Slashdot Mirror
Eric Raymond: Why Open Source will Rule
DNapalm writes "A very interesting two part interview with Raymond from ZDNet, talking about the success of open source and Linux on the desktop, among other things. Check out Part I and Part II (I liked part II)." Raymond also asserts that Microsoft could have killed Linux if only they'd started a little earlier.
A direct quote from the article:
"If OpenOffice still exists, and it's GPLed, and they're going to start charging for StarOffice, then they just shot StarOffice through the head."
Replace the word "StarOffice" with "Redhat Linux".. why does the same logic not apply?
is why do the OSS and FSF people care so much for the "Windows world". During the last several months, I've seen an enormous amount of articles that deal with how evil Microsoft is when compared to Linux developers and vise-versa. I ask these writers: "Why ?" Why should I care ? I really don't think we're gaining anything by doing the same things MS has been doing all these years. It always goes on like this: "MS attacks, OSS movement responds, MS attacks, OSS movement responds, OSS movement attacks, MS responds". This is getting boring you know, why not make deeds instead of shouting ?
OK, sure, Windows is installed on the majority of the computers out there, but it doesn't make it world's most important thing. Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys are popular too, are they important to me ? Nope.
There are no new ideas in computing. Anybody who tries to sell you a "new idea" in computing is a gasbag who is either a) blissfully ignorant or b) willfully ignorant.
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
LOL! This is a troll right? I'll bite. Maybe you have a point and Windows is right for you, but maybe you work for Microsoft, as they are the only people I ever see who write Windows(tm). You sound like you just walked out of a TV advert!
That's why I choose Microsoft Windows(TM) for my computing work. The easy setup and configuration let me get right to work and the cross-platform standardizations let me easily port my work for colleagues. Furthermore, the highly-optimized nature of the Windows(TM) Operating System Kernel makes for blazingly fast simulation runs even on the low-end hardware that my University is willing to pay for.
What cross platform standarisations? I don't see any. In fact, I'll think you'll find that EVERY major OS out there other than windows is based on unix.
Sheesh, I'm way too easily trolled. -sigh-
Unfortunately in every aspect *except* price, Linux looks more like a sustaining technology vis-a-vis Windows. Linux is the more secure, more high-end, more niche-like product. In the disruptive technology model, what happens is that *Windows* becomes reliable "enough" and hacker-pleasing "enough" and takes over from Linux.
Now Linux is free...that is true. But that is the only way it is like a disruptive technology. In fact that is not really like disruptive technologies either. They are usually cheaper. Free is strange.
Now Linux is indeed a disruptive technology compared to something else -- Sun. Linux on a PC, compared to Sun on a Sun box, has all the classic hallmarks of disruptive technology, and in fact is doing so.
I ranted more about this last year on another site. Here's a quote: "To take this to an extreme example, at some future date Windows CE might displace both Windows 2000 and Linux, and the Personal Web Server shipped with Windows might displace both Internet Information Server and Apache. This is highly unlikely, but it illustrates the direction in which disruption happens.".
And don't forget this profound comment where I ask the question ""Is the bazaar upmarket from the cathedral?" (read that again).
- adam
Humm, I tried to use Word to write equations when I was in college studying Physics. Even though I had no exposure to Linux at the time, I found that most of the professors and grad students used LaTeX instead. It's much easier to use, and it's much easier to learn. I picked up most of it in an afternoon. It's also pretty much standard for Physics people to write papers full of equations in LaTeX and not word.
And as for the "blazingly fast simulations" - I'm sorry, we never ran simulations on Intel based computers (too slow except for really easy stuff). We'd use mainframes for that, which used Unix. And what kind of University that is considering doing real physics can't afford that? Are you sure it wasn't a community college? And if you're curious, the University doesn't buy the computers for the physicists - the physicists get grant money from the government for that kind of purchase.
You wouldn't happen to be paid by MS to make such a false statement? I have been seeing a lot of these nutcases making wild claims that are absolutely false and full of crap. (Do you REALLY love Linux? haha! I caught you!)
Jonathan
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
In that case StarOffice just died. They just shot StarOffice through the head. It doesn't matter whether I'm in favor of it or not.
I'd rather disagree with this one. What made staroffice more desireable were the few binary components that couldn't be put into openoffice, and these componenets are really only of use to certain businesses, and it's very likely that they will also want support for the product.
