Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sprewell View Post
    monraaf, that's a silly argument. I could equally well say it's all non-GPL code like Apache and lighttpd and X11 that is keeping linux alive.
    Apache, X11 and lighttpd are mainly running on Linux, so I can say they're living thanks to GPL - Linux + GNU utils. They're also available for *BSD, but *BSD are much less succesful same time then Linux is, so Linux (GPL) is driving and keeping them alive (or at least keeps them in a good shape).

    Linux takes a lot of code from BSDs (just like the corporations that kraftman bemoans) and GPLs it, which artifically inflates its codebase while the BSDs can't do the converse with GPL code.
    Which of the "a lot of code" Linux already took? While Linux can benefit (in theory of course, because there's nothing interesting to take imho) being GPL from BSD licensed projects and those projects can't benefit from the GPL projects how this makes BSD better? There's no logic in this.

    This is allowed because of the true freedom of the BSD license. Both GPL and BSD OSs benefit from other licenses right now, but only one will survive.
    This is allowed, because BSD license allows to do what everyone want to do with the code. It's not a true freedom. I don't get this. How BSD license does benefit from GPL (you said it can't do the converse)? I assume you agree the GPL helped *BSD to gain some popularity?

    kraftman, your netcraft link shows Apache market share, which is licensed according to the BSD-alike Apache license. Your arguments are so goofy they're hilarious.
    You're funny. And this Apache runs on Linux. The main problem is with people like you (bsd faboys), because they focus only on their damn, lovely license and blindly tries to proof the worse is better. If there's no better server then Apache then why would I like to run a worse one? It was already said, but it seems I have to repeat - license is not everything, the GPL license gives some guarantees like the code will always stay free as in freedom, it won't support competitors and it also guarantees contributors under very smart conditions. All of this allows GPL projects to be far more successful then *BSD ones - Linux vs *BSD. This if few BSD or Apache lincesed projects are more successful then GPL ones has nothing to this discussion. If there are two identical projects and developer groups and one is using GPL and another one BSD, there's incredibly bigger chance the GPL project will be more successful. If Apache group was more skilled etc. or some GPL group didn't bother to make an Apache like server then it's something natural Apache is more successful. It also doesn't mean it's successful thanks to Apache like license. The same can be said about Firefox etc.

    I don't think you know what a straw man is. Google runs a modified linux kernel on their servers, which they largely do not provide the source for, since they don't have to under the GPL.
    There are many others then "just" Google, but Google is running Linux (some proof they're using non GPL patches?) + some kernel patches (according to what you said). You're missing the obvious point which seems to be something natural (I will consider you're right about mentioned patches):

    Linux + patches = Linux on Google servers - still Linux, because they only used some patches, a success thanks to Linux,

    *BSD + patches + proprietary userspace applications and technologies - OS X - a success thanks to proprietary userspace applications and technologies, of course you can probably call it's *BSD, but this will not be a pro *BSD argument, but rather anti *BSD and pro proprietary Apple addons.

    Many other hosts do the same for all kinds of GPL software on the server, that's why some people are now pushing the Affero GPL. You know nothing about OS X and keep ignoring the actual info we're providing, so please stop talking about it.
    Damn, thanks for confirming what I was talking about!

    As for taking out OS X, they're next for my hybrid model to take out after linux cuz they actually have some market share.
    Yep, as a desktop which is aiming at desktops since the beginning they have some market share

    That means it's hardly a measure of the success of GPL software, but even if you insist on that measure, Apple by itself has more revenues and the Mac ecosystem revenues are probably 2-3 times bigger, so BSD still wins by a lot.
    OS X wins here and not the *BSD. FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc. nearly don't benefit from OS X popularity (and if they it's only, because Apple was "generous") and they're not able to compete with it, so they're looser on desktops, because it's also one way road BSD → proprietary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wyatt
    replied
    I don't feel like digging through this entire thread searching, so I'll just play ignorant Joe Blow and ask it straight: Does anyone have any real statistics on Linux usage? Note that old statistics are automatically suspect, as are any statistics that don't disclose methodology. Show me stats that are current, gathered using a methodology that has any semblance of a chance at all of coming up with a representative sample.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sprewell
    replied
    monraaf, that's a silly argument. I could equally well say it's all non-GPL code like Apache and lighttpd and X11 that is keeping linux alive. Linux takes a lot of code from BSDs (just like the corporations that kraftman bemoans) and GPLs it, which artifically inflates its codebase while the BSDs can't do the converse with GPL code. This is allowed because of the true freedom of the BSD license. Both GPL and BSD OSs benefit from other licenses right now, but only one will survive.

    kraftman, your netcraft link shows Apache market share, which is licensed according to the BSD-alike Apache license. Your arguments are so goofy they're hilarious. I don't think you know what a straw man is. Google runs a modified linux kernel on their servers, which they largely do not provide the source for, since they don't have to under the GPL. Many other hosts do the same for all kinds of GPL software on the server, that's why some people are now pushing the Affero GPL. You know nothing about OS X and keep ignoring the actual info we're providing, so please stop talking about it. As for taking out OS X, they're next for my hybrid model to take out after linux cuz they actually have some market share.

    Apopas, nice try putting words in my mouth but I never said OS X is successful on the desktop, I merely noted that it is much more successful than desktop linux. It is tough to measure the actual number of servers using each OS, but the sales numbers seem to indicate the opposite of Ballmer's throwaway line in an interview. I suggest you actually look at the numbers you're comparing for linux vs Apple: that $36 billion figure includes anything that even has the word linux attached to it, including closed-source software like Oracle for linux. That means it's hardly a measure of the success of GPL software, but even if you insist on that measure, Apple by itself has more revenues and the Mac ecosystem revenues are probably 2-3 times bigger, so BSD still wins by a lot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    @Sprewell
    Hmmm... Linux is not succesful in servers because windows count for 2x than Linux in that market while osx is succesful in desktops despite that windows count 15x than osx... heh that's a rather interesting way of thinking...

