找回密码
 注册
查看: 9378|回复: 32

[讨论]共享精神对与错

[复制链接]
发表于 2006-5-14 14:29:11 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

马上注册,结交更多好友,享用更多功能,让你轻松玩转社区。

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有账号?注册

x
    在网友们的交流过程中,共享精神始终是一个回避不开的话题。从大的层面上看,人类知识必然通过共享得以传承,有经验的人将自己的知识、经验通过书籍、文章,或者口传身授的方式传递给其他人,使之成为人类共同知识的一部分。从技术层面上看,共享精神又面临知识产权、技术保密、商业竞争等问题的挑战。因此,共享,还是不共享,就始终是个问题。
    自从有了互联网之后,共享精神得到极大的发扬。最典型的事例就是LINUX系统的诞生,及其通过共享获得神奇发展的历程。在流体力学领域,也有诸多开源软件是以共享的方式,得到大家的支持并获得快速增长的。比较起来看,国外的开源软件要比国内丰富得多,表明“共享”作为一种文化在资本主义社会反而比我们社会主义社会更发达,这种现象多少对两种社会各自标榜的意识形态形成讽刺。
    那么,共享究竟应该不应该得到提倡,究竟应该做到什么程度,在共享的过程中我们最担心的是什么,最关心的是什么,什么东西你觉得可以共享,什么东西你觉得不可以共享,都成为摆在我们面前的实实在在的问题。
    不论老鸟还是新手,请诸位就此发表一下自己的意见。希望能通过网上的讨论,对“共享”达成一定的共识,对“共享”过程中应该注意的问题形成比较清晰的基本原则,同时对“共享”的可操作性和具体操作方法共享一下彼此的经验。我觉得这个认识问题不解决,国内的共享精神就永远赶不上国外,并且因此会严重影响国内CFD软件的研究进展。不知各位网友如何看待这个问题,欢迎多多发言,讨论一下这个问题!
发表于 2006-5-15 12:00:25 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

看什么人了,可惜我懂的太少,要是有什么为大家贡献的东西,绝对毫无保留.
人的一生如果只是追逐名利就太累了,把想自己的东西都亮出来服务与大家那多好.别人在用自己设计的东西,那种喜悦就是最大回报.
可能我太小了,所以思维简单了些,呵呵
但是就以前自己几个简单的想法在某些机械制造中得到应用,心理真的很开心.
我做模具的,跟流体方面好象是察边球,刚来这玩,灌了不少水,以后大虾们多多关照啊,希望论坛越办越好!!!(撒花***撒花***)
(厄,周站长平易近人的态度,本人大肆钦佩)
发表于 2006-5-15 12:38:33 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

下面引用由zzZZZzz2006/05/15 00:00pm 发表的内容:
看什么人了,可惜我懂的太少,要是有什么为大家贡献的东西,绝对毫无保留.
人的一生如果只是追逐名利就太累了,把想自己的东西都亮出来服务与大家那多好.别人在用自己设计的东西,那种喜悦就是最大回报.
非常赞同!!
发表于 2006-5-15 14:43:54 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

[这个贴子最后由emuch在 2006/05/15 02:46pm 第 1 次编辑]

我得到的很多东西都是网友共享的,虽然大家彼此并不认识,但是人家还是热情的帮助我,咱们论坛的很多网友都是这样的,很令我佩服。
CFD方面,可以说我是菜鸟,刚开始学。 不过我会经常找些资料与大家分享,希望对大家有用。另外大家有什么需求,也可以发帖求助,相信会得到网友们帮助的。
希望大家多多支持论坛发展,多多支持资料版:
http://219.232.54.3/cgi-bin/LB5000/forums.cgi?forum=5
顺便做做广告,哈哈。
发表于 2006-5-15 20:38:34 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

我觉得有两点:
第一: 子曰:己所不欲,勿施与人.  自己不能要求别人全部共享,但可以求助,有人帮助应该感谢!
第二:个人的进步离不开集体. 自己可以在不涉及保密的条件下,把自己的\从网上辛苦搜集到的尽量共享一下!
不成熟之言,见谅!
 楼主| 发表于 2006-5-15 20:41:02 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

