How To Make Money With Free Software 187
fons writes "Dutch Python hacker/artist Stani took part in a contest organised by the Dutch Ministry Of Finance to design a 5 euro commemorative coin. And he won, using only free software: 'The whole design was done for 100% with free software. The biggest part consists of custom software in Python, of course within the SPE editor. For the visual power I used PIL and pyCairo. From time to time also Gimp, Inkscape and Phatch helped quite a bit. All the developing and processing was done on GNU/Linux machines which were running Ubuntu/Debian. I would have loved to release the coin under the GPL, which could maybe solve the financial crisis. However for obvious reasons I was not allowed to do that.'"
Making money (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, people printing too much money was how this crisis started in the first place.
(and they are going to solve it by
Re:More like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More like... (Score:1, Insightful)
More like "How to prepare a contest entry using only free software"
You don't get it... He made money. He really MADE the money!
This is an excellent example (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get it.... (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the big deal?
I've seen people recreate entire scenes from "Lost" in MS Paint, but it doesn't mean it's the easier or faster way to do it.
Just means it can be done. I'm not devaluing the work done here, or the benefit of open source software but seriously... I don't see the big deal in this article.
As a Computer Graphics Instructor... (Score:5, Insightful)
So I started doing an extra credit assignment where I tell them they are not allowed to use Adobe products, and they have to design a postcard. They use any package they want; most use GIMP or Inkscape because they're free. Without fail, they come back and say, "hey, I can't do anything with this. It's not Adobe. It sucks." So I point out to them that their Adobe software skills make them think they're pretty good at design. But what happened to their awesome design skills when they started using another software package? Does the software really suck, or do they just hate it because of its non-Adobeness? I show them nicely-done work by other GIMP or Inkscape users. Blank looks. Lesson ensues.
Relying on a specific software package is fine. *Depending* on it is risky. And *not being able* to design using anything else because of some marketing-infused mental block just means you're spoiled and/or ignorant. Bravo for the true creativity displayed in the article.
Re:This is an excellent example (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, it's good publicity for FOSS. If you show that you can be productive with it, more adoption.
In fact, if more people that use FOSS say it, it will remove the stigma that such software is substandard to the business alternatives.
Re:Fuck Python (Score:2, Insightful)
C#!?!?!
If you think that's a step up, you really have a lot to learn.
Why don't you learn a real language. C, C++, Assembly, Java, Perl, forth, pascal, fortan or COBOL even, before criticizing Python.
But coming back with C# is just beyond lame.
Re:More like... (Score:5, Insightful)
But he was *making money*, get it? Coin - money...
Anyway, the interesting thing here is not that he designed something with free software, people do that all the time, but that his design won. Of course I didn't read the article, but A assume his was not the only entry, and that at least some other entries were prepared with proprietary software.
So it wouldn't be "an author wrote a book using OpenOffice" but rather "a book written using OpenOffice won some prize". Of course books created by free software regularly win top places at typography contests, so it would still not be that unusual.
There is, however, certain feeling among both professionals and public that in the area of graphics design, proprietary software rules, and using free software gives you a serious handicap. That is what makes this interesting.
Re:As a Computer Graphics Instructor... (Score:5, Insightful)
That test as akin to asking someone to type with a non-QWERTY style keyboard.
Your test did not challenge their design and creative abilities, it tested their ability to use different tools.
Re:Making money (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't really caused by printing too much money (especially since a lot of the money was never printed, but just given out on paper). The issue is more that the money loaned out was secured in a way that didn't correctly model the risk of giving out that money. When it was found that the assumptions made were faulty and began to unwind, a whole ton of shit hit the fan. I'm not going to suggest (in this post) who caused the problem, loaners or takers, and if the problem is being best resolved, but the problem wasn't caused by loaning out too much.
Re:More like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As a Computer Graphics Instructor... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a student views himself as a craftsman who uses one tool, he needs to know that he is selling himself short, that is all. Half of the student's grade in these classes is based in the application of design principles independent of any specific specific software package. So for an extra credit assignment, that's more than appropriate.
