Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
gnu=borg - discuss
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/linux/wibble/freesoft.html ---Today, a lot of people are talking about free software -- open source -- things like Linux, Perl, Java, KDE, and so on. Free software is good for the user. But how should it be viewed by commercial developers? Some people don't like the idea of free software; free implies cheap, and we all need to pay for our food and the roof over our heads.
I'm still trying to formulate my own position on this matter. After all, I'm a programmer. When I advocate the use of free software, am I not doing myself out of a living?
The answer, I think, is no. But the way I come to this conclusion is probably not immediately obvious.
Consider software, as a product. Software is readily copyable; if I have a computer I can duplicate the data on any medium it will read. Sometimes people attempt to copy-protect software by one means or another; but in general, all copy-protection mechanisms do is make it harder to copy software -- not impossible. After all, if you can't read it, you can't run it.) Thus, the marginal cost of duplicating software tends towards zero.
However, let's now consider a physical object. If I have an automobile, and I give it to you, I no longer have it; I've given it away. I can't easily duplicate it, so I've lost it. But if I have a program, I can give it to you, and still keep it for myself. Ergo, the traditional way of looking at property as a transferable but not retainable posession doesn't fit.
Copyright laws, as currently constituted around the world, presuppose a high fixed cost for copying, because back when they were first proposed the main infringers of intellectual property rights were rogue printers who plagiarized and republished books. It took a printing press to do this, so enforcing copyright control was fairly easy: you followed the trail of ink and confiscated their plates. Thus, copyright control was enforceable.
Now, with general-purpose computers, any machine capable of running the software is also capable of copying it. So the general assumption underlying existing copyright law (that copying takes special facilities) is invalidated.
A new way of allowing developers to earn a living therefore needs to be formalized; one which does't rely on obsolete assumptions ("copying is hard") and which accomodates a modern view of information as property ("the marginal cost of reproduction tends towards zero").
Free software fits the bill. It isn't necessarily free in a financial sense; just free in the sense that nobody wants to stop you copying it. Developers of free software can still make money by providing support services -- bugfixes, bespoke patches and configuration, end-user support, teaching, and documentation. These are services, not products. For an example of this way of life, look at Larry Wall, developer of Perl. Larry is now employed by O'Reilly and Associates to work on Perl, doing pretty much whatever he wants. ORA make money off this deal because they are the #1 publisher of Perl books, and having Larry in-house gives them a stupendous competitive edge in the Perl support market.
A useful side-effect of free software is that you don't need to waste resources on copy protection or licensing; every user is a potential customer for your support services, so you want to _encourage_ copying. Nor do you necessarily need to market free software. Free software is utterly decoupled from the marketing paradigm that has overtaken the software industry today, because a rational consumer -- faced with a choice between products that are essentially free -- will always pick the best product for their purposes. The usual marketing levers (advertising, featuritis, incompatability, FUD) are actually counterproductive if you try to apply them to free software; advertising usually relies on creating a sense of dissatisfaction or insecurity in the consumer, which requires compensatory fulfillment. But because the profitability of free software is predicated on services, not product, this doesn't raise revenue; it just puts new users off using your software in the first place.
Conversely, if you simply make your program the best possible one for the largest number of users, you will pick up market share. Thus, the free software market is innately technology-driven, not marketing- or sales- driven.
I believe there will always be a niche for developers writing custom applications for a specific customer. There will always be a niche for sysadmins and customization specialists, taking existing packages and configuring them for a specific customer. And there will always be a niche for the technical author, trainer, and troubleshooter, who helps the end-users understand and use the software more effectively. All these people have a vested interest in contributing (as and when they can) to the free software packages that make their jobs possible. They are, in economic terms, innately opposed to proprietary commercial applications packages that have been specified by marketing departments as an all-encompassing solution to all possible user's needs, because such packages make their jobs harder.
I'm a specialist Perl developer, working on bespoke applications for people who need them. Am I worse off because Perl is free, rather than costing me megabucks for a proprietary and non-portable development environment that then charges a runtime royalty? No. Indeed, free software saves me so much money that if I see a chance to contribute something useful to the common pot I will do so.
