Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Eric Raymond: Why Open Source will Rule 436

Posted by michael from the one-pundit-to-rule-them-all dept.
DNapalm writes "A very interesting two part interview with Raymond from ZDNet, talking about the success of open source and Linux on the desktop, among other things. Check out Part I and Part II (I liked part II)." Raymond also asserts that Microsoft could have killed Linux if only they'd started a little earlier.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eric Raymond: Why Open Source will Rule More

Eric Raymond: Why Open Source will Rule

Comments Filter:

  • One thing I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordOfYourPants ( 145342 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @10:02AM (#3253565)
    A direct quote from the article:

    "If OpenOffice still exists, and it's GPLed, and they're going to start charging for StarOffice, then they just shot StarOffice through the head."

    Replace the word "StarOffice" with "Redhat Linux".. why does the same logic not apply?
    • In case you haven't noticed, RedHat already charges for the boxed version of their linux distro. You can still get the .ISO's from their download sites. The thing with StarOffice is that it'ss closed-source software and will be kept by SUN as such.However, RedHat Linux is a distribution of mainly (99%) open-source software that under the GPL. RedHat has no power to release a distro without releasing the sources.

      Of course, they could do it the same way SUSE does things, ie. make it impossible to download .ISO's of the distro itself (thus forcing you to buy it) while still releasing the sources. Somehow, I doubt this would happen.

      • Re:One thing I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GrenDel Fuego ( 2558 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @10:51AM (#3253772)
        "In case you haven't noticed, RedHat already charges for the boxed version of their linux distro. You can still get the .ISO's from their download sites."

        I believe this is his point.

        "If OpenOffice (Freely downloadable redhat) still exists, and it's GPLed, and they're going to start charging for StarOffice (Purchased Redhat), then they just shot StarOffice (Purchased Redhat) through the head."

        Of course I don't quite believe in either of these statements because corporations generally prefer to license software for the better support.

        And in Redhat's case, you have redhat users who want to suppor the company that makes good software, and supports a lot of open source developers.
        • Soon it will be time to buy another box of RedHat Professional Server.
          A nice box. Official CDs. No download hassles. The fact that everything I'm using is freely downloadable or cheaply from Cheapbytes adds to the value of the box. Whatever problems it might have will tend to be sorted out and fixed by or because of the "freeloaders".
          I don't see any problem with StarOffice and OpenOffice coexisting, even if feature set and file formats are identical and everything is binary interchangeable.
    • I don't see charging for StarOffice as a problem. Sun does a hell of a job with their cross-platform office suite. If they want to start charging (as long as the price isn't completely insane) fine. I buy music, I buy video games, why should I EXPECT StarOffice to be free?
      • Blockquoth the poster:

        I buy music, I buy video games, why should I EXPECT StarOffice to be free?

        You actually buy music and video games? What are you doing on slashdot? *grin*


        Seriously, this is a good point. A lot of us like to claim that freely-downloadable doesn't have to be the death knell of commerce. This is one test case. Let's see where it takes us.

    • A direct quote from the article:

      "If OpenOffice still exists, and it's GPLed, and they're going to start charging for StarOffice, then they just shot StarOffice through the head."

      Replace the word "StarOffice" with "Redhat Linux".. why does the same logic not apply?
      I was just looking at the article and thinking the same thing. If StarOffice goes under, it won't be because of OpenOffice. Sun is a brand-name company, and that's what managers look for when picking out products. Why would they pick (as they might think) an unprofessional hobby program made a bunch of open-source ants, when they could have this finely-polished product from Sun? Another issue is support. Sun will most likely provide technical support for StarOffice. Will OpenOffice have the same?

      It's just another day, another opinion-based article linked to by Slashdot. This guy may be a great programmer, but he has about the same ability to predict the future as Deon Warwick or Miss Cleo.

    • A guess (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Arker ( 91948 )

      I noticed the same thing. A guess: Perhaps what he meant was that since they did this, StarOffice is dead in the long run. Which would make sense. Eventually OpenOffice will outstrip StarOffice and there will no longer be any reason to pay for Star. Sun is just cannibalising it for a short term revenue stream, really.

      • Eventually OpenOffice will outstrip StarOffice and there will no longer be any reason to pay for Star. Sun is just cannibalising it for a short term revenue stream, really.

        Wow, open-source really is a movement! I mean, you share the same sureity of success that the Nazis, the Communists, the entire dot-com debacle, and any number of older american "social experiments" that went AWOL.

        Seriously, if you want to change the world, YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FOR GRATNED! There are perfectly viable reasons for StarOffice to continue no matter how good OpenOffice gets. It doesn't matter if Open-Source / Free is better morally or for the home user; what matters is if you can sell the free version to the people who buy the for-sale version now.

        I actually suspect that this kind of thing will become more common. Closed-source companies will create an open-source project with a different name, and then rebrand it and tweak it (and support it) with their well-known name. Why do people use Netscape 6 (at all) when Mozilla is "the same thing?" Because AOL says N6 is "good" and they don't have to worry about it.

        Peace of mind is a great thing. Even though it's an illusion from most closed-source companies, people will still pay for this and this alone.

        • Re:A guess (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hartsock ( 177068 )

          Peace of mind is a great thing. Even though it's an illusion from most closed-source companies, people will still pay for this and this alone.

          Some of the government offices I work with continually lamblast Linux for being free. Not opensource. Free. You see... these same offices happen to want someone to sue when stuff breaks. That is peace of mind for many government offices and contractors. Who do you sue when a Free open source program breaks or lets in the commies?

          Ultimately the price tag is there for the liability-implied and the right-to-sue-somebody. Well, as far as some contracts go anyway.
      • Sun can always add value to the product, support, training, manuals, dictionaries...


        at one point the product will be mature. The cost of maintenance/programing will be reduced. Do honestly think that you would be unable to make a profit? If support is sold at $30/hour and support cost per hour are at $10/hour. It would leave you $20/hour to cover all other costs. You could have a ratio of 10 support to 1 programer. The only issue is that the number of clients needs to be in the millions because most people would not need support, as well as keeping the support staff busy.


        The best thing for sun to do is sell the CD at around $25 and offer a value added service of 10 hours of support for lets say $100 prepaid. This will get people familliar with the product and the service. Once the prepaid has run out they can charge the full rate.

    • Replace the word "StarOffice" with "Redhat Linux".. why does the same logic not apply?

      You've a point, but I must dismiss the myth about software development=selling boxes.

      I'm currently selecting a sub-ncontractor for developing a small system from a list of vendors. Since the project cost is fixed, a linux solution would shine in comparsion with Microsoft solution, due to high licenses cost of the latter.

      So what does it benefit to Linux companies like RedHat? The vendor can just download free version of Linux and develop/support on their own. Well it's a matter of business deal. Among the Linux vendor, we would give credit to those who has partnership with Redhat because my boss would think it'd be more reliable.

      Do not so obessed with boxes sales. IBM is the biggest software vendor if you count the embedded system they've delivered. :)

  • What's the next step? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @10:04AM (#3253575)
    Mod this as Offtopic if you like, but I've been wondering lately what happens "after" linux. As an OS it's clearly on a roll, and is heading for even greater things, but it's still based on a design that is 20 years old.

    I can't help thinking - would it be possible to do it again? But this time, instead of basing it on the solid, well known but old and unadventerous unix, use new ideas, incorporate the latest technologies and so on. Would the open source community be willing to move away from Linux to this new open OS, or is the momentum behind it too strong to abandon?

    • The reason Linux was so easy to coordinate among 400000000 developers was that it was based on an existing system.
    • You mean like plan9 [bell-labs.com]?
    • There are no new ideas in computing. Anybody who tries to sell you a "new idea" in computing is a gasbag who is either a) blissfully ignorant or b) willfully ignorant.
      • Depending on what you mean by new, this isn't quite true. Consider skip lists, splay trees, html, RSA, etc. many of these were invented in the last ten years or so.

        Some of these are truly unique. HTML's main idea was to simplify an existing idea down; the previous hypertext idea was too complex to implement.
        Even spreadsheets weren't invented that long ago (15 years or so.)
        • I wrote a spreadsheet fifteen years ago! And I was using spreadsheets five years before that. What's truly amazing, is that beyond the idea of linking spreadsheets together, no one has ever improved on the idea. Oh, they've wrapped it up in nice GUIs and formatting, but overall, they do exactly the same thing they've always done.
      • The only limitation of the developement of technology is the human imagination.
        50 Years ago mankind thought that today the whole world was connected by pneumatic delivery tubes. Nobody could just imagine that information could be coded in electromagnetic signals.
        Don't stop dreaming.
      • There are no new ideas in computing. Anybody who tries to sell you a "new idea" in computing is a gasbag who is either a) blissfully ignorant or b) willfully ignorant.

        So you're saying that anybody who worked on AtheOS is a willfully ignorant gasbag?
    • What is wrong with directories and "everything is a file?" Is there something better? Simpler? More powerful?

      Everything else seems to be a sugar coated version of above. Linux is simply the beginning of Life As We Know It.
      • Of course there are 'better' ways of doing things.

        Personally, I like 'everything is an object' more than I like 'everything is a file'.

        YMMV

      • Re:What's the next step? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jd142 ( 129673 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @10:49AM (#3253762) Homepage
        Actually, the filesystem as database, which has been around for a while, see beos, has the potential to be very big. That doesn't mean you wouldn't have to be able to use some of the same *nix tools and pipes, just that there would be more information available to describe a file.

        It would be nice to have the following types of information associated with a file as part of the file system, for example:

        --crc or md5 info to tell when a file was corrupt
        --detailed information about what executable should be used as the default to open the file
        --more detailed permissions, like in netware, as opposed to *nix very basic rwx
        --rollback features (think something along the lines of netware's salvage feature, a feature yet to be implemented in *nix or windows to the degree it is in netware
        --detailed information about files that access data in the file. For linked objects, for example, to know that when I change *this* graphic, it means that *that* document will be changed
        --user customization. If the file system is a database, why can't I make a table with new attributes that I want to track and use the filesystem's unique id for the file as a foreign key?

        Sure, some of these features are implemented to a greater or lesser extent by programs today, but they are program specific, not built at the file system level and not as expandable.

        Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
      • What is wrong with directories and "everything is a file?" Is there something better? Simpler? More powerful?

        It's a security nightmare. Keeping filenames and permissions synced with their contents is hard and bug-prone. For totally different approach, check out the EROS [eros-os.org] OS.

    • FreeVMS [freevms.org] anyone?

    • The Hurd [gnu.org] and L 4 [tu-dresden.de] are some of the promising new technologies under development.

      At the same time, don't go getting the idea Linux is going away any time soon. It can take over 20 years for a codebase to really mature, and a mature codebase may still be useful for many years after it is no longer cutting edge.

  • One thing I never really understood... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dnaumov ( 453672 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @10:09AM (#3253591)
    is why do the OSS and FSF people care so much for the "Windows world". During the last several months, I've seen an enormous amount of articles that deal with how evil Microsoft is when compared to Linux developers and vise-versa. I ask these writers: "Why ?" Why should I care ? I really don't think we're gaining anything by doing the same things MS has been doing all these years. It always goes on like this: "MS attacks, OSS movement responds, MS attacks, OSS movement responds, OSS movement attacks, MS responds". This is getting boring you know, why not make deeds instead of shouting ?

    OK, sure, Windows is installed on the majority of the computers out there, but it doesn't make it world's most important thing. Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys are popular too, are they important to me ? Nope.

    • Re:One thing I never really understood... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fanatic ( 86657 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @11:42AM (#3254005)
      If microsoft didn't do so many thngs to deny co-exisitence to competing views of OS and applications, it would be a much smaller issue. But they:
      • deny OEMs the right to package other OS's or else invoke per-CPU licensing to artificially increase the cost of doing so
      • Make gratuitous changes to protocols, APIs and file formats that hurt their own users as much as the competition
      • engage in ethically questionable diddling with the legal system (see their role in UCITA for the most gross example)
      • engange in other anti-competitive practices as laid out in US v. Microsoft
      • try to use bizarre licencing to sow FUD upon Open Sourece and Free software
      • lie everytime their lips move when discussing Open Source and Free software

      This war is brought about by MS's actions, not ours. They have adopted a search and destroy approach.
      • Anybody who has been forced to attend a Franklin Covey "Seven Habits" course will realize you are violating Habit 1 of a Successful person.

        Instead of being proactive and thinking about the future you want, and doing something about that... you are focused on whining about the past or present situation.
    • I think it is because the Microsoft propaganda machine keeps saying how great they are, and we know better. Basically they overpaid for their preinstalled ("free?") OS and have to convince themselves they haven't been taken.

      Since Microsoft is a monopoly, they violate the Cheaper, Better, Faster - pick two rule. Any other choice will have all three attributes. (Even Apple's OS X is less than a new XP install).

      Since Microsoft can't innovate (without undermining their monopoly), they market with FUD.
      And use the legal system or other things - per cpu licenses, "naked pc" horror stories, etc. Why should Microsoft care? Because they are trying to sell bottled tap water claiming a trademark on water. We are just responding.
    • It's not important to you because you're not in show business.

      Now imagine. You're singer, you look almost like Britney, sing like Britney (only better) and .... say, you have better personality :) But she's still on top and you're not. Would you care? :)
    • It has nothing to do with "morals", "principles" or "ideology" - not much anyway.

      Linux users are just sick of the Windows tax (every computer seller sells PCs without monitor, but very few without Windows.)

      And Linux people are sick of not being able to run all software and hardware.

      Cheap hardware prices will take care of the former, the Wine-project and CodeWeavers are taking care of the latter.

      It's a bright future for Linux, especially CodeWeaver's efforts will solve a lot of problems for me and many other Linux users.

      With everything getting better all the time (I remember 4 years ago having to recompile the kernel to get sound, I remember the dark years with no good browser - now we have 2 excellent (Konqueror and Mozilla) ones. Almost all hardware works and CodeWeavers is on a good way to make almost all software work.) I just don't understand why everybody is so pessimistic. The Microsoft case may prolong or shorten Microsoft's rule, but it won't decide the fate of the computing industry.

    • Oh yes, the ruddy-faced arrogant gas-baron. Do what he says, becuase he is so in touch with the world.

      Sorry, but anyone that constantly pulls his piece out, and threatens people is not the type of person I'm going to take seriously. It's already been proven that he's irresponsible with firearms. I sure as hell don't pull my gun out and show it off at every opportunity. Raymond is like the 7th grader I knew back in junior high that thought everyone was impressed by the fact that he had a switchblade in his back pocket.

      This whole 'linux is the bestest in the whole world' crap is getting really old. It gives serious free unix users a bad name.

      • Wrong, the "Monopoly, monopoly, help us" whiners give Linux a bad name.

        You might agree or disagree with some points of ESR's views (for example I strongly disagree with StarOffice being dead. Actually I think it's good because many PHB's don't like free as in beer.)

        but his attitude is optimistic, confident and generally a lot better than the one found here on slashdot.

        For example XBox will be the greatest blunder (both financially and PR) for Microsoft. They only moved 10000 units each in Germany and France the first 3 days. (And in Germany retailers were selling it at 400 Euro instead of 480) Now Microsoft has forced them to put the price up to 480 again - sales were essentially halted. PS2 now sells more than 7 times as many units per week as XBox in Japan and more than 2 times as many units in the US. XBox will be dead in less than 2 years, that can be said now for sure. (Microsoft may or may not keep it alive artificially, but that won't matter)

        XBox will make people realize that just because Microsoft does something it does not automatically become "the standard". XBox will make the next quarterly statements look very, very bad.

        But slashdot has turned into a whining site that refuses to bring any negative news about Microsoft. (Yes I did submit a story about XBox' complete and utter failure and it was rejected.)

  • Linux is *not* a disruptive technology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AdamBa ( 64128 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @10:27AM (#3253669) Homepage
    The constant repetition of this annoys me. I see why people do it, since in the classic disruptive technology battle, the disruptive technology (Linux) overtakes the existing technology (Windows) and Bill Gates cries a lot.

    Unfortunately in every aspect *except* price, Linux looks more like a sustaining technology vis-a-vis Windows. Linux is the more secure, more high-end, more niche-like product. In the disruptive technology model, what happens is that *Windows* becomes reliable "enough" and hacker-pleasing "enough" and takes over from Linux.

    Now Linux is free...that is true. But that is the only way it is like a disruptive technology. In fact that is not really like disruptive technologies either. They are usually cheaper. Free is strange.

    Now Linux is indeed a disruptive technology compared to something else -- Sun. Linux on a PC, compared to Sun on a Sun box, has all the classic hallmarks of disruptive technology, and in fact is doing so.

    I ranted more about this last year on another site [kuro5hin.org]. Here's a quote: "To take this to an extreme example, at some future date Windows CE might displace both Windows 2000 and Linux, and the Personal Web Server shipped with Windows might displace both Internet Information Server and Apache. This is highly unlikely, but it illustrates the direction in which disruption happens.".

    And don't forget this profound comment [kuro5hin.org] where I ask the question ""Is the bazaar upmarket from the cathedral?" (read that again).

    - adam

    • Re:Linux is *not* a disruptive technology (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zulux ( 112259 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @11:11AM (#3253853) Homepage Journal
      Agreed..

      Linux is not a disruptive technology.

      the GPL is a disruptice technology.

      Microsoft can't compete with the GPL by buying it. If they try to copy the GPL, then they kill off their legacy business in a week. MS(Hard), MS>Rock .

  • On edge? (Score:2, Funny)

    by ekephart ( 256467 )
    Did ESR seem a little on edge to anyone else? His comments seemed to get pretty violent.

    "In that case StarOffice just died. They just shot StarOffice through the head.... if OpenOffice still exists, and it's GPLed, and they're going to start charging for StarOffice, then they just shot StarOffice through the head."

    "rationally appropriate to cannibalize your own business"

    "shareholders will kill you"

    Maybe he's tired of people at Slashdot calling him an idiot. [slashdot.org]

  • ESR's Flaw (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VAXman ( 96870 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @10:48AM (#3253745)
    ESR's fundamental argument to Linux taking over the desktop is solely cost. Because the cost of Windows will be a bigger chunk of the PC price as PC prices, OEM's will seek out cheaper options (e.g. Linux).

    I believe this is wrong for at least two reasons:

    1. Microsoft has a much freer pricing structure than most other component makers. Since they employ monopoly pricing they are able to price the product exactly at the point where it maximizes profit. Futher, since their marginal cost is essentially zero (as opposed to chips, disks, and other hardware components), they have a lot of downward headroom in their prices should this ever become an issue.

    2. There is little evidence that cheaper wins out. A classic example is the IBM PC (and clones) which were substantially more expensive than home PC's (such as C64, Atari 400/800, Apple II, etc.) but won over the market big time. There are many factors other than cost which contribute to the success or failure of a computer product. Indeed, very cheap computers (e.g. $350 or so) computers are available today, but the sweetspot seems to be the $800-level machine which will get you something pretty good.

    • Re:ESR's Flaw (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dgroskind ( 198819 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @12:30PM (#3254251)

      There are many factors other than cost which contribute to the success or failure of a computer product...

      These factors include:

      • Compatibility and interoperability
      • Stability of vendor
      • Amount of ongoing development
      • Feature set
      • Marketshare and userbase
      • Adherence to standards
      • Ease of use
      • Security
      • Stability
      Microsoft is credible in all these areas and ahead of open source contenders in most. In addition, Microsoft is getting better in all these areas.

      The time when open source products had some advantage because of Microsoft's weakness in security and stability is limited.

      Even people like me who are simply put off by the idea of proprietary systems are having second thoughts after looking at the feature set of IE and the size of its userbase.

      • I'll add a few more to those: availability of parts for repair, and competition on hardware to keep prices down.
      • I think you gloss over some of MS's flaws with that bullet list and claiming they're "credible" in all of thse areas.

        Point by point -

        * Compatibility and interoperability - Yeah, they're interoperable... with their own products. Interoperability with MS is a one way street - once you import all your wordperfect docs to Word, there's no going back.

        * Stability of vendor - If by "stability" you mean that they're guaranteed to be around, yes, you're absolutely right.

        * Amount of ongoing development - This they definitely have, too. No contest there. (I'm all about MS R&D - I'm rather looking forward to Mono [go-mono.org] ;)

        * Feature set - yeah, they definitely have this one (for better or for worse...)

        * Marketshare and userbase - once again, there can be no contest on this one. I'm hoping Mozilla and OpenOffice help erode this though. :)

        * Adherence to standards - Ok, I'm going to flamebait for a second here... (yes, that's also a verb) Perhaps you've never heard of "Embrace and Extend"? MS adheres to standards only when forced to, not because they believe in industry standards. I could go off on this one for a while, but I have to say they *defintiely* don't get the point on this one.

        * Ease of use - Perhaps. MS has made strides in making PCs easier to use, but I believe most of their "ease of use" comes from familiarity, not just being easier. Familiarity *is* good, but it can't replace actual usability. Mac still holds that crown, without a doubt, and GNOME is actually making major strides with this with GNOME 2. Finally, WinXP was a huge step BACKWARDS for ease of use - ever tried one of their new "WinXP-Wizards-on-Steroids"? They're terrifying. MS should have quit while they were ahead with Win2k - their first and only respectable OS, IMHO.

        * Security - Once again, Win2k made some big improvements in this area, but it's still nowhere NEAR where it needs to be. Outlook worm, anyone? I've heard their new ".NET Server" product is actually much better, though - it encourages GOOD passwords, etc. So kudos to them for finally getting a clue, and forcing MCSEs to get one, too.

        * Stability - Again, Win2k was their first stable OS. NT was a fscking joke, and the 9x series... don't get me started.

        Finally, what's up with the IE comments? Why should its userbase and features make me "have second thoughts" when Mozilla is actually *faster* (this isn't just open source FUD - it's true. go try 0.9.9 if ya don't believe me!) and strongly adheres to W3C standards, not to mention having very nice features like tabs and popup blocking.

        Besides, the Backstreet Boys have a large catalog and a huge following, and I don't like THEM just because other people do either. ;)
    • I know I'm going to be modded down big time for this, but there are two major flaws that might hamper Linux:

      1. The lack of a single, consistent GUI for the operating system. Sure, it's nice to have choice for GUI (Gnome and KDE), but all that does is cause considerable confusion for IT departments as they will have to decide which GUI to deploy over many, many users.

      2. The issue of hardware support. Most of today's multimedia hardware aren't well-supported by Linux, and hot-docking external USB and IEEE-1394 port devices is still a bit of an iffy proposition. Linux desperately needs Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) support; small wonder why the Linux 2.6.x kernel will have such aupport.

      Because Microsoft keeps a reasonably consistent interface for their OS (e.g., Windows 95 to Windows XP have a lot of common interface features), that makes programming for the OS quite a bit easier.

      This is why Linux supporters must support efforts such as the Linux Standard Base, which will at least define standards compatibility for all aspects of Linux. Choice becomes dangerous when it causes no end of IT support issues.

    • Re:ESR's Flaw (Score:2, Insightful)

      by stevey ( 64018 )

      There is little evidence that cheaper wins out. A classic example is the IBM PC (and clones) which were substantially more expensive than home PC'

      Thats true to a point .. but half the reason that IBM PC's came to rule the world is that they were open systems.

      IBM released all the specs to things, which allowed other companies to build compatible "bits", which eventually allowed prices to come down.

      (Obviously I'm ignoring the fact that an IBM PC was massively more powerfull than machines like the C64).

      • IBM released all the specs to things, which allowed other companies to build compatible "bits", which eventually allowed prices to come down. IBM released all the specs to things, which allowed other companies to build compatible "bits", which eventually allowed prices to come down.

        Even IBM clones were always more expensive than the home PC brands, though. PC's (i.e. clones) didn't come to below $1k until about 1998, and the home PC brands were always much cheaper.

        (Obviously I'm ignoring the fact that an IBM PC was massively more powerfull than machines like the C64).

        True, but any Amiga or Atari ST fan would have attested ten years ago that those brands were vastly superior to the PC counterpart (and were MUCH cheaper). Surely the fact that Amiga is no longer made, and PC's have about 95% market share now, attests to the fact that price and performance (or any ratio thereof) has no relevance to market success?

  • WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by imac.usr ( 58845 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @10:50AM (#3253765) Homepage
    I think Linux will take over the desktop, and I think the reason it will doesn't have much to do with whether we clean up and polish our interfaces or not. Linux will take over the desktop because as the price of desktop machines drops, the Microsoft tax represents a larger and larger piece of OEM margin. There's going to come a point at which that's not sustainable, and at which OEMs have to bail out of the Microsoft camp in order to continue making any money at all. At that point, Linux wins even if the UI sucks.

    And frankly, the UI doesn't suck. It's not perfect, it's got a few sharp edges and a few spikes on it, but so does Windows.

    Oh dear god, this is the funniest thing I've read on slashdot in six months. So no matter how bad a computer interface is, all it has to do is cost less than Windows for everybody to adopt it? Well, hell, I'd better dust off my Apple II then!
    • That's a total misrepresentation of what he's saying. He's saying that the UI is good enough that the price becomes more important. And he also says the UI is by no means perfect.

  • "Killed" Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PeterClark ( 324270 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @11:03AM (#3253817) Journal
    I'm sorry, but Eric seems to be inhaling too much gunpowder these days. He, better than anyone, ought to realize that you can't "kill" FS/OSS. Furthermore, his argument is that if Microsoft had started its FUD campaign back in 1998, no one would have bought into Linux. This is similar to charging Microsoft with failure to have a crystal ball. Back in 1998, Linux was barely a blip on anyone's radar. I've been using Linux exclusively since Feb. 1999, and I speak from experience when I say that MS had nothing to fear then. Furthermore, even if someone in MS had a premonition, it would have been an absolutely stupid blunder to start FUDing Linux. Think about it; were MS to have attacked Linux at that point, interest would have only gone up. There's no such thing as bad advertizing.


