Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Nader Plots to Destroy Microsoft with Open Source

By ScottBrady in MLP
Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 08:47:13 AM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

According to the Conservative/Cybercast News Service, Ralph Nader is a key player in a plot to bring down Microsoft through the use of Open Source (also here). This (almost) 2 year old, ~10 page document has to be the most hilarious anti-Open Source/Free Software piece I've ever read.


I came across this gem while browsing through archives and couldn't let it be relegated to a dusty corner of the web any longer. So, I've dragged it out into the lime light for all of K5 to poke, prod, and generally rip apart. It's also good for a laugh or two.

Here are a few of my favorites:

"How could anyone but a radical anarchist support a concept like 'free software'?"

"[free software is] a radical concept that will remove most software from the store shelves if the concept succeeds."

And for the final quote, a drum role please:

"Finally, OSS shows that Nader and his allies - self-proclaimed consumer advocates - do not have in mind the best interests of consumers. His support for cyber-anarchism would deprive companies of their property rights and deprive consumers of standard, quality software."

Enjoy.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Open Source is an evil plot by:
o Ralph Nadar 2%
o ESR 12%
o RMS 25%
o Bill Gates 29%
o CowboyNeal 29%

Votes: 78
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Conservati ve/Cybercast News Service
o plot to bring down Microsoft
o here
o Also by ScottBrady


Display: Sort:
Nader Plots to Destroy Microsoft with Open Source | 37 comments (32 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
I never knew (2.00 / 2) (#3)
by Phage on Wed Jan 03, 2001 at 10:10:02 PM EST

Firstly, I can't believe it ! Is there really a news service specifically for "the Conservative" ?

Secondly, if that article is genuine, it is one of the funniest things I have seen for quite a while !


I don't find Heathens to be sexy, as a general rule.
Canthros

Conservative News (3.00 / 2) (#7)
by Robert Uhl on Wed Jan 03, 2001 at 10:42:20 PM EST

Of course. All news is biased--it cannot be otherwise, due ot human nature. Thus it makes sense that one get news from a variety of sources adhering to a variety of viewpoints--conservative, liberal, authoritarian, libertarian &c. That is the only way in which one may achieve to develop one's own view of current events. Since the vast majority of news sources are liberal, there is certainly a need for a conservative voice. Were the situation reversed, there would be a need for a liberal voice. Or rather, in both cases, voices.

A single news source is incompatible with true and enlightened freedom.

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (3.66 / 3) (#8)
by Phage on Wed Jan 03, 2001 at 10:59:09 PM EST

You are completley correct.
It was the baldness of the label that startled me.
I suppose I am just used to media applying euphemisms for conservative when labelling their products...

I don't find Heathens to be sexy, as a general rule.
Canthros
[ Parent ]
`Interesting' point of view... (4.28 / 7) (#5)
by _Quinn on Wed Jan 03, 2001 at 10:31:25 PM EST

Unix is a proprietary operating system intended to compete against Microsoft Windows
Hm. :)

-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
Look at It as an Opportunity (4.30 / 13) (#6)
by Robert Uhl on Wed Jan 03, 2001 at 10:35:42 PM EST

Don't laugh at someone because he disagrees with you--that is puerile in the extreme. It's a far better idea to take a look at how he might be persuaded to agree.

This guy obviously did his homework, taking a look at the FSF and OSI websites. He recognises that OS/FS is not a new idea and has `been around for a long time.' He admits that Open Source works `if a sufficient number of programmers are willing to donate their time improving software,' although he judges this as doubtful. So the first order of business is to demonstrate that it is not doubtful, but likely. Exhibits A and B: Linux and the GNU tools which atop it. The former provides an OS in many ways better than some commercial offerings, and the latter provides software which is much better than the commercial alternatives.

He holds the `there's no-one to sue' line, and states that a multitude of evolving products makes it difficult for `consumers...[to] identify the products they need.' The counter to this is to argue that software is not really so much a product as it is a method of dealing with data. No-one argues that every car manufacturer should re-invent a measurement system--the sane ones use the imperial system, and the foolish ones the metric:-) Seriously, software is more a matter of public standards on data formats and agreed-upon ways of dealing with data formatted therewith than it is something akin to a gear, cog or wrench.

