[noize]

This message aims to guide you, misleaded programmer, in the right way by letting you know about what open-source software offers over proprietary software and why you should release source codes.

I myself release only open-source software. Why would you hide your source?

All knowledge should be free. People's got the rights to learn. Knowledge is power. Hiding sources is useless, someone will still be able to get them. Someone will always be able to crack your protected software.

If you want the credits, by releasing your code as first you'll have all the credits. If you don't want people to be able to use and view your code, you're doing it wrong. People should be able to re-use and learn from what you do if you do release it. If you're able to give knowledge, you're able to create something.

Just ask for the credits, not the rights.

I find much free software (and I don't actually mean free software (which is open-source software), I just literally mean freeware) not disclosing source code. Security through obscurity is hardly a substitutive to the fact that there are many white-hat hackers and developers looking towards finding vulnerabilities in your code to fix/report them to you. In any case, security would still not be worth the missed disclosure.

Freeware developers don't make any profit out of their software, but from donations. In the case, open-source programs will most likely set users more disposed to donate, as you released the source code as well (that's something more you offer, and you're giving everything (which is somewhen very useful to some coders) to the user).

While there can be a reason to release shareware and payware (you lack the money - even though you might make a profit out of offering (auditing/programming/securing/...) services instead) - as long as you don't take advantage of it (i.e. what Microsoft, Apple do) - there is just no reason for freeware instead of free software.

Do the right thing, do it open-source.

This is a plea to all proprietary software, pro-copyright and anti-piracy programmers and non. Free is good, open-source is better.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Open Source/Freeware doesnt pay bills.

If someone comes to me and asks me to build them a piece of software... do you think ill offer to do it for free? Chances are if this person needs an application for a specific task, someone else could use the same application. So according to your logic why not do it for free and release it publicly?

Cause thats not the way the world works. Sure people release things for free. Maybe they have extra time on their hands, or they are tenured at a university, grad projects, etc. But you dont go work for a software development company and work for free, and hope you get enough donations to make a living wage. Thats absurd.

[unnamed]

>Steals source code
>Modifies Graphics/etc
>Acts like he coded it on his own

Well, I'm sorry but I won't take.
I'm not a programmer yet but I guess I would open-source only in small trusted groups.

[chmod]

I'm a huge fan of open source if anyone doubts the true power of it take a look at linux. Without being open source the project would be nowhere near as secure and flexible as it is today.

Usually I will refuse to view an ad or take a survey to get anything, but I would with open source. The developer has worked hard on his/her project and releases it in its entirety to you, the end user to do with as you see fit. Why would you not support that?

There's also the added benefit of being able to modify that piece of software to do what you need it to do, and furthermore release that modified code to the public freely without fear of consequences

[unnamed]

I'm a huge fan of open source if anyone doubts the true power of it take a look at linux. Without being open source the project would be nowhere near as secure and flexible as it is today.

Usually I will refuse to view an ad or take a survey to get anything, but I would with open source. The developer has worked hard on his/her project and releases it in its entirety to you, the end user to do with as you see fit. Why would you not support that?

There's also the added benefit of being able to modify that piece of software to do what you need it to do, and furthermore release that modified code to the public freely without fear of consequences

But Linux already had a community.
As an individual you could have your work stolen and never get any credit for it.

[chmod]

It started as one man's hobby and grew from there if you link your source released earlier than the guy who stole it I think most people would in fact give you the credit you deserve

[noize]

Open Source/Freeware doesnt pay bills.

If someone comes to me and asks me to build them a piece of software... do you think ill offer to do it for free? Chances are if this person needs an application for a specific task, someone else could use the same application. So according to your logic why not do it for free and release it publicly?

Cause thats not the way the world works. Sure people release things for free. Maybe they have extra time on their hands, or they are tenured at a university, grad projects, etc. But you dont go work for a software development company and work for free, and hope you get enough donations to make a living wage. Thats absurd.

