[Ilugc] Is the proprietary camp winning ?
- From: masivakumar@xxxxxxxxx (Sivakumar Ma)
- Date: Sat Oct 14 18:52:41 2006
On 10/14/06, Chakkaradeep C C <chaks.yoper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Evil is a strong word. But in this context please take it as
proprietary
software is not beneficial to the industry as a whole.
No way. In that case, Wipro,TCS,Infi,Satyam,Zasken,CTS etc..should not
have
been listed in the Top IT Companies.
Rockfeller's oil business was listed as a top business in the early 20th
century. That does not stop the economy from evolving a better business and
regulatory model.
I am not comparing Wipro, TCS, Info etc with Rockfeller's business one to
one, just pointing out that if some business model yields profits in a time
period, that does not validate anything.
1. Closed source developemnt leads to reinventing wheel type of work,
getting resources wasted.
Well, It depends on how you model your new product. Closed source need not
lead to reinventing wheel type of work.
How would we know if the source is not open? The algorithm we work right
now might have been implemented successfully, tested to perfection and used
in another software. There is no way to use that wealth in closed source
model.
2. Closed source sales and usage means users have to depend on a single
vendor to fix bugs and add new features.
Sorry. Today with the advent of BPOs, there is no Single Vendor concept
now.Companies have centres for Support nearly in every region. This need
not
be only for Closed Source Model, Even Ubuntu has started the Paid Support
Model, RedHat has. So, if you pay to them YOU ARE DEPENDENT in one way or
other.
The point is, if the source code is available with the user/client, he/she
has a last resort option, hiring developers to support it themselves, which
is not available in closed source model.
If Red Hat acts smart and tries to take advantage of a client, the client
has an option to use CentOS and support it internally. That keeps Red Hat
focussed on customer service, rather than arm twisting clients to maximize
their profits.
3. Closed source means students can not look at the code and learn.
Unless a student needs to.
A student absolutely needs to look at the source code to learn (I mean
Computer Science students). In what situation, a student of CS does not need
to look at source code?
I think still your reasons are blunt.
Why we have to debate this way rather enjoy using the different
technologies
which is prevailing in this world ?
Because, one set of technologies is holding us back. As KG was pointing
out, resistance to change is always there.
This creates two communities and one day people are going to be hatred
towards each other which is gonna lead nowhere and we dont want to be the
cause for that.
No need to have hatred towards each other. If we keep the debate sensible
and communicate with respect, we can foster understanding rather than
hatred.
Proprietary Model as well ass Open Source Model, both have pros and cons.
Its not that one is good and one is evil. If you like OSS, use them , but
not that you need to tell Proprietary is evil or bad. I use both, but till
today, for business, Propritary Stuffs have yielded profit for us (note
"for
us").So it doesnt mean that FOSS is bad, just that this time it has not
fit
our business model properly.
Yes. I understand your view point. Proprietary stuffs yield profit today. As
a forward looking business we can study the trends and position ourselves to
take advantage of the changes as and when they take shape (as IBM has done
with open source technologies).
Hope we are educated, and try respect ALL technologies around us.
Me too :-)
anbudan,
Ma Sivakumar
--
Ma Sivakumar,
BSG LeatherLink Pvt Limited,
Chennai.
http://www.leatherlink.net
Other related posts: