# IEEE vs Open Source

P

#### PaulCsouls

Jan 1, 1970
0
According to Russell J Lefevre who is running for IEEE-USA
President-Elect, "There are two major issues facing IEEE_USA members
in the next few years; responses to globalization and to new "Open
Source" publications that threaten the financial health of IEEE and
IEEE-USA."

I don't quite understand what this issue means. Is this about whether
I have to pay IEEE for papers or get them for free? What benefit do I
get from paying IEEE for information? Do the authors get some benefit?

Thanks

Paul C

A

#### Al

Jan 1, 1970
0
PaulCsouls said:
According to Russell J Lefevre who is running for IEEE-USA
President-Elect, "There are two major issues facing IEEE_USA members
in the next few years; responses to globalization and to new "Open
Source" publications that threaten the financial health of IEEE and
IEEE-USA."

I don't quite understand what this issue means. Is this about whether
I have to pay IEEE for papers or get them for free? What benefit do I
get from paying IEEE for information? Do the authors get some benefit?

Thanks

Paul C

The benefit you get is that the papers are reviewed and published so
others may learn something. The authors even pay to have their papers
published. Someone has to pay for the paper, for the computers, for the
distribution, for the edits, for the buildings that house these and more
stuff than I can imagine.

What have you given away for free? What medium did you use?

Al

D

#### Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Jan 1, 1970
0
Al said:
The benefit you get is that the papers are reviewed and published so
others may learn something. The authors even pay to have their papers
published. Someone has to pay for the paper, for the computers, for the
distribution, for the edits, for the buildings that house these and more
stuff than I can imagine.

What have you given away for free? What medium did you use?

Well, Open Source etc certainly threatens the financial health of companioes
like Microsoft. Clearly giving stuff away for free - good stuff like Linux - is
a Commie plot to destroy the American Way.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

J

Jan 1, 1970
0
PaulCsouls said:
According to Russell J Lefevre who is running for IEEE-USA
President-Elect, "There are two major issues facing IEEE_USA members
in the next few years; responses to globalization and to new "Open
Source" publications that threaten the financial health of IEEE and
IEEE-USA."

I don't quite understand what this issue means.

They had at least a page or two in some not-so-old issue of IEEE Spectrum, as
I recall. The issue is who should pay to get something published...
I have to pay IEEE for papers or get them for free?
Yes.

What benefit do I
get from paying IEEE for information?

Well, even with the Internet, publishing costs some amount of money (e.g., web
hosting costs, Internet connectivity costs, etc.), so the question is who
should be the one footing those bills. Authors? Readers? The government
(aka, "everyone")? Some mix thereof? The current model has the readers
(well, the libraries) footing the bulk of the bill, while the authors foot a
little bit of it. The IEEE article argues that even though many people,
including myself!, think that their journal prices are extraordinarily high,
they're actually quite competitive with the costs of similar journals.
Do the authors get some benefit?

The IEEE is a well-known, distinguished and respected institution, so there's
definitely an air of credibility that comes via publishing through their
peer-reviewed journals rather than just sticking something on a web page.
That credibility is probably somewhat overrated, but it's still better than
nothing.

The IEEE article is pretty good, although it's coming from what I'd consider a
biased source, even if they don't consider themselves one internally.

---Joel

J

#### Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hello Paul,
I don't quite understand what this issue means. Is this about whether
I have to pay IEEE for papers or get them for free? What benefit do I
get from paying IEEE for information? Do the authors get some benefit?

You have to pay for the papers or obtain an IEEE-Explore subscription.
Most of the IEEE publications are so low in volume that the cost per
copy is enormous. Just imagine what a Chevy Suburban would cost if they

The benefit you get is knowledge.

The authors don't get paid, at least I never did. Not even the travel
expenses when I had to present at conferences. There is the opposite
trend that Al mentioned and it is very disturbing: It has been suggested
that authors pay for their publications. That would seriously gravitate
the whole world of such scientific publishing towards the big ivy league
institutions where funding is heavy. The little guy especially in
developing countries will be cut off. Not a good thing at all.

Regards, Joerg

M

#### martin griffith

Jan 1, 1970
0
They had at least a page or two in some not-so-old issue of IEEE Spectrum, as
I recall. The issue is who should pay to get something published...

Well, even with the Internet, publishing costs some amount of money (e.g., web
hosting costs, Internet connectivity costs, etc.), so the question is who
should be the one footing those bills. Authors? Readers? The government
(aka, "everyone")? Some mix thereof?
snip

Things are changing.
<ramble>
A friend has a small website, pointing to specialist UK shops (not
porn). He gets a very small payment (AKA a pitance) for each click
from his site that ends in a purchase from the redirection. It pays
for his ISP fees's etc. He does little work on it, it just breaks
even. With a bit more effort he could do a lt more.

