" By Jonathan Feldman, Network Computing

As I was doing my billing recently, I remarked to my boss that I always feel bad billing for services I enjoy doing. "Sure," he replied, "and wouldn't it be great if everyone chipped in to help pay your mortgage and feed your kids? Oh, wait. That's called communism." He's right, and it's a sobering context in which to consider open source.

If we follow my boss's line of thinking, open source, or "free software," might be considered communism. But to business and IT managers, open source isn't about code we don't have to pay for. In this case, free means freedom, as in the freedom to choose and use software as we wish, with no proprietary barriers.

Look at it this way: We've been on a product-upgrade treadmill for the past decade, and we've learned that the lack of choice about when to stop upgrading some products can be costly. If one company controls the source code and doesn't let others patch and update as they see fit, we consumers are forced to upgrade--no freedom there. Open source, on the other hand, lets financial managers control the timing of their cash outflows. Given the financial principle of the "time value" of money (the same amount of money is worth more now than it is later), the freedom to upgrade when and if we want can contribute to successful financial management. Sounds like capitalism to me.

When Red Hat announced it would discontinue its old Linux line late last year, Progeny saw an opportunity. Its Transition Service issues annual software updates for $5 per user. In contrast, after Microsoft's Windows 98 end-of-life announcement, a business with 300 desktops would have had to dole out $60,000 to upgrade; 5,000 seats, $795,000. The fact that Microsoft recanted its decision doesn't put money back in the coffers of the companies that believed Windows 98 was dead and unsupportable. Conscientious managers didn't have a choice at the time--by not upgrading, they'd have left themselves at risk "



Read more at www.internetwk.com
Purfus

"If we follow my boss's line of thinking, open source, or "free software," might be considered communism."

Maybe, if one were to apply 19th century economic philosophy to a 21st century paradigm.

Without the open source alternative we are stuck with people like Gates, who had one good idea, a long, long time ago, manipulate everyone into giving him money, over and over and over again, for one idea we already paid for.

My comment to the boss would be: "If you want to feed your kids and make your mortgage payment, then you should propbably get to fucking work and contribute some productivity to the market place instead of sitting around on your ass and asking for handouts for work you did years ago."

Take away open source, and you take away the hobbies of many people. As you said, you enjoy what you do. Are you now saying that people shouldn't be able to make something and put it out there for people to get for free? Sounds odd to me. If it's open source, why would you worry about something not having software updates? Wouldn't SOMEONE put some update out there???

In fact I believe the author of the article is all for open source.

As far as the updates thing goes, that is only one example. The bottem line is that people pay huge amounts of money to microsoft and the like for the guarentee of service. If something goes wrong microsoft will fix it. The IT departments that have embarked on the open source community run the risk of failure and the only one to blaim is them. That is why they are willing to pay so much for microsoft's crappy software. As the prices rise and the software gets worse they are more and more willing to take that risk. Linux is catching however. There was a time when any IT manager would have laughed at the prospect of using anything besides windows or unix to run their network, that time has changed. Many IT departments that rely on windows have at least a few systems running linux for specific tasks. Thats why M$ is so scared and pushing shady business deals behind sco to attack linux. Keep shaking billy boy cuz your empire of darts is about to tumble.

Actually there is a flaw in this arugment. Communissim would be the government deciding your project is open source. Someone doing it of thier own free will is a different matter and thier right, same as indies giving thier music away. Some people share some don't its the way of the world.
Gates actually made his money buy buying DOS from another coder (for 50k I think, don't quote me on that amount, 10k is poking at me for some reason also) and tweaking it and selling the rights to use it to IBM and everyone else.

Communism says "from each according to their ability...to each according to their need."
LOL...can't have that...sounds like sharing!

demonchild is right about the "Gates saga"

My fiery rhetoric was meant for the authors boss. Or maybe only even his bosses imagination. I get carried away sometimes.

wow I didn't notice before but i musta screwed it up posting, i had written a bunch of commentary on this article. Guess I cut and pasted it out of existance. Anyway here is what i had wrote.





Okay, I'm sure some of you are think what the H. E. double hockey stick does this have to do with the RIAA. Directly it has nothing to do with them. However, as many of us have talked about before the RIAA is merely a single problem of a bigger picture. I think this guy nails it right on the button when he attributes the issue to a changing market environment.

SCO claiming that open-source software is nothing more than a direct assault on for-profit business is not that different from the RIAA claiming that indie music is an assault on them. The fact is it is true. But that doesn't mean anything needs to change.

One aspect of open-source software is a damaging effect on for-profit business as is the flood of indie music. Which some, including myself, have suspected is the main cause for any losses in sales.

