Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source Pioneer Michael Tiemann On Open Source Business Success

Posted by Unknown on from the smash-the-system dept.

ectoman (594315) writes Opensource.com has a summary of an interview with Michael Tiemann, co-founder of Cygnus Solutions and one of the world's first open source entrepreneurs. Now VP of Open Source Affairs at Red Hat, Tiemann offers an historical perspective on what makes open source businesses successful, and shares how he dealt with the open source movement's early skeptics. "A lot of the skepticism is a response to the abstract; it's a response to the unknown," Tiemann says, "And when you bring a concrete success story with just absolutely stellar credentials that doesn't just outperform the field, but embarrasses the field, then the skeptics begin to look like they're on the wrong side." The full audio interview on Hacker Public radio (~1 hour).

19 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Skepticism of open source? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure that's true.

    It isn't true now, you just have to look at Red Hat. It was true in the 1980s when Tiemann started his business.

  2. Still a hurtle by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    I'm a big proponent of open source, but I still have yet to have anything but small victories. I've gotten a few small tools and such approved. But getting executives to "bet" on large, enterprise applications that could sink the company if they go south? Not going to happen yet. As far as they're concerned the softwares maintained by a team of teenagers in their parents basements. They can get binding contracts that state the goals and future of commercial software. We've a lot of evidence that those contracts are rarely abided by, but at least you can sue someone and have a scapegoat when that happens. But with open source, they fear everyone could just up and quit tomorrow leaving them hanging.

    I don't have a solution to that perception problem, but it's the single biggest problem I have in selling Open Source to executives. Figure that one out, and commercial software will be dead tomorrow.

    1. Re:Still a hurtle by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Figure that one out, and commercial software will be dead tomorrow.

      Why must it die? Has the "world been saved" then?

    2. Re:Still a hurtle by dbc · · Score: 1

      Cygnus approached that in part by being the party selling support on a contract basis. They came in wearing suits, asking for signatures on expensive contracts, and promised to fix the bugs and implement special requirements. You said it yourself, what the execs want is supported software, they really don't give a rat's butt where the software comes from, they just want to know that in the future they can get someone's undivided attention when it needs fixing, and that the party that will fix it has the resources to implement the fix. Cygnus sold attention.

      Now, on the darker side, they were known to hold certain trivial ("two-line") patches in their back pocket rather than push them to the open source repository so that they could charge each of their customers $50K to apply the patch to each customer's version of the software. I'm aware of one case where they charged two different divisions of the same company (who clearly didn't talk very much) for the same fix. Cynus was good at the contract game, writing them, selling them, and strategic fulfillment of them.

    3. Re:Still a hurtle by Arker · · Score: 1

      The unspoken assumption behind your comment (and much else on the page) is that it's important for 'open source' to be accepted by big business.

      Why?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    4. Re:Still a hurtle by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      They can get binding contracts that state the goals and future of commercial software.

      No they can't at least not across the board. There are plenty of companies that smiply outright won't do that (e.g. Microsoft).

      ut with open source, they fear everyone could just up and quit tomorrow leaving them hanging.

      As opposed to companies which never go bust.

      We've a lot of evidence that those contracts are rarely abided by, but at least you can sue someone and have a scapegoat when that happens.

      Well, that's also pointless: very few companies would ever sign a contract which makes them liable for anything but direct costs. A big company with proper lawyers would never ever do that. A small company could probably be cajoled into it, but what's the point? They'd basically fold about 15 seconds after they've maxed out their insurance if sued by a large company.

      I don't have a solution to that perception problem, but it's the single biggest problem I have in selling Open Source to executives.

      Tell them commercial software has exactly the same problems, because in truth, it does.

      If they mention the teenager in the basement thing, ask them if IBM is a teenager in its parent's basement.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Still a hurtle by Kjella · · Score: 1

      They can get binding contracts that state the goals and future of commercial software.

      Who, pray tell, are those? Anything I've seen of forward looking statements come with at least a full page of legalese saying that anything you see here of roadmaps, features, demos and whatnot may be the lucid ravings of a madman that may or may not be implemented at some undetermined point in the future regardless of any other statements about what, how or when they "think" or "plan" or "intend" to do anything. You can get guarantees of non-specific support and/or development for X years but in practice those promises are so hollow they can outsource it to the lowest bidder on a skeleton crew and still claim to be complying with the letter, if not the spirit of the contract.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Still a hurtle by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      The unspoken assumption behind your comment (and much else on the page) is that it's important for 'open source' to be accepted by big business.

      Why?

      Because some things (for this thesis let's say it's a crypto algorithm) work much better when they are visible to all parties, and those with a vested interest commit themselves via development time instead of cash. If you need a good crypto algorithm and you pay a closed source company for it, either you or the company you paid had better employ an army of mathematicians in order to validate that the process is secure, otherwise it could have (probably does have) a flaw just waiting to be exploited. Your investment, as a business, can only go so far. With an open source solution, everyone can see the algorithm and offer their input on its efficacy.

