How Will Video Games Be Produced and Distributed in Socialism and Communism?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Not that this is an earth-shatteringly important matter, but playing video games has been a hobby of mine since I was very young. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on how the production and distribution of video games in socialism and later communism would differ from the whole development, publishing, and distributing processes under capitalism?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Under Communism I like to think that all software, including video games, will be developed and produced in the same manner that a lot of open source software is today, by the communities who use them. Development houses could not exist and operate in the same manner that they do right now, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who are passionate and knowledgeable about that kind of thing that they would be willing to do it for the benefit of others.

[red cat]

Socialism: You have your quarterly quota of space. You go to the local computer-center to load whatever you can in that. There is also a monthly quota on how much time you can spend in downloading.

Communism: As soon as the game is made, it reaches your commune server and you can download it from there to your PC.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Not that this is an earth-shatteringly important matter, but playing video games has been a hobby of mine since I was very young. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on how the production and distribution of video games in socialism and later communism would differ from the whole development, publishing, and distributing processes under capitalism?

To put it quite simply, it would be much better.

The main problems when it comes to video game production in today's industry are market deadlines, lack of funding, and lack of personnel. If we could move beyond private companies separately making different video games, as well as competing consoles, all the productive forces for video games could be united in a planned system of production. It would be incredibly beneficial because the more people you have working on a game, the less time it's going to take; it takes years with companies consisting of approx. a thousand members to make a next-gen game. This would also get rid of the excessive costs of computers, software, labor, advertisement, etc that simply drain money from the actual production of the game.

Besides the factors of production, distribution would probably be along the lines of open source sharing (this method has already proven itself in today's capitalist society).

Unfortunately we've haven't had a chance to see this work in practice yet.

[eyedrop]

Socialism: You have your quarterly quota of space. You go to the local computer-center to load whatever you can in that. There is also a monthly quota on how much time you can spend in downloading.
That is actually a step back from where we are now, with essentially all games (except subscription and online) free and unlimited DL'ing. How do you think they will be able to restrict downloading when they aren't now? And why should they for that matter do that with freely distributable goods. It's not like games can ever be a scarce resource.


As for the OP: Set aside resources for groups wanting to develop games and let them do it. Which groups who get's the funding can be decided in a myriad of different ways.

[Durruti's Ghost]

How Will Video Games Be Produced and Distributed in Socialism and Communism?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[mannetje]

Games never die!!! also not under communism. :cool:

[Ovi]

Socialism: You have your quarterly quota of space. You go to the local computer-center to load whatever you can in that. There is also a monthly quota on how much time you can spend in downloading.

Communism: As soon as the game is made, it reaches your commune server and you can download it from there to your PC.
That's stupid. Nobody is imposing a quota on how much time I can spend in downloading now and you think a liberated society should?

Programming will be a public service: it benefits everyone without being forced to pay for every second you use the damn thing, just like you don't pay for walking on the side walk. An anarchist way of programming already exists: free software; There is a free (free as in freedom and in price) operating system (GNU/Linux) which I use almost exclusively, there are free games, such as OpenArena which is a replacement for Quake 3 and many more, all of them being made by volunteers that like what they do but unfortunately can't work as much as they'd want on these projects because of the lack of funds. But that won't be a problem in communism.

[Lymos]

Under communism, all games will slow to a crawl and you'll get a taste of what gaming is like on Linux.

Under socialism, it becomes more like youtube for gaming. You get lots of little independent developers and one big project (like say a MMO) but very little competition to fast start the progress of technology.

[JJM 777]

Games are an interesting question, but I must confess that I have never thought about this topic for a second.

I have thought about computers a lot, but all my thinking has focused on the first and biggest issue: creating an excellent and free operating system, to replace Windows. Linux is so damn buggy and difficult to use, and equally full of security loopholes [purely accidental, or planted by American intelligence agencies?] as Windows.

From the viewpoint of national security and defense, I wouldn't connect a government Windows computer to the Internet for one second.

[red cat]

That's stupid. Nobody is imposing a quota on how much time I can spend in downloading now and you think a liberated society should?



It will be different initially when ALL the people have access to computers.

[Muzk]

Why does everyone seem to know about this useless stuff?!

CLASS STRUGGLE IS NOT A GAME, SO ISN'T YOUR LIFE.

it's VERY unlikely that in OUR life time communism will be achieved on international basis

You're blinded by those 'games', even if you know this you STILL like them because you enjoy them so much. You are like rich people, they like their golden bathroom too, and won't share/remove it because it's against society.

... harsh critic! By the way I'm a hypocrite:D

Yet another way to spend your free time. To spend your earned money on. Your wage. Your life. We could see video games as capitalist bribe.
Feeding people > Video games for some kids :/

[Ovi]

Yes, we all know games suck the life out of us, but that wasn't the subject of this thread.

Under communism, all games will slow to a crawl and you'll get a taste of what gaming is like on Linux.

Under socialism, it becomes more like youtube for gaming. You get lots of little independent developers and one big project (like say a MMO) but very little competition to fast start the progress of technology.
Let me guess you tried to use 'Linux' and you couldn't get it to work. :D Everyone like that turns into a troll.


I have thought about computers a lot, but all my thinking has focused on the first and biggest issue: creating an excellent and free operating system, to replace Windows. Linux is so damn buggy and difficult to use, and equally full of security loopholes [purely accidental, or planted by American intelligence agencies?] as Windows.

I would say this is just a misinformed opinion. Ubuntu ain't more difficult to use than Windows, my Debian box which I use for about 4 years never crashed and any security loophole is fixed in a matter of hours or days, not months or more. The only reason most still use windows doesn't have anything to do with the intricacies of the OS, but with the applications that it can run. Obviously not to many would develop programs if they couldn't force their users to pay for it, so from this point of view no free/libre OS will ever be used by most people in a non-free/capitalist society.

[JJM 777]

any security loophole is fixed in a matter of hours or days, not months or more.
Yes, any security hole which is detected by an institution that cares to publicly report it, instead of privately taking advantage of it.

Some good questions:
- Are the security holes always accidental, or sometimes planned?
- Do the national intelligence agencies routinely search for security holes (in the same way as those do who find and publicly report them), for their own purposes, without ever reporting them to the public?
- If CIA needs a specific security hole or other control function to the Windows computer of user X in country Z, would it be possible in special circumstances for CIA to blackmail Microsoft into designing (or have their Microsoft-infiltrated agents secretly design) a suitable security hole, to be delivered to the target computers with Windows updates?

[willdw79]

No more copyrights

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts! So let me see if I'm getting this all right:

In socialism, you have independent development companies that devise ideas for video games. Once they come up with one, they come to the central publisher (the government) and basically say 'We want to make this game' and present their idea. If approved, they are then awarded a subsidy to make said game. Without the constraints of everything having to be done for a profit, the game-making process would tend to occur much faster and more efficiently. The finished product is then loaded to community servers that, in turn, make it freely (or at least inexpensively) available to the general public sort of like this (http://www.virtualnes.com/) or perhaps for individual download. From there, the game's content can be freely modified by the individual and any resultingly altered version can be posted back to the server for the general public to enjoy.

And in communism, of course, you have no need of subsidies or publishers because you have no commodity production and because there is sufficient material abundance to accommodate all offerings.

Am I basically grasping this or am I way off?

[Bright Banana Beard]

And there will be one game console and one handheld game console instead of picking a fight over other. And they both come with open source.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yeah I think it is pretty unfair that people who are interested in video games should have to buy so many different systems. One universal system for all games would be the best option, it would save development and production costs too.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Thanks so much for the help everyone! I feel like I have a much better grasp of this subject as a result. :cool:

[The Idler]

For the purposes of this topic and assuming for one moment the Soviet Union was actually socialist or communist, I find it fascinating how computing developed there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computing_in_the_Soviet_Union).

Vector-06C anyone (ZX Spectrum clone).

[Qayin]

Id say OSS would turn into the major format.




Under socialism, it becomes more like youtube for gaming. You get lots of little independent developers and one big project (like say a MMO) but very little competition to fast start the progress of technology.

Rofl, a derp derp that couldnt install linux. Linux kernel is a vastly superior system to microshit windows, and if private property was abolished Linux would become a common OS. Therefore games would be developed in favor of linux, if not theres always WINE(Wine is not an emulator) to run windows games.

[Jethro Tull]

It will be different initially when ALL the people have access to computers.

how will that happen?

[Qayin]

how will that happen?

Theirs so many computers right now sitting in warehouses and such everybody could have access to one in socialism,or they could go to a public computer terminal. But initially ""each according to his abilities, each according to his needs" in a communism everybody who wants a computer could have one.

[gorillafuck]

It's so ridiculously easy to just download stuff onto a computer (and as of recently, you can download games on xbox live and consoles). Videogames would just be free to download.

[Jethro Tull]

Theirs so many computers right now sitting in warehouses and such everybody could have access to one in socialism,or they could go to a public computer terminal. But initially ""each according to his abilities, each according to his needs" in a communism everybody who wants a computer could have one.

the production of computers requires mining for heavy metals, which devastates and destroys the landscape, poisoning it with toxins. the consumption of computers leads to the discarding of computers, which means the heavy metals bleed into the eco-system, poisoning humans and other life forms. i love computers, but i don't want to ignore reality.

[Ovi]

the production of computers requires mining for heavy metals, which devastates and destroys the landscape, poisoning it with toxins. the consumption of computers leads to the discarding of computers, which means the heavy metals bleed into the eco-system, poisoning humans and other life forms. i love computers, but i don't want to ignore reality.
Fortunately there are things like green computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_computing) . The reason the production of computers involves heavy metals it's because that's the cheapest way there is, our health put aside, thus the way they're made in capitalism. But it doesn't have to be that way.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Interesting link, thanks. I've been toying with the idea of building myself a new computer for a while and will have to read up more on green computing.

[Jethro Tull]

The reason the production of computers involves heavy metals it's because that's the cheapest way there is

is there a way to manufacture computers without heavy metals? i am not aware of a way...

[JJM 777]

Heavy metals in products are not a problem. The problems are:
- a designedly short product life-cycle
- throwing the products to dump rather than recycling them back to the factory

[Ovi]

is there a way to manufacture computers without heavy metals? i am not aware of a way...
Are you a computer engineer? If you are, than why do we need heavy metals? I'm not so I can't really answer your question. Fortunately other people who know more about the subject already thought about it and haven't found any problem with not using heavy metals.

Heavy metals in products are not a problem. The problems are:
- a designedly short product life-cycle
- throwing the products to dump rather than recycling them back to the factory
The problem is that the computer we buy today, like everything else, is planned to be soon obsolete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence). They might still work perfectly fine, but windows vista ain't gonna run it and it will give your pc a very low grade :D, like you're no good (as a consumer that is). Although your computer may be many times faster than the previous one, are you really more productive? Will your next computer, packed with every glowing effect you can find make your work more efficient? Probably not.

It's the stupid idea that we always need better and newer, although nobody explains what better means. Think about fashion.

[Decommissioner]

Games are an interesting question, but I must confess that I have never thought about this topic for a second.

I have thought about computers a lot, but all my thinking has focused on the first and biggest issue: creating an excellent and free operating system, to replace Windows. Linux is so damn buggy and difficult to use, and equally full of security loopholes [purely accidental, or planted by American intelligence agencies?] as Windows.

From the viewpoint of national security and defense, I wouldn't connect a government Windows computer to the Internet for one second.

I run Ubuntu, archlinux and vista. Ironically, Ubuntu is way easier to setup and maintain than Vista or xp. The only thing holding linux back is microsofts monopoly on the market. All the applications on linux are open source alternatives to the things you can find on a mac or windows machine, and they sometimes run more efficiently. Unfortunately, without support from major developers (ie adobe, game companies), I doubt we will see a linux distrobution gain much more popularity..but I remain hopeful, seeing as google is basing their new OS off of gnu/linux. While I am not really excited about the distrobution itself, since it is google's, some companies may feel inclined to start developing for linux. Also, there are PC's being sold here and there that run Ubuntu primarily, which could indicate a growing trend towards linux becoming more accepted by hardware manufacturers as linux becomes more and more desktop friendly.

[mel]

There are so many points I want to address in all this, but I'm gonna limit myself to just a couple:

1) Having just one console is a load of garbage, the different consoles all have different capabilities, and will continue to do so in the future. If you want one console that can play everything, just use a PC. How would we manage to decide, as a society, whether the one approved handheld should have one screen or two? How should we decide if we put in the fastest possible processor, or if we put in a slower one and use the saved space for a camera and a microphone? How would we decide what kind of controller our console would have? While one console that could play every game would be pretty cool, the fact of the matter is that it isn't plausible, and you could never reconcile the goals of say, a wii-like console with the goals of a PS3-like console. The resulting machine, if it were ever attempted, would be a gigantic monstrosity that tried to do everything and did it poorly.

