An example of why Closed Source just doesn't work

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 25, 2005.

  1. Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    by many others.

    A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.

    <http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032_3-1011356.html
    >
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Mr Scebe Guest

    "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    > for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    > by many others.
    >
    > A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    > has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    > consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.


    Bizarre. So you're completely neglecting the fact that a closed-source
    software company managed to nix the competition, just because it doesn't fit
    with your dogma?

    --
    Mr Scebe
    "Hanging on in quiet, desperation is the English way"
    ~ Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon
     
    Mr Scebe, Jun 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:19:50 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    <_zealand> spoke these fine words:

    >Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    >for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    >by many others.
    >
    >A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    >has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    >consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    >
    ><http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032_3-1011356.html
    >>


    Is this the end of Netscape?
    Published: May 29, 2003, 3:34 PM PDT

    News travels fast on the Internet, doesn't it...
     
    H.O.G, Jun 25, 2005
    #3
  4. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Shane Guest

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:29:19 +1200, H.O.G wrote:

    > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:19:50 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> spoke these fine words:
    >
    >>Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    >>for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    >>by many others.
    >>
    >>A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    >>has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    >>consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    >>
    >><http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032_3-1011356.html
    >>>

    >
    > Is this the end of Netscape?
    > Published: May 29, 2003, 3:34 PM PDT
    >
    > News travels fast on the Internet, doesn't it...


    could be worse... could be a story from 2002
    --
    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

    The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.
     
    Shane, Jun 25, 2005
    #4
  5. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    shannon Guest

    Mr Scebe wrote:

    > "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    >>for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    >>by many others.
    >>
    >>A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    >>has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    >>consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.

    >
    >
    > Bizarre. So you're completely neglecting the fact that a closed-source
    > software company managed to nix the competition, just because it doesn't fit
    > with your dogma?
    >


    what fact ?
     
    shannon, Jun 26, 2005
    #5
  6. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Peter Guest

    H.O.G wrote:

    > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:19:50 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> spoke these fine words:


    >><http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032_3-1011356.html
    >>>

    >
    > Is this the end of Netscape?
    > Published: May 29, 2003, 3:34 PM PDT
    >
    > News travels fast on the Internet, doesn't it...

    Note too that Enderle does not seem to be a true journalist but a spin
    doctor who writes 'news' articles for those who come up with the money.
     
    Peter, Jun 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    thing Guest

    Mr Scebe wrote:
    > "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    >>for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    >>by many others.
    >>
    >>A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    >>has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    >>consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.

    >
    >
    > Bizarre. So you're completely neglecting the fact that a closed-source


    Nothing closed source I can see about it...

    > software company managed to nix the competition, just because it doesn't fit
    > with your dogma?
    >


    Lets see, MS gives away its web browser for free, so in effect MS does
    an open source on Netscape.......destroying its business model........

    Rather anti-trust dont you think?

    Now Linux is doing an open source on MS, poetic justice maybe?

    Given MS's history of being the cheapest OS and only just good enough
    (lets not forget how awful windows 1.0, and 2 were with 3.0 being almost
    usable) they should be able to understand first hand the threat they
    face from a lower cost OS to their desktop monopoly.........

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Jun 27, 2005
    #7
  8. On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:19:50 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    >for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    >by many others.
    >
    >A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    >has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    >consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    >
    ><http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032_3-1011356.html


    hahahabullshit
    what a load of rubbish
     
    FreedomChooser, Jun 27, 2005
    #8
  9. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Rob J Guest

    In article <> in nz.comp on Sat,
    25 Jun 2005 22:19:50 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    > Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    > for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    > by many others.
    >
    > A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    > has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    > consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    >
    > <http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032_3-1011356.html


    Oh rubbish.

    Who is making money out of open source software? Proportionately fewer
    organisations than those making money out of proprietary, that's for
    sure.
     
    Rob J, Jun 28, 2005
    #9
  10. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Rob J Guest

    In article <42bfc0a2$> in nz.comp on Mon, 27 Jun 2005
    21:02:06 +1200, thing <> says...
    > Mr Scebe wrote:
    > > "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >
    > >>Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    > >>for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    > >>by many others.
    > >>
    > >>A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    > >>has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    > >>consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.

    > >
    > >
    > > Bizarre. So you're completely neglecting the fact that a closed-source

    >
    > Nothing closed source I can see about it...
    >
    > > software company managed to nix the competition, just because it doesn't fit
    > > with your dogma?
    > >

    >
    > Lets see, MS gives away its web browser for free, so in effect MS does
    > an open source on Netscape.......destroying its business model........
    >
    > Rather anti-trust dont you think?
    >
    > Now Linux is doing an open source on MS, poetic justice maybe?
    >
    > Given MS's history of being the cheapest OS and only just good enough
    > (lets not forget how awful windows 1.0, and 2 were with 3.0 being almost
    > usable) they should be able to understand first hand the threat they
    > face from a lower cost OS to their desktop monopoly.........


    There is no monopoly and never has been.

    Historical comparisons of old versions of Windows are irrelevant.
     
    Rob J, Jun 28, 2005
    #10
  11. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Shane Guest


    > Who is making money out of open source software? Proportionately fewer
    > organisations than those making money out of proprietary, that's for
    > sure.


    Is money the way to measure an operating system/applications???
    Universitys that are involved in open source gain by showing thier
    students the internals of a working program, that is current.
    Third world countries gain with open source because they can take existing
    programs and customise them how they wish for thier own ends... with no
    crippling license fees
    We specced a server for a client recently who was using a *nix server on
    medium to low end hardware, total current cost ~8-10,000, they wanted to
    use some program (I forget which) that required excel.
    After the costs of new hardware, new OS licenses for that hardware, and
    Office subscriptions, they were looking down the barrel at 55,000
    whos making money? not the customer, his small to medium buisness was
    losing valuable capital, and we stood to gain nothing to install it.


    --
    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

    The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.
     
    Shane, Jun 28, 2005
    #11
  12. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Shane Guest


    > We specced a server for a client recently who was using a *nix server on
    > medium to low end hardware, total current cost ~8-10,000, they wanted to
    > use some program (I forget which) that required excel.
    > After the costs of new hardware, new OS licenses for that hardware, and
    > Office subscriptions, they were looking down the barrel at 55,000
    > whos making money? not the customer, his small to medium buisness was
    > losing valuable capital, and we stood to gain nothing to install it.


    actually I should be more clear, what sparked it all off was our client
    had found some proggy he wanted to install, that proggy required excel,
    and I forget but may have required windows server side (most likely), had
    the programmers made the code open source we might have been able to at
    the very least drop its requirement for excel, instead they lost the
    contract


    --
    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

    The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.
     
    Shane, Jun 28, 2005
    #12
  13. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    shannon Guest

    Rob J wrote:

    > In article <> in nz.comp on Sat,
    > 25 Jun 2005 22:19:50 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    >
    >>Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    >>for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    >>by many others.
    >>
    >>A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    >>has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    >>consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    >>
    >><http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032_3-1011356.html

    >
    >
    > Oh rubbish.
    >
    > Who is making money out of open source software? Proportionately fewer
    > organisations than those making money out of proprietary, that's for
    > sure.


    People are making money from open source software by using it.
    Apple makes money by using samba apache cups darwin etc. Some of their
    own developers make improvements and contribute that code back
    The oss developers don't have to maintain marketing and distribution and
    licensing.
    The open source code allows a number of stakeholders to participate in
    development without sharing any business risks.
    Developers core open source projects have their time paid for by
    stakeholders.
    So do developers in closed source corporations, its a myth that they get
    for what they write, they get paid salaries derived from licence fees,
    they are another overhead to be maintained or contracted out.
    Apple has shown how open source components can function satisfactorily
    alongside proprietary components without any of the 'viral' effects that
    Microsoft and other GPL detractors were bleating about.
    The size and popularity of Microsoft is irrelevant to the utility of the
    open source development model. Indeed the most popular open source
    software runs on proprietary operating systems.
     
    shannon, Jun 28, 2005
    #13
  14. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Allistar Guest

    Rob J wrote:

    > In article <> in nz.comp on Sat,
    > 25 Jun 2005 22:19:50 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    >> Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    >> for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    >> by many others.
    >>
    >> A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    >> has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    >> consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    >>
    >> <http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032_3-1011356.html

    >
    > Oh rubbish.
    >
    > Who is making money out of open source software? Proportionately fewer
    > organisations than those making money out of proprietary, that's for
    > sure.


    Perhaps you should be asking: "Who is *saving* money by using open source
    software". The answer is most likely "every company that uses it".

    Open source souftware is not a business model. It is not there solely for
    money to be made. It does go a great way to helping companies save money
    though.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Jun 28, 2005
    #14
  15. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Allistar Guest

    Rob J wrote:

    > In article <42bfc0a2$> in nz.comp on Mon, 27 Jun 2005
    > 21:02:06 +1200, thing <> says...
    >> Mr Scebe wrote:
    >> > "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >> > message news:...
    >> >
    >> >>Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    >> >>for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    >> >>by many others.
    >> >>
    >> >>A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    >> >>has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free,
    >> >>and consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Bizarre. So you're completely neglecting the fact that a closed-source

    >>
    >> Nothing closed source I can see about it...
    >>
    >> > software company managed to nix the competition, just because it
    >> > doesn't fit with your dogma?
    >> >

    >>
    >> Lets see, MS gives away its web browser for free, so in effect MS does
    >> an open source on Netscape.......destroying its business model........
    >>
    >> Rather anti-trust dont you think?
    >>
    >> Now Linux is doing an open source on MS, poetic justice maybe?
    >>
    >> Given MS's history of being the cheapest OS and only just good enough
    >> (lets not forget how awful windows 1.0, and 2 were with 3.0 being almost
    >> usable) they should be able to understand first hand the threat they
    >> face from a lower cost OS to their desktop monopoly.........

    >
    > There is no monopoly and never has been.


    How can you say there is no monopoly when they were convicted of illegally
    abusing theirs?

    > Historical comparisons of old versions of Windows are irrelevant.


