Power, Patents, and open source
-
A new open source post... Successful corporations know its about the bottom line. And nothing else. And that bottom line depends heavily on market share, and asset value. Power in the marketplace. Assets equate to ownership; of intellectual property (IP), including patents; a business with good cash flow; future revenue prospects; etc. Microsoft as the leading software giant is very good at running a successful business, with some involvement in Software. Some? Sure, this _is_ what Microsoft offers to its clients. But the business makes its real money above and beyond this simple level. Assets. Value. IP. Patents. Investments. Investors. That's the actual business. Open source ideals challenge many of these business tenets. Big players such as Microsoft stand to lose billions in investments, when the percieved value of the IP, patents, etc. are challenged. 'Open Source' is being used by competitors as a line of attack against businesses that accrue value in these ways. The threat is real and considerable. This is why mega-corp players call Open Source 'undemocratic'. The pro-OS Novell President recently stated that it is no longer acceptable for companies to charge high prices for software. The software is simply a means to an end (helping the client business operate more effectively) and not the end in itself. The services should address the business end, using software. I personally enjoy this line of reasoning. But I am aware that it is a blow to the conventional, market-oriented model that bolsters the mega-corporations. 'Open Source' will survive the coming IT winter. Because its not about making bucks from the IT. However, those that charge premium rates for suportive services (such as word processors, calendars, email) will find themselves priced out of the market. Because these things are now trivial to produce. Dime a dozen. Hundred million developers will do that to an industry.
-
A new open source post... Successful corporations know its about the bottom line. And nothing else. And that bottom line depends heavily on market share, and asset value. Power in the marketplace. Assets equate to ownership; of intellectual property (IP), including patents; a business with good cash flow; future revenue prospects; etc. Microsoft as the leading software giant is very good at running a successful business, with some involvement in Software. Some? Sure, this _is_ what Microsoft offers to its clients. But the business makes its real money above and beyond this simple level. Assets. Value. IP. Patents. Investments. Investors. That's the actual business. Open source ideals challenge many of these business tenets. Big players such as Microsoft stand to lose billions in investments, when the percieved value of the IP, patents, etc. are challenged. 'Open Source' is being used by competitors as a line of attack against businesses that accrue value in these ways. The threat is real and considerable. This is why mega-corp players call Open Source 'undemocratic'. The pro-OS Novell President recently stated that it is no longer acceptable for companies to charge high prices for software. The software is simply a means to an end (helping the client business operate more effectively) and not the end in itself. The services should address the business end, using software. I personally enjoy this line of reasoning. But I am aware that it is a blow to the conventional, market-oriented model that bolsters the mega-corporations. 'Open Source' will survive the coming IT winter. Because its not about making bucks from the IT. However, those that charge premium rates for suportive services (such as word processors, calendars, email) will find themselves priced out of the market. Because these things are now trivial to produce. Dime a dozen. Hundred million developers will do that to an industry.
caractacus wrote: But the business makes its real money above and beyond this simple level. Assets. Value. IP. Patents. Investments. Investors. That's the actual business. I disagree. caractacus wrote: 'Open Source' will survive the coming IT winter. I agree, supposing the winter comes. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
A new open source post... Successful corporations know its about the bottom line. And nothing else. And that bottom line depends heavily on market share, and asset value. Power in the marketplace. Assets equate to ownership; of intellectual property (IP), including patents; a business with good cash flow; future revenue prospects; etc. Microsoft as the leading software giant is very good at running a successful business, with some involvement in Software. Some? Sure, this _is_ what Microsoft offers to its clients. But the business makes its real money above and beyond this simple level. Assets. Value. IP. Patents. Investments. Investors. That's the actual business. Open source ideals challenge many of these business tenets. Big players such as Microsoft stand to lose billions in investments, when the percieved value of the IP, patents, etc. are challenged. 'Open Source' is being used by competitors as a line of attack against businesses that accrue value in these ways. The threat is real and considerable. This is why mega-corp players call Open Source 'undemocratic'. The pro-OS Novell President recently stated that it is no longer acceptable for companies to charge high prices for software. The software is simply a means to an end (helping the client business operate more effectively) and not the end in itself. The services should address the business end, using software. I personally enjoy this line of reasoning. But I am aware that it is a blow to the conventional, market-oriented model that bolsters the mega-corporations. 'Open Source' will survive the coming IT winter. Because its not about making bucks from the IT. However, those that charge premium rates for suportive services (such as word processors, calendars, email) will find themselves priced out of the market. Because these things are now trivial to produce. Dime a dozen. Hundred million developers will do that to an industry.
