Is this guy completely clueless? Who actually listens to this fool? Planned software is the backbone of the software industry. That is how they get customers to prepare for an upgrade or new installation. Where as the linux model is check the installed version, then check the vendor's website to see if a new release is out, download source, extract it, compile, then install. Planned software is much easier to deal with.
Whitehurst claimed that there are "half the number of bugs in Linux per thousand lines" compared to the Microsoft operating system, because of the open-source, collaborative model.
Lies! Keep dreaming buddy. Linux is proven to have a higher rate of failures and bugs than any other operating system.
Comparing Britney Spears to proprietary softare just put his big foot in his big mouth. Britney made millions in sales, linux didn't. Britney is rich, popular, has talent, and looks great (albeit a little crazy). Linux is works for free, is not recognized, doesn't work well with others, and is ugly to work with. So ask anybody if they want to be Britney or linux, you will see Britney win out every time.
With a CEO like this its no wonder Red Hat and linux are tanking so quickly. The guy is in full denial about the many drawbacks of running linux.
Red Hat CEO: Vista marks end of 'planned software'
Summary
Jim Whitehurst has claimed the proprietary software-development model is coming to an end, as open source better meets customer needs
Topics
Big software releases like Windows Vista mark the end of "planned software" for the industry, according to Red Hat chief executive Jim Whitehurst.
Speaking at a forum in Singapore on Friday, Whitehurst said the proprietary, "top-down, planned" software-development model, characteristic of closed-source companies, is coming to an end. Such a model is demonstrated by Vista and the number of bugs within it, he said.
Whitehurst claimed that there are "half the number of bugs in Linux per thousand lines" compared to the Microsoft operating system, because of the open-source, collaborative model.
Vulnerability-research company Secunia released a report earlier this year stating there were more flaws reported last year for Red Hat operating systems than for Microsoft operating systems. This was denied by a Red Hat security team member.
Whitehurst explained his position in an interview with ZDNet Asia, saying closed-source models are hampered by limits on the amount of planning that can be done during the development process to foresee all the roadblocks that might arise. "If software gets too big, it cannot be organized. This is an indicator of what can be planned," he said.
The Linux stack, on the other hand, "had to be modular" because of how fast development efforts on it spread. Development from the global open-source community happens in tandem and at a rate not pre-planned by a "monolithic vendor", Whitehurst said.
However, because of the modular development model and the number of parties checking for errors, open-source software comes out with fewer errors and is more organized, he explained. Whitehurst attempted to explain the appeal of open-source software's participatory "community" model by likening open source to US reality TV competition American Idol and closed products to US pop star Britney Spears.
Of American Idol, he said the record studios were able to spend less to market the eventual winner because audience participation accurately showed which singer was preferred before the competition was over.
Britney Spears, on the other hand, as a "product of millions of dollars in investment" is not a sure bet when each record is released to the public, because the marketing surrounding her was pre-planned and excluded the public, he said.
Whitehurst said during his presentation that development through the open-source community is also faster and often more precise in terms of what customers need, because enterprises are able to contribute code that they have written for their pain points back to the community. He contrasted this with the traditional proprietary method of "listening to customers" and writing code based on that interpretation.
"Linux functionality leapt forward because customers could develop what they wanted, and Red Hat could help share it," he said.
Just In
Hmmm, he's a CEO and you're what? Just a clueless angry little boy. Who listens to him? People with money and the power to make change. Who listens to you? Maybe your mom... 
it is the 'Year of Linux' again? Can I truly put it on my calendar this time?
Or once again is the CEO of a company looking to dethrone MS once again wishfully thinking aloud?
Or once again is the CEO of a company looking to dethrone MS once again wishfully thinking aloud?
Hmm. My product is Open Source, my product competes with closed source, our goal is to make money by taking customers away from closed source.
What should I say? Who's model should I endorse?
What should I say? Who's model should I endorse?
That was a very crappy and useless argument. You, as his mom, read his post... or didnt you?
..as long as there's a Microsoft Corporation, an Apple Inc,
and any of the dozens of other big-name software vendors,
there will always be a place for closed-source.
While some software will have open-source code within, no
one will willing give up their closed-sourced code when it
still makes them a large profit.
and any of the dozens of other big-name software vendors,
there will always be a place for closed-source.
While some software will have open-source code within, no
one will willing give up their closed-sourced code when it
still makes them a large profit.
I didn't interpret these comments as necessarily meaning the end of closed source (although I'm sure he'd like that), but rather the end of the corporation dictating to the needs of the consumer. Proprietary software makers can adapt to that paradigm, but they are at a disadvantage when it comes to reacting quickly to market factors. The periodic releases of proprietary software in hopes of hitting a home run with each release will certainly be a thing of the past, but perhaps a subscription based model may work for proprietary companies who are on the ball and can provide value.
Granted. There are benefits and amazing software products emanating from the Open Source realm, but I challenge the notion that
because of the modular development model and the number of parties checking for errors, open-source software comes out with fewer errors and is more organized [end quote]. These simplistic tenets (more like dogma) continue to propagate on the blogosphere totally ignoring the actual tools that the corporate world and the consumer world use on a daily basis. The line between "propietary" software and "Open Source" software is getting blurrier and blurrier. Mac OS was built under the BSD Unix variant, for example, and would you call it that "close source"?. How about "shared source" vs "open source"? My point here is: articles and stands like this of Red Hat and kin are very simplistic and for those in the know it simply reads as a poorly thought out sales pitch. "American Idol" vs "Britney Spears". Please.
No "software development model is coming to an end". The article fails to sustain/prove/demonstrate what it claims in the header.
i like the efforts of the Linux community. I have to agree with you here.
In my opinion the Idols vs Spears analogy is bad too.
In my opinion the Idols vs Spears analogy is bad too.
IBM's OS's may be considered "closed source" because they are written/supported/updated by IBM.
OS/360 Release 1 in 1965
Various versions over the years.
z/OS V1.R10 - latest release Feb 2008
Doesn't sound to me like it's going away. Big Iron will always need an OS and IBM will always oblige.
Ant those who consider Big Iron to be a 'dinosaur' should remember dinosaurs were around about 1000 times longer than homo sapiens has been around.
And looking at the way things are going today, I'm not sure we humans will be around anywhere near as long.
OS/360 Release 1 in 1965
Various versions over the years.
z/OS V1.R10 - latest release Feb 2008
Doesn't sound to me like it's going away. Big Iron will always need an OS and IBM will always oblige.
Ant those who consider Big Iron to be a 'dinosaur' should remember dinosaurs were around about 1000 times longer than homo sapiens has been around.
And looking at the way things are going today, I'm not sure we humans will be around anywhere near as long.
"Linux functionality leapt forward because customers could develop what they wanted, and Red Hat could help share it,"
This is the main argument pushed by Open Source, and for many things it is the correct argument. However many of the big dollar software packages are not represented well through open source. Things like exchange, SAP, CRMs are core business applications that techies have little interest in developing free competing products.
Open Source is good for techies developing for other techies, but that is where OSSs usefulness ends.
This is the main argument pushed by Open Source, and for many things it is the correct argument. However many of the big dollar software packages are not represented well through open source. Things like exchange, SAP, CRMs are core business applications that techies have little interest in developing free competing products.
Open Source is good for techies developing for other techies, but that is where OSSs usefulness ends.
I think you've almost got the crux of the problem with Open Source, but with a small twist - it's not that techies aren't *interested* in developing these products. ERP systems are the classic example - Open Source has yet to create an ERP that comes even CLOSE to something at the level of even ACCPAC or Dynamics GP (nevermind something as huge as SAP), and are only very marginally comparable to Quickbooks or Simply Accounting.
The real problem is that techies don't possess the business knowledge to make the systems workable. Open Source projects lack the business needs identification and focus for exactly the same reason that they tout as their big advantage - flexibility from central planning.
The real problem is that techies don't possess the business knowledge to make the systems workable. Open Source projects lack the business needs identification and focus for exactly the same reason that they tout as their big advantage - flexibility from central planning.
We mainly agree, but I disagree with you on a semantic level.
You said:
The real problem is that techies don't possess the business knowledge to make the systems workable. Open Source projects lack the business needs identification and focus for exactly the same reason that they tout as their big advantage - flexibility from central planning.
Most business requirements aren't beyond the abilities of techies. IMO it simply isn't in their interest. To their credit I think it is completely within the realm of OSS to create these enterprise level applications. However they lack the leadership for these endeavors.
You said:
The real problem is that techies don't possess the business knowledge to make the systems workable. Open Source projects lack the business needs identification and focus for exactly the same reason that they tout as their big advantage - flexibility from central planning.
