There is an intrinsic benifit to society from freeing up ideas; you dont have to free them for free.. just let them be free and dont worry about the 'grey market runoff' that so groundlessly scares so many capitalists.
Again, I will call this idealistic and naive. I am unashamed to admit that I am much more interested in obtaining a pile of money than I am a pile of karma by looking the other way as people steal my ideas. I guess I don't have enough (or any) faith in humanity to justify allowing my blood, sweat and tears to be carted away by the same people who wouldn't walk across the street to piss on my shoes if they were on fire. How many software packages have been offered for free with the only caveat being a nice e-mail to the author expressing the tiniest bit of thanks? How many of those deals do you think ever even approach 5% success?
Frankly, screw the "intrinsic benefit" to society because no one appreciates such gestures. Look around here, for example; these Slashbots actually think they can justify pirated MP3s. I will never, ever offer the source of anything I create to the general public -- not for monetary reasons, but on pure principle.
The maintainers of Linux (the current standard-bearer of open source) are infighting, bashing, selfish, attention-grabbing individuals
And there it is. As someone who does not prefer any particular system or philosophy over any others, I can't believe how inexplicably high-and-mighty OSS pundits act around each other and the public at large. Not only is such bravado wildly unearned thus far, but is also hilarious to the outside world when coming from a group who "owns" less than 1% of the desktop market. You can trumpet all the server percentages you like, but the only people who care are the ones who already know.
As much as I have been (and will be again) shouted down for saying so, I know several people personally who have tried Linux or OSS, perhaps even liked it, but veered sharply away as soon as it came time to get help. Many of you people are just jerks and there is utterly no way to excuse a philosophy that seems to include ridicule as a way of attracting clients. The principle of having to deal with people like RMS and his followers, even if it means getting arguably equal software at zero cost, has itself cost OSS "clients" and probably does so every day.
A weak analogy may be the recently deceased XFL football league. Some of the modifications made really were pretty neat, but the overrall public dislike of Vince McMahon specifically and his loudmouthed sideshow mentality overshadowed the game itself. As a result, many passed judgement based upon the unlikeable central figurehead instead of the product itself. Similarly, I (and countless other non-political geeks) loathe Stallman and everything he touches and I, for one, admit that it colors my view of FS. I am not alone.
So, will OSS ever hit the mainstream? Maybe, but it's going to mean losing that enormous chip or at least the people who own the shoulders.
Look at patents.. you are granted legal protection for publishing your methods.
So, my options, using your statement, are:
a) Give away the source and keep a lawyer in the garage for the endless cases of IP theft that are certain to occur, not to mention my fruitless attempts to actually find any such cases in this vast world. Summary: costs a fortune in time and money.
b) Give away no code and avoid the trouble entirely. Summary: costs nothing in either time or money.
Hmm. Tough call. Sorry, junior, some people understand the difference between business and a hobby. Why would I pay attention to your idealistic flights of fancy when there are thousands who have no intention of rewarding my "good" (and naive) nature by stealing my ideas?
My company currently uses Pentium III 450-550 machines with 192MB. I am fighting tooth and nail to prevent the CIO from buying new machines.
You are dead wrong! I can't believe how any corporation could expect to make money using such archaic technology! As a public service, I will personally haul these dinosaurs to the dump* for you at the low, low price of $50 per unit.
In his (and my) opinion, X is slow, and you have not offered anything to demonstrate otherwise other than an opposing opinion (after calling him a troll for having said so). I guess that means you're a troll too.
I think X is garbage too, because it's slow and resource hungry even in comparison to Win2000. If you like X, that's your business, but I am very sick of having the Scarlet-T trotted out whenever anyone else offers an opposing view, especially when, as with this story, viewpoints are being solicited.
Well, aren't you the asshole of the day? The guy says something you disagree with and you not only call him a troll, but then make completely opposite (yet equally unsupported) claims yourself.
It's becoming clearer almost daily that the truth means nothing to you OSS sheep unless it's the same "truth" you personally subscribe to.
This "story" is definitely not another pathetic excuse for questionable, masturbatory tales of how Linux saved the world and brought Jesus back from the dead. If it seems we've discussed this before, it's because we have... about a half-dozen times.
Even Slashdot must get more interesting submissions than this. Sadly, none of us will ever see them.
You are sadly, but not inexplicably, backwards. Microsoft, being the industry trendsetter and standard-maker, is what your OSS products are compared to, not the reverse.
It is, however, nice to finally hear one of the OSS camp admit that it's constant catch-up over there. You have, in fact, strengthened my point from above.
I would love to believe that the web will soon make record companies obsolete, but there is one huge aspect that will probably delay (or eliminate) this possibility for a million years --
Fame
An indie band simply can't bankroll an arena tour and, unless you're Fugazi, the club scene and an Econoline van just doesn't taste like the success that should be forthcoming once a band starts to attain real popularity. Knowing more than a few members of struggling bands, I think I can honestly say that the notoriety is almost more important than the tangible riches. It works against the fans, too, as unless the indie band you like lives within about a thousand miles, you're very unlikely to ever see them perform, which is half the fun in many cases.
I have no doubt that using the web results in exponentially higher per-album "royalities" than signing with a ReCo, but there are many more aspects of being on a major label than just that one.
If I had a few million bucks laying around, I would fire up a touring-only record company and bankroll stripped-down, smallish arena tours for the more popular indie bands in exchange for a (large) chunk of the ticket sales. I may not be able to provide three stories of PA speakers and four truckloads of lighting, but it would at least give some good, but broke, bands another reason to go at it on their own.
If artist can sell music through their own web pages, why would they sign their souls away to a big label?
Well, because the flavor of the week is marketed on billboards and commercials during Friends, while the indies have to rely on word of mouth. Who do you think sells more records and thus makes more money? Pittance royalties be damned, 5,000,000 units sold and a record company that is willing to offer trivial tokens of fame in exchange for your soul is still going to win out every time.
Oh, puhleeeze. Do you really believe that Linux is a threat to Windows without the mandate of a third party (which, incidentally, you would hate in any other case)? Do you? Really? If so, the only possible rationale is that you haven't used a Microsoft OS since Win95, which was, unquestionably, terrible. So was 98, but lesser so. Windows 2000 is pretty darned good, but no one expects you to speak from experience around Slashdot. Meanwhile, Linux as a collective still hasn't got a decent desktop software installation/uninstallation mechanism, a complete grasp of USB or an attractive desktop that runs comparatively well on 128MB of RAM (I had to add another 64MB during my brief stint with KDE to avoid constant paging). As cheap as RAM is, how well did you react to WindowsXP's tall requirements in that area? Is it suddenly better when it's something you support?
I'm all for options, but to sit here and watch you state outright falsehoods, such as the quote I have italicized, leaves me just stunned. In some important areas, such as web hosting, FreeBSD in particular has become the standard. In all others areas of personal computing, the best you can currently hope for is to see the dust on the horizon in front of you, left behind by Windows and the MacOS.
That, my zealoted friend, is slightly less than your lofty claim.
The problem is that it's so one sided. If someone were to submit a pro-Microsoft article that included some little stab at Linux, there is no way it would be met with any less than 50,000 screaming Linux zealots (that is, in the un-likely event that it ever made front page on Slashdot).
I am well aware that Slashdot is a Linux-biased web site and that such hypocrisy probably isn't unexpected or even unjustified as a result, but it's the zealots who pretend they aren't zealots who make it so satisfying to point out the contradictions. It's like an orthodox Catholic calling someone else hypocritical.
I, personally, don't like zealots of any kind who ignore reality in the eternal quest to show everyone else how right (and clever) they are at all times, despite the fact that it's often completely undeserved. Pointing those things out is, frankly, fun and is probably why so many of us "MS-trolls" (in reality, just people who aren't solidly on board the S.S. Linuxfanboy) stick around this place.
In other words, art. Does *everything* have to be useful, efficient, and informative? Can't it just be pretty?
Absolutely, art is just fine for its own sake. My personal disagreement with Flash begins when it is pushed as "content enhancement" of some description. It's clearly not and I daresay that we Flash-detractors would be a smaller group if, as you have, Flash-fans would just be honest WRT its role as pure candy instead of a "useful tool".
No, animated GIFs are big and slow. Flash is actually quite efficient in its use of bandwidth. Flash does things visually that you *can't do* with HTML. What would you like to me to use?
Well, I have two responses to this:
1. Efficient is relative, as precious little Flash is done with any eye toward efficiency. The vast, vast majority that I have ever seen is hideously bloated and features the always exciting "please wait while this 350k animation loads." However, I accept your point about it being efficient when compared to similar technologies.
2. Why is there a need for Flash or animated.GIFs other than in the artistic genre that we have already discussed? There is no question that Flash can do things HTML cannot, but I think a more prudent question is to ask why it's necessary and what or whom truly benefits from its abilities over and above HTML. Based upon the fact that Flash has only really gained acceptance in the typically irritating advertising industry (again, not counting the artistic niche), I am going to guess it isn't me.
I don't think that these are any better than you do, but since we're not talking about the value of the content here, just the transmission of that content, how good it is is irrelevant. So, um, how do you expect those folks to actually distribute their content if not with Flash?
No, it is indeed incorrect to equate quality of the end-product with the value of the technology itself in this case and I admit that I can't think of a better way to transmit that type of "content" if not for Flash. In a perfect world, there would be no bleed-through between that world and those of us who could not possibly care less if the nav-bar fades in gracefully, but this certainly is no perfect world.
Maybe some people don't like to talk on the phone?
Well, tough shit. Does everyone have to sacrifice, the amount being purely arbitrary, so that you are never required to do anything you don't like? I can't stand being out and about during rush hour -- does that mean I am justified to sit back with no job and collect welfare? No, it's my problem and, in a world with any accountability (unlike this one), I either deal with it however or suffer in silence. You don't like talking on the phone? Higher prices for you, big boy.
Without having seen anything you have ever done with Flash, I believe I can accurately state that it's no more useful in your hands than the other sixty million "presentation over content" souls wandering around this world.
Flash is big, slow, needless and just another excuse to dazzle your audience to a point where they neglect to notice the fact that there's no meat in the sandwich. You're right; humans are visual creatures, but I'll bet that you can't point to one, single web site on planet Earth where Flash does anything better or more efficiently than anything else, pound for pound. It's the internet equivalent of "Type-R" stickers on a Honda Civic -- utterly, completely useless other than an outlet for the owner's constant desire to masturbate in public. Believe you me, I don't need to see that.
And, please, don't point me toward any of the "hilarious" Flash cartoon sites, because they, in more ways than just this, don't count for much.
Here's some more comedy -- I'm willing to bet that this embarassing display of marketing prowess will prove to be exponentially more valuable and successful than the "ridicule you until you join us" Linux rallying cry.
How do you think Microsoft has maintained such a complete stranglehold on desktop computing? They spew what people want to hear, while the Linux camp keeps on embarassing itself. Laugh all you want, but also try to learn something.
Certainly not, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? When a company starts to open source some of its technology it can make perfect business sense!
Well, I don't claim to follow open-source software very closely, but I can't think of any examples where an open application has ever amounted to a hill of beans economically for the vendor. I am sure it offers some warm-fuzzies morally and can often become the defacto standard (Apache, for one), but how well would Be have been received to open the source, amass the work of happy OSS pundits worldwide, and then close it off and start selling commerical packages? Once open, always open (as I understand the GPL and similar licences), which has shown to be a terrible business model.
It might suprise you but I'm not an open source zealot. I develop closed source because I believe it makes sense for the work I got to do. However I strongly believe that you need to open source some software projects in order to achieve something. Starting an operating system from scratch is definetely one such project in my opinion, provided that you aren't MS/IBM or some other giant.
That's not unreasonable, but again, show me how to make money from such an escapade. While you're at it, show RedHat, VA and any number of others, because they sure as hell don't have a clue. What I am saying is that, in this quasi-capitalist world, there's no value in being the good guy by releasing a failing product to the OSS world if it will do nothing to turn business around. Clearly Be was wrong to employ, as you put it, the Blitzkrieg business model, but I don't really see any other options unless one is willing to develop in secret for literally years or has the capital to employ a huge workforce right out of the gate. A tight budget is an instant death-knell to anyone wishing to compete in the business of building an OS.
Sigh. Again, I have to listen to how opening the source would have saved (fill in dead technology here). Look, when Be fired up the BeOS, it was for business reasons, not philanthropy. Maybe there were those at glamorous Be headquarters who really did want to offer the world its first Genuinely Good Operating System (c), but I am willing to bet that 95% of the rationale was to make money.
Thus, when the OS didn't catch on for whichever reason, development stopped. If, say, flat panel TVs never become popular, do you think manufacturers will just throw patents to the wind and idealistically hope that someone else will take up the fight? Obviously not. Even if the magical opening of the source would have saved the OS itself, which I doubt, it would have done nothing to salvage Be and, as a result, wasn't worth the ten minutes required to load source code on the Be FTP servers.
Sorry to sound like a jerk, but I get so very tired of hearing about opened source is an all-encompassing savior. No, all it means is that you get something for free.
Well, I appreciate your sentiments, but from what I have seen around Slashdot and other Linux-fanzines is that they do want to replace Windows. See, I actually respect those who use Linux for what it is, like it, and don't try to convince me or the corporate world that it's just as painless as Windows or the MacOSs when the opposite is clearly true.
Really, look around this place. It seems to me that the vast majority of Linux pundits are looking to take over the world at all costs and seem to neglect what comes along because, you're right, doing so would require a dumbing down of what people like yourself obviously enjoy. Why bother? I'm sure you've read the same backpatting extravaganzas penned by an "evangelist" who finally bores an acquaintence into trying an alternative to Windows. Then what? What happens when he tries to install new software by himself? Or to add a Logitech webcam? Yes, I know that it's Logitech's fault that the cams run like crap (if at all) under Linux, but what difference does that make when a new "convert" can't make it go? Who do you think he blames?
So, thank you for being rational in the face of my admittedly heavyhanded original comment. Despite how it may appear, I have used Linux and won't install anything but FreeBSD on any servers I configure, so I'm not a mindless Windows sheep. I also, for some reason, can't imagine why so many people want so badly to force everyone else to agree with what works for them before it naturally happens. If Linux is ever "that much better" then it will happen; until then, it's just breeding a whole new bunch of people who, like myself, have used it, got fed up, and went back cynical.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I will call this idealistic and naive. I am unashamed to admit that I am much more interested in obtaining a pile of money than I am a pile of karma by looking the other way as people steal my ideas. I guess I don't have enough (or any) faith in humanity to justify allowing my blood, sweat and tears to be carted away by the same people who wouldn't walk across the street to piss on my shoes if they were on fire. How many software packages have been offered for free with the only caveat being a nice e-mail to the author expressing the tiniest bit of thanks? How many of those deals do you think ever even approach 5% success?
Frankly, screw the "intrinsic benefit" to society because no one appreciates such gestures. Look around here, for example; these Slashbots actually think they can justify pirated MP3s. I will never, ever offer the source of anything I create to the general public -- not for monetary reasons, but on pure principle.
And there it is. As someone who does not prefer any particular system or philosophy over any others, I can't believe how inexplicably high-and-mighty OSS pundits act around each other and the public at large. Not only is such bravado wildly unearned thus far, but is also hilarious to the outside world when coming from a group who "owns" less than 1% of the desktop market. You can trumpet all the server percentages you like, but the only people who care are the ones who already know.
As much as I have been (and will be again) shouted down for saying so, I know several people personally who have tried Linux or OSS, perhaps even liked it, but veered sharply away as soon as it came time to get help. Many of you people are just jerks and there is utterly no way to excuse a philosophy that seems to include ridicule as a way of attracting clients. The principle of having to deal with people like RMS and his followers, even if it means getting arguably equal software at zero cost, has itself cost OSS "clients" and probably does so every day.
A weak analogy may be the recently deceased XFL football league. Some of the modifications made really were pretty neat, but the overrall public dislike of Vince McMahon specifically and his loudmouthed sideshow mentality overshadowed the game itself. As a result, many passed judgement based upon the unlikeable central figurehead instead of the product itself. Similarly, I (and countless other non-political geeks) loathe Stallman and everything he touches and I, for one, admit that it colors my view of FS. I am not alone.
So, will OSS ever hit the mainstream? Maybe, but it's going to mean losing that enormous chip or at least the people who own the shoulders.
So, my options, using your statement, are:
a) Give away the source and keep a lawyer in the garage for the endless cases of IP theft that are certain to occur, not to mention my fruitless attempts to actually find any such cases in this vast world. Summary: costs a fortune in time and money.
b) Give away no code and avoid the trouble entirely. Summary: costs nothing in either time or money.
Hmm. Tough call. Sorry, junior, some people understand the difference between business and a hobby. Why would I pay attention to your idealistic flights of fancy when there are thousands who have no intention of rewarding my "good" (and naive) nature by stealing my ideas?
Kids, the very definition of redundant.
You are dead wrong! I can't believe how any corporation could expect to make money using such archaic technology! As a public service, I will personally haul these dinosaurs to the dump* for you at the low, low price of $50 per unit.
* - the dump is my apartment.
He probably went all crazy because Linux stories tend to get ignored here at Slashdot.
Where's my calculator. Okay, let's see... 1% of zero is what? Umm, denominator. Yeah, zero.
That would be zero, now, and throughout all eternity.
As you wish -- "X windows *isn't* slow."
In his (and my) opinion, X is slow, and you have not offered anything to demonstrate otherwise other than an opposing opinion (after calling him a troll for having said so). I guess that means you're a troll too.
I think X is garbage too, because it's slow and resource hungry even in comparison to Win2000. If you like X, that's your business, but I am very sick of having the Scarlet-T trotted out whenever anyone else offers an opposing view, especially when, as with this story, viewpoints are being solicited.
It's becoming clearer almost daily that the truth means nothing to you OSS sheep unless it's the same "truth" you personally subscribe to.
So, Why Haven't I Switched? Guys like this moron.
Even Slashdot must get more interesting submissions than this. Sadly, none of us will ever see them.
You are sadly, but not inexplicably, backwards. Microsoft, being the industry trendsetter and standard-maker, is what your OSS products are compared to, not the reverse.
It is, however, nice to finally hear one of the OSS camp admit that it's constant catch-up over there. You have, in fact, strengthened my point from above.
Fame
An indie band simply can't bankroll an arena tour and, unless you're Fugazi, the club scene and an Econoline van just doesn't taste like the success that should be forthcoming once a band starts to attain real popularity. Knowing more than a few members of struggling bands, I think I can honestly say that the notoriety is almost more important than the tangible riches. It works against the fans, too, as unless the indie band you like lives within about a thousand miles, you're very unlikely to ever see them perform, which is half the fun in many cases.
I have no doubt that using the web results in exponentially higher per-album "royalities" than signing with a ReCo, but there are many more aspects of being on a major label than just that one.
If I had a few million bucks laying around, I would fire up a touring-only record company and bankroll stripped-down, smallish arena tours for the more popular indie bands in exchange for a (large) chunk of the ticket sales. I may not be able to provide three stories of PA speakers and four truckloads of lighting, but it would at least give some good, but broke, bands another reason to go at it on their own.
