Meaningful vs. meaningless support from businesses
Posted Sep 30, 2010 14:13 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller
In reply to: Meaningful vs. meaningless support from businesses
Parent article: Red Hat Responds to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Request for Guidance on Bilski
about hard working folks at Red Hat being parasites
A business model can be parasitic no matter how hard people work. Those are unrelated issues.
If is more efficient because there are no artificial IP barriers that would cause unnecessary duplication and profiteering. What Red Hat writes today, you can improve tomorrow.
That isn't an argument for hugely lower total R&D costs. You can argue that it's desirable to have that freedom to modify the code, or "to enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", etc. But at the end of the day, a given amount of development requires a given amount of total input. If from one vendor, it's tha vendor's R&D budget; if from multiple vendors, it's their collective R&D budget. But ultimately a programmer will be on someone's payroll, and that someone paying the programmer must make money somewhere. You just attribute the R&D budget of proprietary software companies to "largely unneces[s]ary duplication and profiteering". I can't see "duplication" being such a big issue, especially since commercial licensing deals can always be worked where they're more efficient than duplicate efforts; and "profiteering" happens with all business models.
I presume many people here program for a living and want to be sure that there's a lot of demand on the job market for software developers. I'd like to know your theory for how the realization of Red Hat's vision (them making $5B in exchange for destroying $50B others make) would be good for programmers seeking (or seeking to retain) a job. Should tens of thousands of developers currently developing proprietary software be laid off and enter the job market? If not, what's your theory for how they will all be better off if Red Hat does what its CEO says?
to post comments)