Re: os discuss

["Robert G. Brown" <bob@xxxxxxx>]

>>>...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.
This is an interesting supposition. I am reminded of what
Watson (of Watson and Crick, of DNA fame) said when asked
about what other scientists thought of their work:

  "Only 8 other people in the world undstsnd it, and since
   they were all working on it too, the probably hate our
   guts."

There is a lot of motivation to produce good software here, and
since there may not be enough of a market there to make selling
it worthwhile, it will either be GPL'ed or sold at VERY high 
prices.

>>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).
Agreed. This is the initial motivation for most programming.

>>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.
Oh? Operating systems are not examples of attacking "broad and general
problems"? I think there are other reasons for this:

  - In recent years, Word really has dominated things. There
    are NOT a lot of companies duking it out for market share,
    unless you ignore Word.
  - Good WP programs are HARD to write. One person can spend
    YEARS of spare time on this sort of project, with very little 
    hope of gaining attention or respect until it is really ready
    for prime time. If/when you suceed, there's a lot of attention
    to be gained, but gratification is very much delayed.
  - The lead time is so long that technology underneath the project will
    change, which delays delivery even further.

A good example of the above is Abi-Word, which is just about ready for
prime time after 4-5 years of development, mostly by one person.  I don't
think it was XML-based from day 1, either.

>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.
I don't see why; can you explain?

>>>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.
Perhaps so, I see no need to make them anything other than open.

>This sort of says that the Open Source model is separate from 
>the business model....
Yes, this is true, and I think the term "business model" is very much
abused. I think of Open Source as a DEVELOPMENT model, not as a way of
doing "business". What Open Source/GPL methods does is obviate the need
for some methods of conducting businesss around software, such as shrink
wrap licenses, binary-only packaging, and proprietary controls over pro-
gress.

>Maybe this is where my thinking is flawed.  Can a business run an open
>source project?  
Why not?

>Maybe the answer is yes, but the product would be something other than 
>what the project is producing.  
Most software is not produced as a "product"; most software development is
in the area of applications, and anyone who Open Sources/GPL's an
application is probably getting a lot of value from it from elsewhere --
USING it!

                                                              Regards,
                                                            ---> RGB <---