> The open source thing is a new twist, it's changing the playing field.
> That can be good (it has been so far) but it can be bad too if the
> corporations get all paranoid, which is what they look like to me.
So what? Do you mean that we should all stop writing open source and go
home and grow cucumbers instead? No amount of corporations get all paranoia
will stop Open Source and it might even stimulate it instead. If
corporations get too annoying then there'll always be a bunch of people
motivated enough to say "up yours, we will manage to live without you
somehow". If corporations, especially big old businesses, aren't able to
adapt to the new twist because of their inertia, then of course they'll try
to use their weight to stop those who don't play by their rules because
that's less effort than adapting to the new emerging conditions. But what's
new there? It's been like that since the emergence of human kind on Earth.
> What you do about it is an open question. My thought has been to focus
> on creating new stuff that creates its own world of users and advocates.
On the other hand it didn't work for Microsoft -- they've rather been more
successful at cloning/copying what others did before them.
> Going back to Word, if there was a word processing system that was better
> than Word and people switched to it, then any attempt by Microsoft to lock
> up the data is irrelevant. Apply that pattern to any application which
> operates on data - if you let any corporation have the best technology and
> become a monopoly then they can lock up the data and you're shut out of
> the game.
While M$ Word is a de facto standard today, like WordPerfect used to be 15
years ago, it doesn't mean that an Open Source solution won't have its turn
in 5 or 10 years from now. Of course that won't happen right away, and
it'll take time and development efforts. That why people are working on
Word alternatives _now_.
Of course M$ does not like that. Is this a reason to stop trying to push
them aside? Absolutely not. If they lose their market that'll be because
the alternative (be Open Source or not) is simply better for the user.
They might try encrypting the data or whatever, but then they'll just create
an incompatibility with their own standard and people won't upgrade to the
new version, or if they force people into upgrading that'll create just more
incentive toward the Open Source solution among the users.
> That's one of the reasons I sort of think the BK clone attempts
> are pointless, we can change the file format or encrypt it and unless
> there is some other compelling reason to use the clone, it's irrelevant.
You feel just like Microsoft now, aren't you?
> On the other hand, make something different and better and BK becomes
> irrelevant (unless we do leapfrog with some new feature/whatever).
A BK clone just has to be better and BK becomes irrelevant. Face it, that's
like that even among corporations with proprietary products. When your only
reaction left is to encrypt the data to preserve an edge over the
competition rather than improving your own product for increased user value
then it means that you've reached the best you can achieve in your closed
environment and Open Source will surpass you just because of the larger mind
share. If in that context an Open Source clone becomes better for the user
then no amount of corporate whining will change that fact. The only thing
corporations do better is to organize focused development and to come with
mature products faster. They therefore saturate faster in terms of
innovations with regards to a given products.
One day, there'll be a M$ Word alternative or clone that works just as fine
as Word itself, especially since Word can't bring a revolution in the word
processing field anymore. And from that day that alternative will just get
better. But before it happens, M$ will certainly try hard to twist the
rules which will give nothing to users but slow down competition. That'll
only buy them some time nothing more.
> That's what I meant by chasing. If you are chasing the leader you are
> automatically more at risk because you are trying to play in the leader's
> playing field and they can change the rules to screw you up. You build
> a better playing field and you turn the tables, now the leader is the
> follower and they have to play by your rules.
Then... if you're so confident about you remaining the leader in the SCM
world, why are you afraid of possible BK clone attempts? The leader will
_always_ be chased regardless. That's part of being a leader.
Nicolas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 22:00:36 EST