Marc Andreesen is reported in Linux World as enumerating 12 Reasons for Growth of Open Source :
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
12. "It's free."
Number 12, of course, isn't true if it was actually stated in such bald terms. Open-source software may not have associated licensing costs but it isn't without cost. But the lower up-front costs of Open Source software are a pivotal factor in the growth of Open Source. The societies least able to afford Microsoft's software licensing fees are the societies with the highest likely rate of economic growth. That's a key issue in the Big Software War.
It's interesting that Andreesen emphasises the Internet in three of his twelve points. The ability for developers from many localities around the globe to collaborate is an essential ingredient in how some types of Open Source software are developed. In the early to mid 1990s it was widely rumoured that Bill Gates was slow to appreciate the upcoming Internet wave. Is it possible that he was more prescient and foresaw the dangers to Microsoft of collaboration in software development in cyberspace?
Will Open Source software be more secure than Microsoft software? I suspect that it may well prove to be.
Andreesen's point 5. is also an interesting one. To the extent that it's true, it's not good news for Microsoft. I haven't heard the phrase mentioned often but in line with point 5. the notion of a "Microsoft tax" doesn't go down well.
Andreesen's points 6 and 7 seem soft. He might have been better discarding those and settling for 10 points.
Point 8 about Linux running on Intel is a significant one.
Point 10 is true but Andreesen also needs to be aware that Microsoft is active in precisely that area, SQL Server 2000 Reporting Services being a case in point.
Posted by Andrew Watt at March 23, 2004 08:45 AM