    Plus, in this specific link, Ballmer himself says Linux counts for 60% in webservers... but who believes him... these guys from microsoft and Apple always lie...

    True, according to Wikipedia, Linux doesn't have much larger revenue than Apple. Apple's revenue was 43 billion for 2009 while Linux's was almost 36 billion by 2008 with estimates to be 50 billion by 2011. Not so bad for an unsuccesful model huh?

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by monraaf View Post
    Ironically it's most likely GPL code that's keeping FreeBSD alive. Without all the GPL'd apps and libraries in ports FreeBSD is pretty useless for most tasks. Strip that away and FreeBSD would have been death years ago.
    Haha, good point!

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sprewell View Post
    Apopas, linux is not that successful on servers either, there were 3.5 Windows servers sold for every one linux server late last year. Now I imagine that doesn't include people who buy a bunch of stock servers without an OS and then install linux on them, but adding those would push it down to 2 Windows servers for every linux server at best.
    So, another straw man arguments? Btw. are you sure Linux is not that successful:

    http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

    It looks Linux owns servers, HPC (damn, you're playing straw man, so I can play too) and netbooks - about 33% market share.

    It's ironic that some people want to disqualify Mac OS X as a BSD because Apple uses a hybrid model, for which they don't share all their source, but the same linux zealots have no problem counting all the linux servers running modified kernels, for which the source is rarely shared because it isn't required to. As for your ridiculous claim that linux revenue is much higher than Mac OS X, check out the linux revenue numbers in that first link and then check out Apple's revenues sometime: the numbers speak for themselves.
    Bull Linux kernels if modified or not (which are modified btw?) are GPL and are available to Linux community. OS X' non bsd licensed, so interesting parts in this case are not Open Source and their code is not available to community. Even Apple is using Linux as servers. It's probably because of technical advantages, but you're playing straw man and you're talking only about the licenses. Linux is not, so successful on desktops, because Win and OS X have more advantages in this area like games etc. This was mentioned many times and not because of a dumb license.

    kraftman, you've taken the final step into irrelevance by name-calling and simply repeating your ridiculous and contradictory claims, rather than trying to come up with a worthwhile argument. I actually don't care what happens to linux. I think Linus is a very smart guy, as demonstrated in that link above.
    You did this before by saying - unthinking. Your arguments are just dumb and irrelevant. I know you don't care what will happen to Linux and I'm glad you just confirmed this. Your model actually almost killed BSD, so I wish every Linux competitor will adopt it.

    I just think he chose a poor license with the GPL and that my hybrid model will kill off linux and other GPL software first, because they have the least market share and are the easiest to take out.
    Wrong OS X is easiest to take out and I'm nearly sure you were writing all this bull to save it. Have a nice day

    Leave a comment:


  • monraaf
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Your theory is working ok for proprietary OS X (however, like I said its market share is very low) and it's working awful for BSD, because they're nearly dead. Current Linux model is much better then BSD model - much more contributors, users, money, it's not supporting its competitors. I know you just want Linux dead and to support proprietary crap
    Ironically it's most likely GPL code that's keeping FreeBSD alive. Without all the GPL'd apps and libraries in ports FreeBSD is pretty useless for most tasks. Strip that away and FreeBSD would have been death years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by extofme View Post
    and heres the kicker... instead of fighting BSD's proprietary friendliness, we ALLOW it! if someone wants to fork an OSS app, hack on it, and sell it as a closed sourced product, we let them, and we make them pay SIGNIFICANTLY-ish more for the privilege to make money off it privately. this way, until the proprietary app actually rewrites the ENTIRE codebase, the original OSS app continues to benefit from any success the proprietary app generates. everyone wins.
    Yeah, if they wish they give you funds, if they don't it was your choice to choose the bsd license. Support your competitors and they will be happy. I assume you. OS X guys are very happy and *BSD benefits from its success and maybe it will be able to compete with it someday?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sprewell
    replied
    Apopas, linux is not that successful on servers either, there were 3.5 Windows servers sold for every one linux server late last year. Now I imagine that doesn't include people who buy a bunch of stock servers without an OS and then install linux on them, but adding those would push it down to 2 Windows servers for every linux server at best. On the desktop and mobile, there are around 80 Windows devices and 6 Mac devices for every linux one. The fact is linux has been tried and it has lost most everywhere. It's ironic that some people want to disqualify Mac OS X as a BSD because Apple uses a hybrid model, for which they don't share all their source, but the same linux zealots have no problem counting all the linux servers running modified kernels, for which the source is rarely shared because it isn't required to. As for your ridiculous claim that linux revenue is much higher than Mac OS X, check out the linux revenue numbers in that first link and then check out Apple's revenues sometime: the numbers speak for themselves.

    kraftman, you've taken the final step into irrelevance by name-calling and simply repeating your ridiculous and contradictory claims, rather than trying to come up with a worthwhile argument. I actually don't care what happens to linux. I think Linus is a very smart guy, as demonstrated in that link above. I just think he chose a poor license with the GPL and that my hybrid model will kill off linux and other GPL software first, because they have the least market share and are the easiest to take out.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    One more thing:

    There is a BSD-licensed desktop that uses a hybrid model similar to mine: Mac OS X.
    Quartz or its other proprietary parts are bsd-licensed? Or just some things which are completely uninteresting for Linux users? If entire OS X would be bsd-licensed it would be already dead, because Linux would have quartz and any other OS X app.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X