a) hosted web applications, including Google b) scripting languages, where definition of dynamic linking is pretty loose

a) hosted web applications, including Google b) scripting languages, where definition of dynamic linking is pretty loose

Only 400 years ago lawyers, bakers and writers did not have to know how to do long devisions; most people did not know how to read or write — nor did they have to know.

You just can’t stop progress. In time programming will evolve and everyone will learn it. It’s just to powerful. People will learn. I doubt the they will use c of something like it, just as that the roman numeral system was replaced because it was just to hard and useless.

Programming is the ability to automate a repetitive task so that a machine can perform it… in less time then it would have taken if done by hand. It is using you brain to free your hands. It’s like the car makes you travel faster and farther: who would choose not to learn to drive a car?

Do we need free software? Yes! So that we can learn and stand on the shoulders of giants. (Mind you: most open source software is however not good enough… like most books are not literature.) Will everyone agree? No. Because some people just don’t care about these things, which is their right of cause. They just want to ship a product and programming is just a job.

Think of this: Most scribes never cared about getting everyone to read and write. Most scribes have argued that most people will never be able to read and write because it’s just to hard. The even made fun of any attempt to make it less hard[1].

Likewise most ”profesional programmers” argue now the same thing, making fun of much easier dynamic languages.

That does not make it true however. Things change. People will learn and programming will become part of human culture. Like powerful technology has always done. People are in the end all the same, anyone can learn everything — they just need to see the value of it.

[1] Read the history of the Hangul for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul

Only 400 years ago lawyers, bakers and writers did not have to know how to do long devisions; most people did not know how to read or write — nor did they have to know.

You just can’t stop progress. In time programming will evolve and everyone will learn it. It’s just to powerful. People will learn. I doubt the they will use c of something like it, just as that the roman numeral system was replaced because it was just to hard and useless.

Programming is the ability to automate a repetitive task so that a machine can perform it… in less time then it would have taken if done by hand. It is using you brain to free your hands. It’s like the car makes you travel faster and farther: who would choose not to learn to drive a car?

Do we need free software? Yes! So that we can learn and stand on the shoulders of giants. (Mind you: most open source software is however not good enough… like most books are not literature.) Will everyone agree? No. Because some people just don’t care about these things, which is their right of cause. They just want to ship a product and programming is just a job.

Think of this: Most scribes never cared about getting everyone to read and write. Most scribes have argued that most people will never be able to read and write because it’s just to hard. The even made fun of any attempt to make it less hard[1].

Likewise most ”profesional programmers” argue now the same thing, making fun of much easier dynamic languages.

That does not make it true however. Things change. People will learn and programming will become part of human culture. Like powerful technology has always done. People are in the end all the same, anyone can learn everything — they just need to see the value of it.

[1] Read the history of the Hangul for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul

A world where everybody learns to write software, as they learn to read and write, I find very doubtful and unrealistic. Is writing software really as important as reading and writing? I don’t think so at all, someone who repairs cycles; writes novels; or practices pratices law, really doesn’t have to know anything about programming.

Nevertheless, I’d probably be part of the “view software as a tool” club. I built software to get something done, not because it’s an art on its own. Particulary now, the only reason for me to write software is when I need it, or to show that a concept I made up actually works. “Programmes must be written to be read, and only incidentely for machines to execute”; I think programmes are written to get something done, not to educate others or to show how skilled you are. That’s how I look at it anyways. But then again, I’m probably not part of this “freesource” community.

A world where everybody learns to write software, as they learn to read and write, I find very doubtful and unrealistic. Is writing software really as important as reading and writing? I don’t think so at all, someone who repairs cycles; writes novels; or practices pratices law, really doesn’t have to know anything about programming.

Nevertheless, I’d probably be part of the “view software as a tool” club. I built software to get something done, not because it’s an art on its own. Particulary now, the only reason for me to write software is when I need it, or to show that a concept I made up actually works. “Programmes must be written to be read, and only incidentely for machines to execute”; I think programmes are written to get something done, not to educate others or to show how skilled you are. That’s how I look at it anyways. But then again, I’m probably not part of this “freesource” community.

“Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” (H. Abelson and G. Sussman) This is the basis of the difference of paradigma between the two cultures.

One the one hand you have the the hackers who write beautiful code and want to show the world their master pieces, and not just what it does, but more how is does it. These are the people who care about the tools they use, prefer dynamic typing above static typing for example. They care about their peers more then anyone else. The view it to be an art form and want to share their works, and learn/study the works of others to improve themselves.

On the other hand you have the people who see the final program as a tool, a product. They don’t care about there tools; as long as it can be deployed and sold in time. The care about customers (mostly laymen) and maybe their manager (mostly laymen). They tend to view programming in terms of architecture and factory work. They really don’t care about sharing the code they write, it’s not the product to them, to them it’s only the blueprint. They prefer static typing in most cases I’ve found.

I hope anyone can see that these paradigmas can not, will not, co-exist in peace over a long period of time. It’s hard to make laws which accept these two conflicting points of view. It’s the difference between a culture where only a few scribes can read and write and a culture of bloggers, where anyone can read and write.

The slogan “Information want to be free” has to be understood in this context. Literally this is a bogus claim, like “the war on terrorism”. But both are no intended to be taken literal: They are intended to reflect the spirit of the culture that people feel: In their culture information is free. A sense of commitment is made.

Which culture will win in the long term? Which culture will make the most profit in the long run? What do we want? Who do we want to become?

“Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” (H. Abelson and G. Sussman) This is the basis of the difference of paradigma between the two cultures.

One the one hand you have the the hackers who write beautiful code and want to show the world their master pieces, and not just what it does, but more how is does it. These are the people who care about the tools they use, prefer dynamic typing above static typing for example. They care about their peers more then anyone else. The view it to be an art form and want to share their works, and learn/study the works of others to improve themselves.

On the other hand you have the people who see the final program as a tool, a product. They don’t care about there tools; as long as it can be deployed and sold in time. The care about customers (mostly laymen) and maybe their manager (mostly laymen). They tend to view programming in terms of architecture and factory work. They really don’t care about sharing the code they write, it’s not the product to them, to them it’s only the blueprint. They prefer static typing in most cases I’ve found.

I hope anyone can see that these paradigmas can not, will not, co-exist in peace over a long period of time. It’s hard to make laws which accept these two conflicting points of view. It’s the difference between a culture where only a few scribes can read and write and a culture of bloggers, where anyone can read and write.

The slogan “Information want to be free” has to be understood in this context. Literally this is a bogus claim, like “the war on terrorism”. But both are no intended to be taken literal: They are intended to reflect the spirit of the culture that people feel: In their culture information is free. A sense of commitment is made.

Which culture will win in the long term? Which culture will make the most profit in the long run? What do we want? Who do we want to become?

I agree with you on all points. The Free software movement just gets way too political/religious for me at times.

I agree with you on all points. The Free software movement just gets way too political/religious for me at times.

Proprietary software main purpose is to make money now; which sometimes can mean that it’s more profitable to ”gently force people to buy the latest release”. In this mindset it is unavoidable that in time the ”product” will be replaced, making the current software very good (mostly useless) abandon-ware…

The whole notion of ”release” is strange in many ways: Apparently “revolutions sell”, but barely noticeable evolution is what most people would prefer. Slow progress is however not cool and you can’t really market it in a 30 second ad.

Opensource and freesource don’t need 30 seconde ads. The progress is made over many years, slow and barely noticeable. It’s about continues refinement and maintenance. It’s a totally different mindset.

Freesource is (in the end) about do-it-yourself software, for a world of people who all can write algorithms. A special culture which will develop when all children learn to write software, like they learn to read, write, arithmetic, etc. Software for programmers so to say, where citizens share and help each other. It’s democratizing technology in a network civilisation: the web (no top, no bottom).

Proprietary software is for a world of ”priests and laymen”, where specialists write tools and the laymen use them. This is the hierarchical top-down/bottom-up view of the world.

Two radically different ways to view the world.

Proprietary software main purpose is to make money now; which sometimes can mean that it’s more profitable to ”gently force people to buy the latest release”. In this mindset it is unavoidable that in time the ”product” will be replaced, making the current software very good (mostly useless) abandon-ware…

The whole notion of ”release” is strange in many ways: Apparently “revolutions sell”, but barely noticeable evolution is what most people would prefer. Slow progress is however not cool and you can’t really market it in a 30 second ad.

Opensource and freesource don’t need 30 seconde ads. The progress is made over many years, slow and barely noticeable. It’s about continues refinement and maintenance. It’s a totally different mindset.

Freesource is (in the end) about do-it-yourself software, for a world of people who all can write algorithms. A special culture which will develop when all children learn to write software, like they learn to read, write, arithmetic, etc. Software for programmers so to say, where citizens share and help each other. It’s democratizing technology in a network civilisation: the web (no top, no bottom).

Proprietary software is for a world of ”priests and laymen”, where specialists write tools and the laymen use them. This is the hierarchical top-down/bottom-up view of the world.

Two radically different ways to view the world.