>>>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.

What you see as a 'flaw' is seen by others as a strength. People don't work on GPL software to 'get compensated', if by being 'compensated' you are refering only to direct transfer of money. People VOLUNTEER to work on the Linux kernel, KDE, GNOME, OpenOffice, etc..., and it is not a 'small minority'. I used to think that the number of programmers available to work on GPL software would limit it, but I was wrong. There are more folks working on the Linux kernel, for example, that probably work on the MS OS. They are compensated by others also contributing their time and talent to make the end product better than any individual programmer could do. Even here, on UT, a movement to create a depository of contributed code, with no one expecting 'compensation'. As far as 'breaking down', the 'system' is actually getting stronger and stronger, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't be devoting so much time and PR energy against it.

"People paying for Open Source"? You don't understand open source. With thousands contributing, who would pay whom? How would one compute the financial worth of Joe Coder's one line patch? Eric Raymond wrote a seminal paper called "The Cathederal and The Baazar", and another called "Homesteading the Noosphere", found at:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar


>
>>>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.

The MS hedgemony in desktops was not arrived at by equal competition, as two court verdicts have proven. And I see it changing because folks who own monopolies forget how to behave in a community spirit.

The point you miss about Open Source is this: EVERYONE owns the source!
Anyone can use the source for their own purposes, but no one can hijack the source to exploit the freely donated work of others for their own greed. If they add to the source and then sell their derivative work they must release the source that they added. If they don't like that arrangement they are free to write their own code for that niche from scratch.

>>
>>Why isn't that sustainable? If no one owns the source, what is there to even sustain?

Exactly. Besides, from a developer's point of view it is a dream. I can go to a client's site with ONE copy of SuSE 7.3 Pro and install it on ALL of their servers and workstations, and leave them the copy. What's $70 for eight CDs and five manuals? Dinner and a movie for a family. Then I proceed to use the GPL GUI REV dev tools and databases to solve their business problems, leaving them with the source. If I start with a GPL application and modifiy it for my client, but my client has no intention of selling the modified version to the public, then no GPL violation has occured, and his business secrets are safe. If I write a solution from scratch then it is all his to do with as he pleases. The fact that I used GPL dev tools and databases has no bearing. His customers can take the copy of PostgreSQL, for example, that he bundles with his app, or download a copy from their website. Since he isn't modifiy PostgreSQL he won't violate the GPL. His own code, in binary form, creates the database schema on the installed database.

The client pays no license fees for Linux, or PostgreSQL or any other GPL app. He, or his consultant, can update any and all GPL apps anytime they choose, in as many locations as they need or want, with no license fee payments or hassels. If the Linux 2.x.x kernel works for his solution there is no pressure by an outside company to churn a license base for more income by discontinuing support or refusing to supply the OS or App version he is using.

It is a consultant's dream. Most, if not all, of the client's expense is for the consultant's services, and little or none goes to a third party vendor. A consultant can underbid another consultant depending on propriatary software and still make more money. The consultant doesn't have to worry about the BSA auditing him or his client base. However, if the client has a compulsion to use propriatary software and pay license fees there are always propriatary apps (usually based around license fees for IP) that can tickle their fancy. They could, for example, eschew OGG and go with MP3 or RealPlayer. In Penquin Land, what a person wants to do with his money is entirely up to him. If the economy continues its downward spiral it will be a scenerio that will be replayed more and more as folks seek ways to decrease computer costs and increase reliabilty and security.
JLK