1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Open Source: The worlds largest software company

Discussion in 'The Lounge - Off Topic' started by ffreeloader, Apr 27, 2008.

  1. ffreeloader

    ffreeloader Terabyte Poster

    3,661
    106
    167
    The comment is often made on this site that open source is just software that no one will pay for..... LOL.... What a misconception--one that I'm pretty convinced isn't made in ignorance, but with an agenda because the person who most often makes the statement isn't dumb by any stretch of the imagination....

    The following article from Silicon.com paints a much different picture of open source. The Standish Group reports open source software is replacing $60 billion worth of proprietary software a year. That's more revenue than MS, Oracle, and Computer Associates generate combined.... Funny how software which is so bad that no one will pay for it can replace $60 billion dollars of software annually isn't it?

    Open source is the coming thing people, you better get used to it, and understand how to use it and take advantage of it. Proprietary companies are going to be shrinking.

    You can read the rest of this article here at Silicon's webiste.
     
    Certifications: MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA, A+
    WIP: LPIC 1
  2. nugget
    Honorary Member

    nugget Junior toady

    7,796
    71
    224

    Although I believe that open source is becomming more popular I think that this is just another one of the BS reports put out by a marketing group sponsored by an open source friendly group. As we've all seen before, any so called market study will show exactly what the sponsor wants to show, namely that their product, service etc is better than the competition.

    I also find it hioghly sceptical that open sourec is actually replacing $60 Bn os proprietary software. Think about it freddy, if this happened then MS, Oracle, and Computer Associates and any other companies with proprietary software that gets replaced would be out of business. Seeing that most of them are still in business and still making a large amount of revenue leads me to think that this is all BS.

    What they should really be reporting is that the companies are implementing more open source software within their networks in addition to their existing infrastructure, and not replacing it outright.
     
    Certifications: A+ | Network+ | Security+ | MCP (270,271,272,290,620) | MCDST | MCTS:Vista
    WIP: MCSA, 70-622,680,685
  3. ffreeloader

    ffreeloader Terabyte Poster

    3,661
    106
    167
    The Standish Group is well-known. They do in-depth IT market research for governments and large commercial organizations but exclude all vendors from participating. The results they publish come through interviews and surveys filled out by CIO's, CEO's, etc... the decision makers from large organizations, which they pay them to do.

    Anyway, you're welcome to throw any slant you wish on the report. Just keep on living in denial. There's a reason companies such as Adobe are starting to open source their products, and MS in its SEC filings reports Linux and open source as direct competitors that affect their bottom line.

    The Standish Group would soon go out of business if their customers actually believed what you do, that they are putting out a report just to boost open source. They would lose all credibility in their market place.
     
    Certifications: MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA, A+
    WIP: LPIC 1
  4. Crito

    Crito Banned

    505
    14
    0
    Open source is a natural reaction to anti-competitive monopolies, oligopolies and cartels. It's consumers doing what the government has failed to do: trust busting. It'd be nice if we didn't have to shift between such extremes, a laissez faire attitude towards mergers and acquisitions and socialism. But unfortunately we've all been programmed to think in terms of polar opposites: if you're not left you're right, if you're not a Democrat you must be a Republican (or Labour vs. Conservative, as the case may be). So the only way to maintain any balance at all is to swing from one side to the other.

    Personally, I live in a world of varying shades of gray...
     
    Certifications: A few
    WIP: none
  5. ffreeloader

    ffreeloader Terabyte Poster

    3,661
    106
    167
    Open source is not socialism. Socialism is a form of government in which the government owns all and distributes it. Open source is people help people, neighbor helping neighbor, community helping community, without any government intervention, nor government-mandated rules and enforcement.

    To me it harkens back to the old west where people had help each other to survive, to prosper, or they all failed together because they were as much dependent on each other as they were competitors. Neighbors and communities would get together to help a competitor(neighbor) build/rebuild their barns, i.e. their businesses, when they were starting out or had suffered some devastating financial blow. That isn't socialism, but that is basically what open source does. It allows the poor man to compete on a much more level playing field with his wealthier neighbor. It also helps to put the brakes on the rapacious corporate entities, but not through government intervention. That is not socialism.
     
    Certifications: MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA, A+
    WIP: LPIC 1
  6. Crito

    Crito Banned

    505
    14
    0
    If you say so. RMS isn't shy about expressing his philosophical beliefs, however. Since he's the architect of the GPL and what you call "open source" -- "free software" or FOSS is more accurate -- you'll have to excuse me if I strongly disagree with you.

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
    http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

    Sure sounds like a communal arraignment to me anyway.

    In any case, as far as I'm concerned, the only reason we have two party systems is because that's the minimum number you can have and still claim to be a democracy. The political aristocracy in both our countries would like nothing better than a one party system where our leaders were ordained by super delegates and electorates instead of voted into office by the public. Us lowly plebeians/commoners are but a nuisance that, once appeased, can be largely ignored. :ohmy

    In short, you can't separate the politics from the economics. One world government or one giant multinational corp, it's basically the same philosophy at work.
     
    Certifications: A few
    WIP: none
  7. dmarsh

    dmarsh Terabyte Poster

    3,782
    302
    184
    Open Source, Patent System, Scientific Community...

    What do they all share ? Collaboration and knowledge sharing for the greater good, all systems have their disadvantages, I would argue for instance that patenting software and genetics is a move too far...

    The point still stands however, most people consider scientific research and the open publishing crucial to the scientific method and the advancement of human kind.

    Why shouldn't engineering and computing research act in the same manner ? Isn't open source just an extension of this ? Note open source does not have to mean non-commercial or non-profit, it means you have the right to view and alter and redistribute the source. Unix for years was an open source OS even before Linux, you bought an expensive mainframe and you got an OS and its source code.

    Its just another way of doing things, if I shop in the co-op does that make me a communist ? If i invest in public companies does that make me a communist ? What if I bank with a building society ? Lets not have another red under the bed incident...
     
    Certifications: CITP, BSc, HND, SCJP, SCJD, SCWCD, SCBCD, SCEA, N+, Sec+, Proj+, Server+, Linux+, MCTS, MCPD, MCSA, MCITP, CCDH
  8. Phoenix
    Honorary Member

    Phoenix 53656e696f7220 4d6f64

    5,726
    175
    221
    What exactly is so wrong with communism?
     
    Certifications: MCSE, MCITP, VCP
    WIP: > 0
  9. ffreeloader

    ffreeloader Terabyte Poster

    3,661
    106
    167
    Crito,

    The principles that are listed in the links you gave existed long before socialism existed. People were helping people, and there was even a government or two that made it illegal not to help your neighbors who were in need. It was Jewish law that landowners couldn't harvest the edges of their fields or pick their orchards clean of fruit. They were required to leave enough so the poorest would have food to eat.

    Now, just because socialism, as a philosophy, has adopted some of those pre-existing principles it doesn't mean they are socialistic principles. They may be associated with Socialism in modern thought, but they are no more belong to Socialism than the idea of private industry and personal ownership of property belongs to Capitalism.

    I mean to call the Jews Socialists, or the pioneers of the old west in the US socialists is just plain nuts. They would reject socialism in a heart beat, just as I do.
     
    Certifications: MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA, A+
    WIP: LPIC 1

Share This Page

Loading...