I have maintained my Linux box, as a desktop system for the past 3 years. For the most part I am running Gentoo. I have failed misrably using Slackware, but that was when I knew nothing of it and what a unix system looked like. I have had a Debian system for a period of a month or two, I can't remember.
My conclusion is this, reguardless of the current state of affairs of a distribution, that state changes by the minute, and for the better. Packages that were more than necessarily difficult to install are fading away from software repositories, and are isolated in development sections. To throw in some numbers, most distributions come with more than 5GB of software, which is "ready to go" (preconfigured/precompiled).
Without any zealotry on my part, I want you to at least accept that we're discussing a moving target. Moving so fast, in fact, that right now I can't recall the last time "emerge pkg-name" on stable package failed.
I shake both my fists at Redmond. "Usefulness" isn't at all an issue because people who use an alternative have also found their systems "useful". The only difference is in how things are done. And those who have bent their mind around the differences are surprisingly reluctant to switch back.
Trying to listen to the trivial issues of people who, in return, are reluctant to listen to your advice gets old pretty fast. It seems to me that it is your attitude, and of the posters like you that is childish. The reason? I think you like to play the "it's not my fault" game. You complain about your issues. You're told that the answers you seek are clearly spelled out in a manual. Then you complain because you don't want to read it, and that no one is fixing your "problem".
I would have loved to see the conditions of your car if you treated your mechanic the same way. Good news for the car companies, they'd have a constant buyer.
AFAIK, Linux distributions have a veriety of different methods for package installation. Most of which consisting of the following steps:
install-command name-of-package
run.
Maybe my math is off, but that is one step less.
Compiling is hardly ever actually necessary, most software can be obtained in precompiled binaries. That said, I prefer to have the option to compile the program, as it allows me to tune the software to my system. Given the diversity of hardware, this is a good thing for those who care.
For many users, the transition to linux would be much easier if they get out of the microsoft mindset, nothing else is actually necessary.
It's kind of silly, IMHO, to state that installing software on windows is easy. That really depends on who you ask and is very subjective. I find that most windows oriented programs will install, and then mangle whatever setting they see fit. Usually, if there's any structure to my file system's layout, it's a nightmare to maintain. Icons are stuffed everywhere. Crap sets itself up to run on startup. The system tray is under constant attack, and worst of all, you can't suppress any of that without significantly crippling the "feature" set of the OS.
I understand that right now you can do certain things in a laboratory, in some test tube. I understand that this is developing at an incredible rate. But, giving someone a custom gene sequence is far from being able to do anything useful with it, for the time being. A gnome (pun intended) in of itself is far more complicated then what we understand about it so far. To think that someone can use what we'll know in the near future, with such degree of efficiency is, in my mind, naive. Because of my point of view on the complexity of genes, I can't picture such an event in the near future. Therefore, I'm very inclined to have a more advanced world in the scenario.
By not being a priority, I didn't mean it to sound as if it will not be handled. But no one can fight the cause if they're dead. So first things first, get things to not die ASAP. Second, and also ASAP, infect everything with the cleanup agent to rid of the source.
So it's really a two layered problem that I have with the scenario. I can't see it happening in my life time, and because of that, I suspect that detection and resolution are still going to be quicker than what you say.
Ok, so clearly the cure you're describing is no where near as devious as the cause. But, if I am to imagine an infection so incredibly clever, I will also imagine that the state of the world is quite beyond what it is now. First, I imagine the cure to be also-as-fast-spreading as the bacteria. Second, I don't imagine the cure fighting off the deadly bacteria, as it is not a priority at first. Given the fact that the gas itself is produced through a genetic structure, it can be broken down by a similar reverse process. That is, have it break down in the body. I am simply saying that if we go far enough to imagine something so sofisticated, we can't just underestimate a world of billions at our convenience.
I just can't see that head start you're mentioning. Amongst other things, we're good at surveying, and getting better at it. At the sign of first dead fish, what do you think will happen? It'll have a head start but it won't be a significant one. I just can't picture the entire planet sitting there scratching their ass. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I'm still convinced that what will actually happen in that scenario is somewhere in the happy middle between the two of us without global devastation.
Assuming you can make the genes to make the proteins to make the guasses, then you must also assume that it is just as concievable to make the genes that produce the proteins that break down the nerve gas in those creatures with nervous systems.
Assuming you can make genes this way, you can also assume that it is much easier to identify something that would be caused by a modified gene, thus "reverse-engeneered". Biology in particular leaves unmistakable traces.
you're more likely to have a community centered around it than anything evil you imagine. - agreed. But this does not mean that writing closed source software is antisocial at all. One can create closed source software and never release it to anyone, not even if they pay for it. Even this is not antisocial. When you create things you don't have to give or show or sell them to anyone, you can just enjoy it by yourself. This is not antisocial, it does not disrupt the norms of society, it is not rude, it is not illegal.
If you're not releasing the software at all, it's neither closed or open, as there is no license attached to it, only a copyright. As you are the sole creator and user, you have both the source and the binary distribution and in no different of the potential position that of any open/closed source vendor on the planet.
One can create closed source software and sell it and this is also not antisocial. After all, this software will help someone to do something, otherwise they wouldn't buy it, would they? It is very social in fact to create any type of software and release it as Free or free or sell it as not Free. It does not fall under the 'antisocial' tag.
Those people that buy closed source software implicitly trust the vendor. If the vendor is very reputable for having perfected their creations (NASA), then you are correct, there is no antisocial behavior going on. However, given the fact that most closed source vendors do not have such a reputation (MS), there is nothing to base this level of trust on. Because of that, it is vital that anyone who wishes to use a piece of software to be able to see the code. Essentially, its a different method to achieve NASA quality in the long run. By no means does that mean that OSS is there, but as long as it remains open, it has a much better chance of success. The release of software is not antisocial, but given the capability of any one of those vendors, their refusal to release code is becoming more and more so.
From dictionary.com: antisocial: 1. Shunning the society of others; not sociable. 2. Hostile to or disruptive of the established social order; marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores: gangs engaging in vandalism and other antisocial behavior. 3. Antagonistic toward or disrespectful of others; rude.
So RMS comes up with his own definition of antisocial and now he pushes it onto others and they accept it. But I do not.
No, RMS did not come up with his own definition. He is clearly describing #3. Closed source vendors are engaging in these activities constantly. Some do not, others just not so much. One of the reasons is what I mentioned already with source. Another ongoing debate is software patents and the legal wasteland that it's creating. Oh, and that nice lady from MS "support" saying, "It's too bad that you already have a key, you're going to have to buy another CD now, full price, because we'll never send you another one".
Have you seen nothing in how things are usually done in open source? First of all, you can sell the software, even if it is opensource. Second, no one is going to take your code, fix it up, and then sell it. That would be quite a large investment on their part. Instead, what you're more likely to find, is that people are sending you bug reports, fixes, suggestions. If you go the open source route, and you actually DO have verywell written software, you're more likely to have a community centered around it than anything evil you imagine.
A lot of software wouldn't get developed if someone weren't paid to do it
Are you SURE you're interperting the word FREE correctly? You can develop free software in a veriety of situations. First, in your basement, for nothing. Second, in your basement for someone for nothing. Third, in your basement for someone for some $$. You are *free* to do it.
The only thing that changes between free/non-free software is that at the point where the software is done, if it is free, who ever paid you to develop it, is as *free* to distribute it further as you are. Even with modifications.
Every reply I've seen to this is lame, and totally misses the point. Fantasy is fantasy, trek or wars. However, startreck focuses on humanity in a fantastic world, where as starwars is an epic set in one. The characters in startreck simply end up being much more human then they are in starwars. Dismissing startreck on the basis that it too is fantasy does not disprove the point the parent made.
