[OT - intelligent debate:)] Interesting thoughts on the effect of open source software and business.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Waylon Kenning, Nov 21, 2004.

  1. I was searching on the net for Peoplesoft Training (it looks to be an
    important thing to learn, people with Peoplesoft skills seem to be in
    high demand and commanding a high salary) when I remembered the night
    before that I downloaded SugarSalesCRM (Customer Relationship
    Management).

    SugarCRM (www.sugarcrm.com) specializes in supporting SugarCRM which
    is an opensouce project freely downloadable from www.sourceforge.net.
    Unlike other CRM making companies, CRM doesn't exactly make their
    money selling their code, but more from selling support (either via
    their Sugar Pro solution or Sugar Cube servers all set up and good to
    go).

    SugarCRM has a pretty powerful intelligent website. When I looked at
    the bottom of the website, I saw that it was powered by Mambo Server
    (http://www.mamboserver.com/) which also happens to be an open source
    project. Now Mambo Server's software is incredibly powerful software,
    and I believe they could easily sell it, yet they too give away their
    code, which other people and companies base their companies and
    projects around.

    Even while downloading Mambo Server, I saw that their Mamboforge was
    based on code from http://gforge.org/.

    The point of this post is from where I'm sitting, open source software
    encourages innovation because small companies can base their company
    around existing open source software, without having the need for the
    capital which would normally be needed to get such companies off the
    ground. In these cases, small companies don't have a lot of capital to
    spend, yet everyone has intelligence (I know some posts in here make
    that sound debatable) so can utilize commercially unsupported open
    source software.

    And how do such companies make money? Support of course. While anyone
    can download the software, for myself it's easier to learn how to use
    the software than buy it, but for larger more established businesses,
    it's easier to get such projects commercially supported than support
    it themselves. But even if SugarCRM went bust tomorrow, because the
    project is open source, a business does have all the code to manage
    the application themselves.

    I believe that open source software is changing the software industry
    from more selling code to selling support. And when I have a business
    of my own, you can better your money that I'll base it around open
    source software so I can spend less money on software, and more money
    on developing my business.

    What's everyone else's thoughts on the effect of open source software
    on businesses? Will we see a tidal wave of small businesses based on
    open source software competing with the big boys, or will the big boys
    always have their place, and these small companies will always come a
    distant second?
    --
    Regards,
    Waylon Kenning.

    1st Year B.I.T. WelTec
     
    Waylon Kenning, Nov 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Waylon Kenning

    Peter Guest

    Waylon Kenning wrote:
    > What's everyone else's thoughts on the effect of open source software
    > on businesses? Will we see a tidal wave of small businesses based on
    > open source software competing with the big boys, or will the big boys
    > always have their place, and these small companies will always come a
    > distant second?


    The really great new ideas usually come from small guys, not from the old
    incumbents. We need to be sure new ideas and new players can flourish.
    Of course, this is a threat to the big boys, so they are trying to shut out
    newcomers through use of patents and licences and such.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Nov 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Waylon Kenning

    impossible Guest

    "Waylon Kenning" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    <snip>
    >
    > The point of this post is from where I'm sitting, open source software
    > encourages innovation because small companies can base their company
    > around existing open source software, without having the need for the
    > capital which would normally be needed to get such companies off the
    > ground. In these cases, small companies don't have a lot of capital to
    > spend, yet everyone has intelligence (I know some posts in here make
    > that sound debatable) so can utilize commercially unsupported open
    > source software.


    I think it's an open question whether or not the open-source path is
    actually a better, more cost-effective option for a small business with
    limited capital. That will depend a great deal on the nature of the business
    and the resources it has at its disposal. I'm sure you can think of many
    cases in which off-the-shelf products from Peachtree or Adobe or (dare I
    say?) Microsoft will get the job done just fine, without the cost or bother
    of hiring specialized support staff. In other cases, of course, the
    customization and control that OS offers may well be worth an investment in
    these resources. Either path can be said to encourage business innovation in
    its own way, so I don't think that's the issue. As with decisions about a
    lot of technology, it will probably come down to making (and hedging) bets
    on what will turn out to be an intelligent choice 5 years down the road.

    >
    > And how do such companies make money? Support of course. While anyone
    > can download the software, for myself it's easier to learn how to use
    > the software than buy it, but for larger more established businesses,
    > it's easier to get such projects commercially supported than support
    > it themselves. But even if SugarCRM went bust tomorrow, because the
    > project is open source, a business does have all the code to manage
    > the application themselves.


    A company that bets on any proprietary software product is clearly taking a
    chance, which helps to explain why established software producers (what you
    call "the big boys") often have an edge, even if their code might be
    construed by some to be inferior in certain respects -- customers are
    willing to trade off product short-comings for the perceived stabilty of
    the outfit backing it. The risk in betting on OS products is different only
    in the sense that it's the stability of the development and support you
    invest in or outsource that will concern you. Fact is, if the OS support
    company goes bust, you're just as royally screwed as if you'd purchased some
    deadend propretary product. Sure, you can hire someone else to try to sort
    the code out for you, but it's never as simple as many OS advocates would
    have you believe. As you say, OS service outfits make their money doing this
    stuff -- it's hardly in their interest to make the services they perform
    redundant.

    > I believe that open source software is changing the software industry
    > from more selling code to selling support. And when I have a business
    > of my own, you can better your money that I'll base it around open
    > source software so I can spend less money on software, and more money
    > on developing my business.


    There's no question that OS is changing the software industry. But selling
    code and selling code-support aren't really such different trades. I'm
    betting you're smart enough not to bet the ranch on either.
     
    impossible, Nov 21, 2004
    #3
  4. It seems like Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:46:11 -0500 was when "impossible"
    <> said Blah blah blah...

    >I think it's an open question whether or not the open-source path is
    >actually a better, more cost-effective option for a small business with
    >limited capital. That will depend a great deal on the nature of the business
    >and the resources it has at its disposal. I'm sure you can think of many
    >cases in which off-the-shelf products from Peachtree or Adobe or (dare I
    >say?) Microsoft will get the job done just fine, without the cost or bother
    >of hiring specialized support staff. In other cases, of course, the
    >customization and control that OS offers may well be worth an investment in
    >these resources. Either path can be said to encourage business innovation in
    >its own way, so I don't think that's the issue. As with decisions about a
    >lot of technology, it will probably come down to making (and hedging) bets
    >on what will turn out to be an intelligent choice 5 years down the road.

    I understand what you mean about off the shelf software, I'm pretty
    certain there are a lot more specialist Photoshop people in the world
    out there than GIMP people, and I'm not too sure how well said
    Photoshop people would go if you dumped them with GIMP without
    training, which means productivity wise it probably was better off to
    go with Photoshop. Still, I think effective professional development
    can change that.

    >A company that bets on any proprietary software product is clearly taking a
    >chance, which helps to explain why established software producers (what you
    >call "the big boys") often have an edge, even if their code might be
    >construed by some to be inferior in certain respects -- customers are
    >willing to trade off product short-comings for the perceived stabilty of
    >the outfit backing it. The risk in betting on OS products is different only
    >in the sense that it's the stability of the development and support you
    >invest in or outsource that will concern you. Fact is, if the OS support
    >company goes bust, you're just as royally screwed as if you'd purchased some
    >deadend propretary product. Sure, you can hire someone else to try to sort
    >the code out for you, but it's never as simple as many OS advocates would
    >have you believe. As you say, OS service outfits make their money doing this
    >stuff -- it's hardly in their interest to make the services they perform
    >redundant.

    I have seen in the past excellent software just stopped being
    supported, leaving one with old buggy code and no chance at fixing
    that. For example, CamStudio. Was open source software until bought by
    Macromedia who turned it into RoboDemo or Create or Consume or
    something that starts with C. However, because the software is open
    source the code is still available on the internet, for modification,
    and then for further release. What effect an open source fork of code
    has on the commercial fork of code, I don't know.

    I was just reading an interesting article at
    http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1012844522;fp;4;fpid;4 which
    talks about five trends impacting business, Open Source Continues to
    Grow Dramatically, Open Source Endorsed Further Up the Software Stack,
    Open Source as the Foundation of a Business Model, Products
    Revitalized with Open Source Strategy, and Open Source Models Are
    Adapted by Project Avalanche.

    >There's no question that OS is changing the software industry. But selling
    >code and selling code-support aren't really such different trades. I'm
    >betting you're smart enough not to bet the ranch on either.

    I am willing to bet the ranch on eTraining and professional
    development becoming *the* big thing over the next 5-10 years.
    Education is linked to technology with a rubber band, and the further
    technology moves ahead, the bigger education needs to catch up.
    Especially with technology today that does make this "learn when you
    want, where you want, how you want" style of training realistically
    possible, expect PD to be the big silent wave.
    --
    Regards,
    Waylon Kenning.

    1st Year B.I.T. WelTec
     
    Waylon Kenning, Nov 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Waylon Kenning

    impossible Guest

    "Waylon Kenning" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It seems like Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:46:11 -0500 was when "impossible"
    > <> said Blah blah blah...
    >
    >>I think it's an open question whether or not the open-source path is
    >>actually a better, more cost-effective option for a small business with
    >>limited capital. That will depend a great deal on the nature of the
    >>business
    >>and the resources it has at its disposal. I'm sure you can think of many
    >>cases in which off-the-shelf products from Peachtree or Adobe or (dare I
    >>say?) Microsoft will get the job done just fine, without the cost or
    >>bother
    >>of hiring specialized support staff. In other cases, of course, the
    >>customization and control that OS offers may well be worth an investment
    >>in
    >>these resources. Either path can be said to encourage business innovation
    >>in
    >>its own way, so I don't think that's the issue. As with decisions about a
    >>lot of technology, it will probably come down to making (and hedging) bets
    >>on what will turn out to be an intelligent choice 5 years down the road.


    > I understand what you mean about off the shelf software, I'm pretty
    > certain there are a lot more specialist Photoshop people in the world
    > out there than GIMP people, and I'm not too sure how well said
    > Photoshop people would go if you dumped them with GIMP without
    > training, which means productivity wise it probably was better off to
    > go with Photoshop. Still, I think effective professional development
    > can change that.


    No question about that. Comparable OS applications could certainly be
    created. But then why haven't they? I suspect it's because of what you say,
    that the money in all of this is in the service end -- custom-tailoring
    generic business applications. There's not going to be a lot of value in a
    first-class OS rendition of Photoshop, say, except maybe as a demonstration
    of what's possible for someone to do.

    >
    >>A company that bets on any proprietary software product is clearly taking
    >>a
    >>chance, which helps to explain why established software producers (what
    >>you
    >>call "the big boys") often have an edge, even if their code might be
    >>construed by some to be inferior in certain respects -- customers are
    >>willing to trade off product short-comings for the perceived stabilty of
    >>the outfit backing it. The risk in betting on OS products is different
    >>only
    >>in the sense that it's the stability of the development and support you
    >>invest in or outsource that will concern you. Fact is, if the OS support
    >>company goes bust, you're just as royally screwed as if you'd purchased
    >>some
    >>deadend propretary product. Sure, you can hire someone else to try to sort
    >>the code out for you, but it's never as simple as many OS advocates would
    >>have you believe. As you say, OS service outfits make their money doing
    >>this
    >>stuff -- it's hardly in their interest to make the services they perform
    >>redundant.


    > I have seen in the past excellent software just stopped being
    > supported, leaving one with old buggy code and no chance at fixing
    > that. For example, CamStudio. Was open source software until bought by
    > Macromedia who turned it into RoboDemo or Create or Consume or
    > something that starts with C. However, because the software is open
    > source the code is still available on the internet, for modification,
    > and then for further release. What effect an open source fork of code
    > has on the commercial fork of code, I don't know.


    I don't know either. Interesting question. Can OS code be cobbled together
    with proprietary code under a proprietary license? I'm not a developer
    myself. How does that work exactly? Is it simply a matter of acknowledging
    the OS source of certain bits and pieces? From a legal standpoint, is OS
    code the equivalent of code what's in the public domain? Hopefully someone
    can clarify this.

    >
    > I was just reading an interesting article at
    > http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1012844522;fp;4;fpid;4 which
    > talks about five trends impacting business, Open Source Continues to
    > Grow Dramatically, Open Source Endorsed Further Up the Software Stack,
    > Open Source as the Foundation of a Business Model, Products
    > Revitalized with Open Source Strategy, and Open Source Models Are
    > Adapted by Project Avalanche.


    I'm sure that's all true. I just don't know what you can predict about the
    future from any of that. One scenario is that Microsoft and the other big
    boys will continue to steadily lose market share to the OS movement.
    Another, no less likely in my view, is that sooner rather than later we'll
    see the whole software industry morph into something like the old textile
    industry -- a less than cutting-edge preoccupation of developing countries
    who lack the wherewithal to invest in the really modern technology of the
    day (whatever that turns out to be).

    >
    >>There's no question that OS is changing the software industry. But selling
    >>code and selling code-support aren't really such different trades. I'm
    >>betting you're smart enough not to bet the ranch on either.


    > I am willing to bet the ranch on eTraining and professional
    > development becoming *the* big thing over the next 5-10 years.
    > Education is linked to technology with a rubber band, and the further
    > technology moves ahead, the bigger education needs to catch up.
    > Especially with technology today that does make this "learn when you
    > want, where you want, how you want" style of training realistically
    > possible, expect PD to be the big silent wave.


    Good for you! I think that's the best possible approach anyone could take
    nowadays.
     
    impossible, Nov 21, 2004
    #5
  6. It seems like Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:25:54 -0500 was when "impossible"
    <> said Blah blah blah...

    >No question about that. Comparable OS applications could certainly be
    >created. But then why haven't they? I suspect it's because of what you say,
    >that the money in all of this is in the service end -- custom-tailoring
    >generic business applications. There's not going to be a lot of value in a
    >first-class OS rendition of Photoshop, say, except maybe as a demonstration
    >of what's possible for someone to do.

    As I see GIMP, GIMP is a super powerful photo-manipulation program,
    without a doubt. What it lacks is ease of use. And I don't see that
    getting better because the people who use GIMP and want features code
    them themselves, but no one wants to be stuck doing boring GUI design
    (or documentation for that matter, not specifically speaking about
    GIMP, but other OS applications). Perhaps a thought for university and
    polytechnic projects would be to do stuff like creating better GUIs
    and documentation for some OS applications, where at least that's
    possible with OS.

    >I don't know either. Interesting question. Can OS code be cobbled together
    >with proprietary code under a proprietary license? I'm not a developer
    >myself. How does that work exactly? Is it simply a matter of acknowledging
    >the OS source of certain bits and pieces? From a legal standpoint, is OS
    >code the equivalent of code what's in the public domain? Hopefully someone
    >can clarify this.

    In CamStudio's case, Macromedia bought all the code from the original
    developers (which they're entitled to do). I believe once code has
    been OS'd, it's OS'd for life pretty much, but the original owners
    have the right to sell the code to other developers who can make the
    code from the next revision proprietary. But since previous editions
    of the code were OS'd, then the OS community can continue developing
    the code from there. I remember reading a while back about SCO
    claiming certain parts of Linux code are their stolen IP, yet people
    were saying since SCO released Linux under an OS license themselves
    (Caldera anyone?), their claims were null and void. Sorry I couldn't
    answer your question though.

    >I'm sure that's all true. I just don't know what you can predict about the
    >future from any of that. One scenario is that Microsoft and the other big
    >boys will continue to steadily lose market share to the OS movement.
    >Another, no less likely in my view, is that sooner rather than later we'll
    >see the whole software industry morph into something like the old textile
    >industry -- a less than cutting-edge preoccupation of developing countries
    >who lack the wherewithal to invest in the really modern technology of the
    >day (whatever that turns out to be).

    In the article I quoted above, it notes that CA have given it's
    database Ingres to the OS community
    (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5219373.html). A worry was that
    'big boy' companies will just dump their old tired code into OS
    projects and try and reap the benefits (Solaris anyone?:)). I don't
    know what effect big companies jumping on the OS bandwagon will have
    on them, however, it'll continue to give the OS movement credibility I
    think.

    >> I am willing to bet the ranch on eTraining and professional
    >> development becoming *the* big thing over the next 5-10 years.
    >> Education is linked to technology with a rubber band, and the further
    >> technology moves ahead, the bigger education needs to catch up.
    >> Especially with technology today that does make this "learn when you
    >> want, where you want, how you want" style of training realistically
    >> possible, expect PD to be the big silent wave.

    >
    >Good for you! I think that's the best possible approach anyone could take
    >nowadays.


    Yeah, getting into PD is a lot easier than getting into the other big
    wave, bioscience, and there's not so many ethical concerns. What I'd
    like to see is the best practice development models for pedagogy in
    schools compared to what's happening in the Enterprise, and this
    knowledge combined and made open to anyone. I honestly believe that
    education is a solution to many of problems in life that people and
    the world has. Now we just need more effective ways to enhance that
    process.
    --
    Regards,
    Waylon Kenning.

    1st Year B.I.T. WelTec
     
    Waylon Kenning, Nov 21, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    Waylon Kenning <> wrote:

    >A worry was that
    >'big boy' companies will just dump their old tired code into OS
    >projects and try and reap the benefits (Solaris anyone?:)).


    So how could this hurt anything? They're not selling the software, so
    there's no way they can drive some other open-source software product
    out of business. They couldn't fund an advertising/PR campaign to, say,
    persuade people to switch to Solaris instead of Linux or *BSD.

    So tired old code is going to remain tired old code, and quietly
    disappear into obscurity. Unless some clever developers find something
    genuinely interesting to do with it...
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Re: [OT - intelligent debate:)] Interesting thoughts on the effectof open source software and business.

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > So tired old code is going to remain tired old code, and quietly
    > disappear into obscurity. Unless some clever developers find something
    > genuinely interesting to do with it...


    infact they could actually help the tired old company by adding to and
    making the code better.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Nov 22, 2004
    #8
  9. Re: [OT - intelligent debate:)] Interesting thoughts on the effectof open source software and business.

    Hi there,

    Waylon Kenning wrote:
    > It seems like Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:25:54 -0500 was when "impossible"
    > <> said Blah blah blah...
    >
    >
    >>No question about that. Comparable OS applications could certainly be
    >>created. But then why haven't they? I suspect it's because of what you say,
    >>that the money in all of this is in the service end -- custom-tailoring
    >>generic business applications. There's not going to be a lot of value in a
    >>first-class OS rendition of Photoshop, say, except maybe as a demonstration
    >>of what's possible for someone to do.

    >
    > As I see GIMP, GIMP is a super powerful photo-manipulation program,
    > without a doubt. What it lacks is ease of use. And I don't see that
    > getting better because the people who use GIMP and want features code
    > them themselves, but no one wants to be stuck doing boring GUI design
    > (or documentation for that matter, not specifically speaking about
    > GIMP, but other OS applications). Perhaps a thought for university and
    > polytechnic projects would be to do stuff like creating better GUIs
    > and documentation for some OS applications, where at least that's
    > possible with OS.


    Gimp lacks a few things that Photoshop has (CMYK is biggest one I can
    think of), but the reverse is also true. I think people just need to
    accept that Gimp isn't really trying to be a complete Photoshop clone,
    and get over it and on with it. If any similarities exist between the
    the two its because certain concepts of graphics editing/design cannot
    be done in radically differing ways with ease. IT publications tend to
    rubbish Gimp because 'photoshop can do this'...thats crap, and if you
    look at it as a different software to learn from scratch, and stop
    comparing it to Photoshop you'll see it is every bit as potentially
    creative and rewarding to learn as any other software...

    Gimp is perfect for the home user anyway, since its free. Photoshop
    is not commonly found in the home due to its prohibitive price...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Remove spamblocker to send replies direct to my email...
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Nov 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Waylon Kenning

    Chris Hope Guest

    Chris Wilkinson wrote:

    > Hi there,
    >
    > Waylon Kenning wrote:
    >> It seems like Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:25:54 -0500 was when "impossible"
    >> <> said Blah blah blah...
    >>
    >>
    >>>No question about that. Comparable OS applications could certainly be
    >>>created. But then why haven't they? I suspect it's because of what you
    >>>say, that the money in all of this is in the service end --
    >>>custom-tailoring generic business applications. There's not going to be a
    >>>lot of value in a first-class OS rendition of Photoshop, say, except
    >>>maybe as a demonstration of what's possible for someone to do.

    >>
    >> As I see GIMP, GIMP is a super powerful photo-manipulation program,
    >> without a doubt. What it lacks is ease of use. And I don't see that
    >> getting better because the people who use GIMP and want features code
    >> them themselves, but no one wants to be stuck doing boring GUI design
    >> (or documentation for that matter, not specifically speaking about
    >> GIMP, but other OS applications). Perhaps a thought for university and
    >> polytechnic projects would be to do stuff like creating better GUIs
    >> and documentation for some OS applications, where at least that's
    >> possible with OS.

    >
    > Gimp lacks a few things that Photoshop has (CMYK is biggest one I can
    > think of), but the reverse is also true. I think people just need to
    > accept that Gimp isn't really trying to be a complete Photoshop clone,
    > and get over it and on with it. If any similarities exist between the
    > the two its because certain concepts of graphics editing/design cannot
    > be done in radically differing ways with ease. IT publications tend to
    > rubbish Gimp because 'photoshop can do this'...thats crap, and if you
    > look at it as a different software to learn from scratch, and stop
    > comparing it to Photoshop you'll see it is every bit as potentially
    > creative and rewarding to learn as any other software...
    >
    > Gimp is perfect for the home user anyway, since its free. Photoshop
    > is not commonly found in the home due to its prohibitive price...


    However there is Photoshop Elements which is very cheap (~120?) and contains
    a lot of the functionality of full PS. I was surprised the first time I
    used it to see how capable it is.

    I like the idea of the Gimp (esp that it runs on my platform of choice
    whereas PS doesn't) but I find PS so much easier to use. Also all the
    designs for the websites I work on come in PS format and the Gimp sometimes
    has problems with the files and its faster to just deal with them in PS.

    --
    Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/
     
    Chris Hope, Nov 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Re: [OT - intelligent debate:)] Interesting thoughts on the effectof open source software and business.

    Chris Hope wrote:
    >>Gimp is perfect for the home user anyway, since its free. Photoshop
    >>is not commonly found in the home due to its prohibitive price...


    > However there is Photoshop Elements which is very cheap (~120?) and contains
    > a lot of the functionality of full PS. I was surprised the first time I
    > used it to see how capable it is.


    personally I prefer PS Elements to both PS and GIMP, simply because it
    has more than I require, and doesnt give me too many options... too many
    options are bad if you dont know what you're doing in the first place :)
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Nov 24, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. -=rjh=-
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    479
    -=rjh=-
    Sep 30, 2005
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open-Source Good, Closed-Source Bad

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    493
    Gordon
    Oct 16, 2005
  3. Paul Furman

    Interesting photoshop effect

    Paul Furman, Aug 4, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    708
    Paul Furman
    Aug 6, 2008
  4. thing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    390
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    May 28, 2009
  5. impossible

    Open source business model looks shakey

    impossible, Nov 22, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    707
    impossible
    Nov 24, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page