RE: Why Aren't Open Source Tools Being Considered?

Subject: RE: Why Aren't Open Source Tools Being Considered?
From: "Nuckols, Kenneth M" <Kenneth -dot- Nuckols -at- mybrighthouse -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:17:39 -0400

Bruce wrote...

> Advocating the same thing as the fanatics is rather like being a
> reader of science fiction and dealing with Trekkies. Here you are,
> trying to talk about writers like Ursula Le Guin and Kim Stanley
> Robinson, and, to the public, science fiction is people with pointy
> and tacky uniforms and plastic blasters. In the same way, here's
> something that I think is useful and worthwhile, and many people think
> it's about over-zealous behavior and anti-Microsoft sentiment.

Bruce, I'm curious to confirm/challenge my perceptions about your "Part
2" question on the philosophy behind OS development. My belief (backed
up by some, but not extensive research) has always been that ultimately
it's all about a payday--either in terms of fame or cash.

Those seeking fame want to be recognized as "the ultra-cool wizard" who
developed "WidgetBuster Pro" that does everything <expensive commercial
software title> does, and does it all free, Free, FREE I say! The
adoration of millions upon millions of polyester-wearing geeks elevating
the developer to the level of "coding god" is payment enough, even if
they never gain a single penny from their title.

On the other hand, those seeking cash want to "test market" software
under an OS model that's "almost ready" for market for one of several

1. To find out if it really is "all that and a bag of chips" that can be
commercially marketed,

2. To impress potential investors that with enough capital they can turn
this potential software into a viable commercial title that will make
them all fabulously wealthy,

3. To "force" <evil empire giant software publisher> to pay them gobs
and gobs of money to turn over all the development so it won't compete
with the established "standard" commercial title, or

4. To "force" <evil empire giant software publisher> to pay them gobs
and gobs of money to come to work for them and turn their "hobby"
project into a commercially viable title to replace the company's
current aging "standard" software.

In the end, from what I've seen the only reason anyone creates OS
software is to get a big payday for their ego or their wallet. Is that
completely inaccurate, completely accurate, or somewhere in between? I'd
be curious to know.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy it.


Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today!

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.


Previous by Author: RE: Is InDesign replacing Pagemaker?
Next by Author: RE: Newsletters -- what's the best tool for creating them?
Previous by Thread: Re: Why Aren't Open Source Tools Being Considered?
Next by Thread: RE: Why Aren't Open Source Tools Being Considered?

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads