Mundies comment on creating jobs
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
One thing that irked me in Mundies letter was mentioning how many jobs microsoft provides and the money generated in the economy.
I have always said the Mafia generated lots of money in the economy and created jobs (for goons) but we consider that illegal. For some reason MS thinks it's ok to with hold technical knowledge for the highest ransom by companies that don't have the time to write there own software it's ok. But if Bill and Co shook down every restaurant in Redmond, insisting they buy from his cousins food whole salers or he'd need "Fire insurance" it would be rackiteering.
More wealth has been generated from servicing open and free standards in software than private. It also means doing a good job or your out of business, unlike the Mafia.
This way of thinking, although makes sense in theory when explained that way, doesn't in real life.
Red Hat does some of there own programming add ons to Linux. Then packages it. You can either buy the package shrink wraped in a box from the company or you can download it for free without paying anything. You can even go to a competitor and buy it for 3$ in a cd case.
People pay more for the shrink wrapped version that comes with support and hand holding from Red Hat. Many people don't understand this. But it's how it works. Cygness has been doing the same thing with all there software they program for clients. It's GPL'd and they still have people knocking down there doors for more.
Instead of software as the product, it's the service and hand holding that sells. That's what end users want. They are buying a solution, not a program.
I agree completely. The boys in Redmond don't know right now what there doing. There like IBM was back in the ealy 90's.
It's like watching a junkie go through withdrawel. MS is loosing there monopoly power and they are looking for ways to keep it and there revenue stream.
It will be fun to watch
Our company had a client from the 80's come back and ask us to Y2K certify some software we sold them back then. They were still using it. We politely told them no.
"if the vendors push TOO hard, customers will either push back (stop supporting the vendor) or just go full renegate and stop paying license fees altogether. a little greed is ok; too much and you'll get the opposite of your intended effect."
Amen to that. Most vendors won't pick that up until it's too late. Then heads roll internally. Same thing will happen at MS. When it back fires the big wigs will say "what the hell!" and back track 180 degree's. It will be interesting to see how far MS will push it before realising it's wrong.
The boys in Redmond are loosing there grip on reality. I remeber some one saying Microsoft today is where IBM was ten years ago. Back then IBM started to loose it and tried forcing customers and re-sellers into doing things there way. It back fired and IBM went through a glut.
MS is starting down the same road. They are defending themselves against anti-trust accusations in the US and soon in Europe. They are a monopoly junkie that's loosing there power. As customers get pissed at new subscription fee's, forced upgrades, and buggy software that isn't security proof they will drive customers away. This is just one more sign of Redmond loosing touch.
After a few years Microsoft will smarten up and become a friendly company that isn't paroniod about controlling the market. But we are going to see a few more years of these crazy schemes from Redmond. All the better for Open source alternitives to show there better.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internaly only). We have best practise group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and hilights them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a gaurded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondogles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internaly only). We have best practise group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and hilights them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a gaurded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondogles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that irked me in Mundies letter was mentioning how many jobs microsoft provides and the money generated in the economy. I have always said the Mafia generated lots of money in the economy and created jobs (for goons) but we consider that illegal. For some reason MS thinks it's ok to with hold technical knowledge for the highest ransom by companies that don't have the time to write there own software it's ok. But if Bill and Co shook down every restaurant in Redmond, insisting they buy from his cousins food whole salers or he'd need "Fire insurance" it would be rackiteering. More wealth has been generated from servicing open and free standards in software than private. It also means doing a good job or your out of business, unlike the Mafia.
This way of thinking, although makes sense in theory when explained that way, doesn't in real life. Red Hat does some of there own programming add ons to Linux. Then packages it. You can either buy the package shrink wraped in a box from the company or you can download it for free without paying anything. You can even go to a competitor and buy it for 3$ in a cd case. People pay more for the shrink wrapped version that comes with support and hand holding from Red Hat. Many people don't understand this. But it's how it works. Cygness has been doing the same thing with all there software they program for clients. It's GPL'd and they still have people knocking down there doors for more. Instead of software as the product, it's the service and hand holding that sells. That's what end users want. They are buying a solution, not a program.
I agree completely. The boys in Redmond don't know right now what there doing. There like IBM was back in the ealy 90's. It's like watching a junkie go through withdrawel. MS is loosing there monopoly power and they are looking for ways to keep it and there revenue stream. It will be fun to watch
Our company had a client from the 80's come back and ask us to Y2K certify some software we sold them back then. They were still using it. We politely told them no.
"if the vendors push TOO hard, customers will either push back (stop supporting the vendor) or just go full renegate and stop paying license fees altogether. a little greed is ok; too much and you'll get the opposite of your intended effect." Amen to that. Most vendors won't pick that up until it's too late. Then heads roll internally. Same thing will happen at MS. When it back fires the big wigs will say "what the hell!" and back track 180 degree's. It will be interesting to see how far MS will push it before realising it's wrong.
The boys in Redmond are loosing there grip on reality. I remeber some one saying Microsoft today is where IBM was ten years ago. Back then IBM started to loose it and tried forcing customers and re-sellers into doing things there way. It back fired and IBM went through a glut.
MS is starting down the same road. They are defending themselves against anti-trust accusations in the US and soon in Europe. They are a monopoly junkie that's loosing there power. As customers get pissed at new subscription fee's, forced upgrades, and buggy software that isn't security proof they will drive customers away. This is just one more sign of Redmond loosing touch.
After a few years Microsoft will smarten up and become a friendly company that isn't paroniod about controlling the market. But we are going to see a few more years of these crazy schemes from Redmond. All the better for Open source alternitives to show there better.
I remember logging on to that bbs once. That was a long time ago.. I don't remember getting pirateware from them though.
Sorry for the mutliple posts (Mr moderator), my computer did a crash and burn while posting. Blame it on Win NT...
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models. Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries. We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work. I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret. It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable. Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works. Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models. Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries. We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work. I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret. It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable. Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works. Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models. Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries. We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work. I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret. It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable. Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works. Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models. Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries. We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work. I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret. It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable. Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works. Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models. Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries. We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work. I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret. It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable. Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works. Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models. Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internally only). We have best practice group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and highlight them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries. We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work. I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a guarded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret. It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondoggles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable. Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works. Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internaly only). We have best practise group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and hilights them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a gaurded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondogles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.
I have watched a lot of threads on this for a couple years now. I do get tired of hearing the same old excuses from folks defending close source models.
Where I work our company promotes sharing of code (albeit internaly only). We have best practise group that looks through each client teams code to find the best solutions and hilights them for other regions as examples. I am on one client team but I see every other client teams code from my region or other regions in different countries.
We have save A LOT of time and money doing this. I can't tell you how many projects I have eliminated the time and resource costs to nothing because I can borrow another teams work.
I have also seen closed shops at other companies where people sharing the same cubicle area don't show each other code. It's a gaurded secret. And then projects go over budget and miss due dates. No one knows if the product is stable or not. There were internal politics galore because everyone had a secret.
It's simple. If you have closed source anything, there are security risk, productivity risks, and financial boondogles because no one knows what's really going on. MicroSqueeze has only been successful because they keep throwing gobs of customer money at the problem until it's workable.
Open source shops are clean, efficient, far more secure, and get out the door a lot sooner. When the product does go out the door we know absolutely for sure that it works.
Some companies get this and make LOTS of money this way. Closed source can't go very far.