diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-libre-commercial-viability.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-libre-commercial-viability.html | 343 |
1 files changed, 343 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-libre-commercial-viability.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-libre-commercial-viability.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b26f198 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-libre-commercial-viability.html @@ -0,0 +1,343 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>Software Libre and Commercial Viability +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/software-libre-commercial-viability.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Software Libre and Commercial Viability</h2> + +<blockquote> +<p>(Nov 12th 1998, published in February 1999)</p> +</blockquote> + +<p> +by <strong>Alessandro Rubini</strong></p> + +<p>Fortunately, Linus' project of world domination is going to come true +fairly soon. The trend toward this goal can be verified by checking +how the press is behaving towards GNU/Linux solutions, looking at how +several educational entities are going to introduce Free Software in +the schools and verifying its usual technical excellence.</p> + +<p>Today in 1998 (yes, it is still 1998 as I write), the most +important job remaining, in my opinion, is propagating the social and +commercial implications of Free Software. While I greatly appreciated +Russell Nelson's article “Open Source Software Model” in +the July issue of <i>LJ</i>, I feel the need to expand on the points +he briefly touched.</p> + +<p>Please note that I'm not an expert in economics or politics. I'm +just a build-it-yourself kind of technical guy whose discussion is +based on his own experience in the battle for survival, in the hopes +of helping someone else adapt to new environmental conditions. Some of +these ideas have already been discussed with friends or on the Free +Software Business mailing list +(<a href="mailto:fsb-subscribe@crynwr.com"><fsb-subscribe@crynwr.com></a>), +which I joined after reading Russell's article.</p> + +<h3 id="sec1">Viability for Individual Consultants</h3> + +<p>The best feature of any computer system is flexibility — +allowing users to tailor its behaviour to their own needs. This +flexibility is often completely unknown to the general computer user, +because proprietary software solutions tend to hide functionality +behind a rigid external interface which denies any divergence from the +expected behaviour—a <i>user's</i> behaviour.</p> + +<p>When adopting Free Software, users are able to discover the real +power of computer systems. Today I talked with a commercial consultant +who never thought that programs could be adapted to one's needs. He +confessed his company has always acted the other way around—they +adapted their needs to the software they use. Most users are victims +of their software and don't even realize it.</p> + +<p>Educating the user base about the extendibility of software will +open new markets to independent consultants, creating new employment +opportunities. Every user has different needs and solving these needs +often means calling for technical support from people who tailor or +enhance the relevant software. While this is not even imaginable with +proprietary programs, source availability allows any problem that +might arise to be quickly solved and new features to be easily +added. While you may think this would quickly lead to a <i>perfect</i> +software package, individual needs are so diverse and specialized that +a package can't satisfy everyone.</p> + +<p>For example, I and others wrote a program for a local physiology +center to analyze data for a typical kind of experiment. During two +years of use, the physicians found so many ways to enhance the program +that it is now reported as better than the commercial solutions. The +total of all fees they paid during these years reveals the program to +be more expensive in the end than some of the commercial +alternatives. This fact is not relevant to my clients, as they have +exactly what they want and they know they can have more should the +need arise. The program is obviously Free Software and other centers +expressed interest in getting a copy.</p> + +<p>As more and more people are choosing Free Software to address their +needs, I'm sure some software companies will try to demonize GNU/Linux +and both the Free Software and the Open Source movements because they +are losing their own market share. Such companies will probably try to +demonstrate that IT employment is decreasing and that humankind is +being damaged by the general adoption of Free Software. This whole +argument is bogus; computers exist to be programmed, and the more you +allow programming them, the more you build employment opportunities. +If you count the number of people who offer Free Software consulting, +you will greatly exceed any shrinkage of proprietary companies. +Sticking to my previous example, the physiology lab hired my company +to write the program, and other centers interested in the product are +willing to hire a local consultant for installing, maintaining and +enhancing our package. Did I say “enhance”? Isn't the +program working? Yes, the program is working well, but there <i>is</i> +room for enhancement of the product. The local lab decided to stop +development “because we must run our experiment rather than +invent new software features”. As anyone knows, every program +has a bug and a missing feature, and this is where we build our +credibility: bugs <i>can</i> be fixed and features <i>can</i> be +implemented. As I suggested before, the more you make things +programmable, the more they will be programmed.