Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on August 29, 2003 02:32 AM
You are right about being harder for software companies to make a buck, when there's a free alternative... however, the fact that there is a free alternative should be seen as a catalyst for companies to make better, competitive software. Also, the Open Source solution cannot cover the entire spectrum of software alternatives. For example, there are few, and not really very competitive (there are some notable exceptions) games in the Open Source arena. And a big percentage (some even say 90%)of the software business lies in the "custom software" market.
So, the Linux business models requires companies to forget about closed-source monopolies and concentrate in the service-giving side of business. This puts some power back in small developers, as they can easily have access to the technology in order to make working and competitive solutions.
If Red Hat does little business now, then is high time for them to rethink their corporate strategies, and strive for a better model. You rightfully point at IBM as being a service company, and therefore not only does it not feel threatened by Open Source, but it feels it is good for business and contribute to it.
Software should not be a commodity, something you buy and sell (some notable exceptions can be pointed here, such as games and the likes). Rather, you establish a support and customization business on top of it. Anyway, right now, Microsoft does little new software (it rather concentrates in enhancing and supposedly improving their same old programs: Windows and Office). This is not software making, it is maintainance work, and support. Why should you pay for the next version of Windows, only because they f*cked it up with the last one?
Bottom line: you cannot fight what's free. We're having a near total monopoly right now because there was not such an alternative as Linux. When Linux will establish itself as a "mainstream" system (I mean when it will reach critical mass in the desktop arena), then we will have a full working base, on top of which every company and individual is free to add, to make a buck or only to solve a problem.
The availability of source could be meaningless to an individual that simply wants to play a game or write an e-mail, but could be critical for another company. It allows them to make better solutions, to test it against the base OS and decide if problems are created within their code or within the OS, and repair the problem no matter where it is.
I'm a programmer, and many times I have faced the scenario in which my program does some silly things, and I simply cannot find a reason why, whithin my code. Can I take a look at the OS's source to see if the problem lies there, or if it is because I'm using some API the wrong way? No, I can't, with current proprietary OSes. So I release a buggy thing just because I cannot assume anything the OS does.
This is hardly improvement, this is hardly making better technology. It is making more bucks... and, for my 2 cents on the matter, I couldn't give less if Red Hat or IBM or Microsoft make a buck or not. They're there to compete. They had their nice time already, they made their harvest of dollars. If they cannot do their living in the present state of things, so let them hit the bankrupcy court and let others more capable take their places.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:I agree with SCO
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 29, 2003 02:32 AMSo, the Linux business models requires companies to forget about closed-source monopolies and concentrate in the service-giving side of business. This puts some power back in small developers, as they can easily have access to the technology in order to make working and competitive solutions.
If Red Hat does little business now, then is high time for them to rethink their corporate strategies, and strive for a better model. You rightfully point at IBM as being a service company, and therefore not only does it not feel threatened by Open Source, but it feels it is good for business and contribute to it.
Software should not be a commodity, something you buy and sell (some notable exceptions can be pointed here, such as games and the likes). Rather, you establish a support and customization business on top of it. Anyway, right now, Microsoft does little new software (it rather concentrates in enhancing and supposedly improving their same old programs: Windows and Office). This is not software making, it is maintainance work, and support. Why should you pay for the next version of Windows, only because they f*cked it up with the last one?
Bottom line: you cannot fight what's free. We're having a near total monopoly right now because there was not such an alternative as Linux. When Linux will establish itself as a "mainstream" system (I mean when it will reach critical mass in the desktop arena), then we will have a full working base, on top of which every company and individual is free to add, to make a buck or only to solve a problem.
The availability of source could be meaningless to an individual that simply wants to play a game or write an e-mail, but could be critical for another company. It allows them to make better solutions, to test it against the base OS and decide if problems are created within their code or within the OS, and repair the problem no matter where it is.
I'm a programmer, and many times I have faced the scenario in which my program does some silly things, and I simply cannot find a reason why, whithin my code. Can I take a look at the OS's source to see if the problem lies there, or if it is because I'm using some API the wrong way? No, I can't, with current proprietary OSes. So I release a buggy thing just because I cannot assume anything the OS does.
This is hardly improvement, this is hardly making better technology. It is making more bucks... and, for my 2 cents on the matter, I couldn't give less if Red Hat or IBM or Microsoft make a buck or not. They're there to compete. They had their nice time already, they made their harvest of dollars. If they cannot do their living in the present state of things, so let them hit the bankrupcy court and let others more capable take their places.
#