Linux a "temporary phenomenon" 208
scenic
writes "A Washington "Think Tank" has a
report
complaining about the new "Assessing Microsoft"
conference. In particular, they have an issue with the
OSS remedy that many, including Nader and Love, have
proposed (i.e. opening up the Windows source code).
There is quite a bit of stuff concerning Linux (about a
quarter of the long article) and why OSS and Linux are
temporary phenomenons created by "media interest in
identifying a viable competitor to Microsoft." "
More argumentative zealotry (Score:1)
Talk about "it's different so I'm scared of it."
Now listen up, cause the same arguments play here as everywhere else. We're not talking about some idealistic hacker fantasy. This is the REAL WORLD. In the REAL WORLD people don't want to use a piece of software hacked together on the Internet. They *want* to know who they can call if something breaks. They don't care that Microsoft has been sued for flaws in their programs, because at least in their eyes, Microsoft always fixes them.
-r-
Fatal flaw in this argument... (Score:1)
This is one of the major basis of his arguments. Unfortunately, he doesn't understand that this statement is completely untrue in today's "free market". Just about every software license out there currently absolves the manufacturer of all responsibility for the use of the product, and in fact, any problems with the product itself. Basically, the author is trying to make an argument for accountability, and stating that the manufacturers of software are accountable, and that the OSS software authors are not.
Pull out this crutch holding up his arguments, and what does he have left? Nothing.
True, but irrelevant (Score:1)
But the story of the "pity date" which lead to true love is a cliche because it really occurs. And Linux, which first got coverage because of Microsoft's desparate attempts to prove it has competition (Apple doesn't count since MS invested $100 million).
Look at the facts. Linux started out as being reported as a competitor with no applications.
Then, finally, the media started picking up on Apache. Suddenly Linux might be a viable competitor, although a one-trick pony. (Read: still a sideshow of no weight.)
Now Samba is getting the same rave reviews. It's still not enough to kill MS in the server market, but it's suddenly no longer a foregone conclusion.
If history is any guide, by fall we should see a third application where OSS applications beat the tar out of the MS Windows equivalent. Once is a fluke, twice is a trend (which can easily reverse), but three times is inevitable. Expect to see incredible pressure from MS to upgrade to W2K (even though it doesn't come out until mere months before Y2K and any CIO who allows upgrades should be shot, not fired, at dawn) just so the media doesn't cover the next major application.
This article shows what the suits/bankers think. (Score:1)
read this article closely. This article provides
one of the best insights into suitthink that
I have ever come across.
The following are the points that struck me.
1) These guys don't WANT the internet to be
based on open protocols (can't make money on
a commodity).
2) Assorted governments around the world, various
research organizations and thousands
of individuals have spent billions of dollars
building up this entity called the world wide
web. This `think tank' has no problem with
a corporation assuming control of all the entry/exit points and reaping the rewards... as long as they can make some money.
Misinformed (Score:1)
How could anyone but a radical anarchist support a concept like "free software"? It may seem like a boon for consumers. But they should realize that a market totally free of prices is not likely to produce quality merchandise and will quickly collapse.
Guess its time to call the nice folks at Linux central at let them know that they don't have any software to sell.
Seriously, the author doesn't have enough of a grasp of the appeal of Linux (more than just techies) or the economics of commodity software (see Red Hat's presentation on the likening of packaged Linux to bottled water). I don't mind articles like this, since I think it'll only slow down the acceptance of Linux a bit and perhaps drive us to create more user friendly features to broaden the appeal.
I think my work place will finally start selling the Linux port of our software (done without permission of course), now if only they'd let me open the source code I could cut down on the support issues.
Resistance to change. (Score:2)
Free software represents the transition in the software industry from a product based industry to a service based industry. As you all know much of the industrialized world is in this transition as a whole, moving product based economies down to less developed nations. Software is also in this same transition.
Most software companies already realize that the most money is going to be made in support. In fact, whenever I complain to a jounalist about unfair or incorrect coverage, I usually receive a response along the lines of "You don't understand the real world. In the real world, support costs are higher than the software itself, so free software doesn't make a difference."
If this is true, then it would make sense that competition will flourish among companies providing support to free software, simply because more companies can acquire the intimate knowledge required to provide quality support. No longer will you have to go to the "vendor", who has a monopoly on support, but your choice among several. More companies means more competition which will mean higher quality and lower prices.
There is definitely going to be huge resistance to this change. Companies like Microsoft and Apple have so much invested in their proprietary architecture that unless they make major changes they risked being pushed to the wayside. However, given the size of their resource base, this is obviously going to take a long time. This is just the same as the transition of the economy as a whole.
I would imagine that this process could take upwards of 30 years or so. Obviously 30 years is a long time in the world of computers and the internet, so who knows what can happen in the mean time. However to call the free software a "temporary phenomenon" is just completely ridiculous. If anything proprietary software is the temporary phenomenon which took hold due to a certain confluence of factors. The transition to a service based industry is anything but temporary, nay, it is inevitble.
Info (Score:2)
Mr. Reilly forgot to incude his bio and email address with his article, so I'm posting them for your convenience:
Patrick Reilly, Research Associate and Editor, Foundation Watch, Organization Trends
PReilly@capitalresearch.org [mailto]
Before joining CRC in 1997, Reilly was the executive director of Citizens for Educational Freedom, a national school choice advocacy group. He has bachelor's degrees in print journalism and political science from Fordham University and a master's in public administration from American University.
Yes (Score:1)
FUD of the most clueless sort... (Score:2)
Man, I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry reading that article...
John Campbell, at Radical Anarchist Headquarters, signing off...
Translation of this article (Score:2)
"I'm a rich white guy. My father is a rich white guy, and his father was a rich white guy. Back in the day, life was good. We told people what they needed, why they needed it, and where to get it, and nobody argued. We kept as many people as possible under our thumbs, 'cause it kept them from getting uppity and upsetting our power base.
Now, you have people speaking up and making their own decisions and all kind of foolishness going on. Some have even gone so far as to think that they can become rich white guys. Is that what this country is founded on? Don't answer that. If you think too hard you might hurt yourself. Just listen to ol' Uncle Moneybags, and everything will be okay.
Tell you what. Make me a hundred shoes a day, and not only will I pay you enough to buy a pair someday, but when you do and then can't afford to eat I'll have some of my friends drop by with some food on holidays. Won't that be nice? Just listen to Uncle M and it'll all be okay. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."
Dogma (Score:1)
I must admit I skimmed over the ranting in the article... not even really getting to the Linux sections in great detail. It is familiar stuff, as joss points our (warmed over Heritage Foundation stuff).
The article really was hilarious though. They really did not want even their daftest readers (out of a daft bunch) to miss their ideological slant. The discussion of Nader, in particular, read like:
"The far leftist Ralph Nader advances leftist positions... oh, btw, did we mention that this is left-wing... and you DO understand that you are supposed to think left=bad, right?"
Yours, Lulu...
All I can say is (Score:1)
Good grief. *Nix has beed pronounced dead even
more often than OS2.
Maybe somebody needs to sharpen a stake...
Some kind of consistency (Score:2)
Most of us reject the idea that the Open Source model is a fad. As someone commented earlier, this "fad" has been going on for something close to thirty years. While it may not be a strict economic model (from their point of view), that doesn't mean that it can't survive in a market economy. A good example of this is Red Hat, who have found a way to sell Linux solutions to Linux newbies and business people.
To say that Linux can't survive in the market, and then to say that it is a viable competitor to Microsoft is contradictory. This article is not credible, simply because it has no consistency. Of course, it would help if the people who wrote the article had some understanding of the basic grammatical structure of English (did they never learn about apostrophes?), but that's a side issue.
I personally believe that Open Source is a viable model, but someone who wants to convince me otherwise should take the time to ensure that their arguements aren't mutually exclusive.
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
At least they've done some research (Score:1)
Anyway it seem as the conclusion is that the Free/Open Source Software community is nothing but a lefty/socialist/commie/anarchist conspiracy against Microsoft/capitalism/big corporations.
Check out the "About box" (Score:1)
drivel (Score:1)
Not conservative/free market economics (Score:2)
AT&T was quite good about it, for a while. (Score:1)
A new way to be attacked (Score:2)
(Now, I'll admit to a high correllation, but almost nothing is 1.0)
Dogma, but not Reagan (Score:2)
Reagan antitrust enforcement was heavily of the "if it benefits the consumer, it's not anti-competitive." But this line of anti-trust reasoning does not jibe with the arguments in the article.
These guys *defend* practices of exclusionary license, and keeping API information information secret as both legal and good.
The Reagan crowd sees cut-throat competion as good, and believe its benefits outweigh its consequences. You can debate whether they're right or not, but that's where they came from.
These guys explicitly support barriers that are repugnant to that view. You can debate whether microsoft engaged in these practices, or whether they *should* be legal, but current law says 'No', and and the economic analysis behind the Reagan policies screams, 'NO!!!'
hawk, esq., antitrust lawyer & economist
Dogma (Score:4)
Theie assertions are provided without any arguments based upon logic or facts. Example:
'How could anyone but a radical anarchist support a concept like "free software"? It may seem like a boon for consumers. But they should realize that a market totally free of prices is not likely to produce quality merchandise and will quickly collapse.'
Except the quality merchandise already exists and shows no signs of collapsing. So, what is the assertion based upon ? They seem to be saying
"The existence of free quality software is inconsistent with our theories --- therefore the world is obviously going to change so that the facts will become consistent with our beliefs"
A more rational group might reason as follows:
"The facts are inconsistent with our theories --- therefore there might be something wrong with our theories".
These people are TRUE BELIEVERS though, so they make assertions and back them with their beliefs
'But OSS has a fatal flaw: it is based on a false theory of production.'
What does this mean ? OSS will not work, and here's why - it won't work because it is based on a "false theory", and how do we know this theory is false - easy, it's different to our theories so it must be false.
These guy's should have worked for the Spanish inquisition. They've got the techniques down pat.
Vested Intrest in Linux (Score:1)
Linus wants to play with code.
RMS et al. want software to be free.
ESR et al. want better software.
Ralph Nader wants to get rid of the MS hedgemony.
Tim O'Reilly wants to sell books.
Red Hat et al want to sell support and services.
etc.
I think Linux is big enough to hold all of us. And I think we all can agree that making Linux better will help all of us.
If someone out there has an axe to grind with Nader hey, its a free country. But I wish they would at least read CatB or something first.
Quality & Standardisation. (Score:1)
Ahh, but there is more to a complete linux system than the kernel alone. The kernel itself is absolutely useless without other supporting programs like a shell at the very least. Witness the ``many different versions'' of distributions the linux community has come up with. This is confusing for end-users, and for developers alike.
More argumentative zealotry (Score:1)
A: people
or
B: living in the real world
If no one wan't to use software created on the internet why do more then 50% of webservers run Apache?
Why are there so many Windows shareware/freeware applications?
Ex-Nt-User
It all stems from paranoia... (Score:2)
Let's look at the arguments against OSS:
1: Law suits..
Q:Who do you sue if something breaks?
A: How many times has MS been sued for a "flaw" in their software?
2. If Proprietary software disapears people will stop inovatingm including the OSS hackers.
A: Why would hackers Stop hacking? the reason OSS exists isn't because proprietary software exists.. but because "hackers" exist. (And every day there is more of us)
3. With proprietary software gone all those coders will be out of jobs.
A: There is always a need for customization withing companies. Good programmers will NEVER be out of a job. (Unless someone can come up with an AI that can spit out code)
That's just a few arguments that are commonly used as scare tacticks. And they are all based on the "I'm scared of it so it can't be good" logic.
Ex-Nt-User
Very good point! (Score:1)
This whole article was a crock, anyway; it assumes MS is good for consumers ("They chose MS-Windows," instead of, "They don't even know they have a choice,") and that free software is trying to destroy the software industry.
The rest of their web-site is just as clueless; they advocate a return to "classical education," which is impossible. They suggest that anyone who quibbles with Unions are leftest commie pinko bolsheviks. They claim in one article that "consumer advocates" like Ralph Nader are owned by certain companies, and then admit (in this article) that they have no allegience to any company (with the implication that this is a Bad Thing).
Their thinking is constrained by pre-conception. They can get the facts right, but the interpretation of the facts are distorted through a warped fresnel lens of bias.
- Tony
CRC's Mission: (Score:2)
My favorite parts:
"Unix is a proprietary operating system intended to compete against Microsoft Windows"
I thought that originally Unix was distributed for free (source and all, with no support) because AT&T was prohibited from entering the OS market. Unfortunately for the folks at Capital Research, Unix had to wait several years before it could begin competing with Windows, because Windows didn't exist yet.
-----
If you go back and look at the article they are referring to GNU's Unix... Which I suspect they are referring to HURD.
As I recall the full sentence is more like...
"GNU's Unix which was developed to compete with Windows, proprietary Unices from Sun, HP, IBM and others..."
I'm curious how you expect to comment on something you haven't read properly?
Resistance to change. (Score:2)
Most software companies already realize that the most money is going to be made in support. In fact, whenever I complain to a jounalist about unfair or incorrect coverage, I usually receive a response along the lines of "You don't understand the real world. In the real world, support costs are higher than the software itself, so free software doesn't make a difference."
----
They're not talking about paid support for software, they're talking about all the support costs consumed by the business.
i.e. learning the app, installing the app on 2,000 desktops, answering questions from endusers, figuring out why it just broke, etc.
These aren't support costs which can be farmed out. Well they are in that consultants might fill those positions, but that consultant type is a generic desktop or server admin, not a product specialist.
Product specialists may be brought in for a week or two initially to help identify the best way to install and deploy an application, but that's about it.
There are other recurring costs going down the road... training, and data conversion if you have to switch products, or upgrade products.
That's a simplistic definition, but I hope you get the point. Maybe when you get to the Real World you'll have a better understanding.
If Linux were created by media interests... (Score:3)
2) Instead of a penguin, we'd have that dog from the Taco Bell commercials for a mascot
3) Tonight on Springer: vi/Emacs mixed marriages; can they survive? And a special segment: how to pronounce "Linux."
4) "We're sorry, this program is blacked out in your area" suddenly takes on a whole new meaning.
5) Al Gore would try to take credit over the Net for creating the media.
...anyone got any others? This one just begs for jokes to be made. Honestly, how clueless can this writer be?
Let's apply their logic to legal arguments (Score:3)
How could anyone but a radical anarchist support a concept like "free legal arguments"? It may seem like a boon for consumers. But they should realize that a market totally free of prices is not likely to produce quality legal arguments and will quickly collapse.
Actually, the "free legal arguments" movement is not opposed in theory to sale of legal services.... The word "free" refers not to price, but to the removal of restrictions on repeating, delivering, improving, and redelivering legal arguments once they are presented in court or otherwise obtained.
