"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:avf5oi$2375$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> Oh no, not that!  Visual Studio is expensive and closed-source.  Something
open
> source and free would be the ticket.  The best and most widely supported
of
> these IDEs is Eclipse, which already handles the GNU C/C++ tools.
> If I'm buying MS tools anyway, I'll probably use MS compilers.
> Let alone the third- and second-world folks who can't afford MS tools.

You're right. It's pointless to integrate with VS.

> "Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:avf5oi$2375$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> > Oh no, not that!  Visual Studio is expensive and closed-source.  Something
> open
> > source and free would be the ticket.  The best and most widely supported
> of
> > these IDEs is Eclipse, which already handles the GNU C/C++ tools.
> > If I'm buying MS tools anyway, I'll probably use MS compilers.
> > Let alone the third- and second-world folks who can't afford MS tools.
>
> You're right. It's pointless to integrate with VS.

Pointless???

Jan

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:45:57 -0800, Walter wrote:
> I use a particular masm that's over 10 years old, and never change it, so the results (bugs and all) are repeatable. That makes it hard for anyone else to rebuild the library, though.

I have written some documentation on how the runtime library can be built with the version of MASM that is included in the freely available Windows 98 DDK. It's available on http://cmeerw.org/prog/dm/rtl.html (including a quick&dirty wrapper that converts between the masm386.exe and ml.exe command line syntax).


bye, Christof

-- 
http://cmeerw.org                                 JID: cmeerw@jabber.at mailto cmeerw at web.de

...and what have you contributed to the Net?

In article <3E19A553.526FBC80@smartsoft.us>, Jan Knepper says...

Concerning open source - free project, I found the following /. an interesting read:

http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/01/09/1216259.shtml?tid=156

Richard

Richard,

There is all kinds of cute, interesting and also misleading reads about open source and free projects.

I think it would be good to just go to http://www.sourceforce.org/ just see how
many project are out there and how many are actually financially balanced.
With financially balanced I mean that the people that work on the project get more
than the satisfaction of working on the project, but actually are able to pay
their bills BECAUSE they work on the project.

I have spend and still spend a LOT of hours on open source and free project and I can be very honest in saying that so far it only has taken my time and cost me money.

Currently the www.digitalmars.com is hosted on the internet server of my company. (One of my contributions to this project). Walter as well as I have seen a LOT of traffic, but I think Walter would agree that the financial balance has been missing. I do not know how many CD sales Digital Mars does a month right now, but I know it is far from covering anything.

So tell me... When I look at the following financial picture:
    Mortage $1,200 / month.
    Phone $100 / month.
    Health Insurrance $442 / month
    Food $400 / month.
    Electric $ 200 / month

    TOTAL $2,342 / month

How open source - free project(s) that do not pay me a dime, better they costs me about an addition $950 a month! pay for my bills??? Answer is... They do not!

I always wonder why so many people seem to think that open source - free project(s) are so great... I have not heard the pharmaceutical industry giving their products away for free or even the formula's to what they developed. Neither have I heard that for the automotive industry or airplane industry, or electronics for that matter... So what am I missing here? Can somebody explain???

Thanks
Jan



Richard wrote:

> In article <3E19A553.526FBC80@smartsoft.us>, Jan Knepper says...
>
> Concerning open source - free project, I found the following /. an interesting read:
>
> http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/01/09/1216259.shtml?tid=156
>
> Richard

Jan Knepper wrote:
.
.

>Neither
> have I heard that for the automotive industry or airplane industry, or electronics
> for that matter... So what am I missing here? Can somebody explain???

.
.
nor music, nor book. you are right !
electronic ? yes: a free cpu ??!!
http://www.f-cpu.org/

roland

"Christof Meerwald" <cmeerw@web.de> wrote in message news:avl4lf$2cfg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:45:57 -0800, Walter wrote:
> > I use a particular masm that's over 10 years old, and never change it,
so
> > the results (bugs and all) are repeatable. That makes it hard for anyone else to rebuild the library, though.
>
> I have written some documentation on how the runtime library can be built with the version of MASM that is included in the freely available Windows
98
> DDK. It's available on http://cmeerw.org/prog/dm/rtl.html (including a quick&amp;dirty wrapper that converts between the masm386.exe and ml.exe command line syntax).

That's great! But I assume it is for only the 32 bit asm files?

I don't think you've missed anything, Jan. Those of us who have to pay our own bills - through consultancy, contracting, journalism, whatever - do it for intellectual stimulation and a kind of technical egalitarian spirit. There's certainly no money in it.

My own motivations for doing STLSoft are
 - it's a lot easier to persuade clients to use STLSoft code (partly since
it's strictly header-only) than extracts from my company's public-domain
libraries, with all it's dependencies on .cpp and libs, etc.
 - it's a great source of journalistic information, witness my ongoing
blatherings in WDM and CUJ
 - it's a great way to refactor code that has real quality, but that is
obscured inside non-portable, ugly, proprietary libs/headers/cpp
 - it's a great learning experience. My understanding of the principles of
STL, the rules of C++, and the behavioural quirks of various compilers has
tripled at least

As for cash? Hmmm. No cash.

I used to very much enjoy Ron Burk's (creator and former editor of WDJ) comments on the subject. He thought that people who gave away their IP were nuts!

So we (some of us at least) are nuts, but at least we know we're nuts. :)

Matthew

BTW, you guys in the states pay an enormous amount in health insurance, don't you?


"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:3E1EF7D6.6B9A67E9@smartsoft.us...
> Richard,
>
> There is all kinds of cute, interesting and also misleading reads about
open
> source and free projects.
>
> I think it would be good to just go to http://www.sourceforce.org/ just
see how
> many project are out there and how many are actually financially balanced. With financially balanced I mean that the people that work on the project
get more
> than the satisfaction of working on the project, but actually are able to
pay
> their bills BECAUSE they work on the project.
>
> I have spend and still spend a LOT of hours on open source and free
project and I
> can be very honest in saying that so far it only has taken my time and
cost me
> money.
>
> Currently the www.digitalmars.com is hosted on the internet server of my
company.
> (One of my contributions to this project). Walter as well as I have seen a
LOT of
> traffic, but I think Walter would agree that the financial balance has
been
> missing. I do not know how many CD sales Digital Mars does a month right
now, but
> I know it is far from covering anything.
>
> So tell me... When I look at the following financial picture:
>     Mortage $1,200 / month.
>     Phone $100 / month.
>     Health Insurrance $442 / month
>     Food $400 / month.
>     Electric $ 200 / month
>
>     TOTAL $2,342 / month
>
> How open source - free project(s) that do not pay me a dime, better they
costs me
> about an addition $950 a month! pay for my bills??? Answer is... They do
not!
>
> I always wonder why so many people seem to think that open source - free project(s) are so great... I have not heard the pharmaceutical industry
giving
> their products away for free or even the formula's to what they developed.
Neither
> have I heard that for the automotive industry or airplane industry, or
electronics
> for that matter... So what am I missing here? Can somebody explain???
>
> Thanks
> Jan
>
>
>
> Richard wrote:
>
> > In article <3E19A553.526FBC80@smartsoft.us>, Jan Knepper says...
> >
> > Concerning open source - free project, I found the following /. an
interesting
> > read:
> >
> > http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/01/09/1216259.shtml?tid=156
> >
> > Richard
>

Matthew Wilson wrote:

> I don't think you've missed anything, Jan. Those of us who have to pay our own bills - through consultancy, contracting, journalism, whatever - do it for intellectual stimulation and a kind of technical egalitarian spirit. There's certainly no money in it.

That's what I was afraid of...

> My own motivations for doing STLSoft are
>  - it's a lot easier to persuade clients to use STLSoft code (partly since
> it's strictly header-only) than extracts from my company's public-domain
> libraries, with all it's dependencies on .cpp and libs, etc.
>  - it's a great source of journalistic information, witness my ongoing
> blatherings in WDM and CUJ
>  - it's a great way to refactor code that has real quality, but that is
> obscured inside non-portable, ugly, proprietary libs/headers/cpp
>  - it's a great learning experience. My understanding of the principles of
> STL, the rules of C++, and the behavioural quirks of various compilers has
> tripled at least

Well, I have supported MFC for DMC++ for years I also used to have SGI STL available, but have no time for it anymore... At least not at this moment.

> As for cash? Hmmm. No cash.

Nop! Nothing EVER!!!

> I used to very much enjoy Ron Burk's (creator and former editor of WDJ) comments on the subject. He thought that people who gave away their IP were nuts!

They are... I only give 'part' of it away... <g>

> So we (some of us at least) are nuts, but at least we know we're nuts. :)

Yup...

> BTW, you guys in the states pay an enormous amount in health insurance, don't you?

Well, that actually for two people and about the best plan we can get...

Jan

Yes, Jan. I think you've hit on the key point: only give part of it away. In a sense that's the strategy I take: I'm never going to put the technologies that clients pay me serious money for out into the public domain.

It's kind of like the classic loss-leader marketing strategy: one's open-source project gives people (hopefully) a confidence in the quality of one's work, and then they may pursue that for specific paying tasks.

Hopefully, it's not as starkly cynical than that, in that the free/open-source stuff is worthwhile on its own. If it's not, then you have to wonder which software mega-corporation is lurking quietly behind the venture (a la ActiveState).


"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:3E1F2EE7.1F933ED4@smartsoft.us...
> Matthew Wilson wrote:
>
> > I don't think you've missed anything, Jan. Those of us who have to pay
our
> > own bills - through consultancy, contracting, journalism, whatever - do
it
> > for intellectual stimulation and a kind of technical egalitarian spirit. There's certainly no money in it.
>
> That's what I was afraid of...
>
> > My own motivations for doing STLSoft are
> >  - it's a lot easier to persuade clients to use STLSoft code (partly
since
> > it's strictly header-only) than extracts from my company's public-domain
> > libraries, with all it's dependencies on .cpp and libs, etc.
> >  - it's a great source of journalistic information, witness my ongoing
> > blatherings in WDM and CUJ
> >  - it's a great way to refactor code that has real quality, but that is
> > obscured inside non-portable, ugly, proprietary libs/headers/cpp
> >  - it's a great learning experience. My understanding of the principles
of
> > STL, the rules of C++, and the behavioural quirks of various compilers
has
> > tripled at least
>
> Well, I have supported MFC for DMC++ for years I also used to have SGI STL available, but have no time for it anymore... At least not at this moment.
>
> > As for cash? Hmmm. No cash.
>
> Nop! Nothing EVER!!!
>
> > I used to very much enjoy Ron Burk's (creator and former editor of WDJ) comments on the subject. He thought that people who gave away their IP
were
> > nuts!
>
> They are... I only give 'part' of it away... <g>
>
> > So we (some of us at least) are nuts, but at least we know we're nuts.
:)
>
> Yup...
>
> > BTW, you guys in the states pay an enormous amount in health insurance, don't you?
>
> Well, that actually for two people and about the best plan we can get...
>
> Jan
>
>