Google And The Future Of The Open Source Applications

[keysmaker 0]

Well, as everybody knows, Google use RedHat in their servers, also they are helping with the Open office project, with mozilla Firefox browser, but, maybe you're asking, is that relevant???The answer is yes, because is the first Big internet company interested on this kind of projects, obiously Microsoft is not very happy with that, and also, they are trying to make the life impossible to Google, do this: try opening a page from microsoft in firefox, now tell me what happen? All the style get shrinked and the only thing that you can read is: "This page requires Microsoft Internet Explorer to be viewed, download it here".Microsoft is trying to make Internet as his way, otherwise, Google is trying to unify everything, also making the applications all-based from the web, For example: A "word" that runs from a server into a webpage, so you can enter into an address that opens a word processor or a spreadsheet.Well i think that the future will be something like an OS running from web, and also documents will be saved in servers.Now, what do you think about it??

Edited February 26, 2006 by keysmaker (see edit history)

[comp2 1]

I agree on one of the websites I ran in the past I ran a script and IE users were redirected to an error page stating that our website is not compatable with IE. This of cource was not true, but this is what Microsoft does. I use chrome and FF on all of my machines and I love it. ComparisonCrashes all the time IE:Yes Chrome/FF:NoMore holes the swiss chesse IE: Yes Chrome/FF:NoFast IE:No Chrome/FF:YesOverall ditch IE and get a real browser.

[mahesh2k 0]

Cloud computing is likely to be future. But i still think that we can't achieve 100% network on any part of the world no matter how we progress. Besides with viruses and trojans, staying connected all the time is risk as well. But i hate OS which are tied to internet. I mean just to use notepad, do i need to login to google docs ? No way. Such type of OS will create more problems than they could solve. Internet only OS will be hype for sometime then for gaming and desktop application simple OS is all we need. About future of Open source, i think if they limit on freebie sucking mindset then it'll help grow many business on that model. Else there is likely to be more issues to developers than it could solve. I mean who is going to pay for the development etc. Limited open source model could help here.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Cloud computing is likely to be future. But i still think that we can't achieve 100% network on any part of the world no matter how we progress. Besides with viruses and trojans, staying connected all the time is risk as well. But i hate OS which are tied to internet. I mean just to use notepad, do i need to login to google docs ? No way. Such type of OS will create more problems than they could solve. Internet only OS will be hype for sometime then for gaming and desktop application simple OS is all we need.
About future of Open source, i think if they limit on freebie sucking mindset then it'll help grow many business on that model. Else there is likely to be more issues to developers than it could solve. I mean who is going to pay for the development etc. Limited open source model could help here.

In the case of things like Ubuntu the funding isn't an issue. They get tons of donations from users; not to mention the money they make from "extras" (like buying a physical copy of the OS, buying professional training, etc.). As long as the system is truly free and not just "free" the funding shouldn't be a problem.

[mahesh2k 0]

Well canonical is in good financial position for the ubuntu. But free software is increasing freebie-sucker mentality. Because of which there is likely to be a time when raising funds for the projects will be issue. Cause people will hardly pay for the products developed on the free platform. After some extent raising donation becomes difficult if the platform is not giving much return to the donators or investors. For example, user donation can't be recurring every 6 month cycle. Not everybody can afford to donate for platform. (I'm excluding commercial supporters here for example). I mean we're trying to build hippy economics out here with this ?. How can growing population will able to get jobs from this free platform and development ?

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Well canonical is in good financial position for the ubuntu. But free software is increasing freebie-sucker mentality. Because of which there is likely to be a time when raising funds for the projects will be issue. Cause people will hardly pay for the products developed on the free platform. After some extent raising donation becomes difficult if the platform is not giving much return to the donators or investors. For example, user donation can't be recurring every 6 month cycle. Not everybody can afford to donate for platform. (I'm excluding commercial supporters here for example). I mean we're trying to build hippy economics out here with this ?. How can growing population will able to get jobs from this free platform and development ?

If it was free there would be less spending on other things though. Think about how much you'd save using all freeware instead of Microsoft ($150 less on Win 7, $300 less on Office, $xx less on other programs). You could easily donate half that money to the freeware company and keep it going.

Not to mention on things like Ubuntu hundreds of thousands of others also work during their free time to enhance the system. So it's not just one company with employees working -- it's everyone working together for the common good of everyone.

[mahesh2k 0]

If it was free there would be less spending on other things though. Think about how much you'd save using all freeware instead of Microsoft ($150 less on Win 7, $300 less on Office, $xx less on other programs). You could easily donate half that money to the freeware company and keep it going.Not to mention on things like Ubuntu hundreds of thousands of others also work during their free time to enhance the system. So it's not just one company with employees working -- it's everyone working together for the common good of everyone.

You completely missed the point. Ubuntu didn't survived because of user donation but because of mark shuttleworth managed to fund billions for it upto 3 years of ubuntu release. Do you think ubuntu is possible without funds huge like that? Office equipments costs money, internet connection costs money, same goes with developer jobs. Do you want to work on free for nothing ? No way, money is important and getting things done quickly is more important that that. Many open source and freeware products are discontinued without funds. (Point is money is important). Trolltech (makers of KDE/QT) were sold to nokia because of this. Do you think if they were profitable by inch they'll get sold to any other company ?Nokia bought them cause they wanted platform for their mobile phones. Let's face it. Money attracts money and profits can be only made if business owner spends some money on processing of service and products. No one can get rich with open office or linux. It just gets our work done if we're low on funds. This is the reason many game development comapnies resist releasing games for platform like this which is less affordable. Besides that Only MNC/Fortune 500 companies can afford to run freeware maintaining balance of money and profit. And if big companies starts to jump on open source and freeware then there will be adware in freeware. That means for example, some of the ubuntu's release are using dell or other proprietary software in repository. Unless such commercial injection is added in freeware/open source,there is no funding to those projects. Though windows 7/office requires payment, it keeps business running. How many business keeping their profit sky rocketed with free things ?say open office ? (Freebie-sucking mentality only allows people to get things done, not profit).

[rpgsearcherz 5]

You completely missed the point. Ubuntu didn't survived because of user donation but because of mark shuttleworth managed to fund billions for it upto 3 years of ubuntu release. Do you think ubuntu is possible without funds huge like that? Office equipments costs money, internet connection costs money, same goes with developer jobs. Do you want to work on free for nothing ? No way, money is important and getting things done quickly is more important that that. Many open source and freeware products are discontinued without funds. (Point is money is important). Trolltech (makers of KDE/QT) were sold to nokia because of this. Do you think if they were profitable by inch they'll get sold to any other company ?Nokia bought them cause they wanted platform for their mobile phones. Let's face it. Money attracts money and profits can be only made if business owner spends some money on processing of service and products. No one can get rich with open office or linux. It just gets our work done if we're low on funds. This is the reason many game development comapnies resist releasing games for platform like this which is less affordable. Besides that Only MNC/Fortune 500 companies can afford to run freeware maintaining balance of money and profit. And if big companies starts to jump on open source and freeware then there will be adware in freeware. That means for example, some of the ubuntu's release are using dell or other proprietary software in repository. Unless such commercial injection is added in freeware/open source,there is no funding to those projects. Though windows 7/office requires payment, it keeps business running. How many business keeping their profit sky rocketed with free things ?say open office ? (Freebie-sucking mentality only allows people to get things done, not profit).

There are many other ways to earn money than just by selling programs. Being open-source does not keep it from being funded. It's all about how well you plan and execute your ideas and how well you can integrate money-making schemes into it.

For example, knowledge costs money. You could give the entire thing away free (such as Ubuntu) and charge for professional guidance. Guess who does that and guess who it works for? Ubuntu. Red Hat. (insert *nix distribution here).

So claiming it can't be done just because it's open source is asinine, at best.

[mahesh2k 0]

So claiming it can't be done just because it's open source is asinine, at best.

Not open source, It can't be done for long if it's Free. Not all open source distributions are free. Some open source software programs are paid. If you buy the software or distro you get the source. Many examples like, revolution theme of wordpress, SKYOS etc etc. Again my point remains valid here that with freebie sucking mentality you can't build profit. Microsoft also entered into open source but they restrict the level at which freebies are given. Freebies to attract and giving things away for nothing in return has difference. Ubuntu with minimum repository software is enough for average PC user needs and they'll never pay for the software. This is the point where many OS makers are actually killing themselves.(There is assumption here which is valid that once people get used to it they'll pay in future to keep using it). That is the reason canonical started adding commercial software into the repository. Same is the case with simplymepis, linspire and some other distribution. Let's face it, you can't survive for long if you just give away everything you got for free to the world. That way, business ends up being hippy cult and moreover people don't value it. People only value things for which they struggle to get it and they pay for it. This freebie-sucking mentality is atleast restricted at server side business, where people (or companies) are supposed to pay for the service/guidance etc.

 

Being open-source does not keep it from being funded.

Unless there is any profit to be made from it, only fool running business will fund it. Look around many free softwares are running without fund.