But OLA (Open Legal Arguments) has a fatal flaw: it is based on a false theory of production. For the sake of an imagined voluntary cooperative, OLA rejects free market competition and loses the market's distinct advantages to meet consumer needs with quality legal arguments and targeted marketing. By contrast, in a free market, identifiable lawyers own the arguments. They are responsible for their performance, and they can be held liable for inexcusable flaws.
OLA shows that Nader and his allies' "self-proclaimed consumer advocates" do not have in mind the best interests of consumers. His support for legal anarchism would deprive lawyers of their property rights and deprive consumers of standard, quality legal representation.
Pot. Kettle. Black. (Score:1)
> need when software is constantly evolving and
> there are no standard products that enable
> users to share compatible information?
Who else thought they were talking about Microsoft products (Office 95/97/2000/etc.) here?
Regards, Ralph.
OSS is *not* anti-market place (Score:1)
On the whole, this article had some great FUD. I'd give a three bull rating on a scale of zero to five bulls.
If Microsoft survives its antitrust case with the ability to continue to market its Windows operating system intact while holding on to the Windows source code, even Linux supporters acknowledge they cannot compete with Windows.
FUD. Linux was not developed to kill windows. Yet, it will. Side-effects are great sometimes.
I'm very weary of right wing conservitive marketing gurus whose mantra is "economic incentive drives software quality". This article is a reiteration of this demonstrably untrue assertion. IBM? Microsoft? Apple? Have these wealthy companies produced superior quality software(at least, consistently)? Do the customers benefit from having someone to direct their complaints to? I think not. If you have been on tech support calls with commercial vendors, I think you'll agree that a single entity responsible for bug fixes doesn't get problems solved.
Another assertion this article makes is that OSS companies will become victims of pirating(please explain how you steal free software). RedHat doesn't seem to be too concerned about Cheapbytes and frankly they shouldn't be.
His support for cyber-anarchism would deprive companies of their property rights and deprive consumers of standard, quality software.
Software is not a commodity. Let's all say it together.
Software is not a commodity.
There. I feel better, don't you?
Service and the ability to adapt and extend software *is* a commodity. Pay for that. The day large vendors fully appreciate this will be the day they devote more time to software stability rather then finding new ways to bag pirates [microsoft.com].
Sell the eggs. Let the goose go.
The Ivory Tower's blindness (Score:2)
reenforces what I have experienced in my own life, of late, the isolation of
the ivory tower. The authors in this essay base their opinions on the fate of
the OSS movement on equaly idealistic principles that are no more realistic
than the "ideals" they claim are the OSS's Achiles heel. For example:
But OSS has a fatal flaw: it is based on a false theory of production. For the
sake of an imagined voluntary cooperative, OSS rejects free market competition
and loses the market's distinct advantages to meet consumer needs with quality
products and targeted marketing. In a free market, identifiable manufacturers
own the product. They are responsible for product performance, and they can be
held liable for inexcusable flaws.
Since when has Microsoft ever been held responsible for thier product flaws?
What about Mellisa, for example? What about the Blue Screen of Death?
How can they get away with charging $89 for their bug fix to Win98 (aka
Windows 98 Service Release 2)? There has been no sense of responsibility shown
by proprietary software manufacturers, nor has any such responsibility been
forced on them.
OSS advocates also claim software distributors can make money by distributing
software free of charge, while providing support services and instructional
materials for a fee. This half-hearted accommodation of private ownership
suffers the same flaws. It assumes that companies can survive by offering
support for nonstandard software that is found in many forms.
Hardly a valid asssumption. Ever look at the prices companies charge for
tech support? If your out of warranty/grace period, don't count on spending
anything less than $25 for any question you might have. I imagine the
coorporate accounts are even juicier.
Unix is a proprietary operating system intended to compete against
Microsoft Windows; originally OSS, later versions of Unix were made proprietary
by Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard and other companies.
It would be nice if these people at least got their facts straight. UNIX is
originally an OS developed by Bell Labs, unless I'm mistaken, over thrity years
ago. That predates the very inception of Mircosoft. Perhaps we have, of late,
been talking of UNIX unseating the Windows monopoly, but that's only using the
tools that existed before the prophanity known as DOS was even written.
Linux is a good example of how Microsoft's competitors have attempted to
exploit the open source concept. It was created in 1991 by Linus Torvalds, a
student at the University of Helsinki, who wanted to improve upon Unix and
distribute an OSS operating system free of charge.
Hmm...from what I knew of the matter, Linus wrote it to have his *own*
UNIX. Good god, the idea of one person thinking they could improve upon UNIX
from scratch is ludicruous. Besides, how does one "improve" upon something so
complex and diverse? UNIX is so vast and nebulous in its nature. Is it the
kernel, the tools, the filesystem, the drivers, or the paradigm? (This was a
rhetorical question, not a real one
Linux is building a following among computer users who have sufficient
technical knowledge to take advantage of the source code. That, of course, is an
important limitation of OSS: it appeals primarily to those who have an interest
in tinkering with programs.
Microsoft must love it when non-affiliates engage in their Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt tactics. Anyone ever heard of Redhat? Or maybe about
upcoming distributions such as the Corel one which is targeted at ease of use?
(No distribution wars, please
Windows operating system intact while holding on to the Windows source
code, even Linux supporters acknowledge they cannot compete with Windows.
I have yet to meet or speak online to a Linux/*BSD user who truly feels that
way about the matter. I'm sure there are those out there who feel this way,
but I don't care for the authors' painting this as a community-wide opinion.
Besides Linux, the only other OSS developments that have found much
success are the products of Microsoft's competitor Netscape.
What? Pardon me, I guess the *BSD's, StarOffice, KDE, and Gnome products
are no good and never used. It's bad enough when academics use assumptions,
but they could at least do the research right.
In the end, the facts and assumptions of this essay are unfounded, erroneous,
or just plain wrong. I'm a great fan of captialism, it goes hand-in-hand with
democracy. Yet I believe it was Winston Churchil who said, "Democracy is a
terrible form of government...but it is better than all the rest."
Likewise, Capitalism is a terrible form for an economy...but it is better than
all the rest.
The assumption that free-markets will always provide the best product is
easily disproven in cases not involving software. Take Beta vs. VHS. Though
this may be arguable, from what I understand, Beta was better technology, hence
better for the consumer, yet VHS won the war. How about Mac vs. IBM? I'm no
Mac fan, I hate Apple's proprietary nature, but consider that the GUI, which is
usefull to non-techies, was in a product on sale for six years before an
IBM-compatible machine equilvalent (ie, Windows) was developed. Granted,
Windows is a nasty OS, but it is the fact that IBM maintained dominant market
share for six years, becoming the standard for hardware to the present day,
while a better way for the every-day user to operate his or her machine existed.
I don't worry much about this article, though. It's nothing more than the
unfounded drivel of academics who live their lives in a vacuum. They may have
their theories, which have some foundation, but in the end, the proof is in the
pudding. As companies learn of the stability of Linux and the BSD's when they
migrate servers from NT and Gnome and KDE make the desktop a more realistic possibility
for them, then Windows will start to lose corporate marketshare to the *NIX's.
When Joe User's company switches over, he'll have no choice but to get the
same for home, thus nibbling away at the Windows home user market. Game
manufacturers will see the marketshare start to shift, and code for Linux.
Within five years, we may live in a completely different landscape than we do
now, and the DOJ trial will seem humorous and irrelavent.
Some kind of consistency (Score:1)
> It can't be both.
