Re: Is free software good for developers?

Kevin Powick wrote:
Do you think that free, as in no cost, software is good for developers
and the software market in general?

Even though many Open Source (OS) products are zero cost, this is not
intended as an OS debate.

My personal take on it is that free software is not necessarily a good
thing.

I used to be amazed at those providing free software. I used to think
those people were crazy and obviously had other, "real" jobs to put a
roof over their head. I was mostly ambivalent towards them and happy
to occasionally use the fruits of their labour.

However, in the last little while, I've decided that those people
really annoy me. While they may put no monetary value on their time,
the only significant resource required to create free software, I do.

I've spent a bit of time thinking about this topic too. The OSS is
just one model for software that has free use for individuals or
organizations. Google software, such as gmail, groups, analytics, or
the planzo calendar I'm trying out is free to use without being open
source. The software industry often gives away software licenses as
loss leaders (IE, for example).

This isn't just an issue for those who build software, but also for
anyone who writes books. What is in a book related to computing right
now where the information is not available somewhere on the web?

How can an independent "builder" of software or IT information (e.g.
books) prepare a business plan that has a good chance of success? It
is essential they use a services, consulting model?

What incentive is their for a software company or small developer to
pour resources (time=money) into creating a great product, only to have
some group of idealists create a free knock-off?

I don't think the idealists are necessarily the biggest concern in the
"software is free" approach, although academics (e.g. grad students)
certainly do contribute to this. A college I know just replaced
Blackboard ($) with moodle (OSS) quite successfully. Linux obviously
has had a huge impact on Solaris (now OSS), AIX, HP-UX, DG-UX, and
Tru64 (or whatever Digital Unix is now called). It is rather hard to
compete with Eclipse (IBM-backed, leading to WebSphere) too and that is
not exactly a group of idealists who set that up, I suspect.

There is no
innovation in copying someone else's work.

However, I saw a TV segment this week with knockoffs of Oscar dresses.
They didn't look nearly as nice as the originals, I thought. Why do
people pay hundreds of thousands for a CRM when there are free CRM
systems around?

For the really big/complex software such as operating systems I suppose
commercial companies can still fight back by lowering the product
prices and then charging for great support, but small developers really
get screwed.

I agree it would be very difficult to figure out a viable business
model, especially if you don't want to hang a consulting shingle.

In every software related newsgroup I frequent, any time
someone is posting for a solution, 99% of the time they stipulate that
they would "prefer" a free solution - And nowadays, they often get it.

This is why some s/w companies have a free version that is useful and
usable and another where you need to pay for added features. I don't
know if this approach is successful or not.

I can think of no other industry where this happens. You would never
have a group of people providing free cars, houses, or food.

Yup. I agree. In the music industry, the listener can distinguish
between a song they want to buy and one they will only listen to free.
It isn't easy for the user to make decisions about software unless they
have a place to "listen to the music" before buying. So, they want to
use software free before deciding and it takes longer than the length
of a song to know if they would spend money. By that time, they have
used the product without spending money. It works, so they don't need
to spend money on product, only services perhaps.

The idea of completely free software is somewhat flawed and, IMO, hurts
the software industry by stifling innovation and stunting the
creation/growth of solid and reliable software companies.

Even if you have a really good idea and an excellent excution of it, a
large company or others can take your idea and make a free version. I
agree that it is a challenge.

Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I just had a customer tell me
today that he thought one of my products was a "little" expensive
($1,500), especially considering some of the free alternatives out
there. Of course, not 20 minutes earlier, he was beaming about the
$400,000 they just dropped on a new machine for their assembly line
that will give them an edge over their competition.

Software gets no respect.

I agree that there is a challenge here. One way to address it is to
figure out a business model that take free software as a reality into
account. I don't have the answers on how to do that other than
"services" which is hardly a satisfying answer.

Hey, we agree on somethin' Smiles. --dawn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?
    ... >>making software to be given away, or software of such low quality or ... Open Source programmers fully expect to earn money by ... - Gerry Quinn ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: information suppression by universities
    ... Universities widen the Rust Belt towards both coasts. ... America becomes the latest Empire to bite the dust as a Mexican ... But the source of the money for research is often from companies who are using the research to enhance their companies position in the marketplace. ... We can argue about whether or not it should be all open source or not, but from industries perspective, not having the research open to all makes sense. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Open Source vs. Commercial
    ... There are two arguments that are repeatedly used to attack the Open Source model - that it can't produce high quality software, and that it destroys the economy of software. ... Some people, and one in particular on Borland newsgroups, consistently claim that since Open Source software is also Free, it will destroy the software market and render all professional programmers unemployed. ... The assumption behind the argument that "FOSS = no software market" is that FOSS is made only by unpaid amateurs. ... The development cost a lot of money, which made the deal very expensive for the customers. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: LPC900/80C51 Compiler Toolchain
    ... There are some situations where commercial developers have advantages over open source developers - it is often easier to get restricted information from the microcontroller manufacturers. ... no top-quality open source alternatives (sdcc is, as far as I understand it, a perfectly reasonable compiler - but it is not a top-ranking 8-bit compiler in the same way that gcc is for many 32-bit targets). ... Any serious embedded developer can tell you horror stories of fights with licenses, ranging from broken hardware dongles, lost licenses after hard disk crashes or changing network cards, confusions over licensing policies resulting in waste time and money, long waits for license codes, issues when transferring the software to another computer, and other such problems. ... more manufacturers are going straight for a gcc port for newer 32-bit architectures, rather than the more traditional approach of working closely with a commercial developer. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
Loading