Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday will announce that it is giving its Most Valued Professionals access to the more than 100 million aggregate lines of Windows source code, which includes all versions, service packs and betas of the Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 products.
Microsoft Opens Windows Source Code to Its MVPs
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
as long as they don’t GPL it we have nothing to worry about.
Six months to a year after this launches pieces of Windows code will be flying around the net. Should be interesting to watch,.
Does it contain “include <windows31.h>”?
And look but dont touch? Is someone able to change code?
That would be funny, all kinds of little snippets of MS code popping up in OS projects. Kinda flips the whole ‘Viral Software’ definition, doesn’t it?
I’d post something actually pertaining to the article, but it seems to have been OSNews’d.
Microsoft, SCO and others is in battle with opensource, because opensource is a cancer to economy/technology progress! Why some of opensource programmers are working in commercial software company’s? Easy, because jobs in technology areas are only possible if there’s money to paid programmers. It is not fair that some of this programmers that work to a commercial company that is their job are contributing to opensource… Opensource kill analists and programmers, i’m not joking here. If you are a software house and try to sell a commercial program, the client say “I have the same program that can do the same thing opensource ‘free'”, what the hell is this, why we are migrating to linux instead of commercial operating systems? Don’t say linux is better, if you want an advanced operating system, choose Unix it’s a commercial version that do the same thing as linux. And microsoft have programmers working to them, because they have money to paid them, remember this, because your software company that you work for, have money because they sell programs…
This little venture seems like the ultimate marketing ploy to me. Anybody know the stipulations on seeing the code? Surely, you cannot change anything with or without MS’s knowledge? Assuming you could not change anything, what exactly is the point of seeing the code.
By doing this stunt, MS can now say that they are “open” because they are know letting people see code. Granted, the informed people in the computer biz know better but the average person wouldn’t know the difference between seeing the code of Windows and seeing the code of Linux and more likely, not care about the difference. It just seems like a great PR opportunity for MS.
Seriously, somebody enlighten me about what is to be gained from seeing code but not being able to do anything with it. I guess you could argue that it would allow you to make products more compatible with Windows maybe. I am not a coder so I don’t know if this is valid or not.
And why should companies be selling software rather than support/online playing/rapid update services?
“that do the same thing as linux” if it does the same why the need to pay someone to reinvent the wheel…
There has always been freeware just because it is more focused and better software is availible does not mean a software company will die…
I would like to know where the billions and billions of $ £ etc have gone ***MS marketing talk*** over the last few years… product road maps
Win95se, Win98 Win98se WinME,
NT4, 2000, XP, 2003…
At each new release how much did MS claim they spent on the product….
at the end of the day their wheel is still round and made out of wood.
Unfortunately, you’re defending the IT landscape as it is today. Think horse drawn carriages around the turn of the century and the uproar that industry went through with the advent of the motor car. IT is switching from an industry that didn’t have to defend itself because it was the “future” to just another cost center for businesses. Open source serves the needs of those end user businesses better than proprietary software and will only get better with time.
It’s time to face the fact that from a business perspective we’re often about as important as the delivery boy who delivers the mail.
The trick going forward will be to adapt to these changes. those that don’t, will actually become the delivery boy
And they have employers to do so. They have personal to do that job, you must of course pay for it.
I put the question in other way: Why should programmers make them source available to the public? one day he goes to work and the boss tell him “you can go home, we don’t want you to do programs. for now one we only do support for opensource programs” and you are out of the door…
year 2008:) : The student: “Why should I study programming? And spend years to make them if I won’t be paid for that time?”
How can one become a MVP? Wtf is a Most Valued Professionals (without the marketing and elitism stuff, please); “unique set of expertise and passion” is so vague that it can be used to chose people MS wants to, while ignoring others they don’t want, using the argument that they don’t have the “unique set of expertise and passion” which is then not proven. Also, how can it be proven this is the exact source of which the binary is made?
I just hope nobody is gonna use this as fallacy that ”Microsoft Windows is opensource” or something. Cause it ain’t. Pure marketing, this is. We mortal users, the people. have no advantage because of this ”news” or because of this source review.
OTOH, it’ll be spread most likely, which is a Good Thing for openness and transparency, even if it’s illegal by law.
ok right here goes,
no one has seen M$ code apart from M$, same with SUN, SCO etc.. unless they have allowed someone to see for whatever reason,
now linux, freeBSD etc.. have there source code on the net open to anyone blah blah
am i not right in thinking that any opensource developer who develops a technology lets say for example make the kernel scale up 2048 procesors! whatever now becuase he has published it via GPL, BSD license, everyone knows that it belong to OS and it was GPL’d BSD’d on so and so date.
now if M$ or SCO or any other comapny for that matter says hey thast our code blah blah blah how can they justify it ?? i mean come on how do we know they didnt copy it the other day ?? ands just put it in ? with OS everyone know ehenit wsa put in etc…
so for M$ for example now if someone puts there code up say tommorow and people start stealign an placing it all over the show, how can M$ say thats our code how will they prove they wrote that in 1999 or something ?
and if someone does GPL it, it cant be taken back what happens then ??
Snake
In a way, this is like Microsoft saying, “OpenSource is better than our methodology – we need to catch up!”
Even if the source is not allowed to be modified, it will definitely help application developers. One of the reasons why open source is so powerful is the ability to look into the source to try to understand what’s going on, and learn new things in the process.
Is this another tactic against OpenSource? No, I think it’s MS admitting that they can do better.
“I put the question in other way: Why should programmers make them source available to the public?”
If you cannot argument about this yourself, and ask yourself why, i conclude you have not read anything from pro-opensource people. I’d recommend some readings at gnu.org. But there are a lot more. For example, ESR’s “The cathedral and the bazaar”.
Well said. As a student majoring in CS, I’ve been quite alarmed with Open Source and the mindset behind it. I certainly want to have a job in the future. Now, luckily, there are still several areas where employers need customized programming that GPL software will never take on. However, the idea that the entire Open Source community is degrading the value of programmers and programming is very frightening to me. I never bought the whole “get the money off of selling services” approach because I think it is too indirect and unreliable. I want to be a programmer and get paid to program. I don’t want provide Tech Support the rest of my life, I’m doing that now and it sucks. There is nothing wrong with paying somebody for software. I don’t want to go through my life begging for money from companies or individuals wise enough to have sound business plans. Open source relies on the good of others far too much in my opinion. I always hear of projects “waiting to get noticed by some big corporation with funding.” Bah!
Tell me how many jobs MS distroyed with their commercial manners. A lot of small computer firms vanished beacause of Microsoft (per ex : netscape). Now the value is not in the product but in services and people like me can have office suit, browser..freely. Whith microsoft i coudn’t answer to your message beause i can’t affot to by a Office for 300 Euros and windows for more thant 100 Euros. So thank to all programmers who are working not for money but for people…Good luke to the open-free source community….
and if someone does GPL it, it cant be taken back what happens then ??
