

Forget the Linux Desktop, it's the Linux Laptop that matters - theoneill
http://sourcesmouth.co.uk/blog/Forget-the-Linux-Desktop-it-s-the-Linux-Laptop-that-matters.html

======
edw519
Just as Microsoft took the crown from IBM in 1981, the open source community
has taken it from Microsoft in 2007.

~~~
mynameishere
The OS "community" cannot defeat the laws of economics in any real way--there
are x number of programmers stupid enough to donate their time for the benefit
of corporations, but that number is probably more limited than thought. Many
OS programmers are bankrolled by companies that benefit from software
commodification--companies like IBM. It's very, very sad that OSS has such a
good reputation among programmers, when it can only hurt them.

~~~
hollerith
If all software were proprietary, programmers would have less control over
their own profession.

Most worthwhile programming projects entail modifying existing software rather
than only developing new independent software from scratch. Mostly this
existing software is very widely used and because of this "popularity", if it
were all proprietary, it would almost all be the intellectual property of
corporations, which means that a programmer would need the cooperation or
permission of executives and sometimes marketers, accountants or even investor
or investment analysts to modify it. Since most people capable of making a
technical contribution to a programming project do not have the
(communications and impression-management) skills or social contacts to obtain
this cooperation, in an all-proprietary-software world, programmers would
undertake their own initiatives less often than they do now. They would be
restricted more often to supporting the initiaviates of executive, marketers
and owners of intellectual property -- as employees and contractors. If you
have been reading conversations among programmers on the net for 15 years like
I have, you will have noticed that the retired or older professional
programmers of 10 and 15 years ago had a more fatalistic and passive attitude
than programmers have nowadays, and it was a sad thing to witness.

Lawyers, marketers, investment analysts and executives mostly do not trust or
understand programmers (or engineers, or scientists, or artists) and
consequently will try to reduce the influence and autonomy of programmers
(which explains parts of intellectual-property law, the harshness of criminal
penalties for computer vandalism and computer trespassing and the rush 10
years ago to outsourcing).

Even though most programmers have never participated in any programmer-led
initiatives, the initiatives have done much to make the day-to-day experience
of being a professional programmer more satisfying and more dignified -- by
preventing other occupational groups from dictating to programmers as much as
they would have done otherwise.

For example, much of the internet above the transport layer before corporate
executives "discovered" it in 1993 and 1994 was created by the initiative of
programmers working more or less with open-source practices. The internet has
created working conditions for many professional programmers more pleasant
than whatever corporate alternative (think Compuserve, AOL and MSN) would have
arisen if the internet had not arrived first.

~~~
mynameishere
_Most worthwhile programming projects entail modifying existing software_

Getting a job at a corporation, sure enough this is true: Most of the work is
in modifying the existing code base. But the number of people forking an open
source project for their own purpose is small (google does it) and the number
doing so for purposes of resale is zero.

 _you will have noticed that the retired or older professional programmers of
10 and 15 years ago had a more fatalistic and passive attitude_

This is an odd statement and one that would be hard to support with numbers. I
know for a fact that where opportunities existed, they were exploited. A lot
of COBOL programmers may have not understood the possibility of creating a
software product, but there was no limit to the opportunities for people
writing Atari 2600/Apple II/C64 assembler, etc. You were observing the wrong
data set perhaps. It strikes me as sad that many small companies are making
web knock-offs of products that were genuinely innovative in the bad old days
(word processors, publishing software, spreadsheets, media players, etc.)

I've said this before: Keep linux on the server, as it does keep the money "in
the family"--between software professionals, more or less. But if Windows goes
out of style, it's destroying a huge money flow from other businesses to
software. This is mercenary, but that's how life is.

