Friday, March 05, 2004
Conversation with Eric Raymond, Part 1
What follows is my side of an email exchange I recently had with Eric Raymond. When I write fast, I often leave words out, and that is certainly the case with this email exchange. Therefore, where necessary, I've added the missing words, marking them with [square brackets].
I will post the full text of Eric Raymond's side of the discussion, provided he gives me permission to do so. A lot of it is interspersed in my reply, though, so you can get the gist of his argument from that.
As a side point, regarding my 50-50 comment (you'll know what I'm talking about later), I mean that 50% of software will be open source, and 50% will be proprietary WITHIN the same product. That's just an average. I do believe, though, that it will become more common for major software companies to release MORE of the source for their flagship products, though the amount that is public will average about 50%.
Proprietary software companies, however, will still run the show, and will be the source of most of the innovation in the computer industry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No, this isn't a group address. This is just my
catch-all for any email related to the articles I
write for ZDNet. Since it's public, it also attracts
lots of spam.
By the way, for a bit of context to what I write,
visit my web site (http://www.turtlenecksoftware.com).
I've written over 40 articles for ZDNet, which
doesn't put me anywhere near your league, but at least
it's a track record of my logic (or lack thereof) over
the years.
First off, I DON'T lump all open source programmers
into the "free (as in cost) software" movement. I DO,
lump Mr. Stallman into that camp, and would point you
to Stallman's recent article on ZDNet commemorating 20
years of free software
(http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5135756.html). He
essentially attacks ANYBODY who chooses not to make
free software (as in fully open source), considering
their contributions unwelcome. In my response
(http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5137217.html), I
also point out that open source software, particularly
under the GPL, inevitably leads to free as in cost
simply because the licensing model ensures that
everyone has the right to redistribute the code to
anybody and everybody. That makes the claim that
"open source does not imply gratis" [little more] than a thin veneer
designed to make the result more palatable to people
who make a living from software.
> It is therefore a bit annoying to see you writing as though we're all
> a bunch of fist-pumping Communards out to monkeywrench post-industrial
> capitalism.
I'm not a fist-pumping communard, and I write articles
for free AND release open source products. In other
words, I obviously don't view all open source
programmers in that light. I DO think, however, that
the open source community has given insufficient
attention to business requirements. Likewise, I think
there is an almost instinctive rejection of
proprietary software simply because it is proprietary,
while ignoring the REASON it is proprietary, which is
to generate revenue.
What I've always advocated since I first broached the
open source [topic] back in 2002 is a hybrid model, one where
the code for software is mostly available, but certain
key portions are kept private in order to ensure a
decent revenue stream. In fact, my first article on
ZDNet advocated that Microsoft open source the Windows
core, keeping the stuff that really differentiates
them proprietary in order to secure the required
revenue stream.
> No, what exercises most of us is not the belief that
> closed-source development is morally wrong but rather
> that it is, most of the time, *stupid* -- a bad deal
> for consumers, a huge time- and effort-waster
> for programmers, and a dead weight around the necks
> of IT managers everywhere.
On the other hand, a market drained of avenues for
profit is one that attracts less investment, and
provides fewer incentives for programmers to orient
themselves towards the needs of non-programmers. Why
has Linux had a difficult time making a
consumer-oriented operating system? I would suggest
that it has more to do with the fact that it relies on
volunteers. Volunteers tend to do the sorts of things
they are interested in. Proprietary software,
however, provides the incentives (a salary) for people
to concentrate on OTHER people's interests.
That isn't to say that Linux hasn't made great strides
in helping regular consumers - it has. But I would
suggest that has more to do with Linux being picked up
by companies like IBM, RedHat and even Lindows. They
provide the incentives needed to steer Linux down the
consumer-orientation path.
> everywhere. My personal prediction is that, at an
> equilbrium we won't see for some years yet, the
> software market will be about 95% open
> source and 5% proprietary.
My personal prediction would be closer to the 50-50
mark (give or take 10 either way). I still think
proprietary software companies are the bodies who best
tease out what regular consumers want, simply because
they are closest to their client base and have a
vested interest in serving them. Short of software
technology reaching a plateau, we will STILL need
those consumer-facing proprietary entities to keep
technology rolling forward. The experimentation which
goes on due to hundreds of thousands of
profit-oriented companies trying to figure out how to
make new technology fit consumer needs is powerful
stuff (that's probably going to be the subject of a
future article, after I've finished my move to
Dublin).
Of course, feel free to disagree (not that I have to
tell you that).
> ignores the very real problems of being locked in to a
> single vendor and at the wrong end of a monopoly relationship.
That is a valid point, and is part of the pragmatic
argument for open source. However, that doesn't hold
much water for regular consumers. They aren't
programmers, and will be locked in to whatever
platform proves most popular with the wider
development community. They're choices flow from the
whims of programmers.
That's the problem with software. Software needs
standards because it lacks any inherent
standardization. ANY standard you pick locks you in
to that platform. Lots of companies are already
locked in to a particular distribution of Linux.
David Berlind talks about that in some of his ZDNet
articles, specifically his most recent one on ZDNet
which I would highly recommend reading.
I'm not so sure that open source TRULY frees you from
lock-in. You just get another form of lock-in.
Granted, you have the source code and theoretically
could make your new environment look like it.
However, SAMBA and WINE haven't been stopped by lack
of access to source code so much as the fast pace at
which Microsoft evolves their platform.
Anyway, thanks for your response (and sorry if mine is
so long. Another problem with my articles is that
they are usually WAY too long...just like my emails).
John Carroll
What follows is my side of an email exchange I recently had with Eric Raymond. When I write fast, I often leave words out, and that is certainly the case with this email exchange. Therefore, where necessary, I've added the missing words, marking them with [square brackets].
I will post the full text of Eric Raymond's side of the discussion, provided he gives me permission to do so. A lot of it is interspersed in my reply, though, so you can get the gist of his argument from that.
As a side point, regarding my 50-50 comment (you'll know what I'm talking about later), I mean that 50% of software will be open source, and 50% will be proprietary WITHIN the same product. That's just an average. I do believe, though, that it will become more common for major software companies to release MORE of the source for their flagship products, though the amount that is public will average about 50%.
Proprietary software companies, however, will still run the show, and will be the source of most of the innovation in the computer industry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No, this isn't a group address. This is just my
catch-all for any email related to the articles I
write for ZDNet. Since it's public, it also attracts
lots of spam.
By the way, for a bit of context to what I write,
visit my web site (http://www.turtlenecksoftware.com).
I've written over 40 articles for ZDNet, which
doesn't put me anywhere near your league, but at least
it's a track record of my logic (or lack thereof) over
the years.
First off, I DON'T lump all open source programmers
into the "free (as in cost) software" movement. I DO,
lump Mr. Stallman into that camp, and would point you
to Stallman's recent article on ZDNet commemorating 20
years of free software
(http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5135756.html). He
essentially attacks ANYBODY who chooses not to make
free software (as in fully open source), considering
their contributions unwelcome. In my response
(http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5137217.html), I
also point out that open source software, particularly
under the GPL, inevitably leads to free as in cost
simply because the licensing model ensures that
everyone has the right to redistribute the code to
anybody and everybody. That makes the claim that
"open source does not imply gratis" [little more] than a thin veneer
designed to make the result more palatable to people
who make a living from software.
> It is therefore a bit annoying to see you writing as though we're all
> a bunch of fist-pumping Communards out to monkeywrench post-industrial
> capitalism.
I'm not a fist-pumping communard, and I write articles
for free AND release open source products. In other
words, I obviously don't view all open source
programmers in that light. I DO think, however, that
the open source community has given insufficient
attention to business requirements. Likewise, I think
there is an almost instinctive rejection of
proprietary software simply because it is proprietary,
while ignoring the REASON it is proprietary, which is
to generate revenue.
What I've always advocated since I first broached the
open source [topic] back in 2002 is a hybrid model, one where
the code for software is mostly available, but certain
key portions are kept private in order to ensure a
decent revenue stream. In fact, my first article on
ZDNet advocated that Microsoft open source the Windows
core, keeping the stuff that really differentiates
them proprietary in order to secure the required
revenue stream.
> No, what exercises most of us is not the belief that
> closed-source development is morally wrong but rather
> that it is, most of the time, *stupid* -- a bad deal
> for consumers, a huge time- and effort-waster
> for programmers, and a dead weight around the necks
> of IT managers everywhere.
On the other hand, a market drained of avenues for
profit is one that attracts less investment, and
provides fewer incentives for programmers to orient
themselves towards the needs of non-programmers. Why
has Linux had a difficult time making a
consumer-oriented operating system? I would suggest
that it has more to do with the fact that it relies on
volunteers. Volunteers tend to do the sorts of things
they are interested in. Proprietary software,
however, provides the incentives (a salary) for people
to concentrate on OTHER people's interests.
That isn't to say that Linux hasn't made great strides
in helping regular consumers - it has. But I would
suggest that has more to do with Linux being picked up
by companies like IBM, RedHat and even Lindows. They
provide the incentives needed to steer Linux down the
consumer-orientation path.
> everywhere. My personal prediction is that, at an
> equilbrium we won't see for some years yet, the
> software market will be about 95% open
> source and 5% proprietary.
My personal prediction would be closer to the 50-50
mark (give or take 10 either way). I still think
proprietary software companies are the bodies who best
tease out what regular consumers want, simply because
they are closest to their client base and have a
vested interest in serving them. Short of software
technology reaching a plateau, we will STILL need
those consumer-facing proprietary entities to keep
technology rolling forward. The experimentation which
goes on due to hundreds of thousands of
profit-oriented companies trying to figure out how to
make new technology fit consumer needs is powerful
stuff (that's probably going to be the subject of a
future article, after I've finished my move to
Dublin).
Of course, feel free to disagree (not that I have to
tell you that).
> ignores the very real problems of being locked in to a
> single vendor and at the wrong end of a monopoly relationship.
That is a valid point, and is part of the pragmatic
argument for open source. However, that doesn't hold
much water for regular consumers. They aren't
programmers, and will be locked in to whatever
platform proves most popular with the wider
development community. They're choices flow from the
whims of programmers.
That's the problem with software. Software needs
standards because it lacks any inherent
standardization. ANY standard you pick locks you in
to that platform. Lots of companies are already
locked in to a particular distribution of Linux.
David Berlind talks about that in some of his ZDNet
articles, specifically his most recent one on ZDNet
which I would highly recommend reading.
