In the second part of my Open Source advocacy series, Trust and Zeal in Open Source Advocacy, the article covers the importance of trust and the potential risks of zeal in pushing Open Source forward and creating change.
In the second part of my Open Source advocacy series, Trust and Zeal in Open Source Advocacy, the article covers the importance of trust and the potential risks of zeal in pushing Open Source forward and creating change.
People don’t like evangelists, so instead of offering free advice on something you truly care about charge them a rediculous fee to offer them a more shallow information on a broader range of things (i.e., you should go Microsoft because, instead of: Well here’s how you set this up).
It does make a lot of sense in the real world. Business people are likely not terribly trusting of people “willing to give of themselves.” Probably because this betrays the ideals of Economics 101: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” –Adam Smith
Of course people don’t like being constantly told about someone’s favourite cause (even most Apple advocates got that eventually), but contrary to the first comment to that article, the main benefits of open source are precisely those which open source advocates are likely to talk about. Witness the BitKeeper debacle: no-one liked RMS saying his usual thing about software freedom, but the whole “free beer” and “saves you money” attitude didn’t exactly work out in the end, did it?
And managers like to spend money on stuff anyway, regardless of whether it’s open source or not, and regardless of whether it really saves them money. A lot of them probably just go off the “cool factor”. Indeed, I’ve seen managers spend money on proprietary stuff that runs on open source software, presumably because the whole software freedom thing is lost on them.
Getting managers to understand the whole freedom thing, the perils of being locked in otherwise, and the rewards of controlling your own destiny would be a lot more effective than just claiming that some open source package saves them $5 per person per month (or whatever) and expecting them to be won over by that.
I just find the concept here ridiculous. The whole “best tool for the job… okie-dokie-ism” has been thoroughly discredited with this bitkeeper issue.
Really, if you don’t approach “open source” from the freedom software angle, then you aren’t being honest, and show no conviction of belief in your own product.
People don’t buy from “okey-dokie” people. They buy from people who can clearly describe the actual benefits of their products.
Obfuscating those benefits under the pretense “best tool for the job” is waste of time and dishonest.
The only thing that could be considered evangelism in the FLOSS world is the statement that it is ‘unethical” to use non-free software. Really, it is just the word “unethical” that irritates people. I wouldn’t use it with people.
But letting people know that you only use freedom software is not evangelism, and that they should too because of all the benefits is not evangelism. All of my family uses GNU/Linux now because I helped them realize that their software freedom is important and they have an avenue to express it by using GNU/Linux.
If people realize that freedom software is in their best interest because you shared that with them, that does not make you an evangelist.
Saying that it does essentially says that you believe proprietary software must be a consideration for all people.
That only expresses that you are not convinced of freedom software yourself.
But really the only argument this person is trying to make is on the nuance of the game of selling Freedom software to businesses… something that is not much of a priority for anyone who actually cares about freedom software.
Second
But really the only argument this person is trying to make is on the nuance of the game of selling Freedom software to businesses… something that is not much of a priority for anyone who actually cares about freedom software.
Why do you say that? Why would “selling Freedom software” to businesses not be in the interest of those who “actually care about freedom software”?
I was saying “as a priority”. The mechanism of the movement should not be based on attitudes that are acceptable in sales to businesses. It needs to be based on our desire to achieve freedom software and maintain that freedom.
Not this wishy-washy “whatever works” mentality.
That is what I meant by that.
“Because Microsoft has $50 billion in the bank, they could out-engineer us, but they can’t out-engineer the world.”
Surprised the RealNetworks guy fell for that big fallacy. The fact of the matter is that there is a limited amount of developers that can produce good code for any certain project, or that even care to work for free. “out-engineer the world”. haha, someone’s drinking the koolaid
If people can be given rational explanations on why to use open source, such as avoiding lockin (which is a whole debate in itself), the ability to make modifications (many people just don’t care), or other reasons then they might listen to you.
If zealots start talking about freedom (in a political context) when discussing source code then rational people are going to get suspicious. If zealots start saying that proprietary software is morally wrong, then rational people are just going to laugh at them.
I’m a contractor and I’ve seen it myself, where people just don’t want to be associated with linux or open source because they think there’s too many crazy “commies” associated with it.
So what you mean is that we (and businesses) should want free software for freedom’s sake rather than “because this software is free, it protects your business from X problem”? I can agree to that, but I think the “open source” idea is a good transition phase for businesses. It would be hard-to-impossible to sell free software to businesses simply because it is ethical, there has to be some good business reason to spend money for a business. To mix business with ethics won’t work (at least for a long while) because making money is the motivation for a business, not contributing their work for the good of all mankind.
The future CEOs of the world are the most important ones to sell free software to, not the present CEOs. Let’s sell the present CEOs open source software, and transition their business, or at least make it easier for those dedicated to free software to continue. Even if businesses today don’t value free software, at least those that do can use those business’ GPL’d software.
Yes, but freedom is a single word for the vendor lock-in and modifications advantages.
Well, it depends which type of businesses we are talking about.
If we are talking about businesses that aren’t producing proprietary software and selling it, such as a printshop that can use linux and scribus, then yes, they can be sold on the concept of freedom.
If you are talking about proprietary software companies, however, then I don’t expect them to be sold on that concept.
The problem is in realizing that not every company is a proprietary software company. Which is that line that is always blurred in this discussion.
The only people who could possibly consider free software advocates Commies” are proprietary software sellers, and it is because their viewpoint is tainted towards dictatorship practices. They will call anyone who competes with them a “commie”… honestly, they’re full of crap.
Free software advocates allow for the sale of their software, their “property”… that is capitalism. The fact that anyone can make their version of it and sell it makes it competitive capitalism, with a very serious emphasis on the competition aspect.
Just because proprietary software makers believe they deserve to be protected from competition doesn’t make anyone who disagrees with them a communist, it makes them dictatorship leaning monopolists.
True, there are a lot of other types of businesses besides software development shops. Still, to get a print shop to spend money on free software, I think it will take more than the ethical side of the argument. They’ll still need some good business reason.
There’s a place for proprietary software and open source software. Anybody that tells you otherwise is crazy, because it’s all about choice.
I think where open source really shines is (a) leveraging the open source stack for proprietary software and (b) most producers of software don’t actually sell software, so they don’t have to worry about the viralness of the GPL (GPL v3 is another story).
In other case open source doesn’t work so well. Particularly, small and medium-sized businesses that have ver limited IT expertise in-house. In those cases, Microsoft is sometimes the best solution.
People don’t buy from “okey-dokie” people. They buy from people who can clearly describe the actual benefits of their products.
Ok, about once a year or so, I run into one of those rare cases where the required and/or expected functionality is found only in commercial software. The Free Software equivalents either lack critical functions, are vaporware, or are in the form of tinker-toy libraries that would require a large development effort and expertise to produce.
Two examples of this are continuous speech recognition and bibliography management for Free WYSIWYG word processing systems. CMU Sphinx is a toolkit, and not at the level that would permit a non-programmer to train a recognition engine to the level that permits dictation of text into an editor. In regards to bibliography management, the database tools included in OpenOffice.org are unable to handle some of the more complex formats such as APA and MLA, making them unusable for many people who expect that functionality.
The bitkeeper issue is quite a bit different in that you had a number of people with the resources and ability to roll their own tools for managing source code, or improve existing tools to add the needed functionality. However, for large numbers of people who don’t have the skills to modify open-source software, and don’t especially need to develop those skills, they are stuck picking the lesser of two evils.
Obfuscating those benefits under the pretense “best tool for the job” is waste of time and dishonest.
Huh? so we should chose inferior software solutions becasue it “feels” right for the company and ulitmately we benifit humanity by promoting free software for all the unwashed masses. Nevermind the fact that a bad software decision can cost companies millions of dollars which can translate to people out of work. Let FOSS be chosen by its own merits by being the better solution over proprietary software packages(something that hasn’t happenend yet IMHO) Not becasue of the above stated reasons.
If one point is critical to drill in, it is that people who are unfamiliar with open source generally don’t like evangelists–at all. This is particularly true for managers who may take the same disdain to evangelists that they take to salespeople and marketers.
RMS read this and let it burn in real good if you even remotely care about the success of OSS.
For the last few posts to my comments here… the concept of the article is in how to sell the concept of FLOSS software to people… not how to sell FLOSS and proprietary software.
If you are trying to convince someone to use free software, which again, is the point of the article, it is imporatant not to be dishonest by not sharing the benefits of the freedom it gives you.
The author’s approach is to be wishy-washy. The approach I suggest is being convinced to be convincing.
I don’t care what you use, but I’m not going to sit here and tell you “best tool for the job” when benefits of free software such as no vendor lock-in can obliterate that… which is the point of the bitkeeper fiasco. It can cost you far more to be locked-in and try to convert out of it then to remain a slave to that company’s software.
There is no reason to obfuscate the many benefits just to be “more palatable” to business execs.
Again, almost all of the criticizers think that businesses ought to be the focus of the FLOSS movement. However, the Floss movement is focused on individuals, and their right to freedom.
