×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
From: James Perkins
I don't necessarily think enterprise OS's should be open source.
I appreciate your response to Steve. Asking IBM to open-source an OS is roughly like asking Coke to open-source a soft-drink formula, or asking Proctor & Gamble to open-source a formula for detergent. It appeals to people who demand something for nothing, but is not usually in the interest of the original innovators, except in a few rare cases where competitive barriers prevent a good product from taking off. I'm really not aware of anyone using open-source as a means of gaining market share for a fully-developed, legacy commercial product.
Open-source is often misrepresented by promoters. I'm aware of a company that formed a non-profit consortium to receive & pool funds to develop a software product for members under the guise that the software would be "owned" by members. Promoters told prospects that the software would be open-source, and free. Of course, membership in the consortium was fee-based. And only members would get a license. Which led to a lot of confusion. Was the software really free? Or was a license fee disguised as a membership fee? Or was the whole thing like a Ponzi scheme, in reverse - where early "investors" would pay for product development, while members who might join years later, down the road, would get a fully-developed product for just the annual membership fee? So early investors are ripped off, while later investors get exceptional value? Would the smartest investors just wait for the product to be developed, then join for just 1 year, take the
source, and run?
A very confusing business model, to say the least. A good-faith, long-term business model? Or bait & switch? Or a smoke-screen used for picking pockets? Or only time might tell who might be winners and losers? In this particular case there was one individual owner of the non-profit entity that held the copyrights - the only one having distribution rights. So who really owned the software?
It seems that a lot of organizations these days are promoting free & open-source software, citing the Apache legacy; but looking behind the curtain, and reading the fine print tells a completely different story.
Nathan.
midrange.com
