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.
LinuxWorld was a huge success!
Bob Young gave out 23 free red velvet fedoras. He commented that he would have liked to have given out more but being that RedHat only made $300K last year "times were rough".
Across the hall, 6 gentlemen from the RepoDepot were clearing out the Mandrakesoft booth.
VA Software had a good showing, several dozen slashdot fans shared pizza with Cowboy Neal and CommanderTaco was demoing a beta version of his GPL spelling software.
Trolling is a art,
Computerworld
Cnet
Internetnews
Infoworld
And, of course, Microsoft Watch.
is that pessimistic or what? Those are sad headlines, but Linux future is being readied in the background. Indeed in todays world economy the fresh money linux companies need to survive is to come from the formerly-3rd-world countries. These recon there is no point in using expensive software and are switchig steadily to open source solutions. The same applies for the tech certs. We expect there will be far more people certified RHCE or LPI than MSCE and the like in the near future.
One never knows where the salvation is to come from.
-- Or So Tewfik Wrote. --
I see an issue here that is similar to all of the problem people have with Windows.
IMO, there are 3 distinct pieces to a computer. The Hardware, OS and Software. We all hate M$ 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
I hear they got Angelina Jolie (dressed as her character from Hackers) to sing the National Anthem, and MIT Marching Band for the half-time show.
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.
That's somewhat true, however what's the other option? Come up with your own OS? Why? Who needs it? Besides, I don't think these companies are offering open source software. They're offering closed-source software on an open OS. Big difference.
The reason Linux is seeing this recent resurgence is due to the natrual evolution of the operating system's relevance to the overall picture. If programming languages are at a high enough level such that porting applications (i.e., the real moneymakers) is easy between different OSes, then why not go with the one that costs zero? Mind you, I said "relevance" of the OS, not "importance." For example, deciding which CPU and chipset to use is important, but has no (little) relevance to OS and application selection.
IBM doesn't seem to be having a problem with their open source solutions.
OS X already won. Any geek or scientist worth their salt who wants a UNIX home computer already has an iBook or a G4.
Won what? Was there a race?
It is my contention that nobody cares about Linux on the desktop any more outside of a small group of Linux afficiandos (such as me).
And I gotta say, that I'm ok with that. There are many more interesting places to do operating systems battle, so as far as I am concerned, OS X can try to win the pissing match over the ruins of the desktop market while the rest of us start concentrating on the next generation of computing.
Have a great time.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
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).
These guys have to figure out how they're going to generate some money
What Red Hat and SuSE have to do is create an annuity revenue stream
These seem like the kind of things these companies either already know to do or already know how to do. It seems like these analysts aren't really providing any new insight. Obviously Red Hat and SuSE have to make money... After being in business for years, surely these guys know a thing or two about how to stay afloat.
"I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein
From the article:
These guys have to figure out how they're going to generate some money," said Aberdeen analyst Bill Claybrook. "If Red Hat Advanced Server is part of a deal with Oracle (9i database software) on a cluster of four Dell machines, each of which has four CPUs, Oracle gets $60,000 a CPU, or $960,000, Dell gets $150,000 or so for the hardware, and Red Hat will get $10,000.
The dollar figures are totally meaningless here without a context for what the costs were going in. How much does it cost Dell in time, resources, personnel, etc, to build that server? How much did it cost Oracl in developer hours to get their product out the door?
The thing is that, revenue numbers can be a hell of a lot lower for an open source driven business and still be profitable because their outlays are substantially less. Sure RedHat pays for some development work on Linux, but it's not nearly the amount they'd have to pay in if they were a proprietary software vendor.
RedHat probably has lower margins than Oracle, but does it really matter? As long as they make profit sufficient enough to maintain the business over the long term, it's irrelevant. Sure, RedHat may never be as big as Oracle or Dell, but maybe that's a positive sign of change in the industry. Less people working at software companies, and more people doing real work with the software that is now cheaper and higher quality.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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?
I'll bite on this troll.
You don't sell software.. You sell the development services and write custom coding to fit a business.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
From the article:
... will announce customers including ASP Futuro Bolivia, which uses Linux and Oracle 9i RAC using four, four-processor HP servers to manage the pensions of about half the retirees in Bolivia."
"HP
An interesting point here is that once you've paid for an Oracle 4 proc license, the cost of adding a proprietry Unix likely won't even change your second-most-significant digit in the price. This means these people believe Linux is better than proprietry, independent of the free/gratis factor.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.