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?
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?
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.
That's why I choose Microsoft Windows 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 Operating System Kernel makes for blazingly fast simulation runs even on the low-end hardware that my University is willing to pay for.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. The quirky command-line interface makes me nostalgic for my days as a student using fun but non-standard packages like LaTeX and gnuplot. But when I want enterprise-level support for my physic-al work, I always choose the software that I know won't let me down.
RedHat is selling a name more than anything else, just like Microsoft sells Microsoft Windows, and IBM sells IBM computers. They charge extra because people are willing to pay extra to have RedHat support and RedHat linux. StarOffice doesn't have the reputation of RedHat, therefore, they cannot sell the brand. It would be a different story if most corporations who ran Linux relied on StarOffice.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
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
Excerpts from the 'fall of Redmond' radio conversations:
"Red Hat, this is Yellow Dog. Come in.'
"Red Hat here. We've gotten Balmer. I repeat, we have Balmer in custody."
"Mandrake says Gates isn't here today. Debian, can you clear out the marketing department please?"
"Roger that, General Raymond. Attacking marketing immediately."
"Suse reporting that legal has been secured."
...
"Who the hell is that?"
"Looks like the FSF showed up. For once them and OSI agree on something."
"Hi there, Stallman. Raymond here. What are you boys doing here?"
"We came to download the source code for all the MS software to look for GPL violations."
"Good thinking. I have Slackware in there now, and I'll let em know your coming."
...
and so on and so forth. Maybe I'll write a more detailed version one day.
"The normal channeling of aggressive instincts into acts of senseless violence."
I am officially gone from
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.
Did ESR seem a little on edge to anyone else? His comments seemed to get pretty violent.
"In that case StarOffice just died. They just shot StarOffice through the head.... 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."
"rationally appropriate to cannibalize your own business"
"shareholders will kill you"
Maybe he's tired of people at Slashdot calling him an idiot.
sig
Of course there are 'better' ways of doing things.
Personally, I like 'everything is an object' more than I like 'everything is a file'.
YMMV
My Journal
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.
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.
...but I can't escape feeling that esr is looking on the rosy side a bit.
He does make a few assumptions about the way companies are likely to turn in the current economic climate that I'm not sure I buy. This isn't an industry known for paying a lot of attention to consumer pressure, and I think it's only consumer pressure that would make a big difference to the fortune 500 companies.
Even if Wall Street are uncertain about the business model, from their point of view the alternative is worse, i.e. the killing off of a market. I don't think they're ready to jump at all.
The same point applies to Linux on the desktop: OEM's may well find it more difficult to pay the "Microsoft tax", but Mom & Dad don't want to build their own computer and don't want to leave their relatively safe GUI environment. So I don't see the OEM's jumping and I'm certain noone else in the industry wants them to, either.
What I don't see being addressed here is the squeeze that the telecommunications sector is putting on the internet-related side of the software industry (rapidly becoming most of it). I believe it is getting more and more expensive for the average consumer. If Microsoft cannot make the transition, who else can?
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
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*
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?
I was just looking at the article and thinking the same thing. If StarOffice goes under, it won't be because of OpenOffice. Sun is a brand-name company, and that's what managers look for when picking out products. Why would they pick (as they might think) an unprofessional hobby program made a bunch of open-source ants, when they could have this finely-polished product from Sun? Another issue is support. Sun will most likely provide technical support for StarOffice. Will OpenOffice have the same?
It's just another day, another opinion-based article linked to by Slashdot. This guy may be a great programmer, but he has about the same ability to predict the future as Deon Warwick or Miss Cleo.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
>I can't help thinking - would it be possible to do it again? I hope GNU/Hurd will be good.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
talking about the success of open source and Linux on the desktop
There's a short conversation.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
Eric Raymond said it? It must be true!
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.
The Hurd and L 4 are some of the promising new technologies under development.
At the same time, don't go getting the idea Linux is going away any time soon. It can take over 20 years for a codebase to really mature, and a mature codebase may still be useful for many years after it is no longer cutting edge.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
redhat's buisness model isn't based on selling software, but rather selling services. sure they sell a boxed version but you dont have to purchase that to use redhat. in order to use staroffice (legally), i believe you would have to purchase it? i'm not sure here because i use latex for my word processing.
in summary:
i believe he is suggesting that trying to make money off of software sales is silly when a large portion of the software is opensource. redhat is different because they are selling the services and not the software.
