open source is evil

You seem too serious about this.

way to demonstrate that you have no idea how the open source movement works. I'll bet you're a .NET guy, right?

"also the whole information is free for everyone is total *beep* if thats the case i should be able to get my car fixed for free right?"

Technically that would be considered tech support, which isn't always free with open source software. Charging for tech support is one way that some open source companies generate revenue so that they can continue to make open source software. if you knew how to fix your car yourself you wouldn't have to pay the mechanic for the support he provides. Just like if you know how to fix any issue that comes up with the open source software you use then you don't need to pay for tech support.

"I say what I mean, and I do what I say. "

we need to capatlize on software development, that way programmers can make a living, imagine if cisco, microsoft, IBM, just shutdown, thousands of jobs would be lost....

Open Source is not evil IMO, I think the main reason people like MS will never go OS is they don't want people seeing the coding as the likely hood is there are a lot of people who haven't been given what they might be. Personally I welcome OS.

"if you have to ask you are not ready to know" - Phone Booth

My brother is a mechanic. He fixes my car for free anytime I have something broken on it. Is my brother evil for not charging me? If he decides to show me how to make an oil change myself, should he charge me for that? Is he evil for sharing information (knowledge) to me for free? Now that I know how to change oil myself, should I still pay someone to do it, or will I be evil if I decide to change my oil by myself even though I am not a mechanic?

Firefox is open source. Would you say software development is stuck because of Firefox being an open source competitor to Internet Explorer? As far as I can tell, Firefox has actually introduced a lot of advancement in browsers. As a fact, many of the programmers that have contributed code to Firefox were actually paid to do so. Also Firefox is very well supported.

Linux is open source, and most distros can be obtained for free. For example, I can go and download Red Hat Linux for free. Red Hat is a business with many employees, including paid full time programmers. Support for Red Hat Linux is very professional (you have to pay for it). It would be hard to deny that Red Hat have contributed to many advancement in technologies, as much of what they have contributed is now available in other Linux distros, and so did many of the other companies that distribute Linux distros.

The Open Source model does not steal job or delay advancement. They have a very different business model, which cannot be said to be anti-capitalism. Mozilla (the organization behind Firefox) and Red Hat, to name only those two, are multimillion dollars companies.

Yes, if Microsoft closes down, many jobs will be lost. But this is not about to happen, and certainly not because of open source software. Open source software does not destroy jobs, it creates jobs.

Beside, if a programmer decides to release his work under an open source license and does not ever try to make a penny out of it, that is his choice. He invested time on his work, he has the right not to make money out of it if he doesn't want to. What about the guy that publishes a video on YouTube which you like, thus entertaining you for a few minutes? Should he charge you for viewing it, so that he makes a revenue and ensures that capitalism doesn't die?

<some ranting against opensource>.. "without these corporations there wouldn't be any major software deveploment and we would be stuck with *beep* unsupported operating systems and software, reminds me of Linux and gimp.."


Ohhhhh Classic.. Unsupported ?? When was the last time you googled or asked in a linux forum about some problem ?

You're confusing open source with freeware, which ironically is not always open source. Open source simply means that the source code for a given application is made free to public access. Programmers not affiliated with the original programmer are free to use and modify open source code for their own programs. The end product of an open source application is still usually a copyrighted work that may or may not be distributed for free. Duplicating an application, even an open source application, without permission will result in piracy charges.

Google's Android operating system is an example an open source product that many people are familiar with.