[TriLUG] Can open source solutions be viable companies?

Robby Dermody robbyd at avalonent.org
Sun Jun 30 23:58:22 EDT 2002


Microsoft works on the sound principle that the best kind of income is of a
recurring and predictable nature. Why write new software when you can simply
take your old stuff, fix a few bugs, repackage it, and _sell_ it as new.
(i.e. take a look at Windows ME for the best example of this, IMO). They
have habituated the general public to the notion that computers are SUPPOSED
to crash, that loosing your data every once in awhile is a normal part of
computing, and that for a usually sizeable amount of money, you may
"upgrade" to the next version of the product which might solve the bug you
had in question, but usually very well introduces hundreds of other ones. In
part, this "perpetual upgrade" paradox is rooted in human nature. Microsoft
operates on the notion that most people would rather see (and pay for) an
upgrade full of new features than an upgrade of bugfixes. People like to
think that they're getting the most bang for the buck and have it
aesthetically reinforced by lions roaring when they click okay and pretty
menu fade-in/fade-out transitions. But as we all know, new code basically
equates to new bugs, which means new future upgrade paths, which means
steady income as long as the pattern isn't disrupted, which means MS may
continue to keep their anti-trust cases deadlocked in federal court :). If
it seems like security and clean code have traditionally been an
afterthought for them it's because they have. Unfortunately, cleaning up
their code and fixing patches doesn't make as much economic sense as adding
a talking paperclip.

They are also advocates (if not trailblazers) in the formation of EULAs that
serve to disclaim all legal responsibility for a product. Sure, they may
have written the software, but they are not responsible in the least if it
crashes on you and you loose everything. However, all software is usually
like this, and even licenses like GNU have fitness for a particular use and
warranty disclaimers. With commercial software, the kicker is that you must
wait for the bug to be fixed and you are at the mercy of the vendor in this.

I had a third point, but I forgot it. :) A scary thing is that there ARE
companies like MS on many fronts unrelated to computing... look at the
practices of Monsanto, Standard Oil & Co. (of old), the Baby Bells, etc.
Basically, MS and companies like them are out to serve their constitutes
first and foremost, and will do what people tolerate, and they will only
change once the public and big customers (i.e. military, government,
corporate customers) start demanding better software and services. Speaking
in their favor, I really do think Windows 2k and XP are great improvements
on their previous work, but a lot of this new focus was based on pissed off
customers due to malfunctioning warships (LOL remember THAT one) and
corporate support nightmares. Me? I'm more worried about the entity that
CHOOSES to use Windows NT on a warship and tries to strip away my rights
(witness Ashcroft's "terrorism" bill that compromises the forth amendment
and their constant attempts to rape the already battered second amendment
for just a new examples). In the grand scheme of things, MS may make bad
software and piss us off, but they can't oppress you and I....unless they
merge with Uncle Sam & Co...and it's not impossible with the amount of
lobbying and politicians in bed with corporations already going on. :)

Finally, as I alluded to above, with Linux and other OSS the possibility of
fixing the problem yourself and submitting your fix to the author of the
software is also available, which IMHO shatters the vendor ---> end-user
relationship that characterizes commercial software by the likes of
Microsoft. I find most authors of various OSS are grateful for the bug fixes
and feature enhancements.

Mac may be more friendly than the Windows word, but at heart Apple is still
a corporation with shareholders to answer to and profits to make. I believe
there's nothing inherently wrong with this, as capitalism is currently the
best system humanity has...that's just how it is.

Robby, glad for having the right to rat off on Microsoft and the US
gobvment.

----- Original Message -----
From: "al johson" <alfjon at mindspring.com>
To: <trilug at trilug.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [TriLUG] Can open source solutions be viable companies?


> AMEN, Tanner!! Great response. I can't think of a time I've had a problem
> with any of Microsoft's software that they've actually fixed it. It seems
> that Microsoft doesn't really want to fix any of their software (yes, they
> do produce "fixes" to a certain select group--more on that later), when
they
> can bury their mistakes and try to fix it and make more money at the same
> time by simply creating a new version. So it goes like this Microsoft
> releases Windows 95 (which has problems and which gives them an excuse to
> create--) Windows 98 (etc., etc. etc.) with NT, 2000, and now XP. But they
> never fix anything, they just create new errors which are never fixed. Now
> if you want to get anything fixed in Microsoft software, then you have to
> pay money for the fixes, in essence you have to pay a fee which gives you
> the fixes which Microsoft USED to give out freely.
>     Contrast this with Linux and the Macintosh Operating system--to fix
> anything in either of these systems you just have to download the newest
> version of the program causing the problem. And did I add that it is
always
> EASIER in either of these operating systems to add or remove or replace
any
> program than it has ever been in any Microsoft product.
> ---Al Johnson.
> ==================================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tanner Lovelace <lovelace at wayfarer.org>
> To: <trilug at trilug.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 2:42 PM
> Subject: RE: [TriLUG] Can open source solutions be viable companies?
>
>
> > Apologies in advance for the strong language below.  If that
> > sort of stuff bothers you, please just delete this message now.
> >
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2002-06-28 at 14:32, Vestal, Roy L. wrote:
> > > The "catch"
> > > is the old fight we all have to fight: "Open source is not as secure
as
> > > closed source becaus everyone has it". Same Argument Different Day
> (SADD).
> >
> > Roy, this isn't to you because I believe you know better, but that
> > argument is pure horseshit.  In fact, I will contend that open source
> > software can be more secure precisely because everyone has it.
> >
> > Tell your bosses to take a look at the stuff Bruce Schneir says
> > about secure systems.  True security doesn't depend on the
> > process (or operating system) being closed off.  True security
> > abstracts what needs to be kept secret into a very small package.
> > By doing this you make it much easier to keep secure because you
> > have much less to worry about.  In the case of linux, everyone
> > having it actually makes it more secure because you've got that
> > many more people looking for bugs to fix.  The chances that the
> > person who finds the bug will be a "good guy" (tm) is that much
> > greater.  In addition, he can alert the proper people to make
> > sure the bug gets fixed.  This doesn't happen in the MS world
> > because, even if you do report a bug to MS, there isn't an
> > incentive to fix it.  They would much rather bury the story
> > and provide a fix "someday" in some obtuse service pack.
> >
> > So, anyone who says Open Source is less secure should back
> > away from kissing MS's behind and take a look at the world
> > around them.  The facts just do *not* support their position.
> >
> > Tanner
> > --
> > Tanner Lovelace | lovelace at wayfarer.org | http://wtl.wayfarer.org/
> > --*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
> > GPG Fingerprint = A66C 8660 924F 5F8C 71DA  BDD0 CE09 4F8E DE76 39D4
> > GPG Key can be found at http://wtl.wayfarer.org/lovelace.gpg.asc
> > --*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
> > Don't move! Or I'll fill ya full of... little yellow bolts of light!
> >                                 Commander John Crichton (Farscape)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TriLUG mailing list
> >     http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > TriLUG Organizational FAQ:
> >     http://www.trilug.org/~lovelace/faq/TriLUG-faq.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> TriLUG mailing list
>     http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ:
>     http://www.trilug.org/~lovelace/faq/TriLUG-faq.html
>




More information about the TriLUG mailing list