Why did Mark Shuttleworth NOT, (a very vocal preacher for open source nowadays), when he wrote his code for internet security certificates, licensed the software as open source? I mean, what’s a few hundred million between friends? He is the most hypocritical SonOfaWitch I’ve ever come across.
He made his millions, now he dictates "open source" as far as he goes. What about the new up-and-coming programmer (whatever language) wanting to make his own few bucks? Should he subscribe to this ideology granting "free-for-all" software just because monopolies should be prevented?
I am standing firmly in the Microsoft court. Granted, they have some business practices that need to be addressed, or is in the process of being addressed, but overall they did forking good with their OS's and apps. The number of people using it is testimony to this. And that’s what I want to steer towards... the number of users on a product.
What is Linux's prime strength? NOT its stability, NOT its open source kernel... but rather the fact that it’s not in use as a mainstream software package. The implications of this is that the average malicious hacker out there have to tunnel their way into modified software with only a marginal support base, making Linux almost non-hackable. Let me explain this from a different angle. Microsoft had a thousand odd (maybe less?) dedicated coders working on W2000 and XP. This lot of 1st grade-top of the range programmers are up against a 200 000+ worldwide hacker community which shares ideas, improvements, software(up to a point) and holes found in mainstream software. Viewing Microsoft’s products from this angle, gives me a thrill of pride in them for what they have accomplished so far, considering what they are up against.
Now back to Linux. I am all for its development, and I agree with the open source argument, but not at the expense of the up and coming programmer. I dont think that Linux will ever find a foothold in the general consumer’s household, as there is just no support base for it. Linux should be steered towards business use in the role as file servers, firewalls, and other general security. In this regards I dont WANT Linux to become mainstream, as this will create a bigger support base, with greater knowledge and the inevitable 14 year old with ip-addresses and access to a twisted community able to take advantage of this commodity.
They key to this relationship is balance. I believe that there is room for both constituencies to exist and as such, one should not be glorified at the detriment of the other.
I am pro-Microsoft and applaud their efforts thus far to produce a stable, reliable and secure environment for me to enjoy the 10 grand I spent on my hardware. Open-source software currently available cannot offer me, the home user, the same.
Free open source VS Licensed ownership
Why be naar with a service\product provider just because they dont have competition? Surely its not up to the supplier to provide competition to its own business ?Thrall wrote:I use both MS and Linux. MS popularised the use of PC's, sure - but the greatest thing about Linux is that it gives one a choice of operating systems. If it doesn't suit you for whatever reason, don't use it; it's a matter of choice - because you now have one.
Monopolies can be ugly things...
Because competition inspires better products and services as well as giving the customer a better deal - and just as importantly, a choice. Basic economics at work here.Sojourn wrote:Why be naar with a service\product provider just because they dont have competition? Surely its not up to the supplier to provide competition to its own business ?
I understand basic economic principles. I agree with you, but you misunderstood my question.Thrall wrote:Because competition inspires better products and services as well as giving the customer a better deal - and just as importantly, a choice. Basic economics at work here.Sojourn wrote:Why be naar with a service\product provider just because they dont have competition? Surely its not up to the supplier to provide competition to its own business ?
I ask you again... is it up to the provider of a unique service or product to also supply the competition just to prevent themselves from becoming a monopoly ?
That freedom lies with the global community and not the service provider.
Tnx ckritntt.ckritntt wrote:i agree 100% with sojourn. It's easy to promote open source software after you make a billion!
I am just fed up with open source advocates spreading their religion just because it became "fashion" to diss Microsoft, while the majority dont even know what all the hoo-ha's about. (This statement does no include MShuttleworth, but saying this does not exempt him from my "storm-in-a-teacup wrath).
S