Slashdot Mirror
Eric Raymond: Why Open Source will Rule
DNapalm writes "A very interesting two part interview with Raymond from ZDNet, talking about the success of open source and Linux on the desktop, among other things. Check out Part I and Part II (I liked part II)." Raymond also asserts that Microsoft could have killed Linux if only they'd started a little earlier.
A direct quote from the article:
"If OpenOffice still exists, and it's GPLed, and they're going to start charging for StarOffice, then they just shot StarOffice through the head."
Replace the word "StarOffice" with "Redhat Linux".. why does the same logic not apply?
LOL! This is a troll right? I'll bite. Maybe you have a point and Windows is right for you, but maybe you work for Microsoft, as they are the only people I ever see who write Windows(tm). You sound like you just walked out of a TV advert!
That's why I choose Microsoft Windows(TM) for my computing work. The easy setup and configuration let me get right to work and the cross-platform standardizations let me easily port my work for colleagues. Furthermore, the highly-optimized nature of the Windows(TM) Operating System Kernel makes for blazingly fast simulation runs even on the low-end hardware that my University is willing to pay for.
What cross platform standarisations? I don't see any. In fact, I'll think you'll find that EVERY major OS out there other than windows is based on unix.
Sheesh, I'm way too easily trolled. -sigh-
Unfortunately in every aspect *except* price, Linux looks more like a sustaining technology vis-a-vis Windows. Linux is the more secure, more high-end, more niche-like product. In the disruptive technology model, what happens is that *Windows* becomes reliable "enough" and hacker-pleasing "enough" and takes over from Linux.
Now Linux is free...that is true. But that is the only way it is like a disruptive technology. In fact that is not really like disruptive technologies either. They are usually cheaper. Free is strange.
Now Linux is indeed a disruptive technology compared to something else -- Sun. Linux on a PC, compared to Sun on a Sun box, has all the classic hallmarks of disruptive technology, and in fact is doing so.
I ranted more about this last year on another site. Here's a quote: "To take this to an extreme example, at some future date Windows CE might displace both Windows 2000 and Linux, and the Personal Web Server shipped with Windows might displace both Internet Information Server and Apache. This is highly unlikely, but it illustrates the direction in which disruption happens.".
And don't forget this profound comment where I ask the question ""Is the bazaar upmarket from the cathedral?" (read that again).
- adam
ESR's fundamental argument to Linux taking over the desktop is solely cost. Because the cost of Windows will be a bigger chunk of the PC price as PC prices, OEM's will seek out cheaper options (e.g. Linux).
I believe this is wrong for at least two reasons:
1. Microsoft has a much freer pricing structure than most other component makers. Since they employ monopoly pricing they are able to price the product exactly at the point where it maximizes profit. Futher, since their marginal cost is essentially zero (as opposed to chips, disks, and other hardware components), they have a lot of downward headroom in their prices should this ever become an issue.
2. There is little evidence that cheaper wins out. A classic example is the IBM PC (and clones) which were substantially more expensive than home PC's (such as C64, Atari 400/800, Apple II, etc.) but won over the market big time. There are many factors other than cost which contribute to the success or failure of a computer product. Indeed, very cheap computers (e.g. $350 or so) computers are available today, but the sweetspot seems to be the $800-level machine which will get you something pretty good.
With all of these endless /. posts about how Linux will rule the world, I have yet to see a single post explaining how programmers will ever get paid. Don't any of you want to write code for a living? Open Source companies can make money, sure, charging for services. But services cannot pay for programmers. Let me repeat that so that everyone is sure to see it: services cannot pay for programmers.
/. come up with a way for Open Source to succeed and pay programmers at the same time?
Since Open Source code is, well, Open, absolutely any service provider or consultant has access to the same software. If company A pays programmers to write code which is contributed to the community and makes their money selling services related to that code, and company B has no programmers but offers the exact same services for the exact same code, the company B will always be able to make more profit than company A. Because company B is in the exact same business as company A, but doesn't have to pay programmers. They can cut their costs below company A, stealing their business, and still enjoy higher margins. Company A either fires the programmers or dies.
A company can only afford to pay programmers if they have name recognition high enough to charge higher prices for services, or don't give feedback to the community about upcoming releases until its actually out so that they have a big enough head start to give competitive advantage, or they use closed code. That means they either pimp themselves, act like weasels, or go proprietary. Nice way to make a living. The Open Source movement lives on successfully, but the coders end up eating a lot of ramen and working at Circuit City. The only model I've seen so far depends on coders working for free. Volunteerism is great, but you can't base a business on altruism. Besides, in some ways making money off of unpaid workers is worse than Nike using cheap foreign labor - at least the foreign labor gets *something* for their effort. With few exceptions, contributing to Open Source is like pissing yourself in dark slacks - you get a warm feeling, but nobody else notices.
Can some of the clever folks here at
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
talking about the success of open source and Linux on the desktop
There's a short conversation.
This war is brought about by MS's actions, not ours. They have adopted a search and destroy approach.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody