Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Businesses

JBoss Founder Hard-Nosed About Open Source 423

Infonaut writes "In this Business Week interview, JBoss founder Marc Fleury refers to "hobbyist" Open Source contributors and makes the case that "no one is going to work for free." Fleury dismisses people who contribute for something other than money as "Hari Krishnas" and makes reference to the "hippie dream". Fleury's sharp, profit-focused approach has brought him success, but isn't it in some sense built on the shoulders of the hippies and hobbyists he seems to scorn?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

JBoss Founder Hard-Nosed About Open Source

Comments Filter:
  • Again? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10, 2005 @10:51AM (#13026619)
    makes the case that "no one is going to work for free."

    Hey, 1990 called. They want their open-source-failure theory back!
    • Re:Again? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hey, 1990 called. They want their open-source-failure theory back!

      He's not completely wrong. Open source people will only work on what interests them so you have a ton of very crappy, partially-finished open source software out there that usually just barely scratches the itch of the original programmer. Sure there are successes like Mozilla Firefox, Apache, KDE, Gnome, the Linux kernel, etc., but for every success there are hundreds of completely useless failures out there.

      Most businesses would be i

      • Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lepaca Kliffoth ( 850669 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:34AM (#13026846)
        "He's not completely wrong. Open source people will only work on what interests them so you have a ton of very crappy, partially-finished open source software out there that usually just barely scratches the itch of the original programmer. Sure there are successes like Mozilla Firefox, Apache, KDE, Gnome, the Linux kernel, etc., but for every success there are hundreds of completely useless failures out there."

        And why do you want to use the failures rather then the successes? I use kernel + Xorg + KDE + several applications like mplayer, amaroK, thunderbird and so on. They are all very polished, perform admirably and only the testing versions ever crash (and I use unstable things only in rare cases). If someone wants to code a pile of crap it's none of my concern, the great, well coded apps I can install are more than I'll ever use.

        "Most businesses would be insane to rely on open source programmers to develop their software for them... that's why many of you reading this still have a job developing commercial software or in-house homegrown software. They give you money, you develop software that they want. It's a win-win situation. The alternative is they give you nothing, you starve, someone spends all their free time writing another damn e-mail client or content management system in PHP"

        I don't see the problem here. Open Source programmers are still programmers and they're paid by whoever employs them. Novell and Red Hat aren't exactly what you would call community-driven, heh. The programmers giving code for free are usually guys sending in patches for some kind of problem they found and were able to fix. Anyway if someone wants to donate it's his decision, nobody points a gun at him. If someone starts a project, leaves it and it remains unfinished it will go in the pit together with all the crappy programs I'll never use.
      • Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eyeye ( 653962 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @12:05PM (#13027015) Homepage Journal

        but for every success there are hundreds of completely useless failures out there.

        The same could be said of commercial software development...
      • I have news for you. 75% of all businesses fail. That's right go look it up. There is no magic formula for guaranteed success, you try things, most of the time you fail, occationally you succeed.

        The difference between open source and business is that in open source your failures belong to the community. All that failure is visible so people can learn from it, can take ideas, bits and pieces from it and try again. In business you don't have that.

        "The alternative is they give you nothing, you starve, someon
    • Hey, 1990 called. They want their open-source-failure theory back!

      The "hippies" writing OSS were not as charitable as you suggest. Many were getting paid or compensated, just not by their software customers. A cushy academic job where you get to choose you own area of research and/or projects, a student working school project, etc.

      I'm not saying people did not give away code they wrote on their own time, I did, so did others, it just wasn't called OSS in the 80s and early 90s. However a lot of open s
  • by DanielMarkham ( 765899 ) * on Sunday July 10, 2005 @10:53AM (#13026626) Homepage
    But he's definitely no politician. People want to believe that you can get something for nothing. He sounded a little on the abrasive side.
    I found it interesting that he distinguishes between different types of software, implying that there would be vastly different business models for each -- "don't try this at home" I would have liked to have seen the interviewer nail him down on this a little more -- I think there is some good stuff there but without the details its hard to know whether he knows what he's talking about or not.

