Slashdot Mirror
SourceXChange Closes Doors
It's been coming in through the proverbial grapevine that SourceXChange has been closed by its' parent Collab.net. In the closed doors page they've got, Collab notes that they are focusing on a code development environment they've been working on - it's a lot like what SourceXChange was doing, but installing for people looking for collabrative development tools.
A site with a similar idea is Cosource.com. The projects there tend to be a lot smaller in scope, but there are a lot more to choose from. Hopefully they won't end up in the same boat as SourceXChange.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Nothing. There is no relationship between GameXchange and SourceXchange, except that the names are similar.
Great product, bad marketing. They had some 10 thousand developers signed up, open source and Linux all over the news, and a shortage of good programmers available to companies. All during a Tech boom that had companies scrambling for new ways to get work done. And yet they couldn't get enough projects.
At the start they had some interesting projects posted by HP. But after that available projects slowed nearly to a stop. The ones that did show up were from smaller companies that offered too little money, and even those were slim pickings.
It looks to me like they focused all their attention on the product and neglected the sales pitch to companies, who should have been eager participants. I don't think ``open source'' had anything to do with their failure.
The biggest one I can think of is OpenOffice, which has a little tiny "powered by collab.net" logo at the bottom of the front page. Since this one's on Sun's bankroll (more or less) it'll likely continue, but what about the rest of 'em?
I had the impression when I interviewed that they were barely getting bye. I think if they survive they will probably go through a few rounds of layoffs....
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Just because something is good does not mean it will make a profit, just as something that makes a profit is not automatically good (other than the money it may produce). Redhat may be the popular distro to demonize because they have their eyes ont the money, but until we live in a society that automatically pays for "good ideas", the bottom dollar is the driving force.Microsoft and other big players have shown time and time again that lots of money will almost always win out over a great product which is not properly marketed. Think about the IBM PC Jr. I owned one. It was a one of IBM's biggest mistakes, but because of !! AWESOME !! marketting, what looked to be a dooming failure turned a profit. PcTools is an example who started out of the gates like lightening with great marketting strategy, but later got wiped off the face of the earth by Norton's better marketting and Microsoft's money.Linux and the free software environment have proven that you can not easily kill free software that is freely maintained, but the simple truth is it does cost people their time to develop and maintain the software.Personally, I think it is great that RedHat can help push Linux farther along while making money selling training and support (assuming the latest lawsuit does not wax the company). I liked what SourceXChange was trying to do, but you can't fund a business on likes. Remember, programmers have to eat too (even if it is mostly, pizza, mex, chineese, or something from a vending machine).
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
Perhaps my mind is just in the gutter, but upon glancing at the headline I could've sworn it said SexChange Closes Doors. Perhaps it's because there are two other sex related articles on the front page, but then again, maybe not.
Note there are two uses:
The GTK port of XEmacs was funded through SourceXChange, I believe.
Can anyone else think of something worthwhile that was funded through it?
this is really unfortunate. i followed SourceXchange (and collab.net) pretty closely when i lived in San Francisco as i was good friends with employee number six. ;) it was a great idea, and it's a shame to see it go. i guess it just didn't generate the kind of noise it needed to, and didn't get the right people's attention.
the SourceXchange concept was a good one, and i honestly think a lot of companies (and the open source community) could have really benefited from the service. it also could have really helped legitimize open-source software. i know there were other services like it (like the Free Software Bazaar), but i think SourceXchange was the most appealing to big companies.
i wish Collab.net the best of luck with SourceCast, but while it looks like an interesting project, it really doesn't look like it will benefit open-source software nearly as much as SourceXchange could have. oh well, c'est la vie.
- j
Hey, if developers pf proprietary software want to use the same tools as developers of Open Source, that's fine with me.
SourceCast sounds similar to VA's SourceForge OnSite. Occasionally Larry McVoy talks about starting a similar "BitForge" project, too.
Cosource and SourceXchange both opened within a few months (days?) of each other. Both had a lot of promise. I would visit each one every few months, but the jobs on SourceXchange were too big and the process on Cosource WAY too complicated ("authority"? "affiliate"? Huh?).
This story reminded me to do my biannual check of Cosource and I find it just like I always do. And I mean that literally--the same projects are always just sitting there. Does anybody actually WORK on these things? I think that "FreeCiv to BeOS" thing has been there for two years or more.
These websites were great ideas but they don't seem to be working. Too bad.
--
324006