A new viable platform emerged that the big boys ignored, so the small companies jumped in and grew with the growth of the platform. That's the story of the standard PC as well as a Linux PC. It has nothing to do with open vs. closed.
"So basically, we can't scale up, and we can't easily port to another platform, both due to the limitations of MySQL. And yet, the simple fact is, despite its limitations we desperately need the best MySQL we can get with the latest performance/scalability patches, and the newest bug fixes. And *that* is how MySQL gets our money. We used them as our gateway database until we grew to the point where we're now stuck with them. Being stuck with them, we pay for the best support plan we can, and use the latest MySQL Enterprise we can."
Well, when you buy proprietary software they have you by the short hairs... oh wait.
Some would argue that the TCP/IP "standard" is actually the original coding implementation that everybody uses. Has there actually been a "cleanroom" attempt to implement TCP/IP using only the RFC's by people who know nothing about TCP/IP?
Of course if you coded to web standards to begin with - that is when the web was new, you wouldn't be using any "freaking XML" or javascript either. There are more significant and widely used improvements to web development coming from breaking the old standards than there has been from the standards bodies.
Those on Slashdot who would never admit to using Windows, wouldn't run MS Office even on a Mac, and would never stoop so low as to use Visual Basic for Applications (or any other MS language) are upset that VBA is going away.
"At this point you can point out the billions of dollars being made by IBM, Red Hat and others who provide services for what they give away."
Sure, it's not as if IBM was making any money until FOSS came along. And all of Red Hat's original proprietary applications weren't selling that well, so they adopted the "let somebody else do the work" model and the rest is history.
Well, among other things he did the bulk of the coding for Altair Basic.
I don't know why people want to pretend he wasn't a real programmer. In those early days, what would Gate's role in MS have been? It's not as if he was seeking VC money or something. Even Steve Jobs who did seek outside money had done some technical work for Atari - that's how it worked in those days.
Besides, it's possible to believe that he was a programmer and yet evil (if that's what people want to believe).
"We round-file a couple thousand of resume submissions a month to find just one truly qualified applicant"
Any company who can't hire a qualified individual in 6 weeks is doing something seriously wrong. If you can toss so many resumes a month, you obviously don't really need to hire someone. I suggest you save your company money but getting rid of your full-time resume tosser and wait until you really need to hire someone.
Gates was lucky but he also was smart at seeing an opportunity and taking it.
As for "removing the ability for other people" to get a fortune, companies have made billions and billions of dollars providing software for DOS and Windows.
And of course Gates helped create significant applications in assembly - something that most people on Slashdot have never attempted and may not be capable of.
The report from Secunia is based on their users' PCs and thus is not statistically valid (has there ever been a statistically valid survey reported on Slashdot?). In addition, they have a vested interest in reporting a high number in order to promote their non-free version.
"Linux runs on everything from wristwatches to supercomputers"
Wristwatches need Linux to about the same degree as a watchband does. This is more about the Linux "brand" than it is about the same OS running on wristwatches and supercomputers.
"OR software companies might start to get a clue and write software for a new emerging market that doesn't include Microsoft."
There's still a lot more money a company can make developing (desktop) software for Windows than Linux simply because of the market share difference. How many Linux users actually buy software? There really isn't much risk to waiting until a real market in Linux applications appears. Many Linux fans point out all the great free applications already available - what is the missing application category that a new player can make money on?
You're missing the point. The issue isn't whether Linux has similiar applications, it's that people have Windows applications that they want to run, that won't run on Linux. Sure there are all kinds of work-arounds that kinda, sorta, sometimes allow you to run Windows apps, but most people aren't going to accept that.
Nobody has. The question is whether having a potentially larger number of people who might examine the code, outweighs the disadvantage of making it easier for crackers to exploit it.
You're reading too much into my analogy (or perhaps it was flawed). I didn't mean to suggest that STO is a like a "lock". I was just saying that the fact that Windows has been exploited doesn't prove that STO has no security value.
I said historically. I've worked on military crypto systems as recently as 10 years ago and the details were classified. I wouldn't assume that every government agency takes the same approach. Even the individual branches of the military often go their own way.
In this post-911 period I've seen a trend toward more secrecy rather than less. For example, the documents that described the military's UHF DAMA waveforms used to be freely available on the Internet, but they aren't now.
"Fact is anybody can dis-assemble a lock. And of course people can dis-assemble code"
There are probably few people who have even read every line of the Linux kernel - imagine trying to dis-assemble Vista looking for vulnerabilities.
"The greatest value in keeping code secret is making sure it cannot be easily re-produced, and thus subverting other individuals or companies from using it without authorization."
Perhaps, but your statement says nothing about security issues.
"Yes there may be value in keeping code secret, but I would argue that the value is minimal compared to the benefits of keeping it open."
Well, there are arguments for keeping code secret and for making it open. My point is that there's little evidence that keeping the code open improves the security of the code. Nobody can reasonably argue that not having the source code makes it easier to create exploits.
Slashdot Mirror
and one to go.
A new viable platform emerged that the big boys ignored, so the small companies jumped in and grew with the growth of the platform. That's the story of the standard PC as well as a Linux PC. It has nothing to do with open vs. closed.
