Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
GNU is Not Unix

Why Use Free/Open Source Software? 261

An Anonymous Coward writes "I came across Why Use Open Source / Free Software? at Linux Today. As the author says in his intro: "This paper provides quantitative data that, in many cases, using Open Source / Free Source software is a reasonable or even superior approach to using their proprietary competition according to various measures." Good to see stuff we've known / suspected for some time backed up by real data...."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Use Free/Open Source Software?

Comments Filter:
  • 1 Its cool

    2 Its slanted towards nerds: we actually GET the cool interfaces and technology

    3 It is, of course, in direct disagreement with the EVIL EMPIRE, Microsoft
    • I don't think there has ever been a big issue with most elite "nerds" getting the OpenSource benefits.

      What we need is an authoritative paper, written by a professional institution, regarding the business benefits and comparisons in the almighty $DOLLAR$.

      Management doesn't care if their nerds say "something is better". The business as an entity does not care. They need to know WHY, in finacial terms. We as techies too often forget that management, and the business as a whole, exists for one purpose - making money fast and in quantity. Quick time to market, and total cost of ownership is the language these other individuals speak. Show management the business implications of using closed sourced software vs. OpenSource software, and make them recognize the finacial benefits and savings.

      Give me this, written in technically illiterate but business savy finacial speak, and I will be a happy engineer.

      :-)
  • I use it because its free and generally isnt bloated or some with spyware or third party offers. (AOL icons, REAL ONE, etc) I don't really think the product is better. I would just rather deal with a crappier product without all the annoying bloat then a bloated good product that fills my computer with SHIT.
  • which are (mostly) run by people who know what they're doing - however the general public has yet to embrace this concept and have open source OSes running at home & in the workplace in numbers big enough to matter.
    • [Yes among webservers] which are (mostly) run by people who know what they're doing - however the general public has yet to embrace this concept and have open source OSes running at home & in the workplace in numbers big enough to matter.

      It matters that the concept has been adopted by people who know what they are doing. The ellusive 'desktop market' may or may not follow suit, but that doesn't really have to be an issue. A community composed primarily of competent members can survive without the masses. (Do i sound like a linux elitist? Bah. I appreciate efforts like Lycoris to bring FS to the general public, but I realize that their success or failure won't affect me or my computing future.)

      • webserver admins will always look at linux as an option... we dont need to worry about them choosing linux... but if we ever want to see linux on the desktop its not going ot happen immediatly... everyone has always predicted that suddenyl there is going to be a massive conversion of windows users... its not going ot happen... each linux user must be converted one by one... so if you DO use linux then help other... what linux needs is for experianced users to help them through the process... so go out and help 3 other people... and they help 3 other people and so on... you get the idea... personally for me i understand this well as i am still moving over to linux now and it does hlep to have other around... when i know wnough im going to help everyone i can...
    • For webservers, the software really is better.

      But for home & workplace use, it isn't. While open source alternatives do exist, they aren't of the quality of features that home and workplace users have come to expect. A website admin doesn't need to deal with anyone except for web browsers--while a home user needs to deal with games & whatnot, and business users have the even bigger problem of not wanting to lose time and money figuring out software that doesn't quite work the way they expect it to.

      I just tried OpenOffice, and I'll try it again in a few versions--once it stops marking my grammatical choices as spelling mistakes, and maybe when it tracks changes & deals with outlines.

      (I use both in writing at home, and my boss uses the track changes feature at work.)
    • Most people I know that run servers either run linux(or BSD) servers, or would run linux servers if they had the hardware. Windows isn't even considered a serious option - sort of a last resort.

      As for servers in the workplace, from the experience I have had - at least of small organisations - is that linux is quite a common and popular choice, even for just a print and filesharing server.

      Could be though that I live in Australia - Australian's were the quickest to move from black and white to color tv, the most number of mobile phones per person, and one of the most online countries in the world. We love new technology.
  • Because it's better (Score:3, Interesting)

    by magicslax ( 532351 ) <frank_salim@@@yahoo...com> on Saturday April 20, 2002 @11:02PM (#3381880)
    Good to see stuff we've known / suspected for some time backed up by real data....

    Looking at a bunch of graphs deoesn't explain why I use Free Software solutions. Apache's market share might be impressive, but that's not the reason I use Apache on my server and linux on every box. I use Free Software because I like what Free Software has to offer. Even the article's "Non-Quantitative Issues" doesn't adress user preference. Gnome just Feels Good to use and would likely be my choice regardlesss of any superiority of licensing or cold hard technical superiority.

  • I don't see why people need to make these generalities.

    "Open Source is better"
    "Propietary is better"

    whatever. just use what works.

    blah blah. I don't feel like finishing what I was going to say.
    don't mod me up.
  • Free as in pirated? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AndrewCox ( 180128 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @11:09PM (#3381903)
    Why use free/open source software when you can get the commercial software for free?

    We've all heard how software pirating hurts the commercial software industry, but how about the cheap bastards that would otherwise be using free/open source applications?
    • That's actually a good question; if I hadn't allready commented, I'd mod you up for it.

      MS et al actually gain from someone pirating their software rather than using OSS. Many people I know of priated MS Word, and if they didn't learn it this way and get used to it this way, they'd probably be using OpenOffice or whatever was cheapest for the jobs.

      The fact is, software piracy only "hurts" the comercial software industry in the way that me walking into a store and not buying anything "hurts" the store. Counting non-certain purchasers as "lost sales" is a logical fallicy that's propagated to grant powers of asinine enforcement, and outrageous legal fees.
    • by Tyreth ( 523822 )
      Piracy actually helps proprietry software. For that reason I wish it wasn't possible.

      When people pirate software they help that product establish a monopoly. More people install it, the firmer entrenched it becomes. Imagine the next version of windows being impossible to pirate through some subscription service. How many people around the world would there be who would:
      a) continue to use the older versions indefinately
      b) convert to an open source alternative because they can't afford the new product

      If people always paid for new versions of Microsoft products (or any other company) I think the product would eventually fail, or certainly never hold a monopoly - or make computers available to the elite few.
  • Open source would be nothing with out corporate source. Companies create new ideas and uses that idea to make a profit. Then the open source community makes it better and makes it free. It is really just that simple.
    • Open source would be nothing with out corporate source. Companies create new ideas and uses that idea to make a profit. Then the open source community makes it better and makes it free. It is really just that simple.

      Hogwash. After the LoveBug wreaked havoc on Cyberspace and many articles pointed out that Microsofts monopoly of the operating system makes it as vulnerable to viruses as the entire state of Kansas when planted with a single breed of corn would be vulnerable to diseases, Microsoft, in the person of Bill Gates himself, wrote a rebuttal. The rebuttal was printed in in a newsweekly, I forgot whether it was Time or Newsweek.

      Essentially, Mr. Gates defended his company's monopoly by pointing out that it enables Microsoft to create innovation and provide value to its customers. The very same premise you expounded in your post, by the way. Naturally, Professor Gates needs to provide an example to his wide-eyed students in order to drive the point home. Now, guess what MS innovation did Professor Gates provide by way of example? The spreadsheet?, nope, Visicalc invented the spreadsheet. Wysiwyg word processing?, no way!, Wordstar was doing wysiwyg back in the days when Billg still counts himself among the hackers of Basic. The graphical user interface?, no, XEROX PARC invented that one.

      Give up? Bill Gates provided the toolbar as primary evidence of the innovation that a Microsoft monopoly benefits the world. I laughed myself silly after reading that one.

  • Microsoft publicly claims that OSS/FS (in particular its most common license, the GPL) will eliminate innovation

    Microsoft has been publically opposing the GPL exclusively (nor particularly), and supporting (through action) Open Source via the BSD and "Shared Source" licenses. This is very similar to Apple's approach as well (although Apple has obviously taken it to a much farther level with Darwin).

    Indeed, recent court cases give strong evidence that the only reason the proprietary Internet Explorer was the #1 web browser was due to years of illegal use of monopoly power by Microsoft.

    Any objective person will see that IE was the better browser then "Netscape Communicator" and it was gaining incredible popularity well before IE was "integrated" into the OS. If there where better alternatives then maybe everyone wouldn't have flocked to IE. Now that Opera is up to par it's gained incredible marketshare (especially considering the fact that it's a commercial browser). And, the 3MB download is not inconvenient on most any modern connection.

    Indeed, when examining the most important software innovations, it's quickly discovered that Microsoft invented no key innovations

    I thought this was about the benefits of Open Source software, not some poorly documented anti-MS troll fest. Too bad this article won't be taken to heart by many. The blatent bias in some areas discredit the author.

    It's amazing how religious "computer scientists" can be about technology.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      "If there where better alternatives then maybe everyone wouldn't have flocked to IE."

      What are you talking about? People didn't flock to IE; they had it preinstalled on their machines.

      If Netscape was preinstalled... oh nevermind.

      Take your "objective" opinion and take it somewhere else.
    • "Any objective person will see that IE was the better browser then "Netscape Communicator" and it was gaining incredible popularity well before IE was "integrated" into the OS."

      A blatant lie!. Netscape 3.0 was much better then IE 3.0. Nesscape 4.0 was better then IE 4.0. IE became usable by version 5 and it was integrated into the OS before that. By that time Netscape's air supply had been cut off and they could not afford to put too much money into further developing it.
      • Yeah, and Java 1.0 ran blazing fast. You probably still use Netscape 4.x for the nifty 'What's Related' button... also known as the 'Keep track of all the sites you go to and tell you about similar sites' button.

        Netscape 3 was okay, as was IE3. Netscape 4.x was a horrid piece of SHIT. IE4 was decent. IE5 was quite good, while NS 4.7 and pals were just as bad as they were when IE4 came out. Now we have IE6 versus Netscape 6... and Netscape 6 is just a horrible rip of Mozilla. Netscape 6 is worthless - I'm sticking to mozilla.

        BTW, before you label me a troll - I don't even use IE. I'm just trying to make a point here.

        I've been using netscape since v2.0 - hell, I owned a copy of Netscape 2 Gold. But even 2 sucked - I got GPF's in it all the time on my old win 3.x machine. I tried netscape 3, and it was okay... then I tried IE3 on that same 3.x machine. It was an amazing difference - IE3 was faster, more stable, and worked with all of my pages. After that, I moved onto IE4 and Netscape 4 with win9x... and which do you think I chose? Yep, IE4. Why? Because netscape 4 sucked. The most glaring problem was the resizing - resizing a Netscape 4.x browser window is horribly slow compared to resizing an IE or Mozilla window.


        • Now we have IE6 versus Netscape 6... and Netscape 6 is just a horrible rip of Mozilla. Netscape 6 is worthless - I'm sticking to mozilla.


          Yea, I'm sticking with Mozilla too. But come, come. Netscape 6 is a rip of Mozilla? If it wasn't for the actions and funding from Netscape, Mozilla would not exist. Netscape using Mozilla for their next browser offering is how the system is supposed to work.


          Granted - they began harvesting from the Mozilla orchard a bit early. The fruits are still a tad green for the public pallet. But that's their decission.


          Meanwhile, Mozilla marches on. It gets better. And I gladly use it. And I thank Netscape for making it possible.

        • I consdired IE 3.02 and subsequent to be superior to Netscape.

          I'm one of those people that browses by opening everything up in its own window. My problem with Netscape was that if it had to do a DNS lookup in one window then all the windows would freeze and I wouldn't even be able to scroll in another window. IE didn't do this and I've been able to read in peace when dealing with a website that wants to take its time being found.
        • Have you downloaded Netscape [netscape.com] lately? It actually works quite nicely now (i.e., it loads decently fast now). Meanwhile, Mozilla 1.0RC1 is chock-full of bugs and incompatible with Netscape on the same machine. For those of us web authors who like to ensure that our sites run well on most browsers, being able to play well with other browsers on the same box is a requisite.
      • I remember way back when I decided to get IE and Outlook Express, etc. This was shortly after the 4.0 browsers came out for both IE and Netscape. The big reason I dumped Netscape was because if I tried to use it for mail and browsing, if the browser crashed, my mail would crash, and I had a POP3 account, and occasionally lost mail because of that.

        Now, you could argue monopoly in that perhaps if Netscape knew how the OS worked better they might have been able to build a better browser that was more stable. But then again, I doubt it. The 4.0 branch was bloatware and was focused on having opposing standards to Microsoft, who was also building tools, unlike Netscape.