2) The development model would hopefully not look like an open source model, but that doesn't mean the code shouldn't be open source. My vision is one in which copyright restrictions have been eliminated (except for the requirement of attribution: if you are distributing somebody else's work, it should still have their name on it). Every game's code is open source, and the artwork is all in the public domain. Anybody can make a copy of their favorite game on DVD (or whatever the common media is) and give it to a friend, because the consoles won't have lockout chips to prevent running copied media. The entire collection of older games (with source code provided, if possible, but some sources may be lost) will be allowed to be distributed in ROM form to be played on any PC or console for which there exists an emulator. The great thing about programming in general is that you really don't need unbelievable amounts of resources in order to do it. If you have a great game idea, and can get in contact with enough people with the expertise to program it, the talent to design the graphics for it, and the skill to write the story for it, then all you need is a computer for each of them and software which, by this time, would all, obviously, have open source code and be freely available for any operating system that people have a desire to port it to. When we begin to take back what's ours from the capitalists, great care must be taken to preserve the source code for the software they've created. Unfortunately, in many cases the open source code just cannot stand up to the corporate software. GIMP is absolutely no substitute for Photoshop for design work, and anybody who claims that it is has obviously never done any serious design work. Likewise, Blender is no substitute for a program like Maya, and Nethack is no substitute for a game like World of Warcraft (personal tastes aside) and so whenever possible, the source code for these commercial ventures needs to be preserved, opened to the public, and allowed to be modified, ported, and changed. Once the development tools are available to anybody, all that's left is to allow people to organize around projects (of their choosing, and possibly there will be a socially maintained list of most wanted software products, which programmers can choose to tackle individually or in teams of whatever size is necessary). There will be no need for game publishers, because the resources actually required for game creation are scant but a talented team, a place to gather, the target hardware, development hardware, and some software, all of which will be freely available.

[Ovi]

There are so many points I want to address in all this, but I'm gonna limit myself to just a couple:

1) Having just one console is a load of garbage, the different consoles all have different capabilities, and will continue to do so in the future. If you want one console that can play everything, just use a PC. How would we manage to decide, as a society, whether the one approved handheld should have one screen or two? How should we decide if we put in the fastest possible processor, or if we put in a slower one and use the saved space for a camera and a microphone? How would we decide what kind of controller our console would have? While one console that could play every game would be pretty cool, the fact of the matter is that it isn't plausible, and you could never reconcile the goals of say, a wii-like console with the goals of a PS3-like console. The resulting machine, if it were ever attempted, would be a gigantic monstrosity that tried to do everything and did it poorly.

It's not about different game consoles, but about game consoles that are similar in capabilities but are incompatible with each other. That sucks.


2) The development model would hopefully not look like an open source model, but that doesn't mean the code shouldn't be open source.



The great thing about programming in general is that you really don't need unbelievable amounts of resources in order to do it. If you have a great game idea, and can get in contact with enough people with the expertise to program it, the talent to design the graphics for it, and the skill to write the story for it, then all you need is a computer for each of them and software which, by this time, would all, obviously, have open source code and be freely available for any operating system that people have a desire to port it to.

But what you're saying here is exactly open source.


When we begin to take back what's ours from the capitalists, great care must be taken to preserve the source code for the software they've created. Unfortunately, in many cases the open source code just cannot stand up to the corporate software. GIMP is absolutely no substitute for Photoshop for design work, and anybody who claims that it is has obviously never done any serious design work.

I've been designing websites with the GIMP for some time and I couldn't say I found it unsatisfactory.


Likewise, Blender is no substitute for a program like Maya, and Nethack is no substitute for a game like World of Warcraft (personal tastes aside) and so whenever possible, the source code for these commercial ventures needs to be preserved, opened to the public, and allowed to be modified, ported, and changed.
Again, how is open source software development inferior to you? You actually want it to look like open source, you want it to be open source but you don't like open source. Maya is better than Blender? Of course it is, you paid thousands of dollars for Maya but you won't give a shit for those who develop Blender. That's the real problem.

[mel]

It's not about different game consoles, but about game consoles that are similar in capabilities but are incompatible with each other. That sucks.

I can agree that that sucks, but the "compatability" issue won't be important without copyright issues getting in the way. If you can just download a game for free and burn it to a DVD, and the games get ported between consoles with similar capabilities (but different hardware/controllers) then the incompatibilities won't be much of an issue.



But what you're saying here is exactly open source.

Let me explain what I mean when I talk about open source again a little bit later.


I've been designing websites with the GIMP for some time and I couldn't say I found it unsatisfactory.

Websites are one thing, and print design work is quite another. The GIMP is also less powerful for photographers who want to improve their pictures for prints. The GIMP has its uses, and for the amateur photographer and the web designer, it's probably good enough. Some people need more capability than that.


Again, how is open source software development inferior to you? You actually want it to look like open source, you want it to be open source but you don't like open source. Maya is better than Blender? Of course it is, you paid thousands of dollars for Maya but you won't give a shit for those who develop Blender. That's the real problem.

Let me try to come up with an explaination of the difference between open source code and the "open source development model". Open source code is a great thing to have around, code free of copyright restrictions is a wonderful thing for both developers and for end users. However, as a development model, open source tends to take on a certain character that makes it inferior to more "traditional" development models when it comes to getting out software quickly, with fewer bugs, and most importantly, that has decent user interface design. Open Source development seems to necessitate people from all over the world never meeting in person and just sharing code via email and CVS uploads. This is all well and good, and some types of projects can work well like this. Large open source projects, the kinds that people herald as the best, largely don't work this way. There's some company behind them (Mozilla, Inc, in the case of Firefox) which has a full time development staff, artists on the payroll and user interface designers to make sure that the software works how users expect going out the door. Open Source just can't beat a dedicated development studio where people work together in real space, in real time, and cooperate to release a good product. Having open source code doesn't mean an open source development model, and I think that in a socialist society you'll be able to have a dedicated team for every project, and not use the typical 'open source' hobbyist development model that only works marginally well at getting good software out the door.

[Ovi]

Let me try to come up with an explaination of the difference between open source code and the "open source development model". Open source code is a great thing to have around, code free of copyright restrictions is a wonderful thing for both developers and for end users. However, as a development model, open source tends to take on a certain character that makes it inferior to more "traditional" development models when it comes to getting out software quickly, with fewer bugs, and most importantly, that has decent user interface design. Open Source development seems to necessitate people from all over the world never meeting in person and just sharing code via email and CVS uploads. This is all well and good, and some types of projects can work well like this. Large open source projects, the kinds that people herald as the best, largely don't work this way. There's some company behind them (Mozilla, Inc, in the case of Firefox) which has a full time development staff, artists on the payroll and user interface designers to make sure that the software works how users expect going out the door. Open Source just can't beat a dedicated development studio where people work together in real space, in real time, and cooperate to release a good product. Having open source code doesn't mean an open source development model, and I think that in a socialist society you'll be able to have a dedicated team for every project, and not use the typical 'open source' hobbyist development model that only works marginally well at getting good software out the door.
The reason for that is that the Mozilla programmers are actually paid for their work. You might not give any money to them, but they earn enough money to have full time employees. The open source development model means to me simply that anyone who wants to contribute to a project can do it. That's definitely a good thing. As I said, the difference between your favorite proprietary application and it's free software equivalent it's money. The latter has none because you ain't gonna pay for something if you're not forced to. Really now, you did pay for Maya, but did you ever consider supporting Blender? Probably not. Blender is going to remain inferior in capabilities because those who contribute to its development must also have other jobs in order to pay for their bills.

The only thing flawed with the open source/free software development model is that it can't force you to pay them for their work/it's incompatible with capitalism.