Also, If I were teaching a keyboarding class, I'd have no problem exposing my students to Dvorak or Das Keyboard in similar optional, extra credit assignments.
Re:This is an excellent example (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a Computer Graphics Instructor... (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe there is value in learning to use multiple different tools, no matter what your trade.
The reason I said something was because you were talking about their design skills. But the extra credit assignment did not tackle the issue of design skills as much as it addressed their ability to use a different tool.
At the end of the day, I think it was a wonderful extra credit assignment to give them. Something to challenge how they see the tools they use and possibly expand their horizons.
Re:Making money (Score:1, Insightful)
Wasn't really caused by printing too much money (especially since a lot of the money was never printed, but just given out on paper).
Printing too much money is a metaphor for creating too much one through one means or another.
The issue is more that the money loaned out was secured in a way that didn't correctly model the risk of giving out that money. When it was found that the assumptions made were faulty and began to unwind, a whole ton of shit hit the fan.
Sounds like a fancy way of saying "created too much money."
but the problem wasn't caused by loaning out too much
By your above statement, it was. What do you think "didn't correctly model the risk" lead to? Too much money being loaned.
Re:More like... (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe you mean, "Return of the Scottish Character".
Re:This is an excellent example (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you but for different reasons. The judges would have been oblivious to the fact the free software was used to design the coin. They gave the award based in the design in front of them, uninfluenced by its means of production. The artist won 100% based on his design. Hence the first part of my comment.
Tool selection is part of the behind the scenes design process. The free software tools contributed to the artist's ability to realise his design. He might have been able to do it without free software, but would have had to divert effort from being creative into forcing the tools to do his will. Being able to afford the tools for the job is part of it, but I think a larger issue is that free software provided the customisability to get the job done.
This is why I think it's an excellent example: he won the prize entirely though his own resourcefulness, but free software allowed his resourcefulness to go places it otherwise could not have.
Observation: Funny that I just came out with words to the effect of "where do you want to go today?", the old MS slogan. The important thing is not the question, but the answer. Some software will let you go lots of places. The excellent case in point, the example of the coin, has demonstrated that free software's answer is "wherever you want to go".
For bunnies sakes. (Score:3, Insightful)
He won a design contest, the logical conclusion? He can't design.
Only in Slashdot ...
And?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck Python, no, Fuck C# (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a VI user not an Emacs user.
Why? Because emacs often requires installation, where VI is by default on almost every Linux and Unix system, it's also an extended version of "ed" that is a very useful tool.
Anyhow it's not small mindedness, because C# is closed and proprietary it very limited in it use.
For example you will not see developers porting the language to new systems. Only Microsoft can do that!
Hence it's not a real language in that respect.
How about project usage? Can you write an OS with it. Or program set top boxes or other embedded applications?
real languages can go anywhere. it's not some petty personal bias. It's a real fact, C, C++, Forth, Java can be counted on as running on almost even known CPU and hardware device ever developed.
C and Forth are almost university the first languages to run on any CPU!!!
Where C and Forth goes, Python, perl, php, java, pascal and many other languages are easy to port over on top of the C compiler. Except C#, J++ and other proprietary solutions.
Try that with C#. Oh you don't have the language source code... Oooh too bad. You don't have source for all of your libraries or even a clean spec on how things are supposed to work. Oh well call m$ and see if they can help.
vi for life!
see my site http://www.churchofbsd.org/ [churchofbsd.org]
Re:Fuck Python (Score:3, Insightful)
> Java and C# are nearly interchangeable
yes I know.
So then why bother with something closed source?
> Actionscript
This is it's own beast, I'd have the same gripes with flash, except it's getting much more open, and they have done an excellent job for what it is, but it's very limited in it's use again and so it's not a "real language" by my definition.
I am sure there is some compsci student out there that can come up with a better term for it, but it's a Niche Language and as such has limited use.
Re:This is an excellent example (Score:1, Insightful)
It would not have been possible with "normal" software. "Normal" software would have resulted in a "normal" design that would not have stood out and won the prize. You get prizes for standing out from the pack, not for sitting on beaches. Normal artists don't customise their tools or win prizes. Exceptional artists innovate with their tools and win acclaim.
It's an example of a master wielding his tools to produce a masterpiece. The great masters innovated in their production techniques. It's one of the things that sets a master apart from a mere handle turner.
FOSS is getting to a sweet point where it is the domain of masters. It has matured to the point where it is productive, but agile enough to do new things.
Re:More like... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck Python, no, Fuck C# (Score:5, Insightful)
So, basically, shovels are better than back hoes because with a shovel you can make both small and big holes, but with back-hoes, you can only make big holes. However, what you aren't taking into account is that while backhoes can't make small holes, they are way more efficient at making big ones.
And just for the record, a "small hole" is a low-level project, such as an operating system, and a "big hole" is a higher-level system, like a software program.
I'm not saying that C# is better than C, just that they have different purposes and are therefore better at different things.
Fuck this thread (Score:1, Insightful)
How does the vi get onto the unix and linux systems? Oh it gets installed. Just like emacs. Not using emacs because it's not installed by default is a pretty silly reason. Unless you just stick to whatever software comes with the machine out of the box, you have to install something. So you may as well install emacs. M-x-install-emacs
Re:Making money (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, one should be careful of believing metaphors too much. It is possible to make your metaphor work, but only through considerable twists of logic. The question you have to ask whenever you do that: is it worth the effort? Does the metaphor tell you anything worth knowing? The GP is precisely right: people don't know how much risk they've undertaken, so they don't know how many of their assets are, in accounting terms, "cash equivalents". So what has happened is that the flow of money through the economy has been gummed up. This is exactly the opposite immediate effect from what you'd get "printing more money" (actually extending more credit). People would not be able to get rid of their dollars fast enough, lest they be inflated away.
Here's a metaphor that is much better than the printing one, a metaphor that derives from accounting but draws upon physics: anti-money. The way you get a certain number of dollars into circulation is to create an equal number of anti-dollars. Eventually, the dollars return to annihilate and be annihilated by anti-dollars.
The process of creating money and anti-money is called "credit".
Every dollar borrowed by a big bank from the Fed is balanced by an anti-dollar on the Fed's books. When the Fed reduces interest rates, then banks borrow more cheap dollars from it, putting more dollars into circulation, balanced by anti-dollars on the Fed's ledgers. However: while the Fed influences the money supply, it's not the only or main creator of money. Anybody can create money, perfectly legally by extending credit. A dollar exists if an only if everyone believes it is there..
If I were Warren Buffet, I could write on a piece of paper, "Pay to the bearer one million dollars. Signed, Warren Buffet" then hand you that piece of paper, writing "one million anti-dollars" on my ledgers. You could go out and spend that "million dollars" as if it were a bundle of 50,000 $20 bills. As long as that paper was absolutely convincing, as long as everybody agreed that note was worth a million dollars, it would be a million dollars.
You could deposit it in a bank, which put it in its vault. Since the note can't be conveniently divvied up, what they do in effect is create a million dollars of money and a million dollars of anti-money, securing the promise represented by that creation to their ability to demand a million dollars from me. That's very important. The promises represented by money form a kind of chain of obligations, ultimately anchored to the Treasury's endless ability to create dollars. When financial transactions occur, the chain is reconfigured. When I issue the note I forge a ring in the chain and link that to my upstream debtors. When your bank redeems the note, I take my ring out of the chain and splice them directly to my upstream debtors.
That's where printing comes in. Nobody wants a lot of physical dollars; they don't want tens of thousands of dollars in their wallets, or billions of dollars in bills in their vaults. But they want to know that if they yank on their end of the chain, the Treasury will respond by printing a dollar. That's what the full faith and credit of the United States amounts to: a promise to print as many dollars as the Fed says exists. In practice the amount of physical dollars is an infinitesimal fraction of the total dollars in circulation; the capacity to supply virtual demand is transmutes credit into money. If any upstream link in the chain is questionable, all the downstream credit ceases to be money and becomes investment.
The source of the current problem is that the financial system has attempted the equivalent of pulling itself up by the bootstraps. Individual institutions discovered that they could insure securities with things like credit default swaps. That means instead of carefully