Posted on 06/07/2005 5:43:09 AM PDT by Incorrigible
Computer Hardware & Software
The Open Source Heretic
05.26.05, 6:00 AM ET
Since 1993, Larry McVoy has been one of the closest allies to Linus Torvalds, creator of the open source Linux operating system.
Yet after all these years, McVoy has come to believe that the open source business model, which is all the rage these days among computer makers like Hewlett-Packard (nyse: HPQ - news - people ) and IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), cannot generate enough money to support the development of truly innovative software programs.
"Open source as a business model, in isolation, is pretty much unsustainable," says McVoy, founder and chief executive of BitMover, a San Francisco-based company that makes a software-development tool for Linux called BitKeeper.
McVoy understands open source as well as anyone on the planet. Though his product, BitKeeper, is not an open source program, from 2002 until 2005, McVoy let open source programmers use it for free. But as of July, McVoy will stop the give-away, saying it has been costing him nearly $500,000 per year to support Torvalds and his programmers.
Open source advocates have pushed McVoy to "open source" his product--that is, to publish the program's source code, or basic instructions, and let the world use it for free. But McVoy says it is simply not possible for an innovative software company to sustain itself using an open source business model.
"We believe if we open sourced our product, we would be out of business in six months," McVoy says. "The bottom line is you have to build a financially sound company with a well-trained staff. And those staffers like their salaries. If everything is free, how can I make enough money to keep building that product for you and supporting you?"
The term "open source" refers to software that is distributed with its source code so that anyone can read or copy that code. Most commercial programs, like those made by Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ), keep their source code secret.
Open source products typically are distributed free, since it's pretty much impossible to charge money for something that anyone can copy.
So how do you make money with open source code? Some companies, like Red Hat (nasdaq: RHAT - news - people ), distribute Linux for free and then make money selling service contracts to users.
"One problem with the services model is that it is based on the idea that you are giving customers crap--because if you give them software that works, what is the point of service?" McVoy says. "The other problem is that the services model doesn't generate enough revenue to support the creation of the next generation of innovative products. Red Hat has been around for a long time--for a decade now. Yet try to name one significant thing--one innovative product--that has come out of Red Hat."
To be sure, a few open source companies are successfully generating revenue and even (possibly) profits. But none of them generates enough money to do anything really innovative, says McVoy, 43, an industry veteran who has developed operating system software at Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people ), Silicon Graphics (nyse: SGI - news - people ) and Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people ).
"The open source guys can scrape together enough resources to reverse engineer stuff. That's easy. It's way cheaper to reverse engineer something than to create something new. But if the world goes to 100% open source, innovation goes to zero. The open source guys hate it when I say this, but it's true."
Torvalds disagrees with McVoy about the sustainability of open source.
"Open source actually builds on a base that works even without any commercial interest [which] is almost always secondary," he says. "The so-called 'big boys' come along only after the project has proven itself to be better than what those same big boys tried to do on their own. So don't fall into the trap of thinking that open source is dependent on the commercial interests. That's nice gravy, but it is gravy."
But McVoy says open source advocates fail to recognize that building new software requires lots of trial and error, which means investing lots of money. Software companies won't make those investments unless they can earn a return by selling programs rather than giving them away.
"It costs a huge amount of money to develop a single innovative software product. You have to have a business model that will let you recoup those costs. These arguments are exceedingly unpopular. Everyone wants everything to be free. They say, 'You're an evil corporate guy, and you don't get it.' But I'm not evil. I'm well-known in the open source community. But none of them can show me how to build a software-development house and fund it off open source revenue. My claim is it can't be done."
And though open source software may be "free," sometimes you get what you pay for, McVoy says. "Open source software is like handing you a doctor's bag and the architectural plans for a hospital and saying, 'Hey dude, if you have a heart attack, here are all the tools you need--and it's free,'" McVoy says. "I'd rather pay someone to take care of me."
McVoy argues that the open source phenomenon may appear to be sustainable but actually is being propped up by hardware makers who view open source code as a loss leader--something that will entice customers to buy their boxes.
"Nobody wants to admit that most of the money funding open source development, maybe 80% to 90%, is coming from companies that are not open source companies themselves. What happens when these sponsors go away and there is not enough money floating around? Where is innovation going to come from? Is the government going to fund it? This stuff is expensive."
Even the popular Linux operating system would suffer if hardware makers stopped their sugar-daddy support for its development--putting their own programmers to work on Linux, and sending payments to the Open Source Development Labs, the non-profit organization that employs Torvalds and some of his key lieutenants.
