Free Can Mean Big Money - The Open Source Economy 494
Gentu writes "People are always accusing Open Source proponents of being communists, but an editorial by the OSNews publisher, ex-Red Hat employee David Adams, takes a critical look at whether Free and Open Source Software is really anti-capitalistic or is, in fact, only a product of the free market at work. Does wide availability of high quality, low cost software harm or help the world's economy?"
And this is bad why...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:3, Funny)
Quite commie!
There are no pure capitalist nations. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea sure, some people think these things are bad, but they're scary in the other direction.
Marx would have liked it, because it's a dialectic, eh? On one side, Capitalism--heartless and evil. On the other Communisim--mushy and incentive-free. Combine them? Excellent system.
It goes the same way with open source. We give it away, and we reap the rewards. Sure, its not the same kind of money you'd make if you were out to fuck everyone, but it's steady and solid, and the repeat business is kickin.
Re:There are no pure capitalist nations. (Score:5, Interesting)
The trouble is that a majority of us look at Capitalism and Communism as polarized one-way roads where there is no middle.
In Canada, although we are qutie capitalist in our business practices, a wealth of programs and services exist for the less fortunate (business and individual) so that the balance of wealth can be equalized.
Linux brings us the ability to benefit Small-Medium Sized Businesses with powerful tools at no direct cost, direct meaning no purchase price -- the time involved in implementing it, however, is a factor dependant on the skill level of the IT Staff. Linux also allows lower income families and individuals the ability to use a low cost computer with up-to-date software at no charge.
Although my own political beliefs tell me that Socialism (a nicer word for Communism) is better for the majority, my human nature to compete asks me to move toward Capitalism in order to better myself financially; this issue will plague us for generations.
Re:There are no pure capitalist nations. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually Socialism is not 'a nicer word for Communism'. Socialism and Communism are quite different concepts. Socialism is anti-capitalist, and Communism is post-capitalist. So Socialism is about minimizing the impact of a capitalist system to society by socialising the profits. Communism is about building the society after capitalism died by its inner antagonistics.
There are much more types of Socialism than the one that claims Socialism was the means to get to a communist society. There is the concept of social revolutionism, there are the different types of national socialisms (italian, german, argentinian, arabian (Baath party)). And so I don't believe Socialism is in any way a 'nicer word'.
How does Linux benefit a small-medium business? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not meant as a troll.
The problem, being a small business owner, is with this "factor dependant on the skill level of IT staff." Most small businesses don't HAVE AN IT STAFF!
They depend on outside contractors. Ouside support folks for Linux earn more than their Windows trained counterparts. Try finding an accounting system that runs well under Linux, and then try to find a CPA that will work with it! Seeing technical people, who don't own small businesses that are not technology related recommending FOSS is all well and good, but it means more COST for me!
Basically, buying shrink wrapped Linux costs more than Windows. Hiring folks to work on it costs more than Windows. I can't get the apps that I need to run my business on Linux. They are out there for Windows.
Explain the value proposition for a small business owner from Linux. I would like to "stick it to the man" as well, and support Linux. However, I am in business to make money, and not run my computer systems.
Re:How does Linux benefit a small-medium business? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong. Very very wrong. Buying shink wrapped Redhat costs more than Windows (possibly) but there ARE alternatives that some would say are better. Redhat is not the be-all and end-all of Linux. Did you research properly or did you just get one Redhat house in to quote you?
Windows may appear cheaper on the surface, but maintainging a secure, stable Windows platform takes a lot more work than maintaining a secure and stable Linux platform - whic
Re:There are no pure capitalist nations. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Social Welfare programs* are a good thing in general for a number of reasons. They can ameliorate some of the excesses of Capitalism. They can help social mobility, so that the the ruling classes are not de facto hereditary. They h
Re:There are no pure capitalist nations. (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole premise for socialism lays in the concept of revolution -Marx (correctly) assumed that it would take some time for the non-revolutionary people to get used to the idea of communism.
In the socialistic phase an interim government is necessary to supervise the progress towards communism and as soon as true
Capitalism, Communism and Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
Instead, it seems to me that we are talking about some sort of continuum between Capitalism and Socialism where the difference is that Socialism has a number of public works controls which help to redistribute wealth and keep in check the big business capitalism.
I use the term communism to refer to Soviet, Chinese, Eastern European, and Cuban communism. Whether or not they are the ideal is irrelevant. They are the examples of communist governments that we can reference. Communism in this perspective seems to be a socialist feudalism with state control and ownership of producers. This state control has limited utility and consequentially at some point one has to move to a person-based (corporations are artifical persons) ownership model.
Hence the move from Feudalism/Communism to Capitalism/Socialism seems to be a one-way road, provided that one only allows one ot consider a transition complete once it has really taken root. I.e. the family succession of elected offices in places like Singapore indicate that feudalist mentalities are still alive and well in the psyche of the citizenry.
The problem with open source from a capitalist perspective is that the means of production (in this case intellectual property) have become socialized, in the words of Marx. However, this is fundamentally different from Communism as I have defined it because socialized doesn't mean "owned by the state" but rather "owned by the producers and users." In other words this is a move towards community ownership which on the surface seems more like communism. To be fair to Marx he seemed to indicate that capitalist institutions such as corporations and the free market would likely continue to exist in his vision of communism.
I am willing to admit (as Wilhelm Reich quite strongly advocates) that Lenninism is NOT to be equated with the theories of Marx, and that Communist parties are simply wishful thinkers and daydreamers. In this theory cooperative businesses are the true manifestation of Marx's ideas of communism, but the term communism can't be used because of confusion with the communist party and the Soviet regime. He uses the term "Work Democracy" in his book "Mass Psychology of Fascism."
Of course what we have here is a strange way in which work democracy is implimented here where the "workers" including "corporations" own the means of production. This is something which could be equated with Marx's communism but bears no relation to the state-controlled Feudal political philosophy which has started in Russia during WWI. Indeed, when compared to the ideas of the "Communist Party," open source more closely resembles capitalism because it assumes no state ownership and the operation of a free market.
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:2)
Just because something is shared does not make it communisitic (i.e. free public libarary, our road systems, a kibbutz, public water fountain, etc, the Internet).
A very liberal use of the word communism to say the least.
There are pro's and con's to everything - luckily in this country - we have a choice ---- hmm kind of different from communism
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some may argue that the USSR, etc., wasn't "real Communism" but then the question remains: why wasn't it? Do traits of human nature (especially of those inclined to seek power) make such ideals unachievable.
In any case, I think an economic argument in support of free software would carry more weight coming from someone other than "OSNews publisher, ex-Red Hat employee David Adams."
Well Communism was unachievable for several reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well Communism was unachievable for several rea (Score:5, Insightful)
Mormons were originally so communal it was damn near communist.
Two fundamental differences between the Mormon's United Order and communism are (1) Mormons who wanted to join the United Order voluntarily gave their means/property/output to the Order, whereas in communism, it is taken from him by force, as others on the list have pointed out, usually with an AK47 to his head. And (2) if a person was lazy, in the United Order they were put on probation and then kicked out if they didn't work. No so with communism.
Force vs choice. Work vs indolence.
Rather fundamental and critical differences, if you ask me.
For another practical example, study up on the first colonies settled in the New World. They started out as a communal society (crops, etc), and after the first winter, switched to a private-property-driven capitalist society. The Governer had some interesting words to describe the difference from the first year to the second!
Re:Well Communism was unachievable for several rea (Score:3, Insightful)
By and large, open source work is done as a branch of capitalism (give away the code, make money off services), or as a beneficiary or capitalism (don't need the money, give away the code). Open source developers do not s
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your definition of the term "work" is unfamiliar to me. First, the USSR depended on brutal repression of its citizens; I submit that a government which must resort to such measures is a failure by definition. Second, even if the arms race ultimately led to the USSR's collapse, it's interesting that the US was able to spend just as much, while maintaining a vastly higher standard of living.
China is an interesting hybrid of Communism and Capitalism, I am not fully aware of to what degree, but hear that it keeps their astonishing population fed (for the most part) as opposed to suffering and starving as compared with the Capitalist counterparts.
To what capitalist counterparts are you referring?
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:3, Insightful)
My condolences. That's one reason I strongly favor capitalism over socialism; for all of the evils attributed to capitalism, none compare to the horrific atrocities committed by socialist governments gone astray.
Yes, it is interesting that the American System did not collapse... although the USA has an equivalent amount of citizens, and thus should have the same economic potential per person -- it is peculiar. Perhaps this
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:5, Funny)
They use UZIs.
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:4, Interesting)
Capitalism need not involve greedy corporations. Some of the most lassie-fair of people, the founders of the United States, did not believe in corporations being able to run a-muck the way they have today. Corporations were a privilege, and that privilege could be revoked if a corporation did not behave. The representatives of the country were to see to that, but the people fell asleep along time ago and corporate shills run the US Congress. So now we have Mussolini style fascism running around in G W Bush's US pretending to be capitalism, Corpratism is not so very different from communism in practice.
Corporatism: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative representation is given to industries or professional and economic groups. Ostensibly, the entire society is to be run by decisions collectively made by these groups. It is a form of class collaboration put forward as an alternative to class conflict and was first proposed by Pope Leo XIII. In Italy, employers were organized into syndicates known as "corporations" according to their industries, and these groups were given representation in a legislative body known as the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni. According to various theorists corporatism was an attempt to create a "modern" version of feudalism by merging the "corporate" interests with those of the state
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/corpora
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not defending either, but all you did was reinforce the original posters point. "Communism is bad" even though you don't even know what it is.
Re:And this is bad why...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Communism in it's truest form is a free society, it is all in how it is implemented and maintained.
Capitalism can be very degradating on its people, and is not the answer in terms of freedom.
Freedom comes from freedom to travel, live, and express oneself -- Communism can hinder its people by creating laws against free speech -- Capitalism can do the same.
good for world economy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good for world economy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good for world economy (Score:3, Informative)
IBM HTTP SERVER AND THE APACHE HTTP SERVER: The IBM HTTP Server component of the Program includes software developed by The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). The portions of the IBM HTTP Server which are based on software developed by The Apache Group for the Apache HTTP Server are Copyright (c) 2000 - 2003 The Apache Software Foundation. All ri
Poster is seeding the question.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This of course assumes that OSS = high quality. That is definitely NOT always the case. OSS is just software, and can be good or bad quality. That being said, talk amongst yourselves...
Re:Poster is seeding the question.... (Score:4, Insightful)
>software harm or help the world's economy?
Where does he imply all OSS software is high quality?
>This of course assumes that OSS = high quality
No it doesn't. It assumes that there is high quality open source software that is widely available.
I won't bother to list the software. I just wanted to note that u're assumptions are wrong.
Re:Poster is seeding the question.... (Score:2, Insightful)
huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Commoditization (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a general trend for most mass market goods to become commoditized. This should have happened
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Those bright lights you see illuminating the night sky over Las Vegas are powered by the spinning of Adam Smith's body in his grave at the mere suggestion that we protect a market from competition.
The anti-capitalists are those who have never read Smith's tirades against corporate interests who use the government to protect their markets.
More [slashdot.org] stuff Slashdot didn't publish.
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, in the US, we are moving more and more towards money capitalism.
BusinessWeek on GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:BusinessWeek on GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:BusinessWeek on GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
This means that they do not care what happens with the software produced by them. They wish that people use it, and put almost no barriers to this purpose. This means, in the business context, that modifications done tho the software ARE NOT GIVEN BACK to the comunnity, whatsoever. This makes sense to greedy business house (Microsoft backs FreeBSD's license as "True free software")
GPL makes sense to the programmer, whose business IS producing software, because if you modify a GPLd software, you have no obligation to give it back. But if you modify it AND distribute it (ie, you sell it), you must give it back to the world, under the GPL.
To the programmer, BSD makes no sense. It may make sense to the Universities. Stick with GPL and LGPL
Re:BusinessWeek on GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
You use GPLed code in an application. You didn't pay for the GPLed code.
What does the person who GPLed his code get? Your code.
If you don't want to give him your code, don't use his.
Why should you be allowed to use his code, and not give anything back?
Simple, really.
Re:BusinessWeek on GPL (Score:2)
I'm a person, not a business, so that's part self-interest.
Most people are people first, businesses second, so it's part humanitarian.
I suppose, however, something called "Business Week" is going to prefer the businesses. Screw 'em both when their interests conflict with human interests.
Re:BusinessWeek on GPL (Score:2)
{
a = difference(business, person)
print a;
}
It's important to remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
Confusing Software (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's important to remember... (Score:2)
Re:It's important to remember... (Score:5, Interesting)
And so can anyone else. While you, the devloper, have to recoup your devlopment costs. Another group (say Redhat to name a company at random) can undercut the cost of your services with their own since they have zero dollars to recover. Thus the developer gets put out of buinsess and all we have are people working for free and large companies selling services. Not a utopia of software engineering in my opinion.
Re:It's important to remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course. Just like they wouldn't purchase a proprietary product that was beyond hope. Only idiot venture capitalists from the Dot Bomb era paid to develop things that had no demonstrable worth. Yet as it stood Gnome wasn't anywhere near where it needed to be. Red Hat thus had an incentive to fund further develop
Money for the companies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me guess (Score:2)
"OSS is good for the economy because it raises the opportunity cost of using free software over paid for software. Never again will you have to pay for an Outlook-type program for Windows over it's free version. As a consequence the quality of output from the software industry is raised, thus promoting competition over monopolistic practices"
Was I right? Should I read it now?
The money you can save (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The money you can save (Score:2)
Capitalist Pigs (Score:2)
Entry into markets (Score:4, Insightful)
For those who just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you go into a linux service business does not mean you have to support ALL linux systems and run into spirals of madness therein.
Make your own. Make it specifically yours. Make it free to the world if you like, but also make it so you only do paid support for the system from people who have your exact defined distro.
You're in a service business, not a software business then. It doesn't matter if people copy your software, or improve on it, or spread it worldwide. You still provide services to your customers. They still pay you to maintain.
That';s the bit most of the big boys don't get. "The software is free! Free for anyone else to use! Free for all! Free and they can copy it!". True. But you the service company knows that your services are not free. Your time is not free, and you spend your time keeping your customers running smoothly and you earn from that.
What's better about a Linux service economy than a Win one - a service business based on proprietary software may come up against roadblocks. limitations in the software that their proprietary vendor does not address. Limitations that may make your clients go elsewhere, "switch" as it were.
With linux, you can implement that change. You can make the product you give away perform as they need, and keep supplying service from then on.
Linux - It's a service economy now guys. The only money to be made is in serving free software and in being the service provider known to be the best for a situation. Implement functions your clients need first, get paid first. TRUE market driven innovation.
(thank you this marketing rant was brought to you by 3 straight days awake and sixty coffees)
Re:For those who just don't get it (Score:2)
1. make linux distro+sw package so complicated only your team of tech support reps know how to get it to work.
2. charge a lot for support
3. profit!
Re:For those who just don't get it (Score:2)
2. charge a lot for support
3. profit!
You might have said that in jest, but there's some truth behind it. If you implement a new facility in your distro, let's call it Britix - then you know it, you train your techs to know it, and your company knows it inside out. Then you release it to the world and immediately you're the only people who know how to best use it, and what purposes its best suited
Re:For those who just don't get it (Score:2)
Also, remember, that if other techs have difficulty supporting your app, your new recruits will have similar problems.
Re:For those who just don't get it (Score:2)
The "Big Boys" are used to making their cake, selling it, and then feeding it to the customers too.
They make profit on the sale of the software and then the expensive service contract
Re:For those who just don't get it (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see how OSS can push the bleeding edge of software without some real financial motive for the developers.
Oh, sure, my awesome new internet app will be the killer app of tomorrow, and all kinds of consultants will get richer than Jesus supporting it.. But what about me, t
On high quality, low cost software... (Score:2, Funny)
High quality? Have you looked on Freshmeat lately?
Think ! (Score:4, Interesting)
International Business
I have recently heard they are strongly connected to OSS. Somehow, they still do what they once advertised.
So at least, one can infer that OSS is good for IBM.
CC.
Basic economics (Score:5, Insightful)
I install Linux, Microsoft loses. Because I installed Linux I now have more money in my pocket, Brewing industry gains.
As long as such changes are gradual, the impact on the economy is nil.
Way I see it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it. Where once a whole slew of programmers might have been hired to work on an inventory or billing system, for example, now a fraction can be hired to tweak what the rest have been producing for free.
One could hardly call this anything other than neocapitalism. Under the guise of not reinventing the wheel (a process which actually contributes innovation by demonstrating multiple ways of reaching the same goal, some better than others) businesses are able to make their programming dollar go further at the expense of the programmer.
While it is indeed possible for programmers to wait tables in their spare time, I would like to suggest that waiters do not need to invest 4+ years of schooling in their vocation. At some point this must be recouped or the quality and availability of programmers will decline.
Unfortunately, both the hacker mindset and the CEO mindset are currently geared towards the concept of free software -- the hacker for the love of the code and the CEO for the love of free code -- and damned be the concepts of effective software engineering, security principles, or a day's pay for a day's work.
Harm the world economy? No, but (Score:4, Insightful)
of providing high-quality software (via your
precious time) for free to the corporations
that do not give us their technology, food
or services for free?
I'll say it now, and I'll say it again,
those mutherf**kers are not getting one
minute of my time for free. Period.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
Re:Harm the world economy? No, but (Score:2)
0. Diagnose a social movement that has to be dealt with
1. Create an enemy: M$
2. Channel the movement: RH
3. Conquer: IBM (while taking care of distraction: SCO)
4.
CC.
M$ is not the enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
they have managed to write an OS that works
with an unbelievable amount of different kinds
of hardware. If in doubt, check the list of
supported hardware in Linux or BSD.
That's not the point though, my point is that
M$ is at least charging those corporate sob's
for their work, and, last I checked, the
Bill Gates Foundation was giving away something
like a billion a year (I could be wrong, tho).
In any event, they have created (along with
Paul Allen and other old-time M$-
Re:Harm the world economy? No, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, SCO has Samba, but its no competitive advantage for them.
If you can write software that gives you or your chosen company a competitive advantage, go right ahead.
Also, only by writing code do you become a good coder. You might have hard-drives full of applications that you've written, but who knows about them? And thus, who knows about you?
Nobody's forcing you to GPL your code, so why should you criticize those who chose to GPL theirs?
Re:Harm the world economy? No, but (Score:3, Insightful)
only in it for the money, and as such, are
willing to do anything to achieve than end.
Witness Enron et al. Look at the environmental
devastation, government influencing (running?)
and practical enslavement of human beings. This
is all because the owners of a corporation have
no responsibility to the land or their employees.
Witness the shameless job-cutting and overt
utilization of overseas labor whose laws would be
considered medieval compared to ours.
There is simply n
Communism isn't a dirty word (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that the Cold War happened and 'communism' became a dirty word in the U.S. and other western nations doesn't make Open Source any less about ensuring that everyone can enjoy the fruits of the labor of the most talented without the necessity of enriching the producers of the software or discrimination against those that would not be able to afford software if it was proprietary and commercial.
Re:Communism isn't a dirty word (Score:4, Insightful)
Economics is the allocation of scarce resources, by definition. Both what people think they need and what they can produce are both very subjective. Hard work, risk taking, self-discipline, delayed gratification -- these are things which often pay off in a capitalist system and simply don't have a place in that simple philosophy.
Aside from which, as long as there's a fairly egalitarian access to capital, it's almost impossible for any company to "soak the people" for profit without some statist loophole to rely on or a monopoly to exploit. Competition will force prices down; if one company or person is making money hand over fist making something or providing some service, the attractive money will lure others in, and that competition benefits the consumers.
Communism didn't become a dirty word because of the Cold War. Sure, no one likes countries stockpiling nukes; but Communism became a dirty word because all the communists had to wait in bread lines to eat, and had to ration their toilet paper to make it last.
Look at the effort it takes the IRS to do taxes. Imagine if there was some bureaucracy dedicated to evaluating peoples "abilities" and "needs". What a fiasco that would be... there'd probably be bread lines and rationed toilet paper, in fact.
Software didn't alway cost money (Score:5, Interesting)
There are several companies that have embraced FOSS and are making good money. Not by charging money for the software, but by providing services. We always think of Red Hat and the like, but now think of IBM and they way they have embraced the FOSS world yet still make mega bucks providing their services. Linux, for instance, is not the basis of IBM's offerings, but merely one solution they provide. They don't charge for that software, but they do very well capitalistically speaking. There is no conflict between capitalism and FOSS, it merely shuffles the equation around a little. Instead of charging for the software, you charge for your knowledge in other areas. Then you 3. Profit!
Closed-source software houses that screech about their lost profits and how important it is to America to maintain their stranglehold on this part of the economy sounds just like the RIAA. "Save our artificial business model!" Well, it's articifical, and as a business model its time is drawing to an end, or at least being marginalized. Time to make the choice, do you want to be like the buggy-whip manufacturers and the RIAA? Or do you want to be like IBM and make profits from embracing FOSS.
Re:Software didn't alway cost money (Score:2)
It's been good for my personal economy. (Score:2, Informative)
Open Source and Concentration of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there are some issues that concern me:
will decentralization have negative side effects like getting advanced weapons technology into the hands of folks that seriously misuse that technology?
economics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:economics (Score:3, Informative)
The economic ideal is perfect competition, as this results in zero economic profits (note that economic profits subtract out a reasonable rate of return to the investor, so a zero economic profit wil
only communist if (Score:3, Insightful)
If people were somehow prevented from writing Open Source Software because it can take some jobs away from certain companies or some other reason, now that would be communistic.
People are free to create and decide what they want to do with that creation. Communism is all about others deciding for you.
Services are the future (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be my belief that you would see wide adoption of Fiber to the Premises in a much quicker manner than currently being shown by SBC and Verizon. Futhermore those companies that have this huge debt cloud that the fiber would never make money can then focus on providing services over those lines. Also they would not be restricted to the areas they are currently in so in essence I could be a Verizon Customer until I get a better deal then switch over to Comcast who would provide services via my fiber connection.
In essence the national telecommunications network would be considered the Linux of our telecommunications backbone. Verizon, SBC, Cable Companies etc would be considered in the same light as Redhat, Novell, Mandrake and others. It's a common platform and the services are being provided.
The only problem with this is that Linux has yet to be standardized in a acceptable manner. Mandrake looks different from Redhat who looks different from Novell. Fix that, standardize what's being done to the kernel and fight for customers with support and product contracts and we can kiss MS goodbye.
Linux service providers (LSP)'s should be going to Corporations and telling them we'll provide you this service that will eliminate this problem or situation. You have to adopt Linux on that platform but for a fee we will make it do what you want and provide training and support for the life of it.
Other companies should be investing in end to end solutions built on Linux that are standards based and drum up companies to adopt this. We see it in many places today but adoption is slow but picking up very quickly.
Other companies who are standing on the sidelines wondering about this SCO business need to realize all the money they are throwing away and finally need to give the finger to SCO and get on with the conversion. Service disruptions to a Microsoft based virus over the last 2 years have far outshined any royalty payment you would ever have to pay SCO if hell froze over and they won their court cases. Go out and find those balls you had when you made these companies so great and use them again for once.
Only big corps are making big money (Score:2)
The broken windows fallacy (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is bullshit.
1) Many, MANY OSS programmers work for traditional companies, which may or may not be primarily software companies. Really, it's not a case of some unpaid commie hippie stealing an MS programmer's job, it's a case of a well-paid IBM programmer stealing an MS programmer's job. Which is fine by me--the market at work.
2) The OSS development model seems to have lower overall costs associated with it--open-source projects can give you the same functionality and features, but the total cost of developing all that software is much less than the total cost of developing the congruent proprietary product. This is GOOD, because it means that less people are doing more work, which means we're more productive and efficient. MS hurts because they're not able to compete with the more efficient (and therefore cheaper to the consumer) OSS product, and they lose revenue. Again, fine all around.
What this is REALLY about is that OSS is a different management model for building software, and it's a model that's based on a different understanding of how best to profit from your ownership of intellectual property (copyright on software you've written/had written by others). That's why MS has started an internal drive to study the development process used by the kernel coders and others--they want to see if they can take some of the techniques and processes that are OSS and apply them to help MS become more competitive.
Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)
A more interesting question is whether it's sensible for professional programmers to insist that their labor is worth nothing. Or whether it's logical for them to insist that that their labor is worth nothing but that it's an outrage to replace them with someone earning half as much.
Re:Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. That is one of the perpetually most entertaining things about Slashdot, how people (sometimes on the same day!) can simultaneously believe that
Now I realize that Slashdot is not a group mind, but these two positions are the o
does anyone take that rant seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are lawyers doing pro bono work destroying the market for lawyers? Are doctors who work in a clinic as volunteers destroying the demand for medical services? Are all the people out there who write articles or novels and give them away for free "destroying" the market for books? Of course not.
It's foolish to assume that the best OSS software authors act entirely selflessly. If you could make $50/hr at a corporate software shop, or make a name for yourself on 10-15 hrs/week in coding for free and then command $150-200/hr for the other 25-30 hrs a week, what would you take? I'm making way more money than I ever did in a "real" job as a consultant, and I do it on my schedule and my terms. I got this by releasing a little OSS package... one that isn't even in use any more because I didn't have time to maintain it and it was fairly early-stage. But within weeks of putting it out, I was getting inquiries about modifying it on a per-hour bsais, and I've had a full schedule for over 16 months and more than 1 full time job offer that I've turned down.
Also, it sort of assumes that there's some competition between OSS and certain alternatives. If I had a choice between a free IIS and a $100 copy of Apache, I'd buy Apache. If I had a choice between a free winXP, and paying $89 for linux, I'd take linux. (And I'd dual boot to free windows so I could play games
I'm sure for a lot of people, "free" is a nice thing. But you know what? It's been pointed out before: license fees on software are often a tiny fraction of TCO. OSS is often superior not because of the software cost, but the associated costs.
As far as the "World Economy" goes, this question is in the "Give Me a Break" category. It's like asking whether free medicine would help or harm the world economy. The only difference is there isn't an army of altruistic and excellent drug manufacturers like there are software developers.
Linux makes jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
LINUX MAKES JOBS.
Its very simple, Microsoft's revenue is $36.8B it employs 55000 it has a high revenue per employee of $669k. It has a monopoly so that high revenue/employee is not suprising.
Other companies are not so lucky:
GE revenue is 140 Billion, it employs 305000, thats $459K per employee.
Citigroup $240K per employee
Walmart $183K per employee...
If companies spend less on Microsoft products and invest it in their own business with similar results to their existing business, then they will create more jobs.
So, if Walmart saves 10 million by not buying Microsoft licenses and switching to Linux
and invests it in its own company, it will likely create 55 jobs.
Microsoft will lose $10m (i.e. 15 jobs). A net gain of 40 jobs.
