Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Software IT

Gartner Says Open Source "Impossible To Avoid" 167

Posted by kdawson
from the there-they-go-again dept.
alphadogg writes in with a Network World article that covers a Gartner open source conference, in which VP Mark Driver seems to be going out of his way to be provocative. "You can try to avoid open source, but it's probably easier to get out of the IT business altogether. By 2011, at least 80% of commercial software will contain significant amounts of open source code..." After this lead-in, in which open source seems to be regarded as some kind of communicable disease, the rest of the article outlines a perfectly rational plan for developing an open source strategy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gartner Says Open Source "Impossible To Avoid"

Comments Filter:
  • sounds good to me (Score:1, Insightful)

    by bakamaki (1148765)
    You won't hear me complaining, 80% sounds great.
    • It's almost like they're talking about herpes, the way you can't escape it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The problem that I see is that the 80% isn't necessarily meaning that more code is going to be open source, just that more of it's going to get used. Look at the network stack for vista to see what I mean.
    • by Erris (531066) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @02:27PM (#20685085) Homepage Journal

      Making an "open source strategy" is silly. No one has an "EULA" planning session where they try to make general guidelines for what kind of non free screwing they will and won't take. They consider the options available and take the best. This is a panic by non free software vendors and their pawns. The same people who used to tell you to always use the "best" tool for the job realize that the best tool is often a free one. Open Software planning sessions are a waste of time designed to heap FUD on free software. The time waste itself will put you at a competitive disadvantage, using the wrong tools will too.

      It's never been rational to ignore free software. Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software. The people telling you to ignore free software have been plundering it themselves all along.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dedazo (737510)

        Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software.

        That's quite a sweeping statement. Since you're using it to back up your implied argument that free software is inherently superior, could you provide some examples of this?

        • by Erris (531066) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:22PM (#20688269) Homepage Journal

          I can provide examples, but that won't satisfy you.

          Browser history [wikipedia.org], if not the web itself, and symbolic manipulation [wikipedia.org] are good places to start. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing you can do with a computer that someone has not used for their PhD and created a free, working copy. Often, there will be a great big pool of public domain code from government sponsored research, but some of that has been stolen and given to private interests. The great wave of source code theft that happened in the 1980s was the exception, not the rule.

          I did not imply that free software is inherently superior for every person. It is mostly is if value performance. It's always superior if you value freedom and flexibility. I value freedom and have not given up much to have it. There are a few cases where you might have to keep a Windows machine around, but most people can do without it and be better off.

          I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, so I can't help you anymore than that.

          • by dedazo (737510)

            I can provide examples, but that won't satisfy you.

            You'd need to provide a *lot* of examples, given your sweeping generalization that all commercial software is derived from something GNU came up with.

            Browser history, if not the web itself

            Mosaic was software funded by the government of the United States and made available under a BSD-style license. It has nothing to do with your concept of "free software".

            I did not imply that free software is inherently superior for every person

            That's funny, I remem

            • by Ami Ganguli (921)

              No amount of data can prove the assertion, but you can disprove it with a single counterexample. (But the test isn't whether or not it's GNU, but rather whether or not it has Free Software roots.)

              So do you have a counterexample?

              • by dedazo (737510)

                So do you have a counterexample?

                Of course, as long as you define "Free Software" for me first.

        • by Yaa 101 (664725)
          I know a few...

          Let's start with the algorithms that make up software programs, all of these are math and for free.
          Most of the techniques used in modern programming like multitasking, compiling, unix and so on came from Universities and were mostly free until the landscape changed in the 70's, ask Richard Stallman why he founded the Free Software Foundation.
          Most commercial programs are derived from this base so GP is right in that claim.

          Besides, do you have polio? you can check these facts yourself all over
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by tjstork (137384)
            Most of the techniques used in modern programming like multitasking, compiling, unix and so on came from Universities

            Everything that is Unix ultimately came out of Bell Labs. Bell Labs gave us C and Unix and I think even sh. Before that, much multitasking and research in software development was lead by IBM, as, they were the reigning hardware company and had monopoly power. So really, all of the innovation which you describe came about because the big companies could afford to fund these lavish research
          • by dedazo (737510)

            I know a few...

            You better know *a lot* since that's what twitter claimed.

            Let's start with the algorithms that make up software programs, all of these are math and for free.

            Most of that predates Richard Stallman by far. Try again.

