Ok. I know that title is a bit inflamatory. But it’s true.
Let me be absolutely, 100% clear here: I love open source software. I love the idea. I love it in practice. I am of the mindset that a large portion of the software we rely upon daily should be open source.
Here comes the “but”:
But, if we take a stand that our Linux-based desktops must only consist of 100% free and open source software… Linux is doomed to failure.
If we blindly disregard all things “closed source” or “proprietary” or “commercial”… the big “Epic Fail” stamp is going to get applied to Linux.
And let me tell you, in as few words as possible, why that is the case:
People making software have to pay their rent and eat food.
If money can’t be made, people can’t afford to work on open source projects.
But, of course, there are so many options on how to make money with Open Source Software… right? Selling support services. Donations. Etc.
I know all the various sides to this. And we’ve debated them many times (with many people) on the Linux Action Show. So let me take a few moments to show, in the plainest possible way, why nobody (not the FSF, or anyone else) has presented a viable mechanism for how money is made (in all markets) for purely open source software.
1) Donations
Okay. A simple idea. If people like a project you can have them donate to it to fund continued development.
Heck! You can even setup recurring donations so people pay (automatically) a set amount every month.
Great idea! So let’s take a look at one incredibly cool project that requires a ton of work… and a project that, I might add, is absolutely vital to Linux being viable in a specific market at all.
Ardour is an audio wokstation application. Similar to ProTools. If you know what this is, you know you need this (or something like it). So if any application was a great candidate for donations… it’s Ardour.
According to the Ardour website they took in $1968 (USD) in January.
Less than 2 thousand bucks. We’re talking, if this is a full time job… less than $12 per hour.
This is not enough to support a family on. No developer (or tester, or technical writer, or graphics designer) in their right mind would ever say that these are reasonable wages.
And, again, if anyone deserves a good wage… it’s the developer behind Ardour.
2) Paid Support
This one actually works.
That is… it works if you’ve got the type of product that would, even in the commercial/closed source world, have paid support plans for business anyway (such as those that Microsoft and RedHat offer).
And, what’s more, this does not work for consumer or semi-pro level software. Are you going to grab a web browser for free and go pay an anual support contract? No. Not a chance.
This just plain doesn’t work outside of the enterprise.
What about games? Nope. Desktop tools? Nope.
So, please. I beg of you. Stop bringing this option up for scenarios where it obviously doesn’t make any sense at all.
3) Selling Related Services
Sure. That works. If you’ve got an application that benefits directly from said service… and people are willing to pay for the service.
Typically this is a scenario where a company makes an online service… and then develops tools to support that service.
A great example here is Drop Box. An online service, that you can pay for (a great service BTW), that they have releaced proprietary software for in order to make their service more powerful.
So. In this scenario… It sure as heck seems viable… but mostly for closed source, proprietary applications.
So, for the last few years, I’ve been talking about how to pull this off. How to make a living writing software for Linux. How help existing companies transition to Linux.
Because, if we want Linux to really succeed… this is necessary.
(You can listen to some of our thoughts on this here and here, and I talked with the guys on the Linux Link Tech Show about this topic back in October.)
That’s right. In order for open source software to succeed… it needs the support (financially) of commercial software. This is backed up further by the amazing work that some companies have been able to do in the open source world (Nokia and Novel both come to mind).
A quick example of the problem with the mind-set so many people are in:
Two days ago I wrote up a list of, what I consider to be, the 10 most awesome Linux applications. On that list are 3 closed source applications and a few developed with Mono.
While many responses where great (and brought up some other interesting applications)… some people… well… here’s a few quotes:
“over half of them are infected with Mono”
“Gnome-do while it’s well designed and very cool, those guys made a terrible mistake in choosing to build it all with mono [snip] dependent on packages that I will never install for religious reasons.”
Then there’s a thread over on Reddit:
“I would’ve preferred a list of the best Free and Open Source applications – most software can run on GNU/Linux but running proprietary software is wrong.”
Some people (luckily a minority it seems… though a vocal minority) seem intent on failure for Linux as a platform.
When people state how “wrong” or “bad” commercial software is… that is, in practice, basically saying that it is “wrong for developers, testers and designers to earn a reasonable living off their work”.
I’m going to say this, flat out:
We (Linux users) need the support of commercial companies to make our platform great.
And, in order for those companies to be able to invest in open source projects… we need to support them by purchasing what it is they offer (when they offer something that provides a benefit to us).
So, to those of you who go around yelling and screaming about the “horrors” of closed source or proprietary software, I say this:
If you really believe what it is you say you believe… You should really stop using any open source project that has directly benefited from closed source, commercial software. This includes everything from Gnome and Mono… to the kernel itself.
Or. Ya know.
You could man up, stop whinning so much and be a bit more practical.
Just saying.
February 11th, 2009 - 10:02 pm
What’s wrong with mono?
February 11th, 2009 - 10:04 pm
Hey Bryan, I haven’t read this whole thing in detail, but I think you missed a big one: Selling hardware with custom software. Cheers / jlinde
February 11th, 2009 - 10:20 pm
This seems to be another article which confuses Open Source software with Gratis software.
There is nothing wrong with selling software but when someone buys it, give them the source code also (if they want it).
February 11th, 2009 - 10:53 pm
Totally agree with this.
As long as the OS is kept free and open i would be happy to buy commercial applications like photo shop and the sort.
Even more i would love to pay for games on Linux. Real games none of this “Wine” stuff. I would be the first to buy a few games just to show its feasible.
February 11th, 2009 - 10:53 pm
First, lets get this clear — Free, Libre, Open Source Software (FLOSS) is in many cases Commercial Software. It may not be proprietary, but that doesn’t make it less commercial.
Software may or may not be written for money. Many of the FLOSS projects out there are written by coders who love what they do, and so do this for enjoyment. Or contribute code to a project because they want to use it. Or because they want to learn better coding practices. Or because it will reflect good on a resume. Or because its their job to do so, and their parent company makes money off of their work.
When FLOSS was started, there was no financial motivation behind it; the idea was that software was Free of restrictions in the past and that it could (and should) be again. The same as I can share a hammer, software is a tool and shouldn’t be restricted.
To best keep software Free, however, we have to navigate the minefield of current patent law. By using Mono, a project puts itself squarely in the sites of Microsoft whenever MS decides to pull away from its “covenant not to sue” because Mono is so close to .NET development. When was the last time MS made freends, and kept them? When did MS last keep its promises about much of anything? (Mono, by the way, is from Microsoft-Oh-NO, from what I’ve heard from Novell people
)
Will software innovation continue if there is only FLOSS? Certainly; FLOSS is innovative now, why would that change. Will software companies the size of MS or Sun exist in the future? Probably not. This is a good thing, as it increases diversity in the marketplace and allows smaller companies to get revenue by adding features to their own offerings, if they so choose.
My employer uses FLOSS very much, as a backend to the web services and programming that we provide. If MS went away, would that stop? If Adobe didn’t create its CPU-pegging Flash player, would online video disappear?
Software is a tool. It’s not meant to me a money machine.
February 11th, 2009 - 11:22 pm
Bravo!! What a great post! The “community” needs to grow the F up.
Frankly, I’m getting sick and tired of these child-like religious zealots. Most of them are hypocrites of the highest order. They’ll call it “GNU/Linux” out of respect for their saviour, and they’ll bitch and moan about about proprietary software, yet they have no problem at all running closed nVidia drivers so their shiny compiz cubes will spin. Sadly, it’s usually “do as I say, not as I do” with these ideologues.
February 11th, 2009 - 11:25 pm
How you describe the dilemma is in itself a problem, because you create a mish-mash of different concepts and even terms. The idea behind GNU and Linux isn’t about whether it’s gratis but that it’s free.
A more doomed business strategy is that of Microsoft, because selling software in that way becomes more and more old fashioned and doesn’t meat customer needs the way it might have in the past. As the IT-world change so does business. Before open source made inroads people could sell terrible code for outrages prices, but since knowledge isn’t a privilege of the selected the approach to software change and the boarder between developer and user becomes at times non existent. You don’t pay extra for a book just because the author knows the alphabet; you pay for his skills with words. Computer code is in reality inferior to our common language skills and thus doesn’t represent a value extraordinary.
You also have to take into consideration the mechanisms driving open source projects ahead. If enough users view a project as useful it’s very unlikely that it dies; even if the original author lose interest they project will likely be continued by others or forked. Money isn’t the sole factor and it doesn’t guarantee success. The progress of the Linux kernel is outstanding and an achievement that’s unprecedented. How is that possible? Because the idea is that it shall be fun to work with the code and therefore it attracts people more passionate to make it succeed. There aren’t any boarders of secrecy, like company secrets, instead anyone with a bright idea is invited to contribute.
Just because our economy structure is flawed and can’t progress without constant expansion, it doesn’t mean that software is subjected to the same flawed rules. “Follow the money” is true when analysing certain matters, but to solely focus on money when it comes to software makes one blind to opportunities.
February 11th, 2009 - 11:42 pm
KimTjik:
In your comment you say “Money isn’t the sole factor and it doesn’t guarantee success.”.
This thinking is a major problem here.
People need to eat. People need to pay their bills. If this can’t be done… lives fall apart. And, when that occurs, I guarantee you… the fact that someone is able to modify a few lines of code in a specific program doesn’t mean a damned thing.
Money IS the sole factor.
If I put 40 hours of work into a project… I need to be able to get 40 hours worth of pay out of it.
I’m not talking about creating cash machines. Or getting super rich here.
What I’m talking about is being able to support your family through the hard work being done.
THAT is not only reasonable… but VITAL.
And, with Commercial, closed source software… it has been established that it can be done. And it is done every day.
I’m not ever saying open source is bad. Nor that people should avoid open source. In fact just the opposite.
But I am saying that we need a mechanism to SUPPORT open source… and proprietary software is a key mechanism to do that.
I care about practicality. If you think I’m wrong… tell me how to support my family while writing code in a different way and provide concrete details and examples.
February 11th, 2009 - 11:48 pm
I think people are misunderstanding what bryan is trying to say. If we want “desktop linux” to succeed, then we need to have the apps that people want. In order to get the apps we want there needs to be an incentive for a programmer to dedicate his time to that app. That’s why we should support the people who are attempting to do so and not chase them away. No one is saying another programmer can’t make a similar app “because he loves what he does”, in fact it gives you a choice and as long as you have a choice you are free as in “libre”.
February 12th, 2009 - 12:07 am
“anyone with a bright idea is invited to contribute”
And then somebody else makes a lot of $$$ on it without paying the original developer a dime. AWESOME !!!
February 12th, 2009 - 3:59 am
I’d hate to be the rain on the parade here, but I’m not entirely sure that people coding software here in the first world should feel guaranteed that they should make money at it in years to come. A couple of points:
- More and more it doesn’t make sense for companies to have stuff coded here. If you can pay a coder far less money and still get quality product then it only makes business sense to ‘off-shore’ it. It happens with many other parts of a company’s business, why not software coding? I’m not saying it’s reached that point yet, but if you don’t think some guy could (and will) create decent code for far less than you charge, then I’m sorry, but you’re dreaming.
- Times change, we move on to bigger, better and different things. What do you think happened to all those receptionists when business people became able to create their own letters and documents? What happened to desktop publishers when people became able to do it themselves? People moved on. They found other things or other facets of their skills to utilize. The tools for creating everything (including software) are getting better and easier. How do you think professional photographers feel about the fact that companies can very easily get quality stock photography for absolutely nothing? Is it wrong for people to offer their stuff for nothing? It’s not so clear – but maybe professional photographers in large part will have to move on. Especially those dependent on it for buying food and paying the mortgage. My supposition is that you can’t stop progress, no matter how much we’d like to. People move on and find a way. It’s always been that way and it will remain that way.
- I don’t think you can stop free software (whether it ends up with Linux as it’s platform or not) from proliferating. Look at how much progress has been made in such a short time (look at the great apps you posted about on your own blog). Do you think that progress will stop? Look at something like the Gimp. Photoshop has had probably an 8 year head start on the Gimp (and a lot of money behind it). Do you really think these apps are 8 years and millions of development dollars apart? No way. In another few years there will be so many high quality free (as in speech and as in beer) applications out there that businesses will find it very hard to justify not using it. And a lot of this work has been done by people just doing it for the love of it.
- Would you rather use a product developed by a bunch of people who are doing it because their passionate about it or one developed by people doing it because they’re getting paid to? I think you know the answer. I don’t see those people quitting because they’re not making money out of it (remember, they’re passionate), they find some other way to pay the bills and feed the family. For sure it would be nice (..er awesome) to have it both ways, a job you love doing that you get paid for, but I don’t think it’s reality and I don’t think it should be expected to be reality.
- While I’m not one of those people who runs through the daisy’s singing that ‘data wants to be free’, I do think that sharing code and other knowledge freely is key to progress. Whether that benefits capitalism or not in the short term is an entirely different thing.
It either has to be a major fluke that Free software (including Linux) has gotten as far as it has in such a short time with so little resources, or it’s inevitable. I choose to believe the latter.
February 12th, 2009 - 6:42 am
[...] you’ve been following my posts and discussions regarding commercial software on Linux (and how important I feel it is to Linux and [...]
February 12th, 2009 - 7:30 am
Bryan:
You misunderstood what I wrote. My view is pretty much the same as the one expressed by Richard Querin. Your thesis is that the open source model will “destroy Linux”, so instead of arguing about the obvious, e g support ones’ family, I tried to show the models strength in stimulating progress. My whole point was that money doesn’t necessarily translate into progress.
Some part of the development is already pushed ahead by big investments, but that doesn’t always mean that you’ll see it as a desktop application. A problem you could face when money is involved is that some might want to “buy” changes to the code that could promote their own product on the expense of continuous technical improvements. If you look into kernel developments you’ll see how certain things have been rejected solely on technical grounds even though some has tried to let money do the talking. This seldom happens within a company, at least not before its business is on the line, because we nowadays have too many short-sighted investors eager to get a buck before anyone else does.
Many desktop applications we use are the product of pure enthusiasm and will so be, because some people prefer to spend time on code and view it as fun, while others are willing to invest both money and time into another kind of hobby. What’s wrong in doing something you like that in the same time benefit others? You make it sound like someone is forced to write open source software, when it actually is a personal choice to do or not do so.
Might some good open source project die? Of course there’s a risk of it doesn’t attract enough interest. However bear in mind that many good proprietary products have died because of ruthless business practises. Without naming any company we all know and probably remember cases when a big company bought a smaller only to kill off competition. Unfortunately proprietary software does die totally because in such a case the one killing the product still owns its patent, in other words “end of story”. Hence it’s an exaggeration to pinpoint open source in this regard. Open source even have some advantages in case of disaster: the code is free and therefore it might get a second life.
What I would like you to focus on instead is the flimsy approach many companies demonstrate regarding open source. It looks like some only see the “free”, as in gratis, and based on that continues their bad proprietary practises of taking advantages of whatever that might make your investors rich this year. I suspect that Microsoft hasn’t hasn’t sponsored any BSD project despite it taking advantage of its code (the BSD license allow this behaviour but it still illustrates the state of mind shown by many companies formed by proprietary thinking). The right way is to put money where you need it, to support a project that fulfil your needs and with the money give feedback and suggestions which make it even more perfect for your business. To not do so might give you a fairly good product today, but in its short-sightedness it won’t progress far.
To blame open source software for the failure of companies to comprehend and restrict their greed, even if such restraint in practise would be for their own good, isn’t a solution. Some will get it and hence prosper, others won’t and hence suffer just like the US’ car industry now struggles because of their own ignorance. Authors of code aren’t above scrutiny and there are examples of good – in code – projects being killed, or close to, because of the same greed and/or unwillingness to cooperate (we have examples within Linux where we today see unnecessarily many solutions to one problem because of such behaviour).
My belief is therefore that it’s no the model of open source that has to change, but business models using open source software.
…
James: if you take one sentence out of context and twist its meaning everything might arouse awesomeness.
February 12th, 2009 - 1:07 pm
I guess this is not a problem. Don’t care about the few people claiming that closed source is the hell. In my opinion free application are better than closed for many reason, but I use closed programs if there are no free programs rather good. Nobody can prevent anybody from using proprietary software and as Linux becomes a desktop os many people will ask for support on it, or look for a native Linux program. Softwarehouses have to think about Linux, because when alternative will be available who will buy anything? I.e. Nero was ported to Linux too late, when k3b was already a great program. I think nobody use Nero on Linux, and probably nobody will ever do. But many people would use Photoshop or Autocad.
February 12th, 2009 - 3:11 pm
I don’t agree with this.
What matters is quality. If an open-source app has higher quality and a closed-source one – then yes, sorry, nobody will buy the closed-source one.
This is just fair competition. Get a worthy product and people will pay for it. Otherwise, don’t complain that open-source apps have higher quality and you and thus are killing your product.
I’m sure you use Firefox too, an open-source app that is killing IE.
February 12th, 2009 - 4:15 pm
“Would you rather use a product developed by a bunch of people who are doing it because their passionate about it or one developed by people doing it because they’re getting paid to?”
I’d rather have products developed/produced by professionals; paid according to their skills and the quality of their job!!! It does not go that way all the time. But it is better than trust a bunch of “passionate” people whose true/real passions and motivations are very unclear.
February 12th, 2009 - 4:25 pm
KimTjik,
are you saying that when MySQL was sold to Sun for a pretty amount of money; each and every person who contributed ever to the project was paid off accordingly?
