Linux vs. Windows: The Rematch

PC World ^ | 1 October, 2002 | Scott Spanbauer

[js1138]

I thought the first principle of objectivism was selfishness, the attempt to maximize one's own wealth. All good things flow from individualism. I'm not sure where this touchie-feelie, share the wealth stuff fits into Rand's universe.

[general_re]

I thought the first principle of objectivism was selfishness, the attempt to maximize one's own wealth. All good things flow from individualism. I'm not sure where this touchie-feelie, share the wealth stuff fits into Rand's universe.

It doesn't. Rand despised altruism and charity, despite much revisionism to the contrary by her successors in Objectivism...

[Dominic Harr]

I'm not sure where this touchie-feelie, share the wealth stuff fits into Rand's universe.

Hmmm, it doesn't, because that's not accurate.

Where did you come across the idea that open-source developers are touchie-feelie, share-the-wealth types? What a strange notion.

And that's probably at the core of your misunderstanding of what the open-source movement is really all about, and why it's bound to have a major impact on the emerging software markets.

Open-source not a bunch of nobodies slaving away for the good of mankind. It's a 'group jam' for talented, employed, productive people who are really only working on the project out of sheer selfishness -- they want a piece of software that doesn't exist, so they have to build it themselves. Then they exchange that piece of software with others in their own type of fair exchange. My labor for your labor. Outside the corporate system that has such a stranglehold on software developoment.

The primary rule for Galts Gulch was to swear to live only for your own sake, not for the sake of others.

Take a good look at the people involved in open-source software. They're not in it "for the people". Not a one I've met.

They're in it for themselves.

They're the producers. That's the whole *point*. They're producing something the 'system' won't. They're outside the system. Not outside economics -- they are pretty much all highly paid.

Just a bunch of producers blazing a new trail.

I don't know, maybe it's stretching the metaphor. But I'm not so sure.

[Bush2000]

Open-source not a bunch of nobodies slaving away for the good of mankind. It's a 'group jam' for talented, employed, productive people who are really only working on the project out of sheer selfishness -- they want a piece of software that doesn't exist, so they have to build it themselves. Then they exchange that piece of software with others in their own type of fair exchange. My labor for your labor. Outside the corporate system that has such a stranglehold on software developoment.

What a boatload of crap. If they wanted to be selfish, they'd keep it to themselves so that nobody else could profit from their efforts.

Take a good look at the people involved in open-source software. They're not in it "for the people". Not a one I've met. They're in it for themselves.

BS. They've sworn off individual profit in order to share their efforts.

Harr, you've twisted Rand's philosophy until it's unrecognizable. You missed your calling. You should have been a slimebag attorney.

[Dominic Harr]

BS. They've sworn off individual profit in order to share their efforts.

Hmmm. Doesn't sound right to me. Now admittedly, I've only been involved in one open-source project, so maybe I just don't know enough OS developers.

So can I ask rdb3 and tech:

Have you guys "sworn off individual profit"?

[rdb3]

Have you guys "sworn off individual profit"?

Hell no! How can my business grow without profits? And by what can I measure its health other than profit?

And Bush2K, if you mean what I think you mean, you are propagating a straight up lie. There's no need to do that. If you have questions, just ask them.

[Bush2000]

Answer this, rdb. What percentage of open source projects result in profits for their creator?

[Dominic Harr]

What percentage of open source projects result in profits for their creator?

Pssst: define "profit" correctly, and I believe the answer is close to 100%. The creators do recieve benefits fro their work -- exposure, the use of other code, experience, job offers, and on and on.

It's just much more of a 'barter' system. An economy outside the 'corporate' system.

Similar to what it was in "Galt's Gulch", I think.

[Dominic Harr]

How can my business grow without profits?

That's what I thought, too.

Ah, well, maybe B2k is just mistaken about this, then.

I think there's a fair amount of truth to calling the open-source community the new "Galt's Gulch".

[B Knotts]

very-professional-looking Motif widget set

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Bush2000]

Pssst: define "profit" correctly, and I believe the answer is close to 100%. The creators do recieve benefits fro their work -- exposure, the use of other code, experience, job offers, and on and on.

Let's focus on direct compensation. So how many of open source project creators receive direct compensation for their work?

[Bush2000]

It's just much more of a 'barter' system. An economy outside the 'corporate' system.

If job referrals and exposure are the primary benefits, it's a pretty inefficient system. I can send around my resume and get a half dozen job offers today. Without any work on my part.

[rdb3]

Let's focus on direct compensation. So how many of open source project creators receive direct compensation for their work?

NO! We will not change the subject from what you said.

You said that we have somehow "sworn off" profits. Where do you get that? Where is your empirical and irrefutable proof?

Not anotha futha until you prove your statement. So, let's "focus" on that.

[discostu]

I think we all need this:
Harr, you've twisted _______________ until it's unrecognizable.
In a handy clipboard spot, then we just fill in the blank and save our keyboard some needless effort.

[Bush2000]

You said that we have somehow "sworn off" profits. Where do you get that? Where is your empirical and irrefutable proof?

Anecdotal evidence. It has been my experience that nearly all open source projects yield no compensation for their authors. Do you disagree?

[rdb3]

Anecdotal evidence.

Not good enough.

[Bush2000]

Not good enough.

Alright, fine. Show me somebody who is making money with open source.

[rdb3]

Show me somebody who is making money with open source.

You're conversing with him. So, speak that which you know for a fact.

[Mo1]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE RATS!

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[FourtySeven]

Virus writers haven't made Linux a major target--yet.

I think this says it all, doesn't it? Or is the author lying? Have virus writers been trying to "hack" Linux for years, and been unsuccessful?