When you say 'open source', you may be clear about what you mean. However, others are twisting the term for their own ends, says open-source expert Mark Taylor.
Like me, you've probably read articles on how free software, or open source, is going to thrive in 2009, and how businesses everywhere are going to survive the recession by migrating to it.
Perhaps you agree with those views; perhaps you don't. However, what I find most interesting is what people mean by the words 'open source' and, to be even more specific, what business model they have in mind.
We often assume others mean the same thing as we do in the words they use, but the truth is more nuanced than that. The real meaning behind the words is worth examining, especially when someone is trying to sell you something.
Firstly, let's take a brief look at some of the terminology used in this debate.
At open-source speaking events, Microsoft representatives generally try to establish a world view sympathetic to their own by talking as if the accepted distinction in the open-source arena is between commercial and non-commercial. That definition is inaccurate and its intent is to damage.
The true distinction is between proprietary and non-proprietary. The false distinction between commercial and non-commercial is designed to imply that only proprietary software is acceptable commercially — that is, companies should keep buying the proprietary stuff and leave the non-proprietary to hobbyists.
It's a clever sleight of hand but, fortunately, invalid. The true distinction is between proprietary and non-proprietary, and here non-proprietary can be just as commercial as proprietary — in fact, in classical free-market terms, even more so.
Broadly speaking, open-source business models exist on a scale from software lock-in to software freedom. For a user, moving up the scale results in lower costs. For a vendor, it means a shift from a product-orientated world view to a service-orientated one.
We're going to look at five main points on this scale, starting from the bottom.
1. 'Neo-proprietarist'
Neo-proprietarists grab open-source code, close it, make private changes and sell it as their own product.
In what is essentially a parasitic relationship, none of the advantages of using open source is passed on from the neo-proprietarists to the end user.
2. Mixed source
The mixed-source model is essentially similar to the first, but involves the grudging acknowledgement that some open-source products are okay-ish, while, at the same time, suggesting that what you really need is the vendor's fine proprietary software to do the real work.
Unsurprisingly, this model only works when combined with legal threats and the encumbrance — real or presumed — of software patents and other barriers to entry.
Minimal benefits are passed on to the user in a 'buy this and we'll throw in one of these for free' approach that also perpetuates the mixed-source vendor's propaganda that free software is not as good as proprietary.
3. Commercial open source
This business model is essentially proprietary, with a rhetorical sprinkling of open-source ideology as magic pixie dust to make the sale.
It is common for vendors that adhere to this business model to use terms like 'certification' and 'subscription' to up-sell the enterprise variant of their product portfolio. However, whatever it's called, it's still just a licence fee. While the code may be open, the terms of usage are far from free.
To function, the commercial open-source model must adopt some of the negative propaganda associated with the mixed-source and neo-proprietarist approach to code ownership. The worst cases actively deride the actual project teams, in the interests of their supposedly superior version.
Time will tell whether the model is as self-defeating in the market as it is philosophically. Only some of the benefits of software freedom are passed to the user.
4. Software as a service and the cloud
Here the business model has finally become services-based, where the full economic benefits accrue to the consumer of the software — in this case the service provider — and what is passed on to the end customer is the service they are to consume.
This model is already phenomenally successful and not just in the search-engine and advertising arena. Predicted by many to become utterly pervasive, analyst firm Gartner is predicting explosive growth in free-software usage on the back of software as a service (SaaS).
5. Pure services
The pure-services model acknowledges that computer hardware is a commodity and thus traded as near as possible to its marginal cost of production. It also acknowledges that — in an undistorted, free market — software is at its marginal cost of production, too — that is, zero.
Under this model, organisations get the most cost-effective technology usage possible by combining commodity hardware with free software and the expert capability required to turn them into production systems. The pure-services model extends the benefits received from free software by SaaS users to the rest of us.
So, next time you're evaluating an open-source offering that's been placed in front of you, it's worth spending a little time to understand exactly what the vendor means and exactly how many of the benefits they plan to pass on to you.
As chief executive of Sirius Corporation, Mark Taylor has been instrumental in the adoption and rollout of open-source software at some of the largest corporations in Europe, including a growing number of companies running exclusively on free software, end to end, server to desktop. A direct participant in some of the leading enterprise open-source projects, Taylor is also a well-known authority on all aspects of the open-source phenomenon.
Talkback
Open source is just a step up from shareware which really never took off.
The computer industry like other industries likes to keep re-inventing itself to keep the sales cycle going. For example we are now talking about Web 2.0 and even before that gets going it will be then Web 3.0.
The poor old customer just cannot keep up never mind running their own businesses. Over the years I have seen many companies waste millions of dollars investing in the latest technology only to see it either fail or not offer any real benefits over the systems they replaced.
Now you have companies jumping on the back of ‘Open Source’ saying how wonderful it is and cost effective it can be compared to their proprietary systems. Mark Taylor says that open source removes the 'Lock' down that exists in proprietary systems. What he is not actually telling you that there is really no 'Lock' down; it is just the cost and effort to move to a new system. It would be exactly the same for a company that has been using an 'Open Source' solution for a number of years and wants to move to the greatest and latest system being sold to them.
Of course I see why Mark Taylor likes to bang the open source drum, his company is not about producing anything, but providing services on the back of other people’s efforts. I have no qualms about that, everybody is entitled to make money, except 'Proprietary' software companies.
The 'Big Con', open source is being marketed by ‘Open Source’ companies that it is better quality then proprietary software. Strange it is the same people that have been developing the proprietary software that is now developing the open source software. There are thousands of open source projects that should have never been started, the quality and fit for purpose is non-existent. Of course there are always the success stories for open source projects like Linux, GNU tools, Boost, Postges and applications such as SugarCRM.
The only companies making money out of open source (and there are many that are not) are service companies. The problem is the open source market can support so many service based companies. So if open source software is to be successful it needs money to pay for continued development and support just like proprietary software or companies using it will find them selves in the same position when developers realise that they cannot keep working for free and the open source company disappears.
As my father kept telling me as I grew up I need to get out there and get a paid job as there is no free lunch. Sooner or later open source software companies will have to do the same one way or another.
"A step up from shareware?" No.
You miss the fundamental point of Open Source. Open Source does not and never has meant free. It means you get the source code. It's as simple as that.
Often Open Source vendors give away a free edition (as many proprietary vendors do - Microsoft for example give away SQL Server Express). That does not make it Open Source.
It simply means that if you want the source code, so you can further enhance the solution to fit your business, you can.
To better illustrate this, if Coke or Pepsi gave away the recipe with each can of soda, then that would be an open source drink. It still wouldn't be free.
Your analogy of open source is a play on words.
If the end user/company is using an open source product instead of actually paying for a product then there is no other way of saying it, they are using it for free.
Eventually this type of eco-system will put people out of jobs as it can only support so many service based companies.
Nothing in life is for free not even a bottle of beer even though we all know how to make one, we still have to buy the ingredients.
As someone who has been in open source for a number of years, I can tell you that you are very shortsighted on this one.
Open source, as indicated in the name, allows for open source code to the community. No play on words there. This source code is in its pre-compiled state. This means it is up to the community to do with it what it may. The company that represents the source code can provide the compiled version for free, for a charge, as part of a packaged service, and much more. This is why there are so many OSS licenses. Many open source companies offer support & consulting with these products, but in order for a company to stay afloat for a long time, they need to make money outside of consulting as this isn't a long-term revenue strategy.
Shareware is normally associated with tools, not products. There is a big difference here. Zip, was a shareware product for a long time, and it truthfully only has a single small function. New and better ways of compressing occurred, and now, it is a commercial tool at a very low price.
You see, open source is a business and distribution strategy. It provides methods for the ways a product is packaged, distributed, marketed, and even helps associate what type of price point at which you compete.
Each good open source company has 10s - 100s of partners in the product and services spaces, plus many more who use the technology without a formalized relationship. There are plenty of small organizations that make complete livings by implementing open source solutions. I am not sure how you talk about job loss here.
