digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at blog.linuxtoday.com

Bill Gates' Disdain for Open Source Even in Retirement

blog.linuxtoday.com — "There's free software and then there's open source," he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries. With open source software, on the other hand, "there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 04/26/2008, -32/+42Bill who?
    • Syphon8, on 04/26/2008, -12/+17Gates, that richest man in the world.
    • Culyt, on 04/26/2008, -3/+6Bill Murry, that guys awesome
    • rpgmaker, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6Well, Bill can disagree with FLOSS, that's fine, we all have different opinions. The problem is when MS use its shady tactics to play against FLOSS.
    • td04impostor, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Bill Windows... no, Bill Doors. Er, Bill Gates.
  • olenick, on 04/26/2008, -27/+37As applications migrate to the cloud, Windows will move from relevance to obscurity. On connected computers it won't matter so rational businesses will just choose the cheapest, most stable and secure client that can host a browser: an Ubuntu machine. Non-connected computers in poor countries will probably need to act as both clients and servers to run software: since applications that matter are written for a Linux back-end they'll naturally migrate to a Linux front-end too (and why not: Firefox, Flash, Java, and the rest run the same on both). Net result: everybody except gamers will move to Ubuntu or some cousin of it eventually; it's not a question of if, just when.
    • aaabatteries, on 04/26/2008, -10/+12don't know why you're getting dugg down.
      Cloud computing IS the future--if people want to admit it or not.
      Not to say the desktop will die out--gaming, 3d design, and video editing will continue to be done on desktops for quite awhile.

      However, it doesn't have to be on Linux.
      • GMorgan, on 04/26/2008, -4/+8No it won't. What we will eventually have is network enabled, desktop applications.

        You won't edit your documents in the web browser. You will edit them on the desktop. However you might store your documents over the internet.

        This is the sole benefit the internet offers, remote storage (not compatibility, that's easily achievable on the desktop). Sooner or later someone will recognise this and will build a software stack around that basis. At that point the cloud concept dies overnight.
        • srg13, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1"You won't edit your documents in the web browser. You will edit them on the desktop. However you might store your documents over the internet."

          This is new?
      • cquinnd, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4There are whole fields of information management that cannot be truly managed in the Cloud, for various security or reliability reasons. Not to say they won't use the internet, but they will work on the idea of dedicated (and tracked) lines of communication thru the cloud, and no information will be modified within the clound, just passed between dedicated systems (desktop or local server) that will do the actual modifying (and auditing of the data).
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Cloud computing is appropriate for some applications in some situations. A lot of infrastructure is going to have to be developed before it becomes a threat to desktops, particularly in the consumer space - at least in the U.S.

        I have "high speed" access at home at a measly 6Mb/sec. Meanwhile, in some places in the world high speed is more like 100 Mb/sec.
    • Cytranic, on 04/26/2008, -3/+29There is a reason you two are not being dugg up. Its WAY too early for computing to start moving to the cloud. Sure google docs is cool, but its not practical in a business environment. Speaking as an IT Manager, there are tons of obstacles to overcome before computing will be moved to the cloud.
      • aaabatteries, on 04/26/2008, -3/+11Agreed. There's quite a few obstacles I can think of. Here's three of them, feel free to add:

        1. Sensitivity of information (very important for businesses)
        2. Access to the intarwebz anywhere. (700mhz spectrum, hopefully)
        3. Aforementioned things in my last comment will have to be on the desktop for quite awhile...
      • rpgmaker, on 04/26/2008, -7/+5Google docs IS practical, is just not feature ready at this time.
    • Murdats, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6and windows will not change in any way what so ever as this change occurs, and we will all just shift to the current version of ubuntu instead, because apparently it and every other operating system will remain unchanged.
      • aaabatteries, on 04/26/2008, -5/+2I think you forgot this:
        /sarcasm.

        I don't know. In my opinion Windows really seems against cloud computing and its development. Not to say they haven't dabbled in it, but that's only to keep themselves relevant. Also, can't blame them either. They are going to lose big money once portable devices have the same power as your desktop. I mean, your smartphone will be just as powerful as your desktop if you're using some sort of online app. The only noticeable deciding limit to your processing speed would be your internet connection.
        As for those who prefer the desktop environment with monitor, peripherals, etc...I'm sure that USB 3.0 will be powerful enough so that a port for it on your "smartphone" will be fast enough to connect it to your monitor, keyboard/mouse, harddrive, and the like.
        • greevar, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6I think you're being overly optimistic if you think that portable devices will become as powerful as desktop systems. The size of a portable devices will always be a bottleneck for performance whereas the desktop systems have a much wider margin for expandability. Not to mention that portable devices are hardware locked, which is to say that the device cannot keep up with more complex software without upgrading to more powerful hardware. It's really just logic in that realm. If you can make a device this powerful in a hand held version, then a full desktop unit will do even better. Portable devices will always supplement the desktop, but they will never replace it.
          • aaabatteries, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1The point I think that I and Olenick was trying to get across is that the computer's specs will matter less as cloud computing takes over and upgrades won't be as necessary. "more complex software" will not be local.
        • burnblue, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4Few people talk about cloud computing more than Gates does. I first heard the term from Microsoft. I think that's why anyone could see Murdats was being sarcastic
    • NecroDigg, on 04/26/2008, -6/+9The cloud can go ***** itself.
    • Culyt, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6The problem becomes who's cloud you are on. Microsoft are going to be making their own, I think the modular Windows is a step in that direction and there was a whole load of talk about Windows getting web apps.

      Personally I think its wise to avoid cloud computing unless you can have a copy of the stuff your self, otherwise you run the risk of businesses going under, getting sued on patents, being banned, more so now since login are starting to cross sites, ie I don't want to loose all my email because I made some comments on a Google hosted blog that happened to be picked up as spam) and all your files being locked away.

      Or just downright scumminess. "Where sorry your document download quota reached its limit, please insert your credit card to keep using Microcloud Word Online 2022."

      Or the cloud corporations trying to keep the smaller companies on a leach, ie you sell your company to us or all those docs you hosted that contain your entire client list die, or get leaked.
    • jabberwolf, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2This article is a BLOG !!!!!!
      I love the Bill Gates "talk to the hand" pic.

      And as for the comparison of hooking kids to cocaine early?
      Hasnt Apple been creating an artificial demand by subsidizing school purchases at a loss ?

      And working in IT, Linux and they apps, have a long long way to go. The reason MS is so relevant and linux is not is MS collaborates with just about everyone under the ... sun. Linux simply does not. Innovation is ok but in a free for all with no communication, its no advance at all.
      • init100, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4"but in a free for all with no communication, its no advance at all."

        You obviously have no idea about how open source development works. I've had contact with the developers of several open source projects, but I've never had contact with Microsoft or their partners. Now who isn't communicating?
      • reddikilowatt, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Yes, for a while there, the only place anyone saw an Apple product was in a school or graphics department.

        I think that Linux is just about there with Unbuntu, but not just yet. There's still a little too much fiddling around with settings for most users. As for in the workplace, again, there's a steep learning curve for the power users, and in some cases it is like moving from gasoline to hydrogen. Sure, it's a great idea, and we'd all love to be running around in H2 powered cars, but how's it going to happen?
    • snkscore, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0People are going to still want rich apps.

      Even if the apps run from the internet, they still need a platform to run on.

      Lets not go crazy and think that everything in 10 years is going to be running in a browser, that is never going to happen.
    • misterjangles, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I think it's interesting that people who are open source fans are excited about moving their apps to the cloud. Cloud apps are a wet dream for closed source companies because you don't even have to distribute your software. So as I understand the license, that means you can use GPL code for commercial software without distributing your source, which isn't possible with regular desktop applications. There will no doubt be open source cloud apps, but it will encourage closed source development just as much if not more.
  • M4v3R, on 04/26/2008, -12/+40Nobody cares that he disagrees with it.
    • cquinnd, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5If nobody cared, this item would not be getting dugg.
      Gates is entitled to his opinion, we are entitled to agree or disagree with it as we please.
    • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -4/+10Gates opinion carries a LOT of weight in the real world. The only reason why everyone bashes him on sites like these is because these sites consist of a lot of young people who aren’t as attuned to how the business world works. The older people in the business world don’t have the attitudes that you see in these sites. Microsoft is a well respected company in the real world…where it’s about money.
      • reddikilowatt, on 04/26/2008, -4/+4Respected is a little too strong a word, I think. Installed and well-understood makes a better fit.
  • xptweakerntn, on 04/26/2008, -15/+6Well...fair enough. There is this thing called "Windows" (I believe slang for this term may be "Winblows, but I'm not 100% sure about this), which we disagree with.
  • nickcozy, on 04/26/2008, -9/+3Free is cheap.
  • alphaswift, on 04/26/2008, -18/+10Who cares.

    Here's a thought: If you don't like Microsoft, don't buy their stuff. Everything else is just whining and makes it sound like at the end of the day, you're just jealous.
    • init100, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3I though that it was Bill Gates that was whining since he couldn't incorporate GPL software into his proprietary products without paying the developers a dime.
      • kretik, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Perhaps you could tell us what GPL piece of code Microsoft might be interested in?
  • tcpip4lyfe, on 04/26/2008, -2/+74"I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them," he said, adding with a shrug: "That may seem radical." He's right. You should be able to charge for them. You could give them away for free too. There is no moral battle with Microsoft vs. open source. It's just different business models.
    • nacnud75, on 04/26/2008, -4/+15>"I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,"

      Yes you also have to patent them, a process that tells everyone exactly how they work, and that expires after 20 years allowing the drug to be produced by anyone. You also have to go through many many regulatory hurdles to make sure they are safe and don't interact with any other drugs in a bad way. I wish windows was as transparent and well regulated.
      • AndrewWiggin, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Drug companies only have a 7 year layover. If you invent a drug, you can have a monopoly for 7 years but after that anyone can make them.
      • BlackKnight6, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Not only that, but most drugs have to be taken orally, so enough of this monitor and speakers malarkey...

        Analogies only go so far people....
    • Nichiren, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4Yeah I wasn't really too sure if his analogy was entirely accurate. People who generally contribute to open-source software, don't even care about charging other people for their work whereas drug inventors have certain other types of overhead in their research that really do need to be compensated.

      I think he just has a mental block with the idea that some people just like to program for the fun of it and that they are content in simply being able to help the community in the process.
      • GMorgan, on 04/26/2008, -5/+2No he doesn't. He just recognises it's damaging to his company.

        He still makes loads of money from MS irrespective of if he leads it. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he retired solely to give the impression of neutrality if he attacks FOSS.

        Note that he also deliberately confuses the meaning of free software in the article. It's just a plain and obvious attack on something that hurts his bottom line.
        • Nichiren, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4I think he got traumatized in his early days when he wrote his first commercial program and tried to charge for it but people started to pirate it. So it came down to his belief that all software should be paid for versus the belief that all software should be shared. This was in the early days of computing when programming was more of an academic exercise than business and people were glad to share information with each other (from what I read. It was kind of before my time for me to actually say that I was there). Then I can guess that afterwards, an angry Bill said, "I'll show you! I'll build a multi-billion dollar monopoly and crush those hippies! I'll show you all!" Open source probably triggers flashbacks of his early days.
      • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1And if those “contributers” would have gotten money for their work, they could do something even better than just “coding”. They can buy huge servers to carry out some interesting plans…or even hire large teams of people to make some even better software. There are a lot of visions that need funds to be made possible. The open-sourcer just doesn’t realize that doing it for free might be a waste of this skills in the long run…in the guise of “altruism”.
        • init100, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1"The open-sourcer just doesn’t realize that doing it for free might be a waste of this skills in the long run…in the guise of “altruism”."

          On the other hand, contributing to open source projects can be a way to increase and show off your skill set. I've seen many job ads mentioning that tinkering with open source software is a plus.
          • WATYF, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Sure... "tinkering" makes perfect sense. But the idea that you're going to be able to live your whole life off of doing something for nothing is impractical.
        • MKdx, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Not quite. Your point might have place at some 'starting point' of the open source. Today, open source already have infostructure good enough. At this point, these open source projects would lower the entry level for many "open-sourcers" businesses to the market allowing them to offer what they have, pushing them to contribute or add (compete). Red hat, Novel, Intel, Sun, IBM and many other companies contribute what they need to the kernel for instance. Instead of each developing it from scratch, they each contribute what they need which could be useful to the others. Really, if open source didn't exist, we'd had to invent it.
    • pauliusuza, on 04/26/2008, -9/+3There is not a single thing that is free. Either you pay for it or it is "sponsored" / "supported" by a third party.
      • tomatensaft, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2There *are* things that are free, it's just not the "free" you were speaking of. You're probably not even aware of this thing we call "free", if the only thing you could think of was "free of monetary cost".
    • zman14321, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7There isn't a separation of Windows and Open source based on charge. It's free as in free speech, the code is available to be modified, but the software can and IS still sold for money.It isn't that people who are involved with open source just want to give everything away for free, they want to include FREEDOM with what they give. That's why the name was changed from free software to open source in the first place, to try and prevent this misconception. (Also some proprietary software is given away i.e. skype, vlc etc.)
  • nixfu, on 04/26/2008, -18/+4What a little tard. Balmer really carried his ass all those years.

  • samhadr, on 04/26/2008, -13/+3You gotta love the Microsoft ad at the top of the page. It's as though all morals and standards go out the window when it comes to earning from advertising.
  • EEdesigner, on 04/26/2008, -12/+6The nice thing about he being relatively young is that he's gonna live to see the demise of the Yugo of operating systems.
    • init100, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Which is?
    • snkscore, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Oh yes, "next year is the year that Linux will take over the desktop".

      That statement could have been said in 2001, 2008, 2021, etc

      Mac has a shot at earning market share, but it is going to take a loooong time. Some of us use Macs, and we know how much they suck. I would never trade an XP machine for a Mac machine.
      • init100, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3"Some of us use Macs"

        Yes, we do.

        "and we know how much they suck."

        We do? Not me, I like my MacBook Pro and OS X. That said, it is my work laptop. I use Linux (Fedora) and Windows XP at home. I'm not going to turn into a Mac fanboy.
      • srg13, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1"Mac has a shot at earning market share"

        So does Linux - Mac OS and Linux have similar market shares, and they have both been steadily growing. I'd like to see them both get to be much bigger.
        • Szandor, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1"Mac OS and Linux have similar market shares..."

          [citation needed]
    • kretik, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Is that right after the Linux market share surpasses that of Windows 98?
  • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -14/+4Well...I don't like open source because there is little to no accountability. When someone is doing it because their job and lifestyle depends on it, they will generally do a better job than some "donator" in the cloud. When there is money invovled, it also motivates people more to meet the customer's real demand...versus...offering features that are simple "cool" for the general populace.
    • Myztry, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5It there is competition, then financial reward will drive people to do better. There isn't much on the OS front which is why Microsoft can still get massive rewards for not doing anything significant other than finally confronting a few self caused design flaws.
      On the application front, people can still create proprietary applications and sell them. They just can't take work from the open-source pool, modify it and keep it as their own. Open source also complicates it for the proprietary model because those applications get along with each other's protocols, and it makes it really hard to tie customers into propriety compounds. You just can't get away with lacing everything with cocaine to create an false dependence. Stiff *****!
      • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -3/+0I always thought competition and proprietary go hand in hand. If you think it’s possible to get “open sourcers” to form the same partnerships with individual companies, you live in a different world. How many people will devote their free time to spend months with a partner to learn what is needed without the chance of financial gain??? I mean, if you’re a communist maybe. But we live in a capitalist society.
    • plusmedic, on 04/26/2008, -0/+9Obviously you have thought through your statement on accountability. The Windows family of operating systems is a shining example of this.
      • ism70605, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3It could seriously be worse. Remember Mac OS 9? There is a reason Apple almost died during the late 90s and that was the reason.

        Not saying Windows is good by any stretch as I am a Unix geek. But you must admit it has improved greatly since Win 9x.
        • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0I think Apple died because they were “too proprietary” such that they were trying to get their hands in all hardware AND software. At least Windows stayed in the OS business and let other people develop stuff for the PC and OS as they saw fit.
          MAC has always been more robust and reliable than Windows. But Windows was the most flexible and now…the most powerful….that’s why they have so many bugs. Pushing the Edge. It’s a HARD problem to make software on the cutting edge. People just think it’s so easy so they blame MS for “monopoly” mentality and not fixing it. If you’ve worked in a large corporation, you can see how MS products integrate with A LOT of systems it is amazing what they are capable of…of course you need “backup servers” etc. because they WILL go down. ;) I’m really impressed with what MS has done because I’ve seen it with my own eyes!
          • ism70605, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Microsoft does have some tight integration in their OS with their .NET framework. But other OSes do have comparable solutions it is just not as object oriented and integrated.

            The problem with Unix is that it is too splintered to be well integrated. Not saying this is impossible. There are multiple programs that do the same thing. It just complicates things.
          • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Unix is good for this. Maybe apps that do some form of number crunching or data processing and just run them on a unix / linux server(s) 24 / 7.
        • Szandor, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1My first intro to the Mac was OS 9. It took about three days before I went back to Windows.

          OS X, that's a whole 'nother story....
    • marx2k, on 04/26/2008, -1/+10You do of course realize that not all open source projects are done by nerds sitting in their basement trying to reverse engineer a webcam, right?
      Furthermore, read Microsoft's EULA at some point and find out just how much accountability Microsoft guarantees to the end user.
    • oldgal, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3When someone does something because they love the work and the folks they work with, they do the best job whether they are paid or not. Doing stuff in the corporate setting tends to be geared towards high pressure deadlines and delivery dates - corners are cut wantonly by management dictate, delivery of the product is more important than quality of the product.
      • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0Most people work because they HAVE to. It’s more fear than love that motivates workers. Influence is nice, but they have to eat and pay bills first. We are not in the “Star Trek” state yet where money is irrelevant. Until we get there, your thoughts are just pipe dreams.
        • init100, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2"Until we get there, your thoughts are just pipe dreams."

          You never heard of hobbies?
        • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0Thank you! Thank you! Exactly what I mean. You’re going to trust something done for a “hobby” to handle your business? Or you’re going to trust someone who is working and serious about what they are doing. Hobbies are for like internet browsing and debating on Digg. For some serious business, I’d pay for it. It’s just better when people get paid to work.
        • oldgal, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I agree with what you say, however, fear does not get the best work out of people. I see no reason why one needs to choose between corporate and open source - seems like there is plenty of room for both.
      • kevincannon, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1That's true to a point. But there is one failing in open source at the moment, and that's the fact that down to the fact that open source projects don't necessarily have the goal of getting a large user base.
        Inkscape is an example of that. It's about 90% of the way to be a wildly successful tool that could be a great vector editing tool, however, because of certain decisions in it's design choices that are geared towards technical achievements rather than ones aims at adding real user benefits. So they toil away of features that just aren't important to potential users.
        Money does have the advantage of forcing you to focus on your users needs.
    • 4321234, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Nearly all open source software is written by paid developers because there's a need that isn't quite met by proprietary software. Open source is used because there's a ton of code that they can use huge blocks of, the only catch being they have to make the source code of whatever they write available as per terms of the GPL. The hacker working in his basement and giving away everything he comes up with is pretty much just a popular misconception. If you don't like open source software, you shouldn't be using digg or google or a load of other sites that use open source apps to work.
      • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to make “whatever I write available” to any company other than my very own. Is that selfish? Maybe, but that’s what competition is about. That’s the nature of capitalism. I’m sure many businesses share my view, but if you don’t have anything at stake…it’s easy to be all “open and giving”.
        • init100, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2"Maybe, but that’s what competition is about."

          So in your eyes, competition is about keeping code you write a secret? I'd say that competition is about making the best product, open or not.

          "That’s the nature of capitalism."

          Are you saying proprietary software companies are more capitalistic than open source companies?
  • tme2k24, on 04/26/2008, -8/+6Oh Billy, when will you ever learn?
  • TehJoe, on 04/26/2008, -5/+33Everything he says there is ridiculous. "Not able to improve the software"? The hell! That's why they invented the license in the first place, so it CAN BE IMPROVED by the COMMUNITY, not the money grubbing company.
    • jstone, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12It's Bill Gates we're talking about here. I'm sure he has a different definition of 'improve'.
    • theemptyset, on 04/26/2008, -8/+3What money grubbing company do you work for? What money grubbing company makes it possible for you to feed yourself and your family? Your thinking is short sighted and obtuse. You're a fool.
      • init100, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6What he is talking about is the wish among proprietary software companies that the GPL would die and all open projects would switch to the BSD license or equivalent. This would enable those companies to capitalize on the large volume of free quality code, while still being able to take the derivative work proprietary.

        Is it so hard to understand that this isn't very popular among open source developers?
        • jstone, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Exactly! The GPL has appeal because you can release software as open-source and make sure it remains open-source. Opening source is a conscious choice; a developer knows they could make money off of a work, but chooses not to. It would be upsetting to make the decision not to profit off of your own work, then see a company take said work, change it a little, then sell it for a profit.
  • billgrant, on 04/26/2008, -1/+33Setting aside my personal feelings on commercial vs. open source for the moment, I think the comment about whether Bill will be effective or merely a check-writer withe the Gates Foundation is a cheap-shot. I don't think anyone can reasonably say Bill doesn't take that stuff seriously.
    • init100, on 04/26/2008, -6/+2"I don't think anyone can reasonably say Bill doesn't take that stuff seriously."

      Well, he is getting older. He has done a great load of evil deeds during his time at Microsoft, so his has plenty of good deeds to do to make sure that he doesn't end up in hell. :)
      • WATYF, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3"Evil deeds"? Give me a break. What does more good? The hippie-esque idealism that "software should be freeee, maaaan", or the real-world charitible contribution of billions and billions of dollars to needy people? Being able to download a photo-editor for free isn't going to feed the hungry.
        • nekroskoma, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1dammit, i wanted to dig you down not up
  • plusmedic, on 04/26/2008, -13/+4It's a fair statement to disagree with the GPL. It's a ***** viral license. BSD License FTW!
    • NecroDigg, on 04/26/2008, -5/+1Ya GPL was invented by that commie RMS. BSD pwns all.
    • Culyt, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5If Linux was BSD, we would all be using Microsoft Linux about now. Apple already grabbed FreeBSD's userland and the Mach kernel. Actually I'm quite surprised the MS havn't just forked their own commecrial BSD with complete Windows intergration (although they do have parts)

      GPL might be viral and has its integration problems, but its also needed to stop large corperations basically owning the opensource stuff.
      • ism70605, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0A version of Microsoft BSD would be awesome! What would it harm? The users of Windows would get a nice Unix OS that they could use. We would still have our Linux/BSD. Everyone would benefit. Large Corporations would not own opensource.
    • 4321234, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Both Microsoft and Apple already use code lifted from BSD.
  • manningbowl135, on 04/26/2008, -14/+58Let me get this straight. Bill Gates gave $24 billion to help people in need. At age 50 something, he's retiring from his empire so he can focus fully to help others and this guy is basically making him out to be a bad person b/c he doesn't like open source. And what kind of ***** idiot is this guy:

    "Now children in the poorest nations in the world who might have been given a chance to learn about free and open source software will be given Windows. Hooking them early, like handing out crack cocaine in kindergarten and waiting until graduation to start selling to the addicts."

    Is he honestly ***** stupid? He really thinks the poorest kids in the poorest nations have the opportunity to just walk around with laptops on their hands clicking around digg learning about linux until Gates comes by and hooks them to windows? No. They live in huts in the side of the street where they start working or begging with their father at age 10. I know b/c I lived in Bangladesh for 11 years and I saw them every day. People like Gates gives them the opportunity to learn. It's not about ***** open source or windows. It's about teaching them math and giving them an education. What a loser.
    • HangerBaby, on 04/26/2008, -6/+21Seriously. Bill Gates is a computer genius and anyone who disagrees doesn't know the story of his life.
      The guy worked from a cramped apartment with like 4 other guys to invent qbasic.
      He is a kind and intelligent person. Just because he doesn't like something you like, doesn't mean he's stupid or bad.
      • MiserJ, on 04/26/2008, -14/+4"Just because he doesn't like something you like, doesn't mean he's stupid or bad."
        Yes it does.
      • GMorgan, on 04/26/2008, -6/+4He made a version of basic. That's pretty much sacrilege.

        //edit - writing a compiler isn't as difficult as it is made out. It was a solved problem before qbasic.//
      • 4321234, on 04/26/2008, -8/+1The only program actually written by Gates that had any commericial success was a game written in basic. Everything else he bought, including dos, although he later referred to it as " the coolest code I ever wrote". He bought that from a guy who had already negotiated with IBM and been viewed as too expensive. His big break was getting a license for his os rather than just selling it, and his parents lined up that deal for him.
        • jabberwolf, on 04/26/2008, -0/+12Um no, You're talking about STEVE JOBS not BILL GATES.
          (drop out meaning chose to drop out)
          See Jobs was a 1st semester drop out in Oregon in Literature and Poetry.
          Bill was a 3rd year drop out at Hardvard in Computer Science.
          He created Basic and was very intimate with knowledge and the creation of windows pretty much up to win 98.
          It helps when the CEO actually knows what the programmers are talking about and not just want to make something look "pretty" with very few buttons.
          • HangerBaby, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3I didn't know there was conspiracy theories about computer code.. because you guys are dead wrong. Bill wrote Altair basic, and thats where most of his initial money came from.
            Also, when IBM wanted him to make basic, he bought out and old framework of the basic that had been abandoned by the company. He tweaked and fixed it until IBM accepted it.

            Seriously, read a book
          • init100, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1"Bill wrote Altair basic, and thats where most of his initial money came from."

            Wasn't his "letter to hobbyists" about Altair BASIC?
          • 4321234, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1...followed the common engineering industry practice of a trial balloon, an announcement of a non-existent product to gauge interest.
            Gates and Allen had neither an interpreter nor even an Altair system on which to develop and test one. However, Allen had written an Intel 8008 emulator for their previous venture, Traf-O-Data, that ran on a PDP-10 time-sharing computer.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_BASIC

            In 1980, Allen spearheaded a deal for Microsoft to buy an operating system called 86-DOS (QDOS) for $50,000. Due to IBM deadlines, Gates and Allen felt that they did not have enough time to develop an operating system from scratch; they therefore purchased the fully functional QDOS and reworked the code to fit IBM's needs. Microsoft won a contract to supply the finished program for use as the operating system of IBM's new PC. This became the foundation of Microsoft's growth.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen
      • oshu, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry HangerBaby, but it is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Gates did not "invent" qbasic. He started his company by copying basic, which was in the public domain, and porting it to the Altair. It is laughable that he decries open source when MS was started by dipping into the public domain. Had John George Kemeny and Thomas Eugene Kurtz, the original designers of basic, not decided to give it away, Gates would have had to work a hell of a lot harder.

        Most of the people who have worked with him characterize him as hostile, rude, and generally unpleasantly. Only later in life did he start with the charity work. Just like so many other robber barons of American industry, he spent the first half of his life ruthlessly and illegally (yes, Microsoft was found guilty in court) crushing the life out of anyone who appeared to be a threat. Now, just like the 20th century robber barons, he wants to be remembered as a good guy, so he's doing the charity thing.
        • HangerBaby, on 04/27/2008, -3/+0He invented the intuitive use for qbasic
          happy?

          Just because I don't type things to essay accuracy on digg doesn't mean I have no idea what I'm talking about.

          P.S. Check your facts. They never "Crushed" anyone.. they bought them out. That was fair game back then, and they don't do it now. Microsoft workers are some of the best treated employees of all time too. I know a few. Also, when he was young.. He lived on pizza and pop. Watch some documentaries.. how do you donate to charity when you're a poor ass student? Also, during his younger years.. he was ALWAYS busy.
    • jblack15, on 04/26/2008, -4/+9I wish I could digg you 5 times.
    • SpyDerMann, on 04/26/2008, -11/+3No, Bill Gates is not stupid. He's a freaking genius. An *EVIL* genius. An evil, self-centered, corporate genius who wants to destroy the free world. But for a genius of his caliber, he's too stupid to realize that his time is over.
      • HangerBaby, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Yes, Self-Centered creates charities, scholarships, foreign aid etc.

        Monetary driven competition is good, mainly because of humans stupid greed.
        but hey, if it brings the consumer what they want.. who cares
      • reddikilowatt, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2What if there was no open source? Would he still be evil, compared to the other big code houses out there? How easy was it to build your own SUN box, or put OS X on your new Acer PC?

        Oh, but since there's Linux, everything is different.
      • snkscore, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3I don't know if you know that you are idiot, but I am just letting you know, in case you are unaware, that yes, in fact, you are an idiot, for your future reference.
      • kevincannon, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Listen. You need to get your morals straight. Bill Gates is in no way evil.
        He disagrees with the GPL because it's a threat to his company and that method of writing and selling software. You know what - that's okay! It's his job to deal with threats to his company.
        Also, it's good to have varying competing models of software. Open Source has a lot of benefits, but it's unlikely that it's ever going to kill proprietary software. They're both good at varying things. It's clear OSS is going to gain in popularity, but commercial software will always be around. It's not a case of 'commercial = evil' 'open source = good' - it's just software, and different models will suit different projects.
    • earthmansurfer, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3If he really wants to help others, and just not help others in the confines of the current political/economic system, then he should promote freedom to it's fullest extent. I don't think he is bad, just not looking at the big picture. It comes down to this: It's unhealthy to trust one persons product as the sole product. To create something open (Linux) promotes freedom of choice, where as something that is sealed and controlled, well it not only doesn't promote it, but in many cases stifles it. And if any one force, person, corporation, etc. gets hold of it, well then, we got ourselves a big problem. Though freedom is the primary directive. Open it up and set it FREE.
      • WATYF, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3So tell me exactly how he's not looking at the big picture? If he gave Windows away for free and made it open-source, how exactly would that feed and clothe the poor? If he hadn't made such a ridiculous amount of money on such a ridiculously successful piece of proprietary software, he wouldn't have been able to give 24 *thousand* to charity, let alone 24 billion.
      • kevincannon, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Every single day you trust companies in far more serious ways that with your computer. You trust airlines to bring you safely from one place to the next, you trust hospitals to take care of you, and you trust car manufacturers to create safe cars.
        When you put an Operating System into that context, your argument really doesn't hold much validity. There's plenty of reasons to promote OSS, but just because you want all software to be free, doesn't mean it should be and more than all cars should be free for the same reason.
    • snkscore, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1DUGG. Summed it up.
  • NecroDigg, on 04/26/2008, -8/+15What a moron. Making software open source means nobody can improve it? What the hell?
  • steveoco, on 04/26/2008, -4/+21Regardless of what any elitist software guru thinks about Gate's opinion and business stance on open source... Gates has done unbelievable good with his foundation and for that he deserves nothing but praise.
    • MiserJ, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4And now its time for him to focus on that work only and get the hell out of the tech industry.
    • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -7/+1That charity thing is because if his wife. He shouldn't waste his leadership on Africa and 3rd world BS countries who do nothing but cause greif for themselves and the world. He should be helping the US (like energy crisis or something)...the people who made him great! Let those addhole countries fend for themselves and kill eachother if they want to.
      • publiclurker, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0You know, there are blacks in the US also. How do you propose not inadvertently helping them?
        • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -4/+0It's not about race. It's about countries. There are many 3rd world countries who aren't black. And they are there because they just fight eachother and kill eachother because of stupid ideals. USA has their own problems (like enery crisis) that can use a lot of research and leadership to boost it. US doesn't owe those countries anything. And if we help them, they are just going to kill us anyway when they get a chance.
      • blankhorizons, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1You realize by improving the overall conditions of our less fortunate brothers in third world countries, we are actually helping ourselves, right. We give out an awful lot of money every year in aid and loans that will never be repaid, to help feed and clothes and provide medicine. If you fed, clothed, and provided shelter to all of the poor in the world, do you have any idea how much less war there would be? And since you don't seem to care about the less fortunate, I'll spell it out money-wise. If you don't have nearly as many military conflicts in the world, you can start to eliminate the largest drain on the US budget, the military.
        • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -3/+0I suppose you’re a supporter of welfare too.
          Even if what you say is better than say like how Japan and other “prosperous nations” hasn’t done jack comparatively, that’s still not a job for Gates. That’s a government policy issue. Gates is a leader of technology…unless he’s going for president (but that’s another topic). What I’m saying is that he can serve a better purpose doing something in a field that he already has much influence in and make a big difference in the “advance” sectors…rather than the “less-fortunate” sector. Anybody with money can do charity. That’s a waste of his skills. It’s like if Einstein spent his life trying to teach under-privilege kids physics versus doing his work.
          • blankhorizons, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Welfare yes, the current welfare system, no. The task of helping those less fortunate is not strictly the work of those people's governments. Bill Gates has had quite a hand in the development of technology, and still continues to influence it, however, he is semi-retired and as such has an excess of free time that he is entitled to. If I was retired and wanted to donate my time and large sums of money to helping people that didn't have the same break and fortune as myself, I certainly wouldn't want someone to tell me I should just go back to what I was doing before because it would be more beneficial.
            Just for the record, I didn't digg you down, differing opinions != wrong opinions.
    • Wakuko, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2So did Pablo Escobar Gaviria building schools and hospitals for the needed.
      Great guy, you should know him...
      • blankhorizons, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3When life gives you lemons, create a cocaine cartel. That, friends, is the moral of the story.
    • philhatesyou, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3He doesn't deserve nothing but praise. He deserves nothing but a fair and full accounting of all of his actions. Indeed his charity is a good thing and he should be commended for that. However, his actions as a software developer and businessman are nothing short of intolerable... from using stolen computing time to get his company off the ground right up to using illegal business practices to keep a ***** product alive, he's inflicted more wounds on the world of computing than any single other person. Just because he has a charity doesn't mean that his past sins should be overlooked, especially when they will likely have more long term effects.
  • GQCarrick, on 04/26/2008, -13/+18More anti Microsoft news from a Linux website, wow, incredibly original!
    • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -5/+3Wow, that explains it! I recently have been visiting this site and I thought…damn…there are a bunch of “communists” here! Lol
    • 4321234, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Where else you gonna "get the facts"?
  • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -9/+1That charity thing is because if his wife. He shouldn't waste his leadership on Africa and 3rd world BS countries who do nothing but cause greif for themselves and the world. He should be helping the US...the people who made him great! Let those addhole countries fend for themselves and kill eachother if they want to.
    • publiclurker, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2You know, there are blacks in the US also. How do you propose not inadvertently helping them?
      • rasmasyean, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0This was meant to be a reply to another post above but it got messed up. It's not about race. It's about countries. There are many 3rd world countries who aren't black. And they are there because they just fight eachother and kill eachother because of stupid ideals. USA has their own problems (like enery crisis) that can use a lot of research and leadership to boost it. US doesn't owe those countries anything. And if we help them, they are just going to kill us anyway when they get a chance.
        • kevincannon, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1You know the US had a civil war too right? Maybe France shouldn't have helped you out with that.
  • TheMachine1, on 04/26/2008, -0/+8Hes some what correct a BSD style license is more attractive to many companies so they can close source and protect their technology investment.
    • kretik, on 04/26/2008, -5/+2No, he is 100% correct. The problem with the flossboys is that they see their licenses as they see their pet technologies, a sort of bizarre quasi-religion. Gates is saying "the GPL sucks for business", that's all. Wasn't it the CEO of MySQL that said he's still trying to figure out how to make money *reliably* off of stuff that's given out for free? Empty dogmatic blabber from Dicke Stallman is useless, and has always been.
      • Ademan, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Well the GPL helps 'flossboys' protect THEIR hard work and effort from someone just coming along and leeching it.
        • kretik, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2I don't have a problem with you protecting your code and not allowing someone to profit from it. I do have a problem however when you (and I don't mean you specifically, I'm sure) try to sell me the idea that *my* code must be licensed in a way that will cause potential legal problems to anyone who wants to use it.
  • Shadowgamers, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8'Hooking them early, like handing out crack cocaine in kindergarten and waiting until graduation to start selling to the addicts.'

    Linux, promising great things for the tired and the sick and the hungry, then ships them to Chinese sweat-shops :V
    See, I can demonize things too!
  • YodaJones, on 04/26/2008, -5/+6Wow. That is a upsetting quote from Bill Gates. I find it hard to believe that a.) Bill Gates never read the GPL. or b.) That his knowledge of the GPL is hearsay from what others may have told him and he is ignorant. or c.) He's a lying mother trucker.
    Wouldn't be ironic if the whole business world started using Linux on it's desktops and the only computers running Windows were the OLPC's?
    • snkscore, on 04/26/2008, -2/+5Bill's statment about the GPL is 100% accurate from a business standpoint (which is what he is talking about).

      A business can't take GPL code, and build a product from it, without having to deal with the GPL implications. If you are not willing to release your source code, which is a business decision, then you can't really incoporate GPL code and improve it.
      • kevincannon, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3Excellent post. No one seems to be able to view his comments within the correct context.
      • freedomknight, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2By any chance you mean "Introducing couple of bugs ?"
      • Ademan, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2So? It all depends on why you want the software, if you are using the software to provide a service, and the service is your primary source of revenue, then releasing source is almost always fine. Cases where you would need to release source to the actual 'service code' (for lack of a better term, i'm referring to the code that actually supports the service) are few and far between. Of course, in those cases, yes, it makes sense to move on and pick a project that doesn't require the release of source code, but again, this isn't a problem most of the time. A good/common example is apache, and, say, php. Say you notice a glaring deficiency in apache that prevents you from getting your service up and running, patch it, release the source, and you have lost nothing, since your service itself, has not been released, only the changes made to apache. (Honestly I don't know the terms of the apache license anyways, it may not require changes to be released, but just pretend it was GPL for the sake of that example)
  • ha1f, on 04/26/2008, -8/+7FreeBSD user here, so don't call me a Microsoft fanboy.

    The GPL limits freedom, while claiming to promote it. How do they even define freedom? Oh right, they define it however they want until the next version of the license. Why are people digging this story? He just wants to be able to make money off of a product. What is wrong with that? His opinion of the GPL is his own, but that doesn't make it necessarily wrong.

    And this article fails for calling Microsoft a monopoly. Biased ***** at its best.
    • philhatesyou, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2How is MS not a monopoly. In order for companies to switch off of Windows, they need their software to run on another platform. In order for said software to be developed for another platform, developers need to see people switching platforms. That's a hell of a catch 22 to deal with, and does indeed constitute an unreasonable barrier to entry into the business/desktop OS market. Furthermore, without such a Catch 22, Windows would have crashed and burned after the line of complete and utter pieces of crap that were Windows 95, 98, and ME.
      • kevincannon, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3You know there's a difference between a monopoly and an Illegal monopoly right?

        Also, the ironic thing about the Linux is that the more successful it is, the less people like you can give out about Microsoft being a Monopoly! :)
  • HonoredMule, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Started out as good commentary, but ended with too much rhetoric. Not all OSS supporters are radical hippies...some of us just have a life outside Microsoft's closed ecosystem and are happy about it.

    Yes, of course MS strong-arms its way into all markets, even those targeted at helping impoverished nations. Unless you're milking on Microsoft's teat, you don't have to be sympathetic to their viewpoint or drink the kool-aid, but hate is pretty futile too. Just fight it pragmatically with the objective of opening technology to society and protecting users' (and developers') intellectual freedoms and rights.
  • MattBD, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3I can't believe that Bill Gates is that ignorant about the GPL. Maybe they should get him and RMS in a debate - RMS would run rings round him.
  • Sawta, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7I might not agree with Bill Gates on his stance towards GPL and Open Source, but comparing the man to a crack dealer is a bit much, don't you think?
  • morphie, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5Off course he disaggrees. It's proprietary software which made him rich.
    • snkscore, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3A lot of other people have been made rich thanks to Microsoft software.
  • BlackKnight6, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3I thought he meant you (a business) can't improve it and sell better versions in the future since everyone else (community or competing businesses) can mess with it.
  • mille716, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Can someone explain to the idiot I am what GPL and BSD are?

    /eyes down in embarrassment
    • snkscore, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2GPL is a license that you can release source code under. It basically says "here is some code, you can use it if you want, but if you want to make changes and include it in a product, you need to release those changes as well to the public under the same license."

      BSD is a unix operating system. Mac OSX is based on it.
    • whataboutdave, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Dude, you're on the internet. Google away.
    • JQP123, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3GPL is a software source code license with a political agenda. Under this "free" license, you're only allowed to use the source code in ways which promote the agenda. As a result, the bulk of this licence is legal language which spells in excruciating detail what you are *not* free to do.