He seems to believe that opening the source leads to a chaotic number of differing versions (forks, in our parlance) of software. We can easily counter this argument with the fact that forks don't happen very often. Indeed, it's actually the free market at work: anyone is free to fork at any time, but it is not generally in one's best interest to do so. And the multitude of versions actually encourages adherence to standards, and adherence that is discouraged in the proprietary market.

He misunderstands our view of ownership. Some of us are no doubt lunatic-fringe socialists believing owenrship is theft &c. Others of us, though, view ownership as a good thing, but believe that it has its limits. How can one own an idea? One can only be given power over it by the state--unlike property, and idea has no boundaries and cannot itself be patrolled. It makes perfect sense for a hardware vendor to open-source its drivers; it makes its money from said drivers, and any improvements to them (such as might be made by the legions of OS/FS programmers) increase the value of its hardware, for free.

The best argument is in practice. In practice OS/FS works--programmers do contribute their work, and we do advance the state-of-the-art. We are in support of openess and standards. Obfuscation hurts innovation--it is as though Fords used a system based on 17.456 inches to make the parts for their autos, thus tying the consumer into them as the sole provider of parts. Mechanics would not be able to work on several different brands at once. We've seen what the prevalence of two competing standards does in the car repair market: normal mechanics and European-auto mechanics. The same Balkanisation occurs with software, but due to the incredibly low barriers to entry (anyone can make a standard cheaply, and he can change it with each version of his software) it has become far worse.

As a last thought, he argues against forcing Microsoft to support standards. This can easily be counter-argued by the simple existence of the Internet. Due to a common set of protocols (SMTP, HTTP, FTP, BGP &c.) on top of a common set of protocols (TCP, IP, Ethernet &c.), the Internet has achieved much greater heights of value to the end-consumer than any of its closed predecessors. AOL, Compuserve, Genie and Prodigy at the height of their power never equalled the magnificence of what OS/FS has created. We have demonstrated our superiority.

re: Look at It as an Opportunity (4.25 / 4) (#11)
by ScottBrady on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 12:08:06 AM EST

(I don't generally like it when authors "defend" their story; alas, I'll bite anyway)

"Don't laugh at someone because he disagrees with you--that is puerile in the extreme."

Agreed.

I was not attempting to mock Mr. Reilly. I did, however, find many of his statements to be quite amusing because of their utter absurdity. I even considered this do be a late April Fools joke.

A few more points of interest:

  • the connection of Ralph Nader to OSS through a "plot" against MS
  • "radical anarchists"
  • lack of understanding of UCITA when referring to liability
  • OSS is at a disadvantage for not using "targeted marketing"
  • "pirating" free software
  • implying Windows came before Unix (poor wording, or ignorance)
  • EFF "opposes 'decency' regulations" (low blow)
  • "It will tear apart a company that provides the world's favorite standard operating system"
  • standard protocols would "dampen the creativity and progress of software developers"

I could continue but I'll stop there.

Even in this sea of conspiracy theories, factually incorrect information, and wild conclusions I find a few nuggets of gold. There are a few moments when this author raises valid points:

  • "OSS advocates' claims have merit if a sufficient number of programmers are willing to donate their time improving software (a doubtful prospect over the long term)"
    Open Source is not the answer to every problem. You can't expect that developers will want to work on your project (case in point: Mozilla).
  • "That, of course, is an important limitation of OSS: it appeals primarily to those who have an interest in tinkering with programs."
    Very true. Linux is not going to gain mainstream desktop market share only because "it's open source," it will have to be a better product.

If nothing else, the article is a good look into the mind of the "other camp." Learn from it and grow.

--
Scott Brady

--
Scott Brady
"We didn't lie to you... the truth just changed."
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
[ Parent ]

Exhibit C (3.50 / 4) (#14)
by msphil on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 02:21:28 AM EST

Exhibits A and B: Linux and the GNU tools which atop it. The former provides an OS in many ways better than some commercial offerings, and the latter provides software which is much better than the commercial alternatives.
And, potentially more visible to non-Unix users: Exhibit C: The GIMP, which has a Windows port (and BeOS and Mac ports in progress). This is, arguably, a very subversive piece of software, sneaking out of the Free/OpenSource camp and onto "normal" desktop systems, demonstrating great power (and, incidentally, utility and freedom).

What makes this a stronger Free/OpenSource banner (IMO) is that it is of more general utility to more people than, say, Linux is. Having the editing capabilities of the GIMP on hand at my previous job (Win32 coding) relieved me of the hassle of juggling our two Photoshop licenses if I needed to generate or edit a graphic. Not to mention the plugins (which require Photoshop addons to match).

OK, so I would move Linux to B and the GNU system tools to C, and headline the GIMP as A (even though, strictly speaking, it could fall under the GNU tools).

[ Parent ]

Exhibit D: Apache (none / 0) (#36)
by johnzo on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 07:51:58 PM EST

You forgot Apache. Without Apache, would we even be talking about open source or free software right now?

zo.

[ Parent ]

"source code" (4.25 / 4) (#9)
by finial on Wed Jan 03, 2001 at 11:48:17 PM EST

>Makers of proprietary software, do not reveal the software's "source code"
>Without the source code, it is virtually impossible for anyone but the manufacturer to alter the software
>The "free" nature of OSS quickly collapses into chaos.
>This would help companies fix "bugs" in software
>Media reports have portrayed OSS developers as "Davids" prepared to topple the Microsoft "Goliath."
I don't know about you, but I find this hysterically funny. I can just see all those air quotes flying. Harry Shearer could have a field day with this! Everybody together ... arms up, fingers in a narrow "V" and .... QUOTE source QUOTE ... QUOTE bugs QUOTE ... QUOTE free QUOTE and relax .. 2, 3, ...

I thought so too, but then... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by YellowBook on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 10:57:33 AM EST

I noticed that it was a "feature" (Dr. Evil quotes) of the search tool used to get to the article. Notice that "open" and "source" appear in the link, and every occurence of "open" and "source" is bold.



[ Parent ]
quote unquote (none / 0) (#27)
by finial on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 12:18:04 PM EST

Ah! So this is a "feature" of the "search engine." That "explains" the bold italics, but I still love the QUOTE quotes UNQUOTE
>discussions of "remedies"
>allegations about Microsoft's "misdeeds,"
>endorse the "revolutionary" changes
>signed a joint letter with several "consumer" organizations
>(EFF), a "cyber-liberties" organization that opposes "decency" regulations
Oh, stop, stop .. I'm going to blow my milk out my nose.

p.s. In my last message, I forgot to link to Harry Shearer. A good time if you have any spare.

[ Parent ]
heh.. (3.33 / 6) (#10)
by rebelcool on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 12:06:00 AM EST

Amusing as the article is (tending to the other extreme side of the issue), I view this with the same amusement that I view the "OPEN SOURCE IS THE ONLY WAY WE WILL OVERCOME ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US" viewpoints constantly espoused on here and slashdot.

This quote is somewhat accurate from an economic standpoint: "But OSS has a fatal flaw: it is based on a false theory of production. For the sake of an imagined voluntary cooperative, OSS rejects free market competition and loses the market's distinct advantages to meet consumer needs with quality products and targeted marketing. In a free market, identifiable manufacturers own the product. They are responsible for product performance, and they can be held liable for inexcusable flaws."

Take out the inflammatory words and you've got a valid point. There is no real accountability or physical reward in free software. Though one can have open source without being free, as we see such products as Resin doing. I think while open source has its place, the FREE loosely based open source's future is quite limited. OSS is a good way to have peer review of one's products.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site

But... (3.33 / 3) (#12)
by DAldredge on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 12:33:58 AM EST

There is no real accountability in closed source software either! Just read the license that comes with most (all?) closed source software.

The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
uh.. (1.50 / 2) (#13)
by rebelcool on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 01:12:44 AM EST

try technical support agreements. (especially true in the "real" computing market, that is the ones who sell critical systems to businesses). You might pay a few hundred of software..what you REALLY pay for is support of that software. Support == accountability. the only support for OSS is mailing lists, which are unreliable at best. Also the documentation for OSS in my experience has been piss poor and next to worthless.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

You're wrong, sorry. (3.00 / 1) (#16)
by pwhysall on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 07:33:49 AM EST

the only support for OSS is mailing lists, which are unreliable at best.
Oh come now, that's utter rubbish and you well know it.

So the large, expensive support contracts I can buy from the likes of Red Hat, LinuxCare, Penguin Computing, VA Linux Systems, SuSE etc don't exist? All of these companies offer paid for, professional support for their products.

I don't expect to see such blatant FUD on K5.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#23)
by rebelcool on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 11:36:13 AM EST

the few companies which sell open source software sell..TECHNICAL SUPPORT as I was saying earlier. However, for those OSS software that ISNT supported by companies (the vast vast majority) only have mere mailing lists. I despise the support situation (or lack thereof) for OSS. If people dont get their act together and start writing decent documentation, and making a concentrated effort on supporting their software, it's going to be the downfall of it.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Such as? (none / 0) (#25)
by pwhysall on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 11:47:01 AM EST

Throwing these general statements around is all well and fine but what particular products are you thinking of?

Without specific examples your argument isn't particularly strong.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]

GNUJSP (none / 0) (#28)
by rebelcool on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 12:31:03 PM EST

off the top of my head, GNUJSP which is a JSP compiler servlet. I used this software for about a year or so, suffering through random crashes of my webserver which I could forgive because of the experimental nature. Version 1.0.1 final came out a few weeks back and I decided to upgrade to it. I read the docs, did what it said and it wouldn't work. The server would throw up misconfiguration errors. I posted numerous questions and posts to the mailing list, which were summarily ignored. I thought this was strange because other people were having their much more mundane questions answered. Finally one of the developers wrote me back and told me to do things that I had already done. I told him this and sent my configuration files to him. This was 3 weeks ago, no reply yet. Granted with the holidays I can somewhat understand, which is why I gave him some time. However, my time is limited.

A few days ago I switched to Resin, a more stable/faster/better webserver than the Apache/JServ/GNUJSP setup I was using before. Though I've posted a question to the mailing list there too and am eagerly awaiting an answer. (with Resin, you only get tech support if you purchase a license..since i'm not being paid for the work i'm doing, I don't need to buy a license..though they've setup a mailing list where a few of the devs frequently answer some questions)

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

I thought GNUJSP was dead years ago (none / 0) (#33)
by sab39 on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 04:00:27 PM EST

1.0 came out well over a year ago, and they just released a 1.0.1 bugfix release. There has been a 1.0.1beta release on the website for at least 6 months, IIRC (with a note that the next release should be out "this weekend" or something).

It doesn't take a genius to realize that this project, if not completely dead, isn't exactly a hive of activity. If 1.0 was working for you, as it is for me (in production environments) why upgrade? Is it really worth the hassle?

At some point in the future, I plan on upgrading to Tomcat. Tomcat is clearly a lively, supported project and may well be where a lot of the momentum from GNUJSP went. My early tests indicated that it wasn't up to the level of performance and reliability of GNUJSP 1.0 yet, but when it does, I'll switch. The one time I had an issue with Tomcat, I contacted one of the developers and received an immediate response.

One bad (dead) project does not make a bad development model.

--
"Forty-two" -- Deep Thought
"Quinze" -- Amélie

[ Parent ]
still actively developed (none / 0) (#34)
by rebelcool on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 04:50:32 PM EST

Final 1.0.1 came out awhile back. It promised numerous fixes and after getting random crashes in apache (not sure if it was jserv, or gnujsp..log files were unhelpful) I figured upgrading couldn't hurt.

Forget tomcat. I tried that, its slow and difficult to configure.

Use Resin. It's benchmarks put it at slightly faster than apache for static serving, faster than mod_php and mod_perl, and twice as fast as using apache for JSPs.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

where's the difference (none / 0) (#29)
by mikpos on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 01:04:00 PM EST

There are some proprietary software houses which offer support for a price, as you've said; there are also free software houses which offer support for a price. The vast majority houses will not put their product under warranty; the same goes for the vast majority of free software authors. Yes, some proprietary software authors will take responsibility for their code, and most free software authors will not (in the legal sense). Where's the difference?

[ Parent ]
Service, not commodity (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by slaytanic killer on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 08:19:44 AM EST

There are a lot of companies that wish to sell support for free/open software. Companies such as IBM realize that OS's are becoming a commoditized market, and wish to sell services such as support. This trend is not localized to IT businesses, but in any capacity where one can sell services over commodities; GE was one of the the largest case studies for this, for example in selling support contracts for Boeing's airplane engines even though they produced their own.

[ Parent ]
So? (3.00 / 1) (#19)
by RangerBob on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 09:15:21 AM EST

...And if all the free software/open source crowd allowed companies to do is provide support, who's going to actually develop anything? ;) I apologize in advance since some of this sounds like a rant. I just think that the community needs to take a step back sometimes and form a reality check.

Seriously though, so what if some companies are getting by being support providers. Not EVERY company can do this, reguardless of how many Raymond/whoever quotes you can remember. This argument is always thrown out by those who view closed source/commercial providers as evil. The thing most miss is that freedom of choice also means freedom to choose/produce closed source. People have to realize that promoting freedom of choice doesn't always mean that they will be chosen.

There will ALWAYS be commercial development, whether or not some people want to accept it. I support the open source movement, and all of my stuff has to be open, but we have to be honest with ourselves sometimes. It takes a lot of time and energy to develop something like Diablo II. And no, while there may be a lot of "talented" hackers out there, they'd be damned hard pressed to do it. It takes a HUGE amount of time, organization, project management, and other skills to pull things off. It involves non coders like artists and marketing people. It also takes structured QA/QC. Following the RedHat lead and doing things like throwing out a beta compiler and putting QC on the public is NOT going to win out with people like my wife or mother. It also should NEVER be done that way with anything that's been proclaimed as a public release. I understand why they did it, and I think people should seriously think about why they had to go this route.

There have been successful big projects, but there have also been a whole lot of projects that have failed. There are also a lot of successful projects that still haven't made a 1.0 release after many years. People get tired of the project and leave. Or they have to devote more energy to things that feed their family. Yes, something like Mozilla is finally comming along, but we can't expect people to wait years for an official release. Customers want things NOW, not sometime down the road. Also notice how it's usually the same people who are fixing Mozilla, not millions of eyes around the world.

Most of the problems I've seen with a lot of coders is that they refuse to follow proper software engineering practices. Or they start out doing it and then get tired because they feel they don't need it. And just because someone knows how to write down code doesn't mean that they can do it well. Like it or not, structured development does produce quality code faster than if you just hack on it until it works. I used to do the hack thing, then got out of college and started out as a software engineer. While I do mainly comp sci research now, my projects do get done a lot quicker and are of a higher quality.

[ Parent ]
Structured development (none / 0) (#21)
by slaytanic killer on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 10:50:59 AM EST

I have a feeling your axe to grind is not necessarily with me. ;) For one thing, I mentioned GE as an example: They produce their own engines, and yet are perfectly happy to service those their competitors produced. And the sole reason I wrote was to contradict the point that that there is no support for free/open software.

Will there continue to be commercial, closed-source dev? Certainly. And is it a bad idea to follow Raymond's advice? Hell yeah, though he's probably not as bad as people think. But as for structured development.. if you look at Torvalds, his job is to impose structure and to say No to patches and features. Companies have a marginal (at best) advantage in setting up infrastructure for structured dev.


