Tuesday, March 09, 2004
More Conversations with Eric Raymond, Part 6
> Have you read "The Magic Cauldron"? I'm
> not 'cavalier' about destroying the proprietary
> model, it's something I've thought about a
> great deal and to which I've applied most of
> the toolkit of neoclassical and Austrian
> economics.
Yes, I have, though I will admit that it has been
awhile. I'll read it again, and who knows...maybe
you'll get a ZDNet article out of it.
> The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. But
> don't take my word for
> this; watch as users, *and* the brightest
> programmers, vote with their
> feet.
I've watched as lots of bright programmers have been
convinced of open source. I've also watched as
companies like RedHat have marched away from things
like Fedora towards their open source "hybrid"
Advanced Server. I also have watched as few pure open
source companies have gained much traction in the
industry. Open source, as a movement, has been around
for awhile, and I would expect that there would be a
LOT more pure open source companies making a credible
profit if it was truly possible to make decent revenue
from open source (access to source code for the
complete product).
I expect that there will be a move in the other
direction in not too long as people start question the
"conventional wisdom" that open source is a sound
foundation for revenue generation.
> No, this won't wash. You could be thrown in
> jail for possessing proprietary Unix sources.
> It wasn't open and it's largely because I
> watched what that did to the Unix market that
> I don't buy your most central arguments.
ALL the proprietary unices were based, or at least
inspired, by the original Unix, the source code for
which was widely available. AT&T licensed it to
universities and others. Granted, the source code was
STRICTLY licensed, and they weren't open source (or
"free") in the sense that you or Stallman would agree
with. However, it WAS more than, say, Microsoft
releasing a binary for Windows. It lead to LOTS of
parallel development, and profit orientation started
to interpose itself, leading to fragmentation.
Of course, that's MY interpretation. I expect that
you, or Stallman, both of whom were a lot closer to
the Unix battles, would have a different take on it.
Either way, you have to admit that when you have
access to the souce code, you have a LOT more leverage
to create an incompatible variant of the product.
When you have just extensibility interfaces, though
(like Browser Helper Objects in IE, as an example),
there is less likelihood of incompatibility simply
because someone can't change the core stuff in such a
way as to make it incompatible.
> Have you read "The Magic Cauldron"? I'm
> not 'cavalier' about destroying the proprietary
> model, it's something I've thought about a
> great deal and to which I've applied most of
> the toolkit of neoclassical and Austrian
> economics.
Yes, I have, though I will admit that it has been
awhile. I'll read it again, and who knows...maybe
you'll get a ZDNet article out of it.
> The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. But
> don't take my word for
> this; watch as users, *and* the brightest
> programmers, vote with their
> feet.
I've watched as lots of bright programmers have been
convinced of open source. I've also watched as
companies like RedHat have marched away from things
like Fedora towards their open source "hybrid"
Advanced Server. I also have watched as few pure open
source companies have gained much traction in the
industry. Open source, as a movement, has been around
for awhile, and I would expect that there would be a
LOT more pure open source companies making a credible
profit if it was truly possible to make decent revenue
from open source (access to source code for the
complete product).
I expect that there will be a move in the other
direction in not too long as people start question the
"conventional wisdom" that open source is a sound
foundation for revenue generation.
> No, this won't wash. You could be thrown in
> jail for possessing proprietary Unix sources.
> It wasn't open and it's largely because I
> watched what that did to the Unix market that
> I don't buy your most central arguments.
ALL the proprietary unices were based, or at least
inspired, by the original Unix, the source code for
which was widely available. AT&T licensed it to
universities and others. Granted, the source code was
STRICTLY licensed, and they weren't open source (or
"free") in the sense that you or Stallman would agree
with. However, it WAS more than, say, Microsoft
releasing a binary for Windows. It lead to LOTS of
parallel development, and profit orientation started
to interpose itself, leading to fragmentation.
Of course, that's MY interpretation. I expect that
you, or Stallman, both of whom were a lot closer to
the Unix battles, would have a different take on it.
Either way, you have to admit that when you have
access to the souce code, you have a LOT more leverage
to create an incompatible variant of the product.
When you have just extensibility interfaces, though
(like Browser Helper Objects in IE, as an example),
there is less likelihood of incompatibility simply
because someone can't change the core stuff in such a
way as to make it incompatible.
