I keep bringing this up . .

Post #48,363 by Andrew Grygus 8/6/02 10:45:55 AM Reply	I keep bringing this up . . . . in places like Linux Today, when people tout the consulting model and/or spout off that SuSE and Caldera should stick to the "Red Hat model". Only Red Hat has sufficient name recognition to attract consulting work against long established consulting firms like IBM (who have a lot more experience in business processes and can support hardware and non-Linux software as part of their package). Red Hat's consulting model will probably fail, and they will end up as a custom programming shop serving the big consulting firms. Individuals and very small firms will be able to scrape up enough consulting work in the small business market, but those that do only programming will be at a severe disadvantage. Small business won't provide a foundation for larger consulting firms because there is no consistency, no "economy of scale" - every job is totally different and requires high skill combined with very low overhead. What Open Source does for programmers is insure they will be wage slaves forever. With no residuals, their only source of income will be hourly work. Most Linux programmers are way too young to realize the disadvantage of this, but they will eventually. Open source will provide good income for flesh peddlers and contract houses that can match Open Source talent to specific jobs, but the good money will be going to the marketeers who can find the customers and sell the work. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #48,365 by deSitter 8/6/02 10:51:33 AM Reply	Re: I keep bringing this up . . Every word of this is true, and no doubt you've seen it up close and personal (I have too). Brett Glass said similar things a few years ago, and was roasted. -drl
Post #48,381 by CRConrad 8/6/02 11:56:48 AM Reply	Nope, that's NOT what he said and was "roasted" for. What Brett Glass said was that this perfectly natural economic evolution was somehow morally wrong. That's not what Andrew said (and if he meant to imply it, he's as wrong as Brett was). Brett also (or therefore) argued that he ought to be able to appropriate others' work, work they'd done for the common good, for his personal profit. (Wow, TALK about being morally wrong!) I hope you're not claiming Andrew is echoing that sentiment, too? 'Coz if you are, then if I were Andrew, I'd be quite pissed off... Anyway, it's really not becoming of you to try and twist the truth like this. And not very smart, either, when there are so many of us around who remember how it really went down. Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #48,408 by deSitter 8/6/02 2:35:03 PM Reply	Re: Nope, that's NOT what he said and was "roasted" for. One of Brett's claims was that programming as a profession would be improved if people could pick up pieces of code and reuse them, and get paid to do the work. He was right. -drl
Post #48,418 by imric 8/6/02 2:59:33 PM Reply	And the GPL serves that intent well. Not that Brett ever saw that. You can be paid for customising and extending GPLed code. The GPL really only takes effect if the program is then distributed. The kindest impression of Brett's view (at least as he 'communicated' it; I'm stll dissappointed that he calls people 'trolls' if they ask for explanations of why the GPL is bad that don't depend on Stallman's 'intent' or his own 'pundithood') that I can take is that the GPL is 'bad' because it doesn't give developers the ability produce (only) a modified binary and get paid as if they were the sole authors of the entire work. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #48,436 by Andrew Grygus 8/6/02 3:56:54 PM Reply	Brett was mad at both Microsoft and the GPL. Mad at Microsoft for blocking him from being a rich software publisher because if he came up with a good idea, Microsoft would take it without compensation, and mad at the GPL because it wouldn't let him take other peoples good ideas without compensation. I'm sure he doesn't see the irony. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #48,449 by deSitter 8/6/02 4:57:20 PM Reply	Re: Brett was mad at both Microsoft and the GPL. Well, I invited him to join in and defend himself. He doesn't need me to do that. -drl

Welcome to IWETHEY!