How Open Source Drives Down Startup Costs

prostoalex writes "Reuters Plugged In article (usually syndicated to your local paper's Technology section) talks about the real impact of open source in the technology world -- cutting down startup costs for other developers. New ventures are coming out, where the startup costs range in five-digit numbers, not seven-digit figures, where venture capital financing would be required. The article talks about Project for Open Source Media, Blogger.com, Odeo and Asterisk telephone system."

Comments

duh

[PunkOfLinux]

of course it does. Free = lower cost than money >.>

Re:duh

[SSilver2k2]

and I just used my last moderation point. isnt this a duh kinda article. Im not starting up my own business but in all my school projects I choose OSS first.

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

You should. Even starting a business that fails ultimately is a great learning experience and makes you *way* more attractive to employers. Being in school is a great time as well. Look for something that won't take *too* much time away, that doesn't have much overhead, and could let you pocket some decent spending money.

Re:duh

[dshaw858]

A lot of people (*cough*microsoft*cough*) would have you know that OSS software "costs more in the end" or something. I personally disagree, but yes- it's a duh type of thing that "free is less money than costly".

- dshaw

Re:duh

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

You are lucky that Uncle RMS doesn't read /. ;-)

Re:duh

[madscientist003]

I think that's a rather naive interpretation of the article. As another poster mentioned, Microsoft is a big an of the "total cost of ownership" argument, and while I find the argument to not be in Microsoft's favor, there is something to be said for considering the time involved in making FOSS work the way you would like it to (and with sufficient stability). Time does equal money, and they both need to be evaluated when making claims about the burden imposed by software on business.

very true

[appleLaserWriter]

I have been involved in several early-stage ventures since the bust and completely agree with the article. With open source software and equipment from ebay, $50k goes a very long way.

Actually making money with your product is still as hard as ever, but the financial risk associated with technology ventures has been greatly reduced.

OSCTV

[Anonymous Coward]

"How Open Source Drives Down Startup Costs"

So were's my Open Source Broadband?

Re:OSCTV

[gamepro]

winfire tried that, failed miserably. and there was dslmonster which was a scam http://slashdot.org/articles/02/02/28/216209.shtml ?tid=98/

Re:OSCTV

[penguinoid]

Probably all over the place. Email your internet provider and ask what software they use.

Now, what I really want is open source money.

New Technology

[AvatarofVirgo]

"But it doesn't mean that there is no smart new technology to wow consumers. It's just that people are finding more efficient ways to do it."

I could be wrong but doesn't most of the new technology come from OSS?

Re:New Technology

[kz45]

I could be wrong but doesn't most of the new technology come from OSS?
no. Usually it's first created by a proprietary company and then an OSS developer emulates it.

Re:New Technology

[PunkOfLinux]

Not always. I mean, a lot of games are open-source... and WHY is there something called iCopulate in my ad... I'm SCARED!!

Re:New Technology

[kz45]

Not always. I mean, a lot of games are open-source... and WHY is there something called iCopulate in my ad... I'm SCARED!

such as? quake, doom (both proprietary first)

freeciv (based on a proprietary game).

tux racer?

Re:New Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

tabbed browsing

clustering

kerberos

Re:New Technology

[robnauta]

WINE, Mono, the Gimp, gcc, vim, yet another forked Linux distro, all software that starts with 'gnu' like gnuchess, what's wrong with imitations ?
That's what open source and before that gnu software was all about, wanting something for which you had no source, like the vi editor and imitating it. Spend 5 years until you have something that includes a whole framework, has 20x more lines of C code than the original and required 10x more memory to run.
The only downside is that it's just wasting developer productivity. A lot of hours are burned making something that resembles the original, or working on your own fork of some OSS.
Of course you can list some original ideas (and don't say Linux). Unfortunately the replies fail to include anything more useful than the gimmick 'tabbed browsing' ...

very true-OSSIP.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually making money with your product is still as hard as ever, but the financial risk associated with technology ventures has been greatly reduced."

Just as long as your business isn't based upon "IP".

Re:very true-OSSIP.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Just as long as your business isn't based upon "IP".

Yes, best to stick with TCP and UDP.
It is extremely rare that another protocol at that level proves to be successful in the long run.

Re:very true-OSSIP.

[alatesystems]

What he said and what you said are at different levels. IP is network, level 3, TCP and UDP are transport, level 4.

Of course, we all know he meant "Intellectual Property", but it's still fun to out-geek each other.

Re:very true-OSSIP.

[Organized Konfusion]

wow dumbest post ever! zomg i didnt get the joke! zomg i have a long epenis

Re:very true-OSSIP.

[Anonymous Coward]

What he said and what you said are at different levels. IP is network, level 3, TCP and UDP are transport, level 4.

You may know your OSI model, but you don't know your English.

TCP and UDP are both "based on IP," i.e. they sit on top of IP. So the joke does work, even from the anal perspective.

Re:very true-OSSIP.

[Anonymous Coward]

Being "based on IP" would imply that both TCP and UDP somehow inherit characteristics from IP. If by "based on IP" the poster meant "sit on top of IP" then that's what they should have said.

Re:very true-OSSIP.

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "based on IP" the poster meant "sit on top of IP" then that's what they should have said.

Dumbshit slashdweeb.

The original poster said "based on [Intellectual Property]" it would have been pretty stupid to say "sit on top of Intellectual Property." The way the OP used the phrase "based on" is the closest approximation to the use in the joke too.

And another trend...

[Noryungi]

Is that open-source usually works well with cheap commodity machines, like the ubiquitous PC.

True story: I once did an interview with a very interesting start-up, who designed custom chips for high-speed routers.

During that interview, one of the founders of the company mentioned they were moving all their engineers from Sun machines to 4 CPUs Intel machines running Linux.

He said Linux was already good enough to do 90% of the job, for less than 10% of the cost of a Sun machine. The move, of course, saved '000s of dollars for the company.

Re:And another trend...

[buckhead_buddy]

Noryungi wrote:

And Another Trend Is that open-source usually works well with cheap commodity machines, like the ubiquitous PC.

I work with many trendy (and wanna-be trendy) artists, writers, and other creative types. Their strong inclination is to purchase iBooks and Powerbooks for their needs.

What's even better about Open-Source software from my perspective is that I can get the software to work on their trendy hardware or on their less trendy accountant's generic desktop. In the world of commercial, closed-source products this always creates controversy because of ports that don't exist on the other platform, or inadequacies in the port. The fact that there's a robust amount of open source software that's largely platform independent helps me to help them.

No startup cost possible!

[Cruithne]

Except of course, the opportunity cost of your time. I am working on two different business plans at this moment that have NO startup costs because of open source software. Granted, they are both development projects, however they are both quite viable businesses, and all they require is the spare time of a few dedicated developers after they get home from their "Real" jobs.

Re:No startup cost possible!

[Astrorunner]

Indeed. I'm working on something with two other folks. FreeBSD/Apache/MySQL. My biggest expense right now is pizza.

But are things better?

[GGardner]

For my first "real" job, I had a DECstation 5000 on my desk. This 25 Mhz machine, which cost something like $20k, was useless without even more expensive server, and software costs would make your head spin. However, with this kind of necessary investment, my bosses though nothing of spending several thousand dollars a year sending me to Usenix conferences, and other related training.

Now that a useful machine is less than a thousand dollars, it seems much harder to get training, conferences or other ancillary spending approved.

Re:But are things better?

[QuantumG]

Wow, maybe the training should be inheriently valuable in and of itself. Then your employer will see it as an investment. I always found that funny. Consider admin people vs development people. Admin dudes are sent to every course under the sun to get certified. It's just considered standard practice. Oh, we want to use Cisco routers? Gunna need at least 2 admins with Cisco certification. Now think about programmers. Each one is expected to have his own specialties which he brings to the job with him. There's no sending them off to be trained as the need arises. Oh, the customer has required that we develop this next application in Java. Damn, better hire some more Java people and lay off some of the C# coders.

Re:But are things better?

[Yaztromo]

Now think about programmers. Each one is expected to have his own specialties which he brings to the job with him. There's no sending them off to be trained as the need arises. Oh, the customer has required that we develop this next application in Java. Damn, better hire some more Java people and lay off some of the C# coders.

There should be a happy medium somewhere. Learning a new language and API set is a big piece of work, and trying to learn it while working on a project you're intending to sell, or are contracted to sell, isn't a good idea if you don't have at least a few people with experience in that language to fix things to guide newbie developers when things start to go awry. If your company has done nothing but Ada development, and suddenly wants to move to Java, but nobody has any Java experience, you're going to lose a lot of time and money on mistakes. It's better to bring in at least a few people with Java experience to help everyone get up to speed than to just send your developers on a course and hope they come back experts (because the latter isn't going to happen in a short-term course).

Still, learning new language is a bit of an extreme, and there are a lot of inbetween spots where more companies should be sending their developers out for educational purposes. Technical conferences, for example, can introduce new concepts and ideas to developers, especially those which have a more scientific bent. I had the privledge of chairing a workshop at CASCON 2001, and it was a fantastic experience -- the conference was presenting a lot of academic work in a variety of areas in computer science. It should be par for the course that companies send their developers to such events, as it's an excellent way to introduce them to concepts they may not otherwise be exposed to, and get them thinking now about some of the ideas and technologies which your company may be implementing 5 years down the road.

Yaz.

Re:But are things better?

[QuantumG]

I think you're confusing cause and effect. Java is so different to Ada because no-one who is experienced in Ada is trained to program in Java -- they just move onto another Ada job. The result is that anything good in Ada never makes it into Java and visa-versa.

Re:But are things better?

[ShieldW0lf]

Never noticed that myself. My experience has been "we'd rather you take the time to learn it than hire someone else because we trust you" Doesn't get me free school I don't want, but getting pay, money for the technical library and a longer schedule is better than an education in my book.

Don't see as much of it now, but now I build the cost of my training into my fees... still not going to classes, but I've got a nice library shaping up and free time to expand my skillset.

Course, I've always steered clear of large businesses. When you're a faceless gear you don't get as much opportunity to differentiate yourself to those holding the reins. If you haven't built any value in anyones minds beyond your skill set, don't expect them to value you when they no longer have a use for that skill set.

Re:But are things better?

[QuantumG]

yes. The point of the discussion was the comparison to admin dudes, who are not valued by just the skills that they bring to the job and receive training as a matter of course.

Re:But are things better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I guess it depends on where you work. Here our developers were sent on Java courses when we started developing in Java, and Delphi and SQL courses before that. It's us IT admins who don't get any training; but then we're not really trying to get any.

Cost for startup

[mcrbids]

1) Programmer willing to work for percentage.

2) Midrange server on Ebay - $2000.

3) Apache/PHP/PostgreSQL - free

4) Electricity - Damn cheap...

5) Promotion expenses - $XX,000

Yep. I'd agree that startups now can be mighty cheap!

Re:Cost for startup

[tivoKlr]

The expensive or difficult thing, item #0 is the IDEA, the thing that makes the startup actually worth something...

Re:Cost for startup

[mcrbids]

The expensive or difficult thing, item #0 is the IDEA, the thing that makes the startup actually worth something...

Phaw. Ideas are cheap. There are a million of them, and a good, healthy percentage of them can be quite profitable.

It's the combination of idea, product delivery, legal stability, financial competence, and (most especially) marketing that makes a startup fly.

I remember reading a while back about the "card table" test. The idea goes something like this:

When looking at a startup to invest in, visit their main offices. If they have nice, leather seats and elaborate furniture, take your investment capital elsewhere. They aren't prioritizing their investments on delivery.

On the other hand, if they are using cheap, Costco furniture and/or card tables, they are putting their money where it matters, and are much more likely to succeed.

Re:Cost for startup

[northcat]

You forgot the hot secretary and the expensive out of court settlement for the sexual harrasment suit.

Re:Cost for startup

[glinden]

• 1) Programmer willing to work for percentage.

This is one of the biggest challenges. Not everyone can work for no or minimal salary for a year or two, but it's a huge win if you can.

Salaries are really expensive. Fully loaded costs (including benefits, etc.) are $10k/month. A few salaries and you'll have burned through all your cash before you know it.

Burn rate is like a ticking clock on your startup. When you hit 0, it's game over, man. Keeping the burn low is key.

Re:Cost for startup

[glinden]

Exactly. Ideas are worthless. Executing on the ideas, that's worth something.

Re:Cost for startup

[Anonymous Coward]

cheap, Costco furniture

I'm not sure what Costcos you've been shopping at (certainly not their expensive Home Store) but Costco's decent furniture at a mid range price. The cheap stuff's at IKEA and Fred Meyer.

Re:Cost for startup

[DoctoRoR]

6) Ability to work on what you are passionate about, and on a platform that brings joy to coding - priceless.

5 figures?

[sfcat]

If you can get a company going for five figures, you have my respect. I am trying to get a startup going and after doing alot of analysis, the cheapest I think I can do it is for just over 7. Each business if different but getting one running for 90K is just about impossible. That won't even cover two people for six months. I guess you would need a product already written and a customer already signed up to even think about this. But FOSS does make running a software business alot cheaper. If you have five developers, it would save probably 5K a year at least and that is assuming you don't need anything special that can be replaced with a FOSS alternative. Good luck.

Re:5 figures?

[mnmn]

I'd agree that the largest part of a startup's expenditure is paychecks for a minimum amount of time. Cheap office, ebay machines and OSS software arent a big fraction, paychecks and marketing costs are.

For this reason, if you can start it up alone, or with a relative/friend, costs will be minimum, or else do a partnership. Another option is to have customers already lined up, in case youre splitting from a company and stealing their customers, or you know a company in need of such services/products. Different businsses work in different ways...

Re:5 figures?

[mcrbids]

If you can get a company going for five figures, you have my respect. I am trying to get a startup going and after doing alot of analysis, the cheapest I think I can do it is for just over 7.

Then maybe:

1) You have a sucky idea. The best ideas are actually little more than a logical culmination of pre-existing forces, and really don't require the loss of a kidney to bring to fruition.

2) You have lousy marketing. You should be able to cover much of your initial cost in the first sale or two. If you can't, you might see #1 above, or maybe #5 below.

3) You lost the idea of a "partnership". Typically, you have at least two guys: a guy with the marketing skills, and a guy with the tech delivery skills. There may be a third/fourth partner depending on the situation. These people get together and get paid with a percentage of the company. It's typical to moonlight to provide food money during the startup phase. If you're lucky, your "day job" complements your new business.

4) You are fatally unrealistic in your cost analysis, see my earlier post about card tables. I just commented on managing costs a few minutes ago...

5) Lastly, maybe your idea is too big in scope. Start with something a bit smaller, or maybe just part of your idea, and get it working and profitable before biting the whole banana.

I've started a number of businesses - some I've run quite well, some have run straight into the ground. Be cheap, work hard, and focus on turning a profit ASAP. If it takes very long to get to profitability, from where I stand, you're walking the wrong road.

Re:5 figures?

[aldoman]

Look at Google though.

It must of took, what, 3 years at least to even start making money with them. Now they have a market cap of over $40billion.

But yes, your advise is sound, but don't forget some of the best companies have been a complete gamble. Keeping costs low is always very important and if you can save $800 on your server setup with OSS, that could be the extra week than you need to survive in business and get that big contract.

Re:5 figures?

[Man_Holmes]

Each business if different but getting one running for 90K is just about impossible. That won't even cover two people for six months.

Then you don't want success badly enough. How about not taking any salary for the first year or two?

I've done several startups and had guys who wanted their full corporate salary and a big chunk of equity.

Quite simply it doesn't work that way. If there's no risk, then there's no equity.

If you don't believe enough in your idea that you're willing to sacrifice everything then you will never start the company plain and simple.

Man Holmes

Re:5 figures?

[pdamoc]

one time costs:
- 2 nice computers - 2x1000 euros
- furniture & extra - 1000 euros

per month:
- 1 nice apartment - 200 euros/month
- 3 programmers - 3x1000 euros/month

6 months product development plus 6 months for product adoption results in:

3000 + 12x3200 = 41.400 euros that's around 54k USD

of course those prices are for a country like Romania and you get to be the 4th programmer BUT it can be done with 5 figures and bare in mind that for 1000 euros you get pretty good programmers here.

Re:5 figures?

[amigabill]

>Each business if different but getting one running
>for 90K is just about impossible. That won't even
>cover two people for six months.

Have you considered the possibility of doing your startup part-time for a while, and having another job to pay the bills? This would of course take longer to get things going, but could help with the money situation a bit.

A friend of mine and I are working on an idea, and we're doing this part-time. He's left his job to do self-employed contracting work to pay his bills and our idea is secondary to that work, while I am still full-time employed elsewhere. I get the benefit of paying my bills without the nagging of venture capitalists as well as other engineers at my day job to get advice from, plus we get to keep more control over things ourselves, but yea, it'll take a long time to get a finished product. As at least one of the chips we're intrested in using is not available until 2H 2005 anyway, time is not currently a big worry for product completion.

The biggest inconvenience we've had is scheduling phone calls with device and IP vendors, which can be a problem if things get out of hand, but we're managing respectably so far.

Re:5 figures?

[pkphilip]

I won't venture to say "No, you can run a business with 5 figures or less".. because it is likely that the business you have in mind requires fairly heavy investment in equipment (if you are into manufacturing, for instance).

But having started two companies, I can advise you to try and lower the entry cost a bit by leasing/hiring equipment and space instead of going for outright purchase.

Ofcourse there is stuff you cannot lease (for instance, you may not be able to lease an offset printer - if printing is the business you want to get into).. but a lot of stuff can be leased; examples include furniture, computers, delivery vehicles etc.

You might look at leasing and say - "Well, it will be more expensive in the long run".. but what I have to say to that is this - you need to get started first.. if the entry cost is going to keep you from starting there is no point in looking at where you will be 2 years from now.. get started first.. and whatever will help you get started (which lowers the entry barrier) you must latch onto.

I hope this helps.

Software is like Sex

[Anonymous Coward]

Software is like sex: It is never really free.

Starting a business...

[ImaLamer]

One thing I've learned over the years is that when you start any type of business you can't just go out and get desks, chairs and other equipment you'll never use if you aren't profitable.

It's almost always a good idea to start a business on a shoestring. Most businesses who fail before they start do so because they spent all of their capital on things you don't need or things you can rent or borrow.

Open source makes sense in this repect. Instead of starting with MS SQL server for example, start with PostgreSQL or your preferred free alternative. Migrate if you must later; but why spend top dollar on something that may never get paid for?

Re:Starting a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost always a good idea to start a business on a shoestring.

If you say so, Mr. Big Spender. I will stick to walking barefoot in the snow, up hill both ways until I am revenue positive. THEN I'll think about getting some shoes. If the IPO goes well, I might get laces for them.

Re:Starting a business...

[Zonnald]

We just started our product with MSDE = MSSQL server (for our purposes), free license. When the end user wants more grunt out of the Database, just drop in MSSQL server! Instant Migration!

Re:Starting a business...

[glinden]

• It's almost always a good idea to start a business on a shoestring.

Absolutely. Another important thing is to launch early and often. If your idea is stupid, you want to find out fast and change it if you can.

If you've spent a couple months working on it, no problem if your users hate it. Take in their feedback and improve it.

If you've spent a year working on it, you're dead if your users hate it. No money left to make changes. You just bet the farm and lost.

Re:Starting a business...

[ImaLamer]

Let me also add to this whole discussion that a great idea is to just do what your competitor is doing.

If you've got a business idea, and someone else is already doing it - copy them. People want options just as much as they want something "new".

Proven in technology companies

[kbahey]

If you think of Google, their infrastructure runs on top of Linux on cheap commodity hardware. How much would it cost them to do what they do if they were forced to run on proprietary hardware and software? For example Sun on HP in 80s or early 90s? Not to mention how much Windows server licenses they would have needed if they went that route.

Another instance is Yahoo. They use a hodge podge of languages and databases for various parts of their online empire. There seems to be a trend towards open source solutions laterly, for example PHP and MySQL.

Yes, open source does save a lot. Not only now, but ever since the GNU C compiler system came out.

Re:Proven in technology companies

[Donny Smith]

Lower costs don't mean shit - they just lower the entry barrier (if anything, that means more competition = harder to make money for new startups).

With UNIX (for example), an average startup would have to shell out 500K on equipment, now with Linux they need 100K. What does that mean? Nothing, because EVERYONE does the same thing, so it doesn't actually help anyone involved break even faster (as their costs are lower, their selling prices are lower, and as I said above there's more competition).

Right now Google's benefiting from it (especially if those! bozos! at! Yahoo! stil! use! Network!Apppliance!) because they're the biggest search engine of the new generation, but that won't last.

Re:Proven in technology companies

[Anonymous Coward]

How much would it cost them to do what they do if they were forced to run on proprietary hardware and software? For example Sun on HP in 80s or early 90s?

Probably 1 one millionth of their total market cap today?

Re:Proven in technology companies

[kbahey]

Two points:

• Only those who have bought into the Open Source 'paradigm' benefit from it. Many PHBs are still scared of Open Source because of FUD, liability, TCO and other BS from Microsoft and others. Many still develop and deploy on Windows only, or on proprietary UNIX.
  This is fine in itself, but to those who have seen the alternative, they do have an advantage.
• Needing less money makes courting the Venture Capital that much easier. Instead of asking for several millions, you ask for just one or two. Which is easier?

I am not saying you do not have a point, you do. With the playing field levelled for everyone, it is not much of an advantage in certain cases.

Re:Proven in technology companies

[MustardSauce]

Needing less money makes courting the Venture Capital that much easier. Instead of asking for several millions, you ask for just one or two. Which is easier?

I don't know about asking, but I would bet that it is easier to get twenty million than it is to get 1 million. Most VCs don't care about companies with a valuation of 2-6 million, it isn't worth their time. See this http://www.paulgraham.com/venturecapital.html from Paul Graham (creator of Yahoo stores). Since they have to manage each deal, venture capitalists want big deals, not small deals.

That's not the problem...

[the_skywise]

Linux over Windows will greatly reduce your startup costs, not just for your PCs but for your development kits as well.

But if you're a software technology shop, it's not easy to base your company on a foundation that may be ripped out from under you and developed by a competitor who takes your source and repackages it under their brand.

Surely there are many companies that are using the open source code out there, putting it into their systems and then not releasing the fixes/changes back into the open domain. (I know of several companies doing that). So yeah, you can make money that way.. but it's not exactly following the GPL.

I'm not sure where I'm going exactly with this post. I just know I'm not sure how you can make it "work" with existing business models.

Re:That's not the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always borrow code from open source projects that are not licensed with GPL. For example, a BSD style license allows you to use their code and distribute your changes under a proprietary license. This is what Apple is doing with OS X.

Re:That's not the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely there are many companies that are using the open source code out there, putting it into their systems and then not releasing the fixes/changes back into the open domain. (I know of several companies doing that). So yeah, you can make money that way.. but it's not exactly following the GPL.

Surely that's following the GPL exactly--a company only has to release their code when they sell it, so a company like Google is under no obligation--real or implied--to release changes to code which is deployed only internally.

Re:That's not the problem...

[cas2000]

> Surely there are many companies that are using
> the open source code out there, putting it
> into their systems and then not releasing
> the fixes/changes back into the open domain.
> (I know of several companies doing that). So
> yeah, you can make money that way.. but it's
> not exactly following the GPL.

you only have to release your changes IF you re-distribute the GPL code in any way. if you only use it internally on your own machines, there is no requirement to release your changes.

that *IS* following the GPL. exactly.

obviously, if your product is software then you will have to release your changes and distribute full source code under the GPL along with the binaries....but if the software is just infrastructure used by your business, then there is no conflict, and no problem - the GPL software that you use is just a cheaper, more flexible tool that you can freely adapt to your own needs. you can optionally choose to contribute your changes "upstream" but you don't have to (it is often wise to do so, though - it avoids re-implementation costs when there is a new version of the upstream code, plus you might get the benefit of some improvements made by other people who use your changes. it's also a good way of steering the upstream project away from directions that are incompatible with your changes, or at least making sure that your needs/changes are taken into account).

Re:That's not the problem...

[bcrowell]

• Linux over Windows will greatly reduce your startup costs, not just for your PCs but for your development kits as well. [...] But if you're a software technology shop, it's not easy to base your company on a foundation that may be ripped out from under you and developed by a competitor who takes your source and repackages it under their brand.

What does this have to do with Linux versus Windows? You can write a closed-source app that runs on Linux, and it doesn't violate the GPL.

Or did you mean open-source versus closed-source? But if you want your app to be closed-source, then of course you wouldn't use GPL'd libraries -- you'd use closed-source ones, or open-source ones that were released under LGPL or BSD. Otherwise you'd be the one ripping something out from under someone else.

And this is all assuming that a piece of software is the product you want to sell. Maybe you want to run an online retail store, or an online matchmaking service. Maybe you're just creating a business that happens to use computers.

Re:That's not the problem...

[TemporalBeing]

bcrowell said: Or did you mean open-source versus closed-source? But if you want your app to be closed-source, then of course you wouldn't use GPL'd libraries -- you'd use closed-source ones, or open-source ones that were released under LGPL or BSD. Otherwise you'd be the one ripping something out from under someone else. Not quite true. While there is admittedly some controversy over this, if the application merely links to a library, then there is no need to provide the source so long as they don't distribute or change it. Whether the license of the library is GPL, LGPL, or BSD doesn't matter. The issue is not use, but modification and distribution.

Re:That's not the problem...

[ZephyrXero]

This is true, but the moment they even publish a download on the web, not just sell it they're obligated to release the source. If these guys used a little foresight, they would clearly see that contributing back, in some way, will only benefit them in the end.

a big thank you.

[vidalsasoon]

"Give me free software so I can make some cash. thanks"

Re:a big thank you.

[northcat]

Actually, I'd say that to companies making money from selling free software (which they didn't write) like Lindows (spire) et al.

Re:a big thank you.

[Money for Nothin']

That's what I think every time I see a post about "OSS as a business or used in business."

But I get flamed for saying so...

Ummm yeah, but...

[ShatteredDream]

The tools need to be the best you can get for the price. Sometimes that may mean foregoing open source software, at others it means using it. What I'd like to see is a survey which compares the effectiveness of well-designed open source and closed source IT systems in business use. Take the top 5% of them that can be found and then see which is the most reliable, how much they cost and what is involved in keeping them working.

Re:Ummm yeah, but...

[dnoyeb]

Flawed study. You would really be studying the quality of the particular organizations you pick to represent open source and proprietary softwares.

You really need to study to find any statistical correlation between open source, close source, and relaibility and cost.

Lower Startup Cost, yes. May cost you on the exit

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing you need to watch out for is that you really own your own IP when you are working with GPL code. GPL is great, but it can make any code you create on top of it open source if you are not careful. If you are a CEO of a software startup that is looking to sell to a larger company and make your millions, then the IP issues around the GPL can literally be the difference between taking home millions and having a company with zero defensible IP. GPL code use can be the king of all deal killers if you are not VERY careful about how you use it. The GPL does a great job of what is designed to do, making sure that everyone who extends GPL code gives everyone else access to their code too. Just make sure that this is really what you want to do when you start.

Time to market is (nearly) everything

[Anonymous Coward]

The startup costs are one thing; but time-to-market is another huge factor. And what the article missed was the time-to-market factor.

I've done a number of successful embedded projects, and you just can't beat the time-to-market involved with Open Source. I can beat any closed source project hands down if you're talking about new hardware.

What I commonly see is that something unforeseen will arise. With commercial closed-source solutions, I'd be stuck waiting on the Vendor to provide a solution. Often that same solution either already exists, or is easy to implement, in an Open Source implementation.

Recently I saw this on a new motherboard. The ROM BIOS guys (at the mobo company, and at the well-known ROM BIOS company) had lots of problems when we were bringing up new hardware. So we just grabbed LinuxBIOS, and we could diagnose the problem quicker than they could. But I've seen this theme time and time again.

When someone tries to recruit me, I write them off now if they are using something like VxWorks. I really view it as a red flag that they don't know what they are doing.

The bottom line is that I need solutions, not problems. And Open Source either solves it immediately, or allows me to solve it faster than Closed Source. That's why Open Source products are now becoming prevalent.

Re:Time to market is (nearly) everything

[phusg]

I write them off now if they are using something like VxWorks

And what Open Source alternative to VxWorks would you recommend? I'm currently in a team developing educational content voor a Realtime course and the lecturers want to base it on VxWorks as they say it's the market leader.

Re:Time to market is (nearly) everything

[Anonymous Coward]

For your particular case, I'd look at some of the enhancements which have been offered by Monte Vista. But really, it depends on what you're trying to do. Here's a "Real Time Linux Software Quick Reference Guide"

http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8073314981. html

Personally speaking, I'd suggest becoming familiar with what your choices are, and using the best one to meet your needs. For example, the requirements for real-time support are really much less than its proponents proclaim; though there are certain situations where it is indeed required. Hardcore RT proponents will never admit this though; it's like they only understand one tool, and use it for everything.

I also consider Monte Vista a solution for those who don't know what they are doing (because if you really DO know, then you don't need them). But it gives lots of people warm fuzzies, and so it does fill that need. So, for your course, I'd recommend checking them out.

There really are lots of issues with VxWorks. As an OS, it really sucks. Witness, for example, the Mars Rover fiasco. Repeated crashing, simply because your filesystem is full, is such a basic, boneheaded mistake, it goes beyond words. That should never have happened. And yet, it is just a common variation on a theme with VxWorks, and is a reflection of the overall software quality (or lack thereof).

Re:Time to market is (nearly) everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Except can you guarantee interrupt latency response in Linux? And by guanantee I mean bet your life and possibly thousands of others that it will always be under 1ms?
I am not aware of a linux that can do that, but I am aware VxWorks can. There is a reason some people still use VxWorks and by my (limited) experience it is normally for that reason. So in some areas using VxWorks means you know exactly what you are doing! (if you still disagree please let me know it is a Linux airplane so i can board another)
People do normally have a good reason for what they do even if it doesn't fit with what they might philosophically want.
BTW as always if you are big enough you can get your hands on the source code to these closed source solutions, just don't expext the code to be pretty!
Not that any of this is a good thing, I'd rather there was a true real time linux anyday that I could bet my life on. There isn't so until then I'll keep working to make it so!

Re:Time to market is (nearly) everything

[phusg]

Interesting to see how the architecture differs so much, with BlueCat RT running the kernel as a thread and Monte Vista using a kernel patch. Personally I think students should be exposed to these things, and not get locked-in to a vendor, so thanks for the ammo. I'll try and use it to broaden the(ir) horizons, although as I'm only the IT advisor and not a lecturer/author it might prove difficult...

Re:Time to market is (nearly) everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I'd question VxWorks' market share. Last I heard (a couple of years ago) things were tied between VxWork and WinCE (at about 30% each). However, these numbers didn't included the systems where the OS was done in-house. In the past, that has been mostly "roll-your-own"; but most of those approaches are now moving towards Linux, according to a past poll done at Linuxdevices.com.

So, I'd say that VxWorks' market share is smaller than they claim. What's more, it seems like all of the commercial OS's market share is decreasing, while that of Linux is increasing.

Perhaps a key telling point here is that WindRiver (which owns VxWorks) has announced that they too are hopping on the Linux bandwagon. If VxWorks was really so entrenched, they wouldn't be doing this.

Personally, I'd be hesitant to devote my time to increasing my skill level in a Proprietary Solution who's market share is decreasing. This has historically been a bad approach.

Re:Time to market is (nearly) everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Except can you guarantee interrupt latency response in Linux? And by guanantee I mean bet your life and possibly thousands of others that it will always be under 1ms?

RTLinux, for example, runs Linux as a task under a realtime OS.

"RTLinux is an operating system that runs Linux as the lowest-priority task. RTLinux applications execute in the RTLinux environment rather than the Linux environment. This gives real-time applications priority over normal Linux applications and even Linux itself. On standard PC's, a 650MHz Pentium III for example, RTLinux can deliver 5us worst-case interrupt latency and 30us worst-case jitter for periodic tasks. This means users still have a normal Linux system with X-Windows, web servers, databases and any other application available for Linux but also get an environment where hard real-time applications can run."

That's because you're taking a salary.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Each business if different but getting one running for 90K is just about impossible. That won't even cover two people for six months.

In Soviet Russia, real men don't take salaries from their startups - they burn through their life's savings.

And when their life savings are spent, they max out all their credit cards.

And when they've maxed out all their credit cards, they auction off their mint condition copy of Amazing Fantasy #15.

Better for long-term sustainability too

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Obviously open source reduces the barrier to entry, but what many don't see is that open source makes for a much more sustainable business too.

Closed source software tends to get the "crown jewel" treatment. It starts of with a high value - often being a company's strategic advantage. But, because it is isolated and cost a lot to originally develop it tends to stagnate. Pretty soon your cutting-edge best-in-the-world software falls behind and the company hurts.

Open source software, on the other hand, tends to stay fresher. Because more people are involved, the boundaries are being pushed a lot harder instead of being hampered by internal corporate politics.

It's more than the price

[HangingChad]

Price isn't the main consideration but it does give you a lot of functionality. With Linux I can do all the regular paperwork and office work I need to. The ads that come off my printer look just as good as people using MSFT and Photoshop.

It's more than just price, it's also the functionality you get. Open source fuels new businesses.

free ssl vpn

[alatesystems]

A really cool tool for small businesses is SSL Explorer. It's a free SSL VPN.

A member of our LUG wrote an article on SSL Explorer that I contributed to about how to set it up.

Open source lowers costs and spurs innovation

[glinden]

This is very true. Our startup, Findory, runs on a cluster of commodity hardware running open source software (Fedora, Apache, mysql, perl, etc.).

Our burn rate is very low, improving our chances of survival and reducing our risk.

Open source is a huge help to startups. It's provided a tremendous boost to innovation.

Is it really the money?

[ramblin billy]

My understanding of the lofty side of the Open Source Movement is a little more esoteric. I may be missing the point. Is the real upside to 'free software' all about the money? I thought the point was the transparency of the information handling method. The obvious benefit is the access to other designers conceptual products. This allows for integration from various sources to facilitate the optimization of each system component. It is the basis of the 'standing on the shoulders' and the ever popular 'don't reinvent the wheel' philosophies. Even more important is the publics access to the code. In an open information society it is fundamental to be able to determine the source, path, and handling methods for data delivery. It's the only way to keep the rascals honest. I love my computer, but I don't want to just take its word that some Bush descendent has once again pulled out a squeaker in Florida. I've developed a sneaky suspicion that it harbors a Republican kernel. I've always thought of Open Source sort of as 'The Great Equalizer' which would finally break through the bullshit barrier of the powers that be. So am I giving the OS evangelists too much credit? Maybe most of them DO just like free stuff.

billy - say it ain't so Linus

People are most important

[tungwaiyip]

While the cost of hardware and software are coming down, people are becoming more important than ever. Great people set one company apart from another. If a business is too cheap on people they will get what they pay for.

maybe, maybe not.

[bluGill]

The GPL is not evil, it is just something else to watch for. However if you are careful you can manage the GPL just fine. Just make sure you can send out the source code when someone asks. (Which doesn't happen often, most customers won't care) Then make sure that you keep GPL stuff separate from your stuff. We ship a GPL pdf2txt program where I work, not a problem, we just call it as an external program and read the result.

In some cases we will even release source code. pdf is not our core ability, so if we find a bug in pdf2txt we are likely to send it in so everyone can use our fix. We won't let you see the parts where we have added value, but those parts are carefully not GPL, and they are what you pay for. (Though admitidly you could do everything we do yourself given a year)

The above assumes that you are a developer trying to sell a product. In many cases you are selling your services to setup GPL software to someone else. In that case you don't care about IP and GPL because anything you write is paid for already by the customer.

Why this is good for the economy

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to try things with little risk means that more things will get tried. This means more innovation and this is good for the economy. Innovation leads to growth and we all get a little richer.

This is not to say that large, well funded, companies do not innovate. They do. It's just that their innovations don't tend to be as radical as those of smaller, hungrier organizations. The small guys tend to specialize in disruptive innovations. It's those innovations that turn industry on its ear and increase our prosperity.

The latest guru on innovation is Clayton Christensen who has written a series of books on the subject. Two of them are "The Innovator's Dilemma" and "Seeing What's Next". Both are well written and understandable and give a clear picture of why small, innovative companies are very important to our continued prosperity.

One of the subjects in Christensen's latest book is open source in general and linux in particular. He shows that linux is disruptive and paints a bleak picture of Microsoft's future if they fail to cope with it.

Small Business

[ToAllPointsWest]

As I've been researching opening my own small business, the cost of implementing a Linux solution is significantly lower than implementing a Windows solution. First, no CAL's to deal with, I can perform multiple installs of the OS, and the Opensource versions of the applications I need off all the functionality and reliablity to accomplish my mission. In laymens terms, it was a "no-brainer"

Just a wild guess

[djSpinMonkey]

I'm thinking... "by not costing any money?" Startling!

I'm starting a company

[prisoner]

right now and open source has saved us untold thousands. We needed a real phone system so that we would have voice mail and "sound" bigger than we were: Asterisk to the rescue. For a couple of $39 cards and an old pc we've got a pbx. Instead of using Oracle or Sql Server we're going with mysql and php. We need to print bar codes. $800 active X library? Nope, a php library I found on the web for zero.

However, I think it really depends on the kind of company you're going to start. In our case, we're developing software for our own use. I can't imagine trying to bundle some of these pieces and sell them. Surely it would work with some things but, imho, no the majority of OSS projects. I don't say this to belittle the efforts of those who have done so much for me. The reason I say it is because the mindset of the vast majority of users runs completely counter to that necessary to effectively utilize much of the open source software available.

Take Asterisk for example. I had to reboot my phone 4 times on Friday to fix various problems. I'm not crying, just pointing out that the first time you tell a user to reboot his/her phone, they are going to look at you like you have 2 heads.

Re:I'm starting a company

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe if 1 you didnt buy knock off cards, two learned how to configure a simple dial plan, or three not be ignorant, wait i pretty much covered it in one and two
dueces

Re:I'm starting a company

[Anonymous Coward]

you missed 'use an acceptable system with enough cpu /ram to meet unexpected overhead etc' ;) he implied he was using an older system. I'm not sure on what kind of overhead asterisk needs to get the job done, but it's possible that he's overworking a tired old dog of a system.
Yes, it's nice that linux can run on really old and slow hardware, and can also support modern systems, but it's always important to make sure you're picking the right machine, for the task you want linux to do with it.

Re:I'm starting a company

[prisoner]

It's a pentium III 800mhz with 512MB of ram....

So it would lead to more job creation...

[geoffrobinson]

I would theorize that lower startup costs mean more jobs, which is so straightforward it is almost not worth pointing out. Except for those who say the open source destroy jobs.

Re:So it would lead to more job creation...

[MerlinTheWizard]

Well, all in all, OSS means more jobs indeed. In most settings, it also means more qualified jobs too, especially when it comes to development and/or administration jobs (yup, using OSS tools usually requires more skills). Which, in turn, means higher salaries. So, less jobs. I'd just venture that it's hard to claim one way or the other, here.

For now, what I know for sure is that OSS allows many small businesses to make business. Simple as that. And that's already something big.

I remember 1995

[ylikone]

Me and a bunch of friends started up an ISP on nothing more than a few Slackware Linux 100MHz Linux boxes and about 16 14.4K modems. Our starting budget was about a few grand. Talk about shoe-string. We had no employees, completely run by the owners, doing work mostly for free on a promise of getting a big pay-off in the future. Later, after about 4 years and around 1000 customers, we sold the whole operation to a larger ISP. Although, we didn't get that much for our efforts... live and learn.

Microsoft lies with their TCO claims.

[rice_burners_suck]

Whoever said Windows has a lower TCO than Linux was muttering utter bullsh*t.

I think the Open Source community, including individuals, who can donate a few dollars, small businesses, who can donate a few hundred dollars, and large businesses, who can donate thousands of dollars, should get together and produce ads very similar to the Microsoft TCO ads found in magazines that show examples of companies that saved money by switching from Linux to Windows, with very specific settings picked out so that the Linux solution will come out more expensive.

The Open Source ads will feature individual companies that saved money by using not just Linux, but Open Source in general. The idea is to showcase individual cases where a company did the math and decided to use Open Source for some or all of its needs.

These ads will point the reader to a website where very real numbers are shown, and the entire process of computing the cost of various alternatives is shown, along with enough information so the reader can see it's not bullsh*t. I actually clicked on one of those links Microsoft put on some website to read the rest of the story, and let me tell you, it was just a discussion of how they did the math, figured Windows has a lower TCO, and decided to switch away from Linux. There was no math, no details, nothing that showed just how they came to that conclusion. Sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me.

Look how many people hate Bush and claim he lied. He didn't. But enough people say that he did, so enough people believe that he did. Who said the "truth" can't be spread about Microsoft with their TCO claims?

Re:Microsoft lies with their TCO claims.

[Anonymous Coward]

Either Bush lied, or he was a dumbass. Which do you prefer?

This is a load of lies

[spitzak]

Your "IP" is not threatened. If you use GPL code in your program and then sell it without releasing the source, you are guilty of copyright violation. There is no precedence for somebody being guilty of copyright violation having to give up the rights to their own work.

What will happen is you will be required to cease distribution and pay a monetary fine, if anybody catches you and sues you. If you wish to redistribute the work you will have to remove the GPL portions and replace them with other code that you do have a license to redistribute.

It is true that many people are happy if you release your source code, and that could be used to avoid a lawsuit. But there is no requirement to do that, and it does not even get you out of being liable for the copyright violation (otherwise you could just release the source code after it is worthless due to age).

Furthermore, there is very little money-making opportunities on Linux that require you to use GPL code, in fact it is difficult to figure out something that could make money but requires GPL code, perhaps heavily modified kernels that can't be done with loadable modules?. Linux allows any program to run on it, and the vast majority of the libraries needed to make a working program are LGPL or BSD or similar (due to the fact that the library writers want their stuff used as much as possible).

A counterexample

[Bob Hearn]

ClarisWorks was developed with a four-figure startup cost, starting in 1989, and became a top-selling product with millions of users. It's true that that success was not achieved until the program was sold to Claris, and additional development resources were added.

But from the point of view of the original developers - myself and Scott Holdaway - our startup costs were very small. We bought two computers, rented a house together, and hacked. Details here:

http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/clarisworks.php

I should add that from my personal point of view, the open source meme has made it much harder to figure out how to make a buck selling software. In the old days it was simple. OK, call me clueless. I gave up and went back to school.

Re:A counterexample

[bill_mcgonigle]

Hey, that's a great story. Thanks for sharing it.

But I have to point out, the 4-figure startup cost you cite is only the capital expense of your alpha phase. If you figure in what it cost you to live until Claris bought you, the value of Guy's contributions, and what Claris put in to make the product saleable, the number might seem more typical (that is the number required to bring the product to market). And let's give your wife credit for being a significant investor!

I was trying to cover too many bases...

[the_skywise]

I meant Linux vs. Windows in the "which operating system do you run as a company". In that case "open source" definitely saves you money for almost the same functionality (unless, y'know you gotta run Clippy or something...)

I'm well aware you can write a closed-source app on Linux and an open source app on Windows. Open source is great up to the point where you want to SELL your software. For something like game software, this is certain death. Especially if I have to release my game engine back into the public. Now, the content can stay copyrighted, but it's too easy for someone to make a knock off with new content... and at LESS cost than it cost you to conceive the idea.
(IE If you make Katamari Damacy with GPL'd code and release the engine back to the public, you're going to have clones coming out of your ears that may actually do a BETTER job at their implementation because they had the hindsight of your first attempt.)

The internet

[WindBourne]

The internet is based on OSS. All of the core is open. 10-20 years ago, you could get AOL, MSN, and others at $20/month. It offered just a fraction of what it does today. Now, it is at 20/month for modem and ~40 for highspeed ( in capitalistic america and 5 in most other countries). So you ask where is your OSS broadband? All around you.

Re:The internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. The Internet is based on Open STANDARDS, not OSS. Is Cisco's software OSS? Open Standards are important. OSS is just the corporations getting software for free.

Re:The internet

[WindBourne]

The internet was originally on *nix and expanded from there. Back in mid 80's, I was able to download patches for my HP-UX systems(well, actually uswest's workstation) that allowed for all sorts of neat things. In fact there were OSS patches/programs everywhere back then for various systems, ranging from OS-340, systems-36, series-1, HP-UX, and even dos.
Just about every implimentation of protocols was OSS up till late 80's/early 90's. So yeah, the internet was (and for the most part, still is).

OSS is not corporations getting software for free. OSS is no different than any other software, except that the exchange is not money, but a free exchange of src. code.

Mod parent up

[JWallyR]

You have an excellent point, and I agree completely with the example you give about everybody jumping and screaming that Bush lied when he didn't. But at the same time, the example itself probably proves your point, because you're stuck with a rating of 2, probably because either people see that you aren't a Bush-basher and mod you down, or you don't get modded up in the first place. It's a shame.

Use FOSS for ancilliary stuff

[doormat]

Mostly irrelevant. Whether your sell widgets or software, you can use FOSS software to do stuff like have a website, track bugs and feedback, etc for free (more or less) - instead of spending money on Win2k3 Server, MS SQL, VS.Net 2k3, etc. Using GPL'd software wont encumber your product.

well duh

[4_Minor_Drawbacks]

Its free! that kinda brings down costs, ya know?

Damn Right

[chochos]

We are a startup company. I have a client which is also a startup. Their product is propietary software that is installed inside a cellular provider network. By using open source (Linux, PostgreSQL, Asterisk, JBoss, and a bunch of open source java libraries), I've saved them a lot of money; probably $20K USD per deployment, and there are about 6 deployments due this year.

In China copied software means low start up costs.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much of the cost advantage for Chinese products is due to the fact that they are so successful at avoiding the MicroSoft tax by using unauthorized copies of software.

Open Source drives down Startup Costs? Wow...

[Alpha_Traveller]

That's absolutely true. Look at the makers of CherryPC... it's so easy to take code from open source projects like PearPC, bundle it up as your own and not even remotely give credit to the PearPC team... Heck, you could make thousands before people notice...

Who gains most from open source? Not US.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has gained more from open source than startups in India, China, and Brazil. With less available venture capital than in the US, they needed more than just low wages to launch a new venture, since M$ Windows and Office cost a *lot* there. Their software expenses used to compose a very big part of a startup's overhead, probably to the extent of prohibiting a lot of ventures from getting off the ground.

Open source to the rescue. Now with zero cost for software, overseas startups do not have to match US expenses in labor OR overhead. Expect the impact to be profound as soon as VCs realize how far their dollars can go there.

Want to form a high tech startup? Great. Go East young man.

Randy

Flexibility

[LittleBigScript]

Someone once said OSS was more about "code sharing" than "free software" But this obviously focuses on the secondary aspect of Open Source.

Also, this shows the maturity of a lot of Open Source projects. I wonder if any of the projects end up contributing back.

i'd say...

[torrents]

when you're a small company and you can use off the shelf hardware to creat your own pbx instead of spending thousands, it is of benefit...

what will be interesting is if there is a new generation of companies that continue to use and help develop these tools that benefit them as they grow, or just move on to proprietary software and hardware solutions...

In other news

[ShieldW0lf]

Researchers have recently released a study demonsrating that free ingredients make baking cakes cheaper.

Conflicting studies from think tanks sponsored by flour industry leaders MakesitSoft are disputing the conclusions, but are not really taken seriously.

Forth time around.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The bottom line is that I need solutions, not problems. And Open Source either solves it immediately, or allows me to solve it faster than Closed Source. That's why Open Source products are now becoming prevalent."

Or I could use Forth, and skip the ideological baggage.

Re:Lower Startup Cost, yes. May cost you on the ex

[isorox]

Exactly the same with closed software. You can buy compilers that have, deep in the 5th layer of the EULA, a clause that states you don't own the software you produce, or can't distribute it, or have to pay patent licensing fees or something.

I guarentee you that extending GPL code is no different than extending microsoft's code. You have to contact the copyright holder (e.g. trolltech in the case of QT, Microsoft in the case of whatever they make) and they decide if they want to sell you a license or not.

Re:Lower Startup Cost, yes. May cost you on the ex

[Henk Poley]

GPL is great, but it can make any code you create on top of it open source if you are not careful.

Then you need to form your software development strategy in a way that people pay you to get to get the software you make up and running on their systems. Explain your potentential customers that "Open Source" will mean added benefits for them, other people and companies might add or improve features, source is always available, etc.

Be the best to implement your software in other businesses.

Mod parent up? please.

[twistedcubic]

Bush didn't lie about what? If you're claiming that there exists a politician in the national arena who doesn't lie, then power to you. Very hard to prove, but I encourage you to try. If you're claiming he didn't lie about Iraq, fine. But to suggest someone get modded up because he thinks Bush didn't lie about something? I was under the impression that most Bush supporters know that he lied, but just don't care, like O.J. supporters. I could be wrong... but then, I'm never wrong :)

Re:Mod parent up? please.

[Rabid Cougar]

Quick question. If I hear about a LAN party and tell you it will take place on April 19, but for whatever the reason, (whether I am being dishonest or simply misunderstood what I read or was told) it actually takes place on April 18. If you then tell all your friends there's a LAN party at X location on April 19, and they all show up and there isn't one, did you lie to them? Of course not. You simply repeated information you thought was accurate that really wasn't.

Now, if you're the President of the United States, there aren't enough hours in the day to personally research all the details on all the decisions in which you have to be involved. That's why the President has a cabinet. He picks advisors he trusts to give him accurate information upon which he can base his decisions. They, in turn, get their information from others, who get it from others, and so forth.

To assert that Bush lied is to assume he had absolute knowledge that his information was incorrect, and intended to deceive the world. Based on what I've seen and heard, there's not enough evidence to make such a case beyond any reasonable doubt. If there were, I would expect the Democrats in the House to push for a justly-deserved impeachment. If Bush really did lie, then why isn't there any push for impeachment? Because it's merely an allegation lacking in substantiating evidence. In all likelihood, all Bush did was repeat bad information, which is a far cry from deliberate deceit. So this juror votes "not guilty".

Re:Mod parent up? please.

[twistedcubic]

There is a lot of evidence from higher ups in the national security establishment that says otherwise. This is unprecedented, isn't it? There are contradictory statements on video. About impeachment: Reagan wasn't impeached for Iran-Contra, even though I, as a silly kid, honestly expected it. The media didn't even suggest it might happen. The spineless Democrats didn't have the guts to impeach such a popular president. Everyone knows Reagan lied-- how can you claim you don't remember whether you committed a felony? Clinton lied about sex and got impeached. Dude, it's not impossible to admit that GW lies and still support him. It's fairly common for people to support politicians despite the lies. You can admit that someone is flawed, or criminal, and still love their policies and support them.

Umm...

[Kjella]

But, because it is isolated and cost a lot to originally develop it tends to stagnate. Pretty soon your cutting-edge best-in-the-world software falls behind and the company hurts.

Open source software, on the other hand, tends to stay fresher. Because more people are involved, the boundaries are being pushed a lot harder instead of being hampered by internal corporate politics.

The road to good OSS programs is paved with projects that have withered and died. Just because you're using a piece of OSS software, doesn't mean there's some other project or codebase that'll come along and push yours out on the sideline.

Kjella

Re:Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think one of the points the grandparent was making is that if a better product comes along, it's not going to kill yours for financial reasons... however, that doesn't mean you're wrong at all.

That would HAVE to be...

[leonbrooks]

...entirely for PHB reasons. After all, what does MS SQL...

1. do that PostgreSQL doesn't... [sample incorrect answers: "scale", "replicate", "have support"]
2. that you'll actually need and successfully use... [sample incorrect answers: "MS-Blaster", "a VB interface", "indemnification"]
3. badly enough to be lumbered with MS Windows, per-seat licences and MCSEs in order to get it?

Only for tech companies

[DogDude]

I'd say that most open source solutions only save money for tech companies. Why? Tech companies have the massive technical expertise needed to handle open source solutions. For my startup, it wouldn't cost us many thousands more to go with open source for our various software packages because we don't have a tech expert on staff (besides myself). Other companies that have nothing to do with tehcnology (the vast majority of all companies) shouldn't be wasting valuable time and money to implement open source just for the sake of open source.

same with UNIX in the 1980s

[peter303]

All of the startup workstation and supercomputer companies used UNIX since 1980 for the same reason. UNIX was a known commodity to customers, it had been ported many times so it was realtively portable. Developing a new OS would double the effort and costs of a startup. Apollo, DEC, Cray, and the early microcomputers were the last companies before this trend to roll their own OS's.