My answer is simple. Tough tomatoes... It's a dog-eat-dog world and the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, and all the other IP monopolies are in for a rough ride and they might just get bumped off the wagon.

Not-for-profit business is nothing new. One thing that is new, however, is the ability to do business with the internet and all these other great technologies we share. It is obvious that eliminating costs through technology can be beneficial to everyone, except those that rely on that economy of scale. All these technologies have allowed not-for-profit organizations to tweak their value chain to the point of profitability (in a different sense). These profits are seen through the progress made in technology and innovation.

Who open sources? Shmoo seems to do a good job of it in his band. Sure they sell CDs but they arent afraid to freely share their creative endeavors. Neither are the many programmers that have contributed to Linux in so many ways. These are just people though. They aren’t huge corporations with towering office complexes and golden arch-ways. They are real people.

I think we have come to a point in our evolution where we finally have the ability to openly share thought to the point where we can benefit from each other as a culture instead of through piece-work. We can all work together to make this world a better place. We have the desire, we have always had that somewhere deep down inside. We have the ability, and now we have the incentive.

The incentive is the deadly apparent difference between watching corporate fat cats get something for nothing at the consumers expense and watching society benefit from the contributions of others. The corporations would have you believe such a world is a dream world but they are full of crap. The world is out there. It does exist. All we need to do is work toward it.

So don't quit your job yet. And don't go giving all your talents away for nothing. We are still in a corporate environment of screw or be screwed. But don't go to the other end of the spectrum and believe life will always be something that has to be bought and paid for.

We will be free to exist some day. I believe it is movements like open-source software and independent entertainment that will get us there. That is my view. Take it for what it is worth, but don't believe it doesn't exist. Keep up the boycott, in the end we will win because this is our world, not theirs.


Purfus

Open Source and open source ideals are good for community, but are NOT communist. What we call Communism is a perversion of community. Let's be careful with labels here folks.

Having no restrictions on downloading or on how you use music is not a "communist" approach. In addition to being "fair," it simply makes good capitolist business sense to take an "open source" position with regards music distribution.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!
(With your dollars too!)

Restricting what folks can do with music sounds more like "communism" to me.

There is a time and place for both what should be sold and what should be given. That was part of what was so maddening with the SCO stuff. That they thought they should own linux because everything should be owned by someone. That both cannot coexist. When Benjamin Franklin created a wood burning stove that was safer, used 1/4 the wood, and put out twice as much heat, he gave it to the world because everyone should benifit. He turned down the option to profit from it. If someone were to take his hard work and profit from it while taking out of the public's hands that would have been wrong. "cough-SCO-cough."

If people choose to give of their time to give to others and to fill a void in life that needs filling how is that wrong? Giving is a choice. As is taking. If I give food to a man that has no money to buy food how is that taking it out of the hands of the man selling food. The poor man had nothing to give him in the first place.

The problem with the world as its shaping up to be is that everyone is out crying for their piece of the pie. You took a little from me so I will take everything I can from you. Hey thats mine! I own that! Give me everything you own. The problem is what goes around comes around. Everyone is a target, and the man holding the big bucks is one everyones list. In the end nobody really wins. All we have is a lot of little loosers that never wanted to play and no real winners playing steal that buck.

quote by purfus
"SCO claiming that open-source software is nothing more than a direct assault on for-profit business is not that different from the RIAA claiming that indie music is an assault on them. The fact is it is true. But that doesn't mean anything needs to change."

If you ever hear anyone say that Linux is a "direct assault on for-profit business", remind them that the biggest for-profit corporation that's ever existed bundles IE, among other programs, for free with Windows, effectively crippling rivals like Netscape. SCO (*cough* Microsoft *cough*) complaining about how unfair it is to compete with free Linux is the pot calling the kettle black as far as I'm concerned.

In the end however, this complaint by SCO just shows that they just don't get it. Linux's popularity is growing, especially with big business recently, because of, as mentioned before, freedom to do with the code as you wish (if you use windows you're effectively at the mercy of Microsoft), and security is better than windows.

So, only the rich corporations can provide a good or service? It is only the "right thing to do" if they make ungodly amounts of money when some would do it for free? Bullshit! Corporations don't have a RIGHT to make money, they only have a privilege of attempting to make money in an open market.

B1 and indie, that is my point exactly. SCO's claim is basically saying that it is unfair for others to compete with them. It is true that a rival competitor offering substitute product at a cheaper price is an assault on that firm. But that is the nature of competition. Last I checked the idealistic view is that America is a free market and competition in this market is encouraged. SCO has no right to say that another can not compete with them simply because they have a lower price. It is anti-competitive.