http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Who-s-Profiting=-from-Open-Source-&story_id=27574

IBM, Sun Microsystems and other technology companies recently "donated"
portions of their software to the open-source community. But those donations
are not motivated by corporate generosity; there are tactics and strategies
behind these moves.

"Vendors will use open source Latest News about open source as a competitive
weapon, by open-sourcing pieces of technologies for strategic reasons,"
David Smith, a vice-president at Gartner, told NewsFactor.

"Most vendors will use open-source tactics as needed, as part of overall
software strategies. Few will have completely open-source oriented
strategies."
------------------------------

So the bottom line is money with the open-source folks just like it is with
Microsoft.  I guess all the white hats have smudges on their faces too.

Who would have guessed.


�ߩ

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:06:38 -0400, SunnyB© wrote:

> 
> http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Who-s-Profiting=-from-Open-Source-&story_id=27574
> 
> IBM, Sun Microsystems and other technology companies recently "donated"
> portions of their software to the open-source community. But those donations
> are not motivated by corporate generosity; there are tactics and strategies
> behind these moves.
> 
> "Vendors will use open source Latest News about open source as a competitive
> weapon, by open-sourcing pieces of technologies for strategic reasons,"
> David Smith, a vice-president at Gartner, told NewsFactor.
> 
> "Most vendors will use open-source tactics as needed, as part of overall
> software strategies. Few will have completely open-source oriented
> strategies."
> ------------------------------
> 
> So the bottom line is money with the open-source folks just like it is with
> Microsoft.

Define 'the open-source folks'.

> I guess all the white hats have smudges on their faces too.

I guess you're a lying cretin.

> 
> Who would have guessed.

.... it's not a guess.

-- 
Rick

SunnyB� wrote:

>
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Who-s-Profiting=-from-Open-Source-&story_id=27574

> "Most vendors will use open-source tactics as needed, as part of overall
> software strategies. Few will have completely open-source oriented
> strategies."

and that spells the end of them.



-- 
http://antimeme.texeme.com/

SunnyB�, <sunnyb@srb.net>, the kooky, repugnant minnow, and itinerant dealer
in small goods and general pedlar, modulated:


> So the bottom line is money with the open-source folks just like it
> is with Microsoft.

And that took you how fucking long to work out, you fucking retard?




-- 
Red Hat, Fedora, SuSE and Mandrake are for n00bs.

SunnyB=A9 <sunnyb@srb.net> wrote:
> So the bottom line is money with the open-source folks just like it is w=
ith
> Microsoft.  I guess all the white hats have smudges on their faces too.

> Who would have guessed.

What you don't seem to "get" is... Motive doesn't matter.
Once software HAS been open sourced, it remains open source, even if the
company rethinks their policy and decides to pull out. Who gives a damn if
they make money out of it? It was their choice to give up some of their
code, why should they receive no reward?

It might be beyond your grasp, but business is about money.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:06:38 -0400, SunnyB� wrote:


> http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Who-s-Profiting=-from-Open-Source-&story_id=27574
> 
> IBM, Sun Microsystems and other technology companies recently "donated"
> portions of their software to the open-source community. But those
> donations are not motivated by corporate generosity; there are tactics
> and strategies behind these moves.
> 
> "Vendors will use open source Latest News about open source as a
> competitive weapon, by open-sourcing pieces of technologies for
> strategic reasons," David Smith, a vice-president at Gartner, told
> NewsFactor.
> 
> "Most vendors will use open-source tactics as needed, as part of overall
> software strategies. Few will have completely open-source oriented
> strategies."
> ------------------------------
> 
> So the bottom line is money with the open-source folks just like it is
> with Microsoft.  I guess all the white hats have smudges on their faces
> too.
> 
> Who would have guessed.

Since when does wanting to make a profit put a smudge on somebody's face?
I think there's something about open source and its supporters that you're
not getting.

