He made a single point that I thought relatively brilliant:

Where is the Microsoft personality?

In summary, he’s referring to how Apple has played the marketing game brilliantly. It’s never been afraid to push itself. They make snide (albeit true) comments about the PC and Windows systems in their I’m a Mac advertisments.

Steve Jobs is a passionate man. A little too passionate at times, if the rumours are to be believed. However, if you have a dream – a goal – and have no burning passion, the likelihood of reaching that dream is slim-to-none.
Whilst I’ve had my fair share of Apple related problems (From a hardware – and always a hardware level), they’ve always sold themselves as being ‘better’.

And, as basic psychology tells you – if you’re told something enough, you’ll start to believe it.

Sure there are forums, and groups out there that criticise Apple because their iPhone blew up, or because they wont replace the casing that seems to crack from normal use over time – but these people bought an Apple product – either to be different, or because they firmly believed that the product was superior in some way.

The other issue is that most other non-Apple companies marketing departments don’t know how to sell something with a subtle push. Microsoft has recently sent out advertising posters claiming “Windows Vista: Now Future Proofed“:

As you can see, it’s nothing more than offering a free upgrade to Windows 7 for computers bought between 22nd July 2009 and 31st January 2010.
A similar thing happend before Vista was  released with people who bought computer with windows XP (However, I’m sure many people went back to XP after they found their systems to be inadequate for Vista, or had issues with Vista’s performance and/or operation).

So, tell me Microsoft: Why are you ‘better’ than Apple? Is it because you’re cheaper? Because, if you sincerely believe that – you’re misguided. Apple at least has multi-System licenses for their operating system, because they realise many people have more than one computer.
Microsoft was clever in bringing out a 3-PC License for Microsoft Office Home and Student, but will they do a similar thing with Windows 7? And will it be just as cost effective?

The computer may be cheaper, but the software isn’t.
Apple operates in reverse: It’s software is cheaper, but the hardware isn’t.

So, if the old addage goes “You get what you pay for” – Which is the ‘better’ product?

The last month has led me consider how I got into this predicament, that is, one of programming for MATLAB.  You see, MATLAB is the foundation stone of all computer-based maths.  IT is the yard-stick against which all other pieces of software are measured against.  Why?  Because.

Here are the key reasons I’ve been told for using MATLAB:

• It can do EVERYTHING (almost)
• It has years of expertise behind it
• It is expensive, therefore it is high quality
• Everyone else recommends it…

The problem is… my experiences don’t reflect any of the apparent positives that have been dictated.  To give some background, I am currently doing some image processing of video feeds in an exercise in computer vision.  So far I have had the following issues:

• Video under linux can only be loaded if the video is stored as a non-interleaved AVI file.  Finding a program that can do this seems to be about as likely as finding a hen with dracula-fangs
• Object-orientation can be done in two different ways.  Only one method is properly documented by MATLAB.  Neither way work as one might expect.
• MATLAB provides extraordinarily clumsy controls for GUI and redrawing operations
• Image processing of various kinds has some strange undocumented limitations.  For example, I load a 2D image, the instant I attempt to change perspective (camdolly etc.), the image vanishes…
• Image crop can only crop a straight rectangle…

Each of these has wasted more than a day of work to figure out and program around.  So where is the advantage here for using to MATLAB?  I have explained these shortcomings to others who I work with, and all I ever hear back is the popular refrain “but the program is really good… what’s your problem?”.  So, in spite of all these shortcomings and issues, when I say MATLAB sucks, people just don’t believe me.

The first major question to consider is: how did MATLAB come to be in such an untouchable position?

As ever, I dont like to present problems without having theories to back them up. My theory is it took the following 4 steps:

Step 1: write a program

Simple stuff of course.  They wrote a mathematics program that could work in matricies.  It was written as an educational tool by a lecturer.  Nothing wrong at this point.

Step 2: sell the program to another university

So, this is the first and only software of its time.  Of course other Uni’s have the same desires and needs, so they adopt it wholesale, as it is a lot better than nothing… right?  Now we are starting to get on shaky ground, as this program likely hasn’t really been very “cleaned up”.

Step 3: get adopted by a company

This happened in 1984, with the forming of a company called The MathWorks.  Now there is a commercial reason to sell it… and generally the commercial entity will want a bigger market etc.  Also, the commercial entity will want to sell asap, and probably won’t bother rewriting or reworking the existing system.  After all, additional functionality expands the market-base, not improving of existing technology.  So, we get a different style of programming tacked onto an already questionable code base.

Step 4: get many students hooked on it so it gets dragged out into the industry

If the students are raised on only one program, then of course, that is what they will want when they graduate.  A great business model, I would highly recommend this track if you can get in!  Now the software is suddenly being used everywhere.  It is quite prolific, and is an almost entirely self-supporting illusion.  All you really need is enough people coming in to equal the number of people leaving your software.  At uni, this happens very naturally, so there is no hassle.  Industries will use software students are familiar with (or students will ask for software they are familiar with), our recent graduates won’t really investigate the other alternatives that hard, assuming that the university had already done this research (they didnt either)… suddenly we have a mythical reputation that springs into action.  All sides assume that MATLAB is the best of breed… why?  Because umm… everyone else is using it…

The problem is, that no where along the way has anyone actually sat down to decide the program they are building.  MATLAB has grown organically for many many decades now and my… goodness… does it show.  It has many different styles of documentation, mutliple functions to achieve almost identical ends, inconsistent coding syntax and many undocumented “features”.  And yet, this has no effect on the perceived value.