Sure it can. Just look at Windows. :-)
Lots of Capital, little Research (Score:3)
They just keep missing the point.
Free Software is NOT about "Ralph Nader's Agenda" (whatever that may be.) Nor is it about "Competing with Microsoft."
Free Software is about software - and in a broader sense technology - returning back to the public grounds. Technology should not remain locked up in the safehouses of the few who have (money- or knowledgewise), but instead should flourish in the common culture.
Openness of the Stuff that programs (or technology in general) are made of is a prerequisite and the best guarantee for a continued interaction between development and use of programs (technology) in our human culture.
Locking up knowledge is a dead end for humanity.
The Gartners, Brownses and the rest of the FUD slinging professional truth-mongers just don't see this. Maybe they don't like to, clinging as they do to their business of selling you the truth, in a handsome report.
But lets focus on the contents of this "Trend Analysis"
Once again, a "report" appears to be humming the well-known FUD theme "who are you going to sue?"
I'd like to see these "consultants" for once to come up with some detailed cases of customers sueing software vendors for buggy software. In any case, I've never heard of any substantial case.
For example, did anyone ever successfully sue Microsoft for the bugs in their software?
These incredible dimwitted reports are really starting to annoy me, because they are so flagrantly untrue and disrespective of the plain facts of reality.
With Free Software, the question is not "who are you going to call if things break", the question is "who are you NOT going to call if things break."
With Free Software, you can call virtually any skilled software engineer to fix your programs, because the code is available.
This might even be far cheaper than stumbling in the dark to pinpoint the cause of problems, losing time and money on the phone with your vendor's (clueless) "tech"-support drones, losing even more time argueing with the vendor about who's to blame and finally paying premium for a "custom" solution from your vendor, costing a multiple of the original (buggy) software.
A Bit Hypocritical at Best (Score:1)
information is free.
the only question is:
Just because you're paranoid (Score:1)
You be the judge...
Cygnus (Score:1)
YES (Score:1)
Here's a quote:
"Unfortunately, while Microsoft's donations of technology are favorable to the industry, many of the nonprofits that receive Microsoft grants are liberal advocacy groups that are bad for business. These include the ACLU, Humane Society, League of Women Voters, NAACP, National Organization for Women, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, National PTA and Planned Parenthood. The Capital Research Center is the only known conservative organization receiving support at this time, although Microsoft has indicated interest in broadening its support for free-market advocates."
So it appears that MS is supporting a group that opposes women, the environment, minorities, and helpless puppies ;-).
Look mom, No more AC! (Score:1)
I agree even though it really sucks. But I think that there is even more suckiness: My company has "standardized" on Lotus Notes and it is the worst piece of software I've ever used -- literally. When we had a "town hall" meeting with our CIO he even agreed that it totally sucks and has given our company nothing but problems. We won't change though (though we're thinking about it -- please God) because of the cost in doing so. For me, personally, switching is a non-issue. For a company that has to think about training it's a different story that I'm not quite savvy enough to grasp yet.
I disagree. I think Microsoft would absolutely love to destroy all traces of sendmail and replace it with some software that they own running some protocol that they own. And in the long run, when you can tax every packet that moves on your proprietary internet, that is extremely cost effective. I think that the real reason that Microsoft dropped the ball on the Internet is because they were compeletely focused on making MSN the next big thing. MSN ran on software that they owned. The reason why the license for NT Workstation is so restrictive compared to NT Server is because Microsoft wants to force you to buy IIS (IIS, like Internet Explorer, is NOT free). That's one more web server that Microsoft owns every time a person "upgrades" to NT Server.
How do you know? You give no support to this statement despite the evidence that OSS / free software continues to grow in popularity. Personally I believe that free software will continue to grow in popularity as more and more people become educated in using and programming computers. And I think that will happen primarily because of the popularity of the Internet. Why should I be compelled to buy someone's software when there is a greater and greater chance as time goes on that someone has written an equally good product and is giving it away?
How do you define an "Actual User"? I think there are many reasons why someone chooses software. I think most people use Microsoft out of ignorance, because of the lack of applications on other operating systems, out of force (try and buy a laptop without a Microsoft OS preinstalled on it that you are forced to pay for), or becuase their company makes them do it. I fall in to the last category as my work forces me to use Win95 even though I do most of my work in xterms running from HP-(S)UX boxes running on (expensive) Exceed. At home I have 3 Linux boxes and one BeOS box. Interesting that the BeOS cost me $70 while the Linux installations for the other three computers cost me $2 (CheapBytes). Right now I have found much more support for the Linux OS than for BeOS.
And what is your definition of "support"? In business-like discussions I often hear people say that they wouldn't want a business to use any free OS because they want to have the comfort of knowing they can "sue" the software manufacturer if it breaks. When was the last time a company ever sued Microsoft because their software was buggy? I remember Bill Gates stating "There are no bugs in our software." He, personally, has one hundred billion dollars to back that statement up in court.
Linux Hip cause of Hype (Score:1)
Actually, I think it is. About 18 months ago, I was at a party with a bunch of my tech-type friends, telling them that Linux was gaining the critical mass needed to really compete on the OS arena. In that time span, features have been added, and packages have matured that have given Linux capabilities it didn't have before. Those capabilities make it much more usable as both a network server and a user desktop. What is even better is that the more usable Linux is, the more people want to use it, and mor importantly the more people contribute system stuff or applications. The train goes down the track that much faster. Hype does not create applications, but enough applications DO create hype.
Eric Geyer
well linux maybe but not OSS (Score:2)
Linux maybe a temporary phenomenon that is getting a lot of press because it is a real competitor to Microsoft. But I doubt the whole concept of OSS is temporary. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and applications like Apache prove that OSS success is not hardly limited to Linux. I hope we can educate writers in the future to distinguish between OSS and Linux.
-Weld
Very good point! (Score:1)
The article didn't talk about incompatible splintering but simply forking. BSD has forked many times, and the BSD networking code even more. The BSD license sort of encourages this by allowing the creation of proprietary versions whose source cannot be folded back into a mainstream version.
they support altruism?! (Score:1)
OSS was absolutely revolting. OSS is responsible for the internet -
from tcp/ip implementations to the software that makes www.microsoft.com
resolve to the software that makes http://www.microsoft.com display
on your screen. over twenty years people invested their time,
their creativity, and sometimes their money into creating the net.
now companies like microsoft are deliberately making their software
incompatable with everyone elses in order to get more market share;
locking people and companies out; and slowing overall creativity
and innovation around the world.
and you support that?
if you're a friend of charities and a supporter of altruism i'm
honestly frightened to know what the enemies of them are like.
I agree to everything except one point. (Score:1)
Sorry about that I had to get that out. It's a point not often made and you know us philosophers we have to throw a few wrenches into the works and hopefully get people thinking before it's to late in the visions of tomarrow we see.
sorry about flow... (Score:1)
Written Like a true lawyer. (Score:1)
A) Lawyer.
b) A person that does not understand software development.
c) Believes that the main reason that Open Software exists is; as ONLY a response MS.
d) has a political aggenda not related to software in general.
e) Not comprehending that, Linux is a cultural statment, not a political one first.
That said; Now on to my political statements.
I wonder what f**** rock they crawled out of, and they should go back re-read there own Conservative pseudo-intellectual manafesto's, EG Ann Rand's Fountain head.
Custom fixes do (or did) exist (Score:1)
OK. I hate to admit it, but I used to support M$ Access for the evil empire itself. I can tell you that we DID give custom fixes for people's problems, although sometimes it had to be done without the management's knowledge or consent. (Not all of the time, though...) And I also know for a fact that the SQL guys often did custom fixes, sometimes going to the customer site. This was three years ago, though...
moral equivalence? (Score:1)
Temporary (Score:1)
The author mentions that Unix was once open, but then proprietary versions were made by Sun and HP. It doesn't say that this was at any particlar time though so there could be some confusion.
If Linux were created by media interests... (Score:1)
6) Every useless consumer product in the world would have xlock 'plugins' instead of Windows screensavers
7) Perl Quick reference cards on cereal boxes
8) Cartoon series about a group of animals thatsolve crimes and share the source
9) No one make, let alone attend movies like Hackers except perhaps as an openning feature to The Rocky Horror Picture show.
10) WebTV? What's that?
11) MSN would refer only to 'Minnesota Sports Network'
12) Ralph Nader would be testing cars, etc
13) Future Shop / CompUSA / Radio Shack / etc. employees would have to officially not know linux in addition to officially not knowing Windows.
14) And if Linux were created by the media, it'd likely suck.
All things in moderation (Score:1)
The media has created a major buzz about this OS and the "Open Source Movement". As a result the market is giving Linux and OSS a much harder look than it probbaly would have at this time. The last phrase is the most important: at this time. Sure, Linux might have caught on a few years down the road without the push the media has given it lately, but at least then it would have been ready.
All this media attention is forcing things. In short, Linux is not ready for the mainstream commercial world. It'll continue to be used on some web servers and inter-company file servers and whatnot, but it is not ready to make the populace at large happy. While basic installation is getting easy (as long as you have all supported hardware), that is about where the ride will end for the large majority of people trying this out. X can still be a major pain in the ass to setup (no average joe is going to pour through the XF86Config file and tweak it manually or have much luck in finding the right server for his card). Getting email working can be trying, unless one used Netscape's mail abilities. And there isn't too much idiot proofing in the OS as a whole, and we all know that with media hyping comes a whole bunch of people who don't think for themselves and aren't really all that interested in learning how to (both central requirements for a successful Linux installation, I'd say).
The market isn't ready yet. More specifically, Linux isn't ready to go to market (we have to cater to them, they aren't going to be forgiving of us).
All things in moderation (Score:1)
All the other point I made were similar in that they were problems encountered in the recent install I did. Again, I'm not a newbie, I've been installing Linux for better than 4 years now and have been into computers for more than 14 now.
My simple point is this. Linux is at least an annoyance to setup right now (based on my experience with Slackware and RH, I'm guessing the other distro's are also). At most it is daunting and very difficult to setup. Things are getting better, and they will continue to. But it seems clear to me that if people are going to have to put up with installing an OS in the first place, they are going to pick something that has current wide range support and is the least likely to piss them off (Windows installation is generally quite easy, done in 30 minutes as compared to an hour or more for a linux installation).
Just because my statements presented here are somewhat "anti-linux" doesn't mean I'm some Windows drone or that they are FUD statements.
Thank you! (Score:1)
BTW, I ended my message with the following inscription:
--A proud member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
That oughta confuse 'em a little bit! ;-)
They're philanthropic... (Score:1)
But anyway, I have to disagree that their facts are basically right. Free Software *won't* remove stuff from the shelves. Free Software has *nothing* to do with Ralph Nader. Programmers who are interested in Free Software aren't driven by desire to make profit. *That* is why they come to incorrect conclusions. I don't care if MS or anyone else makes buggy proprietary software. I don't care if MS or any other corporation makes a lot of money. That's fine with me. However, I'll be using Linux. ;-)
ROFL! (Score:1)
That's great! I'll have to add it to my list of quotations!
Weird Niche Apps (Score:1)
BTW, you're right about Free Software being a good example of free market competition. I mean, when a *community* can produce a product to compete against corporations, something has to be right.
Another bandwagon jumper (Score:1)
IMO, the whole site should have been ignored!!!
Think Tank not informed?? (Score:3)
To say that it is only temporary is to show a complete disregard for the history of the internet, nay, computers at large.
--
no kidding (Score:1)
hmm..... lousy formatting ... sorry (Score:1)
I wish I had a paper copy... (Score:1)
Frightening how? Frightening to whom? Afraid
of what?
That all this FUD will keep something like Linux
or GCC from gaining widespread acceptance? That
millions of people will not adopt public software
out of fear, or willingness to be controlled?
It isn't news. We already won. The revolution
these pundits are hoping to forestall, already
happened a few years ago. Unless somebody
develops a time machine (one that goes *backwards*)
there isn't much to worry about.
The free software is out there. Whether the
mainstream commercial world can deal with it is
irrelevant. Whether linux kills microsoft is
totally irrelevant.
They did not stop the public software from being
released, and whether or not we use it, and whether or not
industry X adopts it, and whether or not there is widespread
acceptance of it...
Was irrelevant... But guess what?
It already HAPPENED.
So what exactly is the "F" in "FUD?"
Translation of this article (Score:1)
Nothing succeeds like success. (Score:1)
Microsoft has never faced anything like the Linux (and the entire FSF/OSS) movement before.
Excellent software that gives people creative freedom. More and more new developers are going to learn Linux because it's a hell of a lot more fun than Windows and Visual Basic.
Imminent Death Of Free Software Predicted (Score:1)
load a crap... (Score:2)
When will these people see that Microsoft is NOT the centre of the universe?
On the other hand it took a long time for them to understand the world wasn't flat.
Interesting question (Score:1)
I think that the answer to this question determines (somewhat) the credibility of the often-made claim that "open/free software has been running the Net for decades."
All things in moderation (Score:3)
One distinction that should be made I think is that demand for linux is not fueled by its open-source nature. Demand is fueled by the fact that it is a very inexpensive way to get a solid unix-like OS on to commodity hardware. Most users couldn't even tell you what path the source code is in.
Temporary (Score:1)
There will always be free software. People will produce it because of varying reasons, philosophical beliefs, just for fun, they wrote it but don't want to support it, etc, but there may not always be the "buzz" associated with it that there is now.
Washington "Think Tank" (Score:1)
Why Linux will dominate (Score:1)
It just occurred to me (or re-occurred to me--as reading my own source code (and clever comments therein) reveals, there's no telling what great ideas I might have had in the past but forgotten) how right this is, and how we know it's right--we have the current bizarrely pro-Microsoft IT departments of today as proof-of-concept. As has been pointed out on many occasion, the people in those positions are probably almost all former dosophiles, and therefore have a biological need to validate all that "expertise" they developed by forcing their platform onto everyone in their company.
When the current crop gets out there, they'll probably have the same attitude about Linux, forcing it onto the next generation of the technologically underclued and/or politically underpowered. I guess if I'm going to be beaten with a stick, that's a much better stick to be beaten with.
And hey maybe the open culture will make their dictatorships benevolent. Maybe they won't just replace:
"we don't support Macs. We've standardized on Microsoft."
with
"we don't support Macs. We only allow open source solutions."
Hell, I can dream.
I know, I'm late in having this epiphany, but you know how it is--you have an idea you think is cool, you have to share it with millions of people that are already tired of it.
Nice trick (Score:1)
Essentially, the article tries to psychoanalyze Nader's reasons for going after Microsoft. Here, they identify "open source", and "free software" as the ideological stance that Nader is purusing, and then go on to try to discredit "open source" and "free software" concepts. At the end of their article, they state, very curtly and without any previous justificiation of their statements, that Microsoft is right and Nader is wrong. In short, their argument has nothing to do with their conclusion.
The point here isn't wether or not the OSS concept is bad or good, but wether Microsoft has been a fair competitor in the "market". The article never mentions technical superiority, but bases it's arguments on the assumption that most people prefer Microsoft software over OSS, and declares that as a failing of the OSS paradigm. In making these arguments, it ignores a key point:
The OSS community does not spend millions in advertising their products, while Microsoft is shameless in it's plight to assure customers that they are actually getting something of value forthe $97 they pay for the latest upgrade of their software.
Consumers do not make choices in a vacuum, but in an environment pervased with advertisement and promotion.
Furthermore, they do not even try to refute Nader's accusations of predatory licence practices, and simply make a reference to "property rights", and expect their argument to be fulfilled. Microsoft's licencing practices have created an environment where the average person cannot easily come in contact with alternative products. How can a person decide if he or she wants to use Linux or BeOS or BSD if he/she does not even know it exists?
This article is essentially a bypass of the real issues put forth by Nader and the DOJ. They make an unsuccessful feint of the arguments made against Microsoft.
-Laxative
Another reason for opening Windows.. (Score:1)
Noncompetetive? What candyland are they living in (Score:2)
Perhaps these thinktanks should do research outside what they read on USA Today, and take a look at the community which they are trying to assess, instead of accepting third-hand accounts.
More blanks in the "fatal flaw" theory (Score:2)
OSS rejects free market competition.
What free market is Patrick talking about? Isn't free choice a "free market". Where in OSS does it force users to use particular software? IMHO, free market means free choice. Therefore, I can use any OSS software I feel is necessary and apply it to my needs. For proprietary software, is there a "free market"? I say yes; I can coose any software that comes closest to my budget and needs. However, I would not be free to have any software to my specifics needs. Therefore, I don't understand Patrick's conclusion that "...OSS rejects free market competition and loses the market's distinct advantages to meet consumer needs with quality products and targeted marketing". There is no "distinct advantage" any where in proprietary software in meeting consumer needs.
[Manufacturers] are responsible for product performance, and they can be held liable for inexcusable flaws.
I have not seen any examples of this. Who has ever sued Microsoft over "inexcusable flaws"? I don't see this argument as being a fatal flaw either. How can a company like Microsoft ever meet consumer needs with such a diverse group? OSS seams to fit that better, in that anyone can modify the source to fit the real needs of a consumer. So not everyone is a "hacker". Support can fit this role very nicely. If I don't want an in-house software group, I can hire a support company. They can modify the source as they see fit. If I dislike their service, I can go to another support provider and keep the software (and the ex-support company can too for that matter) and not loose in a long adjustment period. To me, this is flexibility which is not a fatal flaw rather the Golden Egg.
I only read half the article and got bored with it. If I contradict the author in my context, please post them!
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Fatal flaw in this argument... (Score:1)
And how many companies are willing to even spend the money to take a vendor to court? Damned few as far as I can tell. I've never seen one case get any significant exposure in the press that dealt with software of the type that we'd buy at the local computer store. In fact, the only case that I recall concerned Arthur Andersen who was being sued by a fairly good sized firm over a custom software implementation (and the only reason, I suspect, that I saw that in the news was that it was a local, i.e. Chicago-based, company).
Q: Why did the software industry recently spend so much time and effort lobbying Congress to remove the few teeth that shrinkwrapped licenses had if they weren't going to stand up in court?
A: Um... They didn't want us to have any teeth?
Really great if you happen to be one of their larger clients. I have worked for companies large and small and don't have memories of a vendor that really cared if they lost our business or not. Just how big to you have to be in order for a company the size of Microsoft to care about losing your business?
BTW, I am currently working for a large, industry-leading, multinational, multi-$G healthcare company that cannot get any cooperation from one of the leading database vendors. What actions do I see from them or some company like MS that would make me believe that they really gave a whit about us as customer? Would I expect MS to bend over backwards if we decided to abandon MS Office? Perhaps, but the cynic in me thinks that'd happen only after word of it got into the trade press. And then, it wouldn't be because they were worried that we through the SW was buggy; it'd be because some regional manager was worried he'd be out the door if he lost the customer (more likely the customer's $$$).
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for making money. I expect I'll be getting that business started on the side in the next year and I won't be doing it to lose money. My feeling is: If a large company can't get satisfaction when dealing with software vendors, what makes you think that mine or the other hundreds of thousands of small businesses are going to get anywhere?
The Ivory Tower's blindness (Score:1)
Maybe it's just me (having spent some years working for a University) but:
and
seemed inappropriate comments in relation to the Capital Research article. I've always liked to think that the ``ivory tower'' was where the real ``academics'' (i.e., University professors and other real researchers) worked. Not where independently funded political hacks spouted whatever their funders wanted said. I doubt that a lot of ``research'' went into the anti-OSS diatribe in the article.
The Capital Research author lost me when he had to use ``left'' or ``leftist'' and ``nonprofit'' three, four, or five times in the article. Was this guy paranoid or something? Reminds me of the old film clips of the McCarthy hearings. (``Oh! Look at this guys! This Linus Torvalds fellow is from Finland and that's right next door to them God-less communists! This Linux stuff must be some sort of pinko plot to destroy our economy!'')
And I knew that there wasn't going to be much of substance in the remainder of the article when he attempted to trash John Barlow because he once wrote lyrics for the Grateful Dead. (``These Linux anarchists are all hippies! John Barlow opposes our beloved Internet decency regulations! Lock up your daughters!'')
I'm guessing that the funding for this group comes from the same software vendors that lobbied against stronger consumer protection in software products.
Are these people on something? (Score:1)
If Linux were created by media interests... (Score:1)
Hey! Don't mess with that Taco Bell dog. He might look wimpy, but he'll kick your ass!
Viva Gorditas!
Later,
Blake.
--
I speak for PCDocs
The nice thing is that we can just ignore them (Score:1)
Just imagine what the state of open source software will be in 10 years. Projects such as Gnome and KDE will be either extremely mature, or superceeded by better technology.
Articles like this can be safely ignored.
Windows is 30 years old? (Score:1)
Unix is a proprietary operating system intended to compete against Microsoft Windows; originally OSS, later versions of Unix were made proprietary by Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard and other companies.
Imagine my surprise when I learned that Windose has been around for over 30 years. I stopped reading at this point, as the author(s) lost all credibilty.
Different environments (Score:1)
For the past 30 years, linux has been relegated to a "non-consumer" status. In other words, it may have been used widely, but only within certain types of environments. Most of them were probably technical or academic in nature.
Today we're talking about the entire software user base, which is a completely different animal, and comes with a completely different set of needs and expectations. The article does a very good job addressing the issues related to free software in the consumer arena, and the logic used to support the notion of a "temporary phenomenon" seems quite plausible.
Linux itself, as well as some of the currently well-known applications (the gimp, for example), probably won't fade from existence any time soon. Free software is fine - so long as the means to support it exist. Right now, this isn't a problem. But if you take the whole of the commercial software industry and try to convert it to the "free software" paradigm, I think we're going to have one HUGE, unworkable mess on our hands.
Temporary (Score:1)
Sheesh! Hit these guys with a clue stick...
Quality & Standardisation. (Score:1)
The authors of this document have clearly not studied HOW OSS actually works in real life, they have just listened to a few people to learn the jargon and made up their own story based on their own (wrong) assumptions. Whoever paid them for this report should ask for their money back.
