Vlákno názorů k článku Víra v boha open source od honza - ...On the side of budget, I have to...
-
honza (neregistrovaný)...On the side of budget, I have to say that the open source marketplace is I think the single greatest threat to forward advance in computer science....
Doporucuji vsem si precist nazory tohoto programatora (viz link nize), co si mysli o moznosti produktivne programovat a o nebezpeci hrozici z hnuti oss. Obvzlast mladi kolegove by si to meli precist snad i vicekrat...
http://www.approximity.com/produktiver_programmieren/pitman_en.html -
A close second in this category is programmer inability to understand what they themselves are (or should be) capable of doing. When I was learning to program, everyone was a generalist and people were really taught programming from first principles as a problem solving activity. Today, more people can learn programming easier, but what is meant by programming is not what used to be meant. People now think of the ability to make Visual Basic or Javascript produce a UI as "programming", yet many people who can do these things can't program much of anything else... especially if there is not a pre-packaged interface to doing such things.
to je argument pro existenci cechu. cechy byly take skupiny zamerene na vysokou kvalitu prace. nastup manufakturni vyroby pak tuto kvalitu dramaticky snizil, ovsem snizil dramaticky i naklady a z duvodu existence konkurence byl nucen snizit i cenu, cimz se zvysila dostupnost vyrobku pro mnohem vetsi mnozstvi poptavajicich nez bylo mozne za existence cechu. co pan pitman nechape je, ze otazka nestoji dostat to nejlepsi, otazka stoji dostat to nejlepsi za co nejnizzsi naklad, tedy ne maximalizovat vynos, ale maximalizovat vynos-naklad. jako napriklad dieselova lokomotiva je rozhodne vykonnejsi(a tedy vynosnejsi) nez parni, ale pokud bude naklad na provoz dieselove lokomotivy mnohem vetsi nez naklad na provoz parni, tedy pokud (vynos_d - naklad_d ) < (vynos_p - naklad_p), pak je samozrejme vyhodnejsi pouzivat parni lokomotivu i za predpokladu, ze existuje vykonnejsi varianta.
On the side of budget, I have to say that the open source marketplace is I think the single greatest threat to forward advance in computer science. By giving technology away, programmers drive down the price of things. A consequence of this is that it's hard to command a decent price for programming products, and that means fewer dollars to pay for jobs for programmers, if indeed programming can be done as a job at all. Free market business will squeeze every dollar out of something that it can, and if it finds that people will program for free, it will make sure that no one ever gets paid for programming.
stejny problem jako u cechu. proste konkurence je konkurence. konkurence tu neni, aby nekomu alokovala "primerene" penize, protoze neni objektivni mira hodnoty ruznych praci. pokud je nekdo ochoten pracovat za mene, muzeme mu nadavat, ze kvuli tomu musim pracovat i ja za mene, ale to je asi tak vse. z podobne konkurence benefitujeme ve vsech smerech naseho zivota, jidlo, saty, dovolena, hardware, knihy. kazdy by chtel, aby konkurence dopadla na vsechny ostatni krome nej. rikaji si to zemedelci, hornici, tavici i poskytovatele internetoveho pripojeni. ale takovy je proste system. prave schopnost cloveka prizpusobit se konkurenci a hledat zpusob jak poskytovat lepsi a levnejsi sluzby je to, co generuje "zaopatrenost" a "blahobyt"
Further, I think it's mostly younger and more vulnerable programmers who are idealists who subscribe to the open source rhetoric, while they are in school and at the peak of their game, thinking that earning a few extra dollars is immoral. Later in life, when one may want some liesure time for family, or one may get ill, or one may want to contribute the fruits of one's labor to charity, the true price of having given away so much of value for free early in one's life is most likely to be felt, when one can't really take it back. It seems there is an endless supply of youth, and so the free software movement continues, for now, to plod along. As it does, though, I think it slowly and quietly strangles the lifeblood of dollars from a community that could be using extra dollars to invest in its future. Instead, since its own dogma suggests that programmers be paid like peasants, compensated for a day's work but not for any value beyond that, there is no slack to plan for future growth, for experimentation, nor even for human error, for medical sickness, nor any other kind of non-task-oriented thing. Programmers are seen as replaceable cogs, and are undervalued because management values only what it pays dearly for, and it is not forced to pay dearly for this. This is not to say I've never given away a free program in my life. Just that I don't believe the doing of such a deed should be a way of life.
chapu co se snazi rict, ale podle meho schvalne obchazi zasadni pointu proc existuje opensource. software neni omezen fyzickou podstatou, jeden program muze byt pouzivan kymkoliv bez toho, aby to omezovalo pouzivani tohoto programu nekym jinym. naklad(vyvoj), ktery nese urcity jednotlivec je pak vynosem obrovske potencialni skupiny uzivatelu. bylo jen otazkou casu, kdy se objevi nekdo, koho napadne vyvijet software tak, ze naklad na vyvoj prenese na mnohem vetsi skupinu s tim, ze v licencni podmince bude, ze kazde distribuovane vylepseni postavene na puvodnim programu bude muset byt i ve forme zdrojoveho kodu k dispozici kazdemu. znamena to, ze originalni tvurce sice ztrati vynos v podobe toho, co by mohl obdrzet jako odmenu za praci(napriklad penize), ovsem na druhou stranu rapidne snizi naklady na vyvoj(vyvoj, testovani, feedback). nerikam ze je to jediny spravny model vyvoje software, ale neni to zadny divny zpusob vyvoje. je to proste reakce na neomezenost software. ne kazdy software je nutne prodejny, kolikrat clovek nevyviji(i ve firme) kvuli prodeji, ale kvuli potrebe. v takovem pripade pak opensource je naprosto idealni z ekonomickeho hlediska. vyrobci software se proste musi adaptovat na novou konkurenci. muzou brecet, kricet jak je to komunismus ci jinak se snazit dovest pozornost od podstaty opensource. je to proste zpusob vyvoje software, stejne jako je model proprietarniho software. cim drive prestanou brecet a hrozit blizici se apokalypsou a zacnou se konecne prizpusobovat, tim drive toho budou moci vyuzit pro vlastni prospech. nikomu se nelibi konkurence, jen se podivejte na zemedelce, mobilni telefony. proste takovy je zivot. hledame ekonomictejsi cesty jak dosahnout vysledku. neznamena to ze mame to nejlepsi,ale snazime se o ten nejlepsi pomer vynosu-nakladu. tim nerikam ze opensource nemuze byt tak kvalitni jako konkurencni proprietarni software ani ze proprietarni software nemuze byt tak dobry jako opensource. je to otazka vyberu poskytujicich i poptavajicich. vsichni zijeme z tvrde konkurence v ostatnich odvetvich, proto maji i ostatni odvetvi pravo zit z tvrde konkurence v tom nasem.
ČLÁNKY DO MAILU