The open source movement could have a damaging impact on software innovation, according to a prominent market analyst.
Gartner: Open Source Could Damage The Market
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I think it’s incredibly ironic that the only place that the Linux desktop is getting deployed to is the corporations which Stallman hates so badly.
Face it: Linux is TOO COMPLEX for the average MSCE to handle. If you can’t make it easy enough for the MSCE to handle it then it’s too hard for SMB in general.
I think that’s a bit harsh. The quote was taken out of context and immediately after they said it was only ‘a minor dampening effect on innovation’ and even provided a very true example of the JBoss middleware platform…
Open Source is just another name for what mankind has done for eons. Imagine language, the alphabet, books or any other past innovative technology we are currently taking for granted being controlled by patents as some of the big corporations would like to do with software now. If you want to bring “innovation” to a complete halt go ahead and believe the “prominent market ANALysts” when they spout this kind of drivel.
In my opinion Open Source is actually the only area where innovation is currently happening and will happen in the future.
Libraries hurt the book store market, and many are government funded. Let’s sue the government for hurting private enterprise.
first off, Gartner only churns out FUD. Second, without OSS, commercial software would have no competition. third, imagine the world without OSS, we would be stuck with operating systems that propagate viruses, spyware and wreck havoc and are ***yawn*** unexciting. the small developers are the ones who “innovate” and the large corporations have to play “catch” up since they didnt think of the ideas.
Suppose MS did lose half their OS / Office business to OSS. They certainly can’t innovate LESS than they do now, so how could things get worse? The only time they’ve bothered to do anything lately was to meet competition they couldn’t get rid of any other way.
As simple and obvious as that is, it’s far beyond the “analytical” ability of Gartner, which seems to consist of editing MS press releases and publishing them to anyone who’ll listen.
What’s the point of this? Innovation occurs when there is a need, and when there is competition. In the absence of these, innovation is stifled. I learned that in the 5th grade. So, the things that COULD damage innovation are monopolies, patents, hidden proprietary protocols, and yes, potentially open source. Can I get a job at Gartner? If “prominent market analysts” can provide such meaningless insights, I could do VERY WELL.
“according to a prominent market analyst.”
Everyone has a smelly behind and everyone has an opinion. I’ll continue using open source software which IMO has resulted in more innovation in the last couple of years than all of the years of M$:Beastly Windows combined. All of this text is in my opinion for educational purposes only.
but not entirely with the article. I believe GPL kills innovation and industry but BSD gives a chance to the industry to grow. I release the source code under BSD license because if the work i do in my free time can be used by someone else to add value and commercialize it, i don’t mind.
“Second, without OSS, commercial software would have no competition.”
And without proprietary apps most OSS projects would go nowhere. Where else would all the good ideas come from?
What? People using their freedom to create free/open software and providing the source code! Gasp, what horror!
People will do what they wish to, we should not try to force them into programming for companies or for open source projects. Let the chips fall as they may. If companies want to survive this so called “open source doomsday”, they could invest some of their funds into some new programmers.
Yeah, it have a damaging impact for Microsoft.
All I got from that article is that Open Source is destroying the ability of companies to continue charging for a generic copy of software that already exists and forces companies to instead make software that the consumers actually want, or give up and release those programming hours back to the market, where they belong.
“a software offering which is not core or strategic to their business, or perhaps which is not making money in the market” – like software that no one buys because it isn’t helping their business? Or isn’t useful to their business plans?
I mostly just don’t understand how the article supports the title at all. The only thing stifled by Open Source is the homogenisation and stagnation of commercial software.
Microsoft has paid minions that lobby congress and the media.
Back to article.
Do you want to pay $1000 an ounce for aluminum. I think you get the point. Making an OS or popular software product free allows for new innovation. Now companies can afford to buy other software now that they don’t have to pay big licenses.
It’s really just about shifting your purchases. Time old way of business. Something new comes along. It becomes a commodity over time . Cars use to be the play things of the very rich until Henry Ford.
— quote —-
“Second, without OSS, commercial software would have no competition.”
And without proprietary apps most OSS projects would go nowhere. Where else would all the good ideas come from?
— end quote —
I hope that’s sarcasm.
There is more innovation and thought in KDE’s task pannel’s applets/features that in either Windows explorer toolbar or the Mac’s ‘butiful’ dock bar.
I suggest everyone who is screaming FUD!!!! take a minute to read the article. The analyst spent more time talking about how OSS can be a vehicle for innovation, instead of dampening it. I am an OSS advocate, and I read the article and agreed with it for the most part. One thing I disagreed with, is that he said that it can dampen innovation because people can’t compete. The same could be said for Microsoft. Why would anyone create a proprietary X86 OS right now?
I also am starting to become extremely unimpressed with both ZDNet and OSNews. The title does NOT do justice to the article. Please, quit picking flame bait titles.
But, didn’t they just tell us the other day:
Gartner: Open source deserves a place in every IT portfolio
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=209578421&eid=-219
COMPANIES NEED to feature some Open Source software in their IT portfolio, according to the latest word from analyst outfit Gartner.
He said that Gartner did not believe in the myth that open source was somehow a form of software communism. He said that all open source ventures have a commercial aspect as well.
http://67.19.9.2/?article=22937
Gartner is a scourge on the industry. It makes me sad that people listen to idiots like these.
But, didn’t they just tell us the other day:
Gartner: Open source deserves a place in every IT portfolio
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=209578421&eid=-219
COMPANIES NEED to feature some Open Source software in their IT portfolio, according to the latest word from analyst outfit Gartner.
He said that Gartner did not believe in the myth that open source was somehow a form of software communism. He said that all open source ventures have a commercial aspect as well.
http://67.19.9.2/?article=22937
Gartner is a scourge on the industry. It makes me sad that people listen to idiots like these.
Yeah, just like it makes me sad when people like you trust the OSNews title for the article instead of actually taking the minute required to read it. I suggest you do so instead of making an even bigger ass of yourself.
The Gartner guy wasn’t saying “Companies better not start get serious about moving to open source software. Because if they do…” He was saying that the shift was already well underway and was irreversible, but he thinks there could be some bad consequences as well as good ones.
The good news is, that with the new and improved mod system most of the above posts will be modded up and we’ll have a tight little community where everyone agrees with each other.
I thought it was pretty funny. To sum it up in one line:
Because there is so much innovation in open source, the pace of innovation will slow. The article does not make sense, so why worry about it?
“Face it: Linux is TOO COMPLEX for the average MSCE to handle. ”
The power button on the computer is too complex for most MCSEs to handle, but the PC manufacturers keep putting them on…
“In fact, Hayward foresees a time when customers may not have to pay for software at all. “As a general long-term trend, [open source] is definitely accelerating the move away from software as a revenue stream, and toward services as a revenue stream. Maybe it will come to a day when all software is free, and you’ll just pay for support and enhancements.”
Great! That is what we want. That is the way it should be.
Yeah…lets see… open source does not innovate…hmmm.
1) Are you using a browser? Yep, developed FIRST as opensource, not to mention the precurser to the web (gopher) which was also open source.
2) Are you viewing web pages from a web server…yep AGAIN developed FIRST as opensource.
3) Did you send or recieve email today? yep again…developed FIRST as open source first.
4) Did you type in an IP Address or a DNS name to get to this site? yep…again..developed as open source first.
5) Did you use the TCP protocol to get here? Yep the first/reference implementation developed as open source.
6) Ever heard of a Web Search Engine…yep first were developed as open source. In fact the first web search engine and “spider” was developed in Perl.
7) Ever talk or use IRC? yep…first developed as open source as both the servers and the most popular clients
8) Ever use USENET to talk, discuss or share files? Yep…started by the open source community.
9) Ever program in C or C++ languages, Perl, Python, PHP, or Ruby? Yep those were open source ideas first too.
10) Ever used RCS or CVS (or any other COPY of their original ideas such as PVCS, ClearCase or SourceSafe)…yep developed as open source first.
11) Ever heard of XML…the first implementations and actual usage of XML was open source tools and libraries that got people to see and play with it.
12) Hmmm….some other firsts maybe you never heard of. a) The first ever WSIWIG HTML/SGML editor was from the Athena Project, b) the idea of display independent graphics such as XWindows, RDP, ISA etc… were first implemented by open source
Funny… it seems like open source never had any orginal ideas. I guess your right nothing ever has come from open source.
Or, you could realize your sitting here right now mouthing off to all of us via the WWW because of OpenSource. Every major protocol/data stream existed as open source before the Internet was commercialized(in 1994 or 1995). Computer vendors, even Micorsoft, all had their own propietary network standards (eg MSLANMAN etc) which have died because one big network is much more interesting than lots of little ones.
in my opinion, a business cannot be successful with open source..
they can have part of their code open source and charge big fees for the complete thing while getting free work on the project.. but if everyone does that then people will loose interests…
People aren’t gonna work for free. That is why people still windows rather than picking up a free copy of linux.
Open Source will keep pressure on big rivals and some will use it to reduce workforce(bastards).. but can never be the standard… if you actually do the research. you can always blind yourself and say everything will be open source and companies will hire larger workforces to work on projects that can be shared with everyone and other companies.. but your just lieing to yourself
If you look at company’s financial records…
There has been very few companies that are making a lot of money with linux. I mean actually they are taking someone else’s work and sticking their brand name on it with a few changes. Companies should hire entire workforces to make profit off of that. And guess what they make very little profit.
if they were selling something like windows and their products actually sold they’d make loads more money. but it’s linux and most people that use linux get it for free..
Investors pour money into linux companies when it’s stupid to do so. They have no protection or IP!
Now, for red hat: Red Hat has a user license that prevents you from copying it. THE ONLY WAY THEY BECAME PROFITABLE WAS TO USE RESTRICTIVE LICENSING! .. that and they forced a user upgrade from red hat linux to red hat enterprise before stuff like whitebox and centos could become a big alternative in time.
Why there has to be such a disclaimer when we post such a story and not when we post a positive Gnu story? Check out your bias mister. OSNews is here to report the good and the bad, not only what YOU want to HEAR. We are not here to make you feel good, we are here to provide you with the latest trends in the industry.
Ummm, the thing is, this was a positive and negative story for OSS. The title may have worked when applied to one or two paragraphs from the story, but not the whole thing. The title was deliberately misleading. This is probably the fault of ZDNet. I think you should actually read the article, specifically the part about OSS helping innovation in a lot of ways too. I vote that the title should be changed. Something like “The Positive and Negative Effects of OSS on Innovation” would be better. Although, that isn’t as good for page clicks and ad revenue now is it?
If you look at company’s financial records…
There has been very few companies that are making a lot of money with linux. I mean actually they are taking someone else’s work and sticking their brand name on it with a few changes. Companies should hire entire workforces to make profit off of that. And guess what they make very little profit.
if they were selling something like windows and their products actually sold they’d make loads more money. but it’s linux and most people that use linux get it for free..
Investors pour money into linux companies when it’s stupid to do so. They have no protection or IP!
Now, for red hat: Red Hat has a user license that prevents you from copying it. THE ONLY WAY THEY BECAME PROFITABLE WAS TO USE RESTRICTIVE LICENSING! .. that and they forced a user upgrade from red hat linux to red hat enterprise before stuff like whitebox and centos could become a big alternative in time.
Ummm, yes and CentOS is now an alternative. Wanna know why companies go with Red Hat?
Red Hat Network.
ISV certifications
Parterships with IBM, HP, Dell, etc.
If CentOS is such an alternative, why did Red Hat post another major revenue increase?
Open Source in the educational area is great and very important. It keeps pressure on companies and many companies use it to create better products (MacOSX, Safari). A lot of early stuff was created as part of educational research, but sadly a lot of that has been lost in the recent years…
But there will always be commercial and open source.
If Oracle took their DB software and open sourced it, people would simply get it for free. now they are forced to buy it. Open source yields less money per employee natrually.. that’s why open source companies use other people’s volunteer work. and everything cannot be volunteering. an entire industry can’t be volunteers.. therefore this is one huge point that there will always be closed and open. Everything cannot be open source because we live in a capitalist society, not a communist one as they have all failed.
I’m not sure if open source has really been innovative, but a lot of the education products were and they were open sourced. Now, a lot of commercial stuff has been innovative as well, but again more recently..
Sorry, the only open source world does not work, you must have a dual system for open source to exist. Do your research and get a business degree.
Oh Yeah: Sun plans on open sourcing their entire product line. I think they are insane. But then again, THEY HAVE TO, because they make no or little money off of it. If you think they’ll open source profitable stuff like java then good luck.
Great! That is what we want. That is the way it should be.
You’re damn right!
I release the source code under BSD license because if the work i do in my free time can be used by someone else to add value and commercialize it, i don’t mind.
Really? What software have you released under the BSD license?
Red Hat nothing but a brand name and big companies sell it because of a vocal anti-microsoft crowd.
I do not think red hat will have a long term growth potential way down the road, they may have growth–but they’re still using volunteer work to make money. They simply cannot hire as many employees to make a unix system that is equivilant to red hat enterprise linux and make the same amount of money, if the system is open source.
one reason they set fedora free from red hat, they wanted to get more for their money with their attempt to close their linux system.
I have no doubt that Red Hat could take OpenSolaris, close the source, and then sell it as “Red Hat Unix” or something and eventually shift to that OS and make even more money. the brand is very very powerful. But again, an entire industry cannot be nothing but volunteers, someones gotta pay rent.
I release stuff under the BSD as well, mostly PHP scripts that I will post on tjhawkins.com …. I only open source stuff that i don’t see is very profitable…
i wonder why most research projects use non-GPL licenses? To advance commercial closed software 😉
I wonder why stuff like linux was open sourced? Because Linus did not think it had huge commercial potential(he was not going to sellit, it was just for fun) and was ment to be something “better than minix” and a hobby.
“in my opinion”
http://distrowatch.com/
I guess cold hard data and fact proove you difinitavely and forever as wrong. ( Note : not everything is perfect at distrowatch ( article and presonnal comments are ofton erronous ) , but the data tend to be accurate for the most part )
I will say that your comment is based on idiocy rather then actual facts , many industry when they started where flooded by numerous comopany who all failed inside 1-5 years , the remnants are those who are workeable business plan or a lot of luck.
houses , banks , Phone , Cars , Computer , Internet , GNU/Linux. Many opened many died the one who survived where the strongest and fittest.
Make no Mistake GNU/Linux is not an Open Source business its a GNU/Linux business , Open Source whas beaten easily in the 70’s. But like I said almost everything is open or open source.
“but if everyone does that then people will loose interests… ”
I have to agree only when and if Open Source is alone since someone can take it all and not share anything back , it actually died , but add a natural defender such as the GPL wich is copy free and CopyLeft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfree
And you have people doing it just for the fun of proving the point because they can.
“People aren’t gonna work for free.”
They have been doing it for the most part for almost 15 yars to contribute back to what hey where given.
“That is why people still windows rather than picking up a free copy of linux. ”
No , because there are more people picking copy of GNU/Linux then they are picking up copy of Windows in any version.
And its not entirely becuase its default on computer , its because its default on prototype and new technology offered by the majority of vendors. Thats what GNU/Linux distribution should work on , New technology and prototype, so when it come out its alreayd covered by GNU/Linux and will only improve with time. 64 Bits technology prooved that GNU/Linux whas better at making a new technology work when its availaible to them ( there is no real 64 bits offer yet from Microsoft and its windows product but GNU/Linux is working on 64 bits in 64 bits.
“but can never be the standard…”
Its already standard …
“if you actually do the research. ”
Unlike you 😉 , for me and GNU/Linux its done 😉
“you can always blind and other companies..”
Not everything will be Open Source but one day instaed of beeig the underdog it will be top dog 😉
“but your just lieing to yourself”
No , but I am beeing lied at by you , stop giving your uninformed clueless opinion and do some actual and factual research. There is no absolute in life , exept that if someone never give up eventually they will come up as winner. Its called perseverance and improvment.
”
I do not think red hat will have a long term growth potential way down the road, they may have growth–but they’re still using volunteer work to make money. They simply cannot hire as many employees to make a unix system that is equivilant to red hat enterprise linux and make the same amount of money, if the system is open source.
”
Red Hat has hundreds of developers contributing to kernel, glibc, gcc, gtk, gnome and so on. Everything they contribute is open source.
They also integrate other open source stuff into their distribution. So does Sun or HP or IBM or even SCO. so what exactly is your complaint?
Now if that would have been the headline, the zealot drones would have no problem.
No wonder Linux never made it on the desktop when the zealots can never accept reality.
“If you look at company’s financial records… ”
Actually I do , I even go hunting for this stuff , personnaly interesting and as a hobby.
“There has been very few companies that are making a lot of money with linux”
Beside Novell/SUSE there is a lot who made millions …
” I mean actually they are taking someone else’s work and sticking their brand name on it with a few changes.”
Thats what Open source is and is for , most people dont even make a new brand name they just contribute improvments , because they know they cant suppor a Real GNU/Linux distribution by themself. The beauty of it is unlike BSD the one who did the first work can get the improvments too. So everyone wins. Its a win – win situation and what Open Source really is.
“And guess what they make very little profit.”
No , but unlike you I got the real hard data ( server , desktop , cell phone , etc … ) GNU/Linux as made as many millionaire as Microsoft did in its good days and it as made just as many poorer people who did not knew how to profit from it properly.
“if they were selling something like windows and their products actually sold they’d make loads more money. ”
There is one Windows there is hundred of thousand of GNU/Linux company … The money is made its just more diversified.
“but it’s linux and most people that use linux get it for free.”
No , and its GNU/Linux , the product that are shipped for free have been already paid for … by others nothing is without a cost in life. The profit of GNU is a workable system paid by millions whose billions of people can use and improve and wich is free as in freedom.
“Investors pour money into linux companies when it’s stupid to do so.”
Well they spent billions on BSD with absolutely no ROI , at least whith GNU/Linux they have some code to show for it , unless they spent totally unwisely or where investing on bad businees plans.
“They have no protection or IP! ”
Actually its innacurate , GPL code stay GPL and there IP is Open and availaible to them at all time. 14 years is proof enough the system works.
“Red Hat has a user license that prevents you from copying it.”
No , absolutely innacurate , it as a license preventing you from resalling and making copies of there brand without previous permission. Its not the same thing.
“THE ONLY WAY THEY BECAME PROFITABLE WAS TO USE RESTRICTIVE LICENSING! ..”
No , there 3.3 Billion IPO helped a lot.
“that and they forced a user upgrade from red hat linux to red hat enterprise before stuff like whitebox and centos could become a big alternative in time.”
They never forced anything. They even created Fedora and let it go free and independant …
I whas around when GNU/Linux add 1% on the server market and 0.0000000000001% on the desktop and almost nill in other things. ( stupid poor me should have insted more ).
Now where at 12% of the worldwide Desktop market , 56% of the Server market and we are in so many other market ( cellphones , tv set , oven , fridge , etc … ) that I cant name them all. And it keep improving.
GNu/Linux and GNU is an idea who’s time as come , nothing you or even I can do to stop it.
Linux is TOO COMPLEX for the average MSCE to handle. If you can’t make it easy enough for the MSCE to handle it then it’s too hard for SMB in general.
:] Good god, this caused me a good day, 10 minutes of good laugh to start the day :] True, to judge the average Linux’s “easiness” by the measure of an average MCSE’s knowledge can be one option. But one which I’d never care to use. Why ? :] You know, there are people who really know what MCSE is, and also know how much knowledge and experience is required to get an MCSE. And believe me, that amount of Windows OS knowledge almost equals to nothing when talking about general OS knowledge and experience. To cut it short, I don’t really take MCSE for anything but another paper. For me it doesn’t hold any real value, but then again, I’m not Microsoft, or related.
can’t make it easy enough for the MSCE to handle it
Not to be the devil’s advocate, but that does also say something about that MSCE’s capabilities, doesn’t it.
Linux and Unix variants are generally not the OS of the dumb. Get over it. Of course – and this being a Good Thing – there are variants especially tailored to meet the level of the less generally knowledgeable (Lycoris, Xandros, Libranet, Ubuntu, etc.).
And two more things. MCSE is a quite general and superficial examination. I would expect one not to talk BS about Windows, but that’s it.
Secondly, judging the usability and/or accessibility of a totally different [thank whichever god you believe in] OS by a certification made and issued for another OS is just crap.
big corporations? screw ’em!
Now if that would have been the headline, the zealot drones would have no problem.
No wonder Linux never made it on the desktop when the zealots can never accept reality.
No, the title doesn’t do the article justice. The article never tried to make the point that OSS hurts innovation completely. I suggest you read the article, look at the OSNews title, and then maybe you will see why we are complaining. OSNews took a perfectly sensible article and slapped a flame-bait title on it.
I also very highly doubt that what a bunch of people say on an online forum normal people will never go to hurts Linux’s chance on the desktop. Pull your head out of your ass and quit wasting everyone’s time by making stupid comments.
Now where at 12% of the worldwide Desktop market , 56% of the Server market and we are in so many other market ( cellphones , tv set , oven , fridge , etc … ) that I cant name them all. And it keep improving.
Actually, approx. 3% on desktop, 25% on servers, and who knows about other markets. But who’s counting? 😛
And to Tim Hawkins:
How many companies do you think are running mission critical oracle servers on Debian or CentOS? Or even mission critical servers period on Debian or CentOS? Maybe little DNS servers or Apache servers, but that isn’t Red Hat’s target market. A couple years ago the problem was that Linux didn’t have enough pay-for support. Now, supposedly, companies just download it for free and don’t buy support. Hmmmm, makes a lot of sense. Will you people make up your mind.
It’s incredible that stupid comments like these are actually taken seriously by the tech media.
In that case, I don’t see why I can’t charge thousands of dollars for stupid remarks.
