What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- thewump, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Was hoping for more meat.
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Where's the beef?
- CyberBlade, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4you want beef i'll threaten GPL on your ass!
- mfearby, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20As soon as I saw the Apache market-share graph, I knew that this "article" was just another more of the same beat-up about Microsoft losing ground. Nothing new to see here... move along, people. Meh.
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The only meat in open source is sausage.
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Wet penguin sausage. Ew.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Do you prefer Bill Gates soft micro-sausage? ;)
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Wet penguin sausage. Ew.
- noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i know you can read my thoughts, boy: meow, meow, meow, meow...
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm really disappointed that "That's what your mom said" wasn't the first comment replying to parent.
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Where's the beef?
- devilchilduke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+47the pretty graphs are pretty useless
- Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21I know, where are the legends? What kind of idiot puts up graphs without identifying what they mean?
- Fooord, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well I thought THat part was the best part of THis article.
- 711groove, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0As did I. The graphs are what really made it worth it.
- Denamite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's so you can choose for your self what they mean, less flame-wars that way :D
- Fooord, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well I thought THat part was the best part of THis article.
- Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21I know, where are the legends? What kind of idiot puts up graphs without identifying what they mean?
- 7of7, on 10/10/2007, -33/+13The only thing impressive about the open source movement is the amount of time it spends slandering Microsoft instead of actually producing software.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9in fairness, that's only a couple projects... OpenSolaris & fooBSD types rarely mention MS
- scooper86, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black... plus theres always time for a good bitching
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17For all the newbies...this is 7of7 - a worthless troll who does nothing but post FUD/snarky comments on all Linux and Apple threads. Feel free to block him.
- srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7But then I couldn't digg down his comments
- hambend, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"instead" of producing software? What a stupid thing to say.
- obxjdt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2http://www.gnu.org/
'nuff said..... - Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3We write more software than MS does and they still have time to spend on legal threats and marketting....oh wait...they have more marketing staff than coders!
- schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8Nice analysis, but who needs graphs when you have text? Namely... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
- turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5EVERYONE knows the difference between a true statistic and a fake one is whether it is present on a graph or not.
- Vich, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Eric S. Raymond
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the villain from the animated television series Jem, see Eric Raymond (villain).
- readthis, on 10/10/2007, -11/+34Open source pros (from a programmer's viewpoint):
1. FREE
2. Innovative and disruptive
3. Makes software development fun again
4. Widely accepted projects are less risky and less costly (i.e. Apache Web Server, PHP, MySQL)
5. Freedom from the Microsoft monopoly where you spend 1/3 of your time reading their endless supply of materials, and know that success is a base-hit until they swallow you up or a home run if they buy you out.
6. A better platform for focusing on solutions rather than technologies
7. No payments to Microsoft
OpenSource Cons:
1. Books for new technologies are often written by first-time writers
2. Fast and frequent changes--difficult to keep up with unless you enjoy "testing" their software or being the guinea pig
3. Costs to train developers on new technologies and once they are trained it is difficult to keep them
4. FREE is overshadowed by configuration, migration, training, etc.
5. What's popular today can easily be replaced in a very short time
6. Difficult to find trained developers who know the technologies
7. Learning curve--because it often takes so many technologies to do anything of value, one must learn each technology and then learn how they all work together.
8. Technologies are moving forward independently--which creates compatibility issues- fantasticFlan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I think con 5 is actually a pro.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -9/+61. Most programmers don't pay for the environments they use anyway, their work does. And there's a lot of quality, free stuff coming from MS these days.
2. .... I don't even know where you pulled that from, it's the programmer's job to be innovative.
3. .... again that's just crap you've pulled from your ass, either you enjoy programming or you don't, the tools you use are irrelevant.
4. Hosting costs is much the same between Windows and Linux, and I mean pennies difference.
5. Reading what endless supply of materials? You mean like MSDN and stuff that increases productivity by telling you how to achieve something?
6. .... again you've just plucked some propaganda out of your ass.
7. See point #1.
The cons you describe are not specific to open source.- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9You probably think that you are smart for thinking beyond the status quo, but you're not.
1. Although most programmers don't pay, someone has to, especially if that person own his business and happens to also be a programmer. Furthermore, you sound like a raging, foaming at the mouth MS fanboy. You quickly jump to defend MS while you failed to understand that Open Source also exist under the WIndows platform.
2. It's harder to be innovative when you work for a deadline, with corporate requirements up behind your ass. Most open source software has less risk because you are free to do whatever you want.
3. See above. Software programming is fun when you don't have pressure and can experiment with different technologies. Open source has much more technologies than Close source. Say you are doing a webapp what are you going to use in windows that's not open source? .NET compared to what? PHP, Perl, Ruby, Java, Python.
4. Just because its cost difference isn't much when YOU try to get a hosting doesn't mean it doesn't cost less when you try to host yourself. Try to think outside the square beyond your run of the mill ISP. Hosting on Windows for a website cost: the OS, the licensing, SQL Server, IIS, etc. Pennies my ***** ass. The only reason why you see pennies difference is that they distribute the cost to other customers.
5. No, you misread. He meant Licensing.
6. Not entirely. Open source are solutions focus. They don't use the over-hyped technologies like .NET or Silverlight to get the same thing done.
7. Covered in point #1
It's lovely to see you covered to pros and just briefly talks about the cons. You disappoint me. Instead of advocating a different point of view, you're simple just a big fat troll paying lip service for MS.- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11. Pay what? If the business owner is also the programmer then their are pleny of free options available.
2. .... and what? It's easier to be innovative when you wor kfor a deadline, with corporate requirements up your ass, as long as their's an open source license on the package?
3. Irrelevent and stupid. .NET is dozens of languages and there are many, many more available outside it.
4. The difference is pennies whether you like it or not. Some of the bigger hosts don't even differentiate because the licensing costs you want to believe are so huge, are actually so insignificant they aren't even a factor.
5. In that case, open source licenses are long-winded and boring to read too. Any license is boring to read.
6. .NET, Silverlight and everything, whether closed or open source, is about getting a job done.
7. Ok then champ, where am I paying Microsoft outside of some or no license fee for the software. What are these "payments" to Microsoft? I sure wasn't aware I was supposed to be sending them payments, and I use a broad range of their stuff.
I didn't go through the cons, which for the record were reasons not to use open source, because they are broad reasons that encompass open and closed source technologies equally well. - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+51. Like what? THe good Free ones are open sources one. So you're just ***** up your argument.
2. Yes, you have more options and more tools that's already been written. Can't generate a report? Use open source one, write your own or ask the boss for a ***** of license to pay for a reporting tool.
3. First of all .NET is a ***** frame work. You are already ***** stupid for saying it's a language. Now go on name other framework that's non-free and available on Windows?
4. No the problem here is that you are so dumb you failed to see that it's not pennies. I know you're probably work at the lowend of tech trying to secure hosting from a remote hosting site, but when you actually host your own site with your own server, it matters especially when you're simply hosting your own internal servers for staff.
5. No its not about whether it is boring or not. It's about the "gotcha" with Ms Licenses.
6. Sure, but when you're on a ***** proprietary platform, getting your job done with open source tools is much more economical and efficient.
7. You already covered. Licensing fees cost ***** load. Do some ***** research and find out the per-seating license for Windows, IIS and SQL Server. In software, everything you pay for is a licensing fee.
I find it so easy to refute your argument. Please work much harder to make them more concrete. Furthermore, I would recommend you to know what you are talking about. You sound more and more idiotic as you desperately trying to sound intuitive.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11. Pay what? If the business owner is also the programmer then their are pleny of free options available.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9You probably think that you are smart for thinking beyond the status quo, but you're not.
- boot20, on 10/10/2007, -2/+161. Books for new technologies are often written by first-time writers
What? Ever hear of Oreilly? They write excellent books and proof quite well. Same goes for the Dummies series.
2. Fast and frequent changes--difficult to keep up with unless you enjoy "testing" their software or being the guinea pig
What? You don't have to patch to the latest and greatest. Security patches are typically clearly labeled.
3. Costs to train developers on new technologies and once they are trained it is difficult to keep them
Oh please. Same goes for closed source, so this isn't a con, it just is the cost of IT.
4. FREE is overshadowed by configuration, migration, training, etc.
What? What part of free don't you understand? The idea is free, as in freedom, not free as in free beer (although that is a side effect). However, let me point you to the mess that was Win2k3 when it was released...same argument could be said for that...or god forbid you are deploying Vista.
5. What's popular today can easily be replaced in a very short time
How is this a con?
6. Difficult to find trained developers who know the technologies
What? MCSEs are a dime a dozen, but maybe 1 in 20 of them are any good....so what's your point?
7. Learning curve--because it often takes so many technologies to do anything of value, one must learn each technology and then learn how they all work together.
What? See 6.
8. Technologies are moving forward independently--which creates compatibility issues
Uh no...hence the idea of modularity...unlike in the MS world.- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1exactly
the idea of modularity is
if something cant be supported
it can be added on later
its whats seen in phpbb with phpbb mods
its seen in programs like gnu image manipulation program (political correctness sucks cant use the word G*mp on the off chance you offend someone who cant walk since they wont likely know its an acronym for a long program name anyway)- mtekk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"gnu image manipulation program (political correctness sucks cant use the word G*mp on the off chance you offend someone who cant walk since they wont likely know its an acronym for a long program name anyway)"
Then don't be politically correct, and if you offend someone what are they going to do? We have the First Amendment for a reason.
- mtekk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"gnu image manipulation program (political correctness sucks cant use the word G*mp on the off chance you offend someone who cant walk since they wont likely know its an acronym for a long program name anyway)"
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1exactly
- misconstrued, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Your post is actually more interesting than the article...
- Tryleph, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Indeed
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4How many people digg comments up simply because it's above a certain number of digg?
Conversely, how many people buried simply because its below a certain number of digg? - deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Some of your points are very valid however I think Open Source's greatest strength is the Darwinian environment it promotes. It's a little scary (at first) but eventually you learn that good projects get better, bad projects get replaced. You always have the choice to stick with a proven commodity or get in on the ground floor with a new comer.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Precisely, OSS is good because it's largely a cruel environment that respects neither past achievements or the wishes of those who'd cripple a market to improve their bottom line. It tends towards the best solution over time, sometimes this means you step on people's toes and some companies are pushed to the way side.
The brilliant thing is that MS could, if they wanted to, push aside a lot of OSS by simply adapting the model and releasing a better product. Of course they aren't going to do that because then they couldn't use strength in one market to acquire monopolies in others.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Precisely, OSS is good because it's largely a cruel environment that respects neither past achievements or the wishes of those who'd cripple a market to improve their bottom line. It tends towards the best solution over time, sometimes this means you step on people's toes and some companies are pushed to the way side.
- JT114881, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1A company I worked for very recently wouldn't touch anything non-microsoft. 30 Servers all running Microsoft SQL, Windows server 03 ect. It would be really hard for a corp the size of it to change to Open source considering the amount of change that has to happen.
- farrellj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1re: 2. Fast and frequent changes--difficult to keep up with unless you enjoy "testing" their software or being the guinea pig
Having experienced the releases of both fields, more often than not, the "beta" versions of open source software are much more stable than the "Gold" versions of many others, especially a certain company out of Washington state....
ttyl
- jwmcevoy, on 10/10/2007, -16/+4Can somebody explain who pays the open source software developers? I get the sense they work for free. If that's the case, this movement will never get off the ground.
- SmallZee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Its called donations.. and yes, some people work for nothing. Have some pride in what you do.
- ha1f, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14No, its called corporate funding. Learn something.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, and what's wrong with that? Getting paid to write open source software is ultimately the point isn't it?
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Some dvelopers actually rely on donations. Others are being funded by or working for corps.
- lerker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Pride won't pay my mortgage.
- amfantasy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Did you see the new mortgage that was coming out?
- Stonekeeper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Then get a job. I'd guess that less than 1% of all FOSS developers program full time.
- ha1f, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14No, its called corporate funding. Learn something.
- maccam94, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Some developers work out of the pride they get from their programs. Some developers work to fix problems that irritate them. Still others work for donations, and still OTHERS are paid by businesses.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There's volunteers who contribute what they can when they can in exchange for little or nothing, and there's people who are paid to do it. The latter group are the ones behind every major open source project.
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Debian is all volunteer dev's. And many volunteer dev's contribute to projects being funded/run by major corps. It;s not like there are two classes of developer: the volunteer who writes crappy little programs and the corporate employees who right major programs. There's overlap.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There's volunteers who contribute what they can when they can in exchange for little or nothing, and there's people who are paid to do it. The latter group are the ones behind every major open source project.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Where the hell have you been?
- iagn, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2A valid question, I was thinking the same.
- ltmon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The article pretty much hints (obviously) at the main motivation for open source development in the corporate world: selling services.
IBM, for example, puts massive funding into the Linux kernel and other open source projects. They do it because they make gazillions selling servers to run it and consulting services to implement it.
Other open source businesses have different revenue models, but the main one is selling services.
(Oh yeah, and the "movement" is well and truly off the ground already. Has been for years) - ltmon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0The artcile pretty much hints (obviously) at the main motivation for open source development in the corporate world: selling services.
IBM for example puts massive funding into the Linux kernel and other open source projects. They do it because they make gazillions selling servers to run it and consulting services to implement it.
Other open source businesses have different revenue models, but the main one is selling services. - BitBurner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No they can make money just not off selling the code. They can do everything else. Charge for packaging, books, training, support, custom development. I'm there is more and they have it figured out. I mean look at Caldera and Redhat or open office.org they have a business model its just not what you think and not traditional.
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They can sell the program. The GPL specifically allows that. They just have to provide the source. In reality, of course, it's usually provided free as in beer.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Caldera had a business plan alright. It didn't work of course.
(for those who are living under a rock. Caldera renamed themselves SCO.) - init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Mentioning Caldera is pretty funny, since they are called SCO nowadays and their business model seem to be based solely around lawsuits. They aren't doing very well either.
Maybe you meant to say Novell instead of Caldera? :)
- paulexander, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4ummm, it's already off the ground, to (basically) answer your question
- fantasticFlan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It already is off the ground.
- credence, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Some people also just write the code to scratch an itch. They need a program that converts their widgets into sprockets, but can't find one. So they figure out how it's done. Somebody else wants an easier way to use it, so they figure out how to slap a graphical interface onto it, etc.
- SmallZee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Its called donations.. and yes, some people work for nothing. Have some pride in what you do.
- Dylson, on 10/10/2007, -18/+7HAHAHA No, it does not scare *****. It will never take over the overall desktop environment. Its not gonna happen. Digg me down but in reality its true.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Microsoft scrambling to beat out ODF with Office XML.
Yeah.....Microsoft's not panicking at all.- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4You can have your ODF, you still don't have a word processor anywhere near as sophisticated as the latest MS Word. OO.o is good but they're playing catchup and they're behind by a significant distance.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As long as I can open documents sent from MSO I don't care. OOo writer is officially 'good enough' for my needs. In fact every office package since MSO 97 has been good enough for 99.99999999999% of people. All standards do is allow a person to get off the upgrade treadmill and even will allow third parties to open documents.
It's the upgrade treadmill part MS are worried about. It will cost them billions when their next office suite can open all documents made for the next 20 years so the idiot, early adopters, can't force us all to upgrade for no reason.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As long as I can open documents sent from MSO I don't care. OOo writer is officially 'good enough' for my needs. In fact every office package since MSO 97 has been good enough for 99.99999999999% of people. All standards do is allow a person to get off the upgrade treadmill and even will allow third parties to open documents.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4You can have your ODF, you still don't have a word processor anywhere near as sophisticated as the latest MS Word. OO.o is good but they're playing catchup and they're behind by a significant distance.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3A corporation trying to accomplish something like establish a standard in the market is hardly "panic." If their stock was plummeting and people were leaving the company in droves, then you could claim "panic."
- boot20, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yup..Their stock is static over the past 5 years at least. It looks like it's going to take a hit when the next quarterly report comes out. Corporations ARE leaving MS...They can't support Vista, so they won't.
Hell, I can tell you of a number of MS Gold partners that aren't moving to Vista and have decided to explore Linux because of the total MESS Vista is in the corporate environment.
- boot20, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yup..Their stock is static over the past 5 years at least. It looks like it's going to take a hit when the next quarterly report comes out. Corporations ARE leaving MS...They can't support Vista, so they won't.
- Outdoor83, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm digging you down because you said "*****."
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Microsoft scrambling to beat out ODF with Office XML.
- brwright, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12Yeah, I am sure that the $250,000,000,000+ Microsoft is trembling.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Not trembling. Just worried.
- spazzcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1all that money and they seem to be going backwards...what are they doing with that money?
- mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Suing customers
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Anything that threatens to stagnate their revenue makes them tremble.
- flogistan, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4I love open source software, but microsoft isn't scared. You'll know they're scared when they start to sue them, whether it's warranted or not.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12With the threat of Office XML not being passed as a standard, I can tell you that MS is ***** their pants right now.
- shakin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Microsoft paid millions to SCO to help them discredit Linux in lawsuits. They may not personally sue, but Microsoft did try the litigation route and it failed.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Then why are they making phony threats left and rights, over the so-called IP that F/OSS developers allegedly stole?
- inksmithy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm sorry like, but they are definitely showing signs of nervousness. As init100 points out, they are 'seeking agreements' left right and center about alleged IP that OS developers have pinched.
A standard weapon in Microsoft's arsenal is FUD and when they start making very public agreements to distribute server software (Novell) and promising not to sue for unexplained transgressions (Novell, Mandriva), its a pretty sure bet that they are getting nervous. - inksmithy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm sorry like, but they are definitely showing signs of nervousness. As init100 points out, they are 'seeking agreements' left right and center about alleged IP that OS developers have pinched.
A standard weapon in Microsoft's arsenal is FUD and when they start making very public agreements to distribute server software (Novell) and promising not to sue for unexplained transgressions (Novell, Mandriva), its a pretty sure bet that they are getting nervous.
- gr00vy, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Hey, breaking news. Princess Diana is DEAD!
(IOTW Old News, No Substance)- lerker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Unnecessary.
- cnico88, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Mirror anybody? Even Duggmirror seems to crash on this one.
- CoBrA9891, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4so... just because something is doing well... means it's scaring microsoft?
please help me, i'm confused...- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Seeing as how ignorance is Microsoft's greatest ally.....I'd say yes.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6http://www.microsoft.com/opensource ......... need any more proof?
- JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -18/+12"The only thing impressive about the open source movement is the amount of time it spends slandering Microsoft instead of actually producing software."
I'll probally get dugg down like you, but I totally agree. I've said this before and have actually been dugg up for saying it, but if Open Source developers and fans spent as much time coding quality software as they did bitching about Microsoft, they'd actually be a force to be reckoned with.- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Here comes JasonCox. The defender of Microsoft. Trolling the Linux section as per usual. Sorry what was that you said again? Oh Open source software doesn't have quality?
Funny, since we waste time to bitch about MIcrosoft and open source software are still considered superior to Microsoft by the industry, I wonder what happen if we ..... nah. Why bother? It brings trolls like you to conversation and still keep our quality high.
May be if Microsoft actually spend as much time coding quality software instead of spreading FUD and hiring dumbass like you, they'd would actually never have to worry about Linux. - deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Don't worry, they can do both. Microsoft has a huge, well funded, PR department. Why get down on OSS for trying to respond?
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I think the worst part of open source is that too many people that are crazy about it, just hate Microsoft. It's dumb to go with open source over .net, if .net can get the job done quicker. This of course was in a group at school where one member wanted to use php even though half the group members only had experience in asp.net and C#. In the end we fired the guy from our group and went with .net. This guy was ridiculous. In my opinion just writing off a solution because you hate the company that makes the most popular OS is ***** stupid.
- srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow, you're really ignorant... It's not like many people hate Microsoft just because they're competing with Open Source... It's more about their history of releasing buggy products way too early and so on. Oh yeah, and pretty much everything Steve Ballmer's ever said... And them running campaigns like 'Get the Facts' and funding SCO's lawsuits... And the illegal anticompetitive moves they pull to uphold their illegal monopoly, which stifled a lot of innovation in the 90's and onwards...
By the way, you're anecdote was really pointless, because you can run .Net with Mono on Linux, or you can run PHP on either platform, so either way, you could use open source... It sounds more like the guy wanted to use PHP because he was more experienced with it.
- srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow, you're really ignorant... It's not like many people hate Microsoft just because they're competing with Open Source... It's more about their history of releasing buggy products way too early and so on. Oh yeah, and pretty much everything Steve Ballmer's ever said... And them running campaigns like 'Get the Facts' and funding SCO's lawsuits... And the illegal anticompetitive moves they pull to uphold their illegal monopoly, which stifled a lot of innovation in the 90's and onwards...
- sirhomer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hey JasonCox,
Why don't you go post on C9 with the rest of your MS zealot buddies and stop trolling every Linux article? Kthkz.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Here comes JasonCox. The defender of Microsoft. Trolling the Linux section as per usual. Sorry what was that you said again? Oh Open source software doesn't have quality?
- vonskippy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Well if Michigan (the armpit of the east - home of the going going gone american auto factory) CPA's says so, it MUST be true.
--couldn't read article, site is already completely *****. - g0nad, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1dead
- FatShady, on 10/10/2007, -22/+10You penguinistas need to get the ***** over yourselves. These "Microsoft is running scared" articles are nothing but jackoff mags for you people - you're really actually convincing yourselves that open-source software is fundamentally better just because the source code (that I'm sure 99% of people never look at) is available. That doesn't do much good if the source code is crap - and most of it is.
- squeaker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Jesus, do you ***** work for Microsoft?
I think you're the one who needs to get the ***** over yourself.- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Do you honestly believe all the crap on digg about open source squeaker?
I mean if you take it face value, MS must be bankrupt (they're not), nobody's using Vista (lots of people are), Firefox has almost 3x the population of the universe as it's marketshare (it doesn't) and Ubuntu gave a dying boy hope *AND* cured his cancer, which it didn't.
You honestly don't get the impression that most of what's on digg is written specifically for digg? Authors just play you guys and they make a living out of it while you sit here digging anything that tells you or the crap you use is great.- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4It's two-fold: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx
- inksmithy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0ahaha, there was a picture of an article in 'The Highly Reliable Times' on that page.
I wouldn't find that so fuunny if I hadn't spent so much time in front of various versions of various pieces of Microsoftware which were grinding to a halt in front of me.
- inksmithy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0ahaha, there was a picture of an article in 'The Highly Reliable Times' on that page.
- squeaker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Did I say anything even remotely pro-OSS in my comment? No. I was saying that FatShady is a jackass.
As are you, fkr3.
You jackass. - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Good old fkr3! Trying to be different once again but instead failed and end up sounding like a low-paid astroturfing ms fanboy. Thank god, Aussies like you actual left Australia.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2daftman are you still bitter that I turned you down? I was hoping we could still be friends. : (
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Eh? You turned me down? It's bad that you are astroturfing, now you're making ***** up as well? What the ***** are you on about?
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4It's two-fold: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Do you honestly believe all the crap on digg about open source squeaker?
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Have you been following Microsoft's desperate attempts to get their own Office XML standard accepted many months after ODF was already declared the standard?
MS was caught sleeping, freaked out, and haphazardly slapped together something as quick as possible. Hence, Office XML was born.
If you want to talk about CRAP, talk about the 15% of Office XML examples in their specification that DON'T EVEN VALIDATE AS VALID XML.
Buried as another mindless MS troll who has no ***** clue where he is in life.- FatShady, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Maybe instead of just being a prick you should think about what I said:
Microsoft isn't scared of open source in general, because Open Source doesn't mean anything beyond the ability to see just how bad something bad is, or just how good something good is.
Is Microsoft scared of Linux? Yeah, probably. Open Office? Maybe. Some random project on SourceForge that closely resembles the final project in CS101 at University of YourMom? No.
"Open Source" doesn't automatically make something good. If the penguinistas would realize that and actually focus on creating quality software (and yes - some open source software *is* good), then they'd be a real force. Otherwise it's just saying that your ***** doesn't stink because we can see how you make it.
And yeah - if 15% of the Office XML examples aren't valid XML then yeah - it's a problem and needs to be corrected.- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Well, first, "crappy" open source code dies off fairly quickly since you can see it first hand and it's open to criticism. With closed source software, you have no idea what's going on.
And yes, those blatant non-validating XML examples WILL have to be fixed. But Microsoft STILL tried to push the specification documentation AS IS for "FAST TRACK APPROVAL" knowing full well it was riddled with errors. That's like handing in a final research paper at school knowing that the bibliography is half done and some of the facts are missing or inaccurate....but you held off until the night before to do it and you just want a grade so you don't care.
And that's my point - Office XML is VERY half assed. If THAT is the best a multi BILLION dollar technology company can come up with, who the hell knows what their closed source code looks like.- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Most of the examples that do validate as XML don't actually fit into the appropriate style guidelines. It takes more than brackets and slashes to make XML, the element names have to be self documenting as well. Using e21 or whatever the hell it was to represent percentages is not self documenting and is borderline stupidity.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Well, first, "crappy" open source code dies off fairly quickly since you can see it first hand and it's open to criticism. With closed source software, you have no idea what's going on.
- FatShady, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Maybe instead of just being a prick you should think about what I said:
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1You're totally correct. If people really did look at the source code, then Firefox wouldn't have some of the same bugs as IE. But they do. The bottom line is that people are lazy, and looking at code takes time and effort, so even if it is open-source, nobody will look until either they have a major problem and no fix, combined with the resources to fix it. Even then they might not propagate that fix back to the world.
Open-source penguinistas are very much like environmental protection hippies: they bitch and whine about the cause, but fail when it comes to delivering on real value.
