Ahh, I double checked and you are correct, the Googlenews RSS feed I was thinking about is from 74d. The link you provided didn't seem to work, but the real one is google news RSS at 74d
Google provides public RSS feeds of google news, while I couldn't find any such thing on the MS news page. That's probably not going to make a big difference to most, but I think that may affect potential readership as RSS aggregators become more prevalent.
While reading the links, I had an amusing thoughts about BSA and other lobbyists who try to eliminate even having discussions about OSS. Think back to the movie Fight Club, where they abduct certain unsavory individuals and convince them to stop their heinous ways using only a rubber-band and a knife...
Interesting, but if SCO uses Samba, doesn't that mean they agree and consent to the GPL for that package of software? If they don't accept the GPL, then how can they accept the license and therefor use the software? It seems that SCO's recent legal statements explicitely state that they reject the GPL as a valid license. So, either they reject the GPL and therefor can't license (use for free) Samba, or they accept the GPL as a license and use Samba but then that aspect of their lawsuit/rhetoric is null n' void.
It seems to me this should be a gotcha for the SCO punks.
I still think your confused - you've made a lot of leaps of logic that don't quite work out, I think.
You say that OSS guys get into it, then companies go bankrupt when some vendors pick up the OSS version. That's not the case though - when there's a proprietary and OSS version of something, then there's options and competition - one doesn't preclude the other. IE, Apache is recognized and kicks much ass, but you don't see websphere or IIS etc going away.
You also say people work on it for free, only the core devs get paid, and the others just contribute for recognition and get nothing. Not so though, there's a very high likelihood that if the product becomes popular and used by businesses, then anyone with good familiarity with it have an excellent chance at employment working on it, adding those little features businesses need but the core project doesn't, as well as the support details.
Last I checked, putting OSS in a hardware brochure doesn't equate to more sales - rather, the quality, performance, functions of the hardware are what generate sales, not because of a bullet point that mentions OSS in the product documentation. Infact these days, that bullet point will get you sued by some asshole company claiming IP issues most likely.
As many studies have shown, while OSS has a different pricing structure, it still costs quite a bit to support/use it. Instead of blowing all that cash on prepackaged proprietary software and licenses, most of the same money gets spent on dev/admin/support of the competing OSS option. That means that instead of MS getting another 100k in their bank account, a couple of dev/admin/support people get a Job!
Companies that need specific solutions require development staff, whether it's working on a proprietary product or working to extend/specialize an OSS package that does something similar. It's more likely you can find someone who's already familiar with the OSS when you need to hire more people as well, rather than having to train someone completely from scratch to get up to speed on an internal propietary project.
AS for job satisfaction, I've been in both cases, working on proprietary software and working making OSS work for companies. Working on OSS is way better and more satisfying in my opinion, and the end pay is pretty much equivalent.
I still say OSS = more and better jobs for developers with an OSS clue. I think there's plenty of room in software for both OSS and non-OSS systems.
You are so confused. You've just about got it exactly backwards, so perhaps I'm missing your sarcasm or something. Open Source is good for developers who are familiar with it, because companies almost always need additional features or support that aren't in the default build, and thus need developers to create these features for them and support the systems they run on. This applies also to QA and sysadmin people, as well as developers. If you think OSS ruins the job market for developers and system/software support people, you need to think some more about it and where you can fit in this new chain. For small companies that don't want to keep a fulltime dev/QA/sysadmin but still use OSS, the opportunities for consultants is excellent.
Hi,
not to be too picky, but you've got a factual error about SMB about 11 lines from top.
"SMB, also known as Samba, " but SMB = server message block protocol. Samba is an SMB talking application that can use SMB from unix and other systems, but Samba != SMB, like Internet Explorer != HTTP.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, I double checked and you are correct, the Googlenews RSS feed I was thinking about is from 74d. The link you provided didn't seem to work, but the real one is google news RSS at 74d
cheers!
Google provides public RSS feeds of google news, while I couldn't find any such thing on the MS news page. That's probably not going to make a big difference to most, but I think that may affect potential readership as RSS aggregators become more prevalent.
While reading the links, I had an amusing thoughts about BSA and other lobbyists who try to eliminate even having discussions about OSS.
Think back to the movie Fight Club, where they abduct certain unsavory individuals and convince them to stop their heinous ways using only a rubber-band and a knife...
Interesting, but if SCO uses Samba, doesn't that mean they agree and consent to the GPL for that package of software? If they don't accept the GPL, then how can they accept the license and therefor use the software? It seems that SCO's recent legal statements explicitely state that they reject the GPL as a valid license.
So, either they reject the GPL and therefor can't license (use for free) Samba, or they accept the GPL as a license and use Samba but then that aspect of their lawsuit/rhetoric is null n' void.
It seems to me this should be a gotcha for the SCO punks.
I still think your confused - you've made a lot of leaps of logic that don't quite work out, I think.
You say that OSS guys get into it, then companies go bankrupt when some vendors pick up the OSS version. That's not the case though - when there's a proprietary and OSS version of something, then there's options and competition - one doesn't preclude the other. IE, Apache is recognized and kicks much ass, but you don't see websphere or IIS etc going away.
You also say people work on it for free, only the core devs get paid, and the others just contribute for recognition and get nothing. Not so though, there's a very high likelihood that if the product becomes popular and used by businesses, then anyone with good familiarity with it have an excellent chance at employment working on it, adding those little features businesses need but the core project doesn't, as well as the support details.
Last I checked, putting OSS in a hardware brochure doesn't equate to more sales - rather, the quality, performance, functions of the hardware are what generate sales, not because of a bullet point that mentions OSS in the product documentation. Infact these days, that bullet point will get you sued by some asshole company claiming IP issues most likely.
As many studies have shown, while OSS has a different pricing structure, it still costs quite a bit to support/use it. Instead of blowing all that cash on prepackaged proprietary software and licenses, most of the same money gets spent on dev/admin/support of the competing OSS option. That means that instead of MS getting another 100k in their bank account, a couple of dev/admin/support people get a Job!
Companies that need specific solutions require development staff, whether it's working on a proprietary product or working to extend/specialize an OSS package that does something similar. It's more likely you can find someone who's already familiar with the OSS when you need to hire more people as well, rather than having to train someone completely from scratch to get up to speed on an internal propietary project.
AS for job satisfaction, I've been in both cases, working on proprietary software and working making OSS work for companies. Working on OSS is way better and more satisfying in my opinion, and the end pay is pretty much equivalent.
I still say OSS = more and better jobs for developers with an OSS clue. I think there's plenty of room in software for both OSS and non-OSS systems.
You are so confused. You've just about got it exactly backwards, so perhaps I'm missing your sarcasm or something. Open Source is good for developers who are familiar with it, because companies almost always need additional features or support that aren't in the default build, and thus need developers to create these features for them and support the systems they run on. This applies also to QA and sysadmin people, as well as developers. If you think OSS ruins the job market for developers and system/software support people, you need to think some more about it and where you can fit in this new chain. For small companies that don't want to keep a fulltime dev/QA/sysadmin but still use OSS, the opportunities for consultants is excellent.
Hi, not to be too picky, but you've got a factual error about SMB about 11 lines from top. "SMB, also known as Samba, " but SMB = server message block protocol. Samba is an SMB talking application that can use SMB from unix and other systems, but Samba != SMB, like Internet Explorer != HTTP.