"So basically, we can't scale up, and we can't easily port to another platform, both due to the limitations of MySQL. And yet, the simple fact is, despite its limitations we desperately need the best MySQL we can get with the latest performance/scalability patches, and the newest bug fixes. And *that* is how MySQL gets our money. We used them as our gateway database until we grew to the point where we're now stuck with them. Being stuck with them, we pay for the best support plan we can, and use the latest MySQL Enterprise we can."
Well, when you buy proprietary software they have you by the short hairs... oh wait.
You really need to sort out your priorities.
Thanks. We'll all be waiting for your follow-on redefinitions with baited breath.
Some would argue that the TCP/IP "standard" is actually the original coding implementation that everybody uses. Has there actually been a "cleanroom" attempt to implement TCP/IP using only the RFC's by people who know nothing about TCP/IP?
Of course if you coded to web standards to begin with - that is when the web was new, you wouldn't be using any "freaking XML" or javascript either. There are more significant and widely used improvements to web development coming from breaking the old standards than there has been from the standards bodies.
Those on Slashdot who would never admit to using Windows, wouldn't run MS Office even on a Mac, and would never stoop so low as to use Visual Basic for Applications (or any other MS language) are upset that VBA is going away.
"At this point you can point out the billions of dollars being made by IBM, Red Hat and others who provide services for what they give away."
Sure, it's not as if IBM was making any money until FOSS came along. And all of Red Hat's original proprietary applications weren't selling that well, so they adopted the "let somebody else do the work" model and the rest is history.
Well, among other things he did the bulk of the coding for Altair Basic.
I don't know why people want to pretend he wasn't a real programmer. In those early days, what would Gate's role in MS have been? It's not as if he was seeking VC money or something. Even Steve Jobs who did seek outside money had done some technical work for Atari - that's how it worked in those days.
Besides, it's possible to believe that he was a programmer and yet evil (if that's what people want to believe).
"We round-file a couple thousand of resume submissions a month to find just one truly qualified applicant"
Any company who can't hire a qualified individual in 6 weeks is doing something seriously wrong. If you can toss so many resumes a month, you obviously don't really need to hire someone. I suggest you save your company money but getting rid of your full-time resume tosser and wait until you really need to hire someone.
Gates was lucky but he also was smart at seeing an opportunity and taking it.
As for "removing the ability for other people" to get a fortune, companies have made billions and billions of dollars providing software for DOS and Windows.
And of course Gates helped create significant applications in assembly - something that most people on Slashdot have never attempted and may not be capable of.
kissing ass. That will take you a lot further than hard work and relevant skills.
Being an asshole is an important part of convincing people you're a software Guru. It sure beats working for a living.
"In that light, it isn't even a software issue, it's a common sense issue."
I agree, but the topic isn't common sense or how best to run your company.
The report from Secunia is based on their users' PCs and thus is not statistically valid (has there ever been a statistically valid survey reported on Slashdot?). In addition, they have a vested interest in reporting a high number in order to promote their non-free version.
"Linux runs on everything from wristwatches to supercomputers"
Wristwatches need Linux to about the same degree as a watchband does. This is more about the Linux "brand" than it is about the same OS running on wristwatches and supercomputers.
"IMHO any person running a small business should at least take a course in accounting"
It's the customer that should be fixed.
"OR software companies might start to get a clue and write software for a new emerging market that doesn't include Microsoft."
There's still a lot more money a company can make developing (desktop) software for Windows than Linux simply because of the market share difference. How many Linux users actually buy software? There really isn't much risk to waiting until a real market in Linux applications appears. Many Linux fans point out all the great free applications already available - what is the missing application category that a new player can make money on?
You're missing the point. The issue isn't whether Linux has similiar applications, it's that people have Windows applications that they want to run, that won't run on Linux. Sure there are all kinds of work-arounds that kinda, sorta, sometimes allow you to run Windows apps, but most people aren't going to accept that.
Nobody has. The question is whether having a potentially larger number of people who might examine the code, outweighs the disadvantage of making it easier for crackers to exploit it.
Of course, language choice is a design decision.
You're reading too much into my analogy (or perhaps it was flawed). I didn't mean to suggest that STO is a like a "lock". I was just saying that the fact that Windows has been exploited doesn't prove that STO has no security value.
I said historically. I've worked on military crypto systems as recently as 10 years ago and the details were classified. I wouldn't assume that every government agency takes the same approach. Even the individual branches of the military often go their own way.
In this post-911 period I've seen a trend toward more secrecy rather than less. For example, the documents that described the military's UHF DAMA waveforms used to be freely available on the Internet, but they aren't now.
"Fact is anybody can dis-assemble a lock. And of course people can dis-assemble code"
There are probably few people who have even read every line of the Linux kernel - imagine trying to dis-assemble Vista looking for vulnerabilities.
"The greatest value in keeping code secret is making sure it cannot be easily re-produced, and thus subverting other individuals or companies from using it without authorization."
Perhaps, but your statement says nothing about security issues.
"Yes there may be value in keeping code secret, but I would argue that the value is minimal compared to the benefits of keeping it open."
Well, there are arguments for keeping code secret and for making it open. My point is that there's little evidence that keeping the code open improves the security of the code. Nobody can reasonably argue that not having the source code makes it easier to create exploits.