Slashdot Log In
Young Programmer, Stop Advocating Free Software!
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:15 AM
from the *click*-flame-thrower-on dept.
from the *click*-flame-thrower-on dept.
Lansdowne writes "Clemens Vasters, in an open letter to a young developer he met at a software conference, asks him to consider the consequences of writing software for free. "Software is the immediate result and the manifestation of what your learned and what you know. How much is that worth? Nothing? Think again."" While I don't particularly agree with all of the points made here, this is the type of question that needs to be answered to continue to get people involved in Free/Open/Libre/GNU/whatever source/software/code.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Site slashdot'ed befor it went live (Score:5, Informative)
----
Dear Aiden,
I think you remember the conversation we had recently at this software conference in Dublin. You came up to me and told me how the stuff I was talking about was mostly useless, because it is closed-source, people need to pay for it and that companies charging for software are evil anyways - especially Microsoft. Unfortunately I don't have your email, but I am sure this will reach you.
First, I would like to thank you for the interesting conversation that developed and to make sure that none of what was said just fades away, I'll tell you here once again what I am thinking about what you do, what you think and - most importantly about your future.
When I was 21 - like you now - I was also at university and was pursing a computer science master degree. Back then, I was very enthusiastic about programming and creating stuff that mattered. And thought that I was the best programmer the field has ever seen and everyone else was mostly worthless. And I did indeed write some programs that mattered and made a difference. The program I spent some 3 years writing in Turbo Pascal from when I was 18 was for my father's business. Because the business he's in requires a lot of bureaucracy, he and my mother spent about 2-3 daily hours on average doing all of this stuff by hand. When I was done with my program and he started using it, that time went from 3 hours to about 15 minutes a day. That was software that absolutely improved the quality of life for the entire family! And his friends and colleagues loved it, too. I didn't sell many licenses at that time (I think I had 3 customers), but each one was worth 1500 German Marks and that was a huge heap of money for me. I mean - I was living at my parent's house, getting a monthly allowance of 120 German Marks and worked as a cable grip for a couple of TV stations every once in a while - maybe 2-3 times a month. And if I ever had 400 Marks per month I could really consider myself massively rich at the time and for my age, because I had very minimal additional expenses. So 4500 Marks on top of that? Fantastic. Where did the money go? I can't really remember where it all went, but I guess "lot of partying" or "Girls, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll" would be a reasonably good explanation. Hey, I was 21 and that's what one is supposed to do at that age, right?
That was in 1990 - let's fast forward to 2004 and you. All software that you and your father could possibly be interested in has already been written. That's probably not true, but it's hard to think of something, right? Ok, the software may not run on your favorite operation system and may cost money, but what you can immediately think of is likely there. So where do you put all your energy? Into this absolutely amazing open-source project you co-coordinate. I mean, really, the stuff that you and your buddies are doing there is truly impressive. There are a couple of things I'd probably do differently in terms of design and architecture, but it works well and that's mostly what matters. And you do make an impact as well. I know that hundreds of people and dozens of companies use your stuff. That's great.
However, I start to wonder where your benefit is. You are - out of principle - not making any money out of this, because it is open-source and you and your buddies insist that it must be absolutely free. So you are putting all of that time and energy into this project for what? Fame? To found a career? Come on.
If someone installs your work from disc 3 of some Linux distro, they couldn't care less who you are. The whole fame thing you are telling me only works amongst geeks. The good looking, intelligent girl over there at the bar that you'd really like to talk to doesn't care much whether you are famous amongst a group of geeks and neither does she even remotely fathom why you'd be famous for that stuff in the first place. I mean - get real here.
So once you get your degree from school, what's the plan?
Right now,
Re:Site slashdot'ed befor it went live (Score:5, Funny)
So once you get your degree from school, what's the plan?
To get outsourced.
Parent
Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for a small company that makes money by selling proprietary software. I'm the DBA, and get my work done using primarily free tools (MySQL, PHP, Perl, Apache, Linux, BSD.) I also write open-source software on my own time. Everybody wins.