Successful corporations know its about the bottom line. And nothing else. well, that reminds me of WarlMart. But it isn't software house. 'Open Source' will survive the coming IT winter. Because its not about making bucks from the IT. I use open source software (Java, Apache, Tomcat, Fedora, Eclipse, MySQL, XDoclet,.... and the list goes on) - and I like them. I certainly feels no guilt "making bucks" from IT, considering a lot of non-professionals charges just as much as us developers. We spent a lot of time and effort in attaining our experties to get to where we are. Norman Fung
-
A new open source post... Successful corporations know its about the bottom line. And nothing else. And that bottom line depends heavily on market share, and asset value. Power in the marketplace. Assets equate to ownership; of intellectual property (IP), including patents; a business with good cash flow; future revenue prospects; etc. Microsoft as the leading software giant is very good at running a successful business, with some involvement in Software. Some? Sure, this _is_ what Microsoft offers to its clients. But the business makes its real money above and beyond this simple level. Assets. Value. IP. Patents. Investments. Investors. That's the actual business. Open source ideals challenge many of these business tenets. Big players such as Microsoft stand to lose billions in investments, when the percieved value of the IP, patents, etc. are challenged. 'Open Source' is being used by competitors as a line of attack against businesses that accrue value in these ways. The threat is real and considerable. This is why mega-corp players call Open Source 'undemocratic'. The pro-OS Novell President recently stated that it is no longer acceptable for companies to charge high prices for software. The software is simply a means to an end (helping the client business operate more effectively) and not the end in itself. The services should address the business end, using software. I personally enjoy this line of reasoning. But I am aware that it is a blow to the conventional, market-oriented model that bolsters the mega-corporations. 'Open Source' will survive the coming IT winter. Because its not about making bucks from the IT. However, those that charge premium rates for suportive services (such as word processors, calendars, email) will find themselves priced out of the market. Because these things are now trivial to produce. Dime a dozen. Hundred million developers will do that to an industry.
Because these things are now trivial to produce. Dime a dozen. Hundred million developers will do that to an industry. The main fallacy, as I see it, is that even though OS applications costs may be nil given that developers donate their time, the developers still need to make a living and frankly, I don't believe that "weekend coders" have the background to have a significant impact on extremely complex applications. Steve
-
Because these things are now trivial to produce. Dime a dozen. Hundred million developers will do that to an industry. The main fallacy, as I see it, is that even though OS applications costs may be nil given that developers donate their time, the developers still need to make a living and frankly, I don't believe that "weekend coders" have the background to have a significant impact on extremely complex applications. Steve
Steve Mayfield wrote: I don't believe that "weekend coders" have the background to have a significant impact on extremely complex applications. Me neither , Im sure that Linus guy is just made up , kinda like Santa Claus or something.. (<- btw is that kid sister safe? or did i ruin her day now?) //Roger
-
Because these things are now trivial to produce. Dime a dozen. Hundred million developers will do that to an industry. The main fallacy, as I see it, is that even though OS applications costs may be nil given that developers donate their time, the developers still need to make a living and frankly, I don't believe that "weekend coders" have the background to have a significant impact on extremely complex applications. Steve
