The Riches of Open Source 693
Daniel Dvorkin writes "This BusinessWeek article argues convincingly that Linus Torvalds has more resources at his disposal than Bill Gates. Not only is it a nice overview of Why Open Source Really Matters pitched to a non-technical audience, but it makes a solid argument in favor of OSS in general and Linux in particular, from a solidly capitalist perspective."
Branding, PHP, ASP (Score:5, Insightful)
How many people love ASP? I'm guessing not as many as those who really do love PHP or Perl.
You see that because we can all work together to make our products better, the global knowledge is shared and improved upon. Years ago, way before computers, we all had a similar thing to open source. It was called learning and we all did it together. Scholars spent their lives enriching the world with their findings, to better humanity.
Open source is in this same spirit, for mutual benefit based on recognition of participation, not branding, per se. Microsoft spends millions on branding, on marketing, packaging and distrobution. They could easily make loads more money if they focused instead on a model closer to the Open Source model. Who knows, maybe they are counting on it in the future, but likely they are not. Likely Microsoft is going to keep selling us the same regurgitated products they do every year, with new packaging and more "updates". I for one, will keep supporting Open Office [openoffice.org].
I don't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you honestly believe that? Look, I would LOVE to see MS adopt a more open model, but that is because I know how much it would benefit me, and the rest of the tech community, not because I believe for a minute that it would actually be better for Microsoft. Do you really think they would have 90% market share with open source products? Of course not. They got where they are by not sharing the pie with anyone. If they opened up, others would take what they have done and run with it. People would release 100% compatible versions of Windows, Office, IIS, etc that were more secure with less bug fixes, and Microsoft would have to work harder, spend more money in development and QA, and still end up with less of the market, thus less money. For that matter why would anyone buy XP if Windows NT 4 was still under active development by an open source community that made it just as modern and up to date? Would all this be good for the rest of the world? Yes. Would it make MS "loads more money"? Absolutely not.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would anyone buy Quake 3 if Quake 1 was still under active development by an open source community that made it just as modern and up to date?
There have been many projects based on the GPLed code of Quake 1, like Quake Tenebrae [sourceforge.net] which adds graphical capabilities that surpass Quake 3 and are nearly on par with Doom 3. Yet people still buy new games. Maybe it's an unfair comparison, since the single-player gameplay of Quake 1 is different than that of Quake 3, but then again the multiplayer can be extremely similar.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
It adds very nice lighting and texturing, but nothing more. The gameplay and modelling is still old and clunky.
Bill doesn't (Score:4, Interesting)
That will be true when Bill is willing to GPL his software. Until then, Bill is relegated to software that is free (as in do whatever you want with it), as opposed to Free (as in RMS).
So I'd say that the bulk of what is referred to as Open Source is quite inaccessible to Bill. And as for benefits to Bill through competition, no way. Bill doesn't benefit by making windows better - he benefits by selling more copies of windows. If linux were not around, he could sell more copies of windows with less effort put into improvements.
I think Bill would be hard-pressed to find anything about the Open/Free/free software movement that he likes.
Re:Branding, PHP, ASP (Score:5, Insightful)
I got bored and stopped reading your post after the first few paragraphs, but I don't think the article addressed the notion of monopoly so much as it did the benefits of open knowledge maintained on a pride-based, volunteer basis. The article was really geared toward contemplating the strength and power of non-monetary motivations, leading the reader to think about the corresponding societal implcations of such alternative forms of motivation to do work.
Re:Branding, PHP, ASP (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I think that is the best of all possible worlds -- but the current rules of traditional capitalism, with every bit of IP that might possibly being useful to anyone locked away behind patents and copyrights and NDA's and t
Re:Branding, PHP, ASP (Score:3, Interesting)
You say this yet go on to act like Linux isn't a free market. The definition of a free market is "An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions."
Linux isn't regulated, you can go several places to buy
Re:Branding, PHP, ASP (Score:3, Insightful)
Gates altruistically "gave" the world ie to destroy a serious rival Netscape. Altruism in business is generally a sign of ulterior motives.
But that's not a case of altruism having ulterior motives. It's a case of an act being mislabeled (by you) as altruism when it's not. I.E. was not given away for free, any more than COMMAND.EXE was given away for free, or the control panel was given away for free. It's cost was rolled into the blanket cost of buying the OS, just like all the other bits it came wit
Re:Branding, PHP, ASP (Score:3, Interesting)
Open Source != Altruism (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that attributing all work done on open source software to altruism is a mistake. Certainly there are many people working on open source projects because they want to contribute to the world, but most of the people that I know working on open source projects do so because they need to write software to get a job done, and it's more efficient for people with the same problem to write one common piece of software than each to write the
Re:grave misconceptions (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to people paying electric and water bills that have gone through the roof in deregulated markets. Or people who live downwind of hog farms. Or people who drink water tainted by rusting computer parts.
The free market doesn't always produce the optimal outcome.
Re:grave misconceptions (Score:3, Funny)
I see you haven't learned the fundamental trick of libertarianism: Take whatever result the market gives you, and define that result as "optimal".
For example, "tainted ground water" is an optimal result, because it minimized cleanup costs for the computer parts manufacturer, and it creates a new market opportunity for selling bottled water to everyone. See, the system works!
You're uninformed (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds like Rothbard, from your description, is describing laws that marketize environmental protection. This has failed before, and it will fail in the future. Who files a tort, when the victim and his relatives are all dead? And, who sets the value of compensation for polluted air?
Also, sending out a link to a page that refers to "Liberal petulance" in the first paragraph i
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Branding, PHP, ASP (Score:3, Funny)
It's a wonderful life (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a wonderful life (Score:2)
Not when you include bought friends.
Of course, people who live in the power broker worlds of mega corporations and the revolutionary avant guard don't really have "friends." They have the people they are using and the people who are using them.
Re:It's a wonderful life (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's a wonderful life (Score:5, Funny)
Nope. I have first hand accounts that Bill Gates is a pariah at parties and social events. He mostly sits in the corner alone because nobody will talk to him.
Re:Who give more? (Score:3, Informative)
Why don't you open your eyes. Get a new perspective of what's really going on [guerrillanews.com]
Re:Who give more? (Score:3, Insightful)
People are free to speculate when they're basing their conclusions on relatively sound facts and logic. There are disinformation agents out there. For example, I saw one site claiming that because we have the technology to take pictures from space at high
Re:Who give more? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who give more? (Score:3, Informative)
Considering Gates is responsible for BILLIONS of dollars going toward schools, scholarships, charitible work, health care improvements, etc, I highly doubt that.
Well, I would say that the marketing has worked on you. If you look at many of Gates' earlier statements, he doesn't believe in charitable giving or inheritance (or religon for that matter). But, all of these aren't very pallitable for the American populace. Gates' believes that everyone should be self made, and build their own wealth by th
Re:Who give more? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that, when you look past the first paragraph, you always seem to find the Bill Gates isn't actually giving anyone those dollars.
Most often, he is giving software, and the value is the "full retail price", i.e., it's a fake price. And he only gives out the first version; you have to pay for upgrades and transfers to new machines. So it's really just a dea
Re:Who give more? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who give more? (Score:4, Insightful)
When I hear about what a great philanthopist Gates is, it makes me think of the story in the bible about the poor woman who essentially gives her last cent to charity vs. the wealthy who give many times more. The question is, who really gives more? The person who gives out of their need, or the person who gives out of their excess?
And, BTW, from where did that excess come?
Re:Who give more? (Score:4, Interesting)
and how much of his wealth did he give away before the anti-trust trials, which dragged him kicking and screaming into the public spotlight?
he's gotten WAY more visibly "generous" since recognizing how politically important it is to be viewed as a nice guy by the rabble. i still can't stomach that picture of gates personally administering polio vaccine to an african child, with that big, fake goony smile spread across is face for the cameras.
And, BTW, from where did that excess come?
exactly - from predatory business practices that crush competition and extort huge sums of money from businesses - large, medium, and small - across the globe.
Re:Who give more? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the book: Big Blue - IBM's Use and Abuse of Power.
This trick of giving lots of money to charities is something IBM figured out in about 1918 or thereabout. That book is quite a lesson on monopoly behavior, and it is amazing how well it describes Microsoft's behavior.
Of course he has more resources... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course he has more resources... (Score:3, Insightful)
While he does have a company of developers, there's nothing that prevents Microsoft from integrating OpenSource solutions into their software. I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening, and they're just not broadcasting that fact to the world.
Re:Of course he has more resources... (Score:2)
Slavery is illegal, so... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slavery is illegal, so... (Score:2)
Though for the programmers actually getting paid for their work, Advantage: Programmers...
