Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Open source development dominated by corporate giants

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Open source development dominated by corporate giants

 
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-05-2010
On Mar 5, 3:14*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Oracle is already the #1 purveyor of open source software.
>
> http://www.daniweb.com/news/story264921.html
>
> IBM is #2 and in the running now to buy out Novell.
>
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/15693...ll_save_novell
>
> And corporate-funded development accounts for the lion's share of new linux
> code development.
>
> http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm
>
> So much for the myth that open source development benefits the little guy..


How does that development not benefit the little guy?

What you probably meant to say is...

So much for the myth that "open source development is all done by
geeks in their parents basements".

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-05-2010
On Mar 5, 4:37*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> IBM and Oracle help the little guy how exactly? By leveraging their global
> networks, their abundant cash reserves, and their economies of scale to
> secure the most lucrative contracts? Yeah, right.


The little guy isn't going to win any contract IBM or Oracle would be
competing in anyway. The kind of customer that considers IBM or Oracle
ain't going to be hiring 'little guys' full stop.

But the little guy gets to take advantage of their contributions to
the infrastructure they use.

eg Xen was at the forefront of creating low cost virtual private
server industry, and Oracle is a big contributor to Xen. The same goes
for any open source development a large corporate contributes to - the
little guys get to use the code for themselves. How is that not
helping the little guy?

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2010
whoisthis wrote:
> In article
> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 5, 4:37 pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> IBM and Oracle help the little guy how exactly? By leveraging their global
>>> networks, their abundant cash reserves, and their economies of scale to
>>> secure the most lucrative contracts? Yeah, right.

>> The little guy isn't going to win any contract IBM or Oracle would be
>> competing in anyway. The kind of customer that considers IBM or Oracle
>> ain't going to be hiring 'little guys' full stop.
>>
>> But the little guy gets to take advantage of their contributions to
>> the infrastructure they use.
>>
>> eg Xen was at the forefront of creating low cost virtual private
>> server industry, and Oracle is a big contributor to Xen. The same goes
>> for any open source development a large corporate contributes to - the
>> little guys get to use the code for themselves. How is that not
>> helping the little guy?
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Anton

>
> Because the big guys are interested in big jobs, ie they have zero
> interest in the home user. Equally the thrust of where they will make
> money will come from PAID support, so less emphasis will be placed on
> ease of use.



Sure, the small time users get the windfalls from a system that allows
the big guys to co-operate.
Thats always been the way with open source unix, hobbyists and
universities get to use industrial scale products, core stuff thats a
bit clunky and over-engineered but servicable.
Thats the core of your shiny Mac OSX, built on a windfall from room
sized institutional big iron, now with a slick designer skin.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2010
On Mar 6, 2:40*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > eg Xen was at the forefront of creating low cost virtual private
> > server industry, and Oracle is a big contributor to Xen. The same goes
> > for any open source development a large corporate contributes to - the
> > little guys get to use the code for themselves. How is that not
> > helping the little guy?

>
> Sounds an awful lot like open-source imperialism to me.
>
> "My, but the natives do seem to enjoy those bits of code we left them!"


Oh dear. I know you're trying your best, but that really was one ****
poor attempt at trolling.

Hint: trolls work best if they have a veneer of subtly warped reality
- just enough to incense others to leap in with their righteous
indignation. If laughter or pity is the response (eg with Woger), it
really didn't work very well.

Keep trying, you've done much better in the past. I'm sure it's only a
temporary setback.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2010
On Mar 8, 3:19*am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Clearly, I've struck a nerve.


Yeah, my funny bone. Except it was barely perceptible.

> *I can tell, because you first had to doctor
> my post by censoring out the part where you claim that giant corporations
> like IBM and Oracle "help the little guy" and where I *expose that claim as
> utter nonsense.


I must've missed that exposť - could you repeat it. I look forward to
hearing it. I suspect I'll be waiting though - you never back that
kind of stuff up.

In your first post you claimed that because the big guys contribute to
open source that it is a myth that open source development benefits
the little guy. Correct?

When called on that logical fallacy, you didn't even answer the
example of how their development contributions help little guys - you
just sidestepped into some irrelevant point about sales networks and
winning contracts. What has that got to do with open source
development contributions?

> If you'[re going to talk like an IBM spinmeister, be prepared to defend that
> shite


Spinmeister? You're making stuff up and grasping for straws again. IBM
and Oracle are IMO dinosaurs whose clunky proprietary products and
services typically offer extremely poor value for money.

They couldn't compete with the little guys if they tried, and they
don't even want to.

> *IBM and Oracle clearly do have imperialist designs on the market for
> open source wares, and they clearly have suckered in wannabes like yourself
> to imagine that this is really all a part of some grand design to "help the
> little guy".


What "grand design to help the little guy"? These are all your own
strawmen - nobody else has suggested that.