Walmart jobs are low grade, a more realistic example is Citigroup. 10 million saved on Windows licenses is worth 26 extra jobs.
My point is, it isn't just that companies spend the money on themselves, it's that they employ more people for each $ revenue than Microsoft, so every dollar saved creates more jobs than a $ going to Microsoft.
Don't fall into Microsoft's trap. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't fall into Microsoft's trap. When talking about open source with colleagues, customers, etc. make sure they know about the true benefits. Lower TCO is part of the picture (and it does have a lower TCO when anyone not reciving Bill Buck$ is doing the measurement), but there's also the ability to interchange components at will, and the ability to interchange vendors at will, which gives everyone more leverage with their vendors. With open source, everyone wins except for software companies who have built their businesses around lock-in.
If nothing else, this whole thing should serve as a stellar example of why the phrase "open source" is an order of magnitude more versatile than the ambiguous "free software." There's no confusion as to what it really means.
Why is Open Source even considered Communism? (Score:2, Insightful)
Canada - Free healthcare? Those bastards!
The Red Cross - Stealing money from the healthcare industry!
There are many others. Can you think of some?
Let's ask some parallel questions (Score:4, Insightful)
- does the availability of high quality, low cost literature (Shakespeare, Rabbie Burns) help or hinder world literacy?
- does the availability of high quality, low cost music (Beethoven, Brahms) help or hinder world arts appreciation?
If you answered "of course it fucking doesn't" then may I propose that that is also the answer to whether or not high quality free software harms the world's economy.
Is Microsoft competing on unfair terms with Linux? Maybe. Is Arvo Part competing on unfair terms with Schubert? Same maybe - you could argue he is, or you could argue he isn't. Part can't just knock up some neat patterns thanks to Bach's and Mozart's comprehensive experimentation on the subject. That doesn't mean Spiegel im Spiegel isn't a damn fine piece of music.
Do we hear modern composers whingeing about the availability of high quality public domain music works, or today's authors complaining about how they can't compete with Shakey? I haven't seen Terry Pratchett arguing that Shakespeare's works should be legally prevented from being shared in the PD, or Tolkien's estate arguing that Project Gutenberg should be closed down.
For the last time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a laissez-faire, free market, anarcho-capitalist libertarian. Nothing could be more pro-free market than protecting the right of people to GIVE away their creations for whatever motive they choose. It just so happens that there are economic incentives to do so in many cases.
Anti-free market would be if you decide the government has to step in to "promote competition" (i.e., stamp out activity that seems to weird for the politician's radar and/or threatens established business models). Anti-free market would be if you RESTRICT people's right to give away what is theirs. The fundamental of the free market is the right to do what you want with what is yours [isil.org].
Anti-free market would also be, IMO, granting any kind of monopolistic or exclusive rights to people or entitites, for example, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." A real free market solution would let the free market promote the progress of science and useful arts instead of doing it by government compulsion. And we are seeing that when there is a vibrant set of public works available through public domain and/or favorable licensing terms, science and useful arts advance dramatically as almost all discoveries and inventions build on prior art. Removing these restrictions would do so far better.
The Linux is communism line....... (Score:4, Interesting)
The economic damage argument is also a sign that MS and their schills are grabbing at straws. I imagine that the first use of gunpowder led to cries that arrow makers would be unemployed and the powered loom leds to concerns of unemployed weavers but every time a new business model arises the end result is that people adapt and their bloody good at it. Thousands of Miners, whole communities were made redundant in the UK in the 1980's but the end result is that they just moved on and found other things to do.
If any economic effect will be felt in the event of a major shift to OSS it'll be the free availability of software to businesses of any kind, large or small, rich or poor a startup in Bengal will have access to same CRM, office suite whatever that a major corporation in the US or UK has. Open standards will make the dissemination and exchange of information flawless across the global industrial base and a whole industry will spring up installing and supporting it.
The development of such an industry is almost guaranteed by the fact that just because the software is free doesn't mean that businesses will install and maintain it themselves. If this were the case people would be doing it with Windows and as I spend my working life in a sort of purgatory going from office to office doing such exiting things as showing people how to put the shortcut they deleted back I can't see it happening at any point soon.
Besides, there's always the option of following the dual licence model that MySQL, OpenOffice/StarOffice etc. follow so that businesses can buy in the product and service from the manufacturer if they choose to do so.
Anyhow, The more blatantly stupid lines that MS and Co. come out with the greater the pressure thay must be feeling which is a good thing in my book.
