Novell to support Microsoft Office documents

TalkBack 24 of 39:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

New Model "Commercial Open Source Software

I think it will become the ONLY distro.
(unless something drastic happens).

Clearly over the years, the Open Source/Free software and the GNU/Linux people have held to the belief that to win in the wider market or broader user community, and in the Desktop market, is by destroying Microsoft.
How they have tried to do this is by offering their software at NO cost.

But:
It has not worked, Linux/OSS has not achieved very high market penetration, and lets face it, that what you want to do. You would like to overtake Microsoft.
The benefits of gaining a broader user base are obvious.

But:
The Free Open Source Software model is I believe fundamentally FLAWED.

WHY: (no license will provent IP or patent problems).
Because there is NO VALUE placed on the quality of the software, therefore NO incentive for the programmers to produce high quality software.

Result:
Software written by programmers FOR PROGRAMMERS.
The common argument is ?someone has a problem, they write some code to solve that problem, and they submit it?.
So they have ?solved the problem? they have not writen a consumer grade product, they have developed some code to solve their problem.
It might be great code, no question, but its not consumer quality, or a ?finished? end product that can be marketed. (yes marketed).

There are other problems with the model, already well know.
Like programmers for OSS will tend to only work on project the WANT to work on, and there is NO incentive for them to finish the job, or to put functions and features that even a ?Windows moron? could use.

Now Novell and Microsoft have got together and are talking and comparing notes.

HERE THIS WELL:
THERE IS NOW, AND WILL BE MAJOR CHANGES IN OPEN SOURCE AND LINUX IN THE FUTURE.
Do nothing and continue to be ?REACTIVE? and you?ll miss the boat, Open Source will lose all the power they presently have (not that much), and the future of OSS is about to dramatically change. (for the good or bad is up to you, the community).

Why Linux and Open Source are failing.

- Not commercial grade/quality software
- Unresolved copyright and patent issues
- Low Interoperability with Windows applications.

That?s really it, just 3 things, notice PRICE is not a factor, virtually everyone is willing to pay for software.
They consider software to be ?just another system component?, like a video card, or memory, CPU or motherboard, we have NO problems spending $300 or more for a CPU chip, or memory or a Hard drive, why so you think we see software any different.
Just as the CPU we choose we choose it on a Price /PERFORMANCE basis.

We choose software on a Price/performance/functionality basis.

Open Source has a ZERO PRICE, but still they don?t make it far enough up the price/performance curve to be taken up by the broader community.

You see posts all the time, ?I cant get my linux box working, or this software is a problem, or configuration is too complex?.

These are ALL RIGHT, commonly said because it?s a common problem, needs to be fixed. But cant be fixed because FOSS model does not promote quality, but only functionality with complexity.
?Software by programmers for programmers?.


COPYRIGHT AND PATENT ISSUES:
Firstly: THERE ARE COPYRIGHT and PATENT issues affecting Linux, and Open Source.
This Novell/MS deal confirms that, and the top linux/FOSS guys know it, they know it?s a massive looming problem that needs to be sorted out, for the future of FOSS/Linux.
You cant hope that you will be able to change the copyright laws, or patent laws, because you?ll fail much more powerful forced the FOSS have tried and failed.
Saying ?you cannot patent code? is WRONG.
You can patent ANYTHING, even DNA.

Thinking ?prior use? is going to be enough to get your through is a false assumption. There are millions of cases where its shown you probably lose.









Joseph Swan:
?By 1855, he made a bright glow from a short strip (of carbon) powered by five battery cells.
Like Edison, Swan was almost simultaneously finding the lack of a perfect vacuum was the remaining problem.
And like Edison, he found technology that produced a near-perfect vacuum and then a longer-lasting filament, producing working lamps in 1878.
TO HIS REGRET: for nearly TWO YEARS and despite prompting from his assistant, Swan didn?t PATENT the concept.
Swan said so many people already had worked on the electric lamp, it was not capable of sustaining a patent!
HOW WRONG HE WAS:
Edison saw the international potential and patented the carbon filament lamp in the UK on November 10, 1879.?


What Nevell has done is accepted that there are patents and interoperability issues between Linux and Windows and their respective flagship applications.
And instead of trying to defeat the giant, and ?license around? patent/copyright issues.
They have faced them, come to agreements of appropriate usage.

To the benefit of all parties.

The Open source/Linux community has to realise that they will never ?slay the dragon?, and also that they cannot at present compete on quality of products.
And MAKE CHANGES TO FIX these issues.

http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html

A NEW MODEL IS NEEDED.

Clearly, dropping the price of the software to zero $$ has not achieved the desired results. FOSS has not made a deep impact on the wider user community.

So if the model is no good, (ie does not achieve the desired results) its needs to be changed.
Failing to adapt, and change the model to be effective is what dinosaurs do, FOSS is supposed to be able to be fast reacting and able to summon a large force of programmers at will to get a job done. (that?s the outside perception).

Now the FOSS model (the stallman model) is not working, just giving away the software is not making anyone successful, nor is it achieving a market penetration.

You?ve played right into Microsoft?s hands, you?ve allowed them to grow over the past 10 years, without a viable and quality alternative.

PLEASE FIX IT:
So you will actually give us the choice you say you want us to have.

NOW FOR THE RADICAL IDEA ? (you?ll like this).

Free Open Source Software market model is to give away the software free, and to charge for support for the product, devaluing the software to zero, calling a ?commodity?, and expecting programmers to write code for the pure love of doing it.

This has created the ?devs? OS, (linux), and a set of applications that?s ?software written by programmers for programmers?. Resulting is difficult USER interfaces, and archaic configurations schemes.

THE NEW MODEL:
http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html

first read this, once you have taken that in, and realise that there is NO legal restrictions stopping Linus Torvalds from changing the license of the Linux kernel.
Torvalds already has the copyright for ?LINUX? and has been requiring Distro to pay fees to him.

Now some would say that there are too many contributors to GNU/Linux who would have copyright code in the kernel.
But I feel that no one person would be able to claim anywhere near enough code to void Linus?s copyright or right to change the license.
Remember most upgrades and additions by programmers go to Linux Torvalds, if HE accepts them, HE WILL add them to HIS copyrighted files.

So what Linus Torvalds should do, is change the Linux Kernal (GNU/Linux) licence.
(he?s had friends show him that it can be done, remember Bitkeeper !!).

So what type of license should Linus use for Linux, (not GPLv2 or GPLv3) but a
COMMERCIAL OPEN SOURCE license.

COSS ? Commercial open source Software
What are the benefits of COSS,

Commercial Grade, market driven quality software
Commercial grade, market driven quality Operating system.
Serious Competition for the Desktop market for MS Windows.
Resolving copyright and patent issues.

FACE THE FACTS:
Fact 1 is there ARE problems with copyright and patent with MS windows
Fact 2 is your chances or having laws changed for FOSS are ZERO
Fact 3 the FOSS model is not working, and is allowing MS to become the monolopy it presently is.
Fact 4 your not going to win on a ?head to head? with Microsoft
You have NO competitive advantage due to lowing your product price to zero,
The quality of your software is low, and not generally suitable for the wider community, written by coders for coders, but not Users.


THE PLAN:
http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html

When I first read that I thought how terrible it would be if Linux Torvalds changed the license of Linux as he can and made it a commercial license.
The Commercial Open Source Software project.

Now its clear, that computer users are happy to pay for hardware, and system components, and will pay more for better.
Price is a factor, its NOT THE PRIME factor, quality and performance are what people are willing to pay for, they see software like RAM and will pay for it, if it helps them.

COSS (commercial open source),
Linux changes the Linux Kernel and any apps he has copyright for to COSS,
He approaches Microsoft, and any other larger vendors, and they play ?Show me yours, and ill show you mine?.

ONCE, all the patent issues and copyright issues have been identified, either steps can then be taken to modify code, or to PAY license fees to the owner of that patent or copyright.

JUST LIKE NOVELL and MS HAVE DONE.
And just like Microsoft did with the TCP/IP stack years ago, they identified the copyright issue and paid fees.