      Open Source is the ultimate economy of scale in the information business (driving cost per unit down while selling/utilizing more) so every business with even a modest investment in software should care. There are plenty of ways to innovate in closed ways (at least, ways proprietary to your company) while taking advantage of open source technologies. The problem (to expand on the original summary) is that most uninformed decision makers jump to the conclusion that if the software was developed for nothing, it's worth nothing and furthermore that anything they do with it will be worth nothing because their innovations will somehow get gobbled up by the open source monster, too. For someone who doesn't really add anything (companies trying to get by in niches, strongarming markets, exploiting cronyism, etc) there is plenty to fear. Meanwhile Google, Apple, Facebook, IBM, Cisco, etc would casually disagree (and gladly sell you some open source software).

    7. Re:Still a hurtle by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Figure that one out, and commercial software will be dead tomorrow.

      Why must it die? Has the "world been saved" then?

      I didn't say it needed to. I was stating what would factually happen. Like: "If it's 80 degrees out tomorrow, your snowman will melt" Does the snowman need to melt? No... but it's going to happen.

    8. Re:Still a hurtle by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The unspoken assumption behind your comment (and much else on the page) is that it's important for 'open source' to be accepted by big business.

      Why?

      Because I'm employed by Big buisness and Big buisness would benifit greatly by open source software. Things are different today than they were in the 80s and 90s. Those big contracts with IBM, Sun, Oracle etc... meant something. Now they don't... not even with those same large companies (especially Oracle) what they promise and what they deliver are rarely the same. Alternative companies come and go with the wind. In open source, if someone drops the ball on an app you can pick it up yourself and continue on. Or hire someone to do it for you. I've lost track of the number of large software migrations I've done over the past 10yrs that all started with some vendor closing up shop, ending a product or switching direction.

    9. Re:Still a hurtle by znrt · · Score: 1

      Figure that one out, and commercial software will be dead tomorrow.

      Why must it die? Has the "world been saved" then?

      dunno, but the moment there is no "commercial" anything, the world will have learned.

    10. Re:Still a hurtle by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 1

      But your managers already heard of someone that filled a bug in any MS product and get it fixed? But a real case with link to it, not the urban legend "I have a friend that found a bug on IIS and MS fixed it. Who will fix a bug on Apache?".

      And, in the other side, your company can, for sure, make contracts with big Open Source guys, like Red Hat and Canonical.

    11. Re:Still a hurtle by Arker · · Score: 1

      You're telling me why businesses need free software. That's not in question. The question is who needs these big corpos? If they prefer not to adapt then they can die, and why should I mourn them?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    12. Re:Still a hurtle by exomondo · · Score: 1

      I've gotten a few small tools and such approved. But getting executives to "bet" on large, enterprise applications that could sink the company if they go south? Not going to happen yet.

      Like what for example? Many large companies use open source products like Linux, Apache webserver, Android devices and there are a lot of studios that use Blender. It isn't a question of open source, it is - like proprietary software - a question of the reputation of the developer(s) and the product.

    13. Re:Still a hurtle by exomondo · · Score: 1

      The real point is this isn't a question of open source vs closed source, plenty of big corps already use open source and they aren't likely to invest in a product of dubious origins regardless of whether that product is open or closed.

  3. Re:Sometimes I really hate the web.... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure that's true.

    It isn't true now, you just have to look at Red Hat. It was true in the 1980s when Tiemann started his business.

    Ok, Imagine that I say in person:

    "Skepticism of open source?" *with a look on my face*

    And then say:

    "I am not so sure that's true." *with another look on my face*

    I would hope that you'd take it as a joke.

    Get it: skepticism and then being skeptic about the skepticism?

    And explaining jokes means I have failed.

    Mother, leave me alone!

    Fair enough ... I deserve a "whooshh..."

  4. Take advice from Tiemann?? by Stax · · Score: 1

    >"Tiemann offers an historical perspective on what makes open source businesses successful, and shares how he dealt with the open source movement's early skeptic"

    Cygnus lasted only for 11 years and was not a huge success. We shouldn't take advice from small business owners that didn't do very well. Sure Cygnus survived, but eventually sold out to Red Hat.

    Now if you're the guys who originally came up with Android (pre-Google acquisition, as Google didn't create it), I'm listening.

    Cygnus developers gave Red Hat talent, insight and control over what was the most important part of the ecosystem for the burgeoning operating system company - the toolchain. GCC was critical in the ability to provide 10 years of API/ABI compatibility and support for enterprise legitimacy.

    Without Cygnus, Red Hat Linux would have had a hard time remaking itself into Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

  5. Re:Take advice from Tiemann?? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Cygnus lasted only for 11 years and was not a huge success.

    It was acquired for $674 million. That is "huge" compared to my bank account. Cygnus's technical achievements were also enormous: the Gnu C++ compiler, big improvements to the gcc optimizer, porting the gcc/gas/gdb toolchain to dozens of architectures, and thousands of improvements to other open source utilities. They also had a huge influence on the FLOSS movement, providing the first example of a thriving profitable company based on open source principles.

  6. Re:Tiemann = Messiah by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

    Indeed. The tone of the article was seriously grating. Open source is, I think, good for the industry as a whole. It's also good for consumers. But it is not unambiguously good for every individual software company.

    I'd really like it if we could get some government regulation to promote more open source software, but saying, "This one guy I know was really really successful using open source!" in no way means that every business will be similarly successful.