Quote from Pippi436:
Hi Wayne,
i didn't want to come across negative, it just looks like you change your idea every day (port/don't port to XYZ, open source/not open source, pay/don't pay, etc.). Seeing that, one possibility out of many might just be that you don't do it all, that's why i added the (if) in my last post.
Understood. It has been a roller coaster for me and a learning process. Maybe I should have done a lot more home work before asking on E.T.
Most of those decisions are final now.
1. Certainty of porting to C++, and Java eventually. But paying users will vote on the priority relative to other items on the road map.
2. TickZOOM already supports C++, and Java, as well as .NET languages like C#, VB, etc. for writing your own custom strategies and addons.
3. License is final as GPLv3 open source. That by itself makes most developers comfortable to contribute even if there's a fee because they're protected.
4. Price of TickZOOM license is free for a certainty. Specifically that means you pay nothing ever for the license. You own whatever version you download as long as you want to use it with out ever paying anything. If people decline to purchase services they can can use the previous version for FREE and get the new version when it's later on released for FREE. Hey, patience is a virtue, right?
5. TickZOOM offers service of maintaining, testing, enhancing the code, and tech support. Since those users pay for that service, they have the [r]right[/r] to get the latest and greatest versions well before freeloaders, don't you agree?
In any case, its hard to intelligently comment on something without documentation let alone having it used. On paper, most trading software looks good, the problems are always in the details (often small things that could easily be corrected with access to the src code, that's what got me interested in this).
Again it's open source. The real value in open source, as you know, is control. Once you get the source code, you're in
control with TickZOOM.
As for the fees, i don't know. If its a good piece of software, it may even succeed. But that alone is not enough, it needs someone with enough stamina and determination to get something off the ground, and it will probably take longer than a few months (be it an open source project or commercial). But you probably know that.
Actually, I don't know. Sometimes products linger. Other times they take off like wild fire. It's kind of like war, there's no true way of predicting. Statistics say 90% of software projects fail. 90% of the time they it's because of lack of funding which is true of any project closed or open. So that's why I'm most concerned about funding.
Without a solid plan we're doomed before we start.
I'm also not quite clear where you are headed with this. Are you still looking for active participation in development/testing/documentation like a classical open source project?
Pippi, I'm glad you asked. This is the million dollar question.
I understand how feel about "classic" open source projects. I felt the same way until only a few days ago. But in my research I found those projects are a myth or the rare case. Robert Young the CEO of Red Hat Linux and co-founder wrote a book on how open source software and specifically Linux truly works as a business. It also explains the truth about how open source gets code contributions.
It was
exactly, precisely the kind of insider information to the open source industry need here.
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_1/29000/29611/2/print/29611_distilled.pdf
Based on what I learned, people always talk about Linux being free, but he points out that most people who have Linux buy a distribution in a box.
And many of those were "Official" Red Hat Linux. Plus Linus, the creator, gets plenty of funding.
People call it free because the software
license really is free. But they happily paid for the service of Red Hat to bundle the parts of Linux from all over the internet into a tested, official release. And many happily donate to keep the development going.
Plus, while Linux is considered free there are large companies like Red Hat making a lot of money off of Linux. (But no where near as much as MS makes off Windows.) So it keeps open source affordable.
He explains the real power in that strategy. And the good sense. He gives the example of Nasa that NEVER buys any closed source. They only by open due to the need to have
control to fix things quickly in an emergency.
So the real powerful value in TickZOOM like Linux is what you said, YOU get the source code. That actually makes TickZOOM have far more value than any closed source price tag.
Look at TradeStation is CLOSE source and very expensive but still tons of add-ons and indicators have been created for it. That will be twice as much for an open source engine.
So how does open source really grow? It's because people make addons and tools to TickZOOM (or Linux). They may never deliberately contribute them back but we will track down that source code and add it into the TickZOOM Official Distribtution. In point of fact, there's already tons of open source tools in Java, C++ and some in C# that we can bundle and test with TickZOOM right away with examples how to use them, etc.
So buy simply incorporating existing open source code, TickZOOM can quickly leapfrog the rest of the commercial vendors. Those vendors can never do that because they refuse to open their own source.
So you see? I learned that open source doesn't really grow by people voluntarily contributing to a specific project but it grows by integrating tons of different open source project into one powerful tool.
I hope it resolves your concern. The most practical way people collaborate on working on an open source project is what they already do on closed source. Report bugs, ask questions, correct or add documentation. That allows the maintainers to fix bugs for the common good, improve the documentation, etc. The reason that works is because the number of good programmers is small and they're picky about what they work on, tend to want to create their own project rather than work on somebody else's. Plus, it's a real pain learning someone else's code. We all have different coding styles, experience levels at design, etc.
Instead, what we can expect is perhaps one of the users uses IB broker so they write an IB broker interface. Being a smart programmer with money at stake they'll post it somewhere (even if not on TickZOOM site) with code so others can use it too. We can either let that person continue to maintain it and just include the code in the bundle with TickZOOM. Or if they drop it or neglect it, we can begin maintaining it ourselves.
That, in fact, is GNU/Linux grows and exists today.
Of course, we'll support others who have add on products, they can put links on tickzoom.org site. A couple guys say they want to make an add-on and sell it. That's fine too they can post it on the site. That benefits us all because if the package it with TickZOOM, they must share their source also.
So I hope this info and reading that link resolves your concerns on that score. These points resolved mine entirely.
For that, a subscription-based environment probably isn't ideal - in terms of getting people committed to do things beyond from what they immediately need themselves.
Same as above. I know how you feel, I had that dreamy idea too, but found it isn't true. All the enhancements come only from what people immediately need themselves. And they release the code so others can use/test/and fix it. So again, it's all good. It's all share and share alike in the open source world.
On the other hand i understand that you aren't a charity organization and want some sort of compensation for your efforts. Me, i'm all about productivity. If it has merit, a fee shouldn't be a problem.
Well thanks for your support. I'm turning off email, elitetrader, and everything to work on that video now!
Good night everyone.
Wayne