As a matter of fact, I have worked for a couple of companies in this space where companies left IBM, Oracle, etc. for open source companies and saved into the millions allowing employment to continue for many of its employees. Your assumptions are either incorrect or you are completely misinformed. Perhaps you either just purchased a large commercial offering or you represent one. No matter the case, open source is stronger than ever thanks to the current market, so you had better either embrace it or move out of the way.
Obviously you have never run a commercial business.
I do understand what open source is all about and why small to large organizations are starting to use it, to save money, but you left one very important issue unanswered how to make money from it (you are not alone in this).
It you have ever been involved in the design and development of bringing a product to market you will now it costs time and money. Further funds are required to continue the development and to be competitive in the market place.
Discounting service based companies as open source cannot support the growing number of companies in this area no one has shown me the commercial viability of developing products for open source for the long term.
I have talked to a number of CEO's from open source companies and they are not making money but hope to sometime soon!
Only time will tell if the open source community is building a house of cards.
Open source essentially runs at least half of the internet. The Apache Internet Server is just over 50% market share (http://tiny.cc/E9zc5) while the open source database MySQL has exploded in usage. Though impossible to track analysts estimate the Linux server market is almost 30% market share when paid and unpaid versions are combined.
Open source has lowered the cost to adopt software but, more importantly, it is the large technology companies who have shifted their focus to open source. See this recent article from Computer World. (http://tiny.cc/jm7ER).
This is just an informational service brought to you by the people who have been watching this closely.
With respect, whatever your views on 'open source' I think you've missed the point of the article.
I've read it a couple of times and, whilst I think the author's categorisation is a little self-serving in places, the thrust of his argument is that the 'open source' label is not one size fits all.
For example, you could argue that Apple is a 'neo-proprietarist'. Afterall they've based OSX on FreeBSD (exploiting the BSD license) and have built their Safari browser on KHTML/Webkit. That means they're making plenty of money out of 'open source' as a development methodology.
Similarly, Google are a huge open source shop. They literally run on Linux, use Webkit for Chrome, distribute an open source licensed mobile platform (Android) etc. Google would not be as commercially successful if it wasn't for the open source phenomenon.
Your obvious cynicism is based on a rather myopic view of what 'open source' in business is.
If its a micro-business charging tuppence ha'penny for installing Linux servers in a mom-and-pop SME then, yes, I'd agree that *that* open source business model is not viable in the long term.
But, believe it or not, there are a growing number of serious, non-VC financed, services-based businesses leveraging open source technologies that are making decent returns. That's particularly true on the European continent. It would seem you're just not aware of them. Even with your connections.
: Only time will tell if the open source community
: is building a house of cards.
This sort of commentry is mired in assumptions based on the nature of proprietary software development. The author may have read the characteristics that go into the phrase Open Source, but has failed the think through the subtle but fundamental differences that they cause.
One seems to be the assumption that when an open source based business goes under the same thing happens as when a closed source business goes under. You need to remember that the source code of the product the company was offering was, is and will continue to be freely available for others to use. When a proprietary firm dies, the chances are pretty high that the code will never be seen again, or if it is, this will be because a single company picks it up and then has to trog through the IPR of the various contributers to see what they can actually use and how much they have to pay to who to do so. Please believe me, this is a monstrous task and will mean that great chunks of the code get chucked because the IPR are too tangled up to sensibly use.
The ratchet effect seen in many walks of life is also present here. Open Source code doesn't die. Once a particular, function, library whatever, has been (well) written it never *need* be written again. In the proprietary world, the wheel has been reinvented so many times it beggars belief. I have worked in both sectors, the differences in this alone are alarming.
Businesses are about many things, but one of the key issues is the companies ability to do it's thing efficiently. Rewritting/testing/debugging the same function over and over again just isn't efficient.
So, it may or may not be a house of cards, but if it is, they're very firmly stapled together by the licensing and any cards that do fall off can quickly be reused in the next house.
: Open source is just a step up from shareware
: which really never took off.
This misunderstanding of the terms has already been covered, but it does kind of set the tone here.
: Over the years I have seen many companies
: waste millions of dollars investing in the latest
: technology only to see it either fail or not offer
: any real benefits over the systems they replaced.
Yup .. so have I. I have also seen that many of these investments were not the function of an internal decision on the part of the IT or commercial functions of the company concerned. The proprietary software vendors NEED their customers to keep paying them to write new code, so the vendors make it extraordinarily difficult for them to stick with what they already have. For an open source support company, a customer who's systems don't change for ages is a gift. The level of effort expended for their support pounds will be considerably lower than one that chops and changes with the latest greatest mandatory upgrades.
: Mark Taylor says that open source removes the
: 'Lock' down that exists in proprietary systems.
: What he is not actually telling you that there is
: really no 'Lock' down;
Proprietary file formats? To name but one.
: it is just the cost and effort to move to a new
: system. It would be exactly the same for a
: company that has been using an 'Open Source'
: solution for a number of years and wants to move
: to the greatest and latest system being sold to
: them.
If they are staying in the neighbourhood of the existing open source solution, then it is likely that only the broken bits will need to change. It is generally a disadvantage for proprietary software vendors to adhere strictly to open standards in file formats, protocols and such. It makes it easier for their customers to vote with their feet. This isn't an insult, it is sound business practice. I have argued that corner a number of times myself with management when I worked for such companies. It is a major advantage however for an open source tool to adhere to open standards. The chances are very high that they can then reuse whole libraries of stuff written for those standards. In the end case, the open source author will seldom put down any low level code at all and will simply bind together a bunch of libraries and put their own application code on top. This again was a fundamental difference I observed when moving from closed to open.
: Of course I see why Mark Taylor likes to bang the
: open source drum, his company is not about
: producing anything, but providing services on
: the back of other people’s efforts.
I would say that Mark's crew are in the business of producing functioning systems out of components that are generally open source. To put it in the rather derogatory way that you have is an insult to systems designers and product specialists everywhere .. open or closed.
: The 'Big Con', open source is being marketed
: by ‘Open Source’ companies that it is better
: quality then proprietary software.
This does seem to be, on the whole, the truth though.
: Strange it is the same people that have been
: developing the proprietary software that is now
: developing the open source software.
True, except that they are now developing open source using open source style development practices; mass code inspection, vast test groups, development tools produced using the same methods. I have developed in both worlds, when done properly, the differences are immense.
: There are thousands of open source projects that
: should have never been started, the quality and
: fit for purpose is non-existent.
These are the amoebic ancestors of the successful projects. Again the author is trying to fit closed source assumptions onto open source development techniques. If there is a project that died a death for some reason that was related to what I want to do, or indeed one that is still alive, I will have no bad feelings about ripping through it for something I can use. You can quite often save yourself months and months doing this. It is, after all, one of the basic reasons for open source's inception. Any project that "died" but who's parts were reused successfully in another was not a waste.
: The only companies making money out of open
: source (and there are many that are not) are
: service companies.
So you agree with Mark then?
: The problem is the open source market can
: support so many service based companies. So
: if open source software is to be successful it
: needs money to pay for continued development
: and support just like proprietary software or
: companies using it will find them selves in the
: same position when developers realise that they
: cannot keep working for free and the open
: source company disappears.
Wow .. a blizzard of bad assumptions.
You seem to assume that open source developers all work for companies that sell the software they write. Many do, but then many many do not. I have written both for sponsoring companies that wanted a particular function added, or bug fixed, for their own reasons .. and also for my own pleasure, or to relieve myself of a annoying bug. Some of this I was paid for, some paid for itself in reduced expenses in other areas (support etc). The assumption that all open source developers do so for free is badly out of whack I'm afraid.
Another assumption drawn from the closed source world is that the company MUST keep slamming out new code for it's own survival. The opposite is true in fact. Once the code has reached a level of maturity that it can stop being hacked about and settle out the last of the deep bugs it no longer needs much if any development attention. Open source encourages cooperation and reuse by it's very nature.
Bear in mind that as the general level of reuse goes up, less code has to be written. You are already in the strange position of having the developers from 3 or more implacable competitors sitting down together to design and develop the code their companies are going to sell. You better believe the heat of competition leads to excellent code being written. This of course instantly drops the development bills for all 3 and longer term leads to fewer problems due to the white hot zeal of the competing developers. If you have not been in this position, you simply would not understand the marked difference between the two scenarios. It took me a while to click and I was sat there with them.
