RE: LINUX is the "one" ? .... Comments???

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Scott Klement


| You're right, the GPL is (slightly) "communist."

Is that like being "slightly pregnant", Scott...  lol...!

| However, if you say
| that, you have to be fair and say that most commercial software
| licenses today
| are "fascist."

But seriously now, no, I don't.  That may be an analogy You believe in,
Scott.


| But, today there is a lot coming from people who just want to "give back"
| to the people who gave free software to them.

And I appreciate the concept of giving back to the community, Scott, as You
probably well-know.  But folks enamored by the GPL have, at the same time,
killed the market for innovative software.

"Road to he!! is paved with good intentions."

| I know you and I won't ever
| agree,

Hey!!  First time for ANYthing...!  :-D

| and I respect your right to your opinion.

Likewise.

| However, I want other
| people who read this forum to see both sides of things and make their own
| decisions.
|
| And the assertion that open source is somehow hurting innovation is
| completely baseless.

Well, this isn't a question of seeing both sides, here Scott.  This is the
facts of the matter.

You got two monopolies:  M$ on one side and GPL/Linux on the other.  One is
an illegal monopoly, allowed to operate that way largely unfettered.  The
other monopoly has turned software into a commodity marketspace.  By virtue
of You canNOT beat the price of zero dollars.  (Couldn't find link on
article about how commodity markets turn off any hope of innovative
products.)

Now You can build up all the great innovation of open-source, Scott, in Your
mind.

The facts are contrary.  What You see is a lotta people copying INCREMENTAL
gains, not true INNOVATION.  What LITTLE innovation is ACTUALLY being done
is going on quietly, by companies turning small profits.

And per usual, it's always: the only way to compete with MicroSoft is by
open source.  Now I'll allow that MIGHT be possibly true, but that sure
isn't muchuva point in favor of open source as a SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
METHODOLOGY.  (Probably brought up a lot because "Open" Source is NOT a dev
methodology but a methodology to create an economic monopoly.)

When something does more harm than good, doesn't produce the good that it
claims (reliable software, in this case)..
..well there's pros and cons to EVERYTHING but they rarely balance out as
poorly as the whole "Open" Source movement has.