From: Bruce Horrocks on
Peter Ceresole wrote:

> I may be quite wrong, but it seems to me that authoring software is an
> extremely hard way to earn a living unless (a) you are employed by an
> organisation that has other revenue streams (b) you have a serious in
> with a business that wants to use your software or (c) you can induce
> somebody to buy you out.

More likely, to my mind, is that these people are professional
programmers and have 'proper' day jobs (which may be contracting rather
than salaried) and that their 'software for the masses' is a secondary
source of income that may just strike it lucky for them.

> Of course, you can also use it to demonstrate your skills, although that
> feels a bit like (c) above.

Doesn't do any harm but your CV is primarily what gets you the next job.

--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: Woody on
Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com> wrote:

> Peter Ceresole wrote:
>
> > I may be quite wrong, but it seems to me that authoring software is an
> > extremely hard way to earn a living unless (a) you are employed by an
> > organisation that has other revenue streams (b) you have a serious in
> > with a business that wants to use your software or (c) you can induce
> > somebody to buy you out.
>
> More likely, to my mind, is that these people are professional
> programmers and have 'proper' day jobs (which may be contracting rather
> than salaried) and that their 'software for the masses' is a secondary
> source of income that may just strike it lucky for them.

Or in my experience, your proper day job pays the money, the other
software that you write is becasue it is what you want to write.

--
Woody

www.alienrat.com
From: Rowland McDonnell on
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > One could try `writing' software - being less illiterate about it might
> > work out better, you never know. Authoring, I ask you!
>
> I was including 'publishing' in that. 'Writing' is insufficient.
> 'Authoring' seems the closest word.

Authors traditionally get someone else to do the publishing, and have
you never heard of an unpublished author? Authoring is an abomination
of a word, utterly without purpose - which doesn't mean `writing and
publishing combined'; it just means `writing' - possibly `writing to
completion'.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Peter Ceresole on
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:

> Authors traditionally get someone else to do the publishing, and have
> you never heard of an unpublished author?

Yes. But the conventional meaning with respect to software seems to me
to be subtly different. Especially as in print, authoring and
publication tend to be separate (with a few exceptions) because of the
requirements of the technology, whereas for software it is a great deal
easier for an author to be their own publisher.

But if you can think of a better word, do use it.
--
Peter
From: Simon Dobbs on
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:01:23 +0000, Rowland McDonnell wrote
(in article
<1j8ripm.m3uy271o79kuqN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):

> There is no web of words you can spin which will persuade me that black
> is white or that you've not behaved nastily towards me quite often, just
> like a whole bunch of other nasty-minded bastards here.
>
> And I despise you for your cruelty, especially seeing as you and the
> other sadistic bastards here take so much pleasure from watching me
> writhe and howl, even discussing my antics off ucsm for some reason.
>
> Disgusting, the lot of you.
>
> Rowland.

sigh. I guess that when the great Rowland is on form like this, all must be
well with the rest of the world...plus ca change etc etc