For anyone who is interested, here is my dissection of Raymond's argument. I believe it contains any number of suppressed premises. I'll point to a few here. Premise 1: To make the creation of a new OS worthwhile you need a strong developer base Premise 2: Most hackers/developers are involved in writing code for Microsoft's various OS'es. Premise 3: Those hackers/developers who do not write for Windows (and who perhaps have political and/or technological scruples) are, in the main, jumping aboard the Linux/OSS bandwagon (the bulk of the remainder code for the MacOS). Premise 4: OSS/Linux is the future. Premise 5: As a consequence, any up-and-coming, proprietary OS is going to struggle to attract already-employed developers. Premise 6: Not enough developers will switch allegiance to the up-and-coming OS to make it viable. Premise 7: It doesn't matter if the new OS is technically superior to what currently exists. Premise 8: BeOS is an up-and-coming, proprietary OS which is technologically superior in many regards to what currently exists. Premise 9: BeOS is not Microsoft Windows or OSS. Premise 10: BeOS will be squeezed out. It will wither and die on the vine. Conclusion: BeOS is not a viable option I believe Raymond's conclusion to be a non sequitur. Let's consider a couple of questions: (1) How many developers does it take to create a "killer app?" (2) Is it possible that a killer app could be developed for BeOS? (3) Do end users care if the OS they run their favourite app on is open source? Think about it... The day that the massed ranks of Linux hackers can create an OS as fast, elegant, fun and downright gorgeous as the BeOS, I'll be there. I applaud the OSS initiative and share the sense of frustration and perhaps also the political ideology that gave birth to it. Remember, we are on he same side here. I wish you all good luck. Ian Stewart Cairns
Slashdot Mirror
For anyone who is interested, here is my dissection of Raymond's argument. I believe it contains any number of suppressed premises. I'll point to a few here. Premise 1: To make the creation of a new OS worthwhile you need a strong developer base Premise 2: Most hackers/developers are involved in writing code for Microsoft's various OS'es. Premise 3: Those hackers/developers who do not write for Windows (and who perhaps have political and/or technological scruples) are, in the main, jumping aboard the Linux/OSS bandwagon (the bulk of the remainder code for the MacOS). Premise 4: OSS/Linux is the future. Premise 5: As a consequence, any up-and-coming, proprietary OS is going to struggle to attract already-employed developers. Premise 6: Not enough developers will switch allegiance to the up-and-coming OS to make it viable. Premise 7: It doesn't matter if the new OS is technically superior to what currently exists. Premise 8: BeOS is an up-and-coming, proprietary OS which is technologically superior in many regards to what currently exists. Premise 9: BeOS is not Microsoft Windows or OSS. Premise 10: BeOS will be squeezed out. It will wither and die on the vine. Conclusion: BeOS is not a viable option I believe Raymond's conclusion to be a non sequitur. Let's consider a couple of questions: (1) How many developers does it take to create a "killer app?" (2) Is it possible that a killer app could be developed for BeOS? (3) Do end users care if the OS they run their favourite app on is open source? Think about it... The day that the massed ranks of Linux hackers can create an OS as fast, elegant, fun and downright gorgeous as the BeOS, I'll be there. I applaud the OSS initiative and share the sense of frustration and perhaps also the political ideology that gave birth to it. Remember, we are on he same side here. I wish you all good luck. Ian Stewart Cairns