The free software economy is a gift economy, post-industrial style. The people who keep asking "yes, but why should I trust it?" are still stuck in the mass-production commodity sales era of Henry Ford. I'm convinced that this is the way of the future; after all, if and when nanotechnology comes along, everything will work the way the software industry works today. (Anyone want to help found a Free Hardware Foundation? :-)
--- End quote ---
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/linux/wibble/freesoft.html
Jenda:
I love you pP...
:)
worker201:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---http://www.antipope.org/charlie/linux/wibble/freesoft.html
--- End quote ---
Nice article. Thanks.
KernelPanic:
You should all shut up.
Because you cant beat proprietary demigods like SAP.
If you wanna you should be coding right now.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---To produce software, you write code. For non-free software, you keep this code to yourself and distribute the software in binary form. That is, by definition, selfish.
--- End quote ---
So what?
I've designed electronic circuits at work and guess what?
We aren't stupid enough to give our compeitiors all copies of the schematics.
The code for the firmware and PLAs is all a trade secret.
Our battery charging interface and support software for the PC is all closed source, we don't make much money on the software alone, we profit most on the hardware.
Wow!
what evil selfish bastards we all are! We invest time and money in our hardware and software and we fucking deserve to gain a healthy return on our investment. Why don't you fucking string us all up and send us to the gas chambers?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Money, unlike software, is essential for survival. You need a certain amount of it to pay for your needs, then maybe some more for whatever it is you want, and, sometimes, after that, at least in my opinion, some people do become greedy slash evil, unless they share a bit of their wealth (by giving to charity, for example).
--- End quote ---
So, Microsoft share some of their money with charity.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Ofcourse some people will disagree - if you earn money you should be able to keep it for yourself. But when you consider all the problems in the world... At least in my books, any billionaire who hasn't given over INSERT_FIGURE_HERE to charity, is greedy slash evil.
--- End quote ---
Read the above.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---For some people it just isn't possible to share everything - they just would not survive.
--- End quote ---
That's because they hardly have enough for themselves and I agree they shouldn't be expected to share. I know it just doesn't seem right for some people to have plenty and some so litte (and it isn't) but that life for you, welcome to the real world you hippy luney.
I'm not very well paid as I'm only an apprentice, I do donate some money to charity. I'm pissed off as I'm nearing the end of my apprenticeship and due to a problem at the company where I work there are no job vacancies for electronic engineers so I'm doing a shitty job at the moment (stock control) either until they find a decent job or I can get one some where else. People who develop software have also been in my situation before, (someone I work with has) your idea that people who develop proprietary software are greedy is palin worng.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Different story for sharing software.
--- End quote ---
Oh no it isn't, if you depend on the software for your survival it's exactly the same principle. The bigest problem you have is you're thinking that all companies are like Microsoft. You're conveniently forgetting about the smaller developers here who don't make themselves filthy rich and only sell enough to survive which they struggle to do as they have to compete with the old Billy boy and now the GPL crew.
Your logic has a major flaw, you think "Microsoft uses proprietary licences and they're evil therefore other companies who also use them are equally evil". This is pure rubbish, name one other software company that's even half as bad as Microsoft.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I dunno if things, price-wise, would be much different from today in a mature free software economy.
--- End quote ---
I'm sick to death of this naive attitude "Linux will have it's day", "the good will out and free software will prevail and crush these proprietary daemons", "capitalism will be brought down and we'll all live a life of piece, equality and harmony".
Where do you people get this hippy idealistic bullshit from?
How the fuck are things at the moment suggesting this trend?
Well I've got news for you they aren't going to chance, at least not in this lifetime, if you're right (and I doubt you are) it will be a very long time in the future, the tide hasn't even begun to turn yet and don't bet it will.
As your biased articles have correctly stated, free software can generate revenue and I have never disagreed with this point, but the amount it generates will be considerably less. Free software companies (as already said) make money from their services rather than their code and if they do make it big it'll only be in areas where companies want the services like web serving and databasing.
The domestic consumers will be affected far less as they don't uses the services enough to generate enough revenue to make it worth the developers' while. People won't suddenly mass convert to Linux and there won't be a dramatic increase in free computer games. Projects like OpenOffice, Inkscape and Firefox (which is likely to decline due to competition with IE 7 as I think it might be quite good) might make their mark but on the Windows and Mac platforms not Linux. Neich markets like engineering software where the userbase isn't high enough to sustain the market by purchasing services alone will be affected even less. I doubt Bills empire will come crashing down any time soon and if you do then you're very naive indeed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version