On Mon, 24 Feb 2004, Tim Churches wrote: ... > matter of pure practicality - in order to undertake really complex > projects, you need a team of people who can immerse themselves in the > project, ...
Tim, There is no debate that people are needed. However, how the team come together and operate are quite different between free and non-free projects. ... > > For example, both IBM and Microsoft are already open-source software > > providers. > > Microsoft? Microsoft provides open-source software through Windows XP, for example: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q306/8/19.ASP ... > > There is no permanent division between "they" and "us". We are all trying > > to solve real world problems. Alliances and relationships will change over > > time. If Oracle employees know better how to deal with certain tasks, then > > they should do that part of the project. > > Quite so, and that's why implementations of an open source hospital > system may still costs a substantial slice of that $450 million, because > those Oracle people generally don't work on a volunteer basis. Most of us do not work substantially on a volunteer (= not financially compensated) basis either. This confusion between free/open-source methodology and "volunteerism" is quite misleading and counter-productive. Unfortunately, many free software developers are reluctant to refute this error. It is rather difficult to expend effort insisting that you are not making a "donation" when you contribute code to a free software project. Free/open-source solutions offer lower "Total Cost of Ownership" _NOT_ because free software developers perform work for no pay. Instead, free (as in speech) solutions are less costly because 1) less need for lawyers 2) better communication between developers and users 3) more code re-use 4) easier to support and maintain 5) potentially larger market penetration Best regards, Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org
