Slashdot Mirror
Matt Asay on the Status of OSS
OSS_ilation writes "An interview with OSBC director Matt Asay at SearchOpenSource.com gives some insight into where open source software (OSS) has been, is today, and where it hopes to be in the future. A common trend identified by Asay in the interview is that OSS has become very profitable. Asay also touched on the hot-button issue of where the GPL is headed, as well as how open source vendors shouldn't let high download rates give them a big head about the real validity of their projects."
...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.
While the page was refreshing due to all the new CSS, I could have sworn the Topic read Mighty Ass for a split second. Maybe it's my dyslexia.
http://www.rayn.net . Funny. Stuff.
If people use it, you can make money from it.
:-)
If people download it, it does not mean they are using it.
Funny, but I already knew that. Now I just have to find something people will use besides Video Fish
I would like it if he did an analysis of professionalism in the open source world. As open source software starts to play a greater role in business and enterprise computing, it will soon be expected that the open source developers gain a certain level of professionalism.
Indeed, many have been able to do so. They present a very respectable, reputable and trustworthy image. Yet sometimes that isn't the case. There was the recent incident of a KOffice developer publically insulting a longtime KDE and KOffice user, for instance. Such incidents make executives question the professionalism of the entire open source community, even if it is just a lone rogue developer acting unprofessionally.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
In the week that Nessus went closed source, spitting in the face of all those who helped the project thinking it was free software, let's hope that the Gnessus project (based on the last Free version of Nessus) takes off, and that the continuing-Free Snort and Nmap continue to flourish. The progress of Sourcefire and Snort will be particularly interesting to compare with that of Tenable (Renaud's company) since Marty Roesch has been clear that Sourcefire (his company) being bought by Checkpoint won't affect Snort, which will continue to be Free software under the GPL.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Just because someone downloads music, doesn't mean they listen to the crap...
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
[I did RTFA, though it's entirely possible I missed something.]
Mr. Asay did not clarify the distinction between revenue from product sales and revenue from support and other services. He mentioned Red Hat as an example of an OSS company that is making money, but he didn't indicate how much of that money came from selling RHEL and other products vice the consulting, etc. that RH also offers. He alludes to it briefly when he says "OSS has trended toward examples like the Red Hat Network and the MySQL network" but leaves it at that.
This is not a slam on Asay, btw; it's just something I thought would make the article more useful.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Can anyone shed some light on Matt Asay's credentials and achievements? Has he made any significant open source contributions, be them in the form of code, documentation, icons, etc.? What is his background, and past involvement with the open source community. His name isn't one that rings a bell, so that's why I'm wondering who exactly he is.
Is he a master contributor such as Bruce Perens, or is he more of an Eric S. Raymond?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
`while products like Firefox, MySQL and OpenOffice.org are now thrown about in a serious manner with household names like Microsoft Office, Oracle and others. `
When was Oracle ever a household name?
Where's the post on Yahoo messenger and MSN teaming up?
Where does google talk stand in the mix?
Who cares? Free Software in the 1990's and 2000's has revitalized the hobby of computing and programming. If you are in development for the money, your in it for the wrong reasons. You won't last.
When more than a select few companies (only three listed) prove to be capable of pulling a profit, then I'd call it a trend. But considering that most open source development teams pursue their software with little to no financing, it's far too early to even call this a trend. I'd call this the beginnings of a foundation that may begin to include other viable open source products.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Indeed. Even the janitors and burger flippers at McDonalds know not to insult the customers. I would hope that an open source developer could hold himself or herself to that basic standard, if not far exceed it.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And there I was thinking someone was starting an Open Sound System vs. ALSA flamewar...
I swear we should be allowed to give mod points to sigs... "-1, Offtopic"
...Microsoft funding a TCO study?
Seriously though, if corporations can't be trusted to be objective about their own products/ideologies then why would we immediately decide that we should take to heart the word of someone who is clearly pro-OSS regarding the state of OSS profitability? Following that, where do we look for an objective opinion these days?
Granted there are a few key profitable OSS creator/providers, but in the same breath, I'm sure there are many, many more that fall on their faces and drown in debt.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
This is yet another case of someone claiming a company is profitable by looking at their revenues. Meaningless.
Also, MySQL (I know less about RedHat and JBoss) has dual licensing, and I'm sure their product revenues come entirely from the non-GPL side of the business. Their services and training revenues may come from both. Where their profits come from, if they have any profits, is unclear.
To my way of thinking, a dual-license company uses the free license to gain market share, so as to reduce their customer acquisition costs. The business is really about the non-free ("as in beer") side. The risky thing, for which OSS companies should be admired, is to make even the non-free side open source, rather than closed, trusting that customers are honest. (Many companies have a watered-down free product along with their non-free product, but neither are open source. To go all open source is exceptional.)
I started a company once that reached #72 on the Inc 500, based on revenue growth over 5 years, not one of which was profitable. In fact, for a venture-capital-backed company, which we were, as MySQL is, running the business conservatively enough to make a profit may not be the best course. Also, you can't count investment money as revenue when it comes in, but it is an expense when it goes out, so this also reduces profits, and usually results in big losses.