Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 10/07/2003 9:25:22 AM PDT by Joe Bonforte
I have to admit that I was never much of a believer in open source. Maybe my business school coursework rendered me blind to the glorious vision of a "gift culture" in which people contribute their work to a decentralized development project like Linux for honor instead of money. Or possibly I'm just too thick to understand how cutting off a multi-billion dollar revenue stream from software sales, without putting anything else in its place, could be good for the software business. Whatever the problem, I never quite believed in the fairy tale world they promised in which we'd all get an operating system that was better than Windows in every way, for absolutely no money -- not even when IBM started retailing Linux PC's and the juggernaut of fabulous free operating systems seemed unstoppable. But I confess that in all my skeptical musings, I did not imagine that Linux might be brought down by something even more prosaic than a lack of funds: a lawsuit.
Yet that's looking ever more likely. SCO, which makes a proprietary version of Unix that Linux competes with, has filed a suit against the manufacturers of Linux boxes for copyright infringement. IBM, which has been promoting Linux relentlessly, is now announcing a countersuit, but it centers mostly on side issues, rather than the key question: did one of Linux's thousands of volunteer developers illegally stick code stolen from SCO into Linux? Though those who have seen the code in contention say that SCO probably has a case, it doesn't seem to be much of a case: the stolen bits seem to be fairly trivial and easily replaced. But of course, the object of this lawsuit is not to stop Linux from using the code; it's to stop Linux from eating SCO Unix's lunch. And it seems to me that it's very likely to succeed.
Don't get me wrong: for all my skepticism about open source as a business model, I think Linux is a great operating system. The decentralized development model, in which volunteers are constantly building, refining, and debugging the code has produced an unquestionably fine product. And, of course, it's free. Nonetheless, if SCO wins this lawsuit -- or loses on technical grounds other than copyright infringement -- I think you'll see corporations taking a pass on open source software. Because for corporations, the real problem with this lawsuit is not a few lines of stolen computer code, which is why HP's attempt to stop the damage by indemnifying its Linux customers against SCO is unlikely to work. The real problem is this: if you're an IT manager deciding whether or not to purchase a Linux machine, how can you be sure that those stolen lines are the only ones?
Corporations simply can't afford the risk of a lawsuit, even if the cost of a non-open-source OS is several hundred dollars higher. At the corporate level, lawsuits are expensive and distracting, even if you win. And at the IT manager level, telling the board that your hot new installation just embroiled the company in a legal battle is a career killer.
For Linux, that's bad, bad news. The outcome of the Windows/Mac showdown seems to indicate that the company that owns the corporate desktop owns the marketplace. So the last vestiges of those glorious internet bubble dreams of an economy based on free stuff may finally be at an end.
But there is no cloud without a silver lining, and contemplating the possibility that Linux will fail to take over the desktop offers some valuable lessons for those of us who spend our time trying to figure out what the world is going to look like in five or ten years. The first is that you should never predict the imminent demise of the old way of doing things without examining what benefits the old way might offer that the new way can't. And the second is that as long as inhabitants of the virtual world have to occupy physical space, the offline world is going to exert considerable power over those virtual interactions.
For example, consider the auto dealership. When the internet began to take off as a retail platform, I -- and many other people smarter than I, whose job it was to analyze the market -- was confident that the auto dealer was on his way out. After all, the value proposition that most car salesmen offer their customers is . . . ahem . . . rather limited; it consists of concealing from the purchaser the true cost of the car and the terms of the financing agreement in order to squeeze every last possible dollar out of them. Wouldn't it be much more efficient, I thought, just to test drive the car at a company-owned showroom, and then order the one you want online?
Well, yes, for the customer. But it turns out that auto dealers offer some very valuable services to the car manufacturers. Because I was totally ignoring that side of the equation, I didn't see that dealers were in fact occupying a crucial niche.
Auto manufacturers, it emerges, are not (yet) able to custom manufacture cars on demand, for a number of reasons. They have to produce cars based on their best estimate of future demand. They thus require a distribution system that is highly plugged into the local market, and can vary prices and terms to best move the cars that have already been produced off the lot. If they were selling cars on the web, auto manufacturers would have to set one national price, which means either forgoing significant revenue from affluent areas by pricing to the nation's poorest region, or lose sales in poorer regions by pricing to the upmarket.
But of course, the value proposition they offer the auto companies isn't the only reason that dealerships survive. They also survive because in their generations of operation, they have built up significant power -- both in negotiating with the auto companies, and in lobbying the government. That's why you can shop online all you want, but you still have to get your car from an auto dealer: dealer trade associations lobbied state governments to pass laws making it illegal to do otherwise, and bullied the car companies into going along. As long as GM has to have a physical headquarters, and its cars have to ride on physical roads, it can't ignore the law just because the transaction is taking place in the brave new virtual world.
So with Linux. Those who saw open source as the inevitable revolution concentrated only on the value propositions that Linux could offer on price and performance. They weren't paying as much attention to other considerations, such as indemnity, that might be even more important than performance to the marketplace, because after all, what open source developers are good at (and interested in) is technological revolution, not liability planning and insurance premiums.
They also tended to assume -- as did I -- that decentralized or virtual structures were somehow immune to legal action, even though that assumption has proven incorrect time and time again over the last five years. While many have focused on closing off the last avenue of attack -- building peer-to-peer file sharing networks like KaZaa, for example, after Napster's centralized server-based system was shut down -- fewer have come forward to say "We'll have to operate in the same legal environment as offline businesses. Let's tackle that." But fighting a rearguard action against the last incursion of the offline world is a losing battle in the long run. This lawsuit is bad news for one technology, but a good opportunity for us to finally learn a lesson that we seem to be having a lot of trouble absorbing: if you want to overthrow the current regime, it is best if you first learn exactly what you're dealing with.
I made this exact point on an SCO thread earlier, and got exorciated by the open source advocates. They seemed to think that making this point means one is in favor of SCO.
It doesn't. It just means that the business world is a complicated place, and technology decisions are made from many reasons beside the purely technical ones.
For the record, I don't think this episode will "doom" open source or Linux. But I do think there will be consequences, and Linux will lose much of its momentum in the business arena.
Good point, but I hope you have on your asbestos undies because the "I hate Micro$oft" crowd will be out in full force.
Full disclosure: I'm a developer for Windows software but I also run Redhat Linux 8.0 and Windows XP at home. I enjoy them both, just like I enjoy both pizza and ice cream. It's not a one or the other thing for me.
Wrong.
The reason people write code for an open source project is that, in return for their contribution of a small piece of an operating system or software application, they get the use of the whole thing.
Open source projects are the result of a multitude of people trying to scratch the same itch.
The fact that other people who did not contribute code also get to use it is just a necessary byproduct of the open source model.
Code is not like other commodities like grain or automobiles. When somebody makes a copy of a piece of software there is not less of it for someone else.
As a matter of fact, the more people making copies of and using a piece of software, the more robust that software becomes as refinements are contributed by people who actually use it.
That makes Bill Gates the Al Sharpton.
Yes, companies can make money off open source software. The best example is the apache webserver. IBM and SUN both support it and sell their systems with it. They compete, but the project benifits and they save money.
www.apache.org
Uhm, no. They're the Rosie Ruiz!
Maybe. But consider this hypothetical. I'm looking for indemnification. I can choose Company A, which does not control the development of its product, and has comparitively low market cap and resources. Or I can choose Company B which completely controls its own software, has enormous assets to cover any indemnification charges, and, because they claim copyright, are the ones who will be sued anyway.
If I'm the typical risk-averse corporate IT manager, it's pretty obvious which one I will choose.
And this isn't unique to Linux; what assurance do you have that any piece of closed source software doesn't contain improperly copied code?
None. But the difference is that, if someone finds copied code in a Microsoft product (as Stac did several years ago), then they sue Microsoft, and it doesn't affect me. If someone such as SCO finds copied code in Linux, they may very well end up suing me. And the bigger I am, and more money I have, the more tempting target I am for such opportunists.
Here's the rub. It doesn't matter is SCO is wrong or right! The typical IT manager just doesn't want to be bothered with such issues. So he takes the safe course and avoids open source.
This guy lives in the Twilight Zone. Risk is a daily part of any business, and the risk of SCO winning anything is acceptably low.
As my dad has told me many times: "Son, don't let the lawyers run your business."
So this means the IT manager will avoid IBM?? I DON'T THINK SO!
True, but (1) it's good business to avoid unnecessary risk, and (2) any risk taken on has to have an expected return that justifies the risk.
If a corporate IT manager is making the decision between Linux and Windows, he's got to take the risks posed by these lawsuits into account. If he doesn't, he's irresponsible and should be fired. Now he may very well decide that the advantages of Linux are worth the risk. But some percentage of potential Linux users are going to decide the risk is not worth it, especially considering that the total cost difference between Linux and Windows is not that big.
I didn't say company B had to be Microsoft. Just that Red Hat is not bringing many advantages to the competition.
IBM may be able to put Linux in a winning sales strategy. They have the deep pockets and armies of lawyers to fight the indemnification battle if it should come up. But if you think you're saving money with IBM, well....
Hmm, I bought a 1983 Ford that I had custom built for me, with only those features that I wanted and was willing to pay for. It was about the only way to get the "wing vent" front side windows that I wanted, and now miss alot. The '83 had "issues", but I did drive it for almost 7 years. With the "just in time" processes that they have been using for years, it's not that big a deal for them. Yes you have to wait a few weeks to get your vehicle, instead of being able to drive it off the showroom floor the same day, but the same is true of ordering stuff from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or even WalMart on the web.
If you order a car that is produced "offshore" you wait could be considerably longer of course, and in fact you generally can't custom order in such situations.
They thus require a distribution system that is highly plugged into the local market, and can vary prices and terms to best move the cars that have already been produced off the lot. If they were selling cars on the web, auto manufacturers would have to set one national price, which means either forgoing significant revenue from affluent areas by pricing to the nation's poorest region, or lose sales in poorer regions by pricing to the upmarket.
I don't see that it follows that they would have to have one national price. The price could depend on the point of delivery just as easily.
In this case, there are larger risks that lawsuits. Comparing the risk/benefit ratio of Linux vs. Windows - including total cost of ownership, security, reliability, scalability, etc. - I think Linux comes out ahead.
Of course, no body else has been able to innovate in the computer market for 5-7 years now either. It seems that every software thing that can be invented has been invented.
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.