[ Parent ]
still though. (none / 0) (#26)
by rebelcool on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 11:51:44 AM EST

There are hundreds of pieces of OSS. the OS market is merely one. My beef with the support of OSS hasnt been with the support of OS, but rather other software that was indeed very critical (GNUJSP, the total lack of decent support for this made me switch to Resin, and i'm very glad I did)

Ever written to a mailing list and been ignored? Or having to wait several days for a reply that tells you to do things you already have? I suppose the same thing could happen if you call up a tech support company, but in the cases where ive needed to call for help my questions are usually answered correctly, or at the very least honestly (my digital camera wont work with this comp, reason "We just don't know why it won't work. How about we overnight you a free card reader for it?")

And with most OSS putting out new patches weekly or daily (the "release often" model would *never* work with a real company for support reasons..can you imagine a company retraining their support people DAILY?)

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

I understand (none / 0) (#30)
by slaytanic killer on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 01:26:53 PM EST

There are not very many good companies. There are not very many good free/open software projects. One tends to stick with people she trusts, like jakarta.apache for Java stuff, or Debian. In those cases, I've found the tech support both top-notch and free when I looked through the mailinglist archives. They want a product that works, not one that they can squeeze for money. And the developers are experienced at implementing their own organization. Compare to Borland's or Microsoft's products. High-quality products, yes. But not up to the level of the free/open products, unless you dearly wish to pay. Then you get the sourcecode and the same ears of the developers.

[ Parent ]
BTW [OT on servlet containers] (none / 0) (#31)
by slaytanic killer on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 01:59:58 PM EST

Have you tried out Tomcat? Possibly Resin is better; haven't tried it out though I've heard good things about it.

You're right; there are many cases where commercial products are solidly better than the free/open variety. No one should make their opinions like a robot, and there's an understandable backlash against Slashbots. But the backlash can sometimes go so far as to say that commercial products are a priori better than free/open products, which to my experience is not true.

[ Parent ]
yep, tried tomcat (none / 0) (#35)
by rebelcool on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 05:01:27 PM EST

Though this was several months ago, at the time tomcat couldn't be started by apache and was a nightmare to configure. Since the project i'm working on depends on ease of use (its aimed at non-adminstrators, and non-developers), tomcat was not for it.

Resin so far has impressed me. It's benchmarks are spectacular and its ease of setup can't be matched for something like a webserver.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Not Open Source (4.00 / 1) (#20)
by winthrop on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 10:46:58 AM EST

I followed the link, and as far as I can tell, Resin doesn not come close to qualifying as open source. It is "source-available". If you buy the product, you can read the source. You can not redistribute it, and hence you can only modify it slightly. If they choose to release a new version you don't like, you can't fork.

For a definition of what make software open source, check out this page by the Open Source initiative.

[ Parent ]

take a look at resin again. (none / 0) (#24)
by rebelcool on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 11:40:34 AM EST

I use this software, quite pleased with it. Anyone can take and modify the source to it. Reselling it however requires permission of caucho. Using resin in a commercial environment requires purchase of a license. This is the way to make money off software where the code is freely available.

To me "open source" means you can read the source code and modify as you see fit. This is the logical definition of those two words. If some monkey zealot such as eric s. raymond and his "open source initiative" which he is convinced is going to take over the world (just like how microsoft is going to go down in 6 months..), wants to differ with that opinion then that is his problem.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Look at motivations for open source software (2.00 / 1) (#32)
by NoNeckJoe on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 02:01:19 PM EST

First, a caveat: I love the open source movement. Almost everything I use now is open source, and I would never want to go back. But time for a little reality:

Nearly every open source project is aimed at duplicating a commercial, closed source product.

  • Linux :: Unix
  • Gimp :: Photoshop
  • GNUCash :: Quicken
  • Gnome/KDE :: Windows

    And the list goes on and on.

    So my question is, what would happen to the open source movement if every commercial software vendor just disappeared?

    No Jeck Joe!

  • I know! I know! (none / 0) (#37)
    by 0xdeadbeef on Thu Jan 04, 2001 at 11:13:58 PM EST

    It'd wander around scratching its collective head wondering "what do we do with all these computers?" Obviously it is too stupid to write something new.

    [ Parent ]
    Nader Plots to Destroy Microsoft with Open Source | 37 comments (32 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!