A little rant in following from: Red Hat vs. Microsoft: Who will win
The question I ask is why does Red Hat have to be as large as Microsoft?
Open Source allows everyone to share from each others work. It understands the implicit contract in computing that value creation in information is only occurs when it shared, a version of Metcalfe’s Law. In constrasted Closed Source understands that smaller groups controlling the flow and access to information and innovation allow these groups greater potential wealth.
After all how much would the network cost now, if we were running Microsoft or similar on our routers, servers and phones. Without Linux or BSD the freedom for choice, the ability to choice who innovates and thus allowing the market to decide who is better is removed.
So the innovation that is occurring and been driven in IT at the moment is because of OSS.
A clear example of this is Vmware, Xen and rPath. Before the advent of Xen a company like rPath would likely have less reason to exist. There would be no software appliances. Vmware would still be printing money for its stock-holders. And for the man in the tench the vision of deploying a enterprise grade mail system like Zimbra in 30 minutes on a rPath platform would be hopeless.
It is not to say that I think huge companies are bad, but that freedom of choice it more vital. I think in the end on the balance of things, it is US all who will win.