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?

[sribe]

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.

Yeah, some people just have no sense at all when it comes to simple common-sense proposal of a win-win deal. As you said, that's exactly the way to approach a demand for an immediate bug fix, propose a working relationship and a price. If the company which has paid you nothing balks at paying, and threatens you in any way, simply offer them an immediate full refund in exchange for terminating the relationship ;-)

Re:Offer paid support?

[Clived]

Doesn't IBM and all the other big names who provide OSS products do this ?

Re:Offer paid support?

[ArmoredDragon]

I know RedHat does. If you don't have a contract with them, and you are a business, then they likely aren't going to bother with you. Now if you find a security vulnerability on the other hand, that's different, but if something doesn't work and you need it to work to fit a business need, they're going to want you to buy a contract.

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?

[jonnythan]

Because the corporation is "contributing" to the project in some way, and they feel entitled to have such bugs fixed in a short period of time.

No one cares if some random company using a piece of OSS demands a bug fix. That's not what this is about. This is about getting for-profit corporations getting involved somehow in a project, and then threatening to pull support if issues affecting them aren't resolved immediately.

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?

[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!!!!

Works for Redhat!

Re:Offer paid support?

[ClickOnThis]

Playing in the OSS world means others can see your code.

And that means others can see the hey-nonny-nonny you're conducting.

Best-case scenario: you're exposed as a profiteering scumbag, and your reputation is toast.

Re:Offer paid support?

[gnupun]

I know RedHat does. If you don't have a contract with them, and you are a business, then they likely aren't going to bother with you.

But what can RedHat provide that you don't already get from the kernel developers? Suppose there's a bug in the kernel, gcc or Apache, don't these product teams already release bug fixes? Why do we need RedHat to resolve the issue?

Re:Offer paid support?

[hjf]

Because it's really not the volunteers who develop linux. It's paid people. And, by far, the highest contributor is - guess - Red Hat.

Re: Offer paid support?

[Redmancometh]

I can make bugs that a team wouldnt catch from looking at code alone...c++ templating is incredibly powerful

Re:Offer paid support?

[drinkypoo]

No one cares if some random company using a piece of OSS demands a bug fix. That's not what this is about. This is about getting for-profit corporations getting involved somehow in a project, and then threatening to pull support if issues affecting them aren't resolved immediately.

So what? That's their right. If they want to go through that cycle and drop the library or whatever, fine. If the software had a reason to exist before them, it will continue to exist after them.

Re:Offer paid support?

[Anonymous Coward]

The The Underhanded C Contest is a nice practical example why having the source available doesn't mean that you easily can find and fix intentional bugs, even if you know that they are there.
At some point it is easier to just write your own in-house application.

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.

Re: Offer paid support?

[nine-times]

I think the GP post was pointing out that if its FOSS, they can also compare the code before and after the fix, and see what the fox was. If you're frequently charging them for fixes that are suspiciously obscure-but-simple-to-fix, they're in a position to review the changes and call you out.

Re:Offer paid support?

[interval1066]

Because commercial software is always flawless.

Re:Offer paid support?

[sjames]

Volunteers and projects you haven't paid will prioritize bugs as they see fit. Yours may be at the bottom of the list. If you want your bug to have priority somewhere, you have the option to pay someone to at least act like they care about it most.

Re:Offer paid support?

[TheCarp]

This.

It has nothing to do with OSS.... its that a "software license" is not a fucking support contract. There is no expected level of service other than "it might get fixed if you are lucky". You paid nothing, you get to expect....nothing. Be greatful you do get any support at all.... because even "hey, glad to hear its working for you" is more than you contributed if all you did was download it.

OTOH, "Its OSS" is no excuse to not provide support if they did buy a support contract. Releasing software is also not all there is to living up to that.

However, in short.... "Free" doesn't mean "Free support and I work weekends too"

Re: Offer paid support?

[maugle]

Sadly, nearly all bugs fall into the category of "obscure, but simple to fix". Also, in my own experience, the bugs which have taken the longest to track down the root cause have also been the bugs whose fixes only required a couple keystrokes.

Re:Offer paid support?

[jbolden]

I sign corporate EULAs all the time and they most certainly do have recourse. For example there are indemnification clauses. Often there are guaranteed support SLAs. There are guarantees of being able to buy engineering support and architectural support. Don't confuse what you get for $500 with what you get for $500k-$20m.

Re: Offer paid support?

[HiThere]

Is that still true?

I remember a *long* time ago (Fortran IV, compiler written by the university that leased the computer) I had this truly horrendous bug where the value of 1 was set to 10. I eventually (*eventually*) traced it down to a '1' instead of an 'I' in a do loop.

I only ever found the error because of other problems caused by the loop not executing as a loop, but only as an assignment. I never did figure out what parse made than an assignment to '1' instead of to 'DO101' (i.e. 'DO 10 1', spaces aren't significant in Fortran IV).

Re:Offer paid support?

[HiThere]

RedHat does most to buy the Linux Ecosystem. It also supports some of the system developers, but I don't think it's the majority of the support.

Now it you were talking about Gnome, then I'd agree without question. And as someone else mentioned, systemd. Strangely, I haven't been happy with the direction that Gnome has been headed in the last several years, and I see no benefit in systemd. (I don't really see any big reason to avoid it, but I see no benefit. I wouldn't have even considered it if it hadn't been shoved into Debian.)

So while Red Hat is putting a lot of money into Linux, and using that money to steer development, I haven't been exceptionally happy with the *direction* that they've been steering the development.

Re:Offer paid support?

[Billly Gates]

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.

Alright you're fired!

Re:Offer paid support?

[Billly Gates]

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.

Yeah, some people just have no sense at all when it comes to simple common-sense proposal of a win-win deal. As you said, that's exactly the way to approach a demand for an immediate bug fix, propose a working relationship and a price. If the company which has paid you nothing balks at paying, and threatens you in any way, simply offer them an immediate full refund in exchange for terminating the relationship ;-)

Why should they? You promised and lied it would work. THey are already paying you $60,000 a year and you agreed to it in return for 100% uptime. There is no budget for $416 an hour. That budget for support goes to you!

I think you geeks wouldn't last long at my company :-) If you can't resolve a critical issue you are fired. No questions asked. We have to bill our customers for any downtime by large large sums of money and you are 100% at fault if you did a change unapproved and if you have some clout to implement it and it fails you are shit up the creek as why are we paying you money if you can't perform your job?

Sorry geeks but PHB MBA types are assholes who do not get or understand tech or geek issues with liberties. They just want to make money and pay you as a COG black box to make problems go away so business can continue as normal.

That is reality that many do not grasp. Maybe I work for a not so good employer? Maybe who cares as they are no different than anyone else with deadlines. That is what we all must do to keep our cars and homes for a paycheck.

Re:Offer paid support?

[prezkennedy.org]

In both cases, the parent and grandparent to whom you were replying were talking from the standpoint of an open source developer, not a company employee.

Sounds like you work for a great company though. Other than the constant pressure to perform and the low pay...

Re:Offer paid support?

[greenfruitsalad]

i used to be an adventurer like you. then i took systemd to my systems.

Just like you I hated the idea of systemd. Now, I put it everywhere I can. Sure I don't like the extra functions it's supposed to take over, but as an init system, it is more elegant than anything else on gnu/linux. The only difference between systemd's and Solaris SMF's philosophy is that solaris programmers knew when to stop adding features.

Re:Offer paid support?

[greenfruitsalad]

No matter what you sign, it is your job that's on the line, not theirs. My experience is primarily with Nexenta (SAN solutions provider), Juniper (network equipment), Dell and tier 1/2 connectivity providers. With all of them we pay for the highest possible support level. When part of our business stops because of a fault/bug with their product/service, they behave as if the word NOW meant at your leisure. Every single one of them does this. I submit a report and they guarantee a response within X hours. So what happens? They respond with the least possible effort 1 minute before hour X.

So I pick up the phone and start the usual ritual of "get me somebody who knows more about your product than i do". Followed by "No, that's not you. No, not even you. Still not you. Maybe you." And it all ends with "No, i am not interested in testing 5 different options and reporting back, I don't work for you. You f*cking test stuff and give me a result that works."

the only solution to problems is having robustness as an architectural requirement.

Re:Offer paid support?

[gstoddart]

Why should they? You promised and lied it would work. THey are already paying you $60,000 a year and you agreed to it in return for 100% uptime. There is no budget for $416 an hour. That budget for support goes to you!

Where the hell are you seeing this in the article?

I'm seeing "corporations use free software, give back a little, expect 24x7 support for nothing".

What the hell are you talking about?

Re:Offer paid support?

[nctritech]

The fatal flaw with this argument is the assumption that knowledgeable people are looking at your code in the first place and that they have the time to sit there and audit your code in depth. I'm sure it happens but I doubt it happens very often. The somewhat recent and highly publicized OpenSSL bugs reminds us that "all bugs are shallow" only when enough experienced people are looking hard and long enough, but rarely in the real world (especially in such a "deep and wide" field like programming) can we expect such optimal conditions to occur.

Re:Offer paid support?

[rhyous]

Might get away with it for a short time, but soon, you get f***ed. Calm down. By f***ed I mean "forked" but you knew that right? What did you think I meant? Oh, that. Well, you'll probably get that too if you try this model.

Re:Offer paid support?

[HiThere]

It is, indeed, probably the greatest failing. But can you even propose a workable system that does better on this point? (And it's certainly not the only failing. But that doesn't mean that any other approach would work better.)

Re:Offer paid support?

[ebvwfbw]

Institutionalized at Microsoft.

Re:Offer paid support?

[silentcoder]

Heck even on something as simple as licensing it can happen. Way back in the 1990s when SGI open-sourced OpenGL there was one tiny bit of code they didn't own and couldn't replace. They managed to get an agreement with the owners that would allow them to *include* it with the LGPL'd release, but not under the same license.
They contacted the FSF and discussed the problem - promising to continue to negotiate to ultimately gain the LGPL licensing or ownership of that crucial piece. The FSF basically told them to go ahead and release and "keep it an in-house secret" - which luckily the unknown third-party also agreed to.

For more than 10 years there was a piece of non-free code in the middle of the openGL code-base with a third-party owner who still had the potential rights to assert any copyright wishes they wanted to over it, like an aligator in a swamp and only a few people in the world knew about it, and they kept quiet (directX was doing well and a free alternative was desperately needed - so it was tactically the best way forward).

Eventually the third party relented and LGPL'd their code and only then was it made public (along with a request to everybody to please install the latest update right away as technically the license on any previous openGL imlementations were invalid).

Re:Offer paid support?

[silentcoder]

Not to mention if the fix would violate one of their cardinal rules. For example if it breaks userspace for somebody else.
The fix you desperately want on your server could be delayed for years because the best available implementation right now can break pulse-audio one some obscure sound card and affect a tiny percentage of desktop users in a negative way.

There is no reason you can't have it as a local patch but no way in hell will that go into the mainline kernel until somebody finds a way of resolving that conflict.

Re:Offer paid support?

[silentcoder]

So you're the one...

I worked extensively on Solaris admin for a few years... and had to learn SMF. The worst POS init system I ever had to deal with (and I was also adminning a half dozen different version of HPUX and even 2 DEC Alpha's running Tru64 at the time).

Going and copying that hellhole in linux is not a plus in my book.

I honestly think upstart or openRC were better alternatives to SysV but something inspired by SMF ? No thank you.

Re:Offer paid support?

[tepples]

I think you geeks wouldn't last long at my company :-) If you can't resolve a critical issue you are fired. No questions asked.

How much does the company spend on onboarding new hires to replace someone who failed to resolve a critical issue and took all his experience with him?

from the article:

[turkeydance]

"No one is asking companies to endure a significant financial burden in order to contribute back." c'mon, man. it ain't gonna happen on its own.

Threats?

[iTrawl]

What threats? (I didn't RTFA yet). Start with the warranty disclaimer that you attached to your licence in capital letters. Then, if they "contribute", tell them nicely to fork off (the technical term, not the innuendo) and, if their fork is actually any good, they should ask you to merge their changes, which you will if they're not bullshit.

If they keep kicking and screaming like baby lawyers, submit for their review a support contract. Make sure your rate is in the "highly paid consultant" range - you might even get away with it, as at that point you'd be speaking _their_ language.

Re:Threats?

[iTrawl]

I suspect most open source projects never hear anything at all from most of the users: I've directly or indirectly used work from many hundreds of such projects for sure, and only contacted several of them.

And that is OK! You give back only if you have something to give back. You don't "give back" just for the sake of it (like the "add another period to a sentence" pull request exemplified in TFA). To me, just the opportunity to give back when I can do so is more valuable than "submit bug report to Closed Source Inc and wait until my beard hits the ground".

Time and expertise is something we all have and no government can ever put in a central bank short of imitating North Korea or Foxconn. It's a "Pay It Forward" economy.

Re:Threats?

[TheRaven64]

As an opensource developer, do you really see someone as choosing to use another project as a problem?

Nope. Open source and proprietary alike care about contributors, not users. In off-the-shelf proprietary software, the (non-pirate) users are all contributors, because they all pay money. In open source, there are a lot of ways to contribute (code, testing, bug reports, documentation, artwork, and so on, as well as money), but users only matter inasmuch as they're real or potential contributors. Some users are negative contributors - they make a lot of demands, but give nothing back. The project is usually better off without them.

If the company is providing a significant contribution, then they may well expect something in return. Often, it's just the continued survival of the project, but if they want more then you should make sure that both parties agree on what the contribution is buying. If they're going to throw money at you, then they might reasonable assume that they've paid for some of your time to be spent on issues that matter to them. If you don't want to accept these terms, then having them use another project is probably better for both of you.

Re:Threats?

[BarbaraHudson]

The threat is to move to using another OSS project. Of course, that other project probably have maintainers working under the same constraints, so the problem won't go away magically. When someone threatens to do that, the proper response is "I'm good with that. Which one are you switching to?" They probably haven't done the research to evaluate other products, or, if they have, they haven't found something compelling enough to make the switch. Call their bluff. The only thing you have to lose is someone who thinks that making threats is the right way to ask someone a favor.

They know it will cost them money to switch. That's part of the cost of being a dick.

Re:Threats?

[BarbaraHudson]

What's your problem? It's not like he's getting anything in return from the complainer - or did you not read the story? Basically, he's doing this on his own time, on his own dime. If someone started threatening me under those circumstances, I would say "Please do, I don't need the aggravation." As would most people. The business making the threats needs to learn not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Or if they're not satisfied, hire their own programmers.

Re:Threats?

