Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jul 2005 19:42 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones Asa Dotzler, the community coordinator at the Mozilla Foundation, said Tuesday that he hopes to attract many corporate Windows 2000 users to the Firefox browser, since they will be unable to take advantage of the improvements in IE 7.
Thread beginning with comment 6410
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Oh, sure.
by deathshadow on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:37 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Let's go off on M$ for this... Sure.

There's a rule of thumb - the older an OS is the more code you have to add to bring it 'up' to a level it can run what the newest OS can...

Now, Microsoft does this really nutty thing, and it may be so alien to the open source types as to be shocking... they... PAY THEIR PROGRAMMERS.

I know that some of you might have problems with this, let me re-emphasize that... they... PAY THEIR PROGRAMMERS. It is actually possible to make money writing a program and selling it, instead of writing a program and giving it away so some large company can slap their name on it and charge to support it.

I still say Open Source has the potential to be the DEATH of programming as a marketable skill.

I also always note it's most always the same faces always bitching about Security this, security that, then saying "they should update the older insecure version"... Whatever.

Could be worse, they could CHARGE for service packs or release new versions you have to pay a hundred bucks for every 6-8 months like SOME companies. How many times since 2001 have Apple users been expected to pay to jump a minor revision of OSX again, amounting to little more than a service pack that's been known to break things JUST AS BAD as on the M$ side? Do we even want to go into how 'smooth' software version upgrades in *nix is?

The phrase people in glass houses comes to mind.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Oh, sure.
by Finalzone on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:51 in reply to "Oh, sure."
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

Why not releasing the source code of old Os uch as Windows 2000 if Microsoft does not maintain it anymore?

I know that some of you might have problems with this, let me re-emphasize that... they... PAY THEIR PROGRAMMERS. It is actually possible to make money writing a program and selling it,
So do Open-source based companies.

I still say Open Source has the potential to be the DEATH of programming as a marketable skill.
Try to tell that to Novell and Red Hat. The fact that you can transfert skill from let say Fedora to Red Hat Enterprise nullifies your point.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Oh, sure.
by on Wed 20th Jul 2005 07:09 in reply to "RE: Oh, sure."
Member since:

--
Why not releasing the source code of old Os uch as Windows 2000 if Microsoft does not maintain it anymore?
--
That's never gonna happen, it would be like commiting suicide - think, oss community gets their hands on windows 2000, which still in pretty good shape, and start to improve it (perhaps at lighting speeds ;) ). So there would be a free windows alternative available, perhaps even more secure than current incarnations... how many corporations would then still want to upgrade to that next better version? ;)

iges.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: Oh, sure.
by unoengborg on Tue 19th Jul 2005 21:19 in reply to "Oh, sure."
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06


I still say Open Source has the potential to be the DEATH of programming as a marketable skill.


Most programming does not take place in big software houses such as Microsoft or Adobe. It takes place as in house developmnent often in companies whos products are not related to software, and the in house programming is made to streamline the sales of such products. This means that the programmers are still paid.

If such companies start out their programming projects using free software the entry cost will be lower. This means that there likely will be more such projects, so I don't see any risk of unemployed programmers.

If I sold schrink wrapped software I would be worried though. As it not customized to fit a specific customer I would almost certainly have to move my business to some low wage country where you can get a few lines of code for a bowl of rice.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Oh, sure.
by on Wed 20th Jul 2005 00:16 in reply to "RE: Oh, sure."
Member since:

open source does not mean that the developers work for free. there lots of good programmers well paid for working full time on open source projects.
this kind of thing such as "Open Source has the potential to be the DEATH of programming as a marketable skill." is lack of open source understanding.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: Oh, sure.
by Buffalo Soldier on Wed 20th Jul 2005 00:12 in reply to "Oh, sure."
Buffalo Soldier Member since:
2005-07-06

Implying MS is the only company that pay programmers?

MS is not the best pay master / employer. Remember their temp worker fiasco?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Oh, sure.
by elsewhere on Wed 20th Jul 2005 01:38 in reply to "Oh, sure."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I know that some of you might have problems with this, let me re-emphasize that... they... PAY THEIR PROGRAMMERS. It is actually possible to make money writing a program and selling it, instead of writing a program and giving it away so some large company can slap their name on it and charge to support it.

I still say Open Source has the potential to be the DEATH of programming as a marketable skill.



Boo hoo. The good programmers will always have marketable skills one way or another. The really good ones will also have the vision to see where those opportunities lie in the face of change.

The bad ones will continue to sit at home all day bitching on OSNews about how evil OSS is and equating linux to communism.

The way I see it, OSS will cull the herd. Survival of the fittest, evolution, and a market democracy. Good stuff all around.

Reply Parent Score: 1

v RE[2]: Oh, sure.
by on Wed 20th Jul 2005 09:53 in reply to "RE: Oh, sure."
RE: Oh, sure.
by ma_d on Wed 20th Jul 2005 01:53 in reply to "Oh, sure."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Your argument would seem shocking if it weren't for one thing: Most programmers don't write shrinkwrap software.
Not to mention, there are a lot of paid OSS programmers out there; I believe the guy who made these statements is one of them.

The free market is an incredible thing in this sense. Trades which are useless, or valueless at least, tend to dissappear. Factory line work drops constantly, some jobs dissappear altogether once someone designs a machine to do it. Of course, it's not perfect: We still have managers and union reps and CEO's and day traders and waaaay too many lawyers.
Free software doesn't try to replace commercial software, it's always tried to infect it: Turn commercial software free with hopes of actually improving it. Now, the method of improvement is fairly simple: If you don't have to rewrite things then less time is wasted. That means one of two things: As much code being put out by less people, or more useful code by the same people. Most likely, a middle ground is going to be found.

Next, Apple releases every year or more and continues to support their old OS's for quite a while. And since each release has been at least 10% faster by benchmark I'd say that the upgrades were well worth it! Not to mention the features.
That said: Apple's a shitty company and I wouldn't trust them past the ends of their noses. I would trust Microsoft much farther....

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Oh, sure.
by pravda on Wed 20th Jul 2005 04:00 in reply to "Oh, sure."
pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft pays their programmers crap compared to how much money Microsoft makes. It is a tiny tiny fraction.

And because of the Microsoft monopoly, there are hundreds if not thousands of companies that never get to exist. With the bulk of jobs in the world coming into existence because of small companies, the presence of the Microsoft monopoly has a horrible chilling effect on the worldwide programmer jobs market.

In short, a dead and static monopoly monoculture contains few economic opportunities compared to a rich and diverse ecosystem. This is basic science.

Open source is the *beginning* of a rich and diverse ecosystem that will make people look back at the old days and shudder at the horrors they had to endure because there was no choice for the customer.

Reply Parent Score: -1