More argumentative zealotry (Score:1)
Pop Quiz: Name 3 users who have had a non-trivial problem with any Microsoft product and have received useful help from Microsoft.
I worked for Ford of Europe as a desktop support specialist and we never received any meaningful help from Microsoft - Their helpline hardly ever answered and when it did you got through to someone who only knew how to log your problem or advise you to re-install the OS. We eventually gave up completely and used to post queries on Compuserve- we never got a 'fix' from Microsoft. I don't beleive ANYONE has ever got a custom fix from Microsoft.
In the real world people would rather have software that works. Of course people "*want* to know who they can call if something breaks" but few commercial organisations can offer this because they only have 1 or 2 people that know about the technicalities of any specific area.
Estimating the intelligence of the American people (Score:1)
they should realize that a market totally free of prices is not likely to produce quality merchandise and will quickly collapse.
Right-wing thinking at its finest: Vague, logically incoherent and factually unsupported generalizations, "proving" that consistently obvserved phenomena do not exist. What that statement really means is, "The people who fund us are making a lot of money by selling inferior products for high prices. Please keep buying those products. If you just keep paying more and more money, the Market Fairy will make the bugs go away. Thank you."
. . . the market's distinct advantages to meet consumer needs with . . . targeted marketing.
Just like the man said: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Lemme tellya, targeted marketing sure meets my needs!
-j
"ruling techno-elite"?! (Score:1)
the ruling techno-elite of the future, I mean the people who will head up IT departments and be making all of the real decisions,
Will they be making decisions about anything other than IT? If not, they're not "ruling" very much. Yes, all the corner-office spuds will have computers on their desks; and, yes, they will need IT to make those computers do anything useful. In that sense they'll be (are now, in fact) dependent on IT people -- just like they're dependent on farmers and HVAC repairmen, neither of whom constitude a "ruling techno-elite".
There is life outside the server room. Quite a lot of it, in fact. The world is run by suits. It's a galling and depressing fact, but I doubt that it will change any time soon. The problem is that the qualities necessary to gain, keep, and wield power are fundamentally suitish qualities. If they weren't suits, they wouldn't be in the corner office. They wouldn't know how to get there, and they wouldn't want to be there badly enough to go through the hassles anyway. Okay, Julius Caesar wasn't a suit -- but how long did he last? After the dust settled, Augustus was in charge, and he stayed in power for decades. Augustus, not by chance, was a suit.
-j
It's weirder than that. (Score:1)
How do consumers identify the products they need when software is constantly evolving and there are no standard products that enable users to share compatible information?
When you really look at it carefully, the "constantly evolving" situation he's so afraid of is a competitive free market. He's claiming that choices are bad for consumers -- because if they have choices, then they will have to choose.
There's also a bizarre, unstated, and unquestioned assumption underlying much of the essay: That products from different different developers must necessarily be incompatible with each other. It's on that assumption that the above statement rests. He thinks -- or is at least being paid to claim -- that if there are multiple word processors available, then nobody will be able to share files.
Another level down, the underlying assumptions are underlain (?!
-j
Check out the "About box" (Score:1)
Democrats and republicans have about as much in common with that particular type of gutter slime as most developers have in common with marketing.
-Samrobb
predictable political agenda (Score:4)
- Only the desire to maximize profits drives people; since Linux doesn't make any profits, it must be shoddy.
- Windows is popular and exists in a free market, therefore it must represent consumer preferences accurately.
- The value of a product is measured by how much people are paying for it; because Linux is free, it doesn't have any economic value.
- Any information, creative or incidental, automatically represents a property right, so requiring companies to disclose their APIs amounts to "deprivation of property rights".
There is more, but that let that suffice. (I'm reminded of Dilbert's comment that he likes circular reasoning because it leaves no loose ends.)A careful economic analysis of these issues needs to take into account, among many others, notions of public goods, cooperation, non-monetary economic goods, opportunity costs, and multi-attribute utility.
One of the most blatant problems with Reilly's ideas (and it is representative of a particular political agenda, not sound economics) is that it incorrectly describes human behavior in a quite fundamental way. It should be obvious to most people who have spent any amount of time at top research and development labs that it isn't profit that drives top quality researchers and developers (but, I suppose given that Reilly works at a conservative Washington think tank, that lack of experience is understandable).
In fact, one of the reasons for the low quality of Microsoft products is that their development seems primarily driven by short term profit considerations rather than an interest in quality. This actually seems quite reminiscent of the US auto industry, which produced large, inefficient cars and ran into serious problems when nimble, small, cheap Japanese and European cars became available. The analogy to Microsoft and OSS should be fairly obvious.
Reilly's piece is full of misrepresentations and factual mistakes. It's not worth expending time on analyzing them all, becaue the most fundamental blunder he makes is that he thinks that OSS is an alternative to the free market.
Far from it: OSS succeeds because of the free market. That has nothing to do with a short-term desire of harming Microsoft (a kind of "software dumping"?), but because it makes long term sense for individuals and companies to cooperate on operating system development. It's free market economics at its best.
People like Reilly like to assume the mantle of "free market economics" and "conservatism", but they really just represent economic interests that want to avoid free market competition as much as possible. Ensuring a functioning free market requires that the market is governed by orderly rules and regulations; otherwise, we would have social Darwinism and anarchy. Given the economics of software development, I'm sure an orderly free market is all OSS requires for its long-term success; at least OSS is up for the challenge.
And for consumers who actually like Microsoft software, I don't think he has to be concerned: OSS and Microsoft will live side-by-side, hopefully with dozens of other choices, as is proper and desirable in a free market.
How good about it was AT&T (Score:3)
Free market, morons and other stuff (Score:3)
A. Long term viability. Lets face it, the current boom is a fad masking over a long-lasting tradition. But this fad is bringing in valuable support. In the public eye, Linux will fail if it falls back to being a geek toy, sure, it can continue on indefinetly in that manner, but the public doesn't care about that. They only care if it affects them. Maintaining a broader user base, and Linux is heading for now, is important for Linux to become something other than a server OS (I think the classic FSF model works fine for server), but the variety of software needed for desktop software by nature demands wider support, and this support comes from users. Assuming one wants Linux to become a desktop platform in addition to a server platform, maintanence of this broaduer user and vendor base is necessary,and at this point, as this support depends largely on hype, a long-term solution is needed. (note: contrary to many, hype isn't all bad, I think it helps reach a large amount of geek-inclined, tinkers or idealists who other wise would never of heard of this. Their not the tradational linux users, but hey, the more the merrier.
B. There is a slight contridiction in stateing that software should be free, than stating that it is ok to make money through support, education and the like. When one thinks about this, it means that software is only free to those who don't need support, IE geeks (most of the time). There is a dicotomy that needs to be resolved between "free" code and the ability to make money...the current model just doesn't hack it, the free except for other things...either its free or it isn't. I personally would like to see a case where all vital tools are available oss, ie, OS, server tools, office suite, web browser, and the like, whereas more eclectic things may remain proprietory, such as games, weird niche apps, whatever. Propriatory software does have a place, we just need to remove the issue of its closedness from being a barrier to new entries who may not be able to afford the cost of propriatory software, such as kids, new companies and organizations, people in underdeveloped areas and the like. This would level the playing field, but still allow for commercial activity.
On a completely random note, I think that contrary to these people, OSS is a perfect example of a free market. The notion of a free market implies that there are many providers and customers are free to give their support (i.e. usually money) to the one that they feel is best. Theoretically, this leads to the best product winning, which we all know is not true. We do not and have not for some time lived in a free market economy, we live in a oligopoly, where a few large providers are able to control the market. This is not free market, the average consumer is not forced to decide between competing products, and the best product does not always, or even ever, win. OSS brings this back, replacing the resource exchange of money with the exhance of ideas, support and the like. Yeah, its messy, thats the way the free market was intended to be. Current defenders of the free-market are defending something that, on a large scale, died long ago and are acting as intellectual pimps for companies.
whew.....getting off of soapbox now.
Brian
BTW: I know of analytical firms/thinktanks that take oss very seriously, its just the better ones don't make alot of hype or follow hype. Their view of OSS's future seems to be positive, though not leading to world domination.
Bonehead Report (Score:2)
Last I heard, Mr. Nader was not a leader in the free software or OSS movement. He isn't pro-OSS, he's anti-MS. Big difference. The premise of this article is that if Nader approves it, it must be wrong. Gee! If Nader approves of drinking orange juice for breakfast, would he write a report on how the citrus industry is socialist?
Free software is the PROOF of free market economics. OSS isn't the equivalent of a bunch of hippies living in a collective commune. It's making software economics behave like every other product economics.
From the surface, this site looks like a pro-business conservative think tank, but I think it's really a shill for the neo-fascists and populists.
Ed Muth in disguise. (Score:2)
If Open Source is a "temporary phenomenon", then so is the internet.
For a far more eloquent rebuttal to exactly this kind of thinking, click here. [netrinsics.com]
Dogma (Score:2)
They describe the problem with Free software being when thousands of products are built under it and they are all evolving then the market will be chaotic for the consumer and then colapse. The market already functions in those conditions and consumers do fine, it sounds like they are supporting the idea of a big monopoly and one company with control of each particular industry. Heaven forbid that MS has competition and consumers have to choose which products they buy... I wonder how all those car buyers work it out, I mean, there must be 150 different makes and models to choose from but they all some how end up owning a car.
I'd also like to know who their sources are that said Linux can't compete with MS if they win the anti-trust case. All of the big free software king-pins don't seem to even care what happens with MS. It seems really trivial to me, we have more workers, more tallent and motivation. We can out code MS any day of the week. That leaves the market with a situation where all we need to do is provide what MS provides to have every economic edge because our product is free. If that was our goal, we would be there in no time. Instead we've raised the benchmark so we are providing more than MS (stability, choice, better looking, more function, easier to use (it's comming along...)) How can we not compete with MS? They can out market us and they've got a lot of pull with important people and companies but if CRC believes in Adam Smith as much as they act like they do then it's a NOP, GNU/Linux and Free Software will win as long as there are people willing to write it. For a company, excuse me, a foundation, that is supposed to study philanthropy and non-profit organaizations they seem to discount it an awful lot, especially considering the people who are doing it aren't just doing it for the cause but because they love to do it.
That might be the only fad, the number of people willing to write it, but I've seen too much to believe that.
And here are a couple more comments on exceprts. (Score:2)
Wants to say "far from likely" but decides the more honest "far from certain" will probably align the same way in the readers mind.
The key is "premature" no? since when was planning ahead of time for a possible contingency considered the "encouragement of premature discussion"?
Really, now. Are we to believe that a "market totally free...will quickly collapse" is some kind of economic axiom?
We couldn't get anyone on record to say outright "I am opposed to software sales under all circumstances," so we'll just say that "in theory" this isn't what these loonies believe, it's precisely what they believe "in practice." Throw in the word "idealist" for extra fright.
Right. We made it up and I'm presently doing some "imagined" stuff with "imagined" software that happens to include some fantasy items like Perl, and Apache and GNU tools, and (why should I even go on?)
When's the last time this guy read a MS EUL agreement?
The real clincher. You will have to constantly attend to upgrades, possibly become dependent on something that becomes outdated and in all circumstances, your collegues will not be able to read your documents because the information will not be compatible. Yes, this is a problem when you use, for example, microsoft Word to write your documents.
Sorry, but I just can't bear to continue.
Why Linux will not go away. (Score:2)
In the long term, Linux is destined to rule all operating systems. Why? Because the ruling techno-elite of the future, I mean the people who will head up IT departments and be making all of the real decisions, are all Linux enthusiasts today. The Comp. Sci. majors running Linux and *BSD boxen in their dorm rooms today will be dominating the industry tomorrow.
So, Linux is not a short term phenomina. In the very least, it is the future of a long and glorious UNIX tradition; at most, it is the future of the Opreating System.
Fatal flaw in this argument... (Score:2)
I absolutely agree; proprietary shops will bend over backwards to solve a big customer's problem. I think that OSS supporters will bend even further.
First, get one thing clear. If you're a small outfit, or a home user, you can get your support from USENET and similar sources. If you're doing serious work with OSS and can't afford to have it down for a long time, you must have support. You either have a support department in-house that understands the software, or you have a support contract with an outside entity. If you fail to do this, you deserve to lose. Linux General's Warning: This Is Not Free Beer. If you buy Linux so that you can pay nothing, you will fail.
That being said, and assuming that you actually buy a support contract, an OSS support organization will bend over backwards to solve the big customer's problems just like a proprietary vendor would. The OSS support team will bend over further because you can hire another organization, or do it yourself. The proprietary house has some control because it has the source code; if you want to change support organizations, you have to purchase and deploy new software. If your OSS support team fails you, you can use the same software and a get a new team; your users may never know.
At least they've done some research (Score:2)
Simply beFUDdling (Score:2)
In other words, they like to portray Linux users as black sheep; rebellious teenagers with nose rings and leather jackets, thumbing their collective noses at Bill Gates, taunting "Neener, neener! We're not using Windows!" And while it is true that there are people who use Linux for exactly this reason, from my experience this is not what drives the average Linux user.
People like Linux because of what it gives them, not because of what it takes them away from. The Redmond-centrists who believe that the industry revolves around Microsoft will probably never be convinced of this, but on the other hand, who cares? Microsoft is a lot less relevant to the growth and success of Linux than a lot of Slashdotters seem to think.
He also writes:
What this individual doesn't get (and, indeed, what just about every opponent of OSS doesn't get) is that the fact that a piece of software is free is not enough to guarantee it widespread acceptance and success. Sure, it doesn't hurt, but anybody who attributes the success of Linux solely to the fact that it's free is woefully incorrect. It almost seems as if they are completely unwilling to accept that a piece of free software can be fundamentally better than a piece of commercial software. "Don't listen to people who tell you about its supposed quality!" shouts the OSS detractor. "They're just using it because it's free!"
Complete nonsense, of course.
In fact, Linux is succeeding in many places in spite of the fact that it's free! Case in point: I work for a large corporation where we are currently in the process of migrating a series of NT workstations to Linux. The process that we had to go through to get this done was long and arduous, and most of the opposition was due to the fact that the management types simply didn't trust a "free" operating system. For us, the fact that Linux is free really doesn't matter; in any medium- to large-sized shop, the amount of money spent on desktop operating systems is miniscule compared to the buckets spent on server iron and large-scale software. We had to fight to convince them that the "free" Linux would be a better choice than the commercial Solaris x86. In the end, I'm happy to report that we won.
The bottom line is that a piece of software, be it a rinky-dink application or an operating system, will only succeed and be accepted on a large scale if it is fundamentally better than its competition, and unless the numbers are particularly extravagant, price isn't a very big consideration (in corporate markets, anyway.) If somebody comes up with a better solution, people will use it
Sorry about the length.