    What's spaghetti got to do with hurricanes? [whattofix.com]
    • I agree with you point that this was the most interesting part of the interview. I think the interviewer tried to nail him down but he said that he hadn't really thought about it. That part bothered me, this is critical for his business strategy and he hasn't thought of it?
    • The story summary pissed me off, but the actual article is nowhere near so bad. A key quote:

      This guy in the front row says "You've got to stop banging on people whose motivation is something other than money." There's always a Hari Krishna in the audience: "It's illegal to make money at this. We're all garage bands, and you sold your soul to the devil for a handful of dollars." So I go, "Have you contributed anything?" and usually they say no and I stop it there.

      Turns out the guy is the founder of a pretty significant chunk of Linux, so Point A goes out the door. So I say, "You are what I call amateur open-source or hobbyist open source, which is you have a job and then you do this because that's your passion." And then somebody in the audience yells "You mean amateur open source as opposed to asshole open source?"

      So there's always that. It's normal. There are always a bunch of amateurs because they've never made money at it, and it kind of pisses them off that there was a way to do it.

      He's not making a blanket statement about open source developers being Hari Krishnas, he's talking about hecklers in his audience.

      • Yes, you have to explain that Open Source is a business model, esp. in the United States. I don't know the situation in the rest of the world but Europe is different. On international meetings at the UN level US open source defenders tried hard to debunk the "free as beer" teaching and that open source no weird social romantism.

        Open Source works similar as the Internet. Just to remind you the persons who make content accessible have to pay for the server load. And it works, very succesful. The problem is a
    • So, how is this Marc Fleury anyway? Do I need to know him? He is probably just a lame dork in a suit.

      If he disses my hobby, because I sit around for countless in my free time working on open-source software, I don't need to know, use or respect the work of his company. Period.
    • He knows no more (Score:3, Informative)

      by jd ( 1658 )
      Than Steve Jobs did when he said that the days of garage delopers was over. In the 1990s. He nearly went bankrupt, going with that attitude.


      Different cases, sure, but the same short-sightedness and same origins - the "I'm better than you, 'cos I'm richer".

  • If... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zotz ( 3951 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @10:54AM (#13026635) Homepage Journal
    If he really has this attitude, he is sadly mistaken and most likely being a jerk.

    A lot of my motivation for contributing is a way saying thanks.

    How does he pay for all of his foundations? Or is he just a taker?

    Since his stuff is Free (if it is) you can look at it as who cares?

    One thing with people who only do it for the money is that I tend not to trust them not to make things unnecessarily complex in order to earn the service/consulting money.

    In any case... Go Free Software.

    all the best,

    drew
    • Re:If... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're only saying that because you're clearly a dirty hippie or a bearded GNU freak...

      • by zotz ( 3951 )
        I may be a GNU freak, but I oscillate between clean shaven and stubble. Haven't worn anything close to a beard in years.

        As to being a dirty hippie, I missed that movement by about ten years. My hair got longer than I wear it today, but it never really made it down to my shoulders. Dirty? Well, no shower yet this morning so I am not totally fresh, but I wouldn't go so far as dirty.

        Clearly, in peering at me through the internet, your fibre got crossed and you saw someone else.

        all the best,

        drew
    • How they weasel (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Groo Wanderer ( 180806 ) <<charlie> <at> <semiaccurate.com>> on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:33AM (#13026836) Homepage
      "Since his stuff is Free (if it is) you can look at it as who cares?"

      Funny you should mention that, while he is a two faced sleazeball, at least according to several friends who know him and some who used to work for him, he does indeed keep his work truly open. That is the beginning though, not the end. It was also built on the backs of free authors, at least one of which was a good friend.

      Now, the trick they use is to purposely not document their work, it is free indeed, but just try to use it. Oh, you want support? Write a check to.....

