<Previous Comments snipped for bandwidth conservation> Alexander Staubo wrote:
The Open Source guys just wants "software that doesn't suck".
</lurk> I've been watching this debate since the begining and felt I'd put in one observation on the above quotation. I actually think one of the comments in this vain (maybe by ESR) was the goal for "software that sucks less" than the whats out there. I don't think you can create software that doesn't suck in some person opinion. That said what I've learned is if I have to have software that isn't quite where I want it to be I prefer the ability to adapt it myself. One argument against open-source software projects is that they often come from amorphous groups on the Internet. (Zope is an exception.) As a result there is no one to "hang if it fails". What people don't factor into the equation is if I have to pay $X for licenses from a vendor (with or without a support contract) how many hours of contractor time will that buy me to install, customize, administor, and maintain a freely available open-source product? For those fighting this battle inside corporations I recommend http://www.cluetrain.com as a place to visit. More grist for the mill. <lurk> Jack Ungerleider The Ungerleider Group jack@jacku.com