-- 
Buford

Rick <none@none.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.15.02.25.12.330928@none.com>...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:06:38 -0400, SunnyB© wrote:
> http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Who-s-Profiting=-from-Open-Source-&story_id=27574
> > 
> > IBM, Sun Microsystems and other technology companies recently "donated"
> > portions of their software to the open-source community. But those donations
> > are not motivated by corporate generosity; there are tactics and strategies
> > behind these moves.

Absolutely true.  Bill Joy, when he was a college student, was hoping
that he would get a better grade, and maybe get a really high payng
job, or maybe find someone with a good business background (like Scott
McNealy) who would want him as a business partner.

If you look at the contributors to Open Source over the last 25 years,
it reads like the who's who of the IT industry.  Many have gone on to
become leaders in major companies - either as founders, or as
executives, or as technical architects and techinical leads.

Open Source is give-and-take.  You get a boatload of reusable
software, and you support this effort by contributing some of your own
software - products that don't have huge revenue value, but would help
you be more productive if they were enhanced.

When IBM OpenSourced Eclipse, it took about 3 months for Eclipse to
become even better than the visual age environment it was meant to
replace.  IBM packaged eclipse into Websphere 5.0, along with other
open source software, and then they added some of their own
proprietary products like J2EE, DB2, MQSeries, and other core
functions which were cross-platform and even supported Linux.

The net result is that IGS can spend less time training new recruits
in "the basics" because they would already know eclipse, Linux,
Windows, and maybe even some UNIX.  This means that the training
efforts can focus on a hand-full of proprietary systems which make it
possible to integrate proprietary legacy systems together.

If I have to "reinvent the wheel" every time I go into a new
engagement, then I waste the clients money and even my own company's
resources.  In addition, we are less likely to win key bids, because
competitors will bid lower.

If I have to spend days poring through proprietary archives in
proprietary formats stored on proprietary databases - trying to get
authorizations and permissions to even review these archives, I'm not
that far ahead either.

If I can spend 2-3 days pulling together open source tools (starting
with a Linux server) add some of these core proprietary technologies
(often proprietary because there are 3rd party intellectual property
rights involved), then I can cut as much as 70% from the initial costs
of developmeent, make a winning bid, and actually deliver the desired
functionality on time and under budget.

> > "Vendors will use open source Latest News about open source as a competitive
> > weapon, by open-sourcing pieces of technologies for strategic reasons,"
> > David Smith, a vice-president at Gartner, told NewsFactor.

I'm not sure what this means.  If thay are saying that they will use
open source announcements as a publicity stunt then bait-and-switch to
another product, that would be a bad business practics.  IBM used to
do that with UNIX.  They'd contact a customer who wanted to see AIX
then try to pitch them on AS/400 or MVS instead.  After a few rounds
of this type of bait-and-switch, they don't invite you back.  Pretty
soon, anyone who wanted to look at UNIX was pretty much expecting the
switch, and in some cases, would terminate the presentation abruptly
and dismiss the meeting the moment the switch was attempted.

When I go into a customer site, I quickly find out what their attitude
is toward Open Source, what they want, and what they need.  There are
times when we will end up going with Jakarta or Java beans rather than
WBI-MB simply because they don't want to even discuss the "switch".  I
can work with a client either way, based on what they want.  If they
just want to "draw a picture and watch it turn into executable code",
we pull out the expensive toys. :-D.


> > "Most vendors will use open-source tactics as needed, as part of overall
> > software strategies. Few will have completely open-source oriented
> > strategies."
> > ------------------------------

Most vendors are looking far beyond the initial software sale.  I've
had projects where the client was spending $2 million dollars on
consulting and hardware, and the decision between Open Source
implementations and $200,000 software packages were made on a
case-by-case basis.  If not spending the $200,000 for the software was
going to increase the cost of the project by another $600,000, they
often bought "the good stuff".  On the other hand, that meant that we
had to deliver miracles with the expensive software.

Senior consultants know where the cost/benefits occurr.  I might be
able to get a prototype working very quickly using an "All Open
Source" solution, but if I need to add fault tolerance, load
balancing, clustering, high capacities, and simplified maintenance
tools, the "good stuff" is much easier to justify.

