Open Source Not That Open?

mstansberry writes "At the Open Source Business Conference last week, Microsoft's Shared Source mouthpiece Jason Matusow argued the point that open source isn't really open. He said you can't just go changing code on supported Linux offerings without paying extra to companies like Red Hat or Novell. So as Linux is commercialized, it becomes less open. While Matusow made good points during his presentation, many in the open source community are skeptical of the idea at best."

Comments

Re:Worst, Microsoft, troll, ever...

[ozmanjusri]

His entire argument is that if you make changes to the source code, Red Hat support won't debug your modifications for you as part of their basic support package.

Yep, it's yet more FUD. Lets face it, if I install hardware without Windows Certified drivers and my computer becomes unstable, will Microsoft support fix it for me?

Re:What?

[fuzza]

Linux is like Darwinian evolution. The code base mutates and the stronger strains survive. Sometimes parts of version cross into another, analogous to natural selection on individual genes.

And how do you think the code base mutates? Hint: it's not random power glitches flipping bits on the disk...

(No, I don't exactly support the "Intelligent Design" movement either, it doesn't go far enough.)