WE'VE MOVED!
We are proud to announce our NEW community destination. Engage with resident experts and fellow entrepreneurs, and learn everything you need to start your business. Check out the new home of StartupNation Community at startupnation.mn.co
We are proud to announce our NEW community destination. Engage with resident experts and fellow entrepreneurs, and learn everything you need to start your business. Check out the new home of StartupNation Community at startupnation.mn.co
Open Source Software
RichardBuggy
subscriber Posts: 4
On the osCommerce thread there`s been a lot of discussion about open source which I think needs to be addressed.The free in open source is about free speech, not the price of the product. It`s about protecting your right to use software the way you want. This is achieved by using a license to make sure you have the right to use to the software in *any* way you want and that no one can take that away from you. The software not costing anything is a side effect (technically you can charge for it).A phrase often used to describe this is "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer". The difference is often lost but really important.Free Speech: I sell you a bottle of water for $5 and let you use it any way you want.Free Beer: I give you a bottle of water at no cost but tell you that you can only drink it between 9.00 and 9.05 on the second blue moon of a year. What if you want to drink it at another time or use it for a different purpose?Personally I`m a huge fan of open source. If a proprietary application does 95% of what I need I`m at the mercy of the manufacturer to add the remaining 5%. Of course they`re not going to do that unless it`s commercially viable. With open source I can add the 5% myself (or pay someone to do it).
Sign In or Register to comment.
Comments
Personally I love watching the open source movement talk about the need to destroy the proprietary models that built the computer industry. Good luck!
Everyone deserves a fair wage for their work. Period.
If you don`t like the license agreement, don`t license the software. Or, write a better version and release it as open source. But really, I think if you aren`t willing to write an accounting program and release it as open source, then don`t complain about someone who is kind enough to write an accounting program ... even if it`s proprietary. That is the point where you should keep your teeth tightly pressed together so you tongue and lips cannot move and give birth to uninformed statements.
Please be fair and balanced if you discuss Eric Raymond. Tell the SUN members here that he is regarded as insane by a good sized chunk of the open source movement. This isn`t Fox News.
"This book delves deeply into the reason why open source evolved and why it works. It provides concrete economic theory and plenty of background on why the os method works for large complex pieces of software."
I hope you`re not a software developer. The open source method has no advantages over the proprietary method. What is the supposed difference? More eyeballs? Didn`t Microsoft`s much delayed Vista release just prove that more eyeballs don`t necessarily help. How many developers did Microsoft hire to write Vista? Ten or 10,000?
As far as I know, it`s still pretty easy to write huge classes in open source. Huge classes aren`t always a good thing. It`s also just as easy to write bugs and make bad design decisions. The concepts of good software design are by no means unique to open source. Modularity is not unique to open source. Good code structure and proper functionization are not unique to open source. Correct use of abstraction and encapsulation are not unique to open source.
While Cathedral/Bazaar is certainly interesting, it`s also incredibly biased. Nothing wrong with bias. But in the context of this discussion, the bias should be noted.
Everyone deserves a fair wage for their work. Period.I develop open source and I earn a fair wage. Do I need to say anything else?Please be fair and balanced if you discuss Eric Raymond. Tell the SUN members here that he is regarded as insane by a good sized chunk of the open source movement. This isn`t Fox News.I think you`re confusing Eric Raymond with Richard Stallman. Rich
End users can customize software to their requirementsEnd users can use the software any way they want
Developers benefit from users and other developers contributing patches and featuresIt`s easier and cheaper to sell the software (i.e. convince customers to use your application)
Generally you make more money from services associated with the software than the software itself (this is why IBM has been moving to services).
[ I understand how open source works. But open source arguments are often coupled with additional arguments against conventional licensing or subscription models. See previous posts in this thread. Open source is not bad; but a lot of open source proponents are against proprietary software because it bothers them. ]
This is the kind of crazy restriction that is increasingly appearing in proprietary software licenses.
[ Crazy license agreements have nothing to do with proprietary products or the proprietary model. As I said above, a lot of open source proponents are against proprietary software period. They think information should be free and look at any effort to charge for software as an affront to human dignity. Yet they turn around and purchase cars and food without mouthing a single word of complaint. So it`s really just a b.s. argument on the part of open source. Where are the arguments for free food and cars? Open source can`t have it both ways. ]
You also need to understand that there is a big difference between protecting your IP and restricting how your software is used.
[ How Company X chooses to protect their intellectual property is their business. The clauses Company X puts in their contracts is their business. If someone does not like a clause in a contract they are free to buy a different product. ]
I think you`re confusing Eric Raymond with Richard Stallman.
[ No, I`m not confusing the two. Eric Raymond is racist, homophobic idiot who favors genocide with respect to Muslims. But don`t take my word for it. This man has made statements that are *fantastically* and *shamefully* racist. But I guess if you can put the incredible racism aside, and if you can forgive his calls for genocide, go ahead and read his book. ]
No it`s not. A competitive advantage is an advantage you have over your competition. Your competition can do the same thing for zero cost.
End users can customize software to their requirements.
This is not an advantage of open source. This is a "feature" of well written software, open source or proprietary.
End users can use the software any way they want.
Hmm. I don`t think this is strictly true. Can you provide details of the common open source license agreements, especially the parts that grant end users the right to "use the software any way they want"?
Developers benefit from users and other developers contributing patches and features
This is not an advantage of open source. This is a "feature" of well written software, open source or proprietary.
It`s easier and cheaper to sell the software (i.e. convince customers to use your application)
Hmm. Really? You must mean the upfront sale, right?
Generally you make more money from services associated with the software than the software itself (this is why IBM has been moving to services).
There is a lot of open source babbling about how the proprietary model "locks in" the customer, "soaks" the customer, and "restricts" the customer. From what you`ve described here, I really don`t see the difference. In your description of this model, open source sits as parasite on the back of the customer - just like the proprietary model. There are "services" instead of upgrades. Oh and please make sure the check doesn`t bounce, right?
Any there any other points you would like me to neatly refute?
But the real value of open source is not technological. It has no technological advantage nor any real, sustainable competitive advantage over proprietary software. Not in any true sense, nor in any important sense.
Open source excites people because it creates markets. Markets for MySQL, markets for Linux. Sometimes it even creates giant markets or helps people build giant markets. And a market is just a giant pool of capital and people use that capital to make investments. So that`s why open source is exciting. But proprietary software, like Windows, also creates markets. The Windows ecosystem is a huge market that has created more wealth than ... well anything I can think of. In fact, open source really owes its existence to Windows, as much as people don`t want to admit. Windows is the reason cheap computers exist. Windows is the reason that people can buy a great compiler for a few hundred bucks. Windows is the reason that most of us can afford a computer. So proprietary software is, and will remain, a vastly superior model until the day that open source can claim to have created as much wealth and productivity as proprietary products.
I think you don`t want to waste time "debunking" my mistakes because I haven`t made any for you to debunk.
I really don`t want to get into a fight, but you cannot expect me to sit around while you talk about open source advantages that don`t exist.
Being able to create patches is a sign of good design. It is. Sorry but what`s the alternative? Not being able to create patches? Being able to add features and write extensions is a sign of good design. None of this is exclusive to open source..
.
.
In fact, Windows is a great example. Millions of developers have written extensions to Windows without its source code.
Windows is not a good example.
No one has written any "extensions" for Windows. Millions of developers have written software that runs in it. Windows is an operating system, one of its main fetautes is acting as a host for third-party software.
However, no one has written any patches for Windows. If you find a bug in Linux, you can you fix it yourself or hire someone to do it for you. If you find a bug in Windows, you wait for a service pack from Microsoft (or attempt to create a hack, in violation of your license agreement). This is the main difference between proprietary and open source. Any software llicense agreement will include terms against modifying the software; being able to create patches is not at all a sign of good design if you are selling software-in-a-box.
By the way, Microsoft and open source are not contradictory terms:
62oleg2007-5-24 0:6:59
My point. The benefits of open source are really benefits of good design. Good design is not exclusive to open source. It is found in proprietary architectures as well. A lot of the benefits of open source are not really special. Sure the upfront cost is lower but that doesn`t convey any competitive advantage whatsoever because it`s lower for everyone.
Am I missing something?