Well, because the flavor of the week is marketed on billboards and commercials during Friends, while the indies have to rely on word of mouth. Who do you think sells more records and thus makes more money? Pittance royalties be damned, 5,000,000 units sold and a record company that is willing to offer trivial tokens of fame in exchange for your soul is still going to win out every time.
Because then everyone says, "what the hell is an ogg and why are you looking at me like that?"
Oh, puhleeeze. Do you really believe that Linux is a threat to Windows without the mandate of a third party (which, incidentally, you would hate in any other case)? Do you? Really? If so, the only possible rationale is that you haven't used a Microsoft OS since Win95, which was, unquestionably, terrible. So was 98, but lesser so. Windows 2000 is pretty darned good, but no one expects you to speak from experience around Slashdot. Meanwhile, Linux as a collective still hasn't got a decent desktop software installation/uninstallation mechanism, a complete grasp of USB or an attractive desktop that runs comparatively well on 128MB of RAM (I had to add another 64MB during my brief stint with KDE to avoid constant paging). As cheap as RAM is, how well did you react to WindowsXP's tall requirements in that area? Is it suddenly better when it's something you support?
I'm all for options, but to sit here and watch you state outright falsehoods, such as the quote I have italicized, leaves me just stunned. In some important areas, such as web hosting, FreeBSD in particular has become the standard. In all others areas of personal computing, the best you can currently hope for is to see the dust on the horizon in front of you, left behind by Windows and the MacOS.
That, my zealoted friend, is slightly less than your lofty claim.
I am well aware that Slashdot is a Linux-biased web site and that such hypocrisy probably isn't unexpected or even unjustified as a result, but it's the zealots who pretend they aren't zealots who make it so satisfying to point out the contradictions. It's like an orthodox Catholic calling someone else hypocritical.
I, personally, don't like zealots of any kind who ignore reality in the eternal quest to show everyone else how right (and clever) they are at all times, despite the fact that it's often completely undeserved. Pointing those things out is, frankly, fun and is probably why so many of us "MS-trolls" (in reality, just people who aren't solidly on board the S.S. Linuxfanboy) stick around this place.
Meh, I'd rather have the Corolla -- they, like, run and stuff.
Virtual hosting makes that kind of a mess.
Absolutely, art is just fine for its own sake. My personal disagreement with Flash begins when it is pushed as "content enhancement" of some description. It's clearly not and I daresay that we Flash-detractors would be a smaller group if, as you have, Flash-fans would just be honest WRT its role as pure candy instead of a "useful tool".
No, animated GIFs are big and slow. Flash is actually quite efficient in its use of bandwidth. Flash does things visually that you *can't do* with HTML. What would you like to me to use?
Well, I have two responses to this:
1. Efficient is relative, as precious little Flash is done with any eye toward efficiency. The vast, vast majority that I have ever seen is hideously bloated and features the always exciting "please wait while this 350k animation loads." However, I accept your point about it being efficient when compared to similar technologies. .GIFs other than in the artistic genre that we have already discussed? There is no question that Flash can do things HTML cannot, but I think a more prudent question is to ask why it's necessary and what or whom truly benefits from its abilities over and above HTML. Based upon the fact that Flash has only really gained acceptance in the typically irritating advertising industry (again, not counting the artistic niche), I am going to guess it isn't me.
2. Why is there a need for Flash or animated
I don't think that these are any better than you do, but since we're not talking about the value of the content here, just the transmission of that content, how good it is is irrelevant. So, um, how do you expect those folks to actually distribute their content if not with Flash?
No, it is indeed incorrect to equate quality of the end-product with the value of the technology itself in this case and I admit that I can't think of a better way to transmit that type of "content" if not for Flash. In a perfect world, there would be no bleed-through between that world and those of us who could not possibly care less if the nav-bar fades in gracefully, but this certainly is no perfect world.