Parent
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a company that releases all our software as free software but makes money by supporting it, cutomizing it and consulting on it. Our market is small and developers are few, but we get the job done, and no one is going hungry as far as I know. I don't have any animosity towards Microsoft except as it relates to the fact that their software exposes me to a great deal of risk because of the bugs, but I think they have every right to do software the way they have chosen. Open Source and Free Software isn't the only way to do software, but it can many times be the better way to do software from a quality and agility standpoint...
That's my $0.02...
Parent
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really doubt that we will ever see too many professional level games (for example) released under the GPL (though I have no doubt that older games will continue to release their code, as ID software did with Doom). HOWEVER that isn't really the point of the GPL. Stallman started it because he was prevented from improving his printer's performance by a combination of closed OS software, closed drivers, and NDA's. Operating Systems are a natural place for GPLed software, as are drivers (if anyone can add more value to a particular piece of hardware by improving its drivers it will help the hardware manufacturer sell more units; hardly something they'd be opposed to).
OF COURSE people need to be able to put food on the table somehow, its not mentioned in the GPL because its assumed to be a given. Only the very foolish believe that somehow the GPL and propriatary software are in a titnaic battle from which only one will survive. The world needs both. As a programmer/hacker I want access to as much code as I can get. Code I can learn from, code I can use (why reinvent the wheel?), code I can modify. By releasing some of my code under the GPL I enrich myself by producing an environment where more code is available to me. By releasing some of my code propriatary I enrich my self with cash. I see no problem doing both.
Will some propriatary software outfits either go out of business or shrink? Sure; that's hardly a catastrophy though. I personally suspect that the era of closed operating systems is drawing to an end, open source simply makes too much sense in that area. MS will probably be out of the operating system business in ten years (or at least severely weakened in the OS business). However I don't think MS will do belly up. Frankly their office package is quite nice, and were they to focus on that rather than wasting billions on their OS it'd be even better. Balance is the key here, as it is in so many areas.
Parent
Linus (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Site slashdot'ed befor it went live (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, back in the day we used Tomcat and wrote most of our stuff in-house. We had a need to write a custom security layer for authentication/authorization against both LDAP and a windows domain controller. Nothing like that existed, so we wrote one ourselves using the Tomcat SecurityPrincipal interface and simply pluging in our extensions. Took a day, at most, to write and test, whereas we would have had to jump through hoops for weeks on an IIS system.
That's where your money comes from. Taking what's already written and what nobody wants to write again and adding business-specific logic, and integrating it with other systems. One of our vendors has changed their business model. They make virtually nothing on software sales and support, but they survive on their consultancy business. IBM is also doing this, and you can see by Microsoft's latest ISV push that they recognize this trend as well.
The question now is do I pay for closed-source software and lock myself into consultancy from that one vendor, or do I use an open source package as my base and pick and choose the talent that I bring in to improve and maintain it? If it were my business, I would choose the latter.
Parent
Re:Site slashdot'ed befor it went live (Score:5, Funny)
Why, you could practically hear the cobwebs gathering around his wizened face as he thought aaaallll the way back through the hoary ages to - gasp - 1990, when he was a carefree 21 year old like the addressee. someone get this incredibly wise 35-year-old a wheelchair before he keels over.
The good looking, intelligent girl over there at the bar that you'd really like to talk to doesn't care much whether you are famous amongst a group of geeks and neither does she even remotely fathom why you'd be famous for that stuff in the first place. I mean - get real here.
well, that was particularly insulting. nothing quite like the threat of "no pussy!" to drive intelligent young programmers away from open source / free software.
unprincipled windbag.
Parent
Re:Site slashdot'ed befor it went live (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:PS to letter (Score:5, Insightful)
His letter is basically "What's your plan for moving out of your parents' place?"
Parent
Re:PS to letter (Score:5, Insightful)
He is trapped in the old thinking that software is a product that needs to be sold like it is scarce.
He thinks free software somehow makes it impossible to profit from.
