Slashdot Mirror
Mundie Speech @ OSCON - Blogged In Real Time
Thanks to Simone for pointing out Doc Searls' weblog as well as Dan Gillmore's weblog being updated about the Craig Mundie (of Microsoft)'s speech @ O'Reilly's Open Source Convention. Dan's take is excellent - that's what I'm hearing from people there as well.
Straight from Doc Searls' weblog:
... GNU wants a monopoly ... no
...
Brent Glass:
competition
Duh !
I can tell you that the GNU Fortran Compiler has
ample competition, both from proprietary compilers
(not Microsoft, mind you - they didn't find this
market very interesting) as well as from GPL'd
ones (the SGI IA64 compiler).
Toon Moene.
That sounds like the typical 'wiggle around not saying too much' bull that is ruining our Universities and intellectual life.
To be more expressive about my point:
Which 'you' is the dominant culture? We are all 'you's and all parts of various cultures to different degrees.
I don't see 'dominant cultures' as having an 'understanding.' They aren't entities, they are just constructs used to differentiate people.
He's lucky they didn't break out the red armbands and stage a revolution.
Oh wait! It's not October yet.
Mundie just said something that is absolutely untrue, that "Microsoft has always published the APIs" that let programmers write software to run on its operating systems and other products. Does Mundie know that wasn't true?
The Win16 and Win32 APIs have been published and well documented. Are they complete? No. But do they let programmers write software to run on its operating systems and other products? Of course.
Craig:c -0588a-ss.rm
c -0588b-ss.rm
c -0588c-ss.rm
wget -t0 -b -c http://media.cmpnet.com/twtoday_media/realtest/tn
Michael:
wget -t0 -b -c http://media.cmpnet.com/twtoday_media/realtest/tn
Panel discussion:
wget -t0 -b -c http://media.cmpnet.com/twtoday_media/realtest/tn
Follow one of the two links @: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010724/2116.html
for an audio transcript
Don't you know? Microsoft is the root of all evil. They must have had *something* to do with it. They just must have. To think otherwise goes against all of slashdot's teachings. You must be new here.
I couldn't agree more. It was the chance to "learn by seeing how other people were doing" that drew me to Linux (and other Free projects) in the first place. I've learned more in the last five years or so than I could ever have learned using closed source software.
One of the great benefits of open source is that when I have a problem with a program, instead of wasting my time clicking around on menus and reading useless, cryptic error codes, I can dig into the code and find the problem. With Open Source, problem solving becomes a learning experience, not just time wasted clicking around trying to coerce crappy code into working and learning nothing useful even if I happen to stumble onto a solutoin.
I think what frightens Microsoft and their peers is that a generally superior development model has emerged that can reduce development costs and produce code that can help increase efficiency and cut costs for end users. Eventually this development model will result in a market shift away from closed source software that will make the clash over the business model concepts moot.
slashdot broke my sig
Try these.c -0588a-ss.rm
c -0588b-ss.rm
c -0588c-ss.rm
wget -t0 -b -c http://media.cmpnet.com/twtoday_media/realtest/tn
wget -t0 -b -c http://media.cmpnet.com/twtoday_media/realtest/tn
wget -t0 -b -c http://media.cmpnet.com/twtoday_media/realtest/tn
I think that I see the disconnect here, and it actually lies in the distinction between Open Source, and Free Software. As I see it, the difference is that the motivation behind Free Software, as advocated by Richard Stallman, is to advance humanity as a whole, without concern for commercial viability. The motivation behind Open Source is that a company can benefit commercially from use of an Open Source license. Now, it is clear that there are definite benefits for a company to use Open Source software, however I think a good case can be made as to why it may not be in a company's best interests to create such software, and I suspect that this is the case that underpins Craig's argument.
The question then is - which argument are we having here? I think that it is fair to say that advocates of Open Source tend to shift their position as it suits them - effectively using a strawman argument. Since we are discussing Microsoft's use of a Shared Source license, and Microsoft is, of course, motivated by profit, it seems that at least partially the Open Source advocates, in criticizing Shared Source, are making the weaker case that it is in Microsoft's interests to create Open Source software. It is also clear, however, that most of their justifications for this position are, in fact, justifications for the stronger case that Open Source is in the public interest.
This is a strawman since in arguing with Craig they imply that he is trying to say that Open Source is not in the public interest, and argue against that (which isn't hard). The reality, however, is that Craig is actually thinking in terms of a for-profit corporation's best interest (which is perfectly natural), and then presumably relying on the Ayn Rand philosophy that capitalism will ultimately advance the public interest.
I therefore challenge the participants to make their position clear. Do they feel that:
I think that we need to acknowledge that for-profit corporations will do whatever they can, within the law, to advance their own interests, and it is the responsibility of government to protect the public interest.
--
Yes, the loss-leader business model has some serious risks involved. What does that have to do with open source?
Open source software is not a business model; it's a development model. It's a way to get software that you want or need -- by collaborating with others in developing that software. Open source's success or failure is not predicted or represented by Red Hat's success or Eazel's failure, but by the ability of open-source participants to get and to build the software they need and want.
Is there any open-source software you use? Does it do what you need it to? Is it in active development? Well then, the open-source model has succeeded in producing value for you. Some notable ways in which open source has succeeded for me include the Postfix mail server, the Konqueror browser, and the mutt email client. These are successes not because anyone is or isn't making money on them, but because they are good and useful software, valuable to their users.
It is true that a few companies built around a loss-leader business model have used open-source software as their loss leader, and have failed to recoup their losses and thus gone out of business. However, this is a consequence of the risks of a loss-leader business, and of the drying-up of capital for risky high-tech ventures. Hardware loss-leaders -- the :CueCat and the iOpener come to mind -- have also tended to fail recently. Yet nobody suspects that a "hardware business model" is to blame, and that non-loss-leader hardware companies such as Dell or AMD are threatened.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that when a loss-leader open-source company disappears, the value (if any) of its open-source software tends to be preserved: take Nautilus, for example, which is still being developed after the demise of Eazel. The open-source development model has as one of its strengths that it is not vulnerable to the failure of anyone's business model.
*Very* well said. This is an excellent addressment of this issue. Frater, you should develop this into a full length essay, as it places the issue in its proper context. Failure of businesses is perpendicular to the issue of free software success.
Dude, you realize that those are so fake it's not funny?
Just someone fucking around with net send.
Try this : set your windows hostname to 'MICROSOFT', and then run net send [someonesip] We're watching you. and see how he reacts.
--
Actually, if you're at a LAN party, what's more fun is to send it to the broadcast address.
(NOTE: DO NOT DO THIS ON YOUR NETWORK AT WORK).
net send * You have recieved an 1D-I0T error. Please reboot your computer.
--
It's only available under Windows NT/2K and XP (apparently).
--
Since you reposted the link, I'll repost the response.
Those are fake.
They are pranks using net send.
Old technology. Old pranks. A new bunch of lusers.
(now is the time you laugh at them for being gullible).
--
I don't think it is fair to equate the deflation of the speculative stock market bubble with the failure of the open source movement as a business model. A similar shake out always occurs in a new industry, for example the microelectronics crash in the 70s (late 60s?). These things take many years to develop, even Microsoft took a decade to achieve market dominance.
Is money the only measure of value or success?
It seems to me that GNU/Linux is a success regardless of any company's profit margin. After all millions of people use it and the number grows year after year. Is the ability of the user to explore and alter the software not of value?
What do you value?
It is true open source has not generated any big software companies. Open source probably won't on its own. However open source has been sucessfull for companies that use open source as a support for their key products. The best example I can think of is Internet service providers. I know of atleast one local ISP that uses open source extensively to support their primary bussiness of selling Internet access and hosting services. In return they have contributed source. I suspect that many ISPs, especially the smaller ones, would not exist if it weren't for open source software. Open source has been very sucessfull for them.
It has not almost universally failed. I don't see where you're getting this. That's like saying the internet has almost universally failed because of the number of bad businesses that used it. There are many people making money off of the internet today, just as there are many people making money developing Linux stuff today. What is gone is the idea that simply slapping a Linux logo to your product would make it successful.
The idea of charging for services has worked well for many companies. Cygnus, for example, was greatly profitable developing free software long before the movement ever became popular. RedHat seems to be doing well, having beat analyst expectations every quarter. Mandrake has done well. IBM has done well. CollabNet has done well. Many consultancy companies have done well. In fact, the consultancy companies do what can't be done in the Microsoft world - they can be profitable, equal players.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Microsoft is backing the Boy Scouts of America? Explains the gold plated Swiss Army knives I saw a local troop carrying.
Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
So, once again, Microsoft speaks, and millions of Open Source/Free Software geeks listen in rapt attention, then spend the next few days bitching about what was said.
Guys (and gals), listen to me: When you're paying attention to Mundie or Ballmer or Gates, and then bitching about how evil they are... You're not writing code.
Can't you see? By holding these "talks" and issuing press releases, Microsoft's intent is to distract you from writing code!
All that time you spent writing up a self-righteously indignant post to Slashdot, the time you spent checking your user profile to see if anyone replied to it or modded it up, that time you spent writing counter-replies, all that time you could have spent writing code is now lost. (And yes, by writing this post, I myself am guilty of that offense.)
Look, Microsoft's "Shared Source" initiative has two primary purposes: To throw the Open Source/Free Software advocates into disarray, and to keep the uninitiated from getting involved with Open Source/Free Software in the first place. The purpose behind this is to forestall any competition to Microsoft's .NET buildout, which is going to require a gargantuan engineering effort. Microsoft will have to write every line of code themselves, whereas a potential competitor may choose to leverage Open Source/Free Software works to get to market quicker. So naturally, Microsoft wants to scare as many people as possible away from OS/FS. The "Shared Source" ploy also theoretically gets them free debugging expertise, a job they have traditionally been unable or unwilling to do themselves.
My advice (which is worth every cent you paid for it): Write code. Ignore them and write some code.
I name SourceForce since it's one of the best known, but there's no reason you can't go to SunSite... er, MetaLab... er, iBiblio. Or the FSF's projects pages. Or any other site hosting Open Source/Free Software works.
There are thousands of pieces of software out there needing work. Some are sexier than others. Some are dull but crucial tools or pieces of infrastructure. Some don't exist at all, except in your imagination. Pick one.
Some consider the lack of a feature to be a bug, so add a feature if you like. Either way, it'll improve the quality of the project.
Microsoft is worried because a lot of the Open Source/Free Software alternatives are better than their own stuff. Where OS/FS alternatives fall short, they are rapidly catching up. Microsoft can make all the sophomoric remarks it wants about the GPL and Open Source/Free Software ("If you touch the GPL, your intellectual property will get cooties! Ooo, icky!"). But at the end of the day, the reliability and quality of OS/FS projects will be the compelling factor that causes users, both business and casual, to migrate over to our stuff. And that will happen only if the work is done to make the OS/FS projects better.
Personally, I can think of no more direct or effective rebuke to Mundie's "talk" than an audience full of people with laptops and 802.11b cards, deliberately and maliciously fixing bugs at him.
Jump on SourceForge. Pick a project. Fix a bug.
And then when you've checked in your fix, post about it here, so everyone can see the progress being made.
Back to the grind,
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Business model is exactly the difference between free software and open source. You're quite right that RMS doesn't care about profit potential. He is opposed to the idea of making money by writing software. This quixotic viewpoint defines the free software movement. For a while, it largely gave way to the open source movement, which held that it was possible to make money by developing software and giving it away with source code for free. Now it's turning out that this concept doesn't work, which is why I wrote: "Hasn't the idea that open source generates major profit potential been pretty well refuted?" I'm not arguing here against the free software concept, only the open source concept.
Reread the GNU Manifesto (1985). RMS covers the business implications of the free software movement in it. I've never seen a statement by RMS that indicates he is opposed to the idea of making money by writing software. He seems to be very specifically offended by the fact that people are motivated by greed to sell proprietary software products with restrictive licenses.
In the GNU Manifesto, he suggests a number of ways that programmers could still make money in a world where all software was Free, primarily by selling support. This approach is identical to the "Open Source" business model as I understand it.
You need to distinguish between "making money", "getting rich", and "getting obscenely rich".
You can make money selling services around free software, or working for companies that want to use free software in their operations. You can maybe get rich doing that, or by hiring programmers who are willing to work for less to write free software. Because service companies don't scale like companies that stamp out products, I doubt we'll see an Oracle or a Microsoft emerge from the Open Source revolution. Hint: look at Red Hat's current market capitalization and compare it to the market capitalization of other professional service companies with comparable revenues. At $4/share and a market capitalization of 700 million, it's still drastically overvalued.
foog
I think he would define "culture" as any group of people with common beliefs and viewpoints.
First, consulting businesses are really the only viable business model for Free Software. I don't think anyone has tried to deny that. Second, you mostly seem to be obsessed with being "greatly profitable" rather than making enough to live on. Is success defined as "making enough money to buy a small country"? Not in my book.
Craig: I don't think so. Our job is to provide a return to shareholders. Microsoft tries to be a good corporate citizen....
Good corporate citizen? Microsoft?
/me thinks back to 'Mirror Mirror'
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
The specific question (I was there) was wheter a palm pilot could issue a request to a Linux server using the Hailstorm API's without requiring any Microsoft software acting as an intermediary.
- Sam Ruby
No. My only comment is that their level of attention to this has changed dramatically recently. And it is not merely dismissive.
- Sam Ruby
Have you?
- Sam Ruby
In general, I was impressed by the number of MS people at this event. They seem to be listening.
- Sam Ruby
Microsoft's passive power isn't significant compared to the active effort they expend in keeping dominant. The encrypted code in Windows 3 that detected DRDOS and displayed an error message, didn't just write itself. The lawyer who wrote threats when people leaked information about the non-standard stuff in their Kerberos implementation, wasn't being passive.
Attacking others isn't something that Microsoft does passively; they go out of their way for it, sometimes even at the expense of short-term profit. It's a strategic policy.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If Microsoft were at all trustworthy, then reaching an accomodation would be ideal. Unfortunately, they don't have a very good track record.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I would, of course, prefer that they change their policy, campaign against it and make ammends. But if nothing else, people need to be reminded that these are the ... that caused that attrocity to come into existence.
And I will not accept "it's a business policy" as a valid excuse for anything. Neither good nor bad. This is like saying, well I've already decided, so don't bother me. I want to bother you. If you won't change your mind, I at least want it to be publically obvious what your decision is, and that you are continuing to make it.
So I find it a perfectly reasonable question. I do wish it had been a bit more pointed. Something like, "As one of the main sponsors of the DMCA...", so that people would be aided in drawing the correct connection.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Posted by timothy on Thursday July 26, @15:11
As it is now 14:00 EST, and timothy posted the article at 15:11 EST, I think it is safe to say that it hasn't been posted yet.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Another audience member: There's little debate in this room that many software patents are (poor). Will you enforce all your patents, even (unfair or bad) ones?
Craig: Absolutely.... We grant patents as one form of intellectual property protection. Should we have patents? That question was answered a long time ago.... if the examiners give out a patent, it bears weight. (Issues a challenge to go ahead and fight a patent.)
