On TV.com: TOP 10 Shows CANCELED Too Soon
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 2 of 29:
Next »
« Previous
Open source not so open
From the article:
Open source might seem to be the answer, but it's not invulnerable. It certainly makes a fault-tolerant strategy easier, but by no means guarantees it: while the SCO nonsense is falling apart in slow motion, software patents remain a potent source of danger for everyone. The history of technology in the 20th century is full of cases where resourceful and aggressive companies have used every legal weapon to increase control. Do not assume that just because you have the source and the rights to use it as you will, those rights are necessarily inviolable. They should be--but "should be" isn't enough.

I think Sun made a good, similar point about Red Hat. Linux lock-in. Sounds like an actor, but true.
And SCO might not be it, but the first successful patent suit against open source will reverberate. This vulnerability has to be treated sensibly, but it's not FUD.


On a different subject, suppose the problems you're looking at are:
assuring the continued viability and availability of legal insurance from your provider and
assuring all aspects of in-house IT play well together.
Then going with a single large vendor would be efficient.

The article does make a good point, that a single, widespread vendor can produce more damage than a lot of smaller vendors.
On the other hand, a large vendor can be trusted to respond more quickly, no matter how many locations are affected.

So the issue is not so simple.
Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 06/16/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Second Source  poocow666 | 06/16/04
Open source not so open  Anton Philidor | 06/16/04
This wasn't about lock in  NemesisNL | 06/18/04
Single vendor efficiency  poocow666 | 06/16/04
Yes, efficient.  Anton Philidor | 06/16/04
No such thing as Linux Lock-in  poocow666 | 06/16/04
So then...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/16/04
Or...  Martin Marvinski | 06/24/04
Would you prefer Red Hat lock-in?  Anton Philidor | 06/17/04
Wrong again...  poocow666 | 06/17/04
Who heads Fedora?  Anton Philidor | 06/17/04
JetBlue  jjworleyeoe | 06/16/04
JetBlue said the goal is to be sole sourced ....  oldskool | 06/17/04
That's Not What I've Heard JetBlue Say . .  jjworleyeoe | 06/18/04
Not always true, there are many issues to consider.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/16/04
No problems for Nasa???  poocow666 | 06/16/04
Dear ranter...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/16/04
Your ignorance is astounding  poocow666 | 06/17/04
It's "just fine" that there are no Shuttles running?  mlindl | 06/16/04
umm, perhaps your definition of successful is "biased"  oldskool | 06/16/04
Single source evolution  Anton Philidor | 06/17/04
NASA lost its mission and now its just another government agency  oldskool | 06/17/04
Ax has a point, but not a good example...  Judas I. | 06/17/04
these FBI/CIA intel shotages are trumped up  oldskool | 06/17/04
Um, I think you may have missed my point...  Judas I. | 06/18/04
How To ?  pj-xmesh | 06/16/04
One of Linux's biggest strengths  zijiang | 06/17/04
I used the iTunes Music Store yesterday  mlindl | 06/16/04
Open Source Is Multiple Source  rtb | 06/23/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

Enterprise Applications

  • Check out some of the easiest and most powerful ways to boost productivity while saving money on your application infrastructure. See ZDNet's comprehensive Enterprise Application resource center, now!
  • New Online Dashboard
  • Read about top issues IT decision-makers face every day, plus get cost effective solutions to real life IT problems. Oracle Topline