Slashdot Mirror
There's "No Such Thing" as Free Software
st. augustine writes "This editorial on the front page of
PC Magazine UK cites the old "programmers will
starve" argument and claims that open source and
cheap hardware are driving people out of business,
thereby reducing consumer choice." The article
is mostly about declining costs of hardware, the little
FUD blurb is at the end, although it seems strangely familiar to an
article sent in by toolz: this little gem
appears on Microsoft.com so it
doesn't have to try to be impartial. Read both,
were going to see a lot more of this stuff.
I think the response to the question 'Why would anyone want to code for free?' is best summed up by the line the Stone Soup group used to add to the end of the Fractint documentation:
'Don't want money. Got money. Want admiration.'
I agree that he doesn't "Get it", but I think if you think that the software industry can survive on "support profits" alone, you don't quite get it.
While support is important, it isn't enough to sustain a multi-billion dollar industry. And if you think "they'll downsize, they can't stop the Linux J1H4D!", I have news for you. Most people feel that giving up their freedoms (especially if they DON'T CARE if the source is free because they can't code) is fine for convenience. This means that free software is something to continually fight for - it is NOT an inevitability.
The world isn't going to turn into 100% programmers over the next decade. For that reason, There is room for BOTH free and proprietary software in this world. Furthermore, a company wanting to reach current levels of profit would need many indirect flows of cash beyond support - including distribution fees ala. RedHat.
Free software is important, and it is good that we move in that direction, but it's also important to take stock at what the barriers to this future are today. The picture you painted is viewed through some rather narrow goggles - it's important to see beyond your perceived "inevitability" of freedom - it is NOT inevitable. You have to fight for it.
-Stu
Hehehehehahehahehaehahaha. Yea, OK. Sure. Let's see... He managed to prove that he STILL "just doesn't get it." I suppose he doesn't believe in evolution either, and we just "appeared" on the planet suddenly too.
Software is undergoing an evolution, it's that simple. The cashflow will come from support, not development. That is showing. The percentage of the people in the world that can code a valuable application is going up, and the law of supply and demand only proves that GNU/GPL is going to be the way of the future. Does he believe that there are eventually going to be 1000's of Word Processors that are commercial, and they will all sell for $100 a copy?!?
Talented coders prove thier worth with GNU/GPL, and get hired by companys after they prove themselfs. This is because of economics. Companies can't afford to hire people that are really good to make a shrik-wrap software package forever. But, they are learning very quickly that thier support mechinism is seriously lacking, and thier highschool dropouts with good phone voices aren't hacking it as phone in support techs. Companies will loose buisness selling a fancy product with crappy support. It happens slowly.
There are many companies that still do buisness the "old way," but that is slowly changing. When people order software today, they are more consirned about support. When big buisness orders a software solution now, they are more and more looking at something that can be modified to suit thier specific needs after they get it. It's not fully there yet, but it's clearly moving that way.
Software is evolving, this guy is a dinosaur and doesn't get it. Programmers will bring home good paychecks after this evolution, but it is not going to be for shrinkwraped software, it will be for solid tech support, and custom hacks of open source software to specificly suit a companys need. I don't think dinasours understood Darwins theory of evolution, and I don't think you could teach them either. This guy is a dinasour, don't waste your time listening to his arcane grunting.
Mr. Kane actually responded -- which I find amazing considering the volume of mail he likely got. Here is his response, and he makes some valid points:
Ari -
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, keeping up with all the 'feedback'
I receive is a full time job, so I will have to keep my comments brief.
Unfortunately, many people equate 'open souce' with free software. This is
not a model that can last. Many companies supporting open source
development are hardware companies that find it easy to get wider support
for their products by getting on the Linux bandwagon. But can a company
even the size of IBM that lost $1bn last year in their PC business afford
this sort of development over the long haul? I doubt it.
Also, considering the many problems AMD has had over the past several
quarters not making money, how long can they afford to provide a cheaper
alternative? They may have captured the retail market (not a Linux
stronghold I might add) but at what price? And when K7 comes out and is no
longer compatible with the Intel socket/slot architecture, will they even
be able to keep that?
I'm not against Linux or Open Source per se (I have Red Hat, NT and 98 all
installed on my laptop) but the only reason why companies have been able to
afford to sell things at a loss these days is because of the insanity of
the stock market as the money is in the equity valuation, not in whether or
not a company can be profitable. When that goes away, where's the money
going to come from for software development?
-Bob-
Dear Mr. Kane:
I must disagree with you about the state of consumer choice and Open
Source software. Open Source Software (OSS) does not represent a decision
not to make money from selling software. Many companies do -- RedHat and
Caldera in the US, Pacific HiTech in Japan, and SuSE in Germany are just a
few.
Why does this work? It stems from a realization that the software market
does not work in a traditional economic sense, nor anything remotely like
the hardware market (an example of perfect competition if there ever was
one). MicroSoft can sell as many copies as they want of Windows at
essentially no cost, once it's developed. The box, CD and manual represent
a negligable part of the $90 (much more for WinNT) cost of the software.
The cost to them is in fact technical support -- which is why the
technical support has gotten so bad recently, to the point where you must
pay for every incident if you are a regular customer. This is what OSS
Value Added Resellers actually sell. Anyone can download a copy of RedHat,
but you have to pay if you want technical support. Even MicroSoft
acknowledges this is a good idea -- their coming reorganization includes a
whole division of "Knowledge Workers".
And what of the programmers who write free software? The argument that
they won't because they'd rather be paid is invalid -- they already do.
Linux runs on hardware from Personal Digital Assistants (the PalmPilot and
Compaq's experimental Itsy) through destroying WindowsNT on desktops and
servers (see ZD's own articles comparing NT and Linux as a Windows
Networking server) through supercomputers among the 100 fastest machines
in the world (IBM built a Linux supercomputer with off the shelf parts and
a $40 RedHat CD that was as fast as a Cray during LinuxWorld Expo in San
Jose a couple of weeks ago). The base of superior software already exists.
Many programmers contribute the tools they need, written to solve their
own personal requirements. Others donate their time for fun (such as my
friend Ian Peters, a fellow Carnegie-Mellon University student and the
GNOME Games package maintainer). Still others are employed by OSS VARs to
increase the value of the product -- in this catagory are Alan Cox the
Linux hardware guru, and a big chunk of the GNOME desktop environment
team, all employed by RedHat.
I also note that Intel's perfect following of Moore's law, and the
constant pricing of a "nice" computer system (used to be about $2500 here
in the US) was an artifact of the way Intel made all the machines. Those
chips cost Intel much less than they're selling them at. But for many
years they had a monopoly and no pressure to cut prices. But along came
AMD and Cyrix to cut into Intel's marketshare in the sub-$1000 value
priced PC arena (the kind of machine that will soon make a PC a standard
appliance in every home in North America and Europe), and all of a sudden
there was competition. Intel has already lost the lead to AMD for market
share -- and the rule of thumb about pricing is out the window.
As of now, processor technology can still be developed by the big guns
of AMD, Intel and Cyrix on a Moore's Law track (works well, since it gives
the engineers a target), but there are arenas in the hardware market where
the law simply doesn't apply. In 3D hardware the product cycle is closer
to 9 months, and each new product has many more than twice as many
transistors, since the leading manufacturers such as 3Dfx, nVidia, Matrox
and ATI are competing on a technological playing field with near constant
pricing between them.
If you have yet to try Linux, I suggest you do. There really is
something to Eric Raymond's "Cathedral and Baazar" model of software
development. We don't use Linux because we're foolish lunatics. Millions
of us use it because it's better. That's why Linux is gaining market share
in corporate servers far faster than any other player.
Yours sincerely,
Ari Heitner
-----------
DC: 703/5733512 CMU: 412/8623003
www.singularity-software.com
-----------
"You know how your whole life flashes in front of your eyes before you die?
That's just gdb unwinding the call stack . . . "
CC: Bob Kane of PCMagazine UK
Nowhere is this more evident than in the pages of this month's issue, which contains 80 PCs from 32 different manufacturers. While this might sound like a lot, consider this: last year's PC blockbuster had 91 systems from 39 manufacturers. While 24 of the companies in last year's round-up also submitted systems this year, that leaves 15 that didn't, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that many aren't around anymore. Only eight new companies have submitted PCs for the first time this year.
And this is the stated evidence that PC prices are unsustainable??? That a few integrators have gone out of business? Would he care to compare this result with the US airline industry deregulation? And then to claim this relates to the upcoming failure of Moores law because high tooling costs are driving volume manufacturing, which is what's also driving low prices, is either disingenuous or blatent ignorance. If, as he says:
So for Intel to continue to be successful, each new fab must be able to pay for itself, which means building not only faster microprocessors, but also more of them. This system encourages manufacturers like Compaq, Dell and IBM to take greater and greater volumes.
And:
Unfortunately, because of the volumes, price incentives and desire to grab market share, Machrone's Law is now broken. This has led to eroding margins for suppliers and downward pressure on prices. Even Intel has had to buckle under this pressure by cutting prices on CPUs to its largest customers, Dell, Compaq and IBM. Combined with pressure from AMD at the low end for even less expensive CPUs, one has to wonder where Intel is going to get the money to continue fab development into the future.
then Intel must be stupid enough to price themselves into oblivion by charging less than cost plus profit. By any rational free market position they deserve to go out of business because of critical poor planning (if this is actually the case, which I strongly doubt). That's the whole point of a free market, otherwise we'd need a regulatory body determining price structures -- which sounds suspiciously like Socialism. Somehow I doubt the author of this would admit to being a closet Socialist, so where are these arguments heading?