I'm not so sure that open source TRULY frees you from
lock-in. You just get another form of lock-in.
Granted, you have the source code and theoretically
could make your new environment look like it.
However, SAMBA and WINE haven't been stopped by lack
of access to source code so much as the fast pace at
which Microsoft evolves their platform.
Anyway, thanks for your response (and sorry if mine is
so long. Another problem with my articles is that
they are usually WAY too long...just like my emails).
John Carroll
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.
Conversation with Eric Raymond, Part 3
> No, I read your article very carefully. You
> attributed a normative belief that all software
> should be free to "open source" developers.
> If you had attributed that belief to "free software"
> developers, you would have been correct. As it is,
> you're wrong -- as RMS is likely
> to point out in terms less polite than mine.
My argument has long been that open source will lead
to free, whether or not that's what the developers
themselves think they are doing. That is the case
with GPL software (as noted in my last two responses),
and is certainly the
case with a BSD license. Granted, there are licenses
that involve releasing the source code while charging
for it, but look at how much noise was made over the
fact that Qt wasn't a "proper" GPL license. They now
release a GPL version, but that didn't used to be the
case. And either way, once you release the source
code, you have to run a lot faster to keep [ahead of] the
price erosion [which] results from giving away to all and
sundry the secret sauce that went into your product.
GPL LEADS to free, whether or not open source
developers, or Stallman, want to admit it in public.
The claim Stallman made that "Free software does not
mean "gratis" " was the basis of my "Response"
article. Stallman likes to play around with language,
but in this case, I think it's a way to spin the
apparently-misnamed "Free Software" into a liberty
sense and NOT a cost sense. I say that's
nonsense...that you can't escape the "free as in cost"
aspect of GPLed software.
> Richard Stallman will tell you himself that he is
> not an "open source" developer. In fact he'll
> insist on it. In his mind, what distinguishes
> "free software" developers from "open source"
> developers is the position you attribute to "open
> source" developers.
Perhaps this is the area that needs more clarity,
because he says things like "Free software does not
imply gratis." He probably thinks that somebody might
manage to make a buck from the sale of open source
software (and, again, SOME do, but you have to admit
that they are dwarfed, revenue-wise[, by proprietary software
companies]
> You appear to me to be more than a bit confused
> about the facts on the ground. Which is no crime or
> sin, but you should refrain from pomtificating about
> what "open source" developers believe until you
> have basics like the difference between the
> Stallmanite/FSF position and that of most open-source
> developers firmly in your grasp.
One man's pontification is another man's opposing
viewpoint.
I'll grant that open source programmers are certainly
operating under the assumption that open source can be
a stable business model for software development, but
I think the facts, such as RedHat's dance away from
Fedora towards Advanced Server as the foundation of
their business (which has LOTS of RedHat specific
stuff in it, including proprietary modules), is a sign
that many are starting to come to that realization.
> Those exceptions are sufficient to falsify the
> universal claim you made.
This isn't a courtroom, but a debate. I didn't say
that NOBODY makes money from open source software as
such. I think, though, that open source has been
around for long enough that there SHOULD be a lot more
pure open source software companies that make revenue
from software sales. There isn't. That should be a
sure sign that somebody is starting to realize that
the reason proprietary software appeared in the first
place was as a way to make revenue.
> It's a difficult business to be in. But Red Hat
> obviously manages it.
> Zope, Inc. is another example. You named a third
> yourself.
Yes, you've found a few examples (one of which I gave
you). On the other hand, I can name stacks of
proprietary software companies that makes LOTS of
money from software. I strongly question whether ANY
company will grow really big by basing their business
model on PURE open source. Like I said, I advocate
the hybrid model. I don't expect you to agree with me
on this.
> I'm just looking at the evidence. You seem to have
> the peculiar idea
> that revenue from software isn't "real" unless it's
> directly from sales --
> that consulting services and associated bundled
> goods don't count.
> Why define them out of the discussion?
Making software AS SUCH simply is not the same thing
as making software as a consulant. In the former
case, the market is composed almost entirely of
proprietary software companies, because that's how
they make money: by selling access to a secret. IN
the latter case, they make CUSTOM software for
companies, then pass it off to be owned by the client.
In the one case, someone is responsible for
maintaining JUST their own products, and dealing
EXCLUSIVELY with clients of those products. In the
latter case, they are responsible for whatever
software is OWNED by the client, either stuff they
make from scratch or stuff the client already owned
from past consulting relationships.
The reason I make the distinction is that the SOFTWARE
COMPANY model simply does not exist (or rather, to be
more precise, exists in a FAR more limited form) in a
world composed of 100% (or even the 95% you propose)
open source software. The open nature of open source
militates against it.
Granted, that open nature is wonderful stuff, and as I
discussed in the article, I benefit greatly from it.
That does not mean there isn't value in a business
model that provides the revenue to create a bunch of
client-oriented, self-funding software (as such)
companies.
As noted, self-funding proprietary companies conduct
the market research required to figure out how to make
new technology fit consumer needs. You even admitted
in your second response that proprietary sofwtare
companies are more "client-oriented" than open source
products (though you questioned whether their output
was "better"). The software markets works by
unleashing thousands of competing crucibles, each of
which attempt to best figure out what customers want.
