Marc Andreessen, co-founder of trailblazer Netscape Communications, can spot a long-term trend. So when Opsware Inc.–another company Andreessen co-founded and chairs–introduced its Opsware System 4 software on Linux in December, some of his faithful fans doubtless took the move as a sign of things to come.
12 Reasons Andreessen Is Hot On Open Source
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Plain, simple and too the point. I wish that he touched a bit on vendor lock-in. But overall, a darn good promo for Open Source Software.
Why do you use GNU logo in articles related to Open Source?
Why do you use GNU logo in articles related to Open Source?
Yeah, Stallman wouldn’t approve. :-p or is that GNU/Stallman? 😉
how to pay for your kids education when I give my work away for free. Or how about the sales and income taxes lost from free software? Clearly if free software starts to effect the billions in tax revenue that Microsoft, Sun, and Apple produce our law makers WILL act.
>> how to pay for your kids education when I give my work away for free.
Why does everyone think that working on OSS equals working for free?
Why does everyone think that working on OSS equals working for free?
Because that’s the reason Linux zealots give you to use Linux, because it’s Free… Oh? Free means something different? Ah well maybe stallman should and all other GPL people should start thinking about what they say then….
The economic guru’s will say that North America has dominance in software because the region can easily absorb or remotely organize talented foreigners; it has nothing to do with so-called American “cultural dominance”, same goes for the space program. We really don’t know for sure exactly what IBM’s true position is on linux, except that they certainly intend to use it for their own benefit.
@capitalist (IP: —.avenel01.nj.comcast.net)
So what happened when the population were taught to read and write and got to do that for “free” and scribes were put out of business ? People found another avenue to make a living. There will always be a job for you writing software – _if_ you`re good enough to warrant the wages you desire. By the way, you call yourself “capitalist” – exactly what country do you live in that has a truly capitalist economy ? The law makers might act – in the same way Nazis burned books. It won`t make free speech or software disappear.
@Anonymous (IP: 213.80.61.—)
I`m in complete agreement with you. As a scribe myself I`m completely disgusted at the way the populace are being educated and my business declining !
Hey Captialist I want you to go to your room and change your underwear first, then we talk. Cause change is something you can’t do.
Computers and the way the money is made from computers is changing greatly. It is funny you mention APPLE in the same line as MS. Because you see I am going to tell you a secert. Mac OS X is based on OSS software. The Kernel and the entire underlying system is something called darwin which is freeBSD based.
Comptuers are shifting to a service industry. As computers get faster they are no longer needed to be upgraded every other year. You can surf the web just fine with an Athlon @550 mhz, why do I need a 2.6 ghz read email??????Times are a changing if you don’t you are going to be left out in the cold. Then I will be paying for your clothes cause your on welfare,oops sorry you won’t accept free money because that goes agianist your relegion of money.
…that AMD made 550MHz Athlons. And all this time I thought that was the K6…
You keep on thinking that, but you fail to understand just how little free software matters compared with the loss in jobs and taxes to the US government. Just watch what happens when Microsoft’s lobbyists crush IBM and thier pathetic attempt to justify these losses. And watch as the average wage for software developers drops due to lack of profit from companies dependance on free software.
Change does not mean good, or better. This is the appeal to novelty argument.
“Service is what really matters”. That seems to be the cry from OSS zealots. This IS Marxism you realize, that all goods have no value and only labor does. It is anathema to property rights.
You want to give away software you write for free? Fine by me, just don’t tell me my software SHOULD be free. The true test of freedom is allowing others to act in ways you don’t agree with. RMS falls flat here.
There is a difference between saying something like “goods aren’t scarce because they can be distributed at near zero cost”, and saying “goods have no value only labor does”. One is rooted in reality and the other is a philosophical or moral judgement.
There _is_ an analogy to technological progress that fits IMO. The technology of the internet has made collaboration between thousands of people all over the world possible. It has created a new and very different way of distributing information. Do you even want a box with you software anymore? I am sure that for some people the answer is yes, but for a growing number it is no. Do you want to go to fifteen different web sites to get all the software you use on your computer? It is much nicer to get everything from one “distributor” (SuSE, Red Hat, Debian), which is possible only because there aren’t unreasonable restrictions (unreasonable doesn’t necessarily mean non-free) on distribution. OSS is taking advantage of this new technology to a much greater extent than are the proprietary software companies.
The Athlon went all the way down to 500MHz according to AMD’s whitepapers.
You really need to wake up to reality. IBM is worth 10’s of billions of dollars more than MS. MS is hiring thousands in INDIA. So is IBM. Big business is cutting out your salaries because you software developers are overpaid. They discovered that they can get the same thing at the half price so the excutives can earn another million dollar bonus. Besides the US goverment can’t stop Offshoring how are they going to stop IBM.
As for service, well that is what is coming up. The industry can’t survive forever on forced upgrades every three years as business can’t afford it. Look at the retail industry. Mcdonald’s has been using the same OS for how many years???? They are running SCO’s Unix and have been for a decade plus. Can you run Windows XP for a decade???
no reinstalls, Up times in Years, doing the same hing over and over again. No you need SERVICE. IBM has made a billion dollars on Linux by selling SERVICE. SO has HP. Red hat is a mix but they are switching to SERVICE, and creating Unique programs for unique business needs. That’s called SERVICE.
I work on open source everyday and earn 120k a year for my trouble. That’s how it works.
OSS == Free
OSS != Gratis
Yes, lots of OSS is gratis, but that is not part of the definition.
OSS means that whoever buys/receives a copy of the program has access to the source…
Tbis is typed on an Athlon 600, with a 500 at work.
This little 600 with RH 8.0 does just about everything I need it to, which includes pretty smooth video and DVD playback. The only video it couldn’t play smoothly was the 1024×768 Matrix Reloaded quicktime trailer. Even then, it only stuttered when there was rapid motion.
Yes, lots of OSS is gratis, but that is not part of the definition.
So how about you start referring to OSS instead of Free Software? Besides… Free and Gratis IS quite the same to the general public, with perhaps the exception that even less restrictions apply to Free since gratis can still have inflictions on what you can and can not do, it only refers to pricing…
If someone say it’s free to me, I’ll think of it just that way, for instance… RMS says GNU is free, so I take his stuff and simply do what I like, rewrite parts of it, publish it proprietary…. all in good faith. I’ve read plenty of times it’s free so there shouldn’t be any problem with that… I can get most courts to believe that anyway…
“all in good faith. I’ve read plenty of times it’s free so there shouldn’t be any problem with that… I can get most courts to believe that anyway…”
Not really. What you’ll make the courts to believe is that you didn’t read the license; the GPL. Since when is free as is beer/gratis equal to public domain?
“how to pay for your kids education when I give my work away for free.”
There will always be a blue vest waiting for you at Walmart. Always need people to stock those shelves…
Not really. What you’ll make the courts to believe is that you didn’t read the license; the GPL. Since when is free as is beer/gratis equal to public domain?
GPL is complex, I tried to read through it, but I’m a normal man, not a lawyer, and many lawyers have problems with GPL too. Besides, the author of it, RMS says it’s free so why wouldn’t I belive him? Makes sense to let him interpret it, and he has plenty of times….
Free as in what I think about when someone says Free software or Free beer would be the same… if you meant something else, like OSS, then use the word OSS and not Free. If someone wants to bend the meaning of a word, that’s his problem, let him live by the consequences.
If say to someone “You’re an idiot” what do you expect? Do you expect him to interpret it as “You’re an idiot, idiot as in all humans are incapable of understanding everything in life”…. Geee, guess not…
Try to be clear with what you communicate..
Peragrin makes an interesting point about the possible economic leveling effect of OSS. That is to say, software companies are by and large just that–companies that produce software. They might as easily produce cars or washing machines or what have you (just look at how company execs are able to fill positions in different industries fairly smoothly).
As has been proven throughout history (right now most prominently in the music industry), the executive/managerial element, or at least those in control of company profit allocation, will generally resist cutting into their own salaries. Profit drop will be largely be passed on to production employees, in the form of reduced wages and layoffs, and the customer through higher prices. (This statement is very reductive and in many cases simply incorrect, but it is generally true [and in a sense, logical] that those who control assert allocation will make cuts elsewhere before making cuts to themselves.)
With OSS, there is the possibility to eliminate some of the managerial structure, as the actual coders seem to divide and shoulder much of that load. What economic effect this may have is debatable, but at this stage it seems all but unavoidable that OSS software will continue in some form, regardless of political crackdown by software lobbies. The truth of the matter is that once a technology exists (in this case, the internet as the enabling technology for OSS), legislation becomes increasingly inconsequential. It will be developed and employed (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, anyone?). This is something the music industry has heretofore been unable to adequately grasp regarding digital music.
That is not to say, as other posters have pointed out, that all software will be free (as in beer) and coders will be expected to labor for free. OSS at its core is a development, not economic, model.
“and many lawyers have problems with GPL too. Besides, the author of it, RMS”
Eben Moglen is the author of the GPL. You can read documents from him where he explains why the GPL is as complex as-is.
“[whoever] says it’s free so why wouldn’t I belive him? Makes sense to let him interpret it, and he has plenty of times…”
Because
1) Free has multiple meanings. Any idiot knows this.
2) RMS isn’t the license (the GPL). What RMS says about the GPL ain’t official plus he’s not a lawyer. This is the reason why there are no official translations of the GPL. This is the reason why Stallman has his own personal homepage. This is the reason the FSF is careful with what they write on their homepage regarding the meaning of the GPL.
Ignorance is not an excuse. For the laws, it is never an excuse. Every civilian [at least in my country] is expected to know and understand the law.
—
About the article: I’m still reading it. I found reason 7 to be a broad rule which is indeed generally true, but doesn’t always apply. There’s still license issues. There’s still competition.
4 examples:
* The classic one: KDE vs GNOME.
* OpenBSD replacing GPL code in base with BSD code.
* TenDRA vs GCC.
* Java vs. Java (Java is Free software but not Open source).
Ash also implies a valid point, which is that although OSS has acquired certain philosophical/political associations (largely because of connections to Free Software), these connotations are not inherent. It does not follow that because of the proliferation of open-source software all software should be open source nor does it imply that the best software is OSS. One could make a strong case that certain software, or types of software, are much more suitable for closed-source production. A clumsy, but not unserviceable, analogy might come from the art world. Good art is generally the result of a single driving vision, and usually a single person. Would the Mona Lisa, Hamlet, or The Godfather be the same if produced by committee? This is easily applicable to something like video games. Many of the best games are the result of a unified controlling vision, even if the production is distributed among many people. Indeed, most of the first, “classic,” video games were produced by individuals.
It is possible that software that is closer to the aesthetic than the functional end of the spectrum may been better suited to closed-source development. This may also be true of software that in some way so unusual that it is tied to an individual’s or small group’s driving concept of its finished state.
As such, it should be the case that just because one supports OSS, one does not condemn closed-source software. This issue seems to polarize people, in that there are many who believe that all software should be open-source (insert namedrop here). However, open-source and closed-source development are production methods. The two, when divested of philosophical baggage, are not mutually exclusive.
I never stated that all software should be free as in beer. Service is what is going to count. I can’t find software to run my warehouse in OSS. I will have to pay a developer to create software that meets my needs. What will work for me though, won’t work for my compitetor who has multiple stores streched out across the state. Someone will have to pay those software people. Even if the servers and machines run OSS someone will have SERVICE the programs that run on them.
Free to me mean Liberty. The freedom to do as I desire. The probelm becomes this Capitalistic Society, is a give me state. We want jobs to be given to us, clothes, food. We don’t want to work. So Free becomes Free as in beer.
Eben Moglen is the author of the GPL. You can read documents from him where he explains why the GPL is as complex as-is.
Ah well, I hear everyone around me say it’s free… is everyone lying?
Because
1) Free has multiple meanings. Any idiot knows this.
2) RMS isn’t the license (the GPL). What RMS says about the GPL ain’t official plus he’s not a lawyer. This is the reason why there are no official translations of the GPL. This is the reason why Stallman has his own personal homepage. This is the reason the FSF is careful with what they write on their homepage regarding the meaning of the GPL.
1) Most idiots wouldn’t know about RMS… and those who do also know he is a madman and therefor should be neglected…
2) It’s not just RMS who keeps shouting about Free, read about any forum about GPL or Linux and you’ll see the same crap… even read FAQs on softwarepages and you’ll be confused.
The fact that there is no official translations of GPL makes it even more confusing what really applies and not. This would result to a minimum fine in my country (Sweden) since you really can’t be expected to understand it…
I do hope I’m just exemplyfying the problems here… I personally try to avoid GPL as far as possible..
A WWII vet told me once, That there is a high cost to be Free, but it is a price worth paying.
Defending Freedom or extortion you choose. Microsoft has chosen to rip their customers off. Need proof. Munich Germany, In order to not lose a goverment to a competitor MS cut there price by a third. If your profits are high enough that you can take a full third out of your offer to a Goverment, then your profits are way to high. I can’t bid goverment jobs because if I add 1% for my profit I am 20% higher than the next guy in line.
“Ah well, I hear everyone around me say it’s free… is everyone lying?”
1) Free has multiple meanings. Any idiot knows this. (Read the license)
Seriously, are you a moron? Who cares what the majority says or claims? If everyone says you should jump in a ditch you do that too, right? If everyone says not reading Microsoft Windows EULA’s, you don’t read them, right? Because well, kinda, everyone does it.
“2) It’s not just RMS who keeps shouting about Free, read about any forum about GPL or Linux and you’ll see the same crap… even read FAQs on softwarepages and you’ll be confused.”
You don’t get the point, do you? The point is that it matters not much whoever says something about it. The only thing which matters is the license itself and anyone with knowledge about how it should be interpreted.
If you are involved with GPL software, for example by using, developing, reselling it you better know what the license exactly means so you make sure that you’re using the license effectively in your advantage instead of your disadvantage (ie. improper selling, legal cruft).
“The fact that there is no official translations of GPL makes it even more confusing what really applies and not.”
You could have a point here however the problem relies elsewhere. An official translation would count as official while it would cost tremendous time until it has exactly the same meaning. It’s near to impossible. While it is important to have a correct translation. If there’s a mistake in it, while it is official, the GPL could be flawed because of that (it isn’t in the English version). Therefore, that would be unwise.
There are however unofficial translations. That together with the original English version would -in reasonableness- lead to you as Swedish person understanding the license. You don’t consult some group of random people on the internet in order to understand some license!
Go away, troll.
When you take two pieces of software – one free and the other isn’t, I’ll choose the one with the most functionality and the one that best meets my needs. If it’s not open source, so be it. I’d rather pay the asking price and get it proprietary than having to pay some OSS developer an ungodly amount of money to patch up this other piece of crap app that isn’t up to snuff.
In other words, if the OSS community wants to reign supreme, build better programs than the proprietary ones. And if you can’t do than, then stop wasting my time with your whinning about what MS (or anybody else) is or is not doing.
By capitalist (IP: —.avenel01.nj.comcast.net) – Posted on 2004-03-22 09:39:51
how to pay for your kids education when I give my work away for free. Or how about the sales and income taxes lost from free software? Clearly if free software starts to effect the billions in tax revenue that Microsoft, Sun, and Apple produce our law makers WILL act.
Actually most software written is never sold. If you’re a programmer, free software (et. al) will probably not affect you. In addition, if I were a programmer I’d be more worried about Habib in Bangalore which is cheaper for megacorps. If the Government was worried, they’d act on the offshoring first and foremost.
Free to me mean Liberty. The freedom to do as I desire.
Freedom to do as you desire and GPL don’t favour same things. Only PD seems to reach that goal really…
1) Free has multiple meanings. Any idiot knows this. (Read the license)
Most people rarely read license and for most people Free don’t have that many meanings… not put in the context as in “Free software”… exception: Developers!
If you are involved with GPL software, for example by using, developing, reselling it you better know what the license exactly means so you make sure that you’re using the license effectively in your advantage instead of your disadvantage (ie. improper selling, legal cruft)
So if you’re involved in software but really not developing but rather using, you can’t expect to read through the license in detail (especially not the length of GPL or MS EULA)… Just trust those who know (Linux Zeals?) who keep saying it’s free…. isn’t that why you have a lawyer? To ask for advice? Isn’t that why you ask people in the biz? To get information… they keep saying it’s free….
There are however unofficial translations. That together with the original English version would -in reasonableness- lead to you as Swedish person understanding the license. You don’t consult some group of random people on the internet in order to understand some license!
Go away, troll.
