77 comments
Comment actions Permalink

Dave Griffith wrote:

I'd like to tweak IDEA for my purposes.

I'd love to know how, and whether you've explored the various plugin APIs for your purposes.

--Dave Griffith


I feel this is veering off the topic.

My real point is that i think that in the long run, IDEA will either be
open sourced or be surpassed by an open source competitor.

Both of these things are good. The first would be best for Jetbrains.

/Kreiger

0
Comment actions Permalink

Christoffer "Kreiger" Hammarström wrote:

>>I don't think so.
>>
>>
>That is your prerogative.

>


Do you really think that a few unpaid programmers, working part time on
the project, could not only maintain, but make IDEA progress at the same
speed as Eclipse, that's heavily sponsored by big names? I don't think so.


Alain

0
Comment actions Permalink

I feel this is veering off the topic.

I feel you're probably exaggerating your desire for the IDEA source, other than for ideological reasons. You can't honestly think everyone here hasn't encountered a big-talk-no-code Open Source zealot, before.

My real point is that i think that in the long run, IDEA will either be open sourced or be surpassed by an open source competitor.

Making the Java IDE space the only example (bar Apache) in which an open source product actually became the dominant market leader, in spite of moderately priced and technically excellent competition. Doesn't seem too likely to me.

--Dave Griffith

0
Comment actions Permalink

Alain Ravet wrote:

Do you really think that a few unpaid programmers, working part time on
the project, could not only maintain, but make IDEA progress at the same
speed as Eclipse, that's heavily sponsored by big names? I don't think so.


Did i ever state anything of the sort? When did this arrangement you
speak of become synonymous with "open source"?

Straw. Man.

/Kreiger

0
Comment actions Permalink

Dave Griffith wrote:

I feel you're probably exaggerating your desire for the IDEA source, other than for ideological reasons.


Yes, you're right. I regret this.
I don't desire the source that much. Mostly i've sometimes felt mild
irritation at not being able to debug an exception myself, and sometimes
i've wanted to play with dialog focus, among other things.

This is what i meant by "veering off the topic", and why i tried to
restate my actual point. My desire to the source is far secondary to my
prediction that some day, in the far future, IDEA will have to be open
source, or perish.

You can't honestly think everyone here hasn't encountered a
big-talk-no-code Open Source zealot, before.


I'm definitely an open source zealot, but i'm a bit hurt by my new
"big-talk-no-code" epithet. I'm not attacking IDEA or any person. IDEA
is a great product, and i love it and use it every day. Much of the
delight comes from your wonderful plugins.

I'm just making a bold prediction, and i believe time will prove me
right. Unsurprisingly, this brings a lot of strong reactions.

Making the Java IDE space the only example (bar Apache) in which an open source product actually became the dominant market leader, in spite of moderately priced and technically excellent competition. Doesn't seem too likely to me.


I can come up with other examples.
Bind is the dominant Domain Name Server. Sendmail is, as i understand
it, the dominant mail server. I think, but am not sure, that Snort is
the leading Intrusion Detection System.
I'm not sure it's follows that "There are few fields where an open
source software product is the market leader, therefore, open source
hampers success."
Open source is only one of many factors in the success of a software
product, but more important in a product targeted at developers.

/Kreiger

0
Comment actions Permalink

In article <426EA7F9.4090103@telia.com>,
"Christoffer \"Kreiger\" Hammarström" <kreiger@telia.com> wrote:

Dave Griffith wrote:

I'd like to tweak IDEA for my purposes.

I'd love to know how, and whether you've explored the various plugin APIs
for your purposes.

--Dave Griffith


I feel this is veering off the topic.


'Taint though. You claim that open sourcing IDEA will produce
improvements and fixes sufficient to justify the effort required. IDEA
currently has an extension mechanism sufficient to extend it in many
ways.

Dave, who has written some world class plugins, asked what you wanted to
do to IDEA, and whether you had explored the current API to see whether
it would suffice. This is, as a first approximation, not a bad way to
see whether open sourcing the rest of IDEA would produce any benefit.