    :Peter

    • Re:"Killed" Linux? (Score:3, Informative)

      by llywrch ( 9023 )
      > Furthermore, his argument is that if Microsoft had started its FUD campaign back in 1998, no one would
      > have bought into Linux. This is similar to charging Microsoft with failure to have a crystal ball. Back in 1998, Linux was
      > barely a blip on anyone's radar.

      Actually, Linux was on a number of radars. A lot of ISPs (predominantly mom-&-pop shops with little spare cash) were using Linux (& *BSD) for their servers because they couldn't afford Win NT.

      And knowledge of some of this usage must have filtered back to Redmond. Remember, the infamous Halloween Papers (which were published in 1998) were written in August of 1998 after careful study of how Linux & Apache are written.

      What is more cripling for Eric Raymond's argument that MS could have FUDed Linux to death is that these memos clearly state that FUD will NOT work against Open Source Software. I don't understand is why Raymond didn't remember this assertion: after all, he published the original documents.

      Geoff

  • Bad programming (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mobutu ( 13389 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @11:06AM (#3253836) Homepage

    from the article :"This is necessary because software is growing ever more complex, and an increasing amount of work must be done simply to debug programs."

    This is the real problem with todays new software: every programmer wants to put every functionality in every program he writes. This creates bloated and bug-ridden programs.

    For example: if I want to buy a new bicycle, and I would like to look up information on the internet. I NEED a browser that supports pdf files, flash animations, at least 5 different graphic file formats, cascading style sheets, java scripting and so on, just because nobody cares about standards. Because of that all pages look really bad, because my fonts scale differently, or I have a different screen size.

    Wiebe.

    • Re:Bad programming (Score:2, Insightful)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 )
      CSS combined with XML addresses exactly the problem you describe. It seperates the content from the presentation. HTML is a nasty kludge compared to a nice pure XML page.

  • Some good points... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ewe2 ( 47163 )

    ...but I can't escape feeling that esr is looking on the rosy side a bit.

    He does make a few assumptions about the way companies are likely to turn in the current economic climate that I'm not sure I buy. This isn't an industry known for paying a lot of attention to consumer pressure, and I think it's only consumer pressure that would make a big difference to the fortune 500 companies.

    Even if Wall Street are uncertain about the business model, from their point of view the alternative is worse, i.e. the killing off of a market. I don't think they're ready to jump at all.

    The same point applies to Linux on the desktop: OEM's may well find it more difficult to pay the "Microsoft tax", but Mom & Dad don't want to build their own computer and don't want to leave their relatively safe GUI environment. So I don't see the OEM's jumping and I'm certain noone else in the industry wants them to, either.

    What I don't see being addressed here is the squeeze that the telecommunications sector is putting on the internet-related side of the software industry (rapidly becoming most of it). I believe it is getting more and more expensive for the average consumer. If Microsoft cannot make the transition, who else can?

  • Has anyone figured out how to pay the coders? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by reemul ( 1554 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @11:07AM (#3253843)
    With all of these endless /. posts about how Linux will rule the world, I have yet to see a single post explaining how programmers will ever get paid. Don't any of you want to write code for a living? Open Source companies can make money, sure, charging for services. But services cannot pay for programmers. Let me repeat that so that everyone is sure to see it: services cannot pay for programmers.

    Since Open Source code is, well, Open, absolutely any service provider or consultant has access to the same software. If company A pays programmers to write code which is contributed to the community and makes their money selling services related to that code, and company B has no programmers but offers the exact same services for the exact same code, the company B will always be able to make more profit than company A. Because company B is in the exact same business as company A, but doesn't have to pay programmers. They can cut their costs below company A, stealing their business, and still enjoy higher margins. Company A either fires the programmers or dies.

    A company can only afford to pay programmers if they have name recognition high enough to charge higher prices for services, or don't give feedback to the community about upcoming releases until its actually out so that they have a big enough head start to give competitive advantage, or they use closed code. That means they either pimp themselves, act like weasels, or go proprietary. Nice way to make a living. The Open Source movement lives on successfully, but the coders end up eating a lot of ramen and working at Circuit City. The only model I've seen so far depends on coders working for free. Volunteerism is great, but you can't base a business on altruism. Besides, in some ways making money off of unpaid workers is worse than Nike using cheap foreign labor - at least the foreign labor gets *something* for their effort. With few exceptions, contributing to Open Source is like pissing yourself in dark slacks - you get a warm feeling, but nobody else notices.

    Can some of the clever folks here at /. come up with a way for Open Source to succeed and pay programmers at the same time?

    • Can some of the clever folks here at /. come up with a way for Open Source to succeed and pay programmers at the same time?

      Apple did it with OS X. The backend of their OS (Darwin) was a BSD-like OS which saved them tons of development costs like you said. They even open-sourced it although they were not required to. However, they added a proprietary part to the OS (which is probably why they went with the BSD base) which was the GUI... Mac OS X has been quite successful since it was released (personally, I've done a lot of backend development with it and I *really* like it...)

      Sun also did the same thing with their OS. they took a BSD-like base, closed sourced it, and added their own extensions. In both these examples, programmers working for Apple and Sun did get paid.

      Unfortunately though, both these models confirm your premise, that they used soemone else's work to make money. I wonder how the GPL would impact this, because unless a company's proprietary extensions to Linux did not include an GPL code, there would be no way they could sell it without giving up their source code. My assumptions would be that making money with GPL software would be even harder, since a Linux distributor would essentially have to rewrite everything that was GPL-ed. But perhaps if some company could do this, adding their own proprietary GPL-free (now there's an oxymoron) code to GPL software, then maybe it is do-able.

    • Answer: They won't. In the future programming won't be a job, it'll be a hobby. People will do some other job during the day and code in their spare time, like me. I, like most people (well, most people I know) started coding because I liked it, *I enjoy coding* thats why people go in to open source, because they like coding, not because they want to make millions. Therefore, eventually coding will cease to be a profession.

      Alternativly, eventually all coders may become a massive, government-funded collective that siphons money off anywhere it can. You could call it 'The Guild of Programmers' - very cool.

      Scones

    • Re:Has anyone figured out how to pay the coders? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Given that air is free, how can anyone make money out of aqualungs?

      Or

      Given that water is free, how can Evian sell bottled water?

      Or lastly

      Given that ideas are created freely, how can we make money on IP?

      There are ways and means, it's jsut that the obvious isn't always the best.

      In the end, it may be that NO programmers get paid for programming. We'll all do it as a hobby. I then take up a job as postman.

      So what's the problem?
      • "Given that air is free, how can anyone make money out of aqualungs?"

        Because there is no fucking breathable air underwater. DUH. This is a physical restriction.

        "Given that water is free, how can Evian sell bottled water?"

        Um, no, since land and natural resources have largely been privatized (read: made subject to private property), the only water that is "free" is water that is on land you own. The other water you get you pay for (e.g. with taxes to a city water system).

        "Given that ideas are created freely, how can we make money on IP?"

        Because we make laws that punish people for abusing other people's ideas.

        The first two situations are physical realities. The third situation is due to legislation. So, either 1) some physical circumstance must make the open source software scarce (being digital basically precludes this) or 2) open source software companies have to lobby for welfare legislation.

        No I'm not saying that Open Source software is somehow bad, and no I don't have any answers. I'm just saying we can't just keep patting ourselves on the back and collectively humming to ourselves so the bad thoughts go away.

        The biggest win I see for software-as-service is for customization and setup support for large complicated enterprise systems. But again, this is obviously only server side. And once Open Source "wins", theoretically there won't be a market for "customization" or "configuration" of these systems because they will be so much better (remember, that was the premise to begin with).

        Subsidization isn't actually that bad an idea. We subsidize all sorts of other things, like art and literature. Why not Open Source software that is for the common good?
        • "Given that water is free, how can Evian sell bottled water?"

          "Um, no, since land and natural resources have largely been privatized (read: made subject to private property), the only water that is "free" is water that is on land you own. The other water you get you pay for (e.g. with taxes to a city water system)."

          *BOOOOOM* *tsssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh* Paid for your umbrella too, Sparky? :)

    • Since Open Source code is, well, Open, absolutely any service provider or consultant has access to the same software. If company A pays programmers to write code which is contributed to the community and makes their money selling services related to that code, and company B has no programmers but offers the exact same services for the exact same code, the company B will always be able to make more profit than company A.

      What kind of services can company B sell without any programmers? Probably only basic services related to installation, troubleshooting and basic support. They can't fix the application's bugs, expand the applications capabilities or customize it without programmers. Thus Company B can only provide the same kind of consulting services that a zillion shops provide for Win2k -- installation/maintenance for places too small to do it themselves. It's a low-profit model thats also dependent on Company A continuing to maintain the application. No development, no future for Company B.

      Furthermore, Company A may actually *want* Companies B/C/D/E/F to provide low-end support for their product, since there's little margin for them in low-end support and it provides better market push for their application. Company A can stay focused on high-end, high-margin installations that need customizations or other custom services.

      They may also hedge their bets by releasing a version of their application that only hints at its capabilities and *requires* customization to make it scale/integrate precisely to limit parasites or to encourage purchase of their services. This is a tightrope to walk tho -- not enough goodness in your free app may prevent interest in a customized version.
    • Its an indirect cycle. While you are not directly getting paid for the originating product - you are getting paid for custom applications that are built using the products. Ie web based apache/php/mysql applications. Companies that are paying programmers to do development work get the distinction of being more knowledgable (They know the code inside and out..) and as a result, I think this is definitely marketable to people requiring customized apps using the core technology. Couple this with CS majors working on open source projects and those working on projects for the love of programming, I think it is a sustainable, profitable model.
    • Open source movement is on one hand eating it's own bread, but on the other side making a big favor to everybody by making a lot of software available for free.

      Yes: we will lose some of the work to do in certain product spaces, since multitudes of volunteers are willing to work for free on competitive OSS products.

      But: there will always be custom application development work for programmers. Companies are not like products - static and uniform. All companies are somewhat different from other companies, and because of that the need custom applications to be developed.

      Someone said that we should code only as a hobby. I don't agree. I want to code both as a hobby, AND for work. I think that's possible. I want to program for work also because it's in most cases a very ethical way to earn you money.

    • Yes, I know of one definite way to pay the coders to write free software.

      I won't go into detail because there are many ways to implement this, but the basic idea is to treat software production as a labor market rather than a product/service market. In other words, people who need software that doesn't already exist simply pay programmers to write it for them. Most of the time, this is not a matter of starting from scratch, but rather extending what already exists so that it meets a need. And in many cases, the hired programmer could be the maintainer of a project him/herself. If it is cheaper to pay a programmer to extend a free package rather than buy a proprietary one, it's a no-brainer. All we need is more freelance programmers / contractors.
      • If it is cheaper to pay a programmer to extend a free package rather than buy a proprietary one...

        Mancur Olson wrote a fascinating book, The Logic of Collective Action, all about the provision of public goods. He discusses exactly the problem that the Free Software community faces. Every-one would be better off if they all chipped in money to pay programmers, but since those who don't pay aren't excluded, everyone leaves it to someone else to come up with the money :(

        He notes in passing that sometimes the benefit to a single individual is greater than the cost of providing the public good, so it becomes worth his while to pay for it all by himself. You can imagine a shipping magnate paying for a lighthouse for his home port as an example.

        This raises the possibility of a critical mass effect in Free Software. If a piece of GPL software is close enough to the needs of a big company it may pay that big company to hire a programmer to close the gap rather than pay for a commercial package. At which point another big company might say, it wouldn't cost too much to add the other feature that we need. Then a third company notices that the GPL code now has the two features it was waiting for, it would be cheaper to hire a programmer to track down that irritating bug than to buy proprietry software, and so on....

    • You're missing how a lot of stuff gets developed. IBM puts a billion dollars into Linux not so that they can sell the software, but because if they improve Linux enough (make it run on their big iron) then they can make all the software available for Linux availiable for their high end, high profit margin hardware. That makes sense.

      Most of the reason software gets developed is not to make money, but because some company needs some software to perform some duty. Well as it turns out that software gives them a slight advantage in the industry(teensy bit more productivity) but they release it open source.

      Right now the money is in support services. You said that the company that offers support without having programmers is the one that makes more money. What about the fact that they have to hire programmers to take the program apart and figure out how they work so that they can fix errors?

      Also, the company that hires programmers to begin with can charge companies who want new features to add the new features and make them available or keep them closed. There is money to be made in open source, it just requires a bit more creative thinking.
    • Think about it: with every product you buy, you're really paying for a service. You don't have to buy a car - you could just purchase the raw materials yourself (or even mine them directly) then design and assemble it into a complete vehicle. I actually know a guy that did this - hand-forged and assembled a complete '42 Dodge (from an "open-source" design, I guess.) What - you don't have that kind of time on your hands, and you'd rather spend $20-30K for the convenience of having somebody else provide that service for you? Fine. But don't say you're not willing to pay a lot for services.
      So, your question is really: "How can the programmers make money if they're willing to give their stuff away for free?" Three possibilities:
      1. Stop giving it away for free, or just provide the source under a different license than the GPL; for example, make the software available for free, but you only get the source if you *buy* the product. Of course, then you'll lose the advantage of "many eyeballs", <troll>but hey, who audits all that code anyway?</troll>
      2. Ask for donations. By all accounts, Mandrake and TransGaming are doing reasonably well with this approach. (See my other post below.)
      3. Do the coding, not to get paid directly, but in order to increase your chances of getting a better-paying job. There was a very interesting study linked a few months ago on /., analyzing the countries and backgrounds of contributors to GNOME. The observation was that a disproportionate percentage of open source contributors are from countries that have developing IT industries, not established ones, so his conclusion was that the coders were contributing in order to develop their skills and establish their reputations.
      The last one is the option that can motivate me personally. I'm out of work at the moment (hire me! [dice.com]), so I'm planning on contributing to the Wine and/or Mono projects to boost my marketability. Is that so bad?

    • Re:Has anyone figured out how to pay the coders? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pussyco ( 243391 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @01:22PM (#3254553) Homepage

      I don't see proprietry software as the great solution to this problem. You write foobar
      and sell in at $50. Microsoft brings out foobar-for-windows. While they are charging $50 also, you are still in business. Once they bundle it with Windows XP ultra, you are out of business. No guarantees that you will recoup your development costs before that happens.

      Suppose you are in a part of the software market that is still competitive. Five different companies, each selling a similar package for $1000. Lots of programmers are getting paid, but for what? If a new company enters the market it will hire programmers to write its package, that it will try to sell for $1000, but these programmers will not be improving the existing code, they will be employed in repeating work already done, so that the new company can own its own version and split the money available six ways instead of five ways.


      What does this do for the users? We saw what it does to the users in the UNIX wars. You get several versions of much the same concept. The programmers break inter-operability between the different versions for commercial advantage by locking in "their" users. I guess that RMS would say "reduce to serfdom" rather than "lock in". Whatever. Users aren't getting value for money when they pay the coders via the proprietry software system.


      I'm trying to get back into computer programming after a very lengthy illness. I'm horrified by how insanely complicated it has all become in the past ten years. C++ is twice as big as ANSI Common Lisp and offers a quarter the functionality. XML has 3000 pages of manuals that tell you how to do sod all. The PDF manual is about 1000 pages, and it is just a document format. What does html offer? The core functionallity is the anchor tag so that you can click on links, and reflowing the text so that you can resize your browsers window, but can you write your own browser? No way, there is Java, and Java Script and Flash and endless complication, but can I put maths on my web page? Until very recently, no.


      Presumably the point of all this insane complexity is to create barriers to entry, in that programmers have to work in big teams for large companies. It is naive to continue to believe that a programmer can write a program, retain the copyright and join the rentier class living off the royalties. You have to work for a big company who own the copyright to your work, and exploit you just like the big record companies exploit their artists.


      There has been no progress in software components since the UNIX pipe was invented. It ought to be possible to write a tiny little program, plug it into your desk top, and hey presto, a fancy program with a full feature user interface. Then users could write their own programs. Somehow we have got trapped into a model of software development that requires big teams of full time coders to get anything done. It looks to me like we have been too successful in paying coders in the past, and have gone down a blind alley

      • I'm horrified by how insanely complicated it has all become in the past ten years. ... Presumably the point of all this insane complexity is to create barriers to entry...

        No, I'm sorry, but the increasing software complexity and software development complexity is one barrier-to-entry that almost certainly has no anti-competitive conspiracy theory behind it; it's just the march of progress' :-)

        Eventually the complexity will get so bad that the only way to manage it will be with artificial intelligence, 'adaptive solutions' with genetic programming, etc. Human programmers will one day wake up to find themselves an anachronism... much like basket weavers.

        25 years tops.

        --

    • That's National Programmers Association. It will be a union--the geeks counterpart of the NEA.

      This is of course, if the nightmare scenario plays out. RMS et al. are the same kind of people who insist that public schools have to be preserved even when they are plainly failing.

      They want to do to programming what they did to education. It may take decades, but Liberals are nothing if not persistant. Where Free Software dominates a market, we already see some characteristics of the educational situation emerging: Wealthy people get to choose, poor people are left with the inferior "public" version.

      There is already a lot of "stealth" government funding of free software. However, I'm not a total pessimist. At this stage, I doubt the Free Software movement can develop enough political clout to squash IP rights for software developers. The market should remain free enough so that consumers will still be able to choose shareware or shrink-wrapped packages if their needs are met better that way. However, ESR is right to the extent that the days of "easy money" are over.

      Developers who want to make money will have to target much smaller markets, and serve them in particular ways. Going back to the school example, the private companies have an advantage in that they can supply religious instruction whereas the public schools can't. So, most private schools are religious. The software industry will have to find something that only *they* can supply, but Free Software can't. That something might be "brand loyalty" or "author reputation". Perhaps successful commercial software will take the form of "The latest release from Geekney Spears, girl geek extraordinaire, featuring here latest GUI mail client!".

    • Take a good look and see whose making money in Open Source. I count about five companies. Four out of those five companies actually make their money off of closed source addons or extensions. The fifth is on pretty shaky ground.

      That's not a good track record. Reality trumps theory every day of the week.

      You can talk all you want about giving away the software and selling the service, but I still don't see any companies profiting off of open source support. You can talk about contractors selling their labor and expertise, but Open Source is irrelevant for software that's only used internal to a company.

      I suspect that Open Source will find its niche in infrastructure software (servers, operating systems), but that end user applications will remain largely closed sourced. The reasoning is simple. No one will buy a product if it is free.
      • Take a good look and see whose making money in Open Source.

        Take a good look and see who is making money in software in general. I count about 30 companies, including the top seven game publishers.

        Then there are companies like Looking Glass, who, despite a critically acclaimed, selling product, go broke, or even Purple Moon, who despite $4.7 million in sales (they only make girls games), have to lay off their staff and eventually be acquired by another company.

    • Re:Has anyone figured out how to pay the coders? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by binaryfeed ( 225333 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @03:12PM (#3255297) Homepage
      Okay. First of all, when you're talking about paying software developers to write code, you have to understand that there are a few different "types" of software. I'll stick to the two I'm most familiar with: consumer software and enterprise software.

      Let's take consumer software. Consumer software is things like applications, consumer operating systems, development tools, etc. Companies like Red Hat, CodeWeavers, Mandrake, theKompany, Suse, etc. all employ programmers. As far as I know, these programmers are making money, and in some cases, the companies are as well. CodeWeavers, for example, contributes code to the Wine [winehq.com] project and then writes non-free "easy-installation and setup" utilities in order to have some "value add" that is worth paying for. Red Hat actually makes money from selling only services, as every piece of code that they write (AFAIK) is released to the public under an OSS / FS license.

      Now let's take enterprise software. Look at projects like JBoss [jboss.org], Tomcat [apache.org], Castor [exolab.org], etc. In nearly all enterprise software, there is a need for an "infrastructure layer". My company actually PAYS ME to fix any bugs in JBoss, Tomcat or any of the other things we're using as our "infrastructure" because it's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for a resale license of WebLogic or WebSphere. Our customers are happy because they get a reliable system. I'm happy because I get paid to work on OSS stuff. My company is happy because they save money (or make more money, depending on how you look at it) using the OSS / FS infrastructure ... everyone is happy. I'm not starving to death, I swear. Lots of enterprise software companies take this approach. Why? Because it makes economic sense to do so. Why? Because if they pay their programmers to fix bugs in an OSS codebase, they get the added advantage of other people (who they do NOT pay) fixing bugs for them, too.

      So, I'd hate to be harsh, but ... you're just WRONG.

  • Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .dlrowcidamon.> on Saturday March 30, 2002 @11:14AM (#3253864) Homepage
    talking about the success of open source and Linux on the desktop

    There's a short conversation.
  • So it seems we need to be pointing out the following to the Wallstreet finance geeks.
    Bill Gates [...] his famous 1995 e-mail saying the Internet was the future.

    They have a strategic problem, which is that somehow they have to make the transition to a Passport and .Net business model before Wall Street figures out that their current business model is screwed. If the investors figure that out before they've changed horses, then they're going to discount the future value of the stock, and the whole financial pyramid that Microsoft is built on will just collapse.

    I wouldn't be sleeping too well if I was a Microsoft strategist right now, because that's a really hard job, especially considering that they don't even have the technology in place for the new business model yet. Even if they had the technology in place, they would have a very hard job persuading corporate managers to buy into this, simply because of the control issue. If I have all my business processes farmed out to an ASP, I don't control them any more. It's not just a matter of being dependent on somebody else's downtime as well as my own. How do I know that my core business secrets are still protected?

  • Oh gggawwwd (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Joel Ironstone ( 161342 )
    Open source will rule. Sure, and I can shoot flaming peanuts from my nostrils. Open source will never rule. I would much rather pay for a product than download a hodge-podge of interconnecting modules. The only people who care about open source are those who do or can be involved in its creations. It's art for the artists, not the laymen. This isn't to say its inherently bad, or inherently good. Just that it will never be for everyone. If you mod me down because you think I'm stupid, you've proved my point, I am stupid->can't use open source software; Most other people are stupid->most other people can't use open source software.

  • This is totally wrong and here is why: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Large corporations set the pace for desktop market shares.

    In corporate Cost of Ownership formulas licensing fees are a fraction of the total cost of ownership.

    Therefore, any theory that predicts cost decisions made exclusively on the license fee is seriously flawed.

    I can hear that conversation now"What? You mean you want me to bank my whole enterprise on this thing? There is no big public company I can get an SLA from? You want me to rely on the work of a 22-year old guy names Eddie?.... no thanks."

    PLEASE NOTE: I make no qualitative judgements on one method versus the other. But I have been building custom software for large corporations for over 10 years, and this much I know -- if you don't address total cost of ownership you're going nowhere. When corporations spend several thousand dollars every year per desktop saving a few dollars one time on the OEM isn't gonna mean shit.
  • it listens to the masses it evolves it takes risks it is inventive that's a head start it has on most business practices...

  • Microsoft doesn't want to kill Linux... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by po8 ( 187055 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @01:12PM (#3254485)

    If Microsoft doesn't want to kill Linux, why is it running ads attacking UNIX, spreading FUD about the GPL, etc.?

    First, MS does want to kill for-profit UNIX servers, and UNIX-derived MacOS X. These companies represent competition in the for-profit market, and have carved out niches difficult for MS to penetrate even given their desktop monopoly.

    In this modern era, however, it is important to maintain a duopoly, to avoid the appearance of monopoly. Traditionally this has been a weaker commercial competitor that is dominated but protected from destruction: think Apple, AMD, or Pepsi. One danger of this approach, as all three of the aforementioned companies have illustrated, is that it is hard to keep this balance: companies tend to consistently lose (Apple) or gain (AMD, Pepsi) market share in ways hard for a competitor to regulate.

    Enter Linux, a revolutionary new duopoly opportunity! Now Microsoft's "competitor" is a non-profit volunteer organization: very hard to kill, and yet very unlikely (at least in the estimation of Microsoft) to gain dominance. Better yet, this is an organization supported by major corporate players such as IBM that give the appearance of being competitors without actually attempting to directly compete.

    Granting this analysis, Microsoft's best course in dealing with Linux is clear: sufficient repression to prevent dominance, but not sufficient to marginalize the "competitor". Indeed, all of Microsoft's actions to this point have been in line with this behavior.

    All that is left now is to see how this new strategy will play out...

  • If you want to go to a really fundamental analysis, what we're perpetually rediscovering on a scale of complexity is that centralization doesn't work. Centralization doesn't scale, and when you push any human endeavor to a certain threshold of complexity you rediscover that.
    That's quoting the interviewer, but the interviewee agrees. How do we get messages to the Sun and the Galactic Core to get out of the business? How do we tell Bush that the American Empire won't fly? How do we tell Moses that we need to go back to polytheism, when the bunny egg's about to hatch again?

    There's an ecological argument here - that complex systems are best stabilized according to ecological principles rather than command and control, which just can't encompass more than a certain degree of complexity. A close kin to that argument is Adam Smith's view of capitalism - that it's wiser on the whole because less centrally controlled.

    But in some settings central control still might win. Would you bet on a centrally controlled army, or on a bunch of ESRs with their guns? Depends on the terrain and the degree of motivation on each side (for extra credit compare Nam and Afghanistan). And, would you prefer our current balance of terror, or a future one where ESRs carried their own pocket nukes? Talk about bunny eggs!
    ____

  • Open-source debugging, or lack therof (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday March 30, 2002 @02:58PM (#3255197) Homepage
    If the "many eyeballs" approach to debugging actually worked, so would Mozilla.

    Many open-source projects get to the point where they sort of work, but aren't pushed through to the point that they work solidly. Probably because the grunt work to achieve that is boring.

    A very few high-profile projects, like the Linux kernel, attract enough developers to push through this barrier. Most projects don't.

    There's another possibility. If you get the architecture wrong, the open-source process won't fix it. That may be Mozilla's problem.

  • I think we're more sober now than we used to be. There was a period during the dot-com boom in '99 when I think a lot of people were in some danger of getting distracted by the prospect of lots of easy money.

    Heh, yes, well remembered [lwn.net] :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

"Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all...." -- Thomas J. Kopp

Close