            Most commercial programs are derived from this base so GP is right in that claim.

            No, he's not, and neither are you. The basis for modern software was laid out by people working at universities and US government agencies in the 60s and 70s, mostly paid for by research grants

        • by Carewolf (581105)
          That's quite a sweeping statement. Since you're using it to back up your implied argument that free software is inherently superior, could you provide some examples of this?
          No it is inherently older. Back when the money was made on hardware, almost all software was open source.
      • by PHPfanboy (841183) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @03:56PM (#20686727)

        Making an "open source strategy" is silly. No one has an "EULA" planning session where they try to make general guidelines for what kind of non free screwing they will and won't take.

        Much as you might find it silly, many companies *are* doing it.

        If they are not going with "Zero Indemnification" policy of Microsoft, they need to know what sort of open source licenses they will use, what sort of support packages they feel their businesses need. An example: in the UK, Financial Services companies **must** have support contracts on all software which is not built in house, otherwise their auditors make them put money aside to insure against the risk. Should your company use GPL software or only BSD license? What if you make and sell software like System Integrators do and need to supply your own support agreements?

        I would love to call it silly and say no one is doing it, but when top Global companies are doing exactly this (I'm dealing with the people who are doing it on a daily basis), you're just ignorant.

        And as for saying that open source planning sessions are just to heap FUD on Open Source, you're plain wrong. Often we (open source companies) push for them to make sure customers do have a policy for how and where they use open source, otherwise they'll just take whatever Microsoft or Oracle push to them - nobody likes to change, it's a right pain. But we (open source companies and other interested/stakeholder individuals) need to push for these battles, because we win. I'll ignore your last paragraph which is just utter nonsense.

      • by masdog (794316)
        Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software.

        I thought it was the other way around - free software has its roots in creating free alternatives to non-free software.

        Forex:
        GIMP - Photoshop/PSP
        Scribus - Pagemaker/Indesign/Quark
        OpenOffice - MS Office/Star Office/Corel/Lotus/etc
        Linux - AT&T Unix
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jc42 (318812)
          > >Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software.

          >I thought it was the other way around - free software has its roots in creating free alternatives to non-free software.


          Actually, of course, it's both ways. But free -> private happens a lot more than private -> free, for fairly simple and obvious reasons. The non-free, private software owners generally don't let us see their source, so building on their achievements is difficult (and lawsuit-prone). The free, op
        • Interesting that you picked these. In particular, ATT Unix actually started out open source; That is ALL of the source was given out. They freely spread it around, which lead to BSD AND GPL licensing. It was only after the ATT breakup that it changed. Much of ATT Unix/Sys V owes it life to BSD. In addition, the entire underlieing architecture of the Internet itself was 100% open source. Continuing on, Mac OSX IS BSD API on top of MACH all of which was Open source.

          As to the specific apps mentioned, no good
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cfulmer (3166)
        There's a significant distinction, though. Not only is open source software available under a different license, it's also easy to get -- you don't have to go through purchasing to get open-source software; you just download it. As a result, companies sometimes find themselves using, and sometimes selling, open source software when they didn't intend to. It just gets added in by some engineer who doesn't think much of it. That's a lot harder to do that when the software has to be approved by some manage
        • A significant part of my law practice is advising clients about what they need to do to comply with a bunch of open source code that has, somehow, made its way into their software.

          So how many people really need to worry about this? I was under the impression that the vast majority of IT work is implementation that will never be distributed. That would make "Open Source" planning is mostly FUD.

          For the few companies that do need to consider the issue, things should be much easier than what they are us

  • by Selfbain (624722) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:28PM (#20683733)
    It's infectious, it's growing and all attempts to stop it have failed.... sounds like a virus to me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ttapper04 (955370)
      Just like any good idea. Open source just might be the right way to get the best product to the end user. If that proves to be true then nothing can stop it. Gallaleo was right, the Earth goes around the Sun, nothing could stop the idea. Of coarse this hinges on weather open source really is the best way. I do not have the answer to this.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        i bet those coarse hinges make a horrible squeaking noise.
      • by mpapet (761907)
        I agree the idea can't be stopped. But I think the unintended consequence is tons of copyright/distribution license violations or Tivoization.

        A business will use gpl'd libraries to avoid having to make their own and then pass the whole thing off as their own. From there, they've got an advertising budget so they can easily drown out the buzz from a community-based solutions.

        I know it happens in windows because some of the commands for a particular ssh server my employer was using were 1:1 openssl. I aske
        • by walt-sjc (145127)
          Openssh is BSD licensed, so there are no GPL concerns. They may be lying about the "clean-room implementation," but in the end it doesn't matter due to the fact that it is BSD licensed.
        • by init100 (915886)

          because some of the commands for a particular ssh server my employer was using were 1:1 openssl

          Despite their similar names, OpenSSH and OpenSSL are different projects. Or did you mean that the SSH server used OpenSSL?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by mcmire (1152897)
        You missed a semicolon. It should read "Of coarse this hinges on weather; open source really is the best way." Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
    • by Kelson (129150) * on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:45PM (#20684155) Homepage Journal
      --Dude, where've you been? I haven't been able to reach you for days!

      --I was in the hospital with (whispers) *Linux*. They wouldn't let me get online. They were afraid I'd install it on the computer. They even found it on my cellphone.

      --Man, that's harsh!

      --You're telling me! At least they put me in a room with Windows.
    • ass-emo-lated...

      (captcha: airbag)
  • 1. Say something provocative and be sure to mention open source.
    2. Post on slashdot.
    3. Sneak in something insightful.
    4. ???????
    5. Profit!!!1
    • by epedersen (863120)
      4. ??????? is put ands on the article.
    • by FatMacDaddy (878246) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:42PM (#20684069)
      This is the Gartner Group we're talking about. The only thing that amazes me is that anyone still pays them any attention at all. I still have some presentation materials around here somewhere where they warn that 30% of US businesses will fail due to Y2K problems.
      • by arun_s (877518) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @02:23PM (#20685025) Homepage Journal
        Heheh. I just did a search for 'site:slashdot.org gartner' and here are some weird analyses they've come up with in the past:
        Gartner Says Linux PCs Just Used To Pirate Windows [slashdot.org] (2004)
        Gartner Recommends Holding Onto The SCO Money [slashdot.org] (2003)
        (Sure they got some better ones too, I just picked the funnies)
        • The Gartner group is like any other company, they create material for the purpose of making profit. Their criteria for selecting topics are as follows:

          1. The topic must be topical and something people are extremely interested in
          2. It must be purely speculatory to make it impossible for anyone to dispute any information they manufacture.
          3. It must be loaded and contraversial.

          All the topics you've listed and this topic fall into those 3.

          Gartner reports are nearly always ridiculous in hindsight, they're ju
        • Sure Gartner is low-quality research, today I found some interesting comments on the Gartner report for a reform of the European Interoperability Framework. When you read the original Gartner report it is simply a mouthpiece of CompTIA's Hugo Lueders (a Microsoft proxy) and his "multiple standards" advocacy. Note that the European Interoperability Framework is the most advanced open standards promotion tool in public administration.

          So here Gartner is clearly a Microsoft proxy.

          http://gotze.eu/2007/07/gartne [gotze.eu]
  • Hard to avoid? I'm in the process of securing a restraining order as we speak.
  • Already here. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aladrin (926209) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:32PM (#20683813)
    The article says that some say that day is already here. I agree.

    Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well. (Meaning you can't test it on Mac, because then you'd be dealing with open source.)

    Now, try to have a successful business without the internet. Sure, it's possible on a small scale, but I can't name a single business I deal with that doesn't have at least a 'contact us' page on the internet with a phone number.

    And that doesn't even get into interacting with other companies that happily use open source in their daily functioning.
    • Re:Already here. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hackstraw (262471) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:44PM (#20684119)
      The article says that some say that day is already here. I agree.

      Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well.


      I could quote more, but I would bet that almost 100% of the sane people on the planet would agree with both the parent post and the linked article.

      I'm just confused as to the point of the article. This article seems as relevant as saying air in the Earth's atmosphere contains 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, 0.03 percent carbon dioxide, with trace gasses and this is impossible to avoid.

      Is there something I missed? Is open source a problem or something? I don't understand the point here.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by SpaceLifeForm (228190)
        The point is Gartner getting their name out there.

        Otherwise, they might as well be dead and useless.

        Oh, wait.

      • by jimicus (737525)
        Is there something I missed? Is open source a problem or something? I don't understand the point here.

        Gartner's company line for years was "Avoid open source, it's risky".

        That's changed slightly. Reading the article, it looks like they're now saying "It's still risky but you can't avoid it".
      • Of course the difference is that the atmospheric composition is known from reliable sources, with great accuracy, and is actually a useful thing to know. The claims in this article on the other hand...
      • I'm just confused as to the point of the article. This article seems as relevant as saying air in the Earth's atmosphere contains 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, 0.03 percent carbon dioxide, with trace gasses and this is impossible to avoid.

        To me it seems that Gartner published it for similar reasons that television news media has sports news. 90%+ of sports news isn't actually news, is irrelevant the day after it was broadcast, and a lot of it is just filler before it even air

    • Re:Already here. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kebes (861706) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:55PM (#20684387) Journal
      In addition to the domains where open-source is already firmly established (the Internet, as you mention, and many embedded device spaces, too), there are indeed many new domains where open-source is becoming more and more "necessary." Consider this (admittedly brief) writeup [phoronix.com] on a talk given by "Intel's Chief Linux and Open-Source Technologist." The writeup says:

      He also mentioned that a major OEM is requiring that by next year their hardware suppliers must either have an open-source driver available or be able to provide an open-source driver within the next twelve months. The likely company that comes to mind is Dell but Dirk refused to comment any further.
      If the speculation is correct (that Dell wants all hardware to have open-source drivers available within 12 months), that's a big deal. Such a push is an example of the benefits of open-source being pushed into a new market (in this case, the desktop commodity hardware space).
      • by EpsCylonB (307640)
        including 3D graphics drivers ?
  • Disease? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kelson (129150) * on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:37PM (#20683931) Homepage Journal

    After this lead-in, in which open source seems to be regarded as some kind of communicable disease

    Sir, you appear to be confusing "open source" with "open sores." I realize they sound similar, and English spelling isn't entirely logical, but this one ends with an "S" sound, not a "Z."

  • by BobMcD (601576) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:39PM (#20684011)
    Of course Open Source is a communicable disease. All freedom is. That's why they call it freedom, and that's also why those in control fear it so much.

    DUH!

    I fault YOU, dear comment submitter, for attaching a negative connotation to it. There's nothing wrong a viral idea, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that an idea is viral. There is something wrong with being ashamed of perfectly decent things.

    What this says, in my view, is that 80% of the developers that are, um, developing will see freedom as beneficial. And in my world, that ROCKS!
    • by arun_s (877518) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @02:51PM (#20685591) Homepage Journal

      There's nothing wrong a viral idea, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that an idea is viral.
      Your comment made me think of what first attracted me to the Free Software world. To any one who's discovered the elegant beauty of Darwin's evolutionary theory, there is an equal attractiveness in the way the GPL license is framed.
      The very fact that the GPL attaches itself to the code its released under, and survives into the downstream modifications that are made to the code.. there are beautiful resemblances to the way successful life itself evolves.
      I'm inclined to believe that licenses that are not viral (e.g. BSD) and depend on altruistic reasons to survive, are somehow doomed to extinction (i.e. will be swallowed by proprietary licenses that couldn't care less about perpetuating the BSD cause). In the long run, the GPL will emerge as the fitter license that made its way into the larger user base while retaining pefect copies of itself.
      (Of course I'm neither a biologist nor a programmer, so apologies if I sound like I'm talking outta my ass.)
      • by Braino420 (896819)

        (i.e. will be swallowed by proprietary licenses that couldn't care less about perpetuating the BSD cause)
        That is the BSD cause: free code to be used anywhere.
        • by init100 (915886)

          Except in projects licensed under the GPL.

        • by Bert64 (520050)
          Free code to be taken by a commercial entity, changed just enough to render it incompatible, and then sold back to you for a ridiculous price.
  • In other news (Score:2, Informative)

    by JackMeyhoff (1070484)
    security of your product and business is not possible via obscurity. This just in...
  • I guess that depends on that GPLv3 thingy...
  • by EricR86 (1144023) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:44PM (#20684131)

    By 2011, at least 80% of commercial software will contain significant amounts of open source code
    If these predictions are correct (which they probably aren't) how do these products stay "commercial"? If at least half of that Open Source software is GPL covered, then %40 of that commercial software will have to be open as well.
    • by Rycross (836649)
      Its entirely possible to make commercial GPL software. You can't really charge for the software (yeah yeah, I know Stallman *claims* that you can charge for GPL software, but the reality is that free copy and distribution drives the price of the software to $0), but you can charge for the services in writing or supporting the software, or provide other services for running the software (software is free, hardware costs cash, factor cost of software into the hardware).
      • by MrCrassic (994046)

        In all honesty, I would not be surprised if more companies went the way of distributing free (as in beer) components of their larger software. Quick examples I can think of are VMWare's server product and Adobe Photoshop's free fork.

