Slashdot Mirror
The Gift Culture in Cyberspace
rleyton writes "Prospect Magazine has an interesting (albeit high level) article about the entire free software movement. Good quotes, but the most interesting is
the end questions that might provoke a bit of debate.
"
What really scares companies like Microsoft about open-source software is the fundamental shift in philosophy it will require them to make. It's not about how secure the software is or who has access to it. Fundamentally, Microsoft wants everyone to have access to its programs, just like OSS preachers. The difference is that Microsoft is primarily a product driven company which provides some limited service for its product, similar to a car dealer. OSS companies like Redhat are a service driven company that sell some product on the side. Service-oriented industries are, by and large, dependent on the product and what scares Microsoft is that if they must turn into a service oriented company, they won't have control over the product and thus fall under many more market influences. Redhat can succeed as long as the product is there since they don't have to sell it (what they sell for $80 now isn't Linux but technical support for Linux). Microsoft, on the other hand, sells Windows and tech support comes with it. If they were forced to open-source Windows or Office, they would lost a very, very large chunk of change, and honestly, do we really need Microsoft for technical support. There are much better avenues for that (like your local computer dealer or manufacturer).
But that begs the question, will open-source survive or even thrive. Right now, OSS has made it because they haven't needed that service. The mainstream market (the people who need support organizations) haven't bought into it. Now that the masses are beginning to understand and accept this concept, you see companies like Redhat thriving because of their expertise, but currently, it's not enough. There's too many problems for the typical newbie to overcome. The support channels aren't strong enough to support it yet. When those support channels strengthen (and the product becomes easier to use, meaning the support channels don't have to necessarily be as strong), then you'll see greater acceptance. If, for some reason, the support level can never truly match customers' needs, then you'll see OSS flounder in minimal usage. OSS will only thrive as long as the service industry can support it. Windows thrives now partially because that service industry is already in place. Microsoft doesn't have to worry about it because they make the money off the product.
The threat to Microsoft is the same as the challenge to OSS. Hopefully, more organizations like Redhat will come along (some may consider that blasphemous) and broaden the support (and customer) base. But OSS can't truly grow on its own unless the underlying infrastructure begins to also develop for the people that use it.
When software is just written as a tool or to accomplish a general task, OS works beautifully. Just as peer review in science tends to result in research that withstands scrutiny and means something, peer review in software development tends to result in higher-quality, more secure software (I definitely fall into the "pragmatic" group in the article).
But it doesn't work for everything. In-house applications whose structure must reflect internal processes may not work as open source, because it reveals too much internal information. Additionally, as many have pointed out in the past, games have too short a life-cycle to really work as open source. The engines fit the model, but the game as a whole really doesn't.
This isn't a slam on open source software. I prefer it in almost every arena, especially when I'm concerned about security. But we need to recognize that there are situations where it doesn't work. Closed software is not the same as slavery, folks: there are times when keeping the source hidden does work and is appropriate.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
It's wrong because it presumes that you need to be intelligent to contribute to this movement. It's wrong because intelligence is NOT the primary attribute required to make a meaningful contribution to this culture, and it's wrong because ESR said it. It is simply a wide misconception that you need to have a 180 IQ to program - Microsoft is proof of this. *rim shot*
If you guys want to talk about the technical community, talk TO the technical community before you publish - don't go making blind assumptions about what you need, or do not need, to be a member of this community. When in doubt - ASK!
Do I seem upset? Yes, that's because I am. That statement does more to undermine the free software movement than virtually any other - we accept contributions from anybody. If it's good, we'll take it. You don't need to be an Einstein to join us.. all you need is dedication, and time.
--
I'd say it suits all, but fits some better than others. As a general note, Open Source code is only released when it is correct - I can't bring to mind any new release of any OSS that is not a definite step forward, yet I can easily bring to mind many patches from commercial suppliers which exacerbate what they were trying to fix. I think this is because OSS programmers aren't under pressure to bang out the next version - proof that Sales & Marketing departments are inherently evil and counterproductive to good code. By this nature, OSS software is not suited to very fast moving technologies, yet is excellent at instances where programmers have the time and opportunity to get it right.
What does it mean for the economics of cyberspace?
I can see less & less commercial vendors out there flogging proprietary code, which could be dangerous. If there are less professional programmers, there will be less students, so who will actually write the Open Source Code? There will have to be a big shift in corporate attitude to prevent this. Companies will sell mostly services, and give away the applications free. So cost models will shift to reflect that; most of the cost models I have seen in industry are heavy on the "system" cost and mostly have support services bundled in. But will users pay heavily for something as ephemeral as support? If you buy a system, you have something shiny & new you can show your shareholders. If you buy support, you have a voice at the end of a phone line that shareholders never see.
How can free software coexist with hard-nosed profit-maximising companies?
Closed Source will almost always be the poor cousin of Open. Even if companies base their code on existing Open source and charge for any additional reworking, there will still exist a "free" version within a few months. Companies won't dare invest in innovation with Open source, in case someone picks up the idea, rewrites it and gives it away.
Business which depends on Open Source (like RedHat) must keep the OSS community on side, or will rapidly perish.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.