Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Jul 2005 11:30 UTC, submitted by Jan Stafford
GNU, GPL, Open Source CIOs can gain competitive advantages by taking part in the open source revolution, a movement that will shake up the power structure of the IT world, said Julie Hanna Farris, the founder of Scalix. Farris explains why open source is not a fad and how it will benefit the business world.
Thread beginning with comment 7457
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: RE[4]: I'm amazed as usual
by on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE: RE[3]: I'm amazed as usual"

Member since:

Of course, companies usually born and die. But if you look at Linux vendors (for example, since it's probably most exploited OSS product), how many of them exists and how many of them are actually making money?

I haven't done a survey myself or seen one that was more than cherry picking. Have you? If so, gimmie the facts man...

At the same time, how many companies like IBM are exploiting Linux-coders work to make REAL money?

IBM is one player and they give as well as they take. If you know otherwise and have facts...

(Plus, I highly doubt about the whole point regarding innovation which needs to be proved as well.)

What point about innovation?

I really complain about people making things so easy when, infacts, they're not because many developers could be faked into thinking that this model works while this is far from being proven true.

It never works? Ever? Surely you don't assert that to be the case.

I'm not discussing about OSS social value, which is fact. But the fact that OSS model has social merit doesn't mean it gives business values.

Selfishness is the prime motivator. Are you saying that there are only social paybacks to open source usage and development in business?

If you are asserting all of this, it's an extreme position and I'd like some facts to back it up.

If not, please clarify since it doesn't seem to fit what I'm seeing.

Reply Parent Score: 0

TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

I haven't done a survey myself or seen one that was more than cherry picking. Have you? If so, gimmie the facts man...
Well, we have usual names...we have Red Hat (which someone told to have tiny revenues mostly coming from interests... didn't verify that), we have Mandriva/Mandrake, Linspire... and others are just begging for money, usually (not that I'm proud of it... just noticing).

IBM is one player and they give as well as they take. If you know otherwise and have facts...
Actually, big corps are those which get revenues from the work of hundreds underpaied (if not unpaied) developers.

What point about innovation?
The fact that OSS usually is innovative just because it is open-source and the fact that if you start an OS project, that project will become innovative because many people will jump in and innovate.

It never works? Ever? Surely you don't assert that to be the case
Not never, maybe almost never? Maybe rarely? However, surely it doesn't work "almost always"...

Selfishness is the prime motivator. Are you saying that there are only social paybacks to open source usage and development in business? If you are asserting all of this, it's an extreme position and I'd like some facts to back it up.

You got it right. Given the social merit of OSS model (which is what I'm interested in), I'm highly doubt that it could work in a business context, meaning that you hope to make money to buy food.

As I said, I'm not against OSS per se. I'm very happy about its social merit and there could be interesting things about it. However, I wouldn't recommend a starting-up company to plan to be an OSS company until a lot of things get considered (including the fact that most of them, even when their product is successfull, won't see almost any benefit).

Reply Parent Score: 1

Member since:

Well, we have usual names...we have Red Hat (which someone told to have tiny revenues mostly coming from interests... didn't verify that), we have Mandriva/Mandrake, Linspire... and others are just begging for money, usually (not that I'm proud of it... just noticing).

So, you're only thinking about Linux when you talk about OSS and specifically Linux distributions. The odd thing is that each of those companies -- plus SuSE (owned bu Novell) are still in business.

Yet, they aren't the only OSS companies out there and the market they have chosen -- operating systems -- is a tough one with strong competitors.

Actually, big corps are those which get revenues from the work of hundreds underpaied (if not unpaied) developers.

Small companies too. Do you know how much your billing rate is? Mine is 2.5x hours worked -- and I don't get compensated for every hour (we are talking employee here). I have -- along with some others -- forced management to pay for overtime; we are all sick of the all you can eat attitude of any company.

The company? Uses OSS. Does not provide OSS. This is not uncommon. If we see an OSS app that we want extended -- and we have talked about a couple already -- paying for the extention is no big deal as long as it is cheaper in the long run. Entirely selfish motivations.

The fact that OSS usually is innovative just because it is open-source and the fact that if you start an OS project, that project will become innovative because many people will jump in and innovate.

Most projects aren't innovative. Most of what you do every day I'm sure is not innovative. Especially these days with tight budgets and 'programmers have to be managers' double booking and cost cutting steps (that I disagree with btw).

Both propriatory and open projects of all kinds suffer from this...and evidence to the contrary can be pointed to in both groups.

Not never, maybe almost never? Maybe rarely? However, surely it doesn't work "almost always"...

Agreed.

You got it right. Given the social merit of OSS model (which is what I'm interested in), I'm highly doubt that it could work in a business context, meaning that you hope to make money to buy food.

As I said, I'm not against OSS per se. I'm very happy about its social merit and there could be interesting things about it. However, I wouldn't recommend a starting-up company to plan to be an OSS company until a lot of things get considered (including the fact that most of them, even when their product is successfull, won't see almost any benefit).


You misunderstand. OSS works specifically because it deals directly with selfish attitudes. Even Stallman -- as inflaming and out spoken as he is -- talks about these attitudes and though many reflexively and quite wrongly label him a communist. His motivations are selfish too, and he's OK with that and says so many times.

Some projects are best served being OSS. Others benifit from OSS tools and adding to them helps not only one project but all projects and users (a single example: Apache/Tomcat).

Many companies are silently making money on OSS, and many of them don't know that OSS is one of the reasons. Are all of them contributors? Nope, though enough are that it makes sense to contribute. I am strictly talking about the business angle here, not the individual...though there are selfish motivations there too. Selfish is not a net negitive; it can be and often is a good thing.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Member since:

I haven't done a survey myself or seen one that was more than cherry picking. Have you? If so, gimmie the facts man...

"Well, we have usual names...we have Red Hat (which someone told to have tiny revenues mostly coming from interests... didn't verify that), we have Mandriva/Mandrake, Linspire... and others are just begging for money, usually (not that I'm proud of it... just noticing)."

One additional note: You have not seen a survey of OSS companies that shows that OSS is not a good business model vs. propriatory software -- correct? It's your opinion based on personal observations.

Software is a tough business. I would not get it these days, though I have worked on software related projects all my life. (I'm an old guy.)

Reply Parent Score: 0