Steve Mayfield wrote: I don't believe that "weekend coders" have the background to have a significant impact on extremely complex applications. They produced some very strong and complex OSes, like Linux and (Free,Open)BSD. They produced a complete Office package (OpenOffice). There are very strong data mining packages (e.g., Weka), 3D modelling and animation tools (Blender3d comes to mind), scientific applications (ParaView, Vis5D, VR Juggler) and some media tools that even don't have a commercial tool available, AFAIK (e.g, Blockbuster). You can question if end users these apps or will prefer commercial alternatives, but, hey, those "weekend coders" seem to have the necessary background. The "weekend coder" image is wrong, and most of the great OSS work is done by doctors, PhDs, and great coders, on work time and put for free. "Weekend coders" are still useful, but for small hacks, tools and grunt work that's always needed, on every application. Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
Steve Mayfield wrote: I don't believe that "weekend coders" have the background to have a significant impact on extremely complex applications. Me neither , Im sure that Linus guy is just made up , kinda like Santa Claus or something.. (<- btw is that kid sister safe? or did i ruin her day now?) //Roger
-
Successful corporations know its about the bottom line. And nothing else. well, that reminds me of WarlMart. But it isn't software house. 'Open Source' will survive the coming IT winter. Because its not about making bucks from the IT. I use open source software (Java, Apache, Tomcat, Fedora, Eclipse, MySQL, XDoclet,.... and the list goes on) - and I like them. I certainly feels no guilt "making bucks" from IT, considering a lot of non-professionals charges just as much as us developers. We spent a lot of time and effort in attaining our experties to get to where we are. Norman Fung
> Java What do you mean by saying Java is open source? IMO Java a language and a technology (J2EE, J2ME etc) that is the same as many other languages, it's not Open Source Software (imho). So I'm confused by what you mean. BTW, I've been getting confused easily since I got up out of bed this morning.. it will pass after I get some food.. but in the mean time... Regards, Brian Dela :-) Now Reading: Code Complete 2ed[^] by Steve McConnell
-
Steve Mayfield wrote: I don't believe that "weekend coders" have the background to have a significant impact on extremely complex applications. They produced some very strong and complex OSes, like Linux and (Free,Open)BSD. They produced a complete Office package (OpenOffice). There are very strong data mining packages (e.g., Weka), 3D modelling and animation tools (Blender3d comes to mind), scientific applications (ParaView, Vis5D, VR Juggler) and some media tools that even don't have a commercial tool available, AFAIK (e.g, Blockbuster). You can question if end users these apps or will prefer commercial alternatives, but, hey, those "weekend coders" seem to have the necessary background. The "weekend coder" image is wrong, and most of the great OSS work is done by doctors, PhDs, and great coders, on work time and put for free. "Weekend coders" are still useful, but for small hacks, tools and grunt work that's always needed, on every application. Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: They produced a complete Office package (OpenOffice). My recollection is that OpenOffice was produced by a successful commercial company who had been selling it for a number of years and then Sun bought them out. Neville Franks, Author of ED for Windows www.getsoft.com and Surfulater www.surfulater.com "Save what you Surf"
-
Daniel Turini wrote: They produced a complete Office package (OpenOffice). My recollection is that OpenOffice was produced by a successful commercial company who had been selling it for a number of years and then Sun bought them out. Neville Franks, Author of ED for Windows www.getsoft.com and Surfulater www.surfulater.com "Save what you Surf"
Which was exactly my point. Most of the good OSS wasn't produced by "weekend programmers" "without the necessary background". This is a false image. Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
> Java What do you mean by saying Java is open source? IMO Java a language and a technology (J2EE, J2ME etc) that is the same as many other languages, it's not Open Source Software (imho). So I'm confused by what you mean. BTW, I've been getting confused easily since I got up out of bed this morning.. it will pass after I get some food.. but in the mean time... Regards, Brian Dela :-) Now Reading: Code Complete 2ed[^] by Steve McConnell