Slashdot Mirror
Gates: Open Source Kills Jobs
theodp writes "On the Malaysian leg of a whirlwind Asian tour, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates voiced his concerns over the growing goodwill towards open source, especially in Asia, emphasizing how damaging open source software can be. 'If you don't want to create jobs or intellectual property, then there is a tendency to develop open source. It is not something you do as a day job. If you want to give it away, you work on it at night,' he said. Gates, who apparently has never contended with the horrors of a VB upgrade, when on to say that '[Open source] doesn't guarantee upward compatibility.'"
This comes up again and again. The basis of it is the idea that if people write their own software then there will be no market for others to sell it to them.
This seems true in general, but there are three important points.
The software industry has to face up to the fact that programming is no longer such a specialist skill. A good parallel to this might be writing. It was once quite mystical to the majority of the population. But I think we can all see that our world has benefited from the skill not remaining the part of a small guild or group.
And yes, I have read the article already (I'm a subscriber). Billy Gates seems to be falling back to his old tactics of targeting schools with US$20 million in cash grants in Asia. Can't see it working myself.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Hondas kill Jobs (Ford VP on sales tour). Mkay?
this is one of the most stupid arguments that gates is saying.
this is like saying "volunteer work is causing unemployment for people who wish to do the same work for pay"
open source doesn't create jobs but the ultimate end result will benefit mankind as a whole. gates either knows nothing about economics or is really trying to push some BS onto us.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
It's true that while open source is taking off it will have many of the characteristics that Gates is describing, but ultimately all software needs skilled people to install it and maintain it. An entire infrastructure for a business, city, or government is not going to run itself and generate no jobs just because the development of the software itself was done for free.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
You open source people of slashdot might not want to hear the truth, but open source software loses more often backwards compatibility than windows is. From libpng to gtk to the kernel, it is just not guaranteed that next month's version will be 100% compatible with the source you wrote 6 months or 3 months ago. For users this is bad, because MOST linux users do use the source to install apps. Windows has a much better track on binary and source compatibility, my company still uses a DOS program of the '80s working under XP. That's a good thing for business.
Regarding jobs getting lost, I also agree. The problem is NOT as big as Gates says atm, but if OSS becomes much more popular in the future, it will be a problem for software engineers. You devalue your own profession.
That's what Bill is really afraid of.
this coming from the same man who if i'm not mistaken monopolized the market, preventing the creation of thousands of jobs. every time your hypocritical jesus kills a kitten.
Gates has the typical American tendency of not understanding that in other parts of the world people may not think like the Americans.
When other people do not think like you, don't consider them dangerous but try to understand them.
Open Source doens't guarantee upward compatability? Puhlease! Neither does Microsoft with their proprietary office suite. Didn't Office 97 break compatability with older versions forcing companies to upgrade ALL machines in their workplaces at the same time? Talk about a horrible leg to stand on!
Will Stokes Album Shaper http://albumshaper.sf.net
Objectively speaking for a moment.
Surely he has just said that open source is more efficient.
If fewer people are having to be employed to do something, that must mean that the process of sharing and having standards is working more efficiently. Surely that's more economical for a business, as they're having to fork out less for these things.
What he's advocating is creating a false economy of software and 'technology' by having a hideously ineffective development and business process.
Or is that an oversimplified concept of economics?
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
I'm not even sure I understand what that means. I understand when something isn't backward compatible -- like when Windows XP can't run software written for Windows 95. But upward compatible? Is he talking about the failure of today's software to run on tomorrow's systems -- like how Windows XP won't run on Intel Nocoma chips?
Breakfast served all day!
Don't forget Microsoft contributes just as much to democrats as they do to republicans.
What he meant: 'If you don't want to create jobs for Microsoft or pays fees to owners of most intellectual property (American companies), then there is a tendency to develop open source."
Open Source Sushi
My own online store uses osCommerce, a GPL'ed commerce suite, I don't have the knowledge or resources to create my own online store, but here are these wonderful people who dedicate their time and energy to creating something useful that everyone who wants to set up an online store can use.
To me, that's the benefit of open source, people getting together to make tools and software that can help everyone.
Gates doesn't get it, because his software isn't really made to be used, it's made for future obsolecense so that people will buy the next version.
Open source helps an economy, especially a developing one. It helps people learn about their computers by giving them the tools to understand how to make them operate. It helps them grow tech skills. What, no paying programming jobs any more for them to take? Well sure there will be jobs. There are plenty of businesses that need in-house custom software (often built in conjunction with open source tools or foundations). Those programming skills learned will come in handy. Or perhaps they will join a growing software services company, where knowing how software works will prove most useful.
The Microsoft model is to create an economy where people have to shovel money to them, and individuals don't get to see how their software really works. Yeah, they can get jobs programming yet another VB (sorry, C#...sorry, .NET) report for management. But it's not the only way to go. The open source way leads to an increasingly tech literate population, and creates its own jobs. And oh yes, in this model not all the money gets shoveled back to Redmond. That's why Microsoft is squawking, but that's only natural. Doesn't mean anyone has to listen to Bill, though. After almost three decades of his self-serving words, we know better.
(except US Republicans, who only listen to him because he keeps feeding them megabucks in payo... er, brib... er, campaign contributions [yeah, that's it])
? ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp
Really? Your source?