共享说起来简单,但是实际做起来的时候总会遇到我在第一个帖子中说到的问题。当然接受别人共享出来的东西是很惬意的事,一旦需要自己与别人分享自己的成果的时候,自然会想到什么可以共享,什么不能共享——很显然,在开始“共享”这个游戏的时候,也需要建立一些简单的规则。否则,共享是无法长期持续下去的。
发表于 2006-5-15 23:00:19 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

共享好,贡献点空间:
http://www.fortran.cn/soft/FLUENT6.2.16+Gambit2.2+Exceed10.zip
更多讨论:
http://www.ceclub.cn/cgi-bin/topic.cgi?forum=17&topic=6697
 楼主| 发表于 2006-5-16 01:13:10 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

[这个贴子最后由周华在 2006/05/16 01:16am 第 1 次编辑]


开源软件运动触发中国软件开发模式变革
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

作者:刘向阳 2005-01-28 09:29:09 来自:中国青年报

    国人对中国软件业的关心,很多来自于这个产业的尴尬:近有海外软件巨头的步步紧逼、远有邻国印度软件产业的飞速崛起,生存空间备感狭小的中国软件业迫切需要找到一条适合国情的发展道路。加大政府采购给予中国软件产业更多支持是一方面,变革传统软件开发模式,推动自主技术创新是又一条路。这就不难理解“’2004中国开源软件竞赛”为什么同时吸引了政府、企业和高校如此多的关注。
   当你在互联网上“冲浪”时,或许不会意识到,你所浏览的网站可能是Linux操作系统、是Apache服务器、是Mysql数据库、是PHP语言……你同样可以自由地获取这些软件的源代码,并在遵循一定许可规则的情况下可以自由(多数情况下还可以免费)使用而不会被人指控盗版、侵权。如果没有这些开放源代码软件(Open Source Software),你所钟爱的这些网站可能会消失一大半,或许甚至原先根本就不会出现。虽然“开放源代码”这个称呼1998年才被正式提出,但它的思想渊源却伴随着整个计算机操作系统和互联网诞生及发展过程。当互联网舶来中国时,“开源”的种子也随之落在了中国的土地上。
   在1月22日举办的“中国开源软件发展论坛”上,来自业界专家、企业家和政府相关部门人士对开源软件在中国的发展前景和面临的问题进行了探讨。
  软件产业的版权保护不应被滥用
   中国工程院院士倪光南认为,此次竞赛实际上是对中国开源软件发展现状的一次考察。在短短的几个月时间里,有几百件作品参赛,就很说明问题。这其中,有的产品已经得到了市场化的认可。值得一提的是,这些软件产品并没有像那些商业软件一样有大规模的资金投入。倪光南说,“我们都知道印度软件业很发达,但它的业务主要是外包,创新的要求不高。中国软件业的外包比例只有10%左右,更多的软件开发是建立在我们自己的应用的基础上。因此,开放源代码运动对中国软件业的意义就更加重大。此外,在信息安全和自主研发的意义上,开放源代码也提供了更好的支撑。中国目前的软件研发在基础软件层面是最薄弱的,正因为如此,推广开放源代码在中国软件业已经成为共识。”
   共创软件联盟理事长赵玉海认为,科学技术进步本身就是“开放源代码”的事业,互联网的产生本身就是“开放源代码”的结果,根植于共享与协作的价值观念。为了保护创新的成果,进行知识产权保护肯定是有必要的,但是,当前软件产业中应用的版权出现了被滥用的迹象,超过了人们的承受能力,反而遏制了创新。
  计算机教育不能被简化成产品培训
   上海中标软件副总经理秦永表示,对开放源代码要有一个客观、公正的评价。尤其是它的产业成熟度,秦永认为还处于过渡期,即应用仍在推广,产品仍在完善,用户正在逐渐接受。他说,“开源软件将会大有发展,作为软件企业不能等它成熟之后再进入,那将会失去机会。”秦永同时强调说,自由软件也需要规范与标准。他表示,尽管国内有两个小组在起草相关的标准,但迟迟没有出台。秦永认为,在这方面靠企业自身形成统一的标准是不现实的,他希望政府在标准制定方面有所作为。
   新华科技系统有限公司董事长王志强教授担忧的是,目前国内开源软件的产业发展上还有很多空洞现象,比如核心技术,我们在深层次上人才明显不足。他认为,现阶段的计算机教育在体制上也有一些问题,他举例说,某些计算机教育被简化成为少数软件(如微软的视窗系统)产品应用培训。王志强表示,开放源代码运动为中国软件业提供了实现产业突破的机会。
   北京航空航天大学副校长华晋鹏认为,中国的开源软件运动和软件业整体的发展中都存在着人才培养的问题。大学只是解决这个问题的一个方面,社会环境对软件人才的成长也很重要。他认为,在中国的软件企业中,还缺少足够的具有帅才的领军人物。
   华晋鹏表示,中国的软件产业,在软件人才培养上要有耐心,在产业发展上要有决心,在与印度的对比上要有信心。
  开源软件的机会不仅仅是给中国的
   共创软件公司总经理刘明宝表示,从这次“中国开源软件竞赛”来看,政府方面对开源软件运动是相当重视的,而此次参赛的众多年轻面孔,更代表了软件开发未来的希望,给国内软件企业以很大的信心。但是刘明宝强调说,“我们把开放源代码运动看作是中国软件业有所作为的一个机会,这本身没有问题,但开源软件的机会不仅仅是给中国的,而是机会均等。据我所知,俄罗斯、印度、韩国等都在加大对开源软件的投入。我们应用统一发展战略,有所为,有所不为,形成相对集中优势,从而寻求实质上的突破。”
   刘明宝坦言,共创主要从事桌面LINUX系统的研发,国际LINUX界也很重视,希望中国能在这一领域起到领导作用。然而LINUX系统目前有几大劣势,一是对硬件的支持不如微软的WINDOWS系统,二是数据格式受到挤压,WINDOWS文件格式是不开放的,但已成为事实标准。再就是缺少应用软件开发商的支持,没有足够的软件,就无法形成真正的用户群。
   刘明宝建议说,政府可以在一些标准进行规定:如要求硬件厂商提供对LINUX的驱动作为准入的条件;再比如,在数据和文档格式标准上防止垄断。比如说,微软在网页制作中塞进了许多自己的东西,根本不是互联网的公共标准,实际上在影响互联网页的发展。
  政府支持不能局限于软件采购
   北京信息办主任俞慈声说,“我们在2001年底的政府采购中选择了LINUX产品,对此的赞扬声和指责声对我们来讲都是压力。因为我们知道,LINUX的一些产品离公务员的办公应用标准还是有很大距离的。‘扬帆工程’实施后,我们曾在半年里集中了50多个软件当中的问题,虽然很快都解决了,但我们也发现了国内软件业在产品开发中应该解决的几个问题:一是研发模式,我们还缺少对开源软件内核有所掌握的高手,开源软件的研发也得走国际合作的路,包括与硬件公司合作。二是找到合适的企业商业模式,就是说,国内的软件企业之间,也要走联盟合作的道路。三是在市场上寻找突破口。政府作为主要推动力责无旁贷,要务实地推动应用。”
   俞慈声认为,政府的软件采购不能与硬件环境脱离,要对硬件采购有与软件相应配套的要求。
   共创软件联盟秘书长刘澎表示,必须多管齐下才能共创中国软件的振兴。可以通过“863计划”来拉动产业界介入开源协同开发工作,将开源开发与商业运作有机结合。以电子政务应用为突破口为国产软件创造更多机会。


 楼主| 发表于 2006-5-16 01:15:29 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错


A Brief History of Free/Open Source Software Movement
The free/open source software movement began in the "hacker" culture of U.S. computer science laboratories (Stanford, Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, and MIT) in the 1960';s and 1970';s.
The community of programmers was small, and close-knit. Code passed back and forth between the members of the community--if you made an improvement you were expected to submit your code to the community of developers. To withhold code was considered gauché--after all, you benefited from the work of your friends, you should return the favor.
It was in this environment that Richard Stallman began his computer science career in 1971, as a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence lab. Stallman worked primarily on ITS, the Incompatible Timesharing System, an operating system homebrewed at MIT to run on the DEC PDP-10. In this collegial environment, Stallman and his colleagues built an enormous array of software tools for the PDP-10.
However, by the early 80';s, the hacker community began to break down at MIT and other universities. DEC discontinued the PDP-10. As a result, the ITS software became obsolete, because it was written specifically for the PDP-10 hardware architecture. The PDP-10';s replacements, such as the VAX or the 68020, had their own operating systems, but none of them were free software: you had to sign a nondisclosure agreement even to get an executable copy. (DiBona, et al. 1999)
Moreover, many of the hackers were hired away by commercial companies who sold proprietary systems. One of the first to break ranks was a student named Brian Reed at Carnegie Mellon University. In 1980, Reed wrote Scribe, one of the first text-formatting programs to incorporate semantic markup. However, Reed
"....then surprised everyone by selling it to a
company, instead of sharing it with the community. The company was
very proprietary about it, and very obnoxiously put time bombs into
it. Somebody I know spent hours debugging why our copy had ceased to
work. Eventually he came across the time bomb which had been put in
there purely for profit-insuring purposes. He was extremely angry that
he had wasted all that time on a bug that had been deliberately
created. From the view point of people in the software sharing
community, anything artificially put in to stop people from running
a program is simply a deliberate bug.
The problem was that nobody censured or punished this student for what
he did. He got away with it. The result was other people got tempted
to follow his example. Many years later he stated that he believed his own
program was much less used as a result of his decision, that it would
have become far more popular and influential if he had shared is as
was normal." (Bennahum,
1996 and King, 1999)
A another major blow also came in 1980, when two companies were formed to sell MIT';s Lisp Machine technology. Richard Greenblatt, a senior Lisp machine project hacker at the AI lab, formed a company called Lisp Machine, Inc. (LMI). Another group of hackers, including David Moon, Howie Shrobe, and Howard Cannon got backing to found Symbolics. Between the two companies, they hired away most of the AI lab';s staff. The prospect that all future improvements to the MIT Lisp system and MACSYMA (an artificial intelligence based math engine based on Lisp) would be proprietary angered Stallman. So for a year, he attempted to match feature by feature the improvements in the proprietary Lisp systems in the MIT Lisp system. Eventually he gave up, because as talented and dedicated a hacker as Stallman was, he could not keep up with the combined efforts of a team of equally talented hackers. (Lemon, 1997 and Siska, 1997)
"I was faced with a choice. One: join the proprietary software world,
sign the nondisclosure agreements and promise not to help my fellow
hackers. Two: leave the computer field altogether. Or three, look for
a way that a programmer could do something for the good. I asked
myself, was there a program or programs I could write, so as to make a
community possible again?" (King, 1999)
Determined to recreate the community of cooperating hackers he enjoyed in the 1970';s, Stallman decided to devote himself to creating free software. According to Stallman, truly free software must allow every user the right to:
run the program, for any purpose.
modify the program to suit their needs. (To make this freedom effective in practice, they must have access to the source code, since making changes in a program without having the source code is exceedingly difficult.) They must have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for a fee.
redistribute copies, either gratis or free.
distribute modified versions of the program, so that the community can benefit from your improvements.
In January 1984, Stallman resigned from MIT so that the university would have no claims on the software he created. (With the blessing of Dr. Winston, then the head of the AI lab, he continued to use his office and MIT hardware.) (Stallman, 1999)
Stallman devoted his first efforts an operating system. Without an operating system, a computer is just a hunk of worthless metal, glass, and plastic. The most commonly used and powerful operating system at the time was the Unix system, first developed by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie at Bell Labs. Since a lot of software already existed for Unix, Stallman decided to make his operating system Unix compatible, to make the transition from proprietary software to his libré software as easy as possible. He called his project GNU (Gnu';s Not Unix), to distinguish his software from the proprietary versions.
In 1985, Stallman created the Free Software Foundation, a tax exempt charity, to support his work and that of his collaborators. Stallman personally created an enormous body of software: GCC (C compiler), GDB (debugger), Emacs (text editor), and a number of other tools.
To be sure, Stallman';s efforts were neither the first nor the only libré software development efforts. The X consortium, for example, developed the X windowing system. Perl, the most commonly used scripting language for web sites, was developed by Larry Wall while working on a government sponsored project at Burroughs. Another free version of Unix was developed by a group based at the University of California at Berkeley. However, the Free Software Foundation';s efforts were probably the most extensive, and the most visible.
To ensure that his code would always be freely modifiable and distributable, he created the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL specified that users of the source code could view, change, or add to the code, provided that they made their changes available under the same license as the original code. He founded the Free Software Foundation in 1985 to promote the development of GNU and other GPL';d software. For the creation of the GNU system, the GPL license, and the Free Software Foundation, Stallman was awarded the MacArthur fellowship in 1990.
Now the only thing that the GNU system lacked was a kernel, the heart of an operating system. In 1990, Stallman';s team began work on HURD, an OS based on the MACH microkernel architecture, which was first developed at Carnegie Mellon. (According to Thomas Bushnell, principal architect of HURD, HURD is the first piece of software to be named by mutually recursive acronyms: Hurd = Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons. Hird = Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth). However, work on the HURD progressed very slowly, and the kernel was very incomplete as of 1991.
Enter a 21 year old, second year graduate student at the University of Helsinki named Linus Torvalds (Ghosh, 1998). Torvalds wrote a Unix-like kernel based on Minix, a small Unix clone used as a teaching tool. Torvalds submitted his kernel, called Linux (Linus + Unix) for review to various newsgroups and mailing lists. Several other programmers began to modify and tweak the code, sending their improvements back to Torvalds for inclusion in the next release of the kernel. Eventually, Linux became the de facto kernel for the GNU operating system.
In 1997, Eric Raymond published an essay entitled The Cathedral and The Bazaar. In the essay, Raymond articulated the reasons why he believed that open source licenses--licenses that allowed anyone to freely view, modify, and distribute the code--resulted in higher quality, less expensive software. The essay spread quickly through the programming community.
At the same time, Netscape was involved in a fierce struggle with Microsoft to see whose browser would become the dominant browser on the desktop: Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer. Microsoft';s decision to give away Internet Explorer, combined with their control of the Windows operating system, led to the increasing erosion of Netscape';s market share. Netscape feared that Microsoft dominance would shift web protocols from open to proprietary standards that only Microsoft';s servers would be able to service. Influenced by Raymond';s essay, several managers at Netscape believed that the best way to keep web protocols open would be to release the code to the Netscape browser.
On January 22nd, 1998, Netscape announced that it would open the sourc code for Netscape Navigator 5.0. Their announcement gave the free/open source software community a great boost in credibility in the eyes of business community.
Shortly afterward, a coalition of individuals, led by Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens, and Tim O';Reilly, decided that the the free software community needed better marketing. They formed the Open Source Initiative to a) promote the pragmatic benefits to the business community, and b) certify free/open source licenses that meet the Open Source Definition.
The Open Source Iniative';s evangelism paid off. Following Netscape';s announcement, several additional vendors announced support for Linux, including Oracle, IBM, and Corel. Intel and Netscape invested in Red Hat, the largest English language Linux distributor. (Raymond, 1999)
A statistically insignificant presence in 1997, the popularity of Linux and the free/open source software movement exploded. The International Data Corporation (IDC) estimated that Linux has 25% of the server market, second only to Windows NT which has 38%. With 4% of the market, Linux is also the the third most popular desktop after Apple. Moreover, IDC estimated that commercial shipments of Linux will grow at a compounded annual growth rate of 25% from 1999 to 2003, compared to 10-12% growth rates for other operating systems. (Note, however, that Linux';s installed base was quite small--it';s much easier to have high growth percentage rates when your starting absolute numbers are small.)
In August of 1999, Red Hat Linux went public. The stock price soared to $72 dollars the day after the IPO, giving Red Hat a market capitalization of $4.8 billion--a remarkable valuation for a company with a $5,787,945 net loss on $33,031,682 million in revenues for the fiscal year ending in February 1999. VA Linux, a vendor of hardware with Linux pre-installed, netted the largest first day run-up in IPO history, giving VA Linux a $7 billion dollar market capitalization. Other successful Linux IPO';s include Cobalt Networks ($3.1 billion) and Andover.net ($712 million).(Scannell, 1999) Other more recent successes:
IBM recently announced that the company would devote almost $1 billion dollars to support Linux. (Burke, 2000)
Forrester Research estimates that more than 55% of the world';s 2,500 biggest firms use open source software, with almost a quarter using the software in production systems. (Connor, 2000)
Sun recently released Star Office, an office suite similar to Microsoft Office, under the GPL license. (Proffitt, 2000)
To be sure, free/open source software still faces challenges. Both Red Hat and VA Linux, two of the most prominent corporate supporters of Linux, still lose money. Even if they become profitable, I find it difficult to imagine that VA Linux or Red Hat will justify their IPO valuations within the next 10 years. Software patent law threatens to strangle free/open source software developers with threats of lawsuits. And dotcoms, early adopters of Linux, continue to drop like drunks on rollerskates. Despite the challenges, free/open source software will likely increase in influence and popularity

