If you're doing something I don't approve off (ie; developing software for a closed system) you're dumb and I'll use a whole page on this here interweb to tell everyone.
Okay. so he has one or two points, the first is that the corp that owns the OS can develop their own software and give it away to push you out of business. Funny, I can't say I see that MS Paint or even Adobe PhotoShop (btw, by his logic, Adobe are sharecroppers) have prevented PaintShopPro from becoming successfull... I don't see how the inclussion of CD-burner functionality in the latest OS from the softwaregiant we love to hate has slowed down the sale of for instance Nero... and despite the fact that a certain company bundles a browser with their OS, Opera and other alternative browsers seems to be gathering followers by the minute.
His second point is more strained; that the one controlling the OS is the one in controll of all sotware that runs on it. This is, as even I can see, stupid at best and FUD at worst. If this held even remoptly true, each and every firm that makes any sort of software, be it wordprossessors, MP3-rippers or graphicsmanipulators, would provide their own underlying OS to stop others from using it to something else... No one can controll what people run on their computers, no matter what OS.
There will always be a marked for second- and thirdparty developers on all operatingsystems, both closed and open source. The difference is, if you develop for closed source, it's more accepted to actually ask for some money to compensate for the time you too to write the code.
So in the end, I'll say he is plain wrong. There are a number of good reasons to develop for OSS, but this is not one of them.
Funny, I can't say I see that MS Paint or even Adobe PhotoShop (btw, by his logic, Adobe are sharecroppers) have prevented PaintShopPro from becoming successfull...
You can't honestly claim that MS Paint is a competitor to Photoshop. He didn't say that the land-owner had to give away competing products, either. An example of underhanded anti-competitive behavior that leveraged operating system monopoly ("land owner") to drive out a competitor ("sharecropper"), is the story of Corel & WordPerfect.
I'm positive that the sales of CD-burning software will be affected by the inclusion of a free one with Windows. How could it not?
Well, MS has a bit of catching up to do if they really want to compete in the CD burning software market. Their CDR tools only do this: -Write files to data CD -Write music to audio CD
What they don't do: -create or burn ISOs -CD text, etc. -Video CD(at least not any way that I've found yet) -DVD writing(at least not with the drive i used to have at work)
You can't honestly claim that MS Paint is a competitor to Photoshop. He didn't say that the land-owner had to give away competing products, either.
Hmm, so let me get this straight. I shouldn't develop for Windows because something bad might happen. Isn't that FUD? Wouldn't it be just as true to point out that something bad might happen to me if I developed for Linux?
An example of underhanded anti-competitive behavior that leveraged operating system monopoly ("land owner") to drive out a competitor ("
Short version... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're doing something I don't approve off (ie; developing software for a closed system) you're dumb and I'll use a whole page on this here interweb to tell everyone.
Okay. so he has one or two points, the first is that the corp that owns the OS can develop their own software and give it away to push you out of business. Funny, I can't say I see that MS Paint or even Adobe PhotoShop (btw, by his logic, Adobe are sharecroppers) have prevented PaintShopPro from becoming successfull... I don't see how the inclussion of CD-burner functionality in the latest OS from the softwaregiant we love to hate has slowed down the sale of for instance Nero... and despite the fact that a certain company bundles a browser with their OS, Opera and other alternative browsers seems to be gathering followers by the minute.
His second point is more strained; that the one controlling the OS is the one in controll of all sotware that runs on it. This is, as even I can see, stupid at best and FUD at worst. If this held even remoptly true, each and every firm that makes any sort of software, be it wordprossessors, MP3-rippers or graphicsmanipulators, would provide their own underlying OS to stop others from using it to something else... No one can controll what people run on their computers, no matter what OS.
There will always be a marked for second- and thirdparty developers on all operatingsystems, both closed and open source. The difference is, if you develop for closed source, it's more accepted to actually ask for some money to compensate for the time you too to write the code.
So in the end, I'll say he is plain wrong. There are a number of good reasons to develop for OSS, but this is not one of them.
Re:Short version... (Score:1)
You can't honestly claim that MS Paint is a competitor to Photoshop. He didn't say that the land-owner had to give away competing products, either. An example of underhanded anti-competitive behavior that leveraged operating system monopoly ("land owner") to drive out a competitor ("sharecropper"), is the story of Corel & WordPerfect.
de
Re:Short version... (Score:0)
Well, MS has a bit of catching up to do if they really want to compete in the CD burning software market. Their CDR tools only do this:
-Write files to data CD
-Write music to audio CD
What they don't do:
-create or burn ISOs
-CD text, etc.
-Video CD(at least not any way that I've found yet)
-DVD writing(at least not with the drive i used to have at work)
I'm sure there's more that
Re:Short version... (Score:2)
Re:Short version... (Score:2)
Hmm, so let me get this straight. I shouldn't develop for Windows because something bad might happen. Isn't that FUD? Wouldn't it be just as true to point out that something bad might happen to me if I developed for Linux?
An example of underhanded anti-competitive behavior that leveraged operating system monopoly ("land owner") to drive out a competitor ("