-- john
"The Success of Linux on the Desktop" - the shortest book ever written!
He uses the example of there being no windows CE handhelds under 350$. That is not because of microsoft radically overcharging for CE or PocketPC(its around 20$). Palm charges 10$ for its license too. It is because windows CE machines have faster processor/larger memory etc etc then their palm buddies. My feelings on the desktop issue though have 2 parts. #1 I do not think PC prices will drop below 350$ on average, computers just have too many parts that are being speedbumped for that to happen. In addition, the average computer sold is probably a 900$ Dell. Even though dell has offerings at 500$. #2 I think that Microsoft can afford a massive price drop on their OS should computer prices drop that much.
The fact that it's not really a direct comparison (because a RH box contains the identical GPL'ed bits to the free downloadable version, and StarOffice is a closed-source version that presumably has some value-add above and beyond the free OpenOffice) only makes your question more intriguing: why do people pay for the RH box when you can get it for free?
Now, I've never bought a RedHat box, but I have bought a Mandrake box. Let's look at what I get by buying that Mandrake box:
- All the same free bits as the downloadable version, but on a nice high-quality CD
- Some additional commercial applications / demos
- A nicely printed and bound manual (invaluable for when you're installing on a clean machine - you can't exactly go online for help during the install!)
- A technical support number
- The satisfaction of putting your money where your mouth is, by directly supporting a worthy effort
Now, let's look at what I might get by buying the StarOffice box:
- Mostly the same bits as the freely downloadable version, but possibly with some changes that might have improved it, or might have added some bugs - I can't know for sure, since it's closed-source
- Possibly some more filters or fonts or something, but I can't tell for sure, since it's closed-source
- the ADABAS database, which may or may not be more or less functional than (say) MySQL, but I can't tell for sure, since it's closed-source
- A nicely printed and bound manual, which isn't quite as indispensable during the install as Mandrake's
- A technical support number (?)
- A vague sense of guilt that somehow Sun is freeloading off the efforts of the OpenOffice team to make a quick buck and advance its vendetta against MS.
I think you can see that Mandrake's (and by extension, Red Hat's) "value proposition" (i.e what they say you'll get if you buy the product) is much clearer than Sun's.
That being said, I still think that Sun charging is a boon for StarOffice. Why? Because, for better or worse, many (if not most) people consider something that you pay for is necessarily more valuable than something you get for free. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but it's not entirely unreasonable - there are a number of consumer laws (IANAL&PWNB) that automatically provide certain guarantees of quality for items that you purchase, regardless of any included slip of paper that claims "as is, no warranty, etc. etc."
But even more to the point (and still on-topic!), as ESR and RMS actually agree, the main "value proposition" in Open Source isn't free (gratis) versus $$, it's open versus closed, or as RMS would say, free vs. non-free. To use one of OSS's more common examples, if I had the choice between two otherwise identical vehicles, but one had the hood welded shut, I wouldn't buy the "closed-engine" version unless it were significantly cheaper. That holds even though I'm completely mechanically disinclined, and don't have even the remotest interest in tinkering with a vehicle! Why? Because I have a brother-in-law who's very good with cars, and I know I can ask for his help if I need it.
Let me make the analogy more clear: as far as vehicles go, "closed-source" is actually a negative value for me, even if I have no real interest in ever looking at the "source"; just having that option is enough.
All that said, I'm probably going to "buy" StarOffice after all -- I'm going to join the Mandrake Silver Club, even though I just downloaded and burned the 8.2 ISO's, and currently, the only tangible difference between the Standard membership and the Silver membership is the ability to download SO6. I haven't done it yet, since I'm out of work and broke at the moment (shameless self-promotion), but I will in the next month or so. Why? Primarily because of that last item in the checklist above; I want to put my money where my mouth is and support worthy software development. How about you?
There are lots of things called "Linux" that do a lot of major changes to major parts. Real time for embedded, virtualization, etc. There is MkLinux, and BSD is more the same than different (architecturally) - even Apple, superinnovator, couldn't think of anything better than Mach + BSD + IOKit (devfs like). But the innovation occurs within the framework.
Apple's Darwin is probably not exciting due to Apple - The Apple license doesn't let you take it and run with it. But there are "new ideas".
The open/read/write/ioctl/fork/exec model is nearly universal. You find these back in DOS and nearly every other OS in some form.
The only "new" simple machine in thousands of years was the rollamite (see http://www.ids.bc.ca/scroller/scroller-main.htm for links).
Even some research into content lookup directories (Slashdot had it a few weeks ago but I don't remember the exact term) ends up as modifications to Linux - probably something in the fs directory. Other things end up in the driver, network, or kernel as a patch. And the multiple journaling filesystems. Or devfs?
Unix may be old and unadventerous, but you forgot the adjectives solid and proven. What new ideas are you thinking of - those that aren't idiosyncratic? Or those that won't slip in to the existing tree? What capability would be in the new OS that couldn't be grafted onto Linux?
I've been what happens "after" the wheel. As a device, it's clearly on a roll, and is headin gfor even greater things, but it's still a design that predates written history.
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.
Man the battle stations..
Enemy acquired!
But seriously everyone comes up with a comment of for or agsint...when Eric speaks..
Now for the ultimate challenge name one Eric Statemnt that over time has proven false!
I dare you!
As of 2002 the statements Erci made in 1998-1999 al have proven true..
How many Gates tatements can you hold up to that type of review?
Come one people when reading engage the brain..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
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...
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?That's National Programmers Association. It will be a union--the geeks counterpart of the NEA.
This is of course, if the nightmare scenario plays out. RMS et al. are the same kind of people who insist that public schools have to be preserved even when they are plainly failing.
They want to do to programming what they did to education. It may take decades, but Liberals are nothing if not persistant. Where Free Software dominates a market, we already see some characteristics of the educational situation emerging: Wealthy people get to choose, poor people are left with the inferior "public" version.
There is already a lot of "stealth" government funding of free software. However, I'm not a total pessimist. At this stage, I doubt the Free Software movement can develop enough political clout to squash IP rights for software developers. The market should remain free enough so that consumers will still be able to choose shareware or shrink-wrapped packages if their needs are met better that way. However, ESR is right to the extent that the days of "easy money" are over.
Developers who want to make money will have to target much smaller markets, and serve them in particular ways. Going back to the school example, the private companies have an advantage in that they can supply religious instruction whereas the public schools can't. So, most private schools are religious. The software industry will have to find something that only *they* can supply, but Free Software can't. That something might be "brand loyalty" or "author reputation". Perhaps successful commercial software will take the form of "The latest release from Geekney Spears, girl geek extraordinaire, featuring here latest GUI mail client!".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
it's not about Linux as a technology or Windows as a technology. It's rather about the processes involved with creating OSS.
Think about that famous example with disk drives: 3.5 inch drives more or less use the same technology as 5.25 inch drives, but were a lot smaller and could therefore be produced a lot cheaper than their larger counterparts. This also impacts on the cost structure in the production process (well, long term), which will inevitably become cheaper as with the larger drives. The technology wasn't revolutionary new, but in the long term gave the customer more value through being cheaper, faster, and virtually bigger (memory).
Disruptive technologies therefore doesn't necessarily apply to the technology deployed in the product, but can also apply to the technology used to create that product.
In this case we are talking about the process which creates the product. In the words of ESR: The Bazaar Model (based on the GPL and the other OSS licenses.
Whether this model is as disruptive as many people expect it will be still remains to be seen. This might take some time, especially if the companies using the old, sustaining model have other means (read: money, power, legal influence) to dilute the process and/or play dirty tricks in the market.
I feel so sig.
There's an ecological argument here - that complex systems are best stabilized according to ecological principles rather than command and control, which just can't encompass more than a certain degree of complexity. A close kin to that argument is Adam Smith's view of capitalism - that it's wiser on the whole because less centrally controlled.
But in some settings central control still might win. Would you bet on a centrally controlled army, or on a bunch of ESRs with their guns? Depends on the terrain and the degree of motivation on each side (for extra credit compare Nam and Afghanistan). And, would you prefer our current balance of terror, or a future one where ESRs carried their own pocket nukes? Talk about bunny eggs!
