Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes:

> I realized after I sent that that maybe the point was too subtle.
> Open source is great, I use it, I love it, no problem there.  However,
> *if* I'm correct that what is happening is basically a process of copying,
> and *if* open source kills off the companies producing the products which
> are being copied, then open source slowly grinds to a halt in terms of
> creating anything new.

This is such an inane hypothesis I'm not sure why I bother responding.

Yes, a lot of open source software is just copying what someone else
has done.  A lot of *all* software is re-implementing similar code
from someone else.  Otherwise, what would be the point of IBM's DB2 vs
Oracle vs whoever else?  [I will not say anything further about
monopolies and your self-comparison to Bill Gates.]  If you look at
things like Apache or Perl, you can see just a few of the high-profile
open source projects that drive innovation in the computer field.  If
you look at other specific areas, I bet you could find others.

Companies that sell hardware or systems tend to accept open source
software much more than software companies do, since using OSS is
often a win for both them and their customers.

Companies that make their money by selling software legitimately feel
threatened by open source software that performs the same functions.
It seems not so long ago that you, Larry, were trumpeting how BitMover
was and could easily stay ahead of free software revision control
systems.  There are good economic reasons that open source is not the
first to enter most markets -- reasons that boil down to return on
investment and available resources to invest.  Perhaps that lag is
what leads you to your hypothesis; but that lag also provides a space
where commercial software companies can exploit their development
speed to turn a profit.

Open source software can be a reflection of market efficiencies: if
the users of software have in-house developers (or are developers), it
can be cheaper for them to develop, enhance or maintain software than
to have someone else do it.  When base source code is available and
customizable, total development costs are lower, regardless of who
does the development.  False cries that open source software is
derivative will not change the economics that drive it.

Michael Poole