Open Source and Capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
No artificial measures have been used to "prop up" Open Source. Yet it exists in a Capitalist society. Free markets do not reach equilibriums instantaneously, so it is possible that the existence of Open Source is merely a bizarre transient. But every passing day is an indication that it is not.
On the other hand, artificial measures DO exist to prop up closed-source software. This directly hurts Open Source, yet Open Source is alive in spite of it. That's a pretty strong indication.
I can't give you a balance sheet showing how Open Source is "in the black", but if you believe in natural selection in the context of a free market, there's not really another explanation for the existence of Open Source.
Software and Market Failure (Score:3, Informative)
As a solution to public goods market failure, tie-ins have been studied by economists for decades and are conceptually nothing new (look up Nobel-laureate Ronald Coase's classic article on lighthouses). In fact, since they're entirely market-driven and require no government intervention (in the case of public domain software), they're closer in spirit to the ideals of a free market than copyrights.
Umm... One problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I won't argue with low cost. Sure is. But high quality? A few exceptions aside, open source software is often terrible quality. Just look at the never-ending story of Mozilla. Sure it's starting to clean up, but it's also taken years to build it into something!
OpenOffice for OS X? Sorry, I much prefer MS Office 2004. That's sort of ironic. And sad.
Open source holds a great place - and I think it's helpful that it forces the corporate players to improve their products. But I'm not confident that open source is the next wave or some incredible movement - at least until more attention is paid to installation, distribution, user interface, and stability. The mainstream user would rather spend more money to have a product that will work out of the box and is backed by a company. Most folks just have no interest in getting free software from some teenager - as incredibly talented as that teenager may be (Not to stereotype - but that's the perception if average people know what open source is about at all).
Iterated Prisoner's dilemma (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sick of this argument (Score:3, Interesting)
By freeing up money and making one sector of business more streamlined, by default another will open and the world will advance. It just happens that way. Sure automobiles put most horse and buggy makers out of business. But they created many jobs for producing automobiles. Eventually roads were made that still provides jobs.
Fact: IT departments are by far and wide the biggest money losing departments of businesses. They don't sell anything. They are cost centers. Open source can help alleviate that and allow for that money to be used on something else. In the long run, this will always be good and help new sectors grow. Those that fight this change will go the way of the horse and buggy maker. Those that retool their shops to embrace will reap the rewards.
Everything is not economics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
free market assumptions (Score:4, Interesting)
Read these assumptions and decide for yourself, does free software or propriatory software fit the free market model the closest?
In my opinion many of the industries crying out in the name of free market economics are in fact the industries furthest away from these assumptions.
1. First, markets must be economically
competitive - meaning the numbers of buyers and sellers must be so large
that no single buyer or seller can have any noticeable effect on the
overall market.
2. It must be easy for new sellers to
enter enterprises that are profitable and easy for sellers to get out of
unprofitable enterprises, so that producers are able to respond to market
signals of consumers' wants and needs.
3. Consumers must have clear, informative
and accurate information concerning whether the things they buy will
actually meet their wants and needs.
4. And finally, consumers must be
sovereigns - their tastes and preferences must reflect their basic values
- their tastes and preferences, untainted by persuasive influences.
(source http://www.pl.net/6business/marrul.htm)
Re:other way around? (Score:2, Informative)
There are different types of "free". There's "free" as in "free speech" and "free" as in "free beer". Some free projects adhere to one or the other, not all to both.
You can read about the GNU Free Software philosophy [gnu.org] for more information on the former.
Please. (Score:5, Interesting)
I design a database...What do I use? Hmm Oracle? Can't afford it. MS SQL? Can't afford it. Guess it's MySQL or PostgreSQL, with the added benefit that I can charge a couple grand over the liscensing fees for either of those and make nice profit.
Deploy a firewall file server for some business? Win2003? Yea right. Solaris? Too expensive. Linux? I can charge ten grand and beat all my competitors.
Webserver? Apache. Office? Open Office.
MS Zealots can talk TCO all they want, but these people pay me a few hundred dollars a month to keep an eye on their stuff, and it never really breaks. I can admin three dozen boxes by myself, and I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
Re:Please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, this rings true - I have been doing a tidy business with a few regular clients who hired me to provide cost effective solutions, and have been giving me additional work ever since the initial jobs.
A shipping company, a small mom and pop software reseller business, a video production company and a couple of financial firms have all been happy with the linux-based firewalls, vpns, mail servers, file servers etc. One financial company hired me to set
Re:other way around? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux allows IBM to quickly build a solution for that customer without having to "re-invent the wheel" or pay software license fees. Thus IBM can get the job done for less, they can pass some of those savings on to the cutomer, and the Linux community can benefit from their additions. So, in essence they made money....