Talk:Software manufacturing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Usage of this term

A websearch for "software manufacturing" indicates that almost no one uses this term. Almost all results were actually for "...software, manufacturing" or "software: manufacturing", or something else grammatically distinct from the term. If I'm being too harsh, I'd like to know. Gronky 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If one does a search for "software manufacturer" they will see how this term is commonly used. (Example for fellow Canadians from Industry Canada: Microsoft Canada Inc.: The World's Largest Software Manufacturer) I'm not an expert on these things, but many dictionairies group together the "ing" and "er" modifications of the same term together. Should this article have been on "software manufacturer" with "software manufacturing" just being indicated as what a "software manufacturer" does? I don't see this as a 'neologism', but a usage of a common term (software manufacturing vs software manufacturer) no different than capitalist vs. capitalism. (User:Russell_McOrmond 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

I did the same search and got the same impression. I would AfD this article as a neologism. Haakon 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, those with the "software manufacturing" business model, whould hold the world view that that method is the default and so would not refer to themselves as "default" firms.

In fact one of the critisims of the CAAST group is that they have generated statistics that lump users of "FLOSS" in with those who use products fo Software manufacturing firms without permision.

The term is really used in analysis of the software industry from an overall approch.

cmacd 18:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you restate that more concretely? You're first sentence is as true for "conglumpling software" as it is for "software manufacturing". You'll have to explain your second sentence since I'm not withing a world view which knows what CAAST is or that anyone criticised it. I don't understand the meaning of the third sentence. I'm not rejecting your argument, I'm just saying I can't find it. Gronky 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is not true for "software *" that is not "software manufacturing", as those who use alternative methods of production, distribution and funding are well aware of the large incumbent vendors and the methodologies that they are using. Those of us discussing the economics of the alternatives have always needed a term to refer to their methodology, and the one that has surfaced most often is "software manufacturing". While the term proprietary software adequately describes the licensing models, it doesn't really get at the economic analysis User:Russell_McOrmond

It sounds like you are talking about an analogy for a developement style which happens to be common in the proprietary software world. Maybe this analogy should be noted in the free software or proprietary software articles. Gronky 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this neologism is silly. Not to mention, I am not sure what the term means by reading the first paragraph. --64.222.105.75 21:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case why do you redirect the page to point to an a different topic.

All software must be developed - Software may be disrtibuted by many methods...

cmacd 12:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, following the WP:BITE guideline, let's go through this. Back to the above discussion: can you restate your point(s) concretely? What makes you think that this term has existing significance? Gronky 12:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Russell_McOrmond I'm finding the discussions interesting. The term may not be in wide use as synonyms exist, but the same can be said of FLOSS which is now in wide use. The term has been used by software manufacturers to refer to themselves for years. It is a non-derogatory term, while the term "proprietary" is used in a quite derogatory sense (by outsiders, who would also use the similarly derogatory non-Free or non-FLOSS terms). The term "commercial software" doesn't differentiate the methodology used.

The term "software manufacturing" is as the article said, based on what software manufacturers call themselves, changed to refer to the methodology rather than the people using the methodology. While it is true that all software is developed, distributed and funded in some way, it is the 'how' and 'why' that differentiates the methods. As an example, FLOSS uses peer production, largely peer distribution, and alternatives to royalty fees, while software manufacturing (carried out by self-described software manufacturers) does not.

Wikipedia question: Anyone know why the "external links" has the links as a UL within a UL, creating the extra bullet?

karfai: If you do a google search for 'software manufacturer' you will find pages where companies refer to themselves or contemporaries as such. Calling the economic approach 'software manufacturing' seems logical.

The two words have indeed been used together. If your supposition that the jump from the other meanings of "manufacture" to a meaning similar to "proprietary" in the software world is indeed logical, then it will have been roughly followed by users of those two words. A web search indicates that both free software and proprietary software developers/companies use those words occasionally. So the supposition is baseless. In so much as it is a term at all, it is a generic one which refers to software development. Gronky 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that all software is "developed", it is not true that all software is "manufactured". Only software developed using what is often called proprietary software would be appropriate to call "manufactured". Just as the "software manufacturing" subset of the software sector has tried to suggest that only their software is "commercial" (which is false), they have equally tried to suggest that all software is "manufactured" to try to suggest that alternative methods of production, distribution and funding are not viable (or even possible). The use of the term like "software manufacturing" to differntiate those methods is common and necesary in conversations that explore alternatives. User:Russell_McOrmond

