What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
16 Comments
- Nahor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"and at the end of the day, the end customer gains nothing more than access to the source. "
Hum... that's the sole point of "Open Source" software. It's not a free lunch and free support. It's the ability to modify a program to fit your needs. It's not called "Community Software". - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Exactly, too many people think free software means its free of charge to use. While this remains the case for many open source projects its not what was intended. Its free libre, like free as in freedom, not necessarily free as in no money needed. Take the software and do what you wish with it, mmmm freedom tastes good.
- savio13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I've always believed that open source is strengthened when a open community is added to the mix. Otherwise, companies can just get some press by announcing that they are open sourcing their product, and at the end of the day, the end customer gains nothing more than access to the source. If the end customer wants support, they're stuck going to the same vendor that controls the project. This is not the case if there is an open community behind the open source project. A good case study here is JBoss vs. Apache Geronimo.
- sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Another good example would be Sun Microsystems. They open source projects with lots of strings attached:
1. They require complete control of the products. No one can get a patch or update in without a Sun developer looking at it first.
2. All submitters have to sign special agreements that their work is "co-owned" by Sun. This means that the source code, despite being open source, is 100% Sun. Sun can close the open source when they want. Forking is impossible since it is their property.
3. All open source projects are always second to the primary commercial product. The open source version can never exceed the commercial product. - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software_development_method
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Can someone define open development for me? (and most likely most of the rest of digg)?
Is the idea to totally remove all controls on who's patches are applied when?
Kinda lame for the article to introduce a term, and not define it. - gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The use of 'End Customer' is vague there, but its about total Cost Of ownership.
If you buy 100 computers from 100 different vendors your going to have TCO issues if you want to do anything major with an upgrade or what not. Having Linux or Windows or Amiga OS isn't going to matter.
If you have 100 computers from 1 vendor, and that vendor is horrible and/or the support costs the same as repurchasing (with implementing their support) you have TCO issues.
Where open source comes into play is that it gives you a chance at a wider swath of options in reducing your TCO. Its definately a mileage may vary situation depending on where its used and what your usage is.
Obviously you would be a fool not to look at something like mysql/psql for a database or some of your database, or apache as a webserver, or linux86 for various servers. Especially when these things are deployed amass and the TCO for them can be isolated.
Deploying Linux to all your desktops even if people are using a simple webpage for 90% of their business may not work. But introducing a citrix/rdp might fill that gap. Suddenly you wish you had the ability to look at all the support issues in the past (tracking people) to get a sense of what the impact would be. - Angelmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It means the community is actively involved in development. You can have a company write software and then release it as open source without any involvement outside the company. Open development gives everyone access to the development process (via cvs/svn, bugzilla, mailing lists etc.) and accepts patches and contributions from anyone who has something worth adding. You have hundreds or thousands of volunteer contributors as opposed to a team of paid developers.
- ebob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am on the internet and still waiting for my lobster and crab lunch.
That being said, what mechanism exists to prevent people from obtaining the source for an open-source non-gratis software project and simply compiling it oneself? Unless the compiler is proprietary, I don't see how it is possible to prevent this. - jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good article, but it kinda lacks in drawing any conclusions.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3People subscribe to the ideology that they deserve a free lunch because they are on the internet. Digg demonstrates an endless, constant flow of articles that just emphasise how badly open source is misconstrued.
- thbb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great article. I think they see well that open source is more a sign of the industry starting to mature its business models according to the specific nature of software: it is intangible, and its novelty is not a part of its value (like works of arts are). Hence, in the long run, all useful software is bound to become free (as in beer *and* as in speech).
Some food for thought along those lines:
http://thomas.baudel.name/Informatique/softwareismeanttobefree.html - tuxuser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1and open-community help that doesn't cost a dam other then net connection!
- afruff23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anybody can develop for the software, but it may/may not be subject to head developer approval before the patch is added to CVS or final builds.
- Brahma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Yawn..I am done..No dearth of lame articles..
- afruff23, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I can't agree more; just look at the open-source and open-development project http://www.rockbox.org
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is