Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 13th Dec 2010 23:11 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless It's hard to predict the future because we humans prefer to think in terms of familiar paradigms. Even the most brilliant of our species are subject to this flaw. Now, Microsoft faces its turn. The owner of the operating system that likely runs your personal computer, the company that achieved monopoly with Windows and ducked the Department of Justice's scythe to keep it, faces a midlife crisis as the world goes gaga over portable consumer devices. This is the story of what's happening to Microsoft in the handheld operating system markets -- and how it parallels the earlier, similar journeys of IBM Corporation and Digital Equipment Corporation. Can Microsoft achieve dominance on mobile devices?
Permalink for comment 453490
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

"This is an interesting claim. What aspect of the GPL could possibly be bad for your business in any way, compared to what proprietary rentware such as Sharepoint is guaranteed to cost you?


Sharepoint we can get support for, we cannot get adequate support for OpenSource alternatives.

There are plenty of Microsoft Certified Partners which we can find support contracts with ... so we have plenty of choice.

Also because we are a charity, Microsoft and Google give us a significant discount (90%+) on their software (and in google's case Hardware).

If you are not a software company yourself ... then your company's use of any GPL software is completely free and unencumbered. Run it as much as you want for as many users on as many machines as you like. Fill your boots.


Again, we must have a support contract. We cannot find anyone to support us.

We do not have the resources in house to support it.

For example we use Oracle, SQL Server 2005/2008, Windows Server 2003 R2 and IIS, our current Admins do not have any know say PostgresSQL (MySQL does not have any GIS capabilities), Apache and Linux.

Using LAPP stack will be most likely be more costly since we have to migrate our current software and skillset over. This cost is minute compared to the licensing costs from Microsoft.
"
Nice how you talk like it is a all or nothing. All or nothing is how you hurt yourself and have it way more costly so you can return to window crying that hurt.

"Apache tomcat" Postgresql and Alfresco can all be run on your getting old 2003 server. Note "apache tomcat" is not the httpd apache. Its the java engine apache that Alfresco requires. So yes its possible to run Alfresco inside IIS.

Oracle is also another one that provides patches to programs like Alfresco on customer demand.

I have never asked google if they provide support contracts on third party software like Alfresco and pre dropped and configured hardware with it. Really should check.

So you could simply apply a policy restricting use of closed source solutions in time your own Internal IT staff will get to know the new system. Costs are quite min this way.

Support contract exist for open source mostly from large companies who operate global. Might be a bit hard to find a backyarder. Yes support contracts where they will fly in staff to where ever if required.


" If your company does write and distribute software as its core business ... then simply write your own software. Don't ship GPL code to your customers.


[sarcasm]Yes we can just write our own, because writing software is so simple.[/sarcasm]

You are going to have to explain what on earth you think it is about the GPL that could possibly be bad for your company. Without such an explanation, your claim makes absolutely no sense at all.


When I did work for a software house, MIT/BSD licenses were acceptable and any license where we didn't have to "give the code back".

This is because if we did make any modifications e.g. bug fixes, and deployed to a live site we are required by the GPL to give the code back. This is of course simply unacceptable, to our management thus no GPL software.

GPL isn't a one size fits all solution. I wish you would stop pretending it is.
"
By someone needs a licensing course. GPLv2 does not have the requirement you are talking about.

Live website provide by GPLv2 code no requirement to give out source code even with something like alfresco. Now if alfresco was AGPL that would be a different matter. GPLv2 only kicks in when the program has a whole is shipped. Ie like setting up a server you are going to sell off.

Google did this for years with there own custom versions of the Linux kernel and other parts they use to run the google search engine and other business 100 percent legally.

Why did google stop doing this. Not sending patches up stream end up costing them more and more until it was no longer tolerable to there bottom line ie they could not afford to maintain there own patch sets any more. I don't think your company would have the resources of google and you are talking about not sending fixes up stream. Basically are you nuts? or have you failed study what the costs would be.

Yes MIT and BSD not giving back is setting yourself up for a future problem. And yes houses using MIT and BSD internally did develop secuirty flaws and the like from it.

Most people who so called make a case against open source software deployments simply don't know what they are talking about. You have been no different. A stack of claims that are invalid.

Reply Parent Score: 2