This is part 4 in a four-part series of articles that is roughly a response to “The Magic Cauldron,” the seminal work on open source economics written by Eric Raymond. This installment discusses some of Raymond’s proposals relating to the manner in which developers will earn money in an OSS economy.
Open Source Suppliers and Demand
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I think it’s John Caroll’s argument is fairly simple. Demanding that all software be open isn’t going to happen, and shouldn’t happen, and I agree.
I write both open and closed source software. Most often, the open source software is GPL or LGPL. Since I wrote it, I believe I have the right to choose under which liscence I release the software and/or the source. People are free not to purchase my closed source software.
Why is so hard for people – from either side of the debate – to understand? I wrote the software, I get to choose.
I agree completely, but from what I’m reading it’s an economical argument as much as it is a “moral” one. I think what’s going on is that some of the myth that open source software can’t make money, particularly if all software is open source, is being dispelled.
What I think would be interesting in a 100% open source world is just the rate at which software progressed and the level of interoperability we’d see.
In the open source world, the way it works today, many users, including myself, are fairly dependant on the organizers and developers, so they can definately make money for the work they do to put the product together. The next phase of open source however, and several decades from now, the users will have more control over the choice of software that they are using. People will have more control over their system, and the systems will be more expressive, toward that goal.
The next phase of open source however, and several decades from now, the users will have more control over the choice of software that they are using. People will have more control over their system, and the systems will be more expressive, toward that goal.
I hope this doesn’t sound like a flame, but that sounds quite generic blabbing for me. What do you mean exactly with “more control over their system” and “the systems will be more expressive”?
As long as you don’t write all the software you use, you’re always dependent on someone else, aren’t you? And even then you’d be dependent on your hardware manufacturer and so on. The difference on the case of open source is that anyone is invited to help, one way or another, and therefore have an impact on the resulting product.
Take the instruction set architecture, the machine language, that’s what an assembler translates your assembly code to, and some compilers translate C code to assembly, so you have two levels of translation. Natural language translation is yet another level but a compiler can translate as expressive a language as English, but it is too general to express.
I don’t think that humans will be writing the software but they will take on more of a director.
I don’t want to have nothing if some group of people stop writing the software. I want to be able to depend on myself. The ultimate goal is to be independent.
A vendor however, never wants the user to have control or ownership. The vendor wants you to have no power.
FOSS has hardly even begun to take full advantage of the possibilities.
Money versus control. There is a lot of talk about money, but the money is not even real, there is no such thing as 500 billion dollars.
Before I even clicked on the link to the article, I just knew this was another John Carroll rag on open source. Well, at least he says he likes open source. Anyway, what he prefers to believe is that proprietary SW companies are somehow more responsive to the needs of their users, versus open source projects where supposedly the developers are “oriented towards areas of interest to themselves”. Then he cites Apache as an example of this. Of course, Apache web servers run nearly 70% of the sites on the Web. Well, Apache has a developer team that has added a lot of functionality over the years, supporting several technologies that are needed on the Web. How can you say they are not interested in fulfilling the needs of users? The other thing that makes me chuckle is this notion that proprietary SW vendors are somehow more “innovative” than open source SW projects. Most of the time, they’re not– they either buy or license technologies, or pay to support research done at universities. It’s not because their developers are better, it’s because they have the money to buy or sponsor technologies. Most open source technology has come about from either public standards or technology licensed under liberal terms from private bodies. The only difference with proprietary companies is the amount of money involved.
Demanding that all software be open isn’t going to happen, and shouldn’t happen, and I agree.
I partially agree. If you differentiate between the “Desktop OS” (Carroll’s term) and the Application layer, you are able to say that the default or standart Desktop OS should be Open Source. The rationale is a proprietary vendor for the Desktop OS is bound to get a monopol with all negative consequences.
However, Carroll misses this distinction, and there are some other flaws in his theory section, so his conclusions are just as good or bad as the ones in “The magic Magic Cauldron” by Eric Raymond.
I don’t want to have nothing if some group of people stop writing the software. I want to be able to depend on myself. The ultimate goal is to be independent.
Maybe you should also learn how to build a car, in case they stop manufacturing yours.
The rationale is a proprietary vendor for the Desktop OS is bound to get a monopol with all negative consequences.
But then the opensource community gets a monopoly. Is this any better? Most people seem to assume so, but perhaps this is a tad premature? I still have my reservations…
A vendor however, never wants the user to have control or ownership. The vendor wants you to have no power.
What the vendor doesn’t want is for you to be able to buy their app and then give it away for free, and rightfully so, IMHO. If that is your definition of ‘power’ or ‘control’, then I guess you are technically correct – I guess it sucks that you want a free lunch and can’t always have it, but we don’t live in a perfect world.
But in terms of features and functionality, most of the closed source apps I use have more power and control than anything that the open source world has to offer so far.
“But in terms of features and functionality, most of the closed source apps I use have more power and control than anything that the open source world has to offer so far.”
When seeing general statements like this I always wonder what the specific apps are. I’m not challenging your statement, just curious to know. And if someone then mentions some open source software that might fit the bill, we can go check it out. Heck – don’t cost nothin’.
A vendor however, never wants the user to have control or ownership. The vendor wants you to have no power.
Wow what a blanket statement. You get to make the *choice* if you want to use or buy software from said vendor. So how pray tell do you have no power. I can see this being an issue if you want to pirate their software. Your agreement with a vendor may be different to anyone else (its called NRE – non recurring engineering). Then again you may choose to *not* have power because it is the vendor’s task to deal with their software. Which can save you money from self-support and possibly is even legally advantageous to you. Step out of the fantasyworld.
Rembrandt spent an inordinate amount of time painting portraits of fat, rich people. Why? Because those were the people who wrote the checks which kept the candles burning in the art studio, if you catch my drift.
True. But then what of Van Gogh or Cezanne?
Great art survives and is great regardless of whether or not the person who created it was financially successful, sold out, cashed in, etc.
All this discussion about whether free software will be good for the software industry is rather moot. What will happen will happen, and developers will have to adapt.
It seems likely that there will always be a need for specialized applications in industry, thus for-pay positions will be available.
The only question mark is to what extent can free software affect Microsoft’s near monopoly in desktop operating systems and application software. That is the test. The commercial development model may be better at some things; but interestingly, it has failed to produce choice for consumers.
When seeing general statements like this I always wonder what the specific apps are. I’m not challenging your statement, just curious to know. And if someone then mentions some open source software that might fit the bill, we can go check it out. Heck – don’t cost nothin’.
Most of the stuff I use could be considered ‘specialty’ apps so if I were to bring them up, OSS zealots would say ‘they don’t count.’ And I suppose if you’ve been hitting the pipe hard enough, you could argue that The Gimp was on par with Photoshop. So, I think Dreamweaver is our best example that most anyone can identify with. When it comes to creating dynamic, n-tier webistes with client/server-side attached to them, there is simply nothing in the open source world that can touch it.
Of course, I am stating the obvious here and I’m not trying to start a ‘my apps are better than yours’ war, but the reason why I bring this up is because I am puzzled when people talk about all of the ‘power’ being somehow exclusive to open source apps. In the case of Dreamweaver, we’re not even talking about vendor lock-in either .. not like they have control of HTML and Flash
I think the only thing people are being locked into is the functionality, which is missing from open source offerings. So in the case of DW, it’s an all-or-nothing kind of thing. So you can take advantage of the functionality that DW has, but you can’t find an open source app with the same functionality, so you might as well enjoy it while it’s available 
But then the opensource community gets a monopoly. Is this any better? Most people seem to assume so, but perhaps this is a tad premature? I still have my reservations…
Well, there’s no way to prove empirically that a Open Source “monopoly” would indeed be better.
However, ther are a few differences to a proprietary vendor:
1. No independent institution which would able to dictate a certain way of doing things, at least not for all parts of the Desktop OS.
2. No monetary incentive to get rid of any competition – Open Source or Proprietary.
3. No method to rule other vendors: The code is open, so there are no “hidden api’s” or similar stuff and it can be extended: either by a patch or by a proprietary libary on top of it.
For example, XFree86 had what may be considered a “monopoly” for a part of the Linux Desktop OS. See what happened when they decided to make a change in the license a majority of users didn’t agree with. There was ‘sort of’ a fork and it got replaced in most major distributions within a year.
So, I think the argumentation shows that a Open Source Desktop OS is indeed a “better monopoly” as a proprietary one.
please be advised anonymous that assembly code, despite your thinking out loud, IS NOT MACHINE LANGUAGE. Binary Op codes are machine language. Assembly is one layer ABOVE binary op codes. Assembly the LOWEST LANGUAGE one can write logical and coherent firmware / software in.
And I suppose if you’ve been hitting the pipe hard enough, you could argue that The Gimp was on par with Photoshop.
Have you even tried Gimp2? Unless you need Pantone color management, then Photoshop has nothing on the latest Gimp. (Gimp2 does support CMYK to a degree.)
I suggest you check out Jimmac’s demo movies for Gimp2…there’s even a few features that I wish Photoshop had, like dragging a color or pattern into a selection to fill it. Also, the context menus for the Layer and Path “palettes” is much more advanced in Gimp. Operations on Paths also seem to be quite advanced (at least compared to Photoshop 7.0, which is what we’re using at work).
I also really like the dockable interface and the fact that you can easily create templates for new files.
Seriously, check out these movies – this ain’t your old Gimp anymore…
http://jimmac.musichall.cz/gimp2demos.php
…there’s no equivalent to Dreamweaver…yet! However, there’s no basis to claim that such an app couldn’t be made open-source.
Richard Stallman has said many times that his organization (Free Software Foundation) is about Free Software, not Open Source. Eugenia, why does osnews.com use this apparently wrong logo?
Howdy.
I’ve used Gimp2. I’m no graphic artist, just using it for digital photos (hundreds of them over the past few months). I also have and use Photoshop Elements.
I would *kill* for something with the power of Gimp and the user interface of PE. UI helps sell more copies, something irrelevant to free (as in beer) software, which much Free (as in freedom) software is.
Maybe what’s missing from many open source projects is a good freelance UI designer. Hmm, are there such people?
I haven’t used Photoshop Elements. Is the UI very different from run-of-the-mill Photoshop?
I’m curious as to what parts of the Gimp UI you don’t like? Most people miss the Photoshop “workspace” windows, but you can get a similar effect with Gimp in full-screen mode.
My own personal pet peeve about the Gimp UI has been fixed now that the menu is now laid out at the top of the image window (or at the top in full-scren mode).
“Maybe what’s missing from many open source projects is a good freelance UI designer. Hmm, are there such people?”
Evelarldo is one. crystal icon set for kde for example
I partially agree. If you differentiate between the “Desktop OS” (Carroll’s term) and the Application layer, you are able to say that the default or standart Desktop OS should be Open Source.
I 100% agree with you on that one. The problem (for which I have on answer) is that there’s a clash between author rights to do as they will with their product, and user rights – which I vaugely define as to have their working enivronment under their control. For a lot of technical users and developers that means open source.
Note: For my part, I write applications, the only library-like stuff I’ve written is GPL – some of the libraries it uses prevent it from being LGPL – so I have not yet had to grapple with the ethical issue of writing closed source ‘infrastructure’.
But then the opensource community gets a monopoly. Is this any better? Most people seem to assume so, but perhaps this is a tad premature? I still have my reservations…
Yes. If the vendor decides to something you don’t like – for example, disallowing the copying of mp3s at a kernel level (for an extreme example), then the source can be forked to work around the problem. With a closed source OS, you’re screwed.
I 100% agree with you on that one. The problem (for which I have on answer) is that there’s a clash between author rights to do as they will with their product, and user rights – which I vaugely define as to have their working enivronment under their control.
I respect the author’s rights: He or she is free to choose whatever license and business model he (or she) seems fit.
The clash you mention might not appear IMHO: It’s the right of the community of the user (usually represented by the state) to protect its members from a Desktop OS monopoly.
A state restricting itself towards using an Open Source Desktop OS would be sufficient. Ten or fifteen percent market share for Linux would mean some more big proprietary software vendors would supply solutions, thus enabling the user to make a choice without bothering too much about missing applications/games and the like.
Sooner or later the balance would drop towards an Open Source Desktop OS and those who still like to compete with it, have every right to try.
“What the vendor doesn’t want is for you to be able to buy their app and then give it away for free, and rightfully so, IMHO.”
I don’t see this as an issue of who has power & control, which must be either the vendor of the user. The issue on this point is how do we enforce copyrights, which is a government sanctioned monopoly for a limited (or used to be) period of time, when computers allow infinite copies of software to be produced at the click of a button? For most proprietary apps these days, you don’t even have to purchase it in order to give it away for free. You can get the app free, copy it as many times as you want, and give it away as many times as you wish as well. This certainly is not legal, but does happen nonetheless.