[BarbaraHudson]

The business making the threats needs to learn not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

And what is the business? This is my point the article attributes that quote to nobody, was it even real or just made up? Obviously anybody can see that such a thing would be a completely empty threat that makes no sense at all.

People make hollow threats all the time, in case you haven't notice.

Re:Threats?

[BarbaraHudson]

Here's a hollow threat that had no impact: My last boss wanted the source to an application I had developed at home on my own time, and much of it was developed even before I started there. I let him use the binary, but somehow he believed he had the right to work that wasn't paid for and mostly done before I ever knew him. He threatened to call the police and have me arrested for theft because I wouldn't give him the source, but there was no way I could have developed it at the company because they didn't have the right tools, so I told him to go ahead, call the police. He kept threatening, I kept saying "Do it or I will." Totally hollow threat made by a company. Then he changed to another threat, and I sicced the authorities on him :-)

Simple rule - you get what you pay for - and ONLY that.

Re:Threats?

[BarbaraHudson]

Certainly not anonymous, unlike you, and certainly verifiable - I quit and sicced the feds on him and they yanked his corporate charter.. He paid to have it revived, they granted him a grace period, he didn't meet it and they dissolved it permanently.

Just because most people will just role over doesn't mean I have to - I am certainly not like "most people." I was going blind at the time, so I really wasn't in the mood to be screwed around with.

Threats?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

As an opensource developer, do you really see someone as choosing to use another project as a problem? They aren't contributing anything apparently. If they are being a pain in the ass, is them "threatening" to stop messiness with you really something to be afraid of? At least they reported an issue, and let you know why were using your software: that's more than you usually get (I suspect most open source projects never hear anything at all from most of the users: I've directly or indirectly used work from many hundreds of such projects for sure, and only contacted several of them).

Toxicity, of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Toxicity, of course.

[Dracos]

This problem isn't toxicity in the OSS community, it's toxic expectations of the corporate world. They wrongly (for almost all projects) expect OSS software to have the same support mechanisms and turnaround times in place as the proprietary systems they're used to, and think they can strongarm one or a few individuals into solving problems they could likely easily fix themselves and release a patch to the authors. Their main misunderstanding is that unlike expensive proprietary software, OSS is not supposed to be a one way street.

Chances are most of this would go away if the OSS software in question had an explicit disclaimer of warranty and fitness for purpose.

Re:Toxicity, of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

No there is no problem. It's just shit stirrers trying to stir shit or drum up click-bait.

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.

Re:Toxicity, of course.

[Zontar The Mindless]

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.

I have 10+ years working in a highly (internationally) distributed environment that says it doesn't have to be that way.

Re:Toxicity, of course.

[serviscope_minor]

They wrongly (for almost all projects) expect OSS software to have the same support mechanisms and turnaround times in place as the proprietary systems they're used to,

Unless you pay OUTRAGEOUS amounts of money for support contracts on proprietary software, then you get turnaround times somewhere between days and never. That includes things with trivial fixes like "you sent me the wrong fucking license key AGAIN".

They're not used to magical fast proprietary turnaround times unless they are Very Large Companies paying for Very Expensive Software across the board. They're just being entitled dicks.

Chances are most of this would go away if the OSS software in question had an explicit disclaimer of warranty and fitness for purpose.

Just about every OSS license has one of those.

Re:Toxicity, of course.

[phayes]

Just how big is your project compared to Linux? There is little point in comparing poppy seeds and coconuts and size has a tendency to enhance trends.

Re:Toxicity, of course.

[Cederic]

Hmm. I find that support contracts with defined response times and escalation procedures tend to result in suppliers meeting those expectations.

Sure, there's always the odd bug that takes weeks to fix, but on the flipside there's the unpaid 24h phone calls that they throw in for free to help assure successful resolution of a major issue - even when it's not their software at fault.

You need to get better at managing your suppliers.

Re:Toxicity, of course.

[Billly Gates]

Yada yada

Best beer buddies or ot if they can't do their job because you can't do yours and fix it gloves are off. Assholery seems universal in the IT field as we are in the end a cost of goods sold machine who are there to make sure they make money. Nothing more. Sorry but respect is not their for IT unless you work for a .com and actually generate the revenue.

Maybe my soul has been broken. BUt I had hell last week with people throwing me under the bus by not following procedures and overloading my team. Beer buddies didn't count as the MBAs jobs were on the line and they documented things to make sure just myself was on the line etc.

Anyway in business things need to be agreed and documented in support and money.

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.

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[Kjella]

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.

But that's pretending software already does 99,9% of the things you want to do. The reality is that for me, personally it's either Windows @ $109 and MS Office @ $149 or Linux and LibreOffice + $258 in custom development and that's not even a week's worth of minimum wage, much less a software professional at contracting rates. The burden is put on the one who commissions the code, but the benefits go to everyone. Sure there's crowdsourcing but then you're not in control of what happens and the incentive is still to wait and see if you can get somebody else to pay, while buying a finished solution you can test it and see that it works to your needs. It's not the disclosure that's being sold cheap, it's the accumulated value of refined, battle tested code that is given away for free to those who have contributed nothing to its existence.

Don't get me wrong, I get that's in the spirit of open/free software but it that doesn't change the fact that the per-copy charge helps distribute the development costs across more users who usually got some value from of the developments made, even though they wouldn't have carried the cost themselves. With open source, every time you run into a rough edge you usually have to apply the polish yourself, which is why many say "Linux is only free if your time is worthless", they all take some of your time but how much time matters. The good news is that you have the source and can always in theory fix it, but you can still burn a lot of money doing it.

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[gnupun]

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

This guy is releasing free software but he acts like he's a hybrid free/paid type developer. Some of his statements:

Not once has a company said to me:

        "This bug is costing us $X per day. Can we pay you $Y to focus on it and get a fix out as soon as possible?"

I've also never demanded this. It would be nice, but it never happens.

This type of thinking is that of paid software developers, not free software developers. Of course, they're not going to pay you $Y to fix it... it's free! Why should someone be required to pay for something that's free? This guy has an implicit expectation that he should be paid for any extra service, even though bug-fixing is a normal and natural part of software development, nothing something special and extra. Just release commercial software and be done with it instead of playing these passive aggressive games, or state up-front that you charge $1000 to fix any urgent issue.

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[serviscope_minor]

Well done for condescendly making the parent's point while claiming he's wrong.

RedHat sell expertise (i.e. support). If you just want the software, you can get it for free from CentOS.

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[phayes]

Only an idiot would overlook that support which is to say services is precisely the thing TFA was pretending to complain about.

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[swb]

I work in what amounts to version of your brother's business, and as far as I know, we do make money on Windows licensing, mostly because our partnership level with Microsoft pretty much guarantees we get a better wholesale price than most other resellers.

The product category I hear the most gripes about is hardware. Some has terrific margins, some has lousy margins.

I also hear mixed stories about service labor. Labor is usually the most expensive part of any business, so I'm told we make more money on managed services -- where lower-end guys make sure backups actually ran and miscellaneous tasks -- than higher end services. The labor rate is higher for higher end services, but project management and client inefficiency and higher labor costs for high end services make it less profitable. It gets balanced out somewhat because the overall higher end project almost always includes higher end software and hardware with more markup.

I don't know how open source fits in here. It would sound like it should be more service revenue, but in places deploying Microsoft stuff they don't have developers to work on it and IMHO for anything up to midsize businesses deploying non-customized applications and infrastructure,

I don't see how there's more service revenue to be made. It seems like there should be, if the software is free and the extra service associated with it would just come out of what wasn't paid for the software, but the labor costs are so high that it doesn't take too many hours. But I think a lot of customers balk at the no-name nature of open source software as well as the notion they're getting something "free" (which must be lower value) and paying more for labor -- it sounds like a scam.

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[Gryle]

He's making the point that he doesn't owe these companies his time merely by liscencing some software to them. These are not companies merely submitting bug reports. These are companies screaming at this guy to drop whatever he is doing and fix their issue right now, as if they are somehow entitled to his immediate and undivided attention at no cost.

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[IBitOBear]

Didn't read very closely. I said "selling software" was insupportable but selling experience (e.g. professional expertese) [which is "service"] does work.

I was complaining that a business man who was already in the job of selling service for a zero-markup product (windows) couldn't seem to understand how selling service for a zero-dollar-cost OSS operating system was identical. Said business man was mentally caught on the horns of the word "Free" rather than being open to the fact that its the exact same transaction for his bottom line (but without the licensing compliance hassle and cost).

If you couldn't figure out that the "few" who do understand the model and sell the service _included_ RedHat...

Well your "only an idiot" comment just lays there on your plate like a dead crow waiting to be eaten.

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[phayes]

Lol, all that rerationalization from a single line, eh? Naah, you're just a twit attempting to avoid being called out for being transparently wrong.

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[IBitOBear]

If you don't know how to read plain text there's nothing anybody can do to help you. Time will handle you. I'd "lol" you but ignorance is dangerous so your failings are not even funny.

Re:OSS is not compatible with businessmen.

[phayes]

My apologies, I replied to the twit throwing around "idiot" & mistook your reply as his. I agree with your positions, not his.

Clueless whining

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I RTFA. At least until the "Woe is me!" whingeing made me stop.

For example:

This is because the company wanted to invest as little time in the problem as possible so the person couldn't fix the tests, write new ones, or write a real fix. I don't blame the engineer, I blame their manager and their company. If the project is that important to them, they should have let the engineer spend a few hours, fix the bug the right way and follow the guidelines outlined in the contributor's documentation.

This clueless twit reflexively blames crappy fixes and failure to follow his guidelines on "their manager and their company", and not the rock-brain of a developer. He needs to actually try managing developers himself some day, then he'd realize the developers do a wonderful job of failing to follow guidelines and submitting crappy fixes all on their own.

TFA is full of crap like that.

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.

Re:Seems a bit overblown

[mysidia]

Why would a corporation threaten some OSS developer?

Because they're scared, and don't have the right expertise in their company to deal with the situation, also they don't have any consultant who can help them, And the bug is an unmitigatable remotely-exploitable 0Day in the web application framework used on their main e-commerce website with public exploit code but no patch, so that's an act of desperation and demonstration of internal management incompetence (not having competent staff or agreements in place to deal with the impact of a bug).

Re:Seems a bit overblown

[tomhath]

Why would a corporation threaten some OSS developer? It just doesn't scan and seems like BS.

It depends on what was meant by "corporation". It sounds like some hotshot millennial who started his own Next Big Thing and thinks he owns the world. The best response to that type is "Don't hit yourself with the door on the way out".

Re:Seems a bit overblown

[stephanruby]

It is indeed bs. This developer has a super low threshold for what he considers to be a threat.

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

So what? It's not like his project can satisfy everyone. Also, it's not like he's going to lose any revenue as a result of this action.

If he wants to talk about real threats, then he should try publishing a mobile app on an app store. There, the users are absolutely ruthless. And it doesn't matter if the app is paid, or free, or open source, or proprietary, or painted pink, or whatever... If your app has a feature (that some users consider to be missing), users will not only uninstall your app right away, but they'll also rate your application only one star until their particular feature request gets implemented.

And such reviews don't get posted 24 hours after the fact, they get posted within a few seconds or a few minutes of having tried your app (and in some cases, they even get posted within a few seconds of having read the app's description because the description and the screenshots themselves may be able to show the user what features the app has).

And when this happens to you, you don't start making sweeping generalizations about open source vs. proprietary software. The fact is, the more popular your app is, the bigger the sample size of users it's going to have, and the bigger the sample size of users it's going to have, the more you'll have to read through negative reviews posted by self-centered users. That's just a fact of life for developers. And if you don't have the stomach to read those user reviews, may be you should consider doing like in South Park, and have someone censor negative email messages, negative tweets, and negative user reviews before any of them reach you.

Threats?

[mark-t]

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

Presumably, they chose the OSS software over another project in the first place for a reason, so starting to use another project would be their own loss. In actuality, that's not really a threat, that's just petty spite. I would have a hard time taking any company seriously that acted so unprofessional.

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.

Re:This is the threat...?

[phantomfive]

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?

Most people I've talked to who write open source code want their code to be used by people. That is fine.

Other people, like Andrew Tridgell, just like making a great project. I really admire those people.

Re:This is the threat...?

[QuasiEvil]

Honestly, if somebody ever got annoyed at me for not fixing a bug on a schedule that conflicted with my priorities without even offering to compensate me, I'd tell them to shove it. That's not a threat, that's an opportunity to educate them on the value of my time and how little of a !#$% I give about their whining.

Sure, there's some nights I'm just sitting around watching TV and being useless, but those nights are much rarer than they used to be. If they'd like to re-prioritize an evening or two of my time, they can drag out the checkbook. Otherwise, I'll address their concern when I get around to it. My feelings aren't hurt if they want to switch to some other project as a result, because I understand the cost of converting and then hoping the guy over there is more agreeable than I am...

Re:This is the threat...?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Because people expect you to take your product seriously, even if it is free? The businesses have been sold on the idea that open source is just as good as the other kind of software, and this is the withering reply they get?

This sort of "fuck you" attitude is one of the things that really turns off businesses and everyone else from relying on open source software. The fact that you don't understand why anyone would particularly care is the entire problem.

Re:This is the threat...?

[im_thatoneguy]

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?

People like their work to be useful. I know I like to see my projects used and appreciated. If you spend 2 weeks working on something and its ultimate life is just to sit on github without any attention then those 2 weeks seem like a bit of a waste. But if you see it actively used by lots of people then you get that warm fuzzy feeling that you made the world a little bit better for someone else. That being said, threats don't foster that warm fuzzy feeling and anyone who says that my free labor isn't enough will get a f-off in response.

Re:This is the threat...?

[serviscope_minor]

Are you saying that this developer should:
(a) work for free on the code
(b) work for free educating the company reps in how not to be a raging, entitled douchenozzle
(c) suck it up and put up with asshats for free so that the company can continue to be "sold" on OSS and get free stuff while being asshatty and contributing nothing
(d) something I've missed

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.

Not compatible?

[tomhath]

Corporations are almost certainly the biggest consumers and supporters of open source. I would be very surprised if he ever got any money from hobbyists.

I suspect...

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

... this is a case of the squeaky well gets noticed.

I work in a large software company where we use thousands of open source projects in a couple of hundred projects and I'm intimately involved in the management of open source within the company. I've never had a team come to me and say "we need this bug fixed in the next day or two". And they damn sure don't go out threatening projects (that would be one of those "career limiting moves"). While I don't doubt that this guy has had people do that to him I gotta believe those are the people that he notices and remembers, not the silent majority.

Re:I suspect...

[Antique Geekmeister]

> I've never had a team come to me and say "we need this bug fixed in the next day or two".

