Naime, Larry McVoy, jedan od linux kernel faca, veli da se nakon 10 godina zabluda konačno opametio, te je usput proglasio open-source model ekonomski neodrživim.
http://www.forbes.com/technolo..._dl_0526linux.html?partner=rss
Citat:
"We believe if we open sourced our product, we would be out of business in six months," McVoy says. "The bottom line is you have to build a financially sound company with a well-trained staff. And those staffers like their salaries. If everything is free, how can I make enough money to keep building that product for you and supporting you?"
Citat:
"One problem with the services model is that it is based on the idea that you are giving customers crap--because if you give them software that works, what is the point of service?" McVoy says. "The other problem is that the services model doesn't generate enough revenue to support the creation of the next generation of innovative products. Red Hat has been around for a long time--for a decade now. Yet try to name one significant thing--one innovative product--that has come out of Red Hat."
Citat:
"The open source guys can scrape together enough resources to reverse engineer stuff. That's easy. It's way cheaper to reverse engineer something than to create something new. But if the world goes to 100% open source, innovation goes to zero. The open source guys hate it when I say this, but it's true."
Istina istina...i kad netko spomene da su sve open-source aplikacije koje nekog qrca valjaju klonovi komercijalnih aplikacija, svi samo kva-kva-kva, linus ovo, Tannebaum ono... :)
Recimo ReactOS i wine taj koncept reverznog inženjeringa dovode do extrema, kad se doslovno reversa asm->c onako kako je napisano.
Citat:
"It costs a huge amount of money to develop a single innovative software product. You have to have a business model that will let you recoup those costs. These arguments are exceedingly unpopular. Everyone wants everything to be free. They say, 'You're an evil corporate guy, and you don't get it.' But I'm not evil. I'm well-known in the open source community. But none of them can show me how to build a software-development house and fund it off open source revenue. My claim is it can't be done."
Citat:
And though open source software may be "free," sometimes you get what you pay for, McVoy says. "Open source software is like handing you a doctor's bag and the architectural plans for a hospital and saying, 'Hey dude, if you have a heart attack, here are all the tools you need--and it's free,'" McVoy says. "I'd rather pay someone to take care of me."
And so would I :>
Citat:
"Nobody wants to admit that most of the money funding open source development, maybe 80% to 90%, is coming from companies that are not open source companies themselves. What happens when these sponsors go away and there is not enough money floating around? Where is innovation going to come from? Is the government going to fund it? This stuff is expensive."
"If hardware companies stopped funding development, I think it would dramatically damage the pace at which Linux is being developed. It would be pretty darn close to a nuclear bomb going off," McVoy says.
I da konačno poentiramo:
Citat:
McVoy says he believes the software industry will reach some kind of balance between open source and traditional software companies. Open source companies will make commodity knockoffs and eke out tiny profits, while traditional "closed source" companies will develop innovative products and earn fatter profits.
Citat:
Heretical as this may seem, McVoy wants to be on the side that innovates and makes money
Poor guy, sad kad više nije "good open-source citizen", javno će ga linčovati...corporate slut...profiteering gluttons....joj kad bi barem ovakvi ljudi objavljivali glupe mailove koje prime da se ostali mogu malo smijati :)
Dakle, uvjerite me o zealoti, zašto bi neka kompanija X otvorila izvorni kod svog nekog produkta? Za početak bih želio reći da kategorija "spao bi na prosjački štap, ali *" ne dolazi u obzir.
