The Open Source Heretic

Computer Hardware & Software
The Open Source Heretic
Daniel Lyons, 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.

"Wooohooo. Dittos from me. I went Java as well, use some php. As I point out repeatedly, the other big factor for us small guys is that I don't want to be rewriting my code every few years to match some new Microsoft fad designed to be an excuse for another upgrade fee. As a small entity, I can't afford to be yanked around like that."

Got it in one. The next generation of code that runs our instruments will be Linux-based for that very reason.

To me an operating system is a tool, since I mostly just write code, compile and test all I need is the ability to do several things at the same time. Write code, compile, test and browse/search the web. Nice friendly admin tools are kinda important too, but I could get by without them if I had to, I think I still remember how to mount a cdfs or fd0 if not I can google to jar my memory. When I developed mainly in c/c++ I was kinda tied to an OS but now that I'm working mainly with Java the OS is not nearly as important as long as I can get Apache/Tomcat running OK I'm cool.

How in the world could government ever ban "closed source." That would be the equivalent of banning trade secrets.

Our government may not, but socialists and communist regimes are passing laws requiring open source on their computers. North Korea, Cuba, Iran, they're all requiring open source like Linux on their computers because they can get free upgrades from the US, then take that software and slap their name on it. The Chinese have taken Red Hat Linux from North Carolina, and renamed it Red Flag. Makes me sick, others seem rather intrigued, if not apologetic for some reason. Now we have other democratic countries that are considering laws that require open source like Australia, and a couple of attempts here in small municipalities here in the US. Bottom line, yes, laws over software do exist for political reasons.

I would not count on SolarisX86 continuing..

And you would be wrong, like most always. Solaris just released version 10 and has many advanced features you won't find on any Linux like DTrace with more to come. Also expect increased 3rd party support including commercial drivers not reversed hacks like you have with Linux. We'll soon have MS Active Directory compatibility if not MS Office on Solaris soon. It's not going anywhere, sorry to be the one to break it to, but you're probably getting used to that by now.

Sun got me for 500 bucks years ago for thier piece of crap SolarisX86.

While the first version was rather weak it wasn't originally marketed as equivalent to their Sparc version. It has matured well now and is available for free for the 1 processor version, and has most if not all of the internal features of its big brother. Patching is rather difficult, but no moreso than any of the multitude of Linux fakes out there.

Most commercial programs, like those made by Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ), keep their source code secret.

With advancements in reverse engineering it doesn't really matter if a software company open sources their product or not. For the right price the source code can either be obtained from disgruntled employees or extracted by reverse engineering experts using the latest tools.

I've heard rumors of a java based OS, anyone know anything bout that?

It's called the Java Desktop System (JDS), and is Sun's current X interface to Solaris. More Java in name than anything else. If you download the free Solaris I told you about, it comes with that and the copies I got even included a free version of Star Office, Sun's typically for-sale Office suite. It's gotten great reviews, including a reader's choice from Jason Brooks at eWeek who is usually a Sun basher and Lunix pumper.

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.

No, Steve. He's simply reflecting upon the reality that, if you can offer a service to support code that you sell -- and people think will pay for your service -- then, obviously, your service is providing some kind of value to them. How? Obviously, you're fixing problems. Hence, you admit when you provide a service that you're providing code that will be broken.

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.

You misunderstood his statement. He's not saying that it's unusable "crap". He's saying that, if you need support, the product that you're selling is eventually (by definition) going to be broken and need repair. And he's right.

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.

Wrong. The vast number of customers aren't willing to fix bugs, themselves. They pay for somebody else to provide that service to them. These same customers know when they buy the service that they've already made an investment in an imperfect product; otherwise, they wouldn't need the service in the first place.

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.

Whether it's "far superior to its commercial counterparts" is irrelevant. It still breaks and requires support. And that's McVoy's point.

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).

Let me understand you. What part of Zawinski's statement is false? Nothing you've said contradicts his statement.

Only if your intent is to misuse or misappropriate that code. Is that what you're advocating? Because if you think it is OK for someone to disassemble part of Microsoft Windows, then port that code directly into Linux without doing so illegally, you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. His original statement - Most commercial programs, like those made by Microsoft, keep their source code secret - remains correct.

His statement is pointless, and that's the...er...point.

As you belabored everyone to point out in your previous post (more on that in a moment), no software is effort-free. Also, it misses the point of open source (as, I suspect, have you). The point of open source software is not to produce something with no cost and, therefore, no value. The point of open source is to allow widespread use that results in widespread improvement without the roadblocks of proprietary development. Finally, the other point, which I made and you missed, is that Zawinski's well-known attitude toward Linux is hypocritical. By his own admission, the denigrating comments he made were anachronistic since he made them after a single exposure to Linux in the very early days of its existence.

Keep in mind that Zawinski is no fan of Microsoft. He named them the "Evil Empire" and expended considerably more energy in ripping them to shreds in public and on the web than he has Linux.

In short, his comment was flippant and content-free and made solely for effect.

As for your discussion on my responses to McVoy, you need to re-read what he said. What part of "you are giving customers crap" did you fail to understand? His remarks cannot be parsed to mean anything other than that he believes the service model (one of several models, by the way) of open source amounts to little more than extortion. He (and you, apparently) fail to understand that there are a number of open source business models, some more successful than others, but all workable nonetheless. McVoy is just wetting his pants in public because he and Linus are feuding. Of course that always brings out the vultures who seem to delight in heralding any bump in the open source road as the beginning of the end. Why there are so many of you out there who are so threatened by open source, I guess I'll never know.

McVoy is just wetting his pants in public because he and Linus are feuding.

Completely bogus, you don't understand what has happened here at all. McVoy is pissed because he lent some of his open source friends some of his code, for free, but then some open source luni came along and started trying to rip off his money maker and give it completely away for free.

Torvalds, to his credit, appears to possibly appreciate that some wish to make money off software, and doesn't necessarily agree with the radicals like Stallman who want to reverse engineer/undermine every commercial product on the market. Obviously he comes off as a hypocrite, since that's exactly what he's done with Linux, but maybe as he's maturing maybe he's finally realizing how fanatical some of these open source proponents can be.

McVoy and Linus aren't fueding, at all, I don't know where you got that. They're amazed at the gall of the open source freaks who don't respect the property of others.

...you don't understand what has happened here at all.

Whatever. I am reacting to his public comments. Obviously they are feuding over open source, else this article would not have been written. Whether or not they threw down the gauntlet or slapped each other's faces with kid gloves, McVoy is making hyperbolically negative comments about the open source community and, by inference, Linus himself, since open source is what he has dedicated himself to lo these last 20 years.

The really ironic thing about all this is that Linux is just one small piece of the open source puzzle, yet insufferable prima donas like McVoy use it to broad-brush the whole model.

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.