      Now, you have to remember this is the same guy who called Jonathan Schwartz "a ponytailed clown from McKinley". Now, good old JS does sport a ponytail, but the last time I saw him, the clown makeup was notably absent. Not sure about the McKinley bit though.

      All this is second hand, but it comes from people who were starry-eyed groupies until they realized the intracicies of his 'management' style and told him where to cram his philosophy.

      -Charlie

      P.S. If you want stories about him, ask at TheServerSide.com, especially about posting under multiple pseudonyms to back up a failing arguement.

      P.P.S In case you don't notice, I don't think highly of him, but I am one of the smiling happy people compared to those who know him.
      • Re:How they weasel (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zotz ( 3951 )
        "Now, the trick they use is to purposely not document their work, it is free indeed, but just try to use it. Oh, you want support? Write a check to....."

        "One thing with people who only do it for the money is that I tend not to trust them not to make things unnecessarily complex in order to earn the service/consulting money."

        My point exactly. I think the tactic is so unnecessay and counterproductive. There are always going to be real problems and opportunities and people will always pay to make their lives
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10, 2005 @10:56AM (#13026639)
    Man that is fun.

    Some nitpicks:

    1) I prefer 'dirty' in front of the word 'hippie'

    2) I can't believe he didn't work 'bearded GNU freak' into to the interview

    I have to admire someone else who goes straight to the big ammo, high impact terminology. A kindred spirit.

  • Just let him say what he wants about open source software. I know that I'll never support his company from now on, and I feel quite safe in saying that open source software will continue to innovate far beyond anything his commercial world of software developers will produce.
  • by daniel_mcl ( 77919 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:00AM (#13026663) Homepage
    What the guy is saying is that he sees a lot of companies sitting around trying to make money off of other people's work (i.e. all twelve thousand linux distributions), whereas he wants to pay people to develop open-source applications. He's just saying that you can't have a business model where you say, "Hey, guys, you write my software for me and then I'm going to make all the money off of it!"
    • Added value... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:47AM (#13026921) Homepage
      you can't have a business model where you say, "Hey, guys, you write my software for me and then I'm going to make all the money off of it!"

      ...of course you can. Game publishers, book publishers, movie companies, tv stations, music labels and so on thrive on taking a "production" and delivering it to consumers. However, you do need to have some added value. Even though the applications are FLOSS there are many way to do that, I'm sure you can think of a few...

      Kjella
      • VALUE ADDED!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by joshsnow ( 551754 )
        "then I'm going to make all the money off of it!"

        Game publishers, book publishers, movie companies, tv stations, music labels and so on usually have to pay someone for what they use.
  • by rerunn ( 181278 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:02AM (#13026674)
    There really is no such thing as a free lunch and where the rubber meets the road, it comes down to the bucks. However, it certainly makes him look like a knob to piss on very things that have helped him get to where he is now. Dude needs to chillax and smoke a bowl I say.
  • by paul.dunne ( 5922 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:04AM (#13026681)
    Don't be put off by the somewhat tendentious write-up; the interview
    itself is interesting, if brief. I think the case against "OSS" from a
    purely business point of view is quite strong; but this doesn't worry
    me, since I'm not in the business, and I prefer Free Software [gnu.org]
    anyway.
  • There are many out there who basically have the same reservations about Free Software. They can't see how anyone would want to give away the fruits of their effort for free.

    Maybe this is an area where Open Source organizations can do a little better PR. They can explain how most of us came up using Free Software, and want to similarly contribute back; bytes are free - it costs nothing to contribute something you did because it interested you; not everyone is driven by profit motive; etc...

    Of course,
  • by handy_vandal ( 606174 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:09AM (#13026709) Homepage Journal
    How many artists choose Art over Money?

    Most of them. Some artists do actually starve for their art, although this is perhaps a romanticized minority. Nonetheless, the general principle holds true: people driven to create art have less time for day jobs -- or if they're confined to day jobs, their souls suffer for want of art.

    Thus with some coders, who give it away: they are driven to create the art of open source.

    -kgj
    • by Rick and Roll ( 672077 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:57AM (#13026969)
      People choose art over money in the software world so they can do whatever they want with their projects. OpenBSD's Theo De Raadt is a good example of this. Here's an excerpt of a recent interview recent interview [theepochtimes.com]:

      Q: Could you elaborate on why the OpenBSD team is so committed to releasing its software free of charge and free of restriction?

      The first thing to recognize about OpenBSD is that there are about 80 developers and we do OpenBSD for ourselves only. Lots of other people use OpenBSD, but we use it for ourselves. It's just for ourselves--and that means I want OpenBSD to run on everything I've got. I want OpenBSD to work no matter what things come along in the future. This means that we have to have an outside community that will help us with supporting new devices and new technologies. We can't be too 'fringe.' So that means we have to have a user community. But we have a user community only because it benefits us, ourselves.

    • Well, personally I'm glad a lot of OSS is not made by artists. Which of the following would an artist do:

      a) Write documentation
      b) Backport fixes
      c) Fix spaghetti/cancer code
      d) Track down memory leak
      e) Verify, assign and fix bugs
      f) Formal point release
      g) Start off on some new and wonderful feature which has tickled their creativity.

      Of course, you might say others should do that, not artists. Have you ever experienced how fun it is to clean up someone else's mess? I'd rather do any one of a-g) on my own code
  • If you get free, you want a lot of it. If you give free, you're going to give until you're tired of giving, and that's exactly what happens in the open-source community.

    The Giver gives to the evil and the good alike. There are many fools, who receive in plenty, yet are thankless.

    Pauris 20 -27 http://srec.gurmat.info/srecpublications/sabadgur u suratdunchela/chapter7.html [gurmat.info]
    from Jupji Sahib by Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Nanak [wikipedia.org]
  • I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KriKit ( 892231 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:12AM (#13026725)
    Why are people so hate filled when it comes to the thought of people working in their spare time to help each other? Its called charity. I think this guy feels threatend. Why be so negative to a concept thats so positive?
    • Why are people so hate filled when it comes to the thought of people working in their spare time to help each other?

      You see, there's this little thing called "jealousy"...

  • The companies that sing the loudest praises of the Linux and open source "hippie dream" now will be the ones who eventually scorn it the most.

    Take note IBM Inc., Google Inc., and most other touchy-feely open companies with more than just one person on the payroll. Take Redhat Inc., who were built on the efforts of volunteers whose work gradually became subsumed into a profit-driven entity only to snip the umbilical cord of the "hippie dream" after Redhat Version 9.

    Yeah, welcome to capitalism fellow hippie
  • I disagree (Score:3, Informative)

    by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:16AM (#13026740)
    but isn't it in some sense built on the shoulders of the hippies and hobbyists he seems to scorn

    Not really. Java has continued to be a thorn in the side of the GNU camp because of it's licensing issues. His product has been built from the ground up and serves as a platform for the deployment of non-free software. Thus, he does not stand on the shoulders of those he scorns.
  • by rerunn ( 181278 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:17AM (#13026750)
    This is the same jboss that had its core set of developer walk out on Fleury a couple years ago:

    http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/04/22 12228&tid=108 [slashdot.org]

    And yhea its the Inquirer but still worth a read:

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9504 [theinquirer.net]

    JAVA DEVELOPER'S JOURNAL Editor-in-chief Alan Williamson has recently awarded Marc Fleury with the title "JBoss's own worst enemy" in his blog (http://alan.blog-city.com/readblog.cfm?BID=77874 [blog-city.com]) . It appears that there were some polling inconsistencies with the JDJ awards and that the JBoss Group's CEO gave Williamson quite the verbal lashing in a letter earlier this week. Williamson reacted by publishing Fleury's email in his blog.

  • Myth? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vansloot ( 89515 )
    I'm not an open source/free software zealot, but Mr. Fleury seems to be ignoring an important point. Namely, that while individual developers are only going to give for free until they get tired of giving (this is true as it's a tautology), the "community" as a whole will continue giving. The power of OSS is in numbers. Once it reaches critical mass, it drives forward regardless of any single individual.

    If OSS relied on any one developer, of course it would fail, and I think that is the mistake many det
    • Proprietary software developers differ only in what makes them decide to stop, and when that happens, those who'd like to buy but don't constitute a large enough market to keep the developer from being "tired" are out of luck. (Just ask all those who'd have liked Stardock to continue developing the OS/2 version of Object Desktop, among many others.) As you point out, OSS doesn't have that problem.
  • RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:24AM (#13026791)
    Read the fucking article.

    He's not calling all open source contributors "Hari Krishnas", he's calling the ones who heckle him at conferences "Hari Krishnas".

    The best test of your belief in free speech is when someone says something you don't like.

    The best test of free software is when someone does something with it that you don't like (e.g. making money).

    This guy is following the license and spirit of the GPL, and making money doing it. People should be patting him on the back, not giving him a hard time.
    • He's not calling all open source contributors "Hari Krishnas", he's calling the ones who heckle him at conferences "Hari Krishnas".

      The best test of your belief in free speech is when someone says something you don't like.

      So, you might mention that to Fleury, who resorts to name calling and denigration when someone says something he doesn't like. I guess that makes Fleury a capitalist pig.

    • by zotz ( 3951 )
      "This guy is following the license and spirit of the GPL, and making money doing it. People should be patting him on the back, not giving him a hard time."

      If you read the posts, you will see that some people do not think he is following the spirit of Free Software. Making money from it is not the problem for them though.

      Isn't this software based on java? Care to comment on his devotion to the spirit of Free Software?

      all the best,

      drew

      http://yp.peercast.org/?find=bysa&Submit=Search [peercast.org]
  • 1) Get some spare time
    2) Fix bug annoying me
    3) Submit fix for all
    4) ???
    5) Profit!

    Obviously the OSS community needs to figure out the ??? bit and we'll be rich.
    • Close.

      1) Get some spare time
      2) Find bug annoying me
      3) Find someone willing to pay me to fix same bug annoying them.
      4) Submit fix for all
      5) Profit!
  • Don't make the mistake of thinking that you can't scorn someone you're defeating in the marketplace just because you stole your ideas from them.

    (i.e., this whole /. submission is based on a failure to understand human nature)
  • by NDPTAL85 ( 260093 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:27AM (#13026810)
    If the OSS movement is ever to survive and become something more than a hippy hobbyist kludge then it needs hardnosed realists who can produce results, not just fire and brimstone ministers such as Richard Stallman.

    Making money is not dirty, a profitable free software company is not a sell out, and yes professionalism in open source is something that should be encouraged.
  • If you contribute code to the GPL, you have to realize that it might just be used by an asshole like this guy.

    Of course it could also be used by terrorists, rightist wackjobs, leftist pinkos, separtist paritsans, guerilla insurgents and the North Koreans.

    So think twice before contributing to projects like Freeciv or EMACS...

  • That he puts out an application server which is "mission critical" while free software web servers and file servers are not mission critical. I can assure you, there are many free software web servers and file servers that are mission critical. Apache has about 70% of the web server market while Microsoft has about 20% of it, and other web servers have 10% of it. That 70% contains many billion dollar corporations for whom the file server is mission critical. I also know of free software file servers on
  • It seems Marc Fleury spends too much time listening to stupid people, so much that he starts saying stupid things himself. He happened to pick a certain group of "amateurs" that are writing boring software and doing a mediocre job at it.

    He would do better to seek out people who are professional Open Source Vendors like he is, and creative Open Source hobbyists, the kind that write compilers, work on web browsers, GUI toolkits, etc.

    If he avoids talking to stupid people at conferences, but instead seeks

  • I once saw a poster that read:

    Your goal in life is to blend your vocation and avocation as your eyes make one in sight.

    This doesn't mean that you work for free, rather you work on something you enjoy enough that you are willing to work on it at home in some sense.

    Even if you can't do the same thing at home and at work is somewhat irrelevant.

    I have yet to meet a CPA who is an advanced software developer in any language beyond Excel Macros. But then again, I haven't met every CPA in the world either

  • by jdfox ( 74524 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @11:51AM (#13026942)
    1) Astroturf wildly [slashdot.org] to market your product, on the assumption that your customers and fellow developers are idiots
    2) Issue a mealymouthed pseudo-apology [osdir.com], when you get caught
    3) Wait a year, then publicly call your fellow OSS developers "hippies" and "Hari Krishnas" [businessweek.com]
    4) ??
    5) Profit!!!

  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @12:02PM (#13027003)
    Who said we are working for free when what we are really doing is bartering.
    I work on a video editor, or the docs for openoffice, or beta testing for Blender.
    In return you do something similar.
    In return, I get a $500 package (openoffice) free without needing to pay taxes.
    In return, I get access to code that does 90% of what I want so I only have to write the 10% instead of 100%.
    OSS moves ahead because it doesn't have to care about -cash- payments. It can take almost as long as it wants on any project and when it gets "good enough" then it starts eating into the commercial software it compets with.
    I passed a key marker in the last 3 months - I no longer install Office on all my boxes. THat followed another key point 6 months ago when I said the default programs were Writer and Calc instead of Word and Excel.
    Now I'm seriously looking at Umbuntu and it's very likely I'll be using it 100% on one box.
    Anyway- back to my basic point- even businesses can benefit enormously from open source. They get access to code 90% written, write the 10% they need and contribute it back to the stream. This allows them to make deadlines they otherwise could not and to get software that works (bypassing a huge amount of risk) that they only have to tweak.

    And some of them are STILL greedy and try to take the free code and hide their changes (fortunately they are getting busted lately).

    It's not that hard folks- get thousands of dollars worth of free software- make your business profitable and give just a little bit back.
  • As a developer... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Paradox ( 13555 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @12:04PM (#13027009) Homepage Journal
    Okay, ignore the business aspect for a second, look at it from my (a developer's) point of view.

    Before I got involved in OSS, I was yearning to get into consulting, but I couldn't seem to find a breakthrough job to establish a reputation. People just didn't want to believe I could do the work. I'm in the magical "recently graduated college" zone where I'm not expereinced enough to be senior but not young enough to be an undergrad consultant.

    After I got involved and contributed to an open source project as one of the primary developers, suddenly I had exposure. Sure, I didn't get paid for the work (and we did a lot of work in just 2 months). But that investment has helped me to get a very good consulting job, and I've gotten a lot more exposure because people talk to me about the library and what it does.

    It's the best thing to happen to my career since graduating college.

    No one will work for free, but who said that we're working for free? I consider my OSS work to be an investment in my repuation and my future career. It certainly has paid off in a very short amount of time.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Almost every successful asshole does this. They ignore how fortunate they were (just out-and-out LUCKY) and attribute all their success to themselves. So you get stories of how they walked uphill, both ways, etc. Everyone else who hasn't pulled himself up by his bootstraps is a loser or "Hari Krishna" or whatever.

    Edison did the same thing, bragging about how hard he worked and perspired, somehow missing the fact that he rode to success on the backs of many others. But don't be too hard on these guys. CEOs
  • No one is going to work for free. That's the myth of open-source.

    My company works a lot on open source software. And we actually pay our developers to do so.

    Is this a hippie dream? No, it's just practical. We use this open source software in our business because it is the best product available - and it's much less expensive and more robust than anything else on the market.

    We continue to develop the software because we have needs that go beyond the current implementation. We give back to the communi
  • Fleury != Politic (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @12:39PM (#13027191) Homepage
    makes the case that "no one is going to work for free."

    For those of you who aren't familiar with Marc Fleury, he is the stereotype of the maveric, much like many of us. He's used to being the smartest guy in the room, he's used to being right whenever someone disagrees with him, and he doesn't soft peddle the fact that he thinks he's always right. There's an upside and a downside; people don't follow the wishy washy, but maverics tend to come off as assholes.