There's no such thing as free software, and there's no such thing as a cheap computer. Those who say otherwise are endangering tomorrow's IT choices.
OH, now I understand. Those arguments that Intel is damaging its future with low prices are really just a straw man to prop up the argument that Free Software will destroy the "tomorrow's IT choices." By this line of argument all collective effort by groups of individuals not managed by a for profit venture are somehow damaging tomorrows potential markets. One could include Churches, private non-profit charitable organizations, food co-ops, community theater (you could have spent that time at a movie -- think of the lost film industry profits!) community sponsored parks, you name it. This line of thinking, when taken to its extreme, would tear local communities apart -- along with Internet communities. And it's frightening... just look at the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) for a good look at what multinational business stands to gain when these kinds of rules get codified into law, and why it's a great threat to worldwide democratic progress.
It would be laughable were it not representative of worldwide trends in conservative elitist think tank, and multinational corporate, popular opinion.
Yet another example of, together we succeed...divided we fall. Instead of RMS giving the FUD-miesters more fuel to go on, by bickering over a NAME, wouldn't it be better if he was championing the success of Linux?
Never mind that it has worked for decades...
>While free distribution is a great marketing tool
>(think about all those samples you get in the
>mail), what does it say about the product itself?
>Frankly, it says that the product (or the effort
>that went into making the product) has no value.
>Is that what you software engineers out there
>want?
It's the product that has no value. The programmers' time and effort have value, but the product doesn't. At least, not in monetary/economic terms.
Daniel
-- Out of cheese error! Redo from start.
Of course at some point the market for Word Processors and Spreadsheets is going to be dominated by free, quality products.
If you want to stay profitable in software, and avoid having open-source software put you out of business, there are a number of ways to do it.
1. Go into a vertical market. Embed in your software some specialized knowlege about a field that not any college kid is going to be able to distill into code. For example, my friend designs software for lighting at large theatrical events. This requires interfacing with hardware that is not available to most people, and requires knowing how theatric lighting is done.
2. Get a great brand. A good brand name can insulate you temporarily from heavy competition. Look at graphics tools - it doesn't matter if the gimp ever becomes better than Photoshop. Photoshop has brand recognition among designers and very little is going to change that.
From the article:
Giving away software is a great marketing tool. It's hard to compete if your competition is free. That's something that a number of companies have discovered. Now it's Microsoft's turn with Windows NT versus Linux. Still, if all software was free, none of us would have a job.
Sounds like this is just the tactic that MS used in its battle against Netscape. More lost irony.
Quick, before you post a flame of these people here on slashdot--
Send them email instead pointing out exactly how and why they're wrong. Don't bother to flame; flames will just make them think the free software people are a bunch of assholes.
Take your time writing the email, too; it's not like here where if you get your reply off first you'll get your article listed at the top. Better that they get instead a bunch of well-thought-through messages than anything else. If you can't think what exactly to say, go read what other people have written in the past about free/open/* software and crib from that; there's no shame in borrowing good ideas, as long as you don't claim that you thought them up all by yourself.
In short, do something that helps. Sure, ranting on here is stress-relieving and fun at times, but here you're preaching to the choir. Better to help get the word out to the unwashed masses.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
Tons of software is written for specific customers these days - the project I work on, for example, is a financial reporting analysis tool for a major corporation. The software is built specifically around the corporate financial structure, so it would be useless to anyone else; there's never going to be a GNU Financial Reporting package or whatever that would do the same job. But Free software would still improve this picture greatly. As it is, we do our development with bug-ridden proprietary software, and deploy the product on a bug-ridden proprietary OS. Using reliable & proven Free software products would make this sort of project better for user & developer alike, and there are thousands and thousands of these projects keeping programmers employed in the business world.
That is why the spread of Free software won't put programmers out on the street. There will always be a place for the programmer/analyst who can walk into a business situation, distill it to a logical system, and write a tool that will allow the customer to do more/faster/better. The only difference will be that programmers will have more hair, because they won't be pulling it out every time they get a random GPF and have to spend another 20 minutes rebooting their workstations.
This guy is totally overlooking the fact that there are developers that *want* to develop code and then give it away. The pleasure of creating something good far outweighs that pleasure that would come from making money off of it.
Linus is the prime example . . . he has yet to make money directly from the kernel! Do any of us think he has trouble putting food on the table?
I think that all this free software makes programmers much more productive workers. Just like factory workers make more than manual laborers because they use machines, programmers who have access to big open source toys make more because they create more value for each hour worked so companies think it's ok to pay them a lot. Similarily lawyers are just integrators of previous open source legal arguments that can't be copyrighted and they make tons of money. Sure you can make $300,000 a year doing Oracle Consulting but that's because Oracle makes database programmers extremely productive. With open source though you can make $200,000 a year as a perl consultant using purely open source products and this will go up as the tools approach commercial quality.