Guardian: open source is a throwback says Jack Schofield

[Paul Boddie]

malcolmny_1 at lycos.com (malcolm) wrote in message news:<64cff82f.0401251143.328388bd at posting.google.com>...
> Why you can't get something for nothing
> Jack Schofield Jan 22 2004

I'd forgotten about Schofield - regarded in various circles as having
been clueless for at least the past decade, and obviously still an
apologist for the 1980s-style proprietary software industry.

> "There are also undoubted benefits from running open source software,
> though the financial ones can be small or even negative. Companies are
> bound to be tempted by the idea of getting something for nothing .."

Interestingly, Schofield then links to a Stallman essay describing the
"free as in freedom" motivations of the FSF. Anyway, when intelligent
companies adopt open source software they work with the community;
when clueless companies download "this free stuff" they work against
the community and ultimately cause more problems for themselves later
on.

> "The facility to fix bugs yourself and to modify programs also sounds
> attractive. However, fixing bugs is not practical for most companies,
> and modifications can be positively dangerous.

Obviously, employees at The Office aren't likely to be rebuilding
their word processor from source, but Schofield seems to think that
there's an army of penguins forcing people at gunpoint to do just
that. Given the reference to Stallman, one would have thought that the
"free as in freedom" slogan would have sunk in and he would have
realised that "freedom" and "compulsion" are quite separate concepts.

> If you are really going to do these things, you need to hire several
> reliable programmers with kernel-level skills"

Or you're a company working in software development who hopefully have
skilled developers working for you anyway.

> "Indeed, the whole progress of commercial computing has been from
> expensive hand-written, bug-ridden, company-specific programs to
> cheaper but more powerful off-the-shelf packages. From that point of
> view, open source is a throwback."

Yes, a history of computing as you'll read in any low-end "computer
studies for business" textbook from circa 1983. But I suppose that
after so long in technology journalism you don't have to learn
anything new or adapt to the reality of the day but instead just stand
on the sidelines cheering for your favourite brand.

> - http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1127802,00.html

Some other interesting links:

http://www.sheffieldhallam.org.uk/blog/2004/01/12/19.40.04/
(Responses to Mr Schofield's latest piece which could have been titled
"Free Software - something I don't understand and so it must be bad".)

http://handelaar.org/index.php?p=77&c=1
(A more "robust" critique of Mr Schofield's journalism.)

http://www.computerweekly.com/Article20541.htm
(Pragmatism or just apologist rhetoric?)

Paul