The best end up becoming the biggest.
> The facts do not fit your construct.
I guess we'll have to see on that one.
> No, I read your article very carefully. You
> attributed a normative belief that all software
> should be free to "open source" developers.
> If you had attributed that belief to "free software"
> developers, you would have been correct. As it is,
> you're wrong -- as RMS is likely
> to point out in terms less polite than mine.
My argument has long been that open source will lead
to free, whether or not that's what the developers
themselves think they are doing. That is the case
with GPL software (as noted in my last two responses),
and is certainly the
case with a BSD license. Granted, there are licenses
that involve releasing the source code while charging
for it, but look at how much noise was made over the
fact that Qt wasn't a "proper" GPL license. They now
release a GPL version, but that didn't used to be the
case. And either way, once you release the source
code, you have to run a lot faster to keep [ahead of] the
price erosion [which] results from giving away to all and
sundry the secret sauce that went into your product.
GPL LEADS to free, whether or not open source
developers, or Stallman, want to admit it in public.
The claim Stallman made that "Free software does not
mean "gratis" " was the basis of my "Response"
article. Stallman likes to play around with language,
but in this case, I think it's a way to spin the
apparently-misnamed "Free Software" into a liberty
sense and NOT a cost sense. I say that's
nonsense...that you can't escape the "free as in cost"
aspect of GPLed software.
> Richard Stallman will tell you himself that he is
> not an "open source" developer. In fact he'll
> insist on it. In his mind, what distinguishes
> "free software" developers from "open source"
> developers is the position you attribute to "open
> source" developers.
Perhaps this is the area that needs more clarity,
because he says things like "Free software does not
imply gratis." He probably thinks that somebody might
manage to make a buck from the sale of open source
software (and, again, SOME do, but you have to admit
that they are dwarfed, revenue-wise[, by proprietary software
companies]
> You appear to me to be more than a bit confused
> about the facts on the ground. Which is no crime or
> sin, but you should refrain from pomtificating about
> what "open source" developers believe until you
> have basics like the difference between the
> Stallmanite/FSF position and that of most open-source
> developers firmly in your grasp.
One man's pontification is another man's opposing
viewpoint.
I'll grant that open source programmers are certainly
operating under the assumption that open source can be
a stable business model for software development, but
I think the facts, such as RedHat's dance away from
Fedora towards Advanced Server as the foundation of
their business (which has LOTS of RedHat specific
stuff in it, including proprietary modules), is a sign
that many are starting to come to that realization.
> Those exceptions are sufficient to falsify the
> universal claim you made.
This isn't a courtroom, but a debate. I didn't say
that NOBODY makes money from open source software as
such. I think, though, that open source has been
around for long enough that there SHOULD be a lot more
pure open source software companies that make revenue
from software sales. There isn't. That should be a
sure sign that somebody is starting to realize that
the reason proprietary software appeared in the first
place was as a way to make revenue.
> It's a difficult business to be in. But Red Hat
> obviously manages it.
> Zope, Inc. is another example. You named a third
> yourself.
Yes, you've found a few examples (one of which I gave
you). On the other hand, I can name stacks of
proprietary software companies that makes LOTS of
money from software. I strongly question whether ANY
company will grow really big by basing their business
model on PURE open source. Like I said, I advocate
the hybrid model. I don't expect you to agree with me
on this.
> I'm just looking at the evidence. You seem to have
> the peculiar idea
> that revenue from software isn't "real" unless it's
> directly from sales --
> that consulting services and associated bundled
> goods don't count.
> Why define them out of the discussion?
Making software AS SUCH simply is not the same thing
as making software as a consulant. In the former
case, the market is composed almost entirely of
proprietary software companies, because that's how
they make money: by selling access to a secret. IN
the latter case, they make CUSTOM software for
companies, then pass it off to be owned by the client.
In the one case, someone is responsible for
maintaining JUST their own products, and dealing
EXCLUSIVELY with clients of those products. In the
latter case, they are responsible for whatever
software is OWNED by the client, either stuff they
make from scratch or stuff the client already owned
from past consulting relationships.
The reason I make the distinction is that the SOFTWARE
COMPANY model simply does not exist (or rather, to be
more precise, exists in a FAR more limited form) in a
world composed of 100% (or even the 95% you propose)
open source software. The open nature of open source
militates against it.
Granted, that open nature is wonderful stuff, and as I
discussed in the article, I benefit greatly from it.
That does not mean there isn't value in a business
model that provides the revenue to create a bunch of
client-oriented, self-funding software (as such)
companies.
As noted, self-funding proprietary companies conduct
the market research required to figure out how to make
new technology fit consumer needs. You even admitted
in your second response that proprietary sofwtare
companies are more "client-oriented" than open source
products (though you questioned whether their output
was "better"). The software markets works by
unleashing thousands of competing crucibles, each of
which attempt to best figure out what customers want.
The best end up becoming the biggest.
> The facts do not fit your construct.
I guess we'll have to see on that one.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
An interesting take on outsourcing
I found this link on the sidebar from Eric Raymond's blog. As "The Angry Economist" states, America's strength is its willingness to lose jobs. That is the case NOW, and was the case for the ENTIRE history of the United States. I remember reading in David Landes' The Wealth and Poverty of Nations about textile manufacturers who faced a backlash from workers who would lose their jobs when a new technology was brought in. The owner went in over the weekend, smashed up the OLD machinery, thus ensuring that those workers didn't have any job to come back to.
