Speaking of websites, if you're talking about Matz creation, please bear in mind it has had a less appealing website for almost 10 years... ;) So maybe let give Clojure a bit time.
Of course many things Ruby community achieved are cool. Both Ruby and Rails have very good introductory tutorials & docs which lowers a barrier to entry. OTOH Clojure documentation is awesome considering the fact how young project is it. The community here is expanding, smart people are writing smart tools, all that may seem to be a disorganized cloud of github projects, but in fact some order and standards are emerging. Evolution takes time. Referring to Ruby again, it earned gems & rake about 7 years after initial release IIRC. Now about Rich's manifesto: thanks for the honest and clear words. I'll donate and start persuading some organizations I work for to do so. On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 07:37, brian <brw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have looked at hundreds of languages and flavors more as a kind > of hobby these days. I know these comments are getting a bit > tedious by now, but what I think clojure needs is higher visibility. > Right now only a handful of people know about it. The thought > occurred to me while I was installing another open source language > system today, I (but have only dabbled in clojure a bit so far), was > that they had a visually appealing website. Visual signals send a > strong message. This particular one has a lucious red strawberry > (hint hint) motif, simple, clean, and appealing, and kind of > lightens up a drab subject, makes it almost.. well I won't get into > it. I'm coming at this as a bit of an outsider as have not been a > programmer in a long time since I got involved with start-ups. So > anyways, my point is, if you're looking for mass appeal, eveything > is pretty web-based packaging these days. Forget even the CD idea, > thats old, even for an old guy like me (I don't even have a CD drive > on my computer anymore !). Also a windows installer, and no asking > the user to compile things, make it as shrink wrapped as possible, > with a good online tutorial, and chat help all bundled together in > a quick install. > > Brian > > > > > Rich Hickey wrote: >> Funding Clojure 2010 >> >> Background >> ---------- >> >> It is important when using open source software that you consider who >> is paying for it, because someone is. There is no such thing as free >> software. >> >> Sometimes open source software is developed under a license with >> undesirable properties (e.g. the GPL), such that people are willing to >> pay for a (proprietary) version of it that is not subject to that >> license. Both Monty Widenius [1] and Richard Stallman [2] have argued >> for the necessity of such a mechanism to fund open source software, >> lest there be insufficient resources for its development. Clojure >> doesn't use the GPL, thus conveying more freedom to its users, but >> precluding me from funding it via dual licensing. >> >> Some companies develop technology as a component of a proprietary >> product or service, absorbing it as a necessary expense, only to >> decide that it is not a core, unique, or advantage-bearing business >> function. They can reduce their costs in ongoing development by open >> sourcing it, deriving benefit from community contributions and letting >> them focus on their core business [3]. It is important to note that >> the bulk of the costs are often in the original development, and are >> paid for by the proprietary product or service. That is not the case >> for Clojure. >> >> Some open source is the product of academic research, and is funded by >> the academic institution and/or research grants [4]. That is not the >> case for Clojure. >> >> Some open source software is (partially) funded by proprietary >> support. It is important to note that often the support income does >> not in fact make it to the people who create the software. Such income >> models work best for support sold to conservative enterprises [5]. >> That is not the case for Clojure. >> >> Some companies 'fund' open source software by dedicating some of their >> employees' time, or making investments, in its development. There must >> be some business value to the company for doing so (e.g. it helps them >> sell hardware [6]), and thus is ultimately paid for by their >> proprietary products/services. That is not the case for Clojure. >> >> There *are* companies that make software themselves, whose consumers >> see a value in it and willingly pay to obtain that value. The money >> produced by this process pays the salaries of the people who are >> dedicated to making it, and some profit besides. It's called >> "proprietary software". People pay for proprietary software because >> they have to, but otherwise the scenario is very similar to open >> source - people make software, consumers get value from it. In fact, >> we often get a lot less with proprietary software - vendor lock-in, no >> source etc. Most alarmingly, this is the only model that associates >> value with software itself, and therefore with the people who make it. >> >> Why don't people pay for open source software? Primarily, because they >> don't *have to*. I think also, partially, it is because open source >> software often doesn't have a price tag. I think it should. I'd like >> to pay for open source, and know the money is going to those who >> create it. I'd like companies to *expect* to pay for it. I'd like to >> see people make a living (and even profit!) directly making open >> source, not as a side effect of some other proprietary process, to >> dedicate themselves to it, and not have it be hobby/side work. >> >> Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to convey the full benefits of >> open source software while *forcing* people to pay for it. Only in the >> proprietary (including dual-license) model is there a direct >> connection between the consumers of software and the funding of those >> that produce it. This is having the effect of driving open source >> software towards having zero apparent cost, becoming a free bounty of >> someone else's other profitable endeavors, and is severely >> compromising our profession. >> >> Foreground >> ---------- >> >> As should be obvious, Clojure is a labor of love on my part. Started >> as a self-funded sabbatical project, Clojure has come to occupy me far >> more than full-time. However, Clojure does not have institutional or >> corporate sponsorship, and was not, and is not, the by-product of >> another profitable endeavor. I have borne the costs of developing >> Clojure myself, but 2009 is the last year I, or my family, can bear >> that. >> >> Many generous people have made donations (thanks all!), but many more >> have not, and, unfortunately, donations are not adding up to enough >> money to pay the bills. So far, less than 1% of the time I've spent on >> Clojure has been compensated. >> >> Right now, it is economically irrational for me to work on Clojure, >> yet, I want to continue working on Clojure, and people are clearly >> deriving benefit from my work. How can we rectify this? Barring the >> arrival of some white knight, I'm asking the users of Clojure to fund >> its core development (i.e. my effort) directly, and without being >> forced to do so. >> >> Here's how I think that could work: >> >> Individual users >> >> If you are an individual user of Clojure, I encourage you to >> contribute $100/year to Clojure development, via the donation system. >> I hope that, in time, the Clojure community will become large enough >> that $100/developer/year will be enough to gainfully employ myself, >> and eventually others, in its development. If you are just evaluating, >> a student, unemployed etc, I don't expect you to pay. If you live in a >> country with a different income structure, please contribute a >> commensurate amount. >> >> Businesses >> >> If you are using Clojure in a business endeavor, I appreciate and >> applaud your savvy, and wish you much success and profit. At this >> stage in its community growth, $100/developer/year is not going to be >> enough to sustain Clojure development. I think Clojure needs several >> of you to recognize your mutual self interest in a continuing strong >> core development effort, and the collective value in pooling resources >> to fund Clojure. Each business can fund some weeks or months of my >> Clojure development time. In this way, no single company need sponsor >> Clojure, nor bear all of the costs. This funding should *not* occur >> via the donation system. Given a CA from your company, I can invoice >> you, at a fraction of my normal rate, for consulting hours for work on >> Clojure, corresponding to your contribution amount. Please contact me >> directly via email to make arrangements. >> >> Note that I have every intent and desire to continue working on >> Clojure. It is some of the most satisfying work I have ever done, and >> you, the Clojure community, are some of the best people I have ever >> worked with. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Rich >> >> >> [1] >> http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/10/importance-of-license-model-of-mysql-or.html >> [2] http://keionline.org/ec-mysql >> [3] >> http://blog.linkedin.com/2009/03/20/project-voldemort-scaling-simple-storage-at-linkedin/ >> [4] http://www.scala-lang.org/node/146 >> [5] https://www.redhat.com/products/ >> [6] http://www.ibm.com/linux/systems.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