The defining factor of whether software is free software or not is its distribution terms. The development process is tangental at best. Anyone can "manufacture" software and then distribute it as free software, and anyone can develop software with anonymous CVS read access and distribute the product as proprietary software. FreeBSD write free software, but Microsoft takes their code and redistributes it as proprietary software. So most people using that code written by the FreeBSD devs are receiving and using it as proprietary software - so are the FreeBSD devs software manufacturers? Wikipedia is not here to document a better, alternate world, it documents this world and in this world "software manufacturers" does not seem, to me, to have a specific defined meaning. Gronky 13:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is here to "document a better, alternative world", but to document this one that includes people who do not see the term "manufacturing" as synonymous to "development" in software except as limited by those who treat software similar to the creation, distribution and funding of tangible goods. You have corrected the suggestion that "software manufacturing" is identical to proprietary software in that it is possible to develope, distribute and fund software outside of the manufacturing mindset and yet have a derivative that is proprietary. This further suggests the need for there to be a separate article documenting this term.

Curious: Is it possible that we find ourselves in a form of the Jefferson Debate, where the nature of software as an intangible that is not "manufactured" (processes normally referring to the creation of tangibles) is the source of the confusion? User:Russell_McOrmond

Ok, so this specific topic falls under the more general topic of "methodologies of bringing software into existence".

The decision for when a topic should have a seperate article is arbitrary, but there are reasons for grouping things. For example, one problem we have in the free software articles is that as well as free software, the terms open source software, FLOSS, and FOSS each have their own article. This causes duplication between each, it causes the same one topic to be described four times from certain points of view (violating WP's NPOV policy), and worst of all, there are inconsistencies between those articles which are about the same thing. (Splitting a minor thing into a new article is probably favoured by those who don't want to come to consensus, which is why I mentioned documenting "alternative, better worlds") Solving this problem is difficult because some people have real attachments to those other terms, but not creating the problem in the first place in other topics is quite easy. This is why I recommend putting the unique content of this software manufacturing article into a more general article about methodologies for bringing software into existence. This will greatly reduce the chances of conflicts and duplicate content in the content software manufacturing and in the content on non-"software manufacturing" methodologies for bringing software into existence. Gronky 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the crux of this article is better as part of the Proprietary_software page. Perhaps as part of the paragraph beginning "The term "non-free software" (or "nonfree") is used interchangeably..."? Or, perhaps in a paragraph following the one I mention that suggests something along the lines on "software manufacturing" is potentially another way to define the concept commonly referred to as "proprietary software" by free software advocates? Karfai 8 June 2006

As someone who almost exclusively uses the term FLOSS these days, I have long since come to the realization that trying to merge terms together that have related but not identical meanings only divides people. I also don't insist others use any specific terminology, as long as there is some basis for understanding where the other is coming from. I've seen rather harsh debates even between people advocating between FLOSS and FOSS (The "libre" works well in bilingual Canada, but isn't as popular in the USA). I realize that WP has a neutral point of view policy, but I think this is best kept to directing the body of an article and not be used as a reason to try to merge related terms which may reduce clarity. While insiders to the various discussions will know why different terms are used in different situations, part of the reason for an encyclopedia is to document things such that a person not part of the specific domain can quickly get up-to-speed.

Software manufacturing refers to more than just about the methods of development, but also of distribution and funding methods. This is why it doesn't fit in exactly as a synonym of proprietary software (licensing) or "royalty-bearing software" (method of funding), or as an antonym to commons-based peer production of software (development). User:Russell_McOrmond

A permissive attitude is indeed a good idea when trying to avoid a clash. A good politician does this, but writing WP is not a political act. In wikipedia, two people cannot agree to ignore conflicting statements for the sake for maintaining a relationship and continuing negociation on another issue. If there are conflicting statements, the encyclopedia project is failing. Putting similar things in seperate articles is one way to conceal conflicts. It avoids having to reconcile the conflict. For example, there was previously an article on monolithic kernels saying "monolithic kernels are faster than microkernels" and an article on microkernels saying "microkernels are faster than monolithic kernels". The articles were merged and the combination says "there is a debate over which is faster" and both sides of the debate are explained. The previous situation was nonsense, the new situation (which I hope is still current) is progress.

In addition, I think you're overestimating the affinity between the term and the meaning you have for it. Peer review seems necessary, and that won't gotten if the article is separate. Gronky 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice that Proprietary software , free software, semi-free software, FLOSS and many many more highly related articles all exist separately. While I believe this term should possibly be renamed to "software manufacturer" with "software manufacturing" being explained as the subset of software techniques exercised by a manufacture, I think a lot of meaning would be lost if it were simply merged (ie: duplicated many times) within each of the other related terms.

I also notice that the definition of Proprietary software first defines all FLOSS software (covered by copyright with terms on copying it) as being proprietary, and then suggests that it is only the FSF that defines proprietary as "not Free Software". This clearly indicates that the term proprietary software has no useful meaning, at least within Wikipedia, to discuss differences between the different parts of the software sector without reference to terminology supposedly invented by the FSF User:Russell_McOrmond 11:38, 9 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Meaning lost? This non-term has no meaning. It is a dud. The proliferation of articles on similar terms is a problem, I explained this.

The proprietary software article explains the literal meaning of the two words, and then explains the meaning of the term. If people called flying cars "red cars", then the "red car" article would say that the two words mean "a car which is read" but that this is also a term for flying cars. If this is not clear enough in the proprietary software article, please help wikipedia by fixing it.

I think my time is being wasted here. Gronky 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

While I personally believe that linking "software" with "manufacturer" or "manufacturing" is an oxymoron, all the experience is that the term is in wide use by those who believe software can be manufactured. The term proprietary software can not be clarified to deal with this issue as it is a separate issue, given all FLOSS that is not in the public domain (and not all public domain software is FLOSS) is also proprietary software by the logical definition of the word (even if the FSF disagrees and have come up with thir own neologism). Linking the term software to the term manufactur(er|ing) conveys the right meaning, as it is those people who believe software is something that can be manufactured, and the subset of methodologies of production, distribution and funding that they use that is being referenced. As to my contributions in other topics, I'll wait to see whether I'd be wasting my time there based on what I learn about the Wikipedia community here --Russell McOrmond 16:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For the difference between "proprietary software" and "software manufacturing", see neologism. Gronky 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am curious what those watching this talk think about the term Software factory. As someone who is not part of the software manufacturing mindset/methodologies, this looks like marketing material for a specific vendor to me for a concept that simply doesn't make sense. Is this a good candidate to be called a Neologism? I don't think so, given there is a whole subset of the software industry that actually believe in that type of thing User:Russell_McOrmond 11:32, 9 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss "software factory" on the talk page for that article. Gronky 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proprietary is simalar.

Since it has come up, The article makes it clear that Proprietary software is NOT the same as "software manufacturing" Further distinctions can be made if needed, but the article should not be longer than needed. Enterprise licenseings for products like COGNOS, or SAP could be an example of proprietary closed source software that is not sold via the software manufacturing model. Instead they cost is based on some other factors including the work required to make the product ready fro the customer...

In many implementaions of FLOSS, the cost to the customer is ALL in the changes required to make the product fit their needs, and the number of copies made does not have to be tracked. The improvments made to suit one customer become available at no additional charge to all customers.

The sale of many word processor products where the product is sold "per seat" or per copy would be closer to what a "software manufacturer" would do. cmacd 12:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you agree software manufacturing and proprietary software are not the same, why did you put back, "This method of sales and distribution is sometimes referred to as proprietary software". Let's indeed keep it short by deleting that and the inclusion of an argument that all copyrighted software is proprietary, which is already mentioned at proprietary software.

Then you've done a similar thing occurs for this tortured paragraph:

"It is also sometimes also referred to as commercial software , but other methods of production and distribution such as the production of free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) can also have commercial profit as a chief aim."

I agree "software manufacturing" is like commercial software (thus the reason we need it as a "See also"), but then the article rehashes another argument in comparison with free software that is, again, already made at commercial software.

Delete. --72.92.137.56 13:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I assumed, based on the above, that these sentences had no basis, so I deleted them in my "inapproriate edit". --69.54.29.23 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Many times their are simalar terms that have simalar but subtlely different meanings, the distinction si made explaining taht while the terms are sometimes used, they are in fact slightly different. But removing that - you iimply that they are exactly the same.

ALSO_ The principle of "software manufacturing contains many of the other principles of "factory products" where the same package is offered to many different users as a fixed package without options. Free software since it assumes the ability to make customised use is generaly Quite different from a "canned" product.

When one is trying to symplify, one canot OVER symplify to the point of meaninless.cmacd 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If the problem is that "there[sic] are similar[sic] terms that have similar[sic] but subtly[sic] different meanings", then people are more than welcome to visit commercial software, proprietary software, free software to receive those. --71.161.213.20 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This term is however the one that is slightly different! The term "software manufactring is explaned in the article on Software manufacturing, and it references the terms that can be confused with it. If someone comes across the term, and looks it up, they should have the expectaion that what tey see will explain the differences that are out in the real world, This article should be able to rely on the pages for the other terms but still distinguish how the subject at hand is differs from them. By removing that link, you render the article meaningless, and by stating that "free software" can be made via Software manufacturing methods, you create a BLANTANT UNTRUTH.cmacd 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)