That's not nice, but it's in sharp contrast to the guilds and labor action that typified Europe at the time. Granted, one of the things that helped America was that we had a SMALL population, which meant people could usually find a job elsewhere (low supply makes that happen).
We still seem to be good at producing jobs. Our current 5.6% unemployment rate is lower than historical averages, and lower than the 70s. We're doing pretty good. Most of the pain comes from the fact that people don't want to disgorge the salary increases which came from the boom 90s. Unfortunately, that will have to happen...somewhat. Indian programmers are already getting more expensive, and combined with the falling dollar, they are more expensive still. So, it's not going to be a dramatic shift.
America is GOOD at producing work. Trust that. But be flexible.
I found this link on the sidebar from Eric Raymond's blog. As "The Angry Economist" states, America's strength is its willingness to lose jobs. That is the case NOW, and was the case for the ENTIRE history of the United States. I remember reading in David Landes' The Wealth and Poverty of Nations about textile manufacturers who faced a backlash from workers who would lose their jobs when a new technology was brought in. The owner went in over the weekend, smashed up the OLD machinery, thus ensuring that those workers didn't have any job to come back to.
That's not nice, but it's in sharp contrast to the guilds and labor action that typified Europe at the time. Granted, one of the things that helped America was that we had a SMALL population, which meant people could usually find a job elsewhere (low supply makes that happen).
We still seem to be good at producing jobs. Our current 5.6% unemployment rate is lower than historical averages, and lower than the 70s. We're doing pretty good. Most of the pain comes from the fact that people don't want to disgorge the salary increases which came from the boom 90s. Unfortunately, that will have to happen...somewhat. Indian programmers are already getting more expensive, and combined with the falling dollar, they are more expensive still. So, it's not going to be a dramatic shift.
America is GOOD at producing work. Trust that. But be flexible.
The Kerry-McCain ticket
This article/blog proposed the idea. That would be such a remarkable combo, and would be a marked departure from the partisanship that has characterized the current administration (a REPUBLICAN on a Democratic ticket).
Of course, it would never happen...or would it?
This article/blog proposed the idea. That would be such a remarkable combo, and would be a marked departure from the partisanship that has characterized the current administration (a REPUBLICAN on a Democratic ticket).
Of course, it would never happen...or would it?
One can only hope
This article asks whether smaller cars are the next big thing in the American automobile market. Unfortunately, the article thinks it's unlikely given the installed base of HUGE cars.
That's unfortunate. Perhaps I've just grown accustomed to Europe's smaller cars, but it seems that cars have grown even larger since I left 4 1/2 years ago. I can see why the average American would be reluctant to get a smaller car. You don't want to find yourself inside the functional equivalent of a balled-up wad of tin foil after a collision with an extenda-suburban.
I remember hearing talk of the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil after September 11th. I also watched as Congress inexplicably voted down McCain's gasoline tax increase (which would have done LOTS to reduce our usage of oil, which is the real problem), and Bush inexplicably pushed for more drilling in Alaska (which wouldn't have any effect for 20 years, and then would manage a 1-3% increase in our total supply of oil).
I don't think America is really serious about reducing its dependence on oil. Most places in America have horrible mass transit, so people NEED cars. I tried using Dallas' new train line between Dallas and Fort Worth. If you were going to Dallas or Fort Worth, great. The station was near the center of town (at least in Dallas, though a bit less so in Fort Worth), but all stations between the two points were in the middle of nowhere. They had large parking lots near the stations because people had to DRIVE to them, largely defeating the purpose of having any kind of mass transit system.
Drunk driving is considered more an issue in America, and from my experience, it is. Though Americans are certainly prone to binge drinking (which I think is a function of our high drinking age, as it turns alcohol into forbidden fruit THROUGHOUT college), Europeans are as likely to want to drive drunk as Americans. The difference, of course, is that America has very little in the way of mass transit in MOST cities. Granted, some have a decent system, like Chicago or New York, but most don't. This means people have to drive home after hitting the bars, unless they want to pay a $40 taxi fare. Some might argue that that's the price you pay if you go out drinking in bars, but why are we putting moral penalty points on drinking?
But I've gotten off topic. If we truly want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we need to use LESS of it. To make us use less of it, we need to have smaller, more gas-economic cars and more mass transit. The only way to do that is to make the price of gasoline more expensie.
I'm not suggesting we slam the price of gasoline to European levels overnight. That would destabilize the economy. Rather, gradually raise the price of gasoline over the course of 10 or 15 years. That would inspire people to migrate to smaller cars over those years, and make mass transit more economical in American cities.
Of course, I might as well ask Americans to learn to juggle flaming torches and take up tapdancing. The fact of the matter is, if ANY politician suggests we raise the price of gasoline, all of America starts to scream in unison like those creatures from the 70s version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."
Perhaps its our independence streak. To be honest, it is FUN to have a car all to yourself. I miss being able to hop in the car and go someplace (haven't had my own car in 4 years). We wouldn't necessarily have to give that up, though. All I'm saying is, smaller cars and more mass transit.
This article asks whether smaller cars are the next big thing in the American automobile market. Unfortunately, the article thinks it's unlikely given the installed base of HUGE cars.
