Terminology: FOSS vs. `Legacy Software'?
Jon "maddog" Hall
maddog at li.org
Sat Aug 6 22:52:31 EDT 2011
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 20:49 -0400, Bruce Dawson wrote:
> In contrast - I like the term "legacy software" for the likes of
> proprietary software.
>
> We're talking about changing mindsets here - not the mindsets of those
> who read mailing lists like this one, but the PHBs who justify the
> purchase of proprietary software.
Point one.
>
> This is a good way of letting them know that Windows and the like is
> "old hat".
Point two.
>
> And the more people (especially their peers) who says this, the more
> they'll believe it!
Bulls-eye
>
> --Bruce
>
> On 08/06/2011 08:34 PM, Lori Nagel wrote:
> > I actually kind of liked the term legacy software, well, at least at
> > first. Then I thought about it a bit more and realized that legacy
> > software could easily be confusingly applied to things like the old
> > Athena Widget set, and X11 user interface being used currently in the
> > Wograld project. (I could never get the basics of SDL to work or
> > figure it out, plus SDL is upgrading to a new broke version from what
> > I read on the SDL list.)
> > But if Legacy software was used like this, then I guess my old Athena
> > Widget set and X11 user interface for Wograld is "New, trendy and up
> > to date" okay, I'm a hardcore dork and proud of it.
> >
> > Conversely, there is unfortunately new proprietary software being
> > written everyday, including new versions of things like Skype and
> > Flash. I think it's going to take a while to convince all the
> > programmers not to write proprietary software anymore, part of it is
> > being paid to write proprietary software, and the other half is
> > companies making the decisions that the business model relies
> > on closing the source up.
> >
> > I think what has to change is some of the business models and the ways
> > people think about making money. I think people are already being
> > forced to change some business models whether they like it or not. If
> > proprietary software isn't a viable business model anymore, people
> > will probably stop making it (with the exception of some crazy
> > paranoid hobbyist who doesn't want anyone to see his code, but then
> > who would care about using it anyway if everyone considers proprietary
> > software a bad thing.)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Joshua Judson Rosen <rozzin at geekspace.com>
> > *To:* Greater New Hampshire <gnhlug-discuss at gnhlug.org>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 5, 2011 7:42 PM
> > *Subject:* Terminology: FOSS vs. `Legacy Software'?
> >
> > I originally wrote this as a private e-mail, but I figured I'd send it
> > along to greater GNHLUG--because I realised that I would actually like
> > to engage you all...:
> >
> > --------------------
> >
> > maddog has written a blog-post proposing that the terms "closed-source"
> > and "proprietary" be replaced by the term "legacy software":
> >
> >
> > http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/Blogs/Paw-Prints-Writings-of-the-maddog/Do-not-say-Closed-Source-or-Proprietary-Software-instead-say-Legacy-Software
> >
> > I've been thinking a lot about this, myself--following mainly from
> > a couple of recent conversations with friends and family:
> > one that came out of the `cobbled whole-home audio' thing, and another
> > that took place upon someone seeing my NanoNote (sayng, `More Linux?
> > Really, what can Linux do that Windows or Mac OS X can't?');
> > and, actually, now I remember that there was another relevant one--
> > with the owner of the local pharmacy down on Main St., about
> > their digital signature-pads; and another with my wife (the nurse)
> > about software-based medical devices and the modern `medical science'
> > (or lack thereof) behind them....
> >
> > I agree with the idea that maddog's expressed, but I'm not so sure
> > about the specific choice of terminology.
> >
> > I should, perhaps, apologise for the length of this, up front
> > (there's a pile of other suggested terms toward the end--actually,
> > more toward the middle--with context between here and there...).
> >
> > I've been thinking about what terms would best help to articulate to
> > `the typical uncaring luddite', which required me examine the terms
> > in which *I* actually think about the issues; and I think it's,
> > basically, mainly along two lines....
> >
> > One way that I think about these issues is, as a maker, something like:
> >
> > I have a project to do, and my choices of collaborators are
> > either a cooperative community, or a hostile corporation
> > that's going to fight me at every step (and charge me a premium
> > for it!). Which would you pick? I don't really care for
> > the `Nerd Fight-Club' thing....
