Re: Any WWDC News
Re: Any WWDC News
- Subject: Re: Any WWDC News
- From: Michael Engelhart <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:19:51 -0500
What are you talking about it "WAS Open Source"?? Darwin is still
open source (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/) and is maintained by
the open source community of which Apple is a part of. Every time
there is an OS X release there is a corresponding Darwin release. They
are synergistic.
Also, just because the limited number of clients you deal with won't
touch it doesn't mean squat. Your client list however big it may be
is hardly a metric for the use of open source software in the Fortune
500 IT space. It sounds to me from your reply that maybe they won't
touch it because you won't touch it? Which is absolutely fine BTW.
The bottom line is that it's your prerogative to do whatever you want.
I was simply trying to shed some reality on your comments from you
original post such as:
>> Again, most Fortune 500/1000 companies are not going to touch open
>> source, so why would I?
>>
When all the aforementioned software/hardware companies (all Fortune
500 in and of themselves) develop, license and support their major
software products on Linux, I don't know how you can say they won't
touch it. They've got their hands deep into it. It's not like
Oracle just recompiled their Sun based versions of their products to
build a LInux or Mac OS X version. They spent lots of time and energy
rewriting code to support these open source systems because they have
merit and more importantly marketshare. Why would a fortune 500
company port their software if nobody was using it??? Oracle is ONLY
used by large organizations because of it's prohibitive cost.
Mike
On Jul 1, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Lotsa Cabo wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Michael Engelhart wrote:
>
>> Huh?? Mac OS X is like 75% open source..
>> Also haven't you heard that IBM, Sun, Oracle, PeopleSoft, SAP, Dell,
>> Gateway, HP and basically every other major software/hardware player
>> out there have full support for Linux and have for a few years no???
>> I'm surprised that you've been doing IT development for 20 years and
>> haven't heard any of this.
>
> Correction: It WAS open source. That was my whole point. I love what
> open source does for code and growth, but until a company invests
> their assets, time, money, and people in continuously maintaining and
> improving whatever the codebase may be, then, and only then, will I
> invest MY mission critical resources into open source. Likewise, I
> don't personally care who feels what about open source (including me),
> when it comes right down to it, none of my clients will touch it...
> never have and probably never will. Bottom line, for the most part,
> open source does not pay the bills and for those that do profit from
> it in some way, it doesn't pay the bills as well as mainstream
> products like .NET.
>
> As for IBM, Sun, Oracle, Servers-R-Us, Joe's Plumbing, or any other
> vendor that have "full support for Linux," again, it does not matter.
> The only mainstream Linux build that major enterprises rely on is
> RedHat (some SuSE, then various BSD builds) and the majority of the
> Linux community is open source. Just because it may be possible to
> run my code on a Linux box, does not mean I want to develop on one.
> Again, if I have to choose between a community-supported OS and one
> from a company who's corporate butt relies on it, I'm gonna choose the
> corporate version. It may not be as "bleeding edge" at times, but I'm
> not here to push the envelope. I'm here to build quality products on
> reliable platforms using solid technologies for lucrative companies.
> My point being, again, at least for me, the cashflow just isn't great
> enough in those areas to choose one of those platforms over Bill's
> Evil OS. This is why I want to be able to confidently move entirely
> from M$ to OS X.
>
> Bottom line, I may love being a developer, and I may have personal
> interests in Apple (or any other technology, for that matter), but at
> the end of the day, I need to stick with technologies and vendors that
> are stable, perform consistently, and, most importantly, have clear
> goals and objectives for both themselves and their product line.
> While it's great to see Mr. Jobs boast about what they DID last year
> or what surprises they may have at the opening of a WWDC, I cannot
> bank on hope nor what "may be." And, sadly enough, without a clear
> mission statement for both the product and company (in this case
> WebObjects and Apple), I cannot encourage my clients to run with it.
> I love them both, but I cannot make a solid business decision on a
> fantasy.
>
> In today's market, sadly enough, what a company plans to do is
> equally, if not more, important than what they have done in the past.
> Companies want to grow and know what to expect tomorrow as best they
> can. And, like it or not, they ARE going to side with technologies
> from a company that says what they are going to do and then does it.
> In short, although I love Apple and WebObjects, if I cannot
> confidently tell my clients what to expect from a technology six
> months down the road, I cannot recommend it. While surprise releases
> of products may work for Apple's relationship with the consumer
> market, and maybe even for mid-range developers, start-ups and major
> companies don't want surprises. For that matter, neither do I.
>
> R/S
> Ryan
>
> _________________________
> Tired of spam? Signup for a FREE SpamJammer.Com account and say
> goodbye to junk email forever!
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.