George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has criticised the government over its apparent lack of support for open-source software.
He said that many of the world's multinational corporations are developing open-source software strategies, and that "far-sighted governments are also taking advantage of this trend".
But Osborne said the case in the UK was very different. Speaking on Thursday at a conference organised by the Royal Society for the Arts, he said: "In recent months, Conservative MPs have put down parliamentary questions that reveal most central government departments make use of no open-source software whatsoever".
Read this
The politics of open source
George Osborne is shadow chancellor in a party led by a PR man, so his coming out as an open source fan needs viewing through a jaundiced eye...
The problem is "the cultural change has not taken place in government", and, within government, the balance is weighted against open source. "There isn't a level playing field for open-source software," he said.
"Too many companies are frozen out of government IT contracts, stifling competition and driving up costs," he said. "Not a single open-source company is included in Catalyst, the government's list of approved IT suppliers." One of the problems is that "a government IT system is incompatible with other types of software, which stifles competition and hampers innovation".
He condemned the "litany of IT projects that have collapsed or spiralled over budget", and said: "It's clear that this has meant billions of pounds wasted and public service reform being hampered".
The shadow chancellor went on to applaud "software that's developed collectively", and he criticised the government's strategy of sticking to the major vendors. The result is that "unlike traditional proprietary software, users can access the source code, making it possible for them to tailor the software to their needs and make constant iterative improvements".
Osborne also set out the Conservative party's strategy on technology, pointing to "three pillars" on which the Conservatives intend to build — equality of information, social networking and open source. He said that they would enable a future government to "recast the political settlement for the digital age".
Osborne was keen to explain that he saw open source not just as software, but as a concept of collaboration. And he was careful to avoid implying that to support open source was to condemn proprietary vendors such as Microsoft. "Adopting open-source software in government departments does not necessarily mean having to stop using Microsoft products," he said.
In response to Osborne's speech, a Microsoft spokesperson said: "The shadow chancellor raises an important issue and we look forward to engaging with him. All software products carry benefits and costs. Governments should select software based on its merits and not based simply on its development and licensing model, as they risk making incorrect choices."
The spokesperson continued: "Procurement should be based on what best meets their needs. Functionality, performance, security, value and the cost of ownership of software should be the priority, not categorical preferences for open-source software, commercial software, free software or any other software development model."
One of the latest governments to contemplate open source is Cuba. Cuban interest has excited free-source advocate Richard Stallman, who has spent considerable time supporting local efforts.
Within the UK, Osborne's thoughts are at least partly shared by John Pugh, a Liberal Democrat MP who is campaigning for greater use of open-source software in schools. Pugh brought an early day motion on the subject in November, which has subsequently won the support of 129 other MPs.
Talkback
"unlike traditional proprietary software, users can access the source code, making it possible for them to tailor the software to their needs"
This is only one of the strengths of OSS, making it a viable and
more attractive package than proprietary software. It can be customized to a particular company or government agency and still be compatible with other factions. Plus it is more stable and secure.
Open source will lead to in the next 5 to 10 years to job losses on top of the jobs we are already losing to to India and China.
There is already a reduction in the number people applying for computer degrees in Univeristies. Who wants to do a degree in computer science if you cannot get a job at the end or nobody is willing to pay you due to the increased use of free software.
As more companies and goverments push for open software it will eventually destroy the computer industry. Not only that countries such as India and China are able to accelerate their use of technology to become more competitive without the costs of paying for software.
I dont suppose Tesco is going to give me free food, BP/Shell free fuel or the goverment is going to allow me not to pay taxes.
Some interesting thoughts there from PJC but not sure I follow your logic entirely – actually not at all really. You seem to be saying that open source is somehow going to undermine the UK economy? I am not sure what evidence you're basing that on but the fact that traditionally proprietary companies such as IBM for example are doing very nicely from open source probably means that it is not going to kill our competitiveness anytime soon.
For the most part open source is free as in 'free exchange of ideas' - not as in no-cost.
And I really don't get your argument that people aren't applying for IT degrees because of open source software. The two issues are not related in the slightest. Applications for IT degrees are falling because of a long-term problem the IT industry has with its image – something that the innovation and creative energy around open source could actually improve. If anything, the rise of open source should encourage more people to enter the IT industry in the long term.
As for India and China, I am not completely clear on what you're claiming but you seem to be saying that these countries are going to use open source as a way to avoid paying Western makers of proprietary software? Well, I guess you are right in some ways – they have thriving IT industries – which in India's case has probably overtaken most European countries in terms of productivity.
In China's case, piracy of proprietary applications is endemic but is being tackled by the Chinese government developing open source alternatives which don't incur the restrictive license fees charged by most Western software makers. So replacing piracy with legal applications – which don't admittedly give fat kick-backs to Western companies – seems to be a positive move. Pl
And the truth is that Western companies are doing well from the Chinese market – the land grab of the last few years was clear evidence that there is money to be made in China and plenty of it. Microsoft, IBM and other have invested huge amounts in China with the clear expectation that they will get it back.
PJC has obviously reading the same Microsoft FUD that I saw the other day. Open Source is going to bring down the commercial world, put all IT wonks out of business and shoot your dog. Well, they would say that, now wouldn't they.
The only difference between commercial Open Source companies and commercial closed source companies is that the code the paid developers develop is made into common property, so doesn't need writing again. A recent study said that virtually all the code added to (for example) the Linux Kernel for the last few versions was written by paid developers.
The standard choices for commercial institutions wishing to use Linux are for the most part the so called "Enterprise" versions; ie paid for. You are paying for support and extensive testing.
The dip in IT course entrants was, I suspect, at least in part down the fact that kids could no longer geek out in their bedrooms and build things like we used to back in the day. We wrote or downloaded our code for free. We had to. We simply couldn't stump up the amount the commercial stuff cost. So I would suspect that as Open Source becomes more popular again, more and more neophyte geeks will be playing with it like they used to, leading to an increase in the popularity of University IT courses.
So, PJC, don't believe all that you read; particularly if it is inpired by Bill's PR company ... it just miiiiiight be a little biased.
If you think you're going to lose your job because you have a very narrow skillset then retrain. It's no different from any other profession.
Hardware has commodised. Software is commodising.
In five to ten years time businesses will be more used to paying for IT services and support for free/OS software, and less willing to pay through the nose for IT products that try to own you.
And frankly who can blame them.
I suppose textile, manufacturing, ship building businesses etc. thought they had a future, where are they today?
The reason IBM among others are supporting open-source is that they want to reduce their own costs and are really more interested in selling hardware and services.
I do not support free software it is anti-competitive and will destroy jobs. Red Hat and others have made a fortune with free labour.
If IBM started giving hardware away for free HP, DELL and Sun would certainly complain as they could not compete.
If you think that there will be enough open source projects to sustain the software industry then you are living on a different planet.
I do not mind the idea of sharing ideas but I also want to share the profit!
Right – so it seems that you are saying that the software industry can only be sustained if we carry on with the locked-down approach to software development that has characterised the WinTel era? You sound a bit like a record executive in the mid-90s bemoaning downloading – and look what happened there. Failing to embrace and accept change cost the music companies dearly and allowed innovators such as Apple to come in and clean-up. The revenues were still there to be made but the old ways of going to market had been subverted by new technology – and that is exactly what is happening with open source. The genie is out of the bottle and you can't put it back.
You may have a point though about the margins. Traditional IT software and hardware companies may not be able to enjoy the kind of margins that they were able to dictate thanks in part to the closed nature of IT development and the draconian patent regime that accompanies it. But that may be no bad thing. That approach to software gave us some innovation but it also gave us a lot of bug-ridden, and prohibitively licensed software. Open source companies enjoying reasonable margins for the software and services they provide on top of a robust, community developed platform sounds an infinitely better option.
You must make your living off the back of open source or do you give your services for free. Well jump on the band wagon while you can.
Sorry dont have the time to read everything that comes out of Microsoft. Not everything that comes out of Micrsoft is bad, they do have some good products. Unfortunately they damaged their reputation in how they did business in the past.