The big guys contribute because it benefits them. That doesn't stop
the little guys benefiting though - it isn't a zero sum game.

How about citing some examples to bolster your dribble?

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
On Mar 8, 2:26*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> Clearly, I've struck a nerve.

>
> > Yeah, my funny bone. Except it was barely perceptible.

>
> Like I said, I've clearly struck a nerve.


Come on, you must have a better reply somewhere than that childish
retort. Your troll-fu is still escaping you.

>
> > I can tell, because you first had to doctor
> >> my post by censoring out the part where you claim that giant corporations
> >> like IBM and Oracle "help the little guy" and where I *expose that claim
> >> as
> >> utter nonsense.

>
> > I must've missed that exposť - could you repeat it.

>
> See above. I've restored the part of my post that you keep deleting.
>
> > I look forward to hearing it. I suspect I'll be waiting though - you never
> > back that
> > kind of stuff up.

>
> > In your first post you claimed that because the big guys contribute to
> > open source that it is a myth that open source development benefits
> > the little guy. Correct?

>
> No. Which is why you should stop censoring my posts and respond to what I
> actually say, not some convenient caricature that better suits your frail
> intellect.


Bollox. It was _exactly_ what you said in your first post.

You included some links that talk about how the big guys contribute to
open source development, then you said "So much for the myth that open
source development benefits the little guy."

How is that different? Why don't you actually explain the difference
instead of hiding behind your lame old excuse about snipping. Its
alway obvious when you're losing an argument - you'll complain about
quoting.

>
> > When called on that logical fallacy, you didn't even answer the
> > example of how their development contributions help little guys - you
> > just sidestepped into some irrelevant point about sales networks and
> > winning contracts. What has that got to do with open source
> > development contributions?

>
> If you re-read what you censored from my previous post, you'll clearly see
> that I explained how corporate giants like IBM and Oracle dominatre the
> market for open sources wares, by *"leveraging their global networks, their
> abundant cash reserves, and their economies of scale to secure the most
> lucrative contracts". Your reply was that small businesses don't compete
> with corporate giants, and I replied, "exactly".


And that was exactly my point. The little guys don't compete with the
big guys anyway, so are immune to their global networks, cash reserves
and economies of scale.

Likewise the prices of the big guys are so far above what the little
guys customers could pay, that they can't compete for the little guys
customers.

>
> You then when on to celebrate the great gift that corpororate giants
> presumably make to small business in the form of open source code
> contributions -- an idea I lampooned as "open source imperialism". And
> yes -- my, oh my, oh my, did that ever strike a nerve!


Yeah right - the only reaction was to your loony idea of what
imperialism actually is. If your trolling was better you could've come
up with much better retorts than that.

It's almost as if you read the word somewhere and spent days looking
for an opportunity to use it.

>
> >> If you'[re going to talk like an IBM spinmeister, be prepared to defend
> >> that
> >> shite.

> > Spinmeister? You're making stuff up and grasping for straws again. IBM
> > and Oracle are IMO dinosaurs whose clunky proprietary products and
> > services typically offer extremely poor value for money.

>
> > They couldn't compete with the little guys if they tried, and they
> > don't even want to.

>
> Ok, so now you think IBM is a loser????


Yawn. Very weak trolling effort there.

> How then do youi imagine that they help small busineses?


Maybe if I spell it out...

1) The big guys contribute (out of their own self interest) some code
that improves an open source project.

2) A small business is then able to use that code for free to improve
their own operations/capabilities.

3) Or if they aren't technical enough to use the code themselves, they
can use a service provider who has used that code for free to improve
their services.

Was that too complicated for you?

> > The big guys contribute because it benefits them. That doesn't stop
> > the little guys benefiting though - it isn't a zero sum game.

>
> > How about citing some examples to bolster your dribble?

>
> Winning and losing contracts is, indeed, a zero sum game. Some win, some
> lose. Or perhaps you have in mind some profit-sharing arrangement within the
> "open source comunity" that I'm not aware of. Is that it?


Huh?

Your original quote was about "open source development" not some
contract market place. You only changed your tune after you got called
on it.

>
> Fact is, four-out-of-five small businesses fail within their first year, and
> a large percentage of the remainder fail within the first five years. Why
> because of exactly what I said -- the power of coprorate giants to leverage
> global networks, vast cash reserves, and economies of scale. If you're just
> being naive to think that small business has an advantage, that's one thing.
> But if you think that you actually have some evidence that small business
> gains from the increasing dominance of open source developemnt by IBM *and
> Oracle, then let's see it.


There are plenty of examples of how small business can take advantage
of those code contributions. And you haven't offered any evidence that
competition from the likes of IBM or Oracle is a threat to the average
small business.

Your argument only becomes concrete if most small businesses are
somehow competing with Oracle and IBM for the same contracts. You even
admitted that they don't compete anyway - so you just invalidated your
own argument.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
impossible wrote:

>
> The subject of this threrad is crystal clear:
>
> "Open source development dominated by corporate giants"
>
> I didn't say that IBM, Oracle, and others "contribute" to open source
> development, I said they now **dominate** the entire oppen-source
> development process. And that's a fact


No its just your opinion.
Corporations participate in open source development because its good
business. They aren't altruistic, which I think might be your point, but
who can tell ?
Your own reference shows the relative contributions to the kernel from
Oracle and IBM. 3% and 6%
That means that there is 97% of the kernel that Oracle didn't have to
pay for in return for making additions that make it more suitable for
their own purposes.
They could "dominate" if they headhunted all of the kernel developers,
there are only 250 of them after all.


>
> Quote:
>
> Oracle is already the #1 purveyor of open source software.
>
> <http://www.daniweb.com/news/story264921.html


Just some bloggers opinion, no figures, a whole lot of irrelevance, read
the comments.

>
> IBM is #2 and in the running now to buy out Novell.
>
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/15693...ll_save_novell
>
> And corporate-funded development accounts for the lion's share of new linux
> code development.
>
> http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm
>
>

It provides a good return on investment in other words, and the GPL
protects each participants contribution from misappropriation which
could exclude them from future developments of their own work.
The aim of the GPL is to protect the integrity of the engineering
regardless of the sources of funding of the participants.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2010
On Mar 9, 2:16*am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> <shakes head>
>
> Again you've doctored my post. Again I've had to restore what you censored.
> What's your problem exactly?


Ah yes, the predictable refrain of the impossitroll not being able to
back up it's baseless assertions.

You ain't going to be able to fight decades of established trimming
nettiquette backed up by RFCs just by stamping your feet and crying.

> The subject of this threrad is crystal clear:
>
> "Open source development dominated by corporate giants"


And so was your baseless assertion in the first post that:

"So much for the myth that open source development benefits the little
guy."

You have yet to respond to any counter example showing that it isn't a
myth.

> I didn't say that IBM, Oracle, and others "contribute" to open source
> development, I said they now **dominate** the entire oppen-source
> development process. And that's a fact
>
> Quote:
>
> Oracle is already the #1 purveyor of open source software.
>
> <http://www.daniweb.com/news/story264921.html


That article lists about 20 projects Oracle is involved with (wow
that's a huge percentage of open source development). Roughly 10 of
those it just inherited from Sun, and is now wondering what to do
with. The rest are mostly ones that Oracle is a lessor contributor, or
clones that Oracle has just forked off another project. Some of those
projects are pretty obscure too.

Nothing in that article is close to supporting your assertions.


>
> IBM is #2 and in the running now to buy out Novell.
>
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/15693...ll_save_novell


That article is a bloggers speculation about other buyers for Novell,
and doesn't mention anything about IBM being #2.

You get all upset when Larry bases outlandish arguments on blogger
speculation. Why the hypocrisy?

>
> And corporate-funded development accounts for the lion's share of new linux
> code development.
>
> http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm


Ah, so suddenly Linux kernel development becomes ALL of open source
development. You're conveniently ignoring the majority of open source
development that goes on without much corporate involvement.

Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any overall dominance by corporates
going on with the kernel. It all seems rather balanced and
cooperative. From your article:

"Within that field, Red Hat topped that chart with 12%, followed by
Intel with 8%, IBM and Novell with 6% each, and Oracle 3%. Despite the
clear commercial rivalry between those players, central kernel
development worked well, Corbet noted."

None of them control Linus who gets the final say on everything, so
you're not doing a good job showing how this "dominance" is a bad
thing hurting the little guy.

All it shows is that these corporates are contributing code to the
Linux kernel.

In fact the little guy gets to have all that work for free - without
having to be dominated or subjected to control from those corporations
at all.

You made a couple of false assertions, and have done nothing to back
them up or counter the real evidence disproving your assertions. The
articles you quote don't even make your point. The rest of the thread
was just your attempts to twist out of providing evidence by bringing
up irrelevant cliches and silly analogies.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-09-2010
On Mar 9, 2:07*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > On Mar 9, 2:16 am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> <shakes head>

>
> >> Again you've doctored my post. Again I've had to restore what you
> >> censored.
> >> What's your problem exactly?

>
> > Ah yes, ...

>
> We're done, scumbag.


Oh well, at least let me thank you for trimming the stuff you weren't
replying to.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Closed Source Development Dominated by Corporate Giants peterwn NZ Computing 0 03-06-2010 01:02 AM
off topic: 2 videos on source control and open source development Aaron Watters Python 0 03-08-2008 10:13 PM
Open source messenger software for corporate use ? Rick Blythin Computer Support 3 07-24-2004 12:04 AM
Quotes from digital giants (#1) George Preddy Digital Photography 2 12-18-2003 10:36 PM
Quotes from digital giants (#2) George Preddy Digital Photography 1 12-18-2003 05:06 PM



Advertisments