Re: Open source WO (was: Apple, Microsoft, Java and the Web?)

> While apple keep
> using it internally and they keep releasing revisions to the public,
> it will continue to live on.

But when you see  WebObjects revisions vs the competition in the last
years, the gap is narrowing and it will in the future if Apple doesn't
step up.

As we know Applewon't step up in my view since there is no business
case for Apple to step considering it's a free tool (and other news to
be announced soon...)

> let you add or replace functionality dynamically and projects like
> JOPE, Wotonomy and Cayenne waiting quietly for their chance to fill
> the role.

Consider all the time that went into these separate efforts (and part
of the time used on WONDER and WOLips etc.) could have been made on
the main WO branches since, say, 2002.
I know it's hypothetical, but I think everybody including Apple would
be further ahead.

>I wouldn't consider Tapestry a "safe" choice either at the
> moment because it has too much volatility, with each major revision
> bringing significantly differences to the previous one. That isn't to
> say it's a bad choice, only that it is similarly "unsafe" for a long
> life product.

But WO is mature. Most of the "dead bodies" of open-source SourceForge
projects I see are one-man efforts starting from scratch and then
abandoned before a first usable  release , that wouldn't be the case
of WO.

I think because of its maturity and apparent (?) lack of major
investments from Apple WO would be predetermined to go open-source in
the future.

As Andrus pointed out in his mail, that wouldn't mean loss of control,
but rather controlled meritocracy...see his points here.

http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/archive/webobjects-talk/2006-August/000424.html

WO shouldn't be abandonware when open-sourced by Apple.  Apple showed
it can handle opensource  succcessfully with WebKit etc..if it wants
to :)

> An even better question is what features/functionality is WebObjects lacking that
> makes it an any less capable product than the available alternatives?

I think that is the technical question to ask, and in theory and
reality everything is possible for now  - although some bug fixes can
be a pain.

The customer side is also fine for most projects. As Pirmin and Georg
pointed out, many open-minded customers are willing to  look at the
bottom line: What productivity does the solution achieve for how much
investment over its entire lifecycle? -  and don't care about the
technology as long as it answers the question well. That is in favour
of WO.
Some customers - especially if they are supposed to support it
themselves - are not confortable with any solution from Apple in the
enterprise. [I'm not saying it's justifed]. My personal experience is
the smaller the company, the less it's matters. With the difficult
larger ones you can try to say " free Java framework" :)

My intention or question starting this thread rather is the future,
not the current situation:

What is the *long-term* strategic business advantage for Apple - at
this stage in 2006, when WO is already free as in beer - not to open
source WO as opposed to doing it ?


PS: I bet coming news will make this topic worthwhile discussing in
the long term...aka the analogy I want a fuel call car, not just a
hybrid car  :)

Marc