What is Digg?8 Comments
- cday, on 08/17/2008, -0/+3RoboCafaz wrote: "Open source can never be globally adapted for one simple reason: It'd destroy a major part of the economy and leave millions of people jobless."
............................................
Okay, I can't let this bit of FUD go by without a comment. Worldwide usage of FOSS would not destroy the economy, much less a "major part of it," it actually would allow more opportunities for new businesses and new technology to thrive. Which would be a MUCH better scenario than continuing to funnel huge (seemingly endless) amounts of money to the same old handful of greedy, monopolistic, proprietary businesses.
Why on Earth would anyone want to protect that sort of top-heavy economy?
If those who developed the technology that allowed the Internet (as we know it today) to happen had kept it closed and proprietary, patented, and charged money for it, YOU wouldn't be commenting on Digg...there would be no Digg. The fact that all that technology was contributed unencumbered by patents, open and free, is what allowed a whole new economy to grow and flourish.
So, let's rewrite your sentence to make it more accurate and a bit less FUDly:
Open source can easily be adapted globally, because it is already a huge, globally supported community. And while it MAY destroy a large part of the blood-sucking Monopolies' private economy, it would also leave millions of people free to pursue new ideas, new businesses and create a better balanced, more stable economy.
Just because the fat-cats scream in pain because they hate anything that might stop them from sucking billions out of the world's pockets forever, doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to feel sorry for them. The future's waiting, folks, and it can be Free (as in Freedom).
Please, if you prefer a world where the likes of Microsoft, the RIAA/MPAA, Clearchannel, etc., etc. define the economy, then you're welcome to it. But I'm not going to help you out by letting your FUD go unchallenged. - MtheoryX, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2"There are also plenty of companies investing in the development of Linux."
The purpose of investment is to get a larger return on that investment. Now, if companies are truly investing in Linux development, I can't see any other return than notoriety, or specialized distros that meet their business needs.
"You have to understand that there are other markets such as web advertising in the IT industry today."
Web advertising has a purpose...to sell goods and services. The advertising is only a "market" unto itself if you are buying, selling, or creating advertising.
Basically, I don't get it. How is a free OS a business in itself? The "free-OS-but-pay-for-deployment-and-support" model? - inactive, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3I've said it before and I'll say it again, Linux developers would do themselves a huge favor by CHARGING for Linux and here's why.
1) People VALUE things they have to pay for.
When you buy something, a measure of quality is implied in the purchase. There is also an assumption of warranty or technical support. This might not be true for all software, but with something as important as an operating system, it makes a huge difference in the eyes of a consumer.
2) No one wants to develop for OS if they think the users are cheap skates.
I saw an article on Digg advocating for Adobe to port their Creative Suite of products to Linux, but it's never going to happen because in Adobe's eyes, there's no guarantee that Linux users will pay for it. Think about it. How many PC users routinely pirate Photoshop for Windows? Does anyone really believe that won't happen with Linux users, when most Linux users demand that software be free?
How do you think that looks to a company that makes one of the more pricey software packages currently in use in the PC market? Not very good, I promise you. Say what you want about Adobe porting Creative Suite for the Mac, but if there's one thing they can be confident about, it's the fact that most Mac users are willing to PAY for software, since the majority of Mac users buy Macs so that they can use OS X. Many people don't know this, but Microsoft makes a boat load of money on Office for Mac and so does Adobe.
3) The Scarcity Principle. People only perceive FREE software being of value if it's stolen.
I saw an episode of Chris Rock's "Everybody Hates Chris" and little Chris Rock was trying to sell girl scout cookies or something. No one in his neighborhood was buying them, so he started telling people that the cookies were STOLEN, and he immediately sold out.
This is a variation on number 1. People see value in stuff they pay for, but they especially see value in something if it's stolen, because stolen goods are scarce. Why? Supply and demand works relative to how scarce a good is at a particular time. For example, a late winter storm freezes the orange crops in Southern California. Suddenly, orange juice is a scarce commodity and the value goes up. The same is true for stolen goods. Stolen goods are scarce. Free software is scarce if it's a commodity that is usually SOLD for a significant mark up. Is Windows really worth 200 hundred dollars? Of course not, but because Microsoft has created an artificial limit on it, by raising the price, they've created scarcity and that naturally drives up the value of the software in consumer's eyes.
What's my point with this? Value is all about perception. Whether it's a stolen good or a priced good. Pricing a good always creates value. - inactive, on 08/17/2008, -2/+3I like turtles more.
- inactive, on 08/17/2008, -4/+5Open source can never be globally adapted for one simple reason: It'd destroy a major part of the economy and leave millions of people jobless.
People don't do things for free. Once the average open source dev gets out into the real world and realizes that their talents are worth money, they aren't as likely to work exclusively on these projects. I don't say this to be cynical, I say this because with our economy, its damned difficult to live when your job gives you enough free time to be a freelance codemonkey. - inactive, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1It is true, but to some extent it isn't. Most developers work side by side with payed, closed source projects (If their contract allows it). Others help with the creating of software to drive visitors to websites. There are lots of different reasons.
- inactive, on 08/17/2008, -1/+0The reality is, Linux development is driven not by money making, but concept and ideology. Linux strives to create a free operating system for anyone to use. Why should someone pay extra just to be able to start up their computer?
There are also plenty of companies investing in the development of Linux. Some of that money goes into the pocket of the developers and its not little.
"3) The Scarcity Principle. People only perceive FREE software being of value if it's stolen."
It seriously depends on the person. If this is a person that is completely against pirating then yeah, they probably do. But when an average user sees free software, he/she only fill with joy.
You have to understand that there are other markets such as web advertising in the IT industry today. Much of them guarantee much higher income than putting a price on software. - wontstoptalking, on 08/17/2008, -4/+3I like open source.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is