Matt Asay comments on the recent Red Hat + IBM Open Collaboration Client initiative:

In what must have been gross oversight, Red Hat is pitching proprietary software on its website under the banner of "No vendor lock-in." The way Red Hat and IBM make it appear, simply running one's software on an open platform like Linux magically removes the proprietary lock-in of the application.

I hate to say this, Red Hat, but it just doesn't work that way. Last time I checked, IBM's Lotus Domino is proprietary software and running it on Linux hasn't changed that fact.

If it did, we'd be calling Microsoft Office open source (Hey, it runs on Linux via WINE) and a whole host of other things "open" and "lock-in free."
I completely agree that the word "open" has been devalued in many ways in the market.  But the intent here is to indicate that the choice and flexibility of being able to run on an open platform like Linux does indeed give customers the ability to get away from a single vendor stack.

One of the comments gets it right:
Or maybe when they say "open", they mean open formats and open protocols, which do not demand an open source implementation but _DO_ help prevent vendor lock-in none-the-less.
Link: CNET Open Road: Red Hat pitching proprietary lock-in as "open" >

Post a Comment