How to Misunderstand Open Source 318
Sam Hiser writes "This article intends to clear up some misconceptions about open source software development practices. It can help developers, IT and business managers transition from a closed development environment to an open one characterized by shorter time-to-market and lower costs. The author, Tom Adelstein -- an experienced CPA, code developer, project manager and consultant -- makes clear the notion that Open Source Software bears a mark of professionalism."
See also ESR's Prudential Interview (Score:5, Informative)
See also ESR's Prudential Interview [catb.org].
Re:See also ESR's Prudential Interview (Score:5, Interesting)
"We're rapidly heading for a world where computers are as common as pens or soccer balls -- and computer skills are as common as basic literacy or ball-kicking ability. And in that world, with or without an organized free software movement, I doubt that even 1/10 of 1% of all the people who "know how to program" will be able to get full-time jobs creating computer software."
Haha (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I've always argued that anyone can become a computer programmer. But the skills are not the sort of thing you pick up just by using a computer all your life. You have to seek out training beyond that.
I do agree with his point about the service model of software development. It's just not going to be anywhere near as hard as he claims it will be to get a job that way.
Our process (Score:4, Interesting)
We have 6 developers, employ 18 project managers, and approx 25 sales/accounting folks. We find that our developers are used more efficiently by proofing any submitted code from our open source projects. The role of the project managers is to ensure communication with the other contributors all across the globe, streamline client requirements, and create documentation.
A ratio of 1:3 between developers and project managers is ideal. It took us about three years to determine a formula that worked within our company. We find it extremely important that our developers are free to code and code only. The project managers will do all the tedious work surround programming, such as documentation, attend meetings, debugging, research, and even participating in social activities.
We generate a revenue stream of over $20 million (AUS) last year and were able to clear a handsome profit.
Which is nice.
Re:Our process (Score:5, Interesting)
You are so lucky te be able to create a structure like that. My guess is that 99% of the development units around the world have the same programmers vs. managers ratio, but have a net result of managers dumping work & shit on the developers' head. A slashdot poll would no doubt result in 99% of us calling managers 'crap' and only 1% (or less) calling them 'useful for levelling the workload'
On the other hand : work without managers is a waste too, since you'll get the clients in your neck, which is even a bigger pain.
Re:Our process (Score:5, Insightful)
Business majors don't want to think of themselves as equal with the people who develop the product. Heck, they certainly don't want to be seen as doing some programmer's busy work. Why we all know that programming is "blue collar" work anyway. It probably doesn't help that the average programmer really can't relate to the issues of sales either.
Re:Our process (Score:2)
Re:Our process (Score:2)
I propose we have a meeting to discuss creating a task force to explore this issue. Ultimately, I'd like to
That's disgusting (Score:3, Funny)
Don't you think your programmers might want to do something social once in a while? You know, just like real people?
Re:That's disgusting (Score:3, Funny)
You make out like the parents management are keeping his coders locked under their desks in cages, and only letting them out once a week so they can hose down the cage and put some fresh newspaper in.
I think he means like customer facing social events, such as negotiating contracts etc - not going down to the local bar for a few frames of pool and a jug of beer!!
"Chief programmer" (Score:3, Funny)
This is what Brooks, in The Mythical Man Month, called a "chief programmer" team. Coplien talks about a "mercenary analyst" who's similar to one of your project managers.
:-)
Fascinating, and potentially very, very cool.
You don't have a New Jersey office, do you?
With all due respect, how many of these are needed (Score:5, Interesting)
What's wrong with what's happening here ? Is the coverage in the wrong area ("preaching to the converted") ? Is the message simply being disbelieved ("TANSTAAFL") ? Is the lobbying by the closed-source community simply better (all those expense accounts...).
I think all of these articles make good points (all that I can remember reading, anyway), but unless they start to make a difference, they're just hot air
I suppose there's always the argument that you need lots of fresh meat at the sharp end before the grinder (mainstream press) starts to notice any difference. If it's simply that it's a slow process, then by all means chaps, carry on
Simon
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:With all due respect, how many of these are nee (Score:2, Interesting)
What's wrong with what's happening here ?
I think the article had it just about right: people simply don't understand open-source. It used to be that unless they researched themselves, or were personally involved, that they probably knew nothing about it. But now, as companies such as Microsoft are beginning to see products such as Linux as increasing threats on their market share, the average consumer is hearing something--and it's coming from Microsoft. Needless to say, that's not going to be positiv
The message is complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
What's wrong with what's happening here ? Is the coverage in the wrong area ("preaching to the converted") ? Is the message simply being disbelieved ("TANSTAAFL") ? Is the lobbying by the closed-source community simply better (all those expense accounts...).
They don't "get it" because the message is simultaneously complicated and unusual. Think about it. It's really hard to explain to a random business person how open source makes sense. ("Why would I give stuff away?...") More importantly the argument for open source is powerful, but it's not simple. When you are trying to convinve people, simplicity of the message matters.
This is something I've noticed with companies. As a rule of thumb the ones that can explain in a few words what they do, tend to do pretty well. Microsoft sells software, IBM sells computers & services, Wal*mart is a retailer, etc. When they try to get fancy it's much harder to communicate to investors and customers why they should care about you. All those fancy "exchanges" we saw during the dot com boom? Really tough message to get across.
While they have other advantages, message simplicity is one reason the RIAA is so effective in lobbying against filesharing. Their message (correct or not is beside the point) is summed up in one word, "theft". I haven't heard anyone make an equally coherent one word counter argument. Not for lack of trying trying either.
Open source to some degree suffers from the same problem. It's hard to explain concisely and coherently why it's good. Not for lack of trying mind you. Think about "free as in speach/free as in beer". That's an explanation that we almost always have to explain. Not good.
We make fun of them a lot but this is what marketing folks are (supposedly) good at. They spend enormous amounts of time trying to figure out how to get exactly the right message across in the most concise manner possible. And it's really, really hard to do well. It's an art form in some ways like making really tight reliable code. The really good stuff takes a lot of time and smarts to come up with, but is amazing to watch when it works.
Re:With all due respect, how many of these are nee (Score:3, Interesting)
I was once told by a co-worker that at my employer, you had to say the same thing 7 different ways to 7 different groups before you would begin to be heard -- and this company was only 2000 people. Getting the message to the entire business community is orders of a magn
Re:With all due respect, how many of these are nee (Score:3, Interesting)
What OSS needs is marketing. Take a project like Mozilla Firebird. I guarantee if you turn http://www.mozilla.org/products/firebird/why into a tv commercial and air it during the superbowl that IE will be sitting in the #2 seat the day after. But we can't get marketing bec
Re:With all due respect, how many of these are nee (Score:3, Insightful)
Beer (Score:3, Insightful)
This is basically free as a beer/free as a speech paradox: They have to understand that it's not about price but it's about values.
But even if they do - it hes to be 10 times better than MS Crap to beat their MS Marketing.
Re:Beer (Score:2)
"
But thats becoming increasingly hard. Stuff like Windows 2003 really DoesNotSuck(tm), so beating it becomes a matter of price, not just features like it used to be. The only thing we'll always have is the freedom -- The ability to have total control over your enviroment.
Re:Beer (Score:2)
I'm sure Kenneth Lay, Martha Stewart and Hilary Rosen would understand.
Re:Beer (Score:2, Interesting)
However, try to find a competent Unix Sys Admin. You know, somebody who understands firewalls enough to code a rule
Not free (Score:5, Interesting)
The reasons?
1) Installing software correctly (apache, mysql, sybase) is a time thief. Installation is sooooo much more straightforward in Windows.
2) Propagating changes in configuration (and new versions) is a hell in Linux, especially Sybase and Oracle products.
3) Less documentation (usually) from commercial vendors.
4) Worse support (usually) from commercial vendors.
We're hoping to see long term effects in stability. The problem is that NONE our eight Windows 2000 servers has ever crashed...
That said, Linux is so much cooler.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not free (Score:2, Interesting)
For the most part you just need to save and restore the
Re:Not free (Score:5, Interesting)
Good points, well stated, mod parent up pls.
Let me give a counterpoint to this. I'm putting together an incident response team for a major bank here--we deal with vulnerabilities, security-related system outages, and investigations. I also have a fairly wide background in architecture design and implementation, and systems engineering and administration. So, having gotten that out of the way, a few statements. Flame away, but these are generalizations, based on opinion and experience:
Windows boxes are usually a lot more straightforward up front. This is a fact. No amount of whingeing about webmin, apt-get/ports and whatnot will change this (although FreeBSD ports just rock.) To install, you put a CD into a drive and click some buttons.
The real problems are twofold. First, as complexity rises (we're talking 30,000+ workstations here plus god-knows-how-many Windows servers) your ability to keep an overview of things like patch deployment, user rights, software versions, etc. becomes a nightmarish time-sucker. MS have made some steps in the right direction with things like SUS; nonetheless, I've always found software update implementations as well as user rights tracking, among many things, to be horrendously kludgey in pure Windows environments. I realize that a lot of this is usually due to crappy procedures; nonetheless, the common answer to something like a fucked-up desktop PC is to have it collected and re-installed. Great.
The second is, and I'm sorry to say this, security. It is absolutely true that I cannot just "jump in" and fix code in, say, a Linux kernel, when a hole is discovered. Just based on experience, though, I have yet to see a single worm hit a Solaris (yes yes I know, open source) or Linux environment with anything approaching the ferocity of what we've seen in the Windows world.
The last point I keep making is one that everyone knows, but management do an ostrich (stick yer head in the sand, pretend nothing's happening) anyway; that is, in a complicated IT environment (managers, listen up) you simply do not get around hiring a bunch of really smart people and paying them a lot of money. It is illusory to assume that simply because your software installs at the push of a button, your IT is stable and reliable.
Re:Not free (Score:2)
That said, there's nothing quite like the manageability of a well run windows domain, with update status
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not free (Score:2, Informative)
If you are finding that suppor
Re:Not free (Score:2)
If you want a pretty GUI to make changes to the system, get webmin.
Propigating changes in Linux is simple. You edit the config file, send the process HUP or restart it using the initscripts.
here's one misconception (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily the case, especially with the more major OSS products. Companies of various sizes have staff writing and contributing OSS code as their full-time job, and many university students also contribute as part of research projects. Even CmdrTaco could fall under the category of a small-company contributer for his work on Slashcode.
The hobbyist argument is often made in FUD from MS to try and say that "we have professionals working for us, who does OSS have?" We should answer with somehting like "Redhat, IBM, Sun, Novell,
The hobbyist argument is made from the community (Score:2)
How to Misunderstand Closed Source (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reasonably certain that this comment will be poorly received here (at Slashdot as well as OSNews), but I just can't keep it to myself, so oh well.
Truly, the author does a good job of dispelling one piece of FUD kicking around regarding open source software, specifically the belief that most open source software is written by wild-eyed loners without any concept of planning or design.
Other than that, the article is, umm, not so good. Nearly everything he says about closed source processes describes "big company" closed source processes. I work for a small closed source shop and his description of the open source development process is very *very* close to our process. It sounds as if his only closed source experience was with IBM, which is quite possibly the most extreme example of a process-bound company one could imagine.
Since analogies and similes are so popular on this thread, I would suggest that he what he is saying is like saying that vehicles made in Japan are more responsive than those made in America, using as examples a Japanese sports car and an American diesel locomotive.
Anybody who has worked in or with a smaller, more nimble closed source shop will see his description of the "closed source process" as bullshit. Many of these people will conclude that the author is a crank and proceed to ignore the good point he does make about the professionalism of many open source projects and companies.
The same applies to the stuff about standards. Closed source shops can and do adhere to open standards; I know we make every effort to do so in my shop. Many many open standards were originally developed by closed source shops cooperating to facilitate communication between closed source products and to offer the market choices in how to combine them. I know this is hard for some open source zealots to believe, but many closed source shops know that offering products based on open standards can help improve adoption of new technologies; when the tide comes in, all boats rise, ours and the competition's both.
Don't get me wrong, I think open source software is a Good Thing; I use it daily (Mozilla, OpenBSD, Knoppix, blah blah blah) and push it whenever I get the chance. I just don't think this article is about what the author says it's about and I don't think it will appear convincing to anybody that isn't already convinced.
PS - It also doesn't help that in an article about professionalism in the open source world he flubs "stock in trade" and "give way" in the opening sections.
Re:How to Misunderstand Closed Source (Score:5, Informative)
The name of the game here is process. Don't get me wrong, process is good, but when it gets in the way of logical decision making, process is bad. And management's knee-jerk reaction any time there's a problem
When's 5:00?