RMS read this and let it burn in real good if you even remotely care about the success of OSS.
RMS would tell you that he doesn’t care about OSS, because he cares about “free” software under his definition of free.
Open source and “free” software are two distinct camps.
um… RMS doesnt care about OSS, he cares about Free Software.
I recommend GNU software to small businesses who need an advantage over their competitors. Their competitors have to pay for their software licenses and each upgrade of this software. If these small companies want to lower costs and bring their support and IT in-house instead of outsourcing like their competitors they can use free, as in no cost, software and inexpensive x86 hardware to provide the same enterprise level services their competitors enjoy.
You can build a network on zero-cost software and cheap x86 hardware that will give you 99% of the services you would get out of a professional Solaris or Windows solution.
I would NOT recommend free software to a large corporation. Let them buy it from RedHat or Novell/SuSE if they want to try it out. Don’t try to push Linux instead of Windows or Linux instead of Solaris because it doesn’t really matter. Both Solaris and Windows are tied to a single company. They are only relevant as long as those companies are relevant. As soon as those companies start losing money their stock will plument and their products will be bought up by the nearest competitor: another big business out to make more money. So they will end up just like Macromedia/Adobe. Flash technology is now in the hands of a company that might choose to be hostile towards that technology if it has competing products.
Could you imagine what would happen to Solaris if Microsoft bought Sun?
Could you imagine what would happen to Solaris if Microsoft bought Sun?
That same thing that would happen to Linux if Microsoft bought Novell and Redhat…which is nothing. Solaris will be open source soon.
And your reasoning for advising small businesses to use “GNU” software is flawed. Small businesses tend to lack the IT experience (and really would rather minimize any IT expenditures) that running Linux systems entails. Not to mention the whole issues of integration with an existing windows network, which they most likely will have for the business desktop.
um… RMS doesnt care about OSS, he cares about Free Software.
In my post replace OSS with FOSS
OSS advocates are just that, advocates. In general, they are not marketing people, not sales people, or weathered business people. Traditionaly software vendors have their own divisions dedicated to just that, marketing and selling hiring people who devote their lives to the selling of products.
Lets be honest in general programmers aren’t great salesmen, or good at the marketing aspect of software. When you’re dealing with the likes of MS and Apple you gotta take that into consideration.
I think this one of the reasons why Alan Cox is going for his MBA. :^)
”
I think where open source really shines is (a) leveraging the open source stack for proprietary software and (b) most producers of software don’t actually sell software, so they don’t have to worry about the viralness of the GPL (GPL v3 is another story).
”
GPL v3 is only going to affect companies that have systems that people access over the internet, such as Google and Yahoo. And then, even for those companies, I doubt there is going to be any software for a long time licensed under GPL v3, it is mostly going to be v2 or later, meaning that if they don’t like the provisions of the GPL v3, they can opt to go for v2. In other words, the effect of this change isn’t going to be a big deal for quite a long time. (Look at how long it would probably take the Linux Kernel to go to v3).
”
Let FOSS be chosen by its own merits by being the better solution over proprietary software packages(something that hasn’t happenend yet IMHO)
”
Tell that to the Apache Foundation. Or the gcc developers (name me one other cross platform compiler as good as gcc).
(Look at how long it would probably take the Linux Kernel to go to v3).
The kernel will never go v3 and expect major forkage of various other libraries if they go v3 and v3 does indeed extends the viralness of the gpl.
”
The kernel will never go v3 and expect major forkage of various other libraries if they go v3 and v3 does indeed extends the viralness of the gpl.
”
I’m talking about if v3 doesn’t do those things and it offers substantial benefits over the GPL v2. The kernel developers could require all submissions to be dual-licensed under version 2 only AND under version 3 only, as well as getting as many contributors as possible to allow their prior code to be released under GPL v3.
But, if it does do those things, I doubt many people will want to switch to it. The libraries would probably just stay under version 2 or later and people could choose to go by version 3 of the license if they so choosed.
GPL v2 has served the kernel well and it won’t be going V3 period. Even if you discount the impossible logistical considerations (re-write portions of code from dead copyright holders and people unable to be located), it’s extremely doubtful that key kernel developers would even want GPLv3.
“Huh? so we should chose inferior software solutions becasue it “feels” right for the company and ulitmately we benifit humanity by promoting free software for all the unwashed masses.”
Nope. It’s about running your business on software that you actually have some control over.
“Let FOSS be chosen by its own merits by being the better solution over proprietary software packages(something that hasn’t happenend yet IMHO)”
Given the amount of proprietary software that uses open source software under the covers, it *has* happened quite a lot, although obviously well under your radar.
“RMS read this and let it burn in real good if you even remotely care about the success of OSS.”
Well, open source software (and Free Software) has been successful – we’re not all forced to go cap in hand to proprietary software vendors in order to develop and run IT systems (just yet, anyway). Life isn’t all like an American high school popularity contest, you know.
“Huh? so we should chose inferior software solutions becasue it “feels” right for the company and ulitmately we benifit humanity by promoting free software for all the unwashed masses.”
Nope. It’s about running your business on software that you actually have some control over.
I would argue you have more control with closed source software then with OSS/FOSS. There is a myth that has been circulating that becasue you have the source for a program via the GPL that if you don’t like something about it just change the code. This i believe is derived from a fudimental lack of understanding on how IT functions in business. Business wants solutions that work out of the box or with little modification they can care less about the source.
Given the amount of proprietary software that uses open source software under the covers, it *has* happened quite a lot, although obviously well under your radar.
You imply something illegal where is your proof?
Well, open source software (and Free Software) has been successful – we’re not all forced to go cap in hand to proprietary software vendors in order to develop and run IT systems (just yet, anyway). Life isn’t all like an American high school popularity contest, you know.
Outward appearances are extremely important having some scruffy haired neo-communist as the figure head of anything other than a coummunist insurgencey i.e. Cuban style is a bad idea.
It makes a lot of sense to advocate F/OSS software for the real-world benefits it brings:
– avoid lock-in (a ciritical argument for anyone who has suffered from lock-in before)
– no ridiculous licensing or coupling of licensing and usage, e.g. no limit for the number of computers to install the software on
– ability to make your own modifications/add-ons if it doesn’t work for you out-of-the-box
…
Software freedom by itself doesn’t make sense. It only makes sense because it gives you benefits in real life. So it should be advocated exactly because it gives you those benefits.
Another big trap is comparing software freedom *directly* to real world freedom, or other real-world things (i.e. not through its secondary effects). Sadly, RMS has fallen into this trap too (I can dig the relevant quote out if you want, it’s somewhere on the GNU homepage). It has good reasons that people are suspicious if you compare the freedom to modify a computer program with the freedom to choose your job and where you live.
This i believe is derived from a fudimental lack of understanding on how IT functions in business. Business wants solutions that work out of the box or with little modification they can care less about the source.
I don’t think you can generalize this way. There are companies for which the ability to adapt the code is important. However, the biggest advantage of F/OSS software for businesses is freedom from vendor lock-in and the fact that you don’t have to deal with pesky license issues, especially if you’re growing and would normally have to buy additional licenses.
Case in point: we had an issue here with Adobe Illustrator. We don’t use it enough to justify buying additional licenses for it, but it is very useful during specific portions of our production pipeline. One option was to install it on one PC and have people take turns using it – not a very attractive prospect in a real-world situation. The other option was to install Inkscape on the PCs of those who would need a vector drawing program at some point. Sure, Inkscape doesn’t have all of Illustrator’s features, and some of the UI annoys me, however it does all we need it to do, and you can’t beat free!
This is but one example of how we use FOSS in addition to proprietary software at my company.
I don’t think you can generalize this way. There are companies for which the ability to adapt the code is important. However, the biggest advantage of F/OSS software for businesses is freedom from vendor lock-in and the fact that you don’t have to deal with pesky license issues, especially if you’re growing and would normally have to buy additional licenses.
Granted there are always exceptions however i would guess that close to 95% of companies that use F/OSS use it in the form it was originally derived i.e. RedHat AS on Dell hardware or OpenOffice. Maintaining a seperate devlopment department is expensive and 9 times out of 10 doesn’t have a good ROI. Hence the reason you don’t see them very often unless the core business of the company is software.
Once again the thing that alot of people don’t understand how IT works in business is companies don’t want to support software in house they want to be able to call someone on the phone tied to a support agreement to get things fixed.They are not going to invest in Joe F/OSS advocate as their primary support infrastructure for obvious reasons. Vendor lockin occurs only when there isn’t another solution or a company make a huge mistake by investing a ton of cash into one platform making it too expensive to migrate. The best example is all the people that bought mainframes when IBM came through. Companies that bought into open platforms like Unix can with a little work move from unix vendor to unix vendor as needed or even to windows if they so desire.
What you say might be true for SMBs (even though there seems to be a growing interest in Linux and FOSS in that sector). However, for large enterprises hiring a couple of developers to support and develop FOSS in-house isn’t a huge investment. There’s a reason why large multinationals such as Unilever and DaimlerChrysler are part of OSDL.
I’d be curious, though, as to where you got your 95% figure. Is this based on actual data, or is it a personal estimate? You have to be careful with the latter, as the impression one gets can often be skewed by personal experience.
”
Given the amount of proprietary software that uses open source software under the covers, it *has* happened quite a lot, although obviously well under your radar.
You imply something illegal where is your proof?
”
LOL, ever heard of the BSD License?
Case in point: we had an issue here with Adobe Illustrator. We don’t use it enough to justify buying additional licenses for it, but it is very useful during specific portions of our production pipeline. One option was to install it on one PC and have people take turns using it – not a very attractive prospect in a real-world situation. The other option was to install Inkscape on the PCs of those who would need a vector drawing program at some point. Sure, Inkscape doesn’t have all of Illustrator’s features, and some of the UI annoys me, however it does all we need it to do, and you can’t beat free!
Right, but this seems to be the major flaw with open sourc advocacy – thinking that because this piece of shit open source program with often times less than half the features of the high-dollar counterpart has all the features you need, then it has all the features that everyone needs. Well, sometimes this is true and sometimes it is not. But when it’s not, how do you argue for open source with that angle?
At least on the desktop, ‘vendor lock-in’ is a total crock of shit in the majority of cases, something made up by the open source crowd. Simply stated, if you can export it to a usable format and/or if you can rewrite it (eg – VB6 code, or whatever), you’re not really locked in. For example, anybody using MS Word is not locked in. If you want, you could save the file as RTF (or whatever), and import it into something else. Of course, the macros won’t transfer, and you could always rewrite those. And unless one open source program supports opening of another open source program’s macros, it ain’t gonna be any easier to rewrite the shit than it would’ve been if you were coming from a proprietary app.
Whoa, we’re a bit aggressive today, aren’t we?
Right, but this seems to be the major flaw with open sourc advocacy – thinking that because this piece of shit open source program with often times less than half the features of the high-dollar counterpart has all the features you need, then it has all the features that everyone needs.
First, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Inkscape is a “piece of shit”. It’s actually a pretty good program.
Second, I never claimed that it all the features that everyone needs, just that it did help us and made us save some dollars.
However, I must say that you’re basing your argument on a fallacious premise, i.e. that the high-priced counterpart does indeed have all the features everyone needs. Reality check: no program, be it open-source or proprietary, has all the features everyone needs.
Well, sometimes this is true and sometimes it is not. But when it’s not, how do you argue for open source with that angle?
And when the proprietary program doesn’t have all the feature everyone needs, how do you argue for proprietary apps with that angle?
I gave an example of how using open-source worked for us, and helped us save dollars (more precisely, how it help us improve our production pipeline). Of course, for others with different needs the example may not apply. But I wonder: why do you feel threatened by successful use of open-source in a business?
I know you often tout the benefits of Directory Opus. Yet one thing that I really need in a file manager is the ability to graphically browse filesystems on computers that only have a SSH server running.
Clearly, that proprietary software doesn’t fulfill everyone’s needs, because it doesn’t fulfill that particular need of mine. Should I then say that it’s a piece of shit, and that by extension this is a major problem with proprietary advocacy?
I know you often tout the benefits of Directory Opus. Yet one thing that I really need in a file manager is the ability to graphically browse filesystems on computers that only have a SSH server running.
Actually, Dopus does do SSH. And now that version 8.1 is out, it does tabbed folders too – check it out:
http://www.gpsoft.com.au/files/Opus…0%20Changes.pdf
So I guess that’s one more advantage that Konquerer no longer has
Anyway, I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass … I understand your point.
Clearly, that proprietary software doesn’t fulfill everyone’s needs, because it doesn’t fulfill that particular need of mine. Should I then say that it’s a piece of shit, and that by extension this is a major problem with proprietary advocacy?
Of course, no software program I am aware of can meet everybody’s needs. However, here is the difference between ‘license zealots’ and level-headed people like me:
– If you run into a program that doesn’t need your specific need (whether proprietary or open source), I’ll tell you use something that does, even if it is a different license
– If you run into a program that doesn’t need your specific need, a license zealot will tell you to use that program anyway simply because it uses whatever software license they happen to champion.
I’m simply saying that software is ALWAYS based on need. Who the hell would use a piece of software that didn’t meet their needs, even if it used their favorite license? If it didn’t meet your need and you absolutely refused to use software of a different license, you’d either try to find something else that matched your license or you would simply do without. That’s why I commented on the guy who posted his Adobe Illustrator story – he’s like “Oh and by the way, it met all of my needs too!” like the needs of the user should be only an afterthought to the ideology. Ideology is fine, but needs come FIRST, gentlemen. You could swear off KFC forever because of what they do to chickens, but if that were the only thing available to eat, would you eat it, or starve to death? If you choose the second option, then you are most certainly a better man than I.
