> Myself - I would be very glad to consider Open Source as soon as someone
answers this question from the perspective of a small company:
How does a (very small) software development house make money under
Open
Source licenses?"
I have seen Thomas ask this question numerous times on numerous forums, and
have yet to see an intelligent/plausible answer. I would love to hear the
answer to his question as well. Service revenue don’t cut it either.
–
Bill McKenzie
Compuware Corporation
Watch your IRPs/IRBs/URBs/SRBs/NDIS pkts with our free WDMSniffer tool:
http://frontline.compuware.com/nashua/patches/utility.htm
“Thomas F. Divine” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> Bill,
>
> Although I wouldn’t use the same working as you, I certainly agree.
>
> Myself
> ====
> I work for myself, buy my own tools, buy my own development hardware and
> write my own code. Although I am “small potatoes” in the overall world of
> software chances are pretty high that somewhere lurking on your Windows PC
> is software derived from something I’ve written.
>
> Sources to the code I have written (bought and paid for) belong to me,
> and I believe that I should have a right to decided who can see (license)
> the code and who cannot.
>
> I continually maintain and improve my code because my customers expect
> expect that in return for their license fee. (I get repeat customers).
>
> I don’t like folks who steal my software because they say they can’t
> afford it or they are “only using it for educational purposes” or that
they
> are “doing me a big favor” by stealing it becauses it shows that I should
> improve my security. I give it away sometimes, but please don’t steal it.
>
> Microsoft
> ======
> By the same token, Microsoft works for itself, buys its own tools, buys
its
> own development hardware and writes its own code. Microsoft is not “small
> potatoes” in the overall world of software and chances are pretty high
that
> somewhere lurking on your Windows PC is software written by Microsoft.
>
> Sources to the code Microsoft has written (bought and paid for) belong
to
> Microsoft, and I believe that Microsoft should have a right to decided who
> can see (license) their code and who cannot.
>
> Microsoft continually maintains and improves their code because their
> customers expect expect that in return for their license fee. (Microsoft
> gets repeat customers).
>
> Microsoft doesn’t like folks who steal their software either. They give
> it away sometimes, but please don’t steal it.
>
> I certainly agree that software developers have an “obligation” to support
> their community. I try to do that with websites like www.ndis.com,
articles
> on www.wd-3.com and a mailing list
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discussion-pcausa/ that is heavily
frequented
> by NDIS newbies. (Lots of “I wanna rite a Ndis drivur…” questions get
> answered there - as well as some other more obscure chats.) I don’t
provide
> lots of free code samples, but the few I do are appreciated.
>
> I think that Microsoft gives quite a bit of community support as well.
>
> If someone is interested in Open Source software, then they should go to
> products that support open source. Simple choice - like deciding which
brand
> of beer that you like: home brew in the bathtub or an expensive imported
> beer.
>
> Myself - I would be very glad to consider Open Source as soon as someone
> answers this question from the perspective of a small company:
>
> How does a (very small) software development house make money under
Open
> Source licenses?"
>
> (I am serious about needing an answer to that question)
>
> Thomas F. Divine
>
>
> “Bill Casey” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >
> > Peter:
> > Like Mt. Vesuvius I have been keeping the lid on my own pontification
> > regarding the “Open Sore” community. But your posting and the recent
> “Open
> > Source” front-cover headline by C/C++ Journal has caused the following
> > venting:
> > By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no sniggering!) I
have
> > managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years. So why
should
> I
> > be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to make both
past
> > AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY available?
> > How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make money? Are we
> > supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.
> > It isn’t often I come to the defense of Microsoft but I will in this
> > instance. Let’s all quit whining about having the Windows source
> available.
> > Maybe we should all stare at our OWN code a little longer for the sake
of
> > improving it rather than dump responsibility onto MS for our perceived
> > difficulties. Buck up and take it like a man. It is THEIR code paid
for
> > with THEIR money. We can complain but it isn’t our RIGHT to look at,
> touch
> > it or feel it.
> > If only I had a small chance of speaking to the head of Red Hat, I’d let
> > him know my opinion of his recent comment that “one should be able to
look
> > at source code without fear of being arrested”. Well, he can look at MY
> > source code but he should fear getting the crap beat out of him.
> > Bottom line is that these “penguinites” as you so politely call them are
> > nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
> > scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view (that
software
> > should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
> > analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of world saviors.
> >
> > Bill Casey
> >
> > == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSIT Target Mode Libs ==
> > Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
> > 2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
> > Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> > > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Peter Viscarola
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:44 AM
> > > To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
> > > Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
> > > “how to execute a process…”)
> > >
> > >
> > > Nick,
> > >
> > > As usual, you make several well thought-out points.
> > >
> > > I just wanted to “discuss” a few:
> > >
> > > “Nick Ryan” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft can write the best VPN and AV utilities both because
> > > > it has smart people and because those people can see the source
code.
> > > > Any other group of equally smart people are at an automatic
> > > > disadvantage.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is absolutely true. The entire world of Windows system software
> > > developers would heartily benefit from having the Windows sources for
> > > reference.
> > >
> > > However, there another problem at work here that make writing
> > > things like AV
> > > filters in the file system stack harder than it should be – even WITH
> > > source code. And this is true generically for drivers of all types in
> > > Windows.
> > >
> > > That problem is the complexity of the driver interface. Or, one
> > > might say,
> > > the lack of a really well defined interface without side effeects
> > > for driver
> > > development. This problem is rampant in the file system stack… there
> are
> > > subtleties of the interfaces that change with each release of
> > > Windows. Even
> > > WITH the source code, you’d have a rough time building a robust
> component
> > > for the file system stack that works across multiple versions of the
> O/S.
> > >
> > > > Microsoft’s
> > > > competitive advantage is that they can string 10,000 good algorithms
> > > > together in such a coherent way that a competitor can’t hope to
match
> > > > the effort without 30,000 smart programmers of its own.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Absolutely right. Making the source code, especially of the O/S
itself,
> > > available should really be no big thing when you think about it.
Those
> of
> > > us who just want to know all the places where IoXxxx returns
> > > STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED (or whatever) would be able to find out
relatively
> > > easily. And, anything that’s a security risk, ah, shouldn’t be
> > > there in the
> > > first place and is just waiting to be “discovered” by someone who
> DOESN’T
> > > have the source code (is it David Craig who regularly reminds us that
> > > security through obscurity is no security at all?).
> > >
> > > Now, I could possibly see reasons why Microsoft might not want to
> release
> > > the source code for the Win32 subsystems (user and kernel mode)
> > > – No sense
> > > helping the penguinites build a really good Win32 emulator, right?
And
> > > maybe there are certain other kernel modules that fall into this
> category
> > > too.
> > >
> > > But you’re absolutely right… When you think about it, there’s no
risk
> is
> > > letting the vast majority of this stuff out.
> > >
> > > I feel a pontification coming on,
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —
> > > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
> >
> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>