Open Source Limitations? 596
_aargh writes "This ZDNet article by John Carroll makes the claim that open source is flawed because there isn't a way for programmers to earn money by developing open source software. It annoyed me so much that I wrote this response to it on the O'Reilly Network."
Getting paid (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you could always go with the paypal donation type aproach, although i don't know if that's approved of by mormal GNU type licences.
Re:Getting paid (Score:2)
When you just have some programmers writing code and fixing bugs on the weekend, you can't rely on that software for things that need to be up and running all the time unless they are thoroughly tested in the environment you plan on running it in. And that of course gets back into TCO. And should something happen, and the server goes down, you have the source code, but does that mean you can quickly read hundreds of thousands of lines of code to find the problem?
Re:Getting paid (Score:4, Insightful)
> code and fixing bugs on the weekend, you can't
> rely on that software for things that need to
> be up and running all the time unless they are
> thoroughly tested in the environment you plan
> on running it in.
I understand the argument that you're making (and understand the traction it has in the CIOs office), but that logic doesn't really hold. The act of paying somebody to work on something doesn't mean that they will be capable or available to fix a problem when something critical arises - ask your CIO if he's been assfscked by a fatal bug but had to wait 3 months to the next maintainence release to get resolution. If that never happened, then you must work at a Fortune 25 company, cause everybody else is going to have to wait for the next train to leave the station.
Making the code free and the source open doesn't free it from being a balloon filled with spaghetti either. But if a bug is hosing me, then there's a good chance that it hosed someone else too, and that creates more pressure for a fix. And if a problem is so critical that my company's life depends on it, then I can't think of a better reason to find/grow a (highly-paid) person who understands this code and can fix it. Going open source means that I have a chance to do this, as opposed to paying a big support yearly support fee and hoping somebody inside Microsoft/Sun/Oracle headquarters sees fit to escalate my bug report.
I think the real problem that scares decisionmakers from open source is that the roadmap is often unclear and almost certainly un-influenable. One guy wants better multiprocessor support in Linux and another guy wants a faster filesystem - I still haven't figured out how half the customers aren't mad at the end of the day.
Re:Getting paid (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're talking modern enterprises, more likely than not they are using any one or a combination of the following top-of-my-head list: BIND, apache, perl, SQL, GCC, GLIBC.
Sure, some open source screensaver or MyRecipePHPapp will not be used by Wal-Mart any time soon; but you sure as hell know that Wal-Mart [bitmechanic.com] uses Open Source Software.
Re:Getting paid (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Getting paid (Score:2, Interesting)
1. You write software for company X.
2. You get paid.
3. Company X uses this software and makes money.
4. Company Y finds this software useful and doesn't add to it.
5. Instead of Company X having the competitive advantage, they just gave the software to Company Y for free.
Now open-source isn't looking as appealing! I think open-source may have it place, but not in every instance!
Re:Getting paid (Score:3, Interesting)
6. Companies A thru W in the same industry also find this software useful, especially after Y added to it. None of them, however, add a single thing to it, since none of them have programmers on staff.
7. Instead of paying programmers, companies A thru W spend that money on their core business, using the exact same code without spending any money.
8. Using their competitive advantage (less money for same resources), companies A thru W kick X and Y's respective asses in the marketplace, which is the source of all the money being used to pay the coders.
9. X and Y go out of business, with the scraps bought up cheap by megacorp Z.
10. The Open Source programmers at companies X and Y, and all of their co-workers, are out of jobs. The programmers no longer make any money writing Open Source code.
Sure, if everyone using Open Source code was obligated to contribute something back, the model would work and work well. But as long as freeloaders can gain the benefits of the paid programmers without having to spend any money themselves, they will. Companies cannot base a business model on altruism. Using limited resources to benefit not just your own business but every business with a similar need, without getting anything back from the others, is just not workable in the long term.
But if you think of a way, please post it here. I'm sure that the CEOs of RedHat, VA, Mandrake, &etc. would love to hear it. They've had to concentrate on services and proprietary code to keep paying their bills, though I know they'd really prefer to be writing Open Source.
Redhat and Mandrake proprietary? Since when? (Score:2)
Re:Getting paid (Score:4, Interesting)
What OSS really means is that there will be less money in the software industry itself, but more programmers working for companies in other industries, and more programming "studios" that will do work-for-hire. Anyway, do you know a lot of programmers who receive royalties on their creation? There's not going to be less money around, not even for programmers, but it's not going to move the same way. The industry will transform - that's okay, programmers will still be able to make a living; that's what's important, isn't it?
I think he's right in a way (Score:4, Insightful)
This is my position. You don't need profit incentive to make good software. You just need money. If there was a public organization that was investing just as much money into open source software as Microsoft invested into Microsoft software, you'd find open source would be just as good (just as easy to use for average joe).
If we had public investment in free software, the software would be just as good as anything you can buy, plus it would be free.
Re:I think he's right in a way (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the results, the open source software, would not be free as in beer. They would have been paid for with money seized from taxpayers, so if you have a job, you're paying for the software anyway, whether you want to use it or not.
Second, do you honestly, really truly and honestly, think a U.S. Department of Software Development would result in better software? In less buggy, easier to use software? Just like the Department of Education makes schools better and the FBI stops terrorists, right?
I think the reason computers (hardware and software) have had such a fantastic run for the past few decades is because governments haven't had a clue what's going on, and therefore haven't been regulating and dragging them down like they do everything else.
And on a side note, the author of the original article critical of "free software" completely misunderstood the difference between free software and open source.
Re:I think he's right in a way (Score:5, Informative)
Pick an average-sized government department in one of the major economies. Odds are, that department is currently spending a few million bucks a year for software licensing. Now, as a small experiment, imagine if just that department switched to OSS.
You'd likely see a drastic reduction in licensing fees. (90% sounds about right to me, but in reality I'm just making that number up.)
This isn't new expenditure... that department _already_ is spending that money. They are also already spending money on i.t. support.
Take some given amount, say, 25% of the difference, and hire a small number of motivated and interested developers to work on contributing towards localization problems that may be unique to your department... and, for fun, contribute whatever they come up with back to the community. Couldn't hurt.
Yes, it is "public funding", and if those words make you cringe, well, so be it. It isn't by a long shot the same thing as calling for a department of software development, and it isn't the same thing as 'seizing' new money for OSS development. It's just one small way that some programmers might get remuneration for their work, and the commons of OSS could expand.
Re:I think he's right in a way (Score:3, Interesting)
So, instead of "hire a small number of motivated and interested developers to work on contributing towards localization problems ", how about contract a small number of motivated and interested developers to work on contributing towards localization problems?
Perhaps there's a competent OSS developer out there somewhere who might be willing to take the gig for a few extra bucks? Or would the fact that they're willing to gasp! take money from the government de facto switch them from competent to trained monkey?
Re:I think he's right in a way (Score:2)
Re:I think he's right in a way (Score:2)
That's just not true. Have you ever considered that some people just like their job, even if it is government?
they make too much money, work too little, and you can't fire them.
That's some pretty good motivation for Federal Government work, wouldn't you say?
In all honesty, the only employees not working very hard for the money are probably doing something mundane. The government does have software developers, they just don't sell it; they are the consumers. You should read some stuff from RMS on software development, and that often the best reason to make software is to use it.
Self as first consumer.
Re:I think he's right in a way (Score:3, Informative)
Your anti-government rhetoric is worn out. Try living in the real world for a while.
Re:I think he's right in a way (Score:4)
> from taxpayers, so if you have a job, you're paying
> for the software anyway, whether you want to use it
> or not.
This already happens. Using stuff I know about directly as evidence, look at the fermilab tools homepage [gnal.gov]. Now granted this stuff wasn't developed spontaneously, every last bit of it is an internal tool that was made freely available to the public, but the point still stands. Fermilab is operated by universities across the country, but is owned by the DOE.
> think a U.S. Department of Software Development
> would result in better software?
Not by default, nor every time, but it's definetly capable of it. Again I'll use fermi as an example. [tu-bs.de] Nedit is a really well done GUI text editor, I call it a "second tier" editor because it's not directly a vi or emacs clone, but it's very own beast. These days it's a highly developed, well maintained editor [nedit.org].
So while I'd agree to an extent that the government shouldn't have a Department of Open Source that leeches taxpayer money to create free software, I *do* have to butt in and inform you that many (if not all) government owned laboratories across the US already produce and release free software. ;)
So it *can* work.
Re:I think he's right in a way (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think he's right in a way (Score:2)
As far as I know, FSF had this problem - they paid some company in Russia for writing GNU SQL server. I heard this in 1996. GNU SQL server [ispras.ru] is still not ready (last version was released in 1998), the money is gone.
Sorry, I think you're off... (Score:5, Insightful)
A Clear, unified vision.
Microsoft performs usability studies... they invest a lot fo time figuring out what feature are needed, what can help people - Yes, many times what they make can be annoying (paperclip, anyone?) - but unless we had a unified (no competing projects like KDE and Gnome) set of projects, goals for those projects, and clear and definable end-user documentation and online help, we would not get to the level microsoft has made thier software to be.
Yes - microsoft software can be 'buggy' - but its developers are Good. Microsoft understands that they can make the most money by making software that is Good Enough - making the best, bug free software possible won't make as much money, since it will give users less of an incentive to upgrade and buy the next version. Yes, this strategy stinks - it reeks of marketing, but it works.
I have no doubt that if funded like microsoft, the OS community would develop amazing systems - probably much much closer to bug-free than micrsoft's - however, the end user still wouldn't have the unified ease-of-use of a microsoft (or apple) OS. That comes with a unified vision... and a unified vision needs... A Leader.
We have Linus, but he leads kernel development and champions OS development in general. there is no one, or even any single group of people, in the 'Captain's Chair [ebay.com]', defining what the end user experience should be. Even Red Hat just provides a Distribution of the core OS, and lots and lots of other Open Source software that happen to run on it - with thier own install and config utilities, of course.
I guess this turned into a rant about leadership - I guess we know Microsoft is lead by profitering businessmen, but Linux (as a platform, not the kernel... which I guess should really be called GNU/LINUX
This lack of leadership wasn't by design - Linux was, as Linus will tell you, never expected to come as far as it did when he started it. We (the community) spontaneously sprang forth and Developed... and developed and developed...
But an analogy can be drawn to genetics here. Just as it took millions of years of evolution to produce a mouse, it only takes man (an intelligent outsider to the natural process fo evolution) years to effect enourmous changes to the gnome (and thus the phenotype) of Mice and other creatures. Couldn't nature, through random chance and lots of time, produce the same creations we can today from ordinary mice? Yes. Thus, The semi-random headless development community could produce amazing software meetings specific goals... if given enough time.
But just money won't do it... we either need the Money and Lots of Time, or we need the money and a very clear, defined direction...
Re:Sorry, I think you're off... (Score:2)
Note, I am not saying anything about MS software or their developers in this comment; only that I believe that buggy code != good developer.
Re:Sorry, I think you're off... (Score:3, Interesting)
The bugs arise from the fact that MS products are MASSIVE projects with literally hundreds of developers. It's simply impossible to produce bug-free products that large in a reasonable timeframe. Sure, many people cite Linux as an example. Linux (not just the kernel, XFree, KDE/Gnome and all related things) are buggy too. This doesn't mean that the developers suck, but squashing bugs takes time. Also, MANY hardware drivers in the kernel are incomplete/missing. Sure, they may not be as buggy as Windows, but if they don't do what I need them to, they might as well not exist at all.
I don't mean to bash Linux here or anything, but simply use it as a tool to point out the logistical nightmare of any large software project. Microsoft does a rather good job of keeping the show-stopper bugs away and working to fix the minor ones with service packs. Microsoft's legal and marketing departments may be Evil (tm), but their developers are top-notch.
Re:Sorry, I think you're off... (Score:4, Funny)
If you are using the example of Clippy, then you have not witnessed the awesome destructive power of the fully armed and operational Microsoft Bob!
You need profit incentive. (Score:2)
Direct profit incentives from the users to the creators are possible for open source software, but require an active approach from the users, and a cooperative one from the creators. It's called open donation [buskware.org]. It says, "Look at what this guy did! I like it so much I'm giving him money, so if you want some of my money, just be more like him!"
It's just getting rolling (there might be as little as a few million dollars a month going around as donations to for-profit groups), but it'll catch on and be big business some day. Give it time.
Re:You need profit incentive. (Score:4, Insightful)
Capitalism works. But it doesn't work when things like intellectual property are tacked on in order to make an old model fit into to businesses. The fact is, "capitalism" doesn't work when you give people artificial monopolies. When you charge for something that has a zero marginal cost, that is inefficient.
If you are sincere in wanting to learn the truth, then read this book Steal this idea, amazon [amazon.com]. I used to be a very strong market defender, and I still am, but in instances, like writing software, where there is a high fixed cost, but a zero marginal cost, traditional capitalism just doesn't work. I can't really explain it better than that, without writing a book, and this book does a better job than I can. Try to consider the possibility that there are certain instance when your model just doesn't work properly.
Re:You need profit incentive. (Score:2)
Re:You need profit incentive. (Score:2)
Re:You need profit incentive. (Score:2)
Oh, so now we come to it, you spammy troll.
You know, it would probably be less obvious and more successful if you didn't post your referrer link half a dozen times in the same thread.
Re:You need profit incentive. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bringing up arguments like, "The fact is, 'capitalism' doesn't work when you give people artificial monopolies." against a suggestion of purely voluntary donations to reward and support development of free software is TROLLING.
As for identifying the natural monopoly of road-building, for which confiscation of land is essential and a free-market solution is virtually impossible, with the anything-goes naturally free market of software... If that's not trolling, it's so mind-numbingly stupid that I'm afraid to discuss it due to the threat of intellectual [actsofgord.com]
osmosis.
When you're so obviously free to give your own money to support any software development you choose, advocating government confiscation of others' money to support your preferred projects is as wicked as stealing it with your own hands. Believing that it will turn out to your benefit instead of diverting your money to support the goals of others is foolish. These are, of course, the characteristic traits of a socialist: mean-spirited idiocy under a facade of high ideals.
Re:I think he's right in a way (Score:2)
steal this idea, amazon. [amazon.com]
I'm not good at explaining stuff. Read this book with an open mind, and you might understand.
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Software written by the FSF isn't going to kill someone when the roof of the kernel caves in 5 years later. People don't die in software construction accidents.
People don't NEED software to have decent quality of living, but people DO NEED shelter (Right after water & food). Software is near the bottom of list.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Open Source (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
I don't know if it helps them, but it helps me :-)
Another advise - have a trusted helper and never pretend to be the sole author or maintainer. Use a signature saying that you reserve the right to forward all your e-mail to mailing lists unless explicitly requested. Once the lamer is in the mailing list, make fun of him publicly - it helps too.
free as in free speach, not free as in free beer (Score:2, Informative)
Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee (Score:2)
Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee (Score:2)
Since when? I can write GPLed software and sell the binaries and source if I want. There's nothing in the GPL to prevent me from doing that.
Dinivin
Re:free as in free speach, not free as in free bee (Score:2)
Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:4, Funny)
How do the open source programmers feed their families ? And don't suggest they sell T-Shirts.
Re:Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:2, Insightful)
While the FSF believes all software should be free of restrictions and government should contribute money towards it, those are not the only economic models that have been suggested. Personally, I believe having unrestricted access to software is increasingly important, comparable in ways to other generic services: telephone, water, etc. It seems reasonable that governments would consider switching to an unrestricted, open, and generic form of software.
(Does anyone else feel that government should also provide free beer?
Re:Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:2)
I work a regular 8-5 job. Sometimes its fun, but most of the time, I putting a hack in my otherwise beautiful code, so my boss can give a demo 20% into the project. When I'm just about to blow my stack from all of the compromises and business limitations, I go home and write some code for fun. If its important to me, I do it right, if not, I don't have to do that part. If someone else feels the need to fill in those gaps, they can.
The author is correct in some ways. There aren't many good open source accounting packages (who wants to work on that?). At the same time, there are no end to Tivo hacking projects and file sharing clients. People pick projects that they need, or they think will be fun. The author does, however underestimate the types of projects some people find fun.
Re:Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:2)
That's how it's -meant- to work, at least
Where are all the poor open source programmers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers? (Score:2)
Which was the point of the article.
Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers? (Score:2)
I'm not starving (yet), but I'm not too far from it. I've been out of work since early October, and I've begun selling off computer gear to pay bills. I write free software [sf.net] mostly because I'm bored and it's more entertaining than watching TV. Also, it looks better on a resume than an empty space.
If you're reading this and you need a Cocoa programmer - hire me!. I'm in Boston right now, but I'll move anywhere I need to. At this point I'd even work for Microsoft - principles don't pay the rent.
Re:Where are all the poor open source programmers? (Score:2)
Becuas they got in on .com IPOs that had no actual profit, but milked the gullible greedy investors?
They didnt get rich from selling their work, or even something derived from their work. they got rich from hype. (or something completely unrelated to their opensource work)
Re:Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:3, Informative)
No, since it obviously isn't a fatal flaw, because Open Source/Software Libre programmers do feed their families. If it was a 'fatal flaw' then there wouldn't be Open Source/Free Software.
Possibly just as I do (minus the family bit). My company sells complete systems (hardware+software+support+training). And I write a fair bit of Software Libre on my own too.
Re:Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:2)
To liken programming to any kind of assembly work is one of the greatest fallacies one can perform.
A better analogy would be an artist who does commercial graphics during the day, but exquisite panaramas at night. It's a more correct, and appealing analogy.
Re:Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:2)
There are two possible inferences you could have pulled from what I said. One is that I don't feed my family (which is vacuously true, and not the intended semantics), while the other is that I don't have a family to feed (unless you count the 1 person family that is myself).
Re:Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you make the incorrect assumption that it's impossible to make money selling Open Source software, that's not a reason that a profitable company won't spend money on developing it. Many big hardware companies like IBM, Sun, and HP are spending real money on Open Source development because they think that it will help them sell more hardware. Take Sun's development work on GNOME, for instance. Sun feels a need to have a nice, standardized desktop environment available for their hardware because they don't think that it will be as attractive to purchasers without one. It's cheaper for them to hire programmers to work on an existing Open Source project- even though that means giving away their code- than to try to develop one from scratch. So Sun is paying a bunch of programmers to write Open Source code.
Their are other reasons for a company to do that. O'Reilly, for instance, hires Larry Wall to work on PERL, partly because it helps them get the right to sell his books and partly because it gives them credibility. Transmeta seems to have hired Linus Torvalds at least in part because it gave them extra influence in the direction of the Linux kernel. There are admittedly a small number of positions like that available, but they are out there.
Re:Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm a major entity in a company, I'll throw some money around to get SMP support in OpenBSD, because I need it. Now, I SAVE MONEY because I payed only to add a single missing feature. It doesn't cost me anything to allow that feature to be shared, and I save money not being locked into the licensing of a propritary OS.
So, in answer. You simply have to look at it from a different perspective. Instead of thinking of software as a product, think of it more similar to a partially written book, or other document. It's reasonable to write a feature you need (you wouldn't get paid for that anyhow) or pay for someone else to add that feature. Again, you wouldn't make any money. You'd loose money going the closed-source route.
So, Open Source isn't something you just take and sell at what ever price you wish as you would with propritary software. Open Source is something you provide as a cheaper, better option, and people will happily pay for it. Or, they will get it for free and end up contributing code to the project. One way or another, people will all pay just a little bit, and the whole idea behind open source is that all is needed is a little from everyone.
Cuts both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
I Always Wondered.... (Score:4, Informative)
Open source is great for people out of work, or screwing around. It sucks if you have 3 kids and a wife, and need insurance, and all the other perks a job offers.
Whine all you want about it, but precious few people make money from open source, and I don't see those folks sharing all that much.
That's what the license says (Score:3, Insightful)
The terms of the GPL make no restrictions on what is done with the source, including the sale of binaries produced from that source as long as the source is made available.
No Open Source programmer is forced to release his work under those terms but if he does, he is undoubtably aware of the ramifications. To argue whether it is fair or not is utterly silly because the author released the code himself.
best response to the incentives problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
"The dwarf's basic problem is that "incentives" is merely a metaphor, and as a metaphor to describe human creative activity it's pretty crummy. I have said this before, but the better metaphor arose on the day Michael Faraday first noticed what happened when he wrapped a coil of wire around a magnet and spun the magnet. Current flows in such a wire, but we don't ask what the incentive is for the electrons to leave home. We say that the current results from an emergent property of the system, which we call induction. The question we ask is "what's the resistance of the wire?" So Moglen's Metaphorical Corollary to Faraday's Law says that if you wrap the Internet around every person on the planet and spin the planet, software flows in the network. It's an emergent property of connected human minds that they create things for one another's pleasure and to conquer their uneasy sense of being too alone."
And then, even more fun, he adds:
"The only question to ask is, what's the resistance of the network? Moglen's Metaphorical Corollary to Ohm's Law states that the resistance of the network is directly proportional to the field strength of the "intellectual property" system. So the right answer to the econodwarf is, resist the resistance."
Brilliant.
Re:best response to the incentives problem... (Score:3, Informative)
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
The author writes this from a very moderate point of view, and he certainly lists plenty of advantages to open source. However, he's right on the money about its disadvantages...actually, he's pretty darn nice. He doesn't even mention the problems that most open source hackers seem to have with creating software that can be used by non-computer experts.
The open source movement is too broad to be characterized by one point of view. If I had to break it down into two I would say it was these two archetypes:
Now, what good are ideologues for open source? It's a bad idea to convince people to use Linux for the sake of it.
My neighbor is the type of guy who thinks he's l33t because he runs a pirated version of Windows XP professional instead of Windows 98. He installed RedHat and it didn't last a week on his hard drive. You know why? Because with KDE and all the Windows ripoff stuff it has, he expected it to act just like Windows. He wasn't prepared for a different cut and paste, misbehaving X apps that take up half your screen, and odd problems with the USB bus.
This guy, who would be qualified as a "power user" by most demographic research, now thinks of Linux as a second-rate, broken Windows because some guy at his office couldn't stop telling him how great "Free Software" was. He'll probably never run anything but Windows again.
This is why ideologues are bad for open source. They make bombastic promises that won't stand up under scrutiny, such as "Linux is better than Windows in all cases," and they generally expose the nuttiness of the whole movement.
We need people who are more willing to promote open-source from its current merits, as hobbyists, gamers, and enthusiasts. They shouldn't be wearing a political banner on their arm. Pragmatism is what made America great, and it's a must in this situation.
Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
The O'Reilly Network seems to have overlooked the fact that many individuals program open source code because they *enjoy programming*, not because they intend to generate revenue from it.
Obviously he's wrong... (Score:2)
Look at the evidence! Free software is flourishing, and in every place where there is decent Free software available - it's gaining marketshare at the expense of non-free software.
Free OS have gone from
Free Webservers continue to dominate at 60%.
Free Browsers have gone from
Free compilers have gone from nothing to a lot.
We're still small - but the momentum is there!
Re:Obviously he's wrong... (Score:2)
I don't know, besides I'm a developer and I suck at support. If my software is good enough, they shouldn't need support, should they?
Re:Obviously he's wrong... (Score:2)
Perhaps he meant Free?
Think context.
goat sex (Score:2)
As usual, I'm a defect (Score:3, Interesting)
In short, I develop one 'commercial' program, of which the revenues I generate I use to fund my development of the OpenSource projects. These OpenSource projects in turn assist the commercial program because they both [Open and Commercial] share common libraries. These libraries are the most vital core.
By striking this 'balance', I'm able to keep the legal aspects happy, the financial aspects happy (I am my own business) and myself happy.
Whilst I don't make huge amounts of money, that is not the entire point. I do OpenSource because it's 'pleasurable' (most times, I wont expand on the bad times), and my 'commercial' side funds me.
Works for me.
What's your motivation? (Score:2, Insightful)
If your motivation is purely profit, then yes, open source is a flawed model. It limits the amount of profit you can squeeze out of what you produce. This is, obviously, why Microsoft dislikes open source. Profit is their motive.
However, if your motive is the best possible end product, or saving your company money, or security, or creating something to fit your exact needs, then open source is the perfect model.
Not everything in the world has to succeed purely based on whether it can turn a profit or not. I don't choose my music based on how many albums the artist sold. I don't choose my art based on the price of the paintings. I don't choose my hobbies based on how marketable they are.
To bash open source because it's less "profitable" seems silly to me. That wasn't it's intent or goal. Was Michael Jordan a failure because he was a lousy baseball player? Or was he a success because he was a fantastic basketball player?
Open source is a fantastic success when measured against the goals it set out to reach. It's only when people try to measure it against different, inappropriate standards that it looks less than stellar.
Let open source play it's own way, and ignore the folks who try and measure it by the stats of a different game.
I have made money from Free software! (Score:2)
I know I do not. As a consultant, I provide solutions to customers. If I can use free software in doing it then I am way ahead of the game. For the same reason, if someone wants to use my code in the other part of the country why should I not want his or her feedback?
This flaw in Free/OSS seems to be something that mostly worries people that right proprietary software (and online columnists).
I benefit greatly from Free software as a one-man shop. There are only so many hours in the day for me to work. If that time is spent writing redundant software, I am losing.
I didn't realize wealth was only instant money (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple truth of the matter is that there is plenty of room for closed source solutions without impacting open source at all. Games, Kiosks, and software solutions for major industries are all perfect examples of closed source that no one really minds. For example, the software that allows Visa to authorize and settle transactions probably will remain closed source for the course of my lifetime because there's no real reason to open it.
However, I don't need to be paid for all of the software I create, anymore than I need to be paid for every web page [nozen.com], every peice of advice, and every photo [unmondo.com] I take. many of them I can give away for free at no loss to myself.
And this is where I actually get wealthy. These contributions come back because I no longer just have access to my little bit, but I have access to everyone else's contributions as well.
When it's over I have a large photo collection [zuadobank.com], an operating system [linux.org], a graphics editor [gimp.org], a coding enviroment [squeak.org], and a plethora of other tools [sourceforge.net].
As Bucky Fuller [cjfearnley.com] long alo realized, by giving away the right things to the right people, I can make myself wealthy.
Life is not a zero sum game.
Yeah, it's a flaw (Score:4, Insightful)
To make a project work, you need one programmer investing 20 hours a week instead of (or in addition to) 100 programmers investing one hour a week. (All successful open source projects display this characteristic.)
Anybody can devote 1 hour a week to an open source project.
But the only way that we will get enough 20 hour a week programmers will be to find some way to recompense them.
Or pay them, in other words.
Re:Yeah, it's a flaw (Score:3, Interesting)
It would also be interesting, if less relevant, to learn how many of the projects there are simply derivative works (particularly common for games -- Tetris clones, *craft clones, Civ clones, Space Invaders clones, et al) instead of original designs.
He's right, but very tunnel-visioned.... (Score:2)
Specifically, he's limited his view to the programmer who works for a company which is in the business to sell software. That is, where the company makes its revenue by the sales of software to someone. In that case, the programmer is the primary revenue-producing asset of the company, and there are significant reasons why Open Source isn't always the best way to do things in this market segment. In fact, I would argue, that for software-only companies, Proprietary is the best way to go for the vast majority of them. Not all, but clearly, most.
However, what he fails to understand is that software companies are at best a vocal minority of companies which produce software. Virtually all Fortune 1000 companies have staffs of in-house programmers writing custom apps. ALL government agencies have them. Hardware companies (or those whose primary interest is in selling PHYISICAL devices) have legions of programmers whose sole purpose is to cook up neat programs which help them sell their hardware. Even people such as IBM global services sell contracting time/expertise, though they produce significant software for their clients.
This second category is where Open Source makes the most sense, and where I would argue will eventually smother Proprietary. Sure, I can see companies (and organizations/governments) buying Proprietary software from the software-only companies (because it's cheaper/faster/easier to get it from them right now), but I'd expect that the mid-term results of going totally-Open Source for all code produced by them will win.
So, to quote from Return of the Jedi: "...you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." The author may very well be right in the localized case, but I sincerely think he's wrong for the general one.
-Erik
New poll idea? (Score:2)
_ I only donate to the software projects that I feel really need my support.
_ I'm broke, but I plan to donate when I have more money. In the meantime, I'm very grateful to these programmers for their efforts.
_ I never donate any of my own money, but I convince the place I work at to use free software and donate to the developers whenever they can.
_ I never give away any of my hard-earned cash when I don't have to. Suckers!
_ Some friday nights I give CowboyNeal money to open his "source." Yowza!
WAY OFF TOPIC:
anyone else see the ThinkGeek banner ad [slashdot.org] for the green laser pointer? What do you think the chances are of them getting them to be a couple inches in diameter (rather than 532 nanometers) and stop after about 4 feet? So cool...
Economic Ripple Effect requires Free Software (Score:2)
I've posted information and links regarding commercial autocoding here and in usenet before.
Use google to do a usenet search, if you are so inclined.
Open Source:Risk and Rewards (Score:2)
This cycle feeds on itself, as a major issue for corporations is not having a steady stream of Open Source programmers familiar with the major packages to support to be available and drive down costs, and programmers don't get into it due to the cash flow problem.
This kind of thinking is backwards- the risk is NOT having the source so you can bring in whatever programmer to fix or modify a problem. Black box solutions is giving the store to the vendor and increases costs, because now you have to pay for the original programmer AND his bosses AND the profit margin for the company, and if you don't your captured system will not be running long.
The lawsuit risk should be minimized (you had the source code, you had the chance to totally vet the code before running it), but that will depend on whether common sense or industry shills will win out.
For a tenth of what they pay the vendors corporate America can have all the customized secure programming they want without being held up by the vendors, and still have plenty for the programmers. This fact alone will drive Open Source into the mainstream.
As for the programmers, it's simply a matter of letting their programs go and creating a demand for their customization and service. It won't be everyone's cup of tea as the paychecks will not be regular and creativity/vision does not necessarily go along with programming skills.
BCG Study - yes, a lot are paid (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually a lot of people writing the software are employed to provide software based solutions. Open source development and free ( GPL/LGPL ) licensing provide a very productive way of encoraging participation in collaborative development. It can provide better solutions to the use of proprietary close source packages.
See Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers! [dwheeler.com]
90% of programmers don't work on creating shrink wrap software but on customising solutions for clients.
From a personal perspective it is far more intellectually rewarding to the joint developer/user. You really can know exactly how the damm thing works and you can in most cases fix or adapt it to your own, your client or your employers needs. Do you wish to live and work in an enviroment where every damm box has the lable "No Serviceable Components Inside"?
As for free GPL/LGPL licensing; the reality of the current employment market is that jobs come and go - BUT, you can take the knowledge you have gain though developing and adapting free licensed software and approach other users of that software for either employment or as clients. You DONT have to "start from scratch" with each job.
If you are a programmer, in the long run, the open source free licensed software model makes it easier for you to remain employed. Unless, that is, your sole career plan consists of being employed by Microsoft.
Another question, how many of those programmers expect to use the open source they contibute at their current and future places of employment?
Confusion About Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
This further shows the huge confusion surrounding "Open Source".
Open Source does not equate to free. Granted, most of the open source software *is* free and charging for something when you post the source on the Internet is very hard, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Open Source means that the source code is available, regardless of the purchase or licensing details. The dearly departed folks at Galacticomm practiced Open Source before there was such a thing. You purchased their BBS package and if you decided you wanted to modify it, you purchased the development kit and off you went. How Open Source can you get?
Of course, the argument is that you can't make money at that, is totally false. I sold nearly 1,000 licenses for my modules for MBBS at $299 a piece, each with the source code gleefully included on the floppy.
If the Open Source community is to survive, they need to fix this flawed perception in the computing community.
Re:Confusion About Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory, a company could develop Open Source software but refuse to provide copies of that source code to anyone but customers. But with todays Internet environment, that would simply provide a very short delay before that source code was available and widely distributed through other sources (without the stigma of copyright infringement).
As others have pointed out, this is hardly Open Source. This is the purchase of a development kit that includes source code as part of its offering.
But could Galacticomm, or you and your modules, make a business out of open source? Perhapse. But how?
Open Source licensing and the nature of information and the Internet pretty much eliminates business models based on scarcity (which is the realm of proprietary software business). So what we're left with is service. The business model would be based on several offerings: technical support, turn-key installations, customized code, training, etc.
Re:Confusion About Open Source (Score:3, Informative)
Open Source has nothing to do with giving anything away for free.
GNU is Open Source. Not all Open Source is GNU. Some Open Source is not GNU. GNU is one of several Open Source licenses.
GNU insists that whoever has the program has essentially the same rights as for a work for hire, except that these rights keep passing on.
SuSE (Score:3, Interesting)
Search on the Internet. No matter how hard you look, you won't be able to find a downloadable current-version SuSE ISO. You can't buy one off Cheapbytes, either. The best you can do is download 7.2, two versions behind the current 8.0; or download an FTP bootdisk, something that only Linux experts will do and that doesn't work anyway if you have no net connection.
So if you want a copy of SuSE on CD, you have no choice but to buy a box set. Which generates income to pay programmers.
Open source isn't a business model period, so you can't say whether or not it's a viable one. It's simply a software development technology. You can have software libre that's not gratis, and make a company around it; essentially, Microsoft with far better corporate ethics and the GPL. That's a business model, and it works.
Escrow accounts for User-funded software (Score:2)
- Develop a product spec and series of development milestones.
- Get contributions toward the project (from individuals as well as corps) and hold the cash in escrow.
- Pay out portions of the escrow as milestones are achieved.
- Completed work gets GPL'ed as it is released.
Of course there are a thousand and one details and obstacles to this approach.Among them: getting contributors to accept that the work they've paid for will be used for free by lots of people.
They will simply have to want it bad enough to accept that, and to understand that this funding model, while not equal, is reciprocal. They will end up using other software that has been developed under the same model, but that they did not want bad enough to contribute to. Having the cost spread out among all the "project founding members" might make it easier to swallow.
Another: There will have to be some minimalist project management involved. Policies and procedures for accepting developers into the paid developers pool - and removing them as well. How to divvy up payments equitably. Project and milestone definition itself will be an up-front task that might end up being uncompensated.
You might see mercenary developers grouping together to service these kinds of projects, particularly in regions of high technical skill but low economic activity. If it provides acceptable pay and a steady income, the groups might evolve into more formal business arrangements, and offer to take on project and milestone definition up-front, as well as handle personnel-related issues.
And of course: It would require a reputable organization to handle the funds, arbitrate disputes, etc.
If this approach yielded a few quality projects with satisfied participants, it could snow-ball. The very idea of open source / GPL software seemed simply crazy to me a few years ago. Now it's the most natural thing in the world. Open source funding models could catch on too, as open source / GPL gain more converts and respectability in the mainstream.
Software Limitations? (Score:2)
I don't want open source to "win" (Score:4, Insightful)
I just want a robust community of open source programmers making robust implementations for known computer problems. When Apache makes web servers easy and free, there is little money in making cheap web servers for individuals, and no programmers get stuck reinventing the wheel. Instead, programmers can get paid to take web servers to the next level, to iron out security holes, to improve reliability and scalability, and work on the really interesting stuff.
Neal Stephenson had a great model for thinking about the software world. On earth, life exists in a narrow band - a few feet into the ground and about a mile above. Some organisms survive at the extremes of temperature or pressure or lack of atmosphere, but the ecosphere really is just a thin shell.
Microsoft and other software producers live in that narrow shell. Open source takes up room in that shell, pushing the non-free producers out of easy habitats like web servers and legacy hardware support. It forces them to move into more difficult terrains, to work harder to make the same amount of money. Stephenson seems to think the software ecosphere might be restricted, that eventually open source will push the closed source developers off the map - instead, I believe the closed source developers will now be free to chart that uncharted territory, to expand the survivability sphere.
As long as there are clients that need customized solutions, there will be programmers getting paid. As long as there are general solutions that everyone agrees on, open source will be squeezing out the closed source producers. I, for one, hope that Microsoft continues to "innovate", pushing computers into new territories, and creating homogenized landscapes in it's wake that the open-source virus can take over. Because, at my heart, I'm a programmer, and I hate the thought of doing something twice...
Re:I don't want open source to "win" (Score:2)
No, I think open source wins when it makes it infeasible for MS to continue its predatory practices. When MS can no longer coerce its customers to do things that are in MS's interest instead of their own. When MS stops corraling its consumer-level users into greater world-domination schemes like passport. When MS can no longer get away with perverting standards.
There is a place for MS in my world, but not in its current state. It has to concede to the notion that it's part of a greater, heterogenous computing community and start cooperating with others instead of dominating, raping, and pillaging wherever it goes.
I, for one, hope that Microsoft continues to "innovate", pushing computers into new territories, and creating homogenized landscapes in it's wake that the open-source virus can take over.
First, a lot of people would argue with your claim that Microsoft innovates. It buys, assimilates, integrates, locks in, and then it markets. Where it does innovate, proprietary standards (or one-way standards support) and lock-in are first principles in its design processes.
Second, the computing landscape you describe would not be formed by natural forces; the resulting environment would be carefully engineered to be inhospitable to "the open-source virus" (if not totally uninhabitable). Think "software patents".
my simple theorem (Score:2)
Open Source software exists. Therefore, it is viable. If it wasn't, it wouldn't exist.
Or is that too simple??
A different model (Score:2, Interesting)
Several folks are advocating a different model. It doesn't involve programmers working for nothing. It involves both money-making companies and free software.
Suppose the government (or a school board, or a bank...) needed a disk repartitioning tool. They previously had a few choices:
- Find a commercial package and license it.
- Develop it in house.
- Hire an outside firm to develop it for them.
The "new" idea here is this: the company or government in question is not in the software development business. They just want to get their job done. They can develop it in house, or contract out the programming and make sure it is in their contract that they are able to give away the source code.Why would they want to do this? Naive reasons include it "feels good", or free support will fall from the sky. Better reasons include:
- If the software is truly useful to others and they improve it
(perhaps contracting out the job of creating improvements to the same
or other development firms) then the original developers could benefit
from those improvements.
- If they get unhappy with their current development firm it might
be easier to hire another development firm to maintain the software if
the source is unencumbered.
- If a quick or minor change is needed in the software then the
source is available to do this, without having to negotiate with an
outside development firm.
- Once you have paid for the development of the software there are no longer recurring expenses such as licensing fees or compliance audits. The cost of maitenance may be cheaper.
My main point is this: Free software does not have to be built by volunteers. You can hire professional developers to create and maintain free software if your business or government relies on this software. "Open source" and "free software" are two models for doing this.There exists an example of this. Gcc is licensed under the GPL. Many people rely on it for their jobs: this compiler is used by many folks to create code for embedded applications, unusual hardware, research, and mainstream applications. Often a company will need a specific improvement, or need it to be ported to a new operating system, or support for new hardware, etc. It appears that Cygnus exists mainly for the purpose of doing paid improvements to gcc. (I have worked for companies that have hired them for exactly that.) The folks who work for Cygnus don't work for free, and they often are quite good at what they do. Many other programs could follow similar models...
He has a point, but there is more (Score:2)
In trade for all of these tools, I chose to return the favor by writing something others could use. http://viewstl.sourceforge.net This effort is not stellar from a programmers point of view, but it does fill a need.
If you consider OSS as a barter system, it works pretty well. Those of us who can write code do. Others help with feedback, or perhaps documentation. Still others decide to buy a boxed distro from time to time. (I know this does not directly benefit the authors of the software, but it does contribute back to OSS in general.) You can follow this line of reasoning and find many ways that people benefit from their OSS work.
A very high percentage of everyday computing needs today are now able to be met with OSS tools. The effort required to get here is huge. Once we finish this task, a large percentage of OSS projects will be in update mode, not create mode.
The benefit here is indirect but worth quite a bit if you consider the alternatives. We have together built a reliable computing platform. Personally I value this highly. It is an important check on the control that software companies seek over us.
Going into the future, given that OSS does reach the masses, means that new software development can either come from closed commercially funded interests like it does today, or from open efforts, or both.
The key here is that we all need an open base to work on. OSS preserves choice while providing a necessary check on commercial software development. If there is no OSS then we basically get to develop what others think we should be developing.
I have no problems with running closed commercial binary only code on my Linux machine. If the application fills a need in a way that gives me a good return on my money, I will buy it. This line of thinking really is not any different for either closed or open computing platforms.
I will not however, purchase software that provides little return. Basic software fits into this catagory. Word processors, spreadsheets, image editors, mp3 players, mail readers and web browsers all have been done before. We know how to do them so why pay again each year for the same tools.
As soon as technology matures to the point where high school to mid-college students are capable of providing applications that fill the need, we all have paid enough and need to move on. Most of what I mentioned above fits perfectly.
If this sounds like OSS is being positioned as old tech, maybe it is to a point. Established needs are where the model works best. The audience is large; therefore, more of us have some incentive to make sure the tools are there. If we don't, then they must be paid for.
New tech works in a couple of ways though. Commercial development happens as part of a business plan. The software is written for the specific purpose of making the company shareholders maximum return. This does not mean that it is the best software or approach, it only means that it pays the company bill.
OSS new tech is exciting to me because it is free of the shareholder shackles. This also does not mean that the software is good, but it does mean that all of us have a say in how it all goes. Over the long term as the projects suffer natural selection, really good tech will emerge.
Companies will get theirs done faster, but OSS efforts will be better overall.
So really we all get paid something. Is it cold cash? Maybe, if somebody notices and people end up with jobs. In most cases though, the payback is the freedom to choose how we all get our computing done. It may not pay the bills (which is why we all have our day jobs), but it is important as this young digital age matures.
OSS is needed right now. That alone will ensure that people continue to do the work.
Open source is for the software service industry (Score:2, Insightful)
Open source applications are much harder to configure and integrate, and so requires more service and consulting.
Its about prepackaged versus hands on.
Take gimp vs photoshop. Gimp has arguably more and better features than photoshop, however photoshop is often marketed as something that works with Adobe's other products. Gimp alone won't make a website or an illustration or a brochure. Now you could hire someone who knows how to use Gimp along with some other tools to develop some sort of media.
Theres two sides to the coin, and you get what you pay for. If you're a mom and pop copyshop you go with adobe. If you're a enterprising college dropout or well versed consultant you go with gimp + some scripting.
ZDNet is mostly wrong, but the real effect we see is the explosion of computer software over the last ten years raising the bar for software innovation. Its like back in 1910 it might have been possible for someone to build a plane in their garage, but nowadays theres noone building 747s in their garage. Yeah you could make a homebuilt, but no one would want it except you, and you'd get sued if it crashed anyways.
John Carrol (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone who has ever spent any wasted hours on the ZDNet talkbacks will recognise John Carrol as one of those wierd posters who would spend hours posting responses in threads very similar to these two articles (and not always shorter either). Always very, very staunchly pro-Microsoft in any situation irrespective of what the article in question was about. Once there was an article about the trial and someone posted the obvious reference about MS using shady tactics to kill off a competitor and that this formed a big hurdle to anyone developing for Win32 because if the product was good, MS would either buy it out or kill the company. JC responded with comments about how MS made better standards than the w3c or ECMA and that anyone could build off these standards.
Basically his line has always been that:
a)Microsoft is a great company
b)MS technology is the most advanced and the best
c)MIcrosoft's technology benefit's everyone
d)MS' business model is superior
So, he does seem to be a bit obsessed. (Here's a link to his trial RFC letter: John Carrol vs. the world [mrterryc.com])
My only question I would ever have for him is why is he so worried about Microsoft going down the drain if they are in fact as superior as he claims that he has to post repeated articles about it on trash mags like ZDNet? What is also interesting about him is that he used to be a "Windows" distributed software developer and he is now a "Java and
Philosophy (Score:3, Interesting)
Appetite, honor, and reason.
One's essence--that is, one's personality and the traits that define him/her, are composed of a mixture of the three, like any color is made of a mixture of R, G and B.
Appetite includes a persons need for gain (i.e. money)
Honor includes a persons need for recognition.
Reason includes a persons need for knowledge. About 80% of people are mostly "appetite." Good examples of "honor" people are soldiers and journalists; good examples of "reason" people are scientists that find interviews and talkshows "an irritating distraction from their work."
Obviously, ZDNet is mostly composed of those of "appetite" to the degree that they cannot even understand a person which cares for things other than personal gain, i.e. money. Sad...
Problem is unix people and not open source? (Score:3, Insightful)
- has for the last 30 years told confused newbies to shut up and read the manual
- has attributed end-user confusion to "people not wanting to learn"
- has never cultivated the necessary "let's make it easy to use" design ethos
- does not consider making usable, high quality GUI-driven software to be fun
- has up until recently derided GUI's as toys for children
- has not built up the necessary usability-design infrastructure, and in fact have done just the opposite by claiming the field of UI design is BS and telling usability experts to "stop whining and shut up and code"
is their lack of mainstream penetration really due to the fact that they are not getting paid for their work, or is it because they might be the worst kind of people you could have ever tasked with designing software for the average joe?Perhaps the success of open source in the server arena and its failings on the desktop have to do with the fact that the current batch of people doing open source stuff have certain skillsets/mindsets that lend themselves well to doing one type of design but are totally lacking in the skillsets/mindsets needed to do a different type.
Pity the reply is crap (Score:3, Insightful)
As ever, the hole in the equation is what happens to programmers that produce high quality software that doesn't need a lot of support? They're screwed by the GPL model. "Thanks for the work and the nice product, now piss off."
The GPL is of no import to programmers working inside large organisations as redistribution is largly unimportant and programmers working on their own are forbidden from making money (in reality, that is - the GPL allows the programmer to charge for their work much in the same way that I'm allowed to try to sell my 5 old car for more than I paid for it).
It is perhaps, as someone else said, just a case of "That's the new situation - adapt or die" but the GNU world is not a better situation for programmers, particularly those with original ideas who have no hope of ever being rewarded by people who find their ideas useful.
We need a new, fairer, way of distributing software. It should be the right of all users to have the source code, but it should also be the right of all authors to control the distribution of their work free from persecution from (rich) fanatics like RMS or exploitation by (hyper rich) bastards like Bill Gates.
Alas, I don't know what that way might be. But I'm working on it.
TWW
Software is a means, not an end. (Score:3, Insightful)
The company I work for sells real things to people (toasters, etc...). That's the business we're in, that's how we make money. We compete in the marketplace on the range of goods we offer, the price we offer them at, and the after sales service we provide for when these real things wear out and break down. We use software to help us achieve that goal as efficiently as possible.
To us, it doesn't really matter if the software we use (web servers, word processors, email programs, databases) is the same as the software used by our competitors - in fact it's quite likely they're using a lot of the same software from the same supplier. Our only goal is to get our software to do what we want as cheaply as possible.
So if we can hire 2 shit-hot hackers to work on this open source database system to control our stock, and that turns out to be cheaper or even comparable to however many licenses of the closed-source product we need, great. Because not only do we have the database we need, but we've got our own guys supporting it in-house who know it inside and out, who we can just *ask* for support.
It doesn't matter if our competitors have their own hackers working on the same product, becuase the more our guys _and_ their guys improve this software, this means to an end, the better we can all compete in the marketplace on what we do - on selling toasters, and not on what software and support contracts we happen to have.
K.
Re:I had seen this myself.... (Score:2)
Re:I had seen this myself.... (Score:2)
Sure - RTEMS [oarcorp.com]. It's an RTOS that my very-large-but-not-to-be-named company uses for one of our hardware products. We buy support from the vendor, contribute patches if we find a bug, etc. It's actually a pretty good deal for us. We don't want to have to write the OS ourselves, but at the same time we need access to the source if we need to make a change...
-jerdenn
Re:Having children is flawed... (Score:2)
Capitalism still helps open source work. Think of all the hardware companies that invest in open source so they can offer their customers a wide variety of applications. My lab just got a brand new Alpha EV7 server. Fast as hell, but thank god Compaq worked with RedHat on a RH 7.2 for alpha distro. Now I have this awesome architecture, and all the applications I could ever want. Hmmm, that piece of software isn't distributed for Alpha? No problem, i'll just recompile it. Compaq invested in open source software so they can sell more hardware.
There are also many companies that make their money providing support for open source software. It's still capitalism at work, just not from licensing fees, which I guess the first auther thinks is the only way to make bank off code.
Re:Having children is flawed... (Score:2)
He's not saying that it isn't worth doing something because it doesn't make money. He's saying that the flaw is that things that don't make money need support from somewhere else, like the sale of proprietary software.
You don't make a profit from having children, working in your garden, or doing volunteer work for charities, but you damn well need to have some kind of income for having the time/resources for all three.
Same thing for open source. You can do it because you love it, and most people do, but most of those people can not rely upon open source to continue to support that love... and that, according to Carroll, is the flaw.
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
Re:Open source is about freedom, not profit (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens when Wine gets "good enough"? Who would pay Microsoft the $49/year that they want for their every-other-year updates?
Re:You, and Hufschmid, are idiots (Score:2)
I don't need money to be happy, but apparently my landlord does. So does the owner of the grocery store where I shop for food. So does the electric company, without whose services my computer wouldn't work, and my ISP, without whose services I'd be unable to distribute the software I write.