Re: Open source developers just in it for themselves

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by AD., Jun 11, 2010.

  1. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 11, 4:37 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > Screw the "community", say most open source developers, nearly two-thirds of
    > whom contribute absolutely nothing back -- not so much as a bug report --  
    > according to a recent poll of open source developers.
    >
    > http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Repor...


    You seem to be confusing "Eclipse users" with "open source
    developers".

    Most Eclipse users would work for companies writing closed source
    internal apps. Just using Eclipse doesn't make you an open source
    developer.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 11, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 12, 5:24 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "AD." <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 11, 4:37 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > >> Screw the "community", say most open source developers, nearly two-thirds
    > >> of
    > >> whom contribute absolutely nothing back -- not so much as a bug report --
    > >> according to a recent poll of open source developers.

    >
    > >>http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Repor....

    >
    > > You seem to be confusing "Eclipse users" with "open source
    > > developers".

    >
    > > Most Eclipse users would work for companies writing closed source
    > > internal apps.

    >
    > > Just using Eclipse doesn't make you an open source
    > > developer.

    >
    > You seem to be confusing "open source developers" with a church.


    "Open Source Developer" - someone who develops open source software.

    "Eclipse User" - someone who uses Eclipse.

    The survey surveyed Eclipse Users.

    Does that help clarify these concepts for you?

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 12, 1:41 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "AD." <> wrote in message
    > > "Open Source Developer" - someone who develops open source software.

    >
    > > "Eclipse User" - someone who uses Eclipse.

    >
    > You do realize that Eclipse is open source software, don't you?


    So is the Java JDK. So are hundreds of the most commonly used Java
    libraries. So is Subversion. So is Ant. So are lots of bits of
    proprietary app servers like Websphere or BEA. So is Emacs. So is Vim.
    So is Trac. So is Redmine. So is Microsoft's MVC.NET web framework. So
    are the NUnit and xUnit .NET testing frameworks. So is the new MS SDK
    for their Outlook file formats. So is Adobes Flex SDK. So are lots of
    bits of Apple's Xcode IDE. So are many many .NET development
    libraries, tools, frameworks, IDE plugins etc available from codeplex.
    The list goes on and on.

    You'd be hard pressed to find an internal closed source enterprise
    development team anywhere that didn't have at least some open source
    stuff somewhere in their development, testing and management
    toolchains.

    Of course this might not be apparent to someone who's development
    experience is limited to MS Office macros.

    >
    > > The survey surveyed Eclipse Users.

    >
    > Hence this was a survey of open source developers.


    So by your moronic logic, iPhone developers and XCode users are also
    open source developers because there is a lot of open source code in
    the Apple developer tools? Or developers building webapps on top of
    MVC.NET are also open source developers?

    And also by your logic, the team that develops (for example) the
    National Banks online banking system are open source developers
    because they use or have used Eclipse?

    > In what sense are Eclipse users not a legitimate part of the open source
    > community in your mind?


    I never said that. But aren't you the one trumpeting the survey result
    that found 2/3rds or Eclipse users don't participate in the Eclipse
    community at all?

    So haven't you just contradicted yourself and shown that Eclipse users
    don't have to be part of the Eclipse open source community anyway?

    And being that the Eclipse users outside the community would be far
    less likely to even hear about the community survey, it is obvious the
    proportion of Eclipse users outside the community would be far higher
    than the 2/3rds indicated.

    Being an Eclipse user is tangential to being an open source developer
    or community member. Eclipse is something you use, open source
    development or community participation is something you do. An Eclipse
    user could be a closed source software developer, an open source
    software developer, or both.

    Eclipse is probably the most popular Java IDE, and Javas user base is
    mostly internal enterprise development shops. It stands to reason that
    most Eclipse users are not open source developers.

    You also quoted the survey saying there are millions of users yet
    thousands of community members. So there are orders of magnitude more
    Eclipse users outside the Eclipse community than inside it.

    Even your evidence disagrees with you.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 12, 2010
    #3
  4. AD.

    Enkidu Guest

    On 13/06/10 02:19, impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> And also by your logic, the team that develops (for example) the
    >> National Banks online banking system are open source developers
    >> because they use or have used Eclipse?

    >
    > It's up to each developer.
    >

    That doesn't even come close to answering the question.