Jeroen
Parent
not worth nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Don't misunderstand the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you write a successful application, you have book deals.
OSS is a sure and quick way to show your prowess and become moderately famous overnight.
And Most importantly, I haven't yet met a boss who could take free code and use it. No matter how free and open code is, there is still a job market for people who can use it, tailor it, and integrate it into a business.
The list goes on. But as you can see. Writing OSS isn't throwing your time away.
Eeeep. (Score:5, Funny)
<Asok [unitedmedia.com]>It only hurts because it's true.</Asok>
Re:Eeeep. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
So in other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well unless the letter was a very elegant piece of irony (and I doubt it). He should STFU and help these young subversives bring down the pillars of the temple that has so elegantly enslaved us all. Ok that last bit is a little severe but it's pretty close.
Question (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm on the fence with this issue. I see the side about earning a paycheck. I understand the rewards that go along with altruism. I understand the need for standards and most importantly open standards. But, we all need to make a paycheck. Plain and simple. Say for a moment free software does continue to be successful, even enormously successful over the next few years, what does the future look like to those thinking of entering the field at that time?
wow.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wow.. (Score:5, Funny)
>the program is going to be so improved vastly by people who have vastly more knowledge than me. There is always someone in the world who can do something that you did, better
I doubt that you have the ego required to become a programmer. When you start saying "I wrote better code when I was 17!" then will you TRUELY become a programmer like the rest of us.
Parent
If free=valueless, how about the letter itself? (Score:5, Insightful)
Applying this logic to the letter itself, offered for free (the horror!), an interesting conclusion is reached regarding its value.
I don't consider it to be given away for nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Even for prolific contributers who have give millions of lines of code this probably holds true. Even for Linus Open Source code has returned the rest of an operating system, status, and one hell of a CV - arguably more than he has contributed.
Even if my contribution of a few simple lines were enough to contribute to the downfall of the software market, then I consider the fact that I have to work in something other than programming (which I do) to be not a price but an indication that things are working well - the overall (knowlage) wealth of mankind is increasing so not so much heavy labour in software is required and energy can be focused elsewhere. That's what progress is all about.
Not programmers, but companies should release OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of companies paying programmers good money to write free software. They want the software, and they believe that the quality of the software will increase by releasing the source. Or they believe they will sell more hardware when the software running on it is free. Or they sell support on the software they release.
Nobody asks a programmer to work for free. The author of the letter thinks that releasing code for free equals not getting paid for writing it. Think again.
It's increasingly a two-way thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source != free (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone should put together a license (if it does not exist yet) that allows a corporation to use an open source software product only after paying a fee to the project owner (an individual, a group, a community, etc).
3 words: Work For Hire (Score:5, Insightful)
Day job (Score:5, Insightful)
Most OSS developers are very talented (they wouldn't love what they are doing otherwise). They shouldn't have much problems landing a good job.
Or does the old fart indeed think that a guy should found a business on a project they create during their studying days? Does he think that the guy doesn't have what it takes to get a day job, so he should grasp the first straw he can get, i.e. his OSS project.
Getting bundled on a Linux distro is a bigger honor than most of us in OSS will ever get.
Essential Infrastructure vs. Services (Score:5, Interesting)
The vast number of IT jobs is in customization, adaptation, etc. of software to solve business specific problems.
In my case (R&D), the existance of OSS capabilities means that my corporate masters can spend vastly more on my labor to develop new solutions because they have saved (literally) millions of dollars on things like operating systems, compilers, databases, etc that I previously had to purchase.
Well, I suppose he has a point... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a capitalist... (Score:5, Insightful)
But when I was just getting started... when I was just a "young programmer" I wrote software and gave it away for free. This was long before the idea of GPL and such (AFAIK). My first big give-away success was FRPBBS, a piece of C64 BBS software that was unique in that it focused around running online roleplaying sessions. Those were the days!
That part of my life was absolutely essential to what I do today. I know employ a goodly number of people and contribute to our economy. And I owe a lot of that to the early experiences, encouragement and sheer fun of being able to put my code "out there".