I’ve read somewhere that the copyright owners can de-GPLise his projects… Sure, they won’t be able to de-GPLise and stop the distribution of the versions they GPL’d before, but they won’t be required to use that licence in future versions. Note that all copyright owners must agree with that… It can be really hard to de-GPLise an application where hundreds of people contributed to the code.
Seriously, somebody enlighten me about what is to be gained from seeing code but not being able to do anything with it?
Simple, you can try and ensure that a) the code is doing exactly what API docs say it does, and if it doesn’t, then b) you can change your code to work around that problem.
It also give better insight on how to write your applications etc.
In many ways, it gives you great advantage and burdens you with the most evil of curses. By being able to see the source code, you can (potentially) write you software with full knowledge of how the system will treat things, rather than relying on the documnentation to tell you how the system treats things.
The documentation may be wrong or incomplete in describing the details of an API, whereas with the source code, all is revealed.
The curse is that should you code to the assumptions gleaned by looking at the internal workings, and those workings should change, your code may break when they update the OS.
What this really does, though, ideally, is give MS partners the same access to “hidden APIs” that products such as Office are alleged to leverage but are not documented outside of MS.
Of course, the great horror is that the Black Hats of the world get their hands on this kind of thing to find Yet More exploits. Long term it is a Good Thing in the same way that Open Source enables the “Thousand Eyes” to audit source code, but in the Short Term its problematic as the hackers are faster at exploiting problem than MS are at fixing them.
“In a way, this is like Microsoft saying, “OpenSource is better than our methodology – we need to catch up!” ”
I would argue that it’s more like Microsoft saying, “OpenSource is a buzzword, let’s incorporate it as little as required to get publicity.”
Or Euclid, Al-khowarizmi or Euler? We’d still be in the Dark Ages. Besides, just because code is open doesn’t mean it’s transparent, especially in some languages, notably C++.
And, considering the sheer size and complexity of Windows, I would be astonished if a programmer who isn’t very experienced with Win32 and C++ could make heads or tails of it in less than a few months.
I already answered that question: “To lost their job”.
You are defending opensource, because you don’t understand the GPL licence like I do some years ago… but now I understand and I think differently.
I want a computer with 100 Gb disk for free (opensource) you have one for me?
I don’t think so…
That this may be a marketing ploy. It is in part. But I think that MS is under a lot of pressure to “open” their code so that others can view it – not necessarily to modify it, but to actually see what is going on. This is my take on it:
The reason is pretty simple: people who write programs for MS products are pretty much writting to a black box. You can’t see how the code you are writting will interact with, for instance, Windows 2000 Pro until you see if it crashes or not. By at least seeing the code, developers can say “oh, that is why it does xyz”. Unfortuantely it is not all the code, which means that there will still be a black box quality to writting windows compatible programs.
As for making changed to MS’s code: unless there is a radical shift in their thinking, dream on. It is not open in the sense of open source – viewing and changing, it is what I have heard them call “Shared-Source”. It is a limited step in the right direction. Self-serving, but a step that will allow programers (‘trusted’ programers) to know a little bit more of what they are writting to.
“Tell me how many jobs MS distroyed with their commercial manners. A lot of small computer firms vanished beacause of Microsoft (per ex : netscape). Now the value is not in the product but in services and people like me can have office suit, browser..freely. Whith microsoft i coudn’t answer to your message beause i can’t affot to by a Office for 300 Euros and windows for more thant 100 Euros. So thank to all programmers who are working not for money but for people…Good luke to the open-free source community….”
I don’t find commercialism too offensive. Sure, Microsoft beat companies who might have had better products, but in the end, it simply ups to ante for competition. Products have to truly be better, or have some sort of edge to compete with Microsoft. In my opinion, that’s where open source got it’s start. Its edge is that it can rally tons of intelligent people to contribute countless hours of their lives for no financial benefit. Even Microsoft can’t do that, but I wouldn’t want them to. I don’t hate Microsoft enough to work for free. I don’t mind paying $300 for Office if it means I can make however many thousands per year programming.
If you want free programs you want also free support:)
3oo $ isn’t a lot for you Zachary but for other people it’s a lot (i m a student). Moreover all countries are not rich like the states and open source contribute to developpe local computer firm. Crond i do not want free support because i can fix mysel my computer problem.
linuxlover you are sick, you love linux most that anything, but you don’t understand why.
If your country don’t have money, it is fault of the citizens for the choose of their government…
“3oo $ isn’t a lot for you Zachary but for other people it’s a lot (i m a student). Moreover all countries are not rich like the states and open source contribute to developpe local computer firm. Crond i do not want free support because i can fix mysel my computer problem.”
I completely understand what you’re saying. I too am a student, and $300 is certainly more than I care to spend on software. However, there are academic prices, and I even believe (yes, I know this is crazy) that software piracy is a form capitalism. To me, it equates to a black market (somebody selling the same product for a lower price at the added risk of legal action). The point is, I’d much rather support the commercial software industry where I can because I believe that a strong software industry is better for my future. Sure, open source is easier now, but I don’t think it serves my future as well. In your situation, I would say that if other countries put more money into software, they’d have a stronger software industry and perhaps foster corporations that could compete internationally and bring money into the country. With open source, you might be able to create a product that is used internationally, but how would that help your country’s economy?
gee, how EVERYONE seems to forget and forgive M$….
ITS SIMPLE PEOPLE, M$ were found guilty, the courts
ORDERED that M$ open their code, M$ are trying to
spin it out and look… they dont need to, everyone here
seems to be doing that job for them, for gods sake
people, try and keep at least a few facts intact
and make sure M$ dont spin this into oblivion.
they ARE under a court ordered sanction, they
MUST publish, they are trying to limit the viewers
to ‘special’ people, will you the courts let them
limit your order, its sad and potentially fatal
to REAL inovation thats created not embrassed & mutated
as per EVERY single major M$ thing people are told they
need.
I think you are the one who is sick. Just because a program is opensource does not make it free. Companies still need programmers to write programs if they want to make money with support. If they didn’t, what would they offer support for?
I think Operating Systems should be open. It levels the playing field when trying to write programs for that operating system.
Just for the record, I am currently a Windows user not a Linux user. I like linux and would run it on a spare computer, if I had the money.
Programers will still get paid to do their work. Even with OpenSource, they will still be in demand because
1: users typically do not know how to program apps themselves.
2: while there will be “free” apps, issues such as security and private business needs will still require programers.
3: There are too many programers who today think it will be their bread and butter – Sorry, India has them cheaper. Thus an equilibrium will appear in which, the average programer will be the on hand hack or the project management (which, incidentally, is where a lot of American based programers will have to move to if they want to stay ahead of “cheaper” labor).
The real threat to programers has not been open source, but cheaper programers – I can tell you many American IT departments, including my own, have cheaper, foreign, programers. OpenSource won’t inovate very much without proprietary investments doing their own research, but then, there has not been much innovation with MS’s proprietary software as of late either.
crond, I supported your initial argument because it was sound, but please don’t dive off into meaningless insults that might make you sound less credible
“I already answered that question: “To lost their job”.”
My English is not awesome. What do you mean with “To lost their job”?
“I want a computer with 100 Gb disk for free (opensource) you have one for me?
I don’t think so…”
What are you? A troll? A pet? A moron?
Opensource is not about freedom as in beer but about freedom as in speech. Also, what you say is a fallacy since opensource software can run fine on proprietary hardware.
Finally, yes, there is opensource hardware and there are vendors who are opensource friendly. VIA for example:
http://www.deadly.org/article.php3?sid=20031014162857
“By crond (IP: —.ppp.tiscali.fr) – Posted on 2003-10-22 17:57:37
If you want free programs you want also free support:)”
Again you do not understand the word ”free”. With ”free software” we’re talking about ”libre software” (French).
“If your country don’t have money, it is fault of the citizens for the choose of their government…”
Answer keywords: dictatorship, plutocracy, propaganda by government, politics, […]
I like linux and Oss because it’s well done, free…Moreover I like the philosophy of the Open Souce and if i had programming skills i would love to participate to one project. Microsoft product are extemly expensive and i prefer to stay in the law and use an original open source softwar than to have a copy microsft product….
” In your situation, I would say that if other countries put more money into software, they’d have a stronger software industry and perhaps foster corporations that could compete internationally and bring money into the country. With open source, you might be able to create a product that is used internationally, but how would that help your country’s economy?”
A very good point. How is open source going help India? Aren’t alot of companies opening branches in India to take advantage of thier programming expertise. How is open source going to help them get jobs to feed thier families.
What is Suse and Redhat doing for India’s employment.
Who makes more money, a tech support person or a programmer? On this planet you still have to pay for food and other staples.
“The real threat to programers has not been open source, but cheaper programers”
Very good point. That’s really what scares me. Not that open source exists (I use Gentoo and enjoying playing with the technology), but that it is being used to degrade the value of the programmer. Open source is not inherently bad (in my opinion). I just worry about what some of the zealots are pushing it towards.
You say that, because you are a student and don’t have money to buy a program. Your daddy don’t have work to give you money? Students think always, that free is good.
I don’t think students will buy support from an opensource company, they don’t have money to spend and don’t have any interest in support, what they want is free stuff.
Internet have changed the way people do software. Not only for Internet-related software, but, more importantly, it allows to get hands to already done code.
In the past, most programmers were payed doing programs that were already done somewhere else. ( Here is some kind of Communist mentality among programmers : keep productivity low, don’t share your work with others and make your code unreadable to keep your job. )
Noone can prevent you from giving away your creations. The “Open Source community” is not aliens, it’s not a foreign power threatening your country, it may be your neighbour. The spread of free software is a natural consequence of the very nature of Internet.
The open source community is not degrading the value of programmers, it’s raising the productivity of the whole IT industry, and, as with many others industrials matters, it inevitably yields lower employment.
YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY CHOICE.
The only paths to get a job here in the future is :
– Do something new, innovative ( Look games, there is very few important Open Source projects because each game shall be new and commercialisation does not last years )
– Do Tech support or open source customisation ( That what makes Linux distros editors )
– Get into a niche market wich will take much longer to get “invaded” by free software.
– [ Any other idea ? ]
Any proof : Look Microsoft. Do you really think that without open source they would be that much involved in promoting new technologies ?
An UNIX style OS used to cost thousands of dollars, twenty years ago. Now it costs $0, because it’s an old technology, old ideas, a student exercise. To stay aloft, you must have NEW ideas every other day !
Don’t expect Open Source Software to leave the scene.
One day, computers will be smart enough to get rid of programmers, Open Source is simply the first step. In the while, fewer programmers will be necessary than in the past because of code sharing and higher level programming langages ( ideally, USERS will do themselves their softwares ).
“You say that, because you are a student and don’t have money to buy a program. Your daddy don’t have work to give you money? Students think always, that free is good.
I don’t think students will buy support from an opensource company, they don’t have money to spend and don’t have any interest in support, what they want is free stuff.”
That’s actually another very good point crond. I would argue that just using open source products is not truly supporting them. To support them, you would have to either program or donote. Most students do neither, though some might be more inclined to donate time programming. I would like to go further and argue that strictly economically (ie, remove legalities and moralities), using open source without contributing (either by code or cash) is equivalent to using proprietary software without paying (warez). Both of which are common practices of students.
Actually I am not a student. It is not just about the software being free. I guess Redhat being profitable is just a fluke
Countries that they can built a softwar industry are trying to do that. Per exemple China, Corea…But they are strongly lobbied by Microsoft (ISC..) to abandon such project. Crond, you are insulting everyone who is not on your side. Are you working for microsoft ?
I bet you BillG’s net worth that the NDA these poor sods [MVPs] are going to have to sign will forfeit their first born if it [the source code] ever leaks out…!
“You say that, because you are a student and don’t have money to buy a program. Your daddy don’t have work to give you money? Students think always, that free is good.
I don’t think students will buy support from an opensource company, they don’t have money to spend and don’t have any interest in support, what they want is free stuff.”
You are generalizing and using argumentum ad hominum. Not all students “don’t have money”.
PS: like i said earlier you still do not get the clue. Free software is about speech, not beer. Stallman even says on gnu.org that he has no problem when people bundle GNU and Linux together with other free software as what is called a Linux distribution, and ask money for it.
Also, the GPL is not negative against capitalism. It just makes it harder, in my eyes more fair, to get profit. A GPL programmer from a company CAN ask money for his source. He CAN keep the source and binaries for himself and run that in his company. Both are possible and give him advantage.
(substitute him with her where appropriate)
I buy my Suse linux and I m really happy with that. I wish to participate to the open source community but i m not a programmer (unfortunatly).
Actually, Pythagoras didn’t believe in being open. His brotherhood was quite closed and a few people were even killed for revealing “secrets” to outsiders.
“I would argue that just using open source products is not truly supporting them.”
I don’t agree. With anything, using = supporting.
Though it’s a small step. And other people probably don’t benefit from it.
“To support them, you would have to either program or donote.”
Various other ways exist. Not everyone can program. A way could be: test the program out (btw, check out what i earlier said about using = supporting), writing documentation, translating, reviewing software, […] i’m shortsighted so there’s a lot more possible:)
“Most students do neither”
You have statistics on this?
“though some might be more inclined to donate time programming. I would like to go further and argue that strictly economically (ie, remove legalities and moralities), using open source without contributing (either by code or cash) is equivalent to using proprietary software without paying (warez). Both of which are common practices of students.”
Why do it legal when you can do it illegal? It has some simmlarities indeed but it’s not exactly the same. Nowhere is written one has to donate money-wise. It would indeed be cool, i agree.
Open source is volunteerism. People have the right to do what they want with their own time, whether it be reading to old folks at the hospital or writing a better content management system. A lot of people believe in open source software. The reasons they believe in it are not important — there are enough of them to make it a significant economic force. Unless you can convince them not to believe it (and I really doubt you can), you’re going to have to accept that open source is an economic power made possible by the very rules of the free enterprise system you believe in.
“I buy my Suse linux and I m really happy with that. I wish to participate to the open source community but i m not a programmer (unfortunatly).”
You don’t have to be a programmer! I’m not a programmer either and i still support the opensource community in several ways. I wrote an essay about this, but it’s not in English.
http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2003/10/14647.shtml
It’s more of an introduction to free software. If you want a translation, drop me a line.
About free software and selling
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
See how can you contribute
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
And there’s a text on gnu.org about how one can contribute to the free software community but i can’t find it
“I buy my Suse linux and I m really happy with that. I wish to participate to the open source community but i m not a programmer (unfortunatly).”
At this point, I believe our differences basically come down to what we think is better for the future. I think Wow had a powerful argument with “The open source community is not degrading the value of programmers, it’s raising the productivity of the whole IT industry.” Personally, I don’t care what license I program under as long as I’m getting paid to do the programming. Many free software zealots refer to “all software should be free” and imply “free as in beer,” which certainly worries me.
I like Linux and use it as a “neat” technology. I have yet to do a paid programming project and I’ve released free application (though not open source) in the past because I did them as a hobby. I certainly understand the idea of programming for fun and contributing to a commmunity while learning in the process. My opinions simply stem from the fear of a devalued programmer. However, I’m encouraged by Wow’s idea that this is beneficial in the long run, even if it’s not immediately apparent.
It is not just companies that compete economically; individuals do, too. If the supply of jobs goes down, programmers have to truly be better or have some edge to succeed. If some programmers lose their jobs over open source (and I don’t see that happening, by the way), it can only make things better for me, because I won’t have to work with so many terrible programmers who do it because they want to make money instead of software.
The economics for Open Source and Proprietary software are very different. However, both can make money and they are not mutually exclusive. You can have both together and they can both make money.
As I said earlier, just because it is open source does not make it free. Not all distro’s even offer a copy of their distro to download for free. They do have to give you the code with the distro but they can still make you pay for it.
Companies in general will pay for a product if they get support for that product. The support costs is where companies like Redhat make thier money.
You need to learn a little bit more about open source software before you say it is killing the economy and costing programmers their jobs.
Programmers must be paid to do a living like everyone. Without the Oss programmers would have more jobs ? I don’t think so. Now, Oss gives choice to everyone. Developpers would have jobs because without them firms can’t handle their IT or softwars
“Many free software zealots refer to “all software should be free” and imply “free as in beer,” which certainly worries me.”
As you can notice in this threat, it’s also the anti-free software zealots who do not understand this. I think hardcore free software zealots, like RMS, perfectly understand the difference.
I think it has to do with the way our world is currently based on: money. [Though not everyone lives according to money beeing most important.] Therefore i can’t blame anyone but don’t like it when it’s used in free software. Some languages do not have problems with ”free”, for example French uses ”libre” for ”free/speech”. Probably other languages deal with this in a more clear way as well. If anyone knows, i’d like to know too.
You’re right. Using is supporting, but I would say it is a much smaller contribution, equivalent to supporting commercial software by simply using it. However, providing documentation, training, reviewing, bug-testing, etc are all more significant contributions that I unintentionally omitted from my earlier argument.
“You have statistics on this? ” Nothing scientific, but I do live in a dorm and I am a ResNet Technician, so I’ve interacted with dozens if not hundreds of students and it has been my experience that most neither contribute to open source nor pay for the slew of software they have. Granted, that’s not the most professional test, but I believe it to be sound enough to base a small argument on. Perhaps I could have phrased it “Most students appear to do neither.”
Thank dpi for your links. I think to pay for software it’isn’t bad. I paid for my linux distro with pleasure because the 40 Euros was cheap comparing microsoft product. Windows home version was more than 100 Euros without an office suit. Moreover I a way to support open source even if it’s not a big support….
“100 million aggregate lines of Windows source code”
This means 100 million lines of source code FROM all the products they listed, put together in a big mess, and handed to you on a platter.
It does nobody any good since its multi programs meshed together w/ the real stuff taken out…
RE: So adapt already. (by By Danny MacMillan): “Open source is volunteerism.” That’s what really concerns me about open source. I don’t like the idea of relying on volunteers, donations, etc. I don’t feel comforted in relying on the goodness of others for my livelihood because I don’t believe that people are genuinely good. Perhaps that is my own character flaw
Re: Crond (By Anonymous): “You need to learn a little bit more about open source software before you say it is killing the economy and costing programmers their jobs.” I realize you are addressing Crond, who seems to lack a bit of tact in his arguments, but I’d like to point out that in all my views I am addressing my personal concerns and not stating absolutes.
Re: CROND: Upping the ante. By Danny MacMillan: “it can only make things better for me, because I won’t have to work with so many terrible programmers who do it because they want to make money instead of software.” Don’t mistake my interest in money for a lack of interest in computers. I’m a CS major because I love computers, I love software/programming, and I love playing with new types of software (hense, the reason I read OSNews daily and supported them financially when the opportunity came). I just worry about trends in my industry that might make it difficult for me to make a living out of doing what I love.
Zachary: I see what you are saying, but did you think the market should change around what YOU need? That’s great that you’re a CS major and all … but software users couldn’t care less if you do tech support or if you’re out of a job. If people can use open source software free instead of paying you (which they may not: e.g. choosing Windows or Macintosh over Linux), why do you think they should? When you choose what you do in school and complain later that the job market doesn’t fit you, that’s silly. You have to fit the job market.
That the code clean-up they did for server 2003 wasn’t good enough (and some of it wasn’t cleaning up, it was “throwing out”, due to the economics of time). Lornhorn, baby, Longhorn. Why not have your MVPs help you out in debugging your code? Besides WinFS and the other “enhancements” planned, I do think that the continually evolving (or devolving?) timeline for Lornhorn is based on a desire to truly make it rock-solid. Whether or not that’s possible is another matter, but the MVPs are basically free labor for MS to clean up whatever messes lurk behind those Windows.
Commoditization of the operating system layer only,
theoretically and potentially, hurts programmers working
for companies like Microsoft and Sun. The vast majority
of programmers are doing custom work inside corporations,
or are working on layers unlikely to be commoditized.
From that perspective, the net effect of even very, very
wide adoption of Linux on the market for programmers will
be very small. And we ain’t even a tenth of the way
there yet.
And a counter-argument could also be made that the number
of IT related jobs will rise as this goes on, since
competition in support and other services will likely
RISE. In terms of number of people employed, competition
is less efficient than monopolistic or near-monopolistic
control. Thus, more jobs. Maybe.
I’d be a lot more worried about outsourcing.
YahoKa, certainly I don’t feel the industry should evolve around me. That’s silly. The point is, I’m on an OS enthusiast forum discussing two competing software philosophies and why I’m hesitant to support one of them due to my concerns about my future. Small things can make a difference, and if I’m going to support open source I better have an informed reason for doing so, other than simply following the hype. It’s debateable whether one person can make a difference or not, but my opinion will certainly affect my personal advocation of Linux and other open source technologies to friends or potential future employers.
