[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: why open source software is better

From: Bernd Jendrissek
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:13:01 +0200

Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:33:00AM -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> Craven Moorehead wrote:

This looks like a troll, but I'll respond anyway ;)

> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:20:56 GMT, (Lance Purple)
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >Craven Moorehead  <> wrote:
> > Sure, absolutely. but very few people do. few engineers, few
> > songwriters, even fewer lawyers  everyone likes to be paid (99%)

Ceteris paribus, more money is better.  But utility is derived not only
from income (money).  Other factors may include feel-good from helping
others, hero-worship, a sense of power (*MY* product is used by xx% of
all people), etc. etc. etc.

> > I find this thread curious. Open source is better the closed ?

Much better.  For the consumer, for the support industry, for other
software (open or closed).  Maybe the author's welfare is not quite what
it could be if s/he had been charging monopoly prices, but that's the
author(s)'s decision, right?  You should try Free Software some time.

> > 50 million people use Napster, how many would if they had to pay
> > commercial rates for the songs ? 1-2 million MAYBE and they would be
> > very choosy in what they downloaded.

You are saying that demand for so-called Intellectual Property (music
in this case) is price elastic.  How much did the music industry really
"lose" because of Napster?  Positive or negative?  It is impossible
to calculate damages; it's like asking "what if fairies existed?"

> > All Linux has got really going for it is that it is free. 

And that it's rock-solid, and that its users control what goes into it,
and that one *is* allowed to make changes to it (and sell them), and
that it takes advantage of the massive investment in *n*x over the
years, and that it conforms to relevant standards, and that it is less
demanding of hardware than M$ OSes, and that you can build your own
confidence in its security, and that you are not *required* to
redistribute it for free, etc.

Linux is as popular as it is *in spite* of all the propaganda spewed
by M$ about *n*x.  Does that tell you something about Linux?

> > source" rubbish. If everyone had to pay for Linux and the price was
> > the same or more then Windows (the price of Windows could be very
> > elastic if MS wants) it would be as dead as a Dodo from a popularity
> > perspective.

> > The only really bad thing about Windows is that it costs money. If it
> No...what's really bad about Windows is that it not only destroys
> itself, but it destroys your data as well.

> > was free Linux would not even be heard from.

If Windows were free (not just subsidised), where would M$ make its
profit?  Support?  Maybe, but they'd soon realise that the only way
they could reduce support costs is by improving the quality of their
product.  To do that Windows would have to be Open Source, at which
point M$ would (according to some) have redeemed itself.

Bernd Jendrissek
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]