The initial question posed:
Someone has asked me "What's in the future for Microsoft and the Open Source movement?"
It's such a huge topic I couldn't really answer -- it's going to take me a few days
to formulate a response. It is a tad off topic for a strictly Access list -- and I
don't want any MS bashing, just because that would be even more off topic -- but
anyone want to make a comment on the subject? I'd love to hear them -- my initial
response to the guy was "Resistance is futile" but that's only really funny if
you're saying it from the MS perspective. ;)
Susan Harkins
Statements from heads of state:
I think that Peruvian Congressmen Edgar Villanueva Nuņez summed up the arguments
fairly well: http://www.opensource.org/docs/peru_and_ms.php
Stuart McLachlan
Slow erosion of Microsoft server base?
Warning!!! I got very, very verbose.
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that MS has to worry a lot about open
source on the desktop for quite a few more years. Once some of the desktop apps
start to mature a bit more, I think MS will start being given a run for their
money. Things like OpenOffice (office suite), Firefox (web browser),
ThunderBird(e-mail client). Once they start to take a hold, then MS will definitely
need to watch what they do. Actually they are probably watching now and don't like
what they see. The open source apps are *almost* there, but they have their quirks,
that either need to get fixed, or users will get used to them. Just like they did,
and do, with MS products.
As for the actual Desktop operating system, that is further out. 5-7 years would
be my guess. Linux needs a few things to become more competitive with Windows.
It *needs* to become less "geek-friendly" and more "user friendly". It also
*NEEDS* to have a "standard" GUI, or at least a standard layout. That way the end
user can find what they are looking for with minimal effort. Fragmentation,
between KDE and Gnome and all the lesser known desktops, is really hurting Linux's
acceptance on the desktop. Home and corporate. The choice to use your preferred
desktop needs to exist, but it's got to start out looking and feeling the same as
the next one. That way a user can go from this PC to that PC to the other and have
the "same experience" Much the same way Windows users have it right now. yes I
know there are differences between 9x, NT4, 2K and XP (both the classic UI and
the "Fisher Price" one{that I happen to like :) } ). they are slightly different,
but close enough for most people to stumble their way around. Unfortunately the
Linux X-Widows desktops don't have that "portability" right now. The choice to
use which ever one you want needs to remain, for the hard core Linux users, but
for the average user, they don't care. Just let them set their wallpaper to their
dog or cat or kids and make sure they can use the tools they need to do their job
and they are happy. Yep, I know that is a bit condescending to the users, but I
don't think its' that far from the truth.
Now, in the server room, I think that MS has got more to worry about. Just like
the switch from Novell to MS happened (although I disagree that Novell networks
are dead), I really think that the switch to Linux there is already happening.
As more and more SysAdmins set up "test" boxes to "play" with Linux and end up
part of the network infrastructure, Linux will become more and more the choice
for new servers. With all the excellent and mature server software for Linux,
that is out there, MS better watch themselves otherwise they will lose the
server room. Is Linux better than Win Servers? Are either better than Novell?
Is Novell better that either one? No to all the questions. They all fill different
needs.
If I am Novell certified, then of course I'm going to lean towards Novell servers
and be able to "make it work". If I am MS certified, then that is where my loyalties
will be. If I'm comfortable with Unix or Linux, then Linux will be the server of
choice for me. All 3 would work equally well.
I'd almost be willing to bet that if I had 3 equally competent SysAdmins, one for
each Linux, MS and Novell, the TCO would be similar enough to not be a deciding
factor. As more and more SysAdmins become more and more comfortable with Linux
you'll see they start taking market share away from MS, and not just the Unix
vendors like they are now.
As MS makes the hardware specs higher and higher for their servers, increases
the license costs and p*sses more and more people with the changes in the license
agreements, then Linux servers will replace MS servers one by one. I don't think
you will see a lot of people saying "Rip out all the MS servers and replace them
with Linux servers", what you will see is people saying "We need another server,
so let's use Linux, since it can integrate with our network as it is."
Now, I know that isn't really answering your question Susan, but I'm getting
to that. :)
MS needs to take the Open Source community seriously. Its making inroads into
a lot of places that I never thought it would. My house for one. I have long been
a strong MS proponent. Well actually, since about 92 or 93, when I first started
using Windows. But as Open Source is maturing, it is looking like a better a
lternative to me. I am using a whole host of Open Source apps in my day to day
life. They are comparable to commercial apps. Things like Filezilla (FTP client,
but I know you know that already Susan :)and Firefox (web browser). Why should I
fork $40 or $50 or $100 for an app that I can get for free? Yes, I know that with
the paid apps, I get tech support, but these days tech support for software is crap.
The last time I *NEEDED* software support, was about 4 or 5 years ago when I got
bad discs. I took it back to the store where I bought it until I had gone through
EVERY SINGLE SHRINK-WRAPPED PACKAGE they had. I finally contacted the vendor and
got the run around trying to get these defective discs replaced. It took me about
3 months to get it sorted out. For $100 I should get better service than that. I'd
much sooner deal with an online community, such as DBA, for the software support
than the vendor. I get better and more accurate responses.
Will MS need to make their stuff Open Source to survive?
I don't think so.
Will MS Open Source their software anyway?
I really doubt it. Maybe bits and pieces, but the whole thing, No way.
Will MS incorporate Open Source into their software?
As far as I understand, they already have with the TCP/IP stack. Its based on the
BSD stack, IIRC.
Keep in mind that there are several different Open Source licenses. There are 2 that
I am most familiar with.
1) There is the Gnu Public Licence(GPL) which in a nutshell says that the software,
and any software derived for it MUST make available the source code to those that ask.
You can charge for the software if you want, but the source code must be given upon
request. This is what the Linux Kernel is distributed under.
2) BSD style license. Basically this says that you can do what you want with the
source code. You can leave it open, you can build a derived work and keep it open.
You can create a derivative and close it. You can do what ever you want, except
claim you wrote the original. Mac OS X is built on one of the BSD operating systems.
It is a closed derivative of BSD. If you want to see a BSD style license look at
the license agreement that we (Andy, Lembit, Reuben and I) used for the BEU.
So they are allowed to use BSD style open source material in their applications.
So, I suspect that they will continue to use it. However, there is the expectation
that if you improve open source code, you return the improved code to the community.
I can't see MS doing this freely, or at least "in the open". It will hurt their
"public image"
To sum up, in 10,000 words or less :)
MS needs to watch the open source community. It will hurt them if they are not careful.
It won't be a quick kill, but slow and gradual. Actually it will probably hurt them
even if they are careful. MS probably won't open source their code, but will use what
they can from the community and get away with.
Is open source a panacea? No way. But then again, neither is MS. It's a choice that
is becoming more and more viable especially as the software becomes more mature. Will
it hurt MS? In the long run, more likely than not, but MS will survive. They may be
different, but they will still be there.
How's that for $0.02 worth of opinion.
Bryan Carbonnell
Question: How is Open Source funded?
That was very good and very close to my own opinions except I just don't have the
expertise to speak to servers. I think MS will adjust and change as necessary --
but can't really predict what that will mean.
My question is this -- if they're all giving it up for free -- how are they going
to make money and stay in business. Support? Is there really going to be enough
support $ to cover it? I wouldn't think so. Anybody using MySQL and paying for
the support? I absolutely hate using MySQL, but I wouldn't pay for support. There's
got to be part of the puzzle that I'm missing.
Susan Harkin
The high cost of Microsoft products?
>As for the actual Desktop operating system, that is further out. 5-7 years would be
my guess. Linux needs a few things to become more competitive with Windows. It *needs*
to become less "geek-friendly" and more "user friendly". It also *NEEDS* to have a
"standard" GUI, or at least a standard layout.
While I agree with you I also have to guess that a Linux convertion may be closer
than we all guess. There have been leaps and bounds in which the various distros
have improved their desktop products. I also must concur that a standardized GUI
would be the killer blow that would/will ultimately drive hords of users away from
Microsoft. I base my opinion off such distros like RedHat or even the newest one
I've seen (Knopixx). Wich is an OS bootable completely off the CD. It is Linux,
and what makes this even more cool is that you could theoretically put out a distro
that would make it so that end users "couldn't" break their installations. Just
always boot from the CD. With High end products such as ThunderBird and FireFox
and even some of the OpenOffice products, Open Source products are reaching maturity
levels that are acceptable to a wider population. Some of the greatest leaps have
been "custom installers" for such products. This improves delivery to end users who
are wanting to try a simpler to use OPEN SOURCE community.