I have one which states 58/42 in favor of Dems
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp
(there's a space after ID=D00 which you need to remove)
I find it amusing that there is a lot of support for OSS here, and then people bitch about not being able to get programming jobs. You're devaluing your labor by giving it away.
So hang on giving something away is wrong because good will donations of time and effort stop paid work from happening?
Bill Gates and Microsoft are involved with a lot of charities. Should they stop contributing to them because the good will prevents people from going out and earning the money for themselves? By Bill's argument, Microsoft should never give away an educational copy of Windows or Office to a school or university - after all that's a copy of software a competitor could sell to that institution.
But wait it must be okay, because they can write off their contributions for tax breaks. That's good for the economy.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to give away their time and effort they can do so and you just have to deal with it. You can't have it both ways.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
And US Democrats, who he gives just about the exact same amount of money to.
Oops, sorry, did I let facts get in the way or your ignorant political ranting. Republicans are always evil, Democrats are always good. Ignorance is knowledge.
Finkployd
tell it to the cathars.
Seriously; just because india won during a point in history when the british empire was already declining does not mean that it is set in stone that open source is going to win against MS, the patent system and all of the legislation and dirty tricks that MS and Intel can buy.
The battle is by no means certain, and I believe that it's not unconcievable that open source will be (for all practical matters) legislated out of america (and probably western europe and australa as well). Which, as an american (who does NOT have thousands to funnel towards anyones campaign coffers) troubles me deeply.
So drop the pithy crap; the situation is a LOT more dire than your hippy-dippy sentiments take into account.
Isn't it ironic that Internet Explorer was based on Mosaic, an open sourced web browser? Isn't it also ironic that Microsoft used BSD TCP/IP programs in Windows?
Does Open Sourced Software kill jobs? Ask any Linux based web hoster if they killed any jobs when they chose an OSS operating system over Windows. Ask any Apache web server hoster if the OSS web server they chose killed any jobs. Notice that Linux and Apache software dominates the web servers out there according to Netcraft's survey. Thus we logically can conculde that OSS creates jobs based on the shear volume of Linux and Apache systems out there.
Notice that most people who get outsourced or laid off are Microsoft Software users. Thus we can logicaly conclude that Microsoft Software kills jobs.
So Bill Gates has it backwards, Microsoft Software kills jobs, not OSS.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Do these messages sound contradicting:
"Linux has a greater TCO than windows systems! use our windows systems and you need less admins and coders! And you don't need so well trained admins and coders, you can outsource the jobs!"
"Linux and open source will take away your jobs!"
Of course, Gates is just hoping that your Boss hears the first message and you (and the goverment) hear the second message.
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
I do all coding at night for more than 25 years, both commercial and open source. Of course I do not make any differences in code quality. Code quality is a matter of honor, not of the money.
The real reason for why I work mostly at night is I have inherited bad eyes condition and in midday, I can't see anything on screen.
So technically, for me, Mr. Gates *is* just an insensitive clod, yes.
There you are, staring at me again.
Microsoft employs about 55000 employees, most of them NOT programmers, and the ones that are barely see a fraction of the money that's earned off of their products. Open source helps to replace the overpriced commodity software that's created by a fraction of a percent of the world's developers and pulls in a majority of the world's software spending.
The maturation of microsoft's products in the late 90s lead to microsoft developers adding stupid bells and whistles (like extensive VB programming support in all MS products, yay viruses) that didnt add value to the software. Microsoft SHOULD have entered the maintenance phase with all of their desktop products about 5 years ago. There are probably 10-20k developers sitting around performing development work at MSFT that will not drive further sales.
Meanwhile, Open source has slowly been catching up to where microsoft was 5-10 years ago. This would ordinarily be a devastating disadvantage, even for a software package that doesnt need to make money but the problem is that when microsoft's products matured, they also became commoditized- since microsoft's products havent become any more compelling in the past 7 years, microsofts existing products compete with the old ones and 7 year old open source software competes successfully as well.
The end result of this is the "cost cutting" measures that microsoft is undertaking now. It will mean a lot less "new development" for microsoft products, and a lot more outsourced maintenance contracts to fix bugs in existing ones. The real cause to blame for unemployed microsoft developers is microsofts fear of breaking into new markets and trying different things to make use of those developers. They would rather defend the rotting carcass of Office and Windows than go off boldly in search of fresh meat.
Then of course there's the cost issue. Who the fuck can afford Microsoft licenses? Even American businesses, who have a lot more cash than Asian consumers have been bitching about the cost of MIcrosoft licensing, especially when it has become blatantly obvious to even the dimmest of PHBs that most new Microsoft products add little in the way of useful functionality but do succeed in introducing incompatible file formats and siphoning cash off to Redmond.
Then of course there's Microsoft's arrogance in offering crippleware such as XP starter edition and XP home. Explain to me what the differences are between these products and XP pro again (other than registry hacks to turn features off, missing DLLs and different packaging). Explain to me why I can't buy a CD with an installable image at retail and have to purchase OEM copies of the OS or deal with Microsoft's fucking annoying upgrade copies. Explain to me what the new version of Office does that I couldn't do with Office 98. Fortunately for me my step-bro works at Microsoft, so I can get the software through him for cheap, other than this, or getting educational discounts I can't see how anyone affords buying Microsoft products or why anyone would continue to do so.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
What Gates is trying to do is wipe the competitor(Open source), instead of competing with good ,better products in the market.
,is required in a healthy market.
It is the violation of the basic Business Practice.Competition,and not killing of it
His very act,means he is being intimidated by Open Source,and more cnsumers will begin to turn to Open source to see what makes M$ afraid.
Good for Open Source.
Why does yahoo do this
Basically, what I think you're saying is that MS also doesn't guarantee upward compatibility, and I agree.
It's also worth noting that when MS breaks compatibility, you're pretty much doomed because it's closed source. When something open source breaks compatibility, if there's a way to alter/filter/import data to make it fit, you at least have the options of writing code to do it yourself, or paying someone independent to write it.
"If you don't want to create jobs or intellectual property, then there is a tendency to develop open source. It is not something you do as a day job. If you want to give it away, you work on it at night," he said.
Then I have RTFA for the third time... I am having trouble with the "killing" part. IMHO this reads as Gates saying: "People work on open source in their spare time as a hobby." Nobody has yet posted righteous indignation about their occupation being called something done in their spare time and not relevant to the economy.
Plus the article was covering Gates' talk on open source and piracy. Clearly, with open source there is no such thing as piracy because you can do what you want with the software. It is when you try to sell the open source software (not present it as part of a service) that you get into trouble. I think we all get the diametric opposition part already.
Finally, -Bill Gates bashed open source- surprise! Next article.
Have you Meta Moderated t
I read the headline to my wife and the first thing she said is this is the same person who has call centers in Inda.
Well I dont know if that is true but Outsourcing kills jobs in America.
Arguing over whether or not Open Source Software causes job losses is illogical. Following that same premise, Gates would agree that viruses and security holes are good things. After all, look at all the jobs that those problems have created. You have a billion dollar industry that has developed because of the insecurities in Windows operating systems. Maybe this is the reason why it took them so long to fix the latest Internet Explorer bugs? Just think of all the jobs created because of it!
Users of Open Source save money and are so able to spend money elsewhere. Thus there are less jobs in software companies but more jobs in software using companies. Since software people are highly paid there are probably more jobs created than are lost.
Open Source results in jobs being transferred from Software companies to End user companies.
Breaking compatibility between versions is more than just an annoying facet of their software -- it's part of their business model!
(Steve) Jobs would be in deep trouble if it were not for open source Darwin and the open source world, so it would be more correct to say that Open Source Saves Jobs.
This is reminiscent of that battle.
Beta *was* higher quality, but VHS was a lot cheaper, and quality was 'close enough' for the masses..
( VHS has increased in quality since then, but its had years of technological advancement )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Oh fuck. I think Slashdot is absolutely fucking gay and its registered users all virgins for life; yet I still laughed my ass off at your post. Good job, mate. I love it.
"Gates...when on to say that '[Open source] doesn't guarantee upward compatibility.'"
He's right - it doesn't. I'd say it guarantees it evenly with the way Microsoft guarantees it - if you just happen to have the correct version of the correct software, you'll have upwards compatability. If you chose the wrong end of the fork, then you're screwed.
On the other hand, Open Source, by definition, allows unlimited forking. And if there's a compatibility break between versions, you can be sure that someone, somewhere is going to start up a backwards-compatability fork, or write a backwards-compatibiltiy patch; if the problem is enough to bug you, it's probably enough of a problem to bug other people. And, if there's no backwards-compatibility fork available, you can always Do It Yourself, or put up a note on the proper mailing list, letting people know that the demand is out there, and asking if anyone else has the same need/desire.
With propritary software, the user is basically under the company's control. Unless you're a huge corporation with massive buying power and enough pull in the management level of Microsoft, all you'll wind up with is a "You're screwed, buy our other newer, more expensive software."
Overall, I'm pretty sure Open Source Software is more compatible, and that there's more old versions of software available to reduce the need for backwards compatibility.
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
The idea that open source software destroys the economy is not well thought out. The money that would have been spent on over priced software will now be spent on other things thus fueling different parts of the economy. The real loser is Microsoft; a company that has shown a tendency to destroy jobs and entire companies though the illegal and anticompetitive practices related to it's monopoly.
What do I say? Tough shit! Adapt or die Microsoft! Open Source is good for the economy in general. It's just not good for YOUR economy!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I used to hang out at the MS SQL server newsgroups back in the day. In those days you'd have periodic flamewars with the oracle proponents. The MS people always ended up saying that SQL server might not be as good as oracle but it was "good enough for what you need to do" and "a hell of a lot cheaper".
It gives me warm and fuzzy feelings to see the same argument now being made against them. Not just in databases but virtually every other product they make too.
Oracle survived but lost a lot of market share to SQL server and I predict the same will happen to MS.
evil is as evil does
This is what this country has come to. Half the people in the country call the other hald demoncrat and republitards. Why do republicans compare democrats to demons? Demons? Truly evil residents of hell? Just because you vote for candidate A that makes you a demon?
Same for the democrats. Just because somebody votes for candidate B that makes them a fascist nazi? Or a sadistic killer? or a religious warmonger bent on genocide of non cristians?
All I can say is that people working doubletime to divide this country have been very successful. The radio and TV stations which broadcast hate filled programs hour after hour must all be delighted.
