Red Hat to Coax Code Contributions From Companies 205
Stony Stevenson writes "New Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst has hit out at enterprises, bemoaning that billions of dollars are wasted each year because 95% of companies won't share code.
Speaking at the Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco, he said his company must take a larger role in urging enterprises to participate in open source projects and, in some cases, coax code contributions out of companies that have made in-house improvements. He now feels Red Hat should lead the way
'It should be part of Red Hat's job to define development in a new way, and get companies to work together' on shared projects, he said. The joint development projects would be designed to cover non-competitive parts of an industry, with individual companies still focused on their own competitive business applications."
Cable code? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardware companies hate forward compatibility (Score:3, Interesting)
And when it comes time to upgrade the Linux OS in a year or two, the new version won't work, so the customers will be forced to buy more "u
Yes, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is ridiculous for a CEO to attempt to paint his company as some kind of inspired model upon which other companies should remodel themselves. Aside from being futile, attempting to turn the Old Establishment around does nothing but hurt the nascent organisations t
coax yes coerce no (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that your mind is fried, I am going to steal your code.
Re:coax yes coerce no (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:coax yes coerce no (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it does when it comes to coaxing. I am not sure it does in any case.
If my approach to coaxing someone is to point out to them how they will benefit by doing what I suggest and then they decide to do it... You have a problem with that?
I am interested in Free Music as well as Free Software. When people are afraid to try it with their own music, I suggest they at least experiment. Release
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Red Hat is saying open source is a tool you use not just by finding existing open source, but open source things to garner community improvement. I try to clean up and submit my extensions, just because the project then handles the API breakage. How many admins coded their own monitoring tool before the open source ones can around. How many are still using them because they have so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what's an advantage? How does a company that pays Joe Blow to write something, then give all of that code to competitors who did not have to pay Joe Blow, possibly benefit? It makes no business sense, whatsoever, other than PR.
It makes complete business sense because there are likely to be 10 or 100 times as many developers outside your company as in it, who would be willing to contribute to improve the code. Alternatively you could join an existing project, contribute Joe Blow (your 1 internal
Re: (Score:2)
Softw
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in the company I work for, software is built to help our hardware sales (no, I don't work for Apple)... so I'm strongly pushing internally for more Open Source efforts (we have some, but I'd like to see more). And yes, I get paid to write code - which I would be more than happy to share with the world and let the world share back.
Re: (Score:2)
One company pays for initial development. That money is gone and spent. They're not getting it back, ever, but every competitor will get that initial development for free. No matter how much community help is provided, that company that gives away code ALWAYS spends more than competitors who get their hands on the code,
That's complete nonsense. A couple of obvious counterexamples:
Rob McCool wrote the original Apache webserver (it was called NCSA httpd at the time), and it was a very simple HTTP/0.9
Re: (Score:2)
But you can use and develop and add on to open source programs *without* giving anything back.
Sure you can, but this isn't a good long-term strategy.
Let's say you fork Apache to add some super private feature. Now the development of Apache continues, but that's OK because your private version is better (for you). However after a while the 'public' Apache starts to diverge from your private copy, getting bug fixes, loads of new features and security fixes. This happens far faster than you can keep
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but if my company sells the software, how can it benefit from that magnification?
There are two points here.
Firstly Jim isn't talking about packaged software for sale. He clearly states that 95% of the software written in the world is written inside companies, for companies themselves to use. Much of that gives the company a competitive advantage, but also a lot of it doesn't (think: toilet roll resupply spreadsheets, software to update desktops remotely, certain payroll and expenses software,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any government monopoly behind commercial software development (could you elaborate on this, if you please?)
Copyright is a government-granted monopoly [wikipedia.org]. It's not a force of nature. We all pay the police etc. to enforce it, and in return the copyright holder benefits.
Rich.
Re: (Score:2)
One company pays for initial development. That money is gone and spent. They're not getting it back, ever, but every competitor will get that initial development for free.
Oh for the love of christ, this is all about software that everyone already has developed thus everyone already paid a cost for it. The only real question now is future costs of this software for the companies involved compared to what they get back as a result. New competitors are a different issue but that's a somewhat separate point.
No matter how much community help is provided, that company that gives away code ALWAYS spends more than competitors who get their hands on the code, and it wipes out any competitive advantage that caused the company to pay to develop the software in the first place.
No it doesn't. Your competitors are now forced to pay if they use your software:
-Migration costs
-Training costs
-Continual costs due to lack of the same in-depth knowledge
-C
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Red Hat has no right to attempt to coax or coerce companies into giving away code.
This is a straw man argument. The article said "coax." The summary said "coax." You added "coerce" which is not something anyone had brought up. In principal it is no different from saying that Redhat has no right to attempt to coax companies into giving away code or molest children.
If OSS is the future, then it will happen, with or without Jim's little tantrum.
I strongly disagree. Microsoft spends a lot of money convincing purchasers that they are better off buying all Microsoft, proprietary solutions. At the same time, not a lot of people making purchasing decisions understand the OSS business model and how it can save them a lot of money. Providing a voice that explains and advocates this method is very useful.
It is ridiculous for a CEO to attempt to paint his company as some kind of inspired model upon which other companies should remodel themselves.
He's not "painting his company" as a model. He's advocating an alternative development method that differs significantly from classic economic models. Redhat has done well by being a contributor to that model. That is not ridiculous at all.
Aside from being futile, attempting to turn the Old Establishment around does nothing but hurt the nascent organisations that will make up the New Establishment by casting doubt on their methods and making them look like they are non-viable without the support of the Old Establishment.
Old Establishment, New Establishment?!? Redhat is simply talking to companies, whether new or old, and trying to sell them on a cheaper way to do business that also helps undermine software lock-in strategies. OSS is, quite simply a feature of software, that many do not appreciate the advantage of. It needs to be explained, like most other new features consumers are not used to using.
I can see Ballamer[sic] right now, in a room full of beaureaucrats[sic] saying "See? OSS is all about getting handouts to survive." Furthermore, it is brining[sic] wolves in amongst the lambs.
In such a meeting, Ballmer is a salesman, and most companies don't trust salesmen. Microsoft already tries to paint OSS as something that is risky and unusable to big business, but not too many people are believers, given that IBM argues the opposite.
If Jim wants to make a difference, he should fund new development from emerging pools...
There is a lot of software in use today which is used in various niche applications. Quite often such software is custom built for a company, and their competitors also use custom built software. This software is not really a point of competition between these companies, just something they need in order to do business. What Mr. Whitehurst is saying is that Redhat can be more proactive in going to these companies and getting them to open source this code and allow all the companies that need that niche application to share the development costs, rather than each of them paying to develop their own version. This leads to many advantages for the companies including: lower overall development costs, more competitive bidding on development, and standardization within the industry for interoperability. Further, getting some of this code open sourced gives Redhat (and other such companies) a way to undercut proprietary software developers when providing custom coding, support, and added services.
There are plenty of companies already doing what he says, he should be happy for that and encourage those already willing rather than attempting to project an agenda onto those it does not suit.
I think you're still missing the point. This is about evangelizing OSS as a way to cut costs for companies that currently don't understand or contribute to it. There is a huge, potential market for OSS development and a lot of closed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the advantage to the company that does the initial software development?
I think I already covered that, but here it goes again. Money spent is spent. You can't un-spend it an no one who went business school should fall prey to the fallacy of throwing good money after bad. In general, all companies have already invested in some niche software. The company open sourcing code may or may not have the best software out there, but making it OSS provides them, the users, with a new feature.
When you open source some project you benefit in numerous ways. First, you get are likely to
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the advantage to the company that does the initial software development? It doesn't lower their development cost one cent,
Sure it does, others will submit patches and updates which allows you to have fewer developers on the project. If they don't then any in-house fixes they have will cause them patch hell whenever a new version comes out.
but it greatly lowers the development costs of their competition.
Why? The competitors already spent the same, more or less, development cost for whatever solution they currently use. Switching to the new open source one will cause them to have to spend effort changing systems, retraining staff and learning the new product. Now new competitors won't have
Re: (Score:2)
This leads to many advantages for the companies including: lower overall development costs, more competitive bidding on development, and standardization within the industry for interoperability. Further, getting some of this code open sourced gives Redhat (and other such companies) a way to undercut proprietary software developers when providing custom coding, support, and added services.
While I can see why this might benefit Red Hat it is not as clear to me how it benefits the companies serving that niche. It is always better, from the standpoint of any given company, to compete from the position of a franchise rather than as a price taker in a purely competitive market. The provider of franchise product or service has greater pricing power than a price-taker in a purely competitive industry (although less than a monopoly) and pricing power translates into extra economic profits for the c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I can see why this might benefit Red Hat it is not as clear to me how it benefits the companies serving that niche. It is always better, from the standpoint of any given company, to compete from the position of a franchise rather than as a price taker in a purely competitive market.
It benefits the companies because they have lower costs. They can charge less than companies that don't share software development costs with others. They gain from other reduced costs.
The provider of franchise product or service has greater pricing power than a price-taker in a purely competitive industry (although less than a monopoly) and pricing power translates into extra economic profits for the controller of the franchise.
Most companies compete with others in hundreds of ways unrelated to their core competency. Open sourcing software in those areas are what is of benefit.
Lowering costs is a worthwhile goal, but it must also be weighed against the possibility of helping one's competitors, particularly in a niche industry where franchises are more common, and lowering the barrier of entry to new competitors.
Contributing to an OS, doesn't significantly lower the barrier to entry in a market that builds upon OS's. For tertiary, niche markets where competition already exists
Cutting development cost for participants (Score:2)
>failure to understand how OSS development cuts costs for participants.
See, this sentence sums up why I wonder why businesses would want to jump on the OSS bandwagon.
It's great if you're a startup, as you can leverage the work of other people. But if I'm already the Goliath that everyone is chasing, it is in my interest to keep barriers to entry into my market as high as possible - why would I want to make it e
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. "I think Red Hat has no right to attempt to coax or coerce companies into giving away code. If OSS is the future, then it will happen, with or without Jim's little tantrum."
Guess what? There are *a lot* of companies coming to Red Hat, right now, *asking how to participate in open source projects.* So Jim is not talking pie-in-the-sky here; he's talking about capitalizing on momentum that already exists. There's pretty much zero coercion involved here.
2. "It is ridiculous for a CEO to attempt to paint his company as some kind of inspired model upon which other companies should remodel themselves."
So why is it, exactly, that Sun and Novell are trying to rebuild their business models, again? Help me out here.
3. "If Jim wants to make a difference, he should fund new development from emerging pools, like Google with the GSoC (not that I'm a Google fan, but that's another story), or IBM with their paid employee time contributions, or EnterpriseDB with their backports to the PostgreSQL team or Sun with their (somewhat clumsy) contributions to the OSS community. There are plenty of companies already doing what he says, he should be happy for that and encourage those already willing rather than attempting to project an agenda onto those it does not suit."
Considering that *every engineer at Red Hat is an open source software engineer*, either full-time or part-time, I'd say that Red Hat is funding plenty of open source development all around, thanks very much. Or maybe you don't think that any of this stuff [fedoraproject.org] counts.
4. "Having a whine that companies in the Old Establishment should be putting free money into his playpen is a naieve, futile and potentially harmful thing for Jim to be doing."
