D vs Java

[Unknown W. Brackets]

AFAIK, we were in the process or already a not-for-profit.  Honestly, I 
don't remember anymore.  That helps a lot.

There are two different terms here:
   - open source: this is a philosophical term.  It means source with as 
few restrictions to the end user as possible, except those necessary to 
keep it that way.
   - free software: software which is free.  It may also have less 
restrictions than non-free software.

Technically, the software I developed and supported was not open source. 
  We did not allow people to redistribute the code in full - only 
patches, etc. were allowed.  You were also required to display a 
copyright notice visibly.  But it was free software, and the source code 
was available.

Many different groups and organizations have different business models 
and strategies.  For example, Mozilla gets money from many large 
businesses interested in their software running on mobile devices, and 
similar.

The model I have described works best for good programmers.  If you can 
write something well, with a good concept, and support it well, you will 
prosper.  If someone else comes along and enhances your code, and 
supports it better than you, you've just been pwned.

We had software vendors who rebranded our software and sold it, or 
support for it.  They paid us for this, of course.  At first they didn't 
expect to, and so we told them we had a lawyer.  Situation solved. 
Seriously, if you do your job well, and you license it correctly, this 
won't be a problem.

I don't go quite as far as some with the philosophy of open source.  I 
believe it is great, amazing, and only logical for the code to be 
available.  For others to be able to compile it, patch it, change it.  I 
do not believe it is fair for them to provide it under their own name. 
I do not believe it is always fair for them to be able to redistribute 
it, even (although for smaller things it is.)

Free software scales a lot faster, in my experience.  You get people who 
care.  Who will throw tomatoes at this other company.  It's PR without a 
department for it.

For games, I'll agree with you.  Those usually just don't work.  Open 
source and free software just don't apply to everything.  But it's more 
about plot.  However, think of this:

You provide a framework with which people can make games (except, let's 
assume you actually make it so the games can be unique and of some 
quality, not something useless.)  This isn't far from what big game 
companies do, by the way.  Then, you open source/free this.  You provide 
support for it, services again.

For plot, for other things... open source is strange.  It's all about 
the code.

I didn't mention a lot of benefits it gives you.  Bugs, evangelism/free 
marketing department, peer support (which isn't great compared to yours, 
but takes slack off your back), third party plug-ins/extensions, reach, etc.

The only problem is, if you suck as a programmer, you're gonna have 
problems.  People can see it, people can see your glaring security 
holes, people will find your backdoors... etc.  But although I don't 
know much of you, considering you're interested in D I'll assume this 
won't be a problem.

All that said (yes, I know I'm long-winded), the computer my mouse is 
attached to almost always runs Windows.

However, all my servers are Linux or Unix-based (RHEL, FreeBSD, CentOS, 
etc.) and some consider my company to be in the "entertainment industry" 
(since we do websites for Fox, etc.)  But I suppose that's still business.

-[Unknown]


> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>> Free Software uses a different business model - I should know, I used 
>> to be quite involved with it.  The idea is to make money from the 
>> service, not from the product.
>>
>>> Interesing point. I think the "Free Software" model is flawed.
> 
> I somewhat agree with both points. I see the value of open source and 
> how it can work as a service, but it doesn't always seem to work this 
> way. Maybe someone can clear this up for me... or maybe I'll just muddy 
> the waters. Does it work in these cases?
> 
> This one I'm not sure about, but what if I make an innovative new 
> software product and release it as open source. Some business comes 
> along and likes my product, so they have their developers (who are paid) 
> to make enhancements to my original. Then they decide to support clients 
> who use this software (as they bundle the software with their product). 
> And since this company is bigger in the market, most people that need 
> the support go to this company. How do I make money from that?
> 
> Secondly... games! This is where open source doesn't fit in my opinion. 
> I make a game and release it, who will pay for support. Users will think 
> it's a bad game if it doesn't work or if it's buggy. And gamers won't 
> pay to add things (unless it's maybe like $5), and instead choose to try 
> to do Mod's.
> 
> So it seems...
> Business/Education = Linux
> Home/Entertainment = Mac/Windows
> 
> Hmm...