Bill Hilf, General Manager of Platform Strategy for Microsoft, had some interesting things to say about the world of open source technology as he sees it in this day and age.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Debunking Open Source Mythology?
- Thread starter Rich Tate
- Start date
I think HE is the one that needs to go back and do some research.
Sure, there are a lot of big and small companies involved in making open source software what it is, but there's thousands of individuals contributing too.
If the end product of a software development team from one of these big companies is released under an open source type of license, does that make it any less open source?
Open source is alive and well.
Sure, there are a lot of big and small companies involved in making open source software what it is, but there's thousands of individuals contributing too.
If the end product of a software development team from one of these big companies is released under an open source type of license, does that make it any less open source?
Open source is alive and well.
I can see it from the guy's point of view, but I still wouldn't go as far as to say that Linux doesn't exist anymore because like tremor said, there are still people freely using and freely contributing to linux/open source. It's just that many of these larger groups are becoming more commercial-like.
This guy is on drug.
Sure there are companies that have interests in Open Source software. It's normal, some specialize in consulting services others offer modified "enhanced" versions but the bottom line is these software are free with most of the time a large community that offer help and support.
As for his Linux statement, it's laughable because as it stands today there are more than 350 Linux distro which are are mostly free.
Seriously, who cares if IBM has interest in lets say Linux because they use it in some of their hardware. If they add software to it the whole community benefit from it.
Sure there are companies that have interests in Open Source software. It's normal, some specialize in consulting services others offer modified "enhanced" versions but the bottom line is these software are free with most of the time a large community that offer help and support.
As for his Linux statement, it's laughable because as it stands today there are more than 350 Linux distro which are are mostly free.
Seriously, who cares if IBM has interest in lets say Linux because they use it in some of their hardware. If they add software to it the whole community benefit from it.
I agree with him, its the "closed source" thats paying for the open source, or atleast parts of it and also making it as successful at it is.
Allt these developers do need to pay bills etc , and most do have jobs in the IT industry.
But it is not a clear white and black scenaro, but the real romantic "open source" developer that wants to stick it to the "man" is probably not as common as most open source friends wants to think.
Its probably very hard to run a free initiative beyond a certain point, as when ur user base grows so does the demands on support,predictability,liability and all the things that make commercial software the choice of the masses..
Allt these developers do need to pay bills etc , and most do have jobs in the IT industry.
But it is not a clear white and black scenaro, but the real romantic "open source" developer that wants to stick it to the "man" is probably not as common as most open source friends wants to think.
Its probably very hard to run a free initiative beyond a certain point, as when ur user base grows so does the demands on support,predictability,liability and all the things that make commercial software the choice of the masses..
Unperson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,826
No matter who makes the software, whether it's IBM or Ubuntu, Microsoft or an independent developer, if it's released under an open source license than it is open source. Period. Just because it is backed by a large company does not mean it is a commercial product.
He mentioned Ubuntu as a commercial backer. However Ubuntu doesn't charge a single penny for their software. Just because they are a company, does that make their free, open-source application any less free / open source?
"Open Soruce" and "Free Software" (2 different but related movements) were not developed to "stick it to the man" but rather to create a free platform that users can provide services and other applications on. While the "Free Software movement" was more of a hippy-esque idealist / philosophical concept rather than Open Source which is purely practical, it never required that contributors live a life of poverty and never make a dime. The idea was to make money on services, not software. And consultants like Linus Torvalds do exactly this.
It seems this guy is merely using a straw-man ♥♥♥, in saying that since people are making money on Linux. Yes, they are making money, but again, by providing services, support, and 3rd party software rather than selling the OS itself.
He mentioned Ubuntu as a commercial backer. However Ubuntu doesn't charge a single penny for their software. Just because they are a company, does that make their free, open-source application any less free / open source?
"Open Soruce" and "Free Software" (2 different but related movements) were not developed to "stick it to the man" but rather to create a free platform that users can provide services and other applications on. While the "Free Software movement" was more of a hippy-esque idealist / philosophical concept rather than Open Source which is purely practical, it never required that contributors live a life of poverty and never make a dime. The idea was to make money on services, not software. And consultants like Linus Torvalds do exactly this.
It seems this guy is merely using a straw-man ♥♥♥, in saying that since people are making money on Linux. Yes, they are making money, but again, by providing services, support, and 3rd party software rather than selling the OS itself.
Free Software is about Freedom, not things being gratis. If he's talking about money and not freedom, he's just building a strawman.
Pretty much no-one holds the position that free software and commercial interest in said software are polar opposites.
It's just MS wanting to muddle the waters and make their customers forget about the freedom aspect. They do this probably because many of their customers, somewhat misguidedly, also believe Free Software is about money.
Pretty much no-one holds the position that free software and commercial interest in said software are polar opposites.
It's just MS wanting to muddle the waters and make their customers forget about the freedom aspect. They do this probably because many of their customers, somewhat misguidedly, also believe Free Software is about money.
Linux hasn't, won't, and can't just "disappear" in 2007 and the corporations backing it are inconsequential. I have used Linux for many years and have been happy about my experience in utilizing free software and open source applications. Unfortunately the fact that this man is related to Microsoft tends to tarnish his credibility and just about make any statement made about Open Source or that of similar ilk a statement that leans pro Microsoft. There is no "Sticking it to the man" there is no "Free Tibet" sort of fluff going on here it is merely a movement of propagating knowledge without cost and whilst commercial entities continue to provide distributions they stress the fact that "You are paying for support no product." We'll see how he feels as Linux continues to storm the IT World and provide viable options that aren't related to a half finished product that requires fourteen service packs to run correctly.