Bibliography
Bennahum, D. (1996) Interview with Richard Stallman. Meme 2.04. [online] Available from: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~runlinux/stallman.shtml [Accessed 26 December 2000]
Burke, S. (2000) Gerstner: IBM To Place Billion-Dollar Bet Linux Could Overtake NT. Ch@nnelWeb [online] (13 December 2000) Available from: http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-12-13-007-06-PS-BZ [Accessed 25 December 2000]
Connor, D. (2000) Open source moves beyond the server: enterprise, network products feel presence of software movement. Network World [online] (26 December 2000) Available from http://www2.itworld.com/cma/ett_article_frame/0,2848,1_3548,00.html [Accessed 25 December 2000]
Ghosh, R.A. (1998) FM Interview with Linus Torvalds: What motivates free software developers? First Monday [online] (2 March 1998) Vol.3 (3) Available from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_3/torvalds/index.html [Accessed 26 December 2000].
King, J.J. (1999) Free Software is a Political Action: In Conversation With Richard Stallman. Teleopolis. [online] Available from: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/wos/6469/1.html
Lemon, T. (17 February 1997). E-mail message titled: Re: Starting all over from 16.1? Cygwin project mailing list [online] Available from: http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/1997-02/msg00427.html [Accessed 26 December 2000].
Profitt, B. (2000) StarOffice Code Released in Largest Open Source Project LinuxToday [online] (13 Oct 2000) Available from: http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-13-002-21-NW-DT-SW [Accessed 25 December 2000]
Raymond, E.S. (1997) The Cathedral and the Bazaar.[online] In: E.S. Raymond, ed. The Cathedral and the Bazaar Sebastopol, CA: O';Reilly & Associates. Available from: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ [Accessed 26 December 2000]
Raymond, E.S. (1999) The Revenge of the Hackers. [online] In: C. DiBona, S. Ockman, and M. Stone, eds. Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution Sebastopol, CA: O';Reilly & Associates. Available from: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/raymond2.html [Accessed 26 Decmber 2000]
Scannell, E. (1999) Linux takes the operating system scene by storm. Infoworld.com [online]. Available from http://www.infoworld.com/supplements/99poy_drv/99poy_linux.html [Accessed 26 December 2000]
Siska, C. (18 February 1997) Re: Starting all over from 16.1? Cygwin project mailing list [online] Available from: http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/1997-02/msg00436.html [Accessed on 26 December 2000]
Stallman, R. (2000) The GNU operating system and the free software movement. [online] In: C. DiBona, S. Ockman, and M. Stone, eds. Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution Sebastopol, CA: O';Reilly & Associates. Available from: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html [Accessed 26 Decmber 2000]
发表于 2006-5-16 09:45:39 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