The question was posed to me – if a piece of proprietary software doesn’t meet a person’s needs, how do I argue for proprietary software? Simple answer: I don’t. I tell him that if an open source program better suits his needs, then by all means … USE IT!
So, I ask you again – if a piece of open source software clearly doesn’t meet a user’s needs, how do you argue for open source software?
When people say that open source software is better (and I’m talking on the desktop here), it’s almost ALWAYS about the license and the religion. Very rarely do I see articles revolving around “here, let me show you how you can be more productive using this free app compared to the one you just paid $300 for.” Now THAT would be an effective strategy for promoting open source. Nobody cares about ideology these days. If they did, we’d all be buying music CDs that cost $5. Why? Because nobody would buy them for any more than that
And gas would probably be back down to $1.50 too …
Actually, Dopus does do SSH.
Good, it’s a useful feature. Can you browse SSH servers in the open/save dialog? If not, they should add that feature as well, it’s a real time saver.
So I guess that’s one more advantage that Konquerer no longer has
Competition is good, it makes developers improve their product! Truth be told, if I could install Opus at work I would – unfortunately I’m stuck with Windows Explorer…
Anyway, we agree on the principle that we should use whatever sofrware fits our needs. But I still think you were a bit hasty in your reply. You said:
That’s why I commented on the guy who posted his Adobe Illustrator story – he’s like “Oh and by the way, it met all of my needs too!” like the needs of the user should be only an afterthought to the ideology.
Unless I’m mistaken, I’m “the guy” who posted the Illustrator comment. And I did not imply that the needs of the users (the plural is important here) was an afterthought. Rather, using Inkscape allowed us to have a more cost effective pipeline.
I guess you were confused for a moment there, unless someone else posted an Illustrator story recently.
Very rarely do I see articles revolving around “here, let me show you how you can be more productive using this free app compared to the one you just paid $300 for.” Now THAT would be an effective strategy for promoting open source.
Well, that’s exactly what my example was about. We were more productive with Inkscape than Illustrator, because we were able to install it on as many computers as needed.
Oh, and by the way: an Illustrator license is more than 300$…
The question was posed to me – if a piece of proprietary software doesn’t meet a person’s needs, how do I argue for proprietary software? Simple answer: I don’t. I tell him that if an open source program better suits his needs, then by all means … USE IT!
So, I ask you again – if a piece of open source software clearly doesn’t meet a user’s needs, how do you argue for open source software?
I disagree. Because some open source software doesn’t fulfill the needs of some people doesn’t mean I can’t argue for open source software in general. Same would go for proprietary software, I guess.
The trend is for F/OSS to catch up with proprietary software (in some areas more than others). At some point, some F/OSS software is going to be “good enough” for people to use for some applications. That is inevitable. In this context, it makes sense to promote F/OSS when it is an adequate solution, but it also makes sense to support immature but promising F/OSS projects as well, because they will be the mature apps we will use tomorrow.
Yes, you were the guy that posted the Illustrator story – I replied to the wrong person, sorry
Well, that’s exactly what my example was about. We were more productive with Inkscape than Illustrator, because we were able to install it on as many computers as needed.
Oh, and by the way: an Illustrator license is more than 300$…
No, the open source program didn’t make you more productive, it just saved you money. If you are just as productive with Inkscape on a per-user basis, then you made the right decision. However, if the people who were using Illustrator were 25% less productive using Inkscape, depending on how much you use it, you could possibly end up losing money over time. That’s why I say … sometimes the initial cost of the software only tells half the story. For example, I could probably accomplish the same job using pico as I could Dreamweaver. Would I want to? Um, no
The trend is for F/OSS to catch up with proprietary software (in some areas more than others). At some point, some F/OSS software is going to be “good enough” for people to use for some applications. That is inevitable. In this context, it makes sense to promote F/OSS when it is an adequate solution, but it also makes sense to support immature but promising F/OSS projects as well, because they will be the mature apps we will use tomorrow.
The ONLY time I use open source software is if it is adequate for the job. Otherwise, I might donate a few bones to a project that shows promise, but there’s no way in hell I’m actually going to use the program or recommend it to someone if there is a better alternative out there.
That being said, I do sometimes use open source apps even if I know their inferior in functionality, simply because they’re free and they do all I need. For example, I use an open source mp3 tag editor (don’t even know the name) – its functionality is pretty basic, but my needs are also pretty basic. So therefore, it is perfect for me.
No, the open source program didn’t make you more productive, it just saved you money. If you are just as productive with Inkscape on a per-user basis, then you made the right decision. However, if the people who were using Illustrator were 25% less productive using Inkscape, depending on how much you use it, you could possibly end up losing money over time. That’s why I say … sometimes the initial cost of the software only tells half the story.
Actually, in this real-world scenario, we were indeed more productive, because the alternative was only one copy of Illustrator. We don’t need it enough to warrant buying licenses for everyone, but almost everyone in our department will use it at some point or another. So we would have had to install it on one PC and then share it. That doesn’t help productivity. The fact that we were able to install it on the machines of those who occasionally used it was cost-effective and improved productivity (because the alternative was never to have Illustrator on all PCs, but only on one). Now, this is a very specific example, but it is a real-world one.
Anyway, we agree on the basics.
you’ve cracked the argument in half there nun.
You can put the free software program on every computer in your department. Having to pay for that many copies of illustrator, you might as well hire a developer to make the free software program better. If you then release those changes for the better to the public, that might inspire other companies to do the same.
On top of that, you don’t have to buy upgrades to “a new version”, whether it be 7, 8, 9 ot onward into the future for each and every seat you need to use it on. The upgrades are typically free, and many run neck and neck with proprietary versions in terms of functionality.
Even if you are missing one feature, you still save an exponential amount of money by not having to follow product cycles and licenses on a per seat basis. Even if you contributed just a fraction of that money you would have paid going the proprietary route, you could have hired a person to create all the features you needed for you.
It is simply dishonest to take the proprietary route.
The free software will always be getting better, and the users of a program, like inkscape, will be able to grow and learn with that one program. Meaning that your workers will become more efficient, and better workers, as they will have learned the product as they have grown with it.
When you play the proprietary game, many times you find yourself unable to update to a new verion, so you find yourself limited by old software with limited functionality.
Also, sometimes proprietary software moves in a direction you simply will not like and won’t agree with, and you will have no recourse but to change to a different product… which means not only buying new licenses… but also relearning a new program from ground one.
That model should be considered ridiculous by any forward thinking project manager, as all you’ve done is write a bill for yourself in the future that you may or may not be able to pay.
So, unfortunately, these arguments of “best tool for the job, even if it’s proprietary” are short-sighted at best.
Even if you are missing one feature, you still save an exponential amount of money by not having to follow product cycles and licenses on a per seat basis. Even if you contributed just a fraction of that money you would have paid going the proprietary route, you could have hired a person to create all the features you needed for you.
Alright, let’s say you’ve got 500 people in the office who need a new application. It’s going to cost you $50,000 to get the propietary version, and $0 for the open source version, which is missing a few features but youf feel for the money, it is worth the savings.
So then you find out that because of the missing features, it’s taking 500 people (who use the app maybe 2 hours a day) twice as long to get work done using the open source app as it would have the proprietary version. Now, assuming that these people make $10 an hour and now with the open source version they gotta work 2 hours every day with this app instead of only 1, that’s one extra hour’s pay ($10) * 500 employees – guess what? You’re losing $5,000 a day by using the open source version. Of course, I realize the example is pretty extreme, but it’s just to illustrate a point.
Even if you contributed just a fraction of that money you would have paid going the proprietary route, you could have hired a person to create all the features you needed for you.
This is flawed logic. That’s like saying a company could pay $50,000 to hire a developer to make either Composer or OpenOffice’s HTML editing capabilities to be as robust as Dreamweaver.
It is simply dishonest to take the proprietary route.
So you’re saying that any company using proprietary software is dishonest?
The free software will always be getting better, and the users of a program, like inkscape, will be able to grow and learn with that one program. Meaning that your workers will become more efficient, and better workers, as they will have learned the product as they have grown with it
Right, and I suppose proprietary software never gets better? It is a fact that sometimes proprietary software developers ‘get lazy’ and the app falls off into mediocrity, but even then, the last ‘good’ version is so far ahead of anything the open source world ever put out, it doesn’t really matter anyway. (Of course, there are always exceptions to this rule, such as Internet Explorer.)
When you play the proprietary game, many times you find yourself unable to update to a new verion, so you find yourself limited by old software with limited functionality.
Old software does’t always mean limited functionality, sometimes it means MORE functionality … depending on what you use it for. For example, I know a lot of people who still use ACDSee v3, because they feel it is better than the current version (which I think is up to v6 or 7 by now).
Also, sometimes proprietary software moves in a direction you simply will not like and won’t agree with,
Right, and I suppose open source apps never do that either?
and you will have no recourse but to change to a different product… which means not only buying new licenses… but also relearning a new program from ground one.
That model should be considered ridiculous by any forward thinking project manager, as all you’ve done is write a bill for yourself in the future that you may or may not be able to pay.
If the newer version meant less functionality, here’s a novel idea – don’t upgrade to the new version. Now, how difficult was that? The developers aren’t going to show up on your doorstep with a gun pointed to your head forcing you to upgrade.
“Alright, let’s say you’ve got 500 people in the office who need a new application. It’s going to cost you $50,000 to get the propietary version, and $0 for the open source version, which is missing a few features but youf feel for the money, it is worth the savings.
So then you find out that because of the missing features, it’s taking 500 people (who use the app maybe 2 hours a day) twice as long to get work done using the open source app as it would have the proprietary version. Now, assuming that these people make $10 an hour and now with the open source version they gotta work 2 hours every day with this app instead of only 1, that’s one extra hour’s pay ($10) * 500 employees – guess what? You’re losing $5,000 a day by using the open source version. Of course, I realize the example is pretty extreme, but it’s just to illustrate a point.”
There is simply no real world example that would back this up anywhere. If you can think of one, let me know. There is no open source program which will take you twice as long to use as a proprietary version. Also, you are trying to calculate as if it is a program that makes the people efficient… it is not… people are just as lazy with proprietary programs as they would be with anything else.
“This is flawed logic. That’s like saying a company could pay $50,000 to hire a developer to make either Composer or OpenOffice’s HTML editing capabilities to be as robust as Dreamweaver.”
It isn’t flawed at all… NVU is nearly there already, so in this case it is a matter of knowing what free software is already out there that does that task similarly. Then you could certainly put a bounty out for a feature, and if you were to pay 50,000 from your example above, you could certainly put a bounty out for a few thousand to get a feature or 2 that you find essential. Your argument becomes even more distorted if you have a company of 100 and needed to pay 1000 per seat. That would be 100,000. If youcouldn’t put the features you want into the open product with that money, then you simply aren’t very imaginative.
“So you’re saying that any company using proprietary software is dishonest?”
They are being dishonest to themselves in thinking that is a stable or affordable way to base their business, compared to the advantages of open software which they are throwing out the window.
“Right, and I suppose proprietary software never gets better? It is a fact that sometimes proprietary software developers ‘get lazy’ and the app falls off into mediocrity, but even then, the last ‘good’ version is so far ahead of anything the open source world ever put out, it doesn’t really matter anyway. (Of course, there are always exceptions to this rule, such as Internet Explorer.)”
This isn’t correct either. Proprietary software companies put in the bare minimum of new features which they think the consumer will bear just to ensure that they have things they can include in a future version to sell for more money. Proprietary companies deliberately stunt their own growth just so they can be sure to extort the most money out of their products as possible. As far as being miles ahead of open source software, that is simply not the case for the types of programs businesses actually use in their day to day work. Proprietary programs do not innovate at an exponential rate… there is a very serious diminishing rate of return the further up the product cycle you go. Case in point would be the fact that windows is stripping functionality out of longhorn nearly by the week.
“Old software does’t always mean limited functionality, sometimes it means MORE functionality … depending on what you use it for. For example, I know a lot of people who still use ACDSee v3, because they feel it is better than the current version (which I think is up to v6 or 7 by now).”
Those people whould be using irfanview, or a plethora of other free programs that do practically the same thing.
“Right, and I suppose open source apps never do that either?”
Yes, but you actually have recourse. You can fork the code and try to get people to work on it based on your vision by hosting the project on a website and trying to attract developers to that vision. You actually have a degree of recourse, with proprietary software you have none.
“If the newer version meant less functionality, here’s a novel idea – don’t upgrade to the new version. Now, how difficult was that? The developers aren’t going to show up on your doorstep with a gun pointed to your head forcing you to upgrade.”
Why support software which you have no recourse in if it goes a direction you don’t like? Many people want to upgrade to new features, but can’t afford it with the proprietary route, so they should just make do? That only means that they have locked themselves in to a product they have no power in. In that exact situation they have no power to decide their fate with that program. Free software can give them that power.
On top of that, the company could drop that program altogether, and you are left with no recourse but to go to another program… and relearn something your company shouldn’t have to. That is such a waste of resources.
Since you have no power whatsoever with proprietary software, there is always that possibility that the company producing it can raise the price drastically, lock you in, or abandon the project altogether.
I don’t know about you, but for my business I prefer the stability FLOSS provides. Programs like Inkscape, Gimp, Scribus, and Gnumeric can take care of all of my needs sufficiently.
I don’t see much need to support a company that will always have that power over my business.