Re:Slavery is illegal, so... (Score:2)
Re:Slavery is illegal, so... (Score:5, Funny)
Advantage: furious masturbator
Re:Slavery is illegal, so... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Slavery is illegal, so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the freeloaders get something from Open Source, because taking stuff does not diminish the pot. It takes only relatively few contributors, or a few more people willing to give a little, to keep the pot growing.
I've contributed a little to the OSS movement (a bug fix to Audacity, some freely available code for AVR microcontrollers), and I am sure I will contribute some more in the future. But there's no way that, as an individual, I could have written a whol
Re:Slavery is illegal, so... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to be overly negative, but... Bill Gates pays people to work for him. When there's some ugly, tedious piece of code that has to be written in order to complete some piece of functionality, it gets written. When there's a necessary piece of documentation that needs to be finished, Bill doesn't hope for volunteers. In some commercial settings, advantage: Bill.
Re:Slavery is illegal, so... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I write a kernel patch that imroves speed by a factor of at least 2% on every CPU, and I submit it, I will benefit because every server that I access will be more responsive.
We can download at least 2% more pr0n on a daily basis. We all win!
LK
Trial and error? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. On that basis Outlook Express would be the best e-mail client on the planet. Hell, the thing's been broken for over a decade now.
Actually (Score:2)
Re:Trial and error? (Score:5, Insightful)
you can't understand something until you have broken it.
Ah, grasshopper, you do not yet have full understanding: breaking alone is not sufficient. There must also be a desire to keep it from breaking again.
If all you care about is making work long enough to sucker Joe Average into buying it, well . . .
Re:Trial and error? (Score:3, Insightful)
Linus is my Shepherd (Score:5, Funny)
I have little to add to that... it's just a great line. Beware of getting fleeced by SCO.
why... (Score:3, Interesting)
Finally someone ther has enough sense and not just a MBA degree.
Seriously if common sense would prevail in IT industry over marketing hype and FUD, ...Oh the possibilities.
Re:why... (Score:2)
http://www.invisibleheart.com/Iheart/Contact.ht
Ask VS Order (Score:5, Interesting)
Linus can ASK the world to do something, but if they don't like the way he's thinking, they won't do it. Linus controls the world as long as the world likes the orders. So in a sense he's just a way to focus the desires of the majority of developers.
Gates on the other hand can ORDER everyone in his employ to jump around and shout "I'm a little idiot!" and they'll have to do it wether they like it or not. Thats a huge difference. Gates has the world as his playground.
Re:Ask VS Order (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bloated? (Score:3, Informative)
Are you a troll, or are you truely that ignorant?
1 fucking gigabyte just for the OS? That's obscene.
On my system:
XFree: 78Mb
KDE3 w/ libraries: 45M or so
base OS, with all your various GNU tools: 45M or so.
Even if you round up, that's only 180M for a modern operating system. And that's roughly as many things as you'll get for a full install of windows.
Tack on another 110M for OpenOffice. You're still nowhere near 1G. Though you're fairly close to how much space windows took up 5 years ago!
The
Re:Ask VS Order (Score:2)
... only if they really are little idiots. Or is that what he said to get Ballmer to do his monkeyboy routine?
link to various formats of dancemonkeyboy (avi, mpeg, etc) [ntk.net]
The simple truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The simple truth... (Score:3, Interesting)
At first, this seems like a terrible waste of effort - except th
Crashes Galeon (Score:2)
Probably something to do with the flash plugins or some such nonesense.
what about GNU (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, let the flaming and zealot-naming begin, but what I'm saying is just true.
Re:what about GNU (Score:5, Insightful)
After some comments a week or so ago about Stallman not being a good public speaker, I decided to listen to his speeches [gnu.org] and hear for myself. I admit that I too have had a sort of "get over yourself" attitude about him - but I'm realizing as I listen to what he has to say, that I developed this by listening to others who have that attitude, rather than listening to RMS. I won't say I don't have any of that attitude left, but I will say that I think he raises some very provacative issues in his speeches. When he talks about the history of the project, I can also understand why he desires some credit for his and his group's efforts. He did afterall, quit a nice cushy job on principle - I've never done that, I think most people haven't. I respect that "put your money where your mouth is" level of conviction.
Anyway, I don't know that I concurr with all he says, but I do have a lot more respect for him after listening to his talks for a few hours. And incidently, while he may not sparkle like a movie star, his presentations are good. And that is how it should be - they are informative works rather than works of entertainment.
