Posted on 06/07/2005 5:43:09 AM PDT by Incorrigible
Yep
Everyone wants everything to be free. They say, 'You're an evil corporate guy, and you don't get it.' But I'm not evil.
Burn the heretic!
"the popular Linux operating system would suffer if hardware makers stopped their sugar-daddy support for its development--putting their own programmers to work on Linux"
Heretical as this may seem, McVoy wants to be on the side that innovates and makes money.
That sounds like capitalism. And working on products with no hope of profitability sounds like socialism. There's not a lot of suspense here about the outcome...
Case closed.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
That's what he's doing. However, he's concerned about the long term viability of Open Source as a target platform for his proprietary software.
He didn't say a thing that was heretical. I'm going open source in a big way, for my little company it makes lots of sense, but it isn't for everybody. But no one who knows anything thinks open source will solve every problem out there.
What it does do is expand the monopoly business model of "Microsoft owns your soul and can get away with anything". Why, for example, should I be forced to buy Longpig, when it will add not one iota to my bottom line? If I live another thirty years, why should I pay Microsoft for every computer I build when I get squat out of their "innovations"?
That said, I do have windows machines and do appreciate some of their features and am happy to pay for a certain number of machines that run their OS.
"McVoy argues that the open source phenomenon may appear to be sustainable but actually is being propped up by hardware makers who view open source code as a loss leader--something that will entice customers to buy their boxes. "
So what? He's saying that something that IS sustainable (even as a loss leader) isn't sustainable??? That isn't heretical, that's just stupid. Ope source and proprietary will simply exist together.
And if there is no innovation in open source, try building a grid computer network with Windows. Oh, and Looking Glass is Open Source, not MS. Hell, without Mozaic and internet protocols developed open Source where would MS be?
Linux is nothing without the hundreds of commercial programmers that have helped to improve it. Too bad for those companies paying them to do it, like IBM, Red Hat and Novell who have seen their stock tank as a result.
And that's part of the reason why China likes LINUX so much. Soon all open software development will only be done in China.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Pecuniary incentive is rediscovered once again...
Red Hat does not make a profit?
I've been assembling a project out of all open source and I just adore the open source community. Of course, one reason that I adore them is that I could not possibly afford to buy a system with the capabilities of the one I am building, essentially for free (except for sleep), from open source. I estimate that I am already talking in the low six figures for a commercial system to do what I am attempting. The downside of course is that the open source is poorly documented and is a far cry from "plug and play". The open source community banks on this to land consulting contracts to install and maintain these systems. Nonetheless, open source makes it possible at all for me to do what I am doing.
GRID networks are over-hyped.
McVoy is full of crap. I can't believe this drivel is coming out of someone who claims to be a software professional. McVoy is just whining because he, unlike dozens of others, isn't smart enough to figure out how to make the open source business model work.
Red Hat isn't making money (and quite a bit of it) because they are distributing crap and then extorting their customers to bail them out. That's the Microsoft model. Red Hat wouldn't have lasted six months on that model precisely because everything it releases is open source. Customers would get tired of the crap and either fix it themselves or move on. Microsoft customers, until Linux matured, couldn't do either.
As a software professional with thirty years experience, and a die-hard capitalist to boot, I can tell you that, on balance, the breadth and depth of open source software available out there is far superior to its commercial counterparts. In fact, open source fills numerous niches where commercial ventures dare not go. As for sustainability, there are open source applications and systems available that have been around for years. Some of them come as close as any software will ever be to being bullet-proof.
Sell it somewhere else, McVoy. It's nothing but FUD and you know it.
Yeah... heaven forbid these guys spend the time to write drivers for their hardware so that people can buy or use it. What an assinine comment... it's like saying that the "Wintel" platform would be useless without the hardware companies writing drivers for Windows -- it's just as true and just as pointless. These guys write drivers to sell hardware. Period.
I bet you would get more sleep and be able to go into production faster if you used Windows Server 2003, SQL Server and .NET development to do your project. Granted it wouldn't be "free" but certainly less than 6 figures and probably less than 5!
A trade off I would consider worthwhile.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
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.