Same thing happend to AT&T and IBM. I remember when IBM came close to being broken up, big-bad-IBM. Now that they are supporting open source, big-good-IBM.
Time will ony tell who is right and who is wrong, but by then will it be too late?
The UK textile, manufacturing & ship building businesses fell because they could no longer treat their employees as cheap, disposable slaves. The factories just moved to other places where they could. Simplified perhaps, but not too far out.
If you are holding out for the survival of the parts of the IT industry who make tankerloads of profit from recycling the same old code, locking their customers into an endless cycle of upgrades, giving bad service and generally messing their customers about then I'm afraid you are quite right in that they are doomed. However, this isn't down to Open Source. This is just down to basic capitalist priciples in operation.
Examine a closed source business. The money they make is generally not from the actual business of writing, testing and releasing software. It is more often from consultancy, support and training. The same things that Open Source companies make their money from. The big difference is that they cannot lock their customers in and so cannot strong arm their customers into paying more than the service they provide is worth.
As for Open Source being anti-competitive, this one is straight out of the Microsoft playbook and is the exact oposite of the truth. You can only buy Microsoft Word or Microsoft XP from one manufacturer. If anyone else gets too close they get sued into a hole in the ground. Now THAT is anti-competitive and what's more the US and EU justice systems seem to agree.
A few years ago, a Red Hat Linux release was being widely panned by their customers, who seemed to feel that RH were being less than helpful. A group of French software developers got together, lifted the entire RH Linux source tree, fixed it and released it as a new product. It was very successful and entirely legal. This product was called Mandrake and launched a new company. Now THAT's pure competition.
I thought being a journalist you would have a 'balanced' mind or are you just being a journalist and stirring debate.
But of course you get paid for what ever you say.
Of cousre that could all change in time if people decide to start a free web site for articles and the editing of those articles.
Now theres an idea...
I would say your are certaintly not a capitalist or dont you get fed.
Also try getting a hold of Red Hat Linux if you can. The only 'free' product available is Fedora which is not suitable for a production environment.
Linux is years behind the likes of AIX, HPUX and Solaris.
By the way Mandrake went bust at least once.
From your comments I assume you make your money from proprietary software and are feeling a bit nervous of all the buzz around Open Source.
.. and yes indeed I do charge for my services. The "Free" in Free software is as in "Free Speach" as well as "Free Beer", but the only thing that's free (beer) is the software source code itself. You quite often even have to pay for the compiled binaries. Support, training etc is of course to be paid for.
I run a small company that deals with other small companies and helps them run their own computer systems using mainly Free/Open Source Software and have been doing so for 7 years or so. So I guess I have been riding this "Bandwaggon" for a while now.
You don't have to read the actual stuff that Microsoft produces, it gets reproduced by so many "Independant" journalists you don't have to.
As for IBM being bad or good, they are neither. Microsoft is also neither good nor bad. They are both just capitalist organisations doing what they do. Microsoft did famously go a bit beyond par and got their corporate knuckles rapped for it. In fact they have done this quite a few times now, but then you don't call a wolf bad for eating your sheep. You might even hunt it down and shoot it, but it's just a wolf being a wolf and taking advantage of the situation.
Stirring is one way to look at it - we prefer seeding the debate at ZDNet UK ;-)
A site made up of free contributions is an interesting idea...
But then again if you think about it - you're actually providing open source content right now. No one is paying you to exchange ideas with the ZDNet UK community but you seem to enjoy it - or at least feel driven to do it.
But you are right in that we depend on advertising to make the site run - but we don't charge a subscription fee or charge for the content itself. And that kind of advertising model is one that has done very well for Google and one that even Microsoft is considering for its hosted applications. It's not about rejecting capitalism - it's about the adopting the right business model.
See other thread for rebuttal of simplistic arguments based around the misuse of the word "Free" by those who haven't been concentrating.
I am confused about your comments viz Red Hat. In one breath you are slating them as not capitalistic enough because they deal in free software and then slating them because they want paying for their services. You really haven't thought this one out that well have you.
