Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Mainframe programming and open source -- Where's the beef?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Open-source advocates often cite lower software prices, "power to the
> | masses", or avoidance of vendor lock-in. However, a key value of open
> | source is the ability of IT shops to tap into open source development
> | and its methodologies to enhance applications. Open source and
> | collaborative programming not only leverage programming power outside
> | the enterprise or overseas, but also improve the quality of in-house
> | proprietary programming, making not only business-critical applications
> | but entire platforms much more effective.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | Open source is steadily increasing its presence, from the bottom of
> | the software stack up. Linux (operating systems), Netscape Navigator
> | (browsers), and Apache (application servers) are now being joined by
> | office automation suites, development tools (Eclipse), databases (mySQL,
> | PostgreSQL, and Berkeley DB [now part of Oracle]), and now data
> | integration tools (Jitterbit, aimed at bringing data integration to
> | medium-sized firms). Developers -- especially open-source ones -- can
> | use these solutions as class libraries that they can invoke in order
> | to handle infrastructure across platforms.
> `----
>
>
http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid80_gci1215521,00.html
Absolutely right, the key being not so much the ability to tap into ready
made classes as mentioned in the article, that's more a tool, the real key
is the gradual but real build up of excitement in software development.
Generate excitement and you generate innovation, then the two accumulate on
the backs of each other. It's a snowball and is already a big one.
We got told on here in a post that Linux could never over take MS, well I
would say that we already have almost everything in place.
The great civilisations all died out very quickly. Very large businesses,
particular public companies, tend to do the same, a string of bad reports
or poor years and the investors pull the plug. Even if Linux didn't exist,
MS are still in trouble, because the areas of growth are too few and far
between. With Linux, and the takeup of Linux in the major growth areas of
the developing world, MS has no where to go, except into other products,
but it seems MS in other products is pretty much seen as a kiss of death
these days. Even their games machine looks set for failure when the next
Sony one comes out, apparently does what the MS games machine does, plus a
great deal more, but costs a lot less and they are delaying for no other
reason than to get the production side right, so they obviously plan to get
a much better build quallity reputation than MS's offering (50% failures we
were told not long agon in here)
MS are closing lawsuits as quickly as they can, even when it is costly to
them as in the Sun case. They know that they need this stuff out of the
press. They are also pitching the prices high for Vista, because they know
they will not be rocking any boats, if they expected a massive sale they
could have pitched lower. We all know what is happening with their shares.
MS are in trouble.
They have a large ship, but they have no one onboard who knows how to sail
it.
Linux on the other hand still on it's long gentle plod up the statistics
charts, some dips, but the general trend is upwards. It is odd really we
don't have a crew so to speak, but we seem to know where we are going.
We are getting a lot of free publicity from all the 'Contains Linux'
products, plus the rave reviews of some of the desktop clients.
I don't think it's a matter of will MS start collapsing big time, much more
a case of when and what form that collapse will take.
If it was me in Ballmers chair I know what I would do, book a bloody long
holiday, wait for the collapse, then come back to collect my redundancy
money, which I would set excruciatingly high because I'm the boss therefore
I can.
Oh, and then I would bye my mum a DVD player that she can actually work, I'm
sick of walking in and finding that she has gone a few days with no telly
because she can't get rid of the DVD splash screen. I must admit the remote
controls for DVD players seem to have managed to get even more complicated
than the video recorders, that had to have taken some planning,
'Dilbert: ... less functions because it does more things automatically,
hmmm, I know lets give them More buttons to compensate'.
|
|
