[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing

See my comments below.
Mike    (01)

> * Foks who do for-profit fundiing won't be
> interested in
>    funding the software that prospective competition
> can
>    use to get into the business.
That is a general problem.    (02)

> * The outfit that uses the OHS, therefore, will
> depend for
>    competetive advantage on the amount of data they
> have
>    amassed, and the "snowball effect" derived from
> having
>    a lot of users on board before any competition
> shows up.
By the value of thier content, and the services they
It is a company that uses it internally? Or a project
that uses it for documentation.    (03)

Look at the www.doxygen.org, free software, used by
many, everyone contributes bit and bobs.    (04)

> * That outfit's expenses will therefore need to be
> heavily
>    devoted to amassing data, attracting users, and
>    providing whatever services or facilities it
> needs to
>    provide to keep them interested.
take a look a slashdot.net or perlmonks.org
great sites that have many users, each with a niche of
thier own. Both not possible without a certain bit of
Bye the way, the perlmonks everything engine might be
very interesting to you all.Also the slash engine is
also Gpled.    (05)

> Mp3.com may be good example of a funded, profitable
> company that uses open software. But I wonder:
>   * How much time and effort they spend on improving
>      the open source.
How much time and effort does anyone spend on finding
and fixing bugs in any software.  I have spent the
last 5 years in a RougeWave/Sybase/Microsoft client
server world, and I have had less bugs and problems
with free-software, better response times and spent
less time tracking bugs.    (06)

MP3.com was just an idea that jumped in my head. 
Here is an interesting article on the internet music
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,48517,00.html    (07)

>   * How profitable they are.
Here is an older statement.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-251294.html?legacy=cnet    (08)

>   * How much funding they were able to attract.
I dont know exactly, the business realy depends on the
model at hand.    (09)

> (I ask these questions in all ignorance. The answers
> will
> help to determine how realistic a model this may be.
> However, even with the *best* answers, I think they
> would have found it impossible to attract any
> funding
> whatever, had their goal been to develop linux or
> apache
> in order to establish their business.)
Fine, and that is why apache and linux is a volunteer
effort, look at codesourcery.com and
redhat.com/cygnus.com they are the leading
contributors  to the gcc compiler. 
Apache has a foundation to organise efforts.    (010)

> As we have observed in the past, open source tends
> to
> do well when it consists of incremental
> modifications to
> an existing system, but not for developing new
> systems.
New systems are created out of need or experiment,
and I disaggree, many new smaller projects are
implemented. If you can piecemeal the project you will
find people willing to contribute modules.    (011)

> I expect that is entirely do, once again, to the
> chicken and
> egg problem: We don't have the online collaboration
> tools
> we need to collaborate remotely on the design of an
> online remote collaboration system!
Wait, we do have them nowadays. 
We have tools like
perlmonks,slashdot,savannah/sourceforge, blogger, we
have protocols like cvs,irc,http. We have all types of
collaboration tools.    (012)

> Existing messaging systems support high level
> thinking and
> strategizing like this, but they quickly bog down
> when we
> attempt to sort out the details.
You need a way to index, search, xref and reorg the
data quickly. It is difficult.    (013)

mike    (014)

James Michael DuPont    (015)

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/    (016)