    It is not up to each developer what tools he uses, unless he works in
    isolation. It's up to the organisation to specify the tools that their
    developers use and how they use them.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
    Enkidu, Jun 13, 2010
    #4
  5. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 13, 2:19 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > Two thirds of open source developers don't think of themselves as belonging
    > to an "open source community". That's exactly my point. Most are just in it
    > for themselves.


    Your point is based on a fallacy and you're failing to wriggle out of
    it.

    A developer that uses open source is not necessarily an open source
    developer. They are definitely an open source user, but whether or not
    they are an open source developer is defined by the software they
    develop not the software they use.

    If someone uses a text editor to develop software, they are a text
    editor user, but they are only a text editor developer if they develop
    text editors.

    An engineer may drive a car to and from work, but that doesn't
    necessarily make them an automotive engineer unless they work on cars.

    etc etc

    Get it? As much as you'd like to represent this as ideology, it just
    is simple comprehension and set theory.

    A child could easily understand the difference. After all the
    difference between subsets and intersection sets is still fresh in
    their mind.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 13, 2010
    #5
  6. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 13, 12:14 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the "open
    > source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described "open
    > source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so did. Just
    > because the Larry D'Loserite Church didn't get to vet their bona fides as
    > command-line fetishists and fanatical ideologues doesn't make their opinions
    > any less valid.


    So you've slipped from calling them open source developers to open
    source community members? That sounds suspiciously like calling them
    open source users. Is that an admission you were wrong all along?

    Your premise was by definition completely contradictory anyway. You
    were trumpeting that 2/3rds of open source developers don't contribute
    anything back - but how can you be an open source developer if you
    don't contribute anything back? Isn't making code contributions the
    whole thing that makes someone an open source developer in the first
    place?

    But if the statistic is instead that 2/3rds of Eclipse users don't
    contribute anything back to the community - then that isn't
    contradictory. There is nothing in the definition being an Eclipse
    user requiring any sort of contribution back to the community.

    Again (as much as you'd wish it to be) this has nothing to do with
    ideology, just some very basic definitions and simple logic. And the
    only invalid opinion so far appears to be yours.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton

    The statistic fits if you don't confuse a survey of Eclipse users
    with a survey of open source developers.
    AD., Jun 13, 2010
    #6
  7. In article <>, "AD." <> wrote:
    >On Jun 11, 4:37=A0pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >> Screw the "community", say most open source developers, nearly two-thirds=

    > of
    >> whom contribute absolutely nothing back -- not so much as a bug report --=

    > =A0
    >> according to a recent poll of open source developers.
    >> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Repor...

    >
    >You seem to be confusing "Eclipse users" with "open source
    >developers".
    >
    >Most Eclipse users would work for companies writing closed source
    >internal apps. Just using Eclipse doesn't make you an open source
    >developer.


    :) Confusion is Impossible's default status. Don't bother replying ...
    wastes everyone's times. :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Jun 14, 2010
    #7
  8. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 14, 12:57 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > Just as I thought -- The Larry D'Loserite Church has spoken! Anton the
    > Wanton Censor presiding.


    Hehe, can you point out a single ideological or religious argument
    I've made?

    This sounds awfully like you've painted yourself into a corner.

    > No one dareth call themselves an open source developer unless they have
    > passed the church's test of ideological purity!


    Surely to call yourself an open source developer you have to like
    actually develop open source software? That's not a test of purity,
    it's the definition.

    Where is the ideological aspect to that argument? It is the logical
    meaning of the term. You're the one ignoring the facts.

    The survey asked people who visited the Eclipse homepage some
    questions about software development. Some answers:

    98% use some version of Eclipse (ie only 2% said they didn't use
    Eclipse)
    and
    64% don't contribute anything to the Eclipse community

    vs

    16% have at one time developed a plugin
    8% have at one time entered a patch into Bugzilla
    5% have at one time been an active committer on a project

    So being that most of those contributors would do more than one of
    those things, we have about maybe around 20% of the survey respondents
    who have contributed code in some form. Note that surveys selection
    bias would also overstate that number. The large numbers of closed
    source corporate developers using Eclipse would be less likely to have
    been aware of the survey - although some of them answered based on the
    other tools used.

    Summary:

    98% use Eclipse
    approx 20% are identifiably open source developers

    Conclusion:

    98% is far larger than 20% even with huge margins of error. So I think
    a better description of the survey is therefore a survey of Eclipse
    users not a survey of open source developers. A logical rational
    argument based on the very numbers you supplied.

    You on the other hand refuted that objection and despite the numbers
    cling to the idea that it was instead a survey of open source
    developers and that somehow being an Eclipse user automatically makes
    you an open source developer. As if being a user of something
    automatically makes you a designer or builder of that something. A
    flawed illogical argument.

    In your haste to deflect Larry's post noting the dramatic drop in
    popularity of Windows amongst Eclipse users, you really did confuse a
    survey of Eclipse users with a survey of open source developers.

    But don't worry, the same selection bias that overstates the number of
    open source developers amongst Eclipse users (thus weakening your
    argument even further) would also likely understate the proportion of
    Eclipse users developing on Windows. So it's OK after all, it was a
    false alarm and you don't have to defend your stock portfolio so
    irrationally in this case.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 14, 2010
    #8
  9. Re: Developers Dumping Dimdows

    In message
    <>, AD.
    wrote:

    > ... the same selection bias that overstates the number of
    > open source developers amongst Eclipse users ... would also likely
    > understate the proportion of Eclipse users developing on Windows.


    But why would that selection bias vary over time? The survey shows a
    continuing drop in those using Windows compared to previous years.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 14, 2010
    #9
  10. AD.

    AD. Guest

    Re: Developers Dumping Dimdows

    On Jun 14, 12:14 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message
    > <>, AD.
    > wrote:
    >
    > > ... the same selection bias that overstates the number of
    > > open source developers amongst Eclipse users ... would also likely
    > > understate the proportion of Eclipse users developing on Windows.

    >
    > But why would that selection bias vary over time? The survey shows a
    > continuing drop in those using Windows compared to previous years.


    I wasn't assuming the selection bias would change - it could very well
    stay the same. I don't doubt the Windows percentage is dropping. I
    just suspect it is probably a bit higher than the survey suggests.

    One aspect that could alter the selection bias though is Eclipses
    improving support for other languages. For example it is only in the
    last year or so that the pydev extension became fully open source.
    Based on all the developers I know, I reckon the percentage of Windows
    users amongst languages like Python and PHP is a bit lower than it is
    amongst Java developers. Especially as Java devs are more biased
    towards corporate internal enterprise stuff than Python and PHP.

    These minor technicalities aside, it was a significant (and
    interesting) drop in the number of Windows users.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 14, 2010
    #10
  11. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 14, 1:25 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > It's convenient for Larry D'Loserites to wantonly lie because they think
    > they are entitled to wantonly censor out the bits that catch them out. But
    > here's the direct quote from you, just one post ago,  speaking on behalf of
    > the Larry D'Loserite Church, in which you define an open source developer,
    > not as someone who writes open source code, but as someone who contributes
    > something back to the open source community:


    You've failed basic primary school set theory again. I'll explain it
    to you further down - if you read the explanation very slowly and draw
    some circles on a piece of paper like your school teacher taught you,
    you might just grasp it.

    >
    > Anton the Wanton Censor:  "You were trumpeting that 2/3rds of open source
    > developers don't contribute anything back - but how can you be an open if
    > you don't contribute anything back? Isn't making code contributions the
    > whole thing that makes someone an open source developer in the first place?"


    1. Draw two circles next to each other that have a gap between them so
    they don't overlap. Label one "contributors" and one "non
    contributors". The reason they don't overlap is that somebody can't be
    in the set of "contributors" as well as the set of "non contributors".

    Once you finished that, you can move on to step 2.

    2. A code contribution is one type of contribution, so draw a smaller
    circle labeled "code contributors" inside the larger circle labeled
    "contributors". If you want to get technical, this means that the set
    of code contributors is a "subset" of contributors.

    Done that yet? How does it look? Have you managed to follow along so
    far?

    Now this is where it gets tricky: From this diagram we can discover
    that someone who hasn't made any contributions at all (ie they sit in
    the "non contributors" circle) can't have made any code contributions
    because a code contribution is a type of contribution.

    Likewise an open source developer is someone who contributes code and
    therefore is a "code contributor", and because code contributors are a
    subset of contributors, it means open source developer have to also be
    contributors at the same time (Wow! Mind blowing! Who knew?).

    I know this all seems pretty complex to you, but you should be able
    get your head around it eventually.

    >
    > Hence, your entire complaint with the Eclipse survey revolves around the
    > fact that they have not accepted the Larry D'Loserite gospel.