Then you clearly don't work in IT. Problems with system capacity, critical hardware, authenticated access, and network connectivity all need to be fixed _now_. And not having the resources in place to deal with the shortages leads to people losing their jobs, and can cause the whole company to fail.

Re:I suspect...

[Cederic]

Big difference between "We need to resolve this issue now" and "We need that third party developer with whom we have no commercial relationship to fix a bug now".

I too don't recognise the latter scenario. When I've found bugs in open source products I've generally found their bug tracker and either submitted a new report or found that someone else has already found it.

I then get on with working around the issue on the grounds it'll be weeks/months before it's fixed, if ever.

Re:I suspect...

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Big difference between "We need to resolve this issue now" and "We need that third party developer with whom we have no commercial relationship to fix a bug now".

The client may not know, and often does not care. It's unusual, but not that unusual, for the client to complain bitterly about any delay, even for an unpaid third party source code repository.

> Big difference between "We need to resolve this issue now" and "We need that third party developer with whom we have no commercial relationship to fix a bug now".

Good for you and for the rest of us. I'm afraid I also find some that are old bugs for which I've submitted patches or workarounds previously. Most of the free software and open source authors are good about reviewing and accepting small, legible patches in a timely fashion, and the growth of git for open code and alternative software repositories has been very useful. I've been delighted with its effects on the ability to patch code, and submit pull requests, without having to share write access to the primary source repository.

Re:I suspect...

[Cederic]

The client may not know, and often does not care

The client isn't a client of the open source developer though. I have responsibilities to my client, and relying on some arbitrary developer that might already have retired their keyboard isn't professional or sensible.

Re:I suspect...

[Antique Geekmeister]

> The client isn't a client of the open source developer though.

Quite true. But note what I was responding to, from a previous poster:

>> I've never had a team come to me and say "we need this bug fixed in the next day or two".

It's a common request for me and my colleagues. It's especially intense when finely scheduled Gant charts of billable time, with specific hours with specific tasks, are written with "2 hours to fix ticket CORP-999" allocated early in the project, work is blocked by it, but the work can't be started until 3 hours before the manager who reported the bug knows nothing about it, and the programmer can't be spared to describe the bug. That was a quite common occurrence with one manager until they were helped to find a new role with another company.

Re:I suspect...

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

lol Dude, I've been working doing products for nearly 30 years now.

Re:I suspect...

[Antique Geekmeister]

"Doing products" does not typically mean "work in IT". If your current workplace is using the words that way, then please be more clear about language: they're not the standard definitions.

Re:I suspect...

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Bzzt. Wrong answer. They're (apparently) not YOUR definition.

Re:I suspect...

[Antique Geekmeister]

Excuse me? What field are you in where "working doing products" mean working in IT? I've never seen that usage for IT work in decades in the field. The more I think about it, the less it's clear what it _does_ mean. I can find no evidence that it's a standard term of art in manufacturing, software, or sales.

Re:Fixed immediately?

[mark-t]

Seriously? Having dealt with all sorts of bugs in commercial, closed-source software for more than a decade, I've never heard anyone make threats if a bug isn't fixed in 24 hours.

Really? Not even an implied one that you might not still have a job otherwise? I've had that happen a few times, unfortunately.

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:So tell them to Bugger off.

[phantomfive]

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.

Somehow I think Linus would have some......different words.....

Re:So tell them to Bugger off.

[bioteq]

I would pay good money, and a large tub of popcorn to watch Linus respond to something like that.

I would also start a betting pool for certain, choice, phrase words.

Re:So tell them to Bugger off.

[gnupun]

But as an OSS developer, don't you have a responsibility to fix some problem in your code? You released code so someone would use it, but the bugs make it difficult for the users to achieve their goals, which in turn may affect company profit (if said OSS is being used in a commercial setting).

If you like releasing half-baked crap that is useless to someone after they've invested real time and money, don't release such software in the first place or declare a warning stating that "support is unlikely or will take months to resolve any bugs you have or will take $$$ to fix any problem."

Bottom line, OSS projects need to specify the time it will take to resolve any issue right on their product description page. This will help corps decide whether they want to use your software or not.

Re:So tell them to Bugger off.

[simula67]

But as an OSS developer, don't you have a responsibility to fix some problem in your code?

No

You released code so someone would use it

No, people can release the source code because they feel like it.

If you like releasing half-baked crap that is useless to someone after they've invested real time and money, don't release such software in the first place

Just because a project is released, doesn't mean you have to use it. If you want to use something for no money, you have to do your research to make sure that you are using the right open source project.

Re:So tell them to Bugger off.

[gnupun]

No, people can release the source code because they feel like it.

WTF does that even mean, "because they felt like it?" Software is created to be used and broken software is useless. What's the point of releasing useless stuff?

Corps and even non-commercial users care about what the program does. They don't care about the source code.

Just because a project is released, doesn't mean you have to use it.

Conversely, you need to communicate how much time you're capable of spending fixing bugs, so your users have an idea how dependable your software is for their tasks... anywhere from 0 hours (you're on your own) to 10 hours/week.

Re:So tell them to Bugger off.

[serviscope_minor]

But as an OSS developer, don't you have a responsibility to fix some problem in your code?

Nope. Just about every OSS license comes splattered with disclaimers. Personally, I have pride in some of my projects and so would fix bugs in a reasonably timely manner depending on the bug (problems with OSX or Windows are low down on my list since I have neither and no one who has had problems has ever offered to buy me a mac or a windows license).

If you like releasing half-baked crap that is useless to someone after they've invested real time and money, don't release such software in the first place

Ah you're one of those people who gets off on telling others what they should do for fun or how they should run their hobbies. Even though it's clearly a hobby of yours, I'm going to ironically tell you to stop doing it.

Bottom line, OSS projects need to specify the time it will take to resolve any issue right on their product description page.

So people doing stuff for free on their own time should put time and effort into boring, uninteresting stuff so that companies can profit from their work without ever having to contribute a cent? Uh... how about no.

Re:So tell them to Bugger off.

[Lumpy]

I am a bit different than you the OSS code I have released, if someone reports a bug, I'll get to it when I can, but my DAY JOB is far more important, as well as family. Honestly I released it for free, and all people using it will get 100% of their $0.00US they spent to buy it from me, and my response time to bug reports will also be at that speed. "reasonable" amount of time is based on my definition of reasonable. Someone demanding a fix is not reasonable, someone wanting a fix within 12 months for free? not reasonable.

Now if someone offered me $140,000 to fix that bug? I'll do it right away and even send a bottle of wine with it.

Re:So tell them to Bugger off.

[kimvette]

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

The better response would be "Well, here's our bug tracker, and here is our roadmap for $RELEASE_FOO. If this is high priority for you, we could add $YOUR_PET_DEFECT or $YOUR_PET_FEATURE_REQUEST to $RELEASE_FOO for $N, but if you're willing to wait until $RELEASE_BAR we could add $YOUR_PET_FEATURE_REQUEST to the design spec for a $MODEST_DONATION. If it is truly critical we could fork it for you for $REASONABLE_CONTRACT_FEES and after you've tested it we can merge it back into the main trunk... or if the request is contrary to the project's goals the response could be "We understand and appreciate your request but it conflicts with the overall community's needs. However we are in need of funding as we also have families to feed so we could fork it and develop the custom solution for you if you fund it." Any responses like that would gain a lot of good will and acceptance of the open source community as it is far less sociopathic... ...where instead the response all too often is along the lines of "it's open source fix it yourself" or "man foo" or what amounts to "fixing bugs is boring" which tells the world "We OSS developers are pretentious jerks." They're really not jerks at heart - it's that a lot of the community is comprised of aspies who lack people skills and it is compounded by jerks who only complain about the projects rather than saying "hey guys this software is great and it's saved is $TENS_OF_THOUSANDS over the last two years by helping us avoid outrageous licensing fees, but we've run into a few bugs we would love for you to take a look at."