February 12th, 2009 - 4:37 pm
The article misses and does not even mention half the reason that Linux and FOSS was advocated and developed. Open access of the data. This article only worries about the code and getting paid for it. A very short sighted view. This piece also presents a myopic (in my mind) view that all that is FOSS is for the benefit of Linux. It is actually the other way around.
I have no problem with buying Linux app code. But I do insist that any product I buy I must be able to access that data it provides/uses without lock-in. I pay for MoneyDance a linux financial planning tool. Gladly in fact. But I do have access to the data directly if need be.
The second issue is that the author lacks an assessment of the idea of payment. Like you can’t make money in Open Source. The guys who sold MySQL AB to Sun for $550m would be seriously confused by that statement. Or that of Red Hat that has a Market Cap equal to that of Sun itself now days. Or no mention of the fact that CouchDB started as a one man show for quite some time then picked up support from Mozilla Foundation then the developer was hired by Mozilla to finish/support the work. Or the bevy of developers who work for IBM, Sun and Novell on FOSS code at an excellent wage scale. Oh and please don’t pull the old chestnut that ‘well that’s the 10%. What about the rest of us…’ Hate to say it but pick any industry and the top 20% make 80% of the money.
To close let me turn your whine around. Take away the single point of sale instance in commercial code at the retail level and what are you left with? Paid support, support contracts, consulting and even donations. Not much different than what you are railing against.
February 12th, 2009 - 5:02 pm
This echos what I have said about the Linux Cranks dropping support for MP3. MP3 technically is a patent encumbered codec. However, this doesn’t mean you can’t use it with Open Source software. Also, have the creators of LAME been sued? No.
Bryan is right….if we want Linux to be a success, there needs to be some closed source software.
ALSO, commercial companies who use it should all purchase support contracts to support what they use. You cannot expect home users to do the same thing. If Ubuntu was in a nice box of say 20-30 cd’s in Walmart for the cost of the box, cds and shipping, I would buy one every other month and then give the disks away.
I would also buy computers that had it preinstalled and that donated part of the purchase price to the distro installed. This could also help open source.
With that said, Radical Codex is setup for ultimate fail as:
1. There are many other comic book readers out there that are open and free.
2. The only way you can get a comic into any reader is to scan it or download it(which is a violation of copyright).
3. Are there any Creative Commons comic books? I haven’t heard of any.
4. This is the big one: Limited Audience. Even amongst geeks, you will find not all of them even like reading comics. I am one of them. I am not 10 anymore. I grew up.
Now what I would have LIKED to seen is something everyone can use.
February 12th, 2009 - 5:30 pm
James,
Are you saying that “professionals” – those getting paid to develop – are the only ones who can produce a high quality product? What supposed true passions and motivations are you so worried about?
Also, I think one difficult question to ask is:
If programmers working on free software projects are pissed off that they’re not getting paid for it, then why do they still do it? If you start into a project knowing there is no guarantee that you’ll be paid for your services, and that was of paramount importance to you, then why on earth would you keep doing it if not for passion? There are lots of personal benefits that don’t involve money you know.
February 12th, 2009 - 5:33 pm
James: do you really think I know all involved and thus being able to answer your question? All depends on what MySQL has meant to them and what it has enabled them to do.
In general: have every bright human received due respect during their lifetime? Have every human got paid according to his/her achievements? Is it fair that executive officers get bonuses while firing staff that in practice made their money? If you choose this angle of looking for justice you won’t find it anywhere.
If you know your IT history you also know that several individuals who have been the brains behind several proprietary products have never received due recognition. These people have neither received their due share in money. I don’t think you’re that naive as to not understand the impact of power which often overrides the benefit of skills.
My first thought were that you’re a developer pissed at not being recognised, but post # 14 reveal that you’re not even close. Your ignorant ramble about professionals versus passionate people tells tons about your lack of insight. You’re free to be mislead by FUD, but to be frank you’re in deep water. In view of # 14 there’s probably no point in this reply either.
February 12th, 2009 - 7:11 pm
I don’t agree with you. I only think you are trying to sell your cartoon reader!
February 13th, 2009 - 12:55 am
KimTjik,
Post #14 is not mine. And please, don’t use “you’re incompetent” tactics when somebody brings out an inconvenient (but obvious) truth. When you’re inviting people share for free you’re creating an opportunity for an abuse. Even if it was not your original intent. There is no need of arguing about that simple fact.
Or by the same merits; when an end user is reporting a bug/issue/problem, we tell him/her “It is YOUR hardware”, or worse call that user “stupid”.
