Recently, the topic about open source seems to be hot. Personally think that this is a very bad phenomenon. When the media pays attention to one thing, this is a taste - just like the current situation in BLOG. I saw a very classic words on 9CBS two days before: "China's number of people participating in the open source project, but the number of people who screamed open source is the most." It is true, now who wants to say some topics about open source, it seems so soil .. So I can't help but start. To be honest, I can't understand how the open source camp will be in opposition to Microsoft. Whether it is the leaders of open source movements, or Bill Gates, I am afraid no one will have this idea. There is no Microsoft in the world, and Microsoft is probably also enriching yourself from the open source community. Whether it is thought, spirit, or experience. Many people don't understand the open source, and believe that programmers disclose themselves to maintain their livelihood, which is very uneconomic. In my opinion, most of this point of view is a new programmer in the end of the year. They have not really been enacted by programmers and HACKER culture, and naturally does not understand the open source historical foundation. The historical foundation of open source allows us to invest in the old age. Although relative to now, it is just more than 10 years ago. In that age, it is natural to provide it to others. And said to others: "Take a look at your code" is also reasonable. Not only the foreign Hacker did this, but in China in the early 1980s, the Chinese have also have this idea. At that time, due to China's no network environment, sharing a thing is quite difficult. Therefore, everyone is accustomed to providing code to others, for others to enter the computer. At that time, several newspapers were specifically available for program code for publishing computer enthusiasts. Among them, there are tools, games, music procedures that control the speakers, which can be described as a five-flowers, all package. In the same year, the programmers on the other side of the ocean were also doing the same thing. I have been in that age, and there are also many program code to scatter. The most complete and even a game engine written, running on a 6502 chip screen horizontal reel. At that time, in those layouts, some procedures for transforming past procedures were often started with this: "The newspaper has published XX XXXX, I added a new function" or "I XXX "XXX" is transformed. " No one is forced, there is no rule of text, but people are doing, quote the procedures of others, and contain the names of others, make changes, and then open the modified part. I remember that a game program called "life" is this gradually being improved. Tell this history, to prove that the programmer has such a tradition from the beginning - take his code out, let everyone improve. Later, the emergence of GPL is only necessary to develop in history to a certain stage. Objectively, the emergence of open source communities and the emergence of commercial software companies, they are an inevitable trend of historical development.
Why is it to open source? Many people express curious about "why I want to open source". Why is the programmer to open the livelihood to others? Open sources often produce a depressed experience: can't find a delicious software, like software is too expensive, or each feature that is urgently can do. then what should we do? Ok, since it is a programmer, it should not be worried about this matter. Write yourself. Soon, the program is written, although there is such a shortcoming, but it is really barely. There will be two options at this time, 1 is to take the software to others, charges or not charge. When using this method, because there are many shortcomings, users will definitely make a lot of comments. If the programmer does not change, then it will lose the user, and finally become very accomplishment. If you continue to modify, it will cost too much energy, and many things are very interesting. (For example, I am very annoying. I would rather write 10 interfaceless programs, and I don't want to write an interface.) Finally, this program may become a slice in the heart of the programmer. , Do it, no energy, don't do it, unfortunately. At this time, the second choice will appear - open source. The programmer has opened the code of this software, what is the function of the user, or what bugs are available, they can be modified. In this way, the original author is always one of the authors of this software. The original author also enjoys the functions of others, the software has become better, more and more users, the original author also has a reputation and honor. For a truly loved software career, the writing program is not more difficult than the brick. A real programmer is often a curiosity and enthusiastic guy. So, many people may be like me, passionate about solving the difficulties, and the subsequent maintenance is troubled. This directly leads to a consequence-hard disk full of half a program, no one can be reliese. In fact, these procedures are most suitable for open sources. You know, many people like subsequent maintenance, also like the meticulous work on the interface, but they have not started the opportunity. This is not, my friend tinyfool is based on this development of the code to open two programs.
.