    You have missed the point entirely. I have no problem at all with the
    survey or the Eclipse Foundation or any Eclipse users. I just pointed
    out your lame attempt at misrepresenting it and your irrational
    failure to grasp basic logic and subsets.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 14, 2010
    #11
  12. AD.

    Enkidu Guest

    On 13/06/10 11:50, impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c141681$...
    >> On Jun 12, 1:41 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >> "AD." <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>> On Jun 12, 1:41 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "AD." <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Jun 12, 5:24 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> "AD." <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> > On Jun 11, 4:37 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> >> Screw the "community", say most open source developers, nearly
    >>>>>>> >> two-thirds
    >>>>>>> >> of
    >>>>>>> >> whom contribute absolutely nothing back -- not so much as a bug
    >>>>>>> >> report --
    >>>>>>> >> according to a recent poll of open source developers.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> >>http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Report.pdf
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> > You seem to be confusing "Eclipse users" with "open source
    >>>>>>> > developers".
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> > Most Eclipse users would work for companies writing closed source
    >>>>>>> > internal apps.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> > Just using Eclipse doesn't make you an open source
    >>>>>>> > developer.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You seem to be confusing "open source developers" with a church.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Open Source Developer" - someone who develops open source software.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Eclipse User" - someone who uses Eclipse.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You do realize that Eclipse is open source software, don't you?
    >>>>
    >>>> So is the Java JDK. So are hundreds of the most commonly used Java
    >>>> libraries. So is Subversion. So is Ant......
    >>>> So are lots of bits of proprietary app servers like Websphere or
    >>>> BEA. So is Emacs. So is Vim.
    >>>> So is Trac. So is Redmine. So is Microsoft's MVC.NET web framework. So
    >>>> are the NUnit and xUnit .NET testing frameworks. So is the new MS SDK
    >>>> for their Outlook file formats. So is Adobes Flex SDK. So are lots of
    >>>> bits of Apple's Xcode IDE. So are many many .NET development
    >>>> libraries, tools, frameworks, IDE plugins etc available from codeplex.
    >>>> The list goes on and on.
    >>>>
    >>>> You'd be hard pressed to find an internal closed source enterprise
    >>>> development team anywhere that didn't have at least some open source
    >>>> stuff somewhere in their development, testing and management
    >>>> toolchains.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Exactly my point. The category of "open source developers" is very
    >>> broad. Which makes the notion of a close-knit "open source community"
    >>> a joke.
    >>>
    >>>> Of course this might not be apparent to someone who's development
    >>>> experience is limited to MS Office macros.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It has always been readily apparent to me that the notion of a
    >>> close-knit "open source community" is a joke. Most open source
    >>> developers couldn't care less about the Larry D'Loserite sort of
    >>> commitment to ideological purity that you, foir example, espouse.
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> > The survey surveyed Eclipse Users.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hence this was a survey of open source developers.
    >>>>
    >>>> So by your moronic logic, iPhone developers and XCode users are also
    >>>> open source developers because there is a lot of open source code in
    >>>> the Apple developer tools? Or developers building webapps on top of
    >>>> MVC.NET are also open source developers?
    >>>>
    >>>> And also by your logic, the team that develops (for example) the
    >>>> National Banks online banking system are open source developers
    >>>> because they use or have used Eclipse?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It's up to each developer.
    >>>

    >> That doesn't even come close to answering the question.
    >>
    >> It is not up to each developer what tools he uses, unless he works in
    >> isolation. It's up to the organisation to specify the tools that their
    >> developers use and how they use them.

    >
    > One problem with ripping a sentence out of context is that it makes you
    > look like someone who's either too lazy or too stupid to follow a
    > conversation.
    >
    > In your case, I'm going to say it's a little of both.
    >
    > Eclipse surveyed what it described as "the open source community" and
    > discovered that most of the developers who identify themselves as
    > belonging to said community are simply in it for themselves. Who their
    > employer happens to be is irrelevant because it's up to each developer
    > to decide for himself/herself what they identify with and whose surveys
    > they choose to participate in.
    >

    No. In fact it says "the Eclipse Foundation undertook a survey of the
    Eclipse community". Not "the open source community". The document itself
    notes "the survey is biased to Eclipse users". Nowhere in the document
    did it say that the survey respondents consider themselves to be part of
    the 'open source community', though the Eclipse Foundation itself does
    wrongly try to conflate the Eclipse user base and the open source
    community. I'd say that was definitely wrong as many organisations use
    Eclipse but don't make their software open source. In fact in one
    passage it says that employers are discouraging their workers from
    contributing to open source projects. That's probably why 1 in 8 (quite
    a small percentage actually) claimed to be 'unaffiliated'.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
    Enkidu, Jun 14, 2010
    #12
  13. AD.

    Enkidu Guest

    On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
    >
    > There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the "open
    > source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
    > "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so did.
    >

    Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be part
    of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in would he
    therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them apparently did
    fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is stupid.

    Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
    community is silly.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
    Enkidu, Jun 14, 2010
    #13
  14. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 14, 11:54 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to open
    > source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has not been
    > sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to contribute back
    > to an open source project but that has dropped to 35% in 2010. Conversely,
    > in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational policies that allow them to
    > use but not contribute back to an open source community, which is an
    > increase from the 27% level in 2009. This clearly shows a change in the
    > level of willingness to contribute to open source communities.


    Hmmm... interesting. So you're saying that there were a large chunk of
    survey responders that are just users and not code contributors?

    And what's more they work for companies that don't let them make open
    source contributions? So they aren't actually open source developers
    after all?

    That sounds strangely familiar, but I thought you were claiming before
    that all the respondents were actual open source developers and not
    just users?

    You've lost track of all your contradictions.

    BTW the 41% not being allowed to contribute anything back kinda puts a
    new slant on your assumption of the non contributors attitude doesn't
    it?

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 14, 2010
    #14
  15. AD.

    Enkidu Guest

    On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c160dae$...
    >> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the "open
    >>> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
    >>> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so did.
    >> >

    >> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be
    >> part of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in
    >> would he therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them
    >> apparently did fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is
    >> stupid.
    >>
    >> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
    >> community is silly.
    >>

    >
    > Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its own words, is
    > what Eclipse concluded from its survey regarding the state of open
    > source development:
    >
    > http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Report.pdf
    >
    > "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity model to explain
    > how organizations perceive and participate in an open source source
    > community. Over time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
    > to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and champion.
    >
    > "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to
    > open source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has
    > not been sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to
    > contribute back to an open source project but that has dropped to 35% in
    > 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational
    > policies that allow them to use but not contribute back to an open
    > source community, which is an increase from the 27% level in 2009. This
    > clearly shows a change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
    > source communities.
    >
    > "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is something worth
    > investigating"
    >
    > Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just wants to slam the
    > door on any news that casts doubt on their religious convictions.
    >

    You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
    prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of respondents
    were. Clearly at least 2/3 of the users are corporate users and clearly
    they are not the same as the community that develops Eclipse.

    Thanks for posting that. Adobe wouldn't let me cut and paste that
    portion for some reason.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
    Enkidu, Jun 14, 2010
    #15
  16. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 15, 11:34 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in denial.


    Again, what dogma?

    The only reason you brought it up in the first place was your own
    ideological and dogmatic reaction to Larry posting it.

    You either stupidly misread (charitable explanation) or deliberately
    misrepresented (probable explanation) something and got called on it.
    And everything you've said since is just evasion or attempts at
    diversion.

    You just can't admit you were wrong. That is the only denial going on
    in here.

    You're torn between two conflicting aspects of your "personality". On
    the one hand you know you were obviously wrong and/or deceptive and
    you know more answers just further reinforce that, but on the other
    hand you can't let someone have the last word because in your warped
    mind that is letting them win.

    And to resolve this internal conflict before your head explodes, your
    tried and true escape technique is to resort to accusations of
    censorship or ideology. Most people just give up arguing with you
    before you reach that point though.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 15, 2010
    #16
  17. AD.

    Enkidu Guest

    On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c169bf9$...
    >> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4c160dae$...
    >>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the
    >>>>> "open
    >>>>> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
    >>>>> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so
    >>>>> did.
    >>>> >
    >>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be
    >>>> part of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in
    >>>> would he therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them
    >>>> apparently did fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is
    >>>> stupid.
    >>>>
    >>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
    >>>> community is silly.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its own words, is
    >>> what Eclipse concluded from its survey regarding the state of open
    >>> source development:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Report.pdf
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity model to explain
    >>> how organizations perceive and participate in an open source source
    >>> community. Over time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
    >>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and champion.
    >>>
    >>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to
    >>> open source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has
    >>> not been sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to
    >>> contribute back to an open source project but that has dropped to 35% in
    >>> 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational
    >>> policies that allow them to use but not contribute back to an open
    >>> source community, which is an increase from the 27% level in 2009. This
    >>> clearly shows a change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
    >>> source communities.
    >>>
    >>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is something worth
    >>> investigating"
    >>>
    >>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just wants to slam the
    >>> door on any news that casts doubt on their religious convictions.
    >> >

    >> You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
    >> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
    >> respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3 of the users are corporate
    >> users and clearly they are not the same as the community that develops
    >> Eclipse.

