Closed-source considered harmful (was: JavaScript considered harmful)

[Brett g Porter]

"Oleg Broytmann" <phd at phd.pp.ru> wrote in message
news:mailman.1010587033.6063.python-list at python.org...
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 02:26:16PM +0000, Brett g Porter wrote:
> > "Christopher Barber" <cbarber at curl.com> wrote in message
> > news:psoitacmnxf.fsf at jekyll.curl.com...
> > > Cliff Wells <logiplexsoftware at earthlink.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > But since we're starting a list:
> > > > 3.  Cars are inherently open-source: anyone with knowledge and tools
can
> > > > work on them.
> > >
> > > This is not entirely true.  You still are stuck with having to buy
parts
> > from
> > > someone.  Many auto parts can only be obtained from the manufacturer.
How
> > > open is that?
> > ...and even worse, most modern cars aren't the kind of things that you
can
> > poke around with and fix. Every problem that I've had (other than the
> > screaming obvious low-tech oil change type stuff) has required the
> > replacement of a monolithic module. I've read that there's a growing
> > aftermarket EPROM scene to modify your engine's shift points.
> >
> > ...unless Oleg includes EPROM burners as automotive tools.
>
>    While this is certainly a problem, it is lesser problemm, because,
after
> all, there are many competing car manufacturers. But unfortunately
> compatibility issue created the world where there is The One OS Maker, and
> I am afraid they are driving us to the world where there will be The One
> Software Maker.
>    I am against such a monopoly, do you?
>
I disagree with the characterization. There is not only One OS Maker, and
when you say that there is Only One, it makes it difficult to take your
points seriously. I've got three operating systems humming in my office as I
type this -- 2 closed, 1 open. I'm not interested in zealotry. Each of them
has their niche, and I'm happy to work with each of them on their own terms.