Most business requirements aren't beyond the abilities of techies. IMO it simply isn't in their interest. To their credit I think it is completely within the realm of OSS to create these enterprise level applications. However they lack the leadership for these endeavors.
Most business requirements aren't beyond the abilities of techies
For software such as Content management, collaboration, document storage, and the like, I would agree with you - as I've stated earlier, there are pretty static business requirements for this type of software, and they can mainly be managed through a database alone.
In the case of ERP, CRM, and SCM software (accounting, distribution, job costing, etc) I would HIGHLY disagree that techies would have the knowledge to develop this type of software any more than the accountants or operations staff who will be using it could. There is too much required knowledge for either camp to be successful.
For this type of software, you need collaboration from many specialists (HIGHLY skilled programmers, Accounting Specialists, Operations Management Specialists, etc) and project management from people that understand the fundamentals of each camp who can manage the communication of requirements from the Accounting/Operations people to the software architects.
Ask any given programmer, for example, what IFRS is, and how it differs from GAAP, and you'll probably get a blank stare, however understanding and applying the difference is crucial for any ERP system that hopes to be used by a publicly traded enterprise where there are legal ramifications to the capabilities of the software.
To their credit I think it is completely within the realm of OSS to create these enterprise level applications. However they lack the leadership for these endeavors.
Fundamentally, yes, we agree that Open Source software lacks this kind of leadership, but it isn't just because of lack of interest. Open Source projects are still generally organized, defined, and run by programmers - little knowledge of complex business requirements. This hurdle needs to be cleared before Open Source can even begin to churn out this type of enterprise software.
For software such as Content management, collaboration, document storage, and the like, I would agree with you - as I've stated earlier, there are pretty static business requirements for this type of software, and they can mainly be managed through a database alone.
In the case of ERP, CRM, and SCM software (accounting, distribution, job costing, etc) I would HIGHLY disagree that techies would have the knowledge to develop this type of software any more than the accountants or operations staff who will be using it could. There is too much required knowledge for either camp to be successful.
For this type of software, you need collaboration from many specialists (HIGHLY skilled programmers, Accounting Specialists, Operations Management Specialists, etc) and project management from people that understand the fundamentals of each camp who can manage the communication of requirements from the Accounting/Operations people to the software architects.
Ask any given programmer, for example, what IFRS is, and how it differs from GAAP, and you'll probably get a blank stare, however understanding and applying the difference is crucial for any ERP system that hopes to be used by a publicly traded enterprise where there are legal ramifications to the capabilities of the software.
To their credit I think it is completely within the realm of OSS to create these enterprise level applications. However they lack the leadership for these endeavors.
Fundamentally, yes, we agree that Open Source software lacks this kind of leadership, but it isn't just because of lack of interest. Open Source projects are still generally organized, defined, and run by programmers - little knowledge of complex business requirements. This hurdle needs to be cleared before Open Source can even begin to churn out this type of enterprise software.
Uh.... okay, that's friggin ugly - sorry for the mess of text, the website obviously ignores carriage returns..
I see your point. Yes, I suppose alone programmers wouldn't have the proper knowledge to implement such solutions. And there would be precious few cross-disciplined developers to lead such an effort for the OSS cause.
Thanks for the clarification.
I can see your point more clearly... The well developed OSS solutions are products that developers themselves use such as browsers, OSes, databases, etc.
Developers do use word processing and spread sheet applications so they don't have to go to far out of their realm of expertise to work on Open Office.org. Open Office.org is an oddity, the only reason it is at the level of maturity that it is is because it was resurrected from the failure of Star Office, a proprietary product that the market rejected.
I do give the team props for making it so refined. I have a feeling with Microsoft's new XML format OOo will be better able to do 100% perfect rendering of all MS Office documents.
It should be interesting how this competition plays out.
Thanks for the clarification.
I can see your point more clearly... The well developed OSS solutions are products that developers themselves use such as browsers, OSes, databases, etc.
Developers do use word processing and spread sheet applications so they don't have to go to far out of their realm of expertise to work on Open Office.org. Open Office.org is an oddity, the only reason it is at the level of maturity that it is is because it was resurrected from the failure of Star Office, a proprietary product that the market rejected.
I do give the team props for making it so refined. I have a feeling with Microsoft's new XML format OOo will be better able to do 100% perfect rendering of all MS Office documents.
