Slashdot Mirror


Make More Mistakes

prostoalex writes "Eric Sink from SourceGear, well-known in the open-source world for AbiWord Suite, shares his thoughts on starting and running a software business. One of the keys to a successful business, as Thomas J. Watson once said, was to double the rate of failures. Eric Sink tells the story of what mistakes he personally made, what could be avoided, and what's important for geeks to know when starting a software company."

262 comments

  1. I'll get right on that- by squarefish · · Score: 1, Funny

    thanks for the encouragement!

    ;)

    --
    Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
    1. Re:I'll get right on that- by donutz · · Score: 1

      Me to!

      Opps, I mean, mee too!

      darn it...

      Me too!

  2. msdn? by prof187 · · Score: 1, Funny

    i nearly shat myself when i saw that

    --

    My other sig is an import.
    1. Re:msdn? by endx7 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes..msdn would be mistake #1.

    2. Re:msdn? by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. You wouldn't want stuff to be easy to find, have sample code that actually compiles, runs AND does what it says, and actually stays up for longer than an hour at a stretch. Try this example instead.

      Sorry, just bitter. Oracle's docs are a heaping pile of crap.

    3. Re:msdn? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      The code examples from MS and MSDN are at a 12 year old, Comp Sci. 101 level. Remember, MS does not give away and USEFUL code.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    4. Re:msdn? by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 1

      Which is what you want when you just want to know how to, say, search and extract a substring in Jscript when you don't use it everyday. .. or a quick refresher on the different cursor types in an ADO recordset.

      Or whatever. You know the kind of stuff reference documents should do.

  3. Make more mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to that theory, if I made one more mistake I should be able to surplant Microsoft.

  4. Hard work by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the keys to a successful business, as Thomas J. Watson once said, was to double the rate of failures.

    One of the other keys I have found to a successful business is to work your ass off. This could certainly be seen as doubling failure rates. Interestingly though in the software business many companies appear to be adopting Microsofts model by releasing all of their failures to the public and letting the public sort them out. Other companies (like Apple) certainly have their share of failed products, but they do not foist them on the public. Rather they work them until they are good, or they do not release them. Also, often I have seen in my consulting, businesses that start out strong through insight, hard work and luck get run into obscurity through the next round of managers who take over the company. (it also happens when parents turn their businesses over to their kids who do not have nearly the same work ethic.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Hard work by AxelTorvalds · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Of course. If you increase failure rate with stupidity then you'll never win. I think Gordon Moore said it a little differently. "If you aren't failing then you aren't trying hard enough."

      The original point is good, I still think more companies are blowing up because they are doing foolish things. Starting a company is very hard work and there is a lot of it. You either have to be a lot smarter than the competition or work a lot harder, no way around that and you're probably not that much smarter. The startup I'm with has busted our asses but it's looking positive, during the roughest parts I hated it but now looking back, it's the only way we've survived and done as well as we have.

    2. Re:Hard work by SkArcher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You could also try the OpenSource method of making a software business work, which is to release all of your mistakes and failures to the public with full annotation and then let them write the next version of the software while you sell 'support services' for it to the general populace.

      Works a treat for service products like Apache, where the service the software provides is the actual value of it, and the act of releasing the code to those interested simply means more patchers working on the problems. Likewise it works for common software like Office software, where the people who use it don't generally care to understand the code.

      Ironically, it fails in products targetted for sale to code-competent people, as this is a market that can support their own needs, but then this is a small market who could code their own product rather than pay any money anyway.

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    3. Re:Hard work by NoData · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I think "make more mistakes" is just a side effect of the real point: Take more risks. Obviously, if you take more risks, your probability of making mistakes also goes up. I'm sure if the error rate didn't happen to go up with risk taking (just getting lucky), no one would complain.

    4. Re:Hard work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other companies (like Apple) certainly have their share of failed products, but they do not foist them on the public

      I know the easiest way to farm karma is imply that Apple's shit doesn't stink, but Apple has *sold* many MacOS updates that were were full of technology which was Dead-On-Arrival.

      Examples include:
      + PowerTalk / AOCE collaboration software (utterly useless)
      + QuickDraw GX (only used by 2 or 3 apps)
      + OpenDoc (used by very few apps)

      Since many Apple users proudly paid for $100 upgrades to get this pointless crap, so they tend to blot out the memory that this stuff ever existed. Which means this post will probably be at -1 soon.

    5. Re:Hard work by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If your'e starting a business, maybe working your own ass off will help. If you're working in one, probably not.
      By the last set of figures I saw, the US currently ranks #1 in number of hours worked in the industrialized world, but only #3 in per person productivity. (The average US worker produces a contribution to the GNP of about 30 $ US per hour, while Great Britain was 50 cents (again US) or so higher, and the reunified Germany had assimilated the east German economy and was back up to about 33 $ US per worker hour.
      These are estimates circa 2002, and no I don't remember just where I read them, probably some scandal sheet like the Wall St. Journal.
      The interesting thing was Germany had just made it manditory for most businesses to give DEC 26th off to facilitate people traveling to be with familys over the Christmas holiday. Many business owners had complained that the German economy would suffer from this and other new increases in non-work time (new maternity leave rules, increased minimums for vacation weeks/years employed, and such). Instead, the economy had apparently benefited.
      So if you want to be a successful creator of a new company, by all means work your tail off, put in those 16 hour days and six week stretches, but hire people who want to work smarter not harder.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    6. Re:Hard work by El · · Score: 0, Troll

      Other companies (like Apple) certainly have their share of failed products, but they do not foist them on the public. You mean like the Apple Lisa and Apple Newton? I'm sorry, but Apple has shipped "Microsoft Bob" level mistakes just like any other company...

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    7. Re:Hard work by BWJones · · Score: 1

      You mean like the Apple Lisa and Apple Newton? I'm sorry, but Apple has shipped "Microsoft Bob" level mistakes just like any other company...

      Ah, yes. But the Apple Lisa begat the Macintosh and the Apple Newton showed the rest of the world the way towards hand-held computing. In fact, many would argue that the Newton is still king of the hill in functionality with features that still blow away Palm and WinCE devices. The Newtons significant shortcoming was its price. Now, what has Microsoft Bob given us?

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    8. Re:Hard work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd have to agree that Apple uses better QA, but consider OSX 10.0... it sucked rocks so badly that 10.1 was a "we're sorry" free upgrade.

      I love my x86 Linux boxes but OSX is the best Desktop Unix out there, hands down.

    9. Re:Hard work by Mesaeus · · Score: 1

      Now, what has Microsoft Bob given us?

      Well, it got Bill Gates married and off the street, always a good thing...

    10. Re:Hard work by t0ny · · Score: 1
      Other companies (like Apple) certainly have their share of failed products, but they do not foist them on the public

      Care to explain the Windows version of QuickTime?

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    11. Re:Hard work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey bozo, 1997 called, it wants its news back

    12. Re:Hard work by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Well, technically, the Macintosh begat the Lisa, but took considerably longer to be completed. There was a huge amount of cross-polinization between the two projects, but the Mac was the first UI-oriented project.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    13. Re:Hard work by El · · Score: 1
      The Newton's shortcoming was actually it's handwriting recognition; it unfortunately was a couple years ahead of it's time. The handwriting recognition algorithms had not been perfected yet, and portable CPUs weren't powerful enough. The only genius of the Palm was the insight that it is easier to train a human to write in ways a computer can understand than it is to train a computer to understand any human's writing.

      The Lisa was screwed by the Mac stealing all of it's good features, then requiring it to be compatible, leaving the only potential market for the Lisa being as a development system for Macs. Why ship it at all then, especially at $1000 more than a Mac?

      The other Apple "mistake" I was trying to remember is the Apple III. Advertised as a small business computer system, at the last minute they discovered heat disipation problems and reverted back to the 6502 -- the same processor as the Apple II. Again, why pay hundreds more for a machine that wasn't any more powerful? I beleive it was quietly withdrawn from the market within a few months.

      My original point still stands -- Apple, like any other company, has made it's share of mistakes. Unlike many companies, it has survived them.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    14. Re:Hard work by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      OSX 10.1 was free because until 10.2, it was customary for bug fixes and minor point releases to be free. But when Jaguar was released, Apple topped its legendary greed by tapping their customers who purchased overpriced commodity hardware for even more cash.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  5. MSDN? by RyanFenton · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So, Microsoft hosts a story that encourages other companies to try and fail more often, suggesting it might be good for them... great idea!

    Ryan Fenton

  6. That was him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In high school I once cost my math team a trophy by writing down "102/17" as my answer. I did all the calculations correctly, but I failed to realize that this fraction can be further reduced to "6". Leaving my answer in the incorrect form was not a calculated risk--I simply did not see the alternative. My math team coach was quick to observe what a knucklehead I was, and he was right. This was a clueless error.

    Hey I remember that guy. He left his answer in fractional form and lost the math rodeo because of it. When I get together with all my old dork friends from high school, we still laugh our asses off at what a knucklehead he was.

    1. Re:That was him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It appears that HE got the last laugh. As you and your geek friends laugh your asses off at him, he is now published on MSDN about all the other stupid-ass mistakes he's made.

      oh wait.. maybe you got the last laugh!

  7. Fail Fast by moehoward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Fail fast" was the mantra of Tom Peters in the late 80's. I believe that he has since denounced all his teachings of the 80's and early 90's in order to cash in on a whole new "chaos" philosophy.

    I agree with the whole fail fast notion. Try stuff as fast as possible to see if it will work. I think we see this philosophy played out in things like RUP and Extreme Programming.

    I guess my point is that this news is 15 years old. Someone should search the Slashdot archives for a dupe from 1989...

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Fail Fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slasdhot's greatest mistake was preserving a false archive. By not saving all posts they failed to understand the value that is Slashdot: The Posts

      Slashdot is not successful because of Malda or Taco or any of the other forgettable "editors". It is successful because of the many people who have given us a glimpse of their personalities. Slashdot in a bid for respectability unleashed many weapons on those who expressed non-sanctioned views. By doing so, they jumped the shark.

    2. Re:Fail Fast by fiddlesticks · · Score: 1

      > I agree with the whole fail fast notion. Try
      > stuff as fast as possible to see if it will
      > work. I think we see this philosophy played out
      > in things like RUP and Extreme Programming.

      er..not quite, with XP at least. They do test first - the complete opposite of fail first.

      You write the unit test before the code, allowing 'immediate feedback while you work.'

      It might not pass the unit test, but at least you know it hasn't passed, thus it isn't finished

    3. Re:Fail Fast by monkey_jam · · Score: 1

      search? i'll just wait, it'll be up tomorrow morning...

  8. Software Company vs Restaurant by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I worry about the potential of any new software company nowadays. Personally I know 2 people who attempted to start their own business. One started a software consulting company, the other a restaurant.

    The software consulting company charges thousands of dollars for any gig and the business comes WAY too slow. I am talking once a month on the best case scenario. The other person started a restaurant and makes couple thousand daily. Just on take outs alone, $30 + $30 + $50... you get the idea, it adds up fast in volume. People can't get away with not eating. They can get away with no software upgrading.

    Basically if I had the money, I would start a gym, a club, a bar, a restaurant, a stripe club... anything but a software company in today's market. It's a shame to see globalization and everything IT related go so downhill.

    1. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Basically if I had the money, I would start a gym, a club, a bar, a restaurant, a stripe club...
      A stripe club would fail! (I know I wouldn't want to be "spotted" in one!)

    2. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Cipster · · Score: 1

      And you would be a fool. Restaurants generally fail within 6 month.

    3. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Etiol · · Score: 1

      Basically if I had the money, I would start a gym, a club, a bar, a restaurant, a stripe club...
      Ooh, a stripe club. Sounds ... interesting.

    4. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know, I started a restaurant for people with anorexia : the amount of investment is limited, I can do the cooking myself, and I don't need much base products. That allows me to offer the cheapest price in town for a full 4-course meal.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    5. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by hey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure restaurants make money but look at the overhead: reno the space, professional kitchen applitances, rent in good area - thousands a month, if its small 5-10 staff, food - if you don't serve you have to throw it out everyday, etc.

      Software company overhead: one DSL line.

    6. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I nearly wee-ed myself upon reading your comment!

    7. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You beat me to saying that!

    8. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by blowdart · · Score: 1
      Ooh, a stripe club. Sounds ... interesting.

      Until your club gets RAIDed....

    9. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by koehn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Clearly you are speaking of yesterday's market. The software consultancy I work for (which charges at least hundreds of thousands of dollars) is just finishing our best year ever.

      Most companies slashed IT spending in 2001-2003, certainly. Most software companies that appeared in the boom died (thankfully, as most of them shouldn't have existed in the first place). 2004 shows every sign of loosening the purse strings, and upgrading all that software that's been getting stale.

      As to globalization, we're experiencing the same thing that the US did at the turn of the last century, when 30% of Americans were farmers. Now it's 3%. Guess what? We survived, even though it wasn't a pleasant re-tooling. Sure software jobs are moving overseas, as are manufacturing jobs (even China LOST 15 million manufacturing jobs in the last ten years, to greater efficiency in the plants). If you can't adapt, get the hell out of the market and open a gym, a bar, a restaurant, even a stripe (sic) club.

      Certainly, if you provide a mediocre software product or service, 2003 wasn't a good year for you. If you were at the top of the software profession, it was just fine, thank you very much. Don't blame the economy for your own failures.

    10. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Software company overhead: one DSL line.

      Oops! You forgot some extras, such as

      - Computer

      - Power

      - Telephone and LD charges

      - Promotion

      - Food, drinks...

      - A place to meet with clients

      - Travel expenses to meet clients

      - Cell phone (yeah, a necessity)

      - Business cards

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    11. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by cyb97 · · Score: 1

      I always prefer mirroring to striping, it gives me better redundancy

    12. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would have made more money by srarting a restaurant for people with bulimia.

    13. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That market's already cornered by McDonald's, BK and Taco Bell.

    14. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roscoe... you... (takes off hat.) (SMACK!) idiot!

      How many times have I told you ya don't get no internet until you catch those Duke boys? Now git!

    15. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by dekashizl · · Score: 1
      Oops! You forgot some extras...
      Those can all be found in any local and modern stripe club. You don't need to buy your own, just lease/rent when necessary.
    16. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but do not a greater percentage of businesses bust in food?

    17. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      You are overlooking the risk-return tradeoff under capitalism. A tech company is more risky than a restaurant business (of course, it depends on the specifics but I'm speaking in general). A tech company has higher rate of failure, BUT it will return higher profits IF it is successful. In general, risky companies have higher returns but have higher failure rates.

      YOU would start a restaurant (or a stripe club ;) ) because it is less risky. But someone else might go for a tech company because the profit margins are higher. Restaurants can bring in guaranteed revenue (assuming the location is ok and there is a market) but have VERY LOW profit margins. Restaurants are highly competitive. In contrast, a computer company will have higher margins with risky income.

      So, basically we can say that YOU and your friend who opened a restaurant are more risk-averse than your other friend who opened up a software company*...

      (* of course there may be other factors too. For example, your friend who opened the restaurant might know about running a restaurant but nothing about running a computer business)

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    18. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      Bulimia should work too, think of all the recyling posibilities. Prepare it once, serve it all day long.

    19. Re:Software Company vs Restaurant by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      I have anorexia. I haven't eaten anything since 1991. I find your caracterization offensive.
      There is nothing funny about a disease.
      </troll>

  9. Quick summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    • Be careful about fixed-bid projects.
    • Be careful about using bleeding-edge technologies.
    • Small ISVs should do software and stay out of real estate.
    • Investors don't like low-margin business models.
    • A market with no competition ain't.
    • The negative connotations of the word "middleman" are often deserved.
    • All contracts must be reviewed by an attorney. No exceptions.
    • Cash is supposed to flow from your customers to you, never the other way around.
    • Small ISVs should build apps, not platforms.
    1. Re:Quick summary by hey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, "Small ISVs should build apps, not platforms" because that would bother Microsoft. Their "ecosystem" means them doing whatever they like and ISVs as bottom feeders.

  10. What's important to know by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what's important for geeks to know when starting a software company

    Easy that one:

    - You can be 99.999% sure you won't become the richest, most hated guy in the world, or create the ROMs of an icon computer with a fruity name and end up teaching smalltalk to children.

    - Out of the remaining 0.001%, you can be 75% sure you company will fail miserably, just because your products don't stand out, or because your services won't be different, or because your prices won't be attractive.

    - Out of the remaining 0.00025%, you can be 99% sure your beginning of a success will attract shitty venture capitalists who'll try their best to make a fat pile of cash on your back by telling you to "go public" and "grab marketshare", ruining your chances of being profitable in the long run like you originally planned by growing organically.

    - If you're part of the remaining 0.0000025% who'll manage to make an honest, sustainable, sane affair in the software industry despite the odds, you damn well deserve a medal.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:What's important to know by morganjharvey · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think investors also like it when numbers add up to 100. Right now you're at 100.000002525 %. ;)

    2. Re:What's important to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm let's see now:

      100% - 99.999% = 0.001%
      (100-75)% of 0.001% == 0.00025%
      (100-99)% of 0.00025% == 0.0000025%

      I guess you're not an investor ...

    3. Re:What's important to know by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      And the most important thing to know is how to psych out anyone else from even trying. Kill all those competing businesses and products before they start by quoting the odds at them. :^)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:What's important to know by afroborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do the maths again, but do it properly this time. Don't just add up every number you can see...

      --
      my sig could kick your sig's arse...
    5. Re:What's important to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      damn this old pentium CPU!

    6. Re:What's important to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the moderators don't let stupidity get in the way of a joke.

      Damn wannabe geeks.

    7. Re:What's important to know by morganjharvey · · Score: 1

      Damn. I really need to stop posting and sending emails when I'm drunk. Causes nothing but trouble.
      Didn't see the words "out of the remaining".
      Sorry for having my asshat on. :p

  11. For another perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Many folks are a little earlier in their careers and are simply wondering how to develop as programmers in the context of existing companies.

    Check out Robert Read's How to be a Programmer for some very concise insights to that effect.

    Then re-read Sink's article in about 6 years.

  12. My first mistake.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...was trying to read an MSDN article with Opera. Sends you to the deeptreeconfig.xml gulag.

    1. Re:My first mistake.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You talk about gulag and nobody has posted a in-soviet-russia joke yet? /me is surprised ...

      .

    2. Re:My first mistake.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah... that wasn't your first mistake, just your latest. The first mistake was getting Opera.

    3. Re:My first mistake.... by hao2lian · · Score: 1

      Gulag is the sound my sink makes when water is draining. *rimshot*

      --
      Pelé!
    4. Re:My first mistake.... by 1u3hr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This is not a joke. Opera gets bounced. Does anyone have a mirror?

    5. Re:My first mistake.... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      If you identify Opera as Opera, it gets bounced. Change the browser ID to IE and it lets you in. Fuck MS.

    6. Re:My first mistake.... by 1u3hr · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Here's the text for those that MS bounced:

      Eric Sink
      Software Craftsman, SourceGear

      December 19, 2003

      Summary: In an effort to encourage new entrepreneurs, Eric spills his guts about the mistakes he has made and the lessons he learned. (7 printed pages)

      Robert Scoble, weblogger extraordinaire, recently said, "I want to see more software companies, not fewer." I heartily agree.

      At the risk of being too obvious, let us observe that every ISV is started by an entrepreneur who somehow overcomes fear of failure. The genesis of a new company usually involves hundreds of hours of study, deliberation, and conversation, most of which is focused on a single question: "Can I make this business work?"

      That process is healthy and necessary. It involves market research and number crunching and presentations and conjecture and coffee, all of which are critical elements of business success.

      Invariably, the process also involves a great deal of self-examination. The core question isn't just "Can this business work at all?" but rather, "Can I make this business work?" This, too, is healthy and necessary. I've seen research studies that show that self-awareness is the number one factor in success. There is no substitute for knowing your own abilities and limitations.

      But the self-examination stuff usually includes some basic worrying as well. Entrepreneurs tend to worry about the mistakes they might make. Unlike all the other research and study and deliberation that happens in the formation of a new company, this worrying actually isn't all that helpful.

      Continuing to quote only from the giants of the technology industry, let me now cite a remark made by Thomas J. Watson, Sr., founder and former CEO of IBM:

      Would you like me to give you a formula for success? It's quite simple, really. Double your rate of failure. You are thinking of failure as the enemy of success. But it isn't as all. You can be discouraged by failure or you can learn from it. So go ahead and make mistakes. Make all you can. Because, remember that's where you will find success.
      Thomas J. Watson, Sr.

      I don't think Watson advocated courage to the point of recklessness. After all, I'm sure IBM did plenty of prudent market research and planning during his tenure.

      But Watson makes a very important point for new entrepreneurs: Mistakes just don't need to be all that scary.

      Endless Decision-Making

      Life in a small ISV feels like a never-ending stream of decisions, many of which you were never trained to make:

      • Should we sign this five-year lease or negotiate for a shorter term?
      • How should we incorporate?
      • Should we seek outside funding?
      • Should we write this code ourselves, or buy a component?
      • Should we host our own site or find co-location space?
      • When should we spend money on advertising?
      • If we build this product, will anybody buy it?
      • Should we do consulting work to help our cash flow?

      None of my college classes taught me how to make these choices, so I had to learn by doing. Actually it would be more accurate to say that I learned this stuff by doing it badly. In the seven years since I started SourceGear, I have made lots and lots of mistakes. Although the memories of my failures sometimes sting, the lessons I have learned have been so valuable.

      Through all these mistakes I have learned an important distinction. Whenever a decision yields bad results we call it a "mistake," but actually "clueless errors" are quite different from "bad bets."

      Clueless Errors

      In high school I once cost my math team a trophy by writing down "102/17" as my answer. I did all the calculations correctly, but I failed to realize that this fraction can be further reduced to "6". Leaving my answer in the incorrect form was not

  13. My experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    When I clicked on this link I was sceptical, but after reading the story, and comparing it to my own experiences, this short no-bullsh1t essay should become compulsory reading in any MBA course.

    One of the things that amazed me about my experiences in running various different types of companies is how common-sense can often take a back-seat to "groupthink", doing what others tell you you should, without necessarily considering whether you think it is a good idea.

    Investors can be particularly dangerous. The problem is that many investors like to see themselves as having a mentor or sage-like relationship with entrapeneurs. Since they are the "money", entrapeneurs are often quick to indulge this fantasy and the end-result is that people whose company-running experience might be solely based on what they learned on the golf course from other similarly well-informed investors, find themselves a willing audience among those who might actually know what they are talking about.

    Investors aren't the only problem. There is a thriving ecosystem of people within large companies whose primary talent is climbing the corporate ladder, but whose actual contribution to profitability is highly questionable. During the tech boom many such people decided that they would try their hand at running small tech companies, often they would be brought in by investors to replace the entrapeneur-CEO, in the hope that they would be more "seasoned" (whatever that means).

    The results are generally disasterous. This happened in one of my former companies, and the guy was an idiot. He spent $100,000 (of $3MM funding) on a launch party just weeks after 9/11/2001, $50,000 on an "image consultant" buddy of his, and christ knows what else. It rapidly became apparent that he was incapable of doing the job he was supposed to do, but fell back on the tried and tested (big company) strategy of paying other people to do your job for you. With limited funding it didn't take long for us to run out of money.

    Anyway, I could go on, but the bottom line is:
    don't accept any advice on how to run your company unless it makes sense to you, irrespective of what anyone says.

    1. Re:My experience by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think the bottom line needs to be more than "don't accept any advice on how to run your company unless it makes sense to you, irrespective of what anyone says."

      Isn't this exactly what your aforementioned buddy did? At the time, didn't throwing that launch party make sense to him?

      I think the real bottom line is, don't get involved with businesspeople whose decision-making you don't respect!

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    2. Re:My experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think the bottom line needs to be more than "don't accept any advice on how to run your company unless it makes sense to you, irrespective of what anyone says."

      Isn't this exactly what your aforementioned buddy did? At the time, didn't throwing that launch party make sense to him?

      The difference is that he didn't start the company, I am speaking from the perspective of the founding entrapeneur.
    3. Re:My experience by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      don't accept any advice on how to run your company unless it makes sense to you, irrespective of what anyone says.

      Typically, once you bring in Venture Capital, its no longer your company but their company.

      But yeah, succeeding as a startup takes something completely different than running a multinational. Personally though, I recall our founder/CEO bringing in his buddies to take important roles despite their lack of capability, spending $$$ on management off sites to exotic locations, etc. So YMMV

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
  14. Easy! by niko9 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Post alot of Ask Slashdot's, and take the advice seriously. :P

    --

  15. Use .NET? by daviddennis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    About half of this seems to be telling us that he should have used pre-built Microsoft(tm) technologies instead of rolling his own.

    I wonder how this article would have been different if it were not posted on MSDN, where the self-interest of Microsoft in its current context is, um, obvious.

    D

    1. Re:Use .NET? by grungeKid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Eric Sink is well known for liking the .NET platform. Since he has actual experience developing fairly complex products with both .NET and Java, I don't think anyone should be quick to dismiss him as a Microsoft fanboy.

    2. Re:Use .NET? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's just giving advice on how to fail more easily. With Microsoft (tm) Solutions you can fail faster than before.

      Where did you want to go today (tm)?

  16. Missing a point. by bstadil · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The concept of increasing Failure rate only applies to companies htat has the resources to do this.

    Companies like Intel, HP etc can make blunder after blunder but still come out on top as they have the resources to "wait" for the winner, and more importantly put a lot of resources behind the winner once invented.

    Take Intel's Itanic, or the 860 this would have sunk any company but the very large. Intel's Yamhill is waiting in the wing in case The Custoenmrs want it How may companies can do that.

    The Venture Capital stragegy centers around this Throw Mud on the wall and see what sticks and should more rightly be seen as Outsourced R&D that business start-up. FYI, More Start-ups get absorbed pre IPO than go public.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
    1. Re:Missing a point. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      That is a VERY GOOD point. Only LARGE companies have the resources to keep failing over and over. Companies like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel are well known for trying a million things, out of which only a few really work--but when they DO work, they work out very well. SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) barely make enough money. A few failures will bring them down--unless they are lucky.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    2. Re:Missing a point. by calidoscope · · Score: 1
      Take Intel's Itanic, or the 860

      From what I heard, the 860 was actually a moderately successful chip, the problem was that it encouraged people to move away from the x86 ISA and thus got shitcanned by Andy Groves (who wanted to lock in people to the x86).

      The Itanic is more like the iAPX-432.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  17. wrong title by arcanumas · · Score: 2, Funny

    Am i the only one who thinks that it would be more appropriate for /. to write it "Make more Mistaeks" ? :)

    --
    Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    1. Re:wrong title by truth_revealed · · Score: 1

      Am i the only one who thinks that it would be more appropriate for /. to write it "Make more Mistaeks" ? :)

      Don't be rediculous.

    2. Re:wrong title by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      They were going to. But Slashdot editors, being what they are, mispelled it correctly. Figures.

  18. Now that I'm self-employed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...and now doing as much service work as development, I have success and failure on a daily basis. It has been both frustrating and exhilarating, but I learn at a rate much faster than when I was in development alone. Development is paced with a chance at total failure at each release. In my service role, I fly by the seat of my pants and can fail on a daily basis (and succeed). I would compare it to the speed of insect evolution compared to mammals.

  19. More mistakes!? by Nicholas+Evans · · Score: 1

    If you need to make more mistakes to be successful, what happened to SCO?

  20. Re:Quick Mind-Translation (Microsoftish, though) by ketamine-bp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Below listed are some of the features hidden by the writer, perhaps guided by principles of neurolinguistic programming or freudian psychology... err.

    Be careful about using bleeding-edge technologies.

    i.e. use established (i.e. Microsoft) technologies.

    A market with no competition ain't.

    i.e. stay away from free software. (as microsoft always propose that free software is anti-competitive)

    Small ISVs should build apps, not platforms.

    i.e. build with existing platforms (i.e. microsoftish)

  21. my favorite by squarefish · · Score: 1
    --
    Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
  22. This gu by litewoheat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its quite evident that this guy had lots of money. Lots of money makes it easy to make the bone-headed mistakes this guy made. He bought and office building!!!!! This guy does not belong at the top of a company. Don't listen to him. I created a company Rockstar Software with $8000 seven years ago. I know from where I speak. This guy is a total moron. Run away from his advice. Run far far far away.

    1. Re:This gu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo you rock, GTA rules.

    2. Re:This gu by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

      Well I am running my own software business and looking for any pointers. Where can I learn YOUR method? Seriously - do I email you or have you shared your wisdom online?

    3. Re:This gu by Quixote · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Geez, Einstein, then why don't you write something about your experiences? He at least made the effort to pen down his thoughts in the hope that they might be useful for others. What about you?

    4. Re:This gu by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that all of his advice was bad, but alot of the mistakes that he made were obiviously very, very, stupid. He was able to get his hands on lots of money, however he never took the idea of getting a lawyer into serious consideration. He may have found his market identity but I don't think that this will keep him from continuing to make bone-head mistakes. His biggest advantage has been that he has not lost enough money to collapse the company.

    5. Re:This gu by mr_e_cat · · Score: 1

      Which bits of advice don't you like?
      "Be careful about fixed bid projects?"
      "Be careful about using bleeding edge technologies?"

  23. Alteration of rule by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In his dig at the Java platform he mentioned that "you shouldn't use bleeding edge technologies".

    This illustrates one of the dangers he did not list - "Don't learn the wrong lessons".

    I built a Java/Swing app around the same time. It was a pretty complex user app, not just a simple program - and we managed to completely satisfy the clients and make the program perform acceptably on a very low-end target platform (PII-133 with 32 MB of memory). For what he described (replacing a complex spreadsheet) he should have been able to complete the task.

    Why did our app work and his fail? Because we knew Java and Swing well by that point, and knew what was possible with some time spent optimizing. We had a plan in our head for how to reach a target level of performance that would be accepted and more than met that goal.

    The lesson he should have learned was "Know your technology well before you embark on a project". The reason why it's so important to learn THAT lesson is that it applies to any project, not just ones using "bleeding edge" technologies. The only difference between an established and bleeding edge technology is the level of support you MIGHT be able to find. And that is not enough of a difference to totally affect either failure or success.

    I think the most appropriate quote on this matter is one from Mark Twain:

    "We should be careful to get out of an experience all the wisdom that is in it -- not like the cat that sits on a hot stovelid. She will never sit down on a hot lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore."

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Alteration of rule by mbadolato · · Score: 1
      Agreed. What I noticed in his comments was:

      I chose Java because I was "head over heels" in love with it. I adored the concept of a cross-platform C-like language with garbage collection. We were hoping to build our Java expertise and make this exciting new technology our specialty


      Yeah, agree to a project for a big company, using a technology you aren't yet an expert in. Good call.
    2. Re:Alteration of rule by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      It's an article on MSDN, you were not expecting them to say use Java were you?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    3. Re:Alteration of rule by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Sure I wouldn't expect them to say "Hey, use Java"!

      It's just sad to see an article like that lean so heavily to using only one technology (Microsoft) - even if it is on MSDN. I guess that's why I almost never read anything there, because the bias is just a bit too strong. There are other forums that at least range into neutrality.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Alteration of rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And even more ironically, after poo-pooing "bleeding edge" technologies, he's recommending .Net. Pot, meet kettle.

    5. Re:Alteration of rule by mr_e_cat · · Score: 1

      The only difference between an established and bleeding edge technology is the level of support you MIGHT be able to find

      The only difference is that the bleeding edge technology probably doesn't work.
      Established technologies are established for a reason: they work.

  24. Double the rate of decisions made by Screaming+Lunatic · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It's not really the rate of failures that need to be increased. It is the rate of decisions made that needs to be increased. Subtle difference.

    Increasing your rate of decisions made may increase the number of failures. But it should also increase the number of successes.

    There is no point in sleeping on a decision when their will be another bucket load of decisions to be made tomorrow.

    1. Re:Double the rate of decisions made by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      It's not really the rate of failures that need to be increased. It is the rate of decisions made that needs to be increased. Subtle difference

      But you would think that making more failures was caused by making more decisions in the first place.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  25. Best Lesson: True Geeks Shouldn't Start Businesses by serutan · · Score: 4, Informative

    The overriding lesson I got out of this is that a techno-geek starting a business is like a person who loves to cook starting a restaurant. To succeed at figuring out your business model, market research, pitching to financiers, managing employees, buildings, etc, etc, etc, requires a true business geek, not a tech geek. The people who should start tech businesses are the ones who truly love business as well as technology, or those who can find a trustworthy business-genius partner. Incidentally, the pitfalls of the latter approach are showcased in the documentary film Startup.Com .

  26. That's all dandy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But one thing he doesn't explain is where his existing money came from. Where did that $150K come from? How did he pay for his existing developers through all this turmoil? How did he pay his own way?

    I think the one caveat he needs to preface this with is:

    "Before reading any of this, know that you should have about $2,000,000 saved up. Don't have it? Stop reading - you can't even make the mistakes described below anyways."

    1. Re:That's all dandy by drix · · Score: 1

      Exactly right. "Bought my own office building in our second year" is a dead giveaway--a year-two cash outlay of probably several hundred thousand, plus the ability to sell said multimillion-dollar asset at a loss one year later, are pretty clear indications that this was not your average, "cash strapped" startup. If I had millions in the bank, I would certianly be employing this guy's foolproof, trial-and-error method of starting a business as well :)

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
  27. What is up with the link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I retarded or is the link simply a list of Microsoft .NET junk? Too bad because I was looking forward to reading the real article.

  28. Its paperwork not failure by pixelgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One issue I had with the article was this comment:

    "At the risk of being too obvious, let us observe that every ISV is started by an entrepreneur who somehow overcomes fear of failure."

    I think the fear of paperwork is probably just as powerful a deterrent as fear itself. I know that I'd rather have a software project bomb than have to deal with all the forms and paperwork running a business generally entails.

    1. Re:Its paperwork not failure by boutell · · Score: 1

      It is a pain in the ass, but if you work with a good accountant to build a system you can run, it's not quite so horrible. It's tempting to operate as self-employed for simplicity, but you overpay taxes that way; set up an S-corporation. Not that any of this matters if you're not making any money.

      --
      Check out the Apostrophe open-source CMS: http://www.apostrophenow.com/
    2. Re:Its paperwork not failure by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      What's an S-corporation?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  29. Re:Quick Mind-Translation (Microsoftish, though) by kurtb149 · · Score: 1

    The article was a complete Microsoft advertisement aimed againt Linux and Open Source. I was hoping for some honesty, but what we got was just stupid marketing trying to be tactically clever.

    --
    http://www.x2ii.info/
  30. I disagree about the failure stuff... by vudufixit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think having many failures is a symptom of the important trait of persistence more than a prerequisite for success.
    Let's take someone who has done well with a particular business. They can become complacent, rot and die. Or, they can pick out what was behind the success, suss out what was plain dumb luck or the result of excellent ideas, planning and execution. Then follow up by doing more of those good things.

  31. practising what they preach.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Microsoft!

  32. Your a Solutions Company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is that! The word product doesn't even appear on your front page!

  33. Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the article:
    But although AbiWord was fun, it was never much of a business. Our funding search didn't go very well. The buzz of AbiWord got us in the door, but we always walked out with no money. Tim O'Reilly said no. Bob Young said no. Frank Batten said no. Bill Kaiser said no. Hindsight confirmed these gentlemen to be as smart as we all know them to be.

    Hadar Pedhazur also said no, but he said more than that. Hadar is probably the most "clueful" venture capital guy I've ever known. He spent a lot of time talking with me, and eventually convinced me that it would be extremely difficult to make the AbiSource business model work. The research and development costs of a word processor are simply too high to give it away. After my discussions with Hadar, I made the decision to abandon AbiWord as a business. (At the time of this writing, the AbiWord project continues to move forward as a community project.)
    That says a lot about the "open source" business model, doesn't it? Linux venders are selling other people's labors, so they are an odd lot. But look at what happens when a company makes a decision to develop an open source product. Even when the product is as good as AbiWord, open source is not a viable business model.

    Yes, I know that the article was published on MSDN, so all of the open source zealots can start in with the conspiracy theories about Microsoft's involvement with publishing it. But the fact remains that an experienced proponent of open source no longer views it as a viable business model and has abandoned his efforts to make money developing, selling, and supporting open source software. You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it.

    Now the nuts can come out of the virtual woodwork and start screeching about the one true religion of open source, but he fact is that not one in a hundred thousand of them has successfully started a major corporation that develops and sells open source software. So if you want to claim that all of those venture capitalists, along with Eric Sink, the developer of Abiword and the founder of SourceGear, are wrong, please include your business credentials when you reply to this.
    1. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

      In general I agree with your point, but do realize he was working on a word processor, something which was easily done and redone 100 times before, with numerous market giants past and present holding 100% of the market. MS Word, WordPerfect on the commercial side and dare I say OpenOffice in the open source side (StarOffice at the time, under a commercial banner).

      Was there any compelling market need for another word processor, open source or not? I don't think there was. Even if AbiWord had been a commercial product (wait, wasn't ApplixWare around that time?) it would have failed because word processors are too much of a commodity these days (and in those days too). Heck, AbiWord didn't even have table support for years - it wasn't cutting edge in any respect. It *only* had the 'open source' aspect going for it (if that).

      Again, I more or less agree that open source as a business model is *tough*, but I wouldn't say it's completely impossible. It's just not something people are going to sink hundreds of millions into and get back billions.

    2. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by chromatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalization. You're arguing that because one open source project failed to sustain a business model, all open source projects will fail to do so.

      That may be true, but your argument fails to support it.

    3. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by beni1207 · · Score: 1

      Read the excerpt a little more closely...

      The research and development costs of a word processor are simply too high to give it away.

      This is not nearly the broad indictment of OSS business models you seem to have taken from it. It's simply stating that a word processor in specific doesn't fit the mold very well. Especially given the location of publication of this article, I'd say that's somewhat less damaging statement than you'd like.

      And now for one of your quotes:
      [...]but he fact is that not one in a hundred thousand of them has successfully started a major corporation that develops and sells open source software.

      Pick any type of business. Look at how many of those businesses are started annually and how many of them turn into "major corporations". Basing a business on OSS doesn't change the fact that it's hard to start a successful, much less "major", company doing anything. Nobody has presented any evidence that it's any harder to start a successful or even major corporation based on an OSS product or service than on anything else.

    4. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Even when the product is as good as AbiWord, open source is not a viable business model.

      Abiword was OK, it was not great. They went to a 1.0 release with functionality as basic as tables missing. That was something even Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS from eons ago had. It did at best a mediocre job of importing most word documents. Given that there are tons of other wordprocessors out there, including Staroffice I can't imagine why anyone would think Abiword was a viable product?

      I can't imagine any business model where you enter a market heavily crowded with mostly superior products and succeed.

    5. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by xeniten · · Score: 1
      Nice troll, however if your looking for Open Source business models look no further than Doc Searls December article in Linux Journal "Free Business".

      http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7125

      "Take, for example, the junkyard business. Last week, I was talking with my friend, Allan Harrell, in Phoenix, who has ties with body shop, body parts and junkyard businesses, even though his main job is keeping small business networks and computer systems up and running. After telling me how full his plate has become, thanks to all the viruses infecting Windows machines in his care, he mentioned FastParts, Inc. (fastpartsinc.com), the country's second largest supplier of computerized inventory systems for junkyards.

      Intrigued, I got Jim Mangham and Wayne Leland on the phone to tell me about it. Jim owns the company, and Wayne is the "lead programmer systems guy". They have a staff of seven and a customer base of 750. Wayne said the company has been using Linux for six or seven years; they like being able to hack the kernel and otherwise customize systems to do what they want.

      FastParts sells a service that's delivered with a turnkey system in a white box. Customers view and operate it in a terminal window on whatever system (usually Windows) they happen to be using, including dumb terminals (Wyse, Sherwood) that FastParts is happy to provide.

      FastParts is a personal service business, delivering and installing the systems themselves, including the modem phone connection that lets the company dial into a machine, do diagnostics and fix problems. Customers also call in through the system to look for car parts on FastParts' central system. "Many of our customers are too far out in the sticks to get a high-speed Internet connection", Wayne says. "We have one guy on the road full-time, just installing."

      How do they compete? "Reliability, pricing and support", Wayne says. "Out of all our competitors, where we get 'em is with support. Most of the other ones have modern telephone systems with all these menu choices you have to go through, and most of our customers do not like that. They want to get a real person when the phone rings. With us they get that."

      Open Source in business can work and it does work, it simply depends on how it's applied. Also something to keep in mind the main reason Abiword couldn't find funding was investors probably wern't too keen on the idea of competing with the 9000 pound gorilla, Microsoft.

      --
      Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    6. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by computerme · · Score: 1

      I wish i had mod points to give you because i would boost your karma. great post.

      when i read that paragraph i was thinking the same thing. only you wrote it much better than i would have...

      Maybe the next open source user that wants the "world to be free" will think for a extra second before they go off on another tirade like how gimp can be a real competitor to photohop. Paintbrush pro? yes. maybe.

      But photoshop nope. theres a reason why its a better product. Its becuase they know the harder they work at it the potencial of more monies are in their future.

      Spending hours upon hours on an open source project is noble but who's paying your rent while you do it? Doing it on your free time? That's cool. Just don't EXPECT everyone else to give up theirs.

    7. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, things might work, but not with a word processor,
      the GPL is a very strict license, relicensing is the key here,
      mysql and TrollTech got it right, either GPL or if you want to go the non GPL route, pay.
      That doesnt work for a word processor but it definitely works for developer tools.

    8. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, there's a gazillion "FastParts" companies out there selling turnkey vertical apps, usually on SCO UNIX, but with SCO's bankrupcy immient, tney are increasing switching either to Linux or rewriting for NT.

      Since FastParts' main app does not appear to be "Open Source", I have no idea how this applies. They're just another closed source shop who happens to be using Linux.

    9. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      This is a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalization. You're arguing that because one open source project failed to sustain a business model, all open source projects will fail to do so.

      I am arguing that open source is not a sustainable business model based on multiple venture capitalists and the article's author rejecting such a popular and typical open-source project. A word processor is an app which is moderate in complexity, size, etc. and it was not viable. While I would agree that the business failure of something unusual, like an open source fluid dynamics calculation program, is not an indictment of open source as a business model, I think that what I wrote was fair.

    10. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by xeniten · · Score: 1

      Fast Parts Inventory system IS the product itself. It's a networked ( Linux! ) database ( MySQL! ) system that links automotive parts vendors together. They can and do accomodate an existing Windows networking environment ( Samba! ). For the most part everything fast parts supplies runs on Linux.

      --
      Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    11. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      This is not nearly the broad indictment of OSS business models you seem to have taken from it. It's simply stating that a word processor in specific doesn't fit the mold very well.

      If something has low R&D costs, then it fails as an open source business model. Try forming a company based on developing and selling open source software which does things like convert lowercase to uppercase, send carriage returns to printers, and draw concentric colored circles on the screen. If it's extremely easy to do, it's already available for free or it couldn't command a high enough price to pay to deliver it.

      Nobody has presented any evidence that it's any harder to start a successful or even major corporation based on an OSS product or service than on anything else.

      You haven't presented any evidence that it's any harder to start a successful or even major corporation based on giving away Ferraris and asking for donations, so we have to accept that as a viable business model -- even after companies try it and fail. That's the OSS business mindset for you.

      Want evidence? Okay here's some:

      People won't pay for something that they can get for free. If they can download it at no cost or inconvenience, they aren't getting out the checkbook. I don't care about your .00003% exceptions to that rule. That won't fund a business.

      If it's open source, anyone can sell it. If company A is trying to recoup the development costs and company B is just covering the costs of blank media, company A is f***ed.

    12. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Nice troll, however if your looking for Open Source business models look no further than Doc Searls December article in Linux Journal "Free Business".

      You then go on to describe a business that does not develop any open source software and that has a web site that looks like it was put together by a retarded child in a remedial computer class.

      Try reading what I wrote:

      "You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it."

      I asked for examples of successful companies that make money by developing and selling open source software. So what do you do? You provide information about a company that is "a personal service business, delivering and installing the systems themselves, including the modem phone connection that lets the company dial into a machine, do diagnostics and fix problems."

      If they develop open source software, where is the source? I don't see it on their web page. I don't see it on mirrors. I don't see any links to it. Just where is the source to this supposed open source software that they develop?

      And you have the nerve to criticize my post and call it a troll. Amazing...

    13. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      That says a lot about the "open source" business model, doesn't it?

      There are countless open source business models. What this says is that this particular open source business model sucked. Just about anybody could have told him that, and apparently just about anybody did.

      Now the nuts can come out of the virtual woodwork and start screeching about the one true religion of open source, but he fact is that not one in a hundred thousand of them has successfully started a major corporation that develops and sells open source software. So if you want to claim that all of those venture capitalists, along with Eric Sink, the developer of Abiword and the founder of SourceGear, are wrong, please include your business credentials when you reply to this.

      The VCs were quite right about Sink's business model. But that doesn't mean that open source is doomed. Most open source development happens as part of day-to-day computer jobs. Evidently, that's working out both for the employees and for the employers. That is the real open source business model, and it doesn't involve VCs or get-rich-quick schemes. It just involves getting work done more cheaply than using commercial tools.

    14. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by xeniten · · Score: 1
      "I asked for examples of successful companies that make money by developing and selling open source software."

      No you didn't. You asked for nothing of the sort.

      You did use a lot of rude terms like "zealots" and "nuts" and referred to Open Source as though we thought it was a religion. Your post was loaded with rudeness and arrogance and you do seem to really get off on calling people names. That's why I called you out as a troll, because you sound exactly like one. Your arguments were purely emotional, as was your response to my post.

      I suggest you calm down, perhaps try talking to people and debating with them instead of talking at them and talking down to them.

      --
      Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    15. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? I have no idea why you find this even slightly interesting or relevant to the discussion.

      The company does not have an "open source business model".

    16. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by xeniten · · Score: 1

      If you suppply, utilize, install, support, open source in any way shape or form, to any degree or variant in your product or service ... then you have an open source business model.

      --
      Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    17. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      No you didn't. You asked for nothing of the sort.

      Yes, I did. See the following:

      not one in a hundred thousand of them has successfully started a major corporation that develops and sells open source software. So if you want to claim that all of those venture capitalists, along with Eric Sink, the developer of Abiword and the founder of SourceGear, are wrong, please include your business credentials when you reply to this.

      And I am asking for them now. Give me examples of successful companies that make money by developing and selling open source software.

      Besides, it doesn't matter what I ask for, you just ignore it. As I asked in the previous post: "If they develop open source software, where is the source? I don't see it on their web page. I don't see it on mirrors. I don't see any links to it. Just where is the source to this supposed open source software that they develop?"

      you do seem to really get off on calling people names. That's why I called you out as a troll

      And I guess this means I can call you another name: Hypocrite.

      Your arguments were purely emotional, as was your response to my post.

      My arguments were flawlessy logical. Your response to them was so far off-base that it was hard to understand your point. I said "You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it." And you replied by telling us all about a company that doesn't develop open source software.

      How about addressing that debate point instead of telling me how I hurt your feelings by calling you names?

    18. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      If you suppply, utilize, install, support, open source in any way shape or form, to any degree or variant in your product or service ... then you have an open source business model.

      So Microsoft has an open source business model? They utilize open source applications within their building. Their Windows protocol stack is based on BSD. The PC version of Halo includes Ogg Vorbis code and even the Xiph license for same.

      I have read and reread my post and I cannot understand how you interpreted it in such a way as to think your junkyard example disproved anything that I wrote.

    19. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by xeniten · · Score: 1
      Yes, that's right. Microsoft does utilize open source in their work. It doesn't matter how you use it, if at least a certain portion of your business runs or uses open source,if not entirely then you do have an open source business model. Also see Microsoft's Shared Source plans, IMHO that counts as open source.

      The Junkyard model depends heavily on open source, Linux is used for networking, MySQL is uses for the database, Samba is used to communicate with Windows shares, that's all open source, and the owner of the business makes his living with it. It's a valid open source business model.

      --
      Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    20. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by xeniten · · Score: 1
      You didn't hurt my feelings, you insulted your intelligence. Your post was almost entirely purely insults and rants. A poor way to "debate".

      "Give me examples of successful companies that make money by developing and selling open source software."

      Any Linux distro that earns money such as.. Redhat,Mandrake(Out of bankruptcy now and looking good),Apple,Microsoft(shared source),Oracle,Sun,SGI,SleepyCat Software,VA Linux systems,Penguin Computing,MySQL,RMS( sold customized versions of emacs),Zope,Open Fusion ( http://www.openfusion.com.au/labs/ ), of course Sco aka Caldera counts too, that is they did have a valid business model before they changed course and became a litigation company.

      --
      Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    21. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's right. Microsoft does utilize open source in their work. It doesn't matter how you use it, if at least a certain portion of your business runs or uses open source,if not entirely then you do have an open source business model.

      No you don't. That's like saying that if any portion of your work force cleans toilets, that you have a janitorial business model.

      The Junkyard model depends heavily on open source...It's a valid open source business model.

      For the third time (at least), I said "You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it." So how does your junkyard example contradict that?

    22. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by xeniten · · Score: 1
      1. If I contract outside my workforce for a company that cleans toilets, then I'd be dealing with a company that had a janitorial business model.

      2. MySQL is an open source database. Any company can sell services supporting a customized version of MySQL. A junkyard/autoparts vendor could easily do this.

      --
      Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    23. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by xeniten · · Score: 1
      "2. MySQL is an open source database. Any company can sell services supporting a customized version of MySQL. A junkyard/autoparts vendor could easily do this."

      As a matter of fact a google search for "Customized + MySQL" produces this link ...

      http://www.dynamicpros.com/

      DynamicPros is a company that sells customized versions of MySQl, so they are out there. Making money, believe it or not.

      --
      Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    24. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Any Linux distro that earns money such as.. Redhat,Mandrake(Out of bankruptcy now and looking good),Apple,Microsoft(shared source),Oracle,Sun,SGI,SleepyCat Software,VA Linux systems,Penguin Computing,MySQL,RMS( sold customized versions of emacs),Zope,Open Fusion ( http://www.openfusion.com.au/labs/ ), of course Sco aka Caldera counts too, that is they did have a valid business model before they changed course and became a litigation company.

      Redhat, Mandrake, and other Linux distros make money by selling open source software that they don't develop (as per my initial post "Linux venders are selling other people's labors, so they are an odd lot."). They didn't develop the product that they sold. They added some installers and widgets to an existing open source codebase.

      Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are all closed source business models (as anyone can tell you). If OSX is open source, where is the source to it? All of it. Not just part of it. Not just a kernel. I want source to the whole thing. Can't get it? Then they are selling closed source software. It may incorporate some open source elements (for which the developers get nothing), but they are selling closed source software.

      Sun and SGI make money selling hardware -- as per my original post: "You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. "

      Mysql doesn't make money selling open source software. They make money selling support and consulting services -- as per my original post: "You can sometimes make money supporting open source software."

      Let's make this clearer: Give me examples of companies which make money primarily by developing and selling open source software. Companies that derive most of their income by selling hardware don't count. Companies that derive most of their income selling support services for OSS don't count. Companies which sell open source software that others developed don't count. Show me companies that developed open source software and then made money selling the same software for which the source is freely available.

    25. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by xeniten · · Score: 1
      Here's another...customized versions of PHP scripts

      http://www.customizedscripts.com/

      --
      Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    26. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      DynamicPros is a company that sells customized versions of MySQl, so they are out there. Making money, believe it or not.

      I don't. From their web page:

      "DynamicPros.com offers high quality, professional Web programming services."

      They create e-commerce websites. They don't sell custom versions of MySQL:

      "We specialize in customized MySQL and ecommerce solutions, but also offer a "system" of individual scripts that take advantage of the power and flexibility of MySQL to enhance the functionality of your Web site."

      They specialize in customized "solutions", not customizing MySQL. I can offer "customized Microsoft Access and ecommerce solutions" without having the source to Access. I see nothing to indicate that they are modifying or recompiling MySQL. Did I miss something on their web site?

    27. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by xeniten · · Score: 1

      Heh heh. I like you!

      --
      Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    28. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Heh heh. I like you!

      Really? I'm flattered.

    29. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Bystander · · Score: 1
      People won't pay for something that they can get for free.

      I think the bottled water business is glad they didn't listen to advice like that. And despite the wide availability of music on the radio, and recently through easily accessible downloading technology, people continue to purchase music at inflated prices. Your blanket statement is simply wrong. People will pay for anything they want badly enough; and their reasons do not have to be entirely rational. It's all about the marketing.

    30. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you suppply, utilize, install, support, open source in any way shape or form, to any degree or variant in your product or service ... then you have an open source business model.

      You can have your definition, but you've reduced this discussion to being completely pointless. Basically, you're a wanker.

      (Think about who develop Linux and MySQL so that your junkyard gay sex partners can base a product on them. Think about how those people get paid. Hopefully your 3 braincells are fizziling now.)

    31. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      People won't pay for something that they can get for free. If they can download it at no cost or inconvenience, they aren't getting out the checkbook. I don't care about your .00003% exceptions to that rule. That won't fund a business.

      That is not necessarily true. The poster above points out the water business. Perhaps you are overlooking something. Your reasoning reminds of a classic case that is mentioned in business courses. The founder of Fedex (who was a university student) presented a paper discussing his proposed fast-delivery business. The paper didn't receive a great grade and I think the professor even said something like 'no one is going to pay for faster mail that is 10x the cost' (I made up the words but the original quote is something similar). Needless to say, the student went on to found Fedex and it became one of the biggest corporations. You argument seems similar. You may be right but I don't know.

      You may be overlooking something. For instance, customers may not want to download stuff. It may be inconvenient or it may cost them. To YOU, downloading is nothing but a computer newbie might not know or want to download (how many newbies want to hunt around on the net for packages to download?). Or the customer may not have high speed conneciton and hence would pay for a service charge....it's just like how it might seem dumb to me to pay $5 to deliver overnight mail (in the 70's or even now). But businesses were willing to pay $5 for overnight mail.

      Having said all this, I take no position when it comes to your main argument. At this point in time, I don't know whether one can or cannot build a business around open-source. Maybe open-source is not possible under capitalism? Or maybe you can build a successful business around open-source? Hard to say...

      --OFF-TOPIC--

      I checked out your celestron page :) Sorry about the mess you are in... I know you feel angry but perhaps the company has a reason for its policy (BTW I don't know anything about telescopes... I also don't have anything to do with Celestron).

      Perhaps they don't offer parts individually. Maybe they don't have it set up so that you can buy things individually. Isn't this like asking whether you can buy the right speaker of your television? The answer from Panasonic (my tv) would probably be 'no, you can't buy just the speaker'. Or how about trying to buy the handle for your vacuum? You probably can't. Perhaps your case is like that.

      BTW, how much do these telescopes cost?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    32. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by eraserewind · · Score: 1
      That is the real open source business model, and it doesn't involve VCs or get-rich-quick schemes. It just involves getting work done more cheaply than using commercial tools.


      The parent's point is that this is not an open source busines model. Pretty much any commercial company uses open source tools these days. They may even base their entire development process around them, because as you say they are cheaper (and often better).

      However this does nothing for the developers of those tools. Those companies are not paying one penny to the developers of the software. So if you want to have an open source business "selling software", then tough, you can't.

      You can sell consulting, or other services, but you can't sell the software. This means that ultimately if you had any sense you wouldn't spend any time developing it.

      What open source does is offer companies whose business is not pure software development (consulting, hw manufacturers, retail, traditional businesses, etc...) to eliminate one of their cost centres. That cost centre being the cost of software.

      It used to be a cost centre cost because all those making software used to want to get paid (go figure!).

      Open source is the enemy of any pure software development company. It is the friend of big corporations that can supply support infrastructure, like Oracle, IBM, or HW manufacturers who can reduce their costs, or traditional businesses who can get enterprise-esque SW for free, and so on. If your business is selling software however then you are in trouble.

      Is this good or bad? Well obviously good for non SW businesses. Possibly good for the economy too, as a efficiency and cost reduction is introduced.

      It sucks for SW developers however, unless as I said at the start they use the tools in their process, and let's face it, who doesn't? They had just better hope that nobody get's the idea to implement an open source version of their particular SW niche.
    33. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Pete · · Score: 1
      fmaxwell:
      Give me examples of companies which make money primarily by developing and selling open source software. Companies that derive most of their income by selling hardware don't count. Companies that derive most of their income selling support services for OSS don't count. Companies which sell open source software that others developed don't count. Show me companies that developed open source software and then made money selling the same software for which the source is freely available.

      Sheesh, you don't ask for much, do you? Sure you don't want to add any more special conditions to that list? :-)

      Trolltech is probably the best example, and should be well known to Slashdotters.

      Sleepycat Software has been around for quite a while. Someone mentioned it above, but I notice you didn't mention it in your response.

      Sendmail - whether you bless it or curse it, it's still the biggest mailserver on the Net. The sheer complexity of the product is probably a big factor in Sendmail Inc.'s success in selling "commercial" versions (for which they also provide support). And yes, the original developer of Sendmail (Eric Allman?) owns/runs Sendmail Inc.

      Thought it may be with Sendmail that they make more money out of their support contracts. And if you are a troll (possibly even if you're not), your next move may be to add an extra condition along the lines of "Companies that charge for commercial licensing of their product don't count," which would rule out Trolltech and Sleepycat, as well as probably quite a few others that I can't remember right now.

      Though I'd probably think that the Trolltech/Sleepycat business model is the best option for an open-source-software company. At least when you're talking about software libraries that potential customers can only use by linking to - thus invoking either the "free" license (usually GPL-like) or the "commercial" license.

      Now if there were a GPL-like license that came into effect when you just used the software... something like that might open a wider scope for a company developing open-source software that could have both a commercial (ie. pay-for) and a "free" license. Hmmm. Interesting.

      Pete.

    34. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      People can get tap water for free. They can't get filtered water for free, mineral water for free, sparkling water for free, etc. So they pay for it.

      As to music, many people are paying for convenience. If I want the latest Goo Goo Dolls album, it's far more convenient to buy it at Best Buy than to try to record it piecemeal off of the radio or download it from Kazaa. Time is worth something, too.

      I agree that reasons for purchases don't have to be rational. Look at perfume. It's an item where you can increase the price and sell more. Go figure.

    35. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      I checked out your celestron page

      Thanks.

      I know you feel angry but perhaps the company has a reason for its policy

      They do. I believe that they want to force users to buy new telescopes rather than upgrade existing ones and they want customers to pay them to service the scopes rather than allowing the customers to do it themselves.

      Perhaps they don't offer parts individually. Maybe they don't have it set up so that you can buy things individually. Isn't this like asking whether you can buy the right speaker of your television? The answer from Panasonic (my tv) would probably be 'no, you can't buy just the speaker'. Or how about trying to buy the handle for your vacuum? You probably can't. Perhaps your case is like that.

      Actually, you can purchase parts like speakers for televisions, handles for vacuums, etc. Look at vacuum-depot.com for one source. Repair parts are normally available -- especially for expensive items. When I needed a replacement temperature control for my stove, no problem. When I needed a new motor for my diswasher, I got it right away. When I needed a new cast part for my Sears drill press, Sears was happy to provide it to me. When I wanted to upgrade my diswasher with an anti-spotting dispenser from a more expensive model, I was able to buy the part without a problem. Maytag didn't insist that I prove that I owned the more expensive dishasher or send it back to them for a part installation. VW is happy to sell me the armrest parts so that I can add an armrest to my car. They didn't tell me to go buy a new VW to get the armrest.

      BTW, how much do these telescopes cost?

      A Celestron NexStar 8 retails for about $1200 and a NexStar 5 retails for about $900. If these were $75 telescopes from Walmart, I could excuse the go-buy-another-one mentality, but we're talking about significant investments. At that kind of price, they should be treating customers better.

    36. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1
      Sheesh, you don't ask for much, do you? Sure you don't want to add any more special conditions to that list? :-)

      I'm trying to be fair. My contention is that a company which just develops and sells open source software is doomed to fail. When someone is saying that Microsoft is an open-source business model, you've got to be specific.

      And if you are a troll (possibly even if you're not), your next move may be to add an extra condition along the lines of "Companies that charge for commercial licensing of their product don't count,"

      I was not attempting to troll (you can probably tell that from my karma bonus and comment moderations). It was my fault for not being specific about my interpretation of open source. I don't consider it open source to demand a fee from a user based on the intended use. That said, I'm not going to add it as a condition at this point.

      Trolltech is probably the best example, and should be well known to Slashdotters.

      Their licenses require that developers pay for commercial use. Other products, like QtWindows, are not available in an open source format at all. Trolltech has yearly support fees that run well over $1000/seat for most of their major products.

      Sleepycat Software has been around for quite a while. Someone mentioned it above, but I notice you didn't mention it in your response.

      I wasn't familiar with it. I did some research and I have to agree that they are truly open source at least for their Berkeley DB Data Store and Berkeley DB XML products. You don't even have to pay to use them in a commercial venture unless you redistribute a binary without source. I was unable to determine if their higher end products are also open-source (Berkeley DB Concurrent Data Store, Berkeley DB Transactional Data Store, Berkeley DB High Availability, and Berkeley DB XML for High Availability).

      Sendmail - whether you bless it or curse it, it's still the biggest mailserver on the Net. The sheer complexity of the product is probably a big factor in Sendmail Inc.'s success in selling "commercial" versions (for which they also provide support). And yes, the original developer of Sendmail (Eric Allman?) owns/runs Sendmail Inc.

      We both know that they are selling support services and hardware. From the web page:
      Even more important, Sendmail open source is not a supported product.

      Sendmail, Inc. can help. Sendmail offers a complete line of email routing, storage, and access servers. These bundled email solutions are fully integrated, rapidly implemented and affordable. Based on Sendmail open source and open standards, our products excel in demanding, high growth mail environments. Sendmail's seasoned consultants design and implement integrated systems to meet each customer's unique needs.
      I appreciate the time and effort you put into your reply and hope that you can see by the effort that I put into mine that I am not trolling. I genuinely think that the traditional GPL open source business model is not going to succeed in the long term. The free-for-non-commercial use model used by some companies may succeed. It will be interesting to see.

      Regards,
      Fred Maxwell
    37. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Code Weavers

    38. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Pete · · Score: 1
      fmaxwell sayeth unto the people:

      I'm trying to be fair. My contention is that a company which just develops and sells open source software is doomed to fail.

      Yes, I realise that now. Although... well, you're sort-of-kind-of trying to redefine the point of the argument in your terms, to the point that it doesn't really become much of an argument anymore. You're doing a bit of the No True Scotsman argument, tangled up with a few other things.

      What I think you're saying (putting it in my terms instead, which is always fun :-) is that a company whose only source of income is from the "sale" (see below) of open-source software (by the OSI definition) will not make enough money to cover their costs of development, let alone make a profit. Well... yeah, that's probably correct. But you don't even need to use the term "open-source" software there, you can be much more generic. How about:

      "anyone who tries to survive

      only by selling stuff that they also make available for free, and that anyone else can (a) duplicate and redistribute freely, (b) enhance (or not) freely, and (c) sell or redistribute at any price (including zero).... will fail."

      True? Yeah, probably. Only you're not casting nasturtiums-by-association at open-source software businesses anymore when you put it like that :-).

      On a related line - remember of course that referring to the "sale" of software is a very loaded and misleading term. Microsoft sure as hell don't "sell" you software (or so they'd like you to think), they license you to use their software - under fairly limited terms - in exchange for a fee (or so they'd like you to think ;-).

      And of course that doesn't just apply to Microsoft, it applies to just about any software company. I'm not sure what the legal status of software is in the USA at this moment, but I've heard enough stories about eBay disallowing resale of software products to make me think that consumer's rights with regard to software products are not very well established.

      Back to quoting fmaxwell again:

      I was not attempting to troll (you can probably tell that from my karma bonus and comment moderations).

      Yep, I realised that after reading a few more of your comments. Just to make it clear, I don't think you're a troll anymore (I wasn't completely sure before). And you do argue your points lucidly and consistently and politely - for which you deserve praise, even if you are wrong. ;-)

      I don't consider it open source to demand a fee from a user based on the intended use. That said, I'm not going to add it as a condition at this point.

      I must admit it was sneaky of me to stick that in :), but I thought that that would probably fall under the category of special conditions you forgot to add to your list. :-)

      I'm really trying to emphasise the point here of what you seem to be doing - you're narrowing the target so much that there's not really any point in using the term open-source software unless you're trying to do the guilt-by-association trick.

      I mean, think again about what you're saying - you want examples of companies for which:

      • their only source of income is through "sales" of their open-source software products (see above about the meaninglessness of the term "sale" wrt software, not to mention that any non-trivial company almost has to have more than one source of income),
      • they provide free downloadable copies of said software products (ie. unlike the Kompany,
    39. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      So if you want to have an open source business "selling software", then tough, you can't.

      Of course, you can't. You never could. Open source thrived for decades without that "business model" and it will continue to thrive long after those nuts are gone.

      The parent's point is that this is not an open source busines model. Pretty much any commercial company uses open source tools these days. They may even base their entire development process around them, because as you say they are cheaper (and often better).

      And my point is that the parent is wrong: it is a business model, or rather part of it. If you are an ISP or Internet services company, the use of Linux or BSD (as opposed to Windows) may make all the difference between profitability and bankruptcy; open source software is an integral part of your business model, and you will be willing to invest in improving it if that helps you stay alive.

      And it is those commercial users that pay their developers to fix bugs and add features. And a small fraction of those get back into the open source software, enough to make the whole thing work.

    40. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open source business models can indeed work. Look no further than mySQL as an example of how to do it. Other projects that have provided excellent consulting work for the developers include LTSP, mapserver and even the kernel itself. These are just a few examples off the top of my head - I'm pretty sure there are more. Now, after I've presented some simple facts and all you've produced is rhetoric, which one of us is the zealot?

      For myself, I run a small consulting business. I use OSS in many of them (and do many projects with MS, Oracle and Sun stuff as well), and submit bug reports and fixes whenever I can. By using mapserver, I can save $8000.00 in software licensing for a non-open source product that can go in to beating the competitors bids or added functionality. By being lean and mean, I get a lot of business and have a nice group of repeat clients.

      Anyone with development experience can do something similar. All it takes is enough cash to survive until you are covering your expenses with your income. Don't spend money you don't have. In fact, avoid spending any money at all unless it is an absolute necessity of business.

    41. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're an idiot

    42. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      You are not going to like this... but I sent an e-mail to Celestron (don't know if it went to the right person). Let's see what they say...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    43. Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin... by phaggood · · Score: 0

      You can sometimes make money supporting open source software
      This remindes me about that PostgreSQL consulting company from a couple of years back. All they did was DB consulting; they just did it with pg so their clients had no licensing fees. Yet they failed. That failure has been held up as an example of how OS business models don't work, yet they were in fact just a consulting company that happened to use pg. I wish I could remember their name; perhaps I could look up the reasons to their failure. While closing down, they did cite a failure to secure additional funding, tho I thought a consulting biz usually had extremely low startup costs. Perhaps the postage from all those pg cd's they mailed out emptied all the partners' savings faster than they'd anticipated.

  34. What a brilliant article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many thanks to the person who posted the link!

    While I'm at the beginning of what this guy has gone through, even though it all seems like a nightmare now, I see that the mistakes I have made are not so insignificant now!

  35. Make More Mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    And when you're done, be sure to
    make clean

  36. Re:Best Lesson: True Geeks Shouldn't Start Busines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's another example over here

  37. Re:Quick Mind-Translation (Microsoftish, though) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    >Below listed are some of the features hidden by >the writer, perhaps guided by principles of >neurolinguistic programming or freudian >psychology... err.

    >Be careful about using bleeding-edge >technologies.

    >i.e. use established (i.e. Microsoft) >technologies.

    No. Microsoft is always releasing new technologies, until they are commonly accepted/rejected they are bleeding edge.

    >A market with no competition ain't.

    >i.e. stay away from free software. (as >microsoft always propose that free software is >anti-competitive)

    No. He simply states that if someone else isn't doing it, there probably isn't a market for it.

    >Small ISVs should build apps, not platforms.

    >i.e. build with existing platforms (i.e. microsoftish)

    Why not *nux or mac based platforms. He is more or less saying if your building a small ISV, don't re-invent the wheel.

    Nothing like the mention of Microsoft in an article to bring out some good Slashdot group think.

  38. Re:Quick Mind-Translation (Microsoftish, though) by ketamine-bp · · Score: 1

    what makes it more advertisement like is that it lacks the grammatical mistakes that normal feature articles are filled with.

    Fellow techs are not grammar geeks, microsoft proofreaders are; Programmers are not linguists, advertisers are; and most importantly, Articles should not be biased, this one is. :-)

  39. Re:Quick Mind-Translation (Microsoftish, though) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Java turned out to be a terrible frustration. The ScrollPane widget did a lousy job of scrolling. Printing support routinely crashed. The memory usage was unbelievably high.

    I should have gotten over my religious devotion to semicolons and done this app in Visual Basic.


    Hmmm..... who would have thought that Microsoft would publish an article like this...

  40. Target marget by rf0 · · Score: 1

    One of the things to remeber is that the people you are aiming for might not be techincal. Just because product X can do "this nice geeky thing" most people won't care. They want something that works quick and well.

    Also any websites should be about the person, what the product can do for them. Not about the company.

    Rus

  41. It not over till the fat penguin sings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCO are going to realise their mistakes...just wait [,rant negatively about them] and see!

  42. $ make more-mistakes by Heidistein · · Score: 2, Funny

    make: *** No rule to make target `more-mistakes'. Stop.

  43. Discouraging bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a buddy of mine that started with little-to-none computer skills. He advertised in the yellow pages in a major east-coast city. He specializes in on-site service and support, with a small amount of development (which he always bugs me to come on board and expand). He asked me to setup an online billing system. In the 2 years which it's been running (which are supposedly the worst years ever for IT) he grossed over $550,000 dollars. It is not bleeding-edge silicon valley development, but he totally makes his own way and doesn't work for the man. He is not the smartest apple in the bunch, but he has some people skills and surrounds himself with skilled people. Don't believe the haters. With that outlook, you will never take the leap of faith needed to start you own business. If you stop thinking support is beneath you, you will see more options are available. Many have used their support income to finance their development efforts. Bottom line: if you believe you will fail, you will never try. Never trying guarantees you fail or you'll end up old and bitter working for someone else who will fire you the second someone cheaper comes along.

  44. Ok, I like coffee too but... by mo · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the article:
    It involves market research and number crunching and presentations and conjecture and coffee, all of which are critical elements of business success.

    All too often these days companies place too much emphasis on market research and number crunching and not enough emphasis on coffee.

    1. Re:Ok, I like coffee too but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make no mistake, it's in the coffee.

      Any company without a 3 month supply of "decent" coffee readily available from "ALL" parts of the building with corresponding urns of hot filtered water is doomed for failure!

    2. Re:Ok, I like coffee too but... by bmac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but in *every* company I've worked for, the free coffee flowed like a flood-striken river. Screw the employees stomachs, bladders, and kidneys, make `em work faster, harder, longer. Sh*t, they would've provided crack and hydro if it was legal. Anything to get more $/t.

      The important thing is that I'm not bitter :-)

      Peace & Blessings,
      bmac
      Check out www.mihr.com for the secrets of existence.

    3. Re:Ok, I like coffee too but... by mr_e_cat · · Score: 1

      All too often these days companies place too much emphasis on market research and number crunching and not enough emphasis on coffee.

      Never underestimate the power of beer either.
      Cheers!
      (hic!)

  45. Reminds me of a great observation... by apexchin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ok, love him or hate him, I once heard Tony Robbins say the coolest thing about just this topic. Don't know if he made it up or ripped it off, but it doesn't matter:


    "Success comes from good judgement.

    Good judgement comes from experience.

    Experience comes from bad judgement!"


    Make lots of mistakes, but, more importantly, learn from them all.


    Jeff

  46. Excuse me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I know that this Topic is about mistakes, but please, that paragraph would be MUCH easier to write if you actually used
    <BR>
    commands. Just a suggestion.

    P.S. Trollkore is dieing. Long live Trollkore!
  47. Not a business model. by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a development model, nothing more nothing less.

    Anyone that thinks that it's a business model and moves forward from that premise is certain to fail and most likely spectacularly. Red Hat's not in the "Free Software" business, they're in the software and solutions business- they just us a LOT of Free Software to help accomplish these solutions they sell. There's other examples.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  48. a better way by genevaroth · · Score: 1

    I have done it all and have come to the conclusion that investing is the best way for me.
    no to little overhead
    no office- location doesnt matter
    no employees to fire, layoff, fuck or yell at.
    no payroll
    no shipping
    no inventory
    no advertising
    no theft- well depends on what you invest in
    no recession- if the market sucks go to another one
    no cold calling-
    no prospecting
    no customers to hate or please
    you can do it anywhere
    no taxes- go offshore - you could still do this with a software company though
    no SCO

    It is just a great business- don't get me wrong, it's still not easy but after owning a couple of businesses and watching my friends bust their ass for pennys- forget it!

  49. I have some problems with at least ONE of his... by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ..."lessons" learned.

    "A market with no competition aint"


    That's pure unadulterated bull- and anyone with business sense KNOWS this.

    A market with no competition may not be a market afterall, but it may also be an untapped, unsold to market as well. You take a risk entering into a market with nobody in it- but someone has to be first into it. Let only the big players or the bold ones get into there first and then collect the tablescraps? Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t.

    Anyone that takes this man's advice to heart is setting themselves up for limitations, etc. that may actually doom your business as much as he did his for the early part of it's existance. Better yet, he's currently making products that compete with SourceSafe- which means he's got PVCS, ClearCase, Perforce, and Seapine to deal with as competitors as well. I hope he's got a MUCH better product than all the above and a LARGE budget for advertising and all.
    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  50. OT: MSDN and browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I clicked on the link to the msdn article referenced by this URL: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/dnsoftware/html/software12292003.as p but got redirected to this URL: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/shared/deeptree/ bot/bot.asp?dtcnfg=/library/deeptreeconfig.xml

    I use the Opera webbrowser on Linux. When I tried the link using the Mozilla, Konquerer, or Galeon webbrowsers, I get the article with no trouble. I don't think M$ likes Opera!

  51. "Good for biz" != "Retail sales! Profit!" by Rahga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no one open source business model... in fact, open source tries to be as business agnostic as possible. What open source is, however, is an excellent software development model. There's plenty of people like my employer who use open source technologies and understand my obligations to patch, report bugs, and otherwise support the software we are exploiting. It helps us get our job done.

  52. Good Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    this article is a good read for anyone thinking or in the early stages - we've been there, done that especially:
    1) betting on java (bleeding edge) for a gui based program
    2) spending too much on office space

    Eric is right on about reading - key on the books where people tell their war stories and software books like "Microsoft Secrets", "Inside Intuit", etc - my favorite book is Charlie Ferguson's book "High Stakes No Prisoners" especially where he talks about spending 3 months of decision tree analysis - looking back, that could have saved me $300,000 that I couldn't afford to lose - always have backup plans for all the mistakes you are going to make, or when external things go against you.

    And btw - notice most of these stories have pretty smart Ivy League and MIT guys telling you how hard it is and how much they screwed up. In short, it's very hard, odds are against you, you must be very, very careful, and you must keep money coming in no matter what you have to do because you must use the 3x rule: plan carefully how long or how much it will take and multiply by 3 - uh huh, works out about right. And yes, don't drink the coffee, sell it - it's much more profitable.

  53. Re:Mad Cow disease imported from Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, this entirely excuses US farmers of feeding cows to cows, in violation of the '97 ban.

  54. Interesting... by hao2lian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Robert Scoble, weblogger extraordinaire, recently said, "I want to see more software companies, not fewer." I heartily agree."
    I'm guessing Bill Gates isn't the author here.

    --
    Pelé!
    1. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates is all for more software companies. More, smaller companies means more new technologies to cherry pick and less likelihood of facing a well-financed legal response when they "innovate" them.

  55. Make More Mistakes! by sklib · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think we've finally uncovered SCO's core business model.

    --
    -S
  56. Why did he abandon AbiWord? by rxed · · Score: 1

    Eric Sink mentions in this article how he gave up development of AbhiWord, an open source application. He mentions that Hadar Pedhazur, in his words, "probably the most "clueful" venture capital guy I've ever known" helped him made the decision to abandon AbiWord as a business because "Lesson learned: Investors don't like low-margin business models." I wish he explained this one a little more. I don't understand it. Ps. Eric Sink's web servers are Windows 2000. HE migrated recently (about a year ago). I wonder if he abadoned Open Source completley and what make him to that.

    1. Re:Why did he abandon AbiWord? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple. You can't make money on open source. Even the leading open source company, Red Hat, has fallen on hard times. Unfortunately the GPL is incompatible with a capitalist economy.

    2. Re:Why did he abandon AbiWord? by sterwill · · Score: 1
      Much of SourceGear's computing infrastructure is Unix-based, and free software is used for things like e-mail, DNS, backups, and mailing lists. We use this software primarily because it's reliable and efficient. These systems were mostly put in place years ago, and only need periodic software updates and hardware check-ups.

      Windows and IIS were the most convenient platform for our corporate web site given our .NET product focus. You can visit Eric's Eric's personal web site, which was running Apache last time I checked.

  57. Re:Hard work (more fun!) by airuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For technophiles, failing fast (working harder) has another distinct advantage: it's more fun. It certainly beats waiting on management/marketing types or worrying about the burn rate. Paychecks are ephemeral and should be treated as such. A good hacker ethic can, however, result in a lifetime of interesting things to do.

    --
    First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
  58. How do they deduce the location? by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

    How do they get the location of the phone? I have a nokia 6800 on ATT. It has GPRS is there any way for me to get location data from it. (I just skimmed their website for this info and gave up)

    --
    http://www.windmeadow.com/
  59. Re:I have some problems with at least ONE of his.. by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

    His comment simple revolves around economic game theory. Which is more valuable -- First mover advantage or late-comer savings?

    First mover advantage is what you describe, and the company with such an advantage gets the first customers, the first investors, and a chance to exploit the market to their benefit. What do they lose? Well, they PAY for their advantages, in the form of riskier investments (higher equity or interest rates), they develop the technology and the processes, and they create the market.

    Late-comers to the market get to steal the technology and processes ofthe first company, and with an established or growing market, they can gain market share by being cheaper and more efficient.

    So which is best? Dunno, its not a sure thing. It depends on market conditions, and the type of industry. Quite a few of the big companies today are late-comers: Walmart, BestBuy (circuit city invented that business model), CVS, GM, etc. However, in technology, its really a crap shoot, andcomes down to the management teams abilities.

  60. Pay to learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been building my small company for 3 years now. Every day and month I'me learning more and every day I pay for what I learn. And I mean that in a dollars and cents sort of way. I just wonder when it's going to pay off or do I just have to keep learning.....

  61. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sending money to help people that want to kill us is a [sarcasm]REAL good idea![/sarcasm]

    How much are the Iranians sending us for the mudslides?

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      How much are the Iranians sending us for the mudslides?

      20,000 estimated killed in earthquake.
      28 missing from mudslides I think?
      Get a fucking life asshole.
      -American and member of the Human Race.

  62. Let's be serious here by Bytal · · Score: 3, Informative

    This article isn't for a startup, it's for an established company. Saying that a $28k project was serious underbidding would be a dream come true for some startups out there. A real bootstrap startup doesn't exactly worry about whether they should buy their own building or not since they're too busy worrying about actually getting customers. And speaking from experience, trying to start a company in a high-tech company dense area like NYC or San Francisco is even harder. SourceGear being based in Illinois is in a very different position to bargain then a company which has to compete with hundreds of other bids on every single project. The most important thing that startups should realize is not that you shouldn't trust VCs or that you should mind your lease but that competition is tough and when you are surrounded by lots of technically savvy companies those marketing and networking(people not LANs :)) skills some so quickly dismiss basically make or break your firm.

    1. Re:Let's be serious here by phaggood · · Score: 0

      And speaking from experience, trying to start a company in a high-tech company dense area like NYC or San Francisco is even harder.

      "What about D.C.?" asks a guy who is planning to move there next year and thinks constantly about what type of career he wants to build there...

    2. Re:Let's be serious here by Bytal · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough D.C. seems to be the area where almost every single developer I know is getting a job. There are even a start up or two (or more) I've heard about in that area. I would guess the defense contractors and government involved agencies still have lots of projects even in the face of the recession.

  63. Re:Best Lesson: True Geeks Shouldn't Start Busines by NineNine · · Score: 1

    I completely agree. As a rabid business geek, I want to hit people who suggest openign their own comapny because they can code. A business is no more writing code than selling cars is making a sandwich. I don't care what you make/do/sell... there's a LOT more to any successful business than non-business people(note: you writing OSS projects that never see the light of day in your bedroom is NOT a business). I actually had one chick tell me a few months ago that my business is successsful because "I got lucky". That was the closest I ever came to hitting a woman.