> >
> > I guess that's in the same vein as `my favourite paintings are bought
> > as blank canvases, et idem for books'.... And maybe it's telling that
> > I really wanted to remember my friend's question as "What can YOU do
> > WITH Linux that YOU can't do WITH Windows or Mac OS X?", when I'm
> > pretty sure that's not how he asked it.
> >
> > The second line of thought, which probably makes for more generally-
> > applicable conversation, could be classed as the decison between
> > `permanent vs. disposable' systems. Like, with the home-audio thing....
> > A friend and colleague remarked that it was `hilarious that I had
> > cobbled together an audio system far nicer than what some major
> > players in the home-audio market have been able to do'. My response
> > to him was (bear with me...):
> >
> > The *really* funny part is that I *was* ready to just put a switch/amp
> > into the basement and run speaker-wire all over the house..., but then
> > I went looking into ways of doing remote control fo the
> > switch/amplifier,
> > and didn't find any open/standard mechanism for that other than
> > goofy IR stuff (like `relay infrared signals through a wire to a
> > serial port and write custom code to deal with the lack of standards
> > in IR signalling').
> >
> > Then I remembered that I knew of a company that made this sort of
> > stuff--
> > because I'd actually worked there a few years back. Of course,
> > when I was there, they were using a junky, home-grown protocol
> > (with a single-layer `stack') which was basically unworkable
> > for anyone outside the company (it was close enough to unworkable
> > for people *inside* the company...). So, I thought: I wonder
> > if they're off of their weird-proprietary-junk protocol yet...,
> > or if anyone else has actually filled the `use open standards' hole'.
> >
> > So I looked at their current lineup, and found that it was using
> > something called `Gridcast'--which made me wonder:
> >
> > `Gridcast'? WTF is that? Yet another weird, proprietary thing...?
> >
> > I was also reminded that their prices were multiple orders
> > of magnitude more than I wanted to spend (especially for something
> > that's not clearly extensible--throw-away stuff is supposed to be
> > *cheap*...).
> >
> > Since it wasn't obvious that there was any open standard for
> > doing remote control of audio switches, and the "AV" in the
> > "HomePlug AV" term that I'd seen associated with `Gridcast'
> > didn't actually seem to have anything to do with Audio or Video
> > aside from being `a fast-enough link for audio and video'...,
> > the thought occurred to me: maybe circuit-switching really is
> > finally dead?
> >
> > So, then I went looking at all-digital audio distribution, went
> > looking
> > for ready-made products (like `Gridcast', I guess...), and ended up
> > figuring that it was probably going to be quicker to just hack it up
> > myself (possibly with some gently-repurposed standards) than to even
> > figure out what any of the consumer products I saw were even actually
> > doing..., and then it worked.
> >
> > Maybe there's something wrong when you find yourself saying
> > things like, `I'll do it myself because I don't have time
> > for the ready-made solutions'.
> >
> > Maybe I should be an entrepreneur....
> >
> >
> > It's illustrative of my more general thought-process, which often
> > starts with:
> >
> > "I'm not even sure what my needs are right now, let alone what
> > they'll be in the future...."
> >
> > ... and resolves as:
> >
> > "I'm not going to pay a premium to lock myself into something that
> > might not meet my needs, and certainly not something that it may
> > not even be possible to *make* meet my needs."
> >
> > Is that how it resolves for everyone? Or do most people think
> > something more like, `I don't know what my needs are--but surely
> > the provider of my solution does!'?
> >
> > I know I'm too young to be saying this (and I'm probably in entirely
> > the wrong eneration)..., but I hate throw-away junk. I remember
> > someone on Slashdot actually had a good quip--oh, here it is
> > <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1691504&cid=32625306
> > <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1691504&cid=32625306>>:
> >
> > > People are not engineers: they buy air conditioners,
> > > refrigerators and cars. Very few people can design, build and
> > > service them.
> >
> > It's not about being an "engineer". It's about taking
> > responsibility for yourself and not buying into American
> > anti-intellectualism where it's actually trendy to be helpless and
> > stupid.
> >
> > It's so trendy to be helpless and stupid that you're discouraged
> > from knowing enough to even recognize a well made device.
> >
> > Though, it's not that throw-away items are all bad *per se*--
> > it's just..., like I wrote above: if the throw-away actually
> > costs more than the option that lasts and grows with your needs,
> > then the economy's all backward and it's a bum deal.
> >
> > So, trying to come up with a vocabulary to express that pithily,
> > here's some free-association type stuff from my notebook
> > (in two generally-opposing columns):
> >
> > free proprietary
> > high-margin
> > open-source closed-source
> > open-ended closed(-?)
> > limited
> > restricted
> > permanent disposable
> > durable (as in `durable goods'?) throw-away
> > reusable single-use
> > extensible limited-use
> > growable (as in `grows w/ your needs') limited-(?)
> > expandable
> > organic manufactured
> >
> > repairable (as in `user-'? irreparable
> > serviceable (as in `user-'?) ?-serviced
> >
> > ¿commodity? (either col: unsure connotation)
> >
> > renewable constrained
> > free-market captive-market
> > free-range cage-raised (cathedral)
> > peer-reviewed unreviewed
> >
> >
> > "Commodity" is in the middle, surrounded by uncertainty, because
> > "commodity" can have either a very good connotation (a good investment
> > due to matching standards and being easily replaced/extended, and
> > being cost-effective) or a very bad one (cheap crap) depending on
> > context--and "commodity" can be aptly applied to either FOSS
> > (for all of the good reasons) or proprietary systems (with all of
> > the negative connotations), but I'm not sure how stable that is.
> >
> > And I'm not sure if it's noticeable, but there's a certain theme
> > in some parts of the collection above, that leads to "legacy"
> > not being present as a `standard term of deprecation': one of
> > the problems with proprietary software (and I've heard this complaint
> > from at least one developer of proprietary software) is that
> > the throw-away nature of binary-only software means that it basically
> > `doesn't work as a legacy'.
> >
> > I seem to recall, several years ago, hearing someone say something like:
> >
> > "Gosh, I've been maintaining my resume in troff for 20 years--
> > what's the likelihood that a given piece of [what we're now
> > considering calling `legacy'] software will survive 20 years,
> > let alone long enough to really be `someone's legacy'?"
> >
> > (kudos if the person who said it remembers that it was him :))
> >
> >
> > I guess I have two issues with the word, "legacy", in this context:
> > one issue is that a person must be somewhat technical to understand
> > it when it's used in the `legacy system' sense--or to even parse it
> > as an adjective; consulting my `dict' command, the only adjectival
> > form of "legacy" I find is in FOLDOC (via the Jargon File):
> >
> > legacy system
> > legacy
> > legacy code
> > legacy software
> >
> > <jargon> A computer system or {application program} which
> > continues to be used because of the cost of replacing or
> > redesigning it and often despite its poor competitiveness and
> > compatibility with modern equivalents. The implication is
> > that the system is large, monolithic and difficult to modify.
> >
> > If legacy software only runs on antiquated {hardware} the cost
> > of maintaining this may eventually outweigh the cost of
> > replacing both the software and hardware unless some form of
> > {emulation} or {backward compatibility} allows the software to
> > run on new hardware.
> >
> > (1998-08-09)
> >
> >
> > And, yes--that's perfecly (*perfectly*!) in line with maddog's
> > suggestion :)
> >
> > But (and here's my second issue): if it's parsed as a *noun*
> > (as by a less-technical person) then "legacy" stands a fair chance
> > of being interpreted as meaning something *good*.... :(
> >
> > Take, for example, this quip by Markus Fix (which I found
> > on lispmeister.com, back when it still existed--it's since
> > been living in my private `fortune' file):
> >
> > "I bought the Meisterstueck No 149 at age 20, and it served me well
> > during all my travels throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, America
> > and the Pacific Islands. It's a remarkable and beautiful piece
> > of engineering. During the same timespan I worked through
> > more than 30 keyboards. People keep asking me: "Why do you keep
> > a journal in longhand using a fountain pen, isn't that a bit
> > archaic?"
> >
> > "People have been asking me the same kind of questions about
> > Lisp. The answer is:
> >
> > "You can't leave a legacy using ephemeral technology."
> >
> >
> > It seems like `legacy software is no way to leave a legacy' has
> > enough hackish irony in it to be dangerous....
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Don't be afraid to ask (?f.((?x.xx) (?r.f(rr))))."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> > gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
More information about the gnhlug-discuss
mailing list