I'm wondering what percentage of developers here do cl0sed source development compared to open source development,. and their reasons why, and experiences.

thanks

We're 60/40 closed/open at work.

Open where open makes sense: Common problem, benefit from a community, no real business value in keeping code to ourselves, legal reasons (extensions to open source).

Closed where it makes sense: We've solved some hard problem that is core to how we make money and releasing it would make it much easier for other people to copy us or not have to pay us.

Edit: I do little personal programming these days and that's mostly closed since its generally really ****ty and specific just to me.

All of my non-work code is open source. I like the process of going from a raggity chunk of code that works to something reasonable enough that I feel comfortable putting it on github.

I do freelance work so I can't just share client code directly but some ideas for libraries have came from client work.

Closed because I get paid to do it. I'd accept pay for open source work too. My situation is a lot like Shoe Laces's.

We use open source, but if you are asking if we release it to the public domain the answer is no. It is property of our clients and they have no reason to release it.

This is an ambiguous question.

Are you asking if the output is open or closed source or are you asking if the tools and languages we prefer to use are open or closed-source?

If it is the first, few people releases all of their code. It takes a certain type to do that.

If you are asking about tooling and languages, I do not use any closed-source tools or languages. There are many reasons for this, but the main reasons are that there aren't any closed-source items I feel compelled to use and I also do not appreciate programming in any environment that restricts my control. I also have not found any closed source or paid item that is convincingly better than the tools I use. Of course, there are many deep philosophical reasons as well.

As a user, I will use closed-source if there is a compelling reason to do so. Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator, along with MS Office, are so significantly better than the free options that I have zero problems paying for them.

Some people have benefited from the open source community, in some way where they have an appreciation to people that share. On their spare time, they will choose to have their hobby projects be open source.

As few have said, there are benefits for products being open sourced and some prefer it to closed. In no way am I saying that closed should be less considered, I love intellij ide (free and paid) but I also enjoy atom by github which is completely open source.

In terms of finances, how possible is it to make a decent earning at open source software development?

clarify this op

If you've ever used a computer at all, you have benefited greatly from the open source community.

The world wide web is open source.

The reason that Poker Tracker and HEM are on PostgreSQL is because MySQL isn't powerful enough. Imagine if we all had to pay Oracle to get the same?

As a developer, you probably aren't developing strictly with Turbo Pascal, Basic, and .Net. If you ever compiled an open-source program, you have benefited greatly from a FOSS compiler.

Wordpress, Drupal, PHP, MySQL, Perl, Python, Ruby. There'd be no internet like there is today without these technologies.

Many of the latest and greatest features found in many of our closed source text editors and IDEs have existed for many years in FOSS editors and IDEs.

Java advertises that it runs in billions of devices we use every day, from our toaster to our cars. The JVM is open source.

You probably are using a free web browser.

Of course, the entire web would not be as secure as it is without the open source community. I know, there are things popping up now, but those things get fixed in a few days. Java Applets, Internet Explorer, and Flash had / has been sitting on unpatched security holes for many years.

The earliest days of computing, at least the computing that finally brought computers to our homes and our pockets, was birthed and promoted by the open source community, all built on the ideas of open source.

It seems like marketing for a lot of guys. If you are known as the expert on an open source library, some times companies will be more than happy to pay up for this expertise.

@dave
If you want to use your words so loosely, then ok but my post was aimed towards developers and open source code.

On a side note:
I personally doubt that the majority of the public, uses the internet where they are accessing resources, which would not exist if the internet landscape was different.

There is a reason why the average user which doesn't do much, pays for Windows and all that user does is browse facebook.

If everything was closed-source, our options to just try some programming out would be to buy one of a small collection of closed-source programming languages. This day of Codecademy and other "try it" editors certainly would not exist.

Today, anyone with a notepad and a web browser can start programming. This would not be at all possible if we could only use Flash, and have fun being a 12 year old and convincing your parents to drop a cool grand on some programming language you want to try out for fun so you can post photos of your summer vacation on the web. If everyone had to wait until they had money or take on monumental college dept to learn to program, the talent to build Facebook, Windows, and other complex software simply would not exist.

For an average joe, Wikipedia is the most amazing and visible representation of open sharing we can find on the web. If not for open source, we would still be using dated encyclopedias.

Today, anyone can grab one of many open-source programming languages off the web and not only begin to learn, but actually find excellent resources and documentation on the web... all for free.

Open source is more about open-learning and open sharing of ideas than any mumble about "freedom to use, copy, modify, and distribute."

We can also imagine a world that was completely closed-source. Would Google ever release a paper on Map Reduce if they weren't built primarily on open-source tools and technology? Were would the commitment be to give back or give forward? There would be none.

Windows and Facebook are deeply in debt to the open source community. Facebook would have zero chance of beginning if it was college student's choice between $12 for a month to stroke off at sorority pictures and buying pizza a Jolt cola.

Anyways, the point is that, even you are a programmer that is C# for life, and you never once used a language that was open-source and free to use, you have been touched and impacted by open source technology. Open source runs deeply within the foundations and blood of these types of languages. Just because they added a collection commands and added a few lines to the linkers doesn't mean that they didn't build the rest on open-source technology.

Where would Windows be if there wasn't C and C++?

Typically I think it's silly to argue if something has never happened. We don't know what it would be like, if people favored one thing and until we're living in that moment, we won't know.

My Facebook and Windows comment was more directed towards the people using them and not the individual products. People that pay for Windows OS when they could just be using a Linux distro and be just as productive. -Sort of off-topic

I tend to prefer closed applications but am happy with some open source ones. But when I made my post I was typically aiming towards thinking that majority of developers are happy by the open source libraries that exist that come from projects or not.

