Slashdot Mirror
Andreesssen: Why Open Source Will Boom - in 103 Words
An anonymous reader writes "You gotta love Marc Andreessen's 12 reasons why Open Source is set to boom: can anyone use fewer than 103 words and still adduce as many reasons as he does?"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
inertia
And the year before, and the year before that, and so on? Or are these all new ones that we're going to start posting every year even though they never come true?
*yawn*
Translation: You don't get thrown in jail for pirating open source products.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Because it can be an enterprise level solution for free.
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Basically, foreign governments don't want to spend money on Software when that money goes outside their own country - governments don't like upsetting their balance of payments themselves.
Using Open Source means that the money stays in the Local economy, not going to Redmond.
A lot of countries, particually in asia and the third world, don't like the economic dominance the US has and any chance to keep money in their own economy instead of owing it to the US is a good deal for them.
That is probably another reason for the increasing use of Linux in China, Israel, and even the EU.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
There are a lot of people, even whole countries, who do not like America, what nothing to do with America and feel more than a little annoyed that the "standard" operating system is written, designed and funds and american company.
Guess what using OSS alternatives allows them to do?
Right, so he's such a big believer in this open source stuff that he runs a proprietary software company, Opsware. I mean what has this guy actually done that deserves a front page story connecting him with open source. He wasn't the one who decided (or even proposed) to open source Netscape Navigator; he's just a guy that got rich off of someone else's idea.
...) and you'll find software developers developing stuff for internal use. In fact I'll wager that more LOC are written outside the "software business" than in it.
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
Hello? Yes, Apache, Sendmail, BIND etc. are used extensively, but how about those Sun boxes and Cisco devices doing all the routing?
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
I don't see how this means that OSS is going to succeed, it just seems like a fact. Anyhow RMS was doing Free Software using tapes and the USPS long before the Internet came along.
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
True, but proprietary companies also use the Internet for development, so how is this important?
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Maybe.
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Great. Thanks, so you manage to put Open Source and anti-American in a sentence. That's the last thing that OSS needs: "OSS developed by terrorists". Stop splitting the world into American and anti-American; it's not that simple, and surely the number of people who sit that and go "I'm going to develop this cool software because I hate America" must be tiny. Most of them are doing it for the glory.
6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
Yes, true.
7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
I don't even understand this.
8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
Hmm. Ever talk to IBM about running Linux on Big Iron? Not everything is Intel and if it were wouldn't that mean that Intel could charge whatever they like for a processor and make servers expensive again?
9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
Yes, they are.
10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
Oh man, this guy is out of touch. Go to any large organization (Shell Oil, JP Morgan, HBO,
11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
Wow, the insights never stop.
12. "It's free."
Very unimportant. A far more important issue is TCO; if you can make a good TCO argument then a CIO is going to buy into it.
John.
You must all be reading a different article to me.
I'm reading how OPEN SOURCE will boom in 5-10 years, not linux.
Do story submitters not read the articles either ?!
When I was walking into NEC a couple months ago with my ggod friend at Red Hat, I asked him why he worked at a Linux company. He told me, "Because it will be the last OS". It took me a while for that to really sink in-- but I think it has a stong chance at becoming true. Any major advances in security, compartmentability, portability, etc. will wind up in Linux. Even if they are developed in some subbranch or separate OS (QNX, Embedded, BSD), the features and code concepts could (and most likely will) find their way into Linux.
The only thing that would prevent such "Borgification" would be a superior kernel structure with a fundamentally different architecture. Sure, there will be one eventually, but the temptation to graft that into Linux will be too great, and "Linux" will most likely adapt, rather than get killed.
davejenkins.com |
Now, imagine that a company you distrust that much is in bed with a government that cannot be trusted. A government that feels free to impose its will on anyone anywhere, and had no respect for anyones privacy. That requires little or no imagination these days. Now, imagine that it isn't even your own government. How would you feel?
Even true US patriots can see why any sane government would want to ensure that they rely only on OPEN computing systems instead of coverting their governments and populations into MicroSerfs.
It's not like suddenly in 2001 Bush took office and people just started having problems with America... do you really think it only took El-Qaida a few months to whip up their plans for 9/11?
This neatly illustrates the difference. Al-Quaida are anti-America. The dislike America and want to destroy it.
At the same time there are millions of people around the world who are anti-Bush. They dislike Bush and think his politics, especially international politicies, suck. These people are not anti-American and certainly do not sympathise or support Al-Quaida.
There are certain people in the US for whom it is beneficial to lump those of us who are anti-Bush alongside the anti-Americans. You don't need to help them by doing it yourself, though.
The point is that if it isn't true, they're not necessarily reasons for Linux to be set to boom. Instead, they're reasons that will help an eventual boom if other things fall into place (and they are at the moment, but he didn't mention them). For instance:
1. Growing cost of software in relation to hardware (related to "it's free"
2. Growing anti-Microsoft-sentiment (in part related to his mention of anti-American sentiment)
3. Growing Internet use (related to his first 3 points)
4. Growing interest in security/coverage of Microsoft security problems (related to #4)
5. Growing interest in replacing expensive hardware and associated software and support contracts with inexpensive hardware that can easily be supported by any number of local individuals (related to #8, and makes the cheaper cost of software even more important in relation to my own #1)
6. The inherent flexibility and portability of open source (leading to #9, embedded (and other) devices making use of open source software)
-PainKilleR-[CE]
On the other hand, it's probably a wonderful time to be offering consultancy on systems integration and how to best tailor particular open source programs to a clients needs.
Many of the arguments Bush made to go into Afghanistan and Iraq were made before him by Clinton to justify bombing Afghanistan and Iraq. All of the same justifications, all of the same outrage from foreign governments, but very different results because of the effectiveness of the very different approaches.
Right, but Clinton was also wrong. However he wasn't as consistently wrong and bone headed about it as Bush as proven himself to be, hence any "anti-Clinton" feeling was minimal compared to the current anti-Bush sentiment around the globe. It is this rise in ill-feeling towards the U.S leader which has been interpreted as anti-Americansim by U.S Conservatives in an effort to discredit what are largely valid complaints. Labelling someone who is complaing about your foriegn policy "anti-American" and placing them right next to Bin Laden himself is a great way to make your critics look bad.