In other words, if the current API could solve your problem, and you
have not used it, then that is an argument open sourcing the rest in
hopes of positive changes. On the other hand, if you have ideas that
cannot be implemented in the current API, that is an argument for
opening up more areas of the product.

Earlier, I mentioned that open sourcing requires effort. I have been
part of two major open sourcing efforts, and they were not cheap. Just
creating clear documentation, opening lines of communication, and
fielding enough information for a developer to feel part of the project
took a lot of time.

My real point is that i think that in the long run, IDEA will either be
open sourced or be surpassed by an open source competitor.


I am not convinced that this is true. You may be right, but I have not
heard an argument I find compelling.

Scott

0
Comment actions Permalink

First, open source doesn't mean JB all loses their jobs. It means now we
have more interaction with the project's code base, rather than just through
these forums and through the tracker.

Second, I think Eclipse has made much faster progress than IDEA has, in the
last few years. Consider that IDEA was around for so long, and Eclipse for
not as long, and they have comparable feature sets.

Christoffer "Kreiger" Hammarström wrote:

>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>> That is your prerogative.
>>

Do you really think that a few unpaid programmers, working part time
on the project, could not only maintain, but make IDEA progress at the
same speed as Eclipse, that's heavily sponsored by big names? I don't
think so.

Alain




0
Comment actions Permalink

In article <d4me4i$old$1@is.intellij.net>,
"Christoffer \"Kreiger\" Hammarström" <kreiger@telia.com> wrote:

Alain Ravet wrote:

Do you really think that a few unpaid programmers, working part time on
the project, could not only maintain, but make IDEA progress at the same
speed as Eclipse, that's heavily sponsored by big names? I don't think so.


Did i ever state anything of the sort? When did this arrangement you
speak of become synonymous with "open source"?

Straw. Man.


Most projects on sourceforge (unscientific sampling) do not have any
patches listed in the bug database or in the fora, so it seems unlikely
that lots of people will contribute. Therefore, Alain's argument is in
no way a straw man. After all, your claim is that IDEA must be open
sourced in order to be relevant, which implies that open sourcing it
could drive IDEA at the rate as Eclipse is being driven. If it does
not, then IDEA cannot keep up, and if open source developers do not
produce a substantial amount of the progress, then JB would be better
off spending those hours improving the IDE themselves.

You have claimed several times that an open source IDE will dominate the
market, and thus that if JB does not open source IDEA, it will be
eclipsed. Contrawise, if JB open sources IDEA, then it may not be
exterminated. For this to be true, open sourcing must be reasonably
likely to produce at least as much "good stuff" as having that effort
applied to working on IDEA.

I have not heard that compelling argument yet, and others who have
used the current API have said that they have not gotten many patches
from having the source open. Further, people like me who have been part
of an open sourcing project have argued that the cost is high, and that
the corresponding benefit must be equally high for it to be a good idea.
I have not heard your argument for what that benefit would be.

In point of fact, a few posts back, you talked about only distributing
patches to a few close friends, making me suspect that you are more
curious about looking at the source than wanting to improve it in a way
that will increase the competitive advantage of IDEA.

Scott

0
Comment actions Permalink

(*)Yes, there are counterexamples.
InspectionGadgets, an open-source project with
something like 100,000 daily users (all of them java
developers) has had a grand total of ten bug fixes
submitted, by a four separate submitters.


Ahem. Those other three submitters must have submitted a negative amount of bug fixes then. Not counting features, I submitted way more bug fixes than that.

Bas

p.s. :)

0
Comment actions Permalink

Christoffer "Kreiger" Hammarström wrote:


Did i ever state anything of the sort? When did this arrangement you
speak of become synonymous with "open source"?

Straw. Man.

This came off a bit harsh. I'm sorry.

I just feel like i'm battling all these prejudices about open source,
that open source is full of smelly and lazy geeks that haven't done an
honest days work in their life, and have come to take IDEA away from people.

I'm not suggesting an arrangement radically different from today.
Jetbrains are doing a fine job managing the development process of IDEA,
and open sourcing IDEA would not change this in any way. I'm just
suggesting that opening the source would help IDEA, and that someday it
will be necessary.

I don't see in what way opening the source would hamper IDEA.

/Kreiger

0
Comment actions Permalink

Scott Ellsworth wrote:

Most projects on sourceforge (unscientific sampling) do not have any
patches listed in the bug database or in the fora, so it seems unlikely


Well, IDEA isn't a newly started one-man-show stuck in stage "Thinking
about it" with no developers, is it?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

/Kreiger

0
Comment actions Permalink


Bas,

I actually was thinking about four different guys completely. You've moved into a totally different bucket, beyond "active user" and heading toward "co-developer". I'm always surprised when a week goes by when you don't scratch something off my todo list.

--Dave Griffith

0
Comment actions Permalink

Scott Ellsworth wrote:

'Taint though. You claim that open sourcing IDEA will produce
improvements and fixes sufficient to justify the effort required.
IDEA currently has an extension mechanism sufficient to extend it in
many ways.

Dave, who has written some world class plugins,


I know he has. I respect, admire, and depend on his work. I do not want
to disrespect you or him, but this feels a bit like an appeal to authority.

asked what you wanted to do to IDEA, and whether you had explored the
current API to see whether it would suffice. This is, as a first
approximation, not a bad way to see whether open sourcing the rest of
IDEA would produce any benefit.


My personal quest for the source was an unfortunate distraction from my
main point, which was about the future survival of my favorite Java IDE.

However, it's only fair that i answer the question.

I took a cursory glance at the plugin API, when i wanted to try
developing a plugin a year or so ago. Something more important came up,
and i forgot about it.

Maybe some of the things i've wanted can be implemented, maybe some
can't. It still doesn't mean i'm able to see how the internals work if
i'd like, which i do.

Open source isn't about being able to add things to a product. It's
about being able to see how it works and change it.

/Kreiger

0
Comment actions Permalink

+Second, I think Eclipse has made much faster progress than IDEA has, in the
last few years. Consider that IDEA was around for so long, and Eclipse for
not as long, and they have comparable feature sets+

Eclipse is a poor comparision. To begin with, it is a commercial product masquerading as an open source effort. IBM pours millions into its development and most of the work is done by IBM engineers. And don't they charge money for other companies to join the party?

But while OS advocates pray that it takes over the world, all I see is the world's biggest IT company, stealing ideas from a small Czech outfit, and implementing them badly.

When Apple does this, there is bloody uproar .... perhaps if they'd tacked an OS banner on Dashboard, folk would have kept quiet.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Rayz wrote:

+Second, I think Eclipse has made much faster progress than IDEA has, in the
last few years. Consider that IDEA was around for so long, and Eclipse for
not as long, and they have comparable feature sets+

Eclipse is a poor comparision. To begin with, it is a commercial product masquerading as an open source effort. IBM pours millions into its development and most of the work is done by IBM engineers. And don't they charge money for other companies to join the party?


Again with the misconceptions. "Open source" and "commercial" are NOT
opposites.

/Kreiger



Attachment(s):
signature.asc
0
Comment actions Permalink

Dave Griffith wrote:

Making the Java IDE space the only example (bar Apache) in which an
open source product actually became the dominant market leader, in
spite of moderately priced and technically excellent competition.


How about C (as opposed to C++) compilers? (And a few other languages.)

How about the free software movement's Unix kernels (linux, the BSDs)
and utilities? (If you can specify "Java IDE space" as a market, as
opposed to just "IDE space", then Unix stuff is a niche, too.)

This is bordering off the topic. It's not about examples of free
software vs proprietary software.

The points are:

A: A program that its users can modify freely and redistribute freely
is, to at least some of those users, strictly more useful, more
valuable. (This is not to say that a working business model for the
original program providers necessarily will follow.)

B: Some people believe that free, open source software is an escalating
trend because of many reasons; if nothing else, it's a guarantee against
obsolence (because all the "96% dead free software projects" out there,
someone could still pick up the source and start maintaining it, if it
was worthwhile, which I think most people here think that IDEA is).