I think Linux will take over the desktop, and I think the reason it will doesn't have much to do with whether we clean up and polish our interfaces or not. Linux will take over the desktop because as the price of desktop machines drops, the Microsoft tax represents a larger and larger piece of OEM margin. There's going to come a point at which that's not sustainable, and at which OEMs have to bail out of the Microsoft camp in order to continue making any money at all. At that point, Linux wins even if the UI sucks.
And frankly, the UI doesn't suck. It's not perfect, it's got a few sharp edges and a few spikes on it, but so does Windows.
Oh dear god, this is the funniest thing I've read on slashdot in six months. So no matter how bad a computer interface is, all it has to do is cost less than Windows for everybody to adopt it? Well, hell, I'd better dust off my Apple II then!
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
:Peter
from the article :"This is necessary because software is growing ever more complex, and an increasing amount of work must be done simply to debug programs."
This is the real problem with todays new software: every programmer wants to put every functionality in every program he writes. This creates bloated and bug-ridden programs.
For example: if I want to buy a new bicycle, and I would like to look up information on the internet. I NEED a browser that supports pdf files, flash animations, at least 5 different graphic file formats, cascading style sheets, java scripting and so on, just because nobody cares about standards. Because of that all pages look really bad, because my fonts scale differently, or I have a different screen size.
Wiebe.
With all of these endless /. posts about how Linux will rule the world, I have yet to see a single post explaining how programmers will ever get paid. Don't any of you want to write code for a living? Open Source companies can make money, sure, charging for services. But services cannot pay for programmers. Let me repeat that so that everyone is sure to see it: services cannot pay for programmers.
/. come up with a way for Open Source to succeed and pay programmers at the same time?
Since Open Source code is, well, Open, absolutely any service provider or consultant has access to the same software. If company A pays programmers to write code which is contributed to the community and makes their money selling services related to that code, and company B has no programmers but offers the exact same services for the exact same code, the company B will always be able to make more profit than company A. Because company B is in the exact same business as company A, but doesn't have to pay programmers. They can cut their costs below company A, stealing their business, and still enjoy higher margins. Company A either fires the programmers or dies.
A company can only afford to pay programmers if they have name recognition high enough to charge higher prices for services, or don't give feedback to the community about upcoming releases until its actually out so that they have a big enough head start to give competitive advantage, or they use closed code. That means they either pimp themselves, act like weasels, or go proprietary. Nice way to make a living. The Open Source movement lives on successfully, but the coders end up eating a lot of ramen and working at Circuit City. The only model I've seen so far depends on coders working for free. Volunteerism is great, but you can't base a business on altruism. Besides, in some ways making money off of unpaid workers is worse than Nike using cheap foreign labor - at least the foreign labor gets *something* for their effort. With few exceptions, contributing to Open Source is like pissing yourself in dark slacks - you get a warm feeling, but nobody else notices.
Can some of the clever folks here at
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
I noticed the same thing. A guess: Perhaps what he meant was that since they did this, StarOffice is dead in the long run. Which would make sense. Eventually OpenOffice will outstrip StarOffice and there will no longer be any reason to pay for Star. Sun is just cannibalising it for a short term revenue stream, really.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Open source will rule. Sure, and I can shoot flaming peanuts from my nostrils. Open source will never rule. I would much rather pay for a product than download a hodge-podge of interconnecting modules. The only people who care about open source are those who do or can be involved in its creations. It's art for the artists, not the laymen. This isn't to say its inherently bad, or inherently good. Just that it will never be for everyone. If you mod me down because you think I'm stupid, you've proved my point, I am stupid->can't use open source software; Most other people are stupid->most other people can't use open source software.
There are many factors other than cost which contribute to the success or failure of a computer product...
These factors include:
- Compatibility and interoperability
- Stability of vendor
- Amount of ongoing development
- Feature set
- Marketshare and userbase
- Adherence to standards
- Ease of use
- Security
- Stability
Microsoft is credible in all these areas and ahead of open source contenders in most. In addition, Microsoft is getting better in all these areas.The time when open source products had some advantage because of Microsoft's weakness in security and stability is limited.
Even people like me who are simply put off by the idea of proprietary systems are having second thoughts after looking at the feature set of IE and the size of its userbase.
I think it is because the Microsoft propaganda machine keeps saying how great they are, and we know better. Basically they overpaid for their preinstalled ("free?") OS and have to convince themselves they haven't been taken.
Since Microsoft is a monopoly, they violate the Cheaper, Better, Faster - pick two rule. Any other choice will have all three attributes. (Even Apple's OS X is less than a new XP install).
Since Microsoft can't innovate (without undermining their monopoly), they market with FUD.
And use the legal system or other things - per cpu licenses, "naked pc" horror stories, etc. Why should Microsoft care? Because they are trying to sell bottled tap water claiming a trademark on water. We are just responding.
So, your question is really: "How can the programmers make money if they're willing to give their stuff away for free?" Three possibilities:
- Stop giving it away for free, or just provide the source under a different license than the GPL; for example, make the software available for free, but you only get the source if you *buy* the product. Of course, then you'll lose the advantage of "many eyeballs", <troll>but hey, who audits all that code anyway?</troll>
- Ask for donations. By all accounts, Mandrake and TransGaming are doing reasonably well with this approach. (See my other post below.)
- Do the coding, not to get paid directly, but in order to increase your chances of getting a better-paying job. There was a very interesting study linked a few months ago on
/., analyzing the countries and backgrounds of contributors to GNOME. The observation was that a disproportionate percentage of open source contributors are from countries that have developing IT industries, not established ones, so his conclusion was that the coders were contributing in order to develop their skills and establish their reputations.
The last one is the option that can motivate me personally. I'm out of work at the moment (hire me!), so I'm planning on contributing to the Wine and/or Mono projects to boost my marketability. Is that so bad?There is little evidence that cheaper wins out. A classic example is the IBM PC (and clones) which were substantially more expensive than home PC'
Thats true to a point .. but half the reason that IBM PC's came to rule the world is that they were open systems.
IBM released all the specs to things, which allowed other companies to build compatible "bits", which eventually allowed prices to come down.
(Obviously I'm ignoring the fact that an IBM PC was massively more powerfull than machines like the C64).
Linux is unknown to most of the general computer
users. Ask a casual computer user and most likely
they have heard of Linux but have never booted it
up. Actually I've talked to an aspiring computer
science major, plus a Java programmer both knew
of Linux. But had no experience. The point is if
Linux is not on the desktops of the common person
it definitely will lose the war to Microsoft. Microsoft
has always won because it has always had the common
person in mind. Unlike Apple, unlike Linux.
Kind of ironic Linux developed by contributors
all of the world for free, and can be gotten for
free but is so complicated to get started most
people don't want to mess with it. And if u don't
know u'r stuff then it is too complicated to
maintain. So ultimately it's free to who? A
small percentage of higher level computer users.
If that be the case Linux will never win. And
by the time the Linux becomes easy enough, and
exposed enough, Microsoft will have had time
to develope their products to the point that
they will again remain the leader. Isn't that
what happened to Apple. No matter how great
Apple started off to be, who really gives a hoot
now. No matter how great Linux is now, it could
end up the best kept secret if it doesn't fall
into the hands of more of the common person! (This applies mainly to the
places in the world where cash is in abundance,
the markets that microsoft cares about at the moment.Those places that don't have cash can't use Microsof so they are the lucky one who have no choice bu tto download Linux on their imported firstworld throw away systems. (i heard of a
russin guy exporting old systems..same guy whgo delivered pizza in a BMW..where - snoop dogs home town) But once they become more affluent will they end up buying Windows?. Win the kids, then the world will be ours!
The ESR Rap
(Chorus:)
I am EEE ESS ORR, elite hack-ORR, hear me ROAR!
1.
I am of the hacker elite, can't you see?
fetchmail, blindfolds in nethack, er... (hum-hum diddle dee)
Bow down on your knees, don't you diss me!
(chorus)
2.
I am an author, I "wrote" New Hacker's Dictionary
Well, shit, so what if I done stole it from MIT?
I didn't get in there, so I figured they owed me!
(chorus)
3.
I am founder and leader of OSI
Now my Open Source show is really on the road!
Free Software? Hah! Show me dat code!
(chorus)
.4
I am ESR Skywalker, elite Jedi Knight
I'm packing mah gun and I'm ready to fight
You diss me and I'll send you to eternal night!
(chorus)
5.
I am wealthy board member, VA Something-or-other
Got plenty dollar bills, at least on paper
What's that? Dot.com crash? Oh fuck! See you later!
(repeat chorus to fade)
Many open-source projects get to the point where they sort of work, but aren't pushed through to the point that they work solidly. Probably because the grunt work to achieve that is boring.
A very few high-profile projects, like the Linux kernel, attract enough developers to push through this barrier. Most projects don't.
There's another possibility. If you get the architecture wrong, the open-source process won't fix it. That may be Mozilla's problem.