[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Microsoft-phobia and the non-future of XHTML x.x [LONG]

• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: Microsoft-phobia and the non-future of XHTML x.x [LONG]
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:16:07 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Organization: Propylon
• References: <154.17d2605d.2b0f704f@a...>
• Reply-to: bill.dehora@p...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:

 > In my earlier post I commented on what I believe is the fundamental
 > business model of open source software:
 >
 > "At the risk of over-generalising the fundamental business model 
of open
 > source software is Microsoft-paranoia and Microsoft-phobia by 
competitor
 > companies. Of course there are enthusiasts who donate time but 
isn't at
 > least part of the motivation for some of those developers the same
 > Microsoft-phobia and Microsoft-paranoia? Try to imagine how 
limited open
 > source software today might be without the kick start donations and
 > ongoing funding from the corporate interests intent on spoiling
 > Microsoft. If hatred and fear of Microsoft were not so widespread 
there
 > might be virtually no open source software!"


That view lacks a historical perspective. You'd have to explain away
the hacker culture that existed in Berkely and MIT during the 1970s
for it make sense. There's been a tradition of giving code away for
as long as code has been distributable.

Packaging code as a product and selling it is something of an 
oddball idea pioneered by Microsoft and a few others, that works 
very well for some but not most software companies.

The fact that some companies with a service oriented model see open 
source as a strategic tool to commoditize product oriented companies 
and thus subsidize OS development strikes me as somewhat incidental 
to OS itself. What's more important is the value companies get from 
open code and open protocols. Once they realize the cost of *not* 
having open stuff, they tend to support these projects in one form 
or another. That's a 50,000ft view of what Daniel is telling you - 
the cost of not having open stuff to him is a lack of control as a 
developer.


 > OK .... thoughts? :)

I don't think any of this matters that much wrt browsers. What will
really wake people are alternatives to browsing (such as IM), or
perhaps when the penny drops in the industry as to how much it costs
on the server side to subsidise thin clients - but I'm not holding
my breath.

Bill de hÓra

• References:
  • Microsoft-phobia and the non-future of XHTML x.x [LONG]
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: Microsoft-phobia and the non-future of XHTML x.x [LONG]
• Next by Date: Re: OWL for the XML layer
• Previous by thread: Re: Microsoft-phobia and the non-future of XHTML x.x [LONG]
• Next by thread: Re: Microsoft-phobia and the non-future of XHTML x.x [LONG]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread