[NCSteve]

One problem with the services model is that it is based on the idea that you are giving customers crap...

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.

[kpp_kpp]

> can tell you that, on balance, the breadth and depth of open
> source software available out there is far superior to its
> commercial counterparts.
>


except for accounting systems... unless you'd like to fill me in on where i haven't been looking.

[RolandBurnam]

breadth and depth of open source is far superior?? linux, mysql, apache ?? ever been to a compusa? there are tons of commercial apps of every type, and small companies exploiting all types of vertical markets. some open source communities will survive and thrive, but most won't. I know linux scales up better than windows... but so does unix.

[Bush2000]

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.

No, Steve. He's simply reflecting upon the reality that, if you can offer a service to support code that you sell -- and people think will pay for your service -- then, obviously, your service is providing some kind of value to them. How? Obviously, you're fixing problems. Hence, you admit when you provide a service that you're providing code that will be broken.

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.

You misunderstood his statement. He's not saying that it's unusable "crap". He's saying that, if you need support, the product that you're selling is eventually (by definition) going to be broken and need repair. And he's right.

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.

Wrong. The vast number of customers aren't willing to fix bugs, themselves. They pay for somebody else to provide that service to them. These same customers know when they buy the service that they've already made an investment in an imperfect product; otherwise, they wouldn't need the service in the first place.

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.

Whether it's "far superior to its commercial counterparts" is irrelevant. It still breaks and requires support. And that's McVoy's point.