Re: Linux stifles innovation...

From: Dennis (
Date: Sat Feb 17 2001 - 15:05:36 EST

At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > to comment on it as such.
>What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
>than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.

You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice,
thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not

Designing something differently to make it better is innovation. I suppose
you could argue that redesigning linux every few years is innovation, but
unfortunately its the same cast of characters doing it, so its not very


>I don't see how having the source open removes "intelectual property",
>except by showing that huge portions of the concept are flawed.
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> > corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> > free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> > use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the
> market is
> > too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> > themselves", most of whom cant of course.
>Strange. I have not heard of any problems with that driver, except for
>issues where the original hardware vendor kept implimentation details from
>the open source community. (Citeing "IP issues".)
> > Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
> > because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code.
> The
> > 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence
> of that.
>You must be looking at a different kernel.
>I have seen little in the kernel that was "half baked". There have been
>some things put in to test if they were good ideas. That is far different
>than half-baked. Most of the bad ideas never get to the kernel. Linus or
>Alan kick them out before they ever get that far.
> > The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> > bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> > "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> > when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> > run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> > innovate will stay away.
>You claim that "open source solutions are wholely inferior to closed
>source solutions".
>Then why does everyone run with Apache instead of IIS? Could it be that
>IIS is a piece of crap?
>Feature for feature I would rather use PHP 4 over ColdFusion any day.
>Sendmail is MUCH more stable than Exchange. (Even if it has config files
>that look like they were designed by Carlos Castanada on a bad day.) If
>not Sendmail, there are a couple of other Open Source mail programs that
>are much superior in quality than the closed source counterparts.
>As for the Linux kernel being "shoddy"...
>Since when?
>I can leave my Linux box running over night and actually have it do
>things! I cannot say the same for Windows. I leave that running (same
>hardware, different OS) and it is usually dead by dawn.
>But your argument is even more bogus than that.
>It seems that you argument boils down to a couple of thing...
>"Closed source is better because you pay money for it."
>"Closed source is superior because we have a company name and you don't."
>Sorry, but most of the people who develop Open Source are profesional
>programmers. They just have a different motivation.
>Open Source is motivated by pride in what you can do and a desire to help
>others by sharing that. They don't hide behind a wall of lawyers to keep
>people from finding out what they did wrong.
>I found out a long time ago that most "Trade Secret" claims were bogus.
>It was either a common technique that had been adapted to a particular
>purpose or it was being used as an excuse to hide how bad the code really
>But my experiences with Open Source, as well as the others I know who use
>it are quite telling.
>If I have a problem with an Open Source program I can look at the code and
>fix it. Or I can report the bug and it will get fixed soon after. The
>programmers involved put the effort into it because their name is
>My experiences with closed source companies are not as good.
>In many cases, I was ignored because I did not represent a fortune 500
>company. If the problem got fixed at all, it would be months before I saw
>it and usually in a later release that I would have to pay for. (Usually
>having features added that I neither wanted or would ever use.) In some
>cases (like Microsoft security bugs) it would be treated like a public
>relations problem instead of a software and quality issue.
>I have also seen cases where problems were buried in development because
>"no one will find out and if they do, we will just blame Microsoft".
>I understand your desire to make money off what you do for a living. I do
>object to you taring what I do as somehow damaging to the software
>industry as a whole. (Especially since the closed source software
>industry has been poaching off the open source community for years.
>Microsoft seeking enlightenment with WinXP is only a minor example.)
>I don't see how hiding how something works adds value to the process.
> | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
>Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
> "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 23 2001 - 21:00:16 EST