[这个贴子最后由harry在 2006/05/16 10:23am 第 3 次编辑]

大家都喜欢共享,共享别人的。实际共享应建立在互惠的原则上。比如说你花了好几年搞个程序,搞出来就放到网上,可能吗?一般说开源不外主要有两种情况。1,水平比较高,把源代码拿出来给你看,你可以帮查查错,但要赶上他的水平,不容易,这样还可以为自己宣传,好处多多。openfoam就是一个例子。2,代码老了,拿出来,大家找找错,集思广义,看看在模型上有没有新东西,把原来没想到的应用找出来,三个臭皮匠顶一个诸葛亮呀。你干吧,我去搞新的东西,以后可能,把你发现的东西拿来用,随便为自己新东西作宣传。这叫废物利用,mfix就是一个很好的例子。当然也有网上有高人就是高,啥不求就把自己东西拿出来,但不多,有的也是一时高兴。还有的是写了本教材,写点程序然你领会一下理论,比如peric,patankar。所以开源的出路是规划开源。尤其在中国,大家拿别人东西,有意无意就变成自己的,没办法,我们受过封建主义,帝国主义压迫,知识产权意识还没发展起来,再说,中国这么多人,知识产权意识水平参次不齐也很正常。说偏了,话归正传。中国要开源,需要国家基金支持,需要大家拿钱来支持。国家的自然科学基金需要不时的在每个专业支持开源,一些大的研究团体需要支持这种项目,个人,企业有了钱应该支持开源。有了钱,开源的人不怕把自己饭碗砸了,啥都好说。同样找些例子,大家都知道美国开源代码满天飞,当然是对美国人开放,对相关的人开放(免得外行瞎搞),并且拿源代码的得要小心,随便给人不好办。另外一个是德国,也许有很多人还知道,这个我是深有体会,尤其CFD,出了一个peric后,他们那里好多人都会peric那些东西,并且他们很多东西是在一个基金内开放。你看看德国搞cfd的一些比较出名的实验室,他们几乎每个实验室都有自己的代码。看介绍,他们多多少少相似,都是受益于开源。不过这些东西对中国人不开放。我现在是理解美国、德国的做法,他们人民拿钱支持的开源,凭什么给你。当然,中国人要有这一天,我们也不给他,如果他们和我们一个档次,可以一起交流交流,取长补短。[br][br][以下内容由 harry 在 2006年05月16日 09:53am 时添加] [br]
最近俺一致打作实验室旗号跟一个德国人和一个欧洲的小国家的人私下交流cfd,刚开始,忘了举旗,人家跟本不撂你,后来把旗子拿出来,程序马上拿出来,在后来,被我瞎蒙,给他找了几个错误,他们程序一有更新,马上发给我,忘记说主要原因了,他们对我们实验室做的东西好像有点兴趣。嘿嘿,想搞我们的程序,难呀。他们这种做法值得我们深思。
 楼主| 发表于 2006-5-16 19:18:54 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

我也一直觉得国内开源软件兴旺不起来,大概与相关的游戏规则没有完善有关系。其实很多老师和同学都开发了自己的程序,但是彼此之间出于保持竞争优势的需要都不会把程序拿出来共享。这样做的一个坏处是凭一个人的力量做出来的软件,总会存在各种各样的错误,同时靠一个人来不断完善把软件做成商用软件又几乎是不可能的。那么在什么情况下共享这些软件,共享过程中遵守什么样的规范就很有必要研究一番。只有让更多的人熟悉、遵守这样的规则,开源软件运动才能兴旺起来,我们自己的CFD软件才有可能出现在市场上。总之,我觉得成熟的产品必然是多人合作的结果,或者通过传统的途径寻找风险投资,全力开发软件;或者以开源的方式进行合作开发,否则是根本没有前途的。[br][br][以下内容由 周华 在 2006年05月16日 07:20pm 时添加] [br]
现在国内风险投资还不兴旺,唯一希望在于推动开源软件运动。
发表于 2006-5-17 08:41:28 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

建议:那么干脆组个社团,以网络交流方式进行局域性开源也好啊。
      
      其实觉得坛子里有这个实力了,再拉拢校园力量联合参与就更好了。
发表于 2006-5-17 17:24:45 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

[这个贴子最后由harry在 2006/05/17 05:43pm 第 3 次编辑]
下面引用由zzZZZzz2006/05/17 08:41am 发表的内容:
建议:那么干脆组个社团,以网络交流方式进行局域性开源也好啊。
     
