4 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. I do use Linux, not because it’s free(FOSS), but because it is free($$$) (and I like it). But zealots bug me - the thing about proprietary software, is sometimes, it “just works” - best example: wifi - my laptop just doesn’t do it well under Linux - maybe I could dig into it, and get it working more nicely (if Nick reads this, yes, I know, I should use Gentoo). I dual boot XP - its bloated and ugly and I don’t really like it - but the wifi works consistently.
   RMS is big on the fact that freedom(FOSS) is independent of freedom($$$) (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html - sorry about the lack of HTML …) I say it isn’t. Here is why. For any free software (defn: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) I can take it, and redistribute it for no cost (open source is a necessary condition of software freedom) - Now, if I am spending R&D dollars in large amounts writing code (say for hardware firmware/drivers - with new and good features) I do not want to hand that to my competitors for free - why pay to write code (it is companies, not hobbyists) when you can just wait for your competitors to write it - correct me if I’m wrong, but there are no open source software companies (read on before you flame me for my ignorance) - an analogy: Google is not a search company - Google is an advertising company whose primary product is ads around search results. Similarly, Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, etc. are not companies that sell Linux distros - they are companies that sell support for Linux distros. (Cent OS, for instance, is nearly an exact copy of RHEL, I believe) - just as Google improves its search to improve its search-ad potential, commercial Linux distros improve their features to convince people to buy the distro (with accompanying support plan) - by contrast, Microsoft, hate it as much as you will, has made billions SELLING SOFTWARE - Red Hat, Novel, et. al. make good money, but not Microsoft good money
   BOTTOM LINE (my opinion): there is no money in free software - any money spent on free software can be copied by your competitors for less cost - it is money that gets code written - without the necessity of competing with proprietary systems (e.g. Windows), there would be little to no commercial free software development (and it is a fact that commercial entities contribute the most lines of code to free software products)

   Comment by BruceIV — December 19, 2007 #

2. oh dear … apologies for the epic comment … I didn’t realize it was quite that long (should turn it into a post on my own blog …)

   Comment by BruceIV — December 19, 2007 #

3. I see your points sir, but I’d like to comment on some of them. First, Microsoft makes its money selling OFFICE (which some consider software, I guess), but Windows is basically just an environment to support Office. I guess that’s not really important that I mention it, just felt compelled.

   I still think you could make money in free software. If my understanding of most FOSS licenses are correct, then I’m free to take the code, change it, and sell it for whatever price I wish, so long as I also make the source code available to anybody who pays for it. And also that anybody else do that too. So if another company wants to use my open source drivers, then they too have release their source. So I don’t think the reason why people don’t do it is because Company A is going to steal Company B’s stuff, but that nobody wants to work together.

   If ATI and NVidia both did open source software, they could both benefit. And so too would their customers. The drivers would be different, obviously, because they are different hardwares, although similar enough I guess. They would just need to find other ways to compete if their software is nearly the same, then pass the savings along to the customer by offering better chipsets. I dont know.

   I’m rambling now. I’m usually against FOSS if only for the Freetards who ruin it for everybody.

   Comment by jason — December 20, 2007 #

4. While I do admit the collaboration of software is important, I also realize that there isn’t as much money in FOSS as there is in closed source software. My hobbyist programmer side feels that FOSS is the way to go. If I personally write software, I would want to release it to the community and try to gain support and extend it’s capabilities. FOSS is kind of like a bee’s hive, it’s great for collaboration, but you wouldn’t want to piss it off.
   If I was developing software to make money, I would not make it free. I could, perhaps, do the route that Jazz has/will. By creating an opens source base, and then extending it with for-money-software, it’s possible to get somewhat of the best of both worlds. Or is it? People get what people want. If people want free software, they’re going to get it no matter what, even if it is illegal. So what’s the best? Free or free open source?

   Comment by QBasicer — December 20, 2007 #

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>