Well, Crond, I guess we’ll be seeing you and many others like you bagging groceries. You do know how to bag groceries, don’t you?
However, the idea that the entire Open Source community is degrading the value of programmers and programming is very frightening to me.
It doesn’t – however, Open Source does raise the bar for closed software. Both open and closed software development methodologies have their strengths and weaknesses.
And if you want to be paid to program, I suggest you start worrying about the current trend to outsource software development – that is a far bigger job killer than all the OS development.
Except your confusing two different markets. Open soure and proprietary products do not compete, and they shouldn’t. Chances are, you won’t work for a company that sells software. More companies hire programmers to do internal work for them. Either that, or you will be hired to write custom software, where the source code is usually expected. In these two realms, open source and proprietary are meaningless. You are writing software for one person.
The issue of open source and proprietary is when you are actually working for a company that produces software they sell as a package.
Indeed, even open sourcing a software product is not something that will cripple the sale of the product. Take a look at companies like SuSE. They sell open source products along side proprietary products. They meld the two together to complete a package.
It seems, from your statements, that you don’t think open source is a way to make money. However, that is not really what’s at issue. The majority of open source users, and contributors don’t make money because they sell software, but because they use open source in their work place.
Indeed, most companies that employ programmers are NOT selling software, but developing it for internal use. Now think about this for a minute. If you could get a few hundred developers developing your internal app, you could vastly improve it, possible even saving your company money.
And this is not uncommon. Many open source projects start out as internal apps created because a company needed it, and the developer’s create it. Then they decided to release it.
Many of these companies are still open and operating, with the benefit of having the efforts of many unpaid programmers providing additional help.
The other issue is whether supporting open source is something you should do. Let me put this another way: Why are you supporting proprietary applications?
Indeed, not supporting open source is tantamount to harming your customer. Wouldn’t it be more intelligent to analyze the aspects of both types, and provide your customer with the best solution. Indeed, if you were consulting for my company, and you turned around and only offered be a proprietary solution, I would drop you very quickly (Indeed, this has happened before…)
Businesses want options, and assuming that proprietary solutions are the silver bullet is just as bad as assuming the same thing about open source solutions.
As a business owner, and a developer, I can say that the best solutions are one’s that focus on the best way to get there, and not limiting that path to simply one system.
First, stop trolling.
Second, people can do whatever they want in their free time. If we don’t allow people to code for free, should we also forbid the publication of books telling you how to fix your own sink because plumbers might lose their jobs?
while I beleive in OSS and proprietary software coinciding together (meaning they don’t have to be mutally exclusive) they both have their uses, I think a lot of people here don’t really get it when it comes to Open Source and Linux.
It’s about collaboration, knowledge sharing, open communicaton protocols, open API’s and very little with jobs or even giving everything way for free.
Look at OSDL for example many companies working together and supporting a single project. I am sure the programmers at the OSDL are being paid…Linus himself is probably getting paid very well.
as Linux and OSS become more popular we will probably see more of this type of thing, where you will see centers supported, financially and otherwise, by other companies working on projects of common interest.
Hardware companies, another good example. IBM, SGI, HP all have paid programmers who work on, directly and indirectly, Linux and other Open Source projects. They make most of there money through consulting, hardware sales, and support and not from the software itself.
Like someone said before another great area for open source are internal projects, especially if the are for processes that would not necassarily give you a competitive advantage.
The job outlook for programmers (as with many people in IT) are due to several things: Market saturation of high paid workers demanding more money, and the ability to find workers off-shore (the current trend is india and china) that are willing to do the same work for less.
This has nothing to do with Free Software or Open Source.
So if a company pays you to work on an OSS project are you going to decline the job because you don’t belive in open source? I doubt it.
Wrawrat are you joking? “Can you make me a program for free that takes you free time to do it? an operating system would be nice, but I want to sell it after, please give me the rights of author to it.”
“look for example for the creator of linux that works to transmeta… why don’t he live from linux, he spend their time doing linux in the university!!! ”
I just wanted to make a note that if I’m not mistaken, Linus no longer works for transmeta but at the OSDL.
Did you want to live eating a mug of riz every day?
RE:The job outlook for programmers
Yes, this enterprises are searching to in the future have revenues from support. But they will fail, you’ll see.
RE:
Hardware companies, another good example. IBM, SGI, HP all
Supported by that company’s, witch revenus are commercial.
Look at OSDL for example many companies working together and …Linus himself is probably getting paid very well.
crond, you’re either trolling or you’re really slow. Many people said here what is the point of free/open source software and I won’t bother to state them again. It has nothing to do with being a personal slave for your own greed.
Open source is not something that is done *only* by programmers on their free time. There are many open source projects (linux kernel, openoffice, gnome, kde, etc.) where professional developers are contracted by companies that depend on that software.
Companies itselves are getting more and more interested in this (not so) new business model, including ones such as IBM. They get much more support and help from the community and can thus move on faster, while selling professional support and services for that software.
Oh, and there are collaborators on open source projects that end up being contracted by companies to work full time on them. Such is the case of Torvalds or Alan Cox, to name the most famous ones.
One quick take on this whole Open Source Phenomenon is that it puts the focus on Real World productivity.
The FOSS people are creating the infrastructure and the tools which will be used to integrate computing into everyday life in a way that will benefit our productivity and enhance our social network. As the ubiquity of software tools increase and the standardization of interfaces between those tools improves computing will become cheaper for people to buy and easier for them to understand and use. This will lead, not only to productivity, but to increased affordability and profitability for all involved. Mass production of goods == cheaper goods. Not necessarily better, but that’s another issue.
With the tools to interface with our information economy readily and cheaply at hand, people will become more focused on creating things or services that actually affect our lives.
The FOSS Movement is the major force behind standards and interoperability.
rambling now.. must find lunch.
You’re right, but if some people can’t understand that open source can benefit the society, do you think they’ll understand what you just said?
I think some people are just too much conservative…
You seem to repeat what you said earlier. You aren’t trying to put up an argumentum ad nauseam with your last comment ”opensource is a cancer to economy/technology progress!” and your babbling about ”students” again, are you?
>> “Most students appear to do neither.” -> At your ResNet. Since your ResNet doesn’t represent all students in the whole world. How would i’ve known your story -which sounds indeed interesting- if you’d just talk about students in general? The details are important!
>> I think to pay for software it’isn’t bad. I paid for my linux distro with pleasure because the 40 Euros was cheap comparing microsoft product. Windows home version was more than 100 Euros without an office suit. Moreover I a way to support open source even if it’s not a big support….
You’re welcome. Imo, all minor help does help together in a big way and there’s no “1 way” which is only good, or the best.
I am reminded of a Facts of Life episode. The Facts of Life girls are throwing some kind of fundraising soiree, and they’re giving away everything except champagne and napkins, which are way overpriced. The dollar signs start adding up when people spill their champagne and have to clean them up with napkins.
The thought amuses me (but don’t expect me to defend it) that open source software is like that: the ultimate loss leader for the 21st century.
It’s not only benefitting the society: it benefits enterprises too.
