RE: LINUX is the "one" ? .... Comments??? -- MIDRANGE-L

| -----Original Message-----
| From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jay Maynard
| Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:58 PM
| To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
| Subject: Re: LINUX is the "one" ? .... Comments???
|
|
| On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 10:42:16PM -0500, jt wrote:
| > Oh yeah?  Well I have VERY little doubt that I've OBSOLETED
| more lines of
| > code than RMS and ESR have written combined, so I'm not all that easily
| > impressed.  And if I haven't, I know for a fact that Joe Pluta HAS.
|
| Careful. ESR and RMS have fundamental differences of opinion about this
| stuff; in particular, RMS has pretty much disowned ESR as a part of his
| movement.

RMS was just jealous because ESR re-packaged the formula and got widespread
publicity by doing that.



|
| > Yeah, that last part is the problem, EXACTLY.  Because the
| press IS gullible
| > and DOES buy into "Open" Source as a "better programming methodology".
|
| There are more than a few advantages of the Open Source
| methodology.

It is imagined that there are advantages of the "Open Source methodology"
which aren't available to commercial developers.  Again, these are imagined.

"Open" source is not EVEN a programming methodology.. it's a marketing
gimmick.  That's my main gripe, and answers the question (I optimistically
hope, once and for all) of why it's a problem for businesses to adopt this
methodology.  Because THERE IS NO PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>From OSI site:  http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_hackers.php

"The case that needs to be made to most techies isn't about the concept of
open source, but the name. Why not call it, as we traditionally have, free
software?

One direct reason is that the term "free software" is easily misunderstood
in ways that lead to conflict. You can read an extended discussion of this
problem.

But the real reason for the re-labeling is a marketing one. We're trying to
pitch our concept to the corporate world now. We have a winning product, but
our positioning, in the past, has been awful. The term "free software" has
been misunderstood by business persons, who mistake the desire to share with
anti-commercialism, or worse, theft.

Mainstream corporate CEOs and CTOs will never buy "free software." But if we
take the very same tradition, the same people, and the same free-software
licenses and change the label to "open source" ? that, they'll buy."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Now that's pretty funny, that some might "mistake the desire to share with
anti-commercialism"...!!

Most ALL the posts I read in favor of "Open" Source STATE that it's primary
benefit IS it's being anti-commercial.  Oh, Napsterism isn't theft...!!!
Okay, I get it now... <sarcastic>

Granted ESR is a marketing genius, but His theories on the economics of
software development were not correct when He wrote them and have been shown
to be unworkable, in actual fact.  There will be SOME companies that
actually make some profit from Open Source.

Innovation loses.

| Unlike
| RMS, I do not believe it's applicable to every program everywhere, as a
| moral stand...but there are lots of places where it makes sense. (Bruce
| Perens once told me that he didn't think that Open Source was the
| best model
| for every program, and he's one of the founders of the Open Source
| Initiative.)

Saying it's not the best method for every program is not going far enough.
There are VERY few areas that I can think of where "Open" Source is a better
model.  For development, I'm not talking marketing here.


| I can say with no small amount of assurance that the Hercules emulator is
| much farther advanced, and much more widely used, and a much, much better
| package, because it is Open Source. (I believe I'm qualified to make that
| statement, too.) Doing it in an Open Source fashion has truly brought the
| power of many eyes looking at bugs, and many minds thinking up
| new features,
| to the table.

You may be qualified to make the statement.  Perhaps if You can show me
where commercial software developers that provide source code don't reap
these same advantages...???


|
| That does not mean that I believe that every progfram should be done that
| way. There are many holes in the Open Source model. For some
| programs, such
| as Apache, they're not major problems; for others, they are. (Witness the
| less-than-great success of OpenOffice.org, for example.)

Well that's not what I've heard about Apache.  I hear they're CONSTANTLY
looking for someone to do the dirty work of testing and documentation.

And I can't tell You HOW many times I've heard in the press and on their
websites, over and over again:  "Well this feature is a good one, and will
eventually be coming, but the developers are donating their spare time,
and.. well.. You understand..."


|
| > It's different in that one programming methodology DOES works and one
| > doesn't.  I've seen the successes of OS like Apache, and
| Linux.. and see the
| > drawbacks to these being OS as well.  But overall, RMS has BEEN
| SUCCESSFUL
| > in His goal to destroy the software industry, albeit with the best of
| > intentions.
|
| I don't think so. It's not as healthy as it was during the dotcom
| boom, but

Yeah, when billions if not trillions of dollars were.. how to put it
delicately.. wasted down the drain.


| I don't believe that that's the result of the so-called "Free Software"
| zealots; rather, I think it was a natural shakeout that was bound
| to happen.

Yeah, but because it NEVER WAS economically viable unless You have enough
suckers to pay for exhorbitant IPOs.  That only lasted for a while,
thankfully.  The software industry is JUST NOW starting to recover from
having WAY TOO MUCH excess capital.  Nobody needed to develop innovative
products, they just needed an innovative marketing campaign to IPO their
stock.

So good products are just now starting to come online lately, now that
developing a ACTUAL PRODUCT is part of the business plan.

|
| > The latter is obvious, but paying nothing for software DOES
| automatically
| > make it bad.
|
| Wrong. If I felt so, I wouldn't be involved with Hercules.

I'm not familiar with the business model of Hercules.

HEY!! I'd be interested in learning more about it...!!

You get paid?  Then I'm ALL FOR IT!  Lucky You...!!  If the company develops
software, but doesn't receive income from that software, but from secondary
derivitive income...

Bad.

Period...  Meaning it could be better...  For the reasons I stated.  Puts
the customer back in the loop, for one thing...  No paying customers.. not a
very efficient loop, economically speaking.


|
| > Just because "Open" Source is a MARKETing reality, doesn't make
| it a valid
| > software development strategy.  Works somewhat decently with what I call
| > "tinker-toy" projects (like Linux...;-)...
|
| If you think Linux is a tinker-toy, what do you think Windows is?

Another tinker-toy.  Why does the "Open" Source discussion ALWAYS come back
to MicroSoft and Windows.

I'm talking the economics of software innovation.  And the argument ALWAYS
turns into, "Why are You so IN FAVOR of MICROSOFT???" when I'm not.
"MicroSoft isn't developing GREAT software EITHER", which I already know.
As I said previously.



| Linux is a far, far better OS than Windows, and I say that even though
| neither are among my favorites.

That could be, but I'm not even gonna try to assess that one, on the server
OR the desktop.

|
| > Look, anyone can buy into this Open Source line if they wanna, but the
| > consequences are still the consequences...  It's a poor method
| to develop
| > and distribute reliable software and produce innovation, no
| matter how it's
| > dressed up.
|
| I strongly disagree. Linux is the best-known counterexample, but it's far
| from the only one.

Again, Linux is best-known piece of marketing hype of the past century.  It
MAY very-well be able to survive based on the marketing hype and it's being
a counter-balance to M$...  Innovation???  Reliability???

What's the ETA of these, fer as Linux goes???  I keep hearing these things
are "just around the corner".

?