[mel]

The reason for that is that the Mozilla programmers are actually paid for their work. You might not give any money to them, but they earn enough money to have full time employees. The open source development model means to me simply that anyone who wants to contribute to a project can do it. That's definitely a good thing. As I said, the difference between your favorite proprietary application and it's free software equivalent it's money. The latter has none because you ain't gonna pay for something if you're not forced to. Really now, you did pay for Maya, but did you ever consider supporting Blender? Probably not. Blender is going to remain inferior in capabilities because those who contribute to its development must also have other jobs in order to pay for their bills.

I didn't buy maya, and I don't myself do much 3d design work, but I have friends who do. I understand that the difference is money more than anything else, but the money is what allows those companies to move away from the pure "open source development model" and towards a hybrid model which combines elements of traditional software development methodologies along with open source contributions.

I've made donations to services which I could use for free before (Last.fm is one of them) and I've tried to contribute documentation and code to open source projects I like before (they ended up dying, so those contributions are more or less lost now). My only point in all this is that the "open source development model" refers to development by a small team of hobbyists and their community contributors, whereas this does not accurately reflect the actual development model in use by teams like the Firefox team or the bigger linux distributions' teams (Novell's SUSE, Fedora Core, Ubuntu, and others). I suppose you can say that they are all variations on the "open source development model", by virtue of them simply having open source code that the community can contribute to, but I'd argue that each of the projects mentioned actually use a hybrid model between some traditional software development methodology and the "open source" model.


The only thing flawed with the open source/free software development model is that it can't force you to pay them for their work/it's incompatible with capitalism.

I think I also alluded to this saying that in a socialist society, teams would be able to come together and work on particular projects in real space and real time, and have access to artists and user interface designers so long as they can attract them to their project (an easier task, I would think, without financial constraints). In this way, the projects which now rely on the pure open source development model would be able to operate using a superior, hybrid model which includes elements of both the open source development model (comunity code contributions) and traditional development models (stability, QA testing, user interface design, exacting specifications, and a real life community-building team environemnt) which are characteristic of financially successful open source projects under capitalism.

[Ovi]

I didn't buy maya, and I don't myself do much 3d design work, but I have friends who do. I understand that the difference is money more than anything else, but the money is what allows those companies to move away from the pure "open source development model" and towards a hybrid model which combines elements of traditional software development methodologies along with open source contributions.

I've made donations to services which I could use for free before (Last.fm is one of them) and I've tried to contribute documentation and code to open source projects I like before (they ended up dying, so those contributions are more or less lost now). My only point in all this is that the "open source development model" refers to development by a small team of hobbyists and their community contributors, whereas this does not accurately reflect the actual development model in use by teams like the Firefox team or the bigger linux distributions' teams (Novell's SUSE, Fedora Core, Ubuntu, and others). I suppose you can say that they are all variations on the "open source development model", by virtue of them simply having open source code that the community can contribute to, but I'd argue that each of the projects mentioned actually use a hybrid model between some traditional software development methodology and the "open source" model.

I use Debian and it rocks! Plus it's a 100% community supported distribution; no big company, no boss dictating what should be done; there are elected leaders, but the process is quite smooth. Should I remind you that Debian is the number 1 server distro?


I think I also alluded to this saying that in a socialist society, teams would be able to come together and work on particular projects in real space and real time, and have access to artists and user interface designers so long as they can attract them to their project (an easier task, I would think, without financial constraints). In this way, the projects which now rely on the pure open source development model would be able to operate using a superior, hybrid model which includes elements of both the open source development model (comunity code contributions) and traditional development models (stability, QA testing, user interface design, exacting specifications, and a real life community-building team environemnt) which are characteristic of financially successful open source projects under capitalism.
Considering that my box never crashed in the last 4 years despite the inferior development of open source, as you call it, I's say it's pretty damn stable and it's a quite good development cycle. I don't see why programming needs anything 'traditional', such as boring offices, workday or even deadlines. I prefer a late release to a buggy one.

[mel]

I use Debian and it rocks! Plus it's a 100% community supported distribution; no big company, no boss dictating what should be done; there are elected leaders, but the process is quite smooth. Should I remind you that Debian is the number 1 server distro?

Debian is an interesting example, but need I remind you that they get TONS of contributions back from the Ubuntu team (funded by Canonical) and aren't solely floating out on their own as far as that is concerned. In any case, a distro may not be the best example (Yes, I realize I used the example of a distro previously) because it is actually a compilation of many open source software projects, with relatively little programming work being done (most of it is patching up inconsistencies, package management/maintainence, some bugfixes, and documentation). With that being said, it's also worth noting that debian releases fall way behind most normal distributions when it comes to software versions allowed in the stable release. I understand the reasoning behind this, and yes, this makes it very good for servers, but it doesn't make a great distro for your average end user whose requirements for what their computer can do will change far more quickly than debian can properly accommodate. I'd also have to ask for a citation that Debian is the #1 server distro, since most figures I've seen have indicated that the OS most used on servers is Windows, followed closely by Linux (With the two most common distros being Red Hat and SUSE, corporate supported distributions) then BSD and Solaris, in no particular order.


Considering that my box never crashed in the last 4 years despite the inferior development of open source, as you call it, I's say it's pretty damn stable and it's a quite good development cycle. I don't see why programming needs anything 'traditional', such as boring offices, workday or even deadlines. I prefer a late release to a buggy one.

Traditional software engineering development models don't necessitate "boring offices, a workday, or deadlines" as much as they necessitate proper planning, good documentation, dynamic communication between involved parties, substantial user interface testing, and I would argue, a proper collaborative workspace (in some cases, this would be an office, depending on the personal tastes of the programming, art, user interface, and QA teams involved on the project).

I would challenge you to name one pure open source project (not a hybrid project, like firefox) which is accessible, user friendly, graphically pleasing, continually up to date, and capable of matching its closed source competitors in features and usability. While I have used various flavors of Linuxes on my personal machine for years (almost always coming back to Ubuntu) I also recognize that a distro like Ubuntu relies on a vast number of other open source projects, most of which have contributions from major corporations as their driving development force, and that these contributions are generally created using traditional software development methodologies.

[Ovi]

I would challenge you to name one pure open source project (not a hybrid project, like firefox) which is accessible, user friendly, graphically pleasing, continually up to date, and capable of matching its closed source competitors in features and usability. While I have used various flavors of Linuxes on my personal machine for years (almost always coming back to Ubuntu) I also recognize that a distro like Ubuntu relies on a vast number of other open source projects, most of which have contributions from major corporations as their driving development force, and that these contributions are generally created using traditional software development methodologies.
And each ubuntu release it's a modified version of Debian unstable, not the other way around. While Canonical makes no guarantee of any security fixes in it's universe component, all debian packages in stable receive security fixes when they appear. So no, Canonical ain't more important to debian than the 1000+ debian developers.