Let’s say you want to sell your closed source products. If you want to develop your own software starting from scratch, you must use tons (*1000) of money and work to reach the level of enterprises stablished on the market decades ago. Unless you find a niche market that generates enough revenue (almost impossible nowadays).
So instead, you could sell support and enhancements for existing products. You must buy licenses from the company, and you won’t get access or permissions to modify the source code. So basically you can offer basic support and never go beyond the developers’ company, since they can shut you down when they want.
Now consider using a free software alternative, let’s say Apache. You are totally free to take the product, study it to the bones, improve it, make a separate version if you want, sell support for it without paying royalties and be able to compete with stablished companies, since you get a chance to use state of the art products and acquire as much knowledge of them as you want.
Some monopolies and old school enterprises are scared, of course, since novel companies can provide reliable solutions since day 1 and steal clients fed up with the unpersonal treatment they get from the behemoths of the industry.
On the other hand, IBM, Novell or Sun realize their best bet for success in markets they are currently being casted away (enterprise workstations) is building up on prior projects instead of starting from scratch. And what best projects to use that the ones that give you the most amount of freedom.
Well, enterprises are a part of the society, no?
If commercial software cannot compete, if open source is ‘good enough,’ why should the end users support you? I would assume that typical end users don’t care one whit who wrote their software, as long as it gets the job done. I expect commercial software can be as good or better than open source software, simply because the business process better supports listening to the customer and meeting their needs.
In other words, this is capitalism — compete or die.
The writing is on the wall. I predict that some time in the future (10 years?, 20 years?) all the basics of software (e.g. operating systems, programming frameworks) will be open source. Both open source and commercial interests will need to adapt to the new software landscape in order to work together for mutual benefit.
Well, enterprises are a part of the society, no?
Yup
After all, what’s better? Working under NDAs so you can’t tell even your wife what you are working on? Or working for enterprises such as Redhat or Suse, being able to communicate freely with experienced developers from around the world?
I really think that the future of software lies in open source software being created by large corporations, ie IBM, that have many sources of income in the computing industry from hardware to services. Making a successful software company will be harder and harder in the future because it people will want better software with great support at a lower price. Something that Microsoft never has done. From the beginning Bill Gates has been out to make a money, and he made a ton of it. Now looking at what Microsoft has provided us, is it really worth 60 billion dollars (or whatever the latest toll is)? I don’t think so. The software company will go down in the 21st century as technology companies take over. thats just my ho.
I have lived long enough to see many small revolutions in the world of industry and technology un-fold. People used to stand on an assembly line and take a spot welding machine and spot weld car bodies together. Now, a robot does it. A guy used to have to use a hand held torch to burn out a piece of steel and then grind it to the shape or machine it to fit the product being made. Now, a computerized shape-burning machine cuts that part with a laser within machine tolerance, and the robot fits it and welds it. And these examples are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the jobs that people “used” to do. All these jobs were replaced by more efficient systems of doing things.
As a programmer, don’t expect a status quo. “Systems”–Old ways of doing thing always eventually become obsolete. Proprietary software may have ruled this long, creating jobs for programmers as we know it, but like all industry, you either better have a backup plane, or be relegated to the scrap yard along side the old spot welding machines of yesteryear.
MS won’t go down. They will adjust their system, and keep on rolling–with or without their own programmers.
Simply put, taking estimates I have seen in the wild, in excess of 95% of commercial software being written is being written for companies to solve a problem and never reaches the wider market. The remaining 5% is commercial software, from Solaris, Windows, MS Office right down to $50 webcam software.
The trouble is that people end up perpetually reinventing the wheel.
In closed systems, you can’t reuse other people’s code for similar applications. This is wasting potentially hundreds of billions of $/£ a year.
We don’t get a chance to innovate and our employers don’t get new, exciting software to benefit their businesses, simply because we’re spending man millenia rewriting handlers for the same old protocols, etc.
In short (and this is aimed at Zach!), you will always be able to find coding jobs (the economy notwithstanding), because companies will always need programmers to solve particular problems for them. Commercial software will also still exist, but it will be faster moving, with profits relying on active improvements that benefit customers. If you look at Windows XP compared to Windows 95, there is almost nothing which benefits the workflow of a normal business (aside from less crashing), yet people brought Win98, Win2K and WinXP every few years. They paid more money for software performing the same functions for them, with few if any benefits to them. That won’t be viable, since Open Source projects will be regularly biting at their heels.
Watch out for a new and exciting time in software and computational development, and watch as that filters through to business and home life as a result.
I can’t believe some of the arguments on this forum. It is simple.
If I’m in business, and I don’t spend money on something, that leaves me free to spend it on other things. SO, if I can get comodotised software free, or almost free, that leaves me with money in my pocket to spend elsewhere. Now I could spend that on support, I could spend that on employing inhouse programmers to make my business more efficient, or I could spend it on a holiday. Either way, no money miraculously falls out of the economy.
If I choose to spend it on inhouse/outsourced developers to produce software for my business, more programmers get jobs. If I spend it on a holiday, then someone in the tourism industry can create more jobs. The jobs don’t just disappear. They may get shifted to different sectors of the economy, but they don’t just disappear. Yes some programmers may lose their jobs, but ultimately that will be for the good of the economy and overall wealth of society, as their skills are surplus to societies requirements. There are clearly more efficient uses to which that resource can be put.
The point is, and this is what distorts this argument, there is a monopoly player in the market, which creates inefficiencies. It seems at the moment the only way to restore the market to a functioning market is OSS. The US DOJ is not willing to step in. Other proprietary software makers can’t compete, so it is left to OSS. In my view, OSS will increase the overall wealth of society, as people realise that comodity software is horrendously overpriced, and realise that they can spend the money they would otherwise have spent on something else. Assuming technology and computers will drive the economy, it is likely that that money will be spent in other areas of IT. OSS is good for the economy, probably good for most programmers, and probably bad for some programmers. However, to hold economic progress back, and stunt wealth creation to save a few IT jobs by refusing to use OSS is just selfish and stupid.
Matt
If OSS gets to the level of ease of use like BeOS, then I’ll consider it. If it has the apps I use then, I’ll consider it but for now my eyes are on Zeta and I will have to dual boot with Windows.
The destruction of programing jobs in First World countries is not due to OSS, it is due to the current market models we use where public companies are beholden to third party share holders with no thought about the long term and their companies investment. Most of these people, the ones who count (capital wise), will probably only be on the ride for a short period of time to rip as much profit from their shares as they can. These are the people with CEO’s downsizing like no tomorrow who are destroying Programmers jobs. Programming is going OS to second and third world countries due to cheaper labour and screwed economic practices in the first world not OSS.
It’s true that corporate customers can realize savings by adapting open source. For Apache and Linux on the server, it’s become almost a no-brainer. For vertical applications in the mainstream of the customer’s business, things are a bit different. Each company is trying to develop sustainable advantages over its competitors, and proprietary application software and systems are one way to do that. E.g., Amazon, Wal-Mart.
