Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Apr 2007 16:50 UTC
It's been a while since the latest Microsoft-should-open-source-Windows article, so SJVN felt compelled to write one. "Although Microsoft may claim otherwise, Vista, from both from a technical and business point of view, is proving to be a failure. Why not turn it over to people who have shown time after time that they can deliver the goods?"
Thread beginning with comment 230937
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Bill gives enough money on charity, dont you thi
by nberardi on Sat 14th Apr 2007 18:48
in reply to "RE[2]: Bill gives enough money on charity, dont you thi"
Member since:2005-07-10
It's also a little insulting to everyone with a modicum of intelligence and/or honesty, not to mention Redhat (not to say they aren't members of either group) to insinuate you can't make a profit from free software.
Is that the really the only way you know how to argue by twisting what I say to fit your view of the world. There is no difference between Open Source and Closed Source software, just different methodologies for getting the same job done. In addition my statements were in response to the original poster, and they were a reply.
Sure you can make a profit from Open Source, but you can also make a profit from Closed Source. That was never what was in debate, my comment was how insulting it was to say that for profit software automatically equals failure.
Also open source software wouldn't be were it is right now if wasn't for the tons of money that companies like AT&T, Xerox, IBM, Sun, and Microsoft poured in to universities for research on software and hardware. Nobody has ever analyzed what it would mean if all software went open source, and the distribution was free. The development of new software and research benefiting computing would slow.
You may disagree and you are entitled to, but one thing you can't disagree with is that money = research and research = new developments. So maybe you should think twice about your view of the world.
Because the benefits of Microsoft Research are in your home right now. Especially if you have digital TV which is based off the Microsoft research on IP-TV, which is based off Microsoft's research in to streaming video over the internet. But nobody uses that, (www.youtube.com, video.google.com), do they?
RE[4]: Bill gives enough money on charity, dont you thi
by twenex on Sat 14th Apr 2007 21:23
in reply to "RE[3]: Bill gives enough money on charity, dont you thi"
Member since:2006-04-21
"It's also a little insulting to everyone with a modicum of intelligence and/or honesty, not to mention Redhat (not to say they aren't members of either group) to insinuate you can't make a profit from free software.
Is that the really the only way you know how to argue by twisting what I say to fit your view of the world. "
Nice try. Nevertheless, the insinuation that open source software robs developers of profits stands there in black and white.
There is no difference between Open Source and Closed Source software, just different methodologies for getting the same job done.
Oh, but there's a big difference. Open Source depends on standing on the soldiers of giants; closed source centres on reinvention of the wheel.
In addition my statements were in response to the original poster, and they were a reply.
I fail to see the relevance of this.
Sure you can make a profit from Open Source, but you can also make a profit from Closed Source. That was never what was in debate, my comment was how insulting it was to say that for profit software automatically equals failure.
Also open source software wouldn't be were it is right now if wasn't for the tons of money that companies like AT&T, Xerox, IBM, Sun, and Microsoft poured in to universities for research on software and hardware.
Actually, open source would be a lot better off if Microsoft were not the company it is. Sun also is not blameless in the proprietary technology department, even in software.
Nobody has ever analyzed what it would mean if all software went open source, and the distribution was free. The development of new software and research benefiting computing would slow.
I think you will find that the first sentence above invalidates the second.
You may disagree and you are entitled to, but one thing you can't disagree with is that money = research and research = new developments. So maybe you should think twice about your view of the world.
I don't remember ever posting that I'm against research. Maybe you should think twice about your view of what I write. In fact all editions of UNIX upto and including Seventh Edition were research - and THEY were open source.
Because the benefits of Microsoft Research are in your home right now. Especially if you have digital TV which is based off the Microsoft research on IP-TV, which is based off Microsoft's research in to streaming video over the internet. But nobody uses that, (www.youtube.com, video.google.com), do they?
So Microsoft actually made one contribution to the world outside itself, did it? Wow. That overshadows all the effort they have spent destroying competitors. Not.
Member since:
2006-04-21
Sure we could turn the Windows Source over to the Debian team, and then the operating system could take 2 years to come out.
Oh wait that already happened so what is the gain. And what is this nonsense about open source developers delivering the goods?
There are more OSS projects than Debian, and giving it to Debian might result in delays, but probably less delays than Vista suffered. They might also use some of their quality control talent.
Open source and closed source, yes. Technologically, however, Microsoft is widely seen as a failure even by those who applaud their business suckcess. Whoops. Freudian slip.
That goes both ways: Open source != failure, and closed source != success.
It's also a little insulting to everyone with a modicum of intelligence and/or honesty, not to mention Redhat (not to say they aren't members of either group) to insinuate you can't make a profit from free software.