Sun’s president Jonathan Schwartz has angered some in the free software community for appearing to misrepresent what open source is. In Schwartz’s opening keynote at the JavaOne conference on Monday he spoke about how free price is the most important feature of free and open source software.
Most people aren’t writing OSS. So most people don’t really make a lot of difference as to its quality now do they? Most people aren’t even filling out bug reports; they’re just complaining in forums.
This is a big deal because it’s spitting in the face of some of the most important people in the free software community. I’m pretty surprised to see people agreeing with Sun marketing: Has Sun market strategy ever worked? Seriously? Sparc is awesome, never went over. Sun systems are powerful and reliable, never went over. Solaris claims some of the most advanced features out there, not going over. Java took over half a decade to get any popularity, and that only happened after other’s created compatible compilers.
Schwartz is right, free as in beer is the first and the formost driver behind the popularity of FOSS software. Free as in freedom is quite secondary to about 99.9% of consumers of FOSS software. Linux, MySQL and other now ultra popular OSS software products would not be nearly as popular if they had any price attached to them.
So we had OSI trying to hijack “open source” and FSF trying to hijack the word “free” and when people call them out they throw tantrums. How typical. Oh well, these people will just be ignored as usual
Schwartz is right, free as in beer is the first and the formost driver behind the popularity of FOSS software.”
Absolutely. I agree with that. Most people are trying out OSS software not because it’s free as in freedom, but because it’s free as in they don’t have to shell out cash.
However, the point RMS is making is the fact that Schwartz appears to be contaminating free/money with free/freedom. You could argue that he’s being a nitpicker. Which he is, in this case, as far as I’m concerned. Free/money is one of the strong points of OSS, so use it to promote OSS!
Schwartz makes some innocous comments and then Zdnet interviews some random debian developer named “wookie” who is “angry”.
These people like “wookie” better recognize that if it wasn’t for free as in beer than Linux as well as the BSDs would be pretty much irrelevant and no matter how much they try to intertwine their “philosophy” into open source, it’s pretty much irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is that even most programmers don’t really care about the source code in a linux system. It’s usually such a mess, and not worth the time to start delving into the structure of the code, that they’ll just file a feature/bug report and wait for a new version to come out
99.9% FOSS may be free as in beer… but that is not part of the definition of FOSS. The best thing about an iPod/DAP is not it’s color… it is its function. To claim otherwise is simply wrong. In this case it’s worse as Schwartz is hijacking the ambiguity of the word free to twist the definition of FOSS.
If it’s only about free as in beer then why isn’t there a community around freeware, actively pushing it’s use in all parts of the technology world?
Anonymous: the fact that most people use it because it’s free (zero dollars) is not an argument against the spirit of the FOSS.
I do not modify the source of my OS, nevertheless, I use it because it’s free of charge AND because due to its open source nature, somebody was able to write a wrapper for a widget especially adapted to my project.
So I would say that people try it because it’s free and keep it because it’s open !!
For casual or commercial users, the money aspect is most important, but without the freedom there wouldn’t be anything to use, so claiming the money is most the important feature is stretching the truth a little bit 😉
They don’t want to open Java, but they do want to share the momentum of free and open source software.
To paraphrase: The most important aspect of open source software is that it’s free of charge, Java is free of charge so Java must be just as good as open source software. Personally, I would feel a bit insulted if I were the intended audience, but that’s just me 😉
Ah, well, big deal. Sun is known for its mixed messages about this issue.
> 99.9% FOSS may be free as in beer… but that is not part of the definition of FOSS. The best thing about an iPod/DAP is not it’s color… it is its function. To claim otherwise is simply wrong. In this case it’s worse as Schwartz is hijacking the ambiguity of the word free to twist the definition of FOSS.
I don’t think Schwartz had any political agenda “distorting” the definition of FOSS. He was probably just talking about the most practical feature of FOSS, which zealots like RMS took out of context and blew out of proportion. RMS is too politically inclined and too paranoid about anything that comes out of Sun and has OSS label on it. RMS would be the last person I would listen to, he is just nuts.
Isn’t being a bunch of cheap skate software stealing hippies what they used to accuse us of? We “just don’t wanna pay for stuff.” So we say “what are you talking about, we keep saying Free as in freedom, and you turn it to the other definition?!” Then they call us zealouts!
In the case of open source, I define a ‘zealot’ as someone who:
1) Considers an open source app or OS ‘superior’ because of its license, while completely ignoring the functionality part and/or …
2) Convinced that their way is the ONLY true path to God. eg – “If you used closed source software, you’re going to hell!”
Other than that, if you’re an advocate of either open or closed source software, but are apt to let other people use whatever they want, then I got no problems with you. As for me, I’m open to whatever kind os software will make me the most productive – I don’t really care what the license is. My software library is a healthy mix of both open and closed source.
You’ve hypothetically removed the free as in beer part from linux and BSD and you see far less popular software. Now hypothetically remove the freedom part…. and you see NOTHING. There would be no BSD or linux if there was no community around them to improve it.
I think Schwartz just can’t stand that Linux distributions still won’t distribute his Java. Java is free software according to Schwartz’s definition but in reality is so non-free that Debian can’t even ship it in their “non-free” section. Luckily gnu classpath is reimplementing java in a truely free way so that FOSS operating systems can actually distribute it.
The initial reason people might try FOSS software may be due to its gratis nature, the reason most people have stuck with it over the years has been due it being libre. If you only look at FOSS from a cost perspective then WinXP already being preinstalled on all systems would never be replaced. Since FOSS does cost something, either in the cost of the media, the cost for a commercial distribution (eg RHEL), or the cost in time and/or bandwidth charges of downloading gigabytes across the internet. Many businesses do use RHEL which actually costs MORE than Windows 2003 Server.
there’s a little problem in the English language (as well as a few other languages like German, I think) : “free” means two completely different things. However, in many other languages, there are two different words for “free as in beer” and “free as in speech”, and guess what ? People use the “free as in speech” word to qualify GPL’d and BSD’d software. For example, in French, that’s “Logiciel Libre”. Nobody says “Logiciel Gratuit” (which would mean free-as-in-beer). In Spanish, that’s “Software Libre”, in Italian it’s “Software Libero”. Here’s a list of expressions used in many languages :
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/fs-translations.html
Bottom line : the above posts are totally wrong.
Well, I mean, the 5 first posts are totally wrong. I’ve taken some time to check my facts.
Schwartz is right, free as in beer is the first and the formost driver behind the popularity of FOSS
Not true, not even close. Hell, do you know how many people use cracked Windows versions ? A LOT. That’s free, free as in everything, they don’t pay, don’t have to pay, and nobody gets them for what they do [I’m not talking about corporations here, but everyday people]. Still, there are many, who choose Linux distros. Here you go, why ?
The Linux users, FOSS users (because, remind you, Linux is not the only FOSS software out there, by any means) use FOSS mainly for the open nature of the FOSS software. I can do what I wish with it, spread it, rewrite it, customize it up to whatever my particular needs are. I just love the whole fragging concept, that’s why I use FOSS software. Not because the money. I’m not rich, God knows I’m not, but I could afford MS software if I had to. But I’m not buying them, since close source apps – although they have their uses – are not something I would gladly give my money for. There are occasions like Maya, still, I LOVE Blender.
Argh, I don’t know why the hell I even anger myself over this issue anymore. There are some people who just can’t get it. Too much brainwashing has its effects, undoubtedly.
To psilo: If it’s only about free as in beer then why isn’t there a community around freeware, actively pushing it’s use in all parts of the technology world?
Because most of us FOSS users and the wider FOSS developer community are NOT developing to be world dominating technology leaders, but for the USERS, for the COMMUNITY. But because of the potential it [FOSS] has there have been always some big companies pushing it, developing it and for it. This is no news, no miracle, it’s history.
All in all, stating that FOSS is nothing but cheaper price (or no price) is pretty much a degradation and humiliation of the whole FOSS movement and community in the worst possible meaning. Those who do this are simply enemies of FOSS. Nothing more. Or, just simply don’t know what they are talking about.
“Now just to relay my *bias*, if you had to ask *me*” – emphasis mine
and some more about the actual CONTEXT of it all:
” if you want to reach the broadest marketplace in the world ”
He is DEAD SPOT ON
You dont reach a broader marketplace because of freedom!! – price will do that for you.
> Anonymous: the fact that most people use it because it’s free (zero dollars) is not an argument against the spirit of the FOSS.
> I do not modify the source of my OS, nevertheless, I use it because it’s free of charge AND because due to its open source nature, somebody was able to write a wrapper for a widget especially adapted to my project.
I don’t think anyone was saying that “free as in freedom” aspect of FOSS is not important, it is a great feature of FOSS. It is just the “free as in beer” aspect is a much larger contributor to popularity (as Schwartz said).
> Not true, not even close. Hell, do you know how many people use cracked Windows versions ? A LOT. That’s free, free as in everything, they don’t pay, don’t have to pay, and nobody gets them for what they do [I’m not talking about corporations here, but everyday people]. Still, there are many, who choose Linux distros. Here you go, why ?
People choose Linux first and formost because it is free (monetarily) without incurring much of a legal responsibility (as with cracked software). The fact that people use cracked Windows versions shows you how important zero price of software is — people are ready to carry the burden of legal risk just to have zero cost software.
the majority of users are *NOT* programmers.. ( that’s a shocker ) , and couldn’t care less that they have access to the source, and can modify it..
all they want is something that works..
being ‘free’ as in free beer, free t-shirts, and free drinks is one of the largest draws for joe user.
you can argue that joe user is irrelevant to you , and the rest of the perl monks, but since joe user is in the vast majority, i beg to differ..
German has the word “kostenlos”, which literally means “cost-free”, unambiguously; afaik “frei” means “free as in freedom” unambiguously.
To say that the most important thing about FOSS software is price is disingenuous at best. The most important thing about FOSS software (and especially, GPL software) is freedom – from vendor lock-in.
Proprietary software mandates, and BSD-licensed software allows for, vendor lock-in. If the most important thing about free software were price, then (closed source) freeware and BSD’s would be at least as popular as Linux – or, if BSD software is truly “better” than Linux as some BSD advocates say, even more popular. Right now BSD’s hardware support is not as good as Linux’s, but the fact that Linux hardware support is so good is due to the number of people hacking on the kernel – with access to plenty different types of hardware between them. If the BSD’s were as popular as Linux that would happen to them, too.
What is more surprising is that anyone is surprised at Schwartz’s comments. Sun have shown that they have no strategy in the face of FOSS *N*X (and no real appreciation of it, just like other successful proprietary computer companies) other than to flounder around trying to find one. Even SCO found one – even if it is a lying, losing one.
I think Schwartz just can’t stand that Linux distributions still won’t distribute his Java.
I don’t think he’s worried about that.
After all it is their own decision to be non-redistributable, not the decision of the Linux distributors.
The German word for “free beer” is “Freibier”. “frei” has the same double meaning as the English “free”, but “frei” is used more often as a noun than as an adverb. E.g. “Freibier” vs. “Das Bier ist kostenlos”. “Das Bier ist frei” would have some comical sense – like “out of prison”.
I don’t recall mentioning beer, but, this makes me wonder if Schwartz’s Das Beer ist out of prison. 😉
Sun’s biggest competitor (what this is all about) is RedHat. RedHat sells FOSS. They sell it for money. His entire argument is nothing but worthless FUD. What a surprise.
Most FOSS programmers are not stupid. The fact that any company can sell FOSS software prevents abuse like you describe. If a company were to try to sell it without having done anything to help there would be no value add in buying it from them over using a competitor or the free version itself.
Usually adding value to FOSS software requires that you release your changes (eg LGPL/GPL). As long as the company doesn’t violate the software license everyone is happy. IBM and SUN both contribute heavily to FOSS software, its just SUN’s president that has no clue.
Customers like free, works for them. They get to try it all out, if it does their job they keep it, if they want support a big company stands ready to oblige. If it doesn’t do their job they move on. Real business users need the security blanket so when it all goes bad, there is someone to help them out. Best of all worlds. The investment a business user puts in a web server is enormous — time and money, and they want it protected. So they will pay to get that done.
The nerdy FOSS talk just doesn’t work for BUSINESS USERS who want to do real work — the real world understands, it’s all about work done, not social contracts.
The German word for “free beer” is “Freibier”. “frei” has the same double meaning as the English “free”, but “frei” is used more often as a noun than as an adverb. E.g. “Freibier” vs. “Das Bier ist kostenlos”. “Das Bier ist frei” would have some comical sense – like “out of prison”
Well, I think the rest of your post is all correct, but I have to disagree with “frei has the same double meaning as free”. I am a native German speaker, and I heard “frei” with the meaning of “gratis” so seldomly, that I in fact can only remember one occasion, where the speaker had “gratis” in mind. And that was when the speaker translated an Englich text! So that may just was a lapsus. And it would never occur to me personally, to use “frei” when I in fact mean gratis.
On the other hand, one can say in German “frei erhältlich”. This usually, but not necessarily, means “available for free”.
But to get closer to the topic of the article itself: I think Schwartz does not *misrepresent* the meaning of “free software” or “FOSS”, but I think he *distorts* the overall issue (I hope I got the nuances right(?)). He was smart (or modest) enough to explicitly qualify his statement by saying “*to me* the most important aspect is…”, so criticising him for misrepresenting the meaning is quite misguided. But by focusing and emphasizing on “free of cost”, he of course drags the audience in the wanted direction.
It is stupid arguments like this and others that keep Linux from the mainstream.
I would agree with the way you put it there. Free as in beer is the biggest contributor to popularity; but in the end free as in freedom is the biggest contributor to rapid development which is what keeps the people using it after they first see it.
Joe user is irrelevant. Bug reporting user X is relevant. Joe user just complains when things don’t work perfectly, and rarely maybe even tells his friends when they work perfectly.
You guys all sound like consumer activists. You’re so consumer centric, as if the number of people buying a free ($) product is going to somehow help the entity shipping it? It’s a great compliment to have many users; but I doubt many would trade a single bug contributor for ten thousand joe users.
What’s this “REAL WORK” crap? Have you ever read and EULA? Most of them say something like this:
We take no responsibility for any data lost due to a malfunction in this software.
Business people do feel better with a security blanket; and it often helps productivity by fixing a stupid mistake or two: But it doesn’t mean you can’t do “REAL WORK” without it! Hell, I bet half the “REAL WORK” you speak of was done with pen and paper 30 years ago.
Would you consider writing software to be “REAL WORK?” A lot of people do that on their home machines, even for their company.
Anyway, there are several non-nerdy firms who provide support for products they don’t ship; including FOSS products. The advantage of supporting a FOSS product is that even if you didn’t write it, you can fix it for the customer (if you’re that good a firm). But that’s a free as in freedom advantage, so thank you for bringing up another reason freedom is more important than money!
I use Free Software because it gives me freedom, it’s not a matter of price. We all know how and where to get propietary software without paying a single buck. And that’s precisely what many propietary software users do.
Redhat charges for support not software.
If not CentOS etc would not exist. Although admittedly you cannot buy a Redhat branded product without support. The source is free and in beer though.
Anyone else getting thirsty?
> The advantage of supporting a FOSS product is that even if you didn’t write it, you can fix it for the customer (if you’re that good a firm). But that’s a free as in freedom advantage, so thank you for bringing up another reason freedom is more important than money!
This is probably the biggest myth about FOSS. You can’t provide adequate support for the product unless you have commit level access to the source tree for the product. If you don’t have control over the source tree, you can provide point fixes for the bugs and implement point RFE’s, but it is not good enough if your fixes and RFE implementations don’t make it into the next release of the product simply because someone else controls the releases. So, it still comes down to source ownership and gatekeeping when you want to provide good product support, which is not that much different from proprietary software.
Sun’s biggest competitor (what this is all about) is RedHat. RedHat sells FOSS. They sell it for money.
No they don’t. They sell SUPPORT for money, they aren’t charging for the code. The point people here are making is that the support model will never be profitable in all areas of computing (Eg Try making money from service for a first person shooter).
***
The article itself is just a case of the author cherry-picking phrases from Schwartz’s comments to generate a straw man argument. Schwartz DOESN’T say that the free price is the most important aspect of FOSS. He says that free price lets someone reach the broadest possible market, therefore it’s the most important initial element in gaining users and momentuum.
He’s right. Most people aren’t beating down the door for Fair Trade coffee, they don’t question the ethics of Nike before buying a pair of trainers, or ponder moral issues in China before purchasing a t-shirt. It’s ridiculous to think that just because the product is software people are going to care more about issues which, to most, are pretty much invisible (And in a few cases irrelevant IMO). Price is king and you can’t beat free.
I use the PHPMailer library because it is free an in beer. Now If I was so inclinded I doubt I would be able to find an illegal place that kept such a relatively small library. Point is, not all proprietary software is big enough to be readily available illegally.
Actually I might pay for PHPMailer. It is good and the facts its free of charge is a bonus. The source code came in handy once of twice though.
In English, the word ‘free’ means either 1, ‘costless’, or 2, ‘freedom / liberty’. This unfortunate choice of the word ‘free’ has lead people to only think of the first.
This ambiguity doesn’t exist in other languages fortunately. For example, in Japanese when ‘Free Software’ is mentioned, it is clearly software with liberties (when the Free Software people write about it themselves).
I think in English they should choose a less ambiguous word.
How about ‘Liberal Software’? It would stop the media playing into the hands of proprietary companies bashing it.
Look up the word liberal and tell me that ‘liberal’ as the correct word.
How about we just say Open Source Software?
The meaning of ‘liberal’ from dictionary.com
1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
1b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
1c.Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
1d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
Yes, I’m a cheap-ass, I like free, as in beer.
And if I don’t have to commit a crime to get it it feels better
The free as in speach part is rather useless to me since I’m not allowed to use GNU software in any way I want anyway.
I guess free as in speach means more for the BSDs since companies can use it more or less any way they want.
But with both terms of free I’m affraid quality suffers, and with free as in beer the developers aren’t sure to get what they deserv (in a positive way).
After reading several comments it seems many people miss the point. “Free as in Freedom” is one of the prime reasons it remains “Free as in Beer”.
When you don’t have the source code (and the freedom to modify and distribute it) what indications do you have that it will be free tomorrow? Many companies have built a user base by distributing products for free and later charging when the user base was large enough. Freedom also provides a more reliable future (if a company stops supporting a project someone else can continue it).
In essence “Free as in Beer” gives you a $0 product today. “Free as in Freedom” ensures it will stay that way.
Unfortunately most people can’t be bothered to think ahead. Their probably the ones who would complain loudest if Sun decided to not release Java “Free as in Beer” tomorrow.
” The nerdy FOSS talk just doesn’t work for BUSINESS USERS who want to do real work … The investment a business user puts in a web server is enormous — time and money, and they want it protected. So they will pay to get that done.”
Looks like this whole discussion has gone right over your head. The whole point the FOSS people are making is that free as in money is not the important part, it is the free as in freedom part. *Of course* businesses will be happy to pay for support etc, which is exactly why they pay companies like Redhat, even though they could get it for free$.
This is exactly why FOSS people are pissed at Schwartz: he is leading gullible types like you to think that FOSS people believe in having everything for free$. That’s not what it’s about. FOSS is not opposed to business and money, even though Schwartz would like you to believe that. Please fall off the clue tree and hit a few branches on the way down.
______________________________
Open source is great for business. They can get support from another large business, and they also have the freedom to change around the software should they have the need. Windows offers support as well, but if you need something done differently, you’re out of luck.
So Best Buy doesn’t have a support center with addresses Windows troubleshooting issues?
There’s more than one type of support
.
Liberal is a bad choice of word again, progressive would probably be the word you want.
That’s ok, you can’t spell speech anyway.
@MamiyaOtaru:
Isn’t being a bunch of cheap skate software stealing hippies what they used to accuse us of? We “just don’t wanna pay for stuff.” So we say “what are you talking about, we keep saying Free as in freedom, and you turn it to the other definition?!” Then they call us zealouts!
Seems to me that we aren’t even the aggressors anymore. We write software, you insult us. We say “we think things work better this way.” You insult us. We say “look at this cool software I wrote.” You say, I wanted this feature you don’t have.
Having ideal doesn’t make you a zealout. Believing that software is often invaluable doesn’t make you a thief. Believing that adding patents to a high-innovation area is silly doesn’t make you a socialist.
I’m getting sick of these threads.
And where’s Lumbergh anyway?!
Good point. Very good point.
If Sun & M$ are working together somehow, anyhow, then I want nothing to do with them.
They have a history of making something free, and then taking it back. They have done that twice in Solaris’s history. Sun does charge for Java, they just don’t charge the Joe Blow end user. Nokia and other have to pay a licensing fee to ship phone with Java embedded. The Flash client works the same way. If you want to download it, then it is free. If the manufactor ships the device with it then they pay.
I rarly agree with RMS, but I do agree that having the software being opensource (I prefer BSD/Apache license). Allows the industry and users to know that something is always going to be there, not be taken back, and not be charged for it in the future.
A question for Sun: if people don’t care with freedom, why Solaris 9/10 didn’t became popular being distributed as freeware (which it is different from free software) ?
Why Sun has to release the Solaris code to try to compete with Linux ?
Both cases are the proof that people wants to have access to source code and that freeware is not sufficient against free (as freedom) software.
Good bye, Sun ! You sold your soul to Micro$oft and the evil empire will arruin you.
Good bye, Sun ! You sold your soul to Micro$oft and the evil empire will arruin you
I got news for you:
Microsoft and IBM have settled outstanding legal claims stemming from the U.S. government’s antitrust case against Microsoft in the mid-1990s.
The agreement, announced Friday, will result in a $775 million payment to IBM and a $75 million credit toward Microsoft software.
So you can pretty much say the same thing about IBM:
Goodbye IBM! You sold your soul to Micro$oft and the evil empire with arruin you
I think that the use of the word “Free” in FOSS was intentional as the software is supposed to be both gratis and libre. Both are important, initially to attract users then to ensure refinements and future propagation. If one or the other definitions of “Free” was to be the primary aspect of FOSS, then a less ambiguous word should have been used, ie. gratis or liberated.
Schwartz clearly stated that his comments were *his* opinion, not a corporate Sun proclamation. With that being said, I find it somewhat ironic that Sun (or Schwartz for that matter) gets beat up in this forum for Schwartz excercising his freedom of speech.
They have a history of making something free, and then taking it back. They have done that twice in Solaris’s history.
Really, and when would that have been?
Schwartz is right, free as in beer is the first and the formost driver behind the popularity of FOSS software.
Well, as far as popularity goes, you may be right, but as for the success of open source software, your percentage is off.
Sure, your mom may have tried Linux because it was free, but that’s not going to improve Linux (or any other piece of OSS software). There is a lot of Freeware out there, but it doesn’t enjoy the success of projects like Linux.
The reason that projects like Linux succeed, in my opinion, is because developers have both access to the source and the freedom to change it in any way they see fit.
It’s the development behind OSS projects that make them successful, not the price (although that does play a part too). Free as in beer will get you passed around, but it won’t bring improvement. Free and is freedom brings both. At least that’s my take.
http://www.computereconomics.com/article.cfm?id=1043
“The leading vote-getter [in our survey] was ‘reduced dependence on software vendors’ at 44%, followed by ‘lower total cost of ownership’ at 22%.”
Sun ‘Distorts’ Definition Of Free Software, …. WRONG!
I worked until now in a dozen of companys, all of them embraced the beer freedom of foss first, and just some the expression freedom.
so Schwartz is so damn right!
You’re absolutely right. There is lots of “free” software. You could get StarOffice “for free” for years. Did the free-but-closed StarOffice ever have the kind of impact OpenOffice is having? What about Netscape (which was free) compared to Mozilla (which is open)? Hell, Sun gave away free copies of Solaris for years, but does anybody believe that had as big an impact as OpenSolaris?
Users might choose OSS software because of its cost. But focusing on users makes you miss the big picture. Software cannot exist without developers. Without developers, users would not even have the choice to use “free” software. “Open source” does a hell of a lot better job attracting developers than “freeware”, and that’s why OSS is having the impact it is having. We’ve reached a point where we’ve got products coded by individuals for free taking marketshare away from products created by billion-dollar companies. Companies like IBM and ILM are investing millions or billions of dollars into a product that started in some college kid’s dorm room. Only the supremely jaded or phenomenally myopic could look at that not not think “hmm, maybe those OSS guys are on to something…”
FOSS normally means that there are no web forms to fill out, no salesperson calling you to set up a demo or provide you with access to a trial version, etc.
This, in my opinion, is the most important aspect of FOSS in practical terms for SMBs (that are going to modify source code).
In a similar vein large companies like Sun have a huge investment in terms of people/processes for marketing & sales and moving to this model scares the crap out of them. One statistic that is very telling in this regard comes from Goldman Sachs: 76% of New license revenue today goes to sales and marketing.
The software licensing model of Sun et al. is broken.
Cheers
Jason
This, in my opinion, is the most important aspect of FOSS in practical terms for SMBs (that are NOT going to modify source code).
While your point is well taken, I think those of the utilitarian mindset sometimes approach this issue too shortsightedly. Ultimately, what is a utilitarian decision? A good definition is “a decision that serves the rational self-interest.” It would seem that a rationally self-interested man would not be ideological, but that idea is misguided. What is ideology? A strong case can be made that ideology is a set of guidelines that allows one to persue the rational self-interest in the long-term, without being blinded by short-term decisions. There is a good reason why utilitarian thought and ideological thought are closely intertwined in western philosophy. Ideologies like “personal liberty” are prerequisites for more utilitarian constructs like “the free market”. Failing to see the power of ideology, the power of politics in everday events is a good way to lose sight of the big picture.
Let me bring this idea to a more concrete level. My point is that the ideology of free software is crucial from a utilitarian point of view. Saying “software X has these features, and software Y has those other features, and I like the features of software Y better, so I’ll chose that” doesn’t really serve your self-interest in the long term. If choosing software Y strengthens a monopoly, and choosing software X weakens it, then it might be in your self-interest to chose software X anyway, even if software Y suits you better. The basic issue is that monopolies, by definition, take value (ie: dollars) away from consumers. You can put a pricetag on your decision to strenghten a monopoly. Say that this price is $A. You can also put a pricetag on how much it would cost you to use software X instead of software Y. Say this is $B. If $A is more than $B, it’s in your interest to use software X anyway, even though it seems like its costing you more. That’s just how the economics of monopolies work.
I like Open Source software as an ideology. My decision, however, is grounded in the most utilitarian of values: I like having money in my pocket. Every time I choose open source software, I do my (small )part to make the software market more competitive. I do my part to put the pressure on monopolies like Microsoft. Since competitive markets are good for consumers, and monopolies are bad for them, these seemingly ideological decisions lead to ultimately utilitarian results.
I like Open Source software as an ideology. My decision, however, is grounded in the most utilitarian of values: I like having money in my pocket. Every time I choose open source software, I do my (small )part to make the software market more competitive. I do my part to put the pressure on monopolies like Microsoft. Since competitive markets are good for consumers, and monopolies are bad for them, these seemingly ideological decisions lead to ultimately utilitarian results.
So you would intentionally use a piece of software, even if you were far less productive than you otherwise would be with alternatives, just because of the license or because it costs more? How much is your time worth anyway?
I’m sorry, but … even when companies charge a premium for their software, sometimes the price is worth it. Like a friend of mine who paid several hundred dollars for Dreamweaver, then made it all back in one afternoon because he is so proficient with it. And when you compare software x (open source) vs software y (closed source), sometimes software x either doesn’t exist or doesn’t do specifically what you need it to do, so then the choice becomes obvious.
Even if you were to chooose software x because you think it will serve you in the long term, what happens next week when the person coding it gets bored and decides to quit?
What does “far less” mean? You really have to define that for it to be evaluated in pragmatic terms. Far less could be: Software X has a feature that saved me 20 minutes once. Or it could be: Software X has a feature that saves me an hour every day. I’d argue that even 20 minutes a day is a pittance, we all know that creative work doesn’t happen for your full 8 hour day: You’re probably doing well to spend 20 of your 40 hour week making real efficient creative work. That doesn’t mean you aren’t working, you just aren’t “in the zone.” Of course, if the cost is that software B consistently kicks you “out of the zone” then that’s a pretty big cost!
“Even if you were to chooose software x because you think it will serve you in the long term, what happens next week when the person coding it gets bored and decides to quit?”
Read Raymond’s book; you’ll understand why this argument is a joke: Cathedral and the Bazaar (not the essay, it’s another essay within the book). But in short:
If hacker A drops project X; which is of merit and is mature (people are using it for productive work): Then hacker B will pick up project X out of necessity; need for the software, need for a project to work on (see homesteading the noosphere); etc etc.
Anyway, few major projects are actually run by one guy. Seriously, things as small as “HotBabe” have multiple developers (it’s about 600-800 lines of c).
The next problem here is that we are stuck thinking about shrinkwrapped software. Shrinkwrapped software is a small subset of the programs used everyday. Seriously, many many many companies just write their own in-house software. And one trouble is, they often write their own when there are 16 other companies writing their own. Why should two food companies waste their time writing the same code? Of course, I can just see someone screaming: “Won’t someone please think of the jobs!” Sure, maybe we should still pay people to shine bowling balls too!
Where did Marcelo say he liked IBM?
“So you would intentionally use a piece of software, even if you were far less productive than you otherwise would be with alternatives, just because of the license or because it costs more? How much is your time worth anyway? ”
Darius, you always speak from the viewpoint of somebody to whom money is no object. Web design must be awfully lucrative.
You say you can’t do your job without this or that exact software application. Does the software do the work, or do you? If the software is so great that it does everything for you, then what do your clients need you for?
>When you don’t have the source code (and the freedom to modify and distribute it) what indications do you have that it will be free tomorrow?
My pirated copy of Win95 is as free today for me as it were in 1995.
>Freedom also provides a more reliable future (if a company stops supporting a project someone else can continue it).
Nobody supports Win95 today. It still runs on old computers, but there is no support for it. You are right about proprietary code.
Who supports today Red Hat Linux 2.0, a version that were released in September of 2005?
So you would intentionally use a piece of software, even if you were far less productive than you otherwise would be with alternatives, just because of the license or because it costs more?
You missed my point completely. The cost of something isn’t just what you pay for it. Consider something like Windows. Microsoft makes something like 80% profit on each copy sold. You know why? Because they are a monopoly. If they were in a competitive market, there is no way that they could sustain that sort of pricing. If your buying choices help strengthen that monopoly, you’re bsically screwing yourself out of that money you could have saved. It’s simple economics — monopolies take value away from consumers, competitive companies don’t. Now, all else being equal, the rational choice is to use the software that best serves your needs, but all else is rarely equal. People who just look at the features list and the pricetag can rarely see that.
Let me use a concrete example: consider the US Government’s decision to standardize on Microsoft Word. Sure, it probably saved them some money in the short-term. But how much did it cost them in the long term? That decision was instrumental in making Microsoft Office the hegemonic product it is now. How much money have companies lost because Microsoft doesn’t need to price or market Office competitively? It would have been in their self-interest to consider ideology, in this case the ideology of a free market, before making that decision.
I’m sorry, but … even when companies charge a premium for their software, sometimes the price is worth it.
Don’t I know it. Ever try to price out CATIA? But that’s really not the point. CATIA exists in a competitive market. They have to watch out for Pro/Engineer and upstarts like SolidWorks (a bargain at a mere $5000). Now, imagine Dassault Systems was a monopoly in this market. Can you imagine how much they could charge? Whoever buys CATIA for us to use, well, it’s in their best interest (and mine, indirectly) to encourage competition in that market.
Like a friend of mine who paid several hundred dollars for Dreamweaver, then made it all back in one afternoon because he is so proficient with it. And when you compare software x (open source) vs software y (closed source), sometimes software x either doesn’t exist or doesn’t do specifically what you need it to do, so then the choice becomes obvious.
If software X doesn’t exist, or doesn’t do what you need it to do, well, then you don’t really have a choice. However, very often, software X does exist. And even if software Y might have more features, you have to consider the ramifications of choosing one versus the other. Let me put it this way: today, a guy creating a server or making a corporate desktop has a choice between using Windows or Linux. The very fact that the choice exists saves them money, because it keeps Microsoft from jacking up prices. Now, 10 years ago, Linux wasn’t a great server, not as good as Windows NT. But somebody saw enough potential in it to choose it, despite the fact that WinNT was probably the “right choice” from a utilitarian point of view. However, in the long term, his decision was the correct one.
Let me use another example. I use Linux on the desktop now. Why? It serves my needs better than Windows. I have all the software I need, and I like GNOME a hell of a lot better than Luna. However, I started using Linux on the desktop four or five years ago. At the time, it was not as good a desktop as Win2k. But I chose it anyway, because it had potential. The thing is, if lots of people hadn’t made similar decisions back then, I would not have the choice today. I would be living with an inferior product (from my point of view), and paying a lot for it on top of everything. So which route really served my self-interest the best? Choosing the software that just happened to be better in the short term, or choosing the software that led to cheaper and better options in the long term?
Fixing myself: “Who supports today Red Hat Linux 2.0, a version that were released in September of 1995?”
If software X doesn’t exist, or doesn’t do what you need it to do, well, then you don’t really have a choice.
I think you summed up my point quite nicely – thank you.
Let me use another example. I use Linux on the desktop now. Why? It serves my needs better than Windows. I have all the software I need, and I like GNOME a hell of a lot better than Luna. However, I started using Linux on the desktop four or five years ago. At the time, it was not as good a desktop as Win2k.
So, back when you started using Linux, how many of your computing needs weren’t met by Linux? Can you give us a list? In other words, what specifically could you do (and what did you do) with Windows that you couldn’t do with Linux? And if your job depended on those tasks, would you still have switched?
But I chose it anyway, because it had potential. The thing is, if lots of people hadn’t made similar decisions back then, I would not have the choice today. I would be living with an inferior product (from my point of view), and paying a lot for it on top of everything.
First of all, your logic if flawed. Why do open source advocates always equate closed source software with monopolies? Sure, there are some closed source apps that don’t really have any competition because of monopolies, but these are few and far between. Even with beheamoths like Symantec, I use AVG and personally find it much better than NAV, so it ain’t like there’s not options.
About 80% of the closed source software I use is just shareware that was written by people who are simply trying to make an honest buck, and here you are trying to lump them all together like some vermon that must be extinguished. Hell, a lot of closed source software is even free (as in beer), so it ain’t like they got a stranglehold on the market.
Anyway, what you are saying is the same sort of mentality that says if people weren’t stupid and stopped paying $20 for DVDs, we could all have them for $5 or less. We could also be paying half the price that we are for gasoline. But you know what? We don’t live in a perfect world. When you consciously decide to use an inferior piece of software for the long-term benefits, you are banking that this piece of software isn’t going to suck in a few years. Personally, I’m not willing to take that gamble. Like I said earlier, it ain’t like no open source projects have ever gotten canned simply because the developers got bored and decided to quit. Then where does that leave you? What if Linux had simply fallen by the wayside and died like BeOS did? Are you just gonna jump from one ‘maybe’ to another?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1833612,00.asp
sums up the whole problem with open source.
It’s basically what Jonathan’s been saying. Imagine if you were forced to pay $1.00 for every single open source app….would you still use Linux?.
> A question for Sun: if people don’t care with freedom, why Solaris 9/10 didn’t became popular being distributed as freeware (which it is different from free software) ?
> Why Sun has to release the Solaris code to try to compete with Linux ?
First of all nowhere did Schwartz or anyone else in Sun say that freedom does not matter, he just mentioned that “free as in beer” is very important to people. Both of these concepts are not mutually exclusive and are rutinely applied side by side. Stop taking things out of context and presenting them like Sun is promoting something evil.
> Good bye, Sun ! You sold your soul to Micro$oft and the evil empire will arruin you.
Oh, jeez, it looks like you’re suffering the same mental disorder as RMS and that stupid ass Wookie guy in the news story. You’re a delusional paranoid seeing everything as a manace. If you’re so concerned with the $2bn settlement Sun got out of M$, than so what, they got the money for a good cause and that does not mean they are all over sudden in bed with Microsoft. To me it still looks like Sun is trying to take a bite out of M$, just look at everything Sun is doing in the desktop and server space — most of the Sun’s strategies are aimed squarely and Microsoft. Overall Sun is a very good Open Source citizen and by far the biggest contributor to the Open Source movement in general. You should be ashamed for trying to bite the hand that is feeding you.
About 80% of the closed source software I use is just shareware that was written by people who are simply trying to make an honest buck
I’m curious: do you use these shareware apps even when there are better non-shareware equivalents?
Like I said earlier, it ain’t like no open source projects have ever gotten canned simply because the developers got bored and decided to quit.
Similarly, it ain’t like no close-source software died because the company that produced it closed shop. Except that, when this happen and you really need the app, you can’t hire someone to keep developing it for you (or continue maintaining it yourself).
The problem with the way you present your argument is that you seem to assume that most open-source programs will in fact cause you to lose productivity compared to closed-source equivalents. But all of this is conjecture: please give us real examples, not a series of “what if” scenarios that are not based on reality.
I use Windows with a combination of open and closed apps every day, just like I use Linux with a combination of closed and open apps (though mostly the latter) every day as well. I can’t recall a single instance where I told myself: you know, this open-source app makes me less productive than a proprietary equivalent…
Really, I’m wondering where you’re going with this argument, because despite its apparence of pragmatism I don’t see it as grounded in day-to-day reality.
everyone’s gotta be whining about something. apparently you can’t talk good about open source nor bad, or they’ll jump and attack you.
well i thought an effort was worth something, i guess not. RMS is pyscho in my opinion..
If you don’t like freedom, get your filthy fucking hands off our FSF and GNU utilities thanks. Go get your own fucking make, compiler and everything else.
Get a grip…count to ten…then turn off you computer. Because statements like this are to moronic to even consider a responce.
In a lot of cases, the ideal software setup might be made up by closed and open source apps, depending on which is better for which task … therefore it is good if there aren’t legal trouble when mixing everything.
Commence with flaming Sun for having an opinion contrary to your own about something plainly subjective. Let the endless forum discussions about who is Correct(tm) and who Does Not Get It(tm) spread into the far reaches of the universe. Spread the seeds of freedom far and wide.
So, back when you started using Linux, how many of your computing needs weren’t met by Linux? Can you give us a list? In other words, what specifically could you do (and what did you do) with Windows that you couldn’t do with Linux?
There was nothing that was a dealbreaker. It was just, harder and clumsier. I head to learn something new.
[/i]And if your job depended on those tasks, would you still have switched?[/i]
No, but my point is that often, your job doesn’t depend on those things. Very few people have jobs that depend on features MS Office has and OpenOffice doesn’t. Nobody ever bothers to take into account the fact that users can adapt to their situation.
First of all, your logic if flawed. Why do open source advocates always equate closed source software with monopolies?
I wasn’t making a general point> I was talking about Microsoft and Windows specifically. But if you look at the software market, it’s hardly a real competitive market. Not the way it was in the 80s and early 90s. There are entire categories of software (Office suites, photo editors, operating systems, presentation apps, etc) where the market leader has no real competition. Until OSS competitors came around, there wasn’t any real hope of taking on these market leaders and making those markets more competitive.
Anyway, what you are saying is the same sort of mentality that says if people weren’t stupid and stopped paying $20 for DVDs, we could all have them for $5 or less.
We could also be paying half the price that we are for gasoline. But you know what? We don’t live in a perfect world.
We don’t live in a perfect world, but that hasn’t stopped Open Source from having an impact. These days, you have Microsoft paying an unprecedented level of attention to security. Do you really think it’s SOlaris thats motivating them to keep improving their product? Do you even think it’s Apple (which Bill G. could destroy by signing a single document)? What product do you think Adobe stays awake at night worrying about? Pixel32? Open source is bringing a level of copetitiveness back into the software market that hasn’t been seen since back when you could actually choose from a half-dozen word processors. You can bet that benefits the bottom line of each and every person that buys software.
When you consciously decide to use an inferior piece of software for the long-term benefits, you are banking that this piece of software isn’t going to suck in a few years.
If it sucks than I wouldn’t use it. But the decision usually isn’t between a piece of software that sucks and one that doesn’t. THe decision is usually between two similar pieces of software, one of which is more featureful and polished. I don’t think you can reasonably say that OpenOffice sucks. Well, I think it does, but I think all word-processors suck. My point is that if your choice is between OOO and MS Office, it’s not like you’ve got two completely different calibers of product. The featre differences between the two, in the common case, could easily be outweighed by the freedom-related advantages of OOO. Whether you personally would do it is irrelevent. People are doing it. And it’s having an impact. This whole low-cost Windows XP thing would never exist without the pressure put on Microsoft by other countries experimenting with Linux.
Like I said earlier, it ain’t like no open source projects have ever gotten canned simply because the developers got bored and decided to quit.
You know what? I’ve never had that happen to me with open source software. At least, nothing imprtant has ever died on me. Sure, you’ve got the occasional media player, but who cares about that? How long does it take to switch, 30 sec? On the other hand, it’s not like TeX or Macsyma or Linux or GNOME are going anywhere…
Then where does that leave you? What if Linux had simply fallen by the wayside and died like BeOS did? Are you just gonna jump from one ‘maybe’ to another?
Being so obsessed with stability basically limits you to using the big products from the near-monopoly corporations. Anything smaller than that is as likely to go bottom-up as an open source project. But then, you’re prepetually getting screwed. You’re giving them money that could have been in your pocket.
[quote]I don’t think you can reasonably say that OpenOffice sucks.[/quote]
Ummmm, yes I can
Back last year when I decided to stop pirating apps and go 100% legit, I tried it for about a month as an alternative to purchasing Office 2k3 (which I had been warezing for awhile up to that point). OOO is alright as a free office suite and certainly ‘good enough’ if you’re not a power user, but MS Office it ain’t. I’d rather pay the $400 ‘MS tax’ than use it, and I did.
[quote]Well, I think it does, but I think all word-processors suck.[/quote]
I think your mistake here is thinking that MS Office = MS Word, which is not the case. There are 4 other main apps in the professional edition (what I have), and a lack of an Access equivalent (the app I use most) really hurts OOO (though I heard they’ve fixed this in the upcoming 2.0 version).
You’re absolutely right. There is lots of “free” software. You could get StarOffice “for free” for years. Did the free-but-closed StarOffice ever have the kind of impact OpenOffice is having? What about Netscape (which was free) compared to Mozilla (which is open)? Hell, Sun gave away free copies of Solaris for years, but does anybody believe that had as big an impact as OpenSolaris?
Look at it another way. Which is more popular RedHat desktop or Fedora Core? One is a pay for support the other is Free as in beer, they are both Free as in freedom. Without fedore core Redhat’s market would have withered away to other free as in beer distros.
What about bitkeeper? It was in use while it was free as in beer….and what now.
You missed my point completely. The cost of something isn’t just what you pay for it.
I remember distinctly being on this side of the discussion on a mac vs wintel thread. You were debating that cost of a product is directly linked to measurable metrics like performance. While I argued that a mac offers a lot of intagible value which you can’t directly derive from measureable metrics.
I am glad to see you have changed your mind.
BTW I find using MacOS X to be far more productive than linux even with GNOME. There is often a lot more choice than just Windows and Linux and your arguments here are flawed in that regard.
The jist of you argument is competition is good. But your notion that choosing FOSS is the only way to increase competition is deeply flawed.
No, but my point is that often, your job doesn’t depend on those things. Very few people have jobs that depend on features MS Office has and OpenOffice doesn’t. Nobody ever bothers to take into account the fact that users can adapt to their situation.
Just as you fail to take into account that not all users can or are willing to adapt or that OpenOffice isn’t as polished as MS office.
I have tried to make my wife use NeoOffice on our Mac for more than a year now. Not a day goes by that see doesn’t find a problem that wouldn’t have been if she had use Office. She adjusts with it and does her work but her life would be a lot easier with MS office.
No matter how much she uses OpenOffice or NeoOffice the qaulity of it hasn’t imporved in her eyes any.
We don’t live in a perfect world, but that hasn’t stopped Open Source from having an impact. These days, you have Microsoft paying an unprecedented level of attention to security. Do you really think it’s SOlaris thats motivating them to keep improving their product? Do you even think it’s Apple (which Bill G. could destroy by signing a single document)?
Really, You really think that the market is so easy to predict. What document would that be that Bill G would sign that will destroy Apple?
What product do you think Adobe stays awake at night worrying about? Pixel32? Open source is bringing a level of copetitiveness back into the software market that hasn’t been seen since back when you could actually choose from a half-dozen word processors. You can bet that benefits the bottom line of each and every person that buys software.
I agree that open source is bringing competitiveness into the market.But there was a lot of Opensource software in 80s and 90s. Media hype about OSS software is what has changed and Support by companies like IBM and HP that has caused the comptetion not Opensource alone. I would consider these Market balancing forces that needed to have happened and opensource was what IBM and HP chose while still maintaining thier closed source market I might add.
The bottom line here is If OpenSource software wasn’t free as in gratis first none of this would have happened.
BTW Microsot still hasn’t dropped the prices of thier software nor has Adobe. How has that affected the bottom line of the avergage consumer?
Free (as in no cost) and Free (as in freedom) are both very important. Which is more important? Well… It depends on how you look at it. (Also we need to recall that some people sell their Free software. But we’ll skip over that for the sake of this argument)
As far as “no cost” goes. Let’s think for a moment. What would happen to Free software if there was a price for it? (Once again, I’m skipping those that do cost money, I mean those like Open Office and gcc which we can currently download for nothing) Well… What if there was some tax that couldn’t be avoided or some “inherent” but undeniable cost to downloading or dublicating Free software? Well… If that cost was $0.00001 we could bet that it would have effectively no impact whatsoever. However, if the cost was more like $100,000,000,000, then I don’t think anyone on the entire planet would be using it. The point being… That if the price was not “low”, Free software would have a lot more trouble gaining ground. How much trouble would depend on the actual price.
Or to look at it another way… I see “trial” versions of WinZip practically everywhere I go, I see Adobe Acrobat Reader, I see Java VMs, I give people copies of OpenOffice (whenever they’ll accept it) because it’s no cost, I see pirated software frequently, and so on… All no cost.
Don’t underestimate the importance of no cost/low cost.
On the other hand… There’s “freeware”, “shareware”, and “pirated software” as some people have noted already. Obviously, with Free software people can (generally) contribute easier to the project than you can with a closed source project. (For example, I can’t port WinZip to the x64 version of Windows myself. I have to wait, unless I want to try to decompile it and then move it over. Not fun and illegal.) Also, the free (as in freedom) aspect makes it legal to give copies to the people I know (not all closed source licenses have this “feature”) and so it helps the “no cost” end of the argument. Also, since it’s open it’s easier for students to look at the source code and attempt to learn something. (Generally not a feature of non-Free software) And if the project “dies” it’s users can attempt to salvage it. (While you can try to do this with non-free software, it is generally harder to do)
Don’t underestimate the importance of the freedom aspect.
Really… Both are important. Which is more important? I don’t think anyone really knows. But both are important. If I were to make a guess, I would say at this particular point in time the no cost aspect is the most important. I say this, because a number of people I know don’t seem to want to pay for anything software-wise. (Of course, if they had to that might change immensely) Certainly it depends on your point of view and both aspects support each other.
Never underestimate the power of freedom. Fact is regardless of price OSS software offers more “freedom”.
If you want the gods honest truth I think both ends of the stick suck : extreme capitalism and extreme Communism.
Redhat is extreme Communism and Microsoft is extreme Capatalism and both operating systems suck about the same more or less.
I second that. I looked at some e-mails from him and it seemed like he was “Desperate” to find some way to defeat SCO back when the big sco thing was making huge headlines. he made it seemed like IBM actually did something wrong. It was not smart in his part.
Other than that, everything he says is all weird. The FSF people and RMS are out of their mind and they think they rule the open source world.. In reality there is no organization that organizes all open source… hell, I could start my own license and OS organization now and still people like RMS and FSF would say im apart of their lil open source organization or I’m against OSS if i did a tiny thing they didn’t like. I swear they are are insane and are power hungry crazy people living off of donations. No one should live off donations. I’m sure some of them have tiny lil jobs and write articles that they spill their political ideas.
Schwartz talks about how good open source is and how they plan on open sourcing their entire product lines and eveyone bitches and moans about them.
What is wrong with some of your open source supporters? Sun has real efforts in open sourcing. I mean hell, they have poured millions into open source and you all take crap out of context and yell about them and do nothing but crictize them.
Weird isn’t it. A company open sources their OS and starts doing it to their entire product line and still the open source people hate them.
This is proof that the OSS community is not unified and a lot of GNU/FSF people are so crazy about their GPL’d apps that they will attack other parts of open source–It’s their fault that the community is breaking apart. It’s like a GNU vs. everything else. That is really counter-productive. And no, open source is not the same as business competeting.