As it turns out, executives at big companies are smarter than you are. See, they understand the difference between "differentiating value" and "non-differentiating value". (Read some Bruce Perens [perens.com] if you don't get that idea.) Jim Whitehurst was the COO of a Very Large Company [delta.com] that had a larger annual IT budget than Red Hat's entire annual revenues. He saw firsthand how much money and manhours IT departments waste on software that doesn't actually add any value to the business. "Old Establishment" is looking desperately to make sure that those IT guys are building value, not wasting time on stuff that doesn't differentiate them from their competition. Understanding *and participating in* the open source model is one of the best possible ways to do exactly that. Which is why "Old Establishment" is coming to Red Hat and saying "help us".
The limiting factor is that Red Hat is not yet big enough to provide all of the services and guidance that these customers need. Jim is committing himself, publicly, to meeting that challenge. At Red Hat, we're all very proud of him for saying so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But I think that Jim's aim might be a little off. He points to enterprise, but I think that there is a massive swath of small to medium sized solution providers who are hording their code when they build enhancements for customers. This is their little cachet, their angle on the (primarily local) market, their "solution". A number
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with Jim's sentiments being an Open Source advocate and all, I think Red Hat has no right to attempt to coax or coerce companies into giving away code.
They, like any company, has every right to try to change the industry. I'd even go so far as to say that it's every company's duty to attempt to change their industry in ways that are consistent with their business model. If your company isn't doing that, then it's just treading water, and will eventually be replaced.
Having a whine that companies in the Old Establishment should be putting free money into his playpen
Ah, but that's just the mistake that most folks outside of open source make, and to hear it on Slashdot is just sad... Most large companies spend buckets of money every year writing millions
It's worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
There was no mention of licenses; open source licenses include the MIT and BSD licenses, and many similar licenses that permit keeping the source to derivative works closed. And in fact, Microsoft itself uses a lot of BSD code in Windows, without sharing any of its source.
I was very unhappy about signing such a contract, but I needed the work.
I never really asked why they wouldn't even allow source under the MIT or BSD licenses. I expect that it was a lack of education. If that's the case, I expect their attitude is not uncommon, and sorely needs to be corrected.
For what it's worth, my current employer [amcc.com] (I'm no longer consulting) releases the source code to its Linux and BSD drivers as open source, with their source code being provided on our installation CDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats most likely all there was to it. Give people an inch, they take a foot...and they didn't want to risk it.
Re: (Score:2)
I was very unhappy about signing such a contract, but I needed the work.
Why should you have been unhappy? Where they offering a flat rate or fee for the contract where the difference between the cost of the solution and what they paid was your salary? If that is the case then maybe I can see why limiting the types of software could be a negative factor for you, but you could always negotiate a higher price to accommodate that demand (many other businesses charge more for "upgrades" and "premium services"). Otherwise, give the customer what he wants, it is his money after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you're appealing against (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By giving away useful code, you are making it a trivial thing for a competitor to enter into your market. Whereas before they might have thought, "You know, this market is too small for us to spend money developing the software we need", now they get the software for FREE. They can enter into your market easily. And if they are a big enough player, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Share their stuff with others? Give other companies an advantage that WE paid for? NEVER!
And certainly for key business-driving software that attitude is right. I'm sure FedEx have a large amount of routing software which they wrote themselves and it may be their most important asset. However, FedEx's expenses software or stationary supplies reordering software ain't so critical to the business, and it's exactly this sort of thing which (if a company wrote themselves) then the company should be encour
It's about reinventing the wheel (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how businesses usually think. Share their stuff with others? Give other companies an advantage that WE paid for? NEVER!
It's been more than 10 years since I've worked on anything that could be usable by people outside of the companies I've worked for. Sharing stuff just isn't practical in that environment. Ie, device drivers for unique devices, or code that has to work with a unique API, or stuff that makes little sense outside the company or application (whereas sharing academic papers makes more sense).
Sharing code makes more sense when things are built on top of a common or standard architecture and API, can be spl
No Thank You (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference is that most crappy open source projects are sleeping on FreshMeat or somethi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Transifex (Score:2, Informative)
Fedora currently uses Transifex, which makes all translations go Upstream, thus sharing what we've translated, with other Software Projects.