> > So the bottom line is money with the open-source
> > folks just like it is with Microsoft.

Partly true.  Microsoft wants 85% profits for canned software, as it
comes off the shelf.  Support consists of more canned software, which
may or may not work in your environment (depending on what third party
applications you are using).

Companies like IBM, CCI, Sun, and other "solution providers" make
their profit by solving a companies business problems through a
combination of hardware, software, consulting, and open source, that
helps that company get the right information, at the right time, in a
form that is most useful, at the lowest competitive cost - and still
make a profit margin of 20-30%.

Even companies who don't actually provide "the whole solution" know
that they are part of such solutions.  Dell may not provide their own
consulting arm, but they know that if they don't support anything but
Microsoft, the consultants who do provide the solutions will be
replacing those Dell boxes with something else, or at least they won't
be buying any NEW Dell boxes.  This has been a big problem for
Gateway, who hasn't aggressively supported Open Source.

Keep in mind that solution providers have to be a bit "brand
agnostic".  If I walk into a company that tells me they have 10 Dell
machines ready to go, and 4 Solaris servers configured and running,
I'm going to be using that equipment, not trying to replace those
boxes with X-Series and P-Series servers.

I'm also not going to tell that customer that he has to replace all of
his Windows 2000 or Windows XP desktops with Linux either.  I might
have some of the people on my team download cygwin so that they can do
some of their development on their own workstation, and so that they
can better leverage the tools available on the remote servers, but I
normally don't tell them they have to switch to Linux.  On the other
hand, it's usually not long before they get their hands on a second
PC, something that was about to be thrown out, and put Linux on it
instead.  Often they will share that Linux box, using VNC or cygwin
Xfree, to access all of that Linux power.  It's "Linux on the Desktop"
without giving up the power of Windows.

> Define 'the open-source folks'.
> 
> > I guess all the white hats have smudges on their faces too.

I spend most of my time bloody up to my armpits in projects that
involve getting 3-5 proprietary products, a few in-house custom
databases, including those of competitors and other vendors, to play
nice together - Open Source provides a common ground for doing that. 
But so does a bit of WMQ and WBI. ;-).

Rex B
http://www.open4success.org

SunnyB� wrote:

> http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Who-s-Profiting=-from-Open-Source-&story_id=27574
> 
> IBM, Sun Microsystems and other technology companies recently "donated"
> portions of their software to the open-source community. But those donations
> are not motivated by corporate generosity; there are tactics and strategies
> behind these moves.
> 
> "Vendors will use open source Latest News about open source as a competitive
> weapon, by open-sourcing pieces of technologies for strategic reasons,"
> David Smith, a vice-president at Gartner, told NewsFactor.
> 
> "Most vendors will use open-source tactics as needed, as part of overall
> software strategies. Few will have completely open-source oriented
> strategies."
> ------------------------------
> 
> So the bottom line is money with the open-source folks just like it is with
> Microsoft.  I guess all the white hats have smudges on their faces too.
> 

The end user profits from open source.
Who would have thunk it.

-- 
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:06:38 -0400, SunnyB� wrote:

> 
> So the bottom line is money with the open-source folks just like it is
> with Microsoft.  I guess all the white hats have smudges on their faces
> too.
> 
> Who would have guessed.


Um...duh? Haven't we've been telling you that Open Source makes a profit
for quite some time widiot?

God there are some wierd people on these newsgroups, must be microsoft doing
very wierd things to the top part of the body, ah well, I suppose the world
has to try and survive with them.
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:03dcb2221fa0447492364bef50949c04@news-text.bhandari.pvt.np...
> SunnyB�, <sunnyb@srb.net>, the kooky, repugnant minnow, and itinerant
dealer
> in small goods and general pedlar, modulated:
>
>
> > So the bottom line is money with the open-source folks just like it
> > is with Microsoft.
>
> And that took you how fucking long to work out, you fucking retard?
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Red Hat, Fedora, SuSE and Mandrake are for n00bs.
>