      BSD is a software source code license without any sort of politcal agenda. Under this license, the source code is truly free --- free as in speech, free as in beer, free of legalese, free of political BS, just plain free.
    • bitbytebit, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1gpl=gnu public license (an open source software license), bsd=berkeley software distribution (an OS based on UNIX
    • philhatesyou, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3***** get off your ass and Google it.
  • 3leggedHorse, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1 Every dog has it's day people could be saying this about apple or Linux in 10-20 years, The wicked one's always rule.
  • snkscore, on 04/26/2008, -6/+5Bill Gates could go down in history as one of the greatest people to have ever lived. His "evils" are in trying to run a competitive company. Compare his company with some others? Is Microsoft a major polluter? Do they get people killed (Hailliburton)? Do they help destroy the planet (exxon)? WTF is wrong with you people?

    Do you know how much time and money this guy is giving up to help sick / starving people around the world? Bill Gates does more for this planet in 1 ***** day than everyone reading this article will do in their entire ***** life.

    When all is said and done, and BG is able to count the number of lives he has helped save IN THE MILLIONS, then I think history will judge this guy to be a great person/human.
    • frygar, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1I think you have a little smudge of Bill's baby batter on your chin, kitten.
  • known, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5Dear Mr Gates,

    Open source promotes Competition.
    Closed source promotes Collusion.
    • snkscore, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1So I assume you must be really ***** at Apple for all their closed source software.

      And very mad at Sun.

      And very mad at Google.

      And very mad at.... etc etc etc

  • dildoolielly, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5"Get real, would ya? You and I are both like guys who had this rich neighbor - Xerox - who left the door open all the time. And you go sneakin' in to steal a TV set. Only when you get there, you realize that I got there first. I got the loot, Steve! And you're yellin'? "That's not fair. I wanted to try to steal it first." You're too late." --Bill Gates
  • Atomic1fire, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1OSS is Not about free as in drinks
    Of course Free Open Source software is great.... Dont get me wrong but the point is providing the source code because if the maker goes bankrupt or the software becomes no longer distributed...and a few legacy pcs still use it,
    How is it supposed to legally be improved if there is no one to take care of it.
  • solid12345, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4Why all the hate for Gates?

    If all software were completely open source, many programmers would be out of a job. Most open source developers do that on their own time as a hobby but have a day job programming for a closed environment. If all software was open source and theoretically free, how will programmers use their talents to make a living?

    Microsoft has the right to treat its R&D as a closed system, all other companies are allowed to keep quiet about their trade secrets, hell no one still knows what the "exact" recipe to lava lamps or Coca-Cola are except those who work in the company.
    • freedomknight, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1And you mean, people have to write stupid programs like registry cleaner, cache cleaner, winzip, etc... to get food on their table ?,

      => If all software was open source and theoretically free, how will programmers use their talents to make a living?
      They can use opensource software to create something new or work for some one who uses opensource.

      Open source puts an end to stupidity by reinventing the wheel again and again every 2 years.
  • RiotOfficer, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1True, he does make a distortion of the definition of open source. It's like what solid said. It's not about the morality or ethics, it's about business. What he is doing is making money, and he did a damn good job of that. Whether you object to his methods is irrelevant. Hes running a business not a charity.
    • oshu, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Actually, he's retiring from running a business and he is running a charity.
  • Allanon, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1The Tivo situation is a perfect example why open source and business don't go hand in hand. Tivo followed the rules by releasing their source code modifications to Linux but to protect their business model and to prevent anyone from creating their own Tivo they placed a chip on the motherboard that was need in order to actually run the code. The open source people weren't happy that they couldn't make their own Tivo on their home computer so they changed the rules by writing a new license that made it wrong to put measures in place that prevent the modified code from running. Businesses are not going to use something when the license can change at anytime rendering their business model invalid.
  • motters, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2At one time Bill Gates was regarded almost as a heroic figure. Now he just seems out of touch.
  • neko, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Eh. Bill wasn't so bad. Not when you compare him to the ape known as Ballmer.
  • BushidoHacks, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Old Man Gates: "You Open Source Kids get off my lawn!"
    Linux Kids: "You can't make us! In fact, we legitmiately gained access using our GPL license, and the fact that their is no fence in your yard."
  • SketchyClown, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2***** Bill Gates.
  • anarchytv, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1How many of you have actually written any code that improved Linux? I thought so. Its nice to have access to the source code, esp. if you are a programmer just starting out to learn how to do things, but setting up the same development environment to compile it, that the developer used to create it, in some cases, can be a daunting task and barrier.

    Back in the day when you were on a platform, the code was the program... it was interpreted. And it was nothing to type LIST or whatever and check it out, tweak it up, pimp it out learn from it. Now, code is so huge and unwieldy, and people have so little time, you basically have to be the programmer that wrote the thing and is intiminatly knowledgable about how you wrote it, to make changes to it. And then, you become responsible for updating it according to users bug reports and features requests. And they still don't pay you. And it becomes a chain around your neck, and you grow tired of it, and you abandon it. That's kind of the dark side of open source. Lots of abandoned source and code that nobody cares about. I abandoned all my software, simply because the perpetual upgrades in operating system software kept making them obsolete and they wouldn't run anymore. It was a frustrating, losing battle, and you asked yourself, what was the point.

    If you are actually making money from your software, on the other hand, it kind of keeps you rather pleased with it and you tend to keep improving it and adding to it, because its giving you something back in return for all your effort. There's nothing wrong with being a freeware programmer, there's strengths to that approach... ie, you can really get wider distribution of your program because you're giving it away free... but really, you can do that with closed source too. The reality is, few people care to improve your program beyond yourself. My code was always open source, and in the course of my entire life, I can't recall anyone who ever edited it, made a change, and sent it back to me, or contributed in any way to its development.
  • jayscot, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Open source = awkward
  • esc27, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1He has a point, no matter how awkwardly expressed.
    The GPL (especially the latest version) is a horribly restrictive line in the sand when it comes to collaboration between open source and commercial projects. Sure you get little things the big companies make open for developers or free R&D, but that is the extent of it.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.