Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Joel On The Economics of Open Source

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the why-it-works-the-way-it-does dept.

Stephen writes "The ever-incisive Joel Spolsky discusses the economics of open source software in his latest Joel on Software column. Why do so many large companies want to develop open source software? It's not because they have suddenly converted to Stallmanism."

4 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Like my father always said... by pubjames · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    When I was young,[..]

    I am in awe at the depth of your father's insight. If only all children had such perceptive and intelligent parents.

    Yes, this is sarcasm.

  2. Customizing Mozilla Key Bindings by sys49152 · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    Despite the fact that Mozilla has all the features I want and I'd love to use it if only to avoid the whack-a-mole pop-up-ad game, I'm too used to hitting Alt+D to go to the address bar. So sue me. One tiny difference and you lose your commodity status.

    Perhaps Joel should read the Mozilla page on how to modify the default key bindings.

  3. Joel the Troel. Free software is cheaper for all. by Erris · · Score: 2, Flamebait
    Thanks for the basic economic lecture, Joel. While I hardly consider your big two intro economics classes impressive, your thinking is clear. It should be, the concepts you dwell on are simple enough.

    It's presumptious of you, however, to tell us why IBM, RMS, and everyone and their dog is doing what they do. The spin is a little nausiating. Let's examine some of the nasty ones:

    At this point, it's pretty common for people to try to confuse things by saying, "aha! But Linux is FREE!" OK. First of all, when an economist considers price, they consider the total price, including some intangible things like the time it takes to set up, reeducate everyone, and convert existing processes. All the things that we like to call "total cost of ownership."

    What confusion? You forget that studies consistently prove the lower cost of ownership of free software? Not that it's what I tell people. I generally point out freedom, control, security and then cost. Now I see the confusion, it's a straw man. What else does this silly Sallmanist say?

    Secondly, by using the free-as-in-beer argument, these advocates try to believe that they are not subject to the rules of economics...

    Wrong again! If you keep economic priciples in mind while reading free software organization pages, you will note and remember many economic reasons offered support software freedom. It's the makers of propriatory software that would like to make themselves beyond the reach of economic laws. They attempt to do this by abusing copyright and patent law, and engaging in other anti-competitive behavior. RMS rightly noted that the results of such behavior is economic waste in the form of double work and the inability to use software as you would.

    The rest of the article is inconsequential after the false frame work has been applied. Free software advocates are not ignorant of economic laws and one of the main advatages to free software is lower total cost of ownership. Only propriatory software concerns have a financial intrest to deliberatly waste the efforts of users.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  4. Re:Like my father always said... by Onionesque · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Actually, in most cultures, and at most times in human history, having and raising children was precisely a business matter. Children were, and still are, valued in terms of their economic potential. Hence, the dowery.

    Your notion is very contemporary, and rather provincial.

    When I have a child, I'm going to raise a bassist. :)