Re: Open source development dominated by corporate giants

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by AD., Mar 5, 2010.

  1. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Mar 5, 3:14 pm, "impossible" <> 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/which_white_knight_will_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
    AD., Mar 5, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Mar 5, 4:37 pm, "impossible" <> 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
    AD., Mar 5, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. AD.

    victor Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > "AD." <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mar 5, 4:37 pm, "impossible" <> 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.
    victor, Mar 6, 2010
    #3
  4. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "AD." <> 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 piss
    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
    AD., Mar 7, 2010
    #4
  5. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Mar 8, 3:19 am, "impossible" <> 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 exposé - 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
    AD., Mar 7, 2010
    #5
  6. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Mar 8, 2:26 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > > "AD." <> 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 exposé - 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
    AD., Mar 8, 2010
    #6
  7. AD.

    victor Guest

    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/which_white_knight_will_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.
    victor, Mar 8, 2010
    #7
  8. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Mar 9, 2:16 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "AD." <> 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/which_white_knight_will_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
    AD., Mar 8, 2010
    #8
  9. AD.

    AD. Guest

    On Mar 9, 2:07 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "AD." <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > On Mar 9, 2:16 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > >> "AD." <> 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
    AD., Mar 9, 2010
    #9
    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. Rick Blythin

    Open source messenger software for corporate use ?

    Rick Blythin, Jul 23, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,785
    pcbutts1
    Jul 24, 2004
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open-Source Good, Closed-Source Bad

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    446
    Gordon
    Oct 16, 2005
  3. impossible
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    420
    Biggles
    Nov 21, 2009
  4. peterwn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    302
    peterwn
    Mar 6, 2010
  5. Hamish Campbell
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    349
    victor
    Sep 20, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page