It should be interesting how this competition plays out.
What's interesting though is that TeX used to be big among the FSF developers.
But Text processing is quite a bit of more work when you aren't used to it.
The argument that it gives better rendering still holds though.
It simply isn't WYSIWYG.
But Text processing is quite a bit of more work when you aren't used to it.
The argument that it gives better rendering still holds though.
It simply isn't WYSIWYG.
Once again the notion that Linux systems are as bug free as Vista is a total hoot. Vista has had far, far fewer bugs than even XP had. It is also being adopted at a record pace as well.
But Ubuntu and KDE 4.1 really rocks and is already a much better replacement for Apple crap and has a whole lot more software than Macs have so if you're stuck in the even buggier world of the Mac moving to Kubuntu with KDE 4.1 would be quite easy. May as well go with the best of the open source world for no cost at all...
But Ubuntu and KDE 4.1 really rocks and is already a much better replacement for Apple crap and has a whole lot more software than Macs have so if you're stuck in the even buggier world of the Mac moving to Kubuntu with KDE 4.1 would be quite easy. May as well go with the best of the open source world for no cost at all...
This seems to be like a comparison of an elected president for a fixed term vs an emperor for life no matter what the problems situation.
I my view "Open Source" seems to be easier to fix (on the fly if need be).
I guess there will always be emperors, kings,"closed-source, etc, but if you are not one of the chosen ones which would you prefer?
I my view "Open Source" seems to be easier to fix (on the fly if need be).
I guess there will always be emperors, kings,"closed-source, etc, but if you are not one of the chosen ones which would you prefer?
The contrast between American Idol and Britney can be likened to Open Source vs. Closed Source in other ways too:
On one hand we have a star who has been very narrowly focused on her "purpose" in life while being "developed", and as a result (and after quite a bit of heavy marketing), she is very good and what she does, a household name, and extremely successful.
Then we have the other side of the coin - 50,000 pet projects per year that vary widely in talent or practicality are eventually whittled down to a handful of successes, only one of which becomes a runaway winner, and a few which, after they win, still don't really make it (I mean, who really listens to Ruben or Fantaisia, anyway?)
On one hand we have a star who has been very narrowly focused on her "purpose" in life while being "developed", and as a result (and after quite a bit of heavy marketing), she is very good and what she does, a household name, and extremely successful.
Then we have the other side of the coin - 50,000 pet projects per year that vary widely in talent or practicality are eventually whittled down to a handful of successes, only one of which becomes a runaway winner, and a few which, after they win, still don't really make it (I mean, who really listens to Ruben or Fantaisia, anyway?)
Right on the money there...ask anyone who Brittany Spears is and they all know.
Ask anyone about an American Idol and they'll look at you as if you're asking them about some local talent from the bar downtown.
Microsoft = Brittany
Open Source = No Name
Bottomline, regardless of talent/quality, people go for what they know...and that's just Psychology 101.
Ask anyone about an American Idol and they'll look at you as if you're asking them about some local talent from the bar downtown.
Microsoft = Brittany
Open Source = No Name
Bottomline, regardless of talent/quality, people go for what they know...and that's just Psychology 101.
Actually, you highlight a good reason where Whitehurst's comparison stands true, albeit not in the way he intended: he states that the marketing of the idol winner was cheaper than the marketing of Britney Spears, yet was just as effective. I'd dispute the "just as effective" contention here.
The winners of American Idol over the past few years have, with a couple exceptions (Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood) failed to become well marketed outside the group of people that "developed" their careers in the first place. Many people who have never watched American Idol (or haven't watched the seasons that these singers won) aren't aware of their existence, let alone buy their music.
In much the same way, a large number of Open Source projects haven't really found a large audience outside their core development community (OpenBravo is a good example - also a good example of what happens when you get techies trying to build an accounting program).
The winners of American Idol over the past few years have, with a couple exceptions (Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood) failed to become well marketed outside the group of people that "developed" their careers in the first place. Many people who have never watched American Idol (or haven't watched the seasons that these singers won) aren't aware of their existence, let alone buy their music.
In much the same way, a large number of Open Source projects haven't really found a large audience outside their core development community (OpenBravo is a good example - also a good example of what happens when you get techies trying to build an accounting program).
i don't think it's a good analogy.
I don't listen to Britney Spears and i don't listen to Idol winners neither.
