The Story Behind JBoss's Boss 119
kosamae writes "Businessweek has an interesting article about Marc Fleury. It's more about the business and personal end of his life than about the technology he's helped to create." From the article: "But while Fleury, like Neo, is something of a cult figure, few people in the old or new software world want to think of him as their savior. Brash, outspoken, and frequently insulting, Fleury has clawed his way to the top of the open-source pile over the past six years. Part of the dislike arises because he's a threat. Even though JBoss brings in only $50 million a year in revenues, at most, from providing training, support, and maintenance services to its users, it has siphoned off some hundreds of millions in market value from the likes of BEA Systems and IBM by giving away free software."
Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate typos. (Score:2, Insightful)
"But while Fleury ... is something of a cult figure..."
Going certain JBoss Inc. actions (e.g. astroturfing [slashdot.org] ) this is really only one letter out.
Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just keep in mind JBoss requires copyright law (at very least) to be in place to make a large amount of their revenue. Most of their documentation, training materials, and entry level consulting and support services (read from the internal answer book and give clients those previously prepared answers) are covered by it.
Not to mention the fact that all of the opensource software JBoss distributes requires it as well. Without copyright law you are left with public domain. The GPL requires the copyright law to restrict companies from modifying and selling GPL based products.
Re:Goddammit (Score:3, Insightful)
Evidence?
The computing public despises Java.
So why has it just risen above C++ on sourceforce?
So what's your reason for even existing?
Portability, ease of development... etc... etc...
A capitalist version of Richard Stallman (Score:4, Insightful)
At the last user group meeting where I remember Mark speaking, he managed to drop at least a half-dozen F-bombs in addition to various fecal-related 4-letter words (this was in a BUSINESS setting). He also spent half the time pointing out how cosmopolitian he is due to years in California and Paris, and hammered home the point that anyone who questions him simply "lacks vision". In short, he comes across as EVERY obnoxious, phony, three-card-shuffle, smoke-and-mirrors aspect of the entire dot-com era... ALL distilled down into one annoying and pretentious walking sterotype.
The problem with Mark is that he makes open-source SOUND like the dot-com era redux... another batch of vaguely-qualified fruity visionaries with their half-baked business plans. The focus on Mark in the money-making open source market creates the same problems as the focus on Richard Stallman's personality over on the Gnu side. It's the messenger getting in the way of the message.
Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Beyond that, this business model would seem to put stress in all the wrong places. If you're charging for service, you've actually got a big financial incentive NOT to make your product straightforward and bug-free; the only reason you're even MAKING a product, from a business standpoint, is so that you have something to fix.
It gets even weirder when you try to extend the model to other fields. Musicians, I can almost see, because they can potentially support themselves on income from live performances. (Even this is iffy, though, because it marginalizes some forms of music that don't lend themselves well to live shows, like electronic music.) But is a novelist supposed to give away his books for free (or for the price of distribution)? If so, how is he supposed to make a living? Are we back to the old model of artists finding wealthy patrons and writing sycophantic dedications to them in front of every book?
This isn't to say that free software is never a good idea from a business perspective. There are obviously many cases where developing free and/or open-source software can be in a company's best interest - witness Sun, IBM, etc. But I don't buy the argument that it's a universalizable business model.
Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! In a competitive marketplace, two things generally occur: prices move towards zero, and quality moves upwards. I found the secret to book selling: give it away and then build up your reputation as a desired speaker or consultant.
There are plenty of writers out there who don't want to do ANY of that. I know one published novelist who's so afraid of public speaking she bit through her lip worrying about an in-class presentation. Print newsletters and other businesses are also not things a novelist would necessarily want to spend time on.
If a plumber is afraid of people, would he plumb? It is wrong to think that your friend should be protected by a law because she can't compete. Should be subsidize horse-shoers and gas-lamp-lighters, too, because their markets changed? Writing books, making music, painting drawings -- they're all being replaced by new emerging markets for people to take advantage of. If your friend isn't ready to face the reality of the new information market, she'll lose out even with the law protecting her creations.
"IP" (the scare quotes are for your benefit) is a similar case, IMO - there's a literally infinite supply available of any IP, thanks to digital media, but the supplier (i.e., the creator) restricts the flow of those copies in order to maintain a profit margin.
Which is why I am against intellectual property in the first place -- when something can be easily duplicated by millions of other people, the cost of that "property" falls toward zero. When the cost of a good or service falls toward zero, the people making that good or service better find a new way to sell their labor. Those who hold on to old-style market protections (such as copyright) will find themselves left behind. It would be like the old LP-record manufacturer who decided to only make records when the tape, the CD and the MP3 came out. They'd be lost in the past with almost no customer base (except those few who still want LPs like me, heh). There is no need to protect those who are unwilling to innovate and compete.
Re:Open Source -- a rebirth of true capitalism? (Score:1, Insightful)
Capitalism requires the rule of law. Otherwise, you'd just firebomb your competition's headquarters.
Well, OK, we need a police force. But, uh, make it private, because I don't like government.
Private security forces = cartels. But weren't you just complaining about cartels? Or just government-backed cartels? When it comes down to it, what's the difference?
Restraint. Good luck with that one.
Re:Thats all fine and dandy in fantasy land (Score:3, Insightful)