Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive
Here's another FUD missile (white paper) from Green
Hills Software. This time the focus is on free software's high development
costs and lack of support. "No one has ever established a profitable
open source business model, because no company can sustain an exploitable
proprietary advantage. The nature of open source is that every proprietary
advantage must be returned to the public domain. The talents of individual
engineers can't be retained because the engineers can just quit and take
all of their knowledge with them to apply in their next job. The open
source process drives the profit out of Linux businesses leading to their
eventual demise."
(Log in to post comments)
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 13:00 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Some people just never learn that cooperation gets one a lot farther in life than selfish exploitation.
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 13:29 UTC (Mon) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] I read through this "white paper". They set up one straw man afteranother. If it were written a little better, it might give me the initiative to shoot down each of their weak arguments. But as it is, it's not worth commenting upon. If they keep this up, their credibility will match that of SCO.
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 13:30 UTC (Mon) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link] With so many attacks on OSS I bet they try being bought back by Microsoft, or at least receive fundings. I'm not sure about their business model, nor the future security of their products.
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 13:31 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Why is recycled FUD worth linking to? If someone makes a new argument against Linux or free software, it might be interesting, but this Green Hills guy has been getting way too much Google Juice from Linux sites for the amount of thought he's bringing to the table.You're just encouraging future proprietry software advocates to do likewise. How to pump up the PageRank of a boring white paper? Bash Linux! Ka-ching!
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 13:37 UTC (Mon) by oseemann (subscriber, #6687) [Link] i second that. i was about to write the same.where's the point in providing those airheads any more publicity?
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 13:42 UTC (Mon) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] The point is to allow them to dig their own grave.
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 13:59 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Try this argument on for size:"No one has ever established a profitable law firm, because no company can sustain an exploitable proprietary advantage. The nature of the law is that every proprietary advantage must be returned to the public domain. The talents of individual lawyers can't be retained because the lawyers can just quit and take all of their knowledge with them to apply in their next job. The legal process drives the profit out of the legal profession leading to its eventual demise." How can I say this? Well, any time a lawyer finds a new, innovative legal argument, every other lawyer can just copy it. When a lawyer files an argument with the court, it's public record. Law is a service profession, where lawyers generally bill by the hour and don't live off of the fruits of their past labor, and when there are exceptions to this the lawyers generally aren't acting as lawyers per se but as investors in a different kind of business.
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 14:42 UTC (Mon) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] Beautiful! You should send this to every (news) organization which links to this "paper" to show them just how pathetic it is (and perhaps shame them into removing the link, or at least not putting up any more of this worthless drivel).
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 17:43 UTC (Mon) by simon_kitching (guest, #4874) [Link] Excellent! A truly inspired rebuttal.It also makes me think about the process of creating new laws. Just think of all that work that goes into drafting of new legal regulations - and no profit to be made from it. I recommend that parliaments register copyrights on their laws. Anyone wishing to prosecute someone else under a law must first pay the appropriate fee. And anyone found guilty under that law should have to pay a copyright violation :-). Grand theft auto? Copyrighted. Oh, no, that requires a business-model patent, not a copyright... Governments could become self-funding, and no longer a burden on the taxpayer.
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 19:13 UTC (Mon) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] Come now, you're not really such an idealist, are you? Lobbyists and their commercial backers make money by writing new laws for legislators all the time. Legislative campaigns have thus long since been self-funded, as you suggest.
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 11, 2004 0:51 UTC (Tue) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] One of O'Reilly's examples of where the bad patent system could go is law.US will be done when defence strategies in court can be patented...
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 11, 2004 4:54 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Works with doctors too... Strange, two of the most highly paid professional groups :-)
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 11, 2004 15:51 UTC (Tue) by foo (guest, #1117) [Link] > Works with doctors tooI read years ago that an opthalmologist patented a method
Embedded Systems Programming Posted May 10, 2004 14:17 UTC (Mon) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link] These guys took out an ad in an 'embedded systems programming' magazine that I got. The one just inside the cover with a "wishlist" for the GNU toolchain and Linux as a kernel, with a lot of FUDish points.
Green Hills wants attention! Let's give it to them? Posted May 10, 2004 14:56 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] It sounds as if Green Hills wants some attention. I think we should give it to them.Their embedded operating system has an API. It's time for us to port that API so that Linux can emulate it. That way, Green Hills customers could try Linux really easily, with their existing applications, and decide for themselves which one they like better. Documents, anyone? Bruce
Green Hills wants attention! Let's give it to them? Posted May 11, 2004 11:58 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I suspect the only reason they want attention is because their customersare already leaving in droves. Why propagate yet another non-standard API when its use is dwindling?
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 15:10 UTC (Mon) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] What a dinosaur.
This paper is obviously not targeted at individual engineers Posted May 10, 2004 15:49 UTC (Mon) by histed (guest, #8438) [Link] >The talents of individual engineers can't be retained because the engineers can just quit and take all of their knowledge with them to>apply in their next job. They are saying that open source places more power in the hands of the individual and less in the hands of the company. Sounds like a good thing to me (and to you, if you're an engineer). This is a reason why all talented engineers should be in favor of free software. Free software is to software engineering as free agency is to pro sports.
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 10, 2004 21:36 UTC (Mon) by Ajarn (guest, #8521) [Link] this article seems to be a poor immitation of SCO writing.
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 11, 2004 1:52 UTC (Tue) by nathan (subscriber, #3559) [Link] 'The talents of individual engineers can't be retained because the engineers can just quit and take all of their knowledge with them to apply in their next job. 'huh? Any job contract that prevents you doing that is unenforceable (in .uk), and called 'restraint of trade'. Oh, and I guess my income must be ficticious ...
Random choice Posted May 11, 2004 4:53 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] From the white paper: Poor Linux software development tools slow down software development. Let's assume the above is true. Under what theory does then one write a white paper on the topic of competition between Linux and a proprietary OS? If it is true that those development tools are slowing down Linux folk and proprietary folk had a head start (according to the white paper, they've been doing this 10 years longer than Linux), how is Linux in the position to compete? I just don't get this...
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 14, 2004 6:12 UTC (Fri) by zmower (subscriber, #3005) [Link] This would be the same Green Hills that produces Ada tools in direct competition with Ada Core Technologies (http://www.gnat.com/). ACT are privately owned, profitable and have very low staff turnover and yet they still manage to give away their GNAT Ada compiler (which is now an official part of the gcc tools). Strange how they overlooked this...Chris
Linux in Defense: Free Software is Just Too Expensive Posted May 21, 2004 21:51 UTC (Fri) by marlow (subscriber, #8204) [Link] "The nature of open source is that every proprietary advantage must be returned to the public domain. The talents of individual engineers can't be retained because the engineers can just quit and take all of their knowledge with them to apply in their next job."Hmm, let's see, if a engineer get's another job (or sponsor) but still is developing on the same code, that is also going to the same public domain. How the h*** does the engineer take their knowledge with them, if it is part of the public domain ? And why does that business not still profit from his work (or even more), if he still is working on the same issue, but just paid by another company (or sponsor) ? Would somebody please be so kind an explain that to me ?
|
|||||||||||