For something that has no official organ and has no official advertising GNU/Linux does have a brand exposure some companies would dream of to start of with.
It's really a poor analogy and this CEO isn't doing a good job hereh.
I don't listen to Britney Spears and i don't listen to Idol winners neither.
For something that has no official organ and has no official advertising GNU/Linux does have a brand exposure some companies would dream of to start of with.
It's really a poor analogy and this CEO isn't doing a good job hereh.
i go with name brands when it counts, generics when it doesn't matter to me. it's nice to have the option to choose rather than just use what everyone else uses.
Paperless office was predicted over 10 years ago. Let me know how that's working out.
I'm more convinced when someone without a major stake in the outcome makes the prediction.
I'm more convinced when someone without a major stake in the outcome makes the prediction.
However, I agree with RedHat that that certainly doesn't mean its any good. Some of it is good, you just can't generalise.
Nowadays commercial software is seldom needed as there is a good free alternative. You could say this is 'planned', (by the will of the public).
Nowadays commercial software is seldom needed as there is a good free alternative. You could say this is 'planned', (by the will of the public).
..that many Open Source advocates make, (and Whitehurst implied it in his speech) is that commercial software is developed in some sort of bubble where the planning and development is done without user input. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth.
Couple this with the narrow focus and tighter project management that goes into commercial software, and you can see why many large enterprise systems don't have an equivilent in the Open Source world (I'm thinking CRM, ERP, SCM software - not web browsers and spreadsheets).
Couple this with the narrow focus and tighter project management that goes into commercial software, and you can see why many large enterprise systems don't have an equivilent in the Open Source world (I'm thinking CRM, ERP, SCM software - not web browsers and spreadsheets).
The Microsoft fanboys really jumped on this one,
wow.
wow.
How many of us have the sheer audacity to question an argument.
Of course, it could be that, just like me, many of the other commenters are being paid by Microsoft to post comments to a blog. Yeah, that's it.
Of course, it could be that, just like me, many of the other commenters are being paid by Microsoft to post comments to a blog. Yeah, that's it.
I only receive four cents a word from Microsoft.
Six cents if I blog on Sunday
Six cents if I blog on Sunday
I only get 3 1/2 per word! I need to renegotiate!
Every software project I've ever seen is planned and I fail to see how it could be done in any other way. What we're seeing an end to, however, is "software by decree", implying that vendors are able to dictate to users what software they will use, and how they will use it. Regardless of whether the software is proprietary or not, users are gaining the ability to tell commercial vendors and volunteer developers alike where to go, which means that in the future, neither MS nor any other entity is ever likely to have the sort of stranglehold on the software market that the former enjoyed in the 1990, and MS' tenuous hold on the title of "Dominant Software Vendor" is likely to continue to weaken until it eventually fails.
I think that's a good thing, even if Red Hat is the one that gets fired (as happened on the family PC a couple of weeks back; replaced by Gentoo).
I think that's a good thing, even if Red Hat is the one that gets fired (as happened on the family PC a couple of weeks back; replaced by Gentoo).
"then check the vendor's website to see if a new release is out,
download source, extract it, compile, then install. Planned
software is much easier to deal with." I know what you are trying
to say, but I have never had to do anything that you have
mentioned. No extracting, no compiling etc. Just run the update
manager and click install updates or use synaptic manager, put a
checkmark in the box of the software that I want installed and
click install. In the future either increase your knowlege of Linux
or keep your comments to yourself. It's quite obvious that your
lack of knowlege is clouding your judgement and your hatred for
Linux is obvious. Oh, and by the way, I have had to re-install
Windows 3 times in the last year. Linux? ZERO reinstalls in the
last year. Your lips flap but you never have any proof to back it
up.
download source, extract it, compile, then install. Planned
software is much easier to deal with." I know what you are trying
to say, but I have never had to do anything that you have
mentioned. No extracting, no compiling etc. Just run the update
manager and click install updates or use synaptic manager, put a
checkmark in the box of the software that I want installed and
click install. In the future either increase your knowlege of Linux
or keep your comments to yourself. It's quite obvious that your
lack of knowlege is clouding your judgement and your hatred for
Linux is obvious. Oh, and by the way, I have had to re-install
Windows 3 times in the last year. Linux? ZERO reinstalls in the
last year. Your lips flap but you never have any proof to back it
up.
yup, having a plan and a goal is a really bad idea. This guy is completely nuts. Not to mention, pretty sure MS uses the scrumm model. Which is NOT waterfall. Redhat is just trying to be inflamitory.
