Get your story straight!
One day, you insist the GPL destroys economic ownership of IP. The next, you admit that google is able to achieve fantastic economic success in part through the use of ... yes that's right! ... GPL software! And that they don't have to release what they themselves are using in-house!
You guys crack me up.
<< (Khym_Chanur) Each open source project starts out *way* behind the commercial competition >>
(ZogDan) I disagree... Linux started out several years before Windows.
What are you talking about? Windows 1.0 was released in 1985, Windows 3.0 in 1990, and Windows 3.1 in 1992. Linux 0.01 was released in 1991, with version 1.0 released in 1994. Unless you want to claim that Windows 1995 was the first Windows, I can't see how you can say that Linux started several years before Windows. Either that, or you're conflating Linux with the original Unix, which started back in 1970... back when Linus Torvalds was 1 year old. Or maybe you're confusing Linux the kernel with the GNU toolset?
Also, I was comparing the Linux *kernel* to other Unix kernels, as an example of an open source projects versus closed source projects in general; comparing the Linux kernel by itself to Windows in its entirity is silly. In 1991, Unix had been around for slightly over two decades, and the Linux kernel caught up rather quickly with the commercial Unix kernels. If you wan't to compare things other than kernels, the KDE desktop was stared in 1996, one year after Windows 1995 and 11 years after the release of Windows 1.0, and it caught up in the non-bells-and-whistles areas fairly quickly.
Off the top of my head, the only Microsoft products that might have started after their open source competitors would be IIS vs Apache (1995), and Microsoft C versus gcc (1987). However, I can't find release dates for IIS 1.0 or Microsoft C 1.0, so I'm not sure which ones were actually first.
<<If the ONLY thing a company did was depend on charity for its profits, I'd say that company has big problems.>>
Wait. It's IBM that's donating to "charity"; they way you phrased your sentence, you're making it sounds like that IBM is the *receiver* of charity.
<<It's different when you give something away to someone who will never be paying you back. The open source community will NEVER be paying IBM and OSDL back.>>
Yes, they wil, but they'll be paying them back "in kind" with more improvements to the kernel and other OSS projects, which will help IBM to keep selling it's hardware. Just because they aren't getting back *money* doesn't mean they won't get *anything* back.
<< But as you just said, charity doesn't need to be motivated by altruism. If donating to a charity can consistently bring in profits for a company, then that company will continue to do so >>
No it doesn't... but such communism/charity will never be successful enough to act as a basis for a sound business, economic, or political system.
Right. IBM making millions upon millions from it's Linux ventures is entirely a fluke. Never mind that they can make good money from selling software that runs Linux, and money from selling support to people running Linux. The fact that the development model by which OSS software is designed is "charity" means that coprorations and individuals will eventually stop developing OSS because... because... because it's *charity*. Because communes collapse because the altruism required to keep them going isn't directed to family, never mind that the "communism" of OSS isn't dependant on altruism. The fact that OSS is a form of non-altruistic communism means it'll collapse even faster, because, because... Well, just *because*!!
> If you're going to argue for the validity of using community charity... aka communism... in the development of a product, you should stand up proudly and proclaim your affinity to Communism itself.
But you don't... and my belief is that you refuse to do so because you know that using that label will expose the very subsersive effects of the open source communist model.
That is... you're trying to sneak communism into our culture. <
Wow! Now I understand your brilliant insight! The Salvation Army wears red because it's the Red Army. Those pesky commies are so clever; but not clever enough to get by you.
<<Do you spend all your time working for money? >>
Like most, I'm sure he works to fill his basic needs, and then some.
<<Some programmers code because they feel like it.>>
Yep, virus writers come to mind.
> That is, you may need to "scratch that itch"... but I guarantee that you'll want to feed your family first. <
Do you spend all your time working for money? Of course not. You're not getting paid to post messages on this board, are you?
You post because you feel like it. Some programmers code because they feel like it.
Just because they don't spend 100% of their time working for money doesn't mean their family won't get fed.
I haven't heard of anyone's family starving because they wrote a few lines of linux code.