“If that is your definition of ‘power’ or ‘control’, then I guess you are technically correct.”
Copyright infringement can hardly be considered a definition of having “power & control” by the majority of OSS advocates. Consider a household with computers whose only installed OS is Linux. That household WILL NOT have illegal copies of Win XP in use, since all computers in that household run Linux. That household is far less likely to have illegal copies of Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, or any other proprietary Windows app, than a household that is using Microsoft products.
Where the “power & control” issue comes into play for OSS advocates come in is, does my data belong to me, or must I pay an outragous premium to some corporation in order to view my data? If the file format is propietary, then I am paying a premium in order to view & manipulate my own data. For home users this may not be an issue. But think of government or business records, where this data may need to be accessed for the next 50 years. Why use a proprietary data format, forcing the taxpayers to pay a premium to access that data, when there are so many free and open data formats available which do not cost a dime? This is where the “power & control,” issue, with either the vendor or the user comes into play, rather than in illegal copies of proprietary software.
“I guess it sucks that you want a free lunch and can’t always have it, but we don’t live in a perfect world.”
First of all, no one here has stated the desire to have a free lunch, so why have you placed this assumption on those who prefer GPL software? There are other advantages to using GPL software you know. For me, the cost is way down the list of reasons why I prefer it:
A. I can make as many copies of the OS and the apps I use and place them on as many machines as I wish, without violating any law.
B. I don’t have to reinstall my OS or apps EVER.
C. I don’t have to worry about viruses, or purchase anti-virus software.
D. Updates are painless, and have never left my systems in a less than useable state.(Thank you Gentoo.)
E. I don’t have to have an OS or apps on physical media in order to install a new system, or install an app. (Boot Knoppix, download Gentoo stage 1 tarball and set it up.)
F. Minimal to no problems with software drivers, even with very old hardware. Believe it or not, there is some hardware that worked with older versions of Windows, but have no drivers available for Windows XP. With OSS, I know the hardware drivers will work FLAWLESSLY for years, or at least as long as the drivers are maintained. In 4 years, I have never had to replace older hardware due to new versions of the Linux kernel that lacked the drivers I need. Yet, I do have at least one piece of hardware that worked in older versions of Windows, that does not work now with XP and never will.
So you might wish to consider there are many ways Linux provides ease of use for the end-user, that Microsoft products can not match. Cost has little to do with the decision for many of us. To assume that OSS users simply want a free lunch, and that is the ONLY possible reason we use OSS software, is to be so completely blinded by your own ideology, as to miss the entire point completely.
What a nice piece of OSS propaganda you put. I thought it was over in 2001, but I am wrong.
OK, but is it an OSS contribution to all these good things you’ve mentioned? Lets review:
A. I can make as many copies of the OS and the apps I use and place them on as many machines as I wish, without violating any law.
Firstly, you could do it with shareware. Nothing new here: all you ask is a license for unlimited copying of software.
It has nothing to do with OSS, just with wording in a specific license.
Secondly, software runs on hardware. Usually not more than one copy of a given software can be installed on hardware. In general, your software freedom is limited by the number of computers you can afford to buy.
That brings to interesting question: when HUGE hardware vendors support commercial grade free software and keep developers on their payroll, guess where they hid software development costs?
It must be really suck when they tell you free lunch is possible, but don’t tell you who pays for it (hint: still you:).
B. I don’t have to reinstall my OS or apps EVER.
You must be running Linux kernel 2.0 in some kind of Red Hat 7, I would presume. You do not plan to upgrade to Fedora Core 2 or Mandrake 10.
So does one of my friends: she runs P-266 MMX with 64 MB RAM and Windows 98, no plans to reinstall OS or apps ever until this computer goes to recycling.
It is good enough to read email, Russian newspapers on the Web, and even do personal banking. Because of that, I would give that computer few more years- unless hardware fails.
C. I don’t have to worry about viruses, or purchase anti-virus software.
You conveniently forgot to mention that worms and hackers, not viruses own Linux boxes.
As they say: each new solution has its problems.
D. Updates are painless, and have never left my systems in a less than useable state.(Thank you Gentoo.)
That is because amount of software written for Linux is still small. Even then, would you dare to say that “dependency hell” is an urban legend?
