Posted on 09/15/2006 9:59:49 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
> No different than IBM, who needed and got a staunch competitor from Microsoft.
Certainly, for many years IBM was the Blue Meanie, the great Evil One in the computer business. But they've almost always been hardware, systems, services -- not pure software like Microsoft. Microsoft wisely stayed out of the big-iron end of the business; they write light-weight, small-computer software, and they don't have a clue on hardware or large systems.
> And they have paid a price, in court, when they went too far, while IBM always seems to skate.
In my view, Microsoft hasn't been harmed by any actions in court, whether from the fed-gov, the EU, or any other entities. They were temporarily inconvenienced by a few things, but look -- I.E. is still an integral part of Windows, Office still enjoys a tremendous advantage over other applications in terms of inside knowledge of the OS, and whenever MS pleases, it brings out products that wipe out whole sections of the competing industries by being offered for "free", tightly integrated with the OS.
Microsoft has only ever suffered because of their own mistakes, in writing crappy code and occasionally making a business error -- that's they only time they get hurt. Nobody else can touch them.
I do agree with you that IBM seems to be pretty much teflon too.
> This "opensource" resurgence was a calculated move by IBM to bring in foreign IP and use it as leverage against their competitors who were nearly pure American companies, like Microsoft/Oracle/Sun, and one that lowered the value of American IP tangibles such as patents.
Yes and no. IBM's activity in support of open-source may be as you say. But open-source has been there all along -- it was the majority and default until Gates introduced closed-source in the mid-70s. It did just fine through the 80's, in the hands of firebrands like Stallman (GNU) and others. It rose to prominence in the 90's with the various BSDs and Linux, Sun's Star-Office, etc. IBM was nowhere to be found all that time. They only jumped on the bandwagon after 2001 or so when it suited their purposes.
A lot of open-sourcers think IBM is terrific for providing support, but I'm a bit more cynical, having spent many more years disliking IBM than liking them. I suspect you and I see alike on that.
IBM holds more patents than anybody by a long shot. I don't think they seriously want to hurt patent value.
> Obviously I see International Business Machines as a much greater danger to the American way of life than Microsoft, for doing the same things you accuse Microsoft of, but for longer.
Can't really argue with that. I deeply distrust them both, especially when they seem to be altruistic.
Glad to see you're not turning a blind eye to IBM like most who distrust Microsoft, you've obviously been around long enough to know better. But since as you said open source has been around since before Microsoft, you can't claim IBM just now got on board. Stallman's first job was with IBM, and he still consults with them to this day. And I see Stallman's leftist agenda including "copyleft" and his "GNU Manifesto" as being a much greater danger to US interests than Microsoft. Microsoft wants to lease US IP to the rest of the world, while Stallman wants to give it to them for free.
Why not? IBM didn't start open source (they'd almost certainly behave as Microsoft does if they were in Microsoft's place), it originated with the first programmers. IBM did just jump on board a few years ago to try to compete with Microsoft.
Stallman's first job was with IBM, and he still consults with them to this day.
You put a lot of stock in innuendo, don't you? His first job is irrelevant, particularly when it was that long ago. As to the consulting, all it proves is that...he does consulting for IBM. Which makes sense, as IBM wants to use open source to compete with Microsoft. They themselves have no real allegiance to it, it's just a tool to compete with Microsoft. In any event, I like competition. Competition is good.
Microsoft wants to lease US IP to the rest of the world, while Stallman wants to give it to them for free.
While Stallman hates closed-source and would do away with it if he could, the fact remains that he gives away only the code generated by GNU. Why should that bug you? If that sinks an American business, fine. That's the free market.
Who are you trying to kid? When IBM started selling the first mass-produced commercial computers in the sixties, the software and its source code came as part of the package. Something they rarely if ever do anymore.
If that sinks an American business, fine.
Maybe fine according to you, but most of us care about what happens to America, including our businesses.
In the sixties, everyone included the source (well, almost). Microsoft originated closed source, IBM did not originate open source.
Maybe fine according to you, but most of us care about what happens to America, including our businesses.
I care about America, but the very principle of a free market is that those who produce an inferior product will, eventually die. The result is competition, which leads to better products at lower prices. Funny thing. I thought that that was an American ideal.
PS Your link was invalid.
I know, obviously since that was my point, you were the one denying IBM ever did such till just recently.
I care about America, but...
But you have what you consider more important concerns, such as getting free software from foreigners.
No, I said that they jumped on the bandwagon just recently. They distributed source in the sixties, but stopped doing so a long time ago and, to the best of my knowledge, have not opened up their commercial software. What they are doing is funding mostly (if not entirely) pre-existing open source projects in hopes that it will defeat Microsoft. IBM itself has no allegiance to open source software. They would not be using it now if they did not believe it would further their ends. Moreover, the fact that IBM at one time packaged source with the end product does not mean that they originated the practice (as you seem so intent on "proving"). Finally, there is a world of difference between what happened in the sixties and what is happening now. In the scenario you brought up, I would buy software and get the source. Notice, though, I paid to get the source. With most modern software, I pay to get binaries and could never get the source (the exception to this rule being, of course, OSS).
But you have what you consider more important concerns, such as getting free software from foreigners.
I know you refuse to believe this, but a free market is an American principle. I like Linux because, IMHO, it is a superior product to Windows or Mac. If there were a reasonably priced alternative to Linux that I liked better, I would buy it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.