Questions for Keith Curtis?

Um, how does he expect to get over the pipe dream that open source can get away from all of the cruft caused by "too many interested eyes, but not enough experienced hands"? Sure you can tell someone "Linux is free and you can freely access the source code so that you can add your own features, yada, yada", but how many people actually do that? It might sound good on paper, but in practise, the number of experienced C programmers that actually contribute to community projects is extremely slim (hint: considering that Linux is a single-digit market share, it's safe to say that it's going to be less than 1%). Likewise, how do you really address the issue of business software technology support when businesses would rather seek help from a single vendor? I mean, no business wants to be "Google'ing" (I hate that term) for answers because their business-critical apps don't work or their OSS server goes down. It's not like vendor-packaged versions of Linux don't have proprietary software in them. In fact, all of the major enterprise Linux makers include proprietary software of some kind that isn't fully open source (or at least, isn't licensed under the GPL, which Linux is supposed to be). If you want centralized support from a commercial vendor, it's not fully open source or free, and vice versa. Most IT professionals certainly don't want to be full-time programmers either - they're 2 different professions - so businesses would have to hire specialized full-time programmers as part of the IT team, which is ludicrous. Then, you have to make sure that if they're building software on top of existing open source software (or fixing bugs), they'd have to follow licensing rules governed by the GPL (the BSD is kind of a farce IMO - it's just a shield for someone to charge for OSS, claim rights on someone elses IP, and turn open source software into closed source, proprietary software). Do you honestly believe businesses will go for this?

His thinking seems incredibly naive to me. I've been programming for almost 40 years now and the trend I see is to sloppier and bigger code with OO languages like Java and C++ leading the way. To say that garbage collecting languages are the way of the future is to encourage sloppy programming - why should I worry about releasing objects when the run-time will do it for me? It doesn't matter that the whole system can come to a stand-still while the garbage collector decides what to throw out. Programmers have been getting lazier and lazier. Slow machines, small memory footprints, and C forced programmers to think about being efficient about what they were doing and careful about the way they programmed. Object oriented language are fine for object oriented paradigms, but writing an HTML parser or a low-level device driver in OO makes no sense. Mr. Curtis complained about Sun only having a handful of programmers working on OpenOffice. What is the monetary reason for having more? You can't fund projects if they don't make any money. That's the biggest problem with the whole idea of Open Source. Why should a company or an individual spend hundreds of hours working on a project for no compensation? That's why the Linux driver support is so shallow. Microsoft can afford to have an army of programmers working on all things Windows because they make a boatload of money to support it. Linux will always be a niche player until there is some way to fund it. Right now Linux is playing catchup, always striving to look like Windows or OS X. Until they do something radically different, why should I use it when I got Windows or OS X with the computer when I bought it? Why would a manufacturer put Linux on a box when they know that the technical support will be their responsibility, when they can ship Windows and let Microsoft handle the software tech support.

"In terms of the future, I think it will boil down to a battle between .Net and Python." I was thinking about making a new website in .net with visual studio and all of its tools... but, nah lets do it in python. "I've been programming for almost 40 years now and the trend I see is to sloppier and bigger code with OO languages like Java and C++ leading the way." I have to agree with this statement. Although I programmed in java for only a while my coworkers thoughts were on the lines of "oh the garbage collector will take care of that". No it won't. Has anyone scanned over the book? I don't think he learned much about business when he worked at Microsoft. A businesses number 1 goal is not to make customers happy, it is to make money. Hopefully his hugs and rainbows attitude in the book will change and start giving some examples that aren't personal experience or hypothetical, otherwise I don't think it will get much attention.