Besides, what if I tell you that updates are equally painless on my home non-Linux computer running limited amount of carefully selected software predominately from the same vendor that gave me OS and gives patches?
It would be only me, of course: all other 300,000,000 users of the same OS would end up with unusable computer after every patch- it is what you imply, right?
E. I don’t have to have an OS or apps on physical media in order to install a new system, or install an app.
To install OS you need a hardware: tell us when you don’t have to have physical media (namely: PC) to install a new system.
As for non-OS software, I can name you gazillion of non-OSS software that doesn’t ask you for physical media to install. Heck, check it yourself: http://www.download.com
You know, it has nothing to do with OSS, just with the small thing named Internet and another one named high speed broadband conenctions.
To assume that OSS users simply want a free lunch, and that is the ONLY possible reason we use OSS software, is to be so completely blinded by your own ideology, as to miss the entire point completely.
So, when next time my Russian friend in Moscow chooses between free of charge Linux and free of charge Windows XP to install on his new laptop- and decides for Windows- it is not because costs are equal for him and does not matter- but because he is brainwashed Microsoft sheep.
When next time my Russian friends prefers to run MS Office 2003 Professional instead of OpenOffice 1.1- both are free of charge for him, of course- he chooses MS Office because he misses the entire point completely.
Wait- may be he does not: when cost is taken from the equasion, what is left for OSS to be proud of?
Nothing, from the point of view of my Russian friend.
He has one laptop, he is not a computer geek, has no time to run around sharing software with other people, needs one copy of OS and Office Suite and if anything is missing in them he can’t go tweak sources even if his life depends on it.
Yes, it is the cost that really matters when OSS is chosen, not much else. Sorry for that, but it is the fact of life.
Firstly, you could do it with shareware.
No you can’t. If you use shareware, you’re supposed to send money to the person who makes it. Also, most shareware programs are actually crippleware, which means that they either don’t have all features turned on, or they only work correctly for 30 days, or have some annoying pop-up/dialog box to click, etc.
You don’t get that with Free Software. Oh, and you have access to the sources, which means you can modify/improve on it. I don’t know of any shareware that comes with sources included…
You conveniently forgot to mention that worms and hackers, not viruses own Linux boxes.
There haven’t been any widespread worms on Linux. Compare that to the worms record for Windows. About hackers: if you count the number of backdoors installed by trojans as hacking exploit (they’re really a combination of malware/hacking), then Windows “wins” again.
That is because amount of software written for Linux is still small.
Everything’s relative. Packages in Mandrake Linux 10.0 + contrib repositories: 7471.
Anyway, the number isn’t important, what’s important is that software covers most user’s needs. And Linux software does.
Even then, would you dare to say that “dependency hell” is an urban legend?
It’s not an urban legend, but it’s definitely a thing of the past. I haven’t had a single dependency problem in over a year, thanks to “intelligent” package managers such as URPMI.
Stop living in the past.
When next time my Russian friends prefers to run MS Office 2003 Professional instead of OpenOffice 1.1- both are free of charge for him, of course
In other words, your friend is a pirate. And by using his example to support your views, you are in effect condoning piracy.
Yes, it is the cost that really matters when OSS is chosen, not much else. Sorry for that, but it is the fact of life.
A fact? No. An opinion, and one that’s not supported by credible arguments.
In fact, there are many aspects that matter when OSS is chosen: the fact that fully-functional programs are easily available on software repositories; the fact that they can be redistributed legally; the fact that the source is available, allowing for security audits and customization; the fact that such software usually follow open standards; the fact that such software will let users avoid vendor lock-in. The fact that it’s also usually free of charge is an added bonus. Even then, people will often donate to OSS projects (I have myself, numerous times).
But then again, why should we expect any of these facts to be recognized by a well-known anti-Linux advocate…
“Firstly, you could do it with shareware. Nothing new here: all you ask is a license for unlimited copying of software.
It has nothing to do with OSS, just with wording in a specific license.”
Really? Thanks for telling me that I can buy one copy of Windows XP, then install it on 100 computers, just like Gentoo Linux. I am sure Redmond will be interested to hear your theories on this matter.
“That brings to interesting question: when HUGE hardware vendors support commercial grade free software and keep developers on their payroll, guess where they hid software development costs?It must be really suck when they tell you free lunch is possible, but don’t tell you who pays for it (hint: still you:).”
