ARTICLE: Free For All

[Carl Parrish]

Charles A. Reynolds wrote:

> 1.    Can somebody name an open source operating system without the word
> LINUX in it?


Charles there are *tons* of open source operating systems besides Linux 
the biggest proably being FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD (okay pretty much 
anything that ends *BSD). but there are a lot of others.


> 2.    Can anyone take an open source application modify it and then use
> copywriter
>  protections against use by others?


Depends on the license


> 3.    Why are people so interested in tearing down a company that has
> created more jobs
>  (directly or indirectly) than most industries?


You only have to get bit by M$ once to hate them forever. Of course M$ 
doesn't seem to be interested in simply biting once.


> 
> After reading the article in more detail I do not believe that the author
> understands Open
> Source as I do.  Does IBM ship its Mainframes with proprietary information?
> No.  Does SUN
> Microsystems ship all of its proprietary information with each system?  No.
> Does Oracle ship
> systems with proprietary information? No.  These are some of the most
> profitable and stable
> companies in America.  Why?


I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here. Does IBM ship with 
OSS software. Yes. Did they used to ship with a propritary OS? Yes (AIX 
/ OS2)


> 
> Does just the fact that an application comes with source make it an Open
> Source Software?  I was
> under the impression that open source meant collaboration with the community
> at large.


Well that mostly depends on who you ask. But the general meaning is 
simply that the source is available. (Though Java doesn't count). Its 
mostly about the freedom to make changes yourself instead of being held 
prisoner by a single company.


> Can any IT manager justify spending resources to enrich the community at
> large at the expense
> of the companies objective?  No.


Fact most software written isn't made to be sold. Its made to solve a 
problem. About 70% of all software problems are the same so wouldn't it 
make sense to simply share the solution I came up with with you as long 
as you agree that if you solve a problem you then share that solution 
with me? then that 30% (or so) that's unique to me is all the time I 
have to spend paying to have coded and I can make money from that.



> 
> Why is the open source community adverse to the notion of profit?  How do I
> make money sitting
> at home pounding code for somebody else to use at will?  Please tell me how
> I am to make money
> this way.!#$%^&*(


Most of the OSC isn't against making a profit. (this is still America). 
But it doesn't further our science to have to invent the same wheel over 
and over again. (how many revisions of M$ Word are they going to make?). 
Instead lets solve a problem come to an agreement of whats the best 
solution then move on to more problems.

> Call it consulting or licensing all companies must charge fees.  What makes
> one model better than
> the other?


I guess everyone has to answer this for themself. For me I find one to 
be rather short sited. And the other empowering.


>