        Now, Mozilla, on the other hand, makes me happy. I have standards support and I can count on a browser that runs on multiple platforms. I'm waiting for a full release for Windows so I can dump a slick fast version on my work machine, which (unfortunately) is bound to use Windows (for now).

        As a person who loves Linux and the open source community, I have to say, that I chose IE as a chose between two CLOSED SOURCE applications (IE and NC), but now I prefer an open source browser (Mozilla).

      • A blatant lie!. Netscape 3.0 was much better then IE 3.0.

        I agree. Netscape Communicator was Netscape 4.0. I was a die hard Netscape user until Communicator came out.

        Nesscape 4.0 was better then IE 4.0.

        Netscape was objectively slower. IE 4.0 was a bit buggy but a couple of point releases later it was easily as stable, if not more stable then Netscape. Netscape supported proprietary crap like the infamous LAYER tag, while IE supported the logical and W3C accepted "DHTML" standards. IE also had far better CSS support.

        By that time Netscape's air supply had been cut off and they could not afford to put too much money into further developing it.


        Yet, Opera, who's "air supply" is theoretically also cut off by MS's integration of the browser, is doing very well. It's faster then IE, it renders almost as well as IE, and is way more customizeable (pop-up stopper, more privacy settings, etc.). Sounds like they're innovating just fine.
        • Opera is not "doing well" they are tiny company making a tiny amount of money. I agree that it's a far superior piece of software then IE (but then again so is Mozilla) but just because opera is surviving as a business does not mean they are "doing well". How much money did they make last year? Where does that put them in the fortune 500? They probably made less money then my local locally owned supermarket did.
          • That's not the point. Relative to Netscape, they have done a lot better. This is because they have made a better product. Also, as much as I like Opera, I still prefer the way IE renders pages overall (esp. how it handles CSS). My main contention is that if Netscape had a decent product that there would be better competition. Now that MS is forced to allow OEM's to put alternative browsers (and other programs) on the desktop, hopefully Opera will do even better. So yes, MS's monopoly is a factor, I'm just saying that Netscape sucked and it would have died one way or another, while superior products ARE surviving in the current marketplace.
            • "Relative to Netscape, they have done a lot better."

              The things people say on slashdot really amaze me sometimes. Nestcape got bought by the one of the biggest media companies in the world for a gob of money. Their shareholders made a lot of money, their employees are now working for AOL/TW and you think opera did better then them? What criterea are you using to make such a statement?

              As for NS the product there was no point in making it better. As soon as MS bundled it with windows the game was over. The folks at NS realized this and started marketing server side stuff and then MS started bundling IIS. Anytime netscape started marketing a product MS made sure they offered a competing one for free and forced all windows users to install it. In the end all they had left was the portal and AOL bought that. They did the best they could under the circumstances. Nobody can survive when a monopoly started giving away competing products. The people at opera had nothing to lose the people at netscape were beholden to their shareholders to spend all their efforts trying to find something to sell that MS wasn't. It's a completely different scenario. It would have been criminal for the CEO of netscape to continue to spend money developing netscape. In the end their revenues would have dropped to where opera is today (pretty damned close to zero) and netscape stock would have been worthless. The shareholders deserved better and as it turned out they got better.
    • Any objective person will see that IE was the better browser then "Netscape Communicator" and it was gaining incredible popularity well before IE was "integrated" into the OS.


      Pure Crap. The first usable IE was 3.02 - bundled with Win95. It had poor performance and problems with frequent crashes. At that time, I also used Netscap 3.x which was far more stable and performed better as well.
    • ...supporting (through action) Open Source via the BSD and "Shared Source"

      Has Microsoft supported BSD by contributing any code or resources? I've heard they incorporate the BSD TCP/IP stack but to the best of my knowledge, that's the extent of their 'support.' 'Support' might not be the right word. 'Use' maybe.

      'Shared source' is perhaps better termed 'viewed source' because the word 'shared' implies that the sharee gets the same benefits (but perhaps only a smaller proportion) as the sharer. Viewers get the right to view but they do not get any benefits beyond this in the sense that a BSD or GPL'd licence allots to them. Certainly they do not get to profit directly from this code, just from the knowlege derived from viewing it.

      From these two points Microsoft appears to oppose licences like the GPL only because they do not receive any direct benefit themselves.

      I have no problem with them using or even making money off of BSD code, for that is what it is intended to do. For them to ridicule other licences under the guise of the caring about the economic well-being of society is deceptive, and overly selfish.

      Btw, please tell me if they do contribute code or resources to a BSD project that's code they use (in which case one cannot fairly say the above.)

      -B
    • by epsalon ( 518482 ) <slash@alon.wox.org> on Sunday April 21, 2002 @01:09AM (#3382136) Homepage Journal
      IE is a better browser?!

      Well, IE is technically not a browser at all. To call something a "web browser" it must at least adhere to RFC 2616 [faqs.org]. Well, MSIE does not. To quote the RFC:

      7.2.1 Type
      [snip]
      Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the resource. [snipped]

      Thus, a browser MUST adhere the Content-Type if it's given.
      OK, now load IE and try to visit this site [wox.org], or this site (warning: browser will crash) [wox.org]. Note that the content type of these sites is text/plain and thus the text should simply be displayed on screen.

      Therefore, IE6 is not a "web browser" and thus cannot be the "better" browser.
      • Even if the msie-crash.txt [wox.org] file was named msie-crash.html but there was "Content-Type: text/plain" in HTTP response headers it should be displayed as plain text, and in fact I was sure that this IE bug is only present in exactly such a situations. I'm really surprised that if MIME type and file suffix (the main data type indicator in MS software) tell the IE that it's a plain text, it still tries to render it as HTML.

        It's a very serious problem if you want to make an HTML tutorial website, having links such as: http://tutorial.host/example/foo.html and http://tutorial.host/source/foo.html where both foo.html are just symlinks to the same file but you set up your web server to send "Content-Type: text/html" under /example to show how it looks like and "Content-Type: text/plain" under /source to show the source.

        Not to mention problems with sending different MIME type to force the download and saving of file instead of displaying it (try downloading a 100MB flat text database when your browser wants to display it first). It's a serious problem and making all of the workarounds can be often a real pain in the ass (like when you have to display HTML source, as HTML page including HTML source with s/</&lt;/g etc.) because 90% of "web browsers" out there can't even understand a damned Content-Type header, the most important HTTP response header, present in six years old HTTP 1.0 specification (and with the Web, six years are the whole ages), and I'm sure it was used in pre-RFC, pre-1.0 HTTP much earlier (if anyone knows, I'll be glad to hear about the real age of Content-Type header - thanks).

