I dont mean corporate entities that are, like IBM, selling whatever solution they think their customers might want.
But also remember that several years ago, IBM stated that they would have Linux on all their desktops within some period (that I don't remember right now, but it was somewhere on the timeline of a couple of years). That never happened, as IBM abandoned the attempt. Too difficult, and too much resistance.
Quote:
First, this is NOT open source but the more zealot "free" software movement. Second, there are many companies that provide software services for FOSS software. Red Hat, Novell, IBM, HP, Sun to start with.
Of course! But I'm talking about the "free" Linux projects. All the others charge good amounts for their business oriented product, in the way of service agreements. There is no advantage for individuals to even attempt to use those, or pay for them.
Quote:
The OPEN SOURCE community has rarely (and I say rarely because there are always a few jerks) done so. The FREE SOFTWARE community has always been critical of BOTH Apple and the open source projects it depends on. This is what you read about.
Folks that use permissive open source licenses (like FreeBSD) do NOT expect anything back.
They don;t, in the technical sense. But they do in the whining sense. There has been plenty criticism of Apple. And it's often in the very projects in which Apple has contributed the most.
Quote:
There are strategic reasons for large corporations to donate technology to FOSS. IBM's Linux strategy has been very successful in clobbering Sun. By making Linux enterprise ready (which FOSS zealots would claim it already was) they vastly devalued the Sun operating system (Solaris). It was losing the Unix OS market war (AIX) and torpedoing the Unix OS market as a whole helped IBM more than hurt them since they are far better than Sun at being a service company.
Of course. It's partly my point.
Quote:
Yes and no. Yes, many but not all significant ones. FOSS zealots like to gloss over number of corporate coders working on "free" software.
Open Source proponents don't much care. They just want their stuff to get used.
That said, there are significant advantages for corporate use of the GPL license because you can lock out competitors.
Of course. That's why I also said "many". I didn't say "all".
But we also can;t forget that most of these coders have well paying jobs in industry. Many times this is just vanity for them. Some corporations even allow programmers to use company hardware for their projects.
I dont mean corporate entities that are, like IBM, selling whatever solution they think their customers might want.
But also remember that several years ago, IBM stated that they would have Linux on all their desktops within some period (that I don't remember right now, but it was somewhere on the timeline of a couple of years). That never happened, as IBM abandoned the attempt. Too difficult, and too much resistance.
Meh. Linux is not geared toward the desktop unless Shuttleworth is willing to pony up a few million to replicate the OSX ease of use in Ubuntu.
Quote:
Of course! But I'm talking about the "free" Linux projects. All the others charge good amounts for their business oriented product, in the way of service agreements. There is no advantage for individuals to even attempt to use those, or pay for them.
I'm not certain what you are trying to say here. Most open source projects are not looking for a profit or cash flow...so payment rarely comes into play. Take for example the Apache foundation.
Quote:
They don;t, in the technical sense. But they do in the whining sense. There has been plenty criticism of Apple. And it's often in the very projects in which Apple has contributed the most.
You'll have to cite some support here because my impression has been the opposite. The folks whining about things like Darwin under Intel have mostly been misinformed.
KHTML folks are a) satisfied with webkit CVS access and b) was grousing about the difficulty in backporting from a fork when the fork dumps the patches in one big pile with stylistic changes to meet a different coding style.
B is largely solved by A since KHTML coders can see what's happening in the WebKit for more easily.
Once a project forks then cross pollination is more difficult regardless of who does the forking...whether corporate like Apple or simply another group of FOSS coders.
Also, given the LGPL license of KHTML and the association with KDE and Linux, KHTML coders probably lean more toward the "Free" side of the house rather than the "Open" side of the house.
Quote:
But we also can;t forget that most of these coders have well paying jobs in industry. Many times this is just vanity for them. Some corporations even allow programmers to use company hardware for their projects.
What you call vanity others call altruism. They don't have to volunteer their time at all and very few coders get any recognition at all. Nor do they much care. Hardly a vanity activity.
Comments
You mean people like IBM?
I dont mean corporate entities that are, like IBM, selling whatever solution they think their customers might want.
But also remember that several years ago, IBM stated that they would have Linux on all their desktops within some period (that I don't remember right now, but it was somewhere on the timeline of a couple of years). That never happened, as IBM abandoned the attempt. Too difficult, and too much resistance.
First, this is NOT open source but the more zealot "free" software movement. Second, there are many companies that provide software services for FOSS software. Red Hat, Novell, IBM, HP, Sun to start with.
Of course! But I'm talking about the "free" Linux projects. All the others charge good amounts for their business oriented product, in the way of service agreements. There is no advantage for individuals to even attempt to use those, or pay for them.
The OPEN SOURCE community has rarely (and I say rarely because there are always a few jerks) done so. The FREE SOFTWARE community has always been critical of BOTH Apple and the open source projects it depends on. This is what you read about.
Folks that use permissive open source licenses (like FreeBSD) do NOT expect anything back.
They don;t, in the technical sense. But they do in the whining sense. There has been plenty criticism of Apple. And it's often in the very projects in which Apple has contributed the most.
There are strategic reasons for large corporations to donate technology to FOSS. IBM's Linux strategy has been very successful in clobbering Sun. By making Linux enterprise ready (which FOSS zealots would claim it already was) they vastly devalued the Sun operating system (Solaris). It was losing the Unix OS market war (AIX) and torpedoing the Unix OS market as a whole helped IBM more than hurt them since they are far better than Sun at being a service company.
Of course. It's partly my point.
Yes and no. Yes, many but not all significant ones. FOSS zealots like to gloss over number of corporate coders working on "free" software.
Open Source proponents don't much care. They just want their stuff to get used.
That said, there are significant advantages for corporate use of the GPL license because you can lock out competitors.
Of course. That's why I also said "many". I didn't say "all".
But we also can;t forget that most of these coders have well paying jobs in industry. Many times this is just vanity for them. Some corporations even allow programmers to use company hardware for their projects.
I dont mean corporate entities that are, like IBM, selling whatever solution they think their customers might want.
But also remember that several years ago, IBM stated that they would have Linux on all their desktops within some period (that I don't remember right now, but it was somewhere on the timeline of a couple of years). That never happened, as IBM abandoned the attempt. Too difficult, and too much resistance.
Meh. Linux is not geared toward the desktop unless Shuttleworth is willing to pony up a few million to replicate the OSX ease of use in Ubuntu.
Of course! But I'm talking about the "free" Linux projects. All the others charge good amounts for their business oriented product, in the way of service agreements. There is no advantage for individuals to even attempt to use those, or pay for them.
I'm not certain what you are trying to say here. Most open source projects are not looking for a profit or cash flow...so payment rarely comes into play. Take for example the Apache foundation.
They don;t, in the technical sense. But they do in the whining sense. There has been plenty criticism of Apple. And it's often in the very projects in which Apple has contributed the most.
You'll have to cite some support here because my impression has been the opposite. The folks whining about things like Darwin under Intel have mostly been misinformed.
KHTML folks are a) satisfied with webkit CVS access and b) was grousing about the difficulty in backporting from a fork when the fork dumps the patches in one big pile with stylistic changes to meet a different coding style.
B is largely solved by A since KHTML coders can see what's happening in the WebKit for more easily.
Once a project forks then cross pollination is more difficult regardless of who does the forking...whether corporate like Apple or simply another group of FOSS coders.
Also, given the LGPL license of KHTML and the association with KDE and Linux, KHTML coders probably lean more toward the "Free" side of the house rather than the "Open" side of the house.
But we also can;t forget that most of these coders have well paying jobs in industry. Many times this is just vanity for them. Some corporations even allow programmers to use company hardware for their projects.
What you call vanity others call altruism. They don't have to volunteer their time at all and very few coders get any recognition at all. Nor do they much care. Hardly a vanity activity.