Young Programmer, Stop Advocating Free Software! 1452
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.
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.
Re:Site slashdot'ed befor it went live (Score:5, Interesting)
Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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...
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that as a good programmer, you should be able to do much better than simply "not go hungry".
What the Open Source movement often overlooks is that a vast continuum of software businesses exists that are not monopolies, but still do a very good - and respected - business licensing closed source software. These softwware products benefits customers and partners who have a choice of suppliers, while delivering extraordinary rewards for employees.
It sometimes seems that Open Source rhetoric assumes that all Closed Source == Microsoft, and therefore must be eliminated.
Making good money with F/OSS (Score:5, Informative)
- Apple [apple.com] - Darwin and Safari
- IBM [ibm.com] - Linux kernel
- Novell [novell.com] - Netware, NDS, eDirectory
- Trolltech [trolltech.com] - creators of Qt
- MySQL [mysql.com] - major SQL database
- IndexData [indexdata.com] - networked information retreival
- RedHat [redhat.com]
- Sleepycat [sleepycat.com] - dbms
- Google [google.com]
Note that all of the above did and still do top notch work before, during and after the dot-bomb hysteria.So if you want to know how to make money, look at the experts.
Re:Making good money with F/OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Effective April 2004 RedHat has dropped their Linux desktop as an unviable product (their support revenue in no way covered their expenses.)
That is an amazing list of high quality companies, but to suggest that the OSS/free software available from Apple, IBM, Novell, or RedHat are driving business units that are making massive profits is simply insane. All of those companies are bankrolling OSS/free software from their existing mountains of cash with the hopes that by offering it at a loss they can put some hurt on the Microsoft juggernaut, and I would wager that each of them is hemmoraging cash from the business unit in the process.
The long term view is that eventually by reclaiming the desktop they will be able to provide services, support, and administrative tools that will be profitable, but in the past 3 years and for the immediate future RedHat is spelling it out loud and clear : OSS on the desktop is not a profit driven business venture.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Interesting)
you can run those revenue streams on open or closed wares... and if anything, the above revenue models will be more successful on opensource wares because they are more reliable (as in they won't disappear if the partent company goes out of business) and the talent pool for using them is greater.
if it wasn't for oss wares, my company wouldn't even exist and i wouldn't have this job. period.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what this guy Clemens was saying, though... The OSS programmer does his work for free. If he is a part of a larger group, selling support, or using the free software to help sell hardware, then that's one thing, but in many circumstances people who develop free software do so independently of larger backing -- they do it out of the goodness of their heart, their desire to contribute. That doesn't pay the bills. Then, companies such as yours take his work, make it their own (as they have every right to do--he specifically grants them that right when he releases the software), and profit from it. He not only doesn't profit from his software, he enables others to profit from it.
Clemens' argument is specific to this kid's circumstance, where the kid may want to spend most of his working life writing free software as opposed to the other kind, and in the specific case(the program being developed independently with a group contributing their time for free) I think the argument is accurate.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Only the second and later pieces of plastic cost $0.10 to make. The first one can cost tens or even hundreds of millions. Who'd buy that?
It's fantastically disingenous to consider only the marginal cost of media to a piece of software's price tag, and to ignore the economic reality that developing a piece of software the scale of what MS delivers requires a huge up-front R&D investement.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
A good mix (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, not all software that *this guy* writes has to be free. I definitely disagree with the article writer's assumption that "fame" won't get you a job - in CS, employers want porfolios, and working on Open Source is a great way to get that experience before someone will pay you.
Second, even if one *has* a job, working for a free project is (in effect, or in the case of FSF, actually) charity work. I guess computer scientists are the only ones to donate their skills to a good cause? Because Doctors Without Borders doesn't do anything like that. And lawyers never do pro bono work right?
As you say, I'm having a hard time seeing who loses - I've never heard of someone who does good work for a free project and can't parlay that into a job, and the output is (with the exception of anything GUI) top-notch.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gates is not fanatical about all software being 'non-free'. Proprietary yes. Microsoft produces plenty of software that runs on Windows and OSX that's (surprise, surprise) actually free. As a company, it needs to make money, which is why it creates a base that has to be paid for (the OS), gives in plenty of free software to make it actually useful to the average user, and then also sells other tools that you have to pay for. If all software was free, there would be no software industry - there would be no programmers who could get paid enough at their jobs to have the time to create free tools for others. I love open source and Linux and use free software extensively at the University, but it's idiocy to be fanatical about open source as the only solution. (Reminds me of the evangelists who want to know if you have been 'saved' - no faith is true but the one they peddle).