    >
    > You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in denial.
    >

    I'm just quoting that article back to you.

    Are you Lennier's fraternal twin?

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
    Enkidu, Jun 15, 2010
    #17
  18. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 15, 11:23 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that open source
    > developers contribute back to the community.


    So how do you develop open source software without contributing it?
    Surely if you don't contribute what you develop, it isn't actually
    open source?

    If you don't give it to somebody else, or allow them to get it (ie
    contribute it to them) - how can it be open source? Until you actually
    contribute the source it is just "software" not "open source
    software". Contributing the software with an open source license is
    actually what defines it as open source software funnily enough.

    It's not dogma, contributing is what defines an open source developer.
    The unique alternative definition you seem to (dogmatically) advocate
    is a nonsensical contradictory paradox.

    As usual you haven't been able to back up a single thing you've
    claimed.

    >  The survey does not support
    > that view, which is why there's such a clamor on your part to make that news
    > disappear.


    The only way that survey would contradict "open source developers
    contribute back to the community", is if it was a survey that
    exclusively polled open source developers. It wasn't - it was a survey
    of Eclipse users and anyone that visited their homepage was invited to
    fill it out.

    Only 16-20ish% could even be identified as doing anything that could
    be counted as "Open Source Development". Which isn't a problem for
    anyone else but you - because it was a survey of Eclipse Users and
    anyone else that wanted to answer.

    >
    > Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't; some
    > contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy earning a living.


    Maybe we need to create a new category of developer for you:

    "Open Source Developers that don't actually develop any Open Source
    Software"

    or OSDTDADAOSS for short. It's kinda catchy, I'm sure it will catch on
    with all those developers who wanted to have "open source" on their
    CVs, but couldn't be bothered with actually doing any actual open
    source.

    Maybe you somehow think open source is a state of mind rather than
    just a category of software license? But isn't that an ideological
    view rather than a pragmatic or technical one?

    Maybe this state of mind thing could extend to a category of
    "Developers that only wish they were Open Source Developers"? Of
    course they would be no more open source developers than "Basketball
    fans that wish they were in the Harlem Globetrotters" would actually
    be members of the Harlem Globetrotters.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 15, 2010
    #18
  19. AD.

    Enkidu Guest

    On 15/06/10 23:23, impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c16f86a$...
    >> On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4c169bf9$...
    >>>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4c160dae$...
    >>>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the
    >>>>>>> "open
    >>>>>>> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
    >>>>>>> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so
    >>>>>>> did.
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be
    >>>>>> part of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in
    >>>>>> would he therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them
    >>>>>> apparently did fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is
    >>>>>> stupid.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
    >>>>>> community is silly.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its own words, is
    >>>>> what Eclipse concluded from its survey regarding the state of open
    >>>>> source development:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Report.pdf
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity model to explain
    >>>>> how organizations perceive and participate in an open source source
    >>>>> community. Over time, an organization moves from denial of open
    >>>>> source,
    >>>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and champion.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to
    >>>>> open source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has
    >>>>> not been sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to
    >>>>> contribute back to an open source project but that has dropped to
    >>>>> 35% in
    >>>>> 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational
    >>>>> policies that allow them to use but not contribute back to an open
    >>>>> source community, which is an increase from the 27% level in 2009.
    >>>>> This
    >>>>> clearly shows a change in the level of willingness to contribute to
    >>>>> open
    >>>>> source communities.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is something
    >>>>> worth
    >>>>> investigating"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just wants to slam
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> door on any news that casts doubt on their religious convictions.
    >>>> >
    >>>> No, yoYou are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
    >>>> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
    >>>> respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3 of the users are corporate
    >>>> users and clearly they are not the same as the community that develops
    >>>> Eclipse.
    >>>
    >>> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in denial.
    >> >

    >> I'm just quoting that article back to you.
    >>

    >
    > No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that open
    > source developers contribute back to the community. The survey does not
    > support that view, which is why there's such a clamor on your part to
    > make that news disappear.
    >
    > Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't; some
    > contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy earning a living.
    >
    > Deal with it.
    >

    Dimwit. Which bit do you claim that I posted that supposedly supports
    the idea that Open Source Developers contribute back to the community?
    My claim is that the article reflects nothing about the Open Source
    Community, whatever that might be, in spite of Eclipse's rather
    hysterical claims.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
    Enkidu, Jun 16, 2010
    #19
  20. AD.

    Enkidu Guest

    On 16/06/10 23:28, impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c1886fa$...
    >> On 15/06/10 23:23, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4c16f86a$...
    >>>> On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4c169bf9$...
    >>>>>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:4c160dae$...
    >>>>>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not
    >>>>>>>>> belong to the "open source community". Eclipse
    >>>>>>>>> invited members of its own self-described "open
    >>>>>>>>> source community" to participate in a survey, and
    >>>>>>>>> 1600 or so did.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be
    >>>>>>>> said to be part of the "open source community". If a MS
    >>>>>>>> developer filled it in would he therefore be an "open
    >>>>>>>> source developer"? (Some of them apparently did fill in
    >>>>>>>> the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is stupid.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is
    >>>>>>>> part of your community is silly.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its
    >>>>>>> own words, is what Eclipse concluded from its survey
    >>>>>>> regarding the state of open source development:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Report.pdf
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity
    >>>>>>> model to explain how organizations perceive and
    >>>>>>> participate in an open source source community. Over
    >>>>>>> time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
    >>>>>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and
    >>>>>>> champion.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations
    >>>>>>> contributing more to open source communities. However in
    >>>>>>> 2010 it would seem this trend has not been sustained. In
    >>>>>>> 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to contribute
    >>>>>>> back to an open source project but that has dropped to
    >>>>>>> 35% in 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have
    >>>>>>> organizational policies that allow them to use but not
    >>>>>>> contribute back to an open source community, which is an
    >>>>>>> increase from the 27% level in 2009. This clearly shows a
    >>>>>>> change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
    >>>>>>> source communities.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is
    >>>>>>> something worth investigating"
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just
    >>>>>>> wants to slam the door on any news that casts doubt on
    >>>>>>> their religious convictions.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, yoYou are clearly not an 'open source community member'
    >>>>>> if you are prevented from contributing back to the
    >>>>>> community as 2/3 of respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3
    >>>>>> of the users are corporate users and clearly they are not
    >>>>>> the same as the community that develops Eclipse.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in
    >>>>> denial.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I'm just quoting that article back to you.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that
    >>> open source developers contribute back to the community. The
    >>> survey does not support that view, which is why there's such a
    >>> clamor on your part to make that news disappear.
    >>>
    >>> Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't;
    >>> some contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy
    >>> earning a living.
    >>>
    >>> Deal with it.
    >>>

    >> Dimwit. Which bit do you claim that I posted that supposedly
    >> supports the idea that Open Source Developers contribute back to
    >> the community?

    >
    > Let's see...scroll up....20, 21, 22....that's it, 22 lines:
    >
    > "You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
    > prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
    > respondents were. "
    >
    > I wonder where you got that idea....Oh, well, I'm sure you'll post a
    > link to the evidence one of these days.
    >

    It's in the reference you supplied: "In 2009, 48% of the respondents
    were allowed to contribute back to an open source project but that has
    dropped to 35% in 2010". 35% is approximately 1/3. Therefore 65% (approx
    2/3) were not permitted to contribute back, therefore 2/3 were not by
    definition members of the Open Source community.
    >
    >> My claim is that the article reflects nothing about the Open Source
    >> Community, whatever that might be, in spite of Eclipse's rather
    >> hysterical claims.
    >>

    >
    > Got it. See no evil, hear no evil....
    >

    As a former Microsoft MVP I resent the fact that the image that you
    project of the Microsoft community is so bigotted and ignorant. Thank
    the little gods that your type is rare in both the Open Source community
    and, to my certain knowledge, in the Microsoft community.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
    Enkidu, Jun 16, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open-Source Good, Closed-Source Bad

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    448
    Gordon
    Oct 16, 2005
  2. billwg
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    315
    billwg
    Oct 29, 2005
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    679
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Closed-Source vs Open-Source Drivers

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 4, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    493
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    May 5, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open Source vs Closed Source Security

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 3, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    946
    Gordon
    Mar 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page