[SC.LUG] Guardians Jack Schofields reply to my letter

[Jason Lucas]

Good reply, David. Having read some of Jack SCOfields (sorry, couldn't
resist) tech replies, it's clear that he's a M$ guy and is probably
worried about losing his job when Linux reaches his desktop!

J.



On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 15:54, David Holden wrote:
> On Thursday 22 Jan 2004 2:35 pm, Jason Lucas wrote:
> > Perhaps we should invite him to one of our meetings and explain to him
> > that people can and do use Linux without having to be a kernel coder. -
> > And then Ian can discuss kernel coding with him!
> >
> > J.
> >
> 
> I'm sure it wasn't worth it but I sent him the following reply:
> 
> 
> >There are undoubted benefits to allowing millions of programmers to
> >check and correct source code. Even proprietary software providers such
> >as Apple, IBM and Microsoft now agree on this. However, this is only the
> >most trivial meaning of "open source", and the fact that you can see the
> >source does not stop software from being either commercial or proprietary.
> 
>  Agreed its down to its licensing.
> 
> 
> >There are also undoubted benefits from running open source software,
> >though the financial ones can be small or even negative.
> 
> They can also be large and positive (it depends on the circumstances). One of 
> the positive benefit from an end user point of view is that it prevent one 
> company monopolising an area and then making  80% plus margins on a product, 
> see for instance Microsoft Windows or Office.
> 
> 
> >Companies are bound to be tempted by the idea of getting something
> >for nothing, but in business, the selling price of a program is not a
> >significant proportion of its TCO (total cost of ownership).
> >It is easy to save $10 a year on soft ware and lose $10 a day in
> >productivity, either from incompatibilities or poor ease of use or
> >other factors.
> 
> Very true, but if these are statements in favour of proprietary software
> lets consider one real life example:
> 
> As an employee whose company now runs largely on Linux we had no down time
> or any problems whatsoever from the recent spate of virus attacks, its
> been quoted that billions of pounds have been lost to companies running
> a certain proprietary operating system due to this particular problem.
> 
> 
> 
> >The facility to fix bugs yourself and to modify programs also sounds
> >attractive. However, fixing bugs is not practical for most companies,
> >and modifications can be positively dangerous.
> 
> However having the source code available often means that you don't have
> to fix the bug yourself because someone else has come across the problem
> and already fixed it. Not having the source code available means that the
> only way you can get the problem resolved is from your software supplier,
> these often have no interest in fixing problems unless it affects one
> of their large customers, I have direct experience of this.
> 
> 
> >If you are really going to do these things, you need to hire
> >several reliable programmers with kernel-level skills: not a cheap
> >proposition. The bug-fixes and extensions you get will be more or less
> >untested, and bug-fixes can introduce as many problems as they solve.
> 
> 
> This is relevant only if you have a kernel level problem, In respect
> of Linux and the kernel, I suspect a large reason that oracle and many
> other companies are moving over to Linux is that they can get access to
> the kernel source and hence tune their software to run both faster and
> more reliably, open source is not just about the end user.
> 
> 
> >Of course, your changes can be fed back into the mainstream source code,
> >but there is no guarantee they will be accepted, and there is no appeals
> >procedure. It may even be that different and incompatible changes are
> >accepted instead, leaving you with no choice but to undo your work or
> >risk a "fork" - then you really are on your own without a paddle.
> 
> 
> No but with open source you at least have this option, with proprietary
> code again we are back trying to convince a proprietary vendor that
> changes you need are important, maybe if you are Boeing or Ford you can
> get Microsoft to make changes to their "kernel" for your purposes, good
> luck as a SME in doing this.
> 
> 
> 
> >I don't always agree with Oracle's chief executive Larry Ellison. However,
> >the whole argument for Oracle's e-business suite is to make it easy
> >to install and cheap to run, but you lose both benefits if you muck
> >about with it. "'No code modification' is the correct message," says
> >Ellison. (Softwar, p213).
> 
> 
> I often don't agree with what certain CEO say (they change their tune
> depending on the current needs of their businesses - quite rightly) ,
> however Ellison may have said this but his company is moving over to
> Linux at a rapid rate.
> 
> 
> >Indeed, the whole progress of commercial computing has been from expensive
> >hand-written, bug-ridden, company-specific programs to cheaper but more
> >powerful off-the-shelf packages. From that point of view, open source
> >is a throwback.
> 
> 
> So you support open source?
> 
> 
> >Finally, a couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that the movement did not
> >have any way of creating software architectures. A reader disputed this
> >in Feedback, citing three programs: Perl, Python and Apache. These are
> >excellent programs, but not what I'd call a software architecture.
> 
> 
> Whether they fit your definition of a software architecture or not they
> are one of many open source software systems that are used by millions
> of people around the world on a daily basis with incredible reliability,
> and robustness, so to me this point is moot.
> 
> 
> >Curiously, also, none of them was developed by the open source movement,
> >though they have of course been adopted and improved by it. Larry Wall
> >developed Perl while working at Unisys; both Python and Apache came out
> >of academia.
> 
> I have to say I find this statement misleading and just plain wrong.
> It seems to me that where a piece of software is "started" is not relevant
> Perl/Python apache are all developed using the open source methodology
> and their current incarnations are a direct and sole result of that 
> methodology.
> 
> 
> >The open source/free software movement is well worth having if it can
> >fix up failed commercial programs (Netscape, Star Office) and help
> >turn academic ones into enterprise class software (Python, Apache),
> >etc. I'm all in favour. But I get the impression that its ambitions are
> >rather higher.
> 
> Open source software is worth having if it improves code quality and
> reduces total cost of ownership, more and more people are convinced this
> is exactly what it is doing.
> 
>  Best regards,
> 
>    Dr. David Holden.