Forum Moderators: phranque
Due to increasing competition from Open Source, MS is "warning" stockholders and all that they may have to reduce prices of its software. MS works under a commercial business model, it says, where developers are PAID for their development work.
Always an interesting debate.
Why does open source software compete with commercial software when nobody is really paid to develop it?
Why should MS have to compete with amateurs?
Is commercial software better?
Is commercial software less buggy, more secure and better supported?
Is Open Source a threat to life as we know it?
Will avearge software developer salaries reduce as a result of Open source?
Is Open Source really "free" or is it it based on different models of "exchange" for labour?
Is the real reason commercial software is under threat not so much price but that it is less customizable in a time when things change very quick and end users demand more flexibility rather than being often held to ransom by proprietary code?
Can a commercial software company benefit the industry, users and (wo)mankind better than a load of enthusiatic amateurs?
Does this mean that the quality of software we use is on the decline?
[edited by: chiyo at 10:56 am (utc) on Feb. 5, 2003]
Why does open source software compete with commercial software when nobody is really paid to develop it?
Mainly because the folks that develop it love doing it, and teams of thousands work on some of the larger projects. Open Sourse is an odd mindset but, one that works and competes well.
Why should MS have to compete with amateurs?
Because they have too.
Is commercial software better?
Matter of opinion. In mine, no, at least as far as operating systems are concerned.
Is commercial software less buggy, more secure and better supported?
Too general a question.
Is Open Source a threat to life as we know it?
Only if your name is Bill Gates ;)
Nick
Why does open source software compete with commercial software when nobody is really paid to develop it?
Because the Open Source software is better in some respects and is developed and debugged quicker than commercial software. I suppose that it could be a Zen 'tree falling in the forest' argument but sometimes developers are paid for some of the bigger Open Source products.
Why should MS have to compete with amateurs?
For some reason the infinite number of monkeys with wordprocessors striving to produce the great works analogy springs to mind when you mention Microsoft. Microsoft has to compete against the rest of the market. The problem for Microsoft is that the Open Source model does not provide it with one specific target that it can buy out or crush in the way that it has historically dealt with the competition.
It is also a very dangerous misconception to consider the people who develop Open Source as amateurs. Many are professional programmers with years of experience. Thus when these people work together, the products are probably going to be better than the stuff that Microsoft produces. Microsoft has a finite resource - the number of programmers that it employs whereas Open Source has a less limited resource - the number of people who can contribute.
Is commercial software better?
Is commercial software less buggy, more secure and better supported?
The problem with a lot of commercial software is that the bugfixes are not available when you need them. (Classic example: Microsoft.) The Open Source software can often have fixes/patches available within hours. For many commercial software packages, the bugfixes may become available weeks or months later.
Is Open Source really "free" or is it it based on different models of "exchange" for labour?
Open Source is the expression of free minds but that does not necessarily mean that it is free. The ancilliary products and services aspect can create some revenue.
Is the real reason commercial software is under threat not so much price but that it is less customizable in a time when things change very quick and end users demand more flexibility rather than being often held to ransom by proprietary code?
Can a commercial software company benefit the industry, users and (wo)mankind better than a load of enthusiatic amateurs?
Does this mean that the quality of software we use is on the decline?
At present, the war is being fought on the server/internet market. But it looks like it will spread to the desktop and if Linux starts making gains against Microsoft on the desktop, all bets are off. :)
Regards...jmcc
Why does open source software compete with commercial software when nobody is really paid to develop it?
This first question already illustrates that you are making some presumptions about Open Source software that are not entirely true.
Whether somebody gets paid or not for developing software does not determine whether that software will be released as Open Source. The fact that traditionally Open Source software was devoloped by developers who did not get paid (if that ever was the case) does not make it a necessary condition for something to be deemed Open Source.
Open Source is not the same as free in the GNU sense.
Open Source software is not necessarily developed by amateurs.
Thinking about the different software developement/distribution systems in the binary terms underlying your questions will not further our understanding. Depending on your initial point of view they will prevent you from really appreciating the other side. That´s the point that the FSF understood when they termed their use of free not as opposed to commercial but non-free in terms of freedom to use the software any way you like.
Andreas
Nick
This quote sums up the underlying idea quite nicely and will put you either off completely or in the right frome of mind of what´s to come ;).
Radical rejection of controlling others means letting others create their own minds with no imposed penalties for whatever beliefs they choose.That's the pure principle, and I like it. In practice, however, when there is no alternative for defending myself or others, I might use the concept of truth as a weapon, trying to get attackers to believe differently in order to change their behavior. Or I might use a stick. Neither is part of my preferred equipment.
Trebilcot, Joyce, "Relativism", Hypatia, Vol. 7 (1992) p. 97
All the questions put forward by chiyo were either in binary terms or presumed a binary relationship between open source software and commercial software.
Now there are people who argue that thinking in these terms is not about knowledge and understanding the other side but ultimately about power and defending your own position. This follows from the fact that binary opposites are defined in terms of A and ¬A while true differences are defined as A <> B. A <> ¬A has two major consequences: Subordination and complementarity. The defining term is A, everything else is simply not A. A has what ¬A lacks.
What I tried to express was that commercial and open sorce software are not complementary parts that together make up the whole possibilities of software development/distribution (and this is what binary terms imply) but both were (failed) attempts to pass as the way to distribute and develope software. So I´d like to think about software that has different attributes: it might be free in the GNU sense, getting the software might cost money, getting support might cost money, software might be good or bad.
Now you might ask where´s the difference? It lies in the fact that you might argue on the merits of a particular software product or its distribution method. Certain (pre¦a)ssumptions about certain types of software will no longer force you to think in certain terms.
Andreas
Regards...jmcc
That's actually good news for the consumer and end user of MS products, in a free market, innovations occur via competition.
If the only innovation that MS can come up with is "we will lower prices to compete", the problem lays on their doorstep, maybe they should get off the lazy train and *compete* by building better products!
If the only innovation that MS can come up with is "we will lower prices to compete", the problem lays on their doorstep, maybe they should get off the lazy train and *compete* by building better products!
I thought that everyone knew that Microsoft is a marketing company. :) Look for more advertising masquerading as editorial saying how Microsoft is reducing costs and increasing benefits for users. However the reality is that Microsoft is in a monopoly position on the desktop at the moment and has little motivation to change until there is real competition. The recent moves by governments to get Open Source solutions on to the desktops triggered a response from Microsoft in that it is now allowing governments to see the Microsoft OS code. I have a theory that it is a cunning plan by bill Gates to render all the key government programmers and analysts helpless with laughter and so stop the governments from seeing the light. :)
Regards...jmcc
Its actually the same idea behind why people respond to this board. You don't have any personal gain in responding to a specific post, but all the information you pick up here is so worthwhile that you will respond in order to keep the community going.
That and if two packagaes do the same thing and one is free and the other costs money plus I can alter the free one if I need to, well that's an easy choice...
The great thing about open source is that is can be tinkered with and altered to meet your specific needs.
[...]
one is free and the other costs money
That will be the case only when it is free in the GNU/FSF sense. I could release lots of open source software under an open source license that forbids altering the source code. And there is quite a lot of free (i.e. not costing money) software that is not open source.
Why should MS have to compete with amateurs?
I resent being called an amateur!
There are several factors that attract brilliant people (like me ;-)) to the OS world, that the closed software cannot fully match.
- Freedom from external pressure
- Being a member of a social group of equals
- The pleasure of being creative
- Empowerment - creating something that changes the world
- The pleasure of helping others
- Freedom to show your worth
The OS development model is based on peer review as it is known from the world of science. You design an interface, a database, a program, or write some code, and you submit it to your peers, who will review and change it. Everybody learns and the end result gets better, because more choices are evaluated by different people until a consensus is formed about the 'best' way of doing things.
The succesful OS project is the one that is able to attract enough good people to have a constant fruitful exchange of ideas and views between different kinds of people.
Ideas are evaluted on strictly technical merits. There are no salespeople, marketing wizards or money people to dictate what to do and what not to do. There are no 'suits'.
You work together more then you compete. That can be quite a liberation.
There is a social aspect. Most projects gravitate around a mailing list where discussions and exchange of code and ideas take place over prolonged periods of time. These lists often become communities just as WW with a core of experienced contributors and a number of lurkers or occational contributors. Information often flows more freely on a OS project mailing list, probably because there's no money in the game. You're not losing anything by giving away information. On the contrary, you gain social status by sharing.
Your status in the group depends mostly on the value of your contribution to the project (and maybe other projects), independent of normal social standing, income, age or whatever.
Much of the motivation comes from the softer issues. It is a very nice feeling to be able to help others. There is a lot of gratification in gratitude. It is very nice being creative, making new things, being able to convert abstract ideas into something concrete that actually works and helps yourself and others.
Obviously, OS developers need to make money too. Most have a normal day job in software development. Some have small businesses. Some are free lancers and consultants.
Taking part in OS development can help making money too. It gives you an area where you can learn and prove your worth. Many students who start succesful OS projects later get good jobs, because they have proven themselves (and gotter better in the process). Think Linus Torvalds and the original creators of the Gimp.
Giving away software in a competitive market can give you an edge over competitors. Small companies can use OS software to convince clients that they're still a safe bet, because if they go away, the clients still have the freedom and the possibility to turn to others. You can't sell the software, but you can still sell services and customisation of it. You can make money from OS products, just not as many as a certain Mr. Gates.
René
Adobe, for example, gives away acrobat reader for free...it is a commercial company, and closed source, but still free. The reason is the law of complements - the abundance of products complementary to your own drives demand and therefore price up. Adobe's product, in this case, would be the file format for pdf files as well as the software that generates these files. An extremely similar case is AOL and the free AIM client.
Extend this to IBM, whose primary product is hardware, not software. Servers, Workstations, etc. Heavy on the servers. IBM supports Linux, because operating systems(and software in general) are complementary to hardware. If you lower the costs of the complement (the OS), the demand for the hardware will rise. IBM also strongly supports Apache. IBM actually pays a group of talented programmers to continually work on Apache's Open Source Project (I had a friend who now does exactly this). I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same for Linux.
Red Hat sells support. That is their main product. They pretty much give open source Linux away free (sometimes they charge for the CD's and shipping) as it complements the support they sell (very strong complement in this case).
My questions were not meant to insult people or be provocative.
They were intended to start a discussion based on what I think are questions that arise from Microsofts spin on Open Source. I belive they are questions the man-in-the-street will ask if they listen and believe Microsofts reasoning. Note I myself did not express any value judgement there, but I do beleive that MS is attempting to mould a perception or "brand" Open Source in a way that advances their interest. Thats completely understandable of course. I was hoping to have a non-emotional discussion on the merits (or lack of) of MS arguments.
I beleive that Open Source advocates must be ready for these questions, even if they based on an "incorrect" view of Open Source. I'm also interested in people's view of certain MS pronouncements made of Open Source in the past 12 months and whether there is any credibility in them. Some of these have MS pushing strongly that the rise of Open Source is not "good" for the industry, customers, and the world as a whole.
I was interested in how members here would respond to such questions. So far the discussion and responses have been both interesting and illuminating.
Why does open source software compete with commercial software when nobody is really paid to develop it?
Open Software as a business has a very different business model that MS and the like. Most agents treat the software as a vehicle to stimulate other sales, much as many affiliates produce content they give away for free to achieve a profit on derived sales. Others give away software to make money on sale of support, customisation or hardware.
Why should MS have to compete with amateurs?
I'd say that at least half the OS software are produced by paid professionals. The other half are made for the reasons I described in an earlier post. Redhat, IBM, HP, Ximian etc. all employ programmers that work on OS projects. Many others undoubtedly do the same.
Is commercial software better?
None is inherently better than the other. Many OS projects are brilliant, but many others are not. There is a natural selection going on, where less viable projects fade away.
Much commercial software has issues too. MS only managed to make a non-crashing OS when they got somebody else to do it. NT is made by Digital, not by MS. With all their resources and thousands of programmers, MS couldn't make a decent OS! The closed model is non inherently better.
Is commercial software less buggy, more secure and better supported?
Same as above. Commercial software can be buggy for years without getting fixed (think MS Windows 95/98), but so can Open Source software. Open Source software tends to have security fixes available much faster though, often within hours, while closed software tends to get fixed slower. Maybe it is more an organisational problem than a flaw in the development model.
Is Open Source a threat to life as we know it?
Only as MS executives know it :)
Will avearge software developer salaries reduce as a result of Open source?
I don't think so. This kind of software has been around for twenty years or more, so why should it cause lower salaries now there's beginning to grow a market and some revenue around it?
Is Open Source really "free" or is it it based on different models of "exchange" for labour?
This is a hard question. I don't think we know by now. Most free software is not made to *appear* easy, so maybe most companies will be spending some money on consultants or inhouse experts, where they would just try things for themselves with a commercial GUI interface. Think Slammer virus and you know what level of security that kind of systems administration leads to.
Is the real reason commercial software is under threat not so much price but that it is less customizable in a time when things change very quick and end users demand more flexibility rather than being often held to ransom by proprietary code?
There is a high level of safety in Open Source products, because you have the source. If your supplier of IT services go bankrupt or doesn't satisfy you anymore, you can switch. There is no lock-in as with proprietary software. I believe this will be a major factor in making companies shift over to OS software. If you *must* have your web-server online 24/7, obviously you'll feel safer if you have the source and a good programmer.
Can a commercial software company benefit the industry, users and (wo)mankind better than a load of enthusiatic amateurs?
They are no amateurs and they are not working for free. It is a different business model where software is used to achieve other sales.
Does this mean that the quality of software we use is on the decline?
No. The most succesful OS product have impressive security records, both in terms of number of serious bugs and the speed with which they're fixed.
René.
Why does open source software compete with commercial software when nobody is really paid to develop it?
It's not really too hard to spend a couple hours a week developing. That is time that I probably would be using to play chess over internet, and that most people use watching football, for example. That's not a big deal.
Why should MS have to compete with amateurs?
Why not? Is there any law on the universe keeping me from competing against corporations? I hope not.
Is commercial software better? Is commercial software less buggy, more secure and better supported?
In my case, probably. But I'm on alpha, so don't count me out yet... :)
Is Open Source a threat to life as we know it?
au contraire. Lack of open source would mean a threat to life as I know it.
Will average software developer salaries reduce as a result of Open source?
I don't think so. We are only looking at the tip of the iceberg. This market has an untapped potencial without precedents. People will be required under contract for ages. Maybe the salaries will become more realistic, that's all.
Is Open Source really "free" or is it it based on different models of "exchange" for labour?
"Free" is a hard word to define. It's absolutely not money-free, if that's what it means. But going to the movies is not free either and people does it. The model here is, the developer enjoys doing it.
Can a commercial software company benefit the industry, users and (wo)mankind better than a load of enthusiatic amateurs?
Why "better"? Can't both trends succeed side to side?
Everytime you read a msn article it's generated by computers no need to pay a salary to a none existent writer. Computers can write articles so much better. Want proof read some of the stuff posted on msn nothing makes sense because it's all automated.
M$ latest craze are the colors green(#389f38) and blue(#3163ce). If your every at a loss for ideas view microsoft's marketing tricks at his their cost. keywords Get, order today, save, all-in-one, great deal, achieve more, build, strengthen, run
Microsoft is just using propaganda to wash peoples minds just don't fall for it otherwise your coffee pot might be having a conversation with yourself in the future.
