Making Open Source Pay

cenonce writes "This short, but informative, article over at Tom's Hardware Guide does a nice job of explaining the difference between Closed and Open Source Software and how it can save the suits money (as well as make the tech staff's lives easier)."

Comments

FP

[DaoudaW]

I think the article as already been summarized many times, "Free as in speech, not free as in beer."

Re:FP

[byolinux]

Exactly.

Freedom, not gratis.

Make Open Source Pay

[baywulf]

Dry clean the suits thus saving money.

What a lame article....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh if it doesn't work, just fix it yourself!

Come on mom, I don't know why Mozilla is crashing, just download the source from CVS and fix it yourself.

Just shows how out of touch the open source community is.

Along with your lame HOWTO's that are based on builds 3 verions back.

Re:What a lame article....

[M1FCJ]

Now most of the recent HOWTOs or similar documents are being maintained on wikisinstead of static maintainers. If something is wrong in the HOWTO, don't moan, fix it. Open source to the core.

Re:What a lame article....

[Anonymous Coward]

In part, isn't the point of a HOWTO doc is to provide an introduction or startup/installation information? If that portion is dated, how am I suppose to explore the rest of the program to update your HOWTO?

Re:What a lame article....

[M1FCJ]

you can fix what you know, someone else will fix what you don't.

Re:What a lame article....

[Anonymous Coward]

And then I sit on my thumbs waiting for someone to update the portion that I don't know. Greeeeat solution.....

A little too biased.

[jmpoast]

This article seems a little too biased for my taste. To say that Microsoft's centralized database isn't as good as just doing a google search is absurd. True the database may not have answers to everything, but good luck finding every answer on google. And "No longer do you have to wait for the software developer to solve the problem, just do it yourself" PLEASE, not everyone (read most people) has the time, money, or ability to do it themselves.

Re:A little too biased.

[spitzak]

I'm pretty sure the article is biased.

However just yesterday I gave up on a searching in MSDN after most of the day and started doing Google to locate an explanation for a Windows problem. Google revealed in 1/2 hour that I could not write what I wanted (even this information was difficult to locate, but at least somebody finally complained and others in mailing lists confirmed this).

[the problem I was having was trying to figure out if I could get it so that _fopen() took a string in UTF-8. This is really useful if you are processing text in UTF-8 and want to call a closed-source library that may want a filename to open. Although GetACP() can return CP_UTF8 and after reading MSDN I was about 25% sure that if I can set it that way it will do what I want, Google revealed that many people agreed with my conclusion and told me the only way to set this is to change something as Administrator and reboot (!) the computer. Well thanks a lot, Mr Gates, for coming up with a new way to piss me off]

I have many times given up on MSDN and gone to Google for Windows problems. For instance finding a comprehensive list of bitblt codes, or sample source code that actually works. Granted the MSDN pages are much more useful for finding out what the arguments to a function are. Google is much more useful for finding out the name of a function.

Splitting an article into tiny pieces

[some guy I know]

I don't think that they split up the article into enough pages.
They should have put each paragraph on a separate page.
That way, they could have crammed even more advertising in.

Geez, now I remember why I don't visit Tom's very often any more.

Re: "Free as in speech, not free as in beer."

[jc42]

Yeah, but that doesn't usually have much impact on your typical business manager. If you try to sell them something, and start talking about free speech and/or free beer, they'll just think you're bizarre. What does that have to with running a business?

A better simile, I've found, is to compare their computers to a delivery fleet. It's fairly obvious to even a PHB that a fleet of vehicles needs maintenance. And, while they might not want to get their hands dirty working on the innards of their vehicles, they know enough to hire mechanics for that. And those mechanics need the shop manuals for all the vehicles.

Tell them that "closed source" software is a lot like a vehicle without a shop manual. If something goes wrong with such a vehicle, all you can do is report it back to the auto company that you bought the vehicle from. They'll fix it when they get around to it. Or maybe they won't bother fixing it, figuring that they can get you to buy a new vehicle if they drag it out long enough or say it's not repairable.