I also find it interesting that you know Linux, Solaris, HPUX and AIX well enough to be able to make judgements about their relative merits. Inaccurate judgements though they may be, if the fact that they are all losing market share hand over fist to Linux is anything to go by.
Mandrake did indeed go bust a few times; after they saw an opportunity and made some money, they then failed to compete. IBM made the biggest yearly loss in corporate history a few years back, before they slimmed down, took another look at the industry and started taking Open Source a bit more seriously. Maybe you should point them towards the error of their ways.
OK you get paid from advertising, so if the 'open source' editoral web site 'ITFree' did not charge for advertising no one would get paid.
So you are happy for the open source principle in the IT world, but would you like it for the publishing world, I think not.
debate is healthly a jounalist told me!?
If you look at IBM's P&L most of their profits come from services and harware, they lose money on open source.
Keep smiling (your making money from other peoples efforts).
See title ...
see title :)
.. but I guess that one fell flat.
Your comment about IBM losing money on Open Source but making it back on services and hardware is really just a restatement of my explanation of how companies are adapting to the new environment. It's only companies who have engineered a monopoly that can make money directly off software development. It is almost universally the price you pay to get in on the act. "You want consultancy? Who better than the people who wrote it .. us !"
Everyone makes money from other people's efforts. Nothing is created in a vacuum any more.
You really need to get past this hangup over the word "Free" you know. Maybe you should try affermations ;)
if IBM/HP decides to offer to all SME's consultancy for no charge (I have not used free, you seem to have a hang up on it :) if they take out 3 years support (believe it is being considered)?
Oops there goes your ability to make money. Retrain become an accountant. No dont do that, that work is starting to be outsourced.
We could go on and on about this. I do predict that our industry as we know it will disappear not immediately but over the next 5 to 10 years. Only time will prove me right or wrong. If I am right and those people who stuck their head in the sand saying open source is a good thing will also be out work.
Time to move on...
Then I hope they've done their maths.
I'm sure that the folks they use to deliver the consultancy are going to want their wages paid, so IBM will have to make sure they have covered the cost of the consultancy in the charge they make for the support. So they are either overcharging for what would ordinarily be a support only offering or they will be losing money ... and I don't think they like losing money much.
I'm happy to compete with them. There's that competition word again. I charge by the hour, for whatever you want me to do; consultancy, support, planning, debugging, installation etc etc. I don't bundle up one thing and disguise it as another. It's all quite simple and open. Plus I don't have a massive infrastructure and labour overhead, so I generally charge much much less than MegaCorp Inc. So, IBM, bring it on.
As you do seem to have a big thing about Free, try looking at it as "Common Property", that might make you feel better.
In the report issued by the EC November 2006, the EC wants to promote the use of Open Source software to create more software development capability in Europe. If we compare the development teams, groups and agencies in Europe with the Americas and the near/far East Europe is lagging behind in terms of % GDP significantly. The report outlines the target that a greater focus on the use of Open Source with the consequential increase in development in Europe will give Europe (which includes the UK) an increase of GDP of over 10 Billion Euros per year which will help in developing knowledge and experience across all areas IT included. So. The argument is a simple one. Open Source increases local development leading to revenue generation within region. Traditional IT products (95% US owned) result in the revenues flowing back to the corporate country of origin, i.e. the USA.
Ubuntu is the client o/s of choice now (vsn 6.10) and is excellent and also functionallyy comparable with the tier 1 vendor products..
going to fund all of this open source development?
The reason for the majority of software comes from the USA is that they have a companies, individuals and VC's who are willing to invest in IT companies.
In the UK it is like getting blood out of a stone.
Even the BCS is alarmed in the level of drop for investment for technology.
who is funding Ubuntu and what if they go bust?
At least Redhat and Novell have more chance of staying around.
Solaris is more advance than Linux as a server platform and it is 'free'.
Though not suitable for a desktop replacement.
Its a pity Apple does not let OSX run on non Apple hardware as it is my opinion that its the best Unix based desktop OS.
> who is funding Ubuntu and what if they go bust?
Some multi-millionaire guy. If they go bust, the community says "So long and thanks for all the fish". That's upside of Open Source. The code doesn't evapourate with the company.
> At least Redhat and Novell have more chance of
> staying around.
The longevity of the various companies is not something that bothers me for the reason stated above.
> Solaris is more advance than Linux as a server
> platform and it is 'free'.
That certainly used to be true, but Linux is advancing with stunning speed, so I am not so sure it still is.
> Though not suitable for a desktop replacement.
Given that it runs the Gnome and KDE frontends, it is just another lump of hardware under the familar Open Source UIs.
> Its a pity Apple does not let OSX run on non Apple
> hardware as it is my opinion that its the best Unix
> based desktop OS.
OSX isn't really Unix as such. All of the stuff the ordinary user gets to see and play with is proprietary Apple code. It is based on a Unix-like kernel, but that's waaay under the hood.
Apple want to keep the hardware revenue. If they allowed OSX to run on non-Apple hardware, that side of their business would fold in short order.
> going to fund all of this open source development?
It doesn't matter. Once it has been created, the code is then there for all to use, extend, repackage etc etc. As in another thread, the code is not owned by the company that sponsored it.
> The reason for the majority of software comes from the
> USA is that they have a companies, individuals and VC's
> who are willing to invest in IT companies.
>
> In the UK it is like getting blood out of a stone.
>
> Even the BCS is alarmed in the level of drop for
> investment for technology.
Here we agree :)
businesses want security not promises that something will survive, e.g. Mandrake.
Any way it would not surprise me that we dont see an IBM/HP Linux now that we have an Oracle Linux. Even DELL might pitch in as it trys to expands services.
Businesses would feel more comfortable buying from IBM then some Linux company who might stay in business.
Linux has still some way to go until it catches up to Solaris, Aix and HPUX. I am not saying there is anything wrong with Linux it just has catching upto do. I work with all these OSes every day and so I now what they are capable of.
Surely your statment regarding Apple UI is flawed stating that is only sitting on their brand of Unix (Darwin)? Gnome/KDE UI sit on Linux and Solaris as you mentioned. In fact they could sit any OS if ported.
It would not surprise me that Apple could port their UI to any other Unix including Linux. Now theres an idea putting OSX UI on Linux.
But we have digressed from the argument of open source and the dilemas it presents to our industry.
Time to move on as time waits for no one...
we agreed on everything there would be no debate :)
You did not provide a commercial/business answer to who is going to continue funding the development of free software, we all have to pay bills.
Look back in history Socialism and Communism has not been a success, just look at North Korea. Russia and even China have realised that capitalism is the way to survive. Getting a bit deep here.
Soon or later if open source spreads as all the open source advocates predict, the developers will wake up and see that others have made money off of their efforts and that paid jobs are difficult to find. Remember that there is no free lunch.
Might be the time to argue to keep mainframes and learn mainframe skills.
> If we agreed on everything there would be no debate :)
No need to oppose for the hell of it though
> You did not provide a commercial/business answer to
> who is going to continue funding the development of
> free software, we all have to pay bills.
Actually I did. I said that virtually all the Linux Kernel update code over the last few years has been supplied by paid for developers from the likes of Red Hat, Suse, IBM etc. This is quite common. I have seen several surveys that confirm that the bulk of all GPL code is coming from commercial concerns these days. This is not to say that there are no longer any private individuals contributing code of course.
I have written a small amount of GPL code for major applications, but I did so because I wanted to use the features I wrote and it was the easiest way for me to get hold of this functionality.
> Look back in history Socialism and Communism has
> not been a success, just look at North Korea. Russia
> and even China have realised that capitalism is the
> way to survive. Getting a bit deep here.
Mmmm .. and way off target. I am still at a loss as to why people think that Open Source is a left wing concept.
As I also mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Open Source is competitive capitalism in it's purest form. One of the biggest blockers to the free market is monolisation and cartels. You cannot monopolise something that must be open to all of it's users.
I look at it more like the old concept of "Common Land". People accepted that there was utility in having an area of their daily life that was owned by the village, rather than by the local laird. Likewise there is utility in having bodies of the software used in our daily lives outside of the control of a self interested commercial body. This isn't communism, this is just common sense.
> Soon or later if open source spreads as all the open
> source advocates predict, the developers will wake up
> and see that others have made money off of their efforts
> and that paid jobs are difficult to find. Remember that
> there is no free lunch.
I have countrered this point several times in this thread. I guess that you have skipped over it because it completely nullifies your argument. Right .. listen up:
Virtually all of the people I know who have
contributed significantly to the body of Open
Source code were paid to do so.
Your point is quite simply misinformed.
We are not talking about cheapo contracts thrown out as bones here. These are, in several cases, very skilled and experienced developers, writing complex code for a decent wage. The only difference being that their product is made common property, useable by all, rather than being hidden away and used to bulk up a monopoly.
> Might be the time to argue to keep mainframes and
> learn mainframe skills.
I agree .. IBM for one are using Linux as the client OS for general purpose processing on their BigIron boxes ;)
> Ah but businesses want security not promises that
> something will survive, e.g. Mandrake.
As I understand the issue, businesses want the applications they purchase to survive, rather than the company that they bought them from. Don't be fooled in to the assumption that one infers the other. Sure it used to, so you could be forgiving for not having thought it through.
The major corporate I used to work for regularly required that the smaller software houses they bought bespoke applications from, hand over sealed copies of the software with the release in order that if/when they went belly up, they could carry on using the app. With Open Source this is no longer necessary.
> Any way it would not surprise me that we dont see
> an IBM/HP Linux now that we have an Oracle Linux.
> Even DELL might pitch in as it trys to expands services.
Same here. great. Happy about that. Why wouldn't I be?
> Businesses would feel more comfortable buying from
> IBM then some Linux company who might stay in business.
Businesses will buy from the company they think gives them the best value for money. Mind you, you may well find that if IBM were to release BigBlueLinux they would nullify hardware warranties unless it was the Linux used on their kit.
> Linux has still some way to go until it catches up to
> Solaris, Aix and HPUX. I am not saying there is
> anything wrong with Linux
Oh .. I thought it was going to tear down western civilisation by it's roots and take each of our first born ?!
> it just has catching upto do. I work with all these
> OSes every day and so I now what they are capable of.
I would be interested (offline) to hear where Linux falls behind in respect of it's functions available on generic hardware. I have been using these OSs over the last 15 years or so and apart from the features controlling proprietary hardware features, there is little choose.
> Surely your statment regarding Apple UI is flawed stating
> that is only sitting on their brand of Unix (Darwin)?
> Gnome/KDE UI sit on Linux and Solaris as you mentioned.
> In fact they could sit any OS if ported.
Now I'm confused. Darwin is a Unix-like kernel, absolutely. The Apple UI that humans actually use is pure proprietary code, none of which has been released in any way, let alone under an Open Source license. Apple could very likely port Darwin and the UI to pretty much any modern hardware. Gnome/KDE will run over a variety of Unix-like kernels (Linux, xBSD, Solaris etc) and could even be ported to run over the OSX kernel as long as the relevant parts of the GNU stack were ported to work with it.
Erm, sorry, so what?
> It would not surprise me that Apple could port their UI to
> any other Unix including Linux. Now theres an idea
> putting OSX UI on Linux.
I don't see why it would be in their commercial interest so to do.
> But we have digressed from the argument of open
> source and the dilemas it presents to our industry.
Sure .. None at all ;)
> Time to move on as time waits for no one...
Rightoh .. thanks for playing >:-)
socialist views and therefore I can see why you would defend open source. Everybody is entitled to their own point of view.
Also being a consultant and not a developer the future outcome of open source does not affect you does it. You can earn your crust off propriety or open source, it does not matter.
Linux has only really taken off due to Redhat who saw an opportunity to make money. By the way there unpaid developers who contribute to Linux, dont forget about them.
There are seveal hundred thousand open source projects, some for fun, some that are not worth buying, others that could not get funding and the latest are just jumping on the bandwagon, it is amazing how much PR you can get.
Just because a product is open source it means that it is implied it will surive, if you believe that you are naive. There are many open source projects that have not had developement done for a numbers of years. The ones that will survive are the ones where money can be made from them or that the momentum for the product is such that the large IT companies get behind it.
> So you have socialist views and therefore I can see
> why you would defend open source.
Mmm .. nice piece of circular logic.
Take an initial premise: "Open Source is a pinko socialist anti-business concept"
Now you can extend: "People who think open source is good idea are therefore Socialists and hate the profit motive"
> Everybody is entitled to their own point of view.
Apart from people who disagree with you of course. They are all pinko socialists QED.
> Also being a consultant and not a developer the future
> outcome of open source does not affect you does it. You
> can earn your crust off propriety or open source, it does
> not matter.
Now you descend another notch .. personal insults.
Part of the function of the company I run is consultancy. We also do training, systems administration, support etc etc .. but I used the magic word "Consult" didn't I, so you can employ a bit more circular logic. "Consultants are just leaches who don't actually need to know anything about their nominally chosen subject. They can flit from bandwaggon to bandwaggon on a whim. Therefore anyone who uses the word Consult cannot know anything much and does not need to have built up the best part of a decade's experience."
> Linux has only really taken off due to Redhat who saw an
> opportunity to make money.
I'm sure RH would agree with you, but I doubt if you would get the same response from Suse, Mandriva, Debian etc.
> By the way there unpaid developers who contribute
> to Linux, dont forget about them.
If you are going to debate, at least read the text you are rebutting. I said that there are a great number of fully paid professional developers who's employers are contributing their code. I did not say they all were.
> There are seveal hundred thousand open source
> projects, some for fun, some that are not worth buying,
> others that could not get funding and the latest are
> just jumping on the bandwagon, it is amazing how much
> PR you can get.
Partly true, partly gross overgeneralisation, but I'm not sure what point are you making here.
> Just because a product is open source it means that it
> is implied it will surive, if you believe that you are naive.
Hmm .. more mud slinging. Your argument really is running out of steam isn't it. My definition of survival is quite basic. It is still there. Open Source projects are created to satisfy a need. If they succeed, then they grow and evolve and improve. If they do not succeed, they become dormant. Generally the code is still around and can be picked up and used to seed a new project that will take a different approach to the same problem, or maybe a completely different one with common functions. Either way the code is still there being useful.
Closed Source projects do not generally open their code to other projects .. by definition. If the sponsors move on, the code evaporates as if it had never existed.
> There are many open source projects that have not had
> developement done for a numbers of years.
Quite true. The code is still there though. The fact that you can look at them and maybe assess their codebase for reuse is proof that they survived.
> The ones that will survive are the ones where money
> can be made from them or that the momentum for the
> product is such that the large IT companies get
> behind it.
Ahh ... in your lexicon, Survive is synonymous with make money. In that case, very few Open Source projects ever survive. They were not created to make money. They were created to satify a need. If they can form the basis of a company then all well and good, but that is usually a secondary effect.
If you create an Open Source project hoping that that in itself is going to make you money then you do not understand the ecology. You will need a business model that, although it might need the software to exist, does not rely on your monopoly over the software. You need a business model that is sound
I have upset you.
You should get into politics as you do seem to have a one dimensional answer for everything and delivery nothing.
Oops there I go again :)
No I jest, debate is good, without debate we would end up with a communist state.
Someday we should meet for a pint or two or three...
> Clearly I have upset you.
Not sure why you think that. I'm just disapointed that you turned from debate to mud slinging.
> You should get into politics as you do seem to have a
> one dimensional answer for everything and delivery
> nothing.
See ..
> Oops there I go again :)
Uhuh
> No I jest, debate is good, without debate we would
> end up with a communist state.
>
> Someday we should meet for a pint or two or three...
Tricky as you have not put anything in your profile. Not even your name.