Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <email@example.com> <9HbR9.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: I am interested in making AutoTRAX EDA open source.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust22.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1041760881 30680 184.108.40.206 (5 Jan 2003 10:01:21 GMT)
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 10:01:15 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 10:01:22 GMT
Mark Zenier wrote:
> In article <9HbR9.email@example.com>,
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> Mark Zenier wrote:
>>> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>>> AtPCLogic wrote:
>>>> Someone mentioned the debate over cost of open source products.
>>>> Seems that a number of studies (not just by MS) have come to the
>>>> conclusion that open source products like linux are simply MORE
>>>> expensive to run than the out-of-the box software. Seems that
>>>> there is a ton of effort required to get the stuff up and keep it
>>>> up. The staffing costs far exceed the cost of the software. So,
>>>> good luck with the open source stuff, but I'm not convinced that
>>>> it is a viable business model for anyone....
>>> It ever occur to you that this is Microsoft's current FUD campaign?
>> Yes, but it isn't. Those of us that produce software, know that the
>> chances of making any money from it by simply giving it away are
>> pretty much no-existent. Most people who put forward open source,
>> have not thought about the problem at all. For one example, if you
>> are only selling say, a few thousand licences there is no way you
>> are going to get say advertising revenue. Open source, is basically
>> a non starter for he majority of companies.
> What does this have to do with cost of use claims being widely spread,
> as above?
Er... Why should it?. I am pointing out why OS is not a generally viable
business model. The advantage to the user is unimportant as far as a
company is concerned. The company is concerned with advantages to
> Yes, Kevin we know that you're a social darwinist brown
> nose just quivering at the though of sucking up to the richest man
> in the world. On the other hand, I went to college with enough
> of those guys to be unimpressed.
You have no idea of my personal beliefs, you confuse personal codes of
conduct with stating scientific facts.
> The position they gained was done with illegal means. I suppose you
> have a similar high opinion of the Columbian drug lords...
Your out to lunch here. In what way does the scientific *identification*
of how things actually work, equate to a belief that it is reasonable
way to undertake such action. Your denial of the facts that, e.g,
actions that replicate themselves better than other actions, by their
very nature, will be the ones that are observed, does not change those
If one considers a public limited company, than their *legal*
responsibility is to do what ever is in the best interests of their
shareholders. If they don't do this, they might even face criminal
charges. Commercial companies are simply not in the business of doing
what is good for society, that's the job of government. This can not be
realistically changed. Its like the law of thermodynamics. Its how the
math of evolution works. If a company considers the interests of others
before its own, it will inevitable go into receivership. Of course, it
really goes without saying, that a company has to consider the interests
of customers in a ceratain limited way to make sales, but the this
interest is only indirect, it is only to gain a net benefit to its own
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.