Re: os discuss (http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/7263.html)

[cjgidman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

< I have significantly snipped down Bob's epic post >
< of a few days ago.  Most of what I snipped either >
< now resonates with my own thinking or appeared to >
< be evasive tactics on Bob's part.  I have dis-    >
< tilled my response in an effort to refocus on     >
< what I see as questionable in the                 >
< Open-Source/Free-Software community.  Bob and I   >
< have discussed this topic at length over          >
< Mongolian cuisine and I now feel that OS/FS has a >
< place, but I'd like the community to consider a   >
< few things.  That my point in this present post.  >

 ---- you wrote: 
>>Open Source may be a nice tool for felling a giant, but I'm not so sure
>>it's a viable model in the long run.
>Well, David went on to become quite an effective King, and even though he
> made some mistakes, he was better than many monarchs of the time. I feel
> that ALL of the business models we see that survive some fairly basic time
> tests have a place in the life cycle of software. The fact is that the
> business models that support the free UNIX systems have had quite a run so
> far, and there isn't a lot of reason to think they are going to become non-
> viable in the future. 

Having quite a run doesn't imply success.  The Soviet
Union had quite a run, but we eventually saw that some
underlying assumptions failed and the entire model
eventually collapsed.  I'm concerned that this is the
feeling of many; that the current success of the OS/FS
movement implies its long-term viability.  It is
important to look at the underlying motivations behind
the movement to see if they will hold under most
conceivable conditions.  Saying that a model is flawless
says that you haven't dug deep enough to find that case
where the model doesn't hold.  Bob, if I may be so bold
as to say, believes that there are cases where the
OS/FS model doesn't work.  The article that started
this thread implies that there are no such cases.

It is important to close ones eyes to blind idealism
and step back to see what works and what doesn't.  My
feeling, at first, was that the OS/FS model derives
its motivation from a strong anti-corporation bias.  In
fact, although there are those who hold such views, it
does not. Adam is a clear example of one who works for
a corporation, yet contributes to the OS/FS model.  He
derives a benefit, and so does his employer.  I think
this is fantastic!

Also, one of the biggest sticking points with me is
that a bigger ego doesn't necessarily put food on the
table.  Ultimately, we must stop living off our parent's
income and provide a living for ourselves.  Bob has
pointed out to me how the OS/FS model helps the devel-
oper to find work in "the real world".  Again, if I may
burden Adam as an example, I feel he clearly shows how
his employer (who is not a software developer, right?)
PAYS him to work on free and open software.  Because,
ultimately, it provides a more streamlined operation
for them.  I feel very strongly, however, that there
is no place for a community of hackers who do nothing
but work on free software, for free or for ego alone.

Ask yourself if you believe there are cases where the
OS/FS model doesn't work.  If you do, name one, for
your own benefit.  Ask yourself why you think the OS/FS
model lasts for the long term.  Can you envision a set
of circumstances in the future where the model doesn't
hold?  

To be perfectly Frank and Ernest :) my gut feeling is
that there IS something wrong with it.  But, this may
be a product of my money-oriented thinking.  Because,
with all the hammering of threads like this, and all
the discussions with Bob, and all the reading, just
when I think I've found it, I discover that that's not
quite it.



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