Speech on Linux...

[Anton Markov]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Boy, this is a hard one...

colin McGregor wrote:
> Ran across this speech by Rob Enderle who works for a
> firm closely associated with SCO, with his thoughts
> about Linux:
>
> http://www.sco.com/2004forum/agenda/Enderle_keynote_SCO-Forum2004.html
>
> Seems somebody forgot to get their rabies shots :-) .

On the one hand, I have to agree with two of the things said in that speech:

1. Some people take the closed-source vs. open-source debate far too
personally. They start making it a religious thing, and end up attacking
entire companies or even broader groups of people (entire countries).
This is really a waste of time; the debate should focus on specific
cases. Open-source is just another business/distribution model.
Sometimes it works very well, at other times it fails: how many /real/
games are open source (I mean something on the scale of Quake, UT, Doom,
Age of Empires, etc.)? There is a reason for this, and people shouldn't
get emotional about it.

2. Software developers often don't value their own time/skills. Time is
arguably one of our greatest assets, and while sharing source code is
beneficial to the development and growth of software, giving away the
code completely for free is just not smart. While making the software
free for personal/non-profit use makes sense (few people going to go out
and buy a $5000 http server license for their personal website),
businesses should be charged for the use of software. Businesses invest
money into lawyers, accountants, designers, etc. Why not software? This
would also mean that software can compete on the basis of
usability/design, rather than, "this is free so it's better".

Let me clarify that. General software (i.e. kernel, browser, etc. - the
stuff that open source is strongest in) should be free for
non-profit/personal use. Businesses have to either pay a fee, or
actively contribute to the software (sort of like a community source
license idea). Specialized (narrow market) software such as games, CAD,
bank systems, etc. can be proprietary. I mean, how many people here
really need to use the same bank system as TD? How many will contribute
to it?

This way some of the goals of the open source "movement" are met - the
public has access to high quality software at low-to-zero cost and
collaboration/contribution is encouraged. On the other hand, developers
can still make money by "scratching other's itches" and by providing
software to others who then use it to provide some sort of service
(businesses).


On the other hand, I think Rob Enderle is on crack if he thinks
supporting SCO is the right way to go about supporting this issue. I
mean, how hard is it to see that SCO is in the business of FUD? I think
he's making the right arguments but for the wrong reasons (as in good PR).

- --
Anton Markov <("anton" + "@" + "truxtar" + "." + "com")>

GnuPG Key fingerprint =
5546 A6E2 1FFB 9BB8 15C3  CE34 46B7 8D93 3AD1 44B4

*** LINUX - MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU! ***
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBGZXxRreNkzrRRLQRAglMAKCgnono+UkUJ4W8oNP5uBBaehrbUACgklhQ
zqgUttYuaviaEAZvwNrIcxg=
=TXvr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml