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.
I can't help thinking - would it be possible to do it again? But this time, instead of basing it on the solid, well known but old and unadventerous unix, use new ideas, incorporate the latest technologies and so on. Would the open source community be willing to move away from Linux to this new open OS, or is the momentum behind it too strong to abandon?
ESR's fundamental argument to Linux taking over the desktop is solely cost. Because the cost of Windows will be a bigger chunk of the PC price as PC prices, OEM's will seek out cheaper options (e.g. Linux).
I believe this is wrong for at least two reasons:
1. Microsoft has a much freer pricing structure than most other component makers. Since they employ monopoly pricing they are able to price the product exactly at the point where it maximizes profit. Futher, since their marginal cost is essentially zero (as opposed to chips, disks, and other hardware components), they have a lot of downward headroom in their prices should this ever become an issue.
2. 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's (such as C64, Atari 400/800, Apple II, etc.) but won over the market big time. There are many factors other than cost which contribute to the success or failure of a computer product. Indeed, very cheap computers (e.g. $350 or so) computers are available today, but the sweetspot seems to be the $800-level machine which will get you something pretty good.
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.
What kind of services can company B sell without any programmers? Probably only basic services related to installation, troubleshooting and basic support. They can't fix the application's bugs, expand the applications capabilities or customize it without programmers. Thus Company B can only provide the same kind of consulting services that a zillion shops provide for Win2k -- installation/maintenance for places too small to do it themselves. It's a low-profit model thats also dependent on Company A continuing to maintain the application. No development, no future for Company B.
Furthermore, Company A may actually *want* Companies B/C/D/E/F to provide low-end support for their product, since there's little margin for them in low-end support and it provides better market push for their application. Company A can stay focused on high-end, high-margin installations that need customizations or other custom services.
They may also hedge their bets by releasing a version of their application that only hints at its capabilities and *requires* customization to make it scale/integrate precisely to limit parasites or to encourage purchase of their services. This is a tightrope to walk tho -- not enough goodness in your free app may prevent interest in a customized version.
If Microsoft doesn't want to kill Linux, why is it running ads attacking UNIX, spreading FUD about the GPL, etc.?
First, MS does want to kill for-profit UNIX servers, and UNIX-derived MacOS X. These companies represent competition in the for-profit market, and have carved out niches difficult for MS to penetrate even given their desktop monopoly.
In this modern era, however, it is important to maintain a duopoly, to avoid the appearance of monopoly. Traditionally this has been a weaker commercial competitor that is dominated but protected from destruction: think Apple, AMD, or Pepsi. One danger of this approach, as all three of the aforementioned companies have illustrated, is that it is hard to keep this balance: companies tend to consistently lose (Apple) or gain (AMD, Pepsi) market share in ways hard for a competitor to regulate.
Enter Linux, a revolutionary new duopoly opportunity! Now Microsoft's "competitor" is a non-profit volunteer organization: very hard to kill, and yet very unlikely (at least in the estimation of Microsoft) to gain dominance. Better yet, this is an organization supported by major corporate players such as IBM that give the appearance of being competitors without actually attempting to directly compete.
Granting this analysis, Microsoft's best course in dealing with Linux is clear: sufficient repression to prevent dominance, but not sufficient to marginalize the "competitor". Indeed, all of Microsoft's actions to this point have been in line with this behavior.
All that is left now is to see how this new strategy will play out...