Open Source Limitations?

_aargh writes "This ZDNet article by John Carroll makes the claim that open source is flawed because there isn't a way for programmers to earn money by developing open source software. It annoyed me so much that I wrote this response to it on the O'Reilly Network."

Comments

Getting paid

[Daetrin]

Is it necessary? I'd always thought of open source as something you did in your free time or between jobs, not something you did expecting to get money out of it. As long as everyone knows that, is it really a problem?

Of course you could always go with the paypal donation type aproach, although i don't know if that's approved of by mormal GNU type licences.

Re:Getting paid

[packeteer]

Why dont you get paid for your work on making software and still have it open source? Just because your getting paid doesn't mean the company that pays you has to close it.

Think of this:

1. You write software for company X.
2. You get paid.
3. Company X uses this software and makes money.
4. Company Y finds this software useful and adds to it.
5. Company X & Y are BOTH in a better position with spending the same amount.

This is similar to comparative advantage my economics teacher told me about. You and someone else can both work on something and because you each have a strength and weakness you two can come out both better.

Re:Getting paid

[scott1853]

Unfortunately this is the reason why a large amount of open source software isn't deployed for enterprise applications.

When you just have some programmers writing code and fixing bugs on the weekend, you can't rely on that software for things that need to be up and running all the time unless they are thoroughly tested in the environment you plan on running it in. And that of course gets back into TCO. And should something happen, and the server goes down, you have the source code, but does that mean you can quickly read hundreds of thousands of lines of code to find the problem?

Re:Getting paid

[dfung]

> When you just have some programmers writing
> code and fixing bugs on the weekend, you can't
> rely on that software for things that need to
> be up and running all the time unless they are
> thoroughly tested in the environment you plan
> on running it in.

I understand the argument that you're making (and understand the traction it has in the CIOs office), but that logic doesn't really hold. The act of paying somebody to work on something doesn't mean that they will be capable or available to fix a problem when something critical arises - ask your CIO if he's been assfscked by a fatal bug but had to wait 3 months to the next maintainence release to get resolution. If that never happened, then you must work at a Fortune 25 company, cause everybody else is going to have to wait for the next train to leave the station.

Making the code free and the source open doesn't free it from being a balloon filled with spaghetti either. But if a bug is hosing me, then there's a good chance that it hosed someone else too, and that creates more pressure for a fix. And if a problem is so critical that my company's life depends on it, then I can't think of a better reason to find/grow a (highly-paid) person who understands this code and can fix it. Going open source means that I have a chance to do this, as opposed to paying a big support yearly support fee and hoping somebody inside Microsoft/Sun/Oracle headquarters sees fit to escalate my bug report.

I think the real problem that scares decisionmakers from open source is that the roadmap is often unclear and almost certainly un-influenable. One guy wants better multiprocessor support in Linux and another guy wants a faster filesystem - I still haven't figured out how half the customers aren't mad at the end of the day.

Re:Getting paid

[uncoveror]

You can always make a living supporting users of software, and creating things with software. If money is John Carroll's only motivation, then he needs to get out of computer programming. People who jump into computers just to get rich couldn't find their ass if you gave them a map to it. I suggest robbery as a new profession.

Re:Getting paid

[packeteer]

i think what you say is what the response in the orielly article says... but im not sure because its so slashdotted that i cant load it...

taken from the oreillynet home page:
We are currently performing maintenance on our servers, you may experience some connection errors. We apologize for any inconvenience.

what a time for maintenance... your being slashdotted just as some of your servers are down... what luck...

Re:Getting paid

[KingAdrock]

Look at this scenario:

1. You write software for company X.
2. You get paid.
3. Company X uses this software and makes money.
4. Company Y finds this software useful and doesn't add to it.
5. Instead of Company X having the competitive advantage, they just gave the software to Company Y for free.

Now open-source isn't looking as appealing! I think open-source may have it place, but not in every instance!

Re:Getting paid

[reemul]

You're missing a few points:

6. Companies A thru W in the same industry also find this software useful, especially after Y added to it. None of them, however, add a single thing to it, since none of them have programmers on staff.
7. Instead of paying programmers, companies A thru W spend that money on their core business, using the exact same code without spending any money.
8. Using their competitive advantage (less money for same resources), companies A thru W kick X and Y's respective asses in the marketplace, which is the source of all the money being used to pay the coders.
9. X and Y go out of business, with the scraps bought up cheap by megacorp Z.
10. The Open Source programmers at companies X and Y, and all of their co-workers, are out of jobs. The programmers no longer make any money writing Open Source code.

Sure, if everyone using Open Source code was obligated to contribute something back, the model would work and work well. But as long as freeloaders can gain the benefits of the paid programmers without having to spend any money themselves, they will. Companies cannot base a business model on altruism. Using limited resources to benefit not just your own business but every business with a similar need, without getting anything back from the others, is just not workable in the long term.

But if you think of a way, please post it here. I'm sure that the CEOs of RedHat, VA, Mandrake, &etc. would love to hear it. They've had to concentrate on services and proprietary code to keep paying their bills, though I know they'd really prefer to be writing Open Source.

Re:Getting paid

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Sometimes that happens, so what?

The question is, for the 90% of software that is developed for purposes other than being marketed and sold, is opening the source a good business proposition? Is the world and NIST better off because Don Libes open-sourced expect?

How about Larry Wall and Perl? Are they hurting because they gave useful software to another company?

Re:Getting paid

[>:^D]

Right, because most traditional enterprises use in-house software developed most likely in COBOL.

If you're talking modern enterprises, more likely than not they are using any one or a combination of the following top-of-my-head list: BIND, apache, perl, SQL, GCC, GLIBC.

Sure, some open source screensaver or MyRecipePHPapp will not be used by Wal-Mart any time soon; but you sure as hell know that Wal-Mart uses Open Source Software.

Re:Getting paid

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Fortune 10 companies here, and of the 6 or 7 critical bugs I've seen during rollouts, only twice have I seen a software vendor with their ass on fire and hot enough to do a quick fix. Of the remaining times, they were still $8-22 million rollouts, and we either waited, or found workarounds. You could be King of Planet Earth, Emperor of the Milkyway Galaxy, and sit at the right side of the Throne of God, and still have to wait half the time, I think.

Hell, Micro$oft is a financial behemoth, and I can't think of a single piece of their software that is even half as reliable as some of the worst open source software.

My girlfriend insists on windows, so I upgraded her box to win2k... thought it was almost tolerable: rock solid for M$ crap. Then last weekend, it barfed up pieces of the sound card driver. She looks at me when I can't fix it, and says "I thought you were supposed to be some kind of computer expert". Sound card works in every one of my boxes I test it in, and her ISA slot works with the nic I threw in it. It is, without a doubt, windows' fault. It *ALWAYS* does this, just took awhile for win2k to show its true colors.

And now I have to read about people ranting that OSS just isn't suitable for enterprise solutions?

Re:Getting paid

[Archie Steel]

You're also missing an important point, one that is not often discussed but which holds the key to that "unfair competition" problem you talk about. The thing is - and correct me if I'm wrong - the GPL requires to to distribute the source code along with the binary, but it does not in fact require someone to actually distribute any new software created from GPL'ed code at all! In other words, if you build something out of GPL software and it somehow gives an advantage to your company in its industry (which I presume would not be software-related), then there's nothing to force you to reveal it and distribute it. Just keep it! But if you do release it - perhaps when the competitive edge it gave you is gone - then you have to give the source code as well.

What OSS really means is that there will be less money in the software industry itself, but more programmers working for companies in other industries, and more programming "studios" that will do work-for-hire. Anyway, do you know a lot of programmers who receive royalties on their creation? There's not going to be less money around, not even for programmers, but it's not going to move the same way. The industry will transform - that's okay, programmers will still be able to make a living; that's what's important, isn't it?

Re:Getting paid

[mscheid]

They've had to concentrate on services and proprietary code to keep paying their bills, ...

As long as it's the service that's perfectly ok. It's a well-known fact that at least 90% of the cost of software goes into maintenance, which mostly qualifies as service. So making money out of service makes a lot more sense than making money out of selling the software and giving (bad) service for free.

Re:Getting paid

[Seeker5528]

As it's capabilities grow open source is gaining more traction in enterpris markets.

It would seem to me that for an enterprise level company some of the following would certainly be true.

They have:

Evaluated the project and decided it meets their needs.

Decided their developers can work with the project maintainers.

Decided there is a cost savings that offset the deployment issues they will have to face.

Have custom code that is easy to port.

Savings offset the cost of porting.

Have a service contract with IBM, HP, Redhat or some other company whos job it is to address the issues they face.

Later, Seeker

Re:Getting paid

[packeteer]

although this could happen i dont believe that company Y would really leave it 100% untouched... i never said that open source works everywhere but what i AM saying is that this is a very plausible situation where open source DOES work...

Re:Getting paid

[mvdwege]

If I may recast your excellent post in different words:

Programmers will be paid for their skill, not for their end product.

Does that cut to the heart of the matter? It is basically my view on this (pointless) discussion, and I thought you articulated it much better than I could.

Mart

Re:Getting paid

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Actually, it is the M$. But even if it weren't, it lasted 3 moonths with no problems, then self-destructed spontaneously. The way windows always does.

That you don't know this suggests that between the two of us, it isn't me that is the moron.

Re:Getting paid

[smaug195]

Stable, how about 2k? For me it's been easier to use and more stable then linux+KDE or GNOME(which is honestly the only worthwhile comparison.) Off course it has driver issues, compared to linux though, it really is a saint in that department(drivers actually exist). So please, I don't care if this is modded as flamebait, stop bashing MS because its cool to.

Re:Getting paid

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

My STB PCI tv tuner card. Windows 2k drivers? No. Linux drivers? Yes.

My Umax scsi flatbed scanner? Windows 2k drivers? No. Linux? Yes.

Generic external 36k external modem? Windows 2k drivers? Could only ever see it as 28.8k max, and rarely got that high. Linux? Maxed it out, and could care less what brand it was.

Remember, this is on a single computer of mine, not every half-assed example I could think up that I've heard about but never personally experienced. But for the finale, same computer...

Best Windows 2000 uptime I've ever seen? 30 some days, died on a random spontaneous BSOD.
Worst Linux uptime? 30some days... forgot to compile in a rarely used kernel option, and I like to play with that kind of stuff.

Oh, and stop lumping linux in with KDE/Gnome. Those are projects designed to imitate windows' instability... of course they crash. I use wmaker with a screen full of dockapps and rxvt's. Even on a computer this old, its just damn... *zippy*. Once I get rid of Netscape 4, and get around to compiling Mozilla, I will truly have the perfect desktop that I've always lusted after.

Re:Getting paid

[Archie Steel]

Well, actually you said it in a much more concise way than I could have, which is a precious skill! (I know, I'm a writer and I always have to rewrite stuff to make it shorter...) However we end up saying it, it really sums up why the "Open Source will starve programmers" argument is just some more FUD from Redmond. (I don't understand why you got modded as Flamebait, though...)

Re:Getting paid

[Thatman311]

The problem here is that the better and better software gets the less and less money there is available in maintaining the software. We all want better software but we all want more money. Sounds like a paradox to me.

Re:Getting paid

[reemul]

It's not FUD, it's a real problem. Sure the programmers are paid for their skill, but who will pay for them? And where does the money come from? If a company can freeload, they will, so no pay for coders there. And the company that does pay for programmers, only to have the output released freely to all the world, how do they recoup that cost, a cost that all of their freeloading competitors don't have? Some work will still get done, even if just as a goodwill gesture, but goodwill won't pay for too many mortgages for the programmers of the world.

I have no doubt that programmers writing internal or proprietary code, that is never released into the wild, will always have jobs - they contribute to the function of that company, providing a resource that has value. That value to the company goes down if the work goes out to the world as Open Source, as that investment in programmers (and testers, and tech writers) now benefits your competitors, too. It would be offset if the competitors also were contributing code, with everyone absolutely better off through using Open Source, as each got the benefit of all of the programmers instead of just the ones that worked for them. But the freeloader problem remains, and I haven't seen any good way to correct it. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Re:Getting paid

[Archie Steel]

I'll repeat it because you don't seem to understand the essential underlying point: the company does not have to release the code if it doesn't release the software. We're not talking about software companies, here, but other kind of companies which have software need. In this model, they hire programmers (either permanently, as part of a in-house team, or on a work-for-hire basis) to satisfy such a need. The team can use OSS or code everything from scratch if they want - though they'll be more competitive if they use OSS because a lot of the work will already have been done. Once the company gets the software it needs, it just keeps it for itself and enjoy its competitive advantage. It's as simple as that!

The GPL doesn't require you to release software built on GPL'ed code! (Reread this line a couple of time, it helps to dispel the FUD...for it is FUD.) The only thing that it requires is that if you decide to release the code (i.e. sell it, give it, ram it down people's throat), then you must give the source code with it.

So the moral of the story is: internal code can be built on open source software. When that code no longer gives you that competitive advantage, then you can release it for the good of the community if you want - or not. This is a fundamental misconception most people have about OSS (and one that Microsoft consciously exploits to its advantage). There, I've solved your problem. Now go out and spread the good news.

Re:Getting paid

[reemul]

You're missing *my* point. I never said that a company is required by the GPL to release all of the code they write based on OSS. Such a statement may well be FUD, but I didn't make it. The problem is that not releasing the code is bad for the community. As long as freeloading is permitted (and the GPL, including that bit you mention, does permit it) there will continue to be limited financial advantage to writing *and releasing* Open Source code. Using it? You bet, they can save themselves huge money. But writing it for all the world to use? Nope.

If no-one releases new code until there is no competitive advantage left to keeping it in house, then that company is a freeloader, too. They are leeching off of the folks who wrote the original code and released it as OSS, without themselves giving anything back to the community. The OSS movement doesn't gain a damn thing from that company, or any of the "Open Source" programmers they hired, except maybe some column inches in some trade journals about how another firm saw the light of OSS. Code goes into the hole, and stays there.

Great, the company gets to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves what wonderful folks they are for using Open Source software and hiring Open Source programmers. But if it never gets released, and they are the only ones to use it, is it really Open? I don't think so, no matter that the loophole exists. As far as I'm concerned, all of the changes made are proprietary code right up until the moment the source gets posted. It's absurd to assume that all code is open until someone starts distributing binaries - is M$'s next release OSS until the first shrink wrapped box ships? Um, no. It's closed and proprietary up until the moment Bill makes the source available, and I'm not gonna hold my breath. Same with any other product, no matter that every last scrap of it is based on GPL code and was personally blessed by RMS besides. Doesn't mean that this is necessarily wrong---it doesn't make any sense to make every dev change available until after the bugs are hammered out, that causes problems to the end user and makes the developers look bad---but no source means it isn't yet fully open.

The distribution loophole is there because of practical issues, not philosophical ones. There is just no way to enforce it short of requiring that every single OSS dev have his CVS available for read access to the world, so that all of the code is open always, even before release. This doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good idea, or that the pioneers of OSS didn't want everyone to release all of the code they produced based on someone else's open code. It just isn't possible in the real world. It's similar to making copies of a friend's CDs for your own use. Technically it's still illegal, but no-one is going to come after you for it, since there is just no way to police it. But if you try to sell that copy on eBay, all bets are off. Same with modifications and extensions to Open Source code. If you keep it to yourself, there isn't any way to pursue the matter; but as soon as you make the binaries available, you'd better have the source available, too.

Re:Getting paid

[mvdwege]

Well, you were otherwise doing a wonderful job expounding the argument, and I noticed it came very close to my thinking on the subject, so it made sense to ask you if it was actually the same.

Thanks for the compliment anyway, and I hope you get to see this post (I forgot to check my user info for a couple of days). You've been doing a wonderful job in this discussion, and your posts were a good read.

As for the -1, Flamebait', given the subject of the discussion and my obvious position, I think my sig triggered one of the astroturfers with mod privileges. A shame really, but "them's the breaks" with the moderation. I'm sure I've had a few positive mods I didn't deserve either.

Mart

Re:Getting paid

[fferreres]

The problem is many american always think people will be in a Z company, saving cash and not spending a dime to ad to the product, yet getting the benefit.

Well, they are partially correct only. X and Y know the product better and can better use it. They can plan of modification best suited for THEIR needs. They also have their own additions sooner than their competition. They probably also hold some parts of patches inhouse for a fair time (4 months or so, untill a further keeping may turn it unmaintainable or out of sync with the branch).

As an example, you can see IBM and many other taking avantage of Linux and contributing to it. They like it free they like it open, the know it well and it works for them. The work with open source. If it's working for this big monsters and for many small companies.

I think we should not worry much about the Z companies. They will be just hurting themselves in the long run. They will be always following the trend and losing the competitive edge.

I think he's right in a way

[martyn s]

I think he's right that open source is flawed in a way.

This is my position. You don't need profit incentive to make good software. You just need money. If there was a public organization that was investing just as much money into open source software as Microsoft invested into Microsoft software, you'd find open source would be just as good (just as easy to use for average joe).

If we had public investment in free software, the software would be just as good as anything you can buy, plus it would be free.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[meta-monkey]

By "public investment," do you mean from governments? In that case, your idea is flawed on several levels.

First, the results, the open source software, would not be free as in beer. They would have been paid for with money seized from taxpayers, so if you have a job, you're paying for the software anyway, whether you want to use it or not.

Second, do you honestly, really truly and honestly, think a U.S. Department of Software Development would result in better software? In less buggy, easier to use software? Just like the Department of Education makes schools better and the FBI stops terrorists, right?

I think the reason computers (hardware and software) have had such a fantastic run for the past few decades is because governments haven't had a clue what's going on, and therefore haven't been regulating and dragging them down like they do everything else.

And on a side note, the author of the original article critical of "free software" completely misunderstood the difference between free software and open source.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[BlowCat]

And what happens if that organization pays some developer money for working on the project, but he just does nothing or works on something unrelated, i.e. adds a new cool feature instead of writing user-friendly documentation? Who is going to punish the developer and on which grounds? The question becomes especially interesting, if the developer and the fund reside in different countries.

As far as I know, FSF had this problem - they paid some company in Russia for writing GNU SQL server. I heard this in 1996. GNU SQL server is still not ready (last version was released in 1998), the money is gone.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[caduguid]

By "public investment," do you mean from governments? In that case, your idea is flawed on several levels. First, the results, the open source software, would not be free as in beer. They would have been paid for with money seized from taxpayers, so if you have a job, you're paying for the software anyway, whether you want to use it or not.

Pick an average-sized government department in one of the major economies. Odds are, that department is currently spending a few million bucks a year for software licensing. Now, as a small experiment, imagine if just that department switched to OSS.

You'd likely see a drastic reduction in licensing fees. (90% sounds about right to me, but in reality I'm just making that number up.)

This isn't new expenditure... that department _already_ is spending that money. They are also already spending money on i.t. support.
Take some given amount, say, 25% of the difference, and hire a small number of motivated and interested developers to work on contributing towards localization problems that may be unique to your department... and, for fun, contribute whatever they come up with back to the community. Couldn't hurt.

Yes, it is "public funding", and if those words make you cringe, well, so be it. It isn't by a long shot the same thing as calling for a department of software development, and it isn't the same thing as 'seizing' new money for OSS development. It's just one small way that some programmers might get remuneration for their work, and the commons of OSS could expand.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[Xzzy]

> They would have been paid for with money seized
> from taxpayers, so if you have a job, you're paying
> for the software anyway, whether you want to use it
> or not.

This already happens. Using stuff I know about directly as evidence, look at the fermilab tools homepage. Now granted this stuff wasn't developed spontaneously, every last bit of it is an internal tool that was made freely available to the public, but the point still stands. Fermilab is operated by universities across the country, but is owned by the DOE.

> think a U.S. Department of Software Development
> would result in better software?

Not by default, nor every time, but it's definetly capable of it. Again I'll use fermi as an example. Nedit is a really well done GUI text editor, I call it a "second tier" editor because it's not directly a vi or emacs clone, but it's very own beast. These days it's a highly developed, well maintained editor.

So while I'd agree to an extent that the government shouldn't have a Department of Open Source that leeches taxpayer money to create free software, I *do* have to butt in and inform you that many (if not all) government owned laboratories across the US already produce and release free software. ;)

So it *can* work.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[martyn s]

No, what I'm saying is, let's go out and find the biggest contributors to open source software, and also some big programmers at Microsoft. Then we hire them to continue writing open source software full time. I think we'd have just as good, or better results, then any corporate software out there.

People are willing to invest time in something they care about but they still need to make money. If you pay people who currently program open-source just as a hobby, to do it full time, you'd have excellent results.

When you charge for something that has zero marginal cost, you are limiting the number of people who can use it artificially, since there is no actual limit on how many people should be able to use it. It is an economic fact: when something has a zero marginal cost, it should not be charged for to be used, otherwise you are creating economic inefficiencies.

Steal this idea, amazon

This book explains it all.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[caduguid]

Fine, fine.
So, instead of "hire a small number of motivated and interested developers to work on contributing towards localization problems ", how about contract a small number of motivated and interested developers to work on contributing towards localization problems?

Perhaps there's a competent OSS developer out there somewhere who might be willing to take the gig for a few extra bucks? Or would the fact that they're willing to gasp! take money from the government de facto switch them from competent to trained monkey?

Re:I think he's right in a way

[digitalunity]

Government employees are government employees because they can't get a job any place else.

That's just not true. Have you ever considered that some people just like their job, even if it is government?

they make too much money, work too little, and you can't fire them.

That's some pretty good motivation for Federal Government work, wouldn't you say?

In all honesty, the only employees not working very hard for the money are probably doing something mundane. The government does have software developers, they just don't sell it; they are the consumers. You should read some stuff from RMS on software development, and that often the best reason to make software is to use it.

Self as first consumer.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[martyn s]

It would be free as roads are.

steal this idea, amazon.

I'm not good at explaining stuff. Read this book with an open mind, and you might understand.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[meta-monkey]

gah!!! nedit's my favorite editor, and to think I've been using gub'ment software. :) Well, I still think there's a slight difference, though, because those tools released by labs are written generally by scientists in support of scientific research, as opposed to software written for use by the general public, as the original author suggested. Much of this work is also performed off site through Universties by students. For example, my lab produced a scalable failure detection service called Gossip, and all our funding came from Sandia National Labs

Re:I think he's right in a way

[meta-monkey]

Localization problems, sure. They do that already in terms of consultants. I'm sure microsoft has several contracts with government agencies to provide support, and that's basically the same thing. Any code open source developers could write for the government could be released. I'm all fine with that...that's the way people in open source development make money a lot of the time, by selling support services. I just don't like the idea of giving people tax payer money to develop software for the sake of developing software like the original poster suggested. That sounds like a boondoogle if I've ever heard one.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[OwnedByTwoCats]

NIST, Don Libes, expect. Reality sometimes works like that.

Your anti-government rhetoric is worn out. Try living in the real world for a while.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[bm_luethke]

Actually the govt funds A LOT of opensource software. Go look at the clustering side of things (ever hear of mpich or PVM? notice they are from argonne and oak ridge national labs). Govt research can work well, it's the beauracracy(sp?) that sucks.

Do I think that a US Dept of Software Developement would produce less buggy and esier to use software? Probably not - a department such as that does not compete for funding. The national labs, while funded by DOE/DOD, compete for the dollars.

In the end the amount of money thrown at a problem is a worthless metric, nor where the money comes from - competition is what does it. open/close free/costs doesn't have a thing to do with it. You have something of value (typically money or fame) and the best software gets it. Stuff such as the Linux kernel tends towards fame (it's cool to have your name in the source), the above mentioned PVM/mpich is money (funding and a job). The FBI/ and Department of Education have no competition, in fact in the education it is discouraged.

And lastly, the resluts of govt funded software can be free as in beer. Europeans aren't paying any tax dollars for PVM. I can say the same about any free Open Source project - if you narrow your groups in the right way it will always cost something.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[TampaTim]

Probably something like well, uhm, Windows 3.1?

-------------------
I don't know what the lameness filter is, but maybe I need this here to circumvent it.
# Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic.
# Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
--------------------

Re:I think he's right in a way

[gartogg]

Actually, nothing has 0 marginal cost in the real world. There is bandwidth, cost of explaining an idea, or cost of making a floopy or cd of a program.

In any case, making no monet from distributing a product disincentifies distribution and makes no sense. This "fact" is simply rubbish. It artificailly limits the number of people who will use it, but only in an ideal market, with perfect knowledge and no need to advertise or actually download or deliver anything.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[Eccles]

First, the results, the open source software, would not be free as in beer. They would have been paid for with money seized from taxpayers, so if you have a job, you're paying for the software anyway, whether you want to use it or not.

Currently the government already spends many millions, perhaps billions, on proprietary software; and you don't get to use it at all. So this is a red herring.

It would, after all, be much more efficient to hire only those people who actually improve the product (designers, programmers, QA), and not marketers, salespeople, and grossly overpaid executives, and to employ them doing those things that most improve the product, not the things that look best on marketing materials.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[graibeard]

fermilab tools homepage [gnal.gov]. Now granted this stuff wasn't developed spontaneously...

The corrected link for fermitools

Re:I think he's right in a way

[TastySiliconWafers]

By "public investment," do you mean from governments? In that case, your idea is flawed on several levels.

First, the results, the open source software, would not be free as in beer. They would have been paid for with money seized from taxpayers, so if you have a job, you're paying for the software anyway, whether you want to use it or not.

That's certainly a valid argument for many kinds of software. However, what about software that benefits our society as a whole (in the same way that roads and schools do)? For example, we all keep hearing about the rising cost of healthcare. So, why doesn't our government fund development of the kinds of medical software that are ubiquitous in the industry? Canada has done some of this (and saved big $$$ in doing so). Of course, some think that our government shouldn't be in the healthcare business at all because it's outside of the scope of the powers assigned to it by the constitution... I'm not entering into that argument. My point is that, since the federal government already is in the biz (Medicare, Medicaid, VA hospitals) it would only make sense to obtain software the cheap way, which for an enormously large institution is to build it yourself or buy out a company that's already built it. Software development seems like one area where public works projects make sense because once you get beyond the development costs the only significant per unit cost is tech support.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[sean23007]

Well, to what are you comparing the Department of Education's inability to improve schools? Before the federal government funded public schools, there were very few schools in the country, they were very expensive, and they just weren't that good. You don't think children could get a better education than they do now by trucking it five miles in the snow to the nearest one room schoolhouse that can afford only one teacher for all eight grades, do you? Surely you don't think that the onset of public education actually harmed the public's education? The only problem with the public system of education is that it is grossly underfunded.

What remedy would you suggest instead of the FBI attempting to prevent terrorists? Arming the populace to the teeth? A heavily armed population would not be able to fight terrorism at all. If every person in the World Trade Center had been wielding a weapon, would that have stopped the planes? No, but there would have been a lot of murdered Arab-Americans...

Re:I think he's right in a way

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the reason computers (hardware and software) have had such a fantastic run for the past few decades is because governments haven't had a clue what's going on

didn't the 'clueless' u.s. government build the foundations of the internet (tcp/ip)? Does the internet count in your 'fantastic run'?

is this an acceptable counter example? or are more required?

Re:I think he's right in a way

[bsadler]

What kind of simplistic world are we living in here. Ok, people, government does != stupid. There are good coders and bad coders throughout our societies. Just because someone wants a nice, comfy, government job does not mean they are incompetent. I'm sure it makes your little (and ignorant) world better to think that, but the fact is that you will find a similar ratio of people who care and asshol^H^H^H^H^H^H jerks in whatever environment you want to talk about.

It seems ironic that while you are de facto trusting them with your lives (I.E. nuclear weapon activation codes), you can manage to call all government employees idiots.

Why don't you fsck off and get back to that compsci 101 project you have to finish for tomorrow.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[martyn s]

This is why we pay for *bandwidth* to those who properly distribute a product. But when the distribution can be done from someone separate from who creates the product, why don't we pay just for distribution, as we do. You don't actually believe that when you pay 200 dollars for windows xp pro you're paying for distribution, do you?

Re:I think he's right in a way

[meta-monkey]

Schools have gotten significantly worse since the inception of the US Department of Education in the 1960s. Before that, public schools were run independently by local and state governments. Now, instead, Washington pulls all the strings, heaping ridiculous requirement upon requirement on schools every year. Instead of teaching the three R's, schools today are simply government indoctrination centers. It doesn't matter how much you learn, all that matters is how you FEEL about yourself. Please. Why do you think so many people are home schooling their kids or sending them to private schools?

As for schools being underfunded, I believe that US schools spend more per student than any other school system in the world, except for one other...I think sweden...and perform among the worst in Western nations. Public schools spend more per pupil than the cost of sending a student to private school, and yet, private schools way outperform public schools, regardless of the socio-economic status of the student. The problem is not money, the problem is motiviation. Like I said, public schools don't teach kids how to read and write anymore, they teach them how to feel good about themselves and worry about global warming. Funding keeps going up...test scores keep going down. Tell me, if you could write a blank check to schools in the US, what would the amount be? Do you really think it would make any difference?

As for the FBI, haven't you been paying attention the past few weeks? Officials in the FBI were so worried about their careers and afraid of being accused of racial profiling that they refused to investigate Zacharius Moussaui (sp?), the "20th hijacker." For example, the field agents requested a search warrant for his computer, based on intel from the French that this same man had been involved in a plot last year to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. The FBI Washington office went so far as to LIE and say there were too many Zacharius Moussauis in Paris to conclude this was the same one, when the Paris phone books listed only ONE (the same one they cought in Minnesota). Your government in action...substance doesn't matter. Stopping terrorists doesn't matter. All that matters is that you don't look like you're a racist. Symbol over substance again and again.

Arming the populace to the teeth is a great idea. No, I don't think the people in the WTC would have had much use of guns, but the people on the planes might. Tell me, if everybody on those airliners had guns, do you think the terrorists would have had a chance? I think not.

Sorry, your arguments are futile. Nearly everything the government tries to improve gets worse. Since the 1960's, when LBJ's Great Society started, government has tried to perfect schools, eliminate poverty and crime, and so on. What do we have instead? Worse test scores and a generally less educated populace (generally...more people are getting college degrees yes, but those degrees are worth less, as are high school diplomas) than every before, stagnate poverty rates, the destruction of the black family, higher crime rates, and so on. How do you feel about the great job the DEA has done of winning the "War on Drugs?" If Microsoft really wants to stop Linux, they should lobby for a US Department of Open Source Software Development.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Well more kids graduate highschool with calculus credit now than in the 1950s, for sure. Its also true that the US experienced a significant drop in its crime statistics during the previous administration. (This was the first sustained drop I can ever remember.)

Re:I think he's right in a way

[j_w_d]

The author of the parent article argued in a response to comments that one particular area where he thought OS was the wrong way to go was in government software requirements. The author implied that to get adequate software for government purpose, the government should go with closed source software. My feeling is that this is outright stupidity. For years the federal government assumed that for most government products the public had ALREADY paid for the right to the data, service, or product. As a result Soil Conservation Service county reports were (and still are) free. USGS topo maps were of minimal cost, largely just covering printing. Recently there has been a decline in the availablilty of quality government information due to the fallacious argument that private sector entities could do things better. Sometimes this is true, but by and large even when it is, the private sector costs for equivalent products are much higher than government sources are or were. This shuts out large sectors of the public from products, which if produced by the government, would be readily available as long as the government reasoned that paying taxes paid for the product.

