Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I have quite a lot of progs and scripts that I wrote to make things easier for me to manage the computers here at home. Who do I pay? And why is "freeware" any different?
programs and scripts you wrote yourself are your own intellectual property, what the GPL states is if you make changes to the source code of someone else project, you should offer those changes up to the community, you arent required too however, its just considered fair play in the FOSS world....
So you paid there. Maybe you stepped past the blazing point of enlightenment delivered here because it is so overwhelmingly obvious that no one really needs to consciously consider it. You know, since the same is required of any software (only you cannot alter non- open source code).
Yet free (no cost) software is still free. Like a free (donated to you) lawnmower. It will cost money and time for gasoline and maintenance? No kidding. Will it cost time and money to re-engineer the lawnmower to do something new? Sure.
The more significant outlay in the enterprise is for more expensive admins when running open-source OS and software, which perhaps a gung-ho and clueless non-technical C-level officer might need to consider before moving an entire infrastructure from Windows to BSD or something.
Yet free (no cost) software is still free. Like a free (donated to you) lawnmower. It will cost money and time for gasoline and maintenance? No kidding. Will it cost time and money to re-engineer the lawnmower to do something new? Sure.
The more significant outlay in the enterprise is for more expensive admins when running open-source OS and software, which perhaps a gung-ho and clueless non-technical C-level officer might need to consider before moving an entire infrastructure from Windows to BSD or something.
Free software really is free, in every sense. There are numerous powerful apps that only take a few minutes to obtain and set up, and "just work". My employer is benefitting from many. Some, like enterprise monitoring, will save the company a massive amount of downtime, aggravation and inefficiency and therefore are not only free, but financially way into profit territory.
Sure, the purchase cost is $0.00, but there are always support costs.
You could also stop thinking in terms of money. Using GPL-licensed software incurs non-financial obligations on the user. If you read the license, some of those obligations are as strict as anything MS, Autodesk, or Adobe ever dreamed up.
You could also stop thinking in terms of money. Using GPL-licensed software incurs non-financial obligations on the user. If you read the license, some of those obligations are as strict as anything MS, Autodesk, or Adobe ever dreamed up.
Yea right, and everybody knows that it costs more to support FOSS software because -- wait for it -- Microsoft told us so. Yes, they commissioned the study that appeared in ZDNET a couple of years ago and SURPRISE it said exactly what they wanted it to say.
I admin both Microsoft and FOSS systems for multiple companies. I charge less for the FOSS systems because they are easier to set up and require less of my time to keep them up. When patches/upgrades come in for a FOSS system, I don't have to worry about the other software running on that system. They will work. That is NOT so on Microsoft systems. Six to eight times a year, MS patches will come in that crash some company critical software that will only run on MS systems. That means that automatic updates can not be turned on and each patch needs to be individually installed, tested and backed out when problems occur. I won't even go into the time and effort it takes to keep all systems virus/malware free, but it sure is a LOT more time for Microsoft systems.
So yea, tote the party line about FOSS being more expensive, but those who are converting to FOSS are saving a ton of money both initially and over the long haul.
I admin both Microsoft and FOSS systems for multiple companies. I charge less for the FOSS systems because they are easier to set up and require less of my time to keep them up. When patches/upgrades come in for a FOSS system, I don't have to worry about the other software running on that system. They will work. That is NOT so on Microsoft systems. Six to eight times a year, MS patches will come in that crash some company critical software that will only run on MS systems. That means that automatic updates can not be turned on and each patch needs to be individually installed, tested and backed out when problems occur. I won't even go into the time and effort it takes to keep all systems virus/malware free, but it sure is a LOT more time for Microsoft systems.
So yea, tote the party line about FOSS being more expensive, but those who are converting to FOSS are saving a ton of money both initially and over the long haul.
Re-read his post. All he says is that there are always support costs.
"I admin both Microsoft and FOSS systems for multiple companies. I charge less for the FOSS systems ..."
By charging for FOSS support, you confirmed his point.
"I admin both Microsoft and FOSS systems for multiple companies. I charge less for the FOSS systems ..."
By charging for FOSS support, you confirmed his point.
This is ignorant.
"Open Source" means you can read the source code, but doesn't mean you may use it, change it. Microsoft has released several "Open Source" licenses that prevent any use of their code.
If we say you are free, it doesn't mean we can have you for no money as a slave - it means you can't be locked up. YOU are free.
Free Software is software that can't be locked up, can't be denied to you. Freedom is not money. Get this straight in your heads.
As the author of code, I naturally own it. You can't copy it and put your name on it, as you didn't write it.
But I can decide to give you privileges to copy it, and on my terms. It's mine, I wrote it, and I can decide who else gets it. This is "Copy Right". This naturally belongs to the author.
The privileges I (may) choose to grant are "a license". I set the terms - take them or leave them. Copyright is heavily enforced, and rightly so.
Free Software is a social movement - releasing software with a license that requires that you give any improvements you make back to the community you got the software from. If you don't want to do that, write you own with your own effort and you can do as you like.
Free Software is about giving a community software that can't be taken away from them. Open Source is quite different. And no, freedom is not about money.
"Open Source" means you can read the source code, but doesn't mean you may use it, change it. Microsoft has released several "Open Source" licenses that prevent any use of their code.
If we say you are free, it doesn't mean we can have you for no money as a slave - it means you can't be locked up. YOU are free.
Free Software is software that can't be locked up, can't be denied to you. Freedom is not money. Get this straight in your heads.
As the author of code, I naturally own it. You can't copy it and put your name on it, as you didn't write it.
But I can decide to give you privileges to copy it, and on my terms. It's mine, I wrote it, and I can decide who else gets it. This is "Copy Right". This naturally belongs to the author.
The privileges I (may) choose to grant are "a license". I set the terms - take them or leave them. Copyright is heavily enforced, and rightly so.
Free Software is a social movement - releasing software with a license that requires that you give any improvements you make back to the community you got the software from. If you don't want to do that, write you own with your own effort and you can do as you like.
Free Software is about giving a community software that can't be taken away from them. Open Source is quite different. And no, freedom is not about money.
I agree with those definitions. But I hazard a guess that 50% of the people don't.
But it also follows that using Free Software as a mechanism to squeeze as much money out of the user is also legitimate.
But it also follows that using Free Software as a mechanism to squeeze as much money out of the user is also legitimate.
go reread the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software
it DOES NOT mean cash, it means FREEDOM.
then read your own article.
your core premise that cash is what the free in free software means makes the article completely off base.
Free as in Freedom
it DOES NOT mean cash, it means FREEDOM.
then read your own article.
your core premise that cash is what the free in free software means makes the article completely off base.
Free as in Freedom
I'm a huge supporter of the open source community, and I push for open source solutions within my company when it deems appropriate - but sometimes it's not. While we may use Debian as a base OS for some of our hardware appliances, we've paid thousands of dollars for a commercial task management and build system. Why? Because we need a zero downtime system that has some sort of real time support. Granted, we could have implement a similar system using only FOSS software but :
- The time it takes to implement a system still has to be added in to the total costs.
- The system has to be documented well enough so that new comers to the system can administer it. Custom systems developed with FOSS can get so complex that companies end up having to scrap it and start over again because of a personnel change.
- The time spent researching solutions to bugs/problems also has to be accessed.
On the flip-side, the "support" we sometimes get from paid support packages is usually never worth the huge costs. Either way, it takes a lot of thought and there's never a clear answer. OSS solutions that also have commercial support is often the best middle ground, and I think companies like Canonical will continue to do well.
- The time it takes to implement a system still has to be added in to the total costs.
- The system has to be documented well enough so that new comers to the system can administer it. Custom systems developed with FOSS can get so complex that companies end up having to scrap it and start over again because of a personnel change.
- The time spent researching solutions to bugs/problems also has to be accessed.
On the flip-side, the "support" we sometimes get from paid support packages is usually never worth the huge costs. Either way, it takes a lot of thought and there's never a clear answer. OSS solutions that also have commercial support is often the best middle ground, and I think companies like Canonical will continue to do well.
I judge an application on iits implemented, functioning cost, not how "free" it is! Regardless of the application chosen, it's going to need support so costs of support are continuing and once past initial implementation and training all amounts to about the same cost. But, when I compare a $1,000 application to a "free" application under one of the several licenses, there is immediately a cost savings for every seat licensed. THAT can be a huge savings!
The fact that I can download the very same application onto my home computer for no cost at all, is beneficial to any job I may take where it's used and training/learning curves do not all have to happen "on the job". That benefits everyone.
Of course, there should always also be an eye to the future. Some really great, useful applications have been abandoned where there is no official support available except for some ad-hoc user groups, sometimes that's OK but more often it means you are permanently stuck with whatever bugs & featues it has forever. Notobjects, to mention only one of several, seems to have done this. It looks like infighting simply caused some projects with good reputations and and a good installed base just floundered and there it is; a good software that'll never get any better and won't get any bug fixes. They just stranded their users without notice and began completely ignoring all communications regarding the projects. But they'll still sell it, leaving the poor purchaser holding the proverbial bag.
