Dear Hackus,
"Open means I get the source" - So what? The only difference this makes is that the organisation needing the technology pays the "open" source "guru" instead of "Uncle Bill".
"What that means is you get to wait for your security holes to appear with your OS and Microsoft gets to decide which ones it will fix". - No, that means (worst case) I can hold a corporate entity, just like the DOJ did, responsible for it's actions, while "That means I get too search for them and fix'em at my leisure 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 365 days a year along with every other person that owns a copy of Linux, and the defects are fixed for free" only suggests that you work for free (not). You cost the same as any support, just because "open" source is being utilised doesn't mean it's cheaper. And if you cock up all I get to do is sack you (great - what about my useless software?) or litigate against your tiny "can't pay so won't pay" limited liability company.
"That means for you the ones Microsoft doesn't fix, means you get to only get them with the next OS upgrade, if you even know about them to begin with" - once again, if they don't, you have avenues, if you don't, zilch.
"That means for me, while my competitors go Microsoft in the server room, I cut my costs way down on maintaining the security and integrity of my OS binaries" - once again, myth - I save no money, it just goes to someone else.
"Which means for you, are soon out of a job because your place of employment on average spends 50% more on each and every PC it puts in the server room because it has to ship Redmond a tax on the OS, and can't afford to pay you health insurance benefits, paid vacations and bonuses for Xmas every year." - my employment conditions are way beside the point (Sysadmin (Win2k & Unix)/ DBA / infrastructure), but out of a job is out of the question - just so long as I continue to see both sides of the equation (unlike most of the so called "open source" community).
The IP stack argument is irrelevant - if you were around when they were separate, you would have had to obtain one to get on the net, and you would have paid money if the need was great enough and you couldn't get one free (am I making sense now?), and I ditto the comment about bundling IE from the previous answer.
"People are the important part of the equation now more than ever. People are what you pay for to manage information technology" - spend more years in IT and you will see that you always have and always will have to pay for the people, regardless of whether the source is free or not, and "Closed software deprives people of getting the most out of the money you pay people for when managing your IT infrastructure" - Not necessarily, because I may pay less for the people who have to manage it, the key being correct management of whatever resource. And woe betide the corporate body that has Linux on the desktop for it's SOE using today's interfaces (gnome kde ximian whatever) - you will pay the same to support it, whilst having to put up with continuous training and retraining due to lack of familiarity from the user community, now more transient and temporary than ever.
To put it very simply - people pay for stuff that they want. For stuff they really want they will pay more. People charge what they can get away with, regardless of the IP of what's being sold. But I suspect you are once again not being honest enough, that there's a W2K partition on your PC and that you boot to it more often than you'll ever admit!
Darius
You are not being honest enough. "With a Mozilla client, a Linux, BSD, or Apple or AS/400, and a decent backend database and a Java VM I have all the tools I need to write my business logic"... The Mozilla client (why not just say Netscape? I'd be surprised if there is more than only a handful of actual Mozilla users) is useless in comparison to IE (faster - more intuitive - more people write for it - the best browser won - you can't write good software by commitee). I assume the 'Linux, BSD, or Apple or AS400' bit refers to an application server of some sort. Steve Jobs wouldn't know what a 'server' was if it knocked on his door and introduced itself - running more than one application at a time was not and never will be Apple's forte. Apple know this, and built Mac OSX accordingly (lovely desktop O/S). The last price I heard quoted for an AS400 with half decent processing power was ridiculous and would not be entertained by any organisation's budget these days, throw in the proprietary OS/400 and it's dead in the water. No doubt you imagine a world with Linux on every desktop, the reality check is that it will never happen. For the desktop, read Windows on Intel32 (Why? Because it's already there, and people like it). For the middle tier read Linux or Windows on Intel32 or Intel64 (Why? Because it's cheap and people like it) and for the 'decent backend database' read anything you like, but running more than likely on Intel64 (Why? because organisations already have unix/mainframe/whatever at the back end which won't be replaced any time soon and by the time they do it will contain an Itanium procesor). Why does it escape so many technical people in the industry? Because they don't have to pay for the kit and the software. Why do so many people trumpet the 'openess' of Java and Linux when Java is under strict Sun Microsystems control and the Linux Kernel is controlled by 2 people (Linus himself and Mr. Cox). Does open mean free? No, check the cost of Red Hat Advanced Server after you've asked for support. Does open mean anyone can develop for the Linux kernel? Yes, just so long as Linus and Alan like what you've written and allow it into the kernel (at least Microsoft are driven by the dollar, and have positions based on performance - how did Linus and Alan get to the top of the Kernel change control hierarchy?). What in fact is 'open'? Simply current marketing blurb for Sun, Oracle, IBM, Red Hat, etc, in the absence of being able to make the user more productive with simple to use intuitive software. Word won over WordPerfect because it was better. Excel won over Lotus 123 because it was better..NET will win over J2EE simply because Bill writes more intiutive software that allows the user to be more productive in a shorter space of time. And don't mention the 'why bother with a desktop O/S, everyone uses a thin client / browser / whatever' - I went out to buy a 'thin client', and came back with a 'minimum' spec PC - 2 GHz processor, 1 Gb RAM, 60 Gb hard disk - why bother with a browser (common excuse 'ease of deployment, maintenance') when everyone has this power on their desk? Nearly all management software (CA Uni TNG, PATROL) can maintain the fat client effortlessly, and a browser can only do