Re:How to Misunderstand Closed Source (Score:2)
Re:How to Misunderstand Closed Source (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How to Misunderstand Closed Source (Score:2)
Finally, most of the software we use, both generic and for special projects comes from the 'big boys' because the perception of management is that big = good. From firsthand experience, I have seen that this is
The biggest misunderstandings (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest misconception is that Apache is indicative of all Open Source projects and that Microsoft is indicative of all Propriatory software providers. The fact is that every project is different, you can't lump them all together in one neat package and say "this is how all these work".
The second biggest is that if you don't like a feature or bit of functionality within an open application you can just literally "jump in" and hack the code. This completely ignores the fact that even if you can code, most products are insanely complex and it'll take you several months to truely understand how it works, how it's put together, how the pieces interract and how you should go about working with it.
An example (Score:2)
The firm I work for was re-evaluating proprietary terminal emulation software. Knowing that I could get the source for x3270 from the web, I downloaded a copy, thinking that I could port it to Windows in short order.
And then I looked at the source. The first problem was that a port would require me to port not just the software, but the libraries used as well. And even then, I'd still have to figure out the build process - there are literally hundreds of files.
Yes, I suppose if I was paid minimum
Re:An example (Score:2)
Re:An example (Score:2)
In any case, while I'm not familiar with that package (there are terminal emulators that run on windows, you know), projects with file counts in the hundreds are far from uncommon, and knowing how to familiarize yourself with the build system is a key part of being a programmer. You sound like someone whining about not being able to code because it's "too hard".
Porting an application to a totally different platform is rarely a
Re:An example (Score:2)
Well, for one thing you were able to look at the source and see whether it was viable to port to Windows or not.
OK, in this case it wasn't possible. But you were able to find out at (I assume) no more financial cost that the overheads on downloading the source code.
Besides, OSS not being used isn't necessarily indiative of whether it's being looked at. 'Cos the thing about Open Source is that you don't necessarily have to pay/register/whatever for the "privelege" of seeing whether it fits your corproate
Re:The biggest misunderstandings (Score:2)
Oh the irony... because the more insanely complex it is, the more likely it is to be either badly coded, or badly commented. I was looking at a popular webmail component recently, and saw that the variables weren't particularly well named, there were nowhere near enough comments, and certainly not enough good in
Re:The biggest misunderstandings (Score:2)
1. request the change
2. wait (possibly send money)
3. test
4. deploy
The problem with the proprietary model is there is only one organization that is capable of modifying the application for you, then they set the price instead of a fair market price.
Joe
How to Misunderstand Open Source (Score:4, Funny)
That's an easy one.
Just listen to what Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates or Darl McBride have to say on the matter.
Professionalism??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh. That must explain why so much of OSS is broken and has documentation that is incomplete and often actually erroneous, not to mention the almost endless nested dependencies that often break on install, making the install of the top-level item incomplete and hosed.
"Professionalism" my ass.
I detest closed software but professionalism is precisely what is lacking in OSS. The prevailing rule seems to be, "Close is good enough!"
Re:Professionalism??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Professionalism??? (Score:2, Informative)
The One KEA wrote:
The Linux kernel is widely and highly regarded, and stories of Linux systems running without crash or reboot for 6 months, a year, even more, are common.
Mozilla? I turned to it when eBay dicked with their formats and brain-dead MSIE refused to save as HTML. Mozilla
Re:Professionalism??? (Score:2)
Alternatives are one of the greatest strengths of Open Source software. Instead of complaining about the ones that don't work, use the on
Misconceptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who starts from the premise that closed-source precludes the use of open standards won't have much of value to say on the matter. I cite Sun as a key example - an almost entirely closed-source company that has one more than almost anyone else to drive open standards.
Slashdot needs to start evaluating articles on quality and not just on how well they conform to the approved "open source is good" party line.
Misconceptions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misconceptions... (Score:2)
I think that is one of the better analogies I have heard to date.
Software is a *lot* like a house. And open source gives you the ability to open it up, modify it and rebuild it anyway you want if you know how to do it. For example, in my house I can easily change a light bulb, or replace the lock, or even build a bookshelf or deck, but would need help to add on an extra room. The same goes with open source. I can go in an change small things, but can't change larger things without help.
Closed source still
Spill chucker works... (Score:2, Funny)
has started giving weigh
Back-asswards (Score:5, Funny)
(I bet you thought that link would be to something else. ;-)
Maybe nitpicking, but.... (Score:2, Funny)
Too pretentious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Too pretentious (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, I think Open Source developers shouldn't assume that releasing source code to the public is going to be a magic bullet, or even wise
What is this article?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
OpenSource is a philosphy of saying "Look at this neat-o code I/we created. You can use it, learn something from it or improve it but just follow this license (which generally keeps with the same philosphy.)"
From what the article says:
OpenSource is a process which is collaberative. And by its very professional and methodical nature, is better than ClosedSource.
I say that the later is a wrong definition of OpenSource. It doesn't address issues like "Free Speech" or "Free Beer" and talks about things like developement processes and takes a very narrow view of what "open" means.
Convince me to use Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose I am a for-profit business that offers some non-unique service. I need some software to provide my core business services to my customers.
I need the software and I need it now (so I can't just wait for 'someone else' to develop it and realease it into the wild). My only alternative is to commission (aka pay IT consultants to develop the software).
Since I am paying for the development costs (even code monkeys need to be fed), why should I develop the software under the GPL and release it to my competitors as soon as it is complete?
Would I not essentially be subsidizing my competitors businesses?
Re:Convince me to use Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
In this situation, don't give it to them for free. You can still use the GPL, but you should distribute it only in exchange for a payment which is significantly higher than half your development costs. See the section on Expensive Free Software [freestrategy.info] in the Free Software Business Strategy Guide.
Re:Convince me to use Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
No, there are big differences.
With the "closed source with expensive source license" approach it is possible that some of your competitors on the market for your primary (non-software) product are able to cut costs through using your relatively inexpensive binary-only distribution. The only way to justify this from a business perspective is if you man
Re:Convince me to use Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source = good ... but (Score:2, Insightful)
Coding to a standard; does open source have a reviewer who can compell every project/fix to adhere to the coding standards
UI to a standard; ditto
Documentation to a standard; ditto
Providing tests which go into a test suite that is used to assure no regression; ditto
Release management that assures that standard functionality, load, longevity, security and stress tests are run before the product goes out; ditto
The wornderful anarchy that is the open source movement is one of its strengths,
Could someone answer my questions? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Could someone answer my questions? (Score:5, Informative)
1) The article suggests that open source methods are useful even in a closed environment. You're right; If the code isn't available then it isn't open source.
2) 'License alignment' can be a problem. The premise is that you only get to play the open source game if you play by the rules; If you want to use the products of others' hard work, you have to make your own code available. Projects which rely on closed binaries can't use code licensed under the (restrictive) GPL at all, but may be able to use code with less restrictive licenses (like the Lesser GPL.)
3) Plenty of companies make money from open source code, they just don't make it from keeping code secret. Usually the money is to be made by adding convenience (shrink-wrapped software with a nice installation routine, say) or services (such as support.) Of course, they don't have the same development costs as companies which are closed, as they can build on the work of others rather than starting from scratch.
4) Most programmers (AFAIK) work for companies where the end product isn't software. They are in-house programmers developing internal systems, or the company uses software to sell hardware, or the company uses software to sell support. Companies which go open-source will surely have a business plan which will take into account the loss of revenue in software sales. The money is to be made elsewhere.
Free markets are about freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source will win over Microsoft in the marketplace for the same reasons that capitalisim won out over communisim. Because economies are not about markets, or social orginisation, but about freedom. When you have freedom then the markets tend to take care of themselves as people tend to use those freedoms to look out for their own best interest.
If you look at copyrights more like a government regulation on how people use and distribute information, and less like a free market property right - then the reason why GNU/Linux is taking off becomes obvious as well as the reason why it will win over Microsoft and other closed software inspite of their half-trillion market cap.
Open Source is good for the economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Source is good for the economy (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a software developer, I do commercial development for living. How is open source ideology better for ME ?
Re:Open Source is good for the economy (Score:5, Interesting)
If, on the other hand, you develop shrink wrap software for the mass market then open source can be detrimental. You now have no-cost compitition. However if that's what you're doing I don't see any reason your job shouldn't be outsourced to India or China.
Re:Open Source is good for the economy (Score:2)
Why is that? What makes your job so special that it shouldn't also be outsourced? Are you implying the Indians or Chinese couldn't do what you do? But of course they could make software for a mass audience, because that is somehow 'easy'.
Re:Open Source is good for the economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the club. :)
OSS has allowed me to play with programs, languages, and IDEs that I could never touch if I had to pay for them.
Releasing OSS has given me experience and feedback that I could not get if somebody had to shell out for my time, while dictating what I was doing.
I'm a better software designer thanks to OSS, and this translates into better jobs (i.e. $$$).
I'm more productive and happier because I can use completely free and open language, such as Ruby. (Thanks, matz!)
Even if you only code in VB 6 on some flavor of Windows, you owe it to yourself as a developer to go poke around other languages and environemnts, and OSS is one big playground.
Re:Open Source is good for the economy (Score:4, Interesting)
Your parent said better for the people, not all people. Better for the people means that using some kind of average, the total comes out higher.
Personally I prefer measures where the people with the lowest score count for more than the people with a higher score. That is a question of ethics, though.
Just because you get it worse (if you do, which I doubt), doesn't mean the people get it worse. If all the users get better software, and all developers would make a bit less money (which is unlikely), then I would definitely consider that an improvement for the people.
Re:Open Source is good for the economy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Open Source is good for the economy (Score:4, Funny)
It's funny how capitalism rewards selflessness like that.
Re:Open Source is bad for the economy (Score:3, Interesting)
Non commercial software == more profits for businesses == better economy == better for the people
Here's why:
Let's say you start your own company, and obviously, you need to profile your business on the web. You can either pay $$$ for commercial software on the server, or you can install free, open-source programs. This way you save money.
This way you get better economy, and this way it's better for the people.
Re:I RTFAed.. (Score:2)
Re:I RTFAed.. (Score:2)
Open Source is good for the economy (Score:5, Informative)
That is nonsense.
First of all, open source software doesn't have to be non-commercial. For details, see the Free Software Business Strategy Guide [freestrategy.info].
However it is true that many open source projects are non-commercial in nature. The resulting software is still quite often suitable for business use.
From an economics perspective, each proprietary software program is a monopoly - only one company is able to fix problems and release new versions. Monopolies are good only for the company holding the monopoly, not for everyone else.
Therefore, if proprietary software goes out of fashion, this will be bad for precisely those businesses whose main stream of revenue is from software licensing. This will however be good news for all other companies.
Whether this will mean less or more jobs for programmers is hard to say in advance. There will be fewer jobs at specialized software companies and there will be more jobs at companies which use software, since it'll make sense for companies which use software to have relevant expertise in-house.
Re:Open Source is good for the economy (Score:2)
First and foremost, they're concerned about maximizing profit. (Some think short-term, some think long-term, but almost all are concerned about profit.)
In order to achieve this objective, they look at various aspects of their operations. One of the quantities to look at is TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). There are several other major issues, such as e.g. capital expenditure and several types of risk.
Even if it is possibly true that open source mig
Re:Open Source is good for the economy (Score:2)
Does AC's remark about "people who don't understand economics" refer to himself? Anyway, I'm firmly convinced that I understand what I'm talking about. Anyone who believes my point to be bogus should please post a reasonably precise definition of "monopoly" (any of the definitions used in economic
Re:Open Source is bad for the economy (Score:2)
Pick your belief system, preach it fanatically, and use fatwahs/subpoenas on anyone that disagrees.
Under no circumstances should you consider this question dispassionately.
Furthermore, it is completely impossible to blend open/proprietary software schemes in a business model. Can't be done. Give it up.
Re:Open Source is bad for the economy (Score:3, Informative)
Sure it can. I've seen more than one company running Coldfusion MX on a Linux box w/Apache. I've also seen a company running JounryX (Timesheet management SW) on top of Postgres/Apache on Linux. To say that it can't be done is nonsense. Whether your company should combine the two is another matter.
Re:Open Source is bad for the economy (Score:5, Insightful)
... I've probably been trolled here, but it was the early and confused modding of others that prompted me to respond to this. Personally, I would have just modded this down if there was an option for 'misinformed' or 'just plain wrong'.
Consumers don't buy software; people aren't paid to write software for the sake of writing software.
Consumers buy services and products; people are employed to provide services and products.
Software is a means to these ends, but it is not the end.