Re:So tell them to Bugger off.

[gnupun]

The Corp got more value out of it than they PAID for it...
  THEY PAID NOTHING

Do you understand what free software means? It means the buyer pays $0 to the seller of the software. Don't act surprised, indignant and jealous when you get paid exactly $0 for your software that you priced at $0.

However, it's still software and all software has bugs. These bugs need to be fixed by the developer who put them in there. You can't release software and say "I won't fix the bugs in a timely fashion unless you pay me $10,000 for 2 days work." That's some kind of extortion or racketeering and the software is no longer free.

Re:So tell them to Bugger off.

[Kidbro]

Do you understand what free software means?

He probably does. It suspect that you don't, though.

It means the buyer pays $0 to the seller of the software.

Indeed, you didn't, because it doesn't. Free, in the context of free software, means that they get the source code, can make modifications to it, and can redistribute it, with or without modifications. The very point of that whole idea is that the user should not be depending on the original author for bugfixes. The entire premise of your ignorant whining is destroyed by the very concept free software, which you (deliberately?) refuse to understand. Everybody else cought on twenty years ago.

Re:So tell them to Bugger off.

[Billly Gates]

"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.

.... and you're still employed?

What does the license say?

[QuietLagoon]

... 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....

Does the license under which the OSS code is used by the company say that bugs will be fixed within 24 hours? Was a contract entered that says bugs will be fixed within 24 hours?

.
If the answer to both of the above is "no", then what's the problem?

I don't see why the guy is whining, and tainting the entire OSS community with his personal issues.

Re:What does the license say?

[drinkypoo]

I don't see why the guy is whining, and tainting the entire OSS community with his personal issues.

He's trying to make himself feel better about his failure to make a living selling OSS by spreading FUD about it. If he can convince himself that what he says is true, he doesn't have to believe that he is a failure, and he can go on failing happily, all the while claiming that it is someone else's fault..

Office of Strategic Services

[jfdavis668]

Whenever I see "OSS", I always think it means the "Office of Strategic Services". I don't think that mixed well with businesses, either.

Correct response

[SuperKendall]

"If you are using it without paying for it, are you really taking it seriously either?"

RMS is right about how open source can work in conjunction with companies - if they want "real" support, they can damn well pay for it.

The cost of hiring good coders cannot be avoided. Either you are paying good programmers to work for you, are you are paying less and are at the mercy of coders who feel like donating enough good code to you, that your business will function.

No surprise to me

[topham]

This isn't a surprise to me. I work for a profitable government organization. We bring in substantial tax dollars. But at the end of the day all my work has to be justified, much of it within the confines of a specific project. That means once specific goals are met I must move on to other things. Bugs which affect us must be fixed, but others languish because of other priorities.

Hold on a sec

[Tablizer]

When has Microsoft ever fixed a customer-specific problem within 24 hours? I haven't actually talked to a live MS rep since 1994

his situation, not everybody's

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

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

Probably most open source software is developed either by corporations or by consortia of corporations. His situation, where he develops open source software independently that is then used by big corporations, is probably unusual. In particular, I suspect most of those corporations asking for quick turnaround on fixes, would probably be willing to pay for that kind of support if only someone would offer it.

Business needs

[BradMajors]

The incompatibility is that businesses need software that works. The OSS community wants to produce buggy, incomplete, undocumented software.

Whining

[Tony Isaac]

Of course, a business that uses open source software will be most concerned about bugs that affect it. Isn't that natural? So if he wants the other bugs fixed, he can personally contribute his time to the project, and fix the bugs HE wants fixed! This article looks to me like a simple case of a guy who doesn't agree with his company's priorities, and is venting on the Web.

Re:weak

[bioteq]

What in the holy fuck did I just read?

Tell 'em to pound sand

[kheldan]

It's OSS. They want a bug fixed so damned bad that they're going to start threatening the author? Tell 'em to go pound sand, and have their own gods-be-damned programmer(s) fix it. It's not like they don't have the gods-be-damned source code for the thing.

Re:weak

[Anonymous Coward]

What in the holy fuck did I just read?

Something about He-Man and the proper location where one should amputate their genitals?

Business is different

[invictusvoyd]

Linus Torvalds started writing a kernel because he wanted a unix like OS for his own use.

Stallman started writing the shell and the tools because he envisioned a operating system for the community by the community and of the community.

IBM started using the linux kernel because they saw business sense in using a good quality kernel which was "usable" at a fraction of the cost of their usual software.

It is futile to expect these two groups to work or even understand each others goals and aspirations. They are fundamentally different.

Re:Business is different

[mwvdlee]

You took about 30 seconds to explain the goals, why do you think other people would be unable to do the same?

Except for...

[catchblue22]

Except for Android. Or Tesla. Or Google search. Or most of the internet. Or...

Re:Except for...

[IBitOBear]

Android: Control of market share (the software is given away for free)

Google: Control of advertising revenue (the software is given away for free)

Tesla: Sells cars and batteries, (software updates are free).

Most of the Internet: pay for services.

Kinda making my point.

Offer them support

[im_thatoneguy]

I've seen all of this with my freely available code or tools. And I always say the same thing "Thanks for bring the bug to my attention..." and then if I'm currently busy with other things or I don't care that much about the code anymore I follow up with "I'm currently busy with other projects, my hourly rate is $xxx if you need it fixed ASAP I would be happy to provide an estimate and invoice for the work. Otherwise it probably won't be fixed for a few weeks if ever."

Everyone so far has been very understanding and a number of them have paid for the addition or fix. I'll even list the sponsoring party in the changelog.

--Fixed crash from XYZ. Fix sponsored by AnimationCorp LLC.
I get paid to work on a free tool that I use too, they get something they need, I get some minor self promotion for the tool being used by more people and they get some minor promotion in the changelog/release notes.

Reasons listed in TFA are TOTALLY wrong

[Kartu]

Based on my experience, I'm working for one of the big multi-nationals for years.

Bugs fixed quicker in commercial software, are you kidding me?
Fucking, seriously???
It's not only that most of the times you have to find workarounds/fixes yourself, it's that since it's commercial and not OSS code, what you'll likely face won't even be decompiled code, it will be bloody OBFUSCATED decompiled code with things like a.b.c.d1() all over the place!!!

At least for the corp I work for (and I'm pretty sure for most corporations out there) the main reasons for go for commercial over OSS is: LEGAL.
Some motherfucker patents "using (some ancient thingy that everyone on the planet uses) to quickly iterate over tree)" and kaboom, with OSS (no protection whatsoever) you need to pay either them directly or lawyers to fend them off.

With commercial software that's seller's problem.
As easy as that.

There are, of course, libs that are too widely used and would seriously harm IT projects if not used, e.g. apache commons libs. Well, for that there is short whitelist of items that "have been reviewed" along with "mitigation strategies".

Every manager is aware of this, so when you have a choice over "ShareIt" or "ShareThis", one is free, one is not, decision is made instantly, "of course we want the non-free one".