        OK, I'm glad you touched this subject. For those who don't know about it, let me quote HTTP 1.0 from May 1996: "HTTP uses Internet Media Types in the Content-Type header field in order to provide open and extensible data typing." and HTTP 1.1 from June 1999: "HTTP uses Internet Media Types in the Content-Type and Accept header fields in order to provide open and extensible data typing and type negotiation." It's not used without an important reason.

        See also:

        Very serious bug, I wonder when are they planning to fix it.

      • This is just a silly, nerdy, and short-sighted technicality. First, I'm comparing IE4.x, not 6. 6 is OK but I'm likeing Opera more and more each day. Second, an RFC is NOT a standard. Third, I could just restate and say IE4 is "better at web browsing" then Netscape Communicator - the same point is being made either way.
    • by burtonator ( 70115 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @01:13AM (#3382142)

      Any objective person will see that IE was the better browser then "Netscape Communicator" and it was gaining incredible popularity well before IE was "integrated" into the OS.


      You are both wrong... There are a number of issues here.

      First off... there is no single reason why IE won the browser wars. It was a combination of numerous issues.

      1. Netscape was having Engineering problems by the time IE was released. Microsoft had an advantage because they started with a fresh code base right when everyone was learning from Netscape's mistakes.

      Netscape had plans for Netscape 5.0 but obviously this didn't happen (hint: keep reading)

      2. Netscape had near 100% market share of the browser space when IE 3.0 came on the scene (IE 2.0 sucked). Obviously the choice of an alternative made some people switch.

      3. Microsoft shipped IE 3.0 with Windows 95b (OSR2). This was making it into the OS on OEM machines VERY early on. At this point MS was gaining a lot of market share.

      4. Netscape 4.x sucked... face it. It did...

      5. Because MS was giving IE away for free (which has now been ruled illegal) this destroyed Netscape's revenue stream which essentially prohibited their future development.

      6. Microsoft started basing all their products on libraries provided by IE. For example IIS, Office, etc, all required IE 3.0, 4.0, etc. Even though they might not have had modern IE versions on base 95a and NT machines; this situation quickly changed.

      So anyway... yes... Netscape screwed up. They aren't perfect.

      The important thing here is that Microsoft really played hardball! ... the bastards broke the law and now are making a mockery of our justice system!

      Yes... Netscape sucked... but this was only a small part of the reason they lost!


      It's amazing how religious "computer scientists" can be about technology.


      It's not religion, it's politics! Quite frankly we need more people paying attention to this stuff!

      Peace!

      Kevin
      • "5. Because MS was giving IE away for free (which has now been ruled illegal) this destroyed Netscape's revenue stream which essentially prohibited their future development. "

        Ruling that giving away anything for free, is illegal, is pretty fucked up. Proves how retarded our legal system is.

        Sure, MS leveraged a monopoly... but it being illegal for them to give away IE is retarded. The day it's illegal for me to give away my property or creations, is the day I move to another country. I don't care if it's improving my market share, or creating a monopoly - prosecute me for the actual crime, not for giving something away!


      • 1. Netscape was having Engineering problems by the time IE was released. Microsoft had an advantage because they started with a fresh code base right when everyone was learning from Netscape's mistakes.


        Could you clarify this point? Unless you've forgoten version numbers, I believe you're off. IE was built with code licensed from Spyglass (Mosaic). And, true to Microsoft form, it wasn't until IE3.x that they began to get it right and start gaining serious market share. And it was IE4 (and their introduction of the integrated browser) vs. Netscape4 (ie: Communicator - one had to go out of one's way to get just the browser) when it became clear Microsoft had gained the traction they needed and Netscape had began to stumble.


        Perhapse it is IE4 that you're referring to?

      • I agree with most of your numebered points except for number 5.

        5. Because MS was giving IE away for free (which has now been ruled illegal) this destroyed Netscape's revenue stream which essentially prohibited their future development.


        Netscape (which I used since 2.x) was free for educational and non commercial use. I personally did not know any (small) bussiness that paid for Netscape either. It came on most everyone's machines and/or you could just download it for free off of ftp.netscape.com. You might call this piracy, but I don't think people honestly understood that it wasn't a free browser. If this was their major revenue stream, they had a very poor business model and/or execution of said model. Finally, why isn't Opera dead? Netscape had 90%+ of the marketshare, Opera had zero, so Opera has an uphill battle, yet they are doing better then Netscape. Maybe because it's a better browser?
        • I think his point is correct, but for the wrong reason. As you say, Netscape never made a lot of money from the browser. Generally regular people were free to use it, but a buisness was expected to pay for it (like about $30 - not bad compared to MS office). Netscape mainly made money from Netscape Enterprise Server [netscape.com], although most people were only aware that Netscape corp made a browser. I think the publicity of Netscape losing the browser wars caused many to lose faith in Netscape as a company in general. The other MAJOR loss of revenue came indirectly due to the loss of marketsare - by means of the default homepage. Most people don't change (or don't even know how) their default homepage. For netscape this meant a lot in ad revenue, etc. Many have argued that AOL mainly bought Netscape for the portal Netscape.com.
    • It's amazing how religious "computer scientists" can be about technology.

      Perhaps you would understand this better if you contemplated the fact that open source software follows the philosophies of science, while closed source software follows the philosophies of industry. Science is about gaining understand, improving humanity, and making things much better. Industry is about increasing profit. So why would it be a surprise that "computer scientists" show a great preference toward "science"?

      What's most surprising is that we've managed to construct a society where there are a notable collection of people for whom individual profit is more important than improving humanity and making things better.
      • I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking about how people can be so unobjectively anti-MS (or pro-GPL). Personally, I like Open Source. I love what Apple has done. 2 years ago you could ask me and I would have said that I hated Apple - their hardware, and their software, and their fruityness! But, they've changed and made some awesome technology. So now I'm looking for a cheap G3 ~400 (got one?) to put OS X on. The author of the article was making unfounded statements like the GPL zealot he is. I think myself and many others that question the GPL would have taken the rest of his article much more seriously if it wasn't for this - that's all I'm trying to say.
    • Any objective person will see that IE was the better browser then "Netscape Communicator" and it was gaining incredible popularity well before IE was "integrated" into the OS.