Open source provides the ability for companies to focus on the products and services they wish to sell, and employ people who specialise in those areas, rather than having or paying a bottom heavy and expensive zoo full of code monkeys. Think of all those things you need to do take a product to market - product design, research and development, support infrastructure, documentation, advertising etc etc.
You might want to rephrase your comment and say 'worse for programmers'.
But even then, if you're a company that relies on open source and is profiting from it, you would do well to remember that it's only going to work if those open source projects are maintained and supported... solution? You fund the open source projects - you don't employ people specifically, they're free to be funded by many companies and they're free to walk away too, while still leaving the option for others to take over and compete.
Sounds like a good thing for the economy (and even for programmers) if you asked me...
Re:Open Source is bad for the economy (Score:2)
Not for programmers working at Microsoft, or a similar company (does that exist? Well... anyway). They make money from the fact that people have no choice but to buy their product, and adjust their prices accordingly. They lose a lot of money when users can (easily) choose someone else. That, however, would be a big win for for people in general though.
Re:Open Source is bad for the economy (Score:2)
Second, open source doesn't necessarily mean free or non commercial. It's entirely possible for a company to produce something that's open source and sell it.
My
Open Source is bad for the economy?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open Source is bad for the economy (Score:2)
Are you selling goods or services? Open Source is your best friend, because it reduces your overhead.
Are you selling software itself? Open Source is your worst enemy, because it takes away your only revenue stream.
Make your decisions accordingly, but know that Open Source (or Free Software or whatever you want to call it) is not the panacea its proponents claim it is.
Re:Open Source is bad for the economy (Score:2, Insightful)
If companies don't spend their money on proprietary software, then they will spend their money on something else, or they will pay their employees more, or they will pay their shareholders more.
If they spend the money on something else, then that industry gets the money.
If they give their employees more, then they buy pretty shiny things, or new Dells or
profits and money (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether we like this or not, it's a fact. Without hope of profits there is no reason to invest.
money is bullshit
I agree with those who call the love of money the "root of all evil". However, for as long as not everyone obeys the command to "obey your neighbor as yourself", the use of money in some form is necessary.
Re:profits and money (Score:2)
From "dict economy":
the system of production and distribution and consumption
Money is not needed to have an economy. Many people consider it a good way to distribute resources among people, with the idea that the ones who do more or more important work should have access to more resources.
That is how things work in
Re:profits and money (Score:2)
well.. there ARE other reasons to put money into something than excepting that you'll get the same money back(+25%) in straight cash.
lot's of 'businesses' are started that way.. by a community because they need some services(grocery stores.. banks.. whatever). and these are excepted to turn in 0% of profit(they do profit the people who put it together tho, by providing them with services). this is out of fas
Re:profits and money (Score:2)
You're totally right... "obey your neighbor" is not a good principle to live by. I wanted to write "love your neighbor as yourself". Next time I post, I'll re-read what I wrote before submitting!
Re:Open Source is bad for the economy (Score:2)
It's the work we do that drives the economy and the nation. Something has to motivate us to do that work, and as you pointed out it almost certainly isn't going to be passion for the job itself. So if you take away profit, exactly why am I going to drag myself out of bed in the mor
Re:Open Source is bad for the economy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If you don't pay people to write code... (Score:2)
Since the Linux kernel uses modules, that mitigates a lot of the problems of a "true" monolithic kernel. It actually gives you the benefits of a monolithic kernel (c
Re:If you don't pay people to write code... (Score:2)
There are plenty of auto repair shops that do shoddy work and charge you a ton of money. I'm lucky in that my father is a mechanic and knows plenty of reputable places.
On the other hand, a co-worker of mine fixed up an old bike of mine so that I could ride to work instead of drive. He did it because he loves working on bikes, and wouldn't take money. Of course he did a good job, because he enjoyed
Re:If you don't pay people to write code... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, the emails I've received for support on my open source code would surprise you then. I've gotten all sorts of idiots asking me to add this or that feature for free. The corporate users are the worst by far--they're arrogant on top of demanding.
Most people just don't understand why anyone would offer software for free, because indeed it is illogical.
Re:Open Source Is Communism (Score:2, Funny)
WTF was trollish about that?
Re:Open Source Is Communism (Score:2)
Re:Submitter works for SCO? (Score:4, Funny)
Pie Iesu Domine
Donna eis requiem
[whack]
Pie Iesu Domine
Donna eis requiem
[whack]
There, that's better.