Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times) [LWN.net]

Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times)

Posted Oct 22, 2004 14:33 UTC (Fri) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742)
Parent article: Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times)

Well, this is a stupid and uninformed article I'd say.
The key behind open source is not only that you get the binaries for
free, it is that you or your company can gain control over the
development of the software which they base their business on.
In hardware/electronics there is always the question: is there a second
source for this part ?
Why doesn't everybody ask the same question for software, the operating
system: is there a second source for my OS ?
If you use windows, there is only one source. If you use a free OS, there
are as many sources as you want, you can even yourself become a source.

Bye
Alex

(Log in to post comments)

If you use windows, there is only one source.

Posted Oct 22, 2004 15:10 UTC (Fri) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

If you use windows, there is only one source.

Unless that source is released on, say, some rogue website by a source code licensee.

Which brings up another point: if your OS wasn't built with the knowledge the source code would be made public, pray it never will.

If you use windows, there is only one source.

Posted Oct 22, 2004 18:54 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

In Windows/Longhorn !?...

" Unless that source is released on, say, some rogue website by a source code licensee. "

Rest assured that will never happen,...
Microsoft will not gain more control for doing that,...
What they could possibly do is release an old stripped down version as "freeware". But even that i belive will never happen because Open Source applications like Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice create a hell of a pressure on their market,..., not to mention things like coLinux and possible "shell replacements" based on Gnome or KDE...

Microsoft only have two ways for total and absolute control now:
1)is to make Open Source illegal,...
2)Create a totally impenetrable and totally incompatible platform, at least in a "Certifiable" formal way...

The other ways they will start to lose more each time, and faster.

I belive, is the 2) what they are trying to do with Longhorn/NGSCB/Paladium: a 'certifiable' DRM based lock.
But Open Standards arround the 'Internet' prevent effectiveness of the lock. So they'll try first to own the WEB by the means of XAML and other XML patented projects... a Desktop manouver to own it all, server included!

(this kind of articles shouldn't surprise anyone no more!)

Why open source is unsustainable (Financial Times)

Posted Oct 25, 2004 2:30 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

The key behind open source is not only that you get the binaries for free

No, "Open Source" does not mean you get the binaries or source for free. Ask RedHat, or SuSe or even Sun. You might even pay hundreds of thousands, even millions, of euro for the binaries/source, if you pay for it to be developed or pay some other first-use cost/fee for Free Software (See, eg, how blender was open-sourced by way of a huge fee.).