"If hardware companies stopped funding development, I think it would dramatically damage the pace at which Linux is being developed. It would be pretty darn close to a nuclear bomb going off," McVoy says.
McVoy says he believes the software industry will reach some kind of balance between open source and traditional software companies. Open source companies will make commodity knockoffs and eke out tiny profits, while traditional "closed source" companies will develop innovative products and earn fatter profits.
Heretical as this may seem, McVoy wants to be on the side that innovates and makes money.
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
Yep
Everyone wants everything to be free. They say, 'You're an evil corporate guy, and you don't get it.' But I'm not evil.
Burn the heretic!
"the popular Linux operating system would suffer if hardware makers stopped their sugar-daddy support for its development--putting their own programmers to work on Linux"
Heretical as this may seem, McVoy wants to be on the side that innovates and makes money.
That sounds like capitalism. And working on products with no hope of profitability sounds like socialism. There's not a lot of suspense here about the outcome...
Case closed.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
That's what he's doing. However, he's concerned about the long term viability of Open Source as a target platform for his proprietary software.
He didn't say a thing that was heretical. I'm going open source in a big way, for my little company it makes lots of sense, but it isn't for everybody. But no one who knows anything thinks open source will solve every problem out there.
What it does do is expand the monopoly business model of "Microsoft owns your soul and can get away with anything". Why, for example, should I be forced to buy Longpig, when it will add not one iota to my bottom line? If I live another thirty years, why should I pay Microsoft for every computer I build when I get squat out of their "innovations"?
That said, I do have windows machines and do appreciate some of their features and am happy to pay for a certain number of machines that run their OS.
"McVoy argues that the open source phenomenon may appear to be sustainable but actually is being propped up by hardware makers who view open source code as a loss leader--something that will entice customers to buy their boxes. "
So what? He's saying that something that IS sustainable (even as a loss leader) isn't sustainable??? That isn't heretical, that's just stupid. Ope source and proprietary will simply exist together.
And if there is no innovation in open source, try building a grid computer network with Windows. Oh, and Looking Glass is Open Source, not MS. Hell, without Mozaic and internet protocols developed open Source where would MS be?
Linux is nothing without the hundreds of commercial programmers that have helped to improve it. Too bad for those companies paying them to do it, like IBM, Red Hat and Novell who have seen their stock tank as a result.
And that's part of the reason why China likes LINUX so much. Soon all open software development will only be done in China.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Pecuniary incentive is rediscovered once again...
Red Hat does not make a profit?
I've been assembling a project out of all open source and I just adore the open source community. Of course, one reason that I adore them is that I could not possibly afford to buy a system with the capabilities of the one I am building, essentially for free (except for sleep), from open source. I estimate that I am already talking in the low six figures for a commercial system to do what I am attempting. The downside of course is that the open source is poorly documented and is a far cry from "plug and play". The open source community banks on this to land consulting contracts to install and maintain these systems. Nonetheless, open source makes it possible at all for me to do what I am doing.
GRID networks are over-hyped.
McVoy is full of crap. I can't believe this drivel is coming out of someone who claims to be a software professional. McVoy is just whining because he, unlike dozens of others, isn't smart enough to figure out how to make the open source business model work.
Red Hat isn't making money (and quite a bit of it) because they are distributing crap and then extorting their customers to bail them out. That's the Microsoft model. Red Hat wouldn't have lasted six months on that model precisely because everything it releases is open source. Customers would get tired of the crap and either fix it themselves or move on. Microsoft customers, until Linux matured, couldn't do either.
As a software professional with thirty years experience, and a die-hard capitalist to boot, I can tell you that, on balance, the breadth and depth of open source software available out there is far superior to its commercial counterparts. In fact, open source fills numerous niches where commercial ventures dare not go. As for sustainability, there are open source applications and systems available that have been around for years. Some of them come as close as any software will ever be to being bullet-proof.
Sell it somewhere else, McVoy. It's nothing but FUD and you know it.
Yeah... heaven forbid these guys spend the time to write drivers for their hardware so that people can buy or use it. What an assinine comment... it's like saying that the "Wintel" platform would be useless without the hardware companies writing drivers for Windows -- it's just as true and just as pointless. These guys write drivers to sell hardware. Period.
I bet you would get more sleep and be able to go into production faster if you used Windows Server 2003, SQL Server and .NET development to do your project. Granted it wouldn't be "free" but certainly less than 6 figures and probably less than 5!
A trade off I would consider worthwhile.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.