    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Jun 28, 2005
    #15
  16. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Rob J Guest

    In article <> in nz.comp on Wed, 29 Jun 2005
    10:56:48 +1200, Allistar <> says...
    > Rob J wrote:
    >
    > > In article <42bfc0a2$> in nz.comp on Mon, 27 Jun 2005
    > > 21:02:06 +1200, thing <> says...
    > >> Mr Scebe wrote:
    > >> > "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > >> > message news:...
    > >> >
    > >> >>Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    > >> >>for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    > >> >>by many others.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    > >> >>has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free,
    > >> >>and consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > Bizarre. So you're completely neglecting the fact that a closed-source
    > >>
    > >> Nothing closed source I can see about it...
    > >>
    > >> > software company managed to nix the competition, just because it
    > >> > doesn't fit with your dogma?
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Lets see, MS gives away its web browser for free, so in effect MS does
    > >> an open source on Netscape.......destroying its business model........
    > >>
    > >> Rather anti-trust dont you think?
    > >>
    > >> Now Linux is doing an open source on MS, poetic justice maybe?
    > >>
    > >> Given MS's history of being the cheapest OS and only just good enough
    > >> (lets not forget how awful windows 1.0, and 2 were with 3.0 being almost
    > >> usable) they should be able to understand first hand the threat they
    > >> face from a lower cost OS to their desktop monopoly.........

    > >
    > > There is no monopoly and never has been.

    >
    > How can you say there is no monopoly when they were convicted of illegally
    > abusing theirs?


    The fact is that Windows does not and has never had a desktop monopoly.

    Perhaps you'd like to cite a reference to your claim.
     
    Rob J, Jun 29, 2005
    #16
  17. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Rob J Guest

    In article <42c1c9ff$> in nz.comp on Wed, 29 Jun 2005
    10:06:25 +1200, shannon <> says...
    > Rob J wrote:
    >
    > > In article <> in nz.comp on Sat,
    > > 25 Jun 2005 22:19:50 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    > > central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    > >
    > >>Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    > >>for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    > >>by many others.
    > >>
    > >>A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    > >>has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    > >>consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    > >>
    > >><http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032_3-1011356.html

    > >
    > >
    > > Oh rubbish.
    > >
    > > Who is making money out of open source software? Proportionately fewer
    > > organisations than those making money out of proprietary, that's for
    > > sure.

    >
    > People are making money from open source software by using it.


    That you know very well is not what was being referred to.
     
    Rob J, Jun 29, 2005
    #17
  18. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    shannon Guest

    Rob J wrote:

    > In article <42c1c9ff$> in nz.comp on Wed, 29 Jun 2005
    > 10:06:25 +1200, shannon <> says...
    >
    >>Rob J wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article <> in nz.comp on Sat,
    >>>25 Jun 2005 22:19:50 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    >>>central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    >>>>for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    >>>>by many others.
    >>>>
    >>>>A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    >>>>has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    >>>>consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    >>>>
    >>>><http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032_3-1011356.html
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Oh rubbish.
    >>>
    >>>Who is making money out of open source software? Proportionately fewer
    >>>organisations than those making money out of proprietary, that's for
    >>>sure.

    >>
    >>People are making money from open source software by using it.

    >
    >
    > That you know very well is not what was being referred to.
    >


    Are you suggesting that Microsoft makes money out of their browser
    because its proprietary ?
     
    shannon, Jun 29, 2005
    #18
  19. In article <>,
    Rob J <> wrote:

    >In article <> in nz.comp on Wed, 29 Jun 2005
    >10:56:48 +1200, Allistar <> says...
    >
    >> How can you say there is no monopoly when they were convicted of illegally
    >> abusing theirs?

    >
    >The fact is that Windows does not and has never had a desktop monopoly.
    >
    >Perhaps you'd like to cite a reference to your claim.


    The case heard by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. His remedies were
    overturned by the higher court, but his findings of fact--that Microsoft
    was a monopoly, and had illegally abused its monopoly position--were not.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 29, 2005
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    Rob J <> wrote:

    >In article <> in nz.comp on Sat,
    >25 Jun 2005 22:19:50 +1200, Lawrence D1Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    >central.gen.new zealand> says...
    >> Just one example of someone coming to realize that producing stuff not
    >> for free doesn't put food on the table, and will be taken advantage of
    >> by many others.
    >>
    >> A bitter old software company, realizing too late that its life's work
    >> has amounted to very little because it didn't give it away for free, and
    >> consequently does not have a nest egg for its retirement.
    >>
    >> <http://news.com.com/Is this the end of Netscape/2100-1032 3-1011356.html

    >
    >Who is making money out of open source software? Proportionately fewer
    >organisations than those making money out of proprietary, that's for
    >sure.


    I don't think you can cite any evidence to back up that claim.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 29, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rich
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    408
    John Turco
    Jan 27, 2007
  2. H.O.G
    Replies:
    53
    Views:
    1,463
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    Jun 29, 2005
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open-Source Good, Closed-Source Bad

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    495
    Gordon
    Oct 16, 2005
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Closed-Source vs Open-Source Drivers

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 4, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    536
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    May 5, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open Source vs Closed Source Security

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 3, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,013
    Gordon
    Mar 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page