Re: Open Source menu system -- MIDRANGE-L

Hmmm, where to begin...

jt wrote:

Hans,

I've noticed a pattern on some M-L lists past couple weeks:  When someone
says "perfect sense"..
a)  They use an incredibly marginal definition of "perfect"
b)  And immediately follows with something that makes very little sense

First of all, there was an implication (to some) that this was solely
intended to bypass ERP licenses.

That has already been addressed. The original poster was not trying to get out of paying the required licences.


Now, Hans or anybody, correct me on any of the following points if I'm
wrong:
1)  You work for IBM ToroLabs

Correct.

2) You get your paycheck by selling software

I don't sell software. I get my paycheck for developing and testing software. What my employer then does with that software, is its business. It may choose to sell licences, or it may choose to give it away and sell support. But that decision is out of my hands.

3) There is some good and bad in everything that occurs

Correct.

4)  People that actually believe Open Source is all good have NOT cornered
the market on altruism, idealism, and sharing

I can't disagree. ;-)

5)  Open Source encourages GREEDY companies to get by on least cost (but
sometimes greater TCO, btw)

If they want, sure that's possible. One condition of freedom is that the concept must apply equally to all, even to those whose values you might disagree with. (That said, one advantage of working on the RPG compiler is knowing that the software I write will probably not be put to use in developing things like missile guidance systems!)

5a) Open Source has played a large part of steering companies towards
off-shoring, btw

Not proven. And even if it were true, well so what? Don't forget that in 1981, IBM Rochester moved a big chuck of software development to a foreign country! ;-)

6) Passion is usually inversely proportional to logic (not always)

If it's "not always", then the point is irrelevant.

7)  If you actually believed THAT strongly in Open Source, Hans, wouldn't
you be in a different line of work??

I believe that open source works in some situations, and not others. For example, I believe it is in the best interests of RPG IV programmers that the RPG IV compiler be kept as closed source.


Which goes to point #0)  The economics of Open Source, like most, basically
comes down to a zero-sum game.  Somebody wins, then somebody loses.  I can't
go through all Scott's contradictions and mis-statements at this time.
Mebbe later (and that'd be assuming, which I don't, that this post won't get
the axe)...

I'd be very interested in seeing your detailed evaluation of what you think are "all Scott's contradictions and mis-statements". Very interested indeed.

But regarding the economics of open source (and F/OSS in general), that is nicely covered by standard economic theory that has already been explained elsewhere much better than I could here. (Note that I am not an economist!) But it all boils down to the marginal costs for a commodity that costs next to nothing to reproduce and distribute. In a nutshell, the costs of developing a product are what's called "sunk costs", and don't figure into the retail price of a product. The retail price of any product depends primarily on what buyers are willing to pay, which is related to the prices of the competitive products. Now then, if the price that people are willing to pay is less than what it costs to manufacture it, then the manufacturer loses money and can't stay in business. But in the case of software, companies can generally give it away and not lose money, and instead make money on ancilliaries like support, training, and books.

But shouldn't the authors of software be compensated? Well, for the authors of F/OSS, in many cases they are. Even if they don't receive a dime for their efforts, they may gain in other ways: Admiration from their peers, royalties from books, etc. In many cases, a programmer writes something that satisfies a specific need, and then makes it available to others simply as an act of generosity with no expectation of any recompense. In some cases, it may well be that there's no business case anyways in trying to ask money for the software, and so the programmer loses nothing by giving it away.

As I said earlier, all this is covered by standard capitalist economic theory, and is not some massive socialist conspiracy (like some might suggest). F/OSS is not the answer for all software, but fits in quite nicely in many situations.

To put it an different terms, if there were flaws in the whole concept of F/OSS, then it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar business! ;-)

To get back to your original point, sure, there are winners and losers. The losers are those who can't compete. But again, the cold hard reality is that that's always been the case in free market capitalism.


Now, disagreeing about core values in a person's belief-system sure CAN seem
like a personal attack.  Sorry about that.

No apology needed. Disagreement alone is not personal attack.

Cheers! Hans