Corporations and OSS Do Not Mix (coglib.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Ian Cordasco, a prolific open source developer, wrote a lengthy post about his experiences working on code that gets used by companies as part of their business. His basic thesis is that the open source development process is not particularly compatible with for-profit corporations, and having them involved frequently makes progress more difficult. "As soon as a bug affects them, they want it fixed immediately. If you don't fix it in 24 hours (because maybe you have a real life or a family or you're sick or any number of other very valid reasons) then the threats start." He adds, "When companies do 'contribute,' it's often not in the best interest of the community, it isn't enough, or it's thoroughly misguided." Cordasco is quick to note that there are exceptions, but he has an idea why the majority behave that way: "I don't have the complete answer, but one important point is that there is toxicity in the community, its leaders, and or its contributors, and the companies have learned their behavior from this toxicity." He provides a list of suggestions both for companies using open source software, and also some further reading on the subject from Ashe Dryden, David MacIver, and Cory Benfield.

Comments

Offer paid support?

[ArmoredDragon]

If somebody wants a fix for software that they haven't paid anything for, and they want it now, why not offer paid support on that one issue at a rate of $416 per hour? A 24 hour fix would place a cool $10,000 in your pocket. And if they don't want to, then tell them to hire somebody else to do it.

Re:Offer paid support?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this business model!
1. Create OSS software that does something expensive commercial software does, include many subtle bugs. Release it free to the world.
2. Wait for phone to start ringing from desperate suckers I mean cheap corporations.
3. Offer to fix the bugs quickly for a fee.
4. Go to bar, watch the big game with buddies.
5. The next day, release the patch that you created at the same time you wrote the original, flawed code.
6. Send invoice.
7. Profit!!!!

Re:Offer paid support?

[mark-t]

Presumably, they have chosen OSS over alternative projects in the first place for a reason, so them switching to another product just because a bug isn't fixed as soon as they might like would be their own loss on that level.

Re:Offer paid support?

[johnnys]

Because business NEEDS to have the illusion that they "have a neck to choke" when something goes wrong, so they need to have a "contract" with a "company". I've heard this from the C-suite for years. (That is what Red Hat is selling, and why they're successful!)

It's nuts, really: Anyone who reads common software company contracts/EULAs knows that they have NO recourse if something goes wrong, but if they think they can somehow hang blame on a vendor if they have a problem, then that makes them feel safe.

In truth, the OSS model means that if something goes wrong and the vendor tells you to f**k off or goes bankrupt, you can find someone else to help you. If a closed-source vendor can't/won't help or goes under, you're screwed much harder.

OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[IBitOBear]

The core problem isn't that OSS is incomparable with "business", it is only incomparable with the business of "selling software".

OTOH, I spent several hours going round-and-round with my brother inlaw. He runs/owns a company that installs business solutions (computers and software) into other businesses. He was all "I could never make money on open source platforms" using linux as the O.S. because it's free. But he readily admitted that installing Windows had a zero profit margin because of licensing.

There is also the ready admission that having a Windows service contract (again sold a essentially zero markup because of the licenses) doesn't garantee that Microsoft will issue you a patch if you complain about a problem. You are basically just paying up front for the chance to be told to work around a problem or the "opportunity" for an unsupported patch that you'll have to buy again if you upgrade.

Business men have no idea how to deal with OSS because they tend to mimic others and very few have ever done it. The idea of having a line item for zero-dollars that already had zero markup when the line item was non-zero dollars, is mystifying.

So here's this smart guy running a services business, but unable to see how he could charge to service OSS. But companies service OSS all the time.

The true failure, deeper in, is the idea that every incremental correction and modification is precious and must be hoarded and monetized.

And further in still is the complete failure to understand things like the up-front cost of a GPL project base is "disclosure", and that disclosure of those incremental changes is very cheap. Compare embedding linux kernels in things to the up-front and per-unit costs of Wince or VxWorks. Then really _think_ about how non-money-value your fix to that one serial driver really is compared to the item you wan to sell.

Companies tend to forget which businesses they are _not_ in. Selling software is not sustainable, but selling experience (games) and experience (professional expertese) are. So is selling "devices".

So its a problem made up of compounded risk adversity multiplied by inherently unimaginative "business thinking".

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[Anonymous Coward]

The core problem isn't that OSS is incomparable with "business", it is only incomparable with the business of "selling software".

...

Umm, Red Hat has a market cap of $14.81 BILLION dollars.

But don't let reality get in the way of your rants.

They're hilarious.

Seems a bit overblown

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like some bullshit. As someone who works in IT for a major corporation and has to deal with bugs that affect us in COTS software (such as MS Windows and MS Office), threatening people after 24 hours would be ridiculous. If the issue is currently unknown, expect a minimum of 2 weeks with a norm of more like 2 months for a fix - if the vendor will even agree to fix it. Why would a corporation threaten some OSS developer? It just doesn't scan and seems like BS.

This is the threat...?

[StevenMaurer]

"Well if you're not going to take this seriously, we'll have to start using another project."

I've never exactly gotten this. Why does anyone who is giving something away particularly care if someone who is getting it for free uses it or not?

This guy clearly doesn't understand that Open Source means "Free to Use" not "Free Beer", and that most corporations (the executives, not the software engineers or managers) are plenty happy to pay for support from the subject matter experts in it, so long as it saves them overall money. In fact, many corporation's resistance to OSS is due to the lack of such support - because their customers aren't so understanding..

This is the very business model that Red Hat uses. All this guy needs to do is put up a "priority payment" system for bug fixes, and post it publicly. Done and done.

Not always true

[FrozenGeek]

I've had a couple of jobs where we happily used OSS. Now, we used it in the IT department, where we all understood what we were and were not getting. Using OSS outside IT might possibly put it where those who don't understand would see it. Depends on who's using it.

Sorry if I'm a bit grumpy. Had a rough week dealing with end users and I'm feeling a bit BOfH.

So tell them to Bugger off.

[Lumpy]

"As soon as a bug affects them, they want it fixed immediately."

You respond with, "feel free to hire a team of programmers to fix that. you have the source code.:"

Honestly, you have to act like Linus if you run an OSS project.

Re:Toxicity, of course.

[quantaman]

Yeah, when you start throwing around suppositions that reveal a bias against the OSS leadership for being "toxic", I don't see much credibility in your opinion. Why not blame cosmic rays while you're at it? It's one thing to suggest "we can do better", but quite another to just pretend that it's the fault of people you clearly don't like. You and everyone else is relying on their work to a staggering degree, and now you talk like an usurper who wants to blame the software creators instead of the monied interests who don't have an incentive to contribute back, because some alleged asshole is doing it for free already.

I think toxicity does exist but it's not really a fault of the developers as much as the medium.

If you work in an office and are able to talk to your co-workers directly it's pretty easy to have good relationships. There's lot of opportunity to talk about pleasant non-work stuff, the proximity incentivizes you to keep things civil, and when you do disagree you have body language and tone to help get your point across.

If you turn to an email only relationship all of these things are gone. There's not a lot of opportunity to bond over non-work items, the fact you never see the other person physically means it doesn't matter much if you piss them off, and if you need to communicate something you need to be very blunt.

Online communications will invariably have a much stronger bias towards assholery.