      You got your history wrong. IE only started becoming a better browser around the time Microsoft had basically managed to destroy Netscape's business model through bundling and dirty tricks. Of course, a completely demoralized Netscape couldn't do what was necessary and compete with Microsoft.

      It has taken open sourcing Netscape to counter Microsoft's dirty tricks. But the open source strategy has been successful. IE development has largely stalled, and Mozilla today is a better browser than IE.

    • I felt the author was open and truthful about his biases, thereby increasing the credibility of the article. This was clearly a summary article written to encourage exploration of GNU/Linux, and as such did a fine job.

      I believe it would be appropriate to compare this article with the myriad whitepapers offered by vendors in support of their own products. There's nothing wrong or bad about this, unless blatent lies are told. I don't believe Mr. Wheeler made any blatent lies in this document. It seems that Mr. Wheeler believes he can support every statement he wrote. If you believe he is lying and care enough to write a public comment denouncing his work, it would be appropriate and polite to challenge him directly. His email address is at the top of the article.

      -Paul Komarek
  • And the nay-sayers, etc, etc about weither or not Linux is going to make it. It certain does give statistics and quantive measurements to make a good analysis of what is going to happen with Linux and it looks positive. I'm glad to see that there's something that PHBs out there are going to read and go "Hey; they're for real! I gotta get a Linux stradegy."
  • by DanThe1Man ( 46872 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @11:14PM (#3381923)
    Why Use Free/Open Source Software?

    Um, I don't know, maybe because it dosn't cost anything?
  • by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @11:17PM (#3381934) Homepage Journal
    On the first read, it looks like most (not all) of his points boil down to IIS sucks compared to Apache and Windows NT sucks compared to Linux. However, these pieces of software taken by themselves do not really say anything about the quality of Open Source versus Proprietary software in general.

    One could easily write an article on the poor quality of Open Source software compared to proprietary software if the comparison was Oracle vs. mySQL, Apple's OS X GUI vs. GNOME/KDE, Photoshop vs. GIMP, MSFT Office vs. OpenOffice, etc.

    Basically statistics and anecdotes can be used to prop up either side of the argument if one so chose.

    However, the article does do one thing well for dispelling anti-OSS FUD by providing a clear, high visibility example of where Open Source Software competes very well with proprietary software. Thus FUD like, "OSS can never be of high enough quality to compete with proprietary software" ready for primetime although dying can now be completely killed by pointing such FUDsters and their victims to that article.
    • Basically statistics and anecdotes can be used to prop up either side of the argument if one so chose.

      I was about to say exactly the same thing before realising you've already said it, so instead I'll just support your comment.

      The "real data" in this article is nothing more than statistics that are being presented from a biased source whose primary intention is to prove a point rather than fairly weigh out two options. It wouldn't be difficult to find alternative "real data" that supported Microsoft and other closed source alternatives in the same way. In effect it doesn't say much useful about whether OSS is better than closed source.

      Any given business really needs to evaluate the options for itself before it can know what the most appropriate option is. Maybe they'll decide open source is a good choice, it it might not be, but at least they would have done a proper evaluation instead of living off the lobbying that's now coming from both sides.

      If this article is useful for anything, it might be to convince someone that OSS shouldn't be thought of as a write-off that's not worth considering.

    • by Malcontent ( 40834 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @01:20AM (#3382152)
      Well here are a few.

      I use Apache because I prefer it IIS. I especially like the proxying support.

      I would much rather use PHP then ASP. I trie dusing ASP and it made me want to stick needles in my eye with it's horrible error messages and inability to return values from functions. PHP is just a pleasure to use and as a bonus I get to benefit from thousands of pre-written applications for free.

      I prefer Jedit to any commercial editor I have bought or tried.

      I love mozilla and prefer it over IE on my windows machine. It's faster, it has more features.

      I love debian. It gives me tingles every time I use it. I know it does not do everything as well as windows but it does many things much better then windows. I find my self cursing windows every day that I use it, I never ever curse debian.

      PostgreSQL is the most fun any database geek can have with his pants on. It can do so many things SQL server can't I don't know where to start.

      So if anybody wants to write an article start with those. Also touch on Zope, Jabber and the slew of projects residing on the Apache.org web site.

      Oh yea one more thing. One fo the things I like most is that there are no restrictions. No weird licenses, no restirctions on the number of CPUs or the number of people who can connect, no forced advertising, nothing at all. The freedom is addicting.

      The Budha once said the best thing in life is a clear conscience. Using open source software allows you to live with a clear conscience, it makes you a better human being.
      • I tried using ASP and it made me want to stick needles in my eye with it's horrible error messages and inability to return values from functions

        I thought that you could return a value from a function using VB or similar? Or am I missing something here?

        Michael
      • I trie dusing ASP and it made me want to stick needles in my eye with it's horrible error messages and inability to return values from functions.


        I'm not vbscript's biggest fan (I assume you are talking about vbscript, since asp is language independent, and so doesn't control things like return values). However, it's trivial to return a value from a function, just assign the value to the function name, i.e.:



        function foo(bar)
        foo = bar * 2
        end function

        response.write("10 x 2 = " & foo(10))

        OK, so it's not exactly the clearest syntax, but it gets the job done. Error messages, on the other hand, also drive me nuts, since half the time, it reports the line number of the error as being '?', or in a completely different file to where the problem is.

    • Another thing this article accomplishes is pointing out the huge volume of studies available about GNU/Linux. This is qualitatively important to anyone who wonders whether GNU/Linux should be taken seriously. I read far to much computer news every day (I now set an upper limit on time spent reading news =-), and still I had seen less than 50% of the articles and studies mentioned.

      Mr. Wheeler demonstrates the breadth of interest in GNU/Linux. A simple tabulation of companies and publishers mentioned in his article demonstrates that many, many organizations are investigatiing GNU/Linux. No matter what these organizations conclude, I would assume that this breadth of interest would stick in a corporate decision-maker's mind.

      -Paul Komarek
    • Basically statistics and anecdotes can be used to prop up either side of the argument if one so chose.

      Oh, like you did in your 'Open-Source-is-not-so-secure-after-all' fluff piece? Based on raw data that was disavowed as unusable for analyisis by its own source?