One problem with Linux right now is there isn't a good site that lists all the features of the OS.
That, of course, is because the features depend on the packages you install.
A linux distribution site will detail those details for you. Linux, in of itself, is a kernel. That is, it's one program. The same software that is used in a linux distribution is used for other kernels as well. Namely, *BSD are full of the same packages. What you see as a problem, is actually necessary. The features should be mentioned on the packages, not the kernel. A distribution site is therefore a much more appropriate place for feature listing. If you did mean linux features, I suggest you look at linux.org, for starters.
However, think of this: if you're looking for a firewall, you have certain requirements in mind. How easy is it to find the capabilities of any of the linux built-in firewalls so you can see if it can handle the job?
If you're using a linux kernel, you don't need to look for anything. The firewall is built into it and it's called "iptables". If you wish to manipulate it, you can do so with the convinent tool found in the "iptables" package, called "iptables". To understand how to use "iptables" (the program), refer to the "iptables" (the manual) using the command "man iptables". If you cannot figure it out after actually bothering to understand what it is you want to accomplish, give up. You should not administer a computer, reguardless of the OS. Get/Pay someone else to set it up for you, or buy a MAC, as they will do a pretty swell job for you too.
What's funnier is the continual stream of posts claiming a single borg-like hivemind on Slashdot, that punishes you if you dare to say anything the slightest bit negative about Linux...
And even more so, is that this borg like collective is forstered by no more than free will and experience. Something continually overlooked. We're not like you, we weren't spoon fed, we made the spoon ourselves. Actually "we" refers to the wonderful people who have made the gigantic OSS repository. "You" refers to the proper M$ zealot currently reading.
It's funny that while this debate goes on, more and more people are concidering OSS. It's funny that the philosophies of OSS are getting so much attention so that they can be refined to suit free speach better. It's funny how many people are weary of being pushed around and told what to do by the likes of Microsoft.
how have they manipulated the law to make it impossible to make open source applications? If you want to make an application and release its source under a license under your choosing there is no law against it (and I don't seem to recall a law trying to get passed that would prevent it).
They haven't, they tried to is what I said. Off the top of my head, SCO. Manipulating law does not exclude your assumption of someone passing a law, but there are many ways to manipulate one. Such a law will never pass (heh...) because of it's inherent incapability to make sense.
Marketing is the difference between someone using OSS and someone using a closed source application. In the past, most companies have sold and marketed closed source applications and open source applications were released into the public by the developer that created them (with little or no marketing).
Reality: OSS has the support of mouth advertisement. The cheapest and most effective. Smaller businesses are much more likely to adopt than large ones. But that is history. Right now we are observing IBM and Novell to see where it all leads.
I can also see why closed source application developers are suspicious. Looking at the amount of p2p applications out there and the number of applications shared tells me they have a good reason.
They are suspecting the wrong people. Do you have Internet at home? Do you make a connection to a web page via a browser? Can you download a file? You have just used p2p. So guess what, you're a suspect. Have fun.
As it was stated numerous times in various ways, this isn't a perfect world. What these developers are most likely concerned with is watching their backs rather than over somebody's shoulder.
Of course I can't state that as a fact, it is a mere speculation. Over the cource of its existance, OSS has been met with hostility from closed source vendors. Some of the major ones went as far as spreading propaganda against use of such software. They have tried to manipulate the law so that it would become impossible to develop OSS. They have marketed their inferior, clumsy (you may disagree at your discression) down so many people's throats so that now no one without a geek friend knows about OSS. And to add to the cake, closed source means you can never verify anything if they don't want you to.
I can perfectly see why every OSS developer who understands the implications of the GPL will not trust these companies. These companies don't know when to stop sometimes. So yes, there is suspicion, but it is quite probable that it's well rooted, and a much more honest suspicion than what we have seen from the other side so far.