That's unfortunate. Perhaps I've just grown accustomed to Europe's smaller cars, but it seems that cars have grown even larger since I left 4 1/2 years ago. I can see why the average American would be reluctant to get a smaller car. You don't want to find yourself inside the functional equivalent of a balled-up wad of tin foil after a collision with an extenda-suburban.
I remember hearing talk of the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil after September 11th. I also watched as Congress inexplicably voted down McCain's gasoline tax increase (which would have done LOTS to reduce our usage of oil, which is the real problem), and Bush inexplicably pushed for more drilling in Alaska (which wouldn't have any effect for 20 years, and then would manage a 1-3% increase in our total supply of oil).
I don't think America is really serious about reducing its dependence on oil. Most places in America have horrible mass transit, so people NEED cars. I tried using Dallas' new train line between Dallas and Fort Worth. If you were going to Dallas or Fort Worth, great. The station was near the center of town (at least in Dallas, though a bit less so in Fort Worth), but all stations between the two points were in the middle of nowhere. They had large parking lots near the stations because people had to DRIVE to them, largely defeating the purpose of having any kind of mass transit system.
Drunk driving is considered more an issue in America, and from my experience, it is. Though Americans are certainly prone to binge drinking (which I think is a function of our high drinking age, as it turns alcohol into forbidden fruit THROUGHOUT college), Europeans are as likely to want to drive drunk as Americans. The difference, of course, is that America has very little in the way of mass transit in MOST cities. Granted, some have a decent system, like Chicago or New York, but most don't. This means people have to drive home after hitting the bars, unless they want to pay a $40 taxi fare. Some might argue that that's the price you pay if you go out drinking in bars, but why are we putting moral penalty points on drinking?
But I've gotten off topic. If we truly want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we need to use LESS of it. To make us use less of it, we need to have smaller, more gas-economic cars and more mass transit. The only way to do that is to make the price of gasoline more expensie.
I'm not suggesting we slam the price of gasoline to European levels overnight. That would destabilize the economy. Rather, gradually raise the price of gasoline over the course of 10 or 15 years. That would inspire people to migrate to smaller cars over those years, and make mass transit more economical in American cities.
Of course, I might as well ask Americans to learn to juggle flaming torches and take up tapdancing. The fact of the matter is, if ANY politician suggests we raise the price of gasoline, all of America starts to scream in unison like those creatures from the 70s version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."
Perhaps its our independence streak. To be honest, it is FUN to have a car all to yourself. I miss being able to hop in the car and go someplace (haven't had my own car in 4 years). We wouldn't necessarily have to give that up, though. All I'm saying is, smaller cars and more mass transit.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Space Exploration
I've been following pretty closely press reports of the data coming back from the twin Mars landers. It looks like we'll prove fairly definitively that there is water on Mars (well, more than just the stuff found in the ice caps), and if there is water, then there is a high likelihood of life. In fact, we may already have evidence of microbial life on Mars. One of the experiments conducated by the Viking landers back in 1976 was the "Labeled Release" life detection experiment. It involved mixing a nutrient solution into Martian soil and looking for the emission of gases normally produced when bacteria metabolizes food. As it turns out, such a gas WAS detected. Other experiments conducted by the landers produced different results, though, so the consensus at the time was that life was NOT detected.
This is all exciting stuff, and it's all been done using nothing more than robots. The Spirt and Opportunity landers cost a "mere" 800 million altogether, which isn't chump change, but is a bargain compared to the price of human space flight.
On that note, one would think that I would be very enthusiastic about Bush's declared intent to push for landing humans on Mars within the next 20 or so years. One would, unfortunately, be wrong.
I am EXTREMELY keen on putting humans into space, and even getting them all the way to Mars. I think humanity has a future in space, and part of that future will involve colonizing our own solar system. I just don't think the federal government is the right body to make that push.
I remember reading awhile back of plans by the Hilton hotel chain to put up an orbiting hotel by 2035 (or something like that). Granted, this was WILD speculation on the part of people within Hilton, but I thought the idea was spectacular. This old man (I'll be, well, a LOT older then) would gladly plump the $15,000 a night room rate for the chance to spend a week in outer space.
Hilton wouldn't do something like this if it wasn't profitable. Furthermore, they could be expected to be a LOT more careful about costs than federal agencies ever could be, given that they don't have access to the bottomless pit of tax revenue. I think putting an outpust on the Moon (another part of Bush's plan) is a GREAT idea. Why does the outpust have to be built by the US government?
State run companies are generally inefficient and wasteful of taxpayer money. Most people understand that, and there is a global move towards privatizing formerly nationalized assets (though there have been hiccups along the way). Why, then, are we taking a "central planning" approach to space exploration?
I think NASA is a GREAT body for conducting pure research. Few companies would spend 800 million just to send a few rovers to find out if the conditions for life ever existed on Mars. That's IMPORTANT information, but not PROFITABLE information (though the fact that there is water on Mars might certainly help future colonists). All this pure research can be done with robots, and robots cost a LOT less than the cost of putting humans into space.
Leave the expense of human space flight to private industry. They are more likely to find a sustained (read: profitable, which tends to help the endeavor to pay for itself) way to put humans into space than NASA, whose human space endeavors include the pointless international space station that cost more than twice the original budget outlay and incapable of conducting any of the research NASA first planned for it.
