Slashdot Mirror
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.
ABC, Fox News, NBC... etc. Its time for some REAL tech in everyday coverage.
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.
www.fotoforay.com
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.
IBM doesn't seem to be having a problem with their open source solutions.
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).
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?