Well, tough shit. Does everyone have to sacrifice, the amount being purely arbitrary, so that you are never required to do anything you don't like? I can't stand being out and about during rush hour -- does that mean I am justified to sit back with no job and collect welfare? No, it's my problem and, in a world with any accountability (unlike this one), I either deal with it however or suffer in silence. You don't like talking on the phone? Higher prices for you, big boy.
Flash is big, slow, needless and just another excuse to dazzle your audience to a point where they neglect to notice the fact that there's no meat in the sandwich. You're right; humans are visual creatures, but I'll bet that you can't point to one, single web site on planet Earth where Flash does anything better or more efficiently than anything else, pound for pound. It's the internet equivalent of "Type-R" stickers on a Honda Civic -- utterly, completely useless other than an outlet for the owner's constant desire to masturbate in public. Believe you me, I don't need to see that.
And, please, don't point me toward any of the "hilarious" Flash cartoon sites, because they, in more ways than just this, don't count for much.
How do you think Microsoft has maintained such a complete stranglehold on desktop computing? They spew what people want to hear, while the Linux camp keeps on embarassing itself. Laugh all you want, but also try to learn something.
Well, I don't claim to follow open-source software very closely, but I can't think of any examples where an open application has ever amounted to a hill of beans economically for the vendor. I am sure it offers some warm-fuzzies morally and can often become the defacto standard (Apache, for one), but how well would Be have been received to open the source, amass the work of happy OSS pundits worldwide, and then close it off and start selling commerical packages? Once open, always open (as I understand the GPL and similar licences), which has shown to be a terrible business model.
It might suprise you but I'm not an open source zealot. I develop closed source because I believe it makes sense for the work I got to do. However I strongly believe that you need to open source some software projects in order to achieve something. Starting an operating system from scratch is definetely one such project in my opinion, provided that you aren't MS/IBM or some other giant.
That's not unreasonable, but again, show me how to make money from such an escapade. While you're at it, show RedHat, VA and any number of others, because they sure as hell don't have a clue. What I am saying is that, in this quasi-capitalist world, there's no value in being the good guy by releasing a failing product to the OSS world if it will do nothing to turn business around. Clearly Be was wrong to employ, as you put it, the Blitzkrieg business model, but I don't really see any other options unless one is willing to develop in secret for literally years or has the capital to employ a huge workforce right out of the gate. A tight budget is an instant death-knell to anyone wishing to compete in the business of building an OS.
Thus, when the OS didn't catch on for whichever reason, development stopped. If, say, flat panel TVs never become popular, do you think manufacturers will just throw patents to the wind and idealistically hope that someone else will take up the fight? Obviously not. Even if the magical opening of the source would have saved the OS itself, which I doubt, it would have done nothing to salvage Be and, as a result, wasn't worth the ten minutes required to load source code on the Be FTP servers.
Sorry to sound like a jerk, but I get so very tired of hearing about opened source is an all-encompassing savior. No, all it means is that you get something for free.
Really, look around this place. It seems to me that the vast majority of Linux pundits are looking to take over the world at all costs and seem to neglect what comes along because, you're right, doing so would require a dumbing down of what people like yourself obviously enjoy. Why bother? I'm sure you've read the same backpatting extravaganzas penned by an "evangelist" who finally bores an acquaintence into trying an alternative to Windows. Then what? What happens when he tries to install new software by himself? Or to add a Logitech webcam? Yes, I know that it's Logitech's fault that the cams run like crap (if at all) under Linux, but what difference does that make when a new "convert" can't make it go? Who do you think he blames?
So, thank you for being rational in the face of my admittedly heavyhanded original comment. Despite how it may appear, I have used Linux and won't install anything but FreeBSD on any servers I configure, so I'm not a mindless Windows sheep. I also, for some reason, can't imagine why so many people want so badly to force everyone else to agree with what works for them before it naturally happens. If Linux is ever "that much better" then it will happen; until then, it's just breeding a whole new bunch of people who, like myself, have used it, got fed up, and went back cynical.