Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 24th Nov 2012 17:52 UTC
Editorial Do you depend on your computer for your living? If so, I'm sure you've thought long and hard about which hardware and software to use. I'd like to explain why I use generic "white boxes" running open source software. These give me a platform I rely on for 100% availability. They also provide a low-cost solution with excellent security and privacy.
Thread beginning with comment 543262
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: ...
by henderson101 on Mon 26th Nov 2012 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

Just in the closed world this quality dies with programmer, but in the open world it lives forever in publicly available well-written source code or in design principles for which no one will sue anyone else.


This alone proves you have little knowledge of how real commercial development works in the majority of the business world. Open Source simply doesn't exist in any meaningful way, end of story.

Be aware - open source tools do NOT automatically create open source. e.g. Using Eclipse doesn't create opensource any more than using Visual Studio. Thinking any different is naive.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by moondevil on Mon 26th Nov 2012 22:16 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Quite true.

It was an eye opener for me to move from the cosy open source world of the university, into the harsh reality of the enterprise and big corporations.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by henderson101 on Tue 27th Nov 2012 16:22 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

It's almost impossible to sell the concept of Open Source to a board. "We spend money developing a product, then we give away the source code for free so anyone can build their own copy??? What kind of insane business do you think we are running??" Building a viable business proposition that produces Open Source is incredibly hard - moreover, succeeding with an Open Source business model is exponentially harder than using a closed source one. Not impossible, but most larger companies that do this kind of thing also have other interested (Google, as an example, have the search and advertising business to prop up their many free/open projects.)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by zhuravlik on Tue 27th Nov 2012 19:03 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
zhuravlik Member since:
2009-08-24

>This alone proves you have little knowledge of how real commercial development works in the majority of the business world.

Of course, that's why the Linux kernel is currently one of the most actively developed widely commercially-used projects. Also illumos kernel is now developed by several corps. And mostly advanced Java-related companies have IDEs with open core. And even Microsoft releases Entity Framework, ASP.NET MVC, and some other important parts of their product line as open source software.

>Open Source simply doesn't exist in any meaningful way, end of story.

For you - does not. For all those who do not understand that code-sharing is better that inventing the bicycle inside every new company. Major players share parts of their codebase by providing open source under liberate license. Software becomes harder and harder to maintain, and only shared attempts to develop it will lead the players to the victory.

And there are other sides: community growth, larger tester crowd, popularity of the company as liberate and open, and also recruitment - newcomers are already familiar with product's core when they come to work.

No, I'm not the fan of GPL3-only, etc. Software may have closed components. But open core and good interoperability - they are the main perils of success.

Reply Parent Score: 1