Re: [Fsfe-uk] BECTA discriminate against FLOSS?

[ian]

On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 22:22, Chris Croughton wrote:

> 
> > On the issue of risk, (Alex's point), the onply risk in business is to
> > take no risk.
> 
> Only true if you say "no risks at all".  For instance, a bakery might
> take risks on a new type of bread (their speciality) but might be taking
> no risks on accounting software at all (still using paper and pen,
> even).  A software house might be willing to take risks in developing
> software but not in Health and Safety.

But if the world really does start to adopt FLOSS and you haven't kept
up to date, you are at a real disadvantage. Risk management is
important. Ok not reckless risk, but a degree of risk you can sustain
even if it goes wrong. 

> > The highest risk stocks have overall outperformed the
> > lowest risk ove the last Century, but some spread betting is needed ;-)
> 
> Overall maybe, but can you afford to bet in the first place?

You bet what you can afford to lose. That is the sensible dimension on
any gamble. And you look for favourable odds - low outlay you can afford
to lose as against possible large gains.

>  And where
> were they taking the risks?  The risks of using MS software are
> well-known, but for most companies they are easily dealt with by
> existing procedures.  If they don't need to change for some other
> reason, why take the risk?

If they want competitive advantage. Even at the margins risk is
important. If you do the same as everyone else how do you differentiate
your business? Price or brand name?

> > Anyone that sells any MS products is effectively working for MS.
> 
> OK, in that way.  But I don't sell MS software (OK, I did buy it in the
> case of Visual Basic, but that's because it is /the/ best GUI
> development package in my opinion for what I want, no FLOSS equivalent
> comes near it).

Whatever the reason, you are in effect backing MS - not knocking it, we
sell MS produce because we have little choice in the matter. We do have
a choice though in what we actively promote.

> > Its very difficult to be in the IT business and on principle sell no
> > MS product. The way I look at it is that its a necessary evil to stay
> > in business that enables me to shift away from MS. It also gives a bit
> > of even-handedness. We will supply what ever the customer wants
> > because we know both systems and we can give even-handed advice. In
> > fact, if all purchasers who had to buy MS products but preferred free
> > software bought from companies like mine, a) we would be in a better
> > position to promote FLOSS and b) It sends a message to other companies
> > that there is a marketing edge in supporting FLOSS.
> 
> Agreed, and that's why I don't like total "anti-MS" stances.  What a
> customer (or client, or friend) needs is something which will do the job
> they want, and I am doing them no favours if I insist on only
> considering one part of the products available.

Paradoxically you could be damaging the shift away from MS :-)

> > > But is FLOSS actually all
> > > that financially rewarding? 
> > 
> > At least as good as selling MS based stuff - actually better if you can
> > persuade people to buy it without spending a lot of money on marketing.
> 
> Er, yes, but isn't that just as true for non-open (but cheap) software?

Possibly, but most isn't as good as stuff like GNU Linux or Open
Office.org.

> > That is the killer for most people. The cost of promoting FLOSS against
> > the behometh of MS branding can be prohibitively expensive. In the end
> > its all marketing bo***ox :-). Most software licensing revenue goes into
> > marketing and fighting court cases etc which is why its a pretty
> > inefficient production model. Once people realise that the open standard
> > is the thing to go for the marketing battle is won as far as FLOSS is
> > concerned so prices tumble.
> 
> Open standards don't necessarily imply open source (even less free
> software).  There's loads of proprietary software implementing TCP/IP,
> for instance.

Again true, but open standards are far more likely to be maintained with
Open Source.

> But if you don't advertise then a lot of places will see that as a
> downside.  I do, even, when looking through the Yellow Pages I generally
> ignore entries without at least a box advert.
> 
> > > I have yet to see a business model for
> > > FLOSS which really supports developing the software, the RMS ideals seem
> > > to be based on getting revenue for maintaining it which seems to me a
> > > lot more shaky (for instance, if I have the source and can apply the
> > > patches myself, or even just download the next version from the net, I
> > > don't make any revenue for anyone).
> > 
> > I think on the major applications such as OS an Office suite, browsers
> > etc - the only things MS makes any real money on - the development model
> > is easily sustainable from relatively marginal input from large
> > corporates and governments say largely through the universities. For
> > specialist apps, I think the jury is still out, but just the OS and
> > major productivity apps would be a major step forward. It doesn't have
> > to be all or nothing and in fact I doubt it ever will be.
> 
> Indeed, but the point is how do I live while I'm writing my killer app?

That's up to you. Which killer apps are left to write? I'm struggling to
think of too many that have emerged recently. Maybe make it proprietary
and then open it up. Whatever works.

> And how do I make money after it if someone else can take my code and
> support it?  A few people are lucky in finding an employer who will pay
> you for developing something free, but there aren't many of those
> around.  And if I'm working full-time to get money to live then I'm not
> going to be writing much code "on the side".

I might be a heretic but not everything has to be FLOSS. I'd be
reasonably happy if the OS and productivity tools were since these are
generally what dictate current monopolies.

> > > Red Hat is not a good example (it
> > > seems to me that they are breaking the spirit of FLOSS even if not the
> > > letter of the licence).
> > 
> > Models will evolve and we are in a volatile state of flux, so the exact
> > details of what will settle out with stability is difficult to predict.
> 
> True, but 'now' is when it's important.  Now is when companies need to
> be weaned away from proprietary code, when they need to see an advantage
> in letting their programmers write free software (heck, many programmers
> are still locked in to contracts which dn't even allow them to write
> free software on their own time).

I think that is likely to take a few years for other than major general
purpose apps.

> > > But they don't really want to change anything, except to pay less money.
> > 
> > They don't even want to pay less if its not their money! Resistance to
> > change is natural, it just becomes inevitable when early adopters start
> > to get competitive advantage. When its change or lose your job, the mind
> > becomes a bit more focused.
> 
> But that is still a long way ahead.  How many companies even think about
> the next 10 years? 

I don't think it is in every industry. If your main job is procurement
of Office software and in 2 years, OO.o development is usch that there
really is no argument to use MS Office, I could see that being a 2 year
time scale.

>  What company now (or UK state organisation) would
> fire people for choosing MS over FLOSS?

Not fire them, maybe sideline them or put them out to grass. Its likely
to be a lot more subtle.

>   The place I've recently been
> working has had people trying to get OO.o installed instead of the
> latest version of MSWord, and the company won't have it ("too much
> risk").

Give it 2 years and see if they say the same thing ;-)

> > Its more complex than that. The freedoms are to an extent interdependent
> > and free as in free beer is supported by lowering inconvenience and
> > admin costs from free as in free to use and free as in free to develop
> > also has potential to lower costs. In the end it all boils down to a
> > more efficient economic model and where this is the case it will thrive.
> 
> But not as far as the users are concerned.  Sure, there may be a
> knock-on effect but they don't care about that, or even think about it.

Not in the affluent West perhaps now, but they are in other countries
and that will spill over.

> That's buried in the 'mechanics' of producing software, and there are
> thousands (and more!) of managers who don't understand that.  Certainly
> those who make decisions (largely the bean-counters these days) don't
> understand software production, they are more likely to be concerned
> about their "IP rights".
> 
> > > The only sort of 'free' they are really interested in is "as in beer",
> > > and large organisations tend to distrust that 'free' things are any good
> > > ("anything free is worth what you pay for it"), or think that there's a
> > > catch somewhere ("there's no free lunch" -- as in someone taking it over
> > > and making it proprietary again).
> > 
> > Yeav but there is around 12 billion a year going to MS which can be cut
> > out of the equation. That's nothing to do with free lunches, its just
> > improving production efficiency.
> 
> Try explaining that to the sort who say "If we pay a lot for it then it
> must be worth it".  OK, you probably have -- did you make a dent?

Ask China if it makes a dent, or Brazil or India. This is a global issue
not a UK one. In 50 years, China's economy is quite likely to be biggere
than the USAs.

> > Betamax/VHS is the most misquoted example and rarely that applicable. On
> > the VHS/beta argument you could just as easily say, yeah, even if Linux
> > is worse than Windows it'll get adopted because its in more industry
> > players long term advantage to do so.
> 
> That's the thing you need to prove.  Current experience for most
> companies is that the established system is the best (and they have
> billions of pounds sunk in it to 'prove' it).

No, they have massive inertia in the commitment to it that they can't
change overnight. IBM are not interested in FLOSS for philosophical
reasons and neither are Sun.

> If you don't like VHS/Betamax, try DAT/DCC.  Both of which lost out to
> recordable CDs when the latter became cheap, both lots of early adopters
> lost (DAT is still around, just, but it's difficult to find the
> equipment now).

More like Tape Vs DVD. One is old the other recent.

> > >  Those who waited to see which would
> > > win out gained because they didn't have to change.  The same is
> > > happening with DVD +/- R/RW, whichever one becomes standardised the
> > > "early adopters" will in the main lose.
> > 
> > No, the early adopters that get it wrong lose,
> 
> Yup, with DVD that will be most of them.  4 options, only one wins...
> 
> > those that get it right win hand over fist which is why VCs *expect*
> > to lose quite a proportion of their investments for the one that goes
> > real big.
> 
> Do tey so much now?  I thought they were being a lot more cautious in te
> current economic climate.  It's why we had the DotCom boom and
> subsequent bust.
> 
> > <SNIP>
> > > If there were a "file of case studies" to which people could be pointed
> > > then that would indeed help, but I don't see one.  Don't expect the
> > > potential buyers to go hunting, though.
> > 
> > I don't, but its rather more efficient to go and talk to them and
> > actively sell them product than to spend the time writing case studies
> > ;-)
> 
> Surely it's more efficient to do it once and then re-use it for
> subsequent times.  What sort of Unix programmer are you?  <g>

I'm not any sort of programmer, I'm a salesman ;-) Sales is a face to
face job, not handing out leaflets or sending E-mails.

-- 
ian <address@hidden>