May be you were referring to #16. Well, it is my choice to be ignorant in this particular case. OK? Here is why. My latest round of distro hopping:
* Web browser crashes when I visit my local transportation authority web site. AWESOME, I can’t even check my train/buss schedule
* I wanted to burn an ISO image. I insert a blank CD-R; Nautilus mounts it properly; but Gnome CD burning fails to recognize it. AWESOME, I can’t even burn a CD
* Open source video driver would not set the correct resolution. How come other distributions (with the same driver) getting it right?
* I had to turn the volume all the way up to even hear a sound (in software and speakers). Once again, other distribution did not have the same problem.
* This one is even better. I was playing around with a LiveCD and it wiped out my HD partitions without me asking it to do so.
These all were final releases of different distributions. Not alphas, not betas, not even RCs. And this is just a tip of the iceberg. So how do you connect that with “passion” to write high quality software???
February 13th, 2009 - 7:41 am
James: I didn’t intend to use any kind of tactics, because tactics isn’t important since it isn’t a contest in being persuasive (concerning numbering of replies: it looks like it changes because of replies waiting for approval). I didn’t intend to insult you, but I admit it irritates me that many still don’t understand the structure of how open source software is developed today. Of course you have small individual projects, but it the same time it’s an industry with pay-checks supported by big companies. It these developers are not only interested in the pay-check but also passionate about their work it’s a guarantee for progress.
It’s pointless for me to comment the issues you describe because I don’t have any details and might not be able to reproduce these bugs, if being bugs. Nevertheless I could give you in exchange some Windows proprietary related ones (it’s my work) and even if my work means I have to deal with more complicated issues in server environments I have several casual examples concerning areas of usability that you refer to. To be cynic: all software sucks more or less, and if you look for perfect software it will be something down the line of “Hello World!” stuff. Some open source projects are better than others, just like some proprietary software is better than others; something that in itself isn’t a proof of either model being superior to the other. If you thought I have the opinion that open source software always is good you’re mistaken, but I do know that you’ve got equally skilled professionals working in both camps (and some work with both models).
We can have different reasons for using Linux, BSD or other related operating systems, but if you don’t like it and it doesn’t work the way you expect, or you don’t feel at ease using them, then don’t use them. Computing should be fun and if necessary productive. Personally I use Linux and BSD because they enable me to do what proprietary platforms can’t offer. So for me it’s more or less a choice between having the tools I need or not. Hence maybe my choice is easier than yours.
Just a note:
- I believe the built in burning application in Gnome is the equivalent to what you find in Windows XP and Vista, and if nothing has changed recently it doesn’t just like those support burning of images.
February 13th, 2009 - 7:51 am
Bryan:
Why do you think you deserve to be paid to write software. If your software is good people will pay for it if not they won’t. In non-free software people pirate what isn’t worth paying for and in freesoftware just use it for free. You wanna make money create some brilliant software (at this point free or otherwise). If you spent the time it took to write and comment on this as you did coding you wouldn’t have a problem. You are just baiting what LUGRadio called “Freedom Crusaders”.
February 13th, 2009 - 8:27 am
Somehow the point of this article got lost. The problem is that GNU/Linux is getting a lot of, let’s flame a bit, stupid users that can’t be asked to understand how to burn a CD. Or programmers that thinks they should be paid for everything they do, even sleeping or slacking of, because “I am so awesome!”
I don’t see the point of stop using programs that have been contributed to by other people. I haven’t written my own kernel, a guy called Linus did. I haven’t written my own tools, a guy named Stallman made that happend. I don’t need to use Flash, closed drivers or the likes, because thanks to Mr. Linus and Mr. Stallman I can use my computer to do what I need to do. If that means no funny youtube videos or comicbookreaders that is my loss. If someone else want to see the latest youtube video and read some illegal comics, the Apple store is right over there, by the store selling Microsoft computers and the pawn shop where you can sell your soul.
k’ thnx bye
February 13th, 2009 - 9:34 am
Brian with a y,
Posting a blog post with this title is only trying to drive traffic to your web site for the wrong reasons. Do you want all the fan-bay hate mail?
I would like to see you put your own money where your mouth is by getting a booth at one of the up coming Comic-Cons (San Diego or San Francisco) and really pushing your idea of selling a closed source comic book reader at a location where there will be nothing but comic book enthusiast. Then come back and tell us the results. If true comic book fans, that run Linux, are willing to buy your product then you have an actual audience. Right now all you have are people that think you are just trying to drive up your google & digg ranking.
scriptmunkee
February 13th, 2009 - 1:40 pm
Good job insulting just about everyone who reads this blog and the comments Gorkon. You spit in the face of Freedom, condemn ogg, pro-claim that people who read comic books are immature, and bash Bryan’s application all in one comment. Cheerio my man! Maybe in your next post you can find a way to bash religious and political preferences.
I still love you though!
February 13th, 2009 - 1:50 pm
@threethirty – In the non-free software world I think many (not all) people pirate WHATEVER THEY CAN.
Let’s call a spade a spade here.
And I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be proprietary software. I’m just saying that whenever and wherever I can, I choose not to use it. These days, for me there are very very few things I can’t accomplish using Free Software. I happen to think that trend will continue, and that makes me happy.
I think Bryan of course is free to do whatever he wants (thats *real* freedom) including writing commercial software for Linux. And I truly wish him the best of luck at it. And while I don’t read comic books, if he was for instance able to write a good app to do what Microsoft PhotoStory does then I’d likely buy it, unless a quality free alternative came along in the meantime.
February 13th, 2009 - 4:28 pm
I agree 100% with the article. You forgot to mention how useless Linux would be for many users without Proprietary software like Flash,proper video drivers,codecs etc.
February 14th, 2009 - 12:15 am
m spellman: what do you need Proprietary software like Flash for? Proper video drivers, isn’t that what the people writing the Linux kernel ships? You know, the people that knows it good enough to care to maintain it? While bad drivers is what employers at hardware companies ships because they tries to hold everything secret from the rest of the world? Which in turn have to be reversed engineered in order to function under other operating systems than Windows.
Like Richard Querin says, it’s all about choice. While I managed most task with Free Software, someone else might not lead a full life without seeing the latest video on youtube or having a Desktop Linux that spins around.
February 14th, 2009 - 10:09 pm
[...] Earlier this week I posted: Why 100% Free Software Destroys Linux [...]
February 16th, 2009 - 11:18 am
All this is a healthy debate. It’s interesting to see all the points of view. Hopefully we can all come together to offer solutions to all the issues we are highlighting. There are arguments about so many things from hobby vs professional programmers, the markets choice of commercial vs community developed software, change in the economics of software, and so on. The important thing to realize is that today we can truly say that we can all get what we want; programmers with fringe ideas can be heard, those that need money can sell their wares, competition improves the market for all software, F/OSS users get a warm fuzzy feeling, and life goes on. The thing is if I like vanilla ice cream better than any other doesn’t disprove that other ice cream types are inferior, only that I have a choice. The next person might hate ice cream altogether an loves wine. He/she too has choice. Commercial software has its place, maybe not on mundane application like my cell phone, but lets say I’d like to pay for and be able to hold accountable anyone that make software that keeps me safe (ABS, elevator control software, ERP, etc). If it gives you value at least as a user, contributor, distributor do the right thing and provide support any way you can.
February 16th, 2009 - 1:44 pm
I was reading a couple of the comments and I think a lot of people are talking at each other without actually trying to see where the other person is coming from.
On some levels I agree with Bryan. An open source programmer has to get the money to live from somewhere. However, I disagree that this place from which they should get money is proprietary software because I believe the concept is fundamentally wrong.
I think we should get more creative in finding ways to fund ourselves. Point of sale selling is a good blanket way of selling anything. However when we come to ways of selling our open source software we have to take into account the market we are trying to sell to. In other words, we have to get creative.
I had a couple of ideas on the matter but I’m not sure if they would work.
The first was for creating open source games (an area where open source has lacked in the past). Here I wondered if it would be possible to release the source code of the game but keep the rights to the levels and artwork. This way the game would be bought and you would get a fully functioning game but you would be able to hack on the code. You could even design your own levels/artwork.
The second was a pledging system for open source developers. Basically you would have a website where people asked for features and various open source developers could invoice how much they would charge for the feature. Then people would pledge amounts of money for the feature (maybe through paypal). Once the invoice total is reached the developer would implement the feature. Only once the feature was implemented would all the pledges be collected and given to the developer.
These are just some of my ideas. I don’t know if they would work but you can see how we could get creative if we tried.
February 20th, 2009 - 3:26 pm
WOW! So OK. Who are u in the Free Software Development community? I think every going into the Development of Free Software kind of understands that there isn’t tons of money in it. Most people I have met do it for either one of these two reasons. a) because it’s a fun challenge or b) because they want to give back to their community. I understand that there is proprietary companies that put money in for the development of Free Software. Well that is fine but I don’t know what that is suppose to prove. I mean the vast majority of Free Software is not developed that way.