A greater risk than vulnerabilities in MS software is not so much the security holes,
but the COST of the software. You have many college students that simply can't
afford to go w/ MS Office so they use OpenOffice. While not all do, the trend is
steadily climing, and w/ the avalability getting better and the quaility reaching
acceptace from the general public, this will help push more OpenSource software
into the main stream.
Francisco H Tapia
Open Source is not free:
Susan,
Open source does not mean free of cost. Nor does it always mean free of licence
fees.
The strength of the open source movement lies in the ability of the licencee to
alter the software to their own needs.
Apache on Linux servers is the most widely used web server technology in the world.
Usage of MySQL in corporate applications in Aus/NZ has increased by 60% in the
last year and is expected to grow at a similar but declining rate for the
"forseeable future" (Source C-Net survey results)
There are versioning problems in open source software - dont let anyone tell
you otherwise.
The TCO numbers game is b***s**t. There is "statistical evidence" proving both
ides are correct.
Have you read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ or
http://www.firstmonday.org/
Its the short and to the point "sales" material for open source.
Look at the adoption of open source software by the public sector for some indication of the stability and future of the open source movement.
Bruce Bruen
The unpredictability scares Microsoft? ...and the Open Sources return on investment.
Susan Harkins wrote:
> That was very good and very close to my own opinions except I just don't have the expertise to speak to servers. I think MS will adjust
I don't really have the server experience either. I do, however read as much as I can.
> and change as necessary -- but can't really predict what that will mean.
I don't think anyone can. And it probably scares the bejebes out of MS.
> My question is this -- if they're all giving it up for free -- how are they going to make money and stay in business. Support? Is there really going to be enough support $ to cover it? I wouldn't think so.
There are a couple of ways that the money is made.
1) They sell it. Red Hat is a perfect example. The sell boxed sets, well they used to. They sell server versions of Linux.
2) Selling support. Red Hat again. They sell support along with the boxed sets.
3) Donations. Not a get rich quick scheme, I know, but for some enough to get by.
Keep in mind that just because the software is open source, doesn't mean you can't charge for the product. You can, but you may have to make the source code available, depending on the license agreement.
> Anybody using MySQL and paying for the support? I absolutely hate using MySQL, but I wouldn't pay for support. There's got to be part of the puzzle that I'm missing.
Why do you hate it? Is it because you are not used to it? Or you don't understand it? Or there is no GUI for it?
There are tons of folks paying for support for MySQL and other open source dbs. Folks like Cox Communications, NASA, Sabre Holdings and Yahoo! probably do. Have a look at http://www.mysql.com/press/release_2004_10.html and http://www.mysql.com/feedback/whitepaper-tco.php (registration required. Free I think)
Bryan Carbonnell
If both Microsoft and Open Source products are growing, who is losing market share?
Susan,
It's not a question of whether MS offers open source code. It's a question of how they offer it.
Microsoft's Knowledge Base contains gobs and gobs of free, open source code. Lots of independent developers offer free, open source code. Microsoft wouldn't be able to sell as many copies of Access if there weren't so much free, open source VBA code available. Free open source code is part of Microsoft's business model.
Open source and proprietary code have always existed side by side, usually without conflict. PHP is an open source scripting language; if you use it on Windows, it was probably compiled on a Microsoft compiler. Unix was originally both proprietary and open source; you couldn't legally posses a copy of the source code without buying a license, but the system was distributed as source code. Sun OS was originally based on BSD. When the name changed to Soleris, it became more System V-like. Either way, it was based on open source code. The TCP/IP stack in every Windows system since Win2K
contains mostly FreeBSD code. The TCP/IP stack in NT 4 and earlier was notoriously unreliable. MS ended up replacing it with code that was known to work reliably and was available free.