If you read my post again, you'll find that I mentioned the fact that I can understand shareware/payware instead of free software, while I do not understand freeware instead of free software.

If I got hired to make an application for any company and was in lack of other job opportunities, I might of course sell them the program and then not release it open-source. The fact is that a specific program like one that a company would be most likely to require would not be like any of the projects I usually start on my own and then release open-source.

>Steals source code
>Modifies Graphics/etc
>Acts like he coded it on his own

Well, I'm sorry but I won't take.
I'm not a programmer yet but I guess I would open-source only in small trusted groups.

I'm sorry to say so. You're still not a programmer, and you might change your mind - I actually hope so, but your arguments (differently from the ones provided by Geoff) are more of arguments from a power-intripped proprietary supporter just like Bill Gates (no one's gonna touch your fucking Windows, it would be yet far better now if it was open-source; how much more money does it need? I don't think he's dead hungry).

[unnamed]

Open Source/Freeware doesnt pay bills.

If someone comes to me and asks me to build them a piece of software... do you think ill offer to do it for free? Chances are if this person needs an application for a specific task, someone else could use the same application. So according to your logic why not do it for free and release it publicly?

Cause thats not the way the world works. Sure people release things for free. Maybe they have extra time on their hands, or they are tenured at a university, grad projects, etc. But you dont go work for a software development company and work for free, and hope you get enough donations to make a living wage. Thats absurd.

If you read my post again, you'll find that I mentioned the fact that I can understand shareware/payware instead of free software, while I do not understand freeware instead of free software.

If I got hired to make an application for any company and was in lack of other job opportunities, I might of course sell them the program and then not release it open-source. The fact is that a specific program like one that a company would be most likely to require would not be like any of the projects I usually start on my own and then release open-source.

>Steals source code
>Modifies Graphics/etc
>Acts like he coded it on his own

Well, I'm sorry but I won't take.
I'm not a programmer yet but I guess I would open-source only in small trusted groups.

I'm sorry to say so. You're still not a programmer, and you might change your mind - I actually hope so, but your arguments (differently from the ones provided by Geoff) are more of arguments from a power-intripped proprietary supporter just like Bill Gates (no one's gonna touch your fucking Windows, it would be yet far better now if it was open-source; how much more money does it need? I don't think he's dead hungry).

I actually was thinking about it today since I started learning C++ and I'm actually really enjoying it.

And yea you're right, I plan want to have many open-source programs in the future.

Of course I would keep some "income" programs but mainly open-source.

[noize]

Open Source/Freeware doesnt pay bills.

If someone comes to me and asks me to build them a piece of software... do you think ill offer to do it for free? Chances are if this person needs an application for a specific task, someone else could use the same application. So according to your logic why not do it for free and release it publicly?

Cause thats not the way the world works. Sure people release things for free. Maybe they have extra time on their hands, or they are tenured at a university, grad projects, etc. But you dont go work for a software development company and work for free, and hope you get enough donations to make a living wage. Thats absurd.

If you read my post again, you'll find that I mentioned the fact that I can understand shareware/payware instead of free software, while I do not understand freeware instead of free software.

If I got hired to make an application for any company and was in lack of other job opportunities, I might of course sell them the program and then not release it open-source. The fact is that a specific program like one that a company would be most likely to require would not be like any of the projects I usually start on my own and then release open-source.

>Steals source code
>Modifies Graphics/etc
>Acts like he coded it on his own

Well, I'm sorry but I won't take.
I'm not a programmer yet but I guess I would open-source only in small trusted groups.

I'm sorry to say so. You're still not a programmer, and you might change your mind - I actually hope so, but your arguments (differently from the ones provided by Geoff) are more of arguments from a power-intripped proprietary supporter just like Bill Gates (no one's gonna touch your fucking Windows, it would be yet far better now if it was open-source; how much more money does it need? I don't think he's dead hungry).

I actually was thinking about it today since I started learning C++ and I'm actually really enjoying it.

And yea you're right, I plan want to have many open-source programs in the future.

Of course I would keep some "income" programs but mainly open-source.

Well, this looks like a pretty fast ideal redirection as it looks really different from what you stated before, but I'm glad to hear so.

Actually, I didn't grow up in an open-source world, I used Windows since I was a little child and when I first started programming it looked like natural for me to release closed-source software. Indeed, it wasn't a matter of "I don't want no leechers" or "I want the rights" or whatever, it was something natural. Chmod might remember it. As I released my first program (lol, it's embarassing to call it a program), I didn't release the source (even though it was easily recoverable) with it; but I did just as Chmod and Deque argued about the trustworthiness of the program (with reason - a new member's release), I didn't think twice. I understood that it should have been natural for me to release the source code instead, not vice versa.

So, just as somebody did somehow introduce me to the open-source world (which is what the hackers' world is based upon as well - just another note for kids supporting proprietary software that I forgot to mention in the OP), I thought that this thread might help the misleaded wishing to take another road from the one they followed so far (regarding the informatics matter, i.e. the average user's road) to make the right choice, which might be not so obvious in such a mass-media and conformist world.

[unnamed]

Open Source/Freeware doesnt pay bills.

If someone comes to me and asks me to build them a piece of software... do you think ill offer to do it for free? Chances are if this person needs an application for a specific task, someone else could use the same application. So according to your logic why not do it for free and release it publicly?

Cause thats not the way the world works. Sure people release things for free. Maybe they have extra time on their hands, or they are tenured at a university, grad projects, etc. But you dont go work for a software development company and work for free, and hope you get enough donations to make a living wage. Thats absurd.

If you read my post again, you'll find that I mentioned the fact that I can understand shareware/payware instead of free software, while I do not understand freeware instead of free software.

If I got hired to make an application for any company and was in lack of other job opportunities, I might of course sell them the program and then not release it open-source. The fact is that a specific program like one that a company would be most likely to require would not be like any of the projects I usually start on my own and then release open-source.

>Steals source code
>Modifies Graphics/etc
>Acts like he coded it on his own

Well, I'm sorry but I won't take.
I'm not a programmer yet but I guess I would open-source only in small trusted groups.

I'm sorry to say so. You're still not a programmer, and you might change your mind - I actually hope so, but your arguments (differently from the ones provided by Geoff) are more of arguments from a power-intripped proprietary supporter just like Bill Gates (no one's gonna touch your fucking Windows, it would be yet far better now if it was open-source; how much more money does it need? I don't think he's dead hungry).

I actually was thinking about it today since I started learning C++ and I'm actually really enjoying it.

And yea you're right, I plan want to have many open-source programs in the future.

Of course I would keep some "income" programs but mainly open-source.

Well, this looks like a pretty fast ideal redirection as it looks really different from what you stated before, but I'm glad to hear so.

Actually, I didn't grow up in an open-source world, I used Windows since I was a little child and when I first started programming it looked like natural for me to release closed-source software. Indeed, it wasn't a matter of "I don't want no leechers" or "I want the rights" or whatever, it was something natural. Chmod might remember it. As I released my first program (lol, it's embarassing to call it a program), I didn't release the source (even though it was easily recoverable) with it; but I did just as Chmod and Deque argued about the trustworthiness of the program (with reason - a new member's release), I didn't think twice. I understood that it should have been natural for me to release the source code instead, not vice versa.

So, just as somebody did somehow introduce me to the open-source world (which is what the hackers' world is based upon as well - just another note for kids supporting proprietary software that I forgot to mention in the OP), I thought that this thread might help the misleaded wishing to take another road from the one they followed so far (regarding the informatics matter, i.e. the average user's road) to make the right choice, which might be not so obvious in such a mass-media and conformist world.

I actually realised that it just makes both ends better.
Both the programmer and the user that gets the code.


Progressing, in general, is faster when more people offer open-source.