      Mart
  • Amusing (Score:2, Funny)

    Good to see stuff we've known / suspected for some time backed up by real data....

    Looks like Slashdot has been particularly up to speed in that department today - given stories like this one [slashdot.org]. :-)
  • Well...I guess maybe #1 because it's free, however, it is often times hard to setup if you don't know anything about computers, but that's not who it's aimed at, neh? #2 Would probably be because you can do what you wish with it. Customize it to your pleasure! Don't you wish you could do that with your girlfriend?
  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Boiling_point_ ( 443831 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @11:20PM (#3381942) Homepage
    First Hemos posts a story about how optimised JPGs are good for webpages [slashdot.org], now a story announcing that OSS is popular and viable. Today's the day I can submit "Microsoft might be an evil monopoly" and I'll finally see my nick on the front page!!! Booyah!
    • Today's the day I can submit "Microsoft might be an evil monopoly" and I'll finally see my nick on the front page!!! Booyah!

      Uh, you do know that writing articles that state the bleeding obvious, then piggy-back wild, unsupported assertions off the back of it, all without contributing anything new or insightful and headlining it all "$buzzword might be $evil_thing [in post-$major_event world]" actually falls within JonKatz's duties? I don't think he's gonna just give that up too easily, given that the stuff he writes has failed to shift him yet.

  • The majority of the information provided by the given document is generally based on studies provided by other organizations, the most of which being magazines, news sites, and web stat sources. However, the spin put on such results by the author is rather one-sided, throwing the original interpretations to the win in favor of the author's interpretation of numbers alone. Similarly the document pretains almost solely to server software, and argues present usage and future potential, rather that presenting feature-to-feature comparison. I hate to be a rather biased critic, but the "study" could have been titled a bit better.... perhaps to reflect that we're not really considering consumer-level applications.... and, for that matter, that little actual comparison is done between software packages rather than their users.
  • by __aasfhc1949 ( 71946 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @11:26PM (#3381958)
    Here's a link to a microsoft.com article on why the Windows 2000 Server is better than Linux:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/sak/eval uation/compare/advantage.asp [microsoft.com]

    • As much as I don't want to sound one-sided, the problem with this evaluation is that almost every point there boils down to these two:

      1. Linux does not support our technologies, like Active Directory, ASP.NET and CIFS (of course, they couldn't resist faulting samba :-)

      2. Yeah, linux does that, but not the way we like it. We give you everything from one source, linux gives you too many different implementations.

      Of course, there's some actual substance to those statements, especially for people who would rather talk to one person for all their needs. But it all sounds rather too skewed for me, but I ain't surprised anyway.
    • Yeah, I like some of their reasoning. If you run Windows 2000 users only need one username/password. If you deploy on Linux users need two, one for Windows, one for Linux ...

      But wait ... what if we're only using Linux servers and have no Win2K servers at all? Hmmmm....
  • Don't you ever think to yourself... we do this because we can. As a community of competent tech heads we create software that's powerful and useful for others like us, who know how to use it proper.

    As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether big business or the public in general catches on. Do we really want this beautiful stuff dragged down into the sewers? I'd say, don't get overzealous about encouraging industry or home users to get into the game.

  • by galaga79 ( 307346 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @11:31PM (#3381965) Homepage
    Isn't the fact it's free reason enough to use it. Being a poor university student, who earns a measly $11 AUS (or $6 US) an hour for answering phones for Pizza Hut I don't exactly have much money to splurge on software. So if need a tool to get the job done I will try to find a free alternative. Sure I could pirate software but that doesn't gel to well with my conscience. Which reminds me, I think it's time I started personally thanking free/open source coders for what they provide.

    • Free software definitely provides a service...
      but when you have the money for a commercial product, and it's better than the free one, it's downright silly to stick with the free one.

      In some cases, free software is better. In other cases, you can make much better use of your time and money by buying quality commercial software. From any company - small or big.

      Somewhat off-topic - People often recommend Opera as a browser to people. I then tell them to use Mozilla instead. Why? Because most of the people who get Opera, are just going to download the demo (with ads), and then crack it to remove the ads. What's the point? Mozilla is an easily equal browser, available for free. Why pirate a shareware app when you can get a better free one?
  • To the average Joe six pack, XP is the same or better. Not to us of course but for playing games, reading MS Word docs or Ms Excel sheets, to browsing the web with MS IE, its just plain better then free alternatives.

    Notice that I use the word MS alot. That is the problem and the reason why linux will always remain a niche. As long as Microsoft continues to control its not one but rather several monopolies the situation will not change. It doesn't matter if you can't setup a secure web server or do any real hacking with it. Joe six pack wants to process his Excell sheets at all costs! To him its the whole reason is machine even exists. What about Crashes? What crashes? XP is pretty stable for non server use.

    To Joe, he just reboots or shuts down his machine Why for example should my mother switch? I can't give her a reason. She knows I use Linux and knows its more powerfull but Windows serves her purpose of checking her email and browsing the web alot better. The problem is that all the pc's come loaded with every ms package under the sun including office. To the average user MS-Office is part of Windows as IE is. Star Office can not touch it. TO Joe the best spreadsheet is Excell and the best word processor is Word, so Windows is the best platform. At least for %90 of the population. TO remove it would be to dumb the machine down to just an internet terminal.

    I am not saying windows is better. If you all read my posts you all know that I do not like Windows. It just happens to be made by idiots for idiots and will always talor to this market. But believe it or not apps can make or break an os and really is part of the platform. I like to keep linux and freebsd around for their killer app. Namely Apache.

  • open-source model (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mshurpik ( 198339 )
    I don't think the "open-source model" is what creates better software. Rather, I see two important forces at work:

    1. Corporations code to the mass-market bottom line. Their software is worse by design, not by method.

    2. Releasing source code is a good idea. It promotes confidence in the product, as well as an ability to trace bugs quickly.

    In other words, the heyday of OSS is not a result of OSS hitting upon a better "model" for software development. Rather, it is a result of corporations shooting for a lower mark, and the inherent benefits of freedom coming home to roost for those who promote it.

    Anyone who has read The Mythical Man Month knows that software is best written by a tight management team with a clearly-identified lead programmer. Not by a "bazaar." Corporations still have the best model for software development, they are simply too greedy and too mass-market oriented to take advantage of the inherent strength of organization.
    • Anyone who has read The Mythical Man Month knows that software is best written by a tight management team with a clearly-identified lead programmer.

