|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message
|
Message is undeliverable.
Reason: Unable to access cc:Mail Post office.
Please retry later.
Original text follows:
---------------------
Received: from nitrous.nothinbut.net by venn.siam.org (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.00)
; Tue, 12 Jan 99 01:13:38 -0500
Return-Path: <plug-request@lists.nothinbut.net>
Received: (from list@localhost)
by nitrous.nothinbut.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) id BAA02709;
Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:13:10 -0500
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:13:10 -0500
Message-ID: <016601be3df1$dec52fb0$0b01a8c0@SIMKISS3.uu.net>
From: "John A. Simkiss III" <jas3@netreach.net>
To: <plug@lists.nothinbut.net>
Subject: Newsweek Article, PLUG, & Open Source
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:07:43 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0163_01BE3DC7.F4FA8E80"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Resent-Message-ID: <"pCw7uC.A.Sq.2fum2"@nitrous>
Resent-From: plug@lists.nothinbut.net
X-Mailing-List: <plug@lists.nothinbut.net> archive/latest/300
X-Loop: plug@lists.nothinbut.net
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: plug-request@lists.nothinbut.net
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0163_01BE3DC7.F4FA8E80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ladies & Gents:
First an introduction: I am a not a wizard and not a newbie. I've been =
lurking here for some time and have Linux running on my Compaq (read: =
junk) home PC and my corporate Dell Latitude Notebook (not junk, which =
is why I don't let the kids near it). I've some formal programming =
experience and much real world business experience, so I thought I would =
post my thoughts on the latest meeting, on Eric's talk, and on Open =
Source (formerly "free software") in general. Feel free to hit the =
delete key now, should you choose.
I have not posted the Newsweek article, although I have read it and was =
a little disappointed. Its at =
http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/ty0103_1.htm. One of the =
contributers, Arlyn Tobias Gajilan was at the meeting. The author was =
not there and didn't understand Arlyn's notes. In particular, the =
article says that Eric was "comparing [the Linux & Open Source] movement =
to the "gift economy" of Kalahari tribesmen in Africa." In fact, Eric =
mentioned the bushmen only to criticize anthropologists who spuriously =
claim that these tribesmen have no property rights. Eric pointed out =
that they do have property rights and defend water holes, which are =
valuable because they are both scarce and easy to defend. He was =
discussing American Indians of the Pacific Northwest in reference to the =
gift culture.
I took rather copious notes on Eric's speech and found it rather well =
presented, although I would disagree with many of his points. Eric's =
first paper "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is a seminal work that will =
be remembered as one of the most important papers on software of this =
century. If you haven't read it, go read it now. I have added my notes =
to the bottom of this e-mail should you care to peruse them. In fact, =
if you have Eric's address, you might forward this to him, since it does =
contain some (hopefully constructive) criticism. I didn't take notes on =
the portion of his speech dealing with being an effective advocate, =
since I am not in the MIS biz.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Notes from Eric S. Raymond=92s Presentation to the Philadelphia Linux =
Users Group
January 6, 1999
Eric gave the group a quick summary of his previous two papers and a =
preview of his third paper "The Magic Cauldron." The theme of his third =
paper is based on the sociologic and economic motivations that were the =
impetus for the creation and development of Linux into its current =
position as the single most technologically sophisticated and reliable =
operating system ever created.
Eric began by comparing the 3 methods of coming into ownership of =
property under Anglo-Saxon law with the 3 methods of acquiring ownership =
of software. He drew analogies between pioneers homesteading a =
previously uninhabited/unowned property to founding a new software =
project. He equated the transfer of ownership of a piece of property to =
the previous owner of an existing software project transferring (selling =
or giving) that software to a new owner. And finally, he compared the =
user who comes to own software that is not currently owned or maintained =
by anyone to the common law concept of acquiring ownership of land =
through adverse possession.
Eric seemed to be surprised by the parallels. After all, he pointed out, =
what could be more dissimilar than tangible, finite property with =
intangible, infinite software code.=20
>From a sociologically point of view, he opined that the creation of the =
concepts of territory and property are conflict avoidance devices. He =
argued that anthropologists who state that not all cultures have =
property rights are in error. Even the bushmen who have no defined =
hunting territories, do own and defend their water holes. Value of an =
item is relative to its scarcity and the ability to defend the item. =
Further, the better the quality of real property in terms of its ability =
to yield product, the more advanced the property rights system, across =
all cultures.
Eric thought that the concept of "forking" (where versions of a software =
project diverge into their own entities) is a taboo within the hacker =
culture. He thought that the time and energy people spend defending =
their actions after a software fork belie the fact that the culpable =
parties know they are violating a social norm. This concept was met with =
considerable scepticism by the audience.
1.. If cultures are adaptive and people will defend their title to =
property because of the yields of ownership, then how does one explain =
the emergence of the open source model of software ?
1.. Peer admiration.
There are 3 types of cultures, and within each, man (and woman - don't =
give me a hard time here. "man" means both man and woman) competes for =
social status due to existing evolutionary tendencies. In the command =
hierarchy, he with the biggest club or control of those with the biggest =
clubs controls others and has the highest social status. However, the =
command hierarchy doesn=92t scale very well. As this type of community =
grows, the lower ranked individuals tend to create inefficiencies =
through their designs on higher ranks.
In the exchange economy, he with the most to trade has the highest =
status. But note that the command hierarchy can exist parasitically on =
top of the exchange hierarchy. Last is the gift culture in which he who =
gives away the most gains the greatest stature. Such cultures existed in =
the Pacific Northwest and tend to only thrive in environments in which =
the members are "wealthy," i.e. they have more than their basic needs =
for survival and exist in a relatively benign environment. The impetus =
for this behavior, according to Eric, is also evolutionarily disposed. =
Eric=92s anarchic/libertarian views were evident in this portion of his =
speech.
(One wonders how a gift culture can exist for an extended period of =
time. Those ecosystems that would foster the gift culture, i.e. the =
richest communities are the most subject to a phenomenon that tends to =
equalize relative wealth among cultures of various levels of wealth: =
reproduction. In those natural systems which have the most resources =
available to its population, reproduction, followed by rapid population =
growth tends to lower the wealth of the average member to a level =
similar to that in ecosystems of average or even below average =
resources. In fact, such rich environments often lead to population =
explosions creating an ecosystem rather low in average wealth, which =
leads to a population implosion).
The Hacker Culture is quite similar to the gift culture, with members =
competing for status through their contributions to the source code. It =
is an "epi-phenomonon" which floats on top of an exchange culture =
because the exchange game does not motivate Hackers. And the hackers =
have both the time and knowledge to compete with each other. However, =
the Hacker Culture is a more pure type of gift culture, because the =
"gifts" have absolutely no exchange value whatsoever.
Economics of Open Source
Why doesn=92t Harden=92s Tragedy of the Commons apply to Open Source ? =
Or, in other words, if an asset is "free" isn=92t it always misused or =
aren=92t resources misallocated? Eric argues "No." The difference is =
that Open Source contributions actually improve the Commons, whereas in =
Harden=92s model, the Commons are rapidly depleted through overuse. =
(What Eric misses here is that the hackers are not necessarily the same =
as the cattle owners who over-graze the commons because the hackers are =
not necessarily the end users). Thus in Open Source, there is an inverse =
commons effect. OS is a positive sum game, whereas the commons is =
negative sum.
Eric also discussed an economics game in which a professor puts $5 into =
a jar and doubles the amount still in the jar every 5 minutes. The =
students are free to take the money out of the jar at any time. In =
theory, the participants act selfishly the first few times the =
experiment is run, but then learn to cooperate to maximize their =
individual self-interests. (Eric failed to point out why those in =
Harden=92s Commons are unable to come to a similar cooperative =
agreement). If you can cite the source for this economics game, Eric =
wants to hear from you, since he can't find it.
The inverse commons model and the economics game will form 2 of the 3 =
themes of "The Magic Cauldron" with an addition in which Eric discusses =
the circumstances under which a negative sum game can turn into a =
neutral or positive sum game.
He then discussed Open Source advocacy within commercial enterprises.
Comments from moi (jas3):
a.. Eric has correctly identified the motivations for the Linux =
community=92s contributions to the source code. Peer admiration and the =
ability to contribute to a body of existing code are powerful =
motivations for the hackers and wizards responsible for its creation and =
development. Once it gained a critical mass, contributing to the =
creation of Linux within the Hacker culture became an honor for the most =
technologically savvy coders. Plus, there is a certain aesthetic to =
working on something which is technically beautiful.
a.. Eric did not discuss the needs that Linux was able to fill. It =
is an educational device for those studying Operating Systems. It is a =
tool for those who cannot afford the licensing fees Microsoft requires.
a.. However, he misses point that many of the programmers have other =
incentives. Educators have created and use Linux to teach their students =
how operating systems function. Much functionality has been added, not =
by those who are trying to impress others, but by those who need that =
functionality. This need often arises for the hobbyist, such as the =
extensive support for Ham radio stations, but also arises within the =
business world.
a.. The comparison of the Tragedy of the Commons to the development =
of Linux misses a point. The cattle owners who are grazing the Commons =
are competing for a scarce resource. The programmers who created Linux =
have an abundance of resources that allow them the time to compete with =
each other for status within their programmer community. The grazers are =
fighting for their survival. The coders are writing in their spare time =
(when not playing Doom).
a.. The development of LINUX for personal computers and servers has =
been largely possible through the incompetence of the commercial =
software developers, chiefly Microsoft. The application developers are =
hardly better than Microsoft, which has to its advantage a de facto =
monopoly not available to most application developers.=20
a.. The PLUG=92s and Eric=92s hope that Open Source becomes a model =
for the entire software industry borders on the religious. Open Source =
should and will succeed only if it is a better model for developers and =
consumers.=20
In the end, the commercial software industry could remedy most of the =
problems that have led to the emergence of Linux and the OS model if =
they would make a few changes. Although these changes will be hard for =
the software publishers to adopt, those that do will survive. Those that =
don=92t, =85
Most application developers would be wise to adopt some of the more =
successful practices of Linux and the Open Source model, such as:=20
a.. The rapid identification and correction of bugs in software, =
followed by the immediate distribution to existing clients of the =
corrected software at no additional cost.
b.. The release of the source code to the customer, with licensing =
rights that allow customer to make changes that suit his business needs. =
Or at least, the release of the source code to a select group of =
customers who have the desire and the technical ability to review it. =
Perhaps these customers could be the same customers who Beta test =
commercial software. Perhaps the software publishers could incentivize =
the customer base by rewarding those who found (and corrected) bugs =
economically (free software - trips to EuroDisney - cold hard cash).
c.. The creation of user forums to which employees of the publisher =
can and do contribute the solutions to problems.
d.. The release of new software at no (or at least minimal) cost to =
new users, e.g. Vueprint at Hamrick Software.
e.. To the extent that today=92s commercial software developers can =
become more responsive to their customers needs more rapidly, Open =
Source software may be a solution looking for a problem. I am willing to =
concede that Linux may be an exception to the rule, but only because =
Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems. This monopoly gives MS =
the ability to distribute buggy, bulky, slow, poorly documented, =
overpriced software, for which there is no competition. MS has been able =
to leverage its OS monopoly into creating a host of application programs =
that through predatory pricing, coercion, theft, and purchase of its =
competitors have driven much of its competition out of business. It=92s =
practices in polluting the JAVA language were driven for one reason =
only: to kill the thin client applications that would (or might) render =
its OS superfluous.
I recognize that the last bullet is anathema to most PLUG members and to =
the general OS community. And I wish you luck, but in the business =
world, I believe that the commercial application developers WILL wise =
up. Word Perfect, for instance, did release a Linux version, but I =
don't think they'll ever release the source...
Comments, Insults, Flames welcome to either here (assuming the moderator =
approves) or to me at:
jas3@netreach.net
------=_NextPart_000_0163_01BE3DC7.F4FA8E80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Ladies & Gents:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>First an introduction: I am a not a =
wizard and=20
not a newbie. I've been lurking here for some time and have Linux =
running=20
on my Compaq (read: junk) home PC and my corporate Dell Latitude =
Notebook (not=20
junk, which is why I don't let the kids near it). I've some formal =
programming experience and much real world business experience, so I =
thought I=20
would post my thoughts on the latest meeting, on Eric's talk, and on =
Open Source=20
(formerly "free software") in general. Feel free to hit =
the=20
delete key now, should you choose.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I have not posted the Newsweek =
article, although=20
I have read it and was a little disappointed. Its at <A=20
href=3D"http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/ty0103_1.htm";>http:/=
/www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/ty0103_1.htm</A>. =20
One of the contributers, Arlyn Tobias Gajilan was at the meeting. =
The=20
author was not there and didn't understand Arlyn's notes. In =
particular,=20
the article says that Eric was "comparing [the Linux & Open =
Source]=20
movement to the "gift economy" of Kalahari tribesmen in=20
Africa." In fact, Eric mentioned the bushmen only to =
criticize=20
anthropologists who spuriously claim that these tribesmen have no =
property=20
rights. Eric pointed out that they do have property rights and =
defend=20
water holes, which are valuable because they are both scarce and easy to =
defend. He was discussing American Indians of the Pacific =
Northwest in=20
reference to the gift culture.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I took rather copious notes on =
Eric's speech and=20
found it rather well presented, although I would disagree with many of =
his=20
points. Eric's first paper "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is a =
seminal=20
work that will be remembered as one of the most important papers on =
software of=20
this century. If you haven't read it, go read it now. I have =
added=20
my notes to the bottom of this e-mail should you care to peruse =
them. In=20
fact, if you have Eric's address, you might forward this to him, since =
it does=20
contain some (hopefully constructive) criticism. I didn't take =
notes on=20
the portion of his speech dealing with being an effective advocate, =
since I am=20
not in the MIS biz.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000=20
size=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><B><I><U>
<P align=3Dcenter>Notes from Eric S. Raymond’s Presentation to the =
Philadelphia Linux Users Group</P></B></U>
<P align=3Dcenter></P>
<P align=3Dcenter>January 6, 1999</P><FONT size=3D2>
<P align=3Dcenter></P>
<P align=3Dcenter> </P></I>
<P>Eric gave the group a quick summary of his previous two papers and a =
preview=20
of his third paper "The Magic Cauldron." The theme of his =
third paper=20
is based on the sociologic and economic motivations that were the =
impetus for=20
the creation and development of Linux into its current position as the =
single=20
most technologically sophisticated and reliable operating system ever=20
created.</P>
<P>Eric began by comparing the 3 methods of coming into ownership of =
property=20
under Anglo-Saxon law with the 3 methods of acquiring ownership of =
software. He=20
drew analogies between pioneers homesteading a previously =
uninhabited/unowned=20
property to founding a new software project. He equated the transfer of=20
ownership of a piece of property to the previous owner of an existing =
software=20
project transferring (selling or giving) that software to a new owner. =
And=20
finally, he compared the user who comes to own software that is not =
currently=20
owned or maintained by anyone to the common law concept of acquiring =
ownership=20
of land through adverse possession.</P>
<P>Eric seemed to be surprised by the parallels. After all, he pointed =
out, what=20
could be more dissimilar than tangible, finite property with intangible, =
infinite software code. </P>
<P>From a sociologically point of view, he opined that the creation of =
the=20
concepts of territory and property are conflict avoidance devices. He =
argued=20
that anthropologists who state that not all cultures have property =
rights are in=20
error. Even the bushmen who have no defined hunting territories, do own =
and=20
defend their water holes. Value of an item is relative to its scarcity =
and the=20
ability to defend the item. Further, the better the quality of real =
property in=20
terms of its ability to yield product, the more advanced the property =
rights=20
system, across all cultures.</P>
<P>Eric thought that the concept of "forking" (where versions =
of a=20
software project diverge into their own entities) is a taboo within the =
hacker=20
culture. He thought that the time and energy people spend defending =
their=20
actions after a software fork belie the fact that the culpable parties =
know they=20
are violating a social norm. This concept was met with considerable =
scepticism=20
by the audience.</P>
<OL start=3D17 type=3DA>
<LI>If cultures are adaptive and people will defend their title to =
property=20
because of the yields of ownership, then how does one explain the =
emergence=20
of the open source model of software ?</LI></OL>
<OL type=3DA>
<LI>Peer admiration.</LI></OL>
<P>There are 3 types of cultures, and within each, man (and woman - =
don't give=20
me a hard time here. "man" means both man and woman) competes =
for=20
social status due to existing evolutionary tendencies. In the command =
hierarchy,=20
he with the biggest club or control of those with the biggest clubs =
controls=20
others and has the highest social status. However, the command hierarchy =
doesn’t scale very well. As this type of community grows, the =
lower ranked=20
individuals tend to create inefficiencies through their designs on =
higher=20
ranks.</P>
<P>In the exchange economy, he with the most to trade has the highest =
status.=20
But note that the command hierarchy can exist parasitically on top of =
the=20
exchange hierarchy. Last is the gift culture in which he who gives away =
the most=20
gains the greatest stature. Such cultures existed in the Pacific =
Northwest and=20
tend to only thrive in environments in which the members are=20
"wealthy," i.e. they have more than their basic needs for =
survival and=20
exist in a relatively benign environment. The impetus for this behavior, =
according to Eric, is also evolutionarily disposed. Eric’s=20
anarchic/libertarian views were evident in this portion of his =
speech.</P>
<P>(One wonders how a gift culture can exist for an extended period of =
time.=20
Those ecosystems that would foster the gift culture, i.e. the richest=20
communities are the most subject to a phenomenon that tends to equalize =
relative=20
wealth among cultures of various levels of wealth: reproduction. In =
those=20
natural systems which have the most resources available to its =
population,=20
reproduction, followed by rapid population growth tends to lower the =
wealth of=20
the average member to a level similar to that in ecosystems of average =
or even=20
below average resources. In fact, such rich environments often lead to=20
population explosions creating an ecosystem rather low in average =
wealth, which=20
leads to a population implosion).</P>
<P>The Hacker Culture is quite similar to the gift culture, with members =
competing for status through their contributions to the source code. It =
is an=20
"epi-phenomonon" which floats on top of an exchange culture =
because=20
the exchange game does not motivate Hackers. And the hackers have both =
the time=20
and knowledge to compete with each other. However, the Hacker Culture is =
a more=20
pure type of gift culture, because the "gifts" have absolutely =
no=20
exchange value whatsoever.</P>
<P>Economics of Open Source</P>
<P>Why doesn’t Harden’s Tragedy of the Commons apply to Open =
Source=20
? Or, in other words, if an asset is "free" isn’t it =
always=20
misused or aren’t resources misallocated? Eric argues =
"No." The=20
difference is that Open Source contributions actually improve the =
Commons,=20
whereas in Harden’s model, the Commons are rapidly depleted =
through=20
overuse. (What Eric misses here is that the hackers are not necessarily =
the same=20
as the cattle owners who over-graze the commons because the hackers are =
not=20
necessarily the end users). Thus in Open Source, there is an inverse =
commons=20
effect. OS is a positive sum game, whereas the commons is negative =
sum.</P>
<P>Eric also discussed an economics game in which a professor puts $5 =
into a jar=20
and doubles the amount still in the jar every 5 minutes. The students =
are free=20
to take the money out of the jar at any time. In theory, the =
participants act=20
selfishly the first few times the experiment is run, but then learn to =
cooperate=20
to maximize their individual self-interests. (Eric failed to point out =
why those=20
in Harden’s Commons are unable to come to a similar cooperative=20
agreement). If you can cite the source for this economics game, =
Eric wants=20
to hear from you, since he can't find it.</P>
<P>The inverse commons model and the economics game will form 2 of the 3 =
themes=20
of "The Magic Cauldron" with an addition in which Eric =
discusses the=20
circumstances under which a negative sum game can turn into a neutral or =
positive sum game.</P>
<P>He then discussed Open Source advocacy within commercial =
enterprises.</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Comments from moi (jas3):</P>
<UL>
<LI>Eric has correctly identified the motivations for the Linux=20
community’s contributions to the source code. Peer admiration =
and the=20
ability to contribute to a body of existing code are powerful =
motivations=20
for the hackers and wizards responsible for its creation and =
development.=20
Once it gained a critical mass, contributing to the creation of =
Linux within=20
the Hacker culture became an honor for the most technologically =
savvy=20
coders. Plus, there is a certain aesthetic to working on =
something which is technically beautiful.</LI></UL>
<UL>
<LI>Eric did not discuss the needs that Linux was able to fill. It =
is an=20
educational device for those studying Operating Systems. It is a =
tool for=20
those who cannot afford the licensing fees Microsoft =
requires.</LI></UL>
<UL>
<LI>However, he misses point that many of the programmers have other =
incentives. Educators have created and use Linux to teach their =
students how=20
operating systems function. Much functionality has been added, not =
by those=20
who are trying to impress others, but by those who need that =
functionality.=20
This need often arises for the hobbyist, such as the extensive =
support for=20
Ham radio stations, but also arises within the business =
world.</LI></UL>
<UL>
<LI>The comparison of the Tragedy of the Commons to the development =
of Linux=20
misses a point. The cattle owners who are grazing the Commons are =
competing=20
for a scarce resource. The programmers who created Linux have an =
abundance=20
of resources that allow them the time to compete with each other for =
status=20
within their programmer community. The grazers are fighting for =
their=20
survival. The coders are writing in their spare time (when not =
playing=20
Doom).</LI></UL>
<UL>
<LI>The development of LINUX for personal computers and servers has =
been=20
largely possible through the incompetence of the commercial software =
developers, chiefly Microsoft. The application developers are hardly =
better=20
than Microsoft, which has to its advantage a de facto monopoly not =
available=20
to most application developers. </LI></UL>
<UL>
<LI>The PLUG’s and Eric’s hope that Open Source becomes =
a model=20
for the entire software industry borders on the religious. Open =
Source=20
should and will succeed only if it is a better model for developers =
and=20
consumers. </LI></UL>
<P>In the end, the commercial software industry could remedy most of the =
problems that have led to the emergence of Linux and the OS model if =
they would=20
make a few changes. Although these changes will be hard for the software =
publishers to adopt, those that do will survive. Those that don’t, =
…</P>
<P>Most application developers would be wise to adopt some of the more=20
successful practices of Linux and the Open Source model, such as: </P>
<UL>
<LI>The rapid identification and correction of bugs in software, =
followed by=20
the immediate distribution to existing clients of the corrected =
software=20
<B><I>at no additional cost</B></I>.</LI>
<LI>The release of the source code to the customer, with licensing =
rights=20
that allow customer to make changes that suit his business needs. Or =
at=20
least, the release of the source code to a select group of customers =
who=20
have the desire and the technical ability to review it. Perhaps =
these=20
customers could be the same customers who Beta test commercial =
software.=20
Perhaps the software publishers could incentivize the customer base =
by=20
rewarding those who found (and corrected) bugs economically (free =
software -=20
trips to EuroDisney - cold hard cash).</LI>
<LI>The creation of user forums to which employees of the publisher =
can and=20
do contribute the solutions to problems.</LI>
<LI>The release of new software at no (or at least minimal) cost to =
new=20
users, e.g. Vueprint at Hamrick Software.</LI>
<LI>To the extent that today’s commercial software developers =
can=20
become more responsive to their customers needs more rapidly, Open =
Source=20
software may be a solution looking for a problem. I am willing to =
concede=20
that Linux may be an exception to the rule, but only because =
Microsoft has a=20
monopoly in operating systems. This monopoly gives MS the ability to =
distribute buggy, bulky, slow, poorly documented, overpriced =
software, for=20
which there is no competition. MS has been able to leverage its OS =
monopoly=20
into creating a host of application programs that through predatory =
pricing,=20
coercion, theft, and purchase of its competitors have driven much of =
its=20
competition out of business. It’s practices in polluting the =
JAVA=20
language were driven for one reason only: to kill the thin client=20
applications that would (or might) render its OS =
superfluous.</LI></UL>
<P>I recognize that the last bullet is anathema to most PLUG members and =
to the=20
general OS community. And I wish you luck, but in the business =
world, I=20
believe that the commercial application developers WILL wise up. =
Word=20
Perfect, for instance, did release a Linux version, but I don't think =
they'll=20
ever release the source...</P>
<P>Comments, Insults, Flames welcome to either here (assuming the =
moderator=20
approves) or to me at:</P>
<P><A href=3D"mailto:jas3@netreach.net";>jas3@netreach.net</A></P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0163_01BE3DC7.F4FA8E80--
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with the word 'unsubscribe' in the subject
or body of your message to plug-request@lists.nothinbut.net
|
|