Businessweek Covers Linuxworld

MadFarmAnimalz writes "BusinessWeek has coverage of Linuxworld up, and it makes interesting reading in places. Amongst things touched upon are the open-source business model, how vendors will be tempted into locking in customers into their offerings, and other things." I'll be out there tomorrow for the Golden Penguin Bowl, as well as judging exhibitors. Busy day.

Comments

How about news networks?

[MacGunner]

ABC, Fox News, NBC... etc. Its time for some REAL tech in everyday coverage.

Open Source Shmopen Source

[Brett333]

I just don't see how you can have a profitable buissness solely on open source software. The only thing you can actually make money on is either documentation or support. But how are you supporting your development team?

www.1001InsomniacNights.com

Re:Open Source Shmopen Source

[podperson]

1) I don't see that there's any reason to base a business purely on open source. You can write proprietary software AND open source software (e.g. modifications to open software you interact with).

2) Even if for some ideological reason you choose to write open source software only, you can do it on a fee for service basis (e.g. other people who need custom modifications but don't have the wherewithal).

Standards?

[mcoko]

I see an issue here that is similar to all of the problem people have with Windows.

IMO, there are 3 distinct pieces to a computer. The Hardware, OS and Software. We all hate M$ because they Have crappy software that only runs on Windows and they force good companies to develop software for there OS, which alot of people don't like. That would be fine if there was an alternative OS to use with the same software.

Similarly If you use Linux/Unix software you can only use it on Linux/Unix.

What I see as the next revolution is some sort of Stanard Interface between OS and Software. This would allow for new companies to startup that create OS's by the handful allowing for more competetion, profit and cheaper prices which all fuel innovation.

This is similar to Java, but Jave fixed this with a compiler solutions.

Maybe some sort of OS/Software interface Object can be created to make the connection. That way you choose the best OS and the best software you want.

it's called the killer app ...

[HealYourChurchWebSit]

Amongst things touched upon are the open-source business model, how vendors will be tempted into locking in customers into their offerings, and other things.

Not until there is agreement and cooperation between the gnome & KDE contest -- and not until Star/OpenOffice begins a concerted campaign to replace MS Office (e.g. marketing, money, superbowl advertising) -- not until those things happen will Linux win fealty.

Open-source ethics

[Neophytus]

Amongst things touched upon are the open-source business model, how vendors will be tempted into locking in customers into their offerings, and other things
Part of the good nature of the open source community is the sense of freeness and sharing. Locking people into certain 'offerings' and related things is completely against these values. All the hassle of open source without the benefits of the community that surrounds you - rather pointless if you ask me.

"How do you make money....."

[mao che minh]

The same way proprietary companies do: sell the software, and make it worth your customer's while to purchase future upgrades and/or support. An open source license doesn't render software free of cost.

IBM doesn't seem to be having a problem with their open source solutions.

Open Source Business Model

[DeadSea]

I have quite a few bugs in Mozilla that I have reported, or for which I have voted, so I get quite a bit of email from Bugzilla. I have seen an increasing number of posts of people who attach a comment to a bug saying "this is really important to me, it needs to be implemented ASAP". The usual response is "Please stop spamming us. We have limited resources and will get to bugs in time (possibly a long time). If you really want this bug fixed, fix it yourself, or pay somebody to fix it for you."

The problem with this is that there are not many people who (even if they are programmers) are up to speed with the Mozilla code and can fix bugs. This mostly rules out do it yourself. That also means that it is probably rather expensive to hire one of these people for the time it takes to fix some bug. I'm thinking $200 to $5000 depending on the amount of work it would take (especially for some of the more far reaching feature requests.)

How hard would it be to add a distributed "pay for development of feature" option to open source projects? The idea is that if 1000 people want a bug fixed and each can pledge $1 to the person that fixes it (and contributes the open source to the project), you might be able to get a lot of bugs fixed and have some revenue stream for developers.

The first hurdle is setting up the pledge system. I don't if Paypal or another mircopayment system could be rigged for "pledge mode".

After the pledge system is in place, you would have to decide who can say if a bug is "fixed". It can't be the person that gets the money. It could possibly be a vote of the people paying, or it could be some designated third party.

People contributing money would probably also want a time limit on their pledges. "I'll pledge $10 if this gets fixed in the next three months", but not "I'll give $10 whenever this gets fixed".

Does anybody here have any insight as to how this could be implemented?

Re:Open Source Business Model

[extra88]

First, I think it would have to be initiated by someone offering to fix a bug. Bugzilla already shows bug popularity, right? So a programmer makes a post somethingn like, "I'll fix this bug when this tip jar < link > reaches X dollars."

I don't think a pledge would cut it. You would either have to have the dollars held in escrow until the work was completed or just pay the dollars up front. The latter option would be dependent upon the reputation of the person offering the service. I think that's how other "software ransoming" schemes have worked. Escrow would be tricky because who's to say when the work it done to everyone's satifaction?

Actually, it could be really interesting if voting for bugs could include monetary value. Programmers could be like bounty hunters, looking for the bugs which have racked up the most loot. They pick a bug, fix it, then collect the loot. For such a thing to work, I think the Mozilla people would have to collect real money from the bug voters beforehand, perhaps a small account (~US$20) from which bug voters could pledge dollars. The Mozilla people could distribute the funds when they think the bug is fixed. Maybe Mozilla could make a little money, like a small initial setup fee then a percentage of each bounty payment. I don't know much about how the Mozilla project is run so I don't know how off-base this is.

Re:Open Source Business Model

[Cyberop5]

Although your idea is novel, I believe this solution will only hurt the quality of Open Source Software and Free Software and thus the movement. It already has a reputation of being buggy and difficult to use

A few rotten developers might get the idea to purposely plant bugs so they can "fix" them later and profit. Or they may make code extremely difficult to read and overly complex so that only they can work on the project. This may work with corporations such that Transmeta goes to Red Hat and says "Here's 20,000 USD, make a kernel that supports 15 of our new processors" (And corporations like Intel already do that, as pointed out by one thread).
When this ideology gets down to SourceForge and home brewed projects, someone may say "here's 20 bucks, make sure your word processor can cut and paste."
That is when we get hurt.

Development trees may include less features with hopes that some wealthy individual will finance the growth of features.

Donate to your favorite project as a whole, not to the individual developers. Those funds pay for servers and other stuff too.