|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: OSS really ? |
| Date: |
01/07/2003 04:29:39 PM |
| From: |
Dimitri Rotow |
|
|
>
> In fact OSS development is not necessarily chaotic or random - some of
> the most successful OSS projects have highly intricate software
> development processes and structures. Have a look at the Apache, PHP,
> Mozilla, or OpenOffice projects to name a few. These are highly
> structured teams that have implemented very robust software development
> methodologies to ensure high quality products are developed.
>
Very true. However, that's not characteristic of most OSS work - it's the
exception. Further, even in the very best OSS efforts one sees both a high
degree of subsidy and private organizational control (like AOL's effort,
which distorts the objectives) and also one rarely sees the same level of
structure and team integration that are found in the private development
organizations with which they compete. Two or three examples out of
thousands do not a trend make.
> As for why smart businesses will sometimes get involved in OSS -
> remember the IT business isn't all about software license sales. There
> are MANY more ways to make money then just through licenses. AOL wanted
> to reduce their dependence on Microsoft Internet Explorer so they formed
> the Mozilla project to create an Open Source browser. Because of this
Let's not get too far afield here. It was Mosaic many years ago that was
effectively the real Open Source browser, and it is really Mosaic that is
for the most part what is still pretty much the face of all browsers.
People have added trimmings but have not really reinvented browsers. It is
more accurate to say that Mozilla and Netscape and IE are all derived from
Mosaic.
Mosaic, in turn, was created by government and university (mostly
government) funded workers. As the Help - About screen says on IE: "Based on
NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM): was developed at the National Center for
Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign."
> decision, Netscape (based on Mozilla) is 10 times the product it used to
> be and will soon (if not already) replace IE as the base for the AOL
> Browser millions around the world will be using. AOL can now much
> better manage their user's experience instead of on their arch-rival
> Microsoft. A savy business decision if you ask me.
>
Actually, it appears that AOL is failing after a string of catostrophically
poor business decisions and the most likely future scenario is that millions
of AOL customers worldwide will be transitioning to IE as part of their
transition to MSN. One of those poor business decisions appears to be AOL's
foolish decision to try to monetarize a public domain program (Netscape,
which for browser function is indistinguishable from Mosaic in the eyes of
the masses) as a competitive advantage against Microsoft. After losing a
few billion attempting that foolish maneuver they gave up and went open
source, as if that would somehow help them monetarize it. That hasn't
worked either. Just imagine what they might have accomplished had they
invested their time and money into providing a better service for their
customers, such as not missing the boat on the great broadband rollout.
> Sun Microsystems recognized that Star Office in it's original
> incarnation wasn't going anywhere so what happened? They released the
What happened is they gave up. They knew they weren't going to make money
with it so they turned it loose hoping at least if they couldn't make money
that it might hurt Microsoft. That's not the move made by someone who
believes in competitive value of their customer.
Note also the short-sightedness of someone thinking "we'll give it away and
then make money on the support." That's an utterly dumb approach to markets
where products succeed only if they don't require much support. To see why,
do a thought experiment: Vendor A approaches a Microsoft Office installation
and says "I think you are stupid enough to buy a product that requires lots
of support, so I'll give you the product free and then you'll pay me to ask
questions from my help desk." Vendor B says "Hey, one of the main features
of my product is that it doesn't require support. It's so easy to use you
can light it right up and cruise." In the real world, if Vendor B's price
is remotely affordable, he gets the deal.
> source code, and setup an OSS project to create OpenOffice from which a
> future StarOffice would be based. The result, for a version 1.0
> software, OpenOffice has made terrific strides in providing equivalent
This has been the same old Linux/UNIX refrain for 15 years: "we're making
great strides", but never getting there.
> technology to Microsoft Office. Recently, Sony Europe signed a deal
> with Sun to make StarOffice the
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
