Comments on: At the heart of the open-source revolution

Lotus founder Mitch Kapor oversees two open-source software foundations. His success could make Microsoft miserable.

[TheMidnightCoder]

First good open source advocate I've heard!

I've never been much for open source religions. I'll do Microsoft, Java, and LAMP, whatever pays. I've always discounted people that are religious zealots to one side or the other. In general, I think developers are crazy to write code for free so some corporation can make tons of money on it, then outsource your job to some low paying country. Mitch brought up some very good points though. Almost enough to sway me. If they would just pay me.

Common misconception

While many do write for free for the betterment of everyone, people can and do write open source for a living.

[David Arbogast]

Just remember....

This guy is an open-source advocate only after his commercial enterprises were swallowed up by more aggressive competitors. His legacy is one of defeat and sellout, not triumph. Where else to go? Can't compete? Give it away free.... Of course this man has changed his mind. Of course. He's been unable to sustain a successful business model.

Yet.... which overwhelmingly dominant open-source products has he had a hand in? Nothing, when you maintain the scope of the entire market.

I'm not saying he's not a smart man, or that he never did anything great. But he obviously has no intent on competing. The "stagnation" he is referring to sounds more like an excuse for not being able to overcome the current market leaders.

Now... good or bad or whatever. If I had the opportunity to sell off Lotus and get filthy rich, I'd probably do it too. But I'm not hearing any new arguments in favor of open-source. Just the same trained responses. "How to talk to a proprietary software advocate 101."

[TheMidnightCoder]

First good open source advocate I've heard!

I've never been much for open source religions. I'll do Microsoft, Java, and LAMP, whatever pays. I've always discounted people that are religious zealots to one side or the other. In general, I think developers are crazy to write code for free so some corporation can make tons of money on it, then outsource your job to some low paying country. Mitch brought up some very good points though. Almost enough to sway me. If they would just pay me.

Common misconception

While many do write for free for the betterment of everyone, people can and do write open source for a living.

[David Arbogast]

Just remember....

This guy is an open-source advocate only after his commercial enterprises were swallowed up by more aggressive competitors. His legacy is one of defeat and sellout, not triumph. Where else to go? Can't compete? Give it away free.... Of course this man has changed his mind. Of course. He's been unable to sustain a successful business model.

Yet.... which overwhelmingly dominant open-source products has he had a hand in? Nothing, when you maintain the scope of the entire market.

I'm not saying he's not a smart man, or that he never did anything great. But he obviously has no intent on competing. The "stagnation" he is referring to sounds more like an excuse for not being able to overcome the current market leaders.

Now... good or bad or whatever. If I had the opportunity to sell off Lotus and get filthy rich, I'd probably do it too. But I'm not hearing any new arguments in favor of open-source. Just the same trained responses. "How to talk to a proprietary software advocate 101."

[objarchive]

Obsolete

By the time Firefox grows to 10% of browser users, web browsers will be obsolete. Do you honestly think people will still use these text based, non-extensible simplistic tools in 5 years time? No way. We'll be running Pentium 6 computers with 4 GB of RAM over 8 MBps internet connections. Browsers will be relics of the past there.

A browser by any other name..

is still a browser.

What do possible process speeds and memory capacities have to do with this? Besides, processor companies are finally getting smart and are no longer focusing on raw clock speeds as the primary motivation any more. What a processor can do inside each tick is what matters.

[kakman1]

you forgot ...

Uh, Brad, nice rundown on the hardware of the future (sounds like stuff that will be available in 2006) but you didn't say what will replace the browser. Firefox will be at 10% any day now Brad, and I do not see anyone making the browser obsolete just yet. Ease off the caffeinated beverages.

[objarchive]

Obsolete

By the time Firefox grows to 10% of browser users, web browsers will be obsolete. Do you honestly think people will still use these text based, non-extensible simplistic tools in 5 years time? No way. We'll be running Pentium 6 computers with 4 GB of RAM over 8 MBps internet connections. Browsers will be relics of the past there.

A browser by any other name..

is still a browser.

What do possible process speeds and memory capacities have to do with this? Besides, processor companies are finally getting smart and are no longer focusing on raw clock speeds as the primary motivation any more. What a processor can do inside each tick is what matters.

[kakman1]

you forgot ...

Uh, Brad, nice rundown on the hardware of the future (sounds like stuff that will be available in 2006) but you didn't say what will replace the browser. Firefox will be at 10% any day now Brad, and I do not see anyone making the browser obsolete just yet. Ease off the caffeinated beverages.