I buy my computers on Pricewatch, so have no idea how this is relevant to my situation, or my use of Linux.
“You must be running Linux kernel 2.0 in some kind of Red Hat 7, I would presume. You do not plan to upgrade to Fedora Core 2 or Mandrake 10.”
Nope, I run the latest KDE, 2.6.5 kernel and every other latest app that I need with Gentoo. UPGRADING an app is different that reinstalling. I don’t even have to reboot unless I upgrade the kernel.
“So does one of my friends: she runs P-266 MMX with 64 MB RAM and Windows 98, no plans to reinstall OS or apps ever until this computer goes to recycling.
It is good enough to read email, Russian newspapers on the Web, and even do personal banking. Because of that, I would give that computer few more years- unless hardware fails.”
This is irrelevant to my situation, as I prefer the latest KDE, the latest Linux kernel, etc. Unfortunately, these applications do not run on Microsoft products. I am sorry to hear you weren’t aware of that.
“You conveniently forgot to mention that worms and hackers, not viruses own Linux boxes. As they say: each new solution has its problems.”
You forgot to mention that in the past 4 years there have been what – 2 worms for Linux & no viruses? Perhaps there were more. Can you count them on one hand or two? Compare that to ANY Windows products. Of course, never have I had a machine get infected with anything.
“That is because amount of software written for Linux is still small.”
Oh please. Debian has over 10,000 apps in their repository. Mandrake has over 7,000. I personally use Gentoo, but have no idea how many thousands it has. Give me a break.
“Even then, would you dare to say that “dependency hell” is an urban legend?”
I can’t speak for others, but in my situation with Gentoo Linux, dependency hell does not exist. It is a source based distro, which means I have a full development environment available at all times. The package manager resolves any dependencies for me.
Besides, what if I tell you that updates are equally painless on my home non-Linux computer running limited amount of carefully selected software predominately from the same vendor that gave me OS and gives patches?
“It would be only me, of course: all other 300,000,000 users of the same OS would end up with unusable computer after every patch- it is what you imply, right?”
Of course that is what I imply. NEVER in the history of Microsoft has a service patch left a system unbootable
“To install OS you need a hardware: tell us when you don’t have to have physical media (namely: PC) to install a new system.”
Gee, and all this time I thought Knoppix ran from CD, and didn’t require installation. A CD is considered software still, isn’t it? Or perhaps I should ask if YOU still consider a CD to be software? I guess I was completely hallucinating when I booted Knoppix & downloaded the Gentoo stage 1 tarball, to setup my Gentoo system, from within Knoppix.
“As for non-OS software, I can name you gazillion of non-OSS software that doesn’t ask you for physical media to install. Heck, check it yourself: http://www.download.com.”
Irrelevant to my original post, so why do you belabor the obvious?
“You know, it has nothing to do with OSS, just with the small thing named Internet and another one named high speed broadband conenctions.”
I believe it is spelled “connections.”
“So, when next time my Russian friend in Moscow chooses between free of charge Linux and free of charge Windows XP to install on his new laptop- and decides for Windows- it is not because costs are equal for him and does not matter- but because he is brainwashed Microsoft sheep.”
I am so sorry that when I wrote my original post I chose to discuss MY experiences with Linux, specifically Gentoo. I had no idea my post was supposed to be about YOU and your friends. I still can’t understand how your little personal anecdote has any releveance to my post. I installed Linux, without physical media. I did not pirate Gentoo Linux, nor did I pirate the Knoppix CD I used to install the Gentoo stage 1 tarball, nor did the sole reason I installed Gentoo have to do with cost. So why bring piracy into it at all?
“When next time my Russian friends prefers to run MS Office 2003 Professional instead of OpenOffice 1.1- both are free of charge for him, of course- he chooses MS Office because he misses the entire point completely.”
I am sorry you associate with those whose morals are questionable.
“Wait- may be he does not: when cost is taken from the equasion, what is left for OSS to be proud of?”
Read my posts to see what that might be.
“Yes, it is the cost that really matters when OSS is chosen, not much else. Sorry for that, but it is the fact of life.”
I know it is to your Russian friend the copyright infringer. But I have no desire to infringe on copyrights and Gentoo Linux offers me much beyond Microsoft products anyway.