In a word, no, and if it is, it shouldn't be. If only for the simple fact when it's developed, it's no that diferrent from the experience of writing a book. You have your imagination, you see things happen, and you write them down. To take this analogy further, the "property" when it comes to books, is the book itself, not the words written, those will always belong to the author. I can side step my own argument for a little, even, because you can technically give the rights away, but the idea remains yours still. You can't change history.
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, but "must play fair" is not the same as "I'm watching you". The difference in the position is that OSS is already quite more liberal than closed source. Also, you don't necessarily get the feeling of someone always suspecting you of something.
As far as buisnesses go, a business is a system, and a system is made up of components. Price concideration is vital to any business, but not any more vital than any other type of concideration that must be made. And when it comes to software, it should be concidered based on what it is. That's done best when the code is available.
"IP usage" and statments that go in that direction, barely hold any logical ground. First off, "they're" still debating *what* IP is. The only issues that exist are there because someone decided to take credit for other people's work. It's like you writing a book, but I get all the credit. This sort of thing never made sense, and this has nothing to do with your current buzzword "IP". In other words, it's copyright infrigiwhatever.
when bringing up OSS, I think that fact that it is free as in cost is the first thing that is brought up as a reason to use it. Why else would a company even consider switching to it? (unless the performance was there, but that remains to be seen).
Does it actually make sense to you to concider any type of software based on its price tag alone? Big or small, it has nothing to do with the motivation behind the project when it comes to OSS. Once again, I will reiterate my opinion of how M$ relates to what you can/can't do with OSS: it doesn't. It has nothing to do with how OSS is. OSS will do fine with or without M$. It only depends on the availability of cheap hardware. If it was so profitable to take up the OSS project and out compete on rebundling and service, why hasn't this happened? Why are the good projects thriving just fine? Is there an actual example of this that you know of and care to share?
I would not, however, release my own products as open source. The reason is simple: it outsources the support of my product to the lowest bidder, making profitibility even more difficult than it already is. I don't expect to make as much money as Microsoft, just enough to survive, which is nearly impossible with OSS.
Your simple reasoning is actually based on a complicated assumption. What exactly makes you stand out so much that you're percieving such furious competion from the "out to get you" club? I don't exactly know what "level" you're on, but you are still one human being. What you're describing is an obvious extreem. However, if you actually have made "the next best thing", I appologize, as this is an assumption on my part as well.
Open source advocates are only thinking about working for somebody else. With this mentality, there will always be profit in software (open or closed). However, what about the people that want to work for themselves? Profit is nowhere to be found.
Eh? Unless you're making your apps strictly for your own, personal, private use, you're making your apps for someone (open or closed). By the same token, Closed source advocates are very concerned with squeesing every penny out of everything they come in contact with, even when they shouldn't. At the end of it all, I'm being told what bits to put on my hd for which I forked $200 some time ago.
I really doubt that this happens when people's minds are in the right place. OSS takes the position of "I don't care, but you must play fair, cause if not, then I will", whatever's closed is "I'm watching you, god forbid you do something *I* don't agree with, and also, would that be cash or credit?". Under this light, who are you to judge mentality.
No, the only reason busnesses will start using OSS is becuase someone will be persistant enough. They will sell the managment on cost, that is true, but OSS inofitself, isn't free, if not for the amount of time it takes to set it do exactly what you want. Cost alone isn't going to sell if no one even knows what is OSS, knowledgable people are a must as they will be the actual source of the demand from within the company.
Heh... and one last thing I forgot to mention, with reguards of someone taking your work and selling it the way micorsoft did, this is what the GPL is for. In a perfect world this forces anyone that takes your code to make sure they mention where they got it. This is technically good, as it promotes your code's use, and your recognition. No one, under the law, has the right to steal copyrighted material. GPL covers copyrighted code quite well. It allows it to remain open, it allows others to use it as the see fit, it allows for better programming error managment, it promotes your work, and someone else CAN sell your product and make profit while maintaining a healthy relationship with the developer of the software.
