Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Thu 20th Oct 2005 01:58 UTC
Although open source software comes with lofty (and sometime altruistic) ambitions, some developers worry that the model just doesn't present a practical plan for the future of the software industry. Shawn Shell argues that proprietary software is here to stay for a lot of good reasons. Why should you bother with looking at open source software though? Isn't it safer to stick with Microsoft and the other big corporate software designers? David Chisnall helps us to distinguish between proprietary (sometimes referred to as "predatory") software and its open source counterparts.
Thread beginning with comment 51649
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.
Member since:
Shawn's article points out that software which has reached a commodity stage is a good candidate for open source; he admits this. However, I think the good reasons are as follows:
1) Developers contributing code don't get paid for their work. Unless they work for a company like RedHat, they're out of luck.
2) The average user (including big companies) are prepared to self support, so they end up paying someone else (why not just buy commercial/non-open source)
3) Beyond the OS, there are few productivity applications that are accessible by the large population of non-technical users.
4) If people were really as upset as the open source community contends about Microsoft, they wouldn't continue to feed the "monster." Dell offered Linux on the desktop and it didn't sell...