On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 07:37:23PM +0200, Wim De Smet wrote:
Good analisys, but there is something missing, the problem is not "yeah my company is doing free software so the investors are preoccupied", the problem is that the "old economy" is trying to put the "free software economy" out of his market (this is a big problem and not only on the software).
Off course, it also has something to do with the fact that numerous companies went out of business the past months. Investor trust is hard to find, and a conservative business model is the way VA Linux is trying to convince them to stick with it.
Am I the only one not scared by this? I agree with your technical analysis, but there are some profound implications. I found ESR's explanation poor to the point of me losing what little respect I have left for his ideas, in that I find his arguments weaken with every thing he publishes (the idea of furbage I thought missed the point and begged the question; his explanation of VA's 'change of tactic' is little more than a tacit admission of defeat).
What is particularly galling is that no-one seems to be coming out saying how bad this is - OSDN in particular (vested interests, I know) seems to be becoming more and more anti-Free Software. The fact of the matter is that to attempt to please investors, VA are developing closed applications. Let's buy ESR's explanation, and call it proprietary tinsel. And let's assume it does very well. What do investors learn from this lesson? That closing software makes more money. So the pressure to produce more closed apps will be applied: investors will see no line, no law of diminishing returns. They will keep pressing for more closure until they stop seeing the benefits, and probably beyond.
This was and still is my fear! I am tremendously worried by this, I can see all the people I talked to (some were starting to be doubtful about the "classic" software business models) starting to giggle "good guy, but such a dreamer!" And it's not just a question of personal proudness :-))
I read ESR's comments, and while I agree that he doesn't need to be replied for every paper he writes, I think this time we should all stand together and shout how BAD this example from VA is. It is going to support the Caldera's and Love's theories (Free Software is good, as open standards are good: you can use them to build your proprietary stuff on top).
I think about all the people (I know personally a couple of them) that were investigating the possibility to release their new software under the GPL: our arguments are still valid, but the not-yet-convinced guys will interpret VA's move as symptom that Free Software simply cannot work as a business model. When Eazel went belly up I was not upset at all, but now with VA it's different. I thought VA had a solid business plan: they used to sell hardware and services, mostly.
Even animals, at a very basic level, learn by reward. VA closes app, VA gets a cookie as a reward. Good VA. Investors want more of the same. They want more cookies. Sad, very sad.
I would add: worrying, very worrying :)
Regards,
Is it really so worrying, VA's going proprietary? I should think this was forseeable. VA as all the other Linux- Companies was an OpenSource business and while it worked it worked. I have been waiting for these things to happen, the hype is over and so are the opportunities that went with it. A while ago Bruce Perens said it was time to talk about free software again. Maybe its truely time now. We might see VA's fall as a victory for free software over OpenSource, for free software is here to stay long after OS has gone. Maybe now it's time to start promoting fs-ideals among programmers. And maybe now it's also time to look at proper fs-companies like Alessandro Rubini's in Italy (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-libre- commercial.viability.html). I think we should see the positive side of this. fs was never about business in the first place; OS is. Greet Joachim "I hear that if you play the Windows 2000 CD backwards, you get a satanic message!" -- "That's nothing. If you play it forward, it installs Windows 2000!"
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:21:40AM +0200, joack@gmx.net wrote:
Is it really so worrying, VA's going proprietary?
I think so!! Foreseeable or not!
VA as all the other Linux- Companies was an OpenSource business and while it worked it worked.
I'm not sure that all 'linux-companies' would be grateful being branded as Open Source business. Although, I'm not really that sure it matters: I don't see a huge difference between the business models of Open Source and Free Software companies, and if it doesn't work for VA, then there will be others it doesn't work for.
I see a big parallel between VA and Eazel. VA have now got out of the hardware market, which is incredibly cut-throat, and also do some consultancy, but apart from that, the two companies appear to have a business model which pins hope on one major software product. With Eazel it was Nautilus; with VA it's SourceForge. We know what happened to Eazel. Is SourceForge really that good? Will people flock to it? I personally think not. SourceForge, as a development tool/project management system, I think is pretty poor. I don't see people leaving behind their Visual Studio with SourceSafe integration to move over to CVS and some funky website. I just don't see it. It's cool for OS/FS projects, where community people are able to contribute with a low entry level, but commercial developers are people who pay out thousands$$$ for tools like StarTeam, and SourceForge just doesn't compare.
I think the idea of commercial Free software is the biggest problem Free software faces in terms of corporate acceptance. It is possible to make money from Free software, there are many examples. But, it is not possible (IMO) to support the current software industry with Free software business models, or anything close to the size of the current industry. I don't think there will ever be a Free Software Microsoft, no matter what RedHat detractors think. And that's what confuses people.
promoting fs-ideals among programmers. And maybe now it's also time to look at proper fs-companies like Alessandro Rubini's in Italy (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-libre- commercial.viability.html).
^ should be - I think ;)
I think we should see the positive side of this. fs was never about business in the first place; OS is.
Exactly. And I think we should celebrate that fact.
I have to say, at the moment I almost hope VA go to the wall. Except, I'm sure somehow ESR would be able to turn it around against Free Software....
Cheers,
Alex.
is pretty poor. I don't see people leaving behind their Visual Studio with SourceSafe integration to move over to CVS and some funky website.
It is just what we have done in my company (under my "vigorous" impulsion 8-) ). :-) CVS saves us a lot of money, is more reliable and works better than SS. Its main problem is that it does not spontaneously tells which files are extracted, but people get used to it. ViewCvs is an essential component of our CVS installation, allowing browsing of the repository without getting a project. It is essential once you have tens of projects. IMHO, its real conccurents are tools like Perforce. And compared to Perforce, it lacks one main thing: working lists. I hope to have time to implement them in CVS, one nice day... :-)
I think we should see the positive side of this. fs was never about business in the first place; OS is.
It think it is not for product-driven businesses. But it may surely work for services.
Best regards,
Ludovic
"smaffulli@inwind.it" ha scritto:
I think about all the people (I know personally a couple of them) that were investigating the possibility to release their new software under the GPL: our arguments are still valid, but the not-yet-convinced guys will interpret VA's move as symptom that Free Software simply cannot work as a business model. When Eazel went belly up I was not upset at all, but now with VA it's different. I thought VA had a solid business plan: they used to sell hardware and services, mostly.
VA is abandoning the hardware market, this seems to be the big black hole on the company in the first half of the year (not the free software), and is estimated that in the future 80% of business comes from sourceforge and OSDN (services?). IMHO no one can think to do jump in a business without some security, and the not free software choice seems to be the emergency rope for VA.
So i think this is not a free software problem, this is a problem related to the VA focus on the linux-hardware, in a market where most of the very big company sells hardware with linux pre-installed this is a regular evolution. (this is also a problem but where is free hardware?)
IMHO this is a signal that Free Software and related services are a valid market and not the contrary.