The fact that I can download the very same application onto my home computer for no cost at all, is beneficial to any job I may take where it's used and training/learning curves do not all have to happen "on the job". That benefits everyone.
Of course, there should always also be an eye to the future. Some really great, useful applications have been abandoned where there is no official support available except for some ad-hoc user groups, sometimes that's OK but more often it means you are permanently stuck with whatever bugs & featues it has forever. Notobjects, to mention only one of several, seems to have done this. It looks like infighting simply caused some projects with good reputations and and a good installed base just floundered and there it is; a good software that'll never get any better and won't get any bug fixes. They just stranded their users without notice and began completely ignoring all communications regarding the projects. But they'll still sell it, leaving the poor purchaser holding the proverbial bag.
If an OSS project is abandoned at least you have the ability to choose to fix bugs yourself. If a proprietary application is abandoned that is closed, you have no choice at all but to find an alternative. And there have been many, many proprietary, closed applications that have been abandoned.
just before the english pulled his guts out.
FREEDOM
FREEBEER, might have been funny but like your article inaccurate....
FREEDOM
FREEBEER, might have been funny but like your article inaccurate....
I am not familiar with putting an x in front of the 486. The chip was called an 80486. "The i486 was without the usual 80-prefix because of a court ruling that prohibited trademarking numbers (such as 80486). Later, with the introduction of the Pentium brand, Intel began branding its chips with words rather than numbers."
x86 denotes a series of chip arcitectures that are compatible with a certain machine code set (assembly language). It was an Intel naming scheme that they don't use anymore. AMD makes chips that will also run x86 code.
The x is a variable:
8086
80286
80386
80486
80586 (- Pentium?)
x86 denotes a series of chip arcitectures that are compatible with a certain machine code set (assembly language). It was an Intel naming scheme that they don't use anymore. AMD makes chips that will also run x86 code.
The x is a variable:
8086
80286
80386
80486
80586 (- Pentium?)
One of the problems of "Big Company" software is the internal costs of looking after your licenses. This can become a major headache and a considerable non-visible cost - with the dangers of a major lawsuit if you accidentally make a mistake. For a company wanting a support contract, those support costs may be equivalent for proprietary and FOSS. But this is simple in comparison. Going with FOSS removes this headache.
By definition, free software cannot have a wide following: http://all-things-pure.blogspot.com/2009/07/q-why-does-linux-fail-because-it-is.html.
Why do *****, Louis Vuitton, etc etc make tons of money? Not because they are free. Why do customers pay tons of money to buy *****, Louis Vuitton, etc etc? Because they are very expensive. These customers pay *****, Louis Vuitton, etc etc to brainwash them to buy these expensive goods. This is what makes a functioning economy.
Why do *****, Louis Vuitton, etc etc make tons of money? Not because they are free. Why do customers pay tons of money to buy *****, Louis Vuitton, etc etc? Because they are very expensive. These customers pay *****, Louis Vuitton, etc etc to brainwash them to buy these expensive goods. This is what makes a functioning economy.
Get yourself any paid for software and there will be bugs.
Just like the stuff you pay for, only not in bulk packaging.
Have a look at the bug count for seven (let's be fair, leave Vista out of this) and then go to Ubuntu's bugtrack (limit the search for OS entries only since Linux bundles a lot of software). Now we are comparing apples to apples.
The result? Check it yourself and see. I will not influence you by telling you where to get your data or anything else that could be suspect, but please do the math! The difference is more than TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!
I refuse to pay for failure and shoddy workmanship in anything else, why must I accept it in software when there's an alternative? I don't.
Have a look at the bug count for seven (let's be fair, leave Vista out of this) and then go to Ubuntu's bugtrack (limit the search for OS entries only since Linux bundles a lot of software). Now we are comparing apples to apples.
The result? Check it yourself and see. I will not influence you by telling you where to get your data or anything else that could be suspect, but please do the math! The difference is more than TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!
I refuse to pay for failure and shoddy workmanship in anything else, why must I accept it in software when there's an alternative? I don't.
It's a pretty safe basic test but your ignoring relevant variables.
It might be worth reading Chad's article on why just counting bugs provides no relevant information.
First, your suggesting one compare the actual Ubuntu bug tracker to reported Win7 bug counts. This would be balanced if you compared ubuntu bug tracker to Win7 bug tracker; assuming you can get access to Microsoft's actual bug tracker.
Which brings us to reporting; does Microsoft publicly disclose all bugs, even those found internally? (the answer is no, they recently admitted to fixing bugs without public notice) Are MS developers and community members using the same bug tracking system? I'm pretty sure Canonical developers and the foss community are using the same bug tracker; you'll see both publicly and privately found bugs on the list. When you can provide actual bug counts for all major platforms, we can talk further.