I don't care whether my software is open or closed, I want the damn thing to work. More often than not, my open-source experiences have been nightmares. For example, DD-WRT on my wireless router.. it needs rebooting nightly to keep it running. Why? Who knows? I will go back to the original firmware soon, at least it worked.- jupi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4my ddwrt doesn't.
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Just search the forums, it is very common.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Hey IceZZ let's not generalize ok? You are lazy! You don't speak for other people. So please shut up. THank you.
With open source, if something within my expertise that I work on suddenly crashed or did something out of the ordinary, I would look through the code.
Since I look through the code and I know other people also do, that blows your generalization of "People are lazy" out of the water.
I don't give a ***** if you care about open source. Nobody ***** asked you to. You run into one ***** problem and you blame open source instead of the manufacturer of the hardware. The truth is dumbass, drivers problem exists on both Linux and Windows. So don't make it sound like an open source only thing.- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAHHHmbulance. Your mother asked me, and she asked me again and again.
You are so utterly clueless, it is clear you have never held an IT job. - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@IceZZ,
You are quite correct. I never held an IT job. I do hold a software engineering and a requirement analyst job however. But I guess you wouldn't know what that entails since you're too busy calling the WAAAAHmbulance and commenting on people's mothers.
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAHHHmbulance. Your mother asked me, and she asked me again and again.
- jupi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4my ddwrt doesn't.
- squeaker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Jesus, do you ***** work for Microsoft?
- Fredtheviking, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6I am confused... Is this news? If it isn't already obvious why Open Source is scaring Microsoft, then I am not sure why this article would interest you. Because you are either ignorant of Open Source or just plain dumb... I doubt this article will help you in either case.
- sonstone, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I don't get it. Does anyone seriously care about MS anymore? Bashing MS was fun a few years ago when they seriously were a monopoly, but why do people still care...
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5When they own 90% of the market share and corrupt the ISO and the public with FUD, I dare say it's still fun bashing them.
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Like apple isn't ***** consumers by releasing a $600 dollar phone that offers less features than a phone from 3-4 years ago, is locked down from 3rd party development, and is locked to one carrier. Or how they lock the ipod to itunes. I don't see Microsoft refusing to license their drm/formats. I don't see them locking down wm5/6 from developers.
- philhatesyou, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Who said anything about Apple?
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why do MS fans always make this exact strawman.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Or how they lock the ipod to itunes. I don't see Microsoft refusing to license their drm/formats."
Then you obviously lived under a rock when Microsoft decided to shaft their PlaysForSure partners and make the Zune Marketplace a Microsoft-only business. No other music store can sell songs that work in the Zune, and no other hardware vendor can sell devices capable of playing songs from the Zune Marketplace. How does that differ from Apple, iTunes and the iPod?
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I never said people don't bash apple as well. I see that you entirely missed the point.
- sonstone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yeah, but it's not like people don't have "real" options anymore. The majority of people could do the same things they do with Windows with Linux or OSX now if they chose to do so. It's not like back in the day when your only choice was using ***** versions of browsers, office suites, entertainment applications, etc... People have a choice now and they are still opting for windows. You can't really blame MS for that.
- marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ask Best Buy how much choice I have in operating systems
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1As if even 10% of the regular Joes out there even knows that they have a choice. They don't. At most they know about the Mac, but that's all.
- agaudet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I work for an OEM, and the only choice you have is windows.
If your not using windows we force you to install it before we support you.
Basically Microsoft is still a monopoly because of vendor lock in, they do it just as bad as Apple, but not directly
We see Dell making waves of progress finally with Linux computers, but Microsoft is still trying to hold the Monopoly
over the stagnation we see as the software market
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Like apple isn't ***** consumers by releasing a $600 dollar phone that offers less features than a phone from 3-4 years ago, is locked down from 3rd party development, and is locked to one carrier. Or how they lock the ipod to itunes. I don't see Microsoft refusing to license their drm/formats. I don't see them locking down wm5/6 from developers.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5When they own 90% of the market share and corrupt the ISO and the public with FUD, I dare say it's still fun bashing them.
- delusr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I love graphs that tell you nothing, whats the yellow line, whats the red line, whats the blue line, WTF?
I love them as much as I love M$- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I agree. I assumed the line going up was Apache, but really, that graph is as bad as the ones MS uses in 'Get the Facts'.
- sirhomer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg for using M$
- sirhomer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg for using M$
- canthraxp, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3When I read the title I thought something like:
"Bill Gates has been found under his desk mumbling about a big penguin coming for him." - gatewarstrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No one directly pays them most of the time. in general the work is contributed freely. Some corporations (Red Hat, Cannonical, Xen Source etc.) pay some of them because they sell support or consultation for the project. Some high profile developers are paid for their work as well and to consult on the projects (I believe Torvalds is in this category). Open source is generally powered by insignificant individual efforts combining into a tidal wave of changes. You don't like how Firefox refresh works? change it, and release the change. That is Open Source. Very few people to my knowledge actually make it their sole career.
There are corporations that are paid to develop open source apps. Possibility Forge is one I know of, they make open medical information systems for hospitals and health departments.
There is also donations. Most all pure open source corporations are non-profit. They rely on donations to keep going.