How would that fit with this article? Lessee:
Mozart (Open Source): Nobody listens to him, but everyone wants you to think they listen to him.
Britney (Proprietary): Everyone listens to her, but no one wants to admit it.
Yeah, I guess it works.
Mozart (Open Source): Nobody listens to him, but everyone wants you to think they listen to him.
Britney (Proprietary): Everyone listens to her, but no one wants to admit it.
Yeah, I guess it works.
Britney: Forced to listen to it.. and loathing it. 
When Linux makes a significant penetration into the consumer market, we can start talking.
the number of time you have to reinstall is a dumb metric. Totally situational. I can speak to farms of machines that are happilly humming along in both environments. The real point here is that red hat's ceo is missing the big picture. MS uses a modular approach to development. There teams are spread all over creation (not just in redmond i promise). Planning what your software will do, creating user stories, performing UAT etc. are all critical things to do when developing software free or otherwise. It's a ridiculous claim that the open model is superior in any way. Redhat doesnt let just anybody join the kernal team. You have to prove yourself to them. Same goes for MS. If you have never interviewed for a OS team or framework team, try it'll make your brain hurt. MS is evolving just like open source is.
of java patch Microsoft is working to zipper and launch; either soon or already in use. I like RED HAT and what they do. Though I like I@ as ever, I just hope they aren't building equipment for launching missiles against the Iranians. I love the Iranians and am an older person, too.
What Whitehurst is ultimately expressing is his disdain for the influence that "monolithic" companies have over mainstream products and services.
Strong marketing and deep pockets will almost assuredly continue to mean high market saturation for companies like Microsoft for years to come.
However, those who are savvy to the usefulness of open-source platforms (Amazon.com for instance) are not part of the mainstream market consciousness, but further the "linux/open-source cause" by developing innovative mainstream services, products, and content with non-mainstream platforms.
This balance of non vs. mainstream will always be in play and for GOOD REASON since it ultimately presents a perpetual window of opportunity for the innovators.
Red Hat would do better to liken themselves to Radiohead - innovative band grows cult following into a huge mainstream success story.
American Idol might as well be Disney (Britney Spears). They just use different television stations to flex their marketing muscle, build their starlets, and hawk their crap...
... and knock off whatever innovation they couldn't come up with themselves.
Strong marketing and deep pockets will almost assuredly continue to mean high market saturation for companies like Microsoft for years to come.
However, those who are savvy to the usefulness of open-source platforms (Amazon.com for instance) are not part of the mainstream market consciousness, but further the "linux/open-source cause" by developing innovative mainstream services, products, and content with non-mainstream platforms.
This balance of non vs. mainstream will always be in play and for GOOD REASON since it ultimately presents a perpetual window of opportunity for the innovators.
Red Hat would do better to liken themselves to Radiohead - innovative band grows cult following into a huge mainstream success story.
American Idol might as well be Disney (Britney Spears). They just use different television stations to flex their marketing muscle, build their starlets, and hawk their crap...
... and knock off whatever innovation they couldn't come up with themselves.
There will always be an open-source community, and there will always be a closed-source community. There are too many benefits to both, so much so, that picking one over the other would be like choosing which one of your children will die.
In what seems to be a common move by open source CEOs - they call the cataclysmic end of the world - when all that is happening is the seasons are changing.
It certainly is the end of big-release monolithic software as we have become accustomed to - less due to planning and more due to the market segments which have evolved.
It makes sense to loosely couple operating system components - as the Unix and Linux community has known for decades - because it simplifies development and allows for an operating system focused on a specific segment.
This equates to (kind of) the concept of Linux Distro's - RHEL has a purpose,Ubuntu has a purpose, Zenwalk has a purpose - and each one is different.
Microsoft is seeing the benefit in doing this for the purpose of security, maintainability and reuse. Each version of Windows can never be completely NEW since it would mean the billions of dollars invested in previous versions would be wasted. If pieces of a system can be isolated however, then there is a better chance of reuse without security errors and design errors. This is about optimizing the investment Microsoft make in their own development.
Comparing errors per-thousand lines is just idiotic.
JC
blog.pixolut.com
It certainly is the end of big-release monolithic software as we have become accustomed to - less due to planning and more due to the market segments which have evolved.
