[Tfug] Alan Cox: "I've had enough"--what else is new?

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Glen,

--- On Sun, 8/2/09, Glen Pfeiffer <glen at thepfeiffers.net> wrote:

[much elided]

> I welcome technical discussions comparing features of Linux, BSD, 
> OpenSolaris, Darwin, etc, as I am sure does most of the list. But 
> arguments about which one will win the war are not fruitful.

I dislike the "war" reference as it makes it seem like an 
"all or nothing" scenario...

However, that "war" *is* actually important.  If a platform shows
itself to be *truly* viable, *vendors* will be more willing to
support it and port their products to that platform.  Supporting
another platform adds considerably to a vendor's costs -- esp.
if its customers are used to "free" (or subsidized) support!

Unlike many folks, I have no problems paying for software.  I
think that's what causes vendors to bear the costs of developing
truly *good* products.  (where's the FOSS AutoCAD equivalent
product?  Or, OrCAD?  Or FrameMaker?  etc.)  Sure, there are
things that *aspire* to become "as good as" these products;
but, how much more advanced will these products be when that time
comes?

*I* like open source projects (note "free" is absent from my
description here) because I can support that product myself.
I'm tired of having to "adapt" to product changes that may
not address my needs -- regardless of whether those products
were FOSS or COTS.  E.g., I may be willing to put up with
a certain set of bugs that either don't affect me *or* that
I can work around.  But, there may be one or two that I *need*
fixed -- yet, I might have to accept a whole bunch of OTHER
changes ("improvements"?) just to get a new release that
*appears* to address my bug issue.  And, probably introduces a
whole NEW set of bugs that I will have to di$cover and addre$$...
only to find myself back in the same situation some months or
years hence.

I've been lucky in that I've been able to convince several
vendors to give me access to their sources (under NDA, etc.)
so that I *could* make these changes (which, I gladly
distribute back top the vendor/owner).  Of course, this
requires a fair bit of trust on their part as their IP is
now "at risk" (though I am sure they realize they can easily
overwhelm my resources in a court fight!) *and* they have
to trust that "supporting me" won't be an added burden to
their staff.  (so far, I think these arrangements have been
a boon to both sides!)

If "non-mainstream" OS's end up with trivial market shares,
then vendors see no reason to abandon the "behemoth" OS's
to address those (few?) users.  So, the bigger the impact
"alternatives" can make on the overall market, the more
likely vendors will extend their product offerings into
these other areas.