Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

[Apopas]

So we have Linux succesful in servers and workstations and unsuccesful in desktop.
On the other hand osx is the opposite.
So why that statement makes BSD licensing more capable than GPL? The revenue from Linux is much larger than osx's as well.

[kraftman]

kraftman, there is probably no point in arguing with an unthinking GPL zealot like yourself, but I enjoy demolishing dumb arguments like yours so I will.

You're arguments are dumb stupid.

What exactly does GPL fit the best? All the GPL distros that focused on the consumer desktop gave up.

They didn't? There's Ubuntu and derivatives and there are others like OpenSuse and Fedora and they don't only use the GPL code. You're question is, so freaking dumb it's hard to imagine. They're mainly GPL, because GPL proved to be far more successful. Answer why they're GPL not BSD or Apache? Why there's no even *BSD focused desktop or successful one? Who the hell I'm talking with? It's so hard to use brain?

The reason nobody invests in things like video acceleration or specialized applications for desktop linux is because they can't make their money back from such a communal marketplace: economic models matter. The Apache license is basically a permissive BSD license with some extra provisions about patents and listing contributors, so no, I'm not changing anything. The fact that you're so ignorant about licensing that I have to explain this to you says a lot. There is a BSD-licensed desktop that uses a hybrid model similar to mine: Mac OS X.

There are no such things, because there were different goals. There's no single company behind Linux and people, companies who are behind it had/have different goals. OS X is a proprietary OS which took some BSD parts and which has very low market share as an OS which is aiming at desktops since the beginning. So, you're recommending proprietary model to Linux now? What a dumb idea. OS X has more market share, because of advertisements, it was on desktops before Linux, it has more specialized apps and not thanks to its 'hybrid model'.

They release the source for a lot of BSD-licensed code while building their own closed osource stack on top of it. Mac OS X desktop market share is many times desktop linux market share, so my hybrid theory is working great for BSD code: I just want to make it even better by adding this time-limit modification. Of course, all this was already mentioned earlier in this thread, funny that you've forgotten it already.

Your theory is working ok for proprietary OS X (however, like I said its market share is very low) and it's working awful for BSD, because they're nearly dead. Current Linux model is much better then BSD model - much more contributors, users, money, it's not supporting its competitors. I know you just want Linux dead and to support proprietary crap

[kraftman]

What exactly does GPL fit the best? All the GPL distros that focused on the consumer desktop gave up.

Playing strawman like other bsd fanboys. Bsd, mit, apache they don't even try to conquer desktops. Linux is much more successful, so your arguments fell down.

[kraftman]

One more thing:

There is a BSD-licensed desktop that uses a hybrid model similar to mine: Mac OS X.

Quartz or its other proprietary parts are bsd-licensed? Or just some things which are completely uninteresting for Linux users? If entire OS X would be bsd-licensed it would be already dead, because Linux would have quartz and any other OS X app.

[Sprewell]

Apopas, linux is not that successful on servers either, there were 3.5 Windows servers sold for every one linux server late last year. Now I imagine that doesn't include people who buy a bunch of stock servers without an OS and then install linux on them, but adding those would push it down to 2 Windows servers for every linux server at best. On the desktop and mobile, there are around 80 Windows devices and 6 Mac devices for every linux one. The fact is linux has been tried and it has lost most everywhere. It's ironic that some people want to disqualify Mac OS X as a BSD because Apple uses a hybrid model, for which they don't share all their source, but the same linux zealots have no problem counting all the linux servers running modified kernels, for which the source is rarely shared because it isn't required to. As for your ridiculous claim that linux revenue is much higher than Mac OS X, check out the linux revenue numbers in that first link and then check out Apple's revenues sometime: the numbers speak for themselves.

kraftman, you've taken the final step into irrelevance by name-calling and simply repeating your ridiculous and contradictory claims, rather than trying to come up with a worthwhile argument. I actually don't care what happens to linux. I think Linus is a very smart guy, as demonstrated in that link above. I just think he chose a poor license with the GPL and that my hybrid model will kill off linux and other GPL software first, because they have the least market share and are the easiest to take out.

[kraftman]

and heres the kicker... instead of fighting BSD's proprietary friendliness, we ALLOW it! if someone wants to fork an OSS app, hack on it, and sell it as a closed sourced product, we let them, and we make them pay SIGNIFICANTLY-ish more for the privilege to make money off it privately. this way, until the proprietary app actually rewrites the ENTIRE codebase, the original OSS app continues to benefit from any success the proprietary app generates. everyone wins.

Yeah, if they wish they give you funds, if they don't it was your choice to choose the bsd license. Support your competitors and they will be happy. I assume you. OS X guys are very happy and *BSD benefits from its success and maybe it will be able to compete with it someday?

[monraaf]

Your theory is working ok for proprietary OS X (however, like I said its market share is very low) and it's working awful for BSD, because they're nearly dead. Current Linux model is much better then BSD model - much more contributors, users, money, it's not supporting its competitors. I know you just want Linux dead and to support proprietary crap

Ironically it's most likely GPL code that's keeping FreeBSD alive. Without all the GPL'd apps and libraries in ports FreeBSD is pretty useless for most tasks. Strip that away and FreeBSD would have been death years ago.

[kraftman]

Apopas, linux is not that successful on servers either, there were 3.5 Windows servers sold for every one linux server late last year. Now I imagine that doesn't include people who buy a bunch of stock servers without an OS and then install linux on them, but adding those would push it down to 2 Windows servers for every linux server at best.

So, another straw man arguments? Btw. are you sure Linux is not that successful:

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

It looks Linux owns servers, HPC (damn, you're playing straw man, so I can play too) and netbooks - about 33% market share.

It's ironic that some people want to disqualify Mac OS X as a BSD because Apple uses a hybrid model, for which they don't share all their source, but the same linux zealots have no problem counting all the linux servers running modified kernels, for which the source is rarely shared because it isn't required to. As for your ridiculous claim that linux revenue is much higher than Mac OS X, check out the linux revenue numbers in that first link and then check out Apple's revenues sometime: the numbers speak for themselves.

Bull Linux kernels if modified or not (which are modified btw?) are GPL and are available to Linux community. OS X' non bsd licensed, so interesting parts in this case are not Open Source and their code is not available to community. Even Apple is using Linux as servers. It's probably because of technical advantages, but you're playing straw man and you're talking only about the licenses. Linux is not, so successful on desktops, because Win and OS X have more advantages in this area like games etc. This was mentioned many times and not because of a dumb license.

kraftman, you've taken the final step into irrelevance by name-calling and simply repeating your ridiculous and contradictory claims, rather than trying to come up with a worthwhile argument. I actually don't care what happens to linux. I think Linus is a very smart guy, as demonstrated in that link above.

You did this before by saying - unthinking. Your arguments are just dumb and irrelevant. I know you don't care what will happen to Linux and I'm glad you just confirmed this. Your model actually almost killed BSD, so I wish every Linux competitor will adopt it.

I just think he chose a poor license with the GPL and that my hybrid model will kill off linux and other GPL software first, because they have the least market share and are the easiest to take out.

Wrong OS X is easiest to take out and I'm nearly sure you were writing all this bull to save it. Have a nice day

[kraftman]

Ironically it's most likely GPL code that's keeping FreeBSD alive. Without all the GPL'd apps and libraries in ports FreeBSD is pretty useless for most tasks. Strip that away and FreeBSD would have been death years ago.

Haha, good point!

[Apopas]

@Sprewell
Hmmm... Linux is not succesful in servers because windows count for 2x than Linux in that market while osx is succesful in desktops despite that windows count 15x than osx... heh that's a rather interesting way of thinking...

Plus, in this specific link, Ballmer himself says Linux counts for 60% in webservers... but who believes him... these guys from microsoft and Apple always lie...

True, according to Wikipedia, Linux doesn't have much larger revenue than Apple. Apple's revenue was 43 billion for 2009 while Linux's was almost 36 billion by 2008 with estimates to be 50 billion by 2011. Not so bad for an unsuccesful model huh?