[LINK] what to study about foss

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 03:14:49PM +1000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> 	1) what explains the inability of FOSS to respond to consumer and market
> 	driven demand, as in the case where FOSS failed to develop accessibility
> 	features for its desktop applications in Massachusetts.

because those under severe political pressure from microsoft lobbyists chose
to ignore the desktop accessibility features that have been available in FOSS
desktop environments and applications for years.

> 	2) given the years FOSS has been around, the "man hours" dedicated to
> 	its projects, and the myriads of eyeballs peering into its code, why has
> 	FOSS generated only a few commercial successes?

for the same reason that cricket teams rarely win the AFL Grand Final -
they're playing a completely different game.

commercial success is NOT the objective of free software development
projects. making good software that works reliably and can be customised
by the end users is the goal.



> 	3) most admit the limitations of FOSS in segments of systems and
> 	architectures. Given this, shouldn't FOSS adopt licenses to ensure its
> 	"mixture" with mass-market proprietary technologies, as that seems the
> 	only route for long term adoption and viability?


what does "limitations of FOSS in segments of systems and architectures"
actually mean?  it is pure gibberish, it means nothing.  so your conclusion is
that FOSS should adopt restrictive proprietary-style per-seat licenses because
of meaningless gibberish.


> 	4) do companies such as IBM and Red Hat rely on innovation in FOSS
> 	technologies for their service businesses? What does this say about the
> 	"innovativeness" vs business aspects of FOSS when firms can still make
> 	money even if FOSS technologies improve incrementally or not at all? .

more meaningless gibberish.

> 	5) how do FOSS companies compete for developers. After years and
> 	hundreds if not thousands of FOSS projects, are there "all-star"
> 	developers courted by project leaders or companies?

same as anyone else competing for highly skilled individuals - by
offering sufficient incentives (money AND conditions AND interesting
work) to tempt them.


> 	6) how much say do FOSS volunteers have in proposing ideas or
> 	directional changes in development efforts? Is this anyway to treat
> 	folks who lend their work to giants like IBM and Red Hat, who then turn
> 	around and make money off that.

they have complete say.  if they want something, they write it and contribute
it.  if others like it, they'll adopt it.

> 	7) finally, is there any plan to oust Moglen-Stallman and replace them
> 	with reasonable representatives such as Oreilly-Torvalds?"

why would there be? stallman and the FSF are idealists interested in
freedom. oreilly & torvalds are pure pragmatists with no interest in
the ethics of freedom...they miss half (or more) of the point of free
software.

it is the principled, ethical stand of the FSF and their General Public
License which has led to the success of the Linux kernel - without that
guarantee of "once free, always free", Linux would not have had anywhere
near as many contributors. pragmatism isn't anywhere near as inspiring
as idealism.




craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)