7 posts • joined 4 Dec 2009
Re: Lesson #1
Perhaps basic HTML coding should be lesson #1.
It seems that some comments show some naivety, apparently thinking that "free market" works in the PC market as it does everywhere, not knowing, that MS forces (some say threaten) manufacturers and/or retailers to sell no other PCs except with an MS OS preinstalled - and of course pays them quite well for that little involuntary favour. Give me another example where this soft corruption exists.
It's not the question whether or not one likes or doesn't like a certain OS, neither how much market share it has. Worse even, if it is high. Imagine being a small innovative player in any other market being thwarted by the big legacy manufacturer.
It's the question of allowing some competition at all (without too much distortion by a single actor), only then giving sellers and buyers some choice, fostering innovation and reasonable pricing.
Patents are not licences. And whether you close your source or even leave it open, who says that licences don't protect you at least as well as patents do?
In many cases, especially with intangible goods, alternatives to patents may be more transparent and beneficial to innovation ... and money making.
Why is it so difficult understanding anti-trust law? IMO the shampoo and the Audi metaphors are not depicted correctly.
It's in fact like the shampoo company not only owing the supermarket, but more importantly, the supermarket chain having a market dominating position of some 90 % of all supermarkets (AND btw, the shampoo having a > 50 % market share).
Similarly, it is like Audi having a 90 % market share of the car market and producing only Audi car radios, another brand may not fit or you'll have to "install" it yourself (= needing a mechanic, just as some 75 % are not able to intall any software themselves - some posters are iMO too optimistic here).
That's what anti-trust code is for: Trying to correct only very serious market distortions. The example some posters think of don't compare well.
I can't think of any market that is this extreme, whether or not one may like the EU ruling in this case or not.
Re: But you WILL still need it
no, can't confirm that.
Oh really, the web is about supporting operating systems? Hard to believe that such misbelief still exists.
Engage webworkers (or company) that know what they are doing. Problem solved.
@AC: not "sorry"
So, the article must be for you then: "The idea is to dispel lingering misconceptions about open source".
The Open Source community (who is that anyway?) should probably not just talk about Open Source. Rather:
1. There are (almost) always alternatives, just like in many other markets.
2. Whether OS or CS, it's mostly about business, competition etc., see Jaspersoft, Drupal etc. mentioned in the article.
3. If the alternative is indeed Open Source, give good reasons why this might be an advantage over Closed Source. Especially in government/public sectors applying open standards, security and cost advantages in the long run could be such reasons.
Although cost advantages seldom come if the organisation adopting Open Source doesn't adopt an "Open Source way of working", i. e. mindset change.
- Put down that Oracle database patch: It could cost $23,000 per CPU
- The END of the FONDLESLAB KINGS? Apple and Samsung have reason to FEAR
- Pics It's Google HQ - the British one: Reg man snaps covert shots INSIDE London offices
- Review Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid: The plug-in for plutocrats
- Mozilla fixes CRITICAL security holes in Firefox, urges v31 upgrade