Innovation Loses If Open Source Wins (LinuxInsider)

Posted Nov 17, 2003 17:35 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Since it seems that "innovation" is being redefined as "what Microsoft does", then I suppose that it is true that innovation loses if open source wins.

Posted Nov 17, 2003 18:03 UTC (Mon) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link]

Enderle doesn't seem to fear ridiculous statements.

He has just forgotten some basic innovations with large
impact such as the wheel, electricity, Turing machine,
von Neumann programming, spreadsheet, Internet, the Web, ...
were invented not by big private companies but by individuals,
small companies, state controlled agencies, universities,
research institutes, etc, which nowadays all greatly benefit
of free or open software.

Enderle just ignores that like for public scientific research,
freely flowing information in open software has a multiplicative
impact on society, because the progress of one is easily
shared among all the others, while in a closed information
system, the progress is, at best, only additive.

The most mind-boggling invention in Windows?
Press the Start button to Stop the computer!

Posted Nov 17, 2003 18:06 UTC (Mon) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link]

I wish this silly enderle guy would stick a sock in it. sheesh, what an irritating little nuisance this guy is - his shtick was mildly interesting, for shock value, the first few times, but now he's just annoying.

Posted Nov 17, 2003 18:31 UTC (Mon) by maney (subscriber, #12630) [Link]

I'll give him this - he's pretty slick about claiming that his orignal assumptions are created by his so-called analysis. But even from his own prejudiced viewpoint there's one big non sequiter in there: he assumes both that Microsoft vanishes and that open source takes over, then blames all of the results he expects to follow only on the latter. On his own untested assumption that Microsoft is and for many years has been responsible for a large part of software innovation, wouldn't it be more likely that Microsoft's collapse was the more important cause? Perhaps he meant to say that he assumed that open source caused the collapse; then might we not sensibly conclude he is also assuming that innovation isn't all that important? At least not the kind of innovation that Microsoft steals from one smaller firm after another...

As for outsourcing software development out of the developed west, that's nothing new, nor does open source have anything much to do with it. If anything, open source might help check that trend. Of course the real cause is that costs are so high here; the long-term solution will reduce that one way or the other, and the open source based way seems likely to be far healthier for first world companies and programmers, albeit not for all of them, perhaps especially not for the most costly. We can forgive a high-priced analyst from not liking the prospect of being less remuneratively rewarded for his sage advice even while peeking through the holes in his logic, I think.

And so on.

Posted Nov 17, 2003 18:41 UTC (Mon) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]

SCO has yet to show anything that supports their case. Nothing. They won't even show the
court what they have shown these analysts under NDA. That is the reason for the subpeona.

The reason the software development will move offshore isn't open source software. It is due
to the litigious nature of the US. The same thing happened with hardware. The only ones that
will make money are the lawyers.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,4248,1379738,00.asp

$51 billion for lawsuits? Of course, it's all free software's fault.

Derek

Posted Nov 17, 2003 19:46 UTC (Mon) by typhoon (guest, #16619) [Link]

Linux also needs patching, just like Windows. The problem is home users are too lazy! If Linux has huge installed base, the same problem will happen. Worse, Linux has no automatic patching.

Posted Nov 17, 2003 19:49 UTC (Mon) by typhoon (guest, #16619) [Link]

Stupid Linux users who like free software will spell doom for mankind. YOu will all live in a third-world cuntry.

Posted Nov 17, 2003 20:03 UTC (Mon) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link]

Rob Enderle is to tech punditry what Ann Coulter is to political punditry. When you realize that, it's pretty easy to put things in perspective and put any column with Enderle's name in your mental kill file.

Posted Nov 17, 2003 22:20 UTC (Mon) by butcher (subscriber, #856) [Link]

Enderle is postulating a future based on a rather complex tree of events. Kinda reminds me of early prognistications of the future; flying cars, meal-in-a-pill, that sort of thing. :D

Posted Nov 18, 2003 1:47 UTC (Tue) by adcarlson (guest, #16936) [Link]

I wrote an email to this guy...and called him an "idiot".

He seems to think that because Linux is based on UNIX that it lacks innovation.

Although he's entitled to his opinion as are many, it certainly doesn't mean he's right. I can believe the earth is flat (which I don't BTW), but it doesn't mean I'm right.

Long live Open Source! The only way to innovation!

Posted Nov 18, 2003 5:02 UTC (Tue) by chill633 (guest, #16013) [Link]

Enderle seems to forget that innovation occurs in many other places than the software companies. Most companies are NOT software companies. THEY also innovate and want to gain an advantage over their competitors. Part of that advantage is getting the best tools for the job. They don't need new licenses and upgrades everytime the software industry needs a revenue refresh.

Sometimes that is Open Source Software, sometimes it is NOT. This isn't an either/or world. Companies like banks, stock brokers, wholesalers, retailers, etc. don't give a damn about Open vs Closed Source unless THEY see an advantage in their business.

Open Source solutions are wonderful for the commodity software items like web serving, file/print serving, directory services and basic office applications. Like the non-software world, once software reaches a commodity point there isn't a lot that needs to be done with it. How many new versions of the hammer, nail or screw have you seen over the years?

Most companies I've seen with corporate LANs use it for file/print sharing. Map a drive, load and save data to the network drive, set some permissions. This is a basic that hasn't changed in over a decade. Explain to me why I should be paying ANYONE every couple of years for new software to do exactly the same thing? Most of the new features added to NetWare or MS Windows NT/2K for file sharing are NOT needed and NOT used in most situations. Yes, some of them can be nice. But as a business, I want RELIABILITY of the file/print server over anything else. Speed would be #2. Bells & whistles don't mean a damn thing. If the drive maps when I log on, that is all I need.

Active Directory and Novell Bindery don't mean squat to a 5-person office, or even a 15-person office. Many of their nifty features don't come into play until you get large, diverse organizations. Waste of money, waste of resources, waste of effort.

In the end, NECESSITY is the mother of invention (innovation), not closed source models. If OSS doesn't fit the bill, do you think for a minute Bank of America is going to stick with OSS? If their competitors can do it better, faster with CSS they'll switch in a heartbeat.

Doom and gloom predictions don't work with and OSS world for the simple reason if it doesn't work you can CHANGE IT!. With CSS, especially closed document formats, you're locked in.

It is MY data, not Microsoft's, Oracle's, Corel's or anyone elses.

Posted Nov 18, 2003 5:35 UTC (Tue) by TheSESmith (guest, #16941) [Link]

Enough. A truthful answer to a simple question can and will quell all this cruft.

NAME ONE APP (aka: single item/thing) THAT M$ HAS DEVELOPED FROM INITIAL CONCEPT/THOUGHT THRU COMPLETION/DELIVERY THAT DID NOT ORIGINATE ELSEWHERE IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.

Please do not consider convolutions to an original product wherein they were simply the first to release in mass.

You may however, consider:
1) The Cash Cow that is currently not being fed as well as it once was.
2) The product release cycle that is... Scramble -> Release -> Getting paid for Alpha/Beta testing by end users -> Rinse -> Repeat.
3) Marketing fluff. You really need this. 15POS in a 5 pound gunny sack!
4) Destruction or Aquisition of any competition or a strategic alliance that can cause the same.
5) Their ability to join strategically picked associations or community efforts, only to take their bats & balls and run home when their ideas are not adopted in total without variance. Just to release their product in mass, therefore forcing the adoption per-say as a standard. (I seem to recall an alliance/collaboration on a GUI/OS where the other party wanted to test and tighten first and then releae, contrary to a hidden agenda wherein this is exactly what happened as well as many IETF(et al) type manueverings).

Hell...
Long before the M$ Office suit we had Enable.
Long before Excell there was Lotus.
Long before Access there ws dbase.
Before Windoze there was GEM.
(yea I know I'm old, many of you never heard of them ). ;)
etc...

Now comes the BEEF.

SCO had been losing ground continually, then comes the M$ partnership/cash infusion (call it what you will) and suddenly there are the claims and suits. This of course followed a converging course on a different tack that simply attempts to kill the opposition or scare the hell out of the end user to keep the high ground, all due to a new strategic alliance.