This system works, especially when people contribute to something that benefits them. Prime example is the founder of Cannonical and Ubuntu: Mark Shuttleworth. Reading his statements about *why* he has put up so much of his own money to fund Ubuntu, he cites the fact that he started out on the back of Linux (slackware, if I recall).
Some other OSS business models: ID software (Quake and Doom) release some of their outdated engines to the community, then they look at hiring programmers who make useful changes.
OSS isn't about the money in general. In the end I use it because I am a control freak, and I can't get that control in proprietary, closed source applications.- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But would it be put into the release? Or do you mean just make an extension?
- foreplay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1id software also release their latest games on linux because they use opengl rather than directx.
- Evildudetx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Wow, they show a bunch of crappy .COMs as their proof? Get real.....
- mc88, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Microsoft is going to end up being just a gaming company. Vista is too bloated. The only thing I use XP for is playing games. If I am just surfing or typing a paper I use Linux.
Less is more when you are not doing graphics intensive work.- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1So, because YOU...one insignficnait person...only uses XP for games, that means htat everyone else will do the same?
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A lot of people use XP for games, very much like a lot of people used to use DOS to play games while booting into windows to do work. But hey, I think that's too long for you to remember.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Vista isn't too bloated. What it has is a series of intolerable bugs that make the system nearly unusable. I liked a lot of what they have changed but things like deletions seizing up or being unable to access my network shares or my DVD-RW not appearing at boot is a bit show stopping.
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1So, because YOU...one insignficnait person...only uses XP for games, that means htat everyone else will do the same?
- bigburd88, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I'm an open source kind of guy, but this article makes no mention of MySQL and in the graph, it conveniently cuts out the part of the graph near the end where Apache (the blue line) loses some market share to IIS (red line). The full graph is at netcraft.com. This sort of stuff makes the non-fanboy OSS advocates like me look bad. SKEWED.
- rhodydog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're right, I just checked the graph on netcraft.com and it is quite different, they basically chopped off the last two years.
- foreplay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1basically because iis 7 has been eating into apache's market share for a while now. its not the only suspicious thing about this article it goes on to pick 5 companies i have never heard of and says they use linux becuase they cant have any downtime. why not pick someone like google or amazon to show how widespread linux adoption is.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You haven't heard of Salesforce.com? They might not be as well-known among the general population as Google or Amazon, but they are still pretty well-known among IT people.
- foreplay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1basically because iis 7 has been eating into apache's market share for a while now. its not the only suspicious thing about this article it goes on to pick 5 companies i have never heard of and says they use linux becuase they cant have any downtime. why not pick someone like google or amazon to show how widespread linux adoption is.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does netcraft count all those Apache that's get used for intranet? Alot of software are becoming webapp and are deploy through the intranet. Apache is much more cost effective.
- bigburd88, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It counts every web server it can see.
- rhodydog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're right, I just checked the graph on netcraft.com and it is quite different, they basically chopped off the last two years.
- teamparadox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2File this under obvious...of course I dont know if scared is the word. Wouldnt any company that makes it's money selling software have some sort of worry when it comes to software given away for free?
Open Source Advocates sure do like to toot the proverbial horn though dont they? If MS was doing so bad, and Open Source so damn well then why does MS operating profits keep going up and their liquid assets remain steady?- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, they wouldn't. Not when no one is using that free crap, and the company's market share is not hurtign at all.
- Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Buried as inaccurate. Microsoft scared at 90% of the market? ROFL
- Sammi84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The higher they fly, the harder they fall.
Microsoft has everything to lose. - agaudet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0they have had 93% market share in the early 90s
Currently at 92%
Its about time for change to happen, people like you don't realize all the work that needs to be done to undo Microsofts monopoly
- Sammi84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The higher they fly, the harder they fall.
- TheBigBentley, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2I don't know how. The only people using Linux are the same people who have always been using it. Generation after Generation will always produce more of the same people. The average person is still far from ever wanting to use Linux. I worked in the IT field for years before settling into my current position and even at my experience level I still find Windows or Mac to be more convenient. And thats what its always about. Convince. Linux is not to most people.
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Not to mention Windows works fine. Really. My operating system is not the bottleneck at this point, it is fundamentals like keyboards and mice.
- blastcube, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4At the end of the article I disagree with his comment, "As more applications become Web-based, there will be less and less reason for people to use Windows or Macintosh desktop computers." There will always be desktop applications! not everyone has 24/7 Internet access, even if you do what happens when the connection drops? Also, I have many computers, most are either Linux PCs or Macs (I do have one XP machine) and the most enjoyable ones to use are the Macs in my house. Maybe Windows market share will drop in the future, but I see the Mac market share growing significantly.
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Why? Seriously...what recent circumstances (other than your pathetic love of Steve Jobs' *****) leads you to believe that Windows will drop while Macs increease? Because ALL evidence completely contradcits you.
- foreplay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1because plenty of organisations have been saying mac use is on the increase. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
what evidence do you have that says otherwise ?
oh yeah and dont get me started on software as a service. it will never be as good as an actual application. - init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What evidence says that Mac usage is dropping while Windows usage is increasing?
- foreplay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1because plenty of organisations have been saying mac use is on the increase. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Why? Seriously...what recent circumstances (other than your pathetic love of Steve Jobs' *****) leads you to believe that Windows will drop while Macs increease? Because ALL evidence completely contradcits you.
- naio, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3The ENTIRE software industry should be scared with FOSS, not only MS.
- baalzebub, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6lots of money to be made from FOSS = service & support, somebody has to maintain those Linux powered servers...
Redhat proves that, among many others... - srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And you can still sell software for it - you just have to make software that would be too specialized or complex for an open project to do. Look at almost any high end compositing or digital grading package - almost all of them run on Linux (and all cost upwards of $10, 000 and some (ie. Flame) more than $100, 000)
- baalzebub, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6lots of money to be made from FOSS = service & support, somebody has to maintain those Linux powered servers...
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So, Microsoft is scared because this silly blog says so?
- databoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The trouble with MS versus Linux is that people are polarised with a narrow minded viewpoint. There is a place for both. In a commercial operation the OS and computer is a minor infrastructure cost. Where the costs are in production efficiencies. For example a small business can buy one high speed Linux server and ten low cost Windows desktops. To do the same job with a complete MS system would require more expensive computers and less flexibility.
Time is money. Businesses are not going to convert to Linux because of warm fuzzies, a cute penguin or free software. Businesses have records going back years. To convert those records from MS to Linux is not worth the costs involved. Businesses employ people and put food on the table. Without an income you would not be expressing an irrational ideology.
The commercial market has a way of balancing itself. MS, Linux and Apple will find niche markets. The only people who will continue the irrational argument will be unemployed zit faced geeks and computer magazine writers who have never worked in the real world.- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Currently used systems are one thing but about 35% of them are still Unix. What has scared the crap out of MS is these companies have realised that it is cheaper to port their stuff to Linux than it is to move to a more alien system like Windows Server. Where MS thought they were going to clean up they suddenly realise they are a bad second place, Unix is shrinking by a sizeable amount but almost none of it is going to MS.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Without an income you would not be expressing an irrational ideology."
What "irrational" ideology are you referring to?
- PrivateGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Nice story but it's inaccurate in that Apache is not a new Challenger. In fact Apache has been running web servers for much longer that microsoft and has always had a larger share of the internet. Better do some research before you go writing about these things kids.
- FearMoth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Better do some research before you go writing about these things kids."
..or else PrivateGuy will touch your privates! Watch out kiddies!
- FearMoth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Better do some research before you go writing about these things kids."
- scb0825, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Reading this article made me boot back into Ubuntu since I have finished playing a game. :)
- Cherubim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Microsoft is not scared of anyone. That's the problem.
- dionhewson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3can i just say that...a graph needs a legend for it to be remotely any fuking usefull, let a lone a title, a photo of mount evererst would be more useful
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Open sources flaw is that it is based on everyone always contributing and sharing. The fact is some of developing countries if they haven't already, are going to take the public code and use it to make their own OS and software. And they aren't going to share it. And they will get away with it because of a lack of laws in their countries. Open source is going to be abused, and when it happens, the GPL will need to be revoked, or everyone will stop working on it knowing their work is just going to make someone else rich.
- FearMoth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Blog about it in the year 2088 when IranOS has 95% market share.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"And they will get away with it because of a lack of laws in their countries."
Actually not. The same laws that RIAA and MPAA are trying to force on countries through the WTO can be used by F/OSS developers to crack down on license violations of F/OSS.
"Open source is going to be abused, and when it happens, the GPL will need to be revoked"
I cannot see why the GPL would have to be revoked when people are abusing the GPL-covered code. The violators need to be brought before a court, that's all.
- YodaJones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Nice article. Thanks.
- unsolicited, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Microsoft promotes Employment.
Open Source promotes Entrepreneurship.- Stonekeeper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Microsoft promotes Monopoly. There, I fixed it for you.
- known, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Thank you...
- Stonekeeper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Microsoft promotes Monopoly. There, I fixed it for you.
- stockjones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh no's what will they do.
- akumudzi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"...PostgreSQL is...bug-free. " is there such a thing?
- Darcy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Microsoft may have been worried about FOSS 4-6 years ago, because back then it was widely expected that open source would completely replace the world of proprietary software, and make companies like Microsoft irrelevant. While there's been some success with Apache, Linux, MySQL, PHP on the server, and Firefox has cut into IEs dominance, it's become pretty clear that the expected open source revolution just hasn't really happened, and probably never will. Microsoft are just has strong as ever, Linux+open Office hasn't hurt them on the desktop, and Win server+IIS is cutting into the lead that LAMP has built up over the years on the server. So I doubt anyone at Redmond will be losing sleep worrying about open source.
- srg13, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"it's become pretty clear that the expected open source revolution just hasn't really happened, and probably never will"
Yeah... It's not like you'll ever be able to buy a consumer computer with an Open Source OS preloaded on it...
Things change.
- srg13, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"it's become pretty clear that the expected open source revolution just hasn't really happened, and probably never will"
- jabberwocky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The problem is ppl are starting to ask for open source and companies other than MS are starting to provide. Those that are not locked into MS or starting new have a choice, MS doesn't want you to have a choice as they want to be the only choice.
- Magick93, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That is such a bad article! I can't believe someone would publish graphs with no horizontal units, and no vertical units, and not even a title!
Its counter productive. - lucasmaximus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Thank you, someone who actually written a non fanboy article about opensource. DUGG
- leerayIG88, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I am Locutus of Borg. Resistance is futile.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is