I've been following pretty closely press reports of the data coming back from the twin Mars landers. It looks like we'll prove fairly definitively that there is water on Mars (well, more than just the stuff found in the ice caps), and if there is water, then there is a high likelihood of life. In fact, we may already have evidence of microbial life on Mars. One of the experiments conducated by the Viking landers back in 1976 was the "Labeled Release" life detection experiment. It involved mixing a nutrient solution into Martian soil and looking for the emission of gases normally produced when bacteria metabolizes food. As it turns out, such a gas WAS detected. Other experiments conducted by the landers produced different results, though, so the consensus at the time was that life was NOT detected.
This is all exciting stuff, and it's all been done using nothing more than robots. The Spirt and Opportunity landers cost a "mere" 800 million altogether, which isn't chump change, but is a bargain compared to the price of human space flight.
On that note, one would think that I would be very enthusiastic about Bush's declared intent to push for landing humans on Mars within the next 20 or so years. One would, unfortunately, be wrong.
I am EXTREMELY keen on putting humans into space, and even getting them all the way to Mars. I think humanity has a future in space, and part of that future will involve colonizing our own solar system. I just don't think the federal government is the right body to make that push.
I remember reading awhile back of plans by the Hilton hotel chain to put up an orbiting hotel by 2035 (or something like that). Granted, this was WILD speculation on the part of people within Hilton, but I thought the idea was spectacular. This old man (I'll be, well, a LOT older then) would gladly plump the $15,000 a night room rate for the chance to spend a week in outer space.
Hilton wouldn't do something like this if it wasn't profitable. Furthermore, they could be expected to be a LOT more careful about costs than federal agencies ever could be, given that they don't have access to the bottomless pit of tax revenue. I think putting an outpust on the Moon (another part of Bush's plan) is a GREAT idea. Why does the outpust have to be built by the US government?
State run companies are generally inefficient and wasteful of taxpayer money. Most people understand that, and there is a global move towards privatizing formerly nationalized assets (though there have been hiccups along the way). Why, then, are we taking a "central planning" approach to space exploration?
I think NASA is a GREAT body for conducting pure research. Few companies would spend 800 million just to send a few rovers to find out if the conditions for life ever existed on Mars. That's IMPORTANT information, but not PROFITABLE information (though the fact that there is water on Mars might certainly help future colonists). All this pure research can be done with robots, and robots cost a LOT less than the cost of putting humans into space.
Leave the expense of human space flight to private industry. They are more likely to find a sustained (read: profitable, which tends to help the endeavor to pay for itself) way to put humans into space than NASA, whose human space endeavors include the pointless international space station that cost more than twice the original budget outlay and incapable of conducting any of the research NASA first planned for it.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Venezuela's crack-smoking president
Hugo Chavez, populist president of Venezuela and a leader who considers Fidel Castro to be one of his personal heros, paid a visite to Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, a leader whose theft of the last election and forced redistribution of land has lead to Zimbabwe's expulsion from the British Commonwealth and turned the breadbasket of Africa into a nation desperately short on food. While there, he praised Robert Mugabe as a "freedom fighter." I guess his definition of "freedom" doesn't include the existence of a free press (Mugabe has shut them all down), economic freedom (Zimbabwe's economy is rapidly deflating), or freedom from government harassment (opponents are regularly jailed, roughed up or killed by government forces or its allies).
Of course, Chavez is cut from the same cloth as Robert Mugabe. When he talks about "freedom," he's talking about his right to do whatever he wants to his fellow countrymen without fear of foreign influence. They drape themselves in national sovereignity while they abuse their own population.
The fact is, the rest of the world has a RIGHT to interfere in countries where leaders engage in policies that will make them dangerous in the future. We don't live in a world anymore where events in Zimbabwe are about as relevant as dust storms on Mars. If Zimbabwe's economy takes a dive off a cliff, the repercussions for the world are enormous. Poor and desperate nations do crazy things like build nuclear weapons, or invade their neighbors, or engage in smuggling operations (drugs, weapons, etc) in order to acquire the hard currency that their damaged economies can't earn on its own (an important source of revenue for North Korea's dictator was from drug running).
Quite simply, the world has the RIGHT to intervene when governments are doing things that make their countries dangerous. Chavez complains about pressure from the United States. Well, Venezuela is one of our biggest sources of foreign oil, and besides, the LAST thing we want is another desperately poor regime in a region (South America) that has more than enough of them.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that the best solution to ANY bad government is for the people themselves to change it. Unfortunately, that's less likely when governments are doing everything in their power to keep their own people poor. The big democratic success stories in the developing world are in nations that have strong, growing economies. The failures are in nations where people are too miserable to care about the games politicians play.
Hugo Chavez, populist president of Venezuela and a leader who considers Fidel Castro to be one of his personal heros, paid a visite to Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, a leader whose theft of the last election and forced redistribution of land has lead to Zimbabwe's expulsion from the British Commonwealth and turned the breadbasket of Africa into a nation desperately short on food. While there, he praised Robert Mugabe as a "freedom fighter." I guess his definition of "freedom" doesn't include the existence of a free press (Mugabe has shut them all down), economic freedom (Zimbabwe's economy is rapidly deflating), or freedom from government harassment (opponents are regularly jailed, roughed up or killed by government forces or its allies).
