Open source opinions

In response to Howard Anderson's column "A cynic rips open source": This article is very well written but a bit too vague for me. I'd like to see some specific applications as examples.

Many of my application vendors, even carrier-grade VoIP switching vendors, are moving their platforms to Linux because it's reliable, affordable and better than Microsoft's [operating system]. Open source is good for certain things, like operating systems. I wouldn't throw a carrier-grade telephony system on a Microsoft [operating system]. On the other hand, I wouldn't throw my primary-line VoIP service on the Asterisk open source app. At least not now.

Why don't you discuss the topic from the perspective of mature open source products vs. nascent open source products? In most cases, open source takes longer to mature, but once it has matured, it is a viable option. To really draw contributions from so many developers, an important cultural phenomenon is necessary: Developers need to feel like they're getting something in return for their work. I'm assuming that sustained altruism is not as effective as self-interest (paid coders). What do developers of open source software stand to gain? Respect from peers. Creation of an open source application that generates support and maintenance and upgrade revenues for them. Use of their own open source apps to deliver services that generate revenue for them.

We should analyze the cultural phenomenon of open source software to determine whether it will persist as a viable solution. I say "persist" because, yes, there is real value in open source software.

Steve Christensen

CEO and Chairman

Broadweave Networks

South Jordan, Utah

It is perhaps an understatement to proffer that I experienced "shocked" astonishment by the inclusion and printing of the column "A cynic rips open source" in your publication. The credibility of your editorship and industry savvy is now in question for me. After reviewing additional submissions by said author, I can only make the following statement of concern about your vetting process: How you could choose to include the opinions of such a Luddite as Mr. Anderson is simply confounding and ought to be the source of some embarrassment.

Chris Rainey

San Rafael, Calif.

More IRS lessons

Mark Gibbs is wrong about one thing in his column "The Tao of IT: The IRS lesson." Organizations ("the IRS" or "the government" or whatever) don't - actually, cannot - care about anything. Only people care. The fault in this story does not lie with the IRS; it lies with the people who made bad decisions, bad choices and failed to take their responsibility to safeguard the private information seriously.

The people responsible - from the top-level administrators who failed to make sufficient policies against doing stupid things like taking home a copy of the taxpayer database on a laptop, to the midlevel managers who failed to stop it from happening anyway, to the people who actually copied sensitive data to a laptop and carried it out of the building - are who you should be castigating.

David Gersic

Northern Illinois University

DeKalb, Ill.