      Uh, I've read it, and I don't know that. I know that dude said as much, and I believe that he makes a compelling argument. I further believe that his experience in industry gives weight to his arguments. I do not, however, know that any of his opinions are true.

      The difference between fact and opinion aside, I tend to agree with you.

    • by JordanH ( 75307 )
      • In other words, the heyday of OSS is not a result of OSS hitting upon a better "model" for software development. Rather, it is a result of corporations shooting for a lower mark, and the inherent benefits of freedom coming home to roost for those who promote it.

      These factors you cite are inseparable from the OSS development model.

      Let me address them one at a time:

      • 1. Corporations code to the mass-market bottom line. Their software is worse by design, not by method.

      This seems like a good point, but you have to remember why it is that corporations release products the way they do. It's because they have to make definite design/test/release cycles in line with their business goals. They cannot benefit from the advantages of the OSS methodology of releasing early and often and the subsequent hordes of people who are able to test and fix problems in environments that couldn't possibly be anticipated in testing labs.

      I agree that this is wrapped up in their business goals, but that affects their methodology and of course, their methodology affects their business goals.

      • 2. Releasing source code is a good idea. It promotes confidence in the product, as well as an ability to trace bugs quickly.

      This seems like a methodological difference to me. The OSS method of distribution is to release code, the typical corporation does not. Tracing bugs quickly is part of the methodological advantage of OSS. Sure, the reason corporations don't typically release source is dictated by business reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a basic methodological difference between OSS and the modes that corporations usually work under. In OSS, releasing code is part of the development methodology in the corporate world it usually isn't.

      • Anyone who has read The Mythical Man Month knows that software is best written by a tight management team with a clearly-identified lead programmer. Not by a "bazaar." Corporations still have the best model for software development, they are simply too greedy and too mass-market oriented to take advantage of the inherent strength of organization.

      I think you're misrepresenting Brooks here. He gave Harlan Mills' proposed Surgical Team model as a model of development. It was a proposal without real solid evidence to back it's efficacy, although it seemed to address many of the problems that large software projects were dealing with at the time. Those observations are also more than 30 years old now. Surely, in the intervening time, you'd expect other models to surface that may offer improvements.

      Brooks also went on to point out how this Surgical Team model had to be extended somehow for really large projects and he made some recommendations in subsequent chapters.

      That being said, the typical OSS model is actually not that far from the Surgical team model. In most successful OSS projects there is typically a small, intense core of developers, like Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox or the Apache Team who are responsible for the result with a large group of supporting teams who provide information (testing, patches, ideas) for their use. These people, like the Chief Surgeon in Mills' model, are responsible for design integrity and overall system cohesion. Perhaps the OSS model is just one way to extend the Surgical Team model.

      The possibility in OSS of forking does not invalidate this Surgical Team analogy, it just extends it by pointing out that two "Surgical Teams" can, at any point in a software product's lifecycle, could go off in different directions to deliver two different products. This is something that usually doesn't happen in the corporate world due to the corporate fear of "competing with ourselves". This may be another advantage to the OSS methodology that typical corporate models can't take advantage of. With OSS, there can be healthy competition between two groups that have the same advantage of working with the same code base. In the corporate world, you typically have to completely reimplement a product to compete.

  • An example:

    Businesses plan to increase their use of GNU/Linux. A Zona Research study found that more than half of the large enterprise respondents expected increases of up to 25% in the number of GNU/Linux users in their firm, while nearly 20% expected increases of more than 50%

    This figure is absolutely meaningless on its own. The figure has only any meaning in the context of how much they expected other platforms/ the size of their business to grow. For example, if a user is not exclusively using a single particular platform, then these numbers on their own do not say anything relevant.

    Lies, damned lies and statistics.

    • You've pointed out exactly what I like about this article. For many parts your comment "This figure is meaningless on its own" is apropos. However, the author provides so many references that he leaves very few points to stand on their own. Demonstrating that Mr. Wheeler's points are alltogether completely invalid would require a lot of work, given his often careful wording and the breadth of support he provides.

      -Paul Komarek
  • Windows sucks, Linux rocks...

    Is this anything we didn't know before?

    Not to mention, this article is old news. I remember reading this a while back. Is Cmd Taco getting amnesia? Because most stories about the superiority of GNU/Linux, I get as references from /. JJ.

    Anyways, I love MS' section in their reasons on why to use Win2k that says "MS' license is better, and simpler".

    LOL, yea right. The EULA, a more desireable license than the GPL? Laugh out fucking loud. One section from MS' page on why to use MS stuff says, "an Nvidia developer wrote drivers for GNU/Linux using some free code, w/c he didn't know was GPL'ed; then they had to redevelop, incurring extra costs." First, good for Nvidia, doing what's right. If they make something, and it -- either unintentionally or intentionally -- includes GPL'ed code, they have a moral and legal obligation to either not publish that, or re-write without the GPL'ed code. Second, notice how its MS that was whining, not Nvidia. No one forced Nvidia to re-write the drivers. They could've released them under the GPL.
  • I've probably seen hundreds, no, *thousands* of "Why open source is good" by Mr. James T. Linuxfan articles posted up in this mofo. Why another one?

  • This paragraph was in the "security" section of the referenced article, but it should also have been pounded on in the TCO section...

    > Virus infection has been a major cost to users of Microsoft Windows. The LoveLetter virus alone is
    > estimated to have cost $960 million in direct costs and $7.7 billion in lost productivity, and the
    > anti-virus software industry sales total nearly $1 billion annually.

    1) You don't pay for antivirus software for linux (what viruses ?)

    2) You don't pay for your IT people to deploy it.

    3) You don't pay support contracts for continuing updates.

    4) And of course, you don't lose productivity due to downtime.

    I'm not denying that linux *SERVERS* can be cracked, especially WU-ftpd (bleagh). But end users opening email does *NOT* cause the same problems as Outlook. We don't have major worries every time we open an email (Yes, there was a buffer overflow in an old version of Pine). Any distro that enabled backtick expansion and allowed auto-execution of email scripts would be laughed out the door. But Windows Scripting Host continues to exist.
  • Working in security, I've been thinking about a similar line as Schneier for a while. Liability is what makes business go round. Software companies need to be held accountable for their mistakes, and made to pay.