____
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
There is nothing that is offered in current Unix-like systems that would entice me to switch from Windows, based solely on the GUI. Sure, Gnome and KDE are nice but to me, they are cheap Windows clones and are lame.
Of cource, there are other window managers out there but their dependence on X is a problem, IMHO. I think that X is too old and clunky. I can't stand the way they look. But no one seems to want to write a replacement, preferring instead to keep patching ol' X.
Operating systems like MacOS X and NeXTStep prove that a GUI over a Unixlike system can be eliquent. But you will notice that they don't use X-Window either.
It's not about Company A and Company B. It's about Programmer A and Programmer B.
Last year at OSCON there was an Open Source Business Summit. On one of the days they had a panel talking about business models. They had some CEO's and financial analysts talking shop (see the conference notes if you want more info). Basically, they all agreed that there was no viable Open Source Business Model.
They were wrong, because they asked the wrong question. The question they were implicitly asking was "Is there a SCALABLE Open Source Business Model?", where scalable ~= per-seat licensing. The answer to that question is no, with the exception of companies with established VAR networks and great marketing (ala Red Hat and IBM).
One of the audience members mentioned that his company's (~300 employees) core business was supporting open-source software, and they made profits and were a viable business. He was not given much attention by the people at the front of the room because that kind of business (which scales per person) is not a fundable, IPO-able, easy exit-strategy business which financial people are interested in.
Proprietary software benefits the company that produces it. Open Source software benefits the programmer. Example:
Name some famous programmers. How many of them code proprietary software?
Name some people you know from Microsoft. How many of them are programmers?
So what does that mean for the software industry?
Let me illustrate by analogy. Who creates Law and who profits from Law? Take a law firm as an example. A law firm is a partnership, where the members of the firm must be certified by a state board. The firm recruits new members based on the perceived expertise of the potential member. The business is built on trust, repeatable business, customer satisfaction, and expertise.
Is there any part of the Law which lawyers cannot access because of restrictive policy? Is there any part of the Law which lawyers cannot attempt to modify or argue in a court of law? Once a change has been commited, it becomes a part of the greater body of law until some better law has been determined.
No one company controls the law. No courtroom technique can be patented. No licensing fees are required for legal precedents.
Next question: do lawyers make money?
Back to the software industry. In the future, Software Engineers will be compensated in a manner which directly reflects their level of expertise. There will probably be certification required at the state level, like any other legitimate engineering discipline. Groups of skilled programmers and administrators will form partnerships, and distribution of earnings within the partnership will take place in a fair and transparent manner.
The successful partnerships will be successful (and make much money) because high levels of customer satisfaction will lead to repeat business. Customers will be satisfied because their IT will just work, and when it doesn't, or they need a new feature added, they will contact the IT firm and have the work done on a time and materials basis (with little transaction cost).
Now, that leaves one issue: What about the companies that invest huge amounts of time, money, and resources to develop a software product? Well, those companies will become very rare, as most software will be developed on the basis of incremental improvement (aka standing of the shoulders of giants). The Linux kernel is the best example of this, but we can see this form of development spreading to all ends of the software industry. As software becomes more modularized, interfaces open and standardized, and development tools improve, more and more software can be built by making modifications to existing software or using readily available libraries.
That's my $0.03
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.
I think we're more sober now than we used to be. There was a period during the dot-com boom in '99 when I think a lot of people were in some danger of getting distracted by the prospect of lots of easy money.
:-)
Heh, yes, well remembered
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
It might help to point out that Sun isn't really stealing hte work of Open Source guys that much. they own the software, unless i'm mistaken, and released it to openoffice. They also put their name, and some polish, on OO and label it SO. People pay for a name and the peace of mind brought by being able to say, "It's not my fault, I paid Sun for it!"
Though everone here on slashdot knows that OO and SO aren't that much different, Average Bob Business Owner doesn't. He hears about this SO thing, it works well and is a lot cheaper than microsoft...why not try it out? That is what Sun's betting on. I think it will work. I sure hope it does...
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
"I do not agree with a word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
He never said that. Check urbanlegends.com (or google for it).
