On TV.com: Watch Latest WWE SUPERSTARS
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 15 of 26:
Next »
« Previous
Odd point of view...
"So, yes, in that sense, open source's rigorous campaign to reduce software jobs and salaries, its reason for being, has been successful. "

Thats a very strange notion, and i'm pretty sure it comes from a lack of understanding of open source solutions. Dispite what many of the flame baiters may post, it is not a communist revolution. This is about choice. The point of open source is to allow developers better access to the code upon which the foundation of computer is built on. The keystone of which is arguable the operating system.
As to reducing software jobs, that is completely incorrect. If you need examples, check to see how many employees work for Red Hat and for SUSE. Also find out how many people Big Blue employes specifically to work on Linux or other open source projects. Also if i'm not mistaken, the in house compiler they use is built off of GCC, another open source solution. (If I am please tell me, I'm pretty sure thats right but I do not have a source to point to people to.) There is no better example of a work force being built around Open Source software. These are jobs that did not exist and now do. These are people who are now paid. There is work to do on open source products and money to be made.
Posted by: Rokstar83   Posted on: 01/28/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Holy Understatement, Batman!  Xunil_Sierutuf | 01/28/04
Open Source  nucrash | 01/28/04
OpenOffice was a big hit  JWatson77 | 01/28/04
To paraphrase...  Jose Jimenez | 01/28/04
I might argue that  Chad_z | 01/29/04
They have to report ...can you say ENRON?  nograin | 01/28/04
For personal use-  AbsolutelyNot | 01/28/04
It's too early to make too much out of this  Chad_z | 01/28/04
upgrades are growth because  mvaar | 01/28/04
Fool me once: Shame on you . . . Fool me twice: Shame on me.  Plain Logic | 01/28/04
no its...  doh123 | 01/28/04
Did you read the article?  Anton Philidor | 01/28/04
MyDoom  nite_w0lf | 01/28/04
Had seemed pretty quiet, yes.  Anton Philidor | 01/29/04
Odd point of view...  Rokstar83 | 01/28/04
Believe what they say... and do.  Anton Philidor | 01/29/04
Please..  Patrick Jones | 01/29/04
Restrictions on the damage  Anton Philidor | 01/29/04
Did you read the article?  IT_User | 01/29/04
Shouldn't be necessary...  IT_User | 01/29/04
Okay, that's your view  Anton Philidor | 01/29/04
The way you guys beat on one another  IT_User | 01/29/04
Take your thinking one step further.  Anton Philidor | 01/29/04
Well, it's still there. so let's see how long we can discourse  IT_User | 01/29/04
i think i see another crack in the shell  nite_w0lf | 01/28/04
Wow, sounds like a Sun or IBM release  FilledOut | 01/29/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement