surviving commerically with OSS

[El_Cu_Guy]

Making money and staying afloat.

With Mandrake pretty much down and out what can other distributors do to avoid the same fate.

Lindows.com for example has a good [short term] solution. That is selling subscription services and marketing easy upgrades. However, it's just a matter of time before someone else can offer this for less or for free (cost).

One solution would be to stop giving it away. That's right I said it! You want a commercial distro then you should pay for it.

However, I do still believe that these distros should be available for download. Many companies like Red Hat make source code available to many of their products but don't offer the binaries up for free (again, cost).

Developers could pay a small registration fee which would cover binary releases which would also provide the source code (source distribution is dependent on binary distribution according to the GNU GPL). Those loyal to these distributions who take serious time and effort to work with alpha and beta versions of software, for those part, wouldn't see a problem paying a small fee which allows them unlimited access for say, a whole year.

Those users who like to download distros and burn their own copy should pay too. Again a small fee. This would of course minimize cost attributed to retail copies (though they would still be available). Would you pay $10-$20 less for a commercial distribution if it included manuals (on disc) and support? Would you consider it if support were offered for a reasonable time (30-60 days)?

Now in no way will this stop some people from setting up web sites providing ISOs available for download. However, they would not include support (this would require an ID given at the time of purchase).

Yes I know that some of you may think this is a bit drastic. However, you must realize that this is how it will likely turn out as the Linux market share rises. Remember these are commercial distributions. If this idea scares you there are always other choices.

I appreciate comments and questions. Especially from those who understand that the concept of Free Software doesn't mean not paying for anything...ever.

[madcompnerd]

First many distributions pride themselves as being non-profit.
Second, commercial Linux distro's aren't free. The personal editions are. I believe RedHat's most expensive OS is 1,500 dollars US?
Linux companies are looking to make money in the business sector, and let the home sector have the cut down version for free.
And actually, RedHat tries to charge $60 a year for their service of downloading updates. The demo service gets more annoying all the time, as you keep getting that error about server overtload.
And under the licenses currently used, they can't charge more than one time :). I believe they know that using a different license for us home users would mean we'd stop using their software.
Linux has never seemed to be about making money. It seems to be more about doing what you have a passion for. It seems to be a hobbyist thing, which is what the PC started out as.

[El_Cu_Guy]

Second, commercial Linux distro's aren't free. The personal editions are

Personal editions are free to download. However, I doubt this will always be the case.

Linux companies are looking to make money in the business sector, and let the home sector have the cut down version for free.

They're looking to make money anywhere they can. Linux is doing very well with consumer electronics and embedded devices. To think that their market scope is that limited is just plain stupid.

Linux has never seemed to be about making money. It seems to be more about doing what you have a passion for. It seems to be a hobbyist thing, which is what the PC started out as.

Since when? Sure originally it was about doing things as a hobby (back when Tovalds released the first version of the kernel). There is absolutely nothing about open source that denies anyone from attempting to make money in some way.

One more thing. The PC started as a hobby solely for the purpose of people attemtping to learn and develop a low cost machine. When was the last time you heard of opne of these hobbyist PC builders say "I will never ask for any money." What a load of crap. Everyone of them made money in some way shape or form, from selling logic boards to instruction manuals.

Note: The above paragraph refers to the first PC and not the first computer invented by Konrad Zuse (Z1 1936-1938).

[CMonster]

First off, read the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses), it pretty well lays out the goal of Linux and opensource and makes it clear what can and cannot be done with the software. Secondly, check out www.gnu.org and have a look at the other software licenses...


the question is .... what have you spent on boxed Linux distributions?

I'm not trying to boast here, but if everyone bought just one boxed set of their distro of choice it would boost Linux to new heights.

http://www.dslextreme.com/users/cmonster3/moneyis.jpg

Here are just a few of the recent boxed sets I have laying around, I have thrown out just as many old previous editions of Caldera OpenLinux, Redhat, and SuSE....

Still waiting on Drake 9.1 PowerPack -for which I have already paid. I have spent about $1500-$2000 on Linux and Linux realted software. I just curious how much other people have forked out for "free" software?

[El_Cu_Guy]

Excerpt from the GNU GPL (Preamble)

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

[madcompnerd]

Read on to the part where it says the software may be redistributed for any charge they would like.
You can make money of Linux, people are, but you can't be assured that everyone is paying for it.
And yes, Linux is still a big hobbyist OS. If we weren't hobbyists here would be spend all this time helping others deal with their problems? For free?!

