Printable View
The AdTI's very weak and poorly-researched paper opens no debate. It simply confirms that Microsoft paid AdTI to come up with something -- anything -- to stem the growing adoption of open- source (especially GPL'd) software by business and government. Let's take a look at the paper in detail.
more...
NOTE: it is suggested that you read the .pdf file first then read the article, coz the article is an analysis of the pdf file.
You beat me to this article sOnIc !
Good and interesting post :).
I think it was a quite interesting whitepaper , everything is not hot-news but still worth reading even for non-developers.
***applauds*** great find! It is about time somebody put M$ and their unfounded rhetoric in the garbage. Time and time again M$ tried to explain the reasons NOT to go open source, which in every case got an egg in the face. Man, it is nice to to rule the world, but it seems somebody is getting a little antsy about some competition, serious competiton, to be looming in the horizon. So, they hire these people to write a paper on why open source stinks and will never work and got an even bigger egg in the face. As I stated in an earlier post, every OS has its flaws and not everybody will understand or like every OS that comes down the pike. That is a matter of taste, and so is the choice of licensing and the way things are distributed and sold.
When they were yapping about the GPL being a "competitor" to copyrights, this made me wonder... this license does protect under copyright laws and does give conditions the GNU wanted all along since 1984: To protect rights. How? That source code is available, can be modified and redistributed for free or a cost. The restriction? Nobody is allowed to take that right from you. Under copyright law, a copyright holder can set conditions on how stuff should be distributed; that is free enterprise and it is not controlled by the government (they only make and enforce the rules), or Bill Gates (Who wants to be in the back pocket of politicians who are attracted to the smell of money like flies to dog ****).
Another facet of this PDF (and article) failed to point out: The GPL could the answer to ending piracy. When source code is available, and the user is allowed to redistribute means there is no fear of repercussions of the FBI knocking on your door for giving copies to friends or loading Linux and it's thousands of open source software on 1 or 1 million computers. This reduces costs all around! Also, the need to circumvent copying is all but eliminated, administrators do not need to worry about audits and worrying if they have more OS's than licenses support, and there is no fear of the BSA imposing tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars for "settlement costs." That reduces costs even further.
(To make a point clear: I am NOT saying that EVERY program included in distributions, especially commercial versions are all GPL'd; make sure you read ALL terms and conditions set forth, because if you go on a distribution rampage thinking it was installed on *NIX, can result in problems :p)
Now with these benefits, I think companies like RedHat and Caldera (and other distros) have the right approach: To sell centralized support and consulting for firms. Even if it is in the thousands of dollars, why not? Its benefits outweigh the costs by 1000 fold. That is allowed in the GPL, and that is growth and progress.
And that's just the copyrights...
yeah true, but i do understand the reason why some software companies perfer to keep their software closed source and safe from piracy. coz creating them softwares do cost.. hiring programmers to do the software cost.. registration and licensing of the software cost...
in short.. it cost money to make money..
Don't get me wrong, people can make money any way they want, either by EULA or GPL. Piracy is a gigantic problem, and you are absolutely right when companies need protection against pirates. I was trying to say GPL *could* be the answer to the piracy problem, but not the perfect one.
My point is this: If M$ and closed source want to stay closed and people find it useful, great. If people like open source and find it useful that's good too. The problem is, there is room for everybody to grow, but when a certain somebody decides to monopolize something with unneeded and unfounded propoganda to scare others away from something useful such as the GPL then that is not fair.
Lastly, you are right when it costs money, a lot of money to make software. That is why some distros are trying other ways to offset costs by consulting and offering ellaborate software packages that indeed contain (irk) commercial software. Mandrake is offering company shares and a "club" of paying users to generate revenue, as stated in my previous post in the other thread.
Lastly, I have to point out other things that make *NIX not-so-appealing to the general computing crowd as "mainstream" as of now:
*Limited Windows application support.
*Limited ported Windows applicaiton support.
*The "cult" factor that has been attached to *NIX, and other misconceptions, rumors and propoganda. It happened with other computer stuff in the past; it's nothing new.
*Limited *commercial* game support (a user just can't walk in wal-mart and buy half-life for *NIX.
*The very "differentness" (*NIX is not harder, just different) of the way the OS acts.
However, the same thing applies to Macs too. That decreases sales and revenue. So I am not saying the GPL and Linux is the answer to everybody's problems.
But neither is Microsoft by a long shot.