Coding applications for free

[Agent007]

Can someone explain to me the concept of how a Linux programmer can make money by coding *free* applications?

thanks,
007

[voidmain]

Sure, I do it myself.  I have had several companies pay me to write software for them to solve a problem.  I use GPL software where possible. I may modify that code and return it back to the community. If I write new code I return that code back to the community if possible. In every case the company I was programming for had no problem with me passing this code on to the community so that other companies can benefit from it. Reason being is in many cases I was able to use the community code (GPL) to solve many of their problems to start with, they benefited from it. Everybody wins, especially the company or end-user that uses the said software.  Now, for the programmers who's only interest is to write a proprietary application with the sole intention of getting rich by raping end users of said software this is not a good model.

Believe me, the Free software system is better for the company or end-user of the software and better for software in general as it can save you time by not having to write an application from scratch, as well as more people being able to improve the software, and is completely tailorable to the company or end user's need. It is not a good system for those who are interested in nothing more than "getting rich", although you *can* make a *very* good living coding Free software.

Remember, not *all* programmers live in Redmond and work for Microsoft.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Agent007]

ok, the company pays you. and who pays them? I mean where do they get the money from? Afterall the company dosent sell the software right?

thanks,
007

[voidmain]

No, I do not code for software companies. I code for companies that produce things.  So the people who buy their products pay them, they in turn pay me for in-house software and web development. Open source saves the company a lot of money. For example, their web servers. They were running NT4, IIS, ASP, MSSQL. I converted them over to Linux, Apache, PHP, PostgreSQL. To the customer viewing their web site it's all the same.  They can buy bare bones servers and get all of the software for free. Do you know how much it costs companies to run an NT4 machine as a web server with MSSQL? Check into the licensing, it's not chump change.

Now, say you have 300 users that need to run a specific application. Let's say that application runs equally well on both Linux and Windows. Would you rather purchase 300 XP and Office licenses when you can download the Linux ISO, build all 300 machines from the one Linux disk and away you go?

The cost savings itself pays for more than a few IT people. A few IT people's wages that you would have to pay anyway on top of the licensing costs. They still have room to pay people like me for custom development and custom solutions. Companies that use open source software *save* big dollars. Money that can be spent on other things like custom development if it's needed.

I always hear people say programmers don't work for free as an argument against open source. Well I would agree with that but programmers can make a very good living programming for brick & mortar companies. In fact that's where most of the worlds programmers work. Only a small fraction work for software companies where software is the company's product.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[flap]

quote:I always hear people say programmers don't work for free as an argument against open source.

I'm constantly amazed that people continue to use that argument;
1. Actually a large proportion of the people currently writing free software *are* volunteers working for free.
2. Companies such as Red Hat *are* paying people to work on free software.

The first answer to this question is Void's; that most code written is actually bespoke software tailored for particular companies' needs.

The other point relates to software that *is* produced for the purpose of being redistributable product, such as Linux, MySQL, KDE etc etc etc. Part of your question is "How/Why does, for example, the KDE project make money when the software is free?" The bottom line is that software needs to be written. Linux distributors need it so they can make money from their distributions, and end users need it because, well, they're going to be using it.

If you need a piece of software writing because you're either going to be using it or selling it on to others, it's in your interests to fund its development. For example, Red Hat and Mandrake pay people to work on KDE. So the KDE project gets paid to develop KDE; Red Hat gets paid by company X for their operating system and for support; company X gets a nice desktop environment and society gets the benefit of being able to use the fruits of this work. Everyone's happy.

Obviously when programmers are doing useful work they expect to be paid for it, but once that work is done there's no reason why there should be restrictions placed on who can use it. Writing a brilliant piece of software, that could be reproduced and restributed to anyone who wants a copy at no cost, and then restricting who can use it based on whether or not they have paid for it is just waste, pure and simple.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: flap ]

[Chooco]

the dude's right, Linux programmers DO get payed. i was looking at Monster.ca to check out some job things to see what the market had (like oracle, VB, C++, just which one is the biggest wanted) and i saw they had opening at the RedHat Linux office in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with starting sallaries of $40,000

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
For example, Red Hat and Mandrake pay people to work on KDE. So the KDE project gets paid to develop KDE;

Don't let the KDE people hear you say that or they will kick your ass.  

The truth of the matter is there are *many* different ways and reasons Free Software is written. None of it was "funded" directly in the beginning, and still not a lot of it is today. In fact I don't have to give all of my code back to the community but I do. In fact I write my code to be rather generic with the ability for future customizing in mind. That way when a company does have a need for something I can easily tailor it. So you might say I do it for free too, however I get paid when I apply it to a companies needs.

Here is a small list of companies that do directly contribute code: http://debianlinux.net/companies.html

And here is one of my favorite remarks from a NASA engineer that sums it up for me:

 

quote:Most people who were contributing software did so in a form of barter system. They needed a better Linux themselves, and that's why they contributed. Don Becker at NASA describes this as clearly as anyone else when he was asked why he contributes extremely fast Ethernet drivers, which is an extremely sophisticated technology, to the Linux kernel, and then allows Red Hat to make money selling his Ethernet drivers, and he doesn't make any money at it. He said, "Let me get this straight: I write a small Ethernet driver, that I admittedly give away, and Red Hat get to put in a box. And in return I get the complete source code and a license to do whatever I want with a complete 800MB operating system, and you're telling me Red Hat's taking advantage of me?"

from http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-828802.html

[pkd_lives]

That sums things up good. The point most poeple cannot understand is that the returns are not what they expect.

Contrary to popular opinion money is a minor requirement of life. These people often fail to understand the open source philosophy because they expect high wages and huge contracts for millions of dollars.

I know people who barter in this day and age. I think it is a very positive idea. Those who can do and everyone exchanges the excess of what they do with the excess of what everybody else does. It's how money first existed. The only losers are the stupid people too lazy to learn to do anything.

Financial gain is not always the driving force (pure capitalism is a big a mistake as pure socialism - neither can or will suceed), some programmers want the kudos and fame of writing the Killer application, or working something out and saying Hey I did it, and I did it first.

I have worked on software at every job I have had as a professional, and I have never been paid for it, it has never even been on my contract of work, yet I do it because it helps the company and I look good (with luck I get pay increases or promotion). Usually it's just altering programs already written, fine tuning, eliminating bugs and general code maintenance.

[voidmain]

I agree.  And to me the biggest point that most people miss is that saving money (lower expenses) is just as good as higher revenue. If you can do both then you maximize your profits.  Free software allows lower expenses, thus increases profits. Some of this savings can be passed along to fund more free software development. It's actually been working for much longer than anyone realizes. It's just getting more press lately and the biggest opponents are the "Microsofts" of the world.

It is good for people who work for Microsoft and for software companies like them to have proprietary code, vendor lockin, a monopoly. It is bad for everyone else on the planet. Now, M$ has gained a lot of money on their proprietary software (at the expense of everyone else on the planet) so they can generously fund the spread of a lot of FUD.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]