Shall we do away with the Olympics because all endevors should yield an immediate profit? Small minds fail to graps the big picture yet again.
Lots of analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly with society: to a taxed economy, the total amount of cash available is less important than the amount of flow of cash - it is the flow that is taxed, and hence allows governments to do their (supposed) good works. Equally it is the flow of cash that causes anything to be done. (I build you a fence, you mend my car; if the cash exchanged is the same then nothing has changed other than we now have one fixed fence and one mended car)
I think the same is going to become true of software. I have maintained for a long time that if the only thing you have that makes you valuable is your source code, then you are doomed. It is the ability to create the source code that has value; otherwise when something new is needed, there is no way to make it.
If the idea of free software takes off, the software industry won't die, it will become like the legal profession (yuck
Simple reason, everyone wins (Score:5, Insightful)
So what do you do in your spare time? You work on your pet project, in which you can apply all the knowledge and nifty things you learned and/or you ever read about. And hey! It looks good on your resume too, because your real job doesn't give you the experience in those new technologies that your future employer/customer wants/needs.
And besides, Open Source is good for everyone, because the guys who do use your stuff can concentrate on delivering value to their customers, ie. writing boring business apps that implement the functionality that their customer asks for in their bizarre and overly vague requirements. And they also save time, so they can meet the deadline that their horse ass project manager has set all on his own.
Everyone wins with Open Source I think. It gives you the opportunity to start programming at a higher level of functionality.
When it is called 'culture', everybody agrees that it's been a good thing for ages.
PS. That's why software patents are bad. They block this culture, this incremental growth in knowledge.
Free/freedom.. again (Score:5, Insightful)
The writer is correct from his point of view: if you are already employeed writing closed software for sale open/free software gives you no benefit. It competes for customers, and the free/open software developers do not necessarily get payment in return for their work.
The truth is a little fuzzier: most software in this world is not written for commercial sale. It is written within companies to solve particular problems in support of business processes. If no commercial alternative exists, or if an external entity cannot create a custom product then a business creates their own. Since this development is a sunk cost, sharing it, and possibility benefiting from someone else's work has no negative effects on the bottom line.
The other angle is this: as a purchaser of business software I look more favorably on open than closed software. With closed software the vendor controls me. The vendor can increase costs, withdraw support and make pretty much whatever demands he wants. With open software I have a escape clause... if my relationship with the vendor becomes negative, or I need a feature the vendor cannot/will not supply I can always take the source and find someone else to support me. If customers start demanding this option, closed vendors may not want to become open, but they may have to in order to compete. (Free/open products give control back to the consumer, a plus for the consumer, a minus for the producer)
Worth (Score:5, Insightful)
In science there is the opportunity to work in an interesting field while working for a corporation. The problem is the work will become patent encumbered and proprietary as soon as it has any value. To let other people share in the success, and even improve upon it, something like a University grant is required for which the pay is lower.
You do your best every day of your life, make major discoveries and solve complex problems, and then you die. If you work for a corporation it's likely that your work will remain the private property of that corporation long after you're dead, with most people associating your work with the company and not you. However, if you gave up potential money to share your work then it is more likely to live on with little chance that your work will be associated with anyone besides you. So, ecide which you find more compelling.
This guy must be right! (Score:5, Funny)
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, really; that's what it boils down to. Whether or not someone develops software for free or for money -a situation which is entirely independent of whether or not the source is open- is that person's own prerogative and no one else's.
This guy's just mad because he can't compete on price and doesn't want to compete on features or support.
Missing a point (Score:5, Insightful)
See, there's so much I can do on my own. But if I want something done, and by letting you use my code I'll get some of yours in exchange, I've actually gained something, I've gained the hours of work it'd have taken to add that code, correct my bugs, or whatever that other person who uses my code gives me. That's the heart of the GPL.
If I have to put a value of n dollars per line of code, does that mean someone who sends me (or the public repository) y lines is actually giving me/us money? Is code worth a lot? Yes, that's why getting extra code on top of mine is a good value I get for releasing my software for free.