What are the severity levels of bugs in Ubuntu's tracker versus the Win7 bug count. Ten bugs fo which two are critical is very different from ten bugs of which eight are critical. I'll take a thousand bugs in ubuntu's tracker if the percentage of exploitable bugs is lower than that of the alternative option.
In both cases, you can purchase support directly from the parent company; Microsoft or Canonical. Who is more interested in working closely with you to resolve bugs and what costs where involved in the initial service contract and any additional expenses incurred beyond it?
It might be worth reading Chad's article on why just counting bugs provides no relevant information.
First, your suggesting one compare the actual Ubuntu bug tracker to reported Win7 bug counts. This would be balanced if you compared ubuntu bug tracker to Win7 bug tracker; assuming you can get access to Microsoft's actual bug tracker.
Which brings us to reporting; does Microsoft publicly disclose all bugs, even those found internally? (the answer is no, they recently admitted to fixing bugs without public notice) Are MS developers and community members using the same bug tracking system? I'm pretty sure Canonical developers and the foss community are using the same bug tracker; you'll see both publicly and privately found bugs on the list. When you can provide actual bug counts for all major platforms, we can talk further.
What are the severity levels of bugs in Ubuntu's tracker versus the Win7 bug count. Ten bugs fo which two are critical is very different from ten bugs of which eight are critical. I'll take a thousand bugs in ubuntu's tracker if the percentage of exploitable bugs is lower than that of the alternative option.
In both cases, you can purchase support directly from the parent company; Microsoft or Canonical. Who is more interested in working closely with you to resolve bugs and what costs where involved in the initial service contract and any additional expenses incurred beyond it?
Good points all. Between the question of whether individually reported bugs provide valid info and the difference in availability and reporting, I suspect we still won't be comparing apples to apples.
Personally, I just go by seat of the pants and functionality, and because of that we became an open source shop a couple of years ago.
Personally, I just go by seat of the pants and functionality, and because of that we became an open source shop a couple of years ago.
I too fly by the seat of my pants. I also fly by the whim of many bosses who choose various licensed products. I haven't been very impressed with any of the products (Windows and other proprietary products) we've had to implement. I advise them but finally swallow my opinion and go with the flow.
When I have a choice I choose FOSS - on the desktop and server. Software is software; buggy with no guarantee. But on the FOSS side I know that developers (thank you) are working to make it (Debian and other products) work as best they can. The developers eat their dogfood so to speak.
It all boils down to what are you (decide) and your staff trained to support. If you tool up to manage FOSS you can be very successful. You will still be busy. If you choose to run Windows, you need to tool up for those bumps. Personally, I avoid the Windows rollercoaster whenever possible. I'm happy - very happy - with the ride I'm on. It works!
When I have a choice I choose FOSS - on the desktop and server. Software is software; buggy with no guarantee. But on the FOSS side I know that developers (thank you) are working to make it (Debian and other products) work as best they can. The developers eat their dogfood so to speak.
It all boils down to what are you (decide) and your staff trained to support. If you tool up to manage FOSS you can be very successful. You will still be busy. If you choose to run Windows, you need to tool up for those bumps. Personally, I avoid the Windows rollercoaster whenever possible. I'm happy - very happy - with the ride I'm on. It works!
People licence software under GPL in order to allow people to get it for free. The more the merrier.
I am true or not?
I am true or not?
So many comments about the correct definition of FOSS. This article is meant to educate business users, not us geeks. They don't care about free beer/freedom, just whether it will reduce costs and/or increase productivity.
The thrust of the article is that FOSS isn't free as in costs nothing, but unfortunately it didn't address it correctly. One of the key complaints made by those unfamiliar with the definitions, is that the software doesn't do what they want, yet they never asked, never contributed, and never paid, ie they wanted it for free....
So the true definition of FOSS should be the core of the post.
Nothing to do with geek, everything to do with willful ignorance.
So the true definition of FOSS should be the core of the post.
Nothing to do with geek, everything to do with willful ignorance.
Buying the run-of-the-mill proprietary software, particularly Microsoft, Apple & Adobe, means financing the USA. Here in Oz we spend near enough to a billion dollars or more per year in software licensing, money that in general goes out of Australia. Much of this cost is in supporting that software.
Consider that although GPL-based OSS needs updating & support, consider the cost to you in purchasing the software from a company within Australia that enables support, documentation & updates. The amount for updating is decided by you & that team, not a set arrangement that totals a large investment for a short future like the situation with Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, etc. The costs stay here in Oz & we see that money revolve around Oz about 5 times for each dollar spent as opposed to that dollar just saying farewell to Oz completely.
Linux offers for most companies a means to change that situation & for every company that does it themselves offers an investment into Australia's future...
Consider that although GPL-based OSS needs updating & support, consider the cost to you in purchasing the software from a company within Australia that enables support, documentation & updates. The amount for updating is decided by you & that team, not a set arrangement that totals a large investment for a short future like the situation with Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, etc. The costs stay here in Oz & we see that money revolve around Oz about 5 times for each dollar spent as opposed to that dollar just saying farewell to Oz completely.
Linux offers for most companies a means to change that situation & for every company that does it themselves offers an investment into Australia's future...
The real reasons to use OSS, is peace of mind in the knowledge that its OPEN. Is there spyware in there? You can find out if you wish. Don't have the knowledge to check? Then you must pay someone who does. Likewise if you can't maintain it in house, you'll need to pay someone to do so.
Open source software is as secure as you can make it
Now let's talk support... how many of us have contacted Microsoft or any other vendor for training or major support of a non-license issue? What exactly do we think we're buying with the thought that a closed source offerer will somehow support the software quickly, transparently, and for free? Best case, you can have any two. Simply put, the software (source code) is free. The knowledge to use it is not. Someone has got to get paid for it, and personally I would prefer to put my dollars in the local economy by handling things in house or finding a consultant.
Open source software supports the local economy.
Now lets talk flexibility. We found an open source CRM which almost met our needs, but not quite. We modified it for match our needs perfectly, paying a talented programmer for his time. We did the same for firewall software and other offerings. The only two titles we have not modified in house are Open Office and Ubuntu 10.10. These fit our needs well and customization was not required.
Open source software can be modified to fit the need, often with the author's help.
The article mentions that some FOSS can run on a 486. This is true, but it misses the point. Some FOSS software uses a web interface which eliminates the need for a GUI. This frees up resources to the task at hand. More importantly, the granularity of *nix (whatever flavor you like) allows services to be turned off in the OS and even in the kernel. Finally, OSS does not have a "black box" approach that many closed source object oriented offerings have. This prevents bloat and version incompatibility.
Open source software protects your IT investment.
Bottom line: It works well. We use it. We support it in house or with consultants. There have been no issues other than needing to replace an aging Epson laser printer due to a driver issue. Our staff, including a 50 year old grandmother, adapted quickly with minimal learning curve, nearly overnight. I have not seen the issues purported by the opponents of open source, and at this point chalk it up to the coward's marketing ploy: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
If I have missed something, I'd like to talk about it, but bear in mind that theoretical and potential issues are trumped by the fact that we have deployed open source software across the entire organization. We have 3 windows machines for testing, and the rest of the machines from firewall and server to desktop and mobile run Linux in one form or another, and all software used is open source. It just works.
Open source software is as secure as you can make it
Now let's talk support... how many of us have contacted Microsoft or any other vendor for training or major support of a non-license issue? What exactly do we think we're buying with the thought that a closed source offerer will somehow support the software quickly, transparently, and for free? Best case, you can have any two. Simply put, the software (source code) is free. The knowledge to use it is not. Someone has got to get paid for it, and personally I would prefer to put my dollars in the local economy by handling things in house or finding a consultant.
Open source software supports the local economy.
Now lets talk flexibility. We found an open source CRM which almost met our needs, but not quite. We modified it for match our needs perfectly, paying a talented programmer for his time. We did the same for firewall software and other offerings. The only two titles we have not modified in house are Open Office and Ubuntu 10.10. These fit our needs well and customization was not required.
Open source software can be modified to fit the need, often with the author's help.
The article mentions that some FOSS can run on a 486. This is true, but it misses the point. Some FOSS software uses a web interface which eliminates the need for a GUI. This frees up resources to the task at hand. More importantly, the granularity of *nix (whatever flavor you like) allows services to be turned off in the OS and even in the kernel. Finally, OSS does not have a "black box" approach that many closed source object oriented offerings have. This prevents bloat and version incompatibility.
Open source software protects your IT investment.
Bottom line: It works well. We use it. We support it in house or with consultants. There have been no issues other than needing to replace an aging Epson laser printer due to a driver issue. Our staff, including a 50 year old grandmother, adapted quickly with minimal learning curve, nearly overnight. I have not seen the issues purported by the opponents of open source, and at this point chalk it up to the coward's marketing ploy: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
If I have missed something, I'd like to talk about it, but bear in mind that theoretical and potential issues are trumped by the fact that we have deployed open source software across the entire organization. We have 3 windows machines for testing, and the rest of the machines from firewall and server to desktop and mobile run Linux in one form or another, and all software used is open source. It just works.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
