[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux stifles innovation...
    At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
    >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
    > > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
    > > to comment on it as such.
    >What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
    >than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.

    You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice,
    thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not

    Designing something differently to make it better is innovation. I suppose
    you could argue that redesigning linux every few years is innovation, but
    unfortunately its the same cast of characters doing it, so its not very


    >I don't see how having the source open removes "intelectual property",
    >except by showing that huge portions of the concept are flawed.
    > > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
    > > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
    > > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
    > > crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
    > > corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
    > > free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
    > > use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the
    > market is
    > > too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
    > > themselves", most of whom cant of course.
    >Strange. I have not heard of any problems with that driver, except for
    >issues where the original hardware vendor kept implimentation details from
    >the open source community. (Citeing "IP issues".)
    > > Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
    > > because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code.
    > The
    > > 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence
    > of that.
    >You must be looking at a different kernel.
    >I have seen little in the kernel that was "half baked". There have been
    >some things put in to test if they were good ideas. That is far different
    >than half-baked. Most of the bad ideas never get to the kernel. Linus or
    >Alan kick them out before they ever get that far.
    > > The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
    > > bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
    > > "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
    > > when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
    > > run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
    > > innovate will stay away.
    >You claim that "open source solutions are wholely inferior to closed
    >source solutions".
    >Then why does everyone run with Apache instead of IIS? Could it be that
    >IIS is a piece of crap?
    >Feature for feature I would rather use PHP 4 over ColdFusion any day.
    >Sendmail is MUCH more stable than Exchange. (Even if it has config files
    >that look like they were designed by Carlos Castanada on a bad day.) If
    >not Sendmail, there are a couple of other Open Source mail programs that
    >are much superior in quality than the closed source counterparts.
    >As for the Linux kernel being "shoddy"...
    >Since when?
    >I can leave my Linux box running over night and actually have it do
    >things! I cannot say the same for Windows. I leave that running (same
    >hardware, different OS) and it is usually dead by dawn.
    >But your argument is even more bogus than that.
    >It seems that you argument boils down to a couple of thing...
    >"Closed source is better because you pay money for it."
    >"Closed source is superior because we have a company name and you don't."
    >Sorry, but most of the people who develop Open Source are profesional
    >programmers. They just have a different motivation.
    >Open Source is motivated by pride in what you can do and a desire to help
    >others by sharing that. They don't hide behind a wall of lawyers to keep
    >people from finding out what they did wrong.
    >I found out a long time ago that most "Trade Secret" claims were bogus.
    >It was either a common technique that had been adapted to a particular
    >purpose or it was being used as an excuse to hide how bad the code really
    >But my experiences with Open Source, as well as the others I know who use
    >it are quite telling.
    >If I have a problem with an Open Source program I can look at the code and
    >fix it. Or I can report the bug and it will get fixed soon after. The
    >programmers involved put the effort into it because their name is
    >My experiences with closed source companies are not as good.
    >In many cases, I was ignored because I did not represent a fortune 500
    >company. If the problem got fixed at all, it would be months before I saw
    >it and usually in a later release that I would have to pay for. (Usually
    >having features added that I neither wanted or would ever use.) In some
    >cases (like Microsoft security bugs) it would be treated like a public
    >relations problem instead of a software and quality issue.
    >I have also seen cases where problems were buried in development because
    >"no one will find out and if they do, we will just blame Microsoft".
    >I understand your desire to make money off what you do for a living. I do
    >object to you taring what I do as somehow damaging to the software
    >industry as a whole. (Especially since the closed source software
    >industry has been poaching off the open source community for years.
    >Microsoft seeking enlightenment with WinXP is only a minor example.)
    >I don't see how hiding how something works adds value to the process.
    > | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
    >Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
    > "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.029 / U:2.468 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site