6. Re: looks like it's happening everywhere

Hope my reply to the digest is not too disjointed...



> From: Taran Rampersad <[email protected]>

> He has taken some hits for his personal style. I try to separate the 
> person from the message. The message is there, and his 
> ranting doesn't 
> help, I agree. But the beauty of it is that passion cannot be 
> faked. A 
> cool calm voice can be practiced. Sometimes there needs to be a Voice 
> from the Wilderness.
> 
> I've emailed him a few times, and he's very objective and 
> sensible via 
> email. Of course, he and I seemed to disagree on a few points (to me) 
> which I later found out, with reflection, that we agreed upon.

IN his case, he has devoted most of his life to protecting the scientific method as applied to computer programming.  That requires a great deal of passion.  Unfortunately that does not make him a good spokesperson when trying to get the message out to management types.

> From: Russell McOrmond <[email protected]>
>   My analysis of the economics of this suggests that there 
> are *more* jobs
> (and thus more taxpayers) in a distributed open collaborative based
> economy than a centralized monopoly based one.  The demand 
> for technology
> does not get reduced if you move from a supply-side centric 
> methodology of
> production (manufacturing) to a demand-side centric methodology (open
> collaborative models).  If anything the ability of the demand-side
> methodology to meet the actual needs of itself is greater than that of
> supply-side's attempt to meet demand with "one size fits all".

In other words you are saying that MORE software would be created, because it would make sense to have a special application instead of trying to use macros in Excel or some similar workaround.

>  When a 
> government helps
> resource an open collaborative project everyone benefits:  
> FLOSS project
> participation and benefits span the entire of the economy (private,
> public, volunteer, etc) while "software manufacturing" product
> participation and benefits only include a small subset of the private
> sector.

The big point in my mind is if a Government (or any other software user) spends money on improving/creating Open Source stuff, that software is available as infrastructure for the whole economy.  With the close source stuff, the next person/organization that needs similar capability has to start form scratch, which is a waste of time talent and other resources.


> From: "Jan C. Depner" <[email protected]>
> 	Read Slashdot for a week and see how many times you hear someone
> whining about "there are no software jobs because they're moving
> everything offshore".  Not that I agree with that.

BUT what is to stop Closed source work moving offshore?  Even here in Canada there are jurisdictions that are encouraging job development for Phone centers.  Every day on my way to work I pass a building that used to be a building store that was taken over by COMPAQ as a phone center.  Their name is now off the building, but I understand that it is still used for the same function.

Microsoft can just as easily do engineering in the middle and far east as anyone else. 
> > We already see many cases of overly-large companies pitting 
> political
> > jurisdictions against each other in a race-to-the-bottom to 
> be the "home"
> > of this so-called "taxpayer".
> > 
> 
> 	Less taxes doesn't mean no taxes.  What would you 
> rather have 2% of 1
> billion or (the Canadian way) 18% of 1 million?

I personally don't imagine that Microsoft Canada manages to pay that much..  There are loopholes in our tax system too.   (and yes, our system does have more things paid by tax dollars, I was amused the other day to see an ad on US television with the line about "doctors appointments- there's MasterCard" )

Multinationals shopping for freebees is a whole other discussion.

> 	I tend to agree with that but our methodologies would 
> differ.  I think
> that the government should mandate open standards thus taking away
> Micro$oft's advantage.

That alone might be enough, if something could be done about the "compatibility with the installed base" issue was part of the plan.


> 	Where is the latest OS hyperspectral imagery data 
> editing software? 
> Where is the latest OS multibeam sonar editing software?  How about
> airborne LIDAR bathymetry software.  These will not only not 
> exist, they
> will never exist in OS form because the collection systems 
> cost millions
> of dollars. 

BUT - portions of them could be.  I am guessing based on what my wife used to do with audio, that almost all of the above are Applications of DSP?  All could for example probably use "the fastest Fourier transform in the west"?

Assuming that the regulations that probably declare all the above "Munitions" were not in the way, I am sure that the Dutch navy for example would be quite happy to collaborate on that sort of thing, even the entertainment industry (computer graphics effects) and Petrol exploration would have an interest in sharing the costs of such products..  (Analysis of Sonar and Analysis of seismic geology probably have a lot in common)


> I just can't see a Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman
> shelling out 12 million dollars so he can work on LIDAR software. 

But who else has a need?  (again bypassing the Munitions issue)

> The way that works
> is the same way that ADA worked when we were paying attention 
> to it.  If
> you asked a company to build a product for you it would cost 
> an order of
> magnitude more if you wanted it in ADA.  A company will do exactly the
> same if you spec OS.

Americans with Disability act? Or one of the setoff programs for small business/minority/disabled/ etc.


If the Government wants something special, the cost does go up.  That is one reason I often burst out laughing when we hear about the more effective private sector.  The Canadian Government for example does most things in two languages.  (social good) but obviously that costs more.  Procurements often have a regional development angle  (I don't  know how many times I have asked for a cardboard box, and got one made 2000 miles away, even though they make them locally.



> From: Russell McOrmond <[email protected]>

>   I also don't understand the "too boring" reference.  If you 
> are paid to 
> do the work, does it matter if it is too boring? 
> Whether a customer will be making money with the software or 
> saving money 
> with the software, there is money to pay software developers 
> to do the 
> "boring" stuff.

The more specialised the need, the grater chance you will have to pay to get the software you want.  With FLOSS, you can more easily spread that cost around.


>   Royalty payments are a single (and legacy) business model, 
> not the only
> way to make money with software.

In fact they can become rather cumbersome for both the buyer and the seller.

 
> Note: I am not a fan of income/profit tax at all, but that would be
> another longer conversation that is outside the scope of this thread.

My personal thought is that companies should pay taxes on distributions of dividends, and in transfers at other than fair market arms length value.  Then money that is building value stays in, and payouts get taxed.

>  In an environment where the public
> sector are expected to participate in cross-sectoral open 
> collaborative
> projects to meet departmental needs the public servant 
> becomes much more
> skilled and much more valuable to the government.

I would agree with that one