If people would say “NO IT’S NOT FREE, BUT YOU CAN READ THE SOURCE” then there would be no misunderstandings now would there? Don’t blame me, blame the Zealots…
[i]If people would say “NO IT’S NOT FREE, BUT YOU CAN READ THE SOURCE” then there would be no misunderstandings now would there? Don’t blame me, blame the Zealots..[i]
Um isn’t that why it’s called Open Source Software????
Public domain is less restrictive than the GPL. On the other hand the GPL protects copyrights, unlike Public Domain.
GPL protects IP. Nobody I have met besides myself has actually read the MS EULA, they just click I agree, and enter in the number and go. People don’t care about copyrights, that is why the developer should.
Any contract you sign should be looked at by your lawyer, including installing Windows. Just remember MS’s EULA starts when you open the box. The GPL starts when you change the source code. That is why the GPL has freedom. You can change it, you just have to respect it’s origins. Do you respect anything other than money????
Look if he doesn’t get the difference between free as in speech vs. free as in beer there is no point in wasting any more bandwidth and storage on him.
What outlaw open source?
HAHAHAl
you are a capitalist IDIOT.
yeah, this is probably trolling, but I’m really tired of this “microsoft bad, linux good” vs. “linux good, microsoft bad” argument.
two important facts here…
tux & company ain’t going anywhere,
gates and company ain’t going anywhere.
tux & company is gaining server market share cause it’s evolving rapidly, working quite well, and years ago there wasn’t much of a choice. (aww mom, mush again?)
now that there’s a choice, companies are deciding what’s best for THEIR business.
what’s good for “Dave’s Web Design Inc.” may not be good for “Greta’s Tea Shop”. the key word here is “choice”. say it with me, “ch-o-i-ce”. very good.
gates & company rule the desktop. IMO, that’s where it belongs and it’ll be there for a long long time to come cause there will always be a need for end-users to use and not administrate their PC’s. so for all you angry users… don’t worry about someone taking away your precious video game, it’ll still be there tomorrow, provided you $$upgrade$$ every two years. the rest of us have a, you guessed it, a “choice”.
linux zealots seem to be quite pleased with the rapid developments with linux, and who doesn’t like seeing the bully get punched in the eye? but me thinks the zealots should just chill out. no one’s gonna take away your grep and awk. remember youz zealots, again, the key word here is “choice”.
change is inevitible. MS will adjust, so will OSS developers. you can flow with it or die.
OSS == Free
Don’t be dim. OSS means that the source code is viewable by the general population, and has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of any sort. The source might be redistributed under some really evil terms like Java’s source code, or Microsoft’s Rotor, or it can be distributed under much less restrictive ones like the BSDL, but don’t get all delusional and continue believing that OSS has anything to do with freedom; either the ‘free beer’ or the twisted RMS kind of freedom.
It’s about not keeping the source code secret, pure and simple.
… just due to OSS nature.
article says:
4) “It’s simply going to be more secure than proprietary software.” When a programmer develops a new cryptographic system, he or she wants to publish the specifications so that as many people as possible can try to crack it
IMHO it is irrelevant how many people look at a particular crypto system, what matters is how good are those few who do really analyse it and how hard they try.
Or does anyone think that a pro hired to dig into a crypto is less motivated then an OSS enthusiast?
Before anyone starts throwing crap about the ‘open source definition’ back in my face, let me say fuck the open source definition. Like RMS and much of what he has to say, the OSD is misleading, and only serves to confuse people into believing that open source has anything to do with freedom.
</Rant>
It doesn’t discriminate against people. There is no chosen group. Anyone can read the source. In the proprietary case, a small group of chosen ones may do so.
Thus if those “sign” an agreement for a backdoor or “backdoor”, it’ll be much harder to find out than when everyone can because in that “everyone” group there are many people with different goals. Some might leave it,others will fix it. The power is extremely decentralized which is an advantage.
Example: Borland Inprise.
On the one hand the source is free (gpl) on the other the programmer is free (bsd/mit). Which freedom you want for the software you construct is your choice.
Most of the comments/arguments center around the economics of open source. Maybe this is the crux? Does this mean open source will survice if it is economically feasible over the long haul? Maybe the Linux Zealots and Big Bad Microsoft really won’t decide this issue. Maybe it will just be decided by Mr. Smith’s invisible hand.
Oh? Free means something different?
Yes. Free as in freedom.