After 9/11 the country was united. That lasted for about two weeks now we are back to being two countries who hate each other again.
evil is as evil does
The real myth is that the Democrats and Republicans are different parties. Hint: they're both fascist (yes, fascist: the merger of state and corporate power). I call them demopublican and republicrat to make this clearer.
I read it as...
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, We build 10,000 Tractor, to have 1 work, and we build 10,000 again! This way, we make tracktors, and we can employ 10,000 Comrades!
Frankly, why the hell do they post up such propaganda? FFS, I should rather see 10,000 programmers working in small businesses and consultancy places doing contract work for linux systems and throwing together code and profit sharing than 10,000 of the same working together on one, big, smelly pile of shit.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Open source just seems to be a more efficient way of developing software in many cases, otherwise, it wouldn't be getting so popular. And, yes, like other more efficient production methods of the past (mechanized agriculture, factories, robotics, etc.), it kills jobs. Like, for example, jobs at Microsoft. It's always unfortunate when people lose their jobs, but they can usually get new ones. Overall, the economy is better off. In fact, in times of technological progress, job losses are usually more than made up for by gains in other areas.
If we only tried to optimize our economy for job creation, we could just have people crush rocks or copy books by hand, like people used to. But that's just not a very efficient way of using our human resources, so we aren't doing it. Well, it's the same with 20th century software development models in the 21st century. Sorry, but the days where someone could get fabulously rich with writing a BASIC interpreter in 8bit assembly language are simply over.
What Microsoft consistently (conveniently?) ignores about the software world is that for the overwhelming majority of businesses, software is an expense-- not a profit center. Reducing this cost increases the amount that a business can spend on other things (like salaries or R&D). Software development is a miniscule portion of the total economy and it's reduction isn't going to cause a collapse.
God is imaginary
It could just as easily be argued that the IBM-PC for whom Mr. Gates' company creates software has killed thousands of draughtsman & engineering jobs with the advent of CAD and computer-controlled lathes, for example.
Sure, it's unfortunate that many skilled people have been replaced by computers but those very same people want their cheap electronics goods & mass-produced household items.
Gates' is being a total hypocrite here - on one hand he wants to head an organisation that produces software to make our lives easier (thereby taking work away from somebody else) but when it affects the jobs in his scope of business, it's a different story.
When all said and done, the great thing about this issue is that Gates' has no other weapon than words to fight with - with all his billions in the bank, he is almost totally powerless.
Ultimately, the world, not Gates, will decide whether Open Source or commercial software is the future - although I believe it will always be a combination of both. That can only mean it's good for the consumer because the commercial software houses will need to fight for the remaining commercial software space which has to mean better quality & cheaper products for all of us.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If it takes fewer people to make quality open source software than it does to make quality closed source software, then Open Source development, by definition, must be more efficient. It uses fewer resources, and lowers cost.
Sounds like he's busy complementing Open Source / Free Software and he doesn't even know it.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
I completely agree. But there's a bigger reason why they're missing the boat this time. Unlike other technologies, products, and services they've missed (or came late to) in the past, this one's a whole different business model. They're very slowly moving to become somewhat of a service company, but they still believe their core business should be the sale of software. Jumping onto the open source boat would mean abandoning their entire business model and dropping most of their profit machine.
They are missing the boat completely this time. It's partly from fear of becoming another IBM and partly from fear of abandoning what's worked so well for them for the past 20 years.
Developers: We can use your help.
Interesting post, but you fail to take into account one big thing: IBM. Actually, that's wrong. It's a huge, massive, gigantic thing. Microsoft may have the big yapping mouth, but IBM is still THE BIGGER COMPANY. People seem to forget this.
Do you really think that IBM, which has a massive investment in Linux (right across the company) along with involvement in many projects such as Apache, Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, will just sit back and let Microsoft boss the government around?
IBM (remember, a larger company than MS) doesn't do all this whining because it doesn't need to. But rest assured, it is more than capable of fighting fire with fire. If the US govt started to seriously consider making OSS illegal (a LONG way off at the moment), IBM would be in there with meetings, party financing, press, marketing and all the other stuff. Remember, IBM was the first FUD-master.
So I don't think the situation is as bad as your post makes out. No doubt MS would love things to go that way, but having IBM behind us is an indescribable help. IBM is gigantic. IBM has an equally gigantic investment in Linux and OSS. And IBM ain't gonna roll over and let MS talk governments into anything.
I know of a few folks currently working at M$. From what I hear, they are working at a burn-out pace all the time. Management always refuse to hire despite being the most financially stacked software company in the world. If anything M$ should stop buying out little companies, cause that can destroy jobs and competitions too.
Real estate can depreciate. Ask people who got caught upside down in one of the SF bay area's housing busts. It may recover over time, but that is often little consolation in the mean time.
'[Open source] doesn’t guarantee upward compatibility.
.doc with every upgrade so the old versions can't red new files. Then everyone has to upgrade.
If the last 7 versions of Word are 100% compatible, I'll kiss Gates ass on the Capitol steps during the Inauguration on Jan. 20, 2005.
Lets revise
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Although he failed to properly qualify it...
Open Source kills [Microsoft] jobs.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
This is a great example of a falicy being used as a premise. Is software supposed to sustain jobs? Not any more! Programming is like the new digital landscaping. Everyone can do it, they just need to be willing to get a little dirty. This is the same drum as the whole social security system. Quick! Everyone pay for needless crap so we can all have fake jobs! Come on! It'll be fun, we can raise kids in this false world and tell them they have to make it work!