Again Marketing and Media Hype will prevail and cause the average person/entity to stay away from Open Source. Think about this, M$ just lost a case for $542M (ball park figure) for infringing embedded technology. What if that that winning party simply went after each end user (they are actually using an illegal product) for say $10 each, based on the number of products said user possesses legal or not, knowingly or not. The shoe would change feet rapidly.

I would actually like to see our lawmakers that spent untold $millions on the investigation and prosecution of M$ business practices to actually live up to the court orders/rulings/agreements and split the cash with the open source folks, providing of course, said funds were used for marketing and the furtherance true innovation.

Wishfull thinking I know.

He Who Has The Cash, Throws The Bash!

Posted Nov 18, 2003 13:18 UTC (Tue) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link]

Enderle's consulting company does work for msft, so what do expect from a paid shill? Honesty?

But I wonder if the general public take Enderle seriously? Or does everybody see Enderle for what he is?

Posted Nov 18, 2003 13:45 UTC (Tue) by ttraub (guest, #2950) [Link]

How does competition stifle innovation? Having a monopoly in almost every major software category has allowed MSFT to do just that. Has Mr. Enderle noticed how stagnant the mainstream browser market has become, after all the innovations of the 90s? Or how office software has barely changed since 1997? Finally we are seeing innovations in both of those segments thanks to the Mozilla project and Open Office from Sun.

As for SCO, they have little chance of succeeding as a business anymore; they have spooked their customers with their reckless lawsuits and all that's left is a money making operation for Boies and partners.

Posted Nov 18, 2003 15:39 UTC (Tue) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

His conclusions are laughable. I won't even bother to comment on them as such, others have done more than enough. But one thing struck me as kinda interesting:

He claims that if Open Source wins, the world will be a more fair place, with more equal trade, but that the US and western Europe will be poorer in software-development jobs. (he doesn't provide any reasoning, much less evidence why this should be so)

I fail to see why that's so obviously bad an outcome. Indeed I welcome the more level playing-field that Open Source offers to the smaller players, be they countries, companies or individuals.

I don't think he's rigth or anything. I don't see any reason whatsoever why Open Source development will all inevitably be done in India while proprietary development will all inevitably be done in western-europe and north-america.

Posted Nov 18, 2003 16:34 UTC (Tue) by pblanco (guest, #16087) [Link]

Just think of him as one of the fleas and ticks of the software industry. A common parasite living off whatever host he can attach himself to. In this case its pretty clear who's doing the hosting...

Posted Nov 21, 2003 3:23 UTC (Fri) by stock (guest, #5849) [Link]

whois linuxinsider.com ? :

    
Found a referral to whois.opensrs.net.    
Registrant:    
 ECT News Network    
 15821 Ventura Blvd.    
 Suite 635    
 Encino, CA 91436    
 US    
Domain name: LINUXINSIDER.COM    
Administrative Contact:    
    Bohling, Daniel  sysadmin-opensrs@ectnews.com    
    15821 Ventura Blvd.    
    Suite 635    
    Encino, CA 91436    
    US    
    818-461-9700    Fax: 818-461-9710    
Domain servers in listed order:    
    NS1.ECTNEWS.COM   207.178.165.2    
    NS3.ECTNEWS.COM   207.178.165.2    

Well now : whois ECTNEWS.COM ?? :

   
Found a referral to whois.networksolutions.com.    
Registrant:    
ECT News Network, Inc. (HMJRICCXVD)    
   P.O. Box 260069    
   Encino, CA 91426    
   US    
Domain Name: ECTNEWS.COM    
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:    
    ECT News Network, Inc.  (ZDQUZUBOEO)              rbkern@aol.com    
    P.O. Box 260069    
    Encino, CA 91426    
    US    
    818-917-2911    
Domain servers in listed order:    
   NS1.ECTNEWS.COM              207.178.165.2    
   NS3.ECTNEWS.COM              207.178.165.2    

Well now, ain't that nice. A Administrative Contact which uses a AOL email address for its core domainname administration :)

enough said.

Robert