  64. Re:Hard work (more fun!) by BWJones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For technophiles, failing fast (working harder) has another distinct advantage: it's more fun.

    Oh, I absolutely agree. My point was simply that many people have no idea how hard it is to actually run your own business. You cognitively never leave it and are always thinking about it (why I like science, because like your own business, one can always think about science at all hours of the day). Some folks simply like the idea of being a business owner, but they dont actually like working that hard. A work ethic is pretty hard to teach someone. They either have it or they do not.

    P.S.....I like your sig.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  65. Actually... by wiresquire · · Score: 1

    ...I think several of his failures are really all about something that I've come across on several occasions.

    Timing is everything. In particular, if you get too far ahead of what today is really about, you get sucked into a lot of additional things that a small/medium business can do without - like having to build the market (lots of marketing costs), explaining everything to everyone.

    Anyways, all you need to do to "un-MS" this is to substitute other non-MS technologies where they are/were (or if they are/were) available. I think his points are still, in the main, valid.

    --

    So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

  66. Re:OT: MSDN and browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either that, or Opera just sucks.

  67. Obvious Question by xcomputer_man · · Score: 1

    Will you hire me please? :)

  68. Stats on the German economy. 0.2% 3rd Q growth. by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Interesting


    A difficult year marked by slight hope
    Record losses at German blue chips, but restructuring and rationalization begin to show their effect

    january
    Economics Minister Wolfgang Clement issues a special ministerial permit to allow the takeover of Ruhrgas, Germany's main natural gas supplier, by Eon, one of Germany's two dominant electric utilities. The ministerial intervention overrules the Federal Cartel Office, which had warned against impaired competition both in the electricity and gas markets.

    february
    The stock market collapse, record insolvencies and belated restructuring and rationalization efforts have plunged German banks into a crisis. Commerzbank and Hypo-Vereinsbank both post the first annual losses in their corporate history. Experts predict drastic sectoral consolidation.

    march
    At 4.7 million, unemployment reaches the third highest level since unification. The jobless rate stands at 11.3 percent.
    Dresdner Bank Chairman Bernd Fahrholz is sent packing as parent company Allianz publishes the first annual loss in its corporate history for 2002, with Dresdner being the biggest burden.
    Deutsche Telekom posts a record loss of EUR24.6 billion for fiscal 2002, the highest loss ever posted by a German company.
    Wella's founding family agrees to sell the world's second-largest maker of hair-grooming products to Procter & Gamble.
    The Bundestag decides to extend shop opening hours to 8 p.m. on Saturdays. The new regulation will take force on June 1.

    april
    In their spring forecast, Germany's leading economic institutes project economic growth of 0.5 percent for 2003, revising downward their earlier forecast of 1.4 percent. The six think tanks expect the German deficit to reach 3.4 percent, exceeding the limit of the euro-zone Stability and Growth Pact. The government remains optimistic and issues only a slight downward revision of its growth forecast to 0.75 percent from 1 percent.
    Germany's most powerful industrial union, IG Metall, reshuffles its leadership. In a surprise move, the board nominates deputy head Jurgen Peters, a hardliner and ardent defender of Germany's extensive system of worker protection, as the successor to Klaus Zwickel.
    Frankfurt airport operator Fraport cancels its dividend and discloses a net loss of EUR120 million for 2002 after writing off an ill-starred airport project in Manila launched in partnership with business cronies of the discredited former ruler of the Philippines.

    may
    The German economy slipped into recession in the first quarter of 2003. Finance Minister Hans Eichel publicly abandons his longtime goal of balancing the federal budget by 2006.
    The level of management pay in Germany becomes a subject of public debate. Federal Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries of the Social Democratic Party demands the disclosure of individual board member salaries to improve investor protection.
    WestLB posts a record loss for its 2002 business year after admitting that it had to increase risk provisions for its London project-financing arm over a risky deal with British television and radio leasing company Boxclever.

    june
    Deutsche Borse closes the badly tainted Neuer Markt segment for young and supposedly fast-growing companies. A new, untarnished Tecdax index now serves as the benchmark for investors in stocks that would have been called new economy a few years ago.
    The collapse of life insurer Mannheimer Lebensversicherung becomes a first test of sectoral rescue company Protektor, which takes over all 345,000 contracts.
    West LB's multi-billion loss causes heads to roll. Public prosecutors investigate both its London group and several managers. Chairman Jurgen Sengera steps down, making way for interim Chairman Johannes Ringel.
    Robert Bosch acquires a majority of heating equipment maker Buderus, making Bosch the European market leader in this segment.
    Quelle becomes the first German mail-order company to sell cars over the Internet.
    After four weeks of industrial action, IG Metall boss Kl

  69. (OT) Just wanted to say thanks for XP PG by janbjurstrom · · Score: 1

    Got your XP Pocket Guide a few months back, and it is a very good complement to the A-W series.

    Being part of a dev. team slowly migrating to XP, your Pocket Guide is really helpful. You and your editor/s obviously put a lot of effort into communicating a lot of knowledge as clearly and concisely as possible, without losing too much detail.

    XP PG accomplishes that, thanks guy.

    (Sorry for the OT everybody, chromatic's book was - is - right beside my laptop when I saw his post. Hadda holler..)

    Disclaimer: I don't know chromatic, and am not affiliated with either O'Reilly or Addison-Wesley.

    --
    668.5
  70. Twilight of the ISV by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1
    Interesting article, but I dispute the premise in paragraph 1 that states the world is ready for more software firms. While his comments were self-serving, I agree with Larry Ellison that probably 80% of the software firms in business now have no long-term future. The market is already shaking out badly, and the writing is on the wall for anyone who isn't first or second in their market - GET OUT OR BE PUT OUT.

    Outsourcing has made the life of the small ISV even harder - for what it costs you to hire ten Bay Area engineers, BigSoftwareCo.com can hire a hundred in Bangalore. Whoops.

  71. VB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one real question I had with the article was using VB instead of Java. Has anyone actually successfully used VB in a mission-critical app? From what I've seen, the language itself is inherently prone to rot.

  72. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I chose Java because I was "head over heels" in love with it. I adored the concept of a cross-platform C-like language with garbage collection. We were hoping to build our Java expertise and make this exciting new technology our specialty.
    But Java turned out to be a terrible frustration. The ScrollPane widget did a lousy job of scrolling. Printing support routinely crashed. The memory usage was unbelievably high.
    I should have gotten over my religious devotion to semicolons and done this app in Visual Basic.

    Lesson learned: Be careful about using bleeding-edge technologies.

    Better lesson learned would have been use KNOWN RELIABLE TECHNOLOGIES

    Visual Basic. Puh-leeze. Like that's any better than Java. It's not. They both suck harder than my vacuum cleaner.
    Visual basic is STILL a memory headache.
    I don't care if memory is cheaper these days.

    Is something wrong with C++? You know there is a Visual version for those programmers who are so lame they're unable to use a non-gui dev environment.

  73. HOWTO Get Published by soloport · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To all adoring MSDN fans, I've *made* it! You TOO can *make* it! Here's how:

    ...and here are some mistakes I made along the way:
    1) Used some other language, rather than one of Microsoft's
    2) Bought software^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H real estate instead of leasing it (like Microsoft's .Net)
    3) Used a development model, other than Microsoft's
    4) Developed a lousy, unique-architecture of an application, rather than yielding to Microsoft's
    5) Developed a for-the-clueless development platform for a clueful development crowd, rather than just yielding to Microsoft's tools
    6 & 7) Trusted people, rather than work everything through attorneys (which, by the way, one must trust) -- like Microsoft does
    7) We tried to build a better platform, rather than use Microsoft's

    [end of HOWTO]

    Now, go out and make your $300!

  74. Opera by afroborg · · Score: 1

    Kicks the shit out of IE

    --
    my sig could kick your sig's arse...
    1. Re:Opera by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      Not really.... Kinda sux0r when you can't download stuff off FilePlanet and that's the only place a company/individual decides to host their file.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
  75. As owner of a business... by jfengel · · Score: 1

    I've started my own startup company, and so I can tell you from experience: give up now. Screw the brass ring; it's only an illusion. Don't live your dreams, because the odds aren't just against you: it's certain you will lose.

    "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." -- Thoreau. Those are the smart ones: the rest of them lead lives of noisy, soul-crushing misery. "Quiet desperation" is the best you can hope for. That's why the mass of men do it.

    1. Re:As owner of a business... by eschipul · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, but the catch is what if we agree with you but human nature won't let us quit?

      'All those who hold opinions quite opposed to ours are not on that account barbarians or savages.' - Descartes

  76. Re:OT: MSDN and browsers by afroborg · · Score: 1

    I just tried an interesting experiment:

    Opera allows you to change the idetification string sent in the "User Agent" HTTP header - you know, the bit that tells them whether your using Mozilla, IE, Opera, etc...

    If I leave it identifying as Opera, I get the bullshit MSDN deeptreeconfig.xml. However, if I change the browser identification to MSIE6, i get the article as desired!!

    This has happened before (see details of the Opera "Bork" edition) but I thought M$ had stopped this childish game - seems maybe not...

    --
    my sig could kick your sig's arse...
  77. He fails to mention... by marko123 · · Score: 1

    that by writing his own platform instead of using a pre-made one, the code on top of it will never break just because someone released a new version of the platform. He can interface with .NET if he wants, but the Web Services platform he built under/into his product will not change until he wants it to.

    It was a good article, but he ought to have reaped the benefits of what he had done by now, and thus mentioned it. I have in my time.

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
    1. Re:He fails to mention... by gurustu · · Score: 1
      While it's true that this can be a significant advantage to writing your own platform, the costs of maintaining and extending it can be high enough to kill your products.

      The platform, after all, pays no bills, gets no clients, makes no sales. It's all overhead, and it's a constant drain on internal resources. Even if you decide to just let the code sit, it's a drain on your attention and something that requires the retraining of every new coder, tester, tech writer, employee.

      Furthermore, the skills required for building and maintaining a platform tend to be different from those required to build on top of one. An organization that chooses to do both must be substantially larger, and must accept a certain loss of efficiency as some developers and development effort gets locked into the platform.

      On the other hand, you get a heavy, early boost from building on top of an already ready platform, and you get the advantage of other people's incremental improvements to that platform without your team lifting a finger.

      The buy-vs-build (or download-vs-build in the case of the free platforms) calculation isn't - and shouldn't be - a strictly technical decision. Every developer believes that they can do it better, given enough time and resources. This ignores the fact that time and money and bodies are always in short supply, and that there are significant advantages to "doing it like everybody else" (not least of which is that you can hire people and have them working the next day).

    2. Re:He fails to mention... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you are exactly doing. I'm no expert in any of this but *I* would go with a standard base from some reputable large company. If you are providing a specific product and can control the rollout, your argument against adopting say the .NET platform isn't that important. YOU can determine when/if to upgrade the system. You don't really have to upgrade if it is not benefitial to you. In fact, many custom solutions are like this. Many companies are still running Windows NT, UNIX, Windows 3.11, or even DOS(!). They didn't upgrade because it isn't important to them (I imagine they WILL rollout something new in the future though). When I worked in the field, I most specialized applications were like this. The people who upgrade all the time are generally the ones that use the system for general purposes (eg. desktop) or for security purposes.

      I just think the cost of building a whole system from scratch is way too high. Developing a web server (as the article mentions) is just not worth it (just like how you wouldn't really build a web browser if you need to browse some web pages or something).

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  78. True geeks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...should not believe the stereotypes proffered by the Slashdot collective.

    Not every business is a Silicon Valley venture startup. A consultancy of one is a business.

    Have you ever been successful as a mentor or consultant? Are you good at planning you own day? Are good at managing your time and project responsibilities? Are you willing to trade having a boss for being a buck stopper and bill collector? There are a surprising amount of true geeks with these qualities living unsatisfied lives as a worker bee when they could be running a small hive. I've seen many true geeks happily employed in their own gigs.

    1. Re:True geeks... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      In my view, the things you mentioned can be overcome by geeks. Things like time management, making tough decisions, etc can be overcome. However, the thing that will kill the geeks IN MY OPINION is something like marketing/sales/customer relations. Most geeks just aren't good at that. Many don't like dealing with potential clients. Many can't pitch a deal. Many have no idea how to sell a product (we might know all the technical details but can't promote it). And so on. At least that's how *I* am and my experience from failure...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  79. Re:Best Lesson: True Geeks Shouldn't Start Busines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By business, you mean your porn site? Or do you have another? (Serious question)

  80. Re: I have some problems with at least ONE of his. by RovingSlug · · Score: 1
    That's pure unadulterated bull- and anyone with business sense KNOWS this. ... A market with no competition may not be a market afterall, but it may also be an untapped, unsold to market as well.

    He was trying to be too cute with his lessons. If you read the story leading up to that rule, you find the real lesson in the last sentence, "RADish was designed to solve a problem that almost nobody has."

    So, I'd say the real lesson from his story is "Don't try to sell solutions to problems that don't exist."... which is just plain not a market at all, not one that exists with no competition.

  81. Re:Best Lesson: True Geeks Shouldn't Start Busines by NineNine · · Score: 1

    Nah, porn biz is just a little thing on the side. I have a real brick & mortar retail biz that's completely unrelated.

  82. I don't agree with his thesis by iron_weasel · · Score: 1

    First let me say this and piss off a bunch of moderators.

    There is too many high scores for trash thats off topic. Why do I have to read a bunch of ego posts that has little to do with the subject and then it goes further astray after that with more silly responses and these get 'funny' and 'insightful' when they are simply bs and off topic. Shape up moderators.