: As my father kept telling me as I grew up I need
: to get out there and get a paid job as there is no
: free lunch. Sooner or later open source software
: companies will have to do the same one way or
: another.
It is plain that you have taken core assumptions from knowledge and experience gained in the classic closed source proprietary software market and transferred them, unchanged into the open source market and are now using those assumptions to "prove" that the open source market is doomed. Your case is further helped by those people that physically did this and opened an open source company based on closed source principles. They failed, or in the better cases didn't do well until they "got it".
The open source market is way more "free market". it has to be. There is nothing stopping a new company picking up the entire software stack from another company and setting themselves up in competition. The most famous example being Mandrake, way back when, when they forked the Red Hat product and came out with a less buggy and better supported alternative. They made money out of that. They also encouraged their donors to pick their act up a bit. Everybody wins.
I am not surprised by your response seeing that you are a consultant that makes a living from not actually producing anything of value in the terms of physical product.
Therefore you cannot have any in depth knowledge in producing any software whether it is open source or proprietary.
Let me guess you consult on open source software.
: I am not surprised by your response seeing that you
: are a consultant that makes a living from not
: actually producing anything of value in the terms
: of physical product.
Aww, did you get embarrassed by a consultant when you were a lad? It does seem to have left you with a very bad taste in your mouth.
: Therefore you cannot have any in depth knowledge
: in producing any software whether it is open source
: or proprietary.
Despite the fact that this is an obvious troll from someone who couldn't actually come up with a cogent argument, so settled for a "Yaah Booh Sucks" response, insulting rather than debating ...
Actually that's it. I'm not going to bother answering until there is an actual point to answer.
: Let me guess you consult on open source software.
Yup .. Says so on my profile .. Well deduced ;-)
If open source is so wonderful and so much money can be made from it where are all the financially strong open source companies (I can name only but a few)?
It seems to me that the actual companies that are making money from open source are service companies and consultants (by the way I did not have the time to look your profile). If this not the case then show me the proof.
We could spend all day arguing whether open source is better quality than proprietary software. It is the customer who decides in the end which product that actually meet their requirements whether it is open source or not.
If a company is only going to make money on services it will not survive as more companies try to offer the same services. Who then is going to pay the developers to create and maintain the open source products?
Could there be a backlash from customers when the people developing the open source products disappear and they have not any support?
At the end of the day money makes the world go round (as we can see with the current economic crisis) and only time will tell who is right and who is wrong.
pjc158 states:
"Could there be a backlash from customers when the people developing the open source products disappear and they have not any support?"
If the developers building the open source codebase dissappear, then players like my firm are happy to step in. If there are customers who want commercial support and are happy to pay for it, there will always be providers.
> It seems to me that the actual companies that are making money
> from open source are service companies and consultants (by the
> way I did not have the time to look your profile). If this not the
> case then show me the proof.
Sorry I don't understand your point. Are service companies or consultancies not allowed to make money or something?
> If a company is only going to make money on services it will not
> survive as more companies try to offer the same services.
I refer you to my esteemed Australian colleague - conz.
> At the end of the day money makes the world go round (as we
> can see with the current economic crisis) and only time will
> tell who is right and who is wrong.
It seems to me that you think the customer can only be served if the market is controlled by one monopoly. Are you a communist? ;)
Joking aside, your arguments are a bit shill.
Best wishes, dogStar
Google does not make money out of open source it makes it out of advertising revenue and its search appliances.
The question here is Google using its revenue to fund open source projects to hurt Microsoft or is it genuine in its support of open source?
Apple makes most its money not from its browser or operating system but its hardware such as Mac, Ipod, Iphone and of course Itunes.
Whether Apple puts anything back into open source I cannot comment.
You are basing your assumption on that other people are willing to take on the open source project that has failed.
I see Google has cancelled 6 projects today. If there is not anyone willing to take on these projects then these projects will die just like proprietary projects.
And the open sources does not reinvent the wheel, have you been on sourceforge recently?!
Someone always want to build a better mousetrap whether it is open source or proprietary.
Of course you will step in if you can make money from it and have the resources to take it on, but will the customer have the confidence to let you as you also might disappear.
There is also the question will you, the open source product might not fit in with the company's strategy.
These issues also apply to proprietary software if that makes you happy :)
You think monopoly can only apply to proprietary software.
Look at Redhat, they want to knock every other Linux distro out of the water.
: You are basing your assumption on that other
: people are willing to take on the open source
: project that has failed.
I am basing my observation on history, if that's what you mean. You have to bear in mind that an open source project can be picked up by someone else without having to buy companies and put huge effort into tracing the IPR.
: I see Google has cancelled 6 projects today.
: If there is not anyone willing to take on these
: projects then these projects will die just like
: proprietary projects.
You still refuse to accept that an open source project can still contribute a huge amount even after death by providing both source code for the good bits and empirical proof that a bad approach is indeed just that. I have made this point in a number of different ways before and you have never countered it.
: And the open sources does not reinvent the
: wheel, have you been on sourceforge recently?!
Regularly thanks. I have picked up some very useful slabs of code and indeed whole projects from here before.
: Someone always want to build a better
: mousetrap whether it is open source or
: proprietary.
Yes indeed. And it is a great deal easier to build a mousetrap from existing parts than to have to start from scratch.
As Victor Meldrew would say, I can't believe it!
Look at your previous posting you have just contradicted it.
: You think monopoly can only apply to
: proprietary software.
Erm .. Actually yes I do. That's .. um .. kind of what the GPL is for! Maybe you should actually read it!
: Look at Redhat, they want to knock every
: other Linux distro out of the water.
Of course they do! They are a business, they are almost obliged to want to do that. However, they can only do this by being so very very good that people simply don't think of going elsewhere. As soon as they let up the pressure and slip from this hallowed height, there'll be someone else there to step in.
If you are about to come back with some "That'll never happen" response, do bear in mind that it already has. RH released a dud version a while back and didn't remedy the situation to the customers' satisfaction, so a bunch of French guys ripped the whole software stack, fixed it up and then ripped a chunk out of the RH customer base. Look into the history of where Mandrake came from for confirmation.
Your paymasters should be looking at you with some trepidation, you really need step up your shilling game if you want to get that contract renewed.
You'll have to point out what you mean by that.
Get your facts right, Mankdrake went into Chapter 11, now called Mandriva!
You cannot tell me that they are a serious challenge to Redhat. If any Linux distribution has a chance other than Novell it is Ubuntu if they dont run out of money first.
I suggest you understand the commerical meaning of monopoly, it means a complete control of market share.
Also I dont think you understand the principle of GPL. According to the Free Software Foundations own web site it is;
What is Free Software?
“Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer”.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
GPL does not stop a company becoming a commercial monopoly even in the open source market.
Perhaps that is the point you dont see it, you are too blinkered.
pjc158 states:
"Of course you will step in if you can make money from it and have the resources to take it on, but will the customer have the confidence to let you as you also might disappear."
My firm's been around supporting open source software for 18 years. We aren't likely to 'disappear'. But, even if we did, users of open source software know that *someone* else can take up the support for the open source software they use.
The same can't be said if a proprietary software vendor disappears.
This makes open source software a better long-term prospect, with less risk for business users.
pjc158 states:
"GPL does not stop a company becoming a commercial monopoly even in the open source market."
Yes, it does.
Red Hat releases the source code to most everything it does.
This makes popular 'Red Hat clone' distributions like CentOS possible.
This means that as a consumer, I can 'acquire' a Red Hat platform, at no cost, legally, by downloading CentOS from here:
http://www.centos.org/
This doesn't stop Red Hat making serious money. However, they do so by delivering great value for their service offerings. They have to, else their users can _very_ easily jump to alternatives, like CentOS. Contrast this to Windows and Microsoft. Who else makes a binary-cloned version of Windows that consumers can legally jump to, to avoid doing business with Microsoft? No-one.
If some Linux and open source firms have failed, then they have failed for the same reasons that *most* software and technology firms fail - poor business management, planning and execution.
The GPL means that you don't need to trust a software publisher to abstain from 'doing evil'. The GPL grants any user the right to fork the codebase, to ensure that a software publisher can never become a monopoly.
No open source company can become a commercial monopoly.
pjc158 states:
"You are basing your assumption on that other people are willing to take on the open source project that has failed."
There is no guarantee that an orphaned open source project will be taken up by a new developer.
However...
There is at least the *option* that new developers can take on the open source project that has been orphaned.
The same cannot be said for closed-source software, as no-one has access to the source-code nor the build environment.
As a way for any business or government agencies to reduce their risks when acquiring open source software, I recommend they read the following:
Guide to Open Source Software for Australian Government Agencies
http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/guide-to-open-source-software/docs/A_Guide_to_Open_Source_Software.pdf
... can you introduce a mod down / bury comments feature to fend off the trolls, astroturfers and shills?
Your response shows your commercial naivety.
Any company can become a monopoly commercially regardless if it is open source or proprietary based.
Redhat is the most powerful and financially sound open source Linux company, no other company comes close.
Do you think they will stop there, not likely they have share holders and those share holders want dividends.
They also have every right to grow just like any other company and as they become the even larger, customers will more likely purchase from them then a company that is not profitable and likely to fail.
Just commercial reality.
You make a valid point, but as you said there is no guarantee that someone else will take it up.
Only if they are willing to take up the support of the open source product.
I am glad to hear you have been around for 18 years and I hope you are around for another 18 years but you never know what is around the corner.
Who would have thought 12 months ago that the financial institutions around the world would have collapsed.
If a proprietary company goes to the wall and has a good product with a viable customer base it will be bought and will survive just like if someone is willing to continue supporting a worth while open source product that has a viable customer base.
I have worked for companies where this has happened. If the software is not viable then it deserves to fail.
pjc158 states:
"Do you think they will stop there, not likely they have share holders and those share holders want dividends."
Red Hat can grow as much as they are able to and as much as the market will let them.
What they _cannot_ do is close-source most of their products.
The reason is that they _do not_ own 99.99% of the software they offer as products and services. Most of their technology belongs to the copyright owners of that software, who have chosen to licence it under the GPL and sundry other open source licences.
This makes it available to Red Hat (and Ubuntu and Novell and Sun and IBM etc.) But it does not allow Red Hat (and Ubuntu etc) to avoid the copyleft licencing restrictions against close-sourcing (ie, proprietarising) that software.
And as Red Hat can never proprietarise Linux and its acoompanying software components, it cannot establish a bona-fide commercial monopoly.
This is the 'safety-valve' that the GPL guarantees.
In Australian lingo, "The GPL keeps the bastards honest."
"If a proprietary company goes to the wall and has a good product with a viable customer base it will be bought and will survive just like if someone is willing to continue supporting a worth while open source product that has a viable customer base. "
I think you're confusing "bought" with "bought out". Also, I would remind you of the word "Mozilla":
Microsoft drove Netscape into the ground, but Netscape open-sourced its Mozilla browser before the end. And now, the Firefox browser (which is built from the code-base that Netscape open-sourced) is taking back the Internet from I.E.'s monopoly.
And the funny thing is, the Mozilla code-base was worked on *for free*, *for several years* before the project bore any fruit. It would be difficult to claim on that basis that Mozilla had any "viable customer base". (Whatever "viable customer base" means for a Free project, anyway - AFAIK, people still download Firefox without paying a penny.)
Reply if you want, but you've already wasted too much of my time.
: Get your facts right, Mankdrake went into
: Chapter 11, now called Mandriva!
ROFL ... And you sir deliberately misunderstand what I write :-)
I was quite obviously using Mandrake (as they indeed were at the time I was referring to) as an example of how a company like Red Hat cannot monopolise even their own product.
The rest of your post is just irrelevant rant attempting to divert the reader from the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner.
So I take it you're not going to risk your argument by actually explaining the point you were claiming to make in the previous post. I guess not. After all you are paid to be here to cast FUD, not actual facts and arguments after all.
There is no need for a guarantee that someone will take it up. It is there. So if someone, at some point might find all or part of the project of use, they are perfectly at liberty to take it up and use it. There are a number of reasons why it might not be taken up. It is simply a crappy approach; there is a killer project that does all that's needful in that area, making other projects redundant etc.
It's benefit may simply be acting as an example of what not to do :-)
Actually dogStar our neighbourhood shill is performing a useful function here. There are many people, who have only really been exposed to the avalanche of anti-open-source propaganda from the likes of his shill-sponsor. The same old tired arguments keep being trotted out by the unreconstructed monopolists and shot down in flames by the rest of us. Every time this cycle is exercised, another small group of people get to see the arguments and the antidotes and the understanding of why open source is in fact inevitable become better understood and more generally known.
If they did but know it, the folks paying for our friend to blah blah on this forum would be better off telling him to keep his yap shut. They are paying for us to explain in detail to the world why he and his kind are just plain deluded, or at the very least fighting a doomed rearguard action against the inevitable. If we fail to express our points properly, he even does us the service of pointing this out, allowing us the opportunity to rephrase them.
So for that, we thank him :-)
I wait with baited breath for his response ;-)
Yes I agree that Microsoft virtually destroyed Netscape as they have done with other companies in the past, but it is the nature of the beast. IBM was nearly broken up for being an aggressive monopoly. You could argue that any large organization that is dominant in their market place as an aggressive monopoly.
Regarding the Mozilla foundation they have been funded by various people and companies for years, so they have not been working for free.
Time is money so respond if you have the time :)
Oh dear, if you are going to provide examples to back up your arguments then make sure you have the correct facts to support them don't make excuses.
I believe that this debate is becoming pointless, I am always willing to have discussions with an open mind. It seems to me that you will argue with whatever I say.
Time to move on to other more important interesting things.
Reply if you want if you feel must have the final word.
: Oh dear, if you are going to provide examples
: to back up your arguments then make sure
: you have the correct facts to support them
: don't make excuses.
Sorry, that's not going to work. It is a poor gambit at best. I provided a historically accurate account of a potential monopolist having their business replicated in short order by a competitor. You chose to fast forward to the point after which the advantage they once held had been removed by RH upping their game. Mandriva (ne Mandrake) are now just one of the pack and as such have no USP. They are indeed in trouble. This does not diminish the point I was making as you well know. SO stop bleating.
: I believe that this debate is becoming pointless,
Maybe you should have actually debated on the points, rather than deliberately misunderstanding the arguments raised then.
: I am always willing to have discussions with an
: open mind. It seems to me that you will argue
: with whatever I say.
If you keep using cheap personal insults, low value debating technique and deliberate misunderstanding then I am probably going to feel obligated to point out that fact to those reading, who may be less versed in the issues and are at risk of thinking you have raised a killer argument.
As for minds being open, see note above on cheap insults and low value debating technique.
: Time to move on to other more important
: interesting things.
Bye then. I hope you have contributed sufficiently to be able to add this little sally to your time sheet.
: Reply if you want if you feel must have the
: final word.
I will choose when and why I will reply thanks all the same. I mentioned low value debating technique above ...
Seems I have rattled your cage as you seem to be ranting on a bit, not my intention.
As stated previously this debate is now becoming pointless let us both agree to disagree as there is nothing wrong in that.
P.S. I knew you could not resist having the last word and you probably will again after this post :)
: Seems I have rattled your cage as you seem to
: be ranting on a bit, not my intention.
Not at all. You may have been trying, despite your assertion, but I'm sorry, you need to try a lot harder.
: As stated previously this debate is now becoming
: pointless let us both agree to disagree as there is
: nothing wrong in that.
Quite so. I'm only sorry you couldn't actually come up with some debatable points in order that that would not be the case.
: P.S. I knew you could not resist having the last
: word and you probably will again after this post :)
I win !! Pay up V :-)
Sorry, I had a little side bet going that you wouldn't be able to resists coming back after my last. Lets see If I can double my money.