It's pretty much completely devoid of any evidence to substantiate any of his claims.
He states: "The open-source business model is broken." and makes vague references to companies that have faltered but gives no hard numbers, e.g how do the numbers of companies using an open source business model failing relate to companies with a proprietary model?
The article's filled with other assertions that are backed up by vague statements. I mean:
"And therein lies the great paradox: Open-source code is generally great code, not requiring much support. So open-source companies that rely on support and service alone are not long for this world."
A rampant generalisation, followed by a complete lack of any evidence.
Yeah, it's not that good. I voted it up just because I think open source business is a fascinating subject and interesting thing to discuss, and if nothing else, the guy was quite involved with it at OSDL.
My take is that 1) open source works very, very well, but that 2) "opens source business" is not really a solved problem, and that the economics of the whole thing are weird and interesting.
It's pretty much completely devoid of any evidence to substantiate any of his claims.
He states: "The open-source business model is broken." and makes vague references to companies that have faltered but gives no hard numbers, e.g how do the numbers of companies using an open source business model failing relate to companies with a proprietary model?
The article's filled with other assertions that are backed up by vague statements. I mean:
"And therein lies the great paradox: Open-source code is generally great code, not requiring much support. So open-source companies that rely on support and service alone are not long for this world."
A rampant generalisation, followed by a complete lack of any evidence.