MATLAB is already big.  Why is it big? Because it grew when no-one else was there to compete.  So people argue “but <prestigious uni name here> uses it, certainly its good enough for us!”… of course that Uni uses, they use it because everybody else does!

Is MATLAB the best peice of software?  Probably, it is very expensive… and everyone knows you pay for quality.

Why is MATLAB so expensive?  Because it has taken decades of development, therefore it must be good… you know, it’s passed the test of time and all.

The reaction people are having to my critisisms is quite basic: they are buying the advertising material.  It is the same reaction you would get if you rocked up in a Ferrarri, and started telling everybody how bad the performance was.  People would nod and smile knowingly, and think in the back of their head “but its a Ferrarri… I’ll be he’s just using it wrong”.

Well, I’m not using it wrong.  For the area of image research I’m doing, contrary to popular belief, MATLAB quite simply sucks.  If there is one thing I can ask people reading this, it is: Please please please DO YOU OWN RESEARCH before you force those working below you to use a particular technology or software suite.  If you haven’t checked that the software can do the hardest thing you will need to do (or even all the simple things such as maybe loading a compressed avi file), then you haven’t done your research properly and could be crippling your project for life.

So next time someone says you should use <Big Technology Company Name Here>’s brand spanking new product, smile at them, pat them on the head, find yourself a trial copy and check it out for yourself before you commit to using it.  Don’t be fooled by the myths of reputation.

You know, I really haven’t been alive for that along.  Less than 3 decades still.  And yet, I am often in awe at how …naive… other people are.

Here, have a look at this article: Linguistic Problems of GPL Advocacy

The basic gist of this is that BSD licenses are superior to GPL licenses, as a GPL license makes claim to software that the GPL-licensing programmer never actually wrote.

The article makes a few key points:

• BSD advocates value the freedom of the “project”, where-as GPL advocates value freedom of “code”
• GPL encourages reuse of crappy code (?!)
• The GPL license is Viral
• GPL is anti-business in its views on code ownership and responsibility
• The comparison between the two licenses could be better summarised as “BSD code is free, but the GPL ensures all derived works are also free.” or “The GPL ensures your code will never be used by a closed-source application.”

So lets get started…

Code vs Project freedom

To a BSD advocate, his project will always “stay free,” and to assert otherwise is ridiculous. Once it is published, what could possibly make it go away?
[snip]
To a GPL advocate, the project is not important; the code is important. So he looks not just at the project distributions he has made, but also of other projects that may incorporate any line of code he ever wrote. In his mind there is no distinction between his original work and its encapsulation in a derived work. He still thinks of both as “his code,” and as an entity that must stay free.

First point up for grabs.  The author asserts that GPL programmers focus on their code as being the thing they want always free, rather than the project.  This is a deliberate misnomer with which the author attempts to convey the idea that GPL programmers are essentially code-obsessed, to the detriment of everything else.  The statement reveals the depth of misunderstanding the author not only has about the GPL license, but also about the capabilities of their pet BSD license.

Software freedom can be broken up into two categories.  Freedom for users and freedom for developers.  GPL and BSD are written with different audiences in mind!  GPL is guarenteeing freedom for the user.  As a user, I can do anything I want with the code.  I will always be able to do anything I want with the code, and nothing or nobody can take that right away from me.  As a developer however, I am restricted as to how I can use GPL code, and MUST provide source code to any program i write that uses GPL code.  BSD on the other hand grants full freedoms to the developer.  A developer can take the BSD licensed code, make some minor improvements, then repackage and sell the software without ever giving their improvements back to the community.  There are some very detailed articles written about this, like perhaps the one at the GNU: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The diifference can be distilled into the following:  BSD is a fire-and-forget license.  Once you release code under the BSD license, it is no longer under your control at all.  In fact, anyone can control it now.  There are no legal requirements for any user (user = programmer using code) to contribute back your source.  GPL on the other hand, is a fire-and-maintain license.  You release code under GPL… if anyone uses it to create their own project, your original code will be improved, and those improvements will be accessible to you for reintegration into your own systems.  Every use of GPL code in public means that everyone who uses your code can benefit.

Those crappy GPL coders…

As an aside, I would expect this mindset to be more prone to reusing other people’s code instead of reimplementing it. Where I would scoff at a piece of code, call it utter garbage, and rewrite the damn thing from scratch, a GPL advocate would probably wrap the garbage in another API that he finds more palatable. In my opinion, this leads to bloat from wrappers, instability from the garbage that is still there, and loss of skills.

This is commonly called “Not Invented Here” syndrome. It is not as much of a strength as the author makes it appear, as there are many good occasions when the code you rewrite ends up being just as badly bloated as the version you just criticized and discarded. You are also trading in known bugs for your own custom set, etc. So, rewriting isn’t an advantage.
The other argument for code reuse (especially if you can link it to a shared library as opposed to a static version as is often done in linux) is that when you fix one bug you fix them for all applications using that library. Or if you speed up the implementation, all applications using that library benefit from the speed up. Therefore, rather than having 12 different implementations of how to read metadata from image files, each with their own bugs, advantages and quirky behaviour, we can all contribute and code against a common library meaning we end up COMBINING effort rather than simply competing.
Of course, the disadvantage is that it is difficult to change the library api once it is released… but there are ways to work around this however!

“A virus has been detected”

Just for something different, this statement is actually correct.  The GPL license is viral, in that any code it touches must naturally become GPL in order to fulfill the legal requirements.  Why is this the case though?  Now, this is one of the primary points the author rants against.  In the author’s mind, a person using GPL really has absolutely no right to dictate the conditions of how their code is used once they release it to the public.

For example, suppose I sit on the curb and give away free lemons. A kid next door might get the bright idea to get my lemons, make lemonade, and sell it. The lemonade is clearly a “derived work,” since it is made from my lemons, but it is absurd to suggest I have any right to tell him what price to put on his lemonade or how much sugar he can use in it.

The key rift between the author’s clever analogy and actual reality, is that he never really cares about the lemon in the first place.  The author is clearly thinking of something where his contribution to the next project is minimal, and the improvements over his product are easily reproducible.  This is not the case in the world of software.  Let’s look at linux for example.  Every company that repackages and sells linux, is essentially making money of EVERY programmer who ever contributed a piece of software, a line of code or even a design idea to linux since it was born.  The company is profiting (hopefully!) from many many hundreds of man-years of development that has already gone into making the various interfaces used.  Now, it is obvious that the company will not hunt down all these individuals and pay them for their contributions.  They couldn’t ever hope to, as the software would be too expensive, and the developers too numerous for this to be possible.  So insted, the GPL encourages a different form of payment: the programmers are “paid” by the company contributing their improvements back to the ecosystem.  In this way, the programmer is essentially paid by getting more useful, stable and valuable software.

Now, we know companies are all honest and caring.  Right?  No of course not!  Every company out there is trying to make money, and to do this they need an edge on their competitors.  Even linux-based companies!  So, it is easy to see that given a choice, no company would reveal their fixes, changes and upgrades to any free software base.  After all, if they are depending on software to give them an edge, as soon as they release this, every other company now has the same “advantage” they did… so goodbye edge.  The Free Software Foundation realised this, hence why the GPL code ENFORCES fair sharing of fixes back to the original community.

By contrast, the BSD license makes no conditions at all. Imagine if you will, that you are working with a colleague that you teach many new things to.  You do his assignments, and help with his projects, and all he ever does is say “thanks” (if your lucky).  This is what the BSD license allows!  I can take any BSD code, make some bugfixes, combine it with a few other BSD projects, make more bugfixes, and release the new and improved version.  Worse still, I can then charge $10,000 for this new version, and never give out the source code.  How do the original programmers benefit from this?  A programmer may have just given away 10 years of hard work and testing… and they will never see any return on it now that it’s under the BSD license.  If the people who reuse my code are not forced to return changes and improvements made, then I am essentially giving them a free ride.  And every improvement I make is further increasing their value, while bringing nothing extra to me. GPL is viral because it needs to be.

None of your business

These distinctive views of ownership combine with considerations of money, and GPL’s anti-business mindset, resulting in accusations of Communism, and worse.

Here we strike the most unsupported claim.  This website does a pretty good job revealing the truth of the GPL license:

The GPL provides a substantial business advantage apart from alternative proprietary licensing: assurance that contributed code can’t be used by others who hide further improvements. This is part of the reason so many companies contribute to Linux and GNU even though they compete with other contributors. Each knows the others can’t release an improved product without making the source available and so must accept a level playing field. BSD and similar licenses are only more “business friendly” for companies that want to release proprietary software. For the overwhelming majority of companies who don’t (and even for those that do in areas where they don’t offer proprietary products) the GPL a better deal.

So quite simply, BSD is good for if you want to become the next Microsoft, and lock everybody into your propriatey software.  GPL does not condone, and will not allow this kind of monopoly and stupidity to happen.  GPL creates an environment where code is NOT the valuable content.  If everyone has access to the same code-base, companies need to find new ways to distinguish themselves, with other useful things such as services, support, and general good-will.

GPL and closed source

“The GPL ensures your code will never be used by a closed-source application.”

After the long-winded rant against many GPL practices, the author at least closes with an accurate statement.  GPL is specifically designed to prevent closed-source use for the simple fact that it is seen as detrimental to the computing community in general.

As a programmer myself, this prevention makes me more likely to contribute towards a GPL licensed project than any other, as I can guarentee that at the end of things, the company can never lock me out of my improvements by forking the project, closing it up, polishing it a bit, then trying to sell it back to me.  If I am giving a company my spare time to help them fix THEIR bugs or improve their product, then is it too much to ask for reimbursement?  Apparently many other programmers feel the same way… it is no accident that many huge projects all use GPL licenses.