Slashdot Mirror
My conclusion is this, reguardless of the current state of affairs of a distribution, that state changes by the minute, and for the better. Packages that were more than necessarily difficult to install are fading away from software repositories, and are isolated in development sections. To throw in some numbers, most distributions come with more than 5GB of software, which is "ready to go" (preconfigured/precompiled).
Without any zealotry on my part, I want you to at least accept that we're discussing a moving target. Moving so fast, in fact, that right now I can't recall the last time "emerge pkg-name" on stable package failed.
I shake both my fists at Redmond. "Usefulness" isn't at all an issue because people who use an alternative have also found their systems "useful". The only difference is in how things are done. And those who have bent their mind around the differences are surprisingly reluctant to switch back.
Trying to listen to the trivial issues of people who, in return, are reluctant to listen to your advice gets old pretty fast. It seems to me that it is your attitude, and of the posters like you that is childish. The reason? I think you like to play the "it's not my fault" game. You complain about your issues. You're told that the answers you seek are clearly spelled out in a manual. Then you complain because you don't want to read it, and that no one is fixing your "problem".
I would have loved to see the conditions of your car if you treated your mechanic the same way. Good news for the car companies, they'd have a constant buyer.
AFAIK, Linux distributions have a veriety of different methods for package installation. Most of which consisting of the following steps:
- install-command name-of-package
- run.
Maybe my math is off, but that is one step less.Compiling is hardly ever actually necessary, most software can be obtained in precompiled binaries. That said, I prefer to have the option to compile the program, as it allows me to tune the software to my system. Given the diversity of hardware, this is a good thing for those who care.
For many users, the transition to linux would be much easier if they get out of the microsoft mindset, nothing else is actually necessary.
It's kind of silly, IMHO, to state that installing software on windows is easy. That really depends on who you ask and is very subjective. I find that most windows oriented programs will install, and then mangle whatever setting they see fit. Usually, if there's any structure to my file system's layout, it's a nightmare to maintain. Icons are stuffed everywhere. Crap sets itself up to run on startup. The system tray is under constant attack, and worst of all, you can't suppress any of that without significantly crippling the "feature" set of the OS.
You can conclude that all the crap code out there will have the crap beat out of it eventually.
Screw your "leaders". I don't want to talk to them.
So it isn't an infection we're seeing? It's a phase maybe?
It all depends on the scale on which we're measuring. At some point, they're all sick bastards.
You just gave me a capital idea! Large UV filters, for indoor but outdoor crop plantations. When does the suffering begin?
By not being a priority, I didn't mean it to sound as if it will not be handled. But no one can fight the cause if they're dead. So first things first, get things to not die ASAP. Second, and also ASAP, infect everything with the cleanup agent to rid of the source.
So it's really a two layered problem that I have with the scenario. I can't see it happening in my life time, and because of that, I suspect that detection and resolution are still going to be quicker than what you say.
Ok, so clearly the cure you're describing is no where near as devious as the cause. But, if I am to imagine an infection so incredibly clever, I will also imagine that the state of the world is quite beyond what it is now. First, I imagine the cure to be also-as-fast-spreading as the bacteria. Second, I don't imagine the cure fighting off the deadly bacteria, as it is not a priority at first. Given the fact that the gas itself is produced through a genetic structure, it can be broken down by a similar reverse process. That is, have it break down in the body. I am simply saying that if we go far enough to imagine something so sofisticated, we can't just underestimate a world of billions at our convenience.
I just can't see that head start you're mentioning. Amongst other things, we're good at surveying, and getting better at it. At the sign of first dead fish, what do you think will happen? It'll have a head start but it won't be a significant one. I just can't picture the entire planet sitting there scratching their ass. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I'm still convinced that what will actually happen in that scenario is somewhere in the happy middle between the two of us without global devastation.
Assuming you can make genes this way, you can also assume that it is much easier to identify something that would be caused by a modified gene, thus "reverse-engeneered". Biology in particular leaves unmistakable traces.
If you're not releasing the software at all, it's neither closed or open, as there is no license attached to it, only a copyright. As you are the sole creator and user, you have both the source and the binary distribution and in no different of the potential position that of any open/closed source vendor on the planet.
Those people that buy closed source software implicitly trust the vendor. If the vendor is very reputable for having perfected their creations (NASA), then you are correct, there is no antisocial behavior going on. However, given the fact that most closed source vendors do not have such a reputation (MS), there is nothing to base this level of trust on. Because of that, it is vital that anyone who wishes to use a piece of software to be able to see the code. Essentially, its a different method to achieve NASA quality in the long run. By no means does that mean that OSS is there, but as long as it remains open, it has a much better chance of success. The release of software is not antisocial, but given the capability of any one of those vendors, their refusal to release code is becoming more and more so.
No, RMS did not come up with his own definition. He is clearly describing #3. Closed source vendors are engaging in these activities constantly. Some do not, others just not so much. One of the reasons is what I mentioned already with source. Another ongoing debate is software patents and the legal wasteland that it's creating. Oh, and that nice lady from MS "support" saying, "It's too bad that you already have a key, you're going to have to buy another CD now, full price, because we'll never send you another one".
Have you seen nothing in how things are usually done in open source? First of all, you can sell the software, even if it is opensource. Second, no one is going to take your code, fix it up, and then sell it. That would be quite a large investment on their part. Instead, what you're more likely to find, is that people are sending you bug reports, fixes, suggestions. If you go the open source route, and you actually DO have verywell written software, you're more likely to have a community centered around it than anything evil you imagine.
Are you SURE you're interperting the word FREE correctly? You can develop free software in a veriety of situations. First, in your basement, for nothing. Second, in your basement for someone for nothing. Third, in your basement for someone for some $$. You are *free* to do it.
The only thing that changes between free/non-free software is that at the point where the software is done, if it is free, who ever paid you to develop it, is as *free* to distribute it further as you are. Even with modifications.
Every reply I've seen to this is lame, and totally misses the point. Fantasy is fantasy, trek or wars. However, startreck focuses on humanity in a fantastic world, where as starwars is an epic set in one. The characters in startreck simply end up being much more human then they are in starwars. Dismissing startreck on the basis that it too is fantasy does not disprove the point the parent made.
A linux distribution site will detail those details for you. Linux, in of itself, is a kernel. That is, it's one program. The same software that is used in a linux distribution is used for other kernels as well. Namely, *BSD are full of the same packages. What you see as a problem, is actually necessary. The features should be mentioned on the packages, not the kernel. A distribution site is therefore a much more appropriate place for feature listing. If you did mean linux features, I suggest you look at linux.org, for starters.
If you're using a linux kernel, you don't need to look for anything. The firewall is built into it and it's called "iptables". If you wish to manipulate it, you can do so with the convinent tool found in the "iptables" package, called "iptables". To understand how to use "iptables" (the program), refer to the "iptables" (the manual) using the command "man iptables". If you cannot figure it out after actually bothering to understand what it is you want to accomplish, give up. You should not administer a computer, reguardless of the OS. Get/Pay someone else to set it up for you, or buy a MAC, as they will do a pretty swell job for you too.
And even more so, is that this borg like collective is forstered by no more than free will and experience. Something continually overlooked. We're not like you, we weren't spoon fed, we made the spoon ourselves. Actually "we" refers to the wonderful people who have made the gigantic OSS repository. "You" refers to the proper M$ zealot currently reading.
It's funny that while this debate goes on, more and more people are concidering OSS. It's funny that the philosophies of OSS are getting so much attention so that they can be refined to suit free speach better. It's funny how many people are weary of being pushed around and told what to do by the likes of Microsoft.
As it was stated numerous times in various ways, this isn't a perfect world. What these developers are most likely concerned with is watching their backs rather than over somebody's shoulder.
