Add Linspire to that mix.
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.
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...
It's somewhat amusing to listen to the hard core pro and con open source evengellists go at it... "Open Sourcers are commie bastards, intent on overthrowing the capitalist system AND the United States!" or "Open Source will be the savior of our way of life..."
The simple fact is that there is going to be some money to be made in open source, but it's doubtful that it will be enough to actually run a corporation, although little "mom & pop" startups will probably thrive. And quite often, those startups will be innovators.
The thing to remember is exactly where open source started. You had hobbiests and enthusiasts who created the software because it's something that they loved to do. It didn't start off as a money making venture, and it's silly to think that in the long run, as a whole, it will be a huge moneymaker.
Mark
How in the world could government ever ban "closed source." That would be the equivalent of banning trade secrets.
Mark
Add Linspire to that mix.
The funny thing is that this is exactly how UNIX got its start in the industry. Most people don't remember that UNIX was an OS that was originally ONLY used internally at AT&T. They were not allowed to sell it, due to the antitrust restrictions placed on AT&T. What they did though, was license the source code to universities, and by doing that, they were able to get new people familiar with the OS internals, right out of college... Sound familiar? back then, there were no freindly guides to UNIX. When I begain working with UNIX, my "tutorials" were the UNIX MAN pages, the AT&T System 7 Programmers Guide (it looked like a telephone directory) and Steven Bourne's "Russian Doll" book.
One of the funniest things I ever read was a set of instructions for setting up networking on Linux - it read, "If you see something you don't recognize, Google on it and get hip." Umm, hello, setting up network access - Google doesn't work without said access...
At least you have google! We had to use carrier pigeons
and
or 150bps acoustic couplers and modems!
Mark
Has anybody posted the "master of the obvious" graphic yet?
The Linux kernel seems nice, when I say it sucks what I really mean is the bloated UI's suck. Install is great, kernal is fine. I played with Linux back in the 486 days and I really like it, small, compact implementation of Unix, better then solares 86. But a few years back I tried to use it on an old P1 and an old sun1. In both cases Linux was dog slow and I hated the different colored fonts in a shell window. I would like to find a nice no frills OS for a Apache/Tomcat/Java web server all I would really need is dialup connectivity, a good software firewall and a dynamic IP tool for auto updating name servers. At the moment I'm using windows 2000 and it's Ok, XP sucks but I am stuck with it too. I was going to buy a Mac just to get OSX but Mac is moving from PowerPC to intel so no point in buying any time soon. When I need X I can get to it via cygwin which is nice , might try putting my old AIX 2.25 on my intra net just for old time sake if I can find a t10 to t100 hardware adapter.
If you want to give Linux a try again, in whichever distribution you choose, don't let it install GNOME or KDE. Therein lies your bloat. Tell it you want to use a basic window manager and you will have that simple look-and-feel back again. I use icewm (http://www.icewm.org) on my laptops. It is simple, small, and fast, and best of all, I can configure it any way I like.
The aim of GNOME and KDE is to provide a more user-friendly (man, I hate that term) UI. In other words, it's X for dummies. That is an admirable goal, but it annoys the heck out of those of us who know and love (and love to hate) X.
thanks for the link, tonight after work I'll see it I can build a bootable CD and play with both Linux and FreeBSD. Should be able to keep my File System as an NTFS I hope.
I hear you there, GUI's hit their peak with FVWM and its been all bloat frmo there ;)... Seriously though I am now trying out xfce, and its pretty darn nice..
I would like to find a nice no frills OS for a Apache/Tomcat/Java web server all I would really need is dialup connectivity, a good software firewall and a dynamic IP tool for auto updating name servers.
Linux could do it, but your right that it will do it no better than BSD. Just go out and try one of the nets, if if you really feel like giving something a shot Solaris supposedly has a nice x86 release though after the royal screwing they tried to put over on their x86 users a few years ago I would not count on SolarisX86 continuing..
OK, I think you are correct, I have always installed them but never used them. I figure they would not effect performance if not used but I think I am incorect in thinking this. A simple window manager is all I need. All I do is write code, compile test and write some more code. Experimenting with hibernate (open source) at the moment, seems promising but lots of work configuring it.
Other than sucking up disk space they should not put a drang on memory or cpu if youre not in them. Though I may also be mistaken on this.
Sun got me for 500 bucks years ago for thier piece of crap SolarisX86. I found a very nice (486) Unix in consence Unix, took three tried to read the tape it came on but once installed it worked nicely an Oracle even had a port to it. I try to buy old computers from work and hate it when the OS requires the fastest new cpu, tons of rand and gigabits of disk space. I remember when Unix ran (and ran well) on less then a meg of ram, why one needs 64 meg/ram just to run the OS is beyond me.
No problem. The beauty of Linux these days is its wonderful variety. Some people look at all the different distros and get overwhelmed, then say it sucks because of all the "different linuxes" out there. I look at the variety and see the reason I went with Linux in the first place--the ability to choose and customize your computing platform to exactly meet your needs.
Bingo! And if all else fails, you can start from source and make your own distribution.
Heck, if Gates were the fundamentalist about copyright law that his defenders claim to be where would MS be?
Gary Kildall never made a billion off of C/PM.
Zawinski is a nihilist crybaby who thinks anything he didn't create is garbage. He can be amusing for a while, but then his whining gets tiresome. While he did participate in the founding of Mozilla, he abandoned it when things didn't go to suit him (i.e. it actually became open source).
He's also a hypocrite. He wrote xscreensaver, which is used on just about every Linux distro that ships with X. He maintains rigid control over it, frankly because he loves being considered as a Linux insider. What a goober.
Amen brother! Let the ChiComs have their Red Flag LINUX!
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.