"Linux will always be a niche player until there is some way to fund it." The only way Linux will get a decent amount of money behind it is when they start protecting their property. Having software open source and free makes it have no value in the market, meaning there's no money for innovation, just labour. And we all know that labour jobs are going to India for $1/day. So why make innovative software if you can't make any money at it and protect it from being stolen? (Hint: people can't live off good intentions and charitable donations)

Waethorn, socialism/communism suffers from the same intrinsic problems. If a doctor gets paid the same as a coal mine worker, what's the point of doing all the hard work to become a doctor? dberger is spot on - the fundamental issue with Open Source software is that it has no monetary value and thus private investment in the platform is futile and a waste of company resources. Why? There are no profits from investing in Linux. Simple as that. Businesses are not altruistic charities - they have to make money in order to survive. That means no prudent company is going to invest a lot of money to design software that will be released free in the market. Those that do release free software are usually cross-subsidising the development from other profitable business units. And no company is going to innovate with open source code only to have their competitors benefit. Thus, I think Mr Curtis is mostly misguided in his attempt to characterise a future without proprietary software. Proprietary software will always exist so long as the need for businesses to make money exists. Microsoft may, at some point, lose its overwhelming dominance in the market, but it will continue to invest and innovate in diversified software markets, all of which can only be funded with profits.

Mike, All I have to say is: Wow. Is that really your view on doctors? Good job putting words right in RoberC's mouth. I'm sure he questions the doctors he finds to first see if they were in it for a quick buck. Looks like you too don't care about the amount of work it takes to become a doctor in this country, and the changing situation in the medical field, and the amount of cash it takes to do it. To say you want a doctor that doesn't care about his compensation is ludicrous. Doctor: I used my expensive education, equipment, medicine, time, and vast knowledge to cure you. You: thanks for curing me. I don't care how much you get paid, because all you care about is curing me. And you wonder why the motivation to become a quality doctor in this country is declining. Its the same view with linux and open source software. "I want geeks that care about writing good software, not making a good buck". On the other side, "I want good software from people that care about it, I don't care how much they get paid." It doesn't work.

I'll wait for Paul to sift through this and pick questions to ask, but I just wanted to say that my book never argues that programmers should work for free.

Avro, I have to completely disagree with you. Greed has been such a motivating factor through out human history, that it even overwhelms the greats. Greed and money have started wars, ended wars. Empires have been shaped and shattered thanks to money and greed. Fortunes, economies, made, shattered, and rebuilt thanks to the pursuit of money. You can look throughout history and find where money was the motivation for different events in human history. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn't do it for charity, they did it to get paid. Otherwise, why have such huge personal fortunes if money wasn't a sufficient motivator? Ask the CEO of Intel if greed was sufficient motivation. Without money, you basically cannot survive. Bartering gets you only so far. In the end its currency that allows you access to people, resources, food, water, and other necessities. Linux is a fundamentally good ideal, however it doesn't live up to practicality. In the end, even Linus Torvalds has a job and has to pay the bills. Survival is the motivation and money is the means to that survival. I can't think of anything more motivating than that.

"If you look at the greats throughout history most didn't do the great things they did for financial gain." Funny coming from the guy that uses an Apple icon as an avatar. Looked at Apple's profit statements lately?

Just to clarify, my book explains how the motivation to make money / greed is compatible with FOSS. In fact it argues that free software is better for the capitalist free market society we live in than proprietary software! I was a free market capitalist before I wrote my book and I am still one. I agree that with Avro there are motivations to do great things other than greed, but that is a side point.

Hey Avro, Thomas Edison. Nuff said.

hamiltonstallings, In my copy, you are quoting me on page 34. If you want to know why the Linux kernel is superior, please go back to page 23, find the section titled: "Linux kernel superiority" and read it again. A funny line in Vegas vacation is that at the end of a day-long tour of the Hoover Dam, the guide says: "And so that's how a dam works." And Cousin Eddie -- Randy Quaid's character asks: "How?" I have no bone to pick with Microsoft. My arguments are fact-based. I criticize free software as well.

Hey Keith, I thought you would say that, as I almost mentioned it in my post. But that section pretty much just goes off on Linux, and there are a few sentences here and there about Microsoft. I understand your points, but coming from someone who doesn't care if Microsoft, Linux, Apple fails or succeeds, you put your info in a way that bashes Microsoft. For example, that long message from Bill Gates, and you keep referencing the crappy sound recorder in Windows even though Audacity can be used in windows also and its usually not included in Linux (I don't know of any distro that includes Audacity). It is like you strategically put your information in a way that bashes Microsoft, yet when you think about it, it doesn't make sense. Once again, the vibe from the book is too focused on altruistic goals. It is like you assume everyone focuses on progress and the advancement of mankind, when this is obviously not true.

"Free software will take off because the most basic law of economics says it should" I don't think Macro economics is a good representation of reality. You can't take something so complex and spin it to be simple, which is what every section of the book does. Concerning your MRI example, I bet an MRI machine has very very specific instructions. I doubt the open source community could just add to it. And they need the software on a specific date, because after all, the medical industry exists to make money, not to simply cure people. I love free software, but on the other side, I really love software that costs money. SPSS for example. R is an excellent open source alternative, but it just can't come close to SPSS. (I know a single example isn't a very good argument, but that is what your paper does.)

Gorath, I doubt that Paul will want me to discuss that question, so I'll just answer it briefly here. If Paul wants me to discuss it, I will go into more detail...I don't think what EU is doing is right. EU is just adding costs to Microsoft which hurt customers and shareholders. I talk about the DOJ trial near the end of the book which goes into this topic more. Hamiltonstallings, A lot, perhaps most of the software in an MRI machine is very generic. And for the parts that aren't, there are still pieces of free software which could handle what it needs. Check out scipy.org. Free software is much more than a kernel and a web browser. That is the Windows / Mac way of thinking of an OS. Free software is already amazing when you consider that many people think it is a sham or don't even know about it. Just imagine when that mindset changes! I agree that not all free software is superior yet. But the fact that a lot is says a lot. And my book explains how to make all of the free software superior in just a few years. BTW, what things do you find missing in R? For nearly all the free software I've worked with, I've found it plenty good and containing more power than I need. But of course, it isn't necessarily that way universally. But on the whole I've been very impressed. I didn't decide to write my book only after comparing sound recorder to Audacity. But I would prefer we took this discussion offline. This thread is for questions and we are hijacking it and making Paul's job harder.

Hijacking or not, you just made 3 posts that didn't really say anything. It seems like you have some sort of beef. I don't know about installing dependencies for audacity. I downloaded it and double clicked it. It worked.. Unless you mean on linux, which I would believe. Nothing is wrong with criticism, I never said it was. I said you made a single example for windows, then a ton for linux. Yet, that example for Windows doesn't really mean anything. Have you read your own work? This is the same vibe as in your book. I am not assuming you think everything works altruistically. I said it is the vibe of the book that I GET. Another comment that makes me feel you have a bone to pick. Forget my problems with R, as it does not work as good as SPSS for me. Period. No need to bring up why. I like open source software. I gave my own examples why it doesn't work. No need to turn around everything I said. I wasn't using this thread to comment either. I was asking questions and explaining my reasoning behind them. I'm sorry that I didn't blindly praise your book. Good luck. However after that discussion I really 'get' your point now...

"Right now, just being told my book is altruistic doesn't give me anything to work with.' I said I get the VIBE that YOUR book is ALTRUISTIC. Ironic that you mention R meets all your needs when you give single examples and call them 'facts'. I just don't understand your examples in your book. Every sentence that I read is just more randomness that sounds good, but doesn't mean anything. You relate completely unrelated things. How on earth can you not see this. I will say this again. I am on your side of things. The open source software that I have used was awesome, and I wish I could contribute to it. If people really saw the power of this software I think good things could happen. I just don't see it happening. I just wish you would give better examples in your book. At least make them relate.

mikegalos, thanks for arguing with a strawman. I think it's pretty obvious that someone isn't going to spend several years of their life studying medicine "just to make a quick buck". Clearly they would have some sort of passion for the career they're pursuing.

"I doubt that Paul will want me to discuss that question, so I'll just answer it briefly here" Erm, ok, but I was kinda hoping you'd expand on it to include the possible effects, if such bundling rulings were applied to Linux distros, and where Linux would stand competitively then?