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
Maybe he's trying to get rid of the dope-smoking peace-loving flower waiving hippie look that some people think exemplifies UNIX hackers. Maybe he just likes guns and likes to talk about them. He's not perfect, but you aren't getting reviewed on ZDnet...so cut him some slack maybe?
i swear, all these people on slashdot complaing about how speakers don't write code, or how RMS is weird, but all the whiners do is whine...
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
That was part of my point; if people want to pay for something so they feel better about it, fine with me, and I do hope SO does well. And yes, Sun owns StarOffice - they bought SO from Star Division, but as I said, I have the impression (correct or not) that they did it primarily so ScottM could thumb his nose at BillG. As far as I can tell, Sun really still doesn't "get" Open Source.
So, some people might buy SO now that it's in a pretty box from Sun, but I'm not particularly interested. Maybe Sun knows their market, or maybe it's just a gimmick.
So the bundling of ADABAS is even less of a selling point for the non-free StarOffice. So, what's left as a reason for a good little slashdotter to buy it? As I said, certainly not its sort-of-openness. From Java to Solaris to OpenOffice, it seems that Sun, like MS, sees Open Source as just another marketing gimmick. Oh well, stranger gimmicks have worked well in the past - just look at sales for the Sims :-S
We hope to make a program that allows the user sophisticated text - changing capabilities, one day we might even be able to, like, let them find specific items of text in it.. in later versions, perhaps we could even make the text stand out a bit more, possibly even slanty or with a stupid line underneath it, for titles and the like, maybe one day we might even be able to insert graphics into it, but i cant see why that would be useful. Later on we'll probably steal someone elses word processor and force everyone to use it, maybe even improve it a little. Though it seems a good idea that we package all 3 of these with our product.
Who am I?
0xC3
Sun is trying to offer boxed software in the warehouse sales channel (CompUSA, Fry's, BestBuy...). In order to do that they have to have an MSRP that offers a healthy margin, otherwise the product is less desirable to these corporate buyers.
If anything, the potential is there that Joe Sixpack is educated when he's browsing the software ailes by coming across Star Office. Who knows, he might be psyched by seeing a non-MS Office Suite that will work on his windows machine. This is potentially a very large market, and good exposure for Open Source. Sun grows the top of the the market and we get to convert them to the free tools once they're regular users and they catch wind of Open Office.
We should be applauding this move by sun.
bnf
this space intentionally left blank (oops)
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.
and what is the alternative? using linux? yeah..right. For starters, the hardwars support is less than desirable. If I want a network card that works without having to recompile the kernel, It has to be a 3com. With windows, every card on the market works. I have had similar experiences with sound, video, and other devices, trying just about every distro I could get my hands on.
Right now, there is not good alternative to windows (as a desktop machine). As a server, linux crushes windows hands down...but in my opinion, not as well as BSD.
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.
I will admit, Microsoft has violated laws to get their OS in a long-standing position, but saying linux is a better OS doesn't make it true (no matter how many times). It must be shown with actions. (a better supported and working product), rather than a bitch fest about what microsoft has done.
I think we all love and respect ESR here(*wink*), but I think I'm about ready to start up a petition to have him neutered. Who's game?
I'm determined to reclaim my karma. Now, if I can only find a groundbreaking article and something witty to say....
This is sad -- ESR works for /. and yes, it's the only reason this story was posted. Looking at the long-term future of computing, ESR has nothing to say (and nothing interesting to say either).
I think one trend we're already seeing and which we'll see more of is the hybrid open source/commercial product. Some examples:
1). Mozilla/Netscape 6
2). NetBeans/Forte
3). Eclipse/WebSphere Application Developer
4). Open Office/Star Office
The second column has more credibility with management types and the first wins points from the technical side. Its definitely a win for everyone involved. I think Eclipse definitely will do well with this strategy. WSAD adds needed servlet testing, EJB, etc. functionality that makes it a good product for the office, and students and open source/free software types get a first class IDE to use and improve on for free. I think that Sun has a reasonable chance to succeed with this strategy.
Disruptive technologies are not cheaper. They may be cheaper per unit, but they always produce less bang for the buck than sustaining technologies.