It makes sense to loosely couple operating system components - as the Unix and Linux community has known for decades - because it simplifies development and allows for an operating system focused on a specific segment.
This equates to (kind of) the concept of Linux Distro's - RHEL has a purpose,Ubuntu has a purpose, Zenwalk has a purpose - and each one is different.
Microsoft is seeing the benefit in doing this for the purpose of security, maintainability and reuse. Each version of Windows can never be completely NEW since it would mean the billions of dollars invested in previous versions would be wasted. If pieces of a system can be isolated however, then there is a better chance of reuse without security errors and design errors. This is about optimizing the investment Microsoft make in their own development.
Comparing errors per-thousand lines is just idiotic.
JC
blog.pixolut.com
well that's lucid and well thought out. Well done sir.
The problem with his analysis is that I agree there are less
bugs and it tends to be more secure. However the
collaborative effort also means that there is generally a lack
of features. Open Source products are just never as clean,
feature packed, and useful as their closed counterparts.
OS software may be stable and secure but when it comes
down to it the commercial software is more productive.
bugs and it tends to be more secure. However the
collaborative effort also means that there is generally a lack
of features. Open Source products are just never as clean,
feature packed, and useful as their closed counterparts.
OS software may be stable and secure but when it comes
down to it the commercial software is more productive.
I am one of the few people who absolutely hate the Mac OS. I am not exactly partial to Vista though either, but I am forced to work with it simply because there are no professional applications for image editing, video editing, or music creation. Being that I use these tools daily to make a living, Linux has no bearing to me. Once the software vendors like Propellerheads, Adobe, Steinberg, and Ableton start making their software accessible to those open source platforms, I guess Linux will just be for uber-computer guys.
Open Source software is not always going to be perfect and proprietary software is not always going to be condemned, but there are trends, and also exceptions.
But above and beyond the who is better, Open Source feels safer not because it's technically better and so on, but because I don't have to worry about the product being discontinued. If it is discontinued, and there is a sizeable user base, that user base can continue to work on the software. If I am the only one using it, and it means that much to me, I can maintain it and improve on it. If not, I can just switch. Proprietary software has only the latter option, and no matter what guarantees a company gives you that they are committed to maintaining that proprietary software, it is not as big a guarantee as Open Source.
That said, yes, I still use Windows and I also use Linux, and generally the former has not been very good to me while the latter has been. However, Microsoft Office is a plus point as there's nothing that comes quite close to it on Linux (OpenOffice.org is a good attempt, but slow on my slow laptop), and my favourite text editor is Windows-only (but Open Source, so who knows, it may be ported).
Ultimately, the winner will not be either Open Source or Proprietary software, but which entity that capitalises on the benefits of their development/licensing models and edges out everyone else with that and other aspects. Windows makes use of vertical integration of licensing and technological incompatibility to lock people in, which is legitimate albeit a bit distasteful, and Microsoft makes a lot of money from it. Red Hat sells good support for RHEL, contributes back to the community, and exploits the positive benefits of Open Source to deliver high quality products. Ultimately there is competition, and we all win.
But above and beyond the who is better, Open Source feels safer not because it's technically better and so on, but because I don't have to worry about the product being discontinued. If it is discontinued, and there is a sizeable user base, that user base can continue to work on the software. If I am the only one using it, and it means that much to me, I can maintain it and improve on it. If not, I can just switch. Proprietary software has only the latter option, and no matter what guarantees a company gives you that they are committed to maintaining that proprietary software, it is not as big a guarantee as Open Source.
That said, yes, I still use Windows and I also use Linux, and generally the former has not been very good to me while the latter has been. However, Microsoft Office is a plus point as there's nothing that comes quite close to it on Linux (OpenOffice.org is a good attempt, but slow on my slow laptop), and my favourite text editor is Windows-only (but Open Source, so who knows, it may be ported).
Ultimately, the winner will not be either Open Source or Proprietary software, but which entity that capitalises on the benefits of their development/licensing models and edges out everyone else with that and other aspects. Windows makes use of vertical integration of licensing and technological incompatibility to lock people in, which is legitimate albeit a bit distasteful, and Microsoft makes a lot of money from it. Red Hat sells good support for RHEL, contributes back to the community, and exploits the positive benefits of Open Source to deliver high quality products. Ultimately there is competition, and we all win.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
