Tom thanks for your considered reply to some of these points. In recognition that discussion on software methodologies can degrade to flames, in continuing may I acknowledge your views and beliefs. The topic can be discussed without flames when we keep this intelligence within the discussion.
The term "Open Source Evangelist" (Wikipedia ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_evangelist) has common use however my apologies if you find the term misleading; activist if you prefer. I sense we are both activists. Evangelism becomes a descriptor only when activism limits itself to a single methodology within an ideology. As a technology activist I am free to be more expansive than this - There are many software development methodologies offering benefit - some labelled as OSS, some as Proprietary Freeware, others as Commercial Code (OSS or Proprietary). Whatever works for a given scenario and circumstance. What we must avoid are false claims by or concerning any or all of the above. Considered analysis means placing ourselves above the "cat and mouse" marketing game - to look through the hype and seek truth. Hence my introduction to this thread was simply to highlight how the "fact" as written and promoted to our DDN membership is really not as factual as portrayed... To state that: "Proprietary software is written by companies with the primary goal to satisfy shareholders aspirations by increasing market share"... Is not true of all circumstances; is not factual in all circumstances. This is a motherhood statement designed to project a negative image of a competing methodology. A marketing ploy. Sometimes true; often false. In closing a brief note on software development and innovation - My earlier comments on Open Office were not directed at innovative feature development, limited yet important nonetheless - rather it was directed at the far more complicated process of core application development. That Open Office "looks" identical to Microsoft Office is no coincidence. Menu look and hierarchy's, ontology's, most of the core features of Open Office are direct copies of Microsoft Office. The reason OO is far more popular than other OSS attempts at office application integration is because OO "looks and feels" exactly like MS Office; it is a carbon copy. OO developers (including Sun) avoided the pain and process of developing these aspects internally - they simply copied them directly from MS Office because "software proprietary" only protects code - it does not protect function, look, usability, purpose, business rule application and integration (domain analysis)... All the aspects that comprise 90% of any software development cycle. That much of Microsoft Office was itself copied from other non-MS proprietary applications like Star Writer, Perfect Writer and Perfect Calc (and others) is further testimony of the way proprietary software contributes to software development and evolution. Yes I agree OSS offers enormous benefits to society... No I do not agree that OSS is a "mouse" in any context other than in the games of OSS marketers. To be objective is to acknowledge that benefits and pitfalls exist in all development methodologies. Cheers, Don _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
