On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Christof Wollenhaupt
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm convinced that the model of the Windows based desktop is fading away
> into history. However, I don't buy the simplified "Open source is free,
> closed source is expensive, therefore move everything to open source"
> argument.
>

I agree that in the absence of other reasons, "move everything" is
just foolishness.

I've seen too many product owners who don't appreciate that employing
two programmers for the past 15 years means there is 30-man-years of
work invested in the project, and that work effort can't just be
ported to a new language, framework nor architecture.

I'm a big believer in developing new apps in the browser as they can
be extended to the internet, tablets, smart phones and hopefully
whatever devices we create next. I strongly prefer Open Source
technologies for these apps rather than proprietary (Windows .Net,
Cold Fusion or Oracle *whatever*) but that's a long and complex
discussion with a client on the business case, technological issues
and political situations.And there are separate cases to be made for
tools, languages, servers and hosting and each customer's situation
may require a unique solution. If there were cookie-cutter solutions,
there would be someone offering them.

But a good business case has to be developed to justify the expense of
any such work.

-- 
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/cacw6n4sbiytj+o6qajxxmrba29pq-_cnk7hminebco5yucm...@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to