I already stated the problem with open source/free software: it's not about some inferior development cycle, but about the lack of funds. What exactly does the 'traditional' development cycle mean to you?

[mel]

And each ubuntu release it's a modified version of Debian unstable, not the other way around. While Canonical makes no guarantee of any security fixes in it's universe component, all debian packages in stable receive security fixes when they appear. So no, Canonical ain't more important to debian than the 1000+ debian developers.

I never said it was more important, and you know as well as I do that of those "1000+" developers, most of them make relatively small contributions. The rest of the work is done by a much smaller handful. In any case, all of those packages in debian, they are there because many other groups, a good portion of them working full time for other companies, have spent time and money improving the open source software packages that debian developers package, test, and maintain.


I already stated the problem with open source/free software: it's not about some inferior development cycle, but about the lack of funds. What exactly does the 'traditional' development cycle mean to you?

The funds, that you say are the reason that the open source/free software lack, end up going towards full time developers who then introduce traditional software development methodologies, full time designers and UI experts, a QA department, "boring offices" and all the other things which generally make closed source software better than their open source equivalents.

What the traditional development model means to me is people working in real time, and real space, collaborating together in person on a project in a real building, UI experts, graphics artists, and other team members which all work together to create a solid, well-tested, user friendly, and graphically pleasing software. The open source projects who meet these criterion have all adopted more traditional software development methodologies in addition to open sourcing the code and allowing for community contributions which overall has led to far greater success than the pure open source model could ever manage.

[Ovi]

What the traditional development model means to me is people working in real time, and real space, collaborating together in person on a project in a real building, UI experts, graphics artists, and other team members which all work together to create a solid, well-tested, user friendly, and graphically pleasing software. The open source projects who meet these criterion have all adopted more traditional software development methodologies in addition to open sourcing the code and allowing for community contributions which overall has led to far greater success than the pure open source model could ever manage.
And how does the open source development can't create a solid, well-tested, user friendly, and graphically pleasing software ?
Again this greater success is solely based on money. And even that is not always the case. Despite the billions of dollars and 'traditional development' of Microsoft, I have yet to hear about a windows pc that never crashed. Ah well no point debating this any further.

[mel]

And how does the open source development can't create a solid, well-tested, user friendly, and graphically pleasing software ?

The open source development model has yet to do so (but I won't say it's impossible) but open source projects that have the money to introduce elements of traditional development models have had great success in this area (firefox perhaps the best example).


Again this greater success is solely based on money.

What do you think this money buys? Money isn't magic that makes software better. That money gets pumped into the full time staff which introduce traditional development methodologies which then make the software better by providing a framework for rigorous testing, complete documentation, staff graphics designers, and UI experts whose collaborative efforts improve the software beyond what is possible using community contributions alone.


And even that is not always the case. Despite the billions of dollars and 'traditional development' of Microsoft, I have yet to hear about a windows pc that never crashed. Ah well no point debating this any further.

My XP machine hasn't crashed in 3 years. That said, providing one example of a company which produces bad closed-source software doesn't invalidate traditional software development methods, especially not since there is no open source software, using only the open source development model, which has had nearly the same success as its closed source equivalents. The only time these projects are able to compete is after they have introduced full time staff and traditional development methods.

[Ovi]

My XP machine hasn't crashed in 3 years. That said, providing one example of a company which produces bad closed-source software doesn't invalidate traditional software development methods, especially not since there is no open source software, using only the open source development model, which has had nearly the same success as its closed source equivalents. The only time these projects are able to compete is after they have introduced full time staff and traditional development methods.
Open source development model, traditional development method...when you say them it sounds like buzzwords to me. Is a full time staff working using the FOSS development model against something? Is meeting face to face to discuss what is to be done against the FOSS development model? I think not. The FOSS development model means to me that anyone who can contribute can and that's about it. There's no one stopping you from talking to each other in person .

If you think that FOSS software should be development by an elite working behind closed doors, than I invite you to read The Cathedral and the Bazaar .

[Psy]

Open source development model, traditional development method...when you say them it sounds like buzzwords to me. Is a full time staff working using the FOSS development model against something? Is meeting face to face to discuss what is to be done against the FOSS development model? I think not. The FOSS development model means to me that anyone who can contribute can and that's about it. There's no one stopping you from talking to each other in person .

If you think that FOSS software should be development by an elite working behind closed doors, than I invite you to read The Cathedral and the Bazaar .

Right, the USSR method of development was close to open source within the USSR where you had the massive electronic R&D city Zelenograd where electronically engineers working on different projects were free to share their with other, thus why the same electronics board design that powered USSR nuclear powered subs (UM-1) also powered the first computerized factory machinery in the Soviet bloc, the engineers for both projects worked in the same R&D city and worked together.

Only difference was they all lived and worked in the same city built by the USSR just for electronic R&D, where FOSS rather then throwing all the programers into one city has programers around the world work on the same project.

[mel]

Open source development model, traditional development method...when you say them it sounds like buzzwords to me. Is a full time staff working using the FOSS development model against something? Is meeting face to face to discuss what is to be done against the FOSS development model? I think not. The FOSS development model means to me that anyone who can contribute can and that's about it. There's no one stopping you from talking to each other in person .

If you think that FOSS software should be development by an elite working behind closed doors, than I invite you to read The Cathedral and the Bazaar .

"Anyone who can contribute can" does not describe a development model at all, which I think is where you and I are talking past one another. When we are talking about development models, we are talking about a combination of things such as project and team organization, requirements management, documentation management, and testing. The "Open Source Development Model" describes a specific type of project and team organization techniques which is entirely open. Contributions are made, committed, developers are trusted to test their own code at any point throughout the workflow, and the other developers hope that if there's a bug, one of the other multitudes of developers will notice it. Documentation can either be forefront or background, depending on who's involved in the project, but there's no structural requirements for code or the software to be well documented, and there is no clear requirements gathering process, features are simply implemented if the developers want to, when they want to, sometimes democratically, sometimes in other ways. There is almost never a clear architecture or UI design phase. Ultimately, the open source model describes an unstructured method of software development which has been a failure for the vast majority of projects who follow it.

The "traditional software development methodologies" describes things such as the Waterfall model, the Rapid Prototyping Model, the "Spiral" model, and even the Agile methods (extreme programming a good example) which are structured development models with a strong focus on proper documentation, architectural design, a user-oriented approach to requirements and design, structured testing methods, etc. When structured elements from these methodologies are applied to open source software projects, you end up with projects like firefox, who utilize a hybrid model between taking community contributions and having a transparent development cycle, with the structured techniques followed by the full time staff. Generally, this means improved software, because for all of the faults there are with software engineering principles, overall structred methods have always proven effective over unstructured methods at completing projects to a satisfactory level of quality with a minimum of bugs. A structured development model is extremely difficult to implement with a massive team of developers all over the world with differing levels of experience, which is why the open source projects never implement structured methods until they have the money to hire a full-time team to do their work in a real building.

There is nothing wrong with the idea that "anyone who can contribute can", that just isn't descriptive of the open source "development model" because a "development model" is much more than just a single philosophical underpinning. I'm not against open source, just against the pure open source development model. I don't think that development should all be closed source, just that in a socialist society, there is no reason that all projects should be using the "open source development model", but should instead use the hybrid (open source code, accept community contributions after they've been tested) in addition to a full time team doing architectural design work, UI research and testing, and all of the other things which help to make software better. I'd be willing to mandate that source code be provided with every software product distributed under socialism, along with build instructions and all the other documentation a person would need (assuming they already know the language it is written in) in order to modify and use their own version. This has nothing to do with a development model, and everything to do with freedom. The freedom of open source can be maintained without falling prey to the poor development model that some projects are saddled with.

[Ovi]

"Anyone who can contribute can" does not describe a development model at all, which I think is where you and I are talking past one another.

But it does! It means manuals are free to be edited by anyone who has the proper knowledge and will, source can be reviewed and patched by anyone and so on. It needs a completely different way of developing software in contrast to proprietary applications, an open one to everybody.


there is no clear requirements gathering process, features are simply implemented if the developers want to, when they want to

In the end there's always someone to take care of the kernel, to design the UI, to improve the boot process, to write documentation and to help the others. Nobody forces you to do something that you don't like. It's called communism!


There is almost never a clear architecture or UI design phase. Ultimately, the open source model describes an unstructured method of software development which has been a failure for the vast majority of projects who follow it.

Apache contributors wouldn't say so (http://httpd.apache.org/contributors/)
You seem to define failure/success based on market share. Free software doesn't have nor need market share. It's there because people want to develop it and others find it useful. GNU/Linux it's a huge success for free software, it showed that freedom should not be absent even in the computing area and it's a complete operating system better in many ways than any proprietary OS. Being used by less people than X doesn't make it worse in any way, nor a failure. It makes it less used. There's more to an operating system usage than it's "quality". Weird or not, operating systems that don't care about the freedoms of their users and are made in such a way that those who develop it should have complete control over those who use it, have over 90% market share. It's not better, it's working with capitalism, not against it!

The goal of Bill G was to see a pc in every house and all of them running his OS. He basically achieved his goal.
The goal of R. Stallman and other hackers was to create a complete, Unix-like, free operating system. They also achieved their goal! Nobody in the FOSS community competes with microsoft because nobody could care less. The point is to create a system so that anyone who cares about his freedom can use it, not surpassing windows.


The "traditional software development methodologies" describes things such as the Waterfall model, the Rapid Prototyping Model, the "Spiral" model, and even the Agile methods (extreme programming a good example) which are structured development models with a strong focus on proper documentation, architectural design, a user-oriented approach to requirements and design, structured testing methods, etc.

How is this in contradiction with FOSS development methods?


When structured elements from these methodologies are applied to open source software projects, you end up with projects like firefox, who utilize a hybrid model between taking community contributions and having a transparent development cycle, with the structured techniques followed by the full time staff.

How is a full time staff against FOSS? It's ridiculous.


There is nothing wrong with the idea that "anyone who can contribute can", that just isn't descriptive of the open source "development model" because a "development model" is much more than just a single philosophical underpinning.

Nothing that you said about firefox development seems contradictory to the FOSS development methods. Maybe the part where you said developers only work on what they want to which for anything is a good thing to me. Let those who can do a better job do it!

[mel]

But it does! It means manuals are free to be edited by anyone who has the proper knowledge and will, source can be reviewed and patched by anyone and so on. It needs a completely different way of developing software in contrast to proprietary applications, an open one to everybody.

Openness and traditional development models are not opposed to one another, but empty openness has sent a lot of projects to their grave.


In the end there's always someone to take care of the kernel, to design the UI, to improve the boot process, to write documentation and to help the others. Nobody forces you to do something that you don't like. It's called communism!

Communism means "nobody forces you to do something you don't like"? Please. In any case, that isn't what I'm talking about.


Apache contributors wouldn't say so (http://httpd.apache.org/contributors/)
You seem to define failure/success based on market share. Free software doesn't have nor need market share. It's there because people want to develop it and others find it useful. GNU/Linux it's a huge success for free software, it showed that freedom should not be absent even in the computing area and it's a complete operating system better in many ways than any proprietary OS. Being used by less people than X doesn't make it worse in any way, nor a failure. It makes it less used. There's more to an operating system usage than it's "quality". Weird or not, operating systems that don't care about the freedoms of their users and are made in such a way that those who develop it should have complete control over those who use it, have over 90% market share. It's not better, it's working with capitalism, not against it!

I regard a project as a failure if it is never completed, or never even really gets started, or gets one release out and then everyone abandons it, or the source code gets lost, the website goes down, or it doesn't ever get to the point where it's meeting the needs of its users.

Quite frankly, it has little to do with market share and everything to do with the simple fact that structured methods have been better at successfully completing projects which meet the needs of the users of the software than open source. One need only look at the thousands upon thousands of dead projects on sourceforge and freshmeat to see that while open source has a few successes (and this is "projects with open source code" not "projects using an open source development model") the vast majority of open source projects are never completed.


The goal of Bill G was to see a pc in every house and all of them running his OS. He basically achieved his goal.
The goal of R. Stallman and other hackers was to create a complete, Unix-like, free operating system. They also achieved their goal! Nobody in the FOSS community competes with microsoft because nobody could care less. The point is to create a system so that anyone who cares about his freedom can use it, not surpassing windows.

Actually, R. Stallman hasn't achieved his goal...the folks over there are still working on that good ol' non-starter HURD, GNU/Linux is a compromise because HURD has been such an outstanding, all-around failure.

In any case, I never said that I thought windows was a good operating system, or that the success of a project had anything to do with market share or "surpassing windows". That said, while I use and enjoy using linux, and have for years, I am under no illusions that it is user friendly enough for your average user.


How is this in contradiction with FOSS development methods?

How is a full time staff against FOSS? It's ridiculous.

Nothing that you said about firefox development seems contradictory to the FOSS development methods. Maybe the part where you said developers only work on what they want to which for anything is a good thing to me. Let those who can do a better job do it!

Free, Open Source Software is not necessarily developed using a pure open source development model. I think it is this which you continually fail to understand. The "free open source software development methods" are simply NOT THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF CODE CONTRIBUTION for the larger, more successful open source projects (successful, as in, meeting their goals, putting out releases, and being useful to a wide group of people) because these projects use a full time staff who have stricter team and project organizations. I never have claimed that software should not be open source, that projects should not take in community contributions, but simply that successful projects run better when they're structured, have architectural design work done before the project is started, and have structured testing and documentation phases. Insofar as these things are elements of structured development models, any open source project which incorporates these elements is using a "hybrid model".

[Ovi]

I regard a project as a failure if it is never completed, or never even really gets started, or gets one release out and then everyone abandons it, or the source code gets lost, the website goes down, or it doesn't ever get to the point where it's meeting the needs of its users.

Quite frankly, it has little to do with market share and everything to do with the simple fact that structured methods have been better at successfully completing projects which meet the needs of the users of the software than open source. One need only look at the thousands upon thousands of dead projects on sourceforge and freshmeat to see that while open source has a few successes (and this is "projects with open source code" not "projects using an open source development model") the vast majority of open source projects are never completed.

Of course not. Anyone can start a project and experiment. That doesn't mean each one had the goal the change the world. I also wanted once to start one in ruby and host it on sourceforge or something. I never intended to create an outstanding work, but to experiment and if I have enough time maybe to create something useful (a better GUI toolkit). When someone invests millions of dollars in software he obviously wants results, so there are not that many sponsored projects for the single goal of supporting the hobby of others. Even so, there are an enormous number of failed software projects that did have funding.



Actually, R. Stallman hasn't achieved his goal...the folks over there are still working on that good ol' non-starter HURD, GNU/Linux is a compromise because HURD has been such an outstanding, all-around failure.

So what? Who said he wanted the GNU OS to be developed exclusively by the FSF? On the contrary, any contributions are very much appreciated as long as they are free software. His goal was creating a free OS, not a free OS that only he and a few others can develop, that's the whole point of free software! So no, GNU/Linux it's not a compromise at all, it's working together for the common goal.


In any case, I never said that I thought windows was a good operating system, or that the success of a project had anything to do with market share or "surpassing windows". That said, while I use and enjoy using linux, and have for years, I am under no illusions that it is user friendly enough for your average user.

Ubuntu is quite user friendly; however there is still a lot of work to be done in this regard. But given a very limited manpower for development, it's obvious that things like fixing bugs, adding important features and creating free software alternatives to proprietary ones are far more important than working on user 'friendliness'.

However it also depends on what user friendly means to you. If the next-next-finish installing method on windows is user-friendly than the synaptic way of installing software on Debian might seem less user friendly because it's different, although it's much easier to do and learn. That doesn't make it worse, it makes different from windows.


Free, Open Source Software is not necessarily developed using a pure open source development model. I think it is this which you continually fail to understand. The "free open source software development methods" are simply NOT THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF CODE CONTRIBUTION for the larger, more successful open source projects (successful, as in, meeting their goals, putting out releases, and being useful to a wide group of people) because these projects use a full time staff who have stricter team and project organizations. I never have claimed that software should not be open source, that projects should not take in community contributions, but simply that successful projects run better when they're structured, have architectural design work done before the project is started, and have structured testing and documentation phases. Insofar as these things are elements of structured development models, any open source project which incorporates these elements is using a "hybrid model".
As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) apache http server is developed using the "FOSS development methods" and it doesn't look like a failure to me. And how is a full time stuff, team organization and structural development methods (buzz) against the FOSS development methods? Sure most people never meet in person because they never get the chance (read no funding). That doesn't mean that they are against it.

[mel]

Of course not. Anyone can start a project and experiment. That doesn't mean each one had the goal the change the world. I also wanted once to start one in ruby and host it on sourceforge or something. I never intended to create an outstanding work, but to experiment and if I have enough time maybe to create something useful (a better GUI toolkit). When someone invests millions of dollars in software he obviously wants results, so there are not that many sponsored projects for the single goal of supporting the hobby of others. Even so, there are an enormous number of failed software projects that did have funding.

Most of them had the intention to AT LEAST create a first version. Tons of them never even got that far. Others got one version out then died. Many never even got any code produced before the team members gave up. Please understand that for the vast majority of free software projects created, they never actually have any success.


So what? Who said he wanted the GNU OS to be developed exclusively by the FSF? On the contrary, any contributions are very much appreciated as long as they are free software. His goal was creating a free OS, not a free OS that only he and a few others can develop, that's the whole point of free software! So no, GNU/Linux it's not a compromise at all, it's working together for the common goal.

Stallman still wants a pure GNU operating system, and he's made public statements where he's essentially said that GNU/Linux is not his ideal, and that his support for Linux as the kernel is pretty much temporary until HURD is capable of replacing it. Stallman isn't always a pleasant character and his tolerance of Linux is pretty much just that: tolerance.


Ubuntu is quite user friendly; however there is still a lot of work to be done in this regard. But given a very limited manpower for development, it's obvious that things like fixing bugs, adding important features and creating free software alternatives to proprietary ones are far more important than working on user 'friendliness'.

Of course Ubuntu is quite user friendly, and they do a pretty good job of being that, but even for them, taking those extra steps to make it user friendly have ultimately been out of reach so far. I realize too that a lot of the problems people have are hardware incompatibility issues, and this is a result of capitalism, so I won't blame them for that, but insofar as simple things, like file management are concerned, every linux distribution so far has failed miserably to "hide" the confusing unix-like nature of file management. Whereas Mac OS has managed to do a pretty good job of making clear to Users exactly where their files are at any given moment, how they can find them, and given then neatly defined categories as defaults, the last version of Ubuntu I installed still required the user to mostly define their own categories and handle their own file management. I don't know how much their default system-wide search tool has improved, but that was in unfortunate shape in the version of Ubuntu I'm using now (I haven't been able to upgrade in a couple years, maybe they've made some giant leaps, I'll have to download/burn the latest and attempt an upgrade once I have that kind of time again). Like I have said multiple times, I use and have always loved using Linux. It's a great, stable, customizable OS, if you're willing to put in that work, but it also has a decent way to go.


However it also depends on what user friendly means to you. If the next-next-finish installing method on windows is user-friendly than the synaptic way of installing software on Debian might seem less user friendly because it's different, although it's much easier to do and learn. That doesn't make it worse, it makes different from windows.

I love package management, and I miss it greatly on Windows and Mac when I'm working on those platforms. That being said, if there is a big move towards the various different linux distributions, or even one outstanding one, under socialism, for instance, the package management will end up becoming far less centralized as the task of maintaining the packages for all of the new developers and projects becomes unmanagable and developers begin simply packaging up their software for download from their own sites.


As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) apache http server is developed using the "FOSS development methods" and it doesn't look like a failure to me. And how is a full time stuff, team organization and structural development methods (buzz) against the FOSS development methods? Sure most people never meet in person because they never get the chance (read no funding). That doesn't mean that they are against it.

I don't know much about the Apache project's organization, and obviously it's not a failure. All I am saying is that, at least in my mind, the pure "Open Source Development Model" describes something more specific than you wish to acknowledge. The combination of open source methods with structured methods is far and away a wonderful model. When an open source project gets large enough, the "Pure open source development model" tends to give way to the hybrid as a full time staff capable of implementing structured methods is introduced, and those structured methods produce better, more organized software.

