Serious Competition

At 03:03 PM 11/12/01 -0700, you wrote:
>I have total respect for Microsoft for their ability to sell
>their point of view, and to get a showcase solution into place.
>They have gotten where they are through a coherent, ambitious
>product and marketing strategy, and Open Source won't get past
>the guerilla stage unless its practitioners are every bit as
>focused and hungry. It could be fun to watch. And/or painful.

The very culture of open source, IMHO, is guerilla. This will not go away,
I don't think. The reason for it is that the vast majority of people
creating MUST split their focus so they can put food on the table. Open
source work for most of those creating it is secondary to the primary
endeavor of earning a living.

Who will pay for a "coherent, ambitious product and marketing strategy"
when the people creating the project get little to no money for it and the
people happily getting the results don't expect to pay for it? How will it
be funded?

Example: I use Smoothwall (smoothwall.org) for my firewall. One of the
updates to the distro added a "nag" screen on the admin interface saying
that it is open source and free to use but please send a contribution. One
of the authors of the distro started getting emailed and telephone death
threats to remove the contribution "nag" screen, which he did for the
safety of himself and his family (this is all documented on the smoothwall
email list). They are providing a "free" product to a market that expects
it to be free. A market that backlashes even just asking for an OPTIONAL
contribution.

In general, people who use and enjoy open source have developed an
"entitlement" mentality and just expect that every thing will forever be
"no cash cost." Without this revenue stream that IP software provides, a
"coherent, ambitious product and marketing strategy" cannot be successfully
created.

This is not bad. The guerilla nature of it is one of the things I like
about it.

Alan