Terminology: FOSS vs. `Legacy Software'?

stacie at provadomarketing.com stacie at provadomarketing.com
Mon Aug 8 11:04:17 EDT 2011


Ha! Well I'd say that most clients refer to Legacy as "anything that pins them into using or do things a certain way"
---
Stacie Andrews
CTO at Provado Marketing Solutions, Inc.
Hiring: http://provadomarketing.jobscore.com 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/stacieandrews
Cell. 207-475-5066
-------
Please excuse my brevity. I'm trying to win The Email Game!
-----Original Message-----

Re: Terminology: FOSS vs. `Legacy Software'?
From: Bruce Dawson <jbd at codemeta.com>To: gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.orgDate: Saturday, August 06, 2011 at 8:49PM
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.  This is a good way of letting them know that Windows and the like is "old hat".  And the more people (especially their peers) who says this, the more they'll believe it!  --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>:      > 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 (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))."   



_______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20110808/0d397a48/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list