MS won't change its current business model because it makes too much money from the current model. As long as it is primarily a seller of proprietary systems to people who aren't programmers, it has no incentive to offer open source applications. Even if it starts losing market share, it still won't switch unless it goes through an IBM-like transformation and becomes primarily a provider of services.
I know of only two cases where completely closed code became open code. Netscape didn't have the resources to do the development of a new version of Netscape Navigator, so it created the Mozilla project and based the new Navigator on Mozilla. Borland split off Interbase, which became Firebird. I'm not really sure why they did it,
except that perhaps they thought it would be more valuable as a separate company than it had ever been to Borland.
I wouldn't trust any TCO study distributed by MS. They hire "independent" analysts to do the studies, but the studies are so blatently biased that they are worthless. Basically, the issue is long-term savings versus the short term costs of switching. Since long-term savings have to be discounted over time, and the short-term costs are unpredictable, most businesses aren't going to see an advantage to switching any time soon.
Bob Hall
The immediate threat of Security:
You can get Linux distros that will run off a CD. That means that you insert the CD, reboot the computer, and you're running Linux. If you like it, it will install on your computer configured exactly as it is on the CD. It's even easier than a Windows install. All the decisions: desktop, window manager, etc., are made for you. Drivers are installed automatically. If you're a Linux geek, you can still make any changes you want, but the non-geeks don't need to know anything to do the installation. I tried it; it worked.
Linux will never have a standard GUI, because Linux is really only the kernal. Linus Torvalds doesn't do shell or GUI development. All Linux distros that I know of are Linux kernals with the Gnu shell. Everything else is whatever the distro teams want to include. They're never going to agree on a default window manager. On the other hand, a corporate buyer can specify that all installations use a given window manager and desktop.
The immediate threat to MS has been security problems, due to massive numbers of bugs. MS seems to have improved a lot since Gates sent out his famous security e-mail. The three OSs gaining market share right now are Win, Linux, and FreeBSD. These are systems designed to run on cheap Intel chips. The losers are systems designed to run on
proprietary chips. Linux and Win are stealing market share from Soleris, not from each other. This may be changing in Europe, where governments are starting to switch to Linux for workstations. The sole reason for switchng seems to be the cost of licenses for thousands of seats. So I would say that Linux is a threat to Windows in the workstation market, not the server market.
Bob Hall
... on the points specifically about MySQL:
The documentation at the MySQL web site is intended to be the concise up-to-date reference documentation. Aside from the tutorial, it is intended for people who are already experienced with MySQL and need an answer to a specific question.
If you need user-friendly documentation, buy "MySQL" by Paul DuBois. I can't recommend it enough.
Bob Hall
Will Home and Corporate costs affect the adoption of Open Source products?
On 6 Apr 2004 at 15:51, Francisco H Tapia wrote:
> which the various distros have improved their desktop products. I also must concur that a standardized GUI would be the killer blow that would/will ultimately drive hords of users away from Microsoft.
I actually don't think that a standard GUI alone will push people away from MS. It *has* to be packaged with more user friendlyness. I'm no dummy, but there are days that make me go "Why the <insert expletive> did I ever think looking at Linux was a good idea" Just because of the way Slackware based distros are different
from RedHat based distros which are different from Debian based distros.
> base my opinion off such distros like RedHat or even the newest one I've seen
(Knopixx). Wich is an OS bootable completely off the CD.
Knoppix is COOL!!!!
> With High end products such as ThunderBird and FireFox and even some of the OpenOffice products, Open Source products are reaching maturity levels that are acceptable to a wider population.
Maturity of the apps is what will make Open Source software more viable in the long run. If it can compete feature for feature with the MS version, or at least the features needed, why drop the cash on the MS version?
> A greater risk than vulnerabilities in MS software is not so much the security holes, but the COST of the software. You have many college students that simply can't afford to go w/ MS Office so they use OpenOffice. While not all do, the trend is steadily climing, and w/the avalability getting better and the quaility reaching acceptace from the general public, this will help push more OpenSource software into the main stream.
I think that cost will play a part, I don't think that it will play a large part overall. Now, I'm talking about corporate acceptance and not home use.
For the home user, I think that it will start to play a part in the decision making, more than it would a corporate IT department.
