Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Jul 2012 23:06 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 527972
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[2]: "the dangers of closed source"
by zima on Thu 26th Jul 2012 03:11
in reply to "RE: "the dangers of closed source""
There are some OS which got open-sourced like that... Symbian, GEM, CP/M. Didn't seem to help them a lot, with how they were already fading or dying (like OS/2 before it was largely dropped - but you still have support with eComStation).
With such, it's probably better to move as fast as you can on some more lively platform.
With some more crucial software, code escrow is commonly practised, anyway (and quickly checking CICS, RPG, PL/I that you mentioned ...they don't really seem abandoned? Also, Smalltalk implementations are around)
RE[3]: "the dangers of closed source"
by Dr.Mabuse on Thu 26th Jul 2012 15:18
in reply to "RE[2]: "the dangers of closed source""




Member since:
2006-01-23
But, what to do when you are left "high and dry" with all the investment you made into an specific platform that the author refuses to continue developing it?
OS/2 user here
I see a good way to FUD OSS here, too bad we are used with this kind of techniques in the past. We all understand Stallman's dogmatic approach, but that approach is not related to the OSS movement at all.
Open Source is superior than any other close source software. Not necessary technically, it is superior cause it reduce you the risk to have only one provider. It kills the single vendor dependance for any business.
I just go and visit my COBOL CICS, RPG, PL/I, fox, VisualBasic, Smalltalk, Kylix customers and see how they are screwed right now. What would happen if all that technology would be opened up at its time?
Edited 2012-07-24 03:03 UTC