tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7641928.post8098779039662692697..comments2009-01-28T20:33:32.305-05:00Mark Griffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06696309270838259732noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7641928.post-40228451441449663112009-01-28T20:33:00.000-05:002009-01-28T20:33:00.000-05:00

Hey Ken,<BR/>Good comments. I don't really disagree with your statements but just like my post they are kind of subjective like this one "The code is typically cleaner, easy to understand, easy to build, etc.". I happen to agree with you but its still subjective. <BR/><BR/>I think the points you make are what companies that are not using open-source are missing. Less emphasis on the open part,

Mark Griffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06696309270838259732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7641928.post-17076810556069926722009-01-28T13:32:00.000-05:002009-01-28T13:32:00.000-05:00

Mark,<BR/><BR/>I work for an open source vendor and found your post interesting. However, I think there are some benefits you are not considering. <BR/><BR/>If the vendor goes away, you don't need to maintain the source yourself. There is the community and others in the community can pick up and provide support. You just don't have that option with a proprietary solution. Also, there is a lot of

Kenhttp://www.mulesource.comnoreply@blogger.com