Slashdot Mirror
Software "Open Monopoly"
garoush writes "The following article is at C|Net.news Software "open monopoly". In it "Sun developers Petr Hrebejk and Tim Boudreau say the economics of open-source software will break Microsoft's operating system hammerlock and replace it with a what they describe as an 'open monopoly.'"
I Personally have issues with such claims. With .NET, MS is positioning the company at "services" -- in effect MS is now gearing up to take on a new monopoly: "services" at the "consumer" level. If you agree, I don't see how "open monopoly" can break MS. After all, your average "Joe the consumer" doesn't know a thing about open source. " The submittor has an interesting point - but I think that even if John Q Public knows nothing about open source, if the services he uses are running open source, it doesn't matter.
ha ha ha, they'll just release a special "limited" version of open source stuff you're running, that makes it more "compatible" with MS's services. next thing you know your machine isn't your own, and that Linux partition you had has magically disappeared. guess that's a feature.
We already have open monopoly!
an open monopoly? I haer people saying that "it is just as bad to have an open source monopoly as it is for MS to have on".
I never under stood this reasoning because if it is an OSS monopoly, would that not mean that the people are in total control?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
wow, like microsoft you're first :), but not at all the best.
You know I've been thinking about this very subject in these terms ever since IBM announced its $1 billlllion dollar investment in linux. Open monopoly, yup, linux everywhere, yup. Free, accessible, reliable, open infrastructure. Probably. Consumer better off. Absolutely.
...but I think that even if John Q Public knows nothing about open source, if the services he uses are running open source, it doesn't matter.
And the inverse works just the same (John Q Public would be perfectly happy with closed source services). This is a battle that won't be won at the consumer level.
Jim Allchin, the company's Windows operating-system chief, was quoted by Bloomberg News earlier this year as saying: "Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer. I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business." He added, "I'm an American, I believe in the American Way. I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policy-makers to understand the threat."
Translation: I support a laissez-faire business model. For me. But please shut down our competitors.
I believe that the article's point about today's corporate open source usage vs. that three years agos says just as much about the corporate world being pissed off with Microsoft's licensing practices as it does about the improving quality of open source products.
I'm an IT buyer, I budget and spend dollars on an annual basis. It doesn't take a big whack from the clue stick to realize that MS is trying to AOL-ize their revenue stream.
Cheers,
- RLJ
The only way it will work is if they can constantly do things like "request" that you sign up for a passport account or use their current dominance to make themselves look like the only option.
.Net loses.
Without windows
Now whether an "open monopoly" will happen soon enough to stop it is a totally diffrent question.
No one will correctly predict where things are going. Computers and the devices that run them are too varied and change too quickly. No one ever expected Microsoft to go anywhere early on. Microsoft never expected the internet to go anywhere, which is why they are still having a hard time getting their shit together. Eventually, something strange and surprising will come out of the kludge that is screwball desktop OSs and people trying to connect everything in the universe to the net, and it will change everything. Such is that nature of the chaotic beast that is the transistor.
As we read articles like the recently published and still steaming wired article predicting the death of Linux as a desktop OS and the futility of fighting Microsoft, I wonder... If Linux and its ilk are no threat to MS, then why are they running so scared?
Regardless of whether Joe Sixpack understands how to install an OS (which he shouldn't have to), eventually it won't matter. MS has repeatedly shown that despite all their resources, they can't produce anything but crap, and in the long run they will fail.
"Doctor who?" --The Doctor
Yes, open source as a hobbyist development model can and will persist long into the future, and I'm sure that there will be fun and exciting products as a result of it.
That said, now that the heady, greedy days of the dot com boom are long behind us, it's high time to re-evaluate the position. Money isn't growing on trees and being plucked from the asses of VCs star-struck by that beautiful three-letter phrase (IPO, IPO, IPO!) so much that they can overlook that little thing called "a business plan."
Internet advertising is the redheaded stepchild of the marketing family. Old media ads have no need to justify themselves with inanities like "click-through"; they know their demographic and their real estate is mindshare, that precious commodity which they assume that they're purchasing with their ad dollars, regardless of whether or not this purchase translates into a product purchase immediately or down the road. The internet is a fickle bastard: people gravitate towards the warez model of "buy none, get one free" and so there's the propensity towards stealing everything we can. To wit: the inevitable linking to archives.nytimes.com anytime they've got an article up because registration is such a chore, but if you were to ask the average Slashdotter how they feel about someone using "their" resources without registration (think Anonymous Cowards here), one would instead getsthe impression that merely providing a name and e-mail address is as simple as could be. Hmm. To wit: proxies, ad-killing bots and specialized hosts files that insure that our precious bandwidth isn't eaten up by ancillary ads that might keep the sites afloat, but then again if we don't click on them and buy something might not even if we do see them. Hmm.
Ah, open source. Communism reborn, and who can hate that? Not the watered down Leninism that the Soviet Union ran through in short order, but honest-to-goodness communism. Take what you need, give what you have. Beautiful. A touching sentiment.
Also impossible to be a commercially viable entity when human nature comes into play. If we can get our content ad-free we will, even though it means economic hardship and possibly the closing of the sites we visit and love (or love to hate, as the case may be) and if we can get our software cost-free, without the dirty stigma of clicking through porno banners to find the 3rd word of the 4th paragraph to get entry to L33t b0b'5 h0u53 0f w4r3z, all the better. I whip up a weekend project that is derivative but I'm proud of and off to Freshmeat with you! Maybe even Sourceforge! Take it! Share it!
I'll pour a few hundred hours of blood, sweat and tears into it! Shiny new! Everyone wants it! It's hot!
But how do I parlay it into a commercial venture when everyone can get it for free and fix it up as they want? Hmm.
Open source is a lovely idea with lofty goals, and as long as talented, motivated, intelligent programmers buy into it, it will generate impressive results. Unfortunately, there's a very finite number of talented, motivated, intelligent, ascetic programmers out there who will buy into it.
OSDN's changing business strategies faster than you can say "we're a B2B play now!" (read: brushed up that resume yet?). If bigger ads or a subscription service to a website who doesn't give a whit about the quality of its journalism and doesn't know the meaning of the word "editing", relying on constantly inflammatory agitprop to woo its readership are the order of the day, then I'll just stick with Ars Technica, The Register and memepool (topical, informative, and normally journalistically objective sites), thanks. Slashdot's been a fun little ride, and like many other things, peer moderation was a sexy little idea, just unfortunate in that it pretty much disintegrated into ugly mob rule groupthink. Scene, not herd.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
A truly Open Source version of Monopoly would be neatoh to play. I mean - I've played the ASCII versions, the BBS versions, some version for Windows, but one for my Linux box would be fun to play...
Oh wait - you're not talking about the game are you?
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
This is just like open source politics/economics (socialism).
I really like socialism and spread the virus wherever I go, since I think bottom-up control of stuff by the people who design things is a good idea.
Unfortunately, for a world socialist society, its proponents would have to wage a war against the entrenched interests of capitalism.
A very chaotic, damaging, bloody war.
Similarly, the Open Source Monopoly would enforce rigorous peer review on all software while encouraging long-term profitability trends. It's a damn good idea!
The problem with the idea isn't the IDEA, it's the fact that large corporations think on the short term and don't want to risk losing the "asset" they think they have built up with their closed source technologies.
They don't care about the long term future of the software industry, they care about the need to compete with voracious rivals in THIS economy!
