Summary: Linux Today readers and also one of our own do not fancy IDG's attempts to change perception around the term "Open Source" and around Linux

OVER at IDG's pseudo-open source blog there is some rather insulting new piece from Shimel.

One of our readers responded to it specifically by writing last night: "What a stupid article. The writer makes statements that are full of FUD and disinformation. Stupid, stupid, stupid. He names Linux the most successful Open Source project. Hellloooo: What about Firefox ??? Or Apache ??? And then, he crowns that pile of garbage of an article with this pearl: What works for Linux may not work for the rest of the open source projects, watch for revenue. What a MORON."

“The writer makes statements that are full of FUD and disinformation.”
      --AnonymousThese attempts to belittle Linux while glamourising 'open' core (proprietary) at Open Source's expense do not surprise us, but does that belong in a so-called "Open Source" blog? This only leads to further erosion of the term "Open Source".

Over at Linux Today we found just a couple of comments, which we thought were both worth quoting. The first one says: "If the author wanted to rant (and it is a rant) that he liked the "open core" model, he should have just said so. Instead he chose to set up straw men. I mean, does anybody really believe that everything that runs on Linux must be released under an "open source" (free software?) license or that it must be offered w/o charge? If so, that person hasn't been paying attention! And where does he come up with the notion that all free software will attract a sizable contributor base like the Linux kernel? That is absurd on the face of it. He is correct that one can create "open core" software legally -- i.e. w/o violating licenses. (Whether it is moral can be debated. I am sure RMS would be happy to oblige.) One doesn't need the straw men arguments to do that. However, whether non-free software is *desirable* from a user's perspective is a whole different question. One the author of this rant conveniently avoids."

Another commenter says: "Can't you find something better for marketing your typically closed products than labeling them as 'open source' in order to make your customers understand that they can download a free trial version?"

We've said it before and it's worth saying again: be careful of IDG's "open source" blog. They even have Microsoft employees writing there now. The tone and agenda are set by the selection process. ⬆