Re: Minivend vs Others Options

[Raj Goel <frostbit@brainlink.com>]

On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Birgitt Funk wrote:

> ******    message to minivend-users from Birgitt Funk <birgitt@minivend.com>     ******
> 
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Raj Goel wrote:
> 
> > 	Secondly, while MV advocates, including myself, would like others
> > to  acknowledge the use of MV, it is in the corporation's best interest
> > NOT to disclose such information.  
> > 	- Less attackers know about you, less they can use to break you
> > 	  (weak argument, but security through obscurity has a long history)
> > 
> 
> What kind of security is that supposed to be ?

	A weak one.  But I've already stated that.  
 
> Very weak argument, one, no other industry or science would be allowed to
> use that easily. Just try to use it in the fields of biochemistry, 
> medicine or in the pharmaceutical industry and look were you would end up
> obscuring your production methods without giving proof that the product
> or services they sell are very safe and produce no harm.

	Happens ALL the time.  Production methods are corporate secrets
(unless you can provide me with documentation to manufacture AZT or Viagra or etc.).

> > 	- If something works well for you, why advertise it?  
> > 	  The less your competition knows about YOUR best practices,
> > 	  the more likely they'll make bad choices.  
> > 
> 
> Matter of ethics, the argument makes sense only in the world where
> software developers can sell their products or where they develop
> software for a company being on salary. 
> 
> If you try and use it for software which was developed on your
> own time and donated under GPL to the public, it simply turns out
> to be unfair to use it to your own advantage without ackknowledging
> it, IMHO. That should be the least you could do. (Please I don't
> mean you in a personal sense, I mean a company in general).

	Advocacy is best left to the advocates.  In this case, and 
others, we and our clients have given back by retaining Mike, other
consultants on this list, core developers on other GPL/OSS 
technologies, etc.

	Advocates make loud noises, and usually produce little result.
After a few dozen OS wars, some of us have decided, quite adoption beats
a loud rejection anyday.


> > 	- Flexiblity
> > 	  If you don't know what I'm using, I can change the backend, and
> > 	  may do so, as business needs require.  No one tool/software/product
> > 	  is perfect.  MV works wonderfully today,  Tomorrow brings no such
> > 	  guarantees.
> > 
> 
> Sure not, nor is MV static, MV changes all the time, can adapt and
> be customized to your needs. That's what is potentially so nice about 
> it, as it makes customizing a bit easier for you too, or not ?

	<!--- LARGE ADVOCACY BIT DELETED --->

> > > On the one side they seem to love to take advantage of a no-cost,
> > > open source software package, apparently being happy and successfully
> > > running it with the help of your consultancy, and on the other side 
> > > they should have a valid reason NOT to say/admit what they used ? I
> > > just don't understand that logic. Can someone help me with that, please ?
> > 
> > 	Some of the companies, spent large $$$ building an alternative 
> > solution, and saw the light later on.  Others have a legal mandate to
> > treat corporate data infrastructure as a corporate secret.
> > 
> > 	Oh, and quite a few of them give back to the OSS community by
> > donating cash, resources, developers or supporting the authors.  I know
> > I'm happy to bring Mike in when needed and am happy to pay his per diem
> > rates.
> > 
> 
> Certainly, I know that, but that conversation has nothing to do with
> specifically supporting MV or Mike Heins, it is a matter of principle
> for me to understand, if the funding of the OSS community which donates
> valuable material to the public, shouldn't be also funded by the
> public. Like paying $1.00 entry fees to the Library of Congress to
> maintain it or (indirectly) paying with your taxes.
> 
> If I understand it correctly there are two main reasons for OSS
> development, one is the scientific need to produce safer, more reliable
> software, which is of such complexity that openess and worldwide volunteer
> participation via the internet is simply the only way to accomplish it.
> The fact that many software houses make changes and give formerly
> proprietary code away as open source code, supports that they
> acknowledge that need. 

	BS.  Some OSS authors do it for political needs - i.e., RMS.
Others do it because their code isn't commercial grade.  Others
because they don't have thw werewithal to support a commercial
product, or get into the business.  And many do it accidentally - 
i.e., a promising product gets released in the wild, and it either
dies, stagnates, or rarely, catches like wildfire.

	The corporate sector, for the large part, is releasing code
under OSS or OSS-variant licenses simply because it's the 
fashionable thing to do.  Buys them PR, goodwill, and sometimes,
fosters adoption of their technology faster than any ad campaign could.

	Ask Oracle, or Sun / Java.  They're in it for the money.

> Apologies for starting to run into an off-topic thread on this
> technical list and ending it with a bad joke. I hope I am not
> <plonked>. My sense of fairness needed an outlet to voice some
> nagging doubts, which distract me from doing some real work.  
> Sorry for that.

	Ehh...this could be fun.  A good political, ethical, moral debate
beats MV debugging anyday ;-)

========= << raj >>  ==  http://www.brainlink.com/~frostbit/ ==============
SYSADMIN: BrainLINK International, Inc.			     (718) 805-6545
http://www.brainlink.com 

			Are you ready for eCommerce?
============================================================================