Torvalds "must" do things (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see Linus doing that kind of thing. Does he, personally, motivate a damn thing? It's not like I studied the history of this "movement", but didn't he basically just toss the infant OS out there for whomever to use in whatever way?
Maybe I'm reading too much into it...
Yes. He does. (Score:5, Insightful)
Like Taoist philosophy.. a great leader leads without leading, a great ruler rules without ruling...
Linus does not necessarily view himself as a manager or leader, but he IS ONE, regardless, and a very highly successful one at that.
The OSS movement focuses on Linus as a centerpiece, a leader, whether he wants them to or not... When Linus speaks, people listen.. and very few actually disagree with him, at least openly.
Anti-Linux peple will say "Oh, you have this one guy who runs the kernel like a tyrant.. what if what he does doesn't match up with what big business wants?".. well, he's been doing alright for a decade, regardless of what his motives are, you can't argue that.
that's more than we can say for a great many guys with MBAs running billion dollar companies.
Linus coordinates more people in a really loose environment, and produces a heck of a product... go figure.
Yes, I realize it's not all his grand plan, but he is the focal point, the leader.
Re:Torvalds "must" do things (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see Linus doing that kind of thing. Does he, personally, motivate a damn thing? It's not like I studied the history of this "movement", but didn't he basically just toss the infant OS out there for whomever to use in whatever way?
I think Linus, personally, does a *lot* of motivation, and is largely responsible for the success of his baby, even though at this point he's only personally written a small fraction of the code. It's largely his laid-back style, sense of humor, focus on excellence and excellent geek management and motivation skills that have made Linux the phenomenon it is. I mean, have you ever thought about just how remarkable it is that he's still the man "in charge"?
Now that Linux has grown up to become worth billions and is a major focus of the largest computer companies in the world, wouldn't you expect that the Finnish CS student that hacked the first version for his own entertainment and enlightenment would be replaced by someone (or several someones) more "senior"? I would have expected that he would be "retired" to a sort of Linux elder statesman and historical figure, but that did not happen.
The reason it hasn't happened is because Linus is really good. He's a top-notch programmer who really excels at making code tight, clean and clear; he's shown himself to be an excellent manager in the weird sort of way required by open source projects; and he's got excellent geek interpersonal skills. Sure, he pisses people off from time to time, but not often, and no one seems to get really mad at him. Given his prominence, isn't it amazing that there aren't any big "I hate Linus" sites? (unlike RMS or ESR, to name two).
Consider also the fact that not only has Linux not forked, there have never really been any serious attempts at a fork. Sure there are bunches of parallel trees, each maintained by different people, but all of them regard Linus' tree as "official" and use it as their base.
Linus' approach to motivation is very laid back, but it's real. Mostly it consists of a combination of gentle encouragement to newbies first trying their hand at kernel hacking; ruthless aggressiveness in refusing patches that don't meet his standards and goals, regardless of who they come from; and a very strong ability to placate people and defuse situations via logical arguments and (often humorous) analogies, without giving in. Regardless of precisely how he does it, he's very good at it, as evidenced both by the growth of Linux and his still-central place within the movement.
alternative to windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:alternative to windows? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the original goal of the free software movement was more like creating an alternative to Unix. At that time I think Windows wasn't even an option. Today you have to compete with Microsoft whether you like it or not. Why? Because Microsoft is putting obstacles in the way of all your development. A lot of Hardware and software is only tested with Windows. Some hardware manufactors only provide Windows drivers, and documentation only to closed source developers. A lot of people try to produce data that can only be read by Windows programs. This is how the world looks today, Microsoft has way too much power already, that is the only reason they can get away with the crap they provide. It is something you simply have to fight, because Microsoft is directly or indirectly responsible for a lot of your problems with Linux, whether you like it or not.
Re:alternative to windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
Given a Different Sabre To Rattle.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't wait until the GPL is held in that politically charged light.
T.
Altruism vs Profit motive. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Altruism vs Profit motive. (Score:3, Informative)
Can't comment on earlier versions...
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact is that while open source does offer the potential of having a very vast number of developers owrking on a project or multiple projects, the reality is that few developers actually participate. Combine this with the fact that they are driven to participate based on their interest or itch and we end up with a fine kernel, a few great apps and an abundance of mp3 players.
The potential is there for Linus to have more resources than Bill Gates but, the reality is that Linus has no where near the resources of Bill Gates.