Of course, Chavez is cut from the same cloth as Robert Mugabe. When he talks about "freedom," he's talking about his right to do whatever he wants to his fellow countrymen without fear of foreign influence. They drape themselves in national sovereignity while they abuse their own population.
The fact is, the rest of the world has a RIGHT to interfere in countries where leaders engage in policies that will make them dangerous in the future. We don't live in a world anymore where events in Zimbabwe are about as relevant as dust storms on Mars. If Zimbabwe's economy takes a dive off a cliff, the repercussions for the world are enormous. Poor and desperate nations do crazy things like build nuclear weapons, or invade their neighbors, or engage in smuggling operations (drugs, weapons, etc) in order to acquire the hard currency that their damaged economies can't earn on its own (an important source of revenue for North Korea's dictator was from drug running).
Quite simply, the world has the RIGHT to intervene when governments are doing things that make their countries dangerous. Chavez complains about pressure from the United States. Well, Venezuela is one of our biggest sources of foreign oil, and besides, the LAST thing we want is another desperately poor regime in a region (South America) that has more than enough of them.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that the best solution to ANY bad government is for the people themselves to change it. Unfortunately, that's less likely when governments are doing everything in their power to keep their own people poor. The big democratic success stories in the developing world are in nations that have strong, growing economies. The failures are in nations where people are too miserable to care about the games politicians play.
Haiti
Suffice to say, I'm not unhappy to see the backside of Mr. Aristide. His people are WORSE off than when he came to power (or rather, came BACK to power after being elected, deposed in a coup, then put back into power by force of American arms). He spun the last election to ensure he was re-elected (don't know why wannabe dictators bother with the appearance of democracy), and seemed intent on pursuing the same policies that had eroded the per capita GDP of the average Haitian over the past decade.
Haiti is such a messed-up place. Take a gander at satellite pictures of the Dominican Republic and Haiti (the island is split down the middle between the two), and you see a frightening sight. On one side you see a land of forest and rivers (the Dominican Republic), and on the other you see a place cut clear of anything green. The Haitians have chopped down all their forests, which is bad enough by itself, but is a sign of the grinding poverty which would drive someone to do something like that. You don't chop down all your forests because you WANT to. The people of Madagascar don't WANT to destroy the evolutionary heritage of a strip of land isolated from the African mainland for 20 million years. They do it because the only alternative is starvation and death.
Haiti has been independent for 200 years, and was one of the first sugar plantation islands in the "slave triangle" to make the break with European colonial powers. Unfortunately, the place has been misruled ever since, and the poor state of the island and its people is the result.
Haiti also ranks near the bottom of any economic freedom index. That means it's people find it almost impossible to buy property, start businesses, get loans, etc. Not surprisingly, Haitians are grindingly poor. Since Haiti also tends to be ruled by people who LIKE power, they have little incentive to do anything to change that (poor people tend to be less resistant to absolute dictators, because they have other things to worry about).
It's kind of surprising that we invaded a country like Haiti and left without leaving any of the structures which would enable it's people to stop being so poor. Fortunately, we don't seem to be making that mistake in Afghanistan or Iraq. The decision to invade a country is a BIG deal, and if we think the circumstances warrant it, we should make DAMN sure we never have to do it again. The best way to ensure that is to leave a country on a glide path towards prosperity.
Suffice to say, I'm not unhappy to see the backside of Mr. Aristide. His people are WORSE off than when he came to power (or rather, came BACK to power after being elected, deposed in a coup, then put back into power by force of American arms). He spun the last election to ensure he was re-elected (don't know why wannabe dictators bother with the appearance of democracy), and seemed intent on pursuing the same policies that had eroded the per capita GDP of the average Haitian over the past decade.
Haiti is such a messed-up place. Take a gander at satellite pictures of the Dominican Republic and Haiti (the island is split down the middle between the two), and you see a frightening sight. On one side you see a land of forest and rivers (the Dominican Republic), and on the other you see a place cut clear of anything green. The Haitians have chopped down all their forests, which is bad enough by itself, but is a sign of the grinding poverty which would drive someone to do something like that. You don't chop down all your forests because you WANT to. The people of Madagascar don't WANT to destroy the evolutionary heritage of a strip of land isolated from the African mainland for 20 million years. They do it because the only alternative is starvation and death.
Haiti has been independent for 200 years, and was one of the first sugar plantation islands in the "slave triangle" to make the break with European colonial powers. Unfortunately, the place has been misruled ever since, and the poor state of the island and its people is the result.
Haiti also ranks near the bottom of any economic freedom index. That means it's people find it almost impossible to buy property, start businesses, get loans, etc. Not surprisingly, Haitians are grindingly poor. Since Haiti also tends to be ruled by people who LIKE power, they have little incentive to do anything to change that (poor people tend to be less resistant to absolute dictators, because they have other things to worry about).
It's kind of surprising that we invaded a country like Haiti and left without leaving any of the structures which would enable it's people to stop being so poor. Fortunately, we don't seem to be making that mistake in Afghanistan or Iraq. The decision to invade a country is a BIG deal, and if we think the circumstances warrant it, we should make DAMN sure we never have to do it again. The best way to ensure that is to leave a country on a glide path towards prosperity.
