Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open Source "flash in the pan."

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Open Source "flash in the pan."

    Ever get on an airliner; that's your 'open source' to the MAX. The 'community' furnishes the airport, the air navigation system, supports the airlines, supplies persons to check your baggage for whatever blah de blah. Back some time ago there was an article describing an MBA dissertation in which the student figured up what a plane ticket from NY to LA would cost -- if the passenger actually had to pay for it -- and he quit adding it up when it got to $10,000 one way. FWIW, communism is not 'open source', it's 'OPEN SINK' . my $.02 bobh
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Open Source "flash in the pan."

    I can understand how an MBA finds the concept of open-source difficult. Actually, there are solid business principles behind open-source software. I never took a business course in my life, but here's what I've read: What determines the cost of any product? Answer: What users are willing to pay. (Not the cost of developing the product.) If the price customers are willing to pay is greater than the cost of production, you make a profit. Otherwise, you lose money. What's the cost of producing a copy of a software product? Answer: Practically nothing. Since it's so easy to reproduce software, the cost the people are willing to pay is negligible. That's the fundamental principle behind open-source software. It's not communism at all. Open-source is driven more by libertarian principles. Now then, if the software is given away, how can a business make money in the open-source world? There are lots of ways. For example, the development of Perl is substantially funded by the publisher O'Reilly, who make money selling the definitive Perl books. Other companies (like IBM) make money selling services. One pinball program was sponsored by a beer company. I agree that there are also "communist" aspects. There is a lot of free software available. Rather than pay the developers of the programs they use with dollars, many users of free software pay back into the community at large in other ways, by offering their own specific talents: programming, graphic design, documentation, etc. Considering the hassles of producing commercial software, or collecting money for "shareware", this is not unrealistic. This still fits in with free-market principles, though - it's just that the benefits to the developers of the software aren't necessarily monetary.

    Comment

    • #3
      Open Source "flash in the pan."

      From this developer's perspective, the debate over open vs. closed source is mostly irrelevant. The ability to generate applications simply, accurately, effectively, and timely is the greater consideration. For the purpose, I'll take the closed source OS/400 as my development platform over any Unix variant, any day! For a viewpoint on why open source is not a good idea for an OS, I would recommend reading "The Unix-Haters Handbook" published by IDG books ISBN 1-56884-203-1. It is a remarkable insight into how Unix is in the state it is in today. Dave

      Comment

      • #4
        Open Source "flash in the pan."

        If you have been looking at the open source method of software development over the last 4 years and have been scratching your head, as I have, wondering what they were thinking, the attached article is for you. I've been in the business world for 26 years and while I'm not a business genius I just didn't get it. (Well, I do have an MBA. I can tell you that Open Source was panned in all of my MBA classes.) I couldn't imagine anyone sustaining a business by giving away their products. Certainly, if they expected to get the customer to buy other products once they sampled the freeware then the model makes sense. (Of course, that's called shareware.) However, I managed a number of young 20-something Linux zealots and let me tell ya, they HATED any company that charged for their products. It was a cult, a product must be free or they wouldn't touch it. I'm glad another form of communism is dying. Don't be shocked by the use of the term communism, since that's exactly what open source represents: software built and shared by a community. See attachment: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200...html?tag=tp_pr chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

        Comment

        • #5
          Open Source "flash in the pan."

          I agree that the most important thing is the ability to generate applications simply, accurately, effectively, and timely. And that can just as well be done using open-source software. For example, you can read here how the Swedish pension plan system was implemented using the open-source language Perl. The fact is that open-source operating systems, like Linux, are becoming more important, a fact that IBM in particular has embraced. Look at HP - they recently announced that they're withdrawing their proprietary system (the 3000) from the market in favor of their Unix and Linux products. What does Linux give to IBM? It is something that IBM has wanted for a long time - an operating system that can run on its entire hardware range. If you want to be able to code an application to run on PC's, and on mainframes, Linux is the way to go. (I know this might not be a popular point of view in this arena, but it is today's reality.) BTW, check the publication date on "The Unix-Haters Handbook". A lot has changed in the past seven years.

          Comment

          Previous template Next
          Working...
          X