And that is one of the imortant distinctions that needs to be made. Home users will look at the out of pocket costs. Corporate users will look at the overall costs and the vailability of Enterprise level software.
Bryan Carbonnell
Microsoft is creating Open Source products?
> Will MS need to make their stuff Open Source to survive? I don't think so. Will MS Open Source their software anyway? I really doubt it. Maybe bits and pieces, but the whole thing, No way. Will MS incorporate Open Source into their software? As far as I understand,...
No sooner do I say they probably won't, I find out they went ahead and did <sigh>
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5185549.html?tag=nefd.top
Bryan Carbonnell
Red Hat is making money with their Open Source?
Red Hat is making money. According to their website they have $328 million in the bank. Suse was just bought for $210 million, and they are the #2 Linux distro.
Not on the same level as MS, but not bad for companies that are less than 10 years old.
No, certainly -- I'd have no trouble taking that check to the bank. :)
Susan Harkins
Open Source does not mean no cost.
On 6 Apr 2004 at 22:52, Susan Harkins wrote:
> Do you make your living from this list? If all of your clients or your boss suddenly said "Keep it up, you're doing great, but btw, you're working for free now, aren't you?" Or, how about, "And show this new guy everything you know so we don't need you anymore." -- would that be OK?
Yea, but the thing is, open source doesn't HAVE to be free, as in no cost, but free as in source code availability.
I think that is part that is the hard part to understand, or at least grasp.
Free doesn't necessarily mean no cost.
Here is a page that may help sort things out:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
If not, then there are a ton of links here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
Bryan Carbonnell
Profit is not everything.
I'm not sure a service can be related to a product, but lt's try :)
The hair dresser charges you $75 to do your hair colouring. He aslo goes to the local Seniors home and colours the hair of the elderly ladies there for free because they can't get around as easily as you can.
He is volunteering his time to do it. Why does he do it when he can use that time to make more money? He's a nice guy, it was the home that home that took care of his elderly parents, he want's to look good and using it as an advertising
ploy, it's the right thing to do? Any of these, allor these none of these? Who knows, but he does it anyway.
Now apply this to software. Why do companies, and people, make their software open source? They have a philosophical belief that it should be available, it will help a certain population/sector, it showcases their other products, it
showcases their talents. Any of these, all of these, none of these? Who knows but it happens.
Why did Lembit donate code to the BEU? Why did Andy and Reuben start to work on it? Why did I help in the end? I can't speak for the others, but I did it because I believe that it may help DBA become more visible by producing a world
class product, which will make this be *THE* place to be, not that it isn't that already :). I also like pushing the limits of my knowledge and talents, and the BEU certainly did that :) Plus it is also a tool that can, and has helped, other developers, and I like helping folks.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that for every dozen different open source applications, there are 2 dozen different reasons why the author(s) decided to make it open source. None are right, none are worng, they just are.
I don't think that this really captures the point I was going after, but it's the best I can do to explain it at 6:30 in the morning :)
Bryan Carbonnell
Cost is not everything
Yea, but the thing is, open source doesn't HAVE to be free, as in no cost, but free as in source code availability. I think that is part that is the hard part to understand, or at least grasp.
Free doesn't necessarily mean no cost.
Perhaps I do make too much of it -- you could be right. It's hard to apply it to my own work -- it doesn't really relate. I'll repeat myself -- sometimes that helps. :) I pay the hair guy $75 to colour my gray hair. I pay it because he's good -- hair looks natural and healthy. He doesn't sell me the coloring and give me instructions so I can do it myself. Now, I realize that doesn't really relate in the same way, but it's the best I can come up with. :)
Susan Harkin
Windows OS is losing ground in Europe.
> Linux will never have a standard GUI, because Linux is really only the kernal. Linus Torvalds doesn't do shell or GUI development.
True enough. I guess I should have said that the various Linux Distros need to standardise on a desktop. KDE or Gnome.
Everything else is whatever the distro teams want to include. They're never going to agree on a default window manager.
>From what I understand the windows manager doesn't need to be standardised, in the desktop environment.
> There is the XServer, then there is the windows manager and then finally the desktop environment.
twm, blackbox, and fvwm don't use desktop environments. Some window managers require a specific desktop environment. You can't decide on a desktop until you decide on the window manager. I use blackbox, so the desktop decision doesn't seem important to me. There are a lot of differences between window managers. Window Maker is very different from blackbox.
Actually, window managers and desktops seem to run side-by-side, rather than one running under the other.
> The immediate threat to MS has been security problems, due to massive numbers of bugs. MS seems to have improved a lot since Gates sent out his famous security e-mail. The three OSs gaining market share right.
> I actually don't think that security is high on most peoples list. Otherwise why is my Win2K desktop at work only approved to be at SP1? I have said screw it and installed SP4 myself.
This is true for workstations. Security is a bigger issue with servers than workstations. Breaking root on a server puts more at risk that a trapdoor on a workstation. And the person managing a server box is more likely to understand security than the person using a workstation.
The amazing thing is that people with SP1 think they are secure. (I just upgraded someone from SP1.) And if they were on Linux, they would be equally insecure, and just as certain that they were secure. So if they switched to Linux for security reasons, they would be deluding themselves. But a lot of organizations would do it if the market started to perceive Windows as the insecure system, which is what was starting to happen. The people who understood security would have been the first to switch, followed by the people who didn't and who wouldn't have been any more secure.
> So I would say that Linux is a threat to Windows in the workstation market, not the server market. Response: The problem is that Linux is not making the inroads on the desktop, but in the server room right now.
Linux is gaining in the server room, but not at MS's expense. Both Win and Linux are gaining market share. Sun, IBM, and HP are losing it. Critical apps that once needed proprietary chips and OSs can now be run on commodity hardware and cheap or free OSs.
In Europe, Windows has lost to Linux on some huge workstation contracts. That won't happen in the USA anytime soon because the federal government is committed to Windows. But European governments don't have that commitment, and some of them are actively encouraging businesses to switch to Linux. If the governments switch, many businesses and consumers will eventually follow suit. This isn't showing up in market share numbers yet, but it will if the trend continues.
Bob Hall
Microsoft does smart business and sharing code.
Kind of staying out of this, but wanted to comment about the college students. Microsoft sells their software to students at an incredible discount. A co-worker going to UT, was able to get the entire Visual Studio 6, for $5, a few years ago.
Microsoft does this, because they know if the college students use it, they'll be bringing their knowledge (and preferences) into the business world.
... and ...
Why? We share code here. Then there are a million and one sites all based upon techies sharing information.
In my opinion, the rest of the world needs to catch up with the internet.
Drew Wutka
Growth in Open Source product requires a critical user mass and client confidence.
One thought on open source. Without a certain critical mass of users, support for certain types of open source software can be a definite problem. This happens when you go beyond the common spreadsheet and word processing programs.
Let use an example. The two major general statistical packages SPSS and SAS do not run on Linux. They are used throughout government and large companies like pharmaceutical industries. Both these packages are taught in universities in courses like the Social Sciences. There is a large user support database, user conventions, mailing lists etc. The users have a familiarity with the packages.
Now there is an open source replacement called R. Works on Unix, Linux and Windows.
R is possibly as good as SAS. Probably better graphics than SAS-Graph. Cutting edge statistics - Many are developed in R (or in its commercial cousin - S Plus). It takes a while for them to make it into SAS. R doesn't have the data management abilities that SAS has. However support is limited. The R language used is as different from SAS as English is to Swahili. So the ordinary social scientist doing regression analysis is going to have problem switching, whereas a recent Ph.D. in Statistics has probably been exposed to both languages. What I have seen in some large government departments is a reasonable compromise using Base SAS for data management and exploratory data analysis and R for more advanced stats and graphs.
Until recently R was restricted by only working with Data Sets in memory and access to external data was limited. In another year, they will be able to get at XML data, SAS transport (XPORT) format data sets and some databases. It can get at Postgres now, higher versions of SQL and even Access.
If you switch from SAS to R, you will have to overcome training and support problems. Is it worth the $1000 a seat difference? There are not a lot of people familiar with (not enough critical mass of users or support personnel) . If some of the major pharmaceuticals switch to R, then the number of support personnel will increase. They will then endow some more universities to start teaching it to ensure a supply of trained personnel.
If anyone is interested in running Access and R on windows here is a starting point. I suppose you can also do it on Linux with Samba.
http://www.r-project.org/
http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/R/rw-FAQ.html
Here is where a lot of open source packages fall down on data mangement. For example MAXDB (old SAPDB) from MySQL has a limited ODBC driver and no OLEDB driver Would be nice to have to link to dotNet. However you will have to wait for some kind spirited soul to write one, It would take a least 3 months of someone's time. I have heard of people offering to do it for $10,000. Maybe someone will do it at MySQL. Guys who can write this type of code are thin on the ground.
This also happens with other large scale systems like AutoCAD or GIS systems like ArcINFO. ArcINFO can handle spatial database engines on Linux, but the front end Linux support requires Java Object interfaces, where there is little open source generic front ends available for datamangement. Although there are plenty of frontend viewers available even through html and maybe svg xml. There are no decent free/open source CAD packages. Why? Because it is so damn difficult and time/manpower consuming to program one. Therefore to try and duplicate the functionality of any CAD package and especially the new generation parameteric modellers such as AutoCad Inventor, ProE, SolidWorks, etc. is not practical. I would say it is impossible with a limited 2D programs such as open source MetaPost.
And come to think of it. I haven't seen any good open source accounting packages for Linux.
... and ...
You can put your source code in Escrow, if you don't want to release it to companies even with a NDA
You shouldn't use your lawyer as an escrow software agent, an independant escrow agent will act impartially, and that would be impossible for a lawyer who was also representing either the supplier or the user. Also a lawyer whose client is buying an operating business should insist that the buyer has the right to cancel if due diligence reveals that continued maintenance and support for critical software is not assured in some way, such as a software escrow
Here is a brief explanation of how software escrow works.
http://www.softescrow.com/faq.html#1.0
or
http://www.escrowassociates.com/agreements.htm
http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6298_11-5088773.html?fromtm=e101
Marty Connelly
A revelation and MS Access.
IMO there would be a significant shift in the Linux world if somebody released something even close to Access. Yeah, there's Jbuilder and Kylix and such, and a few dbAdmin apps for MySQL, but there is no free or inexpensive RAD db dev app for Linux... And until there is, few if any of us will move our businesses there.
If I were good enough to clone Access, I'd do it. Sadly, I'm not. It would take several programmers a year or more. Let's face it, Access is a brilliant piece of work, despite its bugs and its price. Tough to clone and deliver the equivalent functionality, especially given VBA, a project unto itself.
Borland has done well, but their solution is pricy. Yeah, you can grab a small version free but it's missing all the components you would need for real-world dev, so how does that help? IMO they would do much better with a free 120-day
licensing scheme, so you could actually try to build something serious, and if it looks like it's gonna work, then you can click the button and pay the money.
A further complication in attempting to clone Access for Linux is the multiple targets. You could do as MS did and begin with one target, and publish an API to invite other players into the mix -- the Linux equivalent of ODBC, hopefully done
smarter and better. Probably start with MySQL, then as you gained groundswell, expand the targets to include maybe PostGres and Cache, leaving Oracle etc. to their vendors to write using the API. Big work.
Some of the stuff has been written already and is open-source so it can be grabbed with a thang-ya-very-much, but the job remains huge... IMO way way beyond the scope of one brilliant developer. Needs a team of brilliant developers plus an architect. AFACS, the Linux community is not interested, or to put it more graciously, realizes the size of the problem and is not interested.
If there was an Access clone in the Linux world, I would IMMEDIATELY recommend to all my clients that they abandon Windows. But there isn't, and so despite my emotional/political slant, I am forced to recommend Windows solutions -- it works, and it's RAD, and that means it's relatively cheap.
I would so much prefer to recommend some product called MyAccess, which works with MySQL and maybe other Linux databases, but until that emerges, I have to say that Access is the cheap way to go. I can ship runtimes if you don't want to pay the licensing for Access on every box. This assumes a WindX environment, but if the bottom line and the ROI matter, then Win + Access win. I don't like it much, but that's how I see it. Wish it were otherwise.
Arthur Fuller
|