In a normal world, we would have free and proprietary software side by side. It would be much better for both, if they accept that the other side is just as important as themselves.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong definition of "free". When Stallman talks of "free", it has NOTHING to do with price. It's "free" as in "free speech" rather than "free beer".
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gates is not fanatical about all software being 'non-free'. Proprietary yes.
I think you are confused. "Non-free" is the very meaning of "proprietary".
Furthermore, Gates isn't fanatical about software being proprietary; Microsoft has released stuff under the GPL. You may be confused if you believe what Microsoft say in press releases, but you have to understand that this is not the truth. They say whatever will make them money - Microsoft is a business like any other in this respect.
Microsoft produces plenty of software that runs on Windows and OSX that's (surprise, surprise) actually free.
Oh, I see. You are talking about free as in beer. You are talking at cross-purposes to the rest of Slashdot then.
If all software was free, there would be no software industry
Of course there would. I'll give you an example.
I run a web development agency. A lot of our websites run on Apache/PHP. Sometimes PHP only does 99% of what we need it to. So we fix up PHP to do what we want, and send in a patch.
If we didn't send in the patch, we'd end up having to maintain our own special branch of PHP, which would be a waste of resources.
Did I mention that we don't work for free?
How about another example? IBM makes money from providing tailor-made solutions to people who really don't want to worry about building their networks and maintaining their systems themselves.
IBM needs to provide a combination of hardware, software, and expertise. To get the software, they can either pay another company a lot of money, develop an operating system themselves, or use an existing, Free operating system as a base.
It makes sense to use the third option, right? But that doesn't mean they have to contribute back. They could base it off FreeBSD and keep it closed-source. The only trouble is that if they want to keep up with FreeBSD (or whatever), they need to maintain their own special branch, same as us and PHP. It ends up being more trouble than it's worth. After all, why would IBM care about people copying their software - they aren't in the business of selling software, they are in the business of selling complete solutions.
Of course, IBM need a good pool of expertise in the market to hre their employees from. If they keep their operating system locked up, where is that expertise going to come from? All their employees will have to be trained in-house, and there won't be a thriving development community around it in the way that there is around FreeBSD/Linux/etc.
What you are saying is that if all software was Free, there wouldn't be much money to be made in licensing software. But there is still plenty of money to be made in developing software.
it's idiocy to be fanatical about open source as the only solution.
It's idocy to be fanatical about anything. But who's being fanatical? I see a letter aimed at trying to dissuade somebody from working on Free Software at all. That sounds like the person writing the letter is the fanatic.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MS doesn't do ANYTHING for free (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Has Gates ever actually come out and said that he thinks all software 'should' be proprietary? Maybe he's criticized free and open-source software on apparently pragmatic grounds, but that's not the same thing as pushing proprietary software as a moral imperative. So there is a qualitative difference between Gates and Stallman; They aren't the mirror images you seem to think.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, if you "wrote an open-source implementation of the core software in your company," I'd be SOL. But that's unlikely, because the software we sell [intelligent-imaging.com] is very specialized, requiring a great deal of technical knowledge to create, sell, and maintain. (And, for that matter, use.) It's a hell of a lot easier to find OSS developers for a DBMS, OS, general-purpose programming language, or Web server than for image processing and management software specific to microscopic images. This, IMO, is the future of proprietary software: niche-market apps which require specialized knowledge to produce will continue to command a premium, while general-purpose apps such as OS's and DBMS's will increasingly tend to be free.
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.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, for me... now that I just hit 40, it is about the free speach.
Dollar for dollar, I'd go with the Open Source solution. For those that don't understand what I just said...
I'd pay just as much for my Open Source software, more even, than I would for my Mac OSX or Windows software... which I also have and paid for.
The most valueable part of my computing experience, by far, is the Open Source parts.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
* You probability of getting a job is much better with a nice project on your resume. Before you start working, on open source project could open a lot of doors.
* Some people do things to advance the society, medicine sans frontiers or red cross workers for example. Major contributions to open software is also helping since it opens the playing field for poor countries.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you dominate a market, like Microsoft does with office suites, Adobe does with Photoshop or Macromedia does with Flash, you earn tons of cash. But if you don't, you can't earn much if anything at all. Effectively upstart software companies don't have any chance of succeeding in the retail market except when a new market opens. The only exception is games where new companies do seem to have a chance - mainly because compatibility between games isn't needed, so you can write a good game and be successful, but you can't write a good office suite and be successful - you would have to reverse-engineer data formats as well.