Of course I can't state that as a fact, it is a mere speculation. Over the cource of its existance, OSS has been met with hostility from closed source vendors. Some of the major ones went as far as spreading propaganda against use of such software. They have tried to manipulate the law so that it would become impossible to develop OSS. They have marketed their inferior, clumsy (you may disagree at your discression) down so many people's throats so that now no one without a geek friend knows about OSS. And to add to the cake, closed source means you can never verify anything if they don't want you to.
I can perfectly see why every OSS developer who understands the implications of the GPL will not trust these companies. These companies don't know when to stop sometimes. So yes, there is suspicion, but it is quite probable that it's well rooted, and a much more honest suspicion than what we have seen from the other side so far.
In a word, no, and if it is, it shouldn't be. If only for the simple fact when it's developed, it's no that diferrent from the experience of writing a book. You have your imagination, you see things happen, and you write them down. To take this analogy further, the "property" when it comes to books, is the book itself, not the words written, those will always belong to the author. I can side step my own argument for a little, even, because you can technically give the rights away, but the idea remains yours still. You can't change history.
As far as buisnesses go, a business is a system, and a system is made up of components. Price concideration is vital to any business, but not any more vital than any other type of concideration that must be made. And when it comes to software, it should be concidered based on what it is. That's done best when the code is available.
"IP usage" and statments that go in that direction, barely hold any logical ground. First off, "they're" still debating *what* IP is. The only issues that exist are there because someone decided to take credit for other people's work. It's like you writing a book, but I get all the credit. This sort of thing never made sense, and this has nothing to do with your current buzzword "IP". In other words, it's copyright infrigiwhatever.
Does it actually make sense to you to concider any type of software based on its price tag alone? Big or small, it has nothing to do with the motivation behind the project when it comes to OSS. Once again, I will reiterate my opinion of how M$ relates to what you can/can't do with OSS: it doesn't. It has nothing to do with how OSS is. OSS will do fine with or without M$. It only depends on the availability of cheap hardware. If it was so profitable to take up the OSS project and out compete on rebundling and service, why hasn't this happened? Why are the good projects thriving just fine? Is there an actual example of this that you know of and care to share?
Your simple reasoning is actually based on a complicated assumption. What exactly makes you stand out so much that you're percieving such furious competion from the "out to get you" club? I don't exactly know what "level" you're on, but you are still one human being. What you're describing is an obvious extreem. However, if you actually have made "the next best thing", I appologize, as this is an assumption on my part as well.
Eh? Unless you're making your apps strictly for your own, personal, private use, you're making your apps for someone (open or closed). By the same token, Closed source advocates are very concerned with squeesing every penny out of everything they come in contact with, even when they shouldn't. At the end of it all, I'm being told what bits to put on my hd for which I forked $200 some time ago.
I really doubt that this happens when people's minds are in the right place. OSS takes the position of "I don't care, but you must play fair, cause if not, then I will", whatever's closed is "I'm watching you, god forbid you do something *I* don't agree with, and also, would that be cash or credit?". Under this light, who are you to judge mentality.
No, the only reason busnesses will start using OSS is becuase someone will be persistant enough. They will sell the managment on cost, that is true, but OSS inofitself, isn't free, if not for the amount of time it takes to set it do exactly what you want. Cost alone isn't going to sell if no one even knows what is OSS, knowledgable people are a must as they will be the actual source of the demand from within the company.
Heh... and one last thing I forgot to mention, with reguards of someone taking your work and selling it the way micorsoft did, this is what the GPL is for. In a perfect world this forces anyone that takes your code to make sure they mention where they got it. This is technically good, as it promotes your code's use, and your recognition. No one, under the law, has the right to steal copyrighted material. GPL covers copyrighted code quite well. It allows it to remain open, it allows others to use it as the see fit, it allows for better programming error managment, it promotes your work, and someone else CAN sell your product and make profit while maintaining a healthy relationship with the developer of the software.