      • by Bert64 (520050)
        I think a lot of people would pay good money for a hardware/software bundle which is built together as a cohesive whole...
        This removes driver problems, since the hardware configuration is known up front. Apple already do this, they sell bundles of standard x86 hardware running mostly open source code. There's also all the high end vendors who do the same, people like Sun and IBM etc.

        And don't forget appliances, most people don't want to build their own video recorder, manufacturers can save a lot of money a
    • by p0tat03 (985078)

      Open Source != GPL

      LGPL, BSD, etc, licenses exist also. Almost all of the commercial software I've ever programmed for had open source components, but the companies were always diligent enough to pick libraries that did not require open sourcing of the entire app.

    • by Orange Crush (934731) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @02:03PM (#20684573)

      If these predictions are correct (which they probably aren't) how do these products stay "commercial"?

      For mostly the same reasons I just bought lunch at the cafe downstairs. The salad I'm eating is fully "open source" and I have plenty of know-how and experience to make my own salads by growing the component vegetables in my garden and bring in my own lunches for little if any money.

      For my money, I get "ready to eat" convenience taking only a few minutes of my time and full product support--if it's not to my liking, I can take it back and get it fixed.

      Open Source != written by anti-commerce hippies. The software may be free, but there's plenty of money to be had providing and supporting solutions.

      • by davidsyes (765062)
        Watch the let us and the to-yu-fu.. You don't wanna get open sores...
      • by Braino420 (896819)
        Oh I like where this analogy is going, pretty soon the FSF will be boycotting Coca-Cola until they open-source their formula :)

        [flame]You are right, Open Source wasn't written by anti-commerce hippies, the GPL was. [/flame]
    • by seebs (15766)
      There's commercial efforts based on or working with open source right now.

      $DAYJOB for me these days is Wind River Linux. Yes, it's all GPLd. Yes, source is available. We are still offering something people are willing to pay for, and people continue to pay us money for stuff. It's clearly a commercial product; it's just a commercial product that happens to have a lot of GPL'd code in it.
    • Your math assumes that 50% of open source being GPL'd will carry over to the 80% of software, which it won't necessarily. Businesses who want to close their source will choose the code with less restrictive licenses, or they'll only link to LGPL code, etc.
    • by pembo13 (770295)
      Nothing about the GPL says you can't sell software
      • by walt-sjc (145127)
        In fact, Red Hat makes most of its money off of Enterprise Linux licenses while still being able to give away the source allowing Centos to exist.
    • by dilute (74234)
      Especially components. Why write a parser, for example (say, an XML parser), or get a budget for licensing one, when you can grab a FOSS one under a permissive license and dynamically link it as a library (hopefully without compromising your company's proprietary product)? This type of thing is happening all over. Already. So is corporate participation in open source projects, purely out of a self-interested economic calculation.
    • Open Source and Commercial are not intrinsically mutually exclusive. The opposite of Open Source (OS) is Proprietary, while the opposite of Commercial is Zero-Cost (0$, one of the meanings of "Free", but "Zero-Cost" resolves the ambiguity).

      Having said that, it is indeed difficult to make software both Open Source and Commercial, since the software recipients can then freely redistribute it. There are only two true ways I can think of:
      1. The market is so small or specialized that it would not be practical to
      • by init100 (915886)

        the opposite of Commercial is Zero-Cost

        I'd say that the opposite of commercial is non-commercial. Examples which (to me) are clearly commercial but still zero-cost are Internet Explorer and Adobe Acrobat Reader.

    • by bvankuik (203077)
      That's because some software has open source components that are not linked (as in linking as the last stage of compiling) with the closed source parts. Oracle for instance has distributed Apache for years. But the only thing they use it for is as a frontend for their Java application server.
    • by grcumb (781340)

      By 2011, at least 80% of commercial software will contain significant amounts of open source code

      If these predictions are correct (which they probably aren't) how do these products stay "commercial"? If at least half of that Open Source software is GPL covered, then %40 of that commercial software will have to be open as well.

      You seem to be confused about the meaning of 'commercial software'. It appears that you're actually referring to off-the-shelf software. The vast majority of commercial software is custom-developed for particular business needs, and is often never distributed. As long as it's never distributed, it's possible to integrate proprietary and GPL software without having to GPL the entire application.

      Gartner seems to think that kind of thing will become standard corporate procedure in the near future. I would

    • LGPL libraries. Plus, my suspicion is that that 80% is from a few particular open source projects. Usually, it is not a matter of taking an open source project an modifying it. It's mostly trying to find an open source library that can plug in to your application. (Like, for instance, Sqlite.)
  • What does DiDio say? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bogaboga (793279) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @02:05PM (#20684609)
    Isn't this the same Gartner that Laura DiDio worked for and suggested that Open Source software and especially Linux had no place in the then "today's world?" I guess things have changed a lot. But what does she say now? An slashdotter wants to know.
    • Gartner's "opinions" have always been, "pimp whatever we are selling and call it 'research'"
    • by init100 (915886)

      Isn't this the same Gartner that Laura DiDio worked for and suggested that Open Source software and especially Linux had no place in the then "today's world?"

      I guess that you are referring to this gem:

      The thing about Linux is, you can talk about a free, open operating system all you want, but you can't take that idea of free and open and put it into a capitalist system and maintain it as though it is some kind of hippie commune or ashram, because if you can do it like that, at that point I'm like, 'Pass the hookah please!'

      But no, she didn't work for Gartner, she worked for the Yankee Group.

  • Dear Slashdotters,

    Considering this recent revelation of the future from this prophet, we here at Microsoft want a piece of the action too. We have been dodging this bullet for too long. It's time to sink our teeth in and bite it.

    We have been holding secret negotiations with Torvalds and starting next year, the NT kernel will be scrapped in favor of the Linux kernel. Windows will cease to be an operating system. Instead, Microsoft will develop something to be known as "the Windows Desktop Environment", or
  • Shrink-wrapped commercial stuff like Word and Excel might be under threat, but there will always be jobs for people working on bespoke business projects. For example, I can't imagine an altruistic bunch of people getting together to write a special flight booking system for British Airways.
  • Why should I get out of the IT business? I don't make my money out of selling software but by charging hourly rates to write software for clients. Open Source will only lead to more possibilities and more work.

    Because software will more reliable and easier to get means that it will be used more and thus more clients will need my services.

    This is actually a Good Thing (TM).

    Y
  • (Sorry, this turns into a rant:) I wonder what percentage of readers -- 80% ? -- will not be in IT any longer by 2011, and what percentage will remember this prediction? If I'm not mistaken, Gartner is primarily a business to business research firm. If I was paying them dump trucks of money to say obvious things like this, I would question myself. I mean, by 2011 you know 80% of applications will use SAX or some open-source XML parser. Wondering if the report was bogus or not, I decided to break with tradit
    • (Sorry, this turns into a rant:)

      Well you could format your rant so it's easier to read, but it's an ok rant so you can be forgiven!! ;-)

      The Gartner guy actually describes the motives of IBM for supporting Linux. (Can he back this up with research? Does he have quotes from IBM management proving that his ascribed motive is correct?

      Unlikely, the more realistic motive is simply money. By replacing their file and print servers alone with linux they've slashed a significant amount of revenue going to M$. OSS

  • Personnaly, I welcome our waddling, flightless overlords.
  • Windows contains BSD-licenced software. It has been in there for more than 10 years now. Mac OS X has a BSD based kernel. The rest of today's OS is mostly open source or at least uses some BSD or GNU software.
    • by jc42 (318812)
      Actually, if you count installed copies of OSs, the overwhelming majority of them are open source. This is because the leader world wide, by a very wide margin, is the TRON real-time OS, which is installed in the majority of electronic devices manufactured in Asia. This OS started as a project at Tokyo University, led by Dr Ken Sakamura, and it was open source from the start. Of course, there are all sorts of proprietary packages added to it by various manufacturers. But as with linux, the core and the
  • Jut try to avoid TCP/IP in any IT camp. The BSD license is very hard to avoid. 80% is way too low a number. I know of a few cars, microwave ovens and other appliances without it.

There is hardly a thing in the world that some man can not make a little worse and sell a little cheaper.

Working...