Published at LXer:

Now I full well realize that much of the open source software is better than proprietary software, and I know that it can be much cheaper to rely on open source solutions than to enter into a license agreement for proprietary software. But where is that going to lead us? Once mighty Sun Microsystems is hanging on for dear life, and is that who you want to be relying on to provide service for your customized open source solutions? What if Sun simply disappears?

Read More...

What if Microsoft simply disappears? Or another significant closed-source vendor?

If Sun (or another open-source company) disappears, the source-code of the applications they've been developing is freely available to enable someone else to pick up the reins. If a closed-source company goes to the wall, and no large company has managed to arrange for the sources to be kept in escrow, what then?

The race to the bottom is not the fault of open-source companies, as one of the commentors points out, it is the operation of Free-Market Capitalism which can be an immensely destructive system. Microsoft has enjoyed a virtual monopoly position for a long time, meaning it has been to some extent immune from these pressures. Will it be able to face up to real competition?

What's more, Quinn does protest rather too much. He wastes a lot of breath trying to convince us that he knows technology. This isn't what I doubt. I believe that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer know a fair bit about technology too. What I doubt is his perspective. As a patent lawyer, he thinks and speaks as a patent lawyer. I doubt he is speaking to the open-source community at all. He would not spend so much time on preaching the value of a skillfully crafted patent, to an audience wary or hostile to the very concept. It is one more attempt to spread the FUD.

Yet another opinion piece by a complete idiot. Take this little gem:

The author is assuming that the only revenue stream a company can capture is from the price charged for the software. He apparently is completely unaware that his example company, Red Hat, makes its money by selling services around software, not software itself. As do IBM, HP and countless others. An even basic understanding of economics would allow this author to see that as long as the need for software remains, someone will be able to supply it. It would also allow the author to understand that the market will pay for what it values, in this case services.

I swear, blogging has become one of the biggest plagues humanity faces.

Blogger IQ(t) = (Initial IQ)/e^t

t being the time elapsed since the person started blogging.

My goodness, can bloggers get any dumber ? I hope they soon become so stupid that they won't be able to type anymore, they will only drool on the keyboard.

That no only does not make sense in terms of what Red Hat actually does (sells support for software), but if proprietary software disappears, how will Red Hat not be able to compete ... compete with whom ?!?!

Braindamaged, that's all I have to say.

I agree, I hate blogs, no only are they not informative in most cases ... just the opinion of someone who thinks everything they say or do deserves special attention by everyone else, and is worth reading. But also, they are not organized in any sane way, only by the date of posting. In most cases this makes blogs incredibly hard to browse, even with a search function.