I'm not IEEE paid up etc, but are they stuck in the dark ages, like
the UK's BSI?
If they are they are dead as the proverbial dodo.

known, and more work/commissions.

(disclaimer, I'm not an MBA either, so make your own conclusions)
</ramble>

martin

W

#### Walter Harley

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dirk Bruere at Neopax said:
[...]
Well, Open Source etc certainly threatens the financial health of
companioes like Microsoft.

That's a false dichotomy.

For example, one of my clients is a software company that charges a lot of
money for its products; but they pay me to work on open-source software that
is used as part of the infrastructure for their products. Although my work
also benefits my client's competitors who use the same infrastructure
software, apparently there is still a good business case for doing it this
way.

W

#### Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Walter Harley wrote...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote ...
[...]
Well, Open Source etc certainly threatens the financial health of
companies like Microsoft.

That's a false dichotomy.

For example, one of my clients is a software company that charges a
lot of money for its products; but they pay me to work on open-source
software that is used as part of the infrastructure for their products.
Although my work also benefits my client's competitors who use the same
infrastructure software, apparently there is still a good business case
for doing it this way.

Your work probably doesn't really benefit the competition. For that to
happen, their software engineers would have to drop their NIH attitudes
and begin tracking your every move. Consider, if they're sufficiently
unskilled that they don't have an NIH attitude, and such an approach
seems better than writing their own programs, they aren't sufficiently
into their own software. They'll have a massive cock-up in the attempt.

P

#### PaulCsouls

Jan 1, 1970
0
The benefit you get is that the papers are reviewed and published so
others may learn something. The authors even pay to have their papers
published. Someone has to pay for the paper, for the computers, for the
distribution, for the edits, for the buildings that house these and more
stuff than I can imagine.

What have you given away for free? What medium did you use?

Al

How is Open Source a threat to any of this unless, it provides some
sort of peer review and copyright or copyleft protections? Open Source
has to be something more official than just posting crap on your web
page. The only difference Isee is the information is posted free on
the web like application notes instead of having to pay for the IEEE
reprint. I have paid for papers but I turn to free information on the
web first and I don't see why I should support some plan to make free
info harder to find.

Paul C

P

#### PaulCsouls

Jan 1, 1970
0
snip

Things are changing.
<ramble>
A friend has a small website, pointing to specialist UK shops (not
porn). He gets a very small payment (AKA a pitance) for each click
from his site that ends in a purchase from the redirection. It pays
for his ISP fees's etc. He does little work on it, it just breaks
even. With a bit more effort he could do a lt more.

I'm not IEEE paid up etc, but are they stuck in the dark ages, like
the UK's BSI?
If they are they are dead as the proverbial dodo.

known, and more work/commissions.

(disclaimer, I'm not an MBA either, so make your own conclusions)
</ramble>

martin

Maybe the ad route is good idea. They should at least make more of
their papers available to their basic members. You can be a member and
try to get a paper and find you need 'more' membership to look at it.
They all talk about cutting the costs of membership but they could do
more to make the membership worth the money.

Paul C

P

#### PaulCsouls

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hello Paul,

You have to pay for the papers or obtain an IEEE-Explore subscription.
Most of the IEEE publications are so low in volume that the cost per
copy is enormous. Just imagine what a Chevy Suburban would cost if they

The benefit you get is knowledge.

The authors don't get paid, at least I never did. Not even the travel
expenses when I had to present at conferences. There is the opposite
trend that Al mentioned and it is very disturbing: It has been suggested
that authors pay for their publications. That would seriously gravitate
the whole world of such scientific publishing towards the big ivy league
institutions where funding is heavy. The little guy especially in
developing countries will be cut off. Not a good thing at all.

Regards, Joerg

My question was IEEE vs Open Source. If there is an open source
publishing alternative that is cheaper for the author and gets me to
the knowledge cheaper and easier why shouldn't I support that over
IEEE.

Paul C

R

#### Richard H.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joerg said:
You have to pay for the papers or obtain an IEEE-Explore subscription.
Most of the IEEE publications are so low in volume that the cost per
copy is enormous. Just imagine what a Chevy Suburban would cost if they

The benefit you get is knowledge.

The authors don't get paid, at least I never did. Not even the travel
expenses when I had to present at conferences. There is the opposite
trend that Al mentioned and it is very disturbing: It has been suggested
that authors pay for their publications. That would seriously gravitate
the whole world of such scientific publishing towards the big ivy league
institutions where funding is heavy. The little guy especially in
developing countries will be cut off. Not a good thing at all.

Joerg,

I don't disagree with recovering the cost, especially on short runs of
print publications.

standards, especially when one is already a dues-paying member at nearly
$200/year? I recall some time back having to pay to download specs for V.35 for cryin' out loud. (Not much as I recall, but it was so old that it should have been gratis to Communications Society members.) The last time I looked at prices to download *recent* specs in the 802 tree, they were outrageous ($100's, IIRC). (I know they started
releasing older versions for free a few years back.) If the authors pay
their own way to the committee meetings, what cost is there to the IEEE

It seems too much like IEEE is in the money-making business, not in the

My two cents,
Richard

L

#### [email protected]

Jan 1, 1970
0
It seems too much like IEEE is in the money-making business, not in the

IEEE is a country club. They need money to maintain the greens, pay the
handsome cabana boy and pay off the people who smuggle in Cuban cigars.

They are whining because more engineers are interested in working with
open-source, freely-distributed projects and publications than with
bureacracy. For almost anybody not working on a government contract,
the world has evolved past IEEE's mentality (which has little to do
with science and much to do with the aforementioned country club
attitude).

This is an exaggeration but not by much. Really, what it boils down to
is that they never previously had any need to compete, but now other
sources have at least as much mainstream credibility, if not more. So
IEEE is being forced to rethink its business model (and maybe go from
an 18-hole to a 9-hole course in the process), which hurts.

M

#### martin griffith

Jan 1, 1970
0
According to Russell J Lefevre who is running for IEEE-USA
President-Elect, "There are two major issues facing IEEE_USA members
in the next few years; responses to globalization and to new "Open
Source" publications that threaten the financial health of IEEE and
IEEE-USA."

I don't quite understand what this issue means. Is this about whether
I have to pay IEEE for papers or get them for free? What benefit do I
get from paying IEEE for information? Do the authors get some benefit?

Thanks

Paul C
Not quite sure if this question is valid

What about peer review in an Open Source system?

martin

J

#### Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hello Paul,
My question was IEEE vs Open Source. If there is an open source
publishing alternative that is cheaper for the author and gets me to
the knowledge cheaper and easier why shouldn't I support that over
IEEE.

Well, sure. It's a free market just like any other market. If open
source is available most of us would naturally gravitate towards it. If
authors are required to pay to finance most of it that will reduce the
supply side though. So concentrating too much on open source might cut
you off from part of the pie.

Then there is the "self published paper" or whatever you want to call
it: Via the web. It would cost me next to nothing to publish something
on our web site and some people do that. It would cost readers nothing
extra to read that. However, most of those papers will not be
peer-reviewed so readers have to be more careful. But there are
excellent papers to be found that way, many of them on web sites of our
fellow posters right here.

Regards, Joerg

J

#### John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Joerg
Then there is the "self published paper" or whatever you want to call
it: Via the web. It would cost me next to nothing to publish something
on our web site and some people do that. It would cost readers nothing
extra to read that. However, most of those papers will not be
peer-reviewed so readers have to be more careful. But there are
excellent papers to be found that way, many of them on web sites of our
fellow posters right here.

Maybe somebody with more time and resources than I have will find a way
of getting credible peer reviews done on the Web. After all, almost all

J

#### Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Joerg

Maybe somebody with more time and resources than I have will find a way
of getting credible peer reviews done on the Web. After all, almost all

...Jim Thompson

M

#### martin griffith

Jan 1, 1970
0

...Jim Thompson

Just had some UK friends over to stay in my new spanish house. The
room at the back( washing m/c etc) has just been renamed "the futility
room"

martin

R

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, Open Source etc certainly threatens the financial health of
companioes like Microsoft. Clearly giving stuff away for free - good stuff
like Linux - is a Commie plot to destroy the American Way.

And the sad, ironic thing is that the GNU General Public License makes
it legal for Bill Gates to slap a Windoze eye candy GUI on top of a
Linux core, and make money selling it.

But I surmise that he's about as likely to clue up as the Bush cabal.

Cheers!
Rich

J

Jan 1, 1970
0
And the sad, ironic thing is that the GNU General Public License makes
it legal for Bill Gates to slap a Windoze eye candy GUI on top of a
Linux core, and make money selling it.

I don't see how it's any worse for Bill Gates to do that than the Red Hats,
Fedoras, Linspires, and others than presently do... and Bill Gates employs one
heck of a lot more people and pas a lot more taxes than Red Hat does!

K
Replies
52
Views
4K
Tauno Voipio
T
G
Replies
0
Views
2K
Gunnar Kaestle
G
J
Replies
1
Views
888
O
R
Replies
8
Views
969
Sam Wilson
S
B
Replies
6
Views
1K
John Larkin
J