Similarly, you tell them, things are going to go wrong inside their computers. You need "shop manuals" for all your software. With software, that's called "source code". If your computer support group doesn't have the source code, then they'll be stuck with just reporting problems back to the software vendor. And that vendor will be just about as interested in fixing your problems as the truck manufacturerer is interested in keeping your fleet running. More likely they'll try to sell you more (New! Improved!) software.

But if your people have the source code (for software) or shop manuals (for vehicles), they can dig in, figure out what's wrong, and fix it.

Yeah, studying the source isn't easy. But have you ever leafed through a shop manual? There are people who can understand those things. And, as with mechanics, the software people have friends and colleagues that share information about problems. With software, this is mostly done via the Internet, and you really want your IT people to know how to use it to find information.

Most managerial types are smart enough to understand all this. We just have to get across to them that trusting software vendors is no smarter than trusting auto dealers. You need your own people to do the job, your people need the information required to do the job, and they also need to communicate with their cohorts in other organizations to find information fast when something's failing. But without the source code, there's often nothing your people can do, and you're stuck with begging the dealer for help.

The problem with Open Source

[Marxist Hacker 42]

From my point of view is that I'm a Marxist trying to live in a Capitalist society- and somehow my bank doesn't agree with the idea of me programming without earning money, they'd just as soon throw me, my wife, and my 14-month old out on the street.

I love the idea of open source, I just can't see any way to make a living doing it.

Re:The problem with Open Source

[Feztaa]

Wouldn't it be nice if there were companies who paid people to develop open source? Nah, it'll never happen.

Re:The problem with Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a hint to get you started, from a guy who makes a living installing, modifying, and writing open source: charge by the hour.

Re:The problem with Open Source

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Would be great- but chances are it'd only happen for internally usefull applications that MIGHT be also usefull for a few other companies in the same industry. You'll almost certainly NEVER get generalized software this way- because it's far cheaper to buy an off-the-shelf-shrinkwraped solution than it is to pay a bunch of developers a salary to create your own open source version of the same project.

Nice job if you can get it though- too bad there's such a vanishingly small number of such jobs that we still have a 30% unemployment rate in our industry. You'd think that such open source projects would really take off now that we're seeing "Will code C++ for food" signs on the freeways.

Re:The problem with Open Source

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Here's a hint to get you started, from a guy who makes a living installing, modifying, and writing open source: charge by the hour.

Which works fine if you're a good salesman OR have a nice understanding bank which doesn't mind a missed house payment or two.

Re:The problem with Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine all the web designers out there who have to give away their HTML because of this "View->Source" thing.

Coding is a service like cooking is a service. (GNU/Borrowing a Stallman analogy). You can give away the recipe all you want, but somewhere along the line, someone will want you to cook, serve, and clean up for them. That's how a restaurant works. I mean a good 90% of them don't have "gotta have it there" food.

Coders will code for when there's a need for it. They'll still need people to do installs and configurations if they don't want to do those things themselves. Applying patches and other maintenance services also apply.

It's just that you can't sit on secret bits anymore (now borrowing from ESR) and make a nest egg out of it. Now if you use something like the BSD license...THAT's a whole different story.

Re:The problem with Open Source

[agraupe]

Sometimes I just code for fun, to see if something can be done. No one is saying you have to devote every hour of your offtime to OSS, just do it whenever you can. If everyone does just a little bit at a time, everything will become better. Also, don't feel guilty about not contributing if you can't, for whatever reason. I am somewhat of an amateur when it comes to programming, so I can't contribute to a lot of things. But I still use lots of OSS. As Marx said, "From each according to ability to each according to need".

