Open Source Myths

Neil Gunton's Web Page ^ | 7/26/2004 | Neil Gunton

[steve-b]

It should be added that, independent of the "open-source software" issue, all governments should require open file formats to be preferentially (e.g. a "save" command defaults to an open file format) supported by any software purchased for government use. This serves two important public policy objectives: 1)It insures that citizens who need to interact with the government are not locked into any specific vendor, and 2)It insures that the government itself is not locked into any specific vendor.

[Golden Eagle]

I see that you are as determined as a paid Microsoft shill to peddle this "anti-capitalist" hoo-hah about guys whose hobby is writing code. That is just deceitful as hell.

What's decietful as hell is to try to claim that "hobbyists" are the ones making the latest improvements to Linux.

...the 2.6 version of the kernel will benefit from contributions that have trickled down from Oracle's and IBM's kernel teams. Such improvements include improved I/O throughput, memory utilization, I/O and SMP scalability, reliability and manageability. "A lot of stuff coming is stuff Oracle and IBM themselves have contributed back, initially to Red Hat, but it's made its way into the distribution, the 2.6 kernel,"...

[Golden Eagle]

And I'm enjoying watching a company that is run by blind, sociopathic thugs insulting and pissing off software developers, by calling them all sorts of names. These are guys who will be IT managers and CTOs some day. Microsoft is turning them all into lifelong enemies with this loudmouthed thug act... calling every guy who dabbles in open source or has a linux box at home, some kind of thief or communist. I can't stop Microsoft from doing this. All I can do is watch it and laugh.

Funny, I don't see you laughing much lately, more like backpedaling and bailing water at the same time. You don't have to be associated with Microsoft to see there are communistic and socialistic principles behind open source software, nor is it a coincidence that communists and socialists worldwide are are in full support of it over our proprietary products. Defend it if you wish, just don't expect your pathetic defense plea of "Microsoft" is going to acquit yourself. Why should it? In international terms, we need to be gathering the proper payment for the software that is already in use, not changing to a completely "for free" model like you and the foreigners want. Go ahead and claim that's unfair, but fact is there is really zero difference in your position, and that of a european socialist.

[general_re]

The marginal cost of software is effectively zero.

That may be so, but as a practical matter, you don't have much choice but to amortize the cost of development across all the copies sold. You're not going to have much luck if you think you can sell the first copy for $X million (or whatever) and then give the rest away for free, marginal costs notwithstanding. ;)