Asymmetries in Development (Score:3, Insightful)
The author pulls some sleight-of-word here, lumping two quite different groups together. There are certainly "millions who use Linux" but there are far fewer who "tinker with it", a claim supported by looking at the difference between the number of downloads or users with the number of patch submitters or CVS commit privilege holders. This disparity is a natural one; few people have the skill,
What if the dragon is slain (Score:3, Interesting)
Obligatory mantra to Torvalds (Score:5, Funny)
Hallowed be thy skillz
Thy kernel comes, in the US and all the earth
Give us this day our daily updates.
And forgive us our holes, as we apply thine patch.
And lead us not into closed source, but deliver us from Microsoft.
For thine is the kernel, the skillz, and the leetness for ever and ever. Amen.
Missing resources (Score:2)
More ability to use resources+fewer hassles (Score:5, Insightful)
The kind of extreme wealth Bill Gates has also brings some serious hassles. Gates can't travel anyplace without security measures--and even with those security measures, a suicide bomber in a station wagon full of fertilizer and diesel fuel could take him out at any time. Anyone that has to think about this sort of stuff-or hire people to think about this sort of stuff has a problem.
Gates, to his credit, at least seems to have some old friends(some prominent Silicon Valley executives don't). Still, I honestly suspect that if money were suddenly worthless (say due to a major economic collapse or EMP of the financial system), Linus would be in a much stronger position than Gates.
D vs. G (Score:4, Funny)
I'm pretty sure that, by definition, the ultimate David vs. Goliath contest was in fact: David vs. Goliath.
Otherwise they'd be called "Linus vs. Bill" [mzla.com] contests now wouldn't they?
While this maybe true... (Score:3, Interesting)
Money vs Altruism
----------------
While having the 'community' of open sourcers behind him is certainly exceedingly important, the open source community is fractured across a variety of fronts, frequently cannot integrate (merge those fronts against a common foe), and lacks a true core focus comitted to solving specific problems. When it does do these things, it does so slowly and without focus. One can blame Microsoft for a wide variety of things, but they can repurpose the company on a dime to release a brand new product (note I didn't say original) within a years time and make it acceptable and commercially viable.
The Linux community - particularly the open source community has simply not the structure and organization to do this.
Geek Fervor
------------
The author talks about how there is a cause to create an alternative to Windows. That's fine - but at the same time, it cost most - lots and lots of money, lots and lots of marketing to make people switch. The one thing that really helps open source sometimes is that the alternatives are of such crap quality that people will endure the lack of support and documentation of an open source product just to get something of good reliability (something the commercial vendors just lack these days).
Creative Chaos
-------------
Chaos is a good thing. Good things can come from random brainstorming - however many times a good idea can simply be neglected in an open source environment where it would have thrived in a commercial environment. There's something to be said for having the time, energy, and resources to actually take an idea that sounds great but would take enormous resources and focussed manpower to pull off.
So while I think its great that open source can do some serious damage to the monopoly of Microsoft and push us forward - I would be quick to note that it isn't really the open source community that's making the types of advances that we really need with respect to getting people to USE the fruit of our labors. Sun, IBM, RedHat, etc. are utilizing the greatness of open source to actually make a difference to the average consumer. And after all - isn't that the point?
Where are all the smart folks going... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also mention this because we were looking at hiring Jr. developers and kept observing a incredibly different mindset between those who were
I think this impacts MS future big-time. Has anyone else had this experience or read an article about this?
Other reasons too (Score:4, Interesting)
If this is true, there may be many reasons, perhaps working in concert (different people may have different and multiple reasons, making the effect much stronger). For example, the fact that the developer can see the OS code may make him far more confident in working on code above it... because he can really understand what's going on underneath (and fix it if there's a problem). Having the entire OS's code means that he can experiment with anything... and even if today he doesn't want to experiment with something, using OSS/FS means that he'll be more prepared for that time when he does. From a security point-of-view, he can analyze and fix anything, and knowing that others can do that too might raise his confidence in the results. By improving OSS/FS, he gains respect in the technical community that he wouldn't get simply by writing closed code (even if they're both paid for, everyone can see EXACTLY what you did in the open code).
I'm sure there are others.
Re:Where are all the smart folks going... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
What about the cornucopia of smart, creative people who [gasp] work for microsoft?
What about people using/developing mono?
I don't think that one's use of a development platform definitively indicates anything other than that they are likely to develop software with that platform.
The classic political discussion (Score:3)
Hmmm...reading this article reminds me of the classic arguments and debates that I manage to have with my friends and my family. Some people believe in a more capitalistic system of resource allotment, in which resources are only controlled by those people who use them, and they put them to the use that they best want, whereas a more communist kind of system has a structure in place to determine where resources are used. The really cool thing about the capitalist kind of system is that it can adapt to a changing resource picture much faster than the communist kind of way. It almost seems as though this article is saying much the same, except linus commands a fluid resource pool, and bill controls a resource pool that is fixed (although it does change according to the corporate goal of the month).
All in all, good article.
Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
But MS also has a worldwide army of volunteer and hobbyist developers, building tools and solutions with MS products. Some good, some not so good.
MS also has many, many manufacturers tripping all over themselves building and testing hardware drivers for their products.
Re:Disagree (Score:3, Informative)
I think most people have no idea how opposite the situation for Linux has always been. The fact that Linux works so well with most modern hardware is amazing to say the least. Linux driver gurus have had to reverse engineer, search hard and long for specs, and beg hardware makers for bits and scraps for information. A few companies give enough info to make a proper driver, a few more
Torvalds partially misportrayed (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Torvalds is not counting on the marketplace's judegement of anything. In every interview he plainly states that he has no market-driven or competetive goals whatsoever. He simply wants to make Linux improve over time for whoever chooses to use it, whether that is ten people or a billion.
Dangerous comparison (Score:4, Interesting)
And while Torvalds and Linux have recently faced legal issues about whether Linux might have some proprietary code embedded in it, that distraction is dwarfed by the time and energy Gates has devoted to battling the U.S. Justice Dept.
Now, all of us here are aware that the 2 cases are pretty much polar opposites. The former is the little guy being picked on by a big, greedy coporation. The latter is the little guys (us, represented by the govenment) picking on the big, greedy coporation.
Most of the non-tech people I know are aware that MS's name had been dragged through the mud as a result of the DOJ case, and have a lot less respect for MS now that the law has found them guilty. Regardless of the merits of the case, or the result, the fact is the general public often thinks of MS as the bad guys simply because of a court decision.
I really, really hope this doesn't happen to Linux, but articles that even mention the 2 situations in the same paragraph (without explanation) blur the issue. How long until my Mom asks me about Linux, the "Operating System written by thieves"?
What a crappy "article" (Score:4, Insightful)
-The most obvious one: If Linux has so many more resources, than why doesn't it have all the features of Windows already? Flame me all you want, but it doesn't.
-Even though Linus has "the millions who use Linux and continue to tinker with it", in reality there are very few contributors (definitely not millions). Windows also has a larger installed base and thus a larger possible base of testers. How does that factor in?
-It neglects the fact that Linus's disadvantage solely as a gatekeeper, instead of director, is that unpopular, tedious, but necessary work might never get done. One advantage of motivating with money is that you can force people to do work they might not otherwise elect to do. I mean, how many MP3 players does Linux need?
-I don't think BillG has any trouble sleeping at night. Linux might be a threat to his company, but it's not going to make him a lowly multimillionaire any time soon.
What a bunch of cheerleading.
Re:What a crappy "article" (Score:3, Interesting)
The flip side of that is if Microsoft has all this money why doesn't Windows have all the features of Linux? No need to flame you.
Even though Linus has "the millions who use Linux and continue to tinker with it", in reality there are very few contributors (definitely not millions). Windows also has a larger installed base and thus a larger possib
Today SCO, Tomorrow? (Score:3, Insightful)
New business model Summarized:
1. Exploit Open Source/GPL Loophole
2. Hire cadre of lawyers
3. ????
4. Profit from gullible business Linux users
5. Lose multi-year court battles
6. Appologize
7. Slip into handsomely rewarded obscurity
BTM
If all you value is saving money... (Score:5, Insightful)
You will have no reason not to switch to proprietary software when the proprietary software is low-cost. Despite what Open Source movement proponents say about making better code, many so-called Open Source programs are functionally inferior to their proprietary competitors. If all you value is saving money or the practical ends that the Open Source movement champions, you'll never miss the freedom to share and modify software. It's great to get someone interested in Free Software by demonstrating practical use, and it's true some people are uncomfortable talking about ethics and responsibility as well as convenience. But the Free Software community was not built by giving into whatever businesses want. The FSF wrote an interesting essay comparing the Free Software movement with the Open Source movement [gnu.org].
