On Thursday 18 July 2002 01:55 pm, robert jorgenson wrote:
> I dont have any experience in the business world as im just a kid, but
> stability is definately a plus, the cost factor also comes up, and for
> some people theres the antitrust issue, im sure there are many more i
> just dont know about. Personally i only use linux at my home because its
> fun and i get to solve problems and learn stuff. In my experience the
> only downside to linux is there is allways that one application that you
> cant find an equal to in the *nix world
You touched some good points, but you are forgetting one that I feel is
important.
First of all, I use Linux because it matches the way that I work. When
people ask why I use Linux as opposed to Windows, the first answer is
always: "Because it better matches the way I want to use a computer." I
feel that I am more productive under a *nix environment, and (as you
mentioned) it is "fun".
However, that leaves out the primary reason that the FSF was founded: nobody
can steal an open project away. If Microsoft called it quits today, then
every business and individual that relied upon their technologies would
slowly corode away. In fact, with many of the remote ties between
proprietary software and their authors, the software may cease to function
altogether.
With an open license, a project only needs to reach "critical mass" in order
for it to continue idefinitely. If we examine the larger projects (GNOME,
KDE, OpenOffice, the Linux kernel, FreeBSD, etc.), then we find that
developers come and go all the time. However, enough people are interested
in, and using, the software that a new developer will soon step in to fill
the hole. I feel confident in stating that 90% of the free software that I
use will continue to be maintained as long as I care to use it. The only
exception would be when another group creates a better alternative and woos
the developers away. In either situation, it is a win for me, the end
user.
You mention "that one application that you cant find an equal to in the *nix
world", and that is certainly a good point. There are rare situations
where an application requires an extraordinary amount of expertise. Enough
so that such a project can never find enough developers to gain momentum.
In this situation, a proprietary solution is the only one available and one
must settle for a non-open application on an open platform (if even that is
possible).
However, when it comes down to it, my "first answer" from above is what
keeps me hooked. ;-)
- --
Logan Kennelly
,,,
(. .)
- --ooO-(_)-Ooo--
(text/plain)