Re:Reasons listed in TFA are TOTALLY wrong

[serviscope_minor]

With commercial software that's seller's problem.

Hardly. Lots of commercial software won't indemnify against patent problems. Not all that long ago, a company wanted me to indemnify my work for them (as a consultant/supplied customised software module), so I told them flat out that it was too expensive but I could if they really wanted take out insurance (once they specify the indemnification limit), but that would be added to the cost of the product.

They ruminated on it for a while, came back to me with "are you suuuureee...?" so I explained why patents were such a minefield (submarine patents, trivial patents, the sheer quantity of the things) and why I couldn't indemnify them with no upper limit and why insurance would be so expensive. Then they understood and decided to go without indemnification from me and sort it out with their own insurers.

24-hours...

[Hymer]

Companies, especially financial but also any company being "risk-evaluated" need to be able to "continue normal operation" in max. 24-hours, if they can't they risk-evaluation will drop and then they will be devalued, which technically means that their worth will drop. For an A+ or A rated company such devaluation is catastrophic because loan are based on this rating and will need to be paid immediately.
That means effectively that any piece of mission critical software or hardware need to either be replaced or fixed in under 24-hours.

YES, I do work in IT in a financial company with "triple A" rating.
(and btw. there are not so many of that kind companies left after the financial crisis)...

Re:24-hours...

[Hymer]

"It is done by designing the systems to be fault tolerant." Yes I agree... now go tell it to the developers and to the management.

It can work

[bytesex]

My company completely overhauled openvpn, and gave the results back to the community. Granted, this was under a government contract, but still.

Re:Excuse me?

[gnupun]

If I release the sources, that's that.

Sources are useless to the general consumer, they don't understand it, can't modify it. You're thinking, just because I'm a programmer, everyone else in the world is a programmer and capable of making changes to my code. It's not that easy, even if the end-user is a programmer.

End users want software... that works... they don't care about source code. That's why in a restaurant, they give you the meal, not a recipe so you can go in the kitchen and cook it yourself.

I don't have special obligations to people I don't know.

Well, why did you release it to people you don't know or care about? Keep it on your local machine if you have no intention of helping others. Or at least have the decency to state that you won't support your software on the download page so people won't bother downloading it in the first place.

Releasing source code does not confer any responsibilities on me. You can say it does all you like.

Saying it doesn't confer any responsibilities on you is pure BS and lies. You wrote it, so you understand it the most, and therefore you're responsible for any changes. Are you implying you are not responsible for the bugs you put into the software, intentional or not? Now that's hilarious.

Re:Seeing the source

[hackwrench]

Corporations don't have to share the source of code they use internally. There are some licenses that say you have to share any code that results in the page sent to the user, though, I think.

Some possible reasons

[Registered Coward v2]

One problem is business view OSS much as any other product, i.e. someone supplied it and thus the expect that person to help solve problems that arise. The do not see the OSS community as a community but as yet another vendor. Other vendors don't say "We'll, if it doesn't work right tell us and we'll see if we want to fix it and if someone is interested in fixing it they'll do so when they get around to it." As a result, there are differing expectation on what OSS really id; which if course does not absolve those acing like jerks.

Companies do not realize they can fix a problem themselves by patching their code even if the community doesn't agree with the fix. Of course, when they break something else they will expect someone else to fix the new problem.

The OSS community bears some blame as well, beyond the toxicity argument. There are those who want wider acceptance and use of OSS without changing the norms and culture that define the OSS community. Unfortunately, as communities grow up they change and such changes are sometimes hard for those who helped build the community to accept.

Re:Excuse me?

[Ash-Fox]

End users want software... that works... they don't care about source code.

You're really pretentious and full of assumptions. I'm an end user (that also happens to do some programming every now and then) and I care about source code in certain circumstances.

Well, why did you release it to people you don't know or care about?

Why does it matter if someone he doesn't know or cares about has access to some sourcecode he wrote?

Keep it on your local machine if you have no intention of helping others.

Opensource lets you help yourself in the worst case scenario. I'd say that's a lot of help in it self.

Or at least have the decency to state that you won't support your software on the download page so people won't bother downloading it in the first place.

Why assume someone will support software when they didn't write "I am going to support this software" on their webpage? I think that's indecent.

You wrote it, so you understand it the most, and therefore you're responsible for any changes.

I don't see the responsibility here, at all.

Are you implying you are not responsible for the bugs you put into the software, intentional or not?

If you bothered reading the licensing of software you used, they usually have sections like:

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
 
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

In summary, yes, the license you were granted to use most software generally offers no warranty and in turn, no responsibility.

Re:Excuse me?

[gnupun]

What a load of complete BS... Did you attend some evening school where they teach you how to be evil and write confusing, convoluted lies that gives the illusion that a thief in fact was innocent and the victim of thief was in fact the thief. Or are you a lawyer, by chance?

Re:Excuse me?

[Ash-Fox]

What a load of complete BS...

Feel free to post a correction then.

Did you attend some evening school where they teach you how to be evil and write confusing, convoluted lies that gives the illusion that a thief in fact was innocent and the victim of thief was in fact the thief.

Actually, I believe what I have written. I should note that I was genuinely interested in your reasoning behind why does it matter if someone he doesn't know or cares about has access to some sourcecode he wrote in response to your 'putting it out there'. If he doesn't care about those particular individuals and doesn't care whether they got it or not, I'm not seeing an actual argument here.

To even help you get a perspective, perhaps this person posted the sourcecode because he wanted to have other programming contributors, contribute more to the application and is not particularly interested in giving handouts of his precious free time when he already works a full time job during the day.

Or are you a lawyer, by chance?

I'm an armchair lawyer at best. But I get the distinct impression you have some sort of 'higher' moral grounds that are strictly from one point of view that doesn't encompass the entire situation. From my perspective, it's interesting how playing a little of devil's advocate on some of your statements is likely being interpreted by you as 'evil'.

As someone that has worked in consultancies, I also have experience with what some companies (I certainly haven't worked for all) do with clients that very problematic usually and are asking for a higher level of support than they're willing to do and not willing to compromise on it. They tend to state they can't help you and in extreme cases, they just terminate your support contract early. Alternatively, if the software was bought as a product, they offer your money back and request you return the product since it didn't meet your requirements.

I very much suspect your point of view stems from the rudeness of responses. Try to apply similar circumstances as above to open source:

• Telling people you're giving back their $0 generally comes off as rude.
• Telling people you can't accept their push because it's lacks all the proper unit tests, breaks on other bits and pieces, comes off as rude.
• Telling people that you do this as a hobby and their concerns aren't really something you even want to help with on your own free time, comes off as rude.
• Telling people they have the source and can fork their own version of the software to fix it themselves comes off as rude.

When something is taken as rude, I suspect this this leads to people thinking they're entitled to something and I get the impression this is where your point of view may stem from.

Re:Excuse me?

[gnupun]

You're really pretentious and full of assumptions.

What's pretentious about wanting software that works. It's folks who pretend they care about access to source code that are pretentious because they neither read nor change the source. Open source been around for decades but we have not seen the hundreds or even dozens of variations of a given software that was promised by OSS evangelists. Heck, I would like to see a Linux tree that is free of systemd. So far, most distros are adopting systemd.

Why does it matter if someone he doesn't know or cares about has access to some sourcecode he wrote?

He said, "I don't have special obligations to people I don't know." That implies he doesn't care for these strangers. Then why is he giving out free software to these people? BTW, fixing bugs that you created in the first place, is in no way a "special obligation.' If you disagree, you should stop releasing software since you're a shoddy developer.

Why assume someone will support software when they didn't write "I am going to support this software" on their webpage?

Because every other individual or organization that releases software, supports their code? The exceptions are lazy programmers or shysters who you want to charge you $$$ for simple fixes (as is in this case).

I don't see the responsibility here, at all.

I suppose the end-user's grandmother is supposed to fix the code then if the original developer won't fix bugs. Programmers are supposed to spend 50%-70% of their time adding minor features or fixing bugs. That's the maintenance phase once version 1.0 is released. If you don't have the time to do that, find someone who will maintain the code or don't release the code at all.

If you bothered reading the licensing of software you used, they usually have sections like:

Those sections usually address previously unknown bugs in the software that cause the end-user harm/damage. It would be brain-dead stupid and negligent to release software to customers when you know severe showstopper bugs exist in your software and yet you refuse to fix it until some extortion money has been extracted from the hapless user.

Re:Excuse me?

[Ash-Fox]

What's pretentious about wanting software that works.

There is nothing with wanting that software, but it's another thing to apply those values to someone else who has other priorities.

It's folks who pretend they care about access to source code that are pretentious because they neither read nor change the source.

I wouldn't fall into this category, but it happens most modifications I do these days to opensource products is for personal interests that I rarely contribute back. Kind of similar to RMS' printer driver issue.

Open source been around for decades but we have not seen the hundreds or even dozens of variations of a given software that was promised by OSS evangelists.

Yeah, I am sure there are a lot of shit OSS evangelists out there.

Heck, I would like to see a Linux tree that is free of systemd. So far, most distros are adopting systemd.

I'm on the fence on the issue, but mostly because I haven't learned sufficiently enough about it to have a decent opinion.

He said, "I don't have special obligations to people I don't know." That implies he doesn't care for these strangers. Then why is he giving out free software to these people?

I could give an example of my own I guess. Such as the reason I published some random little things (like an XML parser I wrote in m68k assembler for a hobby project), if it's useful to someone, great. If not, sorry but it meets my needs currently and I don't have an interest in it outside of my scope. I might offer a little help here and there if my life isn't busy and I have the drive after doing all the other stuff I have to do at the end of the day, but it's not assured.

Because every other individual or organization that releases software, supports their code?

In my consultancy life, working with large multi-national companies, 'support' (despite paid for) was often (not always), next to non-existent if it wasn't a user/developer-error issue and the only thing they could do was 'waive' various fees. In my personal life, I have had problems with certain audio hardware and software, they just up-front told me that they don't support it and offered a refund. I've also fought with a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (Giff gaff), who would refuse to support me in practically any circumstance (despite having a very specific technical issue) and refer me to their community forums for support despite being willing to pay for support etc.

In summary, no, I don't agree with your assumption here.

The exceptions are lazy programmers

I'm not lazy, the average hours I worked last year (and I know this because of my time sheets) was 112 hours per week (and I only really posted or went on sites like Slashdot when I was travelling). The very few days I took for Holidays are included in that calculation too. I actually stopped contributing to some projects at that point (with some angry users, they were unwilling to accept that I wasn't willing to work further on the project unless I was getting a sufficient salary to quit my existing job to do so - fortunately, there were a lot of understanding users too).

The fun fact behind this though, I was working crazy hours particularly because we weren't getting the support (struggled to find even contractors of a reasonable calibre to help me too) and had deadlines to meet.

or shysters who you want to charge you $$$ for simple fixes (as is in this case).

Considering most of the industry expects you to pay in some form for support (most of which in my experience is insufficient when a 'real' problem is encountered). Then, going further into my consultancy experience, where I've had a one line change and they would charge you ridiculous money (we're talking over 1000USD

Normal way of doing things

[sad_]

Ian must have never worked for a big company, it's their normal way of working.
I see it here each time there is an issue with some piece of enterprise software, the phone is picked up, the account manager is called and threatened.
If you talk about OSS, the first question you get is - who do we call when it doesn't work. As long as you can say there is a support structure behind it, they panic goes away. Support mostly means that you have somebody to yell at, because the actual support part is in most cases not that great (with any vendor).

Meanwhile, about those bugs in Windows...

[kmoser]

And yet these corporations are still happily ponying up money for bug-ridden Windows. If these companies were as serious about demanding OSS bug fixes as they are about Windows bug fixes, Windows would be bug-free by now.

Re:Fixed immediately?

[GodelEscherBlecch]

Just wait until a bug in your software is responsible for forcing an operator of a 5 state regional power grid to have to revert to manually operating a 5 minute energy dispatch / reliability study cycle. I assure you that the threats will start very quickly, and that 24 hours would be a very generous allowance in that scenario. They will not give the least of shits that the bug is in 3rd party code or whether that code is open/closed source.

The thing is though, when your dependency code base is OSS, you are actually capable of finding and fixing the problem yourself, often just by subclassing something or creating an alternate implementation of an interface. Many times being able to see the anatomy of the issue allows you to work around it from the outside. I can't imagine turnaround like this ever being possible in a closed-source system, at least not without requiring enormously expensive contracts with not just the delivering company but each vendor supplying any part of the solution.

A little off.

[IBitOBear]

They don't understand that _any_ consultant could help them because the software source is available.

You are exactly correct that is a mind-set problem based in fear.

Business people are often not smart in the ways of "optional thought". They have game-plan mentalities based on team trimumph over all comers. (Next time someone tells you they are majoring in or have a degree in "business" ask them which sport they played in high school. No really, they act stunned and are all "how did you know?" in wonderment.

So they need someone to go to without thought. A vendor under contract is like the special teams in football. It doesn't matter how terrible your field-goal special team is, now is the moment you punt and it's then it's the punters fault we lost. Coach said so.

So business, particularly big business, is about apportioning blame (renamed "responsibility") because it's run like (and usually by) loss-adverse athletic reasoning.

There's a good reason that the entire tech explosion of the last fifty years happened outside of "normal business channels" and is full of geeks. What was done required non-linear thought by the drivers. Those companies all _hired_ MBAs to run the boring balls from legal to HR and back, but the innovation was done far away from the MBA's sight.

That's also why the Carly F.s of the world totally consumed companies like HP and turned them into "also rans" in their own fields. Get enough bankers and business men "on your team" and they'll crush the geeks before they realize they sold off or frightened away all the talent.

Innovation can be a team sport, but only a cooperative team sport like hakey-sack or "the floor is lava". 8-)

How would a business model for Free games work?

[tepples]

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 how would one sell "experience" (games) without "selling software"? For one thing, video game console developer contracts are known to forbid inclusion of copylefted code in a product. For another, are you referring to combining a free engine with non-free assets (scripts, meshes, textures, maps, and audio)? And if so, how should a studio adopting such a business model deter casual infringement of a game's assets?

Implied warranties can't always be disclaimed

[tepples]

Indeed, there is an explicit disclaimer of warranty in the GPL and other OSS licenses.

Which doesn't do you much good if your code is available in a country where a disclaimer of an legally recognized implied warranty is considered unconscionable and therefore null, void, and of no force or effect.

Remember UCITA?

[tepples]

I can't think of any off the top of my head. But about a decade and a half ago, there was a proposal called Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act to make each of the several states in the United States such a jurisdiction: Why We Must Fight UCITA