Marketing
Larry McVoy, legenda open-source "komjunitija" kaze: Nema kruha od open-sourcea!
Larry McVoy, legenda open-sourcea kaze: Nema kruha od open sourcea!
Evo jedne vrrrrrrrrrlo vrrrrrrrrlo zanimljive vijesti, bas me zanima sto ce nas dragi domaci konzumentsko-besplatnjacki open source komjuniti imati za reci na ovo. Pogledajmo ovu meni iznimno dragu vijest:
Linuxaška zajednica ovih dana ima razloga tugovati – Larry McVoy koji je njen član od 1993. i koji je napravio ogroman doprinos razvoju Linuxa svojim alatom BitKeeper, bez kojega je kompajliranje i praćenja razvoja novih modula unutar kernela gotovo nemoguće, odlučio je pokupiti svoje krpice. Osnovao je tvrtku BitMover u SanFranciscu koja će prodavati BitKeeper, a usput je i dao intervju uglednom Forbesu.
Prema McVoyu, kao poslovni model, otvoreni kod nema nikakve šanse, što je okusio na vlastitoj koži kada u sve ove godine rada na BitKeeperu i njegovog razvoja, nije dobio ni centa.
Izvor: http://www.bug.hr/vijesti/index.asp?id=64391
Dakle, vrlo je interesantno to kako je covjek, koji je punih 12 godina radio u open-sourceu i bio vrlo ugledan clan open-source "komjunitija" na kraju od svega odustao, izrazivsi pri tome potpuno iste one primjedbe koje ja vama ovdje vec godinama govorim pa mi se svi smiju i vrijedjaju me da sam "pohlepna kurvica", itd!
A koje su to primjedbe? Evo, prenijet cu vam djelove tih Larryjevih nadasve istinitih i logicnih opservacija, koje je on iznio u intervjuu za "Forbes":
Open source as a business model, in isolation, is pretty much unsustainable," says McVoy, founder and chief executive of BitMover, a San Francisco-based company that makes a software-development tool for Linux called BitKeeper.
McVoy understands open source as well as anyone on the planet. Though his product, BitKeeper, is not an open source program, from 2002 until 2005, McVoy let open source programmers use it for free. But as of July, McVoy will stop the give-away, saying it has been costing him nearly $500,000 per year to support Torvalds and his programmers.
Open source advocates have pushed McVoy to "open source" his product--that is, to publish the program's source code, or basic instructions, and let the world use it for free. But McVoy says it is simply not possible for an innovative software company to sustain itself using an open source business model.
"We believe if we open sourced our product, we would be out of business in six months," McVoy says. "The bottom line is you have to build a financially sound company with a well-trained staff. And those staffers like their salaries. If everything is free, how can I make enough money to keep building that product for you and supporting you?"
The term "open source" refers to software that is distributed with its source code so that anyone can read or copy that code. Most commercial programs, like those made by Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ), keep their source code secret.
Open source products typically are distributed free, since it's pretty much impossible to charge money for something that anyone can copy.
So how do you make money with open source code? Some companies, like Red Hat, distribute Linux for free and then make money selling service contracts to users.
"One problem with the services model is that it is based on the idea that you are giving customers crap--because if you give them software that works, what is the point of service?" McVoy says. "The other problem is that the services model doesn't generate enough revenue to support the creation of the next generation of innovative products. For example, Red Hat has been around for a long time--for a decade now. Yet try to name one significant thing--one innovative product--that has come out of Red Hat."
To be sure, a few open source companies are successfully generating revenue and even (possibly) profits. But none of them generates enough money to do anything really innovative, says McVoy, 43, an industry veteran who has developed operating system software at Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics and Google.
"The open source guys can scrape together enough resources to reverse engineer stuff. That's easy. It's way cheaper to reverse engineer something than to create something new. But if the world goes to 100% open source, innovation goes to zero. The open source guys hate it when I say this, but it's true." (HAHAHHAHAHA, pa nije li upravo ovo ono sto sam vam ja cijelo vrijeme govrila, a sada vidimo da i iskusni opensorsas tvrdi to isto! Linuxasi i opensorsasi: poludite!)
McVoy says open source advocates fail to recognize that building new software requires lots of trial and error, which means investing lots of money. Software companies won't make those investments unless they can earn a return by selling programs rather than giving them away.
"It costs a huge amount of money to develop a single innovative software product. You have to have a business model that will let you recoup those costs. These arguments are exceedingly unpopular. Everyone wants everything to be free. They say, 'You're an evil corporate guy, and you don't get it.' But I'm not evil. I'm well-known in the open source community. But none of them can show me how to build a software-development house and fund it off open source revenue. My claim is it can't be done."
And though open source software may be "free," sometimes you get what you pay for, McVoy says. "Open source software is like handing you a doctor's bag and the architectural plans for a hospital and saying, 'Hey dude, if you have a heart attack, here are all the tools you need--and it's free,'" McVoy says. "I'd rather pay someone to take care of me."
McVoy argues that the open source phenomenon may appear to be sustainable but actually is being propped up by hardware makers who view open source code as a loss leader--something that will entice customers to buy their boxes.
"Nobody wants to admit that most of the money funding open source development, maybe 80% to 90%, is coming from companies that are not open source companies themselves. What happens when these sponsors go away and there is not enough money floating around? Where is innovation going to come from? Is the government going to fund it? This stuff is expensive."
Even the popular Linux operating system would suffer if hardware makers stopped their sugar-daddy support for its development--putting their own programmers to work on Linux, and sending payments to the Open Source Development Labs, the non-profit organization that employs Torvalds and some of his key lieutenants.
"If hardware companies stopped funding development, I think it would dramatically damage the pace at which Linux is being developed. It would be pretty darn close to a nuclear bomb going off," McVoy says.
Heretical as this may seem, McVoy wants to be on the side that innovates and makes money.
Meni se cini da se nas dragi open-source komjuniti poceo malo po malo trijezniti od svog idealizma i da ljudi malo pomalo shvacaju da je open source nesto sto nema buducnosti, jer je ocekivanje da se sve moze dobiti besplatno i bez imalo truda, naprosto nerealno. I tako se nas dragi open-source komjuniti polako osipa, te ce na kraju u njemu ostati samo ljudi poput cp.tar-a, lila ili AxMija, ljudi gladni besplatnog softvera, antimajkrosoftovski raspolozeni, ali i posve nesposobni da softver sami kreiraju, dakle, puki konzumenti i eksploatatori tudjeg truda i muke!
Osim toga, McVoy je i sam rekao ono sto sam i sama vec milijun puta istaknula (pronadjite to za vjezbu u tekstu gore!): da je lako reverse-engineeringom kopirati vec postojecu stvar, ali gdje je tu onda inovacija? Inovacija kosta, a open-source model nije u stanju taj novac pribaviti! Itd, itd! Procitajte ovo gore i vidite do kakvih zakljucaka je na kraju dosao jedan iskusni covjek iz open-source komjunitija, Larry McVoy!
pozdrav svima od vase trenutno zbanane
math_baby
Post je objavljen 28.05.2005. u 10:32 sati.