Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
- From: Davyd Madeley <davyd madeley id au>
- To: Quim Gil <qgil interactors coop>
- Cc: Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:42:52 +0800
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 06:26:05PM +0100, Quim Gil wrote:
> In GNOME we donpt talk usually about first-party and second-party
> developers AFAIK (I have only heard of beer-parties). But we talsk about
> GNOME developers and GNOME hackers, in this context I find more
> appropriate Independent Software Developer and the acronym ISD (I agree
> that the proximity with the currently used ISV is a +1).
In all of this discussion about whether they are third-party
developers or independant software developers, I think people have
missed the important point.
That point is that we need to encourage traditional independant
software VENDORS to our platform. Our platform is placed in such a
way that vendors writing closed-source applications can use our
platform without licensing costs (unlike QT).
Businesses require more than an email client and a web browser, they
require the highly vertical applications that enable them to carry
out their business. These may be as simple as inventory control or
as complex as an Australian law enabled, multi-client tax ledger.
In the forseeable future, open-source developers are not going to
write these applications, because they do not have the expertise or
resources to develop applications of this magnitude. Thus, we need
to encourage traditional vendors onto our platform.
Once we have highly vertical applications available on our platform,
the rate of adoption of the desktop will increase. Perhaps this
doesn't fit into some people's utopian view of how the software
industry will be overhauled, but it is a much more realisitic and
08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA
] [Thread Prev