      其实觉得坛子里有这个实力了,再拉拢校园力量联合参与就更好了。
不可能,就这么说吧,看看那个什么程序开发小组,还有那个qq,包括我搞得那个通讯录,还没让大家拿什么东西,都惨不忍睹。所谓分析开源代码都这么困难。其他你可以想象,就那个搞duns好像真做了奉献,但有几个能这样。你没发现,好像搞程序的人原来越少,没办法,在中国你不愁没商业软件。在学校一心一意搞纯工程问题,开公司,那是比较牛的老师干的事。所以谁搞基础?这是吃里不讨好的事,正常吗?他们可肩负育人的使命和国家科技发展的重任呀,既然要开公司,就不能呆在学校。我想老外科研的所谓过人,与这方面多少有点关系。不过我相信,这种局面会慢慢改变,一些工程问题会有公司或企业自身的科研队伍搞定,再加上一些专业公司和皮包公司,学校的老师只能呆在学校慢慢啃那些难啃的骨头,哪有像现在这样天天到处满天飞。可笑的,是飞来飞去,不是搞学术交流,而是搞人际交流。当大家静下心来搞研究,我到觉得开不开源将会成为次要问题。因为到那时大家都在想怎么比别人高,怎么比别人新(不然就被咔嚓)。百花齐放的时候,你手头拿个一般的源代码,别人还不一定想看,这个东西就不会那么珍贵。再说跟你屁股跑,好不容易赶上你,搞个东西还得提你大名,郁闷不。除非有绝对把握,也就是把我的东西和你的东西放一起,是1+1>1,我才看你的源代码,如果小于等于1,傻子才去看源代码。哈哈,只能等这一天了。[br][br][以下内容由 harry 在 2006年05月17日 05:31pm 时添加] [br]
所以对中国开源我就不希望什么了。唯一的希望就是搞cfd的多出几个牛人,把中国这方面的研究带一带,这样方便咱外行,用这些东西方便,并且都是中国人,在语言上,思路上更容易理解。
 楼主| 发表于 2006-5-17 20:44:58 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

我们网站原来力推CFD软件在国内的普及,主要当时很多老师还延续着“编程序-算问题”这样传统的工作方式,研究周期非常长。现在CFD软件已经普及了,我觉得大家应该往远看一步,关注高性能计算和自主开发软件这两个方向。目前国内高性能计算热潮感觉刚刚来到,很多学校都在买HPC计算机,相信不久的将来国内CFD硬件平台会上一个台阶。然后会有一段时间大家沉浸在HPC带来的快乐中,再下去就会想到自主开发软件的问题。据我所知,国内外一些学者已经看到这一步,并积极寻找机会开发这类产品,但是感觉这些老师还都是个别现象,整体的气氛还没有形成。如果一旦开源软件成为大多数CFDer的兴趣所在,开源软件的“群众基础”就形成了,我们先讨论一下开源软件的认识问题,对迎接这个阶段的到来是有必要的。[br][br][以下内容由 周华 在 2006年05月17日 08:56pm 时添加] [br]
国外的教授在做研究的时候,总会想到其研究工作的市场化、产品化的问题。国内老师则基本上只关心职称、岗位、论文、课题等眼前的利益问题。我觉得这是国内外研究人员的一个根本区别。国外的专家学者因为要思考产品化问题,因此总会寻找一些途径把自己的成果做大、做强,尽量散播出去。这种需求是开源软件运动得以开展的基础。国内研究人员不考虑这些问题,就会把自己的成果藏起来,反正论文发表了就行了。结果就是不论什么学校,都把研究工作做得象个私人作坊,老师和学生就象是师父和徒弟。落后是从思想上开始的。就在美国把数值计算当作21世纪国家的核心竞争力的时候,我们在申请课题时还要尽量避免在题目中出现“数值”二字,似乎“数值”是很见不得人的。这就是差距啊!有时候感觉国内所谓“做学问”真是一件很孔乙己的事。
发表于 2006-5-18 11:52:05 | 显示全部楼层

[讨论]共享精神对与错

同意,并行势在必行。现在单相问题好像不是什么问题了,对低速流至少是这样,软件怎么算都行。但多相流问题多多,算起来又慢。不管你用什么加速。一算到大的问题,时间都很长。并且,多相问题,好像大家很少用多重网格这类东西来加速。实际有的多相问题本身就不可以用多重网格来加速,尤其在多尺度耦合问题计算中。并行就是这个问题的很好解决。
软件市场化,那是好多人加一个重量级人物工作的结晶。说得跟俗一点,理论知识和金钱缺一不可。所以不一定要刻意追求。并且开源带来可能只是整体水平的提高。所以我认为,不同背景研究小组之间的合作更具有意义。现在中国更需要冒尖的。现在的问题是大家怎么合作,怎么分账。这些利益的东西说起来简单,做起来真的很难。尤其现在,学术近亲很严重,博士后的角色没发挥好,直博,本科读研报送被错误使用,再加上很多教授真的“很忙”。交流跟无从说起。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表