Same audience member: Even if we have no money?
Craig: Get your money. (big audience negative reaction)
that is HILARIOUS.
(big audience negative reaction)
(big audience negative reaction)
(big audience negative reaction)
(big audience negative reaction)
BilldaCat
If you can get a decent rendition of the artwork (full-scale), I know a hungry silkscreener that would love to print some shirts.....
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
An interesting development: After being pressured by the audience to answer "Yes or No", Microsoft's David Stutz claimed that it would be possible to complete a Hailstorm transaction without it going through the servers at Redmond. While this sort of vendor independence is important, The DNS system has had alternatives to Network Solutions like AlterNIC for a while, but the DNS system is still very centralized as a result of it's architecture. This bears more watching.
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
I used to have one of these many, many, many years ago. I have the graphic they used to make the shirt someplace, if that's any help. Should be able to get one made (or print one yourself) from that.
..don't panic
Yeah, Dr. Dobb's Technetcast is covering the debate here: http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_catalog.html?item_i d=1267
And if you don't want to sit through the whole thing, O'ReillyNet's Open Source Convention coverage will have a shorter version up later today.
http://www.oreillynet.com/oscon2001/
Because this community isn't out to make a ton of money and rule the world. This community is out to make software that works so amazingly well the gods will notice.
If you want to beat up Microsoft, be my guest. Just don't tie yourself so closely to us code writers that you take us down with you should you loose.
Again, I repeat. I'm not here writting code to beat Microsoft. I'm here to make this f*&king computer do my bidding. Don't tell me to change my licensing practices, or my direction (beat Microsoft at all costs) just becuase you think Microsoft needs to be beaten.
I didn't make my code GPL so you could fight a battle with it. I made it GPL so you could use your computer efficiently, to help advance humanity, to some day get the human race to the stars.
Assuming that when I write something and release it to the public it's for the purpose of making money. I'm growing tired of this rat race. I know what Microsoft is saying - they want to make money, pure and simply, but can't do it under the GPL. In addition to this, they want all competition eliminated (GPL software). So, they spend all this time boo-hooing about how the GPL is bad becuase it doesn't foster Microsoft's Universal Law - making money.
I would have thought that all those in the business world with their degrees and such would see this and let the air of Microsoft's tire. But it would seem that we are SO CONSUMED with the urge to argue that we engage Microsoft and discuss it with them.
We should be concentrating on doing what we do best - writing good code and sharing it with each other. We made it this far by concentrating on that - writing good software. We did not get this far by targetting a company and attempting to beat it with a free alternative. We should not be targetting Microsoft and attempting to beat them. They will out manuever us.
We should drop all this bickering with MS and go back to doing something that Microsoft can't beat us at: writing good code.
Um... maybe because MSFT is a member and key financer of the BSA, one of the DMCA's chief architects/proponents?
Is there any reason NOT to keep the pressure on these guys until DMCA is overturned?
-Renard
If that is so then how did Linux ever get developed? I would have to describe any distribution as a "development of significant original software". You obviously do not understand the distributed nature of open source projects.
Once the software is at a usable stage further customizations can be performed for the clients and this is the space where the smaller and still profitible service companies exist.
.sig
From what I understand (and I'm not an expert by any means), it is not easy to self-identify as a member of a passive-power group. You have to understand the concept, to begin with, and you have to admit to having passive power, something that is very difficult for individuals, much less organizations, to do on their own. Has anyone actually stated to Microsoft, or Mundie, or anyone who matters, that Microsoft is in a position of having passive power on a level that just by existing and operating, they inherently disadvantage the other "minorities" in the technology world?
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
Tim has talked about not going after a winner-takes-all approach, but an everyone wins approach. I wonder how many OSS / Free Software advocates agree with this? My take on Microsoft and it's understanding (or lack thereof) of the Open Source community is very similiar to the historical dominent culture experience; when you are the dominent culture, you often don't understand or even see the passive power you posess; only those who are not part of the dominent group can see that. From today's "debate", I am prone to think that perhaps a similiar mindset is current in Microsoft as the dominent culture. (reference: The Color of Fear, a program / documentary on cultural-race differences)
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
Look at the spite, malice, nastiness, and anger in the above message. This is a destructive force that must be stopped.
Look at the spite, malice, nastiness, and anger in the above message. (Not to mention the poster's misinterpretation of Brian's words.... This person is so blinded by anger that he cannot read objectively.) This is a destructive force that must be stopped.
>>Hasn't the idea that open source generates major profit potential been pretty well refuted by the bursting of last year's Linux bubble and the collapse of companies like Eazel and VA Linux?
Please dont be an idiot by using Eazel as an examble of open source businesses failing. Eazel spent millions of dollars in developement and then went broke before they started to sell anything. Seriously, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can tell you that you need to finish developing a product and before you can make money. It doesnt matter if the product is open source or close source.
Also Eazel was surprisingly unpopular even within the open source community. There was a satire website about it at www.eavel.com.
Open Source coders can't simply live in a cave. They must be aware of market and community situations and adjust strategy and features accordingly.
Damn, I didn't know that Clemson had a Department of Spam Studies!