And more than half the market is the business sector. Don't call that a small scope, it's certainly not. The home user is comparitively small, but it's not either.

I'm fine with people making money off Linux, and RedHat and other's like it are! They're making pretty good money. But it's never gonna be a thing where you have to buy Linux for each computer you run it on and have to sign an EULA and that sort of thing. If it does, I'm goin to BSD.

[El_Cu_Guy]

And more than half the market is the business sector. Don't call that a small scope, it's certainly not.

Thank you for wowing us with you total lack of reading comprehension skills - duh

The statement I made was that the belief that the GNU/Linux vendor sought to make money primarly from the business sector and pass on a piss-*** freebie to consumers was limited.

Also the business market as large as you think it is. Considering the current market for Linux vendors, yes. Total market...HELL NO!

Allow me to explain. Microsoft leveraged it's monopoly of the desktop market to gain footing in the server market. It's primary market was to be business but the consumer market is what really got them notice and considered their products the standard.

Microsoft's main focus was the desktop (in the "business market") but it was the consumer market that made it profitable. The business market is not as significant as people tend to believe.

The only time the business market become signifact enough is when one of your biggest clients is a governement. If your business' client are other businesses and the government what the hell do you need the consumer for? Well except to create a demand for the product which you sell to other businesses. See the consumer is in their somewhere.

[madcompnerd]

Except that in the business market runs a desktop for every employee on many occasions.
There's a lot of desktops in the business world, and comparitively an extremely small number of servers.
Anyway, I believe the Linux distro's who want to make money are doing a decent job of it. They could do better, but they're not doing too bad. Besides, under the current license I don't believe they can stop outside sources from redistributing their product for free. And if they change the license I think they will lose a LOT of users.

[tucolino]

Originally posted by CMonster
First off, read the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses), it pretty well lays out the goal of Linux and opensource and makes it clear what can and cannot be done with the software. Secondly, check out www.gnu.org and have a look at the other software licenses...


the question is .... what have you spent on boxed Linux distributions?

I'm not trying to boast here, but if everyone bought just one boxed set of their distro of choice it would boost Linux to new heights.

<<image here>>

Here are just a few of the recent boxed sets I have laying around, I have thrown out just as many old previous editions of Caldera OpenLinux, Redhat, and SuSE....

Still waiting on Drake 9.1 PowerPack -for which I have already paid. I have spent about $1500-$2000 on Linux and Linux realted software. I just curious how much other people have forked out for "free" software?

hey there... out of curiosity, howcome you buy so many different distributions? they all seem pretty contemporary with each other. My question is, are each one of them that unique? I have personally tried Mandrake and Red Hat. I didn't think that the difference was that big. Don't worry I have also bought and downloaded some releases, as well as other linux comercial software. I definitely agree with you, buying the boxed sets helps out.

tuco

[tucolino]

sorry about that guys. totally did not want to repost that picture. my bad.

tuco

[bwkaz]

No problem, anymore. :)

You can edit your posts, too, in the future.

[dungscooperdave]

Personally, I think free software is the communist form of software development, and that it is very hard, if not impossible, for a business to stay afloat on free software. Yes, I have read most of the documents on www.gnu.org/philosophy/ and I have read Richard Stallman's reply to "Why don't you all just move to Russia?", and I do understand that the emphasis is on "free speech" instead of "free beer", but I disagree. Richard Stallman's goal (and probably the goal of his FSF), from what I've read, is to help the world community by creating a free Unix-like operating system. His goal is not to make money. If you want to make money, then commercial licensing is the way to go. This is what intellectual property law is for.
However, I have found that most free software is much more reliable and much better supported than proprietary software is (but perhaps this is just because of a lack of competition in the proprietary software market?). I've also found that free software also has many more features than most commercial products. So for now, I'm going to stick with free software in hopes that #1 I'm wrong about the communist thing, and #2 that free software does becomes mainstream.

[/$0.02]

[bwkaz]

There is an economy in the free software world, it's just not an economy of dollars. It's an economy of egoboo (as RMS says in The Cathedral and the Bazaar (http://catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/)). However, there isn't always a lot of competition. Sure, KDE and Gnome are probably competing, but who's competing with the Gimp?

But it doesn't matter whether there's competition or not. What makes the code good is the vast number of eyeballs constantly looking it over. :) Compared to some closed-source project, where no matter how rich the company, there are only ever a limited number of people reviewing code (if any).

[dungscooperdave]

Originally posted by bwkaz
It's an economy of egoboo.
And how does that put food on the table?

[madcompnerd]

It doesn't, free software is about science and advancement, the "commercial" world is about making money.
And yes, the two can be mixed. You'll typically find free software priced more reasonably, since they know reselling is legal and they don't have to be consulted about it.
Free software works because computer scientists like to show off their code to everyone and say "look, mine's better than his." Plus, they like to have good software for themselves.
It's the difference between the work you do for yourself and the work you do for your boss. Which do you think you'll do a better job on?

No, it generally doesn't put food on the table. Which is why you do it in your free time. Free software coded in free time :).

[dungscooperdave]

Originally posted by madcompnerd
Free software coded in free time :).
Time=Money
Ergo, there is no such thing as free time.

Unless of course you're using the definition of free in "free time" that you're using in "free software". ;)

[bwkaz]

My definition of "free time" will be "the time I am not spending at work" -- which won't always be considerable, but a few nights and weekends here and there can be enough.

Time does not always equal money; however, time you're getting paid for does equal money coming out of your employer's pocket.

[El_Cu_Guy]

Except that in the business market runs a desktop for every employee on many occasions.

For every employee with a desktop running Windows means [potentially] 1-5 desktops on the consumer end.

People use what they are familiar with. Businesses choose Windows generally due to the this very belief. People choose Windows because it's what they are used to. Many homes have more than one computer.

[CMonster]

hey there... out of curiosity, howcome you buy so many different distributions? they all seem pretty contemporary with each other. My question is, are each one of them that unique? I have personally tried Mandrake and Red Hat. I didn't think that the difference was that big. Don't worry I have also bought and downloaded some releases, as well as other linux comercial software. I definitely agree with you, buying the boxed sets helps out.

Now I'm post stealing but what the hey -it was waning anyway:

I like to keep current on all the major distributions because I do some tech support, but I also like to give back in my own way by purchasing the distributions as they come, and yes it does get pretty expensive forking out $70 each every 6-9 months or so.

What you see there is not even the half of it, I started with Caldera 1.3 with the 1.2 kernel and worked myself through about a dozen boxed sets of various distributions before I even got to what you see in the photo -and that does not even include all the books... some containing CDs.

[dungscooperdave]

I think you should add that to the "You know you're addicted to Linux when..." thread... :)

[dungscooperdave]

Originally posted by bwkaz
It's an economy of egoboo.
And this doesn't exist in proprietary software? Don't you think most companies are bragging about how their program has more features, is much easier to use, is more stable, takes up less RAM, disk space, processor usage, has more eye candy, is more customizable, gets the job done faster, etc.?

[aNoob]

I just hope they will keep it free. Well , 10-50 bucks for an OS is not much. I will pay that amount for linux instead 300 for XP Home.

[dungscooperdave]

XP home is $200, but still overpriced IMO.

[JSeibert]

People aren't getting into Linux and OSS to put food on the table though.

They slave away at jobs where they generally aren't granted any creative freedom to put food on the table. It's in-between raising children, watching football, playing XBOX these programers are working on Linux. It isn't about putting food on the table its about doing something thats fun. I'm in the process of beginning to learn how to program for the sole reason of having fun.

Of course lots of people are making great money off of OSS. Personally, I don't see the need to open source everything. Am I wrong in believing that not all software running on a Linux system needs to be open sourced? For example, I'd love to get rid of my mac, but I can't live without Photoshop. If I was able to develop a comparable piece of software on my own, who's to say I need to open source it?

[El_Cu_Guy]

I don't see the need to open source everything. Am I wrong in believing that not all software running on a Linux system needs to be open sourced?

No there's not. In fact many companies realease software for GNU/Linux which is not OSS. However, due to so many people think open source means getting everything for free, generally the software falls flat as users don't want it.

Also given the state of compatibility between distros it limits your choices. Corporations generally are the best customers for this kind of software. SGI has some binary only software that runs very well on most commercial distros.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally posted by JSeibert
If I was able to develop a comparable piece of software on my own, who's to say I need to open source it?
Maybe the people that open sourced all the software that they slaved away on that you're using right now.