>>>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.
>
>They have money. They have resources.
>Open source, I see as largely copying the features they want from closed source, not attempting to innovate new features.

Don't go there, Chris, you'll lose!


>Take for example the Open Source Office Applications, the greatest selling point these focus on is the ability to compare with, and even use MS Office applications. They have taken the time to recreate something that can already be purchased. Yes it is free which is good for the consumer, but at some stage the people doing this will become tired of giving all their hardwork away, and move to something where they actually get paid for their work.

So you think? Why hasn't it happend already. In fact, the pace of devleopment, and the numbers of volunteers and paid programmers working on the progject is increasing! And why 'copy' MS formats? Because that is what folks want. They don't want to have to port their docs to another format, free or not. They could easily use RTF but they don't. So, create a doc capability. Sooner or later, they'll drop it in favor of the format that is standard with the app.
I've seen it happen too many times.



>
>>
>>>>simply that they have taken proprietary software about as far as it can go when the threat of open source exists.
>>>What makes you think proprietary has gone as far as it can go?

BLOAT. Most folks don't use 90+% of the features in any particular office app.


>>
>>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?
>
>Support, from what I see in the OpenSource industry, they are attempting (the companies like RedHat etc) to make a profit by offering support contracts. And the price of some of these is phenominal, out weighing the cost of just buying a product that your sysadmin has enoungh knowledge to fix up.

Well, you know that MS apps require even MORE support that similar Linux apps. The patch rates for XP and prior verions of WinXX are becoming exponential.


>To make something ultra secure, they will either need to completly lock down the functionality of the system.

No. Most systems (boxes) are already as secure as folks want them to be, by virtue of being locked behind doors with passkey security. Remove the functionality of the app and then you have to ask 'Why use the app'?

Only NT 3.5 was given a C2 security clearance, and only because the floppy was removed and there were no network cards in the box, and the lid to the box was locked. One would have to install the software and then remove the floppy and lock the box. No connection to a network. That scenerio has only limited usefulness. But, it didn't stop MS's PR department from fudging the truth to exploit most consumers ignorance and make implications that all NT configurations were C2 secure, which they were not.

MS will have to (re)write apps with security and stability paramount, not tacked on as an afterthought.

> Or close the source.

Surely you jest! If closed source makes an OS/app secure then WinXX should be the most secure OS on the planet.

>While ever it remains open, anyone with the time and will is able to look into the source and identify bugs, and if an OS should ever outweigh windows oin the desktop, I am sure people will start looking at breaking into it.

Contraire! People won't 'start looking into it'. They are scouring it by the thousands, looking for anything they can find. Some to be helpful, others to be malicious. But, examining the source is ENCOURAGED in Linux. Linus has a saying, "with enough eyes all bugs are shallow", roughly translated. Being open source is the key to Linux legendary security and stability. At the last count I recall someone mentioning, over 12,000 folks help in the development of the Linux kernel. Many more thousands read the source and many email suggestions for improvement. Anyone can sign onto the Kernel mailing list, or the lists for any of the other apps. The more the merrier! Jump in!

>There is not point exposing security flaws in Linux at the moment, because there arnt enough 'stupid' people who will leave their system unsecure, open all email attachments, etc.

No point? Surely you jest again! Anytime is a good time to expose security flaws, but the sooner the better. I am not sure you are saying that not many stupid people run Linux or that only stupid people run WinXX, if insecure systems with insecure email is a measure of their stupidity??

>The majority of windows viruses are still triggered by people opening the attachments.

On WinXX boxes. They do nothing on my Linux box.

>
>>
>>>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.

You know me. I pay for my copies of SuSE! Why? To keep them going, of course. I still give away copies to friends. Sooner or later they will buy a copy for themselves, for the same reasons.

>>
>>Why isn't that sustainable? If no one owns the source, what is there to even sustain?
>
>It has to be sustained to keep on pace with the proprietary software, otherwise it becomes out of date and useless.

Or, the company that owns it needs more money so they churn out a 'new' version with a few new 'features' and generate more revenue. Opps! The folks are staying pat. What to do? Why discontinue sale and support of the 'older' OSs, of course.


>
>I dont have anything against the principle of OpenSource, I just dont find it commercially viable. For how long are people going to be willing to write copiuos amounts of code for free.

As long as they want. They've outlived many propriatary companies.

>And devote enough time to keep it on track with the rest of the proprietary software.

As much time as they want. With few people needed for bug and security support more time is given to development. Besides, lots of companies see the benefit and are paying folks to code in the Linux environment, even on GPL projects!



>Just look at the slow progress made by the Mozilla crew. Its taking years to get anywhere, and it is still riddled with bugs.

It's gotten farther than "Bob"! Years! You know why, if you've truely been following Mozilla. The problem was the inteference of a company bent on propriatary control. But, if you have used the recent releases of Mozilla you'll find it works as well as IE, if not better.
JLK