Gartner has become a joke shop and a shill for Microsoft. They might as well hang out a shingle saying, “PR Division of Microsoft.” They have a credibility reputation now which is on a par with Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the pre-war Iraqi Minister of Information. Any corporate CIO who takes anything they say as being of significance from now on is out to lunch himself.
profitable stuff like java
That’s the first time I ever read that Sun is making money by selling Java
Maybe they sell some boxes which include a CD with the virtual machine, a Java(tm) cup and a Duke mascot.
Gartner: “ummm… it could be seen as a threat to innovation … ummm… could be seen as a good thing in terms of innovation…”
Again, the title is just for catching attention.
No, the title doesn’t do the article justice. The article never tried to make the point that OSS hurts innovation completely. I suggest you read the article, look at the OSNews title, and then maybe you will see why we are complaining. OSNews took a perfectly sensible article and slapped a flame-bait title on it.
I agree about the bad title. But don’t blame OSNews, it’s ZDNet’s title!
He explained that, in order to ensure a product is unique and marketable, a developer would have to check that it is not similar to open source software that is already available in the market.
The man basically states that the more competitors, the more difficult it is to market a product.
So, is capitalism bad for innovation?
What is wrong with this statement?…
“software developers could be discouraged from creating new software because of the multitude of open source software available for free”
It makes sense, so stop blinding yourself! That statement is just common sense. Even if Gartner is sponsored by Microsoft, that statement makes a lot of sense!
Yep. And I hope you also agree to his other points:
“But Hayward stressed that this is only “a slightly dampening effect” on innovation. On the other hand, people can take what is available as open source from the market, improve it, add a module, feature or a function, and sell that as their own. “That could be seen as a good thing in terms of innovation,” he said.”
“In fact, Hayward foresees a time when customers may not have to pay for software at all. “As a general long-term trend, [open source] is definitely accelerating the move away from software as a revenue stream, and toward services as a revenue stream. Maybe it will come to a day when all software is free, and you’ll just pay for support and enhancements.”
@osnews:
The headline and blurb from zdnet clearly doesn’t do the article justice. It’s sensationalist and grossly misleading. Why osnews thinks it is a good idea to simply copy it is beyond me.
Hey Guys! both ZDnet and OSNews stressed the wrong statement from Gartner´s person, why not stressing something possitive for free software? is OSNews too spreading F.U.D.?:Here is the important part:
But Hayward stressed that this is only “a slightly dampening effect” on innovation. On the other hand, people can take what is available as open source from the market, improve it, add a module, feature or a function, and sell that as their own. “That could be seen as a good thing in terms of innovation,” he said
Regards.
I’ll wait for Microsoft to innovate. That’s why I’m just browsing with Internet Explorer 6, the revolutionary browser that introduced browsing without tabs.
What an idiot …
no comments simple lol lol lol lol
Sorry, but how about reading the actual article?
The headline and the blurb are simply misleading, so call the author of the article an idiot, or the osnews folks who posted this story the way they posted it, but don’t call the gartner guy an idiot as he really does make sense and has a very balanced view on the subject.
….. no other os´s will exists.New OS´s survive with ports of open source software until comercial apps become avaliable, even more, most comercial firms never realise their software for any other OS than Windows, without open source apps other operating systems not have those apps that are standard in the market (ie PDF readers).So without Open source only windows exist.Really, do you want a world only with microsoft windows?
ralph the top keyword that i saw in this article is profit and not inovation
Gartner: Open source could damage the Microsoft’s marketshare.
After being “sponsored” by MS, how can you trust them?
OSS creates a base which other companies can use to create customized solutions. Like creating a database with GTK&MySQL for storing employee information. Or creating software for a transport company. Or creating a terrific game using BSD/LGPL-licensed libraries. Or even publishing the game’s source code under GPL – because rivals still have to create the atmosphere etc. You name it.
OSS may threaten the software business as it currently is, creating a new kind of market instead. What Gartner is saying is “computers are bad because they’re threatening the typewriter industry”.
GPL’d software damages Microsofts ability to innovate, afterall, if something’s open source then it means they can’t buy up the rights and leave the community with nothing.
The statements in the article are actually quite reasonable, except that I don’t see where there is innovation in providing a software product that provides functionalities already widely available, open source or not.
one just has to look at all the finished products and projects still being developed over at http://freshmeat.net and http://sourceforge.net/ to see LOTS of innovation…
“software developers could be discouraged from creating new software because of the multitude of open source software available for free”
It makes sense, so stop blinding yourself! That statement is just common sense. Even if Gartner is sponsored by Microsoft, that statement makes a lot of sense!
No it doesn’t. It says creating NEW software. Whether it’s available as open source or commercially, it isn’t new if it’s already available. A need, demand, opportunity or uniquely new idea drives development, however it’s ultimately licensed, though if you want to sell what you’ve created you’ll need a pretty compelling reason why people should pay for it.
There are plenty of examples like this in the service sector – i could service your car as a friend for nothing, yet you might still choose to pay a professional mechanic for all sorts of reasons – warantees, your knowledge of my less than stellar mechanical skills or the fact that certain procedures require the tools and resources available to a large authorised garage that are not available to me.
Software falls into an area somewhere between service and product, but is specifically neither, so traditional methods of analysis of these marketplaces are not entirely appropriate though some from each are useful and in this instance the service sector might yield a more sensible conclusion about the impact of oss on competition and innovation.
I think it’s incredibly ironic that the only place that the Linux desktop is getting deployed to is the corporations which Stallman hates so badly.
Stallman does NOT hate corporations. That’s a simplistic fiction. Stallman is a gun loving, pick your self up I’m not going to do it for you, independent. He is very much gung-ho for corporations to use his stuff, let alone any OSS. He does want you to do it on his terms, though.
If you are shaking your head over that comment, go back and take a closer look at what he has actually said and done over the years.
Face it: Linux is TOO COMPLEX for the average MSCE to handle. If you can’t make it easy enough for the MSCE to handle it then it’s too hard for SMB in general.
Windows is too complex for most MCSEs and RHCEs too. The learning curve just differs from Linux;
* Linux: Hard to learn the basics (beyond the desktop), possible to do the difficult things.
* Windows: Easy to learn the basics, near impossible to figure out the advanced things.
Most people don’t get into the advanced areas of Windows and instead rely on tools to do the job for them. The result is crufty, unstable systems with additional areas that can be attacked.
That’s why people keep advocating dumb things to do with Windows that are destined to fail over time; they haven’t spent the effort to learn the advanced issues and how to deal with them. Microsoft does not make it easy at all.
With Linux, the setup is 1x. There is no maintenance. Yes, you CAN patch the system and upgrade it…though if you know what you are doing YOU DO NOT HAVE TO. Same as Windows…though doing the 1x setup is much much more difficult…leading people to go into maintenance mode and layering on programs to fix problems they could have eliminated at the time of installation.
i agree why this guy on a point: there will be less commercial software (less revenue for developers) in the future.
open source software are valuable but not in their current form. i think they should only replace what we used to call freeware 10 years ago. or even some shareware, as long as the shareware developers could get some money …paypal donations?
open source software should never be alternative to commercial software like operating systems, word processors, database systems, ect. it’s just plain stupid to work for free. developers are killing themselves.
i never got my car fixed for free. my house cost me an insane amount of money. foods are more expensive then ever. computer hardware isn’t that cheap either. why would i give out my work for free then? why would i give a free operating system, word processor, ect. to all these people? when i know that i got much more education than them and at the end, they make much more money than me? yes, in north america, fixing cars and building houses get you way more money than developing software.
there’s some non-sense here. i think that the developer communities around OSS are great too but there are communities of closed source software developers as well.
anyway, i doubt i will remain a developer for long. i’m thinking of something better already and in north america, it’s so easy so. you can go back to school for a year and a half and you will earn more money than a graduated body that work in a cubicule.
i never thought computers would become so fade after all.
Even if OSNEWS did blindly copy the ZDNET headline, but that is no more journalistic a problem (for OSNEWS) than with any other cited news. If you read the article you will also find it is a stupid report.
“Gartner Research Asia-Pacific, said that software developers could be discouraged from creating new software because of the multitude of open source software available for free.”
How can software be new if someone has already written it? And even if there is an open source version you can still write your own version, no one is holding a gun to the programmers head.
Maybe OSNEWS could get a dilbert type Icon for these types of articles? Section under computing for the clueless.
i agree why this guy on a point: there will be less commercial software (less revenue for developers) in the future.
open source software are valuable but not in their current form. i think they should only replace what we used to call freeware 10 years ago. or even some shareware, as long as the shareware developers could get some money …paypal donations?
open source software should never be alternative to commercial software like operating systems, word processors, database systems, ect. it’s just plain stupid to work for free. developers are killing themselves.
i never got my car fixed for free. my house cost me an insane amount of money. foods are more expensive then ever. computer hardware isn’t that cheap either. why would i give out my work for free then? why would i give a free operating system, word processor, ect. to all these people? when i know that i got much more education than them and at the end, they make much more money than me? yes, in north america, fixing cars and building houses get you way more money than developing software.
there’s some non-sense here. i think that the developer communities around OSS are great too but there are communities of closed source software developers as well.
anyway, i doubt i will remain a developer for long. i’m thinking of something better already and in north america, it’s so easy so. you can go back to school for a year and a half and you will earn more money than a graduated body that work in a cubicule.
i never thought computers would become so fade after all.
Did you ever stop to think that these people enjoy programming so much that they don’t expect to get paid for it? Just like UNICEF enjoys helping starving children so much they don’t expect to make money from it? Just like I canvass for the heart and stroke fund because I enjoy it and don’t expect to be paid for it?
I suppose I’m an idiot for working for free, right?
Fucking idiot.
Anthem, by Ayn Rand
And please, you scream FUD so much, it’s ironic that that is exactly what you’re best at….
…inovation is hindered by OSS (!!!) because you have to look if there is an Open Source equivelant before you create a new program!!! BUT patents are inovations Best friend I suppose….
What bull!!!
This particular quote was taken out of context, but the fact remains that for a group of analysts (actually, for a group of anything) Gartner is worse than useless. They wait 6 months to 2 years after their advice would be useful, then they give advice that is either actionable (in which case its wrong) or wishy-washy and unactionable (in which case it is not wrong, but only by virtue of its lameness). They have shown time and time again that they don’t understand anything they are talking about, and that their opinions are available for hire. I know people in big business that actually hang on every word a place like Gartner says… it’s why such businesses are slow and stupid and helpless.
you have to tear it down first!
This is happening already in the middleware market. For instance, the use of the JBoss open source engine as a standard on application servers is now widespread, even among competing vendors. But vendors differentiate their product offerings from others by adding their own modules on top of the middleware, “and that could be seen [as] an improvement or an innovation”, said Hayward.
Not to mention i doubt that after spending $100,00 to improve a opensource product that they would be willing to distribute the source for free.
“The statements in the article are actually quite reasonable, except that I don’t see where there is innovation in providing a software product that provides functionalities already widely available, open source or not.”
Yes, innovation stiffles innovation, because once something has been innovated, there’s little reason to innovate it again. Just imagine if Henry Ford had held back on innovating the assembly line, we could do it now and it would be a huge boost to several sagging markets, damn bastard Ford.
for my company unless had absolutely no choice. i want a company with a full time staff of programmers who work on their software bugs, provide support, and improve their product. anything free wont be as good. you get what you pay for.
Just an example for you to figure out. Isn’t Evolution’s goal to copy MS Outlook and give it away?
Gimme a break, most FOSS’s goal is to copy commercial software and give it for free, this is a big slap into the rest of us who work hard coding to earn money.
OO.o, Firefox, Thunderbird, Evolution, gFTP, The Mozilla Suite, etc… And the list goes on! If you want to compete, don’t compete like cowards.
Really, didn’t Microsoft invent all of that?
ps the above comment must be taken with a hint of sarcasm.
Just an example for you to figure out. Isn’t Evolution’s goal to copy MS Outlook and give it away?
Evolution’s goal is to provide an email client for GNOME with features comparable to Outlook. There was no email client available for GNOME (or KDE or anything else for that matter) which had that feature set and people wanted it. So it got written. It’s not like Outlook was the first email client with groupware capabilities.
Gimme a break, most FOSS’s goal is to copy commercial software and give it for free, this is a big slap into the rest of us who work hard coding to earn money.
If the commercial software world provided that software for the Free OSes (Linux, *BSD, etc) then people might not be working on that software. You can’t complain about competition when you weren’t willing to meet the demands of your potential customers.
OO.o, Firefox, Thunderbird, Evolution, gFTP, The Mozilla Suite, etc… And the list goes on!
OO.o was a commercial office suite which was open sourced. Firefox was based off of the Mozilla code base which Netscape had to release as open source because Microsoft gave away their browser and integrated with their OS to kill Netscape’s market. Thunderbird and Evolution are email clients, there used to be a lot of them till Microsoft’s Office/Exchange monopoly killed off that market space. Gee, do we see a pattern here?
If you want to compete, don’t compete like cowards.
Yea, really, all you commercial software companies should stop being cowards and whining about competition when you refused to provide a product people wanted. And in a few years when Adobe releases Photoshop for Linux but no one cares because the GIMP is good enough by then, you’re going to say it’s the GIMP developer’s fault that no one is buying Photoshop for Linux, right? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that they waited for years to release the product?
Don’t warry! Open source will only damage M$’s Market. That is good for all of us.
“according to a prominent market analyst.”
Ruuuun. Geez..