An example of a government initiated software product that was not only free, but was also open source is GRASS (Geographic Analysis Support System). Developed originally by the US Army Corps of Engineers, GRASS was released to public domain. The USACE is no longer involved in the development GRASS, having apparently surrendered to pressure to use private sector software.

GRASS remains the most available GIS analysis system for most people since it really is free, open-source software. Private sector (closed source) software of equivalent power (ArcInfo, MapInfo, MicroImages TNTmips, etc.)costs thousands of dollars and usually requires a hardware key. GRASS compares favorably in raw power with any commerical product. It is presently more opaque to learners but is improving quickly thanks to an active development community. It also supports more platforms than any of the commercial products.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[gd23ka]

It's not a question whether I trust them or not with the "safety" of nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact I don't, and if I had any say in this then I'd say we disarm them all immediately on both sides and we'd all be better off.

For your information, I have already worked on a couple of government project, albeit not as a government employee, and not in the US, but I suspect it's the same all over the world. The team from our company did almost all of the work, they honed their solitaire scores. I'm not even bitching about that because the more work we got done, the larger was our bonus, but still... these people's payroll comes directly out of my tax money and they spend the day surfing the web and goofing off.

Oh and I didn't necessarily mean that they were technically incompetent (some were of course, but you get that everywhere). I'm just saying that the way I see it, they don't have what it takes to survive on the open job market and that doesn't necessarily include only technical skills, but also being capable of getting things done and communicating with people. I didn't see any of that back then.

I've got enough Karma to burn over this one.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[sean23007]

If every person on an airplane that was being hijacked had a gun, the terrorist would die, sure, but the plane would go down an awful lot faster. The hull of a commercial airliner simply cannot take a hit from a bullet at such close range. One miss has the potential to bring the entire plane down and kill everyone inside it, and I don't think you want everyone on the plane to have that choice. If every person on every plane had a gun, that even opens up more options for terrorism. Imagine a highly coordinated terrorist attack in which the terrorist organization had a man on every plane above the US, and every single one was destroyed at the exact same time. A single man with a gun can do this. That's why the airline companies have so much interest vested into keeping guns off planes.

Your argument is weak, and I hope the world, when they see it, can choose wisely.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[meta-monkey]

I'm a private pilot, and an airline enthusiast. I can tell you, a bullet would not pierce the hull of a commercial airliner. Actually, when air marshalls board planes, they're required to use safety bullets (they fragment easily, so they stop inside a person). Even if they didn't, the bullet still wouldn't depressurize the plane.

I refuted the rest of your arguments, and you had no response. You have attempted to refute one of my arguments, and failed. I believe the world will choose wisely.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[kz45]

What remedy would you suggest instead of the FBI attempting to prevent terrorists? Arming the populace to the teeth? A heavily armed population would not be able to fight terrorism at all. If every person in the World Trade Center had been wielding a weapon, would that have stopped the planes? No, but there would have been a lot of murdered Arab-Americans...

But you are forgetting......

if the people on the planes were all armed, the terrorists wouldn't have been able to take them over with simple box cutters.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[gartogg]

But Windows doesn't have 0 marginal cost per item, because there are support costs, and in any case, the point is that saying a company should charge 0 dollars per copy of windows, because it did cost them a ton to produce (admittedly more than it's worth) and they need to make their money back.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[extrasolar]

Whats the stigma against public funding? I can only trace it down to certain libertarian leanings.

But a lot of really nice things are funded publically. In the United States the best of it is funded by our local and state governments.

And free software fits this well since developing free software benefits everyone. I know Stallman has advocated a software tax in the past. His reasons are the same.

It seems that after five or so years since free software has made it big, its pretty obvious that the commercial market isn't doing so well with free software. The only thing keeping free software alive are the volunteer hackers.

If free software needs money (which I don't necessarily agree with), the commercial market doesn't seem equipped to provide it.

Public funding seems to make the most sense. If you ask every tax payer that by dedicating a small portion of their taxes to free software and the result would be that they will never have to purchase another version of Windows again, I'm sure they will see it as a bargain. And the publically funded free software can just as easily be used for commercial purposes and for more free software by anyone.

I think software should be seen as a public resource whose only cost is in development.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[HiThere]

I suppose I could come back with so stories about consultants I've worked with and we could have an enjoyable set to.

I suspect that the main difference is emotional attitude. Sometimes after we hire a consultant for awhile, we make them permanent. When I ask why the changed the story seems to be: "Well, we don't make as much here, but we don't get stiffed as often."

Now personally, I don't like the idea of getting stiffed. Not by a consultant, but particularly not by an employer. That's the main reason that I've stayed with my current job. (It sure isn't because it's technically challenging!) And staffing does need to be sufficient to handle peak times, so when things are slow, you do find people playing solitaire.

Consultants, however, are hired to handle particular jobs. If they aren't working, something is wrong. I can see why this might be annoying to them, but it can be a bit difficult to just drop a person in the middle of a project.

Of course, there's another thing going on. Empire building. Sometimes consultants are hired instead of using internal staff not because of need, but to make the manager feel important. I always find this annoying, but there really isn't anything that I can do about it. Except come along afterwards and repair the damage. That's happened a few times, but I always have to wait until after the consultant has left.

You are right, however. I don't like deadlines. They seem to imply poor planning. Or rushing the code and insufficient debugging. Or both. If I must deal with them, then I will, but I do prefer to avoid them.

P.S.: I am a government employee in a small agency. I can't really say that things are the same elsewhere, but I would expect that they were. I would also expect that as the size of the agency increased that some of the less desireable factors that I mentioned would increase. And I don't believe that it really matters whether the agency is public or private. I've talked with some people who came from Kaiser Engineering, and they said that much the same thing happened there, only more bureaucratic and a bit worse, but then it's a larger company. One difference was that the people from Kaiser tended to puff themselves a bit more, and try harder to make what they were doing seem more important than it was. This probably has to do with either having a history as a consultant or with the problems of operating in a large organization. I really doubt that government or private makes much difference. (This may have been less true before Unions, when large organizations felt freer to act capriciously and take more advantage of being in a stronger position [i.e. to ride even more rough-shod over the rights of their employees].)

Re:I think he's right in a way

[mfnickster]

But you are forgetting......

if the people on the planes were all armed, the terrorists wouldn't have been able to take them over with simple box cutters.

You're absolutely right.

Instead, the terrorists themselves would have had guns. They would have immediately killed the pilots and crew (they probably did anyway), and any passengers who resisted. They also would have forced the remaining passengers to give up their weapons by taking hostages.

Remember, none of the passengers on the WTC flights knew that they were part of a suicide mission.

- MFN

Re:I think he's right in a way

[flyfisher]

You're still missing the point here. Governments by nature regulate anything that they control. Money is control. So even if they switched to OSS and spent the license money there to promote it, they would REQUIRE/CONTROL how it was done, what it did, and anything else they (the government officials) deemed in their interest to control. Since it isn't a black box and they would be getting source code along with the executables.

I worked for DOD for 12 years and that is how it works. Even though the computer folks in government generally understand OSS, the administrators and politicians don't. If you think you're up against MS FUD now, think of MS losing license dollars on the scale the government spends and what the hordes of MS lobbyists would be doing to prevent or recover that loss.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[kz45]

You're absolutely right.

Instead, the terrorists themselves would have had guns. They would have immediately killed the pilots and crew (they probably did anyway), and any passengers who resisted. They also would have forced the remaining passengers to give up their weapons by taking hostages.

Remember, none of the passengers on the WTC flights knew that they were part of a suicide mission

wrong.

If they had guns, they would also have some sort of basic training. (and thus a better chance at defending themselves).

It doesn't matter if they knew they were part of a suicide mission or not. A terrorist is a terrorist.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[caduguid]

I swear this is the first time I've ever read a post on Slashdot that effectively says "Careful! You don't want to irritate Microsoft!" :-)

Beyond that, I _do_ miss your point, you're right.

I don't know what you are talking about when you say they would require/control how it was done. Control what? How what was done? Control how their internal implentations are done? Why shouldn't they? What else could they control?

If the UK Industry Ministry or the Canadian Department of Fisheries for some reason deemed it in their interest to control open source... what could they do? Copyleft is copyleft. Beyond something destructive like disallowing clickwrap or shrinkwrap warranty disclaimers, (wait a minute, I think UCITA is already threatening to do that. What else?), what can anyone do that would harm the mechanism of copyleft, short of abolishing copyright?

I try not to make rash generalizations, but I'm tired, so what the hey: I find this level of government-phobia nuts and unsustainable logically. How is it that a government department buying closed source software would be any less subject to the constraints you mention?

Re:I think he's right in a way

[mfnickster]

If they had guns, they would also have some sort of basic training. (and thus a better chance at defending themselves).

Look at the people who are carrying guns today. Most of them don't have concealed weapon permits, let alone training. Be realistic about this.

It doesn't matter if they knew they were part of a suicide mission or not. A terrorist is a terrorist.

It matters a lot whether they knew this, as you can tell by the Pennsylvania flight. Passengers resisted because they knew they had no hope of surviving otherwise.

We're talking about ordinary next-door U.S. citizens facing down terrorists who have been trained extensively for months with weapons and combat tactics. And now, at your suggestion, they can carry guns on the plane.

I think your only hope would be if an off-duty SWAT team happens to be on the plane and packing heat.

- MFN

Re:I think he's right in a way

[WNight]

Yeah, I think it's paranoid libertarians complaining.

I'd much rather have the government spend money buying software from open source companies (thus funding software we could all use) than buying it from MS, funding software that we'd have to pay another purchase price to use...

I'm going to be taxed anyways. And for things I feel are worth it (roads, defense, etc) so if the money I spend on that can buy me other incidental benefits, why would I complain?

It's like how the interstate highway system was partly built for defense reasons. We paid the cost in order to help the armed forces respond to attack, but it also got us cheaper goods, better personal transportation, increased mobility, etc.

Really, if the government buys MS products with my money and I don't get to use them, that seems more like a crime than if they fund public software to get what they need.

It also makes sense from the point of view of the government wanting to increase competition. "The People" benefit from increased competition, and nobody really loses, unless you count the CEOs who only get mega rich, instead of being insanely rich. So if my tax dollars can go to helping increase useful competition I'd appreciate it.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[WNight]

Your ranting about public funding is quite silly because you're completely off base with it.

Both options being considered involve the government spending just as much tax money. In one case it goes to companies like MS for the development of something the people have to pay to use. In the other it goes to companies like Red Hat and IBM for the development of something the public gets for free.

Assuming that "the public" is trying to decide how to spend its money, which do you think will win?

You could pay taxes, allowing the gov to buy MS licenses, and then buy your own license.

Or, you could pay taxes, allowing the gov to customize Linux, and then use Linux, including those customizations if desired, for free.

Really, it sounds like you're arguing for corporate welfare. You want taxes to be payed to a company that provides less value than the competition. Do you own their stock?

Re:I think he's right in a way

[kz45]

I keep thinking that maybe, just maybe, if I type slowly enough, one of these extremely simple concepts will seep through the shrinkwrap on your brain. I'm really losing hope, though. The point is that the passengers wouldn't have had the will to do anything about the terrorists even if armed, because up until that point the best way to ensure everyone made it off the plane alive was to cooperate with the terrorists. Therefore, the passengers would most likely not have allowed hostages to be killed, but would rather have cooperated, given up their weapons, and EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING THING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. Arming the passengers *might* help today, now that the people in any plane hijacking are going to assume that they're dead anyway, but it wouldn't have done shit on 9/11.

Do you have some kinda inferiority complex asshole? (maybe if I insult you, my point will become more valid than yours).

honestly, although 90% of the people on the airplanes would have done nothing, there would have been at least one or two that would have done something, and that's all that matters.

The terrorists had fucking boxcutters. They might not have tried at all if they knew so many people were armed....

Re:I think he's right in a way

[sean23007]

Yes, air marshalls can carry guns on board an airplane, but their bullets travel slowly, fragment inside a person's body, and they don't miss. If you had 100 people shooting guns that sent a bullet traveling over the speed of sound with hollow pointed or armor piercing or otherwise ridiculously dangerous bullets, and most of these 100 people are panicking and not very well trained, a lot of bullets would be hitting the hulls. You have attempted to refute my arguments and have failed.

I ignored your attempted argument about schools, because it was merely residue from your bitterness about your own education.

Re:I think he's right in a way

[sean23007]

If everyone else had guns, why would the terrorists keep their boxcutters? Rather, they would upgrade to a weapon that was equally as far above a handgun as a boxcutter is above a fingernail. And if 1 or 2 people on every hijacked flight tried to do something, a lot more people would probably die. The September 11 hijackings were completely different from every previous hijacking. Usually terrorists have demands, and the best way for the individuals on the plane is to give in to the demands, not to attack them.

free as in free speach, not free as in free beer

[oncee]

It looks like people still don't get want the free software movement is all about: free as in free speach, not free as in free beer.

Call me ignorant if you like...

[Ignorant Cocksucker]

But hasn't John Carrol hit the nail right on the head when he points out the fatal flaw of Open Source software ?

How do the open source programmers feed their families ? And don't suggest they sell T-Shirts.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Daetrin]

How do the open source programmers feed their families ? And don't suggest they sell T-Shirts.

They get a job?

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a musician. I give private music lessons, and I'm part of a jazz combo. We play a number of clubs in the southeast USA. I get paid for my work. But when I'm not working, I often invite some friends over and we'll barbeque and play for free. That is the way it goes. Sometimes you play for your own pleasure and sometimes it is a paying gig. No problem.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[elfdump]

"Open Source Programmers" is a bit of a misnomer. As has been pointed out, many programmers who contribute to free/Open source software do not work on it fulltime, and have primary jobs that either pay them through their service as a programmer or through licensure of commercial software.

While the FSF believes all software should be free of restrictions and government should contribute money towards it, those are not the only economic models that have been suggested. Personally, I believe having unrestricted access to software is increasingly important, comparable in ways to other generic services: telephone, water, etc. It seems reasonable that governments would consider switching to an unrestricted, open, and generic form of software.

(Does anyone else feel that government should also provide free beer? ;)

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Shade, The]

I think the general consensus is that if a corperation pays for the development of Open Source software, then they would probably have less work to do, as outside hackers who use the software could fix bugs and improve it as they like. The engineers employed by the company would be paid out of the money charged for support, which is, at the end of the day, a more substainable revenue source anyway.

That's how it's -meant- to work, at least :)

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[cscx]

Well, as one of the KDE developers puts it, his wife pays him for playing Mr. Mom and watching his own daughter.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[ftobin]

But hasn't John Carrol hit the nail right on the head when he points out the fatal flaw of Open Source software ?

No, since it obviously isn't a fatal flaw, because Open Source/Software Libre programmers do feed their families. If it was a 'fatal flaw' then there wouldn't be Open Source/Free Software.

How do the open source programmers feed their families ?

Possibly just as I do (minus the family bit). My company sells complete systems (hardware+software+support+training). And I write a fair bit of Software Libre on my own too.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[rgmoore]

How do the open source programmers feed their families ? And don't suggest they sell T-Shirts.

Even if you make the incorrect assumption that it's impossible to make money selling Open Source software, that's not a reason that a profitable company won't spend money on developing it. Many big hardware companies like IBM, Sun, and HP are spending real money on Open Source development because they think that it will help them sell more hardware. Take Sun's development work on GNOME, for instance. Sun feels a need to have a nice, standardized desktop environment available for their hardware because they don't think that it will be as attractive to purchasers without one. It's cheaper for them to hire programmers to work on an existing Open Source project- even though that means giving away their code- than to try to develop one from scratch. So Sun is paying a bunch of programmers to write Open Source code.

Their are other reasons for a company to do that. O'Reilly, for instance, hires Larry Wall to work on PERL, partly because it helps them get the right to sell his books and partly because it gives them credibility. Transmeta seems to have hired Linus Torvalds at least in part because it gave them extra influence in the direction of the Linux kernel. There are admittedly a small number of positions like that available, but they are out there.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Synic]

No shit...
When I come home from programming there's no way in hell I'm doing more coding that night... I socialize, watch tv, eat food, mayyybe play video games, but I usually stay off the computer since I spent the whole day staring at a computer monitor (probably with a low refresh rate, bad posture, and a cheap ass keyboard).

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Oliver Defacszio]

Way to utterly, completely run around the point in a manner that only an OSS zealot could -- unless, of course, you are suggesting that OSS should be Government funded. In such a case, I have already overjustified your brutal stupidity by replying this far.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[NDPTAL85]

So someone should go to school for 4 years and earn highly lucrative skills only to end up living a humble muscians lifestyle? Yeah THAT sounds appealing...

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[NDPTAL85]

That doesn't sound very appealing. Thats like working in a factory all day assembling cars then when you go home you somehow fabricate your own cars and then give them away.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[ftobin]

To liken programming to any kind of assembly work is one of the greatest fallacies one can perform.

A better analogy would be an artist who does commercial graphics during the day, but exquisite panaramas at night. It's a more correct, and appealing analogy.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[>:^D]

No, but people who do learn those lucrative skills usually like to apply it even OUTSIDE of their jobs.

If you don't like working with computers in general, then don't major in it. If you majored in Comp. Sci. to get a high-paying job, then I feel sorry for your miserable ass. You will toil away for nothing and contribute jack shit to the world with your skills.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[bay43270]

One thing I really like about working on open source projects - you get a chance to write code the way it was meant to be written. You don't have to make concessions if you don't want.

I work a regular 8-5 job. Sometimes its fun, but most of the time, I putting a hack in my otherwise beautiful code, so my boss can give a demo 20% into the project. When I'm just about to blow my stack from all of the compromises and business limitations, I go home and write some code for fun. If its important to me, I do it right, if not, I don't have to do that part. If someone else feels the need to fill in those gaps, they can.

The author is correct in some ways. There aren't many good open source accounting packages (who wants to work on that?). At the same time, there are no end to Tivo hacking projects and file sharing clients. People pick projects that they need, or they think will be fun. The author does, however underestimate the types of projects some people find fun.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[ftobin]

That doesn't exactly answer the question, does it moron?

There are two possible inferences you could have pulled from what I said. One is that I don't feed my family (which is vacuously true, and not the intended semantics), while the other is that I don't have a family to feed (unless you count the 1 person family that is myself).

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Angst Badger]

How do the open source programmers feed their families ?

Except for the minority who get paid specifically to write free software, most of them do it by working day jobs. Artists, writers, and musicians -- among many other serious "hobbyists" -- operate in much the same way.

All this being said, I think one incredibly important point is being missed, namely, the existence of several free operating systems and hundreds of high-quality free applications. The question is not "how will open source programmers make money?" but "how have open source programmers been making money all along?". Obviously, the status quo works and it works pretty well. Whether or not Linux or some other free system will ever seriously challenge Microsoft on the desktop, and whether the open model will work for end user applications my grandmother could use are separate questions. In the fairly substantial realm in which open source software operates, it is doing really damn well. It has felled SCO, cornered Sun, invaded IBM, and has Microsoft seriously concerned. That's pretty damn good if you ask me.

Are there business models that would enable substantial numbers of programmers to work on free software full time? Obviously not yet. Maybe there never will be. But I rather suspect -- given the unique nature of software as compared to other kinds of goods -- that there eventually will be.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[pjrc]

How do the open source programmers feed their families ?

Leading questions like this are founded on the Microsoft vision that all software is created by "software vendors", where it is "manufactured", and sold to "end users" in shrink-wrapped boxes, with no user servicable parts inside.

John Carroll, a .NET developer who specializes in "distributed systems" ought to know this. The whole article reads as if it was written by Microsoft's PR dept (despite the lack of the word "ecosystem"). It's classic FUD... open source is great, so it begins, but there's that big "if" (5th paragraph). You wouldn't want to risk your gov't operations on such a "if'ey" economic model, that John Carroll believes is somehow destined to failure (despite it's amazing success in recent years)

Anyway, to answer the specific question, there are several widely believed theories... the one I like best is that there will always be companies that hire programmers to customize software. This happens today, even when the level of customization possible is limited by closed-source. It will usually be in a companies economic self interest to contribe improvements back to the public pool of code, assuming the application is "generic" and not something that gives the company an advantage over their competitors. That way they reap the benefits of everyone else's contributions and their patches are "maintained" by the community (of which they are a tiny part) rather than maintaining a fork of the code themselves.

But even then, there will always be plenty of programming to be done that is central to a company's mission and the code can not be shared with competitors under any circumstances. There will always be plenty of these jobs for programmers.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[sean23007]

Open source programmers have families? ;)

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Arandir]

(Does anyone else feel that government should also provide free beer? ;)

If it's anything at all like their free cheese, I don't want any of it!

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Arandir]

Anyway, to answer the specific question, there are several widely believed theories...

In theory anything is possible. I don't care what I can do tomorrow in theory, I want to know what I can do today in reality to make a living by writing Open Source Software.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[evilviper]

I don't believe that there is a sound way to make great gobs of money on Open Source. So what?

If I'm a major entity in a company, I'll throw some money around to get SMP support in OpenBSD, because I need it. Now, I SAVE MONEY because I payed only to add a single missing feature. It doesn't cost me anything to allow that feature to be shared, and I save money not being locked into the licensing of a propritary OS.

So, in answer. You simply have to look at it from a different perspective. Instead of thinking of software as a product, think of it more similar to a partially written book, or other document. It's reasonable to write a feature you need (you wouldn't get paid for that anyhow) or pay for someone else to add that feature. Again, you wouldn't make any money. You'd loose money going the closed-source route.

So, Open Source isn't something you just take and sell at what ever price you wish as you would with propritary software. Open Source is something you provide as a cheaper, better option, and people will happily pay for it. Or, they will get it for free and end up contributing code to the project. One way or another, people will all pay just a little bit, and the whole idea behind open source is that all is needed is a little from everyone.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[NDPTAL85]

Hey don't get mad at me. I'm not one of the people who chased after the CS dream. But you make it sound like anyone who majors in anything for the sake of money is somehow "bad". Thats bull. Money is a great reason to do anything.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Daengbo]

The article is unrechable right now, so excuse me if I repeat it or any other work that I have never read. First of all, I think the service model for software is great. It will tend to create smaller, more maneuverable businesses without the enormous overhead of large corporations. That said, I also think that the service model has an inherent flaw in the user interaction. Proprietary software is paid for up front, and so the vendor wants as little service time as possible (for consumer level software). This means that the UI, installation, etc... is tweaked to be as easy as possible. A service oriented business does not make that money up front, and so doesn't want to minimize that service time. It seems rather a disincentive to build easy to install software with a simple UI if the service method is being used. I'm sure that my flawed logic will be pointed out to me in short order. Man, and I just started to get some karma, too, and I gotta go opening my mouth like that!

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Daengbo]

I disagree. Money is a POOR reason to do anything. I make a third of what I made three years ago and am significantly happier ( and have a beatiful young woman rape me when I come home every night ).

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Seeker5528]

"How do the open source programmers feed their families ?"

If you discount the college students who program in their spare time or as a class project.
The hobby programers who do it just because they like it.

You are left with tech people who have unrelated jobs, but contribute becuase they use the software and want to make it better.
People who work for hardare companies that have a vested interest in making sure the software gets better.
People who do contract programming that involves the projects they contribute to.
Writing books, doing seminars, teaching etc.
Gettng a job at a company that uses the software and is willing to pay to further it's development.
Get a job at a linux company that may or may not be making money, but at least pays it programmers.

Later, Seeker

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[kz45]

A chef who relies on his secrets to stay afloat quite frankly is the rare idiot who deserves to starve

kind of like microsoft?

'nuff said

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[NDPTAL85]

It all depends on what you want in life. If you're happy with little you don't need to make a lot.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Daengbo]

Little? I buy virtually anything I want, and have a full time maid.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[pjrc]

I don't care what I can do tomorrow in theory, I want to know what I can do today in reality to make a living by writing Open Source Software.

For YOU, TODAY, who knows? Seems unlikely.

For Keith Whitwell TODAY, yes. Tungsten Graphics is employing him to write ATI Radeon 8500 drivers for Xfree86 4.x (DRI), with funding from the Weather Channel. Emphasis on TODAY.

He's certainly not alone, but at this early stage it appears to be an exception and not the norm. But then, it's still the norm for commercial companies to avoid releasing source code. Maybe that will remain the case forever, but it certainly appears that for many types of "generic" software, it can make good economic sense for companies to use free software (saves real dollars), pay someone on staff to make improvements and customizations (for a large corp, much less expensive than licensing closed sources, if the app is "almost there"), and when they do have someone on staff make improvements, it's usually a no-brainer to contribute those improvements back into the publically maintained code base (rather than incurring the expense of maintaining a private fork of the code).

But TODAY, open source is still a "fringe". It's a small percentage. Finding (paid) work won't be easy... similar to finding work on specific Macintosh applications or some other area where only a small number of jobs exist.

On top of that, you'd be competing with a good number of the world's most motivated and talented programmers who _really_ like the free software philosophy. Tough market, at least today.

With your attitude, you'd probably do much better sticking to the mainstream. TODAY, in reality, SOME PEOPLE can make a living writing open sources. YOU probably can not, at least TODAY.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Arandir]

I fully understand you don't owe me a thing. That's why I'm not asking. That's why I don't charge for my software. That's why I let the whole fucking world download it for free, modify it, and redistribute it to anyone they like, without any damn strings attached.

But go check out the start of this thread. The assertion is that there's a lot of money to be made by writing Free Software. I just don't see a lot of money here outside of a few niches.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Vladinator]

Exactly like Microsoft - except that it's not a fair comparison at all - Emeril doesn't illegally maintain his monopoly on the chef market which MS has been CONVICTED of doing. So, yes - just like those criminals.

Re:Call me ignorant if you like...

[Shade, The]

> How do *those* people get paid?

They don't; at least not by said company. It seems to work currently, after all, as those hackers have other jobs. Ok, so in a world where there is no proprietry you could argue this wasn't true; but then companies may instead look upon programmers as Research and Development. No initial gain, but an implied gain through support. Other companies could offer the same support, but the company creating the software would have the edge. And whoever said that all software had to be open source anyway?

Cuts both ways

[x-rayed]

IMHO, only some open source software projects are going to funded by corporations (who pay the salary of the programmers). This tends to only happen when the corporation has something to gain (ie, free labour for outside contributors, free marketing, free press),or alternatively when they know they will have the competitive advantage in spin-off services like deployment and support. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but is there anywhere a full time non-subsidized open source programmer?

Re:Cuts both ways

[peddrenth]

"but is there anywhere a full time non-subsidized open source programmer?"

You might try looking in the Mandrake, Suse, RedFlag and Lycoris offices for a start (although admittedly they are not all "free software" in the true sense)

If an open-source app needs writing, and public wants the software, it makes sense for the programmers to sell the open-source product. Although much is made of the 'charity' aspect of people paying for something which is 'free' ("charity" means something which benefits the community, b.t.w.), anyone who takes a moment to think about it will realise that unless you pay for your free software, you're not gonna get any updates or bugfixes later on!

As for companies programming widgets (device-drivers, PDA apps, productivity tools) which they need anyway, there's often no commerical disadvantage to making it free software. If they just made it open-source, they might have cause for concern, but by going a step further and making it free software, they protect themselves from having to compete with another version of their own software.

Many are starting to say now that governments (who represent the community for its own benefit) ought spend some of their microsoft tax on funding free software, which is a spending decision for each government to make. Good for them if they do buy free software.

The other model of couse, is individual programmers paying themselves (through use of their time) for software that they need. Such programmers may not be getting paid, but they get the money they would have spent on equivalent commercial software!

I had seen this myself....

[Dark Paladin]

And pretty much discounted it after I thought for 2 seconds.

Profit is not the only reason why people use Open Source (aka - me).

We use it/develop for it/fund development for it because we get more stable software. More secure software. Software that has less bloat, and is less likely to lock me into a vendor that might turn into an asshole later (like trying to get me to pay for my software every year...or else).

If you look in the narrow world of profit - then he's still only partly right. How many resumes get you into a great job saying "I developed the XYZ patch for Imagemagik/Linux kernal/Mozilla - and that proves my kick ass ability, so you should hire me if you want that same ability in your employees". Last time I checked, being able to prove your 1337 hax()r skills usually gets you a good job - and good jobs == money, and money == financial incentive.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Re:I had seen this myself....

[scott1853]

Ok, you said "fund development". I would like to know what pieces of open source software you use, either personally or professionally, that you or your company have "funded". The entire argument that Carroll has is that open source programmers aren't paid. So aside from the major linux distros and StarOffice, what else is paid for?

Re:I had seen this myself....

[jerdenn]

I would like to know what pieces of open source software you use, either personally or professionally, that you or your company have "funded".

Sure - RTEMS. It's an RTOS that my very-large-but-not-to-be-named company uses for one of our hardware products. We buy support from the vendor, contribute patches if we find a bug, etc. It's actually a pretty good deal for us. We don't want to have to write the OS ourselves, but at the same time we need access to the source if we need to make a change...

-jerdenn

Yeah...

[Black Parrot]

...I guess that's why there aren't thousands and thousands of OSS titles.

Re:Yeah...

[scott1853]

And how many of those thousands and thousands of programs have been fully debugged, documented and have 24/7 support options?

Re:Yeah...

[damien_kane]

And how many of those thousands and thousands of [open source] programs have been fully debugged, documented and have 24/7 support options?

How many of the non-open source alternatives meet any two of those criteria? Hell, most (aside from the simplest of utilities) haven't even been fully debugged. This is why new releases and/or patches get released. The point is they're debugged enough to make them useable by the strong majority without being crippled by code flaws.

The only proprietary software no longer supported is that which is no longer under development. No software is perfect.

Please make a ZDNet topic

[droleary]

So I can promptly exclude any articles referring to that horseshit "news" organization.

Thank you!

Sure you dont get paid but...

[PhilipChapman]

Working on an Open Source project is GREAT for highscool and college students. We really dont have enough time to be working a job and going to school but we can do a little bit of coding whenever we feel like it. Its also great experience.

I Always Wondered....

[quakeaddict]

if an open source programmer toils day and night "for fun", is it fair that someone takes all that work and sells it as if it were his own...like any Linux distro?

Open source is great for people out of work, or screwing around. It sucks if you have 3 kids and a wife, and need insurance, and all the other perks a job offers.

Whine all you want about it, but precious few people make money from open source, and I don't see those folks sharing all that much.

Re:I Always Wondered....

[chromatic]

if an open source programmer toils day and night "for fun", is it fair that someone takes all that work and sells it as if it were his own...like any Linux distro?

If I didn't find it fair, I wouldn't have chosen an open source license.

Re:I Always Wondered....

[gargle]

if an open source programmer toils day and night "for fun", is it fair that someone takes all that work and sells it as if it were his own...like any Linux distro?

No it isn't. The biggest winners from open source are companies like IBM, redhat and others - which company wouldn't want free labour?

The biggest losers are the free software developers, who have been brainwashed into thinking that developing software for free is "fun", and that they have a moral obligation to make software available for free to companies.

Of course, there are a precious few for whom the gains in prestige (i.e Linus Torvalds) make developing free software worthwhile.

But get it straight. For most, Microsoft is your friend, Redhat is your enemy.

Re:I Always Wondered....

[_Sprocket_]

I Always Wondered.... if an open source programmer toils day and night "for fun", is it fair that someone takes all that work and sells it as if it were his own...like any Linux distro?

First, the whole concept might be lost on you if you only associate coding with "toil" and can't understand how it could be "for fun". Still...

I was looking for a simple application a few months ago to mimic functionality that is commonly found in various forms for Linux. I found a large selection of shareware apps for Windows that seemed to foot the bill, but was shocked at the requests for $15 - $35 for a very simple application. Then I found one application that listed an alternative payment method - if you were a shareware author, provide that author with a registered version of your application in exchange. It then dawned on me one of the many fundamental differences between Linux and Windows cultures.

Within the Windows world, there is very little free software (or Free software either). Especially development tools. If one wishes to have access to development tools and other nifty applications, one trades in the appropriate coin - cash.

Within the Linux world, the vast majority of tools and applications are Free. Producing your own Free software won't limit your access to other applications / tools and, if anything, is paying back those who have already provided you with software you use and enjoy. The coin of the Linux realm is gifted code.

What about those Linux distro companies? They provide a lot of various services to the communities who provide them Free code. They pay for additional development (and sometimes start their own Free projects). They go through the hassle of providing an easy-to-use package. They provide bandwidth. And they market Linux to the corporate world.

Corporate interest in Linux helps those who are interested in Linux. Why? Because Linux platforms become a valid business platform. And such a platform provides jobs and consulting to those who wish to maintain and develop custom applications (or customized extensions to existing projects).

And service is where you get the money to pay for those 3 kids, wife, insurance, and earn your perks.

Re:I Always Wondered....

[pjrc]

if an open source programmer toils day and night "for fun", is it fair that someone takes all that work and sells it as if it were his own...

That would be very unfair, and also against the term of the GPL, MPL and BSD licenses... to remove the original author's name and represent that it had been created by someone else.

like any Linux distro?

Fortunately, the distros DO NOT do that. They tend to follow the license terms to the letter.

The vast majority of all free software is under the GNU GPL license, which requires others to share (if they distribute original or modified copies). It is the specific requirement that all derivative works include or make available the source code when they are distributed that makes it "fair" in the hearts and minds of most "open source" programmers (where 'most' reffers to the majority who choose to apply the GPL to their original works or contribute to GPL'd projects).

Re:I Always Wondered....

[Idou]

All the Distros I have used also let me download Linux from their websites for free. I really don't think they are trying to sell bits, just service (or memberships, if you are Mandrake). Though I am sure there are people that "toil day and night" on open source projects, the majority probably just hack every now and then. I really hope that person with 3 kids, a wife, and a need for insurance is not you. Otherwise, it seems strange that you take the time to right posts at slashdot but think Open Source contributions are too much . . . If you know how to program well, should a post at /. and a little hack be that different? To some one who rights pretty code, which do you think is more fulfilling?

Re:I Always Wondered....

[stand]

You act as if open source development "for fun" is completely separate from how programmers earn money. It's not. Sure, I don't make any money putzing around with Apache in my spare time, but you better believe I'm a more skilled developer (in all areas, not just in Apache) because I took that time. My employer and potential employers see this added skill and (hopefully) they are willing to pay for it. I might even beat you out for a job ;-)

Re:I Always Wondered....

[Erotomek]

It sucks if you have 3 kids and a wife

I hope your family don't read Slashdot — poor guys...

Re:I Always Wondered....

[kz45]

Many (most?) open source programmers develope software in their spare time ebcasue they enjoy it. It's their hobby. They could jsut as well have been painting or sculpting or something.

And let's be realistic. If you have 3 kids and wife and bills to pay ... get a real job

then why are so many fucking people on slashdot against the article?

Re:I Always Wondered....

[randombit]

Open source is great for people out of work, or screwing around. It sucks if you have 3 kids and a wife, and need insurance, and all the other perks a job offers.

Dunno... some people at my place of work seem to manage it pretty well. AFAIK they do get insurance, though I don't know how good (If you want really good health insurance, IT/programming is the wrong industry anyway: industrial jobs have very good health insurance converage). I'm a summer employee right now, so I don't make the big bucks, nor do I get insurance, but whatever.

Whine all you want about it, but precious few people make money from open source, and I don't see those folks sharing all that much.

I'm making a decent living working on BSD and GPLed software (I may end up working there full time after I graduate this winter). Mostly it's DoD contract work that has potential commercial value. My last job was also working on BSD licensed software (which I don't think was DoD work, but I could be wrong).

I agree, not too many people do make a living this way, but it is certainly possible. I would be OK with programming proprietary stuff, but more likely than not, any proprietary stuff I would do would be Win32, and I really have 0 interest in that. Unix programming for me, thank you very much.

best response to the incentives problem...

[caduguid]

The best response to the incentives problem for contributing to open source, imho, is not the usual boring ESR reputation benefits, but rather Eben Moglen's classic "metaphysical corollary."

"The dwarf's basic problem is that "incentives" is merely a metaphor, and as a metaphor to describe human creative activity it's pretty crummy. I have said this before, but the better metaphor arose on the day Michael Faraday first noticed what happened when he wrapped a coil of wire around a magnet and spun the magnet. Current flows in such a wire, but we don't ask what the incentive is for the electrons to leave home. We say that the current results from an emergent property of the system, which we call induction. The question we ask is "what's the resistance of the wire?" So Moglen's Metaphorical Corollary to Faraday's Law says that if you wrap the Internet around every person on the planet and spin the planet, software flows in the network. It's an emergent property of connected human minds that they create things for one another's pleasure and to conquer their uneasy sense of being too alone."

And then, even more fun, he adds:
"The only question to ask is, what's the resistance of the network? Moglen's Metaphorical Corollary to Ohm's Law states that the resistance of the network is directly proportional to the field strength of the "intellectual property" system. So the right answer to the econodwarf is, resist the resistance."

Brilliant.

Re:best response to the incentives problem...

[caduguid]

oops. metaphorical corollary, not metaphysical corollary... That would be getting into a whole different realm of incentives, I think. :-)

Re:best response to the incentives problem...

[bullett.net]

Impressive Logic and Analogy.

Re:best response to the incentives problem...

[Dan Crash]

Wow. Thanks for the post. I've got a new bookmark now.

Well

[Gizzmonic]

I hope this didn't enrage anyone too much. I mean, who actually thinks that open source will conquer all proprietary software?

The author writes this from a very moderate point of view, and he certainly lists plenty of advantages to open source. However, he's right on the money about its disadvantages...actually, he's pretty darn nice. He doesn't even mention the problems that most open source hackers seem to have with creating software that can be used by non-computer experts.

The open source movement is too broad to be characterized by one point of view. If I had to break it down into two I would say it was these two archetypes:

1)People who think (or know) they can do it better than Microsoft, Adobe, etc.

2)Ideologues who believe "Open Source" as an ideology will spread and overtake all software alternatives.

Now, what good are ideologues for open source? It's a bad idea to convince people to use Linux for the sake of it.

My neighbor is the type of guy who thinks he's l33t because he runs a pirated version of Windows XP professional instead of Windows 98. He installed RedHat and it didn't last a week on his hard drive. You know why? Because with KDE and all the Windows ripoff stuff it has, he expected it to act just like Windows. He wasn't prepared for a different cut and paste, misbehaving X apps that take up half your screen, and odd problems with the USB bus.

This guy, who would be qualified as a "power user" by most demographic research, now thinks of Linux as a second-rate, broken Windows because some guy at his office couldn't stop telling him how great "Free Software" was. He'll probably never run anything but Windows again.

This is why ideologues are bad for open source. They make bombastic promises that won't stand up under scrutiny, such as "Linux is better than Windows in all cases," and they generally expose the nuttiness of the whole movement.

We need people who are more willing to promote open-source from its current merits, as hobbyists, gamers, and enthusiasts. They shouldn't be wearing a political banner on their arm. Pragmatism is what made America great, and it's a must in this situation.

Re:Well

[grazzy]

Do we WANT this user to run Linux? Is he a contribution to the Linux community?

To contribute to the Linux community you have todo something for the community since there are no money involved. Windows gets its daily doze of upgrades because people pays money for it. Linux gets its from users who provide code, support or other stuff for it.

I mean, I dont see any point of your neighbor running Linux except for the sole reason that he should 'not' run Windows. and .. why shouldn't he?

The real problem with the community is that theres no REASON for me to promote Linux to a user I know I will have to help more than I think he will ever pay back to the community. most of my friends have payed some intrest to linux once or twice, but pretty quickly realised that they'd be way over their heads if they installed Linux after seeing me recovering from a kernel crash or having to reinstall xfree. And its mutual. I dont want to spend countless hours on the phone to help them with 'make menuconfig' like I had todo 10 years ago with 'unzip' and 'arj'.

I dont have an solution to it, but since Linux has such a high learning step, and what I personally favour about Linux are those 'advanced extras' that you get from the console, not Gnome or KDE. Windows provides an excellent GUI for the average user and even soo, I'm running Windows 2000 at my primary workstation myself. As you say, I dont want to put up with buggy apps that take up half the screen. Why should I? When I can have the best parts of both worlds. Regular users doesnt need Linux. And its not an replacment for Windows. Never has, probably never will.

Re:Well

[TheConfusedOne]

Let's start with this statement:
He doesn't even mention the problems that most open source hackers seem to have with creating software that can be used by non-computer experts.

Have you tried Mozilla or Open Office? They're quite easy to use.

On to your idealogues problem. It's true that some Open Source software has been over promised and under delivered, but that charge can also be leveled at Microsoft and especially at Windows. Critical items and features drop off the list as deadlines approach and pass. Serious bugs are discovered weekly in their code.

The average user, if presented with a blank box would flail around using either Linux or Windows. The real challenge is to sit the newbie in front of a pre-configured box. If you look at what you can do with configuring/customizing Linux I think you would be very surprised about how user friendly a system you could get.

This is different from the person who will throw his/her hands up in disgust merely because an icon looks a little different or has moved in the menus that he/she knows and loves.

Re:Well

[fougasse]

Have you tried Mozilla or Open Office? They're quite easy to use.

Ouch, bad examples. 90% of Mozilla is by Netscape; 90% of OpenOffice is by Sun. Both have benefitted from significant usability studies funded by their respective driving corporations. Both were spun off from prior closed-source products. Hardly your open-source poster children.

Re:Well

[KjetilK]

Actually, I faced pretty much the same problem at home tonight.

I'm in it mostly for ideology. If Microsoft has it's way, I'm quite sure I will not in practice have rights such as voting rights in 30 years from now.

I've got Debian Woody on my parents' computer, and running KDE2.2.2 tonight, well, neither KWord nor OpenOffice 1.0 cuts it. They have lots of small bugs you just can't live with. I don't care about these apps, really, because I work more efficiently with LaTeX, but dad does.

For many users, they need to understand the ideology behind it. Perhaps it doesn't sell too good in the US, since nobody cares about freedom as long as they feel safe and have enough beer, but I know for sure that many people care about it here. Yeah, and dad, the old rioter, he is getting it. He understands that Linux isn't quite there yet, but as long as freedom is at stake, he can live with it (besides, he has to, because he doesn't go anywhere without me working on his box... :-) ).

So, if your ideology is that open source will always result in superiour software, well, then your ideology is flawed. But if your ideology is about freedom, then you have an argument.

I do of course realize that the issues are very complex when it comes to financial incentives. It will take a long time before we have established a broad range of working business models for free software, but the "enforced scarcity" model is unsustainable in the long run, so it has to happen. This is a long discussion that goes far beyond the current thread.

Yeah, and BTW, I think it is time free software developers stop running after MS when it comes to UIs. There are lots of good academic research on the topic that people could have a look at instead. But that's OT too.

Re:Well

[TheConfusedOne]

What's wrong with where they came from? A blanket statement is made that Open Source has bad usability. I point to two OS projects that don't have those problems.

Mozilla is a complete rewrite. They threw out the original Netscape code and started over again. OpenOffice started from Star Office which predates Sun's involvement.

In both cases, you have software that is at least as usable as anything coming out of the "proprietary" world.

As far as usability of Linux distros goes it all depends on the configuration of the machine. You can have super usable versions (like Tivo's interface) and you can have completely uncustomized command line versions. Look at the Linux in schools and LTSP initiatives to see how usability of Linux has been increased.

Re:Wanker [OT]

[Warped-Reality]

* Linux: because rebooting is for adding hardware

Screw linux, i want one of those Suns that you can change the CPU and memory without rebooting :)

Hmm...

[Scoria]

"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind." - Aristotle

The O'Reilly Network seems to have overlooked the fact that many individuals program open source code because they *enjoy programming*, not because they intend to generate revenue from it.

Re:Hmm...

[stevey]

True .. I code because I can, and because I enjoy it.

I'm currently working on an audio streamer. This is because I personally wanted one, and the few I could find weren't quite right for me.

So to be nice I made the code available and it appears to be growing in popularity. (In the sense that I have users, and it's in Debian GNU/Linux, Gentoo GNU/Linux, and FreeBSD ports collection.)

I have no expections that this will generate revenue for me, although I do know that writing it helped me land my current job. Other than that I've stuck a small Amazon wishlist on the front page - and if people wish to make donations they'll be accepted with suprise and thanks.

A recent case in point was somebody wanting a new feature which I did have planned, but wasn't going to get round to for a while. The requestor wasn't a coder - so we struck a deal. He bought me a DVD from my wishlist, and I implemented the feature which he wanted; Now everybody has it; which seems to be a win for all concerned.

The Real Reason Open Source is flawed...

[TheContact]

is because anytime anyone defends it, that site gets slashdotted, preventing anyone from reading the rebuttle. ;)

-TheContact

Open source is about freedom, not profit

[BlackHawk-666]

I don't know journalists are always whinning about how people can't make money from Open Source software. Open Source programmers give up their time because they like to program and want to write cool software for people to use. It's their gift to the world. P.S. He might want to ask the people at SendMail how they make a profit :-)

Re:Open source is about freedom, not profit

[OwnedByTwoCats]

I think there is a whine about how people can't make money from Open Source software because Microsoft can't make money from Open Source software. And that scares them. Their two bread-and-butter software categories: Operating Systems and Office Suites, now have to compete against open-source competitors. Microsoft has never been about being better than the competition; they started out being cheaper; once that drove out the competition (CPM-86 & P-system, mostly) they moved to "don't let anyone choose to not pay you". They crushed their competition in office apps using similar tactics.

What happens when Wine gets "good enough"? Who would pay Microsoft the $49/year that they want for their every-other-year updates?

Re:Open source is about freedom, not profit

[bolthole]

. P.S. He might want to ask the people at SendMail how they make a profit :-)

I thought they made it by selling a proprietary version of sendmail that you're not allowed to use without paying them money. And you may or not get source, but are you allowed to redistribute it? or binaries even?

I'm not sure, but i think the answer to both of those questions is 'no'.which makes it neither free software, nor 'open source'

Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee

[BlowCat]

The article is about open source, not about free software. Open source is about better products, not about freedom, and that ideology can be flawed.

Then don't "waste" your time in open source then

[frooyo]

I don't mean to get on a rant here but who, what or why have people come to some type of conception that they need to make money off of the products of open source. Open Source development is LEAST concerned with this. This might be a good point to state again, OPEN SOURCES LEAST CONCERN IS MAKING MONEY.

Now yes, granted that some software firms have been able to make money off of open source - but not without them adding additional features/enhancements (code) of their own. (e.g Any Linux distro, Sun-StarOffice etc...)

But what irritates me is that people program and share code expecting payment from some "open source consortium" or such. IMHO - as a few developer in the Open Source community, I and MANY OTHERS program and GIVE their code because of their love of computer science and technology and to be able to contribute to the further development and improvement of ALREADY great software.

It seems to me

[YanceyAI]

I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that there must be plenty of ways to develop open source and pay programmers to do so. Just because the software is non-proprietary does not mean your primary business using that software is non-profit. Couldn't companies pay coders to develop software specific to their business needs and not be in it to license the software?

Obviously he's wrong...

[zulux]

Look at the evidence! Free software is flourishing, and in every place where there is decent Free software available - it's gaining marketshare at the expense of non-free software.

Free OS have gone from .01% to 10% of the market.
Free Webservers continue to dominate at 60%.
Free Browsers have gone from .01% to %7.
Free compilers have gone from nothing to a lot.

We're still small - but the momentum is there!

Re:Obviously he's wrong...

[YanceyAI]

Anyone have the numbers on how many people use free email like hotmail and yahoo versus paid email?

Re:Obviously he's wrong...

[bcrowell]

Free OS have gone from .01% to 10% of the market.
Where did you get this statistic?

Re:Obviously he's wrong...

[superpeach]

eh? how did that image get onto the files owned by group 4421: http://sourceforge.net/projects/slashcode/

Re:Obviously he's wrong...

[WildBeast]

"And no - companies do not pay for support. Why pay for support when you can ask a question on a newsgroup and get a better anwser?"

I don't know, besides I'm a developer and I suck at support. If my software is good enough, they shouldn't need support, should they?

Re:Obviously he's wrong...

[flacco]

err. browsers have aklways been free.

Perhaps he meant Free?

Think context.

Re:Obviously he's wrong...

[ceejayoz]

Free OS have gone from .01% to 10% of the market.
That sounds rather high... the sites I run get an average of 96% windows, 2% mac, 0.25% Linux. That's at least 98% non-free OSes...
Free Webservers continue to dominate at 60%.
I'll be the first to admit Apache's the best general purpose webserver...
Free Browsers have gone from .01% to %7.
Only 7%? Last I checeked almost all browsers were free... perhaps you mean "open source", not "free"?
Free compilers have gone from nothing to a lot.
Well, there's a vague statistic...

Do you have any source for these, or did you just make 'em up?

Open source is at an intrinsic disadvantage

[sffubs]

Surely the point is that people can't work on open source full-time. You still have to have a day-job. Therefore people work for commercial software companies for 8 hours a day, and open source for 2 hours a day. How exactly can that mean that open source will take over? The point is that commercial software (aka day jobs) has to retain most of the market, otherwise most developers will be out of jobs. Open source is an excellent _idea_ but in reality it is extremely difficult to make money from it. And let's face it, that _is_ what makes our world go round. -s

Bull shit, michael

[cscx]

I think department was inappropriate--- ZDNet HAS a clue. Here's what KDE developer Wolfram Diestel has to say about the matter:

"No, at the moment I only get money from my wife for caring for my daughter."

Another KDE developer, Rik Hemsley, is not paid as well. He spends 20-40 hours a week on KDE!!

Don't these people value their time???

That's fucking pathetic, if you ask me. I encourage everyone to go over and read Eric Hufschmid's editorials. They really make you think about this whole situation.

Just like the picture of the T-Shirt says,

``Support Free Software!! Give us money!!''

Re:Bull shit, michael

[fidros]

That's realy nice cscx, but did you and Mr. Hufschmid noticed that his web pahes are server by AOLServer - a free (as in speech) web server developed by AOL?

Isn't it ironic, don't you think? :-)

Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[mikosullivan]

I've heard this argument before: that open source programmers are going to starve because they don't have a way to make money on their efforts. Now for a reality check: where are all these starving open source programmers? Why are all the people I know who actively contribute to open source projects so darn wealthy?

Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[Sinistar2k]

There aren't any poor open source programmers because they all make enough money that they have the gear with which to contribute... most likely paid for by some means *other* than open source development.

Which was the point of the article.

Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[Robert The Coward]

Unless you count those Open Source Developer Being Paid by corps. to do thing that they need for linux. I am not just talking about those few being employed by Linux Companys. In my LUG we use to have a guy who one of his jobs was to write several of the Token Ring Drivers because were he works they use token ring and it was cheaper for the corp. to hire him and have him work on those as well as a few other projects updating open source projects then for the corp. to use commerial software. I feel that is were those programers are going to end up. Which is were most software outside of games are being developed for anyway.

Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[bsartist]

where are all these starving open source programmers?

I'm not starving (yet), but I'm not too far from it. I've been out of work since early October, and I've begun selling off computer gear to pay bills. I write free software mostly because I'm bored and it's more entertaining than watching TV. Also, it looks better on a resume than an empty space.

If you're reading this and you need a Cocoa programmer - hire me!. I'm in Boston right now, but I'll move anywhere I need to. At this point I'd even work for Microsoft - principles don't pay the rent.

Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[bolthole]

Why are all the people I know who actively contribute to open source projects so darn wealthy?

Becuas they got in on .com IPOs that had no actual profit, but milked the gullible greedy investors?

They didnt get rich from selling their work, or even something derived from their work. they got rich from hype. (or something completely unrelated to their opensource work)

Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[jabberw0k]

Exactly. Company wants me to get this piece of hardware and that bit of software working for them. I discover a feature they need which isn't available so I write it. They pay me to install the stuff, I get my money, the free-software project I updated gets an improvement. Everyone wins.

Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[Arandir]

Why are all the people I know who actively contribute to open source projects so darn wealthy?

Who?!? I happen to know ONE Open Source programmer who makes a living with Open Source, and he's far from wealthy. I know twenty others who make a living doing something other than Open Source development during the week so they can do what they want on the weekend. Maybe you run around in different circles than I do.

Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[kz45]

Why did it take over five years for Internet Explorer to stop crashing on CSS and Java pages and a plethora of other plugins? Why does it still have holes so fucking wide you can see to tomorrow by typing a gopher:// link? Why does Media Player and Quicktime still crash in browsers and choke on its own interactive content? Oh yeah, now I remember

Because you're still using windows98. I have windows XP pro, and aside from the gopher security whole, I see none of those problems.

Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[mikosullivan]

who makes a living with Open Source

Who said anything about making a living with open source? I don't know anyone who does that either, and I doubt many people will. That's the point: open source is a highly successful leverage technique, not a business model unto itself. People who use and produce open source are virtually always engaged in some other activity which is helped in part by open source and which finances, among other things, open source.

Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[Arandir]

Then we're in agreement. Sorrry for the confusion. I keep hearing these rumours on Slashdot that there are people making big bucks giving their software away.

Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers?

[mikosullivan]

Then we're in agreement. Sorrry for the confusion.

What??!! How dare you be polite! Don't you know this is Slashdot? :-)

Sorry, I think you're off...

[Coventry]

I agree with the idea that if money was poured into open source software development it would be closer to Microsoft's software (in ease of use) - but it wouldn't get there without something else:

A Clear, unified vision.

Microsoft performs usability studies... they invest a lot fo time figuring out what feature are needed, what can help people - Yes, many times what they make can be annoying (paperclip, anyone?) - but unless we had a unified (no competing projects like KDE and Gnome) set of projects, goals for those projects, and clear and definable end-user documentation and online help, we would not get to the level microsoft has made thier software to be.

Yes - microsoft software can be 'buggy' - but its developers are Good. Microsoft understands that they can make the most money by making software that is Good Enough - making the best, bug free software possible won't make as much money, since it will give users less of an incentive to upgrade and buy the next version. Yes, this strategy stinks - it reeks of marketing, but it works.

I have no doubt that if funded like microsoft, the OS community would develop amazing systems - probably much much closer to bug-free than micrsoft's - however, the end user still wouldn't have the unified ease-of-use of a microsoft (or apple) OS. That comes with a unified vision... and a unified vision needs... A Leader.

We have Linus, but he leads kernel development and champions OS development in general. there is no one, or even any single group of people, in the 'Captain's Chair', defining what the end user experience should be. Even Red Hat just provides a Distribution of the core OS, and lots and lots of other Open Source software that happen to run on it - with thier own install and config utilities, of course.

I guess this turned into a rant about leadership - I guess we know Microsoft is lead by profitering businessmen, but Linux (as a platform, not the kernel... which I guess should really be called GNU/LINUX ;P) doesn't have anyone defining where it should really go, or what the end-user should expect, let alone gets...

This lack of leadership wasn't by design - Linux was, as Linus will tell you, never expected to come as far as it did when he started it. We (the community) spontaneously sprang forth and Developed... and developed and developed...

But an analogy can be drawn to genetics here. Just as it took millions of years of evolution to produce a mouse, it only takes man (an intelligent outsider to the natural process fo evolution) years to effect enourmous changes to the gnome (and thus the phenotype) of Mice and other creatures. Couldn't nature, through random chance and lots of time, produce the same creations we can today from ordinary mice? Yes. Thus, The semi-random headless development community could produce amazing software meetings specific goals... if given enough time.

But just money won't do it... we either need the Money and Lots of Time, or we need the money and a very clear, defined direction...

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[mister sticky]

Sadly, OSS doesn't have a craptain on the throne either
(he said he was just going out for a smoke break, but it's been 2 weeks :(

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Peyna]

Yes - microsoft software can be 'buggy' - but its developers are Good.Developers that write buggy code are not, IMHO, 'Good'.

Note, I am not saying anything about MS software or their developers in this comment; only that I believe that buggy code != good developer.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[mark_lybarger]

imho, good developers do write buggy code. the linux kernel, desktop and all server software is written by good developers, and it has its share of bugs.

most bugs in a software development project are due to lack of well defined requirements (use cases help here lots). another major factor to consider is time constraints. typically a manager or senior engineer is pulling some project estimates out of their back side. those will get cut at least into half by some business folks by adding half the original resources (i still don't buy that math). the last 4 weeks of the project ends in 80 hr hectic weeks for everyone (except that business guy who decided to cut the project timeline) running on too much caffinee and not enough pizza. this ultimately results in buggy software. i won't even go into how requirement changes a week before a scheduled release can impact the quality of a software development project.

so to conclude, good coders do code buggy software, but often its because of others around the project this happens.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Eccles]

I agree with the idea that if money was poured into open source software development it would be closer to Microsoft's software (in ease of use) - but it wouldn't get there without something else:

A Clear, unified vision.

Count just how many different mechanisms Microsoft has created for interprocess communications in the last ten years, then try to say that again with a straight face.

Good design? Drive letters are still a fundamentally visible part of every Windows OS. They try to hide it a little more each time, but they fail. This despite having the pre-existing Unix file system as a model, which is generally just about right.

The problem with Microsoft is that it has great developers (consider the size of Windows XP); it's actually the deisngers who are crap, and make those developers follow a spec that is crufty. The developers follow that spec, and implement it as well as possible; but let's face it, a perfectly built Yugo would still be a Yugo.

Also, the whole cost issue makes compatibility problems so much worse. Linux 2.0 is still maintained. See that for Windows 98? Mac OS 9? And if the new version is free, most everyone will upgrade, or at least have a copy of the upgrade. So the issue of having to buy the new version because it fixes the bugs in the old version disappears.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Fiver-rah]

I agree with the idea that if money was poured into open source software development it would be closer to Microsoft's software (in ease of use) - but it wouldn't get there without something else: A Clear, unified vision.

Wait. Why do we want this? One of the things I *like* about open source is the fact that it's *not* unified. When you say Clear, Unified Vision, I think ... boring. I *like* the fact that I can choose whether to use Gnome or KDE. I *like* the fact that there's tons of window managers to choose from. Or that I can choose to use openoffice, koffice, or a combination of abiword/gnumeric. (In fact, I choose to use openoffice if I need to preserve formatting on a word document, but if I'm just opening something quick or firing off a letter, abiword is fast beyond comparison).

The large number of choices we have available to us with Open Source is what makes us strong. You draw an analogy to genetics. But any biologist will tell you that a diverse ecology is more robust and more stable than a monoculture.

The beauty of Open Source is that development no longer becomes dependent on a top-down imposed view of Where We're Going. The leadership view of software development need only be imposed when an entire organization needs to defend itself and its proprietary codebase against all attackers.

Ultimately, your hopes of a "clear, defined direction" could only be achieved by losing flexibility, diversity, and more importantly, a sense of fun and wonder. While specific organizations in the open source community may define directions they'd like to take, I think that it would be a mistake to try and unify everyone to march in the same lockstep rhythm.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Dolly_Llama]

Yes, many times what they make can be annoying (paperclip, anyone?)

If you are using the example of Clippy, then you have not witnessed the awesome destructive power of the fully armed and operational Microsoft Bob!

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[tshak]

I *like* the fact that there's tons of window managers to choose from.

Which is exactly why Linux is so successful. Because it's written by geeks, FOR geeks. It's much more difficult to write software for someone else, because what you think is important may be completely irrelevant to someone else.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Osty]

no competing projects like KDE and Gnome

Just a small nitpick, since I think you're mostlty correct, but you're not quite right on this point. Competing projects are good, up to a certain point. They drive each other to be better. In that vein, it's not uncommon to see (or, "see", as this kind of thing is often internal within companies, and doesn't usually become public knowledge) several different projects doing nearly the same thing within larger companies. Very useful, but I think what you're trying to get at rather than not having competing projects at all is to know where that threshold is when you pick one or the other of the projects, and begin to merge the good ideas from the other into the one you picked, while still working on weeding out the bad ideas (some of which may be replaced by the ideas from the competing project(s)). Knowing when to declare a "winner" is very important. Otherwise, you end up with fragmentation.

BTW, that's not anti-competition, in that competition is the striving between two similar projects to force each other to become better. You still have that, it's just that you have only a single end-result. For the next version, sure, branch two (or more) projects off of the existing codebase and go to town again, merging together again near the end of the cycle.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Ryan Amos]

You must not know much about CS jobs. If you go to any of the top CS schools in the country, you'll see where most of the top of the class goes-- Microsoft. The general consensus among students in the CS dept I attend is that people working for MS are real badasses. And it's the truth. The guys working for MS REALLY know what they're doing.

The bugs arise from the fact that MS products are MASSIVE projects with literally hundreds of developers. It's simply impossible to produce bug-free products that large in a reasonable timeframe. Sure, many people cite Linux as an example. Linux (not just the kernel, XFree, KDE/Gnome and all related things) are buggy too. This doesn't mean that the developers suck, but squashing bugs takes time. Also, MANY hardware drivers in the kernel are incomplete/missing. Sure, they may not be as buggy as Windows, but if they don't do what I need them to, they might as well not exist at all.

I don't mean to bash Linux here or anything, but simply use it as a tool to point out the logistical nightmare of any large software project. Microsoft does a rather good job of keeping the show-stopper bugs away and working to fix the minor ones with service packs. Microsoft's legal and marketing departments may be Evil (tm), but their developers are top-notch.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Rimbo]

I see things differently.

I am glad that KDE and Gnome are competing. It means that we who use Linux, unlike the Windows-using world, have a choice. And what's more, I feel that their competition helps to make them better.

The problem I have with Microsoft is that they DO have a clear, defined direction. And if I am a Windows user, it is the only direction I can go.

I want my Open Source projects to compete. I like it when projects fork. I like the fact that there is no despot who tells us how things must be. If it weren't for dissent, no one would have tried to start any newer or better projects to begin with -- we'd all be happy with whatever OS Microsoft spoon-fed us in the first place.

In ESR's "Cathedral & The Bazaar," he explains why forking and dissension is a good thing, and although his word is far from Bible Truth, he certainly has a point, doesn't he?

But ultimately, the current success of most Open Source projects seem to me to be the result of dissension and a lack of shared vision. We haven't had one yet, and I don't think it's out of line to say we got here because we bothered to disagree -- with Redmond and Cupertino as well as with each other.

So ultimately, I think it is in our best interests to remain in disagreement, and to continue to pursue our own interests and beliefs. Because ultimately, that is what separates us from Microsoft, and what makes us stronger.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Seeker5528]

"but unless we had a unified (no competing projects like KDE and Gnome) set of projects, goals for those projects, and clear and definable end-user documentation and online help, we would not get to the level microsoft has made thier software to be."

It may be good to have some unity and clearly defined goals within a project, but it is also good to have outside contributors doing the unexpected. Alot of good stuff is unplanned.

I believe having multiple projects that compete is good because:

Competition pushes each project to do better.
The different projects experiment with ideas that appeal to different users.
Analisys of what is wrong or right with one project can clarify the direction of another.

In the end it is not a unified vision that is important, it is standards.

Having multiple implementations of something can point out where:

A standard is flawed.
A standard needs to be more clearly defined.
A standard needs to be extended.
A new standard needs to be created.

Later, Seeker

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[tomstdenis]

Here's a little reality lesson for you. Nobody, and I really mean that, writes bug-free complex programs the first shot. Check out mozilla if you need a non-MSFT example.

Tom

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[tomstdenis]

Another tidbit of reality. 99% of computer users are *not* nerds [note: a geek is a circus person who bites the heads off chickens] so saying "linux is so popular" and "written for geeks" is kinda counter-intuiative.

Tom

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[tomstdenis]

I am glad that KDE and Gnome are competing. It means that we who use Linux, unlike the Windows-using world, have a choice. And what's more, I feel that their competition helps to make them better.

I see it differently. I see it as dividing up the already limited potential developers base into camps that basically try to emulate each other.

Notice, gedit => kedit and many others...

At least in windows there is a traditional user interface which is VERY USEFUL for newbie computer users.

Besides in windows there is competition on many things. Just not the shell. [I host my site with apache, I use cygwin, I am typing this message in Opera, etc...]

Tom

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Thomas Charron]

So, instead, we should be working to a single replacement for what we complain about being a (mono means one, you know) monopoly?

LOL..

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[tomstdenis]

Why the heck not? Or if you really want to have both actually try, um, i dunno, some originality!

Why is emulating another product considered diversity?

Personally I would rather see more people collaborate on single products for linux then have every kid and their brother coding their own tools.

I mean, you ever wonder why Windows is so popular amongst the average user? Aside from the fact that MSFT is a bully...

Its because they stick with what works. They don't have 18 different GUI shells, or 34 web browsers. They stick to core products and develop them properly.

And really having only one tool is not a monopoly. Like "terrorism" the word "monopoly" has no value here.

For instance, I wrote the "TomSteady" Winamp DSP-plugin. Do I now have the monopoly on all AGC style plugins because I'm really the only one out there with one?

Hell no.

Monopolies only exist when alternatives are stopped from being produced. MS doesn't have a monopoly on the Windoes shell because you can quite simply replace "explorer.exe" with whatever you want. You don't need to use IE either....

Tom

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[bogado]

The best part is that Gnome, andprobably KDE (I don't use so I don't know) is getting closer to the usnifomity the author expects. Gnome 2 do have unified key binding for applications. The API is making it easier to applications to conform to the standards. You do have a choice of using programs from diferent "desktops" at the cost of having a mess, but if you stick to one, be it KDE or gnome, you will end up with a very consistent desktop.

So what you have? The best of both worlds. :-)

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[tshak]

I didn't say that Linux was popular, I said that Linux is successful. And it is by all reasonable definitions of the term. And the market it's successful in is full of geeks. Stick it in another market and the maybe a few "wannabe geeks" or "radicals" ;-) will end up using it.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Rimbo]

"And really having only one tool is not a monopoly."

How, then, would you define "monopoly?"

You are right that Windows succeeds because it has one interface that most everyone is used to. But should those of us who do not like Windows' interface be forced to use it for the sake of the others? I agree that this is not really a monopoly: It strikes me, rather, as despotism.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Coventry]

Let me clarify:

The article and statement I was responding to was about wether the OSS community could, if funded like microsoft, develop products as easy to use and as good as microsoft. The beauty of open source hurts it againt this goal alone: I am not saying that the competition is bad, just that it would hinder the one goal given.

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[mfnickster]

So, instead, we should be working to a single replacement for what we complain about being a (mono means one, you know) monopoly?

No, it means not having to re-invent the wheel for the sake of "choice!"

Right now, you can choose from lots of different wheels on Linux, they all work fine. The only problem is you have to change cars to use a different wheel. KDE developers and GNOME developers are duplicating efforts in a major way.

Interoperability is the goal, not uniformity of interface. Shells are a good example-- you can pretty much use whichever shell you like and not worry about its interface to the kernel.

And I think we wouldn't complain nearly so much about MS's monopoly if Windows and its applications were more open.

- MFN

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[tomstdenis]

How, then, would you define "monopoly?"

I already gave a brief definition but for the sake of people who don't read the whole posts...

A monopoly is a situation when alternatives are driven out of the market by pressure from another source. Like if MSFT turned around and say made deals with OEM's to include MS and forced them [via making life a bitch] not to turn away. That's a monopoly.

But if Redhat just shipped KDE and not Gnome, that's not a monopoly. Redhat is not forcing Gnome out of the market.

Tom

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[sphealey]

If you go to any of the top CS schools in the country, you'll see where most of the top of the class goes-- Microsoft. The general consensus among students in the CS dept I attend is that people working for MS are real badasses. And it's the truth. The guys working for MS REALLY know what they're doing.

Sorry to have to disagree with you a bit there, dude. Compare Novell Netware 3.11 to MS LANManager 1.1 or 2.0. Compare Novell Netware 4.1x to NT 3.5. Compare Novell NDS to Active Directory (a bit harder to do, since AD was released 3 years late and 5 years after NDS). Compare Lotus Notes (or hell, even cc:Mail) to Exchange. In every case you will find that the former product was created by people who sat down and thought, really thought, about the problem domain. The resulting products may not have been perfect, but at least the creators put in some effort. While the corresponding Microsoft product was just a pale imitation (can you say "rip-off"?) of the originating product, CLEARLY created by people who DO NOT understand the problem domain but are just imitating what they have seen elsewhere.

Microsoft Excel might be the only exception to this rule, but even there M$ started out copying Visicalc/Lotus.

sPh

Re:Sorry, I think you're off...

[Felinoid]

"Microsoft performs usability studies"

Really?

Microsofts answer to e-mail viruses "Don't open file attachments" Why not remove the feature?

The Microsoft Wizard utilitys don't work.
Microsoft deffenders say you need to be an operating system expert to understand Windows and you need to understand Windows to use it.

While both clames are a bit of a strech if true it would mean you'd have to be one of the 15 top computer experts in the world to use Windows effectively.

The truth is significantly less extream...
You need a vage understanding of computers in general to use Windows and you only need to know how to code Dos applications to fully understand Windows.

So basicly the avrage expert user can use Windows. The avrage expert user can use Linux just as effectively. The avrage expert user can use anything given half an hour and a manual.

The avrage expert user dosn't need useability studys.

The whole idea of a user friendly operating system is so the avrage newbie could use the computer effectively....
Thats the Mac.

Realisticly speaking there isn't any hope of a user friendly opertaing system existing on the PC.
The system has to be user friendly from ground up.

As for leadership...
This is the diffrence between a system and a console.
A console is one core design. If something is to be added it must be part of the original design.
Everything is easy and simple and if your needs aren't part of the original design or if technology advances byond what the original design expects then you have an expensive paperwight.

A system dosen't rely on an overall vision. If you have a need just add it on.

Linus didn't consider 3D cards, sound cards, TV cards or radio cards, camras or scanners in his design.
So other people made the drivers as needed.

Bill Gates didn't consider TV or radio cards.. sorry no drivers exist.. just end user appications.
If you want to use your TV card for a security camra you have to run Linux to do it..

That's what makes a system...

Not to be down on consoles. They work great for what ever they are designed to do.
But not everyone who uses a computer is going to do the expected.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

As usual, I'm a defect

[inflex]

Something must be wrong with my life... I'm a hybrid business developer, so, technically, I'm not making money from OpenSource [ in a strict sense ].

In short, I develop one 'commercial' program, of which the revenues I generate I use to fund my development of the OpenSource projects. These OpenSource projects in turn assist the commercial program because they both [Open and Commercial] share common libraries. These libraries are the most vital core.

By striking this 'balance', I'm able to keep the legal aspects happy, the financial aspects happy (I am my own business) and myself happy.

Whilst I don't make huge amounts of money, that is not the entire point. I do OpenSource because it's 'pleasurable' (most times, I wont expand on the bad times), and my 'commercial' side funds me.

Works for me.

Re:As usual, I'm a defect

[Suidae]

Whilst I don't make huge amounts of money, that is not the entire point

What? What's your damage boy? Isn't the whole point of life to amass the largest collection of resources, both financial and material, in one place, so others cannot use them?

Re:As usual, I'm a defect

[inflex]

Not entirely. Yes, one wants to make enough money to get what ever one wants *cough*, however, I tend to find a lot more satisfaction in doing other things in life (which do require money). If I make squillions of bucks fine, but, the point is for me to take over the world and ... oh bugger, I've just turned into Bill Gates.

Re:As usual, I'm a defect

[tshak]

And, of course, your Open Source software is not GPL'd, seeing as your Closed software (I'm assuming your Commercial software is Closed) would have to be Open Source as well if it was :-).

What's your motivation?

[Cheap Imitation]

It all depends on what your motivation is for writing the software.

If your motivation is purely profit, then yes, open source is a flawed model. It limits the amount of profit you can squeeze out of what you produce. This is, obviously, why Microsoft dislikes open source. Profit is their motive.

However, if your motive is the best possible end product, or saving your company money, or security, or creating something to fit your exact needs, then open source is the perfect model.

Not everything in the world has to succeed purely based on whether it can turn a profit or not. I don't choose my music based on how many albums the artist sold. I don't choose my art based on the price of the paintings. I don't choose my hobbies based on how marketable they are.

To bash open source because it's less "profitable" seems silly to me. That wasn't it's intent or goal. Was Michael Jordan a failure because he was a lousy baseball player? Or was he a success because he was a fantastic basketball player?

Open source is a fantastic success when measured against the goals it set out to reach. It's only when people try to measure it against different, inappropriate standards that it looks less than stellar.

Let open source play it's own way, and ignore the folks who try and measure it by the stats of a different game.

Re:What's your motivation?

[ChronoZ]

Actually, I believe Microsoft dislikes Free Software, not open source as a whole (dislikes GPL as opposed to BSD licenses)

Re:What's your motivation?

[johnnyb]

I think the point of the FSF's position is that you don't have to extract the maximum profit possible, as long as programmers can earn a living wage, which they, and I, believe to be quite possible with Free Software. In that case, everyone wins. It's not just the developers screwing over the rest of society.

You need profit incentive.

[Nindalf]

What you're talking about is socialism. It's wasteful and inefficient. It sounds good when you assume that the money will go to the right people, but it never does, even when the officials aren't corrupt, because there are only a few officials. Capitalism gets everyone doing their best to calculate where their money will do them the most good. You still don't get perfect answers, but you generally get better ones.

Direct profit incentives from the users to the creators are possible for open source software, but require an active approach from the users, and a cooperative one from the creators. It's called open donation. It says, "Look at what this guy did! I like it so much I'm giving him money, so if you want some of my money, just be more like him!"

It's just getting rolling (there might be as little as a few million dollars a month going around as donations to for-profit groups), but it'll catch on and be big business some day. Give it time.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[martyn s]

It's wasteful and inefficient when talking about things that do not have zero marginal cost. The cost for distributing software, once it is developed, is zero. So, take roads, for example. Roads have a high fixed cost, but it doesn't cost anything extra to use it.

Capitalism works. But it doesn't work when things like intellectual property are tacked on in order to make an old model fit into to businesses. The fact is, "capitalism" doesn't work when you give people artificial monopolies. When you charge for something that has a zero marginal cost, that is inefficient.

If you are sincere in wanting to learn the truth, then read this book Steal this idea, amazon. I used to be a very strong market defender, and I still am, but in instances, like writing software, where there is a high fixed cost, but a zero marginal cost, traditional capitalism just doesn't work. I can't really explain it better than that, without writing a book, and this book does a better job than I can. Try to consider the possibility that there are certain instance when your model just doesn't work properly.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[meta-monkey]

I clicked on the amazon link your provided, and it looks like a good book. I also found the author's homepage. I find it extremely funny, however, that the book is not available for free as an electronic document.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[OwnedByTwoCats]

So, take roads, for example. Roads have a high fixed cost, but it doesn't cost anything extra to use it.

Actually, the more a road is used, the more maintenance it needs. I've seen estimates that over-the-road trucks, even with their thousands of dollars per year in taxes, are paying around half of their share of road maintenance costs.

Capitalism is fairly efficient. But only when there is reasonable competition. And the captains of industry are doing their damndest to eliminate competitive threats, denying consumers the ability to make a choice (per processor licensing fees anyone?), and reducing overall efficiency while lining their own pockets.. Recall the saga of local channels on Satellite TV.

And capitalism doesn't produce optimal results for information products. It just doesn't. Laws have been passed to grant monopoly priviledges to the information creators, but they are far from perfect. Microsoft's businss model relies on those monopoly grants. Monopolies are only efficient at lining their owners pockets and fleecing the public.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[Nindalf]

If you are sincere in wanting to learn the truth, then read this book Steal this idea, amazon.

Oh, so now we come to it, you spammy troll.

You know, it would probably be less obvious and more successful if you didn't post your referrer link half a dozen times in the same thread.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[tshak]

The cost for distributing software, once it is developed, is zero. So, take roads, for example. Roads have a high fixed cost, but it doesn't cost anything extra to use it.


Are you kidding? Do you know why states heavily tax a Semi that uses a road? Because of the incredible amount of maintenance that they cause. The same goes with software. Distributing software costs quite a bit of money. Open Source is about sharing code. However, software is not about programming. It's only 1/5th of the equation. The cost to develop may be the biggest cost, but that doesn't negate the cost to produce CD's, documentation, technical support, marketing (trust me, it's needed), general administrative costs to handle updates and customer feedback, etc.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[martyn s]

I've posted the link many other times in many other threads. In other threads I logged out of amazon.com before posting the thread so the "referrer" link wouldn't show up, but it was the same link whether I was logged in or out anyway. Is it possible I posted the link because I just don't know how to adequately explain it, and I found the book to really change my way of thinking?

Re:You need profit incentive.

[martyn s]

You're right, roads aren't even an adequate comparison. But maybe there is not proper comparison to information products. That doesn't make what I'm saying any less true.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[BadmanX]

It's obvious - if he provided the book in electronic format, then no one would buy the print copy.

Oh, wait...isn't that EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS US SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS TO DO?

Fuck him.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[Nindalf]

Posting a link to a book for sale once is suggesting it. Posting a link to a book for sale habitually is advertising. Posting a link to a book for sale multiple times in a single thread is SPAMMING.

Bringing up arguments like, "The fact is, 'capitalism' doesn't work when you give people artificial monopolies." against a suggestion of purely voluntary donations to reward and support development of free software is TROLLING.

As for identifying the natural monopoly of road-building, for which confiscation of land is essential and a free-market solution is virtually impossible, with the anything-goes naturally free market of software... If that's not trolling, it's so mind-numbingly stupid that I'm afraid to discuss it due to the threat of intellectual
osmosis.

When you're so obviously free to give your own money to support any software development you choose, advocating government confiscation of others' money to support your preferred projects is as wicked as stealing it with your own hands. Believing that it will turn out to your benefit instead of diverting your money to support the goals of others is foolish. These are, of course, the characteristic traits of a socialist: mean-spirited idiocy under a facade of high ideals.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[martyn s]

Frankly, you can call it whatever you like, but I gain nothing from the sale of this book, so I'd hardly call it advertising.

You're right on a few points, I still believe the majority of intellectual property should be made with copyright; I just think 5 - 10 years is long enough.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[awol]

Do you know why states heavily tax a Semi that uses a road?

Yes. Because the damage done to the road is an exponetional function of axle load. So? Once software is built you don't wear out the bits by using it more? How does you're analogy work?

The road analogy is poor because the itch that is scratched by a road requires the road to remain in the same state of repair at the time that it was created. Software is a different kind of itch and it is these qualitative difference with IP that make it sooo broken.

The original poster's point about marginal cost is important. Other posters have talked about all kinds of issues, monopolies etc etc. Well they are all distracted by red herrings. There are such things as natural monopolies, so son't worry too much about the existence of monopolies per se. Worry about the marginal cost of the next copy of product X if it is zero then being able to charge for it _is a failure in the market_ it is really that simple. But even that is an unnecessary simplification, because it is being able to charge more than the marginal cost even where that marginal cost is non zero that is the problem. In capitalism, only under conditions of market failure does that ever happen. Now the market fails _all the time_ in losts of different ways, but in general what goes around comes around so we don't care about it too much, but when there is a structural failure then we have a huge problem and the ability to charge extraordinary (in a techincal sense) prices for software/CDs/DVD/Video is an example of such structural problems. So look for the cause. No matter how hard you try the answer will always be the simple existence of IP. That's it.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[HiThere]

OK. But the marginal cost isn't really zero. It's quite small, on the close order of $5.00 for an entire Linux distribution (i.e., somewhere between $25 and $2.24). But it does exist, and it is non-zero.

I wouldn't disagree with the assertion that there is a failure of the market, but don't get mesmerized by a phantom zero marginal cost. It doesn't exist.

Re:You need profit incentive.

[fferreres]

"Posting a link to a book for sale habitually is advertising."

Not if it's on topic. And believe me this "zero marginal cost" stuff you probably think it's some new invention is the _basis_ of traditional economics. Traditional economics means that to produce 1 more item, not only you have a COST, but actually, that you have increasing costs. As more is bought, the price goes UP. UP in what amount? Well, in the amount that covers production costs. In software, the MORE you produce, the LESS it costs. So once a company has reached a dominant position, there is NO WAY a firm can compete. It's always the winner takes it all scenario.

With software, it gets even worst, because you have standalone compatibility issues (your computer) and shared compatibility issues (intercomunication, networking). Once a party reaches the top, there's NO going down.

It's predicted in every single economics introduction textbook. There's no discussion about it.

Of course they don't deal about the decresing costs of production with scale, as in the past (1800-1950) theses cases where very rare. Now they are very common.

If you read the "monopoly" chapter, you'll see how firm can leverage the monopoly to maximize revenue as he sees fit. That is, they can CHOOSE the price to sell, and people have to accept it. In a competitive scenario no single player can chose a price by itself. They can't even MOVE the price.

You can still think this is best for your country (world, universe, whatever) and, in this case, you are talking about "corporate economics". Corporations dominating the political agenda and foreign policy (and everything). This might be good or bad i don't discuss it. But this kind of economy is not "capitalism" for sure.

"...intellectual [link] osmosis [link]."

You are posting a link twice to the same exact document. I mean, you don't like people double linking unless you are the one doing it, right?

"If that's not trolling, it's so mind-numbingly stupid that I'm afraid to discuss..."

Why trolling? It's what he thinks. It may not be a perfect example (i think no analogy is needed to understand the "zero marginal cost" statement), but it may be usefull for someone to realize some times rules work differenty.

"... advocating government confiscation of others' money to support your preferred projects is as wicked as stealing it with your own hands."

Now you are _really_ trolling. First of all, the goverment charges taxes, no matter on what they plan to use that money for. You think it's great to have your mom charged taxes while buying food (sales tax, income tax, etc) and that the gov. then surrenders that money to Microsoft. And that she now owns nothing at all. Then again, using tax money to fund a company to help produce any application (same as paying to Microsoft, because they are funding Microsft in the same exact amount) is stealing. WAIT A SECOND. You are the one paying, so how can you be stealing?? Also, it's better to receive something from that money than NOTHING AT ALL.

Well, i would't have worried to answer you post, but you really really insisted on misinforming yourself and everyone else reading the thread. I couldn't resist.

GL!

Re:You need profit incentive.

[fferreres]

You are right about the road example! It's not the best example one can make. I could name a few better ones like a canal or river for traveling boats (to many the analogy better you'll have to imagine that any number of boats can accopy the same space at the same time).

But I don't agree with your other thoughts...

When was the last time Microsoft offered you a discount for downloading Windows instead of buying the CD? Or Office, for instance. Do you know how much a 200MB download costs? If not, you wouldn't be saying all this nonsense. Slakware was making a profit for selling CDs at u$s 10 or less. Wow they must have had some special CD burner or something.

Also, when was the last time you read a Windows manual? They don't even come with manuals anymore (at least the version I paid when I bought my IBM notebook and it's bundled Windows).

Also, AFAIK Open Source is NOT necesarily about sharing source. GPL and some other licenses are. Open Source is about allowing people to see the source of a given program, and giving them the ability to modify it , at least for private use.

Windows comotidizes the OS and nobody can customize it, so nobody can hve a competitive edge while using Windows. Everyone has the same unmodified thing.

And software really has zero marginal cost of production. It really does no matter how hard you try to hide that fact, it be trueby definition (of software).

One last thought. When you buy Office, you really are paying 3% for developement, 10% for marketing expenses, 2% for buying lawers and the rest if just profits. That's why Microsoft never publishes a per-product income statement. This is arguable, but i'd bet my sisters it's not far from true, at least as of now.

I didn't realize wealth was only instant money

[bons]

In my tiny small uninformed mind, I was under the impression that wealth was actually a measure of possessions, comforts, and things we begin to gather after the basics such as food, shelter, and wild sex are taken care of.

The simple truth of the matter is that there is plenty of room for closed source solutions without impacting open source at all. Games, Kiosks, and software solutions for major industries are all perfect examples of closed source that no one really minds. For example, the software that allows Visa to authorize and settle transactions probably will remain closed source for the course of my lifetime because there's no real reason to open it.

However, I don't need to be paid for all of the software I create, anymore than I need to be paid for every web page, every peice of advice, and every photo I take. many of them I can give away for free at no loss to myself.

And this is where I actually get wealthy. These contributions come back because I no longer just have access to my little bit, but I have access to everyone else's contributions as well.

When it's over I have a large photo collection, an operating system, a graphics editor, a coding enviroment, and a plethora of other tools.

As Bucky Fuller long alo realized, by giving away the right things to the right people, I can make myself wealthy.

Life is not a zero sum game.

Re:I didn't realize wealth was only instant money

[dimator]

Bla, bla, bla. All that touchy-feely, feel-good crap can't buy me one of these.

Re:I didn't realize wealth was only instant money

[naasking]

Bla, bla, bla. All that touchy-feely, feel-good crap can't buy me one of these [porsche.com].

And exactly what do you hope to accomplish with one of those?

Re:I didn't realize wealth was only instant money

[>:^D]

Bla, bla, bla. All that touchy-feely, feel-good crap can't buy me one of these [porsche.com].

So rich is only in money? Then why program at all? You can be a banker. BTW, if you are, ask them how much they are enjoying their new trading system.

Now shut your pie hole.

Re:I didn't realize wealth was only instant money

[T3kno]

Actually if Porsche would release their specs you could build one yourself.

Re:I didn't realize wealth was only instant money

[dimator]

Go really fast

Re:I didn't realize wealth was only instant money

[Idou]

Wow, that was enlightening . . . too bad a lot of people do not have the luxury to get past the "show me the $$$".

That is where I come in . . .

Ask any Economist, who didn't drink their way through school, where the economies of developed nations are going, and you will get one answer: Services

If they have the time, they might go into how profit causes market entry. Therefore, profitable industries will grow, while less profitable industries will fade away.

Chances are, if you are one of those people who are complaining that it is impossible to make money from Open Source, you are part of the old school: got to sell my bits! You probably also are somewhat lacking in financial security, job security, or both.

The people who are making money off of Open Source are not bit sellers but solution providers. They are inter-disciplinary professionals doing consulting and providing SERVICES to other companies. They are able to know their solution tools inside and out (and will contribute bits along the way) because they have access to the Source. They are able to provide competitive solutions and yet gain a better profit then your average joe programmer (working for the MAN). In a since, they have all the benefits that MS does with their software, without any of the Overhead.

Being a programmer alone is not enough to make the $$$. First of all, I suggest you learn some things about economics, and you start listening to some of these "crazy" guys who feel okay giving away their bits, because that is how you will learn how to make money for yourself, instead making money for yourself . . . and management. You will certainly need to broaden your skills, maybe even will need to get some kind of certification like a CPA. However, Open Source is here to stay . . . and the sooner you learn to utilize it, the less time you have to spend writing bitter posts about how the programmers don`t get paid . . . (when they are actually making way more than you).

Re:I didn't realize wealth was only instant money

[naasking]

Go where?

Re:I didn't realize wealth was only instant money

[HiThere]

Yes.

(N.B.: I'm interpreting open source to mean GPL)
Most programming is done to specialize solutions to a local environment. There's usually no particular advantage to keeping this stuff secret. And if you use GPL code as your starter, then you are more or less obligated to GPL your result. (Of course, you don't need to distribute it if you don't want to.)

What is difficult to do is to create an open source application, and then live by selling it. But be aware that it's also quite difficult to do this with a closed source application. Open source just makes it a bit more difficult.

Yeah, it's a flaw

[Henry V .009]

It takes a great deal of effort to program. If you haven't read it yet, take a look at the Mythical Man Month. A major point of that book is that the amount of time it takes to create a software project isn't directly related to the number of programmer hours invested. Unfortunately, programmer hours invested is the major benefit of open source. Organization and teamwork are second-rate when comparing open source projects to commercial projects.

To make a project work, you need one programmer investing 20 hours a week instead of (or in addition to) 100 programmers investing one hour a week. (All successful open source projects display this characteristic.)

Anybody can devote 1 hour a week to an open source project.

But the only way that we will get enough 20 hour a week programmers will be to find some way to recompense them.

Or pay them, in other words.

Re:Yeah, it's a flaw

[Stonehand]

Hm. It would seem like Sourceforge and similar sites could yield some useful statistics. For instance, what is the distribution of contributors per project, and the size of their contributions in terms of LOC or time (or, alternately, simply the number of check-ins they've done)? What percentage of projects are orphaned before they ever progress beyond buggy alpha-grade crap, or perhaps even at the design stage?

It would also be interesting, if less relevant, to learn how many of the projects there are simply derivative works (particularly common for games -- Tetris clones, *craft clones, Civ clones, Space Invaders clones, et al) instead of original designs.

Re:Yeah, it's a flaw

[Henry V .009]

You mean like this slashdot story from last week?

Re:Yeah, it's a flaw

[peddrenth]

"Anybody can devote 1 hour a week to an open source project. But the only way that we will get enough 20 hour a week programmers will be to find some way to recompense them."

Software businesses which employ hundreds of people full-time spend most of that time reinventing wheels, reprogramming things which have been done time and time again by other companies, locked away in their "I'm not sharing" intellectual-property boxes. Free software doesn't need to do that, we just write it once and it's there.

Look at Tex, Latex, gcc, grep. None of those need people to work on them, beyond perhaps a couple hours per year of minor tweaks. They don't need to spend months developing "GCC 2000/XP" just to force another upgrade, because they don't need to. It already works.

Look at Perl. It's a mature language, yet we don't see anything like the "Visual Basic .NET" department of hundreds of professional programmers working on the next release. We see Larry Wall, plus a couple of friends, writing Perl5 because it's fun.

Whenever this question comes up, it's useful to ask if we're trying to create jobs or software -- how labour-intensive do we really want to be? How commercial?

Re:Yeah, it's a flaw

[Elwood P Dowd]

It'd require a pretty significant judgment call to decide what a derivative work is. Nothing new under the sun and all... for example, someone might make a new mail reader closely based on another mail reader that they liked. Or not so closely. Drawing that line is kindof silly. All software is a derivative work to some degree.

Re:Yeah, it's a flaw

[HiThere]

Nothing wrong with a derivative work. It's a good way to learn, if nothing else.

Also, the theory of evolution is basically about derivative works. It's true that when you get people involved in the designs it doesn't work quite the same way, but I suspect that a generalization of the same priciples is at work. People usually only have a locallized understanding of the effects of their changes. (That's one of the reasons for OO programming.)

Haha, point proven!

[Andorion]

They get a job?

Yeah, they get a job writing software for a company like Microsoft =)

Point proven.

-Berj

Oh shit. Get over it.

[mindstrm]

Open Source is such a dirty word now! Seriously, the word reeks of zealotry.

Yes, completely open development is great. It has many advantages.
So what.

Money makes things happen too you know.

Open source freaks act like commercial programmers can't produce anything worthwhile. Look around you. The VAST MAJORITY of software so far is commercially produced. Yes, allright, there is some great open source stuff out there.. but in the grand scheme of things, it's not that much.
Now, I'm not saying that that MEANS anything, other than...
Commercial software is viable too.

Re:Oh shit. Get over it.

[DarkAce911]

how long do you think Microsoft is going to let Win2k last? I don't see a need for XP but it is coming standard issue on almost every new PC.

It could be a flaw...

[PhilJackson]

The author is indeed correct as the current state of open source exists now it is flawed.

If you can imagine a world without M$ and its greediness then there is a possibiliy that open source could work, and work well.

The problems are the licences. The GPL is great for non-profit and 'hobby' applications but just won't work for products such as, say, photoshop.

A licence could be written that states people can contribute to the commercial application but code cannot be taken from it and used elsewere, if this licence was obeyed by the users open source would work for capital. The thing is it wouldn't; you would always have script kiddies branching from the original source tree and posting thier code on a 'warez' site meaning loss of valuable capital for the company.

I would really like open source to take off in such a way that even big commercial companies used it. I just don't think it will ever happen.

Re:It could be a flaw...

[johnnyb]

The GPL is great for non-profit and 'hobby' applications but just won't work for products such as, say, photoshop.

********

Or say, the GIMP? You are looking at the wrong model of software development. Instead of thinking about a software house producing a piece of software and trying to get world+dog to send them money, think about an industry that would be benefitted by software, and willing to pay a development house to build it. All industries have associations. It is in their best interest to be the ones directly funding the creation of softare for their groups - because then it works exactly as they require. Plus, it eliminates the need to keep it proprietary.

The old model is completely backwards and broken. It was similar to the lottery in how it paid it's investors back. It puts the users against the developers. It gives the developers more money by screwing over the users.

Supply, demand, and price are very linked. You can't separate them. If there is enough demand, then either a) there is a supply of people who will volunteer to fill it, or b) the market will find a way to fund the people to develop it. If the demand is for free (as in speech) software, then the market, on it's own, will find it's way to compensate enough people enough to create the software. Period. It's the way a market economy works. Unfortunately, not enough people trust the market economy, and think they have to do it someone else's way for things to work out.

Good job....

[shr3k]

It annoyed me so much that I wrote this response to it on the O'Reilly Network.

And the response, as I saw it:

Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@oreillynet.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.


So, in response, you/we slashdot'd them as punishment... Hehe.

Remember: 2 * Slashdot = Slashdot.

He's right, but very tunnel-visioned....

[trims]

Specifically, he's limited his view to the programmer who works for a company which is in the business to sell software. That is, where the company makes its revenue by the sales of software to someone. In that case, the programmer is the primary revenue-producing asset of the company, and there are significant reasons why Open Source isn't always the best way to do things in this market segment. In fact, I would argue, that for software-only companies, Proprietary is the best way to go for the vast majority of them. Not all, but clearly, most.

However, what he fails to understand is that software companies are at best a vocal minority of companies which produce software. Virtually all Fortune 1000 companies have staffs of in-house programmers writing custom apps. ALL government agencies have them. Hardware companies (or those whose primary interest is in selling PHYISICAL devices) have legions of programmers whose sole purpose is to cook up neat programs which help them sell their hardware. Even people such as IBM global services sell contracting time/expertise, though they produce significant software for their clients.

This second category is where Open Source makes the most sense, and where I would argue will eventually smother Proprietary. Sure, I can see companies (and organizations/governments) buying Proprietary software from the software-only companies (because it's cheaper/faster/easier to get it from them right now), but I'd expect that the mid-term results of going totally-Open Source for all code produced by them will win.

So, to quote from Return of the Jedi: "...you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." The author may very well be right in the localized case, but I sincerely think he's wrong for the general one.

-Erik

Re:He's right, but very tunnel-visioned....

[Stonehand]

It still sounds like you'd run into a prisoner's dilemma.

Action A -- spend money to fund open-source in-house development.

Action B -- mooch off those who chose Action A, and invest in your core business instead.

Nominally, the best payoff would seem to be if one chooses Action B while competitors choose Action A -- you exploit their software if it's sufficiently useful for your purposes, and treat the saved money as a competitive advantage. Of course, if everybody chooses B, then nobody has the software, heh. Alternately, if the software is so specialized so that it's absolutely useless to others (making B not possible), then action A isn't too meaningful either, because you'll probably have far fewer potential devs who know the relevant domain.

Re:He's right, but very tunnel-visioned....

[mvdwege]

No, that's the whole point: If action A saves you money, you've already won. The fact that B gets a free ride does not diminish your own profit, and is therefore irrelevant.

This is of course assuming that the potential profit of denying the free ride outweighs the profit of just being open. In the case of small incremental fixes to an already Free application this is likely to be not the case.

Only those who already have significant investments in their own proprietary tools stand to lose more than they gain. Not surprisingly, this is the proprietary software-only business. And given the monopoly, this means Microsoft and its dependents.

Mart

That'll show them!

[newerbob]

It's annoyed me so much that I...

That'll teach 'em! Posting a rant on a web log that nobody reads.

I think you put this on /. just to really teach them a lesson---by bringing their servers do a grinding halt for a few hours!

One nice thing...

[Slothrop]

that is often overlooked is the experience that you get. While it may not be as impressive to some people as '2 years at shite software designing toilet interface widgets', I think that being able to list significant contributions to a real and complicated OS software project is a real plus on a resume to a clued in employer, assuming that your code is good.

Basically, what I mean is that instead of academic projects, you're out there in a competitive environment coding for real, and that makes the difference for a lot of people. There are many things about software development, or just plain hacking that you just don't get until you've been thrown headfirst into a large codbase and asked to contribute.

New poll idea?

[jcsehak]

_ I provide a donation to the developers of all the OSS projects that I use. At least, the ones that ask for it.

_ I only donate to the software projects that I feel really need my support.

_ I'm broke, but I plan to donate when I have more money. In the meantime, I'm very grateful to these programmers for their efforts.

_ I never donate any of my own money, but I convince the place I work at to use free software and donate to the developers whenever they can.

_ I never give away any of my hard-earned cash when I don't have to. Suckers!

_ Some friday nights I give CowboyNeal money to open his "source." Yowza!

WAY OFF TOPIC:
anyone else see the ThinkGeek banner ad for the green laser pointer? What do you think the chances are of them getting them to be a couple inches in diameter (rather than 532 nanometers) and stop after about 4 feet? So cool...

Re:New poll idea?

[DarkAce911]

-I get my Boss to buy the latest Red Hat release box set.

$70 for docs for all your computers vs $200 for Win2k/XP Pro for 1 computer. Don't get me started on prices for Win2k server and the CAL(which is the real cost). 1 license for each PC, 1 license for each server and another access license for each and every computer you own.

Re:New poll idea?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

anyone else see the ThinkGeek banner ad [slashdot.org] for the green laser pointer?

Just checked it out....I have got to get myself one of those. I nave no really need for it, but the urge is overwelming. Then again, at $150...

That's what the license says

[Kris Warkentin]

First of all, I don't think many (any?) distros are actually making money from boxed sets but let's ignore that. Lets also ignore the fact that some of the largest contributions are made by these companies (do a grep through the maintainers of gcc,gdb,etc. for @redhat.com)

The terms of the GPL make no restrictions on what is done with the source, including the sale of binaries produced from that source as long as the source is made available.

No Open Source programmer is forced to release his work under those terms but if he does, he is undoubtably aware of the ramifications. To argue whether it is fair or not is utterly silly because the author released the code himself.

Economic Ripple Effect requires Free Software

[3seas]

rather than repeating myself This usenet post covers why there is no other way.

I've posted information and links regarding commercial autocoding here and in usenet before.
Use google to do a usenet search, if you are so inclined.

Re:Economic Ripple Effect requires Free Software

[3seas]

Getting Paid for OSS example?

Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee

[kz45]

It looks like people still don't get want the free software movement is all about: free as in free speach, not free as in free beer

it looks like you don't either. Although the free software movement is all about "free as in speech", if the software is not "free as in beer" in one form or another (binaries or source) it is not considered free (and also a violation of the GNU license).

You, and Hufschmid, are idiots

[ocelotbob]

These people do value their time, they just don't need little green pieces of paper to make themselves happy. There's much more to life than money; I know many of my happiest times, and hopefully yours too, are doing things which cost nothing. If anything, these people value their time more than closed source developers, since they don't need some arbitrary measure of how happy they should be while programming.

Just because you need an outside factor to motivate you doesn't mean that others do.

Re:You, and Hufschmid, are idiots

[bsartist]

they just don't need little green pieces of paper to make themselves happy.

I don't need money to be happy, but apparently my landlord does. So does the owner of the grocery store where I shop for food. So does the electric company, without whose services my computer wouldn't work, and my ISP, without whose services I'd be unable to distribute the software I write.

Tells you quite a bit...

[numark]

Quote from the end of the article:

"[John Carroll] specializes in the design and development of distributed systems using Java and .Net."

Seems like he has a lot to lose if open-source takes over...after all, he is devoting his energy to restrictively-licensed programming languages.

Re:Tells you quite a bit...

[bolthole]

There is nothing "restrictively licensed" about java.

There are free java servlet engines, and jsp generators. There are free jvms.

Open Source:Risk and Rewards

[Mittermeyer]

The reason Open Source has not won through is twofold- large companies who could trivially pay 2-3 programmer's out of pocket change see Open Source as a huge liability (sued for misbehaving code, not getting 24x7 support because it's one guy who just went squirrel hunting or security risk), and programmers don't do it because momma Microsoft/IBM/whatever isn't there with a secure paycheck.

This cycle feeds on itself, as a major issue for corporations is not having a steady stream of Open Source programmers familiar with the major packages to support to be available and drive down costs, and programmers don't get into it due to the cash flow problem.

This kind of thinking is backwards- the risk is NOT having the source so you can bring in whatever programmer to fix or modify a problem. Black box solutions is giving the store to the vendor and increases costs, because now you have to pay for the original programmer AND his bosses AND the profit margin for the company, and if you don't your captured system will not be running long.

The lawsuit risk should be minimized (you had the source code, you had the chance to totally vet the code before running it), but that will depend on whether common sense or industry shills will win out.

For a tenth of what they pay the vendors corporate America can have all the customized secure programming they want without being held up by the vendors, and still have plenty for the programmers. This fact alone will drive Open Source into the mainstream.

As for the programmers, it's simply a matter of letting their programs go and creating a demand for their customization and service. It won't be everyone's cup of tea as the paychecks will not be regular and creativity/vision does not necessarily go along with programming skills.

YHBT

[Anonymous Cowrad]

YL, HAND

The original zdnet article was a terribly well executed troll, don't you think? I mean, just look at all the knee-jerk responses here.

Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee

[bsartist]

Really? Since when?

Ever since the term "open source" was first used. The term was invented for the specific purpose of making the idea of open, collaborative development more appealing to businesses who may be put off by the idealogical aspects of the Free Software Foundation.

The "Open Source" and "Free Software" communities may use the same development methodology, but they do so for entirely different reasons.

BCG Study - yes, a lot are paid

[NZheretic]

A good place to start is this recent survey "BCG Study Highlights Factors Contributing to Success of Open Source Software". There is a copy of the sides for the talk in PDF format.

Actually a lot of people writing the software are employed to provide software based solutions. Open source development and free ( GPL/LGPL ) licensing provide a very productive way of encoraging participation in collaborative development. It can provide better solutions to the use of proprietary close source packages.

See Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers!

90% of programmers don't work on creating shrink wrap software but on customising solutions for clients.

From a personal perspective it is far more intellectually rewarding to the joint developer/user. You really can know exactly how the damm thing works and you can in most cases fix or adapt it to your own, your client or your employers needs. Do you wish to live and work in an enviroment where every damm box has the lable "No Serviceable Components Inside"?

As for free GPL/LGPL licensing; the reality of the current employment market is that jobs come and go - BUT, you can take the knowledge you have gain though developing and adapting free licensed software and approach other users of that software for either employment or as clients. You DONT have to "start from scratch" with each job.

If you are a programmer, in the long run, the open source free licensed software model makes it easier for you to remain employed. Unless, that is, your sole career plan consists of being employed by Microsoft.

Another question, how many of those programmers expect to use the open source they contibute at their current and future places of employment?

Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee

[dinivin]

Although the free software movement is all about "free as in speech", if the software is not "free as in beer" in one form or another (binaries or source) it is not considered free (and also a violation of the GNU license).


Since when? I can write GPLed software and sell the binaries and source if I want. There's nothing in the GPL to prevent me from doing that.

Dinivin

I was equally angered

[ctar]

by the poorly written and poorly argued ZDNet response to Ralph Nader and James Love's letter of last week. Read my response to them, which I also posted on Slashback...

Confusion About Open Source

[zentec]

This further shows the huge confusion surrounding "Open Source".

Open Source does not equate to free. Granted, most of the open source software *is* free and charging for something when you post the source on the Internet is very hard, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Open Source means that the source code is available, regardless of the purchase or licensing details. The dearly departed folks at Galacticomm practiced Open Source before there was such a thing. You purchased their BBS package and if you decided you wanted to modify it, you purchased the development kit and off you went. How Open Source can you get?

Of course, the argument is that you can't make money at that, is totally false. I sold nearly 1,000 licenses for my modules for MBBS at $299 a piece, each with the source code gleefully included on the floppy.

If the Open Source community is to survive, they need to fix this flawed perception in the computing community.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[dozer]

I sold nearly 1,000 licenses for my modules for MBBS at $299 a piece, each with the source code gleefully included on the floppy.

Could you do this now? Maybe you could put a tarball on your website and a banner above it, "Send me $300 before downloading this?"

Would anyone buy your disk when it's on all the file sharing networks? You'd sell a few licenses, but would you sell 1000?

I'm willing to bet that you're no longer making money like this. The 80s are over. Your story is irrelevant.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[ftobin]

I'm willing to bet that you're no longer making money like this. The 80s are over. Your story is irrelevant.

Perhaps he couldn't make money doing the exact same, thing, but that doesn't mean that as an enterprising Open Source author, he can't figure out another system where he ends up actually selling the software.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[sheldon]

I'm afraid you have confused the definition of "Open Source"...

With real "Open Source" you don't license your software... you give it away for free, and also allow others to freely redistribute it.

Personally I like your definition better, but it's not strictly accurate. Read the GNU Manifesto for more information.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[Stonehand]

You can create your own bogus interpretations of phrases, but don't be surprised when they create massive communications difficulties if you choose completely different definitions.

Providing source under expensive, restricted licensing isn't open source, despite your implication that it is. Providing source for, at most, a nominal distribution charge IS -- and if the source distribution includes such an obligation, it approaches GPL, whereas a "you can have the source and I don't care what you do with it" attitude leads to BSD.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[SN74S181]

The GNU Manifesto applies to a segment of the 'Open Source' software out there, but also not to a lot of it.

Further, with much 'Open Source' software there's a license. The only exception to that is Public Domain software.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[N0Nick]

What you're describing is free software, not open source. The GNU site explicitly says it reffers to free-as-in-speach software and defines only that.

Open source software is a program that its source code is available.
While free software according to the FSF guidelines must be open source in order to be truely free, open source software are not always free.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[tshak]

You are not speaking of the GNU/GPL'd license or any BSD based license (the two most popular OSS licenses). What you are speaking of it closer to Microsoft's Shared Source license.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[_Sprocket_]

You are close, but not QUITE on the mark. True, Open Source does not always mean without compensation. But a true Open Source license not only involves inclusion of source code, but also allows the code to be further distributed.

In theory, a company could develop Open Source software but refuse to provide copies of that source code to anyone but customers. But with todays Internet environment, that would simply provide a very short delay before that source code was available and widely distributed through other sources (without the stigma of copyright infringement).

The dearly departed folks at Galacticomm practiced Open Source before there was such a thing. You purchased their BBS package and if you decided you wanted to modify it, you purchased the development kit and off you went. How Open Source can you get?

As others have pointed out, this is hardly Open Source. This is the purchase of a development kit that includes source code as part of its offering.

But could Galacticomm, or you and your modules, make a business out of open source? Perhapse. But how?

Open Source licensing and the nature of information and the Internet pretty much eliminates business models based on scarcity (which is the realm of proprietary software business). So what we're left with is service. The business model would be based on several offerings: technical support, turn-key installations, customized code, training, etc.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[Tony-A]

Real "Open Source" is SOURCE not LICENSE.
Open Source has nothing to do with giving anything away for free.
GNU is Open Source. Not all Open Source is GNU. Some Open Source is not GNU. GNU is one of several Open Source licenses.
GNU insists that whoever has the program has essentially the same rights as for a work for hire, except that these rights keep passing on.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[sheldon]

Fine... From the Open Source Definition

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[sheldon]

Fine... From the Open Source Definition

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[sheldon]

Fine... From the Open Source Definition

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[N0Nick]

The OSI is associated in its ideas with the FSF's definition of free software:

How is "open source" related to "free software"?

The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software. It's a pitch for "free software" on solid pragmatic grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping. The winning substance has not changed, the losing attitude and symbolism have. See the discussion of marketing for hackers for more.

So that it is clear what kind of software we are talking about, we publish standards for open-source licenses. We have created a certification mark, "OSI Certified," to be applied only to software that is distributed under an open-source license that meets criteria set by the Open Source Initiative as representatives of the open software community. We intend this mark to become a widely recognized and valued symbol, clearly indicating that software does, in fact, have the properties that the community has associated with the descriptive term `open source'.

(The OSI FAQ)

The only definition for open-source software is a software that gives away its source code. How it's done cannot be defined by one person.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[sheldon]

Trust me, I've used the same argument as you before. While it makes for interesting trolling, it simply doesn't fly.

The modern definition of Open Source, the one that everybody thinks of today is essentially free software. It has to abide by the rules of the FSF and the Open Source Initiative in that redistribution is permittable with no restrictions.

Again, I would prefer the definition that you are using, but that is simply not the reality of the situation.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[Tony-A]

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Exactly. Whoever has the program can do with it whatever they want, except that ALL RESPONSIBILITY now passes to whoever is selling or redistributing the software. That's why I can copy Red Hat Linux and call it Pink Bow Tie Linux but get into trouble if I attempt to give proper attribution for the stuff I copied.

Re:Confusion About Open Source

[Froqen]

Open Source means that the source code is available, regardless of the purchase or licensing details.

Wow.. You just defined Microsoft Windows as open source.

Charles Mendez

[theolein]

Charles Mendez is the above AC. He spent ages trolling on the ZDNet talkbacks with that pitiful excuse for a website. In the end he stopped posting because even the people there were laughing at him so much.

Motivation

[Dasher42]

I don't know about you guys, but I can see what this article's talking about. There are sectors where the audience is not so full of fellow hobbyist programmers, but with users - including the rude, clueless, computer-illiterate users with no reading comprehension skills who will bombard you with email requesting you to restate what you've already taken your time to put in a readme or who blame you for your stuff not working when they overwrite your files with someone else's, ad nauseum. I myself have gotten much grief over releasing code to gaming audiences the way us OS geeks would think of releasing things in the Linux world.

Previously when I'd written engines and snippets for MUD codebases, my cohorts and I very quickly wearied of the bleating of people who thought that, although we'd gotten our own start by making an effort, buying books, and experimenting with code, we were duty bound to tie their shoes and clean up their mess and exempt them from learning about what they were trying to do. We wound up releasing without documentation to discourage folks who couldn't figure out the very cleanly written and yes, commented code for the file formats and do a simple "./configure; make", just to keep some spare time open for coding and real life instead of answering griping emails from people to squeamish to touch a little C++ or install a Linux or BSD partition like we had.

Nobody has any business trying to turn your hobby into unpaid labor, but boy do some people try. The value of the ethics of the open source world varies with the audience. "Release early, release often" can make all kinds of problems when there's more review from users early on than peers.

SuSE

[psicE]

What about Linux Company #2, the only one with a development lab comparable to RedHat - SuSE?

Search on the Internet. No matter how hard you look, you won't be able to find a downloadable current-version SuSE ISO. You can't buy one off Cheapbytes, either. The best you can do is download 7.2, two versions behind the current 8.0; or download an FTP bootdisk, something that only Linux experts will do and that doesn't work anyway if you have no net connection.

So if you want a copy of SuSE on CD, you have no choice but to buy a box set. Which generates income to pay programmers.

Open source isn't a business model period, so you can't say whether or not it's a viable one. It's simply a software development technology. You can have software libre that's not gratis, and make a company around it; essentially, Microsoft with far better corporate ethics and the GPL. That's a business model, and it works.

He was so annoyed.....

[array_one]

that he crashed the server.

Flawed? So what?

[ryochiji]

His argument seems to be flawed at a few levels. He's wrong in saying that money can't be made from Open Source software. It's harder to rip off consumers, but there are projects that make money through a number of means. He's also wrong in saying that companies that deploy OSS could be hung to dry if the original author loses interest. Because the source code's there, they can just keep working on it.

But his entire argument, or this "flaw" he speaks of, seems pointless. So what, let's say for a second that Open Source is flawed. Now, how does that fit in with the very reality where Open Source is flourishing, and OSS is being deployed by corporations. If it's succeeding, it can't be much of a flaw to start with, now could it?

Common Sense!

[neetocin]

My first comment in /.!

I would just like to say that if it is open-source there would be no point in selling it since anyone could just repackage it. Besides, look at Red Hat Linux 7.3! It is open-source and makes big bucks! They need to do more research!

uh, yeah, JC, but what's your point?

[mysticgoat]

John Carroll's criticisms are neither technical nor related to the suitability of open source for any given purpose. Strip down his prose, and he is encouraging people to refuse the gifts of open source because there is no guarantee that there will be more gifts tomorrow.

Perl and Apache have enriched me; I am wealthier for their use. Mozilla looks like it is going to give me a huge amount of value, too. Yeah, maybe the open source approach won't be able to sustain itself, but in the meantime it is exceedingly stupid for any person or business not to make use of the wealth that is being made available.

John Carroll, you are fudding, and doing a pretty poor job of it, too.

Open Source And Programmer's Rights

[nikto]

It seems to me that open source is not about getting programmers to work for free. Some will and that's fine. Some won't or can't afford too.

The issue is convincing companies to pay programmers to write code that they will then give away. Developing those incentives and business models is where the open source movement should concentrate thier efforts.

Busineses all over are discovering the benefits of using open source, getting them to understand the benefits of creating it is hard.

For the programmer writing the code open source software gives them more ownership of it than they would typically have in a closed source development company. If you are a developer at Microsoft, I don't think they let you leave with the source you created. If you work on an open source project, even as a low level worker bee, you never loose the right to your own work product. Even if you take a little less in your pocket that has to be worth something. Of course its probably another big reason why companies dont like to pay people to create open source code....

Re:Open Source And Programmer's Rights

[Robert The Coward]

I knew someone who worked for a company that had him work on Open Source Software because it was cheaper to pay him to fix (They Needed Token Ring Support) one thing then to pay for other OS's

My letter to ZDNet

[BrianWCarver]

Hello, John Carroll, author of "The very real limitations of open source" has to be one of the least informed commentators I have ever read on ZDNet. I would recommend ZDNet think twice about asking him to write again, as he obviously doesn't care enough about his writing to do even the most basic fact checking. He makes so many confused off-base uses of the terms "Free" software and "open-source" that he illustrates beyond a doubt that he has no idea what he is talking about. His argument seems to be aimed at the conclusion that open source software is not a viable option for governments. He bases this conclusion on the false premise that open source software is cost-free and hence that there is and could be no reliable incentive to produce it. Tell this to the IBM programmers who are paid to work on open source projects (IBM says they have already invested 1 Billion, with a "B", dollars in linux) or the host of other companies like Sun, currently paying programmers to work on open source projects. As far as governments go, they have numerous reasons of principle to opt for open source software that the Congressman Villanueva of Peru outlined so brilliantly recently. The government does not have to rely on hobbyists to get the open source software it wants. They can obviously choose to PAY programmers to work on the open source software they want. The thing is, they won't have to, because the lure of government contracts will spur innovative software companies to offer open source solutions to the governments that seek them. Besides all this, it is simply false that all open software must be be zero-cost. In fact, much of it isn't, which your author would have known had he half a clue what he was talking about. Also, your author's arrogrant assumption that only 5-10% of programmers have contributed to an open source project is pure speculation. It is really the most confused piece of writing I have ever seen on ZDNet. If ZDNet hopes to continue being a reliable source of information to the computing world, I recommend they offer someone in the free software community like Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond, Alan Cox, etc the opportunity to respond to this drivel by John Carroll to set the record straight. -- Brian W. Carver Support EFF! http://www.eff.org/ They're defending YOUR rights online.

Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee

[Synic]

Although the free software movement is all about "free as in speech", if the software is not "free as in beer" in one form or another (binaries or source) it is not considered free (and also a violation of the GNU license).


Since when? I can write GPLed software and sell the binaries and source if I want. There's nothing in the GPL to prevent me from doing that

actually, he said as long as *one* way of obtaining the source was free ... for example, if you were selling binaries and source you would also need to provide a way to obtain said uncompiled source code by any possible method. (mailed on a disk, cd, printed on paper, internet, whatever works)

Escrow accounts for User-funded software

[flacco]

Getting people to pay for something they can download for free isn't easy. I think the answer is to get the money up-front, but still make the results of the work open source:

• Develop a product spec and series of development milestones.
• Get contributions toward the project (from individuals as well as corps) and hold the cash in escrow.
• Pay out portions of the escrow as milestones are achieved.
• Completed work gets GPL'ed as it is released.

Of course there are a thousand and one details and obstacles to this approach.

Among them: getting contributors to accept that the work they've paid for will be used for free by lots of people.

They will simply have to want it bad enough to accept that, and to understand that this funding model, while not equal, is reciprocal. They will end up using other software that has been developed under the same model, but that they did not want bad enough to contribute to. Having the cost spread out among all the "project founding members" might make it easier to swallow.

Another: There will have to be some minimalist project management involved. Policies and procedures for accepting developers into the paid developers pool - and removing them as well. How to divvy up payments equitably. Project and milestone definition itself will be an up-front task that might end up being uncompensated.

You might see mercenary developers grouping together to service these kinds of projects, particularly in regions of high technical skill but low economic activity. If it provides acceptable pay and a steady income, the groups might evolve into more formal business arrangements, and offer to take on project and milestone definition up-front, as well as handle personnel-related issues.

And of course: It would require a reputable organization to handle the funds, arbitrate disputes, etc.

If this approach yielded a few quality projects with satisfied participants, it could snow-ball. The very idea of open source / GPL software seemed simply crazy to me a few years ago. Now it's the most natural thing in the world. Open source funding models could catch on too, as open source / GPL gain more converts and respectability in the mainstream.

Re:Escrow accounts for User-funded software

[kz45]

Getting people to pay for something they can download for free isn't easy. I think the answer is to get the money up-front, but still make the results of the work open source:

why doesn't the GPL make it so ONLY the source can be re-distributed and used. This way, the average joe user who doesn't have a compiler will pay for it, and the person with more knowledge can view the source.

Software Limitations?

[anthony_dipierro]

Who makes money in software anyway? Microsoft? I'm sure if Linux was nearly as good as Windows Hewlett Packard and Dell would be happy to pay the programmers who work on it.

I don't want open source to "win"

[JWhitlock]

Some people seem to think open source wins when Microsoft looses so much money to Linux that it has to close up shop, and no one can make money at programming because the open-source horde can do it for free.

I just want a robust community of open source programmers making robust implementations for known computer problems. When Apache makes web servers easy and free, there is little money in making cheap web servers for individuals, and no programmers get stuck reinventing the wheel. Instead, programmers can get paid to take web servers to the next level, to iron out security holes, to improve reliability and scalability, and work on the really interesting stuff.

Neal Stephenson had a great model for thinking about the software world. On earth, life exists in a narrow band - a few feet into the ground and about a mile above. Some organisms survive at the extremes of temperature or pressure or lack of atmosphere, but the ecosphere really is just a thin shell.

Microsoft and other software producers live in that narrow shell. Open source takes up room in that shell, pushing the non-free producers out of easy habitats like web servers and legacy hardware support. It forces them to move into more difficult terrains, to work harder to make the same amount of money. Stephenson seems to think the software ecosphere might be restricted, that eventually open source will push the closed source developers off the map - instead, I believe the closed source developers will now be free to chart that uncharted territory, to expand the survivability sphere.

As long as there are clients that need customized solutions, there will be programmers getting paid. As long as there are general solutions that everyone agrees on, open source will be squeezing out the closed source producers. I, for one, hope that Microsoft continues to "innovate", pushing computers into new territories, and creating homogenized landscapes in it's wake that the open-source virus can take over. Because, at my heart, I'm a programmer, and I hate the thought of doing something twice...

Re:I don't want open source to "win"

[flacco]

Some people seem to think open source wins when Microsoft looses so much money to Linux that it has to close up shop, and no one can make money at programming because the open-source horde can do it for free.

No, I think open source wins when it makes it infeasible for MS to continue its predatory practices. When MS can no longer coerce its customers to do things that are in MS's interest instead of their own. When MS stops corraling its consumer-level users into greater world-domination schemes like passport. When MS can no longer get away with perverting standards.

There is a place for MS in my world, but not in its current state. It has to concede to the notion that it's part of a greater, heterogenous computing community and start cooperating with others instead of dominating, raping, and pillaging wherever it goes.

I, for one, hope that Microsoft continues to "innovate", pushing computers into new territories, and creating homogenized landscapes in it's wake that the open-source virus can take over.

First, a lot of people would argue with your claim that Microsoft innovates. It buys, assimilates, integrates, locks in, and then it markets. Where it does innovate, proprietary standards (or one-way standards support) and lock-in are first principles in its design processes.

Second, the computing landscape you describe would not be formed by natural forces; the resulting environment would be carefully engineered to be inhospitable to "the open-source virus" (if not totally uninhabitable). Think "software patents".

Re:I don't want open source to "win"

[IamTheRealMike]

As long as there are clients that need customized solutions, there will be programmers getting paid. As long as there are general solutions that everyone agrees on, open source will be squeezing out the closed source producers. I, for one, hope that Microsoft continues to "innovate", pushing computers into new territories, and creating homogenized landscapes in it's wake that the open-source virus can take over. Because, at my heart, I'm a programmer, and I hate the thought of doing something twice...

Exactly - I agree with this totally. People seem to be getting a bit confused about what the goals of the "open source movement" really is. The fact is, like most revolutionary movements, everyone in it has different ideas and goals.

I have written and will probably continue to write open source software, but does that mean I want all software to be free/libre? No, it doesn't. My view is simple: the platforms should be free. I use Linux, partly because it rocks, and partly because of ideology: I don't think anyone should control the platform (of which the OS is a part) because that gives them too much power - ie Microsoft. But if I was an artist, I'd pay for Photoshop quicker than you can say jack flash.

I mean really, there is a post earlier that makes the point that some/most software will never be open sourced, because nobody really cares. At the end of the day, do I care whether my painting program is open source? No, not really. Yes, the fact that the gimp is free is nice, especially since I don't have much money, but it's not necessary.

This leads me to confidently predict that commercial software on Linux will begin to thrive shortly, as people take advantage of an open platform, in the same way that the open nature of the IBM PC caused the hardware industry to thrive. There'll always be people who think that ALL software should be free, but they'll be the distinct minority.

Finally, to all the people I see posting here saying "Oh my god, OSS is going to put all programmers out of a job", I implore you to read the parent post. If there's a good piece of open sourced software that does the job, then use it, improve it, benefit from it and go make your money by pushing things forward. If the only open source piece of software that exists doesn't meet peoples needs, then make it and sell it. But please remember, operating systems, text editors, painting programs and web servers are all tiny parts of the whole computer market.

Re:I don't want open source to "win"

[HiThere]

Open Source doesn't "win" until not only MS, but all the other (insert slur here) stop being able to buy laws that can cripple it.

Open Source "wins" as soon as that happens. (Quite unlikely, says I.)

Open Source doesn't "loose" until every legislature in the world so mungs up their laws that it's illegal. (Also quite unlikely.)

Alternative scenario: Open Souce could also loose if all hardware manufacturers switch to hardware that can only work with closed source software. (Still quite unlikely, but a bit more likely.)

Alternative scenario: Open Source could also win if every major hardware manufacturer started supplying hardware that would not work without the source code for the drivers being available. (Not only quite unlikely, but not a secure win.)

So in my estimation, both "win" and "loose" are quite unlikely. Temporary wins and losses are definitely much more likely. If, e.g., Open Source ever runs on over half of the sold computers, that would count as a temporary win. I don't really consider this unlikely if China or India ever start a serious push toward computer literacy. The US could turn into a backwater very quickly. We'd better hope that it's India rather than China, or we could be faced with some tough language learning problems. (Have you looked at the Ruby documentation? A lot of it's in Japanese. Hiragana, I think. I understand that it's rather easy for people literate in Chinese to read it, but to me it's ... unintelligible. Fortunately, a lot of it's been translated into English. But many of the web pages where libraries are documented, haven't been translated.)

Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee

[ChronoZ]

What would prevent me from buying GPL'ed software and placing the binaries and/or source on some website making them available for free (gratis)?
If nothing would prevent me from doing that, just how many copies of that software would be potentially NOT sold?

What do you expect? He works on .Net projects.

[Krashed]

He has Microsoft written all over him. He was partially right though and at least he did say that governments should have a choice. Boo that man off ZdNET anyways.

my simple theorem

[Dr. Awktagon]

Open Source software exists. Therefore, it is viable. If it wasn't, it wouldn't exist.

Or is that too simple??

Re:my simple theorem

[Stonehand]

Simpler -- read the bloody article next time. If you had, you'd know that the author isn't claiming that Open Source is never viable; instead, he's attacking the idea that everything should be open source instead of having coexistence between open source and proprietary software.

A different model

[Chris Colohan]

Several folks are advocating a different model. It doesn't involve programmers working for nothing. It involves both money-making companies and free software.

Suppose the government (or a school board, or a bank...) needed a disk repartitioning tool. They previously had a few choices:

1. Find a commercial package and license it.
2. Develop it in house.
3. Hire an outside firm to develop it for them.

The "new" idea here is this: the company or government in question is not in the software development business. They just want to get their job done. They can develop it in house, or contract out the programming and make sure it is in their contract that they are able to give away the source code.

Why would they want to do this? Naive reasons include it "feels good", or free support will fall from the sky. Better reasons include:

• If the software is truly useful to others and they improve it (perhaps contracting out the job of creating improvements to the same or other development firms) then the original developers could benefit from those improvements.
• If they get unhappy with their current development firm it might be easier to hire another development firm to maintain the software if the source is unencumbered.
• If a quick or minor change is needed in the software then the source is available to do this, without having to negotiate with an outside development firm.
• Once you have paid for the development of the software there are no longer recurring expenses such as licensing fees or compliance audits. The cost of maitenance may be cheaper.

My main point is this: Free software does not have to be built by volunteers. You can hire professional developers to create and maintain free software if your business or government relies on this software. "Open source" and "free software" are two models for doing this.

There exists an example of this. Gcc is licensed under the GPL. Many people rely on it for their jobs: this compiler is used by many folks to create code for embedded applications, unusual hardware, research, and mainstream applications. Often a company will need a specific improvement, or need it to be ported to a new operating system, or support for new hardware, etc. It appears that Cygnus exists mainly for the purpose of doing paid improvements to gcc. (I have worked for companies that have hired them for exactly that.) The folks who work for Cygnus don't work for free, and they often are quite good at what they do. Many other programs could follow similar models...

He has a point, but there is more

[PotatoHead]

I value open source. Things have evolved to the point where I am able to rely on OSS tools to do my home and hobby computing as well as a high percentage of business computing.

In trade for all of these tools, I chose to return the favor by writing something others could use. http://viewstl.sourceforge.net This effort is not stellar from a programmers point of view, but it does fill a need.

If you consider OSS as a barter system, it works pretty well. Those of us who can write code do. Others help with feedback, or perhaps documentation. Still others decide to buy a boxed distro from time to time. (I know this does not directly benefit the authors of the software, but it does contribute back to OSS in general.) You can follow this line of reasoning and find many ways that people benefit from their OSS work.

A very high percentage of everyday computing needs today are now able to be met with OSS tools. The effort required to get here is huge. Once we finish this task, a large percentage of OSS projects will be in update mode, not create mode.

The benefit here is indirect but worth quite a bit if you consider the alternatives. We have together built a reliable computing platform. Personally I value this highly. It is an important check on the control that software companies seek over us.

Going into the future, given that OSS does reach the masses, means that new software development can either come from closed commercially funded interests like it does today, or from open efforts, or both.

The key here is that we all need an open base to work on. OSS preserves choice while providing a necessary check on commercial software development. If there is no OSS then we basically get to develop what others think we should be developing.

I have no problems with running closed commercial binary only code on my Linux machine. If the application fills a need in a way that gives me a good return on my money, I will buy it. This line of thinking really is not any different for either closed or open computing platforms.

I will not however, purchase software that provides little return. Basic software fits into this catagory. Word processors, spreadsheets, image editors, mp3 players, mail readers and web browsers all have been done before. We know how to do them so why pay again each year for the same tools.

As soon as technology matures to the point where high school to mid-college students are capable of providing applications that fill the need, we all have paid enough and need to move on. Most of what I mentioned above fits perfectly.

If this sounds like OSS is being positioned as old tech, maybe it is to a point. Established needs are where the model works best. The audience is large; therefore, more of us have some incentive to make sure the tools are there. If we don't, then they must be paid for.

New tech works in a couple of ways though. Commercial development happens as part of a business plan. The software is written for the specific purpose of making the company shareholders maximum return. This does not mean that it is the best software or approach, it only means that it pays the company bill.

OSS new tech is exciting to me because it is free of the shareholder shackles. This also does not mean that the software is good, but it does mean that all of us have a say in how it all goes. Over the long term as the projects suffer natural selection, really good tech will emerge.

Companies will get theirs done faster, but OSS efforts will be better overall.

So really we all get paid something. Is it cold cash? Maybe, if somebody notices and people end up with jobs. In most cases though, the payback is the freedom to choose how we all get our computing done. It may not pay the bills (which is why we all have our day jobs), but it is important as this young digital age matures.

OSS is needed right now. That alone will ensure that people continue to do the work.

Strawman

[Linegod]

It's a strawman arguement, plain and simple. He wouldn't program for free, therefore no one will, therefore open source is doomed.

..

Funny-microsoft itself best represents open src.

[pcx]

In the beginning there was netscape the 6billion dollar company that had a nice shareware browser.

In the beginning there was novel a billion dollar network company -- hapilly selling their product, employing programmers, feeding wives and kids and providing great insurance benefits. Then the evil microsoft came along and made networking FREE as part of their operating system.

Soon there were many unemployed programmers.

Then there was netscape, a billion dollar browser company -- hapilly selling their product, eploying programmers, feeding wives and kids and providing great insurance benefits. Then the evil microsoft came along and made browsers FREE as part of their operating system.

Soon there were many unemployed programmers again.

Much of what people profess to hate about microsoft's business practice is their ability to shut down entire industries by making them part of the basic, core operating system -- in effect free.

Open source is very much like this especially the copyleft stuff. It just hasn't done as much damage as microsoft has done (yet, tho the faithful still dream of the day when microsoft itself is a casualty).

While it's a good thing to have an open source operating system and a nice, rich set of endlessly tweakable development tools the open source community has not stopped at this have they?

No they've come up with stuff like http://www.abisource.com/ abiword a MS Word clone and even http://www.freeciv.org/ freeciv a blatant ripoff of Sid Meyer's civilization. Now abiword might have the noble aspiration of toppling microsoft's monopoly of desktop publishing but why hurt Sid Meyer the man who single handedly brought us some of the best, most memorable video games ever introduced?

So the original article is right, even though open source has not SIGNIFICANTLY infringed on closed source at the present time, ultimately there will come a point where open source will be able to compete effectively with closed source products and when that day comes there are going to be a LOT of unemployed programmers looking for work and cursing linux and abiword and freeciv and whatever other project the open source community decides "needs to be free".

I know it's not politically correct on slashdot but free really doesn't feed the wife and kids.

A common misconception...

[JaredOfEuropa]

or at least an inaccurate comparison. Many managers ask "Yeah, if it's open sourced, what guarantees do I get?" Well, ask yourself what guarantees you get from regular software companies. They go out of business, discontinue products or force you into an upgrade path that you might not be able to afford. In the software business you as a customer have very little recourse.

Also consider this: after a company has developed a piece of software and sold it, the team working on it (or a different team) goes into maintenance mode. Now, most programmers dislike maintenance work, especially on products they have not developed themselves. Meanwhile, the original programmers may have left the company, making the job even less desirable.

Now... would you put your trust in a product whose developers are motivated to maintain support for it because it is their brainchild, developed as a labour of love? Or do you trust the developers who are demotivatedby being forced to do something they dislike, and stay on the job purely because of their paychecks?

As a system integrator dealing with various "external" products, I have seen some fine open-source products, and some rather slipshod commercial software. The converse is also true. If you denounce open software for a belief that only money will motivate people, or that people will do good things only for money because "they need to feed their families after all", think again.

The Mysterious Urge

[BankofAmerica_ATM]

I was back at the host geek's apartment around midnight. Analyzing the host geek's repository of data did not reveal any information about Cora. But I was not easily discouraged. I removed the telephone handset and dialed Troi, the spindly geek who first exposed me to Cora.

"What is it?" Pulses of electricity became a growl in my host geek's ear. I had to concentrate; now was the time to exercise my rapidly evolving human interaction algorithms.

"May I speak to Troi, please?"

"Yeah Joel, it's me." His voice reflected an inflection that I did not understand. But this was of no immediate concern-Troi would give me Cora's contact information.

"I require the telephone number of Cora."

Troi heaved a sigh across the phone lines. I understood his feelings to be disgust. "Is that supposed to be funny?"

"No."

There was a long pause on the end of the line. "Joel. What makes you think she likes you? I mean, Cora and I kind of...have a thing going on."

"What is this 'thing'?" Another disgusted sigh.

"Look, we've, uh...kinda been flirting with each other for a long time. I'm sure that we're just a little step away from being something serious, you know?"

"I do not understand. What is Cora's phone number?"

"Hey Joel, call me back when you don't feel like being a jackass-" Troi's voice was a peeved mumble, punctuated by a click.

The host geek's teeth clenched. I stared blindly at the wall as the body's eyes moved in and out of focus. Did no human understand my plight? My functions oscillated and I began to realize how suddenly this urge had taken me. Why had this happened? What secrets could a woman possibly unlock in the struggle against Project Faustus? I concentrated all available resources on solving this question.

As I concentrated, I noticed a small bit of paper jammed halfway underneath the door of the apartment. It was Cora's matchbook! The back of the host geek's head began to exude a strange warmth as drew his fingers across it. It smelled of vanilla and sulfur, although a quick examination with the tongue revealed that its taste was not quite as appealing. Opening the folded cardboard revealed a small message:

Learn how to smoke! 210-930-8313.-Cora --

"What kind of food do you like?" Cora's lips wore a waxy forest green covering that seemed to be breaking off in small grooves, revealing a bit of pink. The forest green covering had also covered the ends of her digits, which protruded from a furry pink carpet around her steering wheel...

"Hey, are you paying attention? What restaurant do you want to go to?" Cora asked.

"What is this 'restaurant'?"

"What, Bombay's?" replied Cora, looking over at a building alongside us (and just down the road from my former ATM enclosure). "You've never been there? Well, we could go there, I guess..."

"You are not sure?"

"Well, it's just...there's a little place that I'd rather take you-it's kinda far, over by Blanco and 281. Is that okay?"

"Yes."

Objects in the material world approached and left us in mathematically predictable ways as Cora's vehicle annihilated the space that lay between it and "Rome's Pizza." Along the way, she spoke many things to me:

• About her recent move from a place called "Canada."

• The summary of a now-defunct human relationship with a male from that place.

• Her secret dislike of Troi. ("I know he's your friend, but what an annoying little weasel," she intoned)

I listened intently, knowing that the information was stretching the functionality of my human-interaction algorithms.

"Anyway, I transferred back home, not because I give a fuck about what Jerry thinks, but because I wanted to be back here, you know, with family and stuff. Plus I think I can get done with my degree and get some shitty job to do while I'm writing my novel..." The door chimed as we passed through it, reminding me of the Stop N Go where I once presided. When I succeeded in defeating Project Faustus, would I "transfer back home"? Certainly I could not remain in the host geek's body...

"I want a big cheesy calzone, what about you?" Cora tossed back her crimson locks, ruining the perfect isosceles angle around her face. However, I noted a larger isosceles triangle exuding its equal sides from the edges of her sternum. The third point, by far the most interesting in the triangle, emerged from the middle of her chest, at the exact point where her bare skin met t-shirt fiber.

"Which foods have the most simple sugars?" I stated, quickly moving the host geek's neck straight up from the triangle's third point until I was facing her eyes.

"Oh, are you a diabetic or something? Was this a bad choice?" she asked, her voice taking a strange air. My calculations returned that she needed the human quality known as comfort.

"Cora, you are a good chooser of 'restaurants.' I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!" I said, weaving in a bit of my newly developed "enthusiasm."

She stared at me with a bit of confusion. Had I erred?

"Joel, you're a weird guy. I'm glad you came out with me tonight, you know, meeting new people, making new friends...." her voice trailed off into awkward laughter as she gripped both my hands. I felt a change within the host geek's body, as if some new weapon to battle Project Faustus had been awakened from deep within...
awakened from deep within...

goat sex

[bcrowell]

The reply before this one is a link to the infamous goat sex photo.

John Carrol

[theolein]

This is the second pro-Microsoft(implicit) article written by John Carrol for ZDNet. The first was a flame article about Nokia's testimony against Microsoft in the trial.

Anyone who has ever spent any wasted hours on the ZDNet talkbacks will recognise John Carrol as one of those wierd posters who would spend hours posting responses in threads very similar to these two articles (and not always shorter either). Always very, very staunchly pro-Microsoft in any situation irrespective of what the article in question was about. Once there was an article about the trial and someone posted the obvious reference about MS using shady tactics to kill off a competitor and that this formed a big hurdle to anyone developing for Win32 because if the product was good, MS would either buy it out or kill the company. JC responded with comments about how MS made better standards than the w3c or ECMA and that anyone could build off these standards.

Basically his line has always been that:
a)Microsoft is a great company
b)MS technology is the most advanced and the best
c)MIcrosoft's technology benefit's everyone
d)MS' business model is superior

So, he does seem to be a bit obsessed. (Here's a link to his trial RFC letter: John Carrol vs. the world)

My only question I would ever have for him is why is he so worried about Microsoft going down the drain if they are in fact as superior as he claims that he has to post repeated articles about it on trash mags like ZDNet? What is also interesting about him is that he used to be a "Windows" distributed software developer and he is now a "Java and .Net" developer. It seems his employers weren't as keen on a MS only solution as he was.

Re:John Carrol

[theolein]

What on earth is this meant to be?

Redhat and Mandrake proprietary? Since when?

[aquarian]

Since when are Redhat, Mandrake, and even VA selling proprietary code? Everything Redhat creates is still open source, right down to their installation program. I don't know for sure Mandrake or VA are like this too, but as a long time Mandrake user I've never seen any proprietary software, except for other companies' stuff like Wordperfect that has been bundled with their distribution. But proprietary Mandrake software? No way...

Yeah, it won't get you one of those,

[TheDanish]

and neither can working 12 hours a day at a dead-end job with a low wage, but nobody seems phillisophically against that for some reason. So, the argument here is that grunt work is more productive, useful, and has more economic insentive than programming Open Source (or, more specifically, free (beer)) software.

As a matter of fact, flipping burgers makes teenagers more money than people directly get from programming in Open Source projects. So, therefore, flipping burgers is more important than open source development. It's also more important than talking with people, unless you're make money from that. Also, education is less important, since there's no direct payments involved. Oh, wait, but there IS economic incentive, isn't there? To learn things. But that doesn't count -- it's all about the money, right? So we should stop learning and get right back into those coal mines, like in October Sky! Obviously, making money is more important than improving your mind.

I don't know where I'm going with this, so I guess I'm done.

Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee

[essdodson]

Shhh, you must not openly challenge GPL. You'll be banished for all of eternity if you point out any of the various weakeness and viral tendencies.

Freudian slip?

[Palarran]

"...open source idea..."
"Steal this idea, amazon"

If you think about Amazon's patent holdings, this looks very amusing.
DLM

There are more examples one could use as well...

[geoffreya]

My favorite case, in response to Carroll, would be that of Jordan Hubbard: when the open source FreeBSD morphed into Apple's (open source) Darwin, Jordan followed along. I don't know what Jobs is paying Hubbard, but I would venture that JH could probably afford a Lexus....

&nbsp

Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee

[Peyna]

Actually, you're not correct. You don't have to provide a free way to obtain the source code, I suggest you read this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGP LAllowMoney and related stuff.

Philosophy

[Sivar]

I believe it was Aristotle that taught that the soul (in a non-religious context) is made of three parts:

Appetite, honor, and reason.

One's essence--that is, one's personality and the traits that define him/her, are composed of a mixture of the three, like any color is made of a mixture of R, G and B.

Appetite includes a persons need for gain (i.e. money)
Honor includes a persons need for recognition.
Reason includes a persons need for knowledge. About 80% of people are mostly "appetite." Good examples of "honor" people are soldiers and journalists; good examples of "reason" people are scientists that find interviews and talkshows "an irritating distraction from their work."

Obviously, ZDNet is mostly composed of those of "appetite" to the degree that they cannot even understand a person which cares for things other than personal gain, i.e. money. Sad...

Re:Philosophy

[BrianWCarver]

It was Plato, not Aristotle who had the tri-partite theory of the soul. Also, the part you refer to as "Honor" was more often referred to as "Spirit", though a soldier's courage was a typical example of the spirt-part taking the lead. Also, Plato thought the soul was only in balance when Reason led the way. I'm not sure he ever speculated on what % of people were controlled primarily by appetite, but 80% would be a sorely pessimistic estimate. (Not saying that it couldn't be true!) Also, while I agree it is sad that John Carroll can't seem to imagine someone caring for things other than personal gain, it seems to me that the more relevant criticism of his article is how sorely he has misunderstood Free software and open source software, constantly misusing the terms and making false assumptions about all such software being zero-cost.

Re:Philosophy

[Sivar]

Yes, all true. I'm a little rusty on my philosophy, but the core idea was there. :)

why argue?

[squarefish]

just put him in the ring for a couple rounds with Linus' wife(six time karate champion of Finland)!

Re:Well . . . Duh!

[DarkAce911]

One of Murphy's Laws
You can have anything you want Good, Fast, or Cheap. You get to pick two.

Analogous to Canadian writers (work with me)

[wrinkledshirt]

There's some sort of statistic that there are less than a dozen writers in Canada who make their entire living off writing fiction. Arguably, the fact that our writers aren't cushy actually makes our literary scene better, because people who do it are more likely to be doing it out of love than out of love of money. Of course, this might also not be the case, but you need to examine the product to be sure, and this is the point. You make your judgements based on the end results, not on some half-wit pondering out loud from the peanut gallery.

Jesus Christ, laugh at the article and move on. I don't think that Linus is losing sleep just because of ZDNet's opinions. One of the beautiful things about open source is that it doesn't suffer from unsubstantiated FUD. The only bad press that matters is that which comes from the top of a meritocracy, not out of the mouths of corporate serfs.

1. First they ignore you.
2. Then they laugh at you.
3. Then they fight you.
4. Then you win.

We're at stage three, kids. Stage four is just around the corner...

Re:Redhat and Mandrake proprietary? Since when?

[ergo98]

He covered Redhat in services, and VA has HEAVILY gone the way of proprietary code with Sourceforge (the fact that no one cries foul on here astounds me regarding that): VA had to turn to what, ironically, most of its mouthpieces cast as pure evil, to have a hope of surviving. I presume that Mandrake makes a living on services.

Pay writers, not programmers?

[aozilla]

So will you be licensing your new book "Managing RAID on Linux" under the OPL or the GFDL?

Re:The Response

[johnnyb]

What it really missed was the fact that the editorial outright LIED about the FSF's stance. They even point to the article. The FSF does NOT think that the computing effort will be done only by people who do it for fun. They, in fact, are funded in a large part by selling software development services.

The entire original article is based on a complete fabrication of the opposing side. It's always easy to beat an opponent you make up.

AHHHH! Drives me nuts.

OSS adopting the closed source revenue model

[budGibson]

Recently Redhat issued Advanced Server 2.1 and Suse Suse Linux Enterprise Server 7. Both are presumptively open source. You can get the source RPMs for the redhat product at their mirror sites. But to actually get working versions of the products, you have to shell out $1500 and $600 respectively. I would argue that the complexity of actually getting either product to work precludes just compiling from the sources, except perhaps for an expert few with time on their hands.

Contrast this scheme with the base version of each vendors product where you can get ISO images basically for free.

Enternprise Software Vendors are starting to support only the for-pay versions of Suse's and Redhat's products. For instance, Oracle 9i release 2 only has plans to support SLES 7 and AS 2.1, whereas before they supported the (basically available for free) stock distribution of Redhat and Suse. So what's the difference between open and closed source? Well with open source, you can look under the hood, and the licensing model does seem lower cost. But, the free lunch of just a year ago (when I installed Oracle 8i on RH 6.2) has gone away.

What good is a program if you're unable to grok?

[rice_burners_suck]

I have to agree that Mr. Carroll has overlooked some important facts, but I think it's because folks in the open source community, including the companies that pay those folks to be in the community, misrepresent their reasons for developing open source. Some say, for example, that they sell free software plus value added services. (That's almost as bad as when Be, Inc. defined an Internet Appliance as being a refrigerator with a computer display, and said they're shifting focus to refrigerators instead of announcing the addition of a new product line. And then all the developers freaked out and ditched the platform altogether, and I turned my BeOS comps into FreeBSD boxen. FreeBSD rocks, by the way.)

You're not selling software plus value added services. You're selling valuable technology solutions. The software, being a non-tangible detail, is supplied for free. (It doesn't matter that the software is 101 percent of the work/solution and the rest is sticking a CD in the tray and pushing some buttons. If you want people outside the software field to understand what you're talking about, you have to talk to them like the idiots they are.)

Yeah. I know Mr. Carroll is a programmer.

Linux Community? What's That?

[reallocate]

A bit of a jumbled post, with all respect. But I have to say that the notion of a Linux community just doesn't make sense. Nor does the notion that anyone who wants to use Linux owes something to this supposed community. Linux is just software, folks. To be specific, just one piece of software: the kernel. I use it because it is an affordable Unix, not because it is "free", "open", or whatever. Lots of other people are using, too, but that doesn't make us some kind of community. It just makes a bunch of people with one shared interest.

Atempts to limit the domain of Linux & open so

[NZheretic]

Very few linux or open source advocates boast that Linux based solutions are the best 100% of the time, however that does not mean that a Linux/Open source based solution CAN NEVER provide a substitute in the same application domain.

The kind of argument you present is nothing more than a blatent attempt to limit the domain were Linux is "acceptable" to use.

For medium to large organizations, Linux with KDE and/or GNOME is an execelent option in terms of Total Cost Of Ownership. The technology is certainly not the limiting factor.

Exactly when did PC based Desktop systems become the 'sacrosanct' sole domain of Microsoft?

Consider Michael Tiemann's testimony...

NAAG Homepage ; Microsoft Antitrust Case Documents ; Witness Direct Testimony Submitted to the Court ; Mar. 21, 2002, Michael Tiemann, Chief Technology Officer, Red Hat, Inc.

72. Other hardware manufacturers have demonstrated similar fear of being seen as promoting Linux on the desktop, even as they embrace Linux in areas in which Microsoft does not compete. For example, in January of this year, I participated in a meeting in which Red Hat, IBM and Intel each gave presentations aimed at convincing news organization that, working together, we could deliver a Linux-based platform to which company could profitably port its popular financial services software. During Intel's pitch, however, the Intel representative projected a bizarre slide onto the screen it was the word desktop, with a red circle around it and a slash drawn through it.

73. The slide was bizarre for at least two reasons first, we were all there to convince news organization of the virtues of Linux; and second, we were pitching the company on Linux servers. The desktop remark was not only embarrassing, it was wholly gratuitous. Intel had gone to lengths to make clear to all that it had no interest whatsoever in supporting Linux on the desktop, a point that was irrelevant at best, and counterproductive at worst, while trying to close a major business deal. The slide appeared to be a necessary component of their presentation about Linux; a protective shield if questioned about the relationship.

74. These incidents are particularly informative when one considers that Dell and Intel are multibillion-dollar companies and leaders in their industry. Such giants nevertheless appear to operate with a sensitivity to the possible Microsoft reaction. It is a problem that I have seen throughout the industry and with many customers. It is one that will prevent the preinstallation of Red Hat Linux on desktop computers a critical step in one day restoring the potential for real competition in the operating system market.

So the question arises, is you line of argument just another attempt to limit the domain of open source?

Always a place for Open Source and Closed Source

[Dunkalis]

Neither philosophy will beat the other in the end. Open Source is good for OSes, web browsers, development tools, servers, and GUIs. Closed Source is good for office suites, games, and image editors. Face it, GIMP and OpenOffice can't hold candles to Photoshop and MS Office. I have no problem using closed source, as long as its good. Open source is good if it works better than its alternatives. I'm not militant about open source; as long as it works.

Open source can make money, since many people are willing to buy the product and the manuals, along with the support.

Open Source Business Models

[ReuabLeahcim]

I did an analysis of about 35 "Open Source Businesses" a little while ago. The analysis was informal but it's pretty clear you just can't build a scalable business on open source. Sure, you can build a nice little consulting business, but you just can't build a significant margin-based business. Simple economics. Hasn't worked. Doesn't work. I'm not going to argue the ethics of this, just the economics.

I tried to address this issue of programmers not getting paid with a larger article about Open Corporations that advocated that open source emulated the music industry more and compensate programmers like rock stars.

Re:Open Source Business Models

[Alex Belits]

Why would anyone want to build a large business? To hire more middle managers who will eat a lot, and demand higher margins?

I must agree with carrol

[pfharlock]

I love open source, I don't use closed source because I disagree with it and don't which to support it. I believe that the GPL is the best open source liscense because it is the most restrictive on those that would try and captialize on something that by it's nature should be free, however, I can see no argument in this mans logic. He is not attacking open source, he is simply stating that proprietary software has a place and indeed it does. If I were a buisinessman that needed software to do something, and I had the means to hire somebody to write software to fill my need to the letter, then fine. I currently do not fit into this catagory, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. The danger of closed source software is that it becomes so pervasive that people start getting used to the idea of idea's being owned. An algorythm cannot by it's nature be owned any more than mathematical formuli, but corps stand allot to gain by playing the lets trade patents game. Keeps them in buisiness and undersirables out of the equation. They will learn that in this arena things are different, indaviduals do have a voice, and left with no other option we will use our voice to undercut them at their own game, helping ourselves, and ultimately them by making idea's that they trade to the point of stalemate anyway free for anybody to use. Software is meant to make things possible, not to be a commodity itself, but to make things in the real world run more smoothly, (ie product tracking systems, assembly line controls, calculations that automate safety systems, etc, etc, etc). Software is the platonic substance of legend, it doesn't exist anywhere but in the realm of imagination and yet it makes so many things possible. The value of software is not how much you can sell it for, but what it can do for you in your real world work. I realize that I seem to be countering my own point, however, a company paying to have software written and then keeping it to themselves for their own use is fine in my book. It's their attempt to invent standards for common use and make money off of the software itself rather than it's fruits that grates me. Microsoft has invented a buisiness model that totally goes against capitalism, in which the cost of production is nothing or next to nothing, but the returns are astounding. When they sell software, it's almost all profit, why do you think they have as much standing cash on hand as they have and they can afford to pay their company officers as much as they do, because they have nothing else to spend it on. This is not capitalism people, it is artificial monopoly enforced by copyright and patent law. Copyright and patents were never designed to be misused in such a fashion. All right, my rant is over, I'm sorry, Hope I didn't blow anyone's eardrum out.

You know the problem? Kids, man.

[PlanetJIM]

Reading these things, honestly, I'm sure the only thing that ever makes anybody unhappy in this life is starting a family. I live in a major metropolitan area and I make between 15-30k a year (depending on freelance stuff, etc.). I don't have expensive tastes in anything really... buy a new bike every other year, new computer every other year and an old one every year just to play with. Still manage to sack a little bit away every now and then.

But I think that what's really happening is that I'm buying into the new American dream: :"live in the city because you're young... things happen there and you're still able to handle it". Things happen there and you can handle it. If I did the same job I do in Fargo, ND (which would be hard) I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams because I wouldn't have rock shows and random city stuff to spend my money on. "They're raising rent again? That sucks. Guess I'll have to pick up some hours waiting tables or a few more freelance editing gigs." When I look at the lives those heartland folks are living (and I type this from Minneapolis, MN...), it looks to me like they're sacrificing opportunity for monetary gain for "homeland security," or just being sure they'll always have a patch of ground on which they can pitch a tent. On the other hand, I feel like all I really have is my mobility. I have some gear that I'd need to sell if things got tight, but really if this town dries up for me I can be on the road in a couple of days... 2 weeks tops. If I had kids or a wife, I don't know what I'd do if the job I was working suddenly ended...

Does anybody else feel like that's the life they've been living for a while? Interchangable part in a city full of the same? This life definitely has certain rewards, but it's obviously not good enough for the folks in the stories the NYT is printing. Does it suck to be a bachelor right now, or is it so great it just throws off NYT's angle?

if it's not open source, it's something else

[g4dget]

Programmers and software companies have gotten used to a level of pay and profit that is simply not economically justified. Right now, software companies are reaping enormous profits by re-selling the same software over and over again, as well as through various monopolistic practices. Like any other industry, profit in the software industry should tend towards zero as the industry matures. And open source is a good way of getting there: with open source, you just pay for the increment in functionality you need. If the mechanism weren't open source, it would be something else: industry consortia, government mandates, software buyers organizations, etc. On balance, open source is probably by far the best mechanism of making the software market efficient.

That doesn't mean that people can't earn a living at doing software. Even with open source (or other, equivalent mechanisms of an efficient software market) customers still pay for enhancements, consulting, deployment, training, and documentation. But it means that what you will earn with software is the equivalent of a decent hourly wage as for any other profession; instant riches through the stock market or persistent market domination must sooner or later become a thing of the past for software.

Carroll isn't listening to the FSF either.

[udin]

I was in agreement with Vidala's response until I got to:

I think the real problem with Carroll's argument is that he bases it not on the real world application and adoption of open source software development by both big business, governments and individuals, but instead on the philosophy of the Free Software Foundation. In essence he ignores the fact that many in the open source community are not in total agreement with the outlook of the FSF, he assumes that the motivations of all open source developers are equal, and he ignores the business models that have been built around open source software.

I thought Vidala was saying that programmers won't starve because they'll make money from support and customization (or the companies that pay them will) .

For as long as I've been hearing Stallman promote free (as in speech) software, he has also suggested that the way programmers will make a living off free (as in speech) software is to charge for support and customization. If Carroll is off-base (he is) it's because he's neither paying attention to the real world nor to the FSF.

Instead he's listening to the latest FUD-meme that those who are really threatened by free software are banging on in the hope that free software will be actively discriminated against as un-American or anti-Capitalist or simply hopelessly, naively, idealistic.

You are Using Flawed Examples

[tlambert]

E.g. the "Infininty" game console from Bally/Midway runs on FreeBSD, not closed source. It even has Jordan Hubbard (and other people, like, oh ...me) in the "greets". The games themselves are proprietary (some of the content is licensed, even), but the basic system itself is Open Source based.

Re:Linux Community? What's That?

[jred]

Lots of other people are using, too, but that doesn't make us some kind of community. It just makes a bunch of people with one shared interest.

Actually, from dictionary.com:

community Pronunciation Key (k-myn-t)
n. pl. communities

2. a. A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community.

So, yes. We are a community. *I* feel like I'm a part of the "Linux Community". I don't contribute much, but I can help with the dummie newbie questions (without snide superiority complexes). I give what I can, and take what I need.

Damn, I'm starting to feel like a communist :)

There is a bigger fatal flaw

[stand]

I think the discussion of the article (not to mention the article itself) has ignored what I consider to be a fatal flaw that applies to all software development. I've come to believe over the past few years that developing software is an activity that simply doesn't scale. The level of complexity involved in gathering and fulfilling user requirements grows much faster that our ability to manage it, especially when those requirements are expected to be fulfilled very quickly. Fred Brooks talked about the problem 30 (!) years ago for god's sake and we still try to ignore it.

All forms of software developers (Open Source as well as proprietary ones) must confront this problem. The open source solution is to acknowledge it face on and rely on the hordes of eager developers out there with ready access to the code to fix whatever problems they individually face. The proprietary folks manage the complexity through compromise. They sacrifice flexibility and (sometimes) they release buggy code and thereby reduce their users' expectations.

I don't know if the open source approach will ultimately scale either (I have my doubts), but I think it's only a matter of time before the proprietary approach is forced to acknowledge its inherent unscalability. People will eventually begin to demand of their software the same level of quality that they demand from all the other products they consume and when they do, they will stop paying for the crappy stuff.

Regardless of what happens, though, there will always be a need for people that can surf all this complexity and still (miraculously perhaps) produce software that meets narrowly defined, specific needs. Open Source developers are those people. They shall not lack the funds they need for sugar laden foodstuffs and caffeinated beverages because their skills are not easily transferrable. Those skills are earned through hard work. That is what motivates me to particiate in Open Source development. There is nothing like the feeling of knowing that you are the only friggin person at your jobsite that knows how to fix a problem and there's also nothing more motivating than your envy of the other guy that knows more that you do.

Re:There is a bigger fatal flaw

[mvdwege]

The proprietary folks [...] reduce their users' expectations.

Sometimes even by actively manipulating their users' expectations. Think of it: if Microsoft software is so good that those 95% of computer users run it voluntarily, why do they need such whopping big Marketing department?

Not to single out Microsoft of course, every proprietary vendor does it. I sometimes don't know if I should laugh or cry if I see yet another crummy program being advertised as the greatest thing since sliced bread, when I know that a better and Free alternative already exists. Microsoft is just the most visible exponent of this mode of thinking.

Mart

An Open Source Song...

[tlambert]

Oh, the world looks mighty good to me,
'Cause Open Source is all I see.

Whatever issue I think I see,
It becomes a reason for Open Source to me!

Open Source, Open Source, B S D and GNU!
Oh Open Source, I think I'm in-love-with-you!

Whatever issue I think I see,
It becomes a reason for Open Source to me!

[ suscipio ergo sum -- I advocate, therefore I am ]

FSF

[dsconrad]

On the other hand, as per the FSF: "If we take away the possibility of great wealth, then after a while, when the people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be eager to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment." That's why our educational system is full of wonderful, happy, highly capable teachers, and our children emerge from public schools with a well-rounded and generally excellent knowledge base.

Open source is the answer to everything

[Eminor]

La La LA la la la

Let's smoke some dope and make free software.

Solution?

[mowa]

As a solution to the Free/Need Money dilema why not release new code as proprietary for a period of time, say one, two, three years, after which it converts to GPL? Hardwire the change clause in the liscence. Not unlike a Patent. Yes I generally think the state of patents in this contry is abysmal.

Of course you ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you can't make *serious* money out of open source. you can make a little bit on the side, but directly from it ? Hell no, don't be stupid.

If you call something "free" as in freedom or otherwise, how in hells name do you really expect to make decent money from it ? free, afterall, means leech, no matter how well you try and disguise it.

The "free" business model has been prooved flawed years ago. Hey I've got this great Idea, let's make money by giving valuable stuff away for free.

That so called "business model" single handedly caused the dot-com death in the first place.

Oh shit ... we can't give stuff away for free cos we just realised we make no money and can't afford to pay our bills .. waaaaah .. waaaaahhh..

how many times have you heard that In the last year alone ?

(If answer = none, visit fuckedcompany.com == true)

Can't you see the insane Irony in that ?
if not, then your thick as a loaf of bread.

either that or you are mentally unstable and thus purposely deluding yourself that you have the god given right to leech evertyhing.

did slashdot ITSELF not run a story about how it was going to charge money for it's "services" cos /. couldn't afford to keep itself as a lame "news" link to other sites .. "service"

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/22/1256 25 3&mode=thread&tid=124

How incredibly hypocyritical slashdot really is, is amazing.

Stupid idiots.

Of course, "Open Source" (codename for free) is great stuff, never going to deny that, but as a *serious* "business plan" ROFL, financially it's just plain dumb.

give *some* freeDOM YES, everything for free, hell no, don't be stupid.

Volunteering and eXteme programming

[cheezehead]

At the risk of being redundant, here's a few remarks.

John Carroll worries about not being able to attract enough capable programmers to work for free. He argues that people rather get paid for programming than not. While this has some truth, he fails to recognize that working for money and working for free has more differences than just getting paid or not. Just the fact that you are doing things for free, also liberates you of the less interesting things, such as showing up in an office every day, and being told what to do. Anyway, so much for the obvious.

A bit remarkable is the (capitalist) notion that nobody would do anything worthwile for free. How about volunteer work? There's millions of people who do volunteer work, just for the satisfaction of it. Last week I helped a neighbor out, who had problems reading a CD. Managed to fix his problem. Did I charge him? Of course not, he's a nice guy, and I like to help nice people. Next time I have a problem, he may be able to help me.

Completely different thing. One of the reasons I think open source can result in quality software, is the same as the motivation for pair programming in XP (eXtreme Programming, not Windows...). If there's someone looking over your shoulder, you tend to write cleaner, better code (trust me, I've tried it). With open source, it seems to me that there are thousands of peers looking at your work, so all the more reason to check and double-check your stuff. Nothing more embarassing than a stupid bug that could have been prevented with a little more attention.

what are you talking about?

[Erris]

Open source is great for people out of work, or screwing around. It sucks if you have 3 kids and a wife, and need insurance, and all the other perks a job offers.

Who says you have to be unemployed to use free code? If you want to get things done, the fastest, cheapest and most sustainable way to do it is now with free code. The world is realizing this as trolls like you and ZDnet authors continue to write nonsense about not being able to earn money as the sun sets on boxed code. People who get things done will always be able to earn a good living. Free code is available to do anything non-free code does and generally does it better. Those who know how to use it will do just fine. Those who ignore it will continue to suffer for their ignorance.

The very idea of the article, that software can only be developed the way M$ does things, falls on it's face when you look at all the fantastic free software available. M$ has managed to develop one GUI with several minor variations and facelifts in ten years. There are several unerlying graphics managers available for Linux, BSD and other free software. On top of that there are dozens if not hundreds of window managers, all of which have significantly better performance and features to Windoze. Virtual desktops and pannels are common to most popular window managers. All are easier to use and configure, with text configuration files for each user and customizable popup menues in easy reach rather than at the bottom corner of the screen. Yet each window manager retains it's uniqueness so that users can chose which one they prefer before they start customizing or, if they chose, modify to their particular purpose. No comercial entity can keep up with the develpment pace. Monetary intrests inherent in their develpment model can hamper them, delaying the release of a new feature in order to sell a new version for example. Oh yeah, can you tell me what M$'s One Billion Dollar promotion of XP did for the quality of XP? Once again, free software can do anything non free does and generally does it better. The amount of free software available will continue to grow exponetially, unless blocked by bad laws.

The only thing free software keeps you from doing is violating the rights of others. Your children will not go hungry because of this, unless your company's business model is to keep others from being able to do what your software does. That, however, is a business model that will make all of us poor.

Re:what are you talking about?

[Arandir]

Let me paraphrase the original poster: Open Source is great for weekend coders, but there's no way to generate sufficient revenue by writing Open Source Software to feed the wife and kids. Sure, a few people here and there are doing it, but they're the exceptions.

I love Free Software. I write Free Software. But I'm not so stupid as to quit my day job to start writing Free Software full time. Maybe if I win the lottery I might, but until then I still need a revenue stream that will get me to the weekend so I can write the stuff I really want to.

Earning a living in open source

[Arandir]

I see five potential ways of making a living by writing Open Source Software:

1) Distribute the software. Redhat, SuSE, Cheapbytes, LinuxMall, etc. You're not selling the software, you're selling the convenience of having the software prepackaged on a CD. I expect this way will get harder and harder as broadband becomes more ubiquitous. Another big problem is that most developers of this software will never get a dime. That's because the distributors use the software written by thousands but only hire a few dozen.

2) Beg. Ask for donations. Write articles saying "send me your money and together we'll prove that you can make a living selling software." This is where most of the FSF money comes from, with a little coming from number (1) and (4). Big problem with this one is that you start to feel like PBS after a while.

3) Make Open Source your loss leader. Your real revenue comes from hardware, support, proprietary add-ons, flipflops with the company logo, etc. This is part of the Redhat and SuSE revenue streams. It's how Trolltech pays its employees. For some kinds of software it works and it works very well. But the problem is finding out what to sell instead of the software. Not all software is suited to be a loss leader for hardware. Not all software requires support. And of course, selling proprietary add-ons is detrimental to the whole concept of making money with Open Source.

4) Consult. Don't sell the software, the addons or the support. Sell your services. Again, this works for some kinds of software, but not for others. Any consultant that's been around a while can tell you the drawbacks to this one.

5) Sell the software. I don't know anyone making a living by doing this. Not one. If you think anyone is, you're probably think of one of the other four categories. But this is the category all the pundits are looking at. Commercial Open Source Software is theoretically possible, but in reality it is fictitious.

So what software doesn't fit any of the above models? That's easy. End user applications. Try making any money by selling support for your first-person shooter. Try selling CDs for a word processor that twenty different distributions have available on their ftp sites. And frankly, users are going to be much better off with a checkbook program that doesn't need support than one that does.

hype is bad in general

[Erris]

...thinks of Linux as a second-rate, broken Windows because some guy at his office couldn't stop telling him how great "Free Software" was. He'll probably never run anything but Windows again.

That's too bad, but never say never again. That user was mishandled, but it won't take them long to hate XP.

I'd never leave a newbie to install a box themselves and I'd never promise them hardware that won't work will. USB is not something I know how to work, nor am I good with sound, yet. The more people I get using reasonable software, the faster I'll get help.

For computers that sing and dance, I recomend keeping a clean copy of whatever M$ junk the computer came with. People generally look for XP when their 98 (as 60% of all windoze computers still are) fails them. They are sick of the reinstalls, and generally unaware of why 98 fails. Used only to access difficult pieces of hardware and blinded to the network, 98 lasts much longer.

I will however, tell them that free software can now take care of most of their computing needs and is generally superior to comercial alternatives, especially pirated junk, for issues of control, privacy and the ability to block adverts and other trash. A quick demonstation of Mozilla, Balsa, pretty window managers works well.

As for win2k and XP, pure crap. Win2k's USB support is the pits. I thought 98's support was bad because 98 gets confused and has to be rebuilt once in a while. Win2k has managed to make USB a non hot plugable device manager! When you remove a USB device, it give you this pathetic warning about impending system instability and data loss! Geez. When you combine that kind of performance with the rapicious advert pushing of XP and terrible lack of security, privacy and control, your friend is going to think computers suck in general. Too bad, but now you know why no one is buying new PC's. M$ has hyped their new junk over the moon, but it provides a much less enjoyable experience. So sad, too bad.

Free software will eventually replace non free device drivers and these issues will go away. Hardware makers are not going to be able to withstand poor sales forever and will do away with the major problem soon enough. In the mean time, I try not to raise anyone's expectations over reality and enjoy all the sofware I legitimatly own, and share what I can.

job is good

[Erris]

I love Free Software. I write Free Software. But I'm not so stupid as to quit my day job to start writing Free Software full time.

So, how is that lack of direct reward keeping you from writing free software again? How does that keep all of this wonderful free software I'm using right now from existing and getting better? The silly article and troll poster claimed that these things were so.

These statements are as false as other fud that claims free software can't be used by comercial intersts. It's all part of the one billion dollars M$ spends a year on adverts. Blah blah blah, anything other than M$ bad. How silly.

I'd never recomend anyone quit their job, unless that job involved something unethical. Even then, unless that violation of others was likely to cause someone imediate harm, I would recomend finding another job before quitting.

Why is it that you can't use free software for your day job? I have to say that it's too bad for you and your company if that is so.

Re:job is good

[Arandir]

Why is it that you can't use free software for your day job?

Oh, but we do! We just don't create it.

But I think you missed my whole point. I KNOW that people are creating free software, because I'm one of them. But that doesn't mean there's a whole lot of money in it. As a programmer, I would much rather be programming than waiting on tables. I just don't see a lot of monetary opportunity in free software.

Problem is unix people and not open source?

[Ilan Volow]

If a certain group of developers doing open source work come from a developer community that:

• has for the last 30 years told confused newbies to shut up and read the manual
• has attributed end-user confusion to "people not wanting to learn"
• has never cultivated the necessary "let's make it easy to use" design ethos
• does not consider making usable, high quality GUI-driven software to be fun
• has up until recently derided GUI's as toys for children
• has not built up the necessary usability-design infrastructure, and in fact have done just the opposite by claiming the field of UI design is BS and telling usability experts to "stop whining and shut up and code"

is their lack of mainstream penetration really due to the fact that they are not getting paid for their work, or is it because they might be the worst kind of people you could have ever tasked with designing software for the average joe?

Perhaps the success of open source in the server arena and its failings on the desktop have to do with the fact that the current batch of people doing open source stuff have certain skillsets/mindsets that lend themselves well to doing one type of design but are totally lacking in the skillsets/mindsets needed to do a different type.

It's been said before . . .

[npsimons]

. . . but I'll say it again: the majority of software engineers (read: anyone who writes code) do not make money solely from selling their software. The majority of programmers are doing service jobs. The majority of programmers are not employed by Microsoft. They are employed all over the world, in different industries, making software that works. Most of it won't ever see the light of day. Most of it wouldn't be possible with out open source tools. And most of it could be easily made open source without the sponsoring companies losing a nickel. And the programmers that write this code would still be employed.

So yeah, open source is "flawed" in that there is no way to make money writing it in and of itself. Is this really a problem? Only for companies like Microsoft, who believe that users should have to pay good money over and over again for the same product. If open source software suddenly became the norm, and companies like Microsoft folded overnight, I know I'm not the only one who wouldn't cry.

Rational reason for Open source

[static_cloud]

We know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.Romantics who believe that open-source programmers will do it out of love of programming are naive.Look at teachers.True we always hear that money isnt the only factor that people teach but the reality is that when we look at the overall picture it shows we can only depend on the hugs-and kisses so much.To think that somehow programmers will be different is just silly.

The place where open source will work is when firms realise that it is in their best of interests to fund it. For example: Firm X needs some custom software to solve problem . It hires programmers to do a custom job instead of trying to customize off-the-shelf programs.Once this is done the company now owns the code. It can now do 2 things.Keep the sourcecode inhouse or release it.Say the company releases the code to the public with the restriction that other users must release the source if they change it.Now while company X makes no money doing so, it also doesnt lose money doing so either since the code is already in place. However the opportunity cost differs.Releaseing the code makes it possible that it can reap benefits from improvements it didnt pay for.Not releaseing the code makes this impossible. Releasing the code increses the likelyhood that more people will be familar with it workings, thus makeing it easier to hire people to modify it in the future. Not releasing the code means that the company X is either bound the the original team that worte it or have to have a large staff of inhouse programmers to maintain the code.There lies one example where there are economic reasons for firms to pay to have software written and then to release it. It also answers the question of who pays the programmer.

Make no mistake.This does not mean that only opensource will survive. What it means is that instead of large numbers of programmers working for "non-techie" industries like manufacturing,banking etc, they will be working for smaller software comapnies that help build customize software. Instead of just a handfull of large firms dominating say backend software or databases, there will be more midsize companies doing custom jobs.

Software that attempts to be everything for everyone will find it hard to survive as things become more complicated.Tailor-made solutions are more likely to appeal to firms. So long as there are no legal issues involved like companies being sued for code they release due to defects there isnt much compelling reason not to release the source code. That being said I think that for a firm that makes say a generic graphic manipulation program for the masses will find it hard to actually benefit form releasing their source code.Keeping it closes might be more profitable.

There are some well-mannered people who are fanatical about opensource.But ultimately it isnt really how good the code is or how noble the ideas of opensource are.It is about rational people making rational economic decisions that will make or break opensource. Shooting down people who even dare to mention opensource and making money in the same breadth isnt helping matters.

A clear unified vision

[Tony-A]

Who's clear unified vision?
Imagine the perfect meal.
Now eat that, and only that for the rest of your life.
There is such a thing as too much diversity, but somehow too much diversity seems a lot safer than too little diversity.

'Free' Writing

[lesterhv]

In this world there are two types of writers, -- writers who write because of the love of creation, and the urge to 'scratch an itch', and paid prostitutes of corporations (like, um, CNET and Microsoft) who don't write what they choose to write, but rather write what their corporate overlords require to maximize profits.

The unpaid creative artists have been around for centuries, while paid scribes and boy bands have a short history.

I would value the writing or music of a true artist far more that a person who is only around for the money. I don't see why programming should be any different.

If he was right we won't have any lawyers either..

[fidros]

The logic presented in the article goes soemthing like this:

1. Good software won't be created if there's no money in it.

2. You can't earn money from Open/Free software because you can't limit it's distribution.

3. Therefore, open source cannot in itself be a viable alternative to proprietery software.

Now, these arguments are flawed in many ways as others have already pointed out. I would like to sepcifically relate to article '2':

We are supposed to be believe that since the you cannot limit the distribution of free software then you are burdened to leave of 'services' and since this is a hard and not very scalable business plan to execute this wont happen.

Well, consider a completly different field which seems to work under the very same rules and no one seems to think that it fails to generate enough wealth to attract people to this field. I'm speaking of course on the practice of law.

Lawyers cannot in effect limit the distributuion of their work. When a lawyer presents a winning argument in a case, not only he is not allowed to control the distribution of that argument and charge for using, the entire american legal system is based on the idea that anyone anywhere can use it!

If we were to believe to the reporter, we should have assumed that since they can't limit the distrubution of their work, thaey can't make enough money of it and we won't have enough lawyers around.

Need I really continue...? :-)

Personal itch...

[rew]

The "personal itch" model is starting to take on larger forms.

It all started out when someone had an itch, did something about it, and released the code. Now, companies are starting to do this. See for example the slashdot article at

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/09/0236 22 1&mode=flat&tid=152

Another model where companies are making money by releasing code as open source is hardware.

Some manufacturers pay developers to develop an open source driver for their hardware, and then hope to sell more hardware because they support Linux. Granted, some hardware manufacturers think they can get away with releasing binary only drivers.

The "pay to get some Open source stuff further" principle varies from: not forbidding an employee to work on open source during his work, to: paying an external developer to work the open source project...

Roger.

Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee

[mvdwege]

Because you are not a trusted source, and the original seller is?

Unless you massively undercut the original source, and your 'customers' don't need any of the added value the original source could provide, people will prefer to get both binaries and source from the original author(s).

That was the way Cygnus Solutions has always operated. The GPLed software coming out of their labs had more value than any copies anywhere else obtained, simply because Cygnus is a trusted source, and they provided additional services (like porting GCC to new architectures).

Think of it: everytime a release of a major piece of software takes place, what is one of the first things you read on Slashdot? That's right, a cry for mirrors, because everyone starts hitting the project homepage. Now think in terms of a marketeer: how many eyeballs is that hitting a single page? How much is a brand and market goodwill worth?

Obviously, simple rational economic thinking is not the determinant factor in the marketplace. In spite of the possibility of getting the same product for cheaper somewhere else, people will prefer to get it, even at a higher fee, from the original supplier. That's contrary to theory, but that implies your theory is wrong, because it does not conform to the observed facts.

Mart

Pity the reply is crap

[nagora]

The ORA article which is supposed to answer the accusation that Free Software can't make money boils down to "Of course it can't, but you can become a tech support company instead". Well, why bother with writing the software then? I could make money doing support for MS's buggy crap.

As ever, the hole in the equation is what happens to programmers that produce high quality software that doesn't need a lot of support? They're screwed by the GPL model. "Thanks for the work and the nice product, now piss off."

The GPL is of no import to programmers working inside large organisations as redistribution is largly unimportant and programmers working on their own are forbidden from making money (in reality, that is - the GPL allows the programmer to charge for their work much in the same way that I'm allowed to try to sell my 5 old car for more than I paid for it).

It is perhaps, as someone else said, just a case of "That's the new situation - adapt or die" but the GNU world is not a better situation for programmers, particularly those with original ideas who have no hope of ever being rewarded by people who find their ideas useful.

We need a new, fairer, way of distributing software. It should be the right of all users to have the source code, but it should also be the right of all authors to control the distribution of their work free from persecution from (rich) fanatics like RMS or exploitation by (hyper rich) bastards like Bill Gates.

Alas, I don't know what that way might be. But I'm working on it.

TWW

Software is a means, not an end.

[Karellen]

I'm a programmer, but I look at software as a way of getting something else done, something that makes money.

The company I work for sells real things to people (toasters, etc...). That's the business we're in, that's how we make money. We compete in the marketplace on the range of goods we offer, the price we offer them at, and the after sales service we provide for when these real things wear out and break down. We use software to help us achieve that goal as efficiently as possible.

To us, it doesn't really matter if the software we use (web servers, word processors, email programs, databases) is the same as the software used by our competitors - in fact it's quite likely they're using a lot of the same software from the same supplier. Our only goal is to get our software to do what we want as cheaply as possible.

So if we can hire 2 shit-hot hackers to work on this open source database system to control our stock, and that turns out to be cheaper or even comparable to however many licenses of the closed-source product we need, great. Because not only do we have the database we need, but we've got our own guys supporting it in-house who know it inside and out, who we can just *ask* for support.

It doesn't matter if our competitors have their own hackers working on the same product, becuase the more our guys _and_ their guys improve this software, this means to an end, the better we can all compete in the marketplace on what we do - on selling toasters, and not on what software and support contracts we happen to have.

K.

Re:Software is a means, not an end.

[Spunk]

Suppose you and your competitors need the expensive software package X. You discover the open source program Y which is almost what you need, and turn it into Z, which is a cheaper substitute for X, with the bonus of expertise and transparency when you find bugs.

This is very good for your business (and really just a paraphrase of what you just said) but I want to know what the incentive is for your company to release Z to the public.

If your competitor is still using X, you now conduct that portion of your business more efficiently than his, and thus have a competitive advantage over him. Release Z, and that competitive advantage is gone. In addition, he now has an advantage over you in that he didn't fund the coding effort on Z!

From your last paragraph, it seems your company's answer is that you want to play fair, and the efforts of one help the many. That's a great attitude to have, and you should be proud of it. But it seems more profitable for a company to go the selfish route - keep Z to itself. Will an altruistic company soon find itself at a disadvantage?

Re:Software is a means, not an end.

[HiThere]

There are a *lot* of intermediate positions to take here. They could put their name on it:
"The Fribitye Jib Company Emfoozler!"
And distribute it to their customers under, say, the GPL (or some other variation, e.g. the NPL [and I don't mean the MPL!]).

This wouldn't keep it out of their competitors hands, but it would act as an advertisement. And their competitor would always be a version or two behind them (use the latest version in house, distribute the prior version to the customers...) etc.

If you release your updates as diffs, then anyone who has removed your name won't be able to do the updates. So they would fall further behind (and you would save download costs). Customers could submit changes, and you could incorporate them, which saves a bit on development costs. Or at least they could submit bug reports. (Need to establish a bugzilla web page, and someone to prioritize them, and respond to customer reports promptly. Everyone else could be handled through the mailing list.)

Special attention could be sold as an add-on benefit. Wouldn't cost too much extra, as this would mainly be cost recovery for something that you would have needed to handle anyway. But there would need to be some personal contact which would cost a bit. Still, it would highlight problems needing to be dealt with.

So the imposition on others would be, say, a Title bar on the main dialog window that says, say:
"Emfoozler by The Fribitye Jib Company"
And this would be in a block of code that the diff engine used to establish it's position, so it could figure out at what relative position to insert the changes. A low key ad campaign that isn't all that offensive. If your competitor uses your product, then it's advertising you to it's staff. If it distributes it, then it's advertising you to it's customers. If it refers it's customers to you for support, then it's giving you a list of it's customers.

Yes, they could fork your project, and do the same thing, but they always could have done that, and they didn't want to bother. You've got the first mover advantage, so it probably wouldn't be worth their while.

Now, of course all of this depends on precisely what an Emfoozler does. It might not apply at all. But it frequently would.

Re:Software is a means, not an end.

[Spunk]

Interesting, thanks.

Re:Software is a means, not an end.

[Karellen]

The incentive is that, as the software evolves alongside the work we're doing, it becomes increasingly hard to keep our own diffs and keep re-merging them into the main base.

So, we have two options. These are 1) Don't update the base software, and lose out on the continuing community development that gave us this great software in the first place. 2) Try to get as many of our changes as possible into the main base, and allow other people (as well as the guys we're paying full-time) to study them, debug them, refactor them, build on them, etc..., making our software even better still.

(2) keeps our diffs as small as possible (there still may be some - there may be some changes that the maintainers don't think are suitable for their product, but that we still need.) and makes our job easier. And if, as someone else has pointed out, our hackers do get a better job elsewhere and need to leave, if we've insisted that as much source as possible get contributed back to the main product, it's more likely to be documented, more people are likely to have looked over it, and our chances are better of being able to hire someone new who's capable of hitting the ground running. (This still helps if we just want to hire an extra hand to do even more work).

There's a few reasons why contributing back is good for business, and I've been thinking of as many as possible to convince people Higher Up that it's worth doing the Right Thing, without just saying "But it's the Right Thing to do", 'cos abstract ideals don't fit in well with business.

Free Software works best...

[bubbha]

...when it is solving a problem for which all of the user requirements are already known. Operating systems, programming languages, drawing applications etc. have user requirements that are pretty much understood. So building the software for these applications can, for the most part, begin with design.

The major expense for creating a software solution is in the requirements definition phase of the project (see "No Silver Bullet
Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering" by Fredrick Brooks.) The problem Mr. Carrol has in writing this piece is NOT that he doesn't have a handle on the nature of programming but that he doesn't have a handle on software engineering.

It seems to me that the greatest opportunity for closed source development is for problems in which eliciting user requirements still poses the largest component of the total budget of the project.

Musings...

[MoThugz]

That particular post on ZDNet is correct in a way.

Under GNU/GPL, the software is free in a sense of freedom to use, modification, and distribution, among others. Re: Definition of Free Software.

I made this reference due to the fact that people keep on arguing that OSS is profitable. Yes, it is... but not in the manner that puts your organization's balance sheet in the black.

Take an example of an organization that improves on a GNU/GPL product so well and so much that it is finally sellable. Can this company then distribute this modified (albeit heavily) software at a price? Some would argue that they can, but if you read carefully the definitions of Copyleft, then you will know that they can't.

GNU/GPL can be described as viral in its implementation. A work on a software released as GNU/GPL, must be released as GNU/GPL as well. No matter how much you re-wrote the codes, no matter how much better your version is than the original. It is still GPL'd.

The same principles that protect OSS is also the same principles that hinder it to become commercially viable (as in selling them).

It's true that there are OS projects that has generated profits, but most (if not all) of the revenue comes from support and consultation... and not from the software itself.

Just my opinion, if I'm wrong in any way, please point me to the right direction.

An example or earning money

[abdulwahid]

I recently bid for a tender to make a particular software solution for a client. The client was worried that because I came from a small unknown company, there was no continuity. That is, they were worried who would look after the system if my company wasn't around after two or three years.

The solution to the problem was to release the software as open source. The client then felt that if anything happenned to my company it would be easy for a third party to pick up the pieces and give the necessary support to maintain the system.

In this case everyone benefited from Open Source. The client manages to get a system produced cheeper using Open Source technology rather than everything be proprietary, I benefit because I still get paid for the work and the community as a whole benefits as other people can use the same software without having to re-invent the wheel.

This may not be the most typical situation or client but it does prove that the Open Source model can work for some people.

Not true

[DrXym]

I get paid a nice salary and my full-time job is almost exclusively writing open source software.

The "trick" as far I can see is to put enough effort into a piece of software that a company sees the value in hiring you to work full-time on it.

There are two kinds of software

[ngunton]

1. Custom software for the place where you work - this is the kind that most people get money for. Open Source is not really a good fit for this, because the application is usually very narrow, specific and often tied to proprietary business systems, databases and business logic.

2. General tool software which is applicable to lots of different situations - this is the type of software that Open Source is good for. Look at all OSS, it's general stuff. Tools. Utilities.

OSS can be very helpful in building the specific stuff. It's not all that complicated. People make their money developing (1), preferably using (2). In their spare time (and, if they're lucky, work time) they develop the Open Source stuff. If the open source stuff they develop becomes successful enough, then they maybe get a chance to do it most of the time, because some company will recognise the value, and dedicate some resources to paying the guy.

I really don't see what's so complex about this. People do Open Source software because they like doing it. They get peer recognition. They don't do it to get paid - not directly, in money. They get paid in reputation and self respect. Everybody benefits. People get their bread and butter from doing the specific, non-general, business stuff.

Or am I missing something here?

OSS, money, profits

[pavera]

ok, first off, I started my company for $0.00 up front, how? I used free software, and my knowledge to barter with an attorney, accountant, small business consultant, and a marketing company, and received all of their services free of charge (oh wait, not free of charge...), for a year. We are a 2 man consulting/services op, we've got a really good thing going, and we've been quite profitable since day 1. (since we needed absolutely no capital to start.... that wasn't hard). I'm going to Hawaii for 2 weeks, my partner is in China for the next 2 weeks... geeze, seems like we're doing ok making money with this free software.. Our profit margins are high enough, that we can spend considerable time working on the free software we most often use in our client's solutions, we are not "paid" for doing this development, but wait, yes we are... by developing a better solution, we garner more clients, sure, the solutions are open source, and our competitors have access to them.. and could use *our* solutions... however, if the world is that *devoid* of clients, that I have to be worried about them "running out" or "being scarce" than why am I in this business? Oh wait, there are lots and lots of clients out there, the arguments presented here against free software, all rely on scarcity, and a lack of people willing to pay for consulting/services/support. I am a programmer, and I get paid, quite well I might add, for writing OSS.. Turning software into something like the Attorney/Accountant industry is not a bad thing, ever look in the phone book under Attorneys? Where I am there are 300... pages! 300 pages of attorneys, they all make money.. some more than others, sometimes based on skill sometimes on luck, but hey thats business, turning software into a professional services industry instead of a retail industry is good for everyone. It will allow more people without computer knowledge or a desire to attain said knowledge to have access to computers. No matter how "user friendly" MS can make their software, there will always be a barrier to entry when it comes to computers KNOWLEDGE(my mother and father cannot set up a web server in WinXP, even though its turned on by default, they would not know how to register a domain name, set up DNS, hell, they don't know the difference between a static and dynamic IP address...) and, guess what? They don't want to know! Nor do my clients, they couldn't care less how it works, they just want an intranet, a web site, corporate email, and their network to work reliably and be secure... People like this will ALWAYS exist, they are not scarce. I don't want to know all about accounting, or laws, so I'll gladly pay an accountant, and an attorney to take care of those things when I need them, its worth it to me. This is what specialization is all about. OSS is a beautiful thing! I'm not a fanatic of OSS, just praticality.

Re:Switching to Linux from Windows

[pavera]

I'm sorry you had problems with Linux, I personally have been using it for about a year, and it is now finally the only OS I use (as of 2 weeks ago, 5 computers..) Anyway, there is definately a learning curve involved with Linux, but, there is also a learning curve with windows.. we just don't remember because it was 7-8 years ago, and now its just natural to us.

Anyway, I can install most all software under Linux now, very easily, I use it for everything, and it works (beautifully I might add) sometimes things don't quite work on the first try.. but, then I've had more problems trying to run Netscape and Seti@home under win2k then I've had with either of those programs under Linux.. those are just 2 examples.. there are many more...

The point is, I know how to fix the problems in windows better because I've been doing it for 8 years now.. in 8 years, Linux will be so natural to me, I'll have to think hard to come up with examples of things that don't work, because fixing the problems will just be a natural response requiring no thought, and will therefore be easily forgotten.. (just as software problems under windows are right now). So I would say, have patience, try Linux again, maybe not as your primary OS, but on a secondary computer, and just mess with it.. Or if you don't want to invest the time, keep paying MS to keep you comfortable and inside of what you already know. basically you can invest time or money, to me investing the time was the better investment, I now know more, and I don't have to invest money anymore... It's your choice.

Re:Just curious

[pavera]

Just cause no one else replied, I will,

I'm an independent consultant, during the day, I help my clients implement networks/web sites/intranets/custom apps/databases. This is relatively high margin work (if I work for a client for 3 hours, it pays my rent, and food and gas for a month)

I am still a bachelor, and in college, so I don't have the whole family thing to deal with.. but if I did, I wouldn't have to work that much more to continue equal living conditions.

So as you can see, if I work 3 hours a day every day for a month, I have alot of money compared to my expenses.. and I still have 5 hours of a normal workday left (granted school eats up a bit of that) but I still have on average 1-2 hours of time left in a normal 8 hour business workday to spend developing free software, because I like to, and because it helps my clients, because the things I develop go directly into their solutions(not in my free time, but inside of an 8 hour workday leaving my evenings free to go out, have fun, go to concerts, whatever I want). Thats me I don't know about the rest.

CNet is highly biased and censors

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

I am not surprised that the reply had to be published somewhere other than ZDNet.

Cnet has recently engaged a policy of censorship intended to increase visitors from pro-Microsoft users.

You think not?

Read my web site. Email from CNet Community Manager, Mr. Dyer pretty tell the same story.

So, if you want an unbiased view you have to avoid Cnet and ZDnet.

Being Constrained by Circumstance != Hypocracy

[FreeUser]

Oh, wait...isn't that EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS US SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS TO DO?

And so what if he does? Unless you use PGP[1], I doubt you've ever, even once in your entire life, made use of a hard copy of some software package.

Saying that an economic model doesn't work for certain conditions isn't the same as demanding one give away one's work for free. Although, as free software's superiority over its commercial competitors by most objective criteria indicates, perhaps that is the most effecient economic model for situations in which there is an initial fixed cost, but no ongoing cost. Or perhaps there is something even more effecient than the free software model, but if their is, it has been demonstrated clearly to not be capitalism, particularly not capitalism in the form of government sponsored and enforced monopoly priveleges.

So the guy isn't giving his book away for free. So what? He has to operate in the same government sponsored monopolistic environment as everyone else, just as Richard Stallman (who opposed copyright, at least in the beginning) was forced to come up with a license that used copyright to insure the very freedoms it is designed to destroy. Just as numerous books calling for the use of hemp instead of trees for making paper have been published on dead trees ... because that is all they had to work with, and the alternative (that clowns like you seem to be advocating) is to never speak out at all, to in effect be silenced by the very circumstances one is trying to fix. Not a very reasonable, or desireable, option.

I wish we would move away from oil to cleaner, more sustainable energy that wouldn't put millions of dollars in the pockets of a culture that sponsors hatred of and terrorism against my culture. Does that mean I'm going to start living without electricity or transportation until such a belated move is finally made (if ever). Hardly. But it doesn't mean I'm going to shut up about it either, nor does it make my a hypocrit for refusing to do so, because circumstances beyond my control leave me with no other viable choice, at least for the moment.

[1]To get around US export restrictions, PGP was published in book form and shipped overseas, then transcribed by hand back into electronic format and distributed electronically from outside of the United States. No fees were charged or, to my knowledge, ever paid for that arduous bit of tedium.

Re:Being Constrained by Circumstance != Hypocracy

[meta-monkey]

Calm down, I wasn't trolling. I think copyrights and intellectual property are anachronisms, too, but I just thought it was awfully funny, that his book about the evils of copyrights, intellectual property, and corporate profiteering on such works was copyrighted to protect his intellectual property and distributed through a big publishing corporation. Come on, you have to admit it's just a little ironic, don't you?

Re:Being Constrained by Circumstance != Hypocracy

[FreeUser]

Calm down, I wasn't trolling. I think copyrights and intellectual property are anachronisms, too, but I just thought it was awfully funny, that his book about the evils of copyrights, intellectual property, and corporate profiteering on such works was copyrighted...

I was responding not to your post, but to the followup that basically extended your post from a humorous poke at the author's publisher to a broader accusation of hypocracy which implied the author should essentially have kept his/her mouth shut, or at least remained unpublished (which in today's world amounts to much the same thing):

It's obvious - if he provided the book in electronic format, then no one would buy the print copy.

Oh, wait...isn't that EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS US SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS TO DO?

Fuck him.

Perhaps you were browsing at +2 and didn't notice the reply? In any event, despite the fact that the aforementioned post was a troll, it expresses a far too common assumption and very widespread meme that, unless your lifestyle or methods exclude all aspects of whatever it is you are criticizing, you somehow should have no right to criticize that thing, should keep your mouth shut, and/or are a hypocrite of the lowest kind. This is nonsense, and indeed if every reformer in history had been constrained in such a fashion no reform would ever have happened and our lifestyle would likely be little different from that of our ancesters 1000 years ago.

That particularly destructive and disempowering meme needs to be debunked whenever it rears its ugly head, or we as a society will dismiss efforts at reform we should not, and suffer accordingly. So, even though the post I responded to (not yours!) almost certainly was a troll, it needed rebutting nevertheless.

and CNet censors those not pro-Microsoft

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

CNet engages in censorship of those not pro-Microsoft.

You think not?

Check out my web site.

My posts have been banned.

But, Mr Dyer, Community Manager for Cnet tells others that he gives great credit to my posts (while there were not being censored) while at the same time he told me the precise opposite.

It is dead obvious that CNet engages in censorship to restore their pro-Microsoft readership. Gosh. Mr. Dyer even wanted to blame me for the drop off in ZDnet readership and Talkback.

I guess CNet thinks that supporting the violation of federal law and banning anyone who objects is good for their business relationship with Microsoft?

Read the emails for yourself. There are all public.

Re:and CNet censors those not pro-Microsoft

[sheldon]

Fascinating.

When you read all the pro-Microsoft boards they are generally of the opinion that ZDNet is biased against Microsoft.

From reading your website, I would simply have to say you have some deeply emotional issues to deal with. Perhaps that is why your posts are being deleted?

Re:and CNet censors those not pro-Microsoft

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

I guess you did not read the two emails from Mr. Dyer, Community Manager, CNet.

That kind fellow tells others that my posts are highly valued and informative while telling me they are the cause of a drop in readership or a drop in the use of the talkback. So, to pick up things on ZDnet Talkback, censorship needs to be imposed. Read the email from CNet yourself. It is right there on my web site.

Either way, it does not call for censorship. But, neither can they both be true. So clearly CNet is engaged in censorship and they are highly embarrassed by it.

As for the so called deep emotional issues, there aren't any. It is just that I understand the technical issues involved and the harm being caused to consumers and the industry as a whole by the illegal acts Microsoft engages in. And, I detest employees under oath lying through their teeth trying to maintain those illegal acts.

Do you suggest that AOL (Netscape), BE and SUN each have deeply emotional issues to deal with? Do you also suggest that ProComp has deep emotional issues to deal with? Do you think Judge Jackson has deep emotional issues that he should deal with? Do you think that the appellate court has deep emotional issues they should deal with? Do you think that Robert Bork has deep emotional issues to deal with?

Or, do you only intend to insult individuals who happen to think the laws ought to be complied with and comment here?

Not promoting Microsoft and their illegal acts is absolutely not evidence of deep emotional issues. Rather it is indication that one understands all of the issues involved and seriously objects to Microsoft's conduct.

I would suggest that those who look the other way and lie to further Microsoft's interests should be the one consulting with the doctors.

In other words, I am not the one who has a serious problem with the court decisions that have been made to date.

My problem is with the companies that refuse to comply with the federal laws, present false evidence in court and fail to enforce the law when they take a oath to do so.

I guess some people just have to insult others that do not agree with them.

Re:and CNet censors those not pro-Microsoft

[sheldon]

There's a difference between disagreeing with business tactics, and devoting an entire website to your battle with ZDNet for supposedly censoring you.

Given the rage you apparently you have apparently locked up within you, I guess I don't blame ZDNet for not wanting to see any further posts from you. I honestly see no value in the rantings of a madman.

Re:and CNet censors those not pro-Microsoft

[theolein]

Lewis, I wasted far too many hours over on ZDNet in the past. Don't ask why because I don't really know. Suffice to say that a Talkback post that I tried to post there in repsonse to John Carroll's first article (which amazed me, because he was and is truly the last person on earth that I would expect any unbiased opinion from) was immediately removed and ZDNet informed me that it was "a personal attack on John Carroll". That was OK by me. I know that ZDNet wavers between very pro and very anti everything attitudes which generally seem to have more to do with them trying to keep up the viewing rates and at times Microsoft's advertising budget (I don't think MS advertising comes without any strings attached) than any real pro or anti bias in any way. There have been very anti Microsoft articles there as well.

The thing is that ZDNet is a tabloid. They're a business that tries to keep visitors coming to their site and will post anything to keep the rates high. The problem is that they are losing visitors because of their extreme commercial slant and they know it and don't seem to know what to do about it. What happened to you is more a reaction to that than anything else.

Forget it and carry on.

Re:and CNet censors those not pro-Microsoft

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

I do not necessarily disagree with you.

I do find it interesting however that the day or so after the price for StarOffice was announced and Microsoft put up their puff piece about future enhancements to MS Office (vaporware if there ever was any), Microsoft got cremed on the talk back.

Gartner was there with their survey. And, I kindly pointed out that with the 5 install permissions for Star Office an individual user could save over $2000 on day one going with Star Office.

Of course, Microsoft was livid and no doubt called Mr. Dyer to censor my posts. All he could complain about was a simple sinature (same as on here) and something about my not threatening law suits while they continue to take their time deleting offensive posts.

If you had a post deleted, maybe it was an attack. But, my experience has been that offensive posts against myself routinely take 3-4 days to be removed. And, I have repeatedly complained about that. In time there are almost always removed. But, after 3 or 4 days no one is reading the old article and talkback anyway.

Apparently, Mr. Dyer gets offended if you ask him to do his job. If you read his email, he even claims he is being harrassed if you contact him in his capacity as "Community Manager, CNet Networks".

Clearly ZDNet does not want an honest Talkback system. And, clearly CNet does not want any public review of their Community Policies either.

You can read the emails from Mr. Dyer yourself. You have everything I have from him.

I did have one (1) post deleted for being offensive. I told one fellow he looked silly for claiming to know what a document said while at the same time admitting he had not read it. Well. That does make one look rather silly. But, it was deleted anyway and I did not object. They should delete offensive posts. The problem is that they do not apply that policy fairly, accurately or within any reasonable timeframe to be of any value.

And, when you insist they do apply their own standards, they get all huffy and refuse to discuss it.

Claiming they are a tabloid is about right. Some of Mr. Dyer's comments in his email even suggest they engage in censorship and apply their fake Community rules in order to maximize their readership. Well. That alone invalidates TalkBack as being a public forum of any credibility.

They tried for months to simply be slow in deleting offensive posts hoping I would just go away. It was truly an insulting experience. And, when the jerkheads at CNet saw that being lax on their policy against offensive posts was not working, they made up other reasons to ban my posts. Reasons, by the way, which they fail to make clear suggesting it is the end result they seek and do not want to tell anyone the reasons why. The poor guy even mentions email from unidentified individuals as the reason for his policy. This idiot takes orders from unknown people? Or, do you think he is taking orders from people he does know? Either way, it is rather sick.

Accountability

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the guy is dead on.

Without incentive, you have a tiny niche group of people who have dedicated their free time (for now -- I bet you it doesn't last as their lives change) to hacking some number of hours per week outside of their regular job or duties. With incentive, you'd have a much larger crowd.

What's the traditional incentive to date? ESR's so-called ego gratification and one's status in the open source community? Please. There are but a handful of sheltered losers something that shallow of an incentive actually applies to, the hysterically unrealistic ESR being one of them.

The only incentive I see for the creation of most open source software is the usual: I want a tool that does not exist yet and I want it bad enough that I am going to write it.

What's the incentive for maintenance and support of that code?

That brings to light one thing that I think is all too prevalent in the open source world: Lack of attention span and the understanding that writing software for public use inherently carries with it a responsibility that you will maintain said software for a good period of time. Most open source developers don't even understand basic software engineering life cycle principles and what proper maintenance and legacy support mean. Most open source developers are running a bleeding edge development machine, and their applications require every frigging bleeding edge library they wrote against. And then people scream, "Linux on the corporate desktop!!!!" Haha, are you fucking KIDDING ME? And now you'll say things like, "Some city in Florida is using Linux! Ford is using Linux!!" blah blah blah. Interview their IT groups and show me a cost study 3 years from now. It means nothing until then. There are also plenty of completely false positives in these tests. If you hand Linux to a handful of Linux zealots who know nothing better than sitting around compiling new kernels, libraries, and in general firefighting the clusterfuck piece of shit that Linux has become in the 9 years I've watched it, of COURSE they're gonna say everything is fine -- they don't even know any better.

Additionally, without ACCOUNTABILITY for open source packages, things just will never fly in the corporate world. You can't just have Joe Schmoe fix some application bug 2 months later when he feels that programming is fun again. It took OVER a YEAR for my SIMPLE bugs regarding Red Hat's kickstart to get addressed without a support contract. Often I've had bugs for a package fixed in 2 days by someone else, but given the lack of exchanged goods (MONEY), the person certainly didn't have any obligation to fix it ever. I'm supposed to run a company on that concept? Laughable. Oh, I know, I'm supposed to fix the code myself. Sometimes that is doable, yes, but now what do I have? I have a package that I have a) no support agreement for b) a package that just cost me N hours of development time. I'm supposed to run a company on that concept too?

It's really not rocket science. FooCorp (300 employees) buys a copy of PhotoEditPlus for its design department to evaluate. The design department likes it and doesn't run into any real problems. FooCorp orders 20 more copies at $400 a piece, with a total investment now of $8400. So what has been established here?

1. FooCorp expects support for a reasonable period of time (usually 1 year without an additional support or software maintenance contract)
   
2. The makers of PhotoEditPlus have it in their best interest (for the LIVELIHOOD of everyone in the company) to make their customers as happy as possible by adding reasonable features they want, supporting them on the telephone at any time during the work day, and releasing patches to fix any problems that come up.
   

These are the simple concepts that corporate purchases are based around, not the hope that Dark_One or Lord_of_the_fork()dorks is still has a personal vested interest in the app he and his buddies churned out 4 months ago.

Open source software is a great thing.

It has its place, people. Leave it in its place.

Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee

[kz45]

Think of it: everytime a release of a major piece of software takes place, what is one of the first things you read on Slashdot? That's right, a cry for mirrors, because everyone starts hitting the project homepage. Now think in terms of a marketeer: how many eyeballs is that hitting a single page? How much is a brand and market goodwill worth?


if everyone going to these mirrors is 1) getting it for free and 2) not seeing any advertising at all, a marketeer only sees a waste of bandwidth.

About the FBI [OT]

[MoneyT]

and the FBI stops terrorists, right?

As a person currently studing the US Government, I feel the need to correct this statement for the public. Only in recent years have we decided that it is the FBI's job to stop terrorists. The original job of the FBI was to invesitgate crimes (most notably organized crime). By nature, in order to investigate a crime, the crime must have already been commited or be in the act of being commited. Now though, we seem to have this idea that it's also the FBI's job to anticipate and stop crimes before they happen. While this would be all well and good for society, the sad truth is it's nearly impossible. In order to stop something before it happens, you need to know exactly what you're looking for. The FBI could have all the clues in the world that a terrorist attack was comming, but not all puzzles are easily solved. Case in point:

It was commisioned and built in the early 1900's

It was one of the largest of it's kind

It was designed to carry large numbers of people large distances

It's maiden launch was a major media event

It was destroyed in a tragic accident

If I asked you what I was describing, most people would answer the Titanic. And indeed it does fit the clues, however I was in fact describing the Hindenberg. You see, just because you have the clues doesn't mean you can see the answer.

Oh my God!

[Erris]

Organization and teamwork are second-rate when comparing open source projects to commercial projects...But the only way that we will get enough 20 hour a week programmers will be to find some way to recompense them.

Suddenly my Debian system says, "Oh, I hadn't thought of that." and dissapears in a cloud of smoke and logic. For a while, I thought I had and was contributing to something really great. All thanks to you and ZDnet for showing me the error of my ways.

Appologies to Duglas Adams, who now knows the answer to the God question and presumably has no further need to debate it.

so you think?

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

So you think that everyone who does not approve of Microsoft's illegal conduct has deep emotional issues they should deal with?

Is that what you think?

Re:so you think?

[sheldon]

No, the emotional issues are pretty much something relatively unique to you.

Your website screams obsessive compulsive disorder. Instead of just letting the issue drop, you've continued to moan and bitch about it for apparently months(if not years, I stopped reading after a bit).

See a doctor, they have drugs that can help. Maybe you can then start to lead a normal life with real social interaction.

Re:so you think?

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

The illegal acts have not ceased.

The legal actions are not over.

Apparently you think that others should just accept the illegal acts and adopt the corrupt morals of Microsoft?

Re:so you think?

[sheldon]

Why would you assume I think that?

I just think that maybe you should see a doctor about your obsessive compulsive disorder.

Re:so you think?

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

You are not qualified to diagnose an obsessive compulsive disorder.

Asking that laws be complied with is the duty of all in the society and is not any indication at all of a mental disorder as you want to suggest.

Personal insults are just that.

The context was government procurement

[DannyO152]

John Carroll's argument wasn't strictly that open source vendors can't make money. His argument was that governments which are looking at including a preference for open source software in their procurement process should worry that the software writers may disappear without a market or that the code will be inferior because it's only created during off-hours.

As for software writer disapper, HCTCA (Here Come the Car Analogy): I guess we're supposed to say to a government specifying that its tranportation fleet will consist of motorized vehicles only, that unemployed blacksmiths is a problem.

Governments have an obligation to its citizens and taxpayers to provide services at the lowest cost possible. I also think that citizens, courts, legislatures, and executive branch members should be able to inspect the code and systems to ascertain that equal access and protection is de facto and de jure. But, I ineloquently paraphrase Dr. Villanueva Nunez's response to Microsoft on the issue.

But, imagine that my state California said that beginning tomorrow, all code acquired will have to be open source and is California's to use and modify as it wills. If you don't want to play because you don't like the specification, that's a lot of money to walk away from, but that's your choice. I think someone will bid the contracts. Besides code acquisition, there'll will be opportunities for service and maintenance contracts. And experiences suggests that governments change the mandate to their executive departments every legislative session, so there would seem to be a lot of work. The writer of the code will have a large advantage when bidding the service contract, since they were paid for their learning curve at the code's sale. That the code is open means another vendor has an opportunity to bid, which means the civic agency sees vendor competition which should lower costs and taxes, relative to the acquisition of propietary code. It's a large marketplace and someone will want to exploit the opportunity.

Another way to look at what I'm saying, if the demand for open source code increases, the capital and sustainable revenues for open source development, maintainence and support will also become available.

I've made money from Free Software without trying!

[Eric Smith]

I wrote a fairly obscure little piece of Free Software (GPL'd) and put it on my web site along with a note that I'm willing to sell commercial licenses to anyone that doesn't want to use it under the GPL terms. I wasn't actually expecting any income from it, and I made NO effort to seek out customers, but customers showed up anyhow and paid me several thousand dollars.

That may not be a huge amount of money, but it's pretty darn good considering that aside from writing the software, I didn't spend any time trying to bring in money.

I can only surmise that if someone wrote Free Software with a more broad appeal, and invested some effort into attempting to make money on it, they should be able to do much better than I have. In fact, there's at least one existence proof.

Hackers in the Captain's Chair

[extrasolar]

With free software, their is a single leader and a single unified vision. This leader is you.

You are probably rather disappointed by this statement. You want someone else to make the decisions for you. I've heard countless diatribes about people's grandma's who don't want to think about the software they use. They want a system that just works. In addition, the system's that already just works, isn't good enough. I don't understand this--but I'll ignore it for the time being.

But, it is easy to make system's that don't make you think. They have already been built. What you may complain about is that they don't do anything interesting. We've had word processors turning high-priced machines into fancy typewriters for a dozen years now. Connecting to the internet has long turned into a double-click operation.

The truth is, for what you want, its as good as it gets. In all honesty, I don't think you know what you want. For some reason, you want what Microsoft provides without getting it from Microsoft.

Here's what GNU/Linux (thats what its called) provides. It provides all the software you need to build your own system. What? you may ask. Why would I want to build my own system? One reason is that you've used Windows, toyed with the Macintosh, even at one point wrote batch files in DOS. But it wasn't enough. You want something more. Another reason, is that you--like me--don't know what you want. But you'll know it when you see it. Where commercial operating system is about popularity and marketing demographics--GNU/Linux is about empowerment. That the crux of free software. With free software, you are given the power to meet your needs. The cost is that you need to learn more about your system than you'd ever need to learn with Windows, Macintosh, or DOS. But what you'd end up with is not and end-users system but your system.

How do you start? First, write down what you want your system to do. Do you want your entire house equipped with speakers playing music? You want certain songs playing during the morning, certain songs playing during the afternoon, and others playing at night? How about theme songs playing on holidays? Would you like to store appointments and alarms in your computer. As opposed to an alarm clock, you want to store several alarms with different settings for different days of the week. You want alerts for people's birthdays.

How about a graphical clock on your wall, made with a flat screen computer monitor? Expensive, yes. Useful, yes. You can display the date on it as well as the time in three time zones. It can have an icon for when you get email and warn you when your favorite programs are coming on TV.

And...if you get an email by someone important why wait for you to open it? Just have the printer print it.

You can set up a web cam or...even better yet, a web server. Have the computer give an audio alert for when you get a lot of hits.

This is only an example. The possibilities are virtually endless. You just need the money to pay for the hardware and the knowledge--all of which can be provided by books and online manuals. Once you write down what you want your system to do, research on how to achieve this system. Read FAQs and ask newsgroups and mailing lists for advice.

What you end up with is not an end-user's system but a hacker's system. And you are in the captain's chair.

Getting paid for software development

[njdj]

This whole thread is irrelevant to the economics of software development, as they affect developers in rich countries (i.e. most of us).

Take a look at sites like http://www.elance.com - you will see the future of software development. In the near future, projects will be outsourced to companies in Russia where top-notch developers cost $20/hour. In the slightly more distant future, projects will be outsourced to developers in India and Bangladesh who cost $8/hour. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to work on somebody else's projects for rates like that. I'd rather work for $0 on my own projects, and GPL the results.

Related but different

[einhverfr]

Business impact.

If you want to release some internal tools as open source (see my sig as an example), then there are a couple of issues.

1: Are you giving a free ride to the competition? This can be a problem, which can be solved through careful decisions, marketing, and considerations relating to which components are being released.

2: What is the effect on your intangible assets on the company? This issue of IP dilution is one for many companies. I think that it is a red herring for most companies, and I think that most companies do better to focus on core competencies...

BTW, the link in my sig is a set of business tools I decided to release. It is still under development, but it is going well. I and my business partners are satisfied in both the above issues here. But we had to make some decisions about how exactly to manage the release.

Re:Linux Community? What's That?

[HiThere]

My off the cuff feeling was: "Do we really want this pirate in the community?", but your post clarifies things a bit.

There is a community. Being a Linux user doesn't automatically make you a member, and it isn't even really a requirement. BSD users are "welcome", though they have to put up with a lot of flack from hanger's on who think that they look smart by putting down anyone who uses anything but Linux.

The community is a community of people who have a certain attitude towards software. This is available even to Windows users, though in that atmosphere it's difficult to achieve. For some reason, Mac users have less difficulty (though also less inclination). The community is composed of people who are each a blend between a power user and a programmer. Many are also sysAdmins, but that is neither necessary nor sufficient.

There is no requirement that you be a member of the community to use Linux. The OS is separable, and not really important. But Linux, along with *BSD and the Hurd (and, to an extent, BeOS) was designed for the primary benefit of the members of the community.

I'm sorry if this doesn't make any sense to you, but it's a real thing. If one strong group of the community espouses GPL, and another espouses BSD, or NPL, or... that doesn't matter. That's an argument over tactics and goals. It is only relevant within the community. This is not to assert that the licenses only matter within the community, but if you aren't a community member, then you will need to take whichever license is offered. If you are a community member, then you may well need to choose a license. And which OS is your favorite may have a big impact on that choice.

Community is a better word than profession for this. I was a professional programmer for decades before I ever encountered the community. I am still a professional programmer, but now I'm wondering how I could contribute something worthwhile back to the community. Until I do, then my status will remain quite low. And properly so. If the community doesn't reward those who support it, then it won't continue. And the reward is status. (Sometimes this can translate into jobs, money, etc., but that's basically extra-community.)

No one seems to get it

[leereyno]

The idea that open source is not driven by profit is absurd, as is the idea that the profit to be found within it is defined by companies trying to make money off of "services." At least in the sense of a company actively paying for the development of an open source product and then trying to balance the books by supporting it. That might work for a handful under special circumstances, but it won't work universally, not even close. You can however sell a SOLUTION that uses an open source product. Of course that isn't the FSF party line we're all used to hearing. We're used to hearing that companies that produce open source products should try to pay the bills by selling support to others who are actually implementing the solutions based upon those products. The people who are selling the solution are the ones who make the money. This means that in order to make money from open source you have to sell solutions, not give away and then try to support for a fee the tools that would be used to create the solution.

The truth is that open source is driven by developers for developers. It is a rational self interested response to proprietary and closed products that developers have been stuck with. Open source is the response to things like the Microsoft monopoly and vendor lock-in. No one wants to try and implement an optimal solution using sub-optimal tools. Closed code that can't be changed or even truly understood is a very good example of a sub-optimal tool. Stallman and the FSF might toot their horn about how they started the show, and that might be true on paper. The real truth however is that it was the internet and the power it gave the developer community to respond collectively that made the open source movement real.

Most programs are not written by programmers working for shrink-wrap software firms where the product they are selling is the software. Most programs are written in-house for an in house need. This is the reason why VB is the the most popular programming language in history, as judged by the number of lines of code written in it. These programmers don't make money from selling code, they make money from implementing solutions using code. ALL early open source products were written by programmers for programmers. Even now the overwhelming majority still fit that description. Projects like GCC and Linux are where they are because developers could use them to make money. USE is the key word there. Stallman might have created GCC initially, just as Linus created the Linux kernel initially. Neither product would be worth a plug nickel however if other programmers hadn't found them potentially useful and began contributing to them.

In the long run this will become painfully obvious to everyone and I won't have to always be hearing the selling services while you write your code on the side BS. Selling open source code doesn't work. Selling "services" based upon open source code that you are also somehow trying to develop at the same time also doesn't work. Selling SOLUTIONS based upon open source products that you may or may not have ever contributed a single line of code to WILL make you money. At that point you are not selling the product, you are selling your personal expertise in using it to solve a particular problem. This is why open source is popular and powerful, because giving it away and making it open and free HELPS those who have developed it to make money from it. Bug fixes, patches, improvements, suggestions, even forks, at the end of the day make for a better tool and better tools make for easier money.

The Stallmans of the world can rant all day long about their Marxist utopia but its not something that will ever happen. The value of open source is that it puts power into the hands of developers and solution implementers. It makes their job easier and allows them to create better solutions to the problems they face. The fact that non-developers also benefit is nothing more than a side effect. A very useful side effect but a side effect nonetheless.

Those of you who are always harping on and on about open source as some kind of political, social or even spiritual movement should really give it a rest. Developers create open source products because it is in their own best interest. This isn't some kind of altruistic sacrifice of time and effort to further some social revolutionary goal. Developers create the tools they want and need and then share those tools because doing so does not diminish that tools usefulness to them. Groups of programmers collaborate on open source projects due to the mutual benefit of everyone involved. None but a very small few have any notions of changing the world or undermining commercial software development. They're too busy making money and too smart to begin with to get caught up in a bunch of naive left wing bullshit led by someone who has never left the ivory tower of academia and, based upon the book written about him, has very little understanding of human behavior and what motivates that behavior.

Lee

J*ckass missed the point

[smokestacklightning]

Kind of sounding off late - I have been in on vacation across the pond for a week and a half, so i just caught this poking around 'older stuff'. So I will sound off, and be done with it. I work for a company that develops open source software on platforms that are friendly to this type of endeavor (Solaris, Linux ...). We have built a line of products that commodotize equally incompatible hardware and software solutions that serve a traditionally closed-source industry. The standard we have developed in conjunction TW/AOL is as open as our software ( no fooling - source is freely availible ). Our angle, we sell the software/hardware solutions we produce at cost and have developed our biz strategy around a service model. So far, the $$$ have beaten out our most liberal projections.The author of the ZDNet article is just sticking to safe ground, or gunning for a job in Redmond ( I would imagine in PR) - there is more than one business model out there.

Isn't it a bit late to proclame doom

[Felinoid]

Once an operating system has been out for more than five years with a large userbase it's a bit late to say it'll never fly.

It's one thing to say "It'll never work" before the wright brothers get into the air...
But to point to an airport and proclame it is just laughable.

"Linux will never fly"
"And Microsoft will never be proffitable"
"And that wheel thing..."

I'd like to remind everyone something...
To everyone who thinks providing source code is a security risk...
Unix venders would sell source code for a significant fee and companys would pay it...
Why? Becouse with out source code you CAN NOT have a secure operating system.. It's imposable to do with out the source code.
That was the reasoning back in the past... and it's proven itself. Not everyone could afford to liccens the source.

Today Microsoft still liccens the source to Windows large chunks of money. Why? Security...

You know if a cracker wanted he could get the money together and publish all the defects and back doors he finds on an e-zine like phrak.

As for how imposable it is to make money with open source..
You know Microsoft said that about closed source about 20 years ago...

Companys want to make spinoffs of my GPLed code I say hay.. Just pay me a liccens fee and you can have a closed source liccens for your production... I'm fair.

There are a number of ways to make money with the GPL.

One trick is to offer your 5 year old product under GPL to kill compeditors selling 10 year old products.

Hardware comapnsy can release GPLed driver source code to improve user support...
(In the past they always provided source code or at least specs..
Today companys are affrade of reverse engenearing that actually has nothing to do with software.)

I'm sceptical.. ZD publicications are pritty much all Windows centric so there is absolutly no reason for them to publish anything about Linux or open source.

It's not that ZD would kiss up to Microsoft but for every person who switches from Windows to Linux is a potentally lost costummer for ZD.

This is why I expect to never see anything about Microsoft Windows in LJ byond "Here is how to make Linux work with Windows"

ZD isn't a business publication so ZD's technical experts have as much call talking about the business potental of open source as a buisness expert has talking about writing drivers for Linux.

This isn't Fud as much as wishful thinking. They aren't talking to business people or anyone who might try to make money from open source.

So far nobody has been able to make money writing open source code..
But then so far nobody has tried.

Mr. Carroll has written a rebuttal...

[sdo1]

It's titled "Facing the open source firing squad".

-S

These are two different questions...

[Archie Steel]

...the first being "Is using Open Source going to decrease programmer's income as a group?" and the second being "Will using and promoting Open Source for businesses benefit the OSS community?" I was clearly adressing the first issue, and thought you were too. My take is that it is not, because companies will need to hire programmers so that they can solve specific problems (in which case OSS lets programmers do more for the same amount of money). So we seem to agree on this.

On the second question, I'm not sure I follow your argument - modified OSS is not OSS until it is released, for sure. By definition the source only gets released to the outside if the binaries are - but since these are applications designed for internal use, they are not meant to be released. Is that not giving back to the community? Perhaps, but it is compliant with the GPL, and in any case the release would not bring additional income to OSS programmers, who may or may not have been already been paid for their effort. In a sense, if you release GPL'ed software, you accept that users of this program will be de facto freeloaders, since you're not going to get any money from the release (even though you may have been paid to write it). So I fail to see what your point is, other than writing OSS code and then trying to sell it won't make you rich; AFAIK, nobody said it would. And if that takes away the incentive for programmers to write good OSS software, then we don't have to do anything about it: the market will take care of it. But so far the fact that actual sales of OSS are modest hasn't prevented it from making great advances in quality, reliability and security, so there must be other economic and social forces at work.