On Tuesday 31 May 2005 17:02, Ernest Byaruhanga wrote: > I particularly found the following caption funny: > > -- > And though open source software may be "free," > sometimes you get what you pay for, McVoy says. "Open > source software is like handing you a doctor's bag and > the architectural plans for a hospital and saying, > 'Hey dude, if you have a heart attack, here are all > the tools you need--and it's free,'" McVoy says. "I'd > rather pay someone to take care of me."
And that's his opinion - to each his own. That said, I don't think it's that all business models are out to make money. Some are profit-based, others are for the greater good. And I think Linux/Open Source fits into the latter category. How long for, well... Take an example of donor money. Most times, it's for time-limited projects. In many cases, once the funds have been depleted the project is no longer sustainable, but a few more schools were built, a few more bore holes were dug, and few more roads were constructed. Purpose, method, result... Back to Linux/Open Source; IMHO, the reason development of the Linux kernel and/or open source projects hasn't dwindled into being based on corporate profit strategies is because of the ubiquitous support out there, and let's not, for one second, undermine that. There is always someone that's willing to contribute to the code, make it better, add their 2 cents. While the problem with this could mean less time from a larger team, it means better quality from the same larger team. Personally, a small price to pay for a good product. McVoy is basing his strategy on employing a few highly skilled chaps whom he has to pay. Now, let me see, a few skilled chaps, or millions of skilled chaps - hmmh, tough one... Mark.
pgpjcLZGHIMY7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