so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Hackus, "Open means I get the source" - So what? The only difference this makes is that the organisation needing the technology pays the "open" source "guru" instead of "Uncle Bill". "What that means is you get to wait for your security holes to appear with your OS and Microsoft gets to decide which ones it will fix". - No, that means (worst case) I can hold a corporate entity, just like the DOJ did, responsible for it's actions, while "That means I get too search for them and fix'em at my leisure 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 365 days a year along with every other person that owns a copy of Linux, and the defects are fixed for free" only suggests that you work for free (not). You cost the same as any support, just because "open" source is being utilised doesn't mean it's cheaper. And if you cock up all I get to do is sack you (great - what about my useless software?) or litigate against your tiny "can't pay so won't pay" limited liability company. "That means for you the ones Microsoft doesn't fix, means you get to only get them with the next OS upgrade, if you even know about them to begin with" - once again, if they don't, you have avenues, if you don't, zilch. "That means for me, while my competitors go Microsoft in the server room, I cut my costs way down on maintaining the security and integrity of my OS binaries" - once again, myth - I save no money, it just goes to someone else. "Which means for you, are soon out of a job because your place of employment on average spends 50% more on each and every PC it puts in the server room because it has to ship Redmond a tax on the OS, and can't afford to pay you health insurance benefits, paid vacations and bonuses for Xmas every year." - my employment conditions are way beside the point (Sysadmin (Win2k & Unix)/ DBA / infrastructure), but out of a job is out of the question - just so long as I continue to see both sides of the equation (unlike most of the so called "open source" community). The IP stack argument is irrelevant - if you were around when they were separate, you would have had to obtain one to get on the net, and you would have paid money if the need was great enough and you couldn't get one free (am I making sense now?), and I ditto the comment about bundling IE from the previous answer. "People are the important part of the equation now more than ever. People are what you pay for to manage information technology" - spend more years in IT and you will see that you always have and always will have to pay for the people, regardless of whether the source is free or not, and "Closed software deprives people of getting the most out of the money you pay people for when managing your IT infrastructure" - Not necessarily, because I may pay less for the people who have to manage it, the key being correct management of whatever resource. And woe betide the corporate body that has Linux on the desktop for it's SOE using today's interfaces (gnome kde ximian whatever) - you will pay the same to support it, whilst having to put up with continuous training and retraining due to lack of familiarity from the user community, now more transient and temporary than ever. To put it very simply - people pay for stuff that they want. For stuff they really want they will pay more. People charge what they can get away with, regardless of the IP of what's being sold. But I suspect you are once again not being honest enough, that there's a W2K partition on your PC and that you boot to it more often than you'll ever admit! Darius
You are not being honest enough. "With a Mozilla client, a Linux, BSD, or Apple or AS/400, and a decent backend database and a Java VM I have all the tools I need to write my business logic"... The Mozilla client (why not just say Netscape? I'd be surprised if there is more than only a handful of actual Mozilla users) is useless in comparison to IE (faster - more intuitive - more people write for it - the best browser won - you can't write good software by commitee). I assume the 'Linux, BSD, or Apple or AS400' bit refers to an application server of some sort. Steve Jobs wouldn't know what a 'server' was if it knocked on his door and introduced itself - running more than one application at a time was not and never will be Apple's forte. Apple know this, and built Mac OSX accordingly (lovely desktop O/S). The last price I heard quoted for an AS400 with half decent processing power was ridiculous and would not be entertained by any organisation's budget these days, throw in the proprietary OS/400 and it's dead in the water. .NET will win over J2EE simply because Bill writes more intiutive software that allows the user to be more productive in a shorter space of time. And don't mention the 'why bother with a desktop O/S, everyone uses a thin client / browser / whatever' - I went out to buy a 'thin client', and came back with a 'minimum' spec PC - 2 GHz processor, 1 Gb RAM, 60 Gb hard disk - why bother with a browser (common excuse 'ease of deployment, maintenance') when everyone has this power on their desk? Nearly all management software (CA Uni TNG, PATROL) can maintain the fat client effortlessly, and a browser can only do so much.
No doubt you imagine a world with Linux on every desktop, the reality check is that it will never happen. For the desktop, read Windows on Intel32 (Why? Because it's already there, and people like it). For the middle tier read Linux or Windows on Intel32 or Intel64 (Why? Because it's cheap and people like it) and for the 'decent backend database' read anything you like, but running more than likely on Intel64 (Why? because organisations already have unix/mainframe/whatever at the back end which won't be replaced any time soon and by the time they do it will contain an Itanium procesor). Why does it escape so many technical people in the industry? Because they don't have to pay for the kit and the software. Why do so many people trumpet the 'openess' of Java and Linux when Java is under strict Sun Microsystems control and the Linux Kernel is controlled by 2 people (Linus himself and Mr. Cox). Does open mean free? No, check the cost of Red Hat Advanced Server after you've asked for support. Does open mean anyone can develop for the Linux kernel? Yes, just so long as Linus and Alan like what you've written and allow it into the kernel (at least Microsoft are driven by the dollar, and have positions based on performance - how did Linus and Alan get to the top of the Kernel change control hierarchy?). What in fact is 'open'? Simply current marketing blurb for Sun, Oracle, IBM, Red Hat, etc, in the absence of being able to make the user more productive with simple to use intuitive software. Word won over WordPerfect because it was better. Excel won over Lotus 123 because it was better.