Also you must realize that the vast majority of developers out there are writers of custom Software for companies and get paid for that work. Now a company that has developed a custom application has the source code and freedom so there is no issue there. In fact “commercial” software is just a small section of the software developed and not the majority.
So lets take apart your argument.
Donations:you are right if Donations where someones primary source of income they would not be able to develop their programs and make money from it. But this is not usually a developers primary source of income. Generally they work for other companies and develop Free Software in their spare time. In that way this is an extra source of income and not their main one.
Support: you are right depending on the the application support isn’t practical. However if you are the developer of a whole Distro with your target audience being Enterprise it might be. A Distro like Ubuntu For example which offers support for enterprise and individuals. It might start out slow but usually Enterprise will not buy an Operating System without the knowledge that their is good support out there. So this is important.
“When people state how “wrong” or “bad” commercial software is… that is, in practice, basically saying that it is “wrong for developers, testers and designers to earn a reasonable living off their work”.”
What you are trying to equate here is doesn’t make any sense. It would be like saying that people who are environmentally conscious are against car manufacturers. Because Car manufacturers make cars that pollute.
No What we are Saying is that having Freedom and being ethical are more important than making money. I think it is good when certain proprietary companies write Free Software. I applaud that. I also though am suspicious that this is a way for them to break up our community and to ultimately try and find a way to offer fake freedom or try to appeal to our community. For instance the TiVO has linux in it. but they did it in such a way that you can’t make improvements to the system without breaking it. So there is a perfect example of a company try to appeal to the Free Software community with a commercial product. The only thing is once you but it you find that you have no Freedom at all.
I think this Trend will continue if we follow your suggestions. Yes lets just have all open source and Free Software developed by proprietary companies. that way in a few years there will be so much restricted code in the software that it will be no Different then MAC OS or Windows. Why the heck would we want that? That is Why Freedom and Ethics is important more then money. Because if you don’t care about Freedom then you are destined to loose it.
I am not saying that you have to use a 100% Free Software all the time. But you should use as much of it as possible for your situation. I think that when you use a proprietary program it should be a temporary situation until you find a Free Program to do that job or until you can develop one yourself.
When Proprietary Software becomes an OK standard for the Free Software community to adopt. It is only a matter of time until there is no Free Software anymore. all you need is a little and it becomes the gateway to justifying more and more proprietary software.
I can only assume that maybe you are either misguided and don’t realize the harm of what you are suggesting. Or that you are truly malicious and are either working for a proprietary company or are receiving money from one. either way you shouldn’t put down peoples good will and willingness to operate in a community of Freedom and Ethics. especially when it appears that you aren’t a part of that community or put your stake in it yourself.
February 20th, 2009 - 4:40 pm
I’m sorry but this article is an “epic fail”.
The money that Free Software and Open Source Software projects receive is a testament of the awesome power of modern software licenses.
The software market is embracing freedom.
February 21st, 2009 - 12:40 am
I knew there was a reason I quit listening to Linux Action Show.
Its this kind of cack-handed, ill researched, entirely thoughtless verbal diarrhea that embarrasses the Linux and Open Source software communities, not the zeal and determination of their more ardent members.
Doing something stupid (attempting to release a niche closed source piece of software for which there are already ample and more functional open source equivalents, heard of comix?), then following an arrogant action with even more moronic statements, repeat ad nauseum.
It all reminds me of a recent ex president.
We can only thank the stars Bryan is in no position of influence.
February 21st, 2009 - 2:03 pm
Xero: if this article gets you this angry, then he must have hit the nail on the head, huh?
March 10th, 2009 - 9:26 am
Just my 2Cent,
i’m waiting for a good, and i mean “professional”, closed source (of cause) Video Editor for Linux like Adobe’s Premiere e.g.
I’ve bought “Mainactor” long years ago, it worked so far but cant reach Adobe’s Premiere, so im still waiting and i will pay for any good Software for my Linux System if theres such available.
Also, i buy the Boxed SuSe System on every release to support such a good Work on a free operating system.
I love my “freedom of choice”,
“-if i like Software i pay”,
on Windows it sounds “-i have to pay, to use it”
If there are enough girls and boys, supporting openSource or… the good work on it, open source of course wont die.
You cant find so much closed source, buyable software on linux because there’s not “that” market for developers… yet.
Well, excuse my english, i think you know what i mean ^^