Crediting Linus Torvalds as an altrustic operator is simply incorrect. Torvalds' brand of pragmatism falls squarely into the problem I just described--his use of Bitkeeper is a perfect example. He is also not "Linux' guardian" (as the BusinessWeek article claims). If that title is accurate at all, it properly belongs to the GNU General Public License, the preeminent Free Software license written by the FSF: the organization whose ethical basis Torvalds dismisses [gnu.org].
*COUGH* BULLSHIT. (Score:3, Interesting)
If Linus had anywhere near the resources that Billy has, then Linux would be a Desktop competitor.
Re:*COUGH* BULLSHIT. (Score:3, Funny)
Yea, but every member of management counts as -10 employees and they have a 10% management base.
Open source is like cats. (Score:3, Funny)
Linus exerts more control by running the can opener, rather than the whip, as any cat owner would testify.
Free markets are all about freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
I just wanted to say that free markets are about freedoms and not about markets. When you have true freedoms, then the markets will tend to take care of themselves as people use tohse freedoms to their benefit and advantage.
Microsoft is not about free markets because it is not about freedom. In fact they assume on faith, that the right to restrict what other people copy at their disposal, copyrights, is a fundamental inherent right. It is not. In the future I have no doubt that copyrights will be lumped in with the right of the government to choose your speech, and the right of government to choose your religion, or even the right to own slaves (another false 'property' right). In the meantime, we just half to fight it out. Microsoft will not sit arround passively while people who exercise their freedoms cut into revenues. All hell will surely break loose.
Sheep? (Score:3, Funny)
A flock of sheep? Shouldn't that be a herd of cats?
There's more evidence to justify his point. (Score:5, Insightful)
My paper More than a Gigabuck: Estimating GNU/Linux's Size [dwheeler.com] measured Red Hat Linux 7.1. It found that this distribution had over 30 million physical source lines of code (SLOC), it would cost over $1 billion (a Gigabuck) to develop this Linux distribution by conventional proprietary means in the U.S. (in year 2000 U.S. dollars), and would have required about 8,000 person-years of development time. Over one year's time, it represented a 60% increase in size, effort, and traditional development costs.
Another study (inspired by mine) looked at Debian 2.2. The found that Debian 2.2 includes more than 55 million physical SLOC, and would have cost nearly $1.9 billion USD using over 14,000 person-years to develop using traditional proprietary techniques.
Linus, of course, doesn't have any sort of real control of GNU/Linux outside the kernel. But in the context of this article, the real issue seems to be a comparison of the open source / Free software community (as represented by GNU/Linux, the Linux kernel, and Linus Torvalds) versus Microsoft. And in that sense, this community has managed to acquire an absolutely astounding amount of resources, since it's managed to become competitive with Microsoft in spite of the many roadblocks it's had to handle (lack of hardware vendor support, perception that the approach can't work, etc.).
More quantitative data showing that there cases where open source software / free software is competitive is available in my paper "Why OSS/FS? Look at the Numbers!" [dwheeler.com].
Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
How to make an army of MS fans lose sleep? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah but (Score:2, Funny)
What is value (Score:3, Insightful)
Value can be looked at from two different sides: consumer: does it work and add value when I use it; producer: can I make money from it.
Bill cares about the la
Re:Bill Gates money factoid (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh well.. (Score:2)
wrong. they are out to destroy it - so their proprietary solution is the only alternative. open source software is like air - it's free and ubiquitous. if you're in the air resale business, you can't compete that. sco's plan is pollute all the free air so that their jug-o-freshness brand of bottled air can clean up.
Darl and Chris as I remember them (Score:2, Funny)
Way back when I was a lad there was a nice candy store in town. The owner, Mr. Glucose, would have one day a year in which he would allow all the town children to get candy for free.
One year on Free Candy Day two teenagers were standing outside the front of the store. "That's Darl McBride and Chris Sontag," my friend whispered to me, "they're a couple of junior high bullies!" We tried to enter the store when the two bullies moved in front of me. "Hey kid," snarled McBride, "this is our candy store. If you
Re:If Windows dies, what happens to linux? (Score:2)
Re:Gates has more. Much more. (Score:4, Funny)
I know you're joking, but I have to give Bill Gates some credit. If I was obscenely wealthy like that, I don't think I would be ABLE to stop myself from buying a laser cannon.
It would be like you or me buying a Snickers.