I am not using buzzwords here, and in fact, I've made it a point not to use too much technical terminology from the discipline of software engineering as most people reading these posts don't have an education in either the history or current practice of software engineering (something different from programming, or computer science) where "Software Engineering" provides a history of development models, a description of those models, their inner workings, and how in the history of the discipline of "Software Engineering" structured, user-oriented, design-oriented, and documentation-oriented methods of building software have led to higher percentages of projects completed on time, within budget constraints, and with more of the features included that users need. In applying my knowledge of software engineering to open source, I have found that where open source projects used structured methods in combination with accepting community contributions and transparent development, complete with documentation of future plans, bug reporting and fixing, and obviously, most importantly, freely provided source code, that they have been more successful (reaching the goals that they have set, attracting users and developers, creating quality software, with fewer bugs, solid design, and a friendly interface). Where they have remained relatively unstructured and have not had the funding to move towards a full-time staff, they have remained relatively unsuccessful. Some poorly managed projects have fallen in between (the GIMP is a curious case here, as its core contributors exert an almost dictatorial control in stubborn refusal to consider redesigning its interface, despite a massive outcry against it from everyone but their most stubborn advocates, which makes their relatively structured team organization and approach relatively useless) ultimately though, there are only so many types of projects which could even potentially be successful as open source. Things like infrastructure projects, general-use software, and games are pretty much the only options, because where these things all have mass-appeal, there are other types of projects which can never have a wide enough user-base to attract enough developers to work on it (software specific to a business or organization)

Also, I'm gonna request that an admin or mod split our entire discussion about open source to a new topic, since we've gotten pretty far away from the video game discussion here.

[The Red Next Door]

Why does everyone seem to know about this useless stuff?!

CLASS STRUGGLE IS NOT A GAME, SO ISN'T YOUR LIFE.

it's VERY unlikely that in OUR life time communism will be achieved on international basis

You're blinded by those 'games', even if you know this you STILL like them because you enjoy them so much. You are like rich people, they like their golden bathroom too, and won't share/remove it because it's against society.

... harsh critic! By the way I'm a hypocrite:D

Yet another way to spend your free time. To spend your earned money on. Your wage. Your life. We could see video games as capitalist bribe.
Feeding people > Video games for some kids :/
Oh please, that a load of crap. i play video games and still pay attention to what type of shit goes on

[The Red Next Door]

The game creators will not make a lot of money and if the commitee do not like certian games, they can banned them and i think most people have this notion that video games corrupt children minds and blah blah bullshit about video games that are not true.

[undersound]

i ask to me if the communism is good for all, and if they all are good for the communism

[Ovi]

Most of them had the intention to AT LEAST create a first version. Tons of them never even got that far. Others got one version out then died. Many never even got any code produced before the team members gave up. Please understand that for the vast majority of free software projects created, they never actually have any success.

I know that. But understand that the vast majority of them don't have millions of dollars of funding either.



Stallman still wants a pure GNU operating system, and he's made public statements where he's essentially said that GNU/Linux is not his ideal, and that his support for Linux as the kernel is pretty much temporary until HURD is capable of replacing it. Stallman isn't always a pleasant character and his tolerance of Linux is pretty much just that: tolerance.

I never heard that before. Here's part of an interview:

FB: I was talking about replacing the Hurd kernel with the Solaris 10 kernel (obviously only if free software).

RMS: This would be possible, but I don't see a purpose in it. There is already a free kernel that works quite well with the GNU system--namely, Linux. Why would we want to replace it with the kernel of Solaris?

FB: For the same reason GNU develops Hurd?

RMS: When we started developing the Hurd, there was no free kernel. Our motive was to get a free kernel.

Since we now have a free kernel that works, namely Linux, it's no longer essential to develop the Hurd.

So while he would like to see the Hurd done, it's not exactly anyone's priority, otherwise it would have been already released. There's already a kernel licensed under the GPL that's good enough. End of story.



Of course Ubuntu is quite user friendly, and they do a pretty good job of being that, but even for them, taking those extra steps to make it user friendly have ultimately been out of reach so far. I realize too that a lot of the problems people have are hardware incompatibility issues, and this is a result of capitalism, so I won't blame them for that, but insofar as simple things, like file management are concerned, every linux distribution so far has failed miserably to "hide" the confusing unix-like nature of file management. Whereas Mac OS has managed to do a pretty good job of making clear to Users exactly where their files are at any given moment, how they can find them, and given then neatly defined categories as defaults, the last version of Ubuntu I installed still required the user to mostly define their own categories and handle their own file management.

I don't know exactly what part of file management are you talking about. Is it the fact that they are no photos/music/videos directories by default or something? I always hated the way windows applications wanted to save pictures/documents in the weird long directory path, since I always use a different way of categorizing my stuff and always on a different partition.


I don't know how much their default system-wide search tool has improved, but that was in unfortunate shape in the version of Ubuntu I'm using now (I haven't been able to upgrade in a couple years, maybe they've made some giant leaps, I'll have to download/burn the latest and attempt an upgrade once I have that kind of time again).

I don't know exactly what the default system wide search tool for Ubuntu is, but you can install whatever you want; nautilus supports both meta tracker and beagle for instance. I used meta tracker for a while, but I didn't see much need for it (locate and grep will do :lol:).


Like I have said multiple times, I use and have always loved using Linux. It's a great, stable, customizable OS, if you're willing to put in that work, but it also has a decent way to go.



I love package management, and I miss it greatly on Windows and Mac when I'm working on those platforms.

You won't believe how many windows users hate it because say it's not user friendly and that they want the next-next-finish way of installing software.


That being said, if there is a big move towards the various different linux distributions, or even one outstanding one, under socialism, for instance, the package management will end up becoming far less centralized as the task of maintaining the packages for all of the new developers and projects becomes unmanagable and developers begin simply packaging up their software for download from their own sites.

I like package management too. However if one distro were to be used to the majority of people, than a single package format could be used by most developers, which would simplify things. There would be no need for any people working on the distro to package things and at most create an application that indexes other software on the internet so it's as straightforward to install software as it is now.


I don't know much about the Apache project's organization, and obviously it's not a failure. All I am saying is that, at least in my mind, the pure "Open Source Development Model" describes something more specific than you wish to acknowledge. The combination of open source methods with structured methods is far and away a wonderful model. When an open source project gets large enough, the "Pure open source development model" tends to give way to the hybrid as a full time staff capable of implementing structured methods is introduced, and those structured methods produce better, more organized software.

But if apache is a success, although developed by the FOSS development model, that pretty much invalidated your claim. I still don't get it why you thing the FOSS d.m. can't have a full stuff and can't be better organized.


Also, I'm gonna request that an admin or mod split our entire discussion about open source to a new topic, since we've gotten pretty far away from the video game discussion here.
I agree.

[AK]

Ah I love how we all have our prorities straight

[mel]

Ah I love how we all have our prorities straight

The OP admitted that the issue was not of earth-shattering importance, but things such as the production of art and software, and hardware (and which hardware and software designs are implemented) are legitimate questions to ask about.