Re: [TCLUG:17767] Open Source Article

["Kevin R. Bullock" <kbullock@ringworld.org>]

On Wed, 17 May 2000 Nick.T.Reinking@supervalu.com wrote:

> http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/opensource.html

<comments type=general>
First, I think the author begins to make a valid point. Open Source is
still on the proving grounds of its profitability. I and many others
believe it will win. Some believe it will die.

But by the end of the article, the point has degenerated into a blatant
rant. As soon as I see the word "horseshit" (in boldface, no less) in a
"professional" published article, its credibility decreases for me by
quite a bit.
</comments>

<nitpicks>
"Their fundamental problem is that they're trying to make revenue by
selling something which they are obligated to *give* for free to
anyone who asks for it."

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

They aren't obligated to give it away. They *are* obligated to give their
buyers the same freedoms with the code that they have (which includes the
*right*, not the *obligation* to give it away for no cost).

"But you don't see...id releasing the source to Quake III Arena."

Yet.

"And the only major old-line corporations which have embraced open source
in a big way are those which are desperate."

Is SGI really that desperate? Is IBM desperate? Didn't I hear somewhere
that "AIX is a stepping stone to Linux"? Corel desperate? Yes
(Microsoft's fault mostly). Apple desperate? Usually. :) VA desperate? Not
nearly -- not with their market cap. ;)
</nitpicks>

Pacem in Terris / Mir / Shanti / Salaam / Heiwa
Kevin R. Bullock