I'd sooner share their herpes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re-use is not just about shoving code on a server and letting people copy it. You also need design, documentation, comments, testing, and ideally some level of support.
A lot of in-house code comes with none of these and as a result is worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Coax Docs not Code (Score:2)
Am I permitted a chuckle?
Seriously though, he should try to get enterprises to contribute usable user documentation, not code. If he succeeded, in the fullness of time, using FOSS products wouldn't be a never-ending easter egg hunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Competitive Advantage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there's a business case - like increasing goodwill in a certain project will have an effect on the bottom line - then go for it. Otherwise, forget it.
It's not a one way process (Score:4, Interesting)
Win/win.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm the CEO of a big-ass Insurance Company, Bank, Airline or Widget Manufacturer and I just invested a bajillion hours of developer time into creating software that gives me an advantage over my competition, why would it be in my best interest to give my code away?
Because it's not this software that he's talking about. Obviously software which gives you a competitive advantage is your lifeblood and you should not give it away. It's all the other stuff that people should collaborate on, stuff like
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but he's not talking about software which gives a competitive advantage. If your desktop remote management scripts give you such a big advantage over your competitors, then fine, keep them secret! But does your company also invent their own hammers because off-the-shelf hammers don't give you a secret advantage? Do you refuse to use off-the-shelf CPUs in your computers and instead create your own? Maybe you do, if you're the NSA. Probably you don't.
Rich
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you burn company resources on an in house project if a benefit can not be gained from it? If during the design phase of your project, it is discovered that the project is not worth more than the cost of development (hourly wages, etc) then the development should not happen in the first place. ANY code written in house must help the company turn a profit or otherwise create an advantage.
Software gets written in-house for many reasons which don't always come down to cost. For example, suitable
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm the CEO of a big-ass Insurance Company, Bank, Airline or Widget Manufacturer and I just invested a bajillion hours of developer time into creating software that gives me an advantage over my competition, why would it be in my best interest to give my code away?
It probably is not in your best interest. I don't think that is the most common situation or the situation Mr. Whitehurst was describing. In many cases there are numerous companies all doing business in the same industry and all of which need some type of application. For an example, lets say you're an airline. Every four years or so you hire a contract software firm to work on your luggage tracking software. Periodically new regulations or technologies require you to contract to have this software modifi
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
No such thing as non-competitive parts of an industry. If two companies say, make toilet paper, and one of them has a custom program that let's say, saves energy by turning off unused lights in their buildings. That company saves money on their power bill. That is still a competitive advantage over the other company, even though it has nothing to do with the industry. Why would the company that developed that give that to a competitor, and allow that competitor to improve their bottom line? Every piece of doing business is a competitive advantage. There are no insignificant parts of any business.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, if over all economy improves, the chances are your paper business will improve. Your supplyers can deliver more cheaply, your clients can pay more.
And to finish, if you release reasonably good and useful code, other a
Re: (Score:2)
Company A has a program to turn off 50% of the unused lights in their building. Company B has a program to turn off 50% of the unused lights in their building. But Program A and Program B are not the same, nor do they turn off the same lights. Combining those programs (eg, open sourcing w/ gpl) might yield both a 75% savings in electricity.
Now the CFO has a difficult decision to make. Is it worth the ext
It already happens in a way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see this happen all the time.
It's dead Jim.... (Score:2)
He could start by cleaning up his own house (Score:2)
Translation: (Score:2)
Re:Lead the way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lead the way (Score:4, Insightful)
code could be encumbered to prevent them (Score:2)
Re:Job loss (Score:5, Insightful)
I already moderated in this article, but I'm willing to lose the moderations just to reply to this.
Analogy: if universities start sharing research, there will be less research that needs to be done in-house.
Um, yeah. Unnecessary duplication of effort is wasteful. Yeah, they could lay off people, or you know, they could use the same number of coders and now accomplish more tasks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your analogy is flawed, because universities do not consume the research that they produce, and they are (usually) not expected to make a profit.
Also, it says right in the summary that "billions of dollars" are wasted on duplication. One obvious way to save that waste is to fire programmers and freeload off of the code of others. I can't think of a good reason to believe that the distribution of the
Re: (Score:2)
Poor Analogy (Score:2)
I for one am glad that multiple universities work on the same problems/research projects in their own unique way Open source isn't an analogy of efficiency in the example you make because those efficiencies are already here - BOINC, Clustering, Linx et all and other types of programs being a showcase example.
Open Source and LGPL libraries are where its
Re: (Score:2)
no Job loss (Score:5, Insightful)
That is "fixed pie" thinking. Underneath your statement is an assumption: that there's only a fixed amount of work to be done, that the amount of work "pie" available is fixed and unchanging. That simply isn't true.
The real purpose of a job is to generate wealth. Janitors create the wealth of a cleaner environment. CEOs create the wealth of a smoothly running organization. Factory works create the wealth of manufactured goods. And so on...
If wealth gets generated more efficiently, everybody benefits, because there's more total wealth to be distributed. An organization that "eliminates" a few positions is then wealthier, which then makes it more likely to increase its product base, thereby creating more positions. While there are cyclical deviations and occasional abuses, (generally covered by existing laws) it's largely a self-regulating system.
Don't be afraid of change. Be afraid of stagnance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I generally agree, but it's not obvious that the new positions will be in programming. In fact it's kind of unlikely, if the company is getting its code for free from somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If companies start sharing code, there will be less code that needs to be written in-house, which means some people are going to be losing their jobs.
Or we'll find new problems to solve instead of reinventing the wheel independently in a thousand silos. Following your logic the fact that MS offers companies the ability to just buy productivity software instead of having to write their own kills off software jobs. And in a way that's true but do you really want to be writing a word processor for Citibank, get fired then go write a word processor for Macy's and so on? If you want to write software for a job then you want to do it for a company where sof
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If only software development was like that! If a software solution for a given problem exists (closed or open source), that still does not mean the problem is solved once and for all. The implementation is hardly ever isolated from the rest of the "product". Even in the open-source world, we still have these large, monolithic programs, and nobody has a chance of reusing just a certain aspect of them. In f
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
People need to stop thinking of jobs as the focal point of their lives.
vs
a job and money doesn't mean anything.
I'm in the same boat as you, most of us need a steady income. I'm saying that there's more to life than having a job and we should think of people as more than just what their job is. Make-work jobs may be a very simple way for politicians to keep people busy, fed and satisfied but they certainly doesn't do anything to improve the condition of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose there may just be some, slight, hope if once the main code is all done the companies were to find other areas they could make improvements in and perhaps these improvements could be coded somehow ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, then they'd all go out of business, and there would be no work for any programmers.
It's a much better idea to put more and more useful code out there. Companies will pick it up, and hire someone to expand and maintain it to their needs. My ability to deploy and extend OSS turned
Re:I wouldn't say they're "wasted" (Score:5, Insightful)
If these companies didn't need to waste (yes waste) that money on that code, they could spend that money in other ways. Maybe it wouldn't get spent on code, and there would be less of a market for programmers. But there would be a greater demand for other services, so the economy as a whole would be ahead.
Not really (Score:2)
Recession-proffing with FOSS (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be news to a CEO, but programmers who write code (and their children) want to eat and have roofs over their heads, too.
That's the broken window falsehood [bastiat.org] in a nutshell, with a false dichotomy thrown in on the side.
Money and staff spent, in this case, re-inventing the wheel, is money and staff not spent on the core business activities. So,even if it's learning from others mistakes, going FOSS saves effort and that in turn boosts your core business activities (assuming reinvestment and not skimming by the execs). Software is only a tool, an enabler, for those core activities. In case you missed the last 25 years of c
Re: (Score:2)