As one example, lots of people make money from Linux in various ways including software development so the answer to your question is that it is quite possible. Are you still in school?

Output.

Yes I'm studying information security/assurance and forensics at university.


One of the things I'm interested in doing is developing 0pen source software that's free to use, to help provide information assurance,. and to subvert surveillance. I'd love to work on something like Tor, or TrueCrypt. I just don't know how feasible it is to make an earning doing that., not that I'm interested in it for money, however ...

I'd like to change the world with code, and it would be nice to eat and have shelter and all that good stuff.

Tools...100% FLOSS unless it can't be avoided (I'll use BLOB-drivers even though I probably shouldn't. Actually I'm pretty sure I don't use any these days except for the stuff in the Pi and BIOS stuff).

Output: FLOSS by default because I learned programming by looking at other people's code and I think copy+adapt/modify is the natural way for humans to learn.
I don't think closed source software is evil it's mostly impractical. My personal definition of freedom includes the freedom to close source your code (I'm very much BSD style licenses > GPL style in that regard).

What Linux do you use? I was looking this one up and noticed that Arch uses some proprietary BLOBs and thus aren't preferred by the FSF, but I don't care enough to move over to some other distro like Palabora and I'd like it if the hardware I have actually works. I don't want to buy a slo-poke Lemote.

http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html

I think that the FSF is a little over-the-top in many areas. While I try to use as much open-source as I can, I agree with your BSD style philosophy. It is our right to distribute software as we see fit.

For catsec: There are few companies that deal in open source that are quite profitable. A few examples are Sugar CRM, Valve, EnterpriseDB, and of course Red Hat, which recently cracked $1B.

here's a list of companies for reference, though there are plenty more: http://thevarguy.com/open-source-app...e-are-they-now

Xubuntu but want to move back to Debian

I always like it when I read an article and think there is some big problem(s) with it and see that the comments already have it covered.

Yeah, this.
I don't get how open-source-developpers make their living.
One guy mentioned it is just marketing. But I don't want to spend half of my lifetime for marketing.
I already spent years in playing poker so I would call myself an 'expert' in poker, although there would be many, many more people who are better than me. However, I didn't do this for marketing. I did this for the sole purpose of making money.
And I don't want to spend years again on some open-source-software project, just to call myself 'expert' on this project, just to market myself better.

My father and later the Joker taught me: 'If you are good at something, never do it for free.'

So what's the point of open-source?

Yes... I should have specified that I did not go over it with a fine-tooth comb, and surely anything with "Top N" in its title will have an omission or 5.

I don't understand this argument. The need for marketing is completely irrelevant to whether or not your product is open or closed source. Closed source products don't grow organically.

The companies that offer open-source software make their money through value-added offers like customer service, setting up infrastructure, programmer certification, custom coding... pretty much the same thing that any other company does, with the exception that they don't prevent the end user from owning the code. Many closed-source companies earn a significant income from value-added services as well.

As an end-user dealing with many closed-source companies, I have found more frustration than it is worth. It is truly incredible how many times I've asked for a few data points and heard "We have that, but we don't offer that to our customers." Like, hello, I am paying you to hold this data, why can't I have it? This attitude that the company I work for, after paying for your service, cannot have access to the very data that is important to the life-blood of the company is sickening and wrong, and ultimately detrimental to all parties. If I need this data to earn more money, and you are earning a percentage of my take based on performance, then how do you benefit from holding data hostage?

Just recently, the company had a site built on a mix of open-source and closed source technology. At the end, we didn't bother taking the site, and the people who built the site refused to release the open-source code, refused to let us access the server, and, in general, were total *******s.

This "closed" attitude is what I rail against. I'm not saying that all closed-source companies have this attitude, but I feel like this attitude wouldn't exist if the code was "ours" and not "theirs" when all is said and done. It is my right to not release the code, and that is fine, but as an end-user, it is my right to own the code I paid for. It is my right, as a payer, to to freely use and modify the source. If I want to hire a programmer for a week to add a few features, then I should have the right. If I want to hire a programmer to maintain the code-base and offer in-house tech, then I should have that right. When I buy closed-source, I lose all of my rights.

Yes, marketing seems completely irrelevant to me. However, some guy in this thread mentioned it as motivation. That's why I referred to it.
Well, I don't know what you mean by 'closed source products don't grow organically' however. That's a bit abstract.

Okay, I start to understand, however, what you describe is good customer service vs bad customer service. Still not an argument for open-source vs closed-source.

I think it is partly bad customer service and partly they don't have the in-house talent or time to customize to the needs of all companies. That is fine and totally understandable, but it is not fine and understandable that we can't find someone who can customize to our needs because they don't allow us to. I think they fear that, if we had access to data and code, we will no longer be their customer, which is completely wrong-headed thinking. I think this is the fear you are talking about in a round-about way, and I promise you that the average user doesn't know, doesn't care, and will gladly dole out money for more code and more support. If they complain about something not moving fast enough, you can tell them that they can hire someone to modify the code, here is the API, whatever, have at it. Heck, you can even offer to help finding good talent. If you lose a customer like this, it is because you are a terrible company. I know that I, as a software company, would much rather grant access to APIs and code over receiving 1,000 tickets and requests that will never be fulfilled, which will only cause my company to look worse.

Suppose you were looking for someone to build your website and you are examining two options: a site in open-source or a site in closed source. The closed source site will let you have whatever functionality, no access to the database, no access to the server, and little, if any access to modify the HTML or CSS because that will expose the closed source code. The open source company says "The code is yours. You can do whatever you want, how you want."

I strongly prefer the open attitude, and when I use closed-source tools and languages, I am vindicating this possessive attitude. It is about being a good person, IMO. Taking advantage of the end-users' ignorance is simply wrong.