Microsoft has ALLREADY approached Linus Torvalds with this type of offer.
An offer to WORK WITH THEM, so BOTH parties move on, and all interests are met.

So Linus changes to COSS, and after working out fair arraignments regarding patents and copyright, he can then make ?novell like? deals regards inter-operability between windows and Linux.
Even to the Driver and application level. It would be great to be able to run linux software on a windows OS or windows SW on Linux. And use common drivers.
(but I digress).

Now as Linux is now under a Commercial license, YOU (WE, us, the users) PAY FOR IT.

Yes, its no longer FREE software, its COMMERCIAL software, Linux and Open Source will then get to compete in the open market or a fair basis.

BENEFITS:

PROGRAMMERS GET PAID.
PROGRAMMERS GET PAID.

This is important, for so many reasons, mostly because you get really hungry if you don?t eat.
How does a programmer get PAID, for programming for COSS.

The same way its most FOSS applications are run, but with a HUGE improvement,
This is,

IF a programmer submits code to the project coordinator, there will be some kind of formula that will be worked out, that should allow the profits of software sales to be divided among the product developers.
IT would be quite objective and guesswork at first, but Novell and MS have worked out a deal of payments over time, and this money would be distributed to the programmers AFTER the code has been released and commercially accepted.

Effects:
The effect of this, is that the amount of money a programmer will receive will depend on the amount and usefulness of the software he submits.

I would think it would be a ?pyramid? type scheme, that would mean the programmers WHO FINISHED OFF THE APPLICATION and got it to market will be the ones who receive the money,

This will result in a dramatic improvement in the quality (and quantity) of the code.
It will also ensure that the software will be focused on the END USER, and writing for commercial appeal.

The pay does not have to be high, but it should be high enough that a GOOD programmer could make a living out of it, and a UBER coder could do quite well.

This give the programmer INCENTIVE, to 1, write a lot of high quality code
And 2, to improve their programming skills and expertise.

It would then be possible for programmers to build their own business doing ?COSS? coding and when things are quite or when you can some SysAdmin work.

This system would also bring more programmers into the COSS system, if they feel they have skills or knowledge that would help the OSS community AND make money.

You would attract top coders, the quality of the code would improve, and quality begets quality, if people are viewing Open Source software to learn how to code, if you improve the quality of that Open Source code, those people will learn better programming.

INHO, I think the Cathedral and the Bazaar method of Open Source and free software is flawed, I don?t thing RMS (stallman) has the correct philosophy saying quotes like ?if I had to work for a company with commercial software I would quit?.

Open Source, and GNU/Linux really are about to go through major changes, the writing is on the wall, you can either continue to be ?REACTIVE? or become PROACTIVE, and take on Microsoft head on, forget trying to undercut them on price, it failed.

Charge money for Linux, and Open Source applications, (less than MS if you want), but enough to pay programmer to product quality (commercial quality) and market orientated products.

Compete with Microsoft and the other vendors on a commercial level, and take your programmers out of the ?sweet shops? and ?slave labour? camps you have them now.

You?ll find we?ll be more than happy to pay a fair price for a fair product.

Unless OSS/FOSS and GNU/Linux ie Linus Torvalds do something drastic, and become Proactive instead of reactive.

As Linus get his Linux upgrades as ?Diffs? I would assume he would retain the copyright on the master file that is upgraded. And therefore would have a VERY strong case if someone tried to challenge his copyright rights over Linux.
Yes he may have to strip out or rewrite some sections, as BSD had to do because of HP?s copyright.

http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html

Please Read this, and then re-read it:

Keep in mind that NO license will negate copyright or patient issues, your only option is to either pay them or code them out. Which may not be possible if you want to interact with MOST people, but an improvement in quality and creating some REAL competition to MS is what I think everyone wants to see, but on an even playing field.

COSS - programmers are paid to write software, that is high enough quality to compete with windows and the broader User/Desktop community.
Compete on a commercial basis, as competing on price has failed.
Before its too late, (if its not allready).

Posted by: Aussie_Troll   Posted on: 12/04/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Busting the myths about QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions and IBM Smart Business IBM So you already know there aren't actually any alligators in the New York ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now