Re: os discuss

[cjgidman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

 ---- you wrote: 
<snip>

> 
> >The Open Source model works because there is a David
> >and Goliath competition going on.  In a more level
> >playing field, where smaller companies are competing for
> >smaller pieces of the market, it's not as clear that
> >this laid-back approach to deadlines would work.  And,
> >by extension, that the Open Source model would work.
> 
> I'm not sure I follow this.  What are some "smaller"
> markets that you speak of?  Niche applications (IMHO)
> is Open Source's home turf, and where it really
> shines.  Someone with ONE purpose can create a truely
> awesome tool for that ONE purpose,  more out of
> personal passion to fill the need, than necessarily
> for financial gain (which may be a "side" benefit for
> solving a problem).  For example,  note the absence
> of a pre-eminate word processor that is GPL-ed.  I
> think the OS model falls aport more often when
> attacking broad and general problems.

I think we agree here, Adam.  I was referring to an
environment where there are many companies vying for
a small share of a large market.  A word processor is
a good example.  Ideally, however, this would also
occur in the Operating System arena.  Right now, we
have a few major players doing Op Systems.  If there
were, say 25 with no one having any more than say, 10%
market share, then would the O-Source model fall apart?
My thinking is that it probably would.

> >This article cited below is either naive or biased in
> >it's allusion to the Open Source model being flawless.
>  
> I'd say optimistic, not naive.  I think business will
> "take over" alot of Open Source project in time
> (witness GNOME),  but I don't think that will make it
> necessarily less open.
Now, this is interesting.  This sort of says that the
Open Source model is separate from the business model.
Maybe this is why or where the two articles diverge.
Maybe this is where my thinking is flawed.  Can a
business run an open source project?  Maybe the answer
is yes, but the product would be something other than
what the project is producing.  Witness GNOME, whose
funders are hardware and OpSystem manufacturers.

>  HP, Sun, and IBM can co-fund
> a third-party developement organization to provide a
> whiz-bang desktop application architecure for less
> than any one could develope it for themselves (which
> they've pretty much proven that they can't).  That's
> not idle speculation, because it's exactly what the
> GNOME foundation is,  HP and Sun have adopted GNOME
> as their OS's default desktop, and IBM will
> eventually (it just does everything in IBM time).  In
> the end this helps Linux as well, as a GNOME app is a
> GNOME app.

'nuff said.
Chris.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com