Slashdot Mirror

If you run a business, it's worth the $99 for the license. Otherwise it's a great build of Apache w/SSL that's fun to evaluate.

For those of us who already use Stronghold, this book looks like a great reference book - a must have. I'll be sure to get a copy.

It is probably the best example we have of why US export restrictions are bad for US businesses, and more importantly (at least for those of us in the UK), it's an example of why the UK shouldn't adopt similar export restrictions, something I'm increasingly worried that our government will try and do.

Get Stronghold.

I've been to the linked site and read around a bit - it seems full of nothing but marketroid-drivel., but then again I think e-commerce == hype + forms + hype + ssl + hype
+ CGI, so what do I know? ;)

Well,

a) Red Hat provides technical support.

b) To use RSA (required for SSL) for
commercial usage you need to license it from
RSA Data Security Inc. - which is worth $100.

c) It's one package, making it easy for something who wants to use existing tools to setup their own e-store. Time is money, so by including all these products and demos together in one place it can save a lot of time. There is no need to spend time looking at lame solutions or NT-only solutions.

d) Most real e-commerce solutions include credit card processing software or micro-payments, something you can't "roll-you-own" and expect your local bank to let you interface with them.

e) Some people have mentioned Stronghold as if it was free, it's not free for commercial usage! Again, due to the RSA patent issue (b).

f) No one said you had to buy it.

In Open Sources Brian made it very clear that the Apache group has been friendly to commercial interests from the beginning. In fact the project is under a BSD license and a significant portion of the key developers also own companies that sell products based on Apache. (Not that they planned things that way, but they wanted to leave the possibility open.) Therefore I have to think that when IBM came in and wanted to do the exact same thing, well they are bigger than the rest but far from the first in the Apache group with that strategy.

But in many other OSS groups I think that IBM would not have fit in nearly as well.

Another point that Brian makes which gets glossed over by some Rah, rah, OSS is great! types is that OSS works out differently in different types of areas. He made the point that open source works well for certain types of projects but not at all for others. He gave as an extreme example that it fails for software for doing surveys for finding oil.

I have seen points like this made in many ways by many people, but for me the first and best version was one that I saw made by an engineer here. The engineer compared software to engineering and pointed out that in engineering there is a spectrum in terms of secrecy. If you are engaged in designing roads, buildings, or other things that have to do with basic infrastructure, then your exact design will be open, publically reviewed, and verified by outside people. This is because people have learned (the hard way) that this is the only way to reliably get quality. At an opposite extreme the design of the latest consumer device is likely to have a design that is kept secret.

He then drew the same comparison to software, and pointed out that open source software first showed up where it made the most sense, in the infrastructure of the Internet. As it matures it has been developing into smaller and smaller niches. He saw this as a sign that software is maturing just like engineering did before. But, he maintained, there will always remain niches where open source simply does not make sense.

As I say, I have since seen the same point made many times (including in several essays in Open Sources), but the first time was the biggest eye-opener for me.

Regards,
Ben Tilly

Actually this is not true, only individuals can be members, and if you follow the link to the particular individuals home page, it claim that he works for c2net. Maybe it is a joke.