The Microsoft Killers [FR as "Open Source/Access"?]

Prospect Magazine UK ^ | February 2004 | Azeem Azhar

[Clint Williams]

Let the flame wars begin...

[js1138]

Windows now seems to be open source, even if not voluntarily. I suspect that Microsoft will open much of its code voluntarily when the market makes this move necessary.

[Mr. K]

The Open-Source maniacs are a weird group. They believe in open source, so YOU have to believe in it to.

I keep telling them, if they want to write software and give it away free, then go ahead- no one is arguing with them.

But I can't afford to work for free - I have afamily to support.

[nuconvert]

Tasting "very like Coke" doesn't quite make it.

[Eala]

ping

[Arkinsaw]

It doesn't matter how much people scream about something, it matters whether it is adopted or not.

The only way to stop open source is to bring in the trial lawyers and pay tons of protection money to the legal mafiosa. Because if they don't beat it down with paid for politicians and lawyers then the people ARE going to adopt what it produces.

For those companies opposed to it, its very much like trying to compete with someone who will work for nothing. In fact, maybe Steve Ballmer knows what its like to have his job outsourced to people who will do it for nothing. Sort of like Microsoft call-center jobs to India. LOL

[thedugal]

But I can't afford to work for free - I have afamily to support.

Greedy corporate pig! [/slashnutter]

[Eala]

Tasting "very like Coke" doesn't quite make it.

Tasting exactly like Coke doesn't either, anymore. Old Coke, Pepsi, RC or (non-cola) Vernors, now...

De gustibus non dispundandum est...

[Arkinsaw]

But I can't afford to work for free - I have afamily to support.

Of course you can't work for free, that's why your job will soon be going to Honduras or India.

[Eala]

But they [Open Access] overlap with open source practice in two ways. The first is that they provide a public good that can be exploited by all. The second is the idea that those contributing to the public good may want to do so for non-financial rewards.

Did you receive a non-financial reward for your contribution to the public good of FR? *\;-)

[Poser]

POWER TO THE CORRECT PEOPLE!

[Strider]

non-financial rewards

I can't take that to the bank. I'll just keep charging money.

[Young Rhino]

But I can't afford to work for free - I have afamily to support.

If someone is giving it away for free (or your competitor is selling it for less), it isn't a matter of working for free. It is a matter of finding a profitable niche rather than knocking one's head against a wall. RIAA and MPAA are just starting to learn this lesson. Many retail bricks and mortar businesses have had to learn the lesson by Wal-Mart putting them out of business.

[nuconvert]

Oh, I beg to differ.
I'll dispute the matter of taste when it somes to Coke. : )

[Arkinsaw]

The Open-Source maniacs are a weird group. They believe in open source, so YOU have to believe in it to.

You are essentially participating in an open-source news broadcast facility right now.

[Arkinsaw]

POWER TO THE CORRECT PEOPLE!

If it weren't for the ability of the open-source Drudge Report and the open-source FreeRepublic forum on the open-source internet we would all know a lot less than we do as those in control of the levers of information distribution (AP and NYT, etc.) spiked stories that made their tummies upset.

The reason there is a Fox News is because of the rise of Drudge and FreeRepublic. People bypassed those in control of the market and created a new market and Fox swooped in to make money off of it. Open source worked fantastically well in the media market. You can tell by how much the established media screams about Drudge/FOX News/and FR. The same way that Ballmer screams about Linux.

[Moose4]

Thing is, open-source software doesn't have to be free as in costing $0.00. It's perfectly legit to charge for it. But when you buy it, you get the source code along with it if you want, and can make any modifications you want--just remember that those modifications have to go back into the public domain.

And a lot of open-source software is quite good. I use OpenOffice 1.1 at home, which is a freely downloadable clone of Microsoft Office. Is it as good as MS Office? No, not quite, but it's close enough for what I need. And, I don't have to pay several hundred dollars for it or bootleg a copy.

I agree that some of the open-source people get weird sometimes (Stallman in particular gets waaaaay out there on occasion). But as a development methodology, it's got its place beside commercial software.

}:-)4

[Poser]

Like I said: POWER TO THE CORRECT PEOPLE!

(note the use of the word "correct")

[Arkinsaw]

Of course. Power to Microsoft, NYT, and AP. People think of open source only in terms of software. Yet we can see exactly how open source (Drudge,FR) led to the rise of Fox News to #1. It did not eliminate profit (as Ballmer says it will), it instead created a new market which a for-profit corporation then swooped in on to make oodles of money. It broke the New York Times/AP paradigm which had complete control of news distribution. It broke the liberal stranglehold on the media and allowed the natural conservative dominance of the market (that had been held back purposefully by those CORRECT PEOPLE) to flourish.

Can it do the same for software against those who dictate for THAT industry? Don't know yet, but I would guess that its likely.

[CharacterCounts]

Stallman developed the idea of distributing free software with its source code and a licence that allowed you to modify the source code as long as the modifications were kept in the public domain.

I don't know much about programming, but I do know a little about competition. I just can't see a company paying big bucks to Big Blue to customize a GPU application and then putting the resulting code in the public domain for its competitors to access for free.

Am I missing something? I see the potentional for a lot of cheating (taking - but not giving back). How will this cheating affect open source development.

The other thing I am having trouble with is the concept of one person or group developing software for free and another company such as Big Blue maintaining and customizing it for profit. It sounds like Big Blue is trying to strip the gravy off of other peoples efforts. This doesn't sound like a concept with a long term future to me.