Slashdot Mirror
The Way VCs Think About Open Source: Mostly Wrong (infoworld.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In an epic smack-down, Simon Phipps examines a recent article by some VCs with an apparently strong track record in open source startups and finds the way they see the world makes them plain wrong about Red Hat, OSI licenses, Apache and probably everything else they talk about.
Even reading the article I'm not sure what they are referring to.
VCs who miss the point of open source shouldn't fund it
False, absolutely false. VCs view investing like a trip to the casino: bet on 20 longshots, hope to manage at least 1 of the 20 to a 100:1 win. Overall ROI: 500%
Fundamental understanding of the technology behind the business is not required - estimating its chances in the marketplace is.
Anybody who is seeking VC funding and also believes that the VCs will help them further some ideological agenda is either completely misguided, or attempting to further the ideological agenda that "greed is good."
Greedy VCs with no concept of open source fund open source so they can ignore principles of open source and make money? So, people who want to make money don't understand something set up to be given away for free?
Don't get me wrong, the article is interesting in that it's refuting an article written by some VCs without a clue ... but that VCs don't have a clue about open source doesn't surprise me.
I pretty much expect the VCs and MBAs to be clueless on this topic, because they can't reconcile "free" with the need to leverage synergies and monetize shit.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put out in KP.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Some licenses allow anyone to create derivative works that build on the original product, while others reserve that right only for the owners of the original product.
Its pretty clear they're referring to the ability to make commercial works, not downstream OS projects.
Those biases seem to arise from an outdated view of the market for open source software. Students of history know that pioneers of new markets are able to command profit margins approaching 100 percent as long as they can behave as monopolists. As their markets becomes subject to fair competition, margins fall. Expecting 90 percent margins is probably not realistic, yet the authors clearly do:
He seems to be ignoring his own point from the next paragraph, most VC ventures fail. In order for them to see high returns they need the huge home run, if a business bunts into first and barely covers the investment they're still in the hole for the other 5 ventures that failed
If they are still willing to invest in your business that you are able to make successful because of that, who cares what they think? What they may believe about Open Source, after all, does not change what it actually is.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
These guys didn't get rich by not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground. They got rich by using knowledge to strategically build on investment. I don't believe for a second that the misinformation spread around about Apache, RedHat, and OSI policy in general represents naivety; it represents protectionism. As long as people like for example, my non-tech-savvy relatives think that these assholes know more about the Open Source Initiative than I do, than my ethics and expertise, along with that of thousands of other Free/Libre Software advocates like me, will consistently be devalued by business. Saying these VCs are just unaware of the damage this misinformation does is like suggesting Apple and other Silicon Valley companies like them enter into no-poaching agreements on accident.
VC firms are business firms with little understanding of the scientific or the technical. In other words, they are herds of PHBs that simply smell money like sharks smell blood.
I thought Nadia, here, did a bang up job about what is wrong in the open source world, here. https://medium.com/@nayafia/ho...
I pretty much expect the VCs and MBAs to be clueless on this topic
Then you yourself are pretty much clueless on the topic of VCs and MBAs. For example 1/3 or more of MBA are coming from a technical background, scientist or engineer. When the topic of open source comes up in an MBA classroom there is no shortage of software developers to explain what it is and why it is useful.
An MBA program is not a finance/accounting program. It is an overview of all the major parts of an organization. Finance and accounting are just two of many topics covered. The point of an MBA is to let you see how the other departments in your company/organization look at things. So that you, for example an engineer, can understand the marketing, strategy, accounting, etc perspectives so that you can factor in their needs and perhaps more importantly be more **persuasive** when communicating technical needs and realities to these people. In short, the engineers get what they want more often when they can understand and communicate more effectively with the non-engineers. That is the reality of an MBA program today.
When do I get my money back? How can I screw over the founders to make more money?
"Startup: A Silicon Valley Adventure" by Jerry Kaplan is great book on how his pen-based computer company got screwed over by the VC's, Microsoft, Apple and IBM.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00L0M749M
Those guys wouldn't be the first ones to be surprised when people uses their open-sourced product in ways they never intended for releasing it under a license they didn't understand.