>>it’ll be much harder to find out than when everyone can because in that “everyone” group there are many people with different goals
Agree. Only it is just _may be_ “many people with different goals” will be looking at the code, _may be_ they are good, have resources to do the work, etc.
IMO it is just the quality of managing the project. Nothing prevents a company to run a good enough peer review – except the management ineptitude, as usual.
Also please note that proprietory software != closed mathematics or even source. Simple example: UNIX is proprietory and is far from closed.
I know you’re just trolling, but in the dictionary definition, “free as in freedom” comes a lot earlier than “free as in gratis.”
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=free&x=12&…
Whether you find the GPL too complicated or not, it is the license through which the software is redistributed. Normally, you have no freedom to redistribute software at all. The GPL grants you that freedom, providing that you restpect some rules. If you don’t want to follow these rules, then you can’t redistribute the software.
Do you think a judge would let you off the hook if you were caught pirating software and then said that you didn’t know you were breaking the law because the EULA is too complicated for you to read?
You seem to have a very limited understanding of how the legal system works. I suggest you find out a bit more about it before posting such poor arguments.
Whether you find the GPL too complicated or not, it is the license through which the software is redistributed. Normally, you have no freedom to redistribute software at all. The GPL grants you that freedom, providing that you restpect some rules.
Piracy is ok with GPL then, that’s what you write? See? That’s the entire problem… every time any of you use the word “Free” or “freedom” you mess things up because you can’t communicate what you really mean.
Surely I’m pulling your leg in terms about what the license tells you what you can and can not do…. I’m just trying to say two things
1. The biggest issue to why companies not adopting Linux and developing for Linux is because the License is what it is, not understandable and wrongly communicated.
2. Anyone using the word free / freedom and talking about GPL seriously hasn’t understood the license at all only read what RMS and similar say…
That’s the problem here, not the GPL itself..
“Agree. Only it is just _may be_ “many people with different goals” will be looking at the code, _may be_ they are good, have resources to do the work, etc.”
Agree. Plus there’s blackhats and whitehats. And that reviews done differs per project. OpenBSD for example is pretty tight to review code (and licenses).
“IMO it is just the quality of managing the project. Nothing prevents a company to run a good enough peer review – except the management ineptitude, as usual.”
I also agree with the latter statement, except that i’d like to add that we Mortals don’t know for sure wether that happens either and that in such situation it is still a small, elite group. We have blackhats and whitehats in these worlds there, too.
What style you prefer is up to you. I prefer the style where a Belgium criminal, an Indonesian hacker, and a Brazillian student are Free to learn, examine, develop, and… find flaws. Instead of the case where this power lies only at the corporation, a NDA contracted company and some parts for some governments.
Resumee, besides the “learn, examine, develop” part this is because i believe that when the group who can review the source is broad and decentralized (different opinons, interests, and such), there is more trust created (not only about (“intentional”) flaws, but also wether the code is actually well written and other quality aspects) than when this valuable knowledge and these facts are centralized in a smaller group who have more interests in common; in the end they basically do what their executives want them to. This believe doesn’t only apply to software, it also applies on information and text especially the information / text which powerful people rather keep secret. Do you prefer a prefer cathedral-style on information / text too?
“Also please note that proprietory software != closed mathematics or even source. Simple example: UNIX is proprietory and is far from closed.”
Also agreed. Preference struck in the statement. PS: the documents which define the UNIX9x standards are very expensive and proprietary IIRC.
>>Do you prefer a cathedral-style on information / text too?
Well, if I am forced to make the binary choice – I would definitely vote for the bazaar. So, I guess, you have got the upper hand in the discussion.
I though don’t believe it is all just black and white. Besides if a particular cathedral writes its _own_ crypto sys, and sells it to whoever agrees to buy, who is to force them to open it up and on what grounds? And if a mighty corp can be forced, what chances do small folks have? Do you think the can-opening will be limited only to software?
No, I belive the problems lies not with the mighty blackhat corps, but with the OUTRAGEOUS fact the market does not work for software industry! – see: better cars prevail, better electronics prevail, better airlines prevail, better sport teams prevail, even better books prevail! (well, to be fair – the market does work for pc games. but that’s nearly all…)
And there is one thing I do not like about bazaar very much – as serious projects need a lot of resources, they _have_ to become widesread – and they tend to go down to the lowest common denominator of advancement that is within grasps of all participants. no offence intended.