Re:The problem with Open Source

[Marxist Hacker 42]

True enough- my ability seems to have gone way down though. I used to do a lot of open source stuff- in my own fashion (in that I never liked licensing anything, not even under GPL). But now, I've taken a 50% pay cut just to get working again, I have a 50 mile commute, and a 14-month-old who'd rather bang on the keyboard than allow me to program. My life has changed WAY too much in the last 3 years. And I'm just struggling to stay afloat at this point.

Re:The problem with Open Source

[crazyphilman]

I've been thinking about this problem myself.

Let's say you provide people with source code, under one of the mainstream open source licenses. You can charge for open source, everyone says so. So you charge, say, fifty bucks for a well done product. So far so good, right?

Six months later, some creep decides you're charging too much, takes moral offense at your "greed" and starts a BitTorrent of your whole software distribution, available for free. Bling. Out of business. So much for that. And almost every open source license explicitly permits this. In fact, I think that to be OSI certified open source, you HAVE to permit unlimited distribution.

Another thing is, spend any time at all on Slashdot and you're going to run into some pretty rabid "information must be free" types. Some of these guys take offense at anyone trying to sell ANYTHING. Even if you don't put out source, sometimes they'll reverse-engineer your stuff and code up a GPL version just for spite. How dare you SELL software??? They'll teach YOU a thing or two... Again, bling, out of business.

I think open source (and more to the point, "free" software) is a reaction to hypergreed on the part of software companies. People are tired of being slammed with vicious, anal-retentive EULAS that don't let them do what they want with the software they paid good money for. I understand where they're coming from, and I agree with Stallman's views on the value of freedom, but I think there's got to be some kind of middle ground.

So, OK, Slashdot, tell me what you think:

What if there was a license that allowed you to:

1. Use the software any way you want, including rewriting it with the provided source code, provided you didn't backstab the author by going into business as a competitor using his work;

2. Copy the software for your individual friends and family, provided you physically handed or mailed them the copy on CD or disk (i.e. you didn't start up a website or other major distribution channel, thus backstabbing the author again);

3. Write your own patches, plugins, and extensions, and distribute them for free or fee, provided you didn't distribute the software itself with them (again, no backstabbing!);

4. Use the software at home or at work, EXCEPT if you use it at work, you can't distribute it there (company employees can buy their own licenses).

What do you think of a license like that? Workable? I've been thinking about it lately...

Re:The problem with Open Source

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Much more workable than my other idea- FundingForge, a reward bank for open source solutions.

Re: "Free as in speech, not free as in beer."

[sribe]

We just have to get across to them that trusting software vendors is no smarter than trusting auto dealers.

Quite possibly the best quote I've ever read on /.

Re: "Free as in speech, not free as in beer."

[jc42]

Quite possibly the best quote I've ever read on /.

Heh; I'll be happy to take credit for it. Actually, I've seen very similar comments from other people. But feel free to spread the meme:

Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trusting auto dealers.

And you can easily follow this with the explanation that open-source software means that you don't have to trust the software vendor. You can (hire people to) take a look at the source, fix bugs, and add features. And, most importantly, you (or your people) can look for things that shouldn't be in there, and remove them.

Re: "Free as in speech, not free as in beer."

[drsmithy]

Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trusting auto dealers.

Not auto dealers, auto *makers*. There's (IMHO, anyway) a substantial difference.

Mod parent up +1 Insightful

[WaKall]

I would, but I don't have any mod points.

it's not "as in beer" but "as in speech" for me.

[carndearg]

In my experience the problem has not been interesting managers in using open source software but persuading them to take seriously their responsibility under licences like the GPL to release modified code.

In short, they love free stuff but think anything their company has put any resources into (i.e. paying me to code bits into) belongs to them even if it's GPL'd. Perhaps not major GPL violations but stuff that really should be released. This is the boss-education issue for me.

That said they're not all like that. My current employer is an honorable exception, I'm doing some Drupal work for them that involves hefty hacks to other people's Drupal modules and when it's all done they are only to happy to stick it up there for all to pick over.