Friday, March 05, 2004
Conversation with Eric Raymond, Part 2
> Then your writing failed to convey your thinking.
...or, you lumped me into the "typical anti-open
source category," which isn't uncommon. My article
was round two of a debate I was having with ZDNet
readers over Richard Stallmans ZDNet article. I do
note that you didn't contest the notion that Richard
Stallman really IS part of the "Free (as in cost)
Software" movement.
> Within arm's length of me I have two different sets
> of CDs, both > consisting entirely of open-source
> software, both with a non-zero
> price. Your belief fails the simplest reality test.
Fine, you've found a few exceptions. TrollTech's Qt
library is another example, though their model would
be undermined by the argument Stallman made in his "20
years" article. But, honestly, can you name LOTS Of
pure software development companies who make money
from open source? I'm not talking consulting
companies. Consulting companies make money from BOTH
open source and proprietary software. I'm talking
software development as such.
I won't rehash my "Response to Richard Stallman"
article. But, suffice to say, I argued that it is in
the nature of open source that it becomes VERY hard to
make much revenue from open source software. You
disagree, to be sure.
> Many companies would be entertained by your suggestion
> that open source hase drained the market of avenues for
> profit. IBM, for example, has plowed over a gigabuck
> into Linux development and marketing, They just posted
> record sales in a burgeoning Linux server market.
> Are you sure you're living on the same planet as
> their stockholders?
Where does IBM make most of its money? Hardware
(where software is incidental) and consulting.
Granted, they sell software, but how much of that
software they sell is open source? I'm talking about
the MARKET for software as such. IBM isn't about to
open source Lotus Notes, as an example, or DB2.
IBM is jumping onto the Linux bandwagon, but IMO, more
as a way to unify a product line that was already
organized around Unix. Moving to Linux makes sense,
because Linux WILL eat Unix...as I've argued in the
past.
> Before this argument will have much force, you'll
> have to demonstrate that concentrating on "OTHER peoples'
> interests" actually produces competently-written software
> more often than developer self-interest does.
> Good luck. Evidence for this seems to be
> remarkably scarce.
I guess it all depends on whether an open source
product ever reaches mass market status. Apache is
certainly popular, but that's "developer" technology,
and isn't something that many end-users would find all
that useful.
Hey, reading crystal balls is an inexact science. One
of the advantages of writing commentary is I can build
logical constructs, and then find out if the facts fit
that construct later. Right now, proprietary software
is king. The proof will be, I think, if proprietary
software manages to keep ahead of open source
competition for the foreseeable future. If they do
so, it has more to do with continuing to convince
consumers to use their products. It's getting harder
and harder to find consumers who don't know about open
source alternatives.
> Then your writing failed to convey your thinking.
...or, you lumped me into the "typical anti-open
source category," which isn't uncommon. My article
was round two of a debate I was having with ZDNet
readers over Richard Stallmans ZDNet article. I do
note that you didn't contest the notion that Richard
Stallman really IS part of the "Free (as in cost)
Software" movement.
> Within arm's length of me I have two different sets
> of CDs, both > consisting entirely of open-source
> software, both with a non-zero
> price. Your belief fails the simplest reality test.
Fine, you've found a few exceptions. TrollTech's Qt
library is another example, though their model would
be undermined by the argument Stallman made in his "20
years" article. But, honestly, can you name LOTS Of
pure software development companies who make money
from open source? I'm not talking consulting
companies. Consulting companies make money from BOTH
open source and proprietary software. I'm talking
software development as such.
I won't rehash my "Response to Richard Stallman"
article. But, suffice to say, I argued that it is in
the nature of open source that it becomes VERY hard to
make much revenue from open source software. You
disagree, to be sure.
> Many companies would be entertained by your suggestion
> that open source hase drained the market of avenues for
> profit. IBM, for example, has plowed over a gigabuck
> into Linux development and marketing, They just posted
> record sales in a burgeoning Linux server market.
> Are you sure you're living on the same planet as
> their stockholders?
Where does IBM make most of its money? Hardware
(where software is incidental) and consulting.
Granted, they sell software, but how much of that
software they sell is open source? I'm talking about
the MARKET for software as such. IBM isn't about to
open source Lotus Notes, as an example, or DB2.
IBM is jumping onto the Linux bandwagon, but IMO, more
as a way to unify a product line that was already
organized around Unix. Moving to Linux makes sense,
because Linux WILL eat Unix...as I've argued in the
past.
> Before this argument will have much force, you'll
> have to demonstrate that concentrating on "OTHER peoples'
> interests" actually produces competently-written software
> more often than developer self-interest does.
> Good luck. Evidence for this seems to be
> remarkably scarce.
I guess it all depends on whether an open source
product ever reaches mass market status. Apache is
certainly popular, but that's "developer" technology,
and isn't something that many end-users would find all
that useful.
Hey, reading crystal balls is an inexact science. One
of the advantages of writing commentary is I can build
logical constructs, and then find out if the facts fit
that construct later. Right now, proprietary software
is king. The proof will be, I think, if proprietary
software manages to keep ahead of open source
competition for the foreseeable future. If they do
so, it has more to do with continuing to convince
consumers to use their products. It's getting harder
and harder to find consumers who don't know about open
source alternatives.