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Hasn't the idea of making money by giving away software and charging for services failed for almost every company that's tried it?
Every idea has failed for almost every company that's tried it. That's the nature of a startup - most of them fail.
What the burst of last year's "bubble" has refuted is the idea that Free and/or Open software can somehow guarantee the success of a startup that uses it.
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
What exactly does this mean for me, the common Linux user?
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6690267.html? tag=mn_hd
hehe :)
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Contact Hormel, they have a whole line of spam merchendise. I love my flaming SPAM hat.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's a Law, not a business policy. silly. It is business policy to buy congress members to pass "laws".
Of course real people use angry calls, boycotts and general heckeling (and other form of consumer disobedience) against the companies that bought those laws.
Courts for sale! Freash piping hot Courts for sale!
net send localhost "One or more of your Microsoft products are not properly licensed. Please visit http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/ or call 1-800-RU-LEGIT for additional information about improperly licensed products. Your IP address has been logged, and the FBI will be notified if the situation is not rectified within one week of this notification. This case is BSA ID MS-2001-072616-2034-204."
Try it - it's fun!
But ONLY try it on yourself or other people you know.
(net send is also fun for other reasons - popping up message boxes on random machines gets annoying really fast, though, so don't abuse it. It should also be noted that in "clueless user" fasion, most users won't understand that you can create messages on other machines, so sending fake error messages can also work. It's up to you to only do this to people who you know can take the joke.)
--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
The issue for consultancy or services companies is that at best they can expect linear growth. More revenue almost always equals more overhead. Combine that with a tech stock market that expects exponential growth from software or Internet companies and completely unrealistic rates of returns that people saw in the late 90s, and you've got a problem. The fallout didn't just hit Linux companies -- it hit every services company that was public or wanted to go public.
I have no doubt that privately held companies can and will make a decent living with Linux. However the ones that built their business model around going public are going to have a difficult time of it.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Of course they are listening. First rule of warfare is to "know thy enemy".
There is a big difference between listening with an open mind and intelligence gathering. I don't know which one they are doing. Do you?
No, but I can imagine a world in which Microsoft or the BSA would choose not to help defend the DMCA (thought directly legal or PR means) in the face of a judicial or legislative challenge. Convincing them to stay on the sidelines would be an important step toward reversing or overturning the DMCA. It's always useful to have fewer giant corporations opposing you. :)
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Click me!
until (succeed) try { again(); }
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Forgot to mention that this mirror is for the video of the event.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
until (succeed) try { again(); }
For these companies, there is more to be gained from sharing this noncompetitive technology than from trying to create everything from scratch. And if it helps sell more stuff, ie. IBM, great!
This suggests for the majority of companies not in the business of selling software, the open source model is a success. It keeps development costs down and as business acclimate to the use of open source, open source will provide a very simple way to keep software vendors honest. Software vendors will truly have to demonstrate value above and beyond what is available freely via open source.
In this respect, as open source software begins to cover more and more problem spaces, the proponents of the open source model will be able to demonstrate its success.
"Another model that is perhaps more applicable here is this whole idea of four categories of people: the radicals, idealists, realists and opportunists. Everybody is an idealist. Everybody has this idea that things should be better and that's really a non-ideological thing. The fear is that those idealists will become radicals and start questioning the roots of the system, start questioning the power structure. People in power don't like that. You have to turn these idealists into realists, because once they're realists, they can accept the compromises that opportunists make; those being the politicians. Jaggi Singh, Canadian Political Activist 2001
The point of Cisco and MS saying 'you dont understand economic issues' is an attempt at them forcing you to accept their basic precepts, to change your assumptions - change your goals also. I believe that the OS community is boiling from a broader anti-capitalist, anti-corporate-rule momentum building worldwide, the *idea* that *people* should participate in software development as peers, to be given respect and opportunity to participate is fundemental to the Free Software world.
I dont think Mundie understands that alot of people (myself) dont give a *DAMN* about his-kind-of economics - it is not a matter of accepting the 'real world' - I actively advocate changing how exactly the 'real world' works... Allot of Free Software Advocates are using their abilities, in their common area of interaction (the computer world), to act out some political change. The Free Software world is not isolated and alone here, It really is a piece of a larger puzzle.
Now, again, this is my opinion and perspective. There are likely allot of people who disagree - but I believe even those who dont agree politically can see how this would be..
I'm just not sure why people are continuing to assert the validity of a model that has almost universally failed, and nowhere succeeded.
I think the point is this: No one cares to make a profit here. We care to make good software and provide freedom to others. The FSF and GNU/Linux is a resounding accomplishment and sucess. What dont you understand? Saying "..but no one is making a profit.." is a non-sequitor. It is testement to (once-again) that For-Profit endevours are not self-justifiying... the world needs less "For Profits" and more GNU/Linux-like shows of public will.
Why is this concept seem to be so foreign to you? Where do you live...?
And $20M in annual revenues after ten years of existence is no one's idea of "greatly profitable."
Unless you are a dollar-owning slavedriver who has no interest in *HEALHTY* sustainable businesses which provide jobs and stability to those who operate it. If you are the kind of rabid-with-greed capitalist that demands quick and massive returns on the otherhand...
His last name is spelled "Gillmor". Just to let you know.
I would explain why the parent post should be moderated up (even further), but I've got (shameless plug) The MUGU Project to get back to...
K45
This signature has eleven vowels.
Yes, the coders should continue down their most excellent path. But not everyone in this community is a coder. /me raises hand
Yes. Will that carry you? The best code out there needs marketing, whether it's word of mouth or something else. The best coders are rarely the best marketers. Leave that to your users.
You wouldn't know it from all the anti-MSFT FUD as well as looking at the varions WM's around the community...
Why the heck not? They're the big giant. If you can fell them, you can go kick the butts of the rest of the Phillistines.
MSFT can outmuscle you. They cannot outmaneuver you.
I hope that the coders do just that. I hope that they haven't gotten bogged down in the external fights. The community has to find its external leaders and let them take the fight to the public and to Microsoft. You'll notice that MSFT never uses coders to present their side--they use polished people like Craig Mundie who have a good idea of what their position is and how to express it clearly. Why should the community be any different?
-- Geof F. Morris
Who says they haven't already? I'd rather the people take notice.
I don't plan on loosing [sic], really. And it's not so much beating them. Microsoft makes a really great straw man, and hey, that's what excites the public. I'm not really into beating straw men per se, but you can start to focus the debate on relative merits at that point.
Personally, I'll never ask you to change your licensing ideas just to "beat Microsoft". Microsoft is very clear in its sourcing and licensing policy, and I want to contrast the community's policy with that. Those who will examine the contrast carefully will likely take the community's side. Then once they do that, and they see the excellent code being created by the community, Microsoft will be marginalized and have to go back to writing good code to have market share.
If you stop coding with the GPL [or the BSD, but I prefer the GPL myself], I'll kick your ass. =P
-- Geof F. Morris
Ah, then my question thrown back at you is twofold: Has no closed source software companies ever gone out of business? If so, then closed source is not a savior of business.
Second, is it only opensource startups that die? Or is it not that MOST startups die regardless of whether they are software-related, open or closed source related?
The answer to both questions is obvious - that one cannot extrapolate from the bad doo-doo that happened last year in regards to linux-related startups to mean that the opensource model is unsupportable in business. RedHat is doing quite well now, improving all the time and the kernel, so to speak, of their business is opensource-based, though they do add-on extras that bring in the money. In any case, it is not an automatic that opensource=bad business/dead business.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Good call. I was using ANNI (American National Nonstandard Idiot) encoding.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
But they *have* seen a lot of failure. Sometimes they see it underfoot as they invade a new market. Sometimes they see it in between their teeth after having a development partner over^B^B^B^B^B for dinner. You should respect their understanding of failure.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
The above is not correct, and in fact, no one has been able to cite an example of a profitable open source software company. Cygnus was privately held and so it's hard to figure out if it was proftable or not, but it was definitely not "greatly profitable." However, it's easy to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on its $20M in annual revenues and 180 employees at the time of its acquisition. The cost of maintaining 180 employees in a technology company in the SF Bay Area is more than $18M annually, and there are other costs of doing business, so if the company was profitable at all, it was just squeaking through. (And $20M in annual revenues after ten years of existence is no one's idea of "greatly profitable.")
Red Hat has yet to turn a profit, though it keeps promising one real soon now.
Mandrake is losing money. According to its financial disclosure, as translated by BabelFish:
Since its creation in November 1998 the company recorded losses. The cumulated amount of the overdrawn turnover of the group accounts between September 30, 1999 and 31 March 2001 amounted to 13,7 MEuros is approximately three times the amount of the turnover over the period. In spite of a strong progression envisaged of its turnover, MANDRAKESOFT considers a benefit only at the end of the exercise closed at June 30 2003;
That is, it doesn't expect to become profitable for two years.
IBM is sinking a billion dollars into open source this year. That doesn't mean it will realize any profit from this investment. It certainly hasn't earned it back yet, and whether it ever will is purely speculative.
CollabNet is privately held, so it's hard to say how much money it's made back on that $35M investment. It's announced a few deals, but refuses to comment on their size: "It's our first true enterprise development network..." It's a significant deal for CollabNet, so much so that Mills refused to comment on the size of the contract or even whether it's the company's biggest win so far. (CollabNet is still privately held.) Mills did say that there are other deals now in the pilot stage with the potential to be as big as this one. I think it's a safe bet that the company is not yet profitable.
Many consultancy companies have done well. In fact, the consultancy companies do what can't be done in the Microsoft world - they can be profitable, equal players.
Consultancies are homesteading businesses, not software companies. As already pointed out, consultancies only scale linearly, not exponentially. In any case, they aren't doing so well either. I'm not going to mention the name of one company we're partnered with, but they make a great open source product, but they're in dire straits and they're going to have to start charging for it. I imagine there are probably a few small-business open source consultancies which are bringing in six-figure salaries for their principals, but that's not enough to sustain development efforts, and it's not enough to go public.
Tim
I didn't say that. I said it "has almost universally failed, and nowhere succeeded." So far, nothing in this thread has provided any valid counterexamples to that observation.
there are plenty of us that don't give a ding darn whether the "business model" is "valid" or not. Richard Stallman sure as hell doesn't care.
This is the first of several comments like this in the thread, so I'm responding to this one.
Business model is exactly the difference between free software and open source. You're quite right that RMS doesn't care about profit potential. He is opposed to the idea of making money by writing software. This quixotic viewpoint defines the free software movement. For a while, it largely gave way to the open source movement, which held that it was possible to make money by developing software and giving it away with source code for free. Now it's turning out that this concept doesn't work, which is why I wrote: "Hasn't the idea that open source generates major profit potential been pretty well refuted?" I'm not arguing here against the free software concept, only the open source concept.
Tim
(I'll assume you meant services businesses, since companies like Eazel, Mandrake, Red Hat, and so on are not consultancies per se.)
That's fine as far as it goes, but small consultancies don't have the financial resources to support the development of significant original software. If consulting were to become the dominant software business model, it would create stagnation in the software industry. Let's face it, people want to use Word, not TeX, and Photoshop, not GIMP. A consultancy or a computer science department is never going to develop Word or Photoshop. That takes serious revenues and investment, not linear service fees or spare-time development.
Second, you mostly seem to be obsessed with being "greatly profitable" rather than making enough to live on.
I was responding directly to claims about Cygnus, Red Hat, and other companies being, and I quote, "greatly profitable." In fact, they are not profitable at all, much less "greatly." I often see the same claim about open source profits made by open source advocates. The post I responded to here was modded up to 5, which is ridiculous for a set of demonstrably false statements.
I'm sorry if you or the moderators don't care to be informed of an uncomfortable truth, but I think it's important to correct persistent misinformation. Debate should revolve around facts, not propaganda.
Tim
No offense, but isn't that true? Hasn't the idea that open source generates major profit potential been pretty well refuted by the bursting of last year's Linux bubble and the collapse of companies like Eazel and VA Linux? Was there ever a quantitative business model as opposed to a religious manifesto behind any of those claims? Hasn't the idea of making money by giving away software and charging for services failed for almost every company that's tried it?
No flamebait here, I hope. I'm just not sure why people are continuing to assert the validity of a model that has almost universally failed, and nowhere succeeded.
Tim
What concessions RMS makes to the ability to make money in The GNU Manifesto are distinctly pained. It's clear that RMS believes anyone writing software should be motivated primarily by the sheer joy of it, and that the need to pay the bills should be considered a regrettable necessity. He says that he believes programmers should be paid much less than they are and that the prospect of wealth is a corrupting influence.
His whole concern is with programmer salary, and not with business model. He barely discusses what it would take to actually build a business on free software as opposed to what it takes to pay programmers. When he even discusses salary, it's only in one of his pained concessions about how if you really have to make money, here's how you could, but really, you shouldn't care about that.
In contrast, ESR enthusiastically embraces the idea of open source as a way to make money. In some ways this is just a difference in emphasis, but it's a big difference in emphasis, on which numerous companies were launched -- as opposed to the one major company formed under the RMS model, Cygnus. And the ESR companies have enthusiastically embraced the Big Money/Next Big Thing way of describing themselves, which is anathema to RMS.
Unfortunately, no company of significant size founded on the ESR model has yet succeeded in making a profit. There are a few small consultancies, but they do not create significant original software -- they only offer services on software which other people have written, or create small vertical projects. The ones that have tried to create their own horizontal software (e.g., Eazel, Lutris) have not made a profit by doing so.
I agree with your analysis of Red Hat's overvaluation, and I also agree that we will not see an Oracle or a Microsoft emerge from Open Source. The question is whether we will see any profitable horizontal software development businesses emerge from it. So far, there are none.
Tim
This is a little off topic, but here it goes anyway...
... world." We had a good laugh about it. Obviously, no one in our company sees anything wrong with this.
I work ("director of...") software company in a LARGE vertical market . We are a monopoly, the largest software provider in the world in this field. Just last month, we managed to convince a small competitor to give up competing with us in a sub-category, in order to succefully integrate with our other products. The only ones left in the market are the ones we didn't buy off.
It's interesting how this effects people within the management. Even today when discussing how to deal with a small competitor, I jokingly commented to a VP "We are becoming the Microsoft of the
The thought process goes like this: We worked hard to get here, and now we get to enjoy our position. It's all about business, not personal. If some other company can get up to the position to fully compete with us, we will deal with it. Either we will try our hardest to make them fail, or we will buy them. The game goes on, nobody gets hurt. After all, the reason we are at the top is because we "usually" make the best software. So ultimately, the customers don't suffer. After all, our customers have a wide variety of choice -- with about 30 different software titles available from us to manage their business.
I had to read your post twice. The first time I agreed; MS might not understand or see the passive (and restrictive) power they posess. But thinking about it awhile I have to disagree. It's impossible for a corporation which hears attacks from other companies on an almost daily basis and is constantly under scrutiny by the federal government to not at least wonder about its power. If MS only heard small cries from others, but was basically able to go on its merry way without a sound, I could agree with you. But considering it was declared an abusive monopoly, and sends some of its representatives to open debate to hear complaints from others, I can't see how MS could be blind to its passive power.
---
Developers: We can use your help.
It's a Law, not a business policy. If you want to change it, you must rely on the Courts (which this would be a great case to do that with) or convince your representatives in Congress that it's a bad Law, an to at least amend the criminal provisions. I cannot imagine a world in whiich MSFT or the BSA would lobby to overturn the DMCA. Can you?
- Dan I.
- Dan I.
Try this : set your windows hostname to 'MICROSOFT', and then run net send [someonesip] We're watching you. and see how he reacts
I get error messages saying "The command SEND is unknown." What are the environmental requirements for running this command?
can someone post the interesting points of Doc Searl's blog, it appears to be slashDDOSed
Does anyone have links to a video of the debate between Red Hat and Mircrosoft or a transcript or the Clay Shirky/David Stutz debate?
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
No one would buy a car nowadays with the hood welded shut (and the assurance that if it breaks down on a dark road, well, you can call a tow truck).
We need to get software owners, at least corporate software owners, to think of themselves in the same way. Because a million-dollar business should not have to wait for the next Service Pack.
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
You're not reading what you quoted:
He said that we basically don't see economic reality and we don't know about business, and while we have good points we should abandon most of our philosophical ideas.
He says that Mundie suggest we don't understand business and that we give up our philosophical ideas.
Putting aside the truth or falsity of the claim, WTF does business have to do with our philosophical ideas?
MS just can't comprehend anyone having a philosophy that does not maximize profit.
Whattayagonna do with people like that?
Club them with a shoe and throw them out of the lifeboat.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Don't we see success stories in GPL and also in Proprietary Software
Charging money for software doesn't guarantee success, nor is it what makes a good business model
Making a product that is fun, easy to use, cross platform and affordable is the goal of every company
Saying that GPL as a business model has failed is like saying that charging money as a business model has failed.
Free product and charge for service is not new or flawed. Look at the internet that Bill wants to make money off of. The internet is FREE. However, to access the internet, you pay a premium for ease of connection, QoS and dedicated broadband.
I don't know why no one ever brings this up as something for free that has been enormously successful. Mundie has no idea what he is talking about.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
...in realer time.
---
"i was saying gnu-rd"
Putting aside the truth or falsity of the claim, WTF does business have to do with our philosophical ideas?
MS just can't comprehend anyone having a philosophy that does not maximize profit.
Well, you have to give Microsoft some credit. After all, that's like the first thing you learn in micro-economics classes, is the whole supply and demand, with basically one goal in sight: maximizing profit. It's a business model that works great for Mom-and-pop busniesses up to medium size corporations. Even a little child can understand the concept. When your small busniess is not trying to maximize profit, it's probably because you're trying to change your business model, combat competition, and/or research new products/services, all in the hopes of.... maximizing profit.
Unfortunately, with the economics of scale and their self-inflicted monopoly, Microsoft is no longer in a position where they can ethically justify maximizing profit. To do so would greatly benefit Microsoft at the extreme harm of the public. Corporations of the size of Microsoft and AOL/Time Warner have such a stifling effect on competition, and provide such important services, that they must be considered as public services, and not mere businesses.
They can no longer justify their corporate existence as merely a means to maximize profits. They must take responsibility for the public they are raping in the name of capitalism.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is run and maintained by people benefitting from Microsoft's greed. They, inspired by visions of Porsches, Lexi, big houses and even bigger TVs, are not in a position to dictate how their company can best serve the public. This means that we the people (well, we the nerds, because the people are not well enough informed, nor do they care unless we take away their Napster) must fight this tooth and nail.
Well, I'd say more, but I think this comment's indented far enough in the thread to be ignored.
Yup.. but let's look at the different definition of success..
I to be successful, I would not require...
- An IPO
- Multi-billions in and out every year
- International recognition
- A house with every nerd device ever to hit the planet (the Gate's estate)
I would require..Satisfaction that I am making a positive world change
Verification that I wasn't doing stuff solely to promote myself while hurting others.
The ability to for me and my employees to live. I don't need to be a billionare to feel validated and I have no intention of ever getting myself in the position where I will feel the only way to protect myself is to screw others. This is where MS is right now.
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
Hi there.. another OSCON guy here...
I have to say this, first of all: the Mundie opening comments might have been "statesmanlike," but the whole idea came down to the same thing that happened in our first keynote (from a Cisco bigwig). He said that we basically don't see economic reality and we don't know about business, and while we have good points we should abandon most of our philosophical ideas. More Red Herring arguments and usual anti-os crap that gets refuted again again.
Converstaions since the Mundie debate around here seem to mention this: when Mundie was really forced to face issues (especially when it came down to hard DMCA questions) he fell back to basic Corporatespeak. The same old crap: "If you don't like the law, write your Congressman and change it." Sorry, it's easy to say that when you have millions of dollars to back you up. When faced with a question about defending against Patent infringement suits and there costs, his comment was something like "Well get the money."
This debate was interesting, but when it came down to it Microsoft retained their basic Arrogance. In addition, they tried to paint themselves as UNDERDOGS. "We have seen a lot of failure" they say. Whatever.
Business good... GPL bad... that was most of their argument...
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K