Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ BearItAll ] on Thursday 11 January 2007 12:37 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> __/ [ BearItAll ] on Thursday 11 January 2007 09:10 \__
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The open source patent war
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | The problem for proprietary software companies is that free software
>>>>> | pulls the rug from under traditional software models. By definition
>>>>> | free software is collaborative. Numerous individuals, hardware
>>>>> | companies and academic establishments contribute to the code that
>>>>> | is contained in a Linux distribution, and all have a vested
>>>>> | interest in its success. The customer gains because the software
>>>>> | is free and tends to be more adventurous, versatile and secure.
>>>>> | The only potential loser is the traditional software vendor.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.itpro.co.uk/features/101743/the-open-source-patent-war.html
>>>>
>>>> They don't have to lose out at all. A lot of Linux applications have a
>>>> commercial side too, OpenSource does not mean that you can not make a
>>>> profit.
>>>>
>>>> If a product is good it will sell, how well it sells only depends on
>>>> the audience your software is intended for. Ok, so it isn't very likly
>>>> that you will make Bill's billions if you released a commercial shell,
>>>> mind, thinking as I type, I suppose the potential is there if you
>>>> really do come up with a winner.
>>>
>>> I think the key difference is that you can't /force/ the customer to but
>>> something due to lockins. Many proprietary vendors (note: I don't say
>>> "commericial", which can also be open source) hold their clients
>>> hostage.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think all that many users will think of 'lock-in'. Being held
>> hostage doesn't have to be all bad
>>
>> "Right gov until the ransome is paid you have to stay on this Exclusive
>> Hawian island in this fabulous villa at no expense".
>>
>> Its all a matter of what you are locked in to.
>>
>> Apple lock-in is a price based problem, you buy the system and then if
>> you want more you need to sell the kids in to sweeping chimneys.
>> MS Win lockin is, well actually I don't think there is a lock in there
>> unless you say that it's a lack of alternatives.
>> Linux doesn't lock in, more likly in some respects it has lock-out.
>>
>> No I don't hold with vendors holding customers hostage. There is always
>> the choice, it is only a matter of whether the alternatives are better.
>> We must think that linux is better or we wouldn't be here, convincing
>> others that there is an alternative that works without biting your wallet
>> is all that is needed, but its no easy task.
>
> Linux may /sometimes/ requite you to program converters based on the
> source code, but also consider support. With proprietary software, support
> can quickly become very poor because support is a monopoly. I have read
> some appalling rants about Apple's support, for example. Let's see how
> CentOS manages to keep customer or users when it delivers a bad
> distribution... Red Hat paid the price when they abused some cusotmers in
> the past... MySQL are getting some angry customers for similar reasons.
>
I was one of those who received RH's email 'RH no longer support the old
support system, you have to buy it again under the new system, goodbuy and
thanks for all the cash'.
I was mid term in that particular support agreement and on the very day I
got my email, the login to the site was blocked. Other than the financial
ripoff, there was the fact that the online database was a usefull place for
keeping which servers had updated which products because it kept itself up
to date by the update actions that you took. A quick visual scan told you a
great deal, including my remote servers, I could see at a glance if the
German or Dublin servers needed a critical update.
But it was all lost in an instant.
Add another server, then register it on your site and it built up the system
information database for you, then you could check that you brought it up
to date on key apps compared with the other servers.
It was such I good system that I was willing to pay the support even though
I had never ever needed to ring them. The update system itself was so
stable that I would have been willing to let it update the Live server on
automatically, it was just the pessimist in me that wouldn't let me do that
and he's bigger than I am.
As for MySQL. The first years of updates were extraordinarily easy. The
person who wrote the script to check the files locations and versions,
update in the right place, replace the links for the mysqld and mysql. I
loved that person whether a male or female, because it was so blooming easy
to upgrade. If it couldn't upgrade then it would stop and tell you, before
it changed any of the files. So you still had the old system in place.
Then they got lax in that area until now people are scared to upgrade, the
fear has little to do with whether the new version will work in their
application, its because too many have started the upgrade, had the code
stop part way through, then you don't have the old version and you don't
have the new.
The installer no longer looks far enough ahead to ensure that it can finish
the job before it starts.
They have also made it extreemly difficult to run multiple versions, so if
you do only have one main Live server, you can not set up the new MySQL
while the old one is still running. Unless you have a VM of cause.
You can understand why some are moving to Postgresql again and others are
trying to get away with sqlite. All because they are not taking care with
the install scripts.
|
|