</p> + +<p>Why should there be more employment opportunities in IT than there +are now? First of all, because Free Software users have more requests +for new features than users of proprietary products do, as explained +above. Next, because anyone can build her own professionalism without +paying tributes to access the sources of information. I built my own +expertise by studying source code and trying things out on my own +low-end PC. Now I am confident I can solve any problem my clients +might have, and my clients know I can (provided I am given enough time +to deal with the problem).</p> + +<p>Another critical point in addition to source availability is +standardization on file formats, a field where proprietary products +are revealing their worst features. Let's imagine an environment where +every file format in the system was known: you could, for example, +create indexes from any document that is produced, thus easing later +retrieval. This can be accomplished off-line without any load on +non-technical personnel. Asynchronous reuse of data is “rocket +science” for many users, because they are accustomed to programs +that use proprietary file formats (and operating systems with no real +multi-tasking or “cron” capabilities). As soon as free +standards are adopted, users begin asking for customizations and are +willing to pay for anything that will increase their productivity. +Moreover, free standards guarantee that customers are not making the +wrong bet, as they won't ever be stuck with unusable data if the +software market changes.</p> + +<p>While the conventional model of software distribution concentrates +all knowledge in a few companies (or one of them), open standards +leverage technical knowledge to anyone willing to learn. Whereas a +proprietary product can be supported only by a limited number of +qualified consultants (whose number and quality is centrally managed), +the number of consultants supporting a Free Software solution is +virtually unlimited and the offer can quickly adapt to the request.</p> + +<p>In a world where computers are just tools to accomplish some other +goals, easy customization and quick maintenance are basic requirements +of power users. In my opinion, Free Software will quickly gain the +trust it needs to be a real market phenomenon. As soon as you start to +trust some Free Software products, you learn that they deserve more. +GNU/Linux fans must be ready to offer support in order to fulfill the +upcoming need for consultants.</p> + +<h3 id="sec2">Viability for Support Companies</h3> + +<p>Obviously, independent consultants don't cover all the needs of +computer users. Several activities can't be handled by +individuals. Red Hat and S.u.S.E. are demonstrating that creating and +maintaining a distribution can be a good source of revenue even when +the product is freely redistributable. Debian-based efforts are on the +way, although less advanced—mainly because both Red Hat and +S.u.S.E. bundled proprietary products with libre packages in order to +survive while the market share was low, while Debian has always been +completely detached from proprietary products, and still is.</p> + +<p>In addition to “creating and packaging” or +“collecting and packaging” jobs, companies can specialize +in technical support, covering the situations where computer systems +are of critical importance. Big business realities using computer +systems in their productive environment won't be satisfied with either +the external consultant or the in-house technician. They need to rely +on an external structure that guarantees round-the-clock operation of +their technological aids.</p> + +<p>Even if GNU/Linux or any other operating system is demonstrated to +be completely reliable, power users will need to rely on a support +company as a form of insurance. The more important computers are for a +production environment, the more people are willing to pay to be +reassured that everything will go on working and to have someone +“responsible” to call in case of any failure. Such a +“power user” support contract could also include a +provision for refunds in case of down time. Big support companies will +be able to efficiently deal with it, and clients will be happy to pay +high rates even if they never need to call for assistance.</p> + +<p>In short, I see no need for software companies to keep exclusive +rights on their products; the support environment is big enough to +offer good business positions in Information Technologies. Those who +want to be at the top could use some of the revenue to pay for Free +Software development, thus gaining access to the best software before +anyone else and associating their name with software products. As a +matter of fact, this practice is already pursued by the big +distributions.</p> + +<h3 id="sec3">Viability for Education Centers</h3> + +<p>Needless to say, schools and universities have the best interest in +teaching information technologies using Free Software tools. Due to +its technical superiority, Free Software environments have more to +offer to the students, but also need more technical knowledge to be +proficiently administered. I see no money saved here in choosing Free +operating systems over proprietary ones, but educational entities +could better spend their money on hiring system administrators than on +subsidizing some already-too-wealthy commercial software company. +While my country, Italy, is stuck with a few rules that offer more +support for buying things rather than for employing people, other +countries are already moving in the right direction—Mexico and +France, for example, have announced plans to use GNU/Linux in their +public schools.</p> + +<p>One more point leads toward Free Software in education: when +students get jobs, they prefer to use tools they learned at school in +order to minimize extra learning efforts. This fact should lead +colleges to teach only those tools not owned by anyone—those +that are libre. Schools should teach proprietary software only if two +conditions apply: no viable alternative is available, and the company +that distributes such software <i>pays</i> the school for teaching its +product. Paying someone for a product in order to advertising it for +him is definitely nonsense.</p> + +<h3 id="sec4">Social Issues</h3> + +<p>A few social issues relate to choosing one software model over +another one. Although I mark them as social, they have economic +implications as well.</p> + +<p> +While Free Software may not be cheaper than proprietary software if +you bill for your own time, some environments use different rates in +converting time to money. Most emerging countries have good +intellectual resources but little money, and they usually have many +not-so-new computers as well. Proprietary operating systems are +unaffordable for them, but free solutions are viable and +productive. Actually, the “Halloween” document supports my +point by underlining that “Linux” is growing very fast in +the Far East. Charity organizations usually have this same +environment—little money and a good amount of human +resources. This leads straight to the Free Software model for any IT +requirement.</p> + +<p>These ideas will probably suggest that free availability of +information looks fairly leftist in spirit, as “information to +the masses” looks quite similar to the old adage “power to +the masses”. What is usually ignored is the strong rightist +flavour of the Free Software movement. The Free Software arena is +fiercely meritocratic and a perfect environment for free competition, +where the laws of the market ensure that only the best ideas and the +best players survive. Proprietary standards, on the other hand, tend +to diminish competition by decreasing innovation and consolidating +previous results.</p> + +<h3 id="sec5">Limits of the Free Software Model</h3> + +<p>Naturally, I'm aware that not every software package can easily be +turned into Free Software. I'm not talking about office +products—I'm confident some good projects will supply this need, +sooner or later.</p> + +<p>Rather, I'm talking about all environments where a strong +competition exists for a product only loosely based on its software +component. For example, industrial equipment might include a computer +and some commodity hardware (a robot, custom I/O peripherals, +<abbr title="Programmable logic controller">PLC</abbr>s, etc.); the +software application hosted in the computer is a minor part of the +whole, but its features greatly affect the overall value of the +equipment. Producing and debugging such applications usually require +huge investments; free redistribution of source code is thus prevented +as a form of protection against competitors.</p> + +<p>Another meaningful example is cell telephones. They include a lot +of software, even though this software is almost invisible to the end +user, who perceives the device as a telephone and not a computer. Such +software is the component that defines the overall capabilities of the +device; because of its major functional role in the device it is +strictly proprietary.</p> + +<p>Unfortunately, I see no easy way to liberalize this type of code. +Although I don't care too much about cell phones (I don't use them :), +I would really like to see free industrial applications because their +technological content is usually worth reusing and adapting to new +problems.</p> + +<hr /> +<p>Alessandro writes Free Software for a living and advocates Free +Software for a mission. He hopes his upcoming child will keep off +computers, recalling the good old times when such beasts where +confined to their technical zoos. He reads e-mail +as <a href="mailto:rubini@gnu.org"><rubini@gnu.org></a> trying +to reply to everyone.</p> + +<p>Reprinted with permission of Linux Journal.</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Alessandro Rubini</p> + +<p>Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire article are permitted +in any medium provided this notice and the copyright notice are preserved. +</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:46 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |