OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
The difference is that if a monopoly occurs in an open OS, the industry just effectively restarts right where it began. How? Lots of people will want to help out with the vastly dominant distro and, eventually, when enough changes are made by various groups they will split back off into separate distros... putting us, essentially, back where we are today. A Microsoft-like monopoly based on secrecy can't exist in an open source environment because your actual source code is out in the open and anyone, at any point, can improve on your software and release a better version of it. Competition is omnipresent. So, if that same theoretical distro defends its "monopoly" against all of the off-shoots and remains a "monopoly" for a significant period... it is deserved, since their product bested competition that started from equal footing. Microsoft, on the other hand, is all about doing anything possible (well, anything they can get away with) to keep people from reaching equal footing.Minerel said:Even with open source there can be a monpoly and im just saying, if there was a Linux Distrubution that became greater than all the rest and really became a major OS then a monopoly would occur, those people would have there own company and would figure out one hell of a way to keep there monopoly.
Also, the people that develop and release free, open source software want to give something to the community. If they wanted to make tons of money off of their hard work... they wouldn't be writing free open source software.