A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

Waethorn — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:44:20 GMT

"You do realise that many countries have unversal health care, and offer much better care than is available in the US, right?"

I know I don't need to buy basic healthcare coverage in Canada. My taxes (and others' too) pay for that, not for amassing an army for the occupation of a once-sovereign foreign nation, or for bailing out mismanaged insurance creditors because of their incompetence (or the governments').

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

Waethorn — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:37:41 GMT

"Most device manufacturers that employ open source software only do so because they don't have to start from the ground up. What they'll do is build proprietary, closed technologies on it, though."

If you want an example of this, just look at Ubuntu. There are components of Ubuntu that are NOT open source. In fact, Stallman has been quite vocal about his detest of Canonical, and the fact that their product contains proprietary code.

news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10055894-16.html

Ubuntu isn't anything special either. It's just another repackaging and rebranding of Debian Linux. If you want to look at how "free" the software is for a company, just ask a number of companies if they trust their day-to-day operations to freeware distributions of Linux on their servers, and they'll laugh at you. Companies that run "open-source" software do so by buying it from companies like Red Hat and Novell. Such software also contains closed-source components that have been integrated long ago. There's a good article here on the subject:

www.eweek.com/.../1

As you can tell, I'm not a fan of Stallman.

neosmart.net/.../richard-stallman-expert-in-the-art-of-fud

The GPL is full of contradictions ( tieguy.org/.../freedom-for-users-which-users-did-you-mean-exactly-or-of-users-user-deployers-and-user-consumers ), and Stallman is a blowhard who has no quams about making money TALKING about free software. The GPL and the BSD are both licensing models after all is said and done. Users don't own the software outright. Even the new GPL versions say that it maintains intellectual property rights for the developer. The BSD offers more freedom to the developer to make money on derivative works though. Over all, I can confidently say that most consumers don't care whether or not they have access to the source code. What they care about is whether or not the software is a good value for their money. The BSD license is a better open-source model for this, since derivative works can make money for the developer, and Newsflash: Money drives innovation.

Ask any knowledgeable person what would happen if Apple licensed Linux instead of Unix for the core of OS X. Do you really think they'd have any motivation to create yearly for-pay updates to the thing if they didn't stand to make money on it?

(Ok, bad example. OS X updates aren't exactly innovative. You get the idea though.)

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

gorath — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:35:13 GMT

"Innovation is hurt by Open Source, just as it is with Universal Healthcare or other socialist programs."

What? How does universal health care hurt innovation? You do realise that many countries have unversal health care, and offer much better care than is available in the US, right?

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

Waethorn — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:03:38 GMT

"I thought his hardware reference was referring to all these devices like set-top boxes, gadgets, automation systems, interface units and so on, that use open software at their core."

I have yet to see any hardware platform that uses entirely open source software, except for those "project" based tinker toy gadgets. Most device manufacturers that employ open source software only do so because they don't have to start from the ground up. What they'll do is build proprietary, closed technologies on it, though. It's the same with Apple, Google, and the like. They don't invest any money in initial development, but just band-aid technologies on top of a pre-established core that cost them nothing in R&D. The original developers (of BSD Unix, GPL Linux, Webkit, Apache, etc.) get nothing in the way of royalty payments either. That's why open source is a scam market.

"that sounds a lot like a conservative argument against Universal Healthcare as defined by the current president elect"

Right-wing government arguing in favour of a left-wing policy? That's why I say the US is backwards.

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

tayme — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:33:24 GMT

Like I said earlier...my opinion is that open source software generally appears to be a poor imitation of the commercial packages that it is trying to compete with. The current version of Open Office has the look and feel of MS Office from 10 years ago and the performance is worse than that. Until the deveopment cycle of Open Source communities can be streamlined, that will continue to be the case...but, once streamlined to be effective, it will no longer be Open Source in todays definition, anyway. Innovation is hurt by Open Source, just as it is with Universal Healthcare or other socialist programs.

--tayme

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

tayme — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:28:35 GMT

@mikegalos - "Until then, "open source" is a con game to get techies to stop taking well earned money for highly specialized and difficult skills while the less skilled and less educated continue to rob them blind."

Hey, that sounds a lot like a conservative argument against Universal Healthcare as defined by the current president elect. Bravo!!!

--tayme

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

gorath — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:23:53 GMT

Wae, I thought his hardware reference was referring to all these devices like set-top boxes, gadgets, automation systems, interface units and so on, that use open software at their core.

But, I'll hold judgement until I've read the book to get a better understanding of his views.

i may be wrong, he may be wrong, we may all be wrong, but I find it inane to simplistically blow his ideas without even fully digesting them.

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

Dipsh t Admin — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:57:54 GMT

"He is right, Microsoft is toast. They are the new IBM. Big, slow and boring."

Hmm, I don't think I'd mind being in IBM's positions at all. They only had a "paltry" 98 Billion in revenues last year, and their technology is probably enabling you to use your credit card on Macs.

money.cnn.com/.../225.html

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

Waethorn — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:32:12 GMT

"I have asked a number of friends in different schools in different states and the only software they speak of is Office. Broderbund might be making enough money to sustain development, or just ship the same software year after year, but the fact that they charge is preventing it from being ubiquitous in schools."

It's not sold to schools, but the cost is extremely cheap for most of it's software, considering that it IS educational. Microsoft also charges for Office, and it's even more money than what Broderbund charges for their typical piece of software, but it is almost considered a requirement since most students that come away from school will most certainly see it day-to-day when they graduate. Broderbund charges less for their products than many other companies though. Their main customer base is end-users, not schools. And yes, they have many recurring products, but they also acquire many new products and have been expanding their product base steadily over the past years. They were once a very small independent gaming company in the 80's after all.

"Medicine is different from science."

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

"But are you arguing that medicine should be free and software should be proprietary?"

One isn't necessary for sustaining human life, so yes, I do - at least, according to your own understanding of your cookie-cutter terms (my ongoing argument about your comments). Software can be open-source and still cost money (a comment that you keep contradicting yourself with). Likewise, for-cost software can still be interoperable.

"And I envision a world where many software programmers getting paid"

Then you wouldn't stand a chance in a room with Richard Stallman.

For him, the idea is to get paid talking about software - you just can't get paid to make it.

"If you see an airplane fly by, you can wonder WHY someone would possibly be motivated built it"

And when was the last time a jet manufacturer released their engine manufacturing specs?

""open source" is a con game to get techies to stop taking well earned money for highly specialized and difficult skills while the less skilled and less educated continue to rob them blind."

My sentiments exactly.

"YouTube? Google? Amazon? (And many more) are doing just fine by using open source development tools, utilities and operating systems."

And when was the last time you saw Google's search engine tools, or Amazon's shopping cart software. Ya, I thought so. STFU!

"It happens to be what builds Wikipedia, but it needn't be the case with software."

Naaah....

wikimediafoundation.org/.../en

Welcome to the real world: people needing money.

"Another thing I've come to realize is how free software will also stimulate new demand for hardware -- which will be bought. A world of free software is a world of amazing hardware."

WTF?! Manufacturers of hardware often don't even support open-source software with their own hardware. It's all well and good that I can go and get off-the-shelf components, but support for open-source stuff is literally in the toilet. If I want some new motherboard, video card, or maybe some other doo-dad, I don't want my only means of support to be some basement script-kiddy in "the community" writing drivers for it.

"Yet Linux marketshare increases year after year, and it is just getting started."

It's been "just getting started" for the last 10 years now, and it's going nowhere fast.

"I think the industry, and the world, could look very different in 5 years."

Still waiting for "The Year of Desktop Linux", are we?

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

KeithCu — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:39:09 GMT

@gorath:

Hey, no problem. I just wanted to expand upon the health care topic. On another site someone argued that medicine should be free but software proprietary! I thought that was backwards. But I do think that governments and public institutions can be big sponsors of free software, like they are with medicine and other forms of research.

I think the book is interesting. It surely isn't the last word, but there is a ton of food for though. I explored many aspects of the computer industry in the two years I worked on writing it. Much has been written about free software before, but my book has quite a bit of new material, even for those very close to free software. For example, one chapter lists the remaining challenges for world domination.

I only made my comment about pre-conceptions because some here think the debate is already over and free software will always be a niche, but I think of the movement as just now hitting critical mass! I think the industry, and the world, could look very different in 5 years. We live in interesting times.

Regards

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

gorath — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:50:17 GMT

@keithKu, I realise that free to the end user is different to free, which is why I hurriedly tagged that extra post on.

Anyway, whilst I don't agree with much of what you're saying, your book does sound interesting, and I may well pick up a copy.

There's no point entering into a debate based on preconceptions, now is there!

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

KeithCu — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:38:06 GMT

This blog post is about a book, which goes into tons of detail on Mike Galos's latest objections. Presumably he's got his standard arguments against free software programmed into macros.

I never say that free software is only about people volunteering their time. It happens to be what builds Wikipedia, but it needn't be the case with software. Mike can insist that it would have to be that way, but that is not the case. I keep mentioning IBM.

The bottom line is that software will turn into a services business. If you've got a legal problem, you will hire a lawyer. If you've got a computer problem, or want support, you will hire a programmer, etc.

And I repeat again that by some estimates 75% of software is written at places like Merrill Lynch, etc. because there is a business need, not because of a need for licensing revenue. And that software is "free software" in the sense that presumably that other Merrill Lynch employees can read the code, download it as many times as they want, make changes to it, etc.

Another thing I've come to realize is how free software will also stimulate new demand for hardware -- which will be bought. A world of free software is a world of amazing hardware. Free software might hurt proprietary software companies, but it will help every other type of company.

I repeat my point that people here admit that the airplane exists, but don't believe it could possibly be flying, or it is about to crash "any day now". Yet Linux marketshare increases year after year, and it is just getting started.

I understand many of these arguments -- that was where I started.

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

robertsjoe — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:27:22 GMT

@mikegalos: "Open source is a con game"? I think you may well be on your way to surpassing Paul in your outrageous punditry and fanboyism. You guys are well on your way to being a joke. In fact, you both jumped the shark a long time ago. That's why your commentary is seen as holding no weight.

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

mikegalos@msn.com — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:09:24 GMT

Yes.

"Open source" is a con game. The fact that you can join in reaping some of the benefits of conning people doesn't change the equation.

Lots of people join in making money off of sweat shops and child labor, that doesn't change what they are.

Your argument is like saying that because a retailer makes more money by buying from a manufacturer that uses child labor, it's OK. After all. They made lots of money and they weren't the ones with kids chained to workbenches.

And, of course, it means that there's a disadvantage to everyone who doesn't participate. Guess you're equally opposed to the Apple tax, too. After all, they pay their programmers which cuts their profits.

re: A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

robertsjoe — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:57:02 GMT

@mikegalos: "Until then, "open source" is a con game to get techies to stop taking well earned money for highly specialized and difficult skills while the less skilled and less educated continue to rob them blind."

A "con game"? You're drinking too much of Microsoft's Kool-aid. Open source is a way to free yourself from the high Microsoft tax. Go and ask all the techies running highly successful companies using open source software and see whether they are making any money or not. YouTube? Google? Amazon? (And many more) are doing just fine by using open source development tools, utilities and operating systems. They are not buying in to the Microsoft tax.