I think we’re heading towards a tiered system where open source solutions will dominate or gain a large chunk of markets for operating systems, horizontal middleware (application servers, web servers and browsers), and horizontal applications (Office), on mature platforms such as the PC. I think market-leading software for other categories will tend to remain closed source, because people make a lot more money that way (Adam Smith’s invisible hand), and these other markets are either too specialized or evolving too rapidly to be ideally suited for a geographically disbursed OSS project. There are OSS projects for these other markets, of course, but they tend to lag the market leaders too much to be interesting to power users. A rapidly moving target is tough for both OSS and Microsoft to hit (I’m not saying it’s never been done, but it’s tougher).
So if I’m right, there still are fortunes to be made in software – they’re just not in the same categories that have already reached the feature bloat stage.
Now this is a serious question on my part and it is not intended to be a troll or flame. I read the text at this link:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Now if the source and binary are available, let’s say on soureforge or on the programmers website, then how are they going to make people pay for their software? The only way I can think of is to put the binary and source on a cd, then make people pay by credit card or money order, and then send the cd since then they won’t be able to get it any other way (take it off the website).
I mean if it was through sourceforge you could say on the your project page that you must pay $10 for this software if you keep it past a trial period of 10 days. Who’s actually going to pay it if there’s no way to enforce payment? I’m a computer science student and many people at my school I talk to equate Open Source with freedom from paying for software as well as its other philosophies.
I’ve done an open source project on sourceforge for fun, not because I wanted to make money. Perhaps someday I will make a GPL software that I would like to get compensated for ($10 isn’t too much is it?).
Let’s say there are two projects on sourceforge that do about the same thing. Both are GPL, one doesn’t require payment and the other one does (but it gives you a 10 day free trial). So you download them both and try them out and you really like the one that requires a payment. Now there’s nothing there on that project’s sourceforge page forcing you to pay, but would you pay?
Now I would pay if I really liked the product enough to use it regularily but how many people wouldn’t pay? I mean you already have it on your computer, you are using the software, and there’s nothing forcing you to pay. I’m sure a lot of people wouldn’t pay, knowing how students are at my school. What if the software asked for $50? $100? Looking forware to comments.
Or, actually, how to make money?
Let’s say you write a GPL app. You give an offer to customize to customers’ needs at the consulting rate of $200 an hour. A company likes your app, but wants some customization. You offer to do it in a week (you know the code). The company’s software department estimates 3 weeks for the same task (they don’t know the code quite as well). Cost for the company if you do it: $8k. Cost for the company if they do it themselves: $15k.
In a nutshell: you can offer consulting at a premium rate on the basis that you know the codebase better than anybody else and can do the same thing in less time.
crond (IP: —.ppp.tiscali.fr) – Posted on 2003-10-22 16:59:54
Microsoft, SCO and others is in battle with opensource, because opensource is a cancer to economy/technology progress! Why some of opensource programmers are working in commercial software company’s? Easy, because jobs in technology areas are only possible if there’s money to paid programmers. It is not fair that some of this programmers that work to a commercial company that is their job are contributing to opensource… Opensource kill analists and programmers, i’m not joking here. If you are a software house and try to sell a commercial program, the client say “I have the same program that can do the same thing opensource ‘free'”, what the hell is this, why we are migrating to linux instead of commercial operating systems? Don’t say linux is better, if you want an advanced operating system, choose Unix it’s a commercial version that do the same thing as linux. And microsoft have programmers working to them, because they have money to paid them, remember this, because your software company that you work for, have money because they sell programs..
No, what opensource does do is make these software companies justify their pricing. People are now looking very hard at SUN’s offering and now asking themselves, “why are we paying more for features we neither need nor want?”.
Regarding Linux, do you have some sort of religious crusade against anything that is free and opensource? you sound exactly like Balmer when he is no longer the flavour of the month. Years ago, everyone use to rally around Microsoft, now the media has found a new darling and Balmer is peived that the only way to get any attention is by saying some patently false statement about Linux. The worse part for Linux? everytime they say something negative about Linux more people move to it.
Just take SUN for example, as soon as they stopped slamming Linux and took the positive marketing approach (which I suggested to a SUN employee a while back), that is, they promote Linux as a great desktop solution and Solaris as a good server solution, both on x86 and SPARC, the number of people who are using Solaris x86 jumped over night. People are actually now considering buying x86 servers off SUN pre-loaded with Solaris x86. Telstra will be deploying 34,000 copies of Java Desktop System over next year as one example of this.
Microsoft has now realised that the days of having 85% profit margins and 0 re-investment have long gone. Instead of “researching” pointless rubbish at their so-called “Research Centre”, they’re now going to actually have to R&D things that are useful and people want. You know, the whole concept of supply and demand?
How can one become a MVP? Wtf is a Most Valued Professionals (without the marketing and elitism stuff, please); “unique set of expertise and passion” is so vague that it can be used to chose people MS wants to, while ignoring others they don’t want, using the argument that they don’t have the “unique set of expertise and passion” which is then not proven.
I can’t give you a definition but I can give you an example. Paul whats-his-face from http://www.wininformant.com would be an example. Basically in a nutshell, it is a Microsoft fanboy but more refined.
No, what opensource does do is make these software companies justify their pricing. People are now looking very hard at SUN’s offering and now asking themselves, “why are we paying more for features we neither need nor want?”.
No, what opensource does do is make these software companies justify their pricing. People are now looking very hard at SUN’s offering and now asking themselves, “why are we paying more for features offered by Microsoft that we neither need nor want?”.
A friend of mine is an MVP. He said a lot of MVPs get selected from the MS and MSDN newsgroups. A person who gets selected is usually someone who has been posting regularily in MS newsgroups to help people with their problems and questions. They are people that go out of their way to provide good answers and information to posts. He didn’t define how often “post regularily” is but he said the candidate has to be doing it for at least a calendar year to get considered for an MVP position. So it isn’t necessarily fanboys, just people who are really helpful but I imagine they must like MS products to an extent to be knowledge enough to help and troubleshoot other people’s problems.
hi people,
in the end it’s all about value. if you think open source (e.g. Linux) can provide you value then go for it. if you think open source won’t hack it (no pun intended) and you want a commercial establishment behind you all the way, by all means go for it!
there are also people who use open source and add value to it. like xandros, in offering their desktop linux. you can’t just download that for free, you have to buy it. but it’s under the GPL, so if you buy it you can get the source to it.
steve ballmer put it correctly when he said that he can’t compete with linux on price, so he’ll have to compete on value. we’ll see where that takes microsoft. when they get there, for sure open source will step up and offer value too. programmers like us won’t have to worry because, again, as long as you can offer value people can’t get from plain open source software then there’s something you can do and earn from
I think we should all use some old methods and do what they did back in the day (1960 – 1980ies) build hardware and have open source software ontop ,as in you buy our hardware and we’ll give you this software as a complament.
so peeps like microsoft would have their own sparc or whatever and have opensource software on top.To late for that now though:(
huh? are you serious? don’t you think that’s a step backward?
not everyone can be a software AND hardware company…and those that are usually aren’t the best in both…a company’s got to have focus
JBQ: Let’s say you write a GPL app. You give an offer to customize to customers’ needs at the consulting rate of $200 an hour. A company likes your app, but wants some customization. You offer to do it in a week (you know the code). The company’s software department estimates 3 weeks for the same task (they don’t know the code quite as well). Cost for the company if you do it: $8k. Cost for the company if they do it themselves: $15k.
And what if someone else will do it slower but charge only $2k? Say they live someplace where very little money will go alot farther.
How about a student who is fresh out of college, but having trouble finding work who might consider doing it for just a reference, so hopefully he can get a job that pays him later? (I’ve heard of this happening once. Doesn’t mean it did happen of course.)
Also… Even though you wrote the code originally and know it the best, someone else may still be able to do it faster because they are a better programmer. Or someone may have a whole group of “good enough programmers”, who with their combine ability can do it faster than you.
Seriously… You aren’t going to automatically get work to customize the program even if you are the original author. Even if you create the greatest program the world has ever seen, you may still never see a dime. Of course, if it was closed source, you may still never see a dime.
css: Now if the source and binary are available, let’s say on soureforge or on the programmers website, then how are they going to make people pay for their software? The only way I can think of is to put the binary and source on a cd, then make people pay by credit card or money order, and then send the cd since then they won’t be able to get it any other way (take it off the website).
Sorry… That probably won’t work.
From the webpage you mentioned:
With free software, users don’t have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.
Key words “They can copy the program from a friend“. This effectively means that once someone has a copy of your software they can just give it away if they choose to do so. That doesn’t mean that they will, but you probably know what happens with pirated software. That has a tendency to get around and it’s illegal to copy. Since it’s legal to copy “Free” software, you can imagine how many people are and will be spreading that around for $0.
Also… It should be noted, that since anyone is allowed to distribute “Free” software, the first person to buy your program could (Note: Could, not will) just put it up on their website for $0.
If you ask me… Open source licenses are probably best used with “service-oriented” products and not… Say… Something which is meant to be like a “chair” or whatever, where you just buy it.
With games for instance… (This is just a quick example, feel free to poke holes in it or whatever.)
If a game is purely an online game. It may be in the company’s best interest to make the game (at least the client end anyway) GPL’d. That way, other people can always port the client program to other computers and OSs and help increase the number of subscribers. The players can also look at the source code, if they wish, and make sure the company isn’t say… Trying to steal their sensitive information while they’re playing the game. That isn’t to say that open sourcing the software would nessecarily be the best way to go, but at first glance it would certainly appear to have benefits.
On the other hand, if you are making an offline game. It would probably be best if the game wasn’t totally “Free”. If it was completely “Free”, then people could easily copy it and distribute it off of their websites and you probably wouldn’t make much money off it. That isn’t to say that it would be impossible to make money, however, it would probably be harder to do so.
css: $10 isn’t too much is it?
I’ve seen people complain about the cost of a program that cost only $5 with free upgrades for life.
I’ve seen people complain about the cost of a $10 game and then promptly go out and spend like… $3000 on a brand new computer for games and like…. $200 or so dollars on a fancy joystick to go with… Plus a whole ton of other stuff, none of which they needed and yet the $10 game was too expensive and so they pirated it.
I would be very interested in finding out just what sort of licenses MS is going to be using or abusing.
I do know from investigating Microsoft’s Shared Source licenses,
http://msdn.microsoft.com/MSDN-FILES/027/002/097/ShSourceCLILicense…
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/sharedsource/passportmgr.asp
that they’re not very good at all in several areas.
For a start, most of them are look but don’t touch only. In effect, an intellectual strip-tease. The sort of licenses that the FSF and the OSI support, allow much more than that, so the Research&Development moves along at a much speedier, more fertile rate.
Several of the Microsoft Shared Licenses are DEATH on the use of the source code in ANY sort of commercial activity, so Microsoft has condemned itself very, very nicely – in the light of Gates, Ballmer and co’s words in Y2k on the GPL versus commerce. Ditto Bill Gates’ own words in his infamous Open Letter to Hobbyists.
Some others are naturally very discriminatory on just what source code you can link against/with them, so that even if MVP X finds that he gets the best performance and results out of linking with an LGPLed library, Microsoft’s legal dept. will string him up by his short-and-curlies if he even thinks of it.
None of them allow the recipient to share his bug-fixes with anyone else, let alone Microsoft. I seriously doubt that allowing MVPs to code around Microsoft’s bugs when for a change in policy they could rewrite and bugfix the code and stop worrying about it, is going to change anything in Microsoft’s security record.
So they are useless for either developing a community, developing a product, or developing a business – still I suppose it’s a nod in the general direction of their happy, happy volunteers, and a sop to stop them wondering if Microsoft actually calls them “sucker!!!” behind their backs.
Hi again,
I agree with you.
$0 for the opensource company’s that make software and support it, because, they can copy the program from a friend…
Most interesting like you said, there are opensource company’s that give support free for a long time, how did they pay despenses, it needs profit to exist. I know how did they exist, because they receive money actually from commercial software company’s, like IBM, SUN, HP, etc… simple as that. Why commercial software company’s do that, well because the clients want free software, just like some people in this forum, they don’t want to pay for it, because they don’t have money. This commercial company’s that finance opensource, are especially hardware vendors, they make money with hardware. Is in their interest to have programs and support it for the computers they sell.
If they sell a hardware ($2000) and a software ($0) (the program from a friend) then to the user only cost $2000
It is simple to understand it.
thats perfect.. spot on..
and whats wrong with that… its a hardware company using what it has to increase business. In the same way MS do with their software and PR….
You need this… you need this now…
the only down side to open source in my view is at the moment their PR machine is not slapping it in your face non stop….
version 2002 is the best their can ever be…
version xp is the best their can ever be…
version 2003 is the best their can ever be…
version xp2 is the best their can ever be…
…
“Now if the source and binary are available, let’s say on soureforge or on the programmers website, then how are they going to make people pay for their software? The only way I can think of is to put the binary and source on a cd, then make people pay by credit card or money order, and then send the cd since then they won’t be able to get it any other way (take it off the website).”
Hoho. You’re viewing it from the current perspective. The way it would be bought would hugely differ. It would work like this: programmer X made some additions to a program. Programmer X wants to ask money for it, say $50. Then people can say: ok i’ll pay for it. Then when 1 person has bought it, it’s free, because of the GPL. He/she can legally distribute the binary and source then. Therefore, just as well, multiple people can pay for it. This gives every individual in the world the power to decide what they find important. It’s called gift economy.
OTOH, a non-free program can be made free in this way (free as in speech, ofcourse). Blender was in this way freed from it’s pain.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/07/1324246&mode=thread&tid…
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/13/1754204&mode=thread&tid…
“For a start, most of them are look but don’t touch only.”
While you’re at it, this sounds very much like the OpenVMS ”opensource” idea, except that everyone was able to look at the OpenVMS source where Microsoft only provides it to a small group.