There's still a better way how Microsoft could do it:
Install a little coin-eating device on your desk,
and let that control the use of your computer.
For a half our computer use you would have to insert a 50 cent coin into the device. Power shuts off if your time is used up...
Two years ago the big open source hype started. The managers of IT-companies now intrinsically wanted what their techies told them for years. The problem is, they didn't understand that open source thing. They wanted to make money out of it as fast as possible. But they forgot the free software aspect in open source. They applied their usual business tactics to this new thing. That's the point we are now at.
If we compare the "open source companies" we find a fundamental difference between two types of companies: The ones, like Red Hat, that were there at the very beginning of the Linux thing and the others, like Corel, which came later on. A look at Corel Linux is very interesting in this context: they try to supply a distribution for J. Random User. The interesting part is, that they do this with their old-style marketing tactics applied. They use the advantage of a technically excellent OS and hide it under their Windows-like modified KDE. What they are trying to do is establishing a brand name. They are selling a better Windows from Corel based on Linux. That's how the commercial software world works, but I don't think that works for Linux. The result is the thing with the stocks (I'm really not an expert with that stock things; I prefer stacks:-).
So what are these companies now trying to do? Well, as you might have already guessed, they once more try to apply their old-style marketing tactics. And that brings us to the topic. Consolidation is good for getting big, for making more money in less time, for branding and so on. But I don't think that consolidation is *that* good. Even in traditional, non-open-source economics. I think it fails in the long run.
The real question here is: What does it bring us hackers, geeks and users? Does this provide us with new Linux-preinstalled toys or is it just a big bloating up of open source companies? I think it won't really help them. It didn't work that well in closed source world, why should it work in a new world with "open source" stamped on a retail package of a commercial Linux distribution? Companies are trying to get big in open source world. One example is the RHCE of Red Hat. There are better ways of (unified) certification programmes. So, RHCE is nothing more than a business strategy, a method to establish a "brand name".
So, what is left if they all fail? Well, Linux will be there. Free software will be there. And we. Let them play their marketing games. Use their products if you just need one of them and don't care about all the other things. Just keep an open eye, so that they don't walk away with all our free software.
In the meantime, let's concentrate on real things, use Debian and all the other *real* free things and have a good time hacking. Companies come and go. What lasts is freedom. Raffael Stocker
Slashdot Mirror
There's still a better way how Microsoft could do it: Install a little coin-eating device on your desk, and let that control the use of your computer. For a half our computer use you would have to insert a 50 cent coin into the device. Power shuts off if your time is used up...
If we compare the "open source companies" we find a fundamental difference between two types of companies: The ones, like Red Hat, that were there at the very beginning of the Linux thing and the others, like Corel, which came later on. A look at Corel Linux is very interesting in this context: they try to supply a distribution for J. Random User. The interesting part is, that they do this with their old-style marketing tactics applied. They use the advantage of a technically excellent OS and hide it under their Windows-like modified KDE. What they are trying to do is establishing a brand name. They are selling a better Windows from Corel based on Linux. That's how the commercial software world works, but I don't think that works for Linux. The result is the thing with the stocks (I'm really not an expert with that stock things; I prefer stacks :-).
So what are these companies now trying to do? Well, as you might have already guessed, they once more try to apply their old-style marketing tactics. And that brings us to the topic. Consolidation is good for getting big, for making more money in less time, for branding and so on. But I don't think that consolidation is *that* good. Even in traditional, non-open-source economics. I think it fails in the long run.
The real question here is: What does it bring us hackers, geeks and users? Does this provide us with new Linux-preinstalled toys or is it just a big bloating up of open source companies? I think it won't really help them. It didn't work that well in closed source world, why should it work in a new world with "open source" stamped on a retail package of a commercial Linux distribution? Companies are trying to get big in open source world. One example is the RHCE of Red Hat. There are better ways of (unified) certification programmes. So, RHCE is nothing more than a business strategy, a method to establish a "brand name".
So, what is left if they all fail? Well, Linux will be there. Free software will be there. And we. Let them play their marketing games. Use their products if you just need one of them and don't care about all the other things. Just keep an open eye, so that they don't walk away with all our free software.
In the meantime, let's concentrate on real things, use Debian and all the other *real* free things and have a good time hacking. Companies come and go. What lasts is freedom. Raffael Stocker