Some disagree with point B, and some think that while point A is valid,
it's hard to come up with a sustainable business model and still provide
your customers with source and redistribution rights. I can respect
that, but there's no need for knee-jerk, uninformed "opening a program's
source is the same as killing it" reactions. That's an insult to all the
talented free software developers out there, and all the businesses and
organizations that successfully work on and with free, open source software.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Scott Ellsworth wrote:

After all, your claim is that IDEA must be open sourced in order to
be relevant, which implies that open sourcing it could drive IDEA at
the rate as Eclipse is being driven.


No, this is not a necessary implication; just that an open source
product is strictly more valuable (in the usefulness sense) to at least
some of its users.

I do believe that the IDE that dominates the market will have patches
sent to it - Eclipse is one example with many contributors, many more
than your average sourceforge project - but that doesn't have to be the
primary motivator for users to select it.

Many (but not all) developers do care about open source and free
software issues and will choose such an IDE, for reasons that aren't
limited to feature progress.

Most of the things that people contribute to Eclipse are probably
plugins or things that could be implemented using something similar to
the plugin API that IDEA already has - but these technical reasons are
augmented by social reasons. Many (not all) people are more likely to
contribute to a free program like Eclipse than they're likely to
contribute to a proprietary program like IDEA, regardless of whether
those contributions are technically possible or not.

Further, people like me who have been part of an open sourcing
project have argued that the cost is high, and that the corresponding
benefit must be equally high for it to be a good idea.


I've been (peripherally) involved with open sourcing a previously
proprietary product, and yes, the cost was high and the pure technical
benefit (contributed patches) has hitherto been low, but the (for
customers) perceived advantages, goodwill, and marketing advantages have
been significant. Customer's risk of vendor lock-in is lower and thus
the product is more attractive.

Time will tell if this product is commercially successful in the long
run, and many factors are involved, not all of them pertaining to open
source.

In point of fact, a few posts back, you talked about only
distributing patches to a few close friends, making me suspect that
you are more curious about looking at the source than wanting to
improve it in a way that will increase the competitive advantage of
IDEA.


This example simply points out that users benefit from open source
products in ways more than just the basic bazaar argument. For the user
that "is just curious" and "will distribute patches to friends", it will
be a major factor if the program is free, open source software or not
when he or she chooses his IDE.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Christoffer "Kreiger" Hammarström wrote:

I don't see in what way opening the source would hamper IDEA.


The major issue is that open source, in the OSI sense, implies
redistribution rights, which might necessitate a (slightly or
significantly) different business model for Jetbrains with regard to IDEA.

I do believe that this issue is possible to overcome, but TINLA.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Are there any high-profile, successful open-source commercial projects?

0
Comment actions Permalink

Colin Fleming wrote:

Are there any high-profile, successful open-source commercial projects?


MySQL is one common example, and although Eclipse is not as good as
IDEA, i still consider it a "high-profile, successful open source
commercial project".

/Kreiger



Attachment(s):
signature.asc
0
Comment actions Permalink

From experience, I can say Open Source is yet to prove themselves. In some
areas they are the only competitor. I don't think this is good at all. A
monopoly helps no one. What incentive is there to make new features? There
is no guarantee. But if there is a motivator like money, then you have a
better chance of getting a better product. You can threaten their survival
by not buying their product.

If borland sales plummeted, that says something. Their stuff stinks. Plain
and simple. Survival of the fittest. So I see OS as a way to have subpar
products. Again no gurantee because there are some good OS products. But
at least with CS, you have a say. A real simple say, money. With OS, you
are stuck because money does not drive it, it is developers of OS. So if
I want to have a say, I have to be an OS developer. I don't want to or have
time to. But I do have money. I can use money to manipulate others. Or at
lest influence them with a better chance of success.

Compare Idea and Eclipse. Eclipse arrived late. The have big money backing
them, but the free Eclipse platform is sub par. IDEA rocks.


Christoffer "Kreiger" Hammarström wrote:

>> Did i ever state anything of the sort? When did this arrangement you
>> speak of become synonymous with "open source"?
>>
>> Straw. Man.
>>

This came off a bit harsh. I'm sorry.

I just feel like i'm battling all these prejudices about open source,
that open source is full of smelly and lazy geeks that haven't done an
honest days work in their life, and have come to take IDEA away from
people.

I'm not suggesting an arrangement radically different from today.
Jetbrains are doing a fine job managing the development process of
IDEA, and open sourcing IDEA would not change this in any way. I'm
just suggesting that opening the source would help IDEA, and that
someday it will be necessary.

I don't see in what way opening the source would hamper IDEA.

/Kreiger




0
Comment actions Permalink

Rodrigo Gomez wrote:

From experience, I can say Open Source is yet to prove themselves. In
some areas they are the only competitor. I don't think this is good
at all. A monopoly helps no one.


When free software is the only competitor in some areas (which is in
stark contrast to Dave's earlier comments) you can still have
competition around service, and cooperation around products.

Competition is a double-edged sword, and so is cooperation. Neither of
them is an aim in-or-of-itself, both of them can lead to good things.

But at least with CS, you have a say. A real simple say, money. With
OS, you are stuck because money does not drive it, it is developers
of OS.


Money can drive OS, if that's what you want. You can pay someone to
add the feature you want, or if some feature bothers you, you can pay
someone to give you a version without it.

But I do have money. I can use money to manipulate others.


So you can pay someone to change OS programs to be whatever you want
them to be.

Compare Idea and Eclipse. Eclipse arrived late. The have big money
backing them,


Doesn't this conflict with what you said earlier about money not driving OS?

0
Comment actions Permalink

In article <d4mkqg$kie$1@is.intellij.net>,
"Christoffer \"Kreiger\" Hammarström" <kreiger@telia.com> wrote:

Scott Ellsworth wrote:

'Taint though. You claim that open sourcing IDEA will produce
improvements and fixes sufficient to justify the effort required.
IDEA currently has an extension mechanism sufficient to extend it in
many ways.

Dave, who has written some world class plugins,


I know he has. I respect, admire, and depend on his work. I do not want
to disrespect you or him, but this feels a bit like an appeal to authority.


An appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when that authority has
not provided facts. Dave provided facts about his experiences as a
developer of an open source plugin for IDEA. To me, this is compelling.

asked what you wanted to do to IDEA, and whether you had explored the
current API to see whether it would suffice. This is, as a first
approximation, not a bad way to see whether open sourcing the rest of
IDEA would produce any benefit.


My personal quest for the source was an unfortunate distraction from my
main point, which was about the future survival of my favorite Java IDE.


Fair enough.


Open source isn't about being able to add things to a product. It's
about being able to see how it works and change it.


Ok - would it be fair, then, to claim that the primary benefit you
forsee to open sourcing IDEA is increased customer satisfaction? That
JB would sell more licenses because more customers would:

a) feel comfortable with a product whose source they possessed and

b) find investigating and changing the innards of IDEA interesting

than their current model? I am supposing here that they are unlikely to
get substantial technical benefits out of it, which is a supposition,
but which seems at least vaguely supported by my own and other's
reported experiences.

Scott

0
Comment actions Permalink

+Again with the misconceptions. "Open source" and "commercial" are NOT
opposites.+

So you keep saying, but the comparison is valid. You say 'look at Eclipse' and I say 'I have, and it's no very good'.

So I don't see what benefit JetBrains will gain by open sourcing it.

They would just be creating competition for themselves as their source code finds its way into other projects.

And when folk submit fixes, will they have run a complete battery of tsts to make sure that it doesn't break someone else's code, or will they just fiddle with the bit that interests them? The testing effort that would be required by JetBrains would be enormous.

Then a bug is found in the changed code, but the original coder has lost interest, so JetBrains have to fix it themselves.

There are a lot of reasons why open source isn't the ideal solution for everybody.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Scott Ellsworth wrote:

Ok - would it be fair, then, to claim that the primary benefit you
forsee to open sourcing IDEA is increased customer satisfaction?


Don't know about the original poster, but I do believe that.

That JB would sell more licenses because more customers would:


As you might be aware, "selling licenses" is a problematic phrasing with
regard to open source software.

0
Comment actions Permalink

And when folk submit fixes, will they have run a complete battery of
tsts to make sure that it doesn't break someone else's code, or will
they just fiddle with the bit that interests them? The testing effort
that would be required by JetBrains would be enormous.

Then a bug is found in the changed code, but the original coder has
lost interest, so JetBrains have to fix it themselves.


I think you should look at how some open-source projects work. I am watching
progress on a feature being integrated into the Mozilla (and Firefox) core
to provide DOM-level caching of pages so Back/Forward are instantaneous.
The original patch was submitted by a volunteer, and now several members
of the official Mozilla team as well as members of the community are getting
involved in reviewing the patch and testing it. It works great for Mozilla
project, I don't see a big reason why it wouldn't work for most projects.


0
Comment actions Permalink

Delphi started the trend. All good IDEs, at least on Windows
(and Linux, remember Kylix?) came from Borland. Or from guys
who originally worked at Borland. When Delphi 1.0 came out,
VB was a kindergarten toy, and IDEA did not exist.

RIP, my old comrade...


"Thomas Gülden" <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:27613866.1114498578703.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...
I think Borland may have a general problem though, as you
can see the same problems in any of their IDEs. We developed
desktop applications with their Delphi IDE. Now having
sometimes to switch from IntelliJ back to Delphi to fix some
bugs in an older application, shows how far advanced
IntelliJ was and is. In comparison Delphi lacks many of the
"intelligent" features found in IntelliJ, I think our
version even hasn't line numbering. Admittedly, our Delphi
version is some years old (Delphi 6), but the following
versions weren't much better, when checking the trial
editions. The upgrade prices of the enterprise version were
so extraodinary high that we never saw a benefit in
upgrading.


0
Comment actions Permalink

Scott Ellsworth wrote:

An appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when that authority has
not provided facts. Dave provided facts about his experiences as a
developer of an open source plugin for IDEA. To me, this is compelling.


Well, in hindsight it might have been a mistake to not directly respond
to Dave's question. I fear that is what caused his irrational hatred for
me. I did not think at the time that the point was relevant, and was
probably a bit careless in ignoring it.


Ok - would it be fair, then, to claim that the primary benefit you
forsee to open sourcing IDEA is increased customer satisfaction?


I think so, yes. The most important benefits from open source are not
technical. The most important benefits are the generated goodwill, and
the secure feeling that comes from having the source available.

That JB would sell more licenses because more customers would:

a) feel comfortable with a product whose source they possessed and

b) find investigating and changing the innards of IDEA interesting

than their current model? I am supposing here that they are unlikely to
get substantial technical benefits out of it, which is a supposition,
but which seems at least vaguely supported by my own and other's
reported experiences.

I'm at least sure that IDEA would get more users, which is never a bad
thing.

/Kreiger



Attachment(s):
signature.asc
0
Comment actions Permalink

I think you should look at how some open-source projects work.

I have, thanks. And I've also been bitten by a number of open source failures.

I pay for IDEA because it's a robust, well-integrated, useful application.

I don't want it to turn into a programmer's playground.

+ It works great for Mozilla
project, I don't see a big reason why it wouldn't work for most projects.+

All well and good for Mozilla, but that's not the case for every open source project is it?




0
Comment actions Permalink

Rayz wrote:


I don't want it to turn into a programmer's playground.


You sure make a lot of assumptions. Do you not trust Jetbrains to not
include whatever crap code people send in?
Do you not trust Jetbrains to keep doing the fantastic job they are doing?
Do you think open sourcing IDEA implies that Jetbrains would stop
working on it?

And when folk submit fixes, will they have run a complete battery of
tsts to make sure that it doesn't break someone else's code, or will
they just fiddle with the bit that interests them? The testing effort
that would be required by JetBrains would be enormous.


Do you think the IDEA source is so brittle that one bugfix from a
stranger would break everything, and be impossible to test in the same
way as a bugfix from a Jetbrains employee?

All well and good for Mozilla, but that's not the case for every open
source project is it?


Are you saying that IDEA would suddenly become like every other open
source project? Why?

May i remind you of Sturgeon's law, "Ninety percent of everything is crap."
That is as true with open source as it is with closed source.

Fortunately, Mozilla and IDEA are both in the top ten percent.

/Kreiger



Attachment(s):
signature.asc
0

Please sign in to leave a comment.