However, the bulk of programmers don't work for Microsoft or Adobe. I know quite some programmers personally and none are working for MS or Adobe. All I know work either for small companies which program specialized systems for other companies or work in-house to also do such systems.
So what does open-source replace? It replaces Microsoft, Adobe, etc. but can not and will not replace the "in-house" software programmer who creates customized programs for internal use (or for a single customer).
So, frankly, I don't think that open-source will change that much after all. The big software companies like Microsoft and Adobe will go (or more likely change into investment companies), that's for sure, but there will be plenty of paid programming work (open source and closed source).
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm confused, how does making someone pay me for the time it took to write software "restricting the freedom" or "violating the rights" of your "fellow human beings".
If we extend your argument to lets say farming, a farmer that charges for the food he produces is violating the rights of anyone who doesn't want to pay him for his labour. It cost him time and money to produce that food and he likely has a family to support. Why shouldn't he be able to charge a resonable price for his product.
Now if you want to grow food in your backyard and give it away that's your choice but don't suggest that because he made a different choice that it violates people's rights.
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
How does makeing software and then selling for money violate the rights of anyone? That seems to be what you're implying.
If charging for software is evil, then how is charging for support not evil. Or charging for doughnuts?Linus (Score:5, Funny)
Gates isn't "rich" where it counts? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is THAT supposed to mean? Last I checked, Bill Gates lives a safe, secure life in a dream home, is happily married with 3 kids, donates enormous amounts of cash to educational facilities (in case you were going to try and suggest that his conscience isn't clear), can afford to give everyone he cares about the life they've always dreamed of, has time to pursue anything he's interested in
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.
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.
Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, that just made me laugh. I agree with you, though.
Re:Site slashdot'ed befor it went live (Score:5, Funny)
Says the poster with the Real Doll sig.
Re:Site slashdot'ed befor it went live (Score:5, Insightful)
...and Clemens' reaction (Score:5, Informative)
---
Free stuff vs. free stuff
Of course my letter to Aiden is prompting some opposition. It may be worth noting that a very large proportion of the code that I write ends up being public and there's more stuff brewing as we speak. There is little need to educate me about giving. I am an educator. Sharing insight and therefore sharing manifestations of that insight in form of source code is my mission and part of my business. But this is not the business my clients are in and neither is it the business of most of the thousands of developers I am honored to speak for at conferences each year. Their business is about being paid for writing software. If they weren't paid, I wouldn't be paid. My job description is to figure out fundamental stuff and use my natural "understand very complex things thoroughly and rapidly" skill that I was luckily blessed with, so that I can explain those things to them and they can focus on solving customer problems. My free stuff helps my customers and is also playing a marketing role for me an my company. Our free stuff is a calculated investment. We can and do attach a number to it. dasBlog is a freebie for others but represents a significant investment that's worth several tens of thousands of Euros. It's not free, at all.
We support a project that brings us some indirect value. However, we do not in any way force any code republishing requirements upon the folks who'd like to reuse our code (we have a strict "no GPL" policy; our code is BSD licensed). We don't depend on a community of volunteers to turn dasBlog into a dominant blogging tool that we can benefit from by commerically supporting it. We believe that if we wanted to benefit from the software directly, we would have to rearchitect and rebuild it (or at least restrict ourselves to newtelligence contributions) and then sell it as a fully supported commercial product. My personal sense of respect and fairness tells me that I will not and should not exploit the others guys that have contributed to the free version of dasBlog. It's their hobby and their work is their work. I think a company like Red Hat, which is a public company (which did yield a significant "going public benefit" to their founders) and is profiting from the work of countless unpaid volunteers and enthusiasts, is a very clever, but deeply unethical entity.
I do believe in giving and I do believe that there is value for the community at large in sharing insight through source code. But we don't share the view that software is free or should be free. Someone pays for it. We have an investment in software that is free for others to use, MySQL has, HP has, IBM has, Sun has and - believe it or not - even Microsoft has. We do that as part of a well thought out and well understood business strategy.
I understand open source. I do open source. I do so because I am aware of what it can and can not do for a company. I think I have a pretty good understanding on what's going on in this business. If it becomes the norm that the people providing outsourcing, system administration, hardware, and consulting make orders of magnitudes more money than the creative force, the software engineers and architects who are envisioning and building the foundation for this industry, something is stinking. And it stinks a lot already.
Also, if you say that I am confusing "free software" and "open source". I am not. "Open" is the political argumentation line, "free" is the economic argumentation line of the same thing. If this sort of confusion exists for mostly everyone and one of the most often repeated line in OSS arguments is "you don't understand the difference", then that's caused by the simple fact that these terms are simply two angles of looking at the same story. The OSS "eco-system" only functions because both is true.