What did the open source brought? Many people say that I have to make money, and open source can't bring me income, but also to waste my time, so I will not engage in this job. For this point of view, the Bear's Day has written: "Even if you are from the perspective of interest, you will not only a rare exercise, exchange, learning, but also a rare list of famous sounds and respectful opportunities. - In the developer's community, reputation and respect, almost high salary. " This view has been refuted by many people. Interestingly, the open source believes that this statement has damaged the pure source, but not supported by this as an argument to the open source. I am agreeing to the bear's day. To understand this sentence, we must first have a correct understanding of the open source. In my opinion, open source is a science of computer science, and the development of commercial software is a commercial category. The two sides have no conflict. Everyone understands that scientific research itself cannot bring profits. To get profits, it is necessary to make commercial operation. But if there is no research, the business is unable to have a single show. How is the proficiency in the traditional scientific research? What life is scientient? There are several kinds of books: Book said, to colleges and universities, publish speeches, invited consultants from commercial companies. Einstein research is only a small staff of the Patent Office. But this does not prevent him to become a great scientist. In the traditional scientific field, it is increasingly perfect, and the discovery and research becomes less and less, computer science provides too many opportunities to me. A good open source project team member is definitely not shortaged. For this view, there is a good illustration. I want everyone to use BT this excellent download software. With regard to the author of BT, there is such a description: "Although BitTorrent got such a huge success, it did not brought a penny for Cohen." I didn't have a money in September last year. " Cohen remembered that he had to use this credit card's interest-free period, filling another credit card's bill. "It sounds very miserable, isn't it? However, things quickly have turned: "One day, Cohen's things are known for Valve Software. Gabe Newell. Although Valve is developing the Half-Life 2 that makes the game players look around, it is also building a name STEAM online distribution network. Because Cohen masters the expertise in this field, Valve provides him with a position. The Cohen moved to Seattle from October and started his work.
"Well, Cohen's work problem finally solved. Because BT, our online life has become more exciting, because BT, Cohen found a satisfactory job. Is there a more ideal win-win situation than this? So, although the participation of open source software is not profitable, it will often bring you a huge benefit. For students, this is even more. In the semester, there is no stress in the student, if you can participate in the open source activities, Let a certain contribution, then learn how to learn, but also accumulate a reputation. If you can successfully lead a project, it is a rare project manager talent. When you really find a job, you may tend to work because of your outstanding performance Find you first. For a company, if you need technical talents in a certain field, there are usually two options: one is the corner of the company, and the other is to find a suitable person. Compared to the former The latter is more likely to be accepted by the company, while participating in open source activities, it is exactly the use of people to express "I am suitable". The power of this real results can be much larger than the certification. Open source damage Business software? I never agree with this view. If there is no open source software, I am afraid that commercial software companies will not develop. There is no competition. If a commercial company is still a good software, then this company is closed, it is not a piece. Good things. Good, IBM has gone huge benefits from open sources, even using open source to deal with Microsoft. But this is not a wrong thing, business company, naturally to compete, profit. IBM uses Linux as a weapon, but he It also pays something that should be paid, for example, for the open source community donated hardware and code. Of course, you can say that this is to better utilize open source communities, but why do Microsoft not come to use this? (Now Microsoft also begins to try Using a similar means). In fact, the programmers of the open source community are not a fool. How can I be willing to be used by IBM? Natural, this is a win-win cooperation. The Eclipse code donated by the IBM allows the open source community to cheer, this is enough The two sides have been satisfied with this cooperation. For individuals, open is always good. For example, I put this article out to everyone, if the editor of the "programmer" magazine feels still Some, maybe it will contact me to plan it. Then I will edit him to change, the machining moisterer. Although the center's thoughts have not changed, everyone is definitely a better article, this time, I I believe that all spending money to buy magazine is not worth it. If I don't let everyone read my article, it may never have a chance to publish. Some people suggest, to opt up your program code, don't give Others. This is very ridiculous, unless your code is enough to be a cow, otherwise, how do you see it? Even if you don't look, people don't write it yourself. And if your code is really very cattle, then It is best to apply for a patent, protect it with a more reliable means. You must know that the more great programmers, but the more you don't care about the open code, and the level of programs, but it is often "自". Said wearing, I think this is still a lack of confidence and competitiveness. The great programmers are willing to solve the problem, and the bad programmers always try to avoid problems.
If the open source software disappears, what will the world will? A very common understanding is this: "Microsoft has made significant contributions to computer." This statement is of course right, but open source for the contribution of computer popularization, do you know? Linus said: "Learning a computer is a very easy thing, as long as you have a second-hand computer, as well as a Linux CD, you can start." Cheap learning methods provide a large number of software talents to the world, and these talents participate in business operations and ultimately improve the development of the entire industry. If there is no open source software, many people are probably not using a computer. Many companies have no money to buy a server system. The network is used to shrink, and the industry level is lowered. It is finally damaged, but it is afraid that it is not only your people who have this industry in this industry. All hardware companies in the industry, software companies will be affected. The IT's impact will affect other industries, and it will eventually cause revert to the retrogression of the whole social economy and the decrease in birth. Is this viewing scary? Little is not scared. When I think about it, when is Microsoft interested in the Internet? Who is supporting the Internet before Microsoft is interested in the Internet? Who provides users with FTP clients, browsers, and server software? Still not open source »? In fact, until now, it can still be said that Internet is burdened by open source software. It can be said that it is because of open source software, it creates enough position for everyone to work and live. I hate open source communities, saying that the opening source will grab the programmer's rice bowl, it is really a worry, and the enemy will be happy.
