Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd May 2009 13:58 UTC, submitted by shaneco
GNU, GPL, Open Source Keith Curtis worked at Microsoft for 11 years, coding on Windows, Office, and at Microsoft's research department, before leaving the Redmond giant. Call it a revelation, call it giving in to the devil's temptations, but he's now a complete open source and Linux advocate, and in his new book, "After the Software Wars", he explains why open source will prevail against Microsoft's proprietary model.
Permalink for comment 364943
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It sounds strange to me
by GraphiteCube on Fri 22nd May 2009 14:33 UTC
Member since:

Why proprietary is bad? Why should everyone share the codes to the world?

Microsoft writes his own product and customers pay for the products, and why should Microsoft open-source the products? Isn't it a decision should be made by the company? Not just Microsoft, I think whether open-source the software or not and which license to use, is solely the freedom of the programmer/ designer. Freedom should not just be applied to end-users, but programmers, who put effort on making the software, too.

I do use Debian GNU/Linux as my Linux server, and sometimes as my desktop. Sure Linux has its advantages: free, stable (most of the time, with some exceptions). But when I experience troubles, as a home user, I can only ask for help on forums (and I may not even get a reply in months). If I bought commercial products, I can dial the service hotline/ send e-mail to the company and call for help. As a result, I don't see paying for products is bad, and I don't see making everything free is good.

Sometimes I just feel the world is beginning to force everyone (programmers) deliver products for free.

Reply Score: 6