-Digital Extremist
It doesn't matter whether what Bill said is true or not. It only matter that people will believe it, and that's all he wants: people will have the idea that MS is upward compatible.
"Linux has a greater TCO than windows systems! use our windows systems and you need less admins and coders! And you don't need so well trained admins and coders, you can outsource the jobs!"
That's the jobs of admins...he claims a company needs to hire less people to maintain windows systems than they would to maintain linux systems.
"Linux and open source will take away your jobs!"
That's the jobs of developers. People that work for companies like microsoft that make their living off creating proprietary software.
The problem with Gates' arguments is that he forgets that people can change jobs. Many old professions no longer exist, but new professions were created to fill the void. For example, even if you take the two sentences above as true (which is not, really), those coders could take the jobs of the extra needed admins.
Come on, now he has to actually reduce prices and "innovate" since there is an alternative.
So now he's going to bad mouth Linux and OSS it like it's a rivial politico.
Cry me a river. Boo hoo. I'm tired of all this "feel sorry for me world" Microsoft has in the press these days. Grow up and make real software.
OK, probably not much point posting this deep into a thread, but here goes:
What the hell is wrong with losing jobs, so long as something is done to keep the general public's standard of living up? Everytime you lose a job to progress, that's less work that needs to be done. The problem with people is they can't think of a society in any other terms but economic. All anybody wants to know is how to get more money. Nobody ever asks the more important question behind that: how do we improve our standard of living?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The problem I see is when COBOL programmers start coding VB. Everything variable is in a working storage section and one subroutine does all of the work. VB is easy to learn and use but takes just as much work as any other language to write good code. High cohesion, low coupling, abstraction and encapsulation. You need to know what those are first intellectually and then intuitively.
Horrible VB code is still easier to extend and maintain than mediocre C++ code. And people can get things done on their own with VB, COM+ and MSDE unlike with J2EE where you would have to get the corporate web sphere advisory team to meet twice daily to second guess every design decision and call in the IBM rep to confirm their findings.
I have seen bad and good uses a lot of technologies. Technologies don't make bad code people do. You can even write modular structured maintainable programs in COBOL it's just that COBOL is the long hand version and a lot of COBOL programmers were assembler programmers so their COBOL is like assembler and does not take advantage of the language Same with COBOL programmers in VB. They make their VB programs look like COBOL.
So learn some Java, a little C++ and learn were it's strengths are and learn how to recreate those strengths using the technology you use.
I can not believe these technology bigots around here. If you know so much and you are so good then you should be able to make any technology work for you even if you have to jump through some hoops. The complaining just makes me believe the tech bigots aren't really as good as they act. This isn't college homework, you have a business system to write with the tools the boss gave you to use. Shut up and code already.
What I'm not happy about is big dumb companies that get bogus patents so that others, including free software writers, CAN NOT compete.
Perhaps that is one of the big problems with the Open Source movement: it is generating far too much prior art which can hinder new patent enforceability in the future.
The point is, they don't see the truth because they don't WANT to see the truth. Redmond is in severely deep denial of the reality that FLOSS is taking over, that the paradigm has already shifted and that all that is left is the shakeout which follows. They will fight, kick and scream, because they see the market as territory they have conquered, and they aren't about to give it up without a fight. A more accurate analogy is that the market is a vein of ore that is quickly depleting and they need to find new prospects instead of chasing the poor prospectors from the surrounding area and cracking the whip on their serfs.
No one at Redmond is going to see or say that the Emperor has no clothes. They get paid too much money not to bolt on the rose colored glasses. (welding helmet?) So don't accuse Microsoft of being clueful. If they were, we would have seen some evidence of it by now.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
...on the basis they hurt the economy?
Quick, stop everyone taking snapshots at a wedding because the wedding photographers will go out of business! Video cameras too! The MPAA is under threat! Movie sales will plummet as everyone watches home made flicks.
Stop everyone from learning to paint, because it will starve already starving artists.
Stop anyone from learning to cook, or cooking meals at home, because the chefs will go out of business.
Every kid in a garage band, quick arrest them before they put pro musicians out of business. (Ok there are a few people who might want to stop the crappy garage bands granted).
We need to license these things now before its too late! People may actually find fulfilment in their lives outside of work! Stop the madness.
What's the argument here? That MS is so bad it can't stand competition from dedicated hobbyists?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
A large number of companies were following the Microsoft way and of re-investing all profits until, as a collective, the industry pushed itself beyond the point where the returns were diminished. The result is the current tech recession.
Tech companies have proven to have relatively short life cycles. The intelligent action in such a market is to only reinvest that which you see leading to a positive return, and returning the rest to the investors in the form of dividends or stock buy backs. Nowhere in the wealth of nations did Mr. Smith give the rule that companies must re-invest all profits. He simply noted that companies re-invest when that seems to be the thing to do. Not only do they re-invest, but they borrow to invest when it is the correct course of action.
To have a long term stable economy, we really need to break your "unofficial rule" and get back to the point where companies have a more natural lifecycle.
Microsoft does not rest until it destroys its competitors, who then lay off workers. Microsoft can only employ so many people, and of course, it is shipping thousands of those few jobs overseas, particularly to India. Microsoft's monopoly has destroyed jobs.
In contrast, Open Source creates jobs for those who customize and support software in a competitive environment.
I think it's a little more subtle than that. I suspect that what really led them into their current financial box-canyon is Bill setting his stamp on all of the original participants, and the next generation inheriting that, and so on. This is a thing which happens a lot in network marketing: your more enthusiastic "downline" tend to act/think/look more and more like you as time passes. Role modelling writ large.
Read Bill's original "open letter to hobbyists" and you can quickly see why Microsoft is as it is today. All of the markers are laid down in that one short letter, including the kind of blindness we're describing here. Key line:
Of course, in FOSS he has his answer. He just doesn't want to see it. I leave you to consider his now-sidesplitting closing line in the context of ex-Microserfs and there comments here about MS whipping the people they have rather than hiring enough to get the job done at a humane pace:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
>>I hope Gates makes more founded arguements next time, perhaps he will suggest that open source causes starvation or maybe malaria outbreaks.
No joke: msft has compared FOSS to cancer, and to communism. Of course msft constantly states that FOSS has a higher TCO, and now msft is saying it kills jobs. Oh yeah, FOSS is also less secure (because anybody can read the source). And of course, FOSS is a huge litigation risk.
Am I missing anything? I must be. That FOSS must some awfully rotton stuff. But then, I guess the competition always is.
You know what else kills jobs? Microsoft.
Bill? How many jobs did you kill at Netscape? etc. etc..
Funny every job you said is a service job, not a manufactoring job like software programming. you Build and test software like a factory, not as a service and support.
Building software is more akin to the design and prototyping process that occurs before a product makes it to manufacturing.
Programming is way too varied and dynamic to be compared to typical mass manufacturing. A better analogy would be "craftsman" or "engineering", two professions that are arguably more service-oriented than typical manufacturing jobs.
-Stu
The problem with FLOSS is that it spreads the cost of development more efficiently than even Microsoft's model. Therefore, it has a much lower critical mass than Microsoft.
Unfortunately, it turns the software market into a service market. Many of the programming jobs today will go away and be replaced with support jobs, which are typically lower paying. In the end, although supposedly anyone can contribute to OSS, there will be few pain programmers to really work on it and most/all the work comes from those who either don't need money or do it in their spare time. The closest thing to a programming technical job most programmers of today will have will be tech support jobs. This reduces the number of programmers because you can't make a living of it anymore.
Add this to the fact that most of the USA's (I live there, so it is relevant in this way to me) "export" is actually intellectual property. Do away with that and the USA will fall on hard times. At the same time, OSS increases competition from abroad in that the code that you write will be and is used by your competitors to get a leg up on you. So, not only are you helping yourself, but you are helping yourself out of a means of making a living.
Also, aside from a few well supported projects, many projects (just check Sourceforge) do not get updated or bug fixed that often. What I've seen in the OSS field (aside from the few well supported "glamorous" projects) is that initially, there is some interest in the application so it is kept up to date. But since there is no real incentive to keep it going past the initial glitz phase, updates come fewer and farther between until it stagnates. Over time, if a company wants to really "buy into" using some non-glamorous OSS software, in a few years, if they want to keep using it, they will eventually have to hire a programmer (or a few) to do what they want done to the project. Since contractors frequently charge $100/hour to do things like this, even simple modifications to their product may take many $1000s of dollars. One could argue that these $1000s would be comparable to paying yearly licenses, but software companies have a vested interest in updating the software periodically, so that each year, the people using the software will possibly get a little more use out of each new version, while the other company may spend a couple of years with no new functionality before they hire the expensive programmers to give them what they want, effectively meaning potentially lost productivity of their employees for a few years.
This is just an extended example, of course, but it is something that I see most OSS advocates simply ignore or wave away as not being an issue. Most OSS advocates seem to think that there is or will be some magical job market or product that they will come up with that will keep them fed. In truth, this is a very optimistic prediction. What will happen, in my opinion, is what I mentioned above. Most people who think of themselves as programmers today will eventually be forced to basically become tech support (not that there is anything wrong with that position, it's just that many programmers don't want to be in that role) to make ends meet, at best, in the computer field. I say that while OSS will initially drive a big push for a while, mostly because it is "new" to most people so it will have a lot of flash, glamour, glitz, and attractiveness, it will hit a peak and then drop off and the end result will be the job market for programmers will be worse than what it is today, and probably as bad as it was during the Internet Bubble Burst.
I'd like to ask the question: Will Microsoft guarantee its software in any way or provide indemnification to end users against claims of infringement?
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Unfortunately, it turns the software market into a service market. Many of the programming jobs today will go away and be replaced with support jobs, which are typically lower paying.
What makes you say that? I suspect that a good many programmers are hired to maintain projects such as Apache. In the end, I suspect that there are as many programmers paid to work on the Linux *kernel* as there are in Microsoft working on all of Windows.
Also, I suspect that ESR is probably right in that the vast majority of software development occurs exclusively for in-house line of business apps. Of course in the context above, most of the Apache programmers are probably hired to maintain it as a line-of-business app.
I don't see most of the programming jobs go away anytime soon.
Add this to the fact that most of the USA's (I live there, so it is relevant in this way to me) "export" is actually intellectual property.
How much of this is software? There is a BIG difference between exporting a copy of Windows and a VCD of Matrix (most of Asia at least uses VCD's for such). Yet they are both intellectual property exports. And secondly, what makes you think that most of this work can't be outsourced? Of course, with movies, it won't be because people expect them to be set in the US, Australia, etc. and you can't just move that to India and expect a seemless transition. But the programming jobs not only can be outsourced, but they are being outsourced.
At the same time, OSS increases competition from abroad in that the code that you write will be and is used by your competitors to get a leg up on you.
This is why my company uses the GPL for everything we do. If a competing project were to come out, they could not legally use our code without giving us access to it or paying us royalties. But you are right. This is a problem.
Also, aside from a few well supported projects, many projects (just check Sourceforge) do not get updated or bug fixed that often. What I've seen in the OSS field (aside from the few well supported "glamorous" projects) is that initially, there is some interest in the application so it is kept up to date.
How is this different from buying software from a small proprietary software house except that you would not even have the option of hiring someone to fix the program later?
Most OSS advocates seem to think that there is or will be some magical job market or product that they will come up with that will keep them fed. In truth, this is a very optimistic prediction.
Sure, it is optimistic. Approaching any hobby with the idea that it will create a job for you is optomistic. Just the way it is.
On the other hand, if you approach it as a business, then you have to look at it very carefully, evaluate the very real traps that OSS poses (IMO, the traps of making proprietary software are just as big or bigger), and carefully formulate your strategy. In this case, you work hard to create your job.
My company (http://www.metatrontech.com) has contributed a number of open source applications. We do this for a number of strategic reasons. But they all boil down to "how can we create a market for our services?"
These services include support, programming, and many other sorts of work. Open source works, but not all work can be done by hobbiests. Indeed, it works best when we are paid to do it.
One final point. You seem to feel that programming is somehow a commodity which can be shipped around the world with no ill effect. In that case, I am not sure that anything you have said about OSS does not go for proprietary software as well. You might want to look at the outsourcing trends at the moment and ask if your job might be next.
In reality, outsourcing our jobs to India might be argued to make great long-term global economic sense (a more affluent India can afford to buy more American products), and it works great as a cost-cutting measure, bu
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I work as a System Administrator at a University. If it wasn't for OSS we would not have half the computing power we have for doing research. Linux allows us to but cheap hardware and build clusters for almost no cost, I would be reading slashdot instead of building the clusters in most cases ;)
Most of our older computational resources are being taken offline. We have million dollar SGI machines that where the main computational machines from the mid 90s until just a couple of years ago. However, the support licenses where killing our budget and not allowing us to grow. Now we run clusters with much more power and which run a lot less in terms of support costs.
I do agree that OSS will remove a large segment of programming jobs. There will still be a large demand for programmers to create custom software or to modify existing OSS software to meet the needs of the end user. Not only that but I already see a growing demand for System Administrators who know OSS.
For at least 2 reasons:
1) Many business if the computer industry do not create "products" in the same sense that MS does. They create *custom* software for a client. Every job I've ever had in the industry has done this and open source and free software only make it easier.
2) Businesses offering support for open source and Free Software products are flourishing. Red Hat and Novell/SuSE are good examples. No one buys a failing business.
You'll pardon us, Bill, if we don't take your unquestionably very biased, word for it.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Why does Microsoft publish this propaganda? It's easy. Press releases are treated as news. In fact, if you asked 100 people, 90% of them would not be able to distinguish a press release from the news. If it comes off of a newswire, it's treated as news. If it's news, it's fact. Microsoft knows how to play the game. They have lobbyists printing this crap and dropping it in every legislators' mailbox each and every day.
/. can issue press releases to the AP, Reuters, CNN, etc, Joe Citizen will never hear the other side of the story.
If you repeat this mumbo jumbo enough, eventually everyone will repeat it as fact. And since no one at
Microsoft is the master at playing politics in the news. The free software people should be issuing their own press releases. They should commission their own "studies" by DC think tanks. Then selectively include quotes that make Microsoft look as bad as possible. (It's not hard.)
Lastly, Microsoft does have a point. Microsoft products do promote full employment. It takes a lot of people to support MS products. We had 2 people that supported several hundred Linux desktops and a dozen servers over a 3 year period. The same number of Windoze machines required more than 25 headcount, several contractors and vendors with full time people on site, and they were always short-staffed.
-- No sig for you!
Open source creates more _INTERESTING_ jobs. It create jobs that require more than the ability to be able to format a HD and reinstall windows because the box was contaminated.
The more businesses and administrations take up open source the more jobs it will create. And they will be less boring that fixing other peoples broken OS.
As for lack of upward compatibility: with what? I have never had a problem with OOo or Mozilla. Has he got another nasty trick up his sleeve?
realkiwi
What Microsoft is doing is right. They have profits and invest those profits to get more profits.
... and so on. This is their biggest problem. A more liberal and open attitude towards what is happening 'out there' would be good. And this exactly may slowly be happening. Future will tell us.
MS now has 50 billion USD, but "in their place" I'ld do the same. This money is a war chest to be able to fend off sudden changes in the industry, invest quickly in new opportunities, and to be sure they won't have a cash problem any time soon. It's not stupid, it is smart.
The only real problem we might have with Microsoft is their conservative nature. They are innovating, and making products better. But they also missed some opportunities because they were too conservative. They didn't see the internet coming, XML, open source,
Microsoft (and others) aren't so concerned about jobs in highly developed countries when they move there operations to countries like India!
Microsoft is not interesting in people's welfare, or the advancement of computing.
Microsoft is interested in one thing, increasing their profits.
For all your comments about Mac Os, this is one of the reason Mac's held ground in creative businesses. as wierd as us architects, interior/graphics/web designers seem, we are still designers and most of us have a good handle on tech. Not to mention we tend to work in smaller companies (100 people would be very large as architecture firms go) Meaning with an office full of Mac's we can be Creative Professionals First, and the computer guy on the side. With windows this would be impossible, with linux it would be crazy. I've seen windows based offices employ an IT guys, they tend not to last long, they don't save the company enough money. You tend to answer your own question. Mac's take less time than linux, because on the surface Mac os X dictates a way of working and everyone works to the same base. It can be changed, but apple tends to in touch how we work, so not much value in the change. Linux can be configured any way you like, and yes you free to dream about how you would like it to be, which is good. I would tend to ask the question - Will linux really take off until some ones start to pull together a "product" and target it at a market? In the end wouldn't this create more jobs? After All as architects we do this all day, taking timber, nails steel, and various other open standard items and turn them it to a product, it's a very common model in world business. For Me Linux is interesting, but i'd rather dream about that cool new house i'm working on, getting paid full fees for, and use the IT stuff as a fun distraction.
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
On a personal note, whilst I used to work 36 hour stretches at the drop of a hat (not at MS) and often did 24 runs and long weekends for the companies I worked for, I simply won't now. The ugly truth is that these stretches are always a result of poor project management, or a company trying to increase it's profits by understaffing projects. This is usually to stay "competitive" in the market. The managers would rarely ever pitch in on those weekend efforts :-/ Nowadays I work my contracted hours, and the project can be late for all I care. Bad management is someone elses problem, not mine - they can pay me for my loyalty, not exploit me for my naievity.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
I'm quite surprised no one mentioned that the same warning was touted at the time of the industrial revolution, the computer revolution, and just about every prior econimcal and social upheaval that has ever happened.
And hey he's quite right. When factories first changed to assembly lines instead of hand assembly a lot of jobs were lost. however those people either adapted or moved to another industry and the world became a better place because of it (except for action figures, they will be the downfall of society).
So quite right Bill, people will lose jobs, and the Software Revolution is upon you, get out of the way or be run over!
Microsoft kills jobs. the evidence:t scape.com// /www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/
a .com/en/index.jspw .palmsource.com/
http://www.borland.com/
http://www.ne
http://www.beincorporated.com/
http:
Among others.
Others who are still in jeopardy:
http://www.kernel.org/
http://www.jav
http://www.real.com
http://ww
to name a few.
I know a lot of programmers. I don't think I've ever even met one who creates packaged software for sale. I have always assumed that development of shrink-wrappable commercial software was a miniscule part of the industry, and what I'm reading in this thread from other posters supports it.
What does that have to do with jobs? That's a question of business model viability. No amount of marginal profitability will increase the demand for prepackaged software.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Indeed, there are also a lot of small companies doing Linux development, so spreading the money across these companies instead of driving it all into one huge one would seem to make economic sense.
I'm sorry Bill - you can't have it both ways. Either Linux is more expensive (good for the government, bad for the customer) or it's cheaper (bad for the government, good for the customer). You can't tell the customer "oh you don't want to buy Linux because it's more expensive" and at the same time tell the governments that "you don't want to support Linux because it's cheaper and you won't get so much tax".
In any case, money has a habit of getting spent nomatter how much you save, so they will still get their taxes. And infact if you save money on software and spend if on some other sector, you are helping to employ more people in that sector which is good for the economy anyway.
Open source stuff makes everyone's lives easier - if you're writing an opensource application you don't have to start from scratch, you can build on some other opensource work that already exists. This means that the software is generally more robust (if you're building on something that's 5 years old to start with you're going to have less bugs than if you start for scratch since that part of your project has had 5 years of bugfixing already). It also means that software development is faster - that doesn't mean that you're necessarilly going to take less time to produce something, but if you take the same amount of time it's going to be more feature-rich and better designed.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Open source projects will kill jobs. They will also create jobs. That is the nature of competition in the marketplace. Jobs are created with the companies that produce what the customers are interested in buying. Jobs are destroyed at companies that are producing what customers aren't buying. Anyone with a grounding in economics can figure out that Gates has said quite clearly that Microsoft is bent on producing products that customers are abandoning in droves. He shows his complete contempt for his own customers when he acts as if they owe it to him to preserve Microsoft.
This money is a war chest to be able to fend off sudden changes in the industry, invest quickly in new opportunities, and to be sure they won't have a cash problem any time soon.
There have been sudden changes in the industry and they didn't use much of their war chest to fend them off.
They have invested quickly in new opportunities and they didn't use much of their war chest to do it.
They haven't had any cash problems in recent history. And there won't be a $50 billion cash problem unless it's so bad they go bankrupt. They have zero debt, so it's very unlikely they'll ever have a cash problem.
Again, there's no need for a $50 billion war chest. It's owed to investors. That's why Ralph Nader has been pushing for an investigation for years. If every company did this then the flow of the economy would be very negatively affected and investors would be getting much less value from their stocks.
Developers: We can use your help.