Open Source Forming a Dot Com Bubble? 222
sebFlyte writes "ZDNet is running an interesting look at the sudden upswing of investment in open source products and the ensuing debate as to whether the open source business model has given us a bubble (akin to the dot-com bubble) that is about to burst. The counter-argument is that the increase in investment is just the natural progression of a robust business model whose time has come. One point that few people, whatever their viewpoint, could disagree with is that the key to a financially successful open source project rests with the community, rather than just the technology."
DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the problems that I have been struggling to grasp in terms of its impact on my job is how important of a role DRM is really going to take in the coming years. As a pretty much Linux-exclusive shop, and as a media company, we could be in a very awkward position in the coming years since we don't really support anything in the way of DRM right now, and there doesn't appear to be a lot of headway from the OSS perspective, either.
who pays for this stuff? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm really happy that these projects exists because being able to stand on their shoulders make me a much more productive and a better programmer.
But I have often wondered -- who are these people that pay (in money or time) to develop all this stuff? I'm really glad they do, but I hope all the "funding" doesn't all dry up someday. I'd have to do all that work myself!!
boxlight
Community vs. Technology??? (Score:5, Interesting)
What a vacuous tautology!
The technology of open-source projects are the direct result of the efforts of its community.
This is like saying "the key to a successful private R&D firm rests with its researchers, rather than with its research!"
Re:Opensource isn't the problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or can it exist as a robust business model that can compete with commercial competitors?
I've been seeing more and more paid programming positions advertised on my campus' job site for open source projects. As cool as I think it would be to take a job like this when I get out of school, I don't want to go somewhere where the floor will fall out from underneath me.
Anyway, I'm not trying to predict doom for OSS, I'm just saying that this is a valid discussion, and I'm curious to hear what people have to say.
What's with this bubble fear? (Score:1, Interesting)
The great bubble crash happened half a decade ago now. It's time to get over it.
What if... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, but the root key isn't in Linux, isn't in software at all. The root key lies in hardware, in the TCPA chip. It is fully possible to design an OSS system that uses DRM and is secure despite being open. The reason OSS and DRM go together like oil and water is that the smallest possible change will render your system useless as the DRM validation hierarchy fails. It is as if you could modify Linux - but it would no longer run on any Intel or AMD processor ever again. That, together with the DMCA which in practise seems to trumph any notion of interoperability makes sure that you can't join them and you can't beat them without breaking federal law. The saving grace may be virtualization technology. Sure, you need your DRM-crippled VM to play media, but your Linux VM will do the rest and more. And then there's always p2p, which they will never manage to put a lid on.
Open source is not a business model (Score:5, Interesting)
Paid support and customization of software IS a business model. It's called "software contracting."
That business model is well understood. It can be profitable, and can sustain most salaried engineers at a rate ABOVE their current salary, but not usually as profitable on a large scale as a software product company can be, because as part of the bargain we choose not to leverage the amazing power of government-granted monopoly profits.
However, given the success of the FOSS development model I wouldn't give mass-market proprietary software more than another 20 years unless the government(s) intervene to stop it, or consumers buy into locked-down platforms that will only run signed code.
From the programmer point of view it doesn't really matter. We seem to get paid the same whether our customer can make billions off of the bits we create, or only gets to charge a markup on our rate. Weird, huh?
-- John.
No Bubble (Score:2, Interesting)
The Bubble Is Microsoft, Not FOSS (Score:1, Interesting)
There's no OSS bubble, just a few VCs investing in the area. Some of the VCs are very poor at picking winning technology, OSS or otherwise, so they'll die. But it's nothing like the DotCom bust and it is certainly nothing like what will happen when Microsoft stock loses its inflated value.
Re:It's a development model, not a business model. (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting it started was done by tinkerers and hobbyists, but once it became sufficiently important to employers, corporate involvement increased to be much larger than individual involvement.
Of course, this doesn't really fit well with venture capital. What I'd like to see would be for venture firms that invest in a number of related companies (like they often do) to invest in a new company which will take their venture money and produce software that the current companies will benefit from. The open source software company obviously loses all of the investment, having no income, but it provides a good return for the venture firm's portfolio in general.
Re:who pays for this stuff? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem that firefighters run into, just like software engineers, is that although the work they do is difficult and requires advanced qualifications and knowledge, there are lots of people out there who are willing to do it for free.
How do you resolve this problem? I dunno, because I sort of sympathize with both sides. Many paid firefighters would be happy to have the county refuse all volunteers, since that would make their jobs more in demand and therefore higher paid, but this seems selfish to me. In the same way, I don't think developers should try to eliminate or de-value open source models, they should just figure out how they can make the best of the new part-volunteer landscape of software development. There may not be as many riches involved, but to pursue personal wealth at the expense of the advancement of knowledge, technology, and quite possibly society at large seems wrong to me.
Re:Open source is not a business model (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's a development model, not a business model. (Score:3, Interesting)
And as near as I can tell, the investment folk mentioned in the article are looking for the companies WITH products, and not just for the "me too" marketers.