>>What makes you think open source can catch up to and pass closed source technologies?
>
>Why woudln't they be able to catch up? What does a corporation with say 2000 engineers bring to the table that can't be matched by openly available software being maintained by the entire earth.

I have no opinion on the matter, just wondering why you think open source catching up to closed source. Since this assertion forms the basis of your argument, you need to prove it.

>When the threat of open source exists, keep in mind. What I mean by this is, if there was a platform (say 20, 50 years out), that was ultra reliable, ultra secure, ultra fast, and completely free, what would a proprieatary OS offer an enterprise? Why would the choose the costly solution that isn't as proven or customizable?

I think the flaw here is that if open source is free, then there is no way to compensate programmers for their time. Only a small minority of programmers have the will and the time to do unpaid programming. Therefore the system will break down. I think _if_ people start to pay for open source software, then it can continue to evolve, otherwise it will eventually whither.

>>That vast majority of the desktop, pc-based servers, minis and mainframes run proprietary OSs. I don't see this changing much. Especially when nobody actually pays money for open source OS's. I have never know anyone to pay a dime for Linux. That just isn't sustainable.
>
>Why isn't that sustainable? If no one owns the source, what is there to even sustain?

See above.