    All that to say, this is just vintage Marc. His view is the only credible view in his world. It has cost him some important allies (eg: his entire core development team last year), and has won him others (eg: lots of venture capital). It will continue to be his hallmark.
  • by iwadasn ( 742362 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @03:02PM (#13027888)

    I've actually had to deal with the JBoss guys on several occasions (I brought them in to compete for a few bids at my company), and I can't stand them. They are the least responsive vendor I have ever seen, and that's saying something. They're more arrogant and confrontational than Reuters or Bloomberg, and that's an almost miraculous achievement.

    I am glad that they have succeeded, as if JBoss does for app servers what Linux did for Operating Systems, that will be a good thing. Unfortunately, I see a rocky future for them, probably. It seems that if you want to use the service business model, telling your customers to screw off at every opportunity is not a good plan, and it will hurt you eventually.

    I also think their focus is slightly misplaced, but that's a minor technical issue. Presumably it will be fixed as JBoss becomes more mature. With a little time, hopefully by JBoss 5.0, they'll have a much more impressive AS, with fewer weakpoints. Perhaps then they can really strive to fix the few weaknesses they have.
  • by 21mhz ( 443080 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @04:54PM (#13028479) Journal
    ...at hobbyist, hippie projects like Geronimo [apache.org], that dare to offer "competition" to his product, even to the point of passing all the relevant certifications?
  • by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @05:38PM (#13028727) Homepage

    He gets a few million in VC money and he thinks he's Bill Gates.

    Nothing he said hasn't been refuted before.

    Nothing to see here but another prima donna. Oh, wait, maybe he CAN compare himself to Bill Gates on that basis.

    Move along.
  • by petrus4 ( 213815 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @05:58PM (#13028859) Homepage Journal
    Blah, blah, blah.
    Just another soulless, scorched earth capitalist. "I relied on other people to make my money, but now, due to the frailty of my own nature, I'm now going to promptly forget what made me a millionaire in the first place, and get down to the usual millionaire activity of destroying the lives of as many people as I possibly can."

    And before I get yet another barrage of comments from American reactionaries labelling me a Communist, let me say that I have nothing whatsoever against capitalism, provided that the capitalist in question remembers that they do not exist in a vacuum...that they're part of the larger human race...also that they actually need other people to get their money in the first place. It is capitalism with total disregard for others that I have major problems with. Mind you, the latter is the form that most Americans are familiar with anyway, so I stand corrected...a lot of you probably won't be able to tell the difference.
  • by jafac ( 1449 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @06:35PM (#13029072) Homepage
    Listen.
    I'm about as borzhwa as they come.

    I spend about 3-6 hours per week working on my yard.

    My motivation?

    I want my house and my yard to look nice.

    Who benefits?

    My neighbors who try to sell their houses, it increases neighborhood property values. Do *I* get any kickbacks? Are you shitting me? People do things for reasons other than personal profit all the fucking time.

    I benefit, with pride, and personal satisfaction.

    I see no difference between my decadent motivations, and the Open Source movement.

    This guy's just a "Free Market" capitalist ideologist. Ideology seldom has anything to do with the real world.
  • by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @08:41PM (#13029738)
    It's ironic that he calls the idea of people working for nothing a myth but uses a myth to prove it:

    "At top of the pyramid, you have these top 2% of developers that are 10 times -- in some cases 100 times -- more productive than the rest."

    This is a very popular myth with rathy shaky evidence. Even the most modestly talented develper can write one line of code in 15 seconds. Who do you know that can write 100 lines of code in 15 seconds? Of course any meaningful measure of productivity would go beyond LOC, but that just weakens the case further since there are no established standards for comprehensive software productivity. We can't define productivity in any meaningful way, but we make broad claims about it anyway.

    My joke is that 98% of developers believe that they are in the top 2%.

Sendmail may be safely run set-user-id to root. -- Eric Allman, "Sendmail Installation Guide"

Working...