Re: open source the IBM i kernel. Was: Why i??? NEED YOUR INPUT

I by no means fall under the "Microsoft is evil" thoughts, but are you
really trying to say that Microsoft is more open or more committed to
open source than IBM? IBM heavily contributes to OOS. How about
eclipse, OpenJPA, Lotus Symphony just to name a few..

--
James R. Perkins



On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:47, Steve Richter <stephenrichter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Schmidt, Mihael
<Mihael.Schmidt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,


... But I totally disagree with you about making IBM i open source. The IBM i already has such a small community.
 Now take the people who are interested in open source and now take the people who would also take their
time and develop some open source stuff and are allowed to publish it => Almost nobody.

So you really need to wake up. This is not the linux community and not the java community. Things don't work that way here.

a few thoughts:
 - open source kernel development is different from open source
applications and components
 - the microsoft codeplex site http://www.codeplex.com/ is a good
model to follow for how a large vendor can encourage open source
components.
 - a repeat of my original point - open sourcing the kernel OS would
be a game changer in a number of ways. You can't predict the outcome
based on what we have now.
 - another repeat - everything regarding IBM i is trending down.
Either we open source now while we still have a voice and viability or
we hit the endpoint. HP3000 level of irrelevance is approaching.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.