Yet even those of us who think we understand FLOSS don't know how it will work out in the long term or even if it is viable at all, at least in its current shape. It's a whole new economic model made possible by a radically new technology, and it combines some ideas from extreme communism (radical lack of proprietary control) with some ideas from extreme capitalism (radical competition and meritocracy). I say, let's those guys fund it so we can figure it out with real-world examples, instead of killing it because of a fear for the unknown.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
The TechCrunch article referenced has a related article link to Where The Free Software Movement Went Wrong, which has the following nugget from a writer discussing the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software:
Morozov writes that the difference between the two is that free software emphasizes users and that open source emphasizes developers. But I would submit that free software is also primarily interested in developers as well, in that the freedoms it emphasizes are ones that matter to developers, but very little to the rest of us. That’s where the movement went wrong.
and then goes on to say
try telling graphic designers that they should use GIMP instead of Photoshop because they can study the code, modify it and release their own version. Or try telling a data analyst why they should use Libre Office instead of Excel, or a musician why they should use Ardour instead of Logic. See how far you get.
Where I think that goes wrong is one of educating the users, specifically that even if they can't code themselves, Free Software helps them by preventing lock-in. As an example, a friend has a bunch of stuff she worked on years ago, in Appleworks format. While there are still a few programs that can read that format (including Pages), they don't implement everything, fonts are different, pagination is different, etc. If Appleworks had been Free, and the fonts Free, it's much more likely that there would be programs and fonts that could perfectly reproduce what she originally had, and she wouldn't be relying on continuing support from any one source. Alternatively, if MacOS and the Mac ROM had been Free, she'd be able to LEGALLY fire up an emulator to run the original version of Appleworks. Even if she herself hadn't stashed away source code, it's almost certain that someone would have, and what she had wouldn't be locked away behind proprietary walls.
It's bad enough we have hardware obsolescence, we shouldn't have unnecessary software obsolescence when it's so easy to prevent (the entire source code to the Mac ROM and OS and all the development tools would be a tiny blip on any current storage device, I can transfer the entire hard drive of my first computer (Lisa, 10MB) in a couple seconds to almost anywhere in the world; the cache files for this page are probably larger than a MacPlus ROM image plus an early Mac boot diskette).
Look at their success ratios!
And if youuuu dooooooouuuooooo...
RIP, RW!
This is exactly right and the "open source community" needs to understand this or they will get nowhere. Even if the MS support is poor (and I assure you, it's generally terrible, even enterprise "platinum"), *nothing at all* or "go ask someone one a message board" is a complete non-starter.
I wouldn't say at all costs, however...
While they can be charming and sound great in negotiations, do your homework before getting in bed with one. Vulture capitalists is a perfect name for some of them, the last one wanted terms that would make a loan shark jealous.
Be careful when working with them.
MBA = An EXTREMELY STRIPPED DOWN Business Adminstration degree is what it is. I know - I have one in a Bachelors of Science (not mere MBA) coupled with comp. sci. to go with it in other degree work.
A typical MBA program has 18 business classes. A typical undergraduate program has 24 business classes. Comparing the undergraduate and MBA coursework at my old university shows very similar core classes and electives. The core classes are damn near identical. The elective classes are similar but the undergraduate program has a few more highly specialized classes (ex taxation, micromarketing, business of healthcare, etc), the MBA program has more entrepreneurship related electives.
The BA and MBA programs are not that different. The BA seems to include some more low level stuff, which makes sense given that the BA graduates will typically have no work experience in the field. Unlike the MBA graduates who will typically have some experience in the field and possible some leadership experience as well.
The coursework for general ed and the minor are irrelevant. All that matters is undergraduate vs MBA business classes. And the typical 6 additional classes for the undergraduate are offset by the fact that (1) some undergrad electives are redundant/irrelevant due to the work experience MBA candidates bring with them and (2) even for the same topics the MBA classes are at a graduate level and more difficult academically.
Your assertion that an MBA is an "EXTREMELY STRIPPED DOWN" version of the undergraduate is not true. Similarly a Computer Science master's program is not stripped down compared to an undergraduate CS program because it lacks "intro to data structures" and other such classes.
Also be aware that there are Executive MBA programs (EMBA) that are somewhat stripped down compared to a regular MBA program. EMBA programs are designed for people who are already in some sort of senior management position. In other words some traditional MBA classes deemed redundant given their work experience. Check with your brother to see if he was in an EMBA or MBA program. Also, things can vary wildly from school to school in terms of academic expectations, difficulty of classes. Its really only safe to compare undergrad and MBA programs at the same university.
And yes, "mustangs" are generally the best.
See subject: It is a LARGE margin & suddenly when what YOU yourself describe is used against you it's now "irrelevant"?
You have misread. What is irrelevant is (1) general ed - The MBA student has already taken their general ed, they already have a Bachelor's degree. (2) minor - any minor outside of BA is not on topic, matter of fact that is a loosing path for you to go down. Few BA majors seek minors while all MBA candidates already have a full Bachelor's. About 1/3 in scientific or engineering disciplines.
Not only can I speak of Business degrees (having one myself, a FULL one no less up to Bachelors level) but I also can of CS & DATASTRUCTURES is one of the VERY BEST MOST INFORMATIVE COURSES IN THE CURRICULUM
I'm afraid your appeal to authority is not going to work here. I have Bachelor's and Master's in Computer Science and an MBA. Plus about 30 years of software development experience, except for my Freshman year working while in school for all three degrees. Data Structures is absolutely critical, however an intro to data structure type class will not be revisited in a Master's program. You are expected to go pick up Knuth or equivalent on your own if you need info on the mechanics of implementing list, trees, graphs, etc. Such basics are not worth the class time in grad school. These are things you are assumed to know by the prerequisite of a Bachelor's. What will be revisited and delved into much deeper than undergrad classes is analysis of algorithms. The time and space complexities of algorithms is appropriate for grad school, not simply basic coding of implementation details.
Similarly various electives of the undergraduate BA program are not appropriate for grad school, the MBA program. These classes often represent topics that are appropriate for students who have never had a job in the real world, entry level positions. They would be a waste of time for someone who has years of experience in the real world and has moved beyond entry level positions. Such classes are the primary difference between an undergraduate BA program and an MBA program. If you look at the core classes the BA and MBA programs at a given university are pretty much the same. Its only on the elective that they differ, and the difference is largely in entry level first job out of college stuff. The work experience an MBA candidate brings with them essentially balances out those six additional classes.
An undergraudate BA program and an MBA program at the same university are not that different.
I've accomplished QUITE A LOT for someone MINUS a masters or PhD ...
Yes, work experience is quite valuable. That is why the MBA programs don't offer entry level classes as an undergraduate program would.
in the art & science of computing (one of my biggest regrets? Not having gone on for masters OR PhD level in CS actually
Been there done that. Its a lot of fun, going into some old topics much deeper. Having some electives that were not appropriate for undergrad levels. However the payoff is a bit diminished if you do not then work in the field where you did your research. It still valuable, and lots of fun on a personal level, but a bit harder to justify if you will work outside of your research topic.
You TRIED KNOCKING DATASTRUCTURES - big mistake that - it's one of the BEST COURSES A CS MAJOR TAKES (most informative) & that leads me to HONESTLY BELIEVE you're FULL OF IT
Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem, does this sound like knocking data structures? I wrote:
"Data Structures is absolutely critical, however an intro to data structure type class will not be revisited in a Master's program. You are expected to go pick up Knuth or equivalent on your own if you need info on the mechanics of implementing list, trees, graphs, etc. Such basics are not worth the class time in grad school. These are things you are assumed to know by the prerequisite of a Bachelor's. What will be revisited and delved into much deeper than undergrad classes is analysis of algorithms. The time and space complexities of algorithms is appropriate for grad school, not simply basic coding of implementation details."
FYI: Analysis of algorithms is an advanced data structures class.
A BUSINESS OF MY OWN THAT'S SUCCESSFUL FOR A DECADE NOW
Odd, then you should understand the futility of revisiting various introductory business classes in graduate school, in the MBA program.
WHAT HAVE YOU EVER DONE I CAN SEE WITH YOUR ALLEGED 30++ YRS. OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
Seriously, that is another pissing contest you will lose. Also such childish arguments just make you seem insecure and desperate.