Most software is not sold that way (Score:5, Interesting)
Most programmers write software used internally for highly specialised purposes, or a custom application targetted at a single customer. Most of these organisations make great use of free software, and many contribute their changes back to the community. Other people produce drivers - which are given away for free with hardware - and third party defence systems with a single customer willing to pay a lot of money.
Added to this, most people are not willing to pay enough for software to make it worth marketing. His example of the software he wrote is an exception. Very rarely does software have a perceived value of several hundred dollars. Even if it does, it is often cheaper and easie to write it yourself. If people are going to do that, then you might as well give them a headstart.
Comparitively (Score:5, Interesting)
--Stephen
I am an asset. Not my code. (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, they also use a lot of free and open source software internally (esp. bugzilla and apache), and see no problems with employees giving back.
Re:worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mostly because it's money that puts food on the table and a roof over the head. And in the end, those are two very important things in life.
Parent
Re:worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mostly because it's money that puts food on the table and a roof over the head. And in the end, those are two very important things in life.
Yes, they are two very important things in life. But they're not the only two very important things in life.
Plenty of people who write free software are putting food on the table and a roof over their head. Some of them are doing it through that free software work; others are doing it through other things they do. Why is it an either/or proposition? Are you really suggesting that each and every free software developer is housed and supported by their parents?
Parent
Re:worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
People will get it as they get older.
Doing stuff for free is great, as long as it doesn't interfere with putting food in my belly and doesn't stop me from living my life the way I want to.
I think a lot of the people who are screaming free everything haven't yet had the pleasure of being on their own, or being responsible for their house, car, food, clothing, utils, wife, etc.
Of course, I'm sure someone here will correct me, I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about.
Parent
Re:worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm 41 years old. I "got" that there is more to life than doing things for money a long, long time ago.
Fortunately, no one is demanding that you not feed yourself, or that you not live your life as you choose. Why the "Straw Man"?
Parent
Re:worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope I'm not alone in thinking thats a very sad state of affairs. I'm not saying that coding for money is a bad thing. it's good to be able to afford to put food on the table, feed your family, hell, even buy toys. however why can we not also do things for the good of mankind?
I don't recall mother teresa making a big buck out of her ceaseless efforts (unless I've missed her unofficial biography). okay, so she was supported by others but her unselfish acts had a big impact on many people.
many great artworks and musical works were done for free.
jees, come on guys. does our every act have to be for money? there are other things in life.
dave
Parent
Re:worth? (Score:5, Interesting)
and many more were done for profit. Michaelangelo got paid for painting the sistine chapel. Bach, Beethoven, Mozard, Handel, etc pretty much got paid for anything they ever did.
Yes, you can do stuff just for 'love'. But after RTFA I would tend to side more with the author... then again the 'Open Source' thing isnt a religion to me.
meh. to each their own.
Parent
Re:worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with making money. There's also nothing wrong with being motivated by other things. Have you never made a donation, or volunteered your time, or even held the door for someone? Did you expect money for these activities? If you did, then I pity you... you live in a very small, cold world.
Parent
Re:You can't have it both ways ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is where most coders work, this is where most of the money is (unless you happen to write windows or office) and this is why Windows so dominates the desktop environment, because MS made it easy for people to create bespoke applications.
People will write free operating systems and database engines and paint programs, but if I want a bespoke package written to my spec to run my company then I have to pay for it, and that's where coders make their money.
Parent
Re:You can't have it both ways ... (Score:5, Insightful)
if an open source / free (cost) solution does what your expensive product does, count yourself out of a job.
So what you're saying is that if you charge for your product, you'll get no sales because someone else does the same thing for free? And if you don't charge for your product, you'll earn nothing and starve? Nice, a lose-lose situation!
How about starting out writing OSS (instead of shuffling burgers or doing tech support) and when you're built some experience and reputation either start charging for support/book deals/customizations or accept a reasonably well-paid job coding for money and keep doing OSS on the side? I don't see Linus starving...
Parent