Windows or Mac OS X?", when I'm > pretty sure that's not how he asked it. > > The second line of thought, which probably makes for more generally- > applicable conversation, could be classed as the decison between > `permanent vs. disposable' systems. Like, with the home-audio thing.... > A friend and colleague remarked that it was `hilarious that I had > cobbled together an audio system far nicer than what some major > players in the home-audio market have been able to do'. My response > to him was (bear with me...): > > The *really* funny part is that I *was* ready to just put a switch/amp > into the basement and run speaker-wire all over the house..., but then > I went looking into ways of doing remote control fo the > switch/amplifier, > and didn't find any open/standard mechanism for that other than > goofy IR stuff (like `relay infrared signals through a wire to a > serial port and write custom code to deal with the lack of standards > in IR signalling'). > > Then I remembered that I knew of a company that made this sort of > stuff-- > because I'd actually worked there a few years back. Of course, > when I was there, they were using a junky, home-grown protocol > (with a single-layer `stack') which was basically unworkable > for anyone outside the company (it was close enough to unworkable > for people *inside* the company...). So, I thought: I wonder > if they're off of their weird-proprietary-junk protocol yet..., > or if anyone else has actually filled the `use open standards' hole'. > > So I looked at their current lineup, and found that it was using > something called `Gridcast'--which made me wonder: > > `Gridcast'? WTF is that? Yet another weird, proprietary thing...? > > I was also reminded that their prices were multiple orders > of magnitude more than I wanted to spend (especially for something > that's not clearly extensible--throw-away stuff is supposed to be > *cheap*...). > > Since it wasn't obvious that there was any open standard for > doing remote control of audio switches, and the "AV" in the > "HomePlug AV" term that I'd seen associated with `Gridcast' > didn't actually seem to have anything to do with Audio or Video > aside from being `a fast-enough link for audio and video'..., > the thought occurred to me: maybe circuit-switching really is > finally dead? > > So, then I went looking at all-digital audio distribution, went > looking > for ready-made products (like `Gridcast', I guess...), and ended up > figuring that it was probably going to be quicker to just hack it up > myself (possibly with some gently-repurposed standards) than to even > figure out what any of the consumer products I saw were even actually > doing..., and then it worked. > > Maybe there's something wrong when you find yourself saying > things like, `I'll do it myself because I don't have time > for the ready-made solutions'. > > Maybe I should be an entrepreneur.... > > > It's illustrative of my more general thought-process, which often > starts with: > > "I'm not even sure what my needs are right now, let alone what > they'll be in the future...." > > ... and resolves as: > > "I'm not going to pay a premium to lock myself into something that > might not meet my needs, and certainly not something that it may > not even be possible to *make* meet my needs." > > Is that how it resolves for everyone? Or do most people think > something more like, `I don't know what my needs are--but surely > the provider of my solution does!'? > > I know I'm too young to be saying this (and I'm probably in entirely > the wrong eneration)..., but I hate throw-away junk. I remember > someone on Slashdot actually had a good quip--oh, here it is > <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1691504&cid=32625306 > <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1691504&cid=32625306>>: > > > People are not engineers: they buy air conditioners, > > refrigerators and cars. Very few people can design, build and > > service them. > > It's not about being an "engineer". It's about taking > responsibility for yourself and not buying into American > anti-intellectualism where it's actually trendy to be helpless and > stupid. > > It's so trendy to be helpless and stupid that you're discouraged > from knowing enough to even recognize a well made device. > > Though, it's not that throw-away items are all bad *per se*-- > it's just..., like I wrote above: if the throw-away actually > costs more than the option that lasts and grows with your needs, > then the economy's all backward and it's a bum deal. > > So, trying to come up with a vocabulary to express that pithily, > here's some free-association type stuff from my notebook > (in two generally-opposing columns): > > free proprietary > high-margin > open-source closed-source > open-ended closed(-?) > limited > restricted > permanent disposable > durable (as in `durable goods'?) throw-away > reusable single-use > extensible limited-use > growable (as in `grows w/ your needs') limited-(?) > expandable > organic manufactured > > repairable (as in `user-'? irreparable > serviceable (as in `user-'?) ?-serviced > > ¿commodity? (either col: unsure connotation) > > renewable constrained > free-market captive-market > free-range cage-raised (cathedral) > peer-reviewed unreviewed > > > "Commodity" is in the middle, surrounded by uncertainty, because > "commodity" can have either a very good connotation (a good investment > due to matching standards and being easily replaced/extended, and > being cost-effective) or a very bad one (cheap crap) depending on > context--and "commodity" can be aptly applied to either FOSS > (for all of the good reasons) or proprietary systems (with all of > the negative connotations), but I'm not sure how stable that is. > > And I'm not sure if it's noticeable, but there's a certain theme > in some parts of the collection above, that leads to "legacy" > not being present as a `standard term of deprecation': one of > the problems with proprietary software (and I've heard this complaint > from at least one developer of proprietary software) is that > the throw-away nature of binary-only software means that it basically > `doesn't work as a legacy'. > > I seem to recall, several years ago, hearing someone say something like: > > "Gosh, I've been maintaining my resume in troff for 20 years-- > what's the likelihood that a given piece of [what we're now > considering calling `legacy'] software will survive 20 years, > let alone long enough to really be `someone's legacy'?" > > (kudos if the person who said it remembers that it was him :)) > > > I guess I have two issues with the word, "legacy", in this context: > one issue is that a person must be somewhat technical to understand > it when it's used in the `legacy system' sense--or to even parse it > as an adjective; consulting my `dict' command, the only adjectival > form of "legacy" I find is in FOLDOC (via the Jargon File): > > legacy system > legacy > legacy code > legacy software > > <jargon> A computer system or {application program} which > continues to be used because of the cost of replacing or > redesigning it and often despite its poor competitiveness and > compatibility with modern equivalents. The implication is > that the system is large, monolithic and difficult to modify. > > If legacy software only runs on antiquated {hardware} the cost > of maintaining this may eventually outweigh the cost of > replacing both the software and hardware unless some form of > {emulation} or {backward compatibility} allows the software to > run on new hardware. > > (1998-08-09) > > > And, yes--that's perfecly (*perfectly*!) in line with maddog's > suggestion :) > > But (and here's my second issue): if it's parsed as a *noun* > (as by a less-technical person) then "legacy" stands a fair chance > of being interpreted as meaning something *good*.... :( > > Take, for example, this quip by Markus Fix (which I found > on lispmeister.com, back when it still existed--it's since > been living in my private `fortune' file): > > "I bought the Meisterstueck No 149 at age 20, and it served me well > during all my travels throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, America > and the Pacific Islands. It's a remarkable and beautiful piece > of engineering. During the same timespan I worked through > more than 30 keyboards. People keep asking me: "Why do you keep > a journal in longhand using a fountain pen, isn't that a bit > archaic?" > > "People have been asking me the same kind of questions about > Lisp. The answer is: > > "You can't leave a legacy using ephemeral technology." > > > It seems like `legacy software is no way to leave a legacy' has > enough hackish irony in it to be dangerous.... > > > -- > "Don't be afraid to ask (?f.((?x.xx) (?r.f(rr))))." > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
_______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/