Open Sourcers, they won't listen to your reason, your arguments, or your technology benchmarks.
They will cast a chill over your free speech and beer with intellectually unsupportable, unconstitutional laws because they can. Despite the irrationality of their actions. They'll do it every time.
Goat sex free since 2001
The reason for this is that capitalism is capitalism, and although some take the Fabien position that it can be reformed to cater for the needs of the majority, it seems pretty clear to me that only a radical overthrow of the entire system can improve our lot and stop the evils.
What does this mean in an Open Source context? Well, there is nothing in the OSS liscence preventing corporate PLC's from using software code. It merely addresses the symptoms, and not the cause. A more restrictive liscence for the people denying access to selfish concerns would be a great boost and a bigger threat to MS than anything.
At present there is nothing stopping MS from using OSS software and still dominating, despite the left reformist nature of OSS. Frankly, a new liscence is needed if we really want to see the back of such companies and corporate practises for all time.
...when describing this phenomenon. A true monopoly is one entity controlling the selling and distribution of goods or services. Not to mention all the negative connotations with it as well.
This open-source "monopoly" is more like a free market system than anything else, where many entities create, distribute and control the flow. The barriers to entry are eliminated or reduced.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
Woo hoo! My first negative moderation! And in only 30 seconds! This trolling stuff is much better for instant gratification than posting thoughtful or informative comments. I can see why it's so popular on /.!
...is a bit of a misnomer. If OSS starts to have a big market share, or even all of the market, it will still not be a monopoly. No single company will have the sole 'power' over OSS, for example, think of Linux vs. BSD vs. AtheOS etc. Don't forget Redhat vs. Caldera etc. Definition (stolen from dictionary.com): Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals"
I bet this is not "First Post."
/.: GAME OVER!
That's it, I won. I got 50 karma points in my obsessive little hunt.
Now I'm goint to join a 12 step program to try and regain my life. No More Slashdot! The Ctrl and R keys on my keyboard show visible wear from reloading Slashdot for new things to read.
Go ahead and mod this down. That's like getting 'EXTENDED PLAY' time! I get to go after some more points!
/.: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY AGAIN?
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Will there ever be an "Open Monopoly"? Does it really matter. Discussing it may be fun for some, but does it really affect the outcome? We think of that famous song "Que, sera, sera", and we know not to worry about such things. The future is clothed in mystery, and it is foolish to suggest that we can predict an "Open Monopoly" at this point in time. Who could have predicted the other news events of this year? Not I. Not You.
What will be, will be.
I, OTOH, try, as much as possible, at least, to pepper my posts, brief as they may be, with commas and unnecessary phrases, like this one, so that my full idea can be conveyed, however inane it may actually be.
Microsoft has a long history of milking people of their money because they can charge almost whatever they want. Be thankful other OSes exist besides MS ones. Imagine what they'll do with services. At least many more people are in the services area of business, or you'd have "$8,000 a month and an upgrade plan for webmail" type services. And, of course, they'll have the right to do anything they want with what you send through the system...thats Microsoft for ya.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I think technically (and from a usability point of view) linux is pretty much there but it will take (lots of) time for it to permeate the non-geek computing circles. It took MSFT 25 years to get where they are today; it will take quite some time for them to loose their position of influence.
The biggest irony may well be that by the time linux became competitive on the desktop (ie: the last 12-18 months), MSFT was (for the first time) able to respond with a product which didn't suck (Win2K).
However, MSFT may still shoot itself in the foot by being too overbearing (restrictive licencing, 'forced' upgrades, cumbersome product activation, etc). If they squeeze to hard, people will look much harder at any alternatives out there. I for one think this is the biggest danger they face
This is something that I think that the OSS movement underemphasizes due to the socialist image that is so feared in the software industry.
.Net in the way of application servers.
OSS is a very socialist movement. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's been made into a bad thing by decades of 'red scare' propoganda and negative indoctrination by the companies who stand to be hurt by a less capitalist system of software development.
Software companies, like all companies, beleive as if they have a right to exist and profit. There would be no such thing as 'intellectual property' if they didn't. They've been telling everybody else this same thing for so long that it's become 'unamerican' to try to deny a company its profit. Thus, when a mode of business has become obsoleted (Are you listening, music distributors?), that company starts engaging in negative propoganda to try to preserve their business model. Thus Disney's anti-napster cartoon and things like the 'Virus' speech from MS.
Companies do not have the right to exist and profit. The existance of a company should never be protected from consumer pressure.
In this case, it is the pressure to use free software. Here, I am referring to the cost, and not the ideology. Microsoft puts enormous pressure on businesses to use IIS, despite the fact that Apache is better, more stable, and costs 100% less. The same is true for all the Java servlet engines. Jakarta is the best, despite a wealth of options. The same will probably be true of Mono over
OSS Developers: Stress the 'free' nature of your product. In cases like Star Office/Open Office, it has already started to win 'Normal Joe' converts from pay for software.
VirtualDub, the GPL'd video editor, has already become a defacto standard for internet video publishing. This is mostly because it combines excellent usage with zero cost.
If you want Joe-sixpack to use your OS app, stress how much he gets and how little it costs.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Sure. And then what'll that unscrupulous person do... force coders to contribute? Retroactively invalidate the GPL so individuals no longer have the resources to build their own apps?
As usual, M$ is going after the money. This is not new, IBM realized that service is where the money is almost a decade ago. Open Source is, at least in part, an ideological movement and therefore can naturally plug the holes where there is less money to be made. Fighting with M$ over market share in OS was a noble thing, and we may win ultimately with some DoJ help, but this will not change the fact that M$ is going after the money. We all know that they aren't really technology innovators, their strength has always been seeing where the market is (even if they realize it later than others) and going after it with a well-oiled marketing machine. That's what they're trying to do now with services.
(just conjecture, I'm not suggesting this is the way it -is-, just a slim chance that it is the way it may-be)
.NET stuff. The have submitted it for standardization, and must even supply a working implementation in something other then Windows.
.NET services (And "hello world" programs), but I'm sure the runtime libararies will eventually be copied. Once those are done developers will soon be using that exclusively anyway, and getting (more) portability 'for free' since it's standardized.
.NET (name escapes me) is planning on building the windowing framework too.
.NET subscription.
I know that may sound crazy, but look at the
I know that part probably just includes things for server-side
In fact, the company working on a Linux
After a time, MS will still be there, but only to collect monthly/yearly fees for MS Office (which will be DLed and installed over the net), MSN, email, and other net-based services. It may not matter whether you run MS Windows, or a *nix, since to interoperate with others you'll need
Of course, it may not turn out anyway like that.. I just don't see the motive in standardizing something that will only benifit themselves.
With companies such as IBM and SUN backing Open Source the question remains as to where do these companies see there future revenue being generated. These companies invest in the ideology with there future revenue being more focused away from the Shelf Software solutions (as per MS) and more to the Hardware and Services that are required to implement the Opens Source solutions. Either way in the long run the consumer is always going to have to pay for a quality solution, if it is against hardware, services or software is unknown!
Given that the people most likely to participate in an open-source project are also users of the application being worked on, what would happen if the customers for a software product actually participated in its design and creation? It would be impossible to create a product that is not what the market wants!
Unfortunately, the only people who are able to participate effectively in the design and creation of an open source project under existing models are computer programmers. So yes, they will be able to create programs that computer programmers want to use, and they already have, which is why the only examples of open source successes the article could cite (Apache and BIND) are targeted at programmer/sysadmins. The problem is that the larger market doesn't want programs for programmers, and programmers are really poor at designing systems for non-programmers.
This is not to say there may not be future open source models which allow the participation of non-programmers, but so far the only way seems to be for companies to take losses investing in open-source development meant to unseat a closed-source competitor -- and this strategic pressure would not exist in the imagined open-source utopia.
How can user-centered design be reconciled with open source?
Tim
The $500 billion question is whether or not MS can move their revenue base to services before their monopoly on the desktop runs out. I think they might just be able to pull it off, but the odds are against them.
I figure the Linux desktop (including productivity applications) will be feature comparible to Windows/Office in about two years. That's about one iteration of Windows away. At that point the trickle of users moving their desktops to Linux will become a flood and MS won't have anything to use as leverage to take over new markets.
So what are the chances that MS will be able to build their services business from almost nothing to $30 billion dollars within that time? Considering that the services don't even exist yet, I'd say their chances are pretty slim. When you consider the fact that IBM, AOL, Sun, Sony, Oracle, and others will be fighting MS all the way, I'd say MS is screwed.
The best MS can do is become like every other IT company struggling to compete on merit. Sure they'll always be big, but in five years they won't be any more influentual than the other major players.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
That's why there will never be an open source monopoly. Until PCs ship with open source programs, 95% of the computing public isn't going to be using anything except that which came with their computer.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
I had a Dimension XPSD 233 that had the mother board go in it. they were quick to respond to the first call but after installing the mother board I found that it had also fried the video card. They left me hanging for three weeks while they tried to find the same model card. After several calls I finally got them to send me a different model card, but it was a major hassle.
On the other side though I have had the computer for 4yrs and it still runs. There customer service may suck but they make the best computers out there.
I already got me TWO, yes TWO new operating systems this week. Linux 7.2 and SuSE 7.3. And, as Tony the Tiger would say, they're grrrreat.
One of the things that open source is good at is distributed development. I don't know that anyone can argue that point. However, services are more than just code. I think that MS is positioning itself into a world where the code is not as important as the directed effort of many people.
The corporate lock-step activity necessary to execute a services plan is different than the open source model. In many ways, the services that are to be provided require a large marketing team to convince companies to use a new type of software (such as .Net). While the open source community can quickly create versions of .Net, the community would be hard pressed to create .Net from scratch AND get large corporate participation in the way that Microsoft is doing. (Yes yes yes, the reason that they can do it is because of their monopolistic position).
So what if we let MS do all of the marketing work, and then reverse engineer all the code. Would this mean that MS is right and open source is stealing all the work? Is it more like the generic drug companies? Is it possible for open source to "embrace and extend" on MS activities?
These are questions that are impossible to answer at the moment, but interesting to think about. Finishing back on the original point, however, we should really examine what these "services" are and if there is more to them than just code.
that if such an "open monopoly" were to occur, the majority of folks on Slashdot would be wailing about how the government needs to step in...
didn't you post exactly this same text yesterday in another thread - someone please mod this 'redundant'
Last I checked, people hate Microsoft not because it's a monopoly, but because it abuses monopoly power to maintain it's position, which hurts consumers. Also, legally a monopoly is not illegal, only abusing that monopoly power is (AFAIK and IANAL, etc...) That said, the chances of the non-existant IP holder of open source being able to abuse that power is about as high as someone shutting down the non-existant single point of failure in the Internet.
Has Slashdot started a new department entitled "Yet-Another-Intro-To-Open-Source-Article Department." Not to be critical, but the only thing his article shows us is that C|Net continues to cover and introduce Open Source through tough economic times.
Of course, for those of you unaware of Open Source software, read the article.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
What open source does is something very logical and economically rational. The technologies underlying Windows and UNIX were developed years ago and do not require much investment to keep up or "manufacture", yet commercial vendors keep charging a premium. Open source software simply reflects the fact that these old technologies should cost little or nothing nowadays. Open source is simply a mechanism of a rational, efficient market. And as such, open source software will indeed become dominant, unless the government enacts market-distorting laws for the benefit of companies like Microsoft.
Working with .NET right now and I have to say it is far from impressive or adequate. Take mappoint for example. MS is positioning it to take over Mapquest now owned by AOL it's rival. Doing simple things like using geocodes from other engines causes it to create unpredictable results for directions and maps. Not only that, .NET appears to be crippled and doesn't allow raw socket connection or api. Everything is through http connection. .5 mile or more. .NET succeed? Probably not at first or on the third try. Moving into services may be a huge mistake for Microsoft, since it is totally different than product development. The monthly over-head in hosting, maintenance and staffing can easily burn through millions. Using HTTP connections for complex ORB processes is a huge mistake and adds extra burden. Perhaps some one else will know more about .NET and post more details. Looking at the documentation for mappoint.NET is laughable.
As much as I love http connection, using it for everything is both stupid and unwise. Doing complex queries through http connections is wasteful and doesn't give you any advantage. On top of that, Mappoint's geocodes can be off by
Will mappoint or
Both are "distributed." Microsoft is trying to create their own Internet. The whole point of the Internet is the distributed nature of it. This is why I think that when a .Net-like competitor comes out that is *fully* distributed it will succeed in the long run.
What are these mystical Services? Are they pay versions of existing Services? Are they something new? My guess is they're MS pay versions of things that are doable/doing/done now by non-MS servers. Perhaps MS is betting that people will find some sort of comfort in paying for something, rather than not. It's crazy, but people seem to have this inate sense that they more money thrown at something, the better.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
isn't "open monopoly" an oxymoron? Theres a difference between a single company dominating and a thousand different comanies who all have their own packages competing which all happen to be open.
...it's the difference between a "monopoly" and "competition".
It's been a long time.
You think open source is communist? MS new "AOL-ized" approach is geared towards providing services for the desktop user. Additionally .NET will make it possible to integrate MS-affialited "software services" into one's own software, and most MS software itself will be accompanied by a time-limited licensing agreement. If they truely lead the software inustry into this new paradigm, what will open source's answer likely be? I say, open services. Consider things like SETI@home and the Gnutella network. There is no reason, especially if Mono and .GNU are a success, that the opne source community can not only provide a free (as in both "beer", and "speech") counterpart to MS software, just as they are now. The two things keeping desktop users away from Linux (an other OSS platforms) are technical barriers to entry (learning curve) and lack of killer apps (or at least the ones present on Windows). OSS is perfectly capable of providing services. Imagine if everyone was able to run their favorite open source apps, but was able to run them remotely on some other computer on the internet, for free, and automatically (the entire internet a cluster, anyone). This amounts to the same low cost solution in the emerging service inustry that user today enjoy in software by using open source.
take that MS,
menander
I should be a billionair in no time
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
I'm not sure that I like the term "Open Monopoly" any more than I am that crazy about the term "Open Source Movement". I am inclined to think of it more in terms of simple supply and demand. For the first time in history, it is possible for any individual to produce a product (i.e., a piece of software) and to distribute it to the entire world with essentially no distribution costs -- merely the cost of an internet connection. The net effect of this enormous overhead supply is exactly what economics would predict: the price of software is plummetting.
With regard to Microsoft, they have the reputation and the refinement of product to dominate current installations. They also have a cozy relationship with computer vendors that makes John Q. Public think he's getting things for free. But the quality of Linux products is improving rapidly. These days there are far fewer differences that similarities between a Windows and a KDE desktop. One of these days Microsoft is going to make a misstep, and I suspect their rate of their collapse will be a shock to most people.
RM
I think everyone's making this just a tad more complicated than it really needs to be. This is all just one of those things that you either use if you support, or shun if you don't. Myself personally? I don't like Microsoft, so I don't buy their shit (and thus will not be subscribing to the .NET services). Yep, it really IS that simple! Let the people throw more money at Bill if they want. I'll stick with the software that doesn't cost me anything.
- slakker
Nice creativity, beeeeyatch!
Heh, I was right -- he did type it up randomly then. Cool.
OK, it's just thinking out loud, but who is accountable if an 'OM' (not that I'm convinced such a thing is possible) leads to trouble.
Let's suppose there is a CLI-crowd that forces some kind of situation where ease of use is impossible to implement for technical reasons?
I don't have specific examples, just thinking rhetorically, but the possibility of such an outcome should still be considered, however unlikely it may be.
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
tqee ereqe tetert terqqwe teerq
Who pays to educate a student to PHD level, where upon he/she can write the complicated algorithms needed to do *insert subject here* within an 'open source' program?
... and yes they can dedicate their time to helping along open source programs.
Are all your ideas going to come out of academics locked behind the desk? Or do you think someone with a HS education and lots of free time can do the complicated calculations while pounding out code?
No, this isn't a troll- but *someone* has to think and spend the time to write these algorithms, and that costs money. Education costs money. Yes, you can have 3 million people working on it, and yes they are paid by employers
Don't patent anything? Where's the profit motive? How will you pay off your 10 years of college for your PHD by giving away your ideas freely? Oh, get a job and then give those ideas away freely?? Sorry... can't work that way.
Anways, I see OS as a more potent form of QA- force the corporations to incorporate the stability of newer platforms... if at least customers are expecting that kind of stability then that raises the stakes.
The web has been "corporatized", so there is little room for little guys. But other things are coming. For example, in all P2P networks (Gnutella, Freenet) it's your machine that is the server - you just need a pipe and an address.
As people think of more apps that are networked, but not web based, the current web will become less relevant. We just need to be able to connect to each other.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Linux monopoly #2: KMonop
There you go!
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Although this statement is factually correct, that should not mean that we stop trying to promote Linux at every opportunity.
I see the upcoming launch of XP as a chance for Linux evangelism on a huge scale.
Don't like product activation ? - Linux
Don't want to pay $200 ? - Linux
I have managed to convert three of my friends to mandrake without really trying. Once you explain to them how Microsoft works, its like a light goes on in their heads and they are like, "where can I get Linux ?".
For me at least it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Perhaps if more of us took an active approach to evangelism, there would be even more Linux users than there are already.
Some people are still clinging to their microsoft comforter, but I'll bet product activation makes a few of those people think twice! :-)
I can run open source software on Windows until .NET
the version of Windows that only runs
software.
what's the difference between "Joe the consumer" and John Q Public?
who's speaking?
Petr Hrebejk is a senior software architect and developer on the open source NetBeans Tools Platform project at NetBeans, working for Sun Microsystems in the Czech Republic.
Tim Boudreau is a software developer, writer and marketing manager on the same project, also working for Sun Microsystems in the Czech Republic.
Now can you spell a-d-v-o-c-a-c-y ?
This puff piece was meant for the suits.
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
don't have strong feelings either way, but don't you mean that the people who can code are in total control?
not everyone has the neurological horsepower to code certain things.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
By even conservative estimates, Linux et al should have depleted Microsoft of several percent of market share. This isn't happening, except in some high-end businesses, and even that might be more attributable to the economic dark-age we're in.
Worse, the likely result of the DOJ vs. MS trial is that the "settlement" will be quietly forgotten and the case dropped. Sure, MS has been found guilty, but if the settlement is a fine of $0.00, then that's the end of it. Right now, America is more focussed on "other" news, giving both MS and the DOJ a chance to wriggle out of the mess, if not smelling like roses, then at least having a stench that is totally overpowered by current events.
To wrap it all up, Microsoft, Sun and Oracle seem to be keen on out-Orwelling each other. Seriously, I would not be surprised if one of those three companies effectively had the power to dictate and licence ALL computer use, of any kind, anywhere. At which point, we might as well all give up and go home. If Open Source becomes illegal through some piece of legislation or other (it nearly happened, not that long ago!), and/or information becomes purely licenced intellectual property (including common & public knowledge), then there is no point in even trying.
The scary thing is, these are not so improbable, today. Ten years ago, nobody would even dream of trying to restrict even the most hazardous of texts on the Internet. I believe that the "Anarchist's Cookbook" even won in a court action, under the first ammendment. I'm not so sure that it would fare so well, today. There are plenty of public records that document the location of grounds contaminated with deadly bacteria and viruses. Given the genuine potential for abuse, I'd be amazed if these records stayed public for long. And if some records "vanish", then you can expect to see others slip into the "vanish" tray. "Accidents" happen, especially when people are too busy worrying about potential lawsuits & covering their back.
The end result is almost inevitable. For very real security reasons, the Government and Corporations are going to have to re-think their attitudes towards disclosure. And since nobody likes to be vulnerable, that means that it's equally inevitable that we'll end up with some private enterprise that will graciously handle all that drudgery for everyone. At some point, it may well become mandatory to filter everything through such a company. At which point, "openness" will not exist and those who yearn for a reneissance will be deemed a hazard, or worse. The recently-dropped bill shows clearly that this is not some desperate attempt at an Orwellian nightmare, set in a Corporate-owned post-apocolyptic world, but something that today's Senators are willing to openly consider.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Mr. Public is quite likely to have a computer, and quite likely to learn a lot by using it. A 'we're smarter than them' mentality isn't going to help anything. If this community really does care about 'our rights online' maybe they should be in places where John Q. Public hangs out, telling him why he should care.
Anyway, I'm veering of topic. I just know that I used to be a computer illiterate AOL user, and it was online activism in the Nader campaign, and then here on Slashdot that woke me up from the dreamy, free, unchallenged democratic paradise I thought I was lounging around in. Although, it was not being able to play Quake online that got me off AOL. But I sure learned to hate'em even more afterwards! And if some of the short-and-to-the-point arguements that are made here against MS, or AOL, or the DMCA, were made in an AOL chatroom, they'd have a much larger impact.
The important thing to note about the Open Source is that it is a new process for the creation of software products. It is more efficient that the traditional means of creating software, so much so that the resulting software products are often free.
Before Henry Ford, there were lots of little companies that built cars by hand. Ford's new process for creating cars made them cheaper. The small car companies at the time said, "But most people will always want hand-built cars, because they are custom built and better quality." They were of course wrong - the more efficient process won in the end. The only way that car manufacturers of the time could survive was by producing cars by the same process, so very few of the companies survived.
Microsoft will try everything they can to stop the progress of open source, but in the long term, the more efficient process will win. Just like the car manufacturers of old, the only way that Microsoft can survive is to start using the new process. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it's a loose-loose situation, because the new process is so efficient that it is hardly possible to make a profit from it. So, either way, Microsoft dies. I give it ten years max.
Ten years may not seem like a long time, but remember that it is less than ten years since the launch of Windows 3.1
If corporations want to increase the viability of open source, one very important action they can do (and have been doing to some extent) is to hire open source programmers. That way the features they want will be more likely to get included, and the bugs they discover are more likely to be fixed. One difficulty is to ensure that any of their proprietary software does not "infected" with any GPLed software.
One point where the article is plain wrong is where it says OS software will be the best because the users will program the features they want. Sorry, but l^Husers can't program. But users can get the features they want by paying OS programmers, e.g., by buying (favorite brandname) Linux or *BSD and/or service agreements.
And maybe one more point. The nicest thing about the open monopoly is that everyone can join.
The Best remedy that they could choose to breakup the Windows monopoly is to force them to open source everything (That includes IE, WMP and anything else bundled into the Windows OS) in previous, current and future Versions of Windows and allow it to be freely downloadable. This takes the Windows Monopoly out of Microsoft's Hands because anyone now can make changes to the Windows Kernel and software and sell their version as a Windows Distrubution (Much like Linux is distrubuted now)
Once you take the Windows Monopoly out of Microsoft's Hands and allow other companies to make Windows Distributions, you will get a more competitive marketplace for Operating Systems, more Choices, Less Bullying, Higher quality software overall, and a much higher quality operating system than you could ever get with just MS supplying the OS code.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
for hot swappable generic web based services.
Just needs an open protocol (soap anyone?)
The author argues that when the MS Monopoly falls the successor (Open Source?) will be the next adopted monopoly. This is a fallacy.
It's like calling VHS a monopoly because there is no viable competetion (like betamax.) The VHS standard is the PREFERED technology of the consumer. There is no single vendor (monopoly) of VHS.
Right now Windows is the technology of preference for most computer users (business and consumer) and Microsoft is the only legal vendor for that technology.
If Linux or some other open source technology becomes the technology of choice then no monopoly could exist since anyone could distribute the desired technology.
An open monopoly is immossible. There are no problems with point of entry into a market with opensource. For closed source software companies, this can be a problem. The reason why Microsoft has such a huge monoppoly is because it has all the distribution points at the pc level and invenstors support. If I were to start an OS company as an example, I would be automatically destined to lose. Consumers may want a competitive OS but they would not invest in such an alternative OS because they are unsure if I would stay in bussiness. Also no sane investor would ever invest in such a risky proposition. This is the second problem. You need lots of money to start out. You really have to prove to investors that your product can win and your company can make money.
With opensource all you need is an idea and some code. If its good or there is a demand other programmers will pick up. If one app monopolizes everythign and innovation stagnates then another project will form.
Gnome is a classic example as well as Samba TNG. KDE was the only full desktop envirnoment and that made lots of developers uneasy. TrollTEch could screw the whole environment if they decided to stop distributing the QT libraries for free. Gnome was then born. Many members of the SAMBA team were unhappy with the way SAMBA was going. THey formed Samba TNG. Microsoft has made the whole bussiness by illegally wiping out points of entries into the software market making it really difficult or impossible to get in. The harder it is to enter the less compettion Microsoft will have. Thats all changed with opensource. Linux can't be bought out or crippled. Even if Microsoft somehow manages to really screw RedHat, another company will arise to take its place. If one product owns all the marketshare and its open and free, another one will form.
http://saveie6.com/
Given that the people most likely to participate in an open-source project are also users of the application being worked on, what would happen if the customers for a software product actually participated in its design and creation?
While this may be true of many open-source projects (I'm not completely convinced even now), the argument falls apart when you start getting into really popular (widely-used) projects.
How many users of Apache (on a percentage basis) have participated in its development/design? StarOffice/OpenOffice? The Linux kernel?
Imagine the whole world suddenly using . . . GNUCash for example. The customers, on a per capita basis, largely would *not* participate in its design and creation.
As open-source projects get more widely used (as the revolution progresses, as the article suggests), most users will be just that . .
We'll have lots of customers using the system, but relatively few designers/managers/developers. Very much like any other successful non-open software development model out there now.
Open-source is no panacea when it comes to usability and design.
... a "Non-opoly." Because it doesn't have any of the same effects.
The problem with a corporation having a monopoly over a physical product, like the Standard Oil monopoly early in this century, is that they literally controlled all the oil, and could fix prices. With an IP monopoly like microsoft's, it's not quite like that. It's more that everyone is so deeply in the habit of using their stuff, that changing would cost too much, thus enabling microsoft to set prices.
The so-called "Open monopoly" would have neither of those problems because... it's not run by a corporation! Basically all it would amount to if, say, Apache took over the webserver market, is a lot of people getting an inexpensive webserver. If someone tried to raise their IT consulting rates because "Apache is the only game out there," someone else would jump in with all the knowledge for half the price, and the problem would be solved.
Basically, it's impossible for open systems to cause the bad effects of a corporate monopoly, since no single entity can strangle any particular market in the same way. Personally, I'm looking forward to the ubiquity of open source software, and I don't fear that I will be unable to use an alternative should Linux run 85% of the servers.
Interesting both authors work for Sun. Are they getting more pro-OSS?
An additional problem for Sun is with workstations, where Linux seems to be making headway against Solaris (whether on a SPARC or on a high-end PC).
Right now, Sun is in good financial shape, with lots of cash and revenues. As the above shows, though, in the long run, Linux could threaten Sun's survival.
Open Source will never have a monopoly, legally speaking because no one company will ever have market power, not because single products won't arise to overwhelming dominance.
Look at Apache, for example. 60% of domains run on it and the next runner-up is IIS with about 25%. No other OSS web server (and there are several) can touch Apache's market share. The same can happen with other products too. Market power in terms of products is OK, but in terms of economic entities, like persons or corporations, it is a BAD thing because it can damage the very foundation of the market economy and turn Capitalism into everything that its opponents think that it is.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
it will be an all in one home unit lacking only a cd/dvd burner.
Soooo much easier for the average user to use than a computer.
An open monopoly is still a monopoly. If Open Sourcers gain enough market share and behave in a manner to restrict the market for Commercial Software, then they must be regulated by the FTC as well.
Turnabout is fair play.
And economists should stick to economics.
... from which no vendor can be excluded from participating, including the big companies now joining the open-source movement."
:)
An "open monopoly"? Come on. This is gobbledy-gook, senseless babbling.
They say Microsoft is threatened by open source because they are the current proprietary software monopoly. But MSFT's competitors - who are not the monopoly - are alleged to understand that "...in the end, there will be a monopoly again. The one-winner principle still applies. To them, the world will not change greatly whether open-source or proprietary software is running the world's computers. The end result will still be decreasing average costs, and the same barriers to entering the market will still apply."
But then they go on in the next paragraph and negate the previous paragraph's thesis: "What is different, however, is that in an open-source monopoly the barriers to participation and influence will disappear. This will be a different kind of monopoly
Well then, where is the monopoly? Where is the "one winner"? Maybe programmers should stay away from logic, too.
Edith Keeler Must Die
:) its interesting to see peopl to say that an open system will break Mircoshft rule. If it were the case then Microsoft should have crumpled by now.......................So I guess that is not it..........
Easily!
You just have to ask some fundamental questions to see why.
Q: Who benefits from Free software?
A: Absolutely everybody who uses a computer, except those who make money by selling competing software -- and even they benefit, because they can use Free software, too.
Q: If nobody's paying for software, who's going to write it?
A: Free software will be supported by companies whose main business is not selling software, but who do need to have software. IBM, Apple, Sun, and HP all benefit when they develop software and give it away for free, because they sell hardware. Systems integrators can afford to give software away because they sell configured systems. Large web sites can afford to give software away because they sell advertising. AOL can afford to give software away because they sell content. Contracting shops want to have a free infrastructure because they sell vertical-market applications. There are more than enough businesses with solid, nuts-and-bolts financial incentives to keep Free software going indefinitely. Companies whose sole product is Free software may be funded by industry consortia that wish to have the benefit of continued support of the product, or that wish to forge an industry-wide standard.
Q: How stupid do you have to be to fail to see that most people and companies stand to benefit if they can get (some of) their software for free?
A: Very stupid. Stupider than the people who make mony selling software.
Q: So what could possibly stop Free software?
A: Plenty of obstacles can slow or even stop the spread of Free software. Ignorance is now pretty much out of the running; millions of people know about Free software. Lies will slow the adoption of Free software by scaring away potential users. Greed may prevent some companies from realizing that giving software away as an incentive to buy their other products and services may do more for their business than selling it. Betrayal, e.g., persuading governments to outlaw Free software, can easily kill it. Disorganization is probably the biggest threat. Free software projects need strong leaders to hold them together and assimilate all the contributions to improve the project for everyone, and discourage forking.
Q: What's wrong with charging money for software?
A: There's absolutely nothing wrong with charging money for software. It is difficult to sell something that's freely available, but it can be done. People pay for bottled water, even though they can slurp it straight from the tap. People will voluntarily pay for anything -- even software -- if they perceive some added value.
Q: Does this mean the long-term dominance of Free software is assured?
A: Not at all. The opposition is extremely dedicated, and has vast resources. Free software has gotten off to a good start, but it is by no means too strong to be smothered.
If enough people with real business interests come to realize how they will benefit from writing and distributing Free software, then it stands a good chance of surviving.
While I think you're right that we should stress "Free" when talking to consumers/users, we need to be careful in how we say it.
Many people associate free with less quality. We need to imply both Free and Better. In fact, that is what we should say:
"Open Source Software is both Free and Better than closed source."
When talking to corporations, trying to convince them to use open source, you need to talk about "lower cost to maintain and operate" and "lower cost to purchase". They won't be getting it free, as they will pay for service contracts and documentation and training. But it is true that it is Less Expensive and Better.
It's all about the marketing. That and a little brute force piracy won Bill G the keys to the kingdowm.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Open monopoly????
Is this guy serious? The term doesn't even make sense...
Whatever. I think you'll be able to count the number of people that object to this 'open monopoly' on one finger when and if it happens. And I personally don't believe that commercial software will disappear completely.
And even if it did--think about it: we'll be back to only buying real physical products, not bits and bytes and words. That doesn't sound SO bad to me...
But, just to reiterate, whatever.
..."ignoramus'" PCs...and they love it! especially when I explain that their lack of a qualifying product for an upgrade will mean that they will have to shell out 650 bucks (Cdn) for a full version. Free is a pretty strong persuader. I'm not sure if StarOffice qualifies as open source (for the purposes of our discussion), but the same argument can be applied to genuine open source products, including O/S's. Money remaining in the user's pocket instead of streaming into Bill's pocket is a concept that needs to be allowed to speak a little louder.
You're using her as bait, Master!
I like to say "nuff said" as often as possible, and also "now, don't get me wrong".
Microsoft is DOOMED.
I suggest people consult some facts before making pronouncements of Microsoft's impending doom. Look at Microsoft's earnings and think for a moment about where that company gets its money. Go here then you can begin to understand exactly how Microsoft is dying.
Microsoft's most recent quarterly earnings for Three Months Ended September 30 per region:
South Pacific and Americas Region: 2,433 million
Europe, Middle East, and Africa Region: 1,105 million
Asia Region: 604 million
Now for the same period last year:
South Pacific and Americas Region: 2,154 million
Europe, Middle East, and Africa Region: 1,085 million
Asia Region: 708 million
The only region in which MS earnings actually went up in this comparison is in the United States of America. The rest of the world is quickly figuring out that it doesn't need to be paying a tax to Microsoft. The fat US corporations are the only ones who can still afford MS software. That's why IBM says over half of its DB2 installations in China run on Linux. There is a similarity between US corporate use of Microsoft tax-ware and the bloated US car industry of the 1970s and 1980s. The US car industry had to reform in order to compete. The same will probably happen in regard to wasting revenue on tax-ware given the recent economic downturn.
There is an inherent tension between proprietary software vendors and open source projects. Even when developers are employed by both. That's not going to change. When you work for a proprietary software company, your primary customer base is that company. Your primary product is a monetary profit for that company. When you work on an open source project, your primary customer base almost always includes at least one end user, and frequently quite a few. Your product is, well, the software and what it can do.
There are a lot more users than developers in the world, and even developers are users. Open source is good for the user: it's always good to have more choices for support. I think that what is good for the user is a lot more important than what is only good for the developer. Sun has done a lot of good things. But ultimately, it's just another proprietary business with a conventional profit model and a vested interest in the status quo....
- monopoly #1: servers (Linux)
- monopoly #2: games (Windows & X-box converge)
- monopoly #3: office desktops (some new OS)
I can easily believe the future desktop monopoly won't be Windows, because Windows is a disaster, but I also am skeptical that it will be Linux, because so far the ease of use and installation is too much of a problem.Now consider this. Given that the people most likely to participate in an open-source project are also users of the application being worked on, what would happen if the customers for a software product actually participated in its design and creation? It would be impossible to create a product that is not what the market wants!
Well, it would be impossible to create a product that is not what the active developers want. That's a whole different thing.
Find free books.
IIRC, in the case of, say, a TelCo considered to be a natural monopoly, the old-school supporting arguments centered around the idea that it's inefficient to have a redundant network of phone lines. The same notion was applied to utility companies. It's not clear at all to me that M$'s product development (and software development in general) is an analogous process (in terms of high infrastructure costs) to connecting phone lines or distributing electric power. To me, M$ is more of an old-school monopoly a la Standard Oil, that uses its market power to drive out competitors, even when they have arguably superior products.
If, by "open monopoly," Hrebejk means "everyone around the globe using open-source software for most of their computing" then I hope he's right, although that situation wouldn't be a true monopoly unless one company (Sun? Red Hat?) ends up controlling most of the software market.
-Rene
See you on the playa.
Read and learn.
It's quite simple: Good open source programs are category killers. That is, if there is a good (ie feature-complete, stable, fast etc. ) program that does X and is open, there is little or no opportunity for a company to try to enter the X market with an expensive product.
This works to an extent in existing markets - for e.g. all proprietary unix vendors are feeling the Linux pinch. MS can't sell IIS for much, due to Apache's presence.
Thus, open-source can be a barrier to entry, and have a monopoly on a market. A monopoly of sorts - Here's an old quote (I forget who from)
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
I am not sure in what way you are even arguing with what I said. Read what you just spouted:
He is talking about businesses and businesses never give away something for nothing. If they give you a free OS they are going to want to make money on packaging, shipping, support, etc. Basically whatever they can make money on because they are a BUSINESS
You need to be more aware of your own conclusions. You are saying that Open Source is a business. No kidding! Open Source competes with Closed Source because of this very obvious fact: because its proponents wish to make a living off of their talents as developers, like any normal human being would. So in that sense, open source based businesses are essentially the same as closed source based ones.
What Microsoft was saying was that their form of business needs to be protected from the open source type of business. This is a flawed perspective in that Microsoft is claiming that their type is superior while simultaneously displaying their fear of their competitors' business model.
I know it was hard to understand my previous post. I'll try not to use so many big words next time.
There's a very simple way for "the people" to take control of open source development: donate money to projects they like. Those who do so demonstrate that catering to their tastes will be rewarded, and then it's in commercial developers' best interests to make OSS with established donors in mind.
It's the simplest, most direct exchange of the relevant scarce resources: money for control over what is produced.
If you're interested, follow my sig.
Yeah, I saw it too... But:
Internet advertising is the redheaded stepchild of the marketing family. Old media ads have no need to justify themselves with inanities like "click-through"; they know their demographic and their real estate is mindshare, that precious commodity which they assume that they're purchasing with their ad dollars, regardless of whether or not this purchase translates into a product purchase immediately or down the road.
Personally, I think internet advertising was doomed because it was the first place where advertising's effectiveness could be measured. Unfortunately for them, the measurement was very low. In the end it was blamed on the mode, rather than the fact that ads aren't nearly as effective as they'd thought. It's important that an ad be available when someone wants that type of product (Google-type ads), but ads 'pushed' on people are annoying, and will become less effective over time, as people either block them on the web, or skip them on TV recordings, or just leave the room during commercials.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
-Don
========
http://www.micropoly.com
Micropoly is the Microsoft Monopoly Game! It's a parody of Microsoft that's fun to play, a free board game based the rules of Anti-Monopoly, and a political statement protected under the First Amendment.
This web site exists to freely distribute the full set of graphics and rules for Micropoly, in the "open source" spirit of the original folk game monopoly invented by an Atlantic City Quaker woman.
You are encouraged to download the graphics, print out copies of the game set for yourself and friends, and have fun playing Micropoly!
Micropoly synergistically illustrates several important points, by drawing parallels between the time of the Great Depression and the end of the Twentieth Century:
Monopolies are bad, and competition is good. The original rules of monopoly require everyone to play as a monopolist. That's why companies like Microsoft and Parker Brothers like the lesson it teaches: being a monopolist is good, and in order to win you have to make the biggest monopoly. But the rules of Anti-Monopoly divide players into monopolists versus competitors, resulting in a dynamic, unpredictable, more interesting game. Competition has the same benefits in real life!
The "open source" philosophy has been around a long time before computers. The Atlantic City Quaker woman who invented the original board game spread it around to her friends for free. She would invite people over to play, and they loved the game, so they made their own copies with crayons on oil cloth. This free folk game spread around the country and was played by many people, long before Parker Brothers knowingly decided pirated it. Today we have computer networks, desktop publishing, color printers, and the "open source" model of software development, so it is much easier to spread the free Micropoly game all over the world.
Big companies abuse the patent and legal systems to pirate and exploit other peoples original ideas. Parker Brothers pirated monopoly from its original inventors, illegitimately patented an "open source" folk game, perpetrated an extremely successful propaganda campaign to convince the world that Monopoly(TM) was invented by Charles B Darrow, and aggressively drove other companies out of business with frivolous lawsuits.
They waged a nasty 10 year legal assault on Ralph Anspach, inventor of the "Anti-Monopoly" game, ruining his successful game company, even though his case finally made it to the Supreme Court and won!
As a result of his hard fought victory, the true story of Parker Brother's Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle has been published for all to read, and it's safe to call a game "anything-opoly".
We are very grateful that he never gave up, and won in spite of Parker Brothers' dirty tricks. We thank him, because he made it possible for us to publish Micropoly, and generously offered to let us use his superior Anti-Monopoly rules, which so perfectly illustrate the point of Micropoly.
The similarities in the monopolistic behaviors of Parker Brothers and Microsoft should be obvious.
OpenOpoly
The software used to produce Micropoly will be freely distributed, as well as the Micropoly content, to serve as an example of how to make your own personalized monopoly game.
We are developing a free "Openopoly" architecture based on XML, whose purpose is to automate the production of custom monopoly games, both printed board games and multi-player online computer games.
Micropoly will be the first example of such a custom game, so anyone will be able to drop in their own text and graphics, turn the crank, and produce a version of monopoly localized for their own city, university, company, church, sports team, or favorite political cause.
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
2. Many companies would a much better off with legions of high school kids runing their IT departments.
The topic alone is a troll.
Open source is not and can never become a monopoly.
But what it is and can be is consumer choice.
At best open source is nothing more than the check and balance of what would be an otherwise
open season on consumer abuse.
As time goes by, patent and other computer industry intellectual property control runs out and
as the effect of it is to go into the piublic domain, open source will be there to integrate it
into a base line of product standards functionality, quality, etc..
The commercial market will have to do better.
Without open source the commercial market would have no reason to do better.
Well, you "forgot" to mention the OEM sales channel:_ channelbusiness.htm
OEM $1,819 $1,984
Apparently, the OEM channel is too opaque to be region-based, which isn't very surprising. And of course total revenue:
Total revenue $5,766 $6,126
But yes, Asia-Pacific did go down significantly year-over-year. And that is interesting. And the URL is here: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY02/Q02_1
if i were in a position to influence the "infrastructure" of an emerging service industry... i would ensure that said infrastructure was riddled with techniques not usable without license from me.
I think that even if John Q Public knows nothing about open source, if the services he uses are running open source, it doesn't matter.
.sig here on /. recently that I found very interesting: "anyone who says that "X" is manipulating you is trying to take "X's" job."
Lets make them "Usefull Idiots" eh? I am appauled(sp?) that you believe it fruitfull to mislead people to direct their 'weight'.
What is the purpose in advocating the "moral superiority(sp?)" of Free Software" if you are not willing to take the time to discuss it with the "masses" - jesus man, are the unwashed not smart enough to understand what "we" are talking about? Should we just lead them through the dark with half-truths and bullshite?
Im drunk, a little in-=articulate(sP?), and frankly insulted - what makes you the "saviour of people who dont know whats good for themselves"?
I read a
Only full disclosure, education and complete honesty will build our desired future.
Hey whatwhat is this? If what you have to say isnt 'self-evident' its not that important... lets find some basic thruths mmmm, kay?
not only that, but they don't even want gov to have medicad, it should be a "private corp" issue according to SUN CEO in forbs NOV issue.
wtf, Nevada has the worsed private HMO system, and he says they can deal with it, FO
Finally! Someone else who has figured out this crowd. They are also responsible for knocking down the WTC and spreading Anthrax through the US Mail. They are determined to spread their gay, socialist views to the world and will stop at nothing to obtain world domination.
Totalitarism maybe, Autocracy, possible, but socialism? Not at all. Maybe if you weren't brainwashed..
I will throw you a quarter when I see you begging on the street in a year.
Here's my view of the American Way: The government pumps a lot of money into academic research, then benefits since the breakthroughs are picked up by entrepreneurs in the industry, which end up providing jobs, paying taxes, increasing our product productivity frontier, etc, to keep the economic growth cycle going.
I don't know what is more "American" than that. Our universities are world reknowned for their success in fueling this phenomena. Unfortunately, in the case of the software field - research that gets locked under the GPL often cannot be carried over to industry. In fact you get tens of thousands of engineers in companies like Microsoft who are mandated not to even read GPL code because some of it might carry over into their work. What a waste of carefully crafted code! It's never even seen. Putting it under the GPL has effectively destroyed it.
What it comes down to is that everyone who pays taxes should have the freedom to use the results of government sponsored research. This includes those in industry who want to use it in conjunction with intellectual property that they need to keep to themselves in order to stay in business. GPL doesn't always allow that. Government sponsored institutions shouldn't be using GPL - they should be using a less extreme open source license alternative - like BSD - so that taxpaying companies can use source code coming from taxpayer funded research.