Matthew, selfish is not the one who wants to get a tangible reward for his work. Selfish is the one who denies that reward.
Re:Site slashdot'ed befor it went live (Score:5, Interesting)
First some background: I'm 28 years old, and dropped out of college my senior year because jobs were flying at me right and left.
Any software I write on my own is for my own personal enjoyment and education, is GPL'd, and I would be tickled pink if other people found it useful enough to them to use it.
As for the car, the house, the family? Because of my love for writing software, and willingness to keep honing my craft even during non-working hours, I am able to enjoy a 6 figure salary complete with loving wife, 2000 sq. foot home, and I own two brand new Lexus. Even in a down economy I am able to do this. Oh yeah, I also work for a non-profit org.
What keeps me employed and employable? My knowledge and experience with open source software. There is only one piece of software I use at work that is not open source, and that is Oracle, which is not even in my core skillset. My knowledge of Linux, a large set of apache products, and several other open source packages, are more valuable to me careerwise than knowledge of Oracle.
What do I consider the holy grail of my career? I asked James Duncan Davidson (Ant, Tomcat fame) at a local JUG meeting one time how authoring open source software has helped his career? He said that being able to put on his resume that he wrote Ant has given him the ability to just walk into any shop he wants and get a job. That is currently what I would like to accomplish. It may not ever happen, but that doesn't matter either. What does matter, is that I am enjoying life as it is, tinkering with free software even though it may never make me rich.
I don't expect to become a millionaire from writing software. That kind of wealth will come from investing and smart business decisions. But, I hate business, and I love writing software, so I really don't care if I never become a millionaire, as long as I can still write software, I will be happy with my six figure income.
As perhaps a stronger counterpoint, Bill Gates didn't become the richest man in the world from software. He became the richest man in the world by being a brilliant business man.
Re:Site slashdot'ed befor it went live (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the short answer is that programmers can be (and are being) paid for writing open source that satisfies the immediate and particular needs of the company they work for.
The long answer is to compare two models of software and its place in our economy. One model is the proprietary code one, where there are two types of companies: one which produces software, and one which uses the software. In this model there is a strong distinction also between computer users and programmers.
The other model is one where software is free, but programmers will be hired by companies to customize and extend software to meet their peculiar needs. This model tends to blur the distinction between programmers and users. Computers run programs, and so to use a computer is in some sense to program it.
The second model is world where software tools are more effectively leveraged and more valuable. So libraries become more complete, languages more powerful, and programming becomes easier for everyone. Good documentation is also valued.
The first model encourages building a higher barrier between users and programmers, so that the trade secrets needed to program are a commodity by themselves. That is the transparent mindset of the author of the letter. The attitude is that the knowledge of programming is one's net worth, and that giving it away by writing free code somehow lessens your worth.
I think that the proprietary software model does not work as well in a free market economy, where competition is the driving force behind innovation. In this model, competition necessarily leads to duplication of effort. Also having multiple competing proprietary OSes or software suites will multiply the need for specialized knowledge, and thus divide the value if a programmer's training. For example, if a DB programmer was trained in using Microsoft Access, but not trained in the equally-popular Nanosoft Gain (tm), they would only qualify for half of the current job openings. This explains Microsoft's delusions of benevolence. By dominating the market, they think they are reducing duplicated efforts to compete aginst them, and increasing the value of MS-trained programmers. In the world where software is a commodity, software companies naturally gravitate toward a monopoly.
Competition still thrives in the OS world, but software is not one of the trade commodities therein. Companies use software to help them be competetive with other goods or services.
So for these reasons and many more, companies are beginning to realize the value in the open software model. This model requires a critical mass of free software for it to work well, but I think that in many areas we've reached that critical mass.
Well, at least that's they way I see it. But I'm working in acedamia as a post-doc researcher, and don't have any comp-sci degrees. So I'm not experiencing any of this first-hand. But a lot of what I do is write (and use heavily) open-source code. My job requires that I be a good programmer, but that's not my profession. So naturally I support the OS model since it allows "amateur" programmers like me do my job. But my guesses about OS programming jobs in the industry is just from hearsay, so it's good to see other posts confirming it.
Apply this logic to math: (Score:5, Funny)
I think you remember the conversation we had recently at this university in Cambridge. You came up to me and told me how the math I was talking about was mostly useless, because it is a mystical secret where people need to be inducted into a secret soceity to use it and those who divulge it are killed. Unfortunately I don't have your letter, 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 young - like you now - I was also at university and was pursing a natural philosophy degree. Back then, I was very enthusiastic about mathematics as a humanitarian discipline. And thought that I was the best mathematician in the field has ever seen and everyone else was mostly worthless. And I did indeed derive some theorems that mattered and made a difference. The theory I spent some 3 years writing in algebra from when I was 18 was to solve a problem for my father's business. Because the business he's in requires a lot of interest calulations, he and my mother spent about 2-3 daily hours on average doing all of this stuff by hand. Using my theorem, that time went from 3 hours to about 15 minutes a day. That was math 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 Brittish Pounds and that was a huge heap of money for me. Where did the money go? I can't really remember where it all went, but I guess "lot of partying" or "Girls, Drugs and Minuettes" 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 1640 - let's fast forward to 1669 and you. All math 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 math may not be easy to understand with your notation 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 free math project you co-coordinate. I mean, really, the stuff that you and your buddies are doing with derivatives is truly impressive. There are a couple of things I'd probably do differently in terms of notation, but it works well and that's mostly what matters.
However, I start to wonder where your benefit is. You are - out of principle - not making any money out of this, because it is free 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.
In the end, Newton, it's your choice. Do you want to have a horse, a house and a family when you are 30? Do you love being a Natural Philosopher at the same time? If so, you literally need to get a life. Forget the dream about stuff being free and stop advocating it. It's idiocy. It's bigotry. If you want to put your skills to work and you need to support a family, your work and work results can't be free. Math is the immediate result and the manifestation of what your learned and what you know. How much is that worth? Nothing? Think again.
With best wishes for your future
Cardan
Here is the text of ... (Score:5, Informative)
Dear Aiden,
I don't know you from a bar of soap but I'd like to encourage you in your efforts developing Free Software. I understand your antipathy towards Microsoft given its track record of mocking, attacking and undermining Free Software but don't waste your energy hating it. It is, as Professor Eben Moglen, counsel for the Free Software Foundation, said the other day, on the wrong side of the software movement. Rather continue to write, improve upon, distribute and enourage others to use Free Software. And don't think you aren't perfectly entitled to charge money for Free Software - I do it for a living and it earns me quite a lot of money.
I'm not going to bore you with all the stupid Pascal stuff I did at your age, neither will I drivel on about making a few bucks from the odd software sale. What I will say is this: make sure you do something that you really enjoy for a living when you finally need to earn a living. Never take a job on the money alone. To spend most of your time doing something you hate just because the paycheck is good is soul-destroying. Using a job as a stepping stone is fine, but make sure you have a goal to do what you want. Don't worry if this process takes ten or fifteen years - you can still have lots of fun along the way while picking up experience. And there's at least one attractive woman out there who will love you for who you are, not how much you earn. You'll find her if you keep looking. Sometimes you'll find that she was there all the time - just that you didn't notice. Good luck.
You sound like you have much enthusiasm for programming. That's great - and one day it might provide you with a steady income. Developing Free Software teaches you all sorts of good habits which will stand you in good stead in the real world: client expectations, deadlines, having to work with obnoxious idiots who are nonetheless brilliant coders, version control and a passion for elegance and cleanliness. Even if it doesn't and you do something else for a living, writing Free Software is a pleasant part-time addiction that can provide many happy hours - I hesitate to say relaxation - occupation for your mind.
Free Software is not a myth or a lie: it is the largest single technical knowledge repository on the planet available to all who want at no charge. None of the code contained therein has been obtained by trickery or extortion. On the contrary, hundreds of thousands of intelligent coders want what you want: to program cool stuff and share it with others. And they have done so. There is no food chain in Free Software. It is perfectly possible for a young University student like yourself to change the world given enough talent, hard work and help from like-minded people (you may have noticed this somewhere before).
Like some other correspondents of yours, I also happen to know a few choice quotes about political systems. But since none of them shed any light whatsoever on the process of or motivation for writing Free Software, I will not waste your time with them.
You will encounter opposition from many quarters. Some of this opposition will be from genuinely concerned but misguided people who want to deny reality, ignorant as they are about the 21st century, the market share of Apache or sendmail, and the difference between bits and atoms. Some will even call you stupid or a bigot. Don't worry. You will be proud one day to tell your grandchildren that you created a program that thousands of people - maybe even millions - used to improve their lives. Right now your skills and enthusiasm are of enormous worth to yourself and many others. Many people will appreciate it when you share and share alike. And that by itself is worth much more than choosing life, a career, or a fscking big television.
This is FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Still I derive extrodinary benefit from the GPL software. I have an extremely well-debugged toolkit that I can easily modify. I have also achieved a good deal of fame for this, just a search for my name will reveal that 90% of the citations are for FLTK or other toolkits, while my for-hire work for Digital Domain is hardly noticed at all. I fully expect FLTK to be very important if I need to change jobs. Every single person we have interviewed for a job here who has heard of me has heard of me because they used FLTK.
In his followup letter this guy has the incredible lack of logic to say that programmers should not be selfish and then complain that he cannot use GPL code in his software. This is typical of somebody who just does not get it, or is purposely lying to get his own agenda across. The GPL is extremely selfish. I use it because it is the only way my code can be used and still belong to me. Anybody who does not understand this has not written open source code. Any anybody who complains both about the GPL and also complains about "poor programmers not getting paid" is a raving lunatic who should not be listened too.
I am also disgusted by his "pick up girls in the bar" line. Really, do you think one of the programmers at Microsoft working on Word has any better luck picking up girls in the bar? Do you think the typical salary paid to a software engineer makes the slightest difference in this? If you do, you are pretty seriously deluded. It's the managers and money-makers who are able to do this, and in fact open source is one way to screw with them. And if you happen to be good-looking and have a nice personality then you might get the girls and they really do not care one bit whether you open-source your code or not.
Re:PS to letter (Score:5, Insightful)
His letter is basically "What's your plan for moving out of your parents' place?"
Re:PS to letter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:PS to letter (Score:5, Insightful)
As for making money from your education, while I am the first to point out that one should not base one's education solely on one's vocational interest (e.g. take lots and lots of elective courses outside of your focus, feed your mind while you can), if, like me, you spent tens of thousands of your own (not your fellow citizen's via the confiscation of the government) dollars/euros/whatever on that education, it is reasonable that you find some way to actually provide for yourself with the fruits of your education. 'Would you like fries with that?' isn't something a bright and educated person should be saying in the course of their job.
Larry
Re:PS to letter (Score:5, Insightful)
In my world, writing new software has monetary cost. If you want me to write something for you, you'll have to pay me.
Once it's written though, it can be used to do whatever it does, but it doesn't have monetary cost to make copies of it, that's a trivial operation and something I have nothing to do with.
Does that mean fewer programmers are needed? Probably. Does that mean no programmers are needed? Not at all.
Re:PS to letter (Score:5, Insightful)
Before everyone gets all uppity: I think that when it comes to basic underlying architecture, there is no better way to ensure quality and performance, than to get lots of eyes on the the source code. In that respect, open source environments, where there are a large number of volunteers willing to scrutinize implementation details, will guarantee that lurking issues get addressed in due course.
But 'open' doesn't necessarily imply 'free'. As Clemens says, your skills are valuable, and while you're at a stage where coding is 'fun', being able to say 'all the Linux users are using my kernel mod' doesn't pay the rent.
Re:PS to letter (Score:5, Interesting)
And he's right, I was being a tad crass.
But I honestly feel that your modivation in the world shouldn't only be about money. I don't say this behind a life of privilage or wealth. I don't have a high paying job. I'm not doing what I went to school for or what I made a name for myself in the pre-press world. I turned my back on it...with no great fortune or really any assets at all. My wife works, I work a part time job and we support my family. I used to make a nice wage but I turned my back on it. I'm very happy now, but before with much more money, I certainly wasn't. My wife wasn't happy either as the stress and pressures of my job wore at our marriage. Now everything has turned around.
So for me, I would put happiness over money. Money is needed certainly, but there comes a time when the pursuit of money overwhelms one's happiness.
Is my situation typical and do I advocate everyone doing this? Of course not. But I grew up in the 70's...it was a cynical time for a teen. I grew up as a cynic. I suppose I've changed and now I'm going to a more hippy approach to things. I really want to help others. I honestly belive that in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Ok, before I call for a group hug I'll sign off.
Re:PS to letter (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe that's the kind of girl he married and is still bitter about it...
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
Re:PS to letter (Score:5, Informative)
Given that the "software is mystical, please pay me lots of money for it, you definitely shouldn't be allowed to see the actual code you pay for because that's precious" model is what keeps him in a job, I can see why he's defending it. If companies are only willing to pay for open* solutions, Microsoft have nothing for them. He'll need to re-work all his skills to a new platform vendor, or watch his business fail.
*: open source, not necessarily open licensing.
net result (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in a world where there was no open source software, there would be precious few closed source solutions, with a handful of programmers maintaining them. Closed source doesn't magically guarantee that every programmer will have a job. Nor does the existance of an open source alternative put all the programmers out of a job.
Already, most programming jobs in America are something OTHER than creating an office suite or an operating system. Programmers do innovate new solutions, usually right on the payroll of the single company that needs that solution. Thats the world of programming in America, and those programmers will have jobs reguardless of the prominence of open source software.
The author's fundmental premise is sound: you need money to earn a living. However, the next premise: if you work on open source, there will be no money, is seriously questionable.
--AC
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.
Re:Don't misunderstand the issue (Score:5, Interesting)
The money is in development, modification, and integration. I'm sitting here at work right now with 50 highly qualified engineers who are all well paid, and all work on free software. Since the day I graduated from college I've been doing well paid contract work on and with free software, and I was able to get the positions because I worked on free software for years. I was able to point my potential employers to successful programs that I had worked on, and as a result skipped the entire grind that this guy is talking about in his letter. I didn't have to spend 10 years after college proving my skills, because I already had. My title, salary, and responsibilities reflected that on day one.
Sure, OSS and free software isn't going to make your microsoft options go up in value, but writing the software can bring in a paycheck. All the OSS developers I know had no trouble getting jobs, even during the last 2 years.
Eeeep. (Score:5, Funny)
<Asok [unitedmedia.com]>It only hurts because it's true.</Asok>
Re:Eeeep. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm 19, and I'm lucky enough to (currently) be working part time for a well known free software company.
I'm still at university, in fact, I'm in my first year. While I've never had a letter like this, my parents have of course raised the same issues. This is what I told them. Hopefully it will be of use to other young people in my situation.
The fact is, that making money by selling software is hard. Damn hard. Even if you just work every day for a paycheque and go home at 5pm after you added a new feature to Photoshop, you're in the minority. Most programmers (I've seen statistics that say 80% but I have no idea how accurate that is) don't write software to sell, they write software to solve peoples problems.
Let's review why writing software and selling it is hard, from the perspective of the guy who had the idea and is trying to capitalize on it rather than the 9-5 hired hand.
Firstly, it's not just a matter of writing a program and sitting back while the cash rolls in. You are expected, at minimum, to release new versions every so often, have professional packaging, probably you will be required to support it and deal with the random problems people come to you with. This is not a short term commitment. Your software may be around and have users for years. In other words, selling software requires a considerable investment of effort and time.
Market conditions in software are not favourable. Software competes on a global market - this isn't a grocery store you're running. If the guy on the other side of the planet has a better product for a better price, you are in direct competition with them. It's not even a case of better product better price often - you think you can write a better word processor than Word? Go for it. Just don't expect to sell more than a few copies even if it is better. Life isn't fair, and the "unfree market" especially so.
No. Why would I want to work day after day on the same product, being a cog in the machine? I want to try for a better way.
What I'm currently valued for is not what I've written, you see, but what I can write. When people hire me (and I've worked for quite a few well known companies by now), they are hiring my knowledge and expertise which I sell to them typically at an hourly or monthly rate.
They purchase my skills because I can solve their problems. Ultimately this is what it's all about. One way programmers can solve peoples problems is by writing a product, setting up retail channels and then hoping that enough people have the same problem that they can strike it rich, but this is a high risk endevour and I'm not naturally somebody who likes high risk. I'd rather go to them directly (or in the case of one of the last jobs I did, went to a consortium of people), and solve their problem directly then move onto a different problem.
This is how I intend to earn my living, and so far it's working out pretty nicely.
Claiming that software has to be proprietary, that it has to be bought and sold as if it were a physical thing is a gross distortion of both economics and common sense. People tend to look at software as a machine, as a black box, and so it's natural to draw an analogy to a physical thing (hence copy protection) but really it's little more than a series of instructions for how to solve a problem.
If you asked me, "How do I make a pasta bake?" would I write down a recipe for a pasta bake then sell it to you on the condition that you didn't give anybody else a copy? Would I try and sell that as a physical product? Of course not. Just phrasing it in english and writing it down doesn't make it a product. It's simply an encapsulation of knowledge.
A better idea, if people ask you that often, is to teach people cooking, or alternatively become a chef, ie people pay you to excercise your skills (cooking) to solve their problem (hunger) and if you happen to invent new recipes and share them with fellow chefs at the same time then so what? Nobody loses.
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.
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.
Practicality (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw a post from some seventeen year old bragging about how he'd been working on open source stuff for a while, and isn't that just fine. But sorry, at seventeen you know so little that you don't even realize how little you know.
Sure, we can all point to Linus and ESR and say "Hey, they've made it big, therefore the business model to which we aspire must be valid!"... It may be valid, but it's hardly useful to refer to anecdotal evidence in support of that point.
So I reiterate - the only people I will personally listen to in this thread are people who can personally attest to living in the REAL world, and living REAL lives, entirely on Open Source dollars.
Are we turning into the Ferengi? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's odd is when you look at Linux, it's taking the IT industry by storm. And look at all the new jobs being created. Whole new industries popping up all over in implementation, support, in new distributions, embedded applications. It's not just a software product, it's an economy unto itself.
I don't know how anyone makes the argument there's no money in FOSS. Whole industries exist because of free software.
Fermat's Last Theorem (Score:5, Insightful)
Young Mr. Wiles. The mathematical theorem you proved is the immediate result and the manifestation of what you learned and what you know. How much is the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem worth? Nothing? Think again.
Instead of publishing the result, I think you should keep it to yourself, charge all of the mathematicians who want to see it lots of money, and make them sign a non-disclosure agreement to promise not to use the result in their own work. Posterity will not be served, but you will be.
Not all software (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Experience.
Seriously. Who would hire a fresh-out-of-college person with no real world experience? At least when they contribute to open source they have some real world experience. If the software gets big, even better. If it is some small piddly OSS project, well, at least you tried. You have guy A who goes off, does what he has to do to pass college, and goes party. You have guy B, who now has a masters, plus 6, 8, or 10 years of real-world programming experience. Who will you hire? Seriously. Don't get a life, it won't get you work. =)
2) Hey, geeks know geeks. You apply for a job, you are the new "project manager" and have to keep several programmers working for you. You introduce yourself to you new team, say that you do this, you know this, and you've worked on this. Right there, you can get a good scoop of respect right there and get your work off to a great start.
3) You could get a job supporting or expanding on whatever project you've been working on. Not likely a full time job, but perhaps a few extra bucks every now and then, eh?
I think this guy is just scared that he soon will be outsourced. I think that because he has chosen to be a programmer, only one of the many things you can do with a CS degree, that he is very afraid that OSS programmers and OSS is taking away his work. Really, programming needs to be in two degrees, "basic" which is a 2 year degree, and advanced, which can be from 4 to 6 years. Programming is a commodity, it is a service industry. The more advanced things are program design(yes, I know, everyone complains about flowcharting it, UML, etc.. when they are in school, but when you gotta write that up and send it off to India, it matters, since it may be the only thing keeping you employed).
I think people get programming confused with an advanced profession because it is so flexible. It can be extremely advanced, from writing compilers, to JITs, etc... There is so much theory out there. But really, it is just doing the same stuff over and over again slightly differently. Yes, there are different languages. No, they are not difficult to learn new ones. Once you know the basics of programming it all falls in pretty quickly. How much you actually use of what new stuff you learned is pretty low on the scale too.
Whether you are writing enterprise apps(which has several methods, procedures, and theories on its own) or a quick one-off web app, it is basically the same stuff. I will say that enterprise apps require more discipline and knowledge than a quick one-off web app, but most of that can be learned in a month or two easily. Yes, univ's stretch it out by you only going to class two or three times a week for several months, and learning many other things while you are there. But if you focus, you can learn it all pretty quick.
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.
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?
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.
Re:worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
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
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.
Re:worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that she didn't help lots of people, or just preaching christianity, without actually helping. (many christians & free software/oss people should take note: help not just preach!). The grandparent seemed to imply that she did it for no reason other than the goodness of her heart, but the reason was the same as the free software people: make the world a better place according to their ideology, and if you call that goodness of people's hearts, then all the better.
Just as people who code for money aren't mostly in it for money, but to actually make their lives better.
I happen to believe that my contributions (small though they mostly are) will help people, because I like doing it, and several of the things I wrote anyway to help with administering a network, so why NOT help anyone else who needs a similar tool and let other people help me?
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.
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.
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...
Re:The value of software (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to make money by giving away software and selling support, then Open Source is iffy but has a chance of working. You can often be replaced cheaper by an in-house programmer or local consultant.
However, if you want to make your own software to USE that helps your company make money, then Open Source is invaluable. If others can put portions of your application to good use, then they will help develop it and everyone benefits.
Still, though, any Open Source work cuts down on the available paid work for programmers, because it is efficient and may be supplemented by free coders. So Open Source makes a lot of sense for companies as a whole, perhaps less sense for individual programmers who want to make a living; pretty similar actually to the effect of outsourcing.
Compare how long Linux and DOS/Windows have both existed. Bill Gates is a multi-billionaire, Linus Torvalds is a multi-thousandaire. It's up to the individual to decide if they value a contribution to the computing community more than personal gain.