Nuclear Winter? More Like Global Warming (Open Source VS Proprietary Software)

osOpinion.com ^ | 11/20/02 | Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier

[amigatec]

PING-A-LING..............

Just Trolling for Trolls.....

[xrp]

Both open source and closed source software have their positives and negatives. Having an open vs closed software discussion is like tossing followers of the top 10 religions in the world into a room and telling them to argue which is the best religion.

[goldstategop]

Lindows is based on open source software which is why Microsoft tried to snuff it out.

[=Intervention=]

What a fallacious comparison. As if everything that is popular is good. Islam is certainly one of the "top 10" religions, but how many are Islam by force? And how many use Microsoft by force? Now there's a comparison for you...

[Neologic]

But this article is focusing on a particular point- the effect of mainstream acceptance of open source on the economy. Provided we are able to keep the discussion on this topic, the discussion might actually be constructive.

[general_re]

Provided we are able to keep the discussion on this topic...

Step right up, ladies and gents, and place your bets!

:^)

[avg_freeper]

Proprietary software companies would do fine in the absence of open source. But there would be no open source without proprietary software companies driving the industry.

[rivercat]

And how many use Microsoft by force?

No one is "forced" to use Microsoft software. Last time I checked, there were several Open Source products that read and write Microsoft file formats.

[Bush2000]

The goal of a proprietary software company is to increase profit margins.

Since when did profit becoming illegal or immoral?

Is mainstream acceptance for Open Source a "nuclear winter" for the software industry? I certainly hope so.

Listen to this guy. Next thing, he'll be telling us that we should be living in collectives and sucking from the public "free beer" teat.

My guess is that it would be beneficial.

Rrrrrrright. The software industry has created more jobs in the past decade than any other industry. Let's kill profit incentive. Yeah, that's a great idea! /SARCASM

Unfortunately for software companies, software doesn't suffer wear and tear. Instead, software suffers from deliberate sabotage by the companies that make it.

A not so-veiled accusation that Microsoft, Adobe, and others deliberately sabotage users -- no doubt because they couldn't possibly decide on their own to upgrade.

The history of the Web is a good example of how Open Source is beneficial to the economy overall. If Apache, Perl, BIND, Linux, *BSD and Sendmail hadn't been freely available, then a lot of the growth of the Web would never have happened.

Neither would the tech meltdown have occurred. A show of hands for who bought RedHat at $150? VA Linux at $100? How many people were duped by open source startups?

[stylin_geek]

I think there is enough room for both open source and proprietary. The article makes a lot of fallacious comparisons, and is merely a not so veiled attack against Microsoft. The best thing about open source is that it creates price pressure, so that companies with proprietary software have to innovate or drop prices in order to maintain market share. In the end, the consumer benefits through there being choices and low cost alternatives.

[Bush2000]

Incidentally, Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier is the author of a couple of Linux books. It should come as no surprise that anybody who gets paid to write about Linux might be biased against commercial products.

[dheretic]

Since when did profit becoming illegal or immoral?

You missed this little comment: There's nothing wrong with turning a profit

Listen to this guy. Next thing, he'll be telling us that we should be living in collectives and sucking from the public "free beer" teat.

Anyone who disagrees with your wishy-washy moderate stance is automatically a hardline leftist. People like you have no principles. If you did, you wouldn't take attitudes like bribery in politics is a fact of life and we just have to accept that.

The software industry has created more jobs in the past decade than any other industry.

It also requires more people to support it than probably any other industry too.

Neither would the tech meltdown have occurred.

Hey dumbass, those apps debuted long before the "tech meltdown." They were in wide-spread use before then. Get a clue.

[Bush2000]

People like you have no principles.

Wrong. You simply don't like my principles. To which I say: Piss off.

If you did, you wouldn't take attitudes like bribery in politics is a fact of life and we just have to accept that.

LMFAO! What a naive little boy you are.

It also requires more people to support it than probably any other industry too.

...which creates paying jobs. Not a bad thing. Unless you happen to like to work for -- or get your products for -- free.

Hey dumbass...

"Release your anger, Luke. It only makes me stronger..." Haven't you figured out by now that I could care less about your insults?

... those apps debuted long before the "tech meltdown." They were in wide-spread use before then. Get a clue.

They contributed directly to the tech meltdown. Investors (foolishly) put their faith in the value proposition of open source companies and got reamed royally. Of course, you and your kind don't believe in capital markets or paying jobs ... so the fact that granny lost her life savings probably doesn't mean a whole lot to you.

[TheEngineer]

The goal of a proprietary software company is to increase profit margins. An IT department strives to deliver needed services as inexpensively as possible. Those two goals are diametrically opposed to one another.

You can substitute any type of supplier and buyer into this sentence... And it still reads terribly naive. All decent businesses should have identical goals: to make money. When everyone sticks to that goal, good things generally happen.

And so I have a different view of business than the author. I want my suppliers to make money. If they undercharge for their good/service and don't turn a healthy profit, their underpaying clients (me) lose in the long run... For example, the supplier cannot afford to provide service/support, or goes bankrupt, etc. etc.

In my book, Microsoft's "obscene" profitability isn't a strike against them. It gives me high confidence that they will be there year after year with upgrades and support. I can't say the same thing about RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, etc. The Linux proponents brag about how everything they have is "free", but it makes one nervous to line up behind guys who aren't turning a profit.

Let the proprietary software companies deliver software for markets that are too small or too specific to support successful Open Source projects.

Sounds like an edict from a Soviet 5 Year Plan.

Companies and organizations could better spend their money on salaries instead of licensing fees, something that would truly benefit the economy.

Aren't licensing fees part of the economy? But hey... Let's put his melodramatic statement in perspective... A single user gets a few years use out of Windows2000 (for example) for ~$200. That kind of money is down in the noise for any business. Despite pleadings from authors like Zonker Brockmeier, businesses won't move their desktops away from proprietary software like Windows until there is something better.

[amigatec]

Incidentally, Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier is the author of a couple of Linux books. It should come as no surprise that anybody who gets paid to write about Linux might be biased against commercial products.

Incidentally, Bush2000 lives in Seattle. It should come as no surprise that anybody who gets paid by Microsoft might be biased against Open Source products.

[Mr. K]

You're right... Can't we all just get along?

I think there is room for both commercial and open source code.

Except that the open source people are all looney.

[hchutch]

I wouldn't have.

I do think Microsoft ought to develop versions of its Office suite for Linux, though. Just to cover the bases.

[TheEngineer]

At last report, Redmond was sitting on about US$40 billion in cash. That money has been drained from the economy and is not being put back into play to buy products and pay salaries for people who don't happen to work for Microsoft.

So this Linux proponent is worried about the US economy? ROFLMAO! Excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for his article about how certain foreign governments' recent decisions to use Linux rather than Windows is ill-formed... because it's bad for the US economy.

[TheEngineer]

I do think Microsoft ought to develop versions of its Office suite for Linux, though. Just to cover the bases.

I'm sure that the problem Redmond sees with this is that the Linux fanatics won't pay for anything. Why develop software if it won't be profitable?