Making a buck off Linux

[mart_man00]

While I do like Linux, one thing still bugs me. Free Software.

How exactly are companies supposed to make a buck?

By packaging it? Easy installs/configuration tools? Support? If I make my end-all-package system, what’s stopping you the already established big company from stealing it from me? Sure, I could steal something of yours back, but you still have the name and are in the door. Apps? Same thing.

Companies that do make money don’t seem to be in it from RMS' reasons. Redhat has Enterprise with non-free stuff, along with the Redhat Network. I’m sure Suse has some of there own.

IBM is pretty big on Linux, but then again they do hardware (serious levels, where Linux (something they don’t have to pay for and just use) really excels) and support for all of it.

OSS seems like a great idea but how is this supposed to work? Always seems to come back to communism.

Meh, maybe I have to read The Cathedral and the Bazaar now...

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by mart_man00
While I do like Linux, one thing still bugs me. Free Software.

How exactly are companies supposed to make a buck?

By packaging it? Easy installs/configuration tools? Support? If I make my end-all-package system, what’s stopping you the already established big company from stealing it from me? Sure, I could steal something of yours back, but you still have the name and are in the door. Apps? Same thing.

Companies that do make money don’t seem to be in it from RMS' reasons. Redhat has Enterprise with non-free stuff, along with the Redhat Network. I’m sure Suse has some of there own.

IBM is pretty big on Linux, but then again they do hardware (serious levels, where Linux (something they don’t have to pay for and just use) really excels) and support for all of it.

OSS seems like a great idea but how is this supposed to work? Always seems to come back to communism.

Meh, maybe I have to read The Cathedral and the Bazaar now...

It's called "Services". That's how you make money with Linux. IBM does it, Red Hat does it, SuSE does it, SCO did it. Even if you're running a Windows shop, you still pay for services, whether it's outsourced or in-house. Except with Linux you pay little or no licensing fees. These companies can also write their own apps to run on Linux and sell those, give away the OS. As long as they write their own code from scratch, there's no requirement that forces them to release their code under the GPL.

[bwkaz]

Did you ask this before?

Or was that somebody else? I know it's been discussed to death...

[mart_man00]

Did you ask this before?
Me? Nope.

know it's been discussed to death...
Yeah, i searched came up with a few. They were either old so some mod in a nazing mood would lock it (i never got that, really...) or its been a flame.

It's called "Services".
Services for what?

Since when do desktop users ever pay for support? Most just take what comes with there new computers or do that add on option for parts.

How would you make any money off that? You cant get a edge in.

RedHat and IBM never made any money off users, RedHat did with Enterprise and how many users have there own Blades?

<edit>
Wow, alot of views...I should probally be scared now...

[bandwidth_pig]

While this has been talked about a lot (what hasn't here??) it's still a interesting topic. It's like a good Star Trek episode. Yeah...we have watched it a 100 times.....but you can't resist watching it again. I myself don't think Linux itself is about money and agree with the prior comments about service. It's about service if you want to use Linux as a vehicle for profit. That is unless you have some killer app that is a complete niche. Of course, you ask as do many..."define services". But you must know the answer to that. When people talk about services on Linux...I assume that this is now a Enterprise level discussion...IE Servers, Server Farms, File Servers, Email Servers, Clusters for Scientific Applications...etc. I think we all comprehend that. If not, some research into the history of Unix based operating systems is good to get a better idea of the concept being expressed. From a desktop perspective, I do not think Linux is a money making venture. I mean even for MS (bear with me). Of course, that sounds insane. But how many people go out and buy Windows? Not very many. It's already on their machine and the Dell's of the world bought it and passed the cost on to the consumer. The OS itself is a given anymore. It's not something people are going to go out of their way to buy IMHO. You have to remember, while Linux is more common today, on a broad scale, i think it is still regarded as a enthusiast type OS when it comes to the desktop.

[mart_man00]

i think it is still regarded as a enthusiast type OS when it comes to the desktop.
Thats what i was thinking.

KDE is pretty nice, i have to give GNOME credit to but how would that work out?

Linux deffantely cemented itself with servers, clusters and everything nerdy but how is linux/GPL supposed to take off on desktops with *gasp* normal people:p

Almost everyone here uses it but thats basicly because its uyour hobby or your job.

Im not trying to be synical here, but id really like to hear some one explain how Linux will/should take off as a desktop and how at that level its not communism.

Thanks for not flaming guys, im really curious about this now for some reason...

[bandwidth_pig]

I'm not real knowledgable on Communism. Considering it's historical emphasis, I have considered picking up some of Karl Marx's (sp?) books just so I can understand what all the fuss is about. I often wonder how much people know about the subject and how much is hysteria...myself being ignorant on the subject. But that is the second time you have associated Communism with Linux and free software. Why is that?

[mart_man00]

But that is the second time you have associated Communism with Linux and free software. Why is that?
No private ownership. No competition (if you follow the GPL and make a end all app i can put in my distro too, you loose the edge and time/money). Its for 'the people'.

Considering it's historical emphasis, I have considered picking up some of Karl Marx's (sp?) books just so I can understand what all the fuss is about
Offtopic but o well...

Communism is a decent idea, but it can never work. I get paid if i work hard, just show up, or sleep in every day. You work your butt off eveyday and we still make the same amount off money.

People will always screw it up, thats the fuss.

[bwkaz]

This is just a guess, but I think the reason Linux gets associated with Communism is because users don't have to pay for it. I think there's a (since I can't come up with a better term; yes, this one is crappy) "stigma" present that "you pay for it" implies "it's capitalistic". Therefore, "you don't pay for it" implies "it's Communist". Even though those aren't the only two choices, and that logic is invalid, it still seems to happen...

As for "no private ownership", no, that's not actually the case. The author of the code always owns it (unless they decide to assign copyright to someone else, like if they write a patch to someone else's program, or they want what they've written to be included in the GNU project). That's why the GPL requires that any code that it covers NOT be public domain; public domain is equivalent to explicitly assigning copyright to everyone, which means that everyone can then use the program (source) for whatever they want, including making it a part of a proprietary product.

And as for the "you can just take my product" argument, I suggest you reread the GPL. It contains no stipulations on how to distribute the binaries of a program -- the only requirement is that you make the source available to everyone that gets the binaries from you. If I write a GPL killer app, I can prevent you from putting it into your distro, by not making it available to everyone. Or I can make it available for "everyone except distro-makers". I do have to make source available to everyone that gets the binaries (the non-distro-makers, or "everyone but you"), though.

[rbrimhall]

Communism also implies an inherent equality among everyone (i.e. no classes, etc.) but obviously since Linux distros are "competing" for users or a type of user I'm not sure you would consider it communistic. By the people for the people is more like democracy anyways (not the american democratic republic version) but actual democracy. Not sure we should be comparing politics/economics and an operating system though... isn't it apples and appleseeds here?

[bandwidth_pig]

We will agree to disagree Martin

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by bandwidth_pig
I'm not real knowledgable on Communism. Considering it's historical emphasis, I have considered picking up some of Karl Marx's (sp?) books just so I can understand what all the fuss is about. I often wonder how much people know about the subject and how much is hysteria...myself being ignorant on the subject. But that is the second time you have associated Communism with Linux and free software. Why is that?

Most Linux(kernel) developers could care less if money is made from Linux. Monetary gain is not the reason they code for free. Freedom is the reason that they code for free. The freedom to adapt their warez to their own needs.

Communism....True communism is not necessarily a bad thing. Notice I said "true communism". The the meaning that the U.S. government will try to tell you is so horrible. Communism is a lot like democracy. If I had a choice. I'd take communism over democracy any day. But only in the true meaning of the words.

Linux can't possibly be communism, because you have choice, no one is forcing you to use it. If you're talking abouth the GPL, then that's another argument. IMO, the GPL is good. If you borrow from someone elses code, it's only fair and moral that you share your improvement(s).

I don't even haver a problem with MS, except the fact that their warez are intentionaly designed with flaws built in. They don't know how to fix it but refuse to let anyone else try. The fact is, it can't be fixed. When everything is integrated into the kernel, it is beyond repair and inviting trouble. DRM will not fix this, which is the whole reason for having DRM, to try and prevent further damage. If you want a point 'n' click OS, then you must accept the design and security flaws that come with it. I find that intolerable and disgusting.

Anyone here think that we're not on our way to socialism(in USA). Look around, civil liberties being infringed upon everyday and most citizens love it, all in the name of "security". The same security MS has been promising for years. The truth is that the USA has been sold out to corporations, whose sole desire is to remove the middle class. This is not a good thing.

[bandwidth_pig]

Wasn't the Nazi party Socialist? Perhaps they were some bizarre deviation from Socialism. People often use the term Socialst and Canada together. Were going to anger the mods anytime now. We better get back on topic. Can't seem to help myself though as this is a interesting thread. I think in the present when people discuss Communism they are speaking from a Economics perspective. I have always thought the idea that people can be anything they want to is somewhat of a idealistic notion at best. But as pointed out, I think people will always screw it up. It's human nature. Which is why the Government then imposes it so people can't screw it up, but then the Governement does so when it is all said and done, there really is no ideal society. That is not a goal that people can achieve because people by nature are not ideal creatures.

[mart_man00]

They are part of something called unions
Lol!:D

If I write a GPL killer app, I can prevent you from putting it into your distro, by not making it available to everyone. Or I can make it available for "everyone except distro-makers".
bwkaz, i have to looking more inot those restrictions. Id like to find a quote of it but ever watch Revolution OS? In there he says that the developer cant make restrictions on it, his example was with aborition clinics. So if i created Vim or something i cant say your shop cant use it by his standards. So if you like my app, you can use it.

So why cant you put that in your distro? You kept my comments on all the headers, you didnt say it was yours. You just stuck it on the disk. And dont you have to publicaly release it if its GPL?

Arent his (RMS) standards what the GPL is?

[mart_man00]

Lol, were alittlr off topic but kets get back to it.

How can Linux work out on the desktop? How can any company make money of users?

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by mart_man00
Lol, were alittlr off topic but kets get back to it.

How can Linux work out on the desktop? How can any company make money of users?

Not sure other than service, they could charge for the software just like SuSE does. There's nothing to stop all Linux vendors from charging for the OS. It would probably be a good idea to somehow recoup whatever it costs for bandwidth. I have no problem with paying for it, because I have chosen my vendor and know that I'm going to get a good product.

But as far as being concerned if they make money, I could care less if any company makes money. It's not my problem. In these times, corporations are not loyal to their employees or their customers, so I say, let's treat them in the same manner as they have treated us. I won't buy it (whatever it is) unless I need it and it provides value. I don't need all those nifty little trinkets from walmart, I'm past that.

[EnigmaOne]

Originally posted by mart_man00
Since when do desktop users ever pay for support? Most just take what comes with there new computers or do that add on option for parts.
Funny....I guess I've been dumb enough to pay for RedHat support for all of my RH machines. I was further stupid enough to actually go out and buy copies of each distro I downloaded and installed on my other machines.
I'm at that stage of life where I still love doing things for myself, but I realize the importance of financially underwriting Open Source efforts, and the commercial ventures based upon them.

RedHat's demo service hooked me initially, and I felt that I'd rather have the preferential service from them, obtainable only by paying for the use of their update servers.....That's at home, mind you.

In the workplace, every desktop and server system is supported under a contract with the distributor; and the services provided are of sufficient value to pay for.

Originally posted by mart_man00
RedHat and IBM never made any money off users, RedHat did with Enterprise and how many users have there own Blades?
They got my money. I did my part.

You may be approaching this with the awareness that something like windoze update isn't worth paying for, and interpreting the services offered by some of the Linux distributors in the same light.

My experience has been quite to the contrary to that convenient assumption of mine. ;)
Since you've mentioned RedHat specifically.....
up2date once a week:
I updated my work systems as a group, while I drank a cup of coffee and chowed-down on a few maple cake donuts.
I never broke a system or introduced buggy patches.
I was--in the vast majority of cases--patched before the announcement of the odd-exploit even made it to the press.
None of my systems have ever been down, save for hardware issues, and the odd re-boot when it's time to load a new kernel.

::: switching context to the home systems, 'cause I can't access the work machines just now :::
In the end analysis, "14:31:24 up 274 days, 23:01, 14 users, load average: 0.22, 0.13, 0.10" on a home-based RH9 "Linux 2.4.20" print/samba server is certainly worth it to me.
Someday I'll update that machine to the 2.6 kernel.

Now, if I could only get rid of those 3 windoze machines, I'd never have computer problems.....time for a donut.

[I should have spell-checked first]

[bandwidth_pig]

:D I tried to edit out my previous comment as I thought it might offend some Martin. Glad you got a laugh.

How can you make Linux work on the desktop and make money? Simple. Provide something users want and need and make it the best source for getting it. It's that simple. The problem is, you are trying to take again, what has been classified as a Enthusiast OS...built by the Nerd for the Nerd, and make it mainstream. It isn't going to happen. Or it might. But I doubt it.

But I had a idea inspired by Gentoo actually the other day. And this ties into what you have said. Instead of taking Linux to the desktop as the everyday solution, why not capitalize on the geek factor? Why not build the super geek OS based on Linux? Only the value you bring isn't the OS itself. It's in tweaking the OS itself. You take the technical customer base that Linux has (and a lot of it has come along that is less technical...but wants very much to learn) and give them what THEY want.

For example, what if what you sold with your Distro if you had one, was more based upon optimized packages like Gentoo? You for a small fee, offered some super optimized binary....or you gave access to your site that had the info to create the program with all the right flags and all the necessary info in one place. There was a forum, there was support....perhaps a monthly fee of $20. People are willing to pay that to play Everquest. Why not pay that if you could find a consolidated source of info and packages? What if you truly had no dependancy problems? We all claim we have seen this...but even in Debian and Gentoo I still find it to some degree. You want to make money in Linux? Find a niche. Study the culture. Gain acceptance in the uber-geek crowd. You'll make your money. Many of us here are OS tweakers by nature. Thats what we do. We don't play games. We don't write code on any real tangible level. Most would like to. But still like to play. Find something for that audience and you'll have your money. You won't be MS...but you'll have something IMHO. Most of us are doing this for fun. Not because it is a job. Why don't you create something for us based on what you see? I'd pay for such a thing.

[mart_man00]

It kind of helps companies to stay in business when they make money, helps economies and people to. Nerds have to work somewhere.

Not everyone is a network guy, whats a programmer todo. We need companies.

Besides, everyone would love to make a kernel and get lots of credit companies make sure the little stuff gets done too.

[EnigmaOne]

Originally posted by bandwidth_pig
We don't play games.
Bite your tongue!
I'll have you know that I once played a lousy round of X-Bill!

The score of which still pains me to this very day.

[dboyer]

FYI: One of the key ideas to socialism is public ownership of public services. This is why Canada and a few scandinavian countries are considered socialist, at least in some ideals. There health system, for instance, is comunistic. The USA's welfare system is inherently socialistic... It went the same way as the soviets however... watch Bowling for Columbine to see one of the situations that the "me me me me make them work hard too" mindset gets... the woman was truely trying to make ends meet... but anyways...

I don't think it really matters... It all just ends up being a war of propaganda and words... democracy? who lives under a democracy? last time i checked, the good ol' USA was a republic...

What does this have to do with linux? Unless I'm mistaken, i believe that Linus's father was a card-carrying communist... sooo... :-)

Why do companies HAVE to make money off of users? I don't see why that is suuch a big deal. I actually feel that corporate hands in linux will make it worse, not better. Is there something inherently wrong in people working together to create something great? If there isn't, why shouldn't they give it away in the same cooperate spirit that created?

Sell hardware, sell support, and sell other services... Licensing software is a pretty dumb idea.Have you read MS licenses? "We'll *sell* you these programming tools... but if you dare write software that competes with ours, we'll sue you"... Its a load of crap.

[bandwidth_pig]

Very interesting post dboyer. I think the whole concept behind Linux is much bigger than the OS itself. So if corporations destroy Linux...it isn't going to matter. I think the interest in this type of OS has enough momentum now that you would find another project pop up and take it's place. That's one thing that I think is so great about the whole GNU concept. It goes beyond just Linux.

[root.veg]

Aren't some of you coming at this from the wrong angle?

Why is it *necessary* for companies to make money off Linux or any other software? Surely it's more necessary that users get what they need (ie software that works). So when that happens, why do some people assume that someone has to profit from it?
Nerds have to work somewhere.
Well people have to make a living, yes, but they don't have to work in IT, do they?

If the Free Software movement provides someone with software they want for virtually no cost (not to mention the freedom to copy and run), then surely the job's done, and everyone's happy, right? Trying to invent some way of artificially giving someone a profit is like inventing pointless jobs, surely?

[bandwidth_pig]

" I don't need all those nifty little trinkets from walmart, I'm past that."

Wish my wife was! Oh how I hate that place!

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by mart_man00
bwkaz, i have to looking more into those restrictions. Id like to find a quote of it but ever watch Revolution OS? No, actually...

In there he says Who says?

that the developer cant make restrictions on it, <...> So if i created Vim or something i cant say your shop cant use it by his standards. So if you like my app, you can use it. That's not how I read the GPL, or the GPL FAQ. Read both of them sometime. Preferably soon.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Specifically: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid

You (when you're acting as the initial distributor of your software) can distribute the binaries in any way you want. You can restrict any group of people that you want from getting them. However, you have to let anyone that does (legitimately) get them to also get the source.

So why cant you put that in your distro? You kept my comments on all the headers, you didnt say it was yours. You just stuck it on the disk. And dont you have to publicaly release it if its GPL? This entire paragraph confuses me, actually... care to reword it? If you were the author of Vim, and you GPL'ed it, I am not forced to redistribute ("publically release") it, no...

Arent his (RMS) standards what the GPL is? No. RMS is not the entire Free Software Foundation, he's merely one of the founding members.

And furthermore, the GPL is not someone's philosophy; it's merely the way that the Free Software Foundation ensures that free (actually, open-source is better) software remains free (open-source).

[dboyer]

I have a little confession to make... I consider myself a socialist... its one of the parts of linux i enjoy... its a fun operating system, something to learn, and a whole political/economical viewpoint...

Here is another viewpoint: How does someone make money off of windows? You get a job as a sysop, you get a job as a MSCE instructor... What else can you do? Microsoft tends to make all the money off of windows :-)

Here is another situation... I'm not sure if this is happening like I would like to think, but Ill throw it out anyways...

Recently Brazil decided to switch from MS to open source software for a multitude of reasons... lets say instead of being "cheap"... lets say they keep the same amount that they use to pay a US company in washington for restrictive licenses... and use it to pay brazilian programmers to add features they want/generally improve the software they are getting for relatively cheap... Isn't that the job of a government? create jobs? help with the advancement of civilization? (maybe a bit of a stretch:-))

Seems to be a large improvement over propping up private companies (pro-corporate legislation that we in the US seems to get a lot of)...

seems to be a equally important question... how does the 'little-man' make money with propriatary software?? :-)

[mart_man00]

Man, alot of posts....

Well people have to make a living, yes, but they don't have to work in IT, do they?
Why do you insit on taking away there jobs then? What else are they going todo? Pumping gas?

Why do companies HAVE to make money off of users?
What else are they going to make money on? Not every one can be Enterprise. Hell, how many Windows uses even pay for Windows.

bandwidth_pig, im kind of thinking like you, but how could you legally sell that uber kool binary? You could make a nice profit untill i take the free code and compile just as uberkool, but then stick it up on ftp. How do you make anything then? Sure, alot of user will donate alittle but that would kill you right off. Thats what im getting at.

Funny....I guess I've been dumb enough to pay for RedHat support for all of my RH machines
Linux, nerd, move on. IM talking about people. As we all know nerds arnt people:D

No. RMS is not the entire Free Software Foundation, he's merely one of the founding members.
I got that part but wasnt he mostly behing GPL?

Here is another viewpoint: How does someone make money off of windows?
[list=1]
Coder for MS
MSCE Monkey
3rd Party Apps
Little jobs because MS has enough money to pay you
[/list=1]
MS made billions, that did wonders when they came out. Theres dozens of apps out there for Windows.

Hell, Gates is the one the that started broke-ware, how many people here have jobs because of him?

[madcompnerd]

Why wouldn't you want to use:
"using namespace std;"

It's logical, it's the way things are in ANSI c++ and therefore the way it is :). It's just one line!




You make money off Open Source software the same way you make it off closed source. The difference is, your algorythms will be quickly discovered by competitiors meaning you will have to compete harder. It also means the end user will benefit the most as competition is more difficult.
Most people/businesses buy software; they don't hack it. This means that open or not, licensed or not; a similar number of people will purchase a PACKAGED software. Packaging is where the money is.
Lindows, Novell, IBM, RedHat, and etc are making profit off of open source code. It's possible, it's scientific, but it's not conventional business practice.

[mart_man00]

You make money off Open Source software the same way you make it off closed source.
The point of this thread is to say how and not just every one fav line...


Now if you really can restrict GPL code i have a couple mroe questions then(heck, this could end it right now).

How? Software is either online or in a box at a store. Do you have to have a mini legal battle so the other distros cant take it, or do you have to be at every store with a baseball bat?:p

Wasnt GPL/GNU all founded on being a community? Helping users with free software? How is that restriction not going completely agaist OSS?

[bandwidth_pig]

"bandwidth_pig, im kind of thinking like you, but how could you legally sell that uber kool binary? You could make a nice profit untill i take the free code and compile just as uberkool, but then stick it up on ftp. How do you make anything then? Sure, alot of user will donate alittle but that would kill you right off. Thats what im getting at."

I don't know. Glad to see somebody thinks a little like me. Perhaps it isn't the binary. Maybe that is a bad idea. It's just an example. But I think you get the idea. That was the point. I mean, you could apply your ftp principle to pretty much any software. Nothing is to stop anybody from doing anything.

[mart_man00]

Exactly bandwidth_pig, every one says it can be done but i want a specific way that can be done with out fear.

[bandwidth_pig]

I am perplexed by this comment as well:

"Well people have to make a living, yes, but they don't have to work in IT, do they?"

Could we not apply the same concept behind open source to a whole lot of things? And couldn't we ask the same question as root.veg in all those instances? Robotics for example. Lets say we have robots that can take place of the people working in walmart (not to pick on walmart employees). Are you going to say the same thing? They don't have to work there? How is it any different? What is wrong with charging for software? I know...this has been talked about a lot to. And no matter how many times I read it, I just don't get it. As insane as this sounds, I think the guy writing software has every much as right to make a buck as the guy changing your tire. And in fact, should be paid much more. Why? Because it requires a lot more discipline. A lot more intelligence. I don't get this. Perhaps somebody can educate me. To me, RMS is a researcher by nature. He may be a programmer by profession, but if you look at his history he is a researcher at heart. And while his ideas might be great for a ideal society, our society is not anywhere ideal and human nature is not capable of achieving a ideal status...thus concepts based on idealism for general rules are null and void. Our whole socio-economic structure in this whole world would have to change. I don't get it. In other words, I think RMS is most likely a genius. But his life is far from ordinary and his exposure in life hardly matches most peoples. It's important to keep that in mind when looking at some of the ideas he expresses.

[bandwidth_pig]

Originally posted by mart_man00
Exactly bandwidth_pig, every one says it can be done but i want a specific way that can be done with out fear.

What do you mean? If your looking to find a way to do something like this without fear, I think your reaching for something your not going to find. What is fear? Fear=risk. It's that simple. And no matter what you do, your going to have risks.

[dboyer]

I think you have the mindset that people should write one program and let the money roll in for the rest of their lives... thats sort of a disney-mindset... If you see what I mean...

I was a coder at a my highschool before i graduated... I was tasked with creating PHP frontends for various parts of Active Directory... I found various examples of how parts here and there (gotta love the PHP help files) work. When i figured out something new, I posted what I had figured out (I woudln't call Active Directory well-documented). Thats the idea of Open-Source... I don't know if there was any sort of program that you could buy... so they hired me to write it.

I recently read a book called "the Linux and Unix Philosophy"... some good point, some pretty hard grasps... but they were talking about how *nix programs are generally writtian for 90% of users..

Make money on the other 10% who need special features.

so, heres your answer:

1. Coder for MS
2. MSCE Monkey
3. 3rd Party Apps
4. Little jobs because MS has enough money to pay you

heres my final answer:

1. Coder for Linux (some kernel authors are actually hired by companies to improve the linux kernel. These companies are being responsible and investing back into the software they are using)
2. Linux Admin (they make more money that MSCE's too, because microsoft flooded the market... plus, ive worked with both linux and windows admins... linux admin sits back and makes sure his automation scripts are running, windows admin is tearing hair out repooting servers left and right and cleaning of viruses, its not pretty)
3. Write 3rd party apps for specific cases (see my 10% thing)
4. Little jobs because companies who arn't paying MS big money can afford to pay you. (:-))

I'd recommend a couple people in this thread read the communist manifesto... pretty interesting readings, if only for just an interesting historical perspective... its only 40 pages or something...

[mart_man00]

Fear? Lets go back to your binary ebuilds.

You do the uberkool ones and charge $10 bucks a month. I, the angry employee at Walmart (:p ) decide to make some just as uberkool ones and make the free online.

How could you possibly compete with that?

The fear would be one day getting completely screwed over since you never had a edge.

[EnigmaOne]

Originally posted by mart_man00
It kind of helps companies to stay in business when they make money, helps economies and people to. Nerds have to work somewhere.

Not everyone is a network guy, whats a programmer todo. We need companies.

Besides, everyone would love to make a kernel and get lots of credit companies make sure the little stuff gets done too.

Granted....but it's not a question (for many of us) of "CAN you make money," because it's a given that you can ALWAYS make money.
It's really a question of "HOW do you make YOUR money?" and "Do I want to deal with an individual or corporation possessing that particular set of assumptions, values or ethical standards?"

I do a more granular anaylsis of the situation when I think of the issues raised by the first part of your statement above:

Yes, we need the economic stimulus generated by a healthy coding community; but--as I think of the windoze generation--do we actually have that in the United States?

For a variety of reasons I have to conclude that we decidedly lack that healthy community of commercial software coders; and that very fact is taken for granted to a large extent.

As an example of the low expections in the market, I can offer a statement made by an instructor in an MCSE course I had the misfortune of taking a number of years back:
"Always remember that, if Microsoft did their programming job correctly, you'd all be out of jobs."
Needless to say that, taken from a certain perspective, I could have allowed myself to be offended by that remark--on a number of different levels.

Going beyond that isolated remark, I see no higher-level of expectations in the software consumer market, with respect to the quality of software they purchase. This, in turn, has fed the cavalier attitudes in places like Redmond toward issues of pricing and quality. In short, it has become a vicious circle.

The industry is now in a period of transition from unhealthy attitudes of raping the consumer in order to claim that "we are just being profitable" to those of offering value and openness of code and services for a REASONABLE price.
The old-guard is--in the ever-typically American fashion--resistant to change and scrambling for some sort of cover.
The new-guard is moving in and incrementally taking over anyway.

To that last point, I personally know a number of people in the business of coding to the win32APIs, and their general reaction to the changing market is one of "I shouldn't HAVE to learn something new, or change the way I do my job."
My reaction to them isn't really as calloused as it initially appears--I mean, I do have empathy for them, but I have my own family to take care of--"Fine. Let your family starve then."
I am confident that the individuals I know wouldn't let the situation get that bad; but, honestly, I'm tired of listening to them *****-n-moan about it on the phone.

Certainly, it isn't so dire...yet; but we do have the signs on the horizon to serve as a forewarning. NOW is the time to plan for the future--if you're in the business, that is.
Those who can't or won't adapt will find themselves left in the dust.

Geeze! I went and made a long post again....sorry about that.

[and I forgot to add]

These guys have no problem making an honest buck:
http://www.xig.com/

I found http://www.xig.com/Pages/Atop/MX-Platinum.html to be worth my while to implement in certain instances.

[mart_man00]

dboyer, sure some people pay coders to work on linux(Redhat and IBM are the only ones that i can think off...), but how do they get enough cash to pay them?

[EnigmaOne]

Originally posted by dboyer
Linux Admin (they make more money that MSCE's too, because microsoft flooded the market... plus, ive worked with both linux and windows admins... linux admin sits back and makes sure his automation scripts are running, windows admin is tearing hair out repooting servers left and right and cleaning of viruses, its not pretty)

While I'm not the overtly-religious type, I'll offer up an "AMEN!" to that one. :D

I'll even have another donut....

[dboyer]

instead of a large corporation making HUGE programs, i think you should think of OSS as smaller, quicker programming units (think Ender's Game... quicker, more effective, more uber leet :-))

Don't make money off of end users... Give them software, they are not where the money is anyways (just ask Redmond).

You have a company that decides they want to use OpenOffice instead of Office. Normally, with office, you send $ to redmond, and live with the software that you get. if its stable and has the right feature set for you, yay, and if its buggy or doen't have the right features, thats alright too, because you can buy the next version soon enough :-)

With the GPL, the idea is that you get the software for free. If it doesn't have the right features or isn't stable, you hire a programmer with the money you save, and then you pay for the software by releasing the changes so that they next guy down the line is a little better of from the start.

Of course, there isn't the only way to look at it, but the way i see it.

There MUST be money to be made for companies through OSS... if there wasn't, IBM wouldn't be backing it... whether it will work or not shall be seen... but if there wasn't incentive, then big blue would have never made the jump.

EnigmaOne: Yeah, nothing like sitting in the linux admins office and get calls from all the windows admins in town you need help because they networks are now owned by a virus. Thanks MS! makes every day an adventure...

[mart_man00]

Don't make money off of end users... Give them software, they are not where the money is anyways (just ask Redmond).
You could say besides from games people normally get the software that came with the computer and not alot more(how many people upgrade on there own compard to how many wait a few years and just buy a new box).

Theres alot of littel companies out there coding in garages that make a buck on Win. With Linux, everything is supposed to be OSS and ofcourse free.

Devs can charge, but then thats not very Linuxy is it?

There MUST be money to be made for companies through OSS... if there wasn't, IBM wouldn't be backing it
There hardware and hardware support people. Linux will run on anything and make anything look great(theres plenty of people here with old 386 computers running servers without a problem, try installing NT on one of those).

Redhat, does Enterprise. Attach Enterprise to the box and youll make some money, but this thread was ment for the desktop.

[dboyer]

In all seriousness, I think Dell makes mroe money off of desktop home users than microsft does. Microsoft sells the OS to OEMs for what... 50 cents? 5 dollars? certainly not $130... they don't WANT to sell it to home users... They would rather give it away for cheap so that everyone is using it. Once everyone is using it, they can sell it to businesses...

I remember when i used to use windows, and i needed a little tool to do something... I would hit freeware sites and find a tool... nobody was making money off of me then either...

[EnigmaOne]

Originally posted by mart_man00
With Linux, everything is supposed to be OSS and ofcourse free.

Devs can charge, but then thats not very Linuxy is it?

No offense, but I'd call that a fundamental mis-characterization of the Open Source philosophy and community at large.

With Linux, as well as everything else Open Source, everything is supposed to be accessible, open and above-board. An infinite interval of peer-review, if you will. There is nothing to prohibit one from charging for their own work, or for offsetting costs incurred through the act of distribution.

Moreover, there is plenty of room for fairly-compensated value-adding to occur. Again, http://www.xig.com/ ?

I think you're questioning/debating an OSS market model that is still in a state of flux, as though it was in stasis. As with all market transitions in the United States, not all is doom-n-gloom; and everyone will find a way to make a living...just like we always have with the birth of new opportunities.

Originally posted by mart_man00
Redhat, does Enterprise. Attach Enterprise to the box and youll make some money, but this thread was ment for the desktop.
The desktop, strictly speaking, *is* the enterprise--from the users' perspective. The consumer or retail desktop is another market segment, not so far removed from value-adding activities.
To "turn the corner" a bit....
Is ZoneLabs not profitable, simply because they gave away the best consumer firewall for a good, long time?
Nobody can seriously argue that they are bankrupt, can they?

The essential argument being that, by analogy, the same coding and income opportunities are available through coding for the OSS market.

Of course, one can shoot themselves in the foot, if they don't assess their particular market objectively:
A student brought in a "cool little program," that he had purchased the day before. (AtomTime98 or something of a similar name, IIRC.) I took him around to each of the lab computers and showed him Dimension44 which, at that time, was free. He took a few minutes to check out the capabilities of the program.
When he was done, he had adequate demonstration that the program that he had paid for did nothing more than--indeed even less than--the free program that we had on the abysmal little win98 lab machines.
The kid was seriously POed at me; which, for the life of me, I will never be able to explain rationally. I will grant you that his program was "prettier," though.

Now, if you want to code something that is unnecessary, like the AtomTime client; and make a million bucks, or even a comfortable living, off of it; then you're being unrealistic. I'm sure that people who participated in the manufacturing of kerosene lamps faced the same uncertainties when the electric lamp was invented...but that's the nature of progress.

If you want to do the research necessary to find a real need in the market, and code a quality solution to that need, then you'll be able to derive a fair income from your work.

Originally posted by dboyer
Yeah, nothing like sitting in the linux admins office and get calls from all the windows admins in town you need help because they networks are now owned by a virus. Thanks MS! makes every day an adventure...

LOL! It's funny how much more you end up working on broken/compromised win-whatever infrastructures because--since your "greater" responsibilities are humming along smoothly--you have the "spare" time and skill-set.
If it wasn't for that, the job would be enjoyable.

(I think I recently saw objective "span of control" figures that equated 1 Linux admin to something on the order of 5 or 6 win admins, by server count. I'm sure the statistics weren't adjusted to account for MCSEs begging for help from the 'nux admins. To Continental Airlines: Take note of those numbers.)

Cr@p...there's another long post. I need a cup of coffee now.

[bandwidth_pig]

Originally posted by mart_man00
Fear? Lets go back to your binary ebuilds.

You do the uberkool ones and charge $10 bucks a month. I, the angry employee at Walmart (:p ) decide to make some just as uberkool ones and make the free online.

How could you possibly compete with that?

The fear would be one day getting completely screwed over since you never had a edge.

Well, after a nice dinner at the local Olive Garden and enduring a blizzard (it's snowing like crazy here), again, what you are describing is no different than what every software maker faces. Warez for example. But I do get your point. I still think it can be done in some capacity. For example...ok. Lets say your scenario happened. But thats only one package out of thousands. Ok...you can again rationalize somebody could do that too. Let me give you another example that can't be pirated.

Lets say you do the same thing, but host these files on ULTRA fast servers. And not only that, you build yourself a serious Linux cluster for people to execute builds of their own should they choose, over your mega cluster, which compiles the code ultra fast. You have two things that can't be pirated:

1. Serious bandwidth (a favorite of mine)
2. Serious computing power to compile the files.

ON number two, I can tell you as a gentoo user that compiling everything from source is not fun. It takes to darn long. What if I could pawn that off on some super computer somewhere, yet get to specify all the flags I wanted to make it just the way I wanted? You see, your forgetting the service factor again. Part of the service you offer your customers is the education/support to take it up another notch. It's just an example. The key is researching. It's like extreme Linux. For those who already have done the rest.

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by madcompnerd
Why wouldn't you want to use:
"using namespace std;"

It's logical, it's the way things are in ANSI c++ and therefore the way it is :). It's just one line! Because it defeats the purpose of even HAVING namespaces. You should only ever import what you need (if you're going to import anything).

Also see this thread:

http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119182

for a case where importing extra junk from std:: causes massive breakage.

[bandwidth_pig]

"With the GPL, the idea is that you get the software for free. If it doesn't have the right features or isn't stable, you hire a programmer with the money you save, and then you pay for the software by releasing the changes so that they next guy down the line is a little better of from the start."

Ok. But the problem with that is...at least from my own selfish perpsective, is that the trend for this type of scenario here is the work all gets outsourced to whomever is the cheapest bidder in some third world country. A recent article I read said that 40% of all programming jobs are being outsourced to either India, China, or...I forget the third one :o I'm picking up Stallman's book tomorrow. Perhaps I'll get the big picture then.

[mart_man00]

No offense, but I'd call that a fundamental mis-characterization of the Open Source philosophy and community at large.
O...Thats why i started this thread, something seemed to be missing....

Is ZoneLabs not profitable, simply because they gave away the best consumer firewall for a good, long time?
There making a buck, but they dont have there source code floating arounf for anyone to compile for free either. That was my point.

bandwidth_pig, your right bandwidth cost money and thats alot of CPU time. But how expensive could it be? If your RH selling these special binaries a startup company could easily come around with a nice cluster todo the work and get a t3 line or 2. What would RH have then? Sure they have the name, that will help(especialy with companies) but Id have the price(alot cheaper). What then?

I'm picking up Stallman's book tomorrow.
O god the Cathedral/Bazaar(which ever he did) is a BOOK?!?! I thought it would be a paper or something. Looks like fun for me too...

[bandwidth_pig]

This sums it up quite nicely. I think many people are missing the whole point.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

I know I was way off base. GNU and Open Source are two seperate movements. I lumped them together.

[EnigmaOne]

Originally posted by mart_man00
There making a buck, but they dont have there source code floating arounf for anyone to compile for free either. That was my point.

Good....turn that page over and check up on Xi Graphics. They have their source out in the open, and they don't have a serious problem generating a profit margin.

You'll find other examples of OSS successes--if you look for them.

[nugget15]

Ok, take mandrake for instance at there Mandrake Club (http://www.mandrakeclub.com/) you buy the different level of cards to get special bonuses not avalabile to lower level cards or people with out the cards. Also they allow people with cards to have special ftp downloads, beta versions of Mandrake Move witch i would like but is not out yet for people not willing to spend 60 to 1200 dollars a year for there special services. They produce there own books and have help services too. Its just a matter of pricing everything more so they make up for having everything avabile later to the public.

[dboyer]

Originally posted by bandwidth_pig
"With the GPL, the idea is that you get the software for free. If it doesn't have the right features or isn't stable, you hire a programmer with the money you save, and then you pay for the software by releasing the changes so that they next guy down the line is a little better of from the start."

Ok. But the problem with that is...at least from my own selfish perpsective, is that the trend for this type of scenario here is the work all gets outsourced to whomever is the cheapest bidder in some third world country. A recent article I read said that 40% of all programming jobs are being outsourced to either India, China, or...I forget the third one :o I'm picking up Stallman's book tomorrow. Perhaps I'll get the big picture then.

I think that is an interesting point. That is a very "closed-source" issue, that big companies are creating. I was reading about outsourcing of jobs a while back, and one of the issues with the foriegn outsourcing is that the programmers are so removed from the people ordering the programs, that they rarely get features implemented correctly (although i wouldnt completely blame this on the programmers :))

just keep in mind its "not free in beer, but free as in freedom"...

back to the original question: "While I do like Linux, one thing still bugs me. Free Software."

why do you ask that? Why does "free" software /bug/ you? Are you bugged when someone gets quality (IMHO, better) software for cheaper than they could purchase it? (if they were so inclined)

[mart_man00]

It bugs me how people make it sound like its so much easier to make a buck off free software. Hell, the make it sound like pure perfect but you rarely get a good example. That bugs me.

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by mart_man00
It bugs me how people make it sound like its so much easier to make a buck off free software. Hell, the make it sound like pure perfect but you rarely get a good example. That bugs me.

Just out of curiousity, why is so important to you that you feel as though it should make money. There have been plenty of examples given of companies making money with Linux. All you have to do is visit Cnet or the Register almost any day of the week and you will see more examples. When money starts to cloud the goals of the Linux community, that's when we're in trouble. Not that it's a bad thing to make selling, but if that is the only goal...

[dboyer]

Its no different than closed source... I don't think I've ever made money off of closed source... i know ive LOST more because of it though :-)

Maybe thats the key... its "impossible" to make a significant profit off of home users... I don't really see a whole lot of people making money off of the home users in closed software too... the game industry, perhaps, but i suspect that their margins are pretty slim... and even then, sometimes profit comes from licensing engines to other companies, etc...

[kam]

Originally posted by bwkaz
It contains no stipulations on how to distribute the binaries of a program -- the only requirement is that you make the source available to everyone that gets the binaries from you. If I write a GPL killer app, I can prevent you from putting it into your distro, by not making it available to everyone. Or I can make it available for "everyone except distro-makers". I do have to make source available to everyone that gets the binaries (the non-distro-makers, or "everyone but you"), though. That's not quite true. You cannot prohibit someone from using software licensed under the GPL. Even if you yourself do not distribute to certain people, others could, and you have no right to keep them from using that code.

[mart_man00]

Thanks kam, i figure that after hearin what RMS said but never actualy found it online...

Just out of curiousity, why is so important to you that you feel as though it should make money.
Its how companies and economys run:D Help when the company make a profit when its paycheck time too.

Plus like we said before, alot of people are just programmers, how else would they make a living?

Some one has to make money, small business need to make money too.

[AnonyPuss]

" Its how companies and economys run Help when the company make a profit when its paycheck time too."

That same company could also make a bigger profit by exporting ALL those programming jobs to India. No paycheck for you. Couldn't these programmers flip burgers and make a paycheck?

" Plus like we said before, alot of people are just programmers, how else would they make a living?"

How is that anyone else's problem? Just for arguments sake, lets suppose I work in a factory. The manufacturer closes this factory, moves those jobs to Mexico. How am I going to make money? I either find a similar job elsewhere, or I change my career. You're acting as if these people can't adapt, and if they can't it's not my problem. This is the corporate attitudein America right now. It's very fitting.

"Some one has to make money, small business need to make money too."

Then let them make a better product. It is possible to make something better than the free equivalent. Adapt or die. I'm able to keep more of MY money by not buying the proprietary junk. This money stays at home and does not go to India or Mexico. I have nothing against either country, I'm just using them as examples.

My point is, why should the software industry be treated any differently than any other industry? Protectionism? This isn't what that global economy is about, is it?

[madcompnerd]

How? Software is either online or in a box at a store. Do you have to have a mini legal battle so the other distros cant take it, or do you have to be at every store with a baseball bat?
For the same reason you don't have to have security guards in most businesses. Most people follow laws and licenses, a majority at least. And the better known the law is, the more it tends to be followed. Of course if everyone decided to just steal everything no police force could stop it (as policemen would be stealing too).
Will you get stolen from? Yes, but you will get stolen from either way. And if they use your code in other things, as is legal providing all of the stuff your code is compiled into is open source, it doesn't matter this will simply push you to improve upon their changes.

It's harder, but it works.

[AussieJohn]

Hello all.

What is it with you that many of you think that money has to be made out of every thing that is done and that every co-operative scheme is somehow communistic. Most do not know the real meaning of communism. In Communism , every thing is done for the "good" of the state regardless of the Individuals needs or preferences. Co-operatives are the opposite, because the individual has the choice to co-operate by joining in, or to not join, thus contributing to a common good or goal.

The Linux world is a giant Co-operative wth 10s of thousands of participants world wide who decided their main condition for joining and using their efforts was that if you wanted to alter or improve anything that you received then you gave the same rights to everyone else further down the line and to the originators.

Linux (read LINUS) has NEVER been about MUST MAKE MONEY, if it had been then it would have been made proprietory from the very beginning.

If you were to call Australians Communistic then they would either laugh at you or give you a kick in the head. The Australian Surf Life Saving Association is the possibly the worlds largest volunteer organisation and al its members work for free ESPECIALLY all its Lifesavers. The organisation is so successful that it has become an international body.

Many of you have heard of a body called LIFELINE. Started in Australia and that is a fact. All volunteer to help others in need.
The worlds bigest ever and most successful ever Olympic Games held in Sydney in 2000 was 90% volunteer. Were they made to volunteer ?? NO. Were they asked if they would like to volunteer ?? YES. Did the people accept ??? YES In fact the organisers got 4 times more than they needed or could handle. The FEDERAL Government and the STATE Government and the SYDNEY City Council co-operated as a unified body so that all Australians felt it was their games and not just Sydneys.

The end result of all this volunteering and co-operation was that Sydney built the worlds most advanced Sporting complexes and facilities and which are now being widely used by EVERYONE. And guess what???????
IT WAS ALL PAID FOR BY THE TIME THE GAMES WERE FINISHED. I.E.NO DEBT. AND NO DEBTS WERE WRITTEN OFF JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE GOVERNMENTAL. Could Sydney have achieved this without the volunteers??? Absolutely not. American Officials even acknowledged that they would not ever be able to make it work that way in the USA without first getting rid of all the business worlds financial control. A sad comment is it not especially since the USA has lots of generous people ??

Linux is like a Sydney Olympic Games , full of volunteers and competitors all interested in only having a good time, helping others and constantly raising the standards for everyones good health and wellbeing. And rarely does the word MONEY come into it. A lot of big corporations spent big at the Sydney Games and recovered their money in no time at all. Is IBM any different in Linux world??? I don't think so. Just a small aside here, IBM was one the biggest contributors to the Olympic Games but tended to more quietly in the background unlike many others who shall remain nameless.

If all you who are concerned about is money and making money in the LINUX World then you are in the WRONG WORLD. Go and find somewhere else. ASKING the Question as you did under the guise of just curiousity shows you that you don't know the right question to ask, Namely how can I contribute, not how can I make money out of Linux or how can anyone else. My comment is not about you especially but more about the many people who propose such a question.

Anyone who says The Free Software World is communistic obviously don't know anything about anything so can safely be dismissed but not ignored.

Cheers. John (69 yrs young......on 4th Jan 2004)

[bandwidth_pig]

"That same company could also make a bigger profit by exporting ALL those programming jobs to India. No paycheck for you."

That actually isn't true. There is a cap at a Federal level on these things. Companies are only permited to do this with so many jobs. There is a process they have to go through. And in the obvious cycle of nature, this is slowly starting to fall apart also. The cost of outsourcing jobs has gone up 100% within the last year and Intellectual Property Law Suits are becoming common as ideas are being stolen and incorporated into another projects solutions. Like we didn't see that coming. It'll just keep getting worse in relation to this, so long term, it's not a problem.

As far as people flipping burgers goes, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but your comment is a bit extreme and not realistic. Perhaps you will agree to disagree, but when people invest a great deal of time and money and work into being something productive in society and then to find that is of burger flipping value, it's everybodys problem who has any interest in a productive world.

[dboyer]

It's like when the american government bails out the airlines... its a stupid idea... if the airlines are not successful, that means that their business model is flawed/there are too many airlines for the amount of people who are flying... it means that things are changing, and business must change to compensate...

This is the same thing... So what if they can't make money anymore? if business's fail because they can't sell their crappy software... well boo-fricken-hoo... down with companies like microsoft who want to keep the old system in place, up with companies like IBM who are willing to adapt. Thats the nature of things.

If im not mistaken, ol' bill shocked a couple of people by saying that people should pay for software oooh... 20 years ago or so...

And today...?

[bandwidth_pig]

Couldn't agree more on the Airlines. Those companies should be prepared for tough times or file for bankruptcy like the rest of us. You wouldn't see Uncle Sam bailing our butts out.

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by bandwidth_pig
"That same company could also make a bigger profit by exporting ALL those programming jobs to India. No paycheck for you."

That actually isn't true. There is a cap at a Federal level on these things. Companies are only permited to do this with so many jobs. There is a process they have to go through. And in the obvious cycle of nature, this is slowly starting to fall apart also. The cost of outsourcing jobs has gone up 100% within the last year and Intellectual Property Law Suits are becoming common as ideas are being stolen and incorporated into another projects solutions. Like we didn't see that coming. It'll just keep getting worse in relation to this, so long term, it's not a problem.

As far as people flipping burgers goes, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but your comment is a bit extreme and not realistic. Perhaps you will agree to disagree, but when people invest a great deal of time and money and work into being something productive in society and then to find that is of burger flipping value, it's everybodys problem who has any interest in a productive world.

My entire response was sarcastic, but also real. Exporting jobs to India, other nations don't have to obey our laws. So, still, there is truth to that. It was just a general comment. I'm not really sure what the limits are on that.

I'm not saying that I agree with what's happening in the USA, but this is what's happening. No one in this country is guaranteed a job, no matter how much they've invested in their education. And I wasn't trying to demoralize anyone who flips burgers, they could just as well manage a hair salon. Again, just examples.

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by dboyer
It's like when the american government bails out the airlines... its a stupid idea... if the airlines are not successful, that means that their business model is flawed/there are too many airlines for the amount of people who are flying... it means that things are changing, and business must change to compensate...

This is the same thing... So what if they can't make money anymore? if business's fail because they can't sell their crappy software... well boo-fricken-hoo... down with companies like microsoft who want to keep the old system in place, up with companies like IBM who are willing to adapt. Thats the nature of things.

If im not mistaken, ol' bill shocked a couple of people by saying that people should pay for software oooh... 20 years ago or so...

And today...?

I agree 100%. The example with the airlines is dead on. So what if they go out of business. If the service is needed and people are willing to pay for it, someone else will open shop. Now if they don't adjust their prices in order to stay afloat, that is a failed business model.

There are too many businesses wanting to be subsidized in this country. IMO, no business should be subsidized in this country. If people aren't willing to pay for something that is not free, then the product isn't that great anyway.

[bandwidth_pig]

"There are too many businesses wanting to be subsidized in this country."

That is true. But if you look at it a little closer...every business is subsidized by the Government in the US. It's called a "write off". People write off everything under the sun when they have a business. Subsidized by the taxpayers who pick up that tab. But on the other hand, perhaps the people benefit from this type of thing. Perhaps it stimulates the economy and is for the greater good as a result. Look at Boeing. I can't think of a more subsidized company. But, Boeing makes a pretty good contribution to the business model of a whole lot of companies. I think it's too complicated to say it should be one way or the other. At least it is for me.

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by bandwidth_pig
"There are too many businesses wanting to be subsidized in this country."

That is true. But if you look at it a little closer...every business is subsidized by the Government in the US. It's called a "write off". People write off everything under the sun when they have a business. Subsidized by the taxpayers who pick up that tab. But on the other hand, perhaps the people benefit from this type of thing. Perhaps it stimulates the economy and is for the greater good as a result. Look at Boeing. I can't think of a more subsidized company. But, Boeing makes a pretty good contribution to the business model of a whole lot of companies. I think it's too complicated to say it should be one way or the other. At least it is for me.

I agree somewhat. But even if there weren't write-offs, the consumers buying their products would still pay the tab. I really don't believe that a business should pay any taxes, because taxes always get transferred to the consumer. This is another example of an industry being subsidized, they're called accountants. Accountants and lawyers seem to think that their jobs should be protected at all costs, even if it's inefficient.

[bandwidth_pig]

"O god the Cathedral/Bazaar(which ever he did) is a BOOK?!?! I thought it would be a paper or something. Looks like fun for me too..."

You know...I think that was by Eric Raymond...wasn't it?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0596001088/qid=1073029042//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/002-0811797-2684055?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Yep. It was. But you know what was funny...we both had our wires crossed the same way. Heck I'll read that too...although I find Stallman more interesting. This is the one I meant to say:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0596002874/qid=1073029075/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-0811797-2684055?v=glance&s=books

[Sepero]

Your argument is "Communism doesn't work". So my question is "Why is GNU/Linux kicking the hell out of other OperatingSystems?".

The answer is somewhat elementary. Think about it this way, let's say you have a farmer. You place that farmer in a communism. This farmer can produce enough food to feed about 5 people. So you would need 1 farmer for every 5 people.

1 farmer=5 people reap benefits

Now let's think about this in computing terms. You place a programmer in front of GNU/Linux. This programmer can produce 1 program. BUT, here's the catch. This 1 program can be distributed to much more than 5 people. In fact, this program can be provided to every computing person on planet earth!

1 programmer=Every person on earth reaps benefits


The benefits of programs can be multiplied INIFINITELY! This is why there is no such a thing as communism in software.



Another very powerful reason FreeSoftware works is because of maintenance(or lack of it). With proprietary software, only the copyright holders may improve on the software. This keeps proprietary programmers unneccessarily busy with fixing bad code.

On the other hand FreeSoftware allows anyone to make corrections to it. This takes a huge burden off the original programmers. People submit their own improvements and the original programmers pick out which ones are best!

The benefit of this is TWO fold. Since FreeSoftware programmers spend less time on 'fixes', they can spend more time on INNOVATION!!!

[JThundley]

pretty well said, but when did "free software" become one word?

[root.veg]

Very interesting thread this. I just remembered this from one of RMS's essays at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html :

Another choice, straightforward but unpleasant, was to leave the computer field. That way my skills would not be misused, but they would still be wasted. I would not be culpable for dividing and restricting computer users, but it would happen nonetheless.

This shows that RMS would rather have gone and worked in some other field than work on proprietary software. The fact that he chose to use his skills to try and advance society is very fortunate for us... but even RMS realised that just because his major skill was in computing, that didn't mean the world somehow owed him a job in computing.

[dboyer]

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2003/tc20031119_9737.htm

You know what mart_man00? The more I think about how a company would make money off of linux, I have come to think it would be hard for a large company to really harness linux and ride it to financial success...

And the more I think about it...

The more I like it :)

[madcompnerd]

In reply to he who thinks Open Source doesn't need to make money:
You're right it doesn't need to. However, this argument is over whether or not open source can replace the closed source business model. Some software needs to make money, because simply put:
Developers have day jobs that they need to put food on their tables. Those Olympics workers had days jobs, and the one's who did jobs for them requiring training most likely had a similar job.

So, we aren't trying to force making money onto Open Source. But if it is to replace closed source it does have to be able to make money. Personally, I don't care either way; but there are some people who think there should be no closed source.

[bandwidth_pig]

Well, the whole concept that you SHOULDN'T make money off open source or "free software" (not free as in beer...free as in freedom) is completely not in line with the Open Source movement or the what the FSF stand for. I think a lot of GNU/Linux users have twisted the meaning or aren't clear on it. RMS is right in that people need to stop equating free software with zero cost because that isn't what this is about at all. Never has been. And the result is a lot of confusion and a lot of people who don't get it (I was in the later category until I did some research recently). And also...if the Open Source or FSF or Linus did not make money...what would they do in the face of the SCOs of the world? Yeah...look to big blue to save their butts. That costs money. And if these folks didn't have people like IBM helping them, they would be lambs taken to slaughter...well except RMS. God help those in front of RMS :D I think watching him defend himself a persron at trial would be quite interesting.

[mart_man00]

If im not mistaken, ol' bill shocked a couple of people by saying that people should pay for software oooh... 20 years ago or so...
Yeah, hes practicly the one that made this a real industry....

Why is GNU/Linux kicking the hell out of other OperatingSystems?".
Linux == Server

NT has been crapping out on people for years, Linux is taking its place. It keeps the jobs because of support. Look at some of those bills...


Ok, we already talked about how OSS on the server is a good think. No one mentioned much about on the desktop.

Most people only use whats preinstalled on the desktops(remember, nerds arnt people:p ) with a couple exceptions(games, some people actualy buy better security products(firewall, antivirus).

What about those apps? Should games be OSS? Free like everything else was intended?

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by madcompnerd
In reply to he who thinks Open Source doesn't need to make money:
You're right it doesn't need to. However, this argument is over whether or not open source can replace the closed source business model. Some software needs to make money, because simply put:
Developers have day jobs that they need to put food on their tables. Those Olympics workers had days jobs, and the one's who did jobs for them requiring training most likely had a similar job.

So, we aren't trying to force making money onto Open Source. But if it is to replace closed source it does have to be able to make money. Personally, I don't care either way; but there are some people who think there should be no closed source.

I have nothing against closed or open source making money, but if that is the main goal, the entire movement is in trouble. I do not agree with OSS replacing proprietary. We need both, without both there is no competition. I don't mean competition for marketshare, I mean competition for quality. Without that competition, eventually the OSS movement would begin to be complacent and think that everything is "good enough".

Again, it's not my problem whether or not anyone (no matter what profession) can put food on their tables. I'm not a totally cold person, but if we're going to start caring about whether or not people eat, then there are lots of people for you to help in Africa, South America, ect. There are certainly no starving people in America. Believe me, if the programmers weren't able to find work in programming, they would find a way to eat. Survival is human nature. If they can't find work elsewhere, they're not that good anyway.

[hard candy]

A business model for open source would be to provide a unique distro and services, such as IBM, Novell, and RedHat hope to supply. A business model for closed source is to provide a unique product that no one else can supply. To my mind they are both based on the fact they will be supplying something that the customer will find convenient, useful, and productive.
Business-wise, they are not that far apart. Philosophically, open source believes the end product will be better due to better input by reviewers and contributors. Closed source believes one should reap the benefit of one's labors for a set amount of time (active patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc). Closed source believes the market will motivate the producer to improve the product.
Which one is better?
For me, I like the idea of everyone "stirring the pot". But if I had developed Microsoft Word and was living off the revenue it produces, my tune would be different.
I like tweaking the nose of Microsoft, its fun.
But I realize that without Microsoft, Novell, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Seimens, Apple, et al, this message would probably be written on paper with an Olivetti typewriter. Making good money is a good motivator for invention. It's not the only motivation but it is powerful.

[mart_man00]

We went over a little while ago how you cant stop anyone from using GPL code. The only thing RedHat has is Enterprise support. I can easily steel RPM and anything i want from them or any other distro.

So how is a desktop company supposed to make any money? How could OSS desktop work out.

They cant charge me $50 bucks for a cd that cost $0.10, they cant restrict other companies from using and packing it. They can only do support. How much money is there in for desktop support?

A different phone number for every app(well, desktop, game most likely)? That wont go over well.

Also i found this interesting
"My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a competitive edge."

GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems.

heh, GNU will....

[mart_man00]

Also, why dont people demand Open Source Hardware?

Its proprietary product, they could just end support or go under business. you cant fire someone to tweak it alittle to better fit your needs.

EE people are better than CS people now?

Only CS people can be happy pumping gas instead of writing kernels?

[AnonyPuss]

I agree with you're entire statement, almost.

" But I realize that without Microsoft, Novell, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Seimens, Apple, et al, this message would probably be written on paper with an Olivetti typewriter"

This is the only part I disagree with. Someone would have figured it out eventually. I once had an economis teacher tell me once that if it weren't for Henry Ford, that all cars would still be made inefficiently. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Just because Ford implemented the assembly line FIRST, doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't have thought of it and implemented it. It was just inevitable. IMO, the same thing applies to software and hardware. Sure the PC might look a little different, but it would have progressed at the same rate.


Oh, BTW, if I see or hear Clay Aiken one more time, I think I'm going to puke.

[hard candy]

Someone would have figured it out eventually.
I think "eventually" is the key word. The companies may have had a different name. How much technology did come out of societies without the profit motive? Aside from defense spending, not much.
Until the marketing people went to work and created a larger market, the demand for computers was pretty well confined to a sector of the business, academic, and scientific communities. Steve Jobs didn't include games on the Macintosh because he wanted the product to be taken seriously. But when games like Doom, Myst, and Civilization became available, look how the market took off.
My point is that "eventually" we would have PC, Macs, etc but would it have been as fast and as cheap? I think not.
They can only do support. How much money is there in for desktop support?
Not much, that's why Redhat got out of desktop support. Suse will be concentrating on businesses with the new Novell products. Mandrake is left and it's probably just hangin in there.

[mart_man00]

Not much, that's why Redhat got out of desktop support.
Exactly, thats why i asked how Desktop Linux could work out. No one could make any money.

[madcompnerd]

Again, it's not my problem whether or not anyone (no matter what profession) can put food on their tables. I'm not a totally cold person, but if we're going to start caring about whether or not people eat, then there are lots of people for you to help in Africa, South America, ect. There are certainly no starving people in America. Believe me, if the programmers weren't able to find work in programming, they would find a way to eat. Survival is human nature. If they can't find work elsewhere, they're not that good anyway.
It's not your problem...until there are no more developers because there is no money to be made doing it. Then suddenly few really know developing well, and then you would care.

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by mart_man00
Exactly, thats why i asked how Desktop Linux could work out. No one could make any money.

Desktop Linux has worked out, or it wouldn't be where it is today. Money is/was not the driving factor. It will continue to work as long as there are people who are interested in keeping it alive.

Sure there are companies that want to make money with it, and are making money with it. IBM makes money with it. SuSE makes money with it. Now there are some companies who haven't been able to make money with it, such as SCO and mandrake. Now that RH is gome from the desktop, Mandrakes future may change. There are no guarantees. That's just a business risk. Fortunately, we as Linux users, are not bound to any of those companies to continue using and improving upon it.

I think you are expecting Linux to generate the kind of money that Windows generates. At this time, that isn't happenning. But MS wouldn't be making as money as they are without the OEM lock-ins and the pyramid schemes they've been running for so long.

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by madcompnerd
It's not your problem...until there are no more developers because there is no money to be made doing it. Then suddenly few really know developing well, and then you would care.

Then , it is still not my problem. Why do you only care about developers? Why not care about those thousands of HP & Compaq workers who lost their jobs? Wrong again, if every paid developer in this country suddenly became unemployed I would not care. I can live without prorietary software. Hell, I can live without computers if I must. People did it for thousands of years before we were born. There are more important things in life than technology.

[mart_man00]

It's not your problem...until there are no more developers because there is no money to be made doing it. Then suddenly few really know developing well, and then you would care.
Yup, nicely put....

Ok, so anyone care to give actualy examples of Desktop Linux working out consider how nothing can be restricted? Weve had plenty of BS Linux(the standard ones), how about somethign specific?

Or how about dealing with the fact theres no OSH(Open Source Hardware) like I mentioned before.

[AnonyPuss]

Originally posted by mart_man00
Yup, nicely put....

Ok, so anyone care to give actualy examples of Desktop Linux working out consider how nothing can be restricted? Weve had plenty of BS Linux(the standard ones), how about somethign specific?

Or how about dealing with the fact theres no OSH(Open Source Hardware) like I mentioned before.

You've been given the examples over over again. This is getting too repetitive for me. OSH, what exactly is that? Do you mean free hardware? Ain't gonna happen.

Go away troll.

[mart_man00]

You've been given the examples over over again.
Which would be what?

Support for people who dont use it(not like anyone would pay for enterprise level support, just the latest virus and bad hardware calls. not like theyd call game companies often)?
Hardware thats only bought once in a few years?
Software that cant be restricted?
Services? What services? Were talking desktop here.

Go away troll.
Hehe, from the "if every paid developer in this country suddenly became unemployed I would not care." man...

Cant wait for you to be in a gutter.....

[bandwidth_pig]

"Cant wait for you to be in a gutter....."

Won't be your problem when it happens either :D

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Sepero]

Or how about dealing with the fact theres no OSH(Open Source Hardware) like I mentioned before.It is smarter to fight one battle at a time, grasshopper...


Should games be OSS?I'm pretty sure that RMS thinks it's ok for 'media' to not be OSS. (and I agree with him)


Ok, we already talked about how OSS on the server is a good think. No one mentioned much about on the desktop.
Most people only use whats preinstalled on the desktopsThis is an exceptionally good reason to use GNU/Linux. How many other operating systems come preinstalled with software like this: 3d games, multiple desktop environments, enterprise quality administration software, multiple hardware emulators, educationalware, encryptionware (GPG), multiple editors and Hexeditors, scientific formula software, Full version partitioning and backup programs, multiple web browsers, instant messengers, and irc programs.

And I didn't even mention the most valuble things! C, C++, Perl, Python, Bash and OpenOffice! Easily worth THOUSANDS of dollars. (and many can attest that I'm not exaggerating on that price)

[dboyer]

I don't think proprietary software makes a significant amount of money off of desktop users... For every way PS can make money, OSS can make money for just about the same reason...

If there is a difference, to me it would be that OSS forces you to keep striving ahead... How many different copies of Office has MS pushed onto companies, schools, users? I can't think of one new feature OfficeXP or 2003(?) has that office97 didn't have that i use.

Just an example (I think Hard Candy hit it pretty hard too)...

OSH? what the hell are you smoking? OPEN THE SIDE OF YOUR CASE. There is your hardware. Looking, that capaciter is hooked to that capaciter, but it goes through that there resister first...

if someone told you how your motherboard worked, could you tweak it? improve it? That OSH stuff is pure troll material... its dumb.

Motherboards are relatively open... I took apart a guitar stompbox once... tons of components that weren't really in the circuit, but looked like they were... tons of this glue putty crusted all over the place so it was hard to make out what was going on... thats proprietary right there...

now i think about it, I've even seen people changing capaciters on motherboards to improve stability... but whatever...

[hard candy]

To me the beauty of open source software is that it is not constrained by company profits or the law. The software is constantly evolving via the evolutionary process. If it's useful, other people besides the original author are changing it to adapt to new situations. Desktop linux is constantly changing due to a pool of people contributing changes. There will be companies around who can make money off linux distros but they will be "small (compared to Microsoft)" since they are late to the game.
I appreciate closed source software if it does the job I need it to do- I have to decide if the price/usefulness ratio is appropriate for me. The Linuxant wireless driver is a very good example- I gladly paid the $20 since it worked well and I needed it. Another example is Transgaming's Winex- $5 per month is a bargain to me for playing commercial games on linux.
I appreciate Microsoft for letting me use a computer very easily back in 1996 with Windows 95. Without Microsoft, I wouldn't have bought a Dell computer with Win95 installed. I was able to play games , create documents, and communicate via email. If it hadn't been Microsoft, it would have been Apple, IBM's OS/2, or some other flavor. But now the price/usefulness ratio of Microsoft software has become too one-sided since open source is available.
The reason there is no open source hardware is that it takes a large investement of time and money to produce the raw materials. Open source software really just requires an investment of time. You can produce it during leisure time.
So I would have have to say that Open Source is dependent on Closed Source . Closed source brings us the equipment, some of the tools, and the time to produce Open Source software. Does it sound like open source is biting the hand that feeds it?

[hard candy]

To me the beauty of open source software is that it is not constrained by company profits or the law. The software is constantly evolving via the evolutionary process. If it's useful, other people besides the original author are changing it to adapt to new situations. Desktop linux is constantly changing due to a pool of people contributing changes. There will be companies around who can make money off linux distros but they will be "small (compared to Microsoft)" since they are late to the game.
I appreciate closed source software if it does the job I need it to do- I have to decide if the price/usefulness ratio is appropriate for me. The Linuxant wireless driver is a very good example- I gladly paid the $20 since it worked well and I needed it. Another example is Transgaming's Winex- $5 per month is a bargain to me for playing commercial games on linux.
I appreciate Microsoft for letting me use a computer very easily back in 1996 with Windows 95. Without Microsoft, I wouldn't have bought a Dell computer with Win95 installed. I was able to play games , create documents, and communicate via email. If it hadn't been Microsoft, it would have been Apple, IBM's OS/2, or some other flavor. But now the price/usefulness ratio of Microsoft software has become too one-sided since open source is available.
The reason there is no open source hardware is that it takes a large investement of time and money to produce the raw materials. Open source software really just requires an investment of time. You can produce it during leisure time.
So I would have have to say that Open Source is dependent on Closed Source . Closed source brings us the equipment, some of the tools, and the time to produce Open Source software. Does it sound like open source is biting the hand that feeds it?

[EnigmaOne]

I held onto this since the originally-quoted texts appeared--just to make sure I really wanted to drop this into this thread. The disturbing thing--to me--is that I have pared my response down quite a bit; but everytime I re-read it, it seems like I've left something pertinent to the subject left unsaid and I find myself tempted to add to it some more.
At this point, I have such a raging headache that I really don't care, so I'm tossing it in without following-up on the intervening activity. Forgive any spelling screw-ups and any errors in grammar or logical construct...I'll fix 'em after I get over this creeping-crud flu-bug.

Originally posted by mart_man00
Also, why dont people demand Open Source Hardware?Because, in the so-called 'PC Hardware Market,' they don't (so far) have to demand what they already have.
Open Architecture is its appellation, and that's pretty much what you buy when you buy an ix86-based machine (AMD, Intel, or otherwise). For just about every hardware standard incorporated into the typical motherboard/finished PC, there is a standard specification document available to the public; and, given the intelligence and resources, anyone can build their own--from the drafting board to booting the OS. Open Architecture is also why IBM lost the 'Clone Wars,' and learned a very valuable lesson that, for the most part, seems to have stuck with them through the years.

Mac was (and maybe still is) a good example of closed-architecture equipment.

We battled those issues out, through the '80s and early-mid-'90s, so you don't have to....for the moment, that is. (Was MCA really THAT long ago???)
Keep an eye on Palladium, tho'. It is not your friend, and will probably be the next major engagement in the war.

(NOTE: Even 1284, 1394, CNR and USB are openly-specified interfaces; although, microsoft was involved in defining USB--and it certainly shows. You may want to visit--among others--the IEEE, IBM and Intel websites to read-up on things like this.)

EE people are better than CS people now?With certain givens, they're co-equals in most respects. On the other hand, EEs, as a whole, have less fashion-sense. (I prefer faded 501s and white tee shirts to this very day.)

Only CS people can be happy pumping gas instead of writing kernels?If you drop the false-dilemma....probably....depends on who you ask.
The true scum-bags in the CS camp are too superficial to be happy with anything but, "more, more, more!" They're too busy trying to figure out how to wring enough royalties out of their latest 'innovative' use of printf() to finance this year's Lamborgini.
The truly excellent among the CS types very probably could be happy flipping burgers or pumping gas with one hand; while kernel-coding on a laptop with the other hand--they're multi-taskers at heart. For many, coding isn't the only source of their income anyway.
The up-shot of the situation is that the truly excellent among the CSes won't lack meaningful revenue-generating situations because, for the most-part, they can take care of themselves.

The rest? Well, they're just so much irrelevant dross.
It's called "Survival," and only the best get to do so.

(Ignoring the fact that most EEs can present a fair-hand to programming tasks [it's a natural extension of their skill-set], and most CSes don't know the difference between a MOSFET and an SCR; the EEs already went through their industry upheavals back in the '70s/'80s, so let's just leave them in relative peace, shall we?)

Given the way you're approaching this, I find myself pondering what we're really dealing with here?
I wonder if you're:
1) Being deliberately obtuse by asking essentially the same question, over and over, with no real interest in the issues you're raising.
2) Somebody who, in an angst-tinged way, simply worries about other peoples' life choices too much; and refuses to accept the validity of the answers you've already been given.
3) Possessed of a genuine academic interest in the subject, but lack the awareness that your questions have been adequately answered.
4) A high-schooler who is pretty good at programming who had hoped to make a flash-in-the-pan killing in the software market; and think it's unfair that it looks like you won't get your 'easy money' too.
5) An undergrad having second thoughts (newly-declared) or regrets (about to graduate) about a choice of majors.
6) Someone already in the industry (possibly locked-in at the coder or project management level) who is going through a panic phase--trying to determine which ship will ultimately sink.
If 1 or 2 or 3 then exit and find a hobby or watch the Disney Channel or Rin & Stimpy for a day or two. [In short, go away.]
ElseIf 4 then don't plan on it and exit and play some Nintendo or, watch Old Yeller and Ann of Green Gables for a day or two. [In short, go away.]
ElseIf 5 then If(newly-declared_major) then redeclare(major) else get(fellowship) and go_for(your_masters) and get(drunk). [In short, go away.]
ElseIf 6 then read on [Now that we've taken care of all the "Go away" cases.]

OSS is out there and it can't be legislated or extend-embraced-buried away. Proprietary and Open Source Software solutions will learn to co-exist in the future; with proprietary software adopting a different design priorities and pricing structure that the market will tolerate. The consumer will--ultimately--be back in the driver's seat (at least to a greater degree than they are today), and will benefit greatly from the changes wrought through the next few years.
Those coding individuals who can, will survive. Those who can't, won't. It really is that simple.

Now....more to the "underpinnings" of your questions:
Many of us, out here, lived through the rise of microsoft and other so-called software giants; and, without being overly melodramatic about it, those were some dark days. In reading what you've said (or, more importantly, what you haven't said) so far, I do believe that you have no concept of what existed in the CS/IT universe before the present state of affairs.

Throughout the late 70's and 80's, custom hardware builds and custom coding were the norm in many parts of the United States back then; and pretty much everyone involved was doing quite well for themselves and their families.
Then, along came a few guys that felt it should be 'them' making the profit instead of those folks who could be considered small enough to be squashed.

I saw legions of those kinds of people--many of them personal friends of mine--run out of business by the policies and actions of a ruthlessly-predacious minority. I stopped wondering what it was all for, because the simple answer is "greed."
From Tempe, AZ to the Pacific Ocean; from Eureka to Agunga, I watched small-time code shops and independent hardware vendor/integrators disappear. Some folks lost their homes and even their marriages to the unbearable financial stress.
Some folks survived by kissing some money-grubbing booty in accepting per-processor licensing, cliff-pricing schemes and the then-current warning on the grapevine: "If the microsoft rep says, 'On your knees!' plan on swallowing until you gag." Tacit deals to lock the competition out of the retail distribution channels were the order of the day; and, while there were other offenders, microsoft was the organization leading the charge.

[I have deleted my very specific, personal observations from this era since, given the disingenuousness of your questions, you would consider them to be nothing other than mere fiction. It's also likely that any first-hand references to Teletype Model 43, S360/75, CDC 3300, "PDP-20" as a misnomer, Don Lancaster, S-100, Multibus, iRMX, ISIS, Altair, IMSAI and CP/M would be lost on you, so what's the point?]
That happened sometime around late-1980s to early-1990s time-frame....definitely JUST BEFORE Michaelangelo got the kind of hysterical press coverage that it didn't deserve.
Peter Norton, who wrote some of his first stuff in Pascal and iAPX86 assembler, sold out to Symantec. Steve Gibson, a truly brilliant EE and assembler coder, stayed independent and has been doing just fine. Funny, he gives a lot of his own work away for free too--to this very day--and I do have quite a few sources from him (well, they're around here somewhere...it's been years).

I survived by diversifying my service offerings to cover almost anything that runs on electricity, and spreading myself so thin that I know my way around the entire state. For a while, I didn't say, "No" to any opportunity (From teaching some little old lady how to use her patched copy of WordStar 3.0 in Moonstone, CA; to selling a bunch of UNIX-based XT-286s to a hotel/truckstop in Ehrenberg, AZ.), and more often than I'd care to admit, I lost my shirt on jobs. Most of the time I did turn a profit, and I built up a loyal client-base. Now I *can* and do say, "No" to opportunities--often--because I can spot a bad job (and customer) when I see one; or I can do work for free--which I often do as well. I'll put the rest of my kids through college, thank-you-very-much.

With the advent of a new-fervor over OSS, only now do I see the signs of a turn-around. A gradual move back in the direction of regaining the near cottage-industry that used to exist in coding and hardware offerings; but, if you haven't been around long enough, you don't realize that we're just returning to a general set of environmental conditions that worked just fine before the corporate code houses messed things up--and there was plenty of source floating around back then too.
If you do happen to have a vested interest in the continued survival (in its present state) of the corporate code houses, you probably have a high-level of awareness that the best coding talent in the world isn't owned by those corporate concerns, and there is no way to compete with OSS in terms of skill or pricing.
Assuming that's the case, and you feel nervous about the future...good. There were 50- 100 independent programmers and hardware vendors who ended up biting the dust during the '80s-'90s, for each and every corporate programmer or admin type who is shifting nervously right now. If you're in a blind-panic, that's even better in my opinion.
If the industry tanks completely, I'll be the first to step-up and publicly call it "Justice, too long in the coming."

The pendulum is swinging back in the direction from whence it originally came; and, yes, if corporations (along with their blind employees) are in the way...oh jeepers, too bad..."Payback time! Coming through!" If you're in the way, it's because that's exactly where you want to be; so what you think about is completely irrelevant.

It's nothing personal. It's just freedom:
"The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense."--Richard Stallman, 2004

[mart_man00]

Given the way you're approaching this, I find myself pondering what we're really dealing with here?
...

Being deliberately obtuse by asking essentially the same question, over and over, with no real interest in the issues you're raising.
So far no real answer. I already had enough Support and Server replies...

2) Somebody who, in an angst-tinged way, simply worries about other peoples' life choices too much; and refuses to accept the validity of the answers you've already been given.
Yeah, not desktop....

3) Possessed of a genuine academic interest in the subject, but lack the awareness that your questions have been adequately answered.
hehe....

4) A high-schooler who is pretty good at programming who had hoped to make a flash-in-the-pan killing in the software market; and think it's unfair that it looks like you won't get your 'easy money' too.
Dont think ill have a job at all....

5) An undergrad having second thoughts (newly-declared) or regrets (about to graduate) about a choice of majors.
Lol, thanks to a local guru (old assmebly man for GM, made a killing with Cobol and practicly anything old), probally wont do CS. Already have a "you are not a 'developer'!" talk...

Steve Gibson, a truly brilliant EE and assembler coder, stayed independent and has been doing just fine.
We already went over how the Kernel, Support and eveything Enterprise works out fine with OSS.

Im asking for a Game Dev or some one. Desktop software. The little companies out there.

They have to show the code and they cant restrict anything. So i can easily but a free version on my website, how do they make any money?

[bandwidth_pig]

If I had to pick, I would go with EE over CS any day.

[mart_man00]

If I had to pick, I would go with EE over CS any day.
Yeah, I always said that.

They actualy do reall programming and atleat where i want to go skip most of the crap(im always around a VB guy, always....).

But theres plenty of little apps out there, no ones mentioned games yet either.

The truly excellent among the CS types very probably could be happy flipping burgers or pumping gas with one hand; while kernel-coding on a laptop with the other hand--they're multi-taskers at heart.
Dont really buy that...

Throughout the late 70's and 80's, custom hardware builds and custom coding were the norm in many parts of the United States back then; and pretty much everyone involved was doing quite well for themselves and their families.
I wasnt around then, live not to far from some one that made a killing with that...

CP/M would be lost on you, so what's the point?]
Heh, now i have to dig up that disk for my beloved //c now(normally use prodos, really have to get off my butt and learn some assembly...)...

O yeah, EnigmaOne, mention anything you want. I dont mind getting a history lesson or walking down the street to learn about stoneage computing:p Thank for mentioning that stuff....

[madcompnerd]

The truly excellent among the CS types very probably could be happy flipping burgers or pumping gas with one hand; while kernel-coding on a laptop with the other hand--they're multi-taskers at heart.
Sure, if it could put kids through college. I see your point, and in my perspective I don't really care too much about money. Don't get me wrong, I am human and I want a certain amount. But I am happy to receive money for my services. I don't really want a "get rich quick" scheme, and when I speak of them I mean the ones that have worked.
Real life though, flipping burgers is the last thing I want to spend 8 hours a day doing. Well, actually it's better than getting shot at, but still. And it would never put kids through college :).


Com S guys aren't doing VB, .net, and such as their only platform of development. Are we aware of it, of course. Many learn it, it's taught at my college in entry level courses. NOTE: It's taught as entry level along with c++.

[dboyer]

Right now I'm through 1 semester as a EE major/CS minor, and I have to say the future is looking better and better for me.. I don't want to program in cubicle anyways :-)

mart_man00: I think the problem is not that you're not recieving and answer, but rather you're not recieving the answer you want. Do you want us to tell you the magic trick to making a living off of end users? Do you want us to tell you how to make a quick early-ninties-style cool couple million off of some really retarted useless program/website? Welcome to the real world, where you have to work hard and create worth in order to make money. Scary isn't it?

EnigmaOne: I unfortunetly have to admit to missing out on some of the... ahem, "great" experiences you have (a friend of mine has a similiar story... he hooked me up with my first computer, a 286), but I can still recognize that as a great post ;-)

[bandwidth_pig]

Just curious if any of you have ever read this (not like it's new or anything...but a good read):

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

As I see it, Stallman is pretty much saying that GNU is the majority of the Linux system and Linux is just the kernel. It's an old argument and what has been the start of a religious war or two. What is interesting though, is he does not seem to lump FreeBSD or any of the BSDs within this same category. He seems to feel that without GNU, there would have been no Linux system, but there would still be a FreeBSD system. Can't say I follow that logic. Isn't what Stallman is saying is pretty much like saying Windows isn't Windows without programs like Winzip? Could we not say that MS developed the Windows kernel, but not the majority of software people use on the OS? I guess one could say that MS Intrudes beyond the OS and we all know this is true. But KDE goes beyond the realm of just a window manager also. But, the LInux kernel is just the Kernel and that hasn't changed (again the confusion in relation to BSD).

I know this doesn't really fit under this topic, but I know it has been talked about here before. Although, try finding a topic in the search function here and see what you find for this subject. It's like looking for a needle in a hay stack. I was tempted to start another thread for it, but thought due to it's redundant nature to tuck it under here since it seems to sort of fit in the scope of interest within this thread.

[dboyer]

I think Stallman has done wonders to push OSS/Free Software/GPL/Etc farther (it is practacally his brainchild)... But sometimes I think he acts a lot like a small child:

I can't wonder if he is simply trying to ride Linux's popularity... Does the GPL say anything about keeping a piece of codes name? KISS used MPlayer code on their dvd players... they didn't call it KISS-MPlayer DVD players, did they?? Every time I see a quote from Stallman about Linux VS. GNU/Linux I just want to scream... if linux needs him so bad, he should just go write his own damn kernel (as he has been trying to finish up for years... haha)

On a side note, I saw this on groklaw today... made me think of this thread: Well, some people don't understand sharing. That's the bottom line. And they interpret any proximity to actual sharing as somebody unfairly taking their stuff, whereas they don't perceive their taking yours as unfair at all. It's called selfishness, and most of us outgrow it, with a little help from our parents, friends and siblings. "

interesting point... SCO is looking from licenses for linux use, but they arn't going to ever (so they say...) go after home users... only commercial companies... ;)

aparrently SCO doesn't have mart_man00's magic business plan either. haha.

[Sepero]

On the topic of Linux vs GNU/Linux:

Richard Stallman began creation of the GNU system before Linux even existed. Richard Stallman was the one to introduce Linus to the GNU system. He also was the one to convince Linus to use the GPL license, therefore ensuring Linux's freedom for all of us. Saying GNU/Linux(instead of just Linux) is a VERY small way for me to pay my respects to Richard and all those that freely created the GNU system.

[bandwidth_pig]

I have a tendency to agree with Sepero. GNU accounts for up to 30% of the software distributed with Linux. Where would we be without gcc or make? Both are important...but I guess when I read that article it kind of opened my eyes. Still don't understand why more of what he said isn't applicable to FreeBSD as well though. Alex? Where are you Alex???

[mart_man00]

Do you want us to tell you the magic trick to making a living off of end users?
Guess no one got the hint, enough 'course linux can work in busines/desktops!' and some real details. Jesh...

A couple of nice off topics were mentioned but in the end, looks like desktop cant do to well. Look how many blind followers replied, then see how many examples.

Please, enough sheep...

We did how its a nice idea/posted RMS' community hippie stuff. We did the server and support angle. Desktop anyone?

Thanks for the serious replies...

[dboyer]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009YFXT/qid=1073621610//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl23/102-5229168-4447345?v=glance&s=electronics&n=507846

Even though I KNOW you are a troll, here is someone using free software to make a profit off of end users...

[AnonyPuss]

Someone really should lock this thread, it is blatantly obvious he/she is a troll.

As I have said in a previous post, he has been given numerous examples of companies making money with Linux, and he refuses to accept the answers. He probably read too many SCO press releases before starting the thread.

Check out his last post:

http://justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=680113#post680113

"Ive been looking for a good Cad/Model app for Linux/BSD forever now. Still cant find anything compared to Autodesk Inventor. Wish theyd port it or something, at this point id pay(probally just the annoying educational ones...)."

He's asking how to make money with Linux, and then says "at this point id pay", meaning he wasn't willing to pay previously. Someone wanting to know how to make money with Linux, but not willing to pay. Hypocrite.

Please don't feed the trolls.

[Sepero]

I almost Never do this... but I vote for a thread lock too.

[Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379]

I'm going to vote not to lock this one.

I mean, he's not really trolling, per se. He might be a little nitpicky, but he's asking a valid question. Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but if you're asking how you can make money by selling free software to end users, the answer is that it's probably pretty slim that you could. At least, that's my opinion.

My reasoning: The GPL allows you to buy a CD with Free Software on it, and you are able to let as many people as you'd like use the CD to install the software. Also, so long as a company makes their software freely downloadable, few have the impetus to buy the software, so long as they can download it.

...And there's the quandary (I think that word's appropriate here): People like to try this stuff before they buy it. In order for them to try it, you'd have to make it downloadable. But if it's downloadable, they'd have no reason to buy.

But, let's stop calling each other trolls. This discussion can be a very good one. If someone has a valid way that a company can make money by selling Linux to end users, I'm sure mart_man00, as well as a few companies, would like to hear about it. About the only way that I see a company making money off of the end users is through supplying support and documentation for their product, items which are unavailable to those who simply download the product instead of buying it.

But, to bandwidth_pig:

I'm not an authorized representative of the FreeBSD Project or anything, but the goal of FreeBSD, as well as all of the BSD licenses, is wide code use and exposure. I don't think the focus there would be so much the making of money off of end-users or companies by selling a BSD-- instead, I think the emphasis would be on using FreeBSD to make money, like running a web server or a database solution. So, if there was an aim for making money, a BSD (or the support thereof) wouldn't be the product that made the money, a BSD would be the tool that made the product that made the money. :cool:

But, let's get back on track. Apparently, mart_man00's true question is how can someone make money with Linux and consumer/desktop/end users? I, too, would be interested in some of the responses to that question, too.

[AnonyPuss]

Lindows is making money. SuSE made money. Of course there are money others that don't. I paid for 2 Red Hat subscriptions and box sets and also purchased 2 SuSE box sets (which are not cheap). So I would say, that's how one would/could make money with Linux. I personally don't like SuSE too much after getting some experience, but hey, to each his own.

Okay, maybe he's not a troll, but I've read the entire thread, beginning to end, three times to see if maybe I'm wrong. Could be. He's been around almost a year and most of his other posts are legit. Maybe it's just ignorance, and I don't mean that in a bad way. Some folks just don't comprehend some things. I can't comprehend how McDonalds stays in business. IMO, they're food is crap. In my family, I always ate well. My parents never ate out. It was always home cooked meals, nutricious. So when I eat fast food I just can't understand why people choose it. I know it's for convenience, but as long as people stand in lines, making a sandwich takes less time. I understand people on the go, I mean when people choose it, over home cooking. Maybe I'm old fashioned in many ways, I don't even have cable TV, still on rabbit ears. I just don't watch much television, would rather read.

I'm no expert in Linux, but after the first month using, I understood the GPL very well and I didn't have to start a thread to get help understanding it.

I believe it's simple; you write an application that runs atop Linux, with all original code. If it's usefull and unique, people buy it. Under that scenerio, you're not forced to GPL it or give it away. Thats how you make money with Linux. But I also think you're right, with just the Kernel and some standard apps common on most Distros, there's nothing to differentiate between them. So whatever app he would write would need to be unique, and something that people have a need for. IE Codeweavers, Oracle, IBM, ect. They make money with Linux. Now most desktop users don't need IBM or Oracle, but I've bought Crossover Office for home use, not to run MS Office, though. OTOH, he could write such an application, but without a proper business plan and good marketing, he's going to make little or nothing. Nothing is guaranteed in any business, except the IRS and funeral homes.

Maybe he's thinking in terms of making the kind of money that MS, Symantec, ect. make. Well, if he writes the "killer app", it can happen. But if he were an experienced programmer/developer capable of writing those kinds of apps, he would already know how to make money with Linux. Write the killer app that people need and/or want.

He also mentioned people stealing his warez. Well, that's part of the biz, he can't stop it. But not everyone is a theif. If it has value and is usefull, people will pay for it. Most people are honest.

My take on the thread was that he believed that Linux is/was supposed to make money. It's not supposed to, but can. If we're talking about the kernel, chances are slim to zero. If we're talking about applications, refer to my comments above.

Anywho, I just don't see how this is so hard to understand because of some very good examples and explanations offered.

[dboyer]

He also mentioned people stealing his warez. Well, that's part of the biz, he can't stop it. But not everyone is a theif. If it has value and is usefull, people will pay for it. Most people are honest.

I actually think Adobe profits off of each copy of Photoshop stolen... when someone sees a digitally doctored photo, they don't remark "that was print shop pro-ed!" they say "someone photoshopped that".

From my interpetation, the big stumbling block was "value adding". mart_man00 looks at current business models such as MS (it makes sense). If you look at XP and 95, the major differences are some cosmetic changes (from a somewhat barren default scheme, which is okay in my book, to a default skin of "happy tellytubby time"), and many "bug fixes" that should have been done right the first time. What 95, 98, and ME(!!) were was incremental upgrades that many people paid lots of $$ for. Open a folder in xp. Copy some files. The interface actually works very similiar (although the open-in-one-window option WAS a decent feature added in 98).

I don't think it will be possible to play this game in a few years (if not 5, then 10... eventually)

Look at Suns "Looking Glass" (i believe) GUI. They took linux and built something unique upon it. (VERY unique, if you have seen any videos of it being worked). Look at apple. They took a freely available code and worked it into a cohesive and effective operating system (one I hate, but works for tons of other people).

Look at the link i gave you a while ago. MPlayer is freely available, right? who would pay 300 for it? WEELL, if you build a hardware player out of the code (the kiss player may not use 100% of MPlayer code, or be exclusively MPlayer based code, but I know its there) and sold that? BAM. Unique. Value added... People are willing to pay.

You can make money. You may not be able to make cashflow like some of the big software houses right now do, but if you can find a niche and a useful market for your product, then you're all set.

AnonyPuss makes a point... Time to fess up MM00... Did you pay for the distro you're running right now? any of the software on it? does that bother you? Does that sort of free (beer) software bother you? or only when you can't sell YOUR software to people?

When it comes down to it, nobody has to GPL anything. Giving your program/code a license is optional. With so many developers flocking to it, there becomes a bigger question. When a lot of these projects mature, will there be a market for non-free(dom) software anymore?

[bandwidth_pig]

"Apparently, mart_man00's true question is how can someone make money with Linux and consumer/desktop/end users?"

I still think it is through games. If you examine the threads here, or just go off your memory, how many posts have you read where somebody is keeping Windows just to play games on it? I have read a ton. And frankly, winex just doesn't work that great (at least it didn't when I was using it about a year ago). To me saying that people won't pay for Linux software just isn't true. People pay for Windows software. And as we all know, you don't have to. Everybody knows you don't have to. But people do because as pointed out, for the most part people are fairly honest when you look at the masses. The demand is obviously there. So, be it something similar to Winex, but works a lot better, or creating real Linux games (yeah...that whole Bill Gates game doesn't count :D ) the market is there.

[AnonyPuss]

Games would be an excellent idea. I don't play any of the games, so I never thought of that. They would need to run natively, though, if for no other reason, then for the added cost(s) of emulators.