    Now I disagreed with his article. Its sounded like an english teacher wrote it instead of a true geek. More like a wannabe suit.

    I have owned two businesses and I didn't do any of that 'introspective' shit.

    A lot of the time people just fall into something and do it and it becomes valuable.

    Why isn't some of these small startup content with just making enough to be happy with? Why does it have to grow and grow and become one of some "500 Club"? This is not business for fun or profit. Its greed and ego and its not fun if you have to sit around asking yourself hundreds of questions and seeking fscking lawyers.

    If I can make $150k / yr I can live easy on that and still have a life. Why the big push into suitism? What the hell does it get you.

    This was pasted on some MSFT site and its appropiate for MSFT. Its not appropiate for the real world. Its too slick and written by a wannbe who maybe failed. A wannabe big suit. Well those guys hopefully aer getting meaningful jail terms for pushing the limit and not knowing when the crossed the line.

    I didn't like the article. I don't like some of the modding. So due me. BUT I am hopefully making enough to enjoy life doing some coding and projects. I don't need to dig out those old IBM suits in the closet and I won't. I wear bib overalls and its good enough for me. Ok dockers on occassion.

    1. Re:I don't agree with his thesis by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Why does it have to grow and grow and become one of some "500 Club"?

      It's capitalism... if you don't grow, you die... at least that's how the system works. Capitalism is based on competition. If YOU don't grow, someone else will. And they will become powerful and crush you one day... or at least that's how I understand the system to be...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    2. Re:I don't agree with his thesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the thesis of your argument is flawed. You do not have to "grow or die". You can simply continue along. Just because it's been said does not make it so.

    3. Re:I don't agree with his thesis by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I think you are wrong. I'm not a capitalist but GROWTH is EXTREMELY important to capitalism. Just ask any capitalist. Or listen to what any economist says (90% of all economists are capitalists). They all point out that growth of any sort is crucial. It applies to not only corporations, but to countries, economies, families, population, wealth, etc.

      To see why you can't survive without growth under capitalism, consider the following scenario. Let's say you have two companies. One attempts to grow and hence is getting bigger, increasing its profits, etc. Let's say the other one doens't grow. Who do you think will win? The one that is growing has a higher probability of getting bigger and crushing its competition (size DOES give a huge advantage).

      That's not all of it. In fact you can ignore that if you want. Instead, look at it from an INVESTOR's point of view. Which company do you think is more attractive to investors? If both of these were listed on the stock market, which one is going to get investment money? The one that is growing. If anything, the ones that don't grow will get practically no investment. Its stock price will plummet. It will have a harder time raising funds via bonds or loans (or would have to pay more in interest relative to the higher growth company). And so forth. If YOU were the investor, YOU would invest in the higher growth one. I am pretty sure that would be the case. Just look at the stock market and you'll see that's how it works. People want the growth ones because those are the ones that are INCREASING their profits. It is so bad that CEOs who don't come up with some growth plan (regardless of how bogus), their company (and eventually them) will get hammered...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  83. Here's your answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He ripped it off.

    But let's get to the point. What's with that freaky tan of his? And those spooky uber-white teeth?

    Was this guy found frozen in a glacier from the Reagan era?

    1. Re:Here's your answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh heh heh.

  84. What kind of stripe? Deep-Fried? Sauteed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, Just can't resist :)
    I have a lot of typo issues.

  85. Been tried before? by t0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I thought the whole .com era was filled with companies willing to make mistakes...

    Doesnt seem like a recipe for success to me. I have always found learning from mistakes, and conciencously avoiding making them, to be a better way to do things. 80% of mistakes are just bad planning.

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    1. Re:Been tried before? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1
      I have always found learning from mistakes, and conciencously avoiding making them, to be a better way to do things. 80% of mistakes are just bad planning.
      Exactly. I can't imagine somebody making mistakes to become successful. Obviously, things don't always go as planned, but there should never be a plan to make mistakes on purpose. Our plans should help us deal with mistakes. If mistakes are valuable, then I'd be a multimillionare & a genious.

      I admit though that I only skimmed through the story submission.
  86. Geez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you heard of a mortgage? Nobody said he bought the building outright.

    I have a hard time believing you're a sucessful businessman when you're busy flaming people on slashdot.

    1. Re:Geez by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of a mortgage? Nobody said he bought the building outright.

      It seemed like he bought the building outright. That was my reading of the story. Usually companies either lease or buy outright. Often companies lease instead of buying for tax advantages. From the article it seemed that he actually bought the building. I could be right; or you could be right. Not clear from the article...

      I have a hard time believing you're a sucessful businessman when you're busy flaming people on slashdot.

      What does this have to do with being a businessperson? He didn't agree with the advice given and pointed that out. I'm not a businessperson (I'm just an unemployed loser :( ) but even I don't agree with the article (I did start a small business this year which failed :( ). Small businesses just can't make many mistakes. Quoting the CEO of IBM seems so irrelevant to me. The vast majority of SMEs don't have enough resources to fail. A few "small" failures can bring down most SMEs.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  87. International productivity stats link. by maysonl · · Score: 1
    By the last set of figures I saw, the US currently ranks #1 in number of hours worked in the industrialized world, but only #3 in per person productivity. (The average US worker produces a contribution to the GNP of about 30 $ US per hour, while Great Britain was 50 cents (again US) or so higher, and the reunified Germany had assimilated the east German economy and was back up to about 33 $ US per worker hour.

    Actually - It's Gernmany, France, and the US (out of the G7) within a couple percent (nowhere near 10%), with the UK about 20% behind.

    Or at least, so the British government says.

  88. Re:OT: MSDN and browsers by sebthegourou · · Score: 1

    Yep, same with konqueror...

  89. Re:Best Lesson: True Geeks Shouldn't Start Busines by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

    Why are you citing Startup.com? That movie has nothing to do with what you are saying. I don't see the relevance. The company in startup.com did NOT fail because of the lack of business skills. It failed for other reasons. At least that's my impression--what's yours?...

    Anyway, I agree with your view. Most people don't have business skills. That doesn't mean that you can't start a business. It just means that you need to find someone else who you can partner with. I started a small computer business this year with a friend (which ultimately failed). The biggest lesson I learned is that I need someone who can do MARKETING!!! I, as well as my partner, just couldn't do marketing. We weren't comfortable making cold calls, or trying to win some customers. And so forth. I think we would have been ok on the technology side but sales&marketing was a complete failure.

    Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  90. Sir, I admire your trolling abilities by wackybrit · · Score: 1

    Excellent, Sir. I love the Rockstar Software comment in there, great the mods didn't notice.

  91. Re:OT: MSDN and browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really? I use konq and I didn't notice anything weird...

  92. Re: I have some problems with at least ONE of his. by Svartalf · · Score: 1
    "He was trying to be too cute with his lessons. If you read the story leading up to that rule, you find the real lesson in the last sentence, "RADish was designed to solve a problem that almost nobody has."


    I don't know-seems like he was just early to that market. I'm pretty sure there's a LOT of companies, etc. using VB that'd love to get out from underneath that yoke (Many tax packages are written in either Delphi or VB- I know, I interviewed with two of the main players at one point in time. I wish Kylix was a better answer for Delphi (it's, sadly, not as much of one as Borland should have released) but there's nothing in the VB department right at the moment save re-writing the whole thing in C/C++.) It's not that the problem doesn't exist, it's just not a hot one yet- and in all honesty, if they'd made it so they could target Windows, Linux, *BSD, other Unices, and MacOS X- they'd have had at least as sellable a product as the one they have now (which is the other maxim that he should have gotten for himself- don't enter into markets with heavily established players without having something obviously superior and have a LOT of money market and sell it.

    The current venture of his may be making money, but it's sure not a success in the sense he's talking about as far as I can tell- he's facing competition from PVCS, SourceSafe, Perforce, Seapine, and ClearCase. Better yet, he's only made it .NET capable so he's closed off a good portion of his potential market since the other systems, with the exception of SourceSafe happen to be fully cross-platform, bridging all sorts of platforms.
    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  93. What was he thinking? by dan_bethe · · Score: 1
    I have two questions.
    • To paraphrase Phil Hartman on SNL, "What was he thinking?" What does his current hindsight tell him was the reason for these mistakes? Some flaw in thought process, life priorities, self image, or a devil whispering in his ear? Sounds like a persistant pattern.
    • How did he get enough material success at the ground level such that he could consider a $20,000+ bid to be a small initial project, and that he can bounce off of spontaneous cash losses in the tens of thousands of dollars? Rich family as angel investors, amazing social networking, fantabulous marketing? In Illinois?! I'm from Kansas ;)

    Just curious. I have a lot of respect for anyone who can run a morally nondestructive business of any scope. The skills needed, and the odds defied, are akin to a space vehicle escaping the gravity of Earth and returning safely.

  94. Sounds like you've got a few issues there... by qtp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a rabid business geek, I want to hit people who suggest openign their own comapny because they can code.

    Why niot just wait and see if they fail on thier own? You might just discover that the code monkey in front of you not only knows how to code, but also knows enough accounting, law and management to be able to hire the rest that he needs to succeed. You business types sget so incredibly defensive over what you think of as your territory, but I guess that's part of what makes you a business type.

    A business is no more writing code than selling cars is making a sandwich.

    That's one of the poorest analogies I've ever heard. Did you mean to say "A software business is no more writing code than selling cars is building them? Perhaps not. That doesn't quite support your argument as well as your expensive transportation device to inexpensive foodstuffs analogy.

    I don't care what you make/do/sell... there's a LOT more to any successful business than non-business people

    I can only hope that it was a mistake that you did not complete the sentance with the word realize, because then you would have made the most true statement that I have ever seen in any one of your countless and usually inane /. postings. I'll get to that at the end of this post.

    you writing OSS projects that never see the light of day in your bedroom is NOT a business

    What programmer working on OSS projects thinks of thier coding as a business? If it were a business, then they'd be doing it at the office. If the project doesn't see the "light of day", then it's not very Open Source, is it? Just because you are proud of your business doesn't mean that others are envious of you (perhaps other business types, but I doubt that you generate much envy no matter who the person is). Most OSS developers are under no illusion that they are running a software business, or that they would want to. If they thought that they wanted to sell software, I doubt that they would have chosen OSS for thier projects. If they do run a business that involves developing OSS software, I'm pretty sure that software sales are not where they intend to make thier money.

    I actually had one chick tell me a few months ago that my business is successsful because "I got lucky". That was the closest I ever came to hitting a woman.

    It sounds like she was a little too close to the mark if she could elicit such a reaction from you. There's a little bit of luck involved in every successful business, usually being that the business person was lucky enough to have family that had the cash to fund thier business venture until it could carry on without support. It's mighty white of you not to hit that poor defensless woman. The fact that you considered committing an act of violence over what was very likely a jibe tells me a lot about your character.

    Running a successful business is difficult in a way that almost no other undertaking is difficult, and the difficulties involved are more ambiguopus and unpredictable than are encountered in any technical field. But being an asshole is not neccissarily one of them.

    If you want people to believe that you are as successful as you claim, then you'll have to stop pretending (to yourself, no-one else is buying it) that everyone wants to be you.

    --
    Read, L
  95. But wait... by alphorn · · Score: 1

    doesn't that mean that if you dont't make mistakes, you're making a mistake and thereby... *head spins*

  96. WHO MODDED THIS UP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Christ man, the artical had some very good advice.
    I take it you don't like Microsoft though?

  97. That part bothered me as well... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I don't think any company doing work for hire should be doing projects where the major benefit is a learning experience for anyone! That kind of R&D needs to be done internally.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  98. I knew this was familiar: Vault uses Mono by truth_revealed · · Score: 1
  99. I hate Java now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real message

    We should "[do apps] in Visual Basic."

    "... that Microsoft Office was facing viable competition," so Microsoft is actually fair and just

    "the Visual Basic of Linux" failed. Don't fight the giant.

    "The sensible thing to do would have been to simply build it using ASP and IIS" Riiiight.

    Why do "we need more small ISVs?" Could it be that Microsoft is running out of companies to take advantage of.

  100. Welcome to the ? side: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to objectivism. Just working my way through Atlas Shrugged again. Sounds very familiar. Maybe there IS a reason I read this book at least once a year.

  101. Try this link by Via_Patrino · · Score: 1

    Try this link .
    Don't know about opera (paid) but it works even with lynx :-)

  102. Re:Hard work (more fun!) by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

    A work ethic is pretty hard to teach someone. They either have it or they do not.

    A good work ethic is best taught at a young age. I don't believe anyone is born with a good work ethic. That said, I think anyone can change if given something that really drives them.

  103. OK, where's the actual article? by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1

    I clicked on the msdn link, and got sent to a page with nothing on it but a bunch of other links.
    Which one takes you to the real article, and why wasn't that link posted in the first place?

    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  104. Not always true by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Take Siebel, for example. Fairly established, and yet almost worthless in practice (outside of a small core realm of usefulness). Sometimes technologies are "established" purely by marketing.

    Again, my point is that before beginning on a project the people involved (at least the design team) should be able to tell what they can and cannot do. That's true of any technology. If a technology can do what you need and there's good reason to use it, then it doesn't matter how new it is.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  105. Re:3x rule by ysachlandil · · Score: 1

    Back here in Holland we call it the Pi rule, works the same, but more 'mystically correct' ;)

  106. Re:Best Lesson: True Geeks Shouldn't Start Busines by serutan · · Score: 1

    Huh? All I said was:

    "Incidentally, the pitfalls of the latter approach are showcased in the documentary film Startup.Com."

    The movie is relevant because people who are interested in the discussion topic of geeks starting businesses might find the movie interesting. Look up the word, "incidentally."