Why I don't like Open Source

Because it's free, Open Source threatens the IT industry in the sense that software developers will go out of business.

OK: Maybe I used the title in too broader term. I love Open Source software - I use Linux distros were convenient (basically where I don't have to rely on my Wireless connection, use Visual Studio and have to have some good fun hacking the hell out of my network), but I do believe Windows is an Operating System more suited to the end users and I'm, well, scared of Open Source. Where will Software Developers be required then? Stuck in some crappy support job because that's the only way to make money out of a now dying industry?

Open Source is good for learning, using and yet still it fails to make even a dint on the world's software usage. The answer to that, I believe, is Advertising. Open Source software doesn't make (enough) money and therefore can't support itself.

As for Microsoft; it is like any other company, twisting the arms of other businesses and exploiting customers in order to increase its profit margins. Microsoft gets a harder time out of it because Microsoft is rich, powerful and well known. Any company that achieves this status is automatically going to achieve the "Evil" tag.

I'm open to your views, unless of course I don't agree with them, in which case screw you too.

Most software development will never be overtaken by Open Source software... Most is bespoke in-house software and web-sites.

I'm not worried about anything job wise... But if you want to be concerned be concerned about out-sourcing. Unlike Open Source that really can take over the US software industry.

Open-Source by itself isnt a very good buisness model but it can concide with commercial software to make a profitable buisness. Hundreds of companies around the world are embracing Open-Source this way.


Regards,
Vincent

But MOST software isn't commercial... That is what a lot of people fail to realise... More software is privately developed than is available on the store shelves (e.g. Most web-sites).

Khamul wrote:

Open Source is good for learning, using and yet still it fails to make even a dint on the world's software usage. The answer to that, I believe, is Advertising. Open Source software doesn't make (enough) money and therefore can't support itself.

ROFL, how ignorant. This thread is flamebait.

GNU/Linux, the world's premier FOSS operating system holds the majority of webserver operations and probably in the Backoffice too. Just because you don't see Linux in the front-end doesn't mean it isn't working in the back-end.

And Open-Source is profitable and a good business model, what about Novell, Red Hat, Ubuntu Org?

W3bbo wrote:


ROFL, how ignorant. This thread is flamebait.

GNU/Linux, the world's premier FOSS operating system holds the majority of webserver operations and probably in the Backoffice too. Just because you don't see Linux in the front-end doesn't mean it isn't working in the back-end.

You call him ignorant? How ironic... You just confused Linux with Apache.

It is in fact Apache that holds that title... Not all of which runs on the Linux version of the UNIX OS.

Manip wrote:

W3bbo wrote: ROFL, how ignorant. This thread is flamebait. GNU/Linux, the world's premier FOSS operating system holds the majority of webserver operations and probably in the Backoffice too. Just because you don't see Linux in the front-end doesn't mean it isn't working in the back-end.

You call him ignorant? How ironic... You just confused Linux with Apache.

It is in fact Apache that holds that title... Not all of which runs on the Linux version of the UNIX OS.

Apache tends to run on Linux than Windows, and Apache has the clear majority anyway. I've only come accross a handful of sites running Apache-on-Linux (and most of those were "host at home" jobs)

I agree that Apache is rarely run on Windows... But you are discounting BSD, Sun/SCO UNIX and other variants.

Manip wrote:

I agree that Apache is rarely run on Windows... But you are discounting BSD, Sun/SCO UNIX and other variants.

IMHO, the field of commercial use that other OS can't beat is network hardwares(routers, firewalls, etc.)

The free and small (as small as 5MB if you like) OS gives the small hardware the most configurable environment (You can do whatever Linux softwares supports in the box) and makes the middle level box behaves like high-end models.

Open Source software is causing other developers to create better software, as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with that.

Manip wrote:

 I agree that Apache is rarely run on Windows... But you are discounting BSD, Sun/SCO UNIX and other variants.

Yep, FreeBSD is probably still the most commonly used host for Apache.

spoofnozzle wrote:

Manip wrote: I agree that Apache is rarely run on Windows... But you are discounting BSD, Sun/SCO UNIX and other variants.

Yep, FreeBSD is probably still the most commonly used host for Apache.

Still, *BSD is open-source too.

W3bbo wrote:

 Still, *BSD is open-source too.

Some might call *BSD Free Software... It isn't Open Source like Linux is Open Source... *BSD is actually free and open to anyone for just about anything.

So much to answer, so little time...

Manip wrote:

 Most software development will never be overtaken by Open Source software... Most is bespoke in-house software and web-sites.

I'm not worried about anything job wise... But if you want to be concerned be concerned about out-sourcing. Unlike Open Source that really can take over the US software industry.

I'm not really worried about the US software industry. I'm more worried about the seemingling non-existant Australian commerical software industry, you know, where I live...

W3bbo wrote:

ROFL, how ignorant. This thread is flamebait.

GNU/Linux, the world's premier FOSS operating system holds the majority of webserver operations and probably in the Backoffice too. Just because you don't see Linux in the front-end doesn't mean it isn't working in the back-end.

And Open-Source is profitable and a good business model, what about Novell, Red Hat, Ubuntu Org?

I shall clarify to Commercial Software that is available off shelf. That  is what I am interested in, and that is what 99% of the worlds computing population cares about. You see where this is going?

I agree this thread is flamebait. I'll give blatzcoder about 10... 9... 8...

Rowan wrote:

Open Source software is causing other developers to create better software, as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with that.

There isn't. The problem is the commercial software industry will suffer as a result and the developers will end up betraying themselves. I'm altering the flow of this thread:

If executives further understood what their subordinates were doing and were susceptible to feedback, then Developers wouldn't feel the need to spend most of their energy on OpenSource products and the general quality barrier would rise, or hopefully that would be the case anyway...

Developer Tools and hobbyist operating systems are fine as far as OpenSource is concerned, as the target audience is likely to be interested in modifying the products internals. But how far do you take it? I'm not against taking money from rich people  (legal disclaimer: I do not endorse illegal acts towards this aim), but at the same time I don't want to see developers who enjoy working on software the world is going to see and use... and get paid for it... end up out of job, working on internal products or in support roles.

Executives need to listen and understand, perhaps. Then again, maybe I was just stupidly wrong in the first place... My mind changes easily, its the age (note, old post, don't reply to it), methinks...

What is the story with RedHat.  It appears their "real" product is neither OSS or free.  But Fedora is OSS and free.  Is this correct?

staceyw wrote:

What is the story with RedHat.  It appears their "real" product is neither OSS or free.  But Fedora is OSS and free.  Is this correct?

RHEL is both OSS and free.

Detroit Muscle wrote:

RHEL is both OSS and free.

But RedHat's profits come from their Support services, which is also where Mozilla gets some of their dosh from.

Khamul wrote:

Because it's free, Open Source threatens the IT industry in the sense that software developers will go out of business.

OK: Maybe I used the title in too broader term. I love Open Source software - I use Linux distros were convenient (basically where I don't have to rely on my Wireless connection, use Visual Studio and have to have some good fun hacking the hell out of my network), but I do believe Windows is an Operating System more suited to the end users and I'm, well, scared of Open Source. Where will Software Developers be required then? Stuck in some crappy support job because that's the only way to make money out of a now dying industry?

Open Source is good for learning, using and yet still it fails to make even a dint on the world's software usage. The answer to that, I believe, is Advertising. Open Source software doesn't make (enough) money and therefore can't support itself.

As for Microsoft; it is like any other company, twisting the arms of other businesses and exploiting customers in order to increase its profit margins. Microsoft gets a harder time out of it because Microsoft is rich, powerful and well known. Any company that achieves this status is automatically going to achieve the "Evil" tag.

I'm open to your views, unless of course I don't agree with them, in which case screw you too.

1.Well, first of all OSS is not out for profit. In fact 90% of the programers have daily jobs.

2.Is not Linux's fault that hardware makers does not release specs for what they build. In fact a big chunk of the drivers are reversed engineered.

3. Are you afraid that someone could criticise your code, if OSS prevail ? Maybe you are not such a good programmer after all.

4. So Microsoft is in it's own right using terrorist tactics with clients and partners !?