Slashdot Mirror
The Business Value of Open Source Examined
jg21 writes "'Open source developers have the opportunity to influence technology that is being used by companies and do it on a global scale in a way that cannot occur with any other type of software,' contends Bill Claybrook, writing in the current issue of LinuxWorld. The article is a historical overview of the open source revolution, starting in the 80s with the GNU Project, BSD, and TCP/IP and then moving into the 90s with Red Hat, StarOffice, and coming right into the 21st century with the Ximian Desktop and Sun's Linux-based Sun Java Desktop System."
That's great that OSS developers can influence technology. If that's enough for you, that's great. But if I write something that influences technology on a global scale, I want something more than a pat on the back and my name buried in the source code. I want to get paid for my effort/time/expertise. I can't afford to be altruistic until I don't have to worry about making mortgage payments any more.
I think Google is a fantastic example. They use commoditized hardware and open source software. They built a better mousetrap in a world full of entrenched corporate behemoths.
The Next Big Thing will come from someone enterprising who can use the tools and open internet standards to create the next Google. You won't have to worry about selling licenses if that person is you.
I think in many cases, these kinds of effects can be seen with FREE software, instead of Open Source. Instant Messengers, for example, are mostly closed source, but have had the same kinds of wide-spread effects.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
Nmap, for instance, is GPL'd Open Source software, and it is also sold to security companies for large amounts of money under a different license.
Narrow thinking is for narrow minds.
In this article, the sole example as a working business model is Red Hat:
Red Hat, on the other hand, achieved amazingly high brand recognition with its Red Hat Linux distribution and developed a successful business model around high volume and support subscriptions along with professional services and training. In the book, Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, Robert Young, one of the Red Hat founders, chronicles how he and others determined that Red Hat was in the commodity product business where brand recognition is extremely important. As a result, Red Hat developed a business model to exploit the commodity business.
If this is his idea of a "successful business model", then this guy needs to go back to school. The company has just *barely* started to show profits, and has virtually no profitable history to speak of and massive debt. I think it's about 5-10 years early to start calling Red Hat "successful".
I have agree with some of the previous postings here, in that Free and Open software no longer exists in the "hobbyist space" - we have real technological and economic implications to deal with. The one thing that we should NEVER comprimise on is quality of the code produced, either to serve a certain company, standard or set of interests. Within a company, with closed projects, this ideal is most likely impossible. But it is this very same ideal that has made a lot of the high-profile projects into the high-quality pieces of software we recognize them as. So no matter how much we get pushed towards more business-like models/applications/environments, we need to keep the quality of code in these projects as high as possible. And in the end - we ALL come out ahead.
OSS is great, but many people (myself included) sometimes want it to Just Work. Look at the junk that is shovelled out of Redmond. Half-baked, half-assed authentication and directory services, insecure-by-design operating systems, no proper privilege separation, etc. etc.
But plonk down 49 USD on a USB printer and click Print, and it prints!
If I plug my USB 10/100 NIC into my laptop under RH 9, it kernel panics and dies.
If I want to use my Radeon AIW under Solaris x86, I'll be lucky to get it to even work in text mode.
The business model is to take the product and make it useful, just like a steel mill or lumber yard. Take raw material, make it accessible to the common man (consumer), who trades you the money value of his time for the product.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
..."Buried" in source code?
If you write an app that changes the way a big company does business, licenses like the BSD license and the GPL gaurantee that you'll get credit for it. That doesn't just mean you have talent. That means that whoever hires you will have the goodwill of the people who use the software you wrote.
So sit back, code, and wait for the job offers.
(But don't forsake your other obligations as a sort of gamble...A job to pay off your mortage comes first, not second.)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
of course, if you pay $ for free software, that also proves barnum's rule.
Many people ignore the fact that no business model is required for open source to be successful. Confederations of users can drive successful open source projects. Internal developers of non-software businesses pooling their resources to produce software to make their jobs easier and more productive. Apache comes to mind.
Logic is not Divine.
This article fluffs over how open source is a viable business model but the "success stories" and business models described are skeletal. So where's the beef? Redhat - that no longer offers a Linux distribution, RedCarpet that has all but disappeared, Stallman and GNU - the guy that can't even afford a haircut - come on guys. If you're gonna talk about the "successful open source business model" you better put some more meat on the bone. This article makes open source look postively scary from a business perspective.
Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
William Shakespeare
...Open Source desktop software has been pretty stagnant in the past few years. All the great OS dekstop programs are playing catch up with their commercial relatives and most of them are lagging well behind. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge open source zealot, but it seems that innovation has been mostly confined to server related software. There are of course exceptions to this, with some truly innovative software like Dasher, but most of the flagship OS projects still feel like imitations of their popular commercial counterparts.
Ximian Desktop and Sun's Linux-based Sun Java Desktop System.
I can't say these projects come to mind when I mark progress in Free Software in the 2000's. The Ximian Desktop is arguably inferior to KDE, XFCE, and other substantial window managers, including my favorite WindowMaker. I still haven't seen Sun's Java Desktop. Come to think of it, I have never seen a usable Java Desktop program at all.
Here's my list of the seminal programs of the last three decades:
an ill wind that blows no good
There's a lot more topics like this at http://linux-will-be-the.endoftheinternet.org
My pet peeve is articles that paint a lot of wild brush strokes. My company is seriously considering a Linux strategy, but a big MS shop currently. I think this article dumbs down the debate too much.
The pioneers of open source were more interested in building software that helped them achieve both social and technical goals than in taking advantage of the business aspects of open source.
-- I hear this argument alot, I assume the social goals are reducing crime, homelessness, poverty, etc. What social goals can you achieve through an operating system? This goes for Microsoft as well. Seems a little overreaching.
The open source model offers the promise to help businesses thrive in an Internet-based economy provided there is an understanding of the economic, cultural, and political factors that comprise an effective open source strategy.
-- Does it offer the promise or deliver on it? Microsoft offers a lot of promises too!
Providing greater value to customers than competitors can is the key to building a successful business. A successful software business model requires a number of elements that are just as important for open source software as for proprietary software.
-- So open source operates under the laws of economics. I actually applaud this paragraph, shows some realism.
Standards: To promote collaboration.
-- I'm beginning to decry standards. With standards you wouldn't get the giraffe or the duck-billed platypus. OS should evolve.
External contributors are usually motivated by the prospect of working with software that solves important problems for them and others, by the possibility of future gain via the provision of related service and products, by the opportunity to increase their own personal knowledge, or by the satisfaction of building a good reputation among their peers.
-- so we are motivated by intellectual pursuits, money, learning, and ego.
Open source promotes standards and interoperability to the degree that we have not seen in the past.
-- I think I could argue either way on this one.
This usually leads to competition for resources and talent with each software development group acting as a separate company. Open source re-unites development efforts because people throughout a company have access to code.
-- So at RedHat they don't compete for internal resources -- there are no politics? -- and people have access to DEVELOPMENT code. I think you underestimate the power of the dark side. People are people.
This creates high efficiencies in the development of software products and reduces time-to-market.
-- Again, money is a good motivator. Early you said OS operates under the law of economics. Why wouldn't a PS (proprietary sofware) company?
Open source, when it works well, can produce high value, high quality, low cost, portable, and no vendor lock-in software that can be exploited by a number of business models.
--What happens when it works badly? Can it turn out the same garbage I get from MS?
As a result, Red Hat developed a business model to exploit the commodity business.
--Probably the single greatest sentence to be uttered in any article anywhere on the topic of technology. So much could be said about that...
This allows customers to continue to scale their infrastructure at a lower cost than before, and in some cases at a lower cost than they were predicting six or even three months ago. The business value provided by open source translates into savings for the customer.
Developers receive value from open source, but it is more personal value than business value.
--Are we talking Indian programmers or US programmers?
Open source developers have the opportunity to influence technology that is being used by companies and do it on a global scale in a way that cannot occur with any other type of software.
--So the guy who came up with Internet Explorer doesn't influence technology?
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
HURD - the OS that has been in development for nearly 20 years and still doesn't work makes your list of seminal projects for all of the last three decades?
:-)
By this standard Minix has gotta be the project of the century
It is a violation of the terms of the GPL to take code from nmap and place it directly into a commercial product without disclosing the source code of the commercial product. In addition, nmap has extended the GPL to cover their databases.
However, nmap can be purchased in a closed-source version that can be included into commercial products. This information can be found on their web page (insecure.org). I have not enquired as to pricing but the closed-source version of nmap probably costs about as much as a 40-50 foot cabin cruiser, appproximately. Also I would be very surprised if the updates are free.
Note that when you submit a signature to the nmap project, you forfeit copyright. This is so nmap can be sold closed-source as well as released under GPL. The Open Source, GPL authors of nmap have a good plan for becoming millionaires from the GPL model. If you are smart and innovative you can do the same.
There was a commentator on the Nightly Business Report recently who didn't mention OSS but talked about the relationship between Microsoft and other computer industry companies
MS has a monopoly. The other companies don't. If MS doesn't have to worry about its monopoly (and doesn't have to spend money and time protecting it), it can raid the other companies' turf. That's what has been going on for several years.
OSS puts MS's monopoly in jeopardy. It has to spend money and time to protect the monopoly. That gives it less time and money to spend on raiding other companies' turf.
After listening to the commentator's presentation, I concluded that several companies are using OSS in exactly that way. Given recent news it looks like their strategy may be having an effect.
GNUstep is a free implementation of the OpenStep specification by NeXT and SUN in 1994. It is really good now. The InterfaceBuilder (Gorm) is great. The Foundation classes are finished long ago, and the AppKit works very well too. Give it a try, Live CD
Windoze not found: (C)heer, (P)arty or (D)ance
huh? you are shitting me right? TCP/IP has nothing to do with open source.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
HURD - the OS that has been in development for nearly 20 years and still doesn't work makes your list of seminal projects for all of the last three decades?
:-) Being seminal has nothing to do with working nor with being popular. All that's required is that it's been around since the dawn of time and has influenced people in some way, even possibly by promising a lot but not working.
Actually, you're sort of elevating Hurd into being seminal by pointing out how long it's been around.
I've been using Linux since the pre 1.0 days, back when you had to download the stack of Slackware floppies.
I've trashed boxes rebooting them when XFree86 hung the console, because it wasn't stable on S3 Virge cards, and there was no such thing as ext3fs.
I've uttered prayers to both Andre Hedrick and Donald Becker.
I've recompiled kernels more times than I want to count.
So unless you mean "you" in the general sense, please don't paint "me" with such a broad brush. You may inadvertently expose YOUR (lack of) comfort level in any of the topics you touch on. That being said, my point was that there is a gap between OSS and the "Just Works" world, and the business model which capitalizes on this gap will succeed.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
"The Business and Economics of Linux and Open Source" by Martin Fink provides a much better prospective on the subject.
So here's my problem with Open Source from a business prospective. The same issue applies to a variety of industries, not just software, but open source software is a particularly good example.
I've heard claims that the best developers are as much as a thousand times more productive than the worse developers. Open Source might actually prove that contention; all of open source seems to be the contribution of a relatively small group of highly productive developers.
I also believe it because I've seen for myself the difficulty of scaling up a successful development organization. It's usually a case of diminishing returns as you add more staff.
This applies to any industries where a small group of highly skilled super-contributors can add a tremendous amount of value to a company.
So what is the long-term value of a company if the reality is that there is a relatively small group of super-contributors that actually add most of the value? What happens to the value of the company if that group leaves?
This is not an argument for close source. Unless you're an uber-profitable company that can afford to use nuisance tactics to protect your market share, some group of super-contributors will clone your success eventually even without violating your IP rights. Particularly given the relatively low capital requirements of a software start-up.
I've heard concerns that Google will suffer when many of its long-term super-contributors find themselves suddenly able to cash out and retire. How many dot-coms seem to have evaporated overnight shortly after their super-contributors were able to cash out?
So given that indentured servitude is still illegal in most developed countries. How do companies build long-term value of the form that venture capitalists and long-term shareholders are willing to invest in?
though FOSS came along something like a decade after the introduction of proprietary consumer/commercial products, we are still talking not even thirty years old the consumer/commercial computer industry is.
That's still quite young for an industry. And there is yet to be realized any real industrialization of software development.
So what is going to happen when the level of abstraction in software development ease of doing, becomes at least a young adult? (currently its still a kid playing head games in marketing).
I think its only logical that an open base line of well established software will contine to grow. Even if it was only a matter of expiring copyrights and patents... thanks to FOSS I won't be dead and long gone when better things finally come, or at least I'll be able to experience better due an improved open base line..
A good indication of this is that MS is now being forced to improve their products due to linux competition, rather than playing non productive games.
So, its possible something will happen that changes everythings, say for example autocoding of a level that anyone who can use a calcuilator can program... leaving far more challenging innovation up to the real software engineers (rather tann the psuedo coders). In this event you have programming as a part of ones other duties...just like using a calculator...
The calculator didn't put scientist out of work, but only allowed them to even way cooler stuff...
A lot of software is internal to a company and really well known by maybe 2 or 3 guys/gals. One leaves, and the impact is huge. This happens because someone becomes the "expert" in product x, and so is given all amendments and enhancements to product x. In an OSS model, people in many companies could be changing it.
I think that most Microsoft execs think that their work is altruistic as well. Most execs really believe that they are making the world a better place. They have to in order to do their job effectively. So altruistic motivations and what I consider to be right action are not necessarily to be equated.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Sorry I'm not trolling or saying MS software is better... but it's a harsh reality, that's all.
Microsoft did not introduce the concept of the start menu; that was on unix desktops long before windows.
From the summary:
There is no reasonable interpretation of history that can make this claim about GNU true: GNU was started to pursue software freedom. The open source movement did not yet exist. When GNU began, the open source movement would not exist for over another decade.
I do not say this to flamebait or to raise suspicions of malevolence but to clarify and prevent people from being deceived into thinking the free software and open source movements are the same thing. The people at the Free Software Foundation, in particular the most prominent members (Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen, and Brad Kuhn) have all spoken and written on this issue clarifying how these movements are not the same and asking not to be lumped in with the open source movement.
But this is not the first time proponents of the open source movement have tried to take credit for work that is not theirs. Countless articles and posts on discussion websites (including /.) call the GNU GPL an "open source" license merely because the Open Source Initiative has set their license acceptance terms to include the GPL and listed this license in their list of approved licenses. Eric Raymond, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, has included the Emacs editor as an example of an "open-source project" without acknowledging that this program was initially written by RMS; RMS did not write Emacs to benefit "open-source" nor would he consider Emacs an "open-source project". RMS wrote Emacs to benefit the free software movement and the GNU project, which he founded.
Mark Webbink, chief counsel for Red Hat and proponent of open source, recently wrote an essay describing different "open source" licenses and apparently found the concept of copyleft so useful he employed it in his essay. He spent quite some words explaining the concept, but he never called the concept by its name nor did he explain that he didn't come up with it (the FSF did years ago). People reading that essay might think otherwise because of (what amount to) his intellectual dishonesty. Ironically, the Open Source Initiative does not use copyleft in its license list. The reasons why one might want to use one of the OSI-approved licenses over another are not clearly delineated on the OSI site (unlike the FSF's site which provides brief commentary on free software licenses).
So let's give credit where credit is due. The open source movement should be happy that they have acheived so much popularity and helped bring so many people to use and develop excellent software. There's no need to try and take credit for the works of others.
Digital Citizen
"Find something you love to do and you'll never have to work a day in your life." -- Harvey Mackay
If you put love in developing an open source project that love will get intertwine in the code and sooner or later people will notice that, people like Apache Software Foundation.
Ok, I think it was on CDE right?
But I mean let's be honest here, Microsoft has made desktop computing it's own.