    But how do we protect some dude who simply sent some code out into the open for free from a lawsuit for millions of dollars in damages because of a bug he made? Simple:

    Software companies are only liable for the software up to the amount paid for the software. In other words, if I download RedHat v11.2 and a bug within Sendmail 17 gets my machine r00t3d and my data lost it's my fault.

    But if I paid $759.95 for the Datacenter version of the same and am supposed to be getting support I'm damn well getting my money back.

    This would at the same time promote free software and guarantee the quality of software we all pay for. Of course there have to be limitations, and other such things, such as necessary registration for locating you to publish fixes. If a customer is notified and sent the patch and still they don't apply it, I mean, at least there was a good effort on part of the company. That could be money off the final lawsuit, or something like that.

    Just imagine - my company buys one box of RH and pays $70, therefore RH is only liable for RH. My company buys a site license for Windows for a million, and Microsoft is liable for a million. Talk about a nice incentive.

    -Jack Ash
  • why you ask....
    i ask why not?
  • other OS's will have a problem gaining substantial market share. I forget who it David Voies (the DOJ lawyer) before the MS vs DOJ trial and he said that the government had the wrong issue in the trial and that preloads was the smoking gun. He was right. These should have been banned along with the per-processor fee that MS has charged (known as the MS tax).
  • Because I said so, damnit!
  • Remember that quality products sometimes do not enjoy large market share (OS/2, Sybase ASE, Linux) while others which may have lesser quality have large market share (Oracle, MS Windows, MySQL). Because of this, someone without knowledge that Linux is 'cool' or 'Oracle is bloated' will mis-read the statistics. I would include them as an anicdote but should not be relied upon. I was reading on MySQL market share data which counted an 'install' as simply someone who has downloaded the software!! How can that be even close to the actual number of MySQL servers in production (the number which should really count and can only be found by doing legwork)? Again, another reason why 'market share' is a BadThing(TM) to cite as a reason. I love open-source (Linux and PHP especially) but remember that if I'm finding fault the *anti-s* will easily as well.
  • The major advantage of open source rather than proprietary is that, because the source is open to all, it can be criticized and improved by all rather than being let loose in a "good enough" state.

    The "best" route for producing reliable, feature rich but unbloated software is to have one man (or a small group) produce it to a clear, well-designed, specification, have it thoroughly tested and have it marketed inline with its design.

    The best model for doing that is probably the proprietary one but, in the absence of an altruistic corporation able to act as "benign dictator", open source is as good as it gets.
  • Demographics (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Quirk ( 36086 )

    The demographics suggest MS will loose out in the long run (yah,yah...Keynes...in the long run we're all dead). World demographics support the development and use of OpenSource/FS and, perhaps sooner than later, OS/FS will hold the same advantage MS now has in file monopolies as per MS Office. Once that critical number of users has been reached the question of why pay for proprietory software will become a killing point. Mr. Gates envisions a world wherein all countries and their peoples will bootstrap into the american dream of a 'perfect' capitalist system, but it ain't gonna happen. I suspect what will happen is that proprietory software will have to sell security bigtime and generate closed communities of users who are willing to pay to know their online data has the best possible security and who knows what other highend goodies. The 'world domination' of OpenSource/FS is not a joke it's a demographic given but by then MS will probably have a lock on the big dollar accounts.

  • I'm seeing some highly modded posts saying "this is OSS fud!"

    I think that's true, although fud is a strong term. It's OSS marketing, and marketing is ugly. I know most people here are tech types and don't have the stomach for it, but it's a necessary evil. This same type of resource has existed for commercial software vendor interest for years, and all we say is "well that's to be expected".

    I was happy to see this page, and I hope more of this papers are written in the future.

    Now when I go up against those guys who seem to have a Microsoft default answer to every IT question that comes up, I have some documents to show the boss.

    We're not all techs. You can't argue to a suit using the same logic that would make you popular on slashdot. And I bet I'm not saying anything you haven't figured out yourself.

    I think the more, well written, scientific papers that the OSS community produces on specific topics, then the better for adoption of OSS.

    Microsoft and others have billion dollar marketing budgets, what does OSS have?

    http://splint.org - write safer C code.
  • No need to read Linux Today, everything has already been posted to Slashdot [slashdot.org].
    • "No need to read Linux Today, everything has already been posted to Slashdot"

      Good thing for me that you guys don't read Linux Today then. I was able to download Mozilla 1.0RC1 at 150k/s several days ago, when it was announced on LT. I'm sure it'll be slashdotted sometime next week when someone gets around to telling slashdot about it.

      Oops.. I just did.
  • I'm a big fan of "Why Use Open Source", enough so that I printed the whole thing, had it bound, and gave it to Congressman Rick Boucher when I met with him. IMHO it's the single best paper adovocating OSS.

    Of course, like any good work of art, it's not done. There are a few things I wish he'd change. The top of my wish list is that he should just start calling it "open source" and be done with it. "OSS/FS" just is too confusing a term, and the abbreviation is almost as bad. Ys, I respect the concept of "Free Software" and the people who prefer that term, but "open source" sells the stuff much better. Next, I wish he'd break it up into separate pages instead of all one page. If the problem is that he wants a single printable page without having two texts to maintain, that could be worked out with a little Perl. David, if you're listening, I'll be happy to help out with that Perl.

  • Why use open source/free software?

    1. It's free. That's a no brainer

    2. It's open, meaning people who are smarter and who have more time then me are improving it.
  • Although none the ideas are original, I'd say this article does a near perfect job of summarizing and referencing just about every possible angle from which to encourage people to switch from proprietary to Open Source / Free software. It also does a great job of debunking a lot of the stupid FUD that even many clueless slashdotters have been spreading recently. See section: "Unnecessary Fears" Nice to see that some people still think for themselves.

    And best of all, the author is not even hesitant at recognizing that, in all reality, proprietary software very well may be going extinct, BUT that it doesn't mean the software industry is going to die with it.

    Any of you tech industry folks, listen up: your bosses need to read this article ASAP.
  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 4444444 ( 444444 ) <4444444444444444 ... 444444@lenny.com> on Monday April 22, 2002 @05:26PM (#3390545) Homepage
    Becuase of course

I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X.

Working...