I agree with the article, and one of the big things that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion (that I've seen) is Microsoft's market cap. Wall street has a gun to their head to make more money, in order to justify their market valuation. Thus .Net -- a subscription model. Things are going to get /very/ expensive for future Windows users. In contrast and open source (read:free) solution will look like a godsend.
It's ironic, but Microsoft will be brought down by their success. The confidence they've inspired on Wall Street will be the noose on their neck. Like the myth of Jason, success can be its own enemy.
keep your quarter, buy a sense of humour
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Microsoft ARE in serious financial trouble, their earning are down, the share price is down;
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/011022/06/earns-m ic rosoft
A recession looks set to help the Free/OS Software community at Microsoft expense and finish them as the dominant player, with cost cutting accelerating Open Source/Free Software installations in place of M$. My employers is increasingly deploying Linux instead of Windows, currently mainly as servers, but this is from an IT Services division that 6months ago was a strongly pro-M$, the XP licencing issue has turned them.
This declining share price issue is going to cause M$ major trouble. The M$ share price will fall, they will cut investment, the share price will fall more, they will lose their 'famous names' the shares will fall further, it is a vicious feed back loop. Before long the Microsoft Empire will be shadow of it's former self, like IBM in the 80's.
We can also help the share price fall. We short M$ on global scale.
http://www.fool.com/FoolFAQ/FoolFAQ0033.htm
Not only will we get to engineer the fall of Microsoft, we'll be able to turn a profit by doing it, personally I love the irony.
"the economics of open-source software "
Hehehe,are you sure these are developers and not comedians?
Open source businessplan:
1: Write some open source software
2: ?
3: Profit!
"Open monopoly" is an oxymoron.
No argument here. It's also a useful concept. Essentially, the notion of software occupying a monopoly position in the software market (i.e. ubiquity), without it being controlled by a single entity.
No one will correctly predict where things are going. Computers and the devices that run them are too varied and change too quickly.
Agreed, nor are we trying to make predictions - rather to point out what is predictable given our non-omnicient understanding of the rules of the marketplace.
This chaos is not limited to the effect of the transistor.
Absolutely - and any single company having sole control of a piece of critical infrastructure causes software to advance more slowly.
I'll pour a few hundred hours of blood, sweat and tears into it! Shiny new! Everyone wants it! It's hot! But how do I parlay it into a commercial venture when everyone can get it for free and fix it up as they want? Hmm.
I can't speak for every project, but I can speak for ones I've been involved with. In terms of dealing with platform level software, it's clear that developing platform level software is a cost. In the case of the project I work on, NetBeans, it's a generic IDE platform (actually a generic large desktop application platform) that people are free to write extensions to, create their own applications with, and give away or sell those creations as they wish. E.g. if I come up with a great debugger, odds are I wanted to write a debugger, not a full blown IDE in order to have a usable interface to my debugger. Having standard, open platforms means more software is developed faster, and everybody benefits. The question is one of deciding what pieces you want to give away, what if any pieces you'd prefer to sell, and doing that in a way that allows you to eat.
They don't care about the long term future of the software industry, they care about the need to compete with voracious rivals in THIS economy!
I wouldn't generalize that to every company in the software industry - if you want to survive, you have to think long-term, and since everybody's actions have an effect, you have to think in terms of what is going to help create an environment in which you can survive.
Seems to me most of the time throughout history, a radical overthrow of anything resulted in either more of the same or worse conditions. For better or worse, humans are self interested creatures. Noble sentiment, but I expect that evolving an more equitable system starting from the existing less equitable one is more likely to get you the result you want - when you create a brand new system from whole cloth, you don't know what perverse incentives you've built into it until they come to bite you.
GPL anyone? Or if you mean more restrictive than GPL, how would it be policed/enforced?
So they're hoping to replace Microsoft with "open source" - though they mean by that an open source operating system that is ruled by industrial comittee:
Huh? Who said anything about industrial committee? Yes, we refer a lot to companies as participating entities, but our entire point is that nobody is blocked from participation, whether corporate or individual.
With companies such as IBM and SUN backing Open Source the question remains as to where do these companies see there future revenue being generated.
I don't forsee all commercial software going away. There are plenty of people/companies in the world who need software that is plain uninteresting or unpleasant to write. My last job as a programmer/contractor before going to NetBeans/Sun was building a large scale emulation of a DOS application in JavaScript. Completely dumb project that should have never been started. I would never have done it if I wasn't being paid to do it, but there are also plenty of things I've worked on that I didn't get paid to work on. So there's always going to be a market for commercial software, but I think there's also always going to be a migration of things that prove generally useful toward open standards and open source.
Unfortunately, the only people who are able to participate effectively in the design and creation of an open source project under existing models are computer programmers.
I don't know about this - with NetBeans, we have UI designers and usability people, not to mention documentation writers who are not programmers and have no problems participating, and a healthy community of folks on the users mailing list who submit bugs and help each other. Coding is not the only form of important participation in an open source project.
Now can you spell a-d-v-o-c-a-c-y ? This puff piece was meant for the suits.
If it's not already an acronym, can I coin IANAS (I am not a suit)? Heck, the article started as a 3AM rant. Did the fact that it had suit appeal help get it out the door? Sure. Mea culpa.
I would not be surprised if one of those three companies effectively had the power to dictate and licence ALL computer use, of any kind, anywhere.
At which point that company would have killed the very market it relies on for survival. No company finds it strategic or has the resources to implement all of the things people want. Open standards and open source empower people to create what they want. Anyone who gets themselves in this position has just committed hari kari.
The author argues that when the MS Monopoly falls the successor (Open Source?) will be the next adopted monopoly. This is a fallacy. It's like calling VHS a monopoly because there is no viable competetion (like betamax.) The VHS standard is the PREFERED technology of the consumer. There is no single vendor (monopoly) of VHS.
This is quibbling over semantics. VHS is a good analogy for what we're talking about, but VHS is not an evolving technology like software, it's a static standard.
How many needed to? The point isn't that everyone who uses something participate in its creation, but that enough who use it do, and that nobody is barred from such participation.
Open-source is no panacea when it comes to usability and design.
True. Any company building on and contributing to open source software will find it to their benefit to also do usability testing (e.g. videotape what volunteers do and find what usability problems they have, as Sun does with NetBeans) and employ some skilled UI experts.
Otay, let the flames begin :-)
-Tim
Where the hell do you guys come up with this bull:
"But this model doesn't put "the people" in control any more than a closed source model does!"
Huh??? WTF? Let me tell you something: Having access to the source code and the ability to change it gives you a hell of a lot of control! If you don't understand something as BASIC as that, you are unlikely to understand much else.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and we all do, but statements such as the above only go to show how dim you are up there. If you do not know much on the subject, don't say much on the subject.
Amused to see that this article was written by two SUN employees. Could be their position reflects the company's Church and State dichotomy.
a va.html
Clearly not everyone at Sun believes
"the barriers to participation and influence should disappear" in favor of a brave new world of "open monopolies." As regards J2EE, what SUN really means is an "open monopoly" for themselves and a few of their best friends. See Mike Loukides of O'Reilly's article http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2001/10/10/osj
If you can see this, then the world is still okay.
--sdem
Contrary to public misconception partly fueled by Microsoft FUD, there's nothing about open source that prevents the developer from making money.
So, the incentive for following user request is exactly the same as with for-sale software: You get money for it.