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.
Thread beginning with 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
GraphiteCube
Member since:
2009-04-01

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

RE: It sounds strange to me
by strcpy on Fri 22nd May 2009 14:41 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

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


That is the day when I stop writing open source software. For the principle. It is already bad enough with the increasing userbase demanding how you should spend your precious free time. The famous two cents....

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: It sounds strange to me
by ssa2204 on Fri 22nd May 2009 14:58 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

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


Why is proprietary bad? It's not, unless you believe in fairy tale land where money grows on trees. But until we reach that magical plateau, it will just be the fantasy of an extreme.

The whole argument is just so childish it should not even be considered valid, much in the same why that there is a debate on whether the use of illegal torture produces results. In both cases you have people making an argument regardless of truth, facts, and reality. Torture does not work, and proprietary software will never go away. End of story.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: It sounds strange to me
by cato_minor on Fri 22nd May 2009 14:59 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
cato_minor Member since:
2006-02-13

If I bought commercial products, I can dial the service hotline/ send e-mail to the company and call for help.


As long as the company is supporting the product to a price that you are willing to pay. You can buy the same kind of support for most free software, either from the main company behind it (if it exists) or from any other company offering support. Because support companies have competitors, they have to keep their pricing and quality of support interesting for the consumer.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: It sounds strange to me
by kaiwai on Fri 22nd May 2009 15:26 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The question comes down to cost crunch. Look at the amount of duplication Microsoft do when compared to Mac OS X for example who use opensource components instead. I don't think that Microsoft could or would ever go opensource but a balanced approach needs to be taken rather than the rabid NIH syndrome that seems to be prevalent at Microsofts campus's.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: It sounds strange to me
by r_a_trip on Fri 22nd May 2009 15:33 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

What you say is absolutely true, but there is a catch. What if consumers decide they won't use closed source apps anymore? They could decide that the freedom of FOSS is actually worth paying for more than the as-is closed offerings. Than every developer is free to write closed source software, but they won't have any takers.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: It sounds strange to me
by soulrebel123 on Fri 22nd May 2009 16:02 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
soulrebel123 Member since:
2009-05-13

Pure economic theory says that a free market in the long period makes everyone sell for for their marginal cost.
In software that is nearly 0.

Also I think sometime that capitalism just was not made for intellectual work.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: It sounds strange to me
by JAlexoid on Fri 22nd May 2009 21:56 in reply to "RE: It sounds strange to me"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

In software that is nearly 0.

Also I think sometime that capitalism just was not made for intellectual work.

Yes it was. Just it does not have anything to cover the cases where replications costs are 0 or damn close to 0. Remember, that at the time when capitalistic theory was forged, IP were basically books and art, and you need quite an amount of $$$ to duplicate them. It would still cost you less to buy a book in the store, then to make a photocopy, granted the book has an average cost of about 10-20 USD and more than 200 pages. And I am not even talking about paintings and sculptures.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: It sounds strange to me
by ecruz on Sat 23rd May 2009 01:36 in reply to "RE: It sounds strange to me"
ecruz Member since:
2007-06-16

So intellectual work, according to you, has no material value?
just think for a moment, without the incentive of financial gain we would not have most of the discoveries we have today. Do you read books? That's intellectual work, should writers get pay? Or you would be happy reading crappy, lousy free books written by me?

please, tell me what new software has FOSS ever developed (See, I did not say open source). All are copies of proprietary software. Including games!
Did you ever hear of stagnation?

If all software was free, all we would have is cheap, lousy stuff. The smart programmers would drift to other type of endeavor where they will be able to provide for their families. Or you expect the government to pay them so you can have free, good software.
Open Office is the best example of open sourced software (it is not FOSS).
But then remember who pays the programmers and contribute 99.9% for open office development, it's not the so called community, it's Sun (now Oracle).

All of you just quit whinning about proprietary, open sourced, etc. Just pay for what you want. What next? Free beer for you people!

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: It sounds strange to me
by Vanders on Fri 22nd May 2009 17:15 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Proprietary software will never go away completely, but that doesn't matter. Open Source has the effect of commoditising software and thus drives the price towards zero. Weather that is a good thing is a question I shall leave to the economists, but either way it's bad for Microsoft with the business model they currently rely upon.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: It sounds strange to me
by vivainio on Fri 22nd May 2009 17:53 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


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?


I think the article doesn't imply that MSFT should open source it's products - rather, that it's too late for that to have significance. And I don't think too many care at this point.

The open source is dominated by Unix geeks, and that's probably how it'll stay. Windows has very little geek appeal, even if it gets the job done and runs all your warez.

Actually, it's pretty good that Windows never went open source - we would be missing out much of the drama and excitement in the rise of Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Windows has very little geek appeal


I wouldn't say that. Take some time to study Windows' internals, and the working of the NT kernel, and trust me: your inner geek will love it. There's some seriously clever stuff in there.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: It sounds strange to me
by Moulinneuf on Fri 22nd May 2009 18:17 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Why proprietary is bad?


Because the proprietary you refer to is *stealing* ...

Because the prorpietary you refer to block improvement and new solution ...

Microsoft writes his own product


Microsoft don't write it's own product , if it did it would win all it's court cases ... They loose everytime the owner come proving it's point in court.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

why should Microsoft open-source the products?


Very good question , because it is/was Open Source in the first place ...

I think whether open-source the software or not and which license to use, is solely the freedom of the programmer/ designer.


Actualy they are the biggest thieves of them all ...

Freedom should not just be applied to end-users


That's why it's applied to code this days , because programmer/designer stole Open Source code ...

but programmers, who put effort on making the software, too.


If they make something 100% from scratch , using their own 100% made from scratch tool in a new language they invented 100% from scratch sure ... Otherwise they steal other people creation by creating derivative that they added minimaly to.

I can only ask for help on forums


Funny the GNU/Linux commercial have numbers , emails , conference sservice , on site support ... There is even Debian specialist ...

[/q] I don't see paying for products is bad, and I don't see making everything free is good. [/q]

Actually in your lies made anonymously you used a free product to compare aginst a paid product and lied about the non existence of paid product and paid services ...

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


Programmers are not everyone , nobody is forcing anyone to deliver something for free. The problem is actually in reverse , liar and coward and incompetent programmer are seing there once profitable racket being destroyed by better offer from competitor who use *liberty of modification* against their illegal dictatorship for profit.

Reply Parent Score: -1

GraphiteCube Member since:
2009-04-01

How do you prove Microsoft stealing others' work?

Come on, this is not a fanboy thread.

You said so much "Microsoft stealing..." but you can't prove them.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: It sounds strange to me
by anomie on Sat 23rd May 2009 00:30 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
anomie Member since:
2007-02-26

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.


You can already purchase commercial support for Linux (Red Hat, Canonical, Novell, et al.), and the presence of these and third-party services will continue to grow as the user base grows.

I'd actually argue that in addition to paid support, Linux/BSD have a huge advantage over Windows in their free, often very knowledgeable community forums.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: It sounds strange to me
by Lennie on Sat 23rd May 2009 11:25 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

If I bought commercial products, I can dial the service hotline/ send e-mail to the company and call for help. Do you also get a satisfactory answer ? When you call Microsoft with problems of their software it doesn't mean they actually solve your problems. Everytime at work when I've called them, they did not solve the problems we had.

I can program and know network- and system administration, so I can actually fix a lot of problems on my own.

For me the situation is much better with Linux then something which is delivered by for example Microsoft or Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: It sounds strange to me
by bert64 on Sat 23rd May 2009 19:00 in reply to "It sounds strange to me"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

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.